88
7

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

Abstract

We consider the \emph{exact plurality consensus} problem for \emph{population protocols}. Here, nn anonymous agents start each with one of kk opinions. Their goal is to agree on the initially most frequent opinion (the \emph{plurality opinion}) via random, pairwise interactions. The case of k=2k = 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(logn)O(\log n) states per agent and, with high probability, O(logn)O(\log n) time~[Doty, Eftekhari, Gasieniec, Severson, Stachowiak, and Uznanski; 2021]. We know that any always correct protocol requires Ω(k2)\Omega(k^2) states, while the currently best protocol needs O(k11)O(k^{11}) states~[Natale and Ramezani; 2019]. For ordered opinions, this can be improved to O(k6)O(k^6)~[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 11. Our first protocol achieves this via k1k-1 tournaments in time O(klogn)O(k \cdot \log n) using O(k+logn)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(klogn+log2n)O(k \cdot \log n + \log^2 n). By efficiently pruning insignificant opinions, our final protocol reduces the number of tournaments at the cost of a slightly increased state complexity O(kloglogn+logn)O(k \cdot \log\log n + \log n). This improves the time to O(n/xmaxlogn+log2n)O(n / x_{\max} \cdot \log n + \log^2 n), where xmaxx_{\max} is the initial size of the plurality. Note that n/xmaxn/x_{\max} is at most kk and can be much smaller (e.g., in case of a large bias or if there are many small opinions).

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper