Frontiers in Algorithmics

We give an overview of recent results and techniques in parameterized algorithms for graph modification problems. In network (or graph) modifications problem we have to modify (repair, improve, or adjust) a network to satisfy specific required properties while keeping the cost of the modification to the minimum. The commonly adapted mathematical model in the study of network problems is the graph modification problem. This is a fundamental unifying problem with a tremendous number of applications in various disciplines like machine learning, networking, sociology, data mining, computational biology, computer vision, and numerical analysis, and many others. We start with three generic examples of graph modification. Our first example is the connectivity augmentation problem. Here the graph models an existing network (say, a telecommunication network) and the goal is to enhance the network to ensure resilience against link failures. In other words, by adding a few links between nodes we wish to obtain a network with better connectivity. This is a special case of the graph modification problem where we want to improve the connectivity of a graph. The second example is graph clustering. This is the fundamental problem of identification of closely related objects that have many interactions within themselves and few with the rest of the system. A group of objects of this type is known as a cluster (or community). In Fig. 1 one can find a clustering of the scientific-collaboration network of the members of the Algorithms groups at the University of Bergen. One of the most popular common to clustering is to model a system as a weighted graph. Then the task is to identify a set of low-cost edges (insignificant interactions) which removal partition the graph into clusters and this is again a special case of the graph modification problem. The third example is the fundamental problem arising in sparse matrix computations. During Gaussian eliminations of large sparse matrices new non-zero elements called fill can replace original zeros thus increasing storage requirements and running time needed to solve the system. The problem of finding the right Supported by the European Research Council (ERC) via grant Rigorous Theory of Preprocessing, reference 267959. c © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 J. Wang and C. Yap (Eds.): FAW 2015, LNCS 9130, pp. 3–6, 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-19647-3 1

[1]  Rajeev Kohli,et al.  The Minimum Satisfiability Problem , 1994, SIAM J. Discret. Math..

[2]  Abdul Sattar,et al.  A Compact and Efficient SAT Encoding for Planning , 2008, ICAPS.

[3]  Ke Xu,et al.  A tighter upper bound for random MAX 2-SAT , 2011, Inf. Process. Lett..

[4]  Zhu Zhu,et al.  Minimum Satisfiability and Its Applications , 2011, IJCAI.

[5]  Michael Pinedo,et al.  Current trends in deterministic scheduling , 1997, Ann. Oper. Res..

[6]  Chung-Yee Lee,et al.  Machine scheduling with job delivery coordination , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[7]  J. Spencer Ten lectures on the probabilistic method , 1987 .

[8]  Jinjiang Yuan,et al.  Single Machine Scheduling with Job Delivery to minimize makespan , 2008, Asia Pac. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  Kaile Su,et al.  Within-problem Learning for Efficient Lower Bound Computation in Max-SAT Solving , 2008, AAAI.

[10]  Alex Samorodnitsky,et al.  Inclusion-exclusion: Exact and approximate , 1996, Comb..

[11]  Yong He,et al.  Improved algorithms for two single machine scheduling problems , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Zhu Zhu,et al.  Exact MinSAT Solving , 2010, SAT.

[13]  Rolf Niedermeier,et al.  Worst-case upper bounds for MAX-2-SAT with an application to MAX-CUT , 2003, Discret. Appl. Math..

[14]  Madhav V. Marathe,et al.  On Approximation Algorithms for the Minimum Satisfiability Problem , 1996, Inf. Process. Lett..

[15]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[16]  Zhu Zhu,et al.  Optimizing with minimum satisfiability , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Edward A. Hirsch,et al.  A New Algorithm for MAX-2-SAT , 2000, STACS.

[18]  Jiming Chen,et al.  Near-Optimal Allocation Algorithms for Location-Dependent Tasks in Crowdsensing , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[19]  Xiuli Wang,et al.  Machine scheduling with an availability constraint and job delivery coordination , 2007 .

[20]  Doug Hains,et al.  Greedy or Not? Best Improving versus First Improving Stochastic Local Search for MAXSAT , 2013, AAAI.

[21]  Zhi-Long Chen,et al.  Machine scheduling with transportation considerations , 2001 .

[22]  Ping Huang,et al.  An upper (lower) bound for Max (Min) CSP , 2013, Science China Information Sciences.

[23]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Approximate Inclusion-Exclusion , 1990, Comb..

[24]  Felip Manyà,et al.  Resolution-based lower bounds in MaxSAT , 2010, Constraints.

[25]  David S. Johnson,et al.  A 71/60 theorem for bin packing , 1985, J. Complex..

[26]  Wei Li,et al.  Exact Phase Transitions in Random Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 2000, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[27]  Sriram Sankaranarayanan,et al.  Model Counting Using the Inclusion-Exclusion Principle , 2011, SAT.