MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131743673 · doi:10.4230/lipics.disc.2021.43

Brief Announcement: Fast Graphical Population Protocols

2021· preprint· en· W3131743673 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Alistarh, Rati Gelashvili, Joel Rybicki

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePopulationMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ nodes. In the stochastic population protocol model, a collection of $n$ indistinguishable, resource-limited nodes collectively solve tasks via pairwise interactions. In each interaction, two randomly chosen neighbors first read each other's states, and then update their local states. A rich line of research has established tight upper and lower bounds on the complexity of fundamental tasks, such as majority and leader election, in this model, when $G$ is a clique. Specifically, in the clique, these tasks can be solved fast, i.e., in $n \operatorname{polylog} n$ pairwise interactions, with high probability, using at most $\operatorname{polylog} n$ states per node. In this work, we consider the more general setting where $G$ is an arbitrary graph, and present a technique for simulating protocols designed for fully-connected networks in any connected regular graph. Our main result is a simulation that is efficient on many interesting graph families: roughly, the simulation overhead is polylogarithmic in the number of nodes, and quadratic in the conductance of the graph. As a sample application, we show that, in any regular graph with conductance $ϕ$, both leader election and exact majority can be solved in $ϕ^{-2} \cdot n \operatorname{polylog} n$ pairwise interactions, with high probability, using at most $ϕ^{-2} \cdot \operatorname{polylog} n$ states per node. This shows that there are fast and space-efficient population protocols for leader election and exact majority on graphs with good expansion properties. We believe our results will prove generally useful, as they allow efficient technology transfer between the well-mixed (clique) case, and the under-explored spatial setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
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 score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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