Solving Minimum Distance Problems With Convex or Concave Bodies Using Combinatorial Global Optimization Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the minimum distance between convex objects is a problem that has been solved using many different approaches. On the other hand, computing the minimum distance between combinations of convex and concave objects is known to be a more complicated problem. Most methods propose to partition the concave object into convex subobjects and then solve the convex problem between all possible subobject combinations. This can add a large computational expense to the solution of the minimum distance problem. In this paper, an optimization-based approach is used to solve the concave problem without the need for partitioning concave objects into convex pieces. Since the optimization problem is no longer unimodal (i.e., has more than one local minimum point), global optimization techniques are used. Simulated Annealing (SA) and Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are used to solve the concave minimum distance problem. In order to reduce the computational expense, it is proposed to replace the objects' geometry by a set of points on the surface of each body. This reduces the problem to an unconstrained combinatorial optimization problem, where the combination of points (one on the surface of each body) that minimizes the distance will be the solution. Additionally, if the surface points are set as the nodes of a surface mesh, it is possible to accelerate the convergence of the global optimization algorithm by using a hill-climbing local optimization algorithm. Some examples using these novel approaches are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".