Domino treewidth

Extended abstract
  • Hans L. Bodlaender
  • Joost Engelfriet
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 903)

Abstract

We consider a special variant of tree-decompositions, called domino tree-decompositions, and the related notion of domino treewidth. In a domino tree-decomposition, each vertex of the graph belongs to at most two nodes of the tree. We prove that for every k, d, there exists a constant Ck,d such that a graph with treewidth at most k and maximum degree at most d has domino treewidth at most Ck,d The domino treewidth of a tree can be computed in O(n2 log n) time. There exist polynomial time algorithms that — for fixed k — decide whether a given graph G has domino treewidth at most k. If k is not fixed, this problem is NP-complete. The domino treewidth problem is hard for the complexity classes W[t] for all t ξ N, and hence the problem for fixed k is unlikely to be solvable in O(nc), where c is a constant, not depending on k.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Arnborg, D. G. Corneil, and A. Proskurowski. Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth., 8:277–284, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. L. Bodlaender. A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 226–234, New York, 1993. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. L. Bodlaender. A tourist guide through treewidth. Acta Cybernetica, 11:1–23, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. L. Bodlaender, R. G. Downey, M. R. Fellows, and H. T. Wareham. The parameterized complexity of sequence alignment and consensus (extended abstract). To appear in: proceedings Conference on Pattern Matching '94, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. L. Bodlaender, M. R. Fellows, and M. Hallett. Beyond NP-completeness for problems of bounded width: Hardness for the W hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 449–458, New York, 1994. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness I: Basic results. Manuscript, 1991. To appear in SIAM J. Comput.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness II: On completeness for W[1]. Manuscript, 1991. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science, Ser. A.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness III: Some structural aspects of the W hierarchy. Technical Report DCS-191-IR, Department of Computer Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Engelfriet, L. M. Heyker, and G. Leih. Context-free graph languages of bounded degree are generated by Apex graph grammars. Acta Informatica, 31:341–378, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Horowitz and S. Sahni. Fundamentals of Computer Algorithms. Pitman, London, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Kloks, D. Kratsch, and H. Müller. Dominoes. This volume, pages 106–120, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Reed. Finding approximate separators and computing tree-width quickly. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 221–228, New York, 1992. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Seese. Tree-partite graphs and the complexity of algorithms. In L. Budach, editor, Proc. 1985 Int. Conf. on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 199, pages 412–421, Berlin, 1985. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans L. Bodlaender
    • 1
  • Joost Engelfriet
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityTB UtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityRA Leidenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations