Search citation statements

Paper Sections

Select...

2

1

1

1

Citation Types

1

11

0

Year Published

2016

2020

Publication Types

Select...

3

1

Relationship

3

1

Authors

Journals

(12 citation statements)

(89 reference statements)

1

11

0

“…The main ingredient to achieve this result is an exact algorithm for MST (that is selfstabilizing, silent and polynomial-time), that uses O(log n • s) space, where s is the number of bits used to encode an edge weight. This matches the performance of the O(log 2 n)-space algorithm of [2], for polynomial weights, but applies to any weight range. We conjecture that this result is tight, because for weights polynomially large, an Ω(log n • s) bound is known [15], and it seems likely that it is also the right answer for smaller weights.…”

confidence: 71%

“…The main ingredient to achieve this result is an exact algorithm for MST (that is selfstabilizing, silent and polynomial-time), that uses O(log n • s) space, where s is the number of bits used to encode an edge weight. This matches the performance of the O(log 2 n)-space algorithm of [2], for polynomial weights, but applies to any weight range. We conjecture that this result is tight, because for weights polynomially large, an Ω(log n • s) bound is known [15], and it seems likely that it is also the right answer for smaller weights.…”

confidence: 71%

“…But an algorithm in constant space cannot exist for this problem because one cannot break symmetry in constant space [1]. On the positive side, [2] shows that for various tree construction problems, one can match the space bound and have polynomial-time stabilization. In particular, one can get down to Θ(log 2 n) for minimum spanning tree, which is optimal when the edge weight are in a polynomial range.…”

confidence: 99%

“…Such objects can be the outcome of an algorithm that might be subject to failures, or be a-priori correctly given objects but subject to later corruption. There are several mechanisms for checking the correctness of distributed objects (see, e.g., [2,3,7,[10][11][12]), and here we focus on one classical mechanism which is both simple and versatile, known as proof-labeling schemes [37], or as locally checkable proofs [30]. 1 Roughly, a proof-labeling scheme assigns certificates to each node of the network.…”

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, such data structures can be the outcome of an algorithm that might be subject to failures, or be a-priori correctly given data-structures but subject to later corruption. Several mechanisms exist enabling checking the correctness of distributed data structures (see, e.g., [2,5,9,10,11]). For its simplicity and versatility, we shall focus on one classical mechanism known as proof-labeling schemes [31], a.k.a.…”

confidence: 99%