Document Open Access Logo

Distributed Fast Crash-Tolerant Consensus with Nearly-Linear Quantum Communication

Authors Mohammad T. HajiAghayi, Dariusz R. Kowalski, Jan Olkowski

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.80.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.89 MB
  • 19 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Mohammad T. HajiAghayi
  • University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Dariusz R. Kowalski
  • School of Computer and Cyber Sciences, Augusta University, GA, USA
Jan Olkowski
  • University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Funding

  • HajiAghayi, Mohammad T.: Partially supported by DARPA QuICC, ONR MURI 2024 award on Algorithms, Learning, and Game Theory, Army-Research Laboratory (ARL) grant W911NF2410052, NSF AF:Small grants 2218678, 2114269, 2347322.
  • Olkowski, Jan: Partially supported by DARPA QuICC, ONR MURI 2024 award on Algorithms, Learning, and Game Theory, Army-Research Laboratory (ARL) grant W911NF2410052, NSF AF:Small grants 2218678, 2114269, 2347322.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Mohammad T. HajiAghayi, Dariusz R. Kowalski, and Jan Olkowski. Distributed Fast Crash-Tolerant Consensus with Nearly-Linear Quantum Communication. In 51st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 297, pp. 80:1-80:19, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.80

Abstract

Fault-tolerant Consensus is about reaching agreement on some of the input values in a limited time by non-faulty autonomous processes, despite of failures of processes or communication medium. This problem is particularly challenging and costly against an adaptive adversary with full information. Bar-Joseph and Ben-Or (PODC'98) were the first who proved an absolute lower bound Ω(√{n/log n}) on expected time complexity of Consensus in any classical (i.e., randomized or deterministic) message-passing network with n processes succeeding with probability 1 against such a strong adaptive adversary crashing processes. Seminal work of Ben-Or and Hassidim (STOC'05) broke the Ω(√{n/log n}) barrier for consensus in the classical (deterministic and randomized) networks by enhancing the model with quantum channels. In such networks, quantum communication between every pair of processes participating in the protocol is also allowed. They showed an (expected) constant-time quantum algorithm for a linear number of crashes t < n/3. In this paper, we improve upon that seminal work by reducing the number of quantum and communication bits to an arbitrarily small polynomial, and even more, to a polylogarithmic number - though, the latter in the cost of a slightly larger polylogarithmic time (still exponentially smaller than the time lower bound Ω(√{n/log n}) for the classical computation models).

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Quantum computation theory
  • Theory of computation → Distributed algorithms
Keywords
  • distributed algorithms
  • quantum algorithms
  • adaptive adversary
  • crash failures
  • Consensus
  • quantum common coin
  • approximate counting

Metrics

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

Related Versions

References

  1. I. Abraham, T. -H. Hubert Chan, D. Dolev, K. Nayak, R. Pass, L. Ren, and E. Shi. Communication complexity of byzantine agreement, revisited. In Proceedings of the acm Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (podc) and 2019, editors, Distributed Computing, pages 317-326, 2018. Google Scholar
  2. Dan Alistarh, James Aspnes, Valerie King, and Jared Saia. Communication-efficient randomized consensus. Distributed Computing, 31:489-501, 2018. Google Scholar
  3. S. Amdur, S. Weber, and V. Hadzilacos. On the message complexity of binary agreement under crash failures. Distributed Computing, 5:175-186, 1992. Google Scholar
  4. J. Aspnes. Lower bounds for distributed coin-flipping and randomized consensus. J. ACM, 45(3):415-450, 1998. Google Scholar
  5. H. Attiya and K. Censor. Tight bounds for asynchronous randomized consensus. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 11-13, California, USA, June, 2007. San Diego. Google Scholar
  6. H. Attiya and J. Welch. Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics. Wiley, 2nd edition, 2004. Google Scholar
  7. Z. Bar-Joseph and M. Ben-Or. A tight lower bound for randomized synchronous consensus. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pages 193-199, 1998. Google Scholar
  8. Z. Bar-Joseph and M. Ben-Or. A tight lower bound for randomized synchronous consensus, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/277697.277733.
  9. M. Ben-Or and A. Hassidim. Fast quantum byzantine agreement. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2005. Google Scholar
  10. A. Broadbent and A. Tapp. Can quantum mechanics help distributed computing? SIGACT News, 39(3):67-76, 2008. Google Scholar
  11. B. S. Chlebus and D. R. Kowalski. Robust gossiping with an application to consensus. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 72(2006):1262, 2009. Google Scholar
  12. B. S. Chlebus, D. R. Kowalski, and M. Strojnowski. Fast scalable deterministic consensus for crash failures. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing, pages 111-120, 2009. Google Scholar
  13. B. S. Chlebus, D. R. Kowalski, and M. Strojnowski. Scalable quantum consensus for crash failures. In Proceedings of the 24th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC), 2010. Google Scholar
  14. V. Cholvi. Quantum byzantine agreement for any number of dishonest parties. Quantum Inf. Process., 21:1-11, 2022. Google Scholar
  15. B. Chor, M. Merritt, and D. B. Shmoys. Simple constant-time consensus protocols in realistic failure models. J. ACM, 36(3):591-614, 1989. Google Scholar
  16. D. Dolev and R. Reischuk. Bounds on information exchange for byzantine agreement. Journal of the ACM, 32:191-204, 1985. Google Scholar
  17. D. Dong and I. R. Petersen. Quantum estimation, control and learning: Opportunities and challenges. Annual Reviews in Control, 54:243-251, 2022. Google Scholar
  18. C. Dwork, J. Halpern, and O. Waarts. Performing work efficiently in the presence of faults. SIAM Journal on Computing, 27:1457-1491, 1998. Google Scholar
  19. M. Fisher and N. Lynch. A lower bound for the time to assure interactive consistency. Information Processing Letters, 14:183-186, 1982. Google Scholar
  20. Z. Galil, A. Mayer, and M. Yung. Resolving message complexity of byzantine agreement and beyond. In Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 724-733, 1995. Google Scholar
  21. S. Gilbert and D. R. Kowalski. Distributed agreement with optimal communication complexity. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 965-977, 2010. Google Scholar
  22. V. Hadzilacos and J. Y. Halpern. Message-optimal protocols for byzantine agreement. Mathematical Systems Theory, 26:41-102, 1993. Google Scholar
  23. M. Hajiaghayi, D. R. Kowalski, and J. Olkowski. Improved communication complexity of fault-tolerant consensus. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), 2022. Google Scholar
  24. L. K. Helm, quantum distributed consensus. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing (PODC), 2008. Google Scholar
  25. Valerie King and Jared Saia. Breaking the O(n²) bit barrier: Scalable byzantine agreement with an adaptive adversaryo. , J. ACM, 18(24):18-1, 2011. Google Scholar
  26. Q. Luo, K. Feng, and M. Zheng. Quantum multi-valued byzantine agreement based on d-dimensional entangled states. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 58:4025-4032, 2019. Google Scholar
  27. M. Marcozzi and L. Mostarda. Quantum consensus: an overview. arXiv preprint, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.04192.
  28. L. Mazzarella, A. Sarlette, and F. Ticozzi. Consensus for quantum networks: Symmetry from gossip interactions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 60(1):158-172, 2014. Google Scholar
  29. C. Mochon. Quantum weak coin flipping with arbitrarily small bias. arXiv preprint, 2007. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4114.
  30. M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information. Phys. Today, 54(2):60, 2001. Google Scholar
  31. M. Pease, R. Shostak, and L. Lamport. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27:228-234, 1980. Google Scholar
  32. S. Tani, H. Kobayashi, and K. Matsumoto. Exact quantum algorithms for the leader election problem. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory, 4:1-24, 2012. Google Scholar
  33. J. van Apeldoorn and T. de Vos. A framework for distributed quantum queries in the congest model. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 2022. Google Scholar
  34. W. Wang, Y. Yu, and L. Du. Quantum blockchain based on asymmetric quantum encryption and a stake vote consensus algorithm. Scientific Reports, 12(1):1-12, 2022. Google Scholar
  35. X. Wu and P. Yao. Quantum complexity of weighted diameter and radius in congest networks. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), 2022. Google Scholar
  36. L. Zhang and S. Fulton. Discussion of quantum consensus algorithms. arXiv preprint, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04710.
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
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact