Bibliographic record
Abstract
A terrain is an x-monotone polygonal curve, that is, every vertical line crosses the curve at most once. In the Terrain Guarding problem, a special case of the famous art gallery problem, one has to place at most $k$ guards on the vertices of a $n$-vertex terrain, in order to fully see it. In 2010, King and Krohn showed that Terrain Guarding is NP-hard [SODA '10, SIAM J. Comput. '11] thereby solving a long-standing open question. They observe that their proof does not settle the complexity of Orthogonal Terrain Guarding where the terrain only consists of horizontal or vertical segments; those terrains are called rectilinear or orthogonal. Recently, Ashok et al. [SoCG'17] presented an FPT algorithm running in time $k^{O(k)}n^{O(1)}$ for Dominating Set in the visibility graphs of rectilinear terrains without 180-degree vertices. They ask if Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is in P or NP-hard. In the same paper, they give a subexponential-time algorithm running in $n^{O(\sqrt n)}$ (actually even $n^{O(\sqrt k)}$) for the general Terrain Guarding and notice that the hardness proof of King and Krohn only disproves a running time $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ under the ETH. Hence, there is a significant gap between their $2^{O(n^{1/2} \log n)}$-algorithm and the no $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ ETH-hardness implied by King and Krohn's result. In this paper, we adapt the gadgets of King and Krohn to rectilinear terrains in order to prove that even Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete. Then, we show how to obtain an improved ETH lower bound of $2^{\Omega(n^{1/3})}$ by refining the quadratic reduction from Planar 3-SAT into a cubic reduction from 3-SAT. [In the conference version of this paper, we mistakenly claim a tighter lower bound.] This works for both Orthogonal Terrain Guarding and Terrain Guarding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".