BOUNDED LENGTH, 2-EDGE AUGMENTATION OF GEOMETRIC PLANAR GRAPHS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2-Edge connectivity is an important fault tolerance property of a network because it maintains network communication despite the deletion of a single arbitrary edge. Planar spanning subgraphs have been shown to play a significant role for achieving local decentralized routing in wireless networks. Existing algorithmic constructions of spanning planar subgraphs of unit disk graphs (UDGs) such as Minimum Spanning Tree, Gabriel Graph, Nearest Neighborhood Graph, etc. do not always ensure connectivity of the resulting graph under single edge deletion. Furthermore, adding edges to the network so as to improve its edge connectivity not only may create edge crossings (at points which are not vertices) but it may also require edges of unbounded length. Thus we are faced with the problem of constructing 2-edge connected geometric planar spanning graphs by adding edges of bounded length without creating edge crossings (at points which are not vertices). To overcome this difficulty, in this paper we address the problem of augmenting the edge set (i.e., adding new edges) of planar geometric graphs with straight line edges of bounded length so that the resulting graph is planar and 2-edge connected. We provide bounds on the number of newly added straight-line edges, prove that such edges can be of length at most 3 times the max length of an edge of the original graph, and also show that the factor 3 is optimal. It is shown to be NP-Complete to augment a geometric planar graph to a 2-edge connected geometric planar graph with the minimum number of new edges of a given bounded length. We also provide a constant time algorithm that works in location-aware settings to augment a planar graph into a 2-edge connected planar graph with straight-line edges of length bounded by 3 times the longest edge of the original graph. It turns out that knowledge of vertex coordinates is crucial to our construction and in fact we prove that this problem cannot be solved locally if the vertices do not know their coordinates. Moreover, we provide a family of k-connected UDGs which does not have 2-edge connected spanning planar subgraphs, for any [Formula: see text].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".