MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175012788

Massively winning configurations in the convex grabbing game on the plane

2021· article· en· W3175012788 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Conference on Computational Geometry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvex hullCombinatoricsRegular polygonConvex bodyCutting-plane methodMathematicsPoint (geometry)Set (abstract data type)HullPlane (geometry)Convex combinationDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationConvex optimizationGeometryEngineeringInteger programming
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The convex grabbing game is a game where two players, Alice and Bob, alternate taking extremal points from the convex hull of a point set on the plane. Rational weights are given to the points. The goal of each player is to maximize the total weight over all points that they obtain. We restrict the setting to the case of binary weights. We show a construction of an arbitrarily large odd-sized point set that allows Bob to obtain almost 3/4 of the total weight. This construction answers a question asked by Matsumoto, Nakamigawa, and Sakuma in [Graphs and Combinatorics, 36/1 (2020)]. We also present an arbitrarily large even-sized point set where Bob can obtain the entirety of the total weight. Finally, we discuss conjectures about optimum moves in the convex grabbing game for both players in general.

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.230 · 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