skip to main content
10.1145/3323165.3323195acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Distributed Computation in Node-Capacitated Networks

Published:17 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we study distributed graph algorithms in networks in which the nodes have a limited communication capacity. Many distributed systems are built on top of an underlying networking infrastructure, for example by using a virtual communication topology known as an overlay network. Although this underlying network might allow each node to directly communicate with a large number of other nodes, the amount of communication that a node can perform in a fixed amount of time is typically much more limited. We introduce the Node-Capacitated Clique model as an abstract communication model, which allows us to study the effect of nodes having limited communication capacity on the complexity of distributed graph computations. In this model, the n nodes of a network are connected as a clique and communicate in synchronous rounds. In each round, every node can exchange messages of $O(łog n)$ bits with at most $O(łog n)$ other nodes. When solving a graph problem, the input graph G is defined on the same set of n nodes, where each node knows which other nodes are its neighbors in G. To initiate research on the Node-Capacitated Clique model, we present distributed algorithms for the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST), BFS Tree, Maximal Independent Set, Maximal Matching, and Vertex Coloring problems. We show that even with only $O(łog n)$ concurrent interactions per node, the MST problem can still be solved in polylogarithmic time. In all other cases, the runtime of our algorithms depends linearly on the arboricity of G, which is a constant for many important graph families such as planar graphs.

References

  1. R. Aleliunas. 1982. Randomized parallel communication. In Proc. of 1st ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 60--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. John Augustine and Sumathi Sivasubramaniam. 2018. Spartan: A Framework For Sparse Robust Addressable Networks. In 2018 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). 1060--1069.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Leonid Barenboim and Michael Elkin. 2009. Distributed (δGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 1)-Coloring in Linear (in δ) Time. In Proc. of 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 111--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Leonid Barenboim and Michael Elkin. 2010. Sublogarithmic distributed MIS algorithm for sparse graphs using Nash-Williams decomposition . Distributed Computing, Vol. 22, 5--6 (2010), 363--379. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Leonid Barenboim and Michael Elkin. 2011. Deterministic Distributed Vertex Coloring in Polylogarithmic Time . J. ACM, Vol. 58, 5 (2011), 1--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Leonid Barenboim, Michael Elkin, Seth Pettie, and Johannes Schneider. 2016. The Locality of Distributed Symmetry Breaking . J. ACM, Vol. 63, 3 (2016), 20:1--20:45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Leonid Barenboim and Victor Khazanov. 2018. Distributed Symmetry-Breaking Algorithms for Congested Cliques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07209 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Florent Becker, Pedro Montealegre, Ivan Rapaport, and Ioan Todinca. 2018. The Impact of Locality on the Detection of Cycles in the Broadcast Congested Clique Model. In LATIN 2018: Theoretical Informatics. 134--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ruben Becker, Andreas Karrenbauer, Sebastian Krinninger, and Christoph Lenzen. 2017. Near-optimal approximate shortest paths and transshipment in distributed and streaming models. In Proc. of 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC). 7:1--7:16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. L. Elisa Celis, Omer Reingold, Gil Segev, and Udi Wieder. 2013. Balls into Bins: Smaller Hash Families and Faster Evaluation. SIAM J. Comput., Vol. 42, 3 (2013), 1030--1050.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Keren Censor-Hillel, Petteri Kaski, Janne H. Korhonen, Christoph Lenzen, Ami Paz, and Jukka Suomela. 2015. Algebraic methods in the congested clique. In Proc. of 34th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 143--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Keren Censor-Hillel, Merav Parter, and Gregory Schwartzman. 2017. Derandomizing local distributed algorithms under bandwidth restrictions. In Proc. of 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC) . 11:1--11:16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Narsingh Deo and Bruce Litow. 1998. A Structural Approach to Graph Compression. In Proc. of MFCS Workshop on Communications . 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Danny Dolev, Christoph Lenzen, and Shir Peled. 2012. ”Tri, tri again”: Finding triangles and small subgraphs in a distributed setting. In Proc. of 26th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC) . 195--209. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Andrew Drucker, Fabian Kuhn, and Rotem Oshman. 2014. On the power of the congested clique model. In Proc. of 33rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 367--376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Vida Dujmovic and David R. Wood. 2007. Graph Treewidth and Geometric Thickness Parameters . Discrete & Computational Geometry, Vol. 37, 4 (2007), 641--670.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Michael Elkin. 2006. A faster distributed protocol for constructing a minimum spanning tree. J. Comput. System Sci., Vol. 72, 8 (2006), 1282--1308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Francois Le Gall. 2016. Further algebraic algorithms in the congested clique model and applications to graph-theoretic problems. In Proc. of 30th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC). 57--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mohsen Ghaffari and Bernhard Haeupler. 2016. Distributed Algorithms for Planar Networks II: Low-congestion Shortcuts, MST, and Min-Cut. In Proc. of 27th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 202--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mohsen Ghaffari, Fabian Kuhn, and Hsin-Hao Su. 2017. Distributed MST and Routing in Almost Mixing Time. In Proc. of ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 131--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mohsen Ghaffari and Krzysztof Nowicki. 2018. Congested Clique Algorithms for the Minimum Cut Problem. In Proc. of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 357--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mohsen Ghaffari and Merav Parter. 2016. MST in log-star rounds of congested clique. In Proc. of 35th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 19--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Robert Gmyr, Kristian Hinnenthal, Christian Scheideler, and Christian Sohler. 2017. Distributed Monitoring of Network Properties: The Power of Hybrid Networks. In Proc. of 44th International Colloqium on Algorithms, Languages, and Programming (ICALP) . 137:1--137:15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. James W. Hegeman, Gopal Pandurangan, Sriram V. Pemmaraju, Vivek B. Sardeshmukh, and Michele Scquizzato. 2015. Toward optimal bounds in the congested clique: Graph connectivity and MST. In Proc. of 34th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC) . 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. James W. Hegeman and Sriram V. Pemmaraju. 2015. Lessons from the Congested Clique applied to MapReduce . Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 608 (2015), 268--281. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. James W. Hegeman, Sriram V. Pemmaraju, and Vivek B. Sardeshmukh. 2014. Near-constant-time distributed algorithms on a congested clique. In Proc. of 28th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC). 514--530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Amos Israeli and A. Itai. 1986. A fast and simple randomized parallel algorithm for maximal matching . Inform. Process. Lett., Vol. 22, 2 (1986), 77--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Daniel Jung, Christina Kolb, Christian Scheideler, and Jannik Sundermeier. 2018. Competitive Routing in Hybrid Communication Networks. In Proc. of 14th International Symposium on Algorithms and Experiments for Wireless Networks (ALGOSENSORS) . 15--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Tomasz Jurdzi'n ski and Krzysztof Nowicki. 2018a. Connectivity and Minimum Cut Approximation in the Broadcast Congested Clique. In Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO) . 331--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomasz Jurdzi'n ski and Krzysztof Nowicki. 2018b. MST in $O(1)$ rounds of congested clique. In Proc. of 29th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 2620--2632. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Valerie King, Shay Kutten, and Mikkel Thorup. 2015. Construction and impromptu repair of an MST in a distributed network with o (m) communication. In Proc. of 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Hartmut Klauck, Danupon Nanongkai, Gopal Pandurangan, and Peter Robinson. 2015. Distributed Computation of Large-scale Graph Problems. In Proc. of 26th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 391--410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Janne H. Korhonen. 2016. Brief announcement: Deterministic MST sparsification in the congested clique. In Proc. of 30th International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2016) .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Janne H. Korhonen and Jukka Suomela. 2017. Brief Announcement: Towards a Complexity Theory for the Congested Clique. In Proc. of 31st International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC) . 55:1--55:3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kishore Kothapalli and Sriram Pemmaraju. 2011. Distributed graph coloring in a few rounds. In Proc. of 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Kishore Kothapalli and Sriram Pemmaraju. 2012. Super-Fast 3-Ruling Sets. In IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS), Vol. 18. 136--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kishore Kothapalli, Christian Scheideler, Melih Onus, and Christian Schindelhauer. 2006. Distributed coloring in $tildeO(sqrtłog n)$ bit rounds. In Proc. of 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS) . Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Shay Kutten and David Peleg. 1998. Fast distributed construction of small k-dominating sets and applications. Journal of Algorithms, Vol. 28, 1 (1998), 40--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Christoph Lenzen. 2013. Optimal deterministic routing and sorting on the congested clique. In Proc. of 32nd ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 42--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Zvi Lotker, Boaz Patt-Shamir, Elan Pavlov, and David Peleg. 2005. Minimum-weight spanning tree construction in $O(łog łog n)$ communication rounds. SIAM J. Comput., Vol. 35, 1 (2005), 120--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Y. Mé tivier, J. M. Robson, N. Saheb-Djahromi, and A. Zemmari. 2011. An optimal bit complexity randomized distributed MIS algorithm . Distributed Computing, Vol. 23, 5--6 (2011), 331--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Danupon Nanongkai. 2014. Distributed approximation algorithms for weighted shortest paths. In Proc. of 46th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 565--573.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams. 1964. Decomposition of Finite Graphs Into Forests . Journal of the London Mathematical Society, Vol. 39, 1 (1964), 12--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Gopal Pandurangan, Peter Robinson, and Michele Scquizzato. 2016. Fast Distributed Algorithms for Connectivity and MST in Large Graphs. In Proc. of 28th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA) . 429--438.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Abhiram G. Ranade. 1991. How to Emulate Shared Memory . J. Comput. System Sci., Vol. 42, 3 (1991), 307--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Atish Das Sarma, Stephan Holzer, Liah Kor, Amos Korman, Danupon Nanongkai, Gopal Pandurangan, David Peleg, and Roger Wattenhofer. 2011. Distributed verification and hardness of distributed approximation. In Proc. of 43th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC). 363--372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Jeanette P. Schmidt, Alan Siegel, and Aravind Srinivasan. 1995. Chernoff-Hoeffding Bounds for Applications with Limited Independence . SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 8, 2 (1995), 223--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Eli Upfal. 1982. Efficient schemes for parallel communication. In Proc. of 1st ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 241--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Distributed Computation in Node-Capacitated Networks

    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
      SPAA '19: The 31st ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
      June 2019
      410 pages
      ISBN:9781450361842
      DOI:10.1145/3323165

      Copyright © 2019 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: 17 June 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SPAA '19 Paper Acceptance Rate34of109submissions,31%Overall Acceptance Rate447of1,461submissions,31%

      Upcoming Conference

      SPAA '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader