Preventing Unraveling in Social Networks Gets Harder

The behavior of users in social networks is often observed to be affected by the actions of their friends. Bhawalkar et al. \cite{bhawalkar-icalp} introduced a formal mathematical model for user engagement in social networks where each individual derives a benefit proportional to the number of its friends which are engaged. Given a threshold degree $k$ the equilibrium for this model is a maximal subgraph whose minimum degree is $\geq k$. However the dropping out of individuals with degrees less than $k$ might lead to a cascading effect of iterated withdrawals such that the size of equilibrium subgraph becomes very small. To overcome this some special vertices called "anchors" are introduced: these vertices need not have large degree. Bhawalkar et al. \cite{bhawalkar-icalp} considered the \textsc{Anchored $k$-Core} problem: Given a graph $G$ and integers $b, k$ and $p$ do there exist a set of vertices $B\subseteq H\subseteq V(G)$ such that $|B|\leq b, |H|\geq p$ and every vertex $v\in H\setminus B$ has degree at least $k$ is the induced subgraph $G[H]$. They showed that the problem is NP-hard for $k\geq 2$ and gave some inapproximability and fixed-parameter intractability results. In this paper we give improved hardness results for this problem. In particular we show that the \textsc{Anchored $k$-Core} problem is W[1]-hard parameterized by $p$, even for $k=3$. This improves the result of Bhawalkar et al. \cite{bhawalkar-icalp} (who show W[2]-hardness parameterized by $b$) as our parameter is always bigger since $p\geq b$. Then we answer a question of Bhawalkar et al. \cite{bhawalkar-icalp} by showing that the \textsc{Anchored $k$-Core} problem remains NP-hard on planar graphs for all $k\geq 3$, even if the maximum degree of the graph is $k+2$. Finally we show that the problem is FPT on planar graphs parameterized by $b$ for all $k\geq 7$.Comment: To appear in AAAI 201

An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms

Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences? This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman, Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012 issue of SIGACT New