Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Randomized strategyproof facility-location mechanisms in R^d must have egalitarian approximation ratio at least 1 + sqrt(d/(2(d+1))), roughly 1.577 in the plane.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:31 UTC pith:4P6QBBMW

load-bearing objection The simplex lower bound is a genuine advance; the circle mechanism's group-strategyproofness proof has a load-bearing gap, but the paper deserves a serious referee. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20196 v1 pith:4P6QBBMW submitted 2026-07-22 cs.GT

Improved Lower Bounds and Output Augmentation for Facility Location Mechanisms

Rafael Gomes , Sophie Klumper , Guido Sch\"afer , Jens Schl\"oter This is my paper
classification cs.GT MSC 68W2590B8091A10
keywords facility locationstrategyproofnessrandomized mechanismsegalitarian objectiveapproximation ratiooutput augmentationEuclidean spacelower bounds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a new lower bound on the best possible guarantee of any randomized, strategyproof-in-expectation mechanism for placing a single facility under the egalitarian objective: in d-dimensional Euclidean space the approximation ratio cannot go below 1 + sqrt(d/(2(d+1))), which in the plane is about 1.577 and tends to about 1.707 as dimension grows. It also shows this barrier is driven by large populations, giving a sqrt(2)-approximate randomized mechanism for two agents, and proves finite-n lower bounds that already exceed 3/2 for 15 agents in the plane. In a second direction, the paper introduces output augmentation — allowing the facility to be placed outside the agents' domain — and shows that on a line this extra room lets a simple deterministic mechanism achieve sqrt(2), with a matching lower bound, beating even the classical randomized 3/2 barrier on the line. For agents on a circle with the facility in the plane, it proposes a randomized mechanism with ratio 3/2 that is group-strategyproof in expectation, meaning no coalition can jointly misreport so that every member improves.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the egalitarian approximation barrier for strategyproof-in-expectation mechanisms is governed by the geometry of the regular simplex: place agents in equal clusters at the d+1 vertices of a regular simplex, let one cluster deviate to the surrounding sphere, and the deviation together with a cluster-deviation lower bound forces any mechanism to pay at least 1 + sqrt(d/(2(d+1))) times the optimum in the limit of infinitely many agents. Complementing this, the paper claims an output-augmented circle mechanism, the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism, that mixes between the two extreme reported points and the chord midpoint with a probability dependin

What carries the argument

The lower bound's engine is a regular simplex inscribed in the unit sphere together with a cluster-deviation lemma: since a group of agents sharing one true location cannot improve their expected distance by moving together, the mechanism's output on the deviated profile must stay at least distance 1 from the original vertex; classical circumradius-to-diameter bounds then convert a large-population discretization of the surrounding sphere into the ratio 1 + sqrt(d/(2(d+1))). The upper-bound machinery is the Orthogonal Sphere Mechanism for two agents and the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism for the circle, whose mixing weight lambda(alpha) = cos(alpha/2)/(2(1+cos(alpha/2))) interpolates between the d

Load-bearing premise

The circle mechanism's proof that cross-boundary misreports are unprofitable assumes an intermediate bracket [-gamma, alpha] that no single deviation can actually realize, so the advertised 3/2 group-strategyproof circle mechanism stands or falls on whether that expansion-then-shrink step can be replaced by a direct argument.

What would settle it

Directly compute, for the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism, the expected cost of an extreme agent at angle α before and after a cross-boundary report that moves the opposite extreme to angle −γ (with γ+β < π); if any instance yields a decrease, Theorem 4.16 and hence the 3/2 circle mechanism fail. For the simplex lower bound, a strategyproof-in-expectation mechanism in R^2 with asymptotic ratio below 1 + 1/sqrt(3) — for instance an anonymous mechanism achieving 1.5 for all n — would falsify Theorem 3.1.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the plane, no randomized strategyproof-in-expectation mechanism can achieve an asymptotic egalitarian ratio below 1 + 1/sqrt(3) ≈ 1.577, narrowing the gap to the known 2 − 1/n upper bound.
  • For n ≥ 15 agents in R^2, the lower bound already exceeds 3/2, the best possible randomized ratio on the line.
  • For two agents in R^d, a randomized mechanism based on an orthogonal sphere achieves sqrt(2), separating randomized from deterministic and beating the two-agent line limit of 1.5.
  • Output augmentation replaces randomness: on a line with the facility in the plane, a deterministic strategyproof mechanism achieves sqrt(2), matched by a lower bound for any deterministic mechanism.
  • On the circle with the facility in the plane, the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism is group-strategyproof in expectation with ratio 3/2, while any deterministic unanimous group-strategyproof mechanism has ratio at least 2.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper's own claims, if the simplex barrier is tight, an optimal mechanism in R^d would have to look structurally different from centroid-style mechanisms; the finite-n thresholds suggest concrete population sizes where mechanisms would need to change behavior.
  • The output-augmented line result suggests a general principle: extra output dimensions can substitute for randomness; a natural next test is whether randomized mechanisms can beat sqrt(2) in the same augmented setting.
  • If the circle mechanism's cross-boundary step is completed, chord-midpoint-style randomization may transfer to other compact input domains, such as spherical caps or ellipses, suggesting a broader design recipe for output-augmented facility location.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies strategic facility location under the egalitarian objective and strategyproofness, in both the standard setting I=O=R^d and an output-augmented setting I⊊O. The main claimed contributions are: (i) a lower bound of 1+sqrt(d/(2(d+1))) for any randomized strategyproof mechanism as n→∞, improving the planar bound from 1.118 to about 1.577; (ii) a randomized sqrt(2)-approximate two-agent mechanism in R^d; (iii) a deterministic sqrt(2)-approximate mechanism for line agents with the facility in the plane, with a matching lower bound; and (iv) a randomized 3/2-approximate, group-strategyproof-in-expectation Chord-Midpoint Mechanism for agents on the unit circle with the facility in the plane. The lower bound proof uses a regular-simplex configuration and a cluster-deviation lemma; the line-augmented results use an explicit midpoint-with-height mechanism; the circle mechanism randomizes among the two extreme reports and the chord midpoint with a report-dependent probability λ(α).

Significance. If the main results hold, the lower-bound component is a substantial and clean contribution: the planar bound 1.577 improves the previous 1.118, the d→∞ limit is 1.707, and the proof is parameter-free and internally coherent. The two-agent Orthogonal Sphere Mechanism and the deterministic line-augmented sqrt(2) mechanism with matching lower bound are also convincing and demonstrate that output augmentation is genuinely more powerful. The circle mechanism is inventive, but its proof is currently incomplete because the cross-boundary deviation lemma uses an infeasible intermediate profile. Until Lemma 4.24 is repaired, the advertised 3/2 circle result is not established. The paper contains no fitted constants or circular calibration; all parameter choices are explicit and the lower-bound derivations do not assume the target results.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2.3, Lemma 4.24] The proof of Lemma 4.24 decomposes a cross-boundary unilateral deviation by the extreme agent A from the truthful arc [0,α] to the final arc [−γ,β] into two steps through the intermediate span [−γ,α]. This intermediate span is not a feasible reported profile after a unilateral deviation: once A reports −γ, no remaining report is at α, so no actual profile has minimum spanning arc [−γ,α]. Lemmas 4.21 and 4.23 are proved only for transitions between actual profiles and cannot be chained through a nonexistent profile. Therefore the claimed inequality E[d(M(x),x_i)]<E[d(M(x'),x_i)] is not established. Since Theorem 4.16 Case 3 and Theorem 4.25 depend on this lemma, the strategyproofness and group-strategyproofness of the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism—and hence Theorem 4.12—are currently unproven.
  2. [§4.2.4, Theorem 4.25, Case 2] In the subcase W_y=W, the proof states that any unilateral deviation by a boundary agent that changes the minimum spanning arc increases that agent's expected cost, citing Lemmas 4.21 and 4.23. However, an extreme agent's deviation can also be cross-boundary, which is exactly the case addressed by Lemma 4.24. Thus the group-strategyproofness proof contains a second unproven step: it relies on a lemma whose current proof is invalid, and the citation at this point omits it. The argument can go through only if Lemma 4.24 is repaired and then explicitly invoked here.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.2, proof of Lemma 4.10] Two occurrences of 'Lemma 12' should be cross-references to Lemma 4.9. The current numbering makes the argument difficult to follow.
  2. [§3.1, Theorem 3.5] The statement says 'n≥6 agents', but the construction requires n to be a multiple of 3 (k=n/3 agents per cluster). Please state 'n=3k, k≥2' explicitly.
  3. [§4.2.3, proof of Lemma 4.23] The displayed lower-bound expression for E[d(M(x'),A)] is missing parentheses or a denominator in the first term as typeset; rewriting it as a single fraction would remove ambiguity.
  4. [§4.2.2, proof of Lemma 4.15] The displayed derivation of MC(M,x) in Case 2 appears garbled: the intermediate line '1 + cos(α/2) / 1 + cos(α/2)' does not match the preceding substitution. Please correct the display to show sin(α/2)·(1+2cos(α/2))/(1+cos(α/2)).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: derivations are self-contained; explicit design parameters are proved rather than fitted to the target claims.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction or lower bound is equivalent, by construction, to its own inputs. The main lower bound (Theorem 3.1) is parameter-free: Lemma 3.2 is a geometric fact about regular simplices; Lemma 3.3 converts strategyproofness into a monotonicity inequality for co-located clusters; and the rest of the proof uses only the constructed profile and taking n to infinity. The approximation ratio is obtained by dividing the mechanism's necessary cost by the optimum of the constructed instance; it does not assume the bound it proves. The two-agent Orthogonal Sphere Mechanism and the Augmented Midpoint Mechanism define their outputs explicitly and prove strategyproofness directly, with no fitted constants, post-hoc exclusions, or calibration to the target ratio. In the circle setting, the mixing probability lambda(alpha) is given explicitly and its approximation performance is derived algebraically; strategyproofness is attacked through concrete lemmas rather than by importing the mechanism's own guarantee as a premise. The paper does not rely on self-citations by the present authors in any load-bearing way; its references to [15] and [18] are standard external results and are not used to forbid alternative mechanisms or to import an unverified characterization. A possible concern is a proof gap in Lemma 4.24's use of an intermediate arc that may not correspond to a real profile; that is a correctness/completeness issue, not circularity, because it does not make any result reduce to its own input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: the parameters are explicit, the lower bounds are consequences of the model, and no fitted prediction is renamed as a result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The main lower bound rests only on standard geometry and the definition of strategyproofness. The one listed mechanism parameter, lambda(alpha), is an explicit design choice rather than a fitted degree of freedom. The one ad hoc axiom is the infeasible-intermediate-arc step in the circle strategyproofness proof, which is a proof gap rather than a modeling assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda(alpha) in Chord-Midpoint Mechanism = cos(alpha/2) / (2(1+cos(alpha/2)))
    Explicit design parameter of the circle mechanism, chosen so the mechanism is strategyproof and 3/2-approximate; it is not a hidden fitted constant.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Jung's theorem: any set in R^d with diameter D fits in a ball of radius at most D sqrt(d/(2(d+1)))
    Used in Remark 3.4 to argue the regular simplex attains the maximal circumradius-to-diameter ratio.
  • standard math For a regular simplex, the geometric median is the circumcenter
    Used in Lemma 3.2 to lower-bound the sum of expected distances to the simplex vertices.
  • domain assumption A coalition of co-located agents cannot jointly reduce expected distance (Lemma 3.3)
    Derived from strategyproofness in expectation by chaining unilateral deviations; this is the key transfer from individual to group deviations.
  • ad hoc to paper Cross-boundary deviations can be decomposed into feasible expansion and shrinkage steps (Lemma 4.24)
    The intermediate spanning arc [-gamma, alpha] used in the proof is not a feasible unilateral profile because no agent remains at alpha; monotonicity over this hypothetical arc is asserted, not proven.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32399 in / 30488 out tokens · 275002 ms · 2026-08-01T10:31:18.956126+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the strategic facility location problem under the egalitarian objective, where a mechanism uses the reported locations of a set of agents in Euclidean space to select a facility location that minimizes the maximum distance to any agent. We restrict our attention to strategyproof mechanisms, ensuring that no agent can benefit from misreporting their location. As our main results, we prove an asymptotic lower bound of $1 + \sqrt{d/(2(d+1))}$ on the approximation ratio of any mechanism that is strategyproof in expectation in $\mathbb{R}^d$. We show that this barrier is driven by large populations by providing a randomized $\sqrt{2}$-approximate mechanism for the two-agent case. We then consider an output-augmented framework, which allows the facility to be placed outside the agents' restricted domain. For the setting where agents are restricted to a line but the facility can be anywhere in the plane, we design a deterministic strategyproof $\sqrt{2}$-approximate mechanism with a matching lower bound, showing that output augmentation can replace the need for randomness. For the setting where the agents' reports lie on the unit circle but the facility can be placed anywhere in $\mathbb{R}^2$ we introduce a randomized $3/2$-approximate mechanism that is group-strategyproof in expectation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20196 by Guido Sch\"afer, Jens Schl\"oter, Rafael Gomes, Sophie Klumper.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Lower bound instance for d = 2. Let n be a multiple of d + 1. Consider an initial profile x of n agents equally distributed among the d + 1 vertices of S. Let Y = M(x) denote the random facility location chosen by the mechanism. Applying Lemma 3.2 to the vertices of the regular simplex S, the expected distance from the facility to at least one of these vertices is at least 1. Without loss of generality, as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The 2-Agent Orthogonal Sphere Mechanism. The facility is chosen uniformly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of dimension-augmented line setting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Augmented Midpoint Mechanism under unilateral deviations by Agent 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Symmetric facility locations (a, b) and (−a, b) are mapped onto the perpen￾dicular bisector at (0, b′ ). The dashed lines indicate the maximum egalitarian cost of the facilities under the profile (−1, 1). This reduction allows us to establish the desired lower bound: Theorem 4.11. Any strategyproof, translation invariant, and scale invariant random￾ized mechanism M has an approximation ratio of at least √ … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the circle setting. As the main result for this setting, we will present a randomized mechanism that has an approximation ratio of 1.5. Theorem 4.12. There exists a randomized mechanism M that is group-strategyproof in expectation and achieves an approximation ratio of 1.5 2 . 2Note that the mechanism of the theorem is also strongly group-strategyproof. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Geometric configurations of the described cases. The optimal output locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the Chord-Midpoint Mechanism. Candidate output locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The three types of deviations based on modifications to the minimum span [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Geometric configuration for Lemma 4.22. The red arc shows the comple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The lens region L(x1, x2) constraining the output y. The blue arc represents the circle’s boundary arc between x1 and x2, and the red arc is its reflection across the chord. The height h denotes the maximum distance from the chord to the boundary arc projection. Consider the profile (x1, x′ 2 ), and let y ′ = M(x1, x′ 2 ). By strategyproofness, an agent at x ′ 2 must not benefit by falsely reporting x2: ∥… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Procaccia, and Moshe Tennenholtz

    Noga Alon, Michal Feldman, Ariel D. Procaccia, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Strate- gyproof Approximation of the Minimax on Networks.Mathematics of Operations Research, 35(3):513–526, 2010

    2010

  2. [2]

    Randomized strate- gic facility location with predictions.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:35639–35664, 2024

    Eric Balkanski, Vasilis Gkatzelis, and Golnoosh Shahkarami. Randomized strate- gic facility location with predictions.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:35639–35664, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Facility location mechanism design: Breaking the deterministic bar- rier.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.24750, 2026

    Zohar Barak. Facility location mechanism design: Breaking the deterministic bar- rier.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.24750, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Voting under Constraints

    Salvador Barber` a, Jordi Mass´ o, and Alejandro Neme. Voting under Constraints. Journal of Economic Theory, 76(2):298–321, 1997. 33

    1997

  5. [5]

    Straightforward Elections, Unanimity and Phantom Voters.The Review of Economic Studies, 50(1):153, 1983

    Kim C Border and James S Jordan. Straightforward Elections, Unanimity and Phantom Voters.The Review of Economic Studies, 50(1):153, 1983

    1983

  6. [6]

    Mechanism design for facility location problems: A survey

    Hau Chan, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Bo Li, Minming Li, and Chenhao Wang. Mechanism design for facility location problems: A survey. InProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4356–4365, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Strategyproof mechanisms for eu- clidean facility location problems under l p-norm social cost.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08621, 2026

    Hau Chan, Jianan Lin, and Chenhao Wang. Strategyproof mechanisms for eu- clidean facility location problems under l p-norm social cost.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.08621, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    On voting and facility location

    Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, and Iddan Golomb. On voting and facility location. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 269–286, 2016

    2016

  9. [9]

    Constant- approximate and constant-strategyproof two-facility location

    Elijah Journey Fullerton, Zeyuan Hu, and C Gregory Plaxton. Constant- approximate and constant-strategyproof two-facility location. InInternational Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pages 119–136. Springer, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Optimality of the coordinate-wise median mechanism for strategyproof facility location in two dimensions.Social Choice and Welfare, 61(1):11–34, 2023

    Sumit Goel and Wade Hann-Caruthers. Optimality of the coordinate-wise median mechanism for strategyproof facility location in two dimensions.Social Choice and Welfare, 61(1):11–34, 2023

    2023

  11. [11]

    Nonmanipulability in two dimensions.Mathe- matical Social Sciences, 8(1):29–43, 1984

    Ki Hang Kim and Fred W Roush. Nonmanipulability in two dimensions.Mathe- matical Social Sciences, 8(1):29–43, 1984

    1984

  12. [12]

    Locating two facilities on a square with a minimum distance requirement.Theoretical Computer Science, 1047:115310, 2025

    Weian Li and Yu Zhou. Locating two facilities on a square with a minimum distance requirement.Theoretical Computer Science, 1047:115310, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    H. Moulin. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness.Public Choice, 35(4):437– 455, 1980

    1980

  14. [14]

    Range convexity, continuity, and strategy-proofness of voting schemes.ZOR - Methods and Models of Operations Research, 38(2):213–229, 1993

    Hans Peters, Hans Stel, and Ton Storcken. Range convexity, continuity, and strategy-proofness of voting schemes.ZOR - Methods and Models of Operations Research, 38(2):213–229, 1993

    1993

  15. [15]

    Procaccia and Moshe Tennenholtz

    Ariel D. Procaccia and Moshe Tennenholtz. Approximate Mechanism Design with- out Money.ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 1(4):1–26, 2013

    2013

  16. [16]

    Resource augmentation

    Tim Roughgarden. Resource augmentation. InBeyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms, pages 72–92. Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  17. [17]

    James Schummer and Rakesh V. Vohra. Strategy-proof Location on a Network. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(2):405–428, 2002

    2002

  18. [18]

    Characterization of group- strategyproof mechanisms for facility location in strictly convex space

    Pingzhong Tang, Dingli Yu, and Shengyu Zhao. Characterization of group- strategyproof mechanisms for facility location in strictly convex space. InProceed- ings of the 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 133–157, 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    Mechanism design for facility location games with candidate locations

    Zhongzheng Tang, Chenhao Wang, Mengqi Zhang, and Yingchao Zhao. Mechanism design for facility location games with candidate locations. InInternational con- ference on combinatorial optimization and applications, pages 440–452. Springer, 2020. 34 6 Appendix Lemma 6.1.LetS 1 be a circle inR 2 centered at a pointx 0 with radiusr, and letk points be placed eq...

    2020

  20. [20]

    Thus, E[d(M′(x1, x′ 2), x2)]≥E[d(M ′(x1, x2), x2)], meaning the second agent cannot profit

    By Lemma 3.3, this joint deviation cannot decrease the expected distance to their true location b. Thus, E[d(M′(x1, x′ 2), x2)]≥E[d(M ′(x1, x2), x2)], meaning the second agent cannot profit. Since neither agent has a profitable deviation, the randomized mechanismM ′ is strat- egyproof. This contradicts the assumption thatλwas a lower bound for the approxi...

  21. [21]

    Expanding, we obtain: f(a,b)(x′

    representing the distance from Agent 1’s true locationx 1 = (−1,0) to this mapped facility isd(x 1, T1,x′ 1 (a, b)). Expanding, we obtain: f(a,b)(x′

  22. [22]

    = s x′ 1 −1 2 a+ x′ 1 + 3 2 2 + x′ 1 −1 2 b 2 ,(25) and its derivative with respect tox ′ 1 is given by: f ′ (a,b)(x′

  23. [23]

    Evaluating this derivative at the boundaryx ′ 1 = 1, we obtain: f ′ (a,b)(1) = 0 + 4 2 a+1 2 + (0) b 2 q 0 + 4 2 2 + 02 = a+ 1 2

    = x′ 1−1 2 a+ x′ 1+3 2 a+1 2 + x′ 1−1 2 b b 2 r x′ 1−1 2 a+ x′ 1+3 2 2 + x′ 1−1 2 b 2 . Evaluating this derivative at the boundaryx ′ 1 = 1, we obtain: f ′ (a,b)(1) = 0 + 4 2 a+1 2 + (0) b 2 q 0 + 4 2 2 + 02 = a+ 1 2 . Taking the expectation overDand applyingy-axis symmetry (E (a,b)∼D[a] = 0), the derivative of the expected distance tox 1 at the boundaryx...