A Hierarchy of Lower Bounds for Sublinear Additive Spanners

TL;DR

This paper establishes a hierarchy of lower bounds for additive spanners, characterizing the fundamental tradeoff between size and stretch, and presents new constructions that nearly match these bounds.

Contribution

It introduces a hierarchy of lower bounds for sublinear additive spanners and provides new spanner constructions that are close to optimal according to these bounds.

Findings

Lower bounds match known spanner constructions.

Tradeoff between size and stretch is fully characterized.

New spanner constructions improve previous size bounds.

Abstract

Spanners, emulators, and approximate distance oracles can be viewed as lossy compression schemes that represent an unweighted graph metric in small space, say $\tilde{O}(n^{1+\delta})$ bits. There is an inherent tradeoff between the sparsity parameter $\delta$ and the stretch function $f$ of the compression scheme, but the qualitative nature of this tradeoff has remained a persistent open problem. In this paper we show that the recent additive spanner lower bound of Abboud and Bodwin is just the first step in a hierarchy of lower bounds that fully characterize the asymptotic behavior of the optimal stretch function $f$ as a function of $\delta \in (0,1/3)$. Specifically, for any integer $k\ge 2$, any compression scheme with size $O(n^{1+\frac{1}{2^k-1} - \epsilon})$ has a sublinear additive stretch function $f$: $$f(d) = d + \Omega(d^{1-\frac{1}{k}}).$$ This lower bound matches Thorup and Zwick's (2006) construction of sublinear additive emulators. It also shows that Elkin and Peleg's $(1+\epsilon,\beta)$-spanners have an essentially optimal tradeoff between $\delta,\epsilon,$ and $\beta$, and that the sublinear additive spanners of Pettie (2009) and Chechik (2013) are not too far from optimal. To complement these lower bounds we present a new construction of $(1+\epsilon, O(k/\epsilon)^{k-1})$-spanners with size $O((k/\epsilon)^{h_k} kn^{1+\frac{1}{2^{k+1}-1}})$, where $h_k < 3/4$. This size bound improves on the spanners of Elkin and Peleg (2004), Thorup and Zwick (2006), and Pettie (2009). According to our lower bounds neither the size nor stretch function can be substantially improved.