C-Planarity Testing of Embedded Clustered Graphs with Bounded Dual Carving-Width
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a clustered graph, i.e, a graph whose vertex set is recursively partitioned into clusters, the C-Planarity Testing problem asks whether it is possible to find a planar embedding of the graph and a representation of each cluster as a region homeomorphic to a closed disk such that 1. the subgraph induced by each cluster is drawn in the interior of the corresponding disk, 2. each edge intersects any disk at most once, and 3. the nesting between clusters is reflected by the representation, i.e., child clusters are properly contained in their parent cluster. The computational complexity of this problem, whose study has been central to the theory of graph visualization since its introduction in 1995 [Feng, Cohen, and Eades, Planarity for clustered graphs, ESA'95], has only been recently settled [Fulek and Tóth, Atomic Embeddability, Clustered Planarity, and Thickenability, to appear at SODA'20]. Before such a breakthrough, the complexity question was still unsolved even when the graph has a prescribed planar embedding, i.e, for embedded clustered graphs. We show that the C-Planarity Testing problem admits a single-exponential single-parameter FPT algorithm for embedded clustered graphs, when parameterized by the carving-width of the dual graph of the input. This is the first FPT algorithm for this long-standing open problem with respect to a single notable graph-width parameter. Moreover, in the general case, the polynomial dependency of our FPT algorithm is smaller than the one of the algorithm by Fulek and Tóth. To further strengthen the relevance of this result, we show that the C-Planarity Testing problem retains its computational complexity when parameterized by several other graph-width parameters, which may potentially lead to faster algorithms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".