MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001271834 · doi:10.1145/1989727.1989732

Breaking the <i>O</i> ( <i>n</i> <sup>2</sup> ) bit barrier

2011· article· en· W2001271834 on OpenAlexaff
Valerie King, Jared Saia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the ACM · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAdversaryComputer scienceScalabilityLatency (audio)Adversary modelCryptographyTheoretical computer scienceParallel computingAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an algorithm for Byzantine agreement that is scalable in the sense that each processor sends only Õ(√ n ) bits, where n is the total number of processors. Our algorithm succeeds with high probability against an adaptive adversary , which can take over processors at any time during the protocol, up to the point of taking over arbitrarily close to a 1/3 fraction. We assume synchronous communication but a rushing adversary. Moreover, our algorithm works in the presence of flooding: processors controlled by the adversary can send out any number of messages. We assume the existence of private channels between all pairs of processors but make no other cryptographic assumptions. Finally, our algorithm has latency that is polylogarithmic in n . To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first algorithm to solve Byzantine agreement against an adaptive adversary, while requiring o ( n 2 ) total bits of communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations101
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the ACMSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207