Paper detail

Oblivious Collaboration

Communication is a crucial ingredient in every kind of collaborative work. But what is the least possible amount of communication required for a given task? We formalize this question by introducing a new framework for distributed computation, called {\em oblivious protocols}. We investigate the power of this model by considering two concrete examples, the {\em musical chairs} task $MC(n,m)$ and the well-known {\em Renaming} problem. The $MC(n,m)$ game is played by $n$ players (processors) with $m$ chairs. Players can {\em occupy} chairs, and the game terminates as soon as each player occupies a unique chair. Thus we say that player $P$ is {\em in conflict} if some other player $Q$ is occupying the same chair, i.e., termination means there are no conflicts. By known results from distributed computing, if $m \le 2n-2$, no strategy of the players can guarantee termination. However, there is a protocol with $m = 2n-1$ chairs that always terminates. Here we consider an oblivious protocol where in every time step the only communication is this: an adversarial {\em scheduler} chooses an arbitrary nonempty set of players, and for each of them provides only one bit of information, specifying whether the player is currently in conflict or not. A player notified not to be in conflict halts and never changes its chair, whereas a player notified to be in conflict changes its chair according to its deterministic program. Remarkably, even with this minimal communication termination can be guaranteed with only $m=2n-1$ chairs. Likewise, we obtain an oblivious protocol for the Renaming problem whose name-space is small as that of the optimal nonoblivious distributed protocol. Other aspects suggest themselves, such as the efficiency (program length) of our protocols. We make substantial progress here as well, though many interesting questions remain open.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.