Walking the dog fast in practice: Algorithm engineering of the Fréchet distance
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
The Fréchet distance provides a natural and intuitive measure for the popular task of computing the similarity of two (polygonal) curves. While a simple algorithm computes it in near-quadratic time, a strongly subquadratic algorithm cannot exist unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis fails. Still, fast practical implementations of the Fréchet distance, in particular for realistic input curves, are highly desirable. This has even lead to a designated competition, the ACM SIGSPATIAL GIS Cup 2017: Here, the challenge was to implement a near-neighbor data structure under the Fréchet distance. The bottleneck of the top three implementations turned out to be precisely the decision procedure for the Fréchet distance. In this work, we present a fast, certifying implementation for deciding the Fréchet distance, in order to (1) complement its pessimistic worst-case hardness by an empirical analysis on realistic input data and to (2) improve the state of the art for the GIS Cup challenge. We experimentally evaluate our implementation on a large benchmark consisting of several data sets (including handwritten characters and GPS trajectories). Compared to the winning implementation of the GIS Cup, we obtain running time improvements of up to more than two orders of magnitude for the decision procedure and of up to a factor of 30 for queries to the near-neighbor data structure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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