Tight Bounds for some Classical Problems Parameterized by Cutwidth
February 21, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Embedded Systems and Applications
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Narek Bojikian, Vera Chekan, Stefan Kratsch
arXiv ID
2502.15884
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Citations
1
Venue
Embedded Systems and Applications
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Cutwidth is a widely studied parameter that quantifies how well a graph can be decomposed along small edge-cuts. It complements pathwidth, which captures decomposition by small vertex separators, and it is well-known that cutwidth upper-bounds pathwidth. The SETH-tight parameterized complexity of problems on graphs of bounded pathwidth (and treewidth) has been actively studied over the past decade while for cutwidth the complexity of many classical problems remained open. For Hamiltonian Cycle, it is known that a $(2+\sqrt{2})^{\operatorname{pw}} n^{O(1)}$ algorithm is optimal for pathwidth under SETH~[Cygan et al.\ JACM 2022]. Van Geffen et al.~[J.\ Graph Algorithms Appl.\ 2020] and Bojikian et al.~[STACS 2023] asked which running time is optimal for this problem parameterized by cutwidth. We answer this question with $(1+\sqrt{2})^{\operatorname{ctw}} n^{O(1)}$ by providing matching upper and lower bounds. Second, as our main technical contribution, we close the gap left by van Heck~[2018] for Partition Into Triangles (and Triangle Packing) by improving both upper and lower bound and getting a tight bound of $\sqrt[3]{3}^{\operatorname{ctw}} n^{O(1)}$, which to our knowledge exhibits the only known tight non-integral basis apart from Hamiltonian Cycle. We show that cuts inducing a disjoint union of paths of length three (unions of so-called $Z$-cuts) lie at the core of the complexity of the problem -- usually lower-bound constructions use simpler cuts inducing either a matching or a disjoint union of bicliques. Finally, we determine the optimal running times for Max Cut ($2^{\operatorname{ctw}} n^{O(1)}$) and Induced Matching ($3^{\operatorname{ctw}} n^{O(1)}$) by providing matching lower bounds for the existing algorithms -- the latter result also answers an open question for treewidth by Chaudhary and Zehavi~[WG 2023].
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted