MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401952382

Maximum-Weight Planar Boxes in O(n 2 ) Time (and Better).

2013· article· en· W2401952382 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Approximation and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsPlanarPoint (geometry)MathematicsSet (abstract data type)Running timeDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryComputer graphics (images)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a set P of n points in Rd, where each point p of P is associated with a weight w(p) (positive or negative), the Maximum-Weight Box problem consists in finding an axis-aligned box B maximizing ∑ p∈B∩P w(p). We describe algorithms for this problem in two dimensions that run in the worst case in O(n2) time, and much less on more specific classes of instances. In particular, these results imply similar ones for the Maximum Bichromatic Discrepancy Box problem. These improve by a factor of Θ(log n) on the best worst-case complexity previously known for these problems, O(n 2 lg n) [Cortés et al., J. Alg., 2009; Dobkin et al., J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 1996]. Although the O(n 2) result can be deduced from new results on the Klee’s Measure problem [Chan, 2013], it is a more direct and simplified (nontrivial) solution, which further provides smaller running times on specific classes on instances. 1

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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