Document

# Parameterized Algorithms on Perfect Graphs for Deletion to (r,l)-Graphs

## File

LIPIcs.MFCS.2016.75.pdf
• Filesize: 499 kB
• 13 pages

## Cite As

Sudeshna Kolay, Fahad Panolan, Venkatesh Raman, and Saket Saurabh. Parameterized Algorithms on Perfect Graphs for Deletion to (r,l)-Graphs. In 41st International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2016). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 58, pp. 75:1-75:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2016)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2016.75

## Abstract

For fixed integers r,l >= 0, a graph G is called an (r,l)-graph if the vertex set V(G) can be partitioned into r independent sets and l cliques. Such a graph is also said to have cochromatic number r+l. The class of (r,l) graphs generalizes r-colourable graphs (when l=0) and hence not surprisingly, determining whether a given graph is an (r,l)-graph is NP-hard even when r >= 3 or l >= 3 in general graphs. When r and ell are part of the input, then the recognition problem is NP-hard even if the input graph is a perfect graph (where the Chromatic Number problem is solvable in polynomial time). It is also known to be fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) on perfect graphs when parameterized by r and l. I.e. there is an f(r+l) n^O(1) algorithm on perfect graphs on n vertices where f is a function of r and l. Observe that such an algorithm is unlikely on general graphs as the problem is NP-hard even for constant r and l. In this paper, we consider the parameterized complexity of the following problem, which we call Vertex Partization. Given a perfect graph G and positive integers r,l,k decide whether there exists a set S subset or equal to V(G) of size at most k such that the deletion of S from G results in an (r,l)-graph. This problem generalizes well studied problems such as Vertex Cover (when r=1 and l=0), Odd Cycle Transversal (when r=2, l=0) and Split Vertex Deletion (when r=1=l). 1. Vertex Partization on perfect graphs is FPT when parameterized by k+r+l. 2. The problem, when parameterized by k+r+l, does not admit any polynomial sized kernel, under standard complexity theoretic assumptions. In other words, in polynomial time, the input graph cannot be compressed to an equivalent instance of size polynomial in k+r+l. In fact, our result holds even when k=0. 3. When r,ell are universal constants, then Vertex Partization on perfect graphs, parameterized by k, has a polynomial sized kernel.
##### Keywords
• graph deletion
• FPT algorithms
• polynomial kernels

## Metrics

• Access Statistics
• Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
0

## References

1. Faisal N. Abu-Khzam. A kernelization algorithm for d-hitting set. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 76(7):524-531, 2010.
2. Julien Baste, Luerbio Faria, Sulamita Klein, and Ignasi Sau. Parameterized complexity dichotomy for dollar(r, backslashell)dollar-vertex deletion. CoRR, abs/1504.05515, 2015.
3. Hans L. Bodlaender, Stéphan Thomassé, and Anders Yeo. Kernel bounds for disjoint cycles and disjoint paths. Theor. Comput. Sci., 412(35):4570-4578, 2011.
4. Andreas Brandstädt, Van Bang Le, and Thomas Szymczak. The complexity of some problems related to graph 3-colorability. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 89(1–3):59-73, 1998.
5. Jianer Chen, Iyad A. Kanj, and Ge Xia. Improved upper bounds for vertex cover. Theor. Comput. Sci., 411(40-42):3736-3756, 2010.
6. Maria Chudnovsky, Neil Robertson, Paul D. Seymour, and Robin Thomas. The strong perfect graph theorem. Annals of Mathematics, 164:51-229, 2006.
7. Marek Cygan and Marcin Pilipczuk. Split vertex deletion meets vertex cover: New fixed-parameter and exact exponential-time algorithms. Inf. Process. Lett., 113(5-6):179-182, 2013.
8. Reinhard Diestel. Graph Theory, 4th Edition, volume 173 of Graduate texts in mathematics. Springer, 2012.
9. Tomas Feder, Pavol Hell, Sulamita Klein, and Rajeev Motwani. List partitions. STOC, 16:464-472, 2003.
10. Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, and Shekoofeh Nekooei Rizi. Partitioning chordal graphs. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 38:325-330, 2011.
11. Lance Fortnow and Rahul Santhanam. Infeasibility of instance compression and succinct pcps for NP. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 77(1):91-106, 2011.
12. Michael R. Garey and David S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman &Co., New York, NY, USA, 1979.
13. Esha Ghosh, Sudeshna Kolay, Mrinal Kumar, Pranabendu Misra, Fahad Panolan, Ashutosh Rai, and M. S. Ramanujan. Faster parameterized algorithms for deletion to split graphs. Algorithmica, 71(4):989-1006, 2015.
14. András Gyárfás. Generalized split graphs and ramsey numbers. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A, 81(2):255-261, 1998.
15. Pinar Heggernes, Dieter Kratsch, Daniel Lokshtanov, Venkatesh Raman, and Saket Saurabh. Fixed-parameter algorithms for cochromatic number and disjoint rectangle stabbing via iterative localization. Inf. Comput., 231:109-116, 2013.
16. Sudeshna Kolay and Fahad Panolan. Parameterized algorithms for deletion to (r, ell)-graphs. In 35th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundation of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, FSTTCS 2015, December 16-18, 2015, Bangalore, India, pages 420-433, 2015.
17. R. Krithika and N. S. Narayanaswamy. Parameterized algorithms for (r, l)-partization. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 17(2):129-146, 2013.
18. André E. Kézdy, Hunter S. Snevily, and Chi Wang. Partitioning permutations into increasing and decreasing subsequences. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 73(2):353-359, 1996.
19. John M. Lewis and Mihalis Yannakakis. The node-deletion problem for hereditary properties is np-complete. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 20(2):219-230, 1980.
20. Daniel Lokshtanov, N. S. Narayanaswamy, Venkatesh Raman, M. S. Ramanujan, and Saket Saurabh. Faster parameterized algorithms using linear programming. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 11(2):15, 2014.
21. László Lovász. A characterization of perfect graphs. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B, 13(2):95-98, 1972.
22. Bruce A. Reed, Kaleigh Smith, and Adrian Vetta. Finding odd cycle transversals. Oper. Res. Lett., 32(4):299-301, 2004. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orl.2003.10.009.
23. Klaus W. Wagner. Monotonic coverings of finite sets. Elektronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik, 20(12):633-639, 1984.
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing