Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
AI Research Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 60 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 93 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 156 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 441 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Tight Bounds for some Classical Problems Parameterized by Cutwidth (2502.15884v1)

Published 21 Feb 2025 in cs.DS

Abstract: Cutwidth is a widely studied parameter that quantifies how well a graph can be decomposed along small edge-cuts. It complements pathwidth, which captures decomposition by small vertex separators, and it is well-known that cutwidth upper-bounds pathwidth. The SETH-tight parameterized complexity of problems on graphs of bounded pathwidth (and treewidth) has been actively studied over the past decade while for cutwidth the complexity of many classical problems remained open. For Hamiltonian Cycle, it is known that a $(2+\sqrt{2}){\operatorname{pw}} n{O(1)}$ algorithm is optimal for pathwidth under SETH~[Cygan et al.\ JACM 2022]. Van Geffen et al.~[J.\ Graph Algorithms Appl.\ 2020] and Bojikian et al.~[STACS 2023] asked which running time is optimal for this problem parameterized by cutwidth. We answer this question with $(1+\sqrt{2}){\operatorname{ctw}} n{O(1)}$ by providing matching upper and lower bounds. Second, as our main technical contribution, we close the gap left by van Heck~[2018] for Partition Into Triangles (and Triangle Packing) by improving both upper and lower bound and getting a tight bound of $\sqrt[3]{3}{\operatorname{ctw}} n{O(1)}$, which to our knowledge exhibits the only known tight non-integral basis apart from Hamiltonian Cycle. We show that cuts inducing a disjoint union of paths of length three (unions of so-called $Z$-cuts) lie at the core of the complexity of the problem -- usually lower-bound constructions use simpler cuts inducing either a matching or a disjoint union of bicliques. Finally, we determine the optimal running times for Max Cut ($2{\operatorname{ctw}} n{O(1)}$) and Induced Matching ($3{\operatorname{ctw}} n{O(1)}$) by providing matching lower bounds for the existing algorithms -- the latter result also answers an open question for treewidth by Chaudhary and Zehavi~[WG 2023].

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 1 post and received 0 likes.

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube