Quasirandom rumor spreading: An experimental analysis

We empirically analyze two versions of the well-known “randomized rumor spreading” protocol to disseminate a piece of information in networks. In the classical model, in each round, each informed node informs a random neighbor. In the recently proposed quasirandom variant, each node has a (cyclic) list of its neighbors. Once informed, it starts at a random position of the list, but from then on informs its neighbors in the order of the list. While for sparse random graphs a better performance of the quasirandom model could be proven, all other results show that, independent of the structure of the lists, the same asymptotic performance guarantees hold as for the classical model. In this work, we compare the two models experimentally. Not only does this show that the quasirandom model generally is faster, but it also shows that the runtime is more concentrated around the mean. This is surprising given that much fewer random bits are used in the quasirandom process. These advantages are also observed in a lossy communication model, where each transmission does not reach its target with a certain probability, and in an asynchronous model, where nodes send at random times drawn from an exponential distribution. We also show that typically the particular structure of the lists has little influence on the efficiency.

[1]  N. Wormald Models of random regular graphs , 2010 .

[2]  Anna Huber,et al.  Quasirandom Rumor Spreading on the Complete Graph Is as Fast as Randomized Rumor Spreading , 2009, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[3]  Konstantinos Panagiotou,et al.  Tight Bounds for Quasirandom Rumor Spreading , 2009, Electron. J. Comb..

[4]  Thomas Sauerwald,et al.  Quasirandom Rumor Spreading on Expanders , 2009, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[5]  Thomas Sauerwald,et al.  Quasirandom Rumor Spreading: Expanders, Push vs. Pull, and Robustness , 2009, ICALP.

[6]  Thomas Sauerwald,et al.  Quasirandom rumor spreading , 2008, SODA '08.

[7]  Thomas Sauerwald,et al.  On the runtime and robustness of randomized broadcasting , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[8]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  Random graphs , 2006, SODA '06.

[9]  Kyung-Yong Chwa,et al.  Optimal broadcasting with universal lists based on competitive analysis , 2005 .

[10]  Jae-Hoon Kim,et al.  Optimal broadcasting with universal lists based on competitive analysis , 2005, Networks.

[11]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  The Cover Time of Random Regular Graphs , 2005, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[12]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Randomized rumor spreading , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[13]  Nicholas C. Wormald,et al.  Generating Random Regular Graphs Quickly , 1999, Combinatorics, Probability and Computing.

[14]  N. Wormald Surveys in Combinatorics, 1999: Models of Random Regular Graphs , 1999 .

[15]  Yoshiharu Kohayakawa,et al.  On Richardsons model on the hypercube , 1997 .

[16]  Krzysztof Diks,et al.  Broadcasting with universal lists , 1995, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  R. Pemantle,et al.  PERCOLATION, FIRST-PASSAGE PERCOLATION, AND COVERING TIMES FOR RICHARDSON'S MODEL ON THE n-CUBE (Short title: PERCOLATION ON THE CUBE) , 1993, math/0404015.

[18]  Harald Niederreiter,et al.  Random number generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo methods , 1992, CBMS-NSF regional conference series in applied mathematics.

[19]  Eli Upfal,et al.  Randomized Broadcast in Networks , 1990, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[20]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Epidemic algorithms for replicated database maintenance , 1988, OPSR.

[21]  B. Pittel On spreading a rumor , 1987 .

[22]  Alan M. Frieze,et al.  The shortest-path problem for graphs with random arc-lengths , 1985, Discret. Appl. Math..

[23]  H. Poincaré,et al.  Percolation ? , 1982 .