Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual symposium on Computational geometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume contains the abstracts of the 44 research papers, 4 video presentations, and 3 invited talks scheduled for presentation at the 28th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, to be held at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, June 17-20, 2012. There were 126 paper submissions (with 2 withdrawn) among which the program committee selected 44 papers for presentation at the conference. The selection process mainly consisted of two phases. In the review phase, the program committee produced at least 3 reviews for each submitted paper. In many cases, program committee members called upon external subreviewers for assistance. In the deliberation phase, which lasted from January 17 to February 16, the program committee discussed the submitted papers and their reviews extensively, obtaining additional input from experts in some cases. The on-line submission process and the review and deliberation phases were conducted using the electronic tools provided by EasyChair. We acknowledge that the entire complex process, from paper submission to final notification of decisions, was aided significantly by this system. In addition to the paper submissions, six videos were submitted in response to the Call for Videos and Multimedia. All six were reviewed, and four of these were accepted for presentation. The videos use animation and graphics to communicate the behavior of specific algorithms. These proceedings contain a short, 2-page description for each of the videos accepted. The final videos for all accepted contributions will be archived at http://www.computational-geometry.org. In many cases, the papers in these proceedings do not contain full details of all results claimed, due to the 10-page limit for regular submissions. We hope that most of these papers will later appear with full details in refereed journals. Each of the three invited talks is represented in this volume by a 1-page description of the topic, the speaker, and some background references. We hope that this information will provide the reader with the means to explore further. This year, we are taking the initiative to confer three awards: two Best Paper awards and one Best Student Presentation award. The two Best Papers will be selected from the 44 accepted papers by a sub-committee of the program committee, based on the nominations of the program committee and the merits of the research results. The Best Student Presentation award will be determined at the symposium based on input from the attendees at the talks given by students. Student speakers must be authors or co-authors of the papers they present. We hope that all these awards will be seen as encouraging tokens for the authors. We note that this year, as an experiment, the symposium is being held in the mornings over a 4-day period, along with an afternoon series of geometry related events collectively called CG:APT (Computational Geometry: Applications, Practice, and Theory). CG:APT has its own program committee. The aim of holding the symposium together with CG:APT is to welcome a broader group of participants, including graduate students and those working in areas where mutual interaction with computational geometry could prove fruitful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".