## Proving Time Bounds for Randomized Distributed Algorithms (1994)

Venue: | In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing |

Citations: | 34 - 10 self |

### BibTeX

@INPROCEEDINGS{Lynch94provingtime,

author = {Nancy Lynch and Isaac Saias and Roberto Segala},

title = {Proving Time Bounds for Randomized Distributed Algorithms},

booktitle = {In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on the Principles of Distributed Computing},

year = {1994},

pages = {314--323},

publisher = {ACM Press}

}

### Years of Citing Articles

### OpenURL

### Abstract

A method of analyzing time bounds for randomized distributed algorithms is presented, in the context of a new and general framework for describing and reasoning about randomized algorithms. The method consists of proving auxiliary statements of the form U , which means that whenever the algorithm begins in a state in set U , with probability p, it will reach a state in set U within time t.

### Citations

738 |
Parallel Program Design: A Foundation
- Chandy, Misra
- 1988
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...re [4, 6, 11, 12]. The work of [11] presents a technique, based on progress functions defined on states, for establishing liveness properties for randomized algorithms; the work of [12] extends UNITY =-=[3]-=- to handle probability, and provides a completeness result for some properties that hold with probability 1; the work of [4, 6] presents model checking techniques. In this paper, we present such a new... |

215 |
Automatic verification of probabilistic concurrent finite state programs
- Vardi
- 1985
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... of timed as well as untimed systems. The model of [14] is, in turn, based on existing models for untimed and timed distributed systems [7, 10], and adopts many ideas from the probabilistic models of =-=[6, 16]-=-. In order to illustrate our method, we use it in this paper to prove an upper bound for Lehmann and Rabin's Dining Philosophers algorithm [9], in the face of an adversary with complete knowledge of t... |

196 |
Another advantage of free choice: Completely asynchronous agreement protocols
- Ben-Or
- 1983
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...e a useful tool in the design of distributed algorithms, sometimes yielding efficient solutions to problems that are inherently complex, or even unsolvable, in the setting of deterministic algorithms =-=[1, 2, 8, 9]-=-. But this powerful tool has a price: even simple randomized algorithms can be extremely hard to verify and analyze. Because of this, many randomized distributed algorithms appear in the literature wi... |

147 |
Time and probability in formal design of distributed systems
- Hansson
- 1994
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ed once and for all, and then applied in a reasonably systematic way to verify and analyze numerous algorithms. Some examples of work that has already been done on the development of such methods are =-=[4, 6, 11, 12]-=-. The work of [11] presents a technique, based on progress functions defined on states, for establishing liveness properties for randomized algorithms; the work of [12] extends UNITY [3] to handle pro... |

128 | Fast randomized consensus using shared memory
- Aspnes, Herlihy
- 1990
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...e a useful tool in the design of distributed algorithms, sometimes yielding efficient solutions to problems that are inherently complex, or even unsolvable, in the setting of deterministic algorithms =-=[1, 2, 8, 9]-=-. But this powerful tool has a price: even simple randomized algorithms can be extremely hard to verify and analyze. Because of this, many randomized distributed algorithms appear in the literature wi... |

82 | Liveness in timed and untimed systems
- Gawlick, Segala, et al.
- 1998
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...assage step should be non-probabilistic and should change only the time component of a state by adding any arbitrary positive real value to it. This construction is called the patient construction in =-=[5, 15]-=-. At this point the theory for the timed model works in the same identical way as the theory for the untimed model. A technical detail arises in the definition of an execution automaton, where the sta... |

79 | Forward and backward simulations - part II: Timing-based systems
- Lynch, Vaandrager
- 1996
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ness and nondeterminism into one model, and permits the modeling of timed as well as untimed systems. The model of [14] is, in turn, based on existing models for untimed and timed distributed systems =-=[7, 10]-=-, and adopts many ideas from the probabilistic models of [6, 16]. In order to illustrate our method, we use it in this paper to prove an upper bound for Lehmann and Rabin's Dining Philosophers algorit... |

78 |
On the advantages of free choice: A symmetric and fully distributed solution to the dining philosophers problem
- Rabin, Lehmann
- 1981
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...e a useful tool in the design of distributed algorithms, sometimes yielding efficient solutions to problems that are inherently complex, or even unsolvable, in the setting of deterministic algorithms =-=[1, 2, 8, 9]-=-. But this powerful tool has a price: even simple randomized algorithms can be extremely hard to verify and analyze. Because of this, many randomized distributed algorithms appear in the literature wi... |

51 |
Verification of Multiprocess Proba-bilistic Protocols
- Pnueli, Zuck
- 1986
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ed once and for all, and then applied in a reasonably systematic way to verify and analyze numerous algorithms. Some examples of work that has already been done on the development of such methods are =-=[4, 6, 11, 12]-=-. The work of [11] presents a technique, based on progress functions defined on states, for establishing liveness properties for randomized algorithms; the work of [12] extends UNITY [3] to handle pro... |

40 | Action transducers and timed automata
- Lynch, Vaandrager
- 1992
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...assage step should be non-probabilistic and should change only the time component of a state by adding any arbitrary positive real value to it. This construction is called the patient construction in =-=[5, 15]-=-. At this point the theory for the timed model works in the same identical way as the theory for the untimed model. A technical detail arises in the definition of an execution automaton, where the sta... |

16 |
Randomized mutual exclusion algorithms revisited
- Kushilevitz, Rabin
- 1992
(Show Context)
Citation Context |

7 |
Efficient algorithms for verification of equivalences for probabilistic processes
- Christoff, Christoff
- 1991
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ed once and for all, and then applied in a reasonably systematic way to verify and analyze numerous algorithms. Some examples of work that has already been done on the development of such methods are =-=[4, 6, 11, 12]-=-. The work of [11] presents a technique, based on progress functions defined on states, for establishing liveness properties for randomized algorithms; the work of [12] extends UNITY [3] to handle pro... |

5 | Reasoning about probabilistic algorithms - Rao - 1990 |

4 | Proving probabilistic correctness: the case of Rabin's algorithm for mutual exclusion - Saias - 1992 |

2 |
A model for randomized concurrent systems
- Segala, Lynch
- 1994
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... reasoning about independence. Our proof rules are presented in the context of a new 1 In this paper, we ignore the possibility that the adversary itself uses randomness. and general formal framework =-=[14]-=- for describing and reasoning about randomized algorithms. This framework integrates randomness and nondeterminism into one model, and permits the modeling of timed as well as untimed systems. The mod... |