Separating Bounded and Unbounded Asynchrony for Autonomous Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider distributed computations, by identical autonomous mobile entities, that solve the Point Convergence problem: given an arbitrary initial configuration of entities, disposed in the Euclidean plane, move in such a way that, for all ε>0, a configuration is eventually reached and maintained in which the separation between all entities is at most ε. The problem has been previously studied in a variety of settings. Our study concerns the minimal assumptions under which entities, moving asynchronously with limited and unknown visibility range and subject to limited imprecision in measurements, can be guaranteed to converge in this way. We present an algorithm that solves Point Convergence, provided the degree of asynchrony is bounded by some arbitrarily large but fixed constant. This provides a strong positive answer to a decade old open question posed by Katreniak. We also prove that, in an otherwise comparable setting, Point Convergence is impossible with unbounded asynchrony. This serves to distinguish the power of bounded and unbounded asynchrony in the control of autonomous mobile entities, settling at the same time a long-standing question whether in the Euclidean plane synchronous entities are more powerful than asynchronous ones.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".