MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130363857 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.1989.37942

Fault-tolerant extensions of complete multipartite networks

2003· article· en· W2130363857 on OpenAlexaff
Abdel Aziz Farrag, Robert J. MacG. Dawson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultipartiteGraphComputer scienceFault toleranceExponential functionExtension (predicate logic)Discrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsCombinatoricsDistributed computingQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors studied the design of a fault-tolerant extension for a graph G which can survive at most m node failures, and which contains the minimum number of nodes and the fewest possible edges when the nonredundant graph (G) is a complete multipartite graph. After developing a characterization for m-fault-tolerant extensions and for optimal m-fault-tolerant extensions of a complete multipartite graph, this characterization is used to develop a procedure to construct an optimal m-fault-tolerant extension of any complete multipartite graph, for any m>or=0. The procedure is only useful when the size of the graph is relatively small, since the search time required is exponential. Several necessary conditions on any (optimal) m-fault-tolerant extension of a complete multipartite graph are proved. These conditions allow identification of some optimal m-fault-tolerant extensions of several special cases of a complete multipartite graph without performing any search.>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207