Paper detail

How to decide consensus? A combinatorial necessary and sufficient condition and a proof that consensus is decidable but NP-hard

A set of stochastic matrices ${\cal P}$ is a consensus set if for every sequence of matrices $P(1), P(2), \ldots$ whose elements belong to ${\cal P}$ and every initial state $x(0)$, the sequence of states defined by $x(t) = P(t) P(t-1) \cdots P(1) x(0)$ converges to a vector whose entries are all identical. In this paper, we introduce an "avoiding set condition" for compact sets of matrices and prove in our main theorem that this explicit combinatorial condition is both necessary and sufficient for consensus. We show that several of the conditions for consensus proposed in the literature can be directly derived from the avoiding set condition. The avoiding set condition is easy to check with an elementary algorithm, and so our result also establishes that consensus is algorithmically decidable. Direct verification of the avoiding set condition may require more than a polynomial time number of operations. This is however likely to be the case for any consensus checking algorithm since we also prove in this paper that unless $P=NP$, consensus cannot be decided in polynomial time.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.