Approximate Smallest Enclosing Balls

Similar documents
Lectures - Week 4 Matrix norms, Conditioning, Vector Spaces, Linear Independence, Spanning sets and Basis, Null space and Range of a Matrix

APPENDIX A Some Linear Algebra

Affine transformations and convexity

More metrics on cartesian products

Difference Equations

Linear, affine, and convex sets and hulls In the sequel, unless otherwise specified, X will denote a real vector space.

U.C. Berkeley CS294: Beyond Worst-Case Analysis Luca Trevisan September 5, 2017

Spectral Graph Theory and its Applications September 16, Lecture 5

Chapter 5. Solution of System of Linear Equations. Module No. 6. Solution of Inconsistent and Ill Conditioned Systems

Module 9. Lecture 6. Duality in Assignment Problems

Problem Set 9 Solutions

Section 8.3 Polar Form of Complex Numbers

Report on Image warping

Case A. P k = Ni ( 2L i k 1 ) + (# big cells) 10d 2 P k.

A 2D Bounded Linear Program (H,c) 2D Linear Programming

Lecture 2: Gram-Schmidt Vectors and the LLL Algorithm

princeton univ. F 17 cos 521: Advanced Algorithm Design Lecture 7: LP Duality Lecturer: Matt Weinberg

Errors for Linear Systems

The Second Eigenvalue of Planar Graphs

Lecture 10: May 6, 2013

Inner Product. Euclidean Space. Orthonormal Basis. Orthogonal

U.C. Berkeley CS294: Spectral Methods and Expanders Handout 8 Luca Trevisan February 17, 2016

1 Matrix representations of canonical matrices

Finding Primitive Roots Pseudo-Deterministically

CSci 6974 and ECSE 6966 Math. Tech. for Vision, Graphics and Robotics Lecture 21, April 17, 2006 Estimating A Plane Homography

Lecture 10 Support Vector Machines II

Solutions HW #2. minimize. Ax = b. Give the dual problem, and make the implicit equality constraints explicit. Solution.

A New Refinement of Jacobi Method for Solution of Linear System Equations AX=b

Supplement: Proofs and Technical Details for The Solution Path of the Generalized Lasso

Lecture 4: Constant Time SVD Approximation

Lecture 20: Lift and Project, SDP Duality. Today we will study the Lift and Project method. Then we will prove the SDP duality theorem.

2.3 Nilpotent endomorphisms

Singular Value Decomposition: Theory and Applications

STAT 309: MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATIONS I FALL 2018 LECTURE 16

Lecture 21: Numerical methods for pricing American type derivatives

Global Sensitivity. Tuesday 20 th February, 2018

College of Computer & Information Science Fall 2009 Northeastern University 20 October 2009

Bézier curves. Michael S. Floater. September 10, These notes provide an introduction to Bézier curves. i=0

Economics 101. Lecture 4 - Equilibrium and Efficiency

Lecture Notes on Linear Regression

Edge Isoperimetric Inequalities

Numerical Algorithms for Visual Computing 2008/09 Example Solutions for Assignment 4. Problem 1 (Shift invariance of the Laplace operator)

Formulas for the Determinant

Notes on Frequency Estimation in Data Streams

= z 20 z n. (k 20) + 4 z k = 4

Bezier curves. Michael S. Floater. August 25, These notes provide an introduction to Bezier curves. i=0

THE CHINESE REMAINDER THEOREM. We should thank the Chinese for their wonderful remainder theorem. Glenn Stevens

Feature Selection: Part 1

Module 3 LOSSY IMAGE COMPRESSION SYSTEMS. Version 2 ECE IIT, Kharagpur

8.6 The Complex Number System

Volume 18 Figure 1. Notation 1. Notation 2. Observation 1. Remark 1. Remark 2. Remark 3. Remark 4. Remark 5. Remark 6. Theorem A [2]. Theorem B [2].

Additional Codes using Finite Difference Method. 1 HJB Equation for Consumption-Saving Problem Without Uncertainty

Dimensionality Reduction Notes 1

20. Mon, Oct. 13 What we have done so far corresponds roughly to Chapters 2 & 3 of Lee. Now we turn to Chapter 4. The first idea is connectedness.

σ τ τ τ σ τ τ τ σ Review Chapter Four States of Stress Part Three Review Review

DIFFERENTIAL FORMS BRIAN OSSERMAN

arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 6 Sep 2007

p 1 c 2 + p 2 c 2 + p 3 c p m c 2

Introductory Cardinality Theory Alan Kaylor Cline

Foundations of Arithmetic

REAL ANALYSIS I HOMEWORK 1

MATH 241B FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS - NOTES EXAMPLES OF C ALGEBRAS

Min Cut, Fast Cut, Polynomial Identities

Exercise Solutions to Real Analysis

Lecture 12: Discrete Laplacian

The Minimum Universal Cost Flow in an Infeasible Flow Network

and problem sheet 2

Generalized Linear Methods

Assortment Optimization under MNL

COMPLEX NUMBERS AND QUADRATIC EQUATIONS

REDUCTION MODULO p. We will prove the reduction modulo p theorem in the general form as given by exercise 4.12, p. 143, of [1].

n α j x j = 0 j=1 has a nontrivial solution. Here A is the n k matrix whose jth column is the vector for all t j=0

a b a In case b 0, a being divisible by b is the same as to say that

2 More examples with details

8.4 COMPLEX VECTOR SPACES AND INNER PRODUCTS

Clustering Affine Subspaces: Algorithms and Hardness

For now, let us focus on a specific model of neurons. These are simplified from reality but can achieve remarkable results.

Lecture 3. Ax x i a i. i i

C/CS/Phy191 Problem Set 3 Solutions Out: Oct 1, 2008., where ( 00. ), so the overall state of the system is ) ( ( ( ( 00 ± 11 ), Φ ± = 1

Lecture 5 September 17, 2015

FINITELY-GENERATED MODULES OVER A PRINCIPAL IDEAL DOMAIN

Randomness and Computation

Maximizing the number of nonnegative subsets

MATH Sensitivity of Eigenvalue Problems

Lecture 10 Support Vector Machines. Oct

Week 2. This week, we covered operations on sets and cardinality.

Lecture 4: Universal Hash Functions/Streaming Cont d

Representation theory and quantum mechanics tutorial Representation theory and quantum conservation laws

Stanford University CS254: Computational Complexity Notes 7 Luca Trevisan January 29, Notes for Lecture 7

Deriving the X-Z Identity from Auxiliary Space Method

Calculation of time complexity (3%)

princeton univ. F 13 cos 521: Advanced Algorithm Design Lecture 3: Large deviations bounds and applications Lecturer: Sanjeev Arora

Fisher Linear Discriminant Analysis

CSCE 790S Background Results

3.1 Expectation of Functions of Several Random Variables. )' be a k-dimensional discrete or continuous random vector, with joint PMF p (, E X E X1 E X

European Journal of Combinatorics

MAT 578 Functional Analysis

NP-Completeness : Proofs

5 The Rational Canonical Form

CME 302: NUMERICAL LINEAR ALGEBRA FALL 2005/06 LECTURE 13

Transcription:

Chapter 5 Approxmate Smallest Enclosng Balls 5. Boundng Volumes A boundng volume for a set S R d s a superset of S wth a smple shape, for example a box, a ball, or an ellpsod. Fgure 5.: Boundng boxes Q(P ) of pont sets P R Boundng volumes whch are smallest among the ones of a gven shape (wth respect to volume, dameter, or some other crtera) are very useful, because they approxmate the possbly complcated set S by a smple superset. Then, whenever you want to know somethng about S, you frst try to use the boundng volume to answer the queston (ths s usually cheap), and only f ths fals, you analyze S n more detal. Here, we focus on the stuaton n whch S s a pont cloud (fnte pont set) whch we usually denote by P. Fgure 5.: Smallest enclosng balls B(P ) of pont sets P R What shapes to use depends on the questons you want to ask, of course. If you

want to know, for example, how the set P R must be translated and scaled such that a prntout of t flls a sheet of paper, you want to use axes-parallel boundng boxes. Fndng the smallest axes-parallel boundng box (or smply the boundng box) s easy. For every {,..., d}, terate over the -th coordnate of all ponts to fnd the smallest and largest one. Ths results n an algorthm of total runtme O(dn) for P = n. See Fgure 5. for two examples. The resultng box Q(P ) s smallest wth respect to volume and dameter. Alternatvely, you may consder other boundng volumes. A popular one s the smallest enclosng ball, see Fgure 5.. Here, smallest refers to the radus (or equvalently, the volume) of the ball. In the exercses, we ask you to prove that the dameter of the optmal ball B(P ) s never larger than the dameter of the boundng box Q(P ). Ths means, f you consder the dameter as a measure of how well the boundng volume approxmates the pont set, balls are better than boxes. On the other hand, f you consder the volume as the measure of qualty, there s no clear wnner. Supermposng Fgures 5. and 5., you see that the ball has smaller volume than the box n the left stuaton, but larger volume n the rght stuaton. There s another aspect where the ball s the wnner: rotatng P changes the shape and dameter of the boundng box, but the smallest enclosng ball stays the same (up to translaton). Ths s a desrable property n many geometrc applcatons, because t means that the smallest enclosng ball does not have to be recomputed when we apply an sometry (any affne transformaton that preserves lengths of dfference vectors) to P. Other popular boundng volumes are boxes of arbtrary orentaton (mages of some Q d (b, b) under an sometry) and ellpsods, mostly because they approxmate the volume of conv(p ) well. They are more dffcult to compute than (axes-paralell) boxes and balls, though. 5. Fndng an almost optmal ball For P R d, P = n > 0, we let B(P ) denote the ball of smallest radus that contans P. It s well-known that B(P ) exsts and s unque [3], but how do we (effcently) compute t? Recall that the boundng box was easy to fnd n tme O(dn). Can we also compute B(P ) n tme O(dn)? There s no rgorous argument that ths s not possble, but there are good reasons to beleve that one cannot do t. At least, all known algorthms for computng B(P ) are much slower so slow n fact that they wll not be able to solve the problem for n = d =, 000, say. The goal of ths chapter s to prove that tme O(dn) suffces to fnd a ball contanng P whose radus s only % larger than the radus of B(P ). If ths s not good enough, the same algorthm can produce a ball whose radus s only 0.% larger, at the expense of runnng (essentally) ten tmes as long. In fact, any desred percentage can be a mappng x Ax + b, wth A R d d a matrx and b R d a translaton vector

acheved n tme O(dn), but wth the constant behnd the bg O dependng on the percentage. The algorthm (actually, a combnaton of two algorthms) s due to Bădou and Clarkson []. 5.. Bascs Here s what we mean by (the center of) an almost optmal ball, wth respect to a gven constant ε 0. Defnton 5.. Let R P be the radus of B(P ), ε 0. A pont c R d s called ( + ε)- approxmaton of B(P ), f max q P q c ( + ε)r P. Note that the center c P of B(P ) s a -approxmaton of B(P ). We wll need the followng statement about c P. The orgn of t s unknown to me, and often t s conceved as a more or less obvous fact. Bădou and Clarkson remark that the statement s proved n a paper by Goel et al. [] whch s not true. But anyway, t s a smple exercse to prove the followng lemma. Lemma 5.. For any c R d, there exsts a pont p P such that () p c P = R P, and () p c c c P + p c P, see Fgure 5.3 (left). If c c P and P > (whch s the case we are nterested n), ths lemma says that we can fnd a pont on the boundary of B(P ) such that the nonzero vectors p c P and c c P span an obtuse angle (an angle of at least 90 o ). Ths nterpretaton of the nequalty n Lemma 5.. () s a consequence of cosne theorem. In more geometrc terms, the nequalty can also be nterpreted as follows: f c c P, the unque hyperplane h = {x R d (x c P ) (c c P ) = 0} through c P wth normal vector c c P must have a boundary pont of B(P ) n the halfspace h c := {x R d (x c P ) (c c P ) 0} not contanng c, see Fgure 5.3 (left). The rght part of the fgure shows on an ntutve level why ths condton s necessary: f no pont p satsfes the crtera of the Lemma, we can shrnk B(P ) and get a stll smaller ball contanng P, whch s a contradcton to B(P ) beng smallest. Usng Lemma 5.., we can easly prove that a ( + ε)-approxmaton cannot be too far away from c P, just lke we would expect t. 3

h c B(P ) h h B(P ) frag replacements c P c c P c c P c c P c p p c P Fgure 5.3: Illustraton of Lemma 5.. Lemma 5..3 Let c R d be a ( + ε)-approxmaton of B(P ). Then c c P ε + ε R p. Proof. Choose p accordng to Lemma 5... Because p s on the boundary of B(P ) and c s a ( + ε)-approxmaton, we get c c P p c p c P ( + ε) R P R P = (ε + ε )R P. 5.. Algorthm Here s our frst algorthm for approxmatng B(P ). For gven P and ε > 0, ths algorthm computes a sequence of centers c, =,..., /ε, wth the property that the last one s a ( + ε)-approxmaton of c P. Mnball Approx(P, ε): (* computes ( + ε)-approxmaton of B(P ) *) choose p P arbtrarly and set c := p FOR = TO /ε DO choose q P such that q c s maxmum c := c + (q c ) END RETURN c /ε 4

Theorem 5..4 For =,..., /ε, c c P R P. Ths nvarant mmedately mples the approxmaton factor of the algorthm: usng the trangle nequalty, we get that for all s P, s c s c P + c c P R P + R P = ( + ) R P. (5.) It follows that c s a ( + / )-approxmaton; settng = /ε gves the desred ( + ε)-approxmaton. Proof. If P =, we have c = c P n any teraton and the result follows. Otherwse, we proceed by nducton. The statement holds for = because of c P. Now assume that > and that we have already verfed the theorem for. Let us apply Lemma 5.. wth c = c, provdng us wth a pont p. Let q be the pont chosen n teraton. Clam. q c c c P + q c P. (5.) To see ths, we use the way q was chosen, together wth p s propertes () and () from Lemma 5.. to conclude that q c p c () c c P + p c P () c c P + q c P. Note that for c c P, equaton (5.) s equvalent to q h c, see Fgure 5.4 and the dscusson after Lemma 5... The clamed bound for c c P s obvous f c = c P, so we wll assume that c c P. Moreover, P > mples c c (why?), and > mples q c, see the stuaton n Fgure 5.4. We now restrct attenton to the trangle spanned by c P, c and q (ths trangle also contans c ); assume c P c and c c span some angle β, so that c P c and q c span angle 80 o β. Let us ntroduce the followng shortcuts. x := c c P, a := c c P, b := q c P, κ := c c, µ := q c, λ := q c = κ + µ. Because all nvolved vectors are nonzero, these angles are well-defned, even f the trangle spanned by c P, c and q s flat. 5

h c K(P ) PSfrag replacements γ q c P b µ a x β c c κ s p Fgure 5.4: Proof of Theorem 5..4 Recallng that cos(80 o β) = cos(β), the cosne theorem (appled to the two subtrangles nvolvng c c P ) yelds By defnton of c, we have x = a κ + xκ cos β, (5.3) x = b µ xµ cos β. (5.4) κ = λ, µ = λ. Therefore, (5.3) and (5.4) can be rewrtten as follows. ( ) x = a λ + x ( x = b λ cos β, (5.5) ) λ x λ cos β. (5.6) Multplyng (5.5) wth and addng up the two equatons removes the contrbuton of β and x on the rght hand sde, and we get x = ( )a + b λ. (5.7) 6

Inequalty (5.) exactly says that λ a + b, so that (5.7) further yelds x ( ( )a + b ) (a + b ) ( ) ( ) = a + b. Inductvely, we know that a = c c P RP /( ), and because b = q c P RP, the desred nequalty x R P follows. For P = n, the runtme of Algorthm Mnball Approx s O(dn) for one teraton (we need to fnd the largest among n scalar products), meanng that the total runtme s ( ) dn O. 5..3 Algorthm ε The denomnator of ε n the runtme of Algorthm Mnball Approx s not very satsfactory. Even a moderate error bound of ε = 0.0 (%) leads to 0, 000 teratons n the algorthm; that way, we cannot compete wth the boundng box. Here s a second algorthm that acheves a denomnator of ε. The prze to pay s that ths algorthm requres as a black box the computaton of the exact smallest enclosng ball of a small pont set (the call to ths black box can be replaced wth a call to Mnball Approx, though). Mnball Approx(P, ε): (* computes ( + ε)-approxmaton of B(P ) *) choose p P arbtrarly and set c := p, S := {p}, j := 0, := FOR = TO /ε DO choose q P such that q c s maxmum IF q c < THEN j := := q c END S := S {q} compute the smallest enclosng ball B(S ) = B d (c, R ) END IF max s P s c /ε < THEN j = /ε END RETURN c j 7

In the analyss of the algorthm, we work wth the followng symbols. Observe that for all, R := radus R P of B(P ), R := ( + ε)r, c := center of B(S ), R := radus of B(S ) (note that R = 0), λ := R / R, k := c c. λ R/ R = /( + ε), (5.8) because S P, so B(S ) cannot have larger radus than B(P ). Let us assume that no c s a ( + ε)-approxmaton of B(P ). We wll show that under ths assumpton, λ /ε + exceeds the bound n (5.8), a contradcton. 3 To analyze the development of λ n teraton, we frst apply Lemma 5.. to the set S and the pont c = c to deduce the exstence of p S such that meanng that p c c c + p c = k + R, p c λ R + k. (5.9) Furthermore, for the pont q chosen n teraton, the trangle nequalty yelds q c q c + c c, mplyng q c q c c c = q c k > R k. (5.0) In the last nequalty (and only here), we use the assumpton that c s not a ( + ε)- approxmaton, meanng that q c = max s P s c > ( + ε)r = R. We are now approachng a recursve lower bound for λ. Because both p and q are n S, we get usng (5.9) and (5.0) that ) λ R = R max ( p c, q c ) max ( λ R + k, R k. (5.) The frst term of the maxmum ncreases wth k, whle the second term decreases. It follows that the maxmum s mnmzed when both terms are equal, so when k = λ 3 you may object that λ /ε + does not appear n the algorthm, but for ths argument, we smply consder a hypothetcal last teraton wth = /ε +. 8 R

and consequently λ R + k = R k = + λ Substtutng ths nto (5.) yelds λ + λ,, (5.) wth λ = R / R = 0. Equaton (5.) s equvalently wrtten as R. whch n turn mples λ λ,, λ ( λ )( + λ ) = + λ because λ <. By expandng ths, we get In other words, For = /ε +, ths gves + λ > > + = + λ λ,. λ > λ > + ( )/,. + /ε = + ε, λ +,, a contradcton to (5.8). Therefore, our ntal assumpton was wrong, and there must be some c 0, 0 {,..., /ε }, whch yelds a ( + ε)-approxmaton. By the choce of j, the pont c j returned by the algorthm satsfes max s P s c j max s P s c 0 ( + ε)r, so c j s tself a ( + ε)-approxmaton. The runtme of the algorthm s bounded by ( dn O ε + ) ε f d ( /ε ), wth f d (n) the tme necessary to compute the exact smallest enclosng ball of a set of n ponts n R d. The known bounds for f d (n) are exponental n d, but by usng Mnball Approx nstead, we can replace ths by a bound whch s polynomal n d and /ε (we omt the detals here). 9

5..4 Core sets Our analyss of Algorthm Mnball Approx has a very nterestng consequence whch we want to state explctly (choose S = S j to get t). Corollary 5..5 For any fnte pont set P R d and ε > 0, there exsts a subset S P, S /ε, such that the center of B(S) s a ( + ε)-approxmaton of B(P ). Such a set s called a core set, and we wll encounter core sets for other boundng volumes later n the course. Accordng to the exercses, a subset wth the same smallest enclosng ball as P may requre up to d + ponts (and ths s tght). If you are wllng to accept a small error of ε = 0.0, say, you can fnd a subset S of constant sze 00 wth the same smallest enclosng ball as P, n any dmenson. Ths s qute remarkable, and also exceptonal. Whle other boundng volumes for P do have core sets whose szes do not depend on n = P, there s usually an (exponental) dependence on d, on top of the dependence on ε. 5.3 Coresets and balls n other norms Let us reformulate Corollary 5..5 somewhat dfferently: For any fnte pont set P R d and ε > 0, there exsts a subset S P, S /ε, such that all ponts of P are wthn dstance εr S of B(S). Here, B(S) s the smallest enclosng ball of S, and R P s the radus of the smallest enclosng ball B(P ) of P. It turns out that a smlar statement also holds f we generalze our concept of balls. 0

Bblography [] M. Bădou and K. L. Clarkson. Optmal core-sets for balls. submtted, 00. [] A. Goel, P. Indyk, and K. R. Varadarajan. Reductons among hgh-dmensonal proxmty problems. In Proc. th ACM-SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, pages 769 778, 00. [3] E. Welzl. Smallest enclosng dsks (balls and ellpsods). In H. Maurer, edtor, New Results and New Trends n Computer Scence, volume 555 of Lecture Notes n Computer Scence, pages 359 370. Sprnger-Verlag, 99.