5
$\begingroup$

Given 3 parameters $s, r$ and $t$, where $r \leq t$, I want to construct $t$ sets such that each integer $\{1, \ldots, s\}$ appears in exactly $r$ of these sets. The question is:

Is it possible to construct these sets such that the size of the maximum pairwise intersection between any two $t_i, t_j$ is $k$? Is this question $\mathsf{NP}$-complete? Or equivalently, is minimizing the maximum pairwise intersection between the sets $\mathsf{NP}$-hard?

There is a lower bound on the max pairwise intersection given by ceiling(number of identical value pairs / number of set pairs), meaning $\lceil (s \cdot {r \choose 2}) / {t \choose 2} \rceil$.

The problem seems related to, but slightly different from, the block design problem. In the block design problem, there is a parameter $\lambda$ that dictates in how many of the $t$ sets each pair of integers in $\{1, \ldots, s\}$ must appear, so if $\lambda$ is 1, the maximum pairwise intersection between sets is 1 (since each pair of values appears in at most 1 set together). I've seen claims that deciding the existence of a block design is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete, but no actual proof - would also appreciate any link to such a proof.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I have two problems with this question. 1) What is k, is it a part of the input? Do you want exactly k or <=k? 2) Is the input unary or binary? If the latter, why is the problem in NP? In either case, I really don't think there is any chance for it to be NP-complete. $\endgroup$
    – domotorp
    Jul 14, 2013 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ 1) k could be part of the input, but there is also the simpler question of whether there is a solution that achieves the lower bound given above. $\endgroup$
    – ragip
    Jul 14, 2013 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ 2) This is a good point. So verifying a solution would take exponential time in the size of the input. Any suggestions as to what I should expect the complexity of this problem to be then? Also, I've seen claims that deciding block design existence is NP-complete, but it seems to me that this same consideration should apply - is there something I'm missing here? $\endgroup$
    – ragip
    Jul 14, 2013 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe the problem is that given unary parameters and a set system on the base set, whether it can be extended into a suitable family, these sort of problems are often NP-complete. $\endgroup$
    – domotorp
    Jul 15, 2013 at 5:05

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.