Abstract
We consider the standard ILP Feasibility problem: given an integer linear program of the form {Ax = b, x ⩾ 0}, where A is an integer matrix with k rows and ℓ columns, x is a vector of ℓ variables, and b is a vector of k integers, we ask whether there exists x ∈ N ℓ that satisfies Ax = b. Each row of A specifies one linear constraint on x; our goal is to study the complexity of ILP Feasibility when both k, the number of constraints, and ‖A‖∞, the largest absolute value of an entry in A, are small.
Papadimitriou was the first to give a fixed-parameter algorithm for ILP Feasibility under parameterization by the number of constraints that runs in time ((‖A‖∞ + ‖b‖∞) ⋅ k)O(k2). This was very recently improved by Eisenbrand and Weismantel, who used the Steinitz lemma to design an algorithm with running time (k‖A‖∞)O(k) ⋅ log ‖b‖∞, which was subsequently refined by Jansen and Rohwedder to O(√ k‖A‖∞)k ⋅ log (‖ A‖∞ + ‖b‖∞) ⋅ log ‖A‖∞. We prove that for {0, 1}-matrices A, the running time of the algorithm of Eisenbrand and Weismantel is probably optimal: an algorithm with running time 2o(k log k) ⋅ (ℓ + ‖b‖∞)o(k) would contradict the exponential time hypothesis. This improves previous non-tight lower bounds of Fomin et al.
We then consider integer linear programs that may have many constraints, but they need to be structured in a “shallow” way. Precisely, we consider the parameter dual treedepth of the matrix A, denoted tdD(A), which is the treedepth of the graph over the rows of A, where two rows are adjacent if in some column they simultaneously contain a non-zero entry. It was recently shown by Koutecký et al. that ILP Feasibility can be solved in time ‖A‖∞2O(tdD(A)) ⋅ (k + ℓ + log ‖b‖∞)O(1). We present a streamlined proof of this fact and prove that, again, this running time is probably optimal: even assuming that all entries of A and b are in {−1, 0, 1}, the existence of an algorithm with running time 22o(tdD(A)) ⋅ (k + ℓ)O(1) would contradict the exponential time hypothesis.
- Amir Abboud, Karl Bringmann, Danny Hermelin, and Dvir Shabtay. 2019. SETH-based lower bounds for subset sum and bicriteria path. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’19). 41--57.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Matthias Aschenbrenner and Raymond Hemmecke. 2007. Finiteness theorems in stochastic integer programming. Foundations of Computational Mathematics 7, 2 (2007), 183--227.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marthe Bonamy, Łukasz Kowalik, Michal Pilipczuk, Arkadiusz Socała, and Marcin Wrochna. 2019. Tight lower bounds for the complexity of multicoloring. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory 11, 3 (2019), Article 13, 19 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3313906Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nader H. Bshouty. 2009. Optimal algorithms for the coin weighing problem with a spring scale. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Learning Theory (COLT’09).Google Scholar
- David G. Cantor and W. H. Mills. 1966. Determination of a subset from certain combinatorial properties. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 18 (1966), 42--48.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Timothy Chan, Jacob W. Cooper, Martin Koutecký, Daniel Král, and Kristýna Pekárková. 2019. Optimal matrix tree-depth and a row-invariant parameterized algorithm for integer programming. arXiv:1907.06688.Google Scholar
- Lin Chen. 2019. On block-structured integer programming and its applications. In Nonlinear Combinatorial Optimization, D.-Z. Du, P. M. Pardalow, and Z. Zhang (Eds.). Springer, Cham, 153--177. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16194-1_7Google Scholar
- Lin Chen and Dániel Marx. 2018. Covering a tree with rooted subtrees—Parameterized and approximation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’18). 2801--2820.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Łukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michał Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. 2015. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer.Google Scholar
- Pavel Dvořák, Eduard Eiben, Robert Ganian, Dušan Knop, and Sebastian Ordyniak. 2017. Solving integer linear programs with a small number of global variables and constraints. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). 607--613. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/85Google Scholar
- Eduard Eiben, Robert Ganian, Dušan Knop, and Sebastian Ordyniak. 2018. Unary integer linear programming with structural restrictions. In Proceedings of the 26h International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’18). 1284--1290. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/179Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Friedrich Eisenbrand, Christoph Hunkenschröder, and Kim-Manuel Klein. 2018. Faster algorithms for integer programs with block structure. In Proceedings of the 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’18). Article 49, 13 pages.Google Scholar
- Friedrich Eisenbrand, Christoph Hunkenschröder, Kim-Manuel Klein, Martin Koutecký, Asaf Levin, and Shmuel Onn. 2019. An algorithmic theory of integer programming. arxiv:1904.01361.Google Scholar
- Friedrich Eisenbrand and Robert Weismantel. 2019. Proximity results and faster algorithms for integer programming using the Steinitz lemma. ACM Transactions on Algorithms 16, 1 (Nov. 2019). Article 5, 14 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3340322Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Fedor V. Fomin, Fahad Panolan, M. S. Ramanujan, and Saket Saurabh. 2018. On the optimality of pseudo-polynomial algorithms for integer programming. arXiv:1607.05342.Google Scholar
- András Frank and Éva Tardos. 1987. An application of simultaneous diophantine approximation in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 7, 1 (1987), 49--65.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Robert Ganian and Sebastian Ordyniak. 2018. The complexity landscape of decompositional parameters for ILP. Artificial Intelligence 257 (2018), 61--71. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2017.12.006Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Robert Ganian, Sebastian Ordyniak, and M. S. Ramanujan. 2017. Going beyond primal treewidth for (M)ILP. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17). 815--821. http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI17/paper/view/14272.Google Scholar
- Vladimir Grebinski and Gregory Kucherov. 2000. Optimal reconstruction of graphs under the additive model. Algorithmica 28, 1 (2000), 104--124.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Raymond Hemmecke, Shmuel Onn, and Lyubov Romanchuk. 2013. n-Fold integer programming in cubic time. Mathematical Programming 137, 1--2 (2013), 325--341. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-011-0490-yGoogle Scholar
Cross Ref
- Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi. 2001. On the complexity of k-SAT. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 62, 2 (2001), 367--375.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Russell Impagliazzo, Ramamohan Paturi, and Francis Zane. 2001. Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63, 4 (2001), 512--530.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Klaus Jansen, Kim-Manuel Klein, Marten Maack, and Malin Rau. 2019. Empowering the configuration-IP—New PTAS results for scheduling with setups times. In Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’19). Article 44, 19 pages.Google Scholar
- Klaus Jansen and Lars Rohwedder. 2019. On integer programming and convolution. In Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS’19). Article 43, 17 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2019.43 arXiv:1803.04744Google Scholar
- Ravi Kannan. 1987. Minkowski’s convex body theorem and integer programming. Mathematics of Operations Research 12, 3 (1987), 415--440.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kim-Manuel Klein. 2020. About the complexity of two-stage stochastic IPs. In Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12125. Springer, 252--265. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45771-6_20 arXiv:1901.01135Google Scholar
- Dušan Knop and Martin Koutecký. 2018. Scheduling meets n-fold integer programming. Journal of Scheduling 21, 5 (2018), 493--503.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Dušan Knop, Martin Koutecký, and Matthias Mnich. 2017. Voting and bribing in single-exponential time. In Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS’17). Article 46, 14 pages.Google Scholar
- Dušan Knop, Martin Koutecký, and Matthias Mnich. 2019. Combinatorial n-fold integer programming and applications. Mathematical Programming. Online. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-019-01402-2Google Scholar
- Martin Koutecký, Asaf Levin, and Shmuel Onn. 2018. A parameterized strongly polynomial algorithm for block structured integer programs. In Proceedings of the 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP’18). Article 85, 14 pages.Google Scholar
- Hendrik W. Lenstra. 1983. Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Mathematics of Operations Research 8, 4 (1983), 538--548.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bernt Lindström. 1965. On a combinatorial problem in number theory. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 8, 4 (1965), 477--490.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Jesús A. De Loera, Raymond Hemmecke, and Matthias Köppe. 2013. Algebraic and Geometric Ideas in the Theory of Discrete Optimization. MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization, Vol. 14. SIAM.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. S. Martirosyan and G. G. Khachatryan. 1989. Construction of signature codes and the coin weighing problem. Problems of Information Transmission 25, 4 (1989), 96--97. In Russian.Google Scholar
- Jaroslav Nešetřil and Patrice Ossona de Mendez. 2012. Sparsity—Graphs, Structures, and Algorithms. Algorithms and Combinatorics, Vol. 28. Springer.Google Scholar
- Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1981. On the complexity of integer programming. Journal of the ACM 28, 4 (1981), 765--768. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/322276.322287Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Craig A. Tovey. 1984. A simplified NP-complete satisfiability problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 8, 1 (1984), 85--89.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Index Terms
Tight Complexity Lower Bounds for Integer Linear Programming with Few Constraints
Recommendations
Tightening the Linear Relaxation of a Mixed Integer Nonlinear Program Using Constraint Programming
CPAIOR '09: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization ProblemsThis paper aims at solving a nonconvex mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) model used to solve a refinery crude-oil operations scheduling problem. The model is mostly linear but contains bilinear products of continuous variables in the objective ...
Lower Bounds for QBFs of Bounded Treewidth
LICS '20: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer ScienceThe problem of deciding the validity (QSat) of quantified Boolean formulas (QBF) is a vivid research area in both theory and practice. In the field of parameterized algorithmics, the well-studied graph measure treewidth turned out to be a successful ...
A Heuristic Ceiling Point Algorithm for General Integer Linear Programming
This paper first examines the role of ceiling points in solving a pure, general integer linear programming problem P. Several kinds of ceiling points are defined and analyzed and one kind called "feasible 1-ceiling points" proves to be of special ...






Comments