On the Limits of Information Spread by Memory-Less Agents

Authors Niccolò D'Archivio , Robin Vacus



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.DISC.2024.18.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.86 MB
  • 21 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Niccolò D'Archivio
  • COATI, INRIA d’Université Côte d’Azur, Sophia-Antipolis, France
Robin Vacus
  • Bocconi Institute for Data Science and Analytics, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Andrea Clementi for his feedback, and Amos Korman for helpful comments and coming up with the minority dynamics. Thanks also to Luca Trevisan for preliminary discussions, and for everything else.

Cite As Get BibTex

Niccolò D'Archivio and Robin Vacus. On the Limits of Information Spread by Memory-Less Agents. In 38th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 319, pp. 18:1-18:21, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2024.18

Abstract

We address the self-stabilizing bit-dissemination problem, designed to capture the challenges of spreading information and reaching consensus among entities with minimal cognitive and communication capacities. Specifically, a group of n agents is required to adopt the correct opinion, initially held by a single informed individual, choosing from two possible opinions. In order to make decisions, agents are restricted to observing the opinions of a few randomly sampled agents, and lack the ability to communicate further and to identify the informed individual. Additionally, agents cannot retain any information from one round to the next. According to a recent publication by Becchetti et al. in SODA (2024), a logarithmic convergence time without memory is achievable in the parallel setting (where agents are updated simultaneously), as long as the number of samples is at least Ω(√{n log n}). However, determining the minimal sample size for an efficient protocol to exist remains a challenging open question. As a preliminary step towards an answer, we establish the first lower bound for this problem in the parallel setting. Specifically, we demonstrate that it is impossible for any memory-less protocol with constant sample size, to converge with high probability in less than an almost-linear number of rounds. This lower bound holds even when agents are aware of both the exact value of n and their own opinion, and encompasses various simple existing dynamics designed to achieve consensus. Beyond the bit-dissemination problem, our result sheds light on the convergence time of the "minority" dynamics, the counterpart of the well-known majority rule, whose chaotic behavior is yet to be fully understood despite the apparent simplicity of the algorithm.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Random walks and Markov chains
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
Keywords
  • Opinion Dynamics
  • Consensus Protocols
  • Collective Animal Behavior
  • Lower Bound

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Yehuda Afek, Noga Alon, Omer Barad, Eran Hornstein, Naama Barkai, and Ziv Bar-Joseph. A biological solution to a fundamental distributed computing problem. Science, 331(6014):183-185, January 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193210.
  2. James Aspnes and Eric Ruppert. An introduction to population protocols. In Benoît Garbinato, Hugo Miranda, and Luís Rodrigues, editors, Middleware for Network Eccentric and Mobile Applications, pages 97-120. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89707-1_5.
  3. M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giardina, V. Lecomte, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, M. Viale, and V. Zdravkovic. Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(4):1232-1237, January 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711437105.
  4. Paul Bastide, George Giakkoupis, and Hayk Saribekyan. Self-stabilizing clock synchronization with 1-bit messages. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), Proceedings, pages 2154-2173. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, January 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976465.129.
  5. Luca Becchetti, Andrea Clementi, Amos Korman, Francesco Pasquale, Luca Trevisan, and Robin Vacus. On the role of memory in robust opinion dynamics. In Edith Elkind, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, volume 1, pages 29-37, Macao, August 2023. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. URL: https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/4.
  6. Luca Becchetti, Andrea Clementi, and Emanuele Natale. Consensus dynamics: An overview. ACM SIGACT News, 51(1):58-104, March 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3388392.3388403.
  7. Luca Becchetti, Andrea Clementi, Francesco Pasquale, Luca Trevisan, Robin Vacus, and Isabella Ziccardi. The minority dynamics and the power of synchronicity. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), Proceedings, pages 4155-4176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., January 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977912.144.
  8. William Bialek, Andrea Cavagna, Irene Giardina, Thierry Mora, Edmondo Silvestri, Massimiliano Viale, and Aleksandra M. Walczak. Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(13):4786-4791, March 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118633109.
  9. Lucas Boczkowski, Amos Korman, and Emanuele Natale. Minimizing message size in stochastic communication patterns: Fast self-stabilizing protocols with 3 bits. In Proceedings of the 2017 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), Proceedings, pages 2540-2559. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, January 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611974782.168.
  10. Fan Chung and Linyuan Lu. Concentration inequalities and martingale inequalities: A survey. Internet Mathematics, 3(1):79-127, January 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427951.2006.10129115.
  11. Andrea Clementi, Francesco d'Amore, George Giakkoupis, and Emanuele Natale. Search via parallel Lévy walks on z2. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC'21, pages 81-91, New York, NY, USA, July 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3465084.3467921.
  12. Emilio Cruciani, Hlafo Alfie Mimun, Matteo Quattropani, and Sara Rizzo. Phase transitions of the k-majority dynamics in a biased communication model. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, ICDCN '21, pages 146-155, New York, NY, USA, January 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3427796.3427811.
  13. Emilio Cruciani, Emanuele Natale, André Nusser, and Giacomo Scornavacca. Phase transition of the 2-Choices dynamics on core-periphery networks. Distributed Computing, 34(3):207-225, June 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00446-021-00396-5.
  14. Étienne Danchin, Luc-Alain Giraldeau, Thomas J. Valone, and Richard H. Wagner. Public information: From nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science, 305(5683):487-491, July 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098254.
  15. Bartłomiej Dudek and Adrian Kosowski. Universal protocols for information dissemination using emergent signals. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018, pages 87-99, New York, NY, USA, June 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3188745.3188818.
  16. Yuval Emek and Roger Wattenhofer. Stone age distributed computing. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC '13, pages 137-146, New York, NY, USA, July 2013. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2484239.2484244.
  17. Ofer Feinerman and Amos Korman. Individual versus collective cognition in social insects. Journal of Experimental Biology, 220(1):73-82, January 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.143891.
  18. Ofer Feinerman, Amos Korman, Zvi Lotker, and Jean-Sebastien Sereni. Collaborative search on the plane without communication. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC '12, pages 77-86, New York, NY, USA, July 2012. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2332432.2332444.
  19. Mikaela Irene D. Fudolig and Jose Perico H. Esguerra. Analytic treatment of consensus achievement in the single-type zealotry voter model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 413:626-634, November 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2014.07.033.
  20. Mohsen Ghaffari, Cameron Musco, Tsvetomira Radeva, and Nancy Lynch. Distributed house-hunting in ant colonies. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC '15, pages 57-66, New York, NY, USA, July 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2767386.2767426.
  21. Yehuda Hassin and David Peleg. Distributed probabilistic polling and applications to proportionate agreement. Information and Computation, 171(2):248-268, December 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/inco.2001.3088.
  22. Yael Katz, Kolbjørn Tunstrøm, Christos C. Ioannou, Cristián Huepe, and Iain D. Couzin. Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(46):18720-18725, November 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107583108.
  23. Amos Korman and Robin Vacus. Early adapting to trends: Self-stabilizing information spread using passive communication. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC'22, pages 235-245, New York, NY, USA, July 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3519270.3538415.
  24. Melissa B. Miller and Bonnie L. Bassler. Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology, 55(1):165-199, 2001. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.165.
  25. V. Moeinifar and S. Gündüç. Zealots' effect on opinion dynamics in complex networks. Mathematical Modeling and Computing, 8(2):pp. 203, Wed, 05/05/2021 - 17:53. Google Scholar
  26. Arpan Mukhopadhyay, Ravi R. Mazumdar, and Rahul Roy. Binary opinion dynamics with biased agents and agents with different degrees of stubbornness. In 2016 28th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 28), pages 261-269, Würzburg, Germany, September 2016. IEEE. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ITC-28.2016.143.
  27. V. Sood and S. Redner. Voter model on heterogeneous graphs. Physical Review Letters, 94(17):178701, May 2005. URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.178701.
  28. David J. T. Sumpter, Jens Krause, Richard James, Iain D. Couzin, and Ashley J. W. Ward. Consensus decision making by fish. Current Biology, 18(22):1773-1777, November 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.064.
  29. Anthony Trewavas. Plant intelligence: Mindless mastery. Nature, 415(6874):841-841, February 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/415841a.
  30. Tamás Vicsek and Anna Zafeiris. Collective motion. Physics Reports, 517(3):71-140, August 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.004.
  31. Ercan Yildiz, Asuman Ozdaglar, Daron Acemoglu, Amin Saberi, and Anna Scaglione. Binary opinion dynamics with stubborn agents. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 1(4):19:1-19:30, December 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2538508.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail