Homonym Population Protocols

The population protocol model was introduced by Angluin et al. as a model of passively mobile anonymous finite-state agents. This model computes a predicate on the multiset of their inputs via interactions by pairs. The original population protocol model has been proved to compute only semilinear predicates and has been extended in various ways. In the community protocol model by Guerraoui and Ruppert, the n agents have unique identifiers but may only store a finite number of the identifiers they already heard about. The community protocol model is known to provide the power of a non-deterministic Turing machine with an O (n log n) space. We consider variants of the two above-mentioned models and we obtain a whole landscape that covers and extends already known results. Namely, by considering the case of homonyms, that is to say the case when several agents may share the same identifier, we provide a hierarchy that goes from the case of no identifier (population protocol model) to the case of unique identifiers (community protocol model). In particular, we obtain that any Turing Machine on space O (log O (1) n) can be simulated with log rn identifiers, for any r >  0. Our results also extend and revisit the hierarchy provided by Chatzigiannakis et al. on population protocols carrying Turing Machines on limited space, reducing the gap left by this work between per-agent space o (loglog n) (proved to be equivalent to population protocols) and Ω(log n) (proved to be equivalent to Turing machines): We prove that per-agent space Θ(loglog n) corresponds to symmetric predicates computable in polylogarithmic non-deterministic space.

[1]  Johanne Cohen,et al.  Homonym Population Protocols , 2015, NETYS.

[2]  Michel Raynal,et al.  Failure Detectors in Homonymous Distributed Systems (with an Application to Consensus) , 2012, 2012 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems.

[3]  Carole Delporte-Gallet,et al.  Homonyms with Forgeable Identifiers , 2012, SIROCCO.

[4]  David Eisenstat,et al.  The computational power of population protocols , 2006, Distributed Computing.

[5]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Algorithmic Verification of Population Protocols , 2010, SSS.

[6]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Byzantine agreement with homonyms , 2011, PODC '11.

[7]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  Passively mobile communicating machines that use restricted space , 2011, FOMC '11.

[8]  James Aspnes,et al.  An Introduction to Population Protocols , 2007, Bull. EATCS.

[9]  Róbert Szelepcsényi,et al.  The method of forced enumeration for nondeterministic automata , 1988, Acta Informatica.

[10]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Names Trump Malice: Tiny Mobile Agents Can Tolerate Byzantine Failures , 2009, ICALP.

[11]  Arnold Schönhage Storage Modification Machines , 1980, SIAM J. Comput..

[12]  Jennifer L. Welch,et al.  Link Reversal Algorithms , 2011, Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory.

[13]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  When Birds Die: Making Population Protocols Fault-Tolerant , 2006, DCOSS.

[14]  Ioannis Chatzigiannakis,et al.  Counting the Number of Homonyms in Dynamic Networks , 2013, SSS.

[15]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  New Models for Population Protocols , 2011, Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory.

[16]  Michael J. Fischer,et al.  Stably Computable Properties of Network Graphs , 2005, DCOSS.

[17]  Neil Immerman Nondeterministic Space is Closed Under Complementation , 1988, SIAM J. Comput..

[18]  Michael J. Fischer,et al.  Computation in networks of passively mobile finite-state sensors , 2004, PODC '04.

[19]  Michael J. Fischer,et al.  Self-stabilizing population protocols , 2005, TAAS.