MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157433688 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.8729

Makespan Trade-offs for Visiting Triangle Edges

2025· article· en· W3157433688 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Konstantinos Georgiou, Somnath Kundu, Paweł Prałat

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207