Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 42 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 53 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 17 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 101 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 217 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 474 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Population Protocols for Exact Plurality Consensus -- How a small chance of failure helps to eliminate insignificant opinions (2402.06471v1)

Published 9 Feb 2024 in cs.DC

Abstract: We consider the \emph{exact plurality consensus} problem for \emph{population protocols}. Here, $n$ anonymous agents start each with one of $k$ opinions. Their goal is to agree on the initially most frequent opinion (the \emph{plurality opinion}) via random, pairwise interactions. The case of $k = 2$ opinions is known as the \emph{majority problem}. Recent breakthroughs led to an always correct, exact majority population protocol that is both time- and space-optimal, needing $O(\log n)$ states per agent and, with high probability, $O(\log n)$ time~[Doty, Eftekhari, Gasieniec, Severson, Stachowiak, and Uznanski; 2021]. We know that any always correct protocol requires $\Omega(k2)$ states, while the currently best protocol needs $O(k{11})$ states~[Natale and Ramezani; 2019]. For ordered opinions, this can be improved to $O(k6)$~[Gasieniec, Hamilton, Martin, Spirakis, and Stachowiak; 2016]. We design protocols for plurality consensus that beat the quadratic lower bound by allowing a negligible failure probability. While our protocols might fail, they identify the plurality opinion with high probability even if the bias is $1$. Our first protocol achieves this via $k-1$ tournaments in time $O(k \cdot \log n)$ using $O(k + \log n)$ states. While it assumes an ordering on the opinions, we remove this restriction in our second protocol, at the cost of a slightly increased time $O(k \cdot \log n + \log2 n)$. By efficiently pruning insignificant opinions, our final protocol reduces the number of tournaments at the cost of a slightly increased state complexity $O(k \cdot \log\log n + \log n)$. This improves the time to $O(n / x_{\max} \cdot \log n + \log2 n)$, where $x_{\max}$ is the initial size of the plurality. Note that $n/x_{\max}$ is at most $k$ and can be much smaller (e.g., in case of a large bias or if there are many small opinions).

Citations (6)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com