MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092295236 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v16i2a9

Faster Fréchet distance approximation through truncated smoothing

2025· article· en· W7092295236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European History and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)Quadratic equationApproximation algorithmMeasure (data warehouse)SmoothingConstant (computer programming)Approximation theoryTime complexity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fréchet distance is a commonly used distance measure for curves. Computing the Fréchet distance between two polygonal curves of $n$ vertices takes roughly quadratic time, and conditional lower bounds suggest that approximating to within a factor $3$ cannot be done in strongly-subquadratic time, even in one dimension. Currently, one of the best approximation algorithms presents a trade-off between approximation quality and running time. Specifically, at SoCG 2021, Colombe and Fox presented an $O((n^3 / \alpha^2) \log n)$-time $\alpha$-approximate algorithm for curves in arbitrary dimensions, for any $\alpha \in [\sqrt{n}, n]$. In this work, we give an $\alpha$-approximate algorithm with a significantly faster running time of $O((n^2 / \alpha) \log n)$, for any $\alpha \in [1, n]$. In particular, we give the first strongly-subquadratic $n^\varepsilon$-approximation algorithm, for any constant $\varepsilon \in (0, 1/2]$. For curves in one dimension we further improve the running time to $O((n^2 / \alpha^3) \log^2 n)$, for $\alpha \in [1, n^{1/3}]$. Both of our algorithms rely on a linear-time simplification procedure that in one dimension reduces the complexity of the reachable free space to $O(n^2 / \alpha)$ without making sacrifices in the asymptotic approximation factor.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicMedieval European History and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207