MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406237833

Cuttings in 2D Revisited.

2014· article· en· W2406237833 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy M. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Conference on Computational Geometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdivisionCuttingComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Simple (philosophy)Plane (geometry)CombinatoricsDeterministic algorithmAlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming languageEngineeringGeometryBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given n lines in the plane, a (1/r)-cutting is a subdivision of the plane into cells such that each cell intersects at most n/r lines. Cuttings are fundamental to the design of geometric divide-and-conquer algorithms and have numerous applications. Early suboptimal constructions of cuttings were given implicitly in the works by Megiddo and by Dyer in the 80s; simple randomized constructions were later discovered by Clarkson and by Haussler and Welzl; subsequently deterministic algorithms were given by Chazelle and Friedman, by Matousek, and by Agarwal; eventually O(nr)-time deterministic algorithms to construct (1/r)-cuttings of optimal O(r) size were obtained by Matousek and by Chazelle in the early 90s. In this talk, I will survey some of these past works. I will also give a self-contained presentation of an O(nr)-time deterministic algorithm in 2D which does not require any background on derandomization techniques and which (I hope) is easy to understand.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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