Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce the first neural optimization framework to solve a classical instance of the tiling problem. Namely, we seek a non-periodic tiling of an arbitrary 2D shape using one or more types of tiles---the tiles maximally fill the shape's interior without overlaps or holes. To start, we reformulate tiling as a graph problem by modeling candidate tile locations in the target shape as graph nodes and connectivity between tile locations as edges. Further, we build a graph convolutional neural network , coined TilinGNN, to progressively propagate and aggregate features over graph edges and predict tile placements. TilinGNN is trained by maximizing the tiling coverage on target shapes, while avoiding overlaps and holes between the tiles. Importantly, our network is self-supervised , as we articulate these criteria as loss terms defined on the network outputs, without the need of ground-truth tiling solutions. After training, the runtime of TilinGNN is roughly linear to the number of candidate tile locations, significantly outperforming traditional combinatorial search. We conducted various experiments on a variety of shapes to showcase the speed and versatility of TilinGNN. We also present comparisons to alternative methods and manual solutions, robustness analysis, and ablation studies to demonstrate the quality of our approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".