Labelings vs. Embeddings: On Distributed Representations of Distances

Abstract

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 $π=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ of the point set $X$ is given, and higher-priority points should have shorter labels. Formally, a distance labeling has prioritized label-size $α(\cdot)$ if every $x_j$ has label size at most $α(j)$. Similarly, an embedding $f: X \to \ell_\infty$ has prioritized dimension $α(\cdot)$ if $f(x_j)$ is non-zero only in the first $α(j)$ coordinates. In addition, we compare these 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 find a surprising exception to this rule.