Abstract
We study the problem of how to split many point sets in \(\mathbb {R}^d\) into smaller parts using a few (shared) splitting hyperplanes. This problem is related to the classical Ham-Sandwich Theorem. We provide a logarithmic approximation to the optimal solution using the greedy algorithm for submodular optimization.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the sake simplicity of exposition, we ignore here the case that the sign is zero.
References
Matousek, J., Patáková, Z.: Multilevel polynomial partitions and simplified range searching. Disc. Comput. Geom. 54(1), 22–41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-015-9701-2
Agarwal, P.K., Aronov, B., Ezra, E., Zahl, J.: Efficient algorithm for generalized polynomial partitioning and its applications. SIAM J. Comput. 50(2), 760–787 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1268550
Sheffer, A.: Polynomial Methods and Incidence Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108959988
Stone, A.H., Tukey, J.W.: Generalized “sandwich’’ theorems. Duke Math. J. 9(2), 356–359 (1942). https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-42-00925-6
Har-Peled, S., Jones, M.: On separating points by lines. Disc. Comput. Geom. 63(3), 705–730 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-019-00103-z
Lo, C.-Y., Matoušek, J., Steiger, W.: Algorithms for ham-sandwich cuts. Disc. Comput. Geom. 11, 433–452 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574017
Bárány, I., Hubard, A., Jerónimo, J.: Slicing convex sets and measures by a hyperplane. Disc. Comput. Geom. 39(1–3), 67–75 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-007-9021-2
Blagojević, P.V., Soberón, P.: Thieves can make sandwiches. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 50(1), 108–123 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1112/blms.12109
Ramos, E.A.: Equipartition of mass distributions by hyperplanes. Disc. Comput. Geom. 15(2), 147–167 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02717729
Schnider, P.: Ham-sandwich cuts and center transversals in subspaces. In: Proc. 35th Int. Annu. Sympos. Comput. Geom. (SoCG). LIPIcs, vol. 129, pp. 56– 15615 ( 2019). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2019.56
Steiger, W., Zhao, J.: Generalized ham-sandwich cuts. Disc. Comput. Geom. 44(3), 535–545 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-009-9225-8
Kaplan, H., Matoušek, J., Sharir, M.: Simple proofs of classical theorems in discrete geometry via the Guth-Katz polynomial partitioning technique. Disc. Comput. Geom. 48(3), 499–517 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-012-9443-3
Agarwal, P.K., Matoušek, J., Sharir, M.: On range searching with semialgebraic sets. II. SIAM J. Comput. 42(6), 2039–2062 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1137/120890855
Matoušek, J.: Geometric range searching. ACM Comput. Surv. 26(4), 421–461 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/197405.197408
Inamdar, T., Varadarajan, K.R.: On partial covering for geometric set systems. In: Speckmann, B., Tóth, C.D. (eds.) Proc. 34th Int. Annu. Sympos. Comput. Geom. (SoCG). LIPIcs, vol. 99, pp. 47– 14714. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Wadern, Germany ( 2018). https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2018.47
Wolsey, L.A.: An analysis of the greedy algorithm for the submodular set covering problem. Combinatorica 2(4), 385–393 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02579435
Kolliopoulos, S.G., Young, N.E.: Approximation algorithms for covering/packing integer programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 71(4), 495–505 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2005.05.002
Acknowledgements
Sariel Har-Peled was partially supported by NSF AF awards CCF-1421231, CCF-1217462, and CCF-1907400. Mitchell Jones was partially supported by NSF AF awards CCF-1421231 and CCF-1907400. The authors also thank the anonymous referees for their detailed and useful feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A Proof of Theorem 4
Appendix A Proof of Theorem 4
Proof
This result is by now classical, and we include the proof only for the sake of completeness. Let be the optimal solution. Consider a current solution \(\mathcal {C}_i \subseteq \Pi \) at iteration i, and observe that by monotonicity, we have
As such, we have \( f(\mathcal {C}_i \cup \mathcal {O}) = f_{\max }\). Let \(\Delta _i = f(\mathcal {O}) - f(\mathcal {C}_i)\) be the of \(\mathcal {C}_i\). For \(j=0, \ldots , k\), let Set . We have that
Hence, there is an index j, such that \(\delta _j \ge \Delta _i/k\). Now, by submodularity, we have that
However, the greedy algorithm adds an element that maximizes the value of , which is at least \(\Delta _i/k\). Put differently, the added element decreases the deficiency of the current solution by a factor \(\le 1-1/k\). Therefore the deficiency in the end of the ith iteration is at most \(\Delta _i \le (1-1/k)^i \Delta _0 = (1-1/k)^if(\mathcal {O}).\) This quantity is less than one for \(i = O( k\log f_{\max })\). \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Har-Peled, S., Jones, M. Few Cuts Meet Many Point Sets. Algorithmica 85, 965–975 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-022-01059-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-022-01059-y