Total Minor Polynomials of Oriented Hypergraphs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Planar Graph Perfect Matching Is in NC
2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Planar Graph Perfect Matching is in NC Nima Anari Vijay V. Vazirani Computer Science Department Computer Science Department Stanford University University of California, Irvine [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Is perfect matching in NC? That is, is there a finding a perfect matching, was obtained by Karp, Upfal, and deterministic fast parallel algorithm for it? This has been an Wigderson [11]. This was followed by a somewhat simpler outstanding open question in theoretical computer science for algorithm due to Mulmuley, Vazirani, and Vazirani [17]. over three decades, ever since the discovery of RNC matching algorithms. Within this question, the case of planar graphs has The matching problem occupies an especially distinguished remained an enigma: On the one hand, counting the number position in the theory of algorithms: Some of the most of perfect matchings is far harder than finding one (the former central notions and powerful tools within this theory were is #P-complete and the latter is in P), and on the other, for discovered in the context of an algorithmic study of this NC planar graphs, counting has long been known to be in problem, including the notion of polynomial time solvability whereas finding one has resisted a solution. P In this paper, we give an NC algorithm for finding a perfect [4] and the counting class # [22]. The parallel perspective matching in a planar graph. Our algorithm uses the above- has also led to such gains: The first RNC matching algorithm stated fact about counting matchings in a crucial way. -
Structural Results on Matching Estimation with Applications to Streaming∗
Structural Results on Matching Estimation with Applications to Streaming∗ Marc Bury, Elena Grigorescu, Andrew McGregor, Morteza Monemizadeh, Chris Schwiegelshohn, Sofya Vorotnikova, Samson Zhou We study the problem of estimating the size of a matching when the graph is revealed in a streaming fashion. Our results are multifold: 1. We give a tight structural result relating the size of a maximum matching to the arboricity α of a graph, which has been one of the most studied graph parameters for matching algorithms in data streams. One of the implications is an algorithm that estimates the matching size up to a factor of (α + 2)(1 + ") using O~(αn2=3) space in insertion-only graph streams and O~(αn4=5) space in dynamic streams, where n is the number of nodes in the graph. We also show that in the vertex arrival insertion-only model, an (α + 2) approximation can be achieved using only O(log n) space. 2. We further show that the weight of a maximum weighted matching can be ef- ficiently estimated by augmenting any routine for estimating the size of an un- weighted matching. Namely, given an algorithm for computing a λ-approximation in the unweighted case, we obtain a 2(1+")·λ approximation for the weighted case, while only incurring a multiplicative logarithmic factor in the space bounds. The algorithm is implementable in any streaming model, including dynamic streams. 3. We also investigate algebraic aspects of computing matchings in data streams, by proposing new algorithms and lower bounds based on analyzing the rank of the Tutte-matrix of the graph. -
The Polynomially Bounded Perfect Matching Problem Is in NC2⋆
The polynomially bounded perfect matching problem is in NC2⋆ Manindra Agrawal1, Thanh Minh Hoang2, and Thomas Thierauf3 1 IIT Kanpur, India 2 Ulm University, Germany 3 Aalen University, Germany Abstract. The perfect matching problem is known to be in ¶, in ran- domized NC, and it is hard for NL. Whether the perfect matching prob- lem is in NC is one of the most prominent open questions in complexity theory regarding parallel computations. Grigoriev and Karpinski [GK87] studied the perfect matching problem for bipartite graphs with polynomially bounded permanent. They showed that for such bipartite graphs the problem of deciding the existence of a perfect matchings is in NC2, and counting and enumerating all perfect matchings is in NC3. For general graphs with a polynomially bounded number of perfect matchings, they show both problems to be in NC3. In this paper we extend and improve these results. We show that for any graph that has a polynomially bounded number of perfect matchings, we can construct all perfect matchings in NC2. We extend the result to weighted graphs. 1 Introduction Whether there is an NC-algorithm for testing if a given graph contains a perfect matching is an outstanding open question in complexity theory. The problem of deciding the existence of a perfect matching in a graph is known to be in ¶ [Edm65], in randomized NC2 [MVV87], and in nonuniform SPL [ARZ99]. This problem is very fundamental for other computational problems (see e.g. [KR98]). Another reason why a derandomization of the perfect matching problem would be very interesting is, that it is a special case of the polynomial identity testing problem. -
3.1 the Existence of Perfect Matchings in Bipartite Graphs
15-859(M): Randomized Algorithms Lecturer: Shuchi Chawla Topic: Finding Perfect Matchings Date: 20 Sep, 2004 Scribe: Viswanath Nagarajan 3.1 The existence of perfect matchings in bipartite graphs We will look at an efficient algorithm that determines whether a perfect matching exists in a given bipartite graph or not. This algorithm and its extension to finding perfect matchings is due to Mulmuley, Vazirani and Vazirani (1987). The algorithm is based on polynomial identity testing (see the last lecture for details on this). A bipartite graph G = (U; V; E) is specified by two disjoint sets U and V of vertices, and a set E of edges between them. A perfect matching is a subset of the edge set E such that every vertex has exactly one edge incident on it. Since we are interested in perfect matchings in the graph G, we shall assume that jUj = jV j = n. Let U = fu1; u2; · · · ; ung and V = fv1; v2; · · · ; vng. The algorithm we study today has no error if G does not have a perfect matching (no instance), and 1 errs with probability at most 2 if G does have a perfect matching (yes instance). This is unlike the algorithms we saw in the previous lecture, which erred on no instances. Definition 3.1.1 The Tutte matrix of bipartite graph G = (U; V; E) is an n × n matrix M with the entry at row i and column j, 0 if(ui; uj) 2= E Mi;j = xi;j if(ui; uj) 2 E The determinant of the Tutte matrix is useful in testing whether a graph has a perfect matching or not, as the following claim shows. -
Arxiv:1711.06300V1
EXPLICIT BLOCK-STRUCTURES FOR BLOCK-SYMMETRIC FIEDLER-LIKE PENCILS∗ M. I. BUENO†, M. MARTIN ‡, J. PEREZ´ §, A. SONG ¶, AND I. VIVIANO k Abstract. In the last decade, there has been a continued effort to produce families of strong linearizations of a matrix polynomial P (λ), regular and singular, with good properties, such as, being companion forms, allowing the recovery of eigen- vectors of a regular P (λ) in an easy way, allowing the computation of the minimal indices of a singular P (λ) in an easy way, etc. As a consequence of this research, families such as the family of Fiedler pencils, the family of generalized Fiedler pencils (GFP), the family of Fiedler pencils with repetition, and the family of generalized Fiedler pencils with repetition (GFPR) were con- structed. In particular, one of the goals was to find in these families structured linearizations of structured matrix polynomials. For example, if a matrix polynomial P (λ) is symmetric (Hermitian), it is convenient to use linearizations of P (λ) that are also symmetric (Hermitian). Both the family of GFP and the family of GFPR contain block-symmetric linearizations of P (λ), which are symmetric (Hermitian) when P (λ) is. Now the objective is to determine which of those structured linearizations have the best numerical properties. The main obstacle for this study is the fact that these pencils are defined implicitly as products of so-called elementary matrices. Recent papers in the literature had as a goal to provide an explicit block-structure for the pencils belonging to the family of Fiedler pencils and any of its further generalizations to solve this problem. -
"Distance Measures for Graph Theory"
Distance measures for graph theory : Comparisons and analyzes of different methods Dissertation presented by Maxime DUYCK for obtaining the Master’s degree in Mathematical Engineering Supervisor(s) Marco SAERENS Reader(s) Guillaume GUEX, Bertrand LEBICHOT Academic year 2016-2017 Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my supervisor Pr. Marco Saerens for his presence, his advice and his precious help throughout the realization of this thesis. Second, I would also like to thank Bertrand Lebichot and Guillaume Guex for agreeing to read this work. Next, I would like to thank my parents, all my family and my friends to have accompanied and encouraged me during all my studies. Finally, I would thank Malian De Ron for creating this template [65] and making it available to me. This helped me a lot during “le jour et la nuit”. Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Context presentation .................................. 1 1.2. Contents .......................................... 2 2. Theoretical part 3 2.1. Preliminaries ....................................... 4 2.1.1. Networks and graphs .............................. 4 2.1.2. Useful matrices and tools ........................... 4 2.2. Distances and kernels on a graph ........................... 7 2.2.1. Notion of (dis)similarity measures ...................... 7 2.2.2. Kernel on a graph ................................ 8 2.2.3. The shortest-path distance .......................... 9 2.3. Kernels from distances ................................. 9 2.3.1. Multidimensional scaling ............................ 9 2.3.2. Gaussian mapping ............................... 9 2.4. Similarity measures between nodes .......................... 9 2.4.1. Katz index and its Leicht’s extension .................... 10 2.4.2. Commute-time distance and Euclidean commute-time distance .... 10 2.4.3. SimRank similarity measure ......................... -
Chapter 4 Introduction to Spectral Graph Theory
Chapter 4 Introduction to Spectral Graph Theory Spectral graph theory is the study of a graph through the properties of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of its associated Laplacian matrix. In the following, we use G = (V; E) to represent an undirected n-vertex graph with no self-loops, and write V = f1; : : : ; ng, with the degree of vertex i denoted di. For undirected graphs our convention will be that if there P is an edge then both (i; j) 2 E and (j; i) 2 E. Thus (i;j)2E 1 = 2jEj. If we wish to sum P over edges only once, we will write fi; jg 2 E for the unordered pair. Thus fi;jg2E 1 = jEj. 4.1 Matrices associated to a graph Given an undirected graph G, the most natural matrix associated to it is its adjacency matrix: Definition 4.1 (Adjacency matrix). The adjacency matrix A 2 f0; 1gn×n is defined as ( 1 if fi; jg 2 E; Aij = 0 otherwise. Note that A is always a symmetric matrix with exactly di ones in the i-th row and the i-th column. While A is a natural representation of G when we think of a matrix as a table of numbers used to store information, it is less natural if we think of a matrix as an operator, a linear transformation which acts on vectors. The most natural operator associated with a graph is the diffusion operator, which spreads a quantity supported on any vertex equally onto its neighbors. To introduce the diffusion operator, first consider the degree matrix: Definition 4.2 (Degree matrix). -
MINIMUM DEGREE ENERGY of GRAPHS Dedicated to the Platinum
Electronic Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications Vol. 7(2) July 2019, pp. 230-243. ISSN: 2090-729X(online) http://math-frac.org/Journals/EJMAA/ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| MINIMUM DEGREE ENERGY OF GRAPHS B. BASAVANAGOUD AND PRAVEEN JAKKANNAVAR Dedicated to the Platinum Jubilee year of Dr. V. R. Kulli Abstract. Let G be a graph of order n. Then an n × n symmetric matrix is called the minimum degree matrix MD(G) of a graph G, if its (i; j)th entry is minfdi; dj g whenever i 6= j, and zero otherwise, where di and dj are the degrees of ith and jth vertices of G, respectively. In the present work, we obtain the characteristic polynomial of the minimum degree matrix of graphs obtained by some graph operations. In addition, bounds for the largest minimum degree eigenvalue and minimum degree energy of graphs are obtained. 1. Introduction Throughout this paper by a graph G = (V; E) we mean a finite undirected graph without loops and multiple edges of order n and size m. Let V = V (G) and E = E(G) be the vertex set and edge set of G, respectively. The degree dG(v) of a vertex v 2 V (G) is the number of edges incident to it in G. The graph G is r-regular if and only if the degree of each vertex in G is r. Let fv1; v2; :::; vng be the vertices of G and let di = dG(vi). Basic notations and terminologies can be found in [8, 12, 14]. In literature, there are several graph polynomials defined on different graph matrices such as adjacency matrix [8, 12, 14], Laplacian matrix [15], signless Laplacian matrix [9, 18], seidel matrix [5], degree sum matrix [13, 19], distance matrix [1] etc. -
Algebraic Graph Theory
Algebraic graph theory Gabriel Coutinho University of Waterloo November 6th, 2013 We can associate many matrices to a graph X . Adjacency: 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 B 1 0 1 0 1 C B C A(X ) = B 0 1 0 1 1 C B C @ 1 0 1 0 0 A 0 1 1 0 0 Tutte: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 x12 0 x14 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 B C B −x12 0 x23 0 x25 C Incidence: B 0 0 1 0 1 1 C B C B C B 0 −x23 0 x34 x35 C B 0 1 0 0 0 1 C B C @ A @ −x14 0 −x34 0 0 A 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 −x25 −x35 0 0 What is it about? - the tools Matrices Problem 1 - (very) regular graphs Groups Problem 2 - quantum walks Polynomials Matrices Gabriel Coutinho Algebraic graph theory 2 / 30 Adjacency: 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 B 1 0 1 0 1 C B C A(X ) = B 0 1 0 1 1 C B C @ 1 0 1 0 0 A 0 1 1 0 0 Tutte: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 x12 0 x14 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 B C B −x12 0 x23 0 x25 C Incidence: B 0 0 1 0 1 1 C B C B C B 0 −x23 0 x34 x35 C B 0 1 0 0 0 1 C B C @ A @ −x14 0 −x34 0 0 A 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 −x25 −x35 0 0 What is it about? - the tools Matrices Problem 1 - (very) regular graphs Groups Problem 2 - quantum walks Polynomials Matrices We can associate many matrices to a graph X . -
Perfect Matching Testing Via Matrix Determinant 1 Polynomial Identity 2
MS&E 319: Matching Theory Instructor: Professor Amin Saberi ([email protected]) Lecture 1: Perfect Matching Testing via Matrix Determinant 1 Polynomial Identity Suppose we are given two polynomials and want to determine whether or not they are identical. For example, (x 1)(x + 1) =? x2 1. − − One way would be to expand each polynomial and compare coefficients. A simpler method is to “plug in” a few numbers and see if both sides are equal. If they are not, we now have a certificate of their inequality, otherwise with good confidence we can say they are equal. This idea is the basis of a randomized algorithm. We can formulate the polynomial equality verification of two given polynomials F and G as: H(x) F (x) G(x) =? 0. ≜ − Denote the maximum degree of F and G as n. Assuming that F (x) = G(x), H(x) will be a polynomial of ∕ degree at most n and therefore it can have at most n roots. Choose an integer x uniformly at random from 1, 2, . , nm . H(x) will be zero with probability at most 1/m, i.e the probability of failing to detect that { } F and G differ is “small”. After just k repetitions, we will be able to determine with probability 1 1/mk − whether the two polynomials are identical i.e. the probability of success is arbitrarily close to 1. The following result, known as the Schwartz-Zippel lemma, generalizes the above observation to polynomials on more than one variables: Lemma 1 Suppose that F is a polynomial in variables (x1, x2, . -
MATH7502 Topic 6 - Graphs and Networks
MATH7502 Topic 6 - Graphs and Networks October 18, 2019 Group ID fbb0bfdc-79d6-44ad-8100-05067b9a0cf9 Chris Lam 41735613 Anthony North 46139896 Stuart Norvill 42938019 Lee Phillips 43908587 Minh Tram Julien Tran 44536389 Tutor Chris Raymond (P03 Tuesday 4pm) 1 [ ]: using Pkg; Pkg.add(["LightGraphs", "GraphPlot", "Laplacians","Colors"]); using LinearAlgebra; using LightGraphs, GraphPlot, Laplacians,Colors; 0.1 Graphs and Networks Take for example, a sample directed graph: [2]: # creating the above directed graph let edges = [(1, 2), (1, 3), (2,4), (3, 2), (3, 5), (4, 5), (4, 6), (5, 2), (5, 6)] global graph = DiGraph(Edge.(edges)) end [2]: {6, 9} directed simple Int64 graph 2 0.2 Incidence matrix • shows the relationship between nodes (columns) via edges (rows) • edges are connected by exactly two nodes (duh), with direction indicated by the sign of each row in the edge column – a value of 1 at A12 indicates that edge 1 is directed towards node 1, or node 2 is the destination node for edge 1 • edge rows sum to 0 and constant column vectors c(1, ... , 1) are in the nullspace • cannot represent self-loops (nodes connected to themselves) Using Strang’s definition in the LALFD book, a graph consists of nodes defined as columns n and edges m as rows between the nodes. An Incidence Matrix A is m × n. For the above sample directed graph, we can generate its incidence matrix. [3]: # create an incidence matrix from a directed graph function create_incidence(graph::DiGraph) M = zeros(Int, ne(graph), nv(graph)) # each edge maps to a row in the incidence -
Two One-Parameter Special Geometries
Two One-Parameter Special Geometries Volker Braun1, Philip Candelas2 and Xenia de la Ossa2 1Elsenstrasse 35 12435 Berlin Germany 2Mathematical Institute University of Oxford Radcliffe Observatory Quarter Woodstock Road Oxford OX2 6GG, UK arXiv:1512.08367v1 [hep-th] 28 Dec 2015 Abstract The special geometries of two recently discovered Calabi-Yau threefolds with h11 = 1 are analyzed in detail. These correspond to the 'minimal three-generation' manifolds with h21 = 4 and the `24-cell' threefolds with h21 = 1. It turns out that the one- dimensional complex structure moduli spaces for these manifolds are both very similar and surprisingly complicated. Both have 6 hyperconifold points and, in addition, there are singularities of the Picard-Fuchs equation where the threefold is smooth but the Yukawa coupling vanishes. Their fundamental periods are the generating functions of lattice walks, and we use this fact to explain why the singularities are all at real values of the complex structure. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Special Geometry of the (4,1)-Manifold 6 2.1 Fundamental Period . .6 2.2 Picard-Fuchs Differential Equation . .8 2.3 Integral Homology Basis and the Prepotential . 11 2.4 The Yukawa coupling . 16 3 The Special Geometry of the (1,1)-Manifold(s) 17 3.1 The Picard-Fuchs Operator . 17 3.2 Monodromy . 19 3.3 Prepotential . 22 3.4 Integral Homology Basis . 23 3.5 Instanton Numbers . 24 3.6 Cross Ratios . 25 4 Lattice Walks 27 4.1 Spectral Considerations . 27 4.2 Square Lattice . 28 1. Introduction Detailed descriptions of special geometries are known only in relatively few cases.