Advertisement

Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 618–635 | Cite as

Local search strikes again: PTAS for variants of geometric covering and packing

  • Pradeesha Ashok
  • Aniket Basu RoyEmail author
  • Sathish Govindarajan
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Geometric Covering and Packing problems have been extensively studied in the last few decades and have applications in diverse areas. Several variants and generalizations of these problems have been studied recently. In this paper, we look at the following covering variants where we require that each point is “uniquely” covered, i.e., it is covered by exactly one object: Unique Coverage problem, where we want to maximize the number of uniquely covered points and Exact Cover problem, where we want to uniquely cover every point and minimize the number of objects used for covering. We also look at the following generalizations: Multi Cover problem, a generalization of Set Cover, the objective is to select the minimum subset of objects with the constraint that each input point p is covered by at least \(d_p\) objects in the solution, where \(d_p\) is the demand of point p. And Shallow Packing problem, a generalization of Packing problem, where we want to select the maximum subset of objects with the constraint that any point in the plane is contained in at most k objects in the solution. The above problems are NP-hard even for unit squares in the plane. Thus, the focus has been on obtaining good approximation algorithms. Local search has been quite successful in the recent past in obtaining good approximation algorithms for a wide variety of problems. We consider the Unique Coverage and Multi Cover problems on non-piercing objects, which is a broad class that includes squares, disks, pseudo-disks, etc. and show that the local search algorithm yields a PTAS approximation under the assumption that the depth of every input point is at most some fixed constant. For Unique Coverage we further assume that every object has at most a constant degree. For the Shallow Packing problem, we show that the local search algorithm yields a PTAS approximation for objects with sub-quadratic union complexity, which is a very broad class of objects that even includes non-piercing objects. For the Exact Cover problem, we show that finding a feasible solution is NP-hard even for unit squares in the plane, thus negating the existence of polynomial time approximation algorithms.

Keywords

Packing Covering PTAS Local search Non-piercing regions 

Notes

References

  1. Agarwal PK, Pach J, Sharir M (2007) State of the union (of geometric objects): a reviewGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschner R, Katz MJ, Morgenstern G, Yuditsky Y (2013) Approximation schemes for covering and packing. In: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on algorithms and computation, WALCOM, pp 89–100Google Scholar
  3. Ashok P, Kolay S, Misra N, Saurabh S (2015) Unique covering problems with geometric sets. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first international computing and combinatorics conference, COCOON, pp 548–558Google Scholar
  4. Bandyapadhyay S, Basu Roy A (2017) Effectiveness of local search for art gallery problems. In: Procedings of the fifteenth international symposium on algorithms and data structures, WADS, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  5. Bansal N, Pruhs K (2016) Weighted geometric set multi-cover via quasi-uniform sampling. J Comput Geom 7(1):221–236MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Cesati M, Trevisan L (1997) On the efficiency of polynomial time approximation schemes. Inf Process Lett 64(4):165–171MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan TM, Har-Peled S (2012) Approximation algorithms for maximum independent set of pseudo-disks. Discrete Comput Geom 48(2):373–392MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chekuri C, Clarkson KL, Har-Peled S (2012) On the set multicover problem in geometric settings. ACM Trans Algorithms (TALG) 9(1):9MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen-Addad V, Mathieu C (2015) Effectiveness of local search for geometric optimization. In: Proceedings of the thirty-first international symposium on computational geometry, SoCG, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  10. Cohen-Addad V, Klein PN, Mathieu C (2016) Local search yields approximation schemes for $k$-means and $k$-median in euclidean and minor-free metrics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE fifty-seventh annual symposium on foundations of computer science, FOCS, pp 353–364Google Scholar
  11. Dahllöf V, Jonsson P, Beigel R (2004) Algorithms for four variants of the exact satisfiability problem. Theor Comput Sci 320(2–3):373–394MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demaine ED, Feige U, Hajiaghayi M, Salavatipour MR (2008) Combination can be hard: approximability of the unique coverage problem. SIAM J Comput 38(4):1464–1483MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ene A, Har-Peled S, Raichel B (2012) Geometric packing under non-uniform constraints. In: Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual symposium on computational geometry, SoCG, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  14. Erlebach T, Van Leeuwen EJ (2008) Approximating geometric coverage problems. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, SODA, pp 1267–1276Google Scholar
  15. Fowler RJ, Paterson MS, Tanimoto SL (1981) Optimal packing and covering in the plane are NP-complete. Inf Process Lett 12(3):133–137MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederickson GN (1987) Fast algorithms for shortest paths in planar graphs, with applications. SIAM J Comput 16(6):1004–1022MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friggstad Z, Rezapour M, Salavatipour MR (2016) Local search yields a PTAS for k-means in doubling metrics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE fifty-seventh annual symposium on foundations of computer science, FOCS, pp 365–374Google Scholar
  18. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman & Co., New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Govindarajan S, Raman R, Ray S, Basu Roy A (2016) Packing and covering with non-piercing regions. In: Procedings of the twenty-fourth annual european symposium on algorithms, ESA, pp 47:1–47:17Google Scholar
  20. Har-Peled S (2014) Quasi-polynomial time approximation scheme for sparse subsets of polygons. In: Proceedings of the thirtieth annual symposium on computational geometry, soCG, pp 120:120–120:129Google Scholar
  21. Ito T, Nakano S-I, Okamoto Y, Otachi Y, Uehara R, Uno T, Uno Y (2012) A polynomial-time approximation scheme for the geometric unique coverage problem on unit squares. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth scandinavian conference on algorithm theory, SWAT, pp 24–35. SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ito T, Nakano S, Okamoto Y, Otachi Y, Uehara R, Uno T, Uno Y (2014) A 4.31-approximation for the geometric unique coverage problem on unit disks. Theor Comput Sci 544:14–31MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krohn E, Gibson M, Kanade G, Varadarajan K (2014) Guarding terrains via local search. J Comput Geom 5(1):168–178MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Matoušek J (2002) Lectures on discrete geometry. Springer, SecaucusCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Misra N, Moser H, Raman V, Saurabh S, Sikdar S (2013) The parameterized complexity of unique coverage and its variants. Algorithmica 65(3):517–544MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mustafa NH, Ray S (2010) Improved results on geometric hitting set problems. Discrete Comput Geom 44(4):883–895MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pach J, Walczak B (2016) Decomposition of multiple packings with subquadratic union complexity. Combin Probab Comput 25(1):145–153MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pyrga E, Ray S (2008) New existence proofs for $\epsilon $-nets. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual symposium on computational geometry, SoCG, pp 199–207Google Scholar
  29. Schaefer TJ (1978) The complexity of satisfiability problems. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC, pp 216–226Google Scholar
  30. Whitesides S, Zhao R (1990) K-admissible collections of Jordan curves and offsets of circular arc figures. Technical report (McGill University. School of Computer Science). McGill University, School of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute of Information TechnologyBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations