Branch-width of represented matroids in matrix multiplication time

Abstract

For an n-element matroid M given by an n × n matrix representation over a finite field F and an integer k, we present an (Ok, F(n2)+O(nω))-time algorithm that either finds a branch-decomposition of M of width at most k, or confirms that the branch-width of M is more than k, where ω< 2.3714 is the matrix multiplication exponent, and the Ok, F(·)-notation hides factors that depend on k and F in a computable manner. All previous algorithms including Hliněný and Oum [SIAM J. Comput. (2008)] and Jeong, Kim, and Oum [SIAM J. Discrete Math. (2021)] run in at least Ω(n3) time. Moreover, if the input matrix representation is given by a standard form, our algorithm runs in Ok, F(n2)-time, since O(nω)-time is only needed for finding a standard form of the input matrix. When M is given by an m × n matrix, the overhead for finding a standard form is O(mn (m,n)ω-2). As corollaries, we obtain faster algorithms for rank-width of directed graphs and path-width of matroids represented over a fixed finite field. Furthermore, we also present an approximation algorithm for finding branch-width that works on infinite fields provided that the input matrix is of a standard form and contains a bounded number of distinct values of entries. To suggest that our algorithm is optimal, we observe that for every field F, deciding whether the branch-width of a matroid represented over F is 0 is as hard as deciding whether a square matrix over F is singular. Under the assumption that singularity testing requires Ω(nω)-time, this implies that the overhead of O(nω) is unavoidable. We also show strengthenings of this observation to rule out some approximations under this assumption.

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…