Parameterized bounded-depth Frege is not optimal

A general framework for parameterized proof complexity was introduced by Dantchev, Martin, and Szeider [9]. There the authors concentrate on tree-like Parameterized Resolution-a parameterized version of classical Resolution-and their gap complexity theorem implies lower bounds for that system. The main result of the present paper significantly improves upon this by showing optimal lower bounds for a parameterized version of bounded-depth Frege. More precisely, we prove that the pigeonhole principle requires proofs of size n in parameterized bounded-depth Frege, and, as a special case, in dag-like Parameterized Resolution. This answers an open question posed in [9]. In the opposite direction, we interpret a well-known technique for FPT algorithms as a DPLL procedure for Parameterized Resolution. Its generalization leads to a proof search algorithm for Parameterized Resolution that in particular shows that tree-like Parameterized Resolution allows short refutations of all parameterized contradictions given as bounded-width CNF's

From Gap-ETH to FPT-Inapproximability: Clique, Dominating Set, and More

We consider questions that arise from the intersection between the areas of polynomial-time approximation algorithms, subexponential-time algorithms, and fixed-parameter tractable algorithms. The questions, which have been asked several times (e.g., [Marx08, FGMS12, DF13]), are whether there is a non-trivial FPT-approximation algorithm for the Maximum Clique (Clique) and Minimum Dominating Set (DomSet) problems parameterized by the size of the optimal solution. In particular, letting $\text{OPT}$ be the optimum and $N$ be the size of the input, is there an algorithm that runs in $t(\text{OPT})\text{poly}(N)$ time and outputs a solution of size $f(\text{OPT})$, for any functions $t$ and $f$ that are independent of $N$ (for Clique, we want $f(\text{OPT})=\omega(1)$)? In this paper, we show that both Clique and DomSet admit no non-trivial FPT-approximation algorithm, i.e., there is no $o(\text{OPT})$-FPT-approximation algorithm for Clique and no $f(\text{OPT})$-FPT-approximation algorithm for DomSet, for any function $f$ (e.g., this holds even if $f$ is the Ackermann function). In fact, our results imply something even stronger: The best way to solve Clique and DomSet, even approximately, is to essentially enumerate all possibilities. Our results hold under the Gap Exponential Time Hypothesis (Gap-ETH) [Dinur16, MR16], which states that no $2^{o(n)}$-time algorithm can distinguish between a satisfiable 3SAT formula and one which is not even $(1 - \epsilon)$-satisfiable for some constant $\epsilon > 0$. Besides Clique and DomSet, we also rule out non-trivial FPT-approximation for Maximum Balanced Biclique, Maximum Subgraphs with Hereditary Properties, and Maximum Induced Matching in bipartite graphs. Additionally, we rule out $k^{o(1)}$-FPT-approximation algorithm for Densest $k$-Subgraph although this ratio does not yet match the trivial $O(k)$-approximation algorithm.Comment: 43 pages. To appear in FOCS'1

Polynomial fixed-parameter algorithms : a case study for longest path on interval graphs.

We study the design of fixed-parameter algorithms for problems already known to be solvable in polynomial time. The main motivation is to get more efficient algorithms for problems with unattractive polynomial running times. Here, we focus on a fundamental graph problem: Longest Path; it is NP-hard in general but known to be solvable in O(n^4) time on n-vertex interval graphs. We show how to solve Longest Path on Interval Graphs, parameterized by vertex deletion number k to proper interval graphs, in O(k^9n) time. Notably, Longest Path is trivially solvable in linear time on proper interval graphs, and the parameter value k can be approximated up to a factor of 4 in linear time. From a more general perspective, we believe that using parameterized complexity analysis for polynomial-time solvable problems offers a very fertile ground for future studies for all sorts of algorithmic problems. It may enable a refined understanding of efficiency aspects for polynomial-time solvable problems, similarly to what classical parameterized complexity analysis does for NP-hard problems

On the complexity of finding and counting solution-free sets of integers

Given a linear equation $\mathcal{L}$, a set $A$ of integers is $\mathcal{L}$-free if $A$ does not contain any `non-trivial' solutions to $\mathcal{L}$. This notion incorporates many central topics in combinatorial number theory such as sum-free and progression-free sets. In this paper we initiate the study of (parameterised) complexity questions involving $\mathcal{L}$-free sets of integers. The main questions we consider involve deciding whether a finite set of integers $A$ has an $\mathcal{L}$-free subset of a given size, and counting all such $\mathcal{L}$-free subsets. We also raise a number of open problems.Comment: 27 page

The Graph Motif problem parameterized by the structure of the input graph

The Graph Motif problem was introduced in 2006 in the context of biological networks. It consists of deciding whether or not a multiset of colors occurs in a connected subgraph of a vertex-colored graph. Graph Motif has been mostly analyzed from the standpoint of parameterized complexity. The main parameters which came into consideration were the size of the multiset and the number of colors. Though, in the many applications of Graph Motif, the input graph originates from real-life and has structure. Motivated by this prosaic observation, we systematically study its complexity relatively to graph structural parameters. For a wide range of parameters, we give new or improved FPT algorithms, or show that the problem remains intractable. For the FPT cases, we also give some kernelization lower bounds as well as some ETH-based lower bounds on the worst case running time. Interestingly, we establish that Graph Motif is W[1]-hard (while in W[P]) for parameter max leaf number, which is, to the best of our knowledge, the first problem to behave this way.Comment: 24 pages, accepted in DAM, conference version in IPEC 201