A Framework for Evaluating the Performance of Cluster Algorithms for Hierarchical Networks
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".