MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808967831

Approximate distance oracles for geometric spanners

2004· article· en· W2808967831 on OpenAlexaff
Joachim Gudmundsson, Christos Levcopoulos, Giri Narasimhan, Michiel H. M. Smid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShortest path problemCombinatoricsMathematicsConstant (computer programming)Data structureEuclidean spaceDilation (metric space)Binary logarithmEuclidean shortest pathOraclePath (computing)Computational geometryDistanceDiscrete mathematicsGraphLongest path problemAlgorithmComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given an arbitrary real constant ε> 0, and a geometric graph G in d-dimensional Euclidean space with n points, O(n) edges, and constant dilation, our main result is a data structure that answers (1 + ε)-approximate shortest path length queries in constant time. The data structure can be constructed in O(n logn) time using O(n logn) space. This represents the first data structure that answers (1 + ε)-approximate shortest path queries in constant time, and hence functions as an approximate distance oracle. The data structure is also applied to several other problems. In particular, we also show that approximate shortest path queries between vertices in a planar polygonal domain with “rounded ” obstacles can be answered in constant time. Other applications include query versions of closest pair problems, and the efficient computation of the approximate dilations of geometric graphs. Finally, we show how to extend the main result to answer (1 + ε)-approximate shortest path length queries in constant time for geometric spanner graphs with m = ω(n) edges. The resulting data structure can be constructed in O(m + n logn) time using O(n logn) space.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207