Advertisement

Algorithmica

, Volume 80, Issue 9, pp 2616–2636 | Cite as

Fréchet Distance Between a Line and Avatar Point Set

  • Aritra Banik
  • Fahad Panolan
  • Venkatesh Raman
  • Vibha SahlotEmail author
Article
  • 172 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue dedicated to the 60th Birthday of Gregory Gutin

Abstract

Frèchet distance is an important geometric measure that captures the distance between two curves or more generally point sets. In this paper, we consider a natural variant of Fréchet distance problem with multiple choice, provide an approximation algorithm and address its parameterized and kernelization complexity. A multiple choice problem consists of a set of color classes \(\mathcal {Q}=\{Q_1,Q_2,\ldots ,Q_n\}\), where each class \(Q_i\) consists of a pair of points \(Q_i = \{q_i, \bar{q_i}\}\). We call a subset \(A\subset \{q_i , \bar{q_i}:1\le i\le n\}\) conflict-free if A contains at most one point from each color class. The standard objective in multiple choice problem is to select a conflict-free subset that optimizes a given function. Given a line-segment \(\ell \) and a set \(\mathcal {Q}\) of a pair of points in \(\mathbb {R}^2\), our objective is to find a conflict-free subset that minimizes the Fréchet distance between \(\ell \) and the point set, where the minimum is taken over all possible conflict-free subsets. We first show that this problem is NP-hard, and provide a 3-approximation algorithm. Then we develop a simple randomized FPT algorithm for the problem when parametrized by the solution size, which is later derandomized using universal family of sets. We believe that our derandomization technique can be of independent interest, and can be used to solve other parameterized multiple choice problems. The randomized algorithm runs in \(\mathcal {O}(2^k n \log ^2 n)\) time, and the derandomized deterministic algorithm runs in \(2^k k^{\mathcal {O}(\log k)} n \log ^2 n\) time, where k, the parameter, is the number of elements in the conflict-free subset solution. Finally we present a simple branching algorithm for the problem running in \(\mathcal {O}(2^k n\log n)\) time. We also show that the problem does not have a polynomial sized kernel under standard complexity theoretic assumptions.

Keywords

Fréchet distance Avatar problems Multiple choice FPT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks Esther M. Arkin, Paz Carmi, Gui Citovsky, Matthew J. Katz and Joseph S. B. Mitchell for helpful discussions regarding approximation algorithms for multiple choice problems. We are grateful to Saket Saurabh for many valuable discussions and the anonymous reviewers of FSTTCS 2016 for their helpful comments. The second author is grateful for the support from Rigorous Theory of Preprocessing, ERC Advanced Investigator Grant 267959.

References

  1. 1.
    Aronov, B., Har-Peled, S., Knauer, C., Wang, Y., Wenk, C.: Fréchet distance for curves, revisited. In: Proceedings of Algorithms–ESA 2006, 14th Annual European Symposium, Zurich, Switzerland, September 11–13, 2006, pp. 52–63 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eiter, T., Mannila, H.: Computing discrete fréchet distance. Technical report, Citeseer (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hausdorff, F.: Grundzge der Mengenlehre. Veit and Company, Leipzig. Das Hauptwerk von Felix Hausdorff (1914)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodlaender, H.L., Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R., Hermelin, D.: On problems without polynomial kernels. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 75(8), 423–434 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dell, H., van Melkebeek, D.: Satisfiability allows no nontrivial sparsification unless the polynomial-time hierarchy collapses. In: STOC, pp. 251–260 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fortnow, L., Santhanam, R.: Infeasibility of instance compression and succinct PCPs for NP. In: STOC, pp. 133–142 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cygan, M., Fomin, F.V., Kowalik, L., Lokshtanov, D., Marx, D., Pilipczuk, M., Pilipczuk, M., Saurabh, S.: Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (2015)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Downey, R., Fellows, M.: Fundamentals of Parameterized Complexity. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alt, H., Godau, M.: Computing the Fréchet distance between two polygonal curves. Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl. 5, 75–91 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agarwal, P.K., Avraham, R.B., Kaplan, H., Sharir, M.: Computing the discrete Fréchet distance in subquadratic time. SIAM J. Comput. 43(2), 429–449 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shahbaz, K.: Applied similarity problems using Fréchet distance. CoRR abs/1307.6628 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Consuegra, M.E., Narasimhan, G.: Geometric avatar problems. In: IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FSTTCS 2013, December 12–14, 2013, Guwahati, India, pp. 389–400 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arkin, E.M., Banik, A., Carmi, P., Citovsky, G., Katz, M.J., Mitchell, J.S.B., Simakov, M.: Choice is hard. In: Proceedings of Algorithms and Computation—26th International Symposium, ISAAC 2015, Nagoya, Japan, December 9–11, 2015, pp. 318–328 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arkin, E.M., Banik, A., Carmi, P., Citovsky, G., Katz, M.J., Mitchell, J.S.B., Simakov, M.: Conflict-free covering. In: Proceedings of the 27th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, CCCG 2015, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, August 10–12, 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agarwal, P.K., Sharir, M.: Davenport–Schinzel Sequences and Their Geometric Applications. Duke University, Durham (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atallah, M.J.: Some dynamic computational geometry problems. Comput. Math. Appl. 11(12), 1171–1181 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hershberger, J.: Finding the upper envelope of n line segments in o (n log n) time. Inf. Process. Lett. 33(4), 169–174 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall, P.: On representatives of subsets. J. Lond. Math. Soc. s1–10(1), 26–30 (1935)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edmonds, J.: How to Think About Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naor, M., Schulman, L.J., Srinivasan, A.: Splitters and near-optimal derandomization. In: 36th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 23–25 October 1995, pp. 182–191 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of TechnologyJodhpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations