Kernelization of the Subset General Position Problem in Geometry

Authors Jean-Daniel Boissonnat, Kunal Dutta, Arijit Ghosh, Sudeshna Kolay



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2017.25.pdf
  • Filesize: 439 kB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Jean-Daniel Boissonnat
Kunal Dutta
Arijit Ghosh
Sudeshna Kolay

Cite AsGet BibTex

Jean-Daniel Boissonnat, Kunal Dutta, Arijit Ghosh, and Sudeshna Kolay. Kernelization of the Subset General Position Problem in Geometry. In 42nd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 83, pp. 25:1-25:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2017.25

Abstract

In this paper, we consider variants of the Geometric Subset General Position problem. In defining this problem, a geometric subsystem is specified, like a subsystem of lines, hyperplanes or spheres. The input of the problem is a set of n points in \mathbb{R}^d and a positive integer k. The objective is to find a subset of at least k input points such that this subset is in general position with respect to the specified subsystem. For example, a set of points is in general position with respect to a subsystem of hyperplanes in \mathbb{R}^d if no d+1 points lie on the same hyperplane. In this paper, we study the Hyperplane Subset General Position problem under two parameterizations. When parameterized by k then we exhibit a polynomial kernelization for the problem. When parameterized by h=n-k, or the dual parameter, then we exhibit polynomial kernels which are also tight, under standard complexity theoretic assumptions. We can also exhibit similar kernelization results for d-Polynomial Subset General Position, where a vector space of polynomials of degree at most d are specified as the underlying subsystem such that the size of the basis for this vector space is b. The objective is to find a set of at least k input points, or in the dual delete at most h = n-k points, such that no b+1 points lie on the same polynomial. Notice that this is a generalization of many well-studied geometric variants of the Set Cover problem, such as Circle Subset General Position. We also study general projective variants of these problems. These problems are also related to other geometric problems like Subset Delaunay Triangulation problem.
Keywords
  • Incidence Geometry
  • Kernel Lower bounds
  • Hyperplanes
  • Bounded degree polynomials

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads

References

  1. Pankaj K Agarwal and Micha Sharir. Arrangements and their applications. Handbook of Computational Geometry, pages 49-119, 2000. Google Scholar
  2. Hans L. Bodlaender, Stéphan Thomassé, and Anders Yeo. Kernel bounds for disjoint cycles and disjoint paths. Theor. Comput. Sci., 412(35):4570-4578, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. C. Cao. Study on Two Optimization Problems: Line Cover and Maximum Genus Embedding. Master’s thesis, Texas A&M University, May 2012. Google Scholar
  4. Jean Cardinal, Csaba D. Tóth, and David R. Wood. General position subsets and independent hyperplanes in d-space. Journal of Geometry, pages 1-11, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00022-016-0323-5.
  5. Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Lukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  6. Mark De Berg, Marc Van Kreveld, Mark Overmars, and Otfried Cheong Schwarzkopf. Computational geometry. In Computational geometry, pages 1-17. Springer, 2000. Google Scholar
  7. Holger Dell and Dieter Van Melkebeek. Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 251-260. ACM, 2010. Google Scholar
  8. Herbert Edelsbrunner and Leonidas J. Guibas. Topologically Sweeping an Arrangement. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 38(1):165-194, 1989. Google Scholar
  9. Herbert Edelsbrunner and Leonidas J. Guibas. Corrigendum: Topologically Sweeping an Arrangement. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 42(2):249-251, 1991. Google Scholar
  10. Herbert Edelsbrunner and Ernst Peter Mücke. Simulation of Simplicity: A Technique to Cope with Degenerate Cases in Geometric Algorithms. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 9(1):66-104, 1990. Google Scholar
  11. Herbert Edelsbrunner, Joseph O'Rourke, and Raimund Seidel. Constructing Arrangements of Lines and Hyperplanes with Applications. SIAM J. Comput., 15(2):341-363, 1986. Google Scholar
  12. Jeff Erickson and Raimund Seidel. Better Lower Bounds on Detecting Affine and Spherical Degeneracies. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 13:41-57, 1995. Google Scholar
  13. Jeff Erickson and Raimund Seidel. Erratum to Better Lower Bounds on Detecting Affine and Spherical Degeneracies. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 18(2):239-240, 1997. Google Scholar
  14. Vincent Froese, Iyad Kanj, André Nichterlein, and Rolf Niedermeier. Finding Points in General Position. CCCG, pages 7-14, 2016. Google Scholar
  15. Stefan Kratsch, Geevarghese Philip, and Saurabh Ray. Point Line Cover: The Easy Kernel is Essentially Tight. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 12(3):40, 2016. Google Scholar
  16. Stefan Langerman and Pat Morin. Covering things with things. Discrete &Computational Geometry, 33(4):717-729, 2005. Google Scholar
  17. Jiří Matoušek. Lectures on Discrete Geometry, volume 108. Springer New York, 2002. Google Scholar
  18. Michael S Payne and David R Wood. On the general position subset selection problem. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 27(4):1727-1733, 2013. Google Scholar
  19. René van Bevern. Towards optimal and expressive kernelization for d-hitting set. Algorithmica, 70(1):129-147, 2014. Google Scholar