This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Reduced bandwidth: a qualitative
strengthening of twin-width in
minor-closed classes (and beyond)

Édouard Bonnet 333CNRS, Lyon, France ([email protected]). The first author was supported by the ANR projects TWIN-WIDTH (ANR-21-CE48-0014) and Digraphs (ANR-19-CE48-0013).   O-joung Kwon 444Department of Mathematics, Incheon National University, and Discrete Mathematics Group, Institute for Basic Science (IBS), South Korea. The second author was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Education (No. NRF-2018R1D1A1B07050294), and by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS-R029-C1). ([email protected]).   David R. Wood 555School of Mathematics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia ([email protected]). Research supported by the Australian Research Council.
Abstract

In a reduction sequence of a graph, vertices are successively identified until the graph has one vertex. At each step, when identifying uu and vv, each edge incident to exactly one of uu and vv is coloured red. Bonnet, Kim, Thomassé and Watrigant [J. ACM 2022] defined the twin-width of a graph GG to be the minimum integer kk such that there is a reduction sequence of GG in which every red graph has maximum degree at most kk. For any graph parameter ff, we define the reduced ff of a graph GG to be the minimum integer kk such that there is a reduction sequence of GG in which every red graph has ff at most kk. Our focus is on graph classes with bounded reduced bandwidth, which implies and is stronger than bounded twin-width (reduced maximum degree). We show that every proper minor-closed class has bounded reduced bandwidth, which is qualitatively stronger than an analogous result of Bonnet et al. for bounded twin-width. In many instances, we also make quantitative improvements. For example, all previous upper bounds on the twin-width of planar graphs were at least 210002^{1000}. We show that planar graphs have reduced bandwidth at most 466466 and twin-width at most 583583. Our bounds for graphs of Euler genus γ\gamma are O(γ)O(\gamma). Lastly, we show that fixed powers of graphs in a proper minor-closed class have bounded reduced bandwidth (irrespective of the degree of the vertices). In particular, we show that map graphs of Euler genus γ\gamma have reduced bandwidth O(γ4)O(\gamma^{4}). Lastly, we separate twin-width and reduced bandwidth by showing that any infinite class of expanders excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph has unbounded reduced bandwidth, while there are bounded-degree expanders with twin-width at most 6.

1 Introduction

Twin-width is a measure of graph111We consider simple, finite, undirected graphs GG with vertex-set V(G)V(G) and edge-set E(G)E(G). A graph class is a set of graphs closed under isomorphism. A graph class is hereditary if it is closed under taking subgraphs. A graph class is monotone if it is closed under taking induced subgraphs. A graph HH is a minor of a graph GG if HH is isomorphic to a graph obtained from a subgraph of GG by contracting edges. A graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G} is proper minor-closed if 𝒢\mathcal{G} is closed under taking minors, and some graph is not in 𝒢\mathcal{G}. complexity recently introduced by Bonnet et al. [9] (inspired by the work of Marcus and Tardos [34] and Guillemot and Marx [26]). The topic has attracted widespread interest [39, 40, 38, 9, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 2, 8, 23, 1, 44, 3, 15], often motivated by connections to model theory, logic, graph sparsity, fixed parameter tractability, enumerative combinatorics, and permutations.

We start with an informal description. Given a graph GG, choose two vertices uu and vv in GG, identify uu and vv into a single vertex, and colour each edge incident to exactly one of uu and vv red. Repeat this step until the graph has only one vertex. At each stage, the introduced red edges indicate an ‘error’ in the reduction sequence. The goal is to find a sequence of identifications with small error. Twin-width measures the error by the maximum degree of the red graph (minimised over all reduction sequences).

To formalise this idea we need the following definitions. A trigraph is a triple G=(V,E,R)G=(V,E,R) where VV is a finite set, and EE and RR are disjoint subsets of (V2)\binom{V}{2}. Elements of VV are vertices. Elements of ERE\cup R are edges, edges in EE are black, and edges in RR are red. Let V(G):=VV(G):=V and E(G):=EE(G):=E and R(G):=RR(G):=R. Let G~\widetilde{G} be the spanning subgraph of GG consisting of the red edges. For distinct vertices u,vV(G)u,v\in V(G), let G/u,vG/u,v be the trigraph (V,E,R)(V^{\prime},E^{\prime},R^{\prime}) with:

  • V=(V{u,v}){w}V^{\prime}=(V\setminus\{u,v\})\cup\{w\} where wVw\not\in V,

  • G{u,v}=(G/u,v)wG-\{u,v\}=(G/u,v)-w, and

  • for all xV{u,v}x\in V\setminus\{u,v\}:

    • wxEwx\in E^{\prime} if and only if uxEux\in E and vxEvx\in E,

    • wxERwx\not\in E^{\prime}\cup R^{\prime} if and only if uxERux\not\in E\cup R and vxERvx\not\in E\cup R, and

    • wxRwx\in R^{\prime} otherwise.

The underlying graph (or total graph) of a trigraph GG is the graph HH with V(H)=V(G)V(H)=V(G) and E(H)=E(G)R(G)E(H)=E(G)\cup R(G).

A sequence of trigraphs G_n,G_n1,,G_1G_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\dots,G_{\_}1 is a reduction sequence of G_nG_{\_}n (also called contraction sequence) if for each i{2,,n}i\in\{2,\dots,n\} we have G_i1=G_i/u,vG_{\_}{i-1}=G_{\_}i/u,v for some u,vV(G_i)u,v\in V(G_{\_}i), and G_1G_{\_}1 is a trigraph with one vertex. In this case, each ‘prefix’ G_n,G_n1,,G_iG_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\ldots,G_{\_}i is called a partial reduction sequence to G_iG_{\_}i. A (partial) reduction sequence of a graph GG is a (partial) reduction sequence of the trigraph (V(G),E(G),)(V(G),E(G),\emptyset) (with no red edges).

Given a graph GG, it is natural to ask for a reduction sequence G_n,,G_1G_{\_}n,\dots,G_{\_}1 such that the red graphs G~_n,,G~_1\widetilde{G}_{\_}n,\dots,\widetilde{G}_{\_}1 have desirable properties. For example, a graph has a reduction sequence with no red edges if and only if it is a cograph [9] (and cographs are considered to be particularly well-behaved). Bonnet et al. [9] cared about the maximum degree of the red graphs. They defined the twin-width of a graph GG, denoted by tww(G)\operatorname{tww}(G), to be the minimum k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 such that there is a reduction sequence G_n,G_n1,,G_1G_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\dots,G_{\_}1 of GG where G~_i\widetilde{G}_{\_}i has maximum degree at most kk for each i{1,,n}i\in\{1,\dots,n\}.

This paper studies reduction sequences where the red graph has other properties in addition to bounded maximum degree. For any graph parameter222A graph parameter is a function ff such that f(G)_0f(G)\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 for every graph GG, and f(G_1)=f(G_2)f(G_{\_}1)=f(G_{\_}2) for all isomorphic graphs G_1G_{\_}1 and G_2G_{\_}2. Examples of relevance to this paper include maximum degree Δ(G)\Delta(G), bandwidth bw(G)\operatorname{bw}(G), pathwidth pw(G)\operatorname{pw}(G), treewidth tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G), clique-width cw(G)\operatorname{cw}(G), and boolean-width blw(G)\operatorname{blw}(G). A graph parameter ff is monotone if for each k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 the graph class {G:f(G)k}\{G:f(G)\leqslant k\} is monotone. A graph parameter ff is hereditary if for each k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 the graph class {G:f(G)k}\{G:f(G)\leqslant k\} is hereditary. A graph parameter ff is union-closed if f(GH)max(f(G),f(H))f(G\cup H)\leqslant\max(f(G),f(H)) for all disjoint graphs GG and HH. ff, let reduced ff be the graph parameter f{f}^{\downarrow}, where for any graph GG, f(G){f}^{\downarrow}(G) is the minimum kk\in\mathbb{N} such that there is a reduction sequence G_n,G_n1,,G_1G_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\dots,G_{\_}1 of GG where f(G~_i)kf(\widetilde{G}_{\_}i)\leqslant k for each i{1,,n}i\in\{1,\dots,n\}. So reduced maximum degree Δ{\Delta}^{\downarrow} is the same as twin-width.

Every graph has a reduction sequence in which every red graph is a star (just repeatedly identify the centre of the star with any other vertex). So it makes sense to consider graph properties that are unbounded on the class of all stars (such as maximum degree).

This line of research was initiated by Bonnet et al. [7], who considered the following parameter333Bonnet et al. [7] also considered the total number of edges in the red graph, but with a slightly different notion of reduction sequence in which red loops appear on identified vertices. The resulting parameter is called total twin-width.. Let (G)\star(G) be the maximum number of vertices in a connected component of a graph GG. Then {\star}^{\downarrow} is called the component-twinwidth [7]; here the goal is to find a reduction sequence such that every red graph has small components. Bonnet et al. [9] proved that every graph GG satisfies (G)2blw(G)+1{\star}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 2^{\operatorname{blw}(G)+1}, which implies (G)2tw(G)+2{\star}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 2^{\operatorname{tw}(G)+2} and (G)2cw(G)+1{\star}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 2^{\operatorname{cw}(G)+1}. Note that Δ(G)(G)1\Delta(G)\leqslant\star(G)-1 and thus Δ(G)(G)1{\Delta}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant{\star}^{\downarrow}(G)-1.

Bonnet et al. [9] proved that every proper minor-closed graph class has bounded twin-width (amongst other results). The primary contribution of this paper is a qualitative strengthening of this result, where reduced maximum degree is replaced by reduced bandwidth. The bandwidth of a graph GG is the minimum k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 such that there is an ordering v_1,,v_nv_{\_}1,\dots,v_{\_}n of V(G)V(G) satisfying |ij|k|i-j|\leqslant k for every edge v_iv_jE(G)v_{\_}iv_{\_}j\in E(G). We prove that every proper minor-closed class has bounded reduced bandwidth (Theorem 30).

Note that Δ(G)2bw(G)\Delta(G)\leqslant 2\,\operatorname{bw}(G), implying Δ(G)2bw(G){\Delta}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 2\,{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G). Thus, our upper bound on the reduced bandwidth of proper minor-closed classes implies the above-mentioned analogous result for twin-width, and indeed is qualitatively stronger since there are graph classes with bounded maximum degree and unbounded bandwidth. Complete binary trees are a simple example [14]. There are even trees with maximum degree 3, pathwidth 2, and unbounded bandwidth444 Let Q_nQ_{\_}n be the tree consisting of disjoint paths P_1,,P_nP_{\_}1,\dots,P_{\_}n, each with nn vertices, plus an edge joining the first vertex in P_iP_{\_}i and the first vertex in P_i+1P_{\_}{i+1} for each i{1,,n1}i\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}. Observe that Q_nQ_{\_}n has maximum degree 3, pathwidth 2, n2n^{2} vertices, diameter less than 3n3n, and bandwidth at least n3\frac{n}{3} (since |V(G)|bw(G)diam(G)+1|V(G)|\leqslant\operatorname{bw}(G)\operatorname{diam}(G)+1 for every graph GG; see [14]).. Generally speaking, graphs with bounded bandwidth are considered to be particularly well-behaved. Indeed, every graph with bandwidth kk is a subgraph of the kk-th power of a path555For a graph GG and rr\in\mathbb{N}, the rr-th power of GG, denoted by GrG^{r}, is the graph with vertex-set V(G)V(G) where two vertices uu and vv are adjacent in GrG^{r} if and only if the distance between uu and vv in GG is at most rr. The 2-nd power of GG is called the square of GG..

In many cases, our results are also quantitatively stronger than previous bounds. The improvements for planar graphs are most significant. The previous proofs that planar graphs have bounded twin-width gave no explicit bounds, but it can be seen that all the previous bounds [7, 9] were at least 210002^{1000}. We show that every planar graph has reduced bandwidth at most 466466 and twin-width at most 583583. The proof method generalises for graphs embeddable on any surface666The Euler genus of a surface with hh handles and cc crosscaps is 2h+c2h+c. The Euler genus of a graph GG is the minimum Euler genus of a surface in which GG embeds without edge crossings. For γ_0\gamma\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0, the class of graphs of Euler genus at most γ\gamma is a proper minor-closed class.. In particular, we show that every graph with Euler genus γ\gamma has reduced bandwidth at most 164γ+466164\gamma+466 and twin-width at most 205γ+583205\gamma+583 (Theorems 23 and 23).

A key tool in our proofs are recent product structure theorems, which say that every graph of bounded Euler genus is a subgraph of the strong product of a graph with bounded treewidth and a path; see Section 2.3 for details. Our results hold for any graph class that has such a product structure, which includes several non-minor-closed graph classes. For example, a graph is (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar if it has a drawing in a surface of Euler genus γ\gamma such that every edge is involved in at most kk crossings (assuming no three edges cross at a single point) [16]. We prove that every (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar graph has reduced bandwidth 2O(γk)2^{O(\gamma k)} (Theorem 25).

We also strengthen the above-mentioned results by showing that fixed powers of graphs in any proper minor-closed class have bounded reduced bandwidth (Theorem 30). Since FO-transductions preserve bounded twin-width [9, Section 8], it was previously known that these graphs have bounded twin-width. Note that powers of sparse graphs can be dense; for instance, 22-powers of stars are complete graphs. As an example of our results for graphs powers, we consider map graphs, which are well-studied generalisations of graphs embedded in surfaces. We prove that map graphs of Euler genus γ\gamma have reduced bandwidth O(γ4)O(\gamma^{4}). We emphasise there is no dependence on degree, and that these graphs might be dense.

Section 6 considers limitations of reduced bandwidth. We show that any infinite class of expander graphs excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph has unbounded reduced bandwidth (Theorem 31). This result separates reduced bandwidth from twin-width, since Bonnet et al. [4] showed there are bounded-degree expanders (thus excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph) with twin-width at most 6. The theme of tied and separated parameters is continued in Section 7 where we show that the reduced versions of several natural parameters are separated. We conclude in Section 8 by presenting a number of open problems.

2 Preliminaries

Let :={1,2,}\mathbb{N}:=\{1,2,\dots\} and _0:={0,1,}\mathbb{N}_{\_}0:=\{0,1,\dots\}.

For a graph GG and SV(G)S\subseteq V(G), let G[S]G[S] be the induced subgraph of GG with vertex-set SS and edge-set {vwE(G):v,wS}\{vw\in E(G):v,w\in S\}. For FE(G)F\subseteq E(G), let GFG-F be the graph obtained from GG by removing edges in FF. For two graphs GG and HH, let GHG\cup H be the graph with vertex-set V(G)V(H)V(G)\cup V(H) and edge-set E(G)E(H)E(G)\cup E(H). A clique in GG is a (possibly empty) set of pairwise adjacent vertices. For disjoint sets S,TV(G)S,T\subseteq V(G), we say that SS is complete to TT in GG if every vertex in SS is adjacent to every vertex in TT.

For vertices v,wV(G)v,w\in V(G), a (v,w)(v,w)-path in GG is a path with end-vertices vv and ww. For vertices v,wV(G)v,w\in V(G), let dist_G(v,w)\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w) be the length of a shortest (v,w)(v,w)-path in GG. For a vertex vv in GG, let N_G(v)N_{\_}G(v) :={wV(G):vwE(G)}:=\{w\in V(G):vw\in E(G)\} and N_G[v]N_{\_}G[v] :={v}N_G(v):=\{v\}\cup N_{\_}G(v). Let deg_G(v)\deg_{\_}G(v) :=|N_G(v)|:=|N_{\_}G(v)|, called the degree of vv in GG. For each rr\in\mathbb{N}, let N_rG[v]N^{r}_{\_}G[v] :={wV(G):dist_G(v,w)r}:=\{w\in V(G):\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)\leqslant r\}. For SV(G)S\subseteq V(G), let N_G(S)N_{\_}G(S) :=_vSN_G(v)S:=\bigcup_{\_}{v\in S}N_{\_}G(v)\setminus S and N_G[S]N_{\_}G[S] :=_vSN_G[v]:=\bigcup_{\_}{v\in S}N_{\_}G[v].

For a vertex vv in a trigraph GG, let N_G(v)N_{\_}G(v) :={wV(G):vwE(G)R(G)}:=\{w\in V(G):vw\in E(G)\cup R(G)\}.

2.1 Tree-decompositions

A tree-decomposition of a graph GG is a pair (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) consisting of a tree TT and a collection =(B_xV(G):xV(T))\mathcal{B}=(B_{\_}x\subseteq V(G):x\in V(T)) of subsets of V(G)V(G) (called bags) indexed by the nodes of TT, such that:

  1. (a)

    for every edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G), some bag B_xB_{\_}x contains both uu and vv, and

  2. (b)

    for every vertex vV(G)v\in V(G), the set {xV(T):vB_x}\{x\in V(T):v\in B_{\_}x\} induces a non-empty subtree of TT.

The width of a tree-decomposition is the size of the largest bag minus 1. The treewidth tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G) of a graph GG is the minimum width of a tree-decomposition of GG. These definitions are due to Robertson and Seymour [42]. Treewidth is recognised as the most important measure of how similar a given graph is to a tree. Note that a connected graph with at least two vertices has treewidth 1 if and only if it is a tree. A path-decomposition is a tree-decomposition in which the underlying tree is a path. The pathwidth pw(G)\operatorname{pw}(G) of a graph GG is the minimum width of a path-decomposition of GG. It is well-known and easily proved that for every graph GG,

tw(G)pw(G)bw(G).\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant\operatorname{pw}(G)\leqslant\operatorname{bw}(G).

Let (T,=(B_x:xV(T)))(T,\mathcal{B}=(B_{\_}x:x\in V(T))) be a tree-decomposition of a graph GG. The torso of a bag B_uB_{\_}u is the subgraph obtained from G[B_u]G[B_{\_}u] by adding, for each edge uvE(T)uv\in E(T), all edges xyxy where xx and yy are distinct vertices in B_uB_vB_{\_}u\cap B_{\_}v.

A separation of a graph GG is a pair (A,B)(A,B) of subsets of V(G)V(G) such that AB=V(G)A\cup B=V(G) and there is no edge of GG between ABA\setminus B and BAB\setminus A.

We sometimes consider a tree-decomposition (T,=(B_x:xV(T)))(T,\mathcal{B}=(B_{\_}x:x\in V(T))) to be rooted at a specific root bag B_rB_{\_}r for some rV(T)r\in V(T). In this case, for every node trt\neq r, let tt^{\prime} be the node of TT adjacent to tt in TT and on the (r,t)(r,t)-path in TT. We say that B_tB_{\_}{t^{\prime}} is the parent of B_tB_{\_}t and B_tB_{\_}t is a child of B_tB_{\_}{t^{\prime}}. A bag B_xB_{\_}x is a descendant of a bag B_yB_{\_}y if yy lies on the (r,x)(r,x)-path in TT.

Let tt be a node of TT, and let {t_1,,t_d}\{t_{\_}1,\ldots,t_{\_}d\} be a set of children of tt. Let CC be the union of B_tB_{\_}t and every bag that is a descendant of B_t_iB_{\_}{t_{\_}i} for some i{1,2,,d}i\in\{1,2,\ldots,d\}. Let D:=(V(G)C)B_tD:=(V(G)\setminus C)\cup B_{\_}t. As illustrated in Figure 1, (C,D)(C,D) is a separation of GG with CD=B_tC\cap D=B_{\_}t, said to be a rooted separation at B_tB_{\_}t and a rooted separation from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}).

Refer to caption

Figure 1: A rooted separation (C,D)(C,D) in a rooted tree-decomposition with root bag B_rB_{\_}r.

For a non-root degree-1 node tt of TT, we say that B_tB_{\_}t is a leaf bag; every other bag is said to be internal. Note that a root bag is always internal.

For k,qk,q\in\mathbb{N} with qk+1q\geqslant k+1, a rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) is (k,q)(k,q)-rooted if:

  • the root bag is empty,

  • every internal bag has at most k+1k+1 vertices, and

  • for every leaf bag BB with parent BB^{\prime}, |BB|q\lvert B\setminus B^{\prime}\rvert\leqslant q.

A rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) is (k,)(k,\infty)-rooted if the root bag is empty, and every internal bag has at most k+1k+1 vertices (so leaf bags can be arbitrarily large).

2.2 Sparsity

For d_0d\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0, a graph GG is dd-degenerate if every subgraph of GG has minimum degree at most dd. The minimum such dd is the degeneracy of GG.

Kierstead and Yang [31] introduced the following definition. For a graph GG, total order \preceq of V(G)V(G), vertex vV(G)v\in V(G), and ss\in\mathbb{N}, let reach_s(G,,v)\operatorname{reach}_{\_}s(G,\preceq,v) be the set of vertices wV(G)w\in V(G) for which there is a path v=w_0,w_1,,w_s=wv=w_{\_}0,w_{\_}1,\dots,w_{\_}{s^{\prime}}=w of length s{0,,s}s^{\prime}\in\{0,\dots,s\} such that wvw\preceq v and vw_iv\prec w_{\_}i for all i{0,,s1}i\in\{0,\dots,s^{\prime}-1\}. For a graph GG and ss\in\mathbb{N}, the ss-strong colouring number col_s(G)\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(G) is the minimum integer kk for which there is a total order \preceq of V(G)V(G) with |reach_s(G,,v)|k|\operatorname{reach}_{\_}s(G,\preceq,v)|\leqslant k for every vertex vv of GG. Strong colouring numbers interpolate between degeneracy and treewidth [33]. Indeed, col_1(G)\operatorname{col}_{\_}1(G) equals the degeneracy of GG plus 1. At the other extreme, Grohe et al. [25] showed that col_s(G)tw(G)+1\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(G)\leqslant\operatorname{tw}(G)+1 for all ss\in\mathbb{N}, and indeed

lim_scol_s(G)=tw(G)+1.\lim_{\_}{s\to\infty}\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(G)=\operatorname{tw}(G)+1.

Observe that a graph HH is a minor of a graph GG if and only if there are pairwise vertex-disjoint subtrees (T_v)_vV(H)(T_{\_}v)_{\_}{v\in V(H)} in GG such that for each edge vwE(H)vw\in E(H) there is an edge between T_vT_{\_}v and T_wT_{\_}w in GG. For rr\in\mathbb{N}, if each such tree T_vT_{\_}v has radius at most rr, then HH is an rr-shallow minor of GG. Let

_r(G):=max_H|E(H)||V(H)|,\nabla_{\_}r(G):=\max_{\_}H\frac{|E(H)|}{|V(H)|},

taken over all rr-shallow (non-empty) minors HH of GG. A graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G} has bounded expansion if there is a function f:_0f:\mathbb{N}_{\_}0\to\mathbb{R} such that _r(G)f(r)\nabla_{\_}r(G)\leqslant f(r) for every graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G} and r_0r\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0. A graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G} has linear or polynomial expansion respectively if there is a linear or polynomial expansion function.

2.3 Product Structure Theorems

For graphs GG and HH, the strong product GHG\boxtimes H is the graph with vertex-set V(G)×V(H)V(G)\times V(H), where vertices (v,w)(v,w) and (x,y)(x,y) are adjacent if:

  • v=xv=x and wyE(H)wy\in E(H), or

  • w=yw=y and vxE(G)vx\in E(G), or

  • vxE(G)vx\in E(G) and wyE(H)wy\in E(H).

The proofs of our main theorems depend on the following recent product structure results. Bose et al. [11] defined the row-treewidth of a graph GG to be the minimum k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 such that GG is isomorphic to a subgraph of HPH\boxtimes P for some graph HH with treewidth kk and path PP. The motivation for this definition is the following ‘Planar Graph Product Structure Theorem’ of Dujmović et al. [17] (improved by Ueckerdt et al. [46]).

Theorem 1 ([17, 46]).

Every planar graph has row-treewidth at most 6.

Theorem 1 was generalised for graphs of given Euler genus.

Theorem 2 ([17, 46]).

Every graph of Euler genus γ\gamma has row-treewidth at most 2γ+62\gamma+6.

More generally, Dujmović et al. [17] proved that a minor-closed class has bounded row-treewidth if and only if it excludes some apex graph777A graph XX is apex if XvX-v is planar for some vertex vv.. For an arbitrary proper minor-closed class, Dujmović et al. [17] obtained by the following ‘Graph Minor Product Structure Theorem’, where A+BA+B is the complete join of graphs AA and BB (obtained from disjoint copies of AA and BB by adding every edge with one end-vertex in AA and one end-vertex in BB).

Theorem 3 ([17]).

For every graph XX, there exist k,ak,a\in\mathbb{N} such that every XX-minor-free graph has a tree-decomposition in which every torso is a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a for some graph HH of treewidth at most kk and some path PP.

Product structure theorems for several non-minor-closed classes are known [18, 28]. Here is one example.

Theorem 4 ([18]).

Every (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar graph has row-treewidth O(γk6)O(\gamma k^{6}).

With these tools in hand we now give the intuition behind our proofs. First note that Bonnet et al. [4] showed that for all graphs GG and HH,

tww(GH)max{tww(G)(Δ(H)+1)+2Δ(H),tww(H)+Δ(H)}.\operatorname{tww}(G\boxtimes H)\leqslant\max\{\operatorname{tww}(G)(\Delta(H)+1)+2\Delta(H),\operatorname{tww}(H)+\Delta(H)\}.

However, this is not enough to conclude results about subgraphs of GHG\boxtimes H since twin-width is not monotone. Consider a subgraph GG of HPH\boxtimes P where HH has bounded tree-width and PP is a path. As mentioned in Section 1, HH has bounded component twin-width. This says there is a reduction sequence for HH such that each red component XX has bounded size. Observe that XPX\boxtimes P has bounded bandwidth. Our strategy is to construct a reduction sequence for GG so that each red component is of the form XPX\boxtimes P where XX is a bounded-size subgraph of HH, implying each red subgraph has bounded bandwidth. A key to the proof is to find vertex identifications so that the resulting graph stays a subgraph of some HPH\boxtimes P. The above intuitive description has some inaccuracies. Implementing this strategy rigorously needs several further ideas, especially in the setting of powers (Section 4). Finally, to apply Theorem 3 for K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graphs we need more ideas to cater for apex vertices and tree-decompositions (Section 5).

3 Neighbourhood Diversity

The following concept will help to optimise our bounds on reduced bandwidth and twin-width, and is of independent interest because of connections to VC-dimension [37, 22, 41] and sparsity theory [19, 41].

Fix a graph GG and rr\in\mathbb{N}. For vertices v,wV(G)v,w\in V(G), let

dist_rG(v,w):={dist_G(v,w)if dist_G(v,w)r,otherwise.\operatorname{dist}^{r}_{\_}G(v,w):=\begin{cases}\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)&\text{if $\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)\leqslant r$,}\\ \infty&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}

For AV(G)A\subseteq V(G) and vV(G)Av\in V(G)\setminus A, the distance-rr profile of vv on AA is

π_rG(v,A):={(w,dist_rG(v,w)):wA},\pi^{r}_{\_}G(v,A):=\{(w,\operatorname{dist}^{r}_{\_}G(v,w)):w\in A\},

and the distance-rr diversity on AA is

π_rG(A):=|{π_rG(v,A):vV(G)A}|.\pi^{r}_{\_}G(A):=|\{\pi^{r}_{\_}G(v,A):v\in V(G)\setminus A\}|.

This definition is different to similar definitions in [19, 41] in that we only consider vV(G)Av\in V(G)\setminus A. We use different notation to avoid confusion. Clearly, π_rG(A)(r+1)|A|\pi^{r}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant(r+1)^{|A|}.

Our upper bounds on reduced bandwidth and twin-width are expressed in terms of π_rG(A)\pi^{r}_{\_}G(A) for sets AA of a given size (see Lemma 20). Motivated by this connection, Section 3.1 presents various upper bounds on π_1G(A)\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A) that are tight for graphs of given Euler genus (Lemma 13) and K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graphs (Corollary 11). Section 3.2 gives an upper bound on π_2G(A)\pi^{2}_{\_}G(A) where GG is a graph of given Euler genus.

3.1 First Neighbourhoods

This subsection presents bounds on π_1G(A)\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A) for various graphs GG. Note that

π_1G(A)=|{N_G(u)A:uV(G)A}|.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)=|\{N_{\_}G(u)\cap A:u\in V(G)\setminus A\}|.

So in a monotone class, we may assume that GG is bipartite with bipartition {A,V(G)A}\{A,V(G)\setminus A\}, where N_G(u)XN_G(v)XN_{\_}G(u)\cap X\neq N_{\_}G(v)\cap X for distinct u,vV(G)Au,v\in V(G)\setminus A.

The following lemma is a more precise version of a result by Gajarský et al. [22] (see Lemma 7). For a graph HH and k_0k\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0, let C(H,k)C(H,k) be the number of cliques of order kk in HH, where \emptyset is considered to be the only clique of order 0 in GG. So C(H,0)=1C(H,0)=1, C(H,1)=|V(H)|C(H,1)=|V(H)|, and C(H,2)=|E(H)|C(H,2)=|E(H)|. Let C(H,k)C(H,\leqslant k) be the number of cliques of order at most kk in HH, and let C(H)C(H) be the total number of cliques in HH.

Lemma 5.

Let GG be a bipartite graph with bipartition {X,Y}\{X,Y\}, where K_tK_{\_}t is not a 1-shallow minor of GG. Then there is a 1-shallow minor HH of GG on |X||X| vertices, such that

|{N_G(u):uY}|{C(H,t2)if t4C(H,2)if t=3.|\{N_{\_}G(u):u\in Y\}|\leqslant\begin{cases}C(H,\leqslant t-2)&\text{if }t\geqslant 4\\ C(H,\leqslant 2)&\text{if }t=3.\\ \end{cases}
Proof.

We may assume that N_G(u)N_G(v)N_{\_}G(u)\neq N_{\_}G(v) for all distinct u,vYu,v\in Y. For i_0i\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0, let Y_i:={vY:deg_G(v)=i}Y_{\_}i:=\{v\in Y:\deg_{\_}G(v)=i\}. For each vY_2v\in Y_{\_}2, let X_v:=N_G(v)X_{\_}v:=N_{\_}G(v). By assumption, X_vX_wX_{\_}v\neq X_{\_}w for distinct v,wY_2v,w\in Y_{\_}2. Let AA be a maximal set such that:

  • Y_2AY(Y_0Y_1)Y_{\_}2\subseteq A\subseteq Y\setminus(Y_{\_}0\cup Y_{\_}1), and

  • for each vAv\in A there exists X_vN_G(v)X_{\_}v\subseteq N_{\_}G(v) with |X_v|=2|X_{\_}v|=2 where X_vX_wX_{\_}v\neq X_{\_}w for all distinct v,wAv,w\in A.

Let HH be the graph obtained from G[XA]G[X\cup A], where for each vAv\in A, we pick one wX_vw\in X_{\_}v and contract the edge vwvw. So HH is a 1-shallow minor of GG (with each branch set centred at a vertex in XX), where |X|=|V(H)||X|=|V(H)| and |A|=|E(H)|=C(H,2)|A|=|E(H)|=C(H,2).

Let B:=Y(Y_0Y_1A)B:=Y\setminus(Y_{\_}0\cup Y_{\_}1\cup A). Consider a vertex wBw\in B with d:=deg_G(w)d:=\deg_{\_}G(w). So d3d\geqslant 3 since Y_2AY_{\_}2\subseteq A. By the maximality of AA, we have N_G(w)N_{\_}G(w) is a clique in HH, implying K_d+1K_{\_}{d+1} is a 1-shallow minor of GG. Thus d{3,4,,t2}d\in\{3,4,\dots,t-2\}. For distinct v,wBv,w\in B, we have N_G(v)N_G(w)N_{\_}G(v)\neq N_{\_}G(w). So |B|_i=3t2C(H,i)|B|\leqslant\sum_{\_}{i=3}^{t-2}C(H,i), and B=B=\emptyset if t4t\leqslant 4.

Also |Y_0|1=C(H,0)|Y_{\_}0|\leqslant 1=C(H,0) and |Y_1||X|=C(H,1)|Y_{\_}1|\leqslant|X|=C(H,1). Therefore |Y|=|Y_0|+|Y_1|+|A|+|B|C(H,0)+C(H,1)+C(H,2)+|B||Y|=|Y_{\_}0|+|Y_{\_}1|+|A|+|B|\leqslant C(H,0)+C(H,1)+C(H,2)+|B|. If t4t\leqslant 4 then B=B=\emptyset and |Y|C(H,2)|Y|\leqslant C(H,\leqslant 2); otherwise |Y|C(H,0)+C(H,1)+C(H,2)+_i=3t2C(H,i)=C(H,t2)|Y|\leqslant C(H,0)+C(H,1)+C(H,2)+\sum_{\_}{i=3}^{t-2}C(H,i)=C(H,\leqslant t-2). ∎

It is well known (see [48, 49]) that every dd-degenerate graph GG with ndn\geqslant d vertices satisfies:

  • C(G,k)(dk1)(n(k1)(d+1)k)C(G,k)\leqslant\binom{d}{k-1}(n-\frac{(k-1)(d+1)}{k}) for all k{0,1,,d+1}k\in\{0,1,\dots,d+1\},

  • C(G)2d(nd+1)C(G)\leqslant 2^{d}(n-d+1).

So Lemma 5 implies:

Corollary 6.

For every graph GG and set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G), if every 1-shallow minor of GG on |A||A| vertices is dd-degenerate, then π_1G(A)min{2d(|A|d+1),2|A|}\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant\min\{2^{d}(|A|-d+1),2^{|A|}\}.

Corollary 6 is applicable with d=2_1(G)d=\lfloor 2\nabla_{\_}1(G)\rfloor since every 1-shallow minor of a graph GG is 2_1(G)\lfloor 2\nabla_{\_}1(G)\rfloor-degenerate. We obtain the following lemma, which is a slight strengthening of a result of Gajarský et al. [22, Lemma 4.3].

Lemma 7.

For every graph GG with _1(G)k\nabla_{\_}1(G)\leqslant k and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(A)min{22k(|A|2k+1),2|A|}.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant\min\{2^{\lfloor 2k\rfloor}(|A|-\lfloor 2k\rfloor+1),2^{|A|}\}.
Lemma 8.

For every graph GG with col_5(G)c\operatorname{col}_{\_}5(G)\leqslant c and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(A)min{2c1(|A|c+2),2|A|}.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant\min\{2^{c-1}(|A|-c+2),2^{|A|}\}.
Proof.

Hickingbotham and Wood [28, Lemma 20] proved that for every graph GG and every rr-shallow minor GG^{\prime} of GG, we have col_s(G)col_2rs+2r+s(G)\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(G^{\prime})\leqslant\operatorname{col}_{\_}{2rs+2r+s}(G). Every graph GG is (col_1(G)1)(\operatorname{col}_{\_}1(G)-1)-degenerate. Thus every 1-shallow minor of a graph GG is (col_5(G)1)(\operatorname{col}_{\_}5(G)-1)-degenerate. The result follows from Corollary 6. ∎

Lemma 9.

For every (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar graph GG and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(A)min{222(2γ+3)(k+1)1(|A|22(2γ+3)(k+1)+2),2|A|}.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant\min\{2^{22(2\gamma+3)(k+1)-1}(|A|-22(2\gamma+3)(k+1)+2),2^{|A|}\}.
Proof.

Van den Heuvel and Wood [47] proved that col_s(G)2(2γ+3)(k+1)(2s+1)\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(G)\leqslant 2(2\gamma+3)(k+1)(2s+1). The result follows from Lemma 8. ∎

Lemma 10.

For every graph GG with row-treewidth at most kk and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(A)min{211k+10(|A|11k9),2|A|}.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant\min\{2^{11k+10}(|A|-11k-9),2^{|A|}\}.
Proof.

By assumption, GG is isomorphic to a subgraph of HPH\boxtimes P, where tw(H)k\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant k and PP is a path. Hickingbotham and Wood [28, Lemma 22] showed that

col_s(HP)(2s+1)col_s(H)(2s+1)(tw(H)+1).\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(H\boxtimes P)\leqslant(2s+1)\operatorname{col}_{\_}s(H)\leqslant(2s+1)(\operatorname{tw}(H)+1).

In particular, col_5(G)col_5(HP)11(k+1)\operatorname{col}_{\_}5(G)\leqslant\operatorname{col}_{\_}5(H\boxtimes P)\leqslant 11(k+1). The result follows from Lemma 8. ∎

We get improved bounds for minor-closed classes. For every nn-vertex K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graph GG, Kostochka [32] and Thomason [45] independently showed that GG has O(tlogt|V(G)|)O(t\sqrt{\log t}\,|V(G)|) edges, and Fox and Wei [21] showed that GG has at most 32t/3+o(t)|V(G)|3^{2t/3+o(t)}|V(G)| cliques. Lemma 5 implies:

Corollary 11.

For every K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graph GG and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(A)32t/3+o(t)|A|+1.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant 3^{2t/3+o(t)}|A|+1.

We now show that this bound is tight up to the o(t)o(t) term. We may assume 2t=3p+22t=3p+2 for some even pp\in\mathbb{N}. Let HH be the complete pp-partite graph K_2,,2K_{\_}{2,\dots,2}, which can be obtained from K_2pK_{\_}{2p} by deleting a perfect matching v_1w_1,,v_pw_pv_{\_}1w_{\_}1,\dots,v_{\_}pw_{\_}p. Obviously, the largest complete subgraph in HH is K_pK_{\_}p. Wood [48] showed that the largest complete graph minor in HH is K_3p/2K_{\_}{3p/2} (with branch sets {v_1},,{v_p},{w_1,w_2},,{w_p1,w_p}\{v_{\_}1\},\dots,\{v_{\_}p\},\{w_{\_}1,w_{\_}2\},\dots,\{w_{\_}{p-1},w_{\_}p\}). So HH is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free (since t>32pt>\frac{3}{2}p). It is well known that HH has exactly 3p3^{p} cliques (since if C_iC_{\_}i is any element of {,{v_i},{w_i}}\{\emptyset,\{v_{\_}i\},\{w_{\_}i\}\}, then C_1C_pC_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup C_{\_}p is a clique, giving 3p3^{p} cliques in total, and every clique in HH is obtained this way). Let GG be the bipartite graph with bipartition {X,Y}\{X,Y\}, where X=V(H)X=V(H) and for each clique CC in HH, there is a one vertex y_Cy_{\_}C in YY with N_G(y_C)=CN_{\_}G(y_{\_}C)=C. So GG can be obtained from HH by clique-sums with complete graphs of order at most p+1p+1 (and edge-deletions). So GG is also K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free, and every vertex in YY has a unique neighbourhood. Thus π_1G(X)=|Y|=3p=3(2t2)/3=32t/3O(logt)|X|\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)=|Y|=3^{p}=3^{(2t-2)/3}=3^{2t/3-O(\log t)}|X|.

Corollary 12.

For every graph GG with treewidth kk\in\mathbb{N} and for every set AV(G)A\subseteq V(G),

π_1G(X){2|A|if k=12|A|if k2 and |A|k(2k1)(|A|k)+2kif k2 and |A|k\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\begin{cases}2|A|&\text{if }k=1\\ 2^{|A|}&\text{if }k\geqslant 2\text{ and }|A|\leqslant k\\ (2^{k}-1)(|A|-k)+2^{k}&\text{if }k\geqslant 2\text{ and }|A|\geqslant k\\ \end{cases}
Proof.

Let Y:=V(G)AY:=V(G)\setminus A. First suppose that k=1k=1. So GG and every minor of GG is a forest. So Lemma 5 is applicable with t=3t=3. Thus, there is a minor HH of GG on |A||A| vertices, such that π_1G(A)=|{N_G(u)A:uY}|C(H)2|A|\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)=|\{N_{\_}G(u)\cap A:u\in Y\}|\leqslant C(H)\leqslant 2|A| since HH is a forest.

Now assume that k2k\geqslant 2. The class of treewidth-kk graphs is proper minor-closed and has no K_k+2K_{\_}{k+2} minor. So Lemma 5 is applicable with t=k+24t=k+2\geqslant 4. Thus there is a minor HH of GG on |A||A| vertices, such that |{N_G(u):uY}|C(H,k)|\{N_{\_}G(u):u\in Y\}|\leqslant C(H,\leqslant k). This is at most 2|A|2^{|A|} if |A|k|A|\leqslant k. Now assume that |A|k+1|A|\geqslant k+1. Every graph with treewidth at most kk is kk-degenerate. So HH is kk-degenerate, implying

π_1G(A)=|{N_G(u):uY}|_i=0k(ki1)(|A|(i1)(k+1)i)=2k(|A|k+1)|A|+k.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(A)=|\{N_{\_}G(u):u\in Y\}|\leqslant\sum_{\_}{i=0}^{k}\tbinom{k}{i-1}\big{(}|A|-\tfrac{(i-1)(k+1)}{i}\big{)}=2^{k}(|A|-k+1)-|A|+k.\qed

The bound in Corollary 12 is tight: Let HH be a kk-tree on nkn\geqslant k vertices, which has 2k(nk+1)2^{k}(n-k+1) cliques and nkn-k cliques of size k+1k+1 [49]. Let GG be the bipartite graph with bipartition {X,Y}\{X,Y\}, where X=V(H)X=V(H) and for each clique CC with |C|k|C|\leqslant k in HH, there is a one vertex y_Cy_{\_}C in YY with N_G(y_C)=CN_{\_}G(y_{\_}C)=C. So |Y|=C(H,k)=2k(nk+1)n+k|Y|=C(H,\leqslant k)=2^{k}(n-k+1)-n+k. Given a tree-decomposition of HH with width kk, for each clique CC in HH with |C|k|C|\leqslant k, which must be in some bag BB, add one new bag B=B{y_C}B^{\prime}=B\cup\{y_{\_}C\} adjacent to BB to obtain a tree-decomposition of GG with width kk.

We have the following bound for graphs of given Euler genus. It follows from Euler’s formula that |E(G)|3(|V(G)|+γ2)|E(G)|\leqslant 3(|V(G)|+\gamma-2) for every graph GG with Euler genus γ\gamma; moreover, |E(G)|2(|V(G)|+γ2)|E(G)|\leqslant 2(|V(G)|+\gamma-2) if GG is bipartite.

Lemma 13.

For every graph GG with Euler genus γ\gamma and for every set XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) with |X|2|X|\geqslant 2,

π_1G(X)6|X|+5γ9.\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant 6|X|+5\gamma-9.
Proof.

We may assume that GG is bipartite with bipartition {X,Y}\{X,Y\}, and that N_G(u)N_G(v)N_{\_}G(u)\neq N_{\_}G(v) for distinct u,vYu,v\in Y (otherwise delete one of the vertices). For i_0i\in\mathbb{N}_{\_}0, let Y_i:={uY:deg_G(u)=i}Y_{\_}i:=\{u\in Y:\deg_{\_}G(u)=i\}. Let G:=GY_0Y_1G^{\prime}:=G-Y_{\_}0-Y_{\_}1. Since GG^{\prime} is bipartite,

|E(G)||Y_1|=|E(G)|2(|V(G)|+γ2)=2(|V(G)||Y_0||Y_1|+γ2).|E(G)|-|Y_{\_}1|=|E(G^{\prime})|\leqslant 2(|V(G^{\prime})|+\gamma-2)=2(|V(G)|-|Y_{\_}0|-|Y_{\_}1|+\gamma-2).

Thus

_i0i|Y_i|=|E(G)|2|V(G)|2|Y_0||Y_1|+2γ4=2(|X|+_i0|Y_i|)2|Y_0||Y_1|+2γ4.\sum_{\_}{i\geqslant 0}i|Y_{\_}i|=|E(G)|\leqslant 2|V(G)|-2|Y_{\_}0|-|Y_{\_}1|+2\gamma-4=2\Big{(}|X|+\sum_{\_}{i\geqslant 0}|Y_{\_}i|\Big{)}-2|Y_{\_}0|-|Y_{\_}1|+2\gamma-4.

Hence

|Y||Y_0||Y_1||Y_2|=_i3|Y_i|_i3(i2)|Y_i|2|X|+2γ4,|Y|-|Y_{\_}0|-|Y_{\_}1|-|Y_{\_}2|=\sum_{\_}{i\geqslant 3}|Y_{\_}i|\leqslant\sum_{\_}{i\geqslant 3}(i-2)|Y_{\_}i|\leqslant 2|X|+2\gamma-4,

implying |Y|2|X|+|Y_0|+|Y_1|+|Y_2|+2γ4|Y|\leqslant 2|X|+|Y_{\_}0|+|Y_{\_}1|+|Y_{\_}2|+2\gamma-4. Since N_G(u)N_G(v)N_{\_}G(u)\neq N_{\_}G(v) for distinct u,vYu,v\in Y, we have |Y_0|1|Y_{\_}0|\leqslant 1 and |Y_1||X||Y_{\_}1|\leqslant|X|. If HH is obtained from G[XY_2]G[X\cup Y_{\_}2] by contracting one edge incident to each vertex in Y_2Y_{\_}2, then HH has no parallel edges and |X||X| vertices, implying |Y_2|=|E(H)|3(|X|+γ2)|Y_{\_}2|=|E(H)|\leqslant 3(|X|+\gamma-2). Hence

|Y|2|X|+1+|X|+3(|X|+γ2)+2γ4=6|X|+5γ9.|Y|\leqslant 2|X|+1+|X|+3(|X|+\gamma-2)+2\gamma-4=6|X|+5\gamma-9.\qed

Lemma 13 is also tight: Let G_0G_{\_}0 be a triangulation of a surface with Euler genus γ\gamma with at least four vertices. Let GG be obtained from G_0G_{\_}0 as follows: add one vertex adjacent to the three vertices of each face of G_0G_{\_}0, subdivide each edge of G_0G_{\_}0, add one vertex adjacent to each vertex of G_0G_{\_}0, and add one isolated vertex. So GG is bipartite with bipartition {X,Y}\{X,Y\} where X:=V(G_0)X:=V(G_{\_}0) and Y:=V(G)XY:=V(G)\setminus X. No two vertices in YY have the same neighbourhood, and |Y|=|Y_0|+|Y_1|+|Y_2|+|Y_3|=1+|X|+3(|X|+γ2)+2(|X|+γ2)=6|X|+5γ9|Y|=|Y_{\_}0|+|Y_{\_}1|+|Y_{\_}2|+|Y_{\_}3|=1+|X|+3(|X|+\gamma-2)+2(|X|+\gamma-2)=6|X|+5\gamma-9.

3.2 Second Neighbourhoods

This section gives bounds on the second neighbourhood diversity in graphs of given Euler genus. These results are useful for bounding the reduced bandwidth of squares and map graphs.

Lemma 14.

Let GG be a graph of Euler genus γ\gamma, and let XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) with |X|2|X|\geqslant 2. Let Y:=N_G(X)Y:=N_{\_}G(X) and Z:=V(G)(XY)Z:=V(G)\setminus(X\cup Y). Then

|{N_2G(v)X:vZ}|(60γ2+125γ+68)|X|120γ2250γ132.|\{N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X:v\in Z\}|\leqslant(60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+68)|X|-120\gamma^{2}-250\gamma-132.
Proof.

We may assume that N_2G(v)XN_2G(w)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X\neq N^{2}_{\_}G(w)\cap X for all distinct v,wZv,w\in Z. Let Z0:={vZ:|N_2G(v)X|=0}Z^{0}:=\{v\in Z:|N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X|=0\} and Z1:={vZ:|N_2G(v)X|=1}Z^{1}:=\{v\in Z:|N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X|=1\} and Z2:={vZ:|N_2G(v)X|2}Z^{2}:=\{v\in Z:|N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X|\geqslant 2\}. Thus |Z0|1|Z^{0}|\leqslant 1 and |Z1||X||Z^{1}|\leqslant|X|. By Lemma 16 below, |Z2|(60γ2+125γ+67)(|X|2)+1|Z^{2}|\leqslant(60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+67)(|X|-2)+1. In total, |Z|(60γ2+125γ+67)(|X|2)+|X|+2=(60γ2+125γ+68)|X|120γ2250γ132|Z|\leqslant(60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+67)(|X|-2)+|X|+2=(60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+68)|X|-120\gamma^{2}-250\gamma-132, as desired. ∎

The proof of Lemma 16 uses the next lemma, which follows from [35, Proposition 4.2.7] and the discussion after it.

Lemma 15.

If K_2,2γ+2K_{\_}{2,2\gamma+2} is embedded in a surface of Euler genus γ\gamma, then some 4-cycle in K_2,2γ+2K_{\_}{2,2\gamma+2} is contractible.

Lemma 16.

Let GG be a graph of Euler genus γ\gamma, and let XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) with |X|2|X|\geqslant 2. Let Y:=N_G(X)Y:=N_{\_}G(X) and Z:=V(G)(XY)Z:=V(G)\setminus(X\cup Y). Assume that |N_2G(v)X|2|N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X|\geqslant 2 for every vertex vZv\in Z, and that N_2G(v)XN_2G(w)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X\neq N^{2}_{\_}G(w)\cap X for all distinct v,wZv,w\in Z. Then |Z|(60γ2+125γ+67)(|X|2)+1|Z|\leqslant(60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+67)(|X|-2)+1.

Proof.

We prove that |Z|c(|X|2)+1|Z|\leqslant c(|X|-2)+1 by induction on |Y||Y|, where c:=60γ2+125γ+67c:=60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+67. (This choice of cc will become clear at the end of the proof.) In the base case, if |X|=2|X|=2 then |Z|1=c(|X|2)+1|Z|\leqslant 1=c(|X|-2)+1. Now assume that |X|3|X|\geqslant 3. We may assume that each of XX, YY and ZZ are independent sets.

First suppose that there is a set Y_0YY_{\_}0\subseteq Y and distinct vertices x_1,x_2Xx_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\in X such that |Y_0|2γ+2|Y_{\_}0|\geqslant 2\gamma+2 and N_G(y)X={x_1,x_2}N_{\_}G(y)\cap X=\{x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\} for each yYy\in Y. Thus G[{x_1,x_2}Y_0]G[\{x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\}\cup Y_{\_}0] contains a K_2,2γ+2K_{\_}{2,2\gamma+2} subgraph. By Lemma 15, there is a contractible 4-cycle C=(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)C=(x_{\_}1,y_{\_}1,x_{\_}2,y_{\_}2) in GG, for some y_1,y_2Y_0y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\in Y_{\_}0.

Thus G=G_1G_2G=G_{\_}1\cup G_{\_}2 for some induced subgraphs G_1G_{\_}1 and G_2G_{\_}2 of GG with G_1G_2=CG_{\_}1\cap G_{\_}2=C, where CC is the boundary of a face of both G_1G_{\_}1 and G_2G_{\_}2. Let GG^{\prime} be the graph obtained from G_1G_{\_}1 by identifying y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2 into a vertex yy^{\prime}. Let G′′G^{\prime\prime} be the graph obtained from G_2G_{\_}2 by identifying y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2 into a vertex y′′y^{\prime\prime}. Since y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2 are on a common face before their identification, GG^{\prime} and G′′G^{\prime\prime} have Euler genus at most gg.

Let X:=V(G)XX^{\prime}:=V(G^{\prime})\cap X and X′′:=V(G′′)XX^{\prime\prime}:=V(G^{\prime\prime})\cap X. Note that XX′′={x_1,x_2}X^{\prime}\cap X^{\prime\prime}=\{x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\}. Let Y:=(V(G)Y){y}Y^{\prime}:=(V(G^{\prime})\cap Y)\cup\{y^{\prime}\} and Y′′:=(V(G′′)Y){y′′}Y^{\prime\prime}:=(V(G^{\prime\prime})\cap Y)\cup\{y^{\prime\prime}\}. Note that |Y|<|Y||Y^{\prime}|<|Y| and |Y′′|<|Y||Y^{\prime\prime}|<|Y|. Let Z:=V(G)ZZ^{\prime}:=V(G^{\prime})\cap Z and Z′′:=V(G′′)ZZ^{\prime\prime}:=V(G^{\prime\prime})\cap Z. Note that ZZ^{\prime} and Z′′Z^{\prime\prime} partition ZZ.

We claim that |N_2G(v)X|2|N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime}|\geqslant 2 for each vZv\in Z^{\prime}. Suppose that |N_2G(v)X|1|N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime}|\leqslant 1. Then there is a vertex from N_2G(v)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X in G′′V(G)G^{\prime\prime}-V(G^{\prime}). Since CC is separating, vv is adjacent to y_1y_{\_}1 or y_2y_{\_}2 in GG, implying x_1,x_2N_2G(v)x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\in N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v) and |N_2G(v)X|2|N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime}|\geqslant 2, as desired. Similarly, |N_2G′′(v)X′′|2|N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime\prime}|\geqslant 2 for each vZ′′v\in Z^{\prime\prime}.

Since N_G(y)X=N_G(y_1)X=N_G(y_2)X={x_1,x_2}N_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(y^{\prime})\cap X^{\prime}=N_{\_}G(y_{\_}1)\cap X=N_{\_}G(y_{\_}2)\cap X=\{x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\}, we have N_2G(v)X=N_2G(v)XN^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime}=N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X for every vZv\in Z^{\prime}. Hence N_2G(v)XN_2G(w)XN^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime}\neq N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime}}(w)\cap X^{\prime} for distinct vertices v,wZv,w\in Z^{\prime}. Similarly, N_2G′′(v)X′′N_2G′′(w)X′′N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime\prime}\neq N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(w)\cap X^{\prime\prime} for distinct vertices v,wZ′′v,w\in Z^{\prime\prime}.

By assumption, there is at most one vertex vZv\in Z with N_2G(v)X=N_G(y_1)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X=N_{\_}G(y_{\_}1)\cap X. Without loss of generality, if such a vertex vv exists, then vv is not in Z′′Z^{\prime\prime}. Add a new vertex zz to Z′′Z^{\prime\prime} and to G′′G^{\prime\prime} only adjacent to y′′y^{\prime\prime} in G′′G^{\prime\prime}. Then x_1,x_2N_2G′′(z)X′′x_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\in N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(z)\cap X^{\prime\prime} and |N_2G′′(z)X′′|2|N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(z)\cap X^{\prime\prime}|\geqslant 2 as required. If N_2G′′(z)X′′=N_2G′′(v)X′′N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(z)\cap X^{\prime\prime}=N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime\prime} for some vertex vZ′′{z}v\in Z^{\prime\prime}\setminus\{z\}, then N_2G′′(v)X′′=N_2G′′(z)X′′=N_G(y_1)N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime\prime}=N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(z)\cap X^{\prime\prime}=N_{\_}G(y_{\_}1), which contradicts the above property of Z′′Z^{\prime\prime}. Hence N_2G′′(z)X′′N_2G′′(v)X′′N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(z)\cap X^{\prime\prime}\neq N^{2}_{\_}{G^{\prime\prime}}(v)\cap X^{\prime\prime} for every vertex vZ′′{z}v\in Z^{\prime\prime}\setminus\{z\}.

Now |Z_1|+|Z_2|=|Z|+1|Z_{\_}1|+|Z_{\_}2|=|Z|+1. We have shown that XX^{\prime}, YY^{\prime} and ZZ^{\prime} satisfy the assumptions of the inductive hypothesis within GG^{\prime}. Since |Y|<|Y||Y^{\prime}|<|Y|, by induction, |Z|c(|X|2)+1|Z^{\prime}|\leqslant c(|X^{\prime}|-2)+1. Similarly, |Z′′|c(|X′′|2)+1|Z^{\prime\prime}|\leqslant c(|X^{\prime\prime}|-2)+1. Hence

|Z|=|Z|+|Z′′|1\displaystyle|Z|\,=\,|Z^{\prime}|+|Z^{\prime\prime}|-1 c(|X|2)+1+c(|X′′|2)+11\displaystyle\leqslant c(|X^{\prime}|-2)+1+c(|X^{\prime\prime}|-2)+1-1
=c(|X|+|X′′|4)+1\displaystyle=c(|X^{\prime}|+|X^{\prime\prime}|-4)+1
=c(|X|2)+1,\displaystyle=c(|X|-2)+1,

as desired. Now assume that there are no such vertices x_1,x_2Xx_{\_}1,x_{\_}2\in X and set Y_0Y_{\_}0.

As illustrated in Figure 2, let Y1Y^{1} be the set of vertices in YY with exactly one neighbour in XX. Let Y_11,,Y_1pY^{1}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{1}_{\_}p be the partition of Y1Y^{1}, where for all vY_1iv\in Y^{1}_{\_}i and wY_1jw\in Y^{1}_{\_}j we have N_G(v)X=N_G(w)XN_{\_}G(v)\cap X=N_{\_}G(w)\cap X if and only if i=ji=j. Let y_1iy^{1}_{\_}i be a vertex in Y_1iY^{1}_{\_}i and let x_ix_{\_}i be the neighbour of y_1iy^{1}_{\_}i in XX.

Let Y2Y^{2} be the set of vertices in YY with exactly two neighbours in XX. Let Y_21,,Y_2qY^{2}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{2}_{\_}q be the partition of Y2Y^{2}, where for all vY_2iv\in Y^{2}_{\_}i and wY_2jw\in Y^{2}_{\_}j we have N_G(v)X=N_G(w)XN_{\_}G(v)\cap X=N_{\_}G(w)\cap X if and only if i=ji=j. As shown above, |Y_2i|2γ+1|Y^{2}_{\_}i|\leqslant 2\gamma+1 for each i{1,,q}i\in\{1,\dots,q\}. Let y_2iy^{2}_{\_}i be a vertex in Y_2iY^{2}_{\_}i.

Let Y3Y^{3} be the set of vertices in YY with at least three neighbours in XX. Let Y_31,,Y_3rY^{3}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{3}_{\_}r be the partition of Y3Y^{3}, where for all vY_3iv\in Y^{3}_{\_}i and wY_3jw\in Y^{3}_{\_}j we have N_G(v)X=N_G(w)XN_{\_}G(v)\cap X=N_{\_}G(w)\cap X if and only if i=ji=j. Since K_3,2γ+3K_{\_}{3,2\gamma+3} has Euler genus greater than γ\gamma, |Y_3i|2γ+2|Y^{3}_{\_}i|\leqslant 2\gamma+2 and |Y3|(2γ+2)r|Y^{3}|\leqslant(2\gamma+2)r. Let y_3iy^{3}_{\_}i be a vertex in Y_3iY^{3}_{\_}i.

By construction, the vertices y_11,,y_1p,y_21,,y_2q,y_31,,y_3ry^{1}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{1}_{\_}p,y^{2}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{2}_{\_}q,y^{3}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{3}_{\_}r have pairwise distinct non-empty neighbourhoods in XX. By Lemma 13 applied to the bipartite graph between XX and {y_11,,y_1p,y_21,,y_2q,y_31,,y_3r}\{y^{1}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{1}_{\_}p,y^{2}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{2}_{\_}q,y^{3}_{\_}1,\dots,y^{3}_{\_}r\}, we have p+q+r(6|X|+5γ9)1=6|X|+5γ10p+q+r\leqslant(6|X|+5\gamma-9)-1=6|X|+5\gamma-10. In fact, p|X|p\leqslant|X| and q+r5|X|+5γ10q+r\leqslant 5|X|+5\gamma-10.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) The sets X,Y_11,,Y_1p,Y_21,,Y_2q,Y_31,,Y_3r,ZX,Y^{1}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{1}_{\_}p,Y^{2}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{2}_{\_}q,Y^{3}_{\_}1,\dots,Y^{3}_{\_}r,Z in GG. (b) The graph HH.

Let HH be the graph obtained from GG as follows: delete X{x_1,,x_p}X\setminus\{x_{\_}1,\dots,x_{\_}p\}, delete any edges between {x_1,,x_p}\{x_{\_}1,\dots,x_{\_}p\} and Y2Y3Y^{2}\cup Y^{3}, and for each i{1,,p}i\in\{1,\dots,p\} contract {x_i}Y_1i\{x_{\_}i\}\cup Y^{1}_{\_}i (which induces a star) into a new vertex h_ih_{\_}i. Note that HH is bipartite and planar, with one colour class ZZ and the other colour class {h_1,,h_p}Y2Y3\{h_{\_}1,\dots,h_{\_}p\}\cup Y^{2}\cup Y^{3}, which has size at most

p+|Y2|+|Y3|p+(2γ+1)q+(2γ+2)rp+(2γ+2)(q+r)|X|+(2γ+2)(5|X|+5γ10).p+|Y^{2}|+|Y^{3}|\leqslant p+(2\gamma+1)q+(2\gamma+2)r\leqslant p+(2\gamma+2)(q+r)\leqslant|X|+(2\gamma+2)(5|X|+5\gamma-10).

For each vZv\in Z,

N_2G(v)X={x_i:h_iN_H(v)}(_uN_H(v){h_1,,h_p}N_G(u)X).N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X=\{x_{\_}i:h_{\_}i\in N_{\_}H(v)\}\cup\Big{(}\bigcup_{\_}{u\in N_{\_}H(v)\setminus\{h_{\_}1,\dots,h_{\_}p\}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!N_{\_}G(u)\cap X\Big{)}.

Thus N_2G(v)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X is determined by N_H(v)N_{\_}H(v). For all distinct v,wZv,w\in Z, since N_2G(v)XN_2G(w)XN^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X\neq N^{2}_{\_}G(w)\cap X, we have N_H(v)N_H(w)N_{\_}H(v)\neq N_{\_}H(w). By Lemma 13 applied to HH,

|Z|6(p+|Y2|+|Y3|)+5γ106(|X|+(2γ+2)(5|X|+5γ10))+5γ10c(|X|2)+1,|Z|\leqslant 6(p+|Y^{2}|+|Y^{3}|)+5\gamma-10\leqslant 6\big{(}|X|+(2\gamma+2)(5|X|+5\gamma-10)\big{)}+5\gamma-10\leqslant c(|X|-2)+1,

since |X|3|X|\geqslant 3. Indeed, cc is defined so that this final inequality holds. ∎

Lemma 17.

Let f:f:\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N} be a function and let 𝒢\mathcal{G} be a monotone class, such that for every G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G} and XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) and ZV(G)N_G[X]Z\subseteq V(G)\setminus N_{\_}G[X],

|{N_2G(v)X:vZ}|f(|X|).|\{N^{2}_{\_}G(v)\cap X:v\in Z\}|\leqslant f(|X|).

Then π_2G(X)π_1G(X)f(|X|)\pi^{2}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\,f(|X|).

Proof.

Let s:=π_1G(X)s:=\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X) and t:=f(|X|)t:=f(|X|). Let Y:=V(G)XY:=V(G)\setminus X. Let Y_1,,Y_sY_{\_}1,\dots,Y_{\_}s be a partition of YY where v,wY_iv,w\in Y_{\_}i if and only if N_G(v)X=N_G(w)XN_{\_}G(v)\cap X=N_{\_}G(w)\cap X. For each i{1,,s}i\in\{1,\ldots,s\}, let G_iG_{\_}i be the graph obtained from GG by deleting the edges between Y_iY_{\_}i and XX. Since 𝒢\mathcal{G} is monotone, G_i𝒢G_{\_}i\in\mathcal{G}, implying |{N_2G_i(v)X:vY_i}|t|\{N^{2}_{\_}{G_{\_}i}(v)\cap X:v\in Y_{\_}i\}|\leqslant t. Let Y_i,1,,Y_i,tY_{\_}{i,1},\dots,Y_{\_}{i,t} be a partition of Y_iY_{\_}i where v,wY_i,jv,w\in Y_{\_}{i,j} if and only if N_2G_i(v)X=N_2G_i(w)XN^{2}_{\_}{G_{\_}i}(v)\cap X=N^{2}_{\_}{G_{\_}i}(w)\cap X. It follows that for each i{1,,s}i\in\{1,\ldots,s\} and j{1,,t}j\in\{1,\ldots,t\}, we have π_2G(v,X)=π_2G(w,X)\pi_{\_}2^{G}(v,X)=\pi_{\_}2^{G}(w,X) for all v,wY_i,jv,w\in Y_{\_}{i,j}. Thus π_2G(X)st\pi^{2}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant st, as desired. ∎

Lemmas 13, 14 and 17 imply the following bound on π_2G\pi^{2}_{\_}G for graphs of given Euler genus.

Corollary 18.

For every graph GG of Euler genus γ\gamma and for every set XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) with |X|2|X|\geqslant 2,

π_2G(X)(6|X|+5γ9)((60γ2+125γ+68)|X|120γ2250γ132).\pi^{2}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant(6|X|+5\gamma-9)((60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+68)|X|-120\gamma^{2}-250\gamma-132).

4 Bounded Row Treewidth Classes

This section presents upper bounds on reduced bandwidth and twin-width for powers of graphs with bounded row-treewidth, which includes planar graphs, graphs with Euler genus γ\gamma, (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar graphs, and map graphs. The heart of the proof is Lemma 19 below, which depends on the following definition. As illustrated in Figure 3, for x,qx,q\in\mathbb{N} with q2q\geqslant 2, let S_x,qS^{*}_{\_}{x,q} be the graph where:

  • V(S_x,q)V(S^{*}_{\_}{x,q}) is the disjoint union of sets Q,A_1,,A_x,B_1,,B_x,C_1,,C_xQ,A_{\_}1,\dots,A_{\_}x,B_{\_}1,\dots,B_{\_}x,C_{\_}1,\dots,C_{\_}x with |Q|=2q1|Q|=2q-1 and |A_i|=|B_i|=|C_i|=q|A_{\_}i|=|B_{\_}i|=|C_{\_}i|=q for all i{1,,x}i\in\{1,\dots,x\}, and

  • QA_1Q\cup A_{\_}1 is a clique, QB_1Q\cup B_{\_}1 is a clique, QC_1Q\cup C_{\_}1 is a clique, and for all {1,,x1}\in\{1,\dots,x-1\}, A_iA_i+1A_{\_}i\cup A_{\_}{i+1} is a clique, B_iB_i+1B_{\_}i\cup B_{\_}{i+1} is a clique, and C_iC_i+1C_{\_}i\cup C_{\_}{i+1} is a clique.

For x,q,rx,q,r\in\mathbb{N} with q2q\geqslant 2, let S_x,q,rS_{\_}{x,q,r} be the graph obtained from (S_x,q)r(S^{*}_{\_}{x,q})^{r} by removing all edges between B_1B_xB_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup B_{\_}x and C_1C_xC_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup C_{\_}x. We call QQ the center of S_x,q,rS_{\_}{x,q,r}. Note that the vertices in QQ have maximum degree in S_x,q,rS_{\_}{x,q,r}. Thus

Δ(S_x,q,r)(3r+2)q2.\Delta(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant(3r+2)q-2. (1)

Considering the vertex-ordering A_x,A_x1,,A_1,Q,B_1,C_1,B_2,C_2,,B_x,C_xA_{\_}x,A_{\_}{x-1},\dots,A_{\_}1,Q,B_{\_}1,C_{\_}1,B_{\_}2,C_{\_}2,\dots,B_{\_}x,C_{\_}x we see that

bw(S_x,q,r)|Q|+_i=1r(|B_i|+|C_i|)1=(2q1)+2qr1=(2r+2)q2.\operatorname{bw}(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant|Q|+\sum_{\_}{i=1}^{r}(|B_{\_}i|+|C_{\_}i|)-1=(2q-1)+2qr-1=(2r+2)q-2. (2)

Refer to caption

Figure 3: An illustration of S_x,qS_{\_}{x,q}^{*}.
Lemma 19.

Let k,q,rk,q,r\in\mathbb{N} with qk+1q\geqslant k+1. Let ff be a monotone and union-closed graph parameter and let g:×g:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} be a function such that f(S_x,q,r)g(q,r)f(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant g(q,r) for all xx\in\mathbb{N}. Let PP be a path and let HH be a graph admitting a (k,q)(k,q)-rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}). Let FF be a trigraph with V(F)V(HP)V(F)\subseteq V(H\boxtimes P) such that:

  • (red edge condition) for every red edge vwvw of FF, there is a leaf bag BB with parent BB^{\prime} in (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) such that v,w(BB)×V(P)v,w\in(B\setminus B^{\prime})\times V(P);

  • (separation condition) for every rooted separation (C,D)(C,D) of HH from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) and every zV(P)z\in V(P), we have |{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((CD)×{z})V(F)}|q\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D\times V(P)):v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\leqslant q; and

  • (neighbourhood condition) for every zV(P)z\in V(P) and v(V(H)×{z})V(F)v\in(V(H)\times\{z\})\cap V(F), we have N_F[v]V(H)×N_rP[z]N_{\_}{F}[v]\subseteq V(H)\times N^{r}_{\_}P[z].

Then f(F)g(q,r){f}^{\downarrow}(F)\leqslant g(q,r).

Proof.

We may assume that V(F)=V(HP)V(F)=V(H\boxtimes P) because adding isolated vertices preserves the above three conditions and f(F){f}^{\downarrow}(F). Say P=(w_1,w_2,,w_)P=(w_{\_}1,w_{\_}2,\dots,w_{\_}{\ell}). Let 𝒯:=(T,)\mathcal{T}:=(T,\mathcal{B}) and let RR be the root bag of 𝒯\mathcal{T}. We proceed by induction on the number of bags of 𝒯\mathcal{T}. Since the root bag is empty, 𝒯\mathcal{T} has at least two bags.

First suppose that 𝒯\mathcal{T} consists of exactly two bags. Since (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) is (k,q)(k,q)-rooted, |V(H)|q|V(H)|\leqslant q. By the neighbourhood condition, the underlying graph of FF is isomorphic to a subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}. By assumption, f(S_,q,r)g(q,r)f(S_{\_}{\ell,q,r})\leqslant g(q,r), and since ff is monotone, for every subgraph YY of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}, f(Y)g(q,r)f(Y)\leqslant g(q,r). We obtain a reduction sequence of FF as follows. For i=1,,1i=1,\dots,\ell-1, arbitrarily identify V(H)×{w_i}V(H)\times\{w_{\_}i\} into a vertex, and then identify the resulting vertex with a vertex in V(H)×{w_i+1}V(H)\times\{w_{\_}{i+1}\}. Lastly, we identify V(H)×{w_}V(H)\times\{w_{\_}\ell\} into a vertex. The underlying graph of every trigraph in this reduction sequence is isomorphic to a subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}, which shows that f(F)g(q,r){f}^{\downarrow}(F)\leqslant g(q,r).

Now assume that 𝒯\mathcal{T} has at least three bags. Let BB be an internal bag at maximum distance in 𝒯\mathcal{T} from RR. So all the children of BB are leaf bags. If B=RB=R, then let Y:=Y:=\emptyset; otherwise, let Y:=BBY:=B\cap B^{\prime} where BB^{\prime} is the parent of BB.

First suppose that BB has at least two child bags QQ and QQ^{\prime}. If |(QQ)B|q\lvert(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B\rvert\leqslant q, then we obtain a tree-decomposition from 𝒯\mathcal{T} by removing QQ and QQ^{\prime} and attaching a leaf bag QQQ\cup Q^{\prime} to BB. This results in a new tree-decomposition that satisfies the given conditions and has one fewer bag. So we are done by induction. Now assume that |(QQ)B|>q\lvert(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B\rvert>q.

Since (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) is (k,q)(k,q)-rooted, |(QQ)B|2q\lvert(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B\rvert\leqslant 2q. Furthermore, since V(F)=V(HP)V(F)=V(H\boxtimes P), for each wV(P)w\in V(P), we have |((QQ)B)×{w}|=|(QQ)B|>q\lvert((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w\}\rvert=\lvert(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B\rvert>q. Let C:=QQBC:=Q\cup Q^{\prime}\cup B and D:=(V(H)(QQ))BD:=(V(H)\setminus(Q\cup Q^{\prime}))\cup B. Note that (C,D)(C,D) is a rooted separation of HH at BB. By the separation condition, for each wV(P)w\in V(P),

|{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((CD)×{w})V(F)}|q.\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D\times V(P)):v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{w\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\leqslant q.

So, for each wV(P)w\in V(P), there are distinct vertices yy and zz in ((QQ)B)×{w}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w\} having the same neighbourhood on D×V(P)D\times V(P).

For i=1,2,,i=1,2,\dots,\ell, reduce ((QQ)B)×{w_i}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}i\} into a set of qq vertices, by repeatedly choosing two vertices having the same neighbourhood on D×V(P)D\times V(P). Note that we create no red edge incident with D×V(P)D\times V(P).

Suppose that UU is the red graph constructed immediately after identifying some vertices of ((QQ)B)×{w_i}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}i\} for some ii. We claim that f(U)g(q,r)f(U)\leqslant g(q,r).

Refer to caption

Figure 4: Identifications on _j{1,2,,}((QQ)B)×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\}, when r=1r=1.

For each j<ij<i, ((QQ)B)×{w_j}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\} has been identified to a set of qq vertices, say W_jW_{\_}j. For each j>ij>i, (QB)×{w_j}(Q\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\} and (QB)×{w_j}(Q^{\prime}\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\} are not yet identified, and so there are only black edges between _j>i(QB)×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j>i}(Q\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\} and _j>i(QB)×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j>i}(Q^{\prime}\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\} by the red edge condition. Also, ((QQ)B)×{w_i}((Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}i\} has been identified to at most 2q12q-1 vertices, because at least one pair of vertices is identified. Call it W_iW_{\_}i. See Figure 4 for an illustration.

Let

A_1:=_jiW_i(_j>i(QB)×{w_j})(_j>i(QB)×{w_j}),A_{\_}1:=\bigcup_{\_}{j\leqslant i}W_{\_}i\cup\left(\bigcup_{\_}{j>i}(Q\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\}\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{\_}{j>i}(Q^{\prime}\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}j\}\right),

and let A_2:=V(U)A_1A_{\_}2:=V(U)\setminus A_{\_}1. Observe that A_2=D×V(P)A_{\_}2=D\times V(P). Since we create no red edge incident with D×V(P)D\times V(P) during the identifications, there is no edge between A_1A_{\_}1 and A_2A_{\_}2 in UU. Furthermore, by the red edge condition and the neighbourhood condition, for each component of U[A_2]U[A_{\_}2], its underlying graph is a subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}. Thus, f(U[A_2])g(q,r)f(U[A_{\_}2])\leqslant g(q,r). Also, the underlying graph of U[A_1]U[A_{\_}1] is a subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r} where W_iW_{\_}i is a subset of the center of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}. So, f(U[A_1])g(q,r)f(U[A_{\_}1])\leqslant g(q,r). Since ff is union-closed, f(U)g(q,r)f(U)\leqslant g(q,r).

Now we explain how to apply the induction hypothesis to the resulting trigraph. Let FF^{\prime} be the resulting trigraph. Let HH^{\prime} be the graph obtained from HH by removing (QQ)B(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B and adding a clique ZZ of size qq that is complete to BB. We obtain a tree-decomposition (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) of HH^{\prime} from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) by removing bags QQ and QQ^{\prime}, and adding a new bag ZBZ\cup B incident with BB (and |(ZB)B|q|(Z\cup B)\setminus B|\leqslant q as desired). Observe that FF^{\prime} is a trigraph with V(F)V(HP)V(F^{\prime})\subseteq V(H^{\prime}\boxtimes P) satisfying the red edge and neighbourhood conditions.

We verify that FF^{\prime}, HH^{\prime}, and (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) satisfy the separation condition. Let (C,D)(C^{\prime},D^{\prime}) be a rooted separation of FF^{\prime} of HH^{\prime} from (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}), and let zV(P)z\in V(P).

Case 1. ZCZ\subseteq C^{\prime}:

Let (C_pre,D)(C_{\_}{pre},D^{\prime}) be the rooted separation of HH obtained from (C,D)(C^{\prime},D^{\prime}) by removing ZZ from CC^{\prime} and adding (QQ)B(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B. Since we identified two vertices in (C_preD)×{z}(C_{\_}{pre}\setminus D^{\prime})\times\{z\} that have the same neighbourhood on D×V(P)D^{\prime}\times V(P),

|{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((CD)×{z})V(F)}|\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F^{\prime}}(v)\cap(D^{\prime}\times V(P)):v\in((C^{\prime}\setminus D^{\prime})\times\{z\})\cap V(F^{\prime})\right\}\right|
\displaystyle\leqslant |{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((C_preD)×{z})V(F)}|q.\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D^{\prime}\times V(P)):v\in((C_{\_}{pre}\setminus D^{\prime})\times\{z\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\leqslant q.

Case 2. ZDZ\subseteq D^{\prime}:

Let (C,D_pre)(C^{\prime},D_{\_}{pre}) be the rooted separation of HH obtained from (C,D)(C^{\prime},D^{\prime}) by removing ZZ from DD^{\prime} and adding (QQ)B(Q\cup Q^{\prime})\setminus B. Again, since we identified two vertices in (D_preC)×{z}(D_{\_}{pre}\setminus C^{\prime})\times\{z\} that have the same neighbourhood on C×V(P)C^{\prime}\times V(P),

|{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((CD)×{z})V(F)}|\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F^{\prime}}(v)\cap(D^{\prime}\times V(P)):v\in((C^{\prime}\setminus D^{\prime})\times\{z\})\cap V(F^{\prime})\right\}\right|
\displaystyle\leqslant |{N_F(v)(D_pre×V(P)):v((CD_pre)×{z})V(F)}|q.\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D_{\_}{pre}\times V(P)):v\in((C^{\prime}\setminus D_{\_}{pre})\times\{z\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\leqslant q.

Thus, FF^{\prime}, HH^{\prime}, and (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) satisfy the separation condition.

Since (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) has one fewer bag than (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}), by induction, there is a reduction sequence LL^{\prime} of FF^{\prime}, where for every trigraph GG in LL^{\prime}, f(G~)g(q,r)f(\widetilde{G})\leqslant g(q,r). Together with the partial reduction sequence producing FF^{\prime} from FF, this gives the desired reduction sequence for FF.

To finish the proof, it remains to consider the case in which BB has exactly one child bag QQ. Since 𝒯\mathcal{T} has at least three bags, BB has its parent BB^{\prime} and Y=BBY=B\cap B^{\prime}. Now, (BQ)Y(B\cup Q)\setminus Y has at most q+k+12qq+k+1\leqslant 2q vertices, and we can do the same procedure in Cases 1 or 2 to reduce ((BQ)Y)×{w}((B\cup Q)\setminus Y)\times\{w\} (for each wV(P)w\in V(P)) to a set of at most qq vertices by identifying two vertices having the same neighbourhood on _j{1,2,,}Y×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}}Y\times\{w_{\_}j\}. This will correspond to vertices of HH forming one bag with YY. Note that at the beginning, all edges between _j{1,2,,}((BQ)Y)×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}}((B\cup Q)\setminus Y)\times\{w_{\_}j\} and _j{1,2,,}Y×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}}Y\times\{w_{\_}j\} are black. So, the underlying graphs of red graphs constructed from _j{1,2,,}((BQ)Y)×{w_j}\bigcup_{\_}{j\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\}}((B\cup Q)\setminus Y)\times\{w_{\_}j\} will be subgraphs of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}.

Let FF^{\prime} be the resulting trigraph. Let HH^{\prime} be the graph obtained from HH by removing (BQ)Y(B\cup Q)\setminus Y and adding a clique ZZ of size qq that is complete to YY. We obtain a tree-decomposition (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) of HH^{\prime} from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) by removing bags QQ and BB, and adding a new bag ZYZ\cup Y incident with BB^{\prime} (and |ZB|q|Z\setminus B^{\prime}|\leqslant q as desired). It is not difficult to see that F,H,(𝒯,)F^{\prime},H^{\prime},(\mathcal{T}^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) satisfy the red edge, separation, and neighbourhood conditions. So, we can apply induction, which completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

We now rewrite Lemma 19 in a more useful form.

Lemma 20.

Let k,r,πk,r,\pi^{*}\in\mathbb{N}. Let GG be a graph with row-treewidth kk, such that π_rG(X)π\pi^{r}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\pi^{*} for every set XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) with |X|(2r+1)(k+1)|X|\leqslant(2r+1)(k+1). Then

bw(Gr)(2r+2)π2andtww(Gr)(3r+2)π2.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant(2r+2)\pi^{*}-2\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{r})\leqslant(3r+2)\pi^{*}-2.
Proof.

We may assume that GHPG\subseteq H\boxtimes P, where tw(H)k\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant k and PP is a path. We now show that Lemma 19 is applicable, where FF is the trigraph obtained from GrG^{r} with no red edges. The red edge condition holds trivially.

Consider a rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) of HH with width at most kk. Let (C,D)(C,D) be a rooted separation of (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}). Consider zV(P)z\in V(P) and v((CD)×{z})V(F)v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(F). Every path in GG from vv to D×V(P)D\times V(P) with length at most rr must intersect (CD)×N_rP[z](C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}P[z]. Thus N_F(v)(D×V(P))N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D\times V(P)) is determined by the distance-rr profile of vv on (CD)×N_rP[z](C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}{P}[z], which has at most (2r+1)(k+1)(2r+1)(k+1) vertices. Thus

|{N_F(v)(D×V(P)):v((CD)×{z})V(F)}|π_rG((CD)×N_rP[z])π.\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap(D\times V(P)):v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\,\leqslant\,\pi^{r}_{\_}G((C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}{P}[z])\,\leqslant\,\pi^{*}.

Hence the separation condition in Lemma 19 holds with q=πq=\pi^{*}. The neighbourhood condition holds since N_F[v]=N_rG[v]N_{\_}F[v]=N^{r}_{\_}G[v] and GHPG\subseteq H\boxtimes P.

For the upper bound on bw{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}, we may apply Lemma 19 with f=bwf=\operatorname{bw} and g(q,r)=(2r+2)q2g(q,r)=(2r+2)q-2 by Equation 2. Thus bw(G)g(q,r)=(2r+2)π2{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant g(q,r)=(2r+2)\pi^{*}-2.

For the upper bound on tww\operatorname{tww}, we may apply Lemma 19 with f=Δf=\Delta and g(q,r)=(3r+2)q2g(q,r)=(3r+2)q-2 by Equation 1. Thus tww(G)g(q,r)=(3r+2)π2\operatorname{tww}(G)\leqslant g(q,r)=(3r+2)\pi^{*}-2. ∎

Since π_rG(A)(r+1)|A|\pi^{r}_{\_}G(A)\leqslant(r+1)^{|A|}, Lemma 20 is applicable with π=(r+1)(2r+1)(k+1)\pi^{*}=(r+1)^{(2r+1)(k+1)}. Thus:

Corollary 21.

For every graph GG with row-treewidth kk and for rr\in\mathbb{N},

bw(Gr)2(r+1)(2r+1)(k+1)+12andtww(Gr)(3r+2)(r+1)(2r+1)(k+1)2.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant 2(r+1)^{(2r+1)(k+1)+1}-2\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{r})\leqslant(3r+2)(r+1)^{(2r+1)(k+1)}-2.

Corollaries 21 and 2 imply:

Corollary 22.

For every graph GG with Euler genus γ\gamma and for rr\in\mathbb{N},

bw(Gr)2(r+1)(2r+1)(2γ+7)+12andtww(Gr)(3r+2)(r+1)(2r+1)(2γ+7)2.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant 2(r+1)^{(2r+1)(2\gamma+7)+1}-2\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{r})\leqslant(3r+2)(r+1)^{(2r+1)(2\gamma+7)}-2.

In particular, for every planar graph GG and rr\in\mathbb{N},

bw(Gr)2(r+1)14r+82andtww(Gr)(3r+2)(r+1)14r+72.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant 2(r+1)^{14r+8}-2\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{r})\leqslant(3r+2)(r+1)^{14r+7}-2.

Applying the neighbourhood complexity bounds from Section 3.1 we obtain the following improved bounds in the r=1r=1 case.

Theorem 23.

For every graph GG with Euler genus γ\gamma,

bw(G)164γ+466andtww(G)205γ+583.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 164\gamma+466\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G)\leqslant 205\gamma+583.

In particular, for every planar graph GG,

bw(G)466andtww(G)583.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 466\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G)\leqslant 583.
Proof.

By Theorem 2, GG has row-treewidth at most k:=2γ+6k:=2\gamma+6. By Lemma 13, for every XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) we have π_1G(X)max{4,6|X|+5γ9}\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\max\{4,6|X|+5\gamma-9\}, which is at most 41γ+11741\gamma+117 when |X|3(k+1)=6γ+21|X|\leqslant 3(k+1)=6\gamma+21. The result thus follows from Lemma 20 with r=1r=1 and π=41γ+117\pi^{*}=41\gamma+117. ∎

Theorem 24.

For every graph GG with row-treewidth kk and col_5(G)c\operatorname{col}_{\_}5(G)\leqslant c,

bw(Gr)5min{2c1(3kc+1),23(k+1)}andtww(Gr)8min{2c1(3kc+1),23(k+1)}{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant 5\min\{2^{c-1}(3k-c+1),2^{3(k+1)}\}\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{r})\leqslant 8\min\{2^{c-1}(3k-c+1),2^{3(k+1)}\}
Proof.

By Lemma 8, for every XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) we have π_1G(X)min{2c1(|X|c+2),2|X|}\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\min\{2^{c-1}(|X|-c+2),2^{|X|}\}, which is at most min{2c1(3kc+1),23(k+1)}\min\{2^{c-1}(3k-c+1),2^{3(k+1)}\} when |X|3(k+1)|X|\leqslant 3(k+1). The result thus follows from Lemma 20 with r=1r=1 and π=min{2c1(3kc+1),23(k+1)}\pi^{*}=\min\{2^{c-1}(3k-c+1),2^{3(k+1)}\}. ∎

Theorem 25.

Every (γ,k)(\gamma,k)-planar graph GG has reduced bandwidth,

bw(G)2O(γk).{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant 2^{O(\gamma k)}.
Proof.

By Theorem 4, GG has row-treewidth O(γk6)O(\gamma k^{6}). By Lemma 9, for every XV(G)X\subseteq V(G) we have π_1G(X)222(2γ+3)(k+1)1|X|\pi^{1}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant 2^{22(2\gamma+3)(k+1)-1}|X|, which is in 2O(γk)2^{O(\gamma k)} when |X|O(γk6)|X|\in O(\gamma k^{6}). The result thus follows from Lemma 20 with r=1r=1 and π=2O(γk)\pi^{*}=2^{O(\gamma k)}. ∎

We have the following result for squares of graphs of given Euler genus.

Theorem 26.

For every graph GG of Euler genus γ\gamma,

bw(G2)\displaystyle{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{2}) 234000γ4+1983300γ3+5769330γ2+6671550γ+2711084and\displaystyle\leqslant 234000\gamma^{4}+1983300\gamma^{3}+5769330\gamma^{2}+6671550\gamma+2711084\quad\text{and}
tww(G2)\displaystyle\operatorname{tww}(G^{2}) 312000γ4+2644400γ3+7692440γ2+8895400γ+3614782.\displaystyle\leqslant 312000\gamma^{4}+2644400\gamma^{3}+7692440\gamma^{2}+8895400\gamma+3614782.

In particular, for every planar graph GG,

bw(G2)2711084andtww(G2)\displaystyle{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{2})\leqslant 2711084\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{tww}(G^{2}) 3614782.\displaystyle\leqslant 3614782.
Proof.

By Theorem 2, GG has row-treewidth at most k:=2γ+6k:=2\gamma+6. By Corollary 18, for every set XV(G)X\subseteq V(G),

π_2G(X)max{2,(6|X|+5γ9)((60γ2+125γ+68)|X|120γ2250γ132)}.\pi^{2}_{\_}G(X)\leqslant\max\{2,(6|X|+5\gamma-9)((60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+68)|X|-120\gamma^{2}-250\gamma-132)\}.

The result thus follows from Lemma 20 with r=2r=2 and

π\displaystyle\pi^{*} =(6(5(k+1))+5γ9)((60γ2+125γ+68)5(k+1)120γ2250γ132)\displaystyle=(6(5(k+1))+5\gamma-9)((60\gamma^{2}+125\gamma+68)5(k+1)-120\gamma^{2}-250\gamma-132)
=39000γ4+330550γ3+961555γ2+1111925γ+451848.\displaystyle=39000\gamma^{4}+330550\gamma^{3}+961555\gamma^{2}+1111925\gamma+451848.\qed

We now give an example of the application of Theorem 26. Map graphs are defined as follows. Start with a graph G_0G_{\_}0 embedded in a surface of Euler genus γ\gamma, with each face labelled a ‘nation’ (or a ‘lake’). Let GG be the graph whose vertices are the nations of G_0G_{\_}0, where two vertices are adjacent in GG if the corresponding faces in G_0G_{\_}0 share a vertex. Then GG is called a map graph of Euler genus γ\gamma. A map graph of Euler genus 0 is called a (plane) map graph; see [20, 13] for example. Map graphs generalise graphs embedded in surfaces, since a graph GG has Euler genus at most γ\gamma if and only if GG has a representation as a map graph of Euler genus at most γ\gamma with the extra property that each vertex of G_0G_{\_}0 is incident with at most three nations [16]. Our results for map graphs are independent of the number of nations incident to each vertex of G_0G_{\_}0. It follows from the definition that for each map graph GG of Euler genus γ\gamma, there is a bipartite graph HH with bipartition {A,B}\{A,B\}, such that HH has Euler genus at most γ\gamma and V(G)=AV(G)=A and vwE(G)vw\in E(G) whenever v,wN_H(b)v,w\in N_{\_}H(b) for some bBb\in B (see [16]); GG is called the half-square of HH. Note that GG is an induced subgraph of H2H^{2}. Since reduced bandwidth is hereditary888It is an easy exercise to show that f{f}^{\downarrow} is hereditary for every monotone graph parameter ff; see [9, Section 4.1] for a proof sketch in the case of twin-width., the results in Theorem 26 also hold for map graphs of Euler genus γ\gamma. We emphasise there is no dependence on the maximum degree (which is customary when considering map graphs).

The proof of Lemma 19 is constructive and the desired reduction sequence can be found in time O(|V(F)|2)O(|V(F)|^{2}) when HH and PP are given. For all the above examples, the graphs HH and PP can be found in O(|V(G)|2)O(|V(G)|^{2}) time; see [17, 36, 18, 12] for details and speed-ups. So the desired reduction sequence can be found in O(|V(G)|2)O(|V(G)|^{2}) time.

5 Proper Minor-Closed Classes

This section shows that fixed powers of graphs in any proper minor-closed class have bounded reduced bandwidth. To use the product structure theorem for K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graphs (Theorem 3), we first prove an upper bound on the reduced bandwidth of the rr-th power of a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a where HH has bounded treewidth, PP is a path, and aa\in\mathbb{N}. To do so, in Lemma 27 below we prove an extension of Lemma 19 that allows for apex vertices. Consider the rr-th power of a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a. There may exist an edge vwvw with v,wV(H)×V(P)v,w\in V(H)\times V(P) where the corresponding vertices in PP are far apart in PP, because there may exist a path of length at most rr through some vertices in K_aK_{\_}a. So the neighbourhood condition of Lemma 19 is no longer relevant. Instead, red edges are controlled by a new ‘red edge condition’, and black edges are controlled by two separation conditions. The second separation condition is necessary to deal with the base case when the tree-decomposition of HH has one non-empty bag.

Lemma 27.

Let a,k,q,ra,k,q,r\in\mathbb{N} with qk+1q\geqslant k+1. Let ff be a monotone and union-closed graph parameter and let g:×g:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} be a function such that f(S_x,q,r)g(q,r)f(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant g(q,r) for all xx\in\mathbb{N}. Let P=(w_1,w_2,,w_)P=(w_{\_}1,w_{\_}2,\dots,w_{\_}{\ell}) be a path and let HH be a graph admitting a (k,q)(k,q)-rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}). Let FF be a trigraph with V(F)V((HP)+K_a)V(F)\subseteq V((H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a) such that:

  • (red edge condition) for every red edge vwvw of FF, there is a leaf bag BB with parent BB^{\prime} in (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) and there are vertices x,yx,y in PP with dist_P(x,y)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}P(x,y)\leqslant r, such that v,w(BB)×{x,y}v,w\in(B\setminus B^{\prime})\times\{x,y\},

  • (first separation condition) for every rooted separation (C,D)(C,D) of HH from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) and every zV(P)z\in V(P),

    |{N_F(v)M_1:v((CD)×{z})V(F)}|q,\left|\left\{N_{\_}{F}(v)\cap M_{\_}1:v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(F)\right\}\right|\leqslant q,

    where M_1=(D×V(P))(C×(V(P)N_rP[z]))V(K_a)M_{\_}1=\Big{(}D\times V(P)\Big{)}\cup\Big{(}C\times(V(P)\setminus N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\Big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}a),

  • (second separation condition) for every t{1,,}t\in\{1,\ldots,\ell\},

    |{N_F(v)M_2:v(V(H)×{w_1,,w_t})V(F)}|q,|\{N_{\_}F(v)\cap M_{\_}2:v\in(V(H)\times\{w_{\_}1,\dots,w_{\_}t\})\cap V(F)\}|\leqslant q,

    where M_2=(V(H)×{w_t+r+1,,w_})V(K_a)M_{\_}2=\big{(}V(H)\times\{w_{\_}{t+r+1},\dots,w_{\_}\ell\}\big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}a).

Then:

  1. (1)

    there is a partial reduction sequence identifying (V(H)×V(P))V(F)(V(H)\times V(P))\cap V(F) into at most qq vertices such that for every trigraph GG in the sequence, GG has no red edge incident with V(K_a)V(K_{\_}a) and f(G~)g(q,r)f(\widetilde{G})\leqslant g(q,r), and

  2. (2)

    f(F)g(a+q,r){f}^{\downarrow}(F)\leqslant g(a+q,r).

Proof.

We identify the V(H)×V(P)V(H)\times V(P) part using a partial reduction sequence similar to the one in the proof of Lemma 19. The main difference in the induction step is that when we consider a rooted separation (C,D)(C,D) from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) and zV(P)z\in V(P), instead of choosing two vertices having the same neighbourhood on D×V(P)D\times V(P), here we choose two vertices having the same neighbourhood on

(D×V(P))(C×(V(P)N_rP[z]))V(K_a).\Big{(}D\times V(P)\Big{)}\cup\Big{(}C\times(V(P)\setminus N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\Big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}a).

This clearly preserves the new red edge and separation conditions. So, as in the proof of Lemma 19, choose an internal bag BB at maximum distance in (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) from the root bag. Then for i=1,2,,i=1,2,\dots,\ell, merge (QB)×{w_i}(Q\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}i\} and (QB)×{w_i}(Q^{\prime}\setminus B)\times\{w_{\_}i\} for each w_iV(P)w_{\_}i\in V(P) if BB has two child bags QQ and QQ^{\prime}, and otherwise, merge (BB)×{w_i}(B\setminus B^{\prime})\times\{w_{\_}i\} and (QB)×{w_i}(Q\setminus B^{\prime})\times\{w_{\_}i\} for the unique child QQ of BB and the parent BB^{\prime} of BB. Because of the choice of identified vertices, for each red component of an intermediate trigraph, its underlying graph is isomorphic to a subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r}, and has ff at most g(q,r)g(q,r).

Now, we consider the base case where (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) has two bags RR and BB, where RR is the empty root bag. We need a new argument for this case, because if we arbitrarily identify two vertices, then we may create some red edges between two vertices contained in V(H)×{x}V(H)\times\{x\} and V(H)×{y}V(H)\times\{y\} where xx and yy are far from each other in PP, and we cannot guarantee that the red graphs have bounded ff-values.

We prove by induction on \ell that there is a partial reduction sequence identifying (V(H)×V(P))V(F)(V(H)\times V(P))\cap V(F) into at most qq vertices, such that for every trigraph GG in the sequence,

  • GG has no red edge incident with V(K_a)V(K_{\_}a), and f(G~)g(q,r)f(\widetilde{G})\leqslant g(q,r).

We may assume that HH is a complete graph on qq vertices. If =1\ell=1, then V(H)×V(P)V(H)\times V(P) has at most qq vertices, and there is nothing to show.

We assume that >1\ell>1. If |(B×{w_1})(B×{w_2})|q|(B\times\{w_{\_}1\})\cup(B\times\{w_{\_}2\})|\leqslant q, then remove B×{w_1}B\times\{w_{\_}1\} and replace B×{w_2}B\times\{w_{\_}2\} with (B×{w_1})(B×{w_2})(B\times\{w_{\_}1\})\cup(B\times\{w_{\_}2\}). Thus we can reduce the length of PP, and are done by induction. Now assume that |(B×{w_1})(B×{w_2})|>q|(B\times\{w_{\_}1\})\cup(B\times\{w_{\_}2\})|>q. By the second separation condition, there are two vertices in (B×{w_1})(B×{w_2})(B\times\{w_{\_}1\})\cup(B\times\{w_{\_}2\}) that have the same neighbourhood on

M_2=(V(H)×{w_2+r+1,,w_})V(K_a)M_{\_}2=\big{(}V(H)\times\{w_{\_}{2+r+1},\dots,w_{\_}\ell\}\big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}a)

By repeatedly identifying two vertices having the same neighbourhoods on M_2M_{\_}2, we identify (B×{w_1})(B×{w_2})(B\times\{w_{\_}1\})\cup(B\times\{w_{\_}2\}) into at most qq vertices. In this way, we can reduce the length of PP, and we are done by induction. This proves (1).

For (2), observe that the statement (1) holds when we replace g(q,r)g(q,r) with g(a+q,r)g(a+q,r), because every subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r} is also a subgraph of S_,a+q,rS_{\_}{\ell,a+q,r}. We obtain the desired reduction sequence by arbitrarily identifying the resulting trigraph on at most a+qa+q vertices into a 1-vertex graph. ∎

We extend Lemma 27 to deal with the internal node case of the tree-decomposition of XX-minor free graphs. We now allow bags of size more than qq, and we start by identifying vertices corresponding to those bags. The first three conditions in Lemma 28 are the same as the conditions in Lemma 27. We use Lemma 27 as a base case.

Lemma 28.

Let a,k,q,r,ta,k,q,r,t\in\mathbb{N} with qk+1q\geqslant k+1. Let ff be a monotone and union-closed graph parameter. Let g:×g:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} be a function such that f(S_x,q,r)g(q,r)f(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant g(q,r) for all xx\in\mathbb{N}. Let P=(w_1,w_2,,w_)P=(w_{\_}1,w_{\_}2,\dots,w_{\_}{\ell}) be a path and let HH be a graph admitting a (k,)(k,\infty)-rooted tree-decomposition (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}). Let FF be a trigraph with V(F)V((HP)+K_a)V(F)\subseteq V((H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a) such that the red edge, first separation and second separation conditions from Lemma 27 are satisfied, and in addition:

  • (large leaf bag condition) for every leaf bag BB with parent bag BB^{\prime} and |BB|>q|B\setminus B^{\prime}|>q,

    • B×V(P)B×{x,y}B\times V(P)\subseteq B\times\{x,y\} for some adjacent vertices x,yx,y of PP,

    • there is a partial reduction sequence identifying ((BB)×V(P))V(F)((B\setminus B^{\prime})\times V(P))\cap V(F) into at most qq vertices such that for every trigraph GG in the reduction sequence, GG has no red edge incident with ((V(H)(BB))×V(P))V(K_a)((V(H)\setminus(B\setminus B^{\prime}))\times V(P))\cup V(K_{\_}a) and f(G~)tf(\widetilde{G})\leqslant t.

Then:

  1. (1)

    There is a reduction sequence identifying (V(H)×V(P))V(F)(V(H)\times V(P))\cap V(F) into at most qq vertices such that for every trigraph GG in the reduction sequence, GG has no red edge incident with V(K_a)V(K_{\_}a) and f(G~)max(g(q,r),t)f(\widetilde{G})\leqslant\max(g(q,r),t).

  2. (2)

    f(F)max(g(a+q,r),t){f}^{\downarrow}(F)\leqslant\max(g(a+q,r),t).

Proof.

We say that a leaf bag BB of (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) with parent bag BB^{\prime} is large if |BB|>q|B\setminus B^{\prime}|>q. We prove (1) by induction on the number of large leaf bags. If there are no large leaf bags, then (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) is (k,q)(k,q)-rooted, and the result follows from Lemma 27. Now assume that (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) contains a large leaf bag.

Let BB be a large leaf bag with parent bag BB^{\prime}. Let U_1:=(BB)×V(P)U_{\_}1:=(B\setminus B^{\prime})\times V(P) and U_2:=((V(H)(BB))×V(P))V(K_a)U_{\_}2:=((V(H)\setminus(B\setminus B^{\prime}))\times V(P))\cup V(K_{\_}a).

Let L_BL_{\_}B be a partial reduction sequence identifying U_1V(F)U_{\_}1\cap V(F), as described in the large leaf bag condition. By the red edge condition, there is no red edge between U_1U_{\_}1 and U_2U_{\_}2. Apply L_BL_{\_}B to U_1V(F)U_{\_}1\cap V(F). By assumption, we always identify two vertices having the same neighbourhoods on U_2U_{\_}2, and therefore, it creates no red edge incident with U_2U_{\_}2. Since B×V(P)B×{x,y}B\times V(P)\subseteq B\times\{x,y\} for some adjacent vertices x,yx,y of PP, the resulting trigraph satisfies the red edge condition. Also, each red graph of an intermediate trigraph constructed from U_1U_{\_}1 has ff at most tt, by assumption.

Let FF^{\prime} be the resulting trigraph. Let HH^{\prime} be the graph obtained from HH by removing BBB\setminus B^{\prime} and adding a clique ZZ of size qq that is complete to BB^{\prime}. We obtain a tree-decomposition (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) of HH^{\prime} from (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}) by removing the bag BB, and adding a new bag ZBZ\cup B^{\prime} incident with BB^{\prime} (and |(ZB)B|q|(Z\cup B^{\prime})\setminus B^{\prime}|\leqslant q as desired). Observe that FF^{\prime} is a trigraph with V(F)V(HP)V(K_a)V(F^{\prime})\subseteq V(H^{\prime}\boxtimes P)\cup V(K_{\_}a) satisfying the four conditions.

Since (T,)(T^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime}) has one fewer large leaf bag than (T,)(T,\mathcal{B}), by induction, there is a reduction sequence identifying (V(H)×V(P))V(F)(V(H^{\prime})\times V(P))\cap V(F^{\prime}) into at most qq vertices such that for every trigraph GG in the reduction sequence, GG has no red edge incident with V(K_a)V(K_{\_}a) and f(G~)max(g(q,r),t)f(\widetilde{G})\leqslant\max(g(q,r),t). Together with the reduction sequence producing FF^{\prime} from FF, we obtain a desired reduction sequence for FF.

Similar to Lemma 27, the statement (1) holds when we replace g(q,r)g(q,r) with g(a+q,r)g(a+q,r), because every subgraph of S_,q,rS_{\_}{\ell,q,r} is also a subgraph of S_,a+q,rS_{\_}{\ell,a+q,r}. We obtain the desired reduction sequence by arbitrarily identifying the resulting trigraph on at most a+qa+q vertices into a 1-vertex graph. ∎

Theorem 29.

Let t,rt,r\in\mathbb{N}. Let ff be a monotone and union-closed graph parameter and let g:×g:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} be a function such that f(S_x,q,r)g(q,r)f(S_{\_}{x,q,r})\leqslant g(q,r) for all xx\in\mathbb{N}. Then there exists cc\in\mathbb{N} such that f(Gr)c{f}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant c for every K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graph GG.

Proof.

By Theorem 3, there exist k,ak,a\in\mathbb{N} such that GG has a tree-decomposition 𝒯=(T,)\mathcal{T}=(T,\mathcal{B}) in which every torso of a bag is a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a for some graph HH of treewidth at most kk and some path PP. Consider 𝒯\mathcal{T} to be rooted at an arbitrary bag RR of 𝒯\mathcal{T}. Let β:=2(k+1)+a\beta:=2(k+1)+a. Note that the size of a maximum clique of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a is at most β\beta. Let hh be the longest path from an internal bag to RR in 𝒯\mathcal{T}. Define

θ:=a+(β2)(r+1)+βr,q:=(r+1)(k+1)(2r+1)+θandc:=g(q,r).\theta:=a+\tbinom{\beta}{2}(r+1)+\beta r,\quad q:=(r+1)^{(k+1)(2r+1)+\theta}\quad\text{and}\quad c:=g(q,r).

For each bag BB of 𝒯\mathcal{T}, if B=RB=R then let Y_B:=Y_{\_}B:=\emptyset; otherwise, let Y_B:=BBY_{\_}B:=B\cap B^{\prime} where BB^{\prime} is the parent of BB. Also, let U_BU_{\_}B be the union of BB and all the descendants of BB. Note that 0hdist_T(B,R)h0\leqslant h-\operatorname{dist}_{\_}T(B,R)\leqslant h.

We prove by induction on hdist_T(B,R)h-\operatorname{dist}_{\_}T(B,R) that

  • (\ast)

    there is a partial reduction sequence identifying U_BY_BU_{\_}B\setminus Y_{\_}B into at most qq vertices in GrG^{r} such that:

    • we always identify two vertices uu and vv where the corresponding vertices in GG have the same distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}B in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}B], and

    • for every trigraph GG^{*} in the sequence, f(G~)cf(\widetilde{G^{*}})\leqslant c.

Let BB be a bag. Let G_1G_{\_}1 be the graph obtained from G[U_B]G[U_{\_}B] by adding, for each pair of vertices y_1,y_2y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2 of Y_BY_{\_}B with dist_GE(G[U_B])(y_1,y_2)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G-E(G[U_{\_}B])}(y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2)\leqslant r, a new path X_y_1,y_2X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2} of length dist_GE(G[U_B])(y_1,y_2)\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G-E(G[U_{\_}B])}(y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2) whose end-vertices are y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2, and then adding, for every vertex yy of Y_BY_{\_}B, a path W_yW_{\_}y of length r1r-1 whose end-vertex is yy.

We claim that for any two vertices v,wU_Bv,w\in U_{\_}B,

  • dist_G(v,w)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)\leqslant r if and only if dist_G_1(v,w)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G_{\_}1}(v,w)\leqslant r.

Assume that there is a path ZZ of length at most rr between vv and ww in GG. We construct a path ZZ^{*} of G_1G_{\_}1 from ZZ as follows.

  • We repeatedly choose a maximal subpath QQ of ZZ whose end-vertices are in U_BU_{\_}B and all internal vertices are not in U_BU_{\_}B. Assume its end-vertices are y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2. Then we replace QQ with X_y_1,y_2X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}.

By construction, |E(X_y_1,y_2)|=dist_GE(G[U_B])(y_1,y_2)|E(Q)||E(X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2})|=\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G-E(G[U_{\_}B])}(y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2)\leqslant|E(Q)|. So, the resulting path ZZ^{*} has length at most rr, which shows that dist_G_1(v,w)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G_{\_}1}(v,w)\leqslant r.

For the other direction, assume there is a path ZZ of length at most rr between vv and ww in G_1G_{\_}1. Similarly, we construct a walk of length at most rr in GG from ZZ as follows.

  • We repeatedly choose a maximal subpath QQ of ZZ of length at least 22 whose end-vertices are in U_BU_{\_}B and all internal vertices are not in U_BU_{\_}B. Note that QQ is X_y_1,y_2X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2} for some y_1,y_2Yy_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\in Y. By the construction, there is a path Q_y_1,y_2Q_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2} in GE(G[U])G-E(G[U]) of length |E(X_y_1,y_2)||E(X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2})|. Then we replace QQ with Q_y_1,y_2Q_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}.

The resulting walk has length at most rr between vv and ww in GG. Thus, dist_G(v,w)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)\leqslant r.

By the claim, Gr[U_B]=(G_1)r[U_B]G^{r}[U_{\_}B]=(G_{\_}1)^{r}[U_{\_}B].

Now focus on G_1G_{\_}1. First observe that G_1[B]=G[B]G_{\_}1[B]=G[B] and its torso is a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a for some graph HH of treewidth at most kk and some path PP. Let (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B,\mathcal{B}_{\_}B) be a rooted tree-decomposition of HH of width at most kk. Let P=(w_1,w_2,,w_)P=(w_{\_}1,w_{\_}2,\dots,w_{\_}{\ell}).

Observe that Y_B(_{y_1,y_2}(Y_B2)V(X_y_1,y_2))(_yY_BV(W_y))Y_{\_}B\cup(\bigcup_{\_}{\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\}\in\binom{Y_{\_}B}{2}}V(X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}))\cup(\bigcup_{\_}{y\in Y_{\_}B}V(W_{\_}y)) contains at most β+(β2)(r1)+β(r1)\beta+\binom{\beta}{2}(r-1)+\beta(r-1) vertices. Since G_1[B]G_{\_}1[B] is a subgraph of (HP)+K_a(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}a, the graph

G_1[B]_{y_1,y_2}(Y_B2)X_y_1,y_2_yY_BW_y.G_{\_}1[B]\cup\bigcup_{\_}{\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\}\in\binom{Y_{\_}B}{2}}X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}\cup\bigcup_{\_}{y\in Y_{\_}B}W_{\_}y.

can be regarded as a subgraph of (HP)+K_θ(H\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}{\theta}, where Y_B(_{y_1,y_2}(Y_B2)V(X_y_1,y_2))(_yY_BV(W_y))Y_{\_}B\cup(\bigcup_{\_}{\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\}\in\binom{Y_{\_}B}{2}}V(X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}))\cup(\bigcup_{\_}{y\in Y_{\_}B}V(W_{\_}y)) is placed in the K_θK_{\_}{\theta} part. Let

G_2:=G_1[B]_{y_1,y_2}(Y_B2)X_y_1,y_2_yY_BW_y.G_{\_}2:=G_{\_}1[B]\cup\bigcup_{\_}{\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\}\in\binom{Y_{\_}B}{2}}X_{\_}{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2}\cup\bigcup_{\_}{y\in Y_{\_}B}W_{\_}y.

Next, we extend the product structure for G_2G_{\_}2 into one for G_1G_{\_}1. We modify HH to HH^{*} as follows. Let BB^{\prime} be a child of the bag BB. Observe that BBB\cap B^{\prime} is a clique in the torso of BB. Therefore, the vertices of BBB\cap B^{\prime} lie on (N_B×{y_1,y_2})V(K_θ)(N_{\_}B\times\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\})\cup V(K_{\_}{\theta}) for some consecutive two vertices y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2 in PP and some bag N_BN_{\_}B of (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B,\mathcal{B}_{\_}B). To HH, we add a clique Q_BQ_{\_}{B^{\prime}} of size |U_B||U_{\_}{B^{\prime}}| that is complete to N_BN_{\_}B. We add a leaf bag Q_BN_BQ_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\cup N_{\_}B adjacent to N_BN_{\_}B, and embed the vertices of U_BBU_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\setminus B into Q_B×{y_1}Q_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\times\{y_{\_}1\}. We do this process for every child of BB.

Let HH^{*} be the resulting graph obtained from HH, and let (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}) be the resulting rooted tree-decomposition of HH^{*}. Since (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B,\mathcal{B}_{\_}B) has width at most kk, (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}) is (k,)(k,\infty)-rooted. Also G_1G_{\_}1 is a subgraph of (HP)+K_θ(H^{*}\boxtimes P)+K_{\_}{\theta}.

We now apply Lemma 28 to (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r} and (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}). To do so, we verify the four conditions. Since (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r} has no red edges, the red edge condition holds.

(First separation condition) Let (C,D)(C,D) be a rooted separation of HH^{*} from (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}) and let zV(P)z\in V(P). Let

M_1:=(D×V(P))(C×(V(P)N_rP[z]))V(K_θ).M_{\_}1:=\Big{(}D\times V(P)\Big{)}\cup\Big{(}C\times(V(P)\setminus N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\Big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}\theta).

Observe that if there is a path of length at most rr in G_1G_{\_}1 between ((CD)×{z})V(G_1)((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(G_{\_}1) and M_1M_{\_}1, this path intersects ((CD)×N_rP[z])V(K_θ)((C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\cup V(K_{\_}\theta). Thus two vertices v,w((CD)×{z})V(G_1)v,w\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(G_{\_}1) having the same distance-rr profiles on ((CD)×N_rP[z])V(K_θ)((C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\cup V(K_{\_}\theta) in G_1G_{\_}1 have the same neighbourhood on M_1M_{\_}1 in (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r}. Therefore,

|{N_(G_1)r(v)M:v((CD)×{z})V(G_1)}|\displaystyle\left|\left\{N_{\_}{(G_{\_}1)^{r}}(v)\cap M:v\in((C\setminus D)\times\{z\})\cap V(G_{\_}1)\right\}\right|\leqslant\; π_rG_1(((CD)×N_rP[z])V(K_θ))\displaystyle\pi^{r}_{\_}{G_{\_}1}\Big{(}((C\cap D)\times N^{r}_{\_}P[z])\cup V(K_{\_}\theta)\Big{)}
\displaystyle\leqslant\; (r+1)(k+1)(2r+1)+θ=q.\displaystyle(r+1)^{(k+1)(2r+1)+\theta}\,=\,q.

(Second separation condition) Let t{1,2,,}t\in\{1,2,\ldots,\ell\} and let

M_2:=(V(H)×{w_t+r+1,,w_})V(K_θ).M_{\_}2:=\big{(}V(H^{*})\times\{w_{\_}{t+r+1},\dots,w_{\_}\ell\}\big{)}\cup V(K_{\_}\theta).

Observe that if there is a path of length at most rr in G_1G_{\_}1 between (V(H)×{w_1,,w_t})V(G_1)(V(H^{*})\times\{w_{\_}1,\dots,w_{\_}t\})\cap V(G_{\_}1) and M_2M_{\_}2, then this path intersects V(K_θ)V(K_{\_}{\theta}). So, any two vertices in (V(H)×{w_1,,w_t})V(G_1)(V(H^{*})\times\{w_{\_}1,\dots,w_{\_}t\})\cap V(G_{\_}1) having the same distance-rr profiles on V(K_θ)V(K_{\_}\theta) have the same neighbourhood on M_2M_{\_}2 in (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r}. Thus,

|{N_(G_1)r(v)M_2:v(V(H)×{w_1,,w_t})V(G_1)}|π_rG_1(V(K_θ))(r+1)θq.\displaystyle|\{N_{\_}{(G_{\_}1)^{r}}(v)\cap M_{\_}2:v\in(V(H)\times\{w_{\_}1,\dots,w_{\_}t\})\cap V(G_{\_}1)\}|\leqslant\;\pi^{r}_{\_}{G_{\_}1}(V(K_{\_}\theta))\,\leqslant\,(r+1)^{\theta}\,\leqslant\,q.

(Large leaf bag condition) Let AA be a leaf bag of (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}) with parent bag AA^{\prime} with |AA|>q|A\setminus A^{\prime}|>q. By the construction of HH^{*} and (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}), we know that A×V(P)A×{y_1,y_2}A\times V(P)\subseteq A\times\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\} for some adjacent vertices y_1y_{\_}1 and y_2y_{\_}2 in PP. Also, ((AA)×{y_1,y_2})V(G_1)=U_BB((A\setminus A^{\prime})\times\{y_{\_}1,y_{\_}2\})\cap V(G_{\_}1)=U_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\setminus B for some child BB^{\prime} of BB. By induction, there is a partial reduction sequence identifying U_BY_BU_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\setminus Y_{\_}{B^{\prime}} into at most qq vertices in GrG^{r} such that:

  • we always identify two vertices uu and vv where the corresponding vertices in GG have the same distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}{B^{\prime}} in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}{B^{\prime}}], and

  • for every trigraph GG^{*} in the sequence, f(G~)cf(\widetilde{G^{*}})\leqslant c.

Since Gr[U_B]=(G_1)r[U_B]G^{r}[U_{\_}B]=(G_{\_}1)^{r}[U_{\_}B], this sequence is also a partial reduction sequence for (G_1)r[U_BY_B](G_{\_}1)^{r}[U_{\_}{B^{\prime}}\setminus Y_{\_}{B^{\prime}}]. Note that if two vertices have the same distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}{B^{\prime}} in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}{B^{\prime}}], then they have the same distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}B in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}B]. Thus, by the first bullet, this sequence does not create any red edge incident with V(K_θ)V(K_{\_}\theta).

We deduce that (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r} and (T_B,_B)(T_{\_}B^{*},\mathcal{B}_{\_}B^{*}) satisfy the large leaf bag condition of Lemma 28.

Therefore, by Lemma 28, there is a partial reduction sequence identifying (V(H)×V(P))V(G_1)(V(H^{*})\times V(P))\cap V(G_{\_}1) into at most qq vertices in (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r} such that for every trigraph GG^{*} in the sequence, GG^{*} has no red edge incident with V(K_θ)V(K_{\_}\theta), and f(G~)max(g(q,r),c)f(\widetilde{G^{*}})\leqslant\max(g(q,r),c).

Now apply the same reduction sequence to GrG^{r}. We claim that we always identify two vertices having the same distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}B in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}B]. Suppose for contradiction that we identified two vertices uu and vv having distinct distance-rr profiles on Y_BY_{\_}B in G[U_B]G[U_{\_}B]. We may assume that for some xY_Bx\in Y_{\_}B and _1{1,2,,r}\ell_{\_}1\in\{1,2,\ldots,r\} and _2{_1+1,r}{}\ell_{\_}2\in\{\ell_{\_}1+1,\ldots r\}\cup\{\infty\}, we have dist_G[U_B](u,x)=_1\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G[U_{\_}B]}(u,x)=\ell_{\_}1 and dist_G[U_B](v,x)=_2\operatorname{dist}_{\_}{G[U_{\_}B]}(v,x)=\ell_{\_}2. But then on the path W_xW_{\_}x, there is a vertex adjacent to uu but not to yy in (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r}. So, when we identify these vertices in (G_1)r(G_{\_}1)^{r}, we create a red edge incident with V(K_θ)V(K_{\_}{\theta}), a contradiction. Therefore, the claim holds.

We conclude that the statement ()(\ast) holds by induction. When B=RB=R, we know that U_B=V(G)U_{\_}B=V(G) and Y_B=Y_{\_}B=\emptyset. Therefore, there is a partial reduction sequence identifying V(G)V(G) into at most qq vertices in GrG^{r} such that for every trigraph GG^{*} in the sequence, f(G~)cf(\widetilde{G^{*}})\leqslant c. We obtain the desired reduction sequence by arbitrarily identifying the resulting trigraph on at most qq vertices into a 1-vertex graph. For every trigraph GG^{**} in this sequence, f(G~)g(q,r)=cf(\widetilde{G^{**}})\leqslant g(q,r)=c, as every graph on at most qq vertices is a subgraph of S_1,q,rS_{\_}{1,q,r}. This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

Theorem 29 with f=bwf=\operatorname{bw} and g(q,r)=(2r+2)q2g(q,r)=(2r+2)q-2 implies the following result, which is the main contribution of the paper.

Theorem 30.

For all t,rt,r\in\mathbb{N} there exists cc\in\mathbb{N} such that for every K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free graph GG,

bw(Gr)c.{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G^{r})\leqslant c.

6 Expanders

This section shows that bounded degree expanders have unbounded reduced bandwidth. In fact, we show a stronger result for expanders excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph. For ss\in\mathbb{N} and β+\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}, a graph GG is an (s,β)(s,\beta)-expander if GG contains no K_s,sK_{\_}{s,s} subgraph, and for every SV(G)S\subseteq V(G) with |S||V(G)|2|S|\leqslant\frac{|V(G)|}{2} we have |N_G(S)|β|S|\lvert N_{\_}G(S)\rvert\geqslant\beta\lvert S\rvert. Expanders can be constructed probabilistically or constructively; see the survey [29] for example. In the following result it is necessary to exclude some fixed complete bipartite subgraph, as otherwise complete bipartite graphs would be counterexamples.

Theorem 31.

Let 𝒢\mathcal{G} be an infinite class of (s,β)(s,\beta)-expanders for some ss\in\mathbb{N} and β+\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}. Then 𝒢\mathcal{G} has unbounded bw{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}.

Proof.

Assume for contradiction that there exists kk\in\mathbb{N} such that bw(G)k{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant k for every G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G}. Consider an nn-vertex graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G} where nk,s,β1n\gg k,s,\beta^{-1} (as detailed below).

Let G=G_n,G_n1,,G_1G=G_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\dots,G_{\_}1 be a reduction sequence for GG such that every red graph has bandwidth at most kk. It is convenient to consider the corresponding partition sequence

{{v}:vV(G)}=𝒫_n,𝒫_n1,,𝒫_1={V(G)},\{\{v\}:v\in V(G)\}=\mathcal{P}_{\_}n,\mathcal{P}_{\_}{n-1},\dots,\mathcal{P}_{\_}1=\{V(G)\},

and the associated trigraphs G_𝒫_n,G_𝒫_n1,,G_𝒫_1G_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}n},G_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}{n-1}},\dots,G_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}1} isomorphic to G_n,G_n1,,G_1G_{\_}n,G_{\_}{n-1},\dots,G_{\_}1 respectively. If G_i1=G_i/u,vG_{\_}{i-1}=G_{\_}i/u,v and uXu\in X and vYv\in Y, then XX and YY are distinct parts of 𝒫_i\mathcal{P}_{\_}i, and 𝒫_i1\mathcal{P}_{\_}{i-1} is obtained from 𝒫_i\mathcal{P}_{\_}i by replacing XX and YY by XYX\cup Y. We consider the parts of 𝒫_i\mathcal{P}_{\_}i to be the vertices of G_𝒫_iG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}i}. Say a part X𝒫_iX\in\mathcal{P}_{\_}i is big if |X|s|X|\geqslant s and small otherwise. Observe that for each black edge XYXY in G_𝒫_iG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}i}, there is a complete bipartite subgraph in GG between XX and YY, which implies that XX or YY is small. Moreover, if XX is big and Y_1,,Y_rY_{\_}1,\dots,Y_{\_}r are the neighbours of XX for which XY_iXY_{\_}i is black, then there is a complete bipartite subgraph in GG between XX and Y_1Y_rY_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Y_{\_}r, implying |Y_1Y_r|s1|Y_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Y_{\_}r|\leqslant s-1.

Consider the first trigraph G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m} of the sequence (that is, the largest mm) such that 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m contains a part X_0X_{\_}0 of size at least n\sqrt{n}. Thus X_0X_{\_}0 is big (for large nn). Let x:=|X_0|x:=\lvert X_{\_}0\rvert and t:=xt:=\lceil\sqrt{x}\rceil. By the choice of mm, we have nx2n\sqrt{n}\leqslant x\leqslant 2\sqrt{n}, and every part in 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m, except X_0X_{\_}0, has size less than n\sqrt{n}.

We now show there are distinct parts X_0,X_1,,X_t𝒫_mX_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\ldots,X_{\_}t\in\mathcal{P}_{\_}m such that |X_i|βx4ki\lvert X_{\_}i\rvert\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4ki} for each i{1,,t}i\in\{1,\dots,t\}, and {X_0,X_1,,X_t}\{X_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\dots,X_{\_}t\} induce a connected red subgraph in G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m}. Assume that X_0,X_1,,X_iX_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\dots,X_{\_}i satisfy these properties for some i{0,,t1}i\in\{0,\dots,t-1\}. We now show how to find X_i+1X_{\_}{i+1}. For j{1,,i}j\in\{1,\dots,i\},

|X_j|βx4kjβx4k(t1)βx4kxβx4kβn1/44ks (for large n).|X_{\_}j|\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4kj}\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4k(t-1)}\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4k\sqrt{x}}\geqslant\frac{\beta\sqrt{x}}{4k}\geqslant\frac{\beta n^{1/4}}{4k}\geqslant s\text{ (for large $n$)}.

So X_0,X_1,,X_iX_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\dots,X_{\_}i are all big. Let Y_1,,Y_pY_{\_}1,\dots,Y_{\_}p be the parts of 𝒫_m{X_0,,X_i}\mathcal{P}_{\_}m\setminus\{X_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}i\} joined to X_0X_iX_{\_}0\cup\dots\cup X_{\_}i by black edges. As argued above, |Y_1Y_p|(i+1)(s1)|Y_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Y_{\_}p|\leqslant(i+1)(s-1). Let Z_1,,Z_qZ_{\_}1,\dots,Z_{\_}q be the parts of 𝒫_m{X_0,,X_i}\mathcal{P}_{\_}m\setminus\{X_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}i\} joined to X_0X_iX_{\_}0\cup\dots\cup X_{\_}i by red edges. Each of X_0,,X_iX_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}i are incident to at most 2k2k red edges in G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m} (since graphs of bandwidth kk have maximum degree at most 2k2k). So q2k(i+1)q\leqslant 2k(i+1). On the other hand, |X_0X_i|(i+1)xtxn2\lvert X_{\_}0\cup\dots\cup X_{\_}i\rvert\leqslant(i+1)x\leqslant tx\leqslant\frac{n}{2}, implying |Y_1Y_p|+|Z_1Z_q||N_G(X_0X_i)|βx|Y_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Y_{\_}p|+|Z_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Z_{\_}q|\geqslant|N_{\_}G(X_{\_}0\cup\dots\cup X_{\_}i)|\geqslant\beta x and |Z_1Z_q|βx(i+1)(s1)βx2|Z_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup Z_{\_}q|\geqslant\beta x-(i+1)(s-1)\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{2} (for large nn). Let X_i+1X_{\_}{i+1} be the largest of Z_1,,Z_qZ_{\_}1,\dots,Z_{\_}q. So |X_i+1|βx2qβx4k(i+1)|X_{\_}{i+1}|\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{2q}\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4k(i+1)}, and {X_0,X_1,,X_i+1}\{X_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\dots,X_{\_}{i+1}\} induces a connected red graph in G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m}, as desired. Hence there are distinct parts X_0,X_1,,X_t𝒫_mX_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\ldots,X_{\_}t\in\mathcal{P}_{\_}m such that |X_i|βx4ki\lvert X_{\_}i\rvert\geqslant\frac{\beta x}{4ki} for each i{1,,t}i\in\{1,\dots,t\}, and {X_0,X_1,,X_t}\{X_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\dots,X_{\_}t\} induces a connected red subgraph in G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m}. As shown above, X_0,,X_tX_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}t are all big.

Let HH be the connected component of G_𝒫_mG_{\_}{\mathcal{P}_{\_}m} containing X_0,,X_tX_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}t. Consider a vertex-ordering of HH with bandwidth at most kk. Since {X_0,X_1,,X_t}\{X_{\_}0,X_{\_}1,\ldots,X_{\_}t\} induces a connected red subgraph of HH, there is a set II of kt+1kt+1 consecutive vertices in this ordering of HH containing X_0,,X_tX_{\_}0,\dots,X_{\_}t and with at most k1k-1 parts strictly between ‘consecutive’ X_iX_{\_}is.

Let ZZ be the union of all the big parts in II. So |Z|(kt+1)xn2\lvert Z\rvert\leqslant(kt+1)x\leqslant\frac{n}{2} (for large nn), implying

|N_G(Z)|β|Z|β|X_1X_t|β2x4k_i=1t1iβ2xlnt4k.\lvert N_{\_}G(Z)\rvert\geqslant\beta\lvert Z\rvert\geqslant\beta\lvert X_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup X_{\_}t\rvert\geqslant\frac{\beta^{2}x}{4k}\sum_{\_}{i=1}^{t}\frac{1}{i}\geqslant\frac{\beta^{2}x\ln t}{4k}.

We now upper bound |N_G(Z)||N_{\_}G(Z)|. Each vertex in N_G(Z)N_{\_}G(Z) is either in:

  • a small part of 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m in II,

  • a part of 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m adjacent to II in HH, or

  • a part of 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m outside HH.

There are at most (kt+1)(s1)(kt+1)(s-1) vertices in small parts of 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m in II. There are at most 2k2k parts of 𝒫_m\mathcal{P}_{\_}m adjacent to II in HH (kk to the left of II, and kk to the right), and each such part has at most xx vertices, thus contributing at most 2kx2kx vertices to N_G(Z)N_{\_}G(Z). Each big part in II is incident to at most s1s-1 vertices in parts outside HH (since the corresponding edges are black), so there are at most (kt+1)(s1)(kt+1)(s-1) vertices in N_G(Z)N_{\_}G(Z) of the third type. Hence

β2xlnt8k|N_G(Z)|(kt+1)(s1)+2kx+(kt+1)(s1).\frac{\beta^{2}x\ln t}{8k}\leqslant|N_{\_}G(Z)|\leqslant(kt+1)(s-1)+2kx+(kt+1)(s-1).

This is the desired contradiction, since the left-hand side is Θ(nlogn)\Theta(\sqrt{n}\log n) and right-hand side is Θ(n)\Theta(\sqrt{n}) for fixed k,s,βk,s,\beta. ∎

7 Tied and Separated Parameters

Let \preceq be the preorder, where for graph parameters f_1f_{\_}1 and f_2f_{\_}2, define f_1f_2f_{\_}1\preceq f_{\_}2 if there exists a function gg such that f_1(G)g(f_2(G))f_{\_}1(G)\leqslant g(f_{\_}2(G)) for every graph GG. Graph parameters f_1f_{\_}1 and f_2f_{\_}2 are tied (also called functionally equivalent) if f_1f_2f_{\_}1\preceq f_{\_}2 and f_2f_1f_{\_}2\preceq f_{\_}1. For example, Bonnet et al. [7] showed that total twin-width is tied to linear rank-width, while component twin-width, clique-width and boolean-width are tied.

Define f_1f_2f_{\_}1\precneq f_{\_}2 to mean f_1f_2f_{\_}1\preceq f_{\_}2 and f_2f_1f_{\_}2\not\preceq f_{\_}1. For example, twwbw\operatorname{tww}\precneq{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow} (since for every graph GG, we have Δ(G)2bw(G)\Delta(G)\leqslant 2\operatorname{bw}(G) implying tww(G)2bw(G)\operatorname{tww}(G)\leqslant 2\,{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G), but there are bounded degree expanders with twinwidth 6 [4] and unbounded reduced bandwidth by Theorem 31). Graph parameters f_1f_{\_}1 and f_2f_{\_}2 are separated if f_1f_2f_{\_}1\precneq f_{\_}2 or f_2f_1f_{\_}2\precneq f_{\_}1 (that is, they are not tied).

Recall that in the context of reduction sequences, it only makes sense to consider graph parameters that are unbounded on stars. This motivates the following definition. For a graph parameter ff let f+Δf+\Delta be the graph parameter defined by (f+Δ)(G):=f(G)+Δ(G)(f+\Delta)(G):=f(G)+\Delta(G). This section shows that Δ{\Delta}^{\downarrow}, (Δ+tw){(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})}^{\downarrow}, (Δ+pw){(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})}^{\downarrow} and bw{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow} are separated (even within graphs).

Theorem 32.

Δ(Δ+tw)(Δ+pw)bw{\Delta}^{\downarrow}\precneq{(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})}^{\downarrow}\precneq{(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})}^{\downarrow}\precneq{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}.

The proof of Theorem 32 uses a lemma of Bergé et al. [3].

For every graph GG, let red(G)\operatorname{red}(G) be the trigraph G=(V(G)=V(G),E(G)=,R(G)=E(G))G^{\prime}=(V(G^{\prime})=V(G),E(G^{\prime})=\emptyset,R(G^{\prime})=E(G)) obtained by making all its edges red. An induced subtrigraph of GG is another trigraph HH obtained by removing some vertices from GG, and GG is then called a supertrigraph of HH. Note that f(G){f}^{\downarrow}(G) is well-defined for any graph parameter ff and any trigraph GG (since reduction sequences are defined for trigraphs GG).

The 2-blowup of a graph GG, denoted by GK_2G\,\rotatebox{90.0}{$\bowtie$}K_{\_}2, is the graph obtained by replacing each vertex uV(G)u\in V(G) by two non-adjacent vertices u_1,u_2u_{\_}1,u_{\_}2, and replacing each edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G) by four edges u_1v_1,u_1v_2,u_2v_1,u_2v_2u_{\_}1v_{\_}1,u_{\_}1v_{\_}2,u_{\_}2v_{\_}1,u_{\_}2v_{\_}2.

Lemma 33 (essentially Lemma 10 in [3]).

For every connected graph HH of maximum degree dd, there is a graph GG admitting a partial reduction sequence G_n,,G_iG_{\_}n,\ldots,G_{\_}i such that:

  • Δ(G_k~)2d\Delta(\widetilde{G_{\_}k})\leqslant 2d for every k{i,i+1,,n}k\in\{i,i+1,\ldots,n\},

  • each connected component of G_k~\widetilde{G_{\_}k} is a subgraph of GK_2G\,\rotatebox{90.0}{$\bowtie$}K_{\_}2,

  • G_iG_{\_}i is isomorphic to red(H)\operatorname{red}(H),

  • and every (full) reduction sequence of GG goes through a supertrigraph of red(H)\operatorname{red}(H) or a trigraph with red maximum degree at least |V(H)||V(H)|.

Proof Sketch.

In Lemma 10 of [3], the second item does not appear, and the second option of the fourth item consists of going through a trigraph of red maximum degree at least 2d+12d+1. The lemma is actually shown in greater generality (see Lemma 11 of [3]) and accounts for trigraphs possibly having black edges and a disconnected red graph. Since we do not need this general form here, we can simplify the construction.

The graph GG is built as follows, where t:=|V(H)||V(H)|+|V(H)|t:=\lvert V(H)\rvert^{\lvert V(H)\rvert}+\lvert V(H)\rvert. For every vertex vV(H)v\in V(H), add to GG a clique v_1,,v_tv_{\_}1,\ldots,v_{\_}t. We informally refer to {{v_1,,v_t}:vV(H)}\{\{v_{\_}1,\ldots,v_{\_}t\}:v\in V(H)\} as the cliques of GG. For each edge vwE(H)vw\in E(H), add to E(G)E(G) the matching v_1w_1,v_2w_2,,v_tw_tv_{\_}1w_{\_}1,v_{\_}2w_{\_}2,\ldots,v_{\_}tw_{\_}t.

We now describe the partial reduction sequence of GG satisfying the first three items. For every vV(H)v\in V(H), identify v_1v_{\_}1 and v_2v_{\_}2, and call the resulting vertex v_2v^{\prime}_{\_}2. Then for every vV(H)v\in V(H), identify v_2v^{\prime}_{\_}2 and v_3v_{\_}3, and call the resulting vertex v_3v^{\prime}_{\_}3; and so on, until every clique of every vV(H)v\in V(H) has been identified to a single vertex. It is straightforward to check that this partial reduction sequence satisfies the first three items.

The proof of the fourth item follows the proof of Statement 5 in Lemma 11 in [3]. We sketch the argument here, since the situation is simpler. If two parts of GG intersecting different cliques of GG are identified, the red degree of the resulting part is at least the number ss of other parts intersecting these two cliques, possibly minus 2. Thus the second condition of the item is satisfied unless s<|V(H)|+2s<\lvert V(H)\rvert+2. We may now assume that immediately before the first such identification, there is a part P_vP_{\_}v of size at least |V(H)||V(H)|1\lvert V(H)\rvert^{\lvert V(H)\rvert-1} entirely contained within the clique of vV(H)v\in V(H). Let ww be a neighbour of vv in HH. For the red degree of P_vP_{\_}v to be less than |V(H)|\lvert V(H)\rvert, the |P_v|\lvert P_{\_}v\rvert matched vertices in the clique of ww, have to be in less than |V(H)|\lvert V(H)\rvert parts. This means that the largest of those parts, P_wP_{\_}w, has size at least |V(H)||V(H)|2\lvert V(H)\rvert^{\lvert V(H)\rvert-2}. Since HH is connected, we continue this reasoning along a spanning tree of HH, and exhibit a collection {P_u:uV(H)}\{P_{\_}u:u\in V(H)\} of parts inducing the trigraph red(H)\operatorname{red}(H). ∎

The next lemma says that, for graph parameters ff and gg satisfying various properties, fgf\precneq g implies fg{f}^{\downarrow}\precneq{g}^{\downarrow}. A parameter ff is 2-blowup-closed if there is a function g:_0_0g:\mathbb{N}_{\_}0\to\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 such that f(GK_2)g(f(G))f(G\,\rotatebox{90.0}{$\bowtie$}K_{\_}2)\leqslant g(f(G)) for every graph GG.

Lemma 34.

Let ff and gg be monotone graphs parameters such that:

  • fgf\precneq g,

  • ff is union-closed and 2-blowup-closed,

  • there is a non-decreasing function q:_0_0q^{\prime}:\mathbb{N}_{\_}0\to\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 satisfying lim_nq(n)=\lim_{\_}{n\to\infty}q^{\prime}(n)=\infty and g(G)q(Δ(G))g(G)\geqslant q^{\prime}(\Delta(G)) for every graph GG, and

  • there is a constant cc\in\mathbb{N} such that for every nn\in\mathbb{N} there is a connected graph H_nH_{\_}n on at least nn vertices with lim_ng(H_n)=\lim_{\_}{n\to\infty}g(H_{\_}n)=\infty and f(red(H))c{f}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H))\leqslant c.

Then fg{f}^{\downarrow}\precneq{g}^{\downarrow}.

Proof.

Let t(H)t(H) be the graph GG from Lemma 33 given graph HH. Define :={t(H_n):n}\mathcal{F}:=\{t(H_{\_}n):n\in\mathbb{N}\}. Since fgf\preceq g, it is immediate that fg{f}^{\downarrow}\preceq{g}^{\downarrow}. To prove that gf{g}^{\downarrow}\not\preceq{f}^{\downarrow}, we show that f{f}^{\downarrow} is bounded on \mathcal{F}, but g{g}^{\downarrow} is unbounded.

We first show that f{f}^{\downarrow} is bounded on \mathcal{F}. Let G=t(H)G=t(H)\in\mathcal{F}. By Lemma 33, there is a partial reduction sequence G_|V(G)|,,G_iG_{\_}{\lvert V(G)\rvert},\ldots,G_{\_}i of GG such that G_iG_{\_}i is isomorphic to red(H)\operatorname{red}(H), and every red graph G_k~\widetilde{G_{\_}k} (for k{i,,|V(G)|}k\in\{i,\ldots,\lvert V(G)\rvert\}) is a disjoint union of subgraphs of the 2-blowup of HH. Since f(red(H))c{f}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H))\leqslant c, in particular, f(H)cf(H)\leqslant c. Since ff is monotone, union-closed and 2-blowup-closed, there is a function q:_0_0q:\mathbb{N}_{\_}0\to\mathbb{N}_{\_}0 such that f(G_k~)f(HK_2)q(f(H))q(c)f(\widetilde{G_{\_}k})\leqslant f(H\,\rotatebox{90.0}{$\bowtie$}K_{\_}2)\leqslant q(f(H))\leqslant q(c). By assumption f(G_i)c{f}^{\downarrow}(G_{\_}i)\leqslant c, thus GG has a (full) reduction sequence witnessing that f(G)max(q(c),c){f}^{\downarrow}(G)\leqslant\max(q(c),c).

We now show that g{g}^{\downarrow} is unbounded on \mathcal{F}. For the sake of contradiction, suppose there exists cc^{\prime}\in\mathbb{N} such that g(G)c{g}^{\downarrow}(G^{\prime})\leqslant c^{\prime} for every GG^{\prime}\in\mathcal{F}. Let nn\in\mathbb{N} be such that g(H_n)>cg(H_{\_}n)>c^{\prime} and q(n)>cq^{\prime}(n)>c^{\prime}. By assumption such an integer always exists. Consider G:=t(H_n)G:=t(H_{\_}n)\in\mathcal{F}. By Lemma 33, every reduction sequence of GG either goes through a trigraph YY with red maximum degree |V(H_n)|n\lvert V(H_{\_}n)\rvert\geqslant n or through a supertrigraph ZZ of red(H_n)\operatorname{red}(H_{\_}n). In the former case, g(Y~)q(Δ(Y~))q(n)>cg(\widetilde{Y})\geqslant q^{\prime}(\Delta(\widetilde{Y}))\geqslant q^{\prime}(n)>c^{\prime}. In the latter case, since gg is monotone, g(Z)g(red(H_n))g(H_n)>c{g}^{\downarrow}(Z)\geqslant{g}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H_{\_}n))\geqslant g(H_{\_}n)>c^{\prime}. Both cases imply that g(G)>c{g}^{\downarrow}(G)>c^{\prime}, which contradicts the boundedness of g{g}^{\downarrow} on \mathcal{F}. ∎

Proof of Theorem 32.

First observe that Δ\Delta, Δ+tw\Delta+\operatorname{tw}, Δ+pw\Delta+\operatorname{pw} and bw\operatorname{bw} are monotone, union-closed and 2-blowup-closed with function n2n+1n\mapsto 2n+1. If gg is any of these parameters, then g(G)Δ(G)2g(G)\geqslant\lfloor\frac{\Delta(G)}{2}\rfloor, which provides the qq^{\prime} function in Lemma 34.

The first claim, Δ(Δ+tw){\Delta}^{\downarrow}\precneq{(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})}^{\downarrow}, follows from Lemma 34 where H_nH_{\_}n is the n×nn\times n planar grid graph, which has (Δ+tw)(H_n)n(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})(H_{\_}n)\geqslant n (see [27]) and Δ(red(H_n))=4{\Delta}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H_{\_}n))=4 (see [9]).

The second claim, (Δ+tw)(Δ+pw){(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})}^{\downarrow}\precneq{(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})}^{\downarrow}, follows from Lemma 34 where H_nH_{\_}n is the complete binary tree of height nn, which has (Δ+pw)(H_n)n2(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})(H_{\_}n)\geqslant\frac{n}{2} (see [43]) and (Δ+tw)(red(H_n))4{(\Delta+\operatorname{tw})}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H_{\_}n))\leqslant 4 (see [9]).

Finally, (Δ+pw)bw{(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})}^{\downarrow}\precneq{\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow} follows from Lemma 34 where H_nH_{\_}n is the tree defined in Footnote 4 on page 4, which has bw(H_n)n3\operatorname{bw}(H_{\_}n)\geqslant\frac{n}{3} and (Δ+pw)(red(H_n))5{(\Delta+\operatorname{pw})}^{\downarrow}(\operatorname{red}(H_{\_}n))\leqslant 5. The latter can be seen by iteratively identifying any leaf with its parent (in any order), which yields only subtrigraphs of H_nH_{\_}n and can be done until the trigraph has a single vertex. Throughout, the red graphs have maximum degree at most 3 and pathwidth at most 2. ∎

8 Open Problems

Our results lead to several interesting open problems.

Parameter tied to reduced bandwidth?

Recall that component twin-width and clique-width are tied [7]. Is there a ‘natural’ graph parameter tied to reduced bandwidth? This is related to the question of which dense graph classes have bounded reduced bandwidth. Our results for powers give such examples. Complements provide other examples: if G¯\overline{G} is the complement of a graph GG, then bw(G¯)=bw(G){\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(\overline{G})={\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(G), since any reduction sequence for GG defines a reduction sequence for G¯\overline{G} with equal red graphs. In general, f(G)=f(G¯){f}^{\downarrow}(G)={f}^{\downarrow}(\overline{G}) for every GG and ff. Bonnet et al. [5] proved that unit interval graphs have twin-width 2; in fact, they have a reduction sequence in which every red graph is a disjoint union of paths. Thus unit interval graphs have reduced bandwidth 1.

Best possible parameters:

Is bandwidth the largest possible parameter ff such that planar graphs have bounded f{f}^{\downarrow}? We formalise this question as follows. Say a graph parameter ff is continuous if there exists a function gg such that f(G)g(f(Ge))f(G)\leqslant g(f(G-e)) for every graph GG and edge eE(G)e\in E(G), and f(G)g(f(Gv))f(G)\leqslant g(f(G-v)) for every graph GG and isolated vertex vv of GG. All the graph parameters studied in this paper are continuous. Is there a continuous999We need to assume ff is continuous because of the following example. For a graph GG, define f(G):=bw(G)f(G):=\operatorname{bw}(G) if bw(G)466\operatorname{bw}(G)\leqslant 466 and f(G):=|V(G)|f(G):=|V(G)| otherwise. So bwf\operatorname{bw}\precneq f and planar graphs have bounded f{f}^{\downarrow}, but ff is not continuous. graph parameter ff such that bwf\operatorname{bw}\precneq f and planar graphs have bounded f{f}^{\downarrow}? Maximum component size is not such a parameter, since planar grid graphs have unbounded clique-width [24] and therefore have unbounded {\star}^{\downarrow}. In general, for a graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G}, what is a continuous graph parameter ff such that f{f}^{\downarrow} is bounded on 𝒢\mathcal{G}, and g{g}^{\downarrow} is unbounded on 𝒢\mathcal{G} for every parameter gg with fgf\precneq g. Does such a graph parameter always exist?

Lower Bounds:

A non-trivial lower bound on reduced bandwidth is Theorem 31 for expanders. Stronger lower bounds are plausible. For example, does every monotone graph class excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph and with bounded reduced bandwidth have polynomial expansion? It is even plausible that the degree of the polynomial is an absolute constant. Does every monotone graph class excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph and with bounded reduced bandwidth have linear expansion? Graphs with bounded row-treewidth have linear expansion. A good example to consider is the class of 3-dimensional grids, which we guess have unbounded reduced bandwidth.

Subdivisions:

Bonnet et al. [4] showed that tt-subdivisions of K_nK_{\_}n have bounded twin-width if and only if tΩ(logn)t\in\Omega(\log n). No explicit bound on the twin-width was given. Recently, Bergé et al. [3] proved that every (2logn)(\geqslant 2\log n)-subdivision of any nn-vertex graph has twin-width at most 4. The proof constructs a reduction sequence in which every red graph is a forest. So this class of graphs has exponential expansion, is K_2,2K_{\_}{2,2}-free, and has (tw+Δ)5{(\operatorname{tw}+\Delta)}^{\downarrow}\leqslant 5. The proof in [3] can be adapted101010In the proof of Theorem 7 in [3], replace the virtual binary red tree by an nn-vertex red path, and observe that running the same sequence produces a red caterpillar with maximum degree 4 and at most one vertex of degree 4; refer to Figures 3 and 4 in [3]. Such caterpillars have bandwidth at most 2. to show that every (n)(\geqslant n)-subdivision of any nn-vertex graph has reduced bandwidth at most 2. Is this result best possible, in the sense that if K_n(p)K_{\_}n^{(p)} is the pp-subdivision of K_nK_{\_}n and bw(K_n(p))O(1){\operatorname{bw}}^{\downarrow}(K_{\_}n^{(p)})\leqslant O(1), must pΩ(n)p\in\Omega(n)? Since Ω(n)\Omega(n)-subdivisions of nn-vertex graphs have linear expansion, a positive answer to this question would be good evidence for the suggestion above that graph classes with bounded reduced bandwidth and excluding a fixed complete bipartite subgraph have linear expansion.

Acknowledgements

This research was initiated at the Dagstuhl workshop Sparsity in Algorithms, Combinatorics and Logic (September 2021). Many thanks to the organisers and other participants.

After the initial announcement of our results, Jacob and Pilipczuk [30] proved that planar graphs have twin-width at most 183. Their proof is based on the proof of Theorem 2.

References