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

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 $0<c < 1$

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)

A SURVEY OF DISTANCE MAGIC GRAPHS

In this report, we survey results on distance magic graphs and some closely related graphs. A distance magic labeling of a graph G with magic constant k is a bijection l from the vertex set to {1, 2, . . . , n}, such that for every vertex x Σ l(y) = k,y∈NG(x) where NG(x) is the set of vertices of G adjacent to x. If the graph G has a distance magic labeling we say that G is a distance magic graph. In Chapter 1, we explore the background of distance magic graphs by introducing examples of magic squares, magic graphs, and distance magic graphs. In Chapter 2, we begin by examining some basic results on distance magic graphs. We next look at results on different graph structures including regular graphs, multipartite graphs, graph products, join graphs, and splitting graphs. We conclude with other perspectives on distance magic graphs including embedding theorems, the matrix representation of distance magic graphs, lifted magic rectangles, and distance magic constants. In Chapter 3, we study graph labelings that retain the same labels as distance magic labelings, but alter the definition in some other way. These labelings include balanced distance magic labelings, closed distance magic labelings, D-distance magic labelings, and distance antimagic labelings. In Chapter 4, we examine results on neighborhood magic labelings, group distance magic labelings, and group distance antimagic labelings. These graph labelings change the label set, but are otherwise similar to distance magic graphs. In Chapter 5, we examine some applications of distance magic and distance antimagic labeling to the fair scheduling of tournaments. In Chapter 6, we conclude with some open problems