Abstract
The CONTRACTION(vc) problem takes as input a graph on vertices and two integers and , and asks whether one can contract at most edges to reduce the size of a minimum vertex cover of by at least . Recently, Lima et al. [JCSS 2021] proved, among other results, that unlike most of the so-called blocker problems, CONTRACTION(vc) admits an XP algorithm running in time . They left open the question of whether this problem is FPT under this parameterization. In this article, we continue this line of research and prove the following results: 1. CONTRACTION(vc) is W[1]-hard parameterized by . Moreover, unless the ETH fails, the problem does not admit an algorithm running in time for any function . In particular, this answers the open question stated in Lima et al. [JCSS 2021] in the negative. 2. It is NP-hard to decide whether an instance of CONTRACTION(vc) is a yes-instance even when , hence enhancing our understanding of the classical complexity of the problem. 3. CONTRACTION(vc) can be solved in time . This XP algorithm improves the one of Lima et al. [JCSS 2021], which uses Courcelle's theorem as a subroutine and hence, the -factor in the running time is non-explicit and probably very large. On the other hard, it shows that when , the problem is FPT parameterized by (or by ).
Connections
Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.
Building this map preview
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Reviews 0
Write a review
No reviews yet.
Discussion 0
Add a comment
No comments yet.