Fast Biclustering by Dual Parameterization

We study two clustering problems, Starforest Editing, the problem of adding and deleting edges to obtain a disjoint union of stars, and the generalization Bicluster Editing. We show that, in addition to being NP-hard, none of the problems can be solved in subexponential time unless the exponential time hypothesis fails. Misra, Panolan, and Saurabh (MFCS 2013) argue that introducing a bound on the number of connected components in the solution should not make the problem easier: In particular, they argue that the subexponential time algorithm for editing to a fixed number of clusters (p-Cluster Editing) by Fomin et al. (J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 80(7) 2014) is an exception rather than the rule. Here, p is a secondary parameter, bounding the number of components in the solution. However, upon bounding the number of stars or bicliques in the solution, we obtain algorithms which run in time $2^{5 \sqrt{pk}} + O(n+m)$ for p-Starforest Editing and $2^{O(p \sqrt{k} \log(pk))} + O(n+m)$ for p-Bicluster Editing. We obtain a similar result for the more general case of t-Partite p-Cluster Editing. This is subexponential in k for fixed number of clusters, since p is then considered a constant. Our results even out the number of multivariate subexponential time algorithms and give reasons to believe that this area warrants further study.Comment: Accepted for presentation at IPEC 201

Fast Dynamic Graph Algorithms for Parameterized Problems

Fully dynamic graph is a data structure that (1) supports edge insertions and deletions and (2) answers problem specific queries. The time complexity of (1) and (2) are referred to as the update time and the query time respectively. There are many researches on dynamic graphs whose update time and query time are $o(|G|)$, that is, sublinear in the graph size. However, almost all such researches are for problems in P. In this paper, we investigate dynamic graphs for NP-hard problems exploiting the notion of fixed parameter tractability (FPT). We give dynamic graphs for Vertex Cover and Cluster Vertex Deletion parameterized by the solution size $k$. These dynamic graphs achieve almost the best possible update time $O(\mathrm{poly}(k)\log n)$ and the query time $O(f(\mathrm{poly}(k),k))$, where $f(n,k)$ is the time complexity of any static graph algorithm for the problems. We obtain these results by dynamically maintaining an approximate solution which can be used to construct a small problem kernel. Exploiting the dynamic graph for Cluster Vertex Deletion, as a corollary, we obtain a quasilinear-time (polynomial) kernelization algorithm for Cluster Vertex Deletion. Until now, only quadratic time kernelization algorithms are known for this problem. We also give a dynamic graph for Chromatic Number parameterized by the solution size of Cluster Vertex Deletion, and a dynamic graph for bounded-degree Feedback Vertex Set parameterized by the solution size. Assuming the parameter is a constant, each dynamic graph can be updated in $O(\log n)$ time and can compute a solution in $O(1)$ time. These results are obtained by another approach.Comment: SWAT 2014 to appea

Kernelization Lower Bounds By Cross-Composition

We introduce the cross-composition framework for proving kernelization lower bounds. A classical problem L AND/OR-cross-composes into a parameterized problem Q if it is possible to efficiently construct an instance of Q with polynomially bounded parameter value that expresses the logical AND or OR of a sequence of instances of L. Building on work by Bodlaender et al. (ICALP 2008) and using a result by Fortnow and Santhanam (STOC 2008) with a refinement by Dell and van Melkebeek (STOC 2010), we show that if an NP-hard problem OR-cross-composes into a parameterized problem Q then Q does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP \subseteq coNP/poly and the polynomial hierarchy collapses. Similarly, an AND-cross-composition for Q rules out polynomial kernels for Q under Bodlaender et al.'s AND-distillation conjecture. Our technique generalizes and strengthens the recent techniques of using composition algorithms and of transferring the lower bounds via polynomial parameter transformations. We show its applicability by proving kernelization lower bounds for a number of important graphs problems with structural (non-standard) parameterizations, e.g., Clique, Chromatic Number, Weighted Feedback Vertex Set, and Weighted Odd Cycle Transversal do not admit polynomial kernels with respect to the vertex cover number of the input graphs unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses, contrasting the fact that these problems are trivially fixed-parameter tractable for this parameter. After learning of our results, several teams of authors have successfully applied the cross-composition framework to different parameterized problems. For completeness, our presentation of the framework includes several extensions based on this follow-up work. For example, we show how a relaxed version of OR-cross-compositions may be used to give lower bounds on the degree of the polynomial in the kernel size.Comment: A preliminary version appeared in the proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2011) under the title "Cross-Composition: A New Technique for Kernelization Lower Bounds". Several results have been strengthened compared to the preliminary version (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4224). 29 pages, 2 figure

Cross-Composition: A New Technique for Kernelization Lower Bounds

We introduce a new technique for proving kernelization lower bounds, called cross-composition. A classical problem L cross-composes into a parameterized problem Q if an instance of Q with polynomially bounded parameter value can express the logical OR of a sequence of instances of L. Building on work by Bodlaender et al. (ICALP 2008) and using a result by Fortnow and Santhanam (STOC 2008) we show that if an NP-complete problem cross-composes into a parameterized problem Q then Q does not admit a polynomial kernel unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses. Our technique generalizes and strengthens the recent techniques of using OR-composition algorithms and of transferring the lower bounds via polynomial parameter transformations. We show its applicability by proving kernelization lower bounds for a number of important graphs problems with structural (non-standard) parameterizations, e.g., Chromatic Number, Clique, and Weighted Feedback Vertex Set do not admit polynomial kernels with respect to the vertex cover number of the input graphs unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses, contrasting the fact that these problems are trivially fixed-parameter tractable for this parameter. We have similar lower bounds for Feedback Vertex Set.Comment: Updated information based on final version submitted to STACS 201

Streaming Kernelization

Kernelization is a formalization of preprocessing for combinatorially hard problems. We modify the standard definition for kernelization, which allows any polynomial-time algorithm for the preprocessing, by requiring instead that the preprocessing runs in a streaming setting and uses $\mathcal{O}(poly(k)\log|x|)$ bits of memory on instances $(x,k)$. We obtain several results in this new setting, depending on the number of passes over the input that such a streaming kernelization is allowed to make. Edge Dominating Set turns out as an interesting example because it has no single-pass kernelization but two passes over the input suffice to match the bounds of the best standard kernelization

Fast branching algorithm for Cluster Vertex Deletion

In the family of clustering problems, we are given a set of objects (vertices of the graph), together with some observed pairwise similarities (edges). The goal is to identify clusters of similar objects by slightly modifying the graph to obtain a cluster graph (disjoint union of cliques). Hueffner et al. [Theory Comput. Syst. 2010] initiated the parameterized study of Cluster Vertex Deletion, where the allowed modification is vertex deletion, and presented an elegant O(2^k * k^9 + n * m)-time fixed-parameter algorithm, parameterized by the solution size. In our work, we pick up this line of research and present an O(1.9102^k * (n + m))-time branching algorithm