Computational Geometry for Non-Geometers: Recent Developments on Some Classical Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this talk, I will discuss some "textbook exercises" in low-dimensional computational geometry that any algorithmist with no computational-geometry background can attempt to solve: Given a set of red and blue points, is there a red point dominating (bigger along all coordinates than) a blue point? Given a set of horizontal and vertical line segments, is there an intersection? Given a set of axis-parallel boxes, is there a box strictly contained in another box? There are connections to non-geometric problems such as counting inversions and all-pairs shortest paths. Remarkably, certain versions of these problems are still open! I will describe the latest worst-case results in the standard word-RAM model, as well as the recent surprising discovery of "instance-optimal" algorithms in the traditional comparison model.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".