DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction + Bidimensionality Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction + Bidimensionality Theory Introduction + Bidimensionality Theory Ignasi Sau CNRS, LIRMM, Montpellier (France) Many thanks to Dimitrios M. Thilikos!! 14`emesJCALM. October 2013. UPC, Barcelona, Catalunya 1/57 Outline of the talk 1 Introduction, part II Treewidth Dynamic programming on tree decompositions Structure of H-minor-free graphs Some algorithmic issues A few words on other containment relations 2 Bidimensionality Some ingredients An illustrative example Meta-algorithms Further extensions 2/57 Next section is... 1 Introduction, part II Treewidth Dynamic programming on tree decompositions Structure of H-minor-free graphs Some algorithmic issues A few words on other containment relations 2 Bidimensionality Some ingredients An illustrative example Meta-algorithms Further extensions 3/57 Single-exponential FPT algorithm:2 O(k) · nO(1) Subexponential FPT algorithm:2 o(k) · nO(1) Parameterized complexity in one slide Idea given an NP-hard problem, fix one parameter of the input to see if the problem gets more \tractable". Example: the size of a Vertex Cover. Given a (NP-hard) problem with input of size n and a parameter k, a fixed-parameter tractable( FPT) algorithm runs in f (k) · nO(1); for some function f . Examples: k-Vertex Cover, k-Longest Path. 4/57 Subexponential FPT algorithm:2 o(k) · nO(1) Parameterized complexity in one slide Idea given an NP-hard problem, fix one parameter of the input to see if the problem gets more \tractable". Example: the size of a Vertex Cover. Given a (NP-hard) problem with input of size n and a parameter k, a fixed-parameter tractable( FPT) algorithm runs in f (k) · nO(1); for some function f . Examples: k-Vertex Cover, k-Longest Path. Single-exponential FPT algorithm:2 O(k) · nO(1) 4/57 Parameterized complexity in one slide Idea given an NP-hard problem, fix one parameter of the input to see if the problem gets more \tractable". Example: the size of a Vertex Cover. Given a (NP-hard) problem with input of size n and a parameter k, a fixed-parameter tractable( FPT) algorithm runs in f (k) · nO(1); for some function f . Examples: k-Vertex Cover, k-Longest Path. Single-exponential FPT algorithm:2 O(k) · nO(1) Subexponential FPT algorithm:2 o(k) · nO(1) 4/57 Next subsection is... 1 Introduction, part II Treewidth Dynamic programming on tree decompositions Structure of H-minor-free graphs Some algorithmic issues A few words on other containment relations 2 Bidimensionality Some ingredients An illustrative example Meta-algorithms Further extensions 5/57 Any vertex v 2 V (G) and the endpoints of any edge e 2 E(G) belong to some node Xt of D; and For any v 2 V (G), the set ft 2 V (T ) j v 2 Xt g is a subtree of T . The width of a tree decomposition is maxfjXt j j t 2 V (T )g − 1. The treewidth of a graph G, denoted tw(G), is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of G. Invariant that measures the topological complexity of a graph. Tree decompositions and treewidth A tree decomposition of a graph G is a pair D = (T ; X ) such that T is a tree and X = fXt j t 2 V (T )g is a collection of subsets of V (G) such that: (each Xt 2 X corresponds to a vertex t 2 V (T ): we call Xt node of D) 6/57 The width of a tree decomposition is maxfjXt j j t 2 V (T )g − 1. The treewidth of a graph G, denoted tw(G), is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of G. Invariant that measures the topological complexity of a graph. Tree decompositions and treewidth A tree decomposition of a graph G is a pair D = (T ; X ) such that T is a tree and X = fXt j t 2 V (T )g is a collection of subsets of V (G) such that: (each Xt 2 X corresponds to a vertex t 2 V (T ): we call Xt node of D) Any vertex v 2 V (G) and the endpoints of any edge e 2 E(G) belong to some node Xt of D; and For any v 2 V (G), the set ft 2 V (T ) j v 2 Xt g is a subtree of T . 6/57 The treewidth of a graph G, denoted tw(G), is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of G. Invariant that measures the topological complexity of a graph. Tree decompositions and treewidth A tree decomposition of a graph G is a pair D = (T ; X ) such that T is a tree and X = fXt j t 2 V (T )g is a collection of subsets of V (G) such that: (each Xt 2 X corresponds to a vertex t 2 V (T ): we call Xt node of D) Any vertex v 2 V (G) and the endpoints of any edge e 2 E(G) belong to some node Xt of D; and For any v 2 V (G), the set ft 2 V (T ) j v 2 Xt g is a subtree of T . The width of a tree decomposition is maxfjXt j j t 2 V (T )g − 1. 6/57 Invariant that measures the topological complexity of a graph. Tree decompositions and treewidth A tree decomposition of a graph G is a pair D = (T ; X ) such that T is a tree and X = fXt j t 2 V (T )g is a collection of subsets of V (G) such that: (each Xt 2 X corresponds to a vertex t 2 V (T ): we call Xt node of D) Any vertex v 2 V (G) and the endpoints of any edge e 2 E(G) belong to some node Xt of D; and For any v 2 V (G), the set ft 2 V (T ) j v 2 Xt g is a subtree of T . The width of a tree decomposition is maxfjXt j j t 2 V (T )g − 1. The treewidth of a graph G, denoted tw(G), is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of G. 6/57 Tree decompositions and treewidth A tree decomposition of a graph G is a pair D = (T ; X ) such that T is a tree and X = fXt j t 2 V (T )g is a collection of subsets of V (G) such that: (each Xt 2 X corresponds to a vertex t 2 V (T ): we call Xt node of D) Any vertex v 2 V (G) and the endpoints of any edge e 2 E(G) belong to some node Xt of D; and For any v 2 V (G), the set ft 2 V (T ) j v 2 Xt g is a subtree of T . The width of a tree decomposition is maxfjXt j j t 2 V (T )g − 1. The treewidth of a graph G, denoted tw(G), is the minimum width over all tree decompositions of G. Invariant that measures the topological complexity of a graph. 6/57 Tree decompositions: example 7/57 Tree decompositions: example 8/57 Tree decompositions: example 9/57 Tree decompositions: example 10/57 Tree decompositions: example 11/57 2 Approximation algorithms on general graphs p O(Opt · Opt)-approximation. [Feige, Hajiaghayi, Lee. 2008] 3 (Exact) FPT algorithms on general graphs (tw 6 k?) k+2 In time O(n ). [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] O(k3) In time k · n. [Bodlaender. 1996] 4 FPT approximation algorithms on general graphs O(k) 2 4.5-approximation in time2 · n . [Amir. 2010] O(k) 5-approx. in2 · n. [Bodlaender, Drange, Dregi, Fomin, Lokshtanov, Pilipczuk. 2013] 5 Approximation algorithms on sparse graphs 3=2-approximation on planar graphs. [Seymour and Thomas. 1994] cH -approximation on H-minor-free graphs. [Demaine and Hajiaghayi. 2008] Open Compute the treewidth of a planar graph. About computing treewidth: a global picture 1 Computing treewidth is NP-hard [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] 12/57 3 (Exact) FPT algorithms on general graphs (tw 6 k?) k+2 In time O(n ). [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] O(k3) In time k · n. [Bodlaender. 1996] 4 FPT approximation algorithms on general graphs O(k) 2 4.5-approximation in time2 · n . [Amir. 2010] O(k) 5-approx. in2 · n. [Bodlaender, Drange, Dregi, Fomin, Lokshtanov, Pilipczuk. 2013] 5 Approximation algorithms on sparse graphs 3=2-approximation on planar graphs. [Seymour and Thomas. 1994] cH -approximation on H-minor-free graphs. [Demaine and Hajiaghayi. 2008] Open Compute the treewidth of a planar graph. About computing treewidth: a global picture 1 Computing treewidth is NP-hard [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] 2 Approximation algorithms on general graphs p O(Opt · Opt)-approximation. [Feige, Hajiaghayi, Lee. 2008] 12/57 k+2 In time O(n ). [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] O(k3) In time k · n. [Bodlaender. 1996] 4 FPT approximation algorithms on general graphs O(k) 2 4.5-approximation in time2 · n . [Amir. 2010] O(k) 5-approx. in2 · n. [Bodlaender, Drange, Dregi, Fomin, Lokshtanov, Pilipczuk. 2013] 5 Approximation algorithms on sparse graphs 3=2-approximation on planar graphs. [Seymour and Thomas. 1994] cH -approximation on H-minor-free graphs. [Demaine and Hajiaghayi. 2008] Open Compute the treewidth of a planar graph. About computing treewidth: a global picture 1 Computing treewidth is NP-hard [Arnborg, Corneil, Proskurowski. 1987] 2 Approximation algorithms on general graphs p O(Opt · Opt)-approximation. [Feige, Hajiaghayi, Lee. 2008] 3 (Exact) FPT algorithms on general graphs (tw 6 k?) 12/57 O(k3) In time k · n. [Bodlaender. 1996] 4 FPT approximation algorithms on general graphs O(k) 2 4.5-approximation in time2 · n .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Treewidth and Graph Minors
    On Treewidth and Graph Minors Daniel John Harvey Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy February 2014 Department of Mathematics and Statistics The University of Melbourne Produced on archival quality paper ii Abstract Both treewidth and the Hadwiger number are key graph parameters in structural and al- gorithmic graph theory, especially in the theory of graph minors. For example, treewidth demarcates the two major cases of the Robertson and Seymour proof of Wagner's Con- jecture. Also, the Hadwiger number is the key measure of the structural complexity of a graph. In this thesis, we shall investigate these parameters on some interesting classes of graphs. The treewidth of a graph defines, in some sense, how \tree-like" the graph is. Treewidth is a key parameter in the algorithmic field of fixed-parameter tractability. In particular, on classes of bounded treewidth, certain NP-Hard problems can be solved in polynomial time. In structural graph theory, treewidth is of key interest due to its part in the stronger form of Robertson and Seymour's Graph Minor Structure Theorem. A key fact is that the treewidth of a graph is tied to the size of its largest grid minor. In fact, treewidth is tied to a large number of other graph structural parameters, which this thesis thoroughly investigates. In doing so, some of the tying functions between these results are improved. This thesis also determines exactly the treewidth of the line graph of a complete graph. This is a critical example in a recent paper of Marx, and improves on a recent result by Grohe and Marx.
    [Show full text]
  • Treewidth I (Algorithms and Networks)
    Treewidth Algorithms and Networks Overview • Historic introduction: Series parallel graphs • Dynamic programming on trees • Dynamic programming on series parallel graphs • Treewidth • Dynamic programming on graphs of small treewidth • Finding tree decompositions 2 Treewidth Computing the Resistance With the Laws of Ohm = + 1 1 1 1789-1854 R R1 R2 = + R R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 Two resistors in series R2 Two resistors in parallel 3 Treewidth Repeated use of the rules 6 6 5 2 2 1 7 Has resistance 4 1/6 + 1/2 = 1/(1.5) 1.5 + 1.5 + 5 = 8 1 + 7 = 8 1/8 + 1/8 = 1/4 4 Treewidth 5 6 6 5 2 2 1 7 A tree structure tree A 5 6 P S 2 P 6 P 2 7 S Treewidth 1 Carry on! • Internal structure of 6 6 5 graph can be forgotten 2 2 once we know essential information 1 7 about it! 4 ¼ + ¼ = ½ 6 Treewidth Using tree structures for solving hard problems on graphs 1 • Network is ‘series parallel graph’ • 196*, 197*: many problems that are hard for general graphs are easy for e.g.: – Trees NP-complete – Series parallel graphs • Many well-known problems Linear / polynomial time computable 7 Treewidth Weighted Independent Set • Independent set: set of vertices that are pair wise non-adjacent. • Weighted independent set – Given: Graph G=(V,E), weight w(v) for each vertex v. – Question: What is the maximum total weight of an independent set in G? • NP-complete 8 Treewidth Weighted Independent Set on Trees • On trees, this problem can be solved in linear time with dynamic programming.
    [Show full text]
  • The Complexity of Two Graph Orientation Problems
    The Complexity of Two Graph Orientation Problems Nicole Eggemann∗ and Steven D. Noble† Department of Mathematical Sciences, Brunel University Kingston Lane Uxbridge UB8 3PH United Kingdom [email protected] and [email protected] November 8, 2018 Abstract We consider two orientation problems in a graph, namely the mini- mization of the sum of all the shortest path lengths and the minimization of the diameter. We show that it is NP-complete to decide whether a graph has an orientation such that the sum of all the shortest paths lengths is at most an integer specified in the input. The proof is a short reduction from a result of Chv´atal and Thomassen showing that it is NP-complete to decide whether a graph can be oriented so that its diameter is at most 2. In contrast, for each positive integer k, we describe a linear-time algo- rithm that decides for a planar graph G whether there is an orientation for which the diameter is at most k. We also extend this result from planar graphs to any minor-closed family F not containing all apex graphs. 1 Introduction We consider two problems concerned with orienting the edges of an undirected graph in order to minimize two global measures of distance in the resulting directed graph. Our work is motivated by an application involving the design of arXiv:1004.2478v1 [math.CO] 14 Apr 2010 urban light rail networks of the sort described in [22]. In such an application, a number of stations are to be linked with unidirectional track in order to minimize some function of the travel times between stations and subject to constraints on cost, engineering and planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Fixed-Parameter Tractability Marko Samer and Stefan Szeider
    Handbook of Satisfiability 363 Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, Hans van Maaren and Toby Walsch IOS Press, 2008 c 2008 Marko Samer and Stefan Szeider. All rights reserved. Chapter 13 Fixed-Parameter Tractability Marko Samer and Stefan Szeider 13.1. Introduction The propositional satisfiability problem (SAT) is famous for being the first prob- lem shown to be NP-complete—we cannot expect to find a polynomial-time al- gorithm for SAT. However, over the last decade, SAT-solvers have become amaz- ingly successful in solving formulas with thousands of variables that encode prob- lems arising from various application areas. Theoretical performance guarantees, however, are far from explaining this empirically observed efficiency. Actually, theorists believe that the trivial 2n time bound for solving SAT instances with n variables cannot be significantly improved, say to 2o(n) (see the end of Sec- tion 13.2). This enormous discrepancy between theoretical performance guaran- tees and the empirically observed performance of SAT solvers can be explained by the presence of a certain “hidden structure” in instances that come from applica- tions. This hidden structure greatly facilitates the propagation and simplification mechanisms of SAT solvers. Thus, for deriving theoretical performance guaran- tees that are closer to the actual performance of solvers one needs to take this hidden structure of instances into account. The literature contains several sug- gestions for making the vague term of a hidden structure explicit. For example, the hidden structure can be considered as the “tree-likeness” or “Horn-likeness” of the instance (below we will discuss how these notions can be made precise).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Parameterized Complexity
    Introduction to Parameterized Complexity Ignasi Sau CNRS, LIRMM, Montpellier, France UFMG Belo Horizonte, February 2018 1/37 Outline of the talk 1 Why parameterized complexity? 2 Basic definitions 3 Kernelization 4 Some techniques 2/37 Next section is... 1 Why parameterized complexity? 2 Basic definitions 3 Kernelization 4 Some techniques 3/37 Karp (1972): list of 21 important NP-complete problems. Nowadays, literally thousands of problems are known to be NP-hard: unlessP = NP, they cannot be solved in polynomial time. But what does it mean for a problem to be NP-hard? No algorithm solves all instances optimally in polynomial time. Some history of complexity: NP-completeness Cook-Levin Theorem (1971): the SAT problem is NP-complete. 4/37 Nowadays, literally thousands of problems are known to be NP-hard: unlessP = NP, they cannot be solved in polynomial time. But what does it mean for a problem to be NP-hard? No algorithm solves all instances optimally in polynomial time. Some history of complexity: NP-completeness Cook-Levin Theorem (1971): the SAT problem is NP-complete. Karp (1972): list of 21 important NP-complete problems. 4/37 But what does it mean for a problem to be NP-hard? No algorithm solves all instances optimally in polynomial time. Some history of complexity: NP-completeness Cook-Levin Theorem (1971): the SAT problem is NP-complete. Karp (1972): list of 21 important NP-complete problems. Nowadays, literally thousands of problems are known to be NP-hard: unlessP = NP, they cannot be solved in polynomial time. 4/37 Some history of complexity: NP-completeness Cook-Levin Theorem (1971): the SAT problem is NP-complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploiting C-Closure in Kernelization Algorithms for Graph Problems
    Exploiting c-Closure in Kernelization Algorithms for Graph Problems Tomohiro Koana Technische Universität Berlin, Algorithmics and Computational Complexity, Germany [email protected] Christian Komusiewicz Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Marburg, Germany [email protected] Frank Sommer Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Marburg, Germany [email protected] Abstract A graph is c-closed if every pair of vertices with at least c common neighbors is adjacent. The c-closure of a graph G is the smallest number such that G is c-closed. Fox et al. [ICALP ’18] defined c-closure and investigated it in the context of clique enumeration. We show that c-closure can be applied in kernelization algorithms for several classic graph problems. We show that Dominating Set admits a kernel of size kO(c), that Induced Matching admits a kernel with O(c7k8) vertices, and that Irredundant Set admits a kernel with O(c5/2k3) vertices. Our kernelization exploits the fact that c-closed graphs have polynomially-bounded Ramsey numbers, as we show. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Parameterized complexity and exact algorithms; Theory of computation → Graph algorithms analysis Keywords and phrases Fixed-parameter tractability, kernelization, c-closure, Dominating Set, In- duced Matching, Irredundant Set, Ramsey numbers Funding Frank Sommer: Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), project MAGZ, KO 3669/4-1. 1 Introduction Parameterized complexity [9, 14] aims at understanding which properties of input data can be used in the design of efficient algorithms for problems that are hard in general. The properties of input data are encapsulated in the notion of a parameter, a numerical value that can be attributed to each input instance I.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2104.09976V2 [Cs.CG] 2 Jun 2021
    Finding Geometric Representations of Apex Graphs is NP-Hard Dibyayan Chakraborty* and Kshitij Gajjar† June 3, 2021 Abstract Planar graphs can be represented as intersection graphs of different types of geometric objects in the plane, e.g., circles (Koebe, 1936), line segments (Chalopin & Gonc¸alves, 2009), L-shapes (Gonc¸alves et al., 2018). For general graphs, however, even deciding whether such representations exist is often NP-hard. We consider apex graphs, i.e., graphs that can be made planar by removing one vertex from them. We show, somewhat surprisingly, that deciding whether geometric representations exist for apex graphs is NP-hard. More precisely, we show that for every positive integer k, recognizing every graph class G which satisfies PURE-2-DIR ⊆ G ⊆ 1-STRING is NP-hard, even when the input graphs are apex graphs of girth at least k. Here, PURE-2-DIR is the class of intersection graphs of axis-parallel line segments (where intersections are allowed only between horizontal and vertical segments) and 1-STRING is the class of intersection graphs of simple curves (where two curves share at most one point) in the plane. This partially answers an open question raised by Kratochv´ıl & Pergel (2007). Most known NP-hardness reductions for these problems are from variants of 3-SAT. We reduce from the PLANAR HAMILTONIAN PATH COMPLETION problem, which uses the more intuitive notion of planarity. As a result, our proof is much simpler and encapsulates several classes of geometric graphs. Keywords: Planar graphs, apex graphs, NP-hard, Hamiltonian path completion, recognition problems, geometric intersection graphs, 1-STRING, PURE-2-DIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2006.06067V2 [Math.CO] 4 Jul 2021
    Treewidth versus clique number. I. Graph classes with a forbidden structure∗† Cl´ement Dallard1 Martin Milaniˇc1 Kenny Storgelˇ 2 1 FAMNIT and IAM, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Information Studies, Novo mesto, Slovenia [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Treewidth is an important graph invariant, relevant for both structural and algo- rithmic reasons. A necessary condition for a graph class to have bounded treewidth is the absence of large cliques. We study graph classes closed under taking induced subgraphs in which this condition is also sufficient, which we call (tw,ω)-bounded. Such graph classes are known to have useful algorithmic applications related to variants of the clique and k-coloring problems. We consider six well-known graph containment relations: the minor, topological minor, subgraph, induced minor, in- duced topological minor, and induced subgraph relations. For each of them, we give a complete characterization of the graphs H for which the class of graphs excluding H is (tw,ω)-bounded. Our results yield an infinite family of χ-bounded induced-minor-closed graph classes and imply that the class of 1-perfectly orientable graphs is (tw,ω)-bounded, leading to linear-time algorithms for k-coloring 1-perfectly orientable graphs for every fixed k. This answers a question of Breˇsar, Hartinger, Kos, and Milaniˇc from 2018, and one of Beisegel, Chudnovsky, Gurvich, Milaniˇc, and Servatius from 2019, respectively. We also reveal some further algorithmic implications of (tw,ω)- boundedness related to list k-coloring and clique problems. In addition, we propose a question about the complexity of the Maximum Weight Independent Set prob- lem in (tw,ω)-bounded graph classes and prove that the problem is polynomial-time solvable in every class of graphs excluding a fixed star as an induced minor.
    [Show full text]
  • Handout on Vertex Separators and Low Tree-Width K-Partition
    Handout on vertex separators and low tree-width k-partition January 12 and 19, 2012 Given a graph G(V; E) and a set of vertices S ⊂ V , an S-flap is the set of vertices in a connected component of the graph induced on V n S. A set S is a vertex separator if no S-flap has more than n=p 2 vertices. Lipton and Tarjan showed that every planar graph has a separator of size O( n). This was generalized by Alon, Seymour and Thomas to any family of graphs that excludes some fixed (arbitrary) subgraph H as a minor. Theorem 1 There a polynomial time algorithm that given a parameter h and an n vertex graphp G(V; E) either outputs a Kh minor, or outputs a vertex separator of size at most h hn. Corollary 2 Let G(V; E) be an arbitrary graph with nop Kh minor, and let W ⊂ V . Then one can find in polynomial time a set S of at most h hn vertices such that every S-flap contains at most jW j=2 vertices from W . Proof: The proof given in class for Theorem 1 easily extends to this setting. 2 p Corollary 3 Every graph with no Kh as a minor has treewidth O(h hn). Moreover, a tree decomposition with this treewidth can be found in polynomial time. Proof: We have seen an algorithm that given a graph of treewidth p constructs a tree decomposition of treewidth 8p. Usingp Corollary 2, that algorithm can be modified to give a tree decomposition of treewidth 8h hn in our case, and do so in polynomial time.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Bounds Based on the Exponential Time Hypothesis
    Lower bounds based on the Exponential Time Hypothesis Daniel Lokshtanov∗ Dániel Marxy Saket Saurabhz Abstract In this article we survey algorithmic lower bound results that have been obtained in the field of exact exponential time algorithms and pa- rameterized complexity under certain assumptions on the running time of algorithms solving CNF-Sat, namely Exponential time hypothesis (ETH) and Strong Exponential time hypothesis (SETH). 1 Introduction The theory of NP-hardness gives us strong evidence that certain fundamen- tal combinatorial problems, such as 3SAT or 3-Coloring, are unlikely to be polynomial-time solvable. However, NP-hardness does not give us any information on what kind of super-polynomial running time is possible for NP-hard problems. For example, according to our current knowledge, the complexity assumption P 6= NP does not rule out the possibility of having an nO(log n) time algorithm for 3SAT or an nO(log log k) time algorithm for k- Clique, but such incredibly efficient super-polynomial algorithms would be still highly surprising. Therefore, in order to obtain qualitative lower bounds that rule out such algorithms, we need a complexity assumption stronger than P 6= NP. Impagliazzo, Paturi, and Zane [38, 37] introduced the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) and the stronger variant, the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH). These complexity assumptions state lower bounds on how fast satisfiability problems can be solved. These assumptions can be used as a basis for qualitative lower bounds for other concrete computational problems. ∗Dept. of Comp. Sc. and Engineering, University of California, USA. [email protected] yInstitut für Informatik, Humboldt-Universiät , Berlin, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Bidimensionality Theory and Algorithmic Graph Minor Theory Lecture Notes for Mohammadtaghi Hajiaghayi’S Tutorial
    Bidimensionality Theory and Algorithmic Graph Minor Theory Lecture Notes for MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi’s Tutorial Mareike Massow,∗ Jens Schmidt,† Daria Schymura,‡ Siamak Tazari§ MDS Fall School Blankensee October 2007 1 Introduction Dealing with Hard Graph Problems Many graph problems cannot be computed in polynomial time unless P = NP , which most computer scientists and mathematicians doubt. Examples are the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), vertex cover, and dominating set. TSP is to find a Hamiltonian cycle with the least weight in a complete weighted graph. A vertex cover of a graph is a subset of the vertices that covers all edges. A dominating set in a graph is a subset of the vertices such that each vertex is contained in the set or has a neighbour in the set. The decision problem is to answer the question whether there is a vertex cover resp. a dominating set with at most k elements. The optimization problem is to find a vertex cover resp. a dominating set of minimal size. How can we solve these problems despite their computational complexity? The four main theoretical approaches to handle NP -hard problems are the following. • Average case: Prove that an algorithm is efficient in the expected case. • Special instances: A problem is solved efficiently for a special graph class. For example, graph isomor- phism is computable in linear time on planar graphs whereas graph isomorphism in general is known to be in NP and suspected not to be in P . • Approximation algorithms: Approximate the optimal solution within a constant factor c, or even within 1 + . An algorithmic scheme that gives for each > 0 a polynomial-time (1 + )-approximation is called a polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS).
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizations of Graphs Without Certain Small Minors by J. Zachary
    Characterizations of Graphs Without Certain Small Minors By J. Zachary Gaslowitz Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Mathematics May 11, 2018 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Mark Ellingham, Ph.D. Paul Edelman, Ph.D. Bruce Hughes, Ph.D. Mike Mihalik, Ph.D. Jerry Spinrad, Ph.D. Dong Ye, Ph.D. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction . 2 2 Previous Work . 5 2.1 Planar Graphs . 5 2.2 Robertson and Seymour's Graph Minor Project . 7 2.2.1 Well-Quasi-Orderings . 7 2.2.2 Tree Decomposition and Treewidth . 8 2.2.3 Grids and Other Graphs with Large Treewidth . 10 2.2.4 The Structure Theorem and Graph Minor Theorem . 11 2.3 Graphs Without K2;t as a Minor . 15 2.3.1 Outerplanar and K2;3-Minor-Free Graphs . 15 2.3.2 Edge-Density for K2;t-Minor-Free Graphs . 16 2.3.3 On the Structure of K2;t-Minor-Free Graphs . 17 3 Algorithmic Aspects of Graph Minor Theory . 21 3.1 Theoretical Results . 21 3.2 Practical Graph Minor Containment . 22 4 Characterization and Enumeration of 4-Connected K2;5-Minor-Free Graphs 25 4.1 Preliminary Definitions . 25 4.2 Characterization . 30 4.3 Enumeration . 38 5 Characterization of Planar 4-Connected DW6-minor-free Graphs . 51 6 Future Directions . 91 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 93 1 Chapter 1 Introduction All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. Given a graph G, the vertex set of G is denoted V (G) and the edge set is denoted E(G).
    [Show full text]