Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 52 references

This paper proves that every planar graph has an optimal tree-decomposition whose bags have pathwidth at most 3, and characterizes the possible bag shapes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:52 UTC pith:6BWG5EMU

load-bearing objection Clean strengthening of optimal-width tree-decompositions; the Section 5 container framework is broadly useful and the external triangulation lemma is not load-bearing.

arxiv 2607.27601 v1 pith:6BWG5EMU submitted 2026-07-30 math.CO cs.DM

Optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded pathwidth

Kevin Hendrey , Robert Hickingbotham , J\k{e}drzej Hodor , David R. Wood This is my paper
classification math.CO cs.DM MSC 05C8305C10
keywords tree-decompositiontreewidthpathwidthplanar graphsrefined tree-decompositiongraph minorslinear grid minor theoremsurface embeddings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper proves that every planar graph has a tree-decomposition of optimal width, meaning width exactly equal to its treewidth, in which every bag induces a subgraph of pathwidth at most 3. The constant 3 is best possible, since any bag containing a four-vertex clique has pathwidth 3. The proof works by studying 'refined' tree-decompositions, a minimal normal form, and showing that in a planar triangulation every bag must be one of four explicit shapes, each of pathwidth at most 3; a cited lemma then transfers this from triangulations to arbitrary planar graphs. The same machinery gives optimal decompositions with bounded bag pathwidth for graphs on any fixed surface and for graphs excluding a fixed double-apex forest minor, and shows that the union of any k bags in the planar construction has pathwidth O(k). As a byproduct, the paper gives a new short proof of the linear grid-minor theorem for planar graphs.

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 1, is that every planar graph G admits a tree-decomposition of width tw(G) in which each bag B induces a subgraph G[B] with pathwidth at most 3. The proof reduces to planar triangulations: by a cited lemma, G (with tw(G) at least 4) is a spanning subgraph of a planar triangulation G' with tw(G') = tw(G). Inside G', refined tree-decompositions are shown to have very rigid bags: each bag is a 2-connected, non-outerplanar graph that is either a graph whose deletion of one vertex leaves a cycle, a subdivision of K_{2,3}, a subdivision of K_4 containing a triangle, or an elongated triangular prism. Each of these has pathwidth at most 3, and because G' has the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the refined tree-decomposition: a normal tree-decomposition (no bag is a subset of an adjacent bag) with no proper refinement, a notion introduced in prior work and shown to exist via atomic decompositions. Its key property, Lemma 6 and Theorem 9, is that every bag is unbreakable and any two vertices in a bag are connected by a path whose internal vertices lie outside the bag. In a planar triangulation, unbreakability plus planarity forces each bag into one of the four shapes in Theorem 19, each of pathwidth at most 3. The external link that lifts the result from triangulations to all planar graphs is a cited lemma asserting that every planar graph G with tw(G) at

Load-bearing premise

The transfer from planar triangulations to all planar graphs depends entirely on a cited lemma asserting that every planar graph G with treewidth at least 4 is a spanning subgraph of a planar triangulation G' with tw(G') = tw(G). If that lemma fails for some planar graph, the classification proof only establishes the result for triangulations.

What would settle it

Find a planar graph G with treewidth at least 4 that is not a spanning subgraph of any planar triangulation of the same treewidth; or, in a planar triangulation with treewidth at least 4, construct a refined tree-decomposition with a bag whose induced subgraph is 2-connected, non-outerplanar, and not one of the four shapes in Theorem 19. Either would refute the reduction or the classification behind Theorem 1.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Every planar graph has a width-optimal tree-decomposition whose bags are pathwidth-3 graphs, so optimal decompositions can be chosen with strong local path-likeness.
  • The union of any k bags in the planar construction has pathwidth at most 28k - 24, so collections of nearby bags remain tractable.
  • Graphs embeddable on any fixed surface, and more generally graphs excluding a fixed double-apex forest minor, have an optimal tree-decomposition with bag pathwidth bounded by a constant depending only on the excluded minor.
  • The machinery yields a new proof that every planar graph with treewidth at least 15k+21 contains a k by k grid minor, i.e., the linear grid-minor theorem.
  • For any robust, self-similar minor-monotone parameter (treedepth, pathwidth, treewidth), the paper characterizes the minor-closed classes whose refined-decomposition bags have bounded values of that parameter: exactly those that omit some graph of the form H + K_2.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If the cited triangulation lemma could be replaced by a surface analog that preserves treewidth, the four-shape classification might extend to higher genus with genus-dependent constants; the paper does not claim this.
  • Inference: The pathwidth-3 bag structure suggests that planar dynamic programs could be designed with state spaces indexed by pathwidth-3 graphs rather than general bounded-treewidth bags, which may yield simpler or faster algorithms; the paper does not explore algorithmic consequences.
  • Inference: The O(k) bound on unions of k bags is probably not tight; the constants 14 and 28 come from face-counting and parallel-line drawing arguments, and one could test whether the linear coefficient can be reduced.
  • Inference: The paper leaves open whether every proper minor-closed class has optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded pathwidth; a natural route would be to find, for each such class, a supergraph operation that preserves treewidth while making bags resemble the classified shapes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves that every planar graph has a tree-decomposition of optimal width such that the subgraph induced by each bag has pathwidth at most 3, and that this bound is best possible. The proof proceeds through the authors' refined tree-decomposition framework: Theorem 19 classifies the bags of refined tree-decompositions of planar triangulations into four structural types, and Theorem 21 extends this to arbitrary planar graphs, giving a direct route to Theorem 1 that avoids an external triangulation lemma. The paper also shows that the union of any k bags has pathwidth O(k) (Theorem 2), and that graphs excluding a fixed double-apex-forest minor have refined optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded pathwidth, covering graphs on any fixed surface (Section 5). A byproduct is a new proof of the linear grid minor theorem for planar graphs (Theorem 29).

Significance. If correct, Theorem 1 is a natural and substantial strengthening of the authors' earlier result that planar graphs have optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded treewidth, and it matches the lower bound coming from K4. The structural characterization in Theorem 19 is a precise and useful contribution, and the general framework in Section 5 (Corollary 32) gives a clean characterization of when a robust self-similar parameter is bounded on bags of refined tree-decompositions. The paper is largely self-contained: the main planar theorem has an independent proof via Theorem 21, so the dependence on the external Biedl–Velázquez lemma (Lemma 20) in the first proof of Theorem 1 is not load-bearing. The main proofs are detailed and the arguments are coherent; the main weaknesses are a few 'routine' or 'quickly verified' classifications and some terse topological justifications, none of which appear to threaten the central claims.

minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1, Theorem 19] The final classification step — 'It is routine to verify that every non-outerplanar, 2-connected subgraph of a wheel can be reduced to a cycle by deleting its central vertex, and so is covered by either case (a) or (b). Likewise, every proper subgraph of an elongated triangular prism that is non-outerplanar is covered by either case (b) or (c)' — is asserted without proof. This classification is used later (Theorems 21, 25, 29), so please provide a short argument or a figure, especially for the subgraphs of the elongated triangular prism.
  2. [§4.2, proof of Theorem 21] In the paragraph after the definition of E*, the sentence 'Since some bag of D_C contains A∩B, Theorem 9 implies that there is no x∈V(C) such that both A∩B_x and B∩B_x are non-empty' is not a direct consequence of Theorem 9. The intended argument is supplied by Lemma 6: if B_x met both sides of a separation with |A∩B|≤1, then B_x would intersect two components of G' - (A∩B), contradicting Lemma 6. Please correct the citation and expand the explanation.
  3. [§4.2, Claim 1] The proof of Claim 1 is terse. The assertion that the path Q obtained from Q1∪Q2 is 'by construction a path in G′1' needs justification: one must argue that neither Q1 nor Q2 can pass through the y-side of the edge xy without introducing an internal vertex of Bx. Also, the sentence 'in the embedding of G′1, the boundary of the face containing u...' refers to a vertex u of G′2, not of G′1; the intended meaning is that the interior of the path P lies in a face of G′1 whose boundary contains v and w. Please rewrite this paragraph for clarity. The claim itself appears correct, but the proof as written is hard to follow.
  4. [§4.3, Lemma 23] The step 'From this we may deduce that for any component X of G′, the paths P1,...,Pt∈P contained in X come from distinct cycles in H and can be ordered so that each edge in E(X)\E(H) lies between Pi and Pi+1' is a nontrivial structural claim. Since the bound in Theorem 2 depends on this lemma, please expand this deduction or include a diagram explaining the ordering and the straight-line drawing on parallel lines.
  5. [§4.4, Theorem 29] The sentence 'In all cases, it can be quickly verified that each vertex of H is in at least two of the cycles in {O1,O2,O3}' covers cases (b), (c), and (d) of Theorem 21. This verification is not immediate from the text, and it justifies the existence of the long cycle O. Please provide a brief case analysis or a figure.
  6. [§5.1, Corollary 38 / Theorem 3] The phrase 'In particular, every optimal tree-decomposition of G has a refinement with this property' is potentially misleading: the results give a refined optimal tree-decomposition, not necessarily a refinement of an arbitrary given optimal tree-decomposition. Please rephrase to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 and its extensions are derived independently of the claimed conclusion; self-citations to [23] supply the prior framework rather than assuming the target result.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 1, is reached through a self-contained derivation: refined tree-decompositions are characterized in Theorem 9 via a path-with-no-internal-vertex condition; Lemma 18 shows bags of refined decompositions of planar triangulations are 2-connected; Theorem 19 then classifies those bags into four explicit structural types and concludes pathwidth at most 3. Theorem 1 completes the argument by invoking Lemma 20 (Biedl and Velazquez), an external triangulation lemma that preserves treewidth, so the optimal width of the original planar graph is not altered. Theorem 21 supplies an independent, direct construction for arbitrary planar graphs by taking an edge-maximal planar supergraph, showing that even without Lemma 20 the bag structure is constrained. The prior results from Hendrey and Wood [23] (Lemmas 4-7, 12, and related statements) are self-citations, but they are definitions and preliminary lemmas from a separate published work; they do not assume or assert Theorem 1, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fitted parameter. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' earlier work is used to force the conclusion, and no quantity is defined in terms of the target result. The only external dependency, Lemma 20, is a correctness risk if it were false, but that is not a circularity. The paper is therefore free of circular reasoning.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters, physical entities, or ad hoc postulates. The paper introduces mathematical definitions (refined decompositions, containers, self-similar/robust sequences) but these are constructions, not entities requiring independent empirical evidence.

axioms (10)
  • standard math Jordan Curve Theorem: a cycle separates the plane into interior/exterior regions.
    Invoked in Section 4 to derive that unbreakable bags are non-separable (Lemma 11) and in Section 4.3 for cycle crossing arguments.
  • domain assumption Every minimal separator in a planar triangulation induces a cycle (Mohar-Thomassen, Lemma 15).
    Used in Lemma 18 and Theorem 19; external textbook result.
  • domain assumption Every planar triangulation with at least four vertices is 3-connected (Lemma 16).
    Used for Lemma 17 and Lemma 18.
  • domain assumption Biedl-Velazquez triangulation lemma (Lemma 20): every planar graph G is a spanning subgraph of some planar triangulation G' with tw(G') = max{3, tw(G)}.
    Load-bearing external lemma for Theorems 1 and 2; not proved in this paper.
  • standard math Menger's theorem.
    Used in Theorem 29 to obtain 2k+3 pairwise disjoint paths between separated sets.
  • standard math Euler's formula for planar graphs and surfaces.
    Used in Lemma 23 to bound edges, in Corollary 38 for Euler genus classes, and in the double-apex-forest minor discussion.
  • standard math Mader's theorem: graphs with sufficiently large average degree contain any fixed graph as a minor.
    Quoted in Theorem 31 as [32] to obtain the contradiction on average degree.
  • standard math Grid Minor Theorem of Robertson-Seymour and related results on quickly excluding planar graphs.
    Used as a container for treewidth in Theorems 39-40 and to frame the byproduct linear grid minor proof.
  • standard math Erdos-Rado canonical Ramsey theorem.
    Used in Theorem 41 to find monochromatic, rainbow, or lexicographic structures in the ladder exclusion proof.
  • domain assumption Existence and normality of atomic and refined tree-decompositions (Lemmas 4-5 from [23]).
    Basic framework; proved in prior work by the same authors and used throughout the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 27274 in / 18115 out tokens · 198672 ms · 2026-08-01T04:52:49.780158+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded pathwidth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BWG5EMU

@misc{pith2026260727601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded pathwidth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BWG5EMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27601}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that every planar graph has a tree-decomposition with optimal width such that the subgraph induced by each bag has pathwidth at most 3. This bound is best possible, and for tree-decompositions that satisfy a certain minimality condition, we in fact give a precise description of the possible structures in each bag. Moreover, we show that the union of any $k$ bags has pathwidth $O(k)$. We also show that graphs excluding a fixed double-apex-forest minor have a tree-decomposition with optimal width such that the subgraph induced by each bag has bounded pathwidth. This includes graphs embeddable on any fixed surface. As a byproduct of our machinery, we give a new proof of the linear grid minor theorem for planar graphs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27601 by David R. Wood, J\k{e}drzej Hodor, Kevin Hendrey, Robert Hickingbotham.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Non-separable planar graphs: (a) outerplanar, (b) wheel, (c) elongated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Graphs in Theorem 19 (where green vertices are a possibly empty sequence of subdivision vertices). 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Induced subgraphs and tree decompositions X

    Tara Abrishami, Bogdan Alecu, Maria Chudnovsky, Sepehr Hajebi, and Sophie Spirkl. Induced subgraphs and tree decompositions X. Towards logarithmic treewidth for even-hole-free graphs. 2025, arXiv:2307.13684

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Fidel Barrera-Cruz, Stefan Felsner, Tamás Mészáros, Piotr Micek, Heather Smith, Libby Taylor, and William T. Trotter . Separating tree-chromatic number from path- chromatic number.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 138:206–218, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Bounded-diameter tree-decompositions

    Eli Berger and Paul Seymour . Bounded-diameter tree-decompositions. Combinatorica, 44(3):659–674, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Drawing planar 3-trees with given face areas

    Therese Biedl and Lesvia Elena Ruiz Velázquez . Drawing planar 3-trees with given face areas. Comput. Geom., 46(3):276–285, 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    Quickly excluding a forest

    Dan Bienstock, Neil Robertson, Paul Seymour, and Robin Thomas . Quickly excluding a forest. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 52(2):274–283, 1991

    1991

  6. [6]

    Bodlaender

    Hans L. Bodlaender . A partial k-arboretum of graphs with bounded treewidth. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 209(1-2):1–45, 1998

    1998

  7. [7]

    Induced subgraphs and tree decompositions XV

    Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Gartland, Sepehr Hajebi, Daniel Lokshtanov, and Sophie Spirkl. Induced subgraphs and tree decompositions XV. Even-hole-free graphs with bounded clique number have logarithmic treewidth. 2024, arXiv:2402.14211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Towards tight(er) bounds for the excluded grid theorem

    Julia Chuzhoy and Zihan Tan . Towards tight(er) bounds for the excluded grid theorem. In Timothy M. Chan , ed.,Proc. 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms(SODA ’19), pp. 1445–1464. 2019

    2019

  9. [9]

    To approximate treewidth, use treelength! SIAM J

    David Coudert, Guillaume Ducoffe, and Nicolas Nisse . To approximate treewidth, use treelength! SIAM J. Discrete Math., 30(3):1424–1436, 2016

    2016

  10. [10]

    Treewidth versus clique number

    Clément Dallard, Martin Milanič, and Kenny Štorgel . Treewidth versus clique number. II. Tree-independence number.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 164:404–442, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Non-separating planar graphs

    Hooman Reisi Dehkordi and Graham F arr . Non-separating planar graphs. Electron. J. Combin., 28(1):1, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    Graph theory, vol

    Reinhard Diestel. Graph theory, vol. 173 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 5th edn., 2018

    2018

  13. [13]

    A short proof for lean tree-decompositions.Combin

    Reinhard Diestel and Malte Müller . A short proof for lean tree-decompositions.Combin. Probab. Comput., 25(5):647–649, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Connected tree-width

    Reinhard Diestel and Malte Müller . Connected tree-width. Combinatorica, 38(2):381–398, 2018

    2018

  15. [15]

    Tree-decompositions with bags of small diameter

    Yon Dourisboure and Cyril Gavoille . Tree-decompositions with bags of small diameter. Discrete Math., 307(16):2008–2029, 2007

    2008

  16. [16]

    Dragan and Ekkehard Köhler

    Feodor F. Dragan and Ekkehard Köhler . Graph parameters that are coarsely equivalent to path-length. 2025, arXiv:2503.05661. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Vida Dujmović, Pat Morin, Sergey Norin, and David R. Wood . 3-Colouring planar graphs. 2026, arXiv:2507.03163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    A short derivation of the structure theorem for graphs with excluded topological minors.SIAM J

    Joshua Erde and Daniel Weißauer . A short derivation of the structure theorem for graphs with excluded topological minors.SIAM J. Discrete Math., 33(3):1654–1661, 2019

    2019

  19. [19]

    A combinatorial theorem.J

    Paul Erdős and Richard Rado. A combinatorial theorem.J. London Math. Society, 25:249–255, 1950

    1950

  20. [20]

    Stefan Felsner, Giussepe Liotta, and Stephen K. Wismath . Straight-line drawings on restricted integer grids in two and three dimensions.J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 7(4):363–398, 2003

    2003

  21. [21]

    Tree-width and large grid minors in planar graphs.Discrete Math

    Alexander Grigoriev. Tree-width and large grid minors in planar graphs.Discrete Math. & Theoret. Comput. Sci., 13(1):13–20, 2011

    2011

  22. [22]

    Harvey and David R

    Daniel J. Harvey and David R. Wood . Parameters tied to treewidth. J. Graph Theory, 84(4):364–385, 2017

    2017

  23. [23]

    Kevin Hendrey and David R. Wood . Optimal tree-decompositions with bags of bounded treewidth. Combin. Probab. Comput., 2026. arXiv:2511.22196

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Graphs quasi-isometric to graphs with bounded treewidth

    Robert Hickingbotham. Graphs quasi-isometric to graphs with bounded treewidth. 2025, arXiv:2501.10840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Seweryn, and Paul Wollan

    Tony Huynh, Gwenaël Joret, Piotr Micek, Michał T. Seweryn, and Paul Wollan . Excluding a ladder.Combinatorica, 42(3):405–432, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Tree-chromatic number is not equal to path-chromatic number

    Tony Huynh and Ringi Kim . Tree-chromatic number is not equal to path-chromatic number. J. Graph Theory, 86(2):213–222, 2017

    2017

  27. [27]

    Wood, and Liana Yepremyan

    Tony Huynh, Bruce Reed, David R. Wood, and Liana Yepremyan . Notes on tree- and path-chromatic number. In2019–20 MATRIX Annals, vol. 4 ofMATRIX Book Ser., pp. 489–498. Springer, 2021

    2021

  28. [28]

    Kostochka

    Alexandr V. Kostochka . The minimum Hadwiger number for graphs with a given mean degree of vertices.Metody Diskret. Analiz., 38:37–58, 1982

    1982

  29. [29]

    Kostochka

    Alexandr V. Kostochka . Lower bound of the Hadwiger number of graphs by their average degree. Combinatorica, 4(4):307–316, 1984

    1984

  30. [30]

    On the relation between treewidth, tree-independence number, and tree-chromatic number of graphs

    Alex Koutsoutis, Kilian Krause, Chun-Hung Liu, Mirza Redzic, and Torsten Ueck- erdt. On the relation between treewidth, tree-independence number, and tree-chromatic number of graphs. InJan Goedgebeur and Paweł Rzążewski, eds.,Proc. 52nd International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science(WG 2026), vol. 376 ofLIPIcs, pp. 31:1–31:9. Schlo...

    2026

  31. [31]

    Chun-Hung Liu, Sergey Norin, and David R. Wood . Product structure and tree decompo- sitions. 2024, arXiv:2410.20333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Homomorphiesätze für Graphen.Math

    Wolfgang Mader. Homomorphiesätze für Graphen.Math. Ann., 178:154–168, 1968

    1968

  33. [33]

    Graphs on surfaces

    Bojan Mohar and Carsten Thomassen . Graphs on surfaces. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001

    2001

  34. [34]

    The extremal function for noncomplete minors

    Joseph Samuel Myers and Andrew Thomason . The extremal function for noncomplete minors. Combinatorica, 25(6):725–753, 2005

    2005

  35. [35]

    Connected tree-width

    Malte Müller. Connected tree-width. 2012, arXiv:1211.7353v1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    Sparsity, vol

    Jaroslav Nešetřil and Patrice Ossona de Mendez . Sparsity, vol. 28 ofAlgorithms and Combinatorics. Springer, 2012

    2012

  37. [37]

    Asymptotic structure

    Tung Nguyen, Alex Scott, and Paul Seymour . Asymptotic structure. I. Coarse tree-width. 2025, arXiv:2501.09839

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Sergey Norin, Bruce Reed, Andrew Thomason, and David R. Wood . A lower bound on the average degree forcing a minor.Electron. J. Combin., 27:P2.4, 2020

    2020

  39. [39]

    Bruce Reed and David R. Wood . Forcing a sparse minor. Combin. Probab. Comput., 25(2):300–322, 2016. 32

    2016

  40. [40]

    Bruce A. Reed . Tree width and tangles: a new connectivity measure and some applications. In R. A. Bailey , ed.,Surveys in Combinatorics, vol. 241 ofLondon Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., pp. 87–162. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997

    1997

  41. [41]

    Graph minors

    Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour . Graph minors. I. Excluding a forest.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 35(1):39–61, 1983

    1983

  42. [42]

    Graph minors

    Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour . Graph minors. III. Planar tree-width.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 36(1):49–64, 1984

    1984

  43. [43]

    Graph minors

    Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour . Graph minors. V. Excluding a planar graph.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 41(1):92–114, 1986

    1986

  44. [44]

    Quickly excluding a planar graph.J

    Neil Robertson, Paul Seymour, and Robin Thomas . Quickly excluding a planar graph.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 62(2):323–348, 1994

    1994

  45. [45]

    Die baumweite von graphen als ein maß für die kompliziertheit algorithmischer probleme

    Petra Scheffler. Die baumweite von graphen als ein maß für die kompliziertheit algorithmischer probleme. Ph.D. thesis, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Berlin, Germany, 1989

    1989

  46. [46]

    Tree-chromatic number.J

    Paul Seymour. Tree-chromatic number.J. Combin. Theory Series B, 116:229–237, 2016

    2016

  47. [47]

    A Menger-like property of tree-width: The finite case.J

    Robin Thomas. A Menger-like property of tree-width: The finite case.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 48(1):67–76, 1990

    1990

  48. [48]

    An extremal function for contractions of graphs.Math

    Andrew Thomason. An extremal function for contractions of graphs.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 95(2):261–265, 1984

    1984

  49. [49]

    The extremal function for complete minors.J

    Andrew Thomason. The extremal function for complete minors.J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 81(2):318–338, 2001

    2001

  50. [50]

    On the extremal function for graph minors.J

    Andrew Thomason and Matthew W ales . On the extremal function for graph minors.J. Graph Theory, 101(1):66–78, 2022

    2022

  51. [51]

    On the block number of graphs.SIAM J

    Daniel Weißauer. On the block number of graphs.SIAM J. Discrete Math., 33(1):346–357, 2019

    2019

  52. [52]

    Minor-matching hypertree width

    Nikola Yolov. Minor-matching hypertree width. InArtur Czumaj, ed.,Proc. 29th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms(SODA 2018), pp. 219–233. SIAM, 2018. 33

    2018