Optimum Simultaneous Consensus for General Omissions Is Equivalent to an NP Oracle

  • Yoram Moses
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5805)

Abstract

The general omissions failure model, in which a faulty process may omit both to send and to receive messages is inherently more complex than the more popular sending omissions model. This fact is exemplified in tasks involving simultaneous decisions, such as the simultaneous consensus (SC) problem. While efficient polynomial protocols for SC that are optimal in all runs are known for the sending omissions model, they do not exists for general omissions. It has been shown that such a protocol must perform at least NP-hard computations (in the number of processes n) between rounds. In fact, the best previously known SC protocol that is optimal in all runs in this model performs PSPACE (in n) computations between rounds. The current paper closes this twenty-year old gap by presenting such an optimal SC protocol that performs PNP computations (polynomial-time computations using an oracle for NP; in fact, a constant number of accesses to the oracle are needed per round.) The result is based on a new characterization of common knowledge in the general omissions failure model.

Keywords

Simultaneous Consensus synchronous systems general omissions failure model simultaneous action common knowledge NP Oracles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berman, P., Garay, J.A.: Cloture Votes: n/4-Resilient Distributed Consensus in t + 1 Rounds. Math. Syst. Theo. 26(1), 3–19 (1993); SIAM J. Comput. 27(1), 247–290 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burns, J.E., Lynch, N.A.: The Byzantine Firing Squad Problem. Technical Report MIT/LCS/TM-275 (1985)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charron-Bost, B., Schiper, A.: The Heard-of Model: Computing in Distributed Systems with Benign Faults. Distributed Computing (published online) (July 2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coan, B.A., Dolev, D., Dwork, C., Stockmeyer, L.J.: The Distributed Firing Squad Problem. SIAM J. Comput. 18(5), 990–1012 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dolev, D., Reischuk, R., Strong, H.R.: Eventual is Earlier than Immediate. In: Proc. 23rd IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 196–203 (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwork, C., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Byzantine Environment: Crash failures. Information and Computation 88(2), 156–186 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garay, J.A., Moses, Y.: Fully Polynomial Byzantine Agreement for n > 3t Processors in t + 1 Rounds. SIAM J. Comput. 27(1), 247–290 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995 revised 2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Merritt, M.: Easy Impossibility Proofs for Distributed Consensus Problems. J. ACM 34(1), 98–115 (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y.: Knowledge and Common Knowledge in a Distributed Environment. J. ACM 37(3), 549–587 (1990)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merritt, M.J.: Unpublished notes on the Dolev-Strong lower bound for Byzantine Agreement (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michel, R.: A Categorical Approach to Distributed Systems Expressibility and Knowledge. In: Proc. 8th Symp. Princ. Dist. Comp. (PODC), pp. 129–143 (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mizrahi, T., Moses, Y.: Continuous Consensus via Common Knowledge. Distributed Computing 20(5), 305–321 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mizrahi, T., Moses, Y.: Continuous consensus with failures and recoveries. In: Taubenfeld, G. (ed.) DISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5218, pp. 408–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mizrahi, T., Moses, Y.: Continuous Consensus with Ambiguous Failures. In: Proc. ICDCN, pp. 73–85 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moses, Y., Raynal, M.: Revisiting Simultaneous Consensus with Crash Failures. J. Par. Dist. Comp. 69, 400–409 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moses, Y., Tuttle, M.R.: Programming simultaneous actions using common knowledge. Algorithmica 3, 121–169 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moses, Y., Waarts, O.: Coordinated Traversal: (t + 1)-round Byzantine Agreement in Polynomial Time. J. Algorithms 17(1), 110–156 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neiger, G., Bazzi, R.A.: Using Knowledge to Optimally Achieve Coordination in Distributed Systems. Theor. Comput. Sci. 220(1), 31–65 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neiger, G., Tuttle, M.R.: Common Knowledge and Consistent Simultaneous Coordination. Distributed Computing 6(3), 181–192 (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching Agreement in the Presence of Faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoram Moses
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations