Advertisement

A Binary Vote Based Comparison of Simple Majority and Hierarchical Decision for Survivable Networks

  • Charles A. Kamhoua
  • Kevin A. Kwiat
  • Joon S. Park
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (volume 167)

Abstract

Nodes are replicated in fault-tolerant networks not only to increase the aggregate decision reliability but also to survive the failure of a subset of those nodes. A simple majority rule is the most common aggregate decision rule. One may believe that a simple majority rule may not be optimal when node replication is performed in organization following a hierarchical structure like a corporation or a military command. This research shows that if the node’s observations are better than random, then a simple majority rule is better than a hierarchical decision. Moreover, even though there are a few compromised nodes that falsify their vote, a simple majority rule will still be superior. However, a hierarchical decision process is more scalable and the vote can be aggregated faster. This paper also proposed a technique based on the law of diminishing marginal utility to calculate the optimum number of nodes in a decision process.

Keywords

binary voting fault-tolerant Network hierarchical decision process network security reliability survivability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ge, Z., Figueiredo, D., Jaiswal, S., Gao, L.: Hierarchical structure of the logical Internet graph. In: The Proceeding of SPIE, vol. 4526, p. 208 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwiat, K., Taylor, A., Zwicker, W., Hill, D., Wetzonis, S., Ren, S.: Analysis of binary voting algorithms for use in fault-tolerant and secure computing. In: International Conference on Computer Engineering and Systems (ICCES), Cairo, Egypt (December 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, L., Li, Z., Ren, S., Kwiat, K.: Optimal Voting Strategy Against Rational Attackers. In: The Sixth International Conference on Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, CRiSIS 2011, Timisoara, Romania (September 2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malki, D., Reiter, M.: Byzantine quorum systems. Distributed Computer System, 203–213 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacharjee, S., Debroy, S., Chatterjee, M., Kwiat, K.: Trust based Fusion over Noisy Channels throught Anomaly Detection in Cognitive Radio Networks. In: 4th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks (ACM SIN 2011), Sydney, Australia (November 2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ravindran, K., Rabby, M., Kwiat, K., Elmetwaly, S.: Replica Voting based Data Collection in Hostile Environments: A Case for QoS Assurance With Hierarchical Adaptation Control. Journal of Network and Systems Management (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ravindran, K., Rabby, M., Kwiat, K.: Data Collection in Hostile Environments: Adaptive Protocols and Case Studies. In: The Second International Conference on Adaptive and Self-Adaptive Systems and Applications (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    An, G., Park, J.S.: Cooperative Component Testing Architecture in Collaborating Network Environment. In: Xiao, B., Yang, L.T., Ma, J., Muller-Schloer, C., Hua, Y. (eds.) ATC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4610, pp. 179–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park, J., Chandramohan, P., Devarajan, G., Giordano, J.: Trusted component sharing by runtime test and immunization for survivable distributed systems. In: Sasaki, R., Qing, S., Okamoto, E., Yoshiura, H. (eds.) Security and Privacy in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 127–142. Springer (2005); Proceedings of the 20th IFIP TC11 International Conference on Information Security (IFIP/SEC), Chiba, Japan, May 30-June 1 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Condorcet: Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probabilite des decisions rendues a la pluralite des voix. Paris: Imprimerie Royale (1785)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Owen, G., Grofman, B., Feld, S.: Proving a Distribution-Free Generalization of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. Mathematical Social Sciences 17, 1–16 (1989)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grofman, B., Owen, G., Feld, S.: Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth. Theory and Decision 15, 261–278 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles A. Kamhoua
    • 1
  • Kevin A. Kwiat
    • 1
  • Joon S. Park
    • 2
  1. 1.Air Force Research Laboratory, Information DirectorateRomeUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations