Search-and-Fetch with 2 Robots on a Disk: Wireless and Face-to-Face Communication Models
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
We initiate the study of a new problem on searching and fetching in a distributed environment concerning treasure-evacuation from a unit disk. A treasure and an exit are located at unknown positions on the perimeter of a disk and at known arc distance. A team of two robots start from the center of the disk, and their goal is to fetch the treasure to the exit. At any time the robots can move anywhere they choose on the disk, independently of each other, with the same speed. A robot detects an interesting point (treasure or exit) only if it passes over the exact location of that point. We are interested in designing distributed algorithms that minimize the worst-case treasure-evacuation time, i.e. the time it takes for the treasure to be discovered and brought (fetched) to the exit by any of the robots. The communication protocol between the robots is either wireless, where information is shared at any time, or face-to-face (i.e. non-wireless), where information can be shared only if the robots meet. For both models we obtain upper bounds for fetching the treasure to the exit. Our main technical contribution pertains to the face-to-face model. More specifically, we demonstrate how robots can exchange information without meeting, effectively achieving a highly efficient treasure-evacuation protocol which is minimally affected by the lack of distant communication. Finally, we complement our positive results above by providing a lower bound in the face-to-face model. Comment: 26 Pages, 6 Figures. This is the full version of the paper with the same title which will appear in the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems (ICORES), February 23-25, 2017, Porto, Portugal
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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