Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2007.01673

On girth and the parameterized complexity of token sliding and token jumping

Abstract

In the Token Jumping problem we are given a graph $G = (V,E)$ and two independent sets $S$ and $T$ of $G$, each of size $k \geq 1$. The goal is to determine whether there exists a sequence of $k$-sized independent sets in $G$, $\langle S_0, S_1, \ldots, S_\ell \rangle$, such that for every $i$, $|S_i| = k$, $S_i$ is an independent set, $S = S_0$, $S_\ell = T$, and $|S_i ΔS_{i+1}| = 2$. In other words, if we view each independent set as a collection of tokens placed on a subset of the vertices of $G$, then the problem asks for a sequence of independent sets which transforms $S$ to $T$ by individual token jumps which maintain the independence of the sets. This problem is known to be PSPACE-complete on very restricted graph classes, e.g., planar bounded degree graphs and graphs of bounded bandwidth. A closely related problem is the Token Sliding problem, where instead of allowing a token to jump to any vertex of the graph we instead require that a token slides along an edge of the graph. Token Sliding is also known to be PSPACE-complete on the aforementioned graph classes. We investigate the parameterized complexity of both problems on several graph classes, focusing on the effect of excluding certain cycles from the input graph. In particular, we show that both Token Sliding and Token Jumping are fixed-parameter tractable on $C_4$-free bipartite graphs when parameterized by $k$. For Token Jumping, we in fact show that the problem admits a polynomial kernel on $\{C_3,C_4\}$-free graphs. In the case of Token Sliding, we also show that the problem admits a polynomial kernel on bipartite graphs of bounded degree. We believe both of these results to be of independent interest. We complement these positive results by showing that, for any constant $p \geq 4$, both problems are W[1]-hard on $\{C_4, \dots, C_p\}$-free graphs and Token Sliding remains W[1]-hard even on bipartite graphs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Valentin Bartier, Nicolas Bousquet, Clément Dallard, Kyle Lomer, Amer E. Mouawad. 2020-11-17. On girth and the parameterized complexity of token sliding and token jumping. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-021-00848-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CVP Is NP-Complete for Principal Cyclotomic Ideals

We prove that exact Euclidean decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on the coefficient lattices of nonzero principal ideals in the power-of-two cyclotomic rings $R_d:=\mathbb{Z}[y]/(y^d+1)$. Our deterministic reduction from Exact Cover by 3-Sets (X3C) produces a target and a squared threshold $Δ$ such that the closest squared distance is exactly $Δ$ in YES instances and at least $Δ+4$ in NO instances. This also implies $\mathsf{NP}$-hardness of exact search-CVP under polynomial-time Turing reductions. We also transfer the resulting principal-ideal CVP instances to full-rank principal ideals of the cyclic quotient ring $\mathbb{Z}[X]/(X^D-1)$, where $D:=2d$. Their coefficient lattices are invariant under cyclic coordinate shifts. The lift preserves principality and multiplies corresponding squared distances by eight. Thus, on principal cyclic ideal lattices, exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete and exact search-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard. We also obtain uniformly computable fixed cyclotomic and cyclic families in which only the target and threshold depend on the X3C collection. Consequently, a polynomial-time solution to exact decision-CVPP on either family would imply $\mathsf{NP}\subseteq\mathsf{P}/\mathrm{poly}$ and collapse the polynomial hierarchy to $Σ_2^{\mathsf{P}}$. To our knowledge, the cyclic results answer Micciancio's questions of whether exact decision-CVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-hard on cyclic lattices and on a fixed family of cyclic lattices, even when restricted to full-rank principal cyclic ideals. Finally, under the coefficient embedding, we prove that exact decision-module-SIVP is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete on free rank-two modules over the same cyclotomic rings.

cs.CC

Fooling Thresholds of Halfspaces

We initiate the study of constructing explicit pseudorandom generators for thresholds of halfspaces with seed length polylogarithmic in the number of halfspaces. This class of functions lies at the frontier of circuit complexity [CTW26]. We show that the generator designed by O'Donnell, Servedio, and Tan for polytopes [OST22] also fools this broader class. To analyze the generator, we develop a threshold-specific smooth approximation framework based on a Bentkus-type mollifier. We prove derivative bounds for this mollifier and also establish a Boolean anticoncentration theorem for thresholds of halfspaces via a random thinning argument. These ingredients imply that the generator $δ$-fools every $k$-out-of-$m$ threshold of $m$ halfspaces over $\{-1,1\}^n$ with seed length $\widetilde{O}(κ^{6+2\varepsilon}\log^{6+2\varepsilon}\!m\cdotδ^{-(2+2\varepsilon)}\log n)$, for any arbitrarily small constant $\varepsilon>0$, where $κ=\min\{k,m-k+1\}$. The random thinning argument also yields bounds on the noise sensitivity and Gaussian surface area for thresholds of halfspaces, leading to learning algorithms under both the uniform and Gaussian distributions.

cs.CC

An Oracle Separating Conjectures about Incompleteness in the Finite Domain

Pudlák [Pud17] lists several major conjectures from the field of proof complexity and asks for oracles that separate corresponding relativized conjectures. Among these conjectures are: - $\mathsf{DisjNP}$: The class of all disjoint NP-pairs does not have many-one complete elements. - $\mathsf{SAT}$: NP does not contain many-one complete sets that have P-optimal proof systems. - $\mathsf{UP}$: UP does not have many-one complete problems. - $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$: $\text{NP}\cap\text{coNP}$ does not have many-one complete problems. As one answer to this question, we construct an oracle relative to which $\mathsf{DisjNP}$, $\neg \mathsf{SAT}$, $\mathsf{UP}$, and $\mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}$ hold, i.e., there is no relativizable proof for the implication $\mathsf{DisjNP}\wedge \mathsf{UP}\wedge \mathsf{NP}\cap\mathsf{coNP}\Rightarrow\mathsf{SAT}$. In particular, regarding the conjectures by Pudlák this extends a result by Khaniki [Kha19].

cs.CC