A Comprehensive Survey on Coded Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Challenges, and Networking Applications
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
Distributed computing has become a common approach for large-scale computation tasks due to benefits such as high reliability, scalability, computation speed, and cost-effectiveness. However, distributed computing faces critical issues related to communication load and straggler effects. In particular, computing nodes need to exchange intermediate results with each other in order to calculate the final result, and this significantly increases communication overheads. Furthermore, a distributed computing network may include straggling nodes that run intermittently slower. This results in a longer overall time needed to execute the computation tasks, thereby limiting the performance of distributed computing. To address these issues, coded distributed computing (CDC), i.e., a combination of coding theoretic techniques and distributed computing, has been recently proposed as a promising solution. Coding theoretic techniques have proved effective in WiFi and cellular systems to deal with channel noise. Therefore, CDC may significantly reduce communication load, alleviate the effects of stragglers, provide fault-tolerance, privacy and security. In this survey, we first introduce the fundamentals of CDC, followed by basic CDC schemes. Then, we review and analyze a number of CDC approaches proposed to reduce the communication costs, mitigate the straggler effects, and guarantee privacy and security. Furthermore, we present and discuss applications of CDC in modern computer networks. Finally, we highlight important challenges and promising research directions related to CDC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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