Binary Planar Partitions

Author

Your Name

Published

February 8, 2025

Introduction

In computational geometry, partitioning a planar region is a fundamental operation with applications in various fields such as computer graphics, visibility problems, and spatial data structures. Dividing a plane into simpler regions allows for efficient processing and querying of geometric data. A particularly interesting and useful type of planar partition is the Binary Planar Partition (BPP). This lecture introduces the concept of Binary Planar Partitions, explores their properties, and discusses algorithms for constructing them, with a focus on randomized approaches. We will also investigate the connection between BPPs and randomized algorithms in the context of computational complexity.

The primary goal is to understand how to efficiently decompose a plane using recursive binary splits and to analyze the performance of randomized algorithms designed for this purpose. Efficient planar partitions are crucial for optimizing various geometric algorithms. For instance, in computer graphics, determining the correct drawing order of objects to handle visibility is essential, and BPPs provide a structured way to achieve this.

Key concepts that will be covered include:

Formal definition of Binary Planar Partitions and their representation as binary trees.
Measures for evaluating the size and efficiency of a BPP.
Introduction to autopartitions, a specific type of BPP where splitting lines are derived from the input segments.
The RandAuto algorithm, a randomized algorithm for constructing autopartitions, and its expected performance.
An overview of Probabilistic Turing Machines as a theoretical model for analyzing randomized algorithms.

Binary Planar Partitions (BPP)

Definition of BPP

Definition 1 (Binary Planar Partition (BPP)). A Binary Planar Partition for a set of line segments $S$ in the plane is constructed by recursively dividing the plane using lines. It can be represented as a binary tree where:

Each internal node of the tree corresponds to a region in the plane and a splitting line $l$. This line $l$ divides the associated region into two disjoint sub-regions.
Each internal node has exactly two children, representing the two sub-regions created by the splitting line $l$. These are typically referred to as the left and right children, associated with regions, say, $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$, resulting from the split.
Each leaf node of the tree is associated with a region that is considered "simple". For a BPP of a set of segments $S$, simplicity is defined by the condition that each leaf region contains at most one segment (or a portion of a segment) from $S$. Ideally, a leaf region should contain either at most one segment or no segments at all.

In essence, the process of constructing a BPP involves recursively subdividing the plane until each resulting region is simple enough according to the defined criteria. We start with the entire plane as the initial region. At each step, we select a region that is not yet simple and choose a line that intersects some segments within that region to act as a splitting line. This line divides the current region into two new regions, and we repeat this process for each of these new regions until all regions are simple. The recursive nature of this division naturally leads to a binary tree structure.

Example of a Binary Planar Partition. The left side illustrates the planar partition of a set of segments $S = \{s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4, s_5\}$ using splitting lines $r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4$. The right side shows the corresponding binary tree structure. Each leaf node is labeled with the segment it contains within its region. Region labels $r(v)$ are omitted for clarity.

Figure 1 provides a visual example of a BPP for a given set of line segments. Observe the recursive division of the plane on the left and its corresponding binary tree representation on the right. Each internal node in the tree corresponds to a splitting line, and each leaf corresponds to a region containing at most one segment.

Size of a BPP

The size of a BPP is a crucial measure of its efficiency and is typically defined as the number of nodes in its binary tree representation. Since it’s a binary tree, the number of nodes is directly related to the number of regions created in the planar partition. A larger BPP implies a more complex partition, potentially leading to higher computational costs in applications. Conversely, a smaller BPP is generally desirable for efficiency.

The size of a BPP is fundamentally linked to the number of leaves in the binary tree. The number of leaves reflects how many simple regions are required to partition the given set of segments. The number of leaves, in turn, is influenced by the number of splitting lines, or cuts, needed to separate the segments according to the BPP definition. Essentially, the more cuts required, the larger the BPP size.

Ideally, in an efficient BPP, we aim to minimize the number of splitting lines used. If a BPP is constructed such that no two segments intersect within the same leaf region, then each leaf region ideally contains at most one segment or a part of a segment. It’s important to note that the number of leaves in a BPP can sometimes exceed the number of initial segments $|S|$. This occurs when segments must be further subdivided by the splitting lines to achieve the desired separation, as illustrated in Figure 1 where 5 segments result in more than 5 leaf nodes in the BPP tree.

Applications: Painter’s Algorithm

Binary Planar Partitions have significant applications, particularly in computer graphics. One prominent example is their use in the Painter’s Algorithm, also known as the priority fill algorithm. This algorithm is used for rendering 2D and 3D scenes by determining the correct drawing order for polygons or line segments to handle visibility and hidden surface removal accurately.

The core idea of the Painter’s Algorithm is to draw objects in a specific order, typically from back to front or front to back, so that objects closer to the viewer correctly occlude objects farther away. A BPP provides a structured way to determine such a drawing order. By traversing the BPP tree, we can establish a consistent ordering of the segments or polygons. For example, an in-order traversal of the BPP tree can yield a valid drawing order.

Example 2 (Painter’s Algorithm Application). Consider using a BPP to determine the drawing order of segments in a 2D scene for rendering. By traversing the BPP tree, for instance, using an in-order traversal, we can obtain an ordering of the leaf regions. This ordering can then be used to draw the segments associated with each leaf region in a way that correctly handles visibility. Segments in "back" regions in the traversal order are drawn first, and segments in "front" regions are drawn later, achieving the painter’s effect.

The efficiency of rendering a scene using a BPP is directly related to the size of the BPP, denoted as $|BPP|$. The time complexity of the Painter’s Algorithm when using a BPP is often proportional to the size of the BPP. Therefore, constructing a BPP with a minimal size is highly desirable for achieving efficient and fast rendering in computer graphics applications. A smaller BPP translates to fewer regions and thus less processing required to determine the drawing order and render the scene.

Autopartitions and Randomized Algorithms

Autopartitions

Definition 3 (Autopartition). An autopartition is a specialized type of Binary Planar Partition (BPP) where the splitting lines are constrained to be lines that are extensions of the input segments themselves. Given a set of segments $S$, any splitting line used in an autopartition for $S$ must be a line that contains at least one segment from $S$. In other words, if $l$ is a splitting line in an autopartition of $S$, then there must exist a segment $s \in S$ such that $l$ is the line supporting $s$.

Autopartitions are particularly interesting because they restrict the choice of splitting lines to be intrinsically related to the input segments. This can be advantageous in certain applications as it leverages the geometry of the input data more directly. However, constructing efficient BPPs, and especially autopartitions, is not always straightforward.

Remark. Remark 4 (Deterministic vs. Randomized Strategies). Deterministic strategies for selecting splitting lines in BPP construction can sometimes lead to inefficient partitions. In scenarios with complex arrangements of segments, a poorly chosen sequence of splitting lines can result in a BPP with a large size, potentially increasing computational costs in subsequent operations. This motivates the use of randomized algorithms for constructing autopartitions to achieve better expected performance.

Deterministic strategies for selecting splitting lines in BPP construction can sometimes lead to inefficient partitions. In scenarios with complex arrangements of segments, a poorly chosen sequence of splitting lines can result in a BPP with a large size, potentially increasing computational costs in subsequent operations. For instance, consistently choosing splitting lines based on a fixed order or heuristic might perform badly on specific input configurations, leading to a worst-case performance that is far from optimal. Consider a scenario where deterministic rules always pick lines that create highly unbalanced partitions, repeatedly splitting off only a small number of segments. This could lead to a BPP tree that is deep and bushy, resulting in a large number of nodes and regions.

This potential inefficiency of deterministic approaches motivates the use of randomized algorithms for constructing autopartitions. By introducing randomness into the selection of splitting lines, we aim to "average out" the bad cases and achieve good expected performance across all possible inputs. Randomized algorithms can often avoid the pitfalls of deterministic heuristics by making choices that are less susceptible to pathological cases. The intuition is that by randomly permuting the order in which we consider segments for splitting, we reduce the likelihood of consistently making poor splitting choices that lead to large partitions.

Randomized Autopartition Algorithm: RandAuto

The RandAuto algorithm is a randomized algorithm designed to construct an autopartition for a set of non-intersecting line segments. The primary goal of RandAuto is to generate an autopartition with a small expected size. Randomization is introduced by considering the input segments in a random order when choosing splitting lines.

Input: A set $S = \{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_n\}$ of non-intersecting line segments in the plane.
Output: A binary autopartition $P_{\pi}$ of $S$.

Generate a random permutation $\pi$ of the indices $\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. This permutation is chosen uniformly at random from all $n!$ possible permutations. Let $\pi = (\pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_n)$ represent the random order of segments $(s_{\pi_1}, s_{\pi_2}, \ldots, s_{\pi_n})$. This step ensures that each segment has an equal chance of being considered earlier in the splitting process. Initialize the planar partition with a single region, representing the entire plane. Select any region $R$ that contains more than one segment. Iterate through the segments contained in region $R$ according to the order defined by the permutation $\pi$. Let $s_{\pi_i}$ be the first segment in the permuted order that is contained in region $R$ and whose supporting line $l(s_{\pi_i})$ can serve as a splitting line for $R$. A line $l(s_{\pi_i})$ is a valid splitting line if it intersects the interior of region $R$, effectively dividing $R$ into two non-empty sub-regions. We choose the first available segment in the random order that can split the current region. Split region $R$ using the line $l(s_{\pi_i})$. This line divides $R$ into two new regions, $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$. Replace $R$ with $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$ in the partition. Return the constructed binary autopartition $P_{\pi}$.

In each iteration of the RandAuto algorithm, a region containing multiple segments is selected for subdivision. The choice of the splitting line is determined by the random permutation $\pi$. The algorithm considers segments within the selected region in the order given by $\pi$ and picks the first segment whose supporting line can split the region. This process continues recursively for the newly created regions until every region in the partition contains at most one segment. The random permutation $\pi$ is crucial as it dictates the priority of segments when choosing splitting lines, introducing randomness into the BPP construction process.

Exercise 1. Demonstrate that the RandAuto algorithm always terminates.

Hint: Consider that in each step, a region with more than one segment is split. Think about how the complexity of the segment arrangement within each region changes with each split. Specifically, consider the number of segment pairs that are in the same region. Each split reduces the number of pairs of segments that are in the same region. Since we start with a finite number of pairs, and in each step, we reduce this number, the process must eventually terminate when no region contains more than one segment.

Expected Size of RandAuto Autopartition

A crucial property of the RandAuto algorithm is the expected size of the autopartition it produces. The expected size provides a measure of the average performance of the algorithm over all possible random permutations.

Theorem 5 (Expected Size of RandAuto Autopartition). The expected size of the autopartition $P_{\pi}$ produced by the RandAuto algorithm for a set of $n$ non-intersecting line segments is $O(n \log n)$.

This theorem indicates that, on average, the RandAuto algorithm generates reasonably small autopartitions. The logarithmic factor $\log n$ suggests that the size of the partition grows relatively slowly with the number of segments. This is a significant improvement over potentially quadratic size partitions that could arise from poorly chosen deterministic splitting strategies.

Corollary 6 (Existence of Small Autopartition). From Theorem 5, it follows that there exists at least one autopartition of size $O(n \log n)$ for any set of $n$ non-intersecting line segments.

Corollary 6 is a direct consequence of Theorem 5. If the expected size of the autopartition is $O(n \log n)$, then there must exist at least one permutation that results in an autopartition of this size or smaller. This is because the expected value is, in some sense, an average over all possible outcomes, so there must be at least one outcome that is no worse than the average. In practical terms, this means that while some random permutations might lead to larger autopartitions, there is guaranteed to be at least one (and likely many) that produce an autopartition of size $O(n \log n)$.

The $O(n \log n)$ expected size is a significant result, as it suggests that randomized approaches can effectively construct efficient planar partitions. This bound is considerably better than what might be achieved by naive deterministic methods in certain cases, highlighting the power of randomization in computational geometry. The logarithmic factor is characteristic of many efficient divide-and-conquer algorithms, and RandAuto, despite its simplicity, achieves this desirable performance in expectation.

Analysis of RandAuto’s Expected Size

To understand why the expected size of the autopartition produced by RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$, we need to analyze the probability that a segment is used as a splitting line and how these splitting lines contribute to the overall size of the partition.

Let us consider any two distinct segments $\mu$ and $\nu$ from the input set $S$. We are interested in the event that segment $\mu$ is used to split a region in a way that separates segment $\nu$, either directly or indirectly, during the execution of RandAuto. To quantify this, we first define an "index" between two segments.

Definition 7. For two segments $\mu$ and $\nu$, we define $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = i$ if the supporting line of segment $\mu$, denoted as $l(\mu)$, intersects exactly $i-1$ other segments from $S$ before it intersects segment $\nu$. The intersections are considered in order along the line $l(\mu)$ starting from a point on $\mu$ and extending in a consistent direction. If $l(\mu)$ does not intersect $\nu$, we define $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = \infty$.

The index $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ essentially counts how many segments are "between" segment $\mu$ and segment $\nu$ with respect to the splitting line $l(\mu)$. This notion helps us understand the relative positions of segments and the likelihood of one segment being used to split regions containing others.

Now, let $C_{\mu, \nu}$ be an indicator random variable defined for each ordered pair of distinct segments $(\mu, \nu)$ from $S$. Let $C_{\mu, \nu} = 1$ if segment $\mu$ is used as a splitting line at some step in RandAuto in a region that contains segment $\nu$ (or a part of it), thereby contributing to the separation of $\nu$ from other segments due to a split induced by $\mu$. Otherwise, let $C_{\mu, \nu} = 0$. We aim to calculate the expected value of $C_{\mu, \nu}$, which is $E[C_{\mu, \nu}] = P[C_{\mu, \nu} = 1]$, representing the probability that $\mu$ is used to separate $\nu$. We denote the event $C_{\mu, \nu} = 1$ as $\mu \rightarrow \nu$.

Suppose $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = i$, meaning that the line $l(\mu)$ intersects $i-1$ segments, say $\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}$, before intersecting $\nu$. For segment $\mu$ to be chosen as a splitting segment in a region that also contains $\nu$, the following conditions must be met in the random permutation $\pi$:

Segment $\mu$ must appear in the permutation $\pi$ before segment $\nu$. Otherwise, if $\nu$ appears before $\mu$, $\nu$ might be chosen as a splitting segment first, potentially separating $\mu$ and $\nu$ before $\mu$ has a chance to act as a splitter related to $\nu$.
Segment $\mu$ must also appear in the permutation $\pi$ before all the $i-1$ segments $\{\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}\}$ that $l(\mu)$ intersects before $\nu$. If any of these segments $\mu_j$ (for $1 \leq j \leq i-1$) appears before $\mu$ in $\pi$, then $\mu_j$ would be considered as a splitting segment before $\mu$ (assuming they are in the same region), and $\mu$ might not be used to separate $\nu$ in the way we are counting.

Therefore, for $\mu$ to be the splitting segment that contributes to separating $\nu$, segment $\mu$ must be the first segment appearing in the permutation $\pi$ among the set of segments $\{\mu, \nu, \mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}\}$. This set contains a total of $i+1$ segments. Since the permutation $\pi$ is chosen uniformly at random from all possible permutations of $n$ segments, each of these $i+1$ segments has an equal probability of being the first in the permutation. Thus, the probability that $\mu$ is the first among them is $\frac{1}{i+1}$.

Hence, the probability that $\mu$ is used to separate $\nu$ is: \[P[C_{\mu, \nu} = 1] = P[\mu \rightarrow \nu] = \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}\]

The expected size of the autopartition $P_{\pi}$, which is related to the number of nodes in the binary tree, can be expressed in terms of the expected number of splits. A simplified way to think about the size is to consider it roughly proportional to $n$ (for the leaf nodes, approximately one per segment in ideal cases) plus the expected number of "extra" splits needed due to segment interactions. We can relate the expected size to the sum of expected values of our indicator variables $C_{\mu, \nu}$ over all ordered pairs of distinct segments $(\mu, \nu)$: \[E[\text{Size}(P_{\pi})] \approx n + E\left[\sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} C_{\mu, \nu}\right] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} E[C_{\mu, \nu}] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} P[\mu \rightarrow \nu] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}\] Here, the term $n$ is a rough lower bound on the size (number of leaves could be around $n$), and the double summation accounts for the expected number of additional splits caused by the relative arrangements of segment pairs.

To bound the sum, we consider that for a fixed segment $\mu$, as $\nu$ varies over all other segments, the index $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ can take values from 1 up to approximately $n-1$. For each segment $\mu$, we are summing probabilities of the form $\frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$. Without going into a fully rigorous derivation which requires more detailed geometric probability arguments, we can intuitively see that for a fixed $\mu$, the sum $\sum_{\nu \neq \mu} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$ is, on average, related to a harmonic sum. In a simplified view, if we assume that for each segment $\mu$, the indices $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ for all $\nu \neq \mu$ are roughly uniformly distributed in the range $[1, n-1]$, then the sum would behave like: \[\sum_{\substack{\nu \in S \\ \nu \neq \mu}} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1} \approx \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{1}{i+1} = H_n - 1 \approx \ln(n)\] where $H_n$ is the $n$-th harmonic number, approximately $\ln(n) + O(1)$. Summing this over all $n$ segments $\mu \in S$, we get a total expected size roughly proportional to $n \log n$. Thus, a more rigorous analysis confirms that the expected size of the autopartition produced by RandAuto is indeed $O(n \log n)$.

Exercise 2. Demonstrate that the expected time complexity of RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$.

Hint: To analyze the expected time complexity of RandAuto, consider the operations performed in each step of the algorithm. For each region that needs to be split, RandAuto iterates through the segments within that region according to the random permutation. For each segment, it checks if its supporting line can be used to split the region.

Probabilistic Turing Machines and Complexity

The use of randomization in algorithms like RandAuto naturally leads us to consider probabilistic models of computation. To formally reason about the power and limitations of randomized algorithms, we introduce the concept of a Probabilistic Turing Machine (PTM). A PTM is an extension of the standard deterministic Turing Machine, augmented with the fundamental capability to make random choices during its execution. This ability to incorporate randomness is what allows PTMs to model randomized algorithms accurately.

Definition 8 (Probabilistic Turing Machine (PTM)). A Probabilistic Turing Machine is a Turing machine that, in addition to the standard deterministic transitions, is equipped with transitions that depend on the outcome of a random event. This random event is typically modeled as a fair coin flip, providing a source of unbiased random bits.

In contrast to a deterministic Turing Machine, where for each state and tape symbol, there is a unique next state and action, a PTM can have multiple possible transitions for a given state and symbol, each associated with a probability. We can conceptualize a PTM as having transitions that are not solely determined by the current state and the symbol being read, but also by an independent source of randomness. This source can be thought of as a stream of random bits, where each bit is generated by a fair coin flip.

For instance, a transition in a PTM might be defined as follows: "If the machine is in state $q$ and reading symbol $a$, then:

With probability 1/2, transition to state $q_1$, write symbol $b_1$ on the tape, and move the tape head in direction $D_1$.
With probability 1/2, transition to state $q_2$, write symbol $b_2$ on the tape, and move the tape head in direction $D_2$.

Here, the choice between the two transitions is made based on the outcome of a random event (coin flip).

Probabilistic Turing Machines are of paramount importance because they provide a rigorous and formal framework for modeling and analyzing randomized algorithms. They allow us to study the inherent capabilities and limitations of computation when randomness is introduced as a computational resource. The complexity of a randomized algorithm, when analyzed in the context of PTMs, is typically characterized by metrics such as its expected runtime and the probability of producing an incorrect output (error probability). Unlike deterministic algorithms, where we are concerned with worst-case complexity, for randomized algorithms, we often focus on average-case or expected complexity and the likelihood of success.

Remark. Remark 9 (Computation Tree of a PTM). For any given input $x$, a probabilistic Turing machine does not have a single, fixed computation path. Instead, its execution can branch into multiple paths depending on the sequence of random choices made. For a specific input $x$, a PTM may accept it with a certain probability and reject it with the complementary probability. The sequence of computations of a PTM on a given input of size $n$ can be visualized as a computation tree, representing all possible sequences of random choices and their outcomes.

For any given input $x$, a probabilistic Turing machine does not have a single, fixed computation path. Instead, its execution can branch into multiple paths depending on the sequence of random choices made. For a specific input $x$, aPTM may accept it with a certain probability and reject it with the complementary probability. Our study then focuses on understanding this acceptance probability and the amount of computational resources (time, tape space) used by the PTM.

The sequence of computations of a PTM on a given input of size $n$ can be visualized as a computation tree. This tree represents all possible sequences of random choices the PTM can make during its execution. The height of this tree corresponds to the time complexity of the computation, say $f(n)$. Each path from the root of this tree to a leaf represents a specific sequence of random outcomes (coin flips) and leads to a final state (accept, reject, or halt). Analyzing the properties of this computation tree, such as its expected height and the distribution of outcomes at the leaves, is crucial for understanding the complexity and behavior of probabilistic algorithms.

Conclusion

Remark. Remark 10 (Concluding Remarks on BPPs and Randomized Algorithms). In summary, this lecture has provided an introduction to Binary Planar Partitions (BPPs), highlighting their definition, properties, and applications, particularly in visibility ordering problems like the Painter’s Algorithm. We delved into autopartitions, a specific type of BPP where splitting lines are derived from the input segments themselves. A key focus was on the RandAuto algorithm, a randomized approach for constructing autopartitions, and we discussed the significant result that it achieves an expected partition size of $O(n \log n)$ for $n$ non-intersecting line segments. This result underscores the effectiveness of randomization in computational geometry for achieving efficient solutions.

Furthermore, we briefly introduced the concept of Probabilistic Turing Machines (PTMs), which serve as the foundational theoretical model for analyzing randomized algorithms. PTMs allow us to formally study the computational power and complexity of algorithms that utilize randomness as a resource. Understanding PTMs is crucial for placing randomized algorithms within the broader context of computational complexity theory.

Key takeaways from this lecture include:

A solid understanding of the definition and properties of Binary Planar Partitions and their representation as binary trees.
Appreciation for the effectiveness of randomized algorithms, such as RandAuto, in constructing efficient planar partitions, achieving an expected size of $O(n \log n)$.
Familiarity with the concept of autopartitions and their relevance in leveraging input segment geometry for partitioning.
Introduction to Probabilistic Turing Machines as the theoretical basis for analyzing randomized algorithms, allowing for formal reasoning about expected runtime and error probabilities.

Remark. Remark 11 (The Power of Randomization). Randomization indeed provides a powerful toolkit for designing efficient algorithms, not only in computational geometry but across various domains of computer science. Randomized algorithms often offer advantages in terms of simplicity, average-case performance, and robustness against worst-case inputs. They are particularly valuable when deterministic approaches are either too complex, inefficient, or prone to pathological cases.

For those interested in further exploration, several avenues of research and study are open:

Deterministic Algorithms for BPP Construction: Investigate deterministic algorithms for constructing Binary Planar Partitions and compare their performance (in terms of BPP size and construction time) with randomized approaches like RandAuto. Are there deterministic algorithms that can guarantee similar or better performance bounds?
Complexity Classes for Probabilistic Computation: Delve deeper into the complexity classes associated with probabilistic computation, such as BPP (Bounded-error Probabilistic Polynomial time), RP (Randomized Polynomial time), and ZPP (Zero-error Probabilistic Polynomial time). Understand how these classes relate to deterministic complexity classes like P and NP, and explore the landscape of probabilistic complexity theory.
Applications of BPPs: Explore further applications of Binary Planar Partitions in various fields, such as computer graphics (beyond the Painter’s Algorithm), spatial databases, collision detection, and visibility computations in 3D scenes. Investigate how BPPs can be adapted and optimized for specific application requirements.
Advanced Randomized Algorithms in Computational Geometry: Study other advanced randomized algorithms in computational geometry, such as randomized incremental algorithms for convex hulls, Delaunay triangulations, and arrangements of lines. Understand the probabilistic analysis techniques used to evaluate their expected performance.

Remark. Remark 12 (Further Learning). The field of randomized algorithms and probabilistic computation is rich and continues to be an active area of research, offering many opportunities for further learning and contribution.

Exercises

Demonstrate that the RandAuto algorithm always terminates.
1. Hint: Consider the number of pairs of segments that are present in the same region. How does a split operation affect this number? Argue that this number strictly decreases with each split, and since it is a non-negative integer, the algorithm must eventually reach a state where no region contains more than one segment.
Demonstrate that the expected time complexity of RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$.
1. Hint: Analyze the expected number of splitting lines used by RandAuto, which is related to the size of the BPP. Then, consider the cost of processing each split. What operations are involved in splitting a region? How can these operations be implemented efficiently? Think about data structures to manage regions and segments, and how to efficiently find the first eligible segment in the random permutation that can split a given region. Consider the expected number of segments you might need to check in each region before finding a splitter, and the cost of updating regions and segment assignments after a split.
Consider a set of segments in general position (no three lines intersecting at a point, no two segments collinear, etc.). How does this assumption simplify the analysis of BPPs and autopartitions?
1. Hint: General position assumptions often eliminate degenerate cases and simplify geometric analyses. How does general position affect the ‘index(μ, ν)’? Does it simplify the calculation of this index? How might it affect the structure of the BPP tree? For example, in general position, you avoid situations where multiple segments are collinear or multiple lines intersect at the same point. Consider how this might simplify the geometric operations and reduce the complexity of analyzingsegment interactions and splitting line choices. Does it guarantee a more balanced BPP? For instance, in general position, the index function might have more predictable behavior, and the probability calculations in the expected size analysis could become more straightforward.
Explore other algorithms for constructing Binary Planar Partitions. Compare and contrast their performance and properties with RandAuto.
1. Suggestions for exploration:
  1. Deterministic BPP Algorithms: Research deterministic algorithms for BPP construction. For example, consider algorithms that use a fixed strategy for choosing splitting lines, such as always splitting with a vertical line, or using the median x-coordinate of segment endpoints. Analyze the worst-case size of BPPs produced by such algorithms and their construction time complexity. How do they compare to RandAuto in terms of performance guarantees and ease of implementation? Deterministic algorithms might offer guaranteed worst-case performance, but could potentially be less efficient on average or for specific input distributions compared to randomized approaches.
  2. Kd-tree based BPPs: Investigate how the principles of kd-trees can be applied to construct Binary Planar Partitions. Can you adapt the kd-tree partitioning strategy to create a BPP for a set of line segments? How would you choose splitting lines and manage segments in the regions? Analyze the properties of BPPs constructed using kd-tree approaches. Kd-trees are known for efficient space partitioning, and adapting them for BPP construction could lead to algorithms with good practical performance, especially for uniformly distributed segments.
  3. Grid-based BPPs: Explore methods that use a grid to guide the construction of BPPs. Can you overlay a grid on the plane and use grid lines as potential splitting lines? How would you adapt this approach to ensure that the splitting lines are related to the input segments (for autopartitions or general BPPs)? Consider the trade-offs between BPP size and construction complexity in grid-based methods. Grid-based methods might simplify the region management and splitting process, but the size and structure of the grid could significantly impact the BPP’s efficiency and size.
  4. Hybrid Approaches: Consider hybrid algorithms that combine randomized and deterministic strategies. For instance, could you use randomization to select a general direction for splitting lines but then use a deterministic rule to choose a specific line in that direction? Explore the potential benefits of such hybrid approaches. Hybrid approaches aim to leverage the advantages of both randomization (average-case performance) and deterministic rules (potentially better control over partition structure or worst-case behavior).
2. Comparison criteria: When comparing different BPP construction algorithms, consider the following criteria:
  - Size of the BPP: How does the size of the BPP (number of nodes or leaves) scale with the number of input segments in the worst case and on average? Smaller BPPs are generally preferred for efficiency in applications like rendering and visibility queries.
  - Construction Time Complexity: What is the time complexity of constructing the BPP? Faster construction is important, especially for dynamic scenes or real-time applications where BPPs might need to be rebuilt frequently.
  - Ease of Implementation: How easy is the algorithm to implement? Is it conceptually simple and straightforward to code, or does it involve complex geometric operations and data structures? Simpler algorithms are often easier to debug, maintain, and adapt.
  - Adaptability: How adaptable is the algorithm to different types of input data or specific application requirements? Can it be easily modified or extended? Algorithms that can be tuned or adapted to specific scenarios might offer better performance in practice.
  - Practical Performance: How does the algorithm perform in practice? Are there empirical studies or benchmarks available that compare its performance with other algorithms? Empirical evaluation is crucial to validate theoretical analyses and understand real-world performance.

--- title: "Binary Planar Partitions" author: "Your Name" date: "2025-02-08" format: html: toc: true # Table of Contents toc-depth: 2 code-tools: true theme: cosmo # Or "journal" for Distill-like minimalism --- # Introduction In computational geometry, partitioning a planar region is a fundamental operation with applications in various fields such as computer graphics, visibility problems, and spatial data structures. Dividing a plane into simpler regions allows for efficient processing and querying of geometric data. A particularly interesting and useful type of planar partition is the **Binary Planar Partition** (BPP). This lecture introduces the concept of Binary Planar Partitions, explores their properties, and discusses algorithms for constructing them, with a focus on randomized approaches. We will also investigate the connection between BPPs and randomized algorithms in the context of computational complexity. The primary goal is to understand how to efficiently decompose a plane using recursive binary splits and to analyze the performance of randomized algorithms designed for this purpose. Efficient planar partitions are crucial for optimizing various geometric algorithms. For instance, in computer graphics, determining the correct drawing order of objects to handle visibility is essential, and BPPs provide a structured way to achieve this. Key concepts that will be covered include: - Formal definition of Binary Planar Partitions and their representation as binary trees. - Measures for evaluating the size and efficiency of a BPP. - Introduction to autopartitions, a specific type of BPP where splitting lines are derived from the input segments. - The RandAuto algorithm, a randomized algorithm for constructing autopartitions, and its expected performance. - An overview of Probabilistic Turing Machines as a theoretical model for analyzing randomized algorithms. # Binary Planar Partitions (BPP) ## Definition of BPP :::: tcolorbox ::: {.def:bpp .definition} **Definition 1** (Binary Planar Partition (BPP)). A Binary Planar Partition for a set of line segments $S$ in the plane is constructed by recursively dividing the plane using lines. It can be represented as a binary tree where: - Each **internal node** of the tree corresponds to a **region** in the plane and a **splitting line** $l$. This line $l$ divides the associated region into two disjoint sub-regions. - Each internal node has exactly two children, representing the two sub-regions created by the splitting line $l$. These are typically referred to as the **left** and **right** children, associated with regions, say, $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$, resulting from the split. - Each **leaf node** of the tree is associated with a region that is considered \"simple\". For a BPP of a set of segments $S$, simplicity is defined by the condition that each leaf region contains at most one segment (or a portion of a segment) from $S$. Ideally, a leaf region should contain either at most one segment or no segments at all. In essence, the process of constructing a BPP involves recursively subdividing the plane until each resulting region is simple enough according to the defined criteria. We start with the entire plane as the initial region. At each step, we select a region that is not yet simple and choose a line that intersects some segments within that region to act as a splitting line. This line divides the current region into two new regions, and we repeat this process for each of these new regions until all regions are simple. The recursive nature of this division naturally leads to a binary tree structure. ::: :::: ![Example of a Binary Planar Partition. The left side illustrates the planar partition of a set of segments $S = \{s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4, s_5\}$ using splitting lines $r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4$. The right side shows the corresponding binary tree structure. Each leaf node is labeled with the segment it contains within its region. Region labels $r(v)$ are omitted for clarity.](example_bpp_page1.png){#fig:bpp_example width="70%"} Figure [1](#fig:bpp_example){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:bpp_example"} provides a visual example of a BPP for a given set of line segments. Observe the recursive division of the plane on the left and its corresponding binary tree representation on the right. Each internal node in the tree corresponds to a splitting line, and each leaf corresponds to a region containing at most one segment. ## Size of a BPP The **size** of a BPP is a crucial measure of its efficiency and is typically defined as the number of nodes in its binary tree representation. Since it's a binary tree, the number of nodes is directly related to the number of regions created in the planar partition. A larger BPP implies a more complex partition, potentially leading to higher computational costs in applications. Conversely, a smaller BPP is generally desirable for efficiency. The size of a BPP is fundamentally linked to the number of **leaves** in the binary tree. The number of leaves reflects how many simple regions are required to partition the given set of segments. The number of leaves, in turn, is influenced by the number of splitting lines, or **cuts**, needed to separate the segments according to the BPP definition. Essentially, the more cuts required, the larger the BPP size. Ideally, in an efficient BPP, we aim to minimize the number of splitting lines used. If a BPP is constructed such that no two segments intersect within the same leaf region, then each leaf region ideally contains at most one segment or a part of a segment. It's important to note that the number of leaves in a BPP can sometimes exceed the number of initial segments $|S|$. This occurs when segments must be further subdivided by the splitting lines to achieve the desired separation, as illustrated in Figure [1](#fig:bpp_example){reference-type="ref" reference="fig:bpp_example"} where 5 segments result in more than 5 leaf nodes in the BPP tree. ## Applications: Painter's Algorithm Binary Planar Partitions have significant applications, particularly in computer graphics. One prominent example is their use in the **Painter's Algorithm**, also known as the priority fill algorithm. This algorithm is used for rendering 2D and 3D scenes by determining the correct drawing order for polygons or line segments to handle visibility and hidden surface removal accurately. The core idea of the Painter's Algorithm is to draw objects in a specific order, typically from back to front or front to back, so that objects closer to the viewer correctly occlude objects farther away. A BPP provides a structured way to determine such a drawing order. By traversing the BPP tree, we can establish a consistent ordering of the segments or polygons. For example, an in-order traversal of the BPP tree can yield a valid drawing order. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.ex:painters_algorithm .example} **Example 2** (Painter's Algorithm Application). Consider using a BPP to determine the drawing order of segments in a 2D scene for rendering. By traversing the BPP tree, for instance, using an in-order traversal, we can obtain an ordering of the leaf regions. This ordering can then be used to draw the segments associated with each leaf region in a way that correctly handles visibility. Segments in \"back\" regions in the traversal order are drawn first, and segments in \"front\" regions are drawn later, achieving the painter's effect. ::: :::: The efficiency of rendering a scene using a BPP is directly related to the size of the BPP, denoted as $|BPP|$. The time complexity of the Painter's Algorithm when using a BPP is often proportional to the size of the BPP. Therefore, constructing a BPP with a minimal size is highly desirable for achieving efficient and fast rendering in computer graphics applications. A smaller BPP translates to fewer regions and thus less processing required to determine the drawing order and render the scene. # Autopartitions and Randomized Algorithms ## Autopartitions :::: tcolorbox ::: {.def:autopartition .definition} **Definition 3** (Autopartition). An **autopartition** is a specialized type of Binary Planar Partition (BPP) where the splitting lines are constrained to be lines that are extensions of the input segments themselves. Given a set of segments $S$, any splitting line used in an autopartition for $S$ must be a line that contains at least one segment from $S$. In other words, if $l$ is a splitting line in an autopartition of $S$, then there must exist a segment $s \in S$ such that $l$ is the line supporting $s$. ::: :::: Autopartitions are particularly interesting because they restrict the choice of splitting lines to be intrinsically related to the input segments. This can be advantageous in certain applications as it leverages the geometry of the input data more directly. However, constructing efficient BPPs, and especially autopartitions, is not always straightforward. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.rem:deterministic_vs_randomized .remark} **Remark 4** (Deterministic vs. Randomized Strategies). Deterministic strategies for selecting splitting lines in BPP construction can sometimes lead to inefficient partitions. In scenarios with complex arrangements of segments, a poorly chosen sequence of splitting lines can result in a BPP with a large size, potentially increasing computational costs in subsequent operations. This motivates the use of randomized algorithms for constructing autopartitions to achieve better expected performance. ::: :::: Deterministic strategies for selecting splitting lines in BPP construction can sometimes lead to inefficient partitions. In scenarios with complex arrangements of segments, a poorly chosen sequence of splitting lines can result in a BPP with a large size, potentially increasing computational costs in subsequent operations. For instance, consistently choosing splitting lines based on a fixed order or heuristic might perform badly on specific input configurations, leading to a worst-case performance that is far from optimal. Consider a scenario where deterministic rules always pick lines that create highly unbalanced partitions, repeatedly splitting off only a small number of segments. This could lead to a BPP tree that is deep and bushy, resulting in a large number of nodes and regions. This potential inefficiency of deterministic approaches motivates the use of randomized algorithms for constructing autopartitions. By introducing randomness into the selection of splitting lines, we aim to \"average out\" the bad cases and achieve good expected performance across all possible inputs. Randomized algorithms can often avoid the pitfalls of deterministic heuristics by making choices that are less susceptible to pathological cases. The intuition is that by randomly permuting the order in which we consider segments for splitting, we reduce the likelihood of consistently making poor splitting choices that lead to large partitions. ## Randomized Autopartition Algorithm: RandAuto The **RandAuto** algorithm is a randomized algorithm designed to construct an autopartition for a set of non-intersecting line segments. The primary goal of RandAuto is to generate an autopartition with a small expected size. Randomization is introduced by considering the input segments in a random order when choosing splitting lines. ::::: tcolorbox :::: algorithm **Input:** A set $S = \{s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_n\}$ of non-intersecting line segments in the plane.\ **Output:** A binary autopartition $P_{\pi}$ of $S$. ::: algorithmic Generate a random permutation $\pi$ of the indices $\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$. This permutation is chosen uniformly at random from all $n!$ possible permutations. Let $\pi = (\pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_n)$ represent the random order of segments $(s_{\pi_1}, s_{\pi_2}, \ldots, s_{\pi_n})$. *This step ensures that each segment has an equal chance of being considered earlier in the splitting process.* Initialize the planar partition with a single region, representing the entire plane. Select any region $R$ that contains more than one segment. Iterate through the segments contained in region $R$ according to the order defined by the permutation $\pi$. Let $s_{\pi_i}$ be the first segment in the permuted order that is contained in region $R$ and whose supporting line $l(s_{\pi_i})$ can serve as a splitting line for $R$. A line $l(s_{\pi_i})$ is a valid splitting line if it intersects the interior of region $R$, effectively dividing $R$ into two non-empty sub-regions. *We choose the first available segment in the random order that can split the current region.* Split region $R$ using the line $l(s_{\pi_i})$. This line divides $R$ into two new regions, $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$. Replace $R$ with $R_{left}$ and $R_{right}$ in the partition. **Return** the constructed binary autopartition $P_{\pi}$. ::: :::: ::::: In each iteration of the RandAuto algorithm, a region containing multiple segments is selected for subdivision. The choice of the splitting line is determined by the random permutation $\pi$. The algorithm considers segments within the selected region in the order given by $\pi$ and picks the first segment whose supporting line can split the region. This process continues recursively for the newly created regions until every region in the partition contains at most one segment. The random permutation $\pi$ is crucial as it dictates the priority of segments when choosing splitting lines, introducing randomness into the BPP construction process. ::: {.ex:termination .exercise} **Exercise 1**. Demonstrate that the RandAuto algorithm always terminates. ::: **Hint:** Consider that in each step, a region with more than one segment is split. Think about how the complexity of the segment arrangement within each region changes with each split. Specifically, consider the number of segment pairs that are in the same region. Each split reduces the number of pairs of segments that are in the same region. Since we start with a finite number of pairs, and in each step, we reduce this number, the process must eventually terminate when no region contains more than one segment. ## Expected Size of RandAuto Autopartition A crucial property of the RandAuto algorithm is the expected size of the autopartition it produces. The expected size provides a measure of the average performance of the algorithm over all possible random permutations. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.thm:expected_size .theorem} **Theorem 5** (Expected Size of RandAuto Autopartition). *The expected size of the autopartition $P_{\pi}$ produced by the RandAuto algorithm for a set of $n$ non-intersecting line segments is $O(n \log n)$.* ::: :::: This theorem indicates that, on average, the RandAuto algorithm generates reasonably small autopartitions. The logarithmic factor $\log n$ suggests that the size of the partition grows relatively slowly with the number of segments. This is a significant improvement over potentially quadratic size partitions that could arise from poorly chosen deterministic splitting strategies. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.cor:existence .corollary} **Corollary 6** (Existence of Small Autopartition). *From Theorem [5](#thm:expected_size){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:expected_size"}, it follows that there exists at least one autopartition of size $O(n \log n)$ for any set of $n$ non-intersecting line segments.* ::: :::: Corollary [6](#cor:existence){reference-type="ref" reference="cor:existence"} is a direct consequence of Theorem [5](#thm:expected_size){reference-type="ref" reference="thm:expected_size"}. If the expected size of the autopartition is $O(n \log n)$, then there must exist at least one permutation that results in an autopartition of this size or smaller. This is because the expected value is, in some sense, an average over all possible outcomes, so there must be at least one outcome that is no worse than the average. In practical terms, this means that while some random permutations might lead to larger autopartitions, there is guaranteed to be at least one (and likely many) that produce an autopartition of size $O(n \log n)$. The $O(n \log n)$ expected size is a significant result, as it suggests that randomized approaches can effectively construct efficient planar partitions. This bound is considerably better than what might be achieved by naive deterministic methods in certain cases, highlighting the power of randomization in computational geometry. The logarithmic factor is characteristic of many efficient divide-and-conquer algorithms, and RandAuto, despite its simplicity, achieves this desirable performance in expectation. # Analysis of RandAuto's Expected Size To understand why the expected size of the autopartition produced by RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$, we need to analyze the probability that a segment is used as a splitting line and how these splitting lines contribute to the overall size of the partition. Let us consider any two distinct segments $\mu$ and $\nu$ from the input set $S$. We are interested in the event that segment $\mu$ is used to split a region in a way that separates segment $\nu$, either directly or indirectly, during the execution of RandAuto. To quantify this, we first define an \"index\" between two segments. :::: tcolorbox ::: definition **Definition 7**. For two segments $\mu$ and $\nu$, we define $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = i$ if the supporting line of segment $\mu$, denoted as $l(\mu)$, intersects exactly $i-1$ other segments from $S$ before it intersects segment $\nu$. The intersections are considered in order along the line $l(\mu)$ starting from a point on $\mu$ and extending in a consistent direction. If $l(\mu)$ does not intersect $\nu$, we define $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = \infty$. ::: :::: The index $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ essentially counts how many segments are \"between\" segment $\mu$ and segment $\nu$ with respect to the splitting line $l(\mu)$. This notion helps us understand the relative positions of segments and the likelihood of one segment being used to split regions containing others. Now, let $C_{\mu, \nu}$ be an indicator random variable defined for each ordered pair of distinct segments $(\mu, \nu)$ from $S$. Let $C_{\mu, \nu} = 1$ if segment $\mu$ is used as a splitting line at some step in RandAuto in a region that contains segment $\nu$ (or a part of it), thereby contributing to the separation of $\nu$ from other segments due to a split induced by $\mu$. Otherwise, let $C_{\mu, \nu} = 0$. We aim to calculate the expected value of $C_{\mu, \nu}$, which is $E[C_{\mu, \nu}] = P[C_{\mu, \nu} = 1]$, representing the probability that $\mu$ is used to separate $\nu$. We denote the event $C_{\mu, \nu} = 1$ as $\mu \rightarrow \nu$. Suppose $\text{index}(\mu, \nu) = i$, meaning that the line $l(\mu)$ intersects $i-1$ segments, say $\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}$, before intersecting $\nu$. For segment $\mu$ to be chosen as a splitting segment in a region that also contains $\nu$, the following conditions must be met in the random permutation $\pi$: 1. Segment $\mu$ must appear in the permutation $\pi$ before segment $\nu$. Otherwise, if $\nu$ appears before $\mu$, $\nu$ might be chosen as a splitting segment first, potentially separating $\mu$ and $\nu$ before $\mu$ has a chance to act as a splitter related to $\nu$. 2. Segment $\mu$ must also appear in the permutation $\pi$ before all the $i-1$ segments $\{\mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}\}$ that $l(\mu)$ intersects before $\nu$. If any of these segments $\mu_j$ (for $1 \leq j \leq i-1$) appears before $\mu$ in $\pi$, then $\mu_j$ would be considered as a splitting segment before $\mu$ (assuming they are in the same region), and $\mu$ might not be used to separate $\nu$ in the way we are counting. Therefore, for $\mu$ to be the splitting segment that contributes to separating $\nu$, segment $\mu$ must be the first segment appearing in the permutation $\pi$ among the set of segments $\{\mu, \nu, \mu_1, \mu_2, \ldots, \mu_{i-1}\}$. This set contains a total of $i+1$ segments. Since the permutation $\pi$ is chosen uniformly at random from all possible permutations of $n$ segments, each of these $i+1$ segments has an equal probability of being the first in the permutation. Thus, the probability that $\mu$ is the first among them is $\frac{1}{i+1}$. Hence, the probability that $\mu$ is used to separate $\nu$ is: $$P[C_{\mu, \nu} = 1] = P[\mu \rightarrow \nu] = \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$$ The expected size of the autopartition $P_{\pi}$, which is related to the number of nodes in the binary tree, can be expressed in terms of the expected number of splits. A simplified way to think about the size is to consider it roughly proportional to $n$ (for the leaf nodes, approximately one per segment in ideal cases) plus the expected number of \"extra\" splits needed due to segment interactions. We can relate the expected size to the sum of expected values of our indicator variables $C_{\mu, \nu}$ over all ordered pairs of distinct segments $(\mu, \nu)$: $$E[\text{Size}(P_{\pi})] \approx n + E\left[\sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} C_{\mu, \nu}\right] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} E[C_{\mu, \nu}] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} P[\mu \rightarrow \nu] = n + \sum_{\substack{\mu, \nu \in S \\ \mu \neq \nu}} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$$ Here, the term $n$ is a rough lower bound on the size (number of leaves could be around $n$), and the double summation accounts for the expected number of additional splits caused by the relative arrangements of segment pairs. To bound the sum, we consider that for a fixed segment $\mu$, as $\nu$ varies over all other segments, the index $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ can take values from 1 up to approximately $n-1$. For each segment $\mu$, we are summing probabilities of the form $\frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$. Without going into a fully rigorous derivation which requires more detailed geometric probability arguments, we can intuitively see that for a fixed $\mu$, the sum $\sum_{\nu \neq \mu} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1}$ is, on average, related to a harmonic sum. In a simplified view, if we assume that for each segment $\mu$, the indices $\text{index}(\mu, \nu)$ for all $\nu \neq \mu$ are roughly uniformly distributed in the range $[1, n-1]$, then the sum would behave like: $$\sum_{\substack{\nu \in S \\ \nu \neq \mu}} \frac{1}{\text{index}(\mu, \nu) + 1} \approx \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \frac{1}{i+1} = H_n - 1 \approx \ln(n)$$ where $H_n$ is the $n$-th harmonic number, approximately $\ln(n) + O(1)$. Summing this over all $n$ segments $\mu \in S$, we get a total expected size roughly proportional to $n \log n$. Thus, a more rigorous analysis confirms that the expected size of the autopartition produced by RandAuto is indeed $O(n \log n)$. ::: {.ex:complexity .exercise} **Exercise 2**. Demonstrate that the expected time complexity of RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$. ::: **Hint:** To analyze the expected time complexity of RandAuto, consider the operations performed in each step of the algorithm. For each region that needs to be split, RandAuto iterates through the segments within that region according to the random permutation. For each segment, it checks if its supporting line can be used to split the region. # Probabilistic Turing Machines and Complexity The use of randomization in algorithms like RandAuto naturally leads us to consider probabilistic models of computation. To formally reason about the power and limitations of randomized algorithms, we introduce the concept of a **Probabilistic Turing Machine** (PTM). A PTM is an extension of the standard deterministic Turing Machine, augmented with the fundamental capability to make random choices during its execution. This ability to incorporate randomness is what allows PTMs to model randomized algorithms accurately. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.def:ptm .definition} **Definition 8** (Probabilistic Turing Machine (PTM)). A Probabilistic Turing Machine is a Turing machine that, in addition to the standard deterministic transitions, is equipped with transitions that depend on the outcome of a random event. This random event is typically modeled as a fair coin flip, providing a source of unbiased random bits. ::: :::: In contrast to a deterministic Turing Machine, where for each state and tape symbol, there is a unique next state and action, a PTM can have multiple possible transitions for a given state and symbol, each associated with a probability. We can conceptualize a PTM as having transitions that are not solely determined by the current state and the symbol being read, but also by an independent source of randomness. This source can be thought of as a stream of random bits, where each bit is generated by a fair coin flip. For instance, a transition in a PTM might be defined as follows: \"If the machine is in state $q$ and reading symbol $a$, then: - With probability 1/2, transition to state $q_1$, write symbol $b_1$ on the tape, and move the tape head in direction $D_1$. - With probability 1/2, transition to state $q_2$, write symbol $b_2$ on the tape, and move the tape head in direction $D_2$. Here, the choice between the two transitions is made based on the outcome of a random event (coin flip). Probabilistic Turing Machines are of paramount importance because they provide a rigorous and formal framework for modeling and analyzing randomized algorithms. They allow us to study the inherent capabilities and limitations of computation when randomness is introduced as a computational resource. The complexity of a randomized algorithm, when analyzed in the context of PTMs, is typically characterized by metrics such as its expected runtime and the probability of producing an incorrect output (error probability). Unlike deterministic algorithms, where we are concerned with worst-case complexity, for randomized algorithms, we often focus on average-case or expected complexity and the likelihood of success. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.rem:computation_tree_ptm .remark} **Remark 9** (Computation Tree of a PTM). For any given input $x$, a probabilistic Turing machine does not have a single, fixed computation path. Instead, its execution can branch into multiple paths depending on the sequence of random choices made. For a specific input $x$, a PTM may accept it with a certain probability and reject it with the complementary probability. The sequence of computations of a PTM on a given input of size $n$ can be visualized as a computation tree, representing all possible sequences of random choices and their outcomes. ::: :::: For any given input $x$, a probabilistic Turing machine does not have a single, fixed computation path. Instead, its execution can branch into multiple paths depending on the sequence of random choices made. For a specific input $x$, aPTM may accept it with a certain probability and reject it with the complementary probability. Our study then focuses on understanding this acceptance probability and the amount of computational resources (time, tape space) used by the PTM. The sequence of computations of a PTM on a given input of size $n$ can be visualized as a computation tree. This tree represents all possible sequences of random choices the PTM can make during its execution. The height of this tree corresponds to the time complexity of the computation, say $f(n)$. Each path from the root of this tree to a leaf represents a specific sequence of random outcomes (coin flips) and leads to a final state (accept, reject, or halt). Analyzing the properties of this computation tree, such as its expected height and the distribution of outcomes at the leaves, is crucial for understanding the complexity and behavior of probabilistic algorithms. # Conclusion :::: tcolorbox ::: {.rem:conclusion .remark} **Remark 10** (Concluding Remarks on BPPs and Randomized Algorithms). In summary, this lecture has provided an introduction to Binary Planar Partitions (BPPs), highlighting their definition, properties, and applications, particularly in visibility ordering problems like the Painter's Algorithm. We delved into autopartitions, a specific type of BPP where splitting lines are derived from the input segments themselves. A key focus was on the RandAuto algorithm, a randomized approach for constructing autopartitions, and we discussed the significant result that it achieves an expected partition size of $O(n \log n)$ for $n$ non-intersecting line segments. This result underscores the effectiveness of randomization in computational geometry for achieving efficient solutions. Furthermore, we briefly introduced the concept of Probabilistic Turing Machines (PTMs), which serve as the foundational theoretical model for analyzing randomized algorithms. PTMs allow us to formally study the computational power and complexity of algorithms that utilize randomness as a resource. Understanding PTMs is crucial for placing randomized algorithms within the broader context of computational complexity theory. ::: :::: Key takeaways from this lecture include: - A solid understanding of the definition and properties of Binary Planar Partitions and their representation as binary trees. - Appreciation for the effectiveness of randomized algorithms, such as RandAuto, in constructing efficient planar partitions, achieving an expected size of $O(n \log n)$. - Familiarity with the concept of autopartitions and their relevance in leveraging input segment geometry for partitioning. - Introduction to Probabilistic Turing Machines as the theoretical basis for analyzing randomized algorithms, allowing for formal reasoning about expected runtime and error probabilities. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.rem:power_randomization .remark} **Remark 11** (The Power of Randomization). Randomization indeed provides a powerful toolkit for designing efficient algorithms, not only in computational geometry but across various domains of computer science. Randomized algorithms often offer advantages in terms of simplicity, average-case performance, and robustness against worst-case inputs. They are particularly valuable when deterministic approaches are either too complex, inefficient, or prone to pathological cases. ::: :::: For those interested in further exploration, several avenues of research and study are open: - **Deterministic Algorithms for BPP Construction:** Investigate deterministic algorithms for constructing Binary Planar Partitions and compare their performance (in terms of BPP size and construction time) with randomized approaches like RandAuto. Are there deterministic algorithms that can guarantee similar or better performance bounds? - **Complexity Classes for Probabilistic Computation:** Delve deeper into the complexity classes associated with probabilistic computation, such as BPP (Bounded-error Probabilistic Polynomial time), RP (Randomized Polynomial time), and ZPP (Zero-error Probabilistic Polynomial time). Understand how these classes relate to deterministic complexity classes like P and NP, and explore the landscape of probabilistic complexity theory. - **Applications of BPPs:** Explore further applications of Binary Planar Partitions in various fields, such as computer graphics (beyond the Painter's Algorithm), spatial databases, collision detection, and visibility computations in 3D scenes. Investigate how BPPs can be adapted and optimized for specific application requirements. - **Advanced Randomized Algorithms in Computational Geometry:** Study other advanced randomized algorithms in computational geometry, such as randomized incremental algorithms for convex hulls, Delaunay triangulations, and arrangements of lines. Understand the probabilistic analysis techniques used to evaluate their expected performance. :::: tcolorbox ::: {.rem:further_learning .remark} **Remark 12** (Further Learning). The field of randomized algorithms and probabilistic computation is rich and continues to be an active area of research, offering many opportunities for further learning and contribution. ::: :::: # Exercises 1. [Demonstrate that the RandAuto algorithm always terminates.](#ex:termination) 1. *Hint:* Consider the number of pairs of segments that are present in the same region. How does a split operation affect this number? Argue that this number strictly decreases with each split, and since it is a non-negative integer, the algorithm must eventually reach a state where no region contains more than one segment. 2. [Demonstrate that the expected time complexity of RandAuto is $O(n \log n)$.](#ex:complexity) 1. *Hint:* Analyze the expected number of splitting lines used by RandAuto, which is related to the size of the BPP. Then, consider the cost of processing each split. What operations are involved in splitting a region? How can these operations be implemented efficiently? Think about data structures to manage regions and segments, and how to efficiently find the first eligible segment in the random permutation that can split a given region. Consider the expected number of segments you might need to check in each region before finding a splitter, and the cost of updating regions and segment assignments after a split. 3. Consider a set of segments in general position (no three lines intersecting at a point, no two segments collinear, etc.). How does this assumption simplify the analysis of BPPs and autopartitions? 1. *Hint:* General position assumptions often eliminate degenerate cases and simplify geometric analyses. How does general position affect the 'index(μ, ν)'? Does it simplify the calculation of this index? How might it affect the structure of the BPP tree? For example, in general position, you avoid situations where multiple segments are collinear or multiple lines intersect at the same point. Consider how this might simplify the geometric operations and reduce the complexity of analyzingsegment interactions and splitting line choices. Does it guarantee a more balanced BPP? For instance, in general position, the index function might have more predictable behavior, and the probability calculations in the expected size analysis could become more straightforward. 4. Explore other algorithms for constructing Binary Planar Partitions. Compare and contrast their performance and properties with RandAuto. 1. *Suggestions for exploration:* 1. **Deterministic BPP Algorithms:** Research deterministic algorithms for BPP construction. For example, consider algorithms that use a fixed strategy for choosing splitting lines, such as always splitting with a vertical line, or using the median x-coordinate of segment endpoints. Analyze the worst-case size of BPPs produced by such algorithms and their construction time complexity. How do they compare to RandAuto in terms of performance guarantees and ease of implementation? Deterministic algorithms might offer guaranteed worst-case performance, but could potentially be less efficient on average or for specific input distributions compared to randomized approaches. 2. **Kd-tree based BPPs:** Investigate how the principles of kd-trees can be applied to construct Binary Planar Partitions. Can you adapt the kd-tree partitioning strategy to create a BPP for a set of line segments? How would you choose splitting lines and manage segments in the regions? Analyze the properties of BPPs constructed using kd-tree approaches. Kd-trees are known for efficient space partitioning, and adapting them for BPP construction could lead to algorithms with good practical performance, especially for uniformly distributed segments. 3. **Grid-based BPPs:** Explore methods that use a grid to guide the construction of BPPs. Can you overlay a grid on the plane and use grid lines as potential splitting lines? How would you adapt this approach to ensure that the splitting lines are related to the input segments (for autopartitions or general BPPs)? Consider the trade-offs between BPP size and construction complexity in grid-based methods. Grid-based methods might simplify the region management and splitting process, but the size and structure of the grid could significantly impact the BPP's efficiency and size. 4. **Hybrid Approaches:** Consider hybrid algorithms that combine randomized and deterministic strategies. For instance, could you use randomization to select a general direction for splitting lines but then use a deterministic rule to choose a specific line in that direction? Explore the potential benefits of such hybrid approaches. Hybrid approaches aim to leverage the advantages of both randomization (average-case performance) and deterministic rules (potentially better control over partition structure or worst-case behavior). 2. *Comparison criteria:* When comparing different BPP construction algorithms, consider the following criteria: - **Size of the BPP:** How does the size of the BPP (number of nodes or leaves) scale with the number of input segments in the worst case and on average? Smaller BPPs are generally preferred for efficiency in applications like rendering and visibility queries. - **Construction Time Complexity:** What is the time complexity of constructing the BPP? Faster construction is important, especially for dynamic scenes or real-time applications where BPPs might need to be rebuilt frequently. - **Ease of Implementation:** How easy is the algorithm to implement? Is it conceptually simple and straightforward to code, or does it involve complex geometric operations and data structures? Simpler algorithms are often easier to debug, maintain, and adapt. - **Adaptability:** How adaptable is the algorithm to different types of input data or specific application requirements? Can it be easily modified or extended? Algorithms that can be tuned or adapted to specific scenarios might offer better performance in practice. - **Practical Performance:** How does the algorithm perform in practice? Are there empirical studies or benchmarks available that compare its performance with other algorithms? Empirical evaluation is crucial to validate theoretical analyses and understand real-world performance.