8,631 research outputs found

    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

    Near-optimal adjacency labeling scheme for power-law graphs

    Get PDF
    An adjacency labeling scheme is a method that assigns labels to the vertices of a graph such that adjacency between vertices can be inferred directly from the assigned label, without using a centralized data structure. We devise adjacency labeling schemes for the family of power-law graphs. This family that has been used to model many types of networks, e.g. the Internet AS-level graph. Furthermore, we prove an almost matching lower bound for this family. We also provide an asymptotically near- optimal labeling scheme for sparse graphs. Finally, we validate the efficiency of our labeling scheme by an experimental evaluation using both synthetic data and real-world networks of up to hundreds of thousands of vertices

    Sublinear Distance Labeling

    Get PDF
    A distance labeling scheme labels the nn 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 DD-preserving distance labeling scheme only returns precise distances between pairs of nodes that are at distance at least DD 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(nDlog2D)O(\frac{n}{D}\log^2 D) bit DD-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 Ω(nD)\Omega(\frac{n}{D}). With our DD-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)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 Ω(n)\Omega(n) bits, Moon [Proc. of Glasgow Math. Association 1965]. 2. For approximate rr-additive labeling schemes, that return distances within an additive error of rr we show a scheme of size O(nrpolylog(rlogn)logn)O\left ( \frac{n}{r} \cdot\frac{\operatorname{polylog} (r\log n)}{\log n} \right ) for r2r \ge 2. This improves on the current best bound of O(nr)O\left(\frac{n}{r}\right) by Alstrup et. al. [SODA 2016] for sub-polynomial rr, and is a generalization of a result by Gawrychowski et al. [arXiv preprint 2015] who showed this for r=2r=2.Comment: A preliminary version of this paper appeared at ESA'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

    A note on models for graph representations

    Get PDF
    AbstractThis paper is intended more to ask questions than give answers. Specifically, we consider models for labeling schemes, and discuss issues regarding the number of labels consulted vs. the sizes of the labels.Recently, quite a few papers studied methods for representing network properties by assigning informative labels to the vertices of a network. Consider a graph function f on pairs of vertices (for example, f can be the distance function). In an f-labeling scheme, the labels are constructed in such a way so that given the labels of any two vertices u and v, one can compute the function f(u,v) (e.g. the graph distance between u and v) just by looking at these two labels. Some very involved lower bounds for the sizes of the labels were proven. Also, some highly sophisticated labeling schemes were developed to ensure short labels.In this paper, we demonstrate that such lower bounds are very sensitive to the number of vertices consulted. That is, we show several constructions of such labeling schemes that beat the lower bounds by large margins. Moreover, as opposed to the strong technical skills that were needed to develop the traditional labeling schemes, most of our schemes are almost trivial. The catch is that in our model, one needs to consult the labels of three vertices instead of two. That is, a query about vertices u and v can access also the label of some third vertex w (w is determined by the labels of u and v). More generally, we address the model in which a query about vertices u and v can access also the labels of c other vertices. We term our generalized model labeling schemes with queries.The main importance of this model is theoretical. Specifically, this paper may serve as a first step towards investigating different tradeoffs between the amount of labels consulted and the amount of information stored at each vertex. As we show, if all vertices can be consulted then the problem almost reduces to the corresponding sequential problem. On the other hand, consulting just the labels of u and v (or even just the label of u) reduces the problem to a purely distributed one. Therefore, in a sense, our model spans a range of intermediate notions between the sequential and the distributed settings.In addition to the theoretical interest, we also show cases that schemes constructed for our model can be translated to the traditional model or to the sequential model, thus, simplifying the construction for those models as well. For implementing query labeling schemes in a distributed environment directly, we point at a potential usage for some new paradigms that became common recently, such as P2P and overlay networks

    Distributed Tree Kernels

    Get PDF
    In this paper, we propose the distributed tree kernels (DTK) as a novel method to reduce time and space complexity of tree kernels. Using a linear complexity algorithm to compute vectors for trees, we embed feature spaces of tree fragments in low-dimensional spaces where the kernel computation is directly done with dot product. We show that DTKs are faster, correlate with tree kernels, and obtain a statistically similar performance in two natural language processing tasks.Comment: ICML201
    corecore