Faster asynchronous MST and low diameter tree construction with sublinear communication
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
Building a spanning tree, minimum spanning tree (MST), and BFS tree in a distributed network are fundamental problems which are still not fully understood in terms of time and communication cost. x The first work to succeed in computing a spanning tree with communication sublinear in the number of edges in an asynchronous CONGEST network appeared in DISC 2018. That algorithm which constructs an MST is sequential in the worst case; its running time is proportional to the total number of messages sent. Our paper matches its message complexity but brings the running time down to linear in $n$. Our techniques can also be used to provide an asynchronous algorithm with sublinear communication to construct a tree in which the distance from a source to each node is within an additive term of $\sqrt{n}$ of its actual distance. We can convert any asynchronous MST algorithm with time $T(n, m)$ and message complexity of $M(n, m)$ to an algorithm with time $O(n^{1 - 2ε} + T(n, n^{3/2 + ε}))$ and message complexity of $\tilde{O}(n^{3/2 + ε} + M(n, n^{3/2+ε}))$, for $ε\in [0, 1/4]$. Picking $ε= 0$ and using Awerbuch's algorithm \cite{awerbuch1987optimal}, this results in an MST algorithm with time $O(n)$ and message complexity $\tilde{O}(n^{3/2})$. However, if there were an asynchronous MST algorithm that takes time sublinear in $n$ and requires messages linear in $m$, by picking $ε> 0$ we could achieve sublinear time (in $n$) and sublinear communication (in $m$), simultaneously. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such algorithm. All the algorithms presented here are Monte Carlo and succeed with high probability, in the KT1 CONGEST asynchronous model.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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