Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed consensus is possible for asynchronous communication networks when assisted by quantum mechanical effects. Previous results are extended to show that consensus is possible even in the presence of byzantine process failures. This result directly contradicts the FLP impossibility result which states that distributed consensus is impossible when even one faulty networked process exists in the group. PODC’08, August 18–21, 2008, p445, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ACM 978-1-59593-9890/08/08. 1. DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING IS PHYSICAL Distributed computing is concerned with what can be accomplished using systems of networked processors. As with all information processing devices, these systems are necessarily physical and ultimately bound by the laws of physics[Land88]. Therefore, when proving impossibility results and bounds on algorithmic efficiency, it only makes sense to consider the possibilities offered, not only by classical information processing, but also the effects of quantum mechanics[NC00]. Recent results have shown that shared quantum resources make problems like anonymous leader election and distributed consensus possible under conditions where no classical algorithm could perform the same tasks[DP06]. These results are extended here to show that shared quantum resources allow fault-tolerant consensus in direct contradiction of previous impossibility results[FLP85]. Although this research is largely self-contained, a basic understanding of distributed computing is assumed of the reader along with a passing understanding of linear algebra which is necessary to understand the reasoning behind the algorithm detailed in section 4. A thorough understanding of quantum mechanics is recommended, although a reference of the specific quantum mechanical notation required to follow later reasoning in section 4 is detailed in section 3. A computer scientist unfamiliar with quantum mechanics would be well served to reference chapter 2 of [NC00] in order to gain a deeper understanding of the notation covered in section 3 of this paper. Likewise, a quantum physicist would be well served to reference chapter 15 of [Garg04] to more deeply understand the fault modeling of distributed computing covered in section 2 and section 5.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".