Persistent monitoring in discrete environments: Minimizing the maximum weighted latency between observations
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
In this paper, we consider the problem of planning a path for a robot to monitor a known set of features of interest in an environment. We represent the environment as a graph with vertex weights and edge lengths. The vertices represent regions of interest, edge lengths give travel times between regions and the vertex weights give the importance of each region. As the robot repeatedly performs a closed walk on the graph, we define the weighted latency of a vertex to be the maximum time between visits to that vertex, weighted by the importance (vertex weight) of that vertex. Our goal is to find a closed walk that minimizes the maximum weighted latency of any vertex. We show that there does not exist a polynomial time algorithm for the problem. We then provide two approximation algorithms; an O(log n)-approximation algorithm and an O(log ρ G )-approximation algorithm, where ρ G is the ratio between the maximum and minimum vertex weights. We provide simulation results which demonstrate that our algorithms can be applied to problems consisting of thousands of vertices and a case study for patrolling a city for crime.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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