Upload
joelle-gillespie
View
27
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Bart Jansen, Utrecht University. Fixed parameter tractability and kernelization for the Maximum Leaf Weight Spanning Tree problem. Maximum Leaf Spanning Tree. Max Leaf Instance: Connected graph G, positive integer k Question: Is there a spanning tree for G with at least k leaves? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
2
Max Leaf Instance: Connected graph G, positive
integer k Question: Is there a spanning tree for G
with at least k leaves?Applications in network designYES-instance for k ≤ 7
Classical complexity MAX-SNP complete, so no polynomial-
time approximation scheme (PTAS) NP-complete, even for
3
Bipartite Max Leaf Instance: Connected bipartite graph G
with black and white vertices according to the partition, positive integer k
Question: Is there a spanning tree for G with at least k black leaves?
4
Weighted Max Leaf Instance: Connected graph G with a non-negative
integer weight for each vertex, positive integer k Question: Is there a spanning tree for G such that
its leaves have combined weight at least k?
6
Leaf weight 11Leaf weight 16
Classical complexity NP-complete by restriction of the
previous problems Hard on all classes of graphs mentioned
so far No constant-factor approximation since
it generalizes Bipartite Max LeafWe consider the fixed parameter
complexity
7
8
Technique to deal with problems (presumably) not in P
Asks if the exponential explosion of the running time can be restricted to a “parameter” that measures some characteristic of the instance
An instance of a parameterized problem is: <I,k> where k is the parameter of the problem (often
integer) Class of Fixed Parameter Tractable (FPT) problems:
Decision problems that can be solved in f(k) * poly(|I| + k) time
Function f can be arbitrary, so dependency on k may be exponential
For example, the k-Vertex Cover problem is fixed parameter tractable. “Is there a vertex cover of size k?” Can be solved in O(n + 2k k2) (and even faster).
A kernelization algorithm: Reduces parameterized instance <I,k> to
equivalent <I’,k’> Size of I’ does not depend on I but only on k Time is poly (|I| + k) New parameter k’ is at most k
If |I’| is O(g(k)), then g is the size of the kernel
Kernelization algorithm implies fixed parameter tractability Compute a kernel, analyze it by brute force
9
Existing problems, parameterized by nr. of leaves Regular Max Leaf has a 3.5k kernel No FPT results for Bipartite Max Leaf
For Weighted Max Leaf We take the target weight k as the parameter of the
problem (In)tractable depending on whether weight 0 is
allowed Kernel size depends on class of graphs
Complexity of weighted problem
General graphs
Planar graphs Genus ≤ g graphs
Weights {0,1,.. }
W[1] hard 84k kernel O(k √g) kernel
Weights {1,2,.. }
9.5k kernel 9.5k kernel 9.5k kernel10
Unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis is false, being W[1] hard implies: No f(k)*p(n) algorithm No polynomial-size kernel
W[2]-hard is assumed to be harder than W[1]-hard
For Weighted Max Leaf: No proof of membership in
W[1] It might be harder than any
problem in W[1] No hardness proof for W[2]
either
12
W[i] hardness is proven by parameterized reduction <I,k> <I’,k’> from some W[i]-hard problem Like (Karp) reductions for NP-
completeness Extra condition: new parameter k’ ≤ f(k)
for some fWe reduce k-Independent Set (W[1]-
complete) to Bipartite Max Leaf
13
k-Independent Set Instance: Graph G, positive integer k Question: Does G have an independent
set of size at least k? ▪ (i.e. is there a vertex set S of size at least k,
such that no vertices in S are connected by an edge in G?)
Parameter: the value k.
14
Given an instance of k-Independent Set, we reduce as follows: Color all vertices black Split all edges by a
white vertex Add white vertex w
with edges to all black vertices
Set k’ = k Polynomial time k’ ≤ f(k) = k
15
If S is a cutset, then at least one vertex of S is internal in a spanning tree We need to give at least one vertex in S
a degree ≥ 2 to connect both sides
16
17
Complement of S is a vertex cover Build spanning tree:
Take w as root, connect to all blacks We reach the white vertices from the vertex cover V – S
▪ Since every white vertex used to be an edge
Edges incident on w are not drawn
Take the black leaves as the independent set If there was an edge x,y then they are not both leaves
Since {x,y} is a cutset By contraposition, black leaves form an independent set
18Edges incident on w are not drawn
Kernel of size 84k on planar graphs Strategy:
Give reduction rules▪ that can be applied in polynomial time▪ that reduce the instance to an equivalent instance
Prove that after exhaustive application of the rules, either:▪ the size of the graph is bounded by 84k▪ or we are sure that the answer is yes
▪ then we output a trivial, constant-sized YES-instance
20
We want to be sure that the answer is YES if the graph is still big after applying reduction rules
Use a lemma of the following form: If no reduction rules apply, there is a spanning
tree with |G|/c leaves of weight ≥ 1 (for some c > 0)
With such a proof, we obtain: If |G| ≥ ck then G has a spanning tree with
|G|/c≥ck/c=k leaves of weight 1 So a spanning tree with leaf weight ≥ k
So if |G| ≥ ck after kernelization we return YES
Otherwise the instance must be small21
The reduction rules must avoid the following situation: We can build an arbitrarily large graph
with only constant leaf weight in an optimal spanning tree
All reduction rules are needed to prevent such situations
Reduction rules are motivated by examples of the situations they prevent
22
A set S of vertices is a cutset if their removal splits the graph into multiple connected components
A path component of length k is a path <x,v1,v2, .. , vk,y>, s.t. x, y have degree ≠ 2 all vi have degree 2
23
Structure: Vertex x of degree 1 adjacent to y of degree > 1
Operation: Delete x, decrease k by w(x), set w(y) = 0
Justification: Vertex x will be a leaf in any spanning tree The set {y} is a cutset, so y will never be a leaf
in a spanning tree
k’ = k – w(x)
25
Structure: Two adjacent weight-0 vertices x, y
Operation: Contract the edge xy, let w be the merged vertex
Justification: Tree T Tree T’:
▪ There always is an optimal tree that uses xy▪ Add xy to tree, remove an edge from resulting cycle
▪ Vertices xy have weight 0 so no loss of leaf weight▪ Contract the edge xy to obtain T’
Tree T’ Tree T:▪ Split w into two vertices x, y and connect to neighbors
27
Structure: Two weight-0 degree-2 vertices u,v with equal
neighborhoods {x,y} The remainder of the graph R is not empty
Operation: Remove v and its incident edges
Justification: {x, y} forms a cutset One of x,y will always be internal in a spanning tree
29
A necklace of arbitrary lengthEvery pair of positive-weight vertices
forms a cutset, so at most 1 leaf of positive weight
30
Structure: a weight-0 degree-2 vertex with neighbors
x,y a direct edge xy
Operation: remove the edge xy
Justification: You never need xy If xy is used, we might as well remove it and
connect x and y through zSince w(z) = 0, leaf weight does not decrease
31
Structure: Path component <x,v1,v2,..,vp,y> with p ≥ 4
Operation: Replace v2,v3, .. , vp-1 by new vertex v* Weight of v* is maximum of edge endpoints –
max(w(v1),w(vp)) Justification:
The two spanning trees are equivalent If a spanning tree avoids an edge inside the path
component, then the optimal leaf weight gained is equal to the leaf weight gained by avoiding an edge incident on v*
33
An arbitrarily long cycle with alternating weighted / zero weight vertices
At most one leaf of positive weight
34
Structure: The graph is a simple cycle
Operation: Remove an edge that maximizes the combined
weight of its endpoints Justification:
Any spanning tree for G avoids exactly one edge Avoiding an edge with maximum weight of
endpoints is optimal
35
These reduction rules are necessary and sufficient for the kernelization claim
Reduction rules do not depend on parameter k Reduced instance is the same, regardless of k
Reduction rules do not depend on planarity of the graph But the structural proof that every reduced instance has
a |G|/c leaf weight spanning tree does depend on k Reduction rules can be executed in linear time Planarity is preserved
We only remove and contract edges Suggests the reduction rules are good preprocessing
rules for any instance of Weighted Max Leaf Even non-planar graphs without given parameter
The structural proof is constructive When the output of kernelization is YES then we can also
find a suitable spanning tree36
We apply the reduction rules in the given order, until no rule is applicable Can be done in linear time
Reduced graph is still planar, since all we do is: Contract an edge, remove an edge, remove a vertex, re-color a
vertex. Reduced instance is highly structured:
White vertices form an independent set All vertices have degree ≥ 2 No path components of size > 3 …
37
Kernelization yields FPT algorithm First kernelize, then try all possible leaf sets Check whether the complement is a connected
dominating set Planar graphs are sparse, so |E| is O(|V|) Kernelization can be implemented to run in linear time
38
Maximum Leaf Weight Spanning tree is a natural generalization of the Maximum Leaf Spanning Tree problem
It is W[1]-hard on general graphs, so no FPT algorithm
The problem admits a 84k problem kernel on planar graphs
This can be extended to: O(k √g) kernel on graphs of genus g O(k d) kernel on graphs on which every
vertex of positive weight has at most d neighbors
39
Decreasing constant in the kernel size Better mathematical analysis of resulting reduced
instances New reduction rules needed to go below 24k kernel
Classifying complexity of general-graph problem Hardness proof for some W[i] > 1 Membership proof for some W[i]
Determining complexity for real-valued weights
Approximation algorithms Does (Weighted) Max Leaf have a PTAS on planar
graphs?
40