Truly Optimal Euclidean Spanners

Hung Le, Shay Solomon

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

39 Scopus citations

Abstract

Euclidean spanners are important geometric structures, having found numerous applications over the years. Cornerstone results in this area from the late 80s and early 90s state that for any d-dimensional n-point Euclidean space, there exists a (1+ϵ)-spanner with O(nϵ-d+1) edges and lightness (normalized weight) O(ϵ-2d)1. Surprisingly, the fundamental question of whether or not these dependencies on ϵ and d for small d can be improved has remained elusive, even for d = 2. This question naturally arises in any application of Euclidean spanners where precision is a necessity (thus ϵ is tiny). In the most extreme case ϵ is inverse polynomial in n, and then one could potentially improve the size and lightness bounds by factors that are polynomial in n. The state-of-The-Art bounds O(nϵ-d+1) and O(ϵ-2d) on the size and lightness of spanners are realized by the greedy spanner. In 2016, Filtser and Solomon [25] proved that, in low dimensional spaces, the greedy spanner is 'near-optimal''; informally, their result states that the greedy spanner for dimension d is just as sparse and light as any other spanner but for dimension larger by a constant factor. Hence the question of whether the greedy spanner is truly optimal remained open to date. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. 1) We resolve these longstanding questions by nailing down the exact dependencies on ϵ and d and showing that the greedy spanner is truly optimal. Specifically, for any d= O(1), ϵ = Ω(n-1/d-1): • We show that any (1+ϵ)-spanner must have Ω(nϵ-d+1) edges, implying that the greedy (and other) spanners achieve the optimal size. • We show that any (1+ϵ)-spanner must have lightness Ω(ϵ-d), and then improve the upper bound on the lightness of the greedy spanner from O(ϵ-2d) to Õϵ (ϵ-d). 2) We then complement our negative result for the size of spanners with a rather counterintuitive positive result: Steiner points lead to a quadratic improvement in the size of spanners! Our bound for the size of Steiner spanners is tight as well (up to lower-order terms).

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings - 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019
PublisherIEEE Computer Society
Pages1078-1100
Number of pages23
ISBN (Electronic)9781728149523
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2019
Event60th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019 - Baltimore, United States
Duration: 9 Nov 201912 Nov 2019

Publication series

NameProceedings - Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS
Volume2019-November
ISSN (Print)0272-5428

Conference

Conference60th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityBaltimore
Period9/11/1912/11/19

Funding

FundersFunder number
Blavatnik Family Foundation
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Israel Science Foundation1991/19

    Keywords

    • Euclidean spanners
    • Light spanners
    • Spherical codes
    • Steiner spanners

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Truly Optimal Euclidean Spanners'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this