Fundamental Limits of Decentralized Data Shuffling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data shuffling of training data among different computing nodes (workers) has been identified as a core element to improve the statistical performance of modern large-scale machine learning algorithms. Data shuffling is often considered as one of the most significant bottlenecks in such systems due to the heavy communication load. Under a master-worker architecture (where a master has access to the entire dataset and only communication between the master and the workers is allowed) coding has been recently proved to considerably reduce the communication load. This work considers a different communication paradigm referred to as decentralized data shuffling, where workers are allowed to communicate with one another via a shared link. The decentralized data shuffling problem has two phases: workers communicate with each other during the data shuffling phase, and then workers update their stored content during the storage phase. The main challenge is to derive novel converse bounds and achievable schemes for decentralized data shuffling by considering the asymmetry of the workers' storages (i.e., workers are constrained to store different files in their storages based on the problem setting), in order to characterize the fundamental limits of this problem. For the case of uncoded storage (i.e., each worker directly stores a subset of bits of the dataset), this paper proposes converse and achievable bounds (based on distributed interference alignment and distributed clique-covering strategies) that are within a factor of 3/2 of one another. The proposed schemes are also exactly optimal under the constraint of uncoded storage for either large storage size or at most four workers in the system.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it