MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105454564 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.388

On the tileability of polygons with colored dominoes

2007· article· en· W2105454564 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsColoredMathematicsCombinatoricsRectanglePolygon (computer graphics)DominoSimple (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Frame (networking)Computer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of Algorithms We consider questions concerning the tileability of orthogonal polygons with colored dominoes. A colored domino is a rotatable 2 × 1 rectangle that is partitioned into two unit squares, which are called faces, each of which is assigned a color. In a colored domino tiling of an orthogonal polygon P, a set of dominoes completely covers P such that no dominoes overlap and so that adjacent faces have the same color. We demonstrated that for simple layout polygons that can be tiled with colored dominoes, two colors are always sufficient. We also show that for tileable non-simple layout polygons, four colors are always sufficient and sometimes necessary. We describe an O(n) time algorithm for computing a colored domino tiling of a simple orthogonal polygon, if such a tiling exists, where n is the number of dominoes used in the tiling. We also show that deciding whether or not a non-simple orthogonal polygon can be tiled with colored dominoes is NP-complete.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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