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
Bouncing robots are mobile agents with limited sensing capabilities adjusting their movements upon collisions either with other robots or obstacles in the environment. They behave like elastic particles sliding on a cycle or a segment. When two of them collide, they instantaneously update their velocities according to the laws of classical mechanics for elastic collisions. They have no control on their movements which are determined only by their masses, velocities, and upcoming sequence of collisions. We suppose that a robot arriving for the second time to its initial position dies instantaneously. We study the survivability of collections of swarms of bouncing robots. More exactly, we are looking for subsets of swarms such that after some initial bounces which may result in some robots dying, the surviving subset of the swarm continues its bouncing movement, with no robot reaching its initial position. For the case of robots of equal masses and speeds we prove that all robots bouncing in the segment must always die while there are configurations of robots on the cycle with surviving subsets. We show the smallest such configuration containing four robots with two survivors. We show that any collection of less than four robots must always die. On the other hand, we show that [Formula: see text] robots always die where [Formula: see text] (and [Formula: see text]) is the number of robots starting their movements in clockwise (respectively, counterclockwise) direction in swarm [Formula: see text]. When robots bouncing on a cycle or a segment have arbitrary masses we show that at least one robot must always die. Further, we show that in either environment it is possible to construct swarms with [Formula: see text] survivors. We prove, however, that the survivors in the segment must remain static indefinitely while in the case of the cycle it is possible to have surviving collections with strictly positive kinetic energy.
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 | 0.000 | 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