MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171388963 · doi:10.1109/isvd.2007.33

Pursuit-Evasion Voronoi Diagrams in \ell_1

2007· article· en· W2171388963 on OpenAlexaff
Warren Cheung, William Evans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoronoi diagramPursuerPursuit-evasionTraversePlane (geometry)CombinatoricsPartition (number theory)Point (geometry)Path (computing)MathematicsTime complexityMetric (unit)Computer scienceAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimizationGeometryEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are given m pursuers and one evader. Each pursuer and the evader has an associated starting point in the plane, a maximum speed, and a start time. We also have a set of line segment obstacles with a total of n endpoints. Our task is to find those points in the plane, called the evader's region, that the evader can reach via evasive paths. A path is evasive if the evader can traverse the path from its starting point without encountering a pursuer along the way. The evader and the pursuers must obey their start time and speed constraints, and cannot go through obstacles. The partition of the plane into the evader's region and the remaining pursuers' region is called the pursuit-evasion Voronoi diagram. We study pursuit-evasion Voronoi diagrams for the lscr1metric. We show that the complexity of the diagram is O((n + m)2(mn + m)) and that it can be calculated in polynomial 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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207