MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006278327 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2012.2221695

Efficient Shortest-Path-Tree Computation in Network Routing Based on Pulse-Coupled Neural Networks

2012· article· en· W2006278327 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Qu, Yi Zhang, Simon X. Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDijkstra's algorithmComputer scienceShortest path problemComputationRouterPath (computing)Tree (set theory)K shortest path routingState (computer science)Routing (electronic design automation)Link-state routing protocolAlgorithmRouting protocolTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsComputer networkGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shortest path tree (SPT) computation is a critical issue for routers using link-state routing protocols, such as the most commonly used open shortest path first and intermediate system to intermediate system. Each router needs to recompute a new SPT rooted from itself whenever a change happens in the link state. Most commercial routers do this computation by deleting the current SPT and building a new one using static algorithms such as the Dijkstra algorithm at the beginning. Such recomputation of an entire SPT is inefficient, which may consume a considerable amount of CPU time and result in a time delay in the network. Some dynamic updating methods using the information in the updated SPT have been proposed in recent years. However, there are still many limitations in those dynamic algorithms. In this paper, a new modified model of pulse-coupled neural networks (M-PCNNs) is proposed for the SPT computation. It is rigorously proved that the proposed model is capable of solving some optimization problems, such as the SPT. A static algorithm is proposed based on the M-PCNNs to compute the SPT efficiently for large-scale problems. In addition, a dynamic algorithm that makes use of the structure of the previously computed SPT is proposed, which significantly improves the efficiency of the algorithm. Simulation results demonstrate the effective and efficient performance of the proposed approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207