Simultaneous Visibility Representations of Undirected Pairs of Graphs.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the problem of determining if a pair of undirected graphs 〈 G v , G h 〉 , which share the same vertex set, has a representation using opaque geometric shapes for vertices, and vertical (respectively, horizontal) visibility between shapes to determine the edges of G v (respectively, G h ). While such a simultaneous visibility representation of two graphs can be determined efficiently if the direction of the required visibility for each edge is provided (and the vertex shapes are sufficiently simple), it was unclear if edge direction is critical for efficiency. Here, an edge directed from u to v implies that the shape representing u is below (respectively, left of) the shape for v in G v (respectively, G h ). We show that the problem is NP -complete without that information, even for graphs that are only slightly more complex than paths. In addition, we characterize which pairs of paths have simultaneous visibility representations using fixed orientation L-shapes. This narrows the range of possible graph families for which determining simultaneous visibility representation is non-trivial yet not NP -hard.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it