MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810907219

The Distributed Minimum Spanning Tree Problem

2018· article· en· W2810907219 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDistributed minimum spanning treeMinimum spanning treeSpanning treeComputer scienceDistributed algorithmMessage passingNode (physics)GraphKruskal's algorithmPrim's algorithmDistributed computingTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmCombinatoricsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article surveys the distributed minimum spanning tree (MST) problem, a central and one of the most studied problems in distributed computing. In this problem, we are given a network, represented as a weighted graph G = (V; E), and the nodes in the network communicate by message passing via the edges of G with the goal of constructing an MST of G in a distributed fashion, i.e., each node should identify the MST edges incident to itself. This article summarizes the long line of research in designing efficient distributed algorithms and showing lower bounds for the distributed MST problem, including the most recent developments which have focused on algorithms that are simultaneously round- and message-optimal.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.239 · 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