Paper detail

Advice Complexity of the Online Induced Subgraph Problem

Several well-studied graph problems aim to select a largest (or smallest) induced subgraph with a given property of the input graph. Examples of such problems include maximum independent set, maximum planar graph, and many others. We consider these problems, where the vertices are presented online. With each vertex, the online algorithm must decide whether to include it into the constructed subgraph, based only on the subgraph induced by the vertices presented so far. We study the properties that are common to all these problems by investigating the generalized problem: for a hereditary property \pty, find some maximal induced subgraph having \pty. We study this problem from the point of view of advice complexity. Using a result from Boyar et al. [STACS 2015], we give a tight trade-off relationship stating that for inputs of length n roughly n/c bits of advice are both needed and sufficient to obtain a solution with competitive ratio c, regardless of the choice of \pty, for any c (possibly a function of n). Surprisingly, a similar result cannot be obtained for the symmetric problem: for a given cohereditary property \pty, find a minimum subgraph having \pty. We show that the advice complexity of this problem varies significantly with the choice of \pty. We also consider preemptive online model, where the decision of the algorithm is not completely irreversible. In particular, the algorithm may discard some vertices previously assigned to the constructed set, but discarded vertices cannot be reinserted into the set again. We show that, for the maximum induced subgraph problem, preemption cannot help much, giving a lower bound of $Ω(n/(c^2\log c))$ bits of advice needed to obtain competitive ratio $c$, where $c$ is any increasing function bounded by \sqrt{n/log n}. We also give a linear lower bound for c close to 1.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.