arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2212.10247

Dominance for Containment Problems

Waseem Akram·Sanjeev Saxena
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In a containment problem, the goal is to preprocess a set of geometric objects so that, given a geometric query object, we can report all the objects containing the query object. We consider the containment problem where input objects are homothetic triangles and the query objects considered are line segments, circles, and trapezoids with bases parallel to either axis. We show that this problem can be solved using the 3-d query dominance problem. The solutions presented can also be extended for higher dimensions.

Explore related subjects

cs.DScs.CG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Waseem Akram, Sanjeev Saxena. 2022-12-20. Dominance for Containment Problems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63021-7_31

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The 11/6 supremum of the Wang-Sitters rounding scheme for graph balancing

Wang and Sitters' 11/6-approximation for graph balancing is not one algorithm but a set of permitted executions: Step 1 may return any feasible solution of the relaxation and Step 3 any of the many ways to match the remaining jobs into the slots the rounding opens. We determine exactly what that latitude permits: ratios arbitrarily close to 11/6, and none reaching it, so 11/6 is the least constant that bounds every permitted run, and no run attains it. We then determine the worst-case guarantee as a function of the big-job threshold beta, measured against the optimum itself. On Wang and Sitters' own range 1/2 < beta < 1 the guarantee is exactly max{3/2 + beta/2, 5/2 - beta}. We then extend the same eligibility rule to 0 < beta <= 1/2 -- outside the range they state, and where a big job's two shares can both reach the threshold, so Step 2 acquires a third choice -- and determine the guarantee there as well: exactly 3/2 + (1-beta)floor(1/beta), hence unbounded as beta falls. The worst-case ratio is therefore known at every threshold in (0,1), and attained at none. Consequently 2/3 is the unique optimal threshold, and the guarantee jumps at one half rather than degrading smoothly. A companion note asks what does not fix the constant.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

A Group-Based Resource Allocation Model for the Fractional Knapsack Problem

To solve the fractional knapsack problem, Dantzig's greedy rule orders items according to their value-to-cost ratio. This ordering introduces priority issues. An arbitrarily small perturbation to the input can change the allocation if the budget is exhausted between two items with very similar ratios. To mitigate that problem, we introduce a two-stage rule. We group items sharing attributes within a radius $δ$. These groups are then evaluated in descending order of ratio, and divide their group's budget share without further ranking. Consider a group featuring an aggregate capacity $U_G$, unit costs contained in $[w^-,w^+]$, and a representative value $\widehat{v}$. The group's loss compared to the exact optimum is bounded by $\widehat{v}\, U_G\frac{w^+-w^-}{w^++w^-}+\varepsilon_v U_G$, in which $\varepsilon_v$ limits the group's internal value variation. Moreover, for any group size, this harmonic factor remains tight. The overall loss becomes restricted to the single budget-binding group whenever the grouping remains order-compatible; thus, groups containing at most $K$ items suffer a per-item loss of $\mathcal{O}(\frac{K}{n})$. Should group ratio intervals exhibit an overlap of at most $ω$, an additive term $ωC$ degrades this bound. Within the separation margin between adjacent groups, the grouped allocation remains Lipschitz continuous with respect to cost data, exhibiting a modulus of $\frac{K}{w_{\min}}$. Computing this allocation takes $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m+|Γ|\log|Γ|)$ time given $m$ groups and a boundary group $Γ$. Alternatively, the time complexity drops to $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m)$ if a linear-time selection method identifies the boundary group's allocation.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(σ_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $σ_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗