Unique Covering Problems with Geometric Sets

The Exact Cover problem takes a universe U of n elements, a family F of m subsets of U and a positive integer k, and decides whether there exists a subfamily(set cover) F' of size at most k such that each element is covered by exactly one set. The Unique Cover problem also takes the same input and decides whether there is a subfamily F' subset of F such that at least k of the elements F' covers are covered uniquely(by exactly one set). Both these problems are known to be NP-complete. In the parameterized setting, when parameterized by k, Exact Cover is W1]-hard. While Unique Cover is FPT under the same parameter, it is known to not admit a polynomial kernel under standard complexity-theoretic assumptions. In this paper, we investigate these two problems under the assumption that every set satisfies a given geometric property Pi. Specifically, we consider the universe to be a set of n points in a real space R-d, d being a positive integer. When d = 2 we consider the problem when. requires all sets to be unit squares or lines. When d > 2, we consider the problem where. requires all sets to be hyperplanes in R-d. These special versions of the problems are also known to be NP-complete. When parameterizing by k, the Unique Cover problem has a polynomial size kernel for all the above geometric versions. The Exact Cover problem turns out to be W1]-hard for squares, but FPT for lines and hyperplanes. Further, we also consider the Unique Set Cover problem, which takes the same input and decides whether there is a set cover which covers at least k elements uniquely. To the best of our knowledge, this is a new problem, and we show that it is NP-complete (even for the case of lines). In fact, the problem turns out to be W1]-hard in the abstract setting, when parameterized by k. However, when we restrict ourselves to the lines and hyperplanes versions, we obtain FPT algorithms.

A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ERROR ANALYSIS OF DISCONTINUOUS FINITE ELEMENT METHODS FOR ELLIPTIC OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS AND APPLICATIONS TO C-0 IP METHODS

In this article, an abstract framework for the error analysis of discontinuous Galerkin methods for control constrained optimal control problems is developed. The analysis establishes the best approximation result from a priori analysis point of view and delivers a reliable and efficient a posteriori error estimator. The results are applicable to a variety of problems just under the minimal regularity possessed by the well-posedness of the problem. Subsequently, the applications of C-0 interior penalty methods for a boundary control problem as well as a distributed control problem governed by the biharmonic equation subject to simply supported boundary conditions are discussed through the abstract analysis. Numerical experiments illustrate the theoretical findings.

Graph Modification Problems: A Modern Perspective

We give an overview of recent results and techniques in parameterized algorithms for graph modification problems.

DETERMINISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR MATCHING AND PACKING PROBLEMS BASED ON REPRESENTATIVE SETS

In this work, we study the well-known r-DIMENSIONAL k-MATCHING ((r, k)-DM), and r-SET k-PACKING ((r, k)-SP) problems. Given a universe U := U-1 ... U-r and an r-uniform family F subset of U-1 x ... x U-r, the (r, k)-DM problem asks if F admits a collection of k mutually disjoint sets. Given a universe U and an r-uniform family F subset of 2(U), the (r, k)-SP problem asks if F admits a collection of k mutually disjoint sets. We employ techniques based on dynamic programming and representative families. This leads to a deterministic algorithm with running time O(2.851((r-1)k) .vertical bar F vertical bar. n log(2)n . logW) for the weighted version of (r, k)-DM, where W is the maximum weight in the input, and a deterministic algorithm with running time O(2.851((r-0.5501)k).vertical bar F vertical bar.n log(2) n . logW) for the weighted version of (r, k)-SP. Thus, we significantly improve the previous best known deterministic running times for (r, k)-DM and (r, k)-SP and the previous best known running times for their weighted versions. We rely on structural properties of (r, k)-DM and (r, k)-SP to develop algorithms that are faster than those that can be obtained by a standard use of representative sets. Incorporating the principles of iterative expansion, we obtain a better algorithm for (3, k)-DM, running in time O(2.004(3k).vertical bar F vertical bar . n log(2)n). We believe that this algorithm demonstrates an interesting application of representative families in conjunction with more traditional techniques. Furthermore, we present kernels of size O(e(r)r(k-1)(r) logW) for the weighted versions of (r, k)-DM and (r, k)-SP, improving the previous best known kernels of size O(r!r(k-1)(r) logW) for these problems.

Kernelization complexity of possible winner and coalitional manipulation problems in voting

In the POSSIBLE WINNER problem in computational social choice theory, we are given a set of partial preferences and the question is whether a distinguished candidate could be made winner by extending the partial preferences to linear preferences. Previous work has provided, for many common voting rules, fixed parameter tractable algorithms for the POSSIBLE WINNER problem, with number of candidates as the parameter. However, the corresponding kernelization question is still open and in fact, has been mentioned as a key research challenge 10]. In this paper, we settle this open question for many common voting rules. We show that the POSSIBLE WINNER problem for maximin, Copeland, Bucklin, ranked pairs, and a class of scoring rules that includes the Borda voting rule does not admit a polynomial kernel with the number of candidates as the parameter. We show however that the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem which is an important special case of the POSSIBLE WINNER problem does admit a polynomial kernel for maximin, Copeland, ranked pairs, and a class of scoring rules that includes the Borda voting rule, when the number of manipulators is polynomial in the number of candidates. A significant conclusion of our work is that the POSSIBLE WINNER problem is harder than the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem since the COALITIONAL MANIPULATION problem admits a polynomial kernel whereas the POSSIBLE WINNER problem does not admit a polynomial kernel. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.