We consider a framework for bi-objective network construction problems where one objective is to be maximized while the other is to be minimized. Given a host graph G=(V,E) with edge weights we∈ℤ and edge lengths ℓe∈ℕ for e∈E we define the density of a pattern subgraph H=(V′,E′)⊆G as the ratio ϱ(H)=∑e∈E′we/∑e∈E′ℓe. We consider the problem of computing a maximum density pattern H under various additional constraints. In doing so, we compute a single Pareto-optimal solution with the best weight per cost ratio subject to additional constraints further narrowing down feasible solutions for the underlying bi-objective network construction problem.
First, we consider the problem of computing a maximum density pattern with weight at least W and length at most L in a host G. We call this problem the biconstrained density maximization problem. This problem can be interpreted in terms of maximizing the return on investment for network construction problems in the presence of a limited budget and a target profit. We consider this problem for different classes of hosts and patterns. We show that it is NP-hard, even if the host has treewidth 2 and the pattern is a path. However, it can be solved in pseudo-polynomial linear time if the host has bounded treewidth and the pattern is a graph from a given minor-closed family of graphs. Finally, we present an FPTAS for a relaxation of the density maximization problem, in which we are allowed to violate the upper bound on the length at the cost of some penalty.
Second, we consider the maximum density subgraph problem under structural constraints on the vertex set that is used by the patterns. While a maximum density perfect matching can be computed efficiently in general graphs, the maximum density Steiner-subgraph problem, which requires a subset of the vertices in any feasible solution, is NP-hard and unlikely to admit a constant-factor approximation. When parameterized by the number of vertices of the pattern, this problem is W-hard in general graphs. On the other hand, it is FPT on planar graphs if there is no constraint on the pattern and on general graphs if the pattern is a path.
Bodlaender HL (1993) A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. In: STOC’93: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. ACM, New York, pp 226–234
Eppstein D (1995) Subgraph isomorphism in planar graphs and related problems. In: Proc 6th ann ACM-SIAM sympos disc alg SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 632–640
Gabow HN (1990) Data structures for weighted matching and nearest common ancestors with linking. In: Proceedings of the first annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, SODA’90. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, pp 434–443
Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability. A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, New York
Goldwasser MH, Kao MY, Lu HI (2005) Linear-time algorithms for computing maximum-density sequence segments with bioinformatics applications. J Comput Syst Sci 70(2):128–144
Kloks T (1994) Treewidth, Computations and approximations. LNCS. Springer, Berlin
Lau HC, Ngo TH, Nguyen BN (2006) Finding a length-constrained maximum-sum or maximum-density subtree and its application to logistics. Discrete Optim 3(4):385–391
Lin YL, Jiang T, Chao KM (2002) Efficient algorithms for locating the length-constrained heaviest segments with applications to biomolecular sequence analysis. J Comput Syst Sci 65(3):570–586
Liu HF, Chao KM (2008) Algorithms for finding the weight-constrained k longest paths in a tree and the length-constrained k maximum-sum segments of a sequence. Theor Comput Sci 407(1–3):349–358
Lokshtanov D (2009) New methods in parameterized algorithms and complexity. PhD thesis, University of Bergen Norway
Macaya G, Thiery JP, Bernardi G (1976) An approach to the organization of eukaryotic genomes at a macromolecular level. J Mol Biol 108(1):237–254
Robins G, Zelikovsky A (2000) Improved steiner tree approximation in graphs. In: Proceedings of the eleventh annual ACM–SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, SODA’00. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, pp 770–779