MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257178227 · doi:10.1007/s00454-017-9939-y

Embedding-Preserving Rectangle Visibility Representations of Nonplanar Graphs

2017· article· en· W2257178227 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete & Computational Geometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRectangleEmbeddingTime complexityBook embeddingGraphVisibilityCrossing number (knot theory)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A (weak) rectangle visibility representation, or simply an RVR, of a graph consists of an assignment of axis-aligned rectangles to vertices such that for every edge there exists a horizontal or vertical line of sight between the rectangles assigned to its endpoints. Given a graph with a fixed embedding in the plane, we show that the problem of testing whether this graph has an embedding-preserving RVR can be solved in polynomial time for general embedded graphs and in linear time for 1-plane graphs, i.e., for embedded graphs having at most one crossing per edge. The linear time algorithm uses three forbidden configurations, which extend the set known for straight-line drawings of 1-plane graphs. The algorithm first checks for the presence of these forbidden configurations in the input graph, and then either an embedding-preserving RVR is computed (also in linear time) or a forbidden configuration is reported as a negative witness. Finally, we discuss extensions of our study to the case when the embedding is not fixed but the RVR can have at most one crossing per edge.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete & Computational GeometrySame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207