Memory lower bounds for deterministic self-stabilization

In the context of self-stabilization, a \emph{silent} algorithm guarantees that the register of every node does not change once the algorithm has stabilized. At the end of the 90's, Dolev et al. [Acta Inf. '99] showed that, for finding the centers of a graph, for electing a leader, or for constructing a spanning tree, every silent algorithm must use a memory of $\Omega(\log n)$ bits per register in $n$-node networks. Similarly, Korman et al. [Dist. Comp. '07] proved, using the notion of proof-labeling-scheme, that, for constructing a minimum-weight spanning trees (MST), every silent algorithm must use a memory of $\Omega(\log^2n)$ bits per register. It follows that requiring the algorithm to be silent has a cost in terms of memory space, while, in the context of self-stabilization, where every node constantly checks the states of its neighbors, the silence property can be of limited practical interest. In fact, it is known that relaxing this requirement results in algorithms with smaller space-complexity. In this paper, we are aiming at measuring how much gain in terms of memory can be expected by using arbitrary self-stabilizing algorithms, not necessarily silent. To our knowledge, the only known lower bound on the memory requirement for general algorithms, also established at the end of the 90's, is due to Beauquier et al.~[PODC '99] who proved that registers of constant size are not sufficient for leader election algorithms. We improve this result by establishing a tight lower bound of $\Theta(\log \Delta+\log \log n)$ bits per register for self-stabilizing algorithms solving $(\Delta+1)$-coloring or constructing a spanning tree in networks of maximum degree~$\Delta$. The lower bound $\Omega(\log \log n)$ bits per register also holds for leader election

Brief Announcement: Memory Lower Bounds for Self-Stabilization

In the context of self-stabilization, a silent algorithm guarantees that the communication registers (a.k.a register) of every node do not change once the algorithm has stabilized. At the end of the 90\u27s, Dolev et al. [Acta Inf. \u2799] showed that, for finding the centers of a graph, for electing a leader, or for constructing a spanning tree, every silent deterministic algorithm must use a memory of Omega(log n) bits per register in n-node networks. Similarly, Korman et al. [Dist. Comp. \u2707] proved, using the notion of proof-labeling-scheme, that, for constructing a minimum-weight spanning tree (MST), every silent algorithm must use a memory of Omega(log^2n) bits per register. It follows that requiring the algorithm to be silent has a cost in terms of memory space, while, in the context of self-stabilization, where every node constantly checks the states of its neighbors, the silence property can be of limited practical interest. In fact, it is known that relaxing this requirement results in algorithms with smaller space-complexity. In this paper, we are aiming at measuring how much gain in terms of memory can be expected by using arbitrary deterministic self-stabilizing algorithms, not necessarily silent. To our knowledge, the only known lower bound on the memory requirement for deterministic general algorithms, also established at the end of the 90\u27s, is due to Beauquier et al. [PODC \u2799] who proved that registers of constant size are not sufficient for leader election algorithms. We improve this result by establishing the lower bound Omega(log log n) bits per register for deterministic self-stabilizing algorithms solving (Delta+1)-coloring, leader election or constructing a spanning tree in networks of maximum degree Delta

Bounds for self-stabilization in unidirectional networks

A distributed algorithm is self-stabilizing if after faults and attacks hit the system and place it in some arbitrary global state, the systems recovers from this catastrophic situation without external intervention in finite time. Unidirectional networks preclude many common techniques in self-stabilization from being used, such as preserving local predicates. In this paper, we investigate the intrinsic complexity of achieving self-stabilization in unidirectional networks, and focus on the classical vertex coloring problem. When deterministic solutions are considered, we prove a lower bound of $n$ states per process (where $n$ is the network size) and a recovery time of at least $n(n-1)/2$ actions in total. We present a deterministic algorithm with matching upper bounds that performs in arbitrary graphs. When probabilistic solutions are considered, we observe that at least $\Delta + 1$ states per process and a recovery time of $\Omega(n)$ actions in total are required (where $\Delta$ denotes the maximal degree of the underlying simple undirected graph). We present a probabilistically self-stabilizing algorithm that uses $\mathtt{k}$ states per process, where $\mathtt{k}$ is a parameter of the algorithm. When $\mathtt{k}=\Delta+1$, the algorithm recovers in expected $O(\Delta n)$ actions. When $\mathtt{k}$ may grow arbitrarily, the algorithm recovers in expected O(n) actions in total. Thus, our algorithm can be made optimal with respect to space or time complexity

Stabilizing data-link over non-FIFO channels with optimal fault-resilience

Self-stabilizing systems have the ability to converge to a correct behavior when started in any configuration. Most of the work done so far in the self-stabilization area assumed either communication via shared memory or via FIFO channels. This paper is the first to lay the bases for the design of self-stabilizing message passing algorithms over unreliable non-FIFO channels. We propose a fault-send-deliver optimal stabilizing data-link layer that emulates a reliable FIFO communication channel over unreliable capacity bounded non-FIFO channels

An Optimal Self-Stabilizing Firing Squad

Consider a fully connected network where up to $t$ processes may crash, and all processes start in an arbitrary memory state. The self-stabilizing firing squad problem consists of eventually guaranteeing simultaneous response to an external input. This is modeled by requiring that the non-crashed processes "fire" simultaneously if some correct process received an external "GO" input, and that they only fire as a response to some process receiving such an input. This paper presents FireAlg, the first self-stabilizing firing squad algorithm. The FireAlg algorithm is optimal in two respects: (a) Once the algorithm is in a safe state, it fires in response to a GO input as fast as any other algorithm does, and (b) Starting from an arbitrary state, it converges to a safe state as fast as any other algorithm does.Comment: Shorter version to appear in SSS0

Survey of Distributed Decision

We survey the recent distributed computing literature on checking whether a given distributed system configuration satisfies a given boolean predicate, i.e., whether the configuration is legal or illegal w.r.t. that predicate. We consider classical distributed computing environments, including mostly synchronous fault-free network computing (LOCAL and CONGEST models), but also asynchronous crash-prone shared-memory computing (WAIT-FREE model), and mobile computing (FSYNC model)

Silent MST approximation for tiny memory

In network distributed computing, minimum spanning tree (MST) is one of the key problems, and silent self-stabilization one of the most demanding fault-tolerance properties. For this problem and this model, a polynomial-time algorithm with $O(\log^2\!n)$ memory is known for the state model. This is memory optimal for weights in the classic $[1,\text{poly}(n)]$ range (where $n$ is the size of the network). In this paper, we go below this $O(\log^2\!n)$ memory, using approximation and parametrized complexity. More specifically, our contributions are two-fold. We introduce a second parameter~$s$, which is the space needed to encode a weight, and we design a silent polynomial-time self-stabilizing algorithm, with space $O(\log n \cdot s)$. In turn, this allows us to get an approximation algorithm for the problem, with a trade-off between the approximation ratio of the solution and the space used. For polynomial weights, this trade-off goes smoothly from memory $O(\log n)$ for an $n$-approximation, to memory $O(\log^2\!n)$ for exact solutions, with for example memory $O(\log n\log\log n)$ for a 2-approximation