Optimal rendezvous on a line by location-aware robots in the presence of spies*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A set of mobile robots is placed at arbitrary points of an infinite line. The robots are equipped with GPS devices and they may communicate their positions on the line to a central authority. The collection contains an unknown subset of “spies”, i.e., byzantine robots, which are indistinguishable from the non-faulty ones. The set of the non-faulty robots needs to rendezvous in the shortest possible time in order to perform some task, while the byzantine robots may try to delay their rendezvous for as long as possible. The problem facing a central authority is to determine trajectories for all robots so as to minimize the time until all the non-faulty robots have met. The trajectories must be determined without knowledge of which robots are faulty. Our goal is to minimize the competitive ratio between the time required to achieve the first rendezvous of the non-faulty robots and the time required for such a rendezvous to occur under the assumption that the faulty robots are known at the start. In this paper, we give rendezvous algorithms with bounded competitive ratio, where the central authority is informed only of the set of initial robot positions, without knowing which ones or how many of them are faulty. In general, regardless of the number of faults [Formula: see text] it can be shown that there is an algorithm with bounded competitive ratio. Further, we are able to give a rendezvous algorithm with optimal competitive ratio provided that the number [Formula: see text] of faults is strictly less than [Formula: see text]. Note, however, that in general this algorithm does not give an estimate on the actual value of the competitive ratio. However, when an upper bound on the number of byzantine robots is known to the central authority, we can provide algorithms with constant competitive ratios and in some instances we are able to show that these algorithms are optimal. Moreover, in the cases where the number of faults is either [Formula: see text] or [Formula: see text] we are able to compute the competitive ratio of an optimal rendezvous algorithm, for a small number of robots.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".