MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409710701 · doi:10.37256/cm.6220256119

A More Accurate Metaheuristic Approach for the Art Gallery Problem

2025· article· en· W4409710701 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Mathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesAlzahra University
KeywordsMetaheuristicMathematicsParallel metaheuristicMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Art Gallery problem is one of the most important non-deterministic polynomial (NP)-hard optimization problems in computational geometry, with many applications in localization, robotics, telecommunications, etc. The goal of the Art Gallery problem is to find the minimum number of guards needed within a simple polygon to observe and protect its entirety. There are several approaches to solving the Art Gallery problem, and this paper presents an efficient method based on the Particle Filter algorithm, which solves the most fundamental case of the problem in a nearly optimal manner. Experimental results on random polygons generated show that the new method is more accurate, providing solutions that are, on average, 9.94% better than Bottino's results for the same sample set. The approach was also applied to four groups of random orthogonal polygons and compared with the optimal solution. Results show that the new method finds the optimal solution with a 0.16% error. Furthermore, this paper discusses the impact of resampling and particle numbers in minimizing runtime.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.231 · 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