Lambda Calculus for Engineers

In pure functional programming it is awkward to use a stateful sub-computation in a predominantly stateless computation. The problem is that the state of the subcomputation has to be passed around using ugly plumbing. Classical examples of the plumbing problem are: providing a supply of fresh names, and providing a supply of random numbers. We propose to use (deterministic) inductive definitions rather than recursion equations as a basic paradigm and show how this makes it easier to add the plumbing

Non-Local Probes Do Not Help with Graph Problems

This work bridges the gap between distributed and centralised models of computing in the context of sublinear-time graph algorithms. A priori, typical centralised models of computing (e.g., parallel decision trees or centralised local algorithms) seem to be much more powerful than distributed message-passing algorithms: centralised algorithms can directly probe any part of the input, while in distributed algorithms nodes can only communicate with their immediate neighbours. We show that for a large class of graph problems, this extra freedom does not help centralised algorithms at all: for example, efficient stateless deterministic centralised local algorithms can be simulated with efficient distributed message-passing algorithms. In particular, this enables us to transfer existing lower bound results from distributed algorithms to centralised local algorithms

A Note on Limited Pushdown Alphabets in Stateless Deterministic Pushdown Automata

Recently, an infinite hierarchy of languages accepted by stateless deterministic pushdown automata has been established based on the number of pushdown symbols. However, the witness language for the n-th level of the hierarchy is over an input alphabet with 2(n-1) elements. In this paper, we improve this result by showing that a binary alphabet is sufficient to establish this hierarchy. As a consequence of our construction, we solve the open problem formulated by Meduna et al. Then we extend these results to m-state realtime deterministic pushdown automata, for all m at least 1. The existence of such a hierarchy for m-state deterministic pushdown automata is left open

Best of Two Local Models: Local Centralized and Local Distributed Algorithms

We consider two models of computation: centralized local algorithms and local distributed algorithms. Algorithms in one model are adapted to the other model to obtain improved algorithms. Distributed vertex coloring is employed to design improved centralized local algorithms for: maximal independent set, maximal matching, and an approximation scheme for maximum (weighted) matching over bounded degree graphs. The improvement is threefold: the algorithms are deterministic, stateless, and the number of probes grows polynomially in $\log^* n$, where $n$ is the number of vertices of the input graph. The recursive centralized local improvement technique by Nguyen and Onak~\cite{onak2008} is employed to obtain an improved distributed approximation scheme for maximum (weighted) matching. The improvement is twofold: we reduce the number of rounds from $O(\log n)$ to $O(\log^*n)$ for a wide range of instances and, our algorithms are deterministic rather than randomized

Distributed Maximum Matching in Bounded Degree Graphs

We present deterministic distributed algorithms for computing approximate maximum cardinality matchings and approximate maximum weight matchings. Our algorithm for the unweighted case computes a matching whose size is at least (1-\eps) times the optimal in \Delta^{O(1/\eps)} + O\left(\frac{1}{\eps^2}\right) \cdot\log^*(n) rounds where $n$ is the number of vertices in the graph and $\Delta$ is the maximum degree. Our algorithm for the edge-weighted case computes a matching whose weight is at least (1-\eps) times the optimal in \log(\min\{1/\wmin,n/\eps\})^{O(1/\eps)}\cdot(\Delta^{O(1/\eps)}+\log^*(n)) rounds for edge-weights in [\wmin,1]. The best previous algorithms for both the unweighted case and the weighted case are by Lotker, Patt-Shamir, and Pettie~(SPAA 2008). For the unweighted case they give a randomized (1-\eps)-approximation algorithm that runs in O((\log(n)) /\eps^3) rounds. For the weighted case they give a randomized (1/2-\eps)-approximation algorithm that runs in O(\log(\eps^{-1}) \cdot \log(n)) rounds. Hence, our results improve on the previous ones when the parameters $\Delta$, \eps and \wmin are constants (where we reduce the number of runs from $O(\log(n))$ to $O(\log^*(n))$), and more generally when $\Delta$, 1/\eps and 1/\wmin are sufficiently slowly increasing functions of $n$. Moreover, our algorithms are deterministic rather than randomized.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1402.379