Bounding a global red-blue proportion using local conditions
M\'arton Nasz\'odi, Leonardo Mart\'inez-Sandoval, Shakhar Smorodinsky

TL;DR
This paper establishes a tight lower bound on the global proportion of blue points relative to red points in the plane, based on local neighborhood conditions, and extends the result to higher dimensions and norms.
Contribution
It introduces a novel local-to-global bound relating neighborhood conditions to overall point proportions, with optimality and generalizations to higher dimensions and Minkowski norms.
Findings
Blue points are at least one fifth of red points under local conditions.
The bound is proven to be optimal.
Results extend to arbitrary dimensions and norms.
Abstract
We study the following local-to-global phenomenon: Let and be two finite sets of (blue and red) points in the Euclidean plane . Suppose that in each "neighborhood" of a red point, the number of blue points is at least as large as the number of red points. We show that in this case the total number of blue points is at least one fifth of the total number of red points. We also show that this bound is optimal and we generalize the result to arbitrary dimension and arbitrary norm using results from Minkowski arrangements.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation · Point processes and geometric inequalities · Digital Image Processing Techniques
Bounding a global red-blue proportion using local conditions
Márton Naszódi Email address: [email protected]. EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland
Leonardo Martínez-Sandoval Email address: [email protected]. Department of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva Israel.
Shakhar Smorodinsky Email address: [email protected]. Department of Mathematics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er-Sheva Israel.
Abstract
We study the following local-to-global phenomenon: Let and be two finite sets of (blue and red) points in the Euclidean plane . Suppose that in each “neighborhood” of a red point, the number of blue points is at least as large as the number of red points. We show that in this case the total number of blue points is at least one fifth of the total number of red points. We also show that this bound is optimal and we generalize the result to arbitrary dimension and arbitrary norm using results from Minkowski arrangements.
1 Introduction
Consider the following scenario in wireless networks. Suppose we have clients and antennas where both are represented as points in the plane (see Figure 1). Each client has a wireless device that can communicate with the antennas. Assume also that each client is associated with some disk centered at the client’s location and having radius representing how far in the plane his device can communicate. Suppose also, that some communication protocol requires that in each of the clients disks, the number of antennas is at least some fixed proportion of the number of clients in the disk. Our question is: does such a local requirement imply a global lower bound on the number of antennas in terms of the number of clients? In this paper we answer this question and provide exact bounds. Let us formulate the problem more precisely.
Let and be two finite sets in . Let be a set of Euclidean disks centered at the red points, i.e., the center of is . Let be the radii of the disks in .
Theorem 1.1**.**
Assume that for each we have . Then . Furthermore, the multiplicative constant cannot be improved.
Such a local-to-global ratio phenomenon was shown to be useful in a more combinatorial setting. Pach et. al. [Pach2015], solved a conjecture by Richter and Thomassen [Richter1995] on the number of total “crossings” that a family of pairwise intersecting curves in the plane in general position can have. Lemma 1 from their paper is a first step in the proof and it consists of a local-to-global phenomenon as described above.
We will obtain Theorem 1.1 from a more general result. In order to state it, we introduce some terminology.
Let be an origin-symmetric convex body in , that is, the unit ball of a norm.
A strict Minkowski arrangement is a family of homothets of , where and , such that no member of the family contains the center of another member. An intersecting family is a family of sets that all share at least one element.
We denote the maximum cardinality of an intersecting strict Minkowski arrangement of homothets of by . It is known that exists for every and (see, e.g., Lemma 21 of [NPS16]). On the other hand (somewhat surprisingly), there is an origin-symmetric convex body in such that , [T98, NPS16]. For more on Minkowski arrangements see, e.g., [FL94].
We need the following auxiliary Lemma.
Lemma 1.2**.**
Let be an origin-symmetric convex body in . Let be a set of points in and let be a family of homothets of . Then there exists a subfamily that covers and forms a strict Minkowski arrangement. Moreover, can be found using a greedy algorithm.
As a corollary, we will obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be an origin-symmetric convex body in . Let be a set of points in and let be a family of homothets of where . Let be another set of points in , and assume that, for some , we have
[TABLE]
for all . Then .
In Theorem 1.1 the convex body is a Euclidean unit disk in the plane. Another case of special interest is when the convex body is a unit cube and thus it induces the norm. In this situation we get a sharper and optimal inequality.
Theorem 1.4**.**
If is the unit cube in , then the conclusion in Theorem 1.3 can be strengthened to . Furthermore, the multiplicative constant cannot be improved.
In the results above, the points play the role of the centers of the sets of the Minkowski arrangement. One might ask if this restriction is essential. As a final result, we give a general construction to show that it is.
Theorem 1.5**.**
Let be any convex body in the plane and any positive real numbers. There exist sets of points and in the plane such that and that for each there is a translate of that contains for which .
In particular, even if each red point is contained in a unit disk with many blue points, the global blue to red ratio can be as small as desired. This is a possibly counter-intuitive fact in view of Theorem 1.1.
2 Proofs
Proof of Lemma 1.2.
We construct a subfamily of with the property that no member of contains the center of any member of , and covers the red points, . Assume without loss of generality that the labels of the points in are sorted in non-increasing order of the homothety ratio, that is, . See Figure 2 for an example.
We construct in a greedy manner as follows: Add to . Among all red points that are not already covered by pick a point whose corresponding homothet has maximum homothety ratio . Add to and repeat until all red points are covered by . Note that the homothets in are not necessarily disjoint.
Clearly, . Now we show that no member of contains the center of another. Suppose to the contrary that contains the center of . If , then so was chosen first, a contradiction to the fact that was chosen among the points not covered by previous homothets. If , then also contains the center of , and we get a similar contradiction.
This finishes the proof of Lemma 1.2.
∎
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
By Lemma 1.2, there exists a subfamily that covers and form a strict Minkowski arrangement. Namely, covers , and no point of is contained in more than members of . In particular, it follows that
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be the Euclidean unit disk centered at the origin. Then .
Proof of Lemma 2.1.
Five unit disks centered in the vertices of a unit-radius regular pentagon show that . See Figure 3a.
To prove the other direction, suppose that there is a point in the plane that is contained in Euclidean disks in a strict Minkowski arrangement. Then, by the pigeonhole principle, there are two centers of those disks, say and such that the angle is at most . Assume without loss of generality that . It is easily verified e.g., by the law of cosines, that the distance is less than . Hence, the disk centered at contains , a contradiction. This completes the proof. ∎
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be the unit cube of centered at the origin. Then .
Proof of Lemma 2.2.
Let be a positive integer and the canonical base of . Consider all the cubes of radius centered at each point of the form . This family shows that . See Figure 3b for an example on the plane.
Now we show the other direction. Consider the closed regions of bounded by the hyperplanes and suppose on the contrary that we have an example with cubes or more that contain the origin. By the pidgeon-hole principle there is a region with at least two cube centers and . By applying a rotation we may assume that it is the region of vectors with non-negative entries. We may also assume .
Since the -cube centered at contains the origin, its radius must be at least . We claim that this cube contains . Indeed, each of the entries of and are in the interval . So each of the entries of are in . Then as claimed. This contradiction finishes the proof. ∎
Theorem 1.1 clearly follows from combining the proof of Theorem 1.3 (with ) and Lemma 2.1. The result is sharp because we have equality when is the set of vertices of a regular pentagon with center and . Similarly, Theorem 1.4 and its optimality follow from Lemma 2.2.
Remark 2.3**.**
Lemma 2.1 can be generalized to arbitrary dimension. This implies that Theorem 1.1 can be generalized to arbitrary dimension almost verbatim.
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
Let be any convex body in the plane. We construct sets and as follows. Let be a tangent line of which intersects at exactly one point . Let be a non-degenerate closed line segment contained in and parallel to . Let be the (closed) segment that is the locus of the point as varies through all its translations in direction that contain . See Figure 4.
We construct by taking any points from and we construct by taking any points from . For any point in there is a translation of that contains exactly one point of and points of , which makes the local to ratio equal to . But globally we can make the ratio arbitrarily small. ∎
Acknowledgements
M. Naszódi acknowledges the support of the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office, NKFIH Grant PD-104744, as well as the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation grants 200020-144531 and 200020-162884.
L. Martinez-Sandoval’s research was partially carried out during the author’s visit at EPFL. The project leading to this application has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme grant No. 678765 and from the Israel Science Foundation grant No. 1452/15.
S. Smorodinsky’s research was partially supported by Grant 635/16 from the Israel Science Foundation. A part of this research was carried out during the author’s visit at EPFL, supported by Swiss National Science Foundation grants 200020-162884 and 200021-165977.
References
