Bibliographic record
Abstract
In consensus problems, the goal is for the nodes of a network to converge to a certain quantity or a function of their values using local communications. In the maximum value consensus problem, the objective of these communications is for all the nodes to converge to the maximum of their initial values. There are two existing algorithms for the maximum value consensus problem in asynchronous networks: RANDOM-PAIRWISE-MAX and RANDOM-BROADCAST-MAX for which the bounds on the mean convergence time have been derived in the literature. In this paper, we derive tighter bounds on the expected convergence time of these two algorithms when run on grid networks and random geometric graphs, respectively-two models commonly used to capture salient properties of wireless networks. We show that RANDOM-PAIRWISE-MAX run on a 2-D grid graph with n nodes converges in expectation after O(n3/2) iterations, and RANDOM-BROADCAST-MAX run on a random geometric graph with n nodes converges in expectation after O((n/ log n)3/2) iterations. These bounds improve over the previous best-known upper bounds by factors of √n log n and log n + log2n, respectively. Experiments illustrate that the proposed bounds can be up to 95% tighter than the previous state-of-the-art bounds. Furthermore, we enhance the proposed bounds by introducing probabilistic network link failures, e.g., to model packet drops in wireless networks.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".