A distance labeling scheme is an assignment of bit-labels to the vertices of an undirected, unweighted graph such that the distance between any pair of vertices can be decoded solely from their labels. We propose a series of new labeling schemes within the framework of so-called hub labeling (HL, also known as landmark labeling or 2-hop-cover labeling), in which each node @math stores its distance to all nodes from an appropriately chosen set of hubs @math . For a queried pair of nodes @math , the length of a shortest @math -path passing through a hub node from @math is then used as an upper bound on the distance between @math and @math . We present a hub labeling which allows us to decode exact distances in sparse graphs using labels of size sublinear in the number of nodes. For graphs with at most @math nodes and average degree @math , the tradeoff between label bit size @math and query decoding time @math for our approach is given by @math , for any @math . Our simple approach is thus the first sublinear-space distance labeling for sparse graphs that simultaneously admits small decoding time (for constant @math , we can achieve any @math while maintaining @math ), and it also provides an improvement in terms of label size with respect to previous slower approaches. By using similar techniques, we then present a @math -additive labeling scheme for general graphs, i.e., one in which the decoder provides a 2-additive-approximation of the distance between any pair of nodes. We achieve almost the same label size-time tradeoff @math , for any @math . To our knowledge, this is the first additive scheme with constant absolute error to use labels of sublinear size. The corresponding decoding time is then small (any @math is sufficient).
For specific classes of graphs, Gavoille al @cite_4 described a @math distance labeling for planar graphs, together with @math lower bound for the same class of graphs. Additionally, @math upper bound for trees and @math lower bound for sparse graphs were given.
@cite_4
2034501275 2139539283 756611012 1968429800
We consider the problem of labeling the nodes of a graph in a way that will allow one to compute the distance between any two nodes directly from their labels (without using any additional information). Our main interest is in the minimal length of labels needed in different cases. We obtain upper and lower bounds for several interesting families of graphs. In particular, our main results are the following. For general graphs, we show that the length needed is Θ(n). For trees, we show that the length needed is Θ(log2 n). For planar graphs, we show an upper bound of O(√nlogn) and a lower bound of Ω(n1 3). For bounded degree graphs, we show a lower bound of Ω(√n). The upper bounds for planar graphs and for trees follow by a more general upper bound for graphs with a r(n)-separator. The two lower bounds, however, are obtained by two different arguments that may be interesting in their own right. We also show some lower bounds on the length of the labels, even if it is only required that distances be approximated to a multiplicative factor s. For example, we show that for general graphs the required length is Ω(n) for every s < 3. We also consider the problem of the time complexity of the distance function once the labels are computed. We show that there are graphs with optimal labels of length 3 log n, such that if we use any labels with fewer than n bits per label, computing the distance function requires exponential time. A similar result is obtained for planar and bounded degree graphs. We consider the problem of labeling the nodes of a graph in a way that will allow one to compute the distance between any two nodes directly from their labels (without using any additional information). Our main interest is in the minimal length of labels needed in different cases. We obtain upper bounds and (most importantly) lower bounds for several interesting families of graphs. In particular, our main results are the following: For general graphs, the length needed is Θ(n). For trees, the length needed is Θ(log2 n). For planar graphs, we show an upper bound of Ω(√n log n) and a lower bound of Ω(n1 3). For bounded degree graphs, we show a lower bound of Ω(√n). The upper bounds for planar graphs and for trees follow by a more general upper bound for graphs with a r(n)- separator. The two lower bounds, however, are obtained by two different arguments that may be interesting in their own right. We also show some lower bounds on the length of the labels, even if it is only required that distances be approximated to a multiplicative factor s. For example, we show that for general graphs the required length is O(n). We also consider the problem of the time complexity of the distance function once the labels are computed. We show that there are graphs with optimal labels of length 3 log n, such that if we use any labels with fewer than n bits per label, computing the distance function requires exponential time. A similar result is obtained for planar and bounded degree graphs. A distance labeling scheme labels the n nodes of a graph with binary strings such that, given the labels of any two nodes, one can determine the distance in the graph between the two nodes by looking only at the labels. A D-preserving distance labeling scheme only returns precise distances between pairs of nodes that are at distance at least D from each other. In this paper we consider distance labeling schemes for the classical case of unweighted and undirected graphs. We present the first distance labeling scheme of size opnq for sparse graphs (and hence bounded degree graphs). This addresses an open problem by Gavoille et. al. [J. Algo. 2004], hereby separating the complexity from general graphs which require pnq size Moon [Proc. of Glasgow Math. Association 1965]. As an intermediate result we give a Op n D log We study the quantitative geometry of graphs in terms of their genus, using the structure of certain "cut graphs," i.e. subgraphs whose removal leaves a planar graph. In particular, we give optimal bounds for random partitioning schemes, as well as various types of embeddings. Using these geometric primitives, we present exponentially improved dependence on genus for a number of problems like approximate max-flow min-cut theorems, approximations for uniform and nonuniform Sparsest Cut, treewidth approximation, Laplacian eigenvalue bounds, and Lipschitz extension theorems and related metric labeling problems. We list here a sample of these improvements. All the following statements refer to graphs of genus g, unless otherwise noted. • We show that such graphs admit an O(log g)-approximate multi-commodity max-flow min-cut theorem for the case of uniform demands. This bound is optimal, and improves over the previous bound of O(g) [KPR93, FT03]. For general demands, we show that the worst possible gap is O(log g + CP), where CP is the gap for planar graphs. This dependence is optimal, and already yields a bound of O(log g + √log n), improving over the previous bound of O(√g log n) [KLMN04]. • We give an O(√log g)-approximation for the uniform Sparsest Cut, balanced vertex separator, and treewidth problems, improving over the previous bound of O(g) [FHL05]. • If a graph G has genus g and maximum degree D, we show that the kth Laplacian eigenvalue of G is (log g)2 · O(kgD n), improving over the previous bound of g2·O(kgD n) [KLPT09]. There is a lower bound of Ω(kgD n), making this result almost tight. • We show that if (X, d) is the shortest-path metric on a graph of genus g and S ⊆ X, then every L-Lipschitz map f: S → Z into a Banach space Z admits an O(L log g)-Lipschitz extension f: X → Z. This improves over the previous bound of O(Lg) [LN05], and compares to a lower bound of Ω(L√log g). In a related way, we show that there is an O(log g)-approximation for the 0-extension problem on such graphs, improving over the previous O(g) bound. • We show that every n-vertex shortest-path metric on a graph of genus g embeds into L2 with distortion O(log g + √log n), improving over the previous bound of O(√g log n). Our result is asymptotically optimal for every dependence g = g(n).