John Augustine

Arnhav Datar, Arun Rajkumar, John Augustine

We study the problem of rank aggregation where the goal is to obtain a global ranking by aggregating pair-wise comparisons of voters over a set of items. We consider an adversarial setting where the voters are partitioned into two sets. The first set votes in a stochastic manner according to the popular score-based Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model for pairwise comparisons. The second set comprises malicious Byzantine voters trying to deteriorate the ranking. We consider a strongly-adversarial scenario where the Byzantine voters know the BTL scores, the votes of the good voters, the algorithm, and can collude with each other. We first show that the popular spectral ranking based Rank-Centrality algorithm, though optimal for the BTL model, does not perform well even when a small constant fraction of the voters are Byzantine. We introduce the Byzantine Spectral Ranking Algorithm (and a faster variant of it), which produces a reliable ranking when the number of good voters exceeds the number of Byzantine voters. We show that no algorithm can produce a satisfactory ranking with probability > 1/2 for all BTL weights when there are more Byzantine voters than good voters, showing that our algorithm works for all possible population fractions. We support our theoretical results with experimental results on synthetic and real datasets to demonstrate the failure of the Rank-Centrality algorithm under several adversarial scenarios and how the proposed Byzantine Spectral Ranking algorithm is robust in obtaining good rankings.

John Augustine, Henning Hillebrandt, Manish Kumar et al.

We consider a recently proposed \emph{supervised distributed computing} paradigm \cite{augustine2025supervised} that extends and refines the standard master-worker paradigm for parallel computations. In this paradigm, there is a supervisor, a source, a target, and a collection of workers. The distributed computation is given as an acyclic task graph that is known to the supervisor. The source initially stores the input and the target is supposed to store the output of the computation. The individual tasks of the computation are supposed to be executed by the workers under the guidance of the supervisor. The source, target and supervisor are assumed to be reliable, while a $β$-fraction of the workers might be adversarial, for some $β\in [0,1)$. This covers, for example, the case where a supervisor has to work with untrusted volunteers. In the standard master-worker approach, the master checks whether the workers correctly execute the assigned tasks, creating a severe bottleneck, whereas in the supervised approach, the supervisor outsources this checking to the workers. Prior to this work, only supervised solutions were known for the case that $β$ is a sufficiently small constant. We show that robust and efficient supervised solutions are possible for \emph{any} constant $β<1$ while the expected work for the honest workers is close to a \emph{single} execution per task, given that there is a lightweight verification mechanism that allows honest workers to check the correctness of task outputs, which is significantly better than all robust master-worker as well as peer-to-peer approaches known so far.