MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406237833

Cuttings in 2D Revisited.

2014· article· en· W2406237833 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

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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