Trade-Offs in Distributed Interactive Proofs

The study of interactive proofs in the context of distributed network computing is a novel topic, recently introduced by Kol, Oshman, and Saxena [PODC 2018]. In the spirit of sequential interactive proofs theory, we study the power of distributed interactive proofs. This is achieved via a series of results establishing trade-offs between various parameters impacting the power of interactive proofs, including the number of interactions, the certificate size, the communication complexity, and the form of randomness used. Our results also connect distributed interactive proofs with the established field of distributed verification. In general, our results contribute to providing structure to the landscape of distributed interactive proofs

Survey of Distributed Decision

We survey the recent distributed computing literature on checking whether a given distributed system configuration satisfies a given boolean predicate, i.e., whether the configuration is legal or illegal w.r.t. that predicate. We consider classical distributed computing environments, including mostly synchronous fault-free network computing (LOCAL and CONGEST models), but also asynchronous crash-prone shared-memory computing (WAIT-FREE model), and mobile computing (FSYNC model)

Small Cuts and Connectivity Certificates: A Fault Tolerant Approach

We revisit classical connectivity problems in the {CONGEST} model of distributed computing. By using techniques from fault tolerant network design, we show improved constructions, some of which are even "local" (i.e., with O~(1) rounds) for problems that are closely related to hard global problems (i.e., with a lower bound of Omega(Diam+sqrt{n}) rounds). Distributed Minimum Cut: Nanongkai and Su presented a randomized algorithm for computing a (1+epsilon)-approximation of the minimum cut using O~(D +sqrt{n}) rounds where D is the diameter of the graph. For a sufficiently large minimum cut lambda=Omega(sqrt{n}), this is tight due to Das Sarma et al. [FOCS \u2711], Ghaffari and Kuhn [DISC \u2713]. - Small Cuts: A special setting that remains open is where the graph connectivity lambda is small (i.e., constant). The only lower bound for this case is Omega(D), with a matching bound known only for lambda <= 2 due to Pritchard and Thurimella [TALG \u2711]. Recently, Daga, Henzinger, Nanongkai and Saranurak [STOC \u2719] raised the open problem of computing the minimum cut in poly(D) rounds for any lambda=O(1). In this paper, we resolve this problem by presenting a surprisingly simple algorithm, that takes a completely different approach than the existing algorithms. Our algorithm has also the benefit that it computes all minimum cuts in the graph, and naturally extends to vertex cuts as well. At the heart of the algorithm is a graph sampling approach usually used in the context of fault tolerant (FT) design. - Deterministic Algorithms: While the existing distributed minimum cut algorithms are randomized, our algorithm can be made deterministic within the same round complexity. To obtain this, we introduce a novel definition of universal sets along with their efficient computation. This allows us to derandomize the FT graph sampling technique, which might be of independent interest. - Computation of all Edge Connectivities: We also consider the more general task of computing the edge connectivity of all the edges in the graph. In the output format, it is required that the endpoints u,v of every edge (u,v) learn the cardinality of the u-v cut in the graph. We provide the first sublinear algorithm for this problem for the case of constant connectivity values. Specifically, by using the recent notion of low-congestion cycle cover, combined with the sampling technique, we compute all edge connectivities in poly(D) * 2^{O(sqrt{log n log log n})} rounds. Sparse Certificates: For an n-vertex graph G and an integer lambda, a lambda-sparse certificate H is a subgraph H subseteq G with O(lambda n) edges which is lambda-connected iff G is lambda-connected. For D-diameter graphs, constructions of sparse certificates for lambda in {2,3} have been provided by Thurimella [J. Alg. \u2797] and Dori [PODC \u2718] respectively using O~(D) number of rounds. The problem of devising such certificates with o(D+sqrt{n}) rounds was left open by Dori [PODC \u2718] for any lambda >= 4. Using connections to fault tolerant spanners, we considerably improve the round complexity for any lambda in [1,n] and epsilon in (0,1), by showing a construction of (1-epsilon)lambda-sparse certificates with O(lambda n) edges using only O(1/epsilon^2 * log^{2+o(1)} n) rounds

A Simple Deterministic Distributed MST Algorithm, with Near-Optimal Time and Message Complexities

Distributed minimum spanning tree (MST) problem is one of the most central and fundamental problems in distributed graph algorithms. Garay et al. \cite{GKP98,KP98} devised an algorithm with running time $O(D + \sqrt{n} \cdot \log^* n)$, where $D$ is the hop-diameter of the input $n$-vertex $m$-edge graph, and with message complexity $O(m + n^{3/2})$. Peleg and Rubinovich \cite{PR99} showed that the running time of the algorithm of \cite{KP98} is essentially tight, and asked if one can achieve near-optimal running time **together with near-optimal message complexity**. In a recent breakthrough, Pandurangan et al. \cite{PRS16} answered this question in the affirmative, and devised a **randomized** algorithm with time $\tilde{O}(D+ \sqrt{n})$ and message complexity $\tilde{O}(m)$. They asked if such a simultaneous time- and message-optimality can be achieved by a **deterministic** algorithm. In this paper, building upon the work of \cite{PRS16}, we answer this question in the affirmative, and devise a **deterministic** algorithm that computes MST in time $O((D + \sqrt{n}) \cdot \log n)$, using $O(m \cdot \log n + n \log n \cdot \log^* n)$ messages. The polylogarithmic factors in the time and message complexities of our algorithm are significantly smaller than the respective factors in the result of \cite{PRS16}. Also, our algorithm and its analysis are very **simple** and self-contained, as opposed to rather complicated previous sublinear-time algorithms \cite{GKP98,KP98,E04b,PRS16}