skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Tight Complexity Lower Bounds for Integer Linear Programming with Few Constraints

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 June 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Matthias Aschenbrenner and Raymond Hemmecke. 2007. Finiteness theorems in stochastic integer programming. Foundations of Computational Mathematics 7, 2 (2007), 183--227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Łukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michał Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. 2015. Parameterized Algorithms. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. András Frank and Éva Tardos. 1987. An application of simultaneous diophantine approximation in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 7, 1 (1987), 49--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Vladimir Grebinski and Gregory Kucherov. 2000. Optimal reconstruction of graphs under the additive model. Algorithmica 28, 1 (2000), 104--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi. 2001. On the complexity of k-SAT. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 62, 2 (2001), 367--375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ravi Kannan. 1987. Minkowski’s convex body theorem and integer programming. Mathematics of Operations Research 12, 3 (1987), 415--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Dušan Knop and Martin Koutecký. 2018. Scheduling meets n-fold integer programming. Journal of Scheduling 21, 5 (2018), 493--503.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Hendrik W. Lenstra. 1983. Integer programming with a fixed number of variables. Mathematics of Operations Research 8, 4 (1983), 538--548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Bernt Lindström. 1965. On a combinatorial problem in number theory. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 8, 4 (1965), 477--490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaroslav Nešetřil and Patrice Ossona de Mendez. 2012. Sparsity—Graphs, Structures, and Algorithms. Algorithms and Combinatorics, Vol. 28. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Craig A. Tovey. 1984. A simplified NP-complete satisfiability problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 8, 1 (1984), 85--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Tight Complexity Lower Bounds for Integer Linear Programming with Few Constraints

      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

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
        ACM Transactions on Computation Theory  Volume 12, Issue 3
        September 2020
        197 pages
        ISSN:1942-3454
        EISSN:1942-3462
        DOI:10.1145/3403647
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 June 2020
        • Online AM: 7 May 2020
        • Accepted: 1 April 2020
        • Revised: 1 February 2020
        • Received: 1 July 2019
        Published in toct Volume 12, Issue 3

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      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!