MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093347633 · doi:10.1137/s0895480100376022

The Wakeup Problem in Synchronous Broadcast Systems

2001· article· en· W2093347633 on OpenAlexaff
Leszek Gąsieniec, Andrzej Pelc, David Peleg

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynchronization (alternating current)Computer scienceAsynchronous communicationClock synchronizationParallel computingChannel (broadcasting)Distributed computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the differences between two levels of synchronization in a distributed broadcast system (or a multiple-access channel). In the globally synchronous model, all processors have access to a global clock. In the locally synchronous model, processors have local clocks ticking at the same rate, but each clock starts individually when the processor wakes up. We consider the fundamental problem of waking up all n processors of a completely connected broadcast system. Some processors wake up spontaneously, while others have to be woken up. Only awake processors can send messages; a sleeping processor is woken up upon hearing a message. The processors hear a message in a given round if and only if exactly one processor sends a message in that round. Our goal is to wake up all processors as fast as possible in the worst case, assuming an adversary controls which processors wake up and when. We analyze the problem in both the globally synchronous and locally synchronous models with or without the assumption that n is known to the processors. We propose randomized and deterministic algorithms for the problem, as well as lower bounds in some of the cases. These bounds establish a gap between the globally synchronous and locally synchronous models.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations103
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Discrete MathematicsSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207