Minimizing the Size of the Uncertainty Regions for Centers of Moving Entities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the problems of computing the 1-center, centroid, and 1-median of objects moving with bounded speed in Euclidean space. We can acquire the exact location of only a constant number of objects (usually one) per unit time, but for every other object, its set of potential locations, called the object's uncertainty region, grows subject only to the speed limit. As a result, the center of the objects may be at several possible locations, called the center's uncertainty region. For each of these center problems, we design query strategies to minimize the size of the center's uncertainty region and compare its performance to an optimal query strategy that knows the trajectories of the objects, but must still query to reduce their uncertainty. For the static case of the 1-center problem in R^1, we show an algorithm that queries four objects per unit time and is 1-competitive against the optimal algorithm with one query per unit time. For the general case of the 1-center problem in R^1, the centroid problem in R^d, and the 1-median problem in R^1, we prove that the Round-robin scheduling algorithm is the best possible competitive algorithm. For the center of mass problem in R^d, we provide an O(log n)-competitive algorithm. In addition, for the general case of the 1-center problem in R^d (d >= 2), we argue that no algorithm can guarantee a bounded competitive ratio against the optimal algorithm.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".