How to Elect a Low-energy Leader.

Yi-Jun Chang,Tsvi Kopelowitz,Seth Pettie,Ruosong Wang,Wei Zhan
2016-01-01
Abstract: many networks of wireless devices the scarcest resource is energy, and the lionu0027s share of energy is often spent on sending and receiving packets. this paper we present a comprehensive study of the energy complexity of fundamental problems in wireless networks with four different levels of collision detection: Strong-CD (in which transmitters and listeners detect collisions), Sender-CD (in which transmitters detect collisions, indirectly), Receiver-CD (in which listeners detect collisions), and No-CD (in which no one detects collisions). show that the randomized energy complexity of Approximate Counting and Leader Election is $Omega(log^* n)$ in Sender-CD and No-CD but $Omega(log(log^* n))$ in Strong-CD and Receiver-CD, and also provide matching upper bounds. This establishes an exponential separation between the Sender-CD and Receiver-CD models, and also confirms that the recent $O(log(log^* n))$ Contention Resolution protocol of Bender et al. (STOC 2016) is optimal in Strong-CD. In the deterministic setting, all $n$ devices have unique IDs in the range $[N]$. We establish another exponential separation between the deterministic Sender-CD and Receiver-CD models in the opposite direction. We show that Leader Election can be solved with $O(log log N)$ energy in the deterministic Sender-CD model, and give a matching $Omega(log log N)$ energy lower bound in the Strong-CD model. However, in Receiver-CD and No-CD the energy complexity of these problems jumps to $Theta(log N)$. For the special case where $n = Theta(N)$, we prove that Leader Election can be solved with only $O(alpha(N))$ energy in No-CD. To our best knowledge, this is the first time the inverse-Ackermann function appears in the field of distributed computing.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?