MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105525115 · doi:10.1142/s0218195903001207

THE LARGEST EMPTY ANNULUS PROBLEM

2003· article· en· W2105525115 on OpenAlexaff
José Miguel Díaz-Báñez, F. Hurtado, Henk Meijer, David Rappaport, J. Antoni Sellarès

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsAnnulus (botany)MinimaxEuclidean spacePlane (geometry)Constant (computer programming)Space (punctuation)CircumferenceUpper and lower boundsConcentric1-center problemBinary logarithmFacility location problemDiscrete mathematicsGeometryMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a set of n points S in the Euclidean plane, we address the problem of computing an annulus A, (open region between two concentric circles) of largest width, that partitions S into a subset of points inside and a subset of points outside the circles, such that no point p∈S lies in the interior of A. This problem can be considered as a maximin facility location problem for n points such that the facility is a circumference. We give a characterization of the centres of annuli which are locally optimal and we show that the problem can be solved in O(n3 log n) time and O (n) space. We also consider the case in which the number of points in the inner circle is a fixed value k. When k∈O(n) our algorithm runs in O(n3 log n) time and O(n) space, furthermore, we can simultaneously optimize for all values of k within the same time bound. When k is small, that is a fixed constant, we can solve the problem in O(n log n) time and O(n) space.

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)0.010
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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