Paper detail

The Power of Two Choices in Distributed Voting

Distributed voting is a fundamental topic in distributed computing. In pull voting, in each step every vertex chooses a neighbour uniformly at random, and adopts its opinion. The voting is completed when all vertices hold the same opinion. On many graph classes including regular graphs, pull voting requires $Θ(n)$ expected steps to complete, even if initially there are only two distinct opinions. In this paper we consider a related process which we call two-sample voting: every vertex chooses two random neighbours in each step. If the opinions of these neighbours coincide, then the vertex revises its opinion according to the chosen sample. Otherwise, it keeps its own opinion. We consider the performance of this process in the case where two different opinions reside on vertices of some (arbitrary) sets $A$ and $B$, respectively. Here, $|A| + |B| = n$ is the number of vertices of the graph. We show that there is a constant $K$ such that if the initial imbalance between the two opinions is ?$ν_0 = (|A| - |B|)/n \geq K \sqrt{(1/d) + (d/n)}$, then with high probability two sample voting completes in a random $d$ regular graph in $O(\log n)$ steps and the initial majority opinion wins. We also show the same performance for any regular graph, if $ν_0 \geq K λ_2$ where $λ_2$ is the second largest eigenvalue of the transition matrix. In the graphs we consider, standard pull voting requires $Ω(n)$ steps, and the minority can still win with probability $|B|/n$.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.