Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Lossy Kernels for Connected Dominating Set on Sparse Graphs (1706.09339v2)

Published 28 Jun 2017 in cs.DS, cs.CC, and cs.DM

Abstract: For $\alpha > 1$, an $\alpha$-approximate (bi-)kernel is a polynomial-time algorithm that takes as input an instance $(I, k)$ of a problem $\mathcal{Q}$ and outputs an instance $(I',k')$ (of a problem $\mathcal{Q}'$) of size bounded by a function of $k$ such that, for every $c\geq 1$, a $c$-approximate solution for the new instance can be turned into a $(c\cdot\alpha)$-approximate solution of the original instance in polynomial time. This framework of lossy kernelization was recently introduced by Lokshtanov et al. We study Connected Dominating Set (and its distance-$r$ variant) parameterized by solution size on sparse graph classes like biclique-free graphs, classes of bounded expansion, and nowhere dense classes. We prove that for every $\alpha>1$, Connected Dominating Set admits a polynomial-size $\alpha$-approximate (bi-)kernel on all the aforementioned classes. Our results are in sharp contrast to the kernelization complexity of Connected Dominating Set, which is known to not admit a polynomial kernel even on $2$-degenerate graphs and graphs of bounded expansion, unless $\textsf{NP} \subseteq \textsf{coNP/poly}$. We complement our results by the following conditional lower bound. We show that if a class $\mathcal{C}$ is somewhere dense and closed under taking subgraphs, then for some value of $r\in\mathbb{N}$ there cannot exist an $\alpha$-approximate bi-kernel for the (Connected) Distance-$r$ Dominating Set problem on $\mathcal{C}$ for any $\alpha>1$ (assuming the Gap Exponential Time Hypothesis).

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Eduard Eiben (54 papers)
  2. Mithilesh Kumar (11 papers)
  3. Amer E. Mouawad (34 papers)
  4. Fahad Panolan (47 papers)
  5. Sebastian Siebertz (66 papers)
Citations (32)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.