Large-Treewidth Graph Decompositions and Applications

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Routing in Undirected Graphs with Constant Congestion Julia Chuzhoy Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago.
Advertisements

1 Bart Jansen Polynomial Kernels for Hard Problems on Disk Graphs Accepted for presentation at SWAT 2010.
Minimum Vertex Cover in Rectangle Graphs
Poly-Logarithmic Approximation for EDP with Congestion 2
Introduction to Kernel Lower Bounds Daniel Lokshtanov.
A Separator Theorem for Graphs with an Excluded Minor and its Applications Paul Seymour Noga Alon Robin Thomas Lecturer : Daniel Motil.
Presented by Yuval Shimron Course
Bart Jansen, Utrecht University. 2  Max Leaf  Instance: Connected graph G, positive integer k  Question: Is there a spanning tree for G with at least.
Degree-3 Treewidth Sparsifiers Chandra Chekuri Julia Chuzhoy Univ. of IllinoisTTI Chicago.
Rooted Routing Using Structural Decompositions Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China June 17, 2013.
Multicut Lower Bounds via Network Coding Anna Blasiak Cornell University.
All-or-Nothing Multicommodity Flow Chandra Chekuri Sanjeev Khanna Bruce Shepherd Bell Labs U. Penn Bell Labs.
CS774. Markov Random Field : Theory and Application Lecture 17 Kyomin Jung KAIST Nov
The number of edge-disjoint transitive triples in a tournament.
All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2006, ##### Matthew Andrews, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs Princeton Approximation Workshop June 15, 2011 Edge-Disjoint.
Routing and Treewidth (Recent Developments) Chandra Chekuri Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
16:36MCS - WG20041 On the Maximum Cardinality Search Lower Bound for Treewidth Hans Bodlaender Utrecht University Arie Koster ZIB Berlin.
FPT algorithmic techniques: Treewidth (1)
Balanced Graph Partitioning Konstantin Andreev Harald Räcke.
Randomized Process of Unknowns and Implicitly Enforced Bounds on Parameters Jianer Chen Department of Computer Science & Engineering Texas A&M University.
An Approximation Algorithm for Requirement cut on graphs Viswanath Nagarajan Joint work with R. Ravi.
Collective Tree Spanners of Graphs with Bounded Parameters F.F. Dragan and C. Yan Kent State University, USA.
1 On the Benefits of Adaptivity in Property Testing of Dense Graphs Joint work with Mira Gonen Dana Ron Tel-Aviv University.
Steiner trees Algorithms and Networks. Steiner Trees2 Today Steiner trees: what and why? NP-completeness Approximation algorithms Preprocessing.
Packing Element-Disjoint Steiner Trees Mohammad R. Salavatipour Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Joint with Joseph Cheriyan Department.
Data reduction lower bounds: Problems without polynomial kernels Hans L. Bodlaender Joint work with Downey, Fellows, Hermelin, Thomasse, Yeo.
Approximation Algorithms for Graph Routing Problems Julia Chuzhoy Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago.
Fixed Parameter Complexity Algorithms and Networks.
All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2006, ##### Matthew Andrews Show-and-Tell April 20, 2010 Edge Disjoint Paths via Räcke Decompositions.
九大数理集中講義 Comparison, Analysis, and Control of Biological Networks (7) Partial k-Trees, Color Coding, and Comparison of Graphs Tatsuya Akutsu Bioinformatics.
Kernel Bounds for Structural Parameterizations of Pathwidth Bart M. P. Jansen Joint work with Hans L. Bodlaender & Stefan Kratsch July 6th 2012, SWAT 2012,
Approximating Minimum Bounded Degree Spanning Tree (MBDST) Mohit Singh and Lap Chi Lau “Approximating Minimum Bounded DegreeApproximating Minimum Bounded.
1 Treewidth, partial k-tree and chordal graphs Delpensum INF 334 Institutt fo informatikk Pinar Heggernes Speaker:
Approximation and Hardness Results for Packing Cycles Mohammad R. Salavatipour Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Joint work with M.
Treewidth, Applications, and some Recent Developments
Edge-disjoint induced subgraphs with given minimum degree Raphael Yuster 2012.
Princeton University COS 423 Theory of Algorithms Spring 2001 Kevin Wayne Approximation Algorithms These lecture slides are adapted from CLRS.
CSE 589 Part VI. Reading Skiena, Sections 5.5 and 6.8 CLR, chapter 37.
Embeddings, flow, and cuts: an introduction University of Washington James R. Lee.
Bidimensionality (Revised) Daniel Lokshtanov Based on joint work with Hans Bodlaender,Fedor Fomin,Eelko Penninkx, Venkatesh Raman, Saket Saurabh and Dimitrios.
Multicommodity flow, well-linked terminals and routing problems Chandra Chekuri Lucent Bell Labs Joint work with Sanjeev Khanna and Bruce Shepherd Mostly.
Orienteering and related problems: mini-survey and open problems Chandra Chekuri University of Illinois (UIUC)
Computing Branchwidth via Efficient Triangulations and Blocks Authors: F.V. Fomin, F. Mazoit, I. Todinca Presented by: Elif Kolotoglu, ISE, Texas A&M University.
New algorithms for Disjoint Paths and Routing Problems
Data Reduction for Graph Coloring Problems Bart M. P. Jansen Joint work with Stefan Kratsch August 22 nd 2011, Oslo.
Algorithms for hard problems Introduction Juris Viksna, 2015.
Algorithms for hard problems WQO theory and applications to parameterized complexity Juris Viksna, 2015.
Approximating Buy-at-Bulk and Shallow-Light k-Steiner Trees Mohammad T. Hajiaghayi (CMU) Guy Kortsarz (Rutgers) Mohammad R. Salavatipour (U. Alberta) Presented.
Iterative Rounding in Graph Connectivity Problems Kamal Jain ex- Georgia Techie Microsoft Research Some slides borrowed from Lap Chi Lau.
Algorithms for hard problems Parameterized complexity Bounded tree width approaches Juris Viksna, 2015.
Kernel Bounds for Path and Cycle Problems Bart M. P. Jansen Joint work with Hans L. Bodlaender & Stefan Kratsch September 8 th 2011, Saarbrucken.
MCS 312: NP Completeness and Approximation Algorithms Instructor Neelima Gupta
Multiroute Flows & Node-weighted Network Design Chandra Chekuri Univ of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Joint work with Alina Ene and Ali Vakilian.
New Algorithms for Disjoint Paths Problems Sanjeev Khanna University of Pennsylvania Joint work with Chandra Chekuri Bruce Shepherd.
Polynomial Bounds for the Grid-Minor Theorem Julia Chuzhoy Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago Chandra Chekuri University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Approximating graph coloring of minor-closed graphs Joint Work with Erik Demaine, Mohammad Hajiaghayi, Bojan Mohar, Robin Thomas Partially joint Work with.
Succinct Routing Tables for Planar Graphs Compact Routing for Graphs Excluding a Fixed Minor Ittai Abraham (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem) Cyril Gavoille (LaBRI,
Graphs and Algorithms (2MMD30)
Parameterized complexity Bounded tree width approaches
Algorithms for hard problems
Algorithms and Complexity
Structural graph parameters Part 2: A hierarchy of parameters
Bart M. P. Jansen June 3rd 2016, Algorithms for Optimization Problems
Bart Jansen Polynomial Kernels for Hard Problems on Disk Graphs
Bart Jansen Polynomial Kernels for Hard Problems on Disk Graphs
Approximation and Kernelization for Chordal Vertex Deletion
Radu Curticapean, Holger Dell, Dániel Marx
On the effect of randomness on planted 3-coloring models
Graphs and Algorithms (2MMD30)
Treewidth meets Planarity
Presentation transcript:

Large-Treewidth Graph Decompositions and Applications Chandra Chekuri Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Joint work with Julia Chuzhoy (TTI-Chicago)

Recent Progress on Disjoint Paths [Chuzhoy’11] “Routing in Undirected Graphs with Constant Congestion”

Recent Progress on Disjoint Paths [Chuzhoy’11] “Routing in Undirected Graphs with Constant Congestion” [Chuzhoy-Li’12] “A Polylogarithmic Approximation for Edge-Disjoint Paths with Congestion 2” [C-Ene’13] “Polylogarithmic Approximation for Maximum Node Disjoint Paths with Constant Congestion”

Tree width and tangles: A new connectivity measure and some applications Bruce Reed

Tree Decomposition G=(V,E) T=(VT, ET) a b c d e f g h a b c a c f a g f g h d e c t Xt = {a,g,f} µ V Example from Bodlaender’s talk

Tree Decomposition G=(V,E) T=(VT, ET) a b c d e f g h a b c a c f a g f g h Xt = {a,g,f} µ V t [t Xt = V For each v 2 V, { t | v 2 Xt } form a (connected) sub-tree of T For each edge uv 2 E, exists t such that u,v 2 Xt

Tree Decomposition G=(V,E) T=(VT, ET) a g h b a b c a c f a g f g h c Xt = {a,g,f} µ V d e [t Xt = V For each v 2 V, { t | v 2 Xt } form a (connected) sub-tree of T For each edge uv 2 E, exists t such that u,v 2 Xt

Tree Decomposition G=(V,E) T=(VT, ET) a g h b a b c a c f a g f g h c Xt = {a,g,f} µ V d e [t Xt = V For each v 2 V, { t | v 2 Xt } form a (connected) sub-tree of T For each edge uv 2 E, exists t such that u,v 2 Xt

Tree Decomposition Width of decomposition := maxt |Xt| G=(V,E) T=(VT, ET) a b c d e f g h a b c a c f d e c a g f g h Xt = {a,g,f} µ V t Width of decomposition := maxt |Xt|

Treewidth of a graph tw(G) = (min width of a tree decomp for G) – 1

Treewidth of a graph tw(G) = (min width of a tree decomp for G) – 1 Examples: tw of a tree is 1 tw of a cycle is 2 (series-parallel graphs are precisely the class of graphs with treewidth · 2) tw of complete graph on n nodes is n-1

Treewidth Fundamental graph parameter key to graph minor theory generalizations to matroids via branchwidth algorithmic applications connections to tcs

Algorithmic Applications of “small” treewidth tw(G) · k for small/constant k implies G is tree-like Many hard problems can be solved in f(k) poly(n) or in nf(k) time Also easier for approximation algorithms and related structural results Use above and other ideas Fixed parameter tractability approximation schemes for planar and minor-free graphs heuristics

Structure of graphs with “large” treewidth How large can a graph’s treewidth be? for specific classes of graphs, say planar graphs? What can we say about a graph with “large” treewidth? “Large”: tw(G) = n± where ± 2 (0,1)

Min-Max Formula for Treewidth [Robertson-Seymour, Seymour-Thomas] A min-max formula for treewidth tw(G) = BN(G)-1 where BN(G) = bramble number of G Nevertheless tw(G) is not in NP Å co-NP. Why?

Min-Max Formula for Treewidth [Robertson-Seymour, Seymour-Thomas] A min-max formula for treewidth tw(G) = BN(G)-1 where BN(G) = bramble number of G Nevertheless tw(G) is not in NP Å co-NP. Why? [Grohe-Marx] BN(G) certificate can be exponential

Complexity of Treewidth [Arnborg-Corneil-Proskurowski’87] Given G, k checking if tw(G) · k is NP-Complete [Bodleander’93] For fixed k, linear time algorithm to check if tw(G) · k

Complexity of Treewidth ®-approx. for node separators implies O(®)-approx. for treewidth [Feige-Hajiaghayi-Lee’05] Polynomial time algorithm to output tree decomposition of width O(tw(G) log1/2 tw(G)) [Arora-Rao-Vazirani’04] algorithm adapted to node separators

Connection to separators b c d e f g h t t’ a b c a c f a g f g h d e c Xt Å Xt’ = {a,f} is a separator tw(G) · k implies G can be recursively partitioned via “balanced” separators of size k

Connection to separators g t t’ h b a b c a c f a g f g h c f d e c Xt Å Xt’ = {a,f} is a separator d e tw(G) · k implies G can be recursively partitioned via “balanced” separators of size k Approximate converse: tw(G) > k implies some set of size (k) which has no balanced separator of size · k

Well-linked Sets A set Xµ V is well-linked in G if for all A, B µ X there are min(|A|,|B|) node-disjoint A-B paths G

Well-linked Sets A set Xµ V is well-linked in G if for all A, B µ X there are min(|A|,|B|) node-disjoint A-B paths G

Well-linked Sets A set Xµ V is well-linked in G if for all A, B µ X there are min(|A|,|B|) node-disjoint A-B paths No sparse node-separators for X in G B C A

Treewidth & Well-linked Sets A set Xµ V is well-linked in G if for all A, B µ X there are min(|A|,|B|) node-disjoint A-B paths No sparse node-separators for X in G wl(G) = cardinality of the largest well-linked set in G Theorem: wl(G) · tw(G) · 4 wl(G)

Structure of graphs with “large” treewidth How large can a graph’s treewidth be? for specific classes of graphs, say planar graphs? What can we say about a graph with “large” treewidth?

Examples tw(Kn) = n-1

Examples k x k grid: tw(G) = k-1 tw(G) = O(n1/2) for any planar G

Examples k x k wall: tw(G) = £(k)

Examples Constant degree expander: tw(G) = £(n) |±(S)| ¸ ® |S| for all |S|· n/2 and max degree ¢ = O(1) Recall treewidth of complete graph = n-1

Graph Minors H is a minor of G if it is obtained from G by edge and vertex deletions edge contractions G is minor closed family of graphs if for each G 2 G all minors of G are also in G n planar graphs, genus · g graphs, tw · k graphs

Graph Minors [Kuratowski, Wagner]: G is planar iff G excludes K5 and K3,3 as a sub- division/minor. H a fixed graph GH = {G | G excludes H as a minor } GH is minor closed What is the structure of GH?

Robertson-Seymour Grid-Minor Theorem(s) Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains a clique minor of size k or a grid minor of size k

Robertson-Seymour Grid-Minor Theorem(s) Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains a clique minor of size k or a grid minor of size k Corollary (Grid-minor theorem): tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains a grid minor of size k Current best bound: f(k) = 2O(k2 log k) tw(G) ¸ h implies grid minor of size at least (log h)1/2

Robertson-Seymour Grid-Minor Theorem(s) Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains a clique minor of size k or a grid minor of size k Corollary (Grid-minor theorem): tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains a grid minor of size k Current best bound: f(k) = 2O(k2 log k) tw(G) ¸ h implies grid minor of size at least (log h)1/2 Theorem (Robertson-Seymour-Thomas): G is planar implies grid minor of size (tw(G))

Conjecture on Grid-Minors tw(G) ¸ k implies G has grid-minor of size ~(k1/2) Currently ~ (log1/2 k)

Robertson-Seymour Structure Theorem(s) H a fixed graph Theorem: If G excludes H as a minor and H is planar then G has treewidth at most f(|V(H)|) Theorem: If G excludes H as a minor then G can be glued together via k-sums over “almost”-embeddable graphs.

Algorithmic Application of Structure Theorem [Robertson-Seymour] Theorem: A polynomial time algorithm to check if fixed H is a minor of given G in time O(f(|V(H)|)n3)

Disjoint Paths Given G=(V,E) and k node pairs (s1,t1),...,(sk,tk) are there edge/node disjoint paths connecting given pairs? EDP : edge disjoint path problem NDP: node disjoint path problem t2 s3 s1 t4 t1 s2 s4 t3

Disjoint Paths Given G=(V,E) and k node pairs (s1,t1),...,(sk,tk) are there edge/node disjoint paths connecting given pairs? EDP : edge disjoint path problem NDP: node disjoint path problem [Fortune-Hopcroft-Wylie’80] NP-Complete for k=2 in directed graphs!

Algorithmic Application of Structure Theorem [Robertson-Seymour] Theorem: A polynomial time algorithm for the node- disjoint paths problem when k is fixed – running time is O(f(k)n3) No “simple” algorithm known so far even for k=2

RS Algorithm for Disjoint Paths If tw(G) · f(k) use dynamic programming If G has a clique minor of size ¸ 2k try to route to clique and use it as crossbar. If clique not reachable then irrelevant vertex – remove and recurse. Else G has large “flat” wall via structure theorem. Middle of flat wall is irrelevant – remove and recurse.

Recent Insights into Structure of Large Treewidth Graphs Large routing structures in large treewidth graphs applications to approximating disjoint paths problems Treewidth decomposition theorems applications to fixed parameter tractability applications to Erdos-Posa type theorems Bypass grid-minor theorem and its limitations

Treewidth and Routing [Chuzhoy’11] plus [C-Ene’13] If tw(G) ¸ k then there is an expander of size k/polylog(k) that can be “embedded” into G with O(1) node congestion Conjectured by [C-Khanna-Shepherd’05] Together with previous tools/ideas, polylog(k) approximation with O(1) congestion for maximum disjoint paths problems

A Key Tool [Chuzhoy’11] A graph decomposition algorithm [C-Chuzhoy’12] Abstract, generalize and improve to obtain treewidth decomposition results and applications

Applications to FPT and Erdos-Posa Theorems Theorem: [Erdos-Posa’65] G has k node disjoint cycles or there is a set S of O(k log k) nodes such that G\S has no cycles. Moreover, the bound is tight.

Feedback Vertex Set Theorem: [Erdos-Posa’65] G has k node disjoint cycles or there is a set S of O(k log k) nodes such that G\S has no cycles. Moreover, the bound is tight. Feedback vertex set: S µ V s.t G\S is acyclic Theorem: Min FVS is fixed parameter tractable. That is, can decide whether · k in time f(k) poly(n)

Feedback Vertex Set and Treewidth FVS(G) – size of minimum FVS in G Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k.

Feedback Vertex Set and Treewidth FVS(G) – size of minimum FVS in G Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k. Proof via Grid-Minor theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G has grid minor/wall of size k1/2 x k1/2 which has ~ k disjoint cycles

Feedback Vertex Set and Treewidth tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G has grid minor/wall of size k1/2 x k1/2 which has ~ k disjoint cycles

Feedback Vertex Set and Treewidth FVS(G) – size of minimum FVS in G Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k. Proof via Grid-Minor theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G has grid minor/wall of size k1/2 x k1/2 which has ~ k disjoint cycles Need at least on node per each cycle in any FVS hence FVS(G) ¸ k

FPT Algorithm for Min Feedback Vertex Set Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k. Theorem: Algorithm with run time 2O(f(k) poly(n) to check if G of size n has min FVS · k. FPT algorithm using above: If tw(G) < f(k) do dynamic programming to figure out whether answer is YES or NO Else output NO

FPT Algorithm for Min Feedback Vertex Set Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k. Theorem: Algorithm with run time 2O(f(k) poly(n) to check if G of size n has min FVS · k. FPT algorithm using above: If tw(G) < f(k) do dynamic programming to figure out whether answer is YES or NO Else output NO Via GM theorem, f(k) = 2O(k4 log k)

FPT Algorithm for Min Feedback Vertex Set Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k Question: Can we prove above without GM theorem? How was grid used? k x k grid has k2/r2 disjoint sub-grids of size r x r r x r grid has a structure of interest (say cycle)

Treewidth Decomposition Let tw(G) = k. Given integers h and r want to partition G into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r for all i G G1 G2 Gh

Treewidth Decomposition Let tw(G) = k. Given integers h and r want to partition G into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r for all i Examples show that h r · k/log(k) is necessary

Treewidth Decomposition Theorems Theorem(s): Let tw(G) = k. Then G can be partitioned into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r for all i if h r2 · k/polylog(k) or h3 r · k/polylog(k)

Treewidth Decomposition Theorems Theorem(s): Let tw(G) = k. Then G can be partitioned into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r for all i if h r2 · k/polylog(k) or h3 r · k/polylog(k) Conjecture: sufficient if h r · k/polylog(k)

Feedback Vertex Set and Treewidth Theorem: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies FVS(G) ¸ k. Proof via Treewidth Decomposition theorem: tw(G) ¸ k polylog(k) implies G can be decomposed into k node disjoint subgraphs of treewidth ¸ 2 Treewidth 2 implies a cycle and hence G has k node disjoint cycles Need at least one node per each cycle in any FVS hence FVS(G) ¸ k if tw(G) ¸ k polylog(k)

Applications to FPT Algs 2O(k polylog(k)) poly(n) time FPT algorithms via Treewidth Decomposition theorem(s) in a generic fashion Previous generic scheme via Grid-Minor theorem gives exp{2O(k)) poly(n) time algorithms [Demaine- Hajiaghayi’07]

Application to Erdos-Posa Theorems Theorem: [Erdos-Posa’65] G has k node disjoint cycles or there is a set S of O(k log k) nodes such that G\S has no cycles. Treewidth decomposition theorem gives a bound of O(k polylog(k)) in a generic fashion Improve several bounds from exp(k) to k polylog(k)

The generic scheme Want to prove: tw(G) ¸ f(k) implies G contains k node disjoint “copies” of some structure First prove that tw ¸ r implies G contains one copy; could use even the grid-minor theorem here Then apply tw decomposition theorem

Treewidth Decomposition Theorems Theorem(s): Let tw(G) = k. Then G can be partitioned into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r 8 i if h r2 · k/polylog(k) or h3 r · k/polylog(k) Conjecture: sufficient if h r · k/polylog(k) Examples show that h r · c k/log(k) is necessary

Decomposing Expanders Theorem: Let tw(G) = k. Then G can be partitioned into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r 8 i if h r2 · k/polylog(k). Suppose G is an expander and tw(G) = £(n) How do we decompose G?

Decomposing Expanders Theorem: Let tw(G) = k. Then G can be partitioned into node disjoint graphs G1,G2,...,Gh such that tw(Gi) ¸ r 8 i if h r2 · k/polylog(k). Suppose G is an expander and tw(G) = £(n) How do we decompose G? Pick a fixed graph H, a degree 3 expander of size r polylog (n) “Embed” h copies of H in G

Decomposing Expanders G is an expander H a degree 3 expander of size r polylog (n) Assume H is a union of 3 matchings M1, M2, M3 “Embed” 1 copy of H in G

Decomposing Expanders H G

Decomposing Expanders H G

Routing in Expanders [Leighton-Rao’88] Let G=(V,E) be constant degree expander Any matching M on V of size O(n/log n) can be fractionally routed on paths of length O(log n) with congestion O(1) Via randomized rounding can integrally route M on paths of length O(log n) with congestion O(log log n)

Decomposing Expanders G is an expander H a degree 3 expander of size r polylog (n) Assume H is a union of 3 matchings M1, M2, M3 Arbitrarily map nodes V(H) to node in G Route (partial) induced matchings M1’, M2’, M3’ in G on paths of length O(log n) with cong. O(log log n)

Decomposing Expanders Arbitrarily map nodes V(H) to node in G Route (partial) induced matchings M1’, M2’, M3’ in G on paths of length O(log n) with cong. O(log log n) S : set of nodes in G used on all the paths |S| = O(|V(H)| log n) = O(r polylog(n)) and tw(G[S]) = (r) from the fact that H is an expander and has tw (r polylog(n))

Decomposing Expanders Embedding h copies of H Embed 1 copy of H, remove nodes S and repeat Residual graph has a large enough subgraph with good expansion Alternatively embed h copies in parallel h r polylog(n) · n

Decomposing General Graphs Several steps/tools Minimal “Contracted” graph Case 1: Balanced decomposition into h graphs each of which has large treewidth Case 2: Well-linked decomposition(s) to reduce problem to a collection of graphs with large expansion/conductance

Conclusions Treewidth decomposition theorems Applications to Routing algorithms FPT algorithms Erdos-Posa theorems Others?

Open Problems Improve Grid-Minor theorem Tight tradeoff for treewidth decomposition theorem Applications of related ideas?

Thank You!