1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage{springer1}

3: \usepackage{fullpage}

4: %\usepackage{vmargin}

5: \usepackage{xspace}

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: \usepackage{latexsym}

8: \usepackage{amsthm}

9: \usepackage{amssymb}

10: %\usepackage{setspace}

11: \usepackage{url}

12: %\usepackage{subfigure}

13: %\usepackage{graphics}

14: \usepackage{graphicx}

15: \usepackage{booktabs}

16: \usepackage{newalg}

17: \usepackage{epsfig}

18: \usepackage{layout}

19: 

20: %\setpapersize{USletter}

21: %\setmargnohfrb{1in}{1in}{1in}{1in}%

22:                      %{headheight}{headsep}{footheight}{footskip}

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: %\input  format  

26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% theorems, proofs, examples and general assumptions

27: \newtheorem%

28:      {theorem}{Theorem}[section]

29: \newtheorem%

30:      {corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

31: \newtheorem%

32:      {proposition}[theorem]{Proposition} 

33: \newtheorem%

34:      {lemma}[theorem]{Lemma} 

35: 

36: \newtheorem%

37:      {exampleAux}[theorem]{Example}

38: 

39: \newenvironment%

40: %     {example}{\begin{exampleAux}}{\end{exampleAux}}

41:      {example}{\begin{exampleAux}\rm}{\qed\end{exampleAux}}

42: 

43: \newenvironment%

44: %     {example}{\begin{exampleAux}}{\end{exampleAux}}

45:      {examplenq}{\begin{exampleAux}\rm}{\end{exampleAux}}

46: 

47: \newtheorem%

48:      {examplesAux}[theorem]{Examples} 

49: \newenvironment%

50:      {examples}{\begin{examplesAux}}{\end{examplesAux}}

51: 

52: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

53: 

54: \newtheorem%

55:      {constructionAux}[theorem]{Construction} 

56: \newenvironment%

57:      {construction}{\begin{constructionAux}\rm}{\end{constructionAux}}

58: 

59: \newcounter{inv}

60: 

61: \newenvironment%

62:      {invariant}{\begin{list}{INV--\arabic{inv}:}{\usecounter{inv}\setlength{\labelwidth}{2.8cm}\setlength{\leftmargin}{1.9cm}}}{\end{list}}

63:      %\setlength{\rightmargin}{\leftmargin}}}{\end{list}}

64: 

65: \def\proof{{\sl Proof.\ \ }}

66: \def\proofsketch{{\sl Proof (Sketch).\ \ }}

67: 

68: %\newenvironment%

69: %     {Proof}{\parindent0pt \proof }{\qed}

70: %\newenvironment%

71: %     {Proofwoqed}{\parindent0pt \proof }{}

72: 

73: \def\qed{\hfill{\boxit{}}

74:   \ifdim\lastskip<\medskipamount \removelastskip\penalty55\medskip\fi}

75: \long\def\boxit#1{\vbox{\hrule\hbox{\vrule\kern3pt

76:                   \vbox{\kern3pt#1\kern3pt}\kern3pt\vrule}\hrule}}

77: 

78: \newenvironment%

79:      {genass}%

80:         {\medbreak\noindent{\bf General Assumption.\enspace}\it}%

81:         {\ifdim\lastskip<\medskipamount \removelastskip\penalty55\medskip\fi}

82:  

83: 

84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Figures

85: 

86: \newcommand {\boxfigure}[1]%

87:    {\framebox[\textwidth]{%

88:     \parbox {0.99\textwidth}

89:                 {{#1}\vspace {0cm}\hfill}}}

90: 

91: \newcommand {\boxfigureone}[1]%

92:    {\framebox[\textwidth]{%

93:     \parbox {0.90\textwidth}

94:                 {{#1}\vspace {0cm}\hfill}}}

95: 

96: \newcommand{\gefig}[3]%  get figure

97:         {\begin{figure}[htb] 

98:         \begin{center}%

99:         \mbox{}

100:         {\psfig{figure=#1,width=0.60\textwidth}}

101:         \mbox{}

102:         \end{center}

103:         \caption{{#2}\label{#3}} 

104:         \end{figure}}

105: 

106: \newcommand{\hangif}[1]{\raisebox{-1ex}{\hspace{2em}

107:                                         \makebox[1.0em][l]{if}

108:                                         \parbox[t]{320pt}{#1}}}

109: 

110: 

111: %%%% end of format %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: 

113: 

114: 

115: %\input  macros  

116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% General Math

117: \def\A{{\cal A}} \def\B{{\cal B}} \def\C{{\cal C}} \def\D{{\cal D}}

118: \def\E{{\cal E}} \def\F{{\cal F}} \def\G{{\cal G}} \def\H{{\cal H}}

119: \def\I{{\cal I}} \def\J{{\cal J}} \def\K{{\cal K}} \def\L{{\cal L}}

120: \def\M{{\cal M}} \def\N{{\cal N}} \def\O{{\cal O}} \def\P{{\cal P}}

121: \def\Q{{\cal Q}} \def\R{{\cal R}} \def\S{{\cal S}} \def\T{{\cal T}}

122: \def\U{{\cal U}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\W{{\cal W}} \def\X{{\cal X}}

123: \def\Y{{\cal Y}} \def\Z{{\cal Z}}

124: 

125: \newcommand{\dd}[2]{#1_1,\ldots,#1_{#2}}      % da da, makes x1,...,xn

126: 

127: \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}}

128: \newcommand{\eset}{\emptyset}

129: \newcommand\bigset[1]{ \Bigl\{ #1 \Bigr\} }   % makes the big set { #1 }

130: \newcommand\bigmid{\ \Big|\ }

131: 

132: \newcommand{\incl}{\subseteq}           % included

133: \newcommand{\incls}{\supseteq}          % includes

134: 

135: \newcommand{\col}{\colon}

136: 

137: \newcommand{\NP}{{\rm NP}}              % the complexity class NP

138: \newcommand{\GI}{{\rm GI}}              % the complexity calss GI

139: \newcommand{\PIPEETWO}{\Pi^{{\rm P}}_2} % the complexity class PiPeeTwo

140: \newcommand{\SIGPEETWO}{\Sigma^{{\rm P}}_2}     

141:                                         % the complexity class SigmaPeeTwo

142: \newcommand{\PSPACE}{{\rm PSPACE}}      % complexity class PSPACE

143: %\newcommand{\PTIME}{{\rm P}}           % complexity class PTIME

144: \newcommand{\EXPTIME}{{\rm EXPTIME}}    % deterministic exponential time

145: 

146: 

147: \newcommand{\angles}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}       % pointed angles

148: 

149: 

150: 

151: 

152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Proofs

153: 

154: \newcommand{\OnlyIf}{\lq\lq$\Rightarrow$\rq\rq\ \ }   % 1st direction of iff-proof

155: \newcommand{\If}{\lq\lq$\Leftarrow$\rq\rq\ \ }        % 2nd direction of iff-proof

156: 

157: 

158: 

159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Text Processing

160: \newcommand{\quotes}[1]{\lq\lq#1\rq\rq}         % makes ``#1''

161: \newcommand{\wrt}{w.r.t.}                       % with respect to 

162: \newcommand{\WLOG}{w.l.o.g.}                    % without loss of generality

163: \newcommand{\ie}{i.e.}                          % i.e.

164: \newcommand{\eg}{e.g.}                          % i.e.

165: \renewcommand{\hom}{homo\-mor\-phism}

166: 

167: \newcommand{\eat}[1]{}

168: 

169: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{\noindent{\it COMMENT:} {\it #1}}

170: 

171: 

172: %\input paper-macros

173: \newcommand{\paramP}{\langle\P\rangle}

174: \newcommand{\gcon}{\subset_{\text{\sc is}}}%\sqsubset}

175: \newcommand{\gconeq}{\subseteq_{\text{\sc is}}}%{\sqsubseteq}

176: \newcommand{\PIO}{{\rm PIO}\xspace}

177: \newcommand{\PINC}{{\rm PINC}\xspace}

178: \newcommand{\PTIME}{{\rm PTIME}\xspace}

179: 

180: \newcommand{\undpath}[3]{#1\stackrel{#2}{\longleftrightarrow} #3}

181: \newcommand{\dpath}[3]{#1\xrightarrow{#2} #3}

182: \newcommand{\notV}{\overline V}

183: \newcommand{\graphPreceq}{\subseteq}

184: \newcommand{\graphPrec}{\subset}

185: \newcommand{\funTime}[2]{t_{{}_\P}(#1, #2)}

186: \newcommand{\funExtend}[2]{e_{{}_\P}(#1, #2)}

187: \newcommand{\funSize}[2]{s_{{}_\P}(#1, #2)}

188: 

189: \newcommand{\funExtendVert}[2]{e'_{{}_\P}(#1, #2)}

190: \newcommand{\funSizeVert}[2]{s'_{{}_\P}(#1, #2)}

191: \renewcommand{\setminus}{-}

192: \newcommand{\cupSub}{\Cup}

193: %\newcommand{\cupSub}{\stackrel{\text{\tiny s}}{\cup}}

194: \newcommand{\alter}[1]{{\it alter}(#1)}

195: \newcommand{\vrank}[2]{{\it rank}(#1,#2)}

196: \newcommand{\gtn}[2]{{>_{{}_{#2}}}(#1)}

197: \newcommand{\ltn}[2]{{<_{{}_{#2}}}(#1)}

198: %\newcommand{\ltn}[2]{N^{<_{{}_{#2}}}(#1)}

199: \newcommand{\gless}[1]{<_{{}_{#1}}}

200: \newcommand{\Peel}[3]{{\sl Peel}(#1,#2,#3)}

201: 

202: % \newcommand{\VCS}{{\rm VCS}\xspace}

203: % \newcommand{\IPVCS}{{\rm IP\_VCS}\xspace}

204: % \newcommand{\CHP}{{\rm CHP}\xspace}

205: % \newcommand{\IPCCHP}{{\rm IP\_CCHP}\xspace}

206: % \newcommand{\DAGCCHP}{{\rm DAG\_CCHP}\xspace}

207: % \newcommand{\CRHP}{{\rm CRHP}\xspace}

208: % \newcommand{\ACRHP}{{\rm A\_CRHP}\xspace}

209: % \newcommand{\CCHP}{{\rm CCHP}\xspace}

210: 

211: \newcommand{\VCS}{\mbox{\sc VCS}\xspace}

212: \newcommand{\IPVCS}{\mbox{\sc IncPolyVCS}\xspace}

213: \newcommand{\CHP}{\mbox{\sc GenHered}\xspace}

214: \newcommand{\IPCCHP}{\mbox{\sc IncPolyCCHP}\xspace}

215: \newcommand{\IPCRHP}{\mbox{\sc IncPolyCRHP}\xspace}

216: \newcommand{\DAGCCHP}{\mbox{\sc DAG\_CCHP}\xspace}

217: \newcommand{\CRHP}{\mbox{\sc CRHP}\xspace}

218: \newcommand{\DCRHP}{\mbox{\sc DagCRHP}\xspace}

219: \newcommand{\TCCHP}{\mbox{\sc TreeCCHP}\xspace}

220: \newcommand{\OCP}{\mbox{\sc OrderedCP}\xspace}

221: \newcommand{\CCHP}{\mbox{\sc CCHP}\xspace}

222: 

223: 

224: \newcommand{\bigcard}[1]{\bigl|#1\bigr|}

225: \newcommand{\extend}[3]{{\it Ext}_{#3}(#1,#2)}

226: %\newcommand{\extend}[3]{{#1}^{|{#2},{#3}}}

227: \newcommand{\restrRank}[2]{[#1]_{#2}}

228: \newcommand{\rank}[1]{{\it rank}(#1,\P)}

229: %\newcommand{\restr}[2]{{#1}_{|#2}}

230: %\newcommand{\rest}[2]{\bar{#1}_{|{#2}}}

231: \newcommand{\Trav}[1]{{\it Tr}(#1)}

232: \newcommand{\delV}[2]{#1_{\hat #2}}

233: %\newcommand{\maxSol}[2]{#1^{\rm max}(\inducedSub{#2})}

234: %\newcommand{\sol}[2]{#1(\inducedSub{#2})}

235: \newcommand{\maxSolRank}[3]{{\it MSol}^{#3}(#1,#2)}

236: %\newcommand{\maxSol}[2]{{\it MSol}(#1,#2)}

237: \newcommand{\maxSol}[2]{#1^m(#2)}

238: \newcommand{\maxSolVert}[3]{#1^m(#2;\, #3)}

239: %\newcommand{\sol}[2]{{\it Sol}(#1, #2)}

240: \newcommand{\sol}[2]{#1(#2)}

241: \newcommand{\solRank}[3]{{\it Sol}^{#3}(#1, #2)}

242: %\newcommand{\inducedSub}[1]{[#1]}

243: \newcommand{\inducedSub}[1]{2^{#1}}

244: \newcommand{\layer}[2]{{\it Layer}(#1,#2)}

245: %\newcommand{\emptyGraph}{\emptyset_g}

246: %\newcommand{\emptyGraph}{G_\emptyset}

247: \newcommand{\emptyGraph}{O_0}

248: \newcommand{\prop}[1]{{\sf ``#1''}}

249: \newcommand{\plusNode}{\cup} %{\uplus}

250: \newcommand{\plusNodeG}[1]{\cup_{{}_{#1}}} %{\uplus_{{}_{#1}}}

251: 

252: %\input title

253: \title{Generating All Maximal Induced Subgraphs for Hereditary, 

254:   Connected-Hereditary and Rooted-Hereditary Properties} 

255: \author{Sara Cohen\thanks{The  Selim and Rachel Benin School of

256:   Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of

257:   Jerusalem, Givat Ram Campus, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Email: {\tt

258:   \{sarina,sagiv\}@cs.huji.ac.il}} \and Yehoshua Sagiv$^*$

259: %\thanks{The  Selim and Rachel Benin School of

260: %  Computer Science and Engineering, The Hebrew University of

261: %  Jerusalem, Givat Ram Campus, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Email: {\tt

262: %  sagiv@cs.huji.ac.il}}

263: }

264: \date{}

265: \maketitle

266: 

267: \thispagestyle{empty}

268: %\input abstract

269: \begin{abstract}

270: 

271: The problem of computing all maximal induced subgraphs of a graph $G$

272: that have a graph property $\P$, also called the {\em maximal $\P$-subgraphs

273:   problem}, is considered. This problem is studied for hereditary,

274: connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary graph properties.

275: The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is

276: reduced to restricted versions of this problem by providing algorithms

277: that solve the general problem, assuming that an algorithm for a

278: restricted version is given. The complexity of the algorithms are

279: analyzed in terms of total polynomial time, incremental polynomial

280: time and the complexity class P-enumerable. The general results

281: presented allow simple proofs that the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem

282: can be solved efficiently (in terms of the input and output) for many

283: different properties. 

284: \eat{

285: , e.g.,  bipartite

286: graphs. In databases, various problems, such as  full

287: disjunctions, can be computed as maximal solutions to some

288: connected-hereditary properties.  

289: For hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary

290: properties, it is shown that under some 

291:  general conditions, all maximal

292: solutions can be generated in polynomial time under input-output complexity.

293: If some additional conditions are satisfied, then  all maximal

294: solutions can be generated in incremental 

295: polynomial time, and $k$ maximal solutions can be generated in

296: polynomial time. 

297: The above general results include  and improve upon previous results in

298: databases, in particular, and in graph theory, in general. For

299: example,  it is shown that full disjunctions can

300: be computed in incremental polynomial time, and that maximal bipartite

301: subgraphs can be generated in polynomial time under input-output complexity. 

302: }

303: 

304: %the problem of computing maximal answers (rather than

305: %complete answers) to a query over incomplete information can be

306: %couched as computing maximal solutions to a 

307: %connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property. For example, 

308: 

309: %

310: %The goal of this paper is to investigate when all maximal solutions for

311: %hereditary, connected-hereditary, and rooted-hereditary properties can

312: %be computed in polynomial time under input-output complexity. 

313: %Towards this end,  {\em

314: %  polynomially-extendable\/} and {\em polynomially 

315: %  vertex-extendible\/} properties are defined. The main

316: %results are 

317: %  about hereditary properties that are also polynomially-extendable,

318: %  and connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties that are

319: %  also polynomially vertex-extendible. In both of these

320: %  cases, all maximal solutions can be generated in polynomial time

321: %  under input-output complexity. 

322: 

323: \eat{

324: This paper presents algorithms that generate all maximal solutions for

325: hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary graph

326: properties. For {\em polynomially-extendable\/} and {\em polynomially

327:   vertex-extendible properties\/}, our algorithms run in polynomial

328: time under input-output complexity.  It turns out that usually

329: properties that are {\em polynomially solvable}, i.e., properties for

330: which it is possible to generate all maximal solutions in polynomial 

331:  time under input-output complexity, are in one of the two classes

332:  that we have identified. Properties

333:   for which maximal solutions can be generated in incremental

334:   polynomial time and for which $K$ maximal solutions can be generated

335:   in polynomial time, for a given constant $K$, are also identified. 

336: 

337:  The problem of finding ``maximal query answers'' over

338:  incomplete databases has been studied in the past in various

339:  different settings. It turns out that many of methods for computing

340:  maximal query answers  can be modeled  abstractly as hereditary,

341:  connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary  properties. 

342: Hence, our algorithms yield 

343:   immediately as special cases several complexity results that were

344:   proven independently in the past for the problem of finding

345:   ``maximal query answers.''  In addition, we improve on previous

346:   results in this area by providing 

347:   incremental polynomial algorithms that solve these problems. Our

348:   algorithms also provide polynomial solutions to open problems in

349:   graph theory, such

350:   as that of generating all maximal bipartite subgraphs of a given graph.

351: 

352: }

353: \eat{Our goal is to generate all maximal solutions for a variety of

354: problems in polynomially time under input-output complexity. Instead

355: of presenting an algorithms for each problem, we consider the very

356: general classes of  hereditary,

357:  connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary graph properties, and

358:  present algorithms for each class of problems. 

359: }

360: 

361: %In addition, we show that every

362: %  hereditary property that is polynomially solvable is also

363: %  polynomially extendible and that every rooted-hereditary property

364: %  that is polynomially solvable is also polynomially

365: %  vertex-extendible. Hence, our algorithms can be used to compute

366: %  maximal solutions for all polynomially solvable hereditary or

367: %  rooted-hereditary properties. 

368: 

369: \eat{We consider the problem of generating maximal solutions for 

370: hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties over

371: graphs. 

372: 

373: Contributions: 

374: * We recognized the fact that many problems for which we want to find

375: maximal answers can be modeled abstractly as hereditary,

376: connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties. 

377: * Formulated abstract algorithms 

378: answers can be 

379: }

380: \end{abstract}

381: 

382: %\input introduction

383: \section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}

384: \eat{

385: A graph property $\P$ is a set of graphs. For

386: example, the set of cliques, line graphs and 3-colorable graphs are

387: graph properties. Hereditary graph properties are graph properties

388: that are closed with respect to induced subgraphs. Such graph properties

389: include many common types of graphs, such as those mentioned

390: above. Connected-hereditary properties are graph properties that are

391: closed with respect to  connected induced subgraphs and are also common. 

392: Rooted-hereditary properties are graph properties that are

393: closed with respect to rooted induced subgraphs and appear in

394: database theory in the context of semistructured data. 

395: }

396: 

397: Hereditary and connected-hereditary graph properties include many common

398: types of graphs such as  cliques, bipartite  graphs

399: and trees. Such properties appear in many contexts, and thus, they have

400: been widely studied, e.g.,~\cite{Lewis:Yannakakis:JCSS,Yannakakis:Node:Edge:Deletion,Balogh:Speed-Hereditary,Sos:Saks-Diversity}.%

401: \eat{The node-deletion problem for hereditary properties has been

402: proven  to be NP-complete~\cite{Lewis:Yannakakis:JCSS}. 

403: This is also true of the node-deletion problem for

404: connected-hereditary

405: properties~\cite{Yannakakis:Node:Edge:Deletion}. The speed of 

406: growth~\cite{Balogh:Speed-Hereditary} 

407: and the diversity~\cite{Sos:Saks-Diversity} of hereditary properties

408: have also been analysed.

409: }

410: %

411:  This paper focuses on the  {\em maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem}: Given a

412:  graph property $\P$  and an arbitrary graph  $G$, find all maximal induced

413:  subgraphs of $G$ that have the property $\P$. 

414:  We consider properties 

415:  that are hereditary, connected hereditary or rooted hereditary (a

416:  variant of connected hereditary). 

417: 

418: Since the output for the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem may be large,

419: our complexity analysis takes into consideration both the size of the

420: input and the size of the output. Specifically, we consider the

421: complexity measures {\em total polynomial

422:  time\/}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets} and

423:  {\em incremental polynomial

424:  time\/}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets},

425:  and the complexity class {\em

426:  P-enumerable\/}~\cite{Valiant:Complexity:Computing:Permanent}.

427: 

428: The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem has been studied for many

429: properties $\P$. For example, it has been shown that this problem is

430: both P-enumerable and solvable in incremental polynomial time 

431: for the properties  \prop{is an independent set} and  \prop{is

432:  a

433:  clique}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets,Tsukiyama-Maximal:Independant:Sets,Akkoyunlu-Maximal:Cliques}.   

434: If subgraphs (and not only induced subgraphs) are allowed, then the

435: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is P-enumerable for the properties 

436: \prop{is a spanning

437:   tree}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Kappor:Ramesh-Generating:Spanning:Trees}, %,Gabow:Myers-Finding:Spanning:Trees}, 

438: \prop{is an elementary

439:   cycle}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Johnson-Elementary:Ciruit} 

440: and \prop{is an elementary

441:   path}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Babic:Graovac-Enumeration:Walks}, 

442: among others.

443: 

444: This paper differs from previous work in that we do not consider

445: specific properties, but instead, deal with the problem for a general

446: $\P$. Our strategy is to reduce the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to

447: restricted versions of the  maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem that are

448: often easier to solve. Our reductions are by means of algorithms

449: that solve the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem, given a solution to a 

450: restricted version of this problem. 

451: 

452: \eat{We believe

453: that our approach is promising, since it involves defining algorithms

454: for a class of properties, instead of  for 

455: specific properties.

456: Our formulation allows our algorithms to be immediately

457: applied to new problems.

458: These general results include and

459: improve upon previous results in graph theory. For example, it is

460: shown that the maximal \prop{bipartite}-subgraph problem is solvable

461: in total polynomial time, which improves

462: upon~\cite{Number:Bipartite:Graphs}.   

463: }

464: 

465: Using our algorithms, we can show that the maximal $\P$-subgraphs

466: problem can be solved in total-polynomial time, incremental-polynomial

467: time or is  P-enumerable if certain conditions hold on the runtime

468: of a restricted version of this problem. Hence, our approach is easily

469: shown to include and improve upon previous results in graph

470: theory. For example, it is 

471: shown that the maximal \prop{bipartite}-subgraph problem is solvable

472: in total polynomial time, which improves

473: upon~\cite{Number:Bipartite:Graphs}.   

474: 

475: The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem also has immediate practical

476: applications in the database field. Interestingly, it turns out that

477: many well-known semantics for answering queries in the presence of

478: incomplete information can be modeled as hereditary,

479: connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary graph properties. Hence, the

480: results in this paper imply and improve upon the complexity results

481: in~\cite{Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS,Kanza:Sagiv:Full:Disjunctions,Cohen:Generating:Relation} 

482: and imply the complexity result

483: in~\cite{Yannakakis-Algorithms:Acyclic:Database:Schemas-VLDB}. In

484: fact, modeling semantics as graph properties allows previously

485: presented semantics to be extended without affecting their

486: complexity. See~\cite{ICDT:Submission} for more details.

487: 

488: 

489: \eat{

490: This paper differs from previous work in that we present a general

491: algorithm that allows for simple proofs that the Maximal $\P$-Subgraphs

492: Problem is P-enumerable, if certain conditions hold. If some

493: additional conditions are satisfied, then the  Maximal $\P$-Subgraphs

494: Problem can be solved in incremental polynomial time, and $k$ maximal

495: $\P$-subgraphs can be generated in polynomial time, for a given

496: constant $k$. The above general results include  and improve upon

497: previous results in graph theory. For example,  it is shown that the

498: Maximal Bipartite-Subgraph problem is P-enumerable. 

499: 

500: 

501: Databases often contain incomplete information. This is especially

502: common when the database is formed by integrating information from

503: heterogeneous sources or in semistructured databases. In such

504: situations, there may not be enough 

505: information to completely answer a query. Hence, it is of interest to

506: find maximal answers for a given query. Different semantics for

507: computing maximal answers have been proposed

508: for a variety of settings

509: (e.g., full disjunctions~\cite{Galindo-Legaria:Full:Disjunctions},

510: weak and {\sc

511:   or}-semantics~\cite{Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS},

512: maximally interconnected nodes~\cite{Cohen:Generating:Relation}).

513: These semantics differ  significantly

514: one from another. Nonetheless,  it has been

515: shown that each of these semantics is {\em polynomially-solvable\/},

516: i.e., it is possible to generate all maximal solutions under each of

517: these semantics in polynomial time under input-output complexity. 

518: 

519: Obviously, when defining a semantics for maximal answers %for a query language 

520: it  is extremely desirable that the semantics be

521: polynomially-solvable. However,  a full understanding of what

522: causes a semantics to be polynomially-solvable is lacking. Hence, it is

523: difficult to discern whether some newly defined semantics is in fact

524: polynomially-solvable. Actually, determining whether a semantics is

525: polynomially-solvable may be quite intricate. For example, although full

526: disjunctions were introduced in

527: 1994~\cite{Galindo-Legaria:Full:Disjunctions}, only recently was it

528: determined that full disjunctions 

529: are polynomially-solvable~\cite{Kanza:Sagiv:Full:Disjunctions}. (A

530: special case was 

531: shown to be polynomially-solvable in

532: 1996~\cite{Rajaraman:Ullman-Computing:Full:Disjunctions-PODS}.)

533: This makes it difficult to define a new polynomially-solvable 

534: semantics for maximal answers for a language such as XQuery.

535: 

536: One of the contributions of this paper is in determining that the

537: above semantics 

538: can be couched as computing maximal solutions for a connected-hereditary or

539: rooted-hereditary graph property. It turns out that this is the underlying

540: reason why the semantics are polynomially-solvable. 

541: Therefore, in this paper we study the problem of computing maximal

542: solutions for 

543: hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties. We

544: are interested, in particular, in polynomially-solvable properties. 

545: In contrast to previous work in this area, we do not

546: provide algorithms for specific properties. Instead, we identify

547: general conditions for which it is possible to generate all maximal

548: solutions in polynomial time under input-output complexity.  

549: 

550: 

551: Our general results include  and improve upon previous results in

552: databases, in particular, and in graph theory, in general. For

553: example,  it is shown that full disjunctions can

554: be computed in incremental polynomial time, and that maximal bipartite

555: subgraphs can be generated in polynomial time under input-output

556: complexity. In  Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} we present detailed

557: examples of problems that can be modeled as hereditary,

558: connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties. We also show

559: how our results improve upon previous results for these problems. 

560: }

561: \eat{

562: This paper is organized as follows.  

563: Section~\ref{sec:definitions}

564: presents necessary definitions. %In Section~\ref{sec:examples}, a

565: %variety of examples of hereditary, connected-hereditary and

566: %rooted-hereditary properties are

567: %discussed. 

568: Some background on computing maximal solutions is presented in

569: Section~\ref{sec:characteristics}. 

570: In Section~\ref{sec:hereditary}

571: an algorithm that generates maximal solutions for hereditary

572: properties is presented. 

573: In Section~\ref{sec:connected-hereditary} an

574: algorithm that generates maximal solutions for connected-hereditary

575: and rooted-hereditary properties is presented. An incremental polynomial

576: algorithm, that generates solutions for hereditary,

577: connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties, is presented in

578: Section~\ref{sec:ip:connected-hereditary}.

579: Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes.

580: }

581: \eat{

582: We

583: identify classes of properties for which all maximal solutions can be

584: generated in polynomial time under input-output complexity, and

585: present algorithms that solve this problems. 

586: 

587: For hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary

588: properties, this paper gives

589:  general conditions guaranteeing that all maximal

590: solutions can be generated in polynomial time under input-output complexity.

591: If some additional conditions are satisfied, then  all maximal

592: solutions can be generated in incremental 

593: polynomial time, and $k$ maximal solutions can be generated in

594: polynomial time. 

595: 

596: 

597: Therefore, we study the general problem of computing maximal solutions...

598: Results.

599: Results contain and improve.

600: Interestingly, our results also solve open problems in graph theory.

601: 

602: It is often 

603: 

604: 

605: Hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary graph

606: properties include many common graph properties. 

607: Informally, a property is hereditary if the fact that it holds on a

608: graph $G$, implies that it holds on all induced subgraphs of

609: $G$. Similarly, a property is connected-hereditary or

610: rooted-hereditary if the fact that it holds on $G$ implies that it

611: holds on all connected or rooted induced subgraphs of $G$.  

612: In databases, the problem of computing maximal answers (rather than

613: complete answers) of a query over incomplete information can be

614: couched as computing maximal solutions for a connected-hereditary or

615: rooted-hereditary property. 

616: 

617:  The problem of finding ``maximal query answers'' (rather than complete

618:  answers) over

619:  incomplete information has been studied in the past in various

620:  different settings. This problem 

621:  can often be couched as computing maximal solutions for a

622:  connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property. 

623: 

624: 

625: It turns out that many of methods for computing

626:  maximal query answers can be modeled  abstractly as hereditary,

627:  connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary  properties. 

628: For example,

629: In databases, various problems, such as  full

630: disjunctions, can be computed as maximal solutions to some

631: connected-hereditary property. 

632: 

633: 

634: }

635: 

636: \eat{

637: It is often the case that a database contains only incomplete

638: information. 

639: %A database may be incomplete, in the sense that it may contain only

640: %partial information. 

641: In such situations, one may be interested in

642: computing {\em maximal solutions\/} for a given query, instead of

643: computing complete solutions for the query. For relational

644: databases, maximal solutions are often computed by means of full

645: disjunctions~\cite{}.

646: In~\cite{Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS}, the problem

647: of computing maximal 

648: solutions for graph queries over semi-structured databases was

649: studied. \cite{Cohen:Generating:Relation} focused on the problem of

650:   generating maximal relations from XML documents. The number of

651:   maximal solutions for a given query may be exponential in the size

652:   of the input

653:   (i.e., the query and the database). %When computing

654: %  maximal solutions it is often the case that the number of maximal

655: %  solutions is exponential in the input. 

656: Hence, one is often

657:   interested in the input-output complexity of such problems, i.e., in

658:   the complexity as a function of the input and the output. 

659: In each

660:   of~\cite{,Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS,Cohen:Generating:Relation},

661:   algorithms that compute maximal solutions in polynomial time under

662:   input-output complexity, were presented.

663: 

664: We have shown

665: that these problems can be modeled abstractly as hereditary,

666: connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties over graphs. We then

667: consider the general problem of computing maximal solutions for

668: hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary 

669: properties. We identify the classes of properties called {\em

670:   polynomially-extendable properties\/} and {\em polynomially

671:   vertex-extendible properties}. It is often easy to verify whether a

672: given property is in one of these classes. For both

673: polynomially-extendable and polynomially vertex-extendible properties we

674: present algorithms that compute maximal solutions in polynomial time

675: under input-output complexity. It turns out that the problems

676: mentioned in the previous paragraph 

677: are in these classes of properties. Hence, as special cases, our

678: algorithms show that the problems above can be solved in polynomial

679: time under input-output complexity. Our algorithms can also be used to 

680: }

681: %To be filled in.

682: \eat{

683: Often we are interested in finding maximal answers for a given

684: problem. For example, one 

685: 

686: We consider the problem of generating all maximal solutions for

687: hereditary, connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary graph

688: properties. Informally, a 

689: property is hereditary if the fact that it holds on a graph $G$,

690: implies that it

691: holds on all induced subgraphs of $G$. Similarly, a property is

692: connected-hereditary if the fact that it holds on  $G$ implies that it

693: holds on all connected induced subgraphs of $G$.  Finally, a property is

694: rooted-hereditary if the fact that it holds on  $G$ implies that it

695: holds on all rooted induced subgraphs of $G$. 

696: 

697: Hereditary properties, and their variants, are common in graph

698: theory. For example, the 

699: property \prop{is a clique}

700: is hereditary. Many algorithms have been developed

701: that generate all maximal solutions for specific hereditary

702: properties. In our paper, we consider properties with abstract

703: characteristics, such as polynomially extendible properties and

704: polynomially vertex-extendible properties. We present

705: algorithms that generate all maximal solutions for hereditary,

706: connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties with these

707: characteristics. Our 

708: algorithms are polynomial under input-output complexity. We also

709: present an algorithm that runs in polynomial incremental  time. 

710: 

711: The algorithms presented improve on some known results for generating

712: maximal solutions for specific properties. In addition, we believe

713: that our approach is promising, since it involves defining algorithms

714: for a class of properties, instead of  for 

715: specific properties.

716: Our formulation allows our algorithms to be immediately

717: applied to new problems.

718: 

719: This paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:definitions}

720: presents necessary definitions. In Section~\ref{sec:examples}, a

721: variety of examples of hereditary, connected-hereditary and

722: rooted-hereditary properties are

723: discussed. Some background on the problem is presented in

724: Section~\ref{sec:characteristics}. These

725: characteristics are used in Section~\ref{sec:hereditary} to formulate

726: an algorithm that generates maximal solutions for hereditary

727: properties. The characteristics are also used in

728: Section~\ref{sec:connected-hereditary} in an  

729: algorithm that generates maximal solutions for connected-hereditary

730: and rooted-hereditary properties. A polynomial incremental algorithm,

731: that generates solutions for hereditary, connected-hereditary and

732: rooted-hereditary properties, is presented in

733: Section~\ref{sec:ip:connected-hereditary}. Some special cases where

734: maximal solutions for connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary

735: properties can be generated in linear time in the size of the output

736: are presented in Section~\ref{sec:linear:time}.

737: }

738: 

739: 

740: %\input graphs 

741: \section{Graphs and Graph Properties}

742: \label{sec:definitions}

743: 

744: %We present some necessary definitions and notation.

745: 

746: \paragraph{Graphs and Induced Subgraphs.}

747: A {\em graph} $G=(V,E,r)$

748: consists of {\em (1)\/} a finite set 

749: of {\em vertices\/} $V$, {\em (2)\/} a set of {\em edges\/}

750: $E\subseteq V\times V$ {\em and 

751:   (3)\/} a {\em root\/} 

752: $r$ such that $r\in V\cup\set{\bot}$. 

753: We say that $G$ is {\em rooted\/} if {\em (1)\/} $r\neq \bot$  {\em

754:   and (2)\/} every vertex in $G$ is reachable via a directed path from

755:  $r$. \label{rooted} 

756: We say that $G$ is {\em connected\/} if its underlying undirected

757: graph is connected. 

758: Observe  that every rooted graph is

759:   connected. However, a connected graph need not be rooted. 

760: %

761: We use $V(G)$ to denote the set of vertices of $G$.

762: 

763: 

764: 

765:   A graph $H $ is an {\em induced subgraph\/} of a graph

766:   $G$, written  $H\gconeq G$, if {\em (1)\/} $H$ is

767:   derived from $G$ by deleting some of the vertices of $G$ (and the edges

768:   incident on these vertices) {\em and (2)\/} $H$ has the same root as

769:   $G$, if the root of $G$ is among the vertices of $H$, and has $\bot$

770:   as its root otherwise.

771: We write $H\gcon G$ if $H\gconeq G$

772:   and $H$ is not equal to $G$. 

773: 

774: We use $G[\set{\dd v n}]$ to denote the induced subgraph

775: of $G$ that contains exactly the vertices $\dd v n$. If $H$ and $H'$

776: are induced subgraphs of $G$ and $v$ is a vertex in $G$, we use $G[H]$, $G[H,v]$ and $G[H,H']$ as

777: shorthand notations for $G[V(H)]$, $G[V(H)\cup \set{v}]$ and $G[V(H)\cup

778: V(H')]$, respectively. 

779: 

780: 

781: \paragraph{Graph Properties.}

782: A {\em graph property} $\P$ is a nonempty and possibly 

783: infinite set of graphs. 

784: For example, \prop{is a clique} is a graph 

785: property that contains all graphs that are

786: cliques. In this paper, we only consider properties $\P$ such that it

787: is  possible to verify whether a graph $G$ is in $\P$ in polynomial

788: time. Hence, we assume that there is a polynomial procedure  

789:   {\sc Sat}$\paramP$ that receives a graph $G$ as input,  

790: and returns true if $G\in\P$ and false otherwise. Observe that  the

791: notation $\paramP$  denotes an algorithm that is

792: parameterized by the graph property $\P$, i.e., that differs for each

793: value of $\P$. 

794: 

795: We consider several special types of graph properties.

796: A graph property $\P$ is

797: {\em hereditary\/} if $\P$ is {\em closed\/} with respect to induced

798: subgraphs, i.e., whenever $G\in\P$, 

799: every induced subgraph of $G$ is also in $\P$. 

800: A graph property $\P$ is {\em connected hereditary\/} if 

801: {\em (1)\/} all the graphs in $\P$ are connected {\em and (2)\/}

802: $\P$ is closed with respect to  connected induced subgraphs.

803: %

804: %Lewis~\cite{Lewis:Complexity-Maximum-Subgraph} and

805: %Yannakakis~\cite{Yannakakis:Node:Edge:Deletion} 

806: %recognized that many graph problems can be formulated in terms of

807: %hereditary or connected-hereditary properties. In this paper we

808: %introduce {\em rooted-hereditary\/} properties. This type of

809: %properties is useful when considering problems related to semistructured

810: %data, since such data is usually required to be rooted.

811: A graph property $\P$ is {\em rooted-hereditary\/} if 

812: {\em (1)\/} $\P$ only holds on rooted graphs {\em and (2)\/}

813: $\P$ is closed with respect to rooted induced subgraphs.\footnote{This type of

814: properties is useful when considering database problems related to

815: semistructured data, since semistructured data are usually represented

816: as rooted graphs.}

817: It is rather unusual for a rooted-hereditary

818: property to also be hereditary or connected-hereditary. 

819: Actually, one can show that if $\P$ is rooted-hereditary and $\P$ is

820: also hereditary or connected-hereditary, then $\P$ contains only

821: graphs with at most one vertex.

822: This gives an

823: additional motivation to considering 

824:   rooted-hereditary properties, since they

825: generally differ from connected-hereditary and hereditary properties. 

826: 

827: 

828: Many graph properties are

829:  hereditary~\cite{garey-johnson:intractability}, e.g.,  

830:  \prop{is a clique} 

831:  and \prop{is a

832:   forest.} Note that 

833:  \prop{is a clique} is also 

834: connected hereditary. However,  \prop{is a clique} is not

835: rooted hereditary, since it contains graphs that do not have roots.

836: Some properties are connected hereditary, but

837: not hereditary or rooted hereditary, such as  \prop{is a

838:   tree,} which contains a graph $G$ if

839:  the underlying undirected graph of $G$ is a tree. Note that $G$ is

840:  not necessarily rooted. Hence, \prop{is a tree} is not rooted

841:  hereditary.

842: %

843: The property \prop{is a rooted clique} is

844: rooted hereditary.

845: 

846: \paragraph{The Maximal $\P$-Subgraphs Problem.}

847:   Let $G$ be a graph and $\P$ be a property. (The graph $G$ is not

848:   necessarily in $\P$.) We say that $H$ is a {\em 

849:   $\P$-subgraph\/} of $G$ if $H\gconeq G$ and

850:   $H\in \P$. The set of $\P$-subgraphs of a graph $G$ is denoted

851:   $\sol \P G$. 

852: 

853: We say that $H$ is  a {\em maximal $\P$-subgraph\/} of $G$ if

854:   $H$ is a $\P$-subgraph of $G$ and there is no $\P$-subgraph $H'$ of

855:   $G$, such that  $H\gcon H'$. We use $\maxSol \P G$ to denote the set

856:   of maximal $\P$-subgraphs of $G$. 

857: The {\em maximal $\P$-subgraphs

858:   problem\/} is: Given a graph $G$, find the set $\maxSol \P G$.

859: 

860: 

861: %\input complexity

862: \newcommand{\SIZE}[1]{|#1|}

863: \newcommand{\OUT}{\text{\sc out}}

864: 

865: \section{Complexity Classes and Measures} % and Classes}%mputing

866:                                           % Maximal Answers} 

867: This paper explores the problem of computing $\maxSol \P G$, for

868: a hereditary, connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property $\P$

869: and an arbitrary graph $G$. 

870: The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem cannot be solved in polynomial

871: time, in the general case. This follows from the fact that sometimes

872: the size of $\maxSol \P G$ is exponential in the size of

873: $G$ (see~\cite{Balogh:Speed-Hereditary} for details). Hence, exponential

874: time may be needed just to print the output.% 

875: \eat{

876: Consider the following naive procedure that computes  $\maxSol \P

877: G$:

878: \begin{itemize}

879: \item {\bf Step 1:} Compute the set $\sol \P G$.

880: \item {\bf Step 2:} Remove from $\sol \P G$ any graph that is not maximal.

881: \end{itemize}

882: Obviously, this procedure is too expensive to be of interest. For

883: example, if $\P$ is hereditary and $G\in \sol \P G$, then 

884:  a set of size $2^{|V(G)|}$ will be created in the first

885: step. During the second step, all graphs except $G$ will be

886: removed. Thus, the procedure will have run in exponential time, even

887: though its output is quite small. To summarize, the main fault of the naive

888: procedure lays in the fact that is always runs in exponential time,

889: regardless of the size of the output. 

890: }

891: %

892: In this section, we discuss two complexity measures 

893:  that are of interest when the output of a problem may be

894: large: {\em total

895:   polynomial

896:  time\/}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets}

897:  and  {\em incremental polynomial

898:  time\/}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets}.

899:  We also consider the complexity class {\em

900:   P-enumerable\/}~\cite{Valiant:Complexity:Computing:Permanent}.  

901: 

902: A problem can be solved in {\em total polynomial time}, or {PIO}

903: for short, if the time 

904: required to list all its solutions is bounded by a polynomial in 

905: $n$ (the size of the input) and $K$ (the number of solutions in the

906: output).\footnote{This complexity measure is similar to polynomial

907:   time input-output complexity, which is commonly considered in

908:   database theory,

909:   e.g.~\cite{Yannakakis-Algorithms:Acyclic:Database:Schemas-VLDB}.} 

910:  For the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem, $n$ is the

911: number of vertices in $G$ and $K$ is the number of graphs in $\maxSol

912: \P G$. %We say that a problem is in TPTIME if it can be solved in total

913: %polynomial time. 

914: %Note that the naive procedure cannot be used

915: % to prove that the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem can be

916: %solved in total polynomial time. 

917: 

918: The complexity class {\em P-enumerable\/} is more restrictive than 

919: the measure of total polynomial time. Formally, a problem is

920: P-enumerable if  the time required to list all its solutions is

921: bounded by $K$ times a polynomial in $n$. Note that P-enumerable

922: differs from total polynomial time in that the factor of the output in

923: the runtime must be linear. Since the size of the output may be

924: exponential in the size of the input, 

925: the factor of output size in the

926: total runtime is highly influential.

927: 

928: Another complexity measure that is of interest when dealing with

929: problems that may have large output (such as the

930: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem) is {\em incremental polynomial

931:   time}.

932: Formally, a problem is  solvable in incremental polynomial time, or

933: PINC for short,  if,

934: for all $k$, the $k$-th solution of

935: the output  can be returned in polynomial time in $n$ (the

936: input) and $k$. 

937: Incremental polynomial time is of importance when the user would like

938: to optimize  evaluation time for retrieval of the first $k$

939: maximal induced subgraphs, as opposed to optimizing for overall time. 

940: This is particularly useful in a scenario where the user reads the

941: answers as they are delivered, or is only interested in looking at a

942: small portion of the total result. If a problem is solvable in

943: total polynomial time, but not in incremental polynomial time, 

944:  the user may have to wait exponential time until

945: the entire output is created, before viewing a single maximal

946: $\P$-subgraph. 

947: 

948: Observe that every problem that is P-enumerable is also

949: solvable in total polynomial time. Similarly, every problem that is

950: solvable in incremental polynomial time is also solvable in total

951: polynomial time. It is not known whether every problem that is

952: solvable in incremental 

953: polynomial time is also P-enumerable, and vice-versa. 

954: %

955: The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem has been studied for many

956: properties $\P$. See Section~\ref{sec:intro} for several examples and

957: see~\cite{Combinatorial:Enumeration:Website} for a

958: listing of algorithms for combinatorial enumeration problems.  

959: \eat{For example, it has been shown that this problem is

960: both P-enumerable and solvable in incremental polynomial time 

961: for the properties  \prop{is an independent set} and  \prop{is

962:  a

963:  clique}~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets,Tsukiyama-Maximal:Independant:Sets,Akkoyunlu-Maximal:Cliques}.   

964: If subgraphs (and not only induced subgraphs) are allowed, then the

965: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is P-enumerable for the properties 

966: \prop{is a spanning

967:   tree}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Kappor:Ramesh-Generating:Spanning:Trees,Gabow:Myers-Finding:Spanning:Trees}, 

968: \prop{is an elementary

969:   cycle}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Johnson-Elementary:Ciruit} 

970: and \prop{is an elementary

971:   path}~\cite{Read:Tarjan-Listing:Cycles:Paths:Spanning:Trees,Babic:Graovac-Enumeration:Walks}, 

972: among others. See~\cite{Combinatorial:Enumeration:Website} for a

973: listing of algorithms for combinatorial enumeration problems.  

974: }

975: 

976: 

977: %\input restricted

978: \newcommand{\PCBIP}{\P_{\text{\sc cbip}}}

979: \newcommand{\PBIP}{\P_{\text{\sc bip}}}

980: 

981: \section{\mathversion{bold}Restricting the Maximal $\P$-Subgraphs Problem}

982: Let $\P$ be a graph property. Suppose that we want to show that the

983: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in PIO. To do this   

984: we must devise an algorithm that, when given any graph $G$,

985: produces $\maxSol \P G$ in polynomial time in the

986: input (i.e., $G$) and the output (i.e., $\maxSol \P G$). 

987: For many properties $\P$, it is difficult to find such an algorithm,

988: since an arbitrary graph $G$ must be dealt with. %A naive algorithm

989: %will create the set of graphs $\P(G)$, and then remove the graphs that are

990: %not maximal. However, this is clearly to expensive to be desirable.

991: %

992: Our task of finding

993: an appropriate algorithm is even more

994: difficult if we actually want to show that the maximal $\P$-subgraphs

995: problem is P-enumerable or is in PINC. Hence, we focus on restricted 

996: versions of the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem. For these restricted

997: versions, it is often easier to devise an efficient algorithm.

998: %in their input and its output. 

999: Later on we will show how, given an algorithm for one

1000: of the restricted 

1001: problems, the general problem can be solved. 

1002: 

1003: Let $G$ be a graph and let $\P$ be a property. 

1004: We use $G-v$ to denote the induced graph of $G$ that contains all

1005: vertices other than $v$. 

1006: We say that  $G$ {\em almost satisfies\/} $\P$ if there is a

1007:   vertex $v$ in $G$, such that 

1008:   $G-v\in \P$. Let $v'$ be a vertex in $G$. 

1009: We use $\maxSolVert \P G {v'}$ to denote the subset of

1010:   $\maxSol \P G$ that contains graphs with the vertex $v'$. 

1011: 

1012: We will be interested in three restricted versions of the maximal

1013: $\P$-subgraphs problem. 

1014: \begin{itemize}

1015: \item The {\em input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs

1016:     problem\/} is: Given a graph $G$ that almost

1017:   satisfies $\P$, find all maximal $\P$-subgraphs of $G$.

1018: %, i.e.,   $\maxSol \P G$.

1019: \item The {\em output-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs

1020:     problem\/} is: Given an arbitrary graph $G$ and a vertex $v'$ in $G$,

1021:    find all maximal $\P$-subgraphs of $G$ that contain $v'$.

1022: %, i.e.,  $\maxSolVert \P G {v'}$.

1023: \item The {\em io-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem\/} is: Given

1024: a graph $G$ that almost satisfies $\P$ and given a vertex $v'$ in $G$,

1025: find all maximal $\P$-subgraphs of $G$ that contain $v'$.

1026: %, i.e., $\maxSolVert \P G {v'}$. 

1027: \end{itemize}

1028: 

1029: Note that the output-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem can be

1030: used in a straightforward way to solve the maximal $\P$-subgraphs

1031: problem. However, it is not clear how the other two problems can be

1032: used to solve the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem. 

1033: 

1034: The complexity of these three problems is highly dependent on the

1035: graph property $\P$. Sometimes, it turns out that the input-restricted

1036: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem and the io-restricted maximal

1037: $\P$-subgraphs problem can actually be solved

1038: in polynomial time, since the number of graphs in their output is

1039: bounded in size by a constant. However, the 

1040: fact that $G$ almost satisfies $\P$ does not always entail that

1041: $\maxSol \P G$ is small. This is shown in the following example. 

1042: 

1043: 

1044: \eat{

1045: The problems 

1046: 

1047: Interestingly, sometimes the 

1048: 

1049: For some properties $\P$ it turns out that if $G$ almost satisfies

1050: $\P$, then the size of $\maxSol \P G$ is bounded by a constant.

1051: However, sometimes the size of $\maxSol \P G$ (and even of

1052: $\maxSolVert \P G {v'}$) may be

1053: exponential in the size of $G$. We demonstrate with an example.

1054: }

1055: 

1056: \begin{figure}[!t]

1057: \begin{center}

1058: \epsfig{figure=2bipartite.eps,width=0.60\textwidth,clip=}

1059: \end{center}

1060: %\hfill

1061: %\epsfig{figure=bipartite.eps,width=0.45\textwidth,clip=}

1062: \caption{Finding Maximal Bipartite Subgraphs\label{fig:bipartite:graph}}

1063: \end{figure}

1064: 

1065: \begin{example}%[The Graph Properties $\PCBIP$ and $\PBIP$]

1066: \label{example:pcbip:pbip}

1067: Let $\PCBIP$ be the connected-hereditary property that contains all

1068: connected bipartite graphs. Suppose that $G$ is a graph that almost

1069: satisfies $\PCBIP$. It is not difficult to see that $\maxSol

1070: {\PCBIP}G$ contains at most three graphs.

1071: As an example, consider the graph $G_1$ in

1072: Figure~\ref{fig:bipartite:graph}. The graph $G_1$ almost satisfies

1073: $\PCBIP$, since $G_1\setminus w$ is a

1074: connected bipartite graph. The set $\maxSol {\PCBIP}{G_1}$ contains

1075: the following three graphs: {\em (1)\/} $G_1 \setminus w$, {\em (2)\/}

1076: $G_1\setminus u_2$ (derived by removing the neighbors of $w$

1077: on the bottom side) {\em and (3)\/} $G_1\setminus\set{v_1,v_2,u_1}$

1078: (derived by removing the neighbors of $w$ on the top side,

1079: and then removing unconnected vertices). 

1080: 

1081: 

1082: Let $\PBIP$ be the hereditary property that contains all

1083: bipartite graphs. It is possible for the size of $\maxSol

1084: {\PBIP} G$ to be  exponential in the size of $G$, even if $G$

1085: almost satisfies $\PBIP$. Consider,

1086: for example, the graph $G_2$ in Figure~\ref{fig:bipartite:graph}. The

1087: graph $G_2$ almost satisfies $\PBIP$ since $G_2\setminus w\in

1088: \PBIP$. However, the set $\maxSol \P {G_2} $ contains $2^n + 1$ graphs,

1089: i.e., $G_2\setminus w$ and the graphs derived by choosing the vertex

1090: $w$ and one from each pair of vertices $(v_i,u_i)$, for all

1091: $i$. Notwithstanding the size of $\maxSol \P {G_2} $, it is not

1092: difficult to show that the input-restricted $\PBIP$-subgraphs problem

1093: is P-enumerable. To see this, observe that it is possible to find the

1094: graphs in 

1095: $\maxSol \P {G_2} $ efficiently, in terms of the input {\em and\/}

1096: the output, by dealing separately with each connected component of

1097: $G_2\setminus w$. 

1098: \end{example}

1099: 

1100: By formalizing the intuition presented in Example~\ref{example:pcbip:pbip},

1101: the following propositions can be shown. Similar propositions can be

1102: shown for other graph properties.

1103: 

1104: \begin{proposition}%[\mathversion{bold}Complexity of the Restricted

1105: %  $\PCBIP$-Subgraphs Problem]

1106: \label{proposition:restricted:pcbip}

1107: The io-restricted $\PCBIP$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME.

1108: \end{proposition}

1109: 

1110: \begin{proposition}%[\mathversion{bold}Complexity of the Restricted

1111: %  $\PBIP$-Subgraphs Problem]

1112: \label{proposition:restricted:pbip}

1113: The input-restricted $\PBIP$-subgraphs is {\rm P}-enumerable. 

1114: \end{proposition}

1115: 

1116: 

1117: %\input hereditary

1118: \section{Hereditary Properties}\label{sec:hereditary}

1119: 

1120: In this section, we reduce the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to the

1121: input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem for hereditary properties

1122: $\P$. Our reduction is by means 

1123: of an algorithm that shows how to compute $\maxSol \P G$ for an

1124: arbitrary graph $G$, given a procedure that can compute $\maxSol \P

1125: G$ for graphs $G$ that almost satisfy $\P$. 

1126: 

1127: In Figure~\ref{fig:poly:alg:1}, the algorithm

1128: {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ is presented. 

1129: This algorithm uses the following two procedures.

1130: \begin{itemize}

1131: \item {\sc Max}$\paramP(H,G)$: This procedure receives  graphs

1132:   $H$ and $G$ 

1133:   as input and returns true if $H$ is a maximal $\P$-subgraph of

1134:   $G$ and false otherwise. This procedure can easily be defined in

1135:   terms of {\sc 

1136:     Sat}$\paramP$, by   {\em (1)\/} checking if $H\in \P$ {\em

1137:     and (2)\/} extending $H$ with each vertex in

1138:   $G$ and  checking whether any extension is in $\P$ (using

1139:   {\sc Sat}$\paramP$).  

1140: \item {\sc GenRestrHered}$\paramP(H)$: This procedure receives a graph $H$

1141:   that almost satisfies $\P$ and returns the set $\maxSol \P H$. This

1142:   procedure is not defined in this paper. Instead, it must be provided on a

1143: per-property basis.

1144: \end{itemize}

1145: In essence, our algorithm  reduces the maximal

1146: $\P$-subgraphs problem to the input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs

1147: problem by using the procedure {\sc GenRestrHered}$\paramP$. 

1148: 

1149: The algorithm  {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ starts with the set $\G =

1150: \set{\emptyGraph}$, where $\emptyGraph$ is an empty graph, i.e., a

1151: graph with no vertices or edges. It then continuously (Line~6) attempts to

1152: extend each graph $H$ in $\G$ with an additional vertex $v_i$. The

1153: graphs in $\maxSol \P {G[H,v_i]}$ that are maximal with respect to the

1154: vertices seen thus far are inserted into $\G$ (Line~7). 

1155: This step is critical, since it {\em (1)\/} inserts graphs that are

1156: needed in order to create the final result {\em and (2)\/} avoids

1157: inserting extra graphs that would cause $\G$ to grow exponentially. 

1158: 

1159: Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices. Suppose that there are $K$

1160: graphs in $\maxSol \P G$. 

1161: We show that {\sc GenHered}$\paramP(G)$

1162: correctly computes $\maxSol \P G$ and  analyze the runtime of our

1163: algorithm as a function of $n$ and $K$.

1164: We use $s_\P(n)$ to denote the amount of time needed to check if 

1165: $G\in\P$, 

1166: i.e., the runtime of {\sc Sat}$\paramP(G)$.

1167: Observe that {\sc Max}$\paramP(H,G)$ runs in $\O(n\,s_\P(n))$ time.

1168: We use $r_\P(n,K)$ to denote the amount of  time needed to compute $\maxSol \P

1169: G$, when $G$ almost satisfies $\P$, i.e., the runtime of {\sc

1170:   GenRestrHered}$\paramP(G)$. Note that $r_\P$ is a function of both

1171: the input and the output. 

1172: \eat{

1173: Finally, we use $\#_\P(n)$ to denote the maximum

1174: number of graphs in $\maxSol \P G$, assuming that $G$ almost satisfies $\P$. 

1175: %

1176: Clearly, $\#_\P(n)$ is dominated by $r_\P(n,K)$, since $\#_\P(n)\leq

1177: K$. However, we use the 

1178: function $\#_\P(n)$ in our analysis since there are properties for

1179: which $\#_\P(n)$ is a constant, e.g., $\PCBIP$. 

1180: %We assume in this paper that $s_\P(n)$, $r_\P(n)$ and $\#_\P(n)$ are

1181: %monotonically nondecreasing.

1182: }

1183: %The correctness of our algorithm is based on the following Lemma. 

1184: %In order to prove the correctness of our method, we present a lemma

1185: %that shows that the above process does in fact compute maximal

1186: %solutions for a graph $G \plusNode v$.

1187: 

1188: 

1189: \begin{figure*}[t]

1190: %\onehalfspacing

1191: \begin{center}

1192: \scalebox{0.9}{

1193: \fbox{

1194: \parbox{1in}{

1195: \begin{tabbing}

1196: 0\=1\= 1. for\ \= for\ \= for\ \= for\ \= for\ \= AA \= \kill

1197: \>\> {\bf Algorithm:} \> \>\>\> {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ \ \ \ \\

1198: \>\> {\bf Input:} \> \> \> \> 

1199: Graph $G = (\set{\dd v n}, E, r)$ \\ 

1200: %\>\>              \> \> \> \> Set of graphs $\G$\\

1201: \>\> {\bf Output:} \>\>\>\> Maximal $\P$-Subgraphs of $G$, i.e.,

1202: $\maxSol \P G$  

1203: \end{tabbing}\vspace{-0.5cm}

1204: \begin{algorithm}{}{}

1205: \G := \set{\emptyGraph} \\

1206: \begin{FOR}{i := 1 \TO n}

1207:   \H := \G \\

1208:   \begin{FOREACH}{H\in \H}

1209: %    \begin{IF}{\CALL{Sat}\paramP(G[H,v_i])}

1210:       \G:= \G \setminus \set{H} \\ %\cup \set{G[H,v_i]}

1211:       \begin{FOREACH}{H'\in \CALL{GenRestrHered}\paramP(G[H,v_i])\ \ \ }

1212:         \begin{IF}{\CALL{Max}\paramP(H',G[\set{\dd v i}])}

1213:           \G := \G \cup \set{H'}

1214:         \end{IF}

1215:       \end{FOREACH}

1216: %    \end{IF}

1217:   \end{FOREACH} 

1218: \end{FOR} \\

1219: %\begin{IF}{\G = \set{\emptyGraph}}

1220: %\RETURN \emptyset

1221: %\ELSE 

1222: \RETURN \G

1223: %\end{IF}

1224: \end{algorithm}

1225: }

1226: }

1227: }

1228: \end{center}

1229: \caption{Algorithm to  compute $\maxSol \P {G}$ for

1230:   hereditary properties

1231: \label{fig:poly:alg:1}} 

1232: \end{figure*}

1233: 

1234: %

1235: 

1236: %We can now show that the algorithm {\sc GenHered} correctly computes the set

1237: %$\maxSol \P {G}$ for a hereditary property $\P$ and a graph $G$.

1238: 

1239: %\enlargethispage{\baselineskip}

1240: 

1241: \begin{theorem}%[CHP is Correct] 

1242: \label{theorem:chp:correct}

1243: Let $\P$ be a hereditary property and let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices.

1244:  Let $K$ be the number of graphs in $\maxSol \P G$. Then  

1245: \begin{itemize}

1246: \item {\sc GenHered}$\paramP(G) = \maxSol \P {G}$ {\em and\/}

1247: \item {\sc GenHered}$\paramP(G)$ runs in time: 

1248: %$\O\big(n\, K\,  (r_\P(n,K) + n\,s_\P(n)\,\#_\P(n))\big)$. 

1249: $\O\big(n^2\,s_\P(n)\,K\,r_\P(n,K)\big)$. 

1250: \end{itemize} 

1251: \eat{{\sc GenHered}$\paramP(G) = \maxSol \P {G}$ and

1252: {\sc GenHered}$\paramP(G)$ runs in time 

1253: \[\O\big(n\, K\, (r_\P(n) + n\,s_\P(n)\,\#_\P(n))\big)\,.

1254: % = \O\big(n\, K\, (e_\P(n) + n\,t_\P(n)\,K)\big)

1255:  \]

1256: }

1257: \end{theorem}

1258: \proofsketch

1259: We use  $G_i$ to denote the induced subgraph of $G$ containing

1260: exactly the vertices $\dd v i$, i.e., $G[\set{\dd v i}]$. We use

1261: $\G_i$ to denote the value of $\G$ after $i$ iterations of the loop in

1262: Line 2 of the algorithm. 

1263: We show by

1264: induction on the number of vertices $k$ in $G$ that 

1265: $\G_k = \maxSol \P {G_k}$. The inclusion $\G_k \subseteq  \maxSol \P

1266: {G_k}$ can be shown by a case analysis of the lines in which graphs

1267: are added to (and removed from) $\G_k$. The inclusion $ \maxSol \P

1268: {G_k} \subseteq \G_k$ follows from the following inclusion:

1269: \begin{align*}

1270:  \maxSol \P {G_{k}} \subseteq \maxSol \P {G_{k-1}} \cup \big(\cup_{H\in

1271:                            \maxSol\P {G_{k-1}}}  \maxSol \P

1272:                            {G[H,v_k]} \big)\,. 

1273: \end{align*}

1274: The runtime follows from a careful analysis of the algorithm and from

1275: the fact that $|\maxSol \P {G_{i-1}}| \leq |\maxSol \P {G_i}|$, for

1276: all $i$. 

1277: \qed

1278: 

1279: %Using Theorem~\ref{theorem:chp:correct}, we can show the following results.

1280: 

1281: \begin{corollary}

1282: Let $\P$ be a hereditary property. 

1283:  Then the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO\  if and only if 

1284: the input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO.

1285: \end{corollary}

1286: 

1287: \begin{corollary} \label{corollary:hereditary:P-enumerable}

1288: Let $\P$ be a hereditary property. 

1289: Then the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is {\rm P}-enumerable if

1290: the input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME.

1291: \end{corollary}

1292: 

1293: \begin{corollary}

1294: The maximal $\PBIP$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO.

1295: \end{corollary}

1296: 

1297: 

1298: 

1299: %\input connected-hereditary

1300: \renewcommand{\VCS}{{\sc GenWithVertex}$\paramP$}

1301: \newcommand{\STACK}{{\mathit Stack}}

1302: 

1303: \section{Connected-Hereditary  and

1304:   Rooted-Hereditary Properties}

1305: \label{sec:connected-hereditary}

1306: {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ may fail to return the correct

1307: graphs if $\P$ is  connected hereditary or

1308: rooted hereditary. Intuitively, this 

1309: failure is caused by the fact that an induced subgraph $H$ may not be

1310: connected or rooted (and therefore, $H\not\in\P$), even though

1311: there is a graph $G$ such that $H\gcon G$ and $G\in\P$.

1312: In other words, the order in which we choose the vertices can

1313: effect the success of the algorithm. 

1314: 

1315: In this section, we solve the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem for

1316: connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties in the following

1317: way:

1318: \begin{itemize}

1319: \item The maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is reduced to the

1320:   output-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem in a

1321:   straightforward fashion.

1322: \item The output-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is reduced

1323:   to the io-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem by means of the 

1324:   algorithm \VCS\ (see Figure~\ref{fig:alg:vcs}). The result of calling

1325:   \VCS$(G,v_r)$, for an arbitrary graph $G$, is the 

1326:   set  $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$. Note that   \VCS$(G,v_r)$

1327:   uses  {\sc

1328:     GenRestrWithVertex}$\paramP(G,v_r)$  which generates

1329:   $\maxSolVert \P {G'} {v_r}$ for graphs $G'$ that almost satisfy $\P$. 

1330: \end{itemize}

1331: 

1332: 

1333: In the remainder of this section, we explain the algorithm \VCS---its

1334:  notation, data structures and flow of execution. We show its

1335:  correctness and analyze its runtime.

1336: 

1337: \paragraph{Notation.}

1338: Consider graphs $G$ and $H$ such that $H\gconeq

1339: G$. %We use $V(H)$ to denote the set of vertices in $H$. 

1340: We say that a vertex 

1341: $v$ in $V(G)\setminus V(H)$ is an {\em undirected neighbor\/} of a

1342: vertex $v'$ in $H$ if  either

1343:  the edge $(v, v')$ or the edge $(v', v)$ is in $G$. Similarly, we say

1344:  that $v\in V(G)\setminus V(H)$ is a {\em directed neighbor\/} of

1345:  $v'$ in $H$ if 

1346:  the edge $(v', v)$ is in $G$. 

1347: Note that the neighbors (directed or undirected) of vertices in an

1348: induced subgraph are {\em   not\/} in the induced subgraph. 

1349: 

1350: %

1351: %When dealing with connected-hereditary properties, we are usually

1352: %interested in undirected neighbors. When considering rooted-hereditary

1353: %properties, we are usually interested in directed neighbors. Hence,

1354: Given a property $\P$, 

1355: we use $N_\P(H, G)$

1356: to denote the set of 

1357: undirected  neighbors of  $H$ if $\P$ is connected-hereditary

1358: and to denote the set of directed neighbors of $H$ if $\P$ is

1359: rooted-hereditary. Note that we use $\P$ only in order to differentiate between

1360: undirected and directed neighbors. 

1361: 

1362: In our algorithm, a graph

1363:  $H\gconeq G$ (such that $H\in \P$)

1364: is associated with a set of vertices $\notV(H)$. Intuitively, this

1365: set contains vertices $v'\in N_\P(H, G)$ that cannot be used to extend

1366: $H$, since $G[H, v']\not\in \P$.

1367: 

1368: \paragraph{Data Structures.}

1369: \VCS\ uses two stacks to collect graphs: $\STACK_1$ and

1370: $\STACK_2$.

1371: %\begin{itemize}

1372: %\item 

1373: $\STACK_1$ contains graphs for which processing 

1374: is incomplete. Therefore, a graph $H$ will be in $\STACK_1$ if it has a

1375:  $v'\in N_\P(H, G)$ that is not in $\notV(H)$. For such a vertex $v'$, it is not

1376: yet known whether $v'$ can be added to $H$, i.e., whether $G[H, v]\in

1377: \P$.

1378: %\item 

1379: $\STACK_2$ contains graphs for 

1380: which processing is complete. Therefore, a graph $H$ will be in $\STACK_2$

1381: if $N_\P(H, G)\subseteq \notV(H)$. 

1382: %\end{itemize}

1383: 

1384: To ensure that $\STACK_1$ and

1385: $\STACK_2$ contain the proper graphs, our algorithm  uses the procedure

1386: {\sc PushAppropriate}$\paramP(H,G, \STACK_1, \STACK_2)$,

1387:   which does the following. If $N_\P(H, G) \not \subseteq \notV(H)$,

1388:   then the procedure adds $H$ to the top of $\STACK_1$. Otherwise, the

1389:   procedure adds $H$ to   the top of $\STACK_2$. 

1390: 

1391: \paragraph{Flow of Execution.}

1392: The algorithm \VCS\ starts by considering the graph $G[\set{v_r}]$. Then, it

1393: continually 

1394: extends graphs in $\STACK_1$ with neighboring vertices to derive larger

1395: graphs that are in $\P$. All 

1396: extensions created must contain the vertex $v_r$ (so that we will only

1397: create graphs in $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$). %A graph $H\in\STACK_1$ can be

1398: %extended with a neighboring vertex $v$. 

1399: %

1400: Suppose $H\in \STACK_1$ and $v\in N_\P(H, G)$.

1401: We deal with the case in which

1402: $G[H, v]\in \P$  in Lines~9-10.

1403: We deal with the case in which  $G[H, v]\not\in \P$ in

1404: Lines~11-25. \eat{Note that in the latter case we compute the  set

1405: $\maxSolVert \P {G[H,v]} {v_r}$. One might think that 

1406:  graphs $G'\in \maxSolVert \P

1407: {G[H, v]} {v_r}$ can simply be added to $\STACK_1$ or $\STACK_2$, as

1408: appropriate. However, this might cause an 

1409: exponential blowup in the size of $\STACK_1$ and $\STACK_2$. Hence, we first

1410: try to combine $G'$  with existing graphs in $\STACK_1$.

1411: We also check if $G'$ is 

1412: an induced subgraph of a graph in $\STACK_2$. Only if we have not

1413: succeeded in either of these actions, 

1414: $G'$ is added to $\STACK_1$ or $\STACK_2$, as appropriate. 

1415: }

1416: 

1417: \paragraph{Correctness and Runtime Analysis.}

1418: The proof of correctness of \VCS\ is rather intricate and has been

1419: omitted due to lack of space. However, we take note of the behavior of our

1420: algorithm that is critical in proving its correctness:

1421: \begin{itemize}

1422: \item The fact that $\notV(H)$ is assigned the empty set every time that

1423:   a vertex is added to $H$, allows us to be prove that {\em all\/}

1424:   graphs in $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$ are returned. 

1425: \item Graphs $G'$  from $\maxSolVert \P {G[H,v]} {v_r}$ (see

1426:   Line~12) are not immediately added to $\STACK_1$ or

1427:   $\STACK_2$. Instead we first

1428: try to combine $G'$  with existing graphs in $\STACK_1$.

1429: We also check if $G'$ is 

1430: an induced subgraph of a graph in $\STACK_2$. Only if we have not

1431: succeeded in either of these actions, do we add

1432: $G'$ to $\STACK_1$ or $\STACK_2$, as appropriate. This

1433: prevents $\STACK_1$ and $\STACK_2$ from growing too big. It also ensures

1434: that {\em only\/} graphs from $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$ are returned,

1435: and each such graph is returned only once.

1436: \end{itemize}

1437: In order to prove our complexity analysis of the runtime of {\sc

1438:   GenWithVertex}$\paramP$, we must show that {\sc

1439:   GenRestrWithVertex}$\paramP$ does not 

1440:  create more graphs than the number of graphs in

1441:   the result of 

1442: {\sc GenWithVertex}$\paramP$. This holds because we are able to prove

1443:   that $H\gcon G$ implies

1444:   that $|\maxSolVert \P   {G[H]} {v_r}| \leq 

1445: |\maxSolVert \P {G} {v_r}|$   if either {\em (1)\/} $\P$ is connected-hereditary

1446: {\em or (2)\/} $\P$ is rooted-hereditary and $v_r$ is the root of $G$. 

1447: 

1448: 

1449: \begin{figure*}[!t]\begin{center}

1450: \scalebox{0.9}{

1451: \fbox{\parbox{1in}{

1452: \begin{tabbing}

1453: 0\=1\= AAA \= AAA \= AAA \= AAA \= AAA \= AA \= \kill

1454: \>\>{\bf Algorithm:} \>\> \>\>{\sc GenWithVertex}$\paramP$\\ 

1455: \>\>{\bf Input:} \> \> \>\> Graph $G$ and Vertex $v_r$ \\ 

1456: \>\>{\bf Output:} \>\>\>\> Maximal answers that contain vertex $v_r$,

1457: i.e., $\maxSolVert \P {G} {v_r}$ \ \ \ \ \ 

1458: \end{tabbing}\vspace{-0.5cm}

1459: \begin{algorithm}{}{}

1460: \notV(G[\set{v_r}]) := \emptyset \\

1461:  {\mathit Stack}_1 := \emptyset \\

1462:  {\mathit Stack}_2 := \emptyset \\

1463:  \CALL{PushAppropriate}\paramP(G[\set{v_r}], G, {\mathit Stack}_1, {\mathit Stack}_2) \\

1464: \begin{WHILE}{{\mathit Stack}_1 \neq \emptyset}

1465:   H:= {\mathit Stack}_1\CALL{.Pop()} \\

1466:   \mbox{{\bf let} $v$ be a vertex in $N_\P(H, G)\setminus \notV(H)$} \\ 

1467:   \begin{IF}{\CALL{Sat}\paramP(G[H, v])}

1468:     \notV(G[H,v]):= \emptyset \\

1469:     \CALL{PushAppropriate}\paramP(G[H,v]) 

1470:     \ELSE \notV(H) := \notV(H) \cup\set{v} \\

1471:     \begin{FOREACH}{G' \in \CALL{GenRestrWithVertex}\paramP(G[H,v],v_r)

1472:     \setminus \set{H}} 

1473:       \notV(G') := \emptyset\\

1474:       {\mathit inserted} := \text{false} \\

1475:       \begin{FOREACH}{H' \in {\mathit Stack}_1 \text{s.t.} \CALL{Sat}\paramP(G[G',H'])} 

1476:         G_{\mathit new}:= G[G', H'] \\ 

1477:         \notV(G_{\mathit new}):= \emptyset \\

1478:         {\mathit Stack}_1.\CALL{Remove}(H') \\

1479:         \CALL{PushAppropriate}\paramP(G_{\mathit new}, G, {\mathit Stack}_1, {\mathit Stack}_2) \\

1480:         {\mathit inserted} := \text{true}

1481:       \end{FOREACH}        \\

1482:       \begin{IF}{\mbox{exists $H'\in {\mathit Stack}_2$ s.t. $V(G')\subseteq V(H')$}}

1483:         {\mathit inserted} := \text{true}

1484:       \end{IF}\\

1485:       \begin{IF}{\mbox{not({\it inserted})}}

1486:         \CALL{PushAppropriate}\paramP(G', G, {\mathit Stack}_1, {\mathit Stack}_2)

1487:       \end{IF} 

1488:     \end{FOREACH}\\

1489:     \CALL{PushAppropriate}\paramP(H, G, {\mathit Stack}_1, {\mathit Stack}_2) 

1490:   \end{IF} 

1491: \end{WHILE}\\

1492: \RETURN {\mathit Stack}_2

1493: \end{algorithm}

1494: }}}

1495: \end{center}

1496: \caption{Algorithm to compute $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$ for

1497:   connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties\label{fig:alg:vcs}}

1498: \end{figure*}

1499: 

1500: Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices.

1501: % and let $v_r$ be a vertex in

1502: %$G$. Suppose that there are $K$ graphs in $\maxSolVert G n v_r$. 

1503: We use $r'_\P(n,K)$ to denote the amount of time needed to compute

1504: $\maxSolVert \P G v$ for a graph $G$ that almost satisfies $\P$ and an

1505: arbitrary vertex $v$, i.e.,

1506: the runtime of the procedure {\sc

1507:   GenRestrWithVertex}$\paramP(G,v)$. Note that $r'_\P$ is a

1508: function of both the input $n$ and the number of graphs in the output

1509: $K$. The function $s_\P$ is defined as before.

1510: 

1511: %We can show the following results. 

1512: %Similarly, we use $\#'_\P(n)$ to denote the maximum

1513: %number of graphs in $\maxSolVert \P G v$, assuming that $G$ almost satisfies

1514: %$\P$. 

1515: %As before, we assume that these functions are monotonically

1516: %nondecreasing. 

1517: 

1518: 

1519: \begin{theorem}%[Correctness of VCS]

1520: \label{theorem:vcs:correct}

1521: Let $\P$ be a connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property. Let $G$

1522: be a graph with $n$ vertices, and let $v_r$ be a vertex in

1523: $G$.  Suppose that 

1524: $G[\set{v_r}]\in\P$. Let $K$ be the number of graphs in $\maxSolVert \P G

1525: v$.  Then 

1526: \begin{itemize}

1527: \item \VCS$(G, v_r) = \maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$ {\em and}

1528: %\item \VCS$(G, v_r)$ runs in time:

1529: %$\O\Big(n^2\,K\big(r'_\P(n,K) +  K\,\#'_\P(n)\big(s_\P(n)\, +

1530: %n\big)\big)\Big)$. 

1531: \item \VCS$(G, v_r)$ runs in time:

1532: $\O\Big(n^2\,K^2\, r'_\P(n,K)\big(s_\P(n)\, +

1533: n\big)\Big)$. 

1534: \end{itemize}

1535: \end{theorem}

1536: 

1537: %We can now prove the following result. 

1538: 

1539: \begin{theorem}%[Polynomially Solvable]

1540: \label{corollary:vertex-polynomially-extendable:is:polynomially-solvable} 

1541: Let $\P$ be a connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property.

1542: The  maximal

1543:   $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO\ if the io-restricted maximal

1544: $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO.

1545: \end{theorem}

1546: 

1547: \proofsketch

1548: Since any vertex in $G$ may or may not appear in a 

1549: solution of a connected-hereditary property, it is possible to compute

1550:   $\maxSol \P G$ for connected-hereditary properties by calling \VCS\

1551:   for every vertex in $G$. If $\P$ is a rooted-hereditary, every graph

1552:   in $\maxSol \P G$ must contain the root of $G$. Hence, it is

1553:   possible to compute $\maxSol \P G$ by calling \VCS\ with the root of

1554:   $G$. 

1555: \qed

1556: 

1557: If $\P$ is rooted

1558: hereditary and $v_r$ is the root of

1559: $G$, then $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r} = \maxSol \P

1560: G$. Hence, we can show the following result.

1561: %Corollary~\ref{corollary:iff:rooted} follows.   

1562: %Hence, it follows that the

1563: %maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO\ if and only if the

1564: %input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO. 

1565: 

1566: \begin{corollary} \label{corollary:iff:rooted}

1567: Let $\P$ be a rooted-hereditary property. The maximal

1568: $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO\ if and only if the 

1569: input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO. 

1570: \end{corollary}

1571: 

1572: \section{Extending the Algorithms}

1573: 

1574: In this section we discuss some small changes that can be made to the

1575: algorithms {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ and \VCS\ in order to improve the

1576: complexity results from the previous sections. 

1577: 

1578: \paragraph{P-Enumerable for Connected-Hereditary and Rooted-Hereditary

1579:   Properties.} 

1580: In Corollary~\ref{corollary:hereditary:P-enumerable}, we presented a

1581: sufficient condition for the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to be

1582: P-enumerable, for hereditary properties $\P$. The algorithm \VCS\

1583: cannot be used in order to derive a sufficient condition for this

1584: problem to be 

1585: P-enumerable for connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary

1586: properties, since $K$ appears quadratically in the runtime of \VCS. 

1587: 

1588: 

1589: It turns  out that one can 

1590: adapt  {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ to derive an algorithm that computes

1591: $\maxSolVert \P G {v_r}$, for a rooted-hereditary or

1592:   connected-hereditary property $\P$,  provided that certain conditions hold.

1593: The crux of the change to {\sc GenHered}$\paramP$ is in careful choice

1594: of the order in which to iterate over the vertices in $G$. The adapted

1595: algorithm can be used similarly to \VCS\ in order to compute $\maxSol \P G$. 

1596: 

1597: \begin{theorem}

1598: %Let $\P$ be a property. 

1599: Suppose that the input-restricted maximal

1600: $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME. Then, the

1601: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is {\rm P}-enumerable if

1602: {\em (1)\/} $\P$ is rooted-hereditary and $G$ is acyclic

1603: {\em or (2)\/} $\P$ is connected-hereditary and the underlying

1604: undirected graph of $G$ is a tree.

1605: \end{theorem}

1606: 

1607: 

1608: \paragraph{Incremental Polynomial Time.}

1609: None of the complexity results presented have provided conditions for

1610: the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to be solvable in incremental

1611: polynomial time. 

1612: %

1613: By slightly changing the procedure \VCS\

1614:  we can  derive an algorithm that computes $\maxSolVert \P G

1615: {v_r}$ in incremental 

1616: polynomial time for an important special case. Using this adapted

1617: algorithm,  $\maxSol \P G$ can also be computed in incremental 

1618: polynomial time, for connected-hereditary and rooted-hereditary

1619:  properties. %The algorithm and a 

1620: %full proof of correctness are not presented, due to lack of space. 

1621: Our adapted algorithm can also be used for a hereditary property $\P$, by

1622: reducing $\P$ to an appropriately defined rooted-hereditary property. 

1623: In addition, we derive a polynomial complexity result for returning

1624: $k$ maximal induced subgraphs, for any constant $k$.

1625: 

1626: \begin{theorem}%[\mathversion{bold}Algorithms Print $\maxSol \P G$]

1627: \label{theorem:inc-poly}

1628: Let $\P$ be hereditary, connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary

1629: property.  Suppose that the io-restricted maximal 

1630: $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME. 

1631: Then, 

1632: %\begin{enumerate}

1633: %\item 

1634: {\em (1)\/} the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PINC\ 

1635: %\item 

1636: {\em and (2)\/} $k$ graphs from $\maxSol \P G$ can be returned in polynomial

1637:   time, for any constant $k$.

1638: %\end{enumerate}

1639: \end{theorem}

1640: 

1641: \proofsketch 

1642: Item~2 follows directly from Item~1. To show Item~1, 

1643: let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices. 

1644: By careful observation, one may note that after at most $n^2$

1645: iterations of the loop in Line 5 of \VCS, an additional graph will

1646: be in $\STACK_2$. One can take advantage of this fact to adapt \VCS\

1647: so that it will run in incremental polynomial time, by having {\sc

1648:   PushAppropriate}$\paramP$ print graphs as it adds them to

1649: $\STACK_2$. (Care has to be taken not to print graphs that appeared

1650: before in a previous call to \VCS.)

1651: \qed

1652: 

1653: \begin{corollary}

1654: The maximal $\PCBIP$ problem is in \PINC.

1655: \end{corollary}

1656: 

1657: \eat{

1658: This paper considers the problem of returning {\em all\/} maximal

1659: solutions for a given property $\P$ and graph $G$. Another interesting

1660: problem is that of returning $k$ maximal solutions for $\P$ and

1661: $G$. Our incremental polynomial algorithm can be used to solve

1662:  such problems in polynomial time, if the conditions of

1663:  Theorem~\ref{theorem:inc-poly}  hold.

1664: }

1665: \eat{

1666: \begin{corollary}%[\mathversion{bold}Generating $K$ Solutions]

1667: Let $G$ be a graph and $\P$ be a property. 

1668: Suppose that either {\em

1669:   (1)\/} $\P$ is hereditary or rooted-hereditary and the input-restricted

1670: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME\  {\em or

1671:   (2)\/} $\P$ is a 

1672:   connected-hereditary property and the io-restricted maximal

1673:   $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PTIME.

1674:  Then, it is possible to return $k$ graphs

1675: from $\maxSol \P G$ in polynomial time, for any constant $k$.

1676: \end{corollary}

1677: }

1678: 

1679: 

1680: %\input conclusion

1681: \section{Conclusion} \label{sec:conclusion}

1682: 

1683: This paper reduces the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to restricted

1684: versions of the same problem by providing algorithms that solve the

1685: general problem, assuming that an algorithm for a 

1686: restricted version is given. Our results imply that when attempting to

1687: efficiently solve the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem, it is not

1688: necessary to define an algorithm that works for the general

1689: case. Instead, an algorithm for restricted cases must be

1690: defined.  An efficient  method for solving the maximal

1691: $\P$-subgraphs problem for the general case is automatically

1692: derived from our algorithms.

1693: 

1694: Sometimes it turns out that algorithms for restricted cases of the

1695: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem are straightfoward. For example, this

1696: is the case with the properties $\PBIP$ and $\PCBIP$. There are

1697: additional properties for which this holds, e.g., the set of

1698: independent sets, the set of star graphs, etc. Thus, our results

1699: immediately imply that the maximal \prop{is an independent

1700:   set}-subgraphs problem is both P-enumerable and in \PINC,

1701: and the maximal \prop{is a star

1702:   graph}-subgraphs problem is in \PINC. Note

1703: that it is significantly easier to come up with algorithms that solve

1704: the restricted versions of these problems than to come up with 

1705: algorithms that solve the general cases.

1706: 

1707: 

1708: Interestingly, our results can be applied to 

1709: the database problem of computing maximal query answers. Well-known

1710: semantics for this problem, e.g., full

1711: disjunctions~\cite{Galindo-Legaria:Full:Disjunctions}, can be modeled

1712: as 

1713: graph properties. It is often easy to define algorithms that solve the

1714: restricted versions of the maximal $\P$-subgraph problem, for graph

1715: properties that correspond to semantics for incomplete

1716: information. Hence, the results in this paper have immediate practical

1717: applications for efficiently computing maximal query answers.

1718: 

1719: %implythe results in this paper form the

1720: %basis~\cite{ICDT:Submission} which improve upon the complexity results

1721: %for generating maximal query answers for several different semantics. 

1722: 

1723: \eat{Such restricted versions are often easier to

1724: solve for specific properties $\P$ than the unrestricted version. Two

1725: examples of properties for which an algorithm that solves a restricted

1726: version is obvious are $\PBIP$ and $\PCBIP$.

1727: %The main contributions of this paper are as follows.

1728: % First, 

1729: For hereditary properties, the algorithm {\sc GenHered} reduces 

1730: the maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem to the input-restricted maxmimal

1731: $\P$-subgraphs problem. For connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary

1732: properties, the algorithm {\sc GenWithVertex} reduces the  maximal

1733: $\P$-subgraphs problem to the io-restricted maxmimal $\P$-subgraphs

1734: problem. These reductions give a complete characterization of when the

1735: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO, for hereditary and

1736: rooted-hereditary properties, by reducing these problems to the

1737: input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem and the io-restricted

1738: maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem, respectively.

1739: If certain additional conditions hold, we have shown that the maximal

1740: $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PINC or is P-enumerable. 

1741: }

1742: 

1743: 

1744: % Namely, for hereditary properties the

1745: %maximal $\P$-subgraphs is in \PIO if and 

1746: %only if the input-restricted maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO

1747: %and for rooted-hereditary properties the

1748: %maximal $\P$-subgraphs is in \PIO if and only if the io-restricted

1749: %maximal $\P$-subgraphs problem is in \PIO. 

1750: 

1751: 

1752: 

1753: \eat{

1754: \begin{table}[t]

1755: \begin{tabular}{lccc}

1756: \toprule

1757: Restricted in & Hereditary & Connected Hereditary & Rooted Hereditary

1758: \\ \midrule 

1759: input \PIO & \PIO & & \PIO \\  \midrule

1760: io \PIO & \PIO & \PIO & \PIO \\  \midrule

1761: input-restricted, 

1762:  & \PINC, & \PINC, & \PINC, \\ 

1763: io-restricted: \PTIME & P-enumerable &  P-enumerable  & P-enumerable  \\

1764: & for arbitrary $G$  & if $G$ is acyclic & if $G$ is a tree \\

1765: \bottomrule

1766: \end{tabular}

1767: \end{table}

1768: }

1769: 

1770: \eat{

1771: A complete

1772: characterization is given for  when hereditary and

1773: rooted-hereditary properties are in \PIO. 

1774: 

1775: 

1776: The goal of this paper is to investigate when all maximal solutions for

1777: hereditary, connected-hereditary, and rooted-hereditary properties can

1778: be computed in polynomial time under input-output complexity. 

1779: Towards this end,  {\em

1780:  polynomially-extendable\/} and {\em polynomially 

1781:  vertex-extendible\/} properties are defined. The main

1782:  results are 

1783:  about hereditary properties that are also polynomially-extendable,

1784:  and connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary properties that are

1785:  also polynomially vertex-extendible. In both of these

1786:  cases, all maximal solutions can be generated in polynomial time

1787:  under input-output complexity.  We show that all

1788:  polynomially-solvable hereditary properties are

1789:  polynomially-extendable and all polynomially-solvable

1790:  rooted-hereditary properties are polynomially

1791:  vertex-extendible. It is often easy to verify whether a

1792:  property is polynomially extendible or polynomially

1793:  vertex-extendible. In such cases, one can immediately determine whether a

1794:  property is polynomially solvable. 

1795: 

1796: For hereditary and rooted-hereditary properties $\P$, such that

1797: $\funExtend n m$ is polynomial in $n$ and $m$, and for

1798: connected-hereditary properties $\P$, such that $\funExtendVert n m$ is

1799: polynomial in $n$ and $m$, we present an incremental polynomial

1800: algorithm that generates all maximal solutions. For such properties,

1801: we also show that $k$ maximal solutions can be generated in polynomial

1802: time in the size of the input, for a constant $k$. 

1803: 

1804: We now present examples of hereditary, connected-hereditary and

1805: rooted-hereditary properties which were studied independently in the

1806: past. For these properties, we demonstrate how our results contain and

1807: improve upon previous results. 

1808: 

1809: \paragraph{Graph Theory.}

1810: One application where it is of importance to find all maximal solutions

1811: to a hereditary property is that of graph coloring.

1812: There are  algorithms for coloring a graph that 

1813: first compute all maximal independent sets of the graph or all maximal 

1814: bipartite subgraphs of the graph. An algorithm for computing maximal

1815: independent sets was presented

1816: in~\cite{Johnson-Yannakakis:Generating-Maximal-Independents-Sets}.

1817: %,Tsukiyama-Maximal:Independant:Sets}.

1818: In~\cite{Number:Bipartite:Graphs}, an

1819: algorithm for finding all maximal bipartite subgraphs of a graph is

1820: presented. This algorithm computes all maximal bipartite subgraphs of

1821: a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices in time proportional to the maximal

1822: number of bipartite subgraphs that a graph of size $n$ may

1823: have. However, this algorithm is not guaranteed to be polynomial in

1824: the size of the actual input and output. Since \prop{is a bipartite

1825:   graph} is a polynomially-extendable hereditary property, our

1826: algorithm \CHP, presented 

1827: in Section~\ref{sec:hereditary},

1828: computes all maximal bipartite subgraphs in

1829: polynomial time under input-output complexity.

1830: 

1831: \eat{

1832: \paragraph{Classical Database Theory.}

1833: Many database problems  involve

1834: hereditary properties. For example, in order to  check if a

1835: relation $R$ is in BCNF, one must generate

1836: all minimal keys of $R$. The characteristic of being a minimal key

1837: is closely related to a hereditary property, since the property

1838: \prop{is a  complement of a minimal key} is hereditary. 

1839: Many data mining tasks, such as finding frequent

1840: itemsets, involve

1841: generating maximal sets with a given property. 

1842: Although the problems discussed in this subsection involve hereditary

1843: properties, it is not yet clear if it is possible to apply our techniques

1844: to these problems.

1845: }

1846: 

1847: \paragraph{Computing Maximal Answers to Queries.}

1848: With the development of the World-Wide Web and the high availability

1849: of data from widely varying sources, the problem of integrating

1850: information from heterogeneous sources has received much attention. In

1851: such scenarios, it is common for the information available to be

1852: partial. In general it may be the case that there is not enough

1853: information to completely answer (satisfy) a query. Under such

1854: conditions, one is interested in finding all maximal answers for a

1855: given query.  

1856: 

1857: %\begin{description}

1858: %\item[Full Disjunctions:] %\paragraph{Full Disjunction.}

1859: %\label{sec:examples:fd}

1860: Full disjunctions are a well-known  method used to answer queries in incomplete

1861: relational databases

1862: (see~\cite{Rajaraman:Ullman-Computing:Full:Disjunctions-PODS,Galindo-Legaria:Full:Disjunctions}). 

1863: Only recently, \cite{Kanza:Sagiv:Full:Disjunctions} showed that 

1864:  full disjunctions can be computed in polynomial time under input-output

1865: complexity. 

1866: We show in Appendix~\ref{appendix:examples} that  a full disjunction

1867: can  be computed 

1868: by generating maximal solutions for a suitably defined

1869: connected-hereditary property.  A precise definition of a full disjunction

1870: and of the corresponding

1871: connected-hereditary property $\P_{\sf fd}$

1872:  is presented in Appendix~\ref{appendix:examples}. The property

1873:  $\P_{\sf fd}$ is polynomially vertex-extendible and $e'_{\P_{\sf

1874:      fd}}(n, m)$ is polynomial in $n$ and $m$. 

1875: Therefore, this

1876: paper improves on the result in~\cite{Kanza:Sagiv:Full:Disjunctions}

1877: since the algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:ip:connected-hereditary} can

1878: be used to compute $\P_{\sf fd}$ in incremental polynomial  time. 

1879: 

1880: 

1881: %\item[Incomplete Answers over Semistructured Data:]

1882: %\label{sec:examples:ss}

1883: In~\cite{Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS} the problem of

1884: computing maximal answers for rooted graph queries over

1885: rooted graph databases was considered. For two of the semantics

1886: presented, {\em {\sc or}-semantics} and {\em weak semantics},

1887: algorithms that generate all maximal answers in  polynomial time

1888: under input-output complexity were

1889: presented~\cite{Kanza:Et:Al-Incomplete:Answers:Over:SSDs-PODS,Kanza:Sagiv:Full:Disjunctions}.

1890: One can compute maximal

1891: answers under weak semantics and under

1892: {\sc or}-semantics  by computing maximal solutions for

1893: appropriately defined rooted-hereditary properties. The definition of

1894: weak semantics and {\sc or}-semantics, along with 

1895: rooted-hereditary properties $\P_{\sf weak}$ and $\P_{\sf or}$ for

1896: these problems, are presented in Appendix~\ref{appendix:examples}. 

1897: The algorithms

1898: presented in this paper for generating maximal solutions for

1899: rooted-hereditary properties can be used to solve these problems. 

1900: Since {\em (1)\/} $\P_{\sf weak}$ and $\P_{\sf or}$ are polynomially

1901: vertex-extendible {\em and (2)\/} $e_{{}_{\P_{\sf weak}}}(n,m)$ and

1902: $e_{{}_{\P_{\sf or}}}(n,m)$ are polynomial in $n$ and $m$, it is possible

1903: to compute all maximal answers under weak semantics and under {\sc

1904:   or}-semantics in incremental polynomial time, which is an

1905: improvement on previous results.

1906: 

1907: %\item[Extracting Relations from XML:]

1908: The problem of extracting

1909: maximal tuples (i.e., tuples padded with null values) from XML

1910: documents was considered in~\cite{Cohen:Generating:Relation}. They

1911: generated maximal tuples that are {\em completely interconnected\/} or

1912: {\em reachably interconnected} in polynomial time under input-output

1913: complexity. It is fairly straightforward to define a hereditary

1914: property that corresponds to complete interconnectedness and a

1915: connected-hereditary property that corresponds to reachable

1916: interconnectedness. Hence, our algorithms can be used to generate

1917: their maximal tuples. In addition, our algorithms are superior to

1918: those in~\cite{Cohen:Generating:Relation} in their

1919: runtime. Furthermore, our incremental polynomial algorithms can be

1920: used to generate maximal tuples in incremental polynomial time. 

1921: 

1922: \enlargethispage{\baselineskip}

1923: In summary, we believe that this paper lays a theoretical foundation for the

1924: problem of defining query semantics over incomplete information. The

1925: results in this paper imply that when  defining a semantics for

1926: incomplete query answers it is often 

1927: useful to define the semantics in terms of a hereditary,

1928: connected-hereditary or rooted-hereditary property that is 

1929: polynomially solvable. In fact, we have shown that previously defined

1930: semantics for incomplete information were  unwittingly defined in

1931: this way. We leave for future work the task of  defining a semantics

1932: for incomplete 

1933: information for XQuery, based on the principles presented in this paper.

1934: 

1935: 

1936: \eat{

1937: One open question is whether is is possible for a property to be

1938: connected-hereditary, polynomially solvable and {\em not\/} polynomially

1939: vertex-extendible. 

1940: }

1941: }

1942: %\end{description}

1943: 

1944: %{\small

1945: \bibliography{strings,%

1946:               hereditary-lit}

1947: \bibliographystyle{abbrv}

1948: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

1949: %}

1950: 

1951: 

1952: \end{document}

1953: 

1954: