MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403586280 · doi:10.4230/lipics.gd.2024.40

Morphing Planar Graph Drawings via Orthogonal Box Drawings

2024· preprint· en· W4403586280 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Thérèse Biedl, Anna Lubiw, Jack Spalding-Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMorphingGraphComputer sciencePlanar graphGraph drawingComputer graphics (images)PlanarEngineering drawingTheoretical computer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We give an algorithm to morph planar graph drawings that achieves small grid size at the expense of allowing a constant number of bends on each edge. The input is an $n$-vertex planar graph and two planar straight-line drawings of the graph on an $O(n) \times O(n)$ grid. The planarity-preserving morph is composed of $O(n)$ linear morphs between successive pairs of drawings, each on an $O(n) \times O(n)$ grid with a constant number of bends per edge. The algorithm to compute the morph runs in $O(n^2)$ time on a word RAM model with standard arithmetic operations -- in particular no square roots or cube roots are required. The first step of the algorithm is to morph each input drawing to a planar orthogonal box drawing where vertices are represented by boxes and each edge is drawn as a horizontal or vertical segment. The second step is to morph between planar orthogonal box drawings. This is done by extending known techniques for morphing planar orthogonal drawings with point vertices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207