MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116395976 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v16i2a11

A universal in-place reconfiguration algorithm for sliding cube-shaped robots in a quadratic number of moves

2025· article· en· W7116395976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zachary Abel, Hugo A. Akitaya, Scott Duke Kominers, Matias Korman, Frederick Stock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsControl reconfigurationModular designBounding overwatchRobotSelf-reconfiguring modular robotQuadratic equationDimension (graph theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the modular robot reconfiguration problem, we are given $n$ cube-shaped modules (or robots) as well as two configurations, i.e., placements of the $n$ modules so that their union is face-connected. The goal is to find a sequence of moves that reconfigures the modules from one configuration to the other using "sliding moves", in which a module slides over the face or edge of a neighboring module, maintaining connectivity of the configuration at all times. For many years it has been known that certain module configurations in this model require at least $\Omega(n^2)$ moves to reconfigure between them, and works for any dimension $d\ge 3$. In this paper, we introduce the first universal reconfiguration algorithm—i.e., we show that any $n$-module configuration can reconfigure itself into any specified $n$-module configuration using just sliding moves. Our algorithm achieves reconfiguration in $O(n^2)$ moves, making it asymptotically tight. We also present a variation that reconfigures in-place, it ensures that throughout the reconfiguration process, all modules, except for one, will be contained in the union of the bounding boxes of the start and end configuration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207