A distributed algorithm for the detection of local cycles and knots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present an efficient distributed cycle/knot detection, algorithm for general graphs which will determine whether a given node is a member of a knot or a cycle. This is relevant to an application such as parallel simulation in which (1) cycles and knots can arise frequently, (2) the size of the graph is very large and (3) it is necessary to know if a given node is in a cycle or a knot. The algorithm is based on a diffusing computation. It requires less communication cost than preceding algorithms and is the first algorithm capable of detecting both cycles and knots. The algorithm differs from the classical diffusing computation methods through its use of incomplete search messages to speed up the computation. The algorithm requires a total of at most 2m messages, where m is the number of links. This is compared to Chandy-Misra's algorithm (1982) which requires at least (3m+n), where n is a number of nodes and m is the number of links. The algorithm. Requires O(log(n)) bits of memory. Various applications for the cycle/knot detection algorithm are presented. In particular, we demonstrate its importance to deadlock detection to algorithms for parallel simulation which employ a blocking paradigm and a deadlock breaking technique known as TNE/DLTNE.>
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".