skip to main content
10.1145/2484239.2484274acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

On the complexity of universal leader election

Published: 22 July 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Electing a leader is a fundamental task in distributed computing. In its implicit version, only the leader must know who is the elected leader. This paper focuses on studying the message and time complexity of randomized implicit leader election in synchronous distributed networks. Surprisingly, the most "obvious" complexity bounds have not been proven for randomized algorithms. The "obvious" lower bounds of Ω(m) messages (m is the number of edges in the network) and Ω(D) time (D is the network diameter) are non-trivial to show for randomized (Monte Carlo) algorithms. (Recent results that show that even Ω(n) (n is the number of nodes in the network) is not a lower bound on the messages in complete networks, make the above bounds somewhat less obvious). To the best of our knowledge, these basic lower bounds have not been established even for deterministic algorithms (except for the limited case of comparison algorithms, where it was also required that some nodes may not wake up spontaneously, and that D and n were not known).
We establish these fundamental lower bounds in this paper for the general case, even for randomized Monte Carlo algorithms. Our lower bounds are universal in the sense that they hold for all universal algorithms (such algorithms should work for all graphs), apply to every D, m, and n, and hold even if D, m, and n are known, all the nodes wake up simultaneously, and the algorithms can make anyuse of node's identities. To show that these bounds are tight, we present an O(m) messages algorithm. An O(D) time algorithm is known. A slight adaptation of our lower bound technique gives rise to an Ω(m) message lower bound for randomized broadcast algorithms.
An interesting fundamental problem is whether both upper bounds (messages and time) can be reached simultaneously in the randomized setting for all graphs. (The answer is known to be negative in the deterministic setting). We answer this problem partially by presenting a randomized algorithm that matches both complexities in some cases. This already separates (for some cases) randomized algorithms from deterministic ones. As first steps towards the general case, we present several universal leader election algorithms with bounds that trade-off messages versus time. We view our results as a step towards understanding the complexity of universal leader election in distributed networks.

References

[1]
H. Abu-Amara and A. Kanevsky. On the complexities of leader election algorithms. In ICCI, 202--206, 1993.
[2]
Y. Afek and E. Gafni. Time and message bounds for election in synchronous and asynchronous complete networks. SIAM Journal on Computing, 20(2):376--394, 1991.
[3]
Hagit Attiya and Jennifer Welch. Distributed Computing. (2nd ed.). John Wiley Interscience, 2004.
[4]
B. Awerbuch. Optimal distributed algorithms for minimum weight spanning tree, counting, leader election, and related problems. In STOC '87, pages 230--240, New York, USA, 1987. ACM.
[5]
Baruch Awerbuch, Oded Goldreich, Ronen Vainish, and David Peleg. A trade-off between information and communication in broadcast protocols. J. ACM, 37(2):238--256, April 1990.
[6]
Surender Baswana and Sandeep Sen. A simple and linear time randomized algorithm for computing sparse spanners in weighted graphs. Random Struct. Algorithms, 30(4):532--563, 2007.
[7]
Greg N. Frederickson and Nancy A. Lynch. Electing a leader in a synchronous ring. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):98--115, 1987.
[8]
Emanuele G. Fusco and Andrzej Pelc. Knowledge, level of symmetry, and time of leader election. In ESA, pages 479--490, 2012.
[9]
Saurabh Ganeriwal, Ram Kumar, and Mani B. Srivastava. Timing-sync protocol for sensor networks. In SenSys, pages 138--149, 2003, New York, USA, 2003. ACM.
[10]
Maleq Khan, Fabian Kuhn, Dahlia Malkhi, Gopal Pandurangan, and Kunal Talwar. Efficient distributed approximation algorithms via probabilistic tree embeddings. Distributed Computing, 25(3):189--205, 2012.
[11]
E. Korach, S. Moran, and S. Zaks. Optimal lower bounds for some distributed algorithms for a complete network of processors. Theoretical Computer Science, 64(1):125--132, 1989.
[12]
Shay Kutten, Gopal Pandurangan, David Peleg, Peter Robinson, and Amitabh Trehan. Sublinear bounds for randomized leader election. In ICDCN'13, pages 348--362, 2013.
[13]
Gérard Le Lann. Distributed systems - towards a formal approach. In IFIP Congress, p. 155--160, 1977.
[14]
Nancy Lynch. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, USA, 1996.
[15]
Rajeev Motwani and Prabhakar Raghavan. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.
[16]
Erik Nygren, Ramesh K. Sitaraman, and Jennifer Sun. The Akamai network: a platform for high-performance internet applications. SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., 44(3):2--19, August 2010.
[17]
David Peleg. Time-optimal leader election in general networks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 8(1):96--99, 1990.
[18]
David Peleg. Distributed Computing: A Locality-Sensitive Approach. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000.
[19]
Nicola Santoro. Design and Analysis of Distributed Algorithms (Wiley Series on Parallel and Distributed Computing). Wiley-Interscience, 2006.
[20]
Gerard Tel. Introduction to distributed algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 1994.
[21]
Yong Yao and Johannes Gehrke. The cougar approach to in-network query processing in sensor networks. SIGMOD Rec., 31(3):9--18, 2002.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. On the complexity of universal leader election

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    PODC '13: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
    July 2013
    422 pages
    ISBN:9781450320658
    DOI:10.1145/2484239
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 22 July 2013

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. distributed algorithm
    2. leader election
    3. lower bound

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    PODC '13
    Sponsor:
    PODC '13: ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
    July 22 - 24, 2013
    Québec, Montréal, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    PODC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 37 of 145 submissions, 26%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 740 of 2,477 submissions, 30%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 03 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media