The Fagnano Triangle Patrolling Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate a combinatorial optimization problem that involves patrolling the edges of an acute triangle using a unit-speed agent. The goal is to minimize the maximum (1-gap) idle time of any edge, which is defined as the time gap between consecutive visits to that edge. This problem has roots in a centuries-old optimization problem posed by Fagnano in 1775, who sought to determine the inscribed triangle of an acute triangle with the minimum perimeter. It is well-known that the orthic triangle, giving rise to a periodic and cyclic trajectory obeying the laws of geometric optics, is the optimal solution to Fagnano's problem. Such trajectories are known as Fagnano orbits, or more generally as billiard trajectories. We demonstrate that the orthic triangle is also an optimal solution to the patrolling problem. Our main contributions pertain to new connections between billiard trajectories and optimal patrolling schedules in combinatorial optimization. In particular, as an artifact of our arguments, we introduce a novel 2-gap patrolling problem that seeks to minimize the visitation time of objects every three visits. We prove that there exist infinitely many well-structured billiard-type optimal trajectories for this problem, including the orthic trajectory, which has the special property of minimizing the visitation time gap between any two consecutively visited edges. Complementary to that, we also examine the cost of dynamic, sub-optimal trajectories to the 1-gap patrolling optimization problem. These trajectories result from a greedy algorithm and can be implemented by a computationally primitive mobile agent.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".