Naive definition of treewidth
$begingroup$
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:
- 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?
- 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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
- 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?
- 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
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
- 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?
- 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
$endgroup$
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:
- 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?
- 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
graph-theory treewidth
edited Mar 20 at 16:51
Artur Riazanov
asked Mar 20 at 9:14
Artur RiazanovArtur Riazanov
1957
1957
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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)
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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)
$endgroup$
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)
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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