MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071898078 · doi:10.1142/s0129054106004492

FAST BROADCASTING WITH BYZANTINE FAULTS

2006· article· en· W2071898078 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Paquette, Andrzej Pelc

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessBroadcasting (networking)Quantum Byzantine agreementComputer scienceBinary logarithmByzantine fault toleranceRobustness (evolution)Log-log plotNode (physics)AlgorithmBlocking (statistics)Distributed computingComputer networkFault toleranceTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct and analyze a fast broadcasting algorithm working in the presence of Byzantine component faults. Such faults are particularly difficult to deal with, as faulty components may behave arbitrarily (even maliciously) as transmitters, by either blocking, rerouting, or altering transmitted messages in a way most detrimental to the broadcasting process. We assume that links and nodes of a communication network are subject to Byzantine failures, and that faults are distributed randomly and independently, with link failure probability p and node failure probability q, these parameters being constant and satisfying the inequality (1 - p) 2 (1 - q) > 1/2. A broadcasting algorithm, working in an n-node network, is called almost safe if the probability of its correctness is at least 1 - 1/n, for sufficiently large n. Thus the robustness of the algorithm grows with the size of the network. Our main result is the design and analysis of an almost safe broadcasting algorithm working in time O( log 2 n) and using O(n log n) messages in n-node networks. Under a stronger assumption on failure probability parameters, namely (1 - p) 2 (1 - q) 2 > 1/2, our algorithm can be modified to work in time O( log 2 n/ log log n), also using O(n log n) messages. The novelty of our algorithm is that it can cope with the most difficult type of faults, potentially affecting all components of the network (both its links and nodes), and that it is simultaneously robust and efficient.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207