Distributed Download from an External Data Source in Byzantine Majority Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the Download problem in the Data Retrieval Model, introduced in DISC'24, where a distributed set of peers, some of which may be Byzantine, seek to learn n bits of data stored at a trustworthy external data source. Each bit of data can be learned by a peer either through a direct and costly query of the source or through other peers that have already learned it; the goal is to design a collaborative protocol that reduces the query complexity defined as the maximum number of bits queried by any honest peer. We begin with a randomized protocol for the Download problem that achieves optimal query complexity, up to a logarithmic factor. For a stronger "dynamic" adversary that can change the set of Byzantine peers from one round to the next, we achieve optimality (within log factors) for both query complexity (in expectation) and time complexity, but with larger messages. In broadcast communication, where all peers (including Byzantine peers) are required to send the same message to all peers, we achieve (up to log factors) an optimal trade-off between query complexity, time complexity, and message size with the dynamic adversary. All of our protocols can tolerate any constant fraction β < 1 of Byzantine peers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".