## Investigating the Existence and the Regularity

## of Logarithmic Harary Graphs

### Roberto Baldoni, Silvia Bonomi, Leonardo Querzoni, Sara Tucci Piergiovanni

### Sapienza Universit`a di Roma

### Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica

### Via Ariosto 25, 00185 Roma, Italy

### Fax. +39 06 77274002

### {baldoni,bonomi,querzoni,tucci}@dis.uniroma1.it

### Abstract

This paper studies the existence and the regularity of Logarithmic Harary Graphs (LHGs). This study is moti- vated by the fact that these graphs are employed for model- ing the communication topology to support efficient flood- ing in presence of link and node failures when considering an initial arbitrary number of nodesn. Therefore, the capa- bility to identify graph constraints that allow the construc- tion of LHGs for the largest number of pairs(n, k) (where k is the desired degree of connectivity to be tolerant to fail- ures) becomes of primary importance. The paper presents several results in that direction. We introduce a graph con- straint, namely K-TREE, that allows the construction of a LHG for every pair(n, k) such that n ≥ 2k. Secondly we presents another graph constraint for LHG, namelyK- DIAMOND, which is equivalent toK-TREE in terms of ca- pability to construct LHGs for any pair(n, k). The interest of K-DIAMOND lies in the fact that, for a given k, K- DIAMOND allows to construct more regular graphs than K-TREE does. A k-regular graph shows the minimal num- ber of links required by a k-connected graph, leading to minimal flooding cost. The paper formally shows, in partic- ular, that there are an infinite number of pairs(n, k), such that there exists a k-regular LHG for the pair (n, k) that satisfiesK-DIAMOND and does not satisfy K-TREE.

Keywords: Logarithmic Harary Graphs, graph constraints, flooding overlay networks.

### 1 Introduction

Executing a robust and efficient deterministic flooding on the top of a distributed system with an arbitrary num- ber of processes and prone to crash failures is a challenging

problem. This problem has been usually faced by build- ing a richly connected graph among the nodes participat- ing to the computation and by using that graph to diffuse messages. Three approaches have emerged in the litera- ture: gossip based on random graphs [6], flooding on k- connected deterministic graphs [15], such as Harary graphs [9], and deterministic dissemination over k-random graphs [18]. In this paper, we concentrate on analyzing properties of richly connected deterministic graphs with an arbitrary number of nodes in order to obtain efficient flooding.

Motivation. Jenkins and Demers in [11] pointed out the fact that Harary Graphs might lead to inefficient flooding with high latencies in large networks due to the linear diam- eter of many Harary graphs. To overcome this issue they in- troduced the family of Logarithmic Harary Graphs (LHGs) that is a subset of Harary Graphs with logarithmic diameter.

A graph belonging to LHGs is able to support the flooding of the network in sublinear time. The authors also provide an operational construction rule to build LHGs.

When considering the fact that the number of processes forming a network n is an arbitrary one as for example in peer-to-peer networks, it becomes paramount the possibility of having a graph constraint that is able to provide LHGs for a wide number of pairs (n, k) in order to be able to construct a LHG well suited to that network. There are indeed many specific subsets of LHGs, such as De Brujin [4] and Hyper- cubes [21] that there exist for a very restricted set of pairs (n, k) (where k is the desired degree of connectivity to be tolerant to failures) being thus of little interest for the prob- lem we are considering. In this paper we show intuitively that, for a given k, the operational construction rule pro- vided by Jenkins and Demers in [11] has an infinite number of pairs (n, k) for which it is impossible to build a LHG.

Finally, considering several distinct LHGs for a given pair (n, k), they might not have the same efficiency to flood the network. This efficiency depends on the number of

edges in each graph: the less the edges are, the more effi- cient the flooding is, due to a message saving. Therefore the best efficiency is achieved by a LHG for a pair (n, k) such that as soon as we remove one edge, no other LHG exists with less edges. This property is captured by k-regularity of a graph.

Contribution. The paper presents several results on the ex- istence and regularity of LHGs. Firstly we introduce two graph constraints for building LHGs, namely K-TREE and K-DIAMOND. A graph constraint actually defines a subset of graphs that satisfy such constraint [5]. Graph constraints have the noteworthy characteristic to provide a set of prop- erties able to help the construction of the graph.

K-TREE is a graph constraint that is satisfied by at least all the graphs that can be built by the Jenkins and Demers operational construction rule. Moreover, for a given k the values of n for which is impossible to build a LHG with K-TREE is upperly bounded by n = 2k. K-DIAMOND is equivalent to K-TREE with respect to the LHGs exis- tence and its aim is to enlarge the set of pair (n, k) such that it is possible to build a k-regular LHG. To study the exis- tence of LHGs, we introduce a boolean characteristic func- tion EXΠ(n, k), where Π is a graph constraint, that returns true if and only if there exists a LHG for the pairs (n, k) that satisfies the graph constraint Π. Using this function we show that: EXK−T REE(n, k) ⇔ EXK−DIAM ON D(n, k) As far as regularity is concerned, we introduce a boolean characteristic function REGΠ(n, k), where Π is a graph constraint considered, that returns true if and only if there exists a k-regular LHG for the pair (n, k) that satisfies π.

Using this function we show that:

• REGK−T REE(n, k) ⇒ REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k)

• There is an infinite number of pairs (n, k) such that REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) = true and REGK−T REE(n, k) = f alse.

Finally a study that computes message complexity of flooding a LHG built satisfying K − T REE and K − DIAM ON D has been done. This study confirms that K − DIAM ON D allows to build more efficient k-regular graphs with respect to K−T REE resulting, thus, in a lower message complexity.

Roadmap. After presenting the related work in Sec- tion 2, Section 3 introduces LHGs together with the no- tions of existence and k-regularity of a LHGs. Sec- tion 4 shows the K-TREE graph constraint, it shows that each graph satisfying K-TREE is a LHG and it computes EXK−T REE(n, k), REGK−T REE(n, k) and discusses the relation between K-TREE and the oper- ational rule presented by Jenkins & Demers in [11]

with respect to LHGs existence. Section 5 presents K-DIAMOND, it shows that each graph satisfying K- DIAMOND is a LHG, it computes EXK−DIAM ON D(n, k)

and REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) and discuss the relation with EXK−T REE(n, k), REGK−T REE(n, k).

### 2 Related Work

Many graphs have been proposed for constrained flood-
ing, starting from earlier works on networking until recent
works on overlays for information dissemination in very
large scale settings. Spanning trees are undoubtedly one
of the most widely used graphs for information dissemina-
tion [3, 7, 10]. In this case, mechanisms to recover from
message losses must be provided as the tree will frequently
become partitioned due to failures. This can inhibit scala-
bility if failures are frequent. The use of richly connected
graphs have also been deeply investigated (e.g. hypercubes
[8, 20], De Bruijn graphs[12, 16], butterflies [17], randomic
cyclic hypercubes [14]). Currently, most of these graphs
are instances of LHGs but they exist only for a few and spe-
cific pairs of n and k. For instance, k-connected hypercubes
are k-regular graphs with 2^{k} nodes while k-connected De
Brujin graphs are k-regular graphs with k^{n} nodes. They
applicability in our context is then limited. Recently, sev-
eral approaches to the construction of topologies based on
a randomized choice of neighbors [1, 13, 19] have been
proposed. These topologies are attractive since they show
many interesting properties as bound or sublinear degree
and logarithmic (or sublogarithmic) diameter. In [13] the
authors present random expander overlay topologies that
are composed of d Hamiltonian cycles. In particular, the
constructed topologies are expanders with O(logd ∗ n) and
O(logn) diameter with high probability. Let us remark that
in these randomized topologies connectivity is maintained
with high probability as well. In fact, they have not been
proposed for supporting deterministic delivery.

### 3 Logarithmic Harary Graphs

Basic Notation. An undirected graph is a pair G = (V, E) where V is the set of nodes and E is a set of un- ordered pairs (s, t), where s, t ∈ V , called edges. The de- greeof a node is the number of its incident edges. A path P on G from s to t, with s, t ∈ V , is a sequence of nodes such that for any two consecutive nodes, namely u and v, there exists an element (u, v) ∈ E. A cycle is a path such that it starts and ends on the same node. The length of a path is given by the number of nodes it comprises. A graph G with |V | > 1 is connected if, for any two nodes s, t ∈ V , with s 6= t, there exists a path on G from s to t. A graph is a tree if it does not contain any cycle and it is connected.

The nodes of a tree that have degree equal to one are called leaves. The height of a tree is the height of its root, that is the length of the longest path from the root to one of the leaves.

Graph Constraint. A graph constraint Π is a set of struc- tural properties (also referred in the text as “rules”) that can be applied to a graph to check if the graph verifies these properties. For example, a graph constraint can be: (i) the graph is a tree and (ii) each node of a graph has at most two children. This graph constraint is satisfied only by binary trees. Another more complex graph constraint can be (i) the graph is a composed by two trees and (ii) each leave of one tree is connected to the root of the other tree.

Therefore, a graph constraint, on one hand, identifies a spe- cific set of graphs and, on the other hand, from the practical point of view, a graph constraint resorts in a practical way for graph construction. Graph constraints in the context of graph grammars and transformation systems have been in- troduced in [5].

Definition of LHG. Let G = (V, E) be the graph and (n, k) be a pair with n = |V | and k a natural number such that k < n. G is a LHG if and only if it verifies the follow- ing properties:

Property 1 k-node connectivity: the removal of any subset of at mostk − 1 nodes will not disconnect G.

Property 2 k-link connectivity: the removal of any subset of at mostk − 1 links will not disconnect G.

Property 3 Link Minimality: the removal of any link from G will reduce its link/node connectivity.

Property 4 Logarithmic Diameter: for any pairs of nodes s, t ∈ V the maximum shortest path length from s to t is O(log(n)).

From properties 1, 2 and 3 follows that LHGs are re- silient at least to k − 1 failures (such graphs are also gen- erally referred as k-connected). From property 4 it follows that for any pairs of nodes there always exists a path con- necting them that is logarithmic with respect to the total number of nodes in the system.

Existence of LHGs. If we want to use LHGs as a
topology for flooding networks with an arbitrary number
of nodes, it is of primary importance to define rules on the
placement of nodes and edges, namely a graph constraint,
for LHGs such that this constraint allows to build LHGs for
the largest possible distinct number of pairs (n, k). In or-
der to compare distinct graph constraints according to this
principle, we introduce a boolean characteristic function
EX_{Π}(n, k), where Π is the graph constraint, that returns
true if and only if there exists a LHG for the pairs (n, k)
that satisfies Π.

Regularity of LHGs Let consider a LHG G for the pair
(n, k) that satisfy a graph constraint Π. In this case, to take
into account the efficiency of flooding a network, it becomes
important to check if there exists a LHG G^{0} for the pair
(n, k) such that G^{0} has a number of edges lesser than G.

To this aim, we introduce an additional property, namely k-regularity:

Property 5 k-regularity: Let G = (V, E) be a graph with

|V | = n and k a natural number such that k < n. We say thatG is k-regular if all the nodes have the same degree k.

A k-regular LHG for the pair (n, k) is a graph such that there not exist any other LHG for that (n, k) with a lower number of edges. To compare different graph constraints with respect to the ability to provide k-regular LHGs we introduce a boolean characteristic function REGΠ(n, k) where Π is the graph constraint. REGΠ(n, k) returns true if and only if there exists a k-regular LHG for the pairs (n, k) that satisfies Π.

### 4 K-TREES Graph Constraint

In this section we introduce K-TREE graph constraint and compute the EX and REG functions of K-TREE. Fi- nally we discuss the relation between K-TREE and the op- erational construction rules for building LHGs provided in [11]. A K-TREE graph constraint is defined as follows:

Definition 1 A graph G satisfies the graph constraint K- TREE if

1. G contains k copies Tiof a treeT (i = 1, ..., k);

2. each leaf ofT_{i} is leaf of allT_{j} (j = 1, ..., k, j 6= i)
(shared leaves);

3. T has the following properties:

3a.T is height-balanced^{1};
3b. root node ofT has k children;

3c. each non-root node of T has either 0 or k − 1 children. If a node hask −1 children we call it internal node otherwise we call it leaf;

3d. nodes ofT just above the leaves may have up to
2k − 3 leaves^{2} in addition to the ones allowed either
by rule 3b or by rule 3c;

As an example, Figure 1 shows three graphs satisfying K-TREE. In particular, Figure 1(b) shows the case where root node has 6 children (3 due to rule 3b plus 3 due to rule 3d). Finally Figure 1(d) shows the case where the 3 additional leaves are in the graph according with rule

1the heights of two branch of T differ of at most 1.

2For simplicity of presentation, in the following we refer to such a leaves as “additional” leaves.

3d; in particular, nodes I3, I4, I9 have 5 children, namely L5, L6, L7, L8 and L9 (2 due to rule 3c plus 3 due to rule 3d).

The proof that each graph that satisfies K-TREE is a LHG is shown in [2].

4.1 Existence of LHGs satisfied by K- TREE

In this section we show which are the pairs (n, k) such that there exists a LHG satisfying K-TREE. To this aim let us compute EXK−T REE(n, k).

Lemma 1 Let n and k be two natural numbers. For a given k the minimum value of n such that EXK−T REE(n, k) = true is n = 2k.

Proof 1 Let us suppose firstly by the way of contradiction that there exists a pair of integern and k with n < 2k such thatEXK−T REE(n, k) = true

Case 1 (n ≤ k). This contradicts the definition of k- connectivity of LHG because it is impossible to build a graph withk edges for each node, therefore ∀n, k such that n ≤ k we have EXK−T REE(n, k) = f alse;

Case 2 (k < n < 2k). Due to rule 1, the graph is composed
ofk copies of a tree T . The smallest tree that we can have
is the one having only one node^{3}(the root). Since each copy
T_{i}ofT , has at least the root, then in G there are at least k
nodes representing thek copies of the roots.

Due to rule 3b, each root has to have k children. In order to satisfy the constraint, the treeT has to have, in addition to the root, also itsk children. Since we want to count the minimum number of nodes, we consider thek children of T ’s root as leaves.

Due to rule 2 each leaf is a leaf of all the Tis so the mini- mum number of nodes of a graph satisfyingK-TREE is n=

k roots + k leaves = 2k that contradicts the hypothesis.

To complete the proof we have also shown that there there exists at least one graphG with n = 2k nodes satisfying

K-TREE (Figure 1(a)).

Theorem 1 Let k and n be two integers such that k < n

EXK−T REE(n, k) =

true n ≥ 2k f alse otherwise Proof 2 (Sketch) From Lemma 1 we have that the smallest graph that satisfyK-TREE in terms of number of nodes is the one withn = 2k and then EXK−T REE(2k, k) = true.

As an example the graph(6, 3) is depicted in Figure 1(a).

3This node cannot be a leaf because by definition, a leaf has one inci- dent edge.

R1

l3

R3 R2

l2 l1

T_{1}

T_{2} T_{3}

(a) A LHG for the pair (6, 3)

R1

l3

R3 R2

l2 l1 l4

l5 l6

(b) A LHG for the pair (9, 3) R1

l3

R3 R2

l2 l1

A4 A3

A2 A1

(c) A LHG for the pair (10, 3) R1

l3

R3 R2

l2 I1

L1 L2

I6

L3 L4

I5

L5 L6

I8 I9 l4

I7

L8 L7 l4

(d) A LHG for the pair (21, 3)

**Figure 1. Three graphs satisfying K-TREE**

Starting from the smallest graph for a given k, we add nodes, one by one, to it showing that the new graph satisfies theK-TREE graph constraint.

The proof is composed of two parts that contribute to
the definition of EX_{K−T REE} plus a final part that com-
bines the two contributions. In the first part, we show how
many nodes we can add to the graph (2k, k) (due to rule
3d) without increasing the height of the trees forming the
graph. The second part analyzes how many nodes we have
to add to the graph(2k, k) to have an increase of height of
the trees forming the graph (due to rule 3c).

Part 1. the root (the only node just above the leaves) can have at most2k − 3 children (rule 3d) in addition to the k imposed by rule 3b, thereforeEXK−T REE(2k + j, k) = true (j ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 2k − 3}). Figure 1(b) shows the graph (9, 3) obtained by adding 2k − 3 nodes (i.e., three nodes) to the graph(6, 3), depicted in Figure 1(a).

Part 2. Now we want to count, given a certain k, how many
nodes we have to add to the smallest graph(2k, k) for in-
creasing by one the height of the treeT made by one root
and itsk children. This change of height from tree T to T^{0}
implies the following two steps:

• (Step 1) a node s that in T is leaf become an internal
node inT^{0}. As a consequence of rule 1,s should be
present in all the copiesT_{i}ofT generating k − 1 other
internal nodes (one for eachTi);

• (Step 2) from rule 3c every internal node should have
k − 1 children leaves. These leaves due to rule 2 are
shared by thek trees T_{i}.

Therefore the graphG satisfying K-TREE, that includes
T^{0} as a subgraph, has a number of nodes equal to2k (the
number of nodes of the graph includingT as a subgraph)
plusk − 1 nodes due to the application of step 1 plus k − 1
nodes due to the application of step 2. Therefore,n = 2k +
2(k − 1) and we have EX_{K−T REE}(2k + 2(k − 1), k) =
true. For example, let consider the graph (6, 3) shown in
Figure 1(b) with height ofT1equal to 1. If we add the nodes
A1, A2, A3 and A4 the resulting graph (10, 3) satisfies K-
TREE with height ofT1equal to two is depicted in Figure
1(c) where: (i) nodel1 became an internal node, (ii) A1
andA2 are the k − 1 copies of l1 imposed by the rule 1, (iii)
A3 and A4 are the k − 1 new children of l1 imposed by rule
3c, that become leaves of each tree as imposed by rule 2.

Finally, before increasing again by one the height of the
tree, each leave have to become an internal node and this
requires to repeat the previous two steps. Since each time a
new internal node is created, there is the creation ofk − 1
leaves, this reasoning can be repeated an infinite number of
times. As a consequenceEX_{K−T REE}(2k+2α(k−1), k) =
true with α ∈ N.

Final Part. Combining the contribution of part 1 and part 2, it follows thatEXK−T REE(2k + 2α(k − 1) + j, k) =

true ∀α ∈ N, j ∈ {0, . . . 2k − 3}. Simplifying the previous expression ofEXK−T REE we haveEXK−T REE(n, k) = true for any pair (n, k) such that n ≥ 2k and the claim

follows.

4.2 k-regularity of LHGs satisfied by K- TREE

Theorem 2 Let k and n be two natural numbers such that k < n and let α ∈ N. We have

REGK−T REE(n, k) =

true n = 2k + 2α(k − 1) f alse otherwise

Proof 3 In the proof of Theorem 1 we showed that EXK−T REE(2k + 2α(k − 1) + j, k) = true ∀α ∈ N, j ∈ {0, . . . 2k − 3}. We prove the claim by showing when we have ak-regular graph increasing first α and then j.

Case j = 0 and α = 0. REG_{K−T REE}(2k, k) = true. In
this case, eachT_{i}is composed only by the root andk leaves.

Due to rule 3b, every root hask children, thus its degree is k. Due to rule 2, each leaf is shared by the k tree copies Ti, then it has exactly one parent for eachTi and also its degree isk. So REGK−T REE(2k, k) = true.

Case j = 0 and α 6= 0. In this case n = 2k + 2α(k − 1).

As shown in Part 2 of Theorem 1, increasingα by 1 means
changing a treeT in a tree T^{0}such that a leaf inT becomes
an internal node ofT^{0}. When this happens, such an internal
node has to be present in every copyTi ofT^{0} (generating
a total of k − 1 new nodes). Due to rule 3c, every new
internal node must have k − 1 children, therefore k − 1
new nodes (leaves) have to be present. Due to rule 3c, the
k − 1 new internal nodes of T^{0}havek − 1 children and one
parent node, therefore their degree isk. Roots and leaves
still have, respectively, k children and k parents meaning
that their degree is not changed. ThusREGK−T REE(2k +
2α(k − 1), k) = true with α ∈ N.

Case j 6= 0. In this case n = 2k + 2α(k − 1) + j with j ∈ j{1, . . . 2k − 3}, due to rule 3d, nodes having more than k − 1 children have degree greater than k. This is reflected on havingj 6= 0 and then k-regularity is broken for all that value ofn and REGK−T REE(n, k) = f alse.

4.3 Relation between K-TREE and Jenk- ins and Demers operational construc- tion rules

Jenkins and Demers in [11] give an operative construc- tion rule, namely J D to build LHGs. In this section we want to informally show that each graph built using J D satisfies K-TREE and that there is an infinite number of

pairs (n, k) such that there exists a graph (n, k) satisfying K-TREE and this graph cannot be built using J D.

The authors define a graph as follows: “The construc- tion consists ofk copies of a tree whose root node has k children, and whose other interior nodes mostly have k-1 children (except for at mostk interior nodes just above the leaf nodes, which may have up tok+1 children). These trees are then “pasted together” at the leaves - i.e. each leaf is a leaf of allk trees.”

K-TREE’s rule 1 captures the statement “. . . k copies of a tree . . .” and K-TREES’s rule 2 comes from “. . . These trees are then “pasted together” at the leaves - i.e. each leaf is a leaf of allk trees . . . ”. K-TREE Rules 3 captures “. . . k copies of a tree whose [root/ interior] node has. . .” and in particular, rule 3b is equivalent to “. . . k copies of a tree whose root node hask children. . . ” and rule 3c to “. . . [k copies of a tree] whose interior nodes mostly havek-1 chil- dren . . .”. K-TREE rule 1 has the aim to fill a level of the tree T before increasing its height. This rule is not explic- itly in [11] but it is necessary to maintain the logarithmic diameter. K-TREE’s rule 3d is weaker than this sentence:

“. . . except for at most k interior nodes just above the leaf nodes, which may have up tok+1 children. . . ”. K-TREE’s Rule 3d allows each node just above the leaves to have more children. This difference turns out in the impossibility for J D to build a graph like the one depicted in Figure 1(b).

Specifically, J D is not able to build, for example, any graph for the pair (n, k) with n = 2k + 2α(k − 1) + 3 when con- sidering α ∈ N.

This also means that J D has an infinite number of pairs (n, k) for which it is impossible to build a LHG. Let us remark that for each graph EXK−T REE(2k + 2α(k − 1) + 3, k) is equal to true for each α ∈ N due to Theorem 1.

### 5 K-DIAMOND Graph constraint

In this section we introduce K-DIAMOND, a further im- provement of K-TREE with respect to k-regularity. Indeed, K-DIAMOND and K-TREE are equivalent with respect to existence of LHGs while there are infinite many k-regular graphs (n, k) that satisfy K-DIAMOND and do not satisfy K-TREE.

Definition 2 A graph G satisfies the graph constraint K- DIAMOND if

1. G contains k copies Tiof a treeT (i = 1, ..., k);

2. T ’s leaves can be shared or unshared;

3. ashared leaf of Tiis leaf of allT_{j}(j = 1, ..., k, j 6= i)
4. eachunshared leaf of T has the following properties:

4a. anunshared leaf is formed by k nodes connected through as clique;

4b. each of such nodes is connected also to one of the treesTiand eachTiis connected exactly with one node of the unshared leaf;

5. T has the following properties:

5a.T is height-balanced;

5b. the root ofT has k children;

5c. other non-root nodes ofT have 0 or k − 1 children.

If a node hask − 1 children we call it internal node otherwise we call itleaf;

5d. nodes ofT just above the leaves may have up to
k − 2 leaves^{4}in addition to the ones allowed either by
rule 5b or by rule 5c;

The main difference introduced by K-DIAMOND, with respect to K-TREE, is having two types of leaves: shared and unshared. Shared leaves behave exactly as those con- sidered in K-TREE. Unshared leaves are nodes organized in groups of k elements; leaves belonging to the same un- shared leaves form a clique; given a group of unshared leaves each tree Ti is linked to it through a single edge.

As an example Figure 2 shows four graphs satisfying K- DIAMOND and Figure 2(a) does not contain any unshared leaf while Figure 2(b) contains one unshared leaf with three nodes. The proof that each graph that satisfies K- DIAMOND is a LHG is shown in [2].

5.1 Existence of LHGs satisfied by K- DIAMOND

Lemma 2 Let n and k be two natural numbers.

For a given k the minimum value of n such that EXK−DIAM ON D(n, k) = true is n = 2k.

Proof 4 The claim follows considering that Lemma 1 ap- plies also toK-DIAMOND as rule 1,3 and rule 5b of K- DIAMOND are equal to rules 1,2 and 3b ofK-TREE.

Theorem 3 Let k and n be two integers such that k < n

EXK−DIAM ON D(n, k) =

true n ≥ 2k f alse otherwise Proof 5 (Sketch) From Lemma 2 we have that the smallest graph that satisfiesK-DIAMOND for a given k is (2k, k), thereforeEXK−DIAM ON D(2k, k) = true.

The proof shows that, for a givenk, we add nodes, one by one, to the smallest graph and we have to show that the new graph satisfiesK-DIAMOND graph constraint. Note that

4For simplicity of presentation, in the following we refer to such a leaves as “additional” leaves.

R1

L1

R2 R3

L2 L3

L4

(a) A LHG for the pair (7, 3)

R1

L1

R2 R3

L2 L3

L4 L5

Unshared Leaves

(b) A LHG for the pair (8, 3) R1

L1

R2 R3

L8 L9 L2

L6 L7 L3

L4 L10 L5

(c) A LHG for the pair (13, 3) R1

L1

R2 R3

L8 L9

L2

L6 L7

L3

L10 L11

L5

L4

(d) A LHG for the pair (14, 3)

**Figure 2. Four graphs satisfying K-DIAMOND**

in the smallest graph satisfying K-DIAMOND all leaves are shared.

Part 1: starting from (2k, k). The root (the only node just above the leaves) can have at mostk − 2 children (rule 5d) in addition to the k nodes imposed by rule 5b, therefore EXK−DIAM ON D(2k + j, k) = true (j ∈ {0, 1, . . . , k − 2}). Figure 2(a) shows the graph (7, 3) obtained by adding k − 2 nodes (i.e., one nodes) to the graph (6, 3).

Part 2: creating an unshared leaf.K-DIAMOND does not allow a root to have more children, therefore to build a graph having 2k + (k − 1) nodes, we have to create an unshared leaf. Due to rule 4a an unshared leaf is grouped with the new node andk − 1 of the previously shared leaves.

As an example Figure 2(b) shows a graph(8, 3) satisfying K-DIAMOND including one unshared leaf. This graph is obtained by the addition of nodeL5 to the graph depicted in Figure 2(a). Therefore the graph(2k + (k − 1), k) satisfies K-DIAMOND. Due to rule 5d, root nodes can have once again up tok − 2 more children and then we have that K- DIAMOND allows also to build a graph for each pair(n, k) such thatn = 2k + (k − 1) + j with (j ∈ {0, 1, . . . , k − 2}).

For eachk − 1 nodes added to the graph (2k + (k − 1), k), a new unshared leaf is created. Generalizing, we have the graph(2k + α(k − 1) + j, k) satisfies K-DIAMOND with α ≤ k where k is the maximum number of unshared leaves for the treeT that we are considering at this step (i.e. the one composed by one root and its children). As an example, we show in Figure 2(c) a graph for the pair(13, 3) where all the leaves are unshared (α = k) and the root has the maximum number of children in addition to thek forced by rule 5b.

Part 3: increasing by one the height of the tree T . The tree T considered at this point is the one composed by the root and its2k − 2 children (i.e. k due to rule 5b and k − 2 due to rule 5d). From the situation depicted in Figure 2(c),K- DIAMOND does not allow the root to have more children, therefore to build a graph satisfyingK-DIAMOND with one more node, we need to increase the height of the treeT .

The change of the height ofT implies to switch from tree
T , composed by the root and its k children unshared leaves
and k − 2 more child shared leaf, to a tree T^{0} made as
follows: one root havingk −1 children unshared leaves and
one child internal node whose havek − 1 children shared
leaves. As consequence

• (Step 1) a node s that in T was unshared leaf became
an internal node in T^{0}. Due to rule 1, s should be
present in all the copiesTi ofT^{0}; sinces was an un-
shared leaf, it already has its copies in everyTi. All
these copies become then the internal nodes copies of
s;

• (Step 2) from the rule 5c every internal node should havek − 1 children shared leaves. These leaves due to

rule 3 are shared by thek trees Ti. Sincek − 2 shared
leaves are already present inT , in T^{0}they become in-
ternal nodes and only one more node is needed to build
the graph.

Therefore the graphG satisfying K-DIAMOND, that in-
cludes T^{0} as a subgraph, has a number of nodesn equal
to2k + (k + 1)(k − 1) due to the application of step1 and
step 2 respectively. Thus, we haveEXK−DIAM ON D(2k +
(k + 1)(k − 1), k) = true. For example, let consider the
graph(13, 3) shown in Figure 2(c) with height of T1equal
to 1. If we add the nodesL11, the resulting graph (14, 3)
that satisfiesK-DIAMOND with height of T1equal to two
is depicted in Figure 2(d).

Part 4: Iterating part 2 and 3. The reasoning contained
in part 3 can be repeated firstly increasing the height of
all the branches of the treeT^{0} (due to rule 5a), and then
making all the new shared leaves unshared as described
in Part 2. Therefore n can be generalized as n = 2k +
α(k − 1) + j with α ∈ N and j ∈ {0, 1, . . . k − 2} and
EXK−DIAM ON D(2k + α(k − 1) + j, k) = true.
Corollary 1 Let n and k be two natural numbers such that
n ≥ 2k

∀n, k EXK−T REE(n, k) ⇔ EXK−DIAM ON D(n, k) Proof 6 It trivially follows by Theorem 1 and Theorem 3 5.2 k-regularity of LHGs satisfied by K-

DIAMOND

Theorem 4 Let k and n be two natural numbers such that k < n and let α ∈ N). We have

REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) =

true n = 2k + α(k − 1) f alse otherwise

Proof 7 In the proof of Theorem 3 we showed that EXK−DIAM ON D(2k + α(k − 1) + j, k) = true ∀α ∈ N, j ∈ {0, . . . k − 2}. We prove the claim by showing when we have ak-regular graph increasing first α and then j.

Case j = 0 and α = 0. Due to the fact that rules 3b and 2 of K-TREE are the same of rules 5b and 3 of K-DIAMOND, the graph(2k, k) is k regular as shown in Theorem 2, there- foreRegK−DIAM ON D(2k, k) = true.

Case j = 0 and α 6= 0. In this case n = 2k + α(k − 1).

As shown in Part 2 and Part 3 of Theorem 3, increasingα by 1 means (i)k − 1 shared leaves with an incoming node are grouped in an unshared leaves or (ii) an unshared leaf becomes an internal node.

In case (i) due to rule 4a, k nodes are grouped together by a clique meaning that each of them have k − 1 links toward the others. Moreover due to rule 4b each node of

the group is linked also to a different copyTimeaning that any node part of an unshared leaf has degreek. Roots and other nodes still have degreek. Therefore such a graph is k-regular.

In case (ii) the internal node, namely s, due to rule 1 has
to be present in every copy T_{i} ofT ; since s was part of
an unshared leaf, it has alreadyk − 1 copies that become
internal nodes too. Due to rule 5c, every new internal node
must havek −1 children, therefore k −1 new nodes (leaves)
have to be present. Due to rule 5c, thek − 1 new internal
nodes havek − 1 children and one parent node, therefore
their degree is k. Roots have k children and then degree
k. The k − 1 shared leaves child of s are shared by all the
treesTiso they havek parents meaning that their degree is
k. Thus REGK−DIAM ON D(2k + 2α(k − 1), k) = true
withα ∈ N.

Case j 6= 0. In this case n = 2k + 2α(k − 1) + j with j ∈ j{1, . . . k − 2}, due to rule 5d, nodes with more than k − 1 children have degree greater than k. This is reflected on havingj 6= 0 and then k-regularity is not satisfied for all that value ofn and REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) = f alse. Corollary 2 Let n and k be two integers such that n ≥ 2k

∀n, k REGK−T REE(n, k) ⇒ REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k)
Proof 8 For a given k, we have to show that for each value
ofn such that a k-regular graph satisfying K − T REE ex-
ists (i.e., REGK−T REE(n, k) = true), then a k-regular
graph with n^{0} nodes (with n = n^{0}) that satisfies K −
DIAM ON D exists (i.e., REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) =
true).

From the proof of Theorem 2 and Theorem
4 we have n = 2k + 2αK−T REE(k − 1) and
n^{0} = 2k + αK−DIAM ON D(k − 1). We have to show that
n = n^{0}can be always verified.

2k + 2αK−T REE(k − 1) = 2k + αK−DIAM ON D(k − 1)
2α_{K−T REE}(k − 1) = αK−DIAM ON D(k − 1)

2α_{K−T REE} = αK−DIAM ON D

Since α_{K−T REE} and αK−DIAM ON D are two natural
numbers for each value of α_{K−T REE} there will always
exist a value ofαK−DIAM ON D such that2α_{K−T REE} =

αK−DIAM ON D.

Theorem 5 Let n and k be two integers such that
n ≥ 2k. There is an infinite number of pairs
(n, k) such that REGK−DIAM ON D(n, k) = true and
REG_{K−T REE}(n, k) = f alse

Proof 9 Corollary 2 shows that for each k-regular graph withn nodes that satisfies K − T REE, there exists a k- regular graph withn nodes that satisfies K −DIAM ON D and the corresponding αK−DIAM ON D is even (Equal- ity 1). Since αK−DIAM ON D is a natural number and

from Theorem 4 we have that a k-regular graph that sat-
isfies K − DIAM ON D exists also for each odd value
of αK−DIAM ON D with a number of nodes n equal to
2k+αK−DIAM ON D(k−1). For each of these these graphs
REG_{K−T REE}(n, k) = f alse due to Equality (1). The
claim follows by considering that there are infinite odd num-
bers belonging to the set of natural numbers.

### 6 Message complexity

By definition LHGs have a sub-linear complexity with
respect to the latency when flooding the network due to
their logarithmic diameter. In this section we show the
complexity of flooding a graph satisfying a KTREE and
K_{D}IAM ON D graph constraint in terms of message com-
plexity(MC).

Lemma 3 Given a graph G of n nodes with connectivity k, such thatG satisfies K − T REE then

M CK−T REE≤ nk + (2k − 3)k

Proof 10 Message Complexity is limited by the maximum number of edges in the graph. The worst case is when due to rule 3d of Definition 1, there are2k − 3 leaves in addition to the ones allowed by rules 3b or 3c.

In this scenario each node sends at leastk messages (nk messages). Moreover, each leaf of the 2k − 3 additional leaves has one father in each one of thek trees, therefore each of such fathers has to send one additional message for each of these children ((2k − 3)k messages).Then the message complexity is bounded bynk + (2k − 3)k. Lemma 4 Given a graph G of n nodes with connectivity k, such thatG satisfies K − DIAM ON D then

M CK−DIAM ON D≤ nk + (k − 2)k

Proof 11 The proof follows the structure of the previous one by considering thatK−DIAM ON D graph constraint allows, due to rule 5d,k − 2 additional leaves with respect to the ones allowed by rules 5b and 5c. Then the message complexity is bounded bynk + (2k − 3)k.

Discussion. To make a concrete example of the com- parison between K − T REE and K − DIAM ON D graph constraint, with respecto to message complexity, Fig- ure 3 shows the number of messages (#mess) needed to flood a 5-connected LHG satisfying K − T REE and K − DIAM ON D by varing the number of nodes n from 10 to 34. The figure shows also the minimum number of messages (nk) needed to flood the graph (opt).

Plots show that K − T REE and K − DIAM ON D allow to build k-regular graphs periodically. Susch a graphs exibith optimal message complexity (n = 10, n = 18, n =

0 50 100 150 200 250

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

**n**

**#m****e****s****s**

K-TREE K-DIAMOND Opt

**Figure 3. Message complexity for k = 5**

26 and n = 34). Moreover, in accordance with Theorem 4, the figure shows that K − DIAM ON D allows to build periodically a k-regular graph (i.e. n = 14) where K − T REE does not allow.

Finally in accordance with Lemma 3 and Lemma 4, plots show that in most cases K − DIAM ON D reduce signifi- cantly the number of messages required to complete a flood- ing with respect to K − T REE.

### 7 Conclusions

Studying the existence and regularity of Logarithmic Harary Graphs (LHGs) is of primary importance when one wants to flood in a robust and efficient way a network that has an arbitrary number of nodes. To the best of our knowl- edge this is the first paper looking at such properties of LHGs.

The paper has introduced a graph constraint K-TREE and it has shown that there is an infinite number of pairs (n, k) such that there is a LHG for each of these pairs that satisfies K-TREE and it does not satisfy the only graph con- straint presented in the literature so far [11]. Moreover, another graph constraint has been introduced, namely K- DIAMOND, that is equivalent to K-TREE with respect to LHGs existence, but it exhibits an infinite number of pairs (n, k) such that there is a k-regular LHG for the each of these pairs that satisfies K-DIAMOND and it does not sat- isfy K-TREE.

### Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Federico Limosani for insight- ful discussions that were instrumental to a better under- standing of this problem. The work is partially supported by the European Network Of Excellence ReSIST and by the European STREP project COMIFIN.

### References

[1] J. Aspnes and G. Shah. Skip graphs. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms (SODA ’03), pages 384–393, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

[2] R. Baldoni, S. Bonomi, F. Limosani, L. Querzoni, and S. T. Piergiovanni. Investigating the existence and the regularity of logarithmic harary graphs. In Tech- nicalReport 1/08 MIDLAB - Dipartimento di Informat- ica e Sistemistica, Universit`a di Roma “La Sapienza”.

http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/ midlab/publications, 2008.

[3] M. Castro, P. Druschel, A. Kermarrec, and A. Rowstron.

SCRIBE: a large-scale and decentralized application-level multicast infrastructure. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in communications (JSAC), 20(8):1489–1499, 2002.

[4] N. de Bruijn. A combinatorial problem. In Proceed- ings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschap- pen, volume 49, pages 758–764, 1946.

[5] H. Ehrig, K. Ehrig, A. Habel, and K. Pennemann. Con- straints and application conditions: from graphs to high- level structures. In Graph Transformations, Second Inter- national Conference, (ICGT), pages 287–303, 2004.

[6] P. Eugster, R. Guerraoui, S. Handurukande, P. Kouznetsov, and A. Kermarrec. Lightweight probabilistic broadcast.

ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 21(4):341–374, 2003.

[7] S. Floyd, V. Jacobson, C. Liu, S. M. Canne, and L. Zhang.

A reliable multicast framework for light-weight sessions and application level framing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Net- working, 5(6):784–803, 1997.

[8] R. Friedman, S. Manor, and K. Guo. Scalable stability detec- tion using logical hypercube. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[9] F. Harary. Graph Teory. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mas- sachusetts, 1969.

[10] J. Jannotti, D. K. Gifford, K. L. Johnson, M. F. Kaashoek, and J. W. O. Jr. Overcast: reliable multicasting with on overlay network. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Symposium on Operating System Design & Implementation OSDI’00, pages 14–14, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2000. USENIX Association.

[11] K. Jenkins and A. Demers. Logarithmic Harary Graphs. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Dis- tributed Computing Systems (ICDCSW ’01), page 43, Wash- ington, DC, USA, 2001. IEEE Computer Society.

[12] M. F. Kaashoek and D. R. Karger. Koorde: a simple degree- optimal distributed hash table. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS03), pages 98–107.

[13] C. Law and K. Siu. Distributed construction of random ex- pander networks. In Proceedings of 22nd IEEE annual con- ference on Computer and Communications Societies (Info- com03), 2003.

[14] X. Li, J. Misra, and G. Plaxton. Active and concurrent topol- ogy maintenance. In Proceedings of 18th Annual Confer- ence on Distributed Computing (DISC04), pages 320–334.

[15] M. Lin, K. Marzullo, and S. Masini. Gossip versus deter- ministic flooding: low message overhead and high reliability for broadcasting on small networks. In Distributed Comput- ing, 14th International Conference, (DISC ’00), pages 85–

89, 2000.

[16] D. Loguinov, A. Kumar, V. Rai, and S. Ganesh. Graph- theoretic analysis of structured peer-to-peer systems: rout- ing distances and fault resilience. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (SIGCOMM ’03), pages 395–406, New York, NY, USA, 2003. ACM.

[17] D. Malkhi, M. Naor, and D. Ratajczak. Viceroy: a scal- able and dynamic emulation of the butterfly. In Proceedings of the twenty-first annual symposium on Principles of dis- tributed computing (PODC ’02), pages 183–192, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM.

[18] R. Melamed and I. Keidar. Araneola: a scalable reliable multicast system for dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the Network Computing and Applications, Third IEEE In- ternational Symposium on (NCA’04), pages 5–14, Washing- ton, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.

[19] G. Pandurangan, P. Raghavan, and E. Upfal. Building low- diameter P2P networks. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS

’01), page 492, Washington, DC, USA, 2001. IEEE Com- puter Society.

[20] A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Pastry: scalable, decentral- ized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In In Proceedings of the 18th IFIP/ACM Interna- tional Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Mid- dleware01), volume 2218, pages 329–250, 2001.

[21] S. Skiena. Implementing discrete mathematics: combina- torics and graph theory with mathematica. Boston, MA, USA, 1991. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.