Non-Clashing Teaching Maps for Balls in Graphs
J\'er\'emie Chalopin, Victor Chepoi, Fionn Mc Inerney, S\'ebastien, Ratel

TL;DR
This paper investigates non-clashing teaching maps for graph balls, establishing complexity bounds and providing efficient constructions for specific graph classes, advancing understanding of machine teaching models in graph theory.
Contribution
It introduces complexity results and bounds for non-clashing teaching maps for graph balls, including NP-completeness and tight lower bounds, along with efficient constructions for certain graph classes.
Findings
B-NCTD$^+$ is NP-complete in split, co-bipartite, and bipartite graphs.
No sub-double-exponential algorithms or kernels likely exist for B-NCTD$^+$ parameterized by vertex cover.
Efficient NCTMs are constructed for trees, interval graphs, cycles, and hyperbolic graphs.
Abstract
Recently, Kirkpatrick et al. [ALT 2019] and Fallat et al. [JMLR 2023] introduced non-clashing teaching and showed it is the most efficient machine teaching model satisfying the Goldman-Mathias collusion-avoidance criterion. A teaching map for a concept class assigns a (teaching) set of examples to each concept . A teaching map is non-clashing if no pair of concepts are consistent with the union of their teaching sets. The size of a non-clashing teaching map (NCTM) is the maximum size of a teaching set , . The non-clashing teaching dimension NCTD of is the minimum size of an NCTM for . NCTM and NCTD are defined analogously, except the teacher may only use positive examples. We study NCTMs and NCTMs for the concept class consisting…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms · Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs · Algorithms and Data Compression
