Minimizing width in linear layouts

  • F. S. Makedon
  • I. H. Sudborough
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 154)


A (linear) layout of an undirected graph G is a one-to-one function mapping the vertices of G to integers. The cutwidth of G under a linear layout L, denoted by cw(G,L), is the maximum, taken over all possible i, of the number of edges connecting vertices assigned to integers less than i to vertices assigned to integers at least as large as i. The cutwidth of a graph G, denoted by cw(G), is the minimum of cw(G,L), taken over all possible linear layouts L. The problem of determining the cutwidth of a graph, called the Min Cut Linear Arrangement problem, has applications in VLSI, for example in the minimization of interconnection channels in Weinberger arrays [16].

We describe a relationship between the cutwidth of a graph G and its “search number” [10], denoted by s(G). We show that, for all graphs G, s(G) ≤ cw(G) ≤ ≫deg(G)/ 2⌋ · s(G), where deg(G) denotes the maximum degree of any vertex in G. In particular, this means that, for any graph G with maximum vertex degree 3, s(G)=cw(G).

The earlier dynamic programming algorithm of Gurari and Sudborough [5 ] is improved to show that, for any k≥2, the problem of deciding if a given graph has cutwidth at most k can be done in O(nk−1) steps. We also characterize the classes of graphs with cutwidth 2 and cutwidth 3. The latter characterization strongly suggests a linear time algorithm to determine whether a given graph has cutwidth at most three.


Incident Edge Linear Time Algorithm Optimal Layout Node Splitting Search Number 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. A. Breuer, “Min Cut Placement”, J. Design Automation and Fault Tolerant Computing 1,4 ( 1977 ), pp. 343–362.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.-J. Chung, F. S. Makedon, I. H. Sudborough, J. Turner, “Polynomial Time Algorithms for the Min Cut Linear Arrangement Problem on Degree Restricted Trees”, Proc. 23rd Annual IEEE Foundations of Computer Science Symp. ( 1982 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. R. Garey, R. L. Graham, D. S. Johnson, and D. E. Knuth, “Complexity Results for Bandwidth Minimization”, SIAM J. Applied Math. 34 ( 1978 ), pp. 477–495.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Gavril, “Some NP-complete Problems on Graphs”, Proc. 11th Annual Conf. on Info. Science and Systems, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., U.S.A., ( 1977 ), pp. 91–95.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. M. Gurari and I. H. Sudborough, “Improved Dynamic Programming Algorithms for Bandwidth Minimization and the Min Cut Linear Arrangement Problem”, manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. S. LaPaugh, “Recontamination Does Not Help”, manuscript, Princeton University, Computer Science Dept., Princeton, N.J., U.S.A., 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Lengauer, “Upper and Lower Bounds on the Complexity of the Min Cut Linear Arrangement Problem on Trees”, Tech. Report TM-80-1272-9, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey, U.S.A. ( 1980 ).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. D. Lopez and H.-F. S. Law, “A Dense Gate Matrix Layout Method for MOS VLSI”, TREE Trans. on Electronic Devices, ED-27,8 ( 1980 ), pp. 1671–1675.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. S. Makedon, C. H. Papadimitriou, and I. H. Sudborough, “Topological Bandwidth”, manuscript ( 1983 ).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Megiddo, S. L. Hakimi, M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and C. H. Papadimitriou, “The Complexity of Searching a Graph”, Proc. IEEE Foundations of Computer Science Symp. ( 1981 ), pp. 376–385.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Ohtsuki, H. Mori, E. S. Kuh, T. Kashiwabara, and T. Fujisawa, “One-Dimensional Logic Gate Assignments and Interval Graphs”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems, CAS-26,9 ( 1979 ), pp. 675–684.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. D. Parsons, “Pursuit Evasion in a Graph”, Theory and Applications of Graphs, Y. Alavi and D. R. Lick, eds., Springer Verlag, Berlin ( 1976 ), pp. 426–441.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. B. Saxe, “Dynamic Programming Algorithms for Recognizing Small Bandwidth Graphs”, SIAM J. Algebra and Discrete Math. ( 1980 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Stockmeyer, personal communication to M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, (1974), cited in Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness, Freeman Publ. ( 1979 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Trimberg, “Automating Chip Layout”, IEEE Spectum ( 1982 ), pp. 38–45.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Weinberger, “Large Scale Integration of MDS Complex Logic: A Layout Method”, IEEE J. Solid State Circuits, SC-2 ( 1967 ), pp. 182–190.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Yoshizawa, H. Kawanishi, and K. Kani, “A Heuristic Procedure for Ordering MOS Arrays”, Design Automation Conference ( 1975 ), pp. 384–393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. S. Makedon
    • 1
  • I. H. Sudborough
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceIllinois Institute of Tech.ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Electrical Eng. and Computer Sci.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations