Advertisement

Distributed Symmetry Breaking in Hypergraphs

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8784)

Abstract

Fundamental local symmetry breaking problems such as Maximal Independent Set (MIS) and coloring have been recognized as important by the community, and studied extensively in (standard) graphs. In particular, fast (i.e., logarithmic run time) randomized algorithms are well-established for MIS and Δ + 1-coloring in both the LOCAL and CONGEST distributed computing models. On the other hand, comparatively much less is known on the complexity of distributed symmetry breaking in hypergraphs. In particular, a key question is whether a fast (randomized) algorithm for MIS exists for hypergraphs.

In this paper, we study the distributed complexity of symmetry breaking in hypergraphs by presenting distributed randomized algorithms for a variety of fundamental problems under a natural distributed computing model for hypergraphs. We first show that MIS in hypergraphs (of arbitrary dimension) can be solved in O(log2 n) rounds (n is the number of nodes of the hypergraph) in the LOCAL model. We then present a key result of this paper — an O(Δ ε polylog n)-round hypergraph MIS algorithm in the CONGEST model where Δ is the maximum node degree of the hypergraph and ε > 0 is any arbitrarily small constant. We also present distributed algorithms for coloring, maximal matching, and maximal clique in hypergraphs.

To demonstrate the usefulness of hypergraph MIS, we present applications of our hypergraph algorithm to solving problems in (standard) graphs. In particular, the hypergraph MIS yields fast distributed algorithms for the balanced minimal dominating set problem (left open in Harris et al. [ICALP 2013]) and the minimal connected dominating set problem.

Our work shows that while some local symmetry breaking problems such as coloring can be solved in polylogarithmic rounds in both the LOCAL and CONGEST models, for many other hypergraph problems such as MIS, hitting set, and maximal clique, it remains challenging to obtain polylogarithmic time algorithms in the CONGEST model. This work is a step towards understanding this dichotomy in the complexity of hypergraph problems as well as using hypergraphs to design fast distributed algorithms for problems in (standard) graphs.

Keywords

Maximal Clique Minimal Vertex Cover Maximum Node Degree Pram Model Congest Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alon, N., Spencer, J.: The Probabilistic Method. Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. Wiley (2008), http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=V8YgNioxF6AC
  2. 2.
    Avin, C., Lando, Y., Lotker, Z.: Radio cover time in hyper-graphs. Ad Hoc Networks 12, 278–290 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azar, Y., Naor, J., Rom, R.: The competitiveness of on-line assignments. In: Frederickson, G.N. (ed.) SODA, pp. 203–210. ACM/SIAM (1992), http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/soda/soda92.html#AzarNR92
  4. 4.
    Balakrishnan, H., Barrett, C.L., Kumar, V.S.A., Marathe, M.V., Thite, S.: The distance-2 matching problem and its relationship to the mac-layer capacity of ad hoc wireless networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 22(6), 1069–1079 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barenboim, L., Elkin, M.: Distributed Graph Coloring: Fundamentals and Recent Developments. Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beame, P., Luby, M.: Parallel search for maximal independence given minimal dependence. In: SODA, pp. 212–218 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bercea, I., Goyal, N., Harris, D., Srinivasan, A.: On computing maximal independent sets of hypergraphs in parallel. In: SPAA (June 2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, Y.P., Liestman, A.L.: Approximating minimum size weakly-connected dominating sets for clustering mobile ad hoc networks. In: MobiHoc, pp. 165–172 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chlamtac, I., Kutten, S.: Tree-based broadcasting in multihop radio networks. IEEE Trans. Computers 36(10), 1209–1223 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dai, F., Wu, J.: An extended localized algorithm for connected dominating set formation in ad hoc wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 15(10), 908–920 (2004), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2004.48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Das, B., Bharghavan, V.: Routing in ad-hoc networks using minimum connected dominating sets. In: ICC (1), pp. 376–380 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubhashi, D.P., Mei, A., Panconesi, A., Radhakrishnan, J., Srinivasan, A.: Fast distributed algorithms for (weakly) connected dominating sets and linear-size skeletons. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 71(4), 467–479 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ephremides, A., Truong, T.V.: Scheduling broadcasts in multihop radio networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications 38(4), 456–460 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garay, J.A., Kutten, S., Peleg, D.: A sublinear time distributed algorithm for minimum-weight spanning trees. SIAM J. Comput. 27(1), 302–316 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghaffari, M.: Near-optimal distributed approximation of minimum-weight connected dominating set. In: Esparza, J., Fraigniaud, P., Husfeldt, T., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) ICALP 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8573, pp. 483–494. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harris, D.G., Morsy, E., Pandurangan, G., Robinson, P., Srinivasan, A.: Efficient computation of balanced structures. In: Fomin, F.V., Freivalds, R., Kwiatkowska, M., Peleg, D. (eds.) ICALP 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7966, pp. 581–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karp, R.M., Ramachandran, V.: Parallel algorithms for shared-memory machines. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. A, pp. 869–942 (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karp, R.M., Upfal, E., Wigderson, A.: The complexity of parallel search. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 36(2), 225–253 (1988), announced at STOC 1985 and FOCS 1985 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kelsen, P.: On the parallel complexity of computing a maximal independent set in a hypergraph. In: STOC, pp. 339–350 (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhn, F., Moscibroda, T., Wattenhofer, R.: Local computation: Lower and upper bounds. CoRR abs/1011.5470 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kutten, S., Pandurangan, G., Peleg, D., Robinson, P., Trehan, A.: On the complexity of universal leader election. In: PODC, pp. 100–109 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kutten, S., Peleg, D.: Fast distributed construction of small k-dominating sets and applications. J. Algorithms 28(1), 40–66 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Linial, N.: Locality in distributed graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 21(1), 193–201 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Linial, N.: Dijkstra award talk Jerusalem (2013), http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~nati/PAPERS/disc_2013.pdf
  25. 25.
    Linial, N., Saks, M.E.: Low diameter graph decompositions. Combinatorica 13(4), 441–454 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luby, M.: A simple parallel algorithm for the maximal independent set problem. SIAM J. Comput. 15(4), 1036–1053 (1986), announced at STOC 1985Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luczak, T., Szymanska, E.: A parallel randomized algorithm for finding a maximal independent set in a linear hypergraph. J. Algorithms 25(2), 311–320 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Makino, K., Kameda, T.: Efficient generation of all regular non-dominated coteries. In: PODC, pp. 279–288 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Métivier, Y., Robson, J.M., Saheb-Djahromi, N., Zemmari, A.: An optimal bit complexity randomized distributed mis algorithm. Distributed Computing 23(5-6), 331–340 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peleg, D.: Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. SIAM, Philadelphia (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sarma, A.D., Holzer, S., Kor, L., Korman, A., Nanongkai, D., Pandurangan, G., Peleg, D., Wattenhofer, R.: Distributed verification and hardness of distributed approximation. SIAM J. Comput. 41(5), 1235–1265 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thurimella, R.: Sub-linear distributed algorithms for sparse certificates and biconnected components. J. Algorithms 23(1), 160–179 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social network analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of IE&MTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of ViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HoustonUSA
  4. 4.School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options