Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Contiguous Art Gallery and Related Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce the contiguous art gallery problem which is to guard the boundary of a simple polygon with a minimum number of guards such that each guard covers exactly one contiguous portion of the boundary. Art gallery problems are often NP-hard. In particular, it is NP-hard to minimize the number of guards to see the boundary of a simple polygon, without the contiguity constraint. This paper is a merge of three concurrent works [Ahmad Biniaz et al., 2024; Magnus Christian Ring Merrild et al., 2024; Eliot W. Robson et al., 2024] each showing that (surprisingly) the contiguous art gallery problem is solvable in polynomial time. The common idea of all three approaches is developing a greedy function that maps a point on the boundary to the furthest point on the boundary so that the contiguous interval along the boundary between them could be guarded by one guard. Repeatedly applying this function immediately leads to an OPT+1 approximation. By studying this greedy algorithm, we present three different approaches that achieve an optimal solution. The first and second approach apply this greedy algorithm from different points on the boundary that could be found in advance or on the fly while traversing along the boundary (respectively). The third approach represents this function as a piecewise linear rational function, which can be reduced to an abstract arc cover problem involving infinite families of arcs. We identify other problems that can be represented by similar functions, and solve them via the third approach. From the combinatorial point of view, we show that any n-vertex polygon can be guarded by at most ⌊(n-2)/2⌋ guards. This bound is tight because there are polygons that require this many guards.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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.
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".