Are there any good digraph width measures? (1004.1485v1)

Abstract: Several different measures for digraph width have appeared in the last few years. However, none of them shares all the "nice" properties of treewidth: First, being \emph{algorithmically useful} i.e. admitting polynomial-time algorithms for all $\MS1$-definable problems on digraphs of bounded width. And, second, having nice \emph{structural properties} i.e. being monotone under taking subdigraphs and some form of arc contractions. As for the former, (undirected) $\MS1$ seems to be the least common denominator of all reasonably expressive logical languages on digraphs that can speak about the edge/arc relation on the vertex set.The latter property is a necessary condition for a width measure to be characterizable by some version of the cops-and-robber game characterizing the ordinary treewidth. Our main result is that \emph{any reasonable} algorithmically useful and structurally nice digraph measure cannot be substantially different from the treewidth of the underlying undirected graph. Moreover, we introduce \emph{directed topological minors} and argue that they are the weakest useful notion of minors for digraphs.