Hardness of Token Swapping on Trees

TL;DR

This paper proves that both sequential and parallel token swapping problems on trees are NP-hard, establishing their computational difficulty and limitations on approximation algorithms, which advances understanding in graph algorithms and related fields.

Contribution

It demonstrates NP-hardness of token swapping on trees and shows the best possible approximation factor for a broad class of algorithms is 2.

Findings

NP-hardness of token swapping on trees

Limitations on approximation algorithms with factor 2

Previous polynomial algorithms are optimal within their class

Abstract

Given a graph where every vertex has exactly one labeled token, how can we most quickly execute a given permutation on the tokens? In (sequential) token swapping, the goal is to use the shortest possible sequence of swaps, each of which exchanges the tokens at the two endpoints of an edge of the graph. In parallel token swapping, the goal is to use the fewest rounds, each of which consists of one or more swaps on the edges of a matching. We prove that both of these problems remain NP-hard when the graph is restricted to be a tree. These token swapping problems have been studied by disparate groups of researchers in discrete mathematics, theoretical computer science, robot motion planning, game theory, and engineering. Previous work establishes NP-completeness on general graphs (for both problems); polynomial-time algorithms for simple graph classes such as cliques, stars, paths, and cycles; and constant-factor approximation algorithms in some cases. The two natural cases of sequential and parallel token swapping in trees were first studied over thirty years ago (as "sorting with a transposition tree") and over twenty-five years ago (as "routing permutations via matchings"), yet their complexities were previously unknown. We also show limitations on approximation of sequential token swapping on trees: we identify a broad class of algorithms that encompass all three known polynomial-time algorithms that achieve the best known approximation factor (which is $2$) and show that no such algorithm can achieve an approximation factor less than $2$.