Boundary Labeling for Rectangular Diagrams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a set of n points (sites) inside a rectangle R and n points (label locations or ports) on its boundary, a boundary labeling problem seeks ways of connecting every site to a distinct port while achieving different labeling aesthetics. We examine the scenario when the connecting lines (leaders) are drawn as axis-aligned polylines with few bends, every leader lies strictly inside R, no two leaders cross, and the sum of the lengths of all the leaders is minimized. In a k-sided boundary labeling problem, where 1 <= k <= 4, the label locations are located on the k consecutive sides of R.\nIn this paper we develop an O(n^3 log n)-time algorithm for 2-sided boundary labeling, where the leaders are restricted to have one bend. This improves the previously best known O(n^8 log n)-time algorithm of Kindermann et al. (Algorithmica, 76(1):225-258, 2016). We show the problem is polynomial-time solvable in more general settings such as when the ports are located on more than two sides of R, in the presence of obstacles, and even when the objective is to minimize the total number of bends. Our results improve the previous algorithms on boundary labeling with obstacles, as well as provide the first polynomial-time algorithms for minimizing the total leader length and number of bends for 3- and 4-sided boundary labeling. These results settle a number of open questions on the boundary labeling problems (Wolff, Handbook of Graph Drawing, Chapter 23, Table 23.1, 2014).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".