Sublinear Distance Labeling

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 graphs with both directed and undirected edges. We present a $O(\frac{n}{D}\log^2 D)$ bit $D$-preserving distance labeling scheme, improving the previous bound by Bollob\'as et. al. [SIAM J. Discrete Math. 2005]. We also give an almost matching lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{n}{D})$. With our $D$-preserving distance labeling scheme as a building block, we additionally achieve the following results: 1. We present the first distance labeling scheme of size $o(n)$ 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 distance labeling in general graphs which require $\Omega(n)$ bits, Moon [Proc. of Glasgow Math. Association 1965]. 2. For approximate $r$-additive labeling schemes, that return distances within an additive error of $r$ we show a scheme of size $O\left ( \frac{n}{r} \cdot\frac{\operatorname{polylog} (r\log n)}{\log n} \right )$ for $r \ge 2$. This improves on the current best bound of $O\left(\frac{n}{r}\right)$ by Alstrup et. al. [SODA 2016] for sub-polynomial $r$, and is a generalization of a result by Gawrychowski et al. [arXiv preprint 2015] who showed this for $r=2$.Comment: A preliminary version of this paper appeared at ESA'1

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 $\frac{k-1}{k}\log n+\Theta(\log k)$

Hardness of Exact Distance Queries in Sparse Graphs Through Hub Labeling

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. An important class of distance labeling schemes is that of hub labelings, where a node $v \in G$ stores its distance to the so-called hubs $S_v \subseteq V$, chosen so that for any $u,v \in V$ there is $w \in S_u \cap S_v$ belonging to some shortest $uv$ path. Notice that for most existing graph classes, the best distance labelling constructions existing use at some point a hub labeling scheme at least as a key building block. Our interest lies in hub labelings of sparse graphs, i.e., those with $|E(G)| = O(n)$, for which we show a lowerbound of $\frac{n}{2^{O(\sqrt{\log n})}}$ for the average size of the hubsets. Additionally, we show a hub-labeling construction for sparse graphs of average size $O(\frac{n}{RS(n)^{c}})$ for some $0 < c < 1$, where $RS(n)$ is the so-called Ruzsa-Szemer{\'e}di function, linked to structure of induced matchings in dense graphs. This implies that further improving the lower bound on hub labeling size to $\frac{n}{2^{(\log n)^{o(1)}}}$ would require a breakthrough in the study of lower bounds on $RS(n)$, which have resisted substantial improvement in the last 70 years. For general distance labeling of sparse graphs, we show a lowerbound of $\frac{1}{2^{O(\sqrt{\log n})}} SumIndex(n)$, where $SumIndex(n)$ is the communication complexity of the Sum-Index problem over $Z_n$. Our results suggest that the best achievable hub-label size and distance-label size in sparse graphs may be $\Theta(\frac{n}{2^{(\log n)^c}})$ for some $0<c < 1$

Distance Labeling Schemes for Cube-Free Median Graphs

Distance labeling schemes are schemes that label the vertices of a graph with short labels in such a way that the distance between any two vertices u and v can be determined efficiently by merely inspecting the labels of u and v, without using any other information. One of the important problems is finding natural classes of graphs admitting distance labeling schemes with labels of polylogarithmic size. In this paper, we show that the class of cube-free median graphs on n nodes enjoys distance labeling scheme with labels of O(log^3 n) bits

Scaling distance labeling on small-world networks

© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. Distance labeling approaches are widely adopted to speed up the online performance of shortest distance queries. The construction of the distance labeling, however, can be exhaustive especially on big graphs. For a major category of large graphs, small-world networks, the state-of-the-art approach is Pruned Landmark Labeling (PLL). PLL prunes distance labels based on a node order and directly constructs the pruned labels by performing breadth-first searches in the node order. The pruning technique, as well as the index construction, has a strong sequential nature which hinders PLL from being parallelized. It becomes an urgent issue on massive small-world networks whose index can hardly be constructed by a single thread within a reasonable time. This paper scales distance labeling on small-world networks by proposing a Parallel Shortest-distance Labeling (PSL) scheme and further reducing the index size by exploiting graph and label properties. PSL insightfully converts the PLL's node-order dependency to a shortest-distance dependence, which leads to a propagation-based parallel labeling in D rounds where D denotes the diameter of the graph. Extensive experimental results verify our efficiency on billion-scale graphs and near-linear speedup in a multi-core environment

Labelings vs. Embeddings: On Distributed Representations of Distances

We investigate for which metric spaces the performance of distance labeling and of $\ell_\infty$-embeddings differ, and how significant can this difference be. Recall that a distance labeling is a distributed representation of distances in a metric space $(X,d)$, where each point $x\in X$ is assigned a succinct label, such that the distance between any two points $x,y \in X$ can be approximated given only their labels. A highly structured special case is an embedding into $\ell_\infty$, where each point $x\in X$ is assigned a vector $f(x)$ such that $\|f(x)-f(y)\|_\infty$ is approximately $d(x,y)$. The performance of a distance labeling or an $\ell_\infty$-embedding is measured via its distortion and its label-size/dimension. We also study the analogous question for the prioritized versions of these two measures. Here, a priority order $\pi=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ of the point set $X$ is given, and higher-priority points should have shorter labels. Formally, a distance labeling has prioritized label-size $\alpha(.)$ if every $x_j$ has label size at most $\alpha(j)$. Similarly, an embedding $f: X \to \ell_\infty$ has prioritized dimension $\alpha(.)$ if $f(x_j)$ is non-zero only in the first $\alpha(j)$ coordinates. In addition, we compare these their prioritized measures to their classical (worst-case) versions. We answer these questions in several scenarios, uncovering a surprisingly diverse range of behaviors. First, in some cases labelings and embeddings have very similar worst-case performance, but in other cases there is a huge disparity. However in the prioritized setting, we most often find a strict separation between the performance of labelings and embeddings. And finally, when comparing the classical and prioritized settings, we find that the worst-case bound for label size often ``translates'' to a prioritized one, but also a surprising exception to this rule

Efficient Computation of Distance Labeling for Decremental Updates in Large Dynamic Graphs

Since today's real-world graphs, such as social network graphs, are evolving all the time, it is of great importance to perform graph computations and analysis in these dynamic graphs. Due to the fact that many applications such as social network link analysis with the existence of inactive users need to handle failed links or nodes, decremental computation and maintenance for graphs is considered a challenging problem. Shortest path computation is one of the most fundamental operations for managing and analyzing large graphs. A number of indexing methods have been proposed to answer distance queries in static graphs. Unfortunately, there is little work on answering such queries for dynamic graphs. In this paper, we focus on the problem of computing the shortest path distance in dynamic graphs, particularly on decremental updates (i.e., edge deletions). We propose maintenance algorithms based on distance labeling, which can handle decremental updates efficiently. By exploiting properties of distance labeling in original graphs, we are able to efficiently maintain distance labeling for new graphs. We experimentally evaluate our algorithms using eleven real-world large graphs and confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach. More specifically, our method can speed up index re-computation by up to an order of magnitude compared with the state-of-the-art method, Pruned Landmark Labeling (PLL)

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