MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108558002

Memory Requirements for Local Geometric Routing and Traversal in Digraphs

2008· article· en· W2108558002 on OpenAlexaff
Maia Fraser, Evangelos Kranakis, Jorge Urrutia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree traversalGraph traversalComputer scienceStrongly connected componentRouting (electronic design automation)Node (physics)Theoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematicsAlgorithmComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local route discovery in geometric, connected, undirected plane graphs is guaranteed by the Face Routing algorithm. The algorithm is local and geometric in the sense that it is executed by an agent moving along a network and using at each node only information about the current node (incl. its position) and a finite number of others (independent of graph size). Local geometric traversal algorithms also exist for undirected plane graphs. In this paper we show that no comparable routing or traversal algorithms exist for the class of strongly connected plane directed graphs (digraphs). We construct a class of digraphs embedded in the plane for which either local routing or local traversal requires Ω(n) memory bits, where n is the order of the graph. We discuss these results in light of finding a suitable model for mobile ad hoc networks with uni-directional edges, showing in the extended version of this paper that digraphs for which the Ω(n) lower bound holds occur even in the class of embedded digraphs arising out of a very conservative model. 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207