MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285075493 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07441

Maximum rectilinear convex subsets

2019· preprint· en· W4285075493 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hernàn González-Aguilar, David Orden, Pablo Pérez-Lantero, David Rappaport, Carlos Seara, Javier Tejel, Jorge Urrutia

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónDepartamento de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Universidad de Santiago de ChileComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónGobierno de AragónUniversidad de Santiago de Chile
KeywordsConvex hullCombinatoricsMathematicsOrthogonal convex hullRegular polygonConvex setBoundary (topology)Convex polytopeHullConvex bodyPoint (geometry)Plane (geometry)Mixed volumeConvex combinationInterior point methodGeometryMathematical analysisAlgorithmConvex optimizationMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $P$ be a set of $n$ points in the plane. We consider a variation of the classical Erdős-Szekeres problem, presenting efficient algorithms with $O(n^3)$ running time and $O(n^2)$ space complexity that compute: (1) A subset $S$ of $P$ such that the boundary of the rectilinear convex hull of $S$ has the maximum number of points from $P$, (2) a subset $S$ of $P$ such that the boundary of the rectilinear convex hull of $S$ has the maximum number of points from $P$ and its interior contains no element of $P$, (3) a subset $S$ of $P$ such that the rectilinear convex hull of $S$ has maximum area and its interior contains no element of $P$, and (4) when each point of $P$ is assigned a weight, positive or negative, a subset $S$ of $P$ that maximizes the total weight of the points in the rectilinear convex hull of $S$. We also revisit the problems of computing a maximum-area orthoconvex polygon and computing a maximum-area staircase polygon, amidst a point set in a rectangular domain. We obtain new and simpler algorithms to solve both problems with the same complexity as in the state of the art.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory Research→French-language works237,207→