Bibliographic record
Abstract
In broadcasting, one node of a network has a message that must be learned by all other nodes. We study deterministic algorithms for this fundamental communication task in a very weak model of wireless communication. The only signals sent by nodes are beeps. Moreover, they are delivered to neighbors of the beeping node in an asynchronous way: the time between sending and reception is finite but unpredictable. We first observe that under this scenario, no communication is possible, if beeps are all of the same strength. Hence we study broadcasting in the bivalent beeping model, where every beep can be either soft or loud. At the receiving end, if exactly one soft beep is received by a node in a round, it is heard as soft. Any other combination of beeps received in a round is heard as a loud beep. The cost of a broadcasting algorithm is the total number of beeps sent by all nodes. We consider four levels of knowledge that nodes may have about the network: anonymity (no knowledge whatsoever), ad-hoc (all nodes have distinct labels and every node knows only its own label), neighborhood awareness (every node knows its label and labels of all neighbors), and full knowledge (every node knows the entire labeled map of the network and the identity of the source). We first show that in the anonymous case, broadcasting is impossible even for very simple networks. For each of the other three knowledge levels we provide upper and lower bounds on the minimum cost of a broadcasting algorithm. Our results show separations between all these scenarios. Perhaps surprisingly, the jump in broadcasting cost between the ad-hoc and neighborhood awareness levels is much larger than between the neighborhood awareness and full knowledge levels, although in the two former levels knowledge of nodes is local, and in the latter it is global.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".