Exact and heuristic algorithms for Space Information Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Space Information Flow (SIF) is a new promising research area that studies network coding in geometric space, such as Euclidean space. The design of algorithms that compute the optimal SIF solutions remains one of the key open problems in SIF. This work proposes the first exact SIF algorithm and a heuristic SIF algorithm that compute min-cost multicast network coding for N (N ≥ 3) given terminal nodes in 2-D Euclidean space. Furthermore, we find that the Butterfly network in Euclidean space is the second example besides the Pentagram network where SIF is strictly better than Euclidean Steiner minimal tree. The exact algorithm design is based on two key techniques: Delaunay triangulation and linear programming. Delaunay triangulation technique helps to find practically good candidate relay nodes, after which a min-cost multicast linear programming model is solved over the terminal nodes and the candidate relay nodes, to compute the optimal multicast network topology, including the optimal relay nodes selected by linear programming from all the candidate relay nodes and the flow rates on the connection links. The heuristic algorithm design is also based on Delaunay triangulation and linear programming techniques. The exact algorithm can achieve the optimal SIF solution with an exponential computational complexity, while the heuristic algorithm can achieve the sub-optimal SIF solution with a polynomial computational complexity. We prove the correctness of the exact SIF algorithm. The simulation results show the effectiveness of the heuristic SIF algorithm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".