Evacuating Robots from a Disk Using Face-to-Face Communication
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assume that two robots are located at the centre of a unit disk. Their goal is to evacuate from the disk through an exit at an unknown location on the boundary of the disk. At any time the robots can move anywhere they choose on the disk, independently of each other, with maximum speed $1$. The robots can cooperate by exchanging information whenever they meet. We study algorithms for the two robots to minimize the evacuation time: the time when both robots reach the exit. In [CGGKMP14] the authors gave an algorithm defining trajectories for the two robots yielding evacuation time at most $5.740$ and also proved that any algorithm has evacuation time at least $3+ \frac{\pi}{4} + \sqrt{2} \approx 5.199$. We improve both the upper and lower bound on the evacuation time of a unit disk. Namely, we present a new non-trivial algorithm whose evacuation time is at most $5.628$ and show that any algorithm has evacuation time at least $3+ \frac{\pi}{6} + \sqrt{3} \approx 5.255$. To achieve the upper bound, we designed an algorithm which proposes a forced meeting between the two robots, even if the exit has not been found by either of them. We also show that such a strategy is provably optimal for a related problem of searching for an exit placed at the vertices of a regular hexagon. Comment: 22 pages, 8 figures. An extended abstract of this work was accepted for publication in the LNCS proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Algorithms and Complexity (CIAC15)
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it