The maximum number of faces of the Minkowski sum of three convex polytopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We derive tight expressions for the maximum number of $k$-faces, $0\le{}k\le{}d-1$, of the Minkowski sum, $P_1+P_2+P_3$, of three $d$-dimensional convex polytopes $P_1$, $P_2$ and $P_3$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, as a function of the number of vertices of the polytopes, for any $d\ge{}2$. Expressing the Minkowski sum as a section of the Cayley polytope $\mathcal{C}$ of its summands, counting the $k$-faces of $P_1+P_2+P_3$ reduces to counting the $(k+2)$-faces of $\mathcal{C}$ that contain vertices from each of the three polytopes. In two dimensions our expressions reduce to known results, while in three dimensions, the tightness of our bounds follows by exploiting known tight bounds for the number of faces of $r$ $d$-polytopes in $\mathbb{R}^d$, where $r\ge d$. For $d\ge{}4$, the maximum values are attained when $P_1$, $P_2$ and $P_3$ are $d$-polytopes, whose vertex sets are chosen appropriately from three distinct $d$-dimensional moment-like curves.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".