MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094814392 · doi:10.1002/net.10001

Maximizing residual flow under an arc destruction

2001· article· en· W2094814392 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidualArc (geometry)Flow (mathematics)Flow networkMaximum flow problemMathematicsMulti-commodity flow problemMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we consider two problems related to single‐commodity flows on a directed network. In the first problem, for a given s – t flow, if an arc is destroyed, all the flow that is passing through that arc is destroyed. What is left flowing from s to t is the residual flow. The objective is to determine a flow pattern such that the residual flow is maximized. We provide a strongly polynomial algorithm for this problem, called the maximum residual flow problem, and consider various extensions of this basic model. In the second problem, known as the “most vital arc” problem, the objective is to remove an arc so that the maximal flow on the residual network is as small as possible. Results are also derived which help implement an efficient scheme for solving this problem. © 2001 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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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