When to Give Up on a Parallel Implementation

Nathan S. Sheffield; Alek Westover

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2408.16092

When to Give Up on a Parallel Implementation

Nathan S. Sheffield·Alek Westover

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In the Serial Parallel Decision Problem (SPDP), introduced by Kuszmaul and Westover [SPAA'24], an algorithm receives a series of tasks online, and must choose for each between a serial implementation and a parallelizable (but less efficient) implementation. Kuszmaul and Westover describe three decision models: (1) \defn{Instantly-committing} schedulers must decide on arrival, irrevocably, which implementation of the task to run. (2) \defn{Eventually-committing} schedulers can delay their decision beyond a task's arrival time, but cannot revoke their decision once made. (3) \defn{Never-committing} schedulers are always free to abandon their progress on the task and start over using a different implementation. Kuszmaul and Westover gave a simple instantly-committing scheduler whose total completion time is $3$-competitive with the offline optimal schedule. They conjectured that the three decision models should admit different competitive ratios, but left upper bounds below $3$ in any model as an open problem. In this paper, we show that the powers of instantly, eventually, and never committing schedulers are distinct, at least in the ``massively parallel regime''. The massively parallel regime of the SPDP is the special case where the number of available processors is asymptotically larger than the number of tasks to process, meaning that the \emph{work} associated with running a task in serial is negligible compared to its \emph{runtime}. In this regime, we show (1) The optimal competitive ratio for instantly-committing schedulers is $2$, (2) The optimal competitive ratio for eventually-committing schedulers lies in $[1.618, 1.678]$, (3) The optimal competitive ratio for never-committing schedulers lies in $[1.366, 1.500]$.

Explore related subjects

cs.DS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Nathan S. Sheffield, Alek Westover. 2024-08-28. When to Give Up on a Parallel Implementation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16092

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

A deterministic $(1+\varepsilon)^n$ approximation for the permanent of a nonnegative matrix

For every fixed $0<\varepsilon\le1$, we give a deterministic strongly polynomial algorithm that, given a nonnegative matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}^{n\times n}$, returns $Q$ satisfying $\operatorname{per} A\le Q\le(1+\varepsilon)^n\operatorname{per} A$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS↗