MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989670241

The Canadian Traveller Problem on unit-weighted and arbitrarily weighted outerplanar graphs

2025· preprint· en· W6989670241 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCompetitive analysisCardinality (data modeling)TreewidthGraphUpper and lower boundsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPathwidthOuterplanar graph
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207