MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910493941 · doi:10.4230/lipics.disc.2022.11

How to Meet at a Node of Any Connected Graph

2022· article· en· W6910493941 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendezvousStrongly connected componentGraphNode (physics)Set (abstract data type)Task (project management)Finite setDirected graphInteger (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two mobile agents have to meet at the same node of a connected graph with unlabeled nodes. This intensely researched task is known as rendezvous. The adversary assigns the agents different starting nodes in the graph and different integer labels from a set {1,… ,L}. Time is slotted in synchronous rounds. The adversary wakes up the agents in possibly different rounds. After wakeup, the agents move as follows. In each round, an agent can either stay idle or move to an adjacent node. Each agent knows its label but not the label of the other agent, and agents have no a priori information about the graph. They do not know L. They execute the same deterministic algorithm whose parameter is the agent’s label. The time of a rendezvous algorithm is the worst-case number of rounds since the wakeup of the earlier agent till the meeting. In most of the results concerning rendezvous in graphs, the graph is finite and rendezvous relies on the exploration of the entire graph. Thus the time of rendezvous depends on the size of the graph. This approach is inefficient for very large graphs, and cannot be used for infinite graphs. For such graphs it is natural to seek rendezvous algorithms whose time depends on the initial distance D between the agents. In this paper we adopt this approach and consider rendezvous in arbitrary connected graphs with nodes of finite degrees, and whose set of nodes is finite or countably infinite. Our main result is the first deterministic rendezvous algorithm working under this general scenario. For any node v and any positive integer r, let P(v,r) be the number of paths of length r in the graph, starting at node v. For any instance of the rendezvous problem where agents start at nodes v₁ and v₂ at distance D, let P(v₁,v₂,D) = max(P(v₁,D),P(v₂,D)). It is well known that, for example in trees, Ω(D+P(v₁,v₂,D) +log L) is a lower bound on rendezvous time for such an instance. The time of our algorithm, working for arbitrary connected graphs of finite degrees, is polynomial in this lower bound. As an application we solve the problem of approach for synchronous agents in terrains in the plane, in time polynomial in log L and in the initial distance between the agents in the terrain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207