According to the article The Truth About Bender’s Brain in the May 2009 issue of IEEE Spectrum, one of the writers of Futurama, Ken Keeler, “confirms that he does read every issue of IEEE Spectrum and occasionally looks at the Transactions on Information Theory.” So is it true that source coding people are more funny than channel coding people?
I didn’t realize this, but IEEE is not officially an acronym anymore:
The IEEE name was originally an acronym for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Today, the organization’s scope of interest has expanded into so many related fields, that it is simply referred to by the letters I-E-E-E (pronounced Eye-triple-E).
Was this recent, or has it been like that for a while? Perhaps it’s the family history, but I always thought that IEEE was supposed to be an acronym…
Scalable Routing Via Greedy Embedding
Cedric Westphal (Docomo Labs USA, US); Guanhong Pei (Virginia Tech, US)
In a network, a greedy routing strategy that sends packets to the neighbor closest to the destination may require routing tables of size . What we would like is to embed the network into (Euclidean or other) space in such a way that greedy routing requires only knowlege of your own location and your neighbor’s locations. The dimension needed may be as high as , but embedded graph may not be faithful to the true network, resulting in longer paths than greedy routing on the true network. This paper presents a practical distributed algorithm for embedding a graph with vertices into with greedy forwarding. It works by extracting a spanning tree from the network and then using random projections on the label space to go from dimension to dimension , using the popular results of Achlioptas. The tree structure serves as a backbone to avoid too much backtracking. The main point seems to be that the algorithm can be implemented in a distributed manner, but I was not clear on how this would be done.
Greedy Routing with Bounded Stretch
Roland Flury (ETH Zurich, Switzerland); Sriram Pemmaraju (The University of Iowa, US); Roger Wattenhofer (ETH Zurich, Switzerland)
This was another talk about greedy routing. If the network has holes in it (imagine a lake) then greedy routing can get stuck because there is no greedy step to take. So there are lots of algorithms out there for recovering when you are stuck. It would be far nicer to get a coordinate system for the graph such that greedy routing always works (in some sense), but so that the stretch is not too bad. This talk proposed a scheme which had three ingredients: spanning trees, separators, and isometric greedy embeddings. Basically the idea (from what I saw in the talk) is to use the existence of separators in the graph to build a tree cover of the graph and then do routing along the best tree in the cover. This guarantees the bounded stretch, and the number of trees needed is not too large, so the labels are not too large either. I think it was a rather nice paper, and between the previous one and this one I was introduced to a new problem I had not thought about before.
Routing Over Multi-hop Wireless Networks with Non-ergodic Mobility
Chris Milling (The University of Texas at Austin, US); Sundar Subramanian (Qualcomm Flarion Technologies, US); Sanjay Shakkottai (The University of Texas at Austin, US); Randall Berry (Northwestern University, US)
In this paper they had a network with some static nodes and some mobile nodes who move in prescribed areas but with no real “model” on their motion. They move arbitrarily according to some arbitrary continuous paths. Some static nodes need to route packets to the mobile nodes. How should they do this? A scheme is proposed in which the static node sends out probe packets to iteratively quarter the network and corral the mobile node. If the mobile crosses a boundary then a node close to the boundary will deliver the packet. An upperbound on the throughput can be shown by considering the mobiles to be at fixed locations (chosen to be the worst possible). This is essentially the worst case, since the rates achieved by their scheme are within a polylog factor of the upper bound. This suggests that the lack of knowledge of the user’s mobility patterns hurts very little in the scaling sense.
Allie sent this blog post my way about the Conyers bill, about which Lawrence Lessig has been quite critical. At the moment the NIH requires all publications from research it funds to be posted (e.g. on PubMed) so that the public can read them. This makes sense because the taxpayers paid for this research.
What Conyers wants is to do is end the requirement for free and public dissemination of research. Why? Lessig says he’s in the pocket of the publishing industry. From the standpoint of the taxpayer and a researcher, it’s hard to see a justification for this amendment. Conyers gives a procedural reason for the change, namely that “this so-called ‘open access’ policy was not subject to open hearings, open debate or open amendment.” So essentially he wants to go back to the status quo ante and then have a debate, rather than have a debate about whether we want to go back to the status quo ante.
From my perspective, spending Congressional time to do the equivalent of a Wikipedia reversion is a waste — if we want to debate whether to change the open access rules, let’s debate that now rather than changing the rules twice. I think we should expand open access to include the NSF too. It’s a bit tricky though, since most of my work is published (and publishable) within the IEEE. The professional societies could be a great ally in the open-access movement, but as Phil Davis points out, the rhetoric on both sides tends to leave them out.
Graph Sampling Techniques for Studying Unstructured Overlays
Amir Hassan Rasti Ekbatani (University of Oregon, US); Mojtaba Torkjazi (University of Oregon, US); Reza Rejaie (University of Oregon, US); Nick Duffield (AT&T Labs – Research, US); Walter Willinger (AT&T Labs – Research, US); Daniel Stutzbach (Stutzbach Enterprises LLC, US)
The question in this paper was how to collect network statistics (such as node degree) in peer-to-peer networks. Since peers join and leave, selecting a random peer is difficult because there are biases caused by high-degree peers and low-lifetime peers. One approach to correct for this is to use Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to sample from the nodes. This talk proposed respondent-driven sampling (RDS), a technique used to map social networks. The idea is to do a random walk on the network and gather statistics along the walk (not just at the end, as in MCMC). These measurements are biased, but then we can correct for the bias at the end (using something called the Hansen-Hurwitz estimator, which I don’t know much about). Experimental works showed a big improvement when vanilla MCMC and RDS were compared on hierarchical scale-free graphs.
A Framework for Efficient Class-based Sampling
Mohit Saxena (Purdue University, US); Ramana Rao Kompella (Purdue University, US)
This talk was about increasing the coverage of monitoring flows in networks. Currently routers sample flows uniformly, which catches the big “elephant” flows but not the low-volume “mouse” flows. In order to increase coverage, the authors propose dividing flows into classes and then sample the classes. So the architecture is to classify a packet first, then choose whether to sample it. The goal is to do a combination of sketching and hashing that shifts the complexity to slower memory, thereby saving costs. They use something called a composite Bloom filter to do this.
Estimating Hop Distance Between Arbitrary Host Pairs
Brian Eriksson (University of Wisconsin – Madison, US); Paul Barford (University of Wisconsin – Madison, US); Rob Nowak (University of Wisconsin, Madison, US)
Given a big network (like the internet) with end hosts and monitors, how can we estimate the hop distance between two end hosts from measurements between end hosts and monitors? This paper proposes using passive measurements, so that there may be many holes in the matrix of pairwise measurements. Their approach is to use a weighted version of multidimensional scaling (MDS) to deal with the holes. This approach can also be extended to deal with side information about the network topology (for example autonomous system IDs).
This was my first time going to Infocom, and I had a good time, despite being a bit out of my element. The crowd is a mix of electrical engineers and computer scientists, of theorists, experimentalists, and industry researchers. Although I often would go to a talk thinking I knew what it would be about, I often found that it was rather different than what I expected. At first this was a little alienating, but in the end I found it refreshing to be introduced to a host of new ideas and problems. Unfortunately, the lack of familiarity may translate into some misunderstandings in these posts; as usual, clarifying comments are welcome!
Below are the papers I couldn’t categorize into other areas.
Dynamic Power Allocation Under Arbitrary Varying Channels – An Online Approach
Niv Buchbinder (Technion University, IL); Liane Lewin-Eytan (Technion, IL); Ishai Menache (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US); Joseph (Seffi) Naor (Technion, IL); Ariel Orda (Technion, IL)
The model is that of an online power allocation problem wherein the gain of a fading channel varies over time in an unpredictable manner. At each time we can choose a power for the transmitter based on the past values and we will get a reward . Subject to a total power constraint, what is the optimal allocation policy, in terms of competitive optimality vs. an algorithm that knew in advance? They show lower bounds for any algorithm of for the competitive ratio and an achievable strategy by quantizing the possible fading values and executing an online allocations strategy for the discrete problem. Of course I went to this talk because it claimed to be about arbitrarily varying channels, but what was a little unconvincing to me was the abstraction — you have to choose not only a transmit power, but also a coding rate, so it’s unclear that in reality you will get utility each time. There may be a way to justify this kind of modeling using some rateless code constructions, which seems like an interesting problem to think about. UPDATE: I looked at the paper and saw that they are considering a block fading channel so you get that utility for a block of channel uses, and that the channel gain for the given slot is revealed to the transmitter, so you don’t need to be fancy with the underlying communication scheme.
Lightweight Coloring and Desynchronization for Networks
Arik Motskin (Stanford University, US); Tim Roughgarden (Stanford University, US); Primoz Skraba (Stanford University, US); Leonidas Guibas (Stanford University, US)
This paper was on duty-cyling nodes in a sensor network to preserve power and avoid interference. In particular, we would like to color the nodes of the network so that no two neighbors are awake at the same time (thereby improving coverage efficiency and lowering interference to a centralized receiver). This can be mapped to problem of allocating intervals on a circle of circumference (the cycle time) such that two neighbors in the graph do not get overlapping intervals. Nodes with low degree should get longer intervals. The constraint in this assignment problem is that the solution must be decentralized and require minimal internal state and external inputs. They show an algorithm which uses one bit of local state to use colors in time, and an algorithm with one bit of local state and one bit of external side information to color the graph with colors in rounds.
Using Three States for Binary Consensus on Complete Graphs
Etienne Perron (EPFL, Switzerland); Dinkar Vasudevan (EPFL, Switzerland); Milan Vojnovic (Microsoft Research, UK)
This paper looked at a binary consensus problem that was seemed on the face of it quite different from the consensus algorithms that I work on. They consider a complete graph where every node has a an initial value that is either 0 or 1. The goal is to compute the majority vote in all the nodes in a distributed manner while requiring only a small state in each of the nodes. This is related to a standard voter model, in which nodes sample their neighbor and switch their vote if it is different. If we have 3 states, (0, e, 1), where e is “undecided” then we can make a rule where a node samples its neighbor and moves one step in direction reported by the neighbor. Different variants of the algorithm are also analyzed, and the error rate analysis seemed a bit hairy, involving ODEs and so on. What I was wondering at the end is the relationship of this algorithm to standard gossip with one bit quantization of messages.
Greeting to you, patient (and probably bored) readers! I’m in Rio de Janeiro for Infocom 2009 and yes, I am going to be blogging a bit about it. The conference is little out of my bailiwick, at least so far. I go to sessions and think I might know what the talk is about, based on the title, only to find out I’m completely wrong. It’s good though, and as a challenge to myself I will try to blog about some of the talks a bit (I guess I gave up on finishing my ITA reminiscences).
So keep tuned!
I’ve been catching up on my magazine reading and an ad from the AMS Book & Journal Donation Program in the December issue of the Notices of the AMS caught my eye. The program is designed to improve access to mathematical materials in developing countries via donations. The AMS already has discounted membership fees for those in developing countries, and in general the mathematics community seems more sensitive to these kinds of disparities.
I looked around a bit to see if the IEEE had any sort of book donation program, but it doesn’t seem to be an institutionally supported thing. The scalable computing people have a page on donations, but I didn’t see one for the main IEEE page. There are no discounts listed on the subscription price list. It seems like more could and should be done. Just putting more things online isn’t going to fix everything. There is a value in having actual books in a library too.
So what can be done? In terms of textbooks, there are already cheaper editions available from most of the major publishers, so that doesn’t seem to be the bottleneck. Setting up a clearinghouse (as the AMS has done) for more research-oriented titles seems like a relatively simple thing to do. Providing a tiered-pricing scheme for journals would be a next good step. If the impetus for this comes at a high level in the IEEE, it might get chapters (and undergrads!) engaged in helping gather materials, solicit requests for donations, and so on.
I’m reading Cesa-Bianchi and Lugosi’s Prediction, Learning, and Games in more detail now, and in Chapter 4 they discuss randomized prediction and forecasting strategies. The basic idea is that nature has a sequence of states or outcomes . You have a set of possible actions to choose from at each time. If you choose action at time then you incur a loss . After you choose your action the state of nature is revealed to you. The goal is to come up with a strategy for choosing actions at each time , given the past states .
One simple strategy that you might consider is to choose at time to take the action which would have resulted in the minimum loss so far:
This seems like a good idea at first glance but can easily be “fooled” by a bad state sequence . This strategy is called fictitious play because you are pretending to play each action over the past and choosing the one which would have given you the best performance to date. Unfortunately, the strategy is not Hannan consistent, which loosely means that the gap between the average loss under this strategy and the average loss under the best fixed action does not go to 0.
So what to do? One option, proposed by Hannan, is to add noise to all of the empirical losses and then choose the minimum of the noisy ones:
This strategy is Hannan consistent and is called follow the perturbed leader since the action you choose is the best action after a perturbation.
If you got this far, I bet you were thinking I’d make some comment on the election. We’ve been following a perturbed leader for a while now. So here is an exercise : how is this prediction model a bad model for politics?