MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506792106 · doi:10.4230/lipics.socg.2016.28

Two Approaches to Building Time-Windowed Geometric Data Structures

2016· article· en· W2506792106 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy M. Chan, Simon Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAckermann functionMathematicsCombinatoricsIntersection (aeronautics)AlgorithmConvex hullTime complexitySequence (biology)Computational geometryBinary logarithmData structureDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceInverseRegular polygonGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.016
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207