Paper detail

An Exponential Separation Between Randomized and Deterministic Complexity in the LOCAL Model

Over the past 30 years numerous algorithms have been designed for symmetry breaking problems in the LOCAL model, such as maximal matching, MIS, vertex coloring, and edge-coloring. For most problems the best randomized algorithm is at least exponentially faster than the best deterministic algorithm. In this paper we prove that these exponential gaps are necessary and establish connections between the deterministic and randomized complexities in the LOCAL model. Each result has a very compelling take-away message: 1. Fast $Δ$-coloring of trees requires random bits: Building on the recent lower bounds of Brandt et al., we prove that the randomized complexity of $Δ$-coloring a tree with maximum degree $Δ\ge 55$ is $Θ(\log_Δ\log n)$, whereas its deterministic complexity is $Θ(\log_Δn)$ for any $Δ\ge 3$. This also establishes a large separation between the deterministic complexity of $Δ$-coloring and $(Δ+1)$-coloring trees. 2. Randomized lower bounds imply deterministic lower bounds: We prove that any deterministic algorithm for a natural class of problems that runs in $O(1)+o(\log_Δn)$ rounds can be transformed to run in $O(\log^*n-\log^*Δ+1)$ rounds. If the transformed algorithm violates a lower bound (even allowing randomization), then one can conclude that the problem requires $Ω(\log_Δn)$ time deterministically. 3. Deterministic lower bounds imply randomized lower bounds: We prove that the randomized complexity of any natural problem on instances of size $n$ is at least its deterministic complexity on instances of size $\sqrt{\log n}$. This shows that a deterministic $Ω(\log_Δn)$ lower bound for any problem implies a randomized $Ω(\log_Δ\log n)$ lower bound. It also illustrates that the graph shattering technique is absolutely essential to the LOCAL model.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.