MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762632680 · doi:10.1109/tsp.2014.2304431

Active Learning of Multiple Source Multiple Destination Topologies

2014· article· en· W2762632680 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMerge (version control)SubnetworkNetwork topologyComputer scienceUpper and lower boundsAlgorithmTopology (electrical circuits)Focus (optics)Binary numberBinary logarithmGreedy algorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of inferring the topology of a network with M sources and N receivers (an M-by- N network), by sending probes between the sources and receivers. Prior work has shown that this problem can be decomposed into two parts: first, infer smaller subnetwork components (1-by- N's or 2-by-2's) and then merge them to identify the M-by- N topology. We focus on the second part, which had previously received less attention in the literature. We assume that a 1-by- N topology is given and that all 2-by-2 components can be queried and learned using end-to-end probes. The problem is which 2-by-2's to query and how to merge them with the given 1-by- N, so as to exactly identify the 2-by- N topology, and optimize a number of performance metrics, including the number of queries (which directly translates into measurement bandwidth), time complexity, and memory usage. We provide a lower bound, [N/2], on the number of 2-by-2's required by any active learning algorithm and propose two greedy algorithms. The first algorithm follows the framework of multiple hypothesis testing, in particular Generalized Binary Search (GBS). The second algorithm is called the Receiver Elimination Algorithm (REA) and follows a bottom-up approach. It requires exactly N-1 steps, which is much less than all ( <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sub> <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">N</sup> ) possible 2-by-2's. Simulation results demonstrate that both algorithms correctly identify the 2-by- N topology and are near-optimal, but REA is more efficient in practice.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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