Almost Universal Anonymous Rendezvous in the Plane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two mobile agents represented by points freely moving in the plane and starting at two distinct positions, have to meet. The meeting, called rendezvous, occurs when agents are at distance at most $r$ of each other and never move after this time, where $r$ is a positive real unknown to them, called the visibility radius. Agents are anonymous and execute the same deterministic algorithm. Each agent has a set of private attributes, some or all of which can differ between agents. These attributes are: the initial position of the agent, its system of coordinates (orientation and chirality), the rate of its clock, its speed when it moves, and the time of its wake-up. If all attributes (except the initial positions) are identical and agents start at distance larger than $r$ then they can never meet. However, differences between attributes make it sometimes possible to break the symmetry and accomplish rendezvous. Such instances of the rendezvous problem (formalized as lists of attributes), are called feasible. Our contribution is three-fold. We first give an exact characterization of feasible instances. Thus it is natural to ask whether there exists a single algorithm that guarantees rendezvous for all these instances. We give a strong negative answer to this question: we show two sets $S_1$ and $S_2$ of feasible instances such that none of them admits a single rendezvous algorithm valid for all instances of the set. On the other hand, we construct a single algorithm that guarantees rendezvous for all feasible instances outside of sets $S_1$ and $S_2$. We observe that these exception sets $S_1$ and $S_2$ are geometrically very small, compared to the set of all feasible instances: they are included in low-dimension subspaces of the latter. Thus, our rendezvous algorithm handling all feasible instances other than these small sets of exceptions can be justly called almost universal.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".