Makespan Trade-offs for Visiting Triangle Edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a primitive vehicle routing-type problem in which a fleet of $n$unit speed robots start from a point within a non-obtuse triangle $\Delta$, where $n \in \{1,2,3\}$. The goal is to design robots' trajectories so as to visit all edges of the triangle with the smallest visitation time makespan. We begin our study by introducing a framework for subdividing $\Delta$into regions with respect to the type of optimal trajectory that each point $P$ admits, pertaining to the order that edges are visited and to how the cost of the minimum makespan $R_n(P)$ is determined, for $n\in \{1,2,3\}$. These subdivisions are the starting points for our main result, which is to study makespan trade-offs with respect to the size of the fleet. In particular, we define $ R_{n,m} (\Delta)= \max_{P \in \Delta} R_n(P)/R_m(P)$, and we prove that, over all non-obtuse triangles $\Delta$: (i) $R_{1,3}(\Delta)$ ranges from $\sqrt{10}$ to $4$, (ii) $R_{2,3}(\Delta)$ ranges from $\sqrt{2}$ to $2$, and (iii) $R_{1,2}(\Delta)$ ranges from $5/2$ to $3$. In every case, we pinpoint the starting points within every triangle $\Delta$ that maximize $R_{n,m} (\Delta)$, as well as we identify the triangles that determine all $\inf_\Delta R_{n,m}(\Delta)$ and $\sup_\Delta R_{n,m}(\Delta)$ over the set of non-obtuse triangles. Comment: 47 pages, 27 figures
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".