On Closest Pair in Euclidean Metric: Monochromatic is as Hard as Bichromatic

Given a set of n points in ℝ d , the (monochromatic) Closest Pair problem asks to find a pair of distinct points in the set that are closest in the ℓ p -metric. Closest Pair is a fundamental problem in Computational Geometry and understanding its fine-grained complexity in the Euclidean metric when d = ω (log n ) was raised as an open question in recent works (Abboud-Rubinstein-Williams [6], Williams [48], David-Karthik-Laekhanukit [17]). In this paper, we show that for every p ∈ ℝ ≥1 ∪ {0}, under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH), for every ε > 0, the following holds: No algorithm running in time O ( n 2− ε ) can solve the Closest Pair problem in $$d = {\left({\log n} \right)^{{\Omega _\varepsilon}\left(1 \right)}}$$ d = ( log n ) Ω ε ( 1 ) dimensions in the ℓ p -metric. There exists δ = δ ( ε ) > 0 and c = c ( ε ) ≥ 1 such that no algorithm running in time O ( n 1.5− ε ) can approximate Closest Pair problem to a factor of (1 + δ ) in d ≥ c log n dimensions in the ℓ p -metric. In particular, our first result is shown by establishing the computational equivalence of the bichromatic Closest Pair problem and the (monochromatic) Closest Pair problem (up to n ε factor in the running time) for $$d = {\left({\log n} \right)^{{\Omega _\varepsilon}\left(1 \right)}}$$ d = ( log n ) Ω ε ( 1 ) dimensions. Additionally, under SETH, we rule out nearly-polynomial factor approximation algorithms running in subquadratic time for the (monochromatic) Maximum Inner Product problem where we are given a set of n points in n o (1) -dimensional Euclidean space and are required to find a pair of distinct points in the set that maximize the inner product. At the heart of all our proofs is the construction of a dense bipartite graph with low contact dimension , i.e., we construct a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices with n 2− ε edges whose vertices can be realized as points in a $${\left({\log n} \right)^{{\Omega _\varepsilon}\left(1 \right)}}$$ ( log n ) Ω ε ( 1 ) -dimensional Euclidean space such that every pair of vertices which have an edge in the graph are at distance exactly 1 and every other pair of vertices are at distance greater than 1. This graph construction is inspired by the construction of locally dense codes introduced by Dumer-Micciancio-Sudan [18].

[1]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  The Hardness of Being Private , 2012, 2012 IEEE 27th Conference on Computational Complexity.

[2]  Micha Sharir,et al.  Dominance Products and Faster Algorithms for High-Dimensional Closest Pair under L∞ , 2016, ArXiv.

[3]  Nathan Linial,et al.  Monotone maps, sphericity and bounded second eigenvalue , 2005, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[4]  Aviad Rubinstein,et al.  Hardness of approximate nearest neighbor search , 2018, STOC.

[5]  Richard Ryan Williams,et al.  Distributed PCP Theorems for Hardness of Approximation in P , 2017, 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[6]  Yi Wu,et al.  Optimal Lower Bounds for Locality-Sensitive Hashing (Except When q is Tiny) , 2014, TOCT.

[7]  Martín Abadi,et al.  The Applied Pi Calculus , 2016, J. ACM.

[8]  Bernard Chazelle,et al.  The Fast Johnson--Lindenstrauss Transform and Approximate Nearest Neighbors , 2009, SIAM J. Comput..

[9]  Michael Ian Shamos,et al.  Closest-point problems , 1975, 16th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1975).

[10]  Piotr Indyk Dimensionality reduction techniques for proximity problems , 2000, SODA '00.

[11]  Madhu Sudan,et al.  Hardness of approximating the minimum distance of a linear code , 1999, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[12]  Daniele Micciancio,et al.  Locally Dense Codes , 2014, 2014 IEEE 29th Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC).

[13]  Klaus H. Hinrichs,et al.  Plane-Sweep Solves the Closest Pair Problem Elegantly , 1988, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  Ryan Williams,et al.  On the Difference Between Closest, Furthest, and Orthogonal Pairs: Nearly-Linear vs Barely-Subquadratic Complexity , 2017, SODA.

[15]  Michael Ben-Or,et al.  Lower Bounds for Algebraic Computation Trees (Preliminary Report) , 1983, STOC 1983.

[16]  Heinz Rutishauser,et al.  Some Programming Techniques for the ERMETH , 1955, JACM.

[17]  Piotr Indyk,et al.  Approximate nearest neighbors: towards removing the curse of dimensionality , 1998, STOC '98.

[18]  Ryan Williams,et al.  A new algorithm for optimal 2-constraint satisfaction and its implications , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Tomislav Hengl,et al.  Finding the right pixel size , 2006, Comput. Geosci..

[20]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao Lower Bounds for Algebraic Computation Trees with Integer Inputs , 1991, SIAM J. Comput..

[21]  Hiroshi Maehara Dispersed points and geometric embedding of complete bipartite graphs , 1991, Discret. Comput. Geom..

[22]  J. Reiterman,et al.  Embeddings of graphs in euclidean spaces , 1989, Discret. Comput. Geom..

[23]  E. Gilbert A comparison of signalling alphabets , 1952 .

[24]  Peter Frankl,et al.  On the contact dimensions of graphs , 1988, Discret. Comput. Geom..

[25]  Michael Ian Shamos,et al.  Divide-and-conquer in multidimensional space , 1976, STOC '76.

[26]  Lijie Chen,et al.  Toward Super-Polynomial Size Lower Bounds for Depth-Two Threshold Circuits , 2018, ArXiv.

[27]  Jon Louis Bentley,et al.  Multidimensional divide-and-conquer , 1980, CACM.

[28]  Qi Cheng,et al.  A Deterministic Reduction for the Gap Minimum Distance Problem , 2012, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[29]  Timothy M. Chan,et al.  Polynomial Representations of Threshold Functions and Algorithmic Applications , 2016, 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[30]  H. Stichtenoth,et al.  On the Asymptotic Behaviour of Some Towers of Function Fields over Finite Fields , 1996 .

[31]  Lijie Chen,et al.  On The Hardness of Approximate and Exact (Bichromatic) Maximum Inner Product , 2018, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[32]  Ethem Alpaydin,et al.  Introduction to machine learning , 2004, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[33]  Henning Stichtenoth,et al.  Algebraic function fields and codes , 1993, Universitext.

[34]  Ryan Williams,et al.  Probabilistic Polynomials and Hamming Nearest Neighbors , 2015, 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[35]  Rajeev Motwani,et al.  Lower Bounds on Locality Sensitive Hashing , 2007, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[36]  Luca Trevisan,et al.  From Gap-ETH to FPT-Inapproximability: Clique, Dominating Set, and More , 2017, 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS).

[37]  Moshe Lewenstein,et al.  Closest Pair Problems in Very High Dimensions , 2004, ICALP.

[38]  Pasin Manurangsi,et al.  On the parameterized complexity of approximating dominating set , 2017, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[39]  Edith Cohen,et al.  Approximating matrix multiplication for pattern recognition tasks , 1997, SODA '97.

[40]  Camilo Rocha Automatic proof-search heuristics in the Maude invariant analyzer tool , 2013 .

[41]  Michael Ben-Or,et al.  Lower bounds for algebraic computation trees , 1983, STOC.

[42]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Two algorithms for nearest-neighbor search in high dimensions , 1997, STOC '97.

[43]  Gregory Valiant Finding Correlations in Subquadratic Time, with Applications to Learning Parities and the Closest Pair Problem , 2015, J. ACM.

[44]  Bingkai Lin,et al.  The Parameterized Complexity of the k-Biclique Problem , 2018, J. ACM.

[45]  Alexander Barg,et al.  Linear Codes with Exponentially Many Light Vectors , 2001, J. Comb. Theory A.

[46]  Charles T. Zahn,et al.  Graph-Theoretical Methods for Detecting and Describing Gestalt Clusters , 1971, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[47]  Raymond Chi-Wing Wong,et al.  On Efficient Spatial Matching , 2007, VLDB.

[48]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Which Problems Have Strongly Exponential Complexity? , 2001, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[49]  Samir Khuller,et al.  A Simple Randomized Sieve Algorithm for the Closest-Pair Problem , 1995, Inf. Comput..