Optimal Online Edge Coloring of Planar Graphs with Advice

Using the framework of advice complexity, we study the amount of knowledge about the future that an online algorithm needs to color the edges of a graph optimally, i.e., using as few colors as possible. For graphs of maximum degree $\Delta$, it follows from Vizing's Theorem that $O(m\log \Delta)$ bits of advice suffice to achieve optimality, where $m$ is the number of edges. We show that for graphs of bounded degeneracy (a class of graphs including e.g. trees and planar graphs), only $O(m)$ bits of advice are needed to compute an optimal solution online, independently of how large $\Delta$ is. On the other hand, we show that $\Omega (m)$ bits of advice are necessary just to achieve a competitive ratio better than that of the best deterministic online algorithm without advice. Furthermore, we consider algorithms which use a fixed number of advice bits per edge (our algorithm for graphs of bounded degeneracy belongs to this class of algorithms). We show that for bipartite graphs, any such algorithm must use at least $\Omega(m\log \Delta)$ bits of advice to achieve optimality.Comment: CIAC 201

A Tight Karp-Lipton Collapse Result in Bounded Arithmetic

Cook and Krajíček [9] have obtained the following Karp-Lipton result in bounded arithmetic: if the theory proves , then collapses to , and this collapse is provable in . Here we show the converse implication, thus answering an open question from [9]. We obtain this result by formalizing in a hard/easy argument of Buhrman, Chang, and Fortnow [3]. In addition, we continue the investigation of propositional proof systems using advice, initiated by Cook and Krajíček [9]. In particular, we obtain several optimal and even p-optimal proof systems using advice. We further show that these p-optimal systems are equivalent to natural extensions of Frege systems

Characterizing the Existence of Optimal Proof Systems and Complete Sets for Promise Classes.

In this paper we investigate the following two questions: Q1: Do there exist optimal proof systems for a given language L? Q2: Do there exist complete problems for a given promise class C? For concrete languages L (such as TAUT or SAT) and concrete promise classes C (such as NP∩coNP, UP, BPP, disjoint NP-pairs etc.), these ques-tions have been intensively studied during the last years, and a number of characterizations have been obtained. Here we provide new character-izations for Q1 and Q2 that apply to almost all promise classes C and languages L, thus creating a unifying framework for the study of these practically relevant questions. While questions Q1 and Q2 are left open by our results, we show that they receive affirmative answers when a small amount on advice is avail-able in the underlying machine model. This continues a recent line of research on proof systems with advice started by Cook and Kraj́ıček [6]

Nondeterministic Instance Complexity and Proof Systems with Advice

Motivated by strong Karp-Lipton collapse results in bounded arithmetic, Cook and Krajíček [1] have recently introduced the notion of propositional proof systems with advice. In this paper we investigate the following question: Given a language L , do there exist polynomially bounded proof systems with advice for L ? Depending on the complexity of the underlying language L and the amount and type of the advice used by the proof system, we obtain different characterizations for this problem. In particular, we show that the above question is tightly linked with the question whether L has small nondeterministic instance complexity

P-Selectivity, Immunity, and the Power of One Bit

We prove that P-sel, the class of all P-selective sets, is EXP-immune, but is not EXP/1-immune. That is, we prove that some infinite P-selective set has no infinite EXP-time subset, but we also prove that every infinite P-selective set has some infinite subset in EXP/1. Informally put, the immunity of P-sel is so fragile that it is pierced by a single bit of information. The above claims follow from broader results that we obtain about the immunity of the P-selective sets. In particular, we prove that for every recursive function f, P-sel is DTIME(f)-immune. Yet we also prove that P-sel is not \Pi_2^p/1-immune