Width, depth and space

Abstract

The width measure treedepth, also known as vertex ranking, centered coloring and elimination tree height, is a well-established notion which has recently seen a resurgence of interest. Since graphs of bounded treedepth are more restricted than graphs of bounded tree- or pathwidth, we are interested in the algorithmic utility of this additional structure. On the negative side, we show that every dynamic programming algorithm on treedepth decompositions of depth~t cannot solve Dominating Set with O((3-ε)t · n) space for any ε > 0. This result implies the same space lower bound for dynamic programming algorithms on tree and path decompositions. We supplement this result by showing a space lower bound of O((3-ε)t · n) for 3-Coloring and O((2-ε)t · n) for Vertex Cover. This formalizes the common intuition that dynamic programming algorithms on graph decompositions necessarily consume a lot of space and complements known results of the time-complexity of problems restricted to low-treewidth classes. We then show that treedepth lends itself to the design of branching algorithms. This class of algorithms has in general distinct advantages over dynamic programming algorithms: a) They use less space than algorithms based on dynamic programming, b) they are easy to parallelize and c) they provide possible solutions before terminating. Specifically, we design for Dominating Set a pure branching algorithm that runs in time tO(t2)· n and uses space O(t3 t + t n) and a hybrid of branching and dynamic programming that achieves a running time of O(3t t · n) while using O(2t t t + t n) space. Algorithms for 3-Coloring and Vertex Cover with space complexity O(t · n) and time complexity O(3t · n) and O(2t· n), respectively, are included for completeness.

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…