Research Article Distributional Fractal Creating Algorithm in Parallel Environment

Transcription

1 Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Volume 213, Article ID 28177, 8 pages Research Article Distributional Fractal Creating Algorithm in Parallel Environment Shuai Liu, 1,2 Weina Fu, 1,3 Huimin Deng, 1 Caihe Lan, 1 and Jiantao Zhou 1 1 College of Computer Science, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 112, China 2 School of Physical Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 112, China 3 Department of Computer Science and Technology, Hohhot University of Nationalities, Hohhot 112, China Correspondence should be addressed to Shuai Liu; cs liushuai@imu.edu.cn Received 3 June 213; Revised 9 August 213; Accepted 19 August 213 Academic Editor: Yong Jin Copyright 213 Shuai Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Nowadays, the fractal is used widely everywhere. Then, its creating time becomes an important study area for complex iteration functions because the escape-time algorithm (ETA), which is the most used algorithm in fractal creating, performs not so well in this condition. In this paper, in order to solve this problem, we improve ETA into the parallel environment and reach well performance. At first, we provide a separation method of ETA to reform it into a SIMC-MC2 grid. Secondly, we prove its correctness and compute the complexity of this novel parallel algorithm. Meantime, we separate an improved ETA which we have presented into the same parallel environment and compute its complexity. Additionally, theoretical and experimental results show the characteristics of this novel algorithm. Finally, the computational result shows that a novel environment is needed to decrease large manual allocation strategies, which block the improved benefit. 1. Introduction Since Mandelbrot presented the Mandelbrot set (M set), which is the dictionary of all Julia sets [1], the fractal has been soon used everywhere for 3 years. Nowadays, thinking and algorithms, which are generated by fractal, have been used in manysciencedomains.today,twoalgorithmsaregeneralized and used when fractals are created[2]. One is the escape-time algorithm (ETA), and the other is the iterated function system (IFS). Although IFS is a fast algorithm, it can be only used in fractals with a certain iteration strategy. However, admittedly, a lot of fractal iteration functions are uncertain in practical applications. So the ETA becomes the most universal and effective algorithm in creating fractal where the iteration functions are complex. In order to decrease the creating time of ETA, we reform ETA into the parallel environment to improve its speed and effectiveness in this paper. At first, we should show the ETA by Algorithm 1 [2]. In this way, we know that ETA is such an algorithm that uses the escape threshold and the max iteration number to create fractals. Then, it colors all points in the displayed area with different colors. These colors are different with different iteration times under a given color strategy. Finally, if m z > M, thepointz is convergent, and if m z M,thepointz is divergent. Earlier on, to solve some defects of ETA, we have presented an improved algorithm (IA) to remedy the following two defects [3]. Defect a. The convergent points have to perform max iterations. Defect b. When the iteration midresults are in the computed regions, ETA wastes existing computations. Although IA remedies these two defects of ETA, its performance is also not so well when the iterated function is more complex and the displayed area is larger. For example, we use two iteration functions to create fractals with IA: one is in [4, 5], and the other is the one we created in [6]. We have thesetworesults,andweshowthemintables1 and 2. We can see that the fractal creating times enlarge greatly when weenlargethedisplayedareaandcomputemorepoints.from thebolddataintables1 and 2,wecanseethatthesedataareso

2 2 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Table 1: Runtimes of the two functions with ETA. Iteration functions f(z) = (1/2)z3 sin2 (πz/2) f(z) = (1/2)(z3 sin2 (πz/2) + sin 2 (πz/2)) Displayed area/points number ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1)/ Displayed area/points number ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2)/ Displayed area/points number ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4)/ Table 2: Runtimes of the two functions with IA. Iteration functions f(z) = (1/2)z3 sin2 (πz/2) f(z) = (1/2)(z3 sin2 (πz/2) + sin 2 (πz/2)) Displayed area/points number ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1)/ Displayed area/points number ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2)/ Displayed area/points number ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4)/ large that we cannot wait for a so long time for these fractals inpractice.then,weknowthattherearemoreimagesthat need more points to compute. So we have to reach a novel method to solve them. We analyze these large runtimes in Tables 1 and 2, and we find that the phenomenon of these results is due to the large extra space, which stores the midresult of IA by an n n matrix (n nis the computational points number). So the extra matrix becomes too large to compute when we enlarge the computational points (the displayed area). In order to consider a novel method to decrease computational complexity, we admit that the parallel environment isasuitablewaytosolvethisproblem[7, 8]. Furthermore, it is more suitable in fractals [9]. This is because many fractals have highlighted characteristics and fit into parallel environments. For example, symmetrical characteristics are owned by many generalized Mandelbrot sets [1, 11], Julia sets [12], and other fractals [13]. So, in this paper, we separate and improve ETA and IA into parallel environments with a separation method at first. Moreover, we prove their correctness and compute their complexity. Then, we use some well-known generation method in the experiment. Finally, we discuss the experiment result by our conclusion. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We present a separation method of both ETA and IA in Section 2. Moreover, we have their parallel experimental results and analyses in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 summarizes the mainresultsofthispaperandpresentsthefollowingstudy objectives. 2. Separation Method of ETA and IA In order to reform ETA and IA into parallel environments, our separation method can be given by 4 steps. Step 1 (dividing computations into tasks). In this step, we divide computations into a class of tasks. The strategy makes all processes busy as far as possible without much supervisory cost.inthisway,parallelstructureisconstructed. Step 2 (distributing tasks among processes). The objective of this step is to load balance between processes in task distribution. The balanced load contains computation, input/output, data access and communication, and so forth Step 3 (applying coordination, communication, and synchronization of data). Coordination decreases the cost of communication and synchronization. Moreover, in order to increase locality of data access, this strategy must finish those tasks earlier, which depends many tasks. Step 4 (mapping processes into processors). From Steps 1 3, we get a complete parallel algorithm which can control mappings from processes into processors. Otherwise, this work is executed by OS. Of course, this mapping is for a certain system or environment. So,inordertorunETAandIAinparallelenvironments, we should distribute them in parallel forms. In this paper, we use the SIMC environment to distribute them and the separation method of ETA and IA. We show the separation method in Algorithms 2 and 3. To simplify without loss of solution, we divide the displayed area into p(n) parts by horizontal lines. After these two separation methods are presented, we process our experiment by constructing a parallel environment with the same 9 PCs (personal computers). In our experiment, one PC is a primary node, and other 8 PCs are task nodes. Then, all subresults are connected to the primary node as the final result.

3 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 3 Step 1. Assuming N astheescapethresholdnumber,m as the max iteration number, m z =as the iteration number of point z and N z =zas records of f n (z). Step 2. For all points z in complex plane, While m z Mand N z <N Let m z =m z +1. N z =f(n z ). Step 3. Color all points z with color strategy of m z. Algorithm finished. Algorithm 1: The escape time algorithm. Primary node For all task nodes Send group message (x start, x end, y start i, y end i, f)toith task nodes; --y start i =y start +(i 1) int[(y end y start )/p(n)] --y end i =y start i x start, x end, y start i, y end i areallpixelnumbers(positiveinteger), f is iterated function/mapping While all task nodes send its result Connect all sub-images and display it; Finished; Task nodes If primary node send message (x start, x end, y start i, y end i, f) Use ETA to create sub-image by compute all points in this area with iterated function f; Send sub-image to primary node; Finished; Algorithm 2: Separation method of ETA. In our experiment, in order to decrease communicational cost, we find that the communications are mostly between the task nodes; that is, there is no need for the primary node. 3. Parallel Experiment and Analysis 3.1. Parallel Parameters. At first, we have some parallel evaluating indicators of a parallel algorithm. In the following evaluating indicators, n is the scale of the problem: (a) running time t(n) = t r +t c,wheret r is routing time of data by network or memorizer and t c is the computing time of arithmetic and logic in processors; (b) numberofprocessorsp(n), which obeys the exponential distribution by defining p(n) = n 1 e (<e<1); (c) parallel cost c(n) = t(n) p(n), whichiscalledthe best cost when the time complexity of executing cost is same between the existing parallel algorithm and the worst serial algorithm. (d) speedup ratio SR(n) = WS(n)/WP(n),whereWS(n) is the worst time cost with the best serial algorithm and WP(n) is the worst time cost of the parallel algorithm with the same problem; easily saying that 1 SR(n) p(n) and that the parallel algorithm is better when SR(n) is larger; (e) parallel efficiency PE(n) = SR(n)/p(n), which is used to measure utilization efficiency of processors in a parallel algorithm; (f) parallel flexibility measures, which is the relation between n and PE(n) by a steady p(n), callingan algorithm flexible when PE(n) increases linearly by n Experiments with T(z) and B(z). Then, we execute fractals of (1) and(2) as our experiments. The creating fractals are given in Figures 1 and 2. In our experiments, we left the primary node free for computations, and we only granted it with the authority, which is the connection with another 8 worker nodes. The connection is done under the SIMC strategy with ETA and the MIMC strategy with IA. This is because ETA needs fewer communications. In ETA, the primary node only sends the computational area to the task nodes. Meantime, the task nodes do not have any other communications. In this way, ETA can be executed with single instruction. On the contrary, IA needs many communications by the worker nodes. So we use multiple instructions in it. We have the running time of every fractal image, which are created by (1)and(2) in Tables 3 and 4 with the different

4 4 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Primary node For all task nodes Send group message (x start, x end, y start i, y end i, f)toith task nodes; --y start i =y start +(i 1) int[(y end y start )/p(n)] --y end i =y start i+1 1 While all task nodes send its result Connect all sub-images and display it; Finished; Task nodes If primary node send message (x start, x end, y start i, y end i, f) UseIAtocreatesub-imagebycomputeallpointsin this area with iterated function f; { Δx + iδy = f(x + iy); While Δy (y start i,y end i )andm x+iy <M; f(x + iy) = f(δx + iδy), m x+iy =m x+iy +m Δx+iΔy ; If Δy (y start i,y end i ) and m x+iy <M; Send message (Δx, Δy, i, Need) to jth node; --j =int[δy/(y end i y start i +1)] If receive message (x, y, j, Need) Send message (Δx, Δy, m Δx+iΔy )tojthnode; --Δx + iδy = f(x + iy) If receive message (Δx, Δy, m Δx+iΔy ) f(x + iy) = f(δx + iδy), m x+iy =m x+iy +m Δx+iΔy If m x+iy >N m x+iy =N; } Send sub-image to primary node; Finished; Algorithm 3: Separation method of IA. algorithms ETA and IA. Every running time contains both serial time and parallel time: f 1 (z) = 1 2 z3 sin 2 (πz/2), (1) f 2 (z) = 1 (πz/2) + sin 2 πz 2 (z3sin2 ). (2) 2 We compare the running times of ETA and IA with iteration functions (1) and (2). Then, we compute the evaluating indicatorsofthesetwoalgorithms.weusep(n) = 8 as the constant. So we only discuss c(n), SR(n), PE(n), andpf (parallel flexibility) in our paper. We know that c(n) = t(n) p(n) and p(n) = 9. Sowe have Figure 3 to show their costs individually. Moreover, we show SR(n) in Figure4 using the times WS(n) and WP(n) in experiments. Then, we need not compute PE(n) because it is only a constant coefficient different from the SR(n). Finally, we use Figure 5 to present parallel flexibility with equation SR(n)/n. Then, with these results, we have that the speedup ratio of ETA is better than that of the IA (in Figure 4), and that of the running time of IA is smaller than that of the ETA (in Figure 3). Admittedly, the upper bound of the speedup is p(n) = 9. It is to say that parallel ETA still has space in speedup ratio. Contrarily, the speedup ratio of IA is lower because there are too many communications between worker nodes in parallel IA. However, it reduces t r,butitincreases t c. Then, we have to say that speedup ratio is smaller when worker nodes are more. Moreover, from Figures 4 and 5, wecanseethatthetwo absolute flexibilities of the two algorithms are not so well. Especially, flexibility of IA is worse. But this does not this mean that their complexities are nearly linear. So the two relative flexibilities of the two algorithms are well. Finally, the created fractals are the same as in Figures 1 and 2. So we do not present them with additional figures Experiments with Generalized M Sets. After the experiments with T(z) and B(z), which are two iteration functions about the generalized 3x+1functions, we reach the final experiment of the generalized Mandelbrot sets with exponent k (k-m set). Similarly, in order to validate effectiveness of the novel algorithm, we process a k-msetwithk = 2.47 in serial ETA (SA), serial IA (SIA), parallel ETA (PA), and parallel IA (PIA). The fractal image of k-msetisgiveninfigure 6. Then, we use Figure 7 to present the eight subresults of the k-m set. It also validates the correctness of PIA.

5 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 5 (a) ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1) with (b) ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2) with (c) ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4) with Figure 1: Fractals of (1). (a) ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1) with (b) ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2) with (c) ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4) with Figure 2: Fractals of (2) Time (s) Speedup ratio (SR(n)) Serial Parallel Eq. (1) Eq. (2) ETA IA Figure 3: Running time to compare between ETA and IA with these two iteration functions into these two environments. Eq. (1) Eq. (2) ETA IA Figure 4: Speedup ratio to compare between ETA and IA with these two iteration functions.

6 6 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Table 3: Running time of ETA. Iteration functions f(z) = (1/2)z3 sin2 (πz/2) f(z) = (1/2)(z3 sin2 (πz/2) + sin 2 (πz/2)) Displayed area/points number ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1)/64 64 Serial Parallel Displayed area/points number ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2)/ Serial Parallel Displayed area/points number ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4)/ Serial Parallel Table 4: Running time of IA. Iteration functions f(z) = (1/2)z3 sin2 (πz/2) f(z) = (1/2)(z3 sin2 (πz/2) + sin 2 (πz/2)) Displayed area/points number ( 1, 1) ( 1, 1)/64 64 Serial Parallel Displayed area/points number ( 2, 2) ( 2, 2)/ Serial Parallel Displayed area/points number ( 4, 4) ( 4, 4)/ Serial Parallel In fact, the k-m set is a fast creating fractal. In this way, we do not present the creating time for these four methods (SA, SIA, PA, and PIA) because they are mixed and hard to discuss. In this paper, we only compute SR = WS(SA)/WP(PA) and flexibility = SR/n of them. We present them in Figures 8 and 9.InFigure 8,wepresentSRofthek-Mset,and,inFigure 9, we present the flexibility of the k-mset. In Figures 8 and 9,wealsousen = 64 64, , and In Figures 8 and 9, wealsousec(n) = t(n) p(n) and p(n) = 9 with any n. SowehaveSR 1 (n) = WS(SA)/WP(PA) = c(sa)/c(pa) and SR 2 (n) = WS(SIA)/WP(PIA) = c(sia)/c(pia) in Figure4 by using the cost time instead of WS and WP in experimental results. Then, we use Figure 9 to present parallel flexibility with equation SR(n)/n. Then,withtheseresults,wealsohavethatspeedupratio of ETA is better than that of IA (in Figure 8). Then, we find that the SR of the k-m setissmallerthanthoseoft(z) and B(z). This is because the creating time of the k-msetissmall. Meantime, the distributional time comes to a larger ratio. So SRs are decreasing. But we also find that the SR of IA is larger. This is because of the local attractiveness of the k-m set. Moreover, it is similar that the speedup ratio of IA is lower than that of ETA. This is also because there are too many communications between worker nodes in PIA. Moreover, from Figure 8, we compute flexibilities of the two algorthims, and we find that both of them are not so well. Then, we can also find that two relative flexibilities of the two algorithms are well. 4. Conclusion We constructed a parallel environment to run the distribution fractal creating algorithms ETA and IA by static task distribution strategy. Then, we compared these two parallel algorithms by some parallel evaluating indicators. Although there were many communication redundancies in IA, experiment results show that both ETA and IA can increase their speed and efficiency with a better environment. The next step is to avoid communication redundancies, sowewilltransplantetaandiaintoacloudenvironment. We will process this transformation since we have computed a universal computational complexity of fractal creating methods by iteration conditions. It is a new way

7 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 7 Flexibility (SR(n)/n) Speedup ratio (SR) Figure 5: Flexibility to compare between ETA and IA with these two iteration functions into these two environments. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Figure 7: Subfractal image of the k-msetwithk = Figure 6: Fractal image of the k-m set with k = touseinnermechanisminthecloudenvironmenttoavoid outer communication. Furthermore, we will present a special novel algorithm for the generalized Mandelbrot sets with rational number exponent when we have its structural characteristics. Acknowledgments This work is supported by grants from the Program of Higher-Level Talents of Inner Mongolia University (nos and ), National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos and ), the key Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (no ), the inner Mongolia Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (212JQ3) and Scientific projects of higher school of Inner Mongolia(no.NJZY134).Theauthorswouldliketothank ETA IA Figure 8: Speedup ratio to compare between ETA and IA with the k-mset,wherek = 2.47.

8 8 International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks Flexibility (SR(n)/n) [1] S. Liu, X. Cheng, C. Lan et al., Study in fractals of generalized M-set with rational number exponent, Applied Mathematics and Computation,vol.22,pp ,213. [11] I. Andreadis and T. E. Karakasidis, On numerical approximations of the area of the generalized mandelbrot sets, Applied Mathematics and Computation,vol.219,no.23,pp , 213. [12] Y. Sun, X. Zhao, and K. Hou, Calculation of julia sets by equipotential point algorithm, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos,vol.23,no.1,213. [13]R.D.D.Díaz, L. H. Encinas, and J. M. Masqué, A fractal sets attached to homogeneous quadratic maps in two variables, Physica D,vol.245,no.1,pp.8 18, ETA IA Figure 9: Flexibility to compare between ETA and IA with the k-m set, where k = the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments in reviewing this paper. References [1] B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W. H. Freeman, San Fransisco, Calif, USA, [2] J. Falconer, Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 23. [3]S.Liu,X.Che,andZ.Wang, Improvementofescapetime algorithm by no- escape-point, Journal of Computers,vol.6,no. 8, pp , 211. [4] J. P. Dumont and C. A. Reiter, Visualizing generalized 3x+1 function dynamics, Computers and Graphics (Pergamon), vol. 25,no.5,pp ,21. [5] S.Liu,X.-J.Che,andZ.-X.Wang, Existencedomainanalysis and numerical algorithm of fixed point for generalized 3x+1 function Tx, Acta Electronica Sinica, vol. 39, no. 1, pp , 211. [6] S. Liu and Z. Wang, Fixed point and fractal images for a generalized approximate 3x+1 function, JournalofComputer- Aided Design and Computer Graphics, vol.21,no.12,pp , 29. [7] Q. Wu, M. Zhang, R. Zheng et al., A Qos-satisfied prediction model for cloud-service composition based on a hidden markov model, Mathematical Problems in Engineering,vol.213,Article ID 38783, 7 pages, 213. [8] C. B. Guure and N. A. Ibrahim, Bayesian analysis of the survival function and failure rate of weibull distribution with censored data, Mathematical Problems in Engineering,vol.212, Article ID , 18 pages, 212. [9] M.Liu,S.Liu,W.Fuetal., Distributionalescapetimealgorithm based on generalized fractal sets in cloud environment, Chinese Journal of Electronics.Inpress.