MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317933801 · doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2023.113733

Wait-free approximate agreement on graphs

2023· article· en· W4317933801 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan Alistarh, Faith Ellen, Joel Rybicki

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Computer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie ActionsH2020 European Research CouncilH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChordal graphIndifference graphCombinatoricsMathematicsLongest path problemPathwidthMaximal independent setDiscrete mathematicsLemma (botany)ImpossibilityComputer scienceGraph1-planar graphLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximate agreement is one of the few variants of consensus that can be solved in a wait-free manner in asynchronous systems where processes communicate by reading and writing to shared memory. In this work, we consider a natural generalisation of approximate agreement on arbitrary undirected connected graphs. Each process is given a node of the graph as input and, if non-faulty, must output a node such that all the outputs are within distance 1 of one another, and each output value lies on a shortest path between two input values. In this work, we investigate the solvability of this task on general graphs. We give a new, direct proof of the impossibility of approximate agreement on cycles of length c≥4, via a generalisation of Sperner's Lemma to convex polygons. We also extend the reduction from 2-set agreement to a larger class of graphs, showing that approximate agreement on these graphs is unsolvable. On the positive side, we present a wait-free algorithm for a different class of graphs, which properly contains the class of chordal graphs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Computer ScienceSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207