Paper detail

Structural Parameterizations of the Mixed Chinese Postman Problem

In the Mixed Chinese Postman Problem (MCPP), given a weighted mixed graph $G$ ($G$ may have both edges and arcs), our aim is to find a minimum weight closed walk traversing each edge and arc at least once. The MCPP parameterized by the number of edges in $G$ or the number of arcs in $G$ is fixed-parameter tractable as proved by van Bevern {\em et al.} (in press) and Gutin, Jones and Sheng (ESA 2014), respectively. In this paper, we consider the unweighted version of MCPP. Solving an open question of van Bevern {\em et al.} (in press), we show that somewhat unexpectedly MCPP parameterized by the (undirected) treewidth of $G$ is W[1]-hard. In fact, we prove that even the MCPP parameterized by the pathwidth of $G$ is W[1]-hard. On the positive side, we show that the unweighted version of MCPP parameterized by tree-depth is fixed-parameter tractable. We are unaware of any natural graph parameters between pathwidth and tree-depth and so our results provide a dichotomy of the complexity of MCPP. Furthermore, we believe that MCPP is the first problem known to be W[1]-hard with respect to treewidth but FPT with respect to tree-depth.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.