MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200815000 · doi:10.14288/1.0402167

On path-greedy geometric spanners

2021· article· en· W3200815000 on OpenAlexaff
Lucca Morais de Arruda Siaudzionis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)CombinatoricsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A t-spanner is a graph in which the shortest path between two vertices never exceeds t times the distance between the two nodes – a t-approximation of the complete graph. A geometric graph is one in which its vertices are points with defined coordinates and the edges correspond to line segments between them with a distance function, such as Euclidean distance. Geometric spanners are used to design networks of reduced complexity, optimizing metrics such as the planarity or degree of the graph. One famous algorithm used to generate spanners is path-greedy, which scans pairs of points in non-decreasing order of distance and adds the edge between them unless the current set of added edges already connects them with a path that t-approximates the edge length. Graphs from this algorithm are called path-greedy spanners. This work analyzes properties of path-greedy geometric spanners under different conditions. Specifically, we answer an open problem regarding the planarity and degree of path-greedy 5.19-spanners in convex point sets, and explore how the algorithm behaves under random tiebreaks for grid point sets. Lastly, we show a simple and efficient way to reduce the degree of a plane spanner by adding extra points.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207