Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 27, 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.
We study online interval selection with binary predictions of membership in a final optimal solution. Requests arrive in arbitrary order; accepted requests may be revoked, but rejected or revoked requests cannot be recovered. With rewards proportional to interval length, the best consistency under finite strict robustness is $d=(3+\sqrt5)/2$ when both guarantees hold almost surely on each fixed input, including for randomized algorithms. A continuous lower bound forces consistency strictly above $d$ at every robustness budget below $4\varphi+3\approx9.472$, whereas our deterministic algorithm attains $d$ with exact robustness $\varphi^5\approx11.090$, where $\varphi=(1+\sqrt5)/2$. Each held interval inherits a ledger recording positive prediction mass lost through irrevocable decisions. A tunable replacement cost gives a continuous family with exact consistency throughout and exact robustness on two parameter intervals, including $(C,R)=(25/9,10)$ and $(4,7)$. Randomization permits expected consistency approaching one with finite expected robustness, whereas almost-sure robustness forces expected consistency strictly above two at every finite budget.