Almost-Optimal Deterministic Treasure Hunt in Unweighted Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mobile agent navigating along edges of a simple connected unweighted graph, either finite or countably infinite, has to find an inert target (treasure) hidden in one of the nodes. This task is known as treasure hunt. The agent has no a priori knowledge of the graph, of the location of the treasure, or of the initial distance to it. The cost of a treasure hunt algorithm is the worst-case number of edge traversals performed by the agent until finding the treasure. Awerbuch et al. [ 3 ] considered graph exploration and treasure hunt for finite graphs in a restricted model where the agent has a fuel tank that can be replenished only at the starting node s . The size of the tank is B = 2 (1+α) r , for some positive real constant α, where r , called the radius of the graph, is the maximum distance from s to any other node. The tank of size B allows the agent to make at most ⌊ B ⌋ edge traversals between two consecutive visits at node s . Let e(d) be the number of edges whose at least one endpoint is at distance less than d from s . Awerbuch et al. [ 3 ] conjectured that it is impossible to find a treasure hidden in a node at distance at most d at cost nearly linear in e(d) . We first design a deterministic treasure hunt algorithm working in the model without any restrictions on the moves of the agent at cost 𝒪(e(d) log d ) and then show how to modify this algorithm to work in the model from Awerbuch et al. [ 3 ] with the same complexity. Thus, we refute the preceding 20-year-old conjecture. We observe that no treasure hunt algorithm can beat cost Θ ( e(d) ) for all graphs, and thus our algorithms are also almost optimal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".