Advertisement

Stationary and Deterministic Leader Election in Self-organizing Particle Systems

  • Rida A. BazziEmail author
  • Joseph L. Briones
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11914)

Abstract

We propose the first stationary and deterministic protocol for the leader election problem for non-simply connected particle systems in the geometric Amoebot model in which particles have no unique identifiers but have common chirality. The solution does not require particle movement to break symmetry (stationary) and does not allow particles to make probabilistic choices (deterministic). We show that leader election is possible if and only if the proposed protocol succeeds in electing a unique leader. We show that if the protocol fails to elect a leader, it will always succeed in finding a finite set of \(k \le 6\) leader candidates and the system must have k-symmetry that prevents the selection of less than k candidates. The protocols runs in \(O(n^2)\) steps, where n is the number of particles in the system. Other solutions to the leader election problem in the Amoebot model are either probabilistic, assume that the system is simply connected, and/or require stronger primitives to break symmetry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Shay Kutten for helpful discussions about the topic of this paper and for suggesting the example with two particles that we used in the conclusion section.

References

  1. 1.
    Abu-Amara, H.H.: Fault-tolerant distributed algorithms for agreement and election. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afek, Y., Brown, G.M.: Self-stabilization of the alternating-bit protocol. In: SRDS 1989, pp. 80–83. IEEE (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cannon, S., Daymude, J.J., Randall, D., Richa, A.W.: A Markov chain algorithm for compression in self-organizing particle systems. In: PODC, pp. 279–288. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daymude, J.J., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: Improved leader election for self-organizing programmable matter. In: Fernández Anta, A., Jurdzinski, T., Mosteiro, M.A., Zhang, Y. (eds.) ALGOSENSORS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10718, pp. 127–140. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72751-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Dolev, S., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: Brief announcement: amoebot–a new model for programmable matter. In: SPAA, pp. 220–222. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Porter, A., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: On the runtime of universal coating for programmable matter. In: Rondelez, Y., Woods, D. (eds.) DNA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9818, pp. 148–164. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43994-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: Universal coating for programmable matter. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 671, 56–68 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Strothmann, T., Bazzi, R.A., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C.: Leader election and shape formation with self-organizing programmable matter. Comput. Mol. Program. DNA 21, 117–132 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emek, Y., Kutten, S., Lavi, R., Moses Jr., W.K.: Deterministic leader election in programmable matter. In: ICALP, 9–12 July, pp. 140:1–140:14 (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flocchini, P., Prencipe, G., Santoro, N.: Distributed computing by oblivious mobile robots. Synth. Lect. Distrib. Comput. Theory 3(2), 1–185 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flocchini, P., Prencipe, G., Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Arbitrary pattern formation by asynchronous, anonymous, oblivious robots. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 407(1–3), 412–447 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gastineau, N., Abdou, W., Mbarek, N., Togni, O.: Distributed leader election and computation of local identifiers for programmable matter. In: Gilbert, S., Hughes, D., Krishnamachari, B. (eds.) ALGOSENSORS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11410, pp. 159–179. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14094-6_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ghaffari, M., Haeupler, B.: Near optimal leader election in multi-hop radio networks. In: SODA, pp. 748–766 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Itai, A., Rodeh, M.: Symmetry breaking in distributed networks. Inf. Comput. 88(1), 60–87 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karpov, V., Karpova, I.: Leader election algorithms for static swarms. Biol. Inspired Cogn. Archit. 12, 54–64 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luna, G.A.D., Flocchini, P., Santoro, N., Viglietta, G., Yamauchi, Y.: Shape formation by programmable particles. In: 21st International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems, OPODIS 2017, pp. 31:1–31:16 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lynch, N.A.: Distributed Algorithms. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peleg, D.: Time-optimal leader election in general networks. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 8(1), 96–99 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Styer, E.F.: Symmetry Breaking on networks of processes. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options