TIME OPTIMAL ALGORITHMS FOR BLACK HOLE SEARCH IN RINGS
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 a network environment supporting mobile entities (called robots or agents), a black hole is a harmful site that destroys any incoming entity without leaving any visible trace. The black-hole search problit is the task of a team of k > 1 mobile entities, starting from the same safe location and executing the same algorithm, to determine within finite time the location of the black hole. In this paper, we consider the black hole search problit in asynchronous ring networks of n nodes, and focus on time complexity. It is known that any algorithm for black-hole search in a ring requires at least 2(n - 2) time in the worst case. The best known algorithm achieves this bound with a team of n - 1 agents with an average time cost of 2(n - 2), equal to the worst case. In this paper, we first show how the same number of agents using 2 extra time units in the worst case, can solve the problit in only [Formula: see text] time on the average. We then prove that the optimal average case complexity of [Formula: see text] can be achieved without increasing the worst case using 2(n - 1) agents. Finally, we design an algorithm that achieves asymptotically optimal both worst and average case time complexities itploying an optimal team of k = 2 agents, thus improving on the earlier results that required O(n) agents.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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