1,349 research outputs found

    Automated Synthesis of Distributed Self-Stabilizing Protocols

    Full text link
    In this paper, we introduce an SMT-based method that automatically synthesizes a distributed self-stabilizing protocol from a given high-level specification and network topology. Unlike existing approaches, where synthesis algorithms require the explicit description of the set of legitimate states, our technique only needs the temporal behavior of the protocol. We extend our approach to synthesize ideal-stabilizing protocols, where every state is legitimate. We also extend our technique to synthesize monotonic-stabilizing protocols, where during recovery, each process can execute an most once one action. Our proposed methods are fully implemented and we report successful synthesis of well-known protocols such as Dijkstra's token ring, a self-stabilizing version of Raymond's mutual exclusion algorithm, ideal-stabilizing leader election and local mutual exclusion, as well as monotonic-stabilizing maximal independent set and distributed Grundy coloring

    Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization

    Get PDF
    Self-stabilization is a strong property that guarantees that a network always resume correct behavior starting from an arbitrary initial state. Weaker guarantees have later been introduced to cope with impossibility results: probabilistic stabilization only gives probabilistic convergence to a correct behavior. Also, weak stabilization only gives the possibility of convergence. In this paper, we investigate the relative power of weak, self, and probabilistic stabilization, with respect to the set of problems that can be solved. We formally prove that in that sense, weak stabilization is strictly stronger that self-stabilization. Also, we refine previous results on weak stabilization to prove that, for practical schedule instances, a deterministic weak-stabilizing protocol can be turned into a probabilistic self-stabilizing one. This latter result hints at more practical use of weak-stabilization, as such algorthms are easier to design and prove than their (probabilistic) self-stabilizing counterparts

    Self-stabilizing Deterministic Gathering

    Get PDF
    In this paper, we investigate the possibility to deterministically solve the gathering problem (GP) with weak robots (anonymous, autonomous, disoriented, deaf and dumb, and oblivious). We introduce strong multiplicity detection as the ability for the robots to detect the exact number of robots located at a given position. We show that with strong multiplicity detection, there exists a deterministic self-stabilizing algorithm solving GP for n robots if, and only if, n is odd

    Topological Self-Stabilization with Name-Passing Process Calculi

    Get PDF
    Topological self-stabilization is the ability of a distributed system to have its nodes themselves establish a meaningful overlay network. Independent from the initial network topology, it converges to the desired topology via forwarding, inserting, and deleting links to neighboring nodes. We adapt a linearization algorithm, originally designed for a shared memory model, to asynchronous message-passing. We use an extended localized pi-calculus to model the algorithm and to formally prove its essential self-stabilization properties: closure and weak convergence for every arbitrary initial configuration, and strong convergence for restricted cases

    A Taxonomy of Daemons in Self-stabilization

    Full text link
    We survey existing scheduling hypotheses made in the literature in self-stabilization, commonly referred to under the notion of daemon. We show that four main characteristics (distribution, fairness, boundedness, and enabledness) are enough to encapsulate the various differences presented in existing work. Our naming scheme makes it easy to compare daemons of particular classes, and to extend existing possibility or impossibility results to new daemons. We further examine existing daemon transformer schemes and provide the exact transformed characteristics of those transformers in our taxonomy.Comment: 26 page
    • 

    corecore