Walking the dog fast in practice: Algorithm engineering of the Fréchet distance
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".