2019 · paper
Making Asynchronous Distributed Computations Robust to Noise
Develops protocol-level techniques for noisy asynchronous distributed computation.[58]
Reliable interactive and distributed computation
Ran Gelles
רן גלס
Identity: verifiedThe BIU profile uses Ran Gelles and aligns with the Hebrew roster entry. [57]
Documented foundation
Research & experience
Gelles studies coding and protocols that preserve interactive or distributed computation under communication noise and faults.[57]
interactive codingerror-correcting protocolsfault-tolerant distributed computingcommunication complexity
CV and official profile
The BIU research profile and publication list were inspected; no standalone CV was verified.[57]
Selected work
Representative records, not a complete publication list. Metadata confirms attribution; it does not independently replicate a result.
Patent evidence
0 catalogued patent records
Coverage: No attributable record found in this search
Exact-name and patent-domain searches plus the university biography were checked. No attributable inventor entry surfaced. The biography includes Technion, UCLA, Princeton and AT&T visits; those are search context, not evidence of patent ownership. No absence conclusion.
No publication records verified in this search; this does not establish absence of patents.
Original report snapshot
Original evidence: not verified
No attributable patent record was verified in the bounded search.
Records are counted separately from identified families. Author-reported entries are labelled and may still need publication verification. Inventorship, publication-time applicant and current ownership are different facts. No legal-status, patentability or freedom-to-operate conclusion is made.
Scores prioritize research fit from 1–10; they are not probabilities.
Review: Reviewed with limitations
Proposed capability matches, not confirmed relationships. Scores are analyst judgments with low forecast confidence; researcher interests, capacity and feasibility need confirmation.
Internal connections
11 candidates
Connection 1
Anelia Somekh-Baruch
Original proposal
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles's interactive protocols and Somekh-Baruch's reliability and mismatched-decoding theory meet on guarantees that survive imperfect channel knowledge.[57][58][87]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: For one finite-alphabet channel, compare a simulated interactive protocol with a stated coding bound as decoder mismatch increases.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 4
Why this rank
Rank 1/11; fit 10/10 (4 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). Preserved original co-membership proposal in o08. No strictly higher-scoring candidate displaces this original. Bounds and simulation answer different questions; agreement in a small example is not a general proof. No automatic score boost for original membership. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 2
Moti Medina
Original proposal
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles's interactive error-correcting protocols and Medina's reliable hardware models directly connect communication noise with computation faults.[57][58][100]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Simulate one distributed computation with separate packet and memory faults; compare correctness, recovery time and redundancy cost to repetition coding.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 4
Why this rank
Rank 2/11; fit 10/10 (4 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). Preserved original co-membership proposal in o08. No strictly higher-scoring candidate displaces this original. Explicit joint fault assumptions are needed; the software test does not establish robustness to arbitrary physical faults. No automatic score boost for original membership. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 3
Ephraim Zehavi
Original proposal
Proposal hypothesis: Zehavi can define a coded wireless channel while Gelles specifies an interactive protocol whose correctness survives message corruption.[19][20][57][58]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Replay a synthetic burst-error channel through an interactive exchange and compare failure probability and latency with uncoded retransmission.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 3/11; fit 9/10 (3 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). Preserved original co-membership proposal in o08. Higher-scoring Anelia Somekh-Baruch (10/10) precedes this original; its own rank reflects the following limitation: Interactive coding theory must be instantiated for the chosen channel rather than transferred from an incompatible noise model. No automatic score boost for original membership. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Show 8 moreShow fewer internal connections
Connection 4
Benjamin M. Zaidel
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles's interactive coding can be evaluated against Zaidel's multiuser link constraints when many nodes contend for communication.[57][58][102]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Compare coded interaction and retransmission over a synthetic multiuser channel on completed tasks per unit bandwidth.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 4/11; fit 9/10 (3 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. The interactive protocol must fit the channel's access and noise assumptions. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 5
Amir Leshem
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles can define correctness under noisy interaction while Leshem evaluates distributed learning under congestion and bad updates.[57][58][111][112]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Simulate an iterative distributed task with separate channel corruption and poisoned updates; compare convergence and task correctness.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 5/11; fit 9/10 (3 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. Protocol reliability and model robustness are different guarantees and must be measured separately. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 6
Mor Weiss
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles's noise-resilient interactive protocols and Mor Weiss's secure distributed computation can test whether reliability measures preserve the intended security statement.[57][58][123]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Specify a toy secure two-party exchange over a corrupted channel and compare completion rate, transcript exposure and overhead with a noiseless reference.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 6/11; fit 9/10 (3 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. Channel noise and malicious behavior require separate assumptions; error correction is not encryption. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 7
Yair Noam
Proposal hypothesis: Gelles's robust distributed protocols and Noam's cooperative spectrum estimation could test whether iterative estimates survive corrupted messages.[57][58][130][131]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Corrupt a fixed fraction of messages in a cooperative estimator and compare convergence error with uncoded and retransmission baselines.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 7/11; fit 9/10 (3 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. No arbitrary-adversary guarantee follows from a bounded corruption simulation. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 8
Shahar Somin
Proposal hypothesis: Somin's temporal network signals could identify communication-failure patterns that Gelles's interactive protocols need to tolerate.[57][58][64][65]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Generate synthetic coordinated packet-loss bursts and compare a fixed redundancy rule with a pattern-aware rule on failure and overhead.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 8/11; fit 8/10 (2 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 3 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. Pattern detection must not be used as an unsupported identity or malicious-intent inference. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 9
Adam Teman
Proposal hypothesis: Teman can model intermittent memory state while Gelles defines which protocol state must survive for interactive computation to remain correct.[1][57][58]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Inject checkpoint losses into a small coded exchange and compare completed tasks and memory writes with full-state replication.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 2
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 9/11; fit 7/10 (2 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 2 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. Memory faults and channel faults must be distinguished; no silicon fault tolerance is asserted. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 10
Leonid Yavits
Proposal hypothesis: Yavits's memory-centric execution could host a distributed task whose communication-state correctness Gelles specifies.[57][58][104][105]
First test and score details
First test
Proposed first test: Emulate a small distributed genomic-kernel exchange with message corruption and compare correct completions and memory traffic.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 2
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 10/11; fit 7/10 (2 topic overlap + 3 complementarity + 2 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. The workload must actually require interaction; adding a protocol to a local kernel has no demonstrated value. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work.
Connection 11
Alexandra Simonovsky
Identity check needed: Conditional proposal: confirm the researcher identity and research interests before assessing this match.
Proposal hypothesis: Conditional on confirmation, Simonovsky could coordinate an agent-prototype reliability workshop where Gelles defines message-corruption and correctness tests.[16][17][57][58]
First test and score details
First test
Conditional proposed first test: After identity confirmation, prepare a toy agent exchange with fixed corruptions and a reproducibility checklist for completed tasks.
Score components
- complementarity
- 2
- feasible first test
- 1
- topic overlap
- 1
Why this rank
Rank 11/11; fit 4/10 (1 topic overlap + 2 complementarity + 1 feasible first test). New pairing outside the frozen portfolio co-member graph. The proposal uses coordination capability only; protocol theory and technical mentoring capability are not attributed to Simonovsky. Equal scores use existing-first, then stable researcher ID.
Conditions
Analyst proposal hypothesis, not an established collaboration, commitment, evidence-confidence rating or assessment of researcher quality; confirm participation and access before work. Conditional: confirm Alexandra Simonovsky identity and current role before any team assignment. Evidence supports AI-agent event coordination only; research appointment, teaching role and technical research expertise are not verified. Excluded from confirmed-team claims.
External connections
10 candidates
Connection 1
Yael Kalai
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Yael Kalai's documented zero-knowledge proofs, verification of computation for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is verification with corrupted interaction; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][465]
First test and score details
First test
Compare verification protocols on a tiny computation while corrupting messages or intermediate answers using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare soundness, round complexity and tolerance to corrupted interaction with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 4
Why this rank
Rank 1/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 10 = max(1, 4+3+3): topic overlap 4/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 2
Muriel Medard
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Muriel Medard's documented network coding, reliable communication for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is coding and decoding under communication errors; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][88][474]
First test and score details
First test
Compare a coded protocol or decoder with an uncoded/retransmission baseline under burst errors using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare block-error rate and redundancy per successful computation with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 4
Why this rank
Rank 2/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 10 = max(1, 4+3+3): topic overlap 4/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 3
Bernhard Haeupler
ETH Zurich and INSAIT
Original proposal
His algorithms, coding, and distributed-communication work could complement protocol construction and lower-bound analysis; no willingness is asserted.[57][59][459]
First test and score details
First test
Simulate a ten-node interactive consensus toy protocol with an explicitly stated correctness condition and separate sweeps of bit flips, message delay and node dropout. Compare interactive redundancy with retransmission at equal message budget by correct termination and latency. State the assumed fault bound; hardware-in-loop is deferred until a platform and valid timing model are confirmed.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 2
- topic overlap
- 4
Why this rank
Rank 3/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 9 = max(1, 4+3+2): topic overlap 4/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 2/3. Interactive fault tolerance is a direct fit, while an offline correctness/fault model is the bounded first stage and hardware access is unverified. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked. Original retained exactly at rank 3; preceding alternatives are Yael Kalai (10; 4+3+3), Muriel Medard (10; 4+3+3). Its first stage now has explicit unconfirmed platform, protocol or interface prerequisites; higher totals reflect the other scoped tests, not comparative researcher quality.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified. Post-review scope: Interactive fault tolerance is a direct fit, while an offline correctness/fault model is the bounded first stage and hardware access is unverified. This revised proposal awaits independent targeted re-review; simulated outcomes would establish model behavior only, not biological, clinical or deployed benefit.
Show 7 moreShow fewer external connections
Connection 4
Robert Calderbank
Duke University
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Robert Calderbank's documented space-time coding, quantum error correction for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is structured redundancy and error correction; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][444]
First test and score details
First test
Compare structured coding with a repetition baseline under a fixed corruption/noise model using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare error rate, decoding cost and redundancy budget with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 4/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 9 = max(1, 3+3+3): topic overlap 3/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 5
Andrea Goldsmith
Stony Brook University
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Andrea Goldsmith's documented wireless communications, information theory for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is wireless-system models and information limits; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[21][57][103][456]
First test and score details
First test
Compare resource or interference policies against a non-adaptive communication baseline at fixed channel assumptions using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare throughput, latency, energy and fairness across users with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 5/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 9 = max(1, 3+3+3): topic overlap 3/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 6
Michael Mitzenmacher
Harvard University
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Michael Mitzenmacher's documented algorithms and theory, systems and networks for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is algorithmic and systems baselines; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][101][478]
First test and score details
First test
Compare two explicit sampling, load-balancing or scheduling algorithms under the same adversarial event trace using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare tail latency, failure rate and sensitivity to the event distribution with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 6/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 9 = max(1, 3+3+3): topic overlap 3/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 7
David Tse
Stanford University
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with David Tse's documented information-theoretic methods, decentralized systems for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is first-principles data and decentralized-system modelling; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][496]
First test and score details
First test
Compare a decentralized or information-constrained algorithm with a centralized reference on a small reproducible workload using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare communication cost, correctness and sensitivity to missing participants with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 3
Why this rank
Rank 7/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 9 = max(1, 3+3+3): topic overlap 3/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified. His refreshed lab page describes wireless as a previous application and current work on decentralized systems; no active wireless project is assumed.
Connection 8
Pierluigi Nuzzo
University of California, Berkeley
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Pierluigi Nuzzo's documented cyber-physical systems, design automation for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is design automation and system requirements; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][436]
First test and score details
First test
Encode latency, energy and failure constraints in a small system model and inject single-component faults using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare constraint violations and recovery overhead with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 8/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 8 = max(1, 2+3+3): topic overlap 2/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 9
Gregory Wornell
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Proposed capability match: Ran Gelles's interactive coding, error-correcting protocols can be paired with Gregory Wornell's documented signal processing, statistical inference for self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms. The specific contribution is joint statistical inference and information constraints; this transfer is an analyst hypothesis.[57][110][503]
First test and score details
First test
Compare full-data inference with task-specific compressed statistics at fixed communication or storage budget using a simulated distributed sensor/robot protocol with noisy messages and dropped nodes. Compare estimation error, calibration and bits per valid decision with retransmission and static redundancy at the same message budget.
Score components
- complementarity
- 3
- feasible first test
- 3
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 9/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 8 = max(1, 2+3+3): topic overlap 2/4, complementarity 3/3, feasible first test 3/3. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified.
Connection 10
Srini Devadas
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Proposed capability match for Ran Gelles with Srini Devadas: Secure architecture adds a conditional confidentiality layer to noisy interaction; communication errors and adversarial leakage are distinct threats with different controls.[57][448]
First test and score details
First test
Specify a protected sensor-message use case with a passive observer of memory accesses and an independent link-fault process. Simulate two implementations of the same authenticated message operation under identical faults; compare protocol completion, runtime and an explicit access-pattern leakage proxy. Hold retransmission policy fixed and report privacy and fault correctness separately; no cryptographic security proof is implied.
Score components
- complementarity
- 2
- feasible first test
- 2
- topic overlap
- 2
Why this rank
Rank 10/10 after semantic revision; analyst score 6 = max(1, 2+2+2): topic overlap 2/4, complementarity 2/3, feasible first test 2/3. Secure architecture adds a conditional confidentiality layer to noisy interaction; communication errors and adversarial leakage are distinct threats with different controls. A bounded offline comparison is specified; required datasets and domain assumptions must still be checked.
Conditions
Proposed fit, not an assertion of a new or active relationship. Independent review pending; forecast confidence low. Partner interest, capacity, data access and any required experimental approvals/resources are unverified. Post-review scope: Secure architecture adds a conditional confidentiality layer to noisy interaction; communication errors and adversarial leakage are distinct threats with different controls. This revised proposal awaits independent targeted re-review; simulated outcomes would establish model behavior only, not biological, clinical or deployed benefit.
Evidence & open questions
- No standalone CV or attributable patent record was verified.
Inspect claim ratings and independent review
Ran Gelles has source-grounded capabilities in reliable interactive and distributed computation, represented here by interactive coding, error-correcting protocols, fault-tolerant distributed computing. [57][58]
Moderate confidenceReview: reviewedThe sources establish public professional activity, not comparative quality, future performance, or willingness to participate.
Review record
- profiles_a: supports. The BIU profile supports interactive coding and fault-tolerant distributed computation, while Gelles's official publication list includes the exact 2019 asynchronous-noise paper.
Hypothesis for 2027–2031: Ran Gelles could explore self-healing protocols for sensor and robot swarms through the bounded first test described in this profile. [57][58][59]
Low confidenceReview: reviewedThe theoretical assumptions may not match wireless interference or real-time control constraints.
Review record
- profiles_a: supports. The proposal remains inferential but is grounded in Gelles's noisy distributed-computation work and Haeupler's official research description spanning algorithms, distributed computing, coding and network information theory.