MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514094964 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_39

Stack and Queue Layouts via Layered Separators

2016· preprint· en· W2514094964 on OpenAlexaff
Vida Dujmović, Fabrizio Frati

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsBook embeddingBounded functionPlanar graph1-planar graphMathematicsVertex (graph theory)PathwidthStack (abstract data type)GraphGenusDiscrete mathematicsQueueChordal graphComputer scienceLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that every proper minor-closed class of graphs has bounded stack-number (a.k.a. book thickness and page number). While this includes notable graph families such as planar graphs and graphs of bounded genus, many other graph families are not closed under taking minors. For fixed $g$ and $k$, we show that every $n$-vertex graph that can be embedded on a surface of genus $g$ with at most $k$ crossings per edge has stack-number $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$; this includes $k$-planar graphs. The previously best known bound for the stack-number of these families was $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{n})$, except in the case of $1$-planar graphs. Analogous results are proved for map graphs that can be embedded on a surface of fixed genus. None of these families is closed under taking minors. The main ingredient in the proof of these results is a construction proving that $n$-vertex graphs that admit constant layered separators have $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$ stack-number.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207