arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2107.08584

Perfectly Matched Sets in Graphs: Parameterized and Exact Computation

Abstract

In an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$, we say $(A,B)$ is a pair of perfectly matched sets if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint subsets of $V$ and every vertex in $A$ (resp. $B$) has exactly one neighbor in $B$ (resp. $A$). The size of a pair of perfectly matched sets $(A,B)$ is $|A|=|B|$. The PERFECTLY MATCHED SETS problem is to decide whether a given graph $G$ has a pair of perfectly matched sets of size $k$. We show that PMS is $W[1]$-hard when parameterized by solution size $k$ even when restricted to split graphs and bipartite graphs. We observe that PMS is FPT when parameterized by clique-width, and give FPT algorithms with respect to the parameters distance to cluster, distance to co-cluster and treewidth. Complementing FPT results, we show that PMS does not admit a polynomial kernel when parameterized by vertex cover number unless $NP\subseteq coNP/poly$. We also provide an exact exponential algorithm running in time $O^*(1.966^n)$. Finally, considering graphs with structural assumptions, we show that PMS remains $NP$-hard on planar graphs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

N. R. Aravind, Roopam Saxena. 2021-07-19. Perfectly Matched Sets in Graphs: Parameterized and Exact Computation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.08584

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

An FPTAS for Two-Machine Open-Shop Scheduling with a Single Unavailability Interval

We consider the two-machine open-shop scheduling problem in which one machine is unavailable during a fixed interval. We study the resumable setting: an operation interrupted by the unavailability interval may resume, without penalty, when the machine becomes available. The objective is to minimize the makespan. Although the problem is NP-hard and several approximation algorithms are known, whether it admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) has remained open for two decades. We resolve this question affirmatively by giving the first FPTAS, thereby strengthening the previously known polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS). As an intermediate result, we develop a new pseudo-polynomial dynamic program with seven state dimensions, improving on the ten-dimensional formulation in the literature.

cs.DM

Generalized Graph Search Trees

Graph search algorithms and their corresponding graph search trees are commonly used in algorithmic graph theory. In recent years, the recognition problem of these graph search trees has received significant attention. So far, the research has focused on two types of search trees: first-in trees that behave like BFS-trees and last-in trees that behave like DFS-trees. The search tree paradigms differ from each other by the parent a vertex is connected to. In first-in trees, it is the first visited neighbor, while in last-in trees it is the last neighbor visited before that vertex. Here, we will generalize these concepts of graph search trees by allowing every preceding neighbor of a vertex to be the parent. We study the complexity of the recognition problem of these generalized graph search trees. We present NP-completeness proofs for most searches. We also show that the problem is trivial for Generic Search and polynomial-time solvable for several searches on bipartite graphs and chordal graphs. We also study the question how fixing the start vertex influences the complexity of the problem.

cs.DM

The exact asymptotic constant in the metric dimension of Jaccard space

Let $X$ be a finite set with $|X|=n$ and let $\mathrm{Jac}(a,b)=|a\,\triangle\, b|/|a\cup b|$ be the Jaccard distance on the power set $2^X$. Lladser and Paradise recently proved that the metric dimension of $(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})$ is $\Theta(n/\ln n)$, with the constant left open; their bounds are $(\ln 2)\,n/\ln n\lesssim \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})\lesssim 2\ln(2e)\,n/\ln n$. We determine the constant: \[ \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})=\frac{2n}{\log_2 n}\,(1+o(1))=(2\ln 2)\,\frac{n}{\ln n}\,(1+o(1)). \] The proof identifies the problem, on each ``slice'' of subsets of fixed cardinality, with the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi coin-weighing problem for a spring scale (the problem of \emph{detecting matrices}). The lower bound is the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi entropy argument applied to the middle slice; the upper bound follows from the explicit detecting families of Lindstr\"om and of Cantor and Mills, augmented by a single extra landmark that reveals cardinality.

cs.DM