You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


---
abstract: |
    Since its introduction to recognize chordal graphs by Rose, Tarjan, and Lueker, Lexicographic Breadth First Search (LexBFS) has been used to come up with simple, often linear time, algorithms on various classes of graphs. These algorithms, called multi-sweep algorithms, compute a number of LexBFS orderings $\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_k$, where $\sigma_i$ is used to break ties for $\sigma_{i+1}$, we write $\text{LexBFS}^+(\sigma_i) = \sigma_{i+1}$. For instance, Corneil et al. gave a linear time multi-sweep algorithm to recognize interval graphs \[SODA 1998\], Kratsch et al. gave a certifying recognition algorithm for interval and permutation graphs \[SODA 2003\]. Since the number of LexBFS orderings for a graph is finite, after some fixed number of $^+$ sweeps, we will eventually loop in a sequence of $\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_k$ vertex orderings such that $\sigma_{i+1} = \text{LexBFS}^+(\sigma_i) \mod k$.

    We study this new graph invariant, *LexCycle*($G$), defined as the maximum length of a cycle of vertex orderings obtained via a sequence of LexBFS$^+$. In this work, we focus on graph classes with small LexCycle. We give evidence that a small LexCycle often leads to linear structure that has been exploited algorithmically on a number of graph classes. In particular, we show that for proper interval, interval, co-bipartite, domino-free cocomparability graphs, as well as trees, there exists two orderings $\sigma$ and $\tau$ such that $\sigma = \text{LexBFS}^+(\tau)$ and $\tau = \text{LexBFS}^+(\sigma)$. One of the consequences of these results is the simplest algorithm to compute a transitive orientation for these graph classes.

    It was conjectured by Stacho \[2015\] that LexCycle is at most the asteroidal number of the graph class, we disprove this conjecture by giving a construction for which $\operatorname{LexCycle}(G) > an(G)$, the asteroidal number of $G$.
author:
- Pierre Charbit
- Michel Habib
- Lalla Mouatadid
- Reza Naserasr
title:  A New Graph Parameter To Measure Linearity
---

[5]{}

Corneil, Derek G.: A simple 3-sweep [LBFS]{} algorithm for the recognition of unit interval graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics 138, 371–379 (2004)

Corneil, Derek G. and Dalton, Barnaby and Habib, Michel: LDFS-based certifying algorithm for the minimum path cover problem on cocomparability graphs. SIAM Journal on Comput. 42, 792–807 (2013)

Corneil, Derek G. and Dusart, Jérémie and Habib, Michel and E. Kőhler: On the power of graph searching for cocomparability graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 30, 569–591 (2016)

Corneil, Derek G. and Krueger, Richard: A unified view of graph searching. SIAM J. Disc. Math. 22, 1259–1276 (2008)

Corneil, Derek G. and Stephan Olariu and Lorna Stewart: Linear Time Algorithms for Dominating Pairs in Asteroidal Triple-free Graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1284–1297 (1999)

Corneil, Derek G. and Stephan Olariu and Lorna Stewart: The [LBFS]{} Structure and Recognition of Interval Graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23, 1905–1953 (2009)

Dragan, F. Feodor and Falk, Nicolai and Brandst[ä]{}dt, Andreas: LexBFS-orderings and powers of graphs. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 166–180 (1996)

Dusart, Jérémie and Habib, Michel: A new [LBFS]{}-based algorithm for cocomparability graph recognition. Discrete Applied Mathematics (2015)

Golumbic, Martin C. and Monma, Clyde L. and Trotter, William T. Jr: Tolerance graphs. Discrete Applied Math. 9, 157–170 (1984)

Habib, Michel and Mouatadid, Lalla: Maximum Induced Matching Algorithms via Vertex Ordering Characterizations: arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01245 (2017)

Habib, Michel and McConnell, Ross M. and Paul, Christophe and Viennot, Laurent: Lex-[BFS]{} and partition refinement, with applications to transitive orientation, interval graph recognition and consecutive ones testing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 234, 59–84 (2000)

Jordan, Camille: Sur les assemblages de lignes. Journal f[ü]{}r reine und angewandte Mathematik 70, 185–190 (1869)

Kratsch, Dieter and Stewart, Lorna: Domination on Cocomparability Graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 6, 400-417 (1993)

Kratsch, Dieter and McConnell, Ross M. and Mehlhorn, Kurt and Sprinrad, Jeremy P.: Certifying algorithms for recognizing interval graphs and permutation graphs. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual [ACM-SIAM]{} Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 158–167 (2003)

K[ö]{}hler, Ekkehard and Mouatadid, Lalla: Linear Time LexDFS on Cocomparability Graphs. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Symposium and Workshop on Algorithm Theory, 319–330 (2014)

K[ö]{}hler, Ekkehard and Mouatadid, Lalla: A linear time algorithm to compute a maximum weighted independent set on cocomparability graphs. Information Processing Letters 116, 391–395 (2016)

Lekkerkerker, C. and Boland, J.: Representation of a finite graph by a set of intervals on the real line. Fundamenta Mathematicae 51, 45–64 (1962)

Rose, Donald J. and Tarjan, Robert E. and Lueker, George S.: Algorithmic Aspects of Vertex Elimination on Graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 5, 266–283 (1976)

Stacho, Juraj: Private communication.