skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

The 4/3 Additive Spanner Exponent Is Tight

Published:07 September 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A spanner is a sparse subgraph that approximately preserves the pairwise distances of the original graph. It is well known that there is a smooth tradeoff between the sparsity of a spanner and the quality of its approximation, so long as distance error is measured multiplicatively. A central open question in the field is to prove or disprove whether such a tradeoff exists also in the regime of additive error. That is, is it true that for all ε > 0, there is a constant kε such that every graph has a spanner on O(n1+ε) edges that preserves its pairwise distances up to +kε? Previous lower bounds are consistent with a positive resolution to this question, while previous upper bounds exhibit the beginning of a tradeoff curve: All graphs have +2 spanners on O(n3/2) edges, +4 spanners on Õ(n7/5) edges, and +6 spanners on O(n4/3) edges. However, progress has mysteriously halted at the n4/3 bound, and despite significant effort from the community, the question has remained open for all 0 < ε < 1/3.

Our main result is a surprising negative resolution of the open question, even in a highly generalized setting. We show a new information theoretic incompressibility bound: There is no function that compresses graphs into O(n4/3 − ε) bits so distance information can be recovered within +no(1) error. As a special case of our theorem, we get a tight lower bound on the sparsity of additive spanners: the +6 spanner on O(n4/3) edges cannot be improved in the exponent, even if any subpolynomial amount of additive error is allowed. Our theorem implies new lower bounds for related objects as well; for example, the 20-year-old +4 emulator on O(n4/3) edges also cannot be improved in the exponent unless the error allowance is polynomial.

Central to our construction is a new type of graph product, which we call the Obstacle Product. Intuitively, it takes two graphs G, H and produces a new graph GH whose shortest paths structure looks locally like H but globally like G.

References

  1. Amir Abboud and Greg Bodwin. 2016. Error amplification for pairwise spanner lower bounds. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’16). 841--854. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Amir Abboud, Greg Bodwin, and Seth Pettie. 2017. A hierarchy of lower bounds for sublinear additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’17). 568--576. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Donald Aingworth, Chandra Chekuri, Piotr Indyk, and Rajeev Motwani. 1999. Fast estimation of diameter and shortest paths (without matrix multiplication). SIAM J. Comput. 28 (1999), 1167--1181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Donald Aingworth, Chandra Chekuri, and Rajeev Motwani. 1996. Fast estimation of diameter and shortest paths (without matrix multiplication). In Proceedings of the 7th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’96). 547--553. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Noga Alon. 2001. Testing subgraphs in large graphs. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’01). 434--441. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. I. Althöfer, G. Das, D. Dobkin, D. Joseph, and J. Soares. 1993. On sparse spanners of weighted graphs. Discr. Comput. Geom. 9 (1993), 81--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Baruch Awerbuch. 1985. Complexity of network synchronization. J. ACM 32, (1985), 804--823. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Surender Baswana, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Seth Pettie. 2005. New constructions of (&alpha;, β)-spanners and purely additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’05). 672--681. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Surender Baswana, Telikepalli Kavitha, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Seth Pettie. 2010. Additive spanners and (&alpha;, β)-spanners. ACM Trans. Algor. 7, 1 (2010), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Felix A. Behrend. 1946. On sets of integers which contain no three terms in arithmetical progression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 32, 12 (1946), 331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Greg Bodwin. 2017. Linear size distance preservers. In Proceedings of the the 28th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’17). 600--615. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Greg Bodwin and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2015. Very sparse additive spanners and emulators. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’15). 377--382. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Greg Bodwin and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2016. Better distance preservers and additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Béla Bollobás, Don Coppersmith, and Michael Elkin. 2003. Sparse distance preservers and additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’03). 414--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jean Bourgain. 1985. On lipschitz embedding of finite metric spaces in hilbert space. Israel J. Math. 52, 1--2 (1985), 46--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Shiri Chechik. 2013. New additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’13). 498--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Shiri Chechik. 2014. Additive spanners. In Encyclopedia of Algorithms. Springer, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Victor Chepoi, Feodor F. Dragan, Bertrand Estellon, Michel Habib, Yann Vaxès, and Yang Xiang. 2012. Additive spanners and distance and routing labeling schemes for hyperbolic graphs. Algorithmica 62, 3--4 (2012), 713--732. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Victor Chepoi, Feodor F. Dragan, and Chenyu Yan. 2005. Additive sparse spanners for graphs with bounded length of largest induced cycle. Theor. Comput. Sci. 347, 1--2 (2005), 54--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Don Coppersmith and Michael Elkin. 2006. Sparse sourcewise and pairwise distance preservers. SIAM J. Discr. Math. 20, 2 (2006), 463–501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Marek Cygan, Fabrizio Grandoni, and Telikepalli Kavitha. 2013. On pairwise spanners. In Proceedings of the 30th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’13). 209--220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorit Dor, Shay Halperin, and Uri Zwick. 1996. All pairs almost shortest paths. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’96). 452--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Feodor F. Dragan and Muad Abu-Ata. 2014. Collective additive tree spanners of bounded tree-breadth graphs with generalizations and consequences. Theor. Comput. Sci. 547 (2014), 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Feodor F. Dragan, Derek G. Corneil, Ekkehard Köhler, and Yang Xiang. 2012. Collective additive tree spanners for circle graphs and polygonal graphs. Discr. Appl. Math. 160, 12 (2012), 1717--1729. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Feodor F. Dragan, Fedor V. Fomin, and Petr A. Golovach. 2011. Spanners in sparse graphs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 77, 6 (2011), 1108--1119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Michael Elkin. 2005. Computing almost shortest paths. ACM Trans. Algor. 1, 2 (2005), 283--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Michael Elkin and David Peleg. 2004. (1 + ε, β)-spanner constructions for general graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 3 (2004), 608--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Paul Erdös. 1964. Extremal problems in graph theory. Theory of Graphs and Its Applications (1964), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Telikepalli Kavitha. 2015. New pairwise spanners. In Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’15). 513--526.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Telikepalli Kavitha and Nithin Varma. 2013. Small stretch pairwise spanners. In Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’13). 601--612. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mathias Bæk Tejs Knudsen. 2014. Additive spanners: A simple construction. In Proceedings of the 14th Scandinavian Symposium and Workshops on Algorithm Theory (SWAT’14). 277--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Arthur L. Liestman and Thomas C. Shermer. 1991. Additive spanners for hypercubes. Parallel Process. Lett. 1, 1 (1991), 35--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Arthur L. Liestman and Thomas C. Shermer. 1993. Additive graph spanners. Networks 23, 4 (1993), 343--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jiří Matoušek. 1996. On the distortion required for embedding finite metric spaces into normed spaces. Israel J. Math. 93, 1 (1996), 333--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Merav Parter. 2014. Bypassing erdös’ girth conjecture: Hybrid stretch and sourcewise spanners. In Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’14). 608--619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. David Peleg and Alejandro Schaffer. 1989. Graph spanners. J. Graph Theory 13 (1989), 99--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. David Peleg and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1989. An optimal synchronizer for the hypercube. SIAM J. Comput. 18 (1989), 740--747. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Seth Pettie. 2009. Low distortion spanners. ACM Trans. Algor. 6, 1 (2009). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Liam Roditty, Mikkel Thorup, and Uri Zwick. 2005. Deterministic constructions of approximate distance oracles and spanners. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’05). 261--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Mikkel Thorup and Uri Zwick. 2005. Approximate distance oracles. J. ACM 52, 1 (2005), 1--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Mikkel Thorup and Uri Zwick. 2006. Spanners and emulators with sublinear distance errors. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’06). 802--809. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. David P. Woodruff. 2006. Lower bounds for additive spanners, emulators, and more. In Proceedings of the 47th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06). 389--398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. David P. Woodruff. 2010. Additive spanners in nearly quadratic time. In Proceedings of the 37th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’10). 463--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The 4/3 Additive Spanner Exponent Is Tight

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Journal of the ACM
        Journal of the ACM  Volume 64, Issue 4
        August 2017
        197 pages
        ISSN:0004-5411
        EISSN:1557-735X
        DOI:10.1145/3133211
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 September 2017
        • Revised: 1 April 2017
        • Accepted: 1 April 2017
        • Received: 1 November 2016
        Published in jacm Volume 64, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader