MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972661641 · doi:10.1002/net.20099

The multiroute maximum flow problem revisited

2005· article· en· W1972661641 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

VenueNetworks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum flow problemFlow networkVertex (graph theory)Flow (mathematics)CombinatoricsDisjoint setsMathematicsPath (computing)Arc (geometry)Multi-commodity flow problemMinimum-cost flow problemInteger programmingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We are given a directed network G = ( V , A , u ) with vertex set V , arc set A , a source vertex s ∈ V , a destination vertex t ∈ V , a finite capacity vector u = { u ij } ( i , j )∈ A , and a positive integer m ∈ Z + . The multiroute maximum flow problem ( m ‐MFP) generalizes the ordinary maximum flow problem by seeking a maximum flow from s to t subject to not only the regular flow conservation constraints at the vertices (except s and t ) and the flow capacity constraints at the arcs, but also the extra constraints that any flow must be routed along m arc‐disjoint s ‐ t paths. In this article, we devise two new combinatorial algorithms for m ‐MFP. One is based on Newton's method and another is based on an augmenting‐path technique. We also show how the Newton‐based algorithm unifies two existing algorithms, and how the augmenting‐path algorithm is strongly polynomial for case m = 2. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 47(2), 81–92 2006

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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