The class of extension-based proofs encompasses traditional valency arguments. It has been shown that they are insufficient to establish the impossibility of (n-1)-set agreement among n ≥ 3 processes in an asynchronous system with crash failures. We generalize this definition to k-exhaustive extension-based proofs, in which a prover can learn the maximum length of all executions involving a set of at most k processes from a specified configuration (which may be infinite). An upper bound on the length of these executions enables the prover to determine the outputs of all these executions. When k = n, this enables the prover to perform an exhaustive search of all reachable configurations, so it knows everything about the protocol. On the other hand, extension based proofs are as powerful as 1-exhaustive extension-based proofs. For any task with no deterministic, wait-free solution among n ≥ 2 processes, we show that there is an (n-1)-exhaustive extension-based proof of its impossibility. This is done using a new characterization of such tasks. In contrast, we prove that for 1 ≤ k ≤ n-2, there is no k-exhaustive extension-based proof of the impossibility of (n-1)-set agreement.

Abstract. Determining the number of registers required for solving obstruction-free (or randomized wait-free) [Formula: see text]-set agreement is an open problem that highlights important gaps in our understanding of the space complexity of synchronization. The best known upper bound on the number of registers needed to solve this problem among [Formula: see text] processes is [Formula: see text] registers. No general lower bound better than 2 was known. We prove that any obstruction-free protocol solving [Formula: see text]-set agreement among [Formula: see text] processes must use at least [Formula: see text] registers. In particular, we get a tight lower bound of exactly [Formula: see text] registers for solving obstruction-free and randomized wait-free consensus. Our main tool is a simulation that serves as a reduction from the impossibility of deterministic wait-free [Formula: see text]-set agreement. In particular, we show that if an obstruction-free protocol for [Formula: see text]-set agreement uses fewer registers, then it is possible for [Formula: see text] processes to simulate the protocol and deterministically solve [Formula: see text]-set agreement in a wait-free manner, which is impossible. An important aspect of the simulation is the ability of simulating processes to revise the past of simulated processes. We introduce an augmented snapshot object, which facilitates this. More generally, our simulation applies to the broad class of colorless tasks. We can use it to prove, for example, a lower bound on the number of registers needed to solve obstruction-free [Formula: see text]-approximate agreement, which matches the best known upper bound to within a factor of 2 when [Formula: see text] is sufficiently small. No general lower bound for this problem was known. Finally, we prove that any lower bound on the number of registers used by obstruction-free protocols applies to protocols that satisfy nondeterministic solo-termination. Hence, our lower bounds for obstruction-free protocols also hold for randomized wait-free protocols.

Block-STM is a parallel execution engine for smart contracts, built around the principles of Software Transactional Memory. Transactions are grouped in blocks, and every execution of the block must yield the same deterministic outcome. Block-STM further enforces that the outcome is consistent with executing transactions according to a preset order, leveraging this order to dynamically detect dependencies and avoid conflicts during speculative transaction execution. At the core of Block-STM is a novel, low-overhead collaborative scheduler of execution and validation tasks.

Abstract. We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that includes valency arguments. They are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol. Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve [Formula: see text]-set agreement among [Formula: see text] processes or approximate agreement on a cycle of length 4 among [Formula: see text] processes in a wait-free manner in asynchronous models where processes communicate using objects that can be constructed from shared registers. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We show that these impossibility results cannot be obtained by extension-based proofs in the iterated snapshot model and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power.

The popularity of permissioned blockchain systems demands BFT SMR protocols that are efficient under good network conditions (synchrony) and robust under bad network conditions (asynchrony). The state-of-the-art partially synchronous BFT SMR protocols provide optimal linear communication cost per decision under synchrony and good leaders, but lose liveness under asynchrony. On the other hand, the state-of-the-art asynchronous BFT SMR protocols are live even under asynchrony, but always pay quadratic cost even under synchrony. In this paper, we propose a BFT SMR protocol that achieves the best of both worlds -- optimal linear cost per decision under good networks and leaders, optimal quadratic cost per decision under bad networks, and remains always live.

This paper gives tight logarithmic lower bounds on the solo step complexity of leader election in an asynchronous shared-memory model with single-writer multi-reader (SWMR) registers, for randomized obstruction-free algorithms. The approach extends to lower bounds for randomized obstruction-free algorithms using multi-writer registers under bounded write concurrency, showing a trade-off between the solo step complexity of a leader election algorithm, and the worst-case contention incurred by a processor in an execution.

Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ nodes. In the stochastic population protocol model, a collection of $n$ indistinguishable, resource-limited nodes collectively solve tasks via pairwise interactions. In each interaction, two randomly chosen neighbors first read each other's states, and then update their local states. A rich line of research has established tight upper and lower bounds on the complexity of fundamental tasks, such as majority and leader election, in this model, when $G$ is a clique. Specifically, in the clique, these tasks can be solved fast, i.e., in $n \operatorname{polylog} n$ pairwise interactions, with high probability, using at most $\operatorname{polylog} n$ states per node. In this work, we consider the more general setting where $G$ is an arbitrary graph, and present a technique for simulating protocols designed for fully-connected networks in any connected regular graph. Our main result is a simulation that is efficient on many interesting graph families: roughly, the simulation overhead is polylogarithmic in the number of nodes, and quadratic in the conductance of the graph. As a sample application, we show that, in any regular graph with conductance $ϕ$, both leader election and exact majority can be solved in $ϕ^{-2} \cdot n \operatorname{polylog} n$ pairwise interactions, with high probability, using at most $ϕ^{-2} \cdot \operatorname{polylog} n$ states per node. This shows that there are fast and space-efficient population protocols for leader election and exact majority on graphs with good expansion properties. We believe our results will prove generally useful, as they allow efficient technology transfer between the well-mixed (clique) case, and the under-explored spatial setting.

Abstract Many shared memory algorithms have to deal with the problem of determining whether the value of a shared object has changed in between two successive accesses of that object by a process when the responses from both are the same. Motivated by this problem, we define the signal detection problem, which can be studied on a purely combinatorial level. Consider a system with n + 1 processes consisting of n readers and one signaller. The processes communicate through a shared blackboard that can store a value from a domain of size m. Processes are scheduled by an adversary. When scheduled, a process reads the blackboard, modifies its contents arbitrarily, and, provided it is a reader, returns a Boolean value. A reader must return true if the signaller has taken a step since the reader’s preceding step; otherwise it must return false. Intuitively, in a system with n processes, signal detection should require at least n bits of shared information, i.e., m ≥ 2n. But a proof of this conjecture remains elusive. For the general case, we prove a lower bound of m ≥ n2. For restricted versions of the problem, where the processes are oblivious or where the signaller must write a fixed sequence of values, we prove a tight lower bound of m ≥ 2n. We also consider a version of the problem where each reader takes at most two steps. In this case, we prove that m = n + 1 blackboard values are necessary and sufficient.

Optimizing convolutional neural networks for fast inference has recently become an extremely active area of research. One of the go-to solutions in this context is weight pruning, which aims to reduce computational and memory footprint by removing large subsets of the connections in a neural network. Surprisingly, much less attention has been given to exploiting sparsity in the activation maps, which tend to be naturally sparse in many settings thanks to the structure of rectified linear (ReLU) activation functions. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of methods for maximizing the sparsity of the activations in a trained neural network, and show that, when coupled with an efficient sparse-input convolution algorithm, we can leverage this sparsity for significant performance gains. To induce highly sparse activation maps without accuracy loss, we introduce a new regularization technique, coupled with a new threshold-based sparsification method based on a parameterized activation function called Forced-Activation-Threshold Rectified Linear Unit (FATReLU). We examine the impact of our methods on popular image classification models, showing that most architectures can adapt to significantly sparser activation maps without any accuracy loss. Our second contribution is showing that these these compression gains can be translated into inference speedups: we provide a new algorithm to enable fast convolution operations over networks with sparse activations, and show that it can enable significant speedups for end-to-end inference on a range of popular models on the large-scale ImageNet image classification task on modern Intel CPUs, with little or no retraining cost.

We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that includes valency arguments. They are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol. Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve k-set agreement among n > k ≥ 2 processes in a wait-free manner. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We explain why this impossibility result cannot be obtained by an extension-based proof and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power.

Herlihy's consensus hierarchy ranks the power of various synchronization primitives for solving consensus in a model where asynchronous processes communicate through shared memory and fail by halting. This paper revisits the consensus hierarchy in a model with crash-recovery failures, where the specification of consensus, called \emph{recoverable consensus} in this paper, is weakened by allowing non-terminating executions when a process fails infinitely often. Two variations of this model are considered: independent failures, and simultaneous (i.e., system-wide) failures. Several results are proved in this model: (i) We prove that any primitive at level two of Herlihy's hierarchy remains at level two if simultaneous crash-recovery failures are introduced. This is accomplished by transforming (one instance of) any 2-process conventional consensus algorithm to a 2-process recoverable consensus algorithm. (ii) For any $n > 1$ and $f > 0$, we show how to use $f+1$ instances of any conventional $n$-process consensus algorithm and $Θ(f + n)$ read/write registers to solve $n$-process recoverable consensus when crash-recovery failures are independent, assuming that every execution contains at most $f$ such failures. (iii) Next, we prove for any $f > 0$ that any 2-process recoverable consensus algorithm that uses TAS and read/writer registers requires at least $f+1$ TAS objects, assuming that crash-recovery failures are independent and every execution contains at most $f$ such failures. (iv) Lastly, we generalize and strengthen (iii) by proving that any universal construction of $n$-process recoverable consensus from a type $T$ with consensus number $n$ and read/write registers requires at least $f+1$ base objects of type $T$ in executions with up to $f$ failures.

It is impossible to deterministically solve wait-free consensus in an asynchronous system. The classic proof uses a valency argument, which constructs an infinite execution by repeatedly extending a finite execution. We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol and that include valency arguments.

Determining the number of registers required for solving x-obstruction-free (or randomized wait-free) k-set agreement for x ≤ k is an open problem that highlights important gaps in our understanding of the space complexity of synchronization. In x-obstruction-free protocols, processes are required to return in executions where at most x processes take steps. The best known upper bound on the number of registers needed to solve this problem among n>k processes is n-k+x registers. No general lower bound better than 2 was known.

Population protocols are a popular model of distributed computing, in which n agents with limited local state interact randomly, and cooperate to collectively compute global predicates. Inspired by recent developments in DNA programming, an extensive series of papers, across different communities, has examined the computability and complexity characteristics of this model. Majority, or consensus, is a central task in this model, in which agents need to collectively reach a decision as to which one of two states A or B had a higher initial count. Two metrics are important: the time that a protocol requires to stabilize to an output decision, and the state space size that each agent requires to do so. It is known that majority requires Ω(log log n) states per agent to allow for fast (poly-logarithmic time) stabilization, and that O(log2 n) states are sufficient. Thus, there is an exponential gap between the space upper and lower bounds for this problem. This paper addresses this question. On the negative side, we provide a new lower bound of Ω(log n) states for any protocol which stabilizes in O(n1–c) expected time, for any constant c > 0. This result is conditional on monotonicity and output assumptions, satisfied by all known protocols. Technically, it represents a departure from previous lower bounds, in that it does not rely on the existence of dense configurations. Instead, we introduce a new generalized surgery technique to prove the existence of incorrect executions for any algorithm which would contradict the lower bound. Subsequently, our lower bound also applies to general initial configurations, including ones with a leader. On the positive side, we give a new algorithm for majority which uses O(log n) states, and stabilizes in O(log2 n) expected time. Central to the algorithm is a new leaderless phase clock technique, which allows agents to synchronize in phases of Θ(n log n) consecutive interactions using O(log n) states per agent, exploiting a new connection between population protocols and power-of-two-choices load balancing mechanisms. We also employ our phase clock to build a leader election algorithm with a state space of size O(log n), which stabilizes in O(log2 n) expected time.

Population protocols are a popular model of distributed computing, in which randomly-interacting agents with little computational power cooperate to jointly perform computational tasks. Inspired by developments in molecular computation, and in particular DNA computing, recent algorithmic work has focused on the complexity of solving simple yet fundamental tasks in the population model, such as leader election (which requires convergence to a single agent in a special “leader” state), and majority (in which agents must converge to a decision as to which of two possible initial states had higher initial count). Known results point towards an inherent trade-off between the time complexity of such algorithms, and the space complexity, i.e. size of the memory available to each agent. In this paper, we explore this trade-off and provide new upper and lower bounds for majority and leader election. First, we prove a unified lower bound, which relates the space available per node with the time complexity achievable by a protocol: for instance, our result implies that any protocol solving either of these tasks for n agents using O(log log n) states must take Ω(n/polylogn) expected time. This is the first result to characterize time complexity for protocols which employ super-constant number of states per node, and proves that fast, poly-logarithmic running times require protocols to have relatively large space costs. On the positive side, we give algorithms showing that fast, poly-logarithmic convergence time can be achieved using O (log2 n) space per node, in the case of both tasks. Overall, our results highlight a time complexity separation between O (log log n) and Θ(log2 n) state space size for both majority and leader election in population protocols, and introduce new techniques, which should be applicable more broadly.

Contrary to common belief, a recent work by Ellen, Gelashvili, Shavit, and Zhu has shown that computability does not require multicore architectures to support "strong" synchronization instructions like compare-and-swap, as opposed to combinations of "weaker" instructions like decrement and multiply. However, this is the status quo, and in turn, most efficient concurrent data-structures heavily rely on compare-and-swap (e.g. for swinging pointers). We show that this need not be the case, by designing and implementing a concurrent linearizable Log data-structure (also known as a History object), supporting two operations: append(item), which appends the item to the log, and get-log(), which returns the appended items so far, in order. Readers are wait-free and writers are lock-free, hence this data-structure can be used in a lock-free universal construction to implement any concurrent object with a given sequential specification. Our implementation uses atomic read, xor, decrement, and fetch-and-increment instructions supported on X86 architectures, and provides similar performance to a compare-and-swap-based solution on today's hardware. This raises a fundamental question about minimal set of synchronization instructions that the architectures have to support.

For many years, Herlihy's elegant computability based Consensus Hierarchy has been our best explanation of the relative power of various types of multiprocessor synchronization objects when used in deterministic algorithms. However, key to this hierarchy is treating these instructions as distinct objects, an approach that is far from the real-world, where multiprocessor programs apply synchronization instructions to collections of arbitrary memory locations. We were surprised to realize that, when considering instructions applied to memory locations, the computability based hierarchy collapses. This leaves open the question of how to better captures the power of various synchronization instructions.

The restricted isometry property (RIP) is a fundamental property of a matrix, which enables sparse recovery. Informally, an m × n matrix satisfies RIP of order k for the ℓpnorm, if ||Ax||p≈ ||x||pfor every vector × with at most k non-zero coordinates. For every 1 ≤ pp) for all p ∈ [1, ∞) \ {2}, as opposed to Θ̃(k) for p = 2. We also obtain almost tight bounds for the column sparsity of RIP matrices and discuss the implications of our results for the stable sparse recovery problem as defined by Candès et al.

Population protocols, roughly defined as systems consisting of large numbers of simple identical agents, interacting at random and updating their state following simple rules, are an important research topic at the intersection of distributed computing and biology. One of the fundamental tasks that a population protocol may solve is majority: each node starts in one of two states; the goal is for all nodes to reach a correct consensus on which of the two states was initially the majority. Despite considerable research effort, known protocols for this problem are either exact but slow (taking linear parallel time to converge), or fast but approximate (with non-zero probability of error).

The problem of electing a leader from among n contenders is one of the fundamental questions in distributed computing. In its simplest formulation, the task is as follows: given n processors, all participants must eventually return a win or lose indication, such that a single contender may win. Despite a considerable amount of work on leader election, the following question is still open: can we elect a leader in an asynchronous fault-prone system faster than just running a Θ(log n)-time tournament, against a strong adaptive adversary?

Task allocation is a classic distributed problem in which a set of p potentially faulty processes must cooperate to perform a set of tasks. This paper considers a new dynamic version of the problem, in which tasks are injected adversarially during an asynchronous execution. We give the first asynchronous shared-memory algorithm for dynamic task allocation, and we prove that our solution is optimal within logarithmic factors. The main algorithmic idea is a randomized concurrent data structure called a dynamic to-do tree, which allows processes to pick new tasks to perform at random from the set of available tasks, and to insert tasks at random empty locations in the data structure. Our analysis shows that these properties avoid duplicating work unnecessarily. On the other hand, since the adversary controls the input as well the scheduling, it can induce executions where lots of processes contend for a few available tasks, which is inefficient. However, we prove that every algorithm has the same problem: given an arbitrary input, if OPT is the worst-case complexity of the optimal algorithm on that input, then the expected work complexity of our algorithm on the same input is O(OPT log3 m), where m is an upper bound on the number of tasks that are present in the system at any given time.