MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519829944 · doi:10.1002/net.20233

Approximation bounds for Black Hole Search problems

2008· article· en· W2519829944 on OpenAlexaff
Ευριπίδης Μάρκου, Tomasz Radzik, Fabiano Sarracco

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNode (physics)Computer scienceBlack hole (networking)Black boxSet (abstract data type)Time complexityProcess (computing)Task (project management)Approximation algorithmTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmComputer networkArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A black hole is a highly harmful stationary process residing in a node of a network and destroying all mobile agents visiting the node without leaving any trace. The Black Hole Search is the task of locating all black holes in a network, through the exploration of its nodes by a set of mobile agents. In this article we consider the problem of designing the fastest Black Hole Search, given the map of the network, the starting node and a subset of nodes of the network initially known to be safe. We study the version of this problem that assumes that there is at most one black hole in the network and there are two agents, which move in synchronized steps. We prove that this problem is not polynomial‐time approximable within any constant factor less than $389 \over 388$ (unless P = NP ). We give a 6‐approximation algorithm, thus improving on the 9.3‐approximation algorithm from (Czyzowicz et al., Fundamenta Informaticae 71 (2006), 229–242). We also prove APX‐hardness for a restricted version of the problem, in which only the starting node is initially known to be safe. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, 2008

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.267
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetworksSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207