Blocking unions of arborescences

Abstract

Given a digraph D=(V,A) and a positive integer k, a subset B⊂eq A is called a k-union-arborescence, if it is the disjoint union of k spanning arborescences. When also arc-costs c:A R are given, minimizing the cost of a k-union-arborescence is well-known to be tractable. In this paper we take on the following problem: what is the minimum cardinality of a set of arcs the removal of which destroys every minimum c-cost k-union-arborescence. Actually, the more general weighted problem is also considered, that is, arc weights w:A R+ (unrelated to c) are also given, and the goal is to find a minimum weight set of arcs the removal of which destroys every minimum c-cost k-union-arborescence. An equivalent version of this problem is where the roots of the arborescences are fixed in advance. In an earlier paper [A. Bern\'ath and Gy. Pap, Blocking optimal arborescences, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, 2013] we solved this problem for k=1. This work reports on other partial results on the problem. We solve the case when both c and w are uniform -- that is, find a minimum size set of arcs that covers all k-union-arbosercences. Our algorithm runs in polynomial time for this problem. The solution uses a result of [M. B\'ar\'asz, J. Becker, and A. Frank, An algorithm for source location in directed graphs, Oper. Res. Lett. 33 (2005)] saying that the family of so-called insolid sets (sets with the property that every proper subset has a larger in-degree) satisfies the Helly-property, and thus can be (efficiently) represented as a subtree hypergraph. We also give an algorithm for the case when only c is uniform but w is not. This algorithm is only polynomial if k is not part of the input.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…