An Optimal Ancestry Labeling Scheme with Applications to XML Trees and Universal Posets

International audienceIn this paper we solve the ancestry-labeling scheme problem which aims at assigning the shortest possible labels (bit strings) to nodes of rooted trees, so that ancestry queries between any two nodes can be answered by inspecting their assigned labels only. This problem was introduced more than twenty years ago by Kannan et al. [STOC '88], and is among the most well-studied problems in the field of informative labeling schemes. We construct an ancestry-labeling scheme for n-node trees with label size log 2 n + O(log log n) bits, thus matching the log 2 n + Ω(log log n) bits lower bound given by Alstrup et al. [SODA '03]. Our scheme is based on a simplified ancestry scheme that operates extremely well on a restricted set of trees. In particular, for the set of n-node trees with depth at most d, the simplified ancestry scheme enjoys label size of log 2 n + 2 log 2 d + O(1) bits. Since the depth of most XML trees is at most some small constant, such an ancestry scheme may be of practical use. In addition, we also obtain an adjacency-labeling scheme that labels n-node trees of depth d with labels of size log 2 n + 3 log 2 d + O(1) bits. All our schemes assign the labels in linear time, and guarantee that any query can be answered in constant time. Finally, our ancestry scheme finds applications to the construction of small universal partially ordered sets (posets). Specifically, for any fixed integer k, it enables the construction of a universal poset of size˜Osize˜ size˜O(n k) for the family of n-element posets with tree-dimension at most k. Up to lower order terms, this bound is tight thanks to a lower bound of n k−o(1) due to Alon and Scheinerman [Order '88]

A simple and optimal ancestry labeling scheme for trees

We present a $\lg n + 2 \lg \lg n+3$ ancestry labeling scheme for trees. The problem was first presented by Kannan et al. [STOC 88'] along with a simple $2 \lg n$ solution. Motivated by applications to XML files, the label size was improved incrementally over the course of more than 20 years by a series of papers. The last, due to Fraigniaud and Korman [STOC 10'], presented an asymptotically optimal $\lg n + 4 \lg \lg n+O(1)$ labeling scheme using non-trivial tree-decomposition techniques. By providing a framework generalizing interval based labeling schemes, we obtain a simple, yet asymptotically optimal solution to the problem. Furthermore, our labeling scheme is attained by a small modification of the original $2 \lg n$ solution.Comment: 12 pages, 1 figure. To appear at ICALP'1

Dynamic and Multi-functional Labeling Schemes

We investigate labeling schemes supporting adjacency, ancestry, sibling, and connectivity queries in forests. In the course of more than 20 years, the existence of $\log n + O(\log \log)$ labeling schemes supporting each of these functions was proven, with the most recent being ancestry [Fraigniaud and Korman, STOC '10]. Several multi-functional labeling schemes also enjoy lower or upper bounds of $\log n + \Omega(\log \log n)$ or $\log n + O(\log \log n)$ respectively. Notably an upper bound of $\log n + 5\log \log n$ for adjacency+siblings and a lower bound of $\log n + \log \log n$ for each of the functions siblings, ancestry, and connectivity [Alstrup et al., SODA '03]. We improve the constants hidden in the $O$-notation. In particular we show a $\log n + 2\log \log n$ lower bound for connectivity+ancestry and connectivity+siblings, as well as an upper bound of $\log n + 3\log \log n + O(\log \log \log n)$ for connectivity+adjacency+siblings by altering existing methods. In the context of dynamic labeling schemes it is known that ancestry requires $\Omega(n)$ bits [Cohen, et al. PODS '02]. In contrast, we show upper and lower bounds on the label size for adjacency, siblings, and connectivity of $2\log n$ bits, and $3 \log n$ to support all three functions. There exist efficient adjacency labeling schemes for planar, bounded treewidth, bounded arboricity and interval graphs. In a dynamic setting, we show a lower bound of $\Omega(n)$ for each of those families.Comment: 17 pages, 5 figure

Distance labeling schemes for trees

We consider distance labeling schemes for trees: given a tree with $n$ nodes, label the nodes with binary strings such that, given the labels of any two nodes, one can determine, by looking only at the labels, the distance in the tree between the two nodes. A lower bound by Gavoille et. al. (J. Alg. 2004) and an upper bound by Peleg (J. Graph Theory 2000) establish that labels must use $\Theta(\log^2 n)$ bits\footnote{Throughout this paper we use $\log$ for $\log_2$.}. Gavoille et. al. (ESA 2001) show that for very small approximate stretch, labels use $\Theta(\log n \log \log n)$ bits. Several other papers investigate various variants such as, for example, small distances in trees (Alstrup et. al., SODA'03). We improve the known upper and lower bounds of exact distance labeling by showing that $\frac{1}{4} \log^2 n$ bits are needed and that $\frac{1}{2} \log^2 n$ bits are sufficient. We also give ($1+\epsilon$)-stretch labeling schemes using $\Theta(\log n)$ bits for constant $\epsilon>0$. ($1+\epsilon$)-stretch labeling schemes with polylogarithmic label size have previously been established for doubling dimension graphs by Talwar (STOC 2004). In addition, we present matching upper and lower bounds for distance labeling for caterpillars, showing that labels must have size $2\log n - \Theta(\log\log n)$. For simple paths with $k$ nodes and edge weights in $[1,n]$, we show that labels must have size $\frac{k-1}{k}\log n+\Theta(\log k)$

Near-optimal labeling schemes for nearest common ancestors

We consider NCA labeling schemes: given a rooted tree $T$, label the nodes of $T$ with binary strings such that, given the labels of any two nodes, one can determine, by looking only at the labels, the label of their nearest common ancestor. For trees with $n$ nodes we present upper and lower bounds establishing that labels of size $(2\pm \epsilon)\log n$, $\epsilon<1$ are both sufficient and necessary. (All logarithms in this paper are in base 2.) Alstrup, Bille, and Rauhe (SIDMA'05) showed that ancestor and NCA labeling schemes have labels of size $\log n +\Omega(\log \log n)$. Our lower bound increases this to $\log n + \Omega(\log n)$ for NCA labeling schemes. Since Fraigniaud and Korman (STOC'10) established that labels in ancestor labeling schemes have size $\log n +\Theta(\log \log n)$, our new lower bound separates ancestor and NCA labeling schemes. Our upper bound improves the $10 \log n$ upper bound by Alstrup, Gavoille, Kaplan and Rauhe (TOCS'04), and our theoretical result even outperforms some recent experimental studies by Fischer (ESA'09) where variants of the same NCA labeling scheme are shown to all have labels of size approximately $8 \log n$

Simpler, faster and shorter labels for distances in graphs

We consider how to assign labels to any undirected graph with n nodes such that, given the labels of two nodes and no other information regarding the graph, it is possible to determine the distance between the two nodes. The challenge in such a distance labeling scheme is primarily to minimize the maximum label lenght and secondarily to minimize the time needed to answer distance queries (decoding). Previous schemes have offered different trade-offs between label lengths and query time. This paper presents a simple algorithm with shorter labels and shorter query time than any previous solution, thereby improving the state-of-the-art with respect to both label length and query time in one single algorithm. Our solution addresses several open problems concerning label length and decoding time and is the first improvement of label length for more than three decades. More specifically, we present a distance labeling scheme with label size (log 3)/2 + o(n) (logarithms are in base 2) and O(1) decoding time. This outperforms all existing results with respect to both size and decoding time, including Winkler's (Combinatorica 1983) decade-old result, which uses labels of size (log 3)n and O(n/log n) decoding time, and Gavoille et al. (SODA'01), which uses labels of size 11n + o(n) and O(loglog n) decoding time. In addition, our algorithm is simpler than the previous ones. In the case of integral edge weights of size at most W, we present almost matching upper and lower bounds for label sizes. For r-additive approximation schemes, where distances can be off by an additive constant r, we give both upper and lower bounds. In particular, we present an upper bound for 1-additive approximation schemes which, in the unweighted case, has the same size (ignoring second order terms) as an adjacency scheme: n/2. We also give results for bipartite graphs and for exact and 1-additive distance oracles

Shorter Labeling Schemes for Planar Graphs

An \emph{adjacency labeling scheme} for a given class of graphs is an algorithm that for every graph $G$ from the class, assigns bit strings (labels) to vertices of $G$ so that for any two vertices $u,v$, whether $u$ and $v$ are adjacent can be determined by a fixed procedure that examines only their labels. It is known that planar graphs with $n$ vertices admit a labeling scheme with labels of bit length $(2+o(1))\log{n}$. In this work we improve this bound by designing a labeling scheme with labels of bit length $(\frac{4}{3}+o(1))\log{n}$. In graph-theoretical terms, this implies an explicit construction of a graph on $n^{4/3+o(1)}$ vertices that contains all planar graphs on $n$ vertices as induced subgraphs, improving the previous best upper bound of $n^{2+o(1)}$. Our scheme generalizes to graphs of bounded Euler genus with the same label length up to a second-order term. All the labels of the input graph can be computed in polynomial time, while adjacency can be decided from the labels in constant time

Adjacency labeling schemes and induced-universal graphs

We describe a way of assigning labels to the vertices of any undirected graph on up to $n$ vertices, each composed of $n/2+O(1)$ bits, such that given the labels of two vertices, and no other information regarding the graph, it is possible to decide whether or not the vertices are adjacent in the graph. This is optimal, up to an additive constant, and constitutes the first improvement in almost 50 years of an $n/2+O(\log n)$ bound of Moon. As a consequence, we obtain an induced-universal graph for $n$-vertex graphs containing only $O(2^{n/2})$ vertices, which is optimal up to a multiplicative constant, solving an open problem of Vizing from 1968. We obtain similar tight results for directed graphs, tournaments and bipartite graphs

Universal Communication, Universal Graphs, and Graph Labeling

We introduce a communication model called universal SMP, in which Alice and Bob receive a function f belonging to a family ?, and inputs x and y. Alice and Bob use shared randomness to send a message to a third party who cannot see f, x, y, or the shared randomness, and must decide f(x,y). Our main application of universal SMP is to relate communication complexity to graph labeling, where the goal is to give a short label to each vertex in a graph, so that adjacency or other functions of two vertices x and y can be determined from the labels ?(x), ?(y). We give a universal SMP protocol using O(k^2) bits of communication for deciding whether two vertices have distance at most k in distributive lattices (generalizing the k-Hamming Distance problem in communication complexity), and explain how this implies a O(k^2 log n) labeling scheme for deciding dist(x,y) ? k on distributive lattices with size n; in contrast, we show that a universal SMP protocol for determining dist(x,y) ? 2 in modular lattices (a superset of distributive lattices) has super-constant ?(n^{1/4}) communication cost. On the other hand, we demonstrate that many graph families known to have efficient adjacency labeling schemes, such as trees, low-arboricity graphs, and planar graphs, admit constant-cost communication protocols for adjacency. Trees also have an O(k) protocol for deciding dist(x,y) ? k and planar graphs have an O(1) protocol for dist(x,y) ? 2, which implies a new O(log n) labeling scheme for the same problem on planar graphs