MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006243781

Algorithmes pour voyager sur un graphe contenant des blocages

2019· dissertation· fr· W3006243781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Bergé

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study NP-hard problems on graphs with blockages seen as models of networks which are exposed to risk of failures.We treat cut problems via the parameterized complexity framework. The cutset size p is taken as a parameter. Given a set of sources {s1,...,sk} and a target t, we propose an algorithm which builds a small edge cut of size p separating at least r sources from t. This NP-complete problem is called Partial One-Target Cut. It belongs to the family of multiterminal cut problems. Our algorithm is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) as its execution takes 2^{O(p^2)}n^{O(1)}. We prove that the vertex version of this problem, which imposes cuts to contain vertices instead of edges, is W[1]-hard. Then, we design an FPT algorithm which counts the minimum vertex (S,T)-cuts of an undirected graph in time 2^{O(plog p)}n^{O(1)}. We provide numerous results on the competitive ratio of both deterministic and randomized strategies for the Canadian Traveller Problem. The optimal ratio obtained for the deterministic strategies on general graphs is 2k+1, where k is a given upper bound on the number of blockages. We show that randomized strategies which do not use memory cannot improve the bound 2k+1. In addition, we discuss the tightness of lower bounds on the competitiveness of randomized strategies. The distance competitive ratio for a group of travellers possibly equipped with telecommunication devices is studied. Eventually, a strategy dedicated to equal-weight chordal graphs is proposed while another one is built for graphs with small maximum (s,t)-cuts. Both strategies outperform the ratio 2k+1.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207