MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104289419 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v16i1a16

Dynamic unit-disk range reporting

2025· article· en· W7104289419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmortized analysisData structureSet (abstract data type)Range (aeronautics)Point (geometry)Range query (database)Constant (computer programming)Space (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a set $P$ of $n$ points in the plane and a value $r > 0$, the unit-disk range reporting problem is to construct a data structure so that given any query disk of radius $r$, all points of $P$ in the disk can be reported efficiently. We consider the dynamic version of the problem where point insertions and deletions of $P$ are allowed. The previous best method provides a data structure of $O(n \log n)$ space that supports $O(\log^{3 + \epsilon} n)$ amortized insertion time, $O(\log^{5 + \epsilon} n)$ amortized deletion time, and $O(\log^2 n / \log\log n + k)$ query time, where $\epsilon$ is an arbitrarily small positive constant and $k$ is the output size. In this paper, we improve the query time to $O(\log n + k)$ while keeping other complexities the same as before. A key ingredient of our approach is a shallow cutting algorithm for circular arcs, which may be interesting in its own right. A related problem that can also be solved by our techniques is the dynamic unit-disk range emptiness queries: Given a query unit disk, we wish to determine whether the disk contains a point of $P$. The best previous work can maintain $P$ in a data structure of $O(n)$ space that supports $O(\log^2 n)$ amortized insertion time, $O(\log^4 n)$ amortized deletion time, and $O(\log^2 n)$ query time. Our new data structure also uses $O(n)$ space but can support each update in $O(\log^{1 + \epsilon} n)$ amortized time and support each query in $O(\log n)$ time.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207