Deterministic Leader Election in Anonymous Radio Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leader election is a fundamental task in distributed computing. It is a symmetry breaking problem, calling for one node of the network to become the leader , and for all other nodes to become non-leaders . We consider leader election in anonymous radio networks modeled as simple undirected connected graphs. Nodes communicate in synchronous rounds. In each round, a node can either transmit a message to all its neighbours, or stay silent and listen. A node v hears a message from a neighbour w in a given round if v listens in this round and if w is its only neighbour transmitting in this round. If v listens in a round in which more than one neighbour transmits, then v hears noise that is different from any message and different from silence. We assume that nodes are identical (anonymous) and execute the same deterministic algorithm. Under this scenario, symmetry can be broken only in one way: by different wake-up times of the nodes. In which situations is it possible to break symmetry and elect a leader using time as symmetry breaker? In order to answer this question, we consider configurations . A configuration is the underlying graph with nodes tagged by non-negative integers with the following meaning. A node can either wake up spontaneously in the round shown on its tag, according to some global clock, or can be woken up hearing a message sent by one of its already awoken neighbours. The local clock of a node starts at its wakeup and nodes do not have access to the global clock determining their tags. A configuration is feasible if there exists a distributed algorithm that elects a leader for this configuration. Our main result is a complete algorithmic characterization of feasible configurations. More precisely, we design a centralized decision algorithm, working in polynomial time, whose input is a configuration and which decides if the configuration is feasible. Using this algorithm we also provide a dedicated deterministic distributed leader election algorithm for each feasible configuration that elects a leader for this configuration in time O ( n 2 σ, where n is the number of nodes and σ is the difference between the largest and smallest tag of the configuration. We then ask the question whether there exists a universal deterministic distributed algorithm electing a leader for all feasible configurations. The answer turns out to be no, and we show that such a universal algorithm cannot exist even for the class of 4-node feasible configurations. We also prove that a distributed version of our decision algorithm cannot exist.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".