skip to main content
research-article

Surjective H-Colouring over Reflexive Digraphs

Published:21 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Surjective H-Colouring problem is to test if a given graph allows a vertex-surjective homomorphism to a fixed graph H. The complexity of this problem has been well studied for undirected (partially) reflexive graphs. We introduce endo-triviality, the property of a structure that all of its endomorphisms that do not have range of size 1 are automorphisms, as a means to obtain complexity-theoretic classifications of Surjective H-Colouring in the case of reflexive digraphs. Chen (2014) proved, in the setting of constraint satisfaction problems, that Surjective H-Colouring is NP-complete if H has the property that all of its polymorphisms are essentially unary. We give the first concrete application of his result by showing that every endo-trivial reflexive digraph H has this property. We then use the concept of endo-triviality to prove, as our main result, a dichotomy for Surjective H-Colouring when H is a reflexive tournament: if H is transitive, then Surjective H-Colouring is in NL; otherwise, it is NP-complete. By combining this result with some known and new results, we obtain a complexity classification for Surjective H-Colouring when H is a partially reflexive digraph of size at most 3.

References

  1. Jørgen Bang-Jensen, Pavol Hell, and Gary MacGillivray. 1988. The complexity of colouring by semicomplete digraphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 1, 3 (1988), 281--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Manuel Bodirsky, Jan Kára, and Barnaby Martin. 2012. The complexity of surjective homomorphism problems—A survey. Discrete Appl. Math. 160, 12 (2012), 1680--1690. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Andrei A. Bulatov. 2011. Complexity of conservative constraint satisfaction problems. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 12, 4 (2011), 24:1--24:66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Andrei A. Bulatov. 2017. A dichotomy theorem for nonuniform CSPs. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). 319--330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Andrei A. Bulatov, Peter Jeavons, and Andrei A. Krokhin. 2005. Classifying the complexity of constraints using finite algebras. SIAM J. Comput. 34, 3 (2005), 720--742. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Paul Camion. 1959. Chemins et circuits Hamiltonians de graphes complets. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Paris 249 (1959), 2151--2152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Hubie Chen. 2014. An algebraic hardness criterion for surjective constraint satisfaction. Algebra Universalis 72, 4 (2014), 393--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Víctor Dalmau and Andrei A. Krokhin. 2008. Majority constraints have bounded pathwidth duality. Eur. J. Combinator. 29, 4 (2008), 821--837. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Tomás Feder and Pavol Hell. 1998. List homomorphisms to reflexive graphs. J. Combinator. Theory Ser. B 72, 2 (1998), 236--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, and Jing Huang. 1999. List homomorphisms and circular arc graphs. Combinatorica 19, 4 (1999), 487--505.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, and Jing Huang. 2003. Bi-arc graphs and the complexity of list homomorphisms. J. Graph Theory 42, 1 (2003), 61--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, Peter Jonsson, Andrei A. Krokhin, and Gustav Nordh. 2010. Retractions to pseudoforests. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 24, 1 (2010), 101--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tomás Feder, Pavol Hell, and Kim Tucker-Nally. 2006. Digraph matrix partitions and trigraph homomorphisms. Discrete Appl. Math. 154, 17 (2006), 2458--2469. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Tomás Feder and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1998. The computational structure of monotone monadic SNP and constraint satisfaction: A study through datalog and group theory. SIAM J. Comput. 28, 1 (1998), 57--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Petr A. Golovach, Matthew Johnson, Barnaby Martin, Daniël Paulusma, and Anthony Stewart. 2017. Surjective -colouring: New hardness results. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Computability in Europe (CiE’17), vol. 10307, 270--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Petr A. Golovach, Daniël Paulusma, and Jian Song. 2012. Computing vertex-surjective homomorphisms to partially reflexive trees. Theor. Comput. Sci. 457 (2012), 86--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pavol Hell and Jaroslav Nešetřil. 2004. Graphs and Homomorphisms. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. David Charles Hobby and Ralph McKenzie. 1988. The Structure of Finite Algebras, Contemporary Mathematics. American Mathematical Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Daniel Král, Jan Kratochvíl, Andrzej Proskurowski, and Heinz-Jürgen Voss. 2006. Coloring mixed hypertrees. Discrete Appl. Math. 154, 4 (2006), 660--672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Benoit Larose. 2006. Taylor operations on finite reflexive structures. Int. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 1, 1 (2006), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Benoit Larose. 2017. Algebra and the complexity of digraph CSPs: A survey. In The Constraint Satisfaction Problem: Complexity and Approximability. Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 267--285. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/portals/dfu/index.php?semnr=16027.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Benoit Larose, Cynthia Loten, and Claude Tardif. 2007. A characterisation of first-order constraint satisfaction problems. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 3, 4 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Benoit Larose, Barnaby Martin, and Daniël Paulusma. 2018. Surjective H-colouring over reflexive digraphs. In Proceedings of the 35th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’18). 49:1--49:14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Benoit Larose and László Zádori. 2005. Finite posets and topological spaces in locally finite varieties. Algebra Universalis 52, 2 (2005), 119--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Miklós Maróti and László Zádori. 2012. Reflexive digraphs with near unanimity polymorphisms. Discrete Math. 312, 15 (2012), 2316--2328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Barnaby Martin and Daniël Paulusma. 2015. The computational complexity of disconnected cut and 2K2-partition. J. Combinator. Theory Ser. B 111 (2015), 17--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mark Siggers. 2017. Personal communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Agnes Szendrei. 1994. Term minimal algebras. Algebra Universalis 32, 4 (1994), 439--477.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Narayan Vikas. 2002. Computational complexity of compaction to reflexive cycles. SIAM J. Comput. 32, 1 (2002), 253--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Narayan Vikas. 2004. Computational complexity of compaction to irreflexive cycles. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 68, 3 (2004), 473--496. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Narayan Vikas. 2005. A complete and equal computational complexity classification of compaction and retraction to all graphs with at most four vertices and some general results. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 71, 4 (2005), 406--439. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Narayan Vikas. 2013. Algorithms for partition of some class of graphs under compaction and vertex-compaction. Algorithmica 67, 2 (2013), 180--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Narayan Vikas. 2017. Computational complexity of graph partition under vertex-compaction to an irreflexive hexagon. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS’17). 69:1--69:14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Dmitriy Zhuk. 2017. A proof of CSP dichotomy conjecture. In Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’17). 331--342.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Surjective H-Colouring over Reflexive Digraphs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!