MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252238546 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v6i1a14

A new algorithm for computing visibility graphs of polygonal obstacles in the plane

2015· article· en· W2252238546 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Danny Z. Chen, Haitao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVisibilityVisibility graphComputer sciencePlane (geometry)AlgorithmPlanar graphMathematicsGraphTheoretical computer scienceGeometryPhysicsRegular polygonOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a set of $h$ pairwise disjoint polygonal obstacles with a total of $n$ vertices in the plane, the vertex-vertex visibility graph is an undirected graph whose nodes are vertices of the obstacles and whose edges are pairs of visible vertices. The vertex-edge and edge-edge visibility graphs are defined similarly. Ghosh and Mount gave a well-known output-sensitive $O(n\log n+k)$ time algorithm for computing these visibility graphs, where $k$ is the size of the corresponding graph. By developing new techniques based on an extended corridor structure, we augment Ghosh and Mount’s algorithm to build these visibility graphs in $O(n+h\log h+k)$ time, after the free space is triangulated. The new algorithm improves Ghosh and Mount’s algorithm by reducing its additive $O(n\log n)$ time factor to $O(n + h\log h)$. Like Ghosh and Mount’s algorithm, our algorithm can also compute several important structures such as the funnel structure and the enhanced visibility graph, which may have other applications.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207