25
$\begingroup$

A square lamina contains $n$ independent uniformly random points. At a given time, each point becomes the centre of a disc whose radius grows from $0$, at say $1$ cm per second, and stops growing when the disc hits another disc.

Consider the discs after all growth has stopped. Here is an example with $n=20$.

enter image description here

Let $P=$ proportion of the square that is covered (i.e. occupied) by the discs. In the example above, $P\approx0.383$.

What does $P$ approach as $n\to\infty$ ?

The shape of the lamina (for example, square) does not matter, since we are taking $n\to\infty$. The rate of growth (for example, $1$ cm per second) does not matter, as long as all the discs start growing at the same time and grow at the same rate.

My thoughts

I tried to find the probability that a new random point in the square lies in one of the existing discs. I also tried to find the average area of a disc. But I haven't succeeded. These questions seem to be complicated by the fact that the size of a point's disc is determined not only by the point's distance to its neighbors, but also its neighbors' distances to their neighbors, and so on.

Context

This question was inspired by another question, "A disc contains $n$ random points. Each point is connected to its nearest neighbor. What does the average cluster size approach as $n\to\infty$?". Both of these questions are about inherent properties of the $2D$ Poisson process.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A naive hypothesis is that $P\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, but there is always the slight possibility that all but one point will be outside one circle of significant radius. $\endgroup$
    – abiessu
    Commented Jan 24 at 15:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A wild guess could be $P=\pi/4$, thinking of points distributed on a regular grid, $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24 at 21:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I ran some basic simulations for $n$ in the range 1 to ~3000. It is definitely the case that $P$ decreases when $n$ gets larger. For $n > 500$, I got results in the range 0.3-0.4. I can't give accurate numbers, since my simulation is very slow, so it's hard to make repetitions with large values of $n$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24 at 22:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's important to note that in my simulation I did not "crop" the circles to fit in the square, but instead added the area outside of the square to the calculation. As far as I understand, it shouldn't change the asymptotic behaviour of $P$, since this contribution should approach zero as $n$ approaches infinity. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A more accurate figure is ~0.36-0.39 for $n$ between $300$ and $1000$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24 at 23:27

2 Answers 2

20
$\begingroup$

I did some literature search, and found that:

  1. OP's question exactly corresponds to what is called lilypond model introduced by Häggström and Meester (1996). Daley et al. (1999) independently studied the same model and reported a Monte-Carlo estimate of the limit proportion with $$ \text{mean} = 0.3487 \qquad\text{and}\qquad \text{SD} = 0.00045 $$ using $10^6$ samples.

  2. It seems that OP's question has not been answered in the literature yet, which is not surprising considering that statistical properties of a geometric functional of a continuum percolation model is notoriously hard to answer, if not impossible.

  3. Interestingly, 1D version of OP's question has a definite answer: $$P_{\text{1D,limit}} = 1 - e^{-1}$$ See Section 6 of Daley et al. (1999), for instance.


References.

  • O. Häggström, and R. Meester. “Nearest Neighbor and Hard Sphere Models in Continuum Percolation.” Random Structures & Algorithms 9, no. 3 (1996): 295–315.

  • D. J. Daley, H. Stoyan, and D. Stoyan. “The Volume Fraction of a Poisson Germ Model with Maximally Non-Overlapping Spherical Grains.” Advances in Applied Probability 31, no. 3 (1999): 610–24.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. I wonder if the 3D version of this question has been studied. $\endgroup$
    – Dan
    Commented Jan 26 at 10:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The model in Daley-Stoyan-Stoyan's paper is $d$-dimensional. They also simulated this for $d=3$ to get $P=0.1859$, with $SD=0.00026$. It seems that they did not simulate this for higher dimensions. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26 at 10:14
2
$\begingroup$

Attached a MATHEMATICA script which generates a set of random circles as needed. The calculation process could be more efficient but it would also be less transparent.

data = {{1.0032, 0.1304},{0.8713, 0.0446}, {0.8458,0.2497}, 
{0.6789, 0.2751}, {0.6137, 0.2179}, 
{0.5437, 0.1209}, {1.0398, 0.5311}, 
{1.0525, 0.6202}, {0.8347, 0.5502}, 
{0.8061, 0.6297}, {0.7202, 0.6170}, 
{0.6487, 0.7219}, {0.6964, 0.7839}, 
{0.8442, 0.9461}, {0.0763, 0.2990}, 
{0.1160, 0.5915}, {0.2941, 0.5979}, 
{0.2305, 0.7871},{0.1717, 0.8078}, 
{0.0556,0.9334}};
boundary = {{0.0270, 0.0250}, {1.0764, 0.0250}, 
{1.0780, 1.0744}, {0.0238,1.0744}, {0.0270,0.0250}};

(************************************)
SeedRandom[1];
data = RandomReal[{-1, 1}, {200, 2}];
boundary = {{-1, -1}, {1, -1}, {1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1, -1}};
(************************************)

{X, Y} = Transpose[boundary];
xmin = Min[X];
xmax = Max[X];
ymin = Min[Y];
ymax = Max[Y];
n = Length[data];

gr1 = ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> Black];
gr2 = ListLinePlot[boundary, PlotStyle -> Thick];

circs = Table[{data[[k]], 0, 0}, {k, 1, n}];
For[i = 1, i <= n, i++, 
 For[j = i + 1, j <= n, j++, 
  dist[i, j] = Norm[circs[[i, 1]] - circs[[j, 1]]]]]

minDist[circs_] := Module[{n = Length[circs], d, dmin = Infinity, pi, pj, i, j, i0, j0},
  For[i = 1, i <= n, i++,
   For[j = i + 1, j <= n, j++, 
     If[circs[[i, 3]] == 1 && circs[[j, 3]] == 1, Continue[]];
     d = dist[i, j] - circs[[i, 2]] - circs[[j, 2]];
     If[d <= dmin,
      dmin = d;
      pi = circs[[i]];
      pj = circs[[j]];
      i0 = i;
      j0 = j];
     ];
   ]; Return[{dmin, i0, j0, pi, pj}]
  ]

dmin = 0;
grs = {};
While[dmin < Infinity,
  {dmin, i0, j0, pi, pj} = minDist[circs];
  If[dmin == Infinity, Continue[]];
  If[pi[[3]] == 0 && pj[[3]] == 0,
   circs[[i0, 2]] += dmin/2;
   circs[[j0, 2]] += dmin/2;
   circs[[i0, 3]] = 1;
   circs[[j0, 3]] = 1;
   For[k = 1, k <= n, k++,
    If[circs[[k, 3]] != 1, circs[[k, 2]] += dmin/2]
    ]];
  If[circs[[i0, 3]] == 1 && circs[[j0, 3]] == 0,
   circs[[j0, 2]] += dmin;
   circs[[j0, 3]] = 1;
   For[k = 1, k <= n, k++,
    If[circs[[k, 3]] != 1, circs[[k, 2]] += dmin]]
   ];
  If[circs[[j0, 3]] == 1 && circs[[i0, 3]] == 0,
   circs[[i0, 2]] += dmin;
   circs[[i0, 3]] = 1;
   For[k = 1, k <= n, k++,
    If[circs[[k, 3]] != 1, circs[[k, 2]] += dmin]]
   ];
  grcircs = Table[Graphics[{Blue, Disk[circs[[k, 1]], circs[[k, 2]]]}, PlotRange -> {{xmin, xmax}, {ymin, ymax}}, PlotRangeClipping -> True], {k, 1, n}];
  AppendTo[grs, grcircs];
  ];

Show[grs, gr1, gr2, PlotRange -> {{xmin, xmax}, {ymin, ymax}}, PlotRangeClipping -> True]

The proposed setup.

enter image description here

A random setup

enter image description here

My guess is that the maximum ratio is achieved with a honeycomb structure, going to the limit. From Lagrange $\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{3}}$.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ The maximum isn't attained by the honeycomb structure, because we can put two very close points in the center of each triangular void and gain additional area. Iterating this procedure will let you get density $1$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 27 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ I think there is something wrong with the first image (with the dark blue disks). There is a general rule: If a disk, call it $A$, touches exactly one other disk, call it $B$, then $B$ cannot be bigger than $A$. But this rule is not always obeyed in the image. $\endgroup$
    – Dan
    Commented Jan 27 at 6:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Dan I hope I have fixed the problems with the drawing algorithm. $\endgroup$
    – Cesareo
    Commented Feb 4 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Cesareo Yes, it looks correct now. $\endgroup$
    – Dan
    Commented Feb 5 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ @RavenclawPrefect It seems that from Lagrange, the maximum packing density is $\frac{\pi}{2\sqrt{3}}$ roughly $0.907$. $\endgroup$
    – Cesareo
    Commented Feb 7 at 8:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .