Modelling Peer-to-Peer Data Networks Under Complex System Theory

A Peer-to-peer Data Network (PDN) is an open and evolving society of peer nodes that assemble into a network to pool and share their data (or more generally, their resources represented by data) for mutual benefit. By an interesting analogy to a democratic human society, when nodes join the PDN society, while they agree to follow a restricted set of common rules in interaction with their peers (i.e., the social rules governing the PDN society), they preserve their autonomy as individuals. For example, as part of their social obligations all PDN nodes (or at least those who are good PDN citizens) create and maintain connection with a set of neighbor nodes and participate in cooperative query processing (e.g., forwarding search queries for data discovery). Aside from the social rules, the PDN leaves the behavior of the individual nodes unregulated and flexible, to be managed by their users based on their individual preferences and/or to allow for natural uncertainties and constraints. For instance, nodes may join and leave the PDN society as they decide (by user decision or due to unwanted node/link failure), they control their own resources, and they select their neighbors according to their own administrative policy or physical constraints (e.g., connecting to the nodes that are both accessible and physically close as neighbors). In this sense, individual nodes are self-governed, autonomous, and independent. There is a trade-off between the extent of the social rules and the autonomy of the individual PDN nodes; the more extensive and interfering the social rules, the autonomy of the nodes is more restricted.

[1]  Herbert W. Hethcote,et al.  The Mathematics of Infectious Diseases , 2000, SIAM Rev..

[2]  D. Sornette Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools , 2000 .

[3]  S. Redner,et al.  Introduction To Percolation Theory , 2018 .

[4]  Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates,et al.  Searching in metric spaces , 2001, CSUR.

[5]  Antony I. T. Rowstron,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems , 2001, Middleware.

[6]  Mark Handley,et al.  A scalable content-addressable network , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[7]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[8]  Toru Ohira,et al.  PHASE TRANSITION IN A COMPUTER NETWORK TRAFFIC MODEL , 1998 .

[9]  Pedro M. Domingos,et al.  Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: a machine-learning approach , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[10]  M E J Newman,et al.  Identity and Search in Social Networks , 2002, Science.

[11]  Yaneer Bar-Yam,et al.  Dynamics Of Complex Systems , 2019 .

[12]  Albert,et al.  Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality , 2000, Physical review letters.

[13]  Farnoush Banaei Kashani,et al.  SWAM: a family of access methods for similarity-search in peer-to-peer data networks , 2004, CIKM '04.

[14]  Peter Druschel,et al.  Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to- , 2001 .

[15]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[16]  D. Sornette Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools , 2000 .

[17]  David R. Karger,et al.  Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications , 2001, SIGCOMM '01.

[18]  Sergey Brin,et al.  Near Neighbor Search in Large Metric Spaces , 1995, VLDB.

[19]  Farnoush Banaei Kashani,et al.  Searchable Querical Data Networks , 2003, DBISP2P.

[20]  Muhammad Sahimi,et al.  Epidemic Sampling for Search in Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks , 2004 .

[21]  H E Stanley,et al.  Classes of small-world networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.