MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099582307 · doi:10.1142/s0218195906001975

GEOMETRIC OPTIMIZATION PROBLEMS OVER SLIDING WINDOWS

2006· article· en· W2099582307 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy M. Chan, Bashir Sadjad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsLogarithmSublinear functionDimension (graph theory)Constant (computer programming)Point (geometry)Simple (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Sliding window protocolOptimization problemSpace (punctuation)Upper and lower boundsMathematical optimizationWindow (computing)Applied mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysisGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of maintaining a (1 + ∊)-factor approximation of the diameter of a stream of points under the sliding window model. In one dimension, we give a simple algorithm that only needs to store [Formula: see text] points at any time, where the parameter R denotes the "spread" of the point set. This bound is optimal and improves Feigenbaum, Kannan, and Zhang's recent solution by two logarithmic factors. We then extend our one-dimensional algorithm to higher constant dimensions and, at the same time, correct an error in the previous solution. In high nonconstant dimensions, we also observe a constant-factor approximation algorithm that requires sublinear space. Related optimization problems, such as the width, are also considered in the two-dimensional case.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & ApplicationsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207