Triangle evacuation of 2 agents in the wireless model & the power of choosing a starting point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The input to the Triangle Evacuation problem is a triangle ABC . Given a starting point S on the perimeter of the triangle, a feasible solution to the problem consists of two unit-speed trajectories of mobile agents that eventually visit every point on the perimeter of ABC . The cost of a feasible solution (evacuation cost) is defined as the supremum over all points T of the time it takes that T is visited for the first time by an agent plus the distance of T to the other agent at that time. Similar evacuation type problems are well studied in the literature covering the unit circle, the ℓ p unit circle for p ≥ 1 , the square, and the equilateral triangle. We extend this line of research to arbitrary non-obtuse triangles. Motivated by the lack of symmetry of our search domain, we introduce 4 different algorithmic problems arising by letting the starting edge and/or the starting point S on that edge to be chosen either by the algorithm or the adversary. To that end, we provide a tight analysis for the algorithm that has been proved to be optimal for the previously studied search domains, as well as we provide lower bounds for each of the problems. Both our upper and lower bounds match and extend naturally the previously known results that were established only for equilateral triangles.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".