Vertex partitioning problems on partial k-trees

  • Arvind Gupta
  • Damon Kaller
  • Sanjeev Mahajan
  • Tom Shermer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1097)


We describe a general approach to obtain polynomial-time algorithms over partial k-trees for graph problems in which the vertex set is to be partitioned in some way. We encode these problems with formulae of the Extended Monadic Second-order (or EMS) logic. Such a formula can be translated into a polynomial-time algorithm automatically. We focus on the problem of partitioning a partial k-tree into induced subgraphs isomorphic to a fixed pattern graph; a distinct algorithm is derived for each pattern graph and each value of k. We use a “pumping lemma” to show that (for some pattern graphs) this problem cannot be encoded in the “ordinary” Monadic Second-order logic—from which a linear-time algorithm over partial k-trees would be obtained. Hence, an EMS formula is in some sense the strongest possible. As a further application of our general approach, we derive a polynomial-time algorithm to determine the maximum number of co-dominating sets into which the vertices of a partial k-tree can be partitioned. (A co-dominating set of a graph is a dominating set of its complement graph).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [ALS91]
    S. Arnborg, J. Lagergren, and D. Seese. Easy problems for tree decomposable graphs. J. Algorithms, 12:308–340, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Arn85]
    S. Arnborg. Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability. BIT, 25:2–33, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [BJ93]
    H.L. Bodlaender and K. Jansen. On the complexity of scheduling incompatible jobs with unit-times. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Proc. 18th MFCS), volume 711, pages 291–300. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [BLW87]
    M.W. Bern, E.L. Lawler, and A.L. Wong. Linear-time computation of optimal subgraphs of decomposable graphs. J. Algorithms, 8:216–235, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Bod88]
    H.L. Bodlaender. Dynamic programming on graphs with bounded treewidth. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Proc. 15th ICALP), volume 317, pages 105–119. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. [Bod93]
    H.L. Bodlaender. A linear time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. In Proc. 25th STOC, pages 226–234, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [BPT92]
    R.B. Borie, R.G. Parker, and C.A. Tovey. Automatic generation of linear-time algorithms from predicate calculus descriptions of problems on recursively constructed graph families. Algorithmica, 7:555–581, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Cou90a]
    B. Courcelle. Graph rewriting: an algebraic and logic approach. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pages 193–242. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [Cou90b]
    B. Courcelle. The monadic second-order logic of graphs. I. Recognizable sets of finite graphs. Information and Computation, 85:12–75, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Cou91]
    B. Courcelle. The monadic second-order logic of graphs. V. On closing the gap between definability and recognizability. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 80:153–202, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [GJ79]
    M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [GS84]
    F. Gécseg and M. Steinby. Tree Automata. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [HU79]
    J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. [Kal96]
    D. Kaller. Definability equals recognizability of partial 3-trees, 1996. To appear.Google Scholar
  15. [KGS95a]
    D. Kaller, A. Gupta, and T. Shermer. The Xt-coloring problem. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Proc. 12th STACS), volume 900, pages 409–420. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [KGS95b]
    D. Kaller, A. Gupta, and T. Shermer. Regular-factors in the complements of partial k-trees. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Proc. 4th WADS), volume 955, pages 403–414. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [KH78]
    D.G. Kirkpatrick and P. Hell. On the complexity of a generalized matching problem. In Proc. 10th STOC, pages 240–245, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. [Lag94]
    J. Lagergren, October 1994. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  19. [MP94]
    S. Mahajan and J.G. Peters. Regularity and locality in k-terminal graphs. Disc. Appl. Math., 54:229–250, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [RS86]
    N. Robertson and P.D. Seymour. Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. J. Algorithms, 7:309–322, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [Tho90]
    W. Thomas. Automata on infinite objects. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, pages 133–191. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. [WW89]
    E. Wanke and M. Wiegers. Undecidability of the bandwidth problem on linear graph languages. Inform. Process. Lett., 33:193–197, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arvind Gupta
    • 1
  • Damon Kaller
    • 1
  • Sanjeev Mahajan
    • 2
  • Tom Shermer
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Max Planck Institut für InformatikSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations