BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Petr Kuznetsov

Petr Kuznetsov appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingData Structures and AlgorithmsComputer Science and Game Theorymath.GN

Catalog footprint

What is connected

26works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

26 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Distributed Randomness from Approximate Agreement

Randomisation is a critical tool in designing distributed systems. The common coin primitive, enabling the system members to agree on an unpredictable random number, has proven to be particularly useful. We observe, however, that it is impossible to implement a truly random common coin protocol in a fault-prone asynchronous system. To circumvent this impossibility, we introduce two relaxations of the perfect common coin: (1) approximate common coin generating random numbers that are close to each other; and (2) Monte Carlo common coin generating a common random number with an arbitrarily small, but non-zero, probability of failure. Building atop the approximate agreement primitive, we obtain efficient asynchronous implementations of the two abstractions, tolerating up to one third of Byzantine processes. Our protocols do not assume trusted setup or public key infrastructure and converge to the perfect coin exponentially fast in the protocol running time. By plugging one of our protocols for Monte Carlo common coin in a well-known consensus algorithm, we manage to get a binary Byzantine agreement protocol with $O(n^3 \log n)$ communication complexity, resilient against an adaptive adversary, and tolerating the optimal number $f<n/3$ of failures without trusted setup or PKI. To the best of our knowledge, the best communication complexity for binary Byzantine agreement achieved so far in this setting is $O(n^4)$. We also show how the approximate common coin, combined with a variant of Gray code, can be used to solve an interesting problem of Intersecting Random Subsets, which we introduce in this paper.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

How to Tame Multiple Spending in Decentralized Cryptocurrencies

The last decade has seen a variety of Asset-Transfer systems designed for decentralized environments. To address the problem of double-spending, these systems inherently make strong model assumptions and spend a lot of resources. In this paper, we take a non-orthodox approach to the double-spending problem that might suit better realistic environments in which these systems are to be deployed. We consider the decentralized trust setting, where each user may independently choose who to trust by forming its local quorums. In this setting, we define $k$-Spending Asset Transfer, a relaxed version of asset transfer which bounds the number of times the same asset can be spent. We establish a precise relationship between the decentralized trust assumptions and $k$, the optimal spending number of the system.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

A Concurrency-Optimal List-Based Set

Designing an efficient concurrent data structure is an important challenge that is not easy to meet. Intuitively, efficiency of an implementation is defined, in the first place, by its ability to process applied operations in parallel, without using unnecessary synchronization. As we show in this paper, even for a data structure as simple as a linked list used to implement the set type, the most efficient algorithms known so far are not concurrency-optimal: they may reject correct concurrent schedules. We propose a new algorithm for the list-based set based on a value-aware try-lock that we show to achieve optimal concurrency: it only rejects concurrent schedules that violate correctness of the implemented set type. We show empirically that reaching optimality does not induce a significant overhead. In fact, our implementation of the concurrency-optimal algorithm outperforms both the Lazy Linked List and the Harris-Michael state-of-the-art algorithms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Asynchronous Computability Theorem for Fair Adversaries

This paper proposes a simple topological characterization of a large class of fair adversarial models via affine tasks: sub-complexes of the second iteration of the standard chromatic subdivision. We show that the task computability of a model in the class is precisely captured by iterations of the corresponding affine task. Fair adversaries include, but are not restricted to, the models of wait-freedom, t-resilience, and $k$-concurrency. Our results generalize and improve all previously derived topological characterizations of the ability of a model to solve distributed tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Decidability of 2-process Affine Models

An affine model of computation is defined as a subset of iterated immediate-snapshot runs, capturing a wide variety of shared-memory systems, such as wait-freedom, t-resilience, k-concurrency, and fair shared-memory adversaries. The question of whether a given task is solvable in a given affine model is, in general, undecidable. In this paper, we focus on affine models defined for a system of two processes. We show that the task computability of 2-process affine models is decidable and presents a complete hierarchy of the five equivalence classes of 2-process affine models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Online Payments by Merely Broadcasting Messages (Extended Version)

We address the problem of online payments, where users can transfer funds among themselves. We introduce Astro, a system solving this problem efficiently in a decentralized, deterministic, and completely asynchronous manner. Astro builds on the insight that consensus is unnecessary to prevent double-spending. Instead of consensus, Astro relies on a weaker primitive---Byzantine reliable broadcast---enabling a simpler and more efficient implementation than consensus-based payment systems. In terms of efficiency, Astro executes a payment by merely broadcasting a message. The distinguishing feature of Astro is that it can maintain performance robustly, i.e., remain unaffected by a fraction of replicas being compromised or slowed down by an adversary. Our experiments on a public cloud network show that Astro can achieve near-linear scalability in a sharded setup, going from $10K$ payments/sec (2 shards) to $20K$ payments/sec (4 shards). In a nutshell, Astro can match VISA-level average payment throughput, and achieves a $5\times$ improvement over a state-of-the-art consensus-based solution, while exhibiting sub-second $95^{th}$ percentile latency.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Reconfigurable Lattice Agreement and Applications

Reconfiguration is one of the central mechanisms in distributed systems. Due to failures and connectivity disruptions, the very set of service replicas (or servers) and their roles in the computation may have to be reconfigured over time. To provide the desired level of consistency and availability to applications running on top of these servers, the clients of the service should be able to reach some form of agreement on the system configuration. We observe that this agreement is naturally captured via a lattice partial order on the system states. We propose an asynchronous implementation of reconfigurable lattice agreement that implies elegant reconfigurable versions of a large class of lattice abstract data types, such as max-registers and conflict detectors, as well as popular distributed programming abstractions, such as atomic snapshot and commit-adopt.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Scalable Byzantine Reliable Broadcast (Extended Version)

Byzantine reliable broadcast is a powerful primitive that allows a set of processes to agree on a message from a designated sender, even if some processes (including the sender) are Byzantine. Existing broadcast protocols for this setting scale poorly, as they typically build on quorum systems with strong intersection guarantees, which results in linear per-process communication and computation complexity. We generalize the Byzantine reliable broadcast abstraction to the probabilistic setting, allowing each of its properties to be violated with a fixed, arbitrarily small probability. We leverage these relaxed guarantees in a protocol where we replace quorums with stochastic samples. Compared to quorums, samples are significantly smaller in size, leading to a more scalable design. We obtain the first Byzantine reliable broadcast protocol with logarithmic per-process communication and computation complexity. We conduct a complete and thorough analysis of our protocol, deriving bounds on the probability of each of its properties being compromised. During our analysis, we introduce a novel general technique we call adversary decorators. Adversary decorators allow us to make claims about the optimal strategy of the Byzantine adversary without having to make any additional assumptions. We also introduce Threshold Contagion, a model of message propagation through a system with Byzantine processes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first formal analysis of a probabilistic broadcast protocol in the Byzantine fault model. We show numerically that practically negligible failure probabilities can be achieved with realistic security parameters.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

In the Search of Optimal Concurrency

Implementing a concurrent data structure typically begins with defining its sequential specification. However, when used \emph{as is}, a nontrivial sequential data structure, such as a linked list, a search tree, or a hash table, may expose incorrect behavior: lost updates, inconsistent responses, etc. To ensure correctness, portions of the sequential code operating on the shared data must be "protected" from data races using synchronization primitives and, thus, certain schedules of the steps of concurrent operations must be rejected. But can we ensure that we do not "overuse" synchronization, i.e., that we reject a concurrent schedule only if it violates correctness? In this paper, we treat this question formally by introducing the notion of a \emph{concurrency-optimal} implementation. A program's concurrency is defined here as its ability to accept concurrent schedules, i.e., interleavings of steps of its sequential implementation. An implementation is concurrency-optimal if it accepts all interleavings that do not violate the program's correctness. We explore the concurrency properties of \emph{search} data structures which can be represented in the form of directed acyclic graphs exporting insert, delete and search operations. We prove, for the first time, that \emph{pessimistic} e.g., based on conservative locking) and \emph{optimistic serializable} e.g., based on serializable transactional memory) implementations of search data-structures are incomparable in terms of concurrency. Specifically, there exist simple interleavings of sequential code that cannot be accepted by \emph{any} pessimistic (and \emph{resp.}, serializable optimistic) implementation, but accepted by a serializable optimistic one (and \emph{resp.}, pessimistic). Thus, neither of these two implementation classes is concurrency-optimal.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Set-Consensus Collections are Decidable

A natural way to measure the power of a distributed-computing model is to characterize the set of tasks that can be solved in it. %the model. In general, however, the question of whether a given task can be solved in a given model is undecidable, even if we only consider the wait-free shared-memory model. In this paper, we address this question for restricted classes of models and tasks. We show that the question of whether a collection $C$ of \emph{$(\ell,j)$-set consensus} objects, for various $\ell$ (the number of processes that can invoke the object) and $j$ (the number of distinct outputs the object returns), can be used by $n$ processes to solve wait-free $k$-set consensus is decidable. Moreover, we provide a simple $O(n^2)$ decision algorithm, based on a dynamic programming solution to the Knapsack optimization problem. We then present an \emph{adaptive} wait-free set-consensus algorithm that, for each set of participating processes, achieves the best level of agreement that is possible to achieve using $C$. Overall, this gives us a complete characterization of a read-write model defined by a collection of set-consensus objects through its \emph{set-consensus power}.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Why Transactional Memory Should Not Be Obstruction-Free

Transactional memory (TM) is an inherently optimistic abstraction: it allows concurrent processes to execute sequences of shared-data accesses (transactions) speculatively, with an option of aborting them in the future. Early TM designs avoided using locks and relied on non-blocking synchronization to ensure obstruction-freedom: a transaction that encounters no step contention is not allowed to abort. However, it was later observed that obstruction-free TMs perform poorly and, as a result, state-of-the-art TM implementations are nowadays blocking, allowing aborts because of data conflicts rather than step contention. In this paper, we explain this shift in the TM practice theoretically, via complexity bounds. We prove a few important lower bounds on obstruction-free TMs. Then we present a lock-based TM implementation that beats all of these lower bounds. In sum, our results exhibit a considerable complexity gap between non-blocking and blocking TM implementations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

On the Space Complexity of Set Agreement

The $k$-set agreement problem is a generalization of the classical consensus problem in which processes are permitted to output up to $k$ different input values. In a system of $n$ processes, an $m$-obstruction-free solution to the problem requires termination only in executions where the number of processes taking steps is eventually bounded by $m$. This family of progress conditions generalizes wait-freedom ($m=n$) and obstruction-freedom ($m=1$). In this paper, we prove upper and lower bounds on the number of registers required to solve $m$-obstruction-free $k$-set agreement, considering both one-shot and repeated formulations. In particular, we show that repeated $k$ set agreement can be solved using $n+2m-k$ registers and establish a nearly matching lower bound of $n+m-k$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Optimism for Boosting Concurrency

Modern concurrent programming benefits from a large variety of synchronization techniques. These include conventional pessimistic locking, as well as optimistic techniques based on conditional synchronization primitives or transactional memory. Yet, it is unclear which of these approaches better leverage the concurrency inherent to multi-cores. In this paper, we compare the level of concurrency one can obtain by converting a sequential program into a concurrent one using optimistic or pessimistic techniques. To establish fair comparison of such implementations, we introduce a new correctness criterion for concurrent programs, defined independently of the synchronization techniques they use. We treat a program's concurrency as its ability to accept a concurrent schedule, a metric inspired by the theories of both databases and transactional memory. We show that pessimistic locking can provide strictly higher concurrency than transactions for some applications whereas transactions can provide strictly higher concurrency than pessimistic locks for others. Finally, we show that combining the benefits of the two synchronization techniques can provide strictly more concurrency than any of them individually. We propose a list-based set algorithm that is optimal in the sense that it accepts all correct concurrent schedules. As we show via experimentation, the optimality in terms of concurrency is reflected by scalability gains.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Progressive Transactional Memory in Time and Space

Transactional memory (TM) allows concurrent processes to organize sequences of operations on shared \emph{data items} into atomic transactions. A transaction may commit, in which case it appears to have executed sequentially or it may \emph{abort}, in which case no data item is updated. The TM programming paradigm emerged as an alternative to conventional fine-grained locking techniques, offering ease of programming and compositionality. Though typically themselves implemented using locks, TMs hide the inherent issues of lock-based synchronization behind a nice transactional programming interface. In this paper, we explore inherent time and space complexity of lock-based TMs, with a focus of the most popular class of \emph{progressive} lock-based TMs. We derive that a progressive TM might enforce a read-only transaction to perform a quadratic (in the number of the data items it reads) number of steps and access a linear number of distinct memory locations, closing the question of inherent cost of \emph{read validation} in TMs. We then show that the total number of \emph{remote memory references} (RMRs) that take place in an execution of a progressive TM in which $n$ concurrent processes perform transactions on a single data item might reach $Ω(n \log n)$, which appears to be the first RMR complexity lower bound for transactional memory.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Weakest Failure Detector for Eventual Consistency

In its classical form, a consistent replicated service requires all replicas to witness the same evolution of the service state. Assuming a message-passing environment with a majority of correct processes, the necessary and sufficient information about failures for implementing a general state machine replication scheme ensuring consistency is captured by the Ω failure detector. This paper shows that in such a message-passing environment, Ω is also the weakest failure detector to implement an eventually consistent replicated service, where replicas are expected to agree on the evolution of the service state only after some (a priori unknown) time. In fact, we show that Ω is the weakest to implement eventual consistency in any message-passing environment, i.e., under any assumption on when and where failures might occur. Ensuring (strong) consistency in any environment requires, in addition to Ω, the quorum failure detector Σ. Our paper thus captures, for the first time, an exact computational difference be- tween building a replicated state machine that ensures consistency and one that only ensures eventual consistency.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A Distributed SDN Control Plane for Consistent Policy Updates

Software-defined networking (SDN) is a novel paradigm that out-sources the control of packet-forwarding switches to a set of software controllers. The most fundamental task of these controllers is the correct implementation of the \emph{network policy}, i.e., the intended network behavior. In essence, such a policy specifies the rules by which packets must be forwarded across the network. This paper studies a distributed SDN control plane that enables \emph{concurrent} and \emph{robust} policy implementation. We introduce a formal model describing the interaction between the data plane and a distributed control plane (consisting of a collection of fault-prone controllers). Then we formulate the problem of \emph{consistent} composition of concurrent network policy updates (short: the \emph{CPC Problem}). To anticipate scenarios in which some conflicting policy updates must be rejected, we enable the composition via a natural \emph{transactional} interface with all-or-nothing semantics. We show that the ability of an $f$-resilient distributed control plane to process concurrent policy updates depends on the tag complexity, i. e., the number of policy labels (a.k.a. \emph{tags}) available to the controllers, and describe a CPC protocol with optimal tag complexity $f+2$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

A generalized asynchronous computability theorem

We consider the models of distributed computation defined as subsets of the runs of the iterated immediate snapshot model. Given a task $T$ and a model $M$, we provide topological conditions for $T$ to be solvable in $M$. When applied to the wait-free model, our conditions result in the celebrated Asynchronous Computability Theorem (ACT) of Herlihy and Shavit. To demonstrate the utility of our characterization, we consider a task that has been shown earlier to admit only a very complex $t$-resilient solution. In contrast, our generalized computability theorem confirms its $t$-resilient solvability in a straightforward manner.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

On Partial Wait-Freedom in Transactional Memory

Transactional memory (TM) is a convenient synchronization tool that allows concurrent threads to declare sequences of instructions on shared data as speculative \emph{transactions} with "all-or-nothing" semantics. It is known that dynamic transactional memory cannot provide \emph{wait-free} progress in the sense that every transaction commits in a finite number of its own steps. In this paper, we explore the costs of providing wait-freedom to only a \emph{subset} of transactions. Since most transactional workloads are believed to be read-dominated, we require that read-only transactions commit in the wait-free manner, while updating transactions are guaranteed to commit only if they run in the absence of concurrency. We show that this kind of partial wait-freedom, combined with attractive requirements like read invisibility or disjoint-access parallelism, incurs considerable complexity costs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Simple CHT: A New Derivation of the Weakest Failure Detector for Consensus

The paper proposes an alternative proof that Omega, an oracle that outputs a process identifier and guarantees that eventually the same correct process identifier is output at all correct processes, provides minimal information about failures for solving consensus in read-write shared-memory systems: every oracle that gives enough failure information to solve consensus can be used to implement Omega. Unlike the original proof by Chandra, Hadzilacos and Toueg (CHT), the proof presented in this paper builds upon the very fact that 2-process wait-free consensus is impossible. Also, since the oracle that is used to implement can solve consensus, the implementation is allowed to directly access consensus objects. As a result, the proposed proof is shorter and conceptually simpler than the original one.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Strong Equivalence Relations for Iterated Models

The Iterated Immediate Snapshot model (IIS), due to its elegant geometrical representation, has become standard for applying topological reasoning to distributed computing. Its modular structure makes it easier to analyze than the more realistic (non-iterated) read-write Atomic-Snapshot memory model (AS). It is known that AS and IIS are equivalent with respect to \emph{wait-free task} computability: a distributed task is solvable in AS if and only if it solvable in IIS. We observe, however, that this equivalence is not sufficient in order to explore solvability of tasks in \emph{sub-models} of AS (i.e. proper subsets of its runs) or computability of \emph{long-lived} objects, and a stronger equivalence relation is needed. In this paper, we consider \emph{adversarial} sub-models of AS and IIS specified by the sets of processes that can be \emph{correct} in a model run. We show that AS and IIS are equivalent in a strong way: a (possibly long-lived) object is implementable in AS under a given adversary if and only if it is implementable in IIS under the same adversary. %This holds whether the object is one-shot or long-lived. Therefore, the computability of any object in shared memory under an adversarial AS scheduler can be equivalently investigated in IIS.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Non-Interference and Local Correctness in Transactional Memory

Transactional memory promises to make concurrent programming tractable and efficient by allowing the user to assemble sequences of actions in atomic transactions with all-or-nothing semantics. It is believed that, by its very virtue, transactional memory must ensure that all committed transactions constitute a serial execution respecting the real-time order. In contrast, aborted or incomplete transactions should not "take effect." But what does "not taking effect" mean exactly? It seems natural to expect that aborted or incomplete transactions do not appear in the global serial execution, and, thus, no committed transaction can be affected by them. We investigate another, less obvious, feature of "not taking effect" called non-interference: aborted or incomplete transactions should not force any other transaction to abort. In the strongest form of non-interference that we explore in this paper, by removing a subset of aborted or incomplete transactions from the history, we should not be able to turn an aborted transaction into a committed one without violating the correctness criterion. We show that non-interference is, in a strict sense, not implementable with respect to the popular criterion of opacity that requires all transactions (be they committed, aborted or incomplete) to witness the same global serial execution. In contrast, when we only require local correctness, non-interference is implementable. Informally, a correctness criterion is local if it only requires that every transaction can be serialized along with (a subset of) the transactions committed before its last event (aborted or incomplete transactions ignored). We give a few examples of local correctness properties, including the recently proposed criterion of virtual world consistency, and present a simple though efficient implementation that satisfies non-interference and local opacity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

On the Cost of Concurrency in Transactional Memory

The crux of software transactional memory (STM) is to combine an easy-to-use programming interface with an efficient utilization of the concurrent-computing abilities provided by modern machines. But does this combination come with an inherent cost? We evaluate the cost of concurrency by measuring the amount of expensive synchronization that must be employed in an STM implementation that ensures positive concurrency, i.e., allows for concurrent transaction processing in some executions. We focus on two popular progress conditions that provide positive concurrency: progressiveness and permissiveness. We show that in permissive STMs, providing a very high degree of concurrency, a transaction performs a linear number of expensive synchronization patterns with respect to its read-set size. In contrast, progressive STMs provide a very small degree of concurrency but, as we demonstrate, can be implemented using at most one expensive synchronization pattern per transaction. However, we show that even in progressive STMs, a transaction has to "protect" (e.g., by using locks or strong synchronization primitives) a linear amount of data with respect to its write-set size. Our results suggest that looking for high degrees of concurrency in STM implementations may bring a considerable synchronization cost.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Safety of Deferred Update in Transactional Memory

Transactional memory allows the user to declare sequences of instructions as speculative \emph{transactions} that can either \emph{commit} or \emph{abort}. If a transaction commits, it appears to be executed sequentially, so that the committed transactions constitute a correct sequential execution. If a transaction aborts, none of its instructions can affect other transactions. The popular criterion of \emph{opacity} requires that the views of aborted transactions must also be consistent with the global sequential order constituted by committed ones. This is believed to be important, since inconsistencies observed by an aborted transaction may cause a fatal irrecoverable error or waste of the system in an infinite loop. Intuitively, an opaque implementation must ensure that no intermediate view a transaction obtains before it commits or aborts can be affected by a transaction that has not started committing yet, so called \emph{deferred-update} semantics. In this paper, we intend to grasp this intuition formally. We propose a variant of opacity that explicitly requires the sequential order to respect the deferred-update semantics. We show that our criterion is a safety property, i.e., it is prefix- and limit-closed. Unlike opacity, our property also ensures that a serialization of a history implies serializations of its prefixes. Finally, we show that our property is equivalent to opacity if we assume that no two transactions commit identical values on the same variable, and present a counter-example for scenarios when the "unique-write" assumption does not hold.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Wait-Freedom with Advice

We motivate and propose a new way of thinking about failure detectors which allows us to define, quite surprisingly, what it means to solve a distributed task \emph{wait-free} \emph{using a failure detector}. In our model, the system is composed of \emph{computation} processes that obtain inputs and are supposed to output in a finite number of steps and \emph{synchronization} processes that are subject to failures and can query a failure detector. We assume that, under the condition that \emph{correct} synchronization processes take sufficiently many steps, they provide the computation processes with enough \emph{advice} to solve the given task wait-free: every computation process outputs in a finite number of its own steps, regardless of the behavior of other computation processes. Every task can thus be characterized by the \emph{weakest} failure detector that allows for solving it, and we show that every such failure detector captures a form of set agreement. We then obtain a complete classification of tasks, including ones that evaded comprehensible characterization so far, such as renaming or weak symmetry breaking.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Relating L-Resilience and Wait-Freedom via Hitting Sets

The condition of t-resilience stipulates that an n-process program is only obliged to make progress when at least n-t processes are correct. Put another way, the live sets, the collection of process sets such that progress is required if all the processes in one of these sets are correct, are all sets with at least n-t processes. We show that the ability of arbitrary collection of live sets L to solve distributed tasks is tightly related to the minimum hitting set of L, a minimum cardinality subset of processes that has a non-empty intersection with every live set. Thus, finding the computing power of L is NP-complete. For the special case of colorless tasks that allow participating processes to adopt input or output values of each other, we use a simple simulation to show that a task can be solved L-resiliently if and only if it can be solved (h-1)-resiliently, where h is the size of the minimum hitting set of L. For general tasks, we characterize L-resilient solvability of tasks with respect to a limited notion of weak solvability: in every execution where all processes in some set in L are correct, outputs must be produced for every process in some (possibly different) participating set in L. Given a task T, we construct another task T_L such that T is solvable weakly L-resiliently if and only if T_L is solvable weakly wait-free.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Towards Network Games with Social Preferences

Many distributed systems can be modeled as network games: a collection of selfish players that communicate in order to maximize their individual utilities. The performance of such games can be evaluated through the costs of the system equilibria: the system states in which no player can increase her utility by unilaterally changing her behavior. However, assuming that all players are selfish and in particular that all players have the same utility function may not always be appropriate. Hence, several extensions to incorporate also altruistic and malicious behavior in addition to selfishness have been proposed over the last years. In this paper, we seek to go one step further and study arbitrary relationships between participants. In particular, we introduce the notion of the social range matrix and explore the effects of the social range matrix on the equilibria in a network game. In order to derive concrete results, we propose a simplistic network creation game that captures the effect of social relationships among players.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access