Noncrossing Longest Paths and Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge crossings in geometric graphs are sometimes undesirable as they could lead to unwanted situations such as collisions in motion planning and inconsistency in VLSI layout. Short geometric structures such as shortest perfect matchings, shortest spanning trees, shortest spanning paths, and shortest spanning cycles on a given point set are inherently noncrossing. However, the longest such structures need not be noncrossing. In fact, it is intuitive to expect many edge crossings in various geometric graphs that are longest. Recently, Álvarez-Rebollar, Cravioto-Lagos, Marín, Solé-Pi, and Urrutia (Graphs and Combinatorics, 2024) constructed a set of points for which the longest perfect matching is noncrossing. They raised several challenging questions in this direction. In particular, they asked whether the longest spanning path, on every finite set of points in the plane, must have a pair of crossing edges. They also conjectured that the longest spanning cycle must have a pair of crossing edges. In this paper, we give a negative answer to the question and also refute the conjecture. We present a framework for constructing arbitrarily large point sets for which the longest perfect matchings, the longest spanning paths, and the longest spanning cycles are noncrossing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".