8,695 research outputs found

    The Complexity of Computing Minimal Unidirectional Covering Sets

    Full text link
    Given a binary dominance relation on a set of alternatives, a common thread in the social sciences is to identify subsets of alternatives that satisfy certain notions of stability. Examples can be found in areas as diverse as voting theory, game theory, and argumentation theory. Brandt and Fischer [BF08] proved that it is NP-hard to decide whether an alternative is contained in some inclusion-minimal upward or downward covering set. For both problems, we raise this lower bound to the Theta_{2}^{p} level of the polynomial hierarchy and provide a Sigma_{2}^{p} upper bound. Relatedly, we show that a variety of other natural problems regarding minimal or minimum-size covering sets are hard or complete for either of NP, coNP, and Theta_{2}^{p}. An important consequence of our results is that neither minimal upward nor minimal downward covering sets (even when guaranteed to exist) can be computed in polynomial time unless P=NP. This sharply contrasts with Brandt and Fischer's result that minimal bidirectional covering sets (i.e., sets that are both minimal upward and minimal downward covering sets) are polynomial-time computable.Comment: 27 pages, 7 figure

    Resource efficient redundancy using quorum-based cycle routing in optical networks

    Get PDF
    In this paper we propose a cycle redundancy technique that provides optical networks almost fault-tolerant point-to-point and multipoint-to-multipoint communications. The technique more importantly is shown to approximately halve the necessary light-trail resources in the network while maintaining the fault-tolerance and dependability expected from cycle-based routing. For efficiency and distributed control, it is common in distributed systems and algorithms to group nodes into intersecting sets referred to as quorum sets. Optimal communication quorum sets forming optical cycles based on light-trails have been shown to flexibly and efficiently route both point-to-point and multipoint-to-multipoint traffic requests. Commonly cycle routing techniques will use pairs of cycles to achieve both routing and fault-tolerance, which uses substantial resources and creates the potential for underutilization. Instead, we intentionally utilize redundancy within the quorum cycles for fault-tolerance such that almost every point-to-point communication occurs in more than one cycle. The result is a set of cycles with 96.60% - 99.37% fault coverage, while using 42.9% - 47.18% fewer resources.Comment: 17th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), 5-9 July 2015. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1608.05172, arXiv:1608.0516

    Hardness of Exact Distance Queries in Sparse Graphs Through Hub Labeling

    Full text link
    A distance labeling scheme is an assignment of bit-labels to the vertices of an undirected, unweighted graph such that the distance between any pair of vertices can be decoded solely from their labels. An important class of distance labeling schemes is that of hub labelings, where a node vGv \in G stores its distance to the so-called hubs SvVS_v \subseteq V, chosen so that for any u,vVu,v \in V there is wSuSvw \in S_u \cap S_v belonging to some shortest uvuv path. Notice that for most existing graph classes, the best distance labelling constructions existing use at some point a hub labeling scheme at least as a key building block. Our interest lies in hub labelings of sparse graphs, i.e., those with E(G)=O(n)|E(G)| = O(n), for which we show a lowerbound of n2O(logn)\frac{n}{2^{O(\sqrt{\log n})}} for the average size of the hubsets. Additionally, we show a hub-labeling construction for sparse graphs of average size O(nRS(n)c)O(\frac{n}{RS(n)^{c}}) for some 0<c<10 < c < 1, where RS(n)RS(n) is the so-called Ruzsa-Szemer{\'e}di function, linked to structure of induced matchings in dense graphs. This implies that further improving the lower bound on hub labeling size to n2(logn)o(1)\frac{n}{2^{(\log n)^{o(1)}}} would require a breakthrough in the study of lower bounds on RS(n)RS(n), which have resisted substantial improvement in the last 70 years. For general distance labeling of sparse graphs, we show a lowerbound of 12O(logn)SumIndex(n)\frac{1}{2^{O(\sqrt{\log n})}} SumIndex(n), where SumIndex(n)SumIndex(n) is the communication complexity of the Sum-Index problem over ZnZ_n. Our results suggest that the best achievable hub-label size and distance-label size in sparse graphs may be Θ(n2(logn)c)\Theta(\frac{n}{2^{(\log n)^c}}) for some 0<c<10<c < 1
    corecore