Towards Instance-Optimal Euclidean Spanners

• Published in: Proceedings / annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science pp. 1579 - 1609
• Main Authors: Le, Hung, Solomon, Shay, Than, Cuong, Toth, Csaba D., Zhang, Tianyi
• Format: Conference Proceeding
• Language: English
• Published: IEEE 27.10.2024
• Subjects: Computer science; instance optimal; Polynomials; spanner; Upper bound
• ISSN: 2575-8454
• DOI: 10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00099

Euclidean spanners are important geometric objects that have been extensively studied since the 1980s. The two most basic "compactness" measures of a Euclidean spanner E 1 2 We shall identify a graph H = (X,E) with its edge set E . All edge weights are given by the Euclidean distances. are the size (number of edges) \vert E\vert and the weight (sum of edge weights) \Vert E\Vert . The state-of-the-art constructions of Euclidean (1+\epsilon) -spanners in \mathbb{R}^{d} have o_{d}(_{n\cdot\epsilon^{-d+1}}) edges (or sparsity O_{d}(\epsilon^{-d+1})) and weight O_{d}(\epsilon^{-d} \log \epsilon^{-1}) \cdot\Vert E_{\text{mst}}\Vert (or lightness O_{d}(\epsilon^{-d}\log\epsilon^{-1})) ; here O_{d} suppresses a factor of d^{O(d)} and \Vert E_{\text{mst}}\Vert denotes the weight of a minimum spanning tree of the input point set. Importantly, these two upper bounds are (near-)optimal (up to the d^{O(d)} factor and disregarding the factor of \log(\epsilon^{-1}) in the lightness bound) for some extremal instances [Le and Solomon, 2019], and therefore they are (near-)optimal in an existential sense. Moreover, both these upper bounds are attained by the same construction-the classic greedy spanner, whose sparsity and lightness are not only existentially optimal, but they also significantly outperform those of any other Euclidean spanner construction studied in an experimental study by [Farshi-Gudmundsson, 2009] for various practical point sets in the plane. This raises the natural question of whether the greedy spanner is (near-) optimal for any point set instance? Motivated by this question, we initiate the study of instance optimal Euclidean spanners. Our results are two-fold. *Rather surprisingly (given the aforementioned experimental study), we demonstrate that the greedy spanner is far from being instance optimal, even when allowing its stretch to grow. More concretely, we design two hard instances of point sets in the plane, where the greedy (1+x\epsilon) -spanner (for basically any parameter x \geq 1 ) has \Omega_{x}(\epsilon^{-1/2})\cdot\vert E_{\text{spa}} \vert edges and weight \Omega_{x}(\epsilon^{-1})\cdot\Vert E_{\text{light}}\Vert , where E_{\text{spa}} and E_{\text{light}} denote the per-instance sparsest and lightest (1 +\epsilon) -spanners, respectively, and the \Omega_{x} notation suppresses a polynomial dependence on 1/x . *As our main contribution, we design a new construction of Euclidean spanners, which is inherently different from known constructions, achieving the following bounds: a stretch of 1+\epsilon\cdot 2^{O(\log^{*}(d/\epsilon)} with O(1)\cdot\vert E_{\text{spa}}\vert edges and weight O(1). \Vert E_{ \text{light}}\Vert . In other words, we show that a slight increase to the stretch suffices for obtaining instance optimality up to an absolute constant for both sparsity and lightness. Remarkably, there is only a log-star dependence on the dimension in the stretch, and there is no dependence on it whatsoever in the number of edges and weight. In general, for any integer k\geq 1 , we can construct a Euclidean spanner in \mathbb{R}^{d} of stretch 1+\epsilon\cdot 2^{O(k)} with O(\log^{(k)}(\epsilon^{-1})+\log^{(k-1)}(d))\cdot\vert E_{\text{spa}}\vert edges and weight O(\log^{(k)}(\epsilon^{-1})+\log^{(k-1)}(d))\cdot\Vert E_{\text{light}}\Vert , where \log^{(k)} denotes the k-iterated logarithm.