Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Width Parameters for Minimum Flow Decomposition

Andreas Grigorjew, Wanchote Jiamjitrak, Brendan Mumey, Alexandru I. Tomescu

TL;DR

This work analyzes the minimum flow decomposition problem on DAGs through new width-based parameters. It establishes sharp bounded-width hardness: MFD$_\mathbb{N}$ remains NP-hard for width 2 and strongly NP-hard for width 3, tightening the boundary between easy and hard instances. It then introduces flow-width and parallel-width, deriving a quasi-polynomial-time algorithm for unary inputs under constant parallel-width and linking decompositions to graph-minor operations. These insights yield tighter bounds and improved approximation behavior on width-stable graphs and connect MFD with the generating-set problem, advancing both theory and potential practical approaches.

Abstract

Minimum flow decomposition (MFD) is the strongly NP-hard problem of finding a smallest set of integer weighted $s$-$t$ paths in an $s$-$t$ DAG $G$ whose weighted sum is equal to a given flow $f$ on $G$. Despite its many practical applications, we lack an understanding of graph structures that make MFD easy or hard. Recent progress is due to Cáceres et al. [ACM TALG 2024], who showed that the DAG width, the minimum number of paths to cover all edges, plays an essential role in the approximation of the problem. Our first set of results regard the computational complexity of MFD parameterised by the width. This question was previously open, because MFD on width-1 DAGs (paths) is trivially solvable, and the existing NP-hardness proofs use DAGs of unbounded width. We show that MFD on width-2 DAGs is already NP-hard and that MFD on width-3 DAGs is strongly NP-hard. Our main contribution complements these hardness bounds, as we show that weak NP-hardness is the best we can hope for on width-2 DAGs. In fact, we prove the more general statement that MFD with unary coded input can be solved in quasi-polynomial time on DAGs of constant parallel-width, which includes width-2 DAGs. The parallel-width of a DAG $G$ (par-width$(G)$) was defined by Deligkas and Meir [MFCS 2017] as the size of the largest minimal $s$-$t$ cut-set. We obtain these results by, a) interpreting flow decompositions as a sequence of certain digraph minor operations defined by Deligkas and Meir [MFCS 2017], and b) defining a new notion of width of a flow network, flow-width of $(G,f)$, defined as the minimum number of paths covering all edges of $G$, where every edge $e$ can be covered by at most $f(e)$ paths. Using (a) and (b), we show as an intermediate result, an improved upper bound $(\lfloor\log \Vert f\Vert\rfloor+1) \cdot \text{par-width}(G)$ for MFD, where $\Vert f\Vert$ is the largest flow weight of all edges.

Width Parameters for Minimum Flow Decomposition

TL;DR

This work analyzes the minimum flow decomposition problem on DAGs through new width-based parameters. It establishes sharp bounded-width hardness: MFD remains NP-hard for width 2 and strongly NP-hard for width 3, tightening the boundary between easy and hard instances. It then introduces flow-width and parallel-width, deriving a quasi-polynomial-time algorithm for unary inputs under constant parallel-width and linking decompositions to graph-minor operations. These insights yield tighter bounds and improved approximation behavior on width-stable graphs and connect MFD with the generating-set problem, advancing both theory and potential practical approaches.

Abstract

Minimum flow decomposition (MFD) is the strongly NP-hard problem of finding a smallest set of integer weighted - paths in an - DAG whose weighted sum is equal to a given flow on . Despite its many practical applications, we lack an understanding of graph structures that make MFD easy or hard. Recent progress is due to Cáceres et al. [ACM TALG 2024], who showed that the DAG width, the minimum number of paths to cover all edges, plays an essential role in the approximation of the problem. Our first set of results regard the computational complexity of MFD parameterised by the width. This question was previously open, because MFD on width-1 DAGs (paths) is trivially solvable, and the existing NP-hardness proofs use DAGs of unbounded width. We show that MFD on width-2 DAGs is already NP-hard and that MFD on width-3 DAGs is strongly NP-hard. Our main contribution complements these hardness bounds, as we show that weak NP-hardness is the best we can hope for on width-2 DAGs. In fact, we prove the more general statement that MFD with unary coded input can be solved in quasi-polynomial time on DAGs of constant parallel-width, which includes width-2 DAGs. The parallel-width of a DAG (par-width) was defined by Deligkas and Meir [MFCS 2017] as the size of the largest minimal - cut-set. We obtain these results by, a) interpreting flow decompositions as a sequence of certain digraph minor operations defined by Deligkas and Meir [MFCS 2017], and b) defining a new notion of width of a flow network, flow-width of , defined as the minimum number of paths covering all edges of , where every edge can be covered by at most paths. Using (a) and (b), we show as an intermediate result, an improved upper bound for MFD, where is the largest flow weight of all edges.
Paper Structure (10 sections, 8 theorems, 1 equation, 1 figure)

This paper contains 10 sections, 8 theorems, 1 equation, 1 figure.

Key Result

Theorem 1

MFD$_\mathbb{N}$ on a DAG $G$ is strongly $\mathsf{NP}$-hard even when $\textsf{width}(G) = 3$.

Figures (1)

  • Figure 3: An example of minimally covering flow (black) and minimum covering flow (red). Note that the value of the black flow $(5)$ is larger than the value of the red flow $(4)$, despite being smaller in the central edge.

Theorems & Definitions (13)

  • Theorem 1
  • Theorem 2
  • Theorem 3
  • Corollary 3
  • Lemma 3
  • Lemma 3
  • Definition 4
  • Definition 5
  • Definition 6
  • Definition 7
  • ...and 3 more