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 OpenAlexaff
Guanghan Bai, Ming J. Zuo, Zhigang Tian

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations130
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on ReliabilitySame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207