How to meet asynchronously (almost) everywhere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two mobile agents (robots) with distinct labels have to meet in an arbitrary, possibly infinite, unknown connected graph or in an unknown connected terrain in the plane. Agents are modeled as points, and the route of each of them only depends on its label and on the unknown environment. The actual walk of each agent also depends on an asynchronous adversary that may arbitrarily vary the speed of the agent, stop it, or even move it back and forth, as long as the walk of the agent is continuous, does not leave its route and covers all of it. Meeting in a graph means that both agents must be at the same time in some node or in some point inside an edge of the graph, while meeting in a terrain means that both agents must be at the same time in some point of the terrain. Does there exist a deterministic algorithm that allows any two agents to meet in any unknown environment in spite of this very powerful adversary? We give deterministic rendezvous algorithms for agents starting at arbitrary nodes of any anonymous connected graph (finite or infinite) and for agents starting at any interior points with rational coordinates in any closed region of the plane with path-connected interior. In the geometric scenario agents may have different compasses and different units of length. While our algorithms work in a very general setting -- agents can, indeed, meet almost everywhere -- we show that none of these few limitations imposed on the environment can be removed. On the other hand, our algorithm also guarantees the following approximate rendezvous for agents starting at arbitrary interior points of a terrain as previously stated agents will eventually get to within an arbitrarily small positive distance from each other.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".