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

Online Duet between Metric Embeddings and Minimum-Weight Perfect Matchings

Low-distortional metric embeddings are a crucial component in the modern algorithmic toolkit. In an online metric embedding, points arrive sequentially and the goal is to embed them into a simple space irrevocably, while minimizing the distortion. Our first result is a deterministic online embedding of a general metric into Euclidean space with distortion $O(\log n)\cdot\min\{\sqrt{\log\Phi},\sqrt{n}\}$ (or, $O(d)\cdot\min\{\sqrt{\log\Phi},\sqrt{n}\}$ if the metric has doubling dimension $d$), solving a conjecture by Newman and Rabinovich (2020), and quadratically improving the dependence on the aspect ratio $\Phi$ from Indyk et al.\ (2010). Our second result is a stochastic embedding of a metric space into trees with expected distortion $O(d\cdot \log\Phi)$, generalizing previous results (Indyk et al.\ (2010), Bartal et al.\ (2020)). Next, we study the \emph{online minimum-weight perfect matching} problem, where a sequence of $2n$ metric points arrive in pairs, and one has to maintain a perfect matching at all times. We allow recourse (as otherwise the order of arrival determines the matching). The goal is to return a perfect matching that approximates the \emph{minimum-weight} perfect matching at all times, while minimizing the recourse. Our third result is a randomized algorithm with competitive ratio $O(d\cdot \log \Phi)$ and recourse $O(\log \Phi)$ against an oblivious adversary, this result is obtained via our new stochastic online embedding. Our fourth result is a deterministic algorithm against an adaptive adversary, using $O(\log^2 n)$ recourse, that maintains a matching of weight at most $O(\log n)$ times the weight of the MST, i.e., a matching of lightness $O(\log n)$. We complement our upper bounds with a strategy for an oblivious adversary that, with recourse $r$, establishes a lower bound of $\Omega(\frac{\log n}{r \log r})$ for both competitive ratio and lightness.Comment: 53 pages, 8 figures, to be presented at the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA24