How Long It Takes for an Ordinary Node with an Ordinary ID to Output?

In the context of distributed synchronous computing, processors perform in rounds, and the time complexity of a distributed algorithm is classically defined as the number of rounds before all computing nodes have output. Hence, this complexity measure captures the running time of the slowest node(s). In this paper, we are interested in the running time of the ordinary nodes, to be compared with the running time of the slowest nodes. The node-averaged time-complexity of a distributed algorithm on a given instance is defined as the average, taken over every node of the instance, of the number of rounds before that node output. We compare the node-averaged time-complexity with the classical one in the standard \(\mathsf {LOCAL}\) model for distributed network computing. We show that there can be an exponential gap between the node-averaged time-complexity and the classical time-complexity, as witnessed by, e.g., leader election. Our first main result is a positive one, stating that, in fact, the two time-complexities behave the same for a large class of problems on very sparse graphs. In particular, we show that, for \(\mathsf {LCL}\) problems on cycles, the node-averaged time complexity is of the same order of magnitude as the “slowest node” time-complexity. In addition, in the \(\mathsf {LOCAL}\) model, the time-complexity is computed as a worst case over all possible identity assignments to the nodes of the network. In this paper, we also investigate the ID-averaged time-complexity, when the number of rounds is averaged over all possible identity assignments of size \(O(\log n)\). Our second main result is that the ID-averaged time-complexity is essentially the same as the expected time-complexity of randomized algorithms (where the expectation is taken over all possible random bits used by the nodes, and the number of rounds is measured for the worst-case identity assignment). Finally, we study the node-averaged ID-averaged time-complexity. We show that 3-colouring the n-node ring requires \(\varTheta (\log ^*n)\) rounds if the number of rounds is averaged over the nodes, or if the number of rounds is averaged over the identity assignments. In contrast, we show that 3-colouring the ring requires only O(1) rounds if the number of rounds is averaged over the nodes, and over the identity assignments.

[1]  Mohsen Ghaffari,et al.  An Improved Distributed Algorithm for Maximal Independent Set , 2015, SODA.

[2]  Hsin-Hao Su,et al.  Distributed (∆+1)-coloring in sublogarithmic rounds , 2016, STOC.

[3]  M. Kaufmann.  What Can Be Computed Locally ? , 2003 .

[4]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  Towards a complexity theory for local distributed computing , 2013, JACM.

[5]  Noga Alon,et al.  A Fast and Simple Randomized Parallel Algorithm for the Maximal Independent Set Problem , 1985, J. Algorithms.

[6]  N. J. A. Sloane,et al.  The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences , 2003, Electron. J. Comb..

[7]  Tsvi Kopelowitz,et al.  An Exponential Separation between Randomized and Deterministic Complexity in the LOCAL Model , 2019, SIAM J. Comput..

[8]  Richard Cole,et al.  Deterministic Coin Tossing with Applications to Optimal Parallel List Ranking , 2018, Inf. Control..

[9]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  Limits of local algorithms over sparse random graphs , 2013, ITCS.

[10]  Pierre Fraigniaud,et al.  Survey of Distributed Decision , 2016, Bull. EATCS.

[11]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity , 1977, 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977).

[12]  Moni Naor,et al.  A Lower Bound on Probabilistic Algorithms for Distributive Ring Coloring , 1991, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[13]  Seif Haridi,et al.  Distributed Algorithms , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Michael Luby,et al.  A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem , 1985, STOC '85.

[15]  Patric R. J. Östergård,et al.  LCL Problems on Grids , 2017, PODC.

[16]  Seth Pettie,et al.  Minimizing randomness in minimum spanning tree, parallel connectivity, and set maxima algorithms , 2002, SODA '02.

[17]  Oded Goldreich,et al.  Introduction to Testing Graph Properties , 2010, Property Testing.

[18]  Nathan Linial,et al.  Locality in Distributed Graph Algorithms , 1992, SIAM J. Comput..

[19]  Jukka Suomela,et al.  A lower bound for the distributed Lovász local lemma , 2015, STOC.

[20]  Hagit Attiya,et al.  Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics , 1998 .

[21]  Jean-Sébastien Sereni,et al.  Toward more localized local algorithms: removing assumptions concerning global knowledge , 2011, PODC.

[22]  David Peleg,et al.  Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach , 1987 .

[23]  Nicola Santoro,et al.  Design and analysis of distributed algorithms , 2006, Wiley series on parallel and distributed computing.

[24]  Seth Pettie,et al.  Randomized minimum spanning tree algorithms using exponentially fewer random bits , 2008, TALG.

[25]  Laurent Feuilloley.  Brief Announcement: Average Complexity for the LOCAL Model , 2015, PODC.

[26]  Marcin Paprzycki,et al.  Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics , 2001, Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp..