MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095921276 · doi:10.4230/lipics.socg.2020.33

Finding Closed Quasigeodesics on Convex Polyhedra

2010· preprint· en· W2095921276 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeometryComputer scienceComputational geometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A closed quasigeodesic is a closed loop on the surface of a polyhedron with at most 180° of surface on both sides at all points; such loops can be locally unfolded straight. In 1949, Pogorelov proved that every convex polyhedron has at least three (non-self-intersecting) closed quasigeodesics, but the proof relies on a nonconstructive topological argument. We present the first finite algorithm to find a closed quasigeodesic on a given convex polyhedron, which is the first positive progress on a 1990 open problem by O'Rourke and Wyman. The algorithm’s running time is pseudopolynomial, namely O(n²/ε² L/𝓁 b) time, where ε is the minimum curvature of a vertex, L is the length of the longest edge, 𝓁 is the smallest distance within a face between a vertex and a nonincident edge (minimum feature size of any face), and b is the maximum number of bits of an integer in a constant-size radical expression of a real number representing the polyhedron. We take special care in the model of computation and needed precision, showing that we can achieve the stated running time on a pointer machine supporting constant-time w-bit arithmetic operations where w = Ω(lg b).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207