Parameterized Algorithms on Perfect Graphs for deletion to (r,ℓ)(r,\ell)-graphs

For fixed integers $r,\ell \geq 0$, a graph $G$ is called an {\em $(r,\ell)$-graph} if the vertex set $V(G)$ can be partitioned into $r$ independent sets and $\ell$ cliques. The class of $(r, \ell)$ graphs generalizes $r$-colourable graphs (when $\ell =0)$ and hence not surprisingly, determining whether a given graph is an $(r, \ell)$-graph is \NP-hard even when $r \geq 3$ or $\ell \geq 3$ in general graphs. When $r$ and $\ell$ are part of the input, then the recognition problem is NP-hard even if the input graph is a perfect graph (where the {\sc Chromatic Number} problem is solvable in polynomial time). It is also known to be fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) on perfect graphs when parameterized by $r$ and $\ell$. I.e. there is an f(r+\ell) \cdot n^{\Oh(1)} algorithm on perfect graphs on $n$ vertices where $f$ is some (exponential) function of $r$ and $\ell$. In this paper, we consider the parameterized complexity of the following problem, which we call {\sc Vertex Partization}. Given a perfect graph $G$ and positive integers $r,\ell,k$ decide whether there exists a set $S\subseteq V(G)$ of size at most $k$ such that the deletion of $S$ from $G$ results in an $(r,\ell)$-graph. We obtain the following results: \begin{enumerate} \item {\sc Vertex Partization} on perfect graphs is FPT when parameterized by $k+r+\ell$. \item The problem does not admit any polynomial sized kernel when parameterized by $k+r+\ell$. In other words, in polynomial time, the input graph can not be compressed to an equivalent instance of size polynomial in $k+r+\ell$. In fact, our result holds even when $k=0$. \item When $r,\ell$ are universal constants, then {\sc Vertex Partization} on perfect graphs, parameterized by $k$, has a polynomial sized kernel. \end{enumerate

An FPT algorithm and a polynomial kernel for Linear Rankwidth-1 Vertex Deletion

Linear rankwidth is a linearized variant of rankwidth, introduced by Oum and Seymour [Approximating clique-width and branch-width. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 96(4):514--528, 2006]. Motivated from recent development on graph modification problems regarding classes of graphs of bounded treewidth or pathwidth, we study the Linear Rankwidth-1 Vertex Deletion problem (shortly, LRW1-Vertex Deletion). In the LRW1-Vertex Deletion problem, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$ and a positive integer $k$, we want to decide whether there is a set of at most $k$ vertices whose removal turns $G$ into a graph of linear rankwidth at most $1$ and find such a vertex set if one exists. While the meta-theorem of Courcelle, Makowsky, and Rotics implies that LRW1-Vertex Deletion can be solved in time $f(k)\cdot n^3$ for some function $f$, it is not clear whether this problem allows a running time with a modest exponential function. We first establish that LRW1-Vertex Deletion can be solved in time $8^k\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$. The major obstacle to this end is how to handle a long induced cycle as an obstruction. To fix this issue, we define necklace graphs and investigate their structural properties. Later, we reduce the polynomial factor by refining the trivial branching step based on a cliquewidth expression of a graph, and obtain an algorithm that runs in time $2^{\mathcal{O}(k)}\cdot n^4$. We also prove that the running time cannot be improved to $2^{o(k)}\cdot n^{\mathcal{O}(1)}$ under the Exponential Time Hypothesis assumption. Lastly, we show that the LRW1-Vertex Deletion problem admits a polynomial kernel.Comment: 29 pages, 9 figures, An extended abstract appeared in IPEC201

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