MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141565952 · doi:10.1145/2229163.2229173

Entropy, triangulation, and point location in planar subdivisions

2012· article· en· W2141565952 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersDivision of Computing and Communication FoundationsOffice of International Science and Engineering
KeywordsPoint locationSubdivisionTriangulationData structurePoint (geometry)Upper and lower boundsPreprocessorDistribution (mathematics)Computational geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A data structure is presented for point location in connected planar subdivisions when the distribution of queries is known in advance. The data structure has an expected query time that is within a constant factor of optimal. More specifically, an algorithm is presented that preprocesses a connected planar subdivision G of size n and a query distribution D to produce a point location data structure for G . The expected number of point-line comparisons performed by this data structure, when the queries are distributed according to D , is H˜ + O (H˜ 1/2 +1) where H˜=H˜( G,D ) is a lower bound on the expected number of point-line comparisons performed by any linear decision tree for point location in G under the query distribution D . The preprocessing algorithm runs in O ( n log n ) time and produces a data structure of size O ( n ). These results are obtained by creating a Steiner triangulation of G that has near-minimum entropy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on AlgorithmsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207