Peer Review #1 of "Low-diameter topic-based pub/sub overlay network construction with minimum–maximum node degree (v0.2)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the construction of effective and scalable overlay networks, publish/subscribe (pub/sub) network designers prefer to keep the diameter and maximum node degree of the network low. However, existing algorithms are not capable of simultaneously decreasing the maximum node degree and the network diameter. To address this issue in an overlay network with various topics, we present herein a heuristic algorithm, called the constantdiameter minimum-maximum degree (CD-MAX), which decreases the maximum node degree and maintains the diameter of the overlay network at two as the highest. The proposed algorithm based on the greedy merge algorithm selects the node with the minimum number of neighbors. The output of the CD-MAX algorithm is enhanced by applying a refinement stage through the CD-MAXref algorithm, which further improves the maximum node degrees. The numerical results of the algorithm simulation indicate that the CD-MAX and CD-MAXref algorithms improve the maximum node-degree by up to 64% and run up to four times faster than similar 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".