Fast Consensus for Voting on General Expander Graphs

Distributed voting is a fundamental topic in distributed computing. In the standard model of pull voting, at 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. In the simplest case, each vertex initially holds one of two different opinions. This partitions the vertices into arbitrary sets A and B. For many graphs, including regular graphs and irrespective of their expansion properties, if both A and B are sufficiently large sets, then pull voting requires $$\Omega n$$ expected steps, where n is the number of vertices of the graph. In this paper we consider a related class of voting processes based on sampling two opinions. In the simplest case, every vertex v chooses two random neighbours at each step. If both these neighbours have the same opinion, then v adopts this opinion. Otherwise, v keeps its own opinion. Let G be a connected graph with n vertices and m edges. Let P be the transition matrix of a simple random walk on G with second largest eigenvalue $$\lambda < 1/\sqrt{2}$$. We show that if the initial imbalance in degree between the two opinions satisfies $$|dA-dB|/2m \ge 2\lambda ^2$$, then with high probability voting completes in $$O\log n$$ steps, and the opinion with the larger initial degree wins. The condition that $$\lambda 0$$, or only a bound on the conductance of the graph is known, the sampling process can be modified so that voting still provably completes in $$O\log n$$ steps with high probability. The modification uses two sampling based on probing to a fixed depth $$O1/\epsilon $$ from any vertex. In its most general form our voting process allows vertices to bias their sampling of opinions among their neighbours to achieve a desired outcome. This is done by allocating weights to edges.

[1]  Colin Cooper,et al.  Coalescing Random Walks and Voting on Connected Graphs , 2012, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[2]  F. Chung,et al.  Connected Components in Random Graphs with Given Expected Degree Sequences , 2002 .

[3]  Joel Friedman,et al.  A proof of Alon's second eigenvalue conjecture and related problems , 2004, ArXiv.

[4]  Amin Saberi,et al.  On certain connectivity properties of the internet topology , 2006, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[5]  Sudebkumar Prasant Pal,et al.  Fair Leader Election by Randomized Voting , 2004, ICDCIT.

[6]  Ayalvadi Ganesh,et al.  Probabilistic consensus via polling and majority rules , 2013, Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..

[7]  David K. Gifford,et al.  Weighted voting for replicated data , 1979, SOSP '79.

[8]  Barry W. Johnson Design & analysis of fault tolerant digital systems , 1988 .

[9]  Xiaotie Deng,et al.  On the Complexity of Cooperative Solution Concepts , 1994, Math. Oper. Res..

[10]  Masafumi Yamashita,et al.  Probabilistic Local Majority Voting for the Agreement Problem on Finite Graphs , 1999, COCOON.

[11]  F. Chung,et al.  Spectra of random graphs with given expected degrees , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Amin Coja-Oghlan On the Laplacian Eigenvalues of Gn, p , 2007, Comb. Probab. Comput..

[13]  David Peleg,et al.  Distributed Probabilistic Polling and Applications to Proportionate Agreement , 1999, ICALP.

[14]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Multiple Random Walks in Random Regular Graphs , 2009, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[15]  BEAU DABBS MARKOV CHAINS AND MIXING TIMES , 2009 .

[16]  Marianna Bolla,et al.  Beyond the Expanders , 2011, 1101.5926.

[17]  Colin McDiarmid,et al.  Surveys in Combinatorics, 1989: On the method of bounded differences , 1989 .

[18]  Colin Cooper,et al.  The Power of Two Choices in Distributed Voting , 2014, ICALP.

[19]  Charles R. Johnson,et al.  Matrix analysis , 1985, Statistical Inference for Engineers and Data Scientists.

[20]  Moez Draief,et al.  Consensus on the Initial Global Majority by Local Majority Polling for a Class of Sparse Graphs , 2012, 1209.5025.