Why extension-based proofs fail

Alistarh D-A, Aspnes J, Ellen F, Gelashvili R, Zhu L. 2023. Why extension-based proofs fail. SIAM Journal on Computing. 52(4), 913–944.

Download (ext.)

Journal Article | Published | English

Scopus indexed
Author
Alistarh, Dan-AdrianISTA ; Aspnes, James; Ellen, Faith; Gelashvili, Rati; Zhu, LeqiISTA
Department
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 -set agreement among processes or approximate agreement on a cycle of length 4 among 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.
Publishing Year
Date Published
2023-07-25
Journal Title
SIAM Journal on Computing
Publisher
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Valerie King, Toniann Pitassi, and Michael Saks for helpful discussions and Shi Hao Liu for his useful feedback. This research was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada under grants RGPIN-2015-05080 and RGPIN-2020-04178, a postgraduate scholarship, and a postdoctoral fellowship; a University of Toronto postdoctoral fellowship; the National Science Foundation under grants CCF-1217921, CCF-1301926, CCF-1637385, CCF-1650596, and IIS-1447786; the U.S. Department of Energy under grant ER26116/DE-SC0008923; the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant agreement 805223 ScaleML; and the Oracle and Intel corporations. Some of the work on this paper was done while Faith Ellen was visiting IST Austria.
Volume
52
Issue
4
Page
913-944
ISSN
eISSN
IST-REx-ID

Cite this

Alistarh D-A, Aspnes J, Ellen F, Gelashvili R, Zhu L. Why extension-based proofs fail. SIAM Journal on Computing. 2023;52(4):913-944. doi:10.1137/20M1375851
Alistarh, D.-A., Aspnes, J., Ellen, F., Gelashvili, R., & Zhu, L. (2023). Why extension-based proofs fail. SIAM Journal on Computing. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1375851
Alistarh, Dan-Adrian, James Aspnes, Faith Ellen, Rati Gelashvili, and Leqi Zhu. “Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail.” SIAM Journal on Computing. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1375851.
D.-A. Alistarh, J. Aspnes, F. Ellen, R. Gelashvili, and L. Zhu, “Why extension-based proofs fail,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 52, no. 4. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp. 913–944, 2023.
Alistarh D-A, Aspnes J, Ellen F, Gelashvili R, Zhu L. 2023. Why extension-based proofs fail. SIAM Journal on Computing. 52(4), 913–944.
Alistarh, Dan-Adrian, et al. “Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail.” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 52, no. 4, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2023, pp. 913–44, doi:10.1137/20M1375851.
All files available under the following license(s):
Copyright Statement:
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. [...]

Link(s) to Main File(s)
Access Level
OA Open Access
Material in ISTA:
Earlier Version

Export

Marked Publications

Open Data ISTA Research Explorer

Web of Science

View record in Web of Science®

Sources

arXiv 1811.01421

Search this title in

Google Scholar