MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626724472 · doi:10.1002/net.21750

Minimizing the makespan in multiserver network restoration problems

2017· article· en· W2626724472 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServerComputer scienceNode (physics)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionComputer networkTime complexityPoint (geometry)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suppose that a destroyed network needs to be restored by a number of servers (construction crews) that are initially located at some nodes of the network (depots). Each server can restore one unit of length of the network per unit of time. When several servers are simultaneously working at the same point, their restoration speeds combine additively. The servers can travel within the already restored part of the network with infinite speed, which means that travel times are negligible with respect to construction times. It is required to minimize the time when each node becomes connected to at least one of the depots. We show that the problem is strongly NP‐hard on general networks, and present fast polynomial algorithms for trees and cactus networks which are connected networks where each node and each edge belong to at most one cycle. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 70(1), 60–68 2017

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · 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