Multi-party set reconciliation using characteristic polynomials

In the standard set reconciliation problem, there are two parties A<sub>1</sub> and A<sub>2</sub>, each respectively holding a set of elements S<sub>1</sub> and S<sub>2</sub>. The goal is for both parties to obtain the union S<sub>1</sub> U S<sub>2</sub>. In many distributed computing settings the sets may be large but the set difference |S<sub>1</sub> - S<sub>2</sub> | +|S<sub>2</sub> - S<sub>1</sub>| is small. In these cases one aims to achieve reconciliation efficiently in terms of communication; ideally, the communication should depend on the size of the set difference, and not on the size of the sets. Recent work has considered generalizations of the reconciliation problem to multi-party settings, using a framework based on a specific type of linear sketch called an Invertible Bloom Lookup Table. Here, we consider multi-party set reconciliation using the alternative framework of characteristic polynomials, which have previously been used for efficient pairwise set reconciliation protocols, and compare their performance with Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables for these problems.

[1]  David G. Cantor,et al.  On arithmetical algorithms over finite fields , 1989, Journal of combinatorial theory. Series A.

[2]  David G. Gantor On arithmetical algorithms over finite fields , 1989 .

[3]  Erich Kaltofen,et al.  Subquadratic-time factoring of polynomials over finite fields , 1995, STOC '95.

[4]  Erich Kaltofen,et al.  Subquadratic-time factoring of polynomials over finite fields , 1998, Math. Comput..

[5]  Yaron Minsky,et al.  Set reconciliation with nearly optimal communication complexity , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[6]  Muriel Médard,et al.  Algebraic gossip: a network coding approach to optimal multiple rumor mongering , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[7]  Rafail Ostrovsky,et al.  Fuzzy Extractors: How to Generate Strong Keys from Biometrics and Other Noisy Data , 2004, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Christopher Umans,et al.  Fast Polynomial Factorization and Modular Composition , 2011, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Gossip Algorithms , 2009, Found. Trends Netw..

[10]  Silvio Lattanzi,et al.  Almost tight bounds for rumour spreading with conductance , 2010, STOC '10.

[11]  What's the difference?: efficient set reconciliation without prior context , 2011, SIGCOMM.

[12]  George Giakkoupis,et al.  Tight bounds for rumor spreading in graphs of a given conductance , 2011, STACS.

[13]  David Eppstein,et al.  Straggler Identification in Round-Trip Data Streams via Newton's Identities and Invertible Bloom Filters , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Michael T. Goodrich,et al.  Invertible bloom lookup tables , 2011, 2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[15]  George Varghese,et al.  The complexity of object reconciliation, and open problems related to set difference and coding , 2012, 2012 50th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[16]  Bernhard Haeupler,et al.  Analyzing Network Coding (Gossip) Made Easy , 2010, J. ACM.