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.
One of the first fruitful connections between parameterized complexity and approximability was observed independently by Bazgan @cite_23 and Cesati and Trevisan @cite_29 : They showed that EPTASs, i.e., @math -approximation algorithms with @math time, imply fixed-parameter tractability for the decision version. Thus, proofs for 1 -hardness of the decision version became a strong tool for ruling out improvements of PTASs, with running time @math , to EPTASs. More recently, @cite_25 improved this approach by directly proving 1 -hardness of obtaining a @math -approximation, thus bypassing the requirement of a 1 -hard decision version (see also @cite_33 ).
@cite_29 @cite_33 @cite_25 @cite_23
2963006872 2567804199 2949062889 1749371477
In the Closest String problem one is given a family S of equal-length strings over some fixed alphabet, and the task is to find a string y that minimizes the maximum Hamming distance between y and a string from S. While polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTASes) for this problem are known for a long time [; J. ACM'02], no efficient polynomial-time approximation scheme (EPTAS) has been proposed so far. In this paper, we prove that the existence of an EPTAS for Closest String is in fact unlikely, as it would imply that FPT=W[1], a highly unexpected collapse in the hierarchy of parameterized complexity classes. Our proof also shows that the existence of a PTAS for Closest String with running time f(eps) n^o(1 eps), for any computable function f, would contradict the Exponential Time Hypothesis. 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. 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 motivate and describe a new parameterized approximation paradigm which studies the interaction between performance ratio and running time for any parametrization of a given optimization problem. As a key tool, we introduce the concept of α-shrinking transformation, for α≥1. Applying such transformation to a parameterized problem instance decreases the parameter value, while preserving approximation ratio of α (or α-fidelity). For example, it is well-known that Vertex Cover cannot be approximated within any constant factor better than 2 [24] (under usual assumptions). Our parameterized α-approximation algorithm for k-Vertex Cover, parameterized by the solution size, has a running time of 1.273(2−α)k, where the running time of the best FPT algorithm is 1.273k [10]. Our algorithms define a continuous tradeoff between running times and approximation ratios, allowing practitioners to appropriately allocate computational resources. Moving even beyond the performance ratio, we call for a new type of approximative kernelization race. Our α-shrinking transformations can be used to obtain kernels which are smaller than the best known for a given problem. For the Vertex Cover problem we obtain a kernel size of 2(2−α)k. The smaller "α-fidelity" kernels allow us to solve exactly problem instances more efficiently, while obtaining an approximate solution for the original instance. We show that such transformations exist for several fundamental problems, including Vertex Cover, d-Hitting Set, Connected Vertex Cover and Steiner Tree. We note that most of our algorithms are easy to implement and are therefore practical in use.