Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Improved Tradeoffs for Leader Election (2301.08235v4)

Published 19 Jan 2023 in cs.DC and cs.DS

Abstract: We consider leader election in clique networks, where $n$ nodes are connected by point-to-point communication links. For the synchronous clique under simultaneous wake-up, i.e., where all nodes start executing the algorithm in round $1$, we show a tradeoff between the number of messages and the amount of time. More specifically, we show that any deterministic algorithm with a message complexity of $n f(n)$ requires $\Omega\left(\frac{\log n}{\log f(n)+1}\right)$ rounds, for $f(n) = \Omega(\log n)$. Our result holds even if the node IDs are chosen from a relatively small set of size $\Theta(n\log n)$, as we are able to avoid using Ramsey's theorem. We also give an upper bound that improves over the previously-best tradeoff. Our second contribution for the synchronous clique under simultaneous wake-up is to show that $\Omega(n\log n)$ is in fact a lower bound on the message complexity that holds for any deterministic algorithm with a termination time $T(n)$. We complement this result by giving a simple deterministic algorithm that achieves leader election in sublinear time while sending only $o(n\log n)$ messages, if the ID space is of at most linear size. We also show that Las Vegas algorithms (that never fail) require $\Theta(n)$ messages. For the synchronous clique under adversarial wake-up, we show that $\Omega(n{3/2})$ is a tight lower bound for randomized $2$-round algorithms. Finally, we turn our attention to the asynchronous clique: Assuming adversarial wake-up, we give a randomized algorithm that achieves a message complexity of $O(n{1 + 1/k})$ and an asynchronous time complexity of $k+8$. For simultaneous wake-up, we translate the deterministic tradeoff algorithm of Afek and Gafni to the asynchronous model, thus partially answering an open problem they pose.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (23)
  1. Yehuda Afek and Eli Gafni. 1991. Time and message bounds for election in synchronous and asynchronous complete networks. SIAM J. Comput. 20, 2 (1991), 376–394.
  2. Yehuda Afek and Yossi Matias. 1994. Elections in anonymous networks. Information and Computation 113, 2 (1994), 312–330.
  3. Computation in networks of passively mobile finite-state sensors. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. 290–299.
  4. A trade-off between information and communication in broadcast protocols. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 37, 2 (1990), 238–256.
  5. Leader election and shape formation with self-organizing programmable matter. In International Workshop on DNA-Based Computers. Springer, 117–132.
  6. Greg N Frederickson. 1983. Tradeoffs for selection in distributed networks (Preliminary Version). In Proceedings of the second annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. 154–160.
  7. Greg N Frederickson and Nancy A Lynch. 1987. Electing a leader in a synchronous ring. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 34, 1 (1987), 98–115.
  8. Timing-sync protocol for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems. 138–149.
  9. Pierre A Humblet. 1984. Selecting a leader in a clique in 0 (N log N) messages. Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of ….
  10. Russell Impagliazzo and Valentine Kabanets. 2010. Constructive proofs of concentration bounds. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques. Springer, 617–631.
  11. Construction and impromptu repair of an MST in a distributed network with o (m) communication. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing. 71–80.
  12. A modular technique for the design of efficient distributed leader finding algorithms. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 12, 1 (1990), 84–101.
  13. Tight lower and upper bounds for some distributed algorithms for a complete network of processors. In Proceedings of the third annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. 199–207.
  14. Singularly Optimal Randomized Leader Election. In 34th International Symposium on Distributed Computing.
  15. On the complexity of universal leader election. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 62, 1 (2015), 1–27.
  16. Sublinear bounds for randomized leader election. Theoretical Computer Science 561 (2015), 134–143.
  17. Gérard Le Lann. 1977. Distributed Systems-Towards a Formal Approach.. In IFIP congress, Vol. 7. Toronto, 155–160.
  18. Nancy A Lynch. 1996. Distributed algorithms. Elsevier.
  19. The akamai network: a platform for high-performance internet applications. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 44, 3 (2010), 2–19.
  20. David Peleg. 2000. Distributed computing: a locality-sensitive approach. SIAM.
  21. Randomized leader election. Distributed Computing 19, 5 (2007), 403–418.
  22. Gurdip Singh. 1992. Leader election in complete networks. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. 179–190.
  23. Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke. 2002. The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks. ACM Sigmod record 31, 3 (2002), 9–18.
Citations (3)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.