Nishad Kothari

Nishad Kothari, Orlando Lee, Cláudio L. Lucchesi et al.

It is well-known that any class of simple graphs, that is characterized by finitely many forbidden minors, also admits a characterization by finitely many forbidden topological minors; furthermore, the list of forbidden topological minors may be derived from the list of forbidden minors. We prove a similar result in Matching Theory. Our Main Theorem states that any class of matching covered graphs, that is characterized by finitely many forbidden $S$-minors that are cubic, also admits a characterization by finitely many forbidden conformal minors that are cubic as well; once again, the list of forbidden conformal minors may be derived from the list of forbidden $S$-minors. In order to establish the above, we first prove that every matching covered graph has one of two graphs as a conformal minor -- either $K_4$, or the $Θ$ graph (that is, two vertices joined by three edges). (In fact, we need and prove a much stronger statement.) This is reminiscent of a theorem due to Lovász: every nonbipartite matching covered graph has one of two graphs as a conformal minor -- either $K_4$, or the triangular prism $\overline{C_6}$. As applications of our Main Theorem, we deduce known 'forbidden conformal minor characterizations' of pfaffian near-bipartite graphs, and of pfaffian solid graphs, using their respective known 'forbidden $S$-minor characterizations'.

Shiva Kintali, Nishad Kothari, Akash Kumar

Several problems that are NP-hard on general graphs are efficiently solvable on graphs with bounded treewidth. Efforts have been made to generalize treewidth and the related notion of pathwidth to digraphs. Directed treewidth, DAG-width and Kelly-width are some such notions which generalize treewidth, whereas directed pathwidth generalizes pathwidth. Each of these digraph width measures have an associated decomposition structure. In this paper, we present approximation algorithms for all these digraph width parameters. In particular, we give an O(sqrt{logn})-approximation algorithm for directed treewidth, and an O({\log}^{3/2}{n})-approximation algorithm for directed pathwidth, DAG-width and Kelly-width. Our algorithms construct the corresponding decompositions whose widths are within the above mentioned approximation factors.

Amit Kumar Mallik, Ajit A. Diwan, Nishad Kothari

A connected graph, on four or more vertices, is matching covered (aka 1-extendable) if every edge is present in some perfect matching. An ear decomposition theorem exists for bipartite matching covered graphs due to Hetyei. From the results and proofs of Lovász and Plummer, that rely on Hetyei's theorem, one may deduce that any minimal bipartite matching covered graph has at least $2(m-n+2)$ vertices of degree two (where minimal means that deleting any edge results in a graph that is not matching covered); such a graph is said to be extremal if it attains the stated lower bound. In this paper, we provide a complete characterization of the class of extremal minimal bipartite matching covered graphs. In particular, we prove that every such graph $G$ is obtained from two copies of a tree devoid of degree two vertices, say $T$ and $T'$, by adding edges -- each of which joins a leaf of $T$ with the corresponding leaf of $T'$. Apart from the aforementioned bound, there are four other bounds that appear in, or may be deduced from, the work of Lovász and Plummer. Each of these bounds leads to a notion of extremality. In this paper, we obtain a complete characterization of all of these extremal classes and also establish relationships between them. Two of our characterizations are in the same spirit as the one stated above. For the remaining two extremal classes, we reduce each of them to one of the already characterized extremal classes using standard matching theoretic operations. A connected graph is k-extendable if it has a matching of cardinality $k$ and each such matching extends to a perfect matching. We also discuss bounds proved by Lou (1999) for minimal k-extendable bipartite graphs. We conjecture stronger bounds and provide evidence for our conjectures by constructing tight examples that are straightforward generalizations of the ones that appear in the 1-extendable case.