Tight complexity lower bounds for integer linear programming with few constraints

November 03, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors DuΕ‘an Knop, MichaΕ‚ Pilipczuk, Marcin Wrochna arXiv ID 1811.01296 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 48 Venue Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
We consider the ILP Feasibility problem: given an integer linear program $\{Ax = b, x\geq 0\}$, where $A$ is an integer matrix with $k$ rows and $\ell$ columns and $b$ is a vector of $k$ integers, we ask whether there exists $x\in\mathbb{N}^\ell$ that satisfies $Ax = b$. Our goal is to study the complexity of ILP Feasibility when both $k$, the number of constraints (rows of $A$), and $\|A\|_\infty$, the largest absolute value in $A$, are small. Papadimitriou [J. ACM, 1981] was the first to give a fixed-parameter algorithm for ILP Feasibility in this setting, with running time $\left((\|A\mid b\|_\infty) \cdot k\right)^{O(k^2)}$. This was very recently improved by Eisenbrand and Weismantel [SODA 2018], who used the Steinitz lemma to design an algorithm with running time $(k\|A\|_\infty)^{O(k)}\cdot \|b\|_\infty^2$, and subsequently by Jansen and Rohwedder [2018] to $O(k\|A\|_\infty)^{k}\cdot \log \|b\|_\infty$. We prove that for $\{0,1\}$-matrices $A$, the dependency on $k$ is probably optimal: an algorithm with running time $2^{o(k\log k)}\cdot (\ell+\|b\|_\infty)^{o(k)}$ would contradict ETH. This improves previous non-tight lower bounds of Fomin et al. [ESA 2018]. We then consider ILPs with many constraints, but structured in a shallow way. Precisely, we consider the dual treedepth of the matrix $A$, which is the treedepth of the graph over the rows of $A$, with two rows adjacent if in some column they both contain a non-zero entry. It was recently shown by KouteckΓ½ et al. [ICALP 2018] that ILP Feasibility can be solved in time $\|A\|_\infty^{2^{O(td(A))}}\cdot (k+\ell+\log \|b\|_\infty)^{O(1)}$. We present a streamlined proof of this fact and prove optimality: even assuming that all entries of $A$ and $b$ are in $\{-1,0,1\}$, the existence of an algorithm with running time $2^{2^{o(td(A))}}\cdot (k+\ell)^{O(1)}$ would contradict ETH.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted