A Finer View of the Parameterized Landscape of Labeled Graph Contractions

Abstract

We study the Labeled Contractibility problem, where the input consists of two vertex-labeled graphs G and H, and the goal is to determine whether H can be obtained from G via a sequence of edge contractions. Lafond and Marchand~[WADS 2025] initiated the parameterized complexity study of this problem, showing it to be \([1]\)-hard when parameterized by the number \(k\) of allowed contractions. They also proved that the problem is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by the tree-width \(\) of \(G\), via an application of Courcelle's theorem resulting in a non-constructive algorithm. In this work, we present a constructive fixed-parameter algorithm for Labeled Contractibility with running time \(2O(2) · |V(G)|O(1)\). We also prove that unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis () fails, it does not admit an algorithm running in time \(2o(2) · |V(G)|O(1)\). This result adds Labeled Contractibility to a small list of problems that admit such a lower bound and matching algorithm. We further strengthen existing hardness results by showing that the problem remains -complete even when both input graphs have bounded maximum degree. We also investigate parameterizations by \((k + δ(G))\) where \(δ(G)\) denotes the degeneracy of \(G\), and rule out the existence of subexponential-time algorithms. This answers question raised in Lafond and Marchand~[WADS 2025]. We additionally provide an improved \ algorithm with better dependence on \((k + δ(G))\) than previously known. Finally, we analyze a brute-force algorithm for Labeled Contractibility with running time \(|V(H)|O(|V(G)|)\), and show that this running time is optimal under .

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…