Strong Equivalence Relations for Iterated Models

The Iterated Immediate Snapshot model (IIS), due to its elegant geometrical representation, has become standard for applying topological reasoning to distributed computing. Its modular structure makes it easier to analyze than the more realistic (non-iterated) read-write Atomic-Snapshot memory model (AS). It is known that AS and IIS are equivalent with respect to \emph{wait-free task} computability: a distributed task is solvable in AS if and only if it solvable in IIS. We observe, however, that this equivalence is not sufficient in order to explore solvability of tasks in \emph{sub-models} of AS (i.e. proper subsets of its runs) or computability of \emph{long-lived} objects, and a stronger equivalence relation is needed. In this paper, we consider \emph{adversarial} sub-models of AS and IIS specified by the sets of processes that can be \emph{correct} in a model run. We show that AS and IIS are equivalent in a strong way: a (possibly long-lived) object is implementable in AS under a given adversary if and only if it is implementable in IIS under the same adversary. %This holds whether the object is one-shot or long-lived. Therefore, the computability of any object in shared memory under an adversarial AS scheduler can be equivalently investigated in IIS

The solvability of consensus in iterated models extended with safe-consensus

The safe-consensus task was introduced by Afek, Gafni and Lieber (DISC'09) as a weakening of the classic consensus. When there is concurrency, the consensus output can be arbitrary, not even the input of any process. They showed that safe-consensus is equivalent to consensus, in a wait-free system. We study the solvability of consensus in three shared memory iterated models extended with the power of safe-consensus black boxes. In the first model, for the $i$-th iteration, processes write to the memory, invoke safe-consensus boxes and finally they snapshot the memory. We show that in this model, any wait-free implementation of consensus requires $\binom{n}{2}$ safe-consensus black-boxes and this bound is tight. In a second iterated model, the processes write to memory, then they snapshot it and finally they invoke safe-consensus boxes. We prove that in this model, consensus cannot be implemented. In the last iterated model, processes first invoke safe-consensus, then they write to memory and finally they snapshot it. We show that this model is equivalent to the previous model and thus consensus cannot be implemented.Comment: 49 pages, A preliminar version of the main results appeared in the SIROCCO 2014 proceeding

Relating L-Resilience and Wait-Freedom via Hitting Sets

The condition of t-resilience stipulates that an n-process program is only obliged to make progress when at least n-t processes are correct. Put another way, the live sets, the collection of process sets such that progress is required if all the processes in one of these sets are correct, are all sets with at least n-t processes. We show that the ability of arbitrary collection of live sets L to solve distributed tasks is tightly related to the minimum hitting set of L, a minimum cardinality subset of processes that has a non-empty intersection with every live set. Thus, finding the computing power of L is NP-complete. For the special case of colorless tasks that allow participating processes to adopt input or output values of each other, we use a simple simulation to show that a task can be solved L-resiliently if and only if it can be solved (h-1)-resiliently, where h is the size of the minimum hitting set of L. For general tasks, we characterize L-resilient solvability of tasks with respect to a limited notion of weak solvability: in every execution where all processes in some set in L are correct, outputs must be produced for every process in some (possibly different) participating set in L. Given a task T, we construct another task T_L such that T is solvable weakly L-resiliently if and only if T_L is solvable weakly wait-free

Iterated filtering methods for Markov process epidemic models

Dynamic epidemic models have proven valuable for public health decision makers as they provide useful insights into the understanding and prevention of infectious diseases. However, inference for these types of models can be difficult because the disease spread is typically only partially observed e.g. in form of reported incidences in given time periods. This chapter discusses how to perform likelihood-based inference for partially observed Markov epidemic models when it is relatively easy to generate samples from the Markov transmission model while the likelihood function is intractable. The first part of the chapter reviews the theoretical background of inference for partially observed Markov processes (POMP) via iterated filtering. In the second part of the chapter the performance of the method and associated practical difficulties are illustrated on two examples. In the first example a simulated outbreak data set consisting of the number of newly reported cases aggregated by week is fitted to a POMP where the underlying disease transmission model is assumed to be a simple Markovian SIR model. The second example illustrates possible model extensions such as seasonal forcing and over-dispersion in both, the transmission and observation model, which can be used, e.g., when analysing routinely collected rotavirus surveillance data. Both examples are implemented using the R-package pomp (King et al., 2016) and the code is made available online.Comment: This manuscript is a preprint of a chapter to appear in the Handbook of Infectious Disease Data Analysis, Held, L., Hens, N., O'Neill, P.D. and Wallinga, J. (Eds.). Chapman \& Hall/CRC, 2018. Please use the book for possible citations. Corrected typo in the references and modified second exampl