International Symposium on Distributed Computing

Distributed Computing pp 248-262

# Fast Consensus for Voting on General Expander Graphs

• Colin Cooper
• Robert Elsässer
• Nicolás Rivera
• Takeharu Shiraga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9363)

## Abstract

Distributed voting is a fundamental topic in distributed computing. In the standard model of pull voting, at each step every vertex chooses a neighbour uniformly at random and adopts its opinion. The voting is completed when all vertices hold the same opinion. In the simplest case, each vertex initially holds one of two different opinions. This partitions the vertices into arbitrary sets A and B. For many graphs, including regular graphs and irrespective of their expansion properties, if both A and B are sufficiently large sets, then pull voting requires $$\Omega (n)$$ expected steps, where n is the number of vertices of the graph.

In this paper we consider a related class of voting processes based on sampling two opinions. In the simplest case, every vertex v chooses two random neighbours at each step. If both these neighbours have the same opinion, then v adopts this opinion. Otherwise, v keeps its own opinion. Let G be a connected graph with n vertices and m edges. Let P be the transition matrix of a simple random walk on G with second largest eigenvalue $$\lambda < 1/\sqrt{2}$$. We show that if the initial imbalance in degree between the two opinions satisfies $$|d(A)-d(B)|/2m \ge 2\lambda ^2$$, then with high probability voting completes in $$O(\log n)$$ steps, and the opinion with the larger initial degree wins.

The condition that $$\lambda < 1/\sqrt{2}$$ includes many classes of expanders, for example random d-regular graphs where $$d \ge 10$$. If however $$1/\sqrt{2} \le \lambda (P) \le 1-\epsilon$$ for a constant $$\epsilon >0$$, or only a bound on the conductance of the graph is known, the sampling process can be modified so that voting still provably completes in $$O(\log n)$$ steps with high probability. The modification uses two sampling based on probing to a fixed depth $$O(1/\epsilon )$$ from any vertex.

In its most general form our voting process allows vertices to bias their sampling of opinions among their neighbours to achieve a desired outcome. This is done by allocating weights to edges.

## Preview

### References

1. 1.
Abdullah, M., Draief, M.: Consensus on the Initial Global Majority by Local Majority Polling for a Class of Sparse Graphs (2013). http://www.arXiv.org
2. 2.
Bolla, M.: Beyond the Expanders. International Journal of Combinatorics 2011, Article ID 787596, 11 (2011)Google Scholar
3. 3.
Brahma, S., Macharla, S., Pal, S.P., Singh, S.K.: Fair leader election by randomized voting. In: Ghosh, R.K., Mohanty, H. (eds.) ICDCIT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3347, pp. 22–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
4. 4.
Chung, F.R.K., Lu, L.: Connected components in random graphs with given expected degree sequences. Annals of Combinatorics 6, 125–145 (2002)
5. 5.
Chung, F.R.K., Lu, L., Vu, V.: The spectra of random graphs with given expected degrees. Internet Mathematics 1, 257–275 (2003)
6. 6.
Coja-Oghlan, A.: On the Laplacian Eigenvalues of $$G_{n, p}$$. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 16, 923–946 (2007)
7. 7.
Cooper, C., Frieze, A., Radzik, B.: Multiple Random Walks in Random Regular Graphs. SIAM J. on Discrete Math. 23, 1738–1761 (2009)
8. 8.
Cooper, C., Elsässer, R., Ono, H., Radzik, T.: Coalescing Random Walks and Voting on Connected Graphs. SIAM J. on Discrete Math. 27, 1748–1758 (2013)
9. 9.
Cooper, C., Elsässer, R., Radzik, T.: The power of two choices in distributed voting. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8573, pp. 435–446. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
10. 10.
Cruise, J., Ganesh, A.: Probabilistic consensus via polling and majority rules. Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications. 78, 99–120 (2014)
11. 11.
Deng, X., Papadimitriou, C.: On the Complexity of Cooperative Solution Concepts. Mathematics of Operations Research 19, 257–266 (1994)
12. 12.
Friedman, J.: A proof of Alon’s second eigenvalue conjecture. In: STOC 2003: Proc. 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 720–724 (2003)Google Scholar
13. 13.
Gifford, D.: Weighted voting for replicated data. In: SOSP 1979: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pp. 150–162 (1979)Google Scholar
14. 14.
Hassin, Y., Peleg, D.: Distributed probabilistic polling and applications to proportionate agreement. Information & Computation 171, 248–268 (2001)
15. 15.
Horn, R.A., Johnson, C.R.: Matrix analysis. In: CUP (2006)Google Scholar
16. 16.
Johnson, B.: Design and Analysis of Fault Tolerant Digital Systems. Addison-Wesley (1989)Google Scholar
17. 17.
Levine, D.A., Peres, Y., Wilmer, E.L.: Markov Chain and Mixing Times. American Mathematical Society (2008)Google Scholar
18. 18.
McDiarmid, C.: On the method of bounded differences. In: Siemons, J. (ed.) Surveys in Combinatorics, pp. 148–188. CUP (1989)Google Scholar
19. 19.
Mihail, M., Papadimitriou, C., Sabieri, A.: On certain connectivity properties of the internet topology. In: Proceedings of Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2003, pp. 28–35 (2003)Google Scholar
20. 20.
Nakata, T., Imahayashi, H., Yamashita, M.: Probabilistic local majority voting for the agreement problem on finite graphs. In: Asano, T., Imai, H., Lee, D.T., Nakano, S., Tokuyama, T. (eds.) COCOON 1999. LNCS, vol. 1627, pp. 330–338. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

## Authors and Affiliations

• Colin Cooper
• 1
• Robert Elsässer
• 2