Touring a sequence of polygons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a sequence of k polygons in the plane, a start point s, and a target point, t, we seek a shortest path that starts at s, visits in order each of the polygons, and ends at t. If the polygons are disjoint and convex, we give an algorithm running in time O(kn log (n/k)), where n is the total number of vertices specifying the polygons. We also extend our results to a case in which the convex polygons are arbitrarily intersecting and the subpath between any two consecutive polygons is constrained to lie within a simply connected region; the algorithm uses O(nk2 log n) time. Our methods are simple and allow shortest path queries from s to a query point t to be answered in time O(k log n + m), where m is the combinatorial path length. We show that for nonconvex polygons this "touring polygons" problem is NP-hard.The touring polygons problem is a strict generalization of some classic problems in computational geometry, including the safari problem, the zoo-keeper problem, and the watchman route problem in a simple polygon. Our new results give an order of magnitude improvement in the running times of the safari problem and the watchman route problem: We solve the safari problem in O(n2 log n) time and the watchman route problem (through a fixed point s) in time O(n3 log n), compared with the previous time bounds of O(n3) and O(n4), respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".