skip to main content
research-article

Fully dynamic randomized algorithms for graph spanners

Published:04 October 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Spanner of an undirected graph G = (V,E) is a subgraph that is sparse and yet preserves all-pairs distances approximately. More formally, a spanner with stretch t ∈ ℕ is a subgraph (V,ES), ESE such that the distance between any two vertices in the subgraph is at most t times their distance in G. Though G is trivially a t-spanner of itself, the research as well as applications of spanners invariably deal with a t-spanner that has as small number of edges as possible.

We present fully dynamic algorithms for maintaining spanners in centralized as well as synchronized distributed environments. These algorithms are designed for undirected unweighted graphs and use randomization in a crucial manner.

Our algorithms significantly improve the existing fully dynamic algorithms for graph spanners. The expected size (number of edges) of a t-spanner maintained at each stage by our algorithms matches, up to a polylogarithmic factor, the worst case optimal size of a t-spanner. The expected amortized time (or messages communicated in distributed environment) to process a single insertion/deletion of an edge by our algorithms is close to optimal.

References

  1. Abraham, I., Bartal, Y., Chan, H. T.-H., Dhamdhere, K., Gupta, A., Kleinberg, J. M., Neiman, O., and Slivkins, A. 2005. Metric embeddings with relaxed guarantees. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual (IEEE) Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 83--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Althöfer, I., Das, G., Dobkin, D. P., Joseph, D., and Soares, J. 1993. On sparse spanners of weighted graphs. Disc. Computat. Geom. 9, 81--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ausiello, G., Franciosa, P. G., and Italiano, G. F. 2005. Small stretch spanners on dynamic graphs. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA). 532--543. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Baswana, S. 2008. Streaming algorithm for graph spanners - single pass and constant processing time per edge. Inf. Process. Lett. 106, 3, 110--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Baswana, S. and Kavitha, T. 2010. Faster algorithms for all-pairs approximate shortest paths in undirected graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 39, 7, 2865--2896. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Baswana, S., Kavitha, T., Mehlhorn, K., and Pettie, S. 2010. Additive spanners and (alpha, beta)-spanners. ACM Trans. Algorithms 7, 1, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Baswana, S. and Sen, S. 2007. A simple and linear time randomized algorithm for computing sparse spanners in weighted graphs. Rand. Struct. Algorithms 30, 532--563. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bernstein, A. 2009. Fully dynamic (2 + epsilon) approximate all-pairs shortest paths with fast query and close to linear update time. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 693--702. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Bollobás, B., Coppersmith, D., and Elkin, M. 2003. Sparse distance preserves and additive spanners. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 414--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Chernoff, H. 1952. A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. Ann. Math. Stat. 23, 4, 493--507.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cohen, E. 1998. Fast algorithms for constructing t-spanners and paths with stretch t. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 210--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Coppersmith, D. and Elkin, M. 2005. Sparse source-wise and pairwise distance preservers. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 660--669. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., and Rivest, R. L. 1990. In Introduction to Algorithms. The MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Cowen, L. J. 2001. Compact routing with minimum stretch. J. Algorithms 38, 170--183. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Cowen, L. J. and Wagner, C. G. 2004. Compact roundtrip routing in directed networks. J. Algorithms 50, 79--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Demetrescu, C. and Italiano, G. F. 2004. A new approach to dynamic all pairs shortest paths. J. ACM 51, 6, 968--992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Derbel, B., Gavoille, C., Peleg, D., and Viennot, L. 2008. On the locality of distributed sparse spanner construction. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 273--282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Dubhashi, D., Mei, A., Panconesi, A., Radhakrishnan, J., and Srinivasan, A. 2005. Fast distributed algorithms for (weakly) connected dominating sets and linear-size skeletons. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 71, 467--479. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Elkin, M. 2005. Computing almost shortest paths. ACM Trans. Algorithms 1, 282--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Elkin, M. 2006. A near-optimal fully dynamic distributed algorithm for maintaining sparse spanners. CoRR abs/cs/0611001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Elkin, M. 2007. A near-optimal distributed fully dynamic algorithm for maintaining sparse spanners. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC). 185--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Elkin, M. 2011. Streaming and fully dynamic centralized algorithms for constructing and maintaining sparse spanners. ACM Trans. Algorithms 7, 2, 20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Elkin, M., Emek, Y., Spielman, D. A., and Teng, S.-H. 2008. Lower-stretch spanning trees. SIAM J. Comput. 38, 608--628. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Elkin, M. and Peleg, D. 2004. (1 + ε,β)-spanner construction for general graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 33, 608--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Erdős, P. 1964. Extremal problems in graph theory. In Theory of Graphs and its Applications (Proc. Sympos. Smolenice, 1963). Publ. House Czechoslovak Acad. Sci., Prague, 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Even, S. and Shiloach, Y. 1981. An on-line edge-deletion problem. J. ACM 28, 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Feigenbaum, J., Kannan, S., McGregor, A., Suri, S., and Zhang, J. 2008. Graph distances in the data-stream model. SIAM J. Comput. 38, 5, 1709--1727. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Frederickson, G. N. 1985. Data structures for on-line updating of minimum spanning trees, with applications. SIAM J. Comput. 14, 781--798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Halperin, S. and Zwick, U. 1996. Linear time deterministic algorithm for computing spanners for unweighted graphs. unpublished manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Henzinger, M. R. and King, V. 1999. Randomized fully dynamic graph algorithms with polylogarithmic time per operation. J. ACM 46, 502--516. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Holm, J., de Lichtenberg, K., and Thorup, M. 2001. Poly-logarithmic deterministic fully-dynamic algorithms for connectivity, minimum spanning tree, 2-edge, and biconnectivity. J. ACM 48, 723--760. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Kruskal, J. 1956. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. AMS 7. 48--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Motwani, R. and Raghavan, P. 1995. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Pagh, R. and Rodler, F. F. 2004. Cuckoo hashing. J. Algorithms 51, 122--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Peleg, D. and Schaffer, A. A. 1989. Graph spanners. J. Graph Theory 13, 99--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Peleg, D. and Upfal, E. 1989. A trade-off between space and efficiency for routing tables. J. ACM 36(3), 510--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Pettie, S. 2010. Distributed algorithms for ultrasparse spanners and linear size skeletons. Distrib. Comput. 22, 3, 147--166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Roditty, L., Thorup, M., and Zwick, U. 2005. Deterministic construction of approximate distance oracles and spanners. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP). 261--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Roditty, L., Thorup, M., and Zwick, U. 2008. Roundtrip spanners and roundtrip routing in directed graphs. ACM Trans. Algorithms 4, 29:1--29:17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Roditty, L. and Zwick, U. 2004a. Dynamic approximate all-pairs shortest paths in undirected graphs. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). 499--508. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Roditty, L. and Zwick, U. 2004b. On dynamic shortest paths problems. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA). 580--591.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Roditty, L. and Zwick, U. 2008. Improved dynamic reachability algorithms for directed graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 37, 5, 1455--1471. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Thorup, M. 2004. Fully-dynamic all-pairs shortest paths: Faster and allowing negative cycles. In Proceedings of the 9th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT). 384--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Thorup, M. and Zwick, U. 2005. Approximate distance oracles. J. ACM 52, 1--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Thorup, M. and Zwick, U. 2006. Spanners and emulators with sublinear distance errors. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 802--809. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Woodruff, D. P. 2010. Additive spanners in nearly quadratic time. In Proceedings of the 37th International Colloquium Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP). 463--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fully dynamic randomized algorithms for graph spanners

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              • Published in

                cover image ACM Transactions on Algorithms
                ACM Transactions on Algorithms  Volume 8, Issue 4
                September 2012
                276 pages
                ISSN:1549-6325
                EISSN:1549-6333
                DOI:10.1145/2344422
                Issue’s Table of Contents

                Copyright © 2012 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 4 October 2012
                • Accepted: 1 March 2012
                • Revised: 1 July 2011
                • Received: 1 March 2009
                Published in talg Volume 8, Issue 4

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader