The area of parameterized approximation seeks to combine approximation and parameterized algorithms to obtain, e.g., (1+eps)-approximations in f(k,eps)n^ O(1) time where k is some parameter of the input. We obtain the following results on parameterized approximability: 1) In the maximum independent set of rectangles problem (MISR) we are given a collection of n axis parallel rectangles in the plane. Our goal is to select a maximum-cardinality subset of pairwise non-overlapping rectangles. This problem is NP-hard and also W[1]-hard [Marx, ESA'05]. The best-known polynomial-time approximation factor is O(loglog n) [Chalermsook and Chuzhoy, SODA'09] and it admits a QPTAS [Adamaszek and Wiese, FOCS'13; Chuzhoy and Ene, FOCS'16]. Here we present a parameterized approximation scheme (PAS) for MISR, i.e. an algorithm that, for any given constant eps>0 and integer k>0, in time f(k,eps)n^ g(eps) , either outputs a solution of size at least k (1+eps), or declares that the optimum solution has size less than k. 2) In the (2-dimensional) geometric knapsack problem (TDK) we are given an axis-aligned square knapsack and a collection of axis-aligned rectangles in the plane (items). Our goal is to translate a maximum cardinality subset of items into the knapsack so that the selected items do not overlap. In the version of TDK with rotations (TDKR), we are allowed to rotate items by 90 degrees. Both variants are NP-hard, and the best-known polynomial-time approximation factors are 558 325+eps and 4 3+eps, resp. [, FOCS'17]. These problems admit a QPTAS for polynomially bounded item sizes [Adamaszek and Wiese, SODA'15]. We show that both variants are W[1]-hard. Furthermore, we present a PAS for TDKR. For all considered problems, getting time f(k,eps)n^ O(1) , rather than f(k,eps)n^ g(eps) , would give FPT time f'(k)n^ O(1) exact algorithms using eps=1 (k+1), contradicting W[1]-hardness.
The systematic study of parameterized approximation as a field was initiated independently by three separate publications @cite_10 @cite_5 @cite_7 . A very good introduction to the area including key definitions as well as a survey of earlier results that fit into the picture was given by Marx @cite_24 . In particular, Marx also defined a so-called that, given input @math will run for @math time and return (say, for a maximization problem) a solution of value at least @math if the optimum is at least @math . As mentioned earlier, Marx pointed out that a standard FPT-approximation scheme that finds a solution of value at least @math in time @math if @math is not interesting to study: By setting @math we can decide the decision problem @math ?'' in FPT time. Thus, such a scheme is not helpful if the decision problem is 1 -hard and therefore unlikely to have an FPT-algorithm. Nevertheless, PASs can be useful in this case, as they imply standard FPT-approximation algorithms with ratio @math for each fixed @math despite 1 -hardness.
@cite_24 @cite_5 @cite_10 @cite_7
2949062889 1620816389 2766474417 2567804199
A Fixed-Parameter Tractable ( ) @math -approximation algorithm for a minimization (resp. maximization) parameterized problem @math is an FPT algorithm that, given an instance @math computes a solution of cost at most @math (resp. @math ) if a solution of cost at most (resp. at least) @math exists; otherwise the output can be arbitrary. For well-known intractable problems such as the W[1]-hard Clique and W[2]-hard Set Cover problems, the natural question is whether we can get any -approximation. It is widely believed that both Clique and Set-Cover admit no FPT @math -approximation algorithm, for any increasing function @math . Assuming standard conjectures such as the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) eth-paturi and the Projection Games Conjecture (PGC) r3 , we make the first progress towards proving this conjecture by showing that 1. Under the ETH and PGC, there exist constants @math such that the Set Cover problem does not admit an FPT approximation algorithm with ratio @math in @math time, where @math is the size of the universe and @math is the number of sets. 2. Unless @math , for every @math there exists a constant @math such that Clique has no FPT cost approximation with ratio @math in @math time, where @math is the number of vertices in the graph. In the second part of the paper we consider various W[1]-hard problems such as , , Directed Steiner Network and . For all these problem we give polynomial time @math -approximation algorithms for some small function @math (the largest approximation ratio we give is @math ). We study approximation algorithms for several variants of the MaxCover problem, with the focus on algorithms that run in FPT time. In the MaxCover problem we are given a set N of elements, a family S of subsets of N, and an integer K. The goal is to find up to K sets from S that jointly cover (i.e., include) as many elements as possible. This problem is well-known to be NP-hard and, under standard complexitytheoretic assumptions, the best possible polynomial-time approximation algorithm has approximation ratio (1 − 1 ). We first consider a variant of MaxCover with bounded element frequencies, i.e., a variant where there is a constant p such that each element belongs to at most p sets in S. For this case we show that there is an FPT approximation scheme (i.e., for each β there is a β-approximation algorithm running in FPT time) for the problem of maximizing the number of covered elements, and a randomized FPT approximation scheme for the problem of minimizing the number of elements left uncovered (we take K to be the parameter). Then, for the case where there is a constant p such that each element belongs to at least p sets from S, we show that the standard greedy approximation algorithm achieves approximation ratio exactly 1 − e −max(pK kSk,1) . We conclude by considering an unrestricted variant of MaxCover, and show approximation algorithms that run in exponential time and combine an exact algorithm with a greedy approximation. Some of our results improve currently known results for MaxVertexCover. We investigate the existence of approximation algorithms for maximization of submodular functions, that run in a fixed parameter tractable (FPT) time. Given a non-decreasing submodular set function v:2 X →R v : 2 X → R the goal is to select a subset S of K elements from X such that v(S) v ( S ) is maximized. We identify three properties of set functions, referred to as p -separability properties, and we argue that many real-life problems can be expressed as maximization of submodular, p -separable functions, with low values of the parameter p . We present FPT approximation schemes for the minimization and maximization variants of the problem, for several parameters that depend on characteristics of the optimized set function, such as p and K . An important question in theoretical computer science is to determine the best possible running time for solving a problem at hand. For geometric optimization problems, we often understand their complexity on a rough scale, but not very well on a finer scale. One such example is the two-dimensional knapsack problem for squares. There is a polynomial time (1 + ϵ)-approximation algorithm for it (i.e., a PTAS) but the running time of this algorithm is triple exponential in 1 ϵ, i.e., Ω(n221 ϵ). A double or triple exponential dependence on 1 ϵ is inherent in how this and several other algorithms for other geometric problems work. In this paper, we present an EPTAS for knapsack for squares, i.e., a (1+ϵ)-approximation algorithm with a running time of Oϵ(1)·nO(1). In particular, the exponent of n in the running time does not depend on ϵ at all! Since there can be no FPTAS for the problem (unless P = NP) this is the best kind of approximation scheme we can hope for. To achieve this improvement, we introduce two new key ideas: We present a fast method to guess the Ω(221 ϵ) relatively large squares of a suitable near-optimal packing instead of using brute-force enumeration. Secondly, we introduce an indirect guessing framework to define sizes of cells for the remaining squares. In the previous PTAS each of these steps needs a running time of Ω(n221 ϵ) and we improve both to Oϵ(1) · nO(1). We complete our result by giving an algorithm for two-dimensional knapsack for rectangles under (1 + ϵ)-resource augmentation. In this setting, we also improve the best known running time of Ω(n1 ϵ1 ϵ) to Oϵ(1) · nO(1) and compute even a solution with optimal profit, in contrast to the best previously known polynomial time algorithm for this setting that computes only an approximation. We believe that our new techniques have the potential to be useful for other settings as well.