Research investigates extended algorithms for covering points in space with lines, suggesting complexity differences and implications for computational geometry.
We study several extensions of the classic Line Cover problem of covering a set of n points in the plane with k lines. Line Cover is known to be NP-hard and our focus is on two natural generalizations: (1) Line Clustering, where the objective is to find k lines in the plane that minimize the sum of squares of distances of a given set of input points to the closest line, and (2) Hyperplane Cover, where the goal is to cover n points in ℝ^d by k hyperplanes. We also consider the more general Projective Clustering problem, which unifies both of these and has numerous applications in machine learning, data mining, and computational geometry. In this problem one seeks k affine subspaces of dimension r minimizing the sum of squares of distances of a given set of n points in ℝ^d to the closest point within one of the k affine subspaces. Our main contributions reveal interesting differences in the parameterized complexity of these problems. While Line Cover is fixed-parameter tractable parameterized by the number k of lines in the solution, we show that Line Clustering is W[1]-hard when parameterized by k and rule out algorithms of running time nᵒ⁽ᵏ⁾ under the Exponential Time Hypothesis. Hyperplane Cover is known to be NP-hard even when d = 2 and by the work of Langerman and Morin [Discrete & Computational Geometry, 2005], it is FPT parameterized by k and d. We complement this result by establishing that Hyperplane Cover is W[2]-hard when parameterized by only k. We complement our hardness results by presenting an algorithm for Projective Clustering. We show that this problem is solvable in n𝒪(dk(r+1)) time. Not only does this yield an upper bound for Line Clustering that asymptotically matches our lower bound, but it also significantly extends the seminal work on k-Means Clustering (the special case r = 0) by Inaba, Katoh, and Imai [SoCG 1994].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bentert et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: