Shared Randomness Helps with Local Distributed Problems
0
🎯
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores the role of shared randomness in distributed graph algorithms for locally checkable labeling (LCL) problems.
- It presents an LCL problem where the round complexity is significantly lower when nodes have access to shared randomness, compared to when they only have private randomness.
- This result resolves several open questions related to the landscape of distributed computing for LCL problems.
Plain English Explanation
In the field of distributed computing, researchers have extensively studied algorithms for solving graph problems that can be defined with local constraints. These problems are formally known as locally checkable labeling (LCL) problems, introduced in the 1990s.
Prior work has shown that if a deterministic algorithm can solve an LCL problem in a short amount of time (i.e., o(log n) rounds), it can be sped up to an even faster O(log*n) rounds algorithm. Similarly, a randomized O(log*n) rounds algorithm can be "derandomized" to not require any randomness.
Interestingly, randomness has been found to be helpful for some LCL problems, where the randomized complexity is Θ(log log n), while the deterministic complexity is Θ(log n). However, all previous algorithms have been able to rely solely on the nodes' individual, private sources of randomness, without needing any shared randomness.
The key question addressed in this paper is: Could shared randomness never be necessary for solving LCL problems? Could there be a general technique to convert any distributed graph algorithm using shared randomness into an equally fast one that only requires private randomness?
Technical Explanation
The paper presents an LCL problem Π for which the round complexity is Ω(√n) in the standard randomized local model with private randomness, but drops to O(log n) if the nodes have access to a shared randomness source.
This result provides a counterexample to the hypothesis that shared randomness is never necessary for solving LCL problems. As corollaries, the paper also resolves several other open questions in the field of distributed computing for LCL problems, including:
- Demonstrating that distributed quantum algorithms for LCL problems can strictly benefit from a shared quantum state.
- Providing a separation between finitely dependent distributions and non-signaling distributions.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and surprising result, challenging the prior assumption that shared randomness is never necessary for solving LCL problems. The construction of the specific LCL problem Π is technically involved and the proof of its properties is non-trivial.
One potential limitation of the research is that the paper does not provide any practical applications or implications of the theoretical result. The significance of the problem Π may be primarily of academic interest, and it remains to be seen whether the insights from this work can be translated into tangible benefits for real-world distributed systems.
Additionally, the paper does not explore the possibility of other types of shared resources (beyond randomness) that could potentially lead to similar separations between private and shared models for solving LCL problems. Investigating the role of other shared resources could be an interesting direction for future research.
Conclusion
This paper makes an important contribution to the theoretical understanding of the role of shared randomness in distributed graph algorithms for LCL problems. By presenting an LCL problem that can be solved significantly faster with shared randomness, the authors have demonstrated that shared resources can, in fact, be necessary for certain distributed computing tasks.
The insights from this work could have implications for the design and analysis of distributed algorithms, as well as the study of the fundamental limits of distributed computing. While the practical applications may be limited, the theoretical advancements made in this paper advance our knowledge of the landscape of distributed computing for locally checkable labeling problems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🎯
0
Shared Randomness Helps with Local Distributed Problems
Alkida Balliu, Mohsen Ghaffari, Fabian Kuhn, Augusto Modanese, Dennis Olivetti, Mikael Rabie, Jukka Suomela, Jara Uitto
By prior work, we have many results related to distributed graph algorithms for problems that can be defined with local constraints; the formal framework used in prior work is locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs), introduced by Naor and Stockmeyer in the 1990s. It is known, for example, that if we have a deterministic algorithm that solves an LCL in $o(log n)$ rounds, we can speed it up to $O(log^*n)$ rounds, and if we have a randomized $O(log^*n)$ rounds algorithm, we can derandomize it for free. It is also known that randomness helps with some LCL problems: there are LCL problems with randomized complexity $Theta(loglog n)$ and deterministic complexity $Theta(log n)$. However, so far there have not been any LCL problems in which the use of shared randomness has been necessary; in all prior algorithms it has been enough that the nodes have access to their own private sources of randomness. Could it be the case that shared randomness never helps with LCLs? Could we have a general technique that takes any distributed graph algorithm for any LCL that uses shared randomness, and turns it into an equally fast algorithm where private randomness is enough? In this work we show that the answer is no. We present an LCL problem $Pi$ such that the round complexity of $Pi$ is $Omega(sqrt n)$ in the usual randomized local model with private randomness, but if the nodes have access to a source of shared randomness, then the complexity drops to $O(log n)$. As corollaries, we also resolve several other open questions related to the landscape of distributed computing in the context of LCL problems. In particular, problem $Pi$ demonstrates that distributed quantum algorithms for LCL problems strictly benefit from a shared quantum state. Problem $Pi$ also gives a separation between finitely dependent distributions and non-signaling distributions.
Read more7/9/2024
0
Online Locality Meets Distributed Quantum Computing
Amirreza Akbari, Xavier Coiteux-Roy, Francesco d'Amore, Franc{c}ois Le Gall, Henrik Lievonen, Darya Melnyk, Augusto Modanese, Shreyas Pai, Marc-Olivier Renou, V'aclav Rozhov{n}, Jukka Suomela
We extend the theory of locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs) from the classical LOCAL model to a number of other models that have been studied recently, including the quantum-LOCAL model, finitely-dependent processes, non-signaling model, dynamic-LOCAL model, and online-LOCAL model [e.g. STOC 2024, ICALP 2023]. First, we demonstrate the advantage that finitely-dependent processes have over the classical LOCAL model. We show that all LCL problems solvable with locality $O(log^star n)$ in the LOCAL model admit a finitely-dependent distribution (with constant locality). In particular, this gives a finitely-dependent coloring for regular trees, answering an open question by Holroyd [2023]. This also introduces a new formal barrier for understanding the distributed quantum advantage: it is not possible to exclude quantum advantage for any LCL in the $Theta(log^star n)$ complexity class by using non-signaling arguments. Second, we put limits on the capabilities of all of these models. To this end, we introduce a model called randomized online-LOCAL, which is strong enough to simulate e.g. SLOCAL and dynamic-LOCAL, and we show that it is also strong enough to simulate any non-signaling distribution and hence any quantum-LOCAL algorithm. We prove the following result for rooted trees: if we can solve an LCL problem with locality $o(log log n)$ in the randomized online-LOCAL model, we can solve it with locality $O(log^star n)$ in the classical deterministic LOCAL model. Put together, these results show that in rooted trees the set of LCLs that can be solved with locality $O(log^star n)$ is the same across all these models: classical deterministic and randomized LOCAL, quantum-LOCAL, non-signaling model, dynamic-LOCAL, and deterministic and randomized online-LOCAL.
Read more4/10/2024
0
Completing the Node-Averaged Complexity Landscape of LCLs on Trees
Alkida Balliu, Sebastian Brandt, Fabian Kuhn, Dennis Olivetti, Gustav Schmid
The node-averaged complexity of a problem captures the number of rounds nodes of a graph have to spend on average to solve the problem in the LOCAL model. A challenging line of research with regards to this new complexity measure is to understand the complexity landscape of locally checkable labelings (LCLs) on families of bounded-degree graphs. Particularly interesting in this context is the family of bounded-degree trees as there, for the worst-case complexity, we know a complete characterization of the possible complexities and structures of LCL problems. A first step for the node-averaged complexity case has been achieved recently [DISC '23], where the authors in particular showed that in bounded-degree trees, there is a large complexity gap: There are no LCL problems with a deterministic node-averaged complexity between $omega(log^* n)$ and $n^{o(1)}$. For randomized algorithms, they even showed that the node-averaged complexity is either $O(1)$ or $n^{Omega(1)}$. In this work we fill in the remaining gaps and give a complete description of the node-averaged complexity landscape of LCLs on bounded-degree trees. Our contributions are threefold. - On bounded-degree trees, there is no LCL with a node-averaged complexity between $omega(1)$ and $(log^*n)^{o(1)}$. - For any constants $00$, there exists a constant $c$ and an LCL problem with node-averaged complexity between $Omega((log^* n)^c)$ and $O((log^* n)^{c+varepsilon})$. - For any constants $00$, there exists an LCL problem with node-averaged complexity $Theta(n^x)$ for some $xin [alpha, alpha+varepsilon]$.
Read more5/3/2024
📉
0
Local Advice and Local Decompression
Alkida Balliu, Sebastian Brandt, Fabian Kuhn, Krzysztof Nowicki, Dennis Olivetti, Eva Rotenberg, Jukka Suomela
Algorithms with advice have received ample attention in the distributed and online settings, and they have recently proven useful also in dynamic settings. In this work we study local computation with advice: the goal is to solve a graph problem $Pi$ with a distributed algorithm in $f(Delta)$ communication rounds, for some function $f$ that only depends on the maximum degree $Delta$ of the graph, and the key question is how many bits of advice per node are needed. Our main results are: - Any locally checkable labeling problem can be solved in graphs with sub-exponential growth with only $1$ bit of advice per node. Moreover, we can make the set of nodes that carry advice bits arbitrarily sparse, that is, we can make arbitrarily small the ratio between nodes carrying a 1 and the nodes carrying a 0. - The assumption of sub-exponential growth is necessary: assuming the Exponential-Time Hypothesis, there are LCLs that cannot be solved in general with any constant number of bits per node. - In any graph we can find an almost-balanced orientation (indegrees and outdegrees differ by at most one) with $1$ bit of advice per node, and again we can make the advice arbitrarily sparse. - As a corollary, we can also compress an arbitrary subset of edges so that a node of degree $d$ stores only $d/2 + 2$ bits, and we can decompress it locally, in $f(Delta)$ rounds. - In any graph of maximum degree $Delta$, we can find a $Delta$-coloring (if it exists) with $1$ bit of advice per node, and again, we can make the advice arbitrarily sparse. - In any $3$-colorable graph, we can find a $3$-coloring with $1$ bit of advice per node. Here, it remains open whether we can make the advice arbitrarily sparse. Our work shows that for many problems the key threshold is not whether we can achieve, say, $1$ bit of advice per node, but whether we can make the advice arbitrarily sparse.
Read more5/8/2024