MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408961034 · doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2025.102192

Bounds on the edge-length ratio of 2-outerplanar graphs

2025· article· en· W4408961034 on OpenAlexaff
Emilio Di Giacomo, Walter Didimo, Giuseppe Liotta, Henk Meijer, Fabrizio Montecchiani, Stephen Wismath

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Geometry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersMinistero dell'Università e della RicercaMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca
KeywordsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMathematicsCombinatoricsOuterplanar graphPathwidthComputer scienceGraphTelecommunicationsLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The edge-length ratio of a planar straight-line drawing Γ of a graph G is the largest ratio between the lengths of every pair of edges of Γ. If the ratio is measured by considering only pairs of edges that are incident to a common vertex, we talk about local edge-length ratio. The (local) edge-length ratio of a planar graph is the infimum over all (local) edge-length ratios of its planar straight-line drawings. It is known that the edge-length ratio of outerplanar graphs is upper bounded by a constant, while there exist graph families with non-constant outerplanarity that have non-constant lower bounds on their edge-length ratios. In this paper we prove an Ω ( n ) lower bound on the local edge-length ratio (and hence on the edge-length ratio) of the n -vertex 2-outerplanar graphs. We also prove a constant upper bound on the edge-length ratio of Halin graphs, pseudo-Halin graphs, and their generalizations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational GeometrySame topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207