Metric $1$-median selection: Query complexity vs. approximation ratio

Abstract

Consider the problem of finding a point in a metric space $(\{1,2,\ldots,n\},d)$ with the minimum average distance to other points. We show that this problem has no deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query $(2h-\Omega(1))$-approximation algorithms for any constant $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$.

1 Introduction

The metric $1$-median problem asks for a point in an $n$-point metric space with the minimum average distance to other points. It has a Monte-Carlo $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for all $\epsilon>0$ [6, 7]. In $\mathbb{R}^{D}$, Kumar et al. [8] give a Monte-Carlo $O(2^{\text{poly}(1/\epsilon)}D)$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for $1$-median selection and another algorithm for $k$-median selection, where $D\geq 1$ and $\epsilon>0$. Guha et al. [5] give streaming approximation algorithms for $k$-median selection in metric spaces.

Chang [3], Wu [11] and Chang [1] show that metric $1$-median has a deterministic nonadaptive $O(n^{1+1/h})$-time $(2h)$-approximation algorithm for all constants $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$. Furthermore, Chang [4] shows the nonexistence of deterministic $o(n^{2})$-time $(4-\Omega(1))$-approximation algorithms for metric $1$-median. This paper generalizes his result to show that metric $1$-median has no deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query $(2h-\Omega(1))$-approximation algorithms for any constant $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$. Combining our result with an existing upper bound [11, 1],

$$\min\left\{c\geq 1\mid\text{{\sc metric $1$-median} has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query $c$-approx.\ alg.}\right\}$$

$$= \min\left\{c\geq 1\mid\text{{\sc metric $1$-median} has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time $c$-approx. alg.}\right\}$$

$$= 2\left\lceil\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right\rceil$$

for all constants $\epsilon\in(0,1)$. That is, we determine the best approximation ratio of deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query (resp., $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time) algorithms for all $\epsilon\in(0,1)$.

As in the previous lower bounds for deterministic algorithms [4, 2], we use an adversarial method. Roughly speaking, our proof proceeds as follows:

1. Design an adversary Adv for answering the distance queries of any deterministic algorithm $A$ with query complexity $q(n)=o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$.

2. Show that $A$’s output has a large average distance to other points, according to Adv’s answers to $A$.

3. Construct a distance function with respect to which a certain point $\hat{\alpha}$ has a small average distance to other points.

4. Construct the final distance function $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ similar to that in item (iii).

5. Show that $d$ is a metric.

6. Show the consistency of $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ with Adv’s answers.

7. Compare $\hat{\alpha}$ in item (iii) with $A$’s output to establish our lower bound on $A$’s approximation ratio.

Central to our constructions are two graph sequences, $\{H^{(i)}\}_{i=0}^{q(n)}$ and $\{G^{(i)}\}_{i=0}^{q(n)}$ in Sec. 3, that are unseen in previous lower bounds [9, 2, 4]. Like in [4], we need a small set $S$ of points whose distances to other points are answered as large values during $A$’s execution, and yet we assign a small value to the distances from a certain point $\hat{\alpha}\in S$ to many other points in item (iii).

This paper is organized as follows. Sec. 2 introduces the terminologies. Sec. 3 proves our main theorem that metric $1$-median has no deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query $(2h-\Omega(1))$-approximation algorithms for any constant $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$. In particular, Secs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 correspond to items (ii), (iii), (iv)–(vi) and (vii) above, respectively.

2 Definitions

A finite metric space $(M,d)$ is a finite set $M$ endowed with a function $d\colon M^{2}\to[0,\infty)$ such that

• $d(x,x)=0$,

• $d(x,y)>0$ if $x\neq y$,

• $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$, and

• $d(x,y)+d(y,z)\geq d(x,z)$

for all $x$, $y$, $z\in M$ [10]. For all $c\geq 1$, a point $z\in M$ is said to be a $c$-approximate $1$-median of $(M,d)$ if

$$\sum_{x\in M}\,d\left(z,x\right)\leq c\cdot\sum_{x\in M}\,d\left(y,x\right)$$

for all $y\in M$. For convenience, $[n]\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.

For deterministic algorithms $A$ and ${\cal O}\colon\{1,2,\ldots,n\}^{2}\to\mathbb{R}$, denote by $A^{\cal O}(1^{n})$ the execution of $A$ with oracle access to $\cal O$ and with input $1^{n}$, where $n\in\mathbb{N}$. As the input to $A$ will be $1^{n}$ throughout this paper, abbreviate $A^{\cal O}(1^{n})$ as $A^{\cal O}$. If $A^{d}$ outputs a $c$-approximate $1$-median of $([n],d)$ for each finite metric space $([n],d)$, then $A$ is said to be $c$-approximate for metric $1$-median, where $c\geq 1$.

Fact 1 ([3, 1, 11]).

For each constant $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$, metric $1$-median has a deterministic nonadaptive $O(n^{1+1/h})$-time $(2h)$-approximation algorithm.

A weighted undirected graph $G=(V,E,w)$ has a finite vertex set $V$, an edge set $E$ and a weight function $w\colon E\to(0,\infty)$, where each edge is an unordered pair of distinct vertices in $V$. If $w\colon Y\to(0,\infty)$ for a superset $Y$ of $E$, interpret $(V,E,w)$ simply as $(V,E,w|_{E})$, where $w|_{E}$ denotes the restriction of $w$ on $E$. For all $v\in V$, let

$$N_{G}(v)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\left\{u\in V\mid(u,v)\in E\right\}$$

and $\text{\rm deg}_{G}(v)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}|N_{G}(v)|$. For all $S\subseteq V$, $N_{G}(S)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\bigcup_{v\in S}\,N_{G}(v)$. For all $s$, $t\in V$, an $s$-$t$ path $P$ in $G$ is a sequence $\{v_{i}\in V\}_{i=0}^{k}$ satisfying $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $v_{0}=s$, $v_{k}=t$ and $(v_{i},v_{i+1})\in E$ for all $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,k-1\}$. Its weight (or length) is $w(P)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\,w(v_{i},v_{i+1})$. The shortest $s$-$t$ distance in $G$ is

$$d_{G}(s,t)=\inf\left\{w(P)\mid\text{$P$ is an $s$-$t$ path in $G$}\right\},$$

where $s$, $t\in V$. So $d_{G}(s,t)=\infty$ if $G$ has no $s$-$t$ paths. Note that we allow only positive weights, i.e., $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(w)\subseteq(0,\infty)$. So a shortest $s$-$t$ path must be simple, i.e., it does not repeat vertices. If $w\equiv 1$, abbreviate $(V,E,w)$ as $(V,E)$ and call it an unweighted graph.

The following fact is well-known.

Fact 2.

For each undirected graph $G=(V,E)$,

$$\sum_{v\in V}\,\text{\rm deg}_{G}(v)=2\cdot|E|.$$

For a predicate $P$, let $\chi[P]=1$ if $P$ is true and $\chi[P]=0$ otherwise. The following fact about geometric series is not hard to see.

Fact 3.

For all $r\geq 2$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}$,

$$\sum_{k=0}^{m}\,r^{k}\leq 2r^{m}.$$

3 Query complexity vs. approximation ratio

Throughout this section,

• $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$,

• $\delta\in(0,1)$ and $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$ are constants (i.e., they are independent of $n$),

• $A$ is a deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query algorithm for metric $1$-median, and

• $S=[\lfloor\delta n\rfloor]\subseteq[n]$.

All pairs in $[n]^{2}$ are assumed to be unordered in this section. So, e.g., $(1,2)\in\{2\}\times[n]$. By padding at most $n-1$ dummy queries, assume without loss of generality that $A$ will have queried for the distances between its output and all other points when halting. Denote $A$’s query complexity by

$$q(n)=o\left(n^{1+1/(h-1)}\right).$$

Without loss of generality, forbid making the same query twice or querying for the distance from a point to itself, where the queries for $d(x,y)$ and $d(y,x)$ are considered to be the same for $x$, $y\in[n]$. Furthermore, let $n$ be sufficiently large to satisfy

$$q(n) \leq \delta n^{1+1/(h-1)},$$ (1)

$$\delta n^{1/(h-1)} > 3,$$ (2)

$$\frac{2q(n)}{|S|-1} \leq \delta n^{1/(h-1)}.$$ (3)

Define two unweighted undirected graphs $G^{(0)}$ and $H^{(0)}$ by

$$E_{G}^{(0)} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left\{\left(u,v\right)\mid\left(u,v\in[n]\setminus S\right)\land\left(u\neq v\right)\right\},$$ (4)

$$G^{(0)} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left([n],E_{G}^{(0)}\right),$$ (5)

$$E_{H}^{(0)} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \emptyset,$$ (6)

$$H^{(0)} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left([n],E_{H}^{(0)}\right).$$ (7)

1:  Let $E_{G}^{(0)}$, $G^{(0)}$, $E_{H}^{(0)}$ and $H^{(0)}$ be as in equations (4)–(7);

2:  for $i=1$, $2$, $\ldots$, $q(n)$ do

3:     Receive the $i$th query of $A$, denoted $(a_{i},b_{i})$;

4:     if $d_{G^{(i-1)}}(a_{i},b_{i})\leq h$ then

5:        Find a shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path $P_{i}$ in $G^{(i-1)}$;

6:        $E_{H}^{(i)}\leftarrow E_{H}^{(i-1)}\cup\{e\mid\text{$e$ is an edge on $P_{i}$}\}$;

7:        $H^{(i)}\leftarrow([n],E_{H}^{(i)})$;

8:        $E_{G}^{(i)}\leftarrow E_{G}^{(i-1)}\setminus\{(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}\setminus E_{H}^{(i)}\mid(\text{deg}_{H^{(i)}}(u)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2)\lor(\text{deg}_{H^{(i)}}(v)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2)\}$;

9:        $G^{(i)}\leftarrow([n],E_{G}^{(i)})$;

10:     else

11:        $E_{H}^{(i)}\leftarrow E_{H}^{(i-1)}$;

12:        $H^{(i)}\leftarrow([n],E_{H}^{(i)})$;

13:        $E_{G}^{(i)}\leftarrow E_{G}^{(i-1)}$;

14:        $G^{(i)}\leftarrow([n],E_{G}^{(i)})$;

15:     end if

16:     $Q^{(i)}\leftarrow([n],\{(a_{j},b_{j})\mid j\in[i]\})$;

17:     Output $\min\{d_{H^{(i)}}(a_{i},b_{i}),h-(1/2)\cdot\chi[\exists v\in\{a_{i},b_{i}\},\,(v\in S)\land(\text{deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)})]\}$ as the answer to the $i$th query of $A$;

18:  end for

Figure 1: Algorithm Adv for answering $A$’s queries

Algorithm Adv in Fig. 1 answers $A$’s queries. In particular, for all $i\in[q(n)]$, the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv answers the $i$th query of $A$, denoted $(a_{i},b_{i})\in[n]^{2}$. It constructs three unweighted undirected graphs, $G^{(i)}=([n],E_{G}^{(i)})$, $H^{(i)}=([n],E_{H}^{(i)})$ and $Q^{(i)}$. As $G^{(i-1)}$ is unweighted for all $i\in[q(n)]$, $P_{i}$ in line 5 of Adv is an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in $G^{(i-1)}$ with the minimum number of edges. By line 16 of Adv, the edges of $Q^{(i)}$ are precisely the first $i$ queries of $A$.

Lemma 4.

$$E_{H}^{(0)}\subseteq E_{H}^{(1)}\subseteq\ldots\subseteq E_{H}^{(q(n))}\subseteq E_{G}^{(q(n))}\subseteq E_{G}^{(q(n)-1)}\subseteq\ldots\subseteq E_{G}^{(0)}.$$

Proof.

By lines 6 and 11 of Adv in Fig. 1, $E_{H}^{(i-1)}\subseteq E_{H}^{(i)}$ for all $i\in[q(n)]$. By lines 8 and 13, $E_{G}^{(i)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i-1)}$ for all $i\in[q(n)]$.

To show that $E_{H}^{(q(n))}\subseteq E_{G}^{(q(n))}$, we shall prove the stronger statement that $E_{H}^{(i)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i)}$ for all $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,q(n)\}$ by mathematical induction. By equation (6), $E_{H}^{(0)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(0)}$. Assume as the induction hypothesis that $E_{H}^{(i-1)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i-1)}$. The following shows that $E_{H}^{(i)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i-1)}$ by examining each $e\in E_{H}^{(i)}$:

1. $e\in E_{H}^{(i-1)}$. By the induction hypothesis, $e\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}$.

2. $e\notin E_{H}^{(i-1)}$. As $e\in E_{H}^{(i)}\setminus E_{H}^{(i-1)}$, lines 6 and 11 show that $e$ is on $P_{i}$ (and that the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs line 6 rather than line 11). By line 5, each edge on $P_{i}$ is in $E_{G}^{(i-1)}$. In particular, $e\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}$.

Having shown that $E_{H}^{(i)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i-1)}$, lines 8 and 13 will both result in $E_{H}^{(i)}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i)}$, completing the induction step. ∎

Lemma 5.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ with $d_{G^{(i-1)}}(a_{i},b_{i})\leq h$,

$$d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=d_{G^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=d_{G^{(i-1)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$

Proof.

By line 4 of Adv, the $i$th iteration of the loop runs lines 5–9. Lines 5–7 put (the edges of) a shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in $G^{(i-1)}$ into $H^{(i)}$; hence

$$d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)\leq d_{G^{(i-1)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$

This and Lemma 4 complete the proof. ∎

Below is an easy consequence of Lemma 4.

Lemma 6.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ with $d_{G^{(i-1)}}(a_{i},b_{i})>h$,

$$d_{G^{(q(n))}}(a_{i},b_{i})>h.$$

3.1 The average distance from $A$’s output to other points

This subsection shows that the output of $A^{\sf Adv}$ has a large average distance to other points, according to the answers of Adv.

Lemma 7.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ and $v\in[n]$,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i)}}(v)\leq\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)+2.$$

Proof.

If the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs lines 11–14 but not 5–9, then $H^{(i)}=H^{(i-1)}$, proving the lemma. So assume otherwise. Being shortest, $P_{i}$ in line 5 does not repeat vertices. Therefore, $v$ is incident to at most two edges on $P_{i}$, which together with lines 6–7 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 8.

For all $v\in[n]$,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(q(n))}}(v)<\delta n^{1/(h-1)}.$$

Proof.

Assume

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(q(n))}}(v)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2$$ (8)

for, otherwise, there is nothing to prove. Clearly,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(0)}}(v)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{initiallymarkededgeset})--(\ref{initiallymarkedgraph})}}}{{=}}0\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{tediouscondition2})}}}{{<}}\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2.$$ (9)

By inequalities (8)–(9), there exists $i\in[q(n)]$ satisfying

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)<\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2,$$ (10)

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i)}}(v)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2.$$ (11)

Clearly,

$$N_{G^{(i)}}(v)=\left\{u\in[n]\mid\left(u,v\right)\in E_{G}^{(i)}\right\}.$$ (12)

As $H^{(i-1)}\neq H^{(i)}$ by inequalities (10)–(11), the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs lines 5–9 but not 11–14. By inequality (11) and line 8 of Adv,

$$\left\{u\in[n]\mid\left(u,v\right)\in E_{G}^{(i)}\right\}=\left\{u\in[n]\mid\left(u,v\right)\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}\setminus\left(E_{G}^{(i-1)}\setminus E_{H}^{(i)}\right)\right\}.$$ (13)

Equations (12)–(13) and Lemma 4 give

$$N_{G^{(i)}}(v)=\left\{u\in[n]\mid\left(u,v\right)\in E_{H}^{(i)}\right\}.$$ (14)

By inequality (10) and Lemma 7,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i)}}(v)<\delta n^{1/(h-1)}.$$

This and equation (14) imply $\text{\rm deg}_{G^{(i)}}(v)<\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$, which together with Lemma 4 completes the proof. ∎

Lemma 9.

For all $v\in[n]$,

$$\left|\left\{u\in[n]\mid d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(v,u\right)<h\right\}\right|\leq 2\delta^{h-1}n.$$

Proof.

By Lemma 8,

$$\left|\left\{u\in[n]\mid\text{$\exists$ $v$-$u$ path in $H^{(q(n))}$ with exactly $k$ edges}\right\}\right|\leq\left(\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)^{k}$$

for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Consequently,

$$\left|\left\{u\in[n]\mid\text{$\exists$ $v$-$u$ path in $H^{(q(n))}$ with at most $h-1$ edges}\right\}\right| \leq \sum_{k=0}^{h-1}\,\left(\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)^{k}$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{tediouscondition2})~{}and~{}Fact~{}\ref{geometricseriesbound}}}}{{\leq}} 2\delta^{h-1}n.$$

Finally, recall that $H^{(q(n))}$ is unweighted. ∎

Denote the output of $A^{\text{\sf Adv}}$ by $z$. Furthermore,

$$I\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\left\{j\in\left[q(n)\right]\mid z\in\left\{a_{j},b_{j}\right\}\right\}.$$ (15)

The following lemma analyzes the sum of the distances, as answered by line 17 of Adv, from $z$ to other points.

Lemma 10.

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}$$

$$\geq n\cdot\left(h-2h\delta^{h-1}-o(1)-\delta\right).$$

Proof.

By Lemma 4,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}$$

$$\geq \sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$$

$$\geq \sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h\right\}$$

$$- \sum_{i\in I}\,\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right].$$

For all $i\in I$, there exists $c_{i}\in[n]$ with $\{z,c_{i}\}=\{a_{i},b_{i}\}$ by equation (15). Therefore,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h\right\}=\sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(z,c_{i}\right),h\right\}.$$

As we forbid repeated queries, $\{c_{i}\}_{i\in I}$ is a sequence of distinct points. So by Lemma 9,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\min\left\{d_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(z,c_{i}\right),h\right\}\geq h\cdot\left(|I|-2\delta^{h-1}n\right).$$

Recall that $A^{\sf Adv}$ will have queried for the distances between its output (which is $z$) and all other points when halting. So

$$|I|\geq n-1$$

by equation (15).

Clearly,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]$$

$$= \sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{z,c_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]$$

$$\leq \sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\left(z\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(z\right)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]$$

$$+ \sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\left(c_{i}\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(c_{i}\right)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right].$$

By line 16 of Adv and equation (15),

$$\text{deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(z\right)=\left|\left\{j\in I\mid j\leq i\right\}\right|.$$

Therefore,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\left(z\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(z\right)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right] \leq \sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\left|\left\{j\in I\mid j\leq i\right\}\right|\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right]$$

$$\leq \delta n^{1/(h-1)},$$

where the last inequality follows because $|\{j\in I\mid j\leq i\}|=k$ when $i$ is the $k$th smallest element of $I$, for all $k\in[|I|]$. Recall the distinctness of the points in $\{c_{i}\}_{i\in I}$. Therefore,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[\left(c_{i}\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(c_{i}\right)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\leq\sum_{i\in I}\,\chi\left[c_{i}\in S\right]\leq|S|=\left\lfloor\delta n\right\rfloor.$$ (17)

Inequalities (3.1)–(17) complete the proof. ∎

3.2 Planting a point with a small average distance to other points

This subsection constructs a distance function with respect to which a certain point has an average distance of approximately $1/2$ to other points.

Lemma 11.

$$\left|E_{H}^{(q(n))}\right|\leq h\cdot q(n).$$

Proof.

Consider the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv, where $i\in[q(n)]$.

• Running lines 4–5 results in $P_{i}$ having at most $h$ edges. Consequently,

  $$\left|E_{H}^{(i)}\right|\leq\left|E_{H}^{(i-1)}\right|+h$$ (18)

  by line 6.

• Running line 11 yields $|E_{H}^{(i)}|=|E_{H}^{(i-1)}|$, implying inequality (18) as well.

Now,

$$\left|E_{H}^{(q(n))}\right|-\left|E_{H}^{(0)}\right|=\sum_{i=1}^{q(n)}\,\left(\left|E_{H}^{(i)}\right|-\left|E_{H}^{(i-1)}\right|\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{theincreaseofthenumberofmarkededges})}}}{{\leq}}h\cdot q(n).$$

Finally, $|E_{H}^{(0)}|=0$ by equation (6). ∎

Lemma 12.

$$\left|\left\{u\in[n]\mid\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(q(n))}}(u)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right\}\right|=\frac{h}{\delta}\cdot o(n).$$

Proof.

By Fact 2, the average degree in $H^{(q(n))}$ is

$$\frac{1}{n}\cdot 2\cdot\left|E_{H}^{(q(n))}\right|.$$

So by the averaging argument (that any finite nonempty sequence of nonnegative numbers with average $\bar{a}$ has at most an $\bar{a}/t$ fraction of numbers that are greater than or equal to $t>0$),

$$\frac{1}{n}\cdot\left|\left\{u\in[n]\mid\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(q(n))}}(u)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right\}\right|\leq\frac{1}{n}\cdot 2\cdot\left|E_{H}^{(q(n))}\right|\cdot\frac{1}{\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2},$$

where the rightmost denominator is positive and is $\Theta(\delta n^{1/(h-1)})$ by equation (2). This and Lemma 11 complete the proof. ∎

By inequality (2), $S\setminus\{z\}\neq\emptyset$. Let

$$\hat{\alpha}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{\alpha\in S\setminus\{z\}}\,\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\alpha),$$ (19)

breaking ties arbitrarily.

Lemma 13.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(\hat{\alpha}\right)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}.$$

Proof.

By line 16 of Adv,

$$\text{deg}_{Q^{(i)}}\left(\hat{\alpha}\right)\leq\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}\left(\hat{\alpha}\right).$$ (20)

By equation (19) and the averaging argument,

$$\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\hat{\alpha})\leq\frac{1}{|S\setminus\{z\}|}\cdot\sum_{\alpha\in S\setminus\{z\}}\,\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\alpha).$$

Furthermore,

$$\sum_{\alpha\in S\setminus\{z\}}\,\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\alpha)\leq\sum_{\alpha\in[n]}\,\text{deg}_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\alpha)=2q(n),\,\,\,$$ (21)

where the equality follows from Fact 2, line 16 of Adv and the non-repeating of queries. Finally,

$$\text{deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(\hat{\alpha})\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{trivialbecausethequerygraphgrows})--(\ref{sumofdegreesinthequerygraph})}}}{{\leq}}\frac{2q(n)}{|S|-1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{tediouscondition3})}}}{{\leq}}\delta n^{1/(h-1)}.$$

∎

Inductively, let

$$V_{0} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left\{\hat{\alpha}\right\},$$ (22)

$$V_{1} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} N_{Q^{(q(n))}}\left(\hat{\alpha}\right)\setminus V_{0},$$ (23)

$$V_{j+1} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} N_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(V_{j}\right)\setminus\left(\bigcup_{i=0}^{j}\,V_{i}\right)$$ (24)

for all $j\in[h-2]$. Furthermore,

$$V_{h}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}[n]\setminus\left(\bigcup_{i=0}^{h-1}\,V_{i}\right).$$ (25)

The following lemma is not hard to see from equations (22)–(25).

Lemma 14.

$(V_{0},V_{1},\ldots,V_{h})$ is a partition of $[n]$, i.e., $\bigcup_{k=0}^{h}\,V_{k}=[n]$ and $V_{i}\cap V_{j}=\emptyset$ for all distinct $i$, $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\}$.

Let

$$B = \left\{u\in[n]\mid\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(q(n))}}(u)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right\},$$ (26)

$${\cal E} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left[E_{G}^{(q(n))}\setminus\left(\bigcup_{i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\},\,|i-j|\geq 2}\,V_{i}\times V_{j}\right)\right]\cup\left(\left\{\hat{\alpha}\right\}\times\left(V_{h}\setminus\left(B\cup S\right)\right)\right).\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$$ (27)

By equation (19), $\hat{\alpha}\notin V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$, which together with equation (4) and Lemma 4 forbids any edge in $\cal E$ from being a self-loop. For all distinct $u$, $v\in[n]$,

$$w\left(u,v\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}1/2,&\text{if one of $u$ and $v$ is $\hat{\alpha}$ and the other is in $V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$,}\\ 1,&\text{otherwise.}\end{array}\right.$$ (30)

Furthermore, let

$${\cal G} \stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \left([n],{\cal E},w\right)$$ (31)

be a weighted undirected graph.

Lemma 15.

$$\sum_{j=1}^{h-1}\,\left|V_{j}\right|\leq 2\delta^{h-1}n.$$

Proof.

By Lemma 8 and equation (24),

$$\left|V_{j+1}\right|\leq\left|V_{j}\right|\cdot\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$$

for all $j\in[h-2]$. Therefore, $\sum_{j=1}^{h-1}\,|V_{j}|$ is bounded from above by the $(h-1)$-term geometric series with the common ratio of $\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$ and the initial value of $|V_{1}|$. Consequently,

$$\sum_{j=1}^{h-1}\,\left|V_{j}\right|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{tediouscondition2})~{}and~{}Fact~{}\ref{geometricseriesbound}}}}{{\leq}}2\cdot\left|V_{1}\right|\cdot\delta^{h-2}n^{(h-2)/(h-1)}.$$ (32)

By Lemma 13, $|N_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\hat{\alpha})|\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$. So by equation (23), we have $|V_{1}|\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$, which together with inequality (32) completes the proof. ∎

Lemma 16.

$$\left|V_{h}\setminus\left(B\cup S\right)\right|\geq n\left(1-2\delta^{h-1}-\frac{h}{\delta}\cdot o(1)-\delta\right).$$

Proof.

By Lemma 12 and equation (26), $|B|=(h/\delta)\cdot o(n)$. By construction, $|S|=\lfloor\delta n\rfloor$. Finally,

$$\left|V_{h}\right|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{Lemmas~{}\ref{disjointnessoflayers}--\ref{sizeofthenonlastlayers}}}}{{\geq}}n-2\delta^{h-1}n-\left|V_{0}\right|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{layer0})}}}{{=}}n-2\delta^{h-1}n-1.$$

∎

The following lemma says that $\hat{\alpha}$ has an average distance of approximately $1/2$ to other points w.r.t. the distance function $\min\{d_{\cal G}(\cdot,\cdot),h\}$.

Lemma 17.

$$\sum_{v\in[n]}\,\min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(\hat{\alpha},v\right),h\right\}\leq n\cdot\left(\frac{1}{2}+2h\delta^{h-1}+\frac{h^{2}}{\delta}\cdot o(1)+h\delta\right).$$

Proof.

By equations (27)–(31), $d_{\cal G}(\hat{\alpha},v)\leq 1/2$ for all $v\in V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$. This and Lemma 16 complete the proof. ∎

3.3 A metric consistent with Adv’s answers

This subsection constructs a metric $d\colon[n]^{2}\to[0,\infty)$ consistent with Adv’s answers in line 17. So Lemma 10 will require $z$, which is the output of $A^{\sf Adv}$, to have an average distance (w.r.t. $d$) of at least approximately $h$ to other points. Although $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ will not be exactly $\min\{d_{\cal G}(\cdot,\cdot),h\}$, Lemma 17 will forbid $\sum_{v\in[n]}\,d(\hat{\alpha},v)/n$ from exceeding $1/2$ by too much. Details follow.

Recall that $H^{(i)}$ and $G^{(i)}$ are unweighted for all $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,q(n)\}$. They can be treated as having the weight function $w$ while preserving $d_{H^{(i)}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $d_{G^{(i)}}(\cdot,\cdot)$, as shown by the lemma below.

Lemma 18.

For all $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,q(n)\}$, each path $P$ in $H^{(i)}$ or $G^{(i)}$ has exactly $w(P)$ edges.

Proof.

As $\hat{\alpha}\in S$ by equation (19), equation (30) implies $w(u,v)=1$ for all distinct $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus S$. This and equation (4) imply that all edges in $E_{G}^{(0)}$ have weight $1$ w.r.t. $w$. So by Lemma 4, the edges in $E_{H}^{(i)}\cup E_{G}^{(i)}$ have weight $1$ w.r.t. $w$. Finally, recall that $H^{(i)}=([n],E_{H}^{(i)})$ and $G^{(i)}=([n],E_{G}^{(i)})$. ∎

We now show that $H^{(q(n))}$ has an edge in $V_{i}\times V_{j}$ only if $|i-j|\leq 1$.

Lemma 19.

$$E_{H}^{(q(n))}\cap\left(\bigcup_{i,j\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\},\,|i-j|\geq 2}\,V_{i}\times V_{j}\right)=\emptyset.$$

Proof.

Suppose for contradiction that there exists $e\in E_{H}^{(q(n))}$ with an endpoint in $V_{k}$ and the other in $V_{\ell}$, where $k$, $\ell\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\}$ and $\ell\geq k+2$. Then $N_{H^{(q(n))}}(V_{k})\cap V_{\ell}\neq\emptyset$, which together with Lemma 14 and $\ell\geq k+2$ implies

$$N_{H^{(q(n))}}\left(V_{k}\right)\not\subseteq\bigcup_{j=0}^{k+1}\,V_{j}.$$ (33)

As $\ell\geq k+2$ and $k$, $\ell\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\}$, we have $0\leq k\leq h-2$.

1. $k=0$. By equations (19) and (22), $V_{0}\subseteq S$. So $N_{G^{(0)}}(V_{0})=\emptyset$ by equations (4)–(5). Consequently, $N_{H^{(q(n))}}(V_{0})=\emptyset$ by Lemma 4, contradicting relation (33).

2. $k\in[h-2]$. Relation (33) contradicts equation (24) (with $j\leftarrow k$).

A contradiction occurs in either case. ∎

Lemma 20.

$E_{H}^{(q(n))}\subseteq{\cal E}$.

Proof.

By Lemma 19 and equation (27), $E_{G}^{(q(n))}\cap E_{H}^{(q(n))}\subseteq{\cal E}$. This and Lemma 4 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 21.

Let $P$ be a path in $\cal G$ that visits no edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. If the first and the last vertices of $P$ are in $V_{h}$ and $V_{1}$, respectively, then $w(P)\geq h-1$.

Proof.

By Lemma 14, $\bigcup_{k=0}^{h}\,V_{k}=[n]$, $V_{i+1}\cap V_{i}=\emptyset$ and $(V_{i+1}\times V_{i})\cap(V_{j+1}\times V_{j})=\emptyset$ for all distinct $i$, $j\in[h-1]$. Because $P$ is a path in $\cal G$ visiting no edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$, no edges on $P$ are in $V_{i}\times V_{j}$ for any $i$, $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,h\}$ with $|i-j|\geq 2$ by equations (27) and (31). This forces $P$, which is a $V_{h}$-$V_{1}$ path, to visit at least one edge in $V_{i+1}\times V_{i}$ for each $i\in[h-1]$ (for a total of at least $h-1$ edges). As $\hat{\alpha}\notin\bigcup_{i=1}^{h}\,V_{i}$ by equations (22)–(25), equation (30) gives $w(u,v)=1$ for all $(u,v)\in\bigcup_{i=1}^{h-1}\,V_{i+1}\times V_{i}$. We have shown that $P$ has at least $h-1$ edges of weight (w.r.t. $w$) $1$. ∎

We proceed to analyze shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ paths in ${\cal G}$, where $i\in[q(n)]$. Clearly, such paths must be simple.

Lemma 22.

Let $P$ be a shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in ${\cal G}$, where $i\in[q(n)]$. If $P$ visits exactly one edge in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ and $\hat{\alpha}\in\{a_{i},b_{i}\}$, then $w(P)\geq h-1/2$.

Proof.

Being shortest, $P$ must be simple. Assume $\hat{\alpha}=a_{i}$ for now. Because $P$ is a simple $\hat{\alpha}$-$b_{i}$ path in ${\cal G}$ visiting exactly one edge in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$, it can be decomposed into an edge $(\hat{\alpha},v)$, where $v\in V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$, and a $v$-$b_{i}$ path $\tilde{P}$ in ${\cal G}$ that visits no edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. As $\hat{\alpha}=a_{i}$, we have $b_{i}\in N_{Q^{(q(n))}}(\hat{\alpha})$ by line 16 of Adv. So by equations (22)–(23), $b_{i}\in V_{1}\cup\{\hat{\alpha}\}$, implying $b_{i}\in V_{1}$ because querying for the distance from a point to itself is forbidden and $\hat{\alpha}=a_{i}$. In summary, $\tilde{P}$ is a path in $\cal G$, from $v\in V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$ to $b_{i}\in V_{1}$, that visits no edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. So by Lemma 21 (with $P\leftarrow\tilde{P}$),

$$w\left(\tilde{P}\right)\geq h-1.$$ (34)

As $v\in V_{h}$, we have $\hat{\alpha}\neq v$ by equations (22) and (25). By the construction of $\tilde{P}$,

$$w(P)=w\left(\hat{\alpha},v\right)+w\left(\tilde{P}\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{newedgeweightfunction})}}}{{\geq}}\frac{1}{2}+w\left(\tilde{P}\right).$$ (35)

Inequalities (34)–(35) show that $w(P)\geq h-1/2$. The case of $\hat{\alpha}=b_{i}$ is symmetric: Reverse $P$ and exchange all the above occurrences of “$a_{i}$” with “$b_{i}$.” ∎

Lemma 23.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ with $\hat{\alpha}\in\{a_{i},b_{i}\}$,

$$\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]=1.$$

Proof.

By equation (19), $\hat{\alpha}\in S$. This and Lemma 13 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 24.

For all distinct $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus(B\cup S)$, we have $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(q(n))}$.

Proof.

As $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus B$, equation (26) implies

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i)}}(u) < \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2,$$ (36)

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(i)}}(v) < \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2$$ (37)

when $i=q(n)$. So by Lemma 4, inequalities (36)–(37) hold for all $i\in[q(n)]$.

As $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus S$ and $u\neq v$, we have $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(0)}$ by equation (4). By lines 8 and 13 of Adv,

$$E_{G}^{(i-1)}\setminus\left\{\left(x,y\right)\in[n]^{2}\mid\left(\text{deg}_{H^{(i)}}(x)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right)\lor\left(\text{deg}_{H^{(i)}}(y)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right)\right\}\subseteq E_{G}^{(i)}$$ (38)

for all $i\in[q(n)]$. By inequalities (36)–(37) and relation (38), $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(i)}$ if $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}$, for all $i\in[q(n)]$. The proof is complete by mathematical induction. ∎

Lemma 25.

Let $P$ be a shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in ${\cal G}$, where $i\in[q(n)]$. If $P$ visits exactly two edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$, then $G^{(q(n))}$ has an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path with exactly $w(P)$ edges.

Proof.

Being shortest, $P$ must be simple. Therefore, the two edges of $P$ in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$, denoted $(u,\hat{\alpha})$ and $(\hat{\alpha},v)$, are consecutive on $P$. Clearly, $u\neq v$. Replace the subpath $(u,\hat{\alpha},v)$ of $P$ by the edge $(u,v)$ to yield an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path $\tilde{P}$. Except for the two edges of $P$ in $\{\tilde{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ (which are $(u,\hat{\alpha})$ and $(\hat{\alpha},v)$), all edges of $P$ are in $E_{G}^{(q(n))}$ by equation (27) and $P$’s being a path in ${\cal G}=([n],{\cal E},w)$. As $u$, $v\in V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$ and $u\neq v$, $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(q(n))}$ by Lemma 24. In summary, all the edges of $\tilde{P}$ (including $(u,v)$ and the edges of $P$ not in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$) are in $E_{G}^{(q(n))}$. Consequently, $\tilde{P}$ is an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in $G^{(q(n))}=([n],E_{G}^{(q(n))})$. So we are left only to prove that $\tilde{P}$ has exactly $w(P)$ edges, which, by Lemma 18 (with $P\leftarrow\tilde{P}$ and $i\leftarrow q(n)$), is equivalent to proving $w(\tilde{P})=w(P)$.

Note that $\hat{\alpha}\notin V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$ by equation (19). By the construction of $\tilde{P}$ and recalling that $u$, $v\in V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S)$ and $u\neq v$,

$$w\left(\tilde{P}\right)=w(P)-w\left(u,\hat{\alpha}\right)-w\left(\hat{\alpha},v\right)+w\left(u,v\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{newedgeweightfunction})}}}{{=}}w(P)-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}+1=w(P).$$

∎

Lemma 26.

Every simple path in $\cal G$ visiting exactly one edge in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ either starts or ends at $\hat{\alpha}$.

Proof.

By equation (19), $\hat{\alpha}\in S$. So by equation (4) and Lemma 4, $\hat{\alpha}$ is incident to no edges in $E_{G}^{(q(n))}$. Consequently, the set of all edges of $\cal G$ incident to $\hat{\alpha}$ is $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ by equation (27). The lemma is now easy to see. ∎

Lemma 27.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$\min\left\{d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}$$ (39)

$$\leq \min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}.\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$$

Proof.

Assume the existence of an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in ${\cal G}$ for, otherwise, $d_{\cal G}(a_{i},b_{i})=\infty$ and inequality (39) trivially holds. Pick any shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path $P$ in ${\cal G}=([n],{\cal E},w)$. Clearly,

$$w(P)=d_{\cal G}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$ (40)

Being shortest, $P$ must be simple.

We establish inequality (39) in the following exhaustive cases:

1. $P$ visits no edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. By equation (27), all edges of $P$ are in $E_{G}^{(q(n))}$, i.e., $P$ is a path in $G^{(q(n))}$. So by Lemma 18 (with $i\leftarrow q(n)$), $w(P)$ equals the length of $P$ in the unweighted graph $G^{(q(n))}$. Therefore,

   $$d_{G^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)\leq w(P).$$ (41)

   If $d_{G^{(i-1)}}(a_{i},b_{i})\leq h$, then

   $$d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=d_{G^{(q(n))}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)$$

   by Lemma 5. Otherwise, $d_{G^{(q(n))}}(a_{i},b_{i})>h$ by Lemma 6. In either case, equations (40)–(41) imply inequality (39).

2. $P$ visits exactly one edge in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ and $\hat{\alpha}\in\{a_{i},b_{i}\}$. By Lemma 22 and equation (40), $d_{\cal G}(a_{i},b_{i})\geq h-1/2$. This and Lemma 23 force the right-hand side of inequality (39) to equal $h-1/2$. By Lemma 23, the left-hand side of inequality (39) is less than or equal to $h-1/2$. We have verified inequality (39).

3. $P$ visits exactly one edge in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$ and $\hat{\alpha}\notin\{a_{i},b_{i}\}$. A contradiction to Lemma 26 occurs.

4. $P$ visits exactly two edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. Lemma 25 and that $G^{(q(n))}$ is unweighted imply inequality (41). Proceeding as in Case 1, equations (40)–(41) and Lemmas 5–6 imply inequality (39) no matter $d_{G^{(i-1)}}(a_{i},b_{i})\leq h$ or otherwise.

5. $P$ visits at least three edges in $\{\hat{\alpha}\}\times(V_{h}\setminus(B\cup S))$. Clearly, $P$ is non-simple, a contradiction.

∎

Define $d\colon[n]^{2}\to[0,\infty)$ by

$$d\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=d\left(b_{i},a_{i}\right)$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$$

$$d\left(u,v\right)$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}} \min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(u,v\right),h\right\}$$ (43)

for all $i\in[q(n)]$ and $(u,v)\in[n]^{2}\setminus\{(a_{j},b_{j})\mid j\in[q(n)]\}$. Because all pairs in $[n]^{2}$ are unordered in this section, $(b_{i},a_{i})\notin[n]^{2}\setminus\{(a_{j},b_{j})\mid j\in[q(n)]\}$ for all $i\in[q(n)]$. Consequently, equation (43) does not redefine $d(b_{i},a_{i})$. Because ${\cal G}$ is undirected, the right-hand side of equation (43) remains intact with $u$ and $v$ interchanged. As $A$ does not repeat queries, equation (3.3) defines $d(a_{i},b_{i})$ and $d(b_{i},a_{i})$ only once for each $i\in[q(n)]$ (note that forbidding repeated queries implies the nonexistence of distinct $i$, $j\in[q(n)]$ satisfying (1) $a_{i}=a_{j}$ and $b_{i}=b_{j}$ or (2) $a_{i}=b_{j}$ and $b_{i}=a_{j}$). It is now clear that $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a well-defined function on $[n]^{2}$, a set of unordered pairs. So we have the following lemma.

Lemma 28.

For all $x$, $y\in[n]$, $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$.

Lemma 29.

For all distinct $x$, $y\in[n]$, $d(x,x)=0$ and $d(x,y)\geq 1/2$.

Proof.

Recall that ${\cal G}=([n],{\cal E},w)$. As $\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}(w)\subseteq[1/2,\infty)$ by equation (30), we have $d_{\cal G}(x,y)$, $d_{\cal G}(y,x)\geq 1/2$. So by equations (3.3)–(43) and $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$, $d(x,y)\geq 1/2$. Because we forbid queries for the distance from a point to itself, $d(x,x)$ is not defined by equations (3.3). By equation (43), $d(x,x)=0$. ∎

Lemma 30.

$([n],d)$ is a metric space.

Proof.

By Lemmas 28–29, we only need to show that

$$d\left(x,y\right)+d\left(y,z\right)\geq d\left(x,z\right)$$ (44)

for all $x$, $y$, $z\in[n]$. It is well-known that a positively-weighted undirected graph induces a distance function obeying the triangle inequality; hence

$$d_{\cal G}\left(x,y\right)+d_{\cal G}\left(y,z\right)\geq d_{\cal G}\left(x,z\right).$$ (45)

Because $\cal G$ is undirected, $d_{\cal G}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is symmetric. So by equations (3.3)–(43),

$$d\left(x,y\right)\in\left\{\min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(x,y\right),h\right\},\min\left\{d_{\cal G}\left(x,y\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\right\}\right\}$$ (46)

for all $x$, $y\in[n]$. Now verify inequality (44) in the following exhaustive (but not mutually exclusive) cases:

1. $x=y$, $y=z$ or $x=z$. Lemma 29 implies inequality (44).

2. $d_{\cal G}(x,y)\geq h-1/2$ and $y\neq z$. By relation (46), $d(x,y)\geq h-1/2$. As $y\neq z$, $d(y,z)\geq 1/2$ by Lemma 29. By relation (46), $d(x,z)\leq h$. Summarizing the above proves inequality (44).

3. $d_{\cal G}(y,z)\geq h-1/2$ and $x\neq y$. Replace “$(x,y)$,” “$(y,z)$” and “$y\neq z$” in the analysis of Case 2 by “$(y,z)$,” “$(x,y)$” and “$x\neq y$,” respectively.

4. $d_{\cal G}(x,y)<h-1/2$ and $d_{\cal G}(y,z)<h-1/2$. By relation (46), $d(x,y)=d_{\cal G}(x,y)$ and $d(y,z)=d_{\cal G}(y,z)$. So inequalities (44)–(45) share a common left-hand side. To deduce inequality (44) from inequality (45), therefore, it suffices to show that $d_{\cal G}(x,z)\geq d(x,z)$, which follows from relation (46).

∎

Lemma 31.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)\geq d_{\cal G}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$

Proof.

Assume the existence of an $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path in $H^{(i)}$ for, otherwise, $d_{H^{(i)}}(a_{i},b_{i})=\infty$ and there is nothing to prove. Take a shortest $a_{i}$-$b_{i}$ path $P$ in the unweighted graph $H^{(i)}=([n],E_{H}^{(i)})$. So $d_{H^{(i)}}(a_{i},b_{i})$ is the number of $P$’s edges. By Lemma 18, $P$’s number of edges equals $w(P)$. By Lemma 4, $P$’s edges are in $E_{H}^{(q(n))}$. So by Lemma 20, $P$ is a path in ${\cal G}=([n],{\cal E},w)$, implying $d_{\cal G}(a_{i},b_{i})\leq w(P)$. Summarizing the above proves the lemma. ∎

The following lemma says that line 17 of Adv answers queries consistently with $d(\cdot,\cdot)$.

Lemma 32.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$\min\left\{d_{H^{(i)}}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right),h-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\chi\left[\exists v\in\left\{a_{i},b_{i}\right\},\,\left(v\in S\right)\land\left(\text{\rm deg}_{Q^{(i)}}(v)\leq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}\right)\right]\right\}$$ (47)

$$= d\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$

Proof.

Lemma 27 and equation (3.3) prove the “$\leq$” part of equation (47). On the other hand, Lemma 31 and equation (3.3) imply the “$\geq$” part of equation (47). ∎

3.4 Putting things together

We now arrive at our main result.

Theorem 33.

Metric $1$-median has no deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query $(2h-\epsilon)$-approximation algorithms for any constants $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$ and $\epsilon>0$.

Proof.

By Lemma 32 and line 17 of Adv, Adv answers $A$’s queries consistently with $d(\cdot,\cdot)$. This implies that $A^{\text{\sf Adv}}$ and $A^{d}$ have the same output. That is, $A^{d}$ outputs $z$. By Lemma 30, $([n],d)$ is a metric space.

By relation (46), $d(x,y)\leq\min\{d_{\cal G}(x,y),h\}$ for all $x$, $y\in[n]$. Therefore,

$$\sum_{v\in[n]}\,d\left(\hat{\alpha},v\right)\leq n\cdot\left(\frac{1}{2}+2h\delta^{h-1}+\frac{h^{2}}{\delta}\cdot o(1)+h\delta\right)$$ (48)

by Lemma 17.

Recall that $A$ does not repeat queries. So by equation (15) and Lemmas 28–29,

$$\sum_{v\in[n]}\,d\left(z,v\right)\geq\sum_{i\in I}\,d\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right).$$

By Lemmas 10 and 32,

$$\sum_{i\in I}\,d\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)\geq n\cdot\left(h-2h\delta^{h-1}-o(1)-\delta\right).$$ (49)

By inequalities (48)–(49),

$$\frac{\sum_{v\in[n]}\,d\left(z,v\right)}{\sum_{v\in[n]}\,d\left(\hat{\alpha},v\right)}\geq\frac{h-2h\delta^{h-1}-o(1)-\delta}{1/2+2h\delta^{h-1}+(h^{2}/\delta)\cdot o(1)+h\delta}.$$ (50)

Note that all the derivations so far have been valid for all constants $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$. Take $\delta=\delta(h,\epsilon)>0$ to be sufficiently small and $n$ to be sufficiently large so that the right-hand side of inequality (50) is greater than $2h-\epsilon$. Then inequality (50) forbids $z$, which is the common output of $A^{\sf Adv}$ and $A^{d}$, from being a $(2h-\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median of $([n],d)$. Note that $A$ can be any deterministic $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$-query algorithm from the beginning of this section. ∎

Next, we use Theorem 33 and Fact 1 to determine the minimum value of $c\geq 1$ such that metric $1$-median has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query (resp., $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time) $c$-approximation algorithm, for each constant $\epsilon\in(0,1)$.

Theorem 34.

For each constant $\epsilon\in(0,1)$,

$$\min\left\{c\geq 1\mid\text{{\sc metric $1$-median} has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query $c$-approx.\ alg.}\right\}$$

$$= \min\left\{c\geq 1\mid\text{{\sc metric $1$-median} has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time $c$-approx.\ alg.}\right\}$$

$$= 2\left\lceil\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right\rceil.$$

Proof.

Take $h=\lceil 1/\epsilon\rceil$; hence $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$. It is easy to verify that $n^{1+\epsilon}=o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$. So by Theorem 33, metric $1$-median does not have a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query $(2\lceil 1/\epsilon\rceil-\epsilon^{\prime})$-approximation algorithm for any constant $\epsilon^{\prime}>0$.

Clearly, $n^{1+1/h}=O(n^{1+\epsilon})$. So by Fact 1, metric $1$-median has a deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time $(2\lceil 1/\epsilon\rceil)$-approximation algorithm.

The above analyses remain valid with “query” and “time” exchanged because every $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time algorithm makes $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$ queries. Consequently, deterministic $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-query (resp., $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time) algorithms can be $(2\lceil 1/\epsilon\rceil)$-approximate but not $(2\lceil 1/\epsilon\rceil-\epsilon^{\prime})$-approximate for any constant $\epsilon^{\prime}>0$. ∎

The brute-force exact algorithm for metric $1$-median is well-known to run in $O(n^{2})$ time. Therefore, there is no need to extend Theorem 34 to the case of $\epsilon\geq 1$. On the other hand, the following corollary deals with the case of $\epsilon=0$.

Corollary 35.

Metric $1$-median does not have a deterministic $O(n^{1+o(1)})$-query (resp., $O(n^{1+o(1)})$-time) $O(1)$-approximation algorithm.

Proof.

Take $h\to\infty$ in Theorem 33. ∎

Appendix A Optimizing the hidden factors in Theorem 33

This appendix discusses how the bound of $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$ in Theorem 33 hides factors dependent on $h$. For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$B_{i-1}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\left\{v\in[n]\mid\text{deg}_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2\right\}.$$ (51)

Lemma 36.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ and distinct $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus(B_{i-1}\cup S)$, we have $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(i-1)}$.

Proof.

As $u$, $v\in[n]\setminus B_{i-1}$,

$$\text{deg}_{H^{(j)}}(u) < \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2,$$

$$\text{deg}_{H^{(j)}}(v) < \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2$$

for all $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,i-1\}$ by equation (51) and Lemma 4. So by lines 8 and 13 of Adv, $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(j)}$ if $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(j-1)}$, for all $j\in[i-1]$. By equation (4), $(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(0)}$. The proof is complete by mathematical induction. ∎

Lemma 37.

For each $i\in[q(n)]$ such that the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs lines 5–9, $P_{i}$ in line 5 does not have two non-consecutive vertices in $[n]\setminus(B_{i-1}\cup S)$.

Proof.

By line 5 of Adv, two non-consecutive vertices on $P_{i}$ are not connected by an edge in $E_{G}^{(i-1)}$. This and Lemma 36 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 38.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$ and $v\in B_{i-1}$,

$$N_{G^{(i-1)}}(v)\subseteq N_{H^{(i-1)}}(v).$$

Proof.

By equation (51),

$$\text{deg}_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)\geq\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2.$$

Clearly,

$$\text{\rm deg}_{H^{(0)}}(v)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{initiallymarkededgeset})}}}{{=}}0\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{tediouscondition2})}}}{{<}}\delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2.$$

So there exists $j\in[i-1]$ satisfying

$$\text{deg}_{H^{(j-1)}}(v) < \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2,$$ (52)

$$\text{deg}_{H^{(j)}}(v) \geq \delta n^{1/(h-1)}-2.$$ (53)

Clearly,

$$N_{G^{(j)}}(v)=\left\{u\in[n]\mid(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(j)}\right\}.$$ (54)

As $H^{(j-1)}\neq H^{(j)}$ by inequalities (52)–(53), the $j$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs lines 5–9 but not 11–14. By inequality (53) and line 8 of Adv,

$$\left\{u\in[n]\mid(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(j)}\right\}=\left\{u\in[n]\mid(u,v)\in E_{G}^{(j-1)}\setminus\left(E_{G}^{(j-1)}\setminus E_{H}^{(j)}\right)\right\}.$$ (55)

Equations (54)–(55) and Lemma 4 give

$$N_{G^{(j)}}(v)=N_{H^{(j)}}(v).$$

This and Lemma 4 complete the proof. ∎

Lemma 39.

For all $i\in[q(n)]$,

$$\left|E_{H}^{(i)}\right|\leq\left|E_{H}^{(i-1)}\right|+1.$$

Proof.

Clearly, we may assume that the $i$th iteration of the loop of Adv runs lines 5–9 but not 11–14. By line 6, we only need to show that

$$\left|\left\{e\mid\left(\text{$e$ is an edge on $P_{i}$}\right)\land\left(e\notin E_{H}^{(i-1)}\right)\right\}\right|\leq 1.$$ (56)

By Lemma 37, $P_{i}$ in line 5 has at most one edge in $([n]\setminus(B_{i-1}\cup S))^{2}$. So, to prove inequality (56), it suffices to show that each edge $(u,v)$ on $P_{i}$ with $(u,v)\notin([n]\setminus(B_{i-1}\cup S))^{2}$ satisfies $(u,v)\in E_{H}^{(i-1)}$, as done below:

1. $\{u,v\}\cap S\neq\emptyset$. By equation (4) and Lemma 4, $(u,v)\notin E_{G}^{(i-1)}$. Consequently, $P_{i}$ has an edge not in $E_{G}^{(i-1)}$, contradicting line 5.

2. $\{u,v\}\cap B_{i-1}\neq\emptyset$. By symmetry, assume $v\in B_{i-1}$. So by Lemma 38, $N_{G^{(i-1)}}(v)\subseteq N_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)$. Because $P_{i}$ is a path in $G^{(i-1)}$ by line 5 and $(u,v)$ is on $P_{i}$, $u\in N_{G^{(i-1)}}(v)$. In summary, $u\in N_{H^{(i-1)}}(v)$. I.e., $(u,v)\in E_{H}^{(i-1)}$.

∎

The following improvement over Lemma 11 is immediate from equation (6) and Lemma 39.

Lemma 40.

$$\left|E_{H}^{(q(n))}\right|\leq q(n).$$

Assuming $100\leq h=o(n^{1/(h-1)})$, the following modifications to this paper show that the bound of $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)})$ in Theorem 33 depends on $h$ as $o(n^{1+1/(h-1)}/h)$:

1. Take

   $$q(n) = o\left(\frac{n^{1+1/(h-1)}}{h}\right),$$

   $$\delta = h\cdot\frac{\max\{q(n),n\}}{n^{1+1/(h-1)}},$$

   $$\lambda = \delta^{h/8},$$

   $$S = [\lfloor\lambda n\rfloor].$$

2. Replace “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in inequality (2).

3. Replace “$\delta$” by $1/\delta^{h/4}$ in inequality (3).

4. Replace the two occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in line 8 of Adv.

5. Replace “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in line 17 of Adv.

6. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in Lemma 8 and its proof.

7. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in Lemma 9 and its proof.

8. Replace “$\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$” and “$h-2h\delta^{h-1}-o(1)-\delta$” by “$n^{1/(h-1)}/\delta^{h/4}$” and “$h-2h{\sqrt{\delta}}^{h-1}-o(1)-\lambda/2-1/(2\delta^{h/4}n^{1-1/(h-1)})$,” respectively, in the statement of Lemma 10.

9. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$,” “$2\delta^{h-1}n$” and “$\lfloor\delta n\rfloor$” by “$n^{1/(h-1)}/\delta^{h/4}$,” “$2{\sqrt{\delta}}^{h-1}n$” and “$\lfloor\lambda n\rfloor$,” respectively, in the proof of Lemma 10.

10. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta n^{1/(h-1)}$,” “$(h/\delta)\cdot o(n)$” and “Lemma 11” by “$\sqrt{\delta}\,n^{1/(h-1)}$,” “$(1/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1/(h-1)})$” and “Lemma 40,” respectively, in Lemma 12 and its proof.

11. That $\hat{\alpha}$ is well-defined in equation (19) follows from $|S|\geq 2$, which holds for all sufficiently large $n$ by item (1) and $h\geq 100$.

12. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in Lemma 13 and its proof.

13. Replace “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in equation (26).

14. Replace “$\delta^{h-1}$” by “$\delta^{h/4-1}$” in the statement of Lemma 15.

15. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” and “$1/\delta^{h/4}$,” respectively, in the first and the second paragraphs of the proof of Lemma 15.

16. Replace “$1-2\delta^{h-1}-(h/\delta)\cdot o(1)-\delta$” by “$1-2\delta^{h/4-1}-(1/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)})-\lambda$” in the statement of Lemma 16.

17. Replace all occurrences of “$(h/\delta)\cdot o(n)$,” “$\lfloor\delta n\rfloor$” and “$\delta^{h-1}$” by “$(1/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1/(h-1)})$,” “$\lfloor\lambda n\rfloor$” and “$\delta^{h/4-1}$,” respectively, in the proof of Lemma 16.

18. Replace “$\delta^{h-1}$,” “$(h^{2}/\delta)\cdot o(1)$” and “$h\delta$” by “$\delta^{h/4-1}$,” “$(h/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)})$” and “$h\lambda$,” respectively, in the statement of Lemma 17.

19. Replace “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in the statement of Lemma 23.

20. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in the proof of Lemma 24.

21. Replace the two occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in the statement of Lemma 27.

22. Replace “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in equation (3.3).

23. Replace “$\delta$” by “$1/\delta^{h/4}$” in the statement of Lemma 32.

24. Replace “$\delta^{h-1}$,” “$(h^{2}/\delta)\cdot o(1)$” and “$h\delta$” by “$\delta^{h/4-1}$,” “$(h/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)})$” and “$h\lambda$,” respectively, in inequality (48).

25. Replace “$h-2h\delta^{h-1}-o(1)-\delta$” by “$h-2h{\sqrt{\delta}}^{h-1}-o(1)-\lambda/2-1/(2\delta^{h/4}n^{1-1/(h-1)})$” in the right-hand side of inequality (49).

26. Replace the numerator and the denominator on the right-hand side of inequality (50) by “$h-2h{\sqrt{\delta}}^{h-1}-o(1)-\lambda/2-1/(2\delta^{h/4}n^{1-1/(h-1)})$” and “$1/2+2h\delta^{h/4-1}+(h/\sqrt{\delta})\cdot O(q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)})+h\lambda$,” respectively.

27. Verify that the right-hand side of inequality (50) is $2h-o(1)$. To see this, use item (1) and $100\leq h=o(n^{1/(h-1)})$ to verify that $\delta=o(1)$, $\max_{x\geq 1}\,x\cdot\delta^{x/8}=O(\delta)=o(1)$ (which requires elementary calculus and reveals that $h\sqrt{\delta}^{h-1}=o(1)$, $h\delta^{h/4-1}=o(1)$ and $h\lambda=h\delta^{h/8}=o(1)$), $\lambda=o(1)$, $\delta^{h/4}\geq 1/n^{h/(4(h-1))}$, $\delta^{h/4}\cdot n^{1-1/(h-1)}=n^{\Omega(1)}$, $\sqrt{\delta}\geq\sqrt{h\cdot q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)}}$ and $\sqrt{h\cdot q(n)/n^{1+1/(h-1)}}=o(1)$.

28. Replace all occurrences of “$\delta$” by “$\sqrt{\delta}$” in equation (51) as well as in the proofs of Lemmas 36 and 38.