SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2210.01954

Ruler Rolling

Abstract

At CCCG '21 O'Rourke proposed a variant of Hopcroft, Josephs and Whitesides' (1985) NP-complete problem {\sc Ruler Folding}, which he called {\sc Ruler Wrapping} and for which all folds must be 180 degrees in the same direction. Gagie, Saeidi and Sapucaia (2023) noted that if the last straight section of the ruler must be longest, then {\sc Ruler Wrapping} is equivalent to partitioning a string of positive integers into substrings whose sums are increasing such that the last substring sums to at most a given amount. They gave linear-time algorithms for the versions of {\sc Ruler Wrapping} both with and without this assumption. In real life we cannot repeatedly fold a carpenter's ruler 180 degrees in the same direction. In this paper we propose the more realistic problem of {\sc Ruler Rolling}, in which we repeatedly fold the segments 90 degrees in the same direction and thus fold the ruler into a rectangle instead of into an interval. We should report all the Pareto-optimal rollings. We note that if the last straight section of the ruler must be longer than the third to last -- analogously to Gagie et al.'s assumption -- then {\sc Ruler Rolling} is equivalent to partitioning a string of positive integers into substrings such that the sums of the even substrings are increasing, as are the sums of the odd substrings. We give a simple dynamic-programming algorithm that reports all the Pareto-optimal rollings in quadratic time under this assumption. Our algorithm still works even without the assumption, but then we are left with a quadratic number of two-dimensional feasible solutions, so finding the Pareto-optimal ones and increases our running time by a logarithmic factor. If we have a nice objective function, however, we still use quadratic time.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xing Lyu, Travis Gagie, Meng He. 2022-10-04. Ruler Rolling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01954

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS