On the Impact of the Mobility on Convergence Speed of Population Protocols

Population protocols provide theoretical foundations for mobile tiny device networks in which global behavior emerges from a set of simple interactions between anonymous agents. The works in this area mostly focus on studying the computational power of the model. Results hold as long as a fair scheduler, ensuring that all reachable system states are endlessly reached, governs the interactions between nodes. This assumption is crucial to ensure that the protocols eventually converge. This paper studies for the first time the impact of the agents? mobility model on the convergence speed of population protocols. We perform our study by considering several mobility models traditionally used in the ad-hoc network community. We propose an augmented population protocol model where each edge of the interaction graph is weighted, representing the probability of two agents to interact. This models the behaviour of the scheduler with respect to various mobility models. We empirically show that mobility models do have a significant impact on the convergence speed of the protocols. In fact, we observe that the uniform distribution always provides the best convergence time. Such a model is representative of the well-known random-way point model used to evaluate most of mobile ad-hoc network protocols. We then formally prove that a uniform distribution of weights provides the lowest bound of average convergence speed for any population protocol.

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

[2]  Paolo Santi,et al.  The Node Distribution of the Random Waypoint Mobility Model for Wireless Ad Hoc Networks , 2003, IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput..

[3]  Vinton G. Cerf,et al.  Delay-tolerant networking: an approach to interplanetary Internet , 2003, IEEE Commun. Mag..

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

[5]  David Eisenstat,et al.  Stably computable predicates are semilinear , 2006, PODC '06.

[6]  Eric Ruppert,et al.  Even Small Birds are Unique: Population Protocols with Identifiers , 2007 .

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

[8]  Timur Friedman,et al.  Characterizing pairwise inter-contact patterns in delay tolerant networks , 2007, Autonomics.

[9]  Joffroy Beauquier,et al.  Brief Announcement: Computing Automatically the Stabilization Time Against the Worst and the Best Schedules , 2006, DISC.

[10]  David Eisenstat,et al.  Fast computation by population protocols with a leader , 2006, Distributed Computing.

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

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

[13]  A. Rollett,et al.  The Monte Carlo Method , 2004 .

[14]  Zongkai Yang,et al.  A Survey on Mobile Ad Hoc Wireless Network , 2004 .

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

[16]  Christophe Diot,et al.  Impact of Human Mobility on Opportunistic Forwarding Algorithms , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing.

[17]  Laurent Fribourg,et al.  Coupling and self-stabilization , 2004, Distributed Computing.

[18]  Bernd A. Berg Markov Chain Monte Carlo Simulations and Their Statistical Analysis , 2004 .