MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611167225 · doi:10.1002/net.21810

Deterministic gathering with crash faults

2018· preprint· en· W2611167225 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrzej Pelc

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
KeywordsTraverseComputer scienceNode (physics)CrashAsynchrony (computer programming)Fault (geology)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionReal-time computingDistributed computingComputer networkComputer securityArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAsynchronous communication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A team consisting of an unknown number of mobile agents, starting from different nodes of an unknown network, have to meet at the same node and terminate. This problem is known asgathering. We study deterministic gathering algorithms under the assumption that agents are subject tocrash faultswhich can occur at any time. Two fault scenarios are considered. Amotion faultimmobilizes the agent at a node or inside an edge but leaves intact its memory at the time when the fault occurred. A more severetotal faultimmobilizes the agent as well, but also erases its entire memory. Of course, we cannot require faulty agents to gather. Thus the gathering problem for fault prone agents calls for all fault‐free agents to gather at a single node, and terminate.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNetworksSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207