MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151606606 · doi:10.1142/s0218195904001433

PATHWIDTH AND LAYERED DRAWINGS OF TREES

2004· article· en· W2151606606 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Suderman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsVertex (graph theory)CombinatoricsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGraph drawingMathematicsLine (geometry)Layer (electronics)PlanarPathwidthGeometryGraphUpper and lower boundsComputer scienceLine graphComputer graphics (images)Mathematical analysisMaterials scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An h-layer drawing of a graph G is a planar drawing of G in which each vertex is placed on one of h parallel lines and each edge is drawn as a straight line between its end-vertices. In such a drawing, we say that an edge is proper if its endpoints lie on adjacent layers, flat if they lie on the same layer and long otherwise. Thus, a proper h-layer drawing contains only proper edges, a short h-layer drawing contains no long edges, an upright h-layer drawing contains no flat edges, and an unconstrained h-layer drawing contains any type of edge. In this paper, we derive upper and lower bounds on the number of layers required by proper, short, upright, and unconstrained layered drawings of trees. We prove that these bounds are optimal with respect to the pathwidth of the tree being drawn. Finally, we give linear-time algorithms for obtaining layered drawings that match these upper bounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & ApplicationsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207