July 02, 2009

Geometry and topology at FOCS 2009

As many others have noticed, the list of accepted papers for FOCS 2009 have been posted; a second list with abstracts is also available. No word yet on when we'll see all those marvelous 2-page summaries everyone was asked to submit. (Yes, when, not whether!)

Anyway here's a partial list of geometry/topology papers. Enjoy!

  • Kevin Buchin and Wolfgang Mulzer. Delaunay Triangulations in O(sort(n)) and Other Transdichotomous and Hereditary Algorithms in Computational Geometry.
    We present several results about Delaunay triangulations (DTs) and convex hulls in transdichotomous and hereditary settings: (i) the DT of a planar point set can be omputed in time O(sort(n)) on a word RAM, where sort(n) is the time to sort n numbers; (ii) if we know the ordering of a planar point set in x- and in y-direction, its DT can be found by a randomized algebraic computation tree of expected linear depth; (iii) given a universe U of points in the plane, we construct a data structure D for Delaunay queries: for any subset P of U, D can find the DT of P in time O(|P| log log |U|); (iv) given a universe U of three-dimensional points in general convex position, there is a data structure D for _convex hull queries: for any subset P of U, D can find the convex hull of P in time O(|P| (log log |U|)^2); (v) given a convex polytope in 3-space with n vertices which are colored with k > 2 colors, we can split it into the convex hulls of the individual color classes in time O(n (log log n)^2). The results (i)--(iii) generalize to higher dimensions. We need a wide range of techniques. Most prominently, we describe a reduction from nearest-neighbor graphs to DTs that relies on a new variant of randomized incremental constructions which allow dependent sampling.

  • Saugata Basu and Thierry Zell. Polynomial hierarchy, Betti numbers and a real analogue of Toda's Theorem.
    Toda proved in 1989 that the (discrete) polynomial time hierarchy, is contained in the class of languages that can be decided by a Turing machine in polynomial time given access to an oracle with the power to compute a function in the counting complexity class #P. This result which illustrates the power of counting is considered to be a seminal result in computational complexity theory. An analogous result in the complexity theory over the reals (in the sense of Blum-Shub-Smale real Turing machines) has been missing so far. In this paper we formulate and prove a real analogue of Toda's theorem. Unlike Toda's proof in the discrete case, which relied on sophisticated combinatorial arguments, our proof is topological in nature. As a consequence of our techniques we are also able to relate the computational hardness of two extremely well-studied problems in algorithmic semi-algebraic geometry -- namely the problem of deciding sentences in the first order theory of the reals with a constant number of quantifier alternations, and that of computing the Betti numbers of semi-algebraic sets. We obtain a polynomial time reduction of the compact version of the first problem to the second. This latter result might be of independent interest to researchers in algorithmic semi-algebraic geometry.

  • Adam Kalai, Shang-Hua Teng and Alex Samorodnitsky. Learning Decision Trees From Random Examples: a Smoothed Analysis.
    We consider a new model of learning from random examples, motivated by smoothed analysis. Like previous work, we assume that the distribution over unlabeled examples is a product distribution -- the individual bits are chosen independently. However, we consider "typical" product distributions. Formally, we assume that the parameters are chosen with some (constant) amount of randomness, for example from the cube [0.49,0.51]^n. In this model we show how to agnostically learn polynomially-sized decision trees from random examples alone.

    We also consider a second model, which is a specific distribution over unlabeled data from which we efficiently learn all O(log n)-depth decision trees. In particular, we consider a distribution where the data exhibits even a small amount of diversity, e.g., symmetrically-distributed data where the fraction of 1's in the attributes span a constant range such as [.49,.51]. In recent work, Arpe and Mossel (2008) efficiently learn Juntas of size O(log(n) log log(n)) in a related model.

  • Peyman Afshani, Lars Arge, and Kasper Dalgaard Larsen. Orthogonal Range Reporting in Three and Higher Dimensions.
    In orthogonal range reporting we are to preprocess N points in d dimensions such that the points inside an axis-aligned query box can be found efficiently. This is a fundamental problem in various fields, including spatial databases and computational geometry. In this paper we provide a number of improvements for three and higher dimensional orthogonal range reporting: In the pointer machine model, we improve all the best previous results, some of which have not seen any improvements in almost two decades. In the I/O-model, we give the first polylogarithmic query bounds that exactly match the bounds in the pointer machine model but with logarithms taken to base B; no such results were known in more than three dimensions. We also prove a space lower bound that shows our new structures are space-optimal in the I/O-model. Our main pointer machine data structure uses optimal O(N (log N / loglog N)^{d-1}) space and answers queries in O(log^{d-1}N / (loglog N)^{d-2} + K) time; here K is the size of the output. Our main I/O-efficient structure answers queries in O(Log^{d-1}N / (LogLog N)^{d-2} + K/B) I/Os and uses optimal O(N (Log N / LogLog N)^{d-1}) space where Log N is logarithm taken to base B.

  • David Arthur, Bodo Manthey, and Heiko Roeglin. k-Means has Polynomial Smoothed Complexity.
    The k-means method is one of the most widely used clustering algorithms, drawing its popularity from its speed in practice. Recently, however, it was shown to have exponential worst-case running time. In this paper, we settle the smoothed running time of the k-means method. We show that the smoothed number of iterations is bounded by a polynomial in the number of data points and the reciprocal of the standard deviation of the Gaussian perturbations. This means that if an arbitrary input data set is randomly perturbed, then the k-means method will run in expected polynomial time on that input set.

  • Peyman Afshani, Jeremy Barbay, and Timothy M. Chan. Instance-Optimal Geometric Algorithms.
    We prove the existence of an algorithm A for computing 2-d or 3-d convex hulls that is optimal for every point set in the following sense: for every set S of n points and for every algorithm A' in a certain class C, the maximum running time of A on input s_1,...,s_n is at most a constant factor times the maximum running time of A' on s_1,...,s_n, where the maximum is taken over all permutations s_1,...,s_n of S. In fact, we can establish a stronger property: for every S and A', the maximum running time of A is at most a constant factor times the average running time of A' over all permutations of S. We call algorithms satisfying these properties instance-optimal in the order-oblivious and random-order setting. Such instance-optimal algorithms simultaneously subsume output-sensitive algorithms and distribution-dependent average-case algorithms, and all algorithms that do not take advantage of the order of the input or that assume the input is given in a random order.

    The class C under consideration consists of all algorithms in a decision tree model where the tests involve only multilinear functions with a constant number of arguments. To establish an instance-specific lower bound, we deviate from traditional Ben-Or-style proofs and adopt an interesting adversary argument. For 2-d convex hulls, we prove that a version of the well known algorithm by Kirkpatrick and Seidel (1986) or Chan, Snoeyink, and Yap (1995) already attains this lower bound. For 3-d convex hulls, we propose a new algorithm.

    To demonstrate the potential of the concept, we further obtain instance-optimal results for a few other standard problems in computational geometry, such as maxima in 2-d and 3-d, orthogonal line segment intersection in 2-d, finding bichromatic L_\infty-close pairs in 2-d, off-line orthogonal range searching in 2-d, off-line dominance reporting in 2-d and 3-d, off-line halfspace range reporting in 2-d and 3-d, and off-line point location in 2-d.

  • Matt Gibson and Kasturi Varadarajan. Decomposing Coverings and the Planar Sensor Cover Problem.
    We show that a k-fold covering using translates of an arbitrary convex polygon can be decomposed into Omega(k) covers (using an efficient algorithm). We generalize this result to obtain a constant factor approximation to the sensor cover problem where the ranges of the sensors are translates of a given convex polygon. The crucial ingredient in this generalization is a constant factor approximation for a one-dimensional version of the sensor cover problem, called the Restricted Strip Cover (RSC) problem, where sensors are intervals of possibly different lengths. Our algorithm for RSC improves on the previous O(log log log n) approximation.

  • Jonathan Kelner, James Lee, Gregory Price and Shanghua Teng. Higher eigenvalues of graphs.
    We present a general method for proving upper bounds on the eigenvalues of the graph Laplacian. In particular, we show that for any positive integer k, the kth smallest eigenvalue of the Laplacian on a bounded-degree planar graph is O(k/n). This bound is asymptotically tight for every k, as it is easily seen to be achieved for planar grids. We also extend this spectral result to graphs with bounded genus, graphs which forbid fixed minors, and other natural families. Previously, such spectral upper bounds were only known for k=2, i.e. for the Fiedler value of these graphs. In addition, our result yields a new, combinatorial proof of the celebrated result of Korevaar in differential geometry.

June 23, 2009

Elsevier. Again.

Congratulations and thank you for your contribution to Clinical Psychology. Now that the book is published, we need your help to get some 5 star reviews posted to both Amazon and Barnes & Noble to help support and promote it. As you know, these online reviews are extremely persuasive when customers are considering a purchase. For your time, we would like to compensate you with a copy of the book under review as well as a $25 Amazon gift card. If you have colleagues or students who would be willing to post positive reviews, please feel free to forward this e-mail to them to participate. We share the common goal of wanting Clinical Psychology to sell and succeed. The tactics defined above have proven to dramatically increase exposure and boost sales. I hope we can work together to make a strong and profitable impact through our online bookselling channels.
Naturally, it was all a mistake.

June 21, 2009

JoCG now accepting submissions!

I'm happy to announce that Journal of Computational Geometry, a new high-quality, open-access journal for research in all aspects of computational geometry, is now accepting submissions.

A few phrases in this announcement deserve clarification:

June 16, 2009

It's made of people!

Green. Green. Green. Green.

#iranelection

June 15, 2009

How hard is optimal racing?

David and Suresh (two three) have done a good job summarizing the research highlights at SOCG. But nobody has mentioned the real highlight of the conference: The post-conference go-kart race!

Math geek that I am, the noise and speed and adrenaline reminded me of one of my favorite open problems, which is based on a pencil-and-paper game I played on the schoolbus in 5th grade, called Racetrack (or Graph Racers, or Vector Racer, or Vector Rally, or...). (They were really fast school buses.) The origins of the game are unclear. Martin Gardner described it in a 1973 "Mathematical Games" column (reprinted as Chapter 9 of Knotted Doughnuts and Other Mathematical Entertainments).

The game is played with a track drawn freehand on a sheet of graph paper, with a starting region and a finish region. The players alternately choose a sequence of grid points that represent the motion of a car around the track, subject to certain constraints explained below. The car that reaches the finish region first wins the race.

Each car has a position and a velocity, both with integer x- and y-coordinates. Each player chooses an initial position in the starting region; the cars all start with velocty (0,0). At each turn, the player optionally increments or decrements either or both coordinates of the car's velocity; in other words, each component of the velocity can change by at most 1 in a single step. The car's new position is then determined by adding its new velocity to its previous position. The car's new position must lie inside the track; otherwise, the car crashes and that player loses the race.

(The actual game I played had more complicated rules about running off the edge of the track, but here let's keep things simple. In particular, let's not require the entire line segment between any two successive positions to lie inside the track. Cars can jump over the walls, as long as each jump lands inside the track.)

The Racetrack game suggests a natural algorithmic problem: Compute the optimal racing strategy for a given racetrack. The difficulty of this question depends on how the input racetrack is represented. In other words, it depends on the definition of the word "given"!

The most obvious (and realistic) input reprsentation is an array, where each entry A[i,j] indicates whether the point (i,j) is off the track, in the starting region, in the finish region, or in the middle of the track.

Racetrack

With this input representation, the optimal racing strategy is easy to compute in polynomial time. Build a directed graph whose nodes resprsent all legal posision-velocity pairs, and whose edges represent legal moves. Add a source vertex s, and an arc s->((i,j),(0,0)) for every point (i,j) in the starting region. Add a target vertex t, and an arc ((i,j),(u,v))->t for every point (i,j) in the finish region and every legal velocity (u,v). Finally, perform a breadth-first search from s to find the shortest path to t. If the input array has n rows and n columns, this algorithm runs in O(n^3) time. (Why n^3 instead of n^4? I'll leave that as an exercise.)

But a more natural input representation, at least for computational geometers, is a set of line segments that delimit the boundary of the racetrack (and the boundaries of the start and finish regions). To keep the problem solvable, let's assume the endpoints of these line segments have integer coordinates.

Racetrack2

Of course we could still build the configuration graph, but this could require exponential space! Even if the track is just an N×N square, the input requires only n = O(log N) bits, but the configuration graph has complexity Θ(N^3) = 2^{Ω(n)}. Moreover, even if we don't build the entire graph, any explicit description of the optimal path—or any legal path—could have exponential complexity. So if we want any hope of an efficient algorithm, we have to change the problem.

One reasonable variant would be to find the minimum number of turns. It's not hard to show that this verison of the problem is in PSPACE—it's morally equivalent to reachability in a graph of exponential complexity—but I don't know how to do any better than that. In fact, that's the best upper bound I know even for the simpler reachability question: Is there any sequence of legal moves that takes a car from the start region to the finish region? Even if we didn't allow cars to jump over walls, narrow corridors with sharp corners would make this decision problem nontrivial. Can the racetrack reachability problem be solved in polynomial time? Is it even in NP? Or is it PSPACE-complete?

Alternately, we could require some kind of compressed output representation. For example, we could represent paths in the following form: accelerate northwest for 42 turns, then west for 17 turns, then southeast for 23 turns,.... Unfortunately, the optimal path might still have exponential complexity in this representation. Consider a corridor defined by two close parallel line segments with slope close to the golden ratio. The sequence of grid points between those segments is aperiodic; in the limit, it approaches the infinite Fibonacci word.

Racetrack3

But maybe we can get a polynomial-length representation using something more subtle, like Lempel-Ziv compression, and then maybe we can actually compute the compressed representation in polynomial time. (For a similar approach, see Schaefer and Sedgwick's algorithm for computing Dehn twists and intersection numbers.) Is there a polynomial-time algorithm that outputs any reasonable compressed representation of the optimal path? ("The optimal path for the following track " is not a reasonable representation!)

Of course a real computational geometer (ahem) might try to get rid of the grid entirely. In a more continuous variant, both the positions and velocities of the cars would be real vectors, and in each turn, a player could change their velocity by adding any vector of (Euclidean) length at most 1. This variant obviously avoids problems due to integer aliasing, but is there any hope of solving it efficiently? Is it even still in PSPACE?

May 31, 2009

First annual STOC business meeting drinking game

Take one drink if any of the following happens: Check, check, check, check. I'm glad I'm not giving the talk tomorrow.

Update: Damn, I forgot “Someone complains about SIAM's organization of SODA.”

Innovations in Computer Science

The call for papers for the first annual conference on Innovations in Computer Science has been released. ICS is a new theoretical computer science conference, with a very small but stellar program committee (Avrim Blum, Shafi Goldwasser, Sanjeev Khanna, Christos Papadimitriou, Rafael Pass, Nir Shavit, Vijay Vazirani, Andrew Yao (Chair)) with the goal of “encouraging new ideas, approaches, perspectives, conceptual frameworks and techniques.” To quote further from the call for papers:

  • Novel and promising ideas will be given preference in the selection process. The program committee of ICS will assign significant weight to the conceptual message communicated by the submission.

  • The program committee will prefer papers that open new and fruitful directions of explorations. In other words, ICS will prefer papers that make first steps in new directions and raise new questions, over papers that provide the last word on a well-established direction.

  • At the discretion of the program committee, the evaluation process may be interactive, so as to include questions to the authors and clarifications by them, if necessary.

Or as Vijay Vazirani said at lunch, they want the first paper (of many) on a topic, not the last (or even worse, the next).

Submissions are due September 15, 2009, which might be after the announcement of papers accepted to SODA 2010, in case you're thinking of submitting a paper that SODA will find too novel, promising, or conceptual. The conference itself is January 4-7, 2010 in Beijing, roughly two weeks before SODA.

More details are promised at the business meeting tonight.

May 03, 2009

Yet another reason to hate Elsevier

First the price gouging, and then the arms trading, and now this:

Merck cooked up a phony, but real sounding, peer reviewed journal and published favorably looking data for its products in them. Merck paid Elsevier to publish such a tome, which neither appears in MEDLINE or has a website, according to The Scientist. What's wrong with this is so obvious it doesn't have to be argued for. What's sad is that I'm sure many a primary care physician was given literature from Merck that said, "As published in Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, Fosamax outperforms all other medications...." Said doctor, or even the average researcher wouldn't know that the journal is bogus. In fact, knowing that the journal is published by Elsevier gives it credibility!
Update: It wasn't one fake journal. It was six fake journals. And as David reminds us, Elsevier is quite willing to play silly buggers with self-citing crackpots as long as they improve impact factors.

Now tell me again: Why do we submit papers to, referee papers for, and buy journals from these people? Some sort of misplaced sense of loyalty? Or some sad combination of apathy and inertia? What will it take for the research community to cut Elsevier loose?

Better alternatives, perhaps?

Full disclosure: I'm a coauthor of a paper that is about to appear in the SOCG 2008 special issue of CGTA, an Elsevier journal. If I'd been the sole author, I would have refused the invitation, but I don't have the right to unilaterally overrule my coauthors, especially the younger ones, who need the gold star in their CVs far more than I do. In retrospect, especially after reading this story, I wish we had refused the invitation. Or perhaps I should have just removed my name from the paper.

Update (May 16): Lots of good discussion at the Secret Blogging Seminar.

April 28, 2009

STOC registration deadline

Don't forget to register for STOC today. Unfortunately, the conference will not be held at this hotel:

I almost want book a room, just to hear them say "Thank you sir, your registration is now complete."

[via Language Log]

March 31, 2009

Call for cyber-geometers

Marc van Kreveld is soliciting nominations for the next Computational Geometry Steering Committee. The current committee's three-year term ends this August. For readers who don't subscribe to the compgeom-announce mailing list, here is Marc's call for nominations:


Dear compgeom community,

You may recall that the Computational Geometry Steering
Committee was elected in June of 2006 for a term of three years,
and was installed August 2006. It is therefore time to start the
process of electing a new committee. As the secretary of the
Steering Committee I e-mail you to ask for nominations.

The current committee is:

             Pankaj Agarwal
             Jeff Erickson
             Marc van Kreveld (secretary)
             Joe Mitchell
             Günter Rote (chair)

The committee advises for the organization of the annual SoCG
(Symposium on Computational Geometry), selects the PC chair,
assists the PC chair in things like forming the PC, conducts the
business meeting at SoCG, and so on.

I will conduct the election in the same manner as before.
Any member of the community may nominate any other member by
sending e-mail directly to me by the deadline (April 14).
Nominations of current/past committee members are allowed, except
for the current secretary (me) because I organize the elections.
It is not necessary to check with those whom you nominate if he/she
wants to take place in the Steering Committee.

After nominations have been received, I will contact those who
are nominated (sufficiently often) and ask them if they are
willing to serve on the steering committee, should they be elected.
A list of candidates will then be prepared and circulated via
compgeom-announce. The community will be asked to vote for five
candidates from the list. The five with the most votes will then
become the new Steering Committee. It will be up to them to select
a chair and otherwise organize themselves.

Nominations and voting is anonymous. Only the current secretary
will have this information.

The new Steering Committee will serve for three years.

Planned timeline:
March 31: Call for Nominations
April 14: Last possibility to nominate
  (The secretary contacts the nominees)
May 1: Call for Votes
May 15: Last possibility to vote
  (The secretary contacts the elected members of the new steering committee)
At SoCG: Announcement of new Steering Committee
August 2008 or earlier: New Steering Committee is installed

To nominate someone, send an email to

             marc@cs.uu.nl

with Subject: "Nomination CG", and with a name in the e-mail body,
before April 14, 2009. We look forward to hearing from you!

Marc van Kreveld