Relating interleaving and Fréchet distances via ordered merge trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Merge trees are a common topological descriptor for data with a hierarchical component, such as terrains and scalar fields. The interleaving distance, in turn, is a common distance for comparing merge trees. However, the interleaving distance for merge trees is solely based on the hierarchical structure, and disregards any other geometrical or topological properties that might be present in the underlying data. Furthermore, the interleaving distance is NP-hard to compute. In this paper, we introduce a form of ordered merge trees that can capture intrinsic order present in the data. We further define a natural variant of the interleaving distance, the monotone interleaving distance, which is an order-preserving distance for ordered merge trees. Analogously to the regular interleaving distance for merge trees, we show that the monotone variant has three equivalent definitions in terms of two maps, a single map, or a labelling. Furthermore, we establish a connection between the monotone interleaving distance of ordered merge trees and the Fréchet distance of 1D curves. As a result, the monotone interleaving distance between two ordered merge trees can be computed exactly in near-quadratic time in their complexity. The connection between the monotone interleaving distance and the Fréchet distance builds a new bridge between the fields of topological data analysis, where interleaving distances are a common tool, and computational geometry, where Fréchet distances are studied extensively.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".