TY - GEN
T1 - Truly Optimal Euclidean Spanners
AU - Le, Hung
AU - Solomon, Shay
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 IEEE.
PY - 2019/11
Y1 - 2019/11
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
KW - Euclidean spanners
KW - Light spanners
KW - Spherical codes
KW - Steiner spanners
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078400439&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/FOCS.2019.00069
DO - 10.1109/FOCS.2019.00069
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontobookanthology.conference???
AN - SCOPUS:85078400439
T3 - Proceedings - Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS
SP - 1078
EP - 1100
BT - Proceedings - 2019 IEEE 60th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019
PB - IEEE Computer Society
T2 - 60th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2019
Y2 - 9 November 2019 through 12 November 2019
ER -