Efficient communication in unknown networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the problem of disseminating messages in networks. We are interested in information dissemination algorithms in which machines operate independently without any knowledge of the network topology or size. Three communication tasks of increasing difficulty are studied. In blind broadcasting (BB), the goal is to communicate the source message to all nodes. In acknowledged blind broadcasting (ABB), the goal is to achieve BB and inform the source about it. Finally, in full synchronization (FS), all nodes must simultaneously enter the state terminated after receiving the source message. The algorithms should be efficient both in terms of the time required and the communication overhead they put on the network. We limit the latter by allowing every node to send a message to at most one neighbor in each round. We show that BB is achieved in time at most 2n in any n‐node network and show networks in which time 2n − o(n) is needed. For ABB, we show algorithms working in time (2 + ϵ)n, for any fixed positive constant ϵ and sufficiently large n. Thus, for both BB and ABB, our algorithms are close to optimal. Finally, we show a simple algorithm for FS working in time 3n and a more complicated algorithm which works in time 2.9n. The optimal time of full synchronization remains an open problem. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".