Naive definition of treewidth












6












$begingroup$


Treewidth has arguably pretty involved definition. Recently I was thinking about a problem and turns out it easy to solve it for graphs with small ``naive treewidth''.



Naive treewidth is defined as follows. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. We say that $G$ has naive treewidth $k$ if there exists a partition $V_1 sqcup V_2 sqcup ldots sqcup V_m = V$ such that $|V_i| le k$ and a tree $T = ([m], E_T)$ such that for every $(u,v) in E$ either $u,v in V_i$ for some $i in [m]$ or $(u,v) in V_i times V_j$ such that $(i,j) in E_T$.



If $T$ is a path than we say that $G$ has naive pathwidth $k$.



For naive pathwidth it is easy to see that it can be much larger than pathwidth. Consider a full binary tree with $2^k$ leaves. It has pathwidth $k-1$. On the other hand notice that if naive pathwidth of a graph is $le t$ than the partition contains at least ${|V| over t}$ blocks. Thus there exists a path in $G$ of length at least ${|V| over t} - 1$. Since the longer path in the full binary tree of height $k$ is $2k$, naive pathwidth of the full binary tree is at least ${2^k over 2k}$.



Notice that instead of the full binary tree it was possible to use a tree with one vertex connected to the remaining $|V|-1$ vertices which gives even better separation. The reason I've used the binary tree is that for my purposes all graphs have constant degree.



My questions are:




  1. For a graph with small pathwidth (and constant degree if it is needed) can it be shown that it has small naive treewidth? If it is not true, how the counterexample looks like?

  2. The same question for a graph with small treewidth.


Update: for arbitrary degrees there is a separation between treewidth and naive treewidth. The example is a path of length $n$ and a vertex connected to all vertices of the path. Treewidth of such graph is $2$ and naive treewidth is $Omega(sqrt{n})$. The proof goes like this: consider the block $B$ containing the vertex of degree $n$. Assume that this block contains at most $sqrt{n} / 2$ vertices. Then there exists a path in $G - B$ containing at least $2 sqrt{n}$. Notice that in $T$ all the blocks should be connected to $B$. Thus this path of length $2 sqrt{n}$ must be contained in a single block.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Treewidth has arguably pretty involved definition. Recently I was thinking about a problem and turns out it easy to solve it for graphs with small ``naive treewidth''.



    Naive treewidth is defined as follows. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. We say that $G$ has naive treewidth $k$ if there exists a partition $V_1 sqcup V_2 sqcup ldots sqcup V_m = V$ such that $|V_i| le k$ and a tree $T = ([m], E_T)$ such that for every $(u,v) in E$ either $u,v in V_i$ for some $i in [m]$ or $(u,v) in V_i times V_j$ such that $(i,j) in E_T$.



    If $T$ is a path than we say that $G$ has naive pathwidth $k$.



    For naive pathwidth it is easy to see that it can be much larger than pathwidth. Consider a full binary tree with $2^k$ leaves. It has pathwidth $k-1$. On the other hand notice that if naive pathwidth of a graph is $le t$ than the partition contains at least ${|V| over t}$ blocks. Thus there exists a path in $G$ of length at least ${|V| over t} - 1$. Since the longer path in the full binary tree of height $k$ is $2k$, naive pathwidth of the full binary tree is at least ${2^k over 2k}$.



    Notice that instead of the full binary tree it was possible to use a tree with one vertex connected to the remaining $|V|-1$ vertices which gives even better separation. The reason I've used the binary tree is that for my purposes all graphs have constant degree.



    My questions are:




    1. For a graph with small pathwidth (and constant degree if it is needed) can it be shown that it has small naive treewidth? If it is not true, how the counterexample looks like?

    2. The same question for a graph with small treewidth.


    Update: for arbitrary degrees there is a separation between treewidth and naive treewidth. The example is a path of length $n$ and a vertex connected to all vertices of the path. Treewidth of such graph is $2$ and naive treewidth is $Omega(sqrt{n})$. The proof goes like this: consider the block $B$ containing the vertex of degree $n$. Assume that this block contains at most $sqrt{n} / 2$ vertices. Then there exists a path in $G - B$ containing at least $2 sqrt{n}$. Notice that in $T$ all the blocks should be connected to $B$. Thus this path of length $2 sqrt{n}$ must be contained in a single block.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6


      2



      $begingroup$


      Treewidth has arguably pretty involved definition. Recently I was thinking about a problem and turns out it easy to solve it for graphs with small ``naive treewidth''.



      Naive treewidth is defined as follows. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. We say that $G$ has naive treewidth $k$ if there exists a partition $V_1 sqcup V_2 sqcup ldots sqcup V_m = V$ such that $|V_i| le k$ and a tree $T = ([m], E_T)$ such that for every $(u,v) in E$ either $u,v in V_i$ for some $i in [m]$ or $(u,v) in V_i times V_j$ such that $(i,j) in E_T$.



      If $T$ is a path than we say that $G$ has naive pathwidth $k$.



      For naive pathwidth it is easy to see that it can be much larger than pathwidth. Consider a full binary tree with $2^k$ leaves. It has pathwidth $k-1$. On the other hand notice that if naive pathwidth of a graph is $le t$ than the partition contains at least ${|V| over t}$ blocks. Thus there exists a path in $G$ of length at least ${|V| over t} - 1$. Since the longer path in the full binary tree of height $k$ is $2k$, naive pathwidth of the full binary tree is at least ${2^k over 2k}$.



      Notice that instead of the full binary tree it was possible to use a tree with one vertex connected to the remaining $|V|-1$ vertices which gives even better separation. The reason I've used the binary tree is that for my purposes all graphs have constant degree.



      My questions are:




      1. For a graph with small pathwidth (and constant degree if it is needed) can it be shown that it has small naive treewidth? If it is not true, how the counterexample looks like?

      2. The same question for a graph with small treewidth.


      Update: for arbitrary degrees there is a separation between treewidth and naive treewidth. The example is a path of length $n$ and a vertex connected to all vertices of the path. Treewidth of such graph is $2$ and naive treewidth is $Omega(sqrt{n})$. The proof goes like this: consider the block $B$ containing the vertex of degree $n$. Assume that this block contains at most $sqrt{n} / 2$ vertices. Then there exists a path in $G - B$ containing at least $2 sqrt{n}$. Notice that in $T$ all the blocks should be connected to $B$. Thus this path of length $2 sqrt{n}$ must be contained in a single block.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Treewidth has arguably pretty involved definition. Recently I was thinking about a problem and turns out it easy to solve it for graphs with small ``naive treewidth''.



      Naive treewidth is defined as follows. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. We say that $G$ has naive treewidth $k$ if there exists a partition $V_1 sqcup V_2 sqcup ldots sqcup V_m = V$ such that $|V_i| le k$ and a tree $T = ([m], E_T)$ such that for every $(u,v) in E$ either $u,v in V_i$ for some $i in [m]$ or $(u,v) in V_i times V_j$ such that $(i,j) in E_T$.



      If $T$ is a path than we say that $G$ has naive pathwidth $k$.



      For naive pathwidth it is easy to see that it can be much larger than pathwidth. Consider a full binary tree with $2^k$ leaves. It has pathwidth $k-1$. On the other hand notice that if naive pathwidth of a graph is $le t$ than the partition contains at least ${|V| over t}$ blocks. Thus there exists a path in $G$ of length at least ${|V| over t} - 1$. Since the longer path in the full binary tree of height $k$ is $2k$, naive pathwidth of the full binary tree is at least ${2^k over 2k}$.



      Notice that instead of the full binary tree it was possible to use a tree with one vertex connected to the remaining $|V|-1$ vertices which gives even better separation. The reason I've used the binary tree is that for my purposes all graphs have constant degree.



      My questions are:




      1. For a graph with small pathwidth (and constant degree if it is needed) can it be shown that it has small naive treewidth? If it is not true, how the counterexample looks like?

      2. The same question for a graph with small treewidth.


      Update: for arbitrary degrees there is a separation between treewidth and naive treewidth. The example is a path of length $n$ and a vertex connected to all vertices of the path. Treewidth of such graph is $2$ and naive treewidth is $Omega(sqrt{n})$. The proof goes like this: consider the block $B$ containing the vertex of degree $n$. Assume that this block contains at most $sqrt{n} / 2$ vertices. Then there exists a path in $G - B$ containing at least $2 sqrt{n}$. Notice that in $T$ all the blocks should be connected to $B$. Thus this path of length $2 sqrt{n}$ must be contained in a single block.







      graph-theory treewidth






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Mar 20 at 16:51







      Artur Riazanov

















      asked Mar 20 at 9:14









      Artur RiazanovArtur Riazanov

      1957




      1957






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          Your parameter "naive treewidth" is known as tree-partition-width in the literature.
          It is known that if a graph has constant treewidth and constant maximum degree, then it has constant tree-partition-width. See [Wood 2009].



          Note that your example in the update actually has pathwidth 2.



          [Wood 2009] David R. Wood. On tree-partition-width. European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2008.11.010
          (also on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602507)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Riazanov
            Mar 20 at 16:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
            $endgroup$
            – Yota Otachi
            Mar 21 at 3:07












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "114"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcstheory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42555%2fnaive-definition-of-treewidth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8












          $begingroup$

          Your parameter "naive treewidth" is known as tree-partition-width in the literature.
          It is known that if a graph has constant treewidth and constant maximum degree, then it has constant tree-partition-width. See [Wood 2009].



          Note that your example in the update actually has pathwidth 2.



          [Wood 2009] David R. Wood. On tree-partition-width. European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2008.11.010
          (also on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602507)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Riazanov
            Mar 20 at 16:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
            $endgroup$
            – Yota Otachi
            Mar 21 at 3:07
















          8












          $begingroup$

          Your parameter "naive treewidth" is known as tree-partition-width in the literature.
          It is known that if a graph has constant treewidth and constant maximum degree, then it has constant tree-partition-width. See [Wood 2009].



          Note that your example in the update actually has pathwidth 2.



          [Wood 2009] David R. Wood. On tree-partition-width. European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2008.11.010
          (also on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602507)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Riazanov
            Mar 20 at 16:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
            $endgroup$
            – Yota Otachi
            Mar 21 at 3:07














          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          Your parameter "naive treewidth" is known as tree-partition-width in the literature.
          It is known that if a graph has constant treewidth and constant maximum degree, then it has constant tree-partition-width. See [Wood 2009].



          Note that your example in the update actually has pathwidth 2.



          [Wood 2009] David R. Wood. On tree-partition-width. European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2008.11.010
          (also on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602507)






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Your parameter "naive treewidth" is known as tree-partition-width in the literature.
          It is known that if a graph has constant treewidth and constant maximum degree, then it has constant tree-partition-width. See [Wood 2009].



          Note that your example in the update actually has pathwidth 2.



          [Wood 2009] David R. Wood. On tree-partition-width. European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1245-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2008.11.010
          (also on arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602507)







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 20 at 15:19









          Yota OtachiYota Otachi

          1,3101322




          1,3101322








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Riazanov
            Mar 20 at 16:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
            $endgroup$
            – Yota Otachi
            Mar 21 at 3:07














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Riazanov
            Mar 20 at 16:08






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
            $endgroup$
            – Yota Otachi
            Mar 21 at 3:07








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
          $endgroup$
          – Artur Riazanov
          Mar 20 at 16:08




          $begingroup$
          Thanks a lot! I thought that full binary tree with the path going through all leaves might provide a separation, but apparently that is not the case. Is there a simple tree-partition-width decomposition?
          $endgroup$
          – Artur Riazanov
          Mar 20 at 16:08




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
          $endgroup$
          – Yota Otachi
          Mar 21 at 3:07




          $begingroup$
          That's a good example.... I don't have a quick answer for it. We may read the proof in [Wood 2009] (or the references therein).
          $endgroup$
          – Yota Otachi
          Mar 21 at 3:07


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcstheory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42555%2fnaive-definition-of-treewidth%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How did Captain America manage to do this?

          迪纳利

          南乌拉尔铁路局