Exact and Approximation Algorithms for Many-To-Many Point Matching in the Plane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given two sets $S$ and $T$ of points in the plane, of total size $n$, a {many-to-many} matching between $S$ and $T$ is a set of pairs $(p,q)$ such that $p\in S$, $q\in T$ and for each $r\in S\cup T$, $r$ appears in at least one such pair. The {cost of a pair} $(p,q)$ is the (Euclidean) distance between $p$ and $q$. In the {minimum-cost many-to-many matching} problem, the goal is to compute a many-to-many matching such that the sum of the costs of the pairs is minimized. This problem is a restricted version of minimum-weight edge cover in a bipartite graph, and hence can be solved in $O(n^3)$ time. In a more restricted setting where all the points are on a line, the problem can be solved in $O(n\log n)$ time [Colannino, Damian, Hurtado, Langerman, Meijer, Ramaswami, Souvaine, Toussaint; Graphs Comb., 2007]. However, no progress has been made in the general planar case in improving the cubic time bound. In this paper, we obtain an $O(n^2\cdot poly(\log n))$ time exact algorithm and an $O( n^{3/2}\cdot poly(\log n))$ time $(1+ε)$-approximation in the planar case. Our results affirmatively address an open problem posed in [Colannino et al., Graphs Comb., 2007].
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".