Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2209.08219

Better Hardness Results for the Minimum Spanning Tree Congestion Problem

Abstract

In the spanning tree congestion problem, given a connected graph $G$, the objective is to compute a spanning tree $T$ in $G$ that minimizes its maximum edge congestion, where the congestion of an edge $e$ of $T$ is the number of edges in $G$ for which the unique path in $T$ between their endpoints traverses $e$. The problem is known to be $\mathbb{NP}$-hard, but its approximability is still poorly understood. In the decision version of this problem, denoted $K-\textsf{STC}$, we need to determine if $G$ has a spanning tree with congestion at most $K$. It is known that $K-\textsf{STC}$ is $\mathbb{NP}$-complete for $K\ge 8$. On the other hand, $3-\textsf{STC}$ can be solved in polynomial time, with the complexity status of this problem for $K\in \{4,5,6,7\}$ remaining an open problem. We substantially improve the earlier hardness results by proving that $K-\textsf{STC}$ is $\mathbb{NP}$-complete for $K\ge 5$. This leaves only the case $K=4$ open, and improves the lower bound on the approximation ratio to $1.2$. Motivated by evidence that minimizing congestion is hard even for graphs of small constant radius, we consider $K-\textsf{STC}$ restricted to graphs of radius $2$, and we prove that this variant is $\mathbb{NP}$-complete for all $K\ge 6$. Exploring further in this direction, we also examine the variant, denoted $K-\textsf{STC}D$, where the objective is to determine if the graph has a depth-$D$ spanning three of congestion at most $K$. We prove that $6-\textsf{STC}2$ is $\mathbb{NP}$-complete even for bipartite graphs. For bipartite graphs we establish a tight bound, by also proving that $5-\textsf{STC}2$ is polynomial-time solvable. Additionally, we complement this result with polynomial-time algorithms for two special cases that involve bipartite graphs and restrictions on vertex degrees.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Huong Luu, Marek Chrobak. 2023-07-10. Better Hardness Results for the Minimum Spanning Tree Congestion Problem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08219

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