MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1857045085 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v3i1a1

The emergence of sparse spanners and well-separated pair decomposition under anarchy

2011· article· en· W1857045085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dengpan Zhou, Jie Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpannerEuclidean geometryCombinatoricsSet (abstract data type)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMathematicsConstant (computer programming)Euclidean distanceGraphNetwork topologyComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmComputer networkDistributed computingArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A spanner graph on a set of points in Rd provides shortest paths between any pair of points with lengths at most a constant factor of their Euclidean distance. A spanner with a sparse set of edges is thus a good candidate for network backbones, as desired in many practical scenarios such as the transportation network and peer-to-peer network overlays. In this paper we investigate new models and aim to interpret why good spanners ‘emerge’ in reality, when they are clearly built in pieces by agents with their own interests and the construction is not coordinated. We show that the following algorithm of constructing an edge pq, if and only if there is no existing edge p′q′ with p′ and q′ at distances no more than (4(1+1/ε))-1·|pq| from p, qrespectively, generates a (1+ε)-spanner with a linear number of edges. The algorithm also implies a simple algorithm for constructing linear-size well-separated pair decompositions that may be of interest on their own. This new spanner construction algorithm has applications in the construction of nice network topologies for peer-to-peer systems, when peers join and leave the network and have only limited information about the rest of the network.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicAdvanced Graph Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207