Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examples of large scale networks include the Internet, peer-to-peer networks, parallel computing systems, cloud computing systems, sensor networks, and social networks. Efficient dissemination of information in large networks such as these is a funda- mental problem. In many scenarios the gathering of information by a centralised controller can be impractical. When designing and analysing distributed algorithms we must consider the limitations imposed by the heterogeneity of devices in the networks. Devices may have limited computational ability or space. This makes randomised algorithms attractive solutions. Randomised algorithms can often be simpler and easier to implement than their deterministic counterparts. This thesis analyses the effect of communication patterns on the performance of distributed randomised algorithms. We study randomized algorithms with application to three different areas. Firstly, we study a generalization of the balls-into-bins game. Balls into bins games have been used to analyse randomised load balancing. Under the Greedy[d] allocation scheme each ball queries the load of d random bins and is then allocated to the least loaded of them. We consider an infinite, parallel setting where expectedly λn balls are allocated in parallel according to the Greedy[d] allocation scheme in to n bins and subsequently each non-empty bin removes a ball. Our results show that for d = 1,2, the Greedy[d] allocation scheme is self-stabilizing and that in any round the maximum system load for high arrival rates is exponentially smaller for d = 2 compared to d = 1 (w.h.p). Secondly, we introduce protocols that solve the plurality consensus problem on arbitrary graphs for arbitrarily small bias. Typically, protocols depend heavily on the employed communication mechanism. Our protocols are based on an interest- ing relationship between plurality consensus and distributed load balancing. This relationship allows us to design protocols that are both time and space efficient and generalize the state of the art for a large range of problem parameters. Finally, we investigate the effect of restricting the communication of the classical PULL algorithm for randomised rumour spreading. Rumour spreading (broadcast) is a fundamental task in distributed computing. Under the classical PULL algo- rithm, a node with the rumour that receives multiple requests is able to respond to all of them in a given round. Our model restricts nodes such that they can re- spond to at most one request per round. Our results show that the restricted PULL algorithm is optimal for several graph classes such as complete graphs, expanders, random graphs and several Cayley graphs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".