Search Results

Documents authored by Rivera, Nicolás

Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.86
Rumors with Changing Credibility

Authors: Charlotte Out, Nicolás Rivera, Thomas Sauerwald, and John Sylvester

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 287, 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024)

Abstract
Randomized rumor spreading processes diffuse information on an undirected graph and have been widely studied. In this work, we present a generic framework for analyzing a broad class of such processes on regular graphs. Our analysis is protocol-agnostic, as it only requires the expected proportion of newly informed vertices in each round to be bounded, and a natural negative correlation property. This framework allows us to analyze various protocols, including PUSH, PULL, and PUSH-PULL, thereby extending prior research. Unlike previous work, our framework accommodates message failures at any time t ≥ 0 with a probability of 1-q(t), where the credibility q(t) is any function of time. This enables us to model real-world scenarios in which the transmissibility of rumors may fluctuate, as seen in the spread of "fake news" and viruses. Additionally, our framework is sufficiently broad to cover dynamic graphs.
Cite as

Charlotte Out, Nicolás Rivera, Thomas Sauerwald, and John Sylvester. Rumors with Changing Credibility. In 15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 287, pp. 86:1-86:23, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{out_et_al:LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.86,
  author =	{Out, Charlotte and Rivera, Nicol\'{a}s and Sauerwald, Thomas and Sylvester, John},
  title =	{{Rumors with Changing Credibility}},
  booktitle =	{15th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2024)},
  pages =	{86:1--86:23},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-309-6},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2024},
  volume =	{287},
  editor =	{Guruswami, Venkatesan},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.86},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-196149},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2024.86},
  annote =	{Keywords: Rumor spreading, epidemic algorithms, "fake news"}
}
Document
Track A: Algorithms, Complexity and Games
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.107
Multiple Random Walks on Graphs: Mixing Few to Cover Many

Authors: Nicolás Rivera, Thomas Sauerwald, and John Sylvester

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 198, 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021)

Abstract
Random walks on graphs are an essential primitive for many randomised algorithms and stochastic processes. It is natural to ask how much can be gained by running k multiple random walks independently and in parallel. Although the cover time of multiple walks has been investigated for many natural networks, the problem of finding a general characterisation of multiple cover times for worst-case start vertices (posed by Alon, Avin, Koucký, Kozma, Lotker, and Tuttle in 2008) remains an open problem. First, we improve and tighten various bounds on the stationary cover time when k random walks start from vertices sampled from the stationary distribution. For example, we prove an unconditional lower bound of Ω((n/k) log n) on the stationary cover time, holding for any n-vertex graph G and any 1 ≤ k = o(nlog n). Secondly, we establish the stationary cover times of multiple walks on several fundamental networks up to constant factors. Thirdly, we present a framework characterising worst-case cover times in terms of stationary cover times and a novel, relaxed notion of mixing time for multiple walks called the partial mixing time. Roughly speaking, the partial mixing time only requires a specific portion of all random walks to be mixed. Using these new concepts, we can establish (or recover) the worst-case cover times for many networks including expanders, preferential attachment graphs, grids, binary trees and hypercubes.
Cite as

Nicolás Rivera, Thomas Sauerwald, and John Sylvester. Multiple Random Walks on Graphs: Mixing Few to Cover Many. In 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 198, pp. 107:1-107:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{rivera_et_al:LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.107,
  author =	{Rivera, Nicol\'{a}s and Sauerwald, Thomas and Sylvester, John},
  title =	{{Multiple Random Walks on Graphs: Mixing Few to Cover Many}},
  booktitle =	{48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021)},
  pages =	{107:1--107:16},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-195-5},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2021},
  volume =	{198},
  editor =	{Bansal, Nikhil and Merelli, Emanuela and Worrell, James},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.107},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-141764},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2021.107},
  annote =	{Keywords: Multiple Random walks, Markov Chains, Random Walks, Cover Time}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2017.13
Fast Plurality Consensus in Regular Expanders

Authors: Colin Cooper, Tomasz Radzik, Nicolás Rivera, and Takeharu Shiraga

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 91, 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2017)

Abstract
In a voting process on a graph vertices revise their opinions in a distributed way based on the opinions of nearby vertices. The voting completes when the vertices reach consensus, that is, they all have the same opinion. The classic example is synchronous pull voting where at each step, each vertex adopts the opinion of a random neighbour. This very simple process, however, can be slow and the final opinion is not necessarily the one with the initial largest support. It was shown earlier that if there are initially only two opposing opinions, then both these drawbacks can be overcome by a synchronous two-sample voting, in which at each step each vertex considers its own opinion and the opinions of two random neighbours. If there are initially three or more opinions, a problem arises when there is no clear majority. One class of opinions may be largest (the plurality opinion), although its total size is less than that of two other opinions put together. We analyse the performance of the two-sample voting on d-regular graphs for this case. We show that, if the difference between the initial sizes A_1 and A_2 of the largest and second largest opinions is at least C n max{sqrt((log n)/A_1), lambda}, then the largest opinion wins in O((n log n)/A_1) steps with high probability. Here C is a suitable constant and lambda is the absolute second eigenvalue of transition matrix P=Adj(G)/d of a simple random walk on the graph G. Our bound generalizes the results of Becchetti et al. [SPAA 2014] for the related three-sample voting process on complete graphs. Our bound implies that if lambda = o(1), then the two-sample voting can consistently converge to the largest opinion, even if A_1 - A_2 = o(n). If lambda is constant, we show that the case A_1 - A_2 = o(n) can be dealt with by sampling using short random walks. Finally, we give a simple and efficient push voting algorithm for the case when there are a number of large opinions and any of them is acceptable as the final winning opinion.
Cite as

Colin Cooper, Tomasz Radzik, Nicolás Rivera, and Takeharu Shiraga. Fast Plurality Consensus in Regular Expanders. In 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 91, pp. 13:1-13:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{cooper_et_al:LIPIcs.DISC.2017.13,
  author =	{Cooper, Colin and Radzik, Tomasz and Rivera, Nicol\'{a}s and Shiraga, Takeharu},
  title =	{{Fast Plurality Consensus in Regular Expanders}},
  booktitle =	{31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2017)},
  pages =	{13:1--13:16},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-053-8},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2017},
  volume =	{91},
  editor =	{Richa, Andr\'{e}a},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2017.13},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-79778},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.DISC.2017.13},
  annote =	{Keywords: Plurality consensus, Regular expanders}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.144
The Linear Voting Model

Authors: Colin Cooper and Nicolás Rivera

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 55, 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016)

Abstract
We study voting models on graphs. In the beginning, the vertices of a given graph have some initial opinion. Over time, the opinions on the vertices change by interactions between graph neighbours. Under suitable conditions the system evolves to a state in which all vertices have the same opinion. In this work, we consider a new model of voting, called the Linear Voting Model. This model can be seen as a generalization of several models of voting, including among others, pull voting and push voting. One advantage of our model is that, even though it is very general, it has a rich structure making the analysis tractable. In particular we are able to solve the basic question about voting, the probability that certain opinion wins the poll, and furthermore, given appropriate conditions, we are able to bound the expected time until some opinion wins.
Cite as

Colin Cooper and Nicolás Rivera. The Linear Voting Model. In 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 55, pp. 144:1-144:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{cooper_et_al:LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.144,
  author =	{Cooper, Colin and Rivera, Nicol\'{a}s},
  title =	{{The Linear Voting Model}},
  booktitle =	{43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016)},
  pages =	{144:1--144:12},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-013-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2016},
  volume =	{55},
  editor =	{Chatzigiannakis, Ioannis and Mitzenmacher, Michael and Rabani, Yuval and Sangiorgi, Davide},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.144},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-62883},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.144},
  annote =	{Keywords: Voter model, Interacting particles, Randomized algorithm, Probabilistic voting}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.145
Discordant Voting Processes on Finite Graphs

Authors: Colin Cooper, Martin Dyer, Alan Frieze, and Nicolás Rivera

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 55, 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016)

Abstract
We consider an asynchronous voting process on graphs which we call discordant voting, and which can be described as follows. Initially each vertex holds one of two opinions, red or blue say. Neighbouring vertices with different opinions interact pairwise. After an interaction both vertices have the same colour. The quantity of interest is T, the time to reach consensus, i.e. the number of interactions needed for all vertices have the same colour. An edge whose endpoint colours differ (i.e. one vertex is coloured red and the other one blue) is said to be discordant. A vertex is discordant if its is incident with a discordant edge. In discordant voting, all interactions are based on discordant edges. Because the voting process is asynchronous there are several ways to update the colours of the interacting vertices. - Push: Pick a random discordant vertex and push its colour to a random discordant neighbour. - Pull: Pick a random discordant vertex and pull the colour of a random discordant neighbour. - Oblivious: Pick a random endpoint of a random discordant edge and push the colour to the other end point. We show that ET, the expected time to reach consensus, depends strongly on the underlying graph and the update rule. For connected graphs on n vertices, and an initial half red, half blue colouring the following hold. For oblivious voting, ET = (n^2)/4 independent of the underlying graph. For the complete graph Kn, the push protocol has ET = Theta(n*log(n)), whereas the pull protocol has ET = Theta(2^n). For the cycle C_n all three protocols have ET = Theta(n^2). For the star graph however, the pull protocol has ET = O(n^2), whereas the push protocol is slower with ET = Theta(n^2*log(n)). The wide variation in ET for the pull protocol is to be contrasted with the well known model of synchronous pull voting, for which ET = O(n) on many classes of expanders.
Cite as

Colin Cooper, Martin Dyer, Alan Frieze, and Nicolás Rivera. Discordant Voting Processes on Finite Graphs. In 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 55, pp. 145:1-145:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{cooper_et_al:LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.145,
  author =	{Cooper, Colin and Dyer, Martin and Frieze, Alan and Rivera, Nicol\'{a}s},
  title =	{{Discordant Voting Processes on Finite Graphs}},
  booktitle =	{43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016)},
  pages =	{145:1--145:13},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-013-2},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2016},
  volume =	{55},
  editor =	{Chatzigiannakis, Ioannis and Mitzenmacher, Michael and Rabani, Yuval and Sangiorgi, Davide},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.145},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-62898},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2016.145},
  annote =	{Keywords: Distributed consensus, Voter model, Interacting particles, Randomized algorithm}
}
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