Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:09:22.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trading accuracy for speed in approximate consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

Jacob Beal
Jacob Beal*
Affiliation:
Raytheon BBN Technologies, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Approximate consensus is an important building block for distributed systems, used overtly or implicitly in applications as diverse as formation control, sensor fusion, and synchronization. Laplacian-based consensus, the current dominant approach, is extremely accurate and resilient, but converges slowly. Comparing Laplacian-based consensus to exact consensus algorithms, relaxing the requirements for accuracy and resilience should enable a spectrum of algorithms that incrementally tradeoff accuracy and/or resilience for speed. This manuscript demonstrates that may be so by beginning to populate this spectrum with a new approach to approximate consensus, Power-Law-Driven Consensus (PLD-consensus), which accelerates consensus by sending values across long distances using a self-organizing overlay network. Both a unidirectional and bidirectional algorithm based on this approach are studied. Although both have the same asymptotic O(diameter) convergence time (vs. O(diameter 2) for Laplacian-based), unidirectional PLD-consensus is faster and more resilient than bidirectional PLD-consensus, but exhibits higher variance in the converged value.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Special Issue 4: Spatial Computing , September 2016 , pp. 325 - 342
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, R. & Barabasi, A.-L. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74, 47–97.Google Scholar
Beal, J. 2013. Accelerating approximate consensus with self-organizing overlays. In Spatial Computing Workshop.Google Scholar
Beal, J. & Bachrach, J. 2006. Infrastructure for engineered emergence in sensor/actuator networks. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 10–19.Google Scholar
Bollobas, B. 2001. Random Graphs, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egerstedt, M. & Hu, X. 2001. Formation constrained multi-agent control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 17(6), 947–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elhage, N. & Beal, J. 2010. Laplacian-based consensus on spatial computers. In AAMAS 2010.Google Scholar
Kuramoto, Y. 1984. Chemical Oscillators, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, N. 1996. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Mirollo, R. E. & Strogatz, S. H. 1990. Synchronization of pulse-coupled biological oscillators. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 50(6), 1645–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosk-Aoyama, D. & Shah, D. 2008. Fast distributed algorithms for computing separable functions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54(7), 2997–3007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfati-Saber, R. 2006. Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51(3), 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfati-Saber, R., Fax, J. A. & Murray, R. M. 2007. Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proceedings of the IEEE 95(1), 215–233.Google Scholar
Olfati-Saber, R. & Murray, R. 2004. Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 49(9), 1520–1533.Google Scholar
Proto Developers 2005–2014. MIT Proto, software. http://proto.bbn.com/.Google Scholar
Shah, D. 2009. Gossip Algorithms. Now Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Slotine, J.-J. & Wang, W. 2005. A study of synchronization and group cooperation using partial contraction theory. Cooperative Control 309, 207–228.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393(6684), 440–442.Google Scholar
Xiao, L., Boyd, S. & Lall, S. 2005. A scheme for asynchronous distributed sensor fusion based on average consensus. In Fourth International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks.Google Scholar
Yu, C.-H. & Nagpal, R. 2009. Self-adapting modular robotics: a generalized distributed consensus framework. In International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar