Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
In the cow-path problem, a cow must find a goal lying at an unknown distance on one of $w$ paths connected only at the origin, and performance is measured by competitive ratio. Kao, Reif and Tate designed an efficient randomized algorithm in which the cow visits the paths in a fixed cyclic order. They proved the algorithm is optimal for $w=2$, and subsequently Kao, Ma, Sipser and Yin proved its optimality for all $w$, with a claim that no algorithm does better than the best cyclic one. This note provides a detailed proof of that claim.