Tradeoffs Between Cost and Information for Rendezvous and Treasure Hunt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rendezvous, two agents traverse network edges in synchronous rounds and have to meet at some node. In treasure hunt, a single agent has to find a stationary target situated at an unknown node of the network. We study tradeoffs between the amount of information ($\mathit{advice}$) available $\mathit{a\ priori}$ to the agents and the cost (number of edge traversals) of rendezvous and treasure hunt. Our goal is to find the smallest size of advice which enables the agents to solve these tasks at some cost $C$ in a network with $e$ edges. This size turns out to depend on the initial distance $D$ and on the ratio $\frac{e}{C}$, which is the $\mathit{relative\ cost\ gain}$ due to advice. For arbitrary graphs, we give upper and lower bounds of $O(D\log(D\cdot \frac{e}{C}) +\log\log e)$ and $Ω(D\log \frac{e}{C})$, respectively, on the optimal size of advice. For the class of trees, we give nearly tight upper and lower bounds of $O(D\log \frac{e}{C} + \log\log e)$ and $Ω(D\log \frac{e}{C})$, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".