MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970698689 · doi:10.4230/lipics.concur.2019.31

Expressive Power of Broadcast Consensus Protocols

2019· article· en· W2970698689 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Blondin, Javier Esparza, Stefan Jaax

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnary operationComputer scienceClass (philosophy)PopulationTheoretical computer scienceDecidabilityProtocol (science)Atomic broadcastExpressive powerComputationPower (physics)Distributed computingDiscrete mathematicsBroadcasting (networking)AlgorithmComputer networkMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population protocols are a formal model of computation by identical, anonymous mobile agents interacting in pairs. Their computational power is rather limited: Angluin et al. have shown that they can only compute the predicates over N^k expressible in Presburger arithmetic. For this reason, several extensions of the model have been proposed, including the addition of devices called cover-time services, absence detectors, and clocks. All these extensions increase the expressive power to the class of predicates over N^k lying in the complexity class NL when the input is given in unary. However, these devices are difficult to implement, since they require that an agent atomically receives messages from all other agents in a population of unknown size; moreover, the agent must know that they have all been received. Inspired by the work of the verification community on Emerson and Namjoshi’s broadcast protocols, we show that NL-power is also achieved by extending population protocols with reliable broadcasts, a simpler, standard communication primitive.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207