MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7037050165

Deterministic byzantine-resilient robot gathering

2020· dissertation· en· W7037050165 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotNode (physics)Mobile robotTask (project management)GraphTime complexityField (mathematics)Identifier
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gathering is a fundamental problem in the field of mobile robot algorithms. The goal is to gather the robots at a single point, which can be useful for sharing information or coordinating future actions. In this thesis, we consider models in which m robots are placed at nodes in a graph of size n, and the goal is to gather them at a single node of the graph. Here, each robot has an identifier (ID) and runs its own deterministic algorithm, i.e., there is no centralized coordinator. We consider a particularly challenging scenario: there are f maliciously faulty robots in the team that can behave arbitrarily, and even have the ability to change their IDs to any value at any time. There is no way to distinguish these robots from non-faulty robots, other than perhaps observing strange or unexpected behaviour. In this thesis, we seek to design a deterministic algorithm that is run by each robot to eventually have all the non-faulty robots located at the same node in the same round. It is known that no algorithm can solve this task unless there at least f+1 non-faulty robots in the team. In this thesis, we design an algorithm that runs in polynomial time with respect to n and m that matches this bound, i.e., it works in a team that has exactly f+1 non-faulty robots. In our model, we have equipped the robots with sensors that enable each robot to see the subgraph (including robots) within some distance H of its current node. We also prove that the gathering task is solvable if this visibility range H is at least the radius of the graph, and not solvable if H is any fixed constant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→