Extending orthogonal planar graph drawings is fixed-parameter tractable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task of finding an extension to a given partial drawing of a graph while adhering to constraints on the representation has been extensively studied in the literature, with well-known results providing efficient algorithms for fundamental representations such as planar and beyond-planar topological drawings. In this paper, we consider the extension problem for bend-minimal orthogonal drawings of planar graphs, which is among the most fundamental geometric graph drawing representations. While the problem was known to be NP-hard, it is natural to consider the case where only a small part of the graph is still to be drawn. Here, we establish the fixed-parameter tractability of the problem when parameterized by the size of the missing subgraph. Our algorithm is based on multiple novel ingredients which intertwine geometric and combinatorial arguments. These include the identification of a new graph representation of bend-equivalent regions for vertex placement in the plane, establishing a bound on the treewidth of this auxiliary graph, and a global point-grid that allows us to discretize the possible placement of bends and vertices into locally bounded subgrids for each of the above regions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".