MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027426398 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2012.6426038

Efficiently reaching consensus on the largest entries of a vector

2012· article· en· W2027426398 on OpenAlexaff
Deniz Üstebay, Michael Rabbat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGossipAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceState (computer science)Convergence (economics)A priori and a posterioriGraphMathematicsMathematical optimizationTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a problem where agents gossip on a d-dimensional state vector. The goal is to achieve a consensus on the average. However, instead of computing the average of the entire d-dimensional state, the goal is to have all agents reach a consensus on the largest k entries of the average initial state vector. For example, the value in each entry could correspond to the agents' opinions about a different item, in which case the goal is to determine which are the k most popular items, on average. A primary challenge is that the indices of the k largest entries are not known a priori, and so the agents must adaptively identify which entries are the largest while also computing their values. We consider an asynchronous gossip-style algorithm where pairs of agents interact, communicate, and update only those state entries which either agent currently believes to be one of the largest k. We show that, as long as the underlying communication graph is connected, the algorithm converges to a state where all agents reach a consensus on the indices and values of the largest k entries of the initial average. We study, via numerical simulation, the convergence rate of the algorithm in terms of the total number of scalar values transmitted to reach a desired level of accuracy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207