On the Combinatorial Complexity of Approximating Polytopes

Approximating convex bodies succinctly by convex polytopes is a fundamental problem in discrete geometry. A convex body $K$ of diameter $\mathrm{diam}(K)$ is given in Euclidean $d$-dimensional space, where $d$ is a constant. Given an error parameter $\varepsilon > 0$, the objective is to determine a polytope of minimum combinatorial complexity whose Hausdorff distance from $K$ is at most $\varepsilon \cdot \mathrm{diam}(K)$. By combinatorial complexity we mean the total number of faces of all dimensions of the polytope. A well-known result by Dudley implies that $O(1/\varepsilon^{(d-1)/2})$ facets suffice, and a dual result by Bronshteyn and Ivanov similarly bounds the number of vertices, but neither result bounds the total combinatorial complexity. We show that there exists an approximating polytope whose total combinatorial complexity is $\tilde{O}(1/\varepsilon^{(d-1)/2})$, where $\tilde{O}$ conceals a polylogarithmic factor in $1/\varepsilon$. This is a significant improvement upon the best known bound, which is roughly $O(1/\varepsilon^{d-2})$. Our result is based on a novel combination of both old and new ideas. First, we employ Macbeath regions, a classical structure from the theory of convexity. The construction of our approximating polytope employs a new stratified placement of these regions. Second, in order to analyze the combinatorial complexity of the approximating polytope, we present a tight analysis of a width-based variant of B\'{a}r\'{a}ny and Larman's economical cap covering. Finally, we use a deterministic adaptation of the witness-collector technique (developed recently by Devillers et al.) in the context of our stratified construction.Comment: In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium Computational Geometry (SoCG 2016) and accepted to SoCG 2016 special issue of Discrete and Computational Geometr

Lower bounds on the size of semidefinite programming relaxations

We introduce a method for proving lower bounds on the efficacy of semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations for combinatorial problems. In particular, we show that the cut, TSP, and stable set polytopes on $n$-vertex graphs are not the linear image of the feasible region of any SDP (i.e., any spectrahedron) of dimension less than $2^{n^c}$, for some constant $c > 0$. This result yields the first super-polynomial lower bounds on the semidefinite extension complexity of any explicit family of polytopes. Our results follow from a general technique for proving lower bounds on the positive semidefinite rank of a matrix. To this end, we establish a close connection between arbitrary SDPs and those arising from the sum-of-squares SDP hierarchy. For approximating maximum constraint satisfaction problems, we prove that SDPs of polynomial-size are equivalent in power to those arising from degree-$O(1)$ sum-of-squares relaxations. This result implies, for instance, that no family of polynomial-size SDP relaxations can achieve better than a 7/8-approximation for MAX-3-SAT

On polyhedral approximations of the positive semidefinite cone

Let $D$ be the set of $n\times n$ positive semidefinite matrices of trace equal to one, also known as the set of density matrices. We prove two results on the hardness of approximating $D$ with polytopes. First, we show that if $0 < \epsilon < 1$ and $A$ is an arbitrary matrix of trace equal to one, any polytope $P$ such that $(1-\epsilon)(D-A) \subset P \subset D-A$ must have linear programming extension complexity at least $\exp(c\sqrt{n})$ where $c > 0$ is a constant that depends on $\epsilon$. Second, we show that any polytope $P$ such that $D \subset P$ and such that the Gaussian width of $P$ is at most twice the Gaussian width of $D$ must have extension complexity at least $\exp(cn^{1/3})$. The main ingredient of our proofs is hypercontractivity of the noise operator on the hypercube.Comment: 12 page

Separation-Sensitive Collision Detection for Convex Objects

We develop a class of new kinetic data structures for collision detection between moving convex polytopes; the performance of these structures is sensitive to the separation of the polytopes during their motion. For two convex polygons in the plane, let $D$ be the maximum diameter of the polygons, and let $s$ be the minimum distance between them during their motion. Our separation certificate changes $O(\log(D/s))$ times when the relative motion of the two polygons is a translation along a straight line or convex curve, $O(\sqrt{D/s})$ for translation along an algebraic trajectory, and $O(D/s)$ for algebraic rigid motion (translation and rotation). Each certificate update is performed in $O(\log(D/s))$ time. Variants of these data structures are also shown that exhibit \emph{hysteresis}---after a separation certificate fails, the new certificate cannot fail again until the objects have moved by some constant fraction of their current separation. We can then bound the number of events by the combinatorial size of a certain cover of the motion path by balls.Comment: 10 pages, 8 figures; to appear in Proc. 10th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 1999; see also http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jeffe/pubs/kollide.html ; v2 replaces submission with camera-ready versio

Enumerating a subset of the integer points inside a Minkowski sum

AbstractSparse elimination exploits the structure of algebraic equations in order to obtain tighter bounds on the number of roots and better complexity in numerically approximating them. The model of sparsity is of combinatorial nature, thus leading to certain problems in general-dimensional convex geometry. This work addresses one such problem, namely the computation of a certain subset of integer points in the interior of integer convex polytopes. These polytopes are Minkowski sums, but avoiding their explicit construction is precisely one of the main features of the algorithm. Complexity bounds for our algorithm are derived under certain hypotheses, in terms of output-size and the sparsity parameters. A public domain implementation is described and its performance studied. Linear optimization lies at the inner loop of the algorithm, hence we analyze the structure of the linear programs and compare different implementations