For a fixed pattern graph, we study the algorithmic complexity of counting homomorphisms, subgraph isomorphisms, and induced subgraph isomorphisms into an $n$-vertex, $d$-degenerate host graph. Bressan (Algorithmica, 2021) introduced the notion of DAG treewidth and showed that counting homomorphisms and induced subgraphs can be performed efficiently using dynamic programming that requires polynomial space. In this work, we introduce a new graph parameter, called DAG treedepth, which enables efficient divide-and-conquer algorithms for counting homomorphisms in $d$-degenerate host graphs using only constant space. Bera, Gishboliner, Levanzov, Seshadhri, and Shapira (SODA, 2021) showed that a pattern graph has DAG treewidth one if and only if it contains no induced cycle of length at least six. This induced minor characterization leads to linear-time and linear-space algorithms. Building on this line of work, we derive an induced-minor characterization of graphs with DAG treedepth at most two that uses only constant space. Recently, Paul-Pena and Seshadhri (ICALP, 2025) proved that all pattern graphs on at most nine vertices can be counted in subquadratic time using polynomial space. We show that every pattern graph on at most nine vertices can be counted as an induced subgraph in $O(n^3)$ time using only constant space. Moreover, we show that patterns on at most eleven vertices can be counted in $O(n^2)$ time using polynomial space. Finally, we present a constant-space algorithm for counting induced subgraphs that matches the running time of Bressan algorithm. We further show that, when polynomial space is allowed, homomorphisms, subgraph isomorphisms, and induced subgraph isomorphisms can be counted faster than Bressan algorithm. In addition, we establish several other results related to DAG treewidth and DAG treedepth that may be of independent interest.

The access lemma (Sleator and Tarjan, JACM 1985) is a property of binary search trees (BSTs) that implies interesting consequences such as static optimality, static finger, and working set property on any access sequence X = (x_1,x_2,… ,x_m). However, there are known corollaries of the dynamic optimality that cannot be derived via the access lemma, such as the dynamic finger, and any o(log n)-competitive ratio to the optimal BST where n is the number of keys. In this paper, we introduce the group access bound that can be defined with respect to a reference group access tree. Group access bounds generalize the access lemma and imply properties that are far stronger than those implied by the classical access lemma. For each of the following results, there is a group access tree whose group access bound 1) Is O(√{log n})-competitive to the optimal BST. 2) Achieves the k-finger bound with an additive term of O(m log k log log n) (randomized) when the reference tree is an almost complete binary tree. 3) Satisfies the unified bound with an additive term of O(m log log n). 4) Matches the unified bound with a time window k with an additive term of O(m log k log log n) (randomized). Furthermore, we prove the simulation theorem: For every group access tree, there is an online BST algorithm that is O(1)-competitive with its group access bound. In particular, any new group access bound will automatically imply a new BST algorithm achieving the same bound. Thereby, we obtain an improved k-finger bound (reference tree is an almost complete binary tree), an improved unified bound with a time window k, and matching the best-known bound for Unified bound in the BST model. Since any dynamically optimal BST must achieve the group access bounds, we believe our results provide a new direction towards proving o(log n)-competitiveness of the Splay tree and Greedy, two prime candidates for the dynamic optimality conjecture.

Greedy BST (or simply Greedy) is an online self-adjusting binary search tree defined in the geometric view ([Lucas, 1988; Munro, 2000; Demaine, Harmon, Iacono, Kane, Patrascu, SODA 2009). Along with Splay trees (Sleator, Tarjan 1985), Greedy is considered the most promising candidate for being dynamically optimal, i.e., starting with any initial tree, their access costs on any sequence is conjectured to be within O(1) factor of the offline optimal. However, despite having received a lot of attention in the past four decades, the question has remained elusive even for highly restricted input. In this paper, we prove new bounds on the cost of Greedy in the “pattern avoidance” regime. Our new results include: • The (preorder) traversal conjecture for Greedy holds up to a factor of O(2α(n)), improving upon the bound of 2α(n)O(1) in (Chalermsook et al., FOCS 2015) where α(n) is the inverse Ackermann function of n. This is the best known bound obtained by any online BSTs. • We settle the postorder traversal conjecture for Greedy. Previously this was shown for Splay trees only in certain special cases (Levy and Tarjan, WADS 2019). • The deque conjecture for Greedy holds up to a factor of O(α(n)), improving upon the bound 2O(α(n)) in (Chalermsook, et al., WADS 2015). This is arguably “one step away” from the bound O(α*(n)) for Splay trees (Pettie, SODA 2010). • The split conjecture holds for Greedy up to a factor of O(2α(n)). Previously the factor of O(α(n)) was shown for Splay trees only in a special case (Lucas, 1988). The input sequences in traversal and deque conjectures are perhaps “easiest” in the pattern-avoiding input classes and yet among the most notorious special cases of the dynamic optimality conjecture. Key to all these results is to partition (based on the input structures) the execution log of Greedy into several simpler-to-analyze subsets for which classical forbidden submatrix bounds can be leveraged. We believe that this simple method will find further applications in doing amortized analysis of data structures via extremal combinatorics. Finally, we show the applicability of this technique to handle a class of increasingly complex pattern-avoiding input sequences, called k-increasing sequences. As a bonus, we discover a new class of permutation matrices whose extremal bounds are polynomially bounded. This gives a partial progress on an open question by Jacob Fox (2013). * The full version of the paper can be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.04112