arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1604.06884

Discordant voting processes on finite graphs

Colin Cooper·Martin Dyer·Alan Frieze·Nicolas Rivera
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider an asynchronous voting process on graphs which we call discordant voting, and which can be described as follows. Initially each vertex holds one of two opinions, red or blue say. Neighbouring vertices with different opinions interact pairwise. After an interaction both vertices have the same colour. The quantity of interest is T, the time to reach consensus , i.e. the number of interactions needed for all vertices have the same colour. An edge whose endpoint colours differ (i.e. one vertex is coloured red and the other one blue) is said to be discordant. A vertex is discordant if its is incident with a discordant edge. In discordant voting, all interactions are based on discordant edges. Because the voting process is asynchronous there are several ways to update the colours of the interacting vertices. Push: Pick a random discordant vertex and push its colour to a random discordant neighbour. Pull: Pick a random discordant vertex and pull the colour of a random discordant neighbour. Oblivious: Pick a random endpoint of a random discordant edge and push the colour to the other end point. We show that E(T), the expected time to reach consensus, depends strongly on the underlying graph and the update rule. For connected graphs on n vertices, and an initial half red, half blue colouring the following hold. For oblivious voting, E(T) =n^2/4 independent of the underlying graph. For the complete graph K_n, the push protocol has E(T)= Theta(n log(n)), whereas the pull protocol has E(T)= Theta(2^n). For the cycle C_n all three protocols have E(T) = Theta(n^2). For the star graph however, the pull protocol has E(T)=O(n^2), whereas the push protocol is slower with E(T) = Theta(n^2 log(n)). The wide variation in E(T) for the pull protocol is to be contrasted with the well known model of synchronous pull voting, for which E(T) = O(n) on many classes of expanders.

Explore related subjects

cs.DM

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Colin Cooper, Martin Dyer, Alan Frieze, Nicolas Rivera. 2016-04-23. Discordant voting processes on finite graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06884

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

An FPTAS for Two-Machine Open-Shop Scheduling with a Single Unavailability Interval

We consider the two-machine open-shop scheduling problem in which one machine is unavailable during a fixed interval. We study the resumable setting: an operation interrupted by the unavailability interval may resume, without penalty, when the machine becomes available. The objective is to minimize the makespan. Although the problem is NP-hard and several approximation algorithms are known, whether it admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) has remained open for two decades. We resolve this question affirmatively by giving the first FPTAS, thereby strengthening the previously known polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS). As an intermediate result, we develop a new pseudo-polynomial dynamic program with seven state dimensions, improving on the ten-dimensional formulation in the literature.

cs.DM↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Graph Search Trees

Graph search algorithms and their corresponding graph search trees are commonly used in algorithmic graph theory. In recent years, the recognition problem of these graph search trees has received significant attention. So far, the research has focused on two types of search trees: first-in trees that behave like BFS-trees and last-in trees that behave like DFS-trees. The search tree paradigms differ from each other by the parent a vertex is connected to. In first-in trees, it is the first visited neighbor, while in last-in trees it is the last neighbor visited before that vertex. Here, we will generalize these concepts of graph search trees by allowing every preceding neighbor of a vertex to be the parent. We study the complexity of the recognition problem of these generalized graph search trees. We present NP-completeness proofs for most searches. We also show that the problem is trivial for Generic Search and polynomial-time solvable for several searches on bipartite graphs and chordal graphs. We also study the question how fixing the start vertex influences the complexity of the problem.

cs.DM↗
arXiv2026

The exact asymptotic constant in the metric dimension of Jaccard space

Let $X$ be a finite set with $|X|=n$ and let $\mathrm{Jac}(a,b)=|a\,\triangle\, b|/|a\cup b|$ be the Jaccard distance on the power set $2^X$. Lladser and Paradise recently proved that the metric dimension of $(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})$ is $\Theta(n/\ln n)$, with the constant left open; their bounds are $(\ln 2)\,n/\ln n\lesssim \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})\lesssim 2\ln(2e)\,n/\ln n$. We determine the constant: \[ \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})=\frac{2n}{\log_2 n}\,(1+o(1))=(2\ln 2)\,\frac{n}{\ln n}\,(1+o(1)). \] The proof identifies the problem, on each ``slice'' of subsets of fixed cardinality, with the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi coin-weighing problem for a spring scale (the problem of \emph{detecting matrices}). The lower bound is the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi entropy argument applied to the middle slice; the upper bound follows from the explicit detecting families of Lindstr\"om and of Cantor and Mills, augmented by a single extra landmark that reveals cardinality.

cs.DM↗