arXiv subjects

Henrik Lievonen

Publications and source records attributed to Henrik Lievonen.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Orientation does not help with 3-coloring a grid in online-LOCAL

The online-LOCAL and SLOCAL models are extensions of the LOCAL model where nodes are processed in a sequential but potentially adversarial order. So far, the only problem we know of where the global memory of the online-LOCAL model has an advantage over SLOCAL is 3-coloring bipartite graphs. Recently, Chang et al. [PODC 2024] showed that even in grids, 3-coloring requires $Ω(\log n)$ locality in deterministic online-LOCAL. This result was subsequently extended by Akbari et al. [STOC 2025] to also hold in randomized online-LOCAL. However, both proofs heavily rely on the assumption that the algorithm does not have access to the orientation of the underlying grid. In this paper, we show how to lift this requirement and obtain the same lower bound (against either model) even when the algorithm is explicitly given a globally consistent orientation of the grid.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2026

Distributed Quantum Advantage in Locally Checkable Labeling Problems

In this paper, we present the first known example of a locally checkable labeling problem (LCL) that admits asymptotic distributed quantum advantage in the LOCAL model of distributed computing: our problem can be solved in $O(\log n)$ communication rounds in the quantum-LOCAL model, but it requires $Ω(\log n \cdot \log^{0.99} \log n)$ communication rounds in the classical randomized-LOCAL model. We also show that distributed quantum advantage cannot be arbitrarily large: if an LCL problem can be solved in $T(n)$ rounds in the quantum-LOCAL model, it can also be solved in $\tilde O(\sqrt{n T(n)})$ rounds in the classical randomized-LOCAL model. In particular, a problem that is strictly global classically is also almost-global in quantum-LOCAL. Our second result also holds for $T(n)$-dependent probability distributions. As a corollary, if there exists a finitely dependent distribution over valid labelings of some LCL problem $Π$, then the same problem $Π$ can also be solved in $\tilde O(\sqrt{n})$ rounds in the classical randomized-LOCAL and deterministic-LOCAL models. That is, finitely dependent distributions cannot exist for global LCL problems.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2026

Superlogarithmic Gap Result for LCLs on Trees in Quantum-LOCAL

We show that, on trees, any locally checkable labeling problem (LCL) $Π$ that can be solved by an $n^{o(1)}$-dependent distribution can also be solved by an $O(\log n)$-round deterministic LOCAL algorithm. The result is obtained through a rake-and-compress-style decomposition of the input tree, and local simulations of the bounded dependent distribution on the components of the decomposition. As a corollary to our result, any LCL problem on trees can either be solved by an $O(\log n)$ deterministic LOCAL algorithm, or requires $n^{Ω(1)}$ rounds to solve by a quantum-LOCAL algorithm.

cs.CC↗

arXiv2026

Is a LOCAL algorithm computable?

Common definitions of the "standard" LOCAL model tend to be sloppy and even self-contradictory on one point: do the nodes update their state using an arbitrary function or a computable function? So far, this distinction has been safe to neglect, since problems where it matters seem contrived and quite different from e.g. typical local graph problems studied in this context. We show that this question matters even for locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs), perhaps the most widely studied family of problems in the context of the LOCAL model. Furthermore, we show that assumptions about computability are directly connected to another aspect already recognized as highly relevant: whether we have any knowledge of $n$, the size of the graph. Concretely, we show that there is an LCL problem $Π$ with the following properties: 1. $Π$ can be solved in $O(\log n)$ rounds if the LOCAL model is uncomputable. 2. $Π$ can be solved in $O(\log n)$ rounds in the computable model if we know any upper bound on $n$. 3. $Π$ requires $Ω(\sqrt{n})$ rounds in the computable model if we do not know anything about $n$. We also show that the connection between computability and knowledge of $n$ holds in general: for any LCL problem $Π$, if you have any bound on $n$, then $Π$ has the same round complexity in the computable and uncomputable models.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2026

Online Locality Meets Distributed Quantum Computing

We connect three distinct lines of research that have recently explored extensions of the classical LOCAL model of distributed computing: A. distributed quantum computing and non-signaling distributions [e.g. STOC 2024], B. finitely-dependent processes [e.g. Forum Math. Pi 2016], and C. locality in online graph algorithms and dynamic graph algorithms [e.g. ICALP 2023]. We prove new results on the capabilities and limitations of all of these models of computing, for locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs). We show that all these settings can be sandwiched between the classical LOCAL model and what we call the randomized online-LOCAL model. Our work implies limitations on the quantum advantage in the distributed setting, and we also exhibit a new barrier for proving tighter bounds. Our main technical results are these: 1. All LCL problems solvable with locality $O(\log^\star n)$ in the classical deterministic LOCAL model admit a finitely-dependent distribution with locality $O(1)$. This answers an open question by Holroyd [2024], and also presents a new barrier for proving bounds on distributed quantum advantage using causality-based arguments. 2. In rooted trees, if we can solve an LCL problem with locality $o(\log \log \log n)$ in the randomized online-LOCAL model (or any of the weaker models, such as quantum-LOCAL), we can solve it with locality $O(\log^\star n)$ in the classical deterministic LOCAL model. One of many implications is that in rooted trees, $O(\log^\star n)$ locality in quantum-LOCAL is not stronger than $O(\log^\star n)$ locality in classical LOCAL.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2025

New Limits on Distributed Quantum Advantage: Dequantizing Linear Programs

In this work, we give two results that put new limits on distributed quantum advantage in the context of the LOCAL model of distributed computing. First, we show that there is no distributed quantum advantage for any linear program. Put otherwise, if there is a quantum-LOCAL algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ that finds an $α$-approximation of some linear optimization problem $Π$ in $T$ communication rounds, we can construct a classical, deterministic LOCAL algorithm $\mathcal{A}'$ that finds an $α$-approximation of $Π$ in $T$ rounds. As a corollary, all classical lower bounds for linear programs, including the KMW bound, hold verbatim in quantum-LOCAL. Second, using the above result, we show that there exists a locally checkable labeling problem (LCL) for which quantum-LOCAL is strictly weaker than the classical deterministic SLOCAL model. Our results extend from quantum-LOCAL also to finitely dependent and non-signaling distributions, and one of the corollaries of our work is that the non-signaling model and the SLOCAL model are incomparable in the context of LCL problems: By prior work, there exists an LCL problem for which SLOCAL is strictly weaker than the non-signaling model, and our work provides a separation in the opposite direction.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2024

Local problems in trees across a wide range of distributed models

The randomized online-LOCAL model captures a number of models of computing; it is at least as strong as all of these models: - the classical LOCAL model of distributed graph algorithms, - the quantum version of the LOCAL model, - finitely dependent distributions [e.g. Holroyd 2016], - any model that does not violate physical causality [Gavoille, Kosowski, Markiewicz, DISC 2009], - the SLOCAL model [Ghaffari, Kuhn, Maus, STOC 2017], and - the dynamic-LOCAL and online-LOCAL models [Akbari et al., ICALP 2023]. In general, the online-LOCAL model can be much stronger than the LOCAL model. For example, there are locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs) that can be solved with logarithmic locality in the online-LOCAL model but that require polynomial locality in the LOCAL model. However, in this work we show that in trees, many classes of LCL problems have the same locality in deterministic LOCAL and randomized online-LOCAL (and as a corollary across all the above-mentioned models). In particular, these classes of problems do not admit any distributed quantum advantage. We present a near-complete classification for the case of rooted regular trees. We also fully classify the super-logarithmic region in unrooted regular trees. Finally, we show that in general trees (rooted or unrooted, possibly irregular, possibly with input labels) problems that are global in deterministic LOCAL remain global also in the randomized online-LOCAL model.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2024

Distributed Quantum Advantage for Local Problems

We present the first local problem that shows a super-constant separation between the classical randomized LOCAL model of distributed computing and its quantum counterpart. By prior work, such a separation was known only for an artificial graph problem with an inherently global definition [Le Gall et al. 2019]. We present a problem that we call iterated GHZ, which is defined using only local constraints. Formally, it is a family of locally checkable labeling problems [Naor and Stockmeyer 1995]; in particular, solutions can be verified with a constant-round distributed algorithm. We show that in graphs of maximum degree $Δ$, any classical (deterministic or randomized) LOCAL model algorithm will require $Ω(Δ)$ rounds to solve the iterated GHZ problem, while the problem can be solved in $1$ round in quantum-LOCAL. We use the round elimination technique to prove that the iterated GHZ problem requires $Ω(Δ)$ rounds for classical algorithms. This is the first work that shows that round elimination is indeed able to separate the two models, and this also demonstrates that round elimination cannot be used to prove lower bounds for quantum-LOCAL. To apply round elimination, we introduce a new technique that allows us to discover appropriate problem relaxations in a mechanical way; it turns out that this new technique extends beyond the scope of the iterated GHZ problem and can be used to e.g. reproduce prior results on maximal matchings [FOCS 2019, PODC 2020] in a systematic manner.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2024

No distributed quantum advantage for approximate graph coloring

We give an almost complete characterization of the hardness of $c$-coloring $χ$-chromatic graphs with distributed algorithms, for a wide range of models of distributed computing. In particular, we show that these problems do not admit any distributed quantum advantage. To do that: 1) We give a new distributed algorithm that finds a $c$-coloring in $χ$-chromatic graphs in $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(n^{\frac{1}α})$ rounds, with $α= \bigl\lfloor\frac{c-1}{χ- 1}\bigr\rfloor$. 2) We prove that any distributed algorithm for this problem requires $Ω(n^{\frac{1}α})$ rounds. Our upper bound holds in the classical, deterministic LOCAL model, while the near-matching lower bound holds in the non-signaling model. This model, introduced by Arfaoui and Fraigniaud in 2014, captures all models of distributed graph algorithms that obey physical causality; this includes not only classical deterministic LOCAL and randomized LOCAL but also quantum-LOCAL, even with a pre-shared quantum state. We also show that similar arguments can be used to prove that, e.g., 3-coloring 2-dimensional grids or $c$-coloring trees remain hard problems even for the non-signaling model, and in particular do not admit any quantum advantage. Our lower-bound arguments are purely graph-theoretic at heart; no background on quantum information theory is needed to establish the proofs.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2023

Distributed Binary Labeling Problems in High-Degree Graphs

Balliu et al. (DISC 2020) classified the hardness of solving binary labeling problems with distributed graph algorithms; in these problems the task is to select a subset of edges in a $2$-colored tree in which white nodes of degree $d$ and black nodes of degree $δ$ have constraints on the number of selected incident edges. They showed that the deterministic round complexity of any such problem is $O_{d,δ}(1)$, $Θ_{d,δ}(\log n)$, or $Θ_{d,δ}(n)$, or the problem is unsolvable. However, their classification only addresses complexity as a function of $n$; here $O_{d,δ}$ hides constants that may depend on parameters $d$ and $δ$. In this work we study the complexity of binary labeling problems as a function of all three parameters: $n$, $d$, and $δ$. To this end, we introduce the family of structurally simple problems, which includes, among others, all binary labeling problems in which cardinality constraints can be represented with a context-free grammar. We classify possible complexities of structurally simple problems. As our main result, we show that if the complexity of a problem falls in the broad class of $Θ_{d,δ}(\log n)$, then the complexity for each $d$ and $δ$ is always either $Θ(\log_d n)$, $Θ(\log_δn)$, or $Θ(\log n)$. To prove our upper bounds, we introduce a new, more aggressive version of the rake-and-compress technique that benefits from high-degree nodes.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2023

Distributed derandomization revisited

One of the cornerstones of the distributed complexity theory is the derandomization result by Chang, Kopelowitz, and Pettie [FOCS 2016]: any randomized LOCAL algorithm that solves a locally checkable labeling problem (LCL) can be derandomized with at most exponential overhead. The original proof assumes that the number of random bits is bounded by some function of the input size. We give a new, simple proof that does not make any such assumptions-it holds even if the randomized algorithm uses infinitely many bits. While at it, we also broaden the scope of the result so that it is directly applicable far beyond LCL problems.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2022

Locality in online, dynamic, sequential, and distributed graph algorithms

In this work, we give a unifying view of locality in four settings: distributed algorithms, sequential greedy algorithms, dynamic algorithms, and online algorithms. We introduce a new model of computing, called the online-LOCAL model: the adversary reveals the nodes of the input graph one by one, in the same way as in classical online algorithms, but for each new node we get to see its radius-T neighborhood before choosing the output. We compare the online-LOCAL model with three other models: the LOCAL model of distributed computing, where each node produces its output based on its radius-T neighborhood, its sequential counterpart SLOCAL, and the dynamic-LOCAL model, where changes in the dynamic input graph only influence the radius-T neighborhood of the point of change. The SLOCAL and dynamic-LOCAL models are sandwiched between the LOCAL and online-LOCAL models, with LOCAL being the weakest and online-LOCAL the strongest model. In general, all models are distinct, but we study in particular locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs), which is a family of graph problems studied in the context of distributed graph algorithms. We prove that for LCL problems in paths, cycles, and rooted trees, all models are roughly equivalent: the locality of any LCL problem falls in the same broad class - $O(\log^* n)$, $Θ(\log n)$, or $n^{Θ(1)}$ - in all four models. In particular, this result enables one to generalize prior lower-bound results from the LOCAL model to all four models, and it also allows one to simulate e.g. dynamic-LOCAL algorithms efficiently in the LOCAL model. We also show that this equivalence does not hold in general bipartite graphs. We provide an online-LOCAL algorithm with locality $O(\log n)$ for the $3$-coloring problem in bipartite graphs - this is a problem with locality $Ω(n^{1/2})$ in the LOCAL model and $Ω(n^{1/10})$ in the SLOCAL model.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2022

Sinkless Orientation Made Simple

The sinkless orientation problem plays a key role in understanding the foundations of distributed computing. The problem can be used to separate two fundamental models of distributed graph algorithms, LOCAL and SLOCAL: the locality of sinkless orientation is $Ω(\log n)$ in the deterministic LOCAL model and $O(\log \log n)$ in the deterministic SLOCAL model. Both of these results are known by prior work, but here we give new simple, self-contained proofs for them.

cs.DC↗