Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1412

Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis and J. van Leeuwen

3
Berlin
Heidelberg
New York
Barcelona
Budapest
Hong Kong
London
Milan
Paris
Singapore
Tokyo
Robert E. Bixby E. Andrew Boyd
Roger Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.)

Integer Programming and

Combinatorial Optimization

6th International IPCO Conference

Houston, Texas, June 22-24, 1998
Proceedings

13
Series Editors
Gerhard Goos, Karlsruhe University, Germany
Juris Hartmanis, Cornell University, NY, USA
Jan van Leeuwen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Volume Editors

Robert E. Bixby
Department of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Rice University
6020 Annapolis, Houston, TX 77005, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E. Andrew Boyd
PROS Strategic Solutions
3223 Smith Street, Houston, TX 77006, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Roger Z. Rı́os-Mercado
Department of Industrial, Engineering,Texas A&M University
1000 Country Place Dr. Apt. 69, Houston, TX 77079, USA
E-mail: [email protected]

Cataloging-in-Publication data applied for

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Integer programming and combinatorial optimization :
proceedings / 6th International IPCO Conference, Houston, Texas,
June 22 - 24, 1998. Robert E. Bixby . . . (ed.). - Berlin ; Heidelberg ;
New York ; Barcelona ; Budapest ; Hong Kong ; London ; Milan ;
Paris ; Santa Clara ; Singapore ; Tokyo : Springer, 1998
(Lecture notes in computer science ; Vol. 1412)
ISBN 3-540-64590-X

CR Subject Classification (1991): G.1.6, G.2.1-2, F.2.2

ISSN 0302-9743
ISBN 3-540-64590-X Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,
in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are
liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
Printed in Germany
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author
SPIN 10637207 06/3142 – 5 4 3 2 1 0 Printed on acid-free paper
 Preface

This volume contains the papers selected for presentation at IPCO VI, the Sixth
International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimiza-
tion, held in Houston, Texas, USA, June 22–24, 1998. The IPCO series of confer-
ences highlights recent developments in theory, computation, and applications
of integer programming and combinatorial optimization.
These conferences are sponsored by the Mathematical Programming Society,
and are held in the years in which no International Symosium on Mathemati-
cal Programming takes place. Earlier IPCO conferences were held in Waterloo
(Canada) in May 1990; Pittsburgh (USA) in May 1992; Erice (Italy) in April
1993; Copenhagen (Denmark) in May 1995; and Vancouver (Canada) in June
1996.
The proceedings of IPCO IV (edited by Egon Balas and Jens Clausen in
1995) and IPCO V (edited by William Cunningham, Thomas McCormick, and
Maurice Queyranne in 1996), were published by Springer-Verlag in the series
Lecture Notes in Computer Science as Volumes 920 and 1084, respectively. The
proceedings of the first three IPCO conferences were published by organizing
institutions.
A total of 77 extended abstracts, mostly of an excellent quality, were initially
submitted. Following the IPCO policy of having only one stream of sessions over
a three day span, the Program Committee selected 32 papers. As a result, many
outstanding papers could not be selected.
The papers included in this volume have not been refereed. It is expected
that revised versions of these works will appear in scientific journals.
The Program Committee thanks all the authors of submitted extended ab-
stracts and papers for their support of the IPCO conferences.

April 1998 Robert E. Bixby

E. Andrew Boyd
Roger Z. Rı́os Mercado
IPCO VI Program Committee

Imre Bárány, Mathematical Institute, Budapest

Daniel Bienstock, Columbia University
Robert E. Bixby (chair), Rice University
William Cook, Rice University
Bert Gerards, CWI, Amsterdam
David B. Shmoys, Cornell University
David P. Williamson, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

IPCO VI Organizing Committee

E. Andrew Boyd (chair), PROS Strategic Solutions
Roger Z. Rı́os-Mercado, Texas A&M University

IPCO VI Sponsoring Institutions

ILOG CPLEX Division
PROS Strategic Solutions
Mathematical Programming Society
Rice University
Texas A&M University
University of Houston
 Table of Contents

0,1 Matrices, Matroids

The Packing Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
G. Cornuéjols, B. Guenin, and F. Margot

A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B. Guenin

Bipartite Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
G. Gasparyan

Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A. Sebő

A Theorem of Truemper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
M. Conforti and A. Kapoor

The Generalized Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs . . . . 69

D. Nakamura and A. Tamura

On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Z. Szigeti

Edge Connectivity
Edge-Splitting and Edge-Connectivity Augmentation in Planar Graphs . . . 96
H. Nagamochi and P. Eades

A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

R. Carr and R. Ravi

An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge

Connected Spanning Subgraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
J. Cheriyan, A. Sebő, and Z. Szigeti

Algorithms
Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs with Bounded Degree and Bounded
Tree-Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
G. Călinescu, C. G. Fernandes, and B. Reed

Approximating Disjoint-Path Problems Using Greedy Algorithms and

Packing Integer Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
S. G. Kolliopoulos and C. Stein
VIII Table of Contents

Approximation Algorithms for the Mixed Postman Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

B. Raghavachari and J. Veerasamy

Improved Approximation Algorithms for Uncapacitated Facility Location . 180

F. A. Chudak

The Maximum Traveling Salesman Problem under Polyhedral Norms . . . . . 195

A. Barvinok, D. S. Johnson, G. J. Woeginger, and R. Woodroofe

Integer Programming Applications

Polyhedral Combinatorics of Benzenoid Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
H. Abeledo and G. Atkinson

Consecutive Ones and a Betweenness Problem in Computational Biology . . 213

T. Christof, M. Oswald, and G. Reinelt

Solving a Linear Diophantine Equation with Lower and Upper Bounds on

the Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
K. Aardal, C. Hurkens, and A. K. Lenstra

Integer Programming Computation

The Intersection of Knapsack Polyhedra and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
A. Martin and R. Weismantel

New Classes of Lower Bounds for Bin Packing Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

S. P. Fekete and J. Schepers

Solving Integer and Disjunctive Programs by Lift and Project . . . . . . . . . . . 271

S. Ceria and G. Pataki

A Class of Hard Small 0–1 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

G. Cornuéjols and M. Dawande

Network Flows
Building Chain and Cactus Representations of All Minimum Cuts from
Hao-Orlin in the Same Asymptotic Run Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
L. Fleischer

Simple Generalized Maximum Flow Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

É. Tardos and K. D. Wayne

The Pseudoflow Algorithm and the Pseudoflow-Based Simplex for the

Maximum Flow Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
D. S. Hochbaum
 Table of Contents IX

An Implementation of a Combinatorial Approximation Algorithm for

Minimum-Cost Multicommodity Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
A. V. Goldberg, J. D. Oldham, S. Plotkin, and C. Stein

Scheduling
Non-approximability Results for Scheduling Problems with Minsum
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
J. A. Hoogeveen, P. Schuurman, and G. J. Woeginger
Approximation Bounds for a General Class of Precedence Constrained
Parallel Machine Scheduling Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
A. Munier, M. Queyranne, and A. S. Schulz
An Efficient Approximation Algorithm for Minimizing Makespan on
Uniformly Related Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
C. Chekuri and M. Bender
On the Relationship between Combinatorial and LP-Based Approaches to
NP-Hard Scheduling Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
R. N. Uma and J. Wein

Quadratic Assignment Problems

Polyhedral Combinatorics of Quadratic Assignment Problems with Less
Objects Than Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
V. Kaibel
Incorporating Inequality Constraints in the Spectral Bundle Method . . . . . 423
C. Helmberg, K. C. Kiwiel, and F. Rendl

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

 ?
The Packing Property

Gérard Cornuéjols1, Bertrand Guenin1 , and François Margot2

1
Graduate School of Industrial Administration
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
2
Department of Mathematical Science
Michigan Technical University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA

Abstract. A clutter (V, E) packs if the smallest number of vertices

needed to intersect all the edges (i.e. a transversal) is equal to the maxi-
mum number of pairwise disjoint edges (i.e. a matching). This terminol-
ogy is due to Seymour 1977. A clutter is minimally nonpacking if it does
not pack but all its minors pack. A 0,1 matrix is minimally nonpacking if
it is the edge-vertex incidence matrix of a minimally nonpacking clutter.
Minimally nonpacking matrices can be viewed as the counterpart for the
set covering problem of minimally imperfect matrices for the set packing
problem. This paper proves several properties of minimally nonpacking
clutters and matrices.

1 Introduction

A clutter C is a pair (V (C), E(C)), where V (C) is a finite set and E(C) =
{S1 , . . . , Sm } is a family of subsets of V (C) with the property that Si ⊆ Sj
implies Si = Sj . The elements of V (C) are the vertices of C and those of E(C)
are the edges. A transversal of C is a minimal subset of vertices that intersects
all the edges. Let τ (C) denote the cardinality of a smallest transversal. A clutter
C packs if there exist τ (C) pairwise disjoint edges.
For j ∈ V (C), the contraction C/j and deletion C \ j are clutters defined as
follows: both have V (C)−{j} as vertex set, E(C/j) is the set of minimal elements
of {S − {j} : S ∈ E(C)} and E(C \ j) = {S : j 6∈ S ∈ E(C)}. Contractions and
deletions of distinct vertices can be performed sequentially, and it is well known
that the result does not depend on the order. A clutter D obtained from C by
deleting Id ⊆ V (C) and contracting Ic ⊆ V (C), where Ic ∩ Id = ∅ and Ic ∪ Id 6= ∅,
is a minor of C and is denoted by C \ Id /Ic .
We say that a clutter C has the packing property if it packs and all its minors
pack. A clutter is minimally non packing (mnp) if it does not pack but all its
minors do. In this paper, we study mnp clutters.
?
This work was supported in part by NSF grants DMI-9424348, DMS-9509581, ONR
grant N00014-9710196, a William Larimer Mellon Fellowship, and the Swiss National
Research Fund (FNRS).

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 1–8, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
2 Gérard Cornuéjols et al.

These concepts can be described equivalently in terms of 0,1 matrices. A 0,1

matrix A packs if the minimum number of columns needed to cover all the rows
equals the maximum number of nonoverlapping rows, i.e.

X
n
min xj : Ax ≥ e, x ∈ {0, 1}n
1
X
m
= max yi : yA ≤ e, y ∈ {0, 1}m , (1)
1

where e denotes a vector of appropriate dimension all of whose components

are equal to 1. Obviously, dominating rows play no role in this definition (row
Ai. dominates row Ak. , k 6= i, if Aij ≥ Akj for all j), so we assume w.l.o.g.
that A contains no such row. That is, we assume w.l.o.g. that A is the edge-
vertex incidence matrix of a clutter. Since the statement “A packs” is invariant
upon permutation of rows and permutation of columns, we denote by A(C)
any 0,1 matrix which is the edge-vertex incidence matrix of clutter C. Observe
that contracting j ∈ V (C) corresponds to setting xj = 0 in the set covering
constraints A(C)x ≥ e (since, in A(C/j), column j is removed as well as the
resulting dominating rows), and deleting j corresponds to setting xj = 1 (since,
in A(C \ j), column j is removed as well as all rows with a 1 in column j). The
packing property for A requires that equation (1) holds for the matrix A itself
and all its minors. This concept is dual to the concept of perfection (Berge [1]).
Indeed, a 0,1 matrix is perfect if all its column submatrices A satisfy the equation

X
n
max xj : Ax ≤ e, x ∈ {0, 1}n
1
X
m
= min yi : yA ≥ e, y ∈ {0, 1}m .
1

This definition involves “column submatrices” instead of “minors” since setting

a variable to 0 or 1 in the set packing constraints Ax ≤ e amounts to con-
sider a column submatrix of A. Pursuing the analogy, mnp matrices are to the
set covering problem what minimally imperfect matrices are to the set packing
problem.
The 0,1 matrix A is ideal if the polyhedron {x ≥ 0 : Ax ≥ e} is integral
(Lehman [9]). If A is ideal, then so are all its minors [16]. The following result
is a consequence of Lehman’s work [10].
Theorem 1. If A has the packing property, then A is ideal.
The converse is not true, however. A famous example is the matrix Q6 with
4 rows and 6 columns comprising all 0,1 column vectors with two 0’s and two
1’s. It is ideal but it does not pack. This is in contrast to Lovász’s theorem [11]
stating that A is perfect if and only if the polytope {x ≥ 0 : Ax ≤ e} is integral.
 The Packing Property 3

The 0,1 matrix A has the Max-Flow Min-Cut property (or simply MFMC
property) if the linear system Ax ≥ e, x ≥ 0 is totally dual integral (Seymour
[16]). Specifically, let

τ (A, w) = min wx : Ax ≥ e, x ∈ {0, 1}n ,
Xm
ν(A, w) = max yi : yA ≤ w, y ∈ {0, 1}m .
1

A has the MFMC property if τ (A, w) = ν(A, w) for all w ∈ Z+

n
. Setting wj = 0
corresponds to deleting column j and setting wj = +∞ to contracting j. So,
if A has the MFMC-property, then A has the packing property. Conforti and
Cornuéjols [3] conjecture that the converse is also true.

Conjecture 1. A clutter has the packing property if and only if it has the MFMC
property.

This conjecture for the packing property is the analog of the following version of
Lovász’s theorem [11]: A 0, 1 matrix A is perfect if and only if the linear system
Ax ≤ e, x ≥ 0 is totally dual integral.
In this paper, our first result is that this conjecture holds for diadic clutters.
A clutter is diadic if its edges intersect its transversals in at most two vertices
(Ding [6]). In fact, we show the stronger result:

Theorem 2. A diadic clutter is ideal if and only if it has the MFMC property.

A clutter is said to be minimally non ideal (mni) if it is not ideal but all
its minors are ideal. Theorem 1 is equivalent to saying that mni clutters do not
pack. Therefore mnp clutters fall into two distinct classes namely:

Remark 1. A minimally non packing clutter is either ideal or mni.

Next we consider ideal mnp clutters. Seymour [16] showed that Q6 is the only
ideal mnp clutter which is binary (a clutter is binary if its edges have an odd
intersection with its transversals). Aside from Q6 , only one ideal mnp clutter
was known prior to this work, due to Schrijver [14]. We construct an infinite
family of such mnp clutters (see Appendix). The clutter Q6 , Schrijver’s example
and those in our infinite class all satisfy τ (C) = 2. Our next result is that all
ideal mnp clutters with τ (C) = 2 share strong structural properties with Q6 .

Theorem 3. Every ideal mnp clutter C with τ (C) = 2 has the Q6 property, i.e.
A(C) has 4 rows such that every column restricted to this set of rows contains
two 0’s and two 1’s and, furthermore, each of the 6 such possible 0,1 vectors
occurs at least once.

We make the following conjecture and we prove later that it implies Conjecture 1.

Conjecture 2. If C is an ideal mnp clutter, then τ (C) = 2.

4 Gérard Cornuéjols et al.

The blocker b(C) of a clutter C is the clutter with V (C) as vertex set and the
transversals of C as edge set. For Id , Ic ⊆ V (C) with Id ∩ Ic = ∅, it is well known
and easy to derive that b(C \ Id /Ic ) = b(C)/Id \ Ic .
We now consider minimally non ideal mnp clutters. The clutter Jt , for t ≥ 2
integer, is given by V (Jt ) = {0, . . . , t} and E(Jt ) = {1, . . . , t}, {0, 1}, {0, 2}, . . . ,
{0, t}. Given a mni matrix A, let x̃ be any vertex of {x ≥ 0 : Ax ≥ e} with
fractional components. A maximal row submatrix Ā of A for which Āx̃ = e is
called a core of A. The next result is due to Lehman [10] (see also Padberg [13],
Seymour [17]).
Theorem 4. Let A be a mni matrix, B = b(A), r = τ (B) and s = τ (A). Then
(i) A (resp. B) has a unique core Ā (resp. B̄).
(ii) Ā, B̄ are square matrices.
Moreover, either A = A(Jt ), t ≥ 2, or the rows and columns of Ā can be
permuted so that
(iii) ĀB̄ T = J + (rs − n)I.
Here J denotes a square matrix filled with ones and I the identity matrix. Only
three cores with rs = n + 2 are known and none with rs ≥ n + 3. Nevertheless
Cornuéjols and Novick [5] have constructed more than one thousand mni matri-
ces from a single core with rs = n + 2. An odd hole Ck2 is a clutter with k ≥ 3
odd, V (Ck2 ) = {1, . . . k} and E(Ck2 ) = {{1, 2}, {2, 3}, . . . , {k − 1, k}, {k, 1}}. Odd
holes and their blockers are mni with rs = n + 1 and Luetolf and Margot [12]
give dozens of additional examples of cores with rs = n + 1 and n ≤ 17. We
prove the following theorem.
Theorem 5. Let A 6= A(Jt ) be a mni matrix. If A is minimally non packing,
then rs = n + 1.
We conjecture that the condition rs = n + 1 is also sufficient.
Conjecture 3. Let A 6= A(Jt ) be a mni matrix. Then A is minimally non packing
if and only if rs = n + 1.
Using a computer program, we were able to verify this conjecture for all known
mni matrices with n ≤ 14.
A clutter is minimally non MFMC if it does not have the MFMC property
but all its minors do. Conjecture 1 states that these are exactly the mnp clutters.
Although we cannot prove this conjecture, the next proposition shows that a
tight link exists between minimally non MFMC and mnp clutters. The clutter
D obtained by replicating element j ∈ V (C) of C is defined as follows: V (D) =
V (C) ∪ {j 0 } where j 0 6∈ V (C), and

E(D) = E(C) ∪ {S − {j} ∪ {j 0 } : j ∈ S ∈ E(C)}.

Element j 0 is called a replicate of j. Let ej denote the j th unit vector.

Remark 2. D packs if and only if τ (C, e + ej ) = ν(C, e + ej ).
 The Packing Property 5

Proposition 1. Let C be a minimally non MFMC clutter. We can construct a

minimally non packing clutter D by replicating elements of V (C).

Proof. Let w ∈ Z+ n
be chosen such that τ (C, w) > ν(C, w) and τ (C, w0 ) = ν(C, w0 )
for all w ∈ Z+ with w0 ≤ w and wj0 < wj for at least one j. Note that wj > 0
0 n

for all j, since otherwise some deletion minor of C does not have the MFMC
property. Construct D by replicating wj − 1 times every element j ∈ V (C). By
Remark 2, D does not pack. Let D0 = D \ Id /Ic be any minor of D. If j or one of
its replicates is in Ic then we can assume that j and all its replicates are in Ic .
Then D0 is a replication of a minor C 0 of C/j. Since C 0 has the MFMC property,
D0 packs by Remark 2. Thus we can assume Ic = ∅. By the choice of w and
Remark 2, if Id 6= ∅ then D0 packs. t
u

Proposition 1 can be used to show that if every ideal mnp clutter C satisfies
τ (C) = 2 then the packing property and the MFMC property are the same.
Proposition 2. Conjecture 2 implies Conjecture 1.

Proof. Suppose there is a minimally non MFMC clutter C that packs. By The-
orem 1, C is ideal. Then by Proposition 1, there is a mnp clutter D with a
replicated element j. Furthermore, D is ideal. Using Conjecture 2, 2 = τ (D) ≤
τ (D/j). Since D/j packs, there are sets S1 , S2 ∈ E(D) with S1 ∩ S2 = {j}.
Because j is replicated in D, we have a set S10 = S1 ∪ {j 0 } − {j}. Remark that
j 0 6∈ S2 . But then S10 ∩ S2 = ∅, hence D packs, a contradiction. t
u

Finally, we introduce a new class of clutters called weakly binary. They can
be viewed as a generalization of binary and of balanced clutters. (A 0,1 matrix
is balanced if it does not have A(Ck2 ) as a submatrix, k ≥ 3 odd, where as above
Ck2 denotes an odd hole. See [4] for a survey of balanced matrices). We say that
a clutter C has an odd hole Ck2 if A(Ck2 ) is a submatrix of A(C). An odd hole Ck2
of C is said to have a non intersecting set if ∃S ∈ E(C) such that S ∩ V (Ck2 ) = ∅.
A clutter is weakly binary if, in C and all its minors, all odd holes have non
intersecting sets.
Theorem 6. Let C be weakly binary and minimally non MFMC. Then C is
ideal.
Note that, when C is binary, this theorem is an easy consequence of Seymour’s
theorem saying that a binary clutter has the MFMC property if and only if it
does not have Q6 as a minor [16]. Observe also that Theorem 6 together with
Conjecture 2, Proposition 2, and Theorem 3, would imply that a weakly binary
clutter has the MFMC property if and only if it does not contain a minor with
the Q6 property.
6 Gérard Cornuéjols et al.

References
1. C. Berge. Färbung von Graphen deren sämtliche bzw. deren ungerade Kreize starr
sind (Zusammenfassung), Wisenschaftliche Zeitschritch, Martin Luther Universität
Halle-Wittenberg, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 114–115, 1960.
2. W. G. Bridges and H. J. Ryser. Combinatorial designs and related systems. J.
Algebra, 13:432–446, 1969.
3. M. Conforti and G. Cornuéjols. Clutters that pack and the max-flow min-cut prop-
erty: A conjecture. In W. R. Pulleyblank and F. B. Shepherd, editors, The Fourth
Bellairs Workshop on Combinatorial Optimization, 1993.
4. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. Balanced matrices. In
J. R. Birge and K. G Murty, editors, Math. Programming, State of the Art 1994,
pages 1–33, 1994.
5. G. Cornuéjols and B. Novick. Ideal 0, 1 matrices. J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 60:145–
157, 1994.
6. G. Ding. Clutters with τ2 = 2τ . Discrete Math., 115:141–152, 1993.
7. J. Edmonds and R. Giles. A min-max relation for submodular functions on graphs.
Annals of Discrete Math., 1:185–204, 1977.
8. B. Guenin. Packing and covering problems. Thesis proposal, GSIA, Carnegie Mel-
lon University, 1997.
9. A. Lehman. On the width-length inequality. Mathematical Programming, 17:403–
417, 1979.
10. A. Lehman. On the width-length inequality and degenerate projective planes. In
W. Cook and P.D. Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS Series
in Discrete Math. and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 1, pages 101–105, 1990.
11. L. Lovász. Normal hypergraphs and the perfect graph conjecture. Discrete Math.
2:253–267, 1972.
12. C. Luetolf and F. Margot. A catalog of minimally nonideal matrices. Mathematical
Methods of Operations Research, 1998. To appear.
13. M. W. Padberg. Lehman’s forbidden minor characterization of ideal 0−1 matrices.
Discrete Math., 111:409–420, 1993.
14. A. Schrijver. A counterexample to a conjecture of Edmonds and Giles. Discrete
Math., 32:213–214, 1980.
15. A. Schrijver. Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, Wiley, 1986.
16. P. D. Seymour. The matroids with the max-flow min-cut property. J. Comb. Theory
Ser. B, 23:189–222, 1977.
17. P. D. Seymour. On Lehman’s width-length characterization. In W. Cook and P. D.
Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS Series in Discrete Math.
and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 1, pages 107–117, 1990.

Appendix

We construct ideal minimally non packing clutters C with τ (C) = 2. By Theo-

rem 3, these clutters have the Q6 property. Thus V (C) can be partitioned into
I1 , . . . , I6 and there exist edges S1 , . . . , S4 in C of the form:

S1 = I1 ∪ I3 ∪ I5 , S2 = I1 ∪ I4 ∪ I6 ,
S3 = I2 ∪ I4 ∪ I5 , S4 = I2 ∪ I3 ∪ I6 .
 The Packing Property 7

Without loss of generality we can reorder the vertices in V (C) so that elements
in Ik preceed elements in Ip when k < p.
Given a set P of p elements, let Hp denote the ((2p − 1) × p) matrix whose
rows are the characteristic vectors of the nonempty subsets of P, and let Hp∗ be
its complement, i.e. Hp + Hp∗ = J.
For each r, t ≥ 1 let |I1 | = |I2 | = r, |I3 | = |I4 | = t and |I5 | = |I6 | = 1. We
call Qr,t the clutter corresponding to the matrix

 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 
Hr Hr∗ J 0 1 0

A(Qr,t ) =  Hr∗ Hr 0 J 1 0 
 J 0 Ht∗ Ht 0 1 
0 J Ht Ht∗ 0 1

where J denotes a matrix filled with ones. The rows are partitioned into four
sets that we denote respectively by T (3, 5), T (4, 5), T (1, 6), T (2, 6). The indices
k, l for a given family indicate that the set Ik ∪ Il is contained is every element of
the family. Note that the edge S1 occurs in T (3, 5), S2 in T (1, 6), S3 in T (4, 5)
and S4 in T (2, 6).
Since H1 contains only one row, we have Q1,1 = Q6 and Q2,1 is given by
 
1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0  T (3, 5)
 
 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 
 
 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 
A(Q2,1 ) =  1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 

  T (4, 5)
 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 
 
 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1  T (1, 6)
0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 T (2, 6)

Proposition 3. For all r, t ≥ 1, the clutter Qr,t is ideal and minimally non
packing.
The clutter D obtained by duplicating element j ∈ V (C) of C is defined by:
V (D) = V (C)∪{j 0 } where j 0 6∈ V (C) and E(D) = {S : j 6∈ S ∈ E(C)}∪{S ∪{j 0 } :
j ∈ S ∈ E(C)}. Let α(k) be the mapping defined by: α(1) = 2, α(2) = 1, α(3) =
4, α(4) = 3, α(5) = 6, α(6) = 5.
Suppose that, for k ∈ {1, .., 6}, we have that Ik contains a single element
j ∈ V (C). Then j belongs to exactly two of S1 , . . . , S4 . These two edges are of
the form {j} ∪ Ir ∪ It and {j} ∪ Iα(r) ∪ Iα(t) . We can construct a new clutter
C ⊗ j by duplicating element j in C and including in E(C ⊗ j) the edges:

{j} ∪ Iα(j) ∪ Ir ∪ It ,
(2)
{j 0 } ∪ Iα(j) ∪ Iα(r) ∪ Iα(t) .
8 Gérard Cornuéjols et al.

Since the ⊗ construction is commutative we denote by C ⊗{k1, . . . , ks } the clutter

(C ⊗ k1 ) . . . ⊗ ks . For Q6 , we have I1 = {1} = S1 ∩ S2 and {1} ∪ Iα(1) ∪ I3 ∪ I5 =
{1, 2, 3, 5} and finally {10 } ∪ Iα(1) ∪ Iα(3) ∪ Iα(5) = {10 , 2, 4, 6}. Thus
 
1 1 0 1 0 1 0
 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 
 
 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 
A(Q6 ⊗ 1) = 



 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 
 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 
0 1 1 0 1 0 1

Proposition 4. Any clutter obtained from Q6 and the ⊗ construction is ideal

and minimally non packing.
The clutter Q6 ⊗ {1, 3, 5} was found by Schrijver [14] as a counterexample to a
conjecture of Edmonds and Giles on dijoins. Prior to this work, Q6 and Q6 ⊗
{1, 3, 5} were the only known ideal mnp clutters. Eleven clutters can be obtained
using Proposition 4. In fact it can be shown [8] that this proposition remains
true if we replace Q6 by Qr,t . There are also examples that do not fit any of the
above constructions, as shown by the following ideal mnp clutter.
 
1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 
 
 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 
 
 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 

A(C) =  

 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 
 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 
 
 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 
1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs

Bertrand Guenin

Graduate School of Industrial Administration

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Abstract. A labeled graph is said to be weakly bipartite if the clutter

of its odd cycles is ideal. Seymour conjectured that a labeled graph is
weakly bipartite if and only if it does not contain a minor called an odd
K5 . An outline of the proof of this conjecture is given in this paper.

1 Introduction
Let G = (V, E) be a graph and Σ ⊆ E. Edges in Σ are called odd and edges in
E −Σ are called even. The pair (G, Σ) is called a labeled graph. Given a subgraph
H of G, V (H) denotes the set of vertices of H, and E(H) the set of edges of H.
A subset L ⊆ E(G) is odd (resp. even) if |L ∩ Σ| is odd (resp. even). A cycle of
G is a connected subgraph of G with all degrees equal to two.
A labeled graph (G, Σ) is said to be weakly bipartite if the following polyhe-
dron Q is integral (i.e. all its extreme points are integral):
n o
|E| P
Q = x ∈ <+ : i∈C xi ≥ 1, for all odd cycles C of (G, Σ) (1)

See Gerards [7] for a recent survey on weakly bipartite graphs and connexions
with multicommodity flows. Particularly interesting is the case where Σ = E(G).
Let x̂ be any 0, 1 extreme point of Q. Then x̂ is the incidence vector of a set of
edges which intersect every odd cycle of G. In other words e − x̂ is the incidence
|E|
vector of a bipartite subgraph of G. Let w ∈ <+ be weights for the edges of G
and let x̄ be a solution to

min wx : x ∈ Q ∩ {0, 1}|E| . (2)

Then e − x̄ is a solution to the Weighted Max-Cut problem. This problem is

known to be NP-Hard even in the unweighted case [10]. Note, weakly bipartite
graphs are precisely those graphs for which the integrality constraints in (2) can
be dropped.
Weakly bipartite graphs G with Σ = E(G) were introduced by Grötschel and
Pulleyblank [8]. They showed that the optimization problem min{wx : x ∈ Q}
can be solved in polynomial time.
Barahona [1] proved that planar graphs are weakly bipartite. In fact, Fonlupt,
Mahjoub and Uhry [5] showed that all graphs which are not contractible to K5

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 9–22, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
10 Bertrand Guenin

are weakly bipartite. This is closely related to an earlier result by Barahona

[2] on the cut polytope. Note, this does not yield a characterization of weakly
bipartite graphs. Consider the graph obtained from K5 by replacing one edge by
two consecutive edges. This graph is weakly bipartite and contractible to K5 .
Following Gerards [6], we will define a number of operations on labeled
graphs, which maintain the weak bipartite property. Given U ⊆ V (G), the cut
{(u, v) : u ∈ U, v 6∈ U } is denoted by δ(U ). Given two sets S1 , S2 , the symmetric
difference (S1 ∪S2 )−(S1 ∩S2 ) is denoted by S1 4S2 . The labeled graph obtained
by replacing Σ by Σ 4 δ(U ) in (G, Σ) is called a relabeling of (G, Σ). Since δ(U )
intersects every cycle an even number of times we readily obtain that:

Remark 1. (G, Σ) and (G, Σ 4 δ(U )) have the same set of odd cycles.

(G, Σ) \ e denotes a labeled graph (G 0 , Σ 0 ), where Σ 0 = Σ − {e} and G 0 is

obtained by removing edge e from G. (G, Σ)/e denotes the labeled graph obtained
as follows: (1) if e is odd (i.e. e ∈ Σ) then find a relabeling of (G, Σ) such that
e is even, (2) contract edge e in G (remove edge e in G and identify both of
its endpoints). (G, Σ) \ e is called a deletion minor and (G, Σ)/e a contraction
minor . Let Q be the polyhedron associated with (G, Σ), see (1). It can be readily
shown (see for example the introduction of [18]) that deleting edge e corresponds
to projecting Q onto a lower subspace and contracting e corresponds to setting
xe to zero. A labeled graph (H, θ) is called a minor of (G, Σ), if it can be obtained
as a sequence of relabelings, deletions and contractions. It follows from Remark
1 and the above observations that:

Remark 2. If (G, Σ) is weakly bipartite then so are all its minors.

(H, θ) is called a proper minor of (G, Σ) if it is a minor of (G, Σ) and |E(H)| <
|E(G)|. An odd K5 , denoted by K f5 , is the complete graph on 5 vertices where
all edges are labeled odd. For the polyhedron Q associated with K f5 , the 10
constraints corresponding to the triangles (the odd cycles of length three) de-
fine a fractional point ( 13 , . . . , 13 ) of Q. Thus K f5 is not weakly bipartite. Sey-
mour [18],[19] predicted, as part of a more general conjecture on binary clutters
(see Sec. 2.3) that:

f5 minor.
Conjecture 1. (G, Σ) is weakly bipartite if and only if it has no K

A labeled graph is said to be minimally non weakly bipartite if it is not weakly

bipartite but all its proper minors are. An outline to the proof of the following
theorem (which is equivalent to Conjecture 1) is given in this paper.

f5 .
Theorem 1. Every minimally non weakly bipartite graph is a relabeling of K

Section 2 introduces some basic notions on clutters, before stating a theorem by

Lehman [13] on minimally non ideal (mni) clutters. The section concludes by
deriving key properties of binary mni clutters. Section 3 gives an outline of the
proof of Theorem 1. A complete proof of this result can be found in [9].
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 11

2 Clutters

2.1 Elementary Definitions

A clutter A is a pair (E(A), Ω(A)) where E(A) is a finite set and Ω(A) is a
family of subsets of E(A), say {S1 , . . . , Sm }, with the property that Si ⊆ Sj
implies Si = Sj . M (A) denotes a 0, 1 matrix whose rows are the incidence
vectors of the elements of Ω(A). A clutter A is said to be ideal if the polyhedron
Q(A) = {x ≥ 0 : M (A)x ≥ e} is integral. We say that A is the clutter of odd
cycles of a labeled graph (G, Σ) if E(A) = E(G) and the elements of Ω(A) are
the odd cycles of (G, Σ). Thus a labeled graph is weakly bipartite when the
clutter of its odd cycles is ideal.
Given a clutter A and i ∈ E(A), the contraction A/i and deletion A \ i are
clutters defined as follows: E(A/i) = E(A \ i) = E(A) − {i}, Ω(A/i) is the set
of inclusion-wise minimal elements of {S − {i} : S ∈ Ω(A)} and, Ω(A \ i) = {S :
i 6∈ S ∈ Ω(A)}. Contractions and deletions can be performed sequentially, and
the result does not depend on the order. A clutter B obtained from A by a set
of deletions Id and a set of contractions Ic , where Ic ∩ Id = ∅ is called a minor
of A and is denoted by A \ Id /Ic . We say that B is a contraction minor (resp.
deletion minor) if Id = ∅ (resp. Ic = ∅). The following is well known [13]:
Remark 3. If A is ideal then so are its minors.
We saw in Remark 1 that relabeling a labeled graph leaves the clutter of odd
cycles unchanged. Contractions and deletions on a labeled graph (as defined
in Sec. 1) are equivalent to the corresponding operations on the clutter of odd
cycles.
Remark 4. Let A be the clutter of odd cycles of (G, Σ). Then
– A/e is the clutter of odd cycles of (G, Σ)/e and
– A \ e is the clutter of odd cycles of (G, Σ) \ e.
Given a clutter A, the clutter b(A) is called the blocker of A and is defined
as follows: E (b(A)) = E(A) and Ω (b(A)) is the set of inclusion-wise minimal
elements of {U : C ∩ U 6= ∅, ∀C ∈ Ω(A)}. It is well known that b(A \ Ic /Id ) =
b(A)/Ic \ Id and that b (b(A)) = A [17]. If A is the clutter of odd cycles of a
labeled graph (G, Σ), then the elements of Ω (b(A)) are of the form δ(U ) 4 Σ,
where δ(U ) is a cut of G [6].

2.2 Minimally Non Ideal Clutters

A clutter A is called minimally non ideal (mni) if it is not ideal but all its proper
minors are ideal. Because of Remark 4, the clutter of odd cycles of a minimally
non weakly bipartite labeled graph is mni. In this section we review properties
of mni clutters.
The clutter Jt , for t ≥ 2 integer, is given by E(Jt ) = {0, . . . , t} and Ω(Jt ) =
{{1, . . . , t}, {0, 1}, {0, 2}, . . . , {0, t}}. The cardinality of the smallest element of
12 Bertrand Guenin

Ω (b(A)) is denoted by τ (A). In this section we consider the matrix representa-

tion A = M (A) of a clutter A. We say that a matrix M (A) is mni when the
clutter A is mni. The blocker of b (M (A)) is the matrix M (b(A)) and τ (A) is
the smallest number of non-zero entries in any row of b (M (A)).
Given a mni matrix A, let x̃ be any extreme point of Q(A) = {x ≥ 0 : Ax ≥ e}
with fractional components. A maximal row submatrix Ā of A for which Āx̃ = e
is called a core of A. Two matrices are said to be isomorphic if one can be
obtained from the other by a sequence of permutations of the rows and columns.
The next result is by Lehman [13] (see also Padberg [16], Seymour [20]).
Theorem 2. Let A be a mni matrix. Then B = b(A) is mni. Let r = τ (B) and
s = τ (A). Either A is isomorphic to M (Jt ) or
(i) A (resp. B) has a unique core Ā (resp. B̄).
(ii) Ā, B̄ are square matrices.
Moreover, the rows and columns of Ā can be permuted so that
(iii) ĀB̄ T = J + (rs − n)I, where rs − n ≥ 1.
Here J denotes a square matrix filled with ones and I the identity matrix. Also
e is the vector of all ones, ej is the j th unit vector, and B̄.j denotes column j of
B̄. The following is a special case of a result of Bridges and Ryser [3]:
Theorem 3. Let Ā, B̄ be matrices satisfying (ii),(iii) of Theorem 2.
(i) Columns and rows of Ā (resp. B̄) have exactly r (resp. s) ones.
(ii) ĀB̄ T = ĀT B̄
(iii) ĀT B̄.j = e + (rs − n)ej .
(iv) Let j be the index of any column of A. Let C1 , . . . , Cs (resp. U1 , . . . , Ur )
be the characteristic sets of the rows of Ā (resp. B̄) whose indices are given
by the characteristic set of column j of B̄ (resp. Ā). Then C1 , . . . , Cs (resp.
U1 , . . . , Ur ) intersect only in {j} and exactly q = rs − n + 1 of these sets
contain j.
Note that in the last theorem, Property (ii) implies (iii) that in turn implies
(iv). Because of Theorem 2 and Theorem 3(i) the fractional point x̃ must be
( 1r , . . . , 1r ). The next remark follows from the fact that Ā is a maximal row
submatrix of A for which Āx̃ = e.
Remark 5. Rows of A which are not rows of Ā have at least r + 1 non-zero
entries. Similarly, rows of B which are not in B̄ have at least s + 1 ones.
Let A 6= Jt be a mni clutter with A = M (A). Ā, with M (Ā) = Ā, denotes the
core of A. Let B be the blocker of A and B̄ the core of B. Consider the element
C ∈ Ω(Ā) (resp. U ∈ Ω(B̄)) which corresponds to the ith row of Ā (resp. B̄).
By Theorem 2(iii), C intersects every element of Ω(B̄) exactly once except for
U which is intersected q = rs − n + 1 ≥ 2 times. We call U the mate of C.
Thus every element of Ω(Ā) is paired with an element of Ω(B̄). Notice that
Theorem 3(iv) implies the following result.
Remark 6. Let A be a mni clutter distinct from Jt and consider C1 , C2 ∈ Ω(Ā)
with i ∈ C1 ∩ C2 . The mates U1 , U2 of C1 , C2 satisfy U1 ∩ U2 ⊆ {i}.
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 13

2.3 Binary Clutters

A clutter A is said to be binary if for any three sets S1 , S2 , S3 ∈ Ω(A), the set
S1 4S2 4S3 contains a set of Ω(A). Lehman [11] showed (see also Seymour [17]):

Theorem 4. A is binary if and only if for any C ∈ Ω(A) and U ∈ Ω (b(A)) we

have |C ∩ U | odd.

Thus in particular if A is binary then so is its blocker. The following is easy, see
for example [6].

Proposition 1. Let (G, Σ) be a labeled graph. Then the clutter of odd cycles of
(G, Σ) is binary.

2.4 Minimally Non Ideal Binary Clutters

Note that the blocker of Jt is Jt itself. We therefore have {1, 2} ∈ E(Jt ) and
{1, 2} ∈ E (b(Jt )). It follows by Theorem 4 that Jt is not binary. The clutter F7
is defined as follows: E(F7 ) = {1, . . . , 7} and

Ω(F7 ) = {{1, 3, 5}, {1, 4, 6}, {2, 4, 5}, {2, 3, 6}, {1, 2, 7}, {3, 4, 7}, {5, 6, 7}} .

The clutter of odd cycles of K5 is denoted by OK5 . Conjecture 1 is part of a more

general conjecture by Seymour on minimally non ideal binary clutters. See [18]
p. 200 and [19] (9.2), (11.2).

Conjecture 2. If A is a minimally non ideal binary clutter, then A is either F7 ,

OK5 or b(OK5 ).

Since we can readily check that F7 and b(OK5 ) are not clutters of odd cycles this
conjecture implies Conjecture 1. Next are two results on mni binary clutters.

Proposition 2. Let A be a mni binary clutter and C1 , C2 ∈ Ω(Ā). If C ⊆

C1 ∪ C2 and C ∈ Ω(A) then either C = C1 or C = C2 .

Proof. Let r denote the cardinality of the elements of Ω(Ā).

Case 1: |C| = r.
By Remark 5, we have C ∈ Ω(Ā). Let U be the mate of C and q = |C ∩ U | ≥
2. By Theorem 4, q is odd so in particular q ≥ 3. Since C ⊆ C1 ∪ C2 , we
must have |U ∩ C1 | > 1 or |U ∩ C2 | > 1. This implies that U is the mate of
C1 or C2 , i.e. that C = C1 or C = C2 .
Case 2: |C| > r.
Let t = |C1 ∩ C2 ∩ C|. Since C ⊆ C1 ∪ C2 , it follows that

|C| = t + |(C1 4 C2 ) ∩ C| . (3)

14 Bertrand Guenin

For T = C1 4 C2 4 C, we have
|T | = |(C1 ∩ C2 ∩ C) ∪ [(C1 4 C2 ) − C]| , C ⊆ C1 ∪ C2
= |C1 ∩ C2 ∩ C| + |C1 4 C2 | − |(C1 4 C2 ) ∩ C|
= t + |C1 4 C2 | − (|C| − t), by (3)
= 2t + |C1 | + |C2 | − 2|C1 ∩ C2 | − |C|
≤ |C1 | + |C2 | − |C|, t ≤ |C1 ∩ C2 |
≤ 2r − (r + 1), C1 , C2 ∈ Ω(Ā)
Since A is binary we have that T is equal to, or contains an element of Ω(A).
But |T | ≤ r − 1 which contradicts Theorem 3(i) and Remark 5. t
u
Notice that for OK5 the previous theorem simply says that given two triangles
C1 , C2 there is no odd cycle (distinct from C1 and C2 ) which is contained in the
union of C1 and C2 . It is worth mentioning that this is a property of mni binary
clutters only. Indeed the property does not hold for odd holes or more generally
for any circulant matrix with the consecutive one property. For a description of
many classes of mni clutters see [4] and [14].
Proposition 3. Let A be a mni binary clutter and B its blocker. For any e ∈
E(A) there exist C1 , C2 , C3 ∈ Ω(Ā) and U1 , U2 , U3 ∈ Ω(B̄) such that
(i) C1 ∩ C2 = C1 ∩ C3 = C2 ∩ C3 = {e}
(ii) U1 ∩ U2 = U1 ∩ U3 = U2 ∩ U3 = {e}
(iii) For all i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3} we have:
Ci ∩ Uj = {e} if i 6= j, and |Ci ∩ Uj | = q ≥ 3, if i = j.

(iv) For all ei ∈ Ui and ej ∈ Uj with i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3}

∃C ∈ Ω(A) with C ∩ Ui = {ei } and C ∩ Uj = {ej }.
Proof. Let r (resp. s) denote the cardinality of the elements of Ω(Ā) (resp.
Ω(B̄)).
(i) By Theorem 3(iv) there exist s sets C1 , . . . , Cs ∈ Ω(A) such that C1 −
{e}, . . . , Cs − {e} are all disjoint. Moreover, exactly q = rs − n + 1 ≥ 2 of
these sets, say C1 , . . . , Cq , contain e. Finally, by Theorem 4 q ≥ 3.
(ii) Let Ui be the mate of Ci , where i ∈ {1, 2, 3}. We know |Ui ∩ Ci | > 1 and
for all j ∈ {1, . . . , s} − {i} we have |Ui ∩ Cj | = 1. Since C1 , . . . , Cs only
intersect in e and since by Theorem 3(i), |Ui | = s it follows by counting that
e ∈ Ui . Finally, by Remark 6 and the fact that e ∈ C1 ∩ C2 ∩ C3 , we obtain
Ui ∩ Uj ⊆ {e} for all i 6= j and i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3}.
(iii) Follows from (i),(ii) and the fact that Ui is the mate of Cj if and only if
i = j.
(iv) Let T = Ui ∪ Uj − {ei , ej }. Since A is binary so is its blocker B. By Propo-
sition 2, there is no U ∈ Ω(B) with U ⊆ T . Thus E(A) − T intersects every
element of Ω(B). Since the blocker of the blocker is the original clutter, it
follows that E(A) − T contains or is equal to, an element C of Ω(A). Since
C ∩ Ui 6= ∅ and C ∩ Uj 6= ∅ we have by construction C ∩ Ui = {ei } and
C ∩ Uj = {ej }.
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 15

3 Outline of the Proof

3.1 From Binary Clutters to Labeled Graphs
Let (G, Σ) be a minimally non weakly bipartite graph. Let A be the clutter of
odd cycles of (G, Σ) and B its blocker. As noted in Sec. 2.2, A (and thus B) is
mni. Let e be any edge of E(A) and let U1 , U2 , U3 ∈ Ω(B̄) be the sets defined in
Proposition 3. We define

R = U1 − {e} B = U2 − {e} G = U3 − {e} (4)

and

W = E(A) − (U1 ∪ U2 ∪ U3 ) ∪ {e}. (5)

Note that by Proposition 3(ii), R, B, G and W form a partition of the edges of

G. It may be helpful to think of R, B, G, W as a coloring of the edges of G.
Let C be any odd cycle of (G, Σ) with e 6∈ C. Since C ∈ Ω(A) we have
C ∩ Ui 6= ∅ for i ∈ {1, 2, 3} it follows that C ∩ R 6= ∅, C ∩ B 6= ∅, C ∩ G 6= ∅.
Therefore, the minimally non weakly bipartite graph (G, Σ) satisfies the following
property:
(P1) Every odd cycle C of (G, Σ) that does not contain e, has at least one
edge in R, one in B, and one in G.
Consider edges ei ∈ R and ej ∈ B then ei ∈ U1 , ej ∈ U2 . Hence by Proposi-
tion 3(iv), there is an odd cycle C ∈ Ω(A) with {ei } = C ∩ U1 ⊇ C ∩ R and
{ej } = C ∩ U2 ⊇ C ∩ B. Therefore, (G, Σ) also satisfies:
(P2) For any ei ∈ R (resp. B, G) and ej ∈ B (resp. G, R) there is an odd
cycle C of (G, Σ) with the following properties. C does not contain e,
the only edge of C in R (resp. B, G) is ei , and the only edge of C in B
(resp. G, R) is ej .

3.2 Building Blocks

Definition 1. We say that a sequence of paths S = [P1 , . . . , Pt ] forms a circuit
if each path Pi has endpoints vi , vi+1 and vt+1 = v1 . We denote the set of edges
∪ti=1 Pi by E(S).
The next result is easy.
Lemma 1. Let S = [P1 , . . . , Pt ] be a sequence of paths that form a circuit. If
there is an odd number of odd paths in S then E(S) contains an odd cycle.
Given two vertices v1 and v2 of path P , the subpath of P between v1 and v2 is
denoted by P (v1 , v2 ) = P (v2 , v1 ). Given a set S ⊆ E and e ∈ E, we denote the
set S − {e} by S−e. Let C be a cycle, v1 , v2 two vertices of C and e an edge
of C. Using the notation just defined we have that C−e(v1 , v2 ) defines a unique
path. Next comes the first building block of the odd K5 .
16 Bertrand Guenin

Lemma 2. Let (G, Σ) be a minimally non weakly bipartite graph with a partition
of its edges as given in (4)-(5).

(i) There exist odd cycles CR ⊆ R ∪ W, CB ⊆ B ∪ W and CG ⊆ G ∪ W which

intersect exactly in e. Moreover, |CR ∩ R|, |CB ∩ B|, |CG ∩ G| are all even
and non-zero.
(ii) CR , CB and CG have only vertices w1 and w2 in common, where e =
(w1 , w2 ).

CR

w1 odd w2
e

CB CG

Fig. 1. Lemma 2. Bold solid lines represent paths in R ∪ W−e, dashed lines paths in
B ∪ W−e, and thin solid lines paths in G ∪ W−e.

Proof (of Lemma 2).

(i) Let us rename sets C1 , C2 , C3 of Proposition 3 by CR , CB , CG . We know

from Proposition 3(i) that CR , CB and CG intersect exactly in e. By Propo-
sition 3(iii), ∅ = CR ∩ (U2 ∪ U3 − {e}) = CR ∩ (B ∪ G). Thus CR ⊆ R ∪ W .
Also by Proposition 3(iii), |CR ∩R| = |CR ∩(U1 −{e})| = |CR ∩U1 |−1 = q−1
where q ≥ 3 is odd. Identically we show, CB ⊆ B ∪ W, CG ⊆ G ∪ W and
|CB ∩ B|, |CG ∩ G| both non-zero and even.
(ii) Suppose, for instance, CR and CB have a vertex t distinct from w1 and w2
in common. Let P = CR −e(w1 , t), P 0 = CR −e(w2 , t) and Q = CB −e(w1 , t),
Q0 = CB −e(w2 , t), see Fig. 2. Since we can relabel edges in δ({w1 }) and
in δ({t}) we can assume w.l.o.g. that edge e = (w1 , w2 ) is odd and that
paths P, P 0 are both even. If Q is odd then let S = [P, Q] otherwise let
S = [{e}, Q, P 0]. By Lemma 1, E(S) contains an odd cycle, a contradiction
to Proposition 2. t
u

Since CR , CB and CG have only vertices w1 and w2 in common, we can relabel

(G, Σ) so that e is the only odd edge in CR ∪ CB ∪ CG . Let us now proceed to
add 3 more paths PR , PB and PG to our initial building block.
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 17

Q
w1
P
t
P’
w2
Q’

Fig. 2. Lemma 2(ii).

Lemma 3. Let (G, Σ) be a minimally non weakly bipartite graph with a partition
of its edges as given in (4)-(5). Suppose we also have odd cycles CR , CB and CG
as defined in Lemma 2 where e is the only odd edge in CR ∪ CB ∪ CG .
(i) There is an odd path PR (resp. PB , PG ) between a vertex vBR (resp.
vRB , vBG ) of CB (resp. CR , CB ) distinct from w1 , w2 , and a vertex vGR
(resp. vGB , vRG ) of CG (resp. CG , CR ) distinct from w1 , w2 .
(ii) PR ⊆ R ∪ W−e, PB ⊆ B ∪ W−e and PG ⊆ G ∪ W−e.

vRG vRB
CR

PG PB
odd odd
w1 odd w2
e
vBG vGB

CB CG
PR
vBR vGR
odd

Fig. 3. Lemma 3.

Proof (of Lemma 3). By symmetry it is sufficient to show the result for path
0
PR . Since |CR ∩ R| ≥ 2 there is an edge eB = (vBR , vBR ) ∈ B of CB such that
vBR is distinct from w1 , w2 and CB −e(w1 , vBR ) contains exactly one edge in B
0
namely eB . Similarly, we have edge eG = (vGR , vGR ) ∈ CG with vGR distinct
from w1 , w2 and CG −e(w1 , vGR ) ∩ G = {eG }.
By property (P2) there is an odd cycle C such that C ∩ B = {eB } and
C ∩ G = {eG }. The cycle C can be written as {eB , eG } ∪ PR ∪ PR0 where PR and
PR0 are paths included in R ∪ W−e. Since C is odd we can assume w.l.o.g. that
PR is odd and PR0 is even.
18 Bertrand Guenin

0 0
Case 1: The endpoints of PR are vBR , vGR (resp. vBR , vGR ).
0
Then let S = [CB−e(w1 , vBR ), PR , CG−e(vGR , w1 )]. By Lemma 1, E(S) con-
tains an odd cycle but e 6∈ E(S) and E(S) ∩ B = ∅, a contradiction to
(P1).
0 0
Case 2: The endpoints of PR are vBR , vGR .
0 0
Then let S = [CB−e(w1 , vBR ), PR , CG−e(vGR , w1 )]. By Lemma 1, E(S) con-
tains an odd cycle but e 6∈ E(S) and E(S) ∩ B = E(S) ∩ G = ∅, a contra-
diction to (P1).
Thus PR has endpoints vBR , vGR . t
u

An internal vertex of a path P is a vertex of P which is distinct from the end-

points of P . By choosing paths PR , PB , PG carefully we can show the following
additional property:
Lemma 4. PR , PB and PG have no internal vertices in common with CR , CB
or CG .

Remark 7. Let (G, Σ) be a labeled graph with an odd path P where all internal
vertices of P have degree two (in G). Then there is a sequence of relabeling
and contractions that will replace P by a single odd edge, without changing the
remainder of the graph.

Remark 8. Consider (G, Σ) as defined in Lemma 3. If PR , PB , PG have no inter-

f5 minor.
nal vertices in common, then (G, Σ) contains a K
f5 :
This is because in this case the following sequence of operations yields K
1. delete all edges which are not in CR , CB , CG and not in PR , PB , PG ,
2. contract CR −e(vRG , vRB ), CB −e(vBR , vBG ), CG −e(vGR , vGB ),
3. relabel edges in δ({w1 , w2 }),
4. replace each odd path by a single odd edge (see Remark 7).

3.3 Intersections of Paths PR , PB , and PG .

Because of Remark 8 we can assume at least two of the paths PR , PB and PG
must share an internal vertex. One of the main step of the proof of Theorem
1 is to show the following lemma (we give a simplified statement here) which
describes how paths PR , PB and PG must intersect.
Lemma 5. A minimally non weakly bipartite graph (G, Σ) is either a relabeling
f5 or it contains a contraction minor (H, ΣH ) with the following properties
of K
(see Fig. 4):
(i) There are odd paths PR0 , PB0 , PG0 of the form given in lemmas 3, 4 but
0 0
with vertices vBG , vGB instead of vBG , vGB .
0 0 0
(ii) PR ⊆ R, PB ⊆ B, PG ⊆ G.
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 19

(iii) PR0 and PB0 (resp. PG0 ) share an internal vertex tRB (resp. tRG ).
(iv) PB0 (tRB , vGB
0
) and PG0 share an internal vertex tBG .
0 0 0
(v) PB and PG (tRG , vBG ) share an internal vertex t0BG .
(vi) Paths PR (vBR , tRB ) and PR0 (vGR , tRG ) consist of a single edge.
0

(vii) PB0 (resp. PG0 ) has exactly one odd edge which is incident to vGB 0
0
(resp. vBG ).
(viii) PR0 (vBR , tRB ), PR0 (vGR , tRG ) are even and PR0 (tRB , tRG ) is odd.
(ix) No vertex is common to all three paths PR , PB and PG .

t RB odd t RG
P’R

v RB CR vRG P’B
P’G

w1 odd w2
e
vBR vGR
odd odd

v’BG CB CG v’GB

Fig. 4. Lemma 5. Graph (H, ΣH ).

We did not represent vertices tBG (and t0BG ) in the previous figure. Let q denote
the first vertex of PG0 , starting from vRG , which is also a vertex of PB0 (tRB , vGB
0
)
0
(see Fig. 4). By Lemma 5(iv) there exist such a vertex. Let q be the first vertex
of PG0 (q, vRG ), starting from q, which is either a vertex of PB0 or equal to vRG .
By Lemma 5(ix) q, q 0 are distinct from tRB .
Definition 2. (K, ΣK ) is the graph (see Fig. 5) obtained by deleting every edge
of (H, ΣH ) which is not an edge of CR , CB , CG or PR0 (vBR , tRB ), PB0 and PG0 (q, q 0 ).
From Lemma 5 we can readily obtain the following properties:
Remark 9.
(i) There are exactly two odd edges in (K, ΣK ), namely e and the edge of PB0
0
incident to vGB .
0
(ii) Let S be the set of vertices {w1 , w2 , vBR , vRB , vGB , tRB , q, q 0 } shown in
0
Fig. 5. vRB and q may denote the same vertex but all other vertices of S
are distinct.
(iii) S is the set of all vertices of (K, ΣK ) which have degree greater than two.
20 Bertrand Guenin

t RB q
t’RB
t RB q q’
t’RB

CR P’R vRB P’B

P’R vRB vRG = q’ P’B CR

w1 odd w2 w1 odd w2
odd odd
vBR vBR
v’GB v’GB
CB CG CB CG

Fig. 5. Graph (K, ΣK ), Left q 0 = vRG , right q 0 6= vRG

Definition 3. Let tRB be the vertex of (H, ΣH ) defined in Lemma 5(iii). ē =

(tRB , t0RB ) denotes the edge of PB0 (tRB , vRB ) incident to tRB (see Fig 5). Note,
t0RB need not be distinct from vRB .

Lemma 6. Let (H, ΣH ) be the graph defined in Lemma 5. There are three dis-
tinct odd paths F1 , F2 , F3 from tRB to t0RB .

Proof. By applying Proposition 3(i) to edge ē we obtain odd cycles L1 , L2 , L3

of (G, Σ) which intersect exactly in ē. Let L01 , L02 , L03 be the corresponding odd
cycles in (H, ΣH ) and Fi , for i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, denotes the path L0i −ē. Since ē is even
and L0i is odd we must have Fi odd as well. t
u

Lemma 7. Let (K, ΣK ) be the graph given in Definition 2 and let F1 , F2 , F3

be the paths given in Lemma 6. Then F1 , F2 , F3 all have an internal vertex in
common with (K, ΣK ).

Proof. Suppose for a contradiction this is not the case and we have Fi with
no internal vertices in common with (K, ΣK ), see Fig. 6. Consider the graph
obtained from (H, ΣH ) by deleting ē = (tRB , t0RB ) and all edges which are not
f5 :
edges of (K, ΣK ) or edges of Fi . The following sequence of operations yields K

1. relabel edges in δ({q}),

2. if q 0 = vRG then contract CR −e(vRG , vRB ) otherwise contract PB0 (q 0 , vRB ),
3. relabel edges in δ({q}), δ({w1 , w2 }),
4. contract PB0 (q, vGB
0
) and CB −e(t, vBR ),
5. replace odd paths by odd edges, see Remark 7.
 A Characterization of Weakly Bipartite Graphs 21

t RB q
Fi
odd
e
t’RB
CR
vRB vRG = q’ P’B

w1 odd w2
odd

vBR v’GB
CB CG

Fig. 6. Lemma 7. We represent the case where q 0 = vRG only.

f5 as a proper minor, a contradiction since (G, Σ) is

Hence (G, Σ) contains K
minimally non weakly bipartite. t
u

Let (H̄, ΣH̄ ) be the graph obtained by deleting from (H, ΣH ) all the edges
which are not edges of CR , CB , CG and not edges of PR0 , PB0 and PG0 . Because of
Lemma 7 we can define fi , for i = 1, 2, 3, to be the first internal vertex of Fi ,
starting from tRB , which is also a vertex of (H̄, ΣH̄ ). By symmetry (see Fig. 4)
there is a vertex a vertex t0RG of PG0 (tRG , vRG ) which is incident to tRG and there
are odd paths F10 , F20 , F30 between tRG and t0RG . As previously we can define fi0 ,
for i = 1, 2, 3, to be the first internal vertex of Fi0 , starting from tRG , which is
also a vertex of (H̄, ΣH̄ ).
The remainder of the proof is a case analysis which shows that for each
possible set of vertices f1 , f2 , f3 and f10 , f20 , f30 the graph (H, ΣH ) contains a
f5 minor. In order to prove Lemma 5 and to make the case analysis tractable
K
we first establish general results for labeled graphs with properties (P1) and (P2).

Acknowledgments. I am most indebted to Prof. Gérard Cornuéjols and Prof.

François Margot for their help.

References

1. F. Barahona. On the complexity of max cut. Rapport de Recherche No. 186,

Mathematiques Appliqués et Informatiques, Université Scientifique et Medicale
de Grenoble, France, 1980.
2. F. Barahona. The max cut problem in graphs not contractible to K5 . Oper. Res.
Lett., 2:107–111, 1983.
22 Bertrand Guenin

3. W. G. Bridges and H. J. Ryser. Combinatorial designs and related systems. J.

Algebra, 13:432–446, 1969.
4. G. Cornuéjols and B. Novick. Ideal 0, 1 matrices. J. Comb. Theory Ser. B, 60:145–
157, 1994.
5. J. Fonlupt, A. R. Mahjoub, and J. P. Uhry. Composition of graphs and the bipartite
subgraph polytope. Research Report No. 459, Laboratoire ARTEMIS (IMAG),
Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, 1984.
6. A. M. H. Gerards. Graphs and Polyhedra: Binary Spaces and Cutting Planes. PhD
thesis, Tilburg University, 1988.
7. A. M. H. Gerards. Multi-commodity flows and polyhedra. CWI Quarterly, 6(3),
1993.
8. M. Grötschel and W. R. Pulleyblank. Weakly bipartite graphs and the max-cut
problem. Operations Research Letters, 1:23–27, 1981.
9. B. Guenin. A characterization of weakly bipartite graphs. Working paper, GSIA,
Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 1997.
10. R. M. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In R. E. Miller and J. W.
Thatcher, editors, Complexity of Computer Computations, pages 85–103. Plenum
Press, New York, 1972.
11. A. Lehman. A solution of the Shannon switching game. J. SIAM, 12(4):687–725,
1964.
12. A. Lehman. On the width-length inequality, mimeographic notes. Mathematical
Programming, 17:403–417, 1979.
13. A. Lehman. On the width-length inequality and degenerate projective planes. In
W. Cook and P.D. Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS Series
in Discrete Math. and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 1, pages 101–105, 1990.
14. C. Luetolf and F. Margot. A catalog of minimally nonideal matrices. Mathematical
Methods of Operations Research, 1998. To appear.
15. B. Novick and A. Sebö. On Combinatorial Properties of Binary Spaces. IPCO
Proceedings, 1995.
16. M. W. Padberg. Lehman’s forbidden minor characterization of ideal 0−1 matrices.
Discrete Math. 111:409–420, 1993.
17. P. D. Seymour. The forbidden minors of binary clutters. J. of Combinatorial Theory
B, 22:356–360, 1976.
18. P. D. Seymour. The matroids with the max-flow min-cut property. J. Comb. Theory
Ser. B, 23:189–222, 1977.
19. P. D. Seymour. Matroids and multicommodity flows. European J. of Combina-
torics, 257–290, 1981.
20. P. D. Seymour. On Lehman’s width-length characterization. In W. Cook, and P.
D. Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS Series in Discrete Math.
and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 1, pages 107–117, 1990.
 Bipartite Designs

Grigor Gasparyan

Yerevan State University

Yerevan-49, Armenia
Grisha@@ysu.am

Abstract. We investigate the solution set of the following matrix equa-

tion: AT B = J + diag(d), where A and B are n × n {0, 1} matrices, J is
the matrix with all entries equal one and d is a full support vector. We
prove that in some special cases (such as: both Ad−1 and Bd−1 have
full supports, where d−1 = (d−1 −1 T
1 , . . . , dn ) ; both A and B have constant
−1
column sums; d · 1 6= −1, and A has constant row sum etc.) these so-
lutions have strong structural properties. We show how the results relate
to design theory, and then apply the results to derive sharper charac-
terizations of (α, ω)-graphs. We also deduce consequences for ”minimal”
polyhedra with {0, 1} vertices having non-{0, 1} constraints, and ”mini-
mal” polyhedra with {0, 1} constraints having non-{0, 1} vertices.

1 Introduction
Suppose we are given two n × n {0, 1} matrices A and B, and a full support
vector d. Let us call the pair of matrices (A, B) a (bipartite) d-design if
AT B = J + diag(d),
where J is the matrix filled with ones. It seems difficult to say anything about
the structure of the matrices A and B in such a general setting. But if d > 0
then a surprising result of Lehman [7] asserts that either
 
01
A=B∼ = DPP ≡
1I
(then we call the pair (A, B) a DPP-design), or for some r and s:
AJ = JA = rJ; BJ = JB = sJ; AT B = BAT = J + (rs − n)I
(then we call the pair (A, B) an (r, s)-design). This result generalizes the earlier
results of de Bruijn and Erdős [2] and Ryser [12], and it is one of the main
arguments in the proof of Lehman’s theorem on minimally non-ideal polyhedra
[8].
In this paper we would like to investigate the d-designs a bit more generally.
Our main goal is to find sufficient conditions which force a d-design to become
an (r, s)-design. The following theorem summarizes our results in that direction:

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 23–36, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
24 Grigor Gasparyan

Theorem 1. Let (A, B) be a d-design. Then:

1. If n > 3 and both Ad−1 and Bd−1 are full support vectors, then (A, B)
either is an (r, s)-design or a DPP-design;
2. If AJ = rJ and d−1 · 1 6= −1, then (A, B) either is an (r, s)-design or r = 2
(and we characterize all the possible such designs);
3. If A and B have constant column sums, then (A, B) is an (r, s)-design.
Our proof (see Section 7) uses widely the ideas of Lehman [8], Padberg [10],
Seymour [15] and Sebő [14]. In Sections 4 and 5 we state and prove the two
main ingredients of the proof: de Bruijn and Erdős Lemma [2] and a lemma
from matrix theory, which contains, as a special case, our key argument from
linear algebra due to Ryser [12], Lehman [7] and Padberg [10]. In Section 6 we
discuss the applications of the lemma to the classical design theory. In Section
8 we apply Theorem 1 to get some new characterizations for (α, ω)-graphs. In
Section 9 we use Theorem 1 to characterize fractional vertices and facets of
certain types of minimally non-{0, 1} polyhedra. Our characterizations imply
Lehman’s theorem on minimally non-ideal polyhedra [8], Padberg’s theorem on
minimally imperfect polytopes [11] and the part of Sebő [14], which correspond
to nonsingular matrix equations. Matrix generalization of the singular case is
going to be considered in the forthcoming paper [5]. In Sections 2 and 3 we give
some preliminaries and discuss some basic examples.

2 Notations and Terminology

The following conventions and terminology is used throughout this article. We
use lower case boldface letters to name vectors and upper case letters to name
matrices. In particular, 1 and 0 denote vector of all one and the zero vector,
respectively, and I and J denote the identity matrix and the all one matrix of
suitable size. ei denotes the ith unite vector and eij denotes the (i, j)th element
of I. For a vector x, xi is its ith coordinate. Similarly, if A is a matrix then
aij denotes its (i, j)th element, ai. denotes its ith row and a.j denotes its jth
column. Also, diag(d) denotes the diagonal matrix made up of the vector d, and
d−1 = (d−1 −1 T
1 , . . . , dn ) .
We will not distinguish the matrix from the ordered set of its columns. A
matrix with {0, 1} entries we call a {0, 1} matrix and a linear constraint we call
a {0, 1} constraint if it has {0, 1} coefficients and {0, 1} RHS. A ∼ = B means that
A can be obtained from B after permutation of its columns and rows.
If x = (x1 , . . . , xn ), then x/i := (x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ) and if A is a
{0, 1} matrix, then

A/i := {a.j /i : for each j such that aij = 0}.

The dot product of column (row) vectors a and b is a · b := aT b (a · b := abT ).

If A is a set system, then A denotes its (point-set) incidence matrix (and vice
versa), and AT denotes its dual set system, i.e. the (point -set) incidence matrix
of AT is congruent to AT .
 Bipartite Designs 25

A pairwize balanced design (with index λ) is a pair (V, B) where V is a set

(the point set) and B is a family of subsets of V ( the block set) such that any
pair of points is in precisely λ blocks. A square design is a pairwize balanced
design with equal number of points and blocks. A symmetric design is a square
design with blocks of constant size. A projective plane is a symmetric design
with index 1. If  
∼ 01
A= ≡ DPP,
1I
then A is called a degenerated projective plane.
Let A be an n × n {0, 1} matrix. G(A) denotes a graph, vertices of which are
the columns of A and two vertices are adjacent iff the dot product of the corre-
sponding columns is not zero. We say that A is connected if G(A) is connected.
If I and J are sets of indices, then A[I; J ] denotes the submatrix of A
induced by the rows I and columns J .

Definition 1. We say that A is r-uniform (r-regular) if JA = rJ(AJ = rJ).

We say that A is totally r-regular if JA = AJ = rJ.

Definition 2. We say that an n×n {0, 1} matrix A is a DE-matrix (de Bruijn-

Erdős’s matrix) if for each pair i and j with aij = 0, the number of zeros in the
ith row is equal to the number of zeros in the jth column.

Pn
Definition 3. Let (A, B) be a d-design. If 1 + i=1 d−1 i = 0 then we call such a
design singular. The ith row of A (B) we call a d-row if ai. d−1 = 0 (bi. d−1 = 0).

Let P be a polyhedron. We say that P is vertex {0, 1} if all its vertices are
{0, 1} vectors. We say that P is facet {0, 1} if it can be given with the help
of {0, 1} constraints. We call P a {0, 1}-polyhedron if it is both vertex {0, 1}
and facet {0, 1}. P/j denotes the orthogonal projection of P on the hyperplane
xj = 0, and P \j denotes the intersection of P with the hyperplane xj = 0. The
first operation is called contraction and the second one deletion of the coordinate
j. A polyhedron P 0 is called a minor of P if it can be obtained from P by
successively deletion or contraction one or several coordinates.
For an m × n {0, 1} matrix A, we denote by P≤ (A) = {x ∈ Rn : Ax ≤
1; x ≥ 0} the set packing polytope (SP-polytope) and by P≥ (A) = {x ∈ Rn :
Ax ≥ 1; x ≥ 0} the set covering polyhedron (SC-polyhedron) associated with A.
A {0, 1} SP-polytope is called perfect, and a {0, 1} SC-polyhedron is called
ideal. A SP-polytope P is called minimally imperfect if it is not perfect, but all
its minors are perfect. A minimally non-ideal polyhedron is defined similarly.
It is easy to see that P≥ (DPP) is a minimally non-ideal polyhedron.
For more information on polyhedral combinatorics we refer to Schrijver [13].
If G = (V, E) is a graph, then n = n(G) denotes the number of vertices of G;
ω = ω(G) denotes the cardinality of a maximum clique of G; α = α(G) denotes
the cardinality of a maximum stable set; and χ = χ(G) denotes the chromatic
number of G. A k-clique or k-stable set will mean a clique or stable set of size
26 Grigor Gasparyan

k. A graph G is called perfect if χ(H) = ω(H) for every induced subgraph H of

G. A graph G is called minimal imperfect if it is not perfect, but all its proper
induced subgraphs are perfect. G is called an (α, ω)-graph (or partitionable), if
n = αω +1, and V (G)\v can be partitioned both into ω-cliques and into α-stable
sets, for every v ∈ V (G) (here we assume that the empty graph and the clique
are (α, ω)-graphs). Lovász [9] proved the following important theorem:

Theorem 2. If G is minimal imperfect, then it is an (α, ω)-graph.

Theorem 2 provides the only known coNP characterization of perfectness,

and it is used by Padberg[11] to show further properties of minimal imperfect
graphs. For more on (α, ω)-graphs we refer to Chvátal et al. [3].

3 Constructions Associated with Bipartite d-Designs:

Some Basic Examples

There are several ways to associate a combinatorial structure to a d-design (A, B).
A straightforward way to do it is to take two set systems A = {A1 , . . . , An } and
B = {B1 , . . . , Bn } on some ground set V = {v1 , . . . , vn } such that the matri-
ces A and B are (point-set) incidence matrices of A and B, respectively. Then
the pair of set systems (A, B) have the following property: for each 1 ≤ i, j ≤
n, |Ai ∩ Bj | = 1 + eij di . We call such a pair of set systems a d-design. In par-
ticular, it was proved by Padberg [11] (see also [3]) that the pair of set systems
of ω-cliques and α-stable sets of an (α, ω)-graph is an (α, ω)-design. Another
interesting special case is when A = B. It was proved by de Bruijn and Erdős
[2] that (A, A) is a d-design iff AT is a (may by degenerated) projective plane.
A d-design can be characterized with the help of just one set system AT .
Then the ith column of B can be interpreted as an incidence vector of a set
subsystem of AT , which contains all the points except Ai by exactly once and Ai
by exactly di +1 times. We call such a set system a d-hypergraph. A d-hypergraph
corresponding to a (r, s)-design we call an (r, s)-hypergraph. In particular, −1-
hypergraph is a hypergraph having equal number of edges and vertices such
that for each vertex v, V \v can be partitioned with the help of its edges. We
will show that a −1-hypergraph is an (α, ω)-hypergraph, which corresponds to
the ω-clique hypergraph of some (α, ω)-graph.
An interesting special case is when AT is 2-uniform, i.e. it is a graph. A
nonsingular d-design (A, B) we call a G-design, if A is 2-regular. A graph G we
call a d-graph if there exists a G-design (A, B) such that A is the (edge-vertex)
incidence matrix of G. If G is an odd cycle, then we call (A, B) a C-design.
Let G be a d-graph. Then it is not difficult to show that, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
di = ±1 (see Lemma 9). Denote by G\v (G/v) the graph obtained from G after
deleting (duplicating) the vertex v. It is easy to see that, for each vertex v, either
G\v or G/v has a perfect matching. Call such a graph matchable. The following
lemma characterizes d-graphs:
 Bipartite Designs 27

Lemma 1. G is a d-graph iff it is a connected graph with odd number of vertices

and exactly one odd cycle such that the distance from each not degree two vertex
to the cycle is even.

Proof. We will prove by induction on the number of vertices. Suppose the theo-
rem is true for the graphs having less than n vertices and G is a d -graph with n
vertices. Then, clearly, G is connected, has equal number of edges and vertices,
and odd number of vertices. Hence G has exactly one cycle, which is odd, as the
(edge-vertex) incidence matrix of G is nonsingular. Furthermore, if v1 is a leaf of
G, and v1 v2 ∈ E(G), then G\{v1 ; v2 } is matchable. Indeed, for each v 6= v1 , v2 ,
the perfect matching of G\v (or G/v) must contain the edge v1 v2 . Hence after
deleting the edge v1 v2 from the matching, it will be a perfect matching for G\v
(or G/v). It follows that either v2 has degree 2, or it is a vertex of the cycle and
has degree 3.
Let v3 6= v1 such that v3 v2 ∈ E. Now if v2 has degree two then G\{v1 ; v2 } is a
d-graph. Hence by induction hypothesis, the distance from each not degree two
vertex v 6= v1 ; v3 to the cycle is even. If v1 is the unique leaf of G nonadjacent
to the cycle, then the degree of v3 in G\{v1 ; v2 } is one, hence the distances from
v1 and v3 to the cycle are also even. If v4 6= v1 is a leaf nonadjacent to the cycle
and v4 v5 ∈ E then, by induction hypothesis, G\{v4 ; v5 } and G\{v1 ; v2 ; v4 ; v5 }
are a d-graphs, hence the distances from v1 and v3 to the cycle are again even.
If G has no leafs then it is an odd cycle and we have nothing to prove. Suppose
G has leafs, but all of them are adjacent to the cycle. Then it is easy to see that G
has exactly two leafs, the neighbors of which are adjacent vertices in the cycle.
Denote by V1 the set of vertices of G such that G\v has a perfect matching
and by V2 = V \V1 . Then it is easy to see that G/v has a perfect matching iff
v ∈ V2 and |V1 | = |V2 | + 1. Now if (A, B) is a d-design corresponding to G, then
d−1 · 1 =|V1 | − |V2 | = −1, a contradiction.
The sufficiency of the condition is proved by similar arguments.

It is possible to associate a full dimensional simplex to a nonsingular d-design

as follows. Denote by y the unique solution of B T y = 1, and by P (A, B) =
convex hull {a.1 , . . . , a.n , y}. The facets of P (A, B) containing the vertex y are
b.j · x = 1. Hence P (A, B) has at most one non-{0, 1} facet, and at most one
non-{0, 1} vertex, which is not in that facet.
Conversely, suppose y is a non-degenerated vertex of a polyhedron P such
that all its neighbors and the facets containing it are {0, 1}. Then we can asso-
ciate a d-design (A, B) with y taking as columns of A the neighboring vertices
of y and as columns of B the supports of the facets of P containing y such that
the vertex corresponding to the ith column of A is not in the facet corresponding
to the ith column of B. We call such a vertex a d-design vertex. Similarly, if F
is a simplicial facet such that all its vertices and neighboring facets are {0, 1},
then we associate a d-design with F and call it a d-design facet.
28 Grigor Gasparyan

4 De Bruijn-Erdős’s Matrices
In this section we summarize the information about DE-matrices, which we use
in this paper.

Lemma 2 ([2]). Let A be an n × m {0, 1} matrix without all one columns. If

n ≤ m and for each pair i and j with aij = 0, the number of zeros in the ith
row is less or equal than the number of zeros in the jth column, then A is a
DE-matrix.

Proof. Denote by wj = 1/(n − 1 · a.j ) and w = (w1 , . . . , wm )T . Then

X 1 X 1
(1T − ai. )w = ≤ = 1,
j
n − 1 · a.j j
m − ai. 1
aij =0 aij =0

and m = 1T (J −A)w ≤n. Hence we should have equality throughout, i.e. m = n,

and if aij = 0 then ai. 1 = 1 · a.j .

Lemma 3. If A is a DE-matrix, then it has an equal number of all one rows

and columns.

Proof. Delete all one rows and columns and apply Lemma 2.

Lemma 4. Let A and A0 be DE-matrices, where a.1 6=a0 .1 and a.j = a0 .j , 1 <
j ≤ n. Then either A or A0 has an all one column.

Proof. Indeed, if say ai1 = 1 and a0i1 = 0, then ai. = 1T . Hence by Lemma 3, A
has also an all 1 column.

Lemma 5. If B is a DE-matrix and J −B is connected, then B is totally regular.

Proof. If (1 − b.i ) · (1 − b.j ) 6= 0, then there exists an index k such that bki =
bkj = 0, hence 1 · b.j = bk. 1 = 1 · b.i . As J − B is connected, it follows that
JB = sJ, for some integer s. Since B has no all 1 column, and it is a DE-matrix,
it cannot have an all 1 row. Hence B is totally s-regular.

The following result, which has been extracted by Sebő [14] from Lehman [8]
(see also [15] and [10]), is one of our key arguments in the proof of Theorem 13.
Denote by A∗ the set of all the solutions of AT x = 1, and by A01 the set of all
{0, 1} vectors in A∗ .

Theorem 3 ([8,14]). Let A be a nonsingular {0, 1} matrix without an all one

column. If the vector x ∈ A∗ has full support, and for each i,

x/i ∈ linear hull (A/i)01 ,

then A is a DE-matrix.
 Bipartite Designs 29

Proof. Let Bi ⊆ (A/i)01 be a matrix such that the equation Bi y = x/i has a
unique solution. As x/i has full support, Bi has no all zero row.
Suppose aij = 0, L = {l : alj = 1} and Bi0 is the submatrix of Bi induced by
the rows L. Then all the columns of Bi0 have exactly one 1. Thus we have:

ai. 1 =n − rk(A/i) ≥ rk(Bi ) = 1T Bi0 1 ≥ 1 · a.j ,

and we are done by Lemma 2.

The next important result of Lehman [8] will be used to prove Theorem 12.

Theorem 4 ([8]). Let A be an n × m {0, 1} matrix having full row rank and
no all one or all zero or equal columns. If the vector x ∈ A∗ has full support,
and for each i, affine hull (A/i) can be given with the help of {0, 1} constraints,
then A is a DE-matrix.

Proof. Suppose A0 = {a.1 , . . . , a.n } is nonsingular. Then for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n :

0
x/i ∈ (A/i)∗ ⊆ linear hull (A/i)01 ⊆ linear hull (A /i)01 ,

hence by Theorem 3, A0 is a DE-matrix.

If n < m, then there must exist i ≤ n and j > n such that A00 = {A0 ∪a.j }\a.i
is again nonsingular. But then A00 also is a DE-matrix and by Lemma 4, A has
an all 1 column, a contradiction.

5 A Lemma on Matrices

The following lemma contains our main argument from linear algebra. Though
we need just a very special case of the lemma, we would like to state it in general
form, for the sake of possible other applications.
Suppose A, B, D ∈ R n×n ; U, W ∈ R n×m , where D is nonsingular and U
(or W ) has full column rank.

Lemma 6. det(D + U W T ) 6= 0 iff det ∆ 6= 0 and then

AT B = D + U W T ⇔ BD−1 AT = I + X∆−1 Y T ,

where ∆ = W T D−1 U + I; X = BD−1 U ; Y T = W T D−1 AT .

Proof. Denote by
     
∆T U T −∆ −W T −∆ 0
F = ;E = ; D0 = ;
Y A X B 0 D

Now if AT B = D + U W T , then AT X = U ∆; Y T B = ∆W T ; and

Y T X = W T D−1 AT BD−1 U = W T D−1 (D + U W T )D−1 U = ∆2 − ∆.

30 Grigor Gasparyan

It follows that AT B = D + U W T ⇔ F T E = D0 . As AT BD−1 U = U ∆, and U

has full column rank, the singularity of ∆ implies the singularity of either A or
B. If ∆ is nonsingular, then both F and E are nonsingular, and

F T E = D0 ⇔ ED0−1 F T = I ⇔ BD−1 AT = I + X∆−1 Y T .

Since AT X∆−1 = U and ∆−1 Y T B = W T , A and B are also nonsingular.

Notice that if the inverse of the matrix D is easy to compute, then Lemma
6 reduces the singularity test of the n × n matrix D + U W T to the singularity
test of an m × m matrix ∆.
Taking m = 1, U = W = 1 and D = diag(d) we get:

Lemma 7 ([7,10]). If (A, B) is a nonsindular d-design, then BD−1 AT = I +

δ −1 xyT , where x = Bd−1 , y = Ad−1 , and δ = d−1 · 1 + 1.

It follows that Pn if ai. is a−1d-row of a nonsingular d-design (A, B), then for
each k ≤ n, j=1 aij bkj dj = eik . On the other hand, if for some i and
Pn −1
k, j=1 a ij b kj dj = e ik , or, in particular, i 6= k and ai. · bk. = 0, then ei-
ther ai. or bk. is a d-row.
The following simple lemma will also be useful in the sequel.

Lemma 8. If (A, B) is a d-design, then the columns of A and B are affinely

independent. Moreover, if B is singular then Bd−1 = 0.

6 Applications to the Block Design

Lemma 6 has some important consequences in the classical design theory. In
particular, it implies that if d has full support, then λJ + diag(d) is nonsingular
iff λd−1 · 1 6= −1. This simple fact, which can be easily proved directly, was used
by Bose [1] (see also [12]) to prove the well-known Fisher’s inequality asserting
that in a pairwize balanced design the number of blocks is greater or equal than
the number of points.

Theorem 5 ([12]). [1] Let A = {A1 , . . . , Am }, where A1 , . . . , Am are distinct

subsets of a set of n elements such that for each i 6= j, 1 ≤ |Ai ∩ Aj | = λ < n.
Then m ≤ n.

Proof. If one of the sets has λ elements, then all the other sets contain this one
and are disjoint otherwise. It follows that m ≤ n. Hence we may suppose that
di = |Ai | − λ > 0. Then AT A =diag(d) + λJ. Since λd−1 · 1 6= −1, m ≤ rk
A ≤ n.

Here is another useful consequence of Lemma 6:

Corollary 1. Let A, B ∈ R n×n . If AT B = λJ + (k − λ)I, where λ(1 − n) 6= k,

then
AT B = BAT ⇔ JB = rJ; JA = sJ ⇔ BJ = rJ; AJ = sJ.
 Bipartite Designs 31

Proof. By Lemma 6 we have:

BAT = λ(λ(n − 1) + k)−1 BJAT + (k − λ)I.

Hence AT B = BAT ⇔ BJAT = tJ, for some t ⇔ BJ = rJ; AJ = sJ, where

rs = λ(n − 1) + k ⇔ JB = rJ; JA = sJ, where rs = λ(n − 1) + k (as AT B =
λJ + (k − λ)I).

Thus, we get the following well-known result of Ryser [12]:

Theorem 6 ([12]). The dual of a symmetric design is again a symmetric de-

sign.

Proof. Suppose AAT = (k − λ)I + λJ. Then JA = kJ and by Corollary 1,

AJ = kJ and AT A = AAT = (k − λ)I + λJ.

The following interesting fact also can be easily deduced from Lemma 6.

Theorem 7 ([12]). In any square design, there exists a set incident to each
given pair of points.

7 Some Sufficient Conditions

The following theorem completely characterizes the d-designs (A, B), where J −
A is disconnected (the proof is omitted).

Theorem 8. Let (A, B) be a d-design. If it is not a DPP-design and J − A is

disconnected, then the following cases are possible:

1.    
100 100
(A, B) ∼
=  1 1 0  ,  1 0 1  ;
101 110
2.    
1 eT1 1 0
(A, B) ∼
= , ;
1J −I e1 I
3.    
0 1 1 101
(A, B) ∼
=  1 J − I J  ,  0 I 0  ;
1 0 I 00I
4.    
1011 1100
 0 0 1 1   0 0 0 1 
(A, B) ∼
=    
 1 1 0 0  ,  1 0 0 0  .
1101 0011
32 Grigor Gasparyan

Theorem 9. If (A, B) is a d-design without d-rows, and n > 3, then either

(A, B) is an (r, s)-design or it is a DPP-design.
Proof. As both Ad−1 and Bd−1 have full supports, it follows from Lemma 8
that (A, B) is nonsingular. If either A or B has an all one column, then it is not
difficult to show that n ≤ 3. So suppose that A and B have no all one columns.
Denote by Lj = {l : alj = 1}; K i = {k : aik = 1}; and B ij = B[Lj ; K i ]. Let
aij = 0. As a.j · b.k = 1, for each k ∈ K i , and ai. · bl. ≥ 1, for each l ∈ Lj
(by Lemma 7), it follows that each row of B ij contains at least one 1 and each
column of B ij contains exactly one 1. Hence |K i |≥| Lj |, for each pair i and j
such that aij = 0. Therefore, by Lemma 2, |K i |=| Lj |, B ij is a permutation
matrix, and both A and B are DE-matrices. Moreover, if aij = 0 and alj = 1,
then ai. · bl. = 1. Suppose now that ai. ≥ al. . As by Lemma 3, A has no all one
row, there exists a j such that aij = alj = 0. Since A is a DE-matrix, ai. = al. ,
a contradiction. Hence ai. · bl. = 1, for each i 6= l. That is BAT = J + diag(d0 ),
for some vector d0 .
Now, it follows from Theorem 8 and Lemma 5 that either (A, B) is a DPP-
design, or both A and B are totally regular. Suppose A is totally r-regular and
B is totally s-regular. Then rsJ = JAT B = nJ + Jdiag(d), hence d1 = d2 · · · =
dn = rs − n, and AT B = J + (sr − n)I. Similarly, BAT = J + (sr − n)I = AT B.
Notice that in the proof we are using just a very special case of Theorem 8
(when both A and B are DE-matrices), which can be easily proved directly.
As a consequence we get the important result of Lehman on the structure of
square minimally non-ideal matrices.
Corollary 2 ([7]). If (A, B) is a d-design, where d ≥ 1, then either (A, B) is
an (r, s)-design or it is a DPP-design.
Here are two other useful consequences:
Corollary 3. If AT B = J −I, then (A, B) is an (α, ω)-design, where n = αω+1.

Corollary 4. If (A, B) is a d-design, where A and B both are uniform, then it

is an (r, s)-design.
Proof. If A is uniform, then the solution of AT x = 1 has full support. Hence
Bd−1 also has full support and B has no d-rows.
For our next result we need the following nice lemma of Sebő [14]:
Lemma 9 ([14]). If (A, B) is a d-design, where A is r-regular, then, for each
j ≤ n, dj ≡ −n (mod r).
The following theorem characterizes the nonsingular d-designs (A, B), where
A is regular:
Theorem 10. If (A, B) is a nonsingular d-design, where A is r-regular, then
either it is an (r, s)-design or a G-design.
 Bipartite Designs 33

Proof. Suppose (A, B) is not an (r, s)-design. Then by Lemma 9 and Theorem
9, for each j, either dj = −1 or dj ≥ r − 1, and by Theorem 9, either A or B
has a d-row. Consider two cases:
Case 1: a1. is a d-row. Now, it follows from Lemma 7 that for each i 6= 1,
either a1. · bi. = 0 or a1. ≤ bi. . As B has no equal columns, it follows that r = 2,
dj = ±1, hence (A, B) is a G-design.
Case 2: b1. is a d-row having maximum number of ones.
Suppose b1. = (1 . . . 1, 0 . . . 0), where b1. 1 = k. Then we have that for each
i 6= 1, either ai. · b1. = 0 or ai. · b1. = r. Moreover, a1. · b1. = r − 1. It follows
that r ≤ k < n. Suppose ai. · b1. = r if 1 < i ≤ l, ai. · b1. = 0 if i ≥ l, and
a1k+1 = 1. Denote by A1 = A[l+1 . . . n; k+1 . . . n], B1 = B[l+1 . . . n; k+1 . . . n].
As A isPnonsingular, l P ≥ k. On the other hand, AT1 B1 =diag(dk+1 . . . dn ) + J,
where j=k+1 dj = j=1 d−1
−1
n n
j 6= −1, hence k ≥ l. It follows that k = l and
A1 is nonsingular. Hence the equation AT1 x = 1 − e1 has a unique solution.
As all the columns of B 0 = B[k + 1 . . . n; 1 . . . k] satisfy that equation, B 0 has
an all
Pnone row. Suppose bp. is the row of B corresponding to that row of B 0 .
−1
As j=1 a2j bpj dj = 0, bp. is a d-row having more ones than b1. , which is a
contradiction.

Notice that only Lemma 8 and Theorem 8 yet contain some information
about the structure of singular designs. The characterization of singular designs
seems to be a more difficult problem, as Lemma 6 cannot be applied directly.
In particular, it would be interesting to check whether there exist singular d-
designs (A, B), where A is r-regular, and r > 2. A partial answer to this question
is given in [14]. Here is another result on that direction. The prove is similar to
the proof of Theorem 10.

Lemma 10. If (A, B) is a d-design, where A is r-regular and r > 1, then A is

connected.

8 Sharper Characterizations for (α, ω)-Graphs

In this section we apply Theorem 9 to get some new, smaller sets of conditions
characterizing (α, ω)-graphs. It is not difficult to deduce from Theorem 9 (see
[3]) that G is an (α, ω)-graph iff it has a family of n cliques A and a family
of n stable sets B such that AT B = J − I. The following reformulation of this
statement is a strengthening of a similar result of Hougardy and Gurvich [6].

Corollary 5. If G has a family of ≤ n cliques covering all the edges of G such

that for each vertex v ∈ V, G\v can be partitioned with the help of these cliques,
then G is an (α, ω)-graph.

The following theorem provides another characterization of (α, ω)-graphs.

Theorem 11 ([4]). G is an (α, ω)-graph iff it has an α-stable set A1 such that
for each vertex s ∈ A1 and stable set S ⊂ V ; χ(G\s) = ω = ω(G\S).
34 Grigor Gasparyan

Proof. Let A := {A1 , A2 , . . . , Aαω+1 }, where A1 is the stable set occurring in

the theorem; fixing an ω-coloration of each of the α graphs G\s (s ∈ A1 ),
A2 , . . . , Aαω+1 denote the stable sets occurring as a color-class in one of these
colorations. Define B := {B1 , B2 , . . . , Bαω+1 }, where Bi is an ω-clique of G\Ai .
Now it is straightforward to check that AT B = J − I ( see [4] ). Since G\s
(s ∈ A1 ) has a partition into ω stable sets, n ≤ αω + 1 is obvious. On the other
hand, A has full column rank, and n ≥ αω + 1 follows. Thus, n = αω + 1 and
(A, B) is an (α, ω)-design. The fact that B is the set of all ω-cliques of G follows
now by noticing that an arbitrary ω-clique Q is disjoint from exactly one element
Ai ∈ A: its incidence vector is the unique solution of the equation AT x = 1 − ei .
On the other hand, one of the columns of B also satisfies this equation. In the
same way A is the set of all α-stable sets.

Notice that Theorem 11 immediately implies Theorem 2 and all the proper-
ties of minimal imperfect graphs shown by Padberg [11].
From the proof of Theorem 11 we get:

Corollary 6 ([16]). Let G be a graph and S0 be an α-stable set in G. If n =

αω+1and for each vertex s ∈ S0 and α-stable set S ⊂ V ; χ(G\s) = ω = ω(G\S),
then G is an (α, ω)-graph.

Here is another interesting consequence of Theorem 9:

Corollary 7 ([16]). G is partitionable iff for some p, q ≥ 2 such that n ≤ pq+1,

G has a family of n stable sets, A, such that each vertex is in at least p of the
sets A; and A has no sets intersecting every q-clique.

Proof. Let B be the matrix the ith column of which is the incidence vector of a
q-clique disjoint from the stable set corresponding to the ith column of A. Then
1T AT B1 ≥ pqn, hence n = pq + 1 and AT B = J − I.

9 Design Vertices and Facets in Polyhedra

The following two theorems contain both Padberg’s theorem on minimally im-
perfect polytopes [11] and Lehman’s theorem on minimally non-ideal polyhedra
[8], and the second one also contains the part of Sebő [14], which corresponds to
nonsingular matrix equations. In the proofs we mainly use the ideas of Lehman
[8], Padberg [10], several results on d-designs of the present work and the follow-
ing simple but surprising fact communicated by Sebő [14]: if P is a facet {0, 1}
polyhedron such that, for each i ≤ n, both P \i and P/i are {0, 1}-polyhedra then
P is full dimensional.

Theorem 12. Suppose P is a full dimensional, vertex {0, 1} polyhedron such

that, for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, both P \i and P/i are {0, 1}-polyhedra, and F is a
non-{0, 1} facet of P . Then F is a d-design facet. Moreover, if we denote by
 Bipartite Designs 35

(A, B) the d-design corresponding to F , then the following cases are possible:
1. Either (A, B) is a DPP-design or
   
∼ 01 11
(A, B) = , ;
1I 0I

and then F is the unique non-{0, 1} facet of P .

2. A is totally regular and P has at most two non-{0, 1} facets. Moreover, if B
is nonsingular, then F either is an (r, s)-design facet or a C-design facet.

Proof. Let F = {x ∈ P : a · x = 1}. As for each i, P/i is a {0, 1}-polyhedron, it

follows that a has full support. Denote by A the matrix, the ith column of which
is the ith vertex of F . Since a has full support, it follows that F is bounded,
A has full row rank and has no all one column. On the other hand, as P \i is a
{0, 1}-polyhedron, it follows that for each i, affine hull (A/i) can be given with
the help of {0, 1}-constraints. Hence by Theorem 4, A is a DE-matrix. Now, it
follows from Lemma 4 that all the neighboring facets of F are {0, 1}. F cannot
have neighboring facets of type xi = 0, for otherwise a1. = eT1 and A = I, which
is impossible. Hence F is a d-design facet.
Thus, by Theorem 8, either A ∼ = DPP or A is totally regular. If A ∼= DPP
then it is not difficult to proof that we have case 1. As P can have at most two
parallel facets, the proof is finished by Theorem 10.

Theorem 13. Let P be a facet {0, 1} polyhedron. If for each i ≤ n, both P \i

and P/i are {0, 1}-polyhedra then either P = P≥ (A), where A ∼ = DPP, or P has
at most two fractional vertices, both of which are (r, s)-design vertices.

Acknowledgments. I am very grateful to András Sebő for several helpful com-

munications, which have been essential in preparing this article, and to Hasmik
Lazaryan for detecting some errors in the preliminary versions.

References
1. R. S. Bose. A note on Fisher’s inequality for balanced incomplete block design.
Ann. Math. Stat., 20:619–620, 1949.
2. N. G. de Bruijn and P. Erdős. On a combinatorial problem. Indag. Math., 10:421–
423, 1948.
3. V. Chvátal, R. L. Graham, A. F. Perold, and S. H. Whitesides. Combinatorial
designs related to the strong perfect graph conjecture. Discrete Math., 26:83–92,
1979.
4. G. S. Gasparyan. Minimal imperfect graphs: A simple approach. Combinatorica,
16(2):209–212, 1996.
5. G. S. Gasparyan and A. Sebő. Matrix equations in polyhedral combinatorics. In
preparation.
6. S. Hougardy and V. Gurvich. Partitionable Graphs. Working paper.
7. A. Lehman. No the width-length inequality. Math. Programming, 17:403–413, 1979.
36 Grigor Gasparyan

8. A. Lehman. The width-lenght inequality and degenerated projective planes. In W.

Cook and P. D. Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS, Vol. 1,
pages 101–105, 1990.
9. L. Lovász, A characterization of perfect graphs. J. of Combin. Theory, 13:95–98,
1972.
10. M. Padberg. Lehman’s forbidden minor characterization of ideal 0–1 matrices.
Discrete Math., 111:409–420, 1993.
11. M. Padberg. Perfect zero-one matrices. Math. Programming, 6:180–196, 1974.
12. H. Ryser. An extension of a theorem of de Bruijn and Erdős on combinatorial
designs. J. Algebra, 10:246–261, 1968.
13. A. Schrijver. Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. Wiley, New York, 1986.
14. A. Sebő. Characterizing noninteger polyhedra with 0–1 constraints. In R. E. Bixby,
E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado, editors, Proceedings of the 6th International
IPCO Conference, LNCS, Vol. 1412, pages 36–51. Springer, 1998. This volume.
15. P. D. Seymour. On Lehman’s width-length characterization. DIMACS, 1:107–117,
1990.
16. F. B. Shepherd. Nearly-perfect matrices. Math. Programming, 64:295–323, 1994.
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1
Constraints

?
András Sebő

CNRS, Laboratoire Leibniz-IMAG, Grenoble, France

http://www-leibniz.imag.fr/DMD/OPTICOMB/Membres/sebo/sebo.html

Abstract. We characterize when the intersection of a set-packing and a

set-covering polyhedron or of their corresponding minors has a noninte-
ger vertex. Our result is a common generalization of Lovász’s characteri-
zation of ‘imperfect’ and Lehman’s characterization of ‘nonideal’ systems
of inequalities, furthermore, it includes new cases in which both types of
inequalities occur and interact in an essential way. The proof specializes
to a conceptually simple and short common proof for the classical cases,
moreover, a typical corollary extracting a new case is the following: if
the intersection of a perfect and an ideal polyhedron has a noninteger
vertex, then they have minors whose intersection’s coefficient matrix is
the incidentce matrix of an odd circuit graph.

1 Introduction

Let A≤ and A≥ be 0–1-matrices (meaning that each entry is 0 or 1) with

n columns. We will study the integrality of the intersection P (A≤ , A≥ ) :=
P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) of the set-packing polytope P ≤ (A≤ ) = {x ∈ IRn : A≤ x ≤
1, x ≥ 0} and the set-covering polyhedron P ≥ (A≥ ) = {x ∈ IRn : A≥ x ≥ 1, x ≥
0}. We will speak about (A≤ , A≥ ) as a system of inequalities, or simply system.
Obviously, one can suppose that both the rows of A≤ and those of A≥ are
incidence (‘characteristic’) vectors of a clutter, that is of a family of sets none
of which contains the other. The sets in the clutters and their 0–1 incidence
vectors will be confused, and with the same abuse of terminology, clutters and
their matrix representations (where the rows are the members of the clutter) will
not be distinguished. If A≤ and A≤ do not have equal rows, that is (explicit)
equalities, we will say that (A≤ , A≥ ) is simple.
The constraints defining P ≤ (A≤ ) will be called of packing type, and those
defining P ≥ (A≥ ) of covering type. A vertex of P (A≤ , A≥ ) can also be classified
to be of packing type, of covering type, or of mixed type, depending on whether
all nonequality constraints containing the vertex are of packing type, of covering
type, or both types occur.
?
Visiting the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 37–52, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
38 András Sebő

The blocker of a clutter A≥ (or the antiblocker of A≤ ) is the set of inclu-

sionwise minimal (resp. maximal) integer vectors in P ≥ (A≥ ) (resp. P ≤ (A≤ ) ).
These are 0–1-vectors and define another clutter.
A polyhedron in this paper is the set of all (real) solutions of a system of
linear inequalities with integer coefficients. A polytope is a bounded polyhedron.
For basic definitions and statements about polyhedra we refer to Schrijver [11],
and we only repeat now shortly the definition of the terms we are using directly.
A face of a polyhedron is a set we get if we replace certain defining inequalities
with the equality so that the resulting polyhedron is nonempty. A polyhedron is
integer if each of its faces contains an integer point, otherwise it is noninteger.
If X ⊆ IRn , we will denote by r(X) the (linear) rank of X, and by dim(X)
the dimension of X, meaning the rank of
the differences of pairs of vectors in
X, that is, dim(X) := r {x − y : x, y ∈ X} .
If P is a polyhedron, then its faces of dimension dim(P ) − 1 are called facets,
and its faces of dimension 0, vertices. All (inclusionwise) minimal faces of P have
the same dimension. We say that P has vertices, if this dimension is 0.
It is easy to see that P (A≤ , A≥ ) has vertices for all A≤ , A≥ . (If a minimal face
is not of dimension 0, it contains an entire line, contradicting some non-negativity
constraint.) So P (A≤ , A≥ ) is integer if and only if it has integer vertices.
A vertex of a full dimensional polyhedron is simplicial , if it is contained in
exactly n facets. A simplicial vertex has n neighbouring vertices. Neighbours
share n − 1 facets.
If A≤ is empty, a combinatorial coNP characterization of the integrality of
P (A≤ , A≥ ) is well-known (Lovász [8], Padberg [9]). If A≥ is empty, a recent
result of Lehman solves the problem (Lehman [6], Seymour [12]). A common
generalization of these could be a too modest goal: if for every i ∈ {1, . . . , n}
either the i-th column of A≤ or that of A≥ is 0, then the nonintegrality of
P (A≤ , A≥ ) can be separated to the two ‘classical’ special cases. Such systems
(A≤ , A≥ ) contain both special cases, but nothing more. There are less trivial
examples where P ≤ (A≤ ) and P ≥ (A≥ ) do not really interact in the sense that
all fractional vertices of P ≤ (A≤ , A≥ ) are vertices of P ≤ (A≤ ) or of P ≥ (A≥ ).
In this work we characterize when the intersection of a set-packing and a set-
covering polyhedron or that of any of their corresponding minors is noninteger.
The results contain the characterizations of perfect and ideal polyhedra and new
cases involving mixed vertices. The special cases are not used and are not treated
separately by the proof: a common proof is provided for them instead.
Graphs G = (V, E) are always undirected, V = V (G) is the vertex-set,
E = E(G) the edge-set; 1 is the all 1 vector of appropriate dimension.
If x ∈ IRn , the projection of x parallel to the i-th coordinate is the vector xi =
(x1 , . . . , xi−1 , xi+1 , . . . , xn ). Let us fix the notation V := {1, . . . , n}. If X ⊆ IRn ,
the projection parallel to the i-th coordinate of the set X is X i := {xi : x ∈ X};
if I ⊆ V , X I is the result of successively projecting parallel to i ∈ I (the order
does not matter).
Let P := P ≤ (A≤ ) or P := P ≥ (A≥ ), and I, J ⊆ V , I ∩ J = ∅. A minor of P
is a polyhedron P \ I/J := (P ∩ {x : xi = 0 if i ∈ I})I∪J . The set I is said to be
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 39

deleted, whereas J is contracted. For set-packing polyhedra the contraction of J

is the same as the deletion of J.
≤ ≥
It is easy to see that P ≤ \ I/J = P ≤ (A0 ), and P ≥ \ I/J = P ≥ (A0 ), where
≤ ≥
A0 , A0 arise from A≤ , resp. A≥ in a simple way: delete the columns indexed by
I, and then delete those rows that are no more maximal, resp. minimal; for A≤
do the same with J; for A≥ delete the columns indexed by J and also delete all
the rows having a 1 in at least one of these columns. Hence minors of set-packing
or set-covering polyhedra are of the same type.
We do not use the terms ‘contraction’ or ‘deletion’ for matrices (or clutters),
because that would be confusing here for several reasons, one of which being that
these operations do not only depend on the matrix (or clutter) itself. But we
≤ ≥
define the minors of the ordered pair (A≤ , A≥ ): (A≤ , A≥ ) \ I/J := (A0 , A0 ),
0≤ 0≥ ≤ 0≤ ≥ 0≥
where I, J, A , A are as defined above. The polyhedra P (A ) and P (A )
will be called corresponding minors of the two polyhedra P ≤ (A0 ≤ ) and P ≥ (A0 ≥ ).
Parallelly, for a clutter (matrix) A and v ∈ V we define the clutter A − v :=
{A ∈ A : v ∈ / A} on V \ {v}.
If P = P ≤ (A≤ ) is integer, then P and A≤ are called perfect, whereas if
P = P ≥ (A≥ ) is integer, P and A≥ are called ideal. All minors of perfect and ideal
matrices are also ideal or perfect respectively. If a matrix is not perfect (not ideal)
but all its proper minors are, then it is called minimal imperfect, or minimal
nonideal respectively. It is easy to see that the family Hnn−1 of the n − 1-tuples
of an n-set is minimal imperfect, and it is also an easy and well-known exercise
to show that matrices not containing such a minor (or equivalently having the
‘dual Helly property’) can be represented as the (inclusionwise) maximal cliques
of a graph. We will call Hnn−1 (n = 3, 4,  . . . , ) minimal nongraph clutters. The
degenerate projective plane clutters Fn = {1, . . . , n − 1}, {1, n}, {2, n}, . . ., {n −
1, n} , (n = 3, 4, . . .) are minimal nonideal.
It is easy to show that the blocker of the blocker is the original clutter. The
antiblocker of the antiblocker of Hnn−1 is not itself, and this is the only exception:
it is another well-known exercise to show that the antiblocker of the antiblocker
of a clutter that has no Hnn−1 minor (dual Helly property), is itself.
A graph G is called perfect or minimal imperfect if its clique-matrix is so. It
is said to be partitionable, if it has n = αω + 1 vertices (α, ω ∈ IN), and for all
v ∈ V (G), G − v can be partitioned both into α cliques and into ω stable-sets.
Lovász [8] proved that minimal imperfect graphs are partitionable and Padberg
[9] proved further properties of partitionable graphs.
Analogous properties have been proved for nondegenerate minimal nonideal
clutters by Lehman [6], from which we extract: a pair of clutters (A, B), where
B is the blocker or the antiblocker of A will be called partitionable, if they
are defined on V := {1, . . . , n}, n = rs − µ + 1, (r, s ∈ IN, µ ∈ ZZ, 0 ≤ µ ≤
min{r, s}), µ 6= 1, and for all v ∈ V there exist sets A1 , . . . , As ∈ A and sets
B1 , . . . , Br ∈ B such that v ∈ A1 , . . . , Aµ , B1 , . . . , Bµ and both {A1 \ v, . . . , Aµ \
v, Aµ+1 , . . . , As } and {B1 \ v, . . . , Bµ \ v, Bµ+1 , . . . , Br } are partitions of V \ {v}.
40 András Sebő

Remark 1. The clique matrix of a partitionable graph is a partitionable clutter

with ω = r, α = s, µ = 0.
Supposing that (A, B) is partitionable, it is easy to see that they are an-
tiblockers of each other if and only if µ = 0, and they are blockers of each other
if and only if µ ≥ 2. Indeed, if (A, B) are partitionable it can be shown (Pad-
berg [9], [10]) that A and B have exactly n members and these can be indexed
A1 , . . . , An , B1 , . . . , Bn so that |Ai ∩ Bj | is 1 if i 6= j and is µ if i = j. These
properties will be proved directly for general ‘minimal noninteger systems’.
We will call A partitionable, if (A, B) is partitionable, where B is the blocker
or the antiblocker of A – we will always make clear which of the two is meant.
Let A be partitionable. Clearly, 1/r1 ∈ P ≤ (A) if µ = 0, and 1/r1 ∈ P ≥ (A)
if µ ≥ 2 (it is actually the unique full support noninteger vertex of P ≤ or P ≥ ,
for minimal nonideal or minimal imperfect polyhedra, it is the unique fractional
vertex). Let us call this the regular vertex of P ≤ (A), or of P ≥ (A). The regular
vertex of Fn and that of Hnn−1 is defined as their unique fractional vertex.
The idea of this work originates in the frustrating similarities between min-
imal imperfect and minimal nonideal matrices and the proofs of the results.
This similarity becomes fascinating when comparing Seymour’s proof [12] of
Lehman’s, and Gasparyan’s direct proof [3] of Lovász’s and Padberg’s theorems.
Despite these similarities, the generalization has to deal with several new
phenomena, for instance P (A≤ , A≥ ) can be empty, and its dimension can also
vary. (Antiblocking and blocking polyhedra are trivially full dimensional !) We
will meet many other difficulties that oblige us to generalize the notions and
arguments of the special cases – without making the solution much more compli-
cated. The proof synthesizes polyhedral and combinatorial arguments, moreover
a lemma involving the divisibility relations between the parameters will play a
crucial role when mixed fractional vertices occur.
We show now an example with mixed vertices. Surprisingly, this will be
the only essential (‘minimal noninteger’) new example where the two types of
inequalities interact in a nontrivial way. In a sense, a kind of ‘Strong Perfect
Graph Conjecture’ is true for mixed polyhedra.
If A≤ ∪ A≥ = E(C2k+1 ) ⊆ 2V (G) (k ∈ IN), and neither A≤ nor A≥ is empty,
then P (A≤ , A≥ ) will be called a mixed odd circuit polyhedron, and (A≤ , A≥ )
will be called a mixed odd circuit. The unique fractional vertex of a mixed odd
circuit polyhedron is 1/21.
Let now (A≤ , A≥ ) be a simple odd circuit. Let us define Bi to be the (unique)
subset of vertices of the graph C2k+1 having exactly one common vertex with
every edge of C2k+1 except with (i, i + 1); the number of common vertices of
Bi with the edge (i, i + 1) is required to be zero or two depending on whether
its incidence vector is in A≤ or A≥ respectively (i = 1, . . . , 2k + 1, i + 1 is
understood mod n = 2k + 1). The neighbors of the vertex 1/21 on P (A≤ , A≥ )
are the characteristic vectors of the Bi , (i = 1, . . . , n = 2k + 1). Follow these and
other remarks on C7 :
Example 1. (an odd circuit polyhedron) Let us define P (A≤ , A≥ ) ⊆ IR7 with:
xi + xi+1 ≤ 1 (i = 1, 2, 3, 4), xi + xi+1 ≥ 1 (i = 5, 6, 7; for i = 7 , i + 1 := 1).
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 41

This polyhedron remains noninteger after projecting 1: indeed, the inequality

x7 − x2 ≥ 0 is a sixth facet-inducing inequality (containing the vertex 1/2 1)
besides the five remaining edge-inequalities. These six inequalities are linearly
independent ! (The projection of a vertex is still a vertex if and only if the
projection is parallel to a coordinate which is nonzero both in some set-packing
and some set-covering facet containing the vertex.) But the new inequality is not
0–1 ! However, a study of nonintegrality should certainly include this example.
The vertices of P (A≤ , A≥ ) are, besides (1/2)1, the sets Bi , (i = 1, . . . , 7).
These are the shifts of B2 := {1, 4, 6} by ±1 and 0, 2, and of B6 := {2, 4, 6, 7}
by 0, ±1. Note that the vector (0, 1, 1, 1, 0, −1, −1) is orthogonal to all the Bi
(i = 1, . . . , 7), whence the 7 × 7 matrix B whose rows are these, is singular !
In general, if (A≤ , A≥ ) is a simple mixed odd circuit, and A≤ has one more
row than A≥ , then 1T A≤ − 1T A≥ (defines a Chvátal-Gomory cut and) is or-
thogonal to all the Bi -s (i = 1, . . . , 2k + 1), so they are linearly dependent !
Linear independence of the neighbors of fractional vertices play a funda-
mental role in the special case of Padberg [9],[10], Lehman[6], and also in Gas-
paryan [3],[4]. Mixed odd circuits show that we have to work here without this
condition. As a consequence we will not be able to stay within matrix terms, but
will have to mix combinatorial and polyhedral arguments: Lemma 8 is mostly
a self-contained lemma on matrices, where the polyhedral context, through
Lemma 7 brings in a stronger combinatorial structure: ‘r = 2’. The matricial
part of Lemma 8 reoccurs in papers [4] and [5], studying the arising matrix equa-
tions. The latter avoids the ‘nonsingularity assumption’ replacing Lemma 7 by
combinatorial (algebraic) considerations.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 states the main result, its corollaries,
and reformulations. The proof of the main result is provided in sections 3 and
4. Section 5 is devoted to some more examples and other comments.

2 Results

When this does not cause missunderstanding, we will occasionnally use the
shorter notations P ≤ := P ≤ (A≤ ), P ≥ := P ≥ (A≥ ), P := P (A≤ , A≥ ) = P ≤ ∩P ≥ .
≤ ≥
Recall that the polyhedra P ≤ (A0 ) := P ≤ \ I/J and P ≥ (A0 ) := P ≥ \ I/J,
(I, J ⊆ V := {1, . . . , n}, I ∩ J = ∅) are called corresponding minors, and
≤ ≥
(A0 , A0 ) =: (A≤ , A≥ ) \ I/J is a minor of (A≤ , A≥ ). (Note that two minors are
corresponding if and only if the two I ∪ J are the same, since for set-packing
polyhedra deletion is the same as contraction.) Furthermore, if for all such I, J
the polyhedron (P ≤ (A≤ ) \ I/J) ∩ (P ≥ (A≥ ) \ I/J) is integer, then the system
(A≤ , A≥ ) will be called fully integer.

Theorem 1. Let A≤ and A≥ be 0–1-matrices with n columns. Then (A≤ , A≥ )

≤ ≥
is not fully integer if and only if it has a minor (A0 , A0 ) for which at least one
of the following three statements holds:
42 András Sebő

≤
– A0 is a minimal nongraph clutter, or it is partitionable with µ = 0, moreover
≤ ≥
in either case the regular vertex of P ≤ (A0 ) is in P ≥ (A0 ), and it is the
≤ 0≤ ≥ 0≥
unique packing type fractional vertex of P (A ) ∩ P (A ).
– A0 ≥ is a degenerate projective plane, or it is partitionable with µ ≥ 2, more-
≥ ≤
over in either case the regular vertex of P ≥ (A0 ) is in P ≤ (A0 ), and it is
≤ ≥
the unique covering type fractional vertex of P ≤ (A0 ) ∩ P ≥ (A0 ).
0≤ 0≥
– (A , A ) is a mixed odd circuit.
Lovász’s NP-characterization of imperfect graphs [8] (with the additional
properties proved by Padberg[10]), follow:
Corollary 1. Let A≤ be a 0–1-matrix with n columns. Then A≤ is imperfect
≤
if and only if it has either a minimal nongraph or a partitionable minor A0 ,
≤
moreover P (A0 ) has a unique fractional vertex.
Specializing Theorem 1 to set-covering polyhedra one gets Lehman’s celebrated
result [6], see also Seymour [12]:
Corollary 2. Let A≥ be a 0–1-matrix with n columns. Then A≥ is nonideal if
and only if it has either a degenerate projective plane or a partitionable minor
≥ ≥
A0 , moreover P (A0 ) has a unique fractional vertex.
The following two consequences are stated in a form helpful for coNP char-
acterization theorems (see Section 5):
Corollary 3. Let A≤ and A≥ be 0–1-matrices with n columns. Then (A≤ , A≥ )
is not fully integer if and only if at least one of the following statements holds:
– A≤ has a minimal nongraph or a partitionable, furthermore minimal imper-
fect minor with its regular vertex in the corresponding minor of P ≥ (A≥ ),
– A≥ has a degenerate projective plane or a partitionable minor with its regular
≤ ≤
vertex in the corresponding minor P ≤ (A0 ) of P ≤ (A≤ ), where A0 is perfect.
– (A≤ , A≥ ) has a mixed odd circuit minor.
If we concentrate on the structural properties of the matrices A≤ and A≥ implied
by the existence of a fractional vertex we get the following.This statement is not
reversible: if A≤ consists of the maximal stable-sets of an odd antihole, and A≥
of one maximal but not maximum stable-set, then (A≤ , A≥ ) is fully integer,
although A≤ is minimal imperfect !

Corollary 4. Let A≤ and A≥ be 0–1-matrices with n columns and assume that

P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) is a noninteger polyhedron. Then
– either A≤ has a minimal imperfect minor,
– or A≥ has a degenerate projective plane, or a partitionable minor,
– or (A≤ , A≥ ) has a mixed odd circuit minor.

Note the asymmetry between ‘minimal imperfect’ in the first, and ‘partitionable’
in the second case (for an explanation see 5.2).
The results certainly provide a coNP characterization in the following case:
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 43

Corollary 5. Let A≤ be a perfect, and A≥ an ideal 0–1-matrix with the same

number of columns. Then (A≤ , A≥ ) is fully integer if and only if it has no mixed
odd circuit minor.
These results provide a certificate for the intersection of a set-covering poly-
hedron and a set-packing polytope or of their corresponding minors to be nonin-
teger. This certificate can be checked in polynomial time in the most interesting
cases (see Section 5). We will however prove Theorem 1 in the following, slightly
sharper form which leaves the possibility to other applications open – and cor-
responds better to our proof method:
We call (A≤ , A≥ ) combinatorially minimal noninteger , if P := P (A≤ , A≥ ) is
noninteger, but (P ≤ \ i) ∩ (P ≥ \ i) and (P ≤ /i) ∩ (P ≥ /i) are fully integer for all
i = 1, . . . , n. Clearly, mixed odd circuits have this property.
Note the difference with the following definition which takes us out of 0–1
constraints: P is polyhedrally minimal noninteger, if it is noninteger, but P ∩{x ∈
IRn : xi = 0} and P i are integer for all i ∈ V .
Both the combinatorial and the polyhedral definitions require that the inter-
section of P with each hyperplane xi = 0 (i ∈ V ) is integer.
The two definitions are different only in what they require from projections,
and this is what we are going to generalize now. When we are contracting an
element, combinatorially minimal noninteger systems require the integrality of
i i  i
P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) instead of the integrality of P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) in the
polyhedral definition, and this is the only difference between the two. It is easy
i i  i
to see that P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) ⊇ P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) , and we saw (see
Example 1) that the equality does not hold in general, so the integrality of
i i  i
P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩P ≥ (A≥ ) and that of P ≤ (A≤ )∩P ≥ (A≥ ) are seemingly independent
of each other. The combinatorial definition looks actually rather restrictive, since
it also requires that fixing a variable to 1 in P ≥ (A≥ ), and fixing the same variable
to 0 in P ≤ (A≤ ) the intersection of the two polyhedra we get is integer.
Note however, that surprisingly, the results confirm the opposite: the com-
binatorial definition is less restrictive, since besides partitionable, minimal non-
graph and degenerate projective clutters, it also includes mixed odd circuit poly-
hedra, which are not polyhedrally minimal noninteger !
Our proofs will actually not use more about the projections than the fol-
lowing simple sandwich property of P which is clearly implied by both com-
binatorial and polyhedral minimal nonintegrality (Qi can be chosen to be the
polyhedron on the left hand side or the one on the right hand side respectively):
for all i = 1, . . . , n, there exists an integer polyhedron Qi such that
 ≤ ≤ i i i
P (A ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) ⊆ Qi ⊆ P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) .
Let us call the system (A≤ , A≥ ) minimal noninteger, if

– P is noninteger, and
– P ∩ {x ∈ IRn : xi = 0}(= P ≤ ∩ {x ∈ IRn : xi = 0} ∩ P ≥ ∩ {x ∈ IRn : xi = 0})
is an integer polyhedron for all i ∈ V , and
– P has the sandwich property.
44 András Sebő

Theorem 2. If (A≤ , A≥ ) is minimal noninteger, simple, and w ∈ P is a frac-

tional vertex, then P is full dimensional, w is simplicial, and at least one of the
following statements hold:
– w is of packing type, and then A≤ is either a minimal nongraph clutter, or
the clique-matrix of a partitionable graph,
– w is of covering type, and then A≥ is either a degenerate projective plane or
a partitionable clutter, µ ≥ 2,
– w is a mixed vertex, and then (A≤ , A≥ ) is a mixed odd circuit.
Moreover, P has at most one fractional vertex of covering type, at most one
of packing type, and if it has a vertex of mixed type, then that is the unique
fractional vertex of P .

Note that Theorem 2 sharpens Theorem 1 in two directions: first, the con-
straint of Theorem 2 does not speak about all minors, but only about the dele-
tion and contraction of elements; second, the integrality after the contraction of
elements is replaced by the sandwich property.
The corollaries about combinatorial and polyhedral minimal nonintegrality
satisfy the condition of Theorem 2 for two distinct reasons. In the combinatorial
case simplicity does not necessarily hold, but deleting the certain equalities from
A≥ , the system remains combinatorially minimal noninteger (see 5.2).
Corollary 6. If (A≤ , A≥ ) is combinatorially minimal noninteger, then at least
one of the following statements holds:
– A≤ is a minimal nongraph or a partitionable clutter with µ = 0, furthermore
it is minimal imperfect, and the regular vertex of P ≤ (A≤ ) is the unique
packing type fractional vertex of P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ).
– A≥ is a degenerate projective plane, or a partitionable clutter with µ ≥ 2,
while A≤ is perfect, and the regular vertex of P ≥ (A≥ ) is in P ≤ (A≤ ).
– (A≤ , A≥ ) is a mixed odd circuit, and 1/21 is its unique fractional vertex.
This easily implies Theorem 1 and its corollaries using the following remark.
(it is particularly close to Corollary 3), while the next corollary does not have
similar consequences. This relies on the following:
– If P is noninteger, (A≤ , A≥ ) does contain a combinatorially minimal nonin-
teger minor. (Proof: In both P ≤ and P ≥ delete and contract elements so that
the intersection is still noninteger. Since the result has still 0–1 constraints
this can be applied successively until arriving at a combinatorially minimal
noninteger system.)
– If P is noninteger, one does not necessarily arrive at a polyhedrally minimal
noninteger polyhedron with deletions and restrictions of variables. (Coun-
terexample: Example 1.)

Corollary 7. If P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) is polyhedrally minimal noninteger, then at

least one of the following statements holds:
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 45

– either A≤ is a minimal nongraph or a partitionable clutter with µ = 0, and

the regular vertex of P ≤ (A≤ ) is the unique packing type fractional vertex of
P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ).
– or A≥ is a degenerate projective plane, or a partitionable clutter with µ ≥ 2,
and the regular vertex of P ≥ (A≥ ) is in P ≤ (A≤ ).

Proof. Express wi as a convex combination of vertices of P i . Replacing the

vectors in this combination by their lift, we get a vector which differs from w
exactly in the i-th coordinate (i = 1, . . . , n) – if it did not differ, w would be the
convex combination of integer vertices of P . So the i-th unit vector is in the linear
space generated by P for all i = 1, . . . , n, proving that P is full dimensional, in
particular, simple. So Theorem 2 can be applied, and its third alternative cannot
hold (see Example 1). t
u

Gasparyan [4] has deduced this statement by proving that in the polyhedral
minimal case the matrices involved in the matrix equations are nonsingular (see
comments concerning nonsingularity in Example 1).
The main frame of the present paper tries to mix (the polar of) Lehman’s
polyhedral and Padberg’s matricial approaches so as to arrive at the simplest
possible proof. Lemmas 1–4 and Lemma 7 are more polyhedral, Lemma 5,
Lemma 6 and Lemma 8 are matricial and combinatorial. When specializing
these to ideal clutters, their most difficult parts fall out and quite short variants
of proofs of Lehman’s or Padberg’s theorem are at hand.

3 From Polyhedra to Combinatorics

The notation A, B will be used for families of sets. (We will also use the notation
A for the matrices whose rows are the members of A.) The degree dA (v) of v in
A is the number of A ∈ A containing v.
Given w ∈ P , let Aw be the set of those rows A of A≥ or of A≤ for which
w(A) = 1. (We do not give multiplicites to the members of Aw , regardless of
whether some of its elements are contained in both A≥ and A≤ !) We also define
these if the polyhedron also has non-0–1-constraints. Then A≥ and A≤ denote
the set-covering and set-packing inequalities in the defining system.
If P is integer, we define Bw as the family of those 0–1 vectors (vertices of P )
which are on the minimal face of P containing w. (Equivalently, Bw is the set of
vertices having a nonzero coefficient in some convex combination expressing w.)
If A ∈ Aw , and B ∈ Bw , then |A∩B| = 1. Clearly, r(Aw )+ r(Bw ) = dim P + 1. If
it is necessary in order to avoid misunderstanding, we will write Aw (P ), Bw (P ).
The following lemma is based on the polar (in the sense of interchanging ver-
tices and facets) of a statement implicit in arguments of Lehman’s and Seymour’s
work (see Seymour [12] ).
Lemma 1. If Q is a polyhedron with S 0–1 vertices (and not necessarily 0–1-
constraints) and w ∈ Q, w > 0, then B∈Bw B = V , and
 
r(Bw ) ≥ max |A| : A ∈ Aw , r(Aw ) ≤ n − max |A| : A ∈ Aw + 1.
46 András Sebő

S since Q is integer, w is the convex combination of 0–1 vertices in

Proof. Indeed,
Bw , whence B∈Bw B = V . In particular, for A ∈ Aw and all a ∈ A there exists
Ba ∈ Bw , such that a ∈ Ba .
Since A ∈ Aw , and Ba ∈ Bw , we have |A ∩ Ba | = 1, and consequently
A ∩ Ba = {a}. Thus {Ba : a ∈ A} consists of |A| linearly independent sets of
Bw , whence r(Bw ) ≥ |A|. t
u

Remark 2. Compare Lemma 1 with Fonlupt, Sebő [2]: a graph is perfect if and
only if the linear rank of the maximum cliques (as vertex-sets) in every induced
subgraph is at most n − ω + 1 where ω is the size of the maximum clique in the
subgraph; the equality holds if and only if the subgraph is uniquely colorable.

We note and use in the sequel without reference that if P is minimal non-
integer, then w > 0 for all fractional vertices w of P (wi = 0 would imply that
(P ≤ \ i) ∩ (P ≥ \ i) is also noninteger).
In sections 3 and 4 I will denote the identity matrix, J the all 1 matrix
of appropriate dimensions;
 A is called r-regular, if 1A = r1, and r-uniform if
A1 = r1; Ac := V \ A : A ∈ A . A is said to be connected if V cannot be
partitioned into two nonempty classes so that every A ∈ A is a subset of one of
the two classes. There is a unique way of partitioning A and V into the connected
components of A.
Lemma 2. If (A≤ , A≥ ) is minimal noninteger, w is a fractional vertex of P :=
P (A≤ , A≥ ), and A ⊆ Aw is a set of n linearly independent members of Aw ,
then every connected component K of Ac is n − rK -regular and n − rK -uniform
(rK ∈ IN), and r(A − v) = n − dA (v).

Proof. Recall that w > 0. If P is minimal noninteger, then for arbitrary i ∈ V the
 i
sandwich property provides us Qi ⊆ IRV \{v} , wi ∈ P ≤ (A≤ )∩P ≥ (A≥ ) ⊆ Qi ⊆
i i
P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) , that is, wi ∈ Qi and wi > 0. Applying the inequality in
Lemma 1 to Qi and wi , and using the trivialbut crucial fact that Awi (Qi ) ⊇ A−i,
we get the inequality r(A − i) ≤ n − max |A| : A ∈ A − i .
On the other hand, r(A) = n by assumption. One can now finish in a few
lines like Conway proves de Bruijn and Erdős’s theorem [7], which is actually
the same as Seymour [12, Lemma 3.2]:
Let H := Ac for the simplicity of the notation. What we have proved so far
translates as dH (v) ≤ |H| for all v ∈ H ∈ H. But then,
X X X X X X X
n= 1= 1/|H| = 1/|H| = dH (v)/|H| ≤ 1,
H∈H H∈H v∈H v∈V H∈H,v∈H v∈V v∈V

and the equality follows. t

u

Remark 3. The situation of the above proof will be still repeated several times:
when applying Lemma 1, the 0–1 vectors that have an important auxiliary role
for bounding the rank of some sets are in Bw (Qi ), and are not necessarily vertices
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 47

of P . The reader can check on mixed odd circuits that the neighbors B =
{B1 , . . . , Bn } of 1/21 are not suitable for the same task (unlike in the special
cases): the combinatorial ways that use B had to be replaced by this more general
polyhedral argument. Watch for the same technique in Lemma 7 !
The next lemma synthesizes two similar proofs occurring in the special cases:

Lemma 3. If (A≤ , A≥ ) is minimal noninteger, w and w0 are fractional vertices

of P , then defining A and A0 to be a set of n linearly independent vectors from
Aw , Aw0 respectively, A and A0 cannot have exactly n − 1 common elements.
Proof. (Sketch) Apply Lemma 6 to both w and w0 . With the exception of some
degenerate cases easy to handle, any member of an r-regular clutter can be
uniquely reconstructed from the others. t
u

Lemma 4. If (A≤ , A≥ ) is minimal noninteger and simple, and w is a fractional

vertex of P , then P := P (A≤ , A≥ ) is full dimensional, w is simplicial, and the
vertices neighbouring w on P are integer.
The proof can be summarized with the sentence: a minimal noninteger system
cannot contain implicit equalities (only ‘explicit’ equalities).
Proof. Let us first prove that P is full dimensional. By Lemma 3 Aw is linearly
independent (recall that every member was included only once). Suppose 0 ∈ IRn
can be written as a nontrivial nonnegative linear combination of valid inequal-
ities. Clearly, all of these are implicit equalities (see [11]) of P . In particular
their coefficient vectors are in Aw . In this nontrivial nonnegative combination
there is no nonnegativity constraint xi ≥ 0, because otherwise P ⊆ {x : xi = 0},
contradicting w > 0. So everything participating in it is in Aw contradicting its
linear independence.
Since Aw is linearly independent, w is simplicial. If a neighbour w0 of w is
noninteger, we arrive at a contradiction with Lemma 3. t
u
We will say that a polyhedron P is minimal noninteger if P = P (A≤ , A≥ )
for some simple, minimal noninteger system. (Since P is full dimensional by
Lemma 4, it determines (A≤ , A≥ ) uniquely.)
Given a minimal noninteger polyhedron P and a fractional vertex w of P ,
fix A := A(w) := Aw and let B := B(w) denote the set of vertices neighboring
w in P .
Note that ∪ni=1 Bwi (P i ) = B(w) holds in the polyhedrally minimal noninteger
case, but does not necessarily hold otherwise, and therefore we need essential
generalizations. Do not confuse Bw (which is just {w}) with B(w).
We will say that a vertex B ∈ B and a facet A ∈ A not containing it are asso-
ciates. By Lemma 4 w is simplicial, whence this relation perfectly matches A and
B. We will suppose that the associate of the i-th row Ai of A is the associate Bi of
Ai ; µi := |Ai ∩ Bi |. Clearly, µi 6= 1 (i = 1, . . . , n). Denoting by diag(d1 , . . . , dn )
the n × n diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries are d1 , d2 , . . . , dn , we have
proved:
48 András Sebő

Lemma 5. AB T = J + diag(µ1 − 1, . . . , µn − 1), where µi 6= 1, (i = 1, . . . , n).

If µi does not depend on i, we will simply denote it by µ. (This notation is

not a coincidence: in this case (A, B) turns out to be partitionable where µ is
the identically denoted parameter.) By Lemma 5, µ 6= 1.
The main content of Lemma 3, 5, some aspects of Lemma 4 and most of
Lemma 6 are already implicitly present already in Padberg[9].

4 Associates and the Divisibility Lemma

The following lemma extracts and adapts to our needs well-known statements
from Lehman’s, Seymour’s and Padberg’s works, and reorganizes these into one
statement. It can also be deduced by combining results of Gasparyan [4], which
investigate combinatorial properties implied by matrix equations. For instance
the connectivity property of Lemma 6 below is stated in [4] in a general self-
contained combinatorial setting.
Lemma 6. If P is minimal noninteger, and w ∈ P is a fractional vertex of P ,
then A = A(w) is nonsingular and connected , moreover,

– if the clutter Ac is connected, then 1A = A1 = r1, r ≥ 2.

– if the clutter Ac has two components, then A is a degenerate projective plane.
– if the clutter Ac has at least three components, then A = Hnn−1 .

Proof. (Sketch) If Ac has at least two components, then any two sets whose
complements are in different components cover V . This, and the matrix equation
of Lemma 5 determine a degenerate combinatorial structure. (For instance one
can immediately see that the associate of a third set has cardinality at most two,
and it follows that all but at most one members of B have at most two elements.)
If Ac has one component,then the uniformity and regularity of Ac claimed
by Lemma 2 implies that of A. t
u

Recall that the nonsingularity of B cannot be added to Lemma 6 !

It is well-known that both for minimal imperfect and minimal nonideal ma-
trices the associates of intersecting sets are (almost) disjoint. In our case they
can also contain one another , and the proof does not fit into the combinatorial
properties we have established (namely Lemma 5). We have to go back to our
polyhedral context (established in the proof of Lemma 2, see also Remark 3):
Let us say that A with AB T = J + diag(µ1 − 1, . . . , µn − 1), where µi 6= 1
(i = 1, . . . , n) is nice, if for A1 , A2 ∈ A, v ∈ A1 ∩ A2 the associates B1 , B2 ∈ B of
A1 and A2 respectively, either satisfy B1 ∩ B2 \ {v} = ∅ or B1 \ {v} = B2 \ {v}.
(In the latter case, since B1 and B2 cannot be equal, one of the two contains v.)

Lemma 7. Let P be minimal noninteger, and A = A(w), B = B(w) for some

noninteger vertex w ∈ P . Then A is nice.
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 49

Check the statement for the mixed C7 of Example 1 ! (It can also be instructive
to follow the proof on this example. )

Proof. Let v ∈ A1 , A2 ∈ A, and let B1 , B2 ∈ B be their associates. Moreover

assume u ∈ B1 ∩ B2 \ {v}. Let A0 ∈ A, u ∈ A, v ∈ / A0 . (There exists such an
A0 ∈ A since for instance Lemma 6 implies that a column of A cannot dominate
another.) Since
 P is minimal noninteger,
v there exists an integer polyhedron Qv
v v
such that P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) ⊆ Qv ⊆ P ≤ (A≤ ) ∩ P ≥ (A≥ ) . Now because of
Awv (Qv ) ⊇ A − i, the scalar product of the vertices of Bwv (Qv ) with all vectors
in A − i is 1, and the proof method of Lemma 1 can be applied:
For every a ∈ A0 \ u fix some Ba ∈ Bwv (Qv ) so that a ∈ Ba . Now {Ba :
a ∈ A0 \ u} ∪ {B1 \ v, B2 \ v} are r + 1 vectors in IRV \v all of which have
exactly one common element with each A ∈ A − v. On the other hand, by
Lemma 2 r(A − v) = n − r = (n − 1) − (r − 1), so there can be at most
r linearly independent sets with this property.
P Hence there exists a nontrivial
linear combination λ1 (B1 \v)+λ2 (B2 \v)+ a∈A\u λa Ba = 0. Since for a ∈ A0 \u
the unique vector in this linear combination which contains a is Ba , one gets
that λa = 0 for all a ∈ A \ u. It follows that B1 \ v = B2 \ v, and λ1 = λ2 . t
u

Although the following statement is the heart of our proof, it is independent

of the other results. The very root of the statement is the simple observation
that n + dj is a multiple of r. Note that in order to deduce r = 2 we need more
than just the matrix equation !

Lemma 8. Assume that A, B are 0–1 matrices, 1A = A1 = r1, and

AB T = J + diag(µ1 − 1, . . . , µn − 1), µi 6= 1. Then

– either µ1 = . . . = µn =: µ, and then AB T = B T A = J + (µ − 1)I, BJ =

JB = sJ, (s = (n + µ − 1)/r),
– or {µ1 , . . . , µn } = {0, r}, and if A is connected and nice, then r = 2.

Proof. If µ1 = µ2 = . . . = µn =: µ, then we finish easily, like [3]: since µ 6= 0,

A is invertible; since A commutes with I, and by assumption with J too, so
does its inverse; now expressing B T from AB T = J + (µ − 1)I we get that it
is the product of two matrices which commute with both A and J. So B T also
commutes with these matrices, proving the statement concerning this case. (The
matrices X and Y are said to commute, if XY = Y X.)
So suppose that there exist i, j ∈ V such that µi 6= µj .

Claim (1). r|Bj | = n + µj − 1, and 0 ≤ µj ≤ r, (j = 1, . . . , n).

Indeed, r1B T = (1A)B T = 1(AB T ) = 1 J + diag(µ1 − 1, . . . , µn − 1) =
(n + µ1 − 1, . . . , n + µn − 1).
The inequality is obvious: 0 ≤ µj = |Aj ∩ Bj | ≤ |Aj | = r, (j = 1, . . . , n).

Claim (2). If there exist i, j ∈ V , µi 6= µj , then µj ∈ {0, r} for all j ∈ V .

50 András Sebő

Indeed, according to Claim (1) we have n + µj − 1 ≡ 0 mod r, where µj

is in an interval of r + 1 consecutive integers representing every residue class
mod r exactly once, except 0, which is represented twice, by 0 and r. Hence if
{µ1 , . . . , µn } contains two different values, then these values can only be 0 and
r as claimed.

Claim (3). If v ∈ A1 ∩ A2 , µ1 = 0, µ2 = r, then B1 = B2 \ {v}.

Indeed, let u ∈ A2 ∩ B1 . (Because of the matrix equation in the constraint,

we also know |A2 ∩ B1 | = 1.) We have |A1 ∩ B1 | = µ1 = 0, and since |A2 ∩ B2 | =
µ2 = r = |A2 |, we also have A2 ⊆ B2 .
Since v ∈ A1 and A1 ∩ B1 = ∅ : u 6= v. Because of A2 ⊆ B2 we have
u ∈ (B1 ∩ B2 ) \ {v}. So we must have B1 \ {v} = B2 \ {v} by the condition, and
/ B1 , v ∈ B2 : B1 = B2 \ {v}. The claim is proved.
since v ∈
Now we finish the proof. Since there exist i, j ∈ V such that µi 6= µj , by
Claim (2) µj ∈ {0, r} for all j ∈ V . Since A is a connected clutter, there exists
v ∈ V so that v ∈ Ai ∩ Aj and µi = 0, µj = r. After possible renumbering, we
can assume i = 1, j = 2.
So let A1 , A2 ∈ A = A(w), v ∈ A1 ∩ A2 , µ1 = 0, µ2 = r and denote the
associates of A1 , A2 by B1 , B2 respectively.
By Claim (3), 1 = |A2 ∩ B1 | = |A2 ∩ B2 | − 1 = r − 1, so r = 2. t
u

Proof of Theorem 2. (Sketch) Let (A≤ , A≥ ) be minimal noninteger. Further-

more, let w ∈ P a fractional vertex of P . Let A := A(w) and B := B(w). Then
we have the matrix equation of Lemma 5.

Case 1. Ac is connected: according to Lemma 6 and Lemma 7 the conditions of

Lemma 8 are satisfied, and using Lemma 8 it is straightforward to finish.

Case 2. Ac has two components: by Lemma 6 A is a degenerate projective plane.

It can be checked then that either A = A≥ or A is not minimal noninteger. We
prove this with the following technique (and use similar arguments repeatedly
in the sequel): we prove first that there exist an i ∈ V so that (P ≥ /i) ∩ (P ≤ /i) is
noninteger. It turns out then that the maximum p of the sum of the coordiates of
a vector on (P ≥ /i) ∩ (P ≤ /i) and the maximum q of the same objective function
on P i are close to each other: [p, q] does not contain any integer (we omit the
details). So for all Qi such that P i ⊆ Qi ⊆ (P ≥ /i) ∩ (P ≤ /i) the maximum of
the sum of coordinates on Qi must lie in the interval [p, q]. Thus Qi cannot be
chosen to be integer, whence P does not have the sandwich property.

Case 3. Ac has at least three components: by Lemma 6 A is the set of n − 1-

tuples of an n-set. If A = A≤ , then we are done (again the first statement holds
in the theorem). In all the other cases P turns out not to be minimal noninteger
(with the above-described technique). t
u
 Characterizing Noninteger Polyhedra with 0–1 Constraints 51

5 Comments
5.1 Further Examples
A system (A≤ , A≥ ) for which a P (A≤ , A≥ ) ⊆ IR5 is integer, but (A≤ , A≥ ) is
not fully integer: the rows of A≤ are (1, 1, 0, 0, 0), (0, 1, 1, 0, 0), (1, 0, 1, 0, 0) and
(0, 0, 1, 1, 1); A≥ consists of only one row, (0, 0, 0, 1, 1).
We mention that a class of minimal noninteger simple systems (A≤ , A≥ ) with
the property that (A≤ , A≥ ) \ i (i ∈ V ) defines an integer, but not always fully
integer polyhedron, can be defined with the help of ‘circular’ minimal imperfect
and minimal nonideal systems (see Cornuéjols and Novick [1]): define A≤ := Cnr ,
A≥ := Cns , where r ≤ s and A≤ is minimal imperfect, A≥ is minimal nonideal.
Such examples do not have mixed vertices, so they also show that the first
two cases of our results can both occur in the same polyhedron.

5.2 A Polynomial Certificate

We sketch why Corollary 6 follows from Theorem 2. Note that Corollary 6 im-
mediately implies Corollary 3.
In a combinatorially minimal noninteger system (A≤ , A≥ ), A≤ is in fact
minimal imperfect or perfect. This is a simple consequence of the following:

Claim. If P ≤ := P ≤ (A≤ ) or P ≥ := P ≥ (A≥ ) is partitionable with a regular

vertex w ∈ P := P ≤ ∩ P ≥ , and P ≤ /I (I ⊆ V ) is partitionable with regular
vertex w0 , then w0 ∈ P ≥ /I.

Indeed, suppose that w is the regular vertex of a polyhedron whose defining

clutter has parameters (r, s), and let the parameters of w0 be (r0 , s0 ). So w := 1/r1
and w0 := 1/r0 1.
Now r0 ≤ r, because the row-sums of the defining matrix of P ≤ /I (which is
a submatrix of A≤ ) do not exceed the row-sums of A≤ . Since w ∈ P ≤ (A≤ ), the
row-sums of A≤ are at most r.
But then, if we replace in 1/r1 some coordinates by 1/r0 some others by 1
the vector w00 we get majorates 1/r1 ∈ P ≥ (A≥ ) whence it is also in P ≥ (A≥ ).
Since w0 ∈ P ≥ /I is equivalent to the belonging to P ≥ of such a vector w00 , the
claim is proved.
To finish the proof of Corollary 6 one can show that after deleting from A≥
an equality from ‘Aw ’, the system remains minimal noninteger.
Using appropriate oracles, Corollary 3 provides a polynomial certificate. (For
the right assumptions about providing the data and certifying the parameters of
a partitionable clutter we refere to Seymour [12]. We need an additional oracle
for the set-covering part.)
The polynomial certificates can be proved from the Claim using the fact that
for partitionable clutters and perfect graphs the parameters can be certified in
polynomial time.
For the non-full-integrality of the intersection of perfect and ideal polyhedra
a simple polynomial certificate is provided by Corollary 5.
52 András Sebő

Acknowledgments
I am thankful to Grigor Gasparyan and Myriam Preissmann for many valuable
comments. Furthermore, I feel lucky to have learnt Lehman’s results and espe-
cially to have heard the main ideas of Padberg’s work from Grigor Gasparyan.
I would like to thank András Frank for comparing a lemma in [12] concerning
ideal matrices to Erdős and de Bruijn’s theorem: this helped me getting closer
to ideal matrices and strengthened my belief in a common generalization (a
particular case of Fisher’s inequality is implicit in proofs for minimal imperfect
graphs as well, see [3]).
Last but not least I am indebted to Kazuo and Tomo Murota for their mirac-
ulous help of various nature: due to them, it was possible to convert an extended
abstract to a paper during five jet-lag-days.

References
1. G. Cornuéjols and B. Novick. Ideal 0–1 matrices. J. of Comb. Theory B, 60(1):145–
157, 1994.
2. J. Fonlupt and A. Sebő. The clique rank and the coloration of perfect graphs. In
R. Kannan and W. Pulleyblank, editors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial
Optimization I. University of Waterloo Press, 1990.
3. G. Gasparyan. Minimal imperfect graphs: A simple approach. Combinatorica,
16(2):209–212, 1996.
4. G. Gasparyan. Bipartite designs. In R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-
Mercado, editors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization: Proceed-
ings of the 6th International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinato-
rial Optimization, LNCS, Vol. 1412, pages 23–35. Springer, 1998. This volume.
5. G. Gasparyan and A. Sebő. Matrix equations in polyhedral combinatorics. 1998.
In preparation.
6. A. Lehman. The width-length inequality and degenerate projective planes. In
W. Cook and P. D. Seymour, editors, Polyhedral Combinatorics, DIMACS, Vol. 1,
pages 101–105, 1990.
7. J. H. van Lint and R. M. Wilson. A Course in Combinatorics. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1992.
8. L. Lovász. A characterization of perfect graphs. J. of Comb. Theory B, 13:95–98,
1972.
9. M. Padberg. Perfect zero-one matrices. Math. Programming, 6:180–196, 1974.
10. M. Padberg. Lehman’s forbidden minor characterization of ideal 0–1 matrices.
Discrete Mathematics, 111:409–420, 1993.
11. A. Schrijver. Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. Wiley, 1986.
12. P. D. Seymour. On Lehman’s width-length characterization. In Polyhedral Combi-
natorics, DIMACS, Vol. 1, pages 107–117, 1990.
 A Theorem of Truemper

?
Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

Dipartimento di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, Università di Padova

Via Belzoni 7, 35131 Padova, Italy

Abstract. An important theorem due to Truemper characterizes the

graphs whose edges can be labelled so that all chordless cycles have
prescribed parities. This theorem has since proved an essential tool in
the study of balanced matrices, graphs with no even length chordless
cycle and graphs with no odd length chordless cycle of length greater
than 3. In this paper we prove this theorem in a novel and elementary
way and we derive some of its consequences. In particular, we show how
to obtain Tutte’s characterization of regular matrices.

1 Truemper’s Theorem
Let β be a 0,1 vector indexed by the chordless cycles of an undirected graph
G = (V, E). G is β-balanceable if its edges can be labelled with labels 0 and 1
such that l(C) ≡ βC mod 2Pfor every chordless cycle C of G, where l(e) is the
label of edge e and l(C) = e∈E(C) l(e).
We denote by β H the restriction of the vector β to the chordless cycles of an
induced subgraph H of G.
In [14] Truemper showed the following theorem:
Theorem 1. A graph G is β-balanceable if and only if every induced subgraph
H of type (a), (b), (c) and (d) (Figure 1) is β H -balanceable.
Graphs of type (a), (b) or (c) are referred to as 3-path configurations (3P C’s).
A graph of type (a) is called a 3P C(x, y) where node x and node y are connected
by three internally disjoint paths P1 , P2 and P3 . A graph of type (b) is called
a 3P C(xyz, u), where xyz is a triangle and P1 , P2 and P3 are three internally
disjoint paths with endnodes x, y and z respectively and a common endnode
u. A graph of type (c) is called a 3P C(xyz, uvw), consists of two node disjoint
triangles xyz and uvw and disjoint paths P1 , P2 and P3 with endnodes x and
u, y and v and z and w respectively. In all three cases the nodes of Pi ∪ Pj
i 6= j induce a chordless cycle. This implies that all paths P1 , P2 , P3 of (a) have
length greater than one. Graphs of type (d) are wheels (H, x). These consist of a
chordless cycle H called the rim together with a node x called the center, that
has at least three neighbors on the cycle. Note that a graph of type (b) may also
be a wheel.
?
Supported in part by a grant from Gruppo Nazionale Delle Ricerche-CNR.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 53–68, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
54 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 1. 3-path configurations and wheel

In this paper, we give an alternative simple proof of Theorem 1 and we

highlight its importance by deriving some well known theorems, such as the
Tutte’s characterization of regular matrices, the characterization of balanceable
matrices and of even and odd signable graphs. Finally we show how to use
Theorem 1 to obtain decomposition theorems.
Truemper [14] derived the excluded minor characterization of matroids rep-
resentable over GF3 as a consequence of Theorem 1. From known results, see
[13], this implies Tutte’s theorem. Here we offer a more direct derivation.
First some definitions. N (v) is the set of neighbors of node v. A signed graph
G is a graph whose edges are labeled with 0 or 1. Given a 0, 1 vector β indexed by
the chordless cycles of G, if a chordless cycle C of G satisfies l(C) ≡ βC mod 2,
then C is signed correctly, otherwise C is signed incorrectly. A β-balancing of G
is one for which each of its chordless cycles is correctly signed. The operation of
scaling on a cut δ(S) of G consists of switching (from 0 to 1 and viceversa) the
labels on all edges in δ(S). Since cuts and cycles of G have even intersections,
we have the following:

Remark 2. Let G0 be a signed graph obtained from G by scaling on a cut. A

chordless cycle C is correctly signed in G0 if and only if C is correctly signed in
G.

Assume G is connected and contains a clique cutset Kl with l nodes and let
G01 , G02 , . . . , G0n be the components of the subgraph induced by V (G) \ Kl . The
blocks of G are the subgraphs Gi induced by V (G0i ) ∪ Kl , i = 1, . . . , n.

Remark 3. If G contains a K1 or K2 cutset, then G is β-balanceable if and

only if all of its blocks are β Gi -balanceable.

Proof: The ”only if” part is obvious. We prove the ”if” statement when G has
a K2 cutset {u, v}, since the other case is again immediate. All blocks have a
β-balancing in which edge uv has the same label, since all blocks Gi are β Gi -
balanceable and we can always scale on a cut of Gi separating u and v. The
 A Theorem of Truemper 55

signings of the blocks induce a β-balancing of G, since every chordless cycle of

G belongs to one of the blocks Gi . 2
The following observation appears in [14].

Remark 4. A graph G which is a wheel or a 3-path configuration is β-balanceable

if and only if any signing of G produces an even number of incorrectly signed
chordless cycles.

Proof: If G is a wheel or a 3-path configuration, every edge of G belongs to

exactly two chordless cycles. Therefore switching the label of edge uv changes
the parities of the labels of the two chordless cycles containing uv and of no
other chordless cycle. Now if G is a wheel or a 3-path configuration and has
at least two chordless cycles that are signed incorrectly, then either G contains
two chordless cycles that are signed incorrectly and have a common edge or G
contains three chordless cycles C1 , C2 and C3 such that C1 and C3 are signed
incorrectly, C2 is signed correctly and C2 has common edges with both C1 and
C3 , but C1 and C3 do not have a common edge.
Therefore by switching the label of at most two edges, the number of cycles
that are incorrectly signed decreases by two. 2
An ordering e1 , . . . , en of the edges of a connected graph G is consistent if
the first edges in the sequence belong to a spanning tree T of G and all other
edges ej have the property that ej , together with some edges having smaller
indices, closes a chordless cycle Cj of G. Note that for any spanning tree T of
G, G admits a consistent ordering where the edges of T appear first.
Assume a connected graph G, a vector β are given and consider the following
signing algorithm:
Let e1 , . . . , en be a consistent ordering of the edges of G. Label the edges of T
arbitrarily and label the remaining edges ej so that the chordless cycles Cj are
signed in accordance with the components βCj of β.
Since every edge of T belongs to a cut of G, containing no other edge of T ,
then Remark 2 shows that if G is β-balanceable, an arbitrary labeling of the
edges of T can always be extended to a β-balancing of G. Therefore the above
signing algorithm will produce a β-balancing of G, whenever G is β-balanceable.
Conversely, given a consistent ordering where a tree T appears first and a β-
balancing of G, this same signing of G is produced by the algorithm when T is
signed as in the signing of G.

Remark 5. Let G be a β-balanceable graph and let Gv be the subgraph of G,

obtained by removing node v. Then every β-balancing of Gv with respect to β Gv
can be extended to a β-balancing of G.

Proof: We assume that v is not a cutnode of G, else by Remark 3, we can argue

on the blocks of G. Now G contains a spanning tree T where v is a leaf of T .
Order the neighbors of v in Gv as v0 , v1 , . . . , vk , where v0 is the neighbor of v
56 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

in T and vi is chosen so that amongst all nodes in N (v) \ {v0 , . . . , vi−1 } the
path between nodes v and vi is shortest in the subgraph of G with edge set
E(Gv ) ∪ {vv0 , . . . , vvi−1 }. Now place first the edges of T , then the other edges
of Gv in a consistent ordering with respect to T \ {v}, then vv1 , . . . , vvk . This
ordering is a consistent ordering for G and the signing algorithm can be applied
to produce from the β-balancing of Gv , a β-balancing of G. 2

Lemma 6. Let G0 be an induced subgraph of G, containing a given chordless

cycle C and satisfying the following properties:
1) G0 is connected and contains no K1 or K2 cutset.
2) C belongs to G0 and G0 \ C is nonempty.
3) V (G0 ) is minimal with respect to 1) and 2).
Then G0 is a 3-path configuration or a wheel containing C.

Proof: Let G00 be the subgraph of G0 , induced by V (G0 ) \ V (C). If G00 is a single
node, say u, and u has only two neighbors ci and cj in C, then ci and cj are
nonadjacent and G0 is a 3P C(ci , cj ). Otherwise G0 is a wheel with u as center.
If G00 contains more than one node, by 3) we have that G00 is connected and
that:

4) Every node of G00 has at most two neighbors in C and these two neighbors
are adjacent.
5) G00 contains at most one pair of nodes, say x1 and xn such that both x1 and
xn have neighbors in C and (N (x1 ) ∪ N (xn )) ∩ V (C) either contains at least
three nodes or two nonadjacent nodes.

(Indeed by 3), we have that G00 is connected. So if G00 contains more that one
such pair, let x1 , xn be chosen satisfying 5) and closest in G00 . Let P = x1 , . . . , xn
be a shortest path in G00 connecting them. The subgraph G∗ of G, induced by
V (C) ∪ V (P ) satisfies 1) and 2). Then if more that one such pair exists, G∗ is a
proper subgraph of G0 and this contradicts 3).)
Let C = c1 , . . . , cm and assume first that G00 contains one pair of nodes, x1 ,
xn satisfying 5). Then by 3), G00 is a path P = x1 , . . . , xn . If a node of C, say
ci , is adjacent to a node xi , 1 < i < n of P , then by 3) and 4), x1 is adjacent to
ci−1 , possibly to ci and no other node of C. Node xn is adjacent to ci+1 , possibly
to ci (indices modm) and no other node of C. Therefore no other node of C is
adjacent to an intermediate node of P . In this case, G0 is a wheel with center ci .
If no node of C is adjacent to an intermediate node of P , then by 4) we can
assume w.l.o.g. that x1 is adjacent to ci−1 and possibly ci and xn is adjacent to
cj+1 and possibly cj . If x1 or xn has two neighbors in C and i = j, then G0 is a
wheel with center ci . In the remaining cases G0 is a 3-path configuration.
If G00 contains no pair of nodes satisfying 5), by 1) and 4) we have that C is
a triangle c1 , c2 , c3 , all three nodes of C have neighbors in G00 and no node of G00
has more than one neighbor in C. If G00 is a chordless path P = x1 , . . . , xn with
 A Theorem of Truemper 57

x1 adjacent to, say c1 and xn adjacent to c2 , then c3 has some neighbor in P and
G0 is a wheel with center c3 . Otherwise let P12 be a shortest path connecting c1
and c2 and whose intermediate nodes are in G00 . If c3 has a neighbor in P12 we
have a wheel with center c3 . Otherwise let P3 be a shortest path connecting c3
and V (P12 ) \ {c1 , c2 } and whose intermediate nodes are in G00 . By 3), G0 is made
up by C, together with P12 and P3 , furthermore P3 meets P12 either in a node
x or in two adjacent nodes t1 , t2 . In the first case, we have a 3P C(c1 c2 c3 , x),
otherwise we have a 3P C(c1 c2 c3 , t1 t2 t3 ). 2
For e ∈ E(G), Ge denotes the graph whose node set represents the chordless
cycles of G containing e and whose edges are the pairs C1 , C2 in V (Ge ), such
that C1 and C2 belong to a 3-path configuration or a wheel.

Lemma 7. If e = {u, v} is not a K2 cutset of G, Ge is connected.

Proof: Assume not. Let Ge1 and Ge2 be two components of Ge . Let Gi be the
subgraph of G induced by the node set ∪C∈Gei V (C), for i = 1, 2.
Assume first that {u, v} is a K2 cutset separating G1 from G2 in the graph
induced by V (G1 ) ∪ V (G2 ). Pick C1 ∈ Ge1 and C2 ∈ Ge2 and a path P in G such
that in the subgraph G0 of G induced by V (C1 ) ∪ V (C2 ) ∪ V (P ), {u, v} is not
a K2 cutset and C1 , C2 and P are chosen so that |P | is minimized. (Note that
P exists since {u, v} is not a K2 cutset of G). Then by the minimality of P , no
node of P is contained in a chordless cycle containing edge e. By Lemma 6, C1
is a chordless cycle in a 3-path configuration or wheel H, contained in G0 . Since
any edge in a 3-path configuration or wheel is contained in two chordless cycles,
V (C1 ) ∪ V (C2 ) ⊆ V (H). But then C1 C2 is an edge of Ge , a contradiction.
So {u, v} is not a K2 cutset in the graph induced by V (G1 ) ∪ V (G2 ). Let
C2 ∈ Ge2 , such that for some C ∈ Ge1 , {u, v} is not a K2 cutset in the graph
induced by V (C) ∪ V (C2 ). Let C2 be u = v1 , . . . , vm = v. Let v C be the node of
lowest index in V (C2 ) \ V (C) and let SC be the component of the graph induced
by V (C2 )\V (C) containing node v C . Amongst all C ∈ Ge1 such that {u, v} is not
a K2 cutset in the graph induced by V (C) ∪ V (C2 ), let C1 be the chordless cycle
for which the node v C1 has the highest index and with respect to that |SC1 | is
smallest possible. By Lemma 6, C1 is a chordless cycle of a 3-path configuration
or wheel H contained in V (C1 ) ∪ V (SC1 ). Let C3 be the chordless cycle of H
distinct from C1 containing edge e. We show that C3 contradicts the choice of
C1 . Since H contains C1 and C3 , C3 ∈ Ge1 . Also C2 and C3 have a common node
which is distinct from u or v and so uv is not a K2 cutset in the subgraph of G,
induced by V (C3 ) ∪ V (C2 ). If v C1 is contained in V (C3 ) then v C3 has an index
higher than i, a contradiction, otherwise since SC3 ⊆ SC1 and some node of SC1
belongs to C3 , |SC3 | < |SC1 |, a contradiction. 2
Proof of Theorem 1: The necessity of the condition is obvious. We prove the
sufficiency by contradiction. Assume that G and β are chosen so that G is a
counterexample to the theorem with respect to β and V (G) is minimal. Then G
is connected and by Remark 5 G contains no K1 or K2 cutset.
58 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

Let e = uv be any edge of G and let Gu = G \ u, Gv = G \ v and Guv =

G \ {u, v}. By the minimality of graph G, Gu , Gv and Guv are respectively β Gu -,
β Gv - and β Guv - balanceable and Remark 3 shows that a β-balancing of Guv can
be extended to a β-balancing of Gu and to a β-balancing of Gv . To complete
the signing of G, label uv arbitrarily. Now we have signed G so that:
Every chordless cycle of G which is incorrectly signed contains edge e = uv.
Let the chordless cycles of G containing edge uv be partitioned into the
incorrectly signed B and the correctly signed C. Both sets are nonempty, else,
by possibly switching the label of uv, we have a β-balancing of G. Furthermore
{u, v} is not a K2 cutset of G.
Hence by connectivity of Ge (Lemma 7), there exists an edge C1 C2 in Ge ,
where C1 ∈ B and C2 ∈ C. Any edge in a 3-path configuration or a wheel is
contained in exactly two chordless cycles, thus G contains a 3-path configuration
or a wheel with exactly one chordless cycle in B and by Remark 4, we are done.
2
2 Even and Odd-Signable Graphs
A hole in an undirected graph G is a chordless cycle of length greater than three.
Signed graphs provide a useful setting for studying graphs without even or odd
holes.
A graph G is even-signable if G is β-balanceable for the vector βC = 1 if C is
a triangle of G and βC = 0 if C is a hole of G. A graph G is odd-signable if G is
β-balanceable for the vector β of all ones. Even-signable graphs were introduced
in [6] and odd-signable in [4].
Note that G contains no odd hole if and only if G is even-signable with all
labels equal to one and G contains no even hole if and only if G is odd-signable
with all labels equal to one.
A graph of type (b) may also be a wheel of type (d), when at least one of
the paths P1 , P2 , P3 is of length one. To separate these cases, from now on, we
impose that all three paths in graph of type (b) have length greater than one.
With this assumption, all chordless cycles of graphs of type (a), (b) and (c) are
holes except the triangle of (b) and the two triangles of (c). Furthermore the rim
of a wheel is a hole unless the wheel is K4 .
We now derive from Theorem 1 co-NP characterizations of even-signable and
odd-signable graphs.
For graphs of type (d) (the wheels), when the center together with the nodes
of the hole induces an odd number of triangles the wheel is called an odd wheel.
When the center has an even number of neighbors on the hole the wheel is called
an even wheel. (Notice that a wheel may be both odd and even and K4 is a wheel
that is neither even nor odd).
In a signed graph G the weight of a subgraph H is the sum of the labels of
the edges contained in H.
Theorem 8. A graph is even-signable if and only if it contains no 3P C(xyz, u)
and no odd wheel.
 A Theorem of Truemper 59

Theorem 9. A graph is odd-signable if and only if it contains no 3P C(x, y),

no 3P C(xyz, uvw) and no even wheel.
Proof of Theorem 8: In a 3P C(xyz, u) the sum of the weights of the three
holes modulo 2 is equivalent to the weight of the edges of the triangle, since
all other edges are counted precisely twice. So if a 3P C(xyz, u) is signed so
that its holes have even weight, then the triangle also has even weight. Thus a
3P C(xyz, u) is not odd-signable.
Similarly in a wheel the sum of the weights of the chordless cycles containing
the center is equivalent modulo 2 to the weight of the rim. In an odd wheel the
number of triangles containing the center is odd and so if the wheel is signed so
that the weights of the chordless cycles containing the center are correct then
the weight of the rim is odd.
Consider graphs (a) and (c). By labeling 1 all edges in the triangles and 0 all
other edges, we obtain a correct labeling of these graphs. In wheel (H, x), that
is not odd label 1 all edges of H that belong to a triangle of (H, x) and 0 all
other edges. 2
Proof of Theorem 9: In a 3P C(x, y) the sum of the weights of two of the
holes is equivalent modulo 2 to the weight of the third, since the edges in the
intersection of the two are counted twice and the remainder induce the third.
Thus if the graph is signed so that these two holes have odd weight then the
weight of the third is even. So a 3P C(x, y) is not odd-signable.
Similarly in a 3P C(xyz, uvw) the sum of the weights of all three holes is
equivalent modulo 2 to the sum of the weights of the two triangles. If the graph
is signed so that the weight of the three holes is odd then at least one of the
triangles must have even weight.
In an even wheel the weight of the rim is equivalent modulo 2 to the sum
of the weights of the other chordless cycles. Since there are an even number of
these, each with odd weight, the rim has even weight.
Consider a graph of type (b). By labeling 1 all edges in triangles and 0 all
other edges, we obtain an odd signing of these graphs. To label a wheel (H, x)
that is not even, on every subpath of H with endnodes adjacent to x and no
intermediate node adjacent to x, label 1 one edge and label 0 all other edges of
(H, x). This gives an odd signing of the wheel. 2
The recognition problem for both even-signable and odd-signable graphs is
still open. In [4] both problems are solved for graphs that do not contain a cap
as induced subgraph. (A cap is a hole H plus a node that has two neighbors in
H and these neighbors are adjacent).
In [3] a polynomial time recognition algorithm is given, to test if a graph G
contains no even hole (i.e. G is odd-signable with all labels equal to one).

3 Universally Signable Graphs

Let G be a graph which is β-balanced for all 0, 1 vectors β that have an entry of
1 corresponding to the triangles of G. Such a graph we call universally signable.
60 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

Clearly triangulated graphs i.e. graphs that do not contain a hole are universally
signable. In [5] these graphs are shown to generalize many of the structural prop-
erties of triangulated graphs. Here we show a decomposition theorem that follows
easily from the co-NP characterization of these graphs as given by Theorem 1.

Theorem 10. A graph G is universally signable if and only if G contains no

graph of type (a), (b), (c) or (d) which is distinct from K4 .

In view of the previous remark, the above condition is equivalent to the

condition: ”no hole of G belongs to a graph of type (a), (b), (c) or (d)”. Now
the proof of the above theorem follows from Theorem 1.
As a consequence of Theorem 10 and Lemma 6 we have the following decom-
position theorem.

Theorem 11. A connected universally signable graph that is not a hole and is
not a triangulated graph contains a K1 or K2 cutset.

It was the above decomposition theorem that prompted us to look for a new
proof for Theorem 1.
Now Theorem 11 and the following result of Hajnal and Suranyi [11] can be
used to decompose with clique cutsets a universally signable graph into holes
and cliques.

Theorem 12. A triangulated graph that is not a clique contains a clique cutset.

4 α-Balanced Graphs, Regular and Balanceable Matrices

Actually, Truemper proved the following theorem that he also showed to be

equivalent to Theorem 1.
Let α be a vector with entries in {0, 1, 2, 3} indexed by the chordless cycles of
a graph G. A graph G = (V, E) is α-balanceable if its edges can be labeled with
labels of −1 and +1 so that for every chordless cycle C of G, l(C) ≡ αC mod 4.
Such a signing is an α-balancing of G.

Theorem 13. A graph is α-balanceable if and only if αC is even for all even
length chordless cycles C and odd otherwise and every subgraph H of G of type
(a), (b), (c) or (d) is αH -balanceable.

To see that the two theorems are equivalent note that an α-balancing of G
with labels of 1 and −1, is implied by a β-balancing with β = ( αC −|E(C)|
2 ) mod 2,
by replacing the 0’s by −1’s. Similarly the β-balancing of G with labels of 0 and
1 is implied by an α-balancing with αC = (2βC + |E(C)|) mod 4, by replacing
the −1’s by 0’s.
 A Theorem of Truemper 61

Balanceable and Balanced Matrices

The bipartite graph G(A) of a matrix A has the row and column sets of A as
color classes and for all entries aij 6= 0, G(A) has an edge ij of label aij .
A 0, ±1 matrix A is balanced if G(A) is α-balanced for the vector α of all
zeroes. A 0, 1 matrix A is balanceable if G(A) is α-balanceable for the vector α
of all zeroes. (From now on, signing consists of replacing some of the 10 s with
−10 s).
Note that the same signing algorithm of Section 1, applied to G(A), can be
used to obtain a balanced matrix from A, when A is balanceable. Here signing
the edges of G(A) means assigning labels ±1.
We can now derive from Theorem 13 a co-NP characterization of balanceable
matrices:

Theorem 14. A 0, 1 matrix A is balanceable if G(A) contains no 3P C(x, y)

where x and y belong to opposite sides of the bipartition and no wheel, where the
center node has odd degree.

Proof: By Theorem 13 we only need to find in G(A) the subgraphs of type (a),
(b), (c) or (d) that are not balanceable. Since G(A) is bipartite it cannot contain
graphs of type (b) or (c). Graphs of type (a) with both endnodes in the same
side of the bipartition are seen to be balanceable by signing the edges so that the
three paths have the same length mod 4. When the two nodes of degree 3 belong
to opposite sides of the bipartition then since two of the paths have the same
length mod4, either 1 mod 4 or 3 mod 4 there exists a chordless cycle signed
incorrectly with respect to α of all zeroes.
For a wheel (H, x), let C1 , . . . , Ck be the chordless cycles of (H, x) containing
x. Obtain a signing
P of the graphP so that C1 , . . . , Ck are signed correctly.
Pk For F ⊆
k
E, let l(F ) = e∈F l(e). Then i=1 l(Ci ) ≡ 0 mod 4. But l(H) = i=1 l(Ci ) −
2l(S) where S consists of all edges with one endpoint the center node of the
wheel. Since 2l(S) ≡ 2|S| mod 4, clearly l(H) ≡ 0 mod 4 if and only if k = |S|
is even. 2
In [8], [2], a polynomial algorithm is given, to recognize if a matrix is balance-
able or balanced. Balanced 0, ±1 matrices have interesting polyhedral properties
and have been recently the subject of several investigations, see [7] for a survey.

Totally Unimodular and Regular Matrices: A Theorem of Tutte

A matrix à is totally unimodular (TU, for short) if every square submatrix of

à has determinant 0, ±1. Consequently a TU matrix is a 0, ±1 matrix. If Ã
is a 0, ±1 matrix such that G(Ã) is a chordless cycle C, then det(Ã) = 0 if
l(C) ≡ 0 mod 4 and det(Ã) = ±2 if l(C) ≡ 2 mod 4. So if à is TU, then à is
balanced.
A 0, 1 matrix A is regular if A can be signed to be TU. An example of a 0, 1
matrix that is not regular is one whose bipartite graph is a wheel with a rim of
62 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

length 6 (and the center node has obviously three neighbors in the rim). We will
see this later in this section.
To state the theorem of Tutte characterizing regular matrices, we need to
introduce the notion of pivoting in a matrix. Pivoting
 on an entry
  6= 0 of a
 yT − yT
matrix A = , we obtain the matrix B = .
x D x D − xy T
Remark 15. Let B be obtained from A by pivoting on the nonzero entry aij .
Then:
– A can be obtained from B by pivoting on the same entry.
– Let aij be the pivot element. Then bij = −aij . For l 6= j, bil = ail and for
k 6= i, bkj = akj . For l 6= j and k 6= i, bkl = akl − aij ail akj
– det(A) = ±det(D − xy T ) and det(B) = ±det(D).

We are interested in performing the pivot operations on A both over the reals
(R-pivoting) and over GF 2 (GF 2-pivoting). Let B be a matrix obtained from
A by performing a GF 2-pivot or an R-pivot. We next show how to obtain G(B)
from G(A).
Remark 16. Let B be the 0, 1 matrix obtained from a 0, 1 matrix A by GF 2-
pivoting on aij = 1. Then G(B) is obtained from G(A) as follows:

1) For every 4-cycle C = u1 , i, j, v1 of G(A) remove edge u1 v1 .

2) For every induced chordless path P = u1 , i, j, v1 of G(A), add edge u1 v1 .

Proof: Follows from Remark 15. 2

It is easy to check that a 2 × 2, ±1 matrix is singular if and only if the sum of
its entries is equivalent to 0 mod 4. A 0, ±1 matrix A is weakly balanced if every
4-cycle C of G(A) satisfies l(C) ≡ 0 mod 4. Equivalently, A is weakly balanced
if every 2 × 2 submatrix of A has determinant 0, ±1.

Remark 17. Let B̃ be the matrix obtained from a weakly balanced 0, ±1 matrix
à by R-pivoting on a non-zero entry aij = . Then B̃ is a 0, ±1 matrix and
G(B̃) is obtained from G(Ã) as follows:

1) Edge ij has label −.

2) For every 4-cycle u1 , i, j, v1 in G(Ã) remove edge u1 v1 .
3) For every induced chordless path P = u1 , i, j, v1 in G(Ã) add edge u1 v1
and label it so that, for the resulting cycle C = u1 , i, j, v1 in G(B̃), l(C) ≡
0 mod 4.

Proof: 1) is trivial. By Remark 15, for k 6= i and l 6= j, bkl = akl − akj ail .
Note that 2 = 1. So bkl is the value of the determinant of the 2 × 2 submatrix
of à with rows i, k and columns j, l. Since à is weakly balanced, bkl and bkl ,
have values in 0, ±1. For 2), note that all 2 × 2 submatrices of à with all four
entries non-zero have determinant 0. Finally since the 2 × 2 submatrix of B̃ has
determinant 0, part 3) follows. 2
 A Theorem of Truemper 63

Corollary 18. Let à be a weakly balanced 0, ±1 matrix and A be the 0, 1 matrix

with the same support. Let B̃ and B be the matrices obtained by R-pivoting Ã
and GF 2-pivoting A on the same entry. Then G(B̃) and G(B) have the same
edge set. (Equivalently, B̃ and B have the same support).

Tutte [16], [17] proves the following:

Theorem 19. A 0, 1 matrix A is regular if and only if for no matrix B, obtained

from A by GF 2-pivoting, G(B) contains a wheel whose rim has length 6.

To prove the above result, we need the following three lemmas (the first is
well known):
Lemma 20. A 0, 1 matrix A is regular if and only if any matrix obtained from
A by GF 2-pivoting is regular.

Proof: Follows by Remark 15 and Corollary 18. 2

Lemma 21. Let à be a balanced 0, ±1 matrix, B̃ be obtained by R-pivoting Ã
on ãij and B be the 0, 1 matrix with the same support as B̃. If B̃ is not balanced,
then B is not balanceable.

Proof: We show that G(B̃) can be obtained from G(B) by applying the signing
algorithm. Let T be any tree in G(B̃), chosen to contain all edges in {ij} ∪
{ix : x ∈ N (i)} ∪ {jy : y ∈ N (j)}. Then T is also a tree of G(Ã). Let
S = t1 , . . . , t|T |−1 , e1 , . . . , el be a consistent ordering of the edges of G(B̃), where
ti are edges in T . We show that the signing of G(B̃) can be obtained by the
signing algorithm with sequence S, where the edges of T are labeled as in G(B̃).
Let ek be an edge of S and Cek be a chordless cycle of G(B) containing ek and
edges in S \ ek+1 , . . . , em , such that Cek has the largest possible intersection
with {i, j} and, subject to this, Cek is shortest. We show that Cek forces ek to
be signed as in G(B̃).
Remark 17 shows that if Cek contains both nodes i and j and has length 4,
then Cek forces ek to be signed as in G(B̃).
All other edges ek are labeled the same in G(B̃) and G(Ã). We show that
Cek forces this signing of edge ek .
If Cek contains both nodes i and j and has length bigger than 4, then in
G(Ã) the nodes of Cek induce a cycle with unique chord i1 j1 , where i1 and j1
are the neighbors of i and j in Cek . By Remark 17, the sum of the labels on
the edges i1 i, ij, jj1 in G(B̃) is equivalent modulo 4 to the label of edge i1 j1 , in
G(Ã). Thus the cycle Ce0 k of G(Ã) induced by V (Cek ) \ {i, j} and the cycle Cek
of G(B̃) force ek to be signed the same.
If Cek contains one of {i, j}, say i, then by choice of Cek , node j has i as
unique neighbor in Cek . For, if not, ek either belongs to a chordless cycle of G(B̃)
of to a chordless cycle that is shorter that Cek and contains node j (this happens
when (Cek , j) is the rim of a wheel with center j and no hole of (Cek , j) contains
i, j and ek ), a contradiction to our assumption.
64 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

But then Cek is also a chordless cycle of G(Ã) and forces ek to be signed as
in G(B̃).
If Cek contains neither i nor j and at most one neighbor of i or j then Cek is
also a chordless cycle of G(Ã) and forces ek to be signed as in G(B̃). Otherwise
by the choice of Cek , node i has a unique neighbor i0 in Cek , node j has a unique
neighbor j 0 in Cek and i0 , j 0 are adjacent. So, by Remark 17, G(Ã) contains a
hole Ce0 k , whose node set is V (Cek ) ∪ {i, j}. This hole Ce0 k and the hole Cek of
G(B̃) force ek to be signed the same. 2

Lemma 22. From every 0, 1 matrix A that is not regular, we can obtain a 0, 1
matrix that is not balanceable by a sequence of GF 2-pivots.

Proof: Let A be the smallest 0, 1 matrix (in terms of the sum of the number of
rows and columns) that is not regular but cannot be pivoted to a matrix that
is not balanceable. Since A is obviously balanceable, let à be a corresponding
balanced 0, ±1 matrix. By minimality, we can assume that à is square and
|det(Ã)| ≥ 2. By Remark 15, we can R-pivot on any nonzero entry of à to
obtain a 0, ±1 matrix B̃ which contains a proper submatrix C̃ with the same
determinant value as Ã. Since à is weakly balanced, by Remark 17, B̃, and
hence C̃, is a 0, ±1 matrix. Let B be the 0, 1 matrix with the same support as B̃
and C the submatrix of B corresponding to C̃. By Corollary 18, B is obtained
from A with a GF 2-pivot on the same element. Assume B̃ is balanced. Then C̃
would be a balanced matrix which is not TU. However, this implies that C is
not regular (this was already known to Camion [1]): Indeed, C̃ is a signing of C
which is balanced but not TU: So C̃ can be obtained by applying the signing
algorithm on G(C), starting with a tree T of G(C). Assume C has a TU signing
C̃ 0 . Since C̃ 0 is also a balanced matrix, then G(C̃ 0 ) can be obtained through the
signing algorithm by signing T as in G(C̃ 0 ). So G(C̃) and G(C̃ 0 ) differ on some
fundamental cuts of T . So C̃ can be transformed in C̃ 0 by multiplying by −1 the
rows and columns corresponding to the nodes in on shore of this cut. However
this operation preserves the TU property.
So B̃ is not balanced and by Lemma 21, B is not balanceable. 2
Proof of Theorem 19: By Lemma 20, regular matrices are closed under GF 2-
pivoting and if A is a 0, 1 matrix such that G(A) contains a wheel G(W ) whose
rim has length 6, then W (hence A) is obviously not regular.
For the sufficiency part, if A is a 0, 1 matrix which is not regular, then by
Lemma 22, we can obtain by GF 2-pivots a 0, 1 matrix B which is not bal-
anceable. By Theorem 14, G(B) contains a 3P C(x, y) where x and y belong to
distinct color classes, or a wheel with rim H and center v and v has an odd
number, greater than one, of neighbors in H.
If G(B) contains a 3P C(x, y), Remark 16 shows that we can GF 2-pivot on
B so that all of its paths have length three and by doing a last GF 2-pivot on an
entry corresponding to an edge incident to x, we obtain a wheel whose rim has
length 6.
 A Theorem of Truemper 65

If G(B) contains a wheel (H, x) and x has an odd number of neighbors in

the rim H, Remark 16 shows that we can GF 2-pivot on an entry corresponding
to an edge of H, incident with a neighbor of x, to obtain a wheel (H 0 , x), where
x has two less neighbors in H 0 than in H. When x has only three neighbors in
H 0 , to obtain a wheel whose outer cycle has length 6, GF 2-pivot so that all the
subpaths of H 0 , between two consecutive neighbors of x have length two. 2
Tutte’s original proof of the above theorem is quite difficult. A short, self-
contained proof can be found in [10]. In [12], a decomposition theorem for regular
matrices in given, together with a polynomial algorithm to test if a matrix is
regular or TU. A faster algorithm is given in [15].

5 Decomposition
The co-NP characterizations obtained in Theorems 8, 9 and 14 are used in [3],
[4], [8], [2] to obtain the decomposition results for graphs without even holes,
cap-free graphs and balanceable matrices. However the proofs of these theorems
are long and technical. We have seen how Theorem 1 can be used to decompose
universally signable graphs with K1 and K2 cutsets into holes and triangulated
graphs. Here we further illustrate in two easy cases the use of a co-NP character-
ization to obtain decomposition results and polynomial recognition algorithms.

Restricted Unimodular and Totally Odd Matrices

A 0, ±1 matrix A is restricted unimodular (RU, for short) if every cycle C (possi-
bly with chords) of G(A) satisfies l(C) ≡ 0 mod 4. A 0, 1 matrix A is signable to
be RU if there exists a RU 0, ±1 matrix that has the same support. RU matrices
are a known subclass of TU matrices, see e.g. [18].
A 0, ±1 matrix A is totally odd (TO, for short) if every cycle C of G(A)
satisfies l(C) ≡ 2 mod 4. A 0, 1 matrix A is signable to be TO if there exists a
TO 0, ±1 matrix that has the same support. TO matrices are studied in [9].
A weak 3-path configuration between nodes x and y (W 3P C(x, y)) is made
up by three paths P1 , P2 , P3 connecting x and y such that Pi ∪ Pj , i 6= j,
i, j = 1, 2, 3 induces a cycle (possibly with chords). So Pi may be a single edge
or may contain chords and edges may have endnodes in distinct paths Pi and
Pj . If G is a bipartite graph, a W 3P C(x, y) is homogeneous is x and y belong
to the same color class of G and is heterogeneous otherwise.

Theorem 23. A 0, 1 matrix A is signable to be RU if and only if G(A) contains

no weak 3-path configuration which is heterogeneous and A is signable to be TO
if and only if G(A) contains no weak 3-path configuration which is homogeneous.

Proof: Let G0 be the bipartite graph obtained from G(A) by replacing each edge
with a path of length 3 and A0 be the 0, 1 matrix such that G0 = G(A0 ). Then
there is a correspondence between the cycles of G(A) and the holes of G0 . So
A is signable to be RU if and only if G0 is α-balanceable for the vector α of all
66 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

zeroes (i.e. A0 is a balanceable matrix) and A is signable to be TO if and only

if G0 is α-balanceable for the vector α of all twos. In the first case, the theorem
follows from Theorem 14. The proof for the second case in analogous and is left
as an exercise. 2
A bridge of a cycle C is either a chord of C or a subgraph of G, whose node set
contains all nodes of a connected component of G \ V (C), say G0 , together with
the nodes of C, adjacent to at least one node in G0 and whose edges are the edges
of G with at least one endnode in G0 . The attachments of a bridge B are the
nodes of V (B) ∩ V (C). A bridge is homogeneous if all of its attachments belong
to the same color class of G and is heterogeneous if no two of its attachments
belong to the same color class of G. Obviously, if B is a heterogeneous bridge,
then B has at most two attachments.

Lemma 24. Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be RU and C any cycle of

G(A). Then every bridge of C is homogeneous.
Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be TO and C any cycle of G(A). Then
every bridge of C is heterogeneous.

Proof: We prove the first statement. Let x and y be two attachments of a bridge
B of a cycle C. If x and y belong to distinct color classes of G(A), then G(A)
contains a heterogeneous W 3P C(x, y) where P1 , P2 are the two xy-subpaths of
C and P3 is any xy-path in B. The proof of the second statement is similar. 2

Bridges B1 and B2 of C cross if there exist attachments x1 , y1 of B1 and x2 ,

y2 of B2 that are distinct and appear in the order x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 when traversing
C in one direction.

Lemma 25. Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be RU and C any cycle of

G(A). Then no pair of homogeneous bridges of C, having attachments in distinct
color classes of G(A), cross.
Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be TO, C any cycle of G(A). Then
no pair of heterogeneous bridges of C cross.

Proof: To prove the first statement, assume B1 and B2 are homogeneous bridges
of C having attachments x1 , y1 of B1 and x2 , y2 of B2 , appearing in the order
x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 when traversing C. If x1 , y1 and x2 , y2 are in distinct color classes
of G(A), we have a heterogeneous W 3P C(x1 , x2 ), where P1 is the subpath of
C, connecting x1 , x2 and not containing y1 . P2 and P3 contain respectively a
x1 , y1 -path in B1 and a x2 , y2 -path in B2 . The proof of the second part is similar.
2

Theorem 26. Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be TO, C any cycle of

G(A) and B be a heterogeneous bridge of C with two attachments x and y. Then
G(A) \ {x, y} is disconnected.
 A Theorem of Truemper 67

Proof: By Lemma 24, x and y are the only two attachments of B. Let P1 , P2 be
the two subpaths of C, connecting x and y. By Lemma 25, no bridge of C has
an attachments in both P1 \ {x, y} and P2 \ {x, y}. So no two of B, P1 and P2
are in the same component of G(A) \ {x, y} and, since at least two of them are
not edges, G(A) \ {x, y} contains at least two components. 2
Theorem 27 ([18]). Let A be 0, 1 matrix that is signable to be RU and C
any cycle of G(A) containing homogeneous bridges B1 and B2 with attachments
in distinct color classes of G(A). Then C contains two edges whose removal
disconnects G(A) and separates B1 and B2 .

Proof: Assume that the attachments of B1 and B2 belong to the ”red” and
”blue” sides of the bipartition of G(A). Let P1 be be minimal subpath of C with
the following property:
P1 contains all the attachments of B1 and no bridge of C with red attachments
has all its attachments either in P1 or outside P1
The subpath P2 is similarly defined, with respect to B2 and the bridges with
blue attachments. By Lemma 25 P1 and P2 can be chosen to be nonoverlapping.
Furthermore by minimality of P1 and P2 , the endnodes a1 , b1 of P1 are red nodes
and the endnodes a2 , b2 of P2 are blue nodes. Let C = a1 , P1 , b1 , Pb1 b2 , b2 , P2 , a2 ,
Pa2 a1 , let b be any edge of Pb1 b2 and a any edge of Pa1 a2 . By Lemma 25 and the
construction of P1 and P2 , P1 ∪ B1 and P2 ∪ B2 belong to distinct components
of G \ {a, b}. 2
Clearly to test if A is signable to be RU, we can assume that G(A) is bicon-
nected, otherwise we work on the biconnected components.
If G(A) is biconnected and contains no cycle with homogeneous bridges with
attachments in distinct color classes of G(A), then A has two ones per row or per
column. (This is easy from network flows). In this case A is obviously RU: Sign A
so that each row or column contains a 1 and a −1 to obtain a network matrix (or
its transpose). From this fact and the above theorem yield in a straightforward
way a polytime algorithm to test if a 0, 1 is signable to be RU. This algorithm,
combined with the signing algorithm of Section 1, gives a procedure to test if a
0, ±1 matrix is RU.
In a similar manner, see [9], Theorem 26 and the signing algorithm give
procedures to test if a 0, 1 matrix is signable to be TO and to test if a 0, ±1
matrix is TO.

References
1. P. Camion. Caractérisation des matrices totalement unimodulaires. Cahiers Centre
Études Rech. Op., 5:181–190, 1963.
2. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. Balanced 0, ±1 matrices,
Parts I–II. 1994. Submitted for publication.
3. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. Even-hole-free graphs,
Parts I–II. Preprints, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.
68 Michele Conforti and Ajai Kapoor

4. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. Even and odd holes in

cap-free graphs. 1996. Submitted for publication.
5. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. Universally signable
graphs. Combinatorica, 17(1):67–77, 1997.
6. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, and K. Vušković. A Mickey-Mouse decom-
position theorem. In Balas and Clausen, editors, Proceedings of 4th IPCO Confer-
ence, Springer Verlag, 1995.
7. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, A. Kapoor, M. R. Rao, and K. Vušković. Balanced
matrices. Proceedings of the XV International Symposium on Mathematical Pro-
gramming, University of Michigan Press, 1994.
8. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols,and M. R. Rao. Decomposition of balanced 0,1 matrices,
Parts I–VII. 1991. Submitted for publication.
9. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, and K. Vušković. Balanced cycles and holes in bipartite
graphs. 1993. Submitted for publication.
10. A. M. H. Gerards. A short proof of Tutte’s characterization of totally unimodular
matrices. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 14:207–212, 1989.
11. A. Hajnal and T. Suryani. Uber die auflosung von graphen vollstandiger teil-
graphen. Ann. Univ. Sc. Budapest. Eotvos Sect. Math., 1, 1958.
12. P. Seymour. Decomposition of regular matroids. Journal of Combinatorial Theory
B, 28:305–359, 1980.
13. K. Truemper. On balanced matrices and Tutte’s characterization of regular ma-
troids. Working paper, University of Texas at Dallas, 1978.
14. K. Truemper. Alpha-balanced graphs and matrices and GF(3)-representability of
matroids. Journal of Combinatorial Theory B, 32:112–139, 1982.
15. K. Truemper. A decomposition theory of matroids V. Testing of matrix total uni-
modularity. Journal of Combinatorial Theory B, 49:241–281, 1990.
16. W. T. Tutte. A homotopy theorem for matroids I, II. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
88:144–174, 1958.
17. W. T. Tutte. Lectures on matroids. J. Nat. Bur. Standards B, 69:1–47, 1965.
18. M. Yannakakis. On a class of totally unimodular matrices. Mathematics of Opera-
tions Research, 10:280–304, 1985.
 The Generalized Stable Set Problem for
Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs

Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

Department of Computer Science and Information Mathematics

University of Electro-Communications
1-5-1 Chofugaoka, Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan
{daishin, tamura}@@im.uec.ac.jp

Abstract. Bidirected graphs are a generalization of undirected graphs.

The generalized stable set problem is an extension of the maximum
weight stable set problem for undirected graphs to bidirected graphs.
It is known that the latter problem is polynomially solvable for claw-free
undirected graphs. In this paper, we define claw-free bidirected graphs
and show that the generalized stable set problem is also polynomially
solvable for claw-free bidirected graphs.

1 Introduction
Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph. A subset S of V is called a stable
set if any two elements of S are nonadjacent. Given a weight vector P
w ∈ <V ,
a maximum weight stable set is a stable set S maximizing w(S) = i∈S wi .
The problem of finding a maximum weight stable set is called the maximum
weight stable set problem (MWSSP). It is well known that the problem can be
formulated as the following integer programming problem:

[MWSSP] maximize w · x subject to xi + xj ≤ 1 for (i, j) ∈ E,

xi ∈ {0, 1} for i ∈ V.

In this paper, we consider the problem generalized as follows: for a given finite
set V and for given P, N, I ⊆ V × V ,

[GSSP] maximize w · x subject to xi + xj ≤ 1 for (i, j) ∈ P,

−xi − xj ≤ −1 for (i, j) ∈ N,
xi − xj ≤ 0 for (i, j) ∈ I,
xi ∈ {0, 1} for i ∈ V.

Here we call this problem the generalized stable set problem (GSSP). We note
that the GSSP is equivalent to the generalized set packing problem discussed in
[1,2]. To deal with the GSSP, a ‘bidirected’ graph is useful. A bidirected graph

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 69–83, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
70 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

G = (V, E) has a set of vertices V and a set of edges E, in which each edge
e ∈ E has two vertices i, j ∈ V as its endpoints and two associated signs (plus
or minus) at i and j. The edges are classified into three types: the (+, +)-edges
with two plus signs at their endpoints, the (−, −)-edges with two minus signs,
and the (+, −)-edges (and the (−, +)-edges) with one plus and one minus sign.
Given an instance of the GSSP, we obtain a bidirected graph by making (+, +)-
edges, (−, −)-edges and (+, −)-edges for vertex-pairs of P, N and I respectively.
Conversely, for a given bidirected graph with a weight vector on the vertices, by
associating a variable xi with each vertex, we may consider the GSSP. We call
a 0−1-vector satisfying the inequality system arising from a bidirected graph G
a solution of G. We also call a subset of vertices a solution of G if its incidence
vector is a solution of G. The GSSP is an optimization problem over the solutions
of a bidirected graph.
Since several distinct bidirected graphs may have the same set of solutions,
we deal with some kind of ‘standard’ bidirected graphs. A bidirected graph is
said to be transitive, if whenever there are edges e1 = (i, j) and e2 = (j, k) with
opposite signs at j, then there is also an edge e3 = (i, k) whose signs at i and k
agree with those of e1 and e2 . Obviously, any bidirected graph and its transitive
closure have the same solutions. A bidirected graph is said to be simple if it has
no loop and if it has at most one edge for each pair of distinct vertices. Johnson
and Padberg [3] showed that any transitive bidirected graph can be reduced to
simple one without essentially changing the set of solutions, or determined to
have no solution. We note that a transitive bidirected graph has no solution if
and only if it has a vertex with both a (+, +)-loop and a (−, −)-loop. For any
bidirected graph, the associated simple and transitive bidirected graph can be
constructed in time polynomial in the number of vertices.
Given a bidirected graph G, its underlying graph, denoted by G, is defined as
the undirected graph obtained from G by changing all the edges to (+, +)-edges.
A bidirected graph is said to be claw-free if it is simple and transitive and if its
underlying graph is claw-free (i.e., does not contain a vertex-induced subgraph
which is isomorphic to the complete bipartite graph K1,3 ).
It is well known that the MWSSP is NP-hard for general undirected graphs
(and hence, the GSSP is also NP-hard). However, for several classes of undirected
graphs, the MWSSP is polynomially solvable. For example, Minty [4] proposed a
polynomial time algorithm for the MWSSP for claw-free undirected graphs. On
the other hand, there are several polynomial transformations from the GSSP to
the MWSSP (see [5,6]). Unfortunately, we cannot easily derive the polynomial
solvability of the GSSP for claw-free bidirected graphs by using these transfor-
mations, because these do not preserve claw-freeness. Our aim in this paper is
to verify that the GSSP for claw-free bidirected graphs is polynomially solvable.

2 Canonical Bidirected Graphs and Their Solutions

In this section, we will give several definitions and discuss basic properties of
solutions of bidirected graphs. Let G = (V, E) be a simple and transitive bidi-
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 71

rected graph and w be a weight vector on V . For any subset U ⊆ V, we call

the transformation which reverse the signs of the u side of all edges incident to
each u ∈ U the reflection of G at U , and we denote it by G:U . Obviously, reflec-
tion preserves simpleness and transitivity. Let w:U denote the vector defined by
(w:U )i = −wi if i ∈ U ; otherwise (w:U )i = wi . For two subsets X and Y of V ,
let X 4 Y denote the symmetric difference of X and Y .

Lemma 1. Let X be any solution of G. Then, X 4 U is a solution of G:U . The

GSSP for (G, w) is equivalent to the GSSP for (G:U, w:U ).

Proof. The first assertion is trivial from the definition

P of G:U .PThe second as-
sertion follows from the equation w:U (X 4 U ) = i∈X\U wi + i∈U\X (−xi ) =
P
w(X) − i∈U wi , (the last term is a constant). t
u

We say that a vertex is positive (or negative) if all edges incident have plus
(or minus) signs at it, and that a vertex is mixed if it is neither positive nor
negative. If a bidirected graph has no (−, −)-edge, it is said to be pure. We say
that a bidirected graph is canonical if it is simple, transitive and pure and it has
no negative vertex. For any instance (G, w) of the GSSP, we can transform it to
equivalent one whose bidirected graph is canonical as follows. From the previous
section, we can assume that G is simple and transitive. Johnson and Padberg [3]
proved that G has at least one solution U ⊆ V . From Lemma 1, G:U has the
solution U 4 U = ∅, that is, G:U must be pure. Let W be the set of negative
vertices of G:U . Then G:U :W has no negative vertex, and furthermore, it is pure
because any edge (v, w) of G:U with w ∈ W must be a (+, −)-edge. Since this
transformation is done in polynomial time, we assume that a given bidirected
graph of the GSSP is canonical in the sequel.
For any solution X of a canonical bidirected graph G, we partition X into
two parts:
−+ −+
XB = {i ∈ X | NG (i) ∩ X = ∅} and XI = {i ∈ X | NG (i) ∩ X 6= ∅},
−+
where NG (i) denotes the set of vertices adjacent to i by a (−, +)-edge incident
+−
to i with a minus sign, NG (i) is defined analogously. Here we call XB a base
of X. Let
+−
ex(XB ) = XB ∪ {i ∈ V | i ∈ NG (x) for some x ∈ XB }.

If S ⊆ V is a stable set of G, we say that S is a stable set of G. It is not difficult

to show the following lemmas.

Lemma 2. For any solution X of a canonical bidirected graph G, X = ex(XB ),

and hence, (ex(XB ))B = XB .

Lemma 3. For any solution X of a canonical bidirected graph G, its base XB

is a stable set of G.
72 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

Lemma 4. For any stable set S of a canonical bidirected graph G, ex(S) is a

solution of G.
Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence between the solutions and the
stable sets of G.
For any subset U of V , let G[U ] denote the subgraph induced by U . We call
H ⊆ V a connected component of G if H induces a connected component of G.
Lemma 5. Let X and Y be solutions of a canonical bidirected graph G. For
any connected component H of G[XB 4 YB ], XB 4 H and YB 4 H are bases of
certain solutions of G.
Proof. From Lemma 3, XB and YB are stable sets of G. Thus XB 4 H and
YB 4 H are also stable sets of G. Hence Lemma 4 implies the assertion. t
u
Let X be a specified solution of G. For any solution Y of G, let H1 , . . . , H` be
the connected components of G[XB 4 YB ]. We define the weight of Hi , denoted
by δ X (Hi ) or simply δ(Hi ), by
δ X (Hi ) = w(ex(XB 4 Hi )) − w(X).
P
We remark that the equation w(Y ) − w(X) = δ(Hi ) may not hold because
−+
there may exist a vertex v such that NG (v) contains several vertices of distinct
connected components, that is, wv may be doubly counted. In order to avoid
this obstacle, we require some additional conditions.
Lemma 6. For any solution X of G, there exists U ⊆ V such that G0 = G:U
and X 0 = X 4 U satisfy
(a) G0 is canonical,
(b) X 0 is a stable set of G0 , i.e., X 0 = (X 0 )B ,
(c) for each mixed vertex v 6∈ X 0 , there is a vertex u ∈ X 0 adjacent to v.
Proof. Let M be the set of all mixed vertices v such that v 6∈ X, v is adjacent
+−
to no vertex of XB and NG (v) = ∅. For any (inclusion-wise) maximal stable
set S of G[M ], U = XI ∪ S satisfies the assertion. t
u
We note that a subset U having the conditions of Lemma 6 can be found in
polynomial time. The conditions of Lemma 6 overcome the above obstacle.
Lemma 7. Let G be a canonical bidirected graph and X be a solution of G
satisfying the conditions of Lemma 6. For any solution Y , let H1 , . . . , H` be the
connected components of G[XB 4 YB ]. Then,
X̀ X̀
w(Y ) − w(X) = δ X (Hi ) = {w(ex(XB 4 Hi )) − w(X)}.
i=1 i=1

Proof. Suppose to the contrary that there exists a mixed vertex v such that
−+
NG (v) contains two vertices u and w of distinct connected components Hi and
Hj . Since X is a stable set, u, w ∈ YB . Let x be a vertex of X adjacent to v.
From the transitivity, x must be adjacent to both u and w. This contradicts the
fact that Hi and Hj are distinct connected components of G[XB 4 YB ]. t
u
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 73

3 A Basic Idea for Finding an Optimal Solution of the

GSSP

Given an instance (G, w) of the GSSP, for each i = 0, 1, . . . , |V |, let

Si = {X ⊆ V | X is a solution of G and has exactly i positive vertices },

wi = max w(X),
X∈Si

Si∗ = {X ∈ Si | w(X) = wi }.

Suppose that N denotes the smallest number j with wj = maxi wi . Minty [4]
showed that if a given undirected graph is claw-free, then w0 < · · · < wN . More
precisely, (0, w0 ), . . . , (N, wN ) lie on an increasing concave curve. Minty’s algo-
rithm for solving the MWSSP for claw-free undirected graphs finds an optimal
solution by tracing (i, wi ) one by one. However, even if a given bidirected graph
is claw-free, this fact does not hold as an example in Figure 1 where (+, +)-
edges are drawn by lines and (+, −)-edges by arrows whose heads mean minus
signs. Thus, it seems to be difficult to trace (i, wi ) one by one for the GSSP.

3 5 4
a b c
i wi solution
0 5 {e}
2
1 10 {b, e}
d e f −4
2 14 {b, e, h}
5
3 13 {b, e, f, g, i}
4 15 {a, c, e, f, g, i}
g h i
3 4 4
Fig. 1.

(N, wN )
(6, w6 )

(4, w4 )
(3, w3 )

(1, w1 )

(0, w0 )

0 1 2 3 4 6 N

Fig. 2.
74 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

We will use a technique of the fractional programming. Let us consider the up-
per envelope of the convex hull of the set of pairs (0, w0 ), (1, w1 ), . . . , (N, wN )
as in Figure 2. We call (i, wi ) a Pareto-optimal pair if it lies on the envelope,
and their solutions Pareto-optimal solutions. Obviously, (0, w0 ) and (N, wN ) are
always Pareto-optimal. In Figure 2, (0, w0 ), (1, w1 ), (3, w3 ), (4, w4 ), (6, w6 ) and
(N, wN ) are Pareto-optimal.
Let X i be a Pareto-optimal solution with X i ∈ Si . Suppose that F is a subset
of all the solutions of G such that X i ∈ F and F is defined independently to
the weight vector w. Let us also consider the Pareto-optimal solutions for the
restriction on F . Obviously, X i is also Pareto-optimal in F . We consider the
following two problems

[MAXδ] max δ(Y ) = w(Y ) − w(X i ) , and
Y ∈F
 
δ(Y )
[MAXρ] max ρ(Y ) = | δ(Y ) > 0 ,
Y ∈F ν(Y )
where ν(Y ) denotes the difference of the numbers of all the positive vertices of
Y and X i . We denote ρ(·) and δ(·) for a weight vector w̄ by ρw̄ (·) and δw̄ (·)
explicitly. Suppose that X i is not optimal in F . Let Y 1 be an optimal solution
of the MAXδ for w̄0 = w. We set r = ρw̄0 (Y 1 ) and consider the new weight
vector w̄1 defined by
 0
w̄i − r if i is a positive vertex,
w̄i1 = (1)
w̄i0 otherwise.

Then, δw̄1 (Y 1 ) = 0. For any solution Y ∈ F,

δw̄0 (Y ) − r · ν(Y )
ρw̄1 (Y ) = = ρw̄0 (Y ) − r.
ν(Y )

Thus, X i is Pareto-optimal in F for w̄1 . We now assume that there is a so-

lution Y ∗ with ρw̄0 (Y ∗ ) > ρw̄0 (Y 1 ) and δw̄0 (Y ∗ ) > 0. Then, evidently, 0 <
ν(Y ∗ ) < ν(Y 1 ). We also have δw̄1 (Y ∗ ) = [δw̄0 (Y ∗ )−r·ν(Y ∗ )] = ν(Y ∗ )[ρw̄0 (Y ∗ )−
ρw̄0 (Y 1 )] > 0. Conversely, if δw̄1 (Y ∗ ) > 0 then ρw̄0 (Y ∗ )>ρw̄0 (Y 1 ) and δw̄0 (Y ∗ ) >
0. Summing up the above discussion, for an optimal solution Y 2 of the MAXδ
for w̄1 , if δw̄1 (Y 2 ) = 0 then Y 1 is an optimal solution of the MAXρ for w; oth-
erwise, by repeating the above process at most |V | times, the MAXρ for w can
be solved, because of the fact that ν(Y 1 ) > ν(Y 2 ) > · · · > 0.
From the above discussion, for each Pareto-optimal solution X i ∈ Si∗ , if we
can easily define a subset F such that
(A1) X i ∈ F and Sj∗ ∩ F = 6 ∅ where (j, wj ) is the next Pareto-optimal pair,
and
(A2) the MAXδ for F and for any w can be solved in time polynomial in the
number of vertices of G,
then we can either determine X i is optimal or find a Pareto-optimal solution
X k ∈ Sk∗ with i < k ≤ N in polynomial time. (We may find (4, w4 ) from (1, w1 )
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 75

in Figure 2.) In addition, if X 0 ∈ S0∗ can be found in polynomial time, the GSSP
for (G, w) can be solved in polynomial time. In fact, this initialization is not so
difficult if we can apply the above technique for any vertex-induced subgraph of
G, because it is sufficient to solve the GSSP for the bidirected graph obtained
from the current one by deleting all the positive vertices, recursively.
Finally we introduce a tool in order to trace Pareto-optimal pairs. Let X i
be a Pareto-optimal solution with i < N . Without loss of generality, we assume
that X i and G satisfy the conditions of Lemma 6. We say that H ⊆ V is an
alternating set for X i if H is connected in G and if X i 4 H is a stable set of
G. We define the weight δ(H) of an alternating set H with respect to w by
w(ex(X i 4 H)) − w(X i ).

Lemma 8. Let (j, wj ) be the next Pareto-optimal pair of (i, wi ). Then, for any
X j ∈ Sj∗ , there exists a connected component H of G[XB i
4 XB j
] such that
ex(XB 4 H) is a Pareto-optimal solution with more positive vertices than X i .
i

Proof. For each connected component H, we denote by ν(H) the difference of

numbers of positive vertices of X j ∩H and X i ∩H. It is not difficult to show that
either (δ(H) > 0 and ν(H) > 0) or (δ(H) = 0 and ν(H) = 0) or (δ(H) < 0 and
j
ν(H) < 0). Here we ignore the second case. Since i < j, G[(XB i
4 XB )] must have
at least one connected component of the first case. For each connected component
H of the first or third case, let ρ(H) = δ(H)/ν(H). From the minimality of j
and the Pareto-optimality of (j, wj ), if H is of the first case, then ρ(H) ≤
(wj −wi )/(j−i). Similarly, if H is of the third case, then ρ(H) ≥ (wj −wi )/(j−i).
j
−w i
By combining the above inequalities and Lemma 7, one can obtain ρ(H) = w j−i
for any H of the first or third case. Hence, any connected component H of the
first case satisfy the assertion. t
u

Lemma 8 says that we can trance Pareto-optimal solutions by using alternating

sets.

4 Finding a Next Pareto-Optimal Solution

Let G, w and X be a given claw-free bidirected graph, a given weight vector on
the vertices and a Pareto-optimal solution with respect to w. Without loss of
generality, we assume that G and X satisfy the conditions of Lemma 6. In this
section, we explain how to find a next Pareto-optimal solution.
We first give several definitions. We call the vertices of X black and the other
vertices white. Any white vertex is adjacent to at most two black vertices, since
otherwise G must have a claw. A white vertex is said to be bounded if it is
adjacent to two black vertices, free if it is adjacent to exactly one black vertex
and otherwise super free. A cycle (or path) is called an alternating cycle (or path)
if white and black vertices appear alternately, and its white vertices form a stable
set. An alternating path is called free if its endpoints are either black or free or
super free. Alternating cycles and free alternating paths are alternating sets,
and vice versa in claw-free cases. Thus, Lemma 8 guarantees that we deal with
76 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

only alternating cycles and free alternating paths in order to find a next Pareto-
optimal solution. An alternating cycle or a free alternating path is called an
augmenting cycle or an augmenting path respectively if it has a positive weight.
For two distinct black vertices x and y, let W denote the set of all the bounded
vertices adjacent to both x and y. If W is not empty, W is called a wing adjacent
to x (and y). A black vertex is called regular if it is adjacent to three or more
wings, irregular if it is adjacent to exactly two wings, and otherwise useless.
An alternating cycle is said to be small if it has at most two regular vertices;
otherwise large. Here we call C1 , . . . , Ck a large augmenting cycle family if each
Ci is a large augmenting cycle and each vertex in Ci is adjacent to no vertex in
Cj for 1 ≤ i < j ≤ k. From Lemma 7, δ(C1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ck ) = δ(C1 ) + · · · + δ(Ck )
holds.
Our algorithm for finding a next Pareto-optimal solution is described by
using the technique discussed in the previous section:

(0) w0 ← w and i ← 0 ;
(1) Find a small augmenting cycle Ai+1 of the maximum weight for wi if it
exists, otherwise go to (2) ;
Construct the new weight wi+1 by applying (1), i ← i + 1 and repeat (1) ;
(2) Find a large augmenting cycle family Ai+1 of the maximum weight for wi
if it exists, otherwise go to (3) ;
Construct the new weight wi+1 by applying (1), i ← i + 1 and repeat (2) ;
(3) Find an augmenting path Ai+1 of the maximum weight for wi if it exists,
otherwise go to (4) ;
Construct the new weight wi+1 by applying (1), i ← i + 1 and repeat (3) ;
(4) If i = 0 then X is optimal, otherwise ex(X 4 Ai ) is a next Pareto-optimal
solution.

Note that in (2) there is no small augmenting cycle since these are eliminated
in (1), and that in (3) there is no augmenting cycle since these are eliminated in
(1) and (2). These facts are important in the following sense.

Theorem 9. For any weight vector,

1. a maximum weight small augmenting cycle can be found in polynomial time,

2. a maximum weight large augmenting cycle family can be found in polynomial

time if no small augmenting cycle exists,
3. a maximum weight augmenting path can be found in polynomial time if no
augmenting cycle exists.

By Lemma 8 and Theorem 9, our algorithm find a next Pareto-optimal solu-

tion in polynomial time. Summing up the above discussions, we obtain our main
theorem.

Theorem 10. The GSSP for claw-free bidirected graphs is polynomially solv-
able.
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 77

In the rest of the section, we briefly explain a proof of Theorem 9. Our ap-
proach is an extension of Minty’s algorithm for undirected claw-free graphs. This,
however, does not seem a straightforward extension because we must overcome
several problems. A significant problem is how to deal with ‘induced weights’.
Let A be an alternating cycle or a free alternating path. Then its weight is
expressed as
P −+
δX (A) = w(A−X) − w(X∩A) + {w(v) | v is mixed, NG (v) ∩ (A−X) 6= ∅}.
P
We call the term the induced weight, which appears in the bidirected case but
not in the undirected case.
We first consider cycles. Let x1 , . . . , xk with k ≥ 3 be distinct black vertices
and W1 , . . . , Wk , Wk+1 = W1 be wings such that xi is adjacent to Wi and Wi+1
for i = 1, . . . , k. Then (W1 , x1 , W2 , . . . , Wk , xk , W1 ) is called a cycle of wings. It
is easy to show the following:

Lemma 11 ([4]). Let (W1 , x1 , W2 , . . . , Wk , xk , W1 ) with k ≥ 3 be a cycle of

wings and yi ∈ Wi for i = 1, . . . , k. Then (y1 , x1 , y2 , . . . , yk , xk , yk+1 = y1 ) is an
alternating cycle if and only if yi is not adjacent to yi+1 for i = 1, . . . , k.

−+
Lemma 12. Let v be a mixed vertex such that NG (v) has a bounded vertex
but is not included in a wing. Then there uniquely exists a black vertex x such
−+
that [x = v or x is adjacent to v] and all the vertices in NG (v) are adjacent to
x.

Proof. It is trivial if v is black. Suppose that v is white. Let y be a bounded

−+
vertex in NG (v), and let x1 and x2 be the black vertices adjacent to y. Since
they are in X which is a stable set, x1 is not adjacent to x2 . Thus, without loss of
generality, we can assume that v is adjacent to x1 since otherwise {y, v, x1 , x2 }
induces a claw. The edge (v, x1 ) is not a (−, +)-edge because v is white and
x1 is black. That is, the sign of this edge at v is +. Let y 0 be any vertex in
−+
NG (v) − {y}. Then y 0 must be adjacent to x1 from the transitivity. Finally
note that v is not adjacent to x2 , since otherwise from the same discussion any
−+ −+
vertex in NG (v) − {y} must be adjacent to x2 and NG (v) is included in the
wing adjacent to x1 and x2 , a contradiction. t
u

Lemma 13. Let C = (W1 , x1 , W2 , . . . , Wk , xk , W1 ) be a cycle of wings (k ≥

3). Then a maximum weight alternating cycle included in C can be found in
polynomial time.

Proof. Let Wk+1 = W1 and W0 = Wk . For i = 1, . . . , k and for each pair y ∈ Wi

and z ∈ Wi+1 such that y is not adjacent P to z, draw a directed ‘red’ edge
−+
from y to z with weight w(y) − w(xi ) + {w(v)| v is mixed, NG (v) ∩ Wi−1 =
−+ −+ −+
∅, NG (v) ∩ Wi 6= ∅ and [y ∈ NG (v) or z ∈ NG (v)]}. From Lemma 11, there
is a one-to-one mapping between all the directed cycles of red edges and all the
alternating cycles in C.
78 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

−+
Let v be a mixed vertex such that NG (v) ∩ (W1 ∪ · · · ∪ Wk ) 6= ∅. From
−+
Lemma 12, there uniquely exists i ∈ {1, . . . , k} such that NG (v) ∩ Wi−1 =
−+ −+
∅ and NG (v) ∩ Wi 6= ∅. Moreover from Lemma 12 again, for such i, NG (v) ∩
((W1 ∪ · · · ∪ Wk ) − (Wi ∪ Wi+1 )) = ∅. Hence the mapping conserves weights. A
maximum weight directed cycle of red edges can be found in polynomial time
by the breadth first search. t
u

Lemma 14. A maximum weight small augmenting cycle can be found in poly-
nomial time.

Proof. The number of alternating cycles of length 4 is polynomially bounded.

Thus we can easily find one having the maximum weight. On the other hand,
each alternating cycle of length at least 6 is included in a certain cycle of wings.
The number of all cycles of wings containing at most two regular vertices is
polynomially bounded. We can also enumerate these in polynomial time. By
Lemma 13, we can find a maximum weight small augmenting cycle in polynomial
time. t
u

Unfortunately, a maximum weight large augmenting cycle cannot be found

in polynomial time in the same way because the number of the cycles of wings
having three or more regular vertices cannot be polynomially bounded. Before
considering the step (2) in our algorithm, we introduce a useful property relative
to wings around regular vertices. For convenience, we will use some notations as
below:

• v1 ∼v2 means that v1 and v2 are adjacent, and v1 6∼v2 means v1 and v2 are
not adjacent.
+−
• v1 ∼ v2 says there is an edge having plus and minus sings at v1 and v2
+−
respectively, and v1 6∼ v2 is its negation.
+ ++ +− +
• v1 ∼ v2 denotes either v1 ∼ v2 or v1 ∼ v2 , and v1 6∼ v2 is the negation of
+
v1 ∼ v2 .
• v1  v2 says that v1 and v2 are contained in the same wing, and v1 6  v2 is its
negation.

Lemma 15 ([4]). Given a regular vertex x, let B(x) = {v| v∼x and v is
bounded}. Then there exists a partition of B(x), namely [N 1 (x), N 2 (x)], such
that for any v1 , v2 ∈ B(x) with v1 6  v2 ,

v1 ∼v2 ⇐⇒ [v1 , v2 ∈ N 1 (v) or v1 , v2 ∈ N 2 (v)].

Moreover this partition is uniquely determined, and hence, it can be found in

polynomial time.

This is the key lemma of Minty’s algorithm. If a large alternating cycle or a free
alternating path passes through v1 ∈ N 1 (v) and a regular vertex v, then it must
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 79

pass through a vertex v2 such that v2 ∈ N 2 (v) and v2 6  v1 . From this property
Minty showed that by constructing a graph called the “Edmonds’ graph” and by
finding a maximum weight perfect matching of it, a maximum weight augmenting
path for any Pareto-optimal stable set can be found in polynomial time. To
deal with induced weights, we require an additional property of the partition of
vertices adjacent to a regular vertex.
Lemma 16. For a regular vertex x and a vertex v such that v = x or v∼x, we
define
def +− +−
N 1 (x) v N 2 (x) ⇐⇒ ∃a∈N 1 (x), ∃b∈N 2 (x) such that a6∼b, a ∼ v and b 6∼ v,
def +− +−
N 2 (x) v N 1 (x) ⇐⇒ ∃c∈N 2 (x), ∃d∈N 1 (x) such that c6∼d, c ∼ v and d 6∼ v.
Then at most one of N 1 (x) v N 2 (x) and N 2 (x) v N 1 (x) holds.
+− +
Proof. Let us consider the case v = x. If b 6∼ x, then b ∼ x because b∼x. In
+− +
addition, if a ∼ x, then a ∼ b. Hence neither N 1 (x) x N 2 (x) nor N 2 (x) x
N 1 (x) holds.
Suppose to the contrary that v∼x, N 1 (x) v N 2 (x) and N 2 (x) v N 1 (x).
+− +−
There exist a, d ∈ N 1 (x) and b, c ∈ N 2 (x) such that a6∼b, c6∼d, a ∼ v, b 6∼ v,
+− +−
c ∼ v and d 6∼ v. Note that b, d and v are mutually distinct. Assume to the con-
+ +− +− + +
trary that b∼v. Then b ∼ v because b 6∼ v. But a ∼ v and v ∼ b induce a ∼ b,
contradicting a6∼b. Hence b6∼v and similarly d6∼v. Now b∼d since otherwise
{x, b, d, v} induces a claw. Thus b  d from Lemma 15.
Suppose that a  c. Because x is regular, i.e., x is adjacent to at least three
wings, there exists e ∈ N (x) such that e 6  a  c and e 6  b  d. Suppose that e ∈
+−
N 1 (x). Then e6∼b and e6∼c from Lemma 15. If e 6∼ v, then replace d by e, and from
+−
the above discussion, b  e, a contradiction. Hence e ∼ v, and we can replace a by
e. Similarly if e ∈/ N 1 (x), i.e., e ∈ N 2 (x), then we can replace c by e. Henceforth
we assume that a 6  c.
Suppose to the contrary that a 6  d. From Lemma 15, a∼d. Since a is bounded,
a is adjacent to two black vertices: x and namely y. Then d6∼y, since otherwise
d∼x and d∼y imply a  d, a contradiction. Now v∼y since otherwise {a, d, v, y}
+ −+
induces a claw. Note that v ∼ y since otherwise v ∼ y, contradicting the fact
+− + +
that y is black and v is white. Thus c ∼ v and v ∼ y induce c ∼ y. However, c∼x
and c∼y imply a  c, a contradiction. Hence a  d and similarly c  b. Since a  d,
d  b and b  c, a  c holds. However, this contradicts the assumption a 6  c. t
u
We add the induced weight of an alternating cycle or a free alternating path
to weights of appropriate vertices in it. We define w̃ : (V ∪ (V × V )) → < by the
following procedure: let w̃ ← 0 and for each mixed vertex v,
−+
• if B −+ (v) = {u | u is bounded, v ∼ u} is empty or included in a wing,
w̃(u) ← w̃(u) + w(v) for each u ∈ B −+ (v),
80 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

• otherwise there uniquely exists a black vertex x such that x = v or x∼v,

from Lemma 12,
? if x is regular, then
− if N 2 (x) v N 1 (x), then w̃(u) ← w̃(u) + w(v) for each u ∈ B −+ (v) ∩
N 2 (x),
− otherwise w̃(u) ← w̃(u) + w(v) for each u ∈ B −+ (v) ∩ N 1 (x),
? otherwise x must be irregular, and w̃(t, u) ← w̃(t, u) + w(v) for each pair
+− +−
of vertices t, u ∈ B(x) such that t 6  u, t6∼u and [t ∼ v or u ∼ v].
By combining Lemmas 15 and 16, we can prove the next lemma.
Lemma 17. Let C = (y1 , x1 , y2 , x2 , . . . , yk , xk , yk+1 = y1 ) be an alternating
cycle with white vertices y1 , . . . , yk and black vertices x1 , . . . , xk (k ≥ 3). Then
Pk Pk Pk Pk
δX (C) = i=1 w(yi ) − i=1 w(xi ) + i=1 w̃(yi ) + i=1 w̃(yi , yi+1 ).

If there is no small augmenting cycle, by using Lemma 17, we can construct the
Edmonds’ graph Ĝ such that
1. each edge of Ĝ is colored black or white, and it has a weight ŵ,
2. all the black edges form a perfect matching M of Ĝ,
3. if M is a maximum weight perfect matching of Ĝ then there is no large
augmenting cycle family in G and
4. if ŵ(M ) < ŵ(M ∗ ) for a maximum weight perfect matching M ∗ of Ĝ, let
Ĉ1 , . . . , Ĉk be all the augmenting cycles in M ∗ 4 M ; then Ĉ1 , . . . , Ĉk cor-
respond to a maximum weight large augmenting cycle family C1 , . . . , Ck in
G.
In the next section, we show that the Edmonds’ graph can be constructed in
polynomial time. Hence the step (2) in our algorithm can be done in polynomial
time. Analogously, if there is no augmenting cycle, for any pair of vertices a and
b, we can find a maximum weight augmenting path whose endpoints are a and
b, if it exists, by constructing the Edmonds’ graph and by finding a maximum
weight perfect matching in it. Now we can find a maximum weight augmenting
path by trying all the pairs of vertices a and b.

5 Constructing and Modifying the Edmonds’ Graph

We now describe how to construct the Edmonds’ graph to find a maximum
weight large alternating cycle family. We note that Edmonds’ graphs for finding
a maximum weight augmenting path can be obtained by modifying the construc-
tion.
A white alternating path P is called an irregular white alternating path
(IWAP) if all black vertices of P are irregular and no wing contains two white
vertices of P . For an IWAP P = (y1 , z1 , y2 , z2 , . . . , zk−1 , yk ), we define its weight,
denoted by δ̃X (P ) as
P P Pk Pk−1
δ̃X (P ) = ki=1 w(yi ) − k−1
i=1 w(zi ) + i=1 w̃(yi ) + i=1 w̃(yi , yi+1 ).
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 81

Then Lemma 17 can be described in terms of IWAP:

Lemma 18. Let C = (P1 , x1 , P2 , x2 , . . . , Pk , xk , Pk+1 = P1 ) be an alternating
cycle of length at least 6 such that k ≥ 2, x1 , . . . , xk are distinct regular vertices
and P1 , . . . , Pk are IWAPs. Then
P P
δX (C) = ki=1 δ̃X (Pi ) − ki=1 w(xi ).

Lemma 19. Let A and B be subsets of bounded vertices. Then a maximum

weight IWAP whose endpoints are in A and B respectively can be found in poly-
nomial time.
Proof. We can reduce this problem to find maximum weight directed paths in
directed acyclic graphs. u
t
Now we make the Edmonds’ graph GEd . Let x1 , . . . , xr be all the regular
vertices. GEd has 2r vertices, namely x1i , x2i (i = 1, . . . , r). Join x1i and x2i by
a black edge with weight ŵ(x1i , x2i ) = w(xi ) (i = 1, . . . , r). For each pair of
regular vertices xi and xj and for p, q ∈ {1, 2}, if there exists an IWAP whose
endpoints are in N p (xi ) and N q (xj ), join xpi and xqj by a white edge whose
weight ŵ(xpi , xqj ) is the maximum weight among such IWAPs. Now we finish
constructing the Edmonds’ graph.
Let M be the set of all the black edges. Note that M is a perfect matching.
An alternating cycle Ĉ of length 2k ≥ 6 in GEd corresponds to a large alternating
cycle C in G where C has k regular vertices and δM (Ĉ) = δX (C).
But this is not true for k = 2. Let Ĉ = (x1i , x1j , x2j , x2i , x1i ) be an alternating
cycle of GEd . Here xi and xj are distinct regular vertices. We denote Ppq as
the maximum weight IWAP corresponding to the edge (xpi , xqj ) in the Edmonds’
graph for p, q ∈ {1, 2}. If δM (Ĉ) is not positive, then there is no problem in our
purpose. So suppose that its weight is positive, i.e. δM (Ĉ) = δ̃X (P11 )+ δ̃X (P22 )−
w(xi ) − w(xj ) > 0.
If P11 and P22 have no vertex in common, then C = (xi , P11 , xj , P22 , xi ) is
a small augmenting cycle, contradicting to that we have already eliminated all
the small augmenting cycles. Hence we can denote
P11 = (y11 , z1 , y21 , z2 , . . . , y`−1
1
, z`−1 , y`1 ) and
P22 = (y12 , z1 , y22 , z2 , . . . , y`−1
2
, z`−1 , y`2 ).
Here z1 , . . . , z`−1 are irregular vertices, both yk1 and yk2 are in a common wing
Wk for k = 1, . . . , `, y11 ∈ N 1 (xi ), y12 ∈ N 2 (xi ), y`1 ∈ N 1 (xj ) and y`2 ∈ N 2 (xj ).
We first discuss an easy situation. A wing W is said to be irregular reachable
to a regular vertex x if there exist an integer m ≥ 1, distinct irregular vertices
z1 , . . . , zm−1 and distinct wings W1 (= W ), W2 , . . . , Wm such that W1 is adjacent
to z1 and Wk is adjacent to zk−1 and zk for k = 2, . . . , m, where zm = x. Let
W (xi , xj ) denote the union of all the wings that are irregular reachable to both
xi and xj .
82 Daishin Nakamura and Akihisa Tamura

Lemma 20. If N 1 (xj ) ⊆ W (xi , xj ), then any large alternating cycle in G passes
through neither P12 nor P22 . That is, we can delete the edges (x1i , x2j ) and (x2i , x2j )
from GEd . Similarly if N 2 (xj ) ⊆ W (xi , xj ), we can delete (x1i , x1j ) and (x2i , x1j ). If
N 1 (xi ) ⊆ W (xi , xj ), we can delete (x2i , x1j ) and (x2i , x2j ). If N 2 (xi ) ⊆ W (xi , xj ),
we can delete (x1i , x1j ) and (x1i , x2j ).
Proof. Suppose that a large alternating cycle C passes xi , P12 (or P22 ) and xj .
Before xj , it passes a vertex in N 2 (xj ). Hence after xj , it must pass a vertex
v ∈ N 1 (xj ) ⊆ W (xi , xj ). Hence C contains exactly two regular vertices xi and
xj , contradicting to that C is large. t
u
In the sequel, we suppose that none of N 1 (xi ), N 2 (xi ), N 1 (xj ) nor N 2 (xj )
is contained in W (xi , xj ).
Lemma 21. There exists k such that yk1 = yk2 and 2 ≤ k ≤ ` − 1, or there exists
k such that yk1 ∼yk2 and 1 ≤ k ≤ `.

Proof. Suppose that this lemma does not hold, i.e. yk1 6= yk2 and yk1 6∼yk2 for all
k = 1, . . . , ` (Note that y11 6= y12 and y`1 6= y`2 since B 1 (xi ) ∩ B 2 (xi ) = B 1 (xj ) ∩
B 2 (xj ) = ∅). Let z0 = xi , z` = xj and Ck = (yk1 , zk , yk2 , zk−1 , yk1 ) (k = 1, . . . , `).
P` Ck is a small alternating cycle for all k = 1, . . . , `. We can show that
Then
k=1 δX (Ck ) = δ̃X (P11 ) + δ̃X (P22 ) − w(xi ) − w(xj )(> 0). (The proof is slightly
complicated because we must consider about the induced weight w̃.) Hence at
least one Ck is a small augmenting cycle, a contradiction. t
u
Now we can show the next two lemmas, but proofs are omitted.
Lemma 22. If ` = 1, any large alternating cycle passes through neither P11 nor
P22 . Hence we can delete the edges (x1i , x1j ) and (x2i , x2j ) from GEd .

Lemma 23. If ` ≥ 2, the followings hold.

1. There exists k such that 2 ≤ k ≤ ` − 1 and yk1 = yk2 , or there exists k such
that 1 ≤ k ≤ ` − 1, yk1 6= yk2 , yk+1
1 2
6= yk+1 , yk1 6∼yk+1
2
and yk2 6∼yk+1
1
.
2. For such k, let
P11i = (y11 , z1 , y21 , . . . , zk−1 , yk1 ), 1
P11j = (yk+1 1
, zk+1 , . . . , y`−1 , z`−1 , y`1 ),
P22i = (y1 , z1 , y2 , . . . , zk−1 , yk ) and P22j = (yk+1 , zk+1 , . . . , y`−1 , z`−1 , y`2 ),
2 2 2 2 2

0 0
and let P12 = (P11i , zk , P22j ) and P21 = (P22i , zk , P11j ).
0 0 0
Then δ̃X (P12 ) + δ̃X (P21 ) = δ̃X (P11 ) + δ̃X (P22 ), P12 is an IWAP between
B (xi ) and B (xj ), and P21 is an IWAP between B 2 (xi ) and B 1 (xj ).
1 2 0

3. δ̃X (P11 ) + δ̃X (P22 ) = δ̃X (P12 ) + δ̃X (P21 ).

0 0
4. δ̃X (P12 ) = δ̃X (P12 ) and δ̃X (P21 ) = δ̃X (P21 ).
Summing up the above discussion, dealing with three cases, i.e. Lemmas 20,
22 and 23, we modify the Edmonds’ graph. In the first two cases, elimination
of augmenting cycles of a form (x1i , x1j , x2j , x2i , x1i ) or (x1i , x2j , x1j , x2i , x1i ) can be
easily done by deleting edges. In the last case, we modify GEd as below:
 The Stable Set Problem for Claw-Free Bidirected Graphs 83

1. Delete four edges (x1i , x1j ), (x2i , x2j ), (x1i , x2j ) and (x2i , x1j ) (Lemma 23 guaran-
tees the existence of these four edges),
2. Add two new vertices zki and zkj , join zki and zkj by a black edge and assign
its weight ŵ((zki , zkj )) to be 0, where k satisfies the conditions of Lemma 23,
3. Add four white edges (x1i , zki ), (x2i , zki ), (x1j , zkj ) and (x2j , zkj ), and assign their
weights to be ŵ((x1i , zki )) = δ̃X (P11 ), ŵ((x2i , zki )) = δ̃X (P22 ), ŵ((x1j , zkj )) = 0
and ŵ((x2j , zkj )) = δ̃X (P12 ) − δ̃X (P11 )(= δ̃X (P22 ) − δ̃X (P21 )).

All large alternating cycles through black edges (x1i , x2i ) and (x1j , x2j ) can
be preserved by our revision, because (xpi , xqj ) in the original Edmonds’ graph
(p, q ∈ {1, 2}) is interpreted by the path (xpi , zki , zkj , xqj ) in the revised Edmonds’
graph. Furthermore, Lemma 23 guarantees that weights of these four edges are
equal to those of such four paths, respectively.

Lemma 24. A maximum weight large alternating cycle family can be found in
polynomial time if there is no small augmenting cycle.

Proof. Make the Edmonds’ graph. Then eliminate all the augmenting cycles of
a form (x1i , x1j , x2j , x2i , x1i ) or (x1i , x2j , x1j , x2i , x1i ). Let G0Ed be the modified graph
and M 0 be the set of its black edges. Note that M 0 is perfect. Let M ∗ be a
maximum weight perfect matching andSĈ1 , . . . , Ĉk be all the augmenting cycle in
M 0 4 M ∗ (k may be zero). Note that ( i=1 Ĉi ) is a maximum weight alternating
k

cycle family of G0Ed . Then each Ĉi has length at least 6 because we eliminate all
augmenting cycles of length 4, and hence Ĉi corresponds to a large augmenting
cycle Ci of X such that δX (Ci ) = δM 0 (Ĉi ). Moreover C1 , . . . , Ck are disjoint
because Ĉ1 , . . . , Ĉk are vertex-disjoint. Now fromSconstruction and modification
k
of the Edmonds’ graph, we can conclude that ( i=1 Ci ) is a maximum weight
large alternating cycle family of X. t
u

References
1. E. Boros and O. C̆epek, O. On perfect 0, ±1 matrices. Discrete Math., 165/166:81–
100, 1997.
2. M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, and C. De Francesco. Perfect 0, ±1 matrices. Linear
Algebra Appl., 253:299–309, 1997.
3. E. L. Johnson and M. W. Padberg. Degree-two inequalities, clique facets, and
biperfect graphs. Ann. Discrete Math., 16:169–187, 1982.
4. G. J. Minty. On maximal independent sets of vertices in claw-free graphs. J.
Combin. Theory Ser. B, 28:284–304, 1980.
5. E. C. Sewell. Binary integer programs with two variables per inequality. Math.
Programming, 75:467–476, 1996.
6. A. Tamura. The generalized stable set problem for perfect bidirected graphs. J.
Oper. Res. Soc. Japan, 40:401–414, 1997.
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti

?
Zoltán Szigeti

Equipe Combinatoire, Université Paris 6

75252 Paris, Cedex 05, France
Zoltan.Szigeti@@ecp6.jussieu.fr

Abstract. A simple proof is presented for the min-max theorem of

Lovász on cacti. Instead of using the result of Lovász on matroid parity,
we shall apply twice the (conceptionally simpler) matroid intersection
theorem.

1 Introduction
The graph matching problem and the matroid intersection problem are two well-
solved problems in Combinatorial Theory in the sense of min-max theorems and
polynomial algorithms for finding an optimal solution. The matroid parity prob-
lem, a common generalization of them, turned out to be much more difficult. For
the general problem there does not exist polynomial algorithm [2], [3]. Moreover,
it contains NP-hard problems. On the other hand, for linear matroids Lovász
[3] provided a min-max formula and a polynomial algorithm. There are several
earlier results which can be derived from Lovász’ theorem, e.g. Tutte’s result
on f -factors [9], a result of Mader on openly disjoint A-paths [5], a result of
Nebesky concerning maximum genus of graphs [6]. Another application which
can be found in the book of Lovász and Plummer [4] is the problem of cacti. It
is mentioned there that ”a direct proof would be desirable.” Our aim is to fill
in this gap, that is to provide a simpler proof for this problem. We remark here
that we shall apply the matroid intersection theorem twice. We refer the reader
to [7] for basic concepts of matroids.
A graph K is called cactus if each block (maximal 2-connected subgraph) of
K is a triangle (cycle of length three). The size of a cactus K is the number
of its blocks. Lovász derived a min-max theorem for the maximum size of a
cactus contained in a given graph G from his general min-max theorem on linear
matroid parity problem. Here we shall give a simple proof for this result on cacti.
The proof follows the line of Gallai’s (independently Anderson’s [1]) proof for
Tutte’s theorem on the existence of perfect matchings.
In fact, we shall solve the graphic matroid parity problem in the special case
when for each pair the two edges have exactly one vertex in common. The graphic
?
This work was done while the author visited Laboratoire LEIBNIZ, Institut IMAG,
Grenoble.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 84–95, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 85

matroid parity problem is the following. Given a graph G and a partition of its
edge set into pairs, what is the maximum size of a forest which consists of pairs,
in other words, what is the maximum number of pairs whose union is a forest.
A pair of edges is called v-pair if these two edges have exactly one vertex in
common and they are not loops. If G is an arbitrary graph and V is a partition
of the edge set of G into v-pairs then (G, V) is called v-graph. From now on a
cactus of (G, V) is a forest of G consisting of v-pairs in V. The size of a cactus
is the number of v-pairs contained in it. The v-graphic matroid parity problem
consists of finding the maximum size β(G, V) of a cactus in a v-graph (G, V).
The original cactus problem can be formulated as a v-graphic matroid parity
problem as follows. Let (G0 , V) be the following v-graph. The vertex set of G0
is the same as of G. We define the edge set of G0 and the partition V of the
edge set into v-pairs as follows. For each triangle T of G we introduce a v-pair
in (G0 , V): choose any two edges of T, add them to the edge set of G0 and add
this v-pair to V. (G0 will contain lots of parallel edges. In fact, G0 is obtained
from G by multiplying edges.) Obviously, there is a one to one correspondence
between the cacti of G and the forests of G0 being the union of v-pairs. Thus
the problem is indeed a v-graphic matroid parity problem.
To state the theorem on cacti we need some definitions. Let (G, V) be a v-
graph. Let P := {V1 , V2 , ..., Vl } be a partition of the vertex set V (G). Let VP ⊆ V
(SP ⊆ V) be the set of those v-pairs whose end vertices belong to three (two)
different members of P. Let Q := {H1 , H2 , ..., Hk } be a partition of VP ∪ SP .
Let us denote by p(Hi ) the number of Vj ’s for which there exists at least one
v-pair in Hi with a vertex in Vj . We say that (P, Q) is a cover of (G, V). The
value val(P, Q) of a cover is defined as follows.
X p(Hi ) − 1
val(P, Q) := n − l + b c,
2
Hi ∈Q

where n = |V (G)|, l = |P| and k = |Q|.

Now, we are able to present the min-max result of Lovász [4] on cacti in our
terminology.

Theorem 1. Let (G, V) be a v-graph. Then β(G, V) = min{val(P, Q)}, where

the minimum is taken over all covers (P, Q) of (G, V).

Remark 1. In the definition of a cover, Q could be defined as the partition of V

and not of VP ∪SP . Indeed, if (P, Q) is a cover, then the pairs in V −VP ∪SP can
be added to Q as new members of the partition without changing the value of the
cover since p(T ) = 1 for all T ∈ V −VP ∪SP . We mention that if T ∈ V −VP ∪SP ,
then T can not be in a maximal cactus.

A cactus of (G, V) is called perfect if it is a spanning tree of G. If G contains

only one vertex v and no edge, then the vertex v is considered as a perfect cactus
of (G, V). Since a spanning tree contains n − 1 edges, β(G, V) ≤ b n−1 2 c, for any
v-graph (G, V).
86 Zoltán Szigeti

Let (P, Q) be a cover of a v-graph (G, V). The elements Hi ∈ Q are called
components of the cover. G/P will denote the graph obtained from G by con-
tracting each set Vi in P into one vertex. We identify the edge sets of G and
G/P. (GP , VP ) is the v-graph, where VP is defined as above, it contains those
v-pairs of V which remain v-pairs after the contraction, the vertex set of GP is
the same as of G/P and the edge set of GP is the set of edges of the v-pairs in
VP , that is, GP is obtained from G/P by deleting the edges which do not belong
to any v-pair in VP . For Hi ∈ Q, (GP [Hi ], Hi ) will denote the v-graph for which
the edge set of GP [Hi ] is the set of edges of the v-pairs in Hi and the vertex set
of GP [Hi ] contains those vertices of GP for which at least one v-pair of Hi is
incident. Then p(Hi ) is the number of vertices of GP [Hi ]. (Note that if Hi ∈ SP ,
then (GP [Hi ], Hi ) contains two edges which are parallel or one of them is a loop,
that is it is not really a v-graph. However, we shall need this type of ”v-graphs”
in the proof.) If F is a subset of edges of a v-graph (G, V) then the number of
v-pairs of V contained in F is denoted by vV (F ).
For a graph G on n vertices and with c connected components, a forest of G
containing n − c edges is called spanning. For a connected graph G, a forest F of
G containing n − 2 edges (that is, F has exactly two connected components) is
called almost spanning. A v-graph will be called (cactus)-critical if by identifying
any two vertices the v-graph obtained has a perfect cactus. Especially, this means
that in a critical v-graph there exists a cactus which is almost perfect, that is,
it is an almost spanning tree consisting of v-pairs. Critical v-graphs will play an
important role in the proof, like factor-critical graphs play the key role in the
proof of Tutte’s theorem. A component Hi ∈ Q is said to be critical in (G, V) if
the v-graph (GP [Hi ], Hi ) is critical. If Hi ∈ SP , then (GP [Hi ], Hi ) is considered
to be critical.
We say that the partition P of V is the trivial partition if l := |P| = n := |V |.
The cover (P, Q) is the trivial cover if l = n and k := |Q| = 1. Let P 0 =
{V11 , ..., V1r1 , V21 , ..., V2r2 , ..., Vl1 , ..., Vlrl }, where ∪j Vij = Vi for all i, then the
partition P 0 is called a refinement of the partition P. If P 0 is a refinement of P
so that |P 0 | = |P| + 1, then we say it is an elementary refinement. If Vi ∈ P then
the partition obtained from P by replacing Vi by its singletons will be denoted
by P ÷ {Vi }. If P 0 is a refinement of P, then we shall use p0 (Hi ) instead of p(Hi ).
We shall need later two auxiliary graphs B and D. These graphs will depend
on a v-graph (G, V) and a cover (P, Q) of this v-graph. We suppose that for
each component Hi , p(Hi ) is even. First we define the graph B = (V (G), E(B)).
e = uv will be an edge of B if and only if there exist u, v ∈ Vj ∈ P, Hi ∈ Q and
a cactus K in (GP÷{Vj } [Hi ], Hi ) consisting of p(Hi )/2 v-pairs so that exactly
two vertices u and v of Vj are connected in K, not necessarily by an edge but by
a path in K, that is u and v are in the same connected component of K. (Note
that K contains a cactus of size (p(Hi ) − 2)/2 in (GP [Hi ], Hi ). We mention that
(by Lemma 2, see later) (GP [Hi ], Hi ) will always contain a cactus consisting of
(p(Hi ) − 2)/2 v-pairs of V.) We call this edge e an augmenting edge for Hi . In
other words, the trace of the cactus K in P is the edge e. We will call the edges
of B as augmenting edges. Note that an edge of B may be augmenting for more
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 87

Hi ∈ Q. Let P 0 be a refinement of P. Then the set AP 0 of augmenting edges

connecting vertices in different sets of P 0 will be called the augmenting edges
with respect to the refinement P 0 .
The second auxiliary graph D will be a bipartite graph with colour classes
E(B) (the edge set of B) and Q. Two vertices e ∈ E(B) and Hi ∈ Q are
connected if and only if e is an augmenting edge for Hi . As usually, the set of
neighbours of a vertex set X of one of the colour classes of D will be denoted by
ΓD (X).
Finally, some words about the ideas of the proof. As it was mentioned earlier
we shall follow the proof of Tutte’s theorem. Let us briefly summarize the steps
of this proof. We suppose that the Tutte condition is satisfied for a given graph
G and we have to construct a perfect matching of G. Let X be a maximal
set satisfying the condition with equality. The maximality of X implies that
all the components of G − X are factor-critical, thus it is enought to find a
perfect matching in an auxiliary bipartite graph D, where one of the color classes
corresponds to X while the other to the (critical) components. Hall’s theorem
(or the matroid intersection theorem) provides easily the existence of a perfect
matching M in D. The desired perfect matching of G can be obtained from M
and from the almost perfect matchings of the critical components. We mention
that this is a lucky case because the union of these almost perfect matchings will
be automatically a matching in G.
In the case of cacti it is not easier to prove that version where we have to find
a perfect cactus, so we shall prove directly the min-max theorem. We shall choose
a minimal cover (P, Q) of (G, V) which is maximal in some certain sense. This
will imply that the minimal cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) is unique for each component
Hi . This fact has two consequences, namely (i) each component Hi is critical
(hence p(Hi ) is even) and (ii) for any component Hi and for any refinement P 0
of P, either there exists an augmenting edge for Hi with respect to P 0 or its
cover rests minimal in (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi ).
We shall construct the cactus of size val(P, Q) in (G, V) as follows. (1) For
n − l components Hi , we shall find a cactus Ki in (GP÷{Vj } [Hi ], Hi ) of size
p(Hi )/2 so that the trace of Ki in P is an edge and the corresponding augmenting
edges form a spanning forest of the auxiliary graph B. (We shall see that the size
of a spanning forest of B is indeed n−l.) (2) For the other components Hj we shall
need a cactus in (GP [Hj ], Hj ) of size p(Hj )/2−1, and (3) the union of all of these
forests will be a forest, that is a cactus of size val(P, Q). Using (i), for the latter
components Hj it is enough to find an arbitrary almost spanning tree in GP [Hj ]
(and then using that Hj is critical, this forest can be replaced by a convenient
cactus containing the same number of edges, that is of size p(Hi )/2 − 1). By
the definition of augmenting edge, for the former components Hi it is enough to
consider an arbitrary spanning tree in GP [Hi ] so that (∗) there exist augmenting
edges for these components whose union will be a spanning forest of B. Thus we
have to find a forest F in G so that (a) E(F ) ∩ E(GP [Hj ]) is either a spanning
tree or an almost spanning tree in GP [Hj ], (b) for n − l components Hi we have
spanning tree, (c) for these components (∗) is satisfied.
88 Zoltán Szigeti

The existence of a forest with (a) and (b) can be proved, using (ii), by a
matroid partition theorem (for a graphic matroid and a truncated partitional
matroid). We shall see in Lemma 5 that if for all such forests we consider the
components where the corresponding forest is a spanning tree then we get the
set of basis of a matroid on the set of indices of the components.
Two matroids will be defined on the edge set of the auxiliary graph D, one
of them will be defined by the above introduced matroid, and the other one will
be defined by the cycle matroid of B. The matroid intersection theorem will
provide a forest of G with (a), (b) and (c). As we mentioned earlier, each part of
the forest, which corresponds to a component, can be replaced by a convenient
cactus, and thus the desired cactus has been found.

2 The Proof

Proof. (max ≤ min) Let F be an arbitrary cactus in (G, V) and let (P, Q) be any
cover of (G, V). Contract each Vi ∈ P i = 1, 2, . . . , l into a vertex and let F 0 be a
subset of F of maximum size so that F 0 is a forest in the contracted graph G/P.
For the number c (c0 ) of connected components of F in G (of F 0 in G/P) we have
obviously, c0 ≤ c. Thus |F | = n − c ≤ n − c0 = (l − c0 ) + (n − l) = |F 0 | + (n − l). It
follows that vV (F ) ≤ vV (F 0 ) + n − l. Let F 00 be the maximum subforest of F 0 in
GP consisting of v-pairs S in V. Obviously, F 00 forms a cactus in each (GP [Hi ], Hi )
Hi ∈ Q. By definition, Hi ∈Q Hi covers all the v-pairs contained in F 00 . Thus
P P
vV (F 0 ) = vV (F 00 ) = vVP (F 00 ) = Hi ∈Q vHi (F 00 ) ≤ Hi ∈Q b p(H2i )−1 c, and the
desired inequality follows. t
u

Proof. (max ≥ min) We prove the theorem by induction on the number n of

vertices of G. For n = 3 the result is trivially true.
Let (P, Q) be a minimum cover of (G, V) for which l is as small as possible
and subject to this k is as large as possible. Note that by the maximality of k,
each pair in SP will form a component because for each Hi ∈ SP , b p(H2i )−1 c = 0.

Lemma 1. For each Hi ∈ Q, the unique minimum cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) is the
trivial one.

Proof. Let (P 0 , Q0 ) be a minimum cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi ). Clearly, val(P 0 , Q0 ) ≤

b p(H2i )−1 c. Using this cover, a new cover (P ∗ , Q∗ ) of (G, V) can be defined as
follows. Let the partition P ∗ of V (G) be obtained from P by taking the union
of all those Vr and Vs whose corresponding vertices in GP are in the same set
of P 0 . Then l∗ = l − p(Hi ) + l0 , where l0 = |P 0 |. Let Q∗ be obtained from Q by
deleting Hi and by adding Q0 . We claim that the new cover is also a minimum
cover.
X   X  p0 (Hj0 ) − 1 
p(Hj ) − 1
val(P ∗ , Q∗ ) ≤ n − l∗ + +
2 0 0
2
Hj ∈Q−{Hi } Hj ∈Q
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 89

X  
p(Hj ) − 1
= n − l∗ +
2
Hj ∈Q−{Hi }

+ (val(P 0 , Q0 ) − (p(Hi ) − l0 ))
X  
p(Hj ) − 1
≤ n − (l − p(Hi ) + l0 ) +
2
Hj ∈Q−{Hi }
 
p(Hi ) − 1
+ − p(Hi ) + l0 = val(P, Q).
2

It follows that equality holds everywhere, so val(P 0 , Q0 ) = b p(H2i )−1 c, thus the
trivial cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) is minimal. Furthermore, by the minimality of l, P 0
is the trivial partition of V (GP [Hi ]) and by the maximality of k, Q0 may contain
only one set and we are done. t
u

Lemma 2. Each component Hi ∈ Q is critical.

Proof. Suppose that there exists a component Hi ∈ Q for which (GP [Hi ], Hi )
is not critical, that is there are two vertices a and b in GP [Hi ] so that after
identifying a and b the new v-graph (G0 , V 0 ) has no perfect cactus. By the hy-
pothesis of the induction, it follows that there is a cover (P 0 , Q0 ) of (G0 , V 0 ) so
that in G0 val(P 0 , Q0 ) < (p(Hi )−1)−1
2 ≤ b p(H2i )−1 c. This cover can be considered
as a cover (P , Q ) of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) and val(P 00 , Q00 ) = val(P 0 , Q0 ) + 1. Thus
00 00

val(P 00 , Q00 ) ≤ b p(H2i )−1 c, that is (P 00 , Q00 ) is a minimal cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi )
but not the trivial one (a and b are in the same member of P 00 ), which contra-
dicts Lemma 1. t
u

Corollary 1. If Hi ∈ Q and a, b are two vertices of GP [Hi ], then there exists

an almost perfect cactus K in (GP [Hi ], Hi ) so that a and b belong to different
connected components of K.

Proof. By Lemma 2, Hi is critical, so by identifying a and b in GP [Hi ], the

v-graph obtained has a perfect cactus K. Clearly, K has the desired properties
in (GP [Hi ], Hi ). t
u

Remark 2. By Corollary 1, for any component Hi the v-graph (GP [Hi ], Hi ) (and
consequently (G, V)) contains a cactus containing b p(H2i )−1 c v-pairs. However, at
this moment we can not see whether we can choose a cactus containing b p(H2i )−1 c
v-pairs for all Hi so that their union is a cactus as well. Note that by Corollary
1, p(Hi ) is even for each component Hi ∈ Q, that is b p(H2i )−1 c = p(H2i )−2 .

2 c, then (G, V) has

Proposition 1. If l = n − 1, k = 1 and val(P, Q) = 1 + b n−2
a perfect cactus.
90 Zoltán Szigeti

Proof. Let (uv, vw) be one of the v-pairs in V. Let us consider the following
cover (P 0 , Q0 ) of (G, V). Each set of P 0 contains exactly one vertex of G except
one which contains u and v, and Q0 contains exactly one set H (containing all
v-pairs in V). Then, clearly, this is a minimum cover. By the assumptions for l
and k this cover also minimizes l and maximizes k, thus by Lemma 2, its unique
component H is critical, that is the v-graph (GP 0 , VP 0 ) is critical. Let F be a
perfect cactus of the v-graph obtained from (GP 0 , VP 0 ) by identifying v and w.
Obviously, F ∪ uv ∪ vw is a perfect cactus of (G, V) and we are done. t
u

Lemma 3. Let P 0 be a refinement of P and let Hi ∈ Q for which Hi ∈ / ΓD (AP 0 ).

Then the trivial cover is a minimal cover of (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi ) with value b p(H2i )−1 c.

Proof. By Corollary 1, (GP [Hi ], Hi ) (and consequently (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi )) contains

a cactus of size b p(H2i )−1 c, hence the value of a minimum cover of (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi )
is at least b p(H2i )−1 c. Thus what we have to show is that the trivial cover has
value b p(H2i )−1 c.
First, we prove this when P 0 is an arbitrary elementary refinement of P, say
Vj ∪ Vj2 = Vj . We shall denote the vertices of GP 0 [Hi ] corresponding to Vj1 and
1

Vj2 by v1 and v2 . In this case we have to prove the following.

Proposition 2. v1 or v2 does not belong to GP 0 [Hi ].

Proof. Hi ∈ / ΓD (AP 0 ) implies that there exists no augmenting edge for Hi with
respect to P 0 that is (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi ) has no perfect cactus. By Proposition 1, we can
use the induction hypothesis (of Theorem 1), that is there exists a cover (P 00 , Q00 )
of (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi ) so that val(P 00 , Q00 ) ≤ (p(Hi )+1)−1
2 − 1 = p(H2i )−2 . This cover
gives a cover (P ∗ , Q∗ ) of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) with val(P ∗ , Q∗ ) ≤ p(H2i )−2 . So (P ∗ , Q∗ )
is a minimum cover of (GP [Hi ], Hi ) and by Lemma 1, it is the trivial cover.
Moreover, v1 and v2 are in different sets of P 00 (otherwise, val(P ∗ , Q∗ ) < p(H2i )−2 ,
a contradiction), hence (P ∗ , Q∗ ) is the trivial cover of (GP 0 [Hi ], Hi ) and its value
is p(H2i )−2 . It follows that v1 or v2 is not a vertex in GP 0 [Hi ] and the proposition
is proved. t
u

Let P 0 = {V11 , ..., V1r1 , V21 , ..., V2r2 , ..., Vl1 , ..., Vlrl } where ∪j Vij = Vi for all i,
be a refinement of P. It is enough to prove that for all i where ri ≥ 2 there exists
an elementary refinement P ∗ of P with Vi = Vij ∪ (Vi − Vij ) for some 1 ≤ j ≤ ri
so that in GP ∗ [Hi ] the vertex corresponding to Vi − Vij is isolated. Applying
Proposition 2, at most ri times, we see that such an elementary refinement
exists indeed. t
u

Corollary 2. The vertex sets of the connected components of the graph B (de-
fined by the augmenting edges) are exactly the sets in P.
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 91

Proof. By definition, there is no edge of B between two different sets of P. Let

us consider an elementary refinement P 0 of P. If there was no augmenting edge
with respect to this refinement, then by Lemma 3, the value of the cover (P 0 , Q0 )
would be val(P, Q) − 1, where Q0 is obtained from Q by adding the elements of
SP 0 − SP as new members of the partition, contradicting the minimality of the
cover (P, Q). This implies that the subgraphs of B spanned on the sets Vi in P
are connected. t
u
Let Fi be an arbitrary spanning tree of GP [Hi ] for all Hi ∈ Q (by Corollary 1,
GP [Hi ] is connected). Then E(Fi ) ∩ E(Fj ) = ∅ if i 6= j because theS components
of Q are disjoint. Let W = (V (GP ), E(W )) where E(W ) := Hi ∈Q E(Fi ).
Let P 0 be a refinement of P with |P 0 | = l0 . Let Q1 := ΓD (AP 0 ) and Q2 :=
Q − Q1 . We define two matroids on E(W ). Let G be the cycle matroid of W
with rank function rG , that is the edge sets of the forests are the independent
sets. Let FP 0 := F1 +F2 (direct sum), where Fj will be theS following (truncated)
partitional matroid (with rank function rj ) on Ej := Hi ∈Qj E(Fi ) j = 1, 2.
Let F1 contain those sets F ⊆ E1 for which |F ∩ E(Fi )| ≤ 1 for all i and the
intersection can be 1 at most t0 := |Q1 | − (l0 − l) times. Let F2 contain those
sets F ⊆ E2 for which |F ∩ E(Fi )| ≤ 1 for all i. For the rank function r0 of FP 0
r0 (X) = r1 (X ∩ E1 ) + r2 (X ∩ E2 ).
Lemma 4. For any refinement P 0 of P, E(W ) can be written as the union of
an independent set in G and an independent set in FP 0 .
Proof. This is a matroid partition problem. It is well-known (see for example [7])
that the lemma is true if and only if for any Y ⊆ E(W ), |Y | ≤ rG (Y ) + r0 (Y ).
Suppose that this is not true, and let Y be a maximum cardinality set violating
the above inequality.
S Then, clearly, Y is closed in FP 0 . Thus Y can be written in
the form Y = Hi ∈Q∗ E(Fi ), for some Q∗ ⊆ Q. Let K1 , . . . , Kc be the connected
∗
components of the Pcgraph K on the vertex ∗set V (GP ) with edge set Y . Then
rG (Y ) = l − c = 1 (p(Kj ) − 1). Let t := |Q ∩ Q1 |.
Let Q00 be obtained from Q by taking the unions of all those Hm and Hm0
in Q∗ for which Fm and Fm0 are in the same connected component of K ∗ , that
is each member Hj00 ∈ Q00 − Q corresponds to some Kj , so p(Hj00 ) = p(Kj ).
Case 1. t ≤ t0 . Then r0 (Y ) = |Q∗ |. Let us consider the cover (P, Q00 ) of (G, V).
Pc p(H 00 )−1 P
Since 0 ≤ val(P, Q00 ) − val(P, Q) = 1 b j2 c − Hi ∈Q∗ p(H2i )−2 ,
X X p(Hi ) − 2
|Y | = (p(Hi ) − 1) = 2 + |Q∗ |
2
Hi ∈Q∗ ∗
Hi ∈Q
X c
p(Hj00 ) −1
≤2 + |Q∗ | = rG (Y ) + r0 (Y )
1
2

contradicting the assumption for Y.

Case 2. t > t0 . Now, by the closedness of Y in FP 0 , Y contains all the trees Fi
for which Hi ∈ Q1 . Thus r0 (Y ) = r1 (Y ∩ E1 ) + r2 (Y ∩ E2 ) = t0 + (|Q∗ | − |Q1 |) =
92 Zoltán Szigeti

|Q∗ | − (l0 − l). Let us consider the following cover (P 0 , Q3 ) of (G, V), where Q3
is obtained from the above defined Q00 by adding each element in SP 0 − SP as
a component and adding the v-pairs in VP 0 − VP to appropriate members of
Q00 . If L ∈ VP 0 − VP , then L corresponds in W to a vertex or an edge and in
the latter case L ∈ Q1 so L corresponds to an edge of a connected component
Kj of K ∗ . We add L to the member Hj00 of Q00 corresponding to Kj . (If Kj is
an isolated vertex, then the corresponding Hj00 of Q00 was empty earlier.) Now,
(P 0 , Q3 ) is a cover of (G,
PV) indeed. We shall denote the members of Q3 − Q by
Hj 1 ≤ j ≤ c. Clearly, 1 p (Hj3 ) ≤ l0 . By Lemma 3, the value of the new cover
3 c 0

is the following.
$ %
Xc
p 0
(H 3
) − 1 X p(Hi ) − 2
val(P 0 , Q3 ) = n − l0 +
j
+
1
2 ∗
2
Hi ∈Q−Q
l0 − c X p(Hi ) − 2
≤ n − l0 + + .
2 2
Hi ∈Q−Q∗

Using that val(P, Q) ≤ val(P 0 , Q3 ) we have the following inequality.

X X p(Hi ) − 2
|Y | = (p(Hi ) − 1) = 2 + |Q∗ |
2
Hi ∈Q∗ ∗
Hi ∈Q
≤ (l − c) + (|Q∗ | − (l0 − l)) = rG (Y ) + r0 (Y ),

contradicting the assumption for Y. The proof of Lemma 4 is complete. t

u

By Lemma 4, for the trivial partition P 0 of V (G), the following fact is im-
mediate.

Corollary 3. There exists a forest F in the graph W so that for n − l indices i

E(Fi ) ⊆ E(F ) and E(F ) ∩ E(Fi ) is an almost spanning tree of GP [Hi ] for the
other indices. t
u

We shall need the following claim whose proof is trivial.

Proposition 3. Let F be a forest on a vertex set S. Let F 0 be a subgraph of

F with two connected components F10 and F20 . If F10 and F20 belong to the same
connected component of F then let us denote by a and b the two end vertices
of the shortest path in F connecting F10 and F20 , otherwise let a ∈ V (F10 ) and
b ∈ V (F20 ) be two arbitrary vertices. Let F 00 be any forest on V (F 0 ) with two
connected components so that a and b are in different connected components of
F 00 . Then (F − E(F 0 )) ∪ E(F 00 ) is a forest on S. t
u

Remark 3. By Corollary 3, there exists a forest F in W and consequently in GP

so that E(F ) ∩ E(Fi ) is a forest with two connected components on V (GP [Hi ])
for all components Hi . Let Hi be an arbitrary component of Q. By Corollary
1, for the two vertices a and b defined in Proposition 3 (F 0 = E(F ) ∩ E(Fi )),
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 93

there exists an almost perfect cactus K in (GP [Hi ], Hi ) so that a and b belong to
different components of K. Then, by Proposition 3, F − (E(F ) ∩ E(Fi )) ∪ E(K)
is a forest. We can do this for all components, so the v-graph (G, V) contains a
P
cactus containing Hi ∈Q b p(H2i )−1 c v-pairs.

Now we define a matroid (Q, M) on the sets of Q. Let Q0 ⊆ Q be in M if

and only if there is fi ∈ E(Fi ) for each Hi ∈ Q − Q0 so that E(W ) − ∪fi is a
forest in W.

Lemma 5. (Q, M) is a matroid.

Proof. We show that M satisfies the three properties of independent sets of

matroids.
(1) By Lemma 4, for P 0 = P, ∅ ∈ M.
(2) If Q00 ⊆ Q0 ∈ M, then Q00 ∈ M because any subgraph of a forest is a forest.
(3) Let Q0 , Q00 ∈ M so that |Q00 | < |Q0 |. By definition, there are fi0 ∈ E(Fi )
for Hi ∈ Q − Q0 and fi00 ∈ E(Fi ) for Hi ∈ Q − Q00 so that T 0 := E(W ) − ∪fi0
and T 00 := E(W ) − ∪fi00 are forests in W. Choose these two forests T 0 and T 00
so that they have edges in common as many as possible. |Q00 | < |Q0 | implies
that T 0 has more edges than T 00 has. T 0 and T 00 are two independent sets in the
matroid G thus there is an edge e ∈ T 0 − T 00 so that T 00 ∪ e is also a forest in
W. Then, clearly, e = fi00 for some i. If e ∈ E(Fi ) with Hi ∈/ Q0 then replace fi00
by fi and the new forest T with T contradicts the assumption on T 0 and T 00 .
0 ∗ 0

Thus e ∈ E(Fi ) so that Hi ∈ Q0 and then obviously Q00 ∪ {Hi } ∈ M and we are
done. t
u

We shall apply the matroid intersection theorem for the following two ma-
troids on the edge set of the graph D. For a set Z ⊆ E(D), let us denote the
end vertices of Z in the colour class E(B) (Q) by Z1 (Z2 , respectively). The
rank of Z in the first matroid will be rB (Z1 ) and rM (Z2 ) in the second matroid,
where rB is the rank function of the cycle matroid of the graph B and rM is the
rank function of the above defined matroid M. Note that if a vertex x of D is
in the colour class E(B) (Q) then the edges incident to x correspond to parallel
elements of the first (second) matroid.

Remark 4. By Corollary 2, rB (E(B)) = n−l and by Corollary 3, rM (Q) ≥ n−l.

Moreover, if AP 0 is the set of augmenting edges of some refinement P 0 of P, then
by Lemma 4,

l0 − l ≤ rM (ΓD (AP 0 )). (1)

Lemma 6. There exists a common independent set of size n − l of these two

matroids.

Proof. By the matroid intersection theorem (see for example [7]) we have to
prove that for any set Z ⊆ E(D) (+) n − l ≤ rB (E(D) − Z) + rM (Z).
94 Zoltán Szigeti

Suppose that there is a set Z violating (+). Clearly, we may assume that
E(D)− Z is closed in the first matroid. This implies that there is a set J ⊆ E(B)
so that E(D) − Z is the set of all edges of D incident to J and J is closed in
the cycle matroid of B. Let us denote by V10 , V20 , ..., Vl00 the vertex sets of the
connected components of the graph on vertex set V (B) with edge set J. Then
by the closedness of J, E(B)− J is the set of augmenting edges of the refinement
P 0 := {V10 , V20 , ..., Vl00 } of P, that is, AP 0 = E(B) − J. (Obviously, Z is the set
of all edges incident to E(B) − J in D.) Then rM (Z) = rM (ΓD (AP 0 )) and
rB (E(D) − Z) = rB (J) = n − l0 . By (1), l0 − l ≤ rM (ΓD (AP 0 )) and thus
n − l = (l0 − l) + (n − l0 ) ≤ rM (Z) + rB (E(D) − Z), contradicting the fact that
Z violates (+). t
u

The Construction of the Desired Cactus. Let N ⊆ E(D) be a common

independent set of size n − l. (By Lemma 6, such a set exists.) It follows that
N is a matching in D so that it covers a basis E 0 in the cycle matroid of B and
an independent set Q0 in M. Thus there exists a forest F 0 on V (GP ) so that it
spans the spanning trees Fi in GP [Hi ] for Hi ∈ Q0 and almost spanning trees
Fi − fi in GP [Hi ] (for appropriate fi ) for Hi ∈ Q − Q0 . Let us denote by c the
number of connected components of F 0 . Clearly, E 0 ∪ E(F 0 ) is a forest on V (G)
P
containing 2(n − l + Hi ∈Q p(H2i )−2 ) edges P and it has c connected
P components.
(|E 0 ∪ E(F 0 )| = P
|E 0 | + |E(F 0 )| = n − l + Hi ∈Q0 (p(Hi ) − 1) + Hi ∈Q−Q0 (p(Hi ) −
2) = 2(n − l) + Hi ∈Q (p(Hi ) − 2).)
We shall change the trees and forests by appropriate ones obtaining a cactus
of the desired size. As in Remark 3, for each Hi ∈ Q − Q0 we may replace in F 0
Fi − fi by an almost perfect cactus in GP [Hi ] obtaining a forest F 00 on V (GP )
with the same number of edges. As above, E 0 ∪ E(F 00 ) is a forest on V (G). For
all e ∈ E 0 e is an augmenting edge for He ∈ Q0 , where He is the pair of e
in the matching N . Thus there exists a cactus Ke in (GP÷Vi [He ], He ) of size
p(Hi )/2 so that the trace of Ke in Vi is the edge e, where Vi ∈ P contains the
edge e. (Note S that each Ke corresponds
S to a connected graph Fe0 in GP [He ].)
0
Replace E Hi ∈Q0 E(Fi ) by e∈E 0 E(Ke ). We obtain again aSforest of G with
the same number of edges. (Indeed, first in F 00 we replace Hi ∈Q0 E(Fi ) by
S 0
e∈E 0 E(Fe ) and obviously we obtained a graph with c connected components,
and, clearly, the edge set of this graph corresponds to a subgraph of G with c
connected components. Since the number of edges in this subgraph is the same
as in E 0 ∪ E(F 0 ) it is a forest of the same size.) The forest obtained consists of
P
v-pairs, that is it is a cactus with size n − l + Hi ∈Q b p(H2i )−1 c. t
u

Remark 5. While I was writing the final version of this paper I realized that the
same proof (after the natural changes) works for the general graphic matroid
parity problem. The details will be given in a forthcoming paper [8].

Acknowledgement. I am very grateful to Gábor Bacsó for the fruitful discus-

sions on the topic.
 On a Min-max Theorem of Cacti 95

References
1. I. Anderson. Perfect matchings of a graph. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series
B, 10:183–186, 1971.
2. P. Jensen and B. Korte, Complexity of matroid property algorithms. SIAM J.
Comput., 11:184–190, 1982.
3. L. Lovász. Matroid matching problem. In Algebraic Methods in Graph Theory.
Colloquia Mathematica Societatis J. Bolyai 25, Szeged, 1978.
4. L. Lovász and M. D. Plummer. Matching Theory. North Holland, Amsterdam,
1986.
5. W. Mader. Über die maximalzahl kreuzungsfreier H-wege. Archiv der Mathematik,
31, 1978.
6. L. Nebesky. A new characterization of the maximum genus of a graph. Czechoslovak
Mathematical Journal, 31, 1981.
7. A. Recski. Matroid Theory and its Applications in Electric Network Theory and
in Statics. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1989.
8. Z. Szigeti. On the graphic matroid parity problem. In preparation.
9. W. T. Tutte. Graph Factors. Combinatorica, 1:79-97, 1981.
 Edge-Splitting and Edge-Connectivity
Augmentation in Planar Graphs

Hiroshi Nagamochi1 and Peter Eades2

1
Kyoto University
naga@@kuamp.kyoto-u.ac.jp
2
University of Newcastle
eades@@cs.newcastle.edu.au

Abstract. Let G = (V, E) be a k-edge-connected multigraph with a

designated vertex s ∈ V which has even degree. A splitting operation
at s replaces two edges (s, u) and (s, v) incident to s with a single edge
(u, v). A set of splitting operations at s is called complete if there is no
edge incident to s in the resulting graph. It is known by Lovász (1979)
that there always exists a complete splitting at s such that the resulting
graph G0 (neglecting the isolated vertex s) remains k-edge-connected. In
this paper, we prove that, in the case where G is planar and k is an even
integer or k = 3, there exists a complete splitting at s such that the
resulting graph G0 remains k-edge-connected and planar, and present an
O(|V |3 log |V |) time algorithm for finding such a splitting. However, for
every odd k ≥ 5, there is a planar graph G with a vertex s which has
no complete splitting at s which preserves both k-edge-connectivity and
planarity. As an application of this result, we show that the problem
of augmenting the edge-connectivity of a given outerplanar graph to an
even integer k or to k = 3 can be solved in polynomial time.

1 Introduction

Let G = (V, E) stand for an undirected multigraph, where an edge with end
vertices u and v is denoted by (u, v). For a subset1 S ⊆ V in G, G[S] denotes
the subgraph induced by S. For two disjoint subsets X, Y ⊂ V , we denote by
EG (X, Y ) the set of edges (u, v) with u ∈ X and v ∈ Y , and by cG (X, Y )
the number of edges in EG (X, Y ). The set of edges EG (u, v) may alternatively
be represented by a single link (u, v) with multiplicity cG (u, v). In this way,
we also represent a multigraph G = (V, E) by an edge-weighted simple graph
N = (V, LG , cG ) (called a network) with a set V of vertices and a set LG of links
weighted by cG : LG → Z + , where Z + is the set of non-negative integers. We
denote |V | by n, |E| by e and |LG | by m. A cut is defined as a subset X of V
1
A singleton set {x} may be simply written as x, and “ ⊂ ” implies proper inclusion
while “ ⊆ ” means “ ⊂ ” or “ = ”.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 96–111, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 97

with ∅ 6= X 6= V , and the size of the cut X is defined by cG (X, V − X), which
may also be written as cG (X). If X = {x}, cG (x) denotes the degree of vertex x.
For a subset X ⊆ V , define its inner-connectivity by λG (X) = min{cG (X 0 ) | ∅ = 6
X 0 ⊂ X}. In particular, λG (V ) (i.e., the size of a minimum cut in G) is called
the edge-connectivity of G. For a vertex v ∈ V , a vertex u adjacent to v is called
a neighbor of v in G. Let ΓG (v) denote the set of neighbors of v in G.
Let s ∈ V be a designated vertex in V . A cut X is called s-proper if ∅ 6=
X ⊂ V − s. The size λG (V − s) of a minimum s-proper cut is called the s-
based-connectivity of G. Hence λG (V ) = min{λG (V − s), cG (s)}. A splitting at
s is (k, s)-feasible if λG0 (V − s) ≥ k holds for the resulting graph G0 . Lovász [6]
showed the following important property:

Theorem 1 ([2,6]). Let a multigraph G = (V, E) have a designated vertex

s ∈ V with even cG (s), and k be an integer with 2 ≤ k ≤ λG (V − s). Then there
is a complete (k, s)-feasible splitting. t
u

Since a complete (k, s)-feasible splitting effectively reduces the number of ver-
tices in a graph while preserving its s-based-connectivity, it plays an important
role in solving many graph connectivity problems (e.g., see [1,2,9]).
In this paper, we prove an extension of Lovász’s edge-splitting theorem, aim-
ing to solve the edge-connectivity augmentation problem with an additional con-
straint that preserves the planarity of a given planar graph. Firstly, we consider
the following type of splitting; for a multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated
vertex s, let ΓG (s) = {w0 , w1 , . . . , wp−1 } (p = |ΓG (s)|) of neighbors of s, and
assume that a cyclic order π = (w0 , w1 , . . . , wp−1 ) of ΓG (s) is given. We say
that two edges e1 = (wh , wi ) and e2 = (wj , w` ) are crossing (with respect to π)
if e1 and e2 are not adjacent and the four end vertices appear in the order of
wh , wj , wi , w` along π (i.e., h + a = j + b = i + c = ` (mod p) holds for some
1 ≤ c < b < a ≤ p − 1). A sequence of splittings at s is called noncrossing
if no two split edges resulting from the sequence are crossing. We prove that
there always exists a complete and noncrossing (k, s)-feasible splitting for even
integers k, and such a splitting can be found in O(n2 (m + n log n)) time.
Next we consider a planar multigraph G = (V, E) with a vertex s ∈ V of even
degree. A complete splitting at s is called planarity-preserving if the resulting
graph from the splitting remains planar. Based on the result of noncrossing
splitting, we prove that, if k is an even integer with k ≤ λG (V − s), then there
always exists a complete (k, s)-feasible and planarity-preserving splitting, and
the splitting can be found in O(n3 log n) time. For k = 3, we prove by a separate
argument that there exists a complete (k, s)-feasible and planarity-preserving
splitting if the resulting graph is allowed to be re-embedded in the plane.
Example 1. (a) Fig. 1(a) shows a graph G1 = (V, E) with cG1 (s, wi ) = 1 and
cG1 (wi , wi+1 ) = a, 0 ≤ i ≤ 3 for a given integer a ≥ 1. Clearly, λG1 (V − s) =
k for k = 2a + 1. For a cyclic order π = (w0 , w1 , w2 , w3 ), G1 has a unique
complete (k, s)-feasible splitting (i.e., splitting pair of (s, w0 ), (s, w2 ) and a pair
of (s, w1 ), (s, w3 )), which is crossing with respect to π. This implies that, for every
odd k ≥ 3, there is a graph G with a designated vertex s and a cyclic order of
98 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

s s s

1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 w11 a a w1 w11 a a w1
a w0 a w0
a a a w0 a-1
w10 1 w2 w10 w2
1
a a a 1 a
w3 w1 w9 1 1 w3 w9 1 w3
a a 1 1
a a
a a w8 1 w4 w8
aw a a-1
1 a
w4
7
a a a a
w5 w5
w2 w6 w7 w6
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1. Example of three planar graphs (a) G1 , (b) G2 , and (c) G3 .

ΓG (s) which has no complete and noncrossing (k, s)-feasible splitting. Note that
the planar G1 has a complete and planarity-preserving (k, s)-feasible splitting (by
putting one of the split edges in the inner area of cycle C1 = {w0 , w1 , w2 , w3 }).
(b) Fig. 1(b) shows a planar graph G2 = (V, E) with cG2 (wi , wi+1 ) = a (mod
12) for 0 ≤ i ≤ 11 and cG2 (e) = 1 otherwise for an integer a ≥ 1, which satisfies
λG2 (V − s) = k for k = 2a + 1. The G2 has a unique complete (k, s)-splitting,
which is not planarity-preserving unless the embedding of subgraph G2 [V − s] is
not changed; if G2 [V − s] is re-embedded in the plane so that block components
{w2 , w3 , w4 } and {w8 , w9 , w10 } of G2 [V − s] are flipped and two vertices w3 and
w9 share the same inner face, then the complete (k, s)-splitting is now planarity-
preserving. From this, we see that for every odd k ≥ 3, there is a planar graph
G with a designated vertex s which has no complete and planarity-preserving
(k, s)-feasible splitting (unless the embedding of G is re-embedded).
(c) Let a ≥ 2 be an integer, and consider the graph G3 = (V, E) in Fig. 1(c),
where cG3 (wi , wi+1 ) = a for i ∈ {1, 7}, cG3 (wi , wi+1 ) = a (mod 12) for i ∈
{0, 1, . . . , 11} − {1, 7}, and cG3 (e) = 1 otherwise. Clearly, λG3 (V − s) = k for
k = 2a + 1 (≥ 5). It is easily observed that the unique complete (k, s)-feasible
splitting is not planarity-preserving for any choice of re-embedding of G3 in the
plane. This implies that for every odd k ≥ 5, there exists a graph which has no
complete and planarity-preserving (k, s)-feasible splitting even if re-embedding
after splitting is allowed. t
u

2 Preliminaries
2.1 Computing s-Based Connectivity
The vertex set V of a multigraph G = (V, E) are denoted by V (G). We say that
a cut X separates two disjoint subsets Y and Y 0 of V if Y ⊆ X ⊆ V − Y 0 (or
Y 0 ⊆ X ⊆ V − Y ). The local edge-connectivity λG (x, y) for two vertices x, y ∈ V
is defined to be the minimum size of a cut in G that separates x and y. A cut X
crosses another cut Y if none of subsets X ∩ Y , X − Y , Y − X and V − (X ∪ Y )
is empty.
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 99

An ordering v1 , v2 , . . . , vn of all vertices in V is called a maximum adjacency

(MA) ordering in G if it satisfies cG ({v1 , v2 , . . . , vi }, vi+1 ) ≥ cG ({v1 , v2 , . . . , vi },
vj ), 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n.

Lemma 1. [8] Let G = (V, E) be a multigraph, and v1 be a vertex in V .

(i) An MA ordering v1 , v2 , . . . , vn of vertices in G can be found in O(m + n log n)
time.
(ii) The last two vertices vn−1 and vn satisfy λG (vn−1 , vn ) = cG (vn ). t
u

Using this lemma repeatedly, we can compute λG (V − s) by the next algo-

rithm.

Algorithm CONTRACT
Input: A multigraph G = (V, E) with |V | ≥ 3 and a designated vertex s ∈ V .
Output: an s-proper cut X ∗ with cG (X ∗ ) = λG (V − s) < λG (X ∗ ).
1 α := min{cG (v) | v ∈ V − s};
2 Let X := {v} for a vertex v ∈ V − s with cG (v) = α;
3 H := G;
4 while |V (H)| ≥ 4 do { cH (u) ≥ α holds for all u ∈ V (H) − s }
5 Find an MA-ordering in H starting from v1 = s, and let v, w (6= s) be the
last two vertices in this ordering; { λH (v, w) = cH (w) by Lemma 1(ii) }
6 Contract v and w into a vertex, say z, and let H be the resulting graph;
7 if cH (z) < α then
8 Let X ∗ be the set of all vertices in V − s contracted into z so far;
{ cH (z) = cG (X ∗ ) }
9 end { if }
10 end. { while }

It should be noted that for each u ∈ V (H) − s cH (u) ≥ α holds before every
iteration of the while-loop. The last two vertices v, w in an MA ordering in line 5,
which are clearly distinct from s, satisfy λH (v, w) = cH (w) by Lemma 1(ii).
Let X ∗ be the cut output by CONTRACT, and α∗ be the final value of α
(i.e., α∗ = cG (X ∗ )). Note that any two vertices v and w in line 5 have been
contracted into a single vertex only when λH (v, w) ≥ α∗ holds. We prove that
α∗ = λG (V − s). For a vertex u ∈ V (H) − s, let Xu denote the set of all
vertices in V − s contracted so far. Assume that there is an s-proper cut Y with
cG (Y ) < α∗ . Clearly, the final graph H has three vertices z1 , z2 and s, and
satisfies α∗ ≥ min{cH (z1 ), cH (z2 )}, and thus Y 6= Xz1 , Xz2 . Hence there is a
vertex pair v, w ∈ V (H) chosen in line 5 at some iteration of the while-loop such
that Xv ⊆ Y and Xw ⊆ (V − s) − Y (or Xw ⊆ Y and Xv ⊆ (V − s) − Y ).
Assume that v and w are the vertices in the earliest iteration of the while-loops
among such pairs of vertices. This implies that when v and w are contracted
into a vertex, the current graph H has a subset Y 0 ⊂ V (H) − s such that
∪y∈Y 0 Xy = Y . However, λH (v, w) ≤ cH (Y 0 ) = cG (Y ) < α∗ , contradicting
λH (v, w) ≥ α∗ . Therefore, α∗ = λG (V − s).
100 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

Now we show λG (X ∗ ) > α∗ . Assume that the output cut X ∗ is found in

line 8 in the i-th iteration of the while-loop (the case where the X ∗ is found
at line 3 is trivial), and let α0 be the value of α before the i-th iteration. Then
α0 > α∗ , and any two vertices v and w in line 5 in any earlier iteration have
been contracted into a single vertex only when λH (v, w) ≥ α0 . Analogously with
the above argument, we see that when CONTRACT finds the final cut X ∗ in
line 8, λG (u, u0 ) ≥ α0 holds for u, u0 ∈ X ∗ (hence λG (X ∗ ) > α∗ ). This leads to
the next lemma, where the running time clearly follows from Lemma 1(i).

Lemma 2. For a multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated vertex s ∈ V , CON-

TRACT computes a cut X ∗ such that cG (X ∗ ) = λG (V − s) < λG (X ∗ ) in
O(n(m + n log n)) time. t
u

2.2 Splitting Edges for a Pair of Neighbors

Given a multigraph G = (V, E), a designated vertex s ∈ V , vertices u, v ∈ ΓG (s)

(possibly u = v) and a non-negative integer δ ≤ min{cG (s, u), cG (s, v)}, we
construct graph G0 = (V, E 0 ) from G by deleting δ edges from EG (s, u) and
EG (s, u), respectively, and adding new δ edges to EG (u, v). We say that G0 is
obtained from G by splitting δ pairs of edges (s, u) and (s, v) by size δ, and
denote the resulting graph G0 by G/(u, v, δ). Clearly, for any s-proper cut X, we
see that

cG (X) − 2δ if u, v ∈ X
cG/(u,v,δ) (X) = (1)
cG (X) otherwise.

Given an integer k satisfying 0 ≤ k ≤ λG (V − s), we say that splitting δ pairs

of edges (s, u) and (s, v) is (k, s)-feasible if λG/(u,v,δ) (V − s) ≥ k.
For an integer k, let ∆G (u, v, k) be the maximum δ such that splitting edges
(s, u) and (s, v) with size δ is (k, s)-feasible in G. In this subsection, we show
how to compute ∆G (u, v, k). An s-proper cut X is called (k, s)-semi-critical in
G if it satisfies cG (s, X) > 0, k ≤ cG (X) ≤ k + 1 and λG (X) ≥ k.
An algorithm, called MAXSPLIT(u, v, k), for computing ∆G (u, v, k) is de-
scribed as follows.
1. Let δmax = min{cG (s, u), cG (s, v)} if u 6= v, and δmax = bcG (s, u)/2c if u = v,
and let Gmax = G/(u, v, δmax ).
2. Compute λGmax (V − s) and an s-proper cut X with cGmax (X) = λGmax (V −
s) < λGmax (X) (such X exists by Lemma 2). If λGmax (V − s) ≥ k, then
∆G (u, v, k) = δmax , where at least one of u and v is no longer a neighbor of
s in Gmax in the case u 6= v, or cGmax (s, u) ≤ 1 in the case u = v.
3. If k − λGmax (V − s) ≥ 1, then u, v ∈ X (for otherwise cG (X) = cGmax (X) < k
would hold). Output ∆G (u, v, k) = δmax −d 21 (k−λGmax (V −s))e and the s-proper
cut X as such a (k, s)-semi-critical cut with u, v ∈ X.
The correctness of step 2 is clear. In step 3, we see from (1) that G0 =
G/(u, v, δ) with δ = δmax − d 21 (k − λGmax (V − s))e satisfies λG0 (V − s) = k or
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 101

k + 1. This implies that ∆G (u, v, k) = δ. We show that the X has a property

that
cG0 (Z) > cG0 (X) for any Z with u, v ∈ Z ⊂ X,
where we call such a (k, s)-semi-critical cut X with u, v ∈ X admissible (with
respect to u, v) in G0 . For any Z with u, v ∈ Z ⊂ X, we have cG0 (Z) =
cGmax (Z) + 2d 21 (k − λGmax (V − s))e > cG0 (X), since λGmax (X) > λGmax (V − s)
implies cGmax (Z) > cGmax (X). By summarizing this, we have the next result.

Lemma 3. For a multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated vertex s ∈ V , and

vertices u, v ∈ ΓG (s) (possibly u = v), let k be a nonnegative integer with k ≤
λG (V − s), and let G0 = G/(u, v, δ) for δ = ∆G (u, v, k). Then:
(i) If cG0 (s, u) > 0 and cG0 (s, v) > 0 in the case u 6= v or if cG0 (s, u) ≥ 2 in the
case u = v, then G0 has an admissible cut X.
(ii) The cut X in (i) (if any) and ∆G (u, v, k) can be computed in O(mn+n2 log n)
time. t
u

3 Noncrossing Edge Splitting

For a cyclic order π = (w0 , w1 , . . . , wp−1 ) of ΓG (s), a sequence of splittings at

s is called noncrossing (with respect to π) if no two split edges (wh , wi ) and
(wj , w` ) are crossing with respect to π (see Section 1 for the definition). In this
section, we show that for any even k ≤ λG (V − s), there always exists a complete
and noncrossing (k, s)-splitting. However, as observed in Example 1(a), for every
odd k ≥ 3, there is a graph that has no such splitting.

3.1 (k, s)-Semi-critical Collections

Before computing a complete (k, s)-feasible splitting, we first find a family X

of subsets of V − s (by performing some noncrossing edge splittings at s) as
follows. For a multigraph G = (V, E) and s ∈ V , a family X = {X1 , X2 , . . . , Xr }
of disjoint subsets Xi ⊂ V − s is called a collectionPin V − s. A collection X
r
may be empty. A collection X is called covering if i=1 cG (s, Xi ) = cG (s). A
collection X in V − s is called (k, s)-semi-critical in G either if X = ∅ or if
all Xi ∈ X are (k, s)-semi-critical. We can easily see that a (k, s)-semi-critical
covering collection in G with cG (s) > 0 satisfies |X | ≥ 2 [9].
Let X be an s-proper cut with cG (X) ≤ k + 1. Clearly, splitting two edges
(s, u) and (s, v) such that u, v ∈ X is not (k, s)-feasible. Then the size of any cut
Z ⊆ X remains unchanged after any (k, s)-feasible splitting in G. We say that
two s-proper cuts X and Y s-cross each other if X and Y cross each other and
cG (s, X ∩ Y ) > 0. It is not difficult to prove the following properties by using
submodularity of cut function cG (the detail is omitted).

Lemma 4. Let G = (V, E) be a multigraph with a designated vertex s, and k be

an integer with k ≤ λG (V − s). Then:
102 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

(i) If two (k, s)-semi-critical cuts X and Y s-cross each other, then cG (X) =
cG (Y ) = k + 1, cG (X − Y ) = cG (Y − X) = k and cG (X ∩ Y, V − (X ∪ Y )) = 1.
(ii) Let X be an admissible cut with respect to u, u0 ∈ V − s (possibly u = u0 ),
and Y be a (k, s)-semi-critical cut. If X and Y cross each other, then cG (X) =
cG (Y ) = k + 1 and cG (Y − X) = k.
(iii) Let Xi (resp., Xj ) be admissible cuts with respect to ui , u0i (resp., with respect
to uj , u0j ), where possibly ui = u0i or uj = u0j holds. If {ui , u0i } ∩ {uj , u0j } = ∅ or
cG (s, u) ≥ 2 for some u ∈ {ui , u0i } ∩ {uj , u0j }, then two cuts Xi and Xj do not
cross each other. t
u
We now describe an algorithm, called COLLECTION, which computes a
(k, s)-semi-critical covering collection X in a graph G∗ obtained from G by a
noncrossing sequence of (k, s)-feasible splittings. Let π = (w0 , w1 , . . . , wp−1 ) be
a cyclic order of ΓG (s). In a graph G0 obtained from G by a noncrossing sequence
of (k, s)-feasible splittings, a vertex wj is called a successor of a vertex wi if
cG0 (s, wj ) ≥ 1 and h > 0 with j = i + h (mod p) is minimum.
0. Initialize X to be ∅.
1. for each wi , i := 0, . . . , p − 1 do
if wi is not in any cut X ∈ X then execute MAXSPLIT(wi , wi , k) to compute
G0 = G/(wi , wi , δ) with δ = ∆G (wi , wi , k) and an admissible cut Xwi in G0 (if
cG0 (s, wi ) ≥ 2); let G := G0 ;
if cG (s, wi ) ≥ 2 then X := X ∪ {Xwi }, discarding all X ∈ X with X ⊂ Xwi
from X .
end { for }
2. for each wi such that cG (s, wi ) = 1, i := 0, . . . , p − 1 do
if wi is not in any cut X ∈ X then execute MAXSPLIT(wi , wj , k) for wi and
the successor wj of s in the current G to compute G0 = G/(wi , wj , δ) with
δ = ∆G (wi , wj , k) and an admissible cut Xwi in G0 (if cG0 (s, wi ) = 1); let
G := G0 ;
if cG (s, wi ) = 1 then X := {X − Xwi | cG (s, X − Xwi ) > 0, X ∈ X } ∪ {Xwi }.
else (if cG (s, wi ) = 0) remove any cut X with cG (s, X) = 0 from X .
end { for }
Output G∗ := G. t
u
Clearly, the resulting sequence of splitting is (k, s)-feasible and noncrossing.
Lemma 5. Algorithm COLLECTION correctly computes a (k, s)-semi-critical
covering collection X in the output graph G∗ .
Proof: Let X be the set of cuts obtained after step 1. If two cuts Xwi , Xwj ∈ X
(0 ≤ i < j ≤ p − 1) has a common vertex v, then wj 6∈ Xwi and Xwi − Xwj 6= ∅
(otherwise, Xwi must have been discarded). However, this implies that Xwi and
Xwj cross each other, contradicting Lemma 4(iii). Thus, the X is a (k, s)-semi-
critical collection.
Now we prove by induction that X is a (k, s)-semi-critical collection dur-
ing step 2. Assume that MAXSPLIT(wi , wj , k) is executed to compute G0 =
G/(wi , wj , δ) with δ = ∆G (wi , wj , k). If cG0 (s, wi ) = 0, then a cut X ∈ X with
wj ∈ X may satisfy cG0 (s, X) = 0 after the splitting. However, such a cut will
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 103

be removed from X . If cG0 (s, wi ) = 1, then an admissible cut Xwi in G0 is

found. Clearly, any X ∈ X satisfies one of the followings: (i) X ∩ Xwi = ∅,
(ii) X ⊂ Xwi , and (iii) X ∩ Xwi 6= ∅ = 6 X − Xwi . Since X is updated to
{X − Xwi | cG (s, X − Xwi ) > 0, X ∈ X } ∪ {Xwi }, it is sufficient to show that
cG0 (X − Xwi ) = k holds in the case (iii) (note that λG0 (X − Xwi ) ≥ k follows
from λG0 (X) ≥ k). Since two cuts X and Xwi cross each other in the case (iii),
cG0 (X − Xwi ) = k follows from Lemma 4(ii). This proves that X remains to be
a (k, s)-semi-critical collection, which becomes covering after step 2. t
u

3.2 Algorithm for Noncrossing Edge-Splitting

In this subsection, k is assumed to be a positive even integer. We can prove the
next property by Lemma 4(i) and the evenness of k (the detail is omitted).
Lemma 6. Let G = (V, E) be a multigraph with a designated vertex s, and k be
an even integer with k ≤ λG (V − s). Further, let X be a (k, s)-semi-critical cut,
and Y and Y 0 be (k, s)-semi-critical cuts with Y ∩ Y 0 = ∅. Then X can s-cross
at most one of Y and Y 0 . t
u
Using the lemma, we now describe an algorithm that constructs a complete
and noncrossing (k, s)-feasible splitting from a given (k, s)-semi-critical covering
collection X in a graph G with a designated vertex s of even cG (s).
If s has at most three neighbors, then any complete (k, s)-feasible splitting
is noncrossing (with respect to any cyclic order of ΓG (s)) and such a splitting
can be found by applying MAXSPLIT at most three times. In what follows, we
assume that |ΓG (s)| ≥ 4.
First, we define a notion of segment. For a given covering collection X with
|X | ≥ 2 in a multigraph G with a designated vertex s and a cyclic order π =
(w0 , w1 , . . . , wp−1 ) of ΓG (s), a subset P ⊂ ΓG (s) of neighbors of s which are
consecutive in the cyclic order is called segment if there is a cut X ∈ X with
P ⊆ X such that P is maximal subject to this property. Note that there may be
two segments P and P 0 with P ∪ P 0 ⊆ X for the same cut X ∈ X . A segment
P with |P | = 1 is called trivial. We now describe the two cases.
Case 1: There is a nontrivial segment P = {wi , wi+1 , . . . , wj } (with respect
to X ). Let X1 , X2 and X3 be the cuts in X such that wi−1 ∈ X1 , {wi , . . . , wj } ⊆
X2 and wj+1 ∈ X3 (possibly X1 = X3 ). We execute MAXSPLIT(wi−1 , wi , k)
and then MAXSPLIT(wj , wj+1 , k). Let G00 be the resulting graph. We first re-
move all cuts X ∈ X with cG00 (s, X) = 0 from X . If one of wi−1 , wi , wj , wj+1
is no longer a neighbor of s in G00 , then the number of neighbors of s decreases
at least by one. Let us consider the case where all of wi−1 , wi , wj , wj+1 remain
neighbors of s in G00 . Thus, G00 has admissible cuts Yi and Yj (with respect
to wi−1 , wi and wj , wj+1 , respectively). In the case of wi−1 = wj+1 , it holds
cG00 (s, wi−1 ) ≥ 2, since otherwise cG00 (s, X2 ) ≥ 3 (by evenness of cG00 (s)) would
imply cG00 (V − X2 ) = cG00 (X2 ) − cG00 (s, X2 ) + cG00 (s, X1 ) ≤ (k + 1) − 3 + 1 < k,
contradicting λG00 (V − s) ≥ k. Thus, by Lemma 4(iii), two cuts Yi and Yj do
not cross each other. There are two subcases (a) Yi ∩ Yj = ∅ and (b) Yi ⊆ Yj or
Yj ⊆ Yi .
104 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

(a) Yi ∩ Yj = ∅. We prove that X1 6= X3 and X1 ∪ X2 ∪ X3 ⊆ Yi ∪ Yj . Then

two (k, s)-semi-critical cuts Yi and X2 s-cross each other, and by Lemma 4(i)
cG00 (X2 − Yi ) = cG00 (Yi − X2 ) = k. Note that X2 − Yi is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut.
Thus X2 −Yi cannot cross another admissible cut Yj (otherwise cG00 (X2 −Yi ) = k
would contradict Lemma 4(ii)), and hence X2 ⊂ Yi ∪ Yj . By Lemma 6, Yi which
already crosses X2 cannot s-cross X1 , and thus X1 ⊂ Yi . Similarly, we have
X3 ⊂ Yj . Therefore, X1 6= X3 and X1 ∪ X2 ∪ X3 ⊆ Yi ∪ Yj . There may be some
cut X ∈ X −{X1 , X2 , X3 } which crosses one of Yi or Yj . If the X crosses Yi , then
cG00 (X − Yi ) = k by Lemma 4(ii). We see that cG00 (s, X − Yi ) = cG00 (s, X) ≥ 1,
because if cG00 (s, X ∩ Yi ) ≥ 1 (i.e., X and Yi s-cross each other) then cG00 (Yi −
X) = k < k + 1 = cG00 (Yi ) by Lemma 4(i), contradicting the admissibility of
Yi (note {wi−1 , wi } ⊆ Yi − X). Thus X − Yi is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut in G00 .
Similarly, If the X crosses Yj , then X − Yj is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut in G00 .
Hence if X ∩ Yi 6= ∅ = 6 X ∩ Yj , then X − Yi − Yj is also a (k, s)-semi-critical cut
in G00 . Therefore, we can update X by X := {X − Yi − Yj | X ∈ X } ∪ {Yi , Yj }.
(b) Yi ⊆ Yj or Yj ⊆ Yi . Without loss of generality, assume Yj ⊆ Yi . Since
cG00 (s, X2 ∩ Yi ) ≥ 2 holds by wi , wj ∈ X2 ∩ Yi , we see by Lemma 4(i) that
X2 cannot cross Yi (hence, X2 ⊂ Yi ). If X1 = X3 , then cG00 (s, X1 ∩ Yi ) ≥ 2
(including the case wi−1 = wj+1 ) and by Lemma 4(i) X1 = X3 cannot cross Yi
(hence, X1 = X3 ⊂ Yi ). In the case X1 6= X3 , at most one of X1 and X3 can
s-cross Yi by Lemma 6. Thus X1 ⊂ Yi or X3 ⊂ Yi . For any cut X ∈ X − {X3 }
which crosses Yi , we can show that X − Yi is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut in G00
using similar reasoning as for Case 1(a). Therefore, we can update X by X :=
{X − Yi | cG00 (s, X − Yi ) > 0, X ∈ X } ∪ {Yi } (note that cG00 (s, X1 − Yi ) or
cG00 (s, X3 − Yi ) may be 0).
Notice that the number of cuts in X in cases (a) and (b) decreases at least
by one after updating.
Case 2: All segments are trivial. We choose a neighbor wi of s and its succes-
sor wj , and execute MAXSPLIT(wi , wj , k). Assume that MAXSPLIT(wi , wj , k)
finds an admissible cut Y (otherwise, the number of neighbors of s decreases
at least by one). Let X1 and X2 be the cuts in X which contain wi and wj ,
respectively. We see that X1 ⊂ Y or X2 ⊂ Y , because otherwise Y would s-cross
both X1 and X2 (contradicting Lemma 6). If X1 s-crosses Y , then we see by
Lemma 4(ii) that X1 − Y is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut if cG00 (s, X1 − Y ) ≥ 1.
The case where X2 s-crosses Y is similar. For any cut X ∈ X − {X1 , X2 } which
crosses Y , we can show that X −Y is a (k, s)-semi-critical cut in G00 using similar
reasoning as for Case 1(a). We update X by X := {X − Y | cG (s, X − Y ) ≥
1, X ∈ X } ∪ {Y }. In this case, the number of cuts in X never increases, but it
may not decrease, either. However, Y contains a nontrivial segment in the new
X , and we can apply the above argument of Case 1.
By applying the above argument to Case 1, at least one vertex is no longer a
neighbor of s or the number of cuts in a collection X is decreased at least by one.
After applying the argument of Case 2, at least one vertex is no longer a neighbor
of s or a nontrivial segment is created. Therefore, by executing MAXSPLIT at
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 105

most 4(|ΓG (s)|+|X |) = O(|ΓG (s)|) times, we can obtain a complete (k, s)-feasible
splitting of a given graph G, which is obviously noncrossing.

Theorem 2. Given a multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated vertex s ∈ V

of even degree, a positive even integer k ≤ λG (V − s), and a cyclic order π of
neighbors of s, a complete and noncrossing (k, s)-feasible splitting can be found
in O(|ΓG (s)|n(m + n log n)) time. t
u

4 Planarity-Preserving Splitting

In this section, we assume that a given graph G with a designated vertex s of

even degree and an integer k ≤ λG (V − s) is planar, and consider whether there
is a complete and planarity-preserving (k, s)-feasible splitting. We prove that
such splitting always exists if k is even or k = 3, but may not exist if k is odd
and k ≥ 5, as observed in Example 1(c). We initially fix an embedding ψ of G
in the plane, and let πψ be the order of neighbors of s that appear around s in
the embedding χ of G.

4.1 The Case of Even k

Clearly, a complete splitting at s is planarity-preserving if it is noncrossing with

respect to πψ . Therefore, in the case of even integers k, the next theorem is
immediate from Theorem 2 and the fact that m is O(n) in a planar graph G.

Theorem 3. Given a planar multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated vertex

s ∈ V of even degree, and a positive even integer k ≤ λG (V − s), there exists a
complete and planarity-preserving (k, s)-feasible splitting (which also preserves
the embedding of G[V − s] in the plane), and such splitting can be found in
O(|ΓG (s)|n2 log n) time. t
u

4.2 The Case of k = 3

For k = 3 ≤ λG (V − s), we can prove that there is a complete and planarity-

preserving (k, s)-feasible splitting. However, as observed in Example 1(b), in
this case we may need to re-embed the subgraph G[V − s] in the plane to ob-
tain such a splitting. We will show how to obtain a complete (3, s)-feasible and
planarity-preserving splitting. Firstly, however, we describe a preprocessing al-
gorithm based on the following Lemma 7 (the proof is omitted).
A set Y of vertices in G (or the induced graph G[Y ]) is called a k-component
if λG (u, v) ≥ k for all u, v ∈ Y and |Y | is maximal subject to this property.
It is easy to see that the set of k-components in a graph is unique, and forms
a partition of the vertex set. Such a partition can be found in linear time for
k = 1, 2 [10] and for k = 3 [7,12]. A k-component Y (or the induced graph G[Y ])
is called a leaf k-component if cG (Y ) < k. Note that λG[V −s] (V − s) means the
edge-connectivity of the subgraph G[V − s].
 106 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

Lemma 7. Let G = (V, E) be a multigraph with a designated vertex s of even

degree such that λG (V − s) ≥ 3.

(i) Any s-proper cut X with cG (X) ≤ 4 induces a connected subgraph G[X].
(ii) Assume λG[V −s] (V − s) = 0, and let u and v be two neighbors of s such that
they belong to different 1-components in G[V − s]. Then ∆G (u, v, 3) ≥ 1.
(iii) Assume λG[V −s] (V − s) = 1. Let Y be a leaf 2-component in G[V − s]. If
∆G (u, v, 3) = 0 for some neighbors u ∈ ΓG (s) ∩ Y and v ∈ ΓG (s) − Y , then
ΓG (s) − Y − v 6= ∅ and ∆G (u0 , v 0 , 3) ≥ 1 for any neighbors v 0 ∈ ΓG (s) − Y − v
and u0 ∈ ΓG (s) ∩ Y .
(iv) Assume λG[V −s] (V − s) = 2. Let Y be a 3-component with cG (s, Y ) ≥ 2
in G[V − s]. Then ∆G (u, v, 3) ≥ 1 for any neighbors u ∈ ΓG (s) ∩ Y and
v ∈ ΓG (s) − Y .
(v) Assume λG[V −s] (V −s) = 2. Let Y be a non-leaf 3-component with cG (s, Y ) =
1 in G[V − s]. If ∆G (u, v, 3) = 0 for some neighbors u ∈ ΓG (s) ∩ Y and
v ∈ ΓG (s) − Y , then ΓG (s) − Y − v 6= ∅ and ∆G (u, v 0 , 3) ≥ 1 for any neighbor
v 0 ∈ ΓG (s) − Y − v. t
u

Based on this lemma, for a given cyclic order π of ΓG (s), we can find a
noncrossing sequence of (k, s)-feasible splittings (which may not be complete)
such that the resulting graph G∗ satisfies either cG∗ (s) = 0 (i.e., the obtained
splitting is complete) or the following condition:

λG∗ [V −s] (V − s) = 2, and cG∗ (s, Y ) = 1 for all leaf 3-components Y ,

(2)
and cG∗ (s, Y 0 ) = 0 for all non-leaf 3-components Y 0 in G∗ [V − s].

The entire preprocessing is described as follows.

Algorithm PREPROCESS
Input: A multigraph G = (V, E) (which is not necessarily planar), a designated
vertex s ∈ V with even degree and λG (V − s) ≥ 3 , and a cyclic order π of ΓG (s).
Output: A multigraph G∗ obtained from G by a noncrossing (3, s)-feasible
splitting such that G∗ satisfies either cG∗ (s) = 0 or (2).
1 G0 := G;
2 while G0 [V − s] is not connected do
3 Find a neighbor w ∈ ΓG0 (s) and its successor w0 ∈ ΓG0 (s) such that
w and w0 belong to different 1-components in G0 [V − s];
4 G0 := G0 /(w, w0 , 1)
5 end; { while }
6 while G0 [V − s] is not 2-edge-connected (i.e., λG0 [V −s] (V − s) = 1) do
7 Choose a leaf 2-component Y in G0 [V − s];
8 Find a neighbor w ∈ ΓG0 (s) ∩ Y and its successor w0 ∈ ΓG0 (s) − Y ;
9 if ∆G (w, w0 , 3) ≥ 1 then G0 := G0 /(w, w0 , 1)
10 else
11 Find a neighbor w00 ∈ ΓG0 (s) − Y and its successor w000 ∈ ΓG0 (s) ∩ Y ,
and G0 := G0 /(w00 , w000 , 1)
12 end { if }
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 107

13 end; { while }
14 while G0 [V − s] has a 3-component Y with cG0 (s, Y ) ≥ 2 or a non-leaf
3-component Y with cG0 (s, Y ) = 1 do
15 Find neighbors w ∈ ΓG0 (s) ∩ Y and w0 ∈ ΓG0 (s) − Y such that w0 is
the successor of w;
16 if ∆G (w, w0 , 3) ≥ 1 then G0 := G0 /(w, w0 , 1)
17 else { Y is a non-leaf 3-component with cG0 (s, Y ) = 1 }
18 Find a neighbor w00 ∈ ΓG0 (s) − Y such that w is the successor of w00 ,
and G0 := G0 /(w00 , w, 1)
19 end { if }
20 end; { while }
21 Output G∗ := G0 .

Correctness of PREPROCESS easily follows from Lemma 7. Clearly, the

number of splitting operations carried out in PREPROCESS is O(n), and each
splitting (including testing if ∆G (w, w0 , 3) ≥ 1 in lines 9 and 16) can be per-
formed in linear time. Therefore, PREPROCESS runs in O(n2 ) time.

Lemma 8. For a multigraph G = (V, E), a designated vertex s ∈ V with an even

degree and λG (V − s) ≥ 3, and a cyclic order π of ΓG (s), there is a noncrossing
sequence of (3, s)-feasible splitting such that the resulting graph G∗ satisfies either
cG∗ (s) = 0 or (2), and such a splitting can be found in O(n2 ) time. t
u

Now we describe how to obtain a complete (3, s)-feasible and planarity-

preserving splitting given (2).
Let G∗ = (V, E ∗ ) be a multigraph satisfying (2), and let G00 = (V 00 , E 00 )
denote the graph G∗ [V − s]. Then λG00 (V 00 ) = 2. A cut in a graph is a 2-cut
if its cut size is 2. Now we consider a representation of all 2-cuts in G00 . Let
{Y1 , Y2 , . . . , Yr } be the set of 3-components in G00 , and GG00 = (V, E) denote
the graph obtained from G00 by contracting each 3-component Yi into a single
vertex yi . For a vertex v ∈ V , ϕG00 (v) denotes the vertex yi ∈ V into which
v (possibly together with other vertices) is contracted. We can easily observe
that GG00 is a cactus, i.e., a connected graph such that any edge is contained in
exactly one cycle, where a cycle may be of length two. Clearly a cactus is an
outerplanar graph, and any two cycles in a cactus have at most one common
vertex. A vertex with degree 2 in a cactus is called a leaf vertex. Since any non-
leaf vertex in a cactus is a cut-vertex, there may be many ways of embedding a
cactus in the plane. For a vertex z ∈ V in the cactus GG00 , we denote by ϕ−1 G00 (z)
the 3-component Yi such that Yi is contracted into z. It is easy to see that a
subset Y ⊂ V in G00 is a leaf 3-component if and only if there is a leaf vertex
z ∈ V with ϕ−1 G00 (z) = Y in GG00 . From this, we have the next lemma.

Lemma 9. Let G∗ = (V, E ∗ ) be a multigraph, and s be a designated vertex with

even degree. Assume that λG∗ (V − s) ≥ 3 and (2) holds. Let L(GG00 ) be the set
of leaf vertices in cactus GG00 of G00 = G∗ [V − s]. Then ϕG00 defines a bijection
between ΓG (s) and L(GG00 ). t
u
108 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

Now assume that a given graph G = (V, E) with λG (V − s) ≥ 3 is planar.

Fix a planar embedding ψ of G, and let πψ be the cyclic order of ΓG (s) in which
neighbors in ΓG (s) appear along the outer face of G[V − s]. By applying PRE-
PROCESS to G and πψ , a multigraph G∗ is obtained from G by a noncrossing
(hence planarity-preserving) (3, s)-feasible splitting satisfying either cG∗ (s) = 0
or (2). If cG∗ (s) = 0 (i.e., the splitting is complete) then we are done. Thus
assume that G∗ satisfies (2). It is not difficult to see that G00 = G∗ [V − s] and
cactus GG00 have the following properties:
(i) For any 2-cut X in G00 , Z = ∪x∈X ϕG00 (x) is a 2-cut in GG00 . (i.e., the two
edges in EG00 (X) exist in the same cycle in GG00 ).
(ii) For any 2-cut Z in GG00 , X = ∪z∈Z ϕ−1 00
G00 (z) is a 2-cut in G .

In other words, cactus GG00 represents all 2-cuts in G00 = G∗ [V −s]. By Lemma 9,
there is a bijection between EG∗ (s) and L(GG00 ), and thus GG00 has an even
number of leaf vertices. A set σ of new edges which pairwise connect all leaf
vertices in a cactus is called a leaf-matching. Hence finding a complete (k, s)-
feasible splitting in G∗ is to obtain a leaf-matching σ in GG00 such that adding
the leaf-matching destroys all 2-cuts in the cactus GG00 .
However, to ensure that the complete splitting corresponding to a leaf-mat-
ching preserves the planarity of G∗ , we need to choose a leaf-matching σ of GG00
carefully. An embedding χ of a cactus in the plane is called standard if all leaf
vertices are located on the outer face of χ. In particular, for a cyclic order π of leaf
vertices, a standard embedding χ of a cactus is called a standard π-embedding
if the leaf vertices appear in the order of π along the outer face of χ. Note that
a standard π-embedding of a cactus is unique (unless we distinguish one edge
from the other in a cycle of length two). We define a flipping operation in an
embedding χ of cactus G = (V, E) as follows. Choose a cycle C in G and a vertex
z in C. We see that removal of the two edges in C incident to z creates two
connected components, say G 0 and G 00 ; we assume that z ∈ V (G 0 ). Let G[C, z]
denote the subgraph G 0 of G. We say that the embedding χ of G is flipped by
(C, z) if we fold the subgraph G[C, z] back into the other side of area surrounded
by C while fixing the other part of the embedding χ. An embedding obtained
from a standard π-embedding of a cactus by a sequence of flipping operations is
called a π 0 -embedding.
Recall that neighbors in ΓG∗ (s) appear in cyclic order πψ0 = (w1 , . . . , wr )
in an embedding χψ of G∗ . We also use πψ0 to represent the cyclic order of
leaf vertices z1 = ϕ(w1 ), z2 = ϕ(w2 ), . . . , zr = ϕ(wr ) in cactus GG00 . Then the
standard πψ0 -embedding χψ of GG00 has the following property:
each vertex z ∈ V in GG00 can be replaced with the subgraph
(3)
G∗ [ϕ−1 (z)] without creating crossing edges in χ.
Observe that a flipping operation preserves property (3), and hence any π-
embedding χ of GG00 also satisfies the property (3).
A pair (σ, χ) of a leaf-matching σ on leaf vertices in a cactus G and a π-
embedding χ of G is called a π-configuration. A π-configuration (σ, χ) of G is
called good if it satisfies the following conditions.
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 109

(a) all 2-cuts in cactus G = (V, E) are destroyed by adding σ (i.e., for any 2-cut
X, σ contains an edge (z, z 0 ) with z ∈ X and z 0 ∈ V − X), and
(b) all edges in σ can be drawn in π-embedding χ of G without creating crossing
edges.
Now the problem of computing a complete and planarity-preserving (3, s)-
feasible splitting in G∗ is to find a good πψ0 -configuration (σ, χ) of GG00 . To show
that such a good πψ0 -configuration always exists in GG00 , it suffices to prove the
next lemma (the proof is omitted).
Lemma 10. For a cactus G = (V, E) and a cyclic order π of leaf vertices, as-
sume that there is a standard π-embedding of G. Then there always exists a good
π-configuration (σ, χ) of G, and such a configuration can be found in O(|V|2 )
time. t
u
By this lemma, a complete and planarity-preserving (3, s)-feasible splitting
in a graph G∗ which satisfies (2) can be computed in O(n2 ) time. This and
Lemma 8 establish the following theorem.
Theorem 4. Given a planar multigraph G = (V, E) with a designated vertex
s ∈ V of even degree, and λG (V − s) ≥ 3, there exists a complete and planarity-
preserving (3, s)-feasible splitting, and such a splitting can be found in O(n2 )
time. t
u

5 Augmenting Edge-Connectivity of Outerplanar Graphs

Given a multigraph G = (V, E) and a positive integer k, the k-edge-connectivity
(resp., k-vertex-connectivity) augmentation problem asks to find a minimum
number of new edges to be added to G such that the augmented graph be-
comes k-edge-connected (resp., k-vertex-connected). Watanabe and Nakamura
[11] proved that the k-edge-connectivity augmentation problem for general k is
polynomially solvable. In such applications as graph drawing (see [3]), a planar
graph G is given, and we may want to augment its edge- (or vertex-) connectivity
optimally while preserving its planarity. Kant and Boldlaender [5] proved that
the planarity-preserving version of 2-vertex-connectivity augmentation problem
is NP-hard. Kant [4] also showed that, if a given graph G is outerplanar, then
the planarity-preserving versions of both the 2-edge-connectivity and 2-vertex-
connectivity can be solved in linear time. For a planar graph G, let γk (G) (resp.,
γ̃k (G)) denote the minimum number of new edges to be added to G so that the
resulting graph G0 becomes k-edge-connected (resp., so that the resulting graph
G00 becomes k-edge-connected and remains planar). Clearly, γk (G) ≤ γ̃k (G) for
any planar graph G and k ≥ 1. From the results in the preceding sections, we
can show the next result.
Theorem 5. Let G = (V, E) be an outerplanar graph. If k ≥ 0 is an even
integer or k = 3, then γk (G) = γ̃k (G) and the planarity-preserving version of
the k-edge-connectivity augmentation problem can be solved in O(n2 (m+n log n))
time.
110 Hiroshi Nagamochi and Peter Eades

Proof: (Sketch) Based on Theorems 3 and 4, we can apply the approach of

Cai and Sun [1] (also see [2]) for solving the k-edge-connectivity augmentation
problem by using the splitting algorithm. The detail is omitted. t
u

Furthermore, for every odd integer k ≥ 5, there is an outerplanar graph G

such that γk (G) < γ̃k (G). Consider the graph G03 obtained from the graph G3
in Example 1(c) by deleting s and the edges in EG03 (s). It is easy to see that
γk (G03 ) = 2 < 3 = γ̃k (G03 ).
Remark: Given an undirected outerplanar network N = (V, L, c) and a real
k > 0, we consider the k-edge-connectivity augmentation problem which asks
how to augment N by increasing link weights and by adding new links so that
0 0 0
P N =0 (V, L∪L , c )P
the resulting network is k-edge-connected and remains planar
while minimizing e∈L (c (e) − c(e)) + e∈L0 c0 (e), where c and c0 are allowed
to be nonnegative reals. It is not difficult to observe that this problem can be
solved in O(n2 (m + n log n)) time by the argument given so far in this paper.
(It would be interesting to see whether the problem can be formulated as a
linear programming or not; if the planarity is not necessarily preserved then the
problem is written as a linear programming.)

Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by the Scientific Grant-in-Aid from Min-
istry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, the grant from the
Inamori Foundation and Kyoto University Foundation, and the Research Man-
agement Committee from The University of Newcastle.

References
1. G.-R. Cai and Y.-G. Sun. The minimum augmentation of any graph to k-edge-
connected graph. Networks, 19:151–172, 1989.
2. A. Frank. Augmenting graphs to meet edge-connectivity requirements. SIAM J.
Disc. Math., 5:25–53, 1992.
3. G. Kant. Algorithms for Drawing Planar Graphs. PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer
Science, Utrecht University, 1993.
4. G. Kant. Augmenting outerplanar graphs. J. Algorithms, 21:1–25, 1996.
5. G. Kant and H. L. Boldlaender. Planar graph augmentation problems. LNCS,
Vol. 621, pages 258–271. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
6. L. Lovász. Combinatorial Problems and Exercises. North-Holland, 1979.
7. H. Nagamochi and T. Ibaraki. A linear time algorithm for computing 3-edge-
connected components in multigraphs. J. of Japan Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, 9:163–180, 1992.
8. H. Nagamochi and T. Ibaraki. Computing edge-connectivity of multigraphs and
capacitated graphs. SIAM J. Disc. Math., 5:54–66, 1992.
9. H. Nagamochi and T. Ibaraki. Deterministic Õ(nm) time edge-splitting in undi-
rected graphs. J. Combinatorial Optimization, 1:5–46, 1997.
10. R. E. Tarjan. Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput.,
1:146–160, 1972.
 Augmentation in Planar Graphs 111

11. T. Watanabe and A. Nakamura. Edge-connectivity augmentation problems. J.

Comp. System Sci., 35:96–144, 1987.
12. T. Watanabe, S. Taoka and K. Onaga. A linear-time algorithm for computing all
3-edge-components of a multigraph. Trans. Inst. Electron. Inform. Comm. Eng.
Jap., E75-A:410–424, 1992.
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected
Subgraph Problem

Robert Carr1? and R. Ravi2??

1
Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM, USA
bobcarr@@cs.sandia.gov
2
GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
ravi@@cmu.edu

Abstract. Given a complete undirected graph with non-negative costs

on the edges, the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem consists in finding
the minimum cost spanning 2-edge connected subgraph (where multi-
edges are allowed in the solution). A lower bound for the minimum cost
2-edge connected subgraph is obtained by solving the linear programming
relaxation for this problem, which coincides with the subtour relaxation
of the traveling salesman problem when the costs satisfy the triangle
inequality.
The simplest fractional solutions to the subtour relaxation are the 12 -
integral solutions in which every edge variable has a value which is a
multiple of 12 . We show that the minimum cost of a 2-edge connected
subgraph is at most four-thirds the cost of the minimum cost 12 -integral
solution of the subtour relaxation. This supports the long-standing 43
Conjecture for the TSP, which states that there is a Hamilton cycle which
is within 43 times the cost of the optimal subtour relaxation solution when
the costs satisfy the triangle inequality.

1 Introduction
The 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem is a fundamental problem in Sur-
vivable Network Design. This problem arises in the design of communication
networks that are resilient to single-link failures and is an important special case
in the design of survivable networks [11,12,14].

1.1 Formulation
An integer programming formulation for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Prob-
lem is as follows. Let Kn = (V, E) be the complete graph of feasible links on
?
Supported by NSF grant DMS9509581 and DOE contract AC04-94AL85000.
??
Research supported in part by an NSF CAREER grant CCR-9625297.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 112–125, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 113

which the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem is formulated. We denote an

edge of this graph whose endpoints are i ∈ V and j ∈ V by ij. For each vertex
v ∈ V , let δ(v) ⊂ E denote the set of edges incident to v. For each subset of
vertices S ⊂ V , let δ(S) ⊂ E denote the set of edges in the cut which has S as
one of the shores, i.e. the set of edges having exactly one endpoint in S. Denote
the edge variable for e ∈ E by xe , which is 0,1, or 2 depending on whether e is
absent, occurs singly or P doubly in the 2-edge connected subgraph. For A ⊂ E,
let x(A) denote the sum e∈A xe . Let ce denote the cost of edge e. We have the
following integer programming formulation.

minimize c · x
subject to
x(δ(v)) ≥ 2 for all v ∈ V,
(1)
x(δ(S)) ≥ 2 for all S ⊂ V,
xe ≥0 for all e ∈ E,
xe integral.

The LP relaxation is obtained by dropping the integrality constraint in this

formulation. This LP relaxation is almost the same as the subtour relaxation
for the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). The Traveling Salesman Problem
consists in finding the minimum cost Hamilton cycle in a graph (a Hamilton
cycle is a cycle which goes through all the vertices). The subtour relaxation for
the TSP is as follows.

minimize c · x
subject to
x(δ(v)) = 2 for all v ∈ V, (2)
x(δ(S)) ≥ 2 for all S ⊂ V,
xe ≥ 0 for all e ∈ E.

The constraints of the subtour relaxation are called the degree constraints, the
subtour elimination constraints, and the non-negativity constraints respectively.
If one has the relationship cij ≤ cik + cjk for all distinct i, j, k ∈ V , then
c is said to satisfy the triangle inequality. An interesting known result is that
if the costs satisfy the triangle inequality, then there is an optimal solution to
(1) which is also feasible and hence optimal for (2). This follows from a result
of Cunningham [11] (A more general result called the Parsimonious Property is
shown by Goemans and Bertsimas in [7]). We can show that this equivalence
holds even when the costs do not satisfy the triangle inequality. In the latter
case, we replace the given graph by its metric completion, namely, for every
edge ij such that cij is greater than the cost of the shortest path between i and
j in the given graph, we reset the cost to that of this shortest path. The intent
is that if this edge is chosen in the solution of (1), we may replace it by the
shortest cost path connecting i and j. Since multiedges are allowed in the 2-edge
connected graph this transformation is valid. Hence without loss of generality,
we can assume that the costs satisfy the triangle inequality.
114 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

1.2 Our Result and its Significance

Our main result is the following.
4
Theorem 1. The minimum cost of a 2-edge connected subgraph is within 3
times the cost of the optimal half-integral subtour solution for the TSP.
This result is a first step towards proving the following conjecture we offer.
4
Conjecture 1. The minimum cost of a 2-edge connected subgraph is within 3
times the cost of the optimal subtour solution for the TSP.
By our remarks in the end of Section 1.1, it would follow from Conjecture 1
that the minimum cost of a 2-edge connected subgraph is also within 43 times
the cost of an optimal solution to the linear programming relaxation (1).
We formulated Conjecture 1 as an intermediate step in proving the following
stronger “four-thirds conjecture” on the subtour relaxation for the TSP, which
would directly imply Conjecture 1.
Conjecture 2. If the costs satisfy the triangle inequality, then the minimum cost
of a Hamilton cycle is within 43 times the cost of the optimal subtour solution
for the TSP.
Note that Theorem 1 and Conjecture 1 imply similar relations between the
fractional optimum of the subtour relaxation and a minimum-cost 2-vertex con-
nected subgraph when the costs obey the triangle inequality. In particular, The-
orem 1 implies that when the costs satisfy the triangle inequality, the minimum
cost 2-vertex connected spanning subgraph is within 43 times the cost of the
optimal half-integral subtour solution for the TSP. This follows from the simple
observation that from the minimum-cost 2-edge connected graph, we can short-
cut “over” any cut vertices without increasing the cost by using the triangle
inequality [5,11].

1.3 Related Work

A heuristic for finding a low cost Hamilton cycle was developed by Christofides
in 1976 [4]. An analysis of this heuristic shows that the ratio is no worse than 32 in
both Conjecture 1 and Conjecture 2. This analysis was done by Wolsey in [16] and
by Shmoys and Williamson in [15]. A modification of the Christofides heuristic
to find a low cost 2-vertex connected subgraph when the costs obey the triangle
inequality was done by Fredrickson and Ja Ja in [5]. The performance guarantee
for this heuristic to find a 2-vertex connected subgraph is 32 . There has also
been a spate of work on approximation algorithms for survivable network design
problems generalizing the 2-edge connected subgraph problem [7,8,9,10,13,17];
however, the performance guarantee for the 2-edge connected subgraph problem
from these methods is at best 32 when the costs obey the triangle inequality
(shown in [5,7]) and at best 2 when they do not (shown in [9]).
Both Conjecture 2 and Conjecture 1 have remained open since Christofides
developed his heuristic. In this paper, we suggest a line of attack for proving
Conjecture 1.
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 115

2 Motivation

In this section we discuss two distinct motivations that led us to focus on half-
integral extreme points and prove a version of Conjecture 1 for this special case.
One follows from a particular strategy to prove Conjecture 1 and the other
from examining subclasses of subtour extreme points that are sufficient to prove
Conjectures 1 and 2.

2.1 A Strategy for Proving Conjecture 1

Let an arbitrary point x∗ of the subtour polytope for Kn be given. Multiply this
by 43 to obtain the vector 43 x∗ . Denote the edge incidence vector for a given 2-edge
connected subgraph H in Kn by χH . Note that edge variables could be 0,1, or 2
in this incidence vector. Suppose we could express 43 x∗ as a convex combination
of incidence vectors of 2-edge connected subgraphs Hi for i = 1, 2, . . . , k. That
is, suppose that
4 ∗ Pk
3x = i=1 λi χHi , (3)

where λi ≥ 0 for i = 1, 2, . . . , k and

X
k
λi = 1.
i=1

Then, taking dot products on both sides of (3) with the cost vector c yields

4
Pk
3c · x∗ = i=1 λi c · χHi . (4)

Since the right hand side of (4) is a weighted average of the numbers c · χHi , it
follows that there exists a j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , k} such that

c · χHj ≤ 43 c · x∗ . (5)

If we could establish (5) for any subtour point x∗ , then it would in particular
be valid for the optimal subtour point, which would prove Conjecture 1.
In an attempt at proving Conjecture 1, we aim at contradicting the idea of a
minimal counterexample, that is, a subtour point x∗ having the fewest number of
vertices n0 such that (3) can not hold for any set of 2-edge connected subgraphs.
First we have the following observation.

Theorem 2. At least one of the minimal counterexamples x∗ to (3) holding

(for some set of 2-edge connected subgraphs) is an extreme point of the subtour
polytope.
P
Proof. Suppose x∗ = l µl xl , where each xl is an extreme point which is not
a minimal counterexample, and the µl ’s satisfy the usual constraints for a set
116 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

of convex multipliers. Thus, for each l, we can find a set of 2-edge connected
subgraphs Hil such that
4 l X l Hil
x = λi χ ,
3 i

where the λli ’s satisfy the usual constraints for a set of convex multipliers. Then
4 ∗
P 4
P P l

3x l 3 µl x µl λli χHi .
l
= = l i (6)

Since we have that

X X X
µl · ( λli ) = µl · (1) = 1,
l i l

Equation (6) shows that 43 x∗ can be expressed as a convex combination of 2-edge

connected subgraphs as well, from which this theorem follows.

Thus we need to focus only on minimal counterexamples x∗ in Kn0 which are

extreme points. To carry out the proof, we wish to find a substantial tight cut
δ(H) for x∗ , i.e. an H ⊂ V such that 3 ≤ |H| ≤ n0 − 3 and

x∗ (δ(H)) = 2.

We can then split x∗ into 2 smaller subtour solutions x1 and x2 in the following
way. Take the vertices of V \ H in x∗ and contract them to a single vertex to
obtain x1 . Likewise, take the vertices of H in x∗ and contract them to a single
vertex to obtain x2 . An example of this is shown in Figure 1.
Since x1 and x2 are not counterexamples to our conjecture, we would be able
to decompose 43 x1 and 43 x2 into combinations of 2-edge connected subgraphs,
which we may then attempt to glue together to form a similar combination for
4 ∗ ∗
3 x , thereby showing that x is not a counterexample (We show how this can be
accomplished for the case of half-integral extreme points in Case 1 in the Proof
of Theorem 6).
What if there are no tight substantial cuts however? The following proposi-
tion which is shown in [1] shows us what we need to do.

Proposition 1. If x∗ is an extreme point of the subtour polytope and has no

substantial tight cuts, then x∗ is a 1/2-integer solution.

This led us to focus on 1/2-integral solutions x∗ , and we were able to complete

the proof for this special case. In the next section, we show our main result that
if x∗ is a 1/2-integer subtour solution, then (3) can always be satisfied.

2.2 The Important Extreme Points

Consider any extreme point x∗ . We wish to express 43 x∗ as a convex combination
of 2-edge connected graphs for Conjecture 1 or a convex combination of Eulerian
graphs for Conjecture 2. An important question is what features of x∗ make it
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 117

2/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
1 1
1 2/3
1
1/3 2/3
2/3
1/3
2/3

Fig. 1. An idea for splitting a minimal counterexample into two smaller in-
stances. Note that H defines a substantial tight cut, i.e., both H and V \ H have
at least three vertices and x(δ(H)) = 2.

difficult to do this? In an effort to answer this question, we try to transform

x∗ into another extreme point x∗ on a larger graph so that x∗ belongs to a
subclass of the extreme points, but 43 x∗ is at least as hard to express as a convex
combination of 2-edge connected graphs (or Eulerian graphs) as 43 x∗ is. The idea
then is that we only have to be able to express 43 x as a convex combination of
2-edge connected graphs (or Eulerian graphs) for all extreme points x belonging
to this particular subclass in order to prove Conjecture 1 (or Conjecture 2). If
we have a subclass S of extreme points x such that being able to express 43 x
as a convex combination of 2-edge connected graphs for all extreme points x
belonging to this particular subclass is sufficient to prove Conjecture 1, then we
say that S is sufficient to prove Conjecture 1. Likewise, a subclass S can be
sufficient to prove Conjecture 2.
We have found two different subclasses of extreme points which are sufficient
to prove both Conjecture 1 and Conjecture 2. In some sense, the extreme points
in such a subclass are the hardest extreme points to deal with when proving
Conjecture 1 or Conjecture 2. One class, termed fundamental extreme points,
can be found in [2].

Definition 1. A fundamental extreme point is an extreme point for the subtour

relaxation satisfying the following conditions.

(i) The support graph is 3-regular,

(ii) There is a 1-edge incident to each vertex,
(iii) The fractional edges form disjoint cycles of length 4.
118 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

A second class of such sufficient extreme points is described below. We will

restrict our attention to showing that the subclass described below is sufficient to
prove Conjecture 1, although showing that it is also sufficient to prove Conjecture
2 requires only minor modifications in our arguments.
Consider any extreme point x∗ . Pick the smallest integer k such that x∗e is a
multiple of k1 for every edge e ∈ E. Then form a 2k-regular 2k-edge connected
multigraph Gk = (V, Ek ) as follows. For every edge e = uv ∈ E, put l edges
between u and v, where l := kx∗e . Then showing that 43 Ek can be expressed
as a convex combination of 2-edge connected graphs is equivalent to showing
that 43 x∗ can be so expressed. But suppose every vertex in Gk is replaced by
a circle of 2k nodes, each node with one edge from Ek , and 2k − 1 new edges
linking this node to its two neighboring nodes in the circle, all in such a way
that the resulting graph Gk = (V , E k ) is still 2k-regular and 2k-edge connected.
Note that loosely speaking, we have Ek ⊂ E k . We seek to then show that if
we can express 43 E k as a convex combination of 2-edge connected graphs, then
we can do so for 43 Ek as well. The graph Gk will turn out to corresponds to a
subtour extreme point x∗ (in the same way that Gk corresponds to x∗ ). It is
more convenient to define this subtour extreme point x∗ than to define Gk .
Let us now define x∗ .
Definition 2. Expand each vertex in V into a circle of 2k nodes, with an edge
of Ek leaving each such node, as described in the previous paragraph. Take the
equivalent of an Eulerian tour through all the edges of Ek by alternately travers-
ing these edges and jumping from one node to another node in the same circle
until you have traversed all of the edges in Ek and have come back to the edge in
Ek you started with. When you jump from node u to node v in the same circle
in this Eulerian tour, define x∗uv := k−1k . For every edge e ∈ Ek , we naturally
define x∗e := k1 . For each circle Cv of nodes corresponding to the vertex v ∈ V ,
we pick an arbitrary perfect matching Mv on the nodes in Cv , including in Mv
only edges e which have not yet been used in the definition of x∗ . We then define
x∗e := 1 for all e ∈ Mv .
We have the following:
Theorem 3. x∗ in Definition 2 is a subtour extreme point.
Proof. The support graph of x∗ is 3-regular, with the fractional edges in x∗
forming a Hamilton cycle on the vertices V . Call the edges in x∗ ’s support graph
Ek.
We first show that x∗ is a feasible subtour point. If it were not, there would
have to be a cut in the graph Gk = (V , E k ) of value less than 2. Clearly, such
a cut C would have to go through some circle Cv of nodes since Gk is 2k-edge
connected. But the contribution of the edges from the circle Cv to any cut
crossing it is at least 1 since the edges in the circle Cv each have a value greater
than or equal to 1/2. Hence, the contribution from the non-circle edges in the
cut C is less than 1. But this is not possible because when v is ripped out of x∗ ,
the minimum cut in the remaining solution is greater than or equal to 1. Hence,
x∗ is a feasible subtour point.
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 119

We show that x∗ is an extreme point by showing that it can not be expressed

1 1
as 2x + 12 x2 , where x1 and x2 are distinct subtour points. Suppose x∗ could
be so expressed. Then the support graphs of x1 and x2 would coincide with or
be subgraphs of the support graph E k of x∗ . Because of the structure of the
support graph, setting the value of just one fractional edge determines the entire
solution due to the degree constraints. Hence, all the edges e ∈ E k such that
xe = k1 would have to say be smaller than k1 in x1 and larger than k1 in x2 . But,
then a cut separating any circle of nodes Cv from the rest of the vertices in x1
would have a value less than 2, which contradicts x1 being a subtour point.
We now have the following:
Theorem 4. If 43 x∗ can be expressed as a convex combination of 2-edge con-
nected graphs spanning V , then 43 x∗ can be expressed as a convex combination
of 2-edge connected graphs spanning V .
Proof. Suppose 43 x∗ can be expressed as a convex combination
4 ∗ P
3x = i λi χH i , (7)

where the H i ’s are 2-edge connected graphs spanning V . For each i, contract
each circle of nodes Cv back to the vertex v ∈ V in H i . Call the resulting graph
Hi . Since contraction preserves edge connectivity, Hi is a 2-edge connected graph
spanning V . When one performs this contraction on x∗ , one gets x∗ . As a result,
we obtain that
4 ∗
P
3x = i λi χ ,
Hi
(8)

which proves our theorem.

We can now define the subclass of important extreme points.
Definition 3. An important extreme point is an extreme point for the subtour
relaxation satisfying the following conditions.
(i) The support graph is 3-regular,
(ii) There is a 1-edge incident to each vertex,
(iii) The fractional edges form a Hamilton cycle.
We are now ready for the culminating theorem of this section.
Theorem 5. The subclass of important extreme points is sufficient to prove
Conjecture 1.
Proof. If there is an extreme point x∗ such that 43 x∗ cannot be expressed as a
convex combination of 2-edge connected graphs, then by Theorem 4, the impor-
tant extreme point 43 x∗ cannot be expressed as a convex combination of 2-edge
connected graphs either. Hence, our theorem follows.
The analogous theorem for the class of fundamental extreme points can be found
in [2].
120 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

3 The Proof of Theorem 1

Let x∗ be a 1/2-integer subtour solution on Kn = (V, E). Denote the edges of

the support graph of x∗ (the set of edges e ∈ E such that x∗e > 0) by Ê(x∗ ).
Construct the multigraph G(x∗ ) = (V, E(x∗ )), where E(x∗ ) ⊃ Ê(x∗ ) and differs
from Ê(x∗ ) only in that there are two copies in E(x∗ ) of every edge e ∈ Ê(x∗ )
for which x∗e = 1. Note that the parsimonious property [7] implies that there are
no edges e with xe > 1 in the optimal fractional solution.
Because of the constraints of the subtour relaxation, it follows that G(x∗ )
is a 4-regular 4-edge connected multigraph. Similarly, corresponding to every 4-
regular 4-edge connected multigraph is a 1/2-integer subtour solution, although
this solution may not be an extreme point.
Showing (3) for some choice of 2-edge connected subgraphs Hi for every
1/2-integer subtour solution x∗ would prove Conjecture 1 whenever the optimal
subtour solution was 1/2-integer, as was discussed in the last section. So, equiva-
lently to showing (3) for some choice of 2-edge connected subgraphs Hi for every
1/2-integer subtour solution x∗ , we could show
2 E(G)
P
3χ = i λi χHi , (9)

where this expression is a convex combination of some chosen set of 2-edge

connected subgraphs Hi , for every 4-regular 4-edge connected multigraph G =
(V, E(G)). These are equivalent because of the remarks in the previous paragraph
and the observation that G(x∗ ) behaves like 2x∗ .
It turns out that (9) is very difficult to show directly, but the following
slight strengthening of it makes the task easier. Consider any 4-regular 4-edge
connected multigraph G = (V, E(G)) and any edge e ∈ E(G). Then, we prove
instead that
2 E(G)\{e}
P
3χ = i λi χHi (10)

where this expression is a convex combination of some chosen set of 2-edge

connected subgraphs Hi .
For technical reasons, we will prove (10) with the additional restriction that
none of the Hi ’s may use more than one copy of any edge in E(G). Note however
that G may itself have multiedges so H may also have multiedges. In the latter
case, we think of two parallel multiedges in H as being copies of two distinct
multiedges in G.
For any 4-regular 4-edge connected graph G and any edge e ∈ E(G), we
define P (G, e) to be the following statement.
Statement 1. P (G, e) ⇔ For some finite set
P of 2-edge connected subgraphs Hi ,
we have (10), where λi ≥ 0 for all i and i λi = 1, and none of the Hi ’s may
use more than one copy of any edge in E(G).
As noted above, Statement 1 does not rule out the possibility of doubled
edges in the Hi ’s because there may be doubled edges in G.
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 121

We define a tight cut for a 4-edge connected graph G to be a cut which has
exactly 4-edges in it. We define a non-trivial cut for such a graph to be a cut
where both shores have at least 2 vertices each. We have the following lemma.
Lemma 1. Let G = (V, E) be a 4-regular 4-edge connected graph which has no
tight non-trivial cut which includes an edge e = uv ∈ E. Let the other 3 (not
necessarily distinct) neighbors of v be x, y, and z. Then either ux or yz is a loop
or G0 = G − v + ux + yz is 4-regular and 4-edge connected, and likewise for the
other combinations.

Proof. Let G = (V, E) and e = uv ∈ E be given, where the neighbors of v are

as stated. First, note that any cut in G containing all four edges incident on v
has size at least 8, since the cut formed by moving v to the opposite side of the
cut must have size at least 4 since G is 4-edge connected.
Suppose neither ux or yz is a loop. Then clearly, G0 is a 4-regular connected
graph. Since it is 4-regular, every cut has an even number of edges in it. By our
earlier observation, there can be no cuts δ(H) in G0 of cardinality zero. Suppose
G0 has a non-trivial cut δ(H) with only 2 edges in it. Consider Ĝ = G + ux + yz
with vertex v back in. The two non-trivial cuts δ(H ∪ {v}) and δ((V \ H) ∪ {v})
can each have at most 3 more edges each (for a total of 5 edges each) since as
observed earlier, these cuts could not have all 4 edges incident to v in them. But,
G = Ĝ − ux − yz has only cuts with an even number of edges in them since it
is 4-regular. Hence the cuts δ(H ∪ {v}) and δ((V \ H) ∪ {v}) in G have at most
4 edges in them. One of these two cuts is a tight non-trivial cut which contains
e, which yields the lemma.

We are now ready for our main theorem.

Theorem 6. Let x∗ be a minimum cost 1/2-integer subtour solution. Then there
exists a 2-edge connected subgraph H such that c · χH ≤ 43 c · x∗ .

Proof. As remarked in the discussion before this theorem, it is sufficient to prove

P (G, e) for all 4-regular 4-edge connected multigraphs G and for all e ∈ E(G). To
prove this, we show that a minimal counterexample to P (G, e) can not happen.
Let G = (V, E(G)) be a 4-regular 4-edge connected multigraph and e ∈ E(G)
which has the minimum number of vertices such that P (G, e) does not hold.
Since by inspection, we can verify that P (G, e) holds when G has 3 vertices,
we can assume that |V | > 3. We now consider the cases where G has a tight
non-trivial cut which includes edge e and where G has no tight non-trivial cut
which includes e.
Case 1: G has a tight non-trivial cut which includes edge e.
Choose such a tight non-trivial cut and denote the edges other than e in this
cut by a, b, and c. As before, consider contracting one of the shores of this cut to
a single vertex v1 . Denote the edges incident to v1 , which corresponded to e, a, b,
and c, by e1 , a1 , b1 , and c1 respectively. This resulting graph G1 = (V1 , E1 ) can
be seen to be 4-regular and 4-edge connected. (To see this, suppose there was a
cut of cardinality less than four in G1 and let H1 be the shore of this cut not
122 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

containing v1 . Then the cut δ(H1 ) in G shows that G is not 4-edge-connected,

a contradiction.) Since (G, e) was a minimal counterexample to P (G, e), we
have P (G1 , e1 ). By contracting the other shore, we can get a 4-regular 4-edge
connected graph G2 , and we know that P (G2 , e2 ) also holds.
By P (G1 , e1 ) we have
2 E(G1 )\{e1 }
P 1

3χ = i λi χHi , (11)

and by P (G2 , e2 ) we have

2 E(G2 )\{e2 }
P 2
3χ = i µi χHi . (12)

In (11), consider the edges incident to v1 in each of the Hi1 ’s. There are clearly
at least 2 such edges for every Hi1 . The values of edges a1 , b1 , c1 , and e1 in
2 E(G1 )\{e1 }
3χ are 23 , 23 , 23 , and 0 respectively. This adds up to 2. Hence, since we
are dealing with convex combinations, which are weighted averages, when the
weights are taken into account, the Hi1 ’s have on average 2 edges incident to v1
each. But since every Hi1 has at least 2 such edges, it follows that every Hi1 has
exactly 2 edges incident to v1 in it.
For each 2-edge connected subgraph Hi1 which has edges a1 and b1 , denote
the corresponding convex multiplier by λab i . Define λi and λi similarly. One
ac bc

can see that the only way for the variable values of edges a1 , b1 , and c1 to end
up all being 23 in 23 χE(G1 )\{e1 } is for the following to hold:
P ab P ac P bc 1
i λi = i λi = i λi = 3 . (13)

Similarly, we must have

P P P 1
i µab
i = i µac
i = i µbc
i = 3. (14)

Call the three types of 2-edge connected graphs Hij as ab-graphs, ac-graphs,
and bc-graphs. Our strategy is to combine say each ab-graph Hi1 of G1 with an
ab-graph Hj2 of G2 to form an ab-graph Hijab
of G which is also 2-edge connected.
So, we define

Hij
ab
:= (Hi1 − v1 ) + (Hj2 − v2 ) + a + b, (15)

where Hi1 and Hj2 are ab-graphs. Since Hi1 − v1 and Hj2 − v2 are both connected,
it follows that Hijab
is 2-edge connected. Similarly define Hij ac
and Hijbc
.
Now consider the following expression:
P P P
i,j 3λi µj Hij + i,j 3λi µj Hij + i,j 3λi µj Hij .
ab ab ab ac ac ac bc bc bc
(16)

One can verify that this is in fact a convex combination. Any edge f in say
G1 − v1 occurs in (16) with a weight of
P P ab P ac P bc
{i | f ∈H 1 } (λi · (3 · j µj ) + λi · (3 · j µj ) + λi · (3 · j µj )). (17)
ab ac bc
i
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 123

In light of (14) we have that (17) evaluates to

X 2
λi = . (18)
3
{i | f ∈Hi1 }

We have a similar identity when f is in G2 − v2 and we also have that edges a, b,

and c each occur in (16) with a weight of 23 as well. Therefore we have
P P P 2 E(G)\{e}
i µj Hij +
3λab i µj Hij + i µj Hij = 3 χ , (19)
ab ab
i,j i,j 3λac ac ac
i,j 3λbc bc bc

which contradicts (G, e) being a minimal counterexample.

Case 2: G has no tight non-trivial cut which includes edge e.
Denote the endpoints of e by u ∈ V and v ∈ V , and denote the other 3 not
necessarily distinct neighbors of v in G by x, y, z ∈ V . Because e is in no tight
non-trivial cut, we have that x 6= y 6= z. (If any two of the neighbors x, y and z
are the same, say x = y, then the cut δ({v, x}) will be a tight non-trivial cut).
Thus, without loss of generality, if any two neighbors are the same vertex, we
can assume that they are u and z. Hence, u 6= x and u 6= y.
Define the graph G1 = (V1 , E1 ) by

G1 = G − v + ux + yz, (20)

and define e1 = ux. We know by Lemma 1 that G1 is 4-regular and 4-edge

connected. Since (G, e) is a minimal counterexample, we therefore know that
P (G1 , e1 ) holds. Similarly, define the graph G2 = (V2 , E2 ) by

G2 = G − v + uy + xz, (21)

and define e2 = uy. As before, we know that P (G2 , e2 ) holds as well.

So, we can form the following convex combinations of 2-edge connected
graphs:
2 E1 \{e1 }
P 1

3χ = i λi χHi , (22)

and
2 E2 \{e2 } P 2
3χ = i µi χHi . (23)

Define Ĥi1 by

Hi1 − yz + yv + zv for yz ∈ Hi1 ,
Ĥi1 = (24)
Hi1 + yv + xv for yz 6∈ Hi1 .

Likewise, define Ĥi2 by


Hi2 − xz + xv + zv for xz ∈ Hi2 ,
Ĥi2 = (25)
Hi2 + yv + xv for xz 6∈ Hi2 .
124 Robert Carr and R. Ravi

Consider the convex combination of 2-edge connected subgraphs

1
P Ĥi1
P 2
2 i λi χ + 12 i µi χĤi . (26)

Every edge in f ∈ E \ δ(v) occurs with a total weight of 23 in (26) since f occured
with that weight in both (22) and (23). Since yz occurs with a total weight of 23
in (22) and xz occurs with a total weight of 23 in (23), one can verify that xv, yv,
and zv each occur with a total weight of 23 in (26) as well. Therefore, we have
2 E\{e} 1 P 1
1 P 2

3χ = 2 i λi χĤi + 2 i µi χĤi , (27)

which contradicts G, e being a minimal counterexample.

4 Concluding Remarks
An obvious open problem arising from our work is to extend our strategy and
settle Conjecture 1. In another direction, it would be interesting to apply our
ideas to design a 43 -approximation algorithm for the minimum cost 2-edge- and
2-vertex-connected subgraph problems.
Another interesting question is the tightness of the bound proven in Theo-
rem 1. The examples we have been able to construct seem to demonstrate an
asymptotic ratio of 65 between the cost of a minimum cost 2-edge connected sub-
graph and that of an optimal half-integral subtour solution. Finding instances
with a worse ratio or improving our bound in Theorem 1 are open problems.

References
1. M. Balinski. On recent developments in integer programming. In H. W. Kuhn,
editor, Proceedings of the Princeton Symposium on Mathematical Programming,
pages 267–302. Princeton University Press, NJ, 1970.
2. S. Boyd and R. Carr. Finding low cost TSP and 2-matching solutions using certain
half-integer subtour vertices. Manuscript, March 1998.
3. S. Boyd and R. Carr. A new bound for the 2-matching problem. Report TR-96-07,
Department of Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, 1996.
4. N. Christofides. Worst case analysis of a new heuristic for the traveling salesman
problem. Report 388, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mel-
lon University, Pittsburgh, 1976.
5. G. N. Fredrickson and J. Ja Ja. On the relationship between the biconnectiv-
ity augmentation and traveling salesman problems. Theoretical Computer Science,
19:189–201, 1982.
6. M. X. Goemans. Worst-case comparison of valid inequalities for the TSP. Math.
Programming, 69:335–349, 1995.
7. M. X. Goemans and D. J. Bertsimas. Survivable networks, linear programming
relaxations and the parsimonious property. Math. Programming, 60:145–166, 1993.
8. M. X. Goemans, A. Goldberg, S. Plotkin, D. Shmoys, É. Tardos, and D. P. Willam-
son. Approximation algorithms for network design problems. Proceedings of the
Fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA ’94), pages
223–232, 1994.
 A New Bound for the 2-Edge Connected Subgraph Problem 125

9. S. Khuller and U. Vishkin. Biconnectivity approximations and graph carvings. J.

Assoc. Comput. Mach., 41(2):214–235, 1994.
10. P. Klein and R. Ravi. When cycles collapse: A general approximation technique for
constrained two-connectivity problems. Proceedings of the Conference on Integer
Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (IPCO ’93), pages 39–56, 1993.
11. C. L. Monma, B. S. Munson, and W. R. Pulleyblank. Minimum-weight two-
connected spanning networks. Math. Programming, 46:153–171, 1990.
12. C. L. Monma and D. F. Shallcross. Methods for designing communication net-
works with certain two-connectivity survivability constraints. Oper. Res., 37:531–
541, 1989.
13. H. Saran, V. Vazirani, and N. Young. A primal-dual approach to approximation
algorithms for network Steiner problems. Proc. of the Indo-US workshop on Coop-
erative research in Computer Science, pages 166–168. Bangalore, India, 1992.
14. K. Steiglitz, P. Weiner, and D. J. Kleitman. The design of minimum-cost survivable
networks. IEEE Trans. on Circuit Theory, CT-16, 4:455–460, 1969.
15. D. B. Shmoys and D. P. Williamson. Analyzing the Held-Karp TSP bound: A
monotonicity property with application, Inf. Process. Lett., 35:281–285, 1990.
16. L. A. Wolsey. Heuristic analysis, linear programming and branch and bound. Math.
Program. Study, 13:121–134, 1980.
17. D. P. Williamson, M. X. Goemans, M. Mihail, and V. Vazirani. A primal-dual
approximation algorithm for generalized Steiner network problems. Combinatorica
15:435–454, 1995.
 An Improved Approximation Algorithm for
Minimum Size 2-Edge Connected Spanning
Subgraphs

Joseph Cheriyan1 , András Sebő2 , and Zoltán Szigeti3

1
Department of Combinatorics and Optimization
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
jcheriyan@@dragon.uwaterloo.ca
2
Departement de Mathematiques Discretes
CNRS, Laboratoire LEIBNIZ (CNRS,INPG,UJF)-IMAG
46 Avenue Felix Viallet, 38000 Grenoble Cedex, France
Andras.Sebo@@imag.fr
3
Equipe Combinatoire, Université Paris VI
4 place Jussieu, Couloir 45-46 3e, 75252 Paris, France
Zoltan.Szigeti@@ecp6.jussieu.fr

Abstract. We give a 17 12
-approximation algorithm for the following NP-
hard problem:
Given a simple undirected graph, find a 2-edge connected span-
ning subgraph that has the minimum number of edges.
The best previous approximation guarantee was 32 . If the well known TSP
4
3
conjecture holds, then there is a 43 -approximation algorithm. Thus our
main result gets half-way to this target.

1 Introduction
Given a simple undirected graph, consider the problem of finding a 2-edge con-
nected spanning subgraph that has the minimum number of edges. The problem
is NP-hard, since the Hamiltonian cycle problem reduces to it. A number of
recent papers have focused on approximation algorithms 1 for this and other
related problems, [2]. We use the abbreviation 2-ECSS for 2-edge connected
spanning subgraph.
Here is an easy 2-approximation algorithm for the problem:
Take an ear decomposition of the given graph (see Section 2 for defini-
tions), and discard all 1-ears (ears that consist of one edge). Then the
resulting graph is 2-edge connected and has at most 2n − 3 edges, while
the optimal subgraph has ≥ n edges, where n is the number of nodes.
1
An α-approximation algorithm for a combinatorial optimization problem runs in
polynomial time and delivers a solution whose value is always within the factor α
of the optimum value. The quantity α is called the approximation guarantee of the
algorithm.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 126–136, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
 An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs 127

Khuller & Vishkin [8] were the first to improve on the approximation guarantee
of 2. They gave a simple and elegant algorithm based on depth-first search that
achieves an approximation guarantee of 1.5. In an extended abstract, Garg, San-
tosh & Singla [6] claimed to have a 1.25-approximation algorithm for the prob-
lem. No proof of this claim is available; on the other hand, there is no evidence
indicating that achieving an approximation guarantee of 1.25 in polynomial time
is impossible.
We improve Khuller & Vishkin’s 18 17
12 -approximation guarantee to 12 . If the
4 4
well known TSP 3 conjecture holds, then there is a 3 -approximation algorithm,
see Section 5. Thus our main result gets half-way to this target.
Let G = (V, E) be the given simple undirected graph, and let n and m denote
|V | and |E|. Assume that G is 2-edge connected.
Our method is based on a matching-theory result of András Frank, namely,
there is a good characterization for the minimum number of even-length ears
over all possible ear decompositions of a graph, and moreover, an ear decom-
position achieving this minimum can be computed efficiently, [4]. Recall that
the 2-approximation heuristic starts with an arbitrary ear decomposition of G.
Instead, if we start with an ear decomposition that maximizes the number of
1-ears, and if we discard all the 1-ears, then we will obtain the optimal solution.
In fact, we start with an ear decomposition that maximizes the number of odd-
length ears. Now, discarding all the 1-ears gives an approximation guarantee of
1.5 (see Proposition 8 below). To do better, we repeatedly apply “ear-splicing”
steps to the starting ear decomposition to obtain a final ear decomposition such
that the number of odd-length ears is the same, and moreover, the internal nodes
of distinct 3-ears are nonadjacent. We employ two lower bounds to show that
discarding all the 1-ears from the final ear decomposition gives an approximation
guarantee of 1712 . The first lower bound is the “component lower bound” due to
Garg et al [6, Lemma 4.1], see Proposition 4 below. The second lower bound
comes from the minimum number of even-length ears in an ear decomposition
of G, see Proposition 7 below.
After developing some preliminaries in Sections 2 and 3, we present our
heuristic in Section 4. Section 5 shows that the well known 43 conjecture for the
metric TSP implies that there is a 43 -approximation algorithm for a minimum-
size 2-ECSS, see Theorem 18. Almost all of the results in Section 5 are well
known, but we include the details to make the paper self-contained. Section 6
has two examples showing that our analysis of the heuristic is tight. Section 6
also compares the two lower bounds with the optimal value.

A Useful Assumption
For our heuristic to work, it is essential that the given graph be 2-node con-
nected. Hence, in Section 4 of the paper where our heuristic is presented, we
will assume that the given graph G is 2-node connected. Otherwise, if G is not
2-node connected, we compute the blocks (i.e., the maximal 2-node connected
subgraphs) of G, and apply the algorithm separately to each block. We compute
a 2-ECSS for each block, and output the union of the edge sets as the edge set of
128 Joseph Cheriyan et al.

a 2-ECSS of G. The resulting graph has no cut edges since the subgraph found
for each block has no cut edge, and moreover, the approximation guarantee for
G is at most the maximum of the approximation guarantees for the blocks.

2 Preliminaries

Except in Section 5, all graphs are simple, that is, there are no loops nor multi-
edges. A closed path means a cycle, and an open path means that all the nodes
are distinct.
An ear decomposition of the graph G is a partition of the edge set into open
or closed paths, P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk , such that P0 is the trivial path with one
node, and each Pi (1 ≤ i ≤ k) is a path that has both end nodes in Vi−1 =
V (P0 ) ∪ V (P1 ) ∪ . . . ∪ V (Pi−1 ) but has no internal nodes in Vi−1 . A (closed
or open) ear means one of the (closed or open) paths P0 , P1 , . . . , Pk in the ear
decomposition, and for a nonnegative integer `, an `-ear means an ear that has `
edges. An `-ear is called even if ` is an even number, otherwise, the `-ear is called
odd. (The ear P0 is always even.) An open ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk
is one such that all the ears P2 , . . . , Pk are open.

Proposition 1 (Whitney [12]).

(i) A graph is 2-edge connected if and only if it has an ear decomposition.

(ii) A graph is 2-node connected if and only if it has an open ear decomposition.

An odd ear decomposition is one such that every ear (except the trivial path
P0 ) has an odd number of edges. A graph is called factor-critical if for every node
v ∈ V (G), there is a perfect matching in G − v. The next result gives another
characterization of factor-critical graphs.

Theorem 2 (Lovász [9], Theorem 5.5.1 in [10]). A graph is factor-critical

if and only if it has an odd ear decomposition.

It follows that a factor-critical graph is necessarily 2-edge connected. An open

odd ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk is an odd ear decomposition such that
all the ears P2 , . . . , Pk are open.

Theorem 3 (Lovász & Plummer, Theorem 5.5.2 in [10]). A 2-node con-

nected factor-critical graph has an open odd ear decomposition.

Let ε(G) denote the minimum number of edges in a 2-ECSS of G. For a graph
H, let c(H) denote the number of (connected) components of H. Garg et al [6,
Lemma 4.1] use the following lower bound on ε(G).

Proposition 4. Let G = (V, E) be a 2-edge connected graph, and let S be a

nonempty set of nodes such that the deletion of S results in a graph with c =
c(G − S) ≥ 2 components. Then ε(G) ≥ |V | + c − |S|.
 An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs 129

Proof. Focus on an arbitrary component D of G − S and note that it contributes

≥ |V (D)| + 1 edges to an optimal 2-ECSS, because every node in D contributes
≥ 2 edges, and at least two of these edges have exactly one end node in D.
Summing over all components of G − S gives the result. t
u
For a set of nodes S ⊆ V of a graph G = (V, E), δ(S) denotes the set of
edges that have one end node in S and one end node in V − S. For the singleton
node set {v}, we use the notation δ(v). For a vector x : E→IR, x(δ(S)) denotes
P
e∈δ(S) xe .

3 Frank’s Theorem and a New Lower Bound for ε

For a 2-edge connected graph G, let ϕ(G) (or ϕ) denote the minimum number
of even ears of length ≥ 2, over all possible ear decompositions. For example:
ϕ(G) = 0 if G is a factor-critical graph (e.g., G is an odd clique K2`+1 or an
odd cycle C2`+1 ), ϕ(G) = 1 if G is an even clique K2` or an even cycle C2` , and
ϕ(G) = ` − 1 if G is the complete bipartite graph K2,` (` ≥ 2). The proof of the
next result appears in [4], see Theorem 4.5 and Section 2 of [4].
Theorem 5 (A. Frank [4]). Let G = (V, E) be a 2-edge connected graph. An
ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk of G having ϕ(G) even ears of length ≥ 2
can be computed in time O(|V | · |E|).

Proposition 6. Let G be a 2-node connected graph. An open ear decomposition

P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk of G having ϕ(G) even ears of length ≥ 2 can be computed in
time O(|V | · |E|).
Proof. Start with an ear decomposition having ϕ(G) even ears of length ≥ 2 (the
ears may be open or closed). Subdivide one edge in each even ear of length ≥ 2 by
adding one new node and one new edge. The resulting ear decomposition is odd.
Hence, the resulting graph G0 is factor critical, and also, G0 is 2-node connected
since G is 2-node connected. Apply Theorem 3 to construct an open odd ear
decomposition of G0 . Finally, in the resulting ear decomposition, “undo” the
ϕ(G) edge subdivisions to obtain the desired ear decomposition P0 +P1 +. . .+Pk
of G. t
u
Frank’s theorem gives the following lower bound on the minimum number of
edges in a 2-ECSS.
Proposition 7. Let G = (V, E) be a 2-edge connected graph. Then ε(G) ≥
|V | + ϕ(G) − 1.
Proof. Consider an arbitrary 2-ECSS of G. If this 2-ECSS has an ear decom-
position with fewer than ϕ(G) + 1 even ears, then we could add the edges of
G not in the 2-ECSS as 1-ears to get an ear decomposition of G with fewer
than ϕ(G) + 1 even ears. Thus, every ear decomposition of the 2-ECSS has
≥ ϕ(G) + 1 even ears. Let P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk be an ear decomposition of the 2-
ECSS, where k ≥ ϕ(G). It is easily seen that the number of edges in the 2-ECSS
is k + |V | − 1 ≥ ϕ(G) + |V | − 1. The result follows. t
u
130 Joseph Cheriyan et al.

The next result is not useful for our main result, but we include it for com-
pleteness.

Proposition 8. Let G = (V, E) be a 2-edge connected graph. Let G0 = (V, E 0 ) be

obtained by discarding all the 1-ears from an ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . .+ Pk
of G that has ϕ(G) even ears of length ≥ 2. Then |E 0 |/ε(G) ≤ 1.5.

Proof. Let t be the number of internal nodes in the odd ears of P0 +P1 +. . .+Pk .
(Note that the node in P0 is not counted by t.) Then, the number of edges
contributed to E 0 by the odd ears is ≤ 3t/2, and the number of edges contributed
to E 0 by the even ears is ≤ ϕ+|V |−t−1. By applying Proposition 7 (and the fact
that ε(G) ≥ |V |) we get, |E 0 |/ε(G) ≤ (t/2 + ϕ + |V | − 1)/ max(|V |, ϕ + |V | − 1) ≤
(t/2|V |) + (ϕ + |V | − 1)/(ϕ + |V | − 1) ≤ 1.5. t
u

4 Approximating ε via Frank’s Theorem

For a graph H and an ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk of H, we call an

ear Pi of length ≥ 2 pendant if none of the internal nodes of Pi is an end node
of another ear Pj of length ≥ 2. In other words, if we discard all the 1-ears from
the ear decomposition, then one of the remaining ears is called pendant if all its
internal nodes have degree 2 in the resulting graph.
Let G = (V, E) be the given graph, and let ϕ = ϕ(G). Recall the assumption
from Section 1 that G is 2-node connected. By an evenmin ear decomposition of
G, we mean an ear decomposition that has ϕ(G) even ears of length ≥ 2. Our
method starts with an open evenmin ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk of G,
see Proposition 6, i.e., for 2 ≤ i ≤ k, every ear Pi has distinct end nodes, and the
number of even ears is minimum possible. The method performs a sequence of
“ear splicings” to obtain another (evenmin) ear decomposition Q0 +Q1 +. . .+Qk
(the ears Qi may be either open or closed) such that the following holds:

Property (α)
(0) the number of even ears is the same in P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk and in Q0 + Q1 +
. . . + Qk ,
(1) every 3-ear Qi is a pendant ear,
(2) for every pair of 3-ears Qi and Qj , there is no edge between an internal node
of Qi and an internal node of Qj , and
(3) every 3-ear Qi is open.

Proposition 9. Let G = (V, E) be a 2-node connected graph with |V | ≥ 4. Let

P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk be an open evenmin ear decomposition of G. There is a
linear-time algorithm that given P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk , finds an ear decomposition
Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk satisfying property (α).

Proof. The proof is by induction on the number of ears. The result clearly holds
for k = 1. Suppose that the result holds for (j − 1) ears P0 + P1 + . . . + Pj−1 . Let
 An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs 131

Q00 + Q01 + . . .+ Q0j−1 be the corresponding ear decomposition that satisfies prop-
erty (α). Consider the open ear Pj , j ≥ 2. Let Pj be an `-ear, v1 , v2 , . . . , v` , v`+1 .
Possibly, ` = 1. (So v1 and v`+1 are the end nodes of Pj , and v1 6= v`+1 .)
Let T denote the set of internal nodes of the 3-ears of Q00 + Q01 + . . . + Q0j−1 .
Suppose Pj is an ear of length ` ≥ 2 with exactly one end node, say, v1 in T .
Let Q0i = w1 , v1 , w3 , w4 be the 3-ear having v1 as an internal node. We take
Q0 = Q00 , . . . , Qi−1 = Q0i−1 , Qi = Q0i+1 , . . . , Qj−2 = Q0j−1 . Moreover, we take
Qj−1 to be the (` + 2)-ear obtained by adding the last two edges of Q0i to Pj , i.e.,
Qj−1 = w4 , w3 , v1 , v2 , . . . , v` , v`+1 , and we take Qj to be the 1-ear consisting of
the first edge w1 v1 of Q0i . Note that the parities of the lengths of the two spliced
ears are preserved, that is, Qj−1 is even (odd) if and only if Pj is even (odd),
and both Qj and Q0i are odd. Hence, the number of even ears is the same in
P0 + P1 + . . . + Pj and in Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qj .
Now, suppose Pj has both end nodes v1 and v`+1 in T . If there is one 3-ear
Q0i that has both v1 and v`+1 as internal nodes (so ` ≥ 2), then we take Qj−1
to be the (` + 2)-ear obtained by adding the first edge and the last edge of Q0i
to Pj , and we take Qj to be the 1-ear consisting of the middle edge v1 v`+1 of
Q0i . Also, we take Q0 = Q00 , . . . , Qi−1 = Q0i−1 , Qi = Q0i+1 , . . . , Qj−2 = Q0j−1 .
Observe that the number of even ears is the same in P0 + P1 + . . . + Pj and in
Q 0 + Q1 + . . . + Qj .
If there are two 3-ears Q0i and Q0h that contain the end nodes of Pj , then we
take Qj−2 to be the (` + 4)-ear obtained by adding the last two edges of both Q0i
and Q0h to Pj , and we take Qj−1 (similarly, Qj ) to be the 1-ear consisting of the
first edge of Q0i (similarly, Q0h ). (For ease of description, assume that if a 3-ear
has exactly one end node v of Pj as an internal node, then v is the second node
of the 3-ear.) Also, assuming i < h, we take Q0 = Q00 , . . . , Qi−1 = Q0i−1 , Qi =
Q0i+1 , . . . , Qh−2 = Q0h−1 , Qh−1 = Q0h+1 , . . . , Qj−3 = Q0j−1 . Again, observe that
the number of even ears is the same in P0 +P1 +. . .+Pj and in Q0 +Q1 +. . .+Qj .
If the end nodes of Pj are disjoint from T , then the proof is easy (take
Qj = Pj ). Also, if Pj is a 1-ear with exactly one end node in T , then the proof
is easy (take Qj = Pj ).
The proof ensures that in the final ear decomposition Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk ,
every 3-ear is pendant and open, and moreover, the internal nodes of distinct 3-
ears are nonadjacent. We leave the detailed verification to the reader. Therefore,
the ear decomposition Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk satisfies property (α). t
u

Remark 10. In the induction step, which applies for j ≥ 2 (but not for j = 1),
it is essential that the ear Pj is open, though Q0i (and Q0h ) may be either open
or closed. Our main result (Theorem 12) does not use part (3) of property (α).
Our approximation algorithm for a minimum-size 2-ECSS computes the ear
decomposition Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk satisfying property (α), starting from an open
evenmin ear decomposition P0 + P1 + . . . + Pk . (Note that Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk
is an evenmin ear decomposition.) Then, the algorithm discards all the edges
in 1-ears. Let the resulting graph be G0 = (V, E 0 ). G0 is 2-edge connected by
Proposition 1.
132 Joseph Cheriyan et al.

Let T denote the set of internal nodes of the 3-ears of Q0 + Q1 + . . .+ Qk , and

let t = |T |. (Note that the node in Q0 is not counted by t.) Property (α) implies
that in the subgraph of G induced by T , G[T ], every (connected) component
has exactly two nodes. Consider the approximation guarantee for G0 , i.e., the
quantity |E 0 |/ε(G).
Lemma 11. ε(G) ≥ 3t/2.
Proof. Apply Proposition 4 with S = V − T (so |S| = n − t) and c = c(G − S) =
t/2 to get ε(G) ≥ n − (n − t) + (t/2). t
u

Theorem 12. Given a 2-edge connected graph G = (V, E), the above algorithm
finds a 2-ECSS G0 = (V, E 0 ) such that |E 0 |/ε(G) ≤ 17
12 . The algorithm runs in
time O(|V | · |E|).
Proof. By the previous lemma and Proposition 7,

ε(G) ≥ max(n + ϕ(G) − 1, 3t/2) .

We claim that
t 5(n + ϕ(G) − 1)
|E 0 | ≤+ .
4 4
To see this, note that the final ear decomposition Q0 + Q1 + . . . + Qk satisfies
the following: (i) the number of edges contributed by the 3-ears is 3t/2; (ii) the
number of edges contributed by the odd ears of length ≥ 5 is ≤ 5q/4, where q is
the number of internal nodes in the odd ears of length ≥ 5; and (iii) the number
of edges contributed by the even ears of length ≥ 2 is ≤ ϕ(G) + (n − t − q − 1),
since there are ϕ(G) such ears and they have a total of (n − t − q − 1) internal
nodes. (The node in Q0 is not an internal node of an ear of length ≥ 1.)
The approximation guarantee follows since
|E 0 | t/4 + 5(n + ϕ(G) − 1)/4
≤
ε(G) ε(G)
t/4 + 5(n + ϕ(G) − 1)/4
≤
max(n + ϕ(G) − 1, 3t/2)
t 2 5(n + ϕ(G) − 1) 1
≤ +
4 3t 4 n + ϕ(G) − 1
17
= .
12
t
u

4
5 Relation to the TSP 3
Conjecture

This section shows that the well known 43 conjecture for the metric TSP (due
to Cunningham (1986) and others) implies that there is a 43 -approximation al-
gorithm for a minimum-size 2-ECSS, see Theorem 18. Almost all of the results
 An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs 133

in this section are well known, except possibly Fact 13, see [1,3,5,7,11,13]. The
details are included to make the paper self-contained.
In the metric TSP (traveling salesman problem), we are given a complete
graph G0 = Kn and edge costs c0 that satisfy the triangle inequality (c0vw ≤
c0vu + c0uw , ∀v, w, u ∈ V ). The goal is to compute c0T SP , the minimum cost of a
Hamiltonian cycle.
Recall our 2-ECSS problem: Given a simple graph G = (V, E), compute ε(G),
the minimum size of a 2-edge connected spanning subgraph. Here is the multiedge
(or uncapacitated) version of our problem. Given G = (V, E) as above, compute
µ(G), the minimum size (counting multiplicities) of a 2-edge connected spanning
submultigraph H = (V, F ), where F is a multiset such that e ∈ F =⇒ e ∈ E.
(To give an analogy, if we take ε(G) to correspond to the f -factor problem, then
µ(G) corresponds to the f -matching problem.)

Fact 13. If G is a 2-edge connected graph, then µ(G) = ε(G).

Proof. Let H = (V, F ) give the optimal solution for µ(G). If H uses two copies
of an edge vw, then we can replace one of the copies by some other edge of G
in the cut given by H − {vw, vw}. In other words, if S is the node set of one of
the two components of H − {vw, vw}, then we replace one copy of vw by some
edge from δG (S) − {vw}. t
u

Remark 14. The above is a lucky fact. It fails to generalize, both for minimum-
cost (rather than minimum-size) 2-ECSS, and for minimum-size k-ECSS, k ≥ 3.

Given an n-node graph G = (V, E) together with edge costs c (possibly c

assigns unit costs), define its metric completion G0 , c0 to be the complete graph
Kn = G0 with c0vw (∀ v, w ∈ V ) equal to the minimum-cost of a v-w path in G, c.

Fact 15. Let G be a 2-edge connected graph, and let c assign unit costs to the
edges. The minimum cost of the TSP on the metric completion of G, c, satisfies
c0T SP ≥ µ(G) = ε(G).

Proof. Let T be an optimal solution to the TSP. We replace each edge vw ∈

E(T ) − E(G) by the edges of a minimum-cost v-w path in G, c. The resulting
multigraph H is obviously 2-edge connected, and has c0T SP = c(H) ≥ µ(G). u
t

Here is the subtour formulation of the TSP on G0 , c0 , where G0 = Kn . This

gives an integer programming formulation, using the subtour elimination con-
straints. There is one variable xe for each edge e in G0 .

c0T SP = minimize c0 · x
subject to x(δ(v)) = 2, ∀v ∈ V
x(δ(S)) ≥ 2, ∀S ⊂ V, ∅ =
6 S 6= V
x ≥ 0,
x ∈ ZZ .
134 Joseph Cheriyan et al.

The subtour LP (linear program) is obtained by removing the integrality con-

straints, i.e., the x-variables are nonnegative reals rather than nonnegative in-
tegers. Let zST denote the optimal value of the subtour LP. Note that zST is
computable in polynomial time, e.g., via the Ellipsoid method. In practice, zST
may be computed via the Held-Karp heuristic, which typically runs fast.
3
Theorem 16 (Wolsey [13]). If c0 is a metric, then c0T SP ≤ zST .
2

4
TSP 4
3 Conjecture. If c0 is a metric, then c0T SP ≤ zST .
3
To derive the lower bound zST ≤ ε(G), we need a result of Goemans &
Bertsimas on the subtour LP, [7, Theorem 1]. In fact, a special case of this result
that appeared earlier in [11, Theorem 8] suffices for us.
Proposition 17 (Parsimonious property [7]). Consider the TSP on G0 =
(V, E 0 ), c0 , where G0 = K|V | . Assume that the edge costs c0 form a metric, i.e.,
c0 satisfies the triangle inequality. Then the optimal value of the subtour LP
remains the same even if the constraints {x(δ(v)) = 2, ∀v ∈ V } are omitted.
Note that this result does not apply to the subtour integer program given
above.
Let z2CUT denote the optimal value of the LP obtained from the subtour LP
by removing the constraints x(δ(v)) = 2 for all nodes v ∈ V . The above result
states that if c0 is a metric, then zST = z2CUT . Moreover, for a 2-edge connected
graph G and unit edge costs c = 1l, we have z2CUT ≤ µ(G) = ε(G), since µ(G) is
the optimal value of the integer program whose LP relaxation has optimal value
z2CUT . (Here, z2CUT is the optimal value of the LP on the metric completion of
G, c.) Then, by the parsimonious property, we have zST = z2CUT ≤ ε(G). The
main result in this section follows.
4
Theorem 18. Suppose that the TSP 3 conjecture holds. Then
4
zST ≤ ε(G) ≤ c0T SP ≤ zST .
3
A 43 -approximation of the minimum-size 2-ECSS is obtained by computing
4
3 zST on the metric completion of G, c, where c = 1l.

The Minimum-Cost 2-ECSS Problem

Consider the weighted version of the problem, where each edge e has a nonnega-
0
Pfind a 2-ECSS (V, E ) of the given graph G = (V, E)
tive cost ce and the goal is to
0
such that the cost c(E ) = e∈E 0 ce is minimum. Khuller & Vishkin [8] pointed
out that a 2-approximation guarantee can be obtained via the weighted matroid
intersection algorithm. When the edge costs satisfy the triangle inequality (i.e.,
when c is a metric), Frederickson and Ja’Ja’ [5] gave a 1.5-approximation algo-
rithm, and this is still the best approximation guarantee known. In fact, they
 An Approximation Algorithm for 2-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs 135

proved that the TSP tour found by the Christofides heuristic achieves an approx-
imation guarantee of 1.5. Simpler proofs of this result based on Theorem 16 were
found later by Cunningham (see [11, Theorem 8]) and by Goemans & Bertsimas
[7, Theorem 4].
Consider the minimum-cost 2-ECSS problem on a 2-edge connected graph
G = (V, E) with nonnegative edge costs c. Let the minimum cost of a simple 2-
ECSS and of a multiedge 2-ECSS be denoted by cε and cµ , respectively. Clearly,
cε ≥ cµ . Even for the case of arbitrary nonnegative costs c, we know of no exam-
cµ 7 cµ 7
ple where > . There is an example G, c with ≥ . Take two copies of
zST 6 zST 6
K3 , call them C1 , C2 , and add three disjoint length-2 paths P1 , P2 , P3 between
C1 and C2 such that each node of C1 ∪ C2 has degree 3 in the resulting graph G.
In other words, G is obtained from the triangular prism C6 by subdividing once
each of the 3 “matching edges”. Assign a cost of 2 to each edge in C1 ∪ C2 , and
assign a cost of 1 to the remaining edges. Then cε = cµ = 14, as can be seen by
taking 2 edges from each of C1 , C2 , and all 6 edges of P1 ∪ P2 ∪ P3 . Moreover,
zST ≤ 12, as can be seen by taking xe = 1/2 for each of the 6 edges e in C1 ∪ C2 ,
and taking xe = 1 for the remaining 6 edges e in P1 ∪ P2 ∪ P3 .

6 Conclusions

Our analysis of the heuristic is (asymptotically) tight. We give two example

graphs. Each is an n-node Hamiltonian graph G = (V, E), where the heuristic
(in the worst case) finds a 2-ECSS G0 = (V, E 0 ) with 17n/12 − Θ(1) edges.
The first example graph, G, is constructed by “joining” many copies of the
following graph H: H consists of a 5-edge path u0 , u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 , and 4 disjoint
edges v1 w1 , v2 w2 , v3 w3 , v4 w4 . We take q copies of H and identify the node u0
in all copies, and identify the node u5 in all copies. Then we add all possible
edges ui vj , and all possible edges ui wj , i.e., we add the edge set of a complete
bipartite graph on all the u-nodes and all the v-nodes, and we add the edge
set of another complete bipartite graph on all the u-nodes and all the w-nodes.
Finally, we add 3 more nodes u01 , u02 , u03 and 5 more edges to obtain a 5-edge cycle
u0 , u01 , u02 , u03 , u5 , u0 . Clearly, ε(G) = n = 12q + 5. If the heuristic starts with the
closed 5-ear u0 ,u01 ,u02 ,u03 ,u5 ,u0 , and then finds the 5-ears u0 ,u1 ,u2 ,u3 ,u4 ,u5 in all
the copies of H, and finally finds the 3-ears u0 vj wj u5 (1 ≤ j ≤ 4) in all the
copies of H, then we have |E 0 | = 17q + 5.
Here is the second example graph, G = (V, E). The number of nodes is n =
3×5q , and V = {0, 1, 2, ..., 3×5q −1}. The “first node” 0 will also be denoted 3×
5q . The edge set E consists of (the edge set of) a Hamiltonian cycle together with
(the edge sets of) “shortcut cycles” of lengths n/3, n/(3 × 5), n/(3 × 52 ), . . . , 5.
In detail, E = {i(i + 1) | ∀0 ≤ i ≤ q − 1} ∪ {(3 × 5j × i)(3 × 5j × (i + 1)) | ∀0 ≤ j ≤
q−1, 0 ≤ i ≤ 5q−j −1}. Note that |E| = 3×5q +5q +5q−1 +...+5 = (17×5q −5)/4.
In the worst case, the heuristic initially finds 5-ears, and finally finds 3-ears, and
so the 2-ECSS (V, E 0 ) found by the heuristic has all the edges of G. Hence, we
have |E 0 |/ε(G) = |E|/n = 17/12 − 1/(12 × 5q−1 ).
136 Joseph Cheriyan et al.

How do the lower bounds in Proposition 4 (call it Lc ) and in Proposition 7

(call it Lϕ ) compare with ε? Let n denote the number of nodes in the graph.
There is a 2-node connected graph such that ε/Lϕ ≥ 1.5−Θ(1)/n, i.e., the upper
bound of Proposition 8 is tight. There is another 2-edge connected (but not 2-
node connected) graph such that ε/Lc ≥ 1.5 − Θ(1)/n and ε/Lϕ ≥ 1.5 − Θ(1)/n.
Among 2-node connected graphs, we have a graph with ε/Lc ≥ 4/3 − Θ(1)/n,
but we do not know whether there exist graphs that give higher ratios. There is
a 2-node connected graph such that ε/ max(Lc , Lϕ ) ≥ 5/4 − Θ(1)/n, but we do
not know whether there exist graphs that give higher ratios.

References
1. R. Carr and R. Ravi. A new bound for the 2-edge connected subgraph problem. In
R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado, editors, Integer Programming
and Combinatorial Optimization: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, LNCS, Vol. 1412, pages
110–123. Springer, 1998. This volume.
2. J. Cheriyan and R. Thurimella. Approximating minimum-size k-connected span-
ning subgraphs via matching. Proc. 37th Annual IEEE Sympos. on Foundat. of
Comput. Sci., pages 292–301, 1996.
3. N. Christofides. Worst-case analysis of a new heuristic for the traveling salesman
problem. Technical report, G.S.I.A., Carnegie-Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, 1976.
4. A. Frank. Conservative weightings and ear-decompositions of graphs. Combinator-
ica, 13:65–81, 1993.
5. G. L. Frederickson and J. Ja’Ja’. On the relationship between the biconnectivity
augmentation and traveling salesman problems. Theor. Comp. Sci., 19:189–201,
1982.
6. N. Garg, V. S. Santosh, and A. Singla. Improved approximation algorithms for
biconnected subgraphs via better lower bounding techniques. Proc. 4th Annual
ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 103–111, 1993.
7. M. X. Goemans and D. J. Bertsimas. Survivable networks, linear programming
relaxations and the parsimonious property. Mathematical Programming, 60:143–
166, 1993.
8. S. Khuller and U. Vishkin. Biconnectivity approximations and graph carvings.
Journal of the ACM, 41:214–235, 1994. Preliminary version in Proc. 24th Annual
ACM STOC,pages 759–770, 1992.
9. L. Lovász. A note on factor-critical graphs. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar., 7:279–280,
1972.
10. L. Lovász and M. D. Plummer. Matching Theory. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest,
1986.
11. C. L. Monma, B. S. Munson, and W. R. Pulleyblank. Minimum-weight two-
connected spanning networks. Mathematical Programming, 46:153–171, 1990.
12. H. Whitney. Nonseparable and planar graphs. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 34:339–
362, 1932.
13. L. A. Wolsey. Heuristic analysis, linear programming and branch and bound. Math-
ematical Programming Study, 13:121–134, 1980.
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs with Bounded
Degree and Bounded Tree-Width

Gruia Călinescu1 ? , Cristina G. Fernandes2?? , and Bruce Reed3? ? ?

1
College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332–0280, USA
gruia@@cc.gatech.edu
2
Department of Computer Science, University of São Paulo
Rua do Matao, 1010 05508–900 Sao Paulo, Brazil
cris@@ime.usp.br
3
CNRS - Paris, France, and
Department of Computer Science, University of São Paulo, Brazil
reed@@ime.usp.br.

Abstract. The Multicut problem is defined as follows: given a graph

G and a collection of pairs of distinct vertices (si , ti ) of G, find a small-
est set of edges of G whose removal disconnects each si from the corre-
sponding ti . Our main result is a polynomial-time approximation scheme
for Multicut in unweighted graphs with bounded degree and bounded
tree-width: for any  > 0, we presented a polynomial-time algorithm
with performance ratio at most 1 + . In the particular case when the
input is a bounded-degree tree, we have a linear-time implementation of
the algorithm. We also provided some hardness results. We proved that
Multicut is still NP-hard for binary trees and that, unless P = N P ,
no polynomial-time approximation scheme exists if we drop any of the
the three conditions: unweighted, bounded-degree, bounded-tree-width.
Some of these results extend to the vertex version of Multicut.

1 Introduction

Multicommodity Flow problems have been intensely studied for decades [7,11,9],
[13,15,17] because of their practical applications and also of the appealing hard-
ness of several of their versions. The fractional version of a Multicut problem
is the dual of a Multicommodity Flow problem and, therefore, Multicut is of
similar interest [3,9,10,13,20].
?
Research supported in part by NSF grant CCR-9319106.
??
Research partially supported by NSF grant CCR-9319106 and by FAPESP (Proc.
96/04505–2).
???
Research supported in part by ProNEx (MCT/FINEP) (Proj. 107/97) and FAPESP
(Proc. 96/12111–4).

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 137–152, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
138 Gruia Călinescu et al.

The Weighted Multicut is the following problem: given an undirected

graph G, a weight function w on the edges of G, and a collection of k pairs of
distinct vertices (si , ti ) of G, find a minimum weight set of edges of G whose
removal disconnects each si from the corresponding ti .
The particular case in which k = 1 is characterized by the famous Max-
Flow Min-Cut Theorem [6], and is solvable in strongly polynomial time [4]. For
k = 2, a variant of the Max-Flow Min-Cut Theorem holds [11,12] and Multicut
is solvable in polynomial time. For k ≥ 3, the problem is NP-hard [3].
Since many variants of the Weighted Multicut are known to be NP-hard,
we search for efficient approximation algorithms. The performance ratio of an
approximation algorithm A for a minimization problem is the supremum, over
all possible instances I, of the ratio between the weight of the output of A when
running on I and the weight of an optimal solution for I. We say A is an α-
approximation algorithm if its performance ratio is at most α. The smaller the
performance ratio, the better.
The best known performance ratio for Weighted Multicut in general graphs is
O(log k) [10]. Important research has been done for improving the performance
ratio when the input graph G belongs to special classes of graphs. For planar
graphs, Tardos and Vazirani [20], see also [13], give an approximate Max-Flow
Min-Cut theorem and an algorithm with a constant performance ratio.
The case when the input graph is restricted to a tree has been studied in
[9]. Unweighted Multicut problem (in which w(e) = 1 for all edges e of G)
restricted to stars (trees of height one) is equivalent (including performance ratio)
to Minimum Vertex Cover, by Proposition 1 in [9]. It follows that Unweighted
Multicut restricted to stars is NP-hard and Max SNP-hard. In fact, getting a
performance ratio better than two seems very hard, since getting a performance
ratio better than two for Minimum Vertex Cover remains a challenging open
problem [16]. Garg, Vazirani and Yannakakis give an algorithm in [9] with a
performance ratio of two for the Weighted Multicut problem in trees. Note that
the integral unweighted Multicommodity Flow problem in trees is solvable in
polynomial time [9].
We find useful two variations of the Multicut problem. The Vertex Mul-
ticut problem is: given an undirected graph G and a collection of k pairs of
distinct nonadjacent vertices (si , ti ) of G called terminals, find a minimum set
of nonterminal vertices whose removal disconnects each si from the correspond-
ing ti . The Unrestricted Vertex Multicut problem is: given an undirected
graph G and a collection of k pairs of vertices (si , ti ) of G called terminals, find
a minimum set of vertices whose removal disconnects each si from the corre-
sponding ti . (Note that in this variation, terminals might be removed.) Observe
that Vertex Multicut is at least as hard as Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. From
an instance of Unrestricted Vertex Multicut we can obtain an instance of Vertex
Multicut by adding, for each si , a new vertex s0i adjacent only to si , and, for
each ti , a new vertex t0i adjacent only to ti . Each pair (si , ti ) is substituted by
the new pair (s0i , t0i ). Solving Vertex Multicut in this instance is equivalent to
solving Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in the original instance.
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 139

Both Vertex Multicut and Unrestricted Vertex Multicut might be of interest

on their own. Garg, Vazirani and Yannakakis considered the weighted version of
Vertex Multicut and proved that their algorithm in [10] achieves a performance
ratio of O(log k) for the weighted version of Vertex Multicut in general graphs.
From now on, we refer to Multicut as Edge Multicut, to avoid confusion.
Let us mention some results we obtained for Vertex Multicut and Unrestricted
Vertex Multicut. We have a proof that Vertex Multicut is NP-hard in bounded-
degree trees. Unrestricted Vertex Multicut is easier: it is polynomially solvable
in trees, but it becomes NP-hard in bounded-degree series-parallel graphs.
The tree-width notion (first introduced by Robertson and Seymour [19])
seems to often capture a property of the input graph which makes hard problems
easy. Various NP-hard problems, like Clique or Coloring, have a polynomial-time
algorithm (linear time in fact) if the input graph has bounded tree-width (see
for example [2]). We will present the formal definition of tree-width in Section 2.
Bounded tree-width can also be used to obtain good approximation algo-
rithms for those problems that remain NP-hard even if restricted to graphs of
bounded tree-width. In our case, Unrestricted Vertex Multicut is NP-hard in
graphs of tree-width at most two, since this class of graphs coincides with the
series-parallel graphs (see for example [21]). We give a straightforward PTAS
for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in graphs of bounded tree-width.
We present an approximation-ratio preserving reduction from Edge Multi-
cut to Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. If the Edge Multicut instance graph has
bounded degree and bounded tree-width, the Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in-
stance obtained by the reduction has bounded tree-width. Combining the re-
duction with the PTAS for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in graphs of bounded
tree-width, we obtain a PTAS for Unweighted Edge Multicut in graphs with
bounded degree and bounded tree-width. This is the main result of the paper.
Note that, according to [8, page 140, Theorem 6.8], a FPTAS cannot exist for
this problem, unless P=NP.
We also have a linear-time implementation of our PTAS for Edge Multicut
in bounded-degree trees. The running time of our implementation is O((n +
k)d1/eddd1/e+2 ), where n is the number of vertices of the tree, k is the number
of (si , ti ) pairs, d is the maximum degree of the tree and 1 +  is the desired
approximation ratio of the algorithm. The size of the input is Θ(n + k).
We show that Edge Multicut is still NP-hard for binary (degree bounded by
three) trees. Thus, on the class of graphs of bounded degree and bounded tree-
width, which contains binary trees, Edge Multicut is easier (there is a PTAS)
than on general graphs, yet still NP-hard. Identifying this class is the main
theoretical result of this paper.
Hardness results indicate why we cannot eliminate any of the three res-
trictions—unweighted, bounded degree and bounded tree-width—on the input
graph and still obtain a PTAS. It is known [1] that for a Max SNP-hard problem,
unless P=NP, no PTAS exists. We have already seen that Unweighted Edge Mul-
ticut is Max SNP-hard in stars [9], so letting the input graph have unbounded
degree makes the problem harder. We show that Weighted Edge Multicut is Max
140 Gruia Călinescu et al.

SNP-hard in binary trees, therefore letting the input graph be weighted makes
the problem harder. Finally, we show that Unweighted Edge Multicut is Max
SNP-hard if the input graphs are walls. Walls, to be formally defined in Sec-
tion 4, have degree at most three and there are walls with tree-width as large as
we wish. We conclude that letting the input graph have unbounded tree-width
makes the problem significantly harder.
In Section 2 we present the polynomial-time algorithm for Unrestricted Ver-
tex Multicut in trees and the polynomial-time approximation scheme for Unre-
stricted Vertex Multicut in bounded-tree-width graphs. In Section 3, we show the
approximation-preserving reduction from Edge Multicut to Unrestricted Vertex
Multicut. Finally, in Section 4 we present our hardness results.

2 Algorithms for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut

In this section we concentrate on Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. We present a
polynomial-time algorithm for trees and a PTAS for graphs with bounded tree-
width. Let us start defining tree-width.
Let G be a graph and Θ be a pair (T, (Xw )w∈V (T ) ), which consists of a tree
T and a multiset whose elements Xw , indexed by the vertices of T , are subsets of
V (G). For a vertex v of G, we denote by Fv the subgraph of T induced by those
vertices w of T for which Xw contains v. Then Θ is called a tree decomposition
of G if it satisfies the two conditions below:
(1) For every edge e = xy of G, there is a vertex w of T such that {x, y} ⊆
Xw ;
(2) For every vertex v of G, the subgraph Fv of T is a tree.
The width of Θ is the maximum, over all vertices w of T , of |Xw | − 1, and
the tree-width of G, denoted by tw(G), is the minimum of the widths of all tree
decompositions of G.
Consider an instance of Unrestricted Vertex Multicut, that is, a graph G =
(V, E) and a set C of pairs (si , ti ) of vertices of G. We say a pair (si , ti ) in C is
disconnected by a set S ⊆ V if si is disconnected from ti in the subgraph of G
induced by V − S. A set S is a solution for G if S disconnects all pairs (si , ti )
in C. If S has minimum size (i.e., minimum number of vertices), then S is an
optimal solution for G.
Now, let us describe the polynomial-time algorithm for trees. The input of
the algorithm is a tree T and a set C of pairs (si , ti ) of vertices of T .
Consider the tree T rooted at an arbitrary vertex and consider also an ar-
bitrary ordering of the children of each vertex (so that we can talk about pos-
torder).

Algorithm:
Input: a tree T .
Start with S = ∅.
Call a pair (si , ti ) in C active if it is not disconnected by S.
Traverse the tree in postorder.
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 141

When visiting vertex v, if v is the least common ancestor of some active

pair (si , ti ) in C, then insert v into S and mark (si , ti ).
Output S.

Clearly the following invariant holds: all non-active pairs in C are discon-
nected by S. A pair in C that becomes non-active does not go back to active
since we never remove vertices from S. At the end of the algorithm, no pair in
C is active, meaning that S is a solution for the problem. For the minimality
of S, note that the paths joining si to ti in T for all marked pairs (si , ti ) form
a pairwise disjoint collection of paths. Any solution should contain at least one
vertex in each of these paths. But there are |S| marked paths, meaning that
any solution has at least |S| vertices. This implies that |S| is a minimum-size
solution. Besides, it is not hard to see that the algorithm can be implemented
in polynomial time.

2.1 Bounded-Tree-Width Graphs

Next we present a PTAS for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in graphs with bounded
tree-width. A PTAS consists of, for each  > 0, a polynomial-time algorithm for
the problem with a performance ratio of at most 1 + . Let us describe such an
algorithm.
The input of our algorithm is a graph G = (V, E), a tree decomposition
Θ = (T, (Xw )w∈V (T ) ) of G, and a set C of pairs of vertices of G.
Given a subgraph G0 of G, denote by C(G0 ) the set of pairs in C whose two
vertices are in G0 , and by G\ G0 the subgraph of G induced by V (G)\ V (G0 ). For
the description of the algorithm, all the instances we mention are on a subgraph
G0 of G and the set of pairs to be disconnected is C(G0 ). So we will drop C(G0 )
of the notation and refer to an instance only by the graph G0 . Denote by opt(G0 )
the size (i.e., the number of vertices) of an optimal solution for G0 .
Root the tree T (of the given tree decomposition) at a vertex r and consider
an arbitrary ordering of the children of each vertex of T . For a vertex u of T , let
T (u) be the subtree of T rooted at u. Let G(u) be the subgraph of G induced
by the union of all Xw , w ∈ V (T (u)). Let t = d(tw(G) + 1)/e.
Here is a general description of the algorithm: label the vertices of T in
postorder. Find the lowest labeled vertex u such that an optimal solution for
G(u) has at least t vertices. If there is no such vertex, let u be the root. Find
an approximate solution Su for G(u) such that |Su | ≤ (1 + )opt(G(u)) and
Xu ⊆ Su . If u is the root of T , then output Su . Otherwise, let G0 = G \ G(u) and
let Θ0 = (T 0 , (Xw0 )w∈V (T 0 ) ) be the tree decomposition of G0 where T 0 = T \ T (u)
and Xw0 = Xw \ V (G(u)), for all w ∈ V (T 0 ). Recursively get a solution S 0 for
G0 . Output S = S 0 ∪ Su .
Next we present a detailed description of the algorithm. It works in iterations.
Iteration i starts with a subgraph Gi−1 of G, a tree decomposition Θi−1 =
(T i−1 , (Xwi−1 )w∈V (T i−1 ) ) of Gi−1 with T i−1 rooted at r, and a set S i−1 of vertices
of G. Initially, G0 = G, Θ0 = Θ, S 0 = ∅ and i = 1. The algorithm halts when
Gi−1 = ∅. When Gi−1 is nonempty, the algorithm starts calling a procedure
142 Gruia Călinescu et al.

Get (u, A), which returns a vertex u of T i−1 and a solution A for Gi−1 (u) such
that |A| ≤ (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (u)) and Xui−1 ⊆ A. Then the algorithm starts a new
iteration with Gi = Gi−1 \ Gi−1 (u), Θi = (T i , (Xwi )w∈V (T i ) ), where T i = T i−1 \
T i−1 (u) and Xwi = Xwi−1 \ V (Gi−1 (u)), for all w ∈ V (T i ), and S i = S i−1 ∪ A.
The formal description of the algorithm appears in Figure 2.1.

Algorithm:

G0 ← G;
Θ0 ← Θ;
S 0 ← ∅;
i ← 1;
while Gi−1 6= ∅ do
Get (ui , Ai ); /* |Ai | ≤ (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (ui )) and Xui−1 ⊆ Ai */
i i−1 i−1
G ←G \ G (ui );
T i ← T i−1 \ T i−1 (ui );
i i−1
Xw ← Xw \ V (Gi−1 (ui )), for each w ∈ V (T i );
S i ← S i−1 ∪ Ai ;
i ← i + 1;
endwhile;
f ← i − 1;
output S f .

Fig. 1. The algorithm for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in bounded-tree-width

graphs.

We will postpone the description of Get (u, A) and, for now, assume that it
works correctly and in polynomial time. The next lemma states a property of
tree decompositions that we will use later.

Lemma 1. Consider a graph G and a tree decomposition Θ = (T, (Xw )w∈V (T ) )

of G. Let u be a vertex of T , x be a vertex of G(u) and y be a vertex of G \ G(u).
Then any path in G from x to y contains a vertex of Xu .

Next we prove that the output of the algorithm is in fact a solution.

Lemma 2. S f is a solution for G.

Proof. Let (s, t) be a pair in C and P be a path in G from s to t. We need to

show that there is a vertex of P in S f . Note that the vertex sets V (Gi−1 (ui ))
define a partition of V (G).
Let i be such that s is in Gi−1 (ui ). If all vertices of P lie in Gi−1 (ui ) then,
in particular, both s and t are in Gi−1 (ui ), which means (s, t) ∈ C(Gi−1 (ui )).
Since S f contains a solution for Gi−1 (ui ), S f must contain a vertex of P .
If not all vertices of P lie in Gi−1 (ui ), let y be the first vertex of P that does
not lie in Gi−1 (ui ). If y is in Gi−1 \ Gi−1 (ui ) then, by Lemma 1, there is a vertex
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 143

of Xui−1
i
in the segment of P from s to y. Since Xui−1
i
⊆ S f , there is a vertex of
P in S . If y is not in G
f i−1
\ G (ui ), then y is not in Gi−1 . This means y is in
i−1

G (uj ), for some j < i. Moreover, s is in Gj−1 \ Gj−1 (uj ) (because this is a
j−1

supergraph of Gi−1 ). Again by Lemma 1, there is a vertex of Xuj−1 j

⊆ S f in P ,
concluding the proof of the lemma.
The next lemma proves that the performance ratio of the algorithm is at
most 1 + .

Lemma 3. |S f | ≤ (1 + )opt(G).

Proof. We have that

X
f X
f
|S f | = |Ai | ≤ (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (ui ))
i=1 i=1

X
f
= (1 + ) opt(Gi−1 (ui )) ≤ (1 + )opt(G),
i=1

because the subgraphs Gi−1 (ui ) are vertex disjoint.

Now we proceed with the description of a straightforward polynomial-time
implementation of Get (u, A).
Search the vertices of the tree T i−1 in postorder. Stop if the vertex u being
visited is either the root or is such that opt(Gi−1 (u)) ≥ t. Let us show how we
check whether opt(Gi−1 (u)) ≥ t in polynomial time.
If we are searching vertex u, it is because all children of u have been searched
and have an optimal solution with less than t vertices. Compute an optimal
solution for each child v of u. This can be done in O(nt+1 ) time by brute force:
check all subsets of G(v) of size at most t. The time is polynomial, since t =
d(tw(G) + 1)/e is fixed. Let s be the sum of the sizes of the solutions for the
children of u.
Let us show that the optimum of Gi−1 (u) is at most s + tw(G) + 1. We do
this by presenting a solution B for Gi−1 (u) of size at most s + tw(G) + 1. The
set B is the union of Xu and an optimal solution for Gi−1 (v), for each child v
of u. Thus |B| ≤ |Xu | + s ≤ tw(G) + 1 + s. Now we must prove that B is in
fact a solution for Gi−1 (u). Let (s, t) be a pair in C(Gi−1 (u)) and P be a path
in Gi−1 (u) from s to t. We need to show that there is a vertex of P in B. If
there is a vertex of P in Xu , then clearly B contains a vertex of P . If, on the
other hand, P contains no vertex of Xu , we must have all vertices of P in the
same Gi−1 (v), for some child v of u, by Lemma 1. But B contains a solution for
Gi−1 (v). Therefore, B contains a vertex of P . This completes the proof that B is
a solution for Gi−1 (u), and so the optimum of Gi−1 (u) is at most s + tw(G) + 1.
Now, let us proceed with the description of Get (u, A). If s < t, then
opt(G(u)) ≤ s + tw(G) + 1 < t + tw(G) + 1, and we can compute in poly-
nomial time an optimal solution A0 for G(u) (by brute force in O(nt+tw(G)+2 )
time, which is polynomial since t = d(tw(G) + 1)/e). If |A0 | < t then pro-
ceed to the next vertex in postorder. If |A0 | ≥ t, then we output u and the
144 Gruia Călinescu et al.

set A = A0 ∪ Xu . Note that in fact opt(Gi−1 (u)) = |A0 | ≥ t, Xu ⊆ A and

|A| ≤ opt(Gi−1 (u)) + (tw(G) + 1) ≤ opt(Gi−1 (u)) + t ≤ (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (u)),
as desired. On the other hand, if s ≥ t, then t ≤ s ≤ opt(Gi−1 (u)) ≤ s +
tw(G) + 1 ≤ s + t ≤ opt(Gi−1 (u)) + opt(Gi−1 (u)) = (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (u)).
Thus B (from the previous paragraph) is a solution for Gi−1 (u) of size at most
s + tw(G) + 1 ≤ (1 + )opt(Gi−1 (u)) that can be computed in polynomial time.
Moreover, Xu ⊆ B. So in this case we output u and A = B. This finishes the
description of Get (u, A).

3 Edge Multicut
In this section we show that Edge Multicut can be reduced to Unrestricted
Vertex Multicut by a reduction that preserves approximability.
The reduction has the following property. If the instance of Edge Multicut is
a graph with bounded degree and bounded tree-width, then the corresponding
instance of Unrestricted Vertex Multicut has bounded tree-width.
Given a graph G = (V, E), the line graph of G is the graph whose vertex set
is E and such that two of its vertices (edges of G) are adjacent if they share an
endpoint in G. In other words, the line graph of G is the graph (E, L), where
L = {ef : e, f ∈ E and e and f have a common endpoint}.
Consider an instance of Edge Multicut, that is, a graph G = (V, E) and a set C
of pairs of distinct vertices of G. Let us describe the corresponding instance of
Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. The input graph for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut
is the line graph of G, denoted by G0 . Now let us describe the set of pairs of
vertices of G0 . For each pair (s, t) in C, we have in C 0 all pairs (e, f ) such that e
has s as endpoint and f has t as endpoint.
Clearly G0 can be obtained from G in polynomial time. Note that C 0 has at
most k∆2 pairs, where k = |C| and ∆ is the maximum degree of G. Also C 0 can
be obtained from G and C in polynomial time.
The following theorem completes the reduction.

Theorem 4. S is a solution for Edge Multicut in G if and only if S is a solution

for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in G0 .

Proof. Consider a solution S of Edge Multicut in G, that is, a set S of edges of

G such that any pair in C is disconnected in (V, E − S). Note that S ⊆ E(G) =
V (G0 ). Let us verify that the removal of S from G0 disconnects all pairs in C 0 .
For any pair (e, f ) in C 0 , there are s and t in V (G) such that s is an endpoint
of e, t is an endpoint of f and the pair (s, t) is in C. Moreover, a path P 0 in G0
from e to f corresponds to a path P in G from s to t whose edges are a subset of
the vertices in P 0 (which are edges of G). Since S is a solution of Edge Multicut
in G, there must be an edge of P in S, which means that there is a vertex of P 0
in S. Hence S is a solution for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in G0 .
Conversely, let S be a solution for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in G0 , that
is, S is a set of edges of G whose removal from G0 disconnects all pairs of vertices
of G0 in C 0 . Let (s, t) be a pair in C, and P a path in G from s to t. (Recall that,
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 145

by the description of Edge Multicut, s 6= t.) Let e be the first edge of P and f
the last one (possibly e=f). Clearly s is incident to e, and t to f . Thus (e, f ) is a
pair in C 0 . Corresponding to P , there is a path P 0 in G0 from e to f containing
as vertices all edges of P . Since S is a solution for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut
in G0 and (e, f ) is in C 0 , S must contain a vertex of P 0 . Therefore there is an
edge of P in S, which implies that S is a solution of Edge Multicut in G.
The next lemma shows the previously mentioned property of this reduction.

Lemma 5. If G has bounded degree and bounded tree-width, then the line graph
of G has bounded tree-width.

Proof. Denote by G0 the line graph of G. Let us present a tree decomposition

of G0 whose tree-width is at most (tw(G)+1)∆, where ∆ is the maximum degree
of G.
Let Θ = (T, (Xu )u∈V (T ) ) be a tree decomposition of G of width tw(G). For
each u ∈ V (T ), let Yu be the set of edges of G incident to some vertex in Xu .
First let us prove that Θ0 = (T, (Yu )u∈V (T ) ) is a tree decomposition of G0 . For
this, given an edge e of G, denote by Te the subgraph of T induced by those
vertices in T for which Yu contains e. We shall prove that (1) any edge h of G0
has both endpoints in Yu , for some u in V (T ); and (2) that Te is a tree for any
edge e of G0 .
The endpoints of an edge h of G0 are two edges e and f of G with a common
endpoint, say, v. But v ∈ Xu for some u ∈ V (T ). This implies that both e and
f belong to Yu , proving (1). For (2), let e be a vertex of G0 , that is, an edge
e = xy of G. For any u such that e ∈ Yu , we must have that either x ∈ Xu or
y ∈ Xu . Therefore Te = Tx ∪ Ty . We know that the subgraphs Tx and Ty of T
are subtrees of T . Moreover, Tx and Ty have a vertex in common, because both
x and y belong to the same Xu , for some u ∈ V (T ). Hence Te is a subtree of T .
This completes the proof that Θ0 is a tree decomposition of G0 .
To verify that the width of Θ0 is at most (tw(G) + 1)∆, just note that
|Yu | ≤ |Xu |∆, for all u ∈ V (T ).
The next corollary is a consequence of the previous reduction and the PTAS
given in Section 2.1.

Lemma 6. There is a PTAS for Edge Multicut in bounded-degree graphs with

bounded tree-width.

In fact we know how to implement the PTAS given in Section 2.1, for Edge
Multicut in bounded-degree trees, in time O((n + k)d1/eddd1/e+2 ), where n
is the number of vertices of the tree, k is the number of (si , ti ) pairs, d is the
maximum degree of the tree and 1 +  is the desired approximation ratio of the
algorithm. The size of the input is Θ(n + k). We omit the description of this
linear-time implementation in this extended abstract.
146 Gruia Călinescu et al.

4 Complexity Results

In this section, we examine the complexity of Edge, Vertex and Unrestricted

Vertex Multicut. First we prove that Edge and Vertex Multicut are NP-hard in
bounded-degree trees, while Unrestricted Vertex Multicut is NP-hard in series-
parallel graphs of bounded degree. Second, we show that the Weighted Edge
Multicut is Max SNP-hard in binary tree. Finally we prove that Edge, Vertex and
Unrestricted Vertex Multicut are Max SNP-hard in walls (defined in Section 4).

Theorem 7. Edge Multicut in binary trees is NP-hard.

Proof. The reduction is from 3-SAT, a well-known NP-complete problem [8].

Consider an instance Φ of 3-SAT, that is, a set of m clauses C1 , C2 , . . . , Cm
on n variables x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , each clause with exactly three literals.
Let us construct an instance of Edge Multicut: a binary tree T and a set of
pairs of distinct vertices of T . The tree T is built as follows. For each variable
xi , there is a gadget as depicted in Figure 2 (a). The gadget consists of a binary
tree with three vertices: the root and two leaves, one labeled xi and the other
labeled xi . For each clause Cj , there is a gadget as depicted in Figure 2 (b). The
gadget consists of a binary tree with five vertices: the root, one internal vertex
and three leaves, each one labeled by one of the literals in Cj .

(a) (b) (c)

x3
_
xi xi
_
x1 x2

x3 x3
_ _ _ _ _
x1 x1 x2 x2 x3 x3 x1 x2 x1 x2

Fig. 2. (a) The gadget for variable xi . (b) The gadget for clause Cj =
{x1 , x2 , x3 }. (c) Tree T built for the instance Φ = (x1 ∨ x2 ∨ x3 ) ∧ (x1 ∨ x2 ∨ x3 ),
that is, C1 = {x1 , x2 , x3 } and C2 = {x1 , x2 , x3 }.

The tree T is built from these n + m gadgets by arbitrarily connecting them

using new vertices to get a binary tree. See Figure 2 (c) for an example.
Next, we give the set of pairs of vertices of T in our instance. For each variable
xi , there is a pair with the vertices labeled xi and xi in its gadget. For each clause
Cj , there are two pairs: one formed by the two leaves that are siblings and the
other formed by the last leaf and the internal vertex. Finally, each vertex labeled
x̃i in the gadget for a clause is paired to the vertex labeled x̃i in the gadget for
the variable xi , where x̃i ∈ {xi , xi }. This ends the construction of the instance
for Edge Multicut. Note that all this can be done in polynomial time in the size
of Φ.
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 147

The next lemma completes the proof of Theorem 7.

Lemma 8. Φ is satisfiable if an only if there is a solution for T of size exactly

n + 2m. Moreover, we can construct in polynomial time such a solution for T
from a truth assignment for Φ and vice versa.

Proof. Assume Φ is satisfiable. Let us present a solution S for T of size exactly

n + 2m. The edge set S consists of two types of edges:

1. For each variable xi , S contains the edge in the gadget for xi incident to the
leaf labeled xi if xi =TRUE or to the leaf labeled xi if xi =FALSE.
2. For each clause Cj , S contains two distinct edges in the gadget for Cj . These
edges are such that (1) they disconnect the two pairs in the gadget, and (2)
the only leaf that is still connected to the root of the gadget is a leaf with
a label x̃i ∈ Cj such that x̃i =TRUE. (The four possible choices for the two
edges are shown in Figure 3.)

r r r r

v v

v v

Fig. 3. Possible choices of two edges, the dashed edges, in the gadget for a clause
that leave exactly one leaf (the marked leaf v) connected to the root r.

Clearly such set S has exactly n + 2m edges and can be constructed in

polynomial time from Φ. Let us prove that S is in fact a solution for T . It is
easy to see that S disconnected the pairs for the variables, and the pairs for the
clauses. The remaining pairs consist of two vertices labeled by a literal x̃i , one in
the variable gadget for xi and the other in a clause gadget. If x̃i =TRUE, then the
edge in the variable gadget incident to the vertex labeled x̃i is in S, guaranteeing
that the pair is disconnected. If x̃i =FALSE, then the vertex labeled x̃i in the
clause gadget is disconnected from the root of this gadget, and therefore, from
the gadget for xi . Thus S is a solution for T , and it has exactly n + 2m edges.
Let us prove the inverse implication. Assume there is a solution S for T
with exactly n + 2m edges: one per variable and two per clause (one for each of
the “disjoint” pairs). More specifically, S has exactly one edge in each variable
gadget, and exactly two edges in each clause gadget in one of the configurations
of Figure 3. Set xi =TRUE if the edge of S in the gadget for xi is incident to
the vertex labeled xi ; set xi =FALSE otherwise. Clearly, we can determine this
truth assignment in polynomial time.
148 Gruia Călinescu et al.

For each clause Cj , there is exactly one leaf v in the gadget for Cj that is
connected to the root r of the gadget. Let x̃i ∈ {xi , xi } be the label for this leaf.
There is a pair formed by this leaf v and the leaf in the gadget for xi whose label
is x̃i . In S, there must be an edge e in the path between these two leaves. Since
leaf v is connected to the root r of the gadget for Cj and all edges in S are either
in a variable gadget or in a clause gadget, this edge e has to be in the variable
gadget. This means e is the edge incident to the leaf labeled x̃i in the gadget
for xi . Hence x̃i =TRUE, and the clause is satisfied. Since this holds for all the
clauses, the given assignment makes Φ TRUE, implying that Φ is satisfiable.

Theorem 9. Vertex Multicut in trees with maximum degree at most four is

NP-hard.

We omit the proof. The construction is similar to the one used in Theorem 7.

Theorem 10. Unrestricted Vertex Multicut in series-parallel graphs with max-

imum degree at most three is NP-hard.

We omit the proof. The construction is similar to the one used in Theorem 7.

Theorem 11. Weighted Edge Multicut is Max SNP-hard in binary trees.

Proof sketch. Let us reduce Edge Multicut in stars to Weighted Edge Multicut
in binary trees. From an instance of the Unweighted Edge Multicut restricted
to stars, we construct an instance of the Weighted Edge Multicut restricted to
binary trees in the following way: for each leaf of the star S, there is a corre-
sponding leaf in the binary tree T . The pairs are the same (we may assume there
is no pair involving the root of the star). We connect the leaves of T arbitrarily
into a binary tree. The edges in T incident to the leaves get weight one and all
other edges of T get weight 2n + 1, where n is the number of leaves in the star
S (which is the same as the number of leaves in the tree T we construct). Any
solution within twice the optimum for the Weighted Edge Multicut instance we
constructed will contain only edges of T incident to the leaves, since any other
edge is too heavy (removing all edges incident to the leaves, we get a solution of
weight n). Then it is easy to see that any optimal solution for the Weighted Edge
Multicut instance we constructed corresponds to an optimal solution for the orig-
inal Unweighted Multicut star instance, and vice versa. Also approximability is
preserved by this reduction.
A wall of height h consists of h + 1 vertex disjoint paths R0 , . . . , Rh , which
we call rows, and h + 1 vertex disjoint paths L0 , . . . , Lh , which we call columns.
A wall of height six is depicted in Figure 4 (a). The reader should be able to
complete the definition by considering Figure 4 (a). The formal definition is as
follows. Each row is a path of 2h + 2 vertices. Each column, a path with 2h + 2
vertices. Column r contains the (2r + 1)st and the (2r + 2)nd vertices of all rows,
as well as the edge between them. For i < h and even, each Lr contains an edge
between the (2r + 2)nd vertex of Ri and the (2r + 2)nd vertex of Ri+1 . For i < h
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 149

(a)
L0 L1 Lr Lh
R0
R1

Ri

Rh

(b)

_ _
x1 x2 x3 x1 x2 x3

Fig. 4. (a) A wall of height six. The dark edges indicate row Ri and column Lr .
(b) The three last rows of the wall built from Φ = (x1 ∨ x2 ∨ x3 )(x1 ∨ x2 ∨ x3 ).

and odd, each Lr contains an edge between the (2r + 1)st vertex of Ri and the
(2r + 1)st vertex of Ri+1 . These are all the edges of the wall.
We prove that Edge, Vertex and Unrestricted Vertex Multicut are Max SNP-
hard in walls. This means, by Arora et al. [1], that there is a constant  > 0
such that the existence of a polynomial-time approximation algorithm for any
of the three versions of Multicut with performance ratio at most 1 +  implies
that P=NP.
As in [18], we use the concept of L-reduction, which is a special kind of
reduction that preserves approximability.
Let A and B be two optimization problems. We say A L-reduces to B if there
are two polynomial-time algorithms f and g, and positive constants α and β,
such that for each instance I of A,
1. Algorithm f produces an instance I 0 = f (I) of B, such that the optima
of I and I 0 , of costs denoted OptA (I) and OptB (I 0 ) respectively, satisfy
OptB (I 0 ) ≤ α · OptA (I), and
2. Given any feasible solution of I 0 with cost c0 , algorithm g produces a solution
of I with cost c such that |c − OptA (I)| ≤ β · |c0 − OptB (I 0 )|.

Theorem 12. Edge, Vertex and Unrestricted Vertex Multicut are Max SNP-
hard in walls.

Proof sketch. The reduction is from the well-known Max SNP-hard problem
MAX 3-SAT [18]. We show the reduction for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. The
other two reductions are similar.
The first part of the L-reduction is the polynomial-time algorithm f and
the constant α. Given any instance Φ of MAX 3-SAT, f produces an instance
W, C of Unrestricted Vertex Multicut such that W is a wall. Also, the cost of
150 Gruia Călinescu et al.

the optimum of W, C in Unrestricted Vertex Multicut, denoted OptMC (W, C),

is at most α times the cost of the optimum of Φ in MAX 3-SAT, denoted by
OptSAT (Φ), i.e., OptMC (W, C) ≤ α · OptSAT (Φ).
Consider an instance Φ of MAX 3-SAT, that is, a collection of m clauses on n
variables x1 , . . . , xn , each consisting of exactly three literals. Let us describe the
corresponding instance for Unrestricted Vertex Multicut. The wall W is a wall
of height 6m. To describe the collection C of pairs of vertices of W , consider the
last row of W partitioned into m same length paths, each one associated to one
of the clauses of Φ. Each path has length 12. Label the 2nd , 6th and 10th vertices
in the j th path each with one of the literals in the j th clause. See Figure 4 (b)
for an example. For each pair of vertices u, v in W , u labeled xi and v labeled
xi , include into C the pair u, v. For each clause, include three pairs. The three
pairs formed by each two of the vertices labeled by its three literals. This ends
the description of the instance of Unrestricted Vertex Multicut.
First note that W and C can be obtained in polynomial time in the size of
Φ.
Lemma 13. OptMC (W, C) ≤ 6 · OptSAT (Φ).
Proof sketch. W, C clearly has a solution of size 3m. Also OptSAT (Φ) ≥
m/2.

Lemma 14. From a solution to Φ of size s, 0 ≤ s ≤ m, we can obtain a solution

to W, C of size 3m − s and vice versa.
Proof sketch. Given an assignment that satisfies s clauses of Φ, let S be the
set of all labeled vertices of W except one labeled vertex per satisfied clause.
Choose to not include in S a vertex labeled by a literal that is assigned TRUE.
One can verify that this set S is a solution for W, C of size 3m − s.
Now, consider a solution S for W, C of size 3m − s. Since W has height 6m,
there is a row Ri of W which has no vertex of S. Set to TRUE any literal which
appears as a label of a vertex of W that is connected to Ri after the removal of
S. If some variable was not assigned a value by this rule, assign it an arbitrary
value. Note that, since vertices labeled xi are not connected to vertices labeled xi
after the removal of S, the assignment is well-defined. Consider the six columns
of the wall corresponding to the j th clause of Φ. S should contain at least two
vertices in these columns, otherwise there would be a path connecting at least
two of the labeled vertices in these columns. This means that at least s clauses
have only two vertices removed from their columns of W . Thus one of the labeled
vertices is connected to row Ri , meaning that this clause is satisfied.
The previous two lemmas can be used in an obvious way to show the reduction
we presented is an L-reduction.

Acknowledgments
The first two authors would like to thank Howard Karloff for suggesting the
problem, and for some helpful discussions.
 Multicuts in Unweighted Graphs 151

References

1. S. Arora, C. Lund, R. Motwani, M. Sudan, and M. Szegedy. Proof verification and

hardness of approximation problems. Proc. 33rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations
of Computer Science, pages 14–23, 1992.
2. S. Arnborg and J. Lagergren. Problems easy for tree-decomposable graphs. Journal
of Algorithms, 12(2):308–340, 1991.
3. E. Dahlhaus, D. S. Johnson, C. H. Papadimitriou, P. D. Seymour, and M. Yan-
nakakis. The complexity of multiterminal cuts. SIAM Journal on Computing,
23(4):864–894, 1994.
4. E. A. Dinic. Algorithm for solution of a problem of maximum flow in networks
with power estimation. Soviet Mathematics Doklady, 11:1277–1280, 1970.
5. G. Even, J. S. Naor, B. Schieber, and L. Zosin. Approximating minimum subset
feedback sets in undirected graphs with applications. Proc. 4th Israel Symposium
on Theory of Computing and Systems, pages 78–88, 1996.
6. L. R. Ford and D. R. Fulkerson. Maximal flow through a network. Canadian Jour-
nal of Mathematics, 8:399–404, 1956.
7. L. R. Ford and D. R. Fulkerson. A suggested computation for maximal multicom-
modity network flows. Management Science, 5:97–101, 1958.
8. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability. Freeman, 1979.
9. N. Garg, V. Vazirani, and M. Yannakakis. Approximate max-flow min-(multi)cut
theorems and their applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 25(2):235–251,
1996.
10. N. Garg, V. Vazirani, and M. Yannakakis. Primal-dual approximation algorithms
for integral flow and multicut in trees. Algorithmica, 18(1)3–20, 1997.
11. T. C. Hu. Multicommodity network flows. Operations Research, 9:898–900, 1963.
12. A. Itai. Two-commodity flow. Journal of ACM, 25:596–611, 1978.
13. P. Klein, A. Agrawal, R. Ravi, and S. Rao. Approximation through multicommod-
ity flow. Proc. 31st IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages
726–737, 1990.
14. P. Klein, S. Plotkin, S. Rao, and E. Tardos. Approximation algorithms for Steiner
and directed multicuts. Journal of Algorithms, 22(2):241–269, 1997.
15. F. T. Leighton and S. Rao. An approximate max-flow min-cut theorem for uni-
form multicommodity flow problems with application to approximation algorithms.
Proc. 29th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 422–431,
1988.
16. D. B. Shmoys. Computing near-optimal solutions to combinatorial optimization
problems. In W. Cook and L. Lovász, editors, Combinatorial Optimization, DI-
MACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 20,
pages 355–397. AMS Publications, 1995.
17. S. Plotkin and É. Tardos. Improved bounds on the max-flow min-cut ratio for
multicommodityfFlows. Proc. 25th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing,
pages 691–697, 1993.
18. C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Optimization, approximation, and com-
plexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43:425–440, 1991.
19. N. Robertson and P. Seymour. Graph minor II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width.
Journal of Algorithms, 7:309–322, 1986.
152 Gruia Călinescu et al.

20. É. Tardos and V. V. Vazirani. Improved bounds for the max-flow min-multicut
ratio for planar and Kr,r -free graphs. Information Processing Letters, 47(2):77-80,
1993.
21. J. van Leeuwen. Graph algorithms. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science,
Vol. A, chapter 10, pages 525–631. The MIT Press/Elsevier, 1990.
 Approximating Disjoint-Path Problems Using
Greedy Algorithms and Packing Integer
Programs ?

Stavros G. Kolliopoulos and Clifford Stein

Dartmouth College, Department of Computer Science

Hanover, NH 03755–3510, USA
{stavros, cliff}@@cs.dartmouth.edu

Abstract. The edge and vertex-disjoint path problems together with

their unsplittable flow generalization are NP-hard problems with a multi-
tude of applications in areas such as routing, scheduling and bin packing.
Given the hardness of the problems, we study polynomial-time approxi-
mation algorithms with bounded performance guarantees. We introduce
techniques which yield new algorithms for a wide range of disjoint-path
problems. We use two basic techniques. First, we propose simple greedy
algorithms for edge- and vertex-disjoint paths and second, we propose the
use of a framework based on packing integer programs for more general
problems such as unsplittable flow. As part of our tools we develop im-
proved approximation algorithms for a class of packing integer programs,
a result that we believe is of independent interest.

1 Introduction
This paper examines approximation algorithms for disjoint-path problems and
their generalizations. In the edge( vertex)-disjoint path problem, we are given a
graph G = (V, E) and a set T of connection requests, also called commodities.
Every connection request in T is a vertex pair (si , ti ), 1 ≤ i ≤ K. The objective
is to connect a maximum number of the pairs via edge( vertex)-disjoint paths.
For the vertex-disjoint paths problem, the connection requests are assumed to be
disjoint. We call the set of connected pairs realizable. A generalization of the edge-
disjoint paths problem is multiple-source unsplittable flow. In this problem every
commodity k in the set T has an associated demand ρk , and every edge e has a
capacity ue . The demand ρk must be routed on a single path from sk to tk . The
objective is to maximize the sum of the demands that can be fully routed while
respecting the capacity constraints. Wlog, we assume that maxk ρk = 1, and
following the standard definition of the problem in the literature, ue ≥ 1, ∀e ∈
E. When all demands and capacities are 1 in the multiple-source unsplittable
?
Research partly supported by NSF Award CCR-9308701 and NSF Career Award
CCR-9624828.

R. E. Bixby, E. A. Boyd, and R. Z. Rı́os-Mercado (Eds.): IPCO VI

LNCS 1412, pp. 153–168, 1998. c Springer–Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998
154 Stavros G. Kolliopoulos and Clifford Stein

flow problem we obtain the edge-disjoint path problem. (See [10,14] for further
applications and motivation for unsplittable flow.) In all the above problems
one can assign a weight wi ≤ 1 to each connection request and seek to find a
realizable set of maximum total weight. In this paper we will state explicitly
when we deal with the weighted version of a problem.
Both the edge- and vertex-disjoint path problems are fundamental, exten-
sively studied (see e.g. [26,6,27,21,10,13,3]), NP-hard problems [9], with a mul-
titude of applications in areas such as telecommunications, VLSI and schedul-
ing. Despite the attention they have received, disjoint-path problems on general
graphs remain notoriously hard in terms of approximation; p even for edge-disjoint
paths, no algorithm is known which can find even an ω(1/ |E|) fraction of the
realizable paths.
In approximating these problems, we use the traditional notion of a ρ-approxi-
mation algorithm, ρ > 1, which is one that outputs, in polynomial time, a real-
izable set of size at least 1/ρ times the optimum. We will also give and refer to
algorithms which output a realizable set whose size is a non-linear function of
the optimum OP T , such as OP T 2 /|E|.

Overview of Previous Work. Two main approaches have been followed for ap-
proximation.
(i) The first approach, which we call the rounding approach, consists of solving a
fractional relaxation and then use rounding techniques to obtain an integral solu-
tion. The fractional relaxation is typically multicommodity flow and the rounding
techniques used to date involved sophisticated and non-standard use of random-
ized rounding [31]. The objective value of the resulting solution is compared to
the fractional optimum y ∗ , which is an upper bound on the integral optimum,
OPT. This approach has been the more successful one and recently yielded the
first approximation algorithm for uniform unsplittable flow [31] which is the spe-
cial case of unsplittable flow where all the capacities have the same value. Let d
denote the dilation of the fractional solution, i.e. the maximum length of a flow
path in the fractional relaxation. Bounds that rely on the dilation are particu-
larly appealing for expander graphs where it is known that d = O(polylog(n))
[16,12]. The rounding approach yields, for unweighted uniform unsplittable flow
(and thus for unweighted p edge-disjoint paths as well) a realizable set of size
Ω(max{(y ∗ )2 /|E|, y ∗ / |E|, y ∗ /d}) and an Ω(max{(y ∗ )2 /|E|, y ∗ /d}) bound for
the weighted version [31] . This p approach is known to have limitations, e.g.
it is known that a gap of Ω( |V |) exists between the fractional and integral
optima for both the edge- and vertex-disjoint path problems on a graph with
|E| = Θ(|V |) [7].
(ii) Under the second approach, which we call the routing approach, a commodity
is never split, i.e. routed fractionally along more than one path during the course
of the algorithm. In the analysis, the objective value of the solution is compared
to an estimated upper bound on the OP T. This approach has found very limited
applicability so far, one reason being the perceived hardness of deriving upper
bounds on OP T without resorting to a fractional relaxation. The only example
of this method we are aware of is the on-line Bounded Greedy Algorithm in
 Approximating Disjoint-Path Problems 155

[10] whose approximation guarantee depends also on the diameter of the graph.
The algorithm can be easily modified
p into an p
off-line procedure that outputs
Ω(OP T / |E|) (Ω(OP T / |V |)) for edge( vertex)-disjoint
realizable sets of size p
paths. The Ω(OP T / |V |) bound is the best known bound to date for vertex-
disjoint paths.

Table 1. Known approximation bounds for edge-disjoint paths (EDP), uniform

capacity unsplittable flow (UCUFP), and general unsplittable flow (UFP), Ω-
notation omitted. Eo denotes the set of edges used by some path in an integral
optimal solution and do the average length of the paths in thepsame solution.
Results with no citation come from the present paper. Our y ∗ / |E| bound for
the weighted EDP problem holds under the assumption that the number of
connection requests K = O(|E|).

routing approach rounding approach

2 ∗ (y ∗ )2 y∗
unweighted EDP √
OP T
[10], √ OPT
, OPT
|Eo |
, OPT
do
√y [31], |E|
[31], d
[31]
|E| |Eo | |E|
(y ∗ )2
weighted EDP — √y∗
|E|
, |E|
[31], y∗
d
[31]
∗ 2
— (y ) ∗
weighted UCUFP |E|
[31], yd [31]
∗ 2
— y∗ ∗
weighted UFP √ , (y )3 , yd
log |E| |E| |E| log |E|

Our Contribution. In this paper we provide techniques for approximating disjoint-

path problems that bear on both of the above approaches. Tables 1 and 2 sum-
marize previous and new bounds for edge-, vertex-disjoint path and unsplittable
flow problems.
Under the routing approach (approach (ii)) we give a simple deterministic
greedy algorithm Greedy Path for edge-disjoint paths that has performance
guarantees comparable to those obtained by the multicommodity flow based
algorithms. Greedy algorithms have been extensively studied in combinatorial
optimization due to their elegance and simplicity. Our work provides another
example of the usefulness of the greedy method. The underlying idea is that if
one keeps routing commodities along sufficiently short paths the final number of
commodities routed is lowerbounded with respect to the optimum.
p
Greedy Path outputs a realizable set of size Ω(max{OP T 2 /|Eo |,
OP T / |Eo |}) for the edge-disjoint path problem. Here Eo ⊆ E is the set of
edges used by theppaths in an optimal solution. Note that OP T 2 /|Eo | always
dominates OP T / |Eo | in the unweighted case that we consider; we give both
bounds to facilitate comparison with existing work and to conform to the tradi-
tional notion of a ρ-approximation algorithm. Our approximation existentially
improves upon the multicommodity-flow based results when |Eo | = o(|E|), i.e.
when the optimal solution uses a small portion of the edges of the graph. An-
other bound can be obtained by noticing that OP T 2 /|Eo | = OP T /do , where do
denotes the average length of the paths in an optimal solution.
156 Stavros G. Kolliopoulos and Clifford Stein

Essentially the same algorithm, Greedy VPath, obtains for thepvertex-

disjoint path problem a realizable set of size Ω(max{OP T 2 /|Vo |, OP T / |Vo |}),
where Vo ⊆ V is the set of vertices used by the paths inpan optimal solution.
Recall that the best known bound to date is t = Ω(OP T / |V |). The realizable
set output by our algorithm has size Ω(t2 ) and potentially better than p this
when |Vo | = o(|V |). This is a significant improvement when OP T = ω( |V |).
For example, when OP T = Ω(|V |), we obtain a constant-factor approximation.
Again an Ω(OP T /do ) guarantee follows immediately.

Table 2. Known approximation bounds for vertex-disjoint paths, Ω-notation

omitted. Vo denotes the set of vertices used by some path in an integral optimal
solution and do the average length of the paths in the same solution. Results
with no citation come from the present paper.

routing approach rounding approach

2 ∗ ∗ 2 ∗
unweighted √
OP T
[10], √ OPT
, OPT
|Vo |
, OPT
do
√y , (y|V|) , yd
|V | |Vo | |V|
(y∗ )2 y∗
—
∗
weighted √y , |V|
, d
|V|

We turn to the rounding approach (approach (i)) to handle the weighted dis-
joint path and unsplittable flow problems. We propose the use of packing integer
programs as a unifying framework that abstracts away the need for customized
and complex randomized rounding schemes. A packing integer program is of the
form maximize cT · x, subject to Ax ≤ b, A, b, c ≥ 0. We first develop, as part
of our tools, an improved approximation algorithm for a class of packing integer
programs, called column restricted, that are relevant to unsplittable flow prob-
lems. Armed with both this new algorithm and existing algorithms for general
packing integer programs, we show how packing formulations both provide a
unified and simplified derivation of many results from [31] and lead to new ones.
In particular, we obtain the first approximation algorithm for weighted multiple-
source unsplittable flow on networks with arbitrary demands and capacities and
the first approximation algorithm for weighted vertex-disjoint paths. Further, we
believe that our new algorithm for column-restricted packing integer programs
is of independent interest. We now elaborate on our results under the rounding
approach, providing further background as necessary.

1.1 Packing Integer Programs

Packing integer programs are a well-studied class of integer programs that can
model several NP-complete problems, including independent set, hypergraph
k-matching [19,1], job-shop scheduling [23,28,33,20] and many flow and path
related problems. Many of these problems seem to be difficult to approximate,
and not much is known about their worst-case approximation ratios. Following
[30] a packing integer program (PIP) is defined as follows.
 Approximating Disjoint-Path Problems 157

Definition 1. Given A ∈ [0, 1]m×n , b ∈ [1, ∞)m and c ∈ [0, 1]n with maxj cj =
1, a PIP P = (A, b, c) seeks to maximize cT · x subject to x ∈ Z+n
and Ax ≤ b.
Constraints of the form 0 ≤ xj ≤ dj are also allowed. If A ∈ {0, 1}m×n, each
entry of b is assumed integral. Let B = mini bi , and α be the maximum number
of non-zero entries in any column of A.
The parameters B and α in the definition above appear in the approximation
bounds. For convenience we call bi the capacity of row i. The restrictions on the
values of the entries of A, b, c are wlog; the values in an arbitrary packing program
can be scaled to satisfy the above requirements [29]. We will state explicitly when
some packing program in this paper deviates from these requirements. When
A ∈ {0, 1}m×n, we say that we have a (0, 1)-PIP.

Previous Work on Packing Programs. The basic techniques for approximat-

ing packing integer programs have been the randomized rounding technique of
Raghavan and Thompson [24,25] and the work of Plotkin, Shmoys and Tar-
dos [23]. Let y ∗ denote the optimum value of the linear relaxation. Standard
randomized rounding yields integral solutions of value Ω(y ∗ /m1/B ) for general
PIP’s and Ω(y ∗ /m1/(B+1) ) for (0, 1)-PIP’s [25] (see also [29].) Srinivasan [29,30]
improved on the standard randomized rounding bounds and obtained bounds of
Ω(y ∗ (y ∗ /m)1/(B−1) ) and Ω(y ∗ /α1/(B−1) ) for general PIP’s and Ω(y ∗ (y ∗ /m)1/B )
and Ω(y ∗ /α1/B ) for (0, 1)-PIP’s.

New Results for Column-Restricted PIP’s. The above results show that for vari-
ous combinations of values for y ∗ , m and B, the bounds obtained for a (0, 1)-PIP
are significantly better than those for general PIP’s. In fact they are always better
when y ∗ < m. As another example, the approximation ratio m1/(B+1) obtained
for a (0, 1)-PIP is polynomially better than the approximation ratio of a PIP with
the same parameters. Thus it is natural to ask whether we can bridge this gap.
We make progress in this direction by defining a column-restricted PIP Pr as one
where all non-zero entries of the j-th column of A have the same value ρj ≤ 1.
Column-restricted PIP’s arise in applications such as unsplittable flow problems
(see next section). We show how to obtain approximation guarantees for column-
restricted PIP’s that are similar to the ones obtained for (0, 1)-PIP’s. Let yr∗ de-
note the optimum of the linear relaxation of Pr . We obtain an integral solution
of value Ω(yr∗ /m1/(B+1) ) and Ω(yr∗ /α1/B ). Letting σ(yr∗ ) = Ω(yr∗ (yr∗ /m)1/B ) we
also obtain a bound that is at least as good as σ(yr∗ ) for yr∗ < m log n and in any
case it is never worse by more than a O(log1/B n) factor. Finally we show how to
improve upon the stated approximations when maxj ρj is bounded away from 1.
We develop the latter two results in a more complete version of this paper [15].
We now give an overview of our technique. First we find an optimum solution
x∗ to the linear relaxation of the column-restricted PIP Pr . We partition the ρj ’s
into a fixed number of intervals according to their values and generate a packing
subproblem for each range. In a packing subproblem P L corresponding to range
L, we only include the columns of A with ρj ∈ L and to each component of
the bL -vector we allocate only a fraction of the original bi value, a fraction
158 Stavros G. Kolliopoulos and Clifford Stein

that is determined based on information from x∗ . Next we find approximate

solutions to each subproblem and combine them to obtain a solution to the
original problem. Perhaps the key idea is in using the solution x∗ to define the
capacity allocation to the bL -vector for subproblem P L . This generalizes previous
work of the authors [14] on single-source unsplittable flow. The other key idea
is that each subproblem can be approximated almost as well as a (0, 1)-PIP.

1.2 Applications of Packing to Approximation

We introduce a new framework for applying packing techniques to disjoint-path

problems. First, we formulate an integer program (which is not necessarily a
PIP) and solve a linear relaxation of this integer program to obtain a solution
x. Typically this is a multicommodity flow problem. We then explicitly use the
solution x to guide the formation of a column-restricted or (0, 1) PIP. A related
usage of a solution to the linear relaxation of integer programs in a different con-
text can be found in [8,32]. An integral approximate solution to the created PIP
will be an approximate solution to the original disjoint path problem (with pos-
sibly some small degradation in the approximation factor). This integral solution
can be found using existing algorithms for approximating PIP’s as a black box.
Our algorithms apply to the case when there are weights on the commodities,
and thus generalize those of Srinivasan for edge-disjoint paths. This approach
yields four applications which we explain below.
∗ 2 ∗
p 1: Weighted Unsplittable Flow. Let F1 , F2 , F3 denote (y ) /|E|, y /d
Application
and y ∗ / |E| respectively. We obtain a realizable set of weight Ω(max{F3 / log |E|,
F1 / log3 |E|, F2 }) for unsplittable flow with arbitrary demands and capacities. In
fact we can give a better F1 -type bound for small enough y ∗ , whose analytical
form is complicated. See [15] for further details. In the case where the number of
commodities K = O(|E|) we show how to obtain also an Ω(max{F1 / log |E|, F3 })
bound. Notice that for the edge-disjoint path problem this is a natural assump-
tion since at most |E| connection requests can be feasibly routed. We also note
that a ρ-approximation for y ∗ entails an O(ρ log |E|) approximation for the prob-
lem of routing in rounds [2,10]. We do not pursue any further the latter problem
in this extended abstract.
Application 2: Weighted Vertex-Disjoint Paths.pWe give an algorithm that out-
puts a solution of value Ω(max{(y ∗ )2 /|V |, y ∗ / |V |, y ∗ /d}). The algorithm re-
lies on the observation that, after solving a fractional relaxation, the problem
of rounding is essentially an instance of hypergraph matching; thus it can be
formulated as a packing program with |V | constraints. The algorithm is surpris-
ingly simple but the performance guarantee matches the integrality gap known
for the problem [7].
Application 3: Routing with Low Congestion. A problem that has received a
lot of attention in the literature on routing problems (e.g. [25,17,23,22,10,14]) is
that of minimizing congestion, i.e. the factor by which one is allowed to scale
up capacities in order to achieve an optimal (or near-optimal) realizable set. In
 Approximating Disjoint-Path Problems 159

our usage of packing in the rounding algorithms we have assumed that the pa-
rameter B of the packing program is equal to 1. Allowing B > 1 is equivalent to
allowing congestion B in the corresponding disjoint-path problem. Thus another
advantage of the packing approach is that tradeoffs with the allowed congestion
B can be obtained immediately by plugging in B in the packing algorithms that
we use as a black box. For example the approximation for edge-disjoint paths
becomes Ω(max{y ∗ (y ∗ /|E| log |E|)1/B , y ∗ /|E|1/(B+1) , y ∗ /d1/B }), when the num-
ber of connection requests is O(|E|). Our congestion tradeoffs generalize previous
work by Srinivasan [31] who showed the Ω(y ∗ /d1/B ) tradeoff for uniform capac-
ity unsplittable flow. We do not state the tradeoffs explicitly for the various
problems since they can be obtained easily by simple modifications to the given
algorithms.

Application 4: Independent Set in the Square of a Graph. Given a graph G =

(V, E) the k-th power Gk = (V, E k ) of G is a graph where two vertices are adja-
cent if and only if they are at distance at most k in G.
p We further demonstrate
the power of packing formulations by providing an O( |V |) approximation algo-
rithm for finding a maximum independent set in the square of a graph. We also
give results that depend on the maximum vertex degree ∆ in G. Our approxi-
mation ratio cannot be polynomially improved in the sense that no (n/4)1/2−ε
approximation, for any fixed ε > 0, can be obtained in polynomial time unless
N P = ZP P. Studying NP-hard problems in powers of graphs is a topic that has
received some attention in the literature [5,34,18,4].
Independently of our work, Baveja and Srinivasan (personal communication)
have obtained results similar to ours for approximating vertex-disjoint paths
under the rounding approach, unsplittable flow and column-restricted packing
integer programs. Their work builds on the methods in [31].

2 Approximating a Column-Restricted PIP

In this section we present the approximation algorithm for column-restricted

PIP’s. Let P = (A, b, c) be a column-restricted PIP. We call ρj ≤ 1, the value
of the non-zero entries of the j-th column, 1 ≤ j ≤ n, the value of column j.
Throughout this section we assume that there is a polynomial-time algorithm
that given a (0, 1)-PIP with fraction