Consider a rooted tree $$T=(V,E)$$ with leaf set $$\mathcal L\subseteq V$$ and positive vertex weights $$w : V\setminus \mathcal L\to \mathbb R_+$$ that are non-increasing along root-leaf paths. We recall the ultrametric $$d_w$$ defined on $$\mathcal L$$ by

$$d_w(\ell,\ell') \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}= w(\mathrm{lca}(\ell,\ell')).$$

Say that $$(\mathcal L,d_w)$$ is a $$\tau$$-HST metric for some $$\tau \geq 1$$ if $$\mathcal L$$ is the leaf set of some weighted tree $$T=(V,E)$$, and $$d_w$$ is the ultrametric corresponding to a weight $$w$$ on $$T$$ with the property that $$w(y) \leq w(x)/\tau$$ whenever $$y$$ is a child of $$x$$. (So for a finite metric space, the notions of $$1$$-HST metric and ultrametic are equivalent.) Say that $$(\mathcal L,d)$$ is a strict $$\tau$$-HST metric if we require the stronger property that $$w(y)=w(x)/\tau$$ whenever $$x,y \in V$$ are internal nodes and $$y$$ is a child of $$x$$.

Two metrics $$d$$ and $$d'$$ on a set $$X$$ are $$K$$-equivalent if there is a constant $$c > 0$$ such that $d(x,y) \leq c\, d'(x,y) \leq K d(x,y)\qquad \forall x,y \in X\,.$ We leave the following statements as an exercise: For every $$\tau > 1$$, every $$1$$-HST is $$\tau$$-equivalent to some strict $$\tau$$-HST.

There is a constant $$C \geq 1$$ such that if $$(\mathcal L,d_w)$$ is a $$C (\log n)^2$$-HST metric, where $$n=|\mathcal L|$$, then the competitive ratio for MTS on $$(\mathcal L,d_w)$$ is $$\Omega\left(\log n\right)$$.

While the preceding theorem applies only to $\tau$-HSTs with $\tau$ sufficiently large, the next lemma shows how we can improve the separation parameter by passing to a subset of leaves.

If $$(\mathcal L,d)$$ is a strict $$2$$-HST, then for every $$k \in \mathbb N$$, there is a subset $$\mathcal L' \subseteq \mathcal L$$ with

$$|\mathcal{L}'| \geq |\mathcal{L}|^{1/k},$$

and such that $$(\mathcal L', d)$$ is a $$2^k$$-HST metric.

Combining this with Theorem 1 yields:

If $$(\mathcal L,d)$$ is a $$1$$-HST metric with $$n=|\mathcal L|$$, then the competitive ratio for MTS on $$(\mathcal L,d)$$ is at least $$\Omega\left(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n}\right)$$.

Recall that the Metric Ramsey theorem from the preceding lecture implies that every $$n$$-point metric space contains a subset of size $$\sqrt{n}$$ that is $$O(1)$$-equivalent to a $$1$$-HST. This yields:

For every $$n$$-point metric space, the competitive ratio for MTS is at least $$\Omega(\log n/\log \log n)$$.

We will not prove Theorem 1, but we will prove a lower bound for two special cases that together capture the essential elements of the full argument. The general case is discussed at the end.

## The complete d-ary tree

The first case we’ll consider is when $$T$$ is a $$d$$-ary tree of height $$h$$, so that $$|\mathcal L|=d^h$$. Define $$w(x)=\tau^{-\mathrm{dist}_T(x,r)}$$, where $$r$$ is the root of $$T$$ and $$\mathrm{dist}_T$$ denotes the combinatorial distance on $$T$$. Then $$(\mathcal L,d_w)$$ is a $$\tau$$-HST.

Our goal is to establish a lower bound of $$\Omega(h \log d)$$ on the competitive ratio for MTS when $$\tau$$ is sufficiently large. Note that when $$\tau = \Theta(1)$$ and $$d=2$$, it is an open problem to exhibit an $$\Omega(h)$$ lower bound, and proving such a bound is likely the most difficult obstacle in obtaining an $$\Omega(\log n)$$ lower bound for every $$n$$-point ultrametric.

Our costs functions will be of the form $$\{\epsilon\cdot c_\ell : \ell \in \mathcal L\}$$, where $$\epsilon> 0$$ is a number, and $c_\ell(\ell') = \begin{cases} 0 & \ell=\ell' \\ 1 & \ell \neq \ell'\,. \end{cases}$ More succinctly: $$c_\ell \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}= \mathbf{1}-\mathbf{1}_\ell$$.

Let $$\alpha_h$$ be the competitive ratio for height $$h$$. We will prove inductively that $$\alpha_h \geq \Omega(h \log d)$$.

Consider first the case $$h=1$$. We define the height-$$1$$ cost sequence. The root $$r$$ has $$d$$ leaves beneath it. We do the following $$d \log d$$ times: Choose a random leaf $$\ell$$ and play the cost function $$c_\ell$$. It is straightforward that if $$\mathrm{alg}_1$$ denotes the cost of an online algorithm, then: $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_1] \geq \log d\,.$ (Note that if a cost comes at $$\ell$$, then the algorithm must either move and pay movement cost $$1$$, or stay in place and pay service cost $$1$$.)

Consider the following offline algorithm: Move to the leaf that will be chosen the smallest number of times, and stay there. The movement cost if $$1$$, and a standard coupon collecting argument shows that the service cost is $$O(1)$$, hence: $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_1] \leq O(1)\,.$ We conclude that the competitive ratio satisfies $\alpha_1 \geq c \log d$ for some $$c > 0$$.

Consider now the case of $$h \geq 2$$. We define the height-$$h$$ cost sequence. The root has beneath it $$d$$ subtrees $$T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_d$$ of height $$h-1$$. For some number $$\mu_h$$ to be chosen shortly, we do the following $$\mu_h d$$ times: Choose $$i \in \{1,2,\ldots,d\}$$ uniformly at random and play in $$T_i$$ the height-$$(h-1)$$ cost sequence scaled by $$1/\tau$$.

Consider first what an online algorithm can do. If the algorithm’s state lies in $$T_i$$ when a height-$$(h-1)$$ cost sequence is imposed on $$T_i$$, it can either leave $$T_i$$ at some point during the sequence, or it can remain in $$T_i$$. Hence the algorithm pays at least $\min\left(1,\tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_{h-1}]\right)$. It follows that:

$\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_h] \geq \mu_h \min\left(1,\tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_{h-1}]\right) \geq \mu_h \min\left(1,\tau^{-1} \alpha_{h-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]\right)\,.$

Thus if

$$\label{eq:tauchoice} \tau \geq \alpha_{h-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]$$

it holds that $$\label{eq:alg} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_h] \geq \mu_h \tau^{-1} \alpha_{h-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]\,.$$ We will choose $$\tau$$ so that \eqref{eq:tauchoice} holds.

Let us now analyze an offline algorithm. Let $$\rho_i$$ denote the number of times that $$T_i$$ is chosen. The offline algorithm first moves to some $$T_i$$ with $$\rho_i$$ minimal, and then plays optimally against level-$$(h-1)$$ cost sequences arriving in $$T_i$$.

If $$\mu_h \geq \Omega(\log d)$$, then the normal approximation to a binomial distribution shows that there is a constant $$0 < c' < 1$$ such that $\mathbb{E}\left[\min(\rho_1,\ldots,\rho_d)\right] \leq \mu_h - c'\sqrt{\mu_h \log d}\,.$ Hence incorporating the movement cost yields: $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] \leq 1 + \left(\mu_h - c'\sqrt{\mu_h \log d}\right) \tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]\,.$

We now choose $$\mu_h$$ so that $c' \sqrt{\mu_h \log d} \tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}] = 2\,,$ i.e., $\mu_h \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}= \frac{4}{\log d} \left(\frac\tau{c' \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]}\right)^2$ Note from \eqref{eq:tauchoice}, we have $$\label{eq:muh} \mu_h \geq \frac{4}{(c')^2\log d} \alpha_{h-1}^2.$$ Since $$\alpha_{h-1} \geq \alpha_1 \geq \Omega(\log d)$$ it follows that $$\mu_h \geq \log d$$ for $$c'$$ chosen small enough. (In particular, the normal approximation applies.)

Our choice of $$\mu_h$$ ensures that \begin{align} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] &\leq \left(\mu_h-\frac{c'}{2} \sqrt{\mu_h \log d}\right) \tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}] \label{eq:opt}\end{align} Combining this with \eqref{eq:alg} yields

$$\alpha_h \geq \frac{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_h]}{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h]} \geq \frac{\alpha_{h-1}}{1-\frac{c'}{2} \sqrt{\frac{\log d}{\mu_h}}} \geq \alpha_{h-1} \left(1+\frac{c'}{2} \sqrt{\frac{\log d}{\mu_h}}\right),$$

where the latter inequality holds because $$c' < 1$$ and $$\mu_h \geq \log d$$. Using \eqref{eq:muh}, this gives $\alpha_h \geq \alpha_{h-1} + \frac{c'}{2} \log d\,,$ completing the argument.

Note that in \eqref{eq:tauchoice}, we required $$\tau \geq \alpha_{h-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]$$. So let us use \eqref{eq:opt} to compute: $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] \leq \mu_h \tau^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}] \leq \frac{O(1)}{\log d} \frac\tau{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]}$ Since $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] \cdot \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}] \leq O(\tau/\log d)\,,$ and $$\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] \geq \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}] \geq 1$$ for all $$h$$, it follows that $$\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_h] \leq O(\sqrt{\tau/\log d})$$, meaning that $$\tau \geq \alpha_{h-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{h-1}]$$ will be satisfied for $$\tau \geq C(\alpha_{h-1}/\log d)^2 \asymp h^2$$. Since $$h \asymp \frac{\log n}{\log d}$$, this yields completes the proof of in the special case of a $$d$$-regular HST.

## The “superincreasing” metric

We will now consider a highly unbalanced family of HSTs. These were analyzed in a paper of Karloff, Rabani, and Ravid.

Let us define the trees $$\{T_n\}$$ as follows: The root $$r_{n}$$ of $$T_n$$ has two children. The left child is a copy of $$T_{n-1}$$ of rooted at $$r_{n-1}$$, and the right child is a single leaf. We denote $$w_n(r_n)=1$$, and $$w_n(r_{n-1}) = 1/\tau_n$$, where $$\tau_n > \tau_{n-1} > \cdots > 0$$ is a sequence of positive weights we will choose soon, and such that $$\tau_n \leq O(\log n)$$.

The basic structure of our argument will be similar to the $$d$$-regular case. We do the following $$2 \mu_n$$ times: Choose $$i \in \{L,R\}$$ uniformly at random. If $$i=L$$, we play a height-$$(n-1)$$ cost sequence on the left subtree (scaled by $$1/\tau_n$$). Otherwise, we play $$c_\ell$$, where $$\ell$$ is the leaf constituting the right subtree.

Consider an online algorithm. If the algorithm sits in the left subtree when $$i=L$$, then either the algorithm moves out of the subtree (movement cost $$1$$), or it incurs the cost of a height-$$(n-1)$$ inductive sequence scaled by $$1/\tau_n$$. If it sits in the right subtree, then it pays cost $$1$$ (either by moving or staying and incurring the service cost). If we choose $$\tau_n \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}=\alpha_{n-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}]$$, then such an algorithm always pays at least $$\tau_n^{-1} \alpha_{n-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}]$$ in any of these cases. Therefore:

$$\label{eq:algn} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_n] \geq \mu_n \tau_n^{-1} \alpha_{n-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}].$$

We now bound the cost of the optimal offline algorithm. Let $$\rho_L$$ be the number of times $$i=L$$ and let $$\rho_R \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}= 2\mu_n - \rho_L$$. The algorithm will always sit by default in the left subtree. If $$\rho_R=0$$, it will move to the right subtree, suffer zero service cost there, and then move back to the left subtree (paying total cost $$2$$). If $$\rho_R > 0$$, the algorithm will remain in the left subtree and play an optimal strategy for $$T_{n-1}$$.

This yields: \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_n] &\leq \left(1-{\mathbb{P}}[\rho_R=0]\right) \mathbb{E}\left[\rho_L \tau_n^{-1} \mathrm{opt}_{n-1} \mid \rho_R > 0\right] + 2 {\mathbb{P}}[\rho_R=0] \\ &\leq (1-4^{-\mu_n}) \mu_n \tau_n^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}] + 2 \cdot 4^{-\mu_n}.\end{aligned} Now choose: $\mu_n \mathrel{\vcenter{:}}=\frac{4 \tau_n}{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}]} = 4 \alpha_{n-1}\,.$ This yields: $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_n] \leq \left(1-\tfrac12 4^{-4 \alpha_n}\right) \mu_n \tau_n^{-1} \mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_{n-1}].$

Combined with \eqref{eq:algn}, we have $\alpha_n \geq \frac{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{alg}_n]}{\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_n]} \geq \alpha_{n-1} + \tfrac12 4^{-4\alpha_{n-1}}.$ This implies that $$\alpha_n \geq \beta \log n$$ for some positive $$\beta < 1$$. (To see this observe, that if $$f(x)=\beta \log x$$, then $$f'(x) = \beta/x < \frac12 4^{-4 \beta \log x}$$ for $$\beta$$ chosen small enough.)

Note furthermore that $\mathbb{E}[\mathrm{opt}_n] \leq 4\,,$ and therefore $$\tau_n \leq O(\log n)$$.

## The general case

We have demonstrated lower bounds in two cases: When the underlying tree $$T$$ is regular, and when it is unbalanced and binary. The general case can be proved by combining these two strategies along any $$\Omega((\log n)^2)$$-HST. The next lemma contains the basic idea. We leave it to the reader as a basic exercise. (Hint: Use the concavity of $$x \mapsto \sqrt{x}$$.)

Suppose that $$n=n_1+n_2+\cdots+n_m$$ where $$n_1 \geq n_2 \geq \cdots \geq n_m \geq 1$$. Then either $$\sqrt{n_1}+\sqrt{n_2} \geq \sqrt{n}$$, or there is some $$\ell \geq 3$$ such that $$\ell \cdot \sqrt{n_\ell} \geq \sqrt{n}$$.

Suppose now that $$T$$ is a rooted tree with subtrees $$T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_m$$ beneath the root, and such that $$T_i$$ has $$n_i$$ leaves with $$n_1 \geq n_2 \geq \cdots \geq n_m \geq 1$$. The lemma says we can either consider only the first two subtrees (the binary, possibly “unbalanced” case), or we can take the first $$\ell$$ subtrees for some $$\ell \geq 3$$, prune them so they all have exactly $$n_\ell$$ leaves, and then prove a lower bound. Analyzing these two cases correspond roughly to the two lower bound arguments above.