Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2112.07065

Swarm consensus

Victor Grishchenko·Mikhail Patrakeev·S. Q. Locke III
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The strength of gnomes lies in their coordinated action. Being small and subtle creatures themselves, the forest gnomes can form large swarms acting as one giant creature. This unusual defense strategy requires a lot of skill and training. Directing a swarm is not an easy task! Initially, gnomes used leader-based control algorithms, although those have been proven to be vulnerable to abuse and failure. After thorough research and study, gnomes developed their own leaderless consensus algorithm based on very simple rules. It is based on gossip in a network of a known diameter $d$. One of the gnomes proposes a plan which then spreads gnome to gnome. If there is an agreement, gnomes act \emph{all at once}. If there are conflicting plans (an extreme rarity), they try again. The resulting upper bound on the swarm's reaction time is its round-trip time $2dt$, where $t$ is the command relay time. The original algorithm is non-Byzantine; all gnomes must be sane and sober. While working on the algorithm, gnomes discovered \emph{swarm time}, a sibling concept to L.Lamport's logical time. That led to a Byzantine-ready version of the algorithm.

Explore related subjects

cs.DS

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Victor Grishchenko, Mikhail Patrakeev, S. Q. Locke III. 2021-12-13. Swarm consensus. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07065

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS↗