Determining a Points Configuration from a Subset of the Pairwise Distances

Put H=\operatorname{cl}_3(G). By Proposition 6, every edge of H is reconstructable from (G,d_{G,f}), for every injective f\colon[n]\to\mathbb R. Moreover, H is 3-closed, so every non-edge of H has at most two common neighbours. Since G\subseteq H, we have |E(H)|\geq|\mathcal P|\geq Cn^{3/2}. Taking C large enough, Theorem 2 applies to H with k=2, giving a clique Q\subseteq[n] of size |Q|=\Omega(|E(H)|/n)\geq\Omega(|\mathcal{P}|/n). By Corollary 9, the induced subgraph G[U(Q)] is globally rigid in \mathbb R, and |U(Q)|\geq |Q|=\Omega(|\mathcal P|/n).

Let e=|E|. By Lemma 10, there is an induced subgraph G'=(W,F) with minimum degree \delta\geq \frac{e}{n}. Put N=|W|. The common-neighbour condition is inherited by induced subgraphs, so every non-edge in G' has at most k common neighbours.

Since N\leq n and \delta\geq e/n\geq 8\sqrt{kn}, Claim 12 applies to G'. Let I=\{s_1,\ldots, s_{\alpha}\} be any independent set of maximum size in G', so \alpha \leq 2 \frac{N}{\delta }. Define

The following observation is the heart of the argument:

The observation follows since, if x,y\in B_i are non-adjacent, then x and y have no neighbours in I\setminus\{s_i\}. Therefore (I\setminus\{s_i\})\cup\{x,y\} is an independent set larger than I, a contradiction.

The sets B_i are pairwise disjoint. Since each B_i is a clique, one of them has size at least the average size. Thus:

To estimate |\bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha} B_i|, write A_i=\Gamma_{G'}(s_i). The set \bigcup_i B_i is precisely the set of vertices lying in exactly one of the sets A_i. Count vertices according to how many of the sets A_i contain them. A vertex contained exactly once contributes 1 to the right-hand side below; a vertex contained twice contributes 0; and a vertex contained at least three times contributes non-positively. Hence

Since the vertices s_i are pairwise non-adjacent, every intersection A_i\cap A_j has size at most k. Hence

Plugging this into Equation ? and using Claim 12 gives

Since \delta^2\geq64kn\geq4kN, the last expression is at least \delta/2. As \delta\geq e/n, this gives \omega(G)\geq\frac{\delta}{2}\geq\frac{e}{2n}\geq\frac{e}{4n}.

The supercritical regime is Proposition 23, and the subcritical regime is Proposition 24.

Write a_t=\operatorname{dist}(f(i),f(z_t)) and b_t=\operatorname{dist}(f(j),f(z_t)). Since f is injective, the three points f(z_1),f(z_2),f(z_3) are distinct.

For z\in \mathbb R, set h(z)=|\operatorname{dist}(f(i),z)-\operatorname{dist}(z,f(j))|. There are two cases: outside the interval between f(i) and f(j), h(z)=\operatorname{dist}(f(i),f(j)); inside the interval, each smaller value is attained at most twice. Thus the following deterministic rule recovers \operatorname{dist}(f(i),f(j)) from the numbers a_t,b_t: if all three values |a_t-b_t| are equal, output this common value; otherwise choose t minimizing |a_t-b_t| and output a_t+b_t.

Fix an injective g\colon[n]\to\mathbb R with d_{G,g}=d_{G,f}. Let e_1,\ldots,e_m be a closure sequence, and write G_s=G+\{e_1,\ldots,e_s\}. We prove by induction on s that d_{G_s,g}=d_{G_s,f}. The case s=0 is immediate. Suppose e_s=x_sy_s. By the sequence, x_s,y_s have three chosen common neighbours z_{s,1},z_{s,2},z_{s,3} in G_{s-1}. By induction, the six distances from x_s,y_s to these vertices agree under f and g. The deterministic rule in Lemma 5 therefore gives \operatorname{dist}(f(x_s),f(y_s))=\operatorname{dist}(g(x_s),g(y_s)).

We induct on the time at which e appears in the closure sequence, with the original edges treated as time 0. If e=xy\in E(G), then G[U(e)] is a single edge, hence globally rigid.

Suppose e=xy is added using common neighbours z_1,z_2,z_3. Let f,g\colon U(e)\to\mathbb R be injective realizations of G[U(e)] with the same edge lengths. Their restrictions to any subset of U(e) are still injective. By induction, each graph G[U(xz_a)] and G[U(yz_a)] is globally rigid. These are induced subgraphs of G[U(e)], so the restrictions of f and g to them have the same edge lengths. Hence the six distances xz_a,yz_a are the same in the two realizations. By Lemma 5, the distance xy is also the same for f and g.

Since the distance xy agrees in the two realizations, compose g with an isometry of \mathbb R so that g(x)=f(x) and g(y)=f(y). Each z_a has the same distances to the two distinct fixed points x,y, so g(z_a)=f(z_a). Now restrict to G[U(xz_a)]. By induction, all pairwise distances inside this set agree under f and g. Since x,z_a are fixed, every vertex of U(xz_a) is fixed, as a point on the line is determined by its distances to two distinct fixed points. The same argument applies to U(yz_a). Thus f=g on U(e) after a global isometry. Hence G[U(e)] is globally rigid.

The case |Q|\leq1 is trivial, and the case |Q|=2 follows from Lemma 8. Assume |Q|\geq3. Let f,g\colon U(Q)\to\mathbb R be injective realizations of G[U(Q)] with the same edge lengths. For each xy\in\binom{Q}{2}, the restrictions of f and g to G[U(xy)] have the same edge lengths. By Lemma 8, the distance xy is therefore the same under f and g. Hence the full distance matrix on Q agrees. After a global isometry, fix two vertices of Q; every other vertex of Q is then fixed by its distances to them. Finally, for each xy\in\binom{Q}{2}, the vertices x,y are fixed, and the induced graph G[U(xy)] is globally rigid. Hence every vertex of U(xy) is fixed. Thus all vertices of U(Q) are fixed.

Iteratively delete vertices of degree smaller than d/2. The process cannot delete every vertex: if it did, each edge would be counted once, at the deletion of its first endpoint, while fewer than d/2 edges are deleted at each step. Thus the total number of deleted edges would be less than nd/2=|E|, a contradiction. The graph induced on the undeleted vertices satisfies the lemma.

Denote the elements of the maximum independent set by s_1,\ldots,s_{\alpha} with \alpha:=\alpha(G). By Lemma 11, applied to S_i = \Gamma(s_i), we have

Rewriting this as an upper bound on \alpha(G), and using our assumption \delta \geq \sqrt{2nk}, which implies \delta^2-kn\geq \frac12\delta^2, we have:

Let F be the bipartite incidence graph between points and affine lines in \mathbb{F}_p^2. Then F has m=\Theta(p^2) vertices, \Theta(p^3)=\Theta(m^{3/2}) edges, and is C_4-free.

Replace each vertex of F by a k-clique and each edge of F by all possible edges between the corresponding cliques. Let G be the resulting graph and put N=km. If two vertices of G are non-adjacent, then they lie in clusters corresponding to two non-adjacent vertices of F. Since F is C_4-free, those two vertices have at most one common neighbour in F, and hence the two blown-up vertices have at most k common neighbours in G. Also,

Since F is bipartite, every clique of G uses vertices from at most two clusters, and two clusters form a clique exactly when the corresponding vertices of F are adjacent. Thus \omega(G)=2k.

Let f,g be two injective realizations of T(G) with the same edge lengths. If G has at most one vertex there is nothing to prove. Otherwise G has an edge, since a globally rigid graph with at least two vertices is connected. For every old edge uv\in E(G), the three new subdivision vertices are common neighbours of u and v in T(G). By Lemma 5, \operatorname{dist}(f(u),f(v))=\operatorname{dist}(g(u),g(v)). Hence the restrictions of f and g to the old vertices realize the same edge lengths of G. Since G is globally rigid, all distances between old vertices must agree.

Choose an old edge uv. After composing g with an isometry of \mathbb R, we may assume g(u)=f(u) and g(v)=f(v). Every old vertex is then fixed, since its distances to the two distinct points u,v agree under f and g. Finally, each new subdivision vertex is adjacent to the two old endpoints of the edge it subdivides, so it is also fixed by its distances to two distinct fixed points. Thus f and g differ by a global isometry, and T(G) is globally rigid.

Let G=([n],E) be globally rigid. First, G is connected: otherwise one can translate one connected component in an injective realization, preserving all edge lengths while changing a distance to a vertex outside the component. Also G has minimum degree at least 2. Indeed, connectedness rules out isolated vertices. If x is a leaf with neighbour y, choose u\in[n]\setminus\{x,y\} and a generic injective realization f such that reflecting f(x) about f(y) does not collide with another vertex and changes the distance from x to u. Replacing f(x) by 2f(y)-f(x) preserves every edge length, since x is a leaf, contradicting global rigidity.

Let D_2 be the set of vertices of degree 2. We claim that D_2 is independent. Suppose that x,y\in D_2 and xy\in E. Let w be the other neighbour of x, and let z be the other neighbour of y. Fix an injective map \varphi\colon[n]\setminus\{x,y\}\to\mathbb R.

If w\neq z, compare the two maps obtained by fixing all other vertices and placing x,y at \varphi(w)+c,\varphi(z)+c in one map and at \varphi(w)-c,\varphi(z)-c in the other. The only edge lengths that can change are xw,yz,xy, and in the two maps they are |c|,|c|, and |\varphi(w)-\varphi(z)|. For all but finitely many choices of c, the two maps are injective realizations with the same edge lengths, but the distance from x to z changes. This contradicts global rigidity.

It remains to consider w=z. Since n\ge4, choose u\in[n]\setminus\{w,x,y\}. Compare the two maps obtained by fixing all other vertices and placing x,y at \varphi(w)+c,\varphi(w)+c+a in one map and at \varphi(w)-c,\varphi(w)-c-a in the other. The only edge lengths that can change are wx,wy,xy, and in both maps they are |c|,|c+a|, and |a|. For a generic choice of a,c, the two maps are injective realizations with the same edge lengths, but the distance from u to x changes. This again contradicts global rigidity. Hence D_2 is independent.

If |D_2| \geq 3n/5, then the edges incident to vertices of D_2 are all distinct, so |E|\geq 2|D_2|\geq 6n/5. Otherwise,

In both cases the average degree is at least 12/5.

Set B=B(U,V), p=\operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{PD}}(U,V), and \rho=\sqrt p. If p\ge (d+2)^{-2}, the claim is trivial. Assume p<(d+2)^{-2}, and let S=\{i\in[n]:\deg_B(i)\le \rho n\}. Observe that |[n]\setminus S|\le \rho n: if \rho=0 this is clear. For \rho>0, set W=[n]\setminus S. Then |W|\rho n<\sum_{i\in W}\deg_B(i)\le2|E(B)|=pn(n-1), hence |W|<\rho(n-1). In particular S\neq\emptyset.

Choose an inclusion-maximal set A\subseteq S with the following two properties: the points \{v_a:a\in A\} are affinely independent, and no two vertices of A are adjacent in B. Write q=|A|, so 1\le q\le d+1. Since B[A] has no edges, all pairwise distances inside A agree for U and V. As \{v_a:a\in A\} is affinely independent, the same is true for \{u_a:a\in A\}; hence the congruence u_a\mapsto v_a on A extends to a Euclidean isometry T of \mathbb{R}^d. Thus T u_a=v_a for every a\in A.

Let F=\operatorname{aff}\{v_a:a\in A\}. We claim that T matches every i\in S that either lies in A, or has no B-edge to any vertex of A. This is clear for i\in A. Now let i\in S\setminus A have no B-edge to A. If v_i\notin F, then A\cup\{i\} still has affinely independent V-points and spans no edge of B, contradicting the maximality of A. Hence v_i\in F. Moreover, since \{a,i\}\notin E(B) for every a\in A, the points T u_i and v_i have the same distances to all reference points \{v_a:a\in A\}. By Fact 17, applied with r=|A|-1, this implies T u_i=v_i.

Thus the only labels in S which may fail to be matched by T are those whose distance to some label in A disagrees between U and V. Since every vertex of A lies in S, there are at most \sum_{a\in A}\deg_B(a)\le q\rho n\le(d+1)\rho n such labels. Thus T mismatches at most (d+1)\rho n labels in S, plus possibly the \rho n labels of [n]\setminus S. Hence \operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{LCI}}(U,V)\le(d+2)\rho=(d+2)\sqrt{\operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{PD}}(U,V)}.

It is enough to prove the lemma for 0<a<1/2; for a\ge1/2, take c_{d,a}=c_{d,1/2}. Put \Omega=\binom{[n]}2, and set \mathcal B_V=\{E(B(U,V)):U\in(\mathbb{R}^d)^n\}\subseteq2^\Omega and \mathcal B_{V,a}=\{B\in\mathcal B_V:|B|\ge a|\Omega|\}. It is enough to show that \operatorname{VCdim}(\mathcal B_V)\le C_0dn for an absolute constant C_0. Indeed, by the \varepsilon-net theorem [zbMATH07478425, Theorem 6.10], with \varepsilon=a and \delta=e^{-n}, a q-random subset of \Omega hits every member of \mathcal B_{V,a} provided

Thus c_{d,a}=4C_{\mathrm{net}}a^{-1}(C_0d\log(1/a)+1) works for all large n, and in particular c_{d,a}=O_a(d).

It remains to bound the VC dimension of \mathcal{B}_V. Let Y\subseteq\Omega, |Y|=m. For ij\in Y, write U=(u_1,\ldots,u_n), u_i=(x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,d}), and set F_{ij}(U)=\sum_{\ell=1}^d (x_{i,\ell}-x_{j,\ell})^2-\|v_i-v_j\|^2. The agreement edges projected to Y are exactly the zero set of the family \{F_{ij}:ij\in Y\}. Thus the number of possible projections to Y is at most the number of zero/nonzero patterns realized by these m quadratic polynomials in dn variables. If Y is shattered, all 2^m agreement/disagreement patterns occur. When m<dn, this already gives m=O(dn). Otherwise these patterns are zero/nonzero patterns of m polynomials of degree 2 in dn variables. By Warren’s theorem [zbMATH06484571, Theorem 10.4], at most \left(Cm/(dn)\right)^{dn} such patterns occur, for some universal constant C>0. Hence

Writing t=m/(dn), this implies 2^t\le Ct, and therefore t=O(1). Thus m=O(dn), as required. All bounds above are independent of the particular configuration V.

Use the proof of Lemma 19 with \varepsilon=\eta. The family of disagreement graphs has VC-dimension O(dn), so the VC \varepsilon-net theorem requires O_d(\eta^{-1}n\log(1/\eta))=O_d(nD^{2/3}\log D) sampled pairs. Since p\binom n2=(1+o(1))Dn/2 and D^{1/3}/\log D\to\infty, the random graph hits every disagreement graph of size at least \eta\binom n2 w.h.p. Thus w.h.p. every compatible U has \operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{PD}}(U,V)<\eta. The final conclusion follows from Lemma 18.

Consider W\subseteq[n] with |W|\ge(1-\gamma)n, and let R be a p-random subset of W. We claim that the probability that R contains no d+1 affinely independent V-points is at most n^{-C\theta+o(1)}. If R has no d+1 affinely independent labels, take a maximal affinely independent A\subseteq R. Then |A|\le d, and R\subseteq L(A):=\{j:v_j\in\operatorname{aff}\{v_a:a\in A\}\}, with L(\emptyset)=\emptyset. Since V is \tau-spanning, |L(A)|\le\tau n, and hence |W\setminus L(A)|\ge\theta n. For fixed A, the probability that A\subseteq R\subseteq L(A) is at most p^{|A|}e^{-\theta pn}. Summing over all |A|\le d gives

as pn=C\ln n.

Now fix M\subseteq[n], |M|=k\le\gamma n, and put W=[n]\setminus M. The sets N_G(i)\setminus M, i\in M, are independent p-random subsets of W. Choose \eta>0 such that C\theta>1+2\eta. By the estimate above, for large enough n, each one of these sets fails to contain d+1 affinely independent V-points with probability at most n^{-1-\eta}. Hence \mathbb{P}(M\text{ violates the desired conclusion})\le n^{-k(1+\eta)}. A union bound over 1\le k\le\gamma n gives

which proves the lemma.

Choose 0<\gamma<1-\tau so small that C(1-\tau-\gamma)>1, and put a=(\gamma/(d+2))^2. Also assume that n is large enough so p\ge c_{d,a}/n. By Lemma 19 and Lemma 21, w.h.p. the following two events hold. First, every U with \operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{PD}}(U,V)\ge a is not G-compatible with V. Second, every nonempty M\subseteq[n] with |M|\le\gamma n contains an index i\in M such that N_G(i)\setminus M contains d+1 labels whose V-points are affinely independent. We show that, on these events, V is reconstructable.

Let U=(u_1,\ldots,u_n) be G-compatible with V. By the first event, \operatorname{dist}_{\mathrm{PD}}(U,V)<a. Applying Lemma 18, there is an isometry T such that, for M:=\{i\in[n]:T u_i\ne v_i\}, we have |M|\le\gamma n. We claim that M=\emptyset, which proves the theorem. Indeed, suppose not. By the second event, there is i\in M such that N_G(i)\setminus M contains labels a_0,\ldots,a_d whose V-points are affinely independent. For every r=0,\ldots,d, we have \operatorname{dist}(T u_i,v_{a_r})=\operatorname{dist}(u_i,u_{a_r})=\operatorname{dist}(v_i,v_{a_r}), where the first equality uses T u_{a_r}=v_{a_r}, and the second uses G-compatibility of U. By Fact 17, applied to the reference points v_{a_0},\ldots,v_{a_d}, this forces T u_i=v_i, contradicting i\in M. Hence M=\emptyset, so U is isometric to V.

We prove the statement by induction on s=\dim\operatorname{aff}\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}. The case s=0 is trivial. Assume s\ge1, put F=\operatorname{aff}\{v_i:i\in[n]\}, and set \alpha=D^{-1/3}, \rho=4\alpha.

First suppose that no affine (s-1)-flat in F contains more than (1-\rho)n labels. Call a set M\subseteq[n] bad if, for every i\in M, the set N_G(i)\setminus M contains no s+1 labels whose V-points are affinely independent.

We claim that w.h.p. there is no bad set M with \alpha n\le |M|\le2\alpha n. Fix such M, write m=|M|, and put W=[n]\setminus M. If R\subseteq W is p-random, then the probability that R contains no s+1 affinely independent labels is at most \sum_{r=0}^{s}\binom nr p^r e^{-2\alpha D}\le (1+D)^s e^{-2\alpha D}\le e^{-\alpha D}. Indeed, after fixing a maximal affinely independent A\subseteq R, all of R must lie in L_A:=\operatorname{aff}\{v_a:a\in A\}, with L_\emptyset=\emptyset. If A\ne\emptyset, then L_A is contained in an affine (s-1)-flat in F; hence in all cases L_A contains at most (1-\rho)n labels. Thus |W\setminus L_A|\ge \rho n-|M|\ge(\rho-2\alpha)n=2\alpha n. Independence over i\in M gives probability at most e^{-\alpha Dm}. Therefore

since \alpha D=D^{2/3}\gg\log(1/\alpha).

Work on this event and on the event of Corollary 20. For a compatible U and an isometry T_U, set M_{T_U}(U,V):=\{i:T_Uu_i\ne v_i\}. If |M_{T_U}(U,V)|\le\alpha n, then M_{T_U}(U,V) is bad: otherwise some i\in M_{T_U}(U,V) has neighbours a_0,\ldots,a_s\notin M_{T_U}(U,V) whose V-points are affinely independent. Since T_Uu_{a_j}=v_{a_j} and U is compatible with V, we have \|T_Uu_i-v_{a_j}\|=\|u_i-u_{a_j}\|=\|v_i-v_{a_j}\| for all j. The points v_{a_0},\ldots,v_{a_s} affinely span F, and v_i\in F, so Fact 17, applied with r=s to x=v_i and the reference points v_{a_0},\ldots,v_{a_s}, forces T_Uu_i=v_i, a contradiction.

Let X be the union of all sets M_{T_U}(U,V), where U is compatible, T_U is an isometry, and |M_{T_U}(U,V)|\le\alpha n. A union of bad sets is bad. If |X|>\alpha n, choose a minimal sub-union whose size is at least \alpha n. Since each added set has size at most \alpha n, this finite sub-union has size between \alpha n and 2\alpha n, a contradiction. Hence |X|\le\alpha n. Let A=[n]\setminus X. For every compatible U, Corollary 20 gives an isometry T_U with |M_{T_U}(U,V)|\le\alpha n; hence M_{T_U}(U,V)\subseteq X, so T_Uu_i=v_i for every i\in A. Therefore A is reconstructable and |A|\ge(1-\alpha)n.

It remains to handle the case where some affine (s-1)-flat L\subseteq F contains S=\{i:v_i\in L\} with |S|\ge(1-\rho)n. The graph G[S] is distributed as G(|S|,p), and p|S|=(1-o(1))D\to\infty. By the induction hypothesis applied to the subconfiguration (v_i)_{i\in S}, whose affine span has dimension at most s-1, the distances revealed inside S reconstruct a set A\subseteq S with |A|=|S|-o(|S|)=n-o(n) w.h.p. Since every G-compatible configuration restricts to a G[S]-compatible configuration on S, the same A is reconstructable from the full revealed data.

For any fixed c<1, eventually p<c/n. By the well-known subcritical random graph bound, w.h.p. all components of G have size O(\log n). It is clear that any reconstructable set with at least two labels lies in one component. Hence every reconstructable set has size o(n).

Let N be the number of monotone paths from 1 to n. A monotone path with k internal vertices is determined by choosing k vertices from \{2,\ldots,n-1\}, so \mathbb{E} N=\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}\binom{n-2}{k}p^{k+1}=p(1+p)^{n-2}\le p e^{pn}. For p=(1-\varepsilon)\ln n/n, this is o(1), and Markov’s inequality concludes the subcritical case.

It remains to analyze the supercritical case. Write p=c\ln n/n, where c=1+\varepsilon>1.

To complete the proof, apply Claim ? in the left half. W.h.p. there is a set

such that every u\in L is reachable from 1 by a monotone path contained in the left half.

Applying the same argument to the right half in the reverse order, w.h.p. there is a set

such that every v\in R has a monotone path from v to n contained in the right half.

The two explorations expose only edges inside the two halves, so all edges between L and R are still unexposed. Conditional on L and R,

because \tau>1/2. Hence w.h.p. there is an edge uv with u\in L, v\in R. Since u<v, concatenating a monotone path from 1 to u, the edge uv, and a monotone path from v to n, gives a monotone path from 1 to n. This proves the supercritical assertion, and hence the theorem.