skip to main content
10.1145/2897518.2897541acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Parallel exhaustive search without coordination

Published:19 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

We analyse parallel algorithms in the context of exhaustive search over totally ordered sets. Imagine an infinite list of “boxes”, with a “treasure” hidden in one of them, where the boxes’ order reflects the importance of finding the treasure in a given box. At each time step, a search protocol executed by a searcher has the ability to peek into one box, and see whether the treasure is present or not. Clearly, the best strategy of a single searcher would be to open the boxes one by one, in increasing order. Moreover, by equally dividing the workload between them, k searchers can trivially find the treasure k times faster than one searcher. However, this straightforward strategy is very sensitive to failures (e.g., crashes of processors), and overcoming this issue seems to require a large amount of communication. We therefore address the question of designing parallel search algorithms maximizing their speed-up and maintaining high levels of robustness, while minimizing the amount of resources for coordination. Based on the observation that algorithms that avoid communication are inherently robust, we focus our attention on identifying the best running time performance of non-coordinating algorithms. Specifically, we devise non-coordinating algorithms that achieve a speed-up of 9/8 for two searchers, a speed-up of 4/3 for three searchers, and in general, a speed-up of k/4(1+1/k)2 for any k≥ 1 searchers. Thus, asymptotically, the speed-up is only four times worse compared to the case of full coordination. Moreover, these bounds are tight in a strong sense as no non-coordinating search algorithm can achieve better speed-ups. Our algorithms are surprisingly simple and hence applicable. However they are memory intensive and so we suggest a practical, memory efficient version, with a speed-up of (k2 − 1)/4k. That is, it is only a factor of (k+1)/(k−1) slower than the optimal algorithm. Overall, we highlight that, in faulty contexts in which coordination between the searchers is technically difficult to implement, intrusive with respect to privacy, and/or costly in term of resources, it might well be worth giving up on coordination, and simply run our non-coordinating exhaustive search algorithms.

References

  1. BOINC. https://boinc.berkeley.edu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. N. Alon, C. Avin, M. Koucky, G. Kozma, Z. Lotker, and M. R. Tuttle. Many Random Walks Are Faster Than One. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, SPAA ’08, pages 119–128, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Baezayates, J. Culberson, and G. Rawlins. Searching in the Plane. Inf. Comput., 106(2):234–252, Oct. 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Cooper, A. M. Frieze, and T. Radzik. Multiple Random Walks in Random Regular Graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 23(4):1738–1761, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. D. Demaine, S. P. Fekete, and S. Gal. Online searching with turn cost. Theor. Comput. Sci., 361(2-3):342–355, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. DiBenedetto. Real Analysis. Advanced Texts Series. Birkhäuser Boston, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. R. Elsässer and T. Sauerwald. Tight bounds for the cover time of multiple random walks. Theor. Comput. Sci., 412(24):2623–2641, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Y. Emek, T. Langner, D. Stolz, J. Uitto, and R. Wattenhofer. How many ants does it take to find the food? Theor. Comput. Sci., 608:255–267, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y. Emek, T. Langner, J. Uitto, and R. Wattenhofer. Solving the ANTS Problem with Asynchronous Finite State Machines. In Automata, Languages, and Programming - 41st International Colloquium, ICALP 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8-11, 2014, Proceedings, Part II, pages 471–482, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. O. Feinerman and A. Korman. Memory Lower Bounds for Randomized Collaborative Search and Implications for Biology. In Distributed Computing - 26th International Symposium, DISC 2012, Salvador, Brazil, October 16-18, 2012. Proceedings, pages 61–75, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. O. Feinerman, A. Korman, Z. Lotker, and J.-S. Sereni. Collaborative search on the plane without communication. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’12, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, July 16-18, 2012, pages 77–86, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. H. Finner. A Generalization of Holder’s Inequality and Some Probability Inequalities. The Annals of Probability, 20(4):1893–1901, Oct. 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. JáJá. An Introduction to Parallel Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M.-Y. Kao, J. H. Reif, and S. R. Tate. Searching in an Unknown Environment: An Optimal Randomized Algorithm for the Cow-path Problem. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA ’93, pages 441–447, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1993. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. M. Karp, M. E. Saks, and A. Wigderson. On a Search Problem Related to Branch-and-Bound Procedures. In 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Toronto, Canada, 27-29 October 1986, pages 19–28, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Langner, J. Uitto, D. Stolz, and R. Wattenhofer. Fault-Tolerant ANTS. In Distributed Computing - 28th International Symposium, DISC 2014, Austin, TX, USA, October 12-15, 2014. Proceedings, pages 31–45, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. F. T. Leighton. Introduction to Parallel Algorithms and Architectures: Array, Trees, Hypercubes. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Lenzen, N. A. Lynch, C. C. Newport, and T. Radeva. Trade-offs between selection complexity and performance when searching the plane without communication. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC ’14, Paris, France, July 15-18, 2014, pages 252–261, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Parallel exhaustive search without coordination

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in
                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Conferences
                  STOC '16: Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing
                  June 2016
                  1141 pages
                  ISBN:9781450341325
                  DOI:10.1145/2897518

                  Copyright © 2016 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 19 June 2016

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

                  Upcoming Conference

                  STOC '24
                  56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
                  June 24 - 28, 2024
                  Vancouver , BC , Canada

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader