MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380359838 · doi:10.5070/sr33161345

[Solution] Byzantine Cluster-Sending in Expected Constant Cost and Constant Time

2023· article· en· W4380359838 on OpenAlexaff
Jelle Hellings, Mohammad Sadoghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Systems Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityDistributed computingProbabilistic logicCluster (spacecraft)Robustness (evolution)Constant (computer programming)Fault toleranceByzantine fault toleranceTime complexityComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional resilient systems operate on fully-replicated fault-tolerant clusters, which limits their scalability and performance. One way to make the step towards resilient high-performance systems that can deal with huge workloads is by enabling independent fault-tolerant clusters to efficiently communicate and cooperate with each other, as this also enables the usage of high-performance techniques such as sharding. Recently, such inter-cluster communication was formalized as the Byzantine cluster-sending problem. Unfortunately, existing worst-case optimal protocols for cluster-sending all have linear complexity in the size of the clusters involved. In this paper, we propose probabilistic cluster-sending techniques as a solution for the cluster-sending problem with only an expected constant message complexity, this independent of the size of the clusters involved and this even in the presence of highly unreliable communication. Depending on the robustness of the clusters involved, our techniques require only two-to-four message round-trips (without communication failures). Furthermore, our protocols can support worst-case linear communication between clusters. Finally, we have put our techniques to the test in an in-depth experimental evaluation that further underlines the exceptional low expected costs of our techniques in comparison with other protocols. As such, our work provides a strong foundation for the further development of resilient high-performance systems.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Systems ResearchSame topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207