MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963977128

1Graph Layouts via Layered Separators

2016· article· en· W2963977128 on OpenAlexafffund
Vida Dujmović

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsPlanar graphVertex (graph theory)Book embeddingDiscrete mathematicsGraphQueueOuterplanar graphLine graphVoltage graph1-planar graphComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A k-queue layout of a graph consists of a total order of the vertices, and a partition of the edges into k sets such that no two edges that are in the same set are nested with respect to the vertex ordering. A k-track layout of a graph consists of a vertex k-colouring, and a total order of each vertex colour class, such that between each pair of colour classes no two edges cross. The queue-number (track-number) of a graph G, is the minimum k such that G has a k-queue (k-track) layout. This paper proves that every n-vertex planar graph has track number and queue number at most O(logn). This improves the result of Di Battista, Frati and Pach [Founda-tions of Computer Science, (FOCS ’10), pp. 365–374] who proved the first sub-polynomial bounds on the queue number and track number of planar graphs. Specifically, they ob-tained O(log2n) queue number and O(log8n) track number bounds for planar graphs. The result also implies that every planar graph has a 3D crossing-free grid drawing in O(n logn) volume. The proof uses a non-standard type of graph separators. 1

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207