BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Balagopal Komarath

Balagopal Komarath contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computational ComplexityData Structures and Algorithms

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Finding and Counting Patterns in Sparse Graphs

We consider algorithms for finding and counting small, fixed graphs in sparse host graphs. In the non-sparse setting, the parameters treedepth and treewidth play a crucial role in fast, constant-space and polynomial-space algorithms respectively. We discover two new parameters that we call matched treedepth and matched treewidth. We show that finding and counting patterns with low matched treedepth and low matched treewidth can be done asymptotically faster than the existing algorithms when the host graphs are sparse for many patterns. As an application to finding and counting fixed-size patterns, we discover $\otilde(m^3)$-time \footnote{$\otilde$ hides factors that are logarithmic in the input size.}, constant-space algorithms for cycles of length at most $11$ and $\otilde(m^2)$-time, polynomial-space algorithms for paths of length at most $10$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the complexity of detecting hazards

Detecting and eliminating logic hazards in Boolean circuits is a fundamental problem in logic circuit design. We show that there is no $O(3^{(1-ε)n} \text{poly}(s))$ time algorithm, for any $ε> 0$, that detects logic hazards in Boolean circuits of size $s$ on $n$ variables under the assumption that the strong exponential time hypothesis is true. This lower bound holds even when the input circuits are restricted to be formulas of depth four. We also present a polynomial time algorithm for detecting $1$-hazards in DNF (or, $0$-hazards in CNF) formulas. Since $0$-hazards in DNF (or, $1$-hazards in CNF) formulas are easy to eliminate, this algorithm can be used to detect whether a given DNF or CNF formula has a hazard in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

On the complexity of hazard-free circuits

The problem of constructing hazard-free Boolean circuits dates back to the 1940s and is an important problem in circuit design. Our main lower-bound result unconditionally shows the existence of functions whose circuit complexity is polynomially bounded while every hazard-free implementation is provably of exponential size. Previous lower bounds on the hazard-free complexity were only valid for depth 2 circuits. The same proof method yields that every subcubic implementation of Boolean matrix multiplication must have hazards. These results follow from a crucial structural insight: Hazard-free complexity is a natural generalization of monotone complexity to all (not necessarily monotone) Boolean functions. Thus, we can apply known monotone complexity lower bounds to find lower bounds on the hazard-free complexity. We also lift these methods from the monotone setting to prove exponential hazard-free complexity lower bounds for non-monotone functions. As our main upper-bound result we show how to efficiently convert a Boolean circuit into a bounded-bit hazard-free circuit with only a polynomially large blow-up in the number of gates. Previously, the best known method yielded exponentially large circuits in the worst case, so our algorithm gives an exponential improvement. As a side result we establish the NP-completeness of several hazard detection problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access