Paper detail

Listing, Verifying and Counting Lowest Common Ancestors in DAGs: Algorithms and Fine-Grained Lower Bounds

The AP-LCA problem asks, given an $n$-node directed acyclic graph (DAG), to compute for every pair of vertices $u$ and $v$ in the DAG a lowest common ancestor (LCA) of $u$ and $v$ if one exists. In this paper we study several interesting variants of AP-LCA, providing both algorithms and fine-grained lower bounds for them. The lower bounds we obtain are the first conditional lower bounds for LCA problems higher than $n^{ω-o(1)}$, where $ω$ is the matrix multiplication exponent. Some of our results include: - In any DAG, we can detect all vertex pairs that have at most two LCAs and list all of their LCAs in $O(n^ω)$ time. This algorithm extends a result of [Kowaluk and Lingas ESA'07] which showed an $\tilde{O}(n^ω)$ time algorithm that detects all pairs with a unique LCA in a DAG and outputs their corresponding LCAs. - Listing $7$ LCAs per vertex pair in DAGs requires $n^{3-o(1)}$ time under the popular assumption that 3-uniform 5-hyperclique detection requires $n^{5-o(1)}$ time. This is surprising since essentially cubic time is sufficient to list all LCAs (if $ω=2$). - Counting the number of LCAs for every vertex pair in a DAG requires $n^{3-o(1)}$ time under the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis, and $n^{ω(1,2,1)-o(1)}$ time under the $4$-Clique hypothesis. This shows that the algorithm of [Echkardt, Mühling and Nowak ESA'07] for listing all LCAs for every pair of vertices is likely optimal. - Given a DAG and a vertex $w_{u,v}$ for every vertex pair $u,v$, verifying whether all $w_{u,v}$ are valid LCAs requires $n^{2.5-o(1)}$ time assuming 3-uniform 4-hyperclique requires $n^{4 - o(1)}$ time. This defies the common intuition that verification is easier than computation since returning some LCA per vertex pair can be solved in $O(n^{2.447})$ time [Grandoni et al. SODA'21].

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.