Paper detail

On the Influence of Graph Density on Randomized Gossiping

Information dissemination is a fundamental problem in parallel and distributed computing. In its simplest variant, the broadcasting problem, a message has to be spread among all nodes of a graph. A prominent communication protocol for this problem is based on the random phone call model (Karp et al., FOCS 2000). In each step, every node opens a communication channel to a randomly chosen neighbor for bi-directional communication. Motivated by replicated databases and peer-to-peer networks, Berenbrink et al., ICALP 2010, considered the gossiping problem in the random phone call model. There, each node starts with its own message and all messages have to be disseminated to all nodes in the network. They showed that any $O(\log n)$-time algorithm in complete graphs requires $Ω(\log n)$ message transmissions per node to complete gossiping, w.h.p, while for broadcasting the average number of transmissions per node is $O(\log\log n)$. It is known that the $O(n\log\log n)$ bound on the number of transmissions required for randomized broadcasting in complete graphs cannot be achieved in sparse graphs even if they have best expansion and connectivity properties. In this paper, we analyze whether a similar influence of the graph density also holds w.r.t. the performance of gossiping. We study analytically and empirically the communication overhead generated by randomized gossiping in random graphs and consider simple modifications of the random phone call model in these graphs. Our results indicate that, unlike in broadcasting, there is no significant difference between the performance of randomized gossiping in complete graphs and sparse random graphs. Furthermore, our simulations indicate that by tuning the parameters of our algorithms, we can significantly reduce the communication overhead compared to the traditional push-pull approach in the graphs we consider.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 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.