Paper detail

Mending Partial Solutions with Few Changes

In this paper, we study the notion of mending, i.e. given a partial solution to a graph problem, we investigate how much effort is needed to turn it into a proper solution. For example, if we have a partial coloring of a graph, how hard is it to turn it into a proper coloring? In prior work (SIROCCO 2022), this question was formalized and studied from the perspective of mending radius: if there is a hole that we need to patch, how far do we need to modify the solution? In this work, we investigate a complementary notion of mending volume: how many nodes need to be modified to patch a hole? We focus on the case of locally checkable labeling problems (LCLs) in trees, and show that already in this setting there are two infinite hierarchies of problems: for infinitely many values $0 < α\le 1$, there is an LCL problem with mending volume $Θ(n^α)$, and for infinitely many values $k \ge 1$, there is an LCL problem with mending volume $Θ(\log^k n)$. Hence the mendability of LCL problems on trees is a much more fine-grained question than what one would expect based on the mending radius alone. We define three variants of the theme: (1) existential mending volume, i.e., how many nodes need to be modified, (2) expected mending volume, i.e., how many nodes we need to explore to find a patch if we use randomness, and (3) deterministic mending volume, i.e., how many nodes we need to explore if we use a deterministic algorithm. We show that all three notions are distinct from each other, and we analyze the landscape of the complexities of LCL problems for the respective models.

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.