MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055943982 · doi:10.1002/net.10094

Locating information with uncertainty in fully interconnected networks: The case of nondistributed memory

2003· article· en· W2055943982 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNode (physics)CliqueComputer networkAdvice (programming)Bounded functionTheoretical computer sciencePointer (user interface)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider the problem of searching for a piece of information in a fully interconnected computer network (also called a complete network or clique ) by exploiting advice about its location from the network nodes. Each node contains a database that “knows” what kind of documents or information are stored in other nodes (e.g., a node could be a Web server that answers queries about documents stored on the Web). The databases in each node, when queried, provide a pointer that leads to the node that contains the information. However, this information is up‐to‐date (or correct) with some bounded probability. While, in principle, one may always locate the information by simply visiting the network nodes in some prescribed ordering, this requires a time complexity in the order of the number of nodes of the network. In this paper, we provide algorithms for locating an information node in the complete communication network, which take advantage of advice given from network nodes. The nodes may either give correct advice, by pointing directly to the information node, or give wrong advice, by pointing elsewhere. On the lower‐bounds' side, we show that no fixed‐memory (i.e., with memory independent of the network size) deterministic algorithm may locate the information node in a constant (independent of the network size) expected number of steps. Moreover, if p = ω(1/ n ) is the probability that a node of an n ‐node clique gives correct advice, we show that no algorithm may locate the information node in an expected number of steps less than 1/ p − o (1). To study how the expected number of steps is affected by the amount of memory allowed to the algorithms, we give a memoryless randomized algorithm with expected number of steps 4/ p + o (1/ p ) + o (1) and a 1‐bit randomized algorithm requiring on the average at most 2/ p + o (1) steps. In addition, in the memoryless case, we also prove a 4/ p lower bound for the expected number of steps in the case where the nodes giving faulty advice may decide on the content of this advice in any possible way and not merely at random ( adversarial fault model). Finally, for the case where faulty nodes behave randomly, we give an optimal, unlimited memory deterministic algorithm with expected number of steps bounded from above by 1/ p + o (1/ p ) + 1. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · 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