Do you want to publish a course? Click here

Covering Polygons is Even Harder

140   0   0.0 ( 0 )
 Added by Mikkel Abrahamsen
 Publication date 2021
and research's language is English




Ask ChatGPT about the research

In the MINIMUM CONVEX COVER (MCC) problem, we are given a simple polygon $mathcal P$ and an integer $k$, and the question is if there exist $k$ convex polygons whose union is $mathcal P$. It is known that MCC is $mathsf{NP}$-hard [Culberson & Reckhow: Covering polygons is hard, FOCS 1988/Journal of Algorithms 1994] and in $existsmathbb{R}$ [ORourke: The complexity of computing minimum convex covers for polygons, Allerton 1982]. We prove that MCC is $existsmathbb{R}$-hard, and the problem is thus $existsmathbb{R}$-complete. In other words, the problem is equivalent to deciding whether a system of polynomial equations and inequalities with integer coefficients has a real solution. If a cover for our constructed polygon exists, then so does a cover consisting entirely of triangles. As a byproduct, we therefore also establish that it is $existsmathbb{R}$-complete to decide whether $k$ triangles cover a given polygon. The issue that it was not known if finding a minimum cover is in $mathsf{NP}$ has repeatedly been raised in the literature, and it was mentioned as a long-standing open question already in 2001 [Eidenbenz & Widmayer: An approximation algorithm for minimum convex cover with logarithmic performance guarantee, ESA 2001/SIAM Journal on Computing 2003]. We prove that assuming the widespread belief that $mathsf{NP} eqexistsmathbb{R}$, the problem is not in $mathsf{NP}$. An implication of the result is that many natural approaches to finding small covers are bound to give suboptimal solutions in some cases, since irrational coordinates of arbitrarily high algebraic degree can be needed for the corners of the pieces in an optimal solution.

rate research

Read More

We study several problems on geometric packing and covering with movement. Given a family $mathcal{I}$ of $n$ intervals of $kappa$ distinct lengths, and another interval $B$, can we pack the intervals in $mathcal{I}$ inside $B$ (respectively, cover $B$ by the intervals in $mathcal{I}$) by moving $tau$ intervals and keeping the other $sigma = n - tau$ intervals unmoved? We show that both packing and covering are W[1]-hard with any one of $kappa$, $tau$, and $sigma$ as single parameter, but are FPT with combined parameters $kappa$ and $tau$. We also obtain improved polynomial-time algorithms for packing and covering, including an $O(nlog^2 n)$ time algorithm for covering, when all intervals in $mathcal{I}$ have the same length.
Exactly 20 years ago at MFCS, Demaine posed the open problem whether the game of Dots & Boxes is PSPACE-complete. Dots & Boxes has been studied extensively, with for instance a chapter in Berlekamp et al. Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays, a whole book on the game The Dots and Boxes Game: Sophisticated Childs Play by Berlekamp, and numerous articles in the Games of No Chance series. While known to be NP-hard, the question of its complexity remained open. We resolve this question, proving that the game is PSPACE-complete by a reduction from a game played on propositional formulas.
Deciding whether a family of disjoint line segments in the plane can be linked into a simple polygon (or a simple polygonal chain) by adding segments between their endpoints is NP-hard.
Deciding whether a family of disjoint axis-parallel line segments in the plane can be linked into a simple polygon (or a simple polygonal chain) by adding segments between their endpoints is NP-hard.
Computing the similarity of two point sets is a ubiquitous task in medical imaging, geometric shape comparison, trajectory analysis, and many more settings. Arguably the most basic distance measure for this task is the Hausdorff distance, which assigns to each point from one set the closest point in the other set and then evaluates the maximum distance of any assigned pair. A drawback is that this distance measure is not translational invariant, that is, comparing two objects just according to their shape while disregarding their position in space is impossible. Fortunately, there is a canonical translational invariant version, the Hausdorff distance under translation, which minimizes the Hausdorff distance over all translations of one of the point sets. For point sets of size $n$ and $m$, the Hausdorff distance under translation can be computed in time $tilde O(nm)$ for the $L_1$ and $L_infty$ norm [Chew, Kedem SWAT92] and $tilde O(nm (n+m))$ for the $L_2$ norm [Huttenlocher, Kedem, Sharir DCG93]. As these bounds have not been improved for over 25 years, in this paper we approach the Hausdorff distance under translation from the perspective of fine-grained complexity theory. We show (i) a matching lower bound of $(nm)^{1-o(1)}$ for $L_1$ and $L_infty$ (and all other $L_p$ norms) assuming the Orthogonal Vectors Hypothesis and (ii) a matching lower bound of $n^{2-o(1)}$ for $L_2$ in the imbalanced case of $m = O(1)$ assuming the 3SUM Hypothesis.
comments
Fetching comments Fetching comments
mircosoft-partner

هل ترغب بارسال اشعارات عن اخر التحديثات في شمرا-اكاديميا