Time Versus Cost Tradeoffs for Deterministic Rendezvous in Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two mobile agents, starting from different nodes of a network at possibly different times, have to meet at the same node. This problem is known as $\mathit{rendezvous}$. Agents move in synchronous rounds. Each agent has a distinct integer label from the set $\{1,\dots,L\}$. Two main efficiency measures of rendezvous are its $\mathit{time}$ (the number of rounds until the meeting) and its $\mathit{cost}$ (the total number of edge traversals). We investigate tradeoffs between these two measures. A natural benchmark for both time and cost of rendezvous in a network is the number of edge traversals needed for visiting all nodes of the network, called the exploration time. Hence we express the time and cost of rendezvous as functions of an upper bound $E$ on the time of exploration (where $E$ and a corresponding exploration procedure are known to both agents) and of the size $L$ of the label space. We present two natural rendezvous algorithms. Algorithm $\mathtt{Cheap}$ has cost $O(E)$ (and, in fact, a version of this algorithm for the model where the agents start simultaneously has cost exactly $E$) and time $O(EL)$. Algorithm $\mathtt{Fast}$ has both time and cost $O(E\log L)$. Our main contributions are lower bounds showing that, perhaps surprisingly, these two algorithms capture the tradeoffs between time and cost of rendezvous almost tightly. We show that any deterministic rendezvous algorithm of cost asymptotically $E$ (i.e., of cost $E+o(E)$) must have time $Ω(EL)$. On the other hand, we show that any deterministic rendezvous algorithm with time complexity $O(E\log L)$ must have cost $Ω(E\log L)$.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".