MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121154134 · doi:10.1142/s0218195901000559

LOWER BOUNDS FOR STREETS AND GENERALIZED STREETS

2001· article· en· W2121154134 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitive analysisMathematicsCombinatoricsUpper and lower boundsMatching (statistics)Metric (unit)Simple (philosophy)Online algorithmLine (geometry)Cross-ratioDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationStatisticsGeometryMathematical analysisPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present lower bounds for on-line searching problems in two special classes of simple polygons called streets and generalized streets. In streets we assume that the location of the target is known to the robot in advance and prove a lower bound of [Formula: see text] on the competitive ratio of any deterministic search strategy—which can be shown to be tight. For generalized streets we show that if the location of the target is not known, then there is a class of orthogonal generalized streets for which the competitive ratio of any search strategy is at least [Formula: see text] in the L 2 -metric—again matching the competitive ratio of the best known algorithm. We also show that if the location of the target is known, then the competitive ratio for searching in generalized streets in the L 1 -metric is at least 9 which is tight as well. The former result is based on a lower bound on the average competitive ratio of searching on the real line if an upper bound of D to the target is given. We show that in this case the average competitive ratio is at least 9-O(1/ log D).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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