# D I P L O M A R B E I T. Tree-Decomposition. Graph Minor Theory and Algorithmic Implications. Ausgeführt am Institut für

Save this PDF as:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "D I P L O M A R B E I T. Tree-Decomposition. Graph Minor Theory and Algorithmic Implications. Ausgeführt am Institut für"

## Transcription

1 D I P L O M A R B E I T Tree-Decomposition Graph Minor Theory and Algorithmic Implications Ausgeführt am Institut für Diskrete Mathematik und Geometrie der Technischen Universität Wien unter Anleitung von Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.techn. Michael Drmota durch Miriam Heinz, B.Sc. Matrikelnummer: Baumgartenstraße Wien Datum Unterschrift

2

3 Preface The focus of this thesis is the concept of tree-decomposition. A tree-decomposition of a graph G is a representation of G in a tree-like structure. From this structure it is possible to deduce certain connectivity properties of G. Such information can be used to construct efficient algorithms to solve problems on G. Sometimes problems which are N P-hard in general are solvable in polynomial or even linear time when restricted to trees. Employing the tree-like structure of tree-decompositions these algorithms for trees can be adapted to graphs of bounded tree-width. This results in many important algorithmic applications of tree-decomposition. The concept of tree-decomposition also proves to be useful in the study of fundamental questions in graph theory. It was used extensively by Robertson and Seymour in their seminal work on Wagner s conjecture. Their Graph Minors series of papers spans more than 500 pages and results in a proof of the graph minor theorem, settling Wagner s conjecture in However, it is not only the proof of this deep and powerful theorem which merits mention. Also the concepts and tools developed for the proof have had a major impact on the field of graph theory. Tree-decomposition is one of these spin-offs. Therefore, we will study both its use in the context of graph minor theory and its several algorithmic implications. A complete survey of the many theoretical and practical applications of tree-decomposition would go beyond the scope of this thesis. We therefore chose several interesting aspects making no claim to be exhaustive. The first chapter contains a brief introduction to graph theory and summarises the basic definitions and concepts needed for this thesis. Main source for this chapter was the textbook on graph theory by Diestel [16]. In the second chapter we take a closer look at the graph minor theorem and its graph theoretic context. We introduce the most important terms such as minors and well-quasiorders and state the graph minor theorem. The results presented are mainly taken from [16, 35, 37]. Two theorems by Kuratowski [34] and Kruskal [33] and a proof technique created by Nash-Williams [37] give insight into the topic of graph minor theory. Tree-decomposition is discussed in detail in the third chapter. First, we introduce the concepts of tree-decomposition and tree-width. We also explain the connectivity properties a graph G shares with its tree-decompositions [16, 41]. Then we examine several notions closely related to tree-decomposition. A different representation of a graph G of bounded tree-width can give insight into different properties of G. We discuss clique-sums, (partial) k-trees and chordal graphs. For sources, see [11, 12, 16, 35, 49, 50], i

4 amongst others. Last, we present a few excluded minor theorems employing some of the notions defined before. Here, we refer to [18, 30]. The intention of the fourth chapter is to present an example how tree-decomposition is employed to prove the graph minor theorem. Hence we discuss one of the main parts of the proof, namely the exclusion of a planar graph H. We describe the class of graphs not containing H as a minor. The results of this chapter can be combined to prove a weaker version of the graph minor theorem. The main sources are [17] and [23]. The fifth chapter is dedicated to some of the many algorithmic applications of treedecomposition. We introduce the k disjoint paths problem which is closely related to the problem of H minor containment. Both problems have already been shown to be solvable in polynomial time by Robertson and Seymour [45]. We present an improved version of their algorithm [29]. Then we discuss the usage of tree-decomposition for solving complex problems on graphs of bounded tree-width. We explain a generic approach utilising a given tree-decomposition [10]. As a last example we introduce a pursuit-evasion game on graphs studied by Seymour and Thomas [53]. The sixth chapter gives some additional information about related research and open problems. Apart from [16], the introductory surveys [8], [30], and [35] provided useful information for most of the topics discussed in this thesis. Acknowledgements I want to thank my supervisor, Professor Dr. Michael Drmota, for giving me the opportunity to write my master thesis in the field of graph theory and for sparking my interest in graph minor theory. I want to further thank him for his guidance, encouragement and patience. Furthermore, I want to thank my father for his constant support for always being there for me and believing in me. This thesis is dedicated to my parents. ii

5 Contents Preface Acknowledgements i ii 1 Preliminaries Graph structure Graph operations and subgraphs Connectivity Graph Minor Theory Well-quasi-order and minors The graph minor theorem Tree-Decomposition Tree-decomposition Tree-decomposition and connectivity Other representations of tree-decomposition Clique-sums Partial k-trees Chordal graphs Excluded minor theorems Tree-Decomposition in Graph Minor Theory A weaker version of the graph minor theorem Grids and brambles Excluding a planar graph Separations and k-meshes Finding an r-grid minor Well-quasi-ordering graphs of bounded tree-width Symmetric submodular functions and branch-width Well-quasi-ordering graphs of bounded branch-width Implications of excluding a planar graph as a minor A generalisation of Kuratowski s theorem iii

6 5 Algorithmic Implications Computing tree-width Minor testing and the k disjoint paths problem An O( V (G) 2 ) time algorithm for the k disjoint paths problem Algorithmic implications for N P-hard problems A generic approach for graphs of bounded tree-width Graph searching Related Work and Further Research The graph minor theorem On computing tree-width On graph searching Further research Bibliography 67 iv

7 Chapter 1 Preliminaries This chapter is a brief introduction to some basic graph theoretic terms and concepts used in this thesis. It should also avoid possible notational confusion. Most definitions are standard and can be found in textbooks like [16] or [14]. In case of discrepancies we will mostly refer to [16]. However, a basic knowledge of graph theory is assumed throughout this thesis. 1.1 Graph structure An undirected graph G = (V, E) consists of a set V of vertices and a set E of edges between these vertices, also denoted by V (G) and E(G), respectively. We denote an edge e E(G) between two vertices u, v V (G) by {u, v} or simply uv (or vu as orientation does not matter). e joins u and v and u, v are called endvertices of e. A loop is an edge vv. Furthermore, a graph can have multiple edges between two vertices and more than one loop at a vertex. We call a graph a multigraph if loops and multiple edges are allowed, otherwise simple graph. In case of simple graphs, E is usually seen as a subset of [V ] 2, the set of all subsets of V with cardinality 2. For multigraphs this definition is not sufficient, with multiple edges a multiset E would be more suitable. [16, p. 28], for example, defines a map E V [V ] 2 to assign endvertices to each edge in E. Since it is not crucial for this work, in this thesis E will be seen as a multiset. As aforementioned, an edge will be represented by its endvertices, even if with this representation uniqueness may be lost. Figure 1.1: undirected graph with loops and multiple edges A vertex v is incident to an edge e if v is an endvertex of e. Equivalently, e is called incident to v. We will also write v e. The vertex degree d G (v), or simply d(v), of a vertex v is the number of edges incident to v, loops counting twice. We say that G has 1

8 maximum degree (G) if (G) is the maximum over all vertex degrees of vertices in G. Two vertices u, v V are adjacent if there exists an edge uv E. u and v are called neighbours and N(v) = N G (v) = {w V e E : e = vw} is the neighbourhood of v in G. In case of loops v can be its own neighbour. The neighbourhood of a set W V is defined by N(W ) = w W N(w) \ W. A vertex set W V where no two vertices are adjacent is a stable set of vertices in G. The order of a graph G = (V, E) is the cardinality V of its vertex set. A finite graph has order V = n N. If not otherwise declared, the graphs in this thesis will be finite undirected multigraphs. A complete graph is a graph G where any two vertices u, v V (G) are adjacent. In a complete simple graph with n vertices every vertex has degree d(v) = n 1. We denote this graph by K n. G = (V, E) is called bipartite if its vertex set can be partitioned into two sets V 1, V 2 such that V 1 V 2 = V, V 1 V 2 = and e E : e V 1 e V 2 holds. In other words, the vertices of a bipartite graph can be coloured with two colours, such that the endvertices of each edge do not have the same colour. A (simple) bipartite graph G is called complete if no new edge can be added to G without losing its property of being bipartite. The complete bipartite graph K m,n is the complete bipartite graph with V 1 = m and V 2 = n. Figure 1.2: complete bipartite graph K 3,2 1.2 Graph operations and subgraphs There are several ways to modify a graph obtaining a new graph. We present different operations on graphs and possible relations between two graphs. In the following, let G = (V, E) be the graph considered. Definition (edge deletion) Deleting an edge results in a graph with same vertex set V and edge set E \ {e}. This graph is denoted by G e. In general, for a set of edges F, the graph G F = (V, E \ F ) is obtained. Definition (vertex deletion) If a vertex v is deleted it is necessary to delete all edges incident to v as well. Thus, we have G v = (V \ {e}, E \ {e E v e}) and, more generally, G W = (V \ W, E \ {e E v W : v e}) for W V. Definition (edge contraction) Contraction of an edge e = uv yields a graph G/e with a new vertex v e that replaces e. u and v are deleted and v e is adjacent to all their neighbours. More formally, every edge uw E or vw E is replaced by an edge v e w E(G/e). Edges not incident to u or v remain unchanged. In a multigraph multiple edges may become loops. Loops can not be contracted, only deleted. 2

9 Definition (subdivision of an edge) Subdivision of an edge e = uv inserts a new vertex w of degree 2 into e that divides e into uw and wv. More generally, e can be replaced by a uv-path whose inner vertices all have degree 2. Definition (suppression of a vertex) Suppressing a vertex is the inversion of subdividing an edge, that is, deleting a vertex of degree 2 and adding an edge between its neighbours. In the case of multiple edges, this can create loops. A vertex with a loop is simply deleted. e g v f Figure 1.3: deletion of edge e and vertex v, contraction of f and subdivision of g Definition (subgraph) A subgraph G = (V, E ) of G is a graph with V V and E E. We write G G. G is a supergraph of G. Definition (induced subgraph) A subgraph G = (V, E ) of G is induced by W V if V = W and E = {uv E u, v W }. The subgraph of G induced by the vertex set W is denoted by G[W ]. Analogously, we define the subgraph G[F ] of G induced by a set F E of edges as G[F ] = ({v V e F : v e}, F ). Remark Note that an edge-induced subgraph cannot contain isolated vertices (vertices with degree 0). Definition (spanning subgraph) If V (G ) = V, a subgraph G spanning subgraph. of G is called Definition (clique) A maximal complete subgraph C of a graph G is called a clique of G. That means that C is not contained in any other complete subgraph of G of higher order. The clique number ω(g) is the maximal order taken over all cliques of G. Definition (union, intersection and difference of graphs) The union of two graphs G and G is a graph with vertex set V (G) V (G ) and edge set E(G) E(G ). Their intersection G G = (V (G) V (G ), E(G) E(G ) is defined similarly. Two graphs possibly intersect. Their difference G G, or G \ G, denotes the graph obtained from G by deleting all vertices and edges which are contained in G as well. Definition Two subgraphs are called disjoint if they have no vertex in common. Otherwise they are meeting. 3

10 1.3 Connectivity For the rest of this section let G = (V, E) be a graph and u, v V two vertices of G. A path PG uv from u to v, or uv-path, is a (finite) sequence of distinct vertices and edges v 0 e 0 v 1 e 1... v n 1 e n 1 v n of G with v 0 = u, v n = v and e i = v i v i+1 for i = 0,..., n 1. u and v are the endvertices of PG uv, the other vertices are called inner vertices. A path has to have at least one vertex. The length of a path is its number of edges. Sometimes it is sufficient to note PG uv as a sequence of vertices, if the choice of edges is clear from the context or not important. Also the index G can be omitted if the reference is clear. A path P in G is also seen as a subgraph of G consisting exactly of the vertices and edges from its defining sequence. We will mostly use this interpretation. Therefore, we will use graph operations on paths as well. Two paths meet if they have at least one vertex in common. They are (internally) disjoint if the sets of their (internal) vertices are disjoint. A path P uw between two sets U, W V with U P uv = {u} and W P uv = {w} is called UV -path. In case of U = {u} or W = {w} we write uw -path or Uw-path, respectively. A cycle is a uv-path with the only difference that u equals v. We define a cycle to have at least one edge. Therefore a path consisting of only one vertex is not a cycle. A graph is called connected if there exists an uv-path for every two vertices u, v. A connected component of a graph G is a maximal connected subgraph G of G. Maximal meaning that no vertex or edge of G G can be added to G without losing the property of connectedness. The number of connected components of a graph G is denoted by c(g). A tree is a connected graph without cycles, a forest a graph whose connected components are trees. For two vertices u, v in a tree T there always exists one unique path between them. We denote it by T uv. Sometimes it is useful to mark one vertex of a tree T as special, the root r(t ), or simply r, of the tree. Since there is a unique path between the root and any vertex of T, we can define a partial order on the set of vertices of T by u T v u T rv. A rooted tree can also be interpreted as a directed graph, in which all edges have a head and a tail and are directed away from the root. That way every vertex has exactly one predecessor, except for the root, which has none. A vertex with no successor is called leaf of T. The term leaf is also used for vertices of degree 1 in undirected trees. Let v V (T ) \ r(t ) be an arbitrary vertex and e the edge whose head is v. We call the connected component of T e containing v the branch of T at v. It is a tree with root v and its vertices and edges are ordered and directed as they are in T. If a spanning subgraph of a graph G is a tree it is called a spanning tree of G. If G is not connected but every connected component has a spanning tree the set of these trees is a spanning forest of G. An edge e E whose deletion increases the number of connected components of G is called a bridge. In a tree every edge is a bridge. Analogously, a vertex with the same 4

11 Figure 1.4: graph with a spanning tree (marked by thick edges) property is called cutvertex. In the case of multigraphs a vertex with a loop is seen as a cutvertex. More generally, a separator is a set S V whose deletion increases the number of connected components. We say, S separates G. A set S V separates two sets of vertices U, W V if U \ S and W \ S lie in different components of G S. A graph G = (V, E) is called n-connected if G W is connected for all W V with W < n, provided that n < V. The connectivity of G is the greatest k N such that G is k-connected. It is denoted by κ(g), κ(g) 1 meaning that G is connected, κ(g) = 0 that G is disconnected. The vertex connectivity κ G (u, v) between two vertices u and v in G equals S 1, where S V is a set of minimum cardinality such that S separates {u} from {v}. G is n-edge-connected if n < E and G F is connected for all F E with F < n. λ(g) is the greatest integer n for which G is n-edge-connected, the edge-connectivity of G. A famous theorem of Menger explains the relation between separating sets and disjoint paths in a graph. Theorem (Menger s theorem) Let G = (V, E) be a graph and U, W V two vertex sets. Then the minimum number of vertices separating U from W in G is equal to the maximum number of disjoint UW -paths in G. Proof. G has to contain at least as many vertices separating U from W as there exist disjoint UW -paths, at least one vertex from each path. To show the converse we use induction on the number E of edges. For E = 0, U W is a set of minimal cardinality separating U from W and we also have U W trivial U W -paths, each consisting of exactly one vertex. Now let G contain at least one edge e = xy and let s be the minimum number of vertices separating U from W in G. Assume that there are at most l < s disjoint UW - paths in G. As a consequence, G/e also contains at most l disjoint U W -paths, where U and W differ from U and W inasmuch as they contain v e if U respectively W contains an endvertex of e. By induction hypothesis, there is a set S V (G/e) of cardinality at most l separating U from W. S has to contain v e, otherwise it would be an UW -separating set in G. S = S \ v e {x, y} is an UW -separating set in G and therefore we have S s and l + 1 S s l + 1. Furthermore, we can easily construct s = l + 1 disjoint UW -paths. Look at G e. Every set separating U from S also separates U from W and therefore contains at least s vertices. Thus we can find s disjoint US-paths and analogously s disjoint SW -paths in G e. As S = s and these paths can only meet in S, we can combine them to s disjoint UW -paths in G which contradicts our choice of l. 5

12 6

13 Chapter 2 Graph Minor Theory Tree-decompositions are extensively used in the context of graph minor theory. Introduced by Robertson and Seymour within their Graph Minors series of papers [41] the concept of tree-decomposition proved to be useful in many ways. The Graph Minors series spans over more than 20 papers and more than 500 pages altogether. Its main purpose was to prove an important open conjecture, often called Wagner s conjecture. In this chapter we introduce the basic terms needed to state this conjecture and some of their properties. Then we give a brief overview of the context behind Wagner s conjecture and its relation to minor-closed classes of graphs. We also state some wellknown results by Kuratowski [34] and Kruskal [33] which are closely related to Wagner s conjecture. The definitions and results presented in this chapter can be found in [16, 35, 37]. 2.1 Well-quasi-order and minors Definition (isomorphism) An isomorphism between two graphs G and H is a map f : V (G) V (H) such that an edge uv is in E(G) if and only if the edge f(u)f(v) is in E(H). Regarding multigraphs, also the number of multiple edges and loops has to coincide. Two graphs G, H are called isomorphic, denoted by G H, if there exists an isomorphism between them. Usually, we speak of a graph meaning its isomorphism class. For example, we speak of the complete bipartite graph K m,n. But for the discussion of graph minor theory, we will not identify two isomorphic graphs and always make clear if a (minor) relation is defined up to isomorphism. Definition (graph invariant) A graph invariant is a function which, taking graphs as input, assigns the same value to isomorphic graphs. Examples are functions giving the order of a graph or stating if it is simple/connected/loop-free. We have already introduced the subgraph relation between two graphs. A subgraph H of G arises from edge and vertex deletion. Similarly, we will define subdivisions and (topological) minors. 7

14 Definition (subdivision) A graph H is a subdivision of a graph G if H is obtained from G by subdivision of edges. Definition (topological minor) A topological minor H of G is obtained from G by deletion of edges and vertices and suppression of vertices. If a graph H is isomorphic to a topological minor of a graph G we say G topologically contains H. Definition (minor) If not only deletion of edges and vertices but also contraction of edges is allowed the resulting graph is called a minor of the initial graph. A minor of G that is not isomorphic to G is called a proper minor of G. We will denote the minor-relation H is isomorphic to a minor of G by H G and say that H is a -minor of G. A topological minor H of G is also a minor of G, since suppression of a vertex is the same as contracting an edge with an endvertex of degree 2. The converse is not necessarily true. Definition A class of graphs G is called minor-closed if it contains for every graph in G all its -minors as well. G H top H minor Figure 2.1: graph G with topological minor H top and minor H minor Definition (well-quasi-order) A quasi-order is a reflexive and transitive relation. A quasi-ordered set (S, ) is well-quasi-ordered if in every infinite sequence s 0, s 1, s 2... of elements of S there exist indices i, j such that i < j and s i s j. According to [37], we call such a pair (s i, s j ) a good pair of the sequence. An infinite sequence is good if it contains at least one good pair, otherwise it is a bad sequence. Lemma A quasi-ordered set (S, ) is well-quasi-ordered if and only if there exists neither an infinite strictly descending chain nor an infinite antichain of elements of S. Proof. : By definition of well-quasi-order, S cannot have an infinite strictly descending chain nor an infinite antichain. : Conversely, let s 0, s 1, s 2,... be an infinite sequence of elements of S. Assume it is a bad sequence. Let S s0 denote the set of all s j s 1, s 2,... with s 0 s j. S s0 has to be finite because S contains neither an infinite strictly descending chain nor an infinite antichain. So the subsequence t 1, t 2,... of s 1, s 2,..., containing only the elements not in S s0, consists only of elements incomparable to s 0. Choose a maximal subsequence (t 0 = t i0 ), t i1, t i2,... 8

15 of t 1, t 2,... where each i j is the smallest possible index such that t i0,..., t ij 1, t ij is an antichain. This sequence itself is an antichain and therefore finite. Let i n be the maximal occurring index. The union n j=0 S tij is a finite union of finite sets and therefore finite which is a contradiction to s 0, s 1, s 2,... being infinite. Definition Given an infinite sequence s 0, s 1, s 2,... of elements of a quasi-ordered set (S, ), we call an element s i terminal if there exists no s j with i < j and s i s j. Lemma If (S, ) is well-quasi-ordered the number of terminal elements in an infinite sequence is finite. Furthermore, every infinite sequence of elements of S has an infinite ascending subsequence. Proof. Infinitely many terminal elements would contain either an infinite strictly descending chain or an infinite antichain which is contradictory to S being well-quasi-ordered. Thus, for an arbitrary infinite sequence s 0, s 1, s 2,..., there is an index N such that all terminal elements of this sequence have an index smaller than N. So, starting with s i0, i 0 N, we can choose s i1 such that i 0 < i 1 and s i0 s i1. We continue with s i2 such that s i1 s i2, i 1 < i 2 and by analogously adding elements we create an infinite ascending subsequence s i0, s i1, s i2,.... Lemma If (S, S ) and (T, T ) are well-quasi-ordered sets then S T is wellquasi-ordered by the relation defined by (s 1, t 1 ) (s 2, t 2 ) s 1 S s 2 t 1 T t 2. Proof. Let (s 0, t 0 ), (s 1, t 1 ), (s 2, t 2 ),... be an infinite sequence of elements of S T. Since S is well-quasi-ordered we can find an infinite ascending subsequence s i0, s i1, s i2... of s 0, s 1, s 2,.... The sequence t i0, t i1, t i2... has to contain two elements t k and t l with t k T t l and k < l, as T is well-quasi-ordered. So we found elements (s k, t k ), (s l, t l ) such that (s k, t k ) (s l, t l ) and k < l. For an ordered set (S, S ) we denote the class of finite subsets of S by [S] <ω and define a quasi-order ω on [S] <ω by A ω B injective mapping f : A B such that a S f(a) a A. f is called a non-descending mapping. Lemma If (S, ) is well-quasi-ordered then ([S] <ω, ω ) is well-quasi-ordered. Proof. Assume [S] <ω is not well-quasi-ordered. Consider a sequence S 0, S 1, S 2,... such that every S i, i 0 is a set with minimal cardinality such that S 0, S 1,..., S i are the first members of a bad sequence in [S] <ω. This sequence itself is a bad sequence and contains only non-empty subsets of S. Set T i = S i \{s i }, for i 0 and arbitrary elements s i S i. There cannot exist a bad sequence consisting of sets T i since then there would be a (bad) subsequence T i0, T i1, T i2,... with i 0 i j for all j. As a consequence, the sequence S 1, S 2,..., S i0 1, T i0, T i1, T i2,... 9

16 would be bad since a good pair (S j, T ij ) would imply S j ω T ij ω S ij for j i j which is not possible. This is a contradiction to the choice of S i0. Therefore, the class T of sets T i is well-quasi-ordered and by Lemma also S T is well-quasi-ordered. That implies that the sequence (s 0, T 0 ), (s 1, T 1 ), (s 2, T 2 ),... contains a good pair ((s i, T i ), (s j, T j )). But this would mean that S i ω S j which is a contradiction. Lemma The minor relation is a quasi-order on the class of finite graphs. Proof. This is easy to see since every graph is a minor of itself and a minor of a minor of G is also a minor of G. Identifying two isomorphic copies of a graph would make a partial order. Since an infinite strictly descending chain of -minors is not possible, is a well-quasi-order if and only if no infinite antichain exists. 2.2 The graph minor theorem We have now defined everything we need to state Wagner s conjecture. It is nowadays also known as graph minor theorem or Robertson-Seymour theorem after it was proven by Robertson and Seymour in 2004 [47]. Throughout their papers of the Graph Minors series it is referred to as Wagner s conjecture, although apparently Wagner did not state this conjecture; see [16, p. 373]. Theorem (graph minor theorem) The class of finite graphs is well-quasi-ordered by the minor relation. To interpret this theorem in another context, we can look at graph properties that can be described by excluded minors. Definition (excluded minor) We call a graph H an excluded minor from a class of graphs G if no graph in G contains H as a -minor. Lemma A minor-closed class of graphs G can be characterised by its excluded minors. This can easily be achieved by taking all graphs not in G. We can also go further and only consider the minimal elements K G of this set, that is, graphs with no proper minor not in G. Conversely, by defining a set of excluded minors M, we get a minor-closed class of graphs. Such a class will be denoted by Forb(M), the set of all graphs not containing any of the graphs in M as a -minor. Now it follows from the graph minor theorem that a finite list of graphs suffices to describe a graph property that is inherited by minors. Corollary (of Theorem 2.2.1) Every minor-closed class of graphs G can be described by a finite set K G of (pairwise incomparable) excluded minors. 10

17 Proof. Let G be Forb(M). Such a set M always exists, just take all graphs not in G. If M is an infinite set of graphs, then by Theorem a graph in M exists that is a minor of another graph in M. If we now only consider graphs that are -minimal in M, we obtain a finite set K G of excluded minors. The set K G is sometimes called Kuratowski set for G. Indeed, K. Kuratowski stated one well-known characterization theorem that can be rewritten in terms of excluded minors [34]. It applies to planar graphs. Definition (planarity) A graph G is called planar if it can be drawn in the plane without crossings. We also say that G is embeddable in the plane. A graph without this property is called nonplanar. Adding loops and multiple edges to a given graph does not change its (non)planarity. Obviously, the property of planarity is inherited by minors. Lemma The class of planar graphs P is minor-closed. Theorem (Kuratowski) A graph is planar if and only if it contains no topological minor isomorphic to the complete graph K 5 or the complete bipartite graph K 3,3. Figure 2.2: the complete graph K 5 and the complete bipartite graph K 3,3 We can formulate Theorem with minors as well. Since K 5 and K 3,3 are not planar and planarity is inherited by (topological) minors, a planar graph cannot have K 5 nor K 3,3 as a (topological) minor. Conversely, if a graph does contain neither K 5 nor K 3,3 as a minor it can contain neither one of them as a topological minor. Those two graphs are both minimally nonplanar, that is, they contain no proper minor that is nonplanar. Furthermore, any other excluded minor would have to contain either one of them as a topological minor by Theorem So the Kuratowski set K P consists only of K 5 and K 3,3. Theorem A graph is planar if and only if it contains no minor isomorphic to the complete graph K 5 or the complete bipartite graph K 3,3. Kruskal proved another important minor theorem [33]. It can be interpreted as a graph minor theorem for trees. Theorem (Kruskal) The class of finite trees is well-quasi-ordered by the relation of topological containment. Here, we present a proof which is due to Nash-Williams [37] and whose proof-technique will also be used in other proofs related to the graph minor theorem. For example, 11

18 their concept of finding a minimal bad sequence was already utilised in the proof of Lemma Now we consider rooted trees and a relation such that T T means that there exists an injective function f mapping V (T ) to V (T ) such that v T u f(v) T f(u) holds for all vertices u, v V (T ). This is obviously a quasi-order. If we show that the class of finite rooted trees R is well-quasi-ordered by this relation, this also implies Theorem Proof of Theorem Assume R is not well-quasi-ordered by. We construct a minimal bad sequence as in the proof of Lemma Let T 0, T 1, T 2,... be such a sequence and each T i, i 0 be a rooted tree of minimal cardinality such that T 0,..., T i is the beginning of a bad sequence of elements of R. Now, for each T i consider the set of branches B i of T i at all neighbours of r(t i ). Let B be the union of all these sets B i. If there existed a bad sequence B 0, B 1, B 2,... with B i B f(i) and f(0) f(j) j, then the sequence T 0, T 1,..., T f(0) 1, B 0, B 1, B 2,... would also be a bad sequence since T i B j would imply T i T f(j). As this would be contradictory to the choice of T f(0) we conclude that B is well-quasi-ordered. Lemma assures the existence of a good pair (B i, B j ), i < j, since we can construct a sequence containing only sets of the form B k B <ω. B i ω B j means that the branches of T i can be mapped onto (different) branches of T j. By mapping r(t i ) onto r(t j ), this results in T i T j and we have a contradiction. Therefore R is well-quasi-ordered. 12

19 Chapter 3 Tree-Decomposition The focus of this chapter is on tree-decomposition and some of its applications in graph minor theory. In this context we will introduce tree-width which has already been studied by Halin under a different name [24]. Apparently, this went unnoticed by Robertson and Seymour who reintroduced this concept for their proof of the graph minor theorem [41]. First, we will present the notions of tree-decomposition and tree-width and some of their basic properties. Then it is shown how tree-width measures the connectivity of a graph. These properties can be found in [41, 16, 8, 32]. Second, there exist several equivalent representations of tree-decomposition. We present the concepts of clique-sums, partial k-trees and chordal graphs and explain their connection to tree-decomposition. Bodlaender discussed several characterisations in [11] and [12]. Clique-sums are defined in [30] and [35]. Partial k-trees are covered, for example, in [2, 4, 50, 55]. For chordal graphs see [16, 22, 49]. Furthermore, we show how the exclusion of some specific minor H can affect the structure of the graphs contained in Forb(H). In many cases this can be expressed in the context of tree-decompositions. We present some excluded minor theorems which can be found in [30, 18, 35]. In their Graph Minors series of papers, Robertson and Seymour studied the structure of graphs not containing some planar graph G. This and the general case of excluding an arbitrary graph H play an important part in the proof of the graph minor theorem. In chapter 4, we therefore discuss the exclusion of a planar graph in detail. 3.1 Tree-decomposition Definition A tree-decomposition of a graph G = (V, E) is a pair (T, V) consisting of a tree T and a family V = (V t ) t V (T ) of subsets of V and satisfying the following properties: (TD1) t V (T ) V t = V (TD2) uv E : t V (T ) with u, v V t (TD1) t 1, t 2, t 3 V (T ) : t 2 T t 1t 3 V t1 V t3 V t2 13

20 a a, b c, d b d b, c, e e c c, e, h g f e, f, h c, g, h h Figure 3.1: tree-decomposition of width 2 We call the sets V t, and sometimes also their induced subgraphs G[V t ], the parts of the tree-decomposition (T, V). If T is a path, we call (T, V) a path-decomposition. For the rest of this section, let (T, V) be a tree-decomposition of G = (V, E) as defined above. Definition The width of a tree-decomposition is max ( V t 1). t V (T ) The tree-width of a graph G is the minimum width over all possible tree-decompositions of G. Tree-width is a graph invariant and describes how tree-like the structure of a graph is. More precisely, it gives information about the connectivity of the graph. This is due to the fact that the tree T of (T, V) has separation properties similar to those of the corresponding graph G. A tree-composition can also be seen as a union of subtrees, since by (TD3) the vertices of T containing a certain vertex v V (G) form a subtree T v of T. If E contains an edge uv then (TD2) ensures that the subtrees T u and T v intersect. d c a b c b e e c h c g h e f h Figure 3.2: subtrees formed by vertices of V (G) Remark Trees and forests have tree-width at most 1. The complete graph K n has tree-width n 1. 14

21 Definition Graphs obtained from one single edge by subdivision and by addition of parallel edges to already existing edges are called series-parallel. Figure 3.1 shows a tree-decomposition of a series-parallel graph. Lemma Series-parallel graphs have tree-width at most 2. Proof. This can be seen by observing that K 2 has tree-width 1 and duplicating edges does not increase tree-width. And that, for a graph G obtained from a graph G by subdivision of an edge uv by a new vertex w, a tree-decomposition (T, V) of G can easily be transformed into a tree-decomposition for G by adding a new part {u, v, w} and connecting it to a part containing the edge uv. Lemma If H is a subgraph of a graph G then H has tree-width at most tw(g). Proof. Let (T, V) be a tree-decomposition of G of width tw(g). We can construct from (T, V) a tree-decomposition (T, W) of H with parts W t = V t V (H). Obviously, (T, W) has width at most tw(g). Lemma G has tree-width at most k if and only if all connected components of G have tree-width at most k. Lemma If H is a minor of a graph G then H has tree-width at most tw(g). Proof. As can easily bee seen, deleting vertices or edges can not increase the tree-width of a graph. Now we examine contraction of an edge. Let (T, V) be a tree-decomposition of G = (V, E) of width w and e = uv E the edge to be contracted to a vertex v e. Set W i to be the part V i, with the only difference that every occurrence of u or v is replaced by v e and set T = T. We now show that ( T, W) is a tree decomposition of H with width at most w since replacing u and v by v e can not increase the tree-width w. Intuitively, it is clear that we have found a tree-decomposition of H. T u and T v were subtrees of T meeting in at least one vertex t. From this follows that T ve will be connected and since T contains no cycles T ve will also be a subtree of T. To be more accurate, we prove (TD1)-(TD3) for ( T, W). (TD1) is clear from (TD1) for (T, V) and the replacement of u, v by v e. For every edge wu, w V, there exists t with w, u V t by (TD2), so W t contains wv e. The same follows for edges wv, w V, and this implies (TD2) for ( T, W). Now let t 1, t 2 E( T ) with v e in W t1 W t2. That means that either u V t1 V t2 or v V t1 V t2 or (without loss of generality) u V t1 \ V t2 and v V t2 \ V t1. The first two cases, together with (TD3) for (T, V), imply t T t 1t 2 : v e W t for ( T, W). Concerning the third case, we know that, by (TD2) and (TD3) for (T, V), there has to exist t T t 1t 2 such that both u, v are in V t. (TD3) for (T, V) now tells us that u is a member of every set V t between V t1 and V t, and v is contained in the other parts of the path T t 1t 2. Thus v e is included in every W t with t T t 1t 2, which completes the proof. 15

22 Bodlaender proved the following two lemmata in [11]. They are not difficult to understand but are useful for finding an upper bound for the tree-width of a given graph. Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a graph and W V a set of vertices. If G W has tree-width at most k then G has tree-width at most k + W. Proof. Let (T, V) be a tree-decomposition of G W of width at most k. Then (T, W) with parts W t = V t W, t V (T ) is a tree-decomposition of G of width at most k + W. Lemma Let G = (V, E) be a graph and F E a set of edges. If G F has tree-width at most k then G has tree-width at most k + F. Proof. Let V F be a set of vertices of cardinality at most F containing at least one endvertex of every edge in F. As G V F is a subgraph of G F, we know by Lemma that tw(g V F ) tw(g F ) k. Therefore, by Lemma 3.1.9, G has tree-width at most k + V F k + F. 3.2 Tree-decomposition and connectivity Given a tree-decomposition (T, V) of a graph G, it is possible to read off certain information about the connectivity of G. The vertices contained in a part V t separate the sets of vertices of G characterised by the components of T t. Therefore, the subgraphs of G induced by these sets can only communicate through V t. So G and T have similar connectivity properties. This knowledge is used to develop fast algorithms for graphs of bounded tree-width. We will later present such algorithms. In this section we will always assume that we have given a tree-decomposition (T, V) of a graph G. Definition The connected components of T t are called the branches of T at t V (T ). Lemma Let t V (T ) and v V, then v V t or v is only contained in vertex sets V u of exactly one branch of T at t, denoted by T t (v). Proof. v has to be an element of one of the vertex sets V t, t V (T ) by (T D1). Suppose, v / V t and there are t 1, t 2 V (T ) with v V i, i = 1, 2, that are separated by t. Then t T t 1t 2 and together with (T D3) it follows that v V t, which is a contradiction. Lemma If uv E and u and v are not elements of V t, then T t (u) = T t (v). Proof. By (TD2), u and v are in V t for some t t. This part V t is in T t (u) and T t (v), which implies their equality. Lemma If v, v V are not elements of a part V t and are not separated in G by V t, then T t (v) = T t (v ). 16

23 Proof. Let PG vv = vu 1 u 2... u n v be a vv -path such that no vertex of PG vv of V t. Lemma implies V t (v) = V t (u 1 ) = V t (u 2 ) = = V t (u n ) = V t (v ). is an element Corollary Let t V (T ) and let T 1, T 2,..., T k be the branches of T at t. Denote the subgraph of G induced by the vertex set l V (T i ) by G i, for i = 1,..., k. Then the subgraphs V l G 1 V t, G 2 V t,..., G k V t have neither a vertex in common nor edges between them. Lemma Let e = t 1 t 2 be an edge of T and denote the vertex sets of the two components of T e by N t1, N t2 respectively. Then V t1 V t2 separates U t1 = t N t1 V t and U t2 = t N t2 V t in G. Proof. For v U t1 U t2 it follows from (TD3) that v is also an element of V t1 and V t2, therefore v V t1 V t2. Let v 1 U t1 \ U t2 and v 2 U t2 \ U t1. Suppose that v 1 and v 2 are separated by neither V t1 nor V t2. Then, by Lemma we have V t1 (v 1 ) = V t1 (v 2 ) and analogously V t2 (v 1 ) = V t2 (v 2 ), which is a contradiction to the choice of v 1 and v 2. So every v 1 v 2 -path has vertices in V t1 and V t2. Moreover at least one of its edges is an element of V t1 or V t2, so V t1 V t2 contains at least one vertex of each v 1 v 2 -path. Lemma Given a set W V, there is either t T such that W V t or there exist w 1, w 2 W and t 1 t 2 E(T ) such that w 1, w 2 / V t1 V t2 and w 1 is separated from w 2 by V t1 V t2 in G. Proof. Let f = tt be an edge of T. If we can find w 1, w 2 W as desired, there is nothing more to prove. If not, one of the sets U t, U t contains W. We denote this set by U f and look at the next edge. Provided that we have not found w 1, w 2, t 1, t 2 as described above after examining all edges of T, there has to be some t V (T ) such that V t = e E(T ) holds, since T is connected and acyclic. Furthermore, we have W V t. Lemma provides us with some useful information about the tree-decomposition of a graph G. It follows that the tree-width of G is affected by the cliques contained in G. Lemma The vertex set of any complete subgraph of G is contained in some part of (T, V). Proof. Let K be a complete subgraph of G. Since the vertices of K are pairwise adjacent, Lemma ensures the existence of a part V t in V containing V (K). Corollary For the clique number ω(g) of G we have U e ω(g) 1 tw(g). 17

24 3.3 Other representations of tree-decomposition An alternative representation can sometimes be more suitable to study a given problem. There exist several notions which are closely related to tree-decomposition. We present clique-sums, partial k-trees and chordal graphs and how they are linked to tree-decomposition Clique-sums We have already seen how a tree-decomposition (T, V) of a graph G gives us information about the separation properties of G. For an edge tt V (T ), we know that X = V t V t separates the two vertex sets U t and U t in G. We could also depict G as the result of gluing together the two subgraphs induced by U t and U t at X. Therefore the entire graph is composed of such subgraphs and a tree-decomposition provides us with gluing instructions for these parts. We state this precisely by introducing clique-sums. Definition Let G = (V, E) be a graph. vertices is called a k-clique in G. A set C V of k mutually adjacent Definition Let G 1, G 2 be graphs and C 1 and C 2 be k-cliques in G 1 and G 2, respectively. The graph G is a k-clique-sum of G 1 and G 2 if G is obtained from G 1 and G 2 by identifying the vertices of C 1 with the vertices of C 2 and possibly deleting some edges between these k vertices. We also say that G is obtained by pasting the graphs G 1 and G 2 together along C 1 and C 2, or that G is a clique-sum of order k. a b d f e c g h Figure 3.3: Graph of tree-width 2 and a pasting structure for clique-sums of graphs of cardinality 3 given by the tree-decomposition in fig. 3.1 Lemma If the graphs G 1 and G 2 have both tree-width at most n then every graph obtained by a clique-sum of G 1 and G 2 of order at most n also has tree-width at most n. Proof. Let C 1, C 2 be k-cliques of G 1 and G 2 for an integer k n and let G be the k- clique-sum of G 1 and G 2 obtained without deleting any edge. If (T 1, V 1 ) and (T 2, V 2 ) are tree-decompositions of G 1 and G 2, respectively, we know from Lemma that there exist parts V 1 V 1 and V 2 V 2 such that C 1 V 1 and C 2 V 2. We now combine the two 18

25 tree-decompositions to a tree-decomposition of G by adding an edge e between the parts V 1 and V 2 and relabeling appropriately. The tree corresponding to this tree-decomposition consists of T 1, T 2 and e. Lemma Let G be a graph of tree-width n. together graphs of cardinality at most n + 1. Then G can be obtained by pasting Proof. The pasting structure and graphs needed for this construction are given by any tree-decomposition of G of width n Partial k-trees Partial k-trees are an equivalent notion to graphs of tree-width at most k. Rose studied k-trees in the context of perfect elimination graphs and their connection to sparse linear systems [49, 50]. Arnborg et al. examined partial k-trees for their interesting property that many combinatorial problems can be solved in polynomial time when restricted to partial k-trees [2, 4]. Bodlaender covers this topic in surveys such as [12] and [11]. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume all graphs to be simple graphs for the rest of this section. Definition We define k-trees recursively: (1) The complete graph K k is a k-tree. (2) Given a k-tree G, we can construct a k-tree by adding a new vertex v and edges from v to k mutually adjacent vertices of G. Remark Note that by this definition every vertex in a k-tree G has degree at least k 1. If V (G) k + 1 then at least one vertex has exactly degree k. A k-tree with k + 1 vertices is the complete graph K k+1. Definition A partial k-tree is a subgraph of a k-tree. Rose showed the following characterisation of k-trees in [50]. Theorem A graph G is a k-tree if and only if it has the following three properties: (1) G is connected. (2) G contains a k-clique but no k + 2-clique. (3) For every two vertices v, w V (G) every minimal vw-separator in G is a k-clique. Corollary For a k-tree G and for every two vertices v, w V (G) every minimal vw-separator in G is also a minimal separator of G. Proof. Choose v, w V (G) arbitrarily. Let S vw be a minimal vw-separator in G. From Theorem we know that S vw is a k-clique. Suppose that S vw is not a minimal separator of G. Then there exists a separator S of G of cardinality S < S vw = k. By definition S separates some vertices v 1, v 2 in G. By Theorem we have a contradiction as S cannot be both a k-clique and of order at most k 1. Definition A vertex v of a graph G is simplicial if its neighbourhood N G (v) induces a complete subgraph in G. 19

26 Definition Let G = (V, E) be a graph with n = V. An elimination ordering (v i ) n i=1 is an ordering of the vertices in V. Set G 0 = G. Applying (v i ) n i=1 to G is the procedure of (1) removing the vertex v i from G i 1 and (2) adding edges between non-adjacent vertices in N Gi 1 (v i ) until they induce a complete subgraph in the now remaining graph G i. And this for i from 1 to n, in the order given by the elimination ordering. Definition A graph G = (V, E) is a perfect elimination graph if it has an elimination ordering such that every vertex v V is simplicial at the time of its removal. That is, if v is the ith vertex to be removed, v is simplicial in the graph G[V \ {v 1,..., v i 1 }]. Such an ordering is called perfect elimination ordering. Note that no edges are added to G in the process of applying a perfect elimination ordering Figure 3.4: 3-tree with labels indicating a perfect elimination ordering We can deduce from the recursive definition of k-trees that every k-tree has a perfect elimination ordering. Therefore the k-trees form a subclass of the class of perfect elimination graphs. Perfect elimination graphs are exactly the chordal graphs which we will study in the next section. Definition Define G as before. The width of an elimination ordering (v i ) n i=1 is max N i i {1,...,n} where N i denotes the set of neighbours N Gi 1 (v i ) of v i at the time of its removal. Theorem A graph G is a partial k-tree if and only if it has an elimination ordering of width at most k. Proof. Let G be a partial k-tree. Without loss of generality we can assume that G is a k-tree. The perfect elimination ordering implicitly given by the recursive definition of k-trees is of width at most k. Conversely, let G = (V, E) have an elimination ordering of width at most k. Assume that it is perfect. Therefore we can construct G recursively, starting with v n and adding the other vertices in inverse order to our perfect elimination ordering. When we add a vertex v i, we also add edges to the vertices in N i which form a N i -clique with N i k. From this construction we can easily deduce that G is a partial k-tree. 20

### Graph minors, decompositions and algorithms

Graph minors, decompositions and algorithms (Lecture notes) Jiří Fiala Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University, Prague fiala@kam.mff.cuni.cz June 2, 2014 For updates see http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~fiala/tw.pdf.

### Graph Theory Notes. Vadim Lozin. Institute of Mathematics University of Warwick

Graph Theory Notes Vadim Lozin Institute of Mathematics University of Warwick 1 Introduction A graph G = (V, E) consists of two sets V and E. The elements of V are called the vertices and the elements

### A simple existence criterion for normal spanning trees in infinite graphs

1 A simple existence criterion for normal spanning trees in infinite graphs Reinhard Diestel Halin proved in 1978 that there exists a normal spanning tree in every connected graph G that satisfies the

### Chapter 2. Basic Terminology and Preliminaries

Chapter 2 Basic Terminology and Preliminaries 6 Chapter 2. Basic Terminology and Preliminaries 7 2.1 Introduction This chapter is intended to provide all the fundamental terminology and notations which

### (a) (b) (c) Figure 1 : Graphs, multigraphs and digraphs. If the vertices of the leftmost figure are labelled {1, 2, 3, 4} in clockwise order from

4 Graph Theory Throughout these notes, a graph G is a pair (V, E) where V is a set and E is a set of unordered pairs of elements of V. The elements of V are called vertices and the elements of E are called

### 1 Digraphs. Definition 1

1 Digraphs Definition 1 Adigraphordirected graphgisatriplecomprisedofavertex set V(G), edge set E(G), and a function assigning each edge an ordered pair of vertices (tail, head); these vertices together

### On end degrees and infinite cycles in locally finite graphs

On end degrees and infinite cycles in locally finite graphs Henning Bruhn Maya Stein Abstract We introduce a natural extension of the vertex degree to ends. For the cycle space C(G) as proposed by Diestel

### Chapter 4. Trees. 4.1 Basics

Chapter 4 Trees 4.1 Basics A tree is a connected graph with no cycles. A forest is a collection of trees. A vertex of degree one, particularly in a tree, is called a leaf. Trees arise in a variety of applications.

### A 2-factor in which each cycle has long length in claw-free graphs

A -factor in which each cycle has long length in claw-free graphs Roman Čada Shuya Chiba Kiyoshi Yoshimoto 3 Department of Mathematics University of West Bohemia and Institute of Theoretical Computer Science

### Homework MA 725 Spring, 2012 C. Huneke SELECTED ANSWERS

Homework MA 725 Spring, 2012 C. Huneke SELECTED ANSWERS 1.1.25 Prove that the Petersen graph has no cycle of length 7. Solution: There are 10 vertices in the Petersen graph G. Assume there is a cycle C

### Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths

arxiv:1205.5492v1 [math.co] 24 May 2012 Partitioning edge-coloured complete graphs into monochromatic cycles and paths Alexey Pokrovskiy Departement of Mathematics, London School of Economics and Political

### 4 Basics of Trees. Petr Hliněný, FI MU Brno 1 FI: MA010: Trees and Forests

4 Basics of Trees Trees, actually acyclic connected simple graphs, are among the simplest graph classes. Despite their simplicity, they still have rich structure and many useful application, such as in

### Non-Separable Detachments of Graphs

Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Technical reports TR-2001-12. Published by the Egrerváry Research Group, Pázmány P. sétány 1/C, H 1117, Budapest, Hungary. Web site: www.cs.elte.hu/egres.

### Solutions to Exercises 8

Discrete Mathematics Lent 2009 MA210 Solutions to Exercises 8 (1) Suppose that G is a graph in which every vertex has degree at least k, where k 1, and in which every cycle contains at least 4 vertices.

### 3. Markov property. Markov property for MRFs. Hammersley-Clifford theorem. Markov property for Bayesian networks. I-map, P-map, and chordal graphs

Markov property 3-3. Markov property Markov property for MRFs Hammersley-Clifford theorem Markov property for ayesian networks I-map, P-map, and chordal graphs Markov Chain X Y Z X = Z Y µ(x, Y, Z) = f(x,

### Graph Theory. Introduction. Distance in Graphs. Trees. Isabela Drămnesc UVT. Computer Science Department, West University of Timişoara, Romania

Graph Theory Introduction. Distance in Graphs. Trees Isabela Drămnesc UVT Computer Science Department, West University of Timişoara, Romania November 2016 Isabela Drămnesc UVT Graph Theory and Combinatorics

### Chapter 6 Planarity. Section 6.1 Euler s Formula

Chapter 6 Planarity Section 6.1 Euler s Formula In Chapter 1 we introduced the puzzle of the three houses and the three utilities. The problem was to determine if we could connect each of the three utilities

### Planarity Planarity

Planarity 8.1 71 Planarity Up until now, graphs have been completely abstract. In Topological Graph Theory, it matters how the graphs are drawn. Do the edges cross? Are there knots in the graph structure?

### Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three

Labeling outerplanar graphs with maximum degree three Xiangwen Li 1 and Sanming Zhou 2 1 Department of Mathematics Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China 2 Department of Mathematics and Statistics

### COLORED GRAPHS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

COLORED GRAPHS AND THEIR PROPERTIES BEN STEVENS 1. Introduction This paper is concerned with the upper bound on the chromatic number for graphs of maximum vertex degree under three different sets of coloring

### Basic Notions on Graphs. Planar Graphs and Vertex Colourings. Joe Ryan. Presented by

Basic Notions on Graphs Planar Graphs and Vertex Colourings Presented by Joe Ryan School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Newcastle, Australia Planar graphs Graphs may be drawn

### Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles

Graphs without proper subgraphs of minimum degree 3 and short cycles Lothar Narins, Alexey Pokrovskiy, Tibor Szabó Department of Mathematics, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. August 22, 2014 Abstract

### GRAPH THEORY LECTURE 4: TREES

GRAPH THEORY LECTURE 4: TREES Abstract. 3.1 presents some standard characterizations and properties of trees. 3.2 presents several different types of trees. 3.7 develops a counting method based on a bijection

### Tree-representation of set families and applications to combinatorial decompositions

Tree-representation of set families and applications to combinatorial decompositions Binh-Minh Bui-Xuan a, Michel Habib b Michaël Rao c a Department of Informatics, University of Bergen, Norway. buixuan@ii.uib.no

### 9.1. Vertex colouring. 9. Graph colouring. Vertex colouring.

Vertex colouring. 9. Graph colouring k-vertex-critical graphs Approximation algorithms Upper bounds for the vertex chromatic number Brooks Theorem and Hajós Conjecture Chromatic Polynomials Colouring of

### GRAPH THEORY and APPLICATIONS. Trees

GRAPH THEORY and APPLICATIONS Trees Properties Tree: a connected graph with no cycle (acyclic) Forest: a graph with no cycle Paths are trees. Star: A tree consisting of one vertex adjacent to all the others.

### DO NOT RE-DISTRIBUTE THIS SOLUTION FILE

Professor Kindred Math 04 Graph Theory Homework 7 Solutions April 3, 03 Introduction to Graph Theory, West Section 5. 0, variation of 5, 39 Section 5. 9 Section 5.3 3, 8, 3 Section 7. Problems you should

### On Integer Additive Set-Indexers of Graphs

On Integer Additive Set-Indexers of Graphs arxiv:1312.7672v4 [math.co] 2 Mar 2014 N K Sudev and K A Germina Abstract A set-indexer of a graph G is an injective set-valued function f : V (G) 2 X such that

### When is a graph planar?

When is a graph planar? Theorem(Euler, 1758) If a plane multigraph G with k components has n vertices, e edges, and f faces, then n e + f = 1 + k. Corollary If G is a simple, planar graph with n(g) 3,

### 1. Relevant standard graph theory

Color identical pairs in 4-chromatic graphs Asbjørn Brændeland I argue that, given a 4-chromatic graph G and a pair of vertices {u, v} in G, if the color of u equals the color of v in every 4-coloring

### Intersection Dimension and Maximum Degree

Intersection Dimension and Maximum Degree N.R. Aravind and C.R. Subramanian The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Taramani, Chennai - 600 113, India. email: {nraravind,crs}@imsc.res.in Abstract We show

### Graph Isomorphism Completeness for Perfect Graphs and Subclasses of Perfect Graphs

Graph Isomorphism Completeness for Perfect Graphs and Subclasses of Perfect Graphs C. Boucher D. Loker May 2006 Abstract A problem is said to be GI-complete if it is provably as hard as graph isomorphism;

### 2.3 Scheduling jobs on identical parallel machines

2.3 Scheduling jobs on identical parallel machines There are jobs to be processed, and there are identical machines (running in parallel) to which each job may be assigned Each job = 1,,, must be processed

### Forests and Trees: A forest is a graph with no cycles, a tree is a connected forest.

2 Trees What is a tree? Forests and Trees: A forest is a graph with no cycles, a tree is a connected forest. Theorem 2.1 If G is a forest, then comp(g) = V (G) E(G). Proof: We proceed by induction on E(G).

### 8. Matchings and Factors

8. Matchings and Factors Consider the formation of an executive council by the parliament committee. Each committee needs to designate one of its members as an official representative to sit on the council,

### 10. Graph Matrices Incidence Matrix

10 Graph Matrices Since a graph is completely determined by specifying either its adjacency structure or its incidence structure, these specifications provide far more efficient ways of representing a

### Computer Science Department. Technion - IIT, Haifa, Israel. Itai and Rodeh [IR] have proved that for any 2-connected graph G and any vertex s G there

- 1 - THREE TREE-PATHS Avram Zehavi Alon Itai Computer Science Department Technion - IIT, Haifa, Israel Abstract Itai and Rodeh [IR] have proved that for any 2-connected graph G and any vertex s G there

### Planar Graph and Trees

Dr. Nahid Sultana December 16, 2012 Tree Spanning Trees Minimum Spanning Trees Maps and Regions Eulers Formula Nonplanar graph Dual Maps and the Four Color Theorem Tree Spanning Trees Minimum Spanning

### 1 Plane and Planar Graphs. Definition 1 A graph G(V,E) is called plane if

Plane and Planar Graphs Definition A graph G(V,E) is called plane if V is a set of points in the plane; E is a set of curves in the plane such that. every curve contains at most two vertices and these

### Theorem A graph T is a tree if, and only if, every two distinct vertices of T are joined by a unique path.

Chapter 3 Trees Section 3. Fundamental Properties of Trees Suppose your city is planning to construct a rapid rail system. They want to construct the most economical system possible that will meet the

### 3. Eulerian and Hamiltonian Graphs

3. Eulerian and Hamiltonian Graphs There are many games and puzzles which can be analysed by graph theoretic concepts. In fact, the two early discoveries which led to the existence of graphs arose from

### Coloring Eulerian triangulations of the projective plane

Coloring Eulerian triangulations of the projective plane Bojan Mohar 1 Department of Mathematics, University of Ljubljana, 1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia bojan.mohar@uni-lj.si Abstract A simple characterization

### Characterizations of Arboricity of Graphs

Characterizations of Arboricity of Graphs Ruth Haas Smith College Northampton, MA USA Abstract The aim of this paper is to give several characterizations for the following two classes of graphs: (i) graphs

### Introduction to Graph Theory

Introduction to Graph Theory Allen Dickson October 2006 1 The Königsberg Bridge Problem The city of Königsberg was located on the Pregel river in Prussia. The river divided the city into four separate

### On the independence number of graphs with maximum degree 3

On the independence number of graphs with maximum degree 3 Iyad A. Kanj Fenghui Zhang Abstract Let G be an undirected graph with maximum degree at most 3 such that G does not contain any of the three graphs

### f(x) is a singleton set for all x A. If f is a function and f(x) = {y}, we normally write

Math 525 Chapter 1 Stuff If A and B are sets, then A B = {(x,y) x A, y B} denotes the product set. If S A B, then S is called a relation from A to B or a relation between A and B. If B = A, S A A is called

### On Total Domination in Graphs

University of Houston - Downtown Senior Project - Fall 2012 On Total Domination in Graphs Author: David Amos Advisor: Dr. Ermelinda DeLaViña Senior Project Committee: Dr. Sergiy Koshkin Dr. Ryan Pepper

### Handout #Ch7 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Dec 6, 2010. Chapter 7: Digraphs

MCS-236: Graph Theory Handout #Ch7 San Skulrattanakulchai Gustavus Adolphus College Dec 6, 2010 Chapter 7: Digraphs Strong Digraphs Definitions. A digraph is an ordered pair (V, E), where V is the set

### Product irregularity strength of certain graphs

Also available at http://amc.imfm.si ISSN 1855-3966 (printed edn.), ISSN 1855-3974 (electronic edn.) ARS MATHEMATICA CONTEMPORANEA 7 (014) 3 9 Product irregularity strength of certain graphs Marcin Anholcer

### Diameter and Treewidth in Minor-Closed Graph Families, Revisited

Algorithmica manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Diameter and Treewidth in Minor-Closed Graph Families, Revisited Erik D. Demaine, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi MIT Computer Science and Artificial

### Minimum degree condition forcing complete graph immersion

Minimum degree condition forcing complete graph immersion Matt DeVos Department of Mathematics Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Jacob Fox Department of Mathematics MIT Cambridge, MA 02139

### Diameter of paired domination edge-critical graphs

AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF COMBINATORICS Volume 40 (2008), Pages 279 291 Diameter of paired domination edge-critical graphs M. Edwards R.G. Gibson Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Victoria

### Discrete Mathematics Problems

Discrete Mathematics Problems William F. Klostermeyer School of Computing University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL 32224 E-mail: wkloster@unf.edu Contents 0 Preface 3 1 Logic 5 1.1 Basics...............................

### Large induced subgraphs with all degrees odd

Large induced subgraphs with all degrees odd A.D. Scott Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, England Abstract: We prove that every connected graph of order

### Math 443/543 Graph Theory Notes 4: Connector Problems

Math 443/543 Graph Theory Notes 4: Connector Problems David Glickenstein September 19, 2012 1 Trees and the Minimal Connector Problem Here is the problem: Suppose we have a collection of cities which we

### Oriented Diameter of Graphs with Diameter 3

Oriented Diameter of Graphs with Diameter 3 Peter K. Kwok, Qi Liu, Douglas B. West revised November, 2008 Abstract In 1978, Chvátal and Thomassen proved that every 2-edge-connected graph with diameter

### Planar Tree Transformation: Results and Counterexample

Planar Tree Transformation: Results and Counterexample Selim G Akl, Kamrul Islam, and Henk Meijer School of Computing, Queen s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6 Abstract We consider the problem

### Lecture notes from Foundations of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods University of Chicago, Spring 2002 Lecture 1, March 29, 2002

Lecture notes from Foundations of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods University of Chicago, Spring 2002 Lecture 1, March 29, 2002 Eric Vigoda Scribe: Varsha Dani & Tom Hayes 1.1 Introduction The aim of this

### SHARP BOUNDS FOR THE SUM OF THE SQUARES OF THE DEGREES OF A GRAPH

31 Kragujevac J. Math. 25 (2003) 31 49. SHARP BOUNDS FOR THE SUM OF THE SQUARES OF THE DEGREES OF A GRAPH Kinkar Ch. Das Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, W.B.,

### Graph Powers: Hardness Results, Good Characterizations and Efficient Algorithms. Dissertation

Graph Powers: Hardness Results, Good Characterizations and Efficient Algorithms Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor-Ingenieur (Dr.-Ing.) der Fakultät für Informatik und Elektrotechnik

### 1 Basic Definitions and Concepts in Graph Theory

CME 305: Discrete Mathematics and Algorithms 1 Basic Definitions and Concepts in Graph Theory A graph G(V, E) is a set V of vertices and a set E of edges. In an undirected graph, an edge is an unordered

### 7. Colourings. 7.1 Vertex colouring

7. Colourings Colouring is one of the important branches of graph theory and has attracted the attention of almost all graph theorists, mainly because of the four colour theorem, the details of which can

### Unicyclic Graphs with Given Number of Cut Vertices and the Maximal Merrifield - Simmons Index

Filomat 28:3 (2014), 451 461 DOI 10.2298/FIL1403451H Published by Faculty of Sciences Mathematics, University of Niš, Serbia Available at: http://www.pmf.ni.ac.rs/filomat Unicyclic Graphs with Given Number

### Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Chapter 10: Graphs

Discrete Mathematics & Mathematical Reasoning Chapter 10: Graphs Kousha Etessami U. of Edinburgh, UK Kousha Etessami (U. of Edinburgh, UK) Discrete Mathematics (Chapter 6) 1 / 13 Overview Graphs and Graph

### 14. Trees and Their Properties

14. Trees and Their Properties This is the first of a few articles in which we shall study a special and important family of graphs, called trees, discuss their properties and introduce some of their applications.

### A tree can be defined in a variety of ways as is shown in the following theorem: 2. There exists a unique path between every two vertices of G.

7 Basic Properties 24 TREES 7 Basic Properties Definition 7.1: A connected graph G is called a tree if the removal of any of its edges makes G disconnected. A tree can be defined in a variety of ways as

### 1 Definitions. Supplementary Material for: Digraphs. Concept graphs

Supplementary Material for: van Rooij, I., Evans, P., Müller, M., Gedge, J. & Wareham, T. (2008). Identifying Sources of Intractability in Cognitive Models: An Illustration using Analogical Structure Mapping.

### Chapter 8 Independence

Chapter 8 Independence Section 8.1 Vertex Independence and Coverings Next, we consider a problem that strikes close to home for us all, final exams. At the end of each term, students are required to take

### Combinatorics: The Fine Art of Counting

Combinatorics: The Fine Art of Counting Week 9 Lecture Notes Graph Theory For completeness I have included the definitions from last week s lecture which we will be using in today s lecture along with

### Graph definition Degree, in, out degree, oriented graph. Complete, regular, bipartite graph. Graph representation, connectivity, adjacency.

Mária Markošová Graph definition Degree, in, out degree, oriented graph. Complete, regular, bipartite graph. Graph representation, connectivity, adjacency. Isomorphism of graphs. Paths, cycles, trials.

### Chapter 4: Trees. 2. Theorem: Let T be a graph with n vertices. Then the following statements are equivalent:

9 Properties of Trees. Definitions: Chapter 4: Trees forest - a graph that contains no cycles tree - a connected forest. Theorem: Let T be a graph with n vertices. Then the following statements are equivalent:

### Two General Methods to Reduce Delay and Change of Enumeration Algorithms

ISSN 1346-5597 NII Technical Report Two General Methods to Reduce Delay and Change of Enumeration Algorithms Takeaki Uno NII-2003-004E Apr.2003 Two General Methods to Reduce Delay and Change of Enumeration

### IE 680 Special Topics in Production Systems: Networks, Routing and Logistics*

IE 680 Special Topics in Production Systems: Networks, Routing and Logistics* Rakesh Nagi Department of Industrial Engineering University at Buffalo (SUNY) *Lecture notes from Network Flows by Ahuja, Magnanti

### Mean Ramsey-Turán numbers

Mean Ramsey-Turán numbers Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics University of Haifa at Oranim Tivon 36006, Israel Abstract A ρ-mean coloring of a graph is a coloring of the edges such that the average

### Generalized Induced Factor Problems

Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization Technical reports TR-2002-07. Published by the Egrerváry Research Group, Pázmány P. sétány 1/C, H 1117, Budapest, Hungary. Web site: www.cs.elte.hu/egres.

### CS268: Geometric Algorithms Handout #5 Design and Analysis Original Handout #15 Stanford University Tuesday, 25 February 1992

CS268: Geometric Algorithms Handout #5 Design and Analysis Original Handout #15 Stanford University Tuesday, 25 February 1992 Original Lecture #6: 28 January 1991 Topics: Triangulating Simple Polygons

### Free groups. Contents. 1 Free groups. 1.1 Definitions and notations

Free groups Contents 1 Free groups 1 1.1 Definitions and notations..................... 1 1.2 Construction of a free group with basis X........... 2 1.3 The universal property of free groups...............

### ON INDUCED SUBGRAPHS WITH ALL DEGREES ODD. 1. Introduction

ON INDUCED SUBGRAPHS WITH ALL DEGREES ODD A.D. SCOTT Abstract. Gallai proved that the vertex set of any graph can be partitioned into two sets, each inducing a subgraph with all degrees even. We prove

### Lecture 6: Approximation via LP Rounding

Lecture 6: Approximation via LP Rounding Let G = (V, E) be an (undirected) graph. A subset C V is called a vertex cover for G if for every edge (v i, v j ) E we have v i C or v j C (or both). In other

### The positive minimum degree game on sparse graphs

The positive minimum degree game on sparse graphs József Balogh Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Illinois, USA jobal@math.uiuc.edu András Pluhár Department of Computer Science University

### Removing Even Crossings

EuroComb 2005 DMTCS proc. AE, 2005, 105 110 Removing Even Crossings Michael J. Pelsmajer 1, Marcus Schaefer 2 and Daniel Štefankovič 2 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, Illinois Institute of Technology,

### Cycle transversals in bounded degree graphs

Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics 35 (2009) 189 195 www.elsevier.com/locate/endm Cycle transversals in bounded degree graphs M. Groshaus a,2,3 P. Hell b,3 S. Klein c,1,3 L. T. Nogueira d,1,3 F.

### Outline 2.1 Graph Isomorphism 2.2 Automorphisms and Symmetry 2.3 Subgraphs, part 1

GRAPH THEORY LECTURE STRUCTURE AND REPRESENTATION PART A Abstract. Chapter focuses on the question of when two graphs are to be regarded as the same, on symmetries, and on subgraphs.. discusses the concept

### Every tree contains a large induced subgraph with all degrees odd

Every tree contains a large induced subgraph with all degrees odd A.J. Radcliffe Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA A.D. Scott Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics University

### TREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER

TREES IN SET THEORY SPENCER UNGER 1. Introduction Although I was unaware of it while writing the first two talks, my talks in the graduate student seminar have formed a coherent series. This talk can be

### ! Solve problem to optimality. ! Solve problem in poly-time. ! Solve arbitrary instances of the problem. #-approximation algorithm.

Approximation Algorithms 11 Approximation Algorithms Q Suppose I need to solve an NP-hard problem What should I do? A Theory says you're unlikely to find a poly-time algorithm Must sacrifice one of three

### CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE

CARDINALITY, COUNTABLE AND UNCOUNTABLE SETS PART ONE With the notion of bijection at hand, it is easy to formalize the idea that two finite sets have the same number of elements: we just need to verify

### MIX-DECOMPOSITON OF THE COMPLETE GRAPH INTO DIRECTED FACTORS OF DIAMETER 2 AND UNDIRECTED FACTORS OF DIAMETER 3. University of Split, Croatia

GLASNIK MATEMATIČKI Vol. 38(58)(2003), 2 232 MIX-DECOMPOSITON OF THE COMPLETE GRAPH INTO DIRECTED FACTORS OF DIAMETER 2 AND UNDIRECTED FACTORS OF DIAMETER 3 Damir Vukičević University of Split, Croatia

### A CHARACTERIZATION OF TREE TYPE

A CHARACTERIZATION OF TREE TYPE LON H MITCHELL Abstract Let L(G) be the Laplacian matrix of a simple graph G The characteristic valuation associated with the algebraic connectivity a(g) is used in classifying

### Graph theoretic techniques in the analysis of uniquely localizable sensor networks

Graph theoretic techniques in the analysis of uniquely localizable sensor networks Bill Jackson 1 and Tibor Jordán 2 ABSTRACT In the network localization problem the goal is to determine the location of

### On the k-path cover problem for cacti

On the k-path cover problem for cacti Zemin Jin and Xueliang Li Center for Combinatorics and LPMC Nankai University Tianjin 300071, P.R. China zeminjin@eyou.com, x.li@eyou.com Abstract In this paper we

### Chapter Three. Functions. In this section, we study what is undoubtedly the most fundamental type of relation used in mathematics.

Chapter Three Functions 3.1 INTRODUCTION In this section, we study what is undoubtedly the most fundamental type of relation used in mathematics. Definition 3.1: Given sets X and Y, a function from X to

### CHROMATIC POLYNOMIALS OF PLANE TRIANGULATIONS

990, 2005 D. R. Woodall, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham CHROMATIC POLYNOMIALS OF PLANE TRIANGULATIONS. Basic results. Throughout this survey, G will denote a multigraph with

### THE 0/1-BORSUK CONJECTURE IS GENERICALLY TRUE FOR EACH FIXED DIAMETER

THE 0/1-BORSUK CONJECTURE IS GENERICALLY TRUE FOR EACH FIXED DIAMETER JONATHAN P. MCCAMMOND AND GÜNTER ZIEGLER Abstract. In 1933 Karol Borsuk asked whether every compact subset of R d can be decomposed

### UPPER BOUNDS ON THE L(2, 1)-LABELING NUMBER OF GRAPHS WITH MAXIMUM DEGREE

UPPER BOUNDS ON THE L(2, 1)-LABELING NUMBER OF GRAPHS WITH MAXIMUM DEGREE ANDREW LUM ADVISOR: DAVID GUICHARD ABSTRACT. L(2,1)-labeling was first defined by Jerrold Griggs [Gr, 1992] as a way to use graphs

### A Turán Type Problem Concerning the Powers of the Degrees of a Graph

A Turán Type Problem Concerning the Powers of the Degrees of a Graph Yair Caro and Raphael Yuster Department of Mathematics University of Haifa-ORANIM, Tivon 36006, Israel. AMS Subject Classification:

### Social Media Mining. Graph Essentials

Graph Essentials Graph Basics Measures Graph and Essentials Metrics 2 2 Nodes and Edges A network is a graph nodes, actors, or vertices (plural of vertex) Connections, edges or ties Edge Node Measures

### Chapter 2 Paths and Searching

Chapter 2 Paths and Searching Section 2.1 Distance Almost every day you face a problem: You must leave your home and go to school. If you are like me, you are usually a little late, so you want to take

### 6. Planarity. Fig Fig. 6.2

6. Planarity Let G(V, E) be a graph with V = {v 1, v 2,..., v n } and E = {e 1, e 2,..., e m }. Let S be any surface (like the plane, sphere) and P = {p 1, p 2,..., p n } be a set of n distinct points

### Clique coloring B 1 -EPG graphs

Clique coloring B 1 -EPG graphs Flavia Bonomo a,c, María Pía Mazzoleni b,c, and Maya Stein d a Departamento de Computación, FCEN-UBA, Buenos Aires, Argentina. b Departamento de Matemática, FCE-UNLP, La