1,278 research outputs found

    Cross-Composition: A New Technique for Kernelization Lower Bounds

    Get PDF
    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

    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 Lower Bounds By Cross-Composition

    Full text link
    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

    Compression via Matroids: A Randomized Polynomial Kernel for Odd Cycle Transversal

    Full text link
    The Odd Cycle Transversal problem (OCT) asks whether a given graph can be made bipartite by deleting at most kk of its vertices. In a breakthrough result Reed, Smith, and Vetta (Operations Research Letters, 2004) gave a \BigOh(4^kkmn) time algorithm for it, the first algorithm with polynomial runtime of uniform degree for every fixed kk. It is known that this implies a polynomial-time compression algorithm that turns OCT instances into equivalent instances of size at most \BigOh(4^k), a so-called kernelization. Since then the existence of a polynomial kernel for OCT, i.e., a kernelization with size bounded polynomially in kk, has turned into one of the main open questions in the study of kernelization. This work provides the first (randomized) polynomial kernelization for OCT. We introduce a novel kernelization approach based on matroid theory, where we encode all relevant information about a problem instance into a matroid with a representation of size polynomial in kk. For OCT, the matroid is built to allow us to simulate the computation of the iterative compression step of the algorithm of Reed, Smith, and Vetta, applied (for only one round) to an approximate odd cycle transversal which it is aiming to shrink to size kk. The process is randomized with one-sided error exponentially small in kk, where the result can contain false positives but no false negatives, and the size guarantee is cubic in the size of the approximate solution. Combined with an \BigOh(\sqrt{\log n})-approximation (Agarwal et al., STOC 2005), we get a reduction of the instance to size \BigOh(k^{4.5}), implying a randomized polynomial kernelization.Comment: Minor changes to agree with SODA 2012 version of the pape

    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

    Crossing Paths with Hans Bodlaender:A Personal View on Cross-Composition for Sparsification Lower Bounds

    Get PDF
    On the occasion of Hans Bodlaender’s 60th birthday, I give a personal account of our history and work together on the technique of cross-composition for kernelization lower bounds. I present several simple new proofs for polynomial kernelization lower bounds using cross-composition, interlaced with personal anecdotes about my time as Hans’ PhD student at Utrecht University. Concretely, I will prove that Vertex Cover, Feedback Vertex Set, and the H-Factor problem for every graph H that has a connected component of at least three vertices, do not admit kernels of (formula presented) bits when parameterized by the number of vertices n for any (formula presented), unless (formula presented). These lower bounds are obtained by elementary gadget constructions, in particular avoiding the use of the Packing Lemma by Dell and van Melkebeek.</p

    Vertex Cover Kernelization Revisited: Upper and Lower Bounds for a Refined Parameter

    Get PDF
    An important result in the study of polynomial-time preprocessing shows that there is an algorithm which given an instance (G,k) of Vertex Cover outputs an equivalent instance (G',k') in polynomial time with the guarantee that G' has at most 2k' vertices (and thus O((k')^2) edges) with k' <= k. Using the terminology of parameterized complexity we say that k-Vertex Cover has a kernel with 2k vertices. There is complexity-theoretic evidence that both 2k vertices and Theta(k^2) edges are optimal for the kernel size. In this paper we consider the Vertex Cover problem with a different parameter, the size fvs(G) of a minimum feedback vertex set for G. This refined parameter is structurally smaller than the parameter k associated to the vertex covering number vc(G) since fvs(G) <= vc(G) and the difference can be arbitrarily large. We give a kernel for Vertex Cover with a number of vertices that is cubic in fvs(G): an instance (G,X,k) of Vertex Cover, where X is a feedback vertex set for G, can be transformed in polynomial time into an equivalent instance (G',X',k') such that |V(G')| <= 2k and |V(G')| <= O(|X'|^3). A similar result holds when the feedback vertex set X is not given along with the input. In sharp contrast we show that the Weighted Vertex Cover problem does not have a polynomial kernel when parameterized by the cardinality of a given vertex cover of the graph unless NP is in coNP/poly and the polynomial hierarchy collapses to the third level.Comment: Published in "Theory of Computing Systems" as an Open Access publicatio

    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
    corecore