Abstract

The CONTRACTION(vc) problem takes as input a graph GG on nn vertices and two integers kk and dd, and asks whether one can contract at most kk edges to reduce the size of a minimum vertex cover of GG by at least dd. 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 f(d)⋅nO(d)f(d) \cdot n^{O(d)}. 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 k+dk + d. Moreover, unless the ETH fails, the problem does not admit an algorithm running in time f(k+d)⋅no(k+d)f(k + d) \cdot n^{o(k + d)} for any function ff. 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 (G,k,d)(G, k, d) of CONTRACTION(vc) is a yes-instance even when k=dk = d, hence enhancing our understanding of the classical complexity of the problem. 3. CONTRACTION(vc) can be solved in time 2O(d)⋅nk−d+O(1)2^{O(d)} \cdot n^{k - d + O(1)}. This XP algorithm improves the one of Lima et al. [JCSS 2021], which uses Courcelle's theorem as a subroutine and hence, the f(d)f(d)-factor in the running time is non-explicit and probably very large. On the other hard, it shows that when k=dk=d, the problem is FPT parameterized by dd (or by kk).

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 reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.