Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a formal model of mesh inference, where independent agents derive collective conclusions without a central coordinator or sharing internal states. The model demonstrates that mesh inference converges to a unique answer through a single admission/emission policy, ensuring identification-completeness and confidentiality. Key findings reveal that in a linear-Gaussian context, the derived answers match the centralized optimum with a latency cost of O(diam^2), marking a significant advancement in decentralized inference methodologies.
Mesh inference achieves centralized optimality without sharing internal states, challenging traditional models of collective decision-making.
We present a formal model of mesh inference: how a population of independent agents, each holding private state and exchanging only admitted, typed observations, derives a conclusion none of them holds alone, with no central coordinator and no agent exposed. No agent shares weights, gradients, or hidden state, and the agents may span different teams, networks, and organizations. Motivated by the observation that asking a model is energy-minimizing inference, we model the mesh as a coupled free energy that each agent relaxes locally. We show that a single admission/emission policy governs three properties. First, mesh inference converges to a unique answer for any admission, symmetric or not, because the coupling is always an M-matrix. Second, it is identification-complete: it derives the centralized optimum exactly when the contributing views are carrier-connected. Third, it is observation-only: no node transmits its internals, and confidentiality is the dual of identification. Content-addressed lineage is the only global side-channel. In the linear-Gaussian regime every derived answer is determined, hence equal to the centralized optimum, at O(diam^2) latency, the measured price of removing the center. One such derivation is one turn of a center-free learning loop, which we formalize as architecture rather than prove. The open problem we state is when asking improves the collective rather than corrupting it: whether the non-linear closure derives an upgraded answer or a confident error. To our knowledge, this is the first formal model of mesh inference.
