computational complexity

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 359–419 | Cite as

Complexity and Approximability of the Cover Polynomial

Article

Abstract

The cover polynomial and its geometric version introduced by Chung & Graham and D’Antona & Munarini, respectively, are two-variate graph polynomials for directed graphs. They count the (weighted) number of ways to cover a graph with disjoint directed cycles and paths, can be thought of as interpolations between determinant and permanent, and are proposed as directed analogues of the Tutte polynomial.

Jaeger, Vertigan, and Welsh showed that the Tutte polynomial is #P-hard to evaluate at all but a few special points and curves. It turns out that the same holds for the cover polynomials: We prove that, in almost the whole plane, the problem of evaluating the cover polynomial and its geometric version is #P-hard under polynomial time Turing reductions, while only three points in the cover polynomial and two points in the geometric cover polynomial are easy. We also study the complexity of approximately evaluating the geometric cover polynomial. Under the reasonable complexity assumptions RPNP and RFP ≠ #P, we give a succinct characterization of a large class of points at which approximating the geometric cover polynomial within any polynomial factor is not possible.

Keywords

Graph polynomial counting complexity approximation permanent Tutte polynomial 

Subject classification

68Q17 05C99 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Artur Andrzejak (1998) An algorithm for the Tutte polynomials of graphs of bounded treewidth. Discrete Mathematics 190(1–3): 39–54MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ilia Averbouch , Benny Godlin & Johann A. Makowsky (2008). A Most General Edge Elimination Polynomial. In Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, 34th International Workshop, WG 2008, Durham, UK, June 30 – July 2, 2008. Revised Papers, volume 5344 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 31–42.Google Scholar
  3. Andreas Björklund, Thore Husfeldt, Petteri Kaski & Mikko Koivisto (2008). Computing the Tutte polynomial in vertex-exponential time.Google Scholar
  4. Markus Bläser, Holger Dell & Johann A. Makowsky (2008). Complexity of the Bollobás-Riordan Polynomial. In 3rd International Computer Science Symposium in Russia (CSR), 86–98.Google Scholar
  5. Markus Bläser & Christian Hoffmann (2008). On the Complexity of the Interlace Polynomial. In 25th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2008), Susanne Albers & Pascal Weil, editors, 97–108. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2008/1337
  6. Markus Bläser & Christian Hoffmann (2009). Fast Evaluation of Interlace Polynomials on Graphs of Bounded Treewidth. In Algorithms-ESA 2009, 17th Annual European Symposium, volume 5757 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 623–634. Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Lenore Blum, Felipe Cucker, Michael Shub & Steve Smale (1998). Complexity and real computation. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus, NJ, USA. ISBN 0-387-98281-7.Google Scholar
  8. Béla Bollobás, Oliver Riordan (1999) A Tutte Polynomial for Coloured Graphs. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 8(1–2): 45–93MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Andrei Bulatov, Martin Grohe (2005) The complexity of partition functions. Theoretical Computer Science 348(2): 148–186MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Timothy Y. Chow (1996). A Short Proof of the Rook Reciprocity Theorem. Electr. J. Comb. 3(1).Google Scholar
  11. Fan R.K. Chung, Ronald L. Graham (1995) On the cover polynomial of a digraph. Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series B 65(2): 273–290MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruno Courcelle, Johann A. Makowsky, Udi Rotics (2001) On the fixed parameter complexity of graph enumeration problems definable in monadic second-order logic. Discrete Applied Mathematics 108(1–2): 23–52MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Ottavio M. D’Antona, Emanuele Munarini (2000) The cycle-path indicator polynomial of a digraph. Adv. Appl. Math. 25(1): 41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin Dyer, Alan Frieze & Mark Jerrum (2002). On Counting Independent Sets in Sparse Graphs. SICOMP: SIAM Journal on Computing 31.Google Scholar
  15. Martin E. Dyer, Alan M. Frieze, Mark Jerrum (1998) Approximately Counting Hamilton Paths and Cycles in Dense Graphs. SIAM Journal on Computing 27(5): 1262–1272MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin E. Dyer, Leslie Ann Goldberg & Mike Paterson (2006). On Counting Homomorphisms to Directed Acyclic Graphs. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP 2006, volume 4051 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 38–49. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Michael R. Garey & David S. Johnson (1979). Computers and Intractability. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  18. Omer Giménez, Marc Noy (2006) On the Complexity of Computing the Tutte Polynomial of Bicircular Matroids. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 15(3): 385–395MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leslie Ann Goldberg, Mark Jerrum (2008) Inapproximability of the Tutte polynomial. Inform. Comput. 206(7): 908–929MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Christian Hoffmann (2010) A Most General Edge Elimination Polynomial - Thickening of Edges. Fundam. Inform. 98(4): 373–378MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. François Jaeger, Dirk L. Vertigan, Dominic J.A. Welsh (1990) On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 108(1): 35–53MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mark Jerrum, Alistair Sinclair (1989) Approximate Counting, Uniform Generation and Rapidly Mixing Markov Chains. Information and Computation 82(1): 93–133MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mark Jerrum & Alistair Sinclair (1997). The Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method: An Approach to Approximate Counting and Integration. In Approximation Algorithms for NP-hard Problems, D. Hochbaum, editor. PWS Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  24. Mark Jerrum, Alistair Sinclair & Eric Vigoda (2004). A Polynomial-Time Approximation Algorithm for the Permanent of a Matrix with Nonnegative Entries. JACM: Journal of the ACM 51.Google Scholar
  25. Nathan Linial (1986) Hard enumeration problems in geometry and combinatorics. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 7(2): 331–335MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin Lotz, Johann A. Makowsky (2004) On the algebraic complexity of some families of coloured Tutte polynomials. Advances in Applied Mathematics 32(1): 327–349MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johann A. Makowsky (2008) From a zoo to a zoology: Towards a general theory of graph polynomials. Theory of Computing Systems 43(3): 542–562MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Noble S.D. (1998) Evaluating the Tutte Polynomial for Graphs of Bounded Tree-Width. Combinatorics, Probability & Computing 7(3): 307–321MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Christos M. Papadimitriou (1994) Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. Leslie G. Valiant (1979) The complexity of computing the permanent. Theoretical Computer Science 8(2): 189–201MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leslie G. Valiant, Vijay V. Vazirani (1986) NP is as easy as detecting unique solutions. Theoretical Computer Science 47(1): 85–93MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel AG 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations