Computing Largest Common Point Sets under Approximate Congruence
The problem of computing a largest common point set (LCP) between two point sets under ε-congruence with the bottleneck matching metric has recently been a subject of extensive study. Although polynomial time solutions are known for the planar case and for restricted sets of transformations and metrics (like translations and the Hausdorff-metric under L∞-norm), no complexity results are formally known for the general problem. In this paper we give polynomial time algorithms for this problem under different classes of transformations and metrics for any fixed dimension, and establish NP-hardness for unbounded dimensions. Any solution to this (or related) problem, especially in higher dimensions, is generally believed to involve implementation difficulties because they rely on the computation of intersections between algebraic surfaces. We show that (contrary to intuitive expectations) this problem can be solved under a rational arithmetic model in a straightforward manner if the set of transformations is extended to general affine transformations under the L∞-norm (difficulty of this problem is generally expected to be in the order: translations < rotation < isometry < more general). To the best of our knowledge this is also the first paper which deals with the LCP-problem under such a general class of transformations.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.H. Alt and L. Guibas. Discrete geometric shapes: Matching, interpolation, and approximation. In J.-R. Sack and J. Urrutia, editors, Handbook of Computational Geometry, pages 121–153. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. North-Holland, 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.S. Basu, R. Pollack, and M.-F. Roy. A new algorithm to find a point in every cell defined by a family of polynomials. In B.F. Caviness and J. Johnson, editors, Proc. Symp. on Quantifier Elimination and Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
- 9.D.E. Cardoze and L.J. Schulman. Pattern matching for spatial point sets. In Proc. 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 156–165, 1998.Google Scholar
- 14.A. Efrat, A. Itai, and M. Katz. Geometry helps in bottleneck matching and related problems. To appear in Algorithmica.Google Scholar
- 16.P.J. Heffernan. Generalized approximate algorithms for point set congruence. In Proc. 3rd. Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, LNCS 709, pages 373–384, Montréal, Canada, 1993.Google Scholar
- 17.P.J. Heffernan and S. Schirra. Approximate decision algorithms for point set congruence. In Proc. 8th. Annual ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, pages 93–101, 1992.Google Scholar
- 19.P. Indyk, R. Motwani, and S. Venkatasubramanian. Geometric matching under noise: Combinatorial bounds and algorithms. In Proc. 10th. Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, pages 457–465, 1999.Google Scholar
- 20.P. Indyk and S. Venkatasubramanian. Approximate congruence in nearly linear time. In Proc. 11th. Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, 2000.Google Scholar
- 23.N. Sleumer. Output-sensitive cell enumeration in hyperplane arrangements. In Proc. 6th. Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, LNCS 1432, pages 300–309, 1998.Google Scholar