z
All checks were successful
build pdf / build (push) Successful in 4s

This commit is contained in:
2025-11-27 11:26:59 +08:00
parent b95f42e73e
commit d37c54f387
2 changed files with 31 additions and 15 deletions

View File

@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and let $\ell:V\to \F_2^{t}$ be a $t$-dimensional color
\end{problem} \end{problem}
Consider a special case of \autoref{prob:tdimevencut} that $\ell=D=0$ for all vectices and $C=E$. Then the $\delta(X)$ achieving the minimum value of case 2 is exactly the max-cut of $G$. Consider a special case of \autoref{prob:tdimevencut} that $\ell=D=0$ for all vectices and $C=E$. Then the $\delta(X)$ achieving the minimum value of case 2 is exactly the max-cut of $G$.
This observation suggests that one cannot deal with the two cases separately. This observation suggests that one cannot solve the two cases separately in polynomial time.
Another interesting special case is that $C=\emptyset$ and $D=0$. The problem becomes graph min-cut with congruency constrants, Another interesting special case is that $C=\emptyset$ and $D=0$. The problem becomes graph min-cut with congruency constrants,
which is a special case of submodular function minimization under congruency constraints (SFMC) studied by Nägele \etal \cite{nagele_submodular_2019}. which is a special case of submodular function minimization under congruency constraints (SFMC) studied by Nägele \etal \cite{nagele_submodular_2019}.
@@ -64,6 +64,19 @@ We first prove that for any binary matroid with constant gap, adding another row
Contracting a set $T$ from a matroid $M$ can be done by contracting elements in $T$ one by one, $M/e_1/\dots/e_t$. We fix an arbitrary order for elements in $T$ and let $T_i$ be the set of first $i$ elements. We prove that if $(M/T_i)|E(G)$ has constant gap then so does $(M/T_{i+1})|E(G)$. Contracting a set $T$ from a matroid $M$ can be done by contracting elements in $T$ one by one, $M/e_1/\dots/e_t$. We fix an arbitrary order for elements in $T$ and let $T_i$ be the set of first $i$ elements. We prove that if $(M/T_i)|E(G)$ has constant gap then so does $(M/T_{i+1})|E(G)$.
\section{Proof of constant gap} \section{Proof of constant gap}
\paragraph{notations and useful lemmas}
Let $M=(E,\mathcal I)$ be a matroid. We write $\lambda(M)$ for the cogirth of $M$ and write $\sigma(M)$ for the strength of $M$.
It is known that the strength of $M$ equals the maximum fractional base packing number and $\sigma(M)=\min_{F\subset E} \frac{|E-F|}{r(E)-r(F)}$.
In the proof we frequently use the following result on binary matroids.
The \emph{cocircuit space} of a binary matroid $M=(E,\mathcal I)$ is the subspace of $\F_2^{E}$ that are generated by the incidence vectors of cocircuits of $M$.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Oxley_2011}, Chapter 9]
Let $M=(E,\mathcal I)$ be a binary matroid and let $A\in \F_2^{r(M)\times |E|}$ be its binary representation.
Then the row space of $A$ equals the cocircuit space of $M$.
Any non-zero vector in the cocircuit space represents a dependent set of $M$.
\end{lemma}
We first show that adding one additional row keeps the gap constant. We first show that adding one additional row keeps the gap constant.
\begin{lemma} \begin{lemma}
Let $M$ be a binary matroid with binary representation $B\in \F_2^{n\times m}$. If $M$ has constant gap, then $M\left(\begin{bmatrix}B\\ \sigma\end{bmatrix}\right)$ has constant gap for any row vector $\sigma\in \F_2^{m}$. Let $M$ be a binary matroid with binary representation $B\in \F_2^{n\times m}$. If $M$ has constant gap, then $M\left(\begin{bmatrix}B\\ \sigma\end{bmatrix}\right)$ has constant gap for any row vector $\sigma\in \F_2^{m}$.
@@ -77,10 +90,10 @@ We can assume that $r(E)-r(F^*)\geq 1$ since otherwise we have $r'(E)-r'(F^*)\le
\begin{equation*} \begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}
\sigma(M') &= \frac{|E-F^*|}{r'(E)-r'(F^*)}\\ \sigma(M') &= \frac{|E-F^*|}{r'(E)-r'(F^*)}
&\geq \frac{|E-F^*|}{r(E)+1-r(F^*)}\\ \geq \frac{|E-F^*|}{r(E)+1-r(F^*)}\\
&\geq \frac{|E-F^*|}{2(r(E)-r(F^*))}\\ &\geq \frac{|E-F^*|}{2(r(E)-r(F^*))}
&\geq \frac{\sigma(M)}{2} \geq \frac{\sigma(M)}{2}
\end{aligned} \end{aligned}
\end{equation*} \end{equation*}
Thus we have $\frac{\lambda(M')}{\sigma(M')}\leq \frac{2\lambda(M)}{\sigma(M)}$. Thus we have $\frac{\lambda(M')}{\sigma(M')}\leq \frac{2\lambda(M)}{\sigma(M)}$.
@@ -95,14 +108,16 @@ If $M$ and deletion minors of $M$ have constant gap, then $M(A')/\tau$ has const
\paragraph{Graphic case} \paragraph{Graphic case}
Before proving this lemma consider an easier case where $M$ is graphic. The new element $\tau$ identifies a vertex set $T$. Before proving this lemma consider an easier case where $M$ is graphic. The new element $\tau$ identifies a vertex set $T$.
A cut $\delta(X)$ is even if $|X\cap T|$ is even. The minimum cocircuit of $M(A')/\tau$ is the minimum even cut in $(G,T)$. Note that for a cut $\delta(X)$ one can sum up the rows labelled by $v\in X$ in the incidence matrix and get an indicator vector of $\delta(X)$.
A cut $\delta(X)$ is even if $|X\cap T|$ is even.
Then the minimum cocircuit of $M(A')/\tau$ is the minimum even cut in $(G,T)$.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and let $T\subset V$ be a vertex set with even size.
An edge set $F\subset E$ is a \emph{$T$-join} if $X$ induces a subgraph in which the set of vertices with odd degree is exactly $T$.
An cut $\delta(X)$ is a \emph{$T$-cut} if $|X\cap T|$ odd. Note that any $T$-cut hits every $T$-join. For proofs, we refer to Section~12.4 in \cite{Korte_Vygen_2018}.
For a spanning tree $B$, let $C(B,\tau)$ be the fundamental circuit in $B\cup \set{\tau}$. Then $C(B,\tau)\cap E$ is a $T$-join, since it induces a subgraph in which the set of vertices with odd degree is exactly $T$. For a spanning tree $B$, let $C(B,\tau)$ be the fundamental circuit in $B\cup \set{\tau}$. Then $C(B,\tau)\cap E$ is a $T$-join, since it induces a subgraph in which the set of vertices with odd degree is exactly $T$.
% Now we try to characterize the set of bases of $M(A')/\tau$.
% A graph contains a $T$-join if and only if every component contains an even number of vertices in $T$.
One can see that the set of bases is $\set{B-e}$ for all spanning tree $B$ and all $e\in C(B,\tau)\cap B$. One can see that the set of bases is $\set{B-e}$ for all spanning tree $B$ and all $e\in C(B,\tau)\cap B$.
Note that the minimum base hitting set of $M(A')/t$ is the minimum even cut of $(G,T)$. % Note that the minimum base hitting set of $M(A')/t$ is the minimum even cut of $(G,T)$.
To show that gap we prove the followings, To show that gap we prove the followings,
@@ -117,14 +132,14 @@ The second inequality holds since the integrality gap for graph $k$-cut is 2.
For the last inequality, we claim that $x=\chi_J + \sigma(M(A')/\tau)|_{E\setminus J}$ is a feasible solution to 3-cut LP. First it is easy to see that $x(e)\leq 1$ for any edge $e$. For the last inequality, we claim that $x=\chi_J + \sigma(M(A')/\tau)|_{E\setminus J}$ is a feasible solution to 3-cut LP. First it is easy to see that $x(e)\leq 1$ for any edge $e$.
Consider the size of $J\cap B$ for a spanning tree $B$. If this is at least 2, then $x$ satisfies the 3-cut constraint for $B$; Otherwise, $B\setminus J$ should be a base of $M'/\tau$ since $T$-cut intersects every $T$-join, and we have $\sigma(M'/T)|_{B\setminus J}\geq 1$ as a constraint in the base hitting set LP of $M(A')/\tau$. Consider the size of $J\cap B$ for a spanning tree $B$. If this is at least 2, then $x$ satisfies the 3-cut constraint for $B$; Otherwise, $B\setminus J$ should be a base of $M'/\tau$ since $T$-cut intersects every $T$-join, and we have $\sigma(M'/T)|_{B\setminus J}\geq 1$ as a constraint in the base hitting set LP of $M(A')/\tau$.
To finish the proof consider the connections in the minimum cut of $G$, the minimum $T$-cut of $G$ and the minimum even cut of $G$. Note that if $\delta(X)$ is a $T$-cut then $|X\cap T|$ is odd. Then the minimum cut is either an $T$-cut or an even cut. To finish the proof consider the connections in the minimum cut of $G$, the minimum $T$-cut of $G$ and the minimum even cut of $G$. Recall that the minimum $T$-cut is the minimum cut $\delta(X)$ with $|X\cap T|$ odd. Then the minimum cut is either a $T$-cut or an even cut.
\begin{enumerate} \begin{enumerate}
\item If $J$ is the mincut. $\lambda(M'/t)\leq 2(\lambda(G)+\sigma(M'/t))\leq 2(2\sigma(G)+\sigma(M'/t)) \leq 6\sigma(M'/t)$ \item If $J$ is the mincut. $\lambda(M'/t)\leq 2(\lambda(G)+\sigma(M'/t))\leq 2(2\sigma(G)+\sigma(M'/t)) \leq 6\sigma(M'/t)$
\item If $\lambda(M'/t)$ is the mincut. $\lambda(M'/t)=\lambda(G)\leq 2\sigma(G)\leq 2\sigma(M'/t)$ \item If $\lambda(M'/t)$ is the mincut. $\lambda(M'/t)=\lambda(G)\leq 2\sigma(G)\leq 2\sigma(M'/t)$
\end{enumerate} \end{enumerate}
For either case, we have constant gap. For either case, we have constant gap.
Now we generalize this idea to binary matroids. Before the proof we need some useful lemmas. Now we generalize this idea to binary matroids.
Note that we need constant gap for all deletion minors of $M$ since we are going to use the gap of 2-cocycle LP of $M$. Note that we need constant gap for all deletion minors of $M$ since we are going to use the gap of 2-cocycle LP of $M$.
\begin{lemma}[$(1,d)$-good implies $(k,kd)$-good] \begin{lemma}[$(1,d)$-good implies $(k,kd)$-good]
@@ -134,7 +149,7 @@ Note that we need constant gap for all deletion minors of $M$ since we are going
Instead of $T$-cut we find the minimum hitting set of $C(B,\tau)$ for all base $B$. An useful lemma is the following. We write $M+f$ for an one element extension on the binary representation of $M$. Instead of $T$-cut we find the minimum hitting set of $C(B,\tau)$ for all base $B$. An useful lemma is the following. We write $M+f$ for an one element extension on the binary representation of $M$.
\begin{lemma}\label{TcutTjoin} \begin{lemma}\label{TcutTjoin}
Let $M$ be a binary matroid and let $M'$ be $(M+f)/f$ for a new element $f$. Let $M$ be a binary matroid and let $M'$ be $(M+f)/f$ for a new element $f$.
The cogirth of $M$ is either the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ or the cogirth of $M'$. The cogirth of $M$ is either the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\in\mathcal B(M)\}$ or the cogirth of $M'$.
\end{lemma} \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} \begin{proof}
@@ -145,7 +160,7 @@ $f$-extension can be seen as adding a new column $v$ to the binary matrix $A$. N
Any cocycle has an indicator vector $yA$ and thus we can use a row vector $y$ to represent any cocycle. Any cocycle has an indicator vector $yA$ and thus we can use a row vector $y$ to represent any cocycle.
We say a cocycle is even if $yv=0$ and odd if $yv=1$. We say a cocycle is even if $yv=0$ and odd if $yv=1$.
First consider the cogirth of $M'$. It follows from definitions that the minimum hitting set of $\{B-e |\forall B ,\forall e\in B\cap C(B,f)\}$ is exactly the minimum cocircuit of $M'$, which is the minimum set in the cocircuit space with $yv=0$. So the cogirth of $M'$ is the minimum even cocycle. First consider the cogirth of $M'$. It follows from definitions that the minimum hitting set of $\{B-e |\forall B\in\mathcal{B}(M),\forall e\in B\cap C(B,f)\}$ is exactly the minimum cocircuit of $M'$, which is the minimum set in the cocircuit space with $yv=0$. So the cogirth of $M'$ is the minimum even cocycle.
On the other hand, consider a set $X$ which fails to hit all $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$. Then there must be a set $F\subseteq E\setminus X$ that span the new element $f$. On matrix, this is equivalent to the existence of a indicator vector $\chi_F$ such that $A\chi_F=v$. Now we apply the following lemma which is easy to prove. On the other hand, consider a set $X$ which fails to hit all $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$. Then there must be a set $F\subseteq E\setminus X$ that span the new element $f$. On matrix, this is equivalent to the existence of a indicator vector $\chi_F$ such that $A\chi_F=v$. Now we apply the following lemma which is easy to prove.
% Using Farkas' lemma on $\mathbb F_2$, this implies that there dose not exists $y$ that $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$. \note{chatGPT says one can use Farkas lemma on finite field like this, need to verify.} % Using Farkas' lemma on $\mathbb F_2$, this implies that there dose not exists $y$ that $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$. \note{chatGPT says one can use Farkas lemma on finite field like this, need to verify.}
@@ -164,7 +179,6 @@ We follow the same framework as the graphic case. Let $c$ be the 2-hitting set g
\begin{equation}\label{eq1} \begin{equation}\label{eq1}
\lambda(M'/\tau)\leq \lambda_2(M)\leq c\sigma_2(M)\leq c(|J|+\sigma(M'/T)|_{E\setminus J}) \lambda(M'/\tau)\leq \lambda_2(M)\leq c\sigma_2(M)\leq c(|J|+\sigma(M'/T)|_{E\setminus J})
\end{equation} \end{equation}
where $J$ is the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ and $\lambda_2(M)$ ($\sigma_2(M)$) is the integral (fractional) 2-hitting set of bases of $M$. where $J$ is the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ and $\lambda_2(M)$ ($\sigma_2(M)$) is the integral (fractional) 2-hitting set of bases of $M$.
We then apply \autoref{TcutTjoin}. We then apply \autoref{TcutTjoin}.

View File

@@ -30,3 +30,5 @@
year = {2019}, year = {2019},
pages = {1351--1386}, pages = {1351--1386},
} }
@book{Oxley_2011, title={Matroid Theory}, ISBN={9780198566946}, url={https://academic.oup.com/book/34846}, DOI={10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566946.001.0001}, publisher={Oxford University Press}, author={Oxley, James}, year={2011}, month=feb }
@book{Korte_Vygen_2018, address={Berlin, Heidelberg}, series={Algorithms and Combinatorics}, title={Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algorithms}, volume={21}, rights={https://www.springer.com/tdm}, ISBN={9783662560389}, url={https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-662-56039-6}, DOI={10.1007/978-3-662-56039-6}, publisher={Springer Berlin Heidelberg}, author={Korte, Bernhard and Vygen, Jens}, year={2018}, collection={Algorithms and Combinatorics}, language={en} }