<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-10-03T12:33:08Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="11802" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:11802</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T09:48:49Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>On Deterministic Linearizable Set Agreement Objects</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>de Azevedo Piovezan, Felipe</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Hadzilacos, Vassos</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Toueg, Sam</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Asynchronous shared-memory systems</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>consensus</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>set agreement</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>deterministic objects</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>A recent work showed that, for all n and k, there is a linearizable (n,k)-set agreement object O_L that is equivalent to the (n,k)-set agreement task [David Yu Cheng Chan et al., 2017]: given O_L, it is possible to solve the (n,k)-set agreement task, and given any algorithm that solves the (n,k)-set agreement task (and registers), it is possible to implement O_L. This linearizable object O_L, however, is not deterministic. It turns out that there is also a deterministic (n,k)-set agreement object O_D that is equivalent to the (n,k)-set agreement task, but this deterministic object O_D is not linearizable. This raises the question whether there exists a deterministic and linearizable (n,k)-set agreement object that is equivalent to the (n,k)-set agreement task. Here we show that in general the answer is no: specifically, we prove that for all n ≥ 4, every deterministic linearizable (n,2)-set agreement object is strictly stronger than the (n,2)-set agreement task. We prove this by showing that, for all n ≥ 4, every deterministic and linearizable (n,2)-set agreement object (together with registers) can be used to solve 2-consensus, whereas it is known that the (n,2)-set agreement task cannot do so. For a natural subset of (n,2)-set agreement objects, we prove that this result holds even for n = 3.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Felipe de Azevedo Piovezan and Vassos Hadzilacos and Sam Toueg</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of LIPIcs, Volume 153, 23rd International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS 2019)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2019.16</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-118026</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2019.16</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
