Table of Contents
Fetching ...

On The Maximum Linear Arrangement Problem for Trees

Lluís Alemany-Puig, Juan Luis Esteban, Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho

TL;DR

This work advances the study of Maximum Linear Arrangement (MaxLA) on trees by introducing a new characterization of maximum arrangements and dividing the problem into bipartite and non-bipartite components. It provides polynomial-time solutions for MaxLA on cycle graphs and, more importantly, on k-linear trees with k≤2, through a combination of maximal bipartite arrangements and carefully constructed non-bipartite arrangements (including 1-thistle MaxLA). The paper also presents two constrained variants—bipartite MaxLA and 1-thistle MaxLA—that together solve MaxLA for almost all trees and yield a 3/2-approximation, supported by empirical data. The results offer practical algorithms with strong performance on many trees and open directions for extending polynomial-time solvability and tightening approximation guarantees in broader graph classes.

Abstract

Linear arrangements of graphs are a well-known type of graph labeling and are found in many important computational problems, such as the Minimum Linear Arrangement Problem ($\texttt{minLA}$). A linear arrangement is usually defined as a permutation of the $n$ vertices of a graph. An intuitive geometric setting is that of vertices lying on consecutive integer positions in the real line, starting at 1; edges are often drawn as semicircles above the real line. In this paper we study the Maximum Linear Arrangement problem ($\texttt{MaxLA}$), the maximization variant of $\texttt{minLA}$. We devise a new characterization of maximum arrangements of general graphs, and prove that $\texttt{MaxLA}$ can be solved for cycle graphs in constant time, and for $k$-linear trees ($k\le2$) in time $O(n)$. We present two constrained variants of $\texttt{MaxLA}$ we call $\texttt{bipartite MaxLA}$ and $\texttt{1-thistle MaxLA}$. We prove that the former can be solved in time $O(n)$ for any bipartite graph; the latter, by an algorithm that typically runs in time $O(n^4)$ on unlabelled trees. The combination of the two variants has two promising characteristics. First, it solves $\texttt{MaxLA}$ for almost all trees consisting of a few tenths of nodes. Second, we prove that it constitutes a $3/2$-approximation algorithm for $\texttt{MaxLA}$ for trees. Furthermore, we conjecture that $\texttt{bipartite MaxLA}$ solves $\texttt{MaxLA}$ for at least $50\%$ of all free trees.

On The Maximum Linear Arrangement Problem for Trees

TL;DR

This work advances the study of Maximum Linear Arrangement (MaxLA) on trees by introducing a new characterization of maximum arrangements and dividing the problem into bipartite and non-bipartite components. It provides polynomial-time solutions for MaxLA on cycle graphs and, more importantly, on k-linear trees with k≤2, through a combination of maximal bipartite arrangements and carefully constructed non-bipartite arrangements (including 1-thistle MaxLA). The paper also presents two constrained variants—bipartite MaxLA and 1-thistle MaxLA—that together solve MaxLA for almost all trees and yield a 3/2-approximation, supported by empirical data. The results offer practical algorithms with strong performance on many trees and open directions for extending polynomial-time solvability and tightening approximation guarantees in broader graph classes.

Abstract

Linear arrangements of graphs are a well-known type of graph labeling and are found in many important computational problems, such as the Minimum Linear Arrangement Problem (). A linear arrangement is usually defined as a permutation of the vertices of a graph. An intuitive geometric setting is that of vertices lying on consecutive integer positions in the real line, starting at 1; edges are often drawn as semicircles above the real line. In this paper we study the Maximum Linear Arrangement problem (), the maximization variant of . We devise a new characterization of maximum arrangements of general graphs, and prove that can be solved for cycle graphs in constant time, and for -linear trees () in time . We present two constrained variants of we call and . We prove that the former can be solved in time for any bipartite graph; the latter, by an algorithm that typically runs in time on unlabelled trees. The combination of the two variants has two promising characteristics. First, it solves for almost all trees consisting of a few tenths of nodes. Second, we prove that it constitutes a -approximation algorithm for for trees. Furthermore, we conjecture that solves for at least of all free trees.
Paper Structure (52 sections, 21 theorems, 90 equations, 23 figures, 7 tables, 6 algorithms)

This paper contains 52 sections, 21 theorems, 90 equations, 23 figures, 7 tables, 6 algorithms.

Key Result

Lemma 3.1

Let $G =(V,E)$ be any graph where $V=\{u_1,\dots,u_n\}$, and $\pi$ an arrangement of its vertices where $v=u_i$ and $w=u_j$ for two fixed $i,j\in[n]$, $i\neq j$. Now, let be the arrangement where the positions of $v$ and $w$ have been swapped with respect to arrangement $\pi$ and the other vertices are not moved. Due to eq:preliminaries:levels:difference_of_degreeseq:preliminaries:cut_values:sum

Figures (23)

  • Figure 1: (a) A tree, whose vertices are labeled with letters $a,\dots,h$, and its graceful labeling, in numbers next to the vertices. Edges are labeled with the difference of the values in their endpoints. (b) A minimum arrangement of the tree in (a). (c) Linear arrangement of the graceful labeling in (a); it is also a maximum planar arrangement of the same tree Alemany2024a. (d) A maximum arrangement of the tree in (a).
  • Figure 2: (a) A tree and (b) one of its arrangements. Under the arrangement are indicated, from top to bottom, the vertex labels of the tree, the positions of the vertices (from $1$ to $n$), the values of the levels per vertex, and the values of the cut widths. (c) Table indicating the cuts each vertex goes through, the length of each edge (rightmost column), the width of each cut (last row), and the total cost of the arrangement (bottom-right value).
  • Figure 3: (a) A tree $T$. (b) A pair of edge-isomorphic arrangements of $T$. (c) A pair of level-isomorphic arrangements of $T$ that are not edge-isomorphic.
  • Figure 4: Proof of \ref{['lemma:properties_max_arrs:new:POL']}. Different types of swaps of the vertices of a branchless path $P$. (a) Equal-cost swap of vertices such that the levels of the swapped vertices remain constant position-wise; $x$ has no neighbors to the right of $w$. The swap is of the same nature if the orientation is reversed. (b) Swap of two vertices that disturbs the level signature, thus increasing the cost of the arrangement; similar to case (a) but $x$ has a neighbor to the right of $w$. (c) Depiction of the level 0 being 'pushed' along the path $P$ towards vertex $z$ when the swap in (a) is applied. (d) Increasing-cost swap applied to triples of vertices where the last vertex is a leaf.
  • Figure 5: Diagram to illustrate the terminology concerning bipartite and non-bipartite arrangements. This figure shows all $n!$ arrangements of a graph divided into non-bipartite (left half) and bipartite (right half) arrangements. Left and right regions indicate, respectively, maximal non-bipartite and maximal bipartite arrangements. The filled circle in the intersection marks maximum arrangements. Notice that the actual intersection needs not cover both sides of the division.
  • ...and 18 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (53)

  • Lemma 3.1
  • proof
  • Proposition 1: Nurse and De Vos Nurse2018aNurse2019a
  • proof
  • Proposition 2: Nurse and De Vos Nurse2018aNurse2019a
  • proof
  • Proposition 3: Nurse and De Vos Nurse2019a
  • proof
  • Proposition 4: Nurse and De Vos Nurse2019a
  • proof
  • ...and 43 more