MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301413600 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v5i1a1

Unions of onions: preprocessing imprecise points for fast onion decomposition

2014· preprint· en· W4301413600 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjoint setsDecompositionCombinatoricsMathematicsMatching (statistics)Disjoint union (topology)Binary logarithmTime complexityRegular polygonSet (abstract data type)Point (geometry)Data structureDiscrete mathematicsUnit diskComputer scienceChemistryStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a set of $n$ pairwise disjoint unit disks in the plane. We describe how to build a data structure for $\mathcal{D}$ so that for any point set $P$ containing exactly one point from each disk, we can quickly find the onion decomposition (convex layers) of $P$. Our data structure can be built in $O(n \log n)$ time and has linear size. Given $P$, we can find its onion decomposition in $O(n \log k)$ time, where $k$ is the number of layers. We also provide a matching lower bound. Our solution is based on a recursive space decomposition, combined with a fast algorithm to compute the union of two disjoint onion

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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