Paper detail

Point Line Cover: The Easy Kernel is Essentially Tight

The input to the NP-hard Point Line Cover problem (PLC) consists of a set $P$ of $n$ points on the plane and a positive integer $k$, and the question is whether there exists a set of at most $k$ lines which pass through all points in $P$. A simple polynomial-time reduction reduces any input to one with at most $k^2$ points. We show that this is essentially tight under standard assumptions. More precisely, unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its third level, there is no polynomial-time algorithm that reduces every instance $(P,k)$ of PLC to an equivalent instance with $O(k^{2-ε})$ points, for any $ε>0$. This answers, in the negative, an open problem posed by Lokshtanov (PhD Thesis, 2009). Our proof uses the machinery for deriving lower bounds on the size of kernels developed by Dell and van Melkebeek (STOC 2010). It has two main ingredients: We first show, by reduction from Vertex Cover, that PLC---conditionally---has no kernel of total size $O(k^{2-ε})$ bits. This does not directly imply the claimed lower bound on the number of points, since the best known polynomial-time encoding of a PLC instance with $n$ points requires $ω(n^{2})$ bits. To get around this we build on work of Goodman et al. (STOC 1989) and devise an oracle communication protocol of cost $O(n\log n)$ for PLC; its main building block is a bound of $O(n^{O(n)})$ for the order types of $n$ points that are not necessarily in general position, and an explicit algorithm that enumerates all possible order types of n points. This protocol and the lower bound on total size together yield the stated lower bound on the number of points. While a number of essentially tight polynomial lower bounds on total sizes of kernels are known, our result is---to the best of our knowledge---the first to show a nontrivial lower bound for structural/secondary parameters.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.