Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two mobile agents, starting at arbitrary, possibly different times from arbitrary nodes of an unknown network, have to meet at some node. Agents move in synchronous rounds: in each round an agent can either stay at the current node or move to one of its neighbors. Agents have different labels which are positive integers. Each agent knows its own label, but not the label of the other agent. In traditional formulations of the rendezvous problem, meeting is accomplished when the agents get to the same node in the same round. We want to achieve a more demanding goal, called rendezvous with detection: agents must become aware that the meeting is accomplished, simultaneously declare this and stop. This awareness depends on how an agent can communicate to the other agent its presence at a node. We use two variations of the arguably weakest model of communication, called the beeping model, introduced in [8]. In each round an agent can either listen or beep. In the local beeping model, an agent hears a beep in a round if it listens in this round and if the other agent is at the same node and beeps. In the global beeping model, an agent hears a loud beep in a round if it listens in this round and if the other agent is at the same node and beeps, and it hears a soft beep in a round if it listens in this round and if the other agent is at some other node and beeps. We first present a deterministic algorithm of rendezvous with detection working, even for the local beeping model, in an arbitrary unknown network in time polynomial in the size of the network and in the length of the smaller label (i.e., in the logarithm of this label). However, in this algorithm, agents spend a lot of energy: the number of moves that an agent must make, is proportional to the time of rendezvous. It is thus natural to ask if bounded-energy agents can always achieve rendezvous with detection as well...
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".