ECCC
Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity
Login | Register | Classic Style



REPORTS > KEYWORD > VERTEX COVER:
Reports tagged with Vertex Cover:
TR01-094 | 3rd December 2001
Jonas Holmerin

Vertex Cover on 4-regular Hyper-graphs is Hard to Approximate Within 2 - \epsilon

We prove that Minimum vertex cover on 4-regular hyper-graphs (or in other words, hitting set where all sets have size exactly 4), is hard to approximate within 2 - \epsilon. We also prove that the maximization version, in which we are allowed to pick B = pn elements in an ... more >>>

TR01-102 | 18th December 2001
Oded Goldreich

Using the FGLSS-reduction to Prove Inapproximability Results for Minimum Vertex Cover in Hypergraphs.

Using known results regarding PCP, we present simple proofs of the inapproximability of vertex cover for hypergraphs. Specifically, we show that (1) Approximating the size of the minimum vertex cover in $O(1)$-regular hypergraphs to within a factor of~1.99999 is NP-hard. (2) Approximating the size of the minimum vertex cover in ... more >>>

TR01-104 | 17th December 2001
Irit Dinur, Shmuel Safra

The Importance of Being Biased

We show Minimum Vertex Cover NP-hard to approximate to within a factor of 1.3606. This improves on the previously known factor of 7/6. more >>>

TR02-027 | 30th April 2002
Irit Dinur, Venkatesan Guruswami, Subhash Khot

Vertex Cover on k-Uniform Hypergraphs is Hard to Approximate within Factor (k-3-\epsilon)

Given a $k$-uniform hypergraph, the E$k$-Vertex-Cover problem is to find a minimum subset of vertices that ``hits'' every edge. We show that for every integer $k \geq 5$, E$k$-Vertex-Cover is NP-hard to approximate within a factor of $(k-3-\epsilon)$, for an arbitrarily small constant $\epsilon > 0$. This almost matches the ... more >>>

TR04-084 | 28th September 2004
George Karakostas

A better approximation ratio for the Vertex Cover problem

We reduce the approximation factor for Vertex Cover to $2-\Theta(1/\sqrt{logn})$ (instead of the previous $2-\Theta(loglogn/logn})$, obtained by Bar-Yehuda and Even, and by Monien and Speckenmeyer in 1985. The improvement of the vanishing factor comes as an application of the recent results of Arora, Rao, and Vazirani that improved the approximation ... more >>>

TR04-101 | 28th September 2004
Miroslav Chlebík, Janka Chlebíková

Crown reductions for the Minimum Weighted Vertex Cover problem


TR05-094 | 9th August 2005
Michal Parnas, Dana Ron

On Approximating the Minimum Vertex Cover in Sublinear Time and the Connection to Distributed Algorithms

Revisions: 1
We consider the problem of estimating the size, $VC(G)$, of a minimum vertex cover of a graph $G$, in sublinear time, by querying the incidence relation of the graph. We say that an algorithm is an $(\alpha,\eps)$-approximation algorithm if it outputs with high probability an estimate $\widehat{VC}$ such that $VC(G) ... more >>>

TR06-098 | 17th August 2006
Grant Schoenebeck, Luca Trevisan, Madhur Tulsiani

A Linear Round Lower Bound for Lovasz-Schrijver SDP Relaxations of Vertex Cover

We study semidefinite programming relaxations of Vertex Cover arising from repeated applications of the LS+ ``lift-and-project'' method of Lovasz and Schrijver starting from the standard linear programming relaxation. Goemans and Kleinberg prove that after one round of LS+ the integrality gap remains arbitrarily close to 2. Charikar proves an integrality ... more >>>

TR06-152 | 6th December 2006
Konstantinos Georgiou, Avner Magen, Iannis Tourlakis

Tight integrality gaps for Vertex Cover SDPs in the Lovasz-Schrijver hierarchy

We prove that the integrality gap after tightening the standard LP relaxation for Vertex Cover with Omega(sqrt(log n/log log n)) rounds of the SDP LS+ system is 2-o(1). more >>>

TR10-038 | 10th March 2010
Dieter van Melkebeek, Holger Dell

Satisfiability Allows No Nontrivial Sparsification Unless The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy Collapses

Consider the following two-player communication process to decide a language $L$: The first player holds the entire input $x$ but is polynomially bounded; the second player is computationally unbounded but does not know any part of $x$; their goal is to cooperatively decide whether $x$ belongs to $L$ at small ... more >>>



ISSN 1433-8092 | Imprint