# Geometric knapsack problems

## Abstract

We study a variety of geometric versions of the classical knapsack problem. In particular, we consider the following “fence enclosure” problem: Given a set *S* of *n* points in the plane with values *v*_{ i } ≥ 0, we wish to enclose a subset of the points with a fence (a simple closed curve) in order to maximize the “value” of the enclosure. The value of the enclosure is defined to be the sum of the values of the enclosed points minus the cost of the fence. We consider various versions of the problem, such as allowing *S* to consist of points and/or simple polygons. Other versions of the problems are obtained by restricting the total amount of fence available and also allowing the enclosure to consist of up to *K* connected components. When there is an upper bound on the length of fence available, we show that the problem is *N P*-complete. Additionally we provide polynomial-time algorithms for many versions of the fence problem when an unrestricted amount of fence is available.

## Keywords

Short Path Knapsack Problem Simple Polygon Visibility Graph Simple Closed Curve## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [AKM 90]E.M. Arkin, S. Khuller and J.S.B. Mitchell, “Optimal enclosure problems”,
*Technical Report TR 90-1111*, Dept. of Computer Science, Cornell University.Google Scholar - [AKMSW 87]A. Aggarwal, M. Klawe, S. Moran, P. Shor and R. Wilber, “Geometric applications of a matrix searching algorithm”,
*Algorithmica*2 (1987), pp. 195–208.Google Scholar - [AMP 90]E.M. Arkin, J.S.B. Mitchell, and C. Piatko, “On Geometric bicriteria path problems”, Manuscript, 1990.Google Scholar
- [BDDG 85]J.E. Boyce, D.P. Dobkin, R.L. Drysdale and L.J. Guibas, “Finding extremal polygons”,
*SIAM Journal on Computing*14 (1985), pp. 134–147.Google Scholar - [CRW 89]V. Capoyleas, G. Rote, and G. Woeginger, “Geometric clusterings”,
*Technical Report B-89-04*, Freie Universität, Berlin. To appear:*Journal of Algorithms*.Google Scholar - [Chan 86]J.S. Chang, “Polygon optimization problems”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical Report No. 240, Robotics Report No. 78, August, 1986, Dept. of Computer Science, New York University.Google Scholar
- [CY 86]J.S. Chang and C.K. Yap, “A polynomial solution for the potato peeling problem”,
*Discrete and Computational Geometry*1 (1986), pp. 155–182.Google Scholar - [Chaz 83]B. Chazelle, “The polygon containment problem”,
*Advances in Computing Research*, JAI Press (1983), pp.1–33.Google Scholar - [Chv 83]V. Chvatal,
*Linear Programming*, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1983, pp. 374–380.Google Scholar - [Da 63]G.B. Dantzig,
*Linear Programming and Extensions*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963.Google Scholar - [ER 91]P. Eades and D. Rappaport, “The complexity of computing minimum separating polygons”, To appear:
*Pattern Recognition Letters*.Google Scholar - [ERS 87]H. Edelsbrunner, A.D. Robison and X. Shen, “Covering convex sets with non-overlapping polygons”,
*Technical Report UIUCDCS-R-87-1364*, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar - [GJ 78]M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson, “Computers and Intractability: A guide to the theory of
*N P*-completeness”,*Freeman*, San Francisco.Google Scholar - [GN 72]R.S. Garfinkel and G.L. Nemhauser,
*Integer Programming*, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972.Google Scholar - [KL 85]B. Korte and L. Lovasz, “Polyhedral results on antimatroids”,
*to appear*in Proc. of the New York Combinatorics Conference.Google Scholar - [LC 85]D.T. Lee and Y.T. Ching, “The power of geometric duality revisited”,
*Information Processing Letters*21 (1985), pp. 117–122.Google Scholar - [ORW 89]M.H. Overmars, G. Rote and G. Woeginger, “Finding minimum area
*k*-gons”,*Technical Report RUU-CS-89-7*, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar - [PS 82]C.H. Papadimitriou and K.Steiglitz, “Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity”,
*Prentice-Hall*, New Jersey.Google Scholar - [W 90]R. Wenger, “Upper bounds on geometric permutations for convex sets”,
*Discrete and Computational Geometry*, 5 (1990), pp. 27–33.Google Scholar