Jakob Greilhuber

Jakob Greilhuber, Dániel Marx

For fixed sets $σ, ρ$ of non-negative integers, the $(σ, ρ)$-domination framework introduced by Telle [Nord. J. Comput. 1994] captures many classical graph problems. For a graph $G$, a $(σ,ρ)$-set is a set $S$ of vertices such that for every $v\in V(G)$, we have (1) if $v \in S$, then $|N(v) \cap S| \in σ$, and (2) if $v \notin S$, then $|N(v) \cap S| \in ρ$. We initiate the study of a natural partial variant $(σ,ρ)$-MinParDomSet of the problem, in which the constraints given by $σ, ρ$ need not be fulfilled for all vertices, but we want to find a set of size at most $k$ that maximizes the number of vertices that are satisfied in the sense that they satisfy (1) or (2) above. Our goal is to understand whether $(σ,ρ)$-MinParDomSet can be solved in the same running time as the nonpartial version, or whether it is strictly harder. Formally, we consider nonempty finite or simple cofinite sets $σ$ and $ρ$ (simple cofinite sets are of the form $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq c}$), and we try to determine the smallest constant $c_{σ,ρ}$ such that there is a $c_{σ,ρ}^{tw}\cdot n^{O(1)}$ time algorithm for the problem if a tree decomposition of width $tw$ is given. We obtain matching upper and lower bounds on $c_{σ,ρ}$ for every such fixed $σ$ and $ρ$ under the Primal Pathwidth Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis, and establish whether the partial problem is harder than the nonpartial variant. For some sets $σ$ and $ρ$, the more general $(σ,ρ)$-MinParDomSet has the same complexity as the nonpartial special case (e.g., for Dominating Set), while for other choices, the partial version is significantly harder (e.g., for Perfect Code).

Jakob Greilhuber, Roohani Sharma

In this work we study a classic generalization of the Vertex Cover (VC) problem, called the Component Order Connectivity (COC) problem. In COC, given an undirected graph $G$, integers $d \geq 1$ and $k$, the goal is to determine if there is a set of at most $k$ vertices whose deletion results in a graph where each connected component has at most $d$ vertices. When $d=1$, this is exactly VC. This work is inspired by polynomial kernelization results with respect to structural parameters for VC. On one hand, Jansen & Bodlaender [TOCS 2013] show that VC admits a polynomial kernel when the parameter is the distance to treewidth-$1$ graphs, on the other hand Cygan, Lokshtanov, Pilipczuk, Pilipczuk & Saurabh [TOCS 2014] showed that VC does not admit a polynomial kernel when the parameter is distance to treewidth-$2$ graphs. Greilhuber & Sharma [IPEC 2024] showed that, for any $d \geq 2$, $d$-COC cannot admit a polynomial kernel when the parameter is distance to a forest of pathwidth $2$. Here, $d$-COC is the same as COC only that $d$ is a fixed constant not part of the input. We complement this result and show that like for the VC problem where distance to treewidth-$1$ graphs versus distance to treewidth-$2$ graphs is the dividing line between structural parameterizations that allow and respectively disallow polynomial kernelization, for COC this dividing line happens between distance to pathwidth-$1$ graphs and distance to pathwidth-$2$ graphs. The main technical result of this work is that COC admits a polynomial kernel parameterized by distance to pathwidth-$1$ graphs plus $d$.