The Canadian Traveller Problem on unit-weighted and arbitrarily weighted outerplanar graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the PSPACE-complete $k$-Canadian Traveller Problem, where a weighted graph $G=(V,E,\omega)$ with a source $s\in V$ and a target $t\in V$ are given. This problem also has a hidden input $E_* \subsetneq E$ of cardinality at most $k$ representing blocked edges. The objective is to travel from $s$ to $t$ with the minimum distance. At the beginning of the walk, the blockages $E_*$ are unknown: the traveller discovers that an edge is blocked when visiting one of its endpoints. Online algorithms, also called strategies, have been proposed for this problem and assessed with the competitive ratio, i.e. the ratio between the distance actually traversed by the traveller divided by the distance we would have traversed knowing the blockages in advance. Even though the optimal competitive ratio is $2k+1$ even on unit-weighted planar graphs of treewidth 2, we design a polynomial-time strategy achieving competitive ratio $9$ on unit-weighted outerplanar graphs. This value $9$ also stands as a lower bound for this family of graphs as we prove that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, no strategy can achieve a competitive ratio $9-\varepsilon$. Finally, we show that it is not possible to achieve a constant competitive ratio (independent of $G$ and $k$) on weighted outerplanar graphs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".