MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951228294 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01661

Spanning Trees in Multipartite Geometric Graphs

2016· preprint· en· W2951228294 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Biniaz, Prosenjit Bose, David Eppstein, Anil Maheshwari, Pat Morin, Michiel Smid

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpanning treeCombinatoricsMinimum spanning treeMathematicsBipartite graphMultipartiteDisjoint setsEuclidean minimum spanning treek-minimum spanning treeConnected dominating setTree (set theory)Distributed minimum spanning treeGraphShortest-path treeDiscrete mathematicsK-ary treeTree structureBinary treePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $R$ and $B$ be two disjoint sets of points in the plane where the points of $R$ are colored red and the points of $B$ are colored blue, and let $n=|R\cup B|$. A bichromatic spanning tree is a spanning tree in the complete bipartite geometric graph with bipartition $(R,B)$. The minimum (respectively maximum) bichromatic spanning tree problem is the problem of computing a bichromatic spanning tree of minimum (respectively maximum) total edge length. 1. We present a simple algorithm that solves the minimum bichromatic spanning tree problem in $O(n\log^3 n)$ time. This algorithm can easily be extended to solve the maximum bichromatic spanning tree problem within the same time bound. It also can easily be generalized to multicolored point sets. 2. We present $Θ(n\log n)$-time algorithms that solve the minimum and the maximum bichromatic spanning tree problems. 3. We extend the bichromatic spanning tree algorithms and solve the multicolored version of these problems in $O(n\log n\log k)$ time, where $k$ is the number of different colors (or the size of the multipartition in a complete multipartite geometric graph).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207