10
7

Non-Clashing Teaching Maps for Balls in Graphs

Abstract

Recently, Kirkpatrick et al. [ALT 2019] and Fallat et al. [JMLR 2023] introduced non-clashing teaching and showed it to be the most efficient machine teaching model satisfying the benchmark for collusion-avoidance set by Goldman and Mathias. A teaching map TT for a concept class C\cal{C} assigns a (teaching) set T(C)T(C) of examples to each concept CCC \in \cal{C}. A teaching map is non-clashing if no pair of concepts are consistent with the union of their teaching sets. The size of a non-clashing teaching map (NCTM) TT is the maximum size of a T(C)T(C), CCC \in \cal{C}. The non-clashing teaching dimension NCTD(C)(\cal{C}) of C\cal{C} is the minimum size of an NCTM for C\cal{C}. NCTM+^+ and NCTD+(C)^+(\cal{C}) are defined analogously, except the teacher may only use positive examples. We study NCTMs and NCTM+^+s for the concept class B(G)\mathcal{B}(G) consisting of all balls of a graph GG. We show that the associated decision problem {\sc B-NCTD+^+} for NCTD+^+ is NP-complete in split, co-bipartite, and bipartite graphs. Surprisingly, we even prove that, unless the ETH fails, {\sc B-NCTD+^+} does not admit an algorithm running in time 22o(vc)nO(1)2^{2^{o(vc)}}\cdot n^{O(1)}, nor a kernelization algorithm outputting a kernel with 2o(vc)2^{o(vc)} vertices, where vc is the vertex cover number of GG. These are extremely rare results: it is only the second (fourth, resp.) problem in NP to admit a double-exponential lower bound parameterized by vc (treewidth, resp.), and only one of very few problems to admit an ETH-based conditional lower bound on the number of vertices in a kernel. We complement these lower bounds with matching upper bounds. For trees, interval graphs, cycles, and trees of cycles, we derive NCTM+^+s or NCTMs for B(G)\mathcal{B}(G) of size proportional to its VC-dimension. For Gromov-hyperbolic graphs, we design an approximate NCTM+^+ for B(G)\mathcal{B}(G) of size 2.

View on arXiv
Comments on this paper