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
Two mobile agents, starting from different nodes of an $n$-node network at possibly different times, have to meet at the same node. This problem is known as rendezvous. Agents move in synchronous rounds using a deterministic algorithm. In each round, an agent decides to either remain idle or to move to one of the adjacent nodes. Each agent has a distinct integer label from the set $\{1,...,L\}$, which it can use in the execution of the algorithm, but it does not know the label of the other agent. If $D$ is the distance between the initial positions of the agents, then $Ω(D)$ is an obvious lower bound on the time of rendezvous. However, if each agent has no initial knowledge other than its label, time $O(D)$ is usually impossible to achieve. We study the minimum amount of information that has to be available a priori to the agents to achieve rendezvous in optimal time $Θ(D)$. This information is provided to the agents at the start by an oracle knowing the entire instance of the problem, i.e., the network, the starting positions of the agents, their wake-up rounds, and both of their labels. The oracle helps the agents by providing them with the same binary string called advice, which can be used by the agents during their navigation. The length of this string is called the size of advice. Our goal is to find the smallest size of advice which enables the agents to meet in time $Θ(D)$. We show that this optimal size of advice is $Θ(D\log(n/D)+\log\log L)$. The upper bound is proved by constructing an advice string of this size, and providing a natural rendezvous algorithm using this advice that works in time $Θ(D)$ for all networks. The matching lower bound, which is the main contribution of this paper, is proved by exhibiting classes of networks for which it is impossible to achieve rendezvous in time $Θ(D)$ with smaller advice.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it