Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3465084.3467915acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comparison Dynamics in Population Protocols

Published: 23 July 2021 Publication History

Abstract

There has recently been a surge of interest in the computational and complexity properties of the population model, which assumes n anonymous, computationally-bounded nodes, interacting at random, with the goal of jointly computing global predicates. Significant work has gone towards investigating majority or consensus dynamics in this model: that is, assuming that every node is initially in one of two states X or Y, determine which state had higher initial count.
In this paper, we consider a natural generalization of majority/consensus, which we call comparison : in its simplest formulation, we are given two baseline states, X and Y, present in any initial configuration in fixed, but possibly small counts. One of these states has higher count than the other: we will assume |X_0| > C |Y_0| for some constant C > 1. The challenge is to design a protocol by which nodes can quickly and reliably decide on which of the baseline states X_0 and Y_0 has higher initial count. We begin by analyzing a simple and general dynamics solving the above comparison problem, which uses O( log n ) states per node, and converges in O(log n) (parallel) time, with high probability, to a state where the whole population votes on opinions X or Y at rates proportional to the initial concentrations of |X_0| vs. |Y_0|. We then describe how this procedure can be bootstrapped to solve comparison, i.e. have every node in the population reach the "correct'' decision, with probability 1 - o(1), at the cost of O (log log n) additional states. Further, we prove that this dynamics is self-stabilizing, in the sense that it converges to the correct decision from arbitrary initial states, and leak-robust, in the sense that it can withstand spurious faulty reactions, which are known to occur in practical implementations of population protocols. Our analysis is based on a new martingale concentration result relating the discrete-time evolution of a population protocol to its expected (steady-state) analysis, which should be a useful tool when analyzing opinion dynamics and epidemic dissemination in the population model.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (zoom_0.mp4)
Presentation video.

References

[1]
Dan Alistarh, James Aspnes, David Eisenstat, Rati Gelashvili, and Ronald L Rivest. 2017a. Time-space trade-offs in population protocols. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 2560--2579.
[2]
Dan Alistarh, James Aspnes, and Rati Gelashvili. 2018. Space-optimal majority in population protocols. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 2221--2239.
[3]
Dan Alistarh, Bartłomiej Dudek, Adrian Kosowski, David Soloveichik, and Przemysław Uzna'nski. 2017b. Robust detection in leak-prone population protocols. In International Conference on DNA-Based Computers. Springer, 155--171.
[4]
Dan Alistarh and Rati Gelashvili. 2018. Recent Algorithmic Advances in Population Protocols. SIGACT News, Vol. 49, 3 (Oct. 2018), 63--73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289137.3289150
[5]
Dan Alistarh, Martin Töpfer, and Przemysław Uzna'nski. 2020. Robust comparison in population protocols. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06485 (2020).
[6]
Dana Angluin, James Aspnes, Zoë Diamadi, Michael J Fischer, and René Peralta. 2006. Computation in networks of passively mobile finite-state sensors. Distributed computing, Vol. 18, 4 (2006), 235--253.
[7]
Dana Angluin, James Aspnes, and David Eisenstat. 2008a. A simple population protocol for fast robust approximate majority. Distributed Computing, Vol. 21, 2 (2008), 87--102.
[8]
Dana Angluin, James Aspnes, David Eisenstat, and Eric Ruppert. 2007. The computational power of population protocols. Distributed Computing, Vol. 20, 4 (2007), 279--304.
[9]
Dana Angluin, James Aspnes, Michael J Fischer, and Hong Jiang. 2008b. Self-stabilizing population protocols. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, Vol. 3, 4 (2008), 13:1--13:28.
[10]
Stav Ben-Nun, Tsvi Kopelowitz, Matan Kraus, and Ely Porat. 2020. An O(łog^3/2 n) Parallel Time Population Protocol for Majority with O(łog n) States. In PODC . https://doi.org/10.1145/3382734.3405747
[11]
Petra Berenbrink, Robert Els"asser, Tom Friedetzky, Dominik Kaaser, Peter Kling, and Tomasz Radzik. 2018a. Majority & Stabilization in Population Protocols. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04586 (2018).
[12]
Petra Berenbrink, Robert Els"a sser, Tom Friedetzky, Dominik Kaaser, Peter Kling, and Tomasz Radzik. 2018b. A Population Protocol for Exact Majority with O(łog^5/3 n) Stabilization Time and Θ(łog n) States. In DISC. 10:1--10:18. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2018.10
[13]
Petra Berenbrink, George Giakkoupis, and Peter Kling. 2020. Optimal time and space leader election in population protocols. In Proc. 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2020) . 119--129.
[14]
Stéphane Boucheron, Gábor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. 2013. Concentration inequalities: A nonasymptotic theory of independence .Oxford university press.
[15]
Luca Cardelli and Attila Csikász-Nagy. 2012. The Cell Cycle Switch Computes Approximate Majority. Nature Scientific Reports, Vol. 2 (2012), 656:1--656:9.
[16]
Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Othon Michail, Stavros Nikolaou, Andreas Pavlogiannis, and Paul G Spirakis. 2011. Passively mobile communicating machines that use restricted space. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM ACM SIGACT/SIGMOBILE International Workshop on Foundations of Mobile Computing. ACM, 6--15.
[17]
Yuan-Jyue Chen, Neil Dalchau, Niranjan Srnivas, Andrew Phillips, Luca Cardelli, David Soloveichik, and Georg Seelig. 2013. Programmable chemical controllers made from DNA. Nature Nanotechnology, Vol. 8, 10 (2013), 755--762.
[18]
David Doty, Mahsa Eftekhari, and Eric E. Severson. 2020. A stable majority population protocol using logarithmic time and states. CoRR, Vol. abs/2012.15800 (2020). arxiv: 2012.15800 https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.15800
[19]
Moez Draief and Milan Vojnovic. 2012. Convergence speed of binary interval consensus. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, Vol. 50, 3 (2012), 1087--1109.
[20]
Adrian Kosowski. 2018. Universal protocols for information dissemination using emergent signals. In STOC . 87--99. https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188818
[21]
Robert Els"asser, Tomasz Radzik, et almbox. 2018. Recent results in population protocols for exact majority and leader election. Bulletin of EATCS, Vol. 3, 126 (2018).
[22]
Mohsen Ghaffari and Merav Parter. 2016. A polylogarithmic gossip algorithm for plurality consensus. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 117--126.
[23]
Leszek G'sieniec, Grzegorz Stachowiak, and Przemyslaw Uzna'ski. 2020. Time and Space Optimal Exact Majority Population Protocols. CoRR, Vol. abs/2011.07392 (2020). arxiv: 2011.07392 https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.07392
[24]
Adrian Kosowski and Przemyslaw Uzna'ski. 2018. Population Protocols Are Fast. CoRR, Vol. abs/1802.06872 (2018). arxiv: 1802.06872
[25]
George B Mertzios, Sotiris E Nikoletseas, Christoforos L Raptopoulos, and Paul G Spirakis. 2017. Determining majority in networks with local interactions and very small local memory. Distributed Computing, Vol. 30, 1 (2017), 1--16.
[26]
Etienne Perron, Dinkar Vasudevan, and Milan Vojnovic. 2009. Using three states for binary consensus on complete graphs. In INFOCOM 2009, IEEE. IEEE, 2527--2535.
[27]
Chris Thachuk, Erik Winfree, and David Soloveichik. 2015. Leakless DNA strand displacement systems. In International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming. Springer, 133--153.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Black Ninjas and the Sniper: On Robust Population ProtocolsPrinciples of Verification: Cycling the Probabilistic Landscape10.1007/978-3-031-75778-5_10(206-233)Online publication date: 18-Nov-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
PODC'21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
July 2021
590 pages
ISBN:9781450385480
DOI:10.1145/3465084
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 July 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. majority computation
  2. population protocols
  3. randomized algorithms

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • Polish National Science Center

Conference

PODC '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 25 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)The Black Ninjas and the Sniper: On Robust Population ProtocolsPrinciples of Verification: Cycling the Probabilistic Landscape10.1007/978-3-031-75778-5_10(206-233)Online publication date: 18-Nov-2024

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media