English

Anti-Factor is FPT Parameterized by Treewidth and List Size (but Counting is Hard)

Computational Complexity 2023-02-08 v2 Data Structures and Algorithms

Abstract

In the general AntiFactor problem, a graph GG is given with a set XvNX_v\subseteq \mathbb{N} of forbidden degrees for every vertex vv and the task is to find a set SS of edges such that the degree of vv in SS is not in the set XvX_v. Standard techniques (dynamic programming + fast convolution) can be used to show that if MM is the largest forbidden degree, then the problem can be solved in time (M+2)knO(1)(M+2)^k\cdot n^{O(1)} if a tree decomposition of width kk is given. However, significantly faster algorithms are possible if the sets XvX_v are sparse: our main algorithmic result shows that if every vertex has at most xx forbidden degrees (we call this special case AntiFactorx_x), then the problem can be solved in time (x+1)O(k)nO(1)(x+1)^{O(k)}\cdot n^{O(1)}. That is, the AntiFactorx_x is fixed-parameter tractable parameterized by treewidth kk and the maximum number xx of excluded degrees. Our algorithm uses the technique of representative sets, which can be generalized to the optimization version, but (as expected) not to the counting version of the problem. In fact, we show that #AntiFactor1_1 is already #W[1]-hard parameterized by the width of the given decomposition. Moreover, we show that, unlike for the decision version, the standard dynamic programming algorithm is essentially optimal for the counting version. Formally, for a fixed nonempty set XX, we denote by XX-AntiFactor the special case where every vertex vv has the same set Xv=XX_v=X of forbidden degrees. We show the following lower bound for every fixed set XX: if there is an ϵ>0\epsilon>0 such that #XX-AntiFactor can be solved in time (maxX+2ϵ)knO(1)(\max X+2-\epsilon)^k\cdot n^{O(1)} on a tree decomposition of width kk, then the Counting Strong Exponential-Time Hypothesis (#SETH) fails.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2110.09369,
  title  = {Anti-Factor is FPT Parameterized by Treewidth and List Size (but Counting is Hard)},
  author = {Dániel Marx and Govind S. Sankar and Philipp Schepper},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09369},
  year   = {2023}
}

Comments

v2: Proof of Lemma 7.1 in Section 7.1 revised by adding more intermediate steps, minor corrections