MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103265299 · doi:10.1109/icpads.1997.652622

Universally fault-tolerant broadcasting in trees

2002· article· en· W2103265299 on OpenAlexaff
Petrişor Panaite, Andrzej Pelc

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInterconnection Networks and Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadcasting (networking)Fault toleranceComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)Upper and lower boundsTree (set theory)Binary logarithmConstant (computer programming)Time complexityScheme (mathematics)Distributed computingNode (physics)Computer networkCombinatoricsTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider broadcasting a message from one node of a tree to all other nodes. In the presence of up to k link failures the tree becomes disconnected, and only nodes in the connected component C containing the source can be informed. The maximum ratio between the time used by a broadcasting scheme B to inform C and the optimal time to inform C, taken over all components C yielded by configurations of at most k faults, is the k-vulnerability of B. This is the maximum slowdown incurred by B due to the lack of a priori knowledge of fault location, for at most k faults. Since the upper bound k on the number of faults is not always known, it is important to design broadcasting schemes that behave well under any possible number of faults. It turns out that achieving the lowest possible k-vulnerability for all k simultaneously is impossible for some trees. Hence a natural goal is to seek, for any tree T, a broadcasting scheme that simultaneously approximates the lowest possible k-vulnerability for every k, up to a given constant factor c (independent of L). We describe a polynomial algorithm which decides if such a "universally fault-tolerant" broadcasting scheme exists for given T and c, and constructs such a scheme if it exists.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterconnection Networks and SystemsFrench-language works237,207