A Framework for Evaluating the Performance of Cluster Algorithms for Hierarchical 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
Table-driven routing algorithms in flat networks have the scalability problem due to the need for global topology updates. To reduce update cost, networks are hierarchically organized. Clustering algorithms organize flat networks into hierarchical networks. One important problem, which has not been adequately addressed so far, is to evaluate how good a clustering algorithm is. In other words, it is useful to know what the desired properties of hierarchical networks are. In this paper, we address this issue by considering the routing update cost, which can be measured by the total routing table size and the variance of cluster size distribution. We provide a set of desired properties of clustering algorithms. Applying these properties to the cluster structure generated by an algorithm, we can determine how good a clustering algorithm is. Specifically, we discuss how to choose appropriate number of hierarchy levels, number of clusters, and cluster size distribution, such that the topology update cost is minimized. The desired properties obtained from the analysis can be used as guidelines in the design of clustering algorithms for table-driven hierarchical networks. We apply the idea developed in this paper to evaluate three routing algorithms, namely the lowest ID algorithm, the maximum degree algorithm, and the variable degree clustering algorithm. We show how the variable degree clustering algorithm, which takes into account these desired properties, improves routing performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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