Paper detail

Noisy Rumor Spreading and Plurality Consensus

Error-correcting codes are efficient methods for handling \emph{noisy} communication channels in the context of technological networks. However, such elaborate methods differ a lot from the unsophisticated way biological entities are supposed to communicate. Yet, it has been recently shown by Feinerman, Haeupler, and Korman {[}PODC 2014{]} that complex coordination tasks such as \emph{rumor spreading} and \emph{majority consensus} can plausibly be achieved in biological systems subject to noisy communication channels, where every message transferred through a channel remains intact with small probability $\frac{1}{2}+ε$, without using coding techniques. This result is a considerable step towards a better understanding of the way biological entities may cooperate. It has been nevertheless be established only in the case of 2-valued \emph{opinions}: rumor spreading aims at broadcasting a single-bit opinion to all nodes, and majority consensus aims at leading all nodes to adopt the single-bit opinion that was initially present in the system with (relative) majority. In this paper, we extend this previous work to $k$-valued opinions, for any $k\geq2$. Our extension requires to address a series of important issues, some conceptual, others technical. We had to entirely revisit the notion of noise, for handling channels carrying $k$-\emph{valued} messages. In fact, we precisely characterize the type of noise patterns for which plurality consensus is solvable. Also, a key result employed in the bivalued case by Feinerman et al. is an estimate of the probability of observing the most frequent opinion from observing the mode of a small sample. We generalize this result to the multivalued case by providing a new analytical proof for the bivalued case that is amenable to be extended, by induction, and that is of independent interest.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.