Complexity and Approximation for Discriminating and Identifying Code Problems in Geometric Setups

Abstract

We study geometric variations of the discriminating code problem. In the discrete version of the problem, a finite set of points P and a finite set of objects S are given in Rd. The objective is to choose a subset S* ⊂eq S of minimum cardinality such that for each point pi ∈ P, the subset Si* ⊂eq S* covering pi satisfies Si*≠ , and each pair pi,pj ∈ P, i ≠ j, we have Si* ≠ Sj*. In the continuous version of the problem, the solution set S* can be chosen freely among a (potentially infinite) class of allowed geometric objects. In the 1-dimensional case (d=1), the points in P are placed on a horizontal line L, and the objects in S are finite-length line segments aligned with L (called intervals). We show that the discrete version of this problem is NP-complete. This is somewhat surprising as the continuous version is known to be polynomial-time solvable. Still, for the 1-dimensional discrete version, we design a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm. We also design a PTAS for both discrete and continuous versions in one dimension, for the restriction where the intervals are all required to have the same length. We then study the 2-dimensional case (d=2) for axis-parallel unit square objects. We show that both continuous and discrete versions are NP-complete, and design polynomial-time approximation algorithms that produce (16· OPT+1)-approximate and (64· OPT+1)-approximate solutions respectively, using rounding of suitably defined integer linear programming problems. We show that the identifying code problem for axis-parallel unit square intersection graphs (in d=2) can be solved in the same manner as for the discrete version of the discriminating code problem for unit square objects.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…