The Formal Design Models of Digraph Architectures and Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphs are one of the most fundamental and widely used non-linear hierarchical structures of linked nodes. Problems in sciences and engineering can be formulated and solved by the graph model. This paper develops a comprehensive design pattern of formal digraphs using the Doubly-Linked List (DLL) architecture. The most complicated form of graphs known as the weighted digraph is selected as a general graph model, based on it simple graphs such as nondirected and/or nonweighted ones can be easily derived and tailored. A rigorous denotational mathematics, Real-Time Process Algebra (RTPA), is adopted, which allows both architectural and behavioral models of digraphs to be rigorously designed and implemented in a top-down approach. The architectural models of digraphs are created using RTPA architectural modeling methodologies known as the Unified Data Models (UDMs). The physical model of digraphs is implemented using nodes of DLL dynamically created in the memory. The behavioral models of digraphs are specified and refined by a set of 18 Unified Process Models (UPMs) in three categories namely the management operations, traversal operations, and node manipulation operations. This work has been applied in a number of real-time and nonreal-time system designs and specifications such as a Real-Time Operating System (RTOS+), graph-based and tree-based applications, and the ADT library for an RTPA-based automatic code generation tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".