Theory of Computing Systems

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 822–848

The Complexity Ecology of Parameters: An Illustration Using Bounded Max Leaf Number

  • Michael Fellows
  • Daniel Lokshtanov
  • Neeldhara Misra
  • Matthias Mnich
  • Frances Rosamond
  • Saket Saurabh
Article

Abstract

In the framework of parameterized complexity, exploring how one parameter affects the complexity of a different parameterized (or unparameterized problem) is of general interest. A well-developed example is the investigation of how the parameter treewidth influences the complexity of (other) graph problems. The reason why such investigations are of general interest is that real-world input distributions for computational problems often inherit structure from the natural computational processes that produce the problem instances (not necessarily in obvious, or well-understood ways). The max leaf numberml(G) of a connected graph G is the maximum number of leaves in a spanning tree for G. Exploring questions analogous to the well-studied case of treewidth, we can ask: how hard is it to solve 3-Coloring, Hamilton Path, Minimum Dominating Set, Minimum Bandwidth or many other problems, for graphs of bounded max leaf number? What optimization problems are W[1]-hard under this parameterization? We do two things:
  1. (1)

    We describe much improved FPT algorithms for a large number of graph problems, for input graphs G for which ml(G)≤k, based on the polynomial-time extremal structure theory canonically associated to this parameter. We consider improved algorithms both from the point of view of kernelization bounds, and in terms of improved fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) runtimes O*(f(k)).

     
  2. (2)

    The way that we obtain these concrete algorithmic results is general and systematic. We describe the approach, and raise programmatic questions.

     

Keywords

Parameterized complexity Max-leaf Bandwidth Well-quasiordering Kernelization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abu-Khzam, F.N., Collins, R.L., Fellows, M.R., Langston, M.A., Suters, W.H., Symons, C.T.: Kernelization algorithms for the vertex cover problem: theory and experiments. In: Arge, L., Italiano, G., Sedgewick, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), New Orleans, January 2004. Proc. Applied Mathematics, vol. 115, ACM/SIAM, New York (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alber, J., Fellows, M., Niedermeier, R.: Polynomial time data reduction for dominating set. J. ACM 51, 363–384 (2004) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alber, J., Niedermeier, R.: Improved tree decomposition based algorithms for domination-like problems. In: Proceedings of the 5th Latin American Theoretical IN-formatics (LATIN 2002). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2286, pp. 613–627. Springer, Berlin (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arnborg, S., Lagergren, J., Seese, D.: Easy problems for tree-decomposable graphs. J. Algorithms 12, 308–340 (1991) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bienstock, D., Robertson, N., Seymour, P., Thomas, R.: Quickly excluding a forest. J. Comb. Theory B 52, 274–283 (1991) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodlaender, H.L.: A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small width. SIAM J. Comput. 25, 1305–1317 (1996) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bodlaender, H.L.: A cubic kernel for feedback vertex set. In: Proceedings STACS 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4393, pp. 320–331. Springer, Berlin (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bodlaender, H.L., Koster, A.M.: Combinatorial optimisation on graphs of bounded treewidth. Comput. J. 51, 255–269 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bodlaender, H., Fellows, M., Hallett, M.: Beyond NP-completeness for problems of bounded width: hardness for the W hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 449–458 (1994) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burrage, K., Estivill-Castro, V., Fellows, M., Langston, M., Mac, S., Rosamond, F.: The undirected feedback vertex set problem has polynomial kernel size. In: Proceedings IWPEC 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4169, pp. 192–202. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai, L., Chen, J., Downey, R., Fellows, M.: The parameterized complexity of short computation and factorization. Arch. Math. Log. 36, 321–338 (1997). Proceedings of the Sacks Symposium MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, J., Chor, B., Fellows, M., Huang, X., Juedes, D., Kanj, I., Xia, G.: Tight lower bounds for certain parameterized NP-hard problems. Inf. Comput. 201, 216–231 (2005) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, J., Kanj, I., Xia, G.: Improved parameterized upper bounds for vertex cover. In: Proceedings MFCS 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4162, pp. 238–249. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chor, B., Fellows, M., Juedes, D.: Linear kernels in linear time, or how to save k colors in O(n 2) steps. In: Proceedings WG 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3353, pp. 257–269. Springer, Berlin (2004) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Courcelle, B.: The monadic second order logic of graphs I: Recognizable sets of finite graphs. Inf. Comput. 85, 12–75 (1990) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Demaine, E.D., Hajiaghayi, M.: The bidimensionality theory and its algorithmic applications. Comput. J. 51, 292–302 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Demaine, E.D., Hajiaghayi, M.: Bidimensionality: New connections between FPT algorithms and PTASs. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2005), Vancouver, January 2005, pp. 590–601 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Demaine, E.D., Fomin, F.V., Hajiaghayi, M., Thilikos, D.M.: Subexponential parameterized algorithms on graphs of bounded genus and H-minor-free graphs. J. ACM 52, 866–893 (2005) CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness I: basic results. SIAM J. Comput. 24, 873–921 (1995) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness II: on completeness for W[1]. Theor. Comput. Sci. 141, 109–131 (1995) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Springer, Berlin (1999) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Downey, R., Fellows, M., Hallett, M., Kapron, B., Wareham, H.T.: The parameterized complexity of some problems in logic and linguistics. In: Proceedings Symposium on Logical Foundations of Computer Science (LFCS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 813, pp. 89–100. Springer, Berlin (1994) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Downey, R., Fellows, M., Stege, U.: Parameterized complexity: a framework for systematically confronting computational intractability. In: Graham, R., Kratochvil, J., Nesetril, J., Roberts, F. (eds.) Contemporary Trends in Discrete Mathematics, Proceedings of the DIMACS-DIMATIA Workshop on the Future of Discrete Mathematics, Prague, 1997. AMS-DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 49, pp. 49–99. AMS, New York (1999) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Downey, R., Estivill-Castro, V., Fellows, M., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., Rosamond, F.: Cutting up is hard to do: the parameterized complexity of k-cut and related problems. Electron. Not. Theor. Comput. Sci. 78, 205–218 (2003) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Estivill-Castro, V., Fellows, M., Langston, M., Rosamond, F.: Fixed-parameter tractability is P-time extremal structure theory I: The case of max leaf. In: Proceedings of ACiD 2005: Algorithms and Complexity in Durham, pp. 1–41 (2005) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fellows, M.: Parameterized complexity: the main ideas and connections to practical computing. In: Experimental Algorithmics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2547, pp. 51–77. Springer, Berlin (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fellows, M.R.: Blow-ups, win/win’s and crown rules: Some new directions in FPT. In: Proceedings WG 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2880, pp. 1–12. Springer, Berlin (2003) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fellows, M., Langston, M.A.: An analogue of the Myhill-Nerode theorem and its use in computing finite-basis characterizations. In: Proceedings Thirtieth IEEE Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 520–525 (1989) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fellows, M., Langston, M.A.: On search, decision and the efficiency of polynomial-time algorithms. In: Proc. Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 501–512 (1989) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fellows, M., Fomin, F., Lokshtanov, D., Rosamond, F., Saurabh, S., Szeider, S., Thomassen, C.: On the complexity of some colorful problems parameterized by treewidth. In: Proceedings of COCOA 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4616, pp. 366–377. Springer, Berlin (2007) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fellows M., Downey R., Langston M. (eds.), Two special issues of surveys of various aspects of parameterized complexity and algorithmics. Comput. J. 51(1, 3) (2008) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fellows, M., Lokshtanov, D., Misra, N., Rosamond, F., Saurabh, S.: Graph layout problems parameterized by Vertex Cover. In: Proceedings of ISAAC 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5369, pp. 294–305. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer, Berlin (2006) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Flum, J., Frick, M., Grohe, M.: Query evaluation via tree-decompositions. In: Proc. ICDT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1973, pp. 22–32. Springer, Berlin (2001) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fomin, F., Kratsch, D., Woeginger, G.: Exact (exponential) algorithms for the dominating set problem. In: Proceedings of WG 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3353, pp. 245–256. Springer, Berlin (2004) Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grohe, M.: The parameterized complexity of database queries. In: Proc. PODS 2001, pp. 82–92. ACM, Providence (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grohe, M., Marino, J.: Definability and descriptive complexity on databases with bounded treewidth. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Database Theory. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1540, pp. 70–82. Springer, Berlin (1999) Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guo, J., Niedermeier, R.: Invitation to data reduction and problem kernelization. SIGACT News 31–45 (2007) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Held, M., Karp, R.: The traveling-salesman problem and minimum spanning trees. Oper. Res. 18, 1138–1162 (1970) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Henglein, F., Mairson, H.G.: The complexity of type inference for higher-order typed lambda calculi. In: Proc. Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. 119–130. ACM, New York (1991) Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Impagliazzo, R., Paturi, R.: Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 63, 512–530 (2001) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kfoury, A.J., Tiuryn, J., Urzyczyn, P.: An analysis of ML typability. J. ACM 41, 368–398 (1994) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kleitman, D.J., West, D.B.: Spanning trees with many leaves. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 4, 99–106 (1991) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nemhauser, G.L., Trotter, L.E.: Vertex packings: structural properties and algorithms. Math. Program. 8, 232–248 (1975) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nesetril, J., Poljak, S.: On the complexity of the subgraph problem. Commun. Math. Univ. Carol. 26, 415–419 (1985) MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Niedermeier, R.: Ubiquitous parameterization—invitation to fixed-parameter algorithms. In: Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science MFCS 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3153, pp. 84–103. Springer, Berlin (2004) Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Niedermeier, R.: Invitation to Fixed Parameter Algorithms. Oxford University Press, London (2006) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Prieto, E., Sloper, C.: Either/Or: using vertex cover structure in designing FPT algorithms—the case of k-internal spanning tree. In: Proc. WADS’03. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2748, pp. 474–483. Springer, Berlin (2003) Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prieto-Rodriguez, E.: Systematic kernelization in FPT algorithm design. Ph.D. Thesis, School of EE&CS, University of Newcastle, Australia (2005) Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Raman, V.: Parameterized complexity. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Seminar on Theoretical Computer Science, Chennai, India, pp. 1–18 (1997) Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.: Graph minors: a survey. In: Anderson, J. (ed.) Surveys in Combinatorics, pp. 153–171. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985) Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.: Graph minors XX. Wagner’s conjecture. J. Comb. Theory. Ser. B 92, 325–357 (2004) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Szeider, S.: Monadic second order logic on graphs with local cardinality constraints. In: Proc. MFCS 2008, pp. 601–612. Springer, Berlin (2008) Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Szeider, S.: Not so easy problems for tree decomposable graphs. In: Proceedings of ICDM 2008. pp. 161–171, Mysore (2008) Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Telle, J.A., Proskurowski, A.: Practical algorithms on partial k-trees with an application to domination-like problems. In: Proceedings WADS’93—The Third Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures. Lecture Notes Computer Science, vol. 709, pp. 610–621. Springer, Berlin (1993) Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Weihe, K.: Covering trains by stations, or the power of data reduction. In: Proc. ALEX’98, pp. 1–8 (1998) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Fellows
    • 1
  • Daniel Lokshtanov
    • 2
  • Neeldhara Misra
    • 3
  • Matthias Mnich
    • 4
  • Frances Rosamond
    • 1
  • Saket Saurabh
    • 2
  1. 1.University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.University of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.The Institute of Mathematical SciencesChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Technical University of EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations