Distributed tree comparison with nodes of limited memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We consider the task of comparing two rooted trees with port labels. Roots of the trees are joined by an edge and the comparison has to be performed distributedly, by exchanging messages among nodes. If the two trees are isomorphic, all nodes must finish in a state YES; otherwise they have to finish in a state NO and break symmetry, nodes of one tree getting label 0 and nodes of the other getting label 1. Nodes are modeled as identical automata, and our goal is to establish trade‐offs between the memory size of such an automaton and the efficiency of distributed tree comparison, measured either by the time or by the number of messages used for communication between nodes. We consider both the synchronous and the asynchronous communication and establish exact trade‐offs in both scenarios. For the synchronous scenario, we are concerned with memory versus time trade‐offs. We show that if the automaton hasxbits of memory, wherex≥clogn, for a small constantc, then the optimal time to accomplish the comparison task in the class of trees of size at mostnand of height at mosth> 1 is Θ(h+n/x). For the asynchronous scenario, we study memory versus number of messages trade‐offs. We show that if the automaton hasxbits of memory, wheren≥x≥clogn, then the optimal number of messages to accomplish the comparison task in the class of trees of size at mostnis Θ(n2/x). © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 2012
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".