MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Analysis of Shortest-Path Algorithms in Network Routing

2025· article· en· W4412398761 on OpenAlexaff
Mehak Narang, Ziaul Hossain

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceShortest path problemK shortest path routingRouting (electronic design automation)Path (computing)Equal-cost multi-path routingRouting algorithmLink-state routing protocolAlgorithmRouting protocolComputer networkTheoretical computer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large and dynamic networks consist of a large number of routers and links which makes the process of routing very challenging on complex networks. This emphasizes the importance of having efficient routing algorithms that are used to find the shortest path for a data packet to reach the destination system. There are three major algorithms to calculate the efficient path - Dijkstra, Bellman- Ford, and Floyd-Warshall. This paper has analyzed the performance efficiency of these algorithms based on their convergence time, memory required, scalability, and stability. After analysis, it was found that Dijkstra's algorithm is more efficient for calculating the shortest path, especially for a large number of nodes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207