New Hardness Results for Guarding Orthogonal Polygons with Sliding Cameras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let $P$ be an orthogonal polygon. Consider a sliding camera that travels back and forth along an orthogonal line segment $s\in P$ as its \emph{trajectory}. The camera can see a point $p\in P$ if there exists a point $q\in s$ such that $pq$ is a line segment normal to $s$ that is completely inside $P$. In the \emph{minimum-cardinality sliding cameras problem}, the objective is to find a set $S$ of sliding cameras of minimum cardinality to guard $P$ (i.e., every point in $P$ can be seen by some sliding camera) while in the \emph{minimum-length sliding cameras problem} the goal is to find such a set $S$ so as to minimize the total length of trajectories along which the cameras in $S$ travel. In this paper, we first settle the complexity of the minimum-length sliding cameras problem by showing that it is polynomial tractable even for orthogonal polygons with holes, answering a question asked by Katz and Morgenstern (2011). We next show that the minimum-cardinality sliding cameras problem is \textsc{NP}-hard when $P$ is allowed to have holes, which partially answers another question asked by Katz and Morgenstern (2011).
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".