Computing Conforming Partitions with Low Stabbing Number for Rectilinear Polygons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conforming partition of a rectilinear n-gon P (possibly with holes) is a partition of P into rectangles without using Steiner points (i.e., all corners of all rectangles must lie on the boundary of P). The stabbing number of such a partition is the maximum number of rectangles intersected by an axis-aligned segment lying in the interior of P. In this paper, we examine the problem of computing conforming partitions with low stabbing number. We show that computing a conforming partition with stabbing number at most 4 is NP-hard, which strengthens a previously known hardness result [Durocher \& Mehrabi, Theor. Comput. Sci. 689: 157-168 (2017)] and eliminates the possibility for fixed-parameter-tractable algorithms parameterized by the stabbing number unless P = NP. In contrast, we give (i) an O(n log n)-time algorithm to decide whether a conforming partition with stabbing number 2 exists, (ii) a fixed-parameter-tractable algorithm parameterized by both the stabbing number and treewidth of the pixel graph of the polygon, and (iii) a fixed-parameter-tractable algorithm parameterized by the stabbing number for polygons without holes in general position.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".