Paper detail

On the computational tractability of a geographic clustering problem arising in redistricting

Redistricting is the problem of dividing a state into a number $k$ of regions, called districts. Voters in each district elect a representative. The primary criteria are: each district is connected, district populations are equal (or nearly equal), and districts are "compact". There are multiple competing definitions of compactness, usually minimizing some quantity. One measure that has been recently promoted by Duchin and others is number of cut edges. In redistricting, one is given atomic regions out of which each district must be built. The populations of the atomic regions are given. Consider the graph with one vertex per atomic region (with weight equal to the region's population) and an edge between atomic regions that share a boundary. A districting plan is a partition of vertices into $k$ parts, each connnected, of nearly equal weight. The districts are considered compact to the extent that the plan minimizes the number of edges crossing between different parts. Consider two problems: find the most compact districting plan, and sample districting plans under a compactness constraint uniformly at random. Both problems are NP-hard so we restrict the input graph to have branchwidth at most $w$. (A planar graph's branchwidth is bounded by its diameter.) If both $k$ and $w$ are bounded by constants, the problems are solvable in polynomial time. Assume vertices have weight~1. One would like algorithms whose running times are of the form $O(f(k,w) n^c)$ for some constant $c$ independent of $k$ and $w$, in which case the problems are said to be fixed-parameter tractable with respect to $k$ and $w$). We show that, under a complexity-theoretic assumption, no such algorithms exist. However, we do give algorithms with running time $O(c^wn^{k+1})$. Thus if the diameter of the graph is moderately small and the number of districts is very small, our algorithm is useable.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.