arXiv++ Combinatorics

Genome rearrangement has been an active area of research in computational comparative genomics for the last three decades. While initially mostly an interesting algorithmic endeavor, now the practical application by applying rearrangement distance methods and more advanced phylogenetic tasks is becoming common practice, given the availability of many completely sequenced genomes. Several genome rearrangement models have been developed over time, sometimes with surprising computational properties. A prominent example is the fact that computing the reversal distance of two signed permutations is possible in linear time, while for two unsigned permutations it is NP-hard. Therefore one has always to be careful about the precise problem formulation and complexity analysis of rearrangement problems in order not to be fooled. The double distance is the minimum number of genomic rearrangements between a singular and a duplicated genome that, in addition to rearrangements, are separated by a whole genome duplication. At the same time it allows to assign the genes of the duplicated genome to the two paralogous chromosome copies that existed right after the duplication event. Computing the double distance is another example of a tricky hardness landscape: If the distance measure underlying the double distance is the simple breakpoint distance, the problem can be solved in linear time, while with the more elaborate DCJ distance it is NP-hard. Indeed, there is a family of distance measures, parameterized by an even number k, between the breakpoint distance (k=2) and the DCJ distance (k=\infty). Little was known about the hardness border between these extremes; the problem complexity was known only for k=4 and k=6. In this paper, we close the gap, providing a full picture of the hardness landscape when computing the double distance.

Genome rearrangements are events where large blocks of DNA exchange places during evolution. The analysis of these events is a promising tool for understanding evolutionary genomics, providing data for phylogenetic reconstruction based on genome rearrangement measures. Many pairwise rearrangement distances have been proposed, based on finding the minimum number of rearrangement events to transform one genome into the other, using some predefined operation. When more than two genomes are considered, we have the more challenging problem of rearrangement-based phylogeny reconstruction. Given a set of genomes and a distance notion, there are at least two natural ways to define the "target" genome. On the one hand, finding a genome that minimizes the sum of the distances from this to any other, called the median genome. Finding a genome that minimizes the maximum distance to any other, called the closest genome. Considering genomes as permutations, some distance metrics have been extensively studied. We investigate median and closest problems on permutations over the metrics: breakpoint, swap, block-interchange, short-block-move, and transposition. In biological matters some values are usually small, such as the solution value d or the number k of input permutations. For each of these metrics and parameters d or k, we analyze the closest and the median problems from the viewpoint of parameterized complexity. We obtain the following results: NP-hardness for finding the median/closest permutation for some metrics, even for k = 3; Polynomial kernels for the problems of finding the median permutation of all studied metrics, considering the target distance d as parameter; NP-hardness result for finding the closest permutation by short-block-moves; FPT algorithms and infeasibility of polynomial kernels for finding the closest permutation for some metrics parameterized by the target distance d.

A tree $t$-spanner of a graph $G$ is a spanning tree $T$ in which the distance between any two adjacent vertices of $G$ is at most $t$. The smallest $t$ for which $G$ has a tree $t$-spanner is called tree stretch index. The $t$-admissibility problem aims to decide whether the tree stretch index is at most $t$. Regarding its optimization version, the smallest $t$ for which $G$ is $t$-admissible is the stretch index of $G$, denoted by $σ_T(G)$. Given a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, the recognition of $2$-admissible graphs can be done $O(n+m)$ time, whereas $t$-admissibility is NP-complete for $σ_T(G) \leq t$, $t \geq 4$ and deciding if $t = 3$ is an open problem, for more than 20 years. Since the structural knowledge of classes can be determinant to classify $3$-admissibility's complexity, in this paper we present simpler and faster algorithms to check $2$ and $3$-admissibility for families of graphs with few $P_4$'s and $(k,\ell)$-graphs. Regarding $(0,\ell)$-graphs, we present lower and upper bounds for the stretch index of these graphs and characterize graphs whose stretch indexes are equal to the proposed upper bound. Moreover, we prove that $t$-admissibility is NP-complete even for line graphs of subdivided graphs.

We propose the total staggered quantum walk model and the total tessellation cover of a graph. This model uses the concept of total tessellation cover to describe the motion of the walker who is allowed to hop both to vertices and edges of the graph, in contrast with previous models in which the walker hops either to vertices or edges. We establish bounds on $T_t(G)$, which is the smallest number of tessellations required in a total tessellation cover of $G$. We highlight two of these lower bounds $T_t(G) \geq ω(G)$ and $T_t(G)\geq is(G)+1$, where $ω(G)$ is the size of a maximum clique and $is(G)$ is the number of edges of a maximum induced star subgraph. Using these bounds, we define the good total tessellable graphs with either $T_t(G)=ω(G)$ or $T_t(G)=is(G)+1$. The $k$-total tessellability problem aims to decide whether a given graph $G$ has $T_t(G) \leq k$. We show that $k$-total tessellability is in $\mathcal{P}$ for good total tessellable graphs. We establish the $\mathcal{NP}$-completeness of the following problems when restricted to the following classes: ($is(G)+1$)-total tessellability for graphs with $ω(G) = 2$; $ω(G)$-total tessellability for graphs $G$ with $is(G)+1 = 3$; $k$-total tessellability for graphs $G$ with $\max\{ω(G), is(G)+1\}$ far from $k$; and $4$-total tessellability for graphs $G$ with $ω(G) = is(G)+1 = 4$. As a consequence, we establish hardness results for bipartite graphs, line graphs of triangle-free graphs, universal graphs, planar graphs, and $(2,1)$-chordal graphs.

A tessellation of a graph is a partition of its vertices into vertex disjoint cliques. A tessellation cover of a graph is a set of tessellations that covers all of its edges, and the tessellation cover number, denoted by $T(G)$, is the size of a smallest tessellation cover. The \textsc{$t$-tessellability} problem aims to decide whether a graph $G$ has $T(G)\leq t$ and is $\mathcal{NP}$-complete for $t\geq 3$. Since the number of edges of a maximum induced star of $G$, denoted by $is(G)$, is a lower bound on $T(G)$, we define good tessellable graphs as the graphs~$G$ such that $T(G)=is(G)$. The \textsc{good tessellable recognition (gtr)} problem aims to decide whether $G$ is a good tessellable graph. We show that \textsc{gtr} is $\mathcal{NP}$-complete not only if $T(G)$ is known or $is(G)$ is fixed, but also when the gap between $T(G)$ and $is(G)$ is large. As a byproduct, we obtain graph classes that obey the corresponding computational complexity behaviors.