Truly Optimal Euclidean Spanners

April 26, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"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 shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Computational Geometry

R.I.P. πŸ‘» Ghosted

Dynamic Planar Convex Hull

Riko Jacob, Gerth StΓΈlting Brodal

cs.CG πŸ› The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. Proceedings. πŸ“š 240 cites 7 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted