Shortest, Fastest, and Foremost Broadcast in Dynamic Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly dynamic networks rarely offer end-to-end connectivity at a given time. Yet, connectivity in these networks can be established over time and space, based on temporal analogues of multi-hop paths (also called journeys). Attempting to optimize the selection of the journeys in these networks naturally leads to the study of three cases: shortest (minimum hop), fastest (minimum duration), and foremost (earliest arrival) journeys. Efficient centralized algorithms exists to compute all cases, when the full knowledge of the network evolution is given. In this paper, we study the distributed counterparts of these problems, i.e. shortest, fastest, and foremost broadcast with termination detection (TDB), with minimal knowledge on the topology. We show that the feasibility of each of these problems requires distinct features on the evolution, through identifying three classes of dynamic graphs wherein the problems become gradually feasible: graphs in which the re-appearance of edges is recurrent (class [Formula: see text]), bounded-recurrent ([Formula: see text]), or periodic ([Formula: see text]), together with specific knowledge that are respectively n (the number of nodes), Δ (a bound on the recurrence time), and p (the period). In these classes it is not required that all pairs of nodes get in contact — only that the overall footprint of the graph is connected over time. Our results, together with the strict inclusion between [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text], implies a feasibility order among the three variants of the problem, i.e. TDB[foremost] requires weaker assumptions on the topology dynamics than TDB[shortest], which itself requires less than TDB[fastest]. Reversely, these differences in feasibility imply that the computational powers of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] also form a strict hierarchy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".