MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156882907 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.2126

A randomized algorithm for finding a maximum clique in the visibility graph of a simple polygon

2015· article· en· W2156882907 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Cabello, Maria Saumell

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RSEuropean Social FundFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSEuropean Science Foundation
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsClique graphRandomized algorithmAlgorithmCliqueBlock graphHamiltonian pathGraphPolygon (computer graphics)Simple polygonClique problemDiscrete mathematicsGraph powerChordal graphMonotone polygonLine graphComputer science1-planar graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrete Algorithms We present a randomized algorithm to compute a clique of maximum size in the visibility graph G of the vertices of a simple polygon P. The input of the problem consists of the visibility graph G, a Hamiltonian cycle describing the boundary of P, and a parameter δ∈(0,1) controlling the probability of error of the algorithm. The algorithm does not require the coordinates of the vertices of P. With probability at least 1-δ the algorithm runs in O( |E(G)|2 / ω(G) log(1/δ)) time and returns a maximum clique, where ω(G) is the number of vertices in a maximum clique in G. A deterministic variant of the algorithm takes O(|E(G)|2) time and always outputs a maximum size clique. This compares well to the best previous algorithm by Ghosh et al. (2007) for the problem, which is deterministic and runs in O(|V(G)|2 |E(G)|) time.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207