Similarity of Polygonal Curves in the Presence of Outliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fréchet distance is a well studied and commonly used measure to capture the similarity of polygonal curves. Unfortunately, it exhibits a high sensitivity to the presence of outliers. Since the presence of outliers is a frequently occurring phenomenon in practice, a robust variant of Fréchet distance is required which absorbs outliers. We study such a variant here. In this modified variant, our objective is to minimize the length of subcurves of two polygonal curves that need to be ignored (MinEx problem), or alternately, maximize the length of subcurves that are preserved (MaxIn problem), to achieve a given Fréchet distance. An exact solution to one problem would imply an exact solution to the other problem. However, we show that these problems are not solvable by radicals over $\mathbb{Q}$ and that the degree of the polynomial equations involved is unbounded in general. This motivates the search for approximate solutions. We present an algorithm, which approximates, for a given input parameter $δ$, optimal solutions for the \MinEx\ and \MaxIn\ problems up to an additive approximation error $δ$ times the length of the input curves. The resulting running time is upper bounded by $\mathcal{O} \left(\frac{n^3}δ \log \left(\frac{n}δ \right)\right)$, where $n$ is the complexity of the input polygonal curves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".