This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Exact Algorithms for MaxCut on Split Graphs

Marko Lalovic111Hamburg University of Technology, Germany. marko.lalovic@tuhh.de.
Abstract

This paper presents an O(1.42n)O^{*}(1.42^{n}) time algorithm for the Maximum Cut problem on split graphs, along with a subexponential time algorithm for its decision variant.

Keywords— Exact Algorithms, Maximum Cut, Split Graphs

1 Introduction

The Maximum Cut problem, MaxCut for short, asks to partition a graph’s vertices into two sets to maximize the cut size, defined as the number of edges between the sets. Variants of MaxCut have applications in various fields, including social networks [7], data clustering [9], and image segmentation [4]. Efficiently solving MaxCut is essential for these applications.

The decision variant of MaxCut (given a graph GG and kk\in\mathbb{N}, is there a cut of size at least kk in GG?) was proven to be NP-complete by Garey et al. [5]. The fastest algorithm for solving MaxCut, proposed by Williams [11], has a running time of approximately O(1.74n)O^{*}(1.74^{n}) 222The OO^{*} notation suppresses polynomially bounded terms. For a positive real constant cc, we write O(cn)O^{*}(c^{n}) for a time complexity of O(cnpoly)O(c^{n}\cdot\text{poly}) in the number of vertices nn. For a detailed discussion of this, see the survey by Woeginger [12].. However, this algorithm requires exponential space. Whether a polynomial space algorithm for MaxCut exists that runs faster than O(2n)O^{*}(2^{n}) is an open problem listed in [13]. This situation improves when the input is restricted to special classes of graphs.

A split graph is one whose vertex set can be partitioned into a clique and an independent set. This places split graphs ”halfway” between bipartite graphs and their complements, making the study of MaxCut on split graphs particularly interesting. Moreover, Bodlaender and Jansen [3] proved that decision variant of MaxCut remains NP-complete on split graphs. Sucupira et al. [10] provided a polynomial time algorithm for MaxCut on a special subclass called full (k,n)(k,n)-split graphs. More recently, Bliznets and Epifanov [2] studied MaxCut parameterized above the spanning tree bound and provided subexponential time algorithms for this variant of MaxCut on chordal, co-bipartite, and split graphs.

This paper presents an O(1.42n)O^{*}(1.42^{n}) time algorithm for MaxCut on split graphs, along with a subexponential time algorithm for the decision variant of MaxCut that is asymptotically optimal under the ETH. Both algorithms use polynomial space. Section 2 covers the notation and preliminaries, including conditional lower bounds based on the ETH. Sections 3 and 4 describe the new algorithms, along with proofs of their correctness and run-time guarantees. In Conclusions, Section 5 outlines several promising paths for some follow-up work.

2 Preliminaries

Let G=(V,E)G=\left(V,E\right) be a simple graph on nn vertices. Complement of the graph GG is denoted by G¯\overline{G}. The neighborhood of a vertex vv is denoted by N(v)={uV:(u,v)E}N(v)=\{u\in V:(u,v)\in E\}. A subset CVC\subseteq V is called a clique, if every two vertices in CC are adjacent. A subset IVI\subseteq V is called an independent set, if no two vertices in II are adjacent. A partition of vertices SVS\subseteq V into two disjoint subsets S1S_{1} and S2S_{2} is denoted by (S1,S2)(S_{1},S_{2}). A partition (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of VV is called a cut. The subset of edges EE that have one endpoint in V1V_{1} and the other endpoint in V2V_{2} is denoted by E(V1,V2)E(V_{1},V_{2}). The size of a cut is the cardinality of E(V1,V2)E(V_{1},V_{2}) denoted by kk:

k=|E(V1,V2)|.k=|E(V_{1},V_{2})|.

The MaxCut problem asks for a cut of maximum size in a given graph GG. In the decision variant of MaxCut one is given a graph GG and an integer kk, and the question is whether GG has a cut of size at least kk. Formally, the problems are defined as follows:

MaxCut Input: A graph GG. Task: Find a cut of maximum size in GG.

MaxCut (decision variant) Input: A graph GG and an integer kk. Task: Does GG have a cut of size k\geq k?

A graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) is a split graph if VV can be partitioned into a clique CC and an independent set II. Such a partition can be found in linear time, as shown in [6]. If GG is a disconnected graph, then a maximum cut can be determined by solving MaxCut on each of its connected components individually and combining the results. If GG is a complete graph or an empty graph, then MaxCut on GG is trivial. Therefore, when solving MaxCut, we may assume that the input graph GG is a connected split graph with a partition of its vertex set into a clique CC and an independent set II, where |C|1|C|\geq 1 and |I|1|I|\geq 1.

Bodlaender and Jansen [3] introduced a reduction of MaxCut on an arbitrary graph GG to MaxCut on a split graph GG^{\prime}. This reduction transforms graph GG into split graph GG^{\prime} with |V|+|E(G¯)||V|+|E(\overline{G})| vertices and |V|(|V|1)/2+2|E(G¯)||V|\cdot(|V|-1)/2+2|E(\overline{G})| edges. Moreover, there is a maximum cut of size kk in GG if and only if there is a maximum cut of size k+2|E(G¯)|k+2|E(\overline{G})| in GG^{\prime}. Figure 1 shows a graph GG with |E(G¯)|=4|E(\overline{G})|=4 and a cut ({v1,v3,v5},{v2,v4})(\{v_{1},v_{3},v_{5}\},\{v_{2},v_{4}\}) of size 5. The corresponding split graph GG^{\prime}, shown in Figure 2, has a cut of size 5+24=135+2\cdot 4=13.

v1v_{1}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}
Figure 1: A graph GG.
v1v_{1}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}v9v_{9}v8v_{8}v7v_{7}v6v_{6}
Figure 2: A split graph GG^{\prime}.

Under the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH), MaxCut cannot be solved in 2o(n)poly2^{o(n)}\,\text{poly} time on an arbitrary graph GG, as proved in [5]. Using this foundational result along with the described reduction, we can establish the following lower bounds for MaxCut on split graphs.

Proposition 1.

There are no algorithms for MaxCut or its decision variant on split graphs with a running time of  2o(n)poly2^{o(\sqrt{n})}\,\text{poly} or  2o(k)poly2^{o(\sqrt{k})}\,\text{poly} unless ETH fails.

Proof.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be an arbitrary graph with nn vertices and a maximum cut of size kk. Using the reduction by Bodlaender and Jansen [3], we can construct the corresponding split graph GG^{\prime} in polynomial time. The split graph GG^{\prime} will have

n=|V(G)|+|E(G¯)|n^{\prime}=|V(G)|+|E(\overline{G})|

vertices and a maximum cut of size

k=k+2|E(G¯)|.k^{\prime}=k+2|E(\overline{G})|.

Note that n=O(n2)n^{\prime}=O(n^{2}) and k=O(n2)k^{\prime}=O(n^{2}). Therefore, if we could solve MaxCut on GG^{\prime} in 2o(n)poly2^{o(\sqrt{n^{\prime}})}\,\text{poly} or 2o(k)poly2^{o(\sqrt{k^{\prime}})}\,\text{poly} time, we would be able to solve MaxCut on the original graph GG in 2o(n)poly2^{o(n)}\,\text{poly} time. However, under the ETH assumption, MaxCut does not admit a 2o(n)poly2^{o(n)}\,\text{poly} algorithm on an arbitrary graph GG. ∎

3 Exponential Algorithm

This section provides an exponential time algorithm for MaxCut on split graphs. First, we describe two procedures for MaxCut that are used as subroutines and provide proofs of correctness. The algorithm presented in the next section is also based on these results.

1Graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E), independent set IVI\subseteq V
2Maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG
3CVIC\leftarrow V\setminus I
4maxCutSize0maxCutSize\leftarrow 0
5for all C1CC_{1}\subseteq C do
6     C2CC1C_{2}\leftarrow C\setminus C_{1}
7     I1{vI:|N(v)C2||N(v)C1|}I_{1}\leftarrow\{v\in I:|N(v)\cap C_{2}|\geq|N(v)\cap C_{1}|\}
8     I2II1I_{2}\leftarrow I\setminus I_{1}
9     cutSize|E(C1I1,C2I2)|cutSize\leftarrow|E(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})|
10     if cutSizemaxCutSizecutSize\geq maxCutSize then
11         (V1,V2)(C1I1,C2I2)(V_{1},V_{2})\leftarrow(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})
12         maxCutSizecutSizemaxCutSize\leftarrow cutSize      
13return (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2})

Procedure 1 MaxCut(G,I)(G,I)
𝑪𝟏C_{1}𝑪𝟐C_{2}𝑰𝟐I_{2}𝑰𝟏I_{1}
Figure 3: A split graph.

Given a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and an independent set IVI\subseteq V, let (C1,C2)(C_{1},C_{2}) be a partition of C=VIC=V\setminus I. Define I1I_{1} as the set of vertices in II that have more neighbors in C2C_{2} than in C1C_{1}, and let I2=II1I_{2}=I\setminus I_{1}. This partition (I1,I2)(I_{1},I_{2}) of II maximizes the size of the cut (C1I1,C2I2)(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2}). An example of a split graph with a maximum cut (C1I1,C2I2)(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2}) of size 14 is shown in Figure 3. By evaluating all possible partitions (C1,C2)(C_{1},C_{2}) of CC we can find a maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG. Refer to Procedure 1 and Lemma 1.

Lemma 1.

Given a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and an independent set IVI\subseteq V, Procedure 1 returns a maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG.

Proof.

Let (V1,V2)(V_{1}^{\prime},V_{2}^{\prime}) be a cut in GG. Let C=VIC=V\setminus I. Procedure 1 considers all subsets of CC including the partition

(C1,C2)=(V1C,V2C).(C_{1},C_{2})=(V_{1}^{\prime}\cap C,V_{2}^{\prime}\cap C).

For each vertex vIv\in I, the number of edges in the cut is at most

max{|N(v)C1|,|N(v)C2|}.\max\{|N(v)\cap C_{1}|,|N(v)\cap C_{2}|\}.

If |N(v)C1||N(v)C2||N(v)\cap C_{1}|\geq|N(v)\cap C_{2}|, vv is assigned to I1I_{1}, otherwise, vv is assigned to I2I_{2}. Consequently,

|E(C1I1,C2I2)||E(V1,V2)|.|E(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})|\geq|E(V_{1}^{\prime},V_{2}^{\prime})|.

1Graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E), clique CVC\subseteq V
2Maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG
3IVCI\leftarrow V\setminus C
4maxCutSize0maxCutSize\leftarrow 0
5for all I1II_{1}\subseteq I do
6     I2II1I_{2}\leftarrow I\setminus I_{1}
7     Sort(C,|N(v)I2||N(v)I1|)\textsc{Sort}\left(C,|N(v)\cap I_{2}|-|N(v)\cap I_{1}|\right)
8     for all m{0,1,2,,|C|}m\in\{0,1,2,\dots,|C|\} do
9         C1{v1,v2,,vm}C_{1}\leftarrow\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{m}\}
10         C2CC1C_{2}\leftarrow C\setminus C_{1}
11         cutSize|E(C1I1,C2I2)|cutSize\leftarrow|E(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})|
12         if cutSizemaxCutSizecutSize\geq maxCutSize then
13              (V1,V2)(C1I1,C2I2)(V_{1},V_{2})\leftarrow(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})
14              maxCutSizecutSizemaxCutSize\leftarrow cutSize               
15return (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2})
Procedure 2 MaxCut(G,C)(G,C)
v1v_{1}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}𝑪𝟏C_{1}𝑪𝟐C_{2}𝑰𝟐I_{2}𝑰𝟏I_{1}
Figure 4: A split graph.

Given a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and a clique CVC\subseteq V, let (I1,I2)(I_{1},I_{2}) be a partition of I=VCI=V\setminus C. Define C1C_{1} as the set of mm vertices vv in CC with the highest values of |N(v)I2||N(v)I1|,|N(v)\cap I_{2}|-|N(v)\cap I_{1}|, and let C2=CC1C_{2}=C\setminus C_{1}. This ensures that vertices in C1C_{1} have many neighbors in I2I_{2} and vertices in C2C_{2} have many neighbors in I1I_{1}. By considering all possible values of mm, we can find a partition (C1,C2)(C_{1},C_{2}) of CC that maximizes the size of the cut (C1I1,C2I2).(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2}). An example of a split graph with a maximum cut (C1I1,C2I2)(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2}) of size 14 is shown in Figure 4. In this example, m=2m=2, and vertices v1Cv_{1}\in C are listed in non-increasing order based on |N(vi)I2||N(vi)I1||N(v_{i})\cap I_{2}|-|N(v_{i})\cap I_{1}|. By evaluating all possible partitions (I1,I2)(I_{1},I_{2}) of II, we can find a maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG. Refer to Procedure 2 and Lemma 2, which shows that the cut produced by this procedure is at least as large as any other possible cut in GG.

Lemma 2.

Given a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and a clique CVC\subseteq V, Procedure 2 returns a maximum cut (V1,V2)(V_{1},V_{2}) of GG.

Proof.

Let (V1,V2)(V_{1}^{\prime},V_{2}^{\prime}) be a cut in GG. Let I=VCI=V\setminus C. Procedure 2 considers all subsets of II including the partition

(I1,I2)=(V1I,V2I).(I_{1},I_{2})=(V_{1}^{\prime}\cap I,V_{2}^{\prime}\cap I).

It then sorts the vertices in CC in non-increasing order based on

|N(v)I2||N(v)I1|.|N(v)\cap I_{2}|-|N(v)\cap I_{1}|.

Denote the vertices in CC in this order as:

C={v1,v2,,v|C|}.C=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{|C|}\}.

Thus, for all i=1,,|C|1i=1,\dots,|C|-1, we have:

|N(vi)I2||N(vi)I1||N(vi+1)I2||N(vi+1)I1|.|N(v_{i})\cap I_{2}|-|N(v_{i})\cap I_{1}|\geq|N(v_{i+1})\cap I_{2}|-|N(v_{i+1})\cap I_{1}|. (1)

Let m=|V1C|m=|V_{1}^{\prime}\cap C|. Procedure 2 considers all possible values of mm, so we can assume mm is known. It then selects the following partition of CC:

C1={v1,v2,,vm},C2=CC1.C_{1}=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{m}\},\quad C_{2}=C\setminus C_{1}.

This partition maximizes the size of the cut in GG, which can be expressed as:

|E(C1I1,C2I2)|=m(|C|m)+vC1|N(v)I2|+vC2|N(v)I1|.|E(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})|=m(|C|-m)+\sum_{v\in C_{1}}|N(v)\cap I_{2}|+\sum_{v\in C_{2}}|N(v)\cap I_{1}|.

To prove this, recall that m=|V1C|m=|V_{1}^{\prime}\cap C|, and denote

(C1,C2)=(V1C,V2C).(C_{1}^{\prime},C_{2}^{\prime})=(V_{1}^{\prime}\cap C,V_{2}^{\prime}\cap C).

From the ordering (Inequality 1), we have:

vC1|N(v)I2||N(v)I1|vC1|N(v)I2||N(v)I1|.\sum_{v\in C_{1}}|N(v)\cap I_{2}|-|N(v)\cap I_{1}|\geq\sum_{v\in C_{1}^{\prime}}|N(v)\cap I_{2}|-|N(v)\cap I_{1}|.

Adding vC|N(v)I1|\sum_{v\in C}|N(v)\cap I_{1}| to both sides of this inequality, we get:

vC1|N(v)I2|+vC2|N(v)I1|vC1|N(v)I2|+vC2|N(v)I1|.\sum_{v\in C_{1}}|N(v)\cap I_{2}|+\sum_{v\in C_{2}}|N(v)\cap I_{1}|\geq\sum_{v\in C_{1}^{\prime}}|N(v)\cap I_{2}|+\sum_{v\in C_{2}^{\prime}}|N(v)\cap I_{1}|.

Therefore, the size of the cut produced by Procedure 2 satisfies:

|E(C1I1,C2I2)||E(V1,V2)|.|E(C_{1}\cup I_{1},C_{2}\cup I_{2})|\geq|E(V_{1}^{\prime},V_{2}^{\prime})|.

Theorem 1.

MaxCut on split graphs can be solved in time

O(2n/2poly)=O(1.42n).O\left(2^{n/2}\,\text{poly}\right)=O^{*}(1.42^{n}).
Proof.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a split graph with a partition of its vertex set into a clique CC and an independent set II. Such a partition can be found in linear time, as shown in [6].

For |C|n/2|C|\leq n/2, by Lemma 1, we can solve MaxCut using Procedure 1 by considering all possible subsets of CC in time

O(2|C|poly)=O(2n/2poly).O\left(2^{|C|}\,\text{poly}\right)=O\left(2^{n/2}\,\text{poly}\right).

For |C|>n/2|C|>n/2, by Lemma 2, we can solve MaxCut using Procedure 2 by considering all possible subsets of II in time

O(2n|C|poly)=O(2n/2poly).O\left(2^{n-|C|}\,\text{poly}\right)=O\left(2^{n/2}\,\text{poly}\right).

Note that neither Lemma 1 nor Lemma 2 assumes that the input graph GG is a split graph. Therefore, these lemmas can also be used to obtain faster algorithms for MaxCut on graphs with a large independent set or a large clique. Given a graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and a subset SVS\subseteq V, which is either a clique or an independent set, then MaxCut can be solved on GG in time O(2|VS|poly).O\left(2^{|V\setminus S|}\,\text{poly}\right).

4 Subexponential Algorithm

This section describes a parameterized subexponential time algorithm for the decision variant of the MaxCut problem on split graphs. According to Proposition 1, this algorithm is asymptotically optimal unless the ETH is false.

Theorem 2.

Decision variant of MaxCut on split graphs can be solved in 2O(k)poly2^{O(\sqrt{k})}\,\text{poly} time.

Proof.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a split graph with a clique CC. Consider a partition (C1,C2)(C_{1},C_{2}) of CC such that

|C1|=|C|2and|C2|=|C|2.|C_{1}|=\left\lfloor\frac{|C|}{2}\right\rfloor\quad\text{and}\quad|C_{2}|=\left\lceil\frac{|C|}{2}\right\rceil.

Note that there are |C1||C2||C_{1}|\cdot|C_{2}| edges in GG with one endpoint in C1C_{1} and the other in C2C_{2}. Thus, we can immediately output ”Yes”, if

k(|C|2)2.k\leq\left(\frac{|C|}{2}\right)^{2}.

Otherwise, we have |C|2k|C|\leq 2\sqrt{k}. By Lemma 1, the exact size of a maximum cut in GG can be found using Procedure 1 by considering all possible subsets of C in time 2O(|C|)poly=2O(k)poly.2^{O(|C|)}\,\text{poly}=2^{O(\sqrt{k})}\,\text{poly}.

5 Conclusions

The algorithm presented in Section 3 for MaxCut on split graphs can be adapted to create faster algorithms for graphs with large homogeneous parts. For instance, with some modifications, we can develop an algorithm for MaxCut on double split graphs with the same running time. Whether this approach can be extended to other graphs, such as chordal graphs, remains unclear. The presented subexponential algorithm in Section 4 for the decision variant of MaxCut on split graphs is essentially tight under the ETH. A similar result to Theorem 2 can be obtained for the parametric dual of MaxCut, known as Edge Bipartization problem, on split graphs.

It is important to note that the reduction by Bodlaender and Jansen [3] involves a transformation that causes a quadratic increase in the number of vertices nn. As a result, this reduction cannot be used to rule out a subexponential time algorithm in terms of nn. Determining whether such an algorithm exists for MaxCut on split graphs remains an interesting open question.

One strategy for developing fast algorithms for problems on split graphs is to use random sampling instead of considering every possible subset of a clique or independent set, as done here. Combining the presented algorithms with polynomial time approximation schemes [1] and adapting techniques from [8] for everywhere dense graphs to split graphs seems like a promising way to develop faster algorithms for problems on split graphs.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Matthias Mnich for suggesting me this topic and for his support in answering my questions and clarifying problems.

References

  • Arora et al. [1999] S. Arora, D. Karger, and M. Karpinski. Polynomial time approximation schemes for dense instances of np-hard problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 58(1):193–210, 1999. ISSN 0022-0000. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcss.1998.1605. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022000098916051.
  • Bliznets and Epifanov [2023] I. Bliznets and V. Epifanov. MaxCut Above Guarantee. In J. Leroux, S. Lombardy, and D. Peleg, editors, 48th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2023), volume 272 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 22:1–22:14, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2023. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ISBN 978-3-95977-292-1. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2023.22. URL https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2023/18556.
  • Bodlaender and Jansen [2000] H. L. Bodlaender and K. Jansen. On the complexity of the maximum cut problem. Nordic J. of Computing, 7(1):14–31, mar 2000. ISSN 1236-6064.
  • de Sousa et al. [2013] S. de Sousa, Y. Haxhimusa, and W. G. Kropatsch. Estimation of distribution algorithm for the max-cut problem. In W. G. Kropatsch, N. M. Artner, Y. Haxhimusa, and X. Jiang, editors, Graph-Based Representations in Pattern Recognition, pages 244–253, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-642-38221-5.
  • Garey et al. [1976] M. Garey, D. Johnson, and L. Stockmeyer. Some simplified np-complete graph problems. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(3):237–267, 1976. ISSN 0304-3975. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3975(76)90059-1. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397576900591.
  • Golumbic [2004] M. Golumbic. Algorithmic Graph Theory and Perfect Graphs. ISSN. Elsevier Science, 2004. ISBN 9780080526966. URL https://books.google.de/books?id=8xo-VrWo5_QC.
  • Harary [1959] F. Harary. On the measurement of structural balance. Behavioral Science, 4(4):316–323, 1959. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830040405. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830040405.
  • Lochet et al. [2021] W. Lochet, D. Lokshtanov, S. Saurabh, and M. Zehavi. Exploiting Dense Structures in Parameterized Complexity. In M. Bläser and B. Monmege, editors, 38th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2021), volume 187 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 50:1–50:17, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik. ISBN 978-3-95977-180-1. doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2021.50. URL https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2021/13695.
  • Poland and Zeugmann [2006] J. Poland and T. Zeugmann. Clustering pairwise distances with missing data: Maximum cuts versus normalized cuts. In L. Todorovski, N. Lavrač, and K. P. Jantke, editors, Discovery Science, pages 197–208, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-46493-8. URL https://www-alg.ist.hokudai.ac.jp/~thomas/publications/ds06pz.pdf.
  • Sucupira et al. [2014] R. Sucupira, L. Faria, and S. Klein. Approximation algorithms for simple maxcut of split graphs. In Brazilian Symposium on Operations Research 16 to 19 XLVI, 2014. URL http://www.din.uem.br/sbpo/sbpo2014/pdf/arq0011.pdf.
  • Williams [2004] R. Williams. A new algorithm for optimal constraint satisfaction and its implications. In J. Díaz, J. Karhumäki, A. Lepistö, and D. Sannella, editors, Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 1227–1237, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-27836-8. URL https://people.csail.mit.edu/rrw/2-csp-final.pdf.
  • Woeginger [2003] G. J. Woeginger. Exact Algorithms for NP-Hard Problems: A Survey, pages 185–207. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003. ISBN 978-3-540-36478-8. doi: 10.1007/3-540-36478-1˙17. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36478-1_17.
  • Woeginger [2008] G. J. Woeginger. Open problems around exact algorithms. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 156(3):397–405, 2008. ISSN 0166-218X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2007.03.023. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166218X0700128X. Combinatorial Optimization 2004.