Coloring and Guarding Arrangements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combinatorics Given an arrangement of lines in the plane, what is the minimum number c of colors required to color the lines so that no cell of the arrangement is monochromatic? In this paper we give bounds on the number c both for the above question, as well as some of its variations. We redefine these problems as geometric hypergraph coloring problems. If we define $\Hlinecell$ as the hypergraph where vertices are lines and edges represent cells of the arrangement, the answer to the above question is equal to the chromatic number of this hypergraph. We prove that this chromatic number is between Ω(logn/loglogn). and O(n√). Similarly, we give bounds on the minimum size of a subset S of the intersections of the lines in A such that every cell is bounded by at least one of the vertices in S. This may be seen as a problem on guarding cells with vertices when the lines act as obstacles. The problem can also be defined as the minimum vertex cover problem in the hypergraph $\Hvertexcell$, the vertices of which are the line intersections, and the hyperedges are vertices of a cell. Analogously, we consider the problem of touching the lines with a minimum subset of the cells of the arrangement, which we identify as the minimum vertex cover problem in the $\Hcellzone$ hypergraph.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".