Comparing Topological Partitioning Methods for District Metered Areas in the Water Distribution Network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of three partitioning methods, including Fast Greedy, Random Walk, and Metis, which are commonly used to establish the district metered areas (DMAs) in water distribution systems. The performance of the partitioning methods is compared using a spectrum of evaluation indicators, including modularity, conductance, density, expansion, cuts, and communication volume, which measure different topological characteristics of the complex network. A complex water distribution network EXNET is used for comparison considering two cases, i.e., unweighted and weighted edges, where the weights are represented by the demands. The results obtained from the case study network show that the Fast Greedy has a good overall performance. Random Walk can obtain the relative small cut edges, but severely sacrifice the balance of the partitions, in particular when the number of partitions is small. The Metis method has good performance on balancing the size of the clusters. The Fast Greedy method is more effective in the weighted graph partitioning. This study provides an insight for the application of the topology-based partitioning methods to establish district metered areas in a water distribution network.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it