正交地形守卫是np完全的

Édouard Bonnet, P. Giannopoulos
{"title":"正交地形守卫是np完全的","authors":"Édouard Bonnet, P. Giannopoulos","doi":"10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2018.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A terrain is an x-monotone polygonal curve, i.e., successive vertices have increasing x-coordinates. Terrain Guarding can be seen as a special case of the famous art gallery problem where one has to place at most $k$ guards on a terrain made of $n$ vertices in order to fully see it. In 2010, King and Krohn showed that Terrain Guarding is NP-complete [SODA '10, SIAM J. Comput. '11] thereby solving a long-standing open question. They observe that their proof does not settle the complexity of Orthogonal Terrain Guarding where the terrain only consists of horizontal or vertical segments; those terrains are called rectilinear or orthogonal. Recently, Ashok et al. [SoCG'17] presented an FPT algorithm running in time $k^{O(k)}n^{O(1)}$ for Dominating Set in the visibility graphs of rectilinear terrains without 180-degree vertices. They ask if Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is in P or NP-hard. In the same paper, they give a subexponential-time algorithm running in $n^{O(\\sqrt n)}$ (actually even $n^{O(\\sqrt k)}$) for the general Terrain Guarding and notice that the hardness proof of King and Krohn only disproves a running time $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ under the ETH. Hence, there is a significant gap between their $2^{O(n^{1/2} \\log n)}$-algorithm and the no $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ ETH-hardness implied by King and Krohn's result. In this paper, we answer those two remaining questions. We adapt the gadgets of King and Krohn to rectilinear terrains in order to prove that even Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete. Then, we show how their reduction from Planar 3-SAT (as well as our adaptation for rectilinear terrains) can actually be made linear (instead of quadratic).","PeriodicalId":54969,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications","volume":"127 1","pages":"21-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete\",\"authors\":\"Édouard Bonnet, P. Giannopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2018.11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A terrain is an x-monotone polygonal curve, i.e., successive vertices have increasing x-coordinates. Terrain Guarding can be seen as a special case of the famous art gallery problem where one has to place at most $k$ guards on a terrain made of $n$ vertices in order to fully see it. In 2010, King and Krohn showed that Terrain Guarding is NP-complete [SODA '10, SIAM J. Comput. '11] thereby solving a long-standing open question. They observe that their proof does not settle the complexity of Orthogonal Terrain Guarding where the terrain only consists of horizontal or vertical segments; those terrains are called rectilinear or orthogonal. Recently, Ashok et al. [SoCG'17] presented an FPT algorithm running in time $k^{O(k)}n^{O(1)}$ for Dominating Set in the visibility graphs of rectilinear terrains without 180-degree vertices. They ask if Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is in P or NP-hard. In the same paper, they give a subexponential-time algorithm running in $n^{O(\\\\sqrt n)}$ (actually even $n^{O(\\\\sqrt k)}$) for the general Terrain Guarding and notice that the hardness proof of King and Krohn only disproves a running time $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ under the ETH. Hence, there is a significant gap between their $2^{O(n^{1/2} \\\\log n)}$-algorithm and the no $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ ETH-hardness implied by King and Krohn's result. In this paper, we answer those two remaining questions. We adapt the gadgets of King and Krohn to rectilinear terrains in order to prove that even Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete. Then, we show how their reduction from Planar 3-SAT (as well as our adaptation for rectilinear terrains) can actually be made linear (instead of quadratic).\",\"PeriodicalId\":54969,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications\",\"volume\":\"127 1\",\"pages\":\"21-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2018.11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2018.11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

地形是一条x单调多边形曲线,即连续的顶点具有递增的x坐标。地形守卫可以看作是著名的艺术画廊问题的一个特例,即玩家必须在由$n$个顶点组成的地形上放置最多$k$个守卫才能完全看到它。2010年,King和Krohn证明了地形守卫是np完全的[SODA '10, SIAM J. Comput]。[11]从而解决了一个长期悬而未决的问题。他们观察到,他们的证明并不能解决地形仅由水平或垂直部分组成的正交地形防护的复杂性;这些地形被称为直线或正交。最近,Ashok等[SoCG'17]提出了一种在没有180度顶点的直线地形可见性图中支配集实时运行$k^{O(k)}n^{O(1)}$的FPT算法。他们问正交地形守卫是P还是NP-hard。在同一篇论文中,他们给出了一个运行在$n^{O(\sqrt n)}$(实际上甚至$n^{O(\sqrt k)}$)下的亚指数时间算法,并注意到King和Krohn的硬度证明只是在ETH下反驳了运行时间$2^{o(n^{1/4})}$。因此,他们的$2^{O(n^{1/2} \log n)}$ -算法与King和Krohn的结果所暗示的没有$2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ eth硬度之间存在显著差距。在本文中,我们将回答这两个问题。为了证明即使是正交地形防护也是np完全的,我们将King和Krohn的小工具应用于直线地形。然后,我们展示了它们如何从Planar 3-SAT(以及我们对直线地形的适应)减少实际上是线性的(而不是二次的)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete
A terrain is an x-monotone polygonal curve, i.e., successive vertices have increasing x-coordinates. Terrain Guarding can be seen as a special case of the famous art gallery problem where one has to place at most $k$ guards on a terrain made of $n$ vertices in order to fully see it. In 2010, King and Krohn showed that Terrain Guarding is NP-complete [SODA '10, SIAM J. Comput. '11] thereby solving a long-standing open question. They observe that their proof does not settle the complexity of Orthogonal Terrain Guarding where the terrain only consists of horizontal or vertical segments; those terrains are called rectilinear or orthogonal. Recently, Ashok et al. [SoCG'17] presented an FPT algorithm running in time $k^{O(k)}n^{O(1)}$ for Dominating Set in the visibility graphs of rectilinear terrains without 180-degree vertices. They ask if Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is in P or NP-hard. In the same paper, they give a subexponential-time algorithm running in $n^{O(\sqrt n)}$ (actually even $n^{O(\sqrt k)}$) for the general Terrain Guarding and notice that the hardness proof of King and Krohn only disproves a running time $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ under the ETH. Hence, there is a significant gap between their $2^{O(n^{1/2} \log n)}$-algorithm and the no $2^{o(n^{1/4})}$ ETH-hardness implied by King and Krohn's result. In this paper, we answer those two remaining questions. We adapt the gadgets of King and Krohn to rectilinear terrains in order to prove that even Orthogonal Terrain Guarding is NP-complete. Then, we show how their reduction from Planar 3-SAT (as well as our adaptation for rectilinear terrains) can actually be made linear (instead of quadratic).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications (IJCGA) is a quarterly journal devoted to the field of computational geometry within the framework of design and analysis of algorithms. Emphasis is placed on the computational aspects of geometric problems that arise in various fields of science and engineering including computer-aided geometry design (CAGD), computer graphics, constructive solid geometry (CSG), operations research, pattern recognition, robotics, solid modelling, VLSI routing/layout, and others. Research contributions ranging from theoretical results in algorithm design — sequential or parallel, probabilistic or randomized algorithms — to applications in the above-mentioned areas are welcome. Research findings or experiences in the implementations of geometric algorithms, such as numerical stability, and papers with a geometric flavour related to algorithms or the application areas of computational geometry are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
On morphs of 1-plane graphs A Geometric Approach to Inelastic Collapse Near-optimal algorithms for point-line fitting problems Algorithms for approximate sparse regression and nearest induced hulls Recognizing weighted and seeded disk graphs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1