MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149884111

Computing Nice Sweeps for Polyhedra and Polygons

2004· article· en· W2149884111 on OpenAlexaff
Prosenjit Bose, Marc van Kreveld

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Conference on Computational Geometry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyhedronMonotone polygonCombinatoricsRegular polygonPolygon (computer graphics)MathematicsRectilinear polygonSimple polygonConvex polygonConvex setPolygon coveringKrein–Milman theoremConvex polytopeComputer scienceGeometryConvex optimization
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper does not deal with the sweeping paradigm itself; it deals with testing polygons and polyhedra to determine if they have a certain property. The properties that we consider are related to sweeping. We will test for a simple polygon or polyhedron if it can be swept by a line or plane such that every cross-section has a property like being convex or simply-connected. For example, to determine for a simple polygon (with interior) in the plane whether there is a sweep direction such that every cross-section is simplyconnected (a point, line segment, or empty) is the well-known question of determining whether a simple polygon is monotone in some direction. We solve two extensions of this problem in 3-space, and solve another extension in the plane. The first question we address applies to a polyhedron in 3space. We want to determine if there is a vector , such that if a sweeping plane with normal passes over , every cross-section of is convex. Toussaint [7] calls this property weakly monotonic in the convex sense. Obviously, for convex polyhedra, any vector gives only convex cross-sections during the sweep. For many nonconvex polyhedra no such vector exists. We give an time algorithm to find a vector if one exists, for a simple polyhedron with vertices. In case we allow more than one convex polygon in the cross-section, but no refle x vertices, we solve the problem in linear time. The second question deals with cross-sections of simple polyhedra that are always simply-connected. This property is called weakly monotonic [7]. Again the problem is to determine a vector , if one exists, such that any plane normal to intersects in a simple polygon. This cross-section may degenerate into a line segment, single point, or be empty. The cross-section may not become disconnected, nor may it contain a hole. We solve the problem in time. Thirdly, we consider sweeping a simple polygon with a line, but we allow the line to change its orientation. The problem is to determine if such a sweep exists that passes over the polygon , such that every cross-section is connected (generally, a single line segment). The problem is solved in quadratic time, also if we require additionally that the sweep line never goes back over any point of .

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Conference on Computational GeometrySame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207