MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of topographic information on graph exploration efficiency

2000· article· en· W2071941627 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 · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraverseGraphA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceBiconnected graphTheoretical computer scienceStrength of a graphKnowledge graphCombinatoricsAlgorithmLine graphArtificial intelligenceMathematicsVoltage graphGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A robot has to explore an undirected connected graph by visiting all its nodes and traversing all edges. It may either have a complete a priori knowledge of the graph or only have an unoriented map of it, or, finally, lack any knowledge of the graph. We study the impact of this varying amount of knowledge on exploration performance. It is shown that the best exploration algorithm lacking any knowledge of the graph uses twice as many edge traversals in the worst case as does the best algorithm which has an unoriented map of the graph. On the other hand, the latter uses twice as many edge traversals in the worst case as does the best algorithm having a complete knowledge of the graph. Similar results for the restricted case of exploration algorithms working only for trees are also established. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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