Distributed Computing

Population protocols (Angluin et al., PODC 2004) are a formal model of sensor networks consisting of identical mobile devices. When two devices come into the range of each other, they interact and change their states. Computations are infinite sequences of pairwise interactions where the interacting processes are picked by a fair scheduler. A population protocol is well specified if for every initial configuration C of devices and for every fair computation starting at C, all devices eventually agree on a consensus value that only depends on C. If a protocol is well-specified, then it is said to compute the predicate that assigns to each initial configuration its consensus value. The main two verification problems for population protocols are: Is a given protocol well-specified? Does a given protocol compute a given predicate? While the class of predicates computable by population protocols was already established in 2007 (Angluin et al., Distributed Computing), the decidability of the verification problems remained open until 2015, when my colleagues and I finally managed to prove it (Esparza et al., CONCUR 2015, improved version to appear in Acta Informatica). In the talk I report on our results and discuss some new developments. Personal Information Management Systems and Knowledge Integration David Montoya, Thomas Pellissier Tanon, and Serge Abiteboul 1 Engie Ineo & ENS Cachan & Inria 2 ENS Lyon 3 INRIA & ENS Cachan Abstract. Personal data is constantly collected, either voluntarily by users in emails, social media interactions, multimedia objects, calendar items, contacts, etc., or passively by various applications such as GPS of mobile devices, transactions, quantified self sensors, etc. The processing of personal data is complicated by the fact that such data is typically stored in silos with different terminologies/ontologies, formats and access protocoles. Users are more and more loosing control over their data; they are sometimes not even aware of the data collected about them and how it is used. We discuss the new concept of Personal Information Management Systems (PIMS for short) that allows each user to be in a position to manage his/her personal information. Some applications are run directly by the PIMS, so are under direct control of the user. Others are in separate systems, that are willing to share with the PIMS the data they collect about that particular user. In that later case, the PIMS is a system for distributed data management. We argue that the time has come for PIMS even though the approach requires a sharp turn from previous models based on the monetisation of personal data. We consider research issues raised by PIMS, either new or that acquire a new avor in a PIMS context. We also present works on the integration of users data from different sources (such as email messages, calendar, contacts, and location history) into a PIMS. The PIMS we consider is a Knowledge Base System based on Semantic Web standards, notably RDF and schema.org. Some of the knowledge is episodical (typically related to spatio-temporal events) and some is semantic (knowledge that holds irrelative to any such event). Of particular interest is the cross enrichment of these two kinds of knowledge based on the alignment of concepts, e.g., enrichment between a calendar and a geographical map using the location history. The goal is to enable users via the PIMS to query and perform analytics over their personal information within and across different dimensions. Personal data is constantly collected, either voluntarily by users in emails, social media interactions, multimedia objects, calendar items, contacts, etc., or passively by various applications such as GPS of mobile devices, transactions, quantified self sensors, etc. The processing of personal data is complicated by the fact that such data is typically stored in silos with different terminologies/ontologies, formats and access protocoles. Users are more and more loosing control over their data; they are sometimes not even aware of the data collected about them and how it is used. We discuss the new concept of Personal Information Management Systems (PIMS for short) that allows each user to be in a position to manage his/her personal information. Some applications are run directly by the PIMS, so are under direct control of the user. Others are in separate systems, that are willing to share with the PIMS the data they collect about that particular user. In that later case, the PIMS is a system for distributed data management. We argue that the time has come for PIMS even though the approach requires a sharp turn from previous models based on the monetisation of personal data. We consider research issues raised by PIMS, either new or that acquire a new avor in a PIMS context. We also present works on the integration of users data from different sources (such as email messages, calendar, contacts, and location history) into a PIMS. The PIMS we consider is a Knowledge Base System based on Semantic Web standards, notably RDF and schema.org. Some of the knowledge is episodical (typically related to spatio-temporal events) and some is semantic (knowledge that holds irrelative to any such event). Of particular interest is the cross enrichment of these two kinds of knowledge based on the alignment of concepts, e.g., enrichment between a calendar and a geographical map using the location history. The goal is to enable users via the PIMS to query and perform analytics over their personal information within and across different dimensions. Matching and Covering in Streaming Graphs

[1]  B. Gluss An alternative solution to the “lost at sea” problem , 1961 .

[2]  A. Beck On the linear search problem , 1964 .

[3]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules , 1985, CACM.

[4]  David Peleg,et al.  Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach , 1987 .

[5]  Ricardo A. Baeza-Yates,et al.  Searching in the Plane , 1993, Inf. Comput..

[6]  Ming-Yang Kao,et al.  Searching in an unknown environment: an optimal randomized algorithm for the cow-path problem , 1996, SODA '93.

[7]  Maurice Herlihy,et al.  On the space complexity of randomized synchronization , 1993, PODC '93.

[8]  Shay Kutten,et al.  Fast distributed construction of k-dominating sets and applications , 1995, PODC '95.

[9]  Torben Hagerup,et al.  Parallel Algorithms with Optimal Speedup for Bounded Treewidth , 1995, ICALP.

[10]  Masafumi Yamashita,et al.  Computing on Anonymous Networks: Part I-Characterizing the Solvable Cases , 1996, IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst..

[11]  Eli Gafni,et al.  Round-by-Round Fault Detectors: Unifying Synchrony and Asynchrony (Extended Abstract). , 1998, PODC 1998.

[12]  Steven S. Seiden,et al.  On the online bin packing problem , 2001, JACM.

[13]  David Eppstein,et al.  Dynamic generators of topologically embedded graphs , 2002, SODA '03.

[14]  Israel A. Wagner,et al.  A Distributed Ant Algorithm for\protect Efficiently Patrolling a Network , 2003, Algorithmica.

[15]  Shmuel Gal,et al.  The theory of search games and rendezvous , 2002, International series in operations research and management science.

[16]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Theoretical analysis of the multi-agent patrolling problem , 2004, Proceedings. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, 2004. (IAT 2004)..

[17]  Roger Wattenhofer,et al.  On the locality of bounded growth , 2005, PODC '05.

[18]  Evangelos Kranakis,et al.  Mobile Agent Rendezvous: A Survey , 2006, SIROCCO.

[19]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Anonymous and fault-tolerant shared-memory computing , 2007, Distributed Computing.

[20]  George Danezis,et al.  A Survey of Anonymous Communication Channels , 2008 .

[21]  Christoph Lenzen,et al.  What can be approximated locally?: case study: dominating sets in planar graphs , 2008, SPAA '08.

[22]  Artur Jez,et al.  On the two-dimensional cow search problem , 2009, Inf. Process. Lett..

[23]  Eli Gafni The extended BG-simulation and the characterization of t-resiliency , 2009, STOC '09.

[24]  Carole Delporte-Gallet,et al.  Two Consensus Algorithms with Atomic Registers and Failure Detector Omega , 2009, ICDCN.

[25]  Petr Kuznetsov,et al.  On Set Consensus Numbers , 2009, DISC.

[26]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  Tight failure detection bounds on atomic object implementations , 2010, JACM.

[27]  Charu C. Aggarwal,et al.  Graph Clustering , 2010, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[28]  Felix C. Freiling,et al.  The failure detector abstraction , 2011, CSUR.

[29]  Jurek Czyzowicz,et al.  Boundary Patrolling by Mobile Agents with Distinct Maximal Speeds , 2011, ESA.

[30]  Alexandros G. Dimakis,et al.  The Impact of Mobility on Gossip Algorithms , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[31]  Rachid Guerraoui,et al.  The Weakest Failure Detectors to Solve Quittable Consensus and Nonblocking Atomic Commit , 2012, SIAM J. Comput..

[32]  Anisur Rahaman Molla,et al.  Fast Distributed Computation in Dynamic Networks via Random Walks , 2012, DISC.

[33]  Prosenjit Bose,et al.  Revisiting the Problem of Searching on a Line , 2013, ESA.

[34]  Hsin-Hao Su,et al.  Almost-Tight Distributed Minimum Cut Algorithms , 2014, DISC.

[35]  Jurek Czyzowicz,et al.  Evacuating Robots via Unknown Exit in a Disk , 2014, DISC.

[36]  Gopal Pandurangan Distributed Algorithmic Foundations of Dynamic Networks , 2014, SIROCCO.

[37]  Marek Chrobak,et al.  Group Search on the Line , 2015, SOFSEM.

[38]  Konstantinos Georgiou,et al.  Evacuating Robots from a Disk Using Face-to-Face Communication (Extended Abstract) , 2015, CIAC.

[39]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Fast Partial Distance Estimation and Applications , 2014, PODC.

[40]  Evangelos Kranakis,et al.  Rendezvous of Many Agents with Different Speeds in a Cycle , 2015, ADHOC-NOW.

[41]  Bernhard Haeupler,et al.  Low-Congestion shortcuts without embedding , 2016, Distributed Computing.

[42]  Bernhard Haeupler,et al.  Distributed Algorithms for Planar Networks I: Planar Embedding , 2016, PODC.

[43]  Bernhard Haeupler,et al.  Distributed Algorithms for Planar Networks II: Low-Congestion Shortcuts, MST, and Min-Cut , 2016, SODA.

[44]  Shay Kutten,et al.  Fast rendezvous on a cycle by agents with different speeds , 2017, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[45]  Boaz Patt-Shamir,et al.  Near-Optimal Distributed Maximum Flow , 2015, SIAM J. Comput..