Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3626183.3660265acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesspaaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Brief Announcement: Upper and Lower Bounds for Edit Distance in Space-Efficient MPC

Published: 17 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In the Massively Parallel Computation (MPC) model, data is distributed across multiple processors, and we call an algorithm space-efficient if each machine has n^1-ε + o(1) memory with a machine count of Ømega(n^ε).
In this paper, we study the string edit distance problem in the MPC model, presenting both a new algorithm and lower-bound results. A space-efficient MPC algorithm computing the exact edit distance using O(n^ε) communication rounds is known by updating the algorithm of Chowdhury and Ramachandran (SPAA 2008). A key contribution of our work is the introduction of the first space-efficient MPC algorithm, which uses subpolynomial number of rounds and provides an n^o(1) -approximation of edit distance, where n denotes the length of the input strings.
Further, we complement this algorithm with new lower-bound results. The Orthogonal Vector (O.V.) conjecture states that no truly subquadratic time algorithm exists for the Orthogonal Vector problem, and it follows directly from the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). Drawing inspiration from this, we propose the Strong O.V. Conjecture that posits that there is no space-efficient MPC algorithm capable of solving O.V. using n^ε - Ømega(1) communication rounds. The Strong O.V. conjecture has far-reaching consequences, yielding the first (or strengthened) lower bounds for a myriad of problems in the MPC model including graph diameter estimation, computing Fréchet distance, longest common subsequence, and dynamic time warping. Via an MPC reduction from O.V. to edit distance, we give the first conditional lower bound for string edit distance in the MPC model showing that there does not exist any space-efficient, n^ε - Ømega(1) -round MPC exact edit distance algorithm.

References

[1]
Amir Abboud, Arturs Backurs, and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2015a. Tight Hardness Results for LCS and Other Sequence Similarity Measures. In FOCS 2015. 59--78.
[2]
Amir Abboud, Virginia Vassilevska Williams, and Huacheng Yu. 2015b. Matching Triangles and Basing Hardness on an Extremely Popular Conjecture. In STOC. 41--50.
[3]
Alexandr Andoni, Robert Krauthgamer, and Krzysztof Onak. 2010. Polylogarithmic Approximation for Edit Distance and the Asymmetric Query Complexity. In FOCS 2010. 377--386.
[4]
Alberto Apostolico, Mikhail J. Atallah, Lawrence L. Larmore, and Scott McFaddin. 1990. Efficient Parallel Algorithms for String Editing and Related Problems. SIAM J. Comput., Vol. 19, 5 (1990), 968--988.
[5]
Arturs Backurs and Piotr Indyk. 2018. Edit distance cannot be computed in strongly subquadratic time (unless SETH is false). SIAM J. Comput. (2018), 1087--1097.
[6]
Mahdi Boroujeni, Soheil Ehsani, Mohammad Ghodsi, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, and Saeed Seddighin. 2018. Approximating Edit Distance in Truly Subquadratic Time: Quantum and MapReduce. In SODA 2018, 2018. 1170--1189.
[7]
Mahdi Boroujeni and Saeed Seddighin. 2019. Improved MPC algorithms for edit distance and Ulam distance. In The 31st ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures. 31--40.
[8]
Karl Bringmann. 2014. Why Walking the Dog Takes Time: Frechet Distance Has No Strongly Subquadratic Algorithms Unless SETH Fails. In FOCS 2014. IEEE Computer Society, 661--670.
[9]
Karl Bringmann, Alejandro Cassis, Nick Fischer, and Vasileios Nakos. 2022. Almost-optimal sublinear-time edit distance in the low distance regime. In STOC, 2022. 1102--1115.
[10]
Karl Bringmann and Marvin Künnemann. 2015. Quadratic Conditional Lower Bounds for String Problems and Dynamic Time Warping. In FOCS, 2015. 79--97.
[11]
Rezaul Alam Chowdhury and Vijaya Ramachandran. 2008. Cache-efficient dynamic programming algorithms for multicores. In SPAA, 2008. 207--216.
[12]
Mohsen Ghaffari, Fabian Kuhn, and Jara Uitto. 2019. Conditional Hardness Results for Massively Parallel Computation from Distributed Lower Bounds. In FOCS. 1650--1663.
[13]
Michael T. Goodrich, Nodari Sitchinava, and Qin Zhang. 2011. Sorting, Searching, and Simulation in the MapReduce Framework. In ISAAC 2011. 374--383.
[14]
MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Saeed Seddighin, and Xiaorui Sun. 2019. Massively Parallel Approximation Algorithms for Edit Distance and Longest Common Subsequence. In SODA, 2019. 1654--1672.
[15]
Danupon Nanongkai and Michele Scquizzato. 2020. Equivalence Classes and Conditional Hardness in Massively Parallel Computations. CoRR, Vol. abs/2001.02191 (2020).
[16]
Liam Roditty and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2013. Fast approximation algorithms for the diameter and radius of sparse graphs. In STOC 2013. 515--524.

Index Terms

  1. Brief Announcement: Upper and Lower Bounds for Edit Distance in Space-Efficient MPC

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SPAA '24: Proceedings of the 36th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures
      June 2024
      510 pages
      ISBN:9798400704161
      DOI:10.1145/3626183
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 17 June 2024

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. approximation
      2. edit distance
      3. hardness
      4. massively parallel computations

      Qualifiers

      • Extended-abstract

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      SPAA '24
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 447 of 1,461 submissions, 31%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 57
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)57
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
      Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media