MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951957905 · doi:10.1080/15427951.2015.1051674

The Analysis of Kademlia for Random IDs

2015· article· en· W2951957905 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Mathematics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNode (physics)Mathematical proofComputer scienceRandom graphMathematicsPeer-to-peerThe InternetConstant (computer programming)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmDistributed computingGraphWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at [www.tandfonline.com/uinm](http://www.tandfonline.com/uinm). Kademlia is the de facto standard searching algorithm for P2P (peer-to-peer) networks on the Internet. In our earlier work, we introduced two slightly different models for Kademlia and studied how many steps it takes to search for a target node by using Kademlia’s searching algorithm. The first model, in which nodes of the network are labeled with deterministic IDs, was discussed in that article. In the second, the Random ID Model, in which nodes are labeled with random IDs, was only briefly mentioned. Refined results with detailed proofs for this model are given in this article. Our analysis shows that, with high probability, it takes about _c_log _n_ steps to locate any node, where _n_ is the total number of nodes in the network and _c_ is a constant that does not depend on _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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.253 · 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