MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536629256 · doi:10.37236/484

A Tight Lower Bound for Convexly Independent Subsets of the Minkowski Sums of Planar Point Sets

2010· article· en· W1536629256 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsCardinality (data modeling)Upper and lower boundsMinkowski spaceConstant (computer programming)Function (biology)PlanarPoint (geometry)Discrete mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Eisenbrand, Pach, Rothvoß, and Sopher studied the function $M(m, n)$, which is the largest cardinality of a convexly independent subset of the Minkowski sum of some planar point sets $P$ and $Q$ with $|P| = m$ and $|Q| = n$. They proved that $M(m,n)=O(m^{2/3}n^{2/3}+m+n)$, and asked whether a superlinear lower bound exists for $M(n,n)$. In this note, we show that their upper bound is the best possible apart from constant factors.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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