Decentralized Optimization With Non-Identical Sampling In Presence Of Stragglers
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
We consider decentralized consensus optimization when workers sample data from non-identical distributions and perform variable amounts of work due to slow nodes known as stragglers. The problem of non-identical distributions and the problem of variable amount of work have been previously studied separately. In our work we analyze them together under a unified system model. We study the convergence of the optimization algorithm when combining worker outputs under two heuristic methods: (1) weighting equally, and (2) weighting by the amount of work completed by each. We prove convergence of the two methods under perfect consensus, assuming straggler statistics are independent and identical across all workers for all iterations. Our numerical results show that under approximate consensus the second method outperforms the first method for both convex and non-convex objective functions. We make use of the theory on minimum variance unbiased estimator (MVUE) to evaluate the existence of an optimal method for combining worker outputs. While we conclude that neither of the two heuristic methods are optimal, we also show that an optimal method does not 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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