Paper detail

How to Spread a Rumor: Call Your Neighbors or Take a Walk?

We study the problem of randomized information dissemination in networks. We compare the now standard PUSH-PULL protocol, with agent-based alternatives where information is disseminated by a collection of agents performing independent random walks. In the VISIT-EXCHANGE protocol, both nodes and agents store information, and each time an agent visits a node, the two exchange all the information they have. In the MEET-EXCHANGE protocol, only the agents store information, and exchange their information with each agent they meet. We consider the broadcast time of a single piece of information in an $n$-node graph for the above three protocols, assuming a linear number of agents that start from the stationary distribution. We observe that there are graphs on which the agent-based protocols are significantly faster than PUSH-PULL, and graphs where the converse is true. We attribute the good performance of agent-based algorithms to their inherently fair bandwidth utilization, and conclude that, in certain settings, agent-based information dissemination, separately or in combination with PUSH-PULL, can significantly improve the broadcast time. The graphs considered above are highly non-regular. Our main technical result is that on any regular graph of at least logarithmic degree, PUSH-PULL and VISIT-EXCHANGE have the same asymptotic broadcast time. The proof uses a novel coupling argument which relates the random choices of vertices in PUSH-PULL with the random walks in VISIT-EXCHANGE. Further, we show that the broadcast time of MEET-EXCHANGE is asymptotically at least as large as the other two's on all regular graphs, and strictly larger on some regular graphs. As far as we know, this is the first systematic and thorough comparison of the running times of these very natural information dissemination protocols.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.