Betweenness centrality and resistance distance in communication networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we report on applications and extensions of weighted graph theory in the design and control of communication networks. We model the communication network as a weighted graph and use the existing literature in graph theory to study its behavior. We are particularly interested in the notions of betweenness centrality and resistance distance in the context of communication networks. We argue that in their most general form, the problems in a communication network can be converted to either the optimal selection of weights or optimal selection of paths based on the present values of weights in a graph. Motivated by this, we propose a two-loop general architecture for the control of networks and provide directions to design appropriate control algorithms in each control loop. We show that the total resistance distance (network criticality) of a graph has very useful interpretations in the context of communication networks; therefore, we propose to use network criticality as the main objective function, and we provide guidelines to design the control loops to minimize network criticality. We also discuss the development of new directed weighted graph models and their application to communication networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it