MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151369108 · doi:10.1142/s0218195909003088

EFFICIENT NON-INTERSECTION QUERIES ON AGGREGATED GEOMETRIC DATA

2009· article· en· W2151369108 on OpenAlexaff
Prosenjit Gupta, Ravi Janardan, Michiel Smid

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Complement (music)Disjoint setsClass (philosophy)MathematicsSet (abstract data type)Object (grammar)Theoretical computer scienceComputer scienceCombinatoricsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geometric intersection searching problems are a well-studied class of query-retrieval problems with many applications. The goal here is to preprocess a set of geometric objects so that the ones that are intersected by a query object can be reported efficiently. Often, a more general version of the problem arises, where the data comes aggregated in disjoint groups and of interest are the groups, not the individual objects, that are intersected by the query object. One approach to a generalized problem is to ignore the grouping, solve the corresponding classical problem, and then infer the groups from the reported answer. However, this is not efficient, since the number of objects intersected can be much larger than the number of groups (i.e., the output size). The problem of designing efficient, output-sensitive query algorithms for generalized intersection searching has received much attention in recent years, and such solutions have been developed for several problems. This paper considers a new class of generalized query-retrieval problems. Specifically, given aggregated geometric data the goal is to report the distinct groups such that no objects from those groups are intersected by the query. Of interest in these generalized non-intersection searching problems are solutions where the query time is sensitive to the output size, i.e., the number of groups reported. Unfortunately, the obvious approaches of (i) solving the corresponding generalized intersection searching problem and reporting the complement, or (ii) solving a generalized intersection searching problem with the complement of the query are either inefficient or incorrect. This paper provides efficient, output-sensitive solutions to several generalized non-intersection searching problems, using techniques such as geometric duality, sparsification, persistence, filtering search, and pruning.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Geometry & ApplicationsSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207