Dispersion of mobile robots on directed anonymous graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given any arbitrary initial configuration of k ≤ n robots positioned on the nodes of an n -node anonymous graph, the problem of dispersion is to autonomously reposition the robots such that each node will contain at most one robot. This problem gained significant interest due to its resemblance with several fundamental problems such as exploration, scattering, load balancing, relocation of electric cars to charging stations, etc. The objective is to solve dispersion simultaneously minimizing (or providing trade-off between) time and memory requirement at each robot. The literature mainly dealt with dispersion on undirected anonymous graphs. In this paper, we initiate the study of dispersion on directed anonymous graphs. We first show that it may not always be possible to solve dispersion when the directed graph is not strongly connected. We then establish some lower bounds on both time and memory requirement at each robot for solving dispersion on a strongly connected directed graph. Finally, we provide three deterministic algorithms solving dispersion on any strongly connected directed graph. Let D be the graph diameter, Δ o u t be its maximum out-degree, and d be the deficiency (the minimum number of edges needed to add to the graph to make it Eulerian). The first algorithm solves dispersion in O ( d ⋅ k 2 ) time with O ( k ⋅ log ( k + Δ o u t ) ) bits at each robot. The second algorithm solves dispersion in O ( k 2 ⋅ Δ o u t ) time with O ( log ( k + Δ o u t ) ) bits at each robot. The third algorithm solves dispersion in O ( k ⋅ D ) time with O ( k ⋅ log ( k + Δ o u t ) ) bits at each robot, provided that robots in the 1-hop neighborhood can communicate. All three algorithms extend to handle crash faults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".