Weak vs. Self vs. Probabilistic Stabilization

被引:2
|
作者
Devismes, Stephane [1 ]
Tixeuil, Sebastien [2 ]
Yamashita, Masafumi [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Grenoble 1, VERMA UMR 5104, Grenoble I, France
[2] Univ Paris 06, Sorbonne Univ, Paris, France
[3] IUF, Paris, France
关键词
Distributed systems; distributed algorithm; fault-tolerance; self-stabilization; weak stabilization; probabilistic self-stabilization; SCHEDULER;
D O I
10.1142/S0129054115500173
中图分类号
TP301 [理论、方法];
学科分类号
081202 ;
摘要
Self-stabilization is a strong property, which guarantees that a distributed system always resumes a correct behavior starting from an arbitrary initial state. Since it is a strong property, some problems cannot have self-stabilizing solutions. Weaker guarantees hence have been later introduced to cope with impossibility results, e.g, probabilistic self stabilization only guarantees probabilistic convergence to a correct, behavior, and weak stabilization only guarantees the possibility of convergence. In this paper, we investigate the relative power of self, probabilistic, and weak stabilization, with respect to the set of problems that can be solved. Weak stabilization is by definition stronger than self stabilization and probabilistic self-stabilization in that precise sense. We first show that weak stabilization allows to solve problems having no self-stabilizing solution. We then show that any finite state deterministic weak stabilizing algorithm to solve a problem under the strongly fair scheduler is always a probabilistic; self-stabilizing algorithm to solve the same problem under the randomized scheduler. Unfortunately, this good property does not hold in general for infinite state algorithms. We however show that for some classes of infinite state algorithms, this property holds. These results hint at more practical use of weak stabilizing algorithms, as they are easier to design and prove their correctness than their self stabilizing and probabilistic self stabilizing counterparts.
引用
收藏
页码:293 / 319
页数:27
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] What's in a Word? Just vs. Fair vs. Appropriate Earnings for Self and Others
    Adriaans, Jule
    Liebig, Stefan
    Sabbagh, Clara
    Jasso, Guillermina
    [J]. SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, 2021, 34 (04) : 397 - 427
  • [32] Kuhn vs. Popper vs. Lakatos vs. Feyerabend: Contested Terrain or Fruitful Collaboration?
    Darwin, John
    [J]. PHILOSOPHY OF MANAGEMENT, 2010, 9 (01) : 39 - 57
  • [33] What’s in a Word? Just vs. Fair vs. Appropriate Earnings for Self and Others
    Jule Adriaans
    Stefan Liebig
    Clara Sabbagh
    Guillermina Jasso
    [J]. Social Justice Research, 2021, 34 : 397 - 427
  • [34] Commentary: Old Self vs. New Self
    Beasley, Kara D.
    [J]. CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS, 2016, 25 (04) : 751 - 753
  • [35] Introduction Datives: Structural vs. inherent - abstract vs. morphological - autonomous vs. combinatory - universally vs. language-specifically configured?
    Abraham, Werner
    [J]. DATIVES AND OTHER CASES: BETWEEN ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND EVENT STRUCTURE, 2006, 75 : 3 - 46
  • [36] ADDICTION VS. SELF-CONTROL
    Adams, Ken
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 2015, 313 (02) : 6 - 6
  • [37] The geometry vs. the algebra of meaning: Gardenfors vs. Jackendoff
    Zanic, Josko
    [J]. JEZIKOSLOVLJE, 2021, 22 (01): : 77 - 98
  • [38] Corporate vs. mill vs. consulting engineering - Discussion
    Love, S
    Harrison, E
    Closset, G
    Ellis, D
    Emerson, J
    Thorp, B
    Crawford, L
    Thompson, T
    Johnson, H
    Alvey, B
    [J]. TAPPI JOURNAL, 1998, 81 (05): : 111 - 114
  • [39] Radical prostatectomy: Retropubic vs. laparoscopic vs. perineal
    Puri, K
    Ruiz-Deya, G
    Thomas, R
    Davis, R
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 169 (04): : 443 - 443
  • [40] Dualism Revisited: Body vs. Mind vs. Soul
    Richert, Rebekah A.
    Harris, Paul L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND CULTURE, 2008, 8 (1-2) : 99 - 115