1 / 62

Bart M. P. Jansen Kernelization Lower Bounds

Bart M. P. Jansen Kernelization Lower Bounds. Review of existing techniques and the introduction of cross-composition Joint work with Hans L. Bodlaender and Stefan Kratsch. WorKer 2010, Leiden. Polynomial and Exponential Size Kernels.

noma
Download Presentation

Bart M. P. Jansen Kernelization Lower Bounds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bart M. P. JansenKernelization Lower Bounds Review of existing techniques and the introduction of cross-composition Joint work with Hans L. Bodlaender and Stefan Kratsch WorKer 2010, Leiden

  2. Polynomial and Exponential Size Kernels • Some elusive FPT problems resisted all attempts to find polynomial kernels • Connected Vertex Cover, k-Path, Treewidth, etc … • Existence of exponential-size kernels is implied by (uniform) fixed-parameter tractability • Tools to prove non-existence of polynomial kernels have been developed in recent years • Part I: Review of existing techniques for super-polynomial kernel lower bounds • Emphasis on techniques • Some applications as examples • Part II: Introducing cross-composition

  3. Outline Part I Part II Cross composition • Distillation algorithms • OR-composition • Poly-parameter transformations

  4. part I

  5. Existing techniques Distillation

  6. Weak distillation algorithms • Let A,B ⊆ S* be sets. A weak distillation of A into B is an algorithm • which takes as input a sequence (x1, … , xt) of instances of A • uses time polynomial in ∑i |xi| • outputs x* with • x* ∈ B  some xi∈ A • |x*| is polynomial in maxi |xi| • If A = B then this is the notion of strong distillation (OR-distillation)

  7. Weak distillation of A into B poly(t*n) time A instances x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x… xt poly(n) n B instance x*

  8. Consequences of weak distillation • Fortnow and Santhanam [STOC 2008] • If set A is NP-hard under Karp reductions and there is a weak distillation of A into any set B, then NP ⊆ coNP/poly • Yap’s theorem [Theor. Comp. Sc. 1983]: • If NP ⊆ coNP/poly then the polynomial hierarchy collapses to the third level • Further collapses (Cai et al. [STACS 2003]) • Intuitively: • if 1 small instance of set B can express the logical OR of many instances of the hard set A, then NP ⊆ coNP/poly • small instance: • polynomial in size of largest input instance • size independent of number of instances

  9. Existing techniques or-composition

  10. Preliminaries • Given (x,k) ∈ S*×ℕ , its unparameterized version is the string: • x#1111…1111 • x#1k • If Q ⊆ S*×ℕ is a parameterized problem, then its unparameterized variant is • Q := { x#1k | (x,k) ∈ Q } • 1-to-1 correspondence between members of Q and Q • Parameter encoded in unary: • polynomial-time transformation on an instance of Qyields • polynomially-bounded blow-up in parameter size. • For a set A ⊆ S*, we define the set OR(A) as • OR(A) := { (x1, x2, … , xt) | some xi ∈ A}

  11. OR-Composition • An OR-composition algorithm for a parameterized problem Q is an algorithm that • takes as input a sequence (x1, k), (x2, k) , … , (xt, k) of instances of Q with the same parameter value • uses time polynomial in ∑i |xi| + k • outputs (x*, k*) with • (x*, k*) ∈ Q  some (xi, k) ∈ Q • k* is polynomial in k

  12. OR-composition of Q poly(t*n + k) time Qinstances x1 k x2 k x.. k xt k poly(k) n Q instance k* x*

  13. Polynomial kernels for OR-compositional problems imply NP ⊆ coNP/poly • Bodlaender, Downey, Fellows, Hermelin: [ICALP 2008] • If Q is a parameterized problem • which has a polynomial kernel • which is OR-compositional • whose unparameterized variant Q is NP-hard under Karp reductions • then there is a weak distillation from Q into OR(Q) and NP ⊆ coNP/poly* • Proof: we build a weak distillation algorithm from the given ingredients * Refined statement and proof due to Holger Dell

  14. OR-composition + polynomial kernel  Weak distillation of Q into OR(Q) Qinstances x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x… xt Unparameterize Parameterize Compose Input Kernelize Group Output Tuple n Qinstances (x1,k1) (x1,k2) (x1,k3) (x1,k4) (x1,k5) (x1,k6) (x…,k…) (xt,kt) 1 2 3 r OR-Composed Q instances (y1,ki1) (y2,ki2) (y3,ki3) (yr,kir) KernelizedQ instances (y’1,k’i1) (y’2,k’i2) (y’3,k’i3) (y’r,k’ir) Q instances x’1 x’2 x’3 x’r Single OR(Q) instance (x’1, x’2 , x’3,x’r )

  15. Application: OR-Composition for k-Path • Input: t instances of k-Path • Take disjoint union, output as (G’, k) • G’ has a k-path  some Gi has a k-path • Output parameter trivially bounded in poly(k) ,k ,k ,k ,k ,k ,k k-Path does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP⊆coNP/poly

  16. Existing techniques polynomial-parameter transformations

  17. Polynomial-parameter transformations • Let P and Q be parameterized problems • A polynomial-parameter transformation from P to Q is an algorithm • which takes an instance (x,k) of P as input • uses time polynomial in |x| + k • outputs an instance (x’, k’) of Q with • (x,k) ∈ P  (x’, k’) ∈ Q • k’ is polynomial in k • Intuition: polynomial-time answer-preserving transformation of P to Q with bounded parameter increase

  18. Consequences of polynomial-parameter transformations • Bodlaender, Thomasse, Yeo: [ESA 2009] • If there is a polynomial-parameter transformation from P to Q and • P and Q are NP-complete • Q has a polynomial kernel • then P has a polynomial kernel

  19. Application of Polynomial-Parameter Transformations: Disjoint Cycles • Disjoint Cycles • Input: Undirected simple graph G, integer k • Parameter: k • Question: Does G contain k vertex-disjoint simple cycles? • Goal: prove that Disjoint Cycles does not admit a polynomial kernel • Use polynomial-parameter transformations

  20. Proving a lower bound for Disjoint Cycles • Method • Introduce the NP-complete problem “Disjoint Factors”, prove it does not have a polynomial kernel unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly • Give a polynomial-parameter transformation from Disjoint Factors to Disjoint Cycles • Reasoning • Disjoint Cycles poly kernel  Disjoint Factors poly kernel (Theorem) • No poly kernel for Disjoint Factors unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly • Hence no poly kernel for Disjoint Cycles unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly

  21. A) Introducing Disjoint Factors • Disjoint Factors • Input: Integer k, string S on alphabet {1, 2, … , k} • Parameter: k • Question: Can we find disjoint substrings S1, S2, … , Sk in S such that Si starts and ends with i? 14324141324142312412 14324141324142312412 14324141324142312412 14324141324142312412 14324141324142312412 Disjoint Factors does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP⊆coNP/poly

  22. B) Polynomial-parameter transformation • Input: Instance (S,k) of Disjoint Factors • Output: Instance (G,k) of Disjoint Cycles • String S has disjoint factorsG has k vertex-disjoint cycles 14324141324142312412 1 2 3 4 Disjoint Cycles does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP⊆coNP/poly

  23. Results through polynomial-parameter transformations • Incompressibility through colors and IDs • Dom, Lokshtanov, Saurabh [ICALP 2009] • These problems do not have polynomial kernels unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly: • Small Universe Set Cover • Parameter: |U| + k • Small Universe Hitting Set • Parameter: |U| + k • Dominating Set parameterized by size of a vertex cover, • Connected Vertex Cover, • Steiner Tree, • Small Subset Sum, • etc.

  24. part II

  25. Cross-composition the main idea

  26. Polynomial equivalence relationship • Let L be a set of strings • R is a polynomial equivalence relationship on L if • R is an equivalence relationship • R partitions any set of strings on at most n characters each into poly(n) groups • equivalency under R can be tested in polynomial time • Informally: an efficient way of grouping instances of size ≤n each into poly(n) groups

  27. Definition of cross-composition • Let L be a set of strings and Q a parameterized problem • Set L cross-composes into Q if there is a polynomial equivalence relationship R and an algorithm which • takes as input t instances x1, … , xt of L which are equivalent under R • uses time polynomial in ∑i |xi| • outputs an instance (x*, k*) of Q such that • (x*,k*) ∈ Q  some xi∈ L • k* is polynomial in maxi |xi| + log t • If set L cross-composes into parameterized problem Q: • Then Q can express the OR of instances of L for a small parameter value

  28. Comparison OR-Composition Cross-Composition A cross-composition of the set L into parameterized problem Q is an algorithm which takes as input a sequence x1, … , xt of L-instances which are equivalent under some polynomial equivalence relationship uses time polynomial in ∑i |xi| outputs (x*, k*) with (x*,k*) ∈ Q  some xi∈ L, k* is polynomial in maxi|xi|+log t • An OR-composition for a parameterized problem Q is an algorithm which • takes as input a sequence (x1, k), (x2, k) , … , (xt, k) of Q-instances • which share the same parameter • uses time polynomial in ∑i |xi| + k • outputs (x*, k*) with • (x*, k*) ∈ Q  some (xi, k) ∈ Q • k* is polynomial in k

  29. Polynomial kernels for cross-compositional problems imply NP ⊆ coNP/poly • If there is a set A and parameterized problem Q such that • set A is NP-hard under Karp reductions • set A cross-composes into Q • Q has a polynomial kernel • then there is a weak distillation from A into OR(Q) and NP⊆coNP/poly • Proof: We build a weak distillation

  30. Cross-composition + Polynomial kernel  Weak distillation of A into OR(Q) • A) Input • In: t instances (x1, …, xt) of NP-hard set A • Define n := maxi |xi| • B) Eliminate duplicates • At most (|S|+1)n distinct inputs • Pairwise comparison to eliminate duplicates • Afterwards log t  O(n) • C) Group by equivalence • Partition inputs into groups X1, X2, … , Xr of inputs which are R-equivalent • We get r  poly(n) groups • D) Apply cross-composition • Cross-compose all inputs in group Xi into instance (xi*, ki*) of parameterized problem Q • ki* is poly(n + log t), which is poly(n) since log t  O(n)

  31. Cross-composition + Polynomial kernel  Weak distillation of A into OR(Q) • D) Apply cross-composition • Cross-compose all inputs in group Xi into instance (xi*, ki*) of parameterized problem Q • ki* is poly(n + log t), which is poly(n) since log t  O(n) • E) Apply polynomial kernel for Q • Kernelize each (xi*, ki*) to (xi’, ki’) • Afterwards |xi’|, ki’ ≤ poly(n) • F) Unparameterize • Transform (xi’, ki’) to unparameterized instance yi of Q • Size poly(n) per instance • G) Build tuple: instance of OR(Q) • Make tuple y* := (y1, y2, … , yr) which is an instance of OR(Q) • |y*| is r * poly(n) • |y*| is poly(n)

  32. Cross-composition An application

  33. Chromatic Number parameterized by Vertex Cover • Chromatic Number parameterized by Vertex Cover • Input: Graph G, vertex cover Z of G, integer l. • Parameter: k := |Z|. • Question: Can the vertices of G be properly l -colored? Z YES for l = 4

  34. Chromatic Number parameterized by Vertex Cover • Problem is FPT • Simple exponential-size kernel • No polynomial kernel unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly Z

  35. Overview of the proof • Ingredients of the proof • NP-completeness of 3-coloring on triangle split graphs • Polynomial equivalence relationship • 3-coloring triangle split graphs cross-composes into Chromatic Number parameterized by Vertex Cover

  36. A) Triangle split graphs • A triangle split graph is a graph G with vertex subset X: • G[V – X] consists of vertex-disjoint triangles • X is an independent set in G • V –X is a vertex cover • 3-coloring is NP-complete on triangle split graphs X

  37. B) Polynomial equivalence relationship • Two instances (G1, X1) and (G2, X2) of 3-coloring on triangle split graphs are equivalent under R if • |V(G1)| = |V(G2)|, and • |X1| = |X2| • Any set of instances on at most n vertices each is partitioned into n2 groups • R is a polynomial equivalence relationship

  38. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3?

  39. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  40. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  41. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  42. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  43. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  44. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  45. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  46. χ(G1)≤3? χ(G…)≤3? χ(Gt)≤3? Klog t+4 χ(G*)≤log t + 4?

  47. Conclusion of proof Chromatic Number par.by Vertex Cover does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP⊆coNP/poly • For any fixed q, the q-Coloring problem parameterized by Vertex Cover does admit a polynomial kernel [BJK??] • Compare: 3-coloring parameterized by treewidth does not have a polynomial kernel (unless …) [BDFH ’08]

  48. Cross-composition Clique parameterized by vertex cover

  49. Clique parameterized by Vertex Cover • Clique parameterized by Vertex Cover • Input: Graph G, vertex cover Z of G, integer l. • Parameter: k := |Z|. • Question: Does G have a clique of size l? Z YES for l = 5

  50. Clique parameterized by Vertex Cover • Problem is trivially FPT • Simple exponential-size kernel • Turing kernel: O(n) instances of |Z| + 1 vertices each • No polynomial kernel unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly Z

More Related