MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601712886 · doi:10.1109/tr.2015.2430491

Ordering Heuristics for Reliability Evaluation of Multistate Networks

2015· article· en· W1601712886 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Reliability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsReliability (semiconductor)Disjoint setsHeuristicComputer sciencePath (computing)Terminal (telecommunication)Mathematical optimizationReliability engineeringAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops ordering heuristics to improve the efficiency of reliability evaluation for multistate two-terminal networks given all minimal path vectors ( d-MPs for short). In the existing methods, all d-MPs are treated equally. However, we find that the importance of each d-MP is different, and different orderings affect the efficiency of reliability evaluation. Based on the above observations, we introduce the length definitions for d-MPs in a multistate two-terminal network, and develop four ordering heuristics, called O1, O2, O3, and O4, to improve the efficiency of the Recursive Sum of Disjoint Products (RSDP) method for evaluating network reliability. The results show that the proposed ordering heuristics can significantly improve the reliability evaluation efficiency, and O1 performs the best among the four methods. In addition, an ordering heuristic is developed for the reliability evaluation of multistate two-terminal networks given all minimal cut vectors ( d-MCs).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.237 · 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