Energy Consumption of Group Search on a Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consider two robots that start at the origin of the infinite line in search of an exit at an unknown location on the line. The robots can only communicate if they arrive at the same location at exactly the same time, i.e. they use the so-called face-to-face communication model. The group search time is defined as the worst-case time as a function of $d$, the distance of the exit from the origin, when both robots can reach the exit. It has long been known that for a single robot traveling at unit speed, the search time is at least $9d-o(d)$. It was shown recently that $k\geq2$ robots traveling at unit speed also require at least $9d$ group search time. We investigate energy-time trade-offs in group search by two robots, where the energy loss experienced by a robot traveling a distance $x$ at constant speed $s$ is given by $s^2 x$. Specifically, we consider the problem of minimizing the total energy used by the robots, under the constraints that the search time is at most a multiple $c$ of the distance $d$ and the speed of the robots is bounded by $b$. Motivation for this study is that for the case when robots must complete the search in $9d$ time with maximum speed one, a single robot requires at least $9d$ energy, while for two robots, all previously proposed algorithms consume at least $28d/3$ energy. When the robots have bounded memory, we generalize existing algorithms to obtain a family of optimal (and in some cases nearly optimal) algorithms parametrized by pairs of $b,c$ values that can solve the problem for the entire spectrum of these pairs for which the problem is solvable. We also propose a novel search algorithm, with unbounded memory, that simultaneously achieves search time $9d$ and consumes energy $8.42588d$. Our result shows that two robots can search on the line in optimal time $9d$ while consuming less total energy than a single robot within the same search time.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".