Color Fault-Tolerant Distance Preservers: Õptimal Size in Conditionally Õptimal Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revisit the problem of fault-tolerant (FT) distance preservers, when failure events in the network admit a form of correlation modeled as color faults. FT distance preservers are sparse subgraphs that preserve distances between specified pairs of vertices, even after some edge or vertex failures occur. In the classical fault model, any set of at most $k$ edges or vertices might fail (where $k \geq 1$ is a given parameter). Despite extensive research, the classical model admits significant and tantalizing gaps, both in terms of sparsity bounds and of algorithmic efficiency. In this work, we study the problem in the recently introduced color fault-tolerant (CFT) model: the given graph $G=(V,E)$ has arbitrary colors on its edges/vertices where each color appears at most $k$ times, and is susceptible to color faults, where the failure of color $c$ causes all the $c$-colored elements to crash. Our main contribution is in the multi-source setting, where $G$ has a source-set $S \subseteq V$, and the CFT preserver should preserve $S \times V$ distances under any single color fault. We show the following results (where $n = |V|$, $m = |E|$): - There exists a CFT distance preserver $H$ of $G$ with $\tilde{O}(n^{2 - \frac{1}{k+1}} \cdot |S|^{\frac{1}{k+1}} )$ edges. - The above sparsity bound is worst-case optimal up to polylogarithmic terms. - There is a combinatorial randomized algorithm that produces a preserver $H$ whose size meets the above optimal sparsity bound, with running time of $\tilde{O}(m \cdot n^{1 - \frac{1}{k+1}} \cdot |S|^{\frac{1}{k+1}})$. - The above running time is conditionally optimal: a polynomial improvement would refute the combinatorial Boolean Matrix Multiplication (BMM) conjecture. Furthermore, the running time remains optimal even if we only require mild sparsification to $m^{1-ε}$ edges.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".