461 research outputs found

    A shortcut to (sun)flowers: Kernels in logarithmic space or linear time

    Full text link
    We investigate whether kernelization results can be obtained if we restrict kernelization algorithms to run in logarithmic space. This restriction for kernelization is motivated by the question of what results are attainable for preprocessing via simple and/or local reduction rules. We find kernelizations for d-Hitting Set(k), d-Set Packing(k), Edge Dominating Set(k) and a number of hitting and packing problems in graphs, each running in logspace. Additionally, we return to the question of linear-time kernelization. For d-Hitting Set(k) a linear-time kernelization was given by van Bevern [Algorithmica (2014)]. We give a simpler procedure and save a large constant factor in the size bound. Furthermore, we show that we can obtain a linear-time kernel for d-Set Packing(k) as well.Comment: 18 page

    Polynomial Kernels for Weighted Problems

    Full text link
    Kernelization is a formalization of efficient preprocessing for NP-hard problems using the framework of parameterized complexity. Among open problems in kernelization it has been asked many times whether there are deterministic polynomial kernelizations for Subset Sum and Knapsack when parameterized by the number nn of items. We answer both questions affirmatively by using an algorithm for compressing numbers due to Frank and Tardos (Combinatorica 1987). This result had been first used by Marx and V\'egh (ICALP 2013) in the context of kernelization. We further illustrate its applicability by giving polynomial kernels also for weighted versions of several well-studied parameterized problems. Furthermore, when parameterized by the different item sizes we obtain a polynomial kernelization for Subset Sum and an exponential kernelization for Knapsack. Finally, we also obtain kernelization results for polynomial integer programs

    On Polynomial Kernels for Integer Linear Programs: Covering, Packing and Feasibility

    Full text link
    We study the existence of polynomial kernels for the problem of deciding feasibility of integer linear programs (ILPs), and for finding good solutions for covering and packing ILPs. Our main results are as follows: First, we show that the ILP Feasibility problem admits no polynomial kernelization when parameterized by both the number of variables and the number of constraints, unless NP \subseteq coNP/poly. This extends to the restricted cases of bounded variable degree and bounded number of variables per constraint, and to covering and packing ILPs. Second, we give a polynomial kernelization for the Cover ILP problem, asking for a solution to Ax >= b with c^Tx <= k, parameterized by k, when A is row-sparse; this generalizes a known polynomial kernelization for the special case with 0/1-variables and coefficients (d-Hitting Set)

    Streaming Kernelization

    Full text link
    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 O(poly(k)logx)\mathcal{O}(poly(k)\log|x|) bits of memory on instances (x,k)(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

    Lossy Kernelization

    Get PDF
    In this paper we propose a new framework for analyzing the performance of preprocessing algorithms. Our framework builds on the notion of kernelization from parameterized complexity. However, as opposed to the original notion of kernelization, our definitions combine well with approximation algorithms and heuristics. The key new definition is that of a polynomial size α\alpha-approximate kernel. Loosely speaking, a polynomial size α\alpha-approximate kernel is a polynomial time pre-processing algorithm that takes as input an instance (I,k)(I,k) to a parameterized problem, and outputs another instance (I,k)(I',k') to the same problem, such that I+kkO(1)|I'|+k' \leq k^{O(1)}. Additionally, for every c1c \geq 1, a cc-approximate solution ss' to the pre-processed instance (I,k)(I',k') can be turned in polynomial time into a (cα)(c \cdot \alpha)-approximate solution ss to the original instance (I,k)(I,k). Our main technical contribution are α\alpha-approximate kernels of polynomial size for three problems, namely Connected Vertex Cover, Disjoint Cycle Packing and Disjoint Factors. These problems are known not to admit any polynomial size kernels unless NPcoNP/polyNP \subseteq coNP/poly. Our approximate kernels simultaneously beat both the lower bounds on the (normal) kernel size, and the hardness of approximation lower bounds for all three problems. On the negative side we prove that Longest Path parameterized by the length of the path and Set Cover parameterized by the universe size do not admit even an α\alpha-approximate kernel of polynomial size, for any α1\alpha \geq 1, unless NPcoNP/polyNP \subseteq coNP/poly. In order to prove this lower bound we need to combine in a non-trivial way the techniques used for showing kernelization lower bounds with the methods for showing hardness of approximationComment: 58 pages. Version 2 contain new results: PSAKS for Cycle Packing and approximate kernel lower bounds for Set Cover and Hitting Set parameterized by universe siz

    Kernelization and Parameterized Algorithms for 3-Path Vertex Cover

    Full text link
    A 3-path vertex cover in a graph is a vertex subset CC such that every path of three vertices contains at least one vertex from CC. The parameterized 3-path vertex cover problem asks whether a graph has a 3-path vertex cover of size at most kk. In this paper, we give a kernel of 5k5k vertices and an O(1.7485k)O^*(1.7485^k)-time and polynomial-space algorithm for this problem, both new results improve previous known bounds.Comment: in TAMC 2016, LNCS 9796, 201
    corecore