{"paper":{"title":"Are there any good digraph width measures?","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.DS"],"primary_cat":"cs.DM","authors_text":"Daniel Meister, Jan Obdr\\v{z}\\'alek, Joachim Kneis, Peter Rossmanith, Petr Hlin\\v{e}n\\'y, Robert Ganian, Somnath Sikdar","submitted_at":"2010-04-09T07:50:34Z","abstract_excerpt":"Several different measures for digraph width have appeared in the last few years. However, none of them shares all the \"nice\" properties of treewidth: First, being \\emph{algorithmically useful} i.e. admitting polynomial-time algorithms for all $\\MS1$-definable problems on digraphs of bounded width. And, second, having nice \\emph{structural properties} i.e. being monotone under taking subdigraphs and some form of arc contractions. As for the former, (undirected) $\\MS1$ seems to be the least common denominator of all reasonably expressive logical languages on digraphs that can speak about the ed"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"1004.1485","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"}