On the Necessary Memory to Compute the Plurality in Multi-Agent Systems

We consider the Relative-Majority Problem (also known as Plurality), in which, given a multi-agent system where each agent is initially provided an input value out of a set of $k$ possible ones, each agent is required to eventually compute the input value with the highest frequency in the initial configuration. We consider the problem in the general Population Protocols model in which, given an underlying undirected connected graph whose nodes represent the agents, edges are selected by a globally fair scheduler. The state complexity that is required for solving the Plurality Problem (i.e., the minimum number of memory states that each agent needs to have in order to solve the problem), has been a long-standing open problem. The best protocol so far for the general multi-valued case requires polynomial memory: Salehkaleybar et al. (2015) devised a protocol that solves the problem by employing $O(k 2^k)$ states per agent, and they conjectured their upper bound to be optimal. On the other hand, under the strong assumption that agents initially agree on a total ordering of the initial input values, Gasieniec et al. (2017), provided an elegant logarithmic-memory plurality protocol. In this work, we refute Salehkaleybar et al.'s conjecture, by providing a plurality protocol which employs $O(k^{11})$ states per agent. Central to our result is an ordering protocol which allows to leverage on the plurality protocol by Gasieniec et al., of independent interest. We also provide a $\Omega(k^2)$-state lower bound on the necessary memory to solve the problem, proving that the Plurality Problem cannot be solved within the mere memory necessary to encode the output.Comment: 14 pages, accepted at CIAC 201

Population Protocols for Exact Plurality Consensus -- How a small chance of failure helps to eliminate insignificant opinions

We consider the \emph{exact plurality consensus} problem for \emph{population protocols}. Here, $n$ anonymous agents start each with one of $k$ opinions. Their goal is to agree on the initially most frequent opinion (the \emph{plurality opinion}) via random, pairwise interactions. The case of $k = 2$ opinions is known as the \emph{majority problem}. Recent breakthroughs led to an always correct, exact majority population protocol that is both time- and space-optimal, needing $O(\log n)$ states per agent and, with high probability, $O(\log n)$ time~[Doty, Eftekhari, Gasieniec, Severson, Stachowiak, and Uznanski; 2021]. We know that any always correct protocol requires $\Omega(k^2)$ states, while the currently best protocol needs $O(k^{11})$ states~[Natale and Ramezani; 2019]. For ordered opinions, this can be improved to $O(k^6)$~[Gasieniec, Hamilton, Martin, Spirakis, and Stachowiak; 2016]. We design protocols for plurality consensus that beat the quadratic lower bound by allowing a negligible failure probability. While our protocols might fail, they identify the plurality opinion with high probability even if the bias is $1$. Our first protocol achieves this via $k-1$ tournaments in time $O(k \cdot \log n)$ using $O(k + \log n)$ states. While it assumes an ordering on the opinions, we remove this restriction in our second protocol, at the cost of a slightly increased time $O(k \cdot \log n + \log^2 n)$. By efficiently pruning insignificant opinions, our final protocol reduces the number of tournaments at the cost of a slightly increased state complexity $O(k \cdot \log\log n + \log n)$. This improves the time to $O(n / x_{\max} \cdot \log n + \log^2 n)$, where $x_{\max}$ is the initial size of the plurality. Note that $n/x_{\max}$ is at most $k$ and can be much smaller (e.g., in case of a large bias or if there are many small opinions)