Paper detail

Improved Communication Complexity of Fault-Tolerant Consensus

Consensus is one of the most thoroughly studied problems in distributed computing, yet there are still complexity gaps that have not been bridged for decades. In particular, in the classical message-passing setting with processes' crashes, since the seminal works of Bar-Joseph and Ben-Or [1998] \cite{Bar-JosephB98} and Aspnes and Waarts [1996, 1998] \cite{AspnesW-SICOMP-96,Aspnes-JACM-98} in the previous century, there is still a fundamental unresolved question about communication complexity of fast randomized Consensus against a (strong) adaptive adversary crashing processes arbitrarily online. The best known upper bound on the number of communication bits is $Θ(\frac{n^{3/2}}{\sqrt{\log{n}}})$ per process, while the best lower bound is $Ω(1)$. This is in contrast to randomized Consensus against a (weak) oblivious adversary, for which time-almost-optimal algorithms guarantee amortized $O(1)$ communication bits per process \cite{GK-SODA-10}. We design an algorithm against adaptive adversary that reduces the communication gap by nearly linear factor to $O(\sqrt{n}\cdot\text{polylog } n)$ bits per process, while keeping almost-optimal (up to factor $O(\log^3 n)$) time complexity $O(\sqrt{n}\cdot\log^{5/2} n)$. More surprisingly, we show this complexity indeed can be lowered further, but at the expense of increasing time complexity, i.e., there is a {\em trade-off} between communication complexity and time complexity. More specifically, our main Consensus algorithm allows to reduce communication complexity per process to any value from $\text{polylog } n$ to $O(\sqrt{n}\cdot\text{polylog } n)$, as long as Time $\times$ Communication $= O(n\cdot \text{polylog } n)$. Similarly, reducing time complexity requires more random bits per process, i.e., Time $\times$ Randomness $=O(n\cdot \text{polylog } n)$.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.