How much does a treedepth modulator help to obtain polynomial kernels beyond sparse graphs?
Marin Bougeret, Ignasi Sau

TL;DR
This paper investigates the impact of treedepth modulators on kernelization for graph problems, showing Vertex Cover admits polynomial kernels on general graphs for any treedepth c, while Dominating Set does not for c ≥ 2, highlighting a kernelization dichotomy.
Contribution
It proves Vertex Cover has polynomial kernels on general graphs for any treedepth c, and Dominating Set does not for c ≥ 2, extending kernelization understanding beyond sparse graphs.
Findings
Vertex Cover admits polynomial kernels on general graphs for all c ≥ 1.
Dominating Set does not admit polynomial kernels for c ≥ 2 unless NP ⊆ coNP/poly.
A kernelization dichotomy for Dominating Set on degenerate graphs based on treedepth c.
Abstract
In the last years, kernelization with structural parameters has been an active area of research within the field of parameterized complexity. As a relevant example, Gajarsk{\`y} et al. [ESA 2013] proved that every graph problem satisfying a property called finite integer index admits a linear kernel on graphs of bounded expansion and an almost linear kernel on nowhere dense graphs, parameterized by the size of a -treedepth modulator, which is a vertex set whose removal results in a graph of treedepth at most , where is a fixed integer. The authors left as further research to investigate this parameter on general graphs, and in particular to find problems that, while admitting polynomial kernels on sparse graphs, behave differently on general graphs. In this article we answer this question by finding two very natural such problems: we prove that Vertex Cover admits a…
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.
