We present two algorithms for the Group Mutual Exclusion (GME) Problem that satisfy the properties of Mutual Exclusion, Starvation Freedom, Bounded Exit, Concurrent Entry and First Come First Served. Both our algorithms use only simple read and write instructions, have O(N) Shared Space complexity and O(N) Remote Memory Reference (RMR) complexity in the Cache Coherency (CC) model. Our first algorithm is developed by generalizing the well-known Lamport's Bakery Algorithm for the classical mutual exclusion problem, while preserving its simplicity and elegance. However, it uses unbounded shared registers. Our second algorithm uses only bounded registers and is developed by generalizing Taubenfeld's Black and White Bakery Algorithm to solve the classical mutual exclusion problem using only bounded shared registers. We show that contrary to common perception our algorithms are the first to achieve these properties with these combination of complexities.
Subsequently, @cite_12 , presented an algorithm presumed to be of linear time and space, solving the challenge of Hadzilacos. retained the idea of modular composition and also the ME algorithm'' that Hadzilacos used. They came up with a clever modification to the FCFS algorithm'' of Hadzilacos to reduce the space complexity to @math . Unfortunately, though without writing it explicitly, they inherited from Hadzilacos the mistaken impression that the algorithm they use has @math time complexity. For example, the recent paper by Bhatt and Huang @cite_4 explicitly states that the RMR complexity of the algorithm by is @math .
@cite_4 @cite_12
2141927253 2473549844 2146007300 2951200405
In the group mutual exclusion problem [6], which generalizes mutual exclusion [2], a process chooses a session when it requests entry to the Critical Section. A group mutual exclusion algorithm must ensure that the mutual exclusion property holds: If two processes are in the Critical Section at the same time, then they request the same session. In addition to mutual exclusion, lockout freedom, bounded exit and concurrent entering are basic properties that are desirable in any group mutual exclusion algorithm.Hadzilacos in [4] first introduced a fairness condition, called first-come-first-served (FCFS), for group mutual exclusion. The only known FCFS group mutual exclusion algorithm is due to Hadzilacos [4], and requires Θ(N2) bounded shared registers, where N is the number of processes. We present a FCFS group mutual exclusion algorithm that uses only Θ(N) bounded shared registers. (The existence of such an algorithm was posed as an open problem by Hadzilacos.)Next, we demonstrate that the FCFS property does not fully capture our intuitive notion of fairness. We therefore propose an additional fairness property, called first-in-first-enabled (FIFE). Finally, we present a reduction that transforms any "abortable" FCFS mutual exclusion algorithm M into a group mutual exclusion algorithm G. Thus, different group mutual exclusion algorithms can be obtained by instantiating M with different abortable FCFS mutual exclusion algorithms. The group mutual exclusion algorithms so obtained satisfy all of the properties mentioned above: mutual exclusion, lockout freedom, bounded exit, concurrent entering, FCFS, and FIFE. We consider the adversarial convex bandit problem and we build the first @math -time algorithm with @math -regret for this problem. To do so we introduce three new ideas in the derivative-free optimization literature: (i) kernel methods, (ii) a generalization of Bernoulli convolutions, and (iii) a new annealing schedule for exponential weights (with increasing learning rate). The basic version of our algorithm achieves @math -regret, and we show that a simple variant of this algorithm can be run in @math -time per step at the cost of an additional @math factor in the regret. These results improve upon the @math -regret and @math -time result of the first two authors, and the @math -regret and @math -time result of Hazan and Li. Furthermore we conjecture that another variant of the algorithm could achieve @math -regret, and moreover that this regret is unimprovable (the current best lower bound being @math and it is achieved with linear functions). For the simpler situation of zeroth order stochastic convex optimization this corresponds to the conjecture that the optimal query complexity is of order @math . We give a deterministic algorithm for solving the (1 + e) approximate Closest Vector Problem (CVP) on any n dimensional lattice and any norm in 2O(n) (1 + 1 e)n time and 2n poly(n) space. Our algorithm builds on the lattice point enumeration techniques of Micciancio and Voulgaris (STOC 2010) and Dadush, Peikert and Vempala (FOCS 2011), and gives an elegant, deterministic alternative to the "AKS Sieve" based algorithms for (1 + e)-CVP (Ajtai, Kumar, and Sivakumar; STOC 2001 and CCC 2002). Furthermore, assuming the existence of a poly(n)-space and 2O(n) time algorithm for exact CVP in the l2 norm, the space complexity of our algorithm can be reduced to polynomial. Our main technical contribution is a method for "spar-sifying" any input lattice while approximately maintaining its metric structure. To this end, we employ the idea of random sublattice restrictions, which was first employed by Khot (FOCS 2003) for the purpose of proving hardness for Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) under lp norms. We give a randomized @math -time and space algorithm for solving the Shortest Vector Problem (SVP) on n-dimensional Euclidean lattices. This improves on the previous fastest algorithm: the deterministic @math -time and @math -space algorithm of Micciancio and Voulgaris (STOC 2010, SIAM J. Comp. 2013). In fact, we give a conceptually simple algorithm that solves the (in our opinion, even more interesting) problem of discrete Gaussian sampling (DGS). More specifically, we show how to sample @math vectors from the discrete Gaussian distribution at any parameter in @math time and space. (Prior work only solved DGS for very large parameters.) Our SVP result then follows from a natural reduction from SVP to DGS. We also show that our DGS algorithm implies a @math -time algorithm that approximates the Closest Vector Problem to within a factor of @math . In addition, we give a more refined algorithm for DGS above the so-called smoothing parameter of the lattice, which can generate @math discrete Gaussian samples in just @math time and space. Among other things, this implies a @math -time and space algorithm for @math -approximate decision SVP.