Point Line Cover: The Easy Kernel is Essentially Tight
Stefan Kratsch, Geevarghese Philip, Saurabh Ray

TL;DR
This paper proves that the Point Line Cover problem cannot be efficiently reduced to smaller instances with significantly fewer points unless a major complexity theory collapse occurs, establishing a tight lower bound on kernel size.
Contribution
It demonstrates, under standard assumptions, a nearly tight lower bound on kernel size for Point Line Cover, resolving an open problem and introducing new techniques for structural parameter bounds.
Findings
No polynomial-time reduction to fewer than O(k^{2- extepsilon}) points unless complexity collapses.
Established a lower bound on kernel size using reductions and communication protocols.
First nontrivial lower bound for structural parameters in kernelization.
Abstract
The input to the NP-hard Point Line Cover problem (PLC) consists of a set of points on the plane and a positive integer , and the question is whether there exists a set of at most lines which pass through all points in . A simple polynomial-time reduction reduces any input to one with at most points. We show that this is essentially tight under standard assumptions. More precisely, unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses to its third level, there is no polynomial-time algorithm that reduces every instance of PLC to an equivalent instance with points, for any . This answers, in the negative, an open problem posed by Lokshtanov (PhD Thesis, 2009). Our proof uses the machinery for deriving lower bounds on the size of kernels developed by Dell and van Melkebeek (STOC 2010). It has two main ingredients: We first show, by…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
