Constant Thresholds Can Make Target Set Selection Tractable

  • Morgan Chopin
  • André Nichterlein
  • Rolf Niedermeier
  • Mathias Weller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7659)

Abstract

Target Set Selection, which is a prominent NP-hard problem occurring in social network analysis and distributed computing, is notoriously hard both in terms of achieving useful approximation as well as fixed-parameter algorithms. The task is to select a minimum number of vertices into a “target set” such that all other vertices will become active in course of a dynamic process (which may go through several activation rounds). A vertex, which is equipped with a threshold value t, becomes active once at least t of its neighbors are active; initially, only the target set vertices are active. We contribute further insights into islands of tractability for Target Set Selection by spotting new parameterizations characterizing some sparse graphs as well as some “cliquish” graphs and developing corresponding fixed-parameter tractability and (parameterized) hardness results. In particular, we demonstrate that upper-bounding the thresholds by a constant may significantly alleviate the search for efficiently solvable, but still meaningful special cases of Target Set Selection.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balogh, J., Bollobás, B., Morris, R.: Bootstrap percolation in high dimensions. Combinatorics, Probability & Computing 19(5-6), 643–692 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ben-Zwi, O., Hermelin, D., Lokshtanov, D., Newman, I.: Treewidth governs the complexity of target set selection. Discrete Optimization 8(1), 87–96 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodlaender, H.L.: Kernelization: New Upper and Lower Bound Techniques. In: Chen, J., Fomin, F.V. (eds.) IWPEC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5917, pp. 17–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centeno, C.C., Dourado, M.C., Penso, L.D., Rautenbach, D., Szwarcfiter, J.L.: Irreversible conversion of graphs. Theoretical Computer Science 412(29), 3693–3700 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, N.: On the approximability of influence in social networks. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 23(3), 1400–1415 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiang, C.-Y., Huang, L.-H., Li, B.-J., Wu, J., Yeh, H.-G.: Some results on the target set selection problem. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diestel, R.: Graph Theory, 4th edn. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 173. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doucha, M., Kratochvíl, J.: Cluster Vertex Deletion: A Parameterization between Vertex Cover and Clique-Width. In: Rovan, B., Sassone, V., Widmayer, P. (eds.) MFCS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7464, pp. 348–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Springer (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dreyer Jr., P.A., Roberts, F.S.: Irreversible k-threshold processes: Graph-theoretical threshold models of the spread of disease and of opinion. Discrete Applied Mathematics 157, 1615–1627 (2009)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Easley, D., Kleinberg, J.: Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Parameterized Complexity Theory. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo, J., Niedermeier, R.: Invitation to data reduction and problem kernelization. ACM SIGACT News 38(1), 31–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harant, J., Pruchnewski, A., Voigt, M.: On dominating sets and independent sets of graphs. Combinatorics, Probability and Computing 8(6), 547–553 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hüffner, F., Komusiewicz, C., Moser, H., Niedermeier, R.: Fixed-parameter algorithms for cluster vertex deletion. Theory of Computing Systems 47(1), 196–217 (2010)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karp, R.M.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Miller, R.E., Thatcher, J.W. (eds.) Complexity of Computer Computations, pp. 85–103. Plenum Press (1972)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, É.: Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: Proc. 9th ACM KDD, pp. 137–146. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klasing, R., Laforest, C.: Hardness results and approximation algorithms of k-tuple domination in graphs. Information Processing Letters 89(2), 75–83 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Komusiewicz, C., Niedermeier, R.: New Races in Parameterized Algorithmics. In: Rovan, B., Sassone, V., Widmayer, P. (eds.) MFCS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7464, pp. 19–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lenstra, H.W.: Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Mathematics of Operations Research 8, 538–548 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nichterlein, A., Niedermeier, R., Uhlmann, J., Weller, M.: On tractable cases of target set selection. Social Network Analysis and Mining (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niedermeier, R.: Invitation to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms. Oxford University Press (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peleg, D.: Local majorities, coalitions and monopolies in graphs: a review. Theoretical Computer Science 282, 231–257 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raman, V., Saurabh, S., Srihari, S.: Parameterized Algorithms for Generalized Domination. In: Yang, B., Du, D.-Z., Wang, C.A. (eds.) COCOA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5165, pp. 116–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reddy, T., Krishna, D., Rangan, C.: Variants of Spreading Messages. In: Rahman, M. S., Fujita, S. (eds.) WALCOM 2010. LNCS, vol. 5942, pp. 240–251. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan Chopin
    • 1
  • André Nichterlein
    • 2
  • Rolf Niedermeier
    • 2
  • Mathias Weller
    • 2
  1. 1.LAMSADEUniversité Paris-DauphineFrance
  2. 2.Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische InformatikBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations