Brief Announcement: Universal Dancing by Luminous Robots Under Sequential Schedulers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dancing problem requires a swarm of n autonomous mobile robots to form a sequence of patterns, aka perform a choreography.Existing work has proven that some crucial restrictions on choreographies and initial configurations (e.g., on repetitions of patterns, periodicity, symmetries, contractions/expansions) must hold so that the Dancing problem can be solved under certain robot models.Here, we prove that these necessary constraints can be dropped by considering the LUMI model (i.e., where robots are endowed with a light whose color can be chosen from a constant-size palette) under the quite unexplored sequential scheduler.We formalize the class of Universal Dancing problems which require a swarm of n robots starting from any initial configuration to perform a (periodic or finite) sequence of arbitrary patterns, only provided that each pattern consists of n vertices (including multiplicities).However, we prove that, to be solvable under LUMI, the length of the feasible choreographies is bounded by the compositions of n into the number of colors available to the robots.We provide an algorithm solving the Universal Dancing problem by exploiting the peculiar capability of sequential robots to implement a distributed counter mechanism.Even assuming non-rigid movements, our algorithm ensures spatial homogeneity of the performed choreography.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".