Discretized learning automata solutions to the capacity assignment problem for prioritized networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a discretized learning automaton (LA) solution to the capacity assignment (CA) problem which focuses on finding the best possible set of capacities for the links that satisfy the traffic requirements in a prioritized network while minimizing the cost. Most approaches consider a single class of packets flowing through the network, but in reality, different classes of packets with different average packet lengths and different priorities are transmitted over the networks. This generalized model is the focus of this paper. Although the problem is inherently NP-hard, a few approximate solutions have been proposed in the literature. Marayuma and Tang (1977) proposed a single algorithm composed of several elementary heuristic procedures. Other solutions tackle the problem by using modern-day artificial intelligence (AI) paradigms such as simulated annealing and genetic algorithms (GAs). In 2000, we introduced a new method, superior to these, that uses continuous LA. In this paper, we present a discretized LA solution to the problem. This solution uses a meta-action philosophy new to the field of LA, and is probably the best available solution to this extremely complex problem.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".