Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 2019
DOI: 10.1137/1.9781611975482.48
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sublinear Algorithms for (Δ + 1) Vertex Coloring

Abstract: Any graph with maximum degree ∆ admits a proper vertex coloring with ∆ + 1 colors that can be found via a simple sequential greedy algorithm in linear time and space. But can one find such a coloring via a sublinear algorithm?We answer this fundamental question in the affirmative for several canonical classes of sublinear algorithms including graph streaming, sublinear time, and massively parallel computation (MPC) algorithms. In particular, we design:

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

2
195
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(232 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
(81 reference statements)
2
195
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Up until this point, there is no contradiction as the answer to inputs (1, * ),(1, * ) to Alice and Bob is always 1 and hence there is no problem with the corresponding transcripts in Π [1 * , 1 * ] to be similar (similarly for Π [ * 1, * 1] separately). However, we combine this with the cut-and-paste property of randomized protocols based on Hellinger distance (see Fact B.14) to argue that in fact the distribution of Π [10,10] and Π [01, 01] are also similar. This then implies that Π [1 * , 1 * ] essentially has the same distribution as Π [ * 1, * 1] ; but then this is a contradiction as the answer to the protocol (which is only a function of the transcript) needs to be different between these two types of inputs.…”
Section: A New Communication Lower Bound For Set Intersectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Up until this point, there is no contradiction as the answer to inputs (1, * ),(1, * ) to Alice and Bob is always 1 and hence there is no problem with the corresponding transcripts in Π [1 * , 1 * ] to be similar (similarly for Π [ * 1, * 1] separately). However, we combine this with the cut-and-paste property of randomized protocols based on Hellinger distance (see Fact B.14) to argue that in fact the distribution of Π [10,10] and Π [01, 01] are also similar. This then implies that Π [1 * , 1 * ] essentially has the same distribution as Π [ * 1, * 1] ; but then this is a contradiction as the answer to the protocol (which is only a function of the transcript) needs to be different between these two types of inputs.…”
Section: A New Communication Lower Bound For Set Intersectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using a reduction from hidden-pointer chasing, we prove that any algorithm for submodular function minimization needs to make n 2−o(1) value queries to the function unless it has a polynomial degree of adaptivity.A vast body of work in graph streaming lower bounds concerns algorithms that make only one or a few passes over the stream. Examples of single-pass lower bounds include the ones for diameter [60], approximate matchings [13,14,63,84], exact minimum/maximum cuts [119], and maximal independent sets [10,46]. Examples of multi-pass lower bounds include the ones for BFS trees [60], perfect matchings [67], shortest path [67], and minimum vertex cover and dominating set [71].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations