wireless networks are ubiquitous and are on their way to become even more prevalent , e.g. , with the advent of internet - of - things . wireless communication is , however , particularly challenging to model algorithmically . in two crucial interrelated aspects ,
wireless networks on the ground differ from models typically assumed in algorithmic studies .
one is the _ communication modeling _ : when is a transmission successfully decoded , as a function of the environment and the _ interference _ from other transmissions .
the other is _ variability with time _ : wireless networks are particularly susceptible to changes .
both of these are hard to capture accurately with well - defined , clear - cut rules .
we aim in this paper to address core information dissemination problems  _ local broadcast _ and ( global ) _ broadcast _  in dynamic distributed networks , under very weak assumptions on the communication . to this end
, we propose a communication model with significant flexibility that allows for adversarial control , generalizing essentially all known analytic wireless models .
it allows for more general interference relationships than treated before
. the network can experience adversarial dynamic behavior , both edge changes ( change of signal strengths ) and node insertions / deletions .
wireless communication has traditionally been modeled theoretically by graphs , either geometric or general .
interference is then also transmitted on graph edges ( precluding a node from receiving a message from a neighbor if another neighbor is transmitting ) , but is sometimes represented by a supergraph . _
fading channel _ or _ physical _ models common in communication engineering , on the other hand , consider interference as cumulative , decreasing with distance but adding up .
they have been popular in recent algorithmic studies , adding more realism to the formulation .
the standard assumption of _ geometric signal decay _ ( that signal decreases inverse polynomially with distance ) in the sinr model , the prototypical fading channel , is though equally at odds with experimental evidence . ultimately , it may prove futile to hope for a clean deterministic model , or even a purely stochastic one , without a significant dose of unpredictability and non - determinism .
wireless communication is commonly closely linked to mobility , as the transceivers are more often than not on the move .
dynamic changes to reception conditions have many causes other than node mobility , since almost any changes in the environment affect transmissions due to reflections of signals over multiple paths , antenna characteristics , scattering , and diffraction .
these changes are by nature hard to predict , even when assuming a `` mobility model '' . the most robust approach would then be to assume a non - trivial adversarial component .
while the study of algorithms in dynamic networks has a long history , little has been done in cases where interference plays a role .
* setting and model*.   nodes are distributed and autonomous . there is no built - in structure and the nodes have no information besides bounds on model parameters and an upper bound on the number of nodes .
communication is locally synchronous , but there is no global clock .
we will assume a very general model for when nodes successfully communicate .
nodes are located in space , with separation between points given by the relative decrease in strength of signal ( or interference ) sent between the points .
this induces a metric space , when these decays are raised to the appropriate power  actually , it is a _ quasi - metric _ , since symmetry need not hold .
for distributed computation to be possible , the quasi - metric must have _ bounded independence _
( to be defined precisely ) .
_ edge changes _ can occur , with some restrictions , which are changes in the signal strength between the pair of points .
the rule for when communication is successful is only partially pre - specified : transmission succeeds on a `` clear channel '' .
that is , if a sender is within a _ communication radius _ from the receiver , if no other node transmits within a ( larger ) radius , and if the combined interference from all other transmitting nodes is ( quite ) small , then the transmission succeeds .
otherwise , success is up to the adversary , or it can be further specified by the particular model assumptions desired .
this captures essentially all known algorithmic wireless models ( including quasi - unit disc graphs , unit - ball graphs , bounded - independence graphs , @xmath0-hop extensions , and sinr ) .
the only exception is the radio network model with general graphs , which can not be extended to involve comprehensive interference without a major hit in time complexity .
the generality of our model is a key feature .
given the vagaries of actual wireless environments , it is preferable for robustness reasons to make minimal assumptions about the communication model .
a conservative approach is then to seek algorithms that work in most established models rather than depending on model - specific factors that simplify the life of the algorithm designer .
[ [ dynamic - network - model ] ] dynamic network model + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the network is dynamic , both in terms of nodes and links .
nodes can come and go , potentially adversarially .
this includes the situation where nodes are wakened by other nodes .
we only expect nodes that have been awake for long enough ( logarithmic number of rounds ) to participate in the computation , i.e. , the _
stable _ nodes .    in the _ local broadcast _
problem , all stable nodes should inform all of their ( stable ) neighbors ( i.e. , within the communication radius ) . in the _ broadcast _
problem , the nodes in the network are to be informed of a message that initially resides at a source node .
the network need not be connected at any instant in time , but we need to make assumptions about what transient paths are usable by an algorithm operating under interference .
this leads to a definition of a _ dynamic diameter _ of the network , that becomes the competitive objective for the time complexity .
* our approach and results*.   the key algorithmic technique is a natural randomized _ contention balancing _ procedure , where a node continuously adjusts its transmission probability based on the interference that it senses .
it allows nodes to stabilize quickly from any initial conditions , or after waking up .
this routine is a variation on an old story , a simple backoff procedure to manage local contention :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ if a node @xmath1 senses contention in a given round beyond a fixed threshold , then @xmath1 halves its transmission probability in the next round and otherwise doubles it . _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    our main technical contribution is to show logarithmic - round convergence of this method to a steady state of nearly balanced contention , from an arbitrary starting configuration and in the presence of network changes .
it proves also to be surprisingly tolerant of different communication models .
the higher level algorithms are then built on top of this primitive .
a crucial component is the use of _ carrier sense _ to detect the cumulative amount of signals in the air .
since it is supplied by the cheapest available hardware today as rss ( received signal strength ) readings , we posit that carrier - sense capability should be the default assumption in wireless algorithmics ( while exploring the necessity of different assumptions is interesting theoretically ) . as carrier - sense indicators can provide fine - grained information , we are interested in restraining its use and identifying which aspects are necessary to achieve the results obtained . to this end , we identify several _ primitives _ that carrier - sense can supply , restrict the algorithm to use only a subset of the primitives , and examine which of these are truly necessary .
the local broadcast algorithm simply runs the contention balancing procedure , with nodes bowing out when they are sure to have completed their transmission .
the broadcast algorithms are based on sparsifying the instance , so that only nodes of constant density actually participate in the global broadcast action .
the former is achieved in @xmath2 time , where @xmath3 is the maximum number of neighbors that a node can have , while the latter takes @xmath4 rounds , where @xmath5 is a dynamic diameter .
these dissemination algorithms are efficient enough to improve on some of the results known for static versions of the problems .
the local broadcast algorithm is strongly optimal , or within constant factors on every instance . in the standard
setting ( static , spontaneous case ) , the algorithm is _ uniform _ , in that it need not know the network size .
the broadcast algorithm is also optimal and uniform in the same setting , while in the non - spontaneous setting it is faster by a logarithmic factor than the previous algorithm of @xcite that however does not require carrier sense .
* closely related work*.   there are two largely disjoint bodies of work of wireless algorithmic results , with work on fading models like sinr slowly catching up with the better studied graph - based models .
one approach for capturing more realism in sinr model is to move beyond euclidean metrics @xcite , even to general ones @xcite .
one can view relative signal decrease as implicitly defining a quasi - distance metric @xcite .
link scheduling problems can be formulated on edge - weighted interference graphs @xcite that properly generalize both graph - based and sinr models , linked by a graph - theoretic parameter . distributed dissemination problems , however , necessarily require metric restrictions , such as doubling or _ fading _
metrics @xcite , and limits on communication abilities in order to capture both types of models .
the local broadcast and global broadcast problems have been extensively studied in both graph - based radio network models  @xcite and the sinr model  @xcite . for local broadcast ,
the best results known in the radio network model are both @xmath6 with and without knowing ( an upper bound on ) @xmath3  @xcite . in the sinr model , with knowledge of @xmath3 , the local broadcast can be accomplished in the same time bound as in the radio network model @xcite .
if @xmath3 is not known , the best result is @xmath7  @xcite , which is improved to @xmath2 with free acknowledgments @xcite .
this can be further improved to @xmath8 in the spontaneous case , when @xmath3 is known  @xcite .
the time complexity of non - spontaneous broadcasting in the radio network model is @xmath9  @xcite without collision detection . with collision detection , this lower bound
was recently broken in  @xcite , where a solution of @xmath10 was given .
broadcasting has also been treated in the sinr model under a variety of assumptions .
some are stronger than ours ( location information @xcite , power control @xcite ) , while others relax the assumption about the connectivity property , incurring necessarily much higher complexity @xcite . results in our setting , but without carrier sensing , include time complexity of @xmath11 @xcite ( see also @xcite ) , where @xmath12 denotes the maximum ratio between distances of stations connected in the communication graph ; and @xmath13 @xcite . in the spontaneous setting , where the nodes can build an overlay structure along which
the message is then propagated , scheideler et al .
@xcite used carrier sense to give a dominator algorithms , which can be applied to solve broadcast in @xmath14 rounds .
yu et al .
@xcite solved the problem in the same time bound using power control , while the algorithm in  @xcite that requires neither power control nor carrier sense runs in time @xmath15 .
these problems have also been treated in dynamic networks . in
the _ unstructured _ model @xcite , where nodes may wake up asynchronously ( modeling the node insertion ) , the local broadcast problem is well studied , even in the sinr setting  @xcite , but this model does not consider node deletion . in the _ dual graph
_ model  @xcite ( originally due to @xcite ) , both the local broadcast  @xcite and global broadcast  @xcite problems are studied . but
this model involves only edge behavior and not node changes ( churn ) .
hence , the impact of dynamicity on wireless information dissemination is still largely unexplored .
considering wireless interference , there are two classes of wireless network models : graph - based and physical models .
basically , the graph - based models define a local and binary type of interference , while the physical models consider fading effect of signal on wireless channels .
there are many widely used graph - based models , such as the unit disc graph ( udg ) model  @xcite ( unit ball graph ( ubg ) model  @xcite ) , the quasi unit disc graph ( qudg ) model  @xcite , the protocol model  @xcite , the bounded - independence graph ( big ) model  @xcite and the @xmath0-hop variants of the above models  @xcite .
physical models , also known as sinr models  @xcite , capture the missing practical issues in wireless interference , such as fading and cumulativeness of wireless interference . most of current works in the sinr model focus on networks embedded in euclidean space , while many of the results hold also for doubling or `` bounded growth '' metrics @xcite .
those doubling metrics constrain growth at every ( or arbitrarily small ) granularity , while ours only bounds regions proportional to the transmission range , in particular capturing bounded independence graphs ( big ) .
all above models are included by our proposed communication model as shown in sec .
[ sec : primitiveproofs ] . for
more on wireless models , please refer to  @xcite .
more detailed related work is introduced in sec .
[ drw ] .    * our contributions*.
we have obtained generalized and improved algorithms for two of the most fundamental dissemination problems , in some cases improving the best results known in static settings . beyond these specific results , we identify the following technical contributions :    _ unified model of wireless networks_. the model proposed appears to be the first that allows for the development of pan - model distributed dissemination algorithms .
this hopefully prompts further studies crossing the artificial boundary between graph- and fading - based models .
_ dynamic networks under interference_. this appears to be the first work to address dynamic networks in the presence of comprehensive interference .
_ uniform algorithms_. our algorithms in the static spontaneous setting appear to be the first in fading models that work independent of instance parameters ( number of nodes , max .  degree ) .    _
primitives for carrier - sense .
_ we introduce several primitives or _ capabilities _ that can be implemented using environmental sensing , and propose to study the power of such primitives .    _ stabilization mechanisms .
_ we identify contention adaptation as a fundamental ability in wireless networks , that appears to be of crucial value to implement other distributed tasks .
* roadmap*.   the formal model and basic definitions , including the definitions of communication model and carrier sensing primitives , are given in sec .
[ sec : model ] .
[ sec : balancingcontention ] contains the core technical part of the paper that includes the basic contention balance routine and its analysis .
the main results concerning local and global broadcast problems are presented in sections  [ sec : localbroadcast ] and  [ sec : broadcast ] , respectively . due to space constraints
, most proofs are relegated to appendices .
we consider a dynamic network of point - size wireless devices ( nodes ) .
nodes can transmit messages in time slots / rounds that are sufficiently long to allow a transmission of a single message .
no global clock or synchronization of rounds is required , but the clocks of different nodes run at a similar rate , i.e. , the length of a round differs between nodes at most by a factor of 2 .
nodes may arrive and leave the network at any time .
unless specified otherwise , the nodes are assumed to work _ non - spontaneously _ : they can initially be in sleep state and join the execution of an algorithm only after receiving a message .
we say a node is _ alive _ at some point in time if it is present in the network .
we assume the total number of nodes in the network is polynomially bounded by a number @xmath16 in each round .
we use @xmath17 to denote the set of alive nodes at any fixed point in time and also use @xmath16 to denote the current number of nodes , i.e. @xmath18 .
we assume all nodes use the same transmission power @xmath19 for communication in all rounds .    _
metrics_.   the _ signal strength _  or _ interference _ , depending on context  of transmitting node @xmath20 on a node @xmath1 is @xmath21 , where @xmath22 is the _ path loss _ from @xmath20 to @xmath1 .
the _ metricity _ of a space @xmath23 is the smallest number @xmath24 such that for every triplet @xmath25 ,
@xmath26 @xcite .
we define @xmath27 if @xmath20 and @xmath1 are different nodes and @xmath28 when @xmath29 .
note that @xmath30 is a _ quasi - metric _ , as all metric axioms except symmetry hold . in the rest of the paper
, we assume that in each round the metricity of the network is bounded by a fixed constant @xmath24 and will work with values @xmath31 instead of @xmath32 .
we assume the quasi - metric @xmath30 has _ bounded independence _ , defined below , roughly stating that there can not be many nodes each causing high interference to a _ fixed _
node , while having low mutual interferences .
first , some notations . the _ ball _ with radius @xmath33 centered at @xmath20
is defined as @xmath34 .
the _ in - ball _ with radius @xmath33 centered at @xmath20 is defined as @xmath35 ; clearly , @xmath36 .
a set @xmath37 is a @xmath33-_packing _ for set @xmath38 if balls of radius @xmath33 centered at nodes in @xmath39 are contained in @xmath38 and are disjoint .
@xmath39 is a @xmath40-_cover _ for @xmath38 if the union of balls of radius @xmath40 centered at nodes in @xmath39 contains @xmath38 .
note that any maximal @xmath33-packing is a @xmath41-cover , and thus one can bound sizes of covers by packings .
we say that @xmath30 has @xmath42-_bounded independence _ , for given @xmath43 and @xmath44 , if for every @xmath45 and every in - ball @xmath46 of radius @xmath47 , the size of a maximum cardinality @xmath48-packing of @xmath46 is at most @xmath49 , where @xmath50 is a constant , possibly depending on @xmath51 .
for instance , the euclidean plane is @xmath52-bounded independent , for every @xmath33 . _
neighborhoods , communication graph and dissemination problems_.   let @xmath53 denote the maximum transmission distance possible when no other node transmits . as the latter event is arguably very rare ,
we define the _ communication radius _ @xmath54 as a slightly smaller distance , where @xmath55 is a _ precision _ parameter
. we will drop the parameter @xmath55 whenever it is fixed and clear from the context .
fix a round @xmath56 .
the _ neighborhood _ of a node is @xmath57 , describing who @xmath20 can communicate with directly .
the basic operation of interest is when @xmath20 broadcasts a message to its neighbors @xmath58 .
the _ communication graph _ is a directed graph @xmath59 , where @xmath60 if and only if @xmath61 .
thus , the sequence @xmath62 defines a _ dynamic graph_. the _ vicinity _ of @xmath20 refers to a larger region , @xmath63 , for a parameter @xmath64 .
the data dissemination problems that we consider are defined below .
we say that a node @xmath20 _ mass - delivers _ in round @xmath56 if it transmits and all its neighbors ( @xmath58 ) receive the message .    in the _ local broadcast _ problem , given a node @xmath20 , it is required to minimize the time from the beginning of the algorithm until node @xmath20 mass - delivers at least once , assuming it stays alive during that time .    in the _
( global ) broadcast _ problem , given a distinguished _ source _ node that initially holds a message , the goal is to minimize the time needed to deliver the message to every node in the network through multihop transmissions .
_ one hop communication_.   when is a transmission successfully received ?
suppose a node @xmath20 transmits in round @xmath56 , and let @xmath39 be the set of concurrently transmitting nodes .
let @xmath65 and @xmath66 be parameters that depend on the precision @xmath55 .
( , success on a clear channel )
if no other node in @xmath67 transmits _ and _ the total interference at node @xmath20 is at most @xmath68 ( i.e. @xmath69 and @xmath70 ) , then the transmission of node @xmath20 is successfully received by _ all _ its neighbors ( @xmath58 ) .
otherwise , the reception is under adversarial control .    _
randomized algorithms_.   we mainly consider randomized algorithms of the following form : in each round @xmath56 , node @xmath1 makes a transmission with probability @xmath71 , independent of other nodes transmissions in that round .
an important notion for the analysis of such algorithms is _ local contention _ , the sum of the transmission probabilities in a close region .
the contention in the _ close neighborhood _ of a node @xmath1 in round @xmath56 is @xmath72 , where the radius @xmath73 allows all pair of nodes in @xmath74 to potentially communicate .
also , let @xmath75 denote the contention in the larger _ vicinity _ of @xmath1 in round @xmath56 ( @xmath76 will be fixed later ) .
we will also use the notation @xmath77 to denote the interference at @xmath1 from nodes outside its vicinity ( in @xmath78 ) in round @xmath56 .
the expected value of @xmath77 is @xmath79 .    _
sensing primitives_.   we assume the nodes have abilities to sense activity on the channel .
namely , we assume the nodes are able to detect high and low contention in their vicinity , detect ( under some conditions ) whether their transmission in a given round succeeded and detect a single very near transmission . in the following ,
we formalize these notions in three primitives : , and .
we show in sec .
[ sec : primitiveproofs ] how _ all _ these primitives can be implemented with _
basic _ physical carrier sensing and possibly also with other means .
( ) . contention can be probabilistically deduced from measured level of radio activity .
we want to relax this ability and will use the following variant , where the outcome of is one of the two values : busy or idle channel . formally ,
for each node @xmath1 and round @xmath56 :    if contention among close neighbors is high ( @xmath80 ) then they _ all _ detect busy channel in round @xmath56 with probability at least @xmath81 , for given @xmath82 , where @xmath83 is a constant ,    if the contention in the vicinity of @xmath1 is low ( @xmath84 ) _ and _ the interference on @xmath1 from outside its vicinity is above a threshold ( @xmath85 ) then @xmath1 detects idle channel in round @xmath56 with probability at least @xmath86 , for given @xmath87 , where @xmath88 and @xmath89 are constants .
if a node @xmath20 has the = ( @xmath55 ) primitive ( depending on the precision parameter @xmath55 ) then : if @xmath20 transmits in round @xmath56 , the interference at @xmath20 is bounded by @xmath90 and the transmission is received by all nodes in @xmath91 , then the outcome of is 1 , where @xmath90 is a parameter .
if the transmission is not received by a node @xmath92 then the outcome is @xmath93 . otherwise , the outcome is @xmath93 or @xmath94 , adversarially .
( ) . with =
( @xmath55 ) primitive , a node is able to detect if a transmitter is very close , assuming that it receives the transmitted message .
the outcome of is @xmath94 for node @xmath1 in round @xmath56 if @xmath1 _ receives _ a transmission from a node @xmath20 , @xmath95 .
otherwise , the outcome of is @xmath93 .
this can also be made approximate .    _
dynamicity_.   we consider a dynamic network where the topology may change adversarially in each round due to node churn ( node arrivals / departures ) and edge changes .
we assume that arriving nodes start running the algorithms from an initial configuration , so we do not limit the rate of churn . with edge changes , existing nodes that were not neighbors before , may become neighbors ( e.g. due to mobility ) .
the new neighbors may cause too much interference in a too short time , so the edge changes should be limited .
we assume the amount of edge changes is bounded for each node @xmath1 , as follows . consider a time interval @xmath96 of length @xmath97 .
we require that the number of new neighbors of @xmath1 during @xmath96 ( not counting churn ) is bounded by @xmath98 , where @xmath99 denotes the number of rounds in @xmath96 and @xmath100 is a constant , to be fixed later .
we further assume the fraction of rounds in @xmath96 when there are more than @xmath101 new neighbors of @xmath1 is bounded by @xmath102 for every @xmath103 , where @xmath104 .
note that there is no restriction on distance changes inside the neighborhood of @xmath1 ( e.g. it is fine for node @xmath1 if its neighbors move , as far as they remain neighbors ) .
note that the edge changes may affect the underlying metric , but we require that the upper bounds on metricity and independence are maintained .    _ requirements and assumptions_.   for the convenience of the reader , we gather together all of our assumptions and requirements in a single place .
communication is assumed to succeed in a clear channel ( ) . we assume constant metricity @xmath105 and that @xmath30 has @xmath42-bounded independence with @xmath106 .
for the local broadcast problem , we assume that @xmath107 , and for the broadcast problem that @xmath108 . as is standard in fading models , the communication radius @xmath109 is necessarily an @xmath110-fraction of the maximum transmission distance in a clear channel .
besides the knowledge required by the primitives that are needed for a particular algorithm , the nodes are assumed to know the precision parameter @xmath55 .
a polynomial estimate on the number of nodes , @xmath16 , is needed in dynamic and non - spontaneous algorithms , but not in the static spontaneous problems .
knowledge of approximations of model parameters are needed to implement primitives , including @xmath111 , @xmath105 , @xmath53 , @xmath112 , and @xmath68 .
knowledge of the maximum degree @xmath3 is not needed .
synchronous operation is only assumed in the broadcast algorithm .
aspects not defined or constrained are assumed to be under ( adaptive ) adversarial control , including when transmissions that fail are successful , or when nodes appear or disappear from the network .
the extent of increases in edge strengths over a period is restricted , as detailed above , while decreases are not and neither are node changes .
the dissemination problems are only expected to function with the set of nodes that are sufficiently stable , as detailed in the respective section .
in order to keep the contention in the network balanced , we propose a basic procedure called try&adjust , which will be the main building block in our algorithms . the idea is to let each node adapt its transmission probability to the contention detected using the assumed primitive .
the parameter @xmath113 describes the passiveness of the newly arriving nodes .    _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ try&adjust(@xmath114 ) : each node @xmath1 maintains transmission probability @xmath115 in each round @xmath56 , initialized as @xmath116 when @xmath1 enters the network . in round @xmath117 , @xmath1 does : + 1 . transmit with probability @xmath71 , and + 2 .
set @xmath118 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    the aim for controlling contention is , of course , to ensure that transmissions made have a fair chance of being successful , which means they sufficiently overpower the interference experienced at intended receiver from all other transmissions made in that round
. we account for this interference in two ways : the _ contention _ captures the expected interference from the nodes neighbors , while the _ interference _ integrates also the interference from nodes further away .
we will measure the contention in the _ vicinity _ of each node @xmath1 , i.e. in @xmath119 , where @xmath76 is a large enough constant .
we specify a threshold @xmath120 ( recall @xmath121 from definition ) for measuring contention : if @xmath122 then round @xmath56 is a _ high contention round _ for node @xmath1 and is a _ low contention round _ , otherwise .
we further specify a threshold @xmath123 for interference : if @xmath124 then round @xmath56 is a _ high interference round _ for @xmath1 and is _ low interference round _ , otherwise .
these thresholds are chosen so as to ensure that in a low - contention / interference round , node @xmath1 will be likely to succeed if it transmits . however , requiring all or most rounds to be low contention for all nodes will lead to high delays
instead , it turns out that most rounds will have _ bounded contention _ and low interference , which allows for good progress ; we say node @xmath1 experiences _ bounded contention _ in round @xmath56 if @xmath125 , where @xmath126 is a large enough constant , to be specified later .
we say that a round @xmath56 is _ good _ for node @xmath1 if @xmath56 is both bounded contention and low interference round ( in which case , some node in @xmath1 s vicinity has a good chance of successfully transmitting ) .
we analyze the properties of try&adjust using the notion of _ a phase _ , the shortest time in which at least @xmath127 rounds occur for all nodes , where @xmath128 is sufficiently large ( given in prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] ) .
we use @xmath129 to denote a general phase and also the set of rounds in that phase .
@xmath130 denotes the number of rounds in a phase @xmath129 ( i.e. @xmath131 ) .
the fundamental property of try&adjust ( prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] ) is that , for each node and each phase , most of the rounds in the phase are good for that node .
this property is then used to show that :    if most of the good rounds in a phase have low contention , then node @xmath1 detects idle channel in most of those rounds .    otherwise , during a constant fraction of the rounds , a node in the vicinity of @xmath1 mass - delivers .    by choosing the parameters carefully ,
i.e.  requiring _ low enough _ contention , we can make sure that during a phase with mostly low contention , the node detects idle channel in _ most of the rounds _ ( more than half ) in a phase , thus leading to an increase of transmission probability by the end of the phase , which , after sufficiently many phases ensures message delivery , w.h.p . on the other hand , during a phase with mostly high contention , there will be many nodes in the vicinity of @xmath1 that successfully transmit , leading to lower contention .
these ideas are applied in thms .
[ thm : localbroadcast ] and  [ thm : broadcast ] . the core idea behind this analysis
is based on  @xcite .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] let @xmath132 .
if constants @xmath133 and @xmath134 are large enough then for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , with probability @xmath135 , a @xmath136-fraction of the rounds in @xmath129 are good
.    the proof is rather technical and is deferred to sec .  [ sec : contentiondetails ] but the intuition is as follows .
the contention in each neighborhood must be bounded most of the time , because when it becomes large , it has a high chance of being decreased due to busy channel .
moreover , we show that in expectation , the contention in _ all _ local neighborhoods is bounded , which is then combined with a geometric argument to show that the expected interference at each node is low most of the time .
we derive from the fundamental property two useful propositions .
the first says that if contention is high , then nodes in the vicinity deliver the message .
[ pr : pdecrease ] assume that constants @xmath137 are large enough . for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , if at least @xmath138-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 are of high contention , then @xmath139 nodes in @xmath140 mass - deliver , with probability @xmath135 .    to this end
, we first show that if a round is good for node @xmath20 and a node in its vicinity transmits , then it mass - delivers with constant probability , utilizing both metric assumptions and the properties of good rounds .
we then argue that since most rounds are good ( by prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] ) and most rounds have by assumption sufficient contention , many rounds will be both good and with sufficient contention , and in each of those , a node in the vicinity of @xmath1 is likely to transmit and succeed .
when contention is low in a lot of rounds of a phase , the node will detect idle channel by the primitive in many rounds .
this will actually happen during many good rounds , which have the low local contention and low external interference to allow for this detection .
[ pr : idle ] assume that @xmath137 are large enough .
for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , if at least @xmath141-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 are low contention rounds , then with probability @xmath135 , in at least @xmath142-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 , @xmath1 will detect idle channel and have low contention and low interference .
we propose an algorithm for asynchronous local broadcast in dynamic networks .
the algorithm is an extension of the try&adjust procedure , where the nodes try to balance the contention in the network and stop transmitting as soon as they deliver their message .
we assume the nodes are powered with and primitives .
note that the passiveness parameter is set to @xmath143 , which means that the transmission probability of nodes does not get below @xmath144 .
localbcast : each node @xmath1 executes try&adjust(1 ) with the following additional step : if @xmath1 transmits and detects , it stops ( i.e. @xmath145 for @xmath146 ) .    we will estimate the performance of the algorithm using the notion of _ dynamic degree _ , defined as follows . given a parameter @xmath147
, we denote @xmath148 for node @xmath1 and rounds @xmath149 with @xmath150 , where @xmath151 denotes the in - ball @xmath119 in round @xmath33 .    below
we prove that if there are not too many node insertions in the neighborhood of a node @xmath1 , then @xmath1 mass - delivers ( delivers to all its neighbors ) in time comparable to its dynamic degree with @xmath76 a constant .
the main tools for proving the bound are props .
[ pr : pdecrease ] and  [ pr : idle ] .
first we argue that if there is a phase of mostly low contention , then node @xmath1 will deliver its message , w.h.p .
then we show that if the insertions are not too intensive then the contention around @xmath1 will decrease and a phase with mostly low contention will happen .
[ thm : localbroadcast ] there is a constant @xmath147 , such that a node @xmath1 performing localbcast asynchronously in a time interval @xmath152 $ ] with @xmath153 mass - delivers , w.h.p .
, provided that @xmath154 .
note that the assumption @xmath154 is needed only for making the claim w.h.p .
: it can be relaxed to higher degree polynomials by only increasing constant factors .
let us fix constants @xmath155 so that props .
[ pr : pdecrease ] and  [ pr : idle ] with @xmath156 .
we partition @xmath96 into phases ( for node @xmath1 ) and classify them into two types : ( type a ) phases @xmath129 where at least @xmath138-fraction of rounds are high contention rounds ( i.e. @xmath157 ) , and ( type b ) phases @xmath129 where at least @xmath141-fraction of rounds are low contention rounds ( i.e. @xmath158 ) .
node @xmath1 mass - delivers in a type b phase , w.h.p .
let @xmath159 be the low contention and interference rounds during phase @xmath129 where @xmath1 detects idle channel . by prop .
[ pr : idle ] @xmath160 > 1-o(n^{-3})$ ] .
assume for now that the latter happens .
for each @xmath161 we have @xmath162 .
let us call this operation doubling .
the value of @xmath71 at the beginning of the phase is at least @xmath144 , so @xmath163 doubling operations are sufficient to raise it to @xmath164 .
the probability can be further halved during the phase at most @xmath165 times .
thus , we may assume we have at most @xmath166 halving and at least @xmath167 doubling operations applied to an initial value @xmath164 .
if @xmath168 , then the total number of halving operations is less than @xmath169 .
it follows that @xmath1 has @xmath170 in at least @xmath171 low contention / interference rounds . by lemma  [ le : broadgood ] , in each such round , @xmath1 mass - delivers with probability at least @xmath172 ; hence , if @xmath128 is large enough , @xmath1 mass - delivers in @xmath129 , w.h.p .
it remains to argue that there will be a type b phase during time interval @xmath96 .
consider a type a phase @xmath129 .
[ pr : pdecrease ] implies that with probability @xmath135 , @xmath173 nodes in @xmath119 deliver their message and stop during phase @xmath129 .
thus , with probability @xmath174 , there are at most @xmath175 type a phases with @xmath176 a constant , as there are at most @xmath177 nodes in @xmath140 during the time interval @xmath96 ( also recall that @xmath178 ) .
we conclude that if @xmath96 consists of at least @xmath179 phases , it will contain a type b phase and @xmath1 will deliver its message w.h.p .
* implications for static networks*.   in static networks , the parameter @xmath177 is at most @xmath180 if @xmath76 is constant , where @xmath181 is the maximum size of a neighborhood in the network .
thus , we obtain the following optimal result ( up to constant factors ) for static networks , as @xmath3 and @xmath163 are lower bounds even when running in the spontaneous mode  @xcite .
when running localbcast in a static asynchronous network , each node @xmath1 completes local broadcast in @xmath182 rounds , w.h.p .    * remark . * in the special case when the nodes can start executing the algorithm simultaneously , i.e. in the _ spontaneous mode _ , the nodes need not know an upper bound on the size of the network . indeed ,
each node may start running try&adjust with initial probability set to an arbitrary value and with no lower limit .
the first phase will be spent for stabilization and can be ignored , while the argument for the rest of the phases is nearly identical to the one in thm .
[ thm : localbroadcast ] .
for the broadcast problem , we assume nodes communicate in synchronized rounds of equal length .
each round consists of two slots .
the idea is to use the first slot of each round for disseminating the message with try&adjust and the second slot for notifying nodes which have no uninformed neighbors .
the latter is accomplished by using higher precision primitives , namely ( @xmath183 ) and ( @xmath183 ) , when executing try&adjust .
this helps to detect a transmission that is successfully received by all nodes in @xmath184 of a node @xmath1 . upon detecting such a transmission , node
@xmath1 resends the message in the second slot , in order to inform nodes @xmath20 with @xmath185 that their neighborhood ( @xmath186 ) has been covered .
a node @xmath20 can detect that @xmath185 using .
the algorithm is presented below .
we assume the passiveness parameter @xmath114 of try&adjust is large enough , to be defined later .
note that the algorithm works for the non - spontaneous mode , as nodes act only after receiving the message .
bcast(@xmath114 ) : initially , only a source node @xmath187 has the message .
a node @xmath1 , upon receiving a message , starts executing try&adjust(@xmath114 ) in the first slot of rounds .
in addition , in each round @xmath56 , + 1 . if @xmath1 detects in the first slot , it retransmits in the second slot and restarts try&adjust(@xmath114 ) , + 2
. if @xmath1 receives a message in the first slot and detects in the second slot , it restarts try&adjust(@xmath114 ) .    in order to evaluate the progress of the algorithm ,
we use a notion of a _ dynamic distance _ , as defined below .
let @xmath188 be a parameter .
a sequence @xmath189 is called a _ stable @xmath187-@xmath1 path _ if there is a sequence @xmath190 of time intervals with @xmath191 $ ] , such that @xmath192 , @xmath193 and nodes @xmath194 and @xmath195 are both alive and @xmath196 during @xmath197 .
the _ time - length _ of a stable @xmath187-@xmath1 path is @xmath198 .
the _ stable @xmath187-@xmath1 distance _
@xmath199 is defined as the minimum time - length of a stable @xmath187-@xmath1 path .
note that a stable path need not be connected at any fixed point in time .
moreover , most of the nodes might be missing at any given point in time .
the core idea behind the analysis of the following theorem is similar to the case of local broadcast : we show that as soon as a neighbor @xmath20 of a node @xmath1 has the message and @xmath20 and @xmath1 keep being neighbors for @xmath200 rounds , @xmath1 will receive a transmission of @xmath20 during those rounds .
[ thm : broadcast ] assume the edge change rate @xmath100 is sufficiently small .
there are constants @xmath201 , such that when running bcast(@xmath114 ) in the synchronous mode , each node @xmath1 receives the message in @xmath202 rounds w.h.p .
let us fix constants @xmath155 so that props .
[ pr : pdecrease ] and  [ pr : idle ] hold with interference threshold @xmath203 , where @xmath204 and @xmath205 are the parameters corresponding to precision @xmath183 .
we set the passiveness parameter of try&adjust to @xmath206 and the stable distance parameter @xmath207 .
consider a node @xmath20 that receives the message in round @xmath56 .
let @xmath1 be such that @xmath208 in the time interval @xmath209 $ ] ( and both stay alive during @xmath96 ) .
the theorem follows by an induction and union bound from the claim below .
node @xmath1 gets the message of @xmath20 during @xmath96 , with probability @xmath210 .
we prove the claim by contradiction , and assume that @xmath1 can not get the message during @xmath96 .
let us split @xmath96 into phases ( for @xmath20 ) and , similar to the proof of thm .
[ thm : localbroadcast ] , classify the phases @xmath129 into types : ( type a ) at least @xmath138-th of rounds in @xmath129 are high contention rounds for @xmath20  @xmath211 , and ( type b ) at least @xmath141-th of rounds in @xmath129 are low contention rounds for @xmath20  @xmath212 .
we show that with probability @xmath135 , all phases in @xmath96 are of type b. consider a type a phase @xmath129 . we know from prop .
[ pr : pdecrease ] that , with probability @xmath135 , there is a set @xmath39 of @xmath139 nodes in @xmath140 that deliver their messages and restart try&adjust during @xmath129 .
we split @xmath39 into three subsets , @xmath213  those inserted by churn during @xmath129 , @xmath214  those inserted by edge change during @xmath129 and @xmath215  the rest .
consider @xmath214 first .
we know that in each local neighborhood , there are at most @xmath216 nodes arriving due to edge changes .
note that @xmath217 can be covered with @xmath218 local neighborhoods ; hence , the total number of nodes arriving in @xmath217 due to edge changes is @xmath219 . since @xmath220 , setting @xmath221 a small enough constant gives @xmath222 .
now consider @xmath215 . by the primitive , for each node @xmath223 , all nodes in @xmath224 also restart try&adjust , setting their transmission probability to @xmath225 . by the setting of @xmath226 ,
the probability that a node restarting try&adjust in phase @xmath129 transmits again in @xmath129 is at most @xmath227 .
thus , with probability at least @xmath135 , the nodes in @xmath214 constitute an @xmath228-packing of @xmath140 and are at most @xmath229 . as for @xmath213 ,
the probability that a newly arriving node transmits during phase @xmath129 is at most @xmath227 , so @xmath230 w.h.p .
these bounds lead to a contradiction  @xmath231 , if constant @xmath128 is large enough .
thus , each phase @xmath129 of @xmath96 is of type b with probability @xmath135 .
it remains to recall that @xmath96 contains constant number of phases .
now assume that @xmath129 is of type b. in a similar way as in theorem  [ thm : localbroadcast ] , we can apply prop .
[ pr : idle ] and show that if @xmath232 at the beginning of @xmath129 , then by the end of @xmath129 , the effect on @xmath71 is equivalent to applying at least @xmath233 of @xmath234 operations on @xmath235 .
since @xmath236 at the beginning of @xmath96 is at least @xmath225 , it will take at most 11 phases to increase the probability to the value @xmath164 .
then , a single phase will suffice for @xmath20 to deliver its message ( including to node @xmath1 ) , with probability at least @xmath210 .
* implications for static networks*.   when the network is static , theorem  [ thm : broadcast ] can be reformulated in terms of hop - distance @xmath237 in the communication graph , which is defined as the length of the shortest directed @xmath187-@xmath1 path in @xmath238 : we have that @xmath239 for any node @xmath1 .
note also that in this setting nodes that succeeded transmitting or detected need not continue the algorithm , so they stop transmitting . in this case , setting the passiveness parameter to @xmath143 suffices .
we call this variant of the algorithm bcast@xmath240 .    when running bcast@xmath240 in synchronous non - spontaneous mode in a static network with source @xmath187 , each node @xmath1 receives the message in @xmath241 rounds w.h.p .
when the communication graph is strongly connected , the broadcast from any source node is completed in @xmath242 rounds , where @xmath243 is the diameter of the communication graph .    in the spontaneous mode ,
the bound above can be further improved to @xmath244 ; see appendix [ sec : spontaneous ] .
this is based on finding a constant - density dominating set in @xmath200 time @xcite and simultaneously propagating along the dominators in @xmath244 time .
we can therefore extend the approach based on @xcite to uniform algorithms in bounded - independence metrics .
these results are close to best possible .
we show below that in order to obtain bounds of that magnitude , it is necessary to have the primitive . to this end , we extend the lower bound construction of  ( * ? ? ?
* thm .  7 ) for `` compact sinr '' to our setting .
this construction leverages the property of our model that there can be arbitrarily many nodes that are mutually close to each other .
namely , the bounded - independence metric is strictly more relaxed than the standard euclidean metrics .
indeed , there is a @xmath245-round broadcast algorithm for the sinr model that does not need or other carrier sensing primitives @xcite .
what the lower bound then illustrates is that to obtain such results , one must depend on opportune traits of the sinr model that we have tried to avoid and are not necessary for problems like local broadcast .
thus we can observe concrete tradeoffs depending on model assumptions .
[ thm : brlowerbound ] for every ( possibly randomized ) broadcast algorithm @xmath246 that uses neither node coordinates nor primitive , there is a @xmath247-bounded - independence metric space where @xmath246 needs @xmath248 rounds to do broadcast in a @xmath249-broadcastable network , even if the nodes have and primitives and operate spontaneously .
10    n.  alon , a.  bar - noy , n.  linial , and d.  peleg . .
in _ stoc _ , pages 274285 , 1989 .
n.  alon , a.  bar - noy , n.  linial , and d.  peleg .
a lower bound for radio broadcast . , 43(2):290298 , 1991 .
r.  bar - yehuda , o.  goldreich , and a.  itai . on the time - complexity of broadcast in radio networks : an exponential gap between determinism and randomization . in _
podc87 _ , 1987 .
l.  barenboim and d.  peleg .
nearly optimal local broadcasting in the sinr model with feedback . in _ sirocco _ , pages 164178 , 2015 .
m.  h. bodlaender and m.  m. halldrsson . beyond geometry : towards fully realistic wireless models . in _ podc _ , pages 347356 , 2014 .
m.  h. bodlaender , m.  m. halldrsson , and p.  mitra . .
in _ podc _ , pages 355364 .
acm , 2013 .
i.  chlamtac and s.  kutten . on broadcasting in radio networks
problem analysis and protocol design .
, 33(12):12401246 , 1985 .
b.  s. chlebus , d.  r. kowalski , and s.  vaya . distributed communication in bare - bones wireless networks . , 2015 .
b.  n. clark , c.  j. colbourn , and d.  s. johnson .
unit disk graphs .
, 86(1):165177 , 1990 .
a.  e. clementi , a.  monti , and r.  silvestri .
round robin is optimal for fault - tolerant broadcasting on wireless networks . , 64(1):8996 , 2004 .
a.  czumaj and w.  rytter . broadcasting algorithms in radio networks with unknown topology . in _
focs03 _ , 2003 .
s.  daum , s.  gilbert , f.  kuhn , and c.  newport . .
in _ disc _ , pages 358372 , 2013 .
b.  derbel and e.  talbi . .
in _ icdcn10 _ , pages 155166 , 2010 .
s.  dolev , s.  gilbert , m.  khabbazian , and c.  newport . .
in _ disc _ , pages 252267 , 2011 .
a.  fanghnel , t.  kesselheim , and b.  vcking . .
, 412(24):26572667 , 2011 .
m.  ghaffari , s.  gilbert , c.  newport , and h.  tan . optimal broadcast in shared spectrum radio networks . in _ opodis12 _ , 2012 .
m.  ghaffari , b.  haeupler , and m.  khabbazian . randomized broadcast in radio networks with collision detection . in _ podc13 _ , 2013 .
m.  ghaffari , b.  haeupler , n.  lynch , and c.  newport .
bounds on contention management in radio networks . in _ disc _ , 2012 .
m.  ghaffari , e.  kantor , n.  lynch , and c.  newport .
multi - message broadcast with abstract mac layers and unreliable links . in _
podc14 _ , 2014 .
m.  ghaffari , n.  lynch , and c.  newport . the cost of radio network broadcast for different models of unreliable links . in
podc13 _ , 2013 .
o.  goussevskaia , t.  moscibroda , and r.  wattenhofer . . in _ dialm - pomc 08
_ , pages 3544 , 2008 .    p.  gupta and p.  kumar .
, 46(2):388404 , 2000 .
m.  m. halldrsson . .
, 9(1):7:17:20 , dec .
m.  m. halldrsson , s.  holzer , and n.  a. lynch . a local broadcast layer for the sinr network model . in _
podc _ , pages 129138 , 2015 .
m.  m. halldrsson , s.  holzer , p.  mitra , and r.  wattenhofer . .
in _ soda13 _ , pages 15951606 , 2013 .
m.  m. halldrsson and p.  mitra . .
in _ icalp _ , pages 625636 , 2011 .
m.  m. halldrsson and p.  mitra . .
in _ podc _ , 2012 .
m.  m. halldrsson and p.  mitra . .
fomc _ , 2012 .
m.  m. halldrsson , y.  wang , and d.  yu .
leveraging multiple channels in ad hoc networks . in _ podc15 _ , 2015 .
m.  hoefer , t.  kesselheim , and b.  vcking .
approximation algorithms for secondary spectrum auctions . in _ proceedings of the twenty - third annual acm symposium on parallelism in algorithms and architectures _ , spaa 11 , pages 177186 , new york , ny , usa , 2011 .
r.  impagliazzo and v.  kabanets
. constructive proofs of concentration bounds . in _
approx - random _ , pages 617631 , 2010 .
t.  jurdzinski , d.  kowalski , m.  rozanski , and g.  stachowiak .
distributed randomized broadcasting in wireless networks under the sinr model . in _ disc _ ,
pages 373387 , 2013 .
t.  jurdzinski , d.  kowalski , m.  rozanski , and g.  stachowiak . on the impact of geometry on ad hoc communication in wireless networks . in _ podc 14 _ , 2014 .
t.  jurdzinski , d.  r. kowalski , and g.  stachowiak . .
in _ fct13 _ , pages 195209 , 2013 .
t.  jurdzinski , d.  r. kowalski , and g.  stachowiak .
distributed deterministic broadcasting in wireless networks of weak devices . in _
icalp13 _ , 2013 .
t.  kesselheim and b.  vcking . .
in _ disc _ , pages 163178 , 2010 .    d.  kowalski and a.  pelc .
broadcasting in undirected ad hoc radio networks . in _
podc03 _ , 2003 .
f.  kuhn , n.  lynch , and c.  newport .
brief announcement : hardness of broadcasting in wireless networks with unreliable communication . in _ disc _ , 2009 .
f.  kuhn , n.  lynch , c.  newport , r.  oshman , and a.  richa . .
in _ podc _ , pages 336345 .
acm , 2010 .
f.  kuhn , t.  moscibroda , and r.  wattenhofer . .
in _ mobicom _ , pages 260274 .
acm , 2004 .
f.  kuhn and r.  oshman .
dynamic networks : models and algorithms . , 42(1):8296 , 2011 .
f.  kuhn , r.  wattenhofer , and a.  zollinger .
ad hoc networks beyond unit disk graphs .
, 14:715729 , 2008 .
e.  kushilevitz and y.  mansour . .
, 27(3):702712 , 1998 .    c.  lenzen and r.  wattenhofer .
distributed algorithms for sensor networks . , 370(1958 ) , 2012 .
t.  moscibroda and r.  wattenhofer . .
, 21(4):271284 , 2008 .    c.  newport
radio network lower bounds made easy . in _
disc14 _ , 2014 .
c.  scheideler , a.  richa , and p.  santi . . in _
mobihoc 08 _ ,
pages 91100 , 2008 .
s.  schmid and r.  wattenhofer .
algorithmic models for sensor networks . in _ wpdrts06 _ , 2006 .
j.  schneider and r.  wattenhofer . .
in _ podc _ , pages 210219 , 2009 .    j.  schneider and r.  wattenhofer . in _ disc _ , pages 133147 .
springer - verlag , 2010 .
d.  yu , q .- s .
hua , y.  wang , and f.  lau . .
dcoss 12 _ , pages 132139 , 2012 .
d.  yu , q .- s .
hua , y.  wang , h.  tan , and f.  lau . .
in _ sirocco12 _ , pages 111122 , 2012 .
d.  yu , q .- s .
hua , y.  wang , j.  yu , and f.  lau . . in _ infocom13 _ , pages 24272435 , 2013 .    d.  yu , y.  wang , q .- s .
hua , and f.  c.  m. lau . .
in _ distributed computing in sensor systems and workshops ( dcoss ) , 2011 international conference on _ , pages 18 , 2011 .
d.  yu , y.  wang , y.  yan , j.  yu , and f.  lau . speedup of information exchange using multiple channels in wireless ad hoc networks . in _
infocom15 _ , 2015 .
_ wireless models : _ considering wireless interference , there are two classes of wireless network models : graph - based and physical models .
basically , the graph - based models define a local and binary type of interference , while the physical models consider fading effect of signal on wireless channels .
the most classical graph - based model is the radio network model  @xcite . in this model
, the network is modeled using a communication graph , where each pair of nodes that can communicate with each other is connected by an edge .
it defines the interference just from direct neighbors , and a transmission can succeed if and only if there is only one neighbor of the receiver transmitting .
there are many widely used variants of the classical radio network models , including : 1 ) the @xmath0-hop model where the interference comes from @xmath0-hop neighbors  @xcite ; 2 ) unit disc graph ( udg ) model  @xcite which defines the neighborhood using a unit disc ; 3 ) quasi unit disc graph ( qudg ) model  @xcite which just defines all pairs of nodes with distance at most @xmath76 for some given @xmath250 $ ] are adjacent , and leave the ` grey ' area in @xmath251 $ ] being determined by an adversary ; 4 ) protocol model  @xcite , where each node has a transmission range and an interference range , and a successful transmission occurs if a node falls into the transmission range of a transmitter and outside the interference ranges of all other transmitter ; 5 ) bounded - independence graph ( big ) model  @xcite , which defines abstractly and requires that the size of the maximal independent set in the @xmath33-hop neighborhood of each node is bounded by a polynomial function with @xmath33 . though the graph - based interference models miss certain crucial aspects of actual wireless networks , the simple definition of these models can help derive novel insights into distributed solutions to wireless problems
.    physical models , also known as sinr models  @xcite , capture the fading and cumulative features of receptions in actual wireless environments .
the default assumption is that interference fades with a polynomial of the distance , and transmission succeeds only if the received signal strength is sufficiently larger than the total interference plus noise .
recently , the sinr model has attracted great attentions in the distributed community  @xcite .
most of these works focus on networks embedded in euclidean space , while many of the results hold also for doubling or `` bounded growth '' metrics @xcite .
those doubling metrics constrain growth at every ( or arbitrarily small ) granularity , while ours only bounds regions proportional to the transmission range , in particular capturing bounded independence graphs ( big ) . for more on wireless models
, please refer to  @xcite .
_ local broadcast _ : in the radio network model , probably the first local broadcast result was a randomized algorithm of alon et al .
@xcite in a synchronous model , running in @xmath6 rounds .
derbel and talbi  @xcite later generalized their algorithm to work without knowledge of @xmath3 and their proposed algorithm can accomplish local broadcast in @xmath7 rounds .
the decay strategy also yields an @xmath6 time algorithm for local broadcast without knowledge of @xmath3  @xcite .
goussevskaia et al .
@xcite gave the first results for local broadcast in the sinr model , running in time @xmath6 and @xmath252 with and without knowledge of @xmath3 , respectively .
the latter was improved in @xcite and further improved , independently , to @xmath7 time @xcite . with free acknowledgements ,
this was improved to @xmath253 @xcite .
when additionally @xmath3 is known , this was further improved recently to @xmath8 in the spontaneous setting @xcite .
the speedup of multiple channels on local broadcast was considered in  @xcite    _ broadcast _ : the complexity of broadcasting is well understood in graph - based models . in the radio network model , bar - yehuda et al .
@xcite presented the decay protocol which can accomplish non - spontaneous broadcast in @xmath254 rounds , where @xmath46 is the diameter .
this result was improved to @xmath9 independently by czumaj and rytter  @xcite , and kowalski and pelc  @xcite .
these algorithms can be viewed as clever optimizations of the decay protocol and match the lower bound  @xcite . with collision detection ,
this lower bound was recently broken in  @xcite , where a solution of @xmath10 was given .
broadcast in multi - channel radio networks was considered in  @xcite . for the udg model ,
an @xmath255 time algorithm was given in  @xcite in the spontaneous setting .
broadcasting has been treated in the sinr model under a variety of assumptions .
some are stronger than ours ( location information @xcite , power control @xcite ) .
some relax the assumption about the connectivity property , but incur necessarily super - linear complexity @xcite .
results in our setting , but without carrier sensing , include time complexity of @xmath256 @xcite ( see also @xcite ) , where @xmath12 denotes the maximum ratio between distances of stations connected in the communication graph ; and @xmath13 @xcite . in the spontaneous setting , where the nodes can build an overlay structure along which the message is then propagated , scheideler et al .
@xcite solved the problem in @xmath257 rounds using physical carrier sensing .
yu et al .
@xcite solved the problem in @xmath258 rounds using power control , allowing stations to decide the strength of a transmitted signal in each step . and
the algorithm in  @xcite then runs in time @xmath254 .
_ distributed models of temporal variability _ : dynamic networks have been studied extensively in recent years ( see @xcite for a survey ) , but generally not in the presence of interference . the _ dual graph _
model  @xcite ( originally due to @xcite ) was designed to capture inherent _ unreliability _ in wireless networks , much of which can be due to dynamicity .
the main focus of that work is on extending the radio network model in general graphs .
importantly , the dual graph model does not distinguish between interference and communication edges ; only that the unreliable edges can transmit both interference and the usual communication , but their availability is under adversarial control .
thus , there is no way to capture interference from further away nodes .
most problems become extremely difficult against a powerful adversary , and to get good result , one must assume a much weaker one  @xcite .
this model only involves edge behavior and not node changes ( churn ) .
both the local broadcast  @xcite and global broadcast  @xcite problems are studied in the dual graph model .    a dynamic model that considers node insertion is the _ unstructured _ model  @xcite , which admits arbitrary wake - up mode and asynchronous communication .
this model was first proposed in the unit - disc setting , and then extended to bounded independence graphs ( big )  @xcite and sinr  @xcite .
it has been widely used in the solution of a variety of distributed wireless problems  @xcite , including local broadcast  @xcite , but there are no known global broadcast results .
the model neither consider node deletion nor edge changes .
hence , the impact of dynamicity on global communication is largely unexplored .
[ [ modeling - communication ] ] modeling communication + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    our communication model captures most known algorithmic wireless models , as it is demonstrated below on the example of sinr , disk - graph based and protocol models .
note that we assume below the distance @xmath259 to be symmetric , but the results hold also for `` almost symmetric '' functions , i.e. when there is a constant @xmath260 such that @xmath261 for all @xmath262 .
_ sinr model .
_ consider a network in a metric space . in the sinr model of communication , if @xmath39 is the set of simultaneously transmitting nodes in the network , a node @xmath1 receives the transmission of node @xmath20 if and only if @xmath263 where constants @xmath113 and @xmath264 denote the minimum sinr threshold and the ambient noise , respectively .
note that @xmath265 in this setting .
we can implement with parameters @xmath266 and @xmath267 , as shown in the proposition below .
[ pr : scc ] if the interference at a node @xmath1 is less than @xmath68 in round @xmath56 , then @xmath1 will deliver its message if it transmits .
note that if the interference at node @xmath1 is not more than @xmath68 then there is no node @xmath268 transmitting in round @xmath56 , as otherwise the interference at @xmath1 would be at least @xmath269 ; hence , only nodes in @xmath270 can transmit .
consider an arbitrary node @xmath271 .
for each node @xmath272 , @xmath273 .
then , the interference at @xmath274 is at most : @xmath275 which implies that node @xmath274 receives @xmath1 s transmission : @xmath276 .
_ the udg and ubg models . _
these models are described by geometric graphs : a node @xmath20 receives a message from another node @xmath1 if and only if @xmath1 is the only transmitting neighbor of @xmath20 .    in the unit disk graph ( udg ) and unit ball graph ( ubg ) models
the nodes are located in a metric space and two nodes are connected by an edge if and only if their distance is at most @xmath277 .
the functionality of can be modeled as follows : the transmission of a node @xmath1 is received by all its neighbors if there is no other node at distance less than @xmath278 from @xmath1 transmitting simultaneously , i.e. we can set the parameters to @xmath279 and @xmath280 .    _ the quasi - udg model . _
the quasi - udg model is an extension of the udg model : a ) if @xmath281 then @xmath20 and @xmath1 are connected by an edge , b ) if @xmath282 then they are disconnected , c ) otherwise , @xmath20 and @xmath1 may be connected or not . in this case
may be implemented by setting @xmath279 and @xmath283 , with the adversary constrained to follow the specific static situation captured by the qudg .    _ the protocol model .
_ in the protocol model , the nodes are in a metric space and there are two radii : @xmath277  the communication radius , and @xmath284  the interference radius .
a node @xmath1 receives the transmission of a node @xmath20 if and only if : 1 ) @xmath1 is in the communication range of node @xmath20 , i.e. @xmath281 , and 2 ) there is no transmitting node @xmath274 such that @xmath1 is in the interference range of @xmath274 : for each transmitting node @xmath285 , @xmath286 .
may be implemented here by setting @xmath279 and @xmath283 .
_ the big model . _ in the bounded independence graph ( big ) model , for a parameter @xmath287 , we are given a graph on the nodes with the property that for every node @xmath1 and every @xmath288 , the maximum independent set in the @xmath0-neighborhood of @xmath1 is @xmath289 .
the shortest - path distance metric on the graph is now naturally a @xmath290-bounded independence metric . to fit in our model ,
the growth parameter @xmath287 must be less than @xmath105 .
_ @xmath0-hop variants .
_ these graph models can be naturally generalized to a model on interference , where nodes of distance at most @xmath0 cause interference , for some @xmath291 .
we capture this by extending @xmath112 as needed .
[ [ implementing - primitives - with - physical - carrier - sensing ] ] implementing primitives with physical carrier sensing + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    one way of implementing the primitives mentioned in this paper is to use physical carrier sensing , i.e. we assume the nodes have technology to detect if the interference ( plus noise ) is higher than a given threshold .
we show below how to implement , and primitives using carrier sensing .
* primitive .
* the primitive can be implemented using a carrier sensing threshold @xmath292 and setting the parameter @xmath293 ; busy channel is detected if and only if the interference is at least @xmath96 .
we will need the following technical fact .
[ ieq ] for every @xmath294 $ ] , @xmath295 , it holds that @xmath296    if @xmath297 in round @xmath56 then all nodes in @xmath298 detect busy channel with probability at least @xmath299 . in particular
, we can take @xmath300 if @xmath301 .    by the setting of @xmath96 and the definition of @xmath74 ,
if two nodes in @xmath74 transmit in round @xmath56 , then all nodes in @xmath74 will detect busy channel .
hence , the probability of all nodes in @xmath74 detecting busy channel is at least the probability of more than one node transmitting in round @xmath56 .
the probability of no node transmitting is @xmath302 by lemma  [ ieq ] .
the probability of exactly one node transmitting is : @xmath303 where we used the assumption that @xmath304 and lemma  [ ieq ] .
thus , the probability of detecting busy channel is at least @xmath305 .    for every @xmath147 ,
if @xmath306 and @xmath307 then @xmath1 detects idle channel with probability at least @xmath308 .    by the setting of the threshold @xmath96 , if there is no node transmitting in @xmath119 then node @xmath1 will detect idle channel .
thus , the probability that @xmath1 detects idle channel is at least @xmath309 using lemma  [ ieq ] .
* primitive . * in order to detect successful transmission , we can use interference threshold @xmath310 and set @xmath311 , where @xmath312 and @xmath313 are the parameters of .
if a node @xmath1 senses that the interference is no higher than @xmath96 , it knows that : 1 .
there is no node in @xmath314 transmitting , as otherwise the interference would be at least @xmath315 , 2 .
the interference is at most @xmath68 ; thus , it knows that its transmission has been received by all neighbors in @xmath316 by .
* primitive . *
if a node @xmath1 receives a message from a node @xmath20 then @xmath1 can separate the signal from the interference and measure the received signal strength . as the nodes use uniform power assignment
, node @xmath1 knows that @xmath95 if the received signal is stronger than @xmath317 .
[ [ implementing - primitives - by - other - means ] ] implementing primitives by other means + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the primitives can frequently be implemented in other ways , often with the logarithmic blowup that explains the differences with the best carrier - sense - free results .    *
* in an asynchronous system , it may be impossible to implement by other means than carrier sense . in a synchronized system , however , we can be achieved with logarithmic or polylogarithmic factor overhead .
consider a given round .
for each probability @xmath318 , repeat @xmath319 times : the senders in the original round transmit with probability @xmath320 .
using concentration bound with @xmath50 sufficiently large , one can infer the contention within an small approximation , with high probability .
such a strategy has been applied , e.g. , in @xcite .    *
primitive . *
a simple strategy is to work with only probabilistic guarantees of a transmission being received by all neighbors .
then , simply repeat the protocol until this has been achieved @xmath319 times , which gives an guarantee , w.h.p .
this approach underlies , e.g. , the local broadcast algorithms without carrier sense @xcite .
* primitive . *
this primitive , which is essential for dominator - based strategies for broadcast , can be implemented using power control : by lowering the power on all units appropriately , one can ensure that nodes further away ( by a small constant factor ) will not be able to hear the message due to the ambient noise term , see e.g.  @xcite .
alternatively , one can assume that distances can be determined in other ways , such as by gps @xcite .
recall that we need to prove the following .
we assume that at the beginning of the _ first _ phase under consideration , the contention in the whole network is bounded by a constant .
this holds for all algorithms in this paper , as the initial probability of nodes is always at most @xmath321 .    *
* proposition [ pr : pgoodroundl ] . * * let @xmath132 . if constants @xmath133 and @xmath134 are large enough then for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , with probability @xmath135 , a @xmath136-fraction of the rounds in @xmath129 are good .
recall that in a good round , there should be both bounded contention and low interference .
the proof is split into two parts , each handling one of these properties .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] follows by simply combining those two parts .
we will need the following concentration bounds .
@xcite[le : chernoff ] consider a collection of binary random variables @xmath322 , and let @xmath323 .
if there are probabilities @xmath324 with @xmath325\leq \prod_{i\in s}p_i$ ] for every set @xmath326 , then it holds for @xmath327 and @xmath328 that @xmath329\leq\left(\frac{e^{\delta}}{(1+\delta)^{1+\delta}}\right)^\mu\leq e^{-\frac{\delta^2\mu}{2(1+\delta/3)}}.\ ] ] if , on the other side , there are probabilities @xmath324 with @xmath325\geq \prod_{i\in s}p_i$ ] for every set @xmath326 , then it holds for @xmath327 and @xmath330 that @xmath331\leq\left(\frac{e^{-\delta}}{(1-\delta)^{1-\delta}}\right)^\mu\leq e^{-\delta^2\mu/2}.\ ] ]      first , we show that for each fixed node @xmath20 , the contention in the _ local _ neighborhood @xmath332 is bounded in most of the rounds of a phase . to this end , we show that in each round , the contention is either already low or will be halved with significant probability , then apply a concentration bound to show the claim .
recall the constant @xmath333 from the definition of .
[ le : phi ] let @xmath129 be a time interval and assume that @xmath334 at the beginning of @xmath129 .
then for every @xmath335 , @xmath336 happens at most @xmath337 times during @xmath129 , with probability @xmath338 , where @xmath339 and @xmath340 is the edge change parameter .    by the assumptions on edge changes
, we have that during phase @xmath129 , the fraction of rounds where more than @xmath341 nodes become a neighbor of @xmath20 because of edge changes is @xmath102 .
let @xmath159 denote the remaining set of rounds .
we have @xmath342 . in each of those rounds ,
the contribution of edge changes in @xmath343 is clearly at most @xmath344 .
next we bound the number of rounds in @xmath159 , where @xmath345 .
consider such a round @xmath161 .
let @xmath346 . by the definition of , all nodes in @xmath332 detect busy channel in round @xmath56 and halve their transmission probabilities with probability at least @xmath347 .
thus , @xmath348\ge 1-\mu'$ ] , where the additive @xmath164 accounts for the sum of probabilities of the nodes that just join the ball @xmath332 due to node churn ( recall that each of them has an initial probability at most @xmath349 ) and @xmath344 is an upper bound on the contention due to edge changes ( by the definition of @xmath159 ) . for each round @xmath161 ,
let us define a binary random variable @xmath350 as follows : @xmath351 if @xmath352 or @xmath353 and @xmath354 ( recall that @xmath355 ) and @xmath356 otherwise . by the discussion above , we have : @xmath357&=pr[p_{t}(u)\leq\phi]+pr[p_{t}(u)>\phi\wedge p_{t+1}(u)\leq\frac{5}{6}p_t(u)]\\ & = pr[p_{t}(u)\leq\phi]+pr[p_{t}(u)>\phi]\cdot pr[p_{t+1}(u)\leq\frac{5}{6}p_t(u)|p_{t}(u)>\phi]\\ & \geq pr[p_{t}(u)\leq\phi]+pr[p_{t}(u)>\phi]\cdot ( 1-\mu')\\ & \geq 1-\mu ' . \end{aligned}\ ] ] this implies that for each round @xmath358 and each subset @xmath359 of earlier rounds ( @xmath360 for @xmath361 ) , @xmath362\geq 1-\mu'$ ] and @xmath363\leq \mu'$ ] .
thus , for each subset @xmath364 we get @xmath365\le \mu'^{|s| } , $ ] and if we denote @xmath366 , then @xmath367\le \mu ' |h'|=\mu |h|$ ] , where we denote @xmath368 .
thus , we can apply chernoff bound ( lemma  [ le : chernoff ] ) with @xmath369 to bound @xmath370 with high probability : @xmath371\le 2^{-\mu|h|}.\ ] ] using this bound , we obtain a bound on the number of rounds @xmath56 with @xmath372 .
let @xmath373 denote this number .
consider a maximal interval @xmath374\subseteq h'$ ] such that @xmath345 for all @xmath375 .
for each round @xmath375 , @xmath376 if @xmath351 and @xmath377 otherwise . by maximality of @xmath378 , if @xmath379 _ is not _ the first round of phase @xmath129 , then we have @xmath380 .
then a simple calculation shows that @xmath356 for at least @xmath381 part of the rounds of @xmath378 , i.e. @xmath382 . on the other hand , if there is a unique maximal interval @xmath378 starting at the first round of phase @xmath129 and such that @xmath383 , then it must hold that @xmath384 , where @xmath385 . combining these observations
, we get that @xmath386 .    by combining this bound with  ( [ eq : xupperl ] )
, we have : @xmath387 \le pr[x\ge \delta\mu|h| ] < 2^{-\mu|h|}.\ ] ] thus , with probability @xmath388 , in at most @xmath389 fraction of rounds in @xmath129 there can be @xmath345 .
recall that for node @xmath1 we need to show that @xmath390 for most rounds in a phase .
we prove this by taking a _ constant size _ @xmath73-cover of @xmath119 and applying lemma  [ le : phi ] to all nodes in the cover _
[ pr : lowc ] for every @xmath132 and @xmath147 , there are constants @xmath391 and @xmath392 , such that for every node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , with probability @xmath135 , at least @xmath136-fraction of rounds in @xmath129 are bounded contention rounds , i.e. @xmath393
.    it will be sufficient to choose @xmath128 and @xmath394 such that @xmath395 and @xmath396 . by the definition of @xmath287 and
bounded independence , there is a @xmath73-cover @xmath39 of @xmath119 of size @xmath397 .
set @xmath398 .
let us fix a node @xmath399 .
if @xmath129 is the first phase or @xmath400 then we set @xmath401 .
otherwise , consider the phase @xmath159 of @xmath127 rounds preceding @xmath129 . by lemma  [ le : phi ] , if we set @xmath402 then , with probability @xmath403 , there is a round in @xmath159 where @xmath404 .
let @xmath405 be such a round and set @xmath406 $ ] , where @xmath407 is the last round of @xmath129 .
clearly , @xmath408 .
now we can apply lemma  [ le : phi ] for node @xmath20 with @xmath101 as above and conclude that with probability at least @xmath403 , there are at most @xmath409 rounds in @xmath378 ( note that @xmath410 ) where @xmath345 , so there are at most @xmath411 rounds in @xmath129 where @xmath345 .
now we can apply the same argument for all nodes in @xmath412 simultaneously and conclude that with probability at least @xmath135 , there are at most @xmath413 rounds in @xmath129 where @xmath345 for _ every _
@xmath399 , if we take @xmath395 to be large enough . in the remaining @xmath414 rounds we have @xmath415 .
we extract the following result from the proof of lemma  [ le : phi ] , to use it later .
the proof is similar to the proof of prop .
[ pr : lowc ] .
[ co : pexpectation ] for every @xmath335 and each node @xmath1 , the expected number of rounds in each phase @xmath129 where @xmath416 , is @xmath411 .
let @xmath378 be the shortest time interval containing @xmath129 such that @xmath417 at the beginning of @xmath378 .
let @xmath418 denote the event that @xmath408 .
as in the proof of prop .
[ pr : lowc ] , we have @xmath419 > 1-n^{-3}$ ] .
let @xmath370 denote the number of rounds @xmath375 with @xmath80 .
we know from the proof of lemma  [ le : phi ] that @xmath420 = o(\phi^{-k})\cdot|\hat h| = o(\phi^{-k})\cdot |h|$ ] and @xmath367=e[x|\mathcal{e}]\cdot pr[\mathcal{e } ] + e[x|\bar{\mathcal{e}}]\cdot pr[\bar{\mathcal{e}}]= o(\phi^{-k})\cdot |h|$ ] .
this completes the proof as @xmath421 .
next we show that if @xmath76 is appropriately chosen then for each node @xmath1 , @xmath422 happens most of the time during each phase w.h.p .
in order to show this , first we split the set of nodes in @xmath423 into local neighborhoods .
we show that if in a given round the contention in each local neighborhood is bounded by an appropriate threshold , then the expected interference is small . for each local neighborhood
, the expected number of rounds when the contention is higher than its threshold is bounded using corollary  [ co : pexpectation ] . combining these results into one we get a bound on the expected number of rounds when @xmath424 is small .
it then remains to apply a concentration bound to conclude the proof .
[ pr : pinterferenceboundl ] for every @xmath132 and @xmath425 , there are constants @xmath426 and @xmath427 , such that for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 , with probability @xmath135 , at least @xmath136-fraction of rounds in @xmath129 are low interference rounds , i.e. @xmath428 .
let @xmath429 denote the in - ball of radius @xmath430 centered at node @xmath1 for @xmath431 .
let @xmath432 be an @xmath73-cover of @xmath429 of size @xmath433 for a constant @xmath434 , which exists by bounded independence .
let @xmath435 for @xmath436 , where @xmath437 is a large enough constant to be defined later .
[ le : pexpectal ] if @xmath438 holds for all @xmath439 and @xmath440 and @xmath441 then @xmath442 .
we have , by the definition of expected interference ( explanations below ) , @xmath443 where the first inequality follows from the definition of sets @xmath444 and the assumption of the claim , the second one follows by @xmath435 and @xmath445 , the third one is a rearrangement of the sum , the fourth one follows by the fact that @xmath446 for every @xmath447 and @xmath448 ( here , @xmath449 ) , and the last one follows because @xmath450 .
thus , if @xmath441 then the claim follows .
let us put the nodes in an arbitrary order and let @xmath451 denote the number of rounds @xmath452 s.t .
@xmath453 , where @xmath454 is the @xmath455-th node in @xmath456 . by corollary  [ co : pexpectation ] , @xmath457= o(\phi_i^{-k})\cdot|h| $ ] holds for each @xmath458 .
let @xmath459 denote the number of rounds in @xmath129 when @xmath460 . by claim  [ le : pexpectal ] , @xmath461 $ ] can be bounded as follows , @xmath462\leq\sum_{i}\sum_{j}e[z_{i , j } ] \leq \sum_i|s_i\setminus s_{i-1}|\cdot o(\phi_i^{-k})\cdot |h| \leq \frac{\sigma}{3}|h|,\ ] ] where the last inequality holds if @xmath463 for a large enough constant @xmath464 ; we have @xmath465 and @xmath466 with @xmath467 ( by definition ) , so we have @xmath468 .
each @xmath451 can be considered as the sum of binary random variables similar to that in the proof of lemma  [ le : phi ] .
thus , @xmath459 can also be seen as the sum of binary random variables .
moreover , the binary random variables satisfy the conditions of the chernoff bound in lemma  [ le : chernoff ] .
thus , by taking @xmath469 and @xmath470 , we have : @xmath471\leq 2^{-\sigma|h|/3}\le n^{-3}. $ ]
[ le : broadgood ] let @xmath472 , @xmath473 and @xmath474 , where @xmath475 are the parameters of .
let @xmath56 be a round such that for a node @xmath20 , @xmath476 and @xmath477 .
+ if a node in @xmath332 transmits in round @xmath56 then it mass - delivers , with probability at least @xmath478 .
let @xmath1 be the transmitting node , which could possibly be @xmath20 itself .
the probability that no other node in @xmath479 transmits is @xmath480 where we used lemma  [ ieq ] with the assumption that @xmath481 and the bounded contention assumption .    on the other hand
, we have that @xmath482\ge 9/10 $ ] .
indeed , @xmath483\ge 9/10 $ ] follows by the bounded interference assumption and markov inequality , so it suffices to show that @xmath484 , which we have because for each node @xmath485 , @xmath486 , implying that @xmath487 thus , we have that with probability @xmath478 , @xmath1 transmits , no other node in @xmath217 transmits and the interference from @xmath488 at @xmath1 is at most @xmath68 , so @xmath1 delivers its message , by .
* proposition [ pr : pdecrease ] * _ assume that constants @xmath137 are large enough . for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 ,
if at least @xmath138-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 are of high contention , then @xmath139 nodes in @xmath140 mass - deliver , with probability @xmath135 .
_    let @xmath489 .
let us choose constants @xmath490 such that prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] holds for @xmath491 and @xmath492 and such that @xmath493 is large enough , as stated below , where @xmath475 are the parameters of .
we will use the fact that in prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] , @xmath394 has the following dependency on @xmath494 : @xmath495 , where @xmath0 is the edge change parameter ( see the proof of prop .
[ pr : lowc ] ) .
we set @xmath496 .
namely , if we choose @xmath137 large enough ( satisfying the relation above ) , then we have that with probability @xmath135 , there are at least @xmath497 rounds @xmath358 such that @xmath498 and @xmath499 .
let @xmath56 be such a round .    for each node @xmath500
, it holds that @xmath501 and @xmath502 .
let us fix a node @xmath500 .
first note that @xmath503 , implying that @xmath504 .
it remains to bound the expected interference at @xmath20 by nodes in @xmath488 .
this interference can be split into two parts : 1 .
the interference by nodes in @xmath505 and 2 .
the interference by nodes in @xmath506 . the first part can be bounded by @xmath507 using a computation as in the proof of lemma  [ le : broadgood ] .
the second part can be bounded as follows : the contention in the area @xmath506 is at most @xmath394 and the distance of those nodes to node @xmath20 is at least @xmath76 , so the expected interference by nodes in @xmath506 is at most @xmath508 , and is less than @xmath509 if @xmath76 is large enough , as @xmath510 .
here we used the assumption that @xmath511 .
recall that there are at least @xmath512 high contention rounds for node @xmath1 , i.e. rounds where @xmath122 .
let @xmath56 be such a round . by the bounded independence property
, there is a @xmath513-cover @xmath39 of @xmath119 of constant size . by the pigeonhole principle
, there is a node @xmath399 such that @xmath514 .    by summarizing the above said ,
we get that there are at least @xmath497 rounds @xmath56 s.t . for all nodes
@xmath500 , @xmath515 and @xmath516
. on the other hand , there are at least @xmath512 rounds where there is a node in @xmath119 that has @xmath517 .
thus , there are at least @xmath518 rounds @xmath56 with the following property : there is a node @xmath500 such that @xmath519 and @xmath516 .
fix such round @xmath56 and node @xmath20 . by lemma
[ le : broadgood ] , there is a node @xmath520 that transmits ( the probability of this is at least @xmath521 ) and delivers its message with probability @xmath522 .
thus , the expected number of nodes in @xmath119 that deliver their message during @xmath129 is @xmath523 .
the proof now follows by applying a chernoff bound with the assumption that the constant @xmath128 is large enough : @xmath524 .
* proposition  [ pr : idle ] * _ assume that @xmath137 are large enough . for each node @xmath1 and phase @xmath129 ,
if at least @xmath141-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 are low contention rounds , then with probability @xmath135 , in at least @xmath142-fraction of the rounds of @xmath129 , @xmath1 will detect idle channel and have low contention and low interference .
_    let @xmath525 .
assume that @xmath137 large enough , such that prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] holds for @xmath526 and @xmath527 , where @xmath528 is the parameter of .
let @xmath418 denote the event that there are at least @xmath529 good rounds for @xmath1 in phase @xmath129 . by prop .
[ pr : pgoodroundl ] , we have @xmath419 = 1-o(n^{-3})\ge 19/20 $ ] , if @xmath128 is large enough . given @xmath418 , there are at least @xmath530 rounds @xmath56 that are both good and low contention for @xmath1 .
let @xmath159 denote the set of such rounds and let @xmath350 be a binary random variable with value 1 if and only if @xmath1 detects idle channel in round @xmath161 .
let @xmath531 .
for each round @xmath161 , since @xmath56 is a good round and @xmath532 , it holds with probability at least @xmath141 that the interference at node @xmath1 from nodes in @xmath119 is at most @xmath528 . given this and the fact that in low contention rounds we have @xmath533
, @xmath1 will detect idle channel with probability at least @xmath534 in round @xmath56 .
thus , in each round @xmath161 , irrespective of prior rounds , we have @xmath535\ge 81/100 $ ] .
this implies : @xmath420\ge ( 9 ^ 2/10 ^ 2)|h'|\ge      \frac{9 ^ 2}{10 ^ 2}\cdot \frac{9 ^ 2}{10 ^ 2}|h|$ ] and @xmath536 \ge ( 19/20)\cdot\frac{9 ^ 4}{10 ^ 4}|h| > 0.62|h|.\ ] ] just as in the proof of lemma  [ le : phi ] , we can now apply chernoff bound to obtain that @xmath537 < n^{-3}$ ] if @xmath128 is large enough .
this completes the proof by recalling that all rounds of @xmath370 are low contention and low interference rounds for node @xmath1 .
* theorem [ thm : broadcast ] * _ assume the edge change rate @xmath100 is sufficiently small .
there are constants @xmath201 , such that when running bcast(@xmath114 ) in the synchronous mode , each node @xmath1 receives the message in @xmath202 rounds w.h.p .
_    let us fix constants @xmath155 so that props .
[ pr : pdecrease ] and  [ pr : idle ] hold with interference threshold @xmath203 , where @xmath204 and @xmath205 are the parameters corresponding to precision @xmath183 .
we set the passiveness parameter of try&adjust to @xmath206 and the stable distance parameter @xmath207 .
consider a node @xmath20 that receives the message in round @xmath56 .
let @xmath1 be such that @xmath208 in the time interval @xmath209 $ ] ( and both stay alive during @xmath96 ) .
the theorem follows by an induction and union bound from the claim below .
node @xmath1 gets the message of @xmath20 during @xmath96 , with probability @xmath210 .
we prove the claim by contradiction , and assume that @xmath1 can not get the message during @xmath96 .
let us split @xmath96 into phases ( for @xmath20 ) and , similar to the proof of thm .
[ thm : localbroadcast ] , classify the phases @xmath129 into types : ( type a ) at least @xmath138-th of rounds in @xmath129 are high contention rounds for @xmath20  @xmath211 , and ( type b ) at least @xmath141-th of rounds in @xmath129 are low contention rounds for @xmath20  @xmath212 .
we show that with probability @xmath135 , all phases in @xmath96 are of type b. consider a type a phase @xmath129 . we know from prop .  [ pr : pdecrease ] that , with probability @xmath135
, there is a set @xmath39 of @xmath139 nodes in @xmath140 that deliver their messages and restart try&adjust during @xmath129 .
we split @xmath39 into three subsets , @xmath213  those inserted by churn during @xmath129 , @xmath214  those inserted by edge change during @xmath129 and @xmath215  the rest .
consider @xmath214 first .
we know that in each local neighborhood , there are at most @xmath216 nodes arriving due to edge changes .
note that @xmath217 can be covered with @xmath218 local neighborhoods ; hence , the total number of nodes arriving in @xmath217 due to edge changes is @xmath219 . since @xmath220 , setting @xmath221 a small enough constant gives @xmath222 .
now consider @xmath215 . by the primitive , for each node @xmath223 , all nodes in @xmath224 also restart try&adjust , setting their transmission probability to @xmath225 . by the setting of @xmath226 ,
the probability that a node restarting try&adjust in phase @xmath129 transmits again in @xmath129 is at most @xmath227 .
thus , with probability at least @xmath135 , the nodes in @xmath214 constitute an @xmath228-packing of @xmath140 and are at most @xmath229 . as for @xmath213 ,
the probability that a newly arriving node transmits during phase @xmath129 is at most @xmath227 , so @xmath230 w.h.p .
these bounds lead to a contradiction  @xmath231 , if constant @xmath128 is large enough .
thus , each phase @xmath129 of @xmath96 is of type b with probability @xmath135 . it remains to recall that @xmath96 contains constant number of phases .
now assume that @xmath129 is of type b. in a similar way as in theorem  [ thm : localbroadcast ] , we can apply prop .
[ pr : idle ] and show that if @xmath232 at the beginning of @xmath129 , then by the end of @xmath129 , the effect on @xmath71 is equivalent to applying at least @xmath233 of @xmath234 operations on @xmath235 . since @xmath236 at the beginning of @xmath96 is at least @xmath225 , it will take at most 11 phases to increase the probability to the value @xmath164 .
then , a single phase will suffice for @xmath20 to deliver its message ( including to node @xmath1 ) , with probability at least @xmath210 .
the basic observation is that if all the nodes start running bcast@xmath240 simultaneously , a _ constant density dominating set _ can be computed in @xmath200 rounds ( cf .
@xcite ) , where an @xmath33-dominating set of density @xmath538 is a set @xmath39 of nodes such that for each node @xmath20 , @xmath539 .
the dominator algorithm is as follows : all nodes run bcast@xmath240 simultaneously , and 1 .
if a node @xmath1 stops by then it is a _
dominator _ ,
if a node @xmath20 stops by detecting of node @xmath1 then it is dominated by @xmath1 .
having formed a constant density dominating set , it remains to disseminate the message using only dominators . in order for the set of dominators to derive the connectivity properties of the original graph
, we need that @xmath30 forms a @xmath540-bounded independence _
metric _ space .    in the static spontaneous setting
, there is a uniform algorithm that performs broadcast in @xmath541 rounds , w.h.p .
[ thm : static - spont - bcast ]    the algorithm for spontaneous broadcast consists of two stages : 1 . compute a constant density @xmath542-dominating set @xmath543 , 2 . transmit the message using only the nodes in @xmath543 .    [ [ dominating - set . ] ] dominating set .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the dominating set is constructed by running bcast@xmath240 in the spontaneous mode , i.e. all nodes start running the algorithm simultaneously .
let @xmath543 be the set of nodes that stop the algorithm by .
since the dominated nodes use @xmath544 as a stopping condition , @xmath543 is a @xmath542-dominating set .
moreover , @xmath543 is a @xmath545-packing , which implies that each in - ball @xmath46 of radius @xmath546 contains at most @xmath547 dominators .
in particular each node @xmath20 is dominated by at most constant number of dominators .
the proof the algorithm terminates after at most @xmath200 rounds is almost identical to the proof of theorem  [ thm : broadcast ] .
[ [ broadcast . ] ] broadcast .
+ + + + + + + + + +    recall that we assume that the communication graph is connected and has diameter @xmath243 .
also , since @xmath548 is a metric , the graph is undirected .
the broadcast part is as follows : in the first round , the source node transmits the message to its neighbors ; each dominator @xmath20 , upon receiving the message , transmits it in each round with probability @xmath232 until detecting ( @xmath183 ) , where @xmath235 is a small enough constant .
note that as soon as all dominators successfully transmit at least once , all nodes will get the message .
moreover , if the constant @xmath235 is small enough , then the two algorithms can be run simultaneously : the key point is that the number of dominators in each @xmath549-neighborhood is bounded by a constant ( not depending on @xmath235 ) .
this ensures that the nodes _ need not know @xmath16 _ , in order to coordinate the two algorithms .
it remains to show that the message will get to all dominators in @xmath244 rounds using the broadcast algorithm .
consider a graph @xmath129 defined over the dominating set @xmath543 , where for every pair of nodes @xmath550 , @xmath551 form an edge if @xmath552 .
the diameter of @xmath129 is at most @xmath243 .
note that for every pair of nodes @xmath553 with @xmath554 , the corresponding dominators @xmath555 and @xmath556 are adjacent in @xmath129 . indeed , by the definition of the dominating set ,
we have @xmath557 let @xmath558 be two arbitrary nodes in @xmath543 and let @xmath19 be the path of length at most @xmath243 in @xmath238 connecting nodes @xmath555 and @xmath556 . by the observation above ,
if we replace each node @xmath559 with its dominator @xmath560 , we obtain a path @xmath561 of length @xmath46 in @xmath129 , connecting @xmath555 and @xmath556 .
the completes the proof of the claim .    for every transmitting node @xmath562 ,
the probability that @xmath274 delivers its message to all its neighbors in @xmath129 is @xmath563 in each round @xmath56 , if constant @xmath235 is sufficiently small .
let @xmath39 denote the set of neighbors of node @xmath274 in @xmath129 , i.e. the nodes of @xmath543 that are at distance at most @xmath564 from @xmath274 .
it suffices to show that all nodes in @xmath39 receive the message in a fixed round @xmath56 where @xmath274 transmits with @xmath563 probability .
this event holds if the interference at @xmath274 is no more than @xmath68  event @xmath565 , and no other node transmits in @xmath566
event @xmath567 , in round @xmath56 .
by the properties of the dominating set , the contention in a ball of radius @xmath568 is at most @xmath569 .
similarly to the proof of prop .
[ pr : pinterferenceboundl ] , it can be shown that the expected interference by nodes in @xmath570 is @xmath571 .
thus , by markov inequality , @xmath572 if @xmath235 is small enough
. on the other hand , since the contention in @xmath566 is @xmath571 , @xmath573 follows by lemma  [ ieq ] .
thus , @xmath574 .
given that each informed node in @xmath543 has probability at least @xmath575 of successfully broadcasting the message , the rest of the proof essentially follows along the lines of the proof of  ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 6 ) .
we present a sketch of the proof for completeness of the argument .
let @xmath576 be the set of nodes in @xmath543 that have been informed by round @xmath56 , where @xmath577 contains only the source node .
let us fix a node @xmath578 and let @xmath579 be the distance ( in graph @xmath129 ) from @xmath1 to the nearest node in @xmath576 .
note that @xmath580 .
the difference @xmath581 is the progress made in round @xmath56 and is a bernoulli random variable with @xmath582\ge \eta$ ] for all @xmath56 when @xmath583 and @xmath584 otherwise .
let @xmath585 be a random variable that has the same distribution as @xmath586 when @xmath583 and is an i.i.d .
bernoulli random variable with mean @xmath587 otherwise .
let @xmath588 .
note that node @xmath1 has been informed by round @xmath56 iff @xmath589 .
thus , we need to bound the probability @xmath590 .
let @xmath591 .
it is easy to show that the sequence @xmath592 is a submartingale .
moreover , for a round @xmath593 and constant @xmath594 , @xmath595 implies that @xmath596 .
since the sequence @xmath592 is a submartingale , we can apply azuma - hoeffding bound to show that @xmath597 .
now the theorem follows by union bound over all nodes , by choosing the constant @xmath260 large enough .
* theorem  [ thm : brlowerbound ] * _ for every ( possibly randomized ) broadcast algorithm @xmath246 that uses neither node coordinates nor primitive , there is a @xmath247-bounded - independence metric space where @xmath246 needs @xmath248 rounds to do broadcast in a @xmath249-broadcastable network , even if the nodes have and primitives and operate spontaneously . _
assume that @xmath598 .
we present the construction using a distance function @xmath548 : it is then straightforward to construct the corresponding path - loss matrix .
denote @xmath599 .
first , assume the nodes operate non - spontaneously , i.e. a non - source node may need to receive a message in order to start participating in a protocol .
recall that @xmath600 .
consider @xmath16 points @xmath601 , such that for every @xmath602 , it holds that @xmath603 , @xmath604 , @xmath605 and @xmath606 , where @xmath607 ( see the diagram in fig .
[ fig : nonspon ] ) .
clearly , this set of points forms a @xmath608-bounded independence metric space .
we place @xmath16 wireless nodes at distinct points @xmath601 uniformly at random .
let @xmath195 be the node at @xmath609 .
we assume , further , that communication only happens according to ; in particular , if the interference at a node is more than @xmath68 then _ none _ of its neighbors receives its transmission .
note that broadcast in this network can be completed in 2 steps , starting at any point .
note also that @xmath610 can not be directly reached from nodes @xmath195 with @xmath611 . moreover ,
if at least @xmath612 nodes @xmath195 with @xmath611 transmit simultaneously , _ no node _ receives a message , including the potential communication between @xmath613 and @xmath610 .
this follows by observing that @xmath614 : the signal power at the neighboring nodes must be more than the interference threshold , otherwise a node could receive two signals of the same power .
assume @xmath195 with some @xmath611 is the source .
at the first round of the algorithm , nodes @xmath615 receive the message .
let @xmath616 denote the event that @xmath613 transmits and no more than @xmath617 nodes @xmath195 with @xmath611 transmit in round @xmath56 . by the observations above , @xmath610 will not receive the message until @xmath616 happens .
moreover , during the subsequent steps of the algorithm , until @xmath616 happens for the first time , all nodes at @xmath615 will have the same history and will be symmetric with respect to and primitives .    it remains to bound the expected time until @xmath616 happens for the first time .
we can assume w.l.o.g .
that in each round there are no more than @xmath187 nodes transmitting . as discussed above ,
if @xmath610 is not informed in such a round , then the nodes that transmitted in the given round can learn at best that none of them is at @xmath613 and stop transmitting thereafter .
thus , we can assume that after each unsuccessful round there are at most @xmath618 nodes that stop transmitting and the probability @xmath619 of success at round @xmath620 ( if no success occurred before round @xmath33 ) is at most @xmath621 where the numerator counts the number subsets of an @xmath622-element set that contain a fixed element ( the node @xmath613 ) and no more than @xmath187 elements in total , and the denominator counts all subsets containing no more than @xmath187 elements .
a further straightforward calculation shows that the expected number of rounds until the first success is @xmath248 ( see e.g.  ( * ? ? ?