Search Algorithms for Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the performance of several search algorithms on unstructured peer-to-peer networks, both using classic search algorithms such as flooding and random walk, as well as a new hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper. This hybrid algorithm first uses flooding to find sufficient number of nodes and then starts random walks from these nodes. We compare the performance of the search algorithms on several graphs corresponding to common topologies proposed for peer-to- peer networks. In particular, we consider binomial random graphs, regular random graphs, power-law graphs, and clustered topologies. Our experiments show that for binomial random graphs and regular random graphs all algorithms have similar performance. For power-law graphs, flooding is effective for small number of messages, but for large number of messages our hybrid algorithm outperforms it. Flooding is ineffective for clustered topologies in which random walk is the best algorithm. For these topologies, our hybrid algorithm provides a compromise between flooding and random walk. We also compare the proposed hybrid algorithm with the k-walker algorithm on power-law and clustered topologies. Our experiments show that while they have close performance on clustered topologies, the hybrid algorithm has much better performance on power-law graphs. We theoretically prove that flooding is effective for regular random graphs which is consistent with our experimental results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".