Sum-of-Local-Effects Data Structures for Separable Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not difficult to think of applications that can be modelled as graph problems in which placing some facility or commodity at a vertex has some positive or negative effect on the values of all the vertices out to some distance, and we want to be able to calculate quickly the cumulative effect on any vertex's value at any time or the list of the most beneficial or most detrimential effects on a vertex. In this paper we show how, given an edge-weighted graph with constant-size separators, we can support the following operations on it in time polylogarithmic in the number of vertices and the number of facilities placed on the vertices, where distances between vertices are measured with respect to the edge weights: Add (v, f, w, d) places a facility of weight w and with effect radius d onto vertex v. Remove (v, f) removes a facility f previously placed on v using Add from v. Sum (v) or Sum (v, d) returns the total weight of all facilities affecting v or, with a distance parameter d, the total weight of all facilities whose effect region intersects the ``circle'' with radius d around v. Top (v, k) or Top (v, k, d) returns the k facilities of greatest weight that affect v or, with a distance parameter d, whose effect region intersects the ``circle'' with radius d around v. The weights of the facilities and the operation that Sum uses to ``sum'' them must form a semigroup. For Top queries, the weights must be drawn from a total order.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".