1 / 39

D istributed C omputing G roup

Locality and the Hardness of Distributed Approximation Thomas Moscibroda Joint work with: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer. D istributed C omputing G roup. Locality. Communication in multi-hop networks is inherently local ! Issue of locality is crucial in distributed systems!

aira
Download Presentation

D istributed C omputing G roup

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Locality and the Hardness of Distributed ApproximationThomas MoscibrodaJoint work with: Fabian Kuhn, Roger Wattenhofer DistributedComputing Group

  2. Locality... • Communication in multi-hop networks is inherently local ! • Issue of locality is crucial in distributed systems! • Direct communication only between neighbors • Obtaining information about distant nodes requires multi-hop communication Obtaining information from entire network requires plenty of communication! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  3. Locality... • Many modern networks arelarge-scale and highly complex • Internet • Peer-to-Peer Networks • Wireless Sensor Networks • Or even dynamic... • Wireless Ad Hoc Networks • No node has global information • Each node has information from its vicinity only (local information)  Yet, nodes have to come up with a global goal! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  4. Nodes have only local information • Nodes have to optimize a global goal Example: Global Goal – Local Information • Clustering in Wireless Sensor Networks • Choose Clusterheads such that • Every node is either a clusterhead or... • ...has a clusterhead in its neighborhood. • Idea: Clusterhead sense environment Non-clusterheads can go to sleep mode  Save energy! • Goal: We want as few clusterheads as possible! (Minimum Dominating Set Problem) Crucial for fast Algorithms! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  5. k-Neighborhood • What does „local“ mean ? • How far does „locality“ go? • Neighborhood, 2-Hop Neighborhood,... or something else...??? 3 1 2 In communication round: Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  6. k-Neighborhood In k rounds of communication... ... each node can gather information only from k-neighborhood! • If message size is unbounded:  Entire information from k-neighborhood (IDs, topology, edge-weights,...) can be collected! • If message size is bounded:  Only subset of this information can be gathered. Strongest model for lower bounds on locality! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  7. What can be computed locally? [Naor,Stockmeyer;1993] • We want to establish a trade-off between amount of communication and quality of the global solution. LOCALITY Communication Rounds GLOBAL GOAL Approximation TRADE-OFF • Upper Bounds:  Constant-Time Approximation Algorithms • Lower Bounds:  Hardness of Distributed Approximation Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  8. What can be computed locally? [Naor,Stockmeyer;1993] • How well can global tasks be locally approximated? • Minimum Dominating Set (Choose minimum S µ V, s.t. each v2V is in S or has at least one neighbor in S) • Minimum Vertex Cover (Choose minimum S µ V, s.t. each e2E has one node in S) Both problems appear to be local in nature! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  9. What can be computed locally? [Naor,Stockmeyer;1993] • An answer to the previous question... ...helps in answering the following question about exact variants of the problems. How large must the locality be in order to compute a maximal independent set or maximal matching? • An answer to this question implies important time-lower bounds for distributed algorithms! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  10. Overview • Introduction to Locality • Related Work • Vertex Cover Upper Bound • Vertex Cover Lower Bound • Conclusions & Open Problems Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  11. Related Work On Locality • Naor, Stockmeyer 1993: Which locally checkable labelings can be computed in constant time? [Naor,Stockmeyer;1993] • O(log n) algorithm for maximal independent set [Luby;1986] O(log n) algorithm for maximal matching [Israeli, Itai;1986] • 3-coloring in a ring in O(log*n) time [Cole, Vishkin;1986] • O(log*n) was shown to be optimal by Linial [Linial;1992]  Only previous lower bound on locality! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  12. Related Work On Distributed Approximation Upper Bounds (examples...) • Minimum Dominating Set Problem [Jia, Rajaraman, Suel; 2001] [Kuhn, Wattenhofer; 2003],... • Minimum Edge-Coloring [Panconesi, Srinivasan; 1997],... • General covering and packing problems [Bartal, Byers, Raz; 1997][Kuhn, Moscibroda, Wattenhofer; submitted] • Facility Location Lower Bounds • Results based on Linials (log*n) lower bound • Recently, strong lower bound on the distributed approximability for the MST. [Elkin; 2004] For general graphs, we drastically improve this result. Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  13. Overview • Introduction to Locality • Related Work • Vertex Cover Upper Bound • Vertex Cover Lower Bound • Conclusions & Open Problems Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  14. Minimum Vertex Cover • We consider the most basic coordination Problem  Minimum Vertex Cover (MVC) Choose as few nodes as possible to cover all edges • We give an approximation algorithm with...  O(k) communication rounds  O(1/k) approximation  O(log n) bits message size • General idea: Consider the integer linear program of MVC. • Distributed Primal-Dual Approach Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  15. Minimum Vertex Cover (Fractional) MVC is captured by the following linear program Its dual is the fractional maximum matching (MM) problem Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  16. Distributed MVC Algorithm • Each node stores a value xi • Each edge stores a value yj • In a real network: edge is simulated by incident node! • Idea: • Compute a feasible solution for MVC • While doing so: Distribute the dual values yj among incident, uncovered edges, hence • We show that  This yields an O(1/k) approximation! y4 =1/3 y3 xi =1 y2 =1/3 y1 =1/3 Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  17. Distributed MVC Algorithm Number of incident, uncovered edges Maximum i in neighborhood If relative number of uncovered edges is high  join VC It can be shown that: i·(l+1)/k If sum of yj in neighborhood is ¸ 1: • Pick node and distribute yj proportionally! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  18. Analysis Lemma: Idea: Bound the sum of the incident dual variables for each node i. At the end of the algorithm, for all nodes vi2 V: Yi· 3+1/k Proof: Let i denote the ith iteration of the loop Case 1: Consider a node which does not join the vertex cover! • Until 0 ,, Yi is smaller than 1 • In 0 , i must be 0 • All neighbors must have joined VC before 0  Yi· 1 Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  19. Analysis Case 3 is similar beforel : duringl : Case 2: Consider a node that joins VC in line 5 of iteration l. 0 0.33 vi 0.33 0.62 0 0.3 • Before l: Yi· 1 • During l: • xi := 1  Yi· 2 • neighbors vk may join VC, too  increase Yi • All these nodes have k¸i(1) l/(l+1) ¸il/(l+1) • We get at most 1/kfrom each of the v uncovered neighbors!  v / k·1/k vk 0 0.33 Additional nodes joining VC can increase Yi by at most 1 Yi· 3+1/k Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  20. Summary VC-Algorithm Can we do better? • Algorithm runs in O(k) rounds  Equivalent: Locality is O(k) hops! • Message size is O(log n) bits  Approximation quality is 1/k+O(1) How many rounds are necessary for a O(1) or O(polylog ) approximation? O(log ) time  O(1) approximation O(log /loglog ) time  O(polylog ) approximation Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  21. Overview • Introduction to Locality • Related Work • Vertex Cover Upper Bound • Vertex Cover Lower Bound • Conclusions & Open Problems Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  22. Model • Network graph = graph on which we compute VC • Nodes have unique identifiers • Message size and local computation are unbounded • Strongest possible model for lower bounds Lower bounds are consequence of locality alone Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  23. S S 0 1 Basic Idea • S0 and S1 contain n0 and n0/ nodes, resp. • Optimal VC does not contain nodes of S0 • Basic Structure of our proof: • Construct graph such that nodes in S0 and S1 have same view • Algorithm has to take nodes of S0 in order to cover edges between S0 and S1 • VCALG >> VCOPT because |S0| >> |S1| Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  24. S S 1 0 One Round Lower Bound Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  25. S S 0 1 One Round Lower Bound Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  26. S S 0 1 Two Round Lower Bound Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  27. View of node in S1 7 7 7 7 1 4 1 4 2 4 2 7 7 7 7 S S 1 0 Two Round Lower Bound: Views View of node in S0 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  28. The Cluster Tree I Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  29. The Cluster Tree II • Cluster Tree = a tree of clusters of nodes • Recursively defined for k>0 • Defines the structure of a graph Gk • Each link on the tree is a bipartite sub-graph of Gk • If girth of Gk is at least 2k+1, nodes in S0 and S1 have the same view up to distance k Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  30. Construction of Gk • How can we achieve high girth? • Gk is a bipartite graph (even level clusters / odd level clusters) • For prime power q, D(r,q) is bipartite graph with 2qr nodes and girth at least r+5[Lazebnik,Ustimenko; Explicit Construction of Graphs With an Arbitrary Large Girth and of Large Size; 1995] • If >k, Gk can be constructed as sub-graph of D(2k-4,q) for q=O(k)  Gk has n=O(k2) nodes This is according to Intuition... ...because every node in S0 must see a tree up to distance k. Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  31. Bounding the Optimum • The number of nodes decreases by factor at least /k on each level. • If >2k, n <n0+2n0k/ • All nodes V \ S0 form a feasible vertex cover, hence geometric series · n0k3/3: |VCOPT| < 2n0k/ · n0k2/2: · n0k/: n0: Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  32. v1 v0 Bounding any distributed algorithm • Assume that the labeling (IDs) is chosen uniformly at random: • Nodes v0 in S0 and v1 in S1 see • Same topology • Same probability distribution of labels • Both have same probability for being in VC (probability p) • p is at least ½,  otherwise there is a probability that VC is not feasible!  Therefore: At least half of the nodes in S0 join VC! • For all algorithms, there is labeling with |VCALG|¸n0/2 • Randomized: |VCALG|¸n0/2 by Yao’s minimax principle Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  33. Approximation Lower Bound • We have |VCALG| ¸ n0/2 and |VCOPT| < 2n0k/Approximation ¸ |VCALG|/|VCOPT| > /(4k) • n = O(k2),  = k+1 In k communication rounds, no algorithm can approximate MVC better than (nc/k2/k) or (1/k/k) Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  34. Time Lower Bound • For constant/polylog approximation, we need • Recall our vertex cover algorithm Can we do better? O(log ) time  O(1) approximation O(log /loglog ) time  O(polylog ) approximation Algorithm tight for polylog approximation and tight up to O(loglog ) for constant approximation! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  35. Hardness of Approximation  Exact Problems • Approximation Theory is very active area of research (see STOC, FOCS, SODA,...) • Study of lower bounds on approximation  Hardness of Approximation! • This has lead to new insight in complexity theory (PCP,...) Study of Approximability Better understanding of exact problems! Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  36. Hardness of Approximation  Exact Problems • Maximal matching (MM) is 2-approximation for MVC… • (MM) is maximal independent set (MIS) on line graph, … Does the same hold in distributed computing? To some degree, it does....! Compare with (log*n) lower bound on ring and O(log n) upper bound Time lower bounds for MIS and Maximal Matching Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  37. What about Dominating Sets ? • For each VC instance, there is graph on which dominating set is the same MVC bounds also hold for MDS • Approximation lower bound can also be extended to maximum matching (more than just a reduction) Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  38. Conclusions • Locality is vital in distributed systems. • Not much is known so far... • In this talk, lower bounds on local computation  tight up to a factor of and  Vertex Cover, Dominating Set, Maximum Matching, MIS, Maximal Matching,... • The hardness of distributed approximation is an interesting research topic Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

  39. Questions?Comments? DistributedComputing Group Thomas Moscibroda @ DANSS 2004

More Related