8 research outputs found

    Optimal Dynamic Program for r-Domination Problems over Tree Decompositions

    Get PDF
    There has been recent progress in showing that the exponential dependence on treewidth in dynamic programming algorithms for solving NP-hard problems is optimal under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). We extend this work to r-domination problems. In r-dominating set, one wishes to find a minimum subset S of vertices such that every vertex of G is within r hops of some vertex in S. In connected r-dominating set, one additionally requires that the set induces a connected subgraph of G. We give a O((2r+1)^tw n) time algorithm for r-dominating set and a randomized O((2r+2)^tw n^{O(1)}) time algorithm for connected r-dominating set in n-vertex graphs of treewidth tw. We show that the running time dependence on r and tw is the best possible under SETH. This adds to earlier observations that a "+1" in the denominator is required for connectivity constraints

    Structurally Parameterized d-Scattered Set

    Full text link
    In dd-Scattered Set we are given an (edge-weighted) graph and are asked to select at least kk vertices, so that the distance between any pair is at least dd, thus generalizing Independent Set. We provide upper and lower bounds on the complexity of this problem with respect to various standard graph parameters. In particular, we show the following: - For any d2d\ge2, an O(dtw)O^*(d^{\textrm{tw}})-time algorithm, where tw\textrm{tw} is the treewidth of the input graph. - A tight SETH-based lower bound matching this algorithm's performance. These generalize known results for Independent Set. - dd-Scattered Set is W[1]-hard parameterized by vertex cover (for edge-weighted graphs), or feedback vertex set (for unweighted graphs), even if kk is an additional parameter. - A single-exponential algorithm parameterized by vertex cover for unweighted graphs, complementing the above-mentioned hardness. - A 2O(td2)2^{O(\textrm{td}^2)}-time algorithm parameterized by tree-depth (td\textrm{td}), as well as a matching ETH-based lower bound, both for unweighted graphs. We complement these mostly negative results by providing an FPT approximation scheme parameterized by treewidth. In particular, we give an algorithm which, for any error parameter ϵ>0\epsilon > 0, runs in time O((tw/ϵ)O(tw))O^*((\textrm{tw}/\epsilon)^{O(\textrm{tw})}) and returns a d/(1+ϵ)d/(1+\epsilon)-scattered set of size kk, if a dd-scattered set of the same size exists

    Solving the k-dominating set problem on very large-scale networks

    Full text link

    Fast Algorithms for Join Operations on Tree Decompositions

    Full text link
    Treewidth is a measure of how tree-like a graph is. It has many important algorithmic applications because many NP-hard problems on general graphs become tractable when restricted to graphs of bounded treewidth. Algorithms for problems on graphs of bounded treewidth mostly are dynamic programming algorithms using the structure of a tree decomposition of the graph. The bottleneck in the worst-case run time of these algorithms often is the computations for the so called join nodes in the associated nice tree decomposition. In this paper, we review two different approaches that have appeared in the literature about computations for the join nodes: one using fast zeta and M\"obius transforms and one using fast Fourier transforms. We combine these approaches to obtain new, faster algorithms for a broad class of vertex subset problems known as the [\sigma,\rho]-domination problems. Our main result is that we show how to solve [\sigma,\rho]-domination problems in O(st+2tn2(tlog(s)+log(n)))O(s^{t+2} t n^2 (t\log(s)+\log(n))) arithmetic operations. Here, t is the treewidth, s is the (fixed) number of states required to represent partial solutions of the specific [\sigma,\rho]-domination problem, and n is the number of vertices in the graph. This reduces the polynomial factors involved compared to the previously best time bound (van Rooij, Bodlaender, Rossmanith, ESA 2009) of O(st+2(st)2(s2)n3)O( s^{t+2} (st)^{2(s-2)} n^3 ) arithmetic operations. In particular, this removes the dependence of the degree of the polynomial on the fixed number of states~ss.Comment: An earlier version appeared in "Treewidth, Kernels, and Algorithms. Essays Dedicated to Hans L. Bodlaender on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday" LNCS 1216

    New Results on Directed Edge Dominating Set

    Full text link
    We study a family of generalizations of Edge Dominating Set on directed graphs called Directed (p,q)(p,q)-Edge Dominating Set. In this problem an arc (u,v)(u,v) is said to dominate itself, as well as all arcs which are at distance at most qq from vv, or at distance at most pp to uu. First, we give significantly improved FPT algorithms for the two most important cases of the problem, (0,1)(0,1)-dEDS and (1,1)(1,1)-dEDS (that correspond to versions of Dominating Set on line graphs), as well as polynomial kernels. We also improve the best-known approximation for these cases from logarithmic to constant. In addition, we show that (p,q)(p,q)-dEDS is FPT parameterized by p+q+twp+q+tw, but W-hard parameterized by twtw (even if the size of the optimal is added as a second parameter), where twtw is the treewidth of the underlying graph of the input. We then go on to focus on the complexity of the problem on tournaments. Here, we provide a complete classification for every possible fixed value of p,qp,q, which shows that the problem exhibits a surprising behavior, including cases which are in P; cases which are solvable in quasi-polynomial time but not in P; and a single case (p=q=1)(p=q=1) which is NP-hard (under randomized reductions) and cannot be solved in sub-exponential time, under standard assumptions

    Modern Lower Bound Techniques in Database Theory and Constraint Satisfaction

    Get PDF
    Conditional lower bounds based on PNP\textup{P}\neq \textup{NP}, the Exponential-Time Hypothesis (ETH), or similar complexity assumptions can provide very useful information about what type of algorithms are likely to be possible. Ideally, such lower bounds would be able to demonstrate that the best known algorithms are essentially optimal and cannot be improved further. In this tutorial, we overview different types of lower bounds, and see how they can be applied to problems in database theory and constraint satisfaction

    27th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms: ESA 2019, September 9-11, 2019, Munich/Garching, Germany

    Get PDF
    corecore