Visualization of bipartite graphs in limited window size
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bipartite graphs are commonly used to visualize objects and their features. An object may possess several features and several objects may share a common feature. The standard visualization of bipartite graphs, with objects and features on two (say horizontal) parallel lines at integer coordinates and edges drawn as line segments, can often be difficult to work with. A common task in visualization of such graphs is to consider one object and all its features. This naturally defines a drawing window, defined as the smallest interval that contains the x-coordinates of the object and all its features. We show that if both objects and features can be reordered, minimizing the average window size is NP-hard. However, if the features are fixed, then we provide an efficient polynomial-time algorithm for arranging the objects, so as to minimize the average window size. Finally, we introduce a different way of visualizing the bipartite graph, by placing the nodes of the two parts on two concentric circles. For this setting we also show NP-hardness for the general case and a polynomial-time algorithm when the features are fixed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it