Public vs. Private Randomness in Simultaneous Multi-party Communication Complexity

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9988)

Abstract

In simultaneous number-in-hand multi-party communication protocols, we have k players, who each receive a private input, and wish to compute a joint function of their inputs. The players simultaneously each send a single message to a referee, who then outputs the value of the function. The cost of the protocol is the total number of bits sent to the referee.

For two players, it is known that giving the players a public (shared) random string is much more useful than private randomness: public-coin protocols can be unboundedly better than deterministic protocols, while private-coin protocols can only give a quadratic improvement on deterministic protocols.

We extend the two-player gap to multiple players, and show that the private-coin communication complexity of a k-player function f is at least \(\varOmega (\sqrt{D(f)})\) for any \(k \ge 2\). Perhaps surprisingly, this bound is tight: although one might expect the gap between private-coin and deterministic protocols to grow with the number of players, we show that the All-Equality function, where each player receives n bits of input and the players must determine if their inputs are all the same, can be solved by a private-coin protocol with \(\tilde{O}(\sqrt{nk}+k)\) bits. Since All-Equality has deterministic complexity \(\varTheta (nk)\), this shows that sometimes the gap scales only as the square root of the number of players, and consequently the number of bits each player needs to send actually decreases as the number of players increases. We also consider the Exists-Equality function, where we ask whether there is a pair of players that received the same input, and prove a nearly-tight bound of \(\tilde{\varTheta }(k \sqrt{n})\) for it.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn, K.J., Guha, S., McGregor, A.: Graph sketches: sparsification, spanners, and subgraphs. In: Proceedings of the 31st Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2012, pp. 5–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambainis, A.: Communication complexity in a 3-computer model. Algorithmica 16(3), 298–301 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babai, L., Kimmel, P.G.: Randomized simultaneous messages: solution of a problem of yao in communication complexity. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 1997, p. 239. IEEE Computer Society (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Babai, L., Gál, A., Kimmel, P.G., Lokam, S.V.: Communication complexity of simultaneous messages. SIAM J. Comput. 33(1), 137–166 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becker, F., Matamala, M., Nisse, N., Rapaport, I., Suchan, K., Todinca, I.: Adding a referee to an interconnection network: what can(not) be computed in one round. In: 25th IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, IPDPS 2011, pp. 508–514 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker, F., Montealegre, P., Rapaport, I., Todinca, I.: The simultaneous number-in-hand communication model for networks: private coins, public coins and determinism. In: Halldórsson, M.M. (ed.) SIROCCO 2014. LNCS, vol. 8576, pp. 83–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09620-9_8 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bourgain, J., Wigderson, A.: Personal communication (see [3])Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakrabarti, A., Shi, Y., Wirth, A., Yao, A.: Informational complexity and the direct sum problem for simultaneous message complexity. In: Proceedings of the Fourty-Second Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2001, pp. 270–278 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandra, A.K., Furst, M.L., Lipton, R.J.: Multi-party protocols. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1983, pp. 94–99 (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chattopadhyay, A., Radhakrishnan, J., Rudra, A.: Topology matters in communication. In: 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 18–21 October 2014, pp. 631–640 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain, R., Klauck, H.: New results in the simultaneous message passing model via information theoretic techniques. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, CCC 2009, pp. 369–378 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kremer, I., Nisan, N., Ron, D.: On randomized one-round communication complexity. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1995, pp. 596–605 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kushilevitz, E., Nisan, N.: Communication Complexity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacWilliams, F.J., Sloane, N.J.A.: The Theory of Error Correcting Codes. North-Halland, Amsterdam (1981)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGregor, A.: Open problem 65. List of Open Problems in Sublinear Algorithms. http://sublinear.info/index.php?title=Open_Problems:65
  16. 16.
    Newman, I., Szegedy, M.: Public vs. private coin flips in one round communication games (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1996, pp. 561–570 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weinstein, O., Woodruff, D.P.: The simultaneous communication of disjointness with applications to data streams. In: Halldórsson, M.M., Iwama, K., Kobayashi, N., Speckmann, B. (eds.) ICALP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9134, pp. 1082–1093. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-47672-7_88 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yao, A.C.-C.: Some complexity questions related to distributive computing (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1979, pp. 209–213 (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations