Do unique node identifiers help in deciding whether a network G has a prescribed property P? We study this question in the context of distributed local decision, where the objective is to decide whether G has property P by having each node run a constant-time distributed decision algorithm. In a yes-instance all nodes should output yes, while in a no-instance at least one node should output no. Recently, (OPODIS 2012) gave several conditions under which identifiers are not needed, and they conjectured that identifiers are not needed in any decision problem. In the present work, we disprove the conjecture. More than that, we analyse two critical variations of the underlying model of distributed computing: (B): the size of the identifiers is bounded by a function of the size of the input network, (¬B): the identifiers are unbounded, (C): the nodes run a computable algorithm, (¬C): the nodes can compute any, possibly uncomputable function. While it is easy to see that under (¬B, ¬C) identifiers are not needed, we show that under all other combinations there are properties that can be decided locally if and only if identifiers are present.
It turns out that in decision problems, unique identifiers are helpful for one reason, and for one reason only: obtaining an estimate on @math , the number of nodes. Indeed, by prior work we already know that @math holds assuming that every node knows an upper bound on the total number of nodes in the input graph @cite_7 .
@cite_7
2054573207 2135290452 2123081773 2124068769
Do unique node identifiers help in deciding whether a network G has a prescribed property P? We study this question in the context of distributed local decision, where the objective is to decide whether G has property P by having each node run a constant-time distributed decision algorithm. In a yes-instance all nodes should output yes, while in a no-instance at least one node should output no. Recently, (OPODIS 2012) gave several conditions under which identifiers are not needed, and they conjectured that identifiers are not needed in any decision problem. In the present work, we disprove the conjecture. More than that, we analyse two critical variations of the underlying model of distributed computing: (B): the size of the identifiers is bounded by a function of the size of the input network, (¬B): the identifiers are unbounded, (C): the nodes run a computable algorithm, (¬C): the nodes can compute any, possibly uncomputable function. While it is easy to see that under (¬B, ¬C) identifiers are not needed, we show that under all other combinations there are properties that can be decided locally if and only if identifiers are present. In the study of deterministic distributed algorithms it is commonly assumed that each node has a unique O(log n)-bit identifier. We prove that for a general class of graph problems, local algorithms (constant-time distributed algorithms) do not need such identifiers: a port numbering and orientation is sufficient. Our result holds for so-called simple PO-checkable graph optimisation problems; this includes many classical packing and covering problems such as vertex covers, edge covers, matchings, independent sets, dominating sets, and edge dominating sets. We focus on the case of bounded-degree graphs and show that if a local algorithm finds a constant-factor approximation of a simple PO-checkable graph problem with the help of unique identifiers, then the same approximation ratio can be achieved on anonymous networks. As a corollary of our result and by prior work, we derive a tight lower bound on the local approximability of the minimum edge dominating set problem. Our main technical tool is an algebraic construction of homogeneously ordered graphs: We say that a graph is (α,r)-homogeneous if its nodes are linearly ordered so that an α fraction of nodes have pairwise isomorphic radius-r neighbourhoods. We show that there exists a finite (α,r)-homogeneous 2k-regular graph of girth at least g for any α The issue of identifiers is crucial in distributed computing. Informally, identities are used for tackling two of the fundamental difficulties that are inherent to deterministic distributed computing, namely: (1) symmetry breaking, and (2) topological information gathering. In the context of local computation, i.e., when nodes can gather information only from nodes at bounded distances, some insight regarding the role of identities has been established. For instance, it was shown that, for large classes of construction problems, the role of the identities can be rather small. However, for the identities to play no role, some other kinds of mechanisms for breaking symmetry must be employed, such as edge-labeling or sense of direction. When it comes to local distributed decision problems, the specification of the decision task does not seem to involve symmetry breaking. Therefore, it is expected that, assuming nodes can gather sufficient information about their neighborhood, one could get rid of the identities, without employing extra mechanisms for breaking symmetry. We tackle this question in the framework of the ( LOCAL ) model. In anonymous networks, the processors do not have identity numbers. We investigate the following representative problems on anonymous networks: (a) the leader election problem, (b) the edge election problem, (c) the spanning tree construction problem, and (d) the topology recognition problem. On a given network, the above problems may or may not be solvable, depending on the amount of information about the attributes of the network made available to the processors. Some possibilities are: (1) no network attribute information at all is available, (2) an upper bound on the number of processors in the network is available, (3) the exact number of processors in the network is available, and (4) the topology of the network is available. In terms of a new graph property called "symmetricity", in each of the four cases (1)-(4) above, we characterize the class of networks on which each of the four problems (a)(d) is solvable. We then relate the symmetricity of a network to its 1- and 2-factors.