Paper detail

Determining Majority in Networks with Local Interactions and very Small Local Memory

We study here the problem of determining the majority type in an arbitrary connected network, each vertex of which has initially two possible types. The vertices may have a few additional possible states and can interact in pairs only if they share an edge. Any (population) protocol is required to stabilize in the initial majority. We first present and analyze a protocol with 4 states per vertex that always computes the initial majority value, under any fair scheduler. As we prove, this protocol is optimal, in the sense that there is no population protocol that always computes majority with fewer than 4 states per vertex. However this does not rule out the existence of a protocol with 3 states per vertex that is correct with high probability. To this end, we examine a very natural majority protocol with 3 states per vertex, introduced in [Angluin et al. 2008] where its performance has been analyzed for the clique graph. We study the performance of this protocol in arbitrary networks. We prove that, when the two initial states are put uniformly at random on the vertices, this protocol converges to the initial majority with probability higher than the probability of converging to the initial minority. In contrast, we present an infinite family of graphs, on which the protocol can fail whp, even when the difference between the initial majority and the initial minority is $n - Θ(\ln{n})$. We also present another infinite family of graphs in which the protocol of Angluin et al. takes an expected exponential time to converge. These two negative results build upon a very positive result concerning the robustness of the protocol on the clique. Surprisingly, the resistance of the clique to failure causes the failure in general graphs. Our techniques use new domination and coupling arguments for suitably defined processes whose dynamics capture the antagonism between the states involved.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.