MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2511426672

Approximate Shortest Path Queries on Weighted Polyhedral Surfaces

2006· article· en· W2511426672 on OpenAlexaff
Lyudmil Aleksandrov, Hristo Djidjev, Hua Guo, Anil K. Maheshwari, Doron Nussbaum, Jörg-Rüdiger Sack

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShortest path problemComputer scienceEuclidean distanceEuclidean geometryAlgorithmCombinatoricsGraphMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the classical geometric problem of determining shortest paths between pairs of points lying on a weighted polyhedral surface P consisting of n triangular faces. We present query algorithms that compute approximate distances and/or approximate (weighted) shortest paths. Our algorithm takes as input an approximation parameter ε ∈ (0, 1) and a query time parameter q and builds a data structure which is then used for answering ǫ-approximate distance queries in O(q) time. This algorithm is source point independent and improves significantly on the best previous solution. For the case where one of the query points is fixed we build a data structure that can answer ǫ-approximate distance queries to any query point in P in O(log 1) time. This is an improve-ε ment upon the previously known solution for the Euclidean fixed source query problem. Our algorithm also generalizes the setting from previously studied unweighted polyhedral to weighted polyhedral surfaces of arbitrary genus. Our solutions are based on a novel graph separator algorithm introduced here which extends and generalizes previously known separator algorithms.

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)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→