MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295337288

Weighted Region Problem in Arrangement of Lines

2013· article· en· W2295337288 on OpenAlexaff
Amin Gheibi, Anil Maheshwari, Jörg-Rüdiger Sack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Conference on Computational Geometry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShortest path problemHullBounded functionCombinatoricsBoundary (topology)Path (computing)Line segmentMathematicsLine (geometry)Computer scienceGeometryGraphMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a geometric shortest path problem in weighted regions is discussed. An arrangement of lines A, a source s, and a target t are given. The objective is to nd a weighted shortest path, st, from s to t. Existing approximation algorithms for weighted shortest paths work within bounded regions (typically triangulated). To apply these algorithms to unbounded regions, such as arrangements of lines, there is a need to bound the regions. Here, we present a minimal region that contains st, called SP-Hull of A. It is a closed polygonal region that only depends on the geometry of the arrangement A and is independent of the weights. It is minimal in the sense that for any arrangement of lines A, it is possible to assign weights to the faces of A and choose s and t such that st is arbitrary close to the boundary of SP-Hull of A. We show that SP-Hull can be constructed in O(n logn) time, where n is the number of lines in the arrangement. As a direct consequence we obtain a shortest path algorithm for weighted arrangements of lines.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Conference on Computational GeometrySame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207