751 research outputs found

    A simple and optimal ancestry labeling scheme for trees

    Full text link
    We present a lgn+2lglgn+3\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 2lgn2 \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 lgn+4lglgn+O(1)\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 2lgn2 \lg n solution.Comment: 12 pages, 1 figure. To appear at ICALP'1

    Dynamic and Multi-functional Labeling Schemes

    Full text link
    We investigate labeling schemes supporting adjacency, ancestry, sibling, and connectivity queries in forests. In the course of more than 20 years, the existence of logn+O(loglog)\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 logn+Ω(loglogn)\log n + \Omega(\log \log n) or logn+O(loglogn)\log n + O(\log \log n) respectively. Notably an upper bound of logn+5loglogn\log n + 5\log \log n for adjacency+siblings and a lower bound of logn+loglogn\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 OO-notation. In particular we show a logn+2loglogn\log n + 2\log \log n lower bound for connectivity+ancestry and connectivity+siblings, as well as an upper bound of logn+3loglogn+O(logloglogn)\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 Ω(n)\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 2logn2\log n bits, and 3logn3 \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 Ω(n)\Omega(n) for each of those families.Comment: 17 pages, 5 figure

    Near-optimal labeling schemes for nearest common ancestors

    Full text link
    We consider NCA labeling schemes: given a rooted tree TT, label the nodes of TT 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 nn nodes we present upper and lower bounds establishing that labels of size (2±ϵ)logn(2\pm \epsilon)\log n, ϵ<1\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 logn+Ω(loglogn)\log n +\Omega(\log \log n). Our lower bound increases this to logn+Ω(logn)\log n + \Omega(\log n) for NCA labeling schemes. Since Fraigniaud and Korman (STOC'10) established that labels in ancestor labeling schemes have size logn+Θ(loglogn)\log n +\Theta(\log \log n), our new lower bound separates ancestor and NCA labeling schemes. Our upper bound improves the 10logn10 \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 8logn8 \log n

    Labeling Schemes with Queries

    Full text link
    We study the question of ``how robust are the known lower bounds of labeling schemes when one increases the number of consulted labels''. Let ff be a function on pairs of vertices. An ff-labeling scheme for a family of graphs \cF labels the vertices of all graphs in \cF such that for every graph G\in\cF and every two vertices u,vGu,v\in G, the value f(u,v)f(u,v) can be inferred by merely inspecting the labels of uu and vv. This paper introduces a natural generalization: the notion of ff-labeling schemes with queries, in which the value f(u,v)f(u,v) can be inferred by inspecting not only the labels of uu and vv but possibly the labels of some additional vertices. We show that inspecting the label of a single additional vertex (one {\em query}) enables us to reduce the label size of many labeling schemes significantly

    Distance labeling schemes for trees

    Get PDF
    We consider distance labeling schemes for trees: given a tree with nn 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 Θ(log2n)\Theta(\log^2 n) bits\footnote{Throughout this paper we use log\log for log2\log_2.}. Gavoille et. al. (ESA 2001) show that for very small approximate stretch, labels use Θ(lognloglogn)\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 14log2n\frac{1}{4} \log^2 n bits are needed and that 12log2n\frac{1}{2} \log^2 n bits are sufficient. We also give (1+ϵ1+\epsilon)-stretch labeling schemes using Θ(logn)\Theta(\log n) bits for constant ϵ>0\epsilon>0. (1+ϵ1+\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 2lognΘ(loglogn)2\log n - \Theta(\log\log n). For simple paths with kk nodes and edge weights in [1,n][1,n], we show that labels must have size k1klogn+Θ(logk)\frac{k-1}{k}\log n+\Theta(\log k)

    Simpler, faster and shorter labels for distances in graphs

    Full text link
    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

    Labeling Schemes for Bounded Degree Graphs

    Full text link
    We investigate adjacency labeling schemes for graphs of bounded degree Δ=O(1)\Delta = O(1). In particular, we present an optimal (up to an additive constant) logn+O(1)\log n + O(1) adjacency labeling scheme for bounded degree trees. The latter scheme is derived from a labeling scheme for bounded degree outerplanar graphs. Our results complement a similar bound recently obtained for bounded depth trees [Fraigniaud and Korman, SODA 10], and may provide new insights for closing the long standing gap for adjacency in trees [Alstrup and Rauhe, FOCS 02]. We also provide improved labeling schemes for bounded degree planar graphs. Finally, we use combinatorial number systems and present an improved adjacency labeling schemes for graphs of bounded degree Δ\Delta with (e+1)n<Δn/5(e+1)\sqrt{n} < \Delta \leq n/5
    corecore