arXiv++ Combinatorics

The geodesic treewidth of a graph $ G $ is the smallest $k$ for which there is a partition $\mathcal{P}$ into geodesics such that $G/\mathcal{P}$ has treewidth $k$, where $G/\mathcal{P}$ is obtained from $ G $ by contracting each part of $ \mathcal{P} $. Based on this notion, row treewidth was developed and is defined for a graph $ G $ as the smallest $ k $ such that $ G \subseteq H \boxtimes P $ for some graph $ H $ of treewidth $ k $ and a path $ P $. Equivalently, the row treewidth of a graph $ G $ is the smallest $ k $ for which there is a partition $ \mathcal{P} $ into disjoint unions of geodesics that are aligned with respect to some layering such that $ G/\mathcal{P} $ has treewidth $ k $. We separate the two notions by showing that bounded row treewidth does not imply bounded geodesic treewidth and by presenting a polynomial-time algorithm to decide whether a graph of treewidth 2 has geodesic treewidth 1, which is known to be NP-hard for row treewidth [Biedl, Eppstein, Ueckerdt, 2025]. More generally, we provide an algorithm to decide whether a given graph has geodesic treewidth at most $ d $ that is XP in the treewidth, whereas there is no such algorithm for row treewidth, unless P = NP [Biedl, Eppstein, Ueckerdt, 2025]. On the other hand, we show that computing the geodesic treewidth is NP-hard and that every graph with geodesic treewidth 1 has bounded row treewidth. Moreover, we improve the best known lower bound on the geodesic treewidth of planar graphs to 5.

Chernyshev, Rauch and Rautenbach [Discrete Math., 2025] introduce forest cuts, i.e., vertex separators that induce a forest. They conjecture that, similar to a result by Chen and Yu [Discrete Math., 2002], every $n$-vertex graph with less than $3n-6$ edges has a forest cut. As an intermediate goal they ask how many edges an $n$-vertex $3$-connected graph must have such that the neighborhood of every vertex contains a cycle. Li, Tang and Zhan [arXiv, 2024] resolve this problem by showing that every such graph has at least $15n/8$ edges, while there are examples of such graphs with exactly $15n/8$ edges. We give a much shorter proof for this.

A graph class $\mathcal{G}$ admits product structure if there exists a constant $k$ such that every $G \in \mathcal{G}$ is a subgraph of $H \boxtimes P$ for a path $P$ and some graph $H$ of treewidth $k$. Famously, the class of planar graphs, as well as many beyond-planar graph classes are known to admit product structure. However, we have only few tools to prove the absence of product structure, and hence know of only a few interesting examples of classes. Motivated by the transition between product structure and no product structure, we investigate subclasses of intersection graphs in the plane (e.g., disk intersection graphs) and present necessary and sufficient conditions for these to admit product structure. Specifically, for a set $S \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ (e.g., a disk) and a real number $α\in [0,1]$, we consider intersection graphs of $α$-free homothetic copies of $S$. That is, each vertex $v$ is a homothetic copy of $S$ of which at least an $α$-portion is not covered by other vertices, and there is an edge between $u$ and $v$ if and only if $u \cap v \neq \emptyset$. For $α= 1$ we have contact graphs, which are in most cases planar, and hence admit product structure. For $α= 0$ we have (among others) all complete graphs, and hence no product structure. In general, there is a threshold value $α^*(S) \in [0,1]$ such that $α$-free homothetic copies of $S$ admit product structure for all $α> α^*(S)$ and do not admit product structure for all $α< α^*(S)$. We show for a large family of sets $S$, including all triangles and all trapezoids, that it holds $α^*(S) = 1$, i.e., we have no product structure, except for the contact graphs (when $α= 1$). For other sets $S$, including regular $n$-gons for infinitely many values of $n$, we show that $0 < α^*(S) < 1$ by proving upper and lower bounds.

We consider "surrounding" versions of the classic Cops and Robber game. The game is played on a connected graph in which two players, one controlling a number of cops and the other controlling a robber, take alternating turns. In a turn, each player may move each of their pieces: The robber always moves between adjacent vertices. Regarding the moves of the cops we distinguish four versions that differ in whether the cops are on the vertices or the edges of the graph and whether the robber may move on/through them. The goal of the cops is to surround the robber, i.e., occupying all neighbors (vertex version) or incident edges (edge version) of the robber's current vertex. In contrast, the robber tries to avoid being surrounded indefinitely. Given a graph, the so-called cop number denotes the minimum number of cops required to eventually surround the robber. We relate the different cop numbers of these versions and prove that none of them is bounded by a function of the classical cop number and the maximum degree of the graph, thereby refuting a conjecture by Crytser, Komarov and Mackey [Graphs and Combinatorics, 2020].