MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953917802 · doi:10.1137/1.9781611976014.8

A Short Proof of the Toughness of Delaunay Triangulations

2019· book-chapter· en· W2953917802 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Biniaz

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelaunay triangulationConstrained Delaunay triangulationCombinatoricsPitteway triangulationChew's second algorithmMathematicsVertex (graph theory)ConjectureBowyer–Watson algorithmGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a self-contained short proof of the seminal result of Dillencourt (SoCG 1987 and DCG 1990) that Delaunay triangulations, of planar point sets in general position, are 1-tough. An important implication of this result is that Delaunay triangulations have perfect matchings. Another implication of our result is a proof of the conjecture of Aichholzer et al. (2010) that at least n points are required to block any n-vertex Delaunay triangulation.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooksSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207