The Price of Upwardness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not every directed acyclic graph (DAG) whose underlying undirected graph is planar admits an upward planar drawing. We are interested in pushing the notion of upward drawings beyond planarity by considering upward k-planar drawings of DAGs in which the edges are monotonically increasing in a common direction and every edge is crossed at most k times for some integer k ≥ 1. We show that the number of crossings per edge in a monotone drawing is in general unbounded for the class of bipartite outerplanar, cubic, or bounded pathwidth DAGs. However, it is at most two for outerpaths and it is at most quadratic in the bandwidth in general. From the computational point of view, we prove that upward-k-planarity testing is NP-complete already for k = 1 and even for restricted instances for which upward planarity testing is polynomial. On the positive side, we can decide in linear time whether a single-source DAG admits an upward 1-planar drawing in which all vertices are incident to the outer face.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".