On distributed algorithms for minimum dominating set problem and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study the minimum dominating set (MDS) problem and the minimum total dominating set MTDS) problem which have many applications in real world. We propose a new idea to compute approximate MDS and MTDS. Next, we give an upper bound on the size of MDS of a graph. We also present a distributed randomized algorithm that produces a (total) dominating subset of a given graph whose expected size equals the upper bound. Next, we give fast distributed algorithms for computing approximated solutions for the MDS and MTDS problems using our theoretical results. The MDS problem arises in diverse areas, for example in social networks, wireless networks, robotics, and etc. Most often, we need to compute MDS in a distributed or parallel model. So we implement our algorithm on massive networks and compare our results with the state of the art algorithms to show the efficiency of our proposed algorithms in practice. We also show how to extend our idea to propose algorithms for solving $k$-dominating set problem and set cover problem. Our algorithms can also handle the case where the network is dynamic or in the case where we have constraints in choosing the elements of MDS.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".