A New Lower Bound for Semigroup Orthogonal Range Searching

TL;DR

This paper improves the lower bounds for the space-time trade-off in semigroup orthogonal range searching, especially for low space regimes, and discusses the gap between lower bounds and existing data structures.

Contribution

It introduces a new lower bound for low space scenarios and shows the bound's tightness, highlighting the gap between lower bounds and current data structures.

Findings

Lower bound: m(n) = Omega(n (log n log log n)^{d-1}) for low space

The new lower bound is tight, matching the analysis

The gap suggests the need to study non-idempotent semigroups or specialized data structures

Abstract

We report the first improvement in the space-time trade-off of lower bounds for the orthogonal range searching problem in the semigroup model, since Chazelle's result from 1990. This is one of the very fundamental problems in range searching with a long history. Previously, Andrew Yao's influential result had shown that the problem is already non-trivial in one dimension~\cite{Yao-1Dlb}: using $m$ units of space, the query time $Q(n)$ must be $\Omega( \alpha(m,n) + \frac{n}{m-n+1})$ where $\alpha(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the inverse Ackermann's function, a very slowly growing function. In $d$ dimensions, Bernard Chazelle~\cite{Chazelle.LB.II} proved that the query time must be $Q(n) = \Omega( (\log_\beta n)^{d-1})$ where $\beta = 2m/n$. Chazelle's lower bound is known to be tight for when space consumption is `high' i.e., $m = \Omega(n \log^{d+\varepsilon}n)$. We have two main results. The first is a lower bound that shows Chazelle's lower bound was not tight for `low space': we prove that we must have $m (n) = \Omega(n (\log n \log\log n)^{d-1})$. Our lower bound does not close the gap to the existing data structures, however, our second result is that our analysis is tight. Thus, we believe the gap is in fact natural since lower bounds are proven for idempotent semigroups while the data structures are built for general semigroups and thus they cannot assume (and use) the properties of an idempotent semigroup. As a result, we believe to close the gap one must study lower bounds for non-idempotent semigroups or building data structures for idempotent semigroups. We develope significantly new ideas for both of our results that could be useful in pursuing either of these directions.