Optimal Average Case Strategy for Looking around a Corner
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
A robot is free to move in a non-convex polygonal region, starting against an edge on the boundary. Ahead of the robot at one unit of distance is a corner, i.e. a reflex vertex (see Figure 1). The angle θ is unknown to the robot. The robot’s task is to look at the region around the corner, which it initially cannot see. We let ϕ = π − θ .I fϕ ≥ π/2, the robot is best off moving straight to the vertex. However, if ϕ is close to 0, much shorter paths exist, making this solution suboptimal. Therefore we ask: What is the best path for the robot to follow? In this paper, we look into the problem of finding an optimal average-case strategy under a homogeneous probability distribution for ϕ. The average-case performance of a strategy is measured by its average cost, defined as the expected value of the strategy’s competitive function. Given a value for ϕ, the competitive function of a strategy gives the ratio of the distance the robot travels to look around the corner (as prescribed by the strategy) to the shortest distance it must travel to do so. We give strong evidence that an optimal average-case strategy exists and achieves an average cost of ∼ 1.189.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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