Truly Optimal Euclidean Spanners
April 26, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Hung Le, Shay Solomon
arXiv ID
1904.12042
Category
cs.CG: Computational Geometry
Cross-listed
cs.DS
Citations
56
Venue
IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Last Checked
1 month ago
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 $(1+Ξ΅)$-spanner with $nO(Ξ΅^{-d+1})$ edges and lightness $O(Ξ΅^{-2d})$. Surprisingly, the fundamental question of whether or not these dependencies on $Ξ΅$ 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. The state-of-the-art bounds $nO(Ξ΅^{-d+1})$ and $O(Ξ΅^{-2d})$ on the size and lightness of spanners are realized by the {\em greedy} spanner. In 2016, Filtser and Solomon proved that, in low dimensional spaces, the greedy spanner is near-optimal. The question of whether the greedy spanner is truly optimal remained open to date. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. We resolve these longstanding questions by nailing down the exact dependencies on $Ξ΅$ and $d$ and showing that the greedy spanner is truly optimal. Specifically, for any $d= O(1), Ξ΅= Ξ©({n}^{-\frac{1}{d-1}})$: - We show that any $(1+Ξ΅)$-spanner must have $n Ξ©(Ξ΅^{-d+1})$ edges, implying that the greedy (and other) spanners achieve the optimal size. - We show that any $(1+Ξ΅)$-spanner must have lightness $Ξ©(Ξ΅^{-d})$, and then improve the upper bound on the lightness of the greedy spanner from $O(Ξ΅^{-2d})$ to $O(Ξ΅^{-d})$. 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).
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Computational Geometry
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Dynamic Planar Convex Hull
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
TEMPO: Feature-Endowed TeichmΓΌller Extremal Mappings of Point Clouds
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Manufacturing Cost Estimation and Machining Feature Visualization
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Coresets for Clustering in Euclidean Spaces: Importance Sampling is Nearly Optimal
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Momen(e)t: Flavor the Moments in Learning to Classify Shapes
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted