Document Open Access Logo

Lower Bounds for Semialgebraic Range Searching and Stabbing Problems

Authors Peyman Afshani, Pingan Cheng

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.SoCG.2021.8.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.93 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Peyman Afshani
  • Aarhus University, Denmark
Pingan Cheng
  • Aarhus University, Denmark

Funding

Supported by DFF (Det Frie Forskningsråd) of Danish Council for Independent Research under grant ID DFF-7014-00404.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Esther Ezra for sparking the initial ideas behind the proof.

Cite As Get BibTex

Peyman Afshani and Pingan Cheng. Lower Bounds for Semialgebraic Range Searching and Stabbing Problems. In 37th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2021). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 189, pp. 8:1-8:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2021.8

Abstract

In the semialgebraic range searching problem, we are given a set of n points in ℝ^d and we want to preprocess the points such that for any query range belonging to a family of constant complexity semialgebraic sets (Tarski cells), all the points intersecting the range can be reported or counted efficiently. When the ranges are composed of simplices, then the problem is well-understood: it can be solved using S(n) space and with Q(n) query time with S(n)Q^d(n) = Õ(n^d) where the Õ(⋅) notation hides polylogarithmic factors and this trade-off is tight (up to n^o(1) factors). Consequently, there exists "low space" structures that use O(n) space with O(n^{1-1/d}) query time and "fast query" structures that use O(n^d) space with O(log^{d+1} n) query time. However, for the general semialgebraic ranges, only "low space" solutions are known, but the best solutions match the same trade-off curve as the simplex queries, with O(n) space and Õ(n^{1-1/d}) query time. It has been conjectured that the same could be done for the "fast query" case but this open problem has stayed unresolved. 
Here, we disprove this conjecture. We give the first nontrivial lower bounds for semilagebraic range searching and other related problems. More precisely, we show that any data structure for reporting the points between two concentric circles, a problem that we call 2D annulus reporting problem, with Q(n) query time must use S(n) = Ω^o(n³/Q(n)⁵) space where the Ω^o(⋅) notation hides n^o(1) factors, meaning, for Q(n) = O(log^{O(1)}n), Ω^o(n³) space must be used. In addition, we study the problem of reporting the subset of input points between two polynomials of the form Y = ∑_{i=0}^Δ a_i Xⁱ where values a_0,⋯,a_Δ are given at the query time, a problem that we call polynomial slab reporting. For this, we show a space lower bound of Ω^o(n^{Δ+1}/Q(n)^{Δ²+Δ}), which shows for Q(n) = O(log^{O(1)}n), we must use Ω^o(n^{Δ+1}) space. We also consider the dual problems of semialgebraic range searching, semialgebraic stabbing problems, and present lower bounds for them. In particular, we show that in linear space, any data structure that solves 2D annulus stabbing problems must use Ω(n^{2/3}) query time. Note that this almost matches the upper bound obtained by lifting 2D annuli to 3D. Like semialgebraic range searching, we also present lower bounds for general semialgebraic slab stabbing problems. Again, our lower bounds are almost tight for linear size data structures in this case.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational geometry
Keywords
  • Computational Geometry
  • Data Structures and Algorithms

Metrics

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

Related Versions

References

  1. Peyman Afshani. Improved pointer machine and I/O lower bounds for simplex range reporting and related problems. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, SoCG '12, page 339–346, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2261250.2261301.
  2. Peyman Afshani and Anne Driemel. On the complexity of range searching among curves. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 898-917. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975031.58.
  3. Pankaj K. Agarwal. Simplex Range Searching and Its Variants: A Review, pages 1-30. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44479-6_1.
  4. Pankaj K. Agarwal, Boris Aronov, Esther Ezra, and Joshua Zahl. An efficient algorithm for generalized polynomial partitioning and its applications. In 35th International Symposium on Computational Geometry, volume 129 of LIPIcs. Leibniz Int. Proc. Inform., pages Art. No. 5, 14. Schloss Dagstuhl. Leibniz-Zent. Inform., Wadern, 2019. Google Scholar
  5. Pankaj K. Agarwal and Jiří Matoušek. On range searching with semialgebraic sets. Discrete Comput. Geom., 11(4):393-418, 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574015.
  6. Pankaj K. Agarwal, Jiří Matoušek, and Micha Sharir. On range searching with semialgebraic sets. II. SIAM J. Comput., 42(6):2039-2062, 2013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/120890855.
  7. Timothy M. Chan. Optimal partition trees. Discrete Comput. Geom., 47(4):661-690, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-012-9410-z.
  8. B. Chazelle and J. Friedman. A deterministic view of random sampling and its use in geometry. Combinatorica, 10(3):229-249, 1990. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02122778.
  9. Bernard Chazelle. Lower bounds on the complexity of polytope range searching. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 2(4):637-666, 1989. URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/1990891.
  10. Bernard Chazelle. Lower bounds for orthogonal range searching. I. The reporting case. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 37(2):200-212, 1990. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/77600.77614.
  11. Bernard Chazelle. Cutting hyperplanes for divide-and-conquer. Discrete Comput. Geom., 9(2):145–158, 1993. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02189314.
  12. Bernard Chazelle. Cuttings. In Dinesh P. Mehta and Sartaj Sahni, editors, Handbook of Data Structures and Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018. Second edition. URL: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315119335.
  13. Bernard Chazelle and Burton Rosenberg. Simplex range reporting on a pointer machine. Comput. Geom., 5(5):237-247, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0925-7721(95)00002-X.
  14. Bernard Chazelle and Emo Welzl. Quasi-optimal range searching in spaces of finite VC-dimension. Discrete Comput. Geom., 4(5):467-489, 1989. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02187743.
  15. Kenneth L. Clarkson. New applications of random sampling in computational geometry. Discrete Comput. Geom., 2(2):195-222, 1987. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02187879.
  16. Zeev Dvir. On the size of Kakeya sets in finite fields. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 22(4):1093-1097, 2009. URL: https://doi.org/10.1090/S0894-0347-08-00607-3.
  17. Jacob E. Goodman, Joseph O'Rourke, and Csaba D. Tóth, editors. Handbook of discrete and computational geometry. Discrete Mathematics and its Applications (Boca Raton). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018. Third edition. URL: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315119601.
  18. Larry Guth and Nets Hawk Katz. On the Erdős distinct distances problem in the plane. Ann. of Math. (2), 181(1):155-190, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2015.181.1.2.
  19. D Haussler and E Welzl. Epsilon-nets and simplex range queries. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, SCG '86, page 61–71, New York, NY, USA, 1986. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/10515.10522.
  20. Jiří Matoušek. Cutting hyperplane arrangements. Discrete Comput. Geom., 6(5):385-406, 1991. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574697.
  21. Jiří Matoušek. Range searching with efficient hierarchical cuttings. Discrete Comput. Geom., 10(2):157-182, 1993. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02573972.
  22. Jiří Matoušek and Zuzana Patáková. Multilevel polynomial partitions and simplified range searching. Discrete Comput. Geom., 54(1):22-41, 2015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-015-9701-2.
  23. Emo Welzl. Partition trees for triangle counting and other range searching problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry (Urbana, IL, 1988), pages 23-33. ACM, New York, 1988. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/73393.73397.
  24. Dan E. Willard. Polygon retrieval. SIAM J. Comput., 11(1):149-165, 1982. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/0211012.
  25. A C Yao and F F Yao. A general approach to d-dimensional geometric queries. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '85, page 163–168, New York, NY, USA, 1985. Association for Computing Machinery. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/22145.22163.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact