MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399371052 · doi:10.7155/jgaa.v28i2.2925

Min-$k$-planar Drawings of Graphs

2024· article· en· W4399371052 on OpenAlexaff
Carla Binucci, Aaron Büngener, Giuseppe Di Battista, Walter Didimo, Vida Dujmović, Seok-Hee Hong, Michael Kaufmann, Giuseppe Liotta, Pat Morin, Alessandra Tappini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Algorithms and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanarCombinatoricsPlanar graphOuterplanar graphComputer scienceMathematicsPathwidthGraphComputer graphics (images)Line graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of nonplanar drawings of graphs with restricted crossing configurations is a well-established topic in graph drawing, often referred to as beyond-planar graph drawing. One of the most studied types of drawings in this area are the $k$-planar drawings $(k \geq 1)$, where each edge cannot cross more than $k$ times. We generalize $k$-planar drawings, by introducing the new family of min-$k$-planar drawings. In a min-$k$-planar drawing edges can cross an arbitrary number of times, but for any two crossing edges, one of the two must have no more than $k$ crossings. We prove a general upper bound on the number of edges of min-$k$-planar drawings, a finer upper bound for $k=3$, and tight upper bounds for $k=1,2$. Also, we study the inclusion relations between min-$k$-planar graphs (i.e., graphs admitting min-$k$-planar drawings) and $k$-planar graphs.In our setting, we only allow simple drawings, that is, any two edges cross at most once, no two adjacent edges cross, and no three edges intersect at a common point.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph Algorithms and ApplicationsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207