4,067 research outputs found

    Counting Euler Tours in Undirected Bounded Treewidth Graphs

    Get PDF
    We show that counting Euler tours in undirected bounded tree-width graphs is tractable even in parallel - by proving a #SAC1\#SAC^1 upper bound. This is in stark contrast to #P-completeness of the same problem in general graphs. Our main technical contribution is to show how (an instance of) dynamic programming on bounded \emph{clique-width} graphs can be performed efficiently in parallel. Thus we show that the sequential result of Espelage, Gurski and Wanke for efficiently computing Hamiltonian paths in bounded clique-width graphs can be adapted in the parallel setting to count the number of Hamiltonian paths which in turn is a tool for counting the number of Euler tours in bounded tree-width graphs. Our technique also yields parallel algorithms for counting longest paths and bipartite perfect matchings in bounded-clique width graphs. While establishing that counting Euler tours in bounded tree-width graphs can be computed by non-uniform monotone arithmetic circuits of polynomial degree (which characterize #SAC1\#SAC^1) is relatively easy, establishing a uniform #SAC1\#SAC^1 bound needs a careful use of polynomial interpolation.Comment: 17 pages; There was an error in the proof of the GapL upper bound claimed in the previous version which has been subsequently remove

    Parliamentary Voting Procedures: Agenda Control, Manipulation, and Uncertainty

    Full text link
    We study computational problems for two popular parliamentary voting procedures: the amendment procedure and the successive procedure. While finding successful manipulations or agenda controls is tractable for both procedures, our real-world experimental results indicate that most elections cannot be manipulated by a few voters and agenda control is typically impossible. If the voter preferences are incomplete, then finding which alternatives can possibly win is NP-hard for both procedures. Whilst deciding if an alternative necessarily wins is coNP-hard for the amendment procedure, it is polynomial-time solvable for the successive one
    • …
    corecore