$c$-Packedness versus $\lambda$-Low-Density in Geometric Graphs: Theory and Practice

The notion of $c$-packedness was originally proposed to study polygonal curves [15]. It was shown in the same paper that computing the Fréchet distance between $c$-packed curves only takes near-linear time. In [22], the concept was transferred to graphs and studied in the context of map matching. A plethora of other results for $c$-packed curves or graphs have been established in the meantime, see e.g. [5, 20, 14, 9, 18]. For the computation of $c$, an exact algorithm with a running time in $\mathcal{O}(m^{3})$ is known, where $m$ is the number of edges, if axis-aligned squares are used in the definition instead of balls [23]. Furthermore, approximation algorithms have been investigated, including a $2$-approximation with a running time in $\mathcal{O}(m^{2}\log m)$ [21], a $(6+\varepsilon)$-approximation with a running time in $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}((m/\varepsilon^{3})^{4/3})$ [34], and a recent $42$-approximation with an expected running time in $\mathcal{O}(m\log^{2}m)$ and high success probability [27]. In [2], the authors propose the first exact algorithm for $c$-packedness defined on balls with a running time in $\mathcal{O}(m^{5})$. Furthermore, they also improve the running time of the $2$-approximation to $\mathcal{O}(m^{2})$ and the guarantee of the $(6+\varepsilon)$-approximation to $(4+\varepsilon)$. To the best of our knowledge, only [21] also reports empirical results for $c$, in particular for the $2$-approximation. They evaluate their implementation on trajectory sets with small to moderate size. Oftentimes small $c$ values are reported. However no general graphs were considered and no running times were provided.

The study of $\lambda$-low-density was initiated in [39] in the context of motion planning amid obstacles. Later, it was shown to also be useful for map matching [8] as well as the design of approximation algorithms [26] and data structures [24]. An exact algorithm to compute $\lambda$ with a running time in $\mathcal{O}(n\log^{3}n+\lambda n\log^{2}n+\lambda^{2}n)$ was proposed in [12] and a $3$-approximation with an improved running time of $\mathcal{O}(n\log n+\lambda n)$ in [19]. The exact algorithm was tested in [12] on triangulations with up to 5000 points, and in [8] on small city road networks. In [19] a $4$-approximation for $\lambda$ (a slight simplification of the $3$-approximation) was implemented and evaluated on a trajectory set with the largest containing roughly $n=$65\,000$$ points. But again no running times were reported in any of these papers and thus scalability to general graphs, especially with million of edges, remained unclear.

We present novel theoretical and practical results for algorithms parameterized by $c$ or $\lambda$.

• •

  Parameter relationship. We prove that $c\in\mathcal{O}(\lambda\sqrt{n})$ and that this bound is tight. The upper bound allows to transform algorithms parameterized by $c$ into algorithms parameterized by $\lambda$ and complements the known result $\lambda\in\mathcal{O}(c)$ [15].

• •

  Parameter computation. We present the first implementation for the exact computation of $\lambda$ that scales to graphs with millions of edges as well efficient approximations for $c$. Our experiments show that both parameters remain moderate even on very large road networks, with $\lambda$ being consistently much smaller than $c$.

• •

  Balanced separators. It was shown in [14] that $c$-packed graphs admit balanced separators of size $\mathcal{O}(c)$ and that such separators can be computed efficiently. However, we observe that the hidden constant in the size bound is prohibitively large in practice. We therefore develop techniques that substantially reduce the separator size without increasing the asymptotic running time. A key ingredient is an improved PTAS for the smallest enclosing square problem, which may be of independent interest. We also present an engineered separator algorithm and show that it consistently computes smaller balanced separators on road networks than KaHIP, a state-of-the-art graph partitioning framework [36].

• •

  Tree decomposition. We show that a tree decomposition of width $\mathcal{O}(c)$ can be computed in time $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}n\log n)$ time. While it was previously known that the treewidth of $c$-packed graphs is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(c)$, existing algorithms for constructing such a decomposition were assumed to require exponential time [14]. Our efficient construction therefore enables, for the first time, the practical use of treewidth-based algorithms on $c$-packed graphs after only polynomial-time preprocessing. As one application, combining our algorithm with the exact distance oracle of [10] yields a construction time $\mathcal{O}(c^{3}n\log n)$ and distance query time $\mathcal{O}(c)$. This improves the previous best query time of $\mathcal{O}(c\log n)$ for $c$-packed graphs. We also provide a careful implementation of our tree decomposition algorithm and show that it produces small bags on large real-world road networks, enabling the construction of highly efficient exact distance oracles in practice.

In [32] a randomized algorithm for computing balanced separators in $\lambda$-low-density graphs¹¹ 1 The paper actually considers $\tau$-lanky graphs and proves a separator size in $\mathcal{O}(\tau\sqrt{n})$. However by definition, $\tau\leq\lambda$ and thus the result directly transfers to low-density graphs. was proposed which guarantees a separator size in $\mathcal{O}(\lambda\sqrt{n})$. They prove that there always exists a ball $B_{r}$ of radius $r$ that encloses a constant fraction of all nodes but not more than $\frac{n}{2}$, such that the number of edges of length at most $r$ intersecting the ball is in $\mathcal{O}(\lambda\sqrt{n})$. As there are at most $\lambda$ edges of length greater than $r$ that intersect the ball by definition, the respective separator size follows. They argue that a ball with these properties can be computed in the Euclidean plane with an expected running time in $\mathcal{O}(\lambda\sqrt{n})$. For $c$-packed graphs a deterministic algorithm was proposed in [14] that computes a balanced separator of size $\mathcal{O}(c)$ in time $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}n)$. The idea is to compute two nested balls $B=B_{r}$ and $B^{\prime}=B_{2r}$, with $B$ enclosing at least a constant fraction of the nodes, and at least half of the nodes being outside of $B^{\prime}$. Then running a max-flow algorithm from border nodes inside $B$ to nodes outside $B^{\prime}$ and using the max flow–min cut duality, a valid balanced separator is identified. See Figure 4 for an illustration of this algorithm.

They argue that for each separator node there needs to be a path of length at least $2r-r=r$ from inside $B$ to outside $B^{\prime}$ and the set of such paths needs to be edge disjoint. As the total length of edges inside $B^{\prime}$ is bounded by $2cr$ by definition of packedness, an upper bound of $2c$ on the separator size follows. Given our newly established relationship between $c$ and $\lambda$ in Lemma 3, we get the following corollary.

This directly implies that the algorithm for $c$-packed graphs works for $\lambda$-low-density graphs with a size bound matching the one shown in [32], but without relying on randomization.

In principle the separator computation algorithm for $c$-packed graphs as presented in [14] is practical. However there is one caveat: The balance factor that is guaranteed by the approach is $\left(1-\frac{1}{2\delta^{3}}\right)$ where $\delta$ denotes the doubling constant of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. For $d=2$ we have $\delta=7$ and therefore the achieved balance factor is greater than $0.998$. To obtain a smaller balance factor $\alpha$, this algorithm can be applied iteratively to the largest connected component of the graph after separator removal. If we use $k$ iterations, the resulting balance factor guarantee is $\alpha=\left(1-\frac{1}{2\delta^{3}}\right)^{k}$ with a running time in $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}nk)$. However the resulting separator consists in the worst-case of the union of all $k$ computed separators, increasing the separator size from $2c$ to $2kc$. Thus to achieve $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$, we have to set $k\approx 475$ and therefore get a separator size bound of approximately $950c$. With such a large coefficient, the practical utility is void. In the following we will discuss how to decrease the coefficient significantly by (i) better balancing the number of nodes inside $B$ and outside $B^{\prime}$, (ii) leveraging $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation algorithms for smallest enclosing ball, (iii) switching from balls to squares. Table 1 summarizes the (accumulated) impact of these improvements for the construction of a $\frac{2}{3}$-balanced separator.

A simple way to obtain a valid tree decomposition $\mathcal{T}$ using a balanced separator oracle is as follows: First construct a balanced hierarchical separator tree $\mathcal{S}$, subsequently include in each separator bag $X$ all bags on the path from $X$ to the root of $\mathcal{S}$. This ensures that each edge is covered by at least one bag and that the bags containing a specific node form a connected subtree. However, if $B$ is an upper bound on the separator size occurring in $\mathcal{S}$, the resulting width of the tree decomposition is in $\mathcal{O}(B\log n)$.

Reed’s algorithm [35] for tree decomposition construction in graphs with bounded separator size avoids this logarithmic blow-up The algorithm takes as input a graph $G(V,E)$ with an assumed upper bound $B$ on its treewidth tw, as well as a special node subset $W$ of size at most $3B$. It then either certifies that ${\texttt{tw}}>B$ or returns a tree decomposition with width at most $4B$. When calling $\textsc{reed}(G(V,E),W)$, the algorithm first computes a so-called balanced $W$-separator $S$ which must ensure for each connected component $C$ in $G[V\setminus S]$ we have $|C|\leq\frac{3}{4}|V|$ and $|C\cap W|\leq\frac{2}{3}|W|$. Thus $S$ must separate both the whole graph and the subset $W$ in a balanced manner at the same time. Reed shows that such a balanced $W$-separator of size at most $B$ can be computed in time $\mathcal{O}(9^{B}B|E|)$ if it exists. Once a separator of suitable size is identified, the algorithm creates a tree decomposition bag $S\cup W$ and recursively calls itself on each connected component $C$ of $G[V\setminus S]$ using $\textsc{reed}(G[C\cup S],(C\cap W)\cup S)$. See Figure 7 for an illustration of this process.

If the number of nodes in $G[C\cup S]$ drops below $4B$, no further refinement is necessary and instead a tree decomposition bag containing $C\cup S$ is returned. Tree decompositions resulting from recursive calls on the components $C$ are then connected to the parent bag $S\cup W$. As we always have $|S|\leq B$ and $W\leq 3B$, the maximum bag size is $4B$. The size bound of $W$ is maintained throughout the recursive calls as for each component $C$ we have $|C\cap W|\leq\frac{2}{3}|W|$ by definition of the balanced $W$-separator and thus $|(C\cap W)\cup S|\leq\frac{2}{3}3B+B\leq 3B$. The size of the graph in a recursive call is bounded by $|C\cup S|\leq\frac{3}{4}|V|+B$. Therefore the graph size drops below $4B$ after a logarithmic number of calls. Thus Reed’s algorithm constructs a tree decomposition with a width linear in $B$. However the balanced $W$-separator computation—with exponential dependency on $B$—only runs in polynomial time on graphs with ${\texttt{tw}}\leq B\in\mathcal{O}(1)$.

The naive tree decomposition construction with width in $\mathcal{O}(B\log n)$ is directly applicable to $c$-packed graphs using $B\in\mathcal{O}(c)$. The construction time for $\mathcal{S}$ is in $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}n\log n)$, and the $\mathcal{T}$ construction based thereupon runs in time $\mathcal{O}(cn\log n)$. However, with a width of $\mathcal{O}(c\log n)$, the query time of $\mathcal{T}$-EDO is the same as for $\mathcal{S}$-EDO.

To get $\mathcal{T}$ with width $\mathcal{O}(c)$, we now adapt Reed’s algorithm to $c$-packed graphs. The crucial step is the efficient computation of a balanced $W$-separator $S$ for a given graph $G(V,E)$ and a node subset $W$, such that each component in $G[V\setminus S]$ contains at most a constant fraction of the nodes in $V$ and the nodes in $W$. To achieve this, we actually compute two separators $S_{V}$ and $S_{W}$ and set $S:=S_{V}\cup S_{W}$. Here $S_{V}$ is simply a $\frac{4}{5}$-balanced square separator of $G$ of size at most $3c$ constructed as described in Section 3.1 with $\varepsilon=0.05$. For $S_{W}$ we require that it separate both $G$ and $W$ simultaneously, but only for $W$ the balance criterion needs to be enforced. This can be achieved by constructing the two nested squares for separator computation solely based on the nodes in $W$, but then considering all nodes in $V$ for the actual flow and separator computation. See Figure 8 for an illustration.

As the separator bound of $3c$ is oblivious to the number of nodes enclosed in the respective squares but only depends on their side length ratio, we get the same maximum separator size for $S_{W}$ as for $S_{V}$. Accordingly we have $|S|\leq|S_{V}|+|S_{W}|\leq 6c$. It remains to adapt the bound on the size of $W$ to make the recursion work. If $|W|\leq 30c$, we know that $|(C\cap W)\cup S|\leq\frac{4}{5}|W|+6c\leq 30c$. Furthermore $|C\cup S|\leq\frac{4}{5}|V|+6c$ holds, and therefore, after a logarithmic number of steps, a subgraph size of at most $30c$ is reached. We remark that we do not require explicit knowledge of the value of $c$ to stop the recursion. Instead we can keep track of the largest bag size we have seen so far and once the current subgraph size drops below this threshold, we can safely abort. As the recursion depth is logarithmic and the separator computations at each recursion level take $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}n)$ time in total, we get the following theorem.

The theorem allows to apply many known algorithms based on tree decompositions to $c$-packed graphs after a polynomial time preprocessing. This includes the exact distance oracle $\mathcal{T}$-EDO as described in [10].

Thus, compared to the $\mathcal{S}$-EDO data structure described in [14], the $\mathcal{T}$-EDO data structure for $c$-packed graphs is factor of $c$ slower in preprocessing time but a factor of $\log n$ faster with respect to query time, achieving query times that are independent of the overall graph size.

Both the exact algorithm [12]²² 2 The paper states it takes as input a “planar scene.” [19] interpreted this to mean that no edge crossings are allowed. However it only means that the objects lie in the plane (as in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$), since the algorithm and its proof do not make any mention of planarity (as in freedom of intersections). and the 3-approximation [19] for computing $\lambda$ use the same framework: For each edge $e$ we find the set $R(e)$ of edges that lie within $2\|e\|$ of $e$; this takes time $\mathcal{O}(m\log m)$ with a quadtree. For each edge $e$ and each $p$ from a certain set $P(e)$ of points, we count the edges from $R(e)$ that lie within $\|e\|$ of a point $p$; this is equivalent to a stabbing query with input $\bigl\{\,e^{\prime}\oplus S(\|e\|)\mid e^{\prime}\in R(e)\,\bigr\}$, where $\oplus$ denotes the Minkowski sum and $S(r)$ the square (or ball) of radius r about the origin. Finally we return the maximum of these counts over all choices of $e$ and $p$. For each $e\in E(G)$, the 3-approximation chooses $|P(e)|=48\,600\in\mathcal{O}(1)$ points, while the exact algorithm computes the arrangement of $|R(e)|\in\mathcal{O}(\lambda)$ Minkowski sums in time $\mathcal{O}\bigl(\lambda^{2}\bigr)$—at least on paper. In our implementation we simply use the $\mathcal{O}\bigl(\lambda^{2}\bigr)$ intersection points of the boundaries of these Minkowski sums as $P(e)$, which results in a running time of $\mathcal{O}\bigl(\lambda^{3}\bigr)$ per choice of $e$ or $\mathcal{O}\bigl(\lambda^{3}m\bigr)$ in total. However we believe that the hidden constants in the running time of the arrangement construction are larger than $\lambda$ for realistic instances.

We can organize these computations in several ways. First we can process the edges $e$ by decreasing length as suggested by [12]; then we know that the current $e$ admits a new count of at most $\lambda^{\prime}+1$, where $\lambda^{\prime}$ is the previous maximum; thus we can skip the remainder of $P(e)$ as soon as we find a point that lies close to $\lambda^{\prime}+1$ edges from $R(e)$. Additionally we can skip $e$ entirely if $|R(e)|\leq\lambda^{\prime}$; in this case we cannot hope to find a new maximum; this is “full synchronization.” We can hope to exploit the latter shortcut more often if we process the edges $e$ by decreasing $|R(e)|$. Indeed, if we abandon the former shortcut entirely, we need not wait for the result of the stabbing query for one choice of $e$ before we start with the next; that is, we may run the stabbing queries concurrently; optionally with “limited synchronization” to skip edges $e$ with small $R(e)$. This way the computation can run on up to $m$ CPU cores.

When one examines the results in Figure 9, it is immediately clear that the 3-approximation is actually slower than the exact algorithm. We attribute the difference in running time to the fact that all instances have relatively low density, so $\lambda^{3}$ is in fact smaller than $48\,600\,\lambda$. Additionally we observe that the 3-approximation is usually worse than the optimum by a factor of about 1.5. Finally we see that in all cases the variant that runs on multiple cores with limited synchronization is the fastest.

For the packedness $c$, we implement the 2-approximation from [21] and the randomized 42-approximation approximation from [27]. The 2-approximation restricts the centers of the squares it considers to vertices of the graph and sweeps outward from each vertex. It runs in $\mathcal{O}(m^{2}\log m)$. A key detail of this algorithm is the update operation it performs whenever the sweep line hits an event point: It updates the growth rate of the total length $\ell$ of edges inside the square per additional unit of radius (i.e., $d\ell/dr$) in constant time. An implementer must take care that floating point imprecisions do not accumulate too much. To guarantee this, we use Kahan’s summation algorithm [29] in our implementation. Furthermore, since we run a sweep from each vertex independently, the algorithm is embarrassingly parallel; only combining maximum accumulation at the end requires synchronization.

The randomized 42-approximation runs in $\mathcal{O}(m\log^{3}m)$ [27]. This algorithm uses a WSPD to find a linear number of squares one of which approximates the packedness. Then it randomly scales and shifts these squares $\Theta(n)$ times, builds a quadtree of the translated squares, and approximates the packedness of its nodes in a bottom-up traversal. With high probability a square with high packedness is approximately equal to a node in one of the quadtrees. We may once again create and process the quadtrees in parallel on up to $\Theta(\log n)$ cores. To make the 42-approximation algorithm for packedness scalable to large graphs, we make the following adjustments: In practice the separation factor 7 200 of the WSPD as specified in the paper is prohibitively large for instances of practical sizes. Other constants that control the approximation factor for the packedness of the quadtree lead to impractical running times as well. We changed them to the values shown in Table 3. The result is a worse approximation guarantee in theory, but our experiments show that the approximation factor is still always below 5 in practice.

In Figure 10 we can see that the 42-approximation is much faster than the 2-approximation, for large instances even by several orders of magnitude. This comes at the cost of solution quality: The 2-approximation usually finds a square that is twice as packed as the estimate from the 42-approximation. We can further increase the quality of the result in practice by computing the exact packedness of the square output by the 42-approximation by running a single sweep from its center as in the 2-approximation. This takes only $\mathcal{O}(m\log m)$ time, so it does not change the asymptotic running time; but with this additional step we find squares whose packedness is at least $75\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ of those found by the 2-approximation for our test instances, and indeed the running time of the sweep is negligible in comparison to the 42-approximation. This way we get the best tradeoff between quality and running time.

For the two largest instances, where the 2-approximation did not finish within twelve hours, we report lower bounds on $c$ from the 42-approximation and partial runs of the 2-approximation in Table 2. As one can see there, $c$ is always much larger than $\lambda$ for the same graph, but also much smaller than $\lambda\sqrt{n}$, indicating that the known theoretical relationships between the two parameters are far from tight on the tested road networks.

One can conceptualize the separation algorithm proposed in [14] as two independent steps: first, run a strategy yielding two balls which ensure a given balance factor, and second, extract vertices inside $B$ and outside $B^{\prime}$, and then run a max-flow min-cut algorithm. Extracting vertices is done using a naive linear filtering. The chosen max-flow algorithm is Ford–Fulkerson with iterative depth-first searches to find augmenting paths, resulting in a running time of $\mathcal{O}(F\cdot(n+m))$ where $F$ is the maximum flow, which reduces to $\mathcal{O}(c^{2}n)$ for $c$-packed graphs. Because the first step is more flexible, we could use any of the methods shown in Table 1. As a baseline and suggested in [14], and in order to compute $B=B_{r}$ and deduce $B^{\prime}=B_{2r}$, the $\mathcal{O}(n(\frac{n}{k})^{d})$-time 2-approximation for $k$-enclosing disk from [25] was implemented. Using $k=\frac{n}{2\lambda^{3}}$, it indeed yields a linear time algorithm, but in practice constant factors are substantial: in dimension 2, the running time is $$470\,596$n$. Besides, as presented in Section 3, the best balance factor using this 2-approximation is $0.997$ with Better Balance. In practice, it yields exactly this balance; see Figure 13.

Instead a more practical but randomized ball strategy consists in sampling the vertices, finding the exact $k$- and $(1-k)$-enclosing balls $B=b(p,r)$ and $B^{\prime}=b(p,R)$ from each vertex point $p$, and keeping the best ball pair. This method also allows for arbitrary balance. One could define the best pair to be the one that guarantees the best theoretical upper bound $\frac{a}{a-1}c$ on the separator size, maximizing the radius ratio $a=\frac{R}{r}$, or also randomly run separations using intermediately computed balls and keep the one yielding the smallest separator size. To prevent this ratio $a$ from diverging, one could set a threshold and fall back to nested squares ball strategy if no suitable ball is found. In practice, setting a threshold of $1.2$ still ensures a maximum separator size of $\frac{a}{a-1}c=6c$, and such balls can always be found on the small graph; see Figure 14.

This figure also illustrates the fact that maximizing $a$ induces smaller separator sizes. It also makes sense, because there should be more paths in the ring for the max-flow algorithm to consider. Consequently, during the sample strategy, one could accumulate and sort balls by decreasing radius ratio $a$, and run separations by processing balls in order. Combining both approaches, we then run the separation using the best theoretical pair of balls and keep the smallest separator. Radii $r$ or $R$ can be found naively by computing distances from a sample vertex $p$ to each vertex point. Selecting the $k$th farthest vertex point can be done in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ thanks to a selection algorithm such as introselect. The ball radius is set to the distance to this $k$th farthest vertex point. This process can be greatly optimized by precomputing a spanning grid of $\log^{2}(n)$ cells which holds their covered vertices. The query to find distance $r$ from $p$ consists in accumulating cells by exploring the grid outwards from the cell of $p$. When at least $k$ vertices are accumulated, one only have to compute distances to the last expanded annulus to determine the exact $k$th-farthest vertex. See Figure 21 for an illustration of this process. To accelerate the process even further, distance computations can be skipped at the cost of an approximation on $r$.

To determine the necessary parameters, namely sample size and expected number of separation runs, we benchmarked several configurations on a representative road network. According to results shown Figure 24, a sample of size 100 with 50 separation runs seems to yield the smallest separator for a balance factor of $\alpha=\frac{2}{3}$ almost every time. The smallest separator is also found in the 50 first tries $75\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ of the time with larger separation runs; see Figure 24.

In order to assess the practical performance of this separation algorithm, we compare its performance against the heavy-engineered KaHIP [36, 37]. To make it a fair fight, we first separate the graph using our algorithm and measure the balance factor. Then, we separate using KaHIP by asking two components and giving the same balance as target. Its mode is also set to FAST or STRONG, which enables a compromise between separation time and size. On the small graph, our algorithm yields better separator sizes while using less time at 10 to 35 separation runs when compared to KaHIP-FAST, and at 30 to 110 separation runs when compared to KaHIP-STRONG; see Figure 25. On the large graph, up to 100 separation runs performed during the ball strategy execution, the separation is either slower but of higher quality against KaHIP-FAST, or faster while yielding roughly the same size against KaHIP-STRONG. In the context of nested dissection, only a very few amounts of separation are done on large subgraphs, though, and most of the separations are performed on smaller graphs, closer to the previous, small one.

The separator decomposition was implemented just as described Section 4. using our separator algorithm described above as a subroutine. The tree decomposition was fully implemented as described in Section 4.2. A small optimization was added: instead of recurring on $\bigl(G[C\cup S],(C\cap W)\cup S\bigr)$, we extract the set $N(C)\cap S$—vertices of $S$ connected to $C$—in time $\mathcal{O}(|S|\Delta)$ and use it in place of $S$. This optimization resulted in an average bag size smaller by a factor of $\frac{1}{3}$. Both structures have been constructed on the large dataset. Regarding the pre-computation, they both took around $4.5\text{\,}\mathrm{h}$ to compute, without any parallelization. The computed separator decomposition has a height of 24 with $1\,700\,000$ bags, whereas the tree decomposition is 19 nodes high and is made of $1\,200\,000$ bags. As discussed earlier Section 4, those two data structures can be used to define Exact Distance Oracles, namely $\mathcal{S}$-EDO and $\mathcal{T}$-EDO. In order to finally compare them, we investigate the number of distance comparisons done at query phase—which is expected to be smaller by a factor of $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$ for $\mathcal{T}$-EDO. The query time should be proportional. We can observe this only from the separation and tree decompositions, based on bag sizes. Results indeed show a clear domination of the $\mathcal{T}$-EDO, as show on Figure 26. On average, it requires only 20 distance comparisons to answer a query, whereas the $\mathcal{S}$-EDO needs a bit less than 4 times more. The $75\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ quantile of $\mathcal{T}$-EDO ($14$) is below the $25\text{\,}\mathrm{\%}$ quantile of $\mathcal{S}$-EDO ($43$).

The tree decomposition can be used as an intermediate step to solve many more problems. Its very small average bag size might even make algorithms with exponential dependency on tw practical.