On Rich Lenses in Planar Arrangements of Circles and Related Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that the maximum number of pairwise non-overlapping k-rich lenses (lenses formed by at least k circles) in an arrangement of n circles in the plane is O(n^{3/2}log(n / k^3) k^{-5/2} + n/k), and the sum of the degrees of the lenses of such a family (where the degree of a lens is the number of circles that form it) is O(n^{3/2}log(n/k^3) k^{-3/2} + n). Two independent proofs of these bounds are given, each interesting in its own right (so we believe). We then show that these bounds lead to the known bound of Agarwal et al. (JACM 2004) and Marcus and Tardos (JCTA 2006) on the number of point-circle incidences in the plane. Extensions to families of more general algebraic curves and some other related problems are also considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".