#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #ds.algorithms #graph-theory #linear-algebra #max-flow-min-cut Complexity of Encoding a Matroid Flo…

Bounty: 50

Context:
Take a directed graph $G$ with a specified subset of source vertices $S$ and target vertices $T$.
We say a subset $Isubseteq T$ of size $r$ is independent if there exist $r$ distinct vertices in $S$ which can be connected to distinct vertices of $I$ via a collection of $r$ vertex-disjoint paths in $G$. In other words, there is a flow of size $r$ from $S$ to $I$.

It turns out that a graph together with independent subsets of vertices defined in this way forms a structure known as a gammoid, which is itself a special case of a structure known as a matroid.
Many algorithms that work with matroids take as input a linear representation of the matroid. In the context of this problem, this representation is a matrix $M$ whose column vectors $vec{v}u$ are indexed by vertices $u$ in $G$, with the property that a subset $I$ of vertices is independent if and only if the corresponding list of column vectors ${vec{v}_u}{uin I}$ is linearly independent.

Several sources (see here and here for example) observe that is well-known that given $G$, $S$, and $T$, one can build a matrix representation of the associated gammoid in randomized polynomial time. However, I have not been able to find any reference to the precise running time of this algorithm.
This motivates the following question.

Question: Given a graph $G$ with source set $S$ and target set $T$, how quickly can we build a matrix representation of the associated gammoid? Randomness is allowed.

I’m mainly interested in the dependence on the the number of vertices $n$ in the graph, but it would be good to know the dependence on the number of source vertices $|S| = k$ as well.


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!

#StackBounty: #cc.complexity-theory #graph-theory #sat #counting-complexity #planar-graphs Disproving $oplus$ETH by reducing $oplus k…

Bounty: 100

In this question and its answer, they discuss about reducing CNF-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to a (problem on) planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|$ as small as possible. It is said that the best known reduction has $|V| = m^2$, and that if a better reduction with $|V| in o(m^2)$ is found, that would refute ETH.


There is a reduction from $oplus k$-SAT with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses to $oplus$VERTEX COVER where the output graph $G=(V,E)$ is planar and has $|V| = 51(k+1)nm$. Such reduction clearly meets the $|V| in o(m^2)$ requirement when $k$ is a constant and $m$ is superlinear in $n$.


Question
Can the same line of reasoning made within the linked question be applied here in order to refute $oplus$ETH, or am I missing some important detail?


Get this bounty!!!