Mikkel Abrahamsen

Anders Aamand, Mikkel Abrahamsen, Reilly Browne et al.

We study the problems of covering or partitioning a polygon $P$ (possibly with holes) using a minimum number of small pieces, where a small piece is a connected sub-polygon contained in an axis-aligned unit square. For covering, we seek to write $P$ as a union of small pieces, and in partitioning, we furthermore require the pieces to be pairwise interior-disjoint. We show that these problems are in fact equivalent: Optimum covers and partitions have the same number of pieces. For covering, a natural local search algorithm repeatedly attempts to replace $k$ pieces from a candidate cover with $k-1$ pieces. In two dimensions and for sufficiently large $k$, we show that when no such swap is possible, the cover is a $1+O(1/\sqrt k)$-approximation, hence obtaining the first PTAS for the problem. Prior to our work, the only known algorithm was a $13$-approximation that only works for polygons without holes [Abrahamsen and Rasmussen, SODA 2025]. In contrast, in the three dimensional version of the problem, for a polyhedron $P$ of complexity $n$, we show that it is NP-hard to approximate an optimal cover or partition to within a factor that is logarithmic in $n$, even if $P$ is simple, i.e., has genus $0$ and no holes.

Mikkel Abrahamsen

In the MINIMUM CONVEX COVER (MCC) problem, we are given a simple polygon $\mathcal P$ and an integer $k$, and the question is if there exist $k$ convex polygons whose union is $\mathcal P$. It is known that MCC is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard [Culberson & Reckhow: Covering polygons is hard, FOCS 1988/Journal of Algorithms 1994] and in $\exists\mathbb{R}$ [O'Rourke: The complexity of computing minimum convex covers for polygons, Allerton 1982]. We prove that MCC is $\exists\mathbb{R}$-hard, and the problem is thus $\exists\mathbb{R}$-complete. In other words, the problem is equivalent to deciding whether a system of polynomial equations and inequalities with integer coefficients has a real solution. If a cover for our constructed polygon exists, then so does a cover consisting entirely of triangles. As a byproduct, we therefore also establish that it is $\exists\mathbb{R}$-complete to decide whether $k$ triangles cover a given polygon. The issue that it was not known if finding a minimum cover is in $\mathsf{NP}$ has repeatedly been raised in the literature, and it was mentioned as a "long-standing open question" already in 2001 [Eidenbenz & Widmayer: An approximation algorithm for minimum convex cover with logarithmic performance guarantee, ESA 2001/SIAM Journal on Computing 2003]. We prove that assuming the widespread belief that $\mathsf{NP}\neq\exists\mathbb{R}$, the problem is not in $\mathsf{NP}$. An implication of the result is that many natural approaches to finding small covers are bound to give suboptimal solutions in some cases, since irrational coordinates of arbitrarily high algebraic degree can be needed for the corners of the pieces in an optimal solution.

Mikkel Abrahamsen, Linda Kleist, Tillmann Miltzow

Given a neural network, training data, and a threshold, it was known that it is NP-hard to find weights for the neural network such that the total error is below the threshold. We determine the algorithmic complexity of this fundamental problem precisely, by showing that it is $\exists\mathbb R$-complete. This means that the problem is equivalent, up to polynomial-time reductions, to deciding whether a system of polynomial equations and inequalities with integer coefficients and real unknowns has a solution. If, as widely expected, $\exists\mathbb R$ is strictly larger than NP, our work implies that the problem of training neural networks is not even in NP. Neural networks are usually trained using some variation of backpropagation. The result of this paper offers an explanation why techniques commonly used to solve big instances of NP-complete problems seem not to be of use for this task. Examples of such techniques are SAT solvers, IP solvers, local search, dynamic programming, to name a few general ones.

Mikkel Abrahamsen, Jacob Holm, Eva Rotenberg et al.

We consider the following game played in the Euclidean plane: There is any countable set of unit speed lions and one fast man who can run with speed $1+\varepsilon$ for some value $\varepsilon>0$. Can the man survive? We answer the question in the affirmative for any $\varepsilon>0$.