Optimal Deterministic Algorithms for 2-d and 3-d Shallow Cuttings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present optimal deterministic algorithms for constructing shallow cuttings in an arrangement of lines in two dimensions or planes in three dimensions. Our results improve the deterministic polynomial-time algorithm of Matoušek (Comput Geom 2(3):169–186, 1992) and the optimal but randomized algorithm of Ramos (Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, SoCG’99, 1999). This leads to efficient derandomization of previous algorithms for numerous well-studied problems in computational geometry, including halfspace range reporting in 2-d and 3-d, k nearest neighbors search in 2-d, $$({\le }k)$$ -levels in 3-d, order-k Voronoi diagrams in 2-d, linear programming with k violations in 2-d, dynamic convex hulls in 3-d, dynamic nearest neighbor search in 2-d, convex layers (onion peeling) in 3-d, $$\varepsilon $$ -nets for halfspace ranges in 3-d, and more. As a side product we also describe an optimal deterministic algorithm for constructing standard (non-shallow) cuttings in two dimensions, which is arguably simpler than the known optimal algorithms by Matoušek (Discrete Comput Geom 6(1):385–406, 1991) and Chazelle (Discrete Comput Geom 9(1):145–158, 1993).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".