On the push&pull protocol for rumour spreading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The asynchronous push&pull protocol, a randomized distributed algorithm for spreading a rumour in a graph $G$, works as follows. Independent Poisson clocks of rate 1 are associated with the vertices of $G$. Initially, one vertex of $G$ knows the rumour. Whenever the clock of a vertex $x$ rings, it calls a random neighbour $y$: if $x$ knows the rumour and $y$ does not, then $x$ tells $y$ the rumour (a push operation), and if $x$ does not know the rumour and $y$ knows it, $y$ tells $x$ the rumour (a pull operation). The average spread time of $G$ is the expected time it takes for all vertices to know the rumour, and the guaranteed spread time of $G$ is the smallest time $t$ such that with probability at least $1-1/n$, after time $t$ all vertices know the rumour. The synchronous variant of this protocol, in which each clock rings precisely at times $1,2,\dots$, has been studied extensively. We prove the following results for any $n$-vertex graph: In either version, the average spread time is at most linear even if only the pull operation is used, and the guaranteed spread time is within a logarithmic factor of the average spread time, so it is $O(n\log n)$. In the asynchronous version, both the average and guaranteed spread times are $Ω(\log n)$. We give examples of graphs illustrating that these bounds are best possible up to constant factors. We also prove theoretical relationships between the guaranteed spread times in the two versions. Firstly, in all graphs the guaranteed spread time in the asynchronous version is within an $O(\log n)$ factor of that in the synchronous version, and this is tight. Next, we find examples of graphs whose asynchronous spread times are logarithmic, but the synchronous versions are polynomially large. Finally, we show for any graph that the ratio of the synchronous spread time to the asynchronous spread time is $O(n^{2/3})$.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".