MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049175577 · doi:10.1080/00207160701623046

A note on the lower bound of edge guards of polyhedral terrains

2008· article· en· W2049175577 on OpenAlexafffund
Prosenjit Bose

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Mathematics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsConstructive proofMathematicsVertex (graph theory)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionTerrainGuard (computer science)Discrete mathematicsGraphComputer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bose et al. [P. Bose et al., Guarding polyhedral terrains, Comput. Geom., Theory Appl. 6 (1997), pp. 173–185.] proved that ⌊ (4n−4)/13 ⌋ edge guards are sometimes necessary to guard an n-vertex polyhedral terrain. Subsequently, Kaučič et al. [B. Kaučič, B. Žalik, and F. Novak, On the lower bound of edge guards of polyhedral terrains, Int. J. Comput. Math. 80 (2003), pp. 811–814.] claimed to find an inconsistency in the proof and used Bose et al. ’s proof technique to prove a weaker lower bound of ⌊ (2n−4)/7 ⌋ edge-guards. They declared that a proof of the original lower bound of ⌊ (4n−4)/13 ⌋ remains an open issue. The purpose of this note is simply to point out that the issue is not open and that Bose et al. ’s original proof is correct. We present the original proof of ⌊ (4n−4)/13 ⌋ at a level of detail to hopefully remove any misunderstanding of the result.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.017
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0030.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer MathematicsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207