Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 54 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 50 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 18 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 31 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 105 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 182 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 466 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 40 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Spanners in Planar Domains via Steiner Spanners and non-Steiner Tree Covers (2404.05045v1)

Published 7 Apr 2024 in cs.CG and cs.DS

Abstract: We study spanners in planar domains, including polygonal domains, polyhedral terrain, and planar metrics. Previous work showed that for any constant $\epsilon\in (0,1)$, one could construct a $(2+\epsilon)$-spanner with $O(n\log(n))$ edges (SICOMP 2019), and there is a lower bound of $\Omega(n2)$ edges for any $(2-\epsilon)$-spanner (SoCG 2015). The main open question is whether a linear number of edges suffices and the stretch can be reduced to $2$. We resolve this problem by showing that for stretch $2$, one needs $\Omega(n\log n)$ edges, and for stretch $2+\epsilon$ for any fixed $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, $O(n)$ edges are sufficient. Our lower bound is the first super-linear lower bound for stretch $2$. En route to achieve our result, we introduce the problem of constructing non-Steiner tree covers for metrics, which is a natural variant of the well-known Steiner point removal problem for trees (SODA 2001). Given a tree and a set of terminals in the tree, our goal is to construct a collection of a small number of dominating trees such that for every two points, at least one tree in the collection preserves their distance within a small stretch factor. Here, we identify an unexpected threshold phenomenon around $2$ where a sharp transition from $n$ trees to $\Theta(\log n)$ trees and then to $O(1)$ trees happens. Specifically, (i) for stretch $ 2-\epsilon$, one needs $\Omega(n)$ trees; (ii) for stretch $2$, $\Theta(\log n)$ tree is necessary and sufficient; and (iii) for stretch $2+\epsilon$, a constant number of trees suffice. Furthermore, our lower bound technique for the non-Steiner tree covers of stretch $2$ has further applications in proving lower bounds for two related constructions in tree metrics: reliable spanners and locality-sensitive orderings. Our lower bound for locality-sensitive orderings matches the best upper bound (STOC 2022).

Citations (1)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.