<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-07-22T05:24:45Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="9655" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:9655</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T10:44:38Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>On W[1]-Hardness as Evidence for Intractability</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Bottesch, Ralph Christian</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Parameterized complexity</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Relativization</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>The central conjecture of parameterized complexity states that FPT !=W[1], and is generally regarded as the parameterized counterpart to P !=NP. We revisit the issue of the plausibility of FPT !=W[1], focusing on two aspects: the difficulty of proving the conjecture (assuming it holds), and how the relation between the two classes might differ from the one between P and NP.
Regarding the first aspect, we give new evidence that separating FPT from W[1] would be considerably harder than doing the same for P and NP. Our main result regarding the relation between FPT and W[1] states that the closure of W[1] under relativization with FPT-oracles is precisely the class W[P], implying that either FPT is not low for W[1], or the W-Hierarchy collapses. This theorem also has consequences for the A-Hierarchy (a parameterized version of the Polynomial Hierarchy), namely that unless W[P] is a subset of some level A[t], there are structural differences between the A-Hierarchy and the Polynomial Hierarchy. We also prove that under the unlikely assumption that W[P] collapses to W[1] in a specific way, the collapse of any two consecutive levels of the A-Hierarchy implies the collapse of the entire hierarchy to a finite level; this extends a result of Chen, Flum, and Grohe (2005).
Finally, we give weak (oracle-based) evidence that the inclusion W[t]subseteqA[t] is strict for t&gt;1, and that the W-Hierarchy is proper. The latter result answers a question of Downey and Fellows (1993).</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Ralph Christian Bottesch</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of LIPIcs, Volume 117, 43rd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2018)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2018.73</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-96559</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2018.73</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
