New BSP/CGM algorithms for spanning trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computing a spanning tree (ST) and a minimum ST (MST) of a graph are fundamental problems in graph theory and arise as a subproblem in many applications. In this article, we propose parallel algorithms to these problems. One of the steps of previous parallel MST algorithms relies on the heavy use of parallel list ranking which, though efficient in theory, is very time-consuming in practice. Using a different approach with a graph decomposition, we devised new parallel algorithms that do not make use of the list ranking procedure. We proved that our algorithms are correct, and for a graph [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text], the algorithms can be executed on a Bulk Synchronous Parallel/Coarse Grained Multicomputer (BSP/CGM) model using [Formula: see text] communications rounds with [Formula: see text] computation time for each round. To show that our algorithms have good performance on real parallel machines, we have implemented them on graphics processing unit. The obtained speedups are competitive and showed that the BSP/CGM model is suitable for designing general purpose parallel algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".