anonymousland-synapse/docs/auth_chain_difference_algorithm.md

# Auth Chain Difference Algorithm

The auth chain difference algorithm is used by V2 state resolution, where a
naive implementation can be a significant source of CPU and DB usage.

### Definitions

A *state set* is a set of state events; e.g. the input of a state resolution
algorithm is a collection of state sets.

The *auth chain* of a set of events are all the events' auth events and *their*
auth events, recursively (i.e. the events reachable by walking the graph induced
by an event's auth events links).

The *auth chain difference* of a collection of state sets is the union minus the
intersection of the sets of auth chains corresponding to the state sets, i.e an
event is in the auth chain difference if it is reachable by walking the auth
event graph from at least one of the state sets but not from *all* of the state
sets.

## Breadth First Walk Algorithm

A way of calculating the auth chain difference without calculating the full auth
chains for each state set is to do a parallel breadth first walk (ordered by
depth) of each state set's auth chain. By tracking which events are reachable
from each state set we can finish early if every pending event is reachable from
every state set.

This can work well for state sets that have a small auth chain difference, but
can be very inefficient for larger differences. However, this algorithm is still
used if we don't have a chain cover index for the room (e.g. because we're in
the process of indexing it).

## Chain Cover Index

Synapse computes auth chain differences by pre-computing a "chain cover" index
for the auth chain in a room, allowing us to efficiently make reachability queries
like "is event `A` in the auth chain of event `B`?". We could do this with an index
that tracks all pairs `(A, B)` such that `A` is in the auth chain of `B`. However, this
would be prohibitively large, scaling poorly as the room accumulates more state
events.

Instead, we break down the graph into *chains*. A chain is a subset of a DAG
with the following property: for any pair of events `E` and `F` in the chain,
the chain contains a path `E -> F` or a path `F -> E`. This forces a chain to be
linear (without forks), e.g. `E -> F -> G -> ... -> H`. Each event in the chain
is given a *sequence number* local to that chain. The oldest event `E` in the
chain has sequence number 1. If `E` has a child `F` in the chain, then `F` has
sequence number 2. If `E` has a grandchild `G` in the chain, then `G` has
sequence number 3; and so on.

Synapse ensures that each persisted event belongs to exactly one chain, and
tracks how the chains are connected to one another. This allows us to
efficiently answer reachability queries. Doing so uses less storage than
tracking reachability on an event-by-event basis, particularly when we have
fewer and longer chains. See

> Jagadish, H. (1990). [A compression technique to materialize transitive closure](https://doi.org/10.1145/99935.99944).
> *ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)*, 15*(4)*, 558-598.

for the original idea or

> Y. Chen, Y. Chen, [An efficient algorithm for answering graph
> reachability queries](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2008.4497498),
> in: 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering, April 2008,
> pp. 893–902. (PDF available via [Google Scholar](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Y.%20Chen,%20Y.%20Chen,%20An%20efficient%20algorithm%20for%20answering%20graph%20reachability%20queries,%20in:%202008%20IEEE%2024th%20International%20Conference%20on%20Data%20Engineering,%20April%202008,%20pp.%20893902.).)

for a more modern take.

In practical terms, the chain cover assigns every event a
*chain ID* and *sequence number* (e.g. `(5,3)`), and maintains a map of *links*
between events in chains (e.g. `(5,3) -> (2,4)`) such that `A` is reachable by `B`
(i.e. `A` is in the auth chain of `B`) if and only if either:

1. `A` and `B` have the same chain ID and `A`'s sequence number is less than `B`'s
   sequence number; or
2. there is a link `L` between `B`'s chain ID and `A`'s chain ID such that
   `L.start_seq_no` <= `B.seq_no` and `A.seq_no` <= `L.end_seq_no`.

There are actually two potential implementations, one where we store links from
each chain to every other reachable chain (the transitive closure of the links
graph), and one where we remove redundant links (the transitive reduction of the
links graph) e.g. if we have chains `C3 -> C2 -> C1` then the link `C3 -> C1`
would not be stored. Synapse uses the former implementation so that it doesn't
need to recurse to test reachability between chains. This trades-off extra storage
in order to save CPU cycles and DB queries.

### Example

An example auth graph would look like the following, where chains have been
formed based on type/state_key and are denoted by colour and are labelled with
`(chain ID, sequence number)`. Links are denoted by the arrows (links in grey
are those that would be remove in the second implementation described above).

![Example](auth_chain_diff.dot.png)

Note that we don't include all links between events and their auth events, as
most of those links would be redundant. For example, all events point to the
create event, but each chain only needs the one link from it's base to the
create event.

## Using the Index

This index can be used to calculate the auth chain difference of the state sets
by looking at the chain ID and sequence numbers reachable from each state set:

1. For every state set lookup the chain ID/sequence numbers of each state event
2. Use the index to find all chains and the maximum sequence number reachable
   from each state set.
3. The auth chain difference is then all events in each chain that have sequence
   numbers between the maximum sequence number reachable from *any* state set and
   the minimum reachable by *all* state sets (if any).

Note that steps 2 is effectively calculating the auth chain for each state set
(in terms of chain IDs and sequence numbers), and step 3 is calculating the
difference between the union and intersection of the auth chains.

### Worked Example

For example, given the above graph, we can calculate the difference between
state sets consisting of:

1. `S1`: Alice's invite `(4,1)` and Bob's second join `(2,2)`; and
2. `S2`: Alice's second join `(4,3)` and Bob's first join `(2,1)`.

Using the index we see that the following auth chains are reachable from each
state set:

1. `S1`: `(1,1)`, `(2,2)`, `(3,1)` & `(4,1)`
2. `S2`: `(1,1)`, `(2,1)`, `(3,2)` & `(4,3)`

And so, for each the ranges that are in the auth chain difference:
1. Chain 1: None, (since everything can reach the create event).
2. Chain 2: The range `(1, 2]` (i.e. just `2`), as `1` is reachable by all state
   sets and the maximum reachable is `2` (corresponding to Bob's second join).
3. Chain 3: Similarly the range `(1, 2]` (corresponding to the second power
   level).
4. Chain 4: The range `(1, 3]` (corresponding to both of Alice's joins).

So the final result is: Bob's second join `(2,2)`, the second power level
`(3,2)` and both of Alice's joins `(4,2)` & `(4,3)`.