MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515989163 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2015.57

Discrete Load Balancing in Heterogeneous Networks with a Focus on Second-Order Diffusion

2015· preprint· en· W1515989163 on OpenAlexaff
Hoda Akbari, Petra Berenbrink, Robert Elsässer⋆, Dominik Kaaser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoundingLoad balancing (electrical power)Computer scienceInterconnectionGraphFocus (optics)Upper and lower boundsNode (physics)DiffusionMathematical optimizationMathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider a wide class of discrete diffusion load balancing algorithms. The problem is defined as follows. We are given an interconnection network and a number of load items, which are arbitrarily distributed among the nodes of the network. The goal is to redistribute the load in iterative discrete steps such that at the end each node has (almost) the same number of items. In diffusion load balancing, nodes are only allowed to balance their load with their direct neighbors. We show three main results. Firstly, we present a general framework for randomly rounding the flow generated by continuous diffusion schemes over the edges of a graph in order to obtain corresponding discrete schemes. Compared to the results of Rabani, Sinclair, and Wanka, FOCS'98, which are only valid w.r.t. The class of homogeneous first order schemes, our framework can be used to analyze a larger class of diffusion algorithms, such as algorithms for heterogeneous networks and second order schemes. Secondly, we bound the deviation between randomized second order schemes and their continuous counterparts. Finally, we provide a bound for the minimum initial load in a network that is sufficient to prevent the occurrence of negative load at a node during the execution of second order diffusion schemes. Our theoretical results are complemented with extensive simulations on different graph classes. We show empirically that second order schemes, which are usually much faster than first order schemes, will not balance the load completely on a number of networks within reasonable time. However, the maximum load difference at the end seems to be bounded by a constant value, which can be further decreased if first order scheme is applied once this value is achieved by second order scheme.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207