Tight complexity lower bounds for integer linear programming with few constraints
November 03, 2018 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science
"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 Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted