MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909151540 · doi:10.3233/fi-2019-1757

Two-center of the Convex Hull of a Point Set: Dynamic Model, and Restricted Streaming Model

2019· article· en· W2909151540 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjib Sadhu, Sasanka Roy, Soumen Nandi, Anil Maheshwari, Subhas C. Nandy

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvex hullCenter (category theory)Set (abstract data type)Point (geometry)Regular polygonMathematicsHullComputer scienceMathematical optimizationGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the dynamic version of covering the convex hull of a point set P in ℝ 2 by two congruent disks of minimum size. Here, the points can be added or deleted in the set P, and the objective is to maintain a data structure that, at any instant of time, can efficiently report two disks of minimum size whose union completely covers the boundary of the convex hull of the point set P. We show that maintaining a linear size data structure, we can report a radius r satisfying r ≤ 2 r opt at any query time, where r opt is the optimum solution at that instant of time. For each insertion or deletion of a point in P, the update time of our data structure is O(log n). Our algorithm can be tailored to work in the restricted streaming model where only insertions are allowed, using constant work-space. The problem studied in this paper has novelty in two ways: (i) it computes the covering of the convex hull of a point set P, which has lot of surveillance related applications, but not studied in the literature, and (ii) it also considers the dynamic version of the problem. In the dynamic setup, the extent measure problems are studied very little, and in particular, the k-center problem is not at all studied for any k ≥ 2.

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)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207