Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1709.05282

On the Difference Between Closest, Furthest, and Orthogonal Pairs: Nearly-Linear vs Barely-Subquadratic Complexity in Computational Geometry

Abstract

Point location problems for $n$ points in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space (and $\ell_p$ spaces more generally) have typically had two kinds of running-time solutions: * (Nearly-Linear) less than $d^{poly(d)} \cdot n \log^{O(d)} n$ time, or * (Barely-Subquadratic) $f(d) \cdot n^{2-1/\Theta(d)}$ time, for various $f$. For small $d$ and large $n$, "nearly-linear" running times are generally feasible, while "barely-subquadratic" times are generally infeasible. For example, in the Euclidean metric, finding a Closest Pair among $n$ points in ${\mathbb R}^d$ is nearly-linear, solvable in $2^{O(d)} \cdot n \log^{O(1)} n$ time, while known algorithms for Furthest Pair (the diameter of the point set) are only barely-subquadratic, requiring $\Omega(n^{2-1/\Theta(d)})$ time. Why do these proximity problems have such different time complexities? Is there a barrier to obtaining nearly-linear algorithms for problems which are currently only barely-subquadratic? We give a novel exact and deterministic self-reduction for the Orthogonal Vectors problem on $n$ vectors in $\{0,1\}^d$ to $n$ vectors in ${\mathbb Z}^{\omega(\log d)}$ that runs in $2^{o(d)}$ time. As a consequence, barely-subquadratic problems such as Euclidean diameter, Euclidean bichromatic closest pair, ray shooting, and incidence detection do not have $O(n^{2-\epsilon})$ time algorithms (in Turing models of computation) for dimensionality $d = \omega(\log \log n)^2$, unless the popular Orthogonal Vectors Conjecture and the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis are false. That is, while poly-log-log-dimensional Closest Pair is in $n^{1+o(1)}$ time, the analogous case of Furthest Pair can encode larger-dimensional problems conjectured to require $n^{2-o(1)}$ time. We also show that the All-Nearest Neighbors problem in $\omega(\log n)$ dimensions requires $n^{2-o(1)}$ time to solve, assuming either of the above conjectures.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ryan Williams. 2017-09-15. On the Difference Between Closest, Furthest, and Orthogonal Pairs: Nearly-Linear vs Barely-Subquadratic Complexity in Computational Geometry. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05282

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Almost Linear Universal Point Sets for Planar Graphs

A point set is universal for planar graphs on $n$ vertices if every such graph has a straight-line drawing without crossings whose vertices belong to the set. We construct universal point sets of size $n^{1+o(1)}$, improving the previous quadratic upper bound. Our construction uses the reduction of Bannister, Cheng, Devanny, and Eppstein from universal point sets to superpatterns for $213$-avoiding permutations. We represent these permutations by ordered rooted forests and construct a small family of intervals containing every such forest. The result follows from a straightforward bound on the size of the family of intervals. GPT-6 Astra assisted in developing the construction and proof.

cs.CG

Some results on Archdeacon's conjecture for rotation systems

A rotation system on $n$ elements assigns to each element a cyclic order of the other $n-1$ elements. A four-element subset is non-planar if its induced rotation system cannot be realized by a crossing-free drawing of $K_4$. As a combinatorial strengthening of Hill's conjecture on the crossing number of the complete graph, Archdeacon conjectured that every rotation system on $n$ elements has at least $H(n)=\frac{1}{4} \lfloor\frac {n}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-2}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-3}{2}\rfloor$ non-planar four-element subsets. We computationally verify Archdeacon's conjecture for $n\leq 10$ and show that every extremal rotation system in these orders is realizable by a simple drawing. With computer assistance, we prove that every rotation system on $n$ elements has at least $(8/9 - o(1)) H(n)$ non-planar four-element subsets. We also present a proof by hand for a weaker lower bound of $(2/3-o(1)) H(n)$. Finally, extending recent work of Felsner on antipodal pairs in drawings, we show that Archdeacon's conjecture holds for antipodally shellable rotation systems.

cs.CG

The Hyperbolic Surface Distance, Diameter, and Dirichlet Problems

Despite the prominence of hyperbolic surfaces in mathematics, basic algorithmic questions about them, even computing the distance between two points, have remained open, leaving many features of these surfaces inaccessible. The classical machinery assumes a polyhedral structure absent on a smooth surface. We remove these obstacles. We begin with an efficient $O(g^2)$ algorithm for the distance between two points, where $g$ is the genus of the surface. Building on it, we obtain an $O(g^2 \log g)$ method for answering distance queries from a fixed source and, as a consequence, for recentering a Dirichlet domain around an arbitrary point. This understanding of distances on the surface then lets us approximate the diameter to within any $\eps$ in time $O(g^3 \log g / \eps^2)$. We further show that the diameter, a single real number encoding a great deal about the surface, is exactly computable. Its hyperbolic cosine is an algebraic number over the field encoding the coefficients of the hyperbolic isometries defining the surface.

cs.CG