Rank-width is less than or equal to branch-width

Journal of Graph Theory

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 239-244

  Oum, Sang Il ^a,b  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Branch width; Clique width; Incidence graphs; Line graphs; Rank width; Tree width

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL GEOMETRY; NUMERICAL METHODS;

BRANCH WIDTH; INCIDENCE GRAPHS; LINE GRAPHS; RANK-WIDTH; TREE-WIDTH;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 40049109944     PISSN: 03649024     EISSN: 10970118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jgt.20280     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. 1 D. G. Corneil and U. Rotics, On the relationship between clique‐width and treewidth, SIAM J Comput 34 (4) ( 2005), 825–847 (electronic).
2. 2 B. Courcelle and S. Olariu, Upper bounds to the clique width of graphs, Discrete Appl Math 101 (1–3) ( 2000), 77–114.
3. 3 I. V. Hicks and N. B. McMurray Jr, The branchwidth of graphs and their cycle matroids, J Combin Theory B 97 (5) ( 2007), 681–692.
4. 4 M. M. Kanté, Vertex‐minor reductions can simulate edge contractions, Discrete Appl Math 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.dam.2007.06.011
5. 5 F. Mazoit and S. Thomassé, Branchwidth of graphic matroids, manuscript, 2005.
6. 6 S. Oum, Rank‐width and vertex‐minors, J Combin Theory Ser B 95 (1) ( 2005), 79–100.
7. 7 S. Oum, Excluding a bipartite circle graph from line graphs, 2006, submitted for publication.
8. 8 S. Oum and P. Seymour, Approximating clique‐width and branch‐width, J Combin Theory Ser B 96 (4) ( 2006), 514–528.
9. 9 N. Robertson and P. Seymour, Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree‐decomposition, J Combin Theory Ser B 52 (2) ( 1991), 153–190.