MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619218210 · doi:10.1145/3039870

Time vs. Information Tradeoffs for Leader Election in Anonymous Trees

2017· article· en· W2619218210 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Glacet, Avery Miller, Andrzej Pelc

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Algorithms · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLeader electionNode (physics)LogarithmUpper and lower boundsComputer scienceString (physics)Tree (set theory)Binary logarithmComputer networkAdvice (programming)Time complexitySimple (philosophy)Multiplicative functionMathematicsCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leader election is one of the fundamental problems in distributed computing. It calls for all nodes of a network to agree on a single node, called the leader . If the nodes of the network have distinct labels, then agreeing on a single node means that all nodes have to output the label of the elected leader. If the nodes of the network are anonymous, the task of leader election is formulated as follows: every node v of the network must output a simple path, which is coded as a sequence of port numbers, such that all these paths end at a common node, the leader. In this article, we study deterministic leader election in anonymous trees. Our aim is to establish tradeoffs between the allocated time τ and the amount of information that has to be given a priori to the nodes to enable leader election in time τ in all trees for which leader election in this time is at all possible. Following the framework of algorithms with advice , this information (a single binary string) is provided to all nodes at the start by an oracle knowing the entire tree. The length of this string is called the size of advice . For a given time τ allocated to leader election, we give upper and lower bounds on the minimum size of advice sufficient to perform leader election in time τ. For most values of τ, our upper and lower bounds are either tight up to multiplicative constants, or they differ only by a logarithmic factor. Let T be an n -node tree of diameter diam ⩽ D . While leader election in time diam can be performed without any advice, for time diam − 1 we give tight upper and lower bounds of Θ(log D ). For time diam − 2 we give tight upper and lower bounds of Θ(log D ) for even values of diam , and tight upper and lower bounds of Θ(log n ) for odd values of diam . Moving to shorter time, in the interval [β · diam , diam − 3] for constant β > 1/2, we prove an upper bound of O ( n log n / D ) and a lower bound of Ω( n / D ), the latter being valid whenever diam is odd or when the time is at most diam − 4. Hence, with the exception of the special case when diam is even and time is exactly diam − 3, our bounds leave only a logarithmic gap in this time interval. Finally, for time α · diam for any constant α < 1/2 (except for the case of very small diameters), we again give tight upper and lower bounds, this time Θ( n ).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on AlgorithmsSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207