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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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.
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".