Two Approaches to Building Time-Windowed Geometric Data Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a set of geometric objects each associated with a time value, we wish to determine whether a given property is true for a subset of those objects whose time values fall within a query time window. We call such problems time-windowed decision problems, and they have been the subject of much recent attention, for instance studied by Bokal, Cabello, and Eppstein [SoCG 2015]. In this paper, we present new approaches to this class of problems that are conceptually simpler than Bokal et al.'s, and also lead to faster algorithms. For instance, we present algorithms for preprocessing for the time-windowed 2D diameter decision problem in O(n log n) time and the time-windowed 2D convex hull area decision problem in O(n alpha(n) log n) time (where alpha is the inverse Ackermann function), improving Bokal et al.'s O(n log^2 n) and O(n log n loglog n) solutions respectively. Our first approach is to reduce time-windowed decision problems to a generalized range successor problem, which we solve using a novel way to search range trees. Our other approach is to use dynamic data structures directly, taking advantage of a new observation that the total number of combinatorial changes to a planar convex hull is near linear for any FIFO update sequence, in which deletions occur in the same order as insertions. We also apply these approaches to obtain the first O(n polylog n) algorithms for the time-windowed 3D diameter decision and 2D orthogonal segment intersection detection problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".