Routing complexity of faulty networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the fundamental problems in distributed computing is how to efficiently perform routing in a faulty network in which each link fails with some probability. This article investigates how big the failure probability can be, before the capability to efficiently find a path in the network is lost. Our main results show tight upper and lower bounds for the failure probability, which permits routing both for the hypercube and for thed‐dimensional mesh. We use tools from percolation theory to show that in thed‐dimensional mesh, once a giant component appears—efficient routing is possible. A different behavior is observed when the hypercube is considered. In the hypercube there is a range of failure probabilities in which short paths exist with high probability, yet finding them must involve querying essentially the entire network. Thus the routing complexity of the hypercube shows an asymptotic phase transition. The critical probability with respect to routing complexity lies in a different location than that of the critical probability with respect to connectivity. Finally we show that an oracle access to links (as opposed to local routing) may reduce significantly the complexity of the routing problem. We demonstrate this fact by providing tight upper and lower bounds for the complexity of routing in the random graphGn,p. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 2008
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".