MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288089758 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10376

Emanation Graph: A Plane Geometric Spanner with Steiner Points

2019· preprint· en· W4288089758 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bardia Hamedmohseni, Zahed Rahmati, Debajyoti Mondal

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsSpannerDelaunay triangulationBounded functionMathematicsGraphSpatial networkDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An emanation graph of grade $k$ on a set of points is a plane spanner made by shooting $2^{k+1}$ equally spaced rays from each point, where the shorter rays stop the longer ones upon collision. The collision points are the Steiner points of the spanner. Emanation graphs of grade one were studied by Mondal and Nachmanson in the context of network visualization. They proved that the spanning ratio of such a graph is bounded by $(2+\sqrt{2})\approx 3.414$. We improve this upper bound to $\sqrt{10} \approx 3.162$ and show this to be tight, i.e., there exist emanation graphs with spanning ratio $\sqrt{10}$. We show that for every fixed $k$, the emanation graphs of grade $k$ are constant spanners, where the constant factor depends on $k$. An emanation graph of grade two may have twice the number of edges compared to grade one graphs. Hence we introduce a heuristic method for simplifying them. In particular, we compare simplified emanation graphs against Shewchuk's constrained Delaunay triangulations on both synthetic and real-life datasets. Our experimental results reveal that the simplified emanation graphs outperform constrained Delaunay triangulations in common quality measures (e.g., edge count, angular resolution, average degree, total edge length) while maintaining a comparable spanning ratio and Steiner point count.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207