Advertisement

Space-Time Tradeoffs for Distributed Verification

  • Rafail Ostrovsky
  • Mor Perry
  • Will Rosenbaum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10641)

Abstract

Verifying that a network configuration satisfies a given boolean predicate is a fundamental problem in distributed computing. Many variations of this problem have been studied, for example, in the context of proof labeling schemes (\(\mathrm {PLS}\)), locally checkable proofs (\(\mathrm {LCP}\)), and non-deterministic local decision (\(\mathrm {NLD}\)). In all of these contexts, verification time is assumed to be constant. Korman et al. [16] presented a proof-labeling scheme for MST, with poly-logarithmic verification time, and logarithmic memory at each vertex.

In this paper we introduce the notion of a \(t\text {-}\mathrm {PLS}\), which allows the verification procedure to run for super-constant time. Our work analyzes the tradeoffs of \(t\text {-}\mathrm {PLS}\) between time, label size, message length, and computation space. We construct a universal \(t\text {-}\mathrm {PLS}\) and prove that it uses the same amount of total communication as a known one-round universal \(\mathrm {PLS}\), and t factor smaller labels. In addition, we provide a general technique to prove lower bounds for space-time tradeoffs of \(t\text {-}\mathrm {PLS}\). We use this technique to show an optimal tradeoff for testing that a network is acyclic (cycle free). Our optimal \(t\text {-}\mathrm {PLS}\) for acyclicity uses label size and computation space \(O((\log n)/t)\). We further describe a recursive \(O(\log ^* n)\) space verifier for acyclicity which does not assume previous knowledge of the run-time t.

References

  1. 1.
    Afek, Y., Kutten, S., Yung, M.: The local detection paradigm and its application to self-stabilization. Theor. Comput. Sci. 186(1–2), 199–229 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awerbuch, B., Ostrovsky, R.: Memory-efficient and self-stabilizing network reset (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of 13th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 1994, pp. 254–263. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Awerbuch, B., Patt-Shamir, B., Varghese, G.: Self-stabilization by local checking and correction. In: 32nd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 268–277. IEEE (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baruch, M., Fraigniaud, P., Patt-Shamir, B.: Randomized proof-labeling schemes. In: Proceedings of 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC, pp. 315–324 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baruch, M., Ostrovsky, R., Rosenbaum, W.: Brief announcement: space-time tradeoffs for distributed verification. In: Proceedings of 2016 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, PODC 2016, pp. 357–359. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baruch, M., Ostrovsky, R., Rosenbaum, W.: Space-time tradeoffs for distributed verification. CoRR, arXiv:1605.06814 (2016)
  7. 7.
    Blin, L., Fraigniaud, P., Patt-Shamir, B.: On proof-labeling schemes versus silent self-stabilizing algorithms. In: Felber, P., Garg, V. (eds.) SSS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8756, pp. 18–32. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11764-5_2 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das Sarma, A., 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
  9. 9.
    Feuilloley, L., Fraigniaud, P.: Survey of distributed decision. Bull. EATCS, 119 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foerster, K.-T., Luedi, T., Seidel, J., Wattenhofer, R.: Local checkability, no strings attached. In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, ICDCN 2016, pp. 21:1–21:10. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fraigniaud, P., Korman, A., Peleg, D.: Towards a complexity theory for local distributed computing. J. ACM 60(5), 35 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fraigniaud, P., Rajsbaum, S., Travers, C.: Locality and checkability in wait-free computing. Distrib. Comput. 26(4), 223–242 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Göös, M., Suomela, J.: Locally checkable proofs. In: 30th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 159–168 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Itkis, G., Levin, L.: Fast and lean self-stabilizing asynchronous protocols. In: Proceedings of 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, SFCS 1994, pp. 226–239. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korman, A., Kutten, S.: Distributed verification of minimum spanning trees. Distrib. Comput. 20, 253–266 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Korman, A., Kutten, S., Masuzawa, T.: Fast and compact self stabilizing verification, computation, and fault detection of an MST. In: 30th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC), pp. 311–320 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korman, A., Kutten, S., Peleg, D.: Proof labeling schemes. Distrib. Comput. 22(4), 215–233 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmid, S., Suomela, J.: Exploiting locality in distributed SDN control. In: Proceedings of 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking, HotSDN 2013, pp. 121–126. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Department of MathematicsUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.School of Electrical EngineeringTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations