Bicovering: Covering Edges With Two Small Subsets of Vertices

Authors Amey Bhangale, Rajiv Gandhi, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Rohit Khandekar, Guy Kortsarz

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.52 MB
  • 12 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Amey Bhangale
Rajiv Gandhi
Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi
Rohit Khandekar
Guy Kortsarz

Cite AsGet BibTex

Amey Bhangale, Rajiv Gandhi, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Rohit Khandekar, and Guy Kortsarz. Bicovering: Covering Edges With Two Small Subsets of Vertices. In 43rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 55, pp. 6:1-6:12, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)


We study the following basic problem called Bi-Covering. Given a graph G(V, E), find two (not necessarily disjoint) sets A subseteq V and B subseteq V such that A union B = V and that every edge e belongs to either the graph induced by A or to the graph induced by B. The goal is to minimize max{|A|, |B|}. This is the most simple case of the Channel Allocation problem [Gandhi et al., Networks, 2006]. A solution that outputs V,emptyset gives ratio at most 2. We show that under the similar Strong Unique Game Conjecture by [Bansal-Khot, FOCS, 2009] there is no 2 - epsilon ratio algorithm for the problem, for any constant epsilon > 0. Given a bipartite graph, Max-bi-clique is a problem of finding largest k*k complete bipartite sub graph. For Max-bi-clique problem, a constant factor hardness was known under random 3-SAT hypothesis of Feige [Feige, STOC, 2002] and also under the assumption that NP !subseteq intersection_{epsilon > 0} BPTIME(2^{n^{epsilon}}) [Khot, SIAM J. on Comp., 2011]. It was an open problem in [Ambühl et. al., SIAM J. on Comp., 2011] to prove inapproximability of Max-bi-clique assuming weaker conjecture. Our result implies similar hardness result assuming the Strong Unique Games Conjecture. On the algorithmic side, we also give better than 2 approximation for Bi-Covering on numerous special graph classes. In particular, we get 1.876 approximation for Chordal graphs, exact algorithm for Interval Graphs, 1 + o(1) for Minor Free Graph, 2 - 4*delta/3 for graphs with minimum degree delta*n, 2/(1+delta^2/8) for delta-vertex expander, 8/5 for Split Graphs, 2 - (6/5)*1/d for graphs with minimum constant degree d etc. Our algorithmic results are quite non-trivial. In achieving these results, we use various known structural results about the graphs, combined with the techniques that we develop tailored to getting better than 2 approximation.
  • Bi-covering
  • Unique Games
  • Max Bi-clique


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Noga Alon, Uriel Feige, Avi Wigderson, and David Zuckerman. Derandomized graph products. Computational Complexity, 5(1):60-75, 1995. Google Scholar
  2. Christoph Ambühl, Monaldo Mastrolilli, and Ola Svensson. Inapproximability results for maximum edge biclique, minimum linear arrangement, and sparsest cut. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(2):567-596, 2011. Google Scholar
  3. Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, and David Steurer. Subexponential algorithms for unique games and related problems. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2010 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 563-572. IEEE, 2010. Google Scholar
  4. Sanjeev Arora, Subhash A Khot, Alexandra Kolla, David Steurer, Madhur Tulsiani, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. Unique games on expanding constraint graphs are easy. In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 21-28. ACM, 2008. Google Scholar
  5. Nikhil Bansal and Subhash Khot. Optimal long code test with one free bit. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2009. FOCS'09. 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 453-462. IEEE, 2009. Google Scholar
  6. Thang Nguyen Bui and Lisa C. Strite. An ant system algorithm for graph bisection. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO'02, pages 43-51, 2002. Google Scholar
  7. Irit Dinur, Elchanan Mossel, and Oded Regev. Conditional hardness for approximate coloring. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(3):843-873, 2009. Google Scholar
  8. Uriel Feige. Relations between average case complexity and approximation complexity. In Proceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 534-543. ACM, 2002. Google Scholar
  9. Uriel Feige and Shimon Kogan. Hardness of approximation of the balanced complete bipartite subgraph problem, 2004. Google Scholar
  10. Rajiv Gandhi, Samir Khuller, Aravind Srinivasan, and Nan Wang. Approximation algorithms for channel allocation problems in broadcast networks. Networks, 47(4):225-236, 2006. Google Scholar
  11. Venkatesan Guruswami, Johan Håstad, Rajsekar Manokaran, Prasad Raghavendra, and Moses Charikar. Beating the random ordering is hard: Every ordering csp is approximation resistant. SIAM Journal on Computing, 40(3):878-914, 2011. Google Scholar
  12. Subhash Khot. On the power of unique 2-prover 1-round games. In Proceedings of the thiry-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 767-775. ACM, 2002. Google Scholar
  13. Subhash Khot. Ruling out ptas for graph min-bisection, dense k-subgraph, and bipartite clique. SIAM Journal on Computing, 36(4):1025-1071, 2006. Google Scholar
  14. Subhash Khot and Oded Regev. Vertex cover might be hard to approximate to within 2- ε. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74(3):335-349, 2008. Google Scholar
  15. Subhash Khot, Madhur Tulsiani, and Pratik Worah. A characterization of strong approximation resistance. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 634-643. ACM, 2014. Google Scholar
  16. Prasad Raghavendra. Optimal algorithms and inapproximability results for every csp? In Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 245-254. ACM, 2008. Google Scholar
  17. Ola Svensson. Conditional hardness of precedence constrained scheduling on identical machines. In Proceedings of the forty-second ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 745-754. ACM, 2010. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail