Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Examples of large scale networks include the Internet, peer-to-peer networks, parallel computing systems, cloud computing systems, sensor networks, and social networks. Efficient dissemination of information in large networks such as these is a funda- mental problem. In many scenarios the gathering of information by a centralised controller can be impractical. When designing and analysing distributed algorithms we must consider the limitations imposed by the heterogeneity of devices in the networks. Devices may have limited computational ability or space. This makes randomised algorithms attractive solutions. Randomised algorithms can often be simpler and easier to implement than their deterministic counterparts. This thesis analyses the effect of communication patterns on the performance of distributed randomised algorithms. We study randomized algorithms with application to three different areas. \n \nFirstly, we study a generalization of the balls-into-bins game. Balls into bins games have been used to analyse randomised load balancing. Under the Greedy[d] allocation scheme each ball queries the load of d random bins and is then allocated to the least loaded of them. We consider an infinite, parallel setting where expectedly λn balls are allocated in parallel according to the Greedy[d] allocation scheme in to n bins and subsequently each non-empty bin removes a ball. Our results show that for d = 1,2, the Greedy[d] allocation scheme is self-stabilizing and that in any round the maximum system load for high arrival rates is exponentially smaller for d = 2 compared to d = 1 (w.h.p). \n \nSecondly, we introduce protocols that solve the plurality consensus problem on arbitrary graphs for arbitrarily small bias. Typically, protocols depend heavily on the employed communication mechanism. Our protocols are based on an interest- ing relationship between plurality consensus and distributed load balancing. This relationship allows us to design protocols that are both time and space efficient and generalize the state of the art for a large range of problem parameters. \n \nFinally, we investigate the effect of restricting the communication of the classical PULL algorithm for randomised rumour spreading. Rumour spreading (broadcast) is a fundamental task in distributed computing. Under the classical PULL algo- rithm, a node with the rumour that receives multiple requests is able to respond to all of them in a given round. Our model restricts nodes such that they can re- spond to at most one request per round. Our results show that the restricted PULL algorithm is optimal for several graph classes such as complete graphs, expanders, random graphs and several Cayley graphs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».