Optimal in-place algorithms for 3-D convex hulls and 2-D segment intersection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the first optimal randomized in-place algorithm for the basic 3-d convex hull problem (and, in particular, for 2-d Voronoi diagrams). The algorithm runs in O(n log n) expected time using only O(1) extra space; this improves the previous O(n log3 n) bound by Bronnimann, Chan, and Chen [SoCG'04]. The same approach leads to an optimal randomized in-place algorithm for the 2-d line segment intersection problem, with O(n log n+K) expected running time for output size K, improving the previous O(n log2 n + K) bound by Vahrenhold [WADS'05]. As a bonus, we also point out a simplification of a known optimal cache-oblivious (non-in-place) algorithm by Kumar and Ramos (2002) for 3-d convex hulls, and observe its applicability to 2-d segment intersection, extending a recent result for red/blue segment intersection by Arge, Molhave, and Zeh [ESA'08]. Our results are all obtained by standard random sampling techniques, with some interesting twists.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
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".