Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Coalescing random walks and voting on graphs

2012, Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing - PODC '12

https://doi.org/10.1145/2332432.2332440

Abstract

In a coalescing random walk, a set of particles make independent random walks on a graph. Whenever one or more particles meet at a vertex, they unite to form a single particle, which then continues the random walk through the graph. Coalescing random walks can be used to achieve consensus in distributed networks, and is the basis of the self-stabilizing mutual exclusion algorithm of Israeli and Jalfon [11]. Let G = (V, E), be an undirected, connected n vertex graph. Let C(n) be the expected time for all particles to coalesce, when initially one particle is located at each vertex of an n vertex graph. We study the problem of bounding the coalescence time C(n) for general classes of graphs. For d-regular graphs with expansion parameterized by the eigenvalue gap 1 − λ2, where λ2 is the second eigenvalue of the transition matrix of the random walk, we establish that C(n) = O(n/(1 − λ2)). This result also extends of near regular graphs; where a graph is near regular if the ratio of the maximum and minimum degrees ∆/δ is constant. Our general result is, that C(n) = O(n/(ν(1 − λ2))), where ν = (d 2 (v))/(d 2 n), and d is the average node degree. The parameter ν is an indicator of the variability of node degrees: 1 ≤ ν = O(n), with ν = 1 for regular graphs. The result holds provided the maximum node degree is O(m 1−ǫ). A system of coalescing particles where initially one particle is located at each vertex, corresponds to a voter model. Initially each vertex has a distinct opinion, and at each step each vertex changes its opinion to that of a random neighbour. The voting process can be used for leader election in a distributed context. Let E(Cv) be the expected time for voting to complete, i.e. for a unique opinion to emerge. It is known that E(Cv) = C(n), so our results imply that E(Cv) = O(n/(ν(1 − λ2))). We also investigate how the voting time improves when a vertex elicits more than one opinion at each step. In a model which we call min-voting, each vertex initially holds an opinion from {1, 2, ..., n}. At each step each vertex takes the opinions of two random neighbours and keeps the smaller. We show that for regular graphs with very good expansion properties, voting is completed in O(log n) time with high probability. This result can be viewed as an example for the "power of two choices" in distributed voting.

References (18)

  1. D. Aldous. Meeting times for independent Markov chains. Stochastic Processes and their Applica- tions, 38 (1991) 185-193.
  2. D. Aldous and J. Fill. Reversible Markov Chains and Random Walks on Graphs, http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/pub/users/aldous/RWG/book.html.
  3. J. Aspnes. Randomized protocols for asynchronous consensus. Distributed Computing, 16 (2003) 165-176.
  4. F.R.K. Chung: Spectral Graph Theory. American Mathematical Society, 1997.
  5. C. Cooper, A. M. Frieze, T. Radzik. Multiple Random Walks in Random Regular Graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 23(4) (2009), 1738-1761.
  6. J. T. Cox. Coalescing random walks and voter model consensus times on the torus in Z d . The Annals of Probability, 17(4) (1989), 1333-1366.
  7. B. Doerr, T. Friedrich, T. Sauerwald: Quasirandom Rumor Spreading: Expanders, Push vs. Pull, and Robustness. Proc. of ICALP'09, pp. 366-377, 2009.
  8. B. Doerr, L.A. Goldberg, L. Minder, T. Sauerwald, C. Scheideler: Stabilizing Consensus with the Power of Two Choices. Manuscript, 2010, full version available at www.upb.de/cs/scheideler.
  9. P. Donnelly and D. Welsh. Finite particle systems and infection models. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 94 (1983), 167-182.
  10. S. Hoory, N. Linial, A. Wigderson: Expander Graphs and their Applications. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 43 (2006), 439-561.
  11. A. Israeli and M. Jalfon. Token management schemes and random walks yeild self stabilizing mutual exclusion. Proc. of PODC'90, pp. 119-131, 1990.
  12. D. Levin, Y. Peres, E. Wilmer. Markov chains and Mixing Times. AMS 2009.
  13. L. Lovász. Random walks on graphs: a survey. Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies, Combinatorics, Paul Erdős is Eighty (Vol. 2), (1993) 1-46.
  14. T. Nakata, H. Imahayashi, M. Yamashita. Probabilistic local majority voting for the agreement problem on finite graphs. Proc. of COCOON'99, pp. 330-338, 1999.
  15. Y. Hassin and D. Peleg. Distributed probabilistic polling and applications to proportionate agree- ment. Information & Computation 171 (2002), 248-268.
  16. D. Kempe, A. Dobra, J. Gehrke. Gossip-based computation of aggregate information. Proc. of FOCS'03, pp. 482-491, 2003.
  17. F. Kuhn, T. Locher, R. Wattenhofer. Tight bounds for distributed selection. Proc. of SPAA'07, pp. 145-153, 2007.
  18. A. Sinclair. Improved bounds for mixing rates of Markov chains and multicommodity flow. Combi- natorics, Probability and Computing 1 (1992) 351-370.