Common graph

From The Right Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

In graph theory, an area of mathematics, common graphs belong to a branch of extremal graph theory concerning inequalities in homomorphism densities. Roughly speaking, F is a common graph if it "commonly" appears as a subgraph, in a sense that the total number of copies of F in any graph G and its complement G is a large fraction of all possible copies of F on the same vertices. Intuitively, if G contains few copies of F, then its complement G must contain lots of copies of F in order to compensate for it. Common graphs are closely related to other graph notions dealing with homomorphism density inequalities. For example, common graphs are a more general case of Sidorenko graphs.

Definition

A graph F is common if the inequality: t(F,W)+t(F,1W)2e(F)+1 holds for any graphon W, where e(F) is the number of edges of F and t(F,W) is the homomorphism density.[1] The inequality is tight because the lower bound is always reached when W is the constant graphon W1/2.

Interpretations of definition

For a graph G, we have t(F,G)=t(F,WG) and t(F,G)=t(F,1WG) for the associated graphon WG, since graphon associated to the complement G is WG=1WG. Hence, this formula provides us with the very informal intuition to take a close enough approximation, whatever that means,[2] W to WG, and see t(F,W) as roughly the fraction of labeled copies of graph F in "approximate" graph G. Then, we can assume the quantity t(F,W)+t(F,1W) is roughly t(F,G)+t(F,G) and interpret the latter as the combined number of copies of F in G and G. Hence, we see that t(F,G)+t(F,G)2e(F)+1 holds. This, in turn, means that common graph F commonly appears as subgraph. In other words, if we think of edges and non-edges as 2-coloring of edges of complete graph on the same vertices, then at least 2e(F)+1 fraction of all possible copies of F are monochromatic. Note that in a Erdős–Rényi random graph G=G(n,p) with each edge drawn with probability p=1/2, each graph homomorphism from F to G have probability 22e(F)=2e(F)+1of being monochromatic. So, common graph F is a graph where it attains its minimum number of appearance as a monochromatic subgraph of graph G at the graph G=G(n,p) with p=1/2 p=1/2. The above definition using the generalized homomorphism density can be understood in this way.

Examples

  • As stated above, all Sidorenko graphs are common graphs.[3] Hence, any known Sidorenko graph is an example of a common graph, and, most notably, cycles of even length are common.[4] However, these are limited examples since all Sidorenko graphs are bipartite graphs while there exist non-bipartite common graphs, as demonstrated below.
  • The triangle graph K3 is one simple example of non-bipartite common graph.[5]
  • K4, the graph obtained by removing an edge of the complete graph on 4 vertices K4, is common.[6]
  • Non-example: It was believed for a time that all graphs are common. However, it turns out that Kt is not common for t4.[7] In particular, K4 is not common even though K4 is common.

Proofs

Sidorenko graphs are common

A graph F is a Sidorenko graph if it satisfies t(F,W)t(K2,W)e(F) for all graphons W. In that case, t(F,1W)t(K2,1W)e(F). Furthermore, t(K2,W)+t(K2,1W)=1, which follows from the definition of homomorphism density. Combining this with Jensen's inequality for the function f(x)=xe(F): t(F,W)+t(F,1W)t(K2,W)e(F)+t(K2,1W)e(F)2(t(K2,W)+t(K2,1W)2)e(F)=2e(F)+1 Thus, the conditions for common graph is met.[8]

The triangle graph is common

Expand the integral expression for t(K3,1W) and take into account the symmetry between the variables: [0,1]3(1W(x,y))(1W(y,z))(1W(z,x))dxdydz=13[0,1]2W(x,y)+3[0,1]3W(x,y)W(x,z)dxdydz[0,1]3W(x,y)W(y,z)W(z,x)dxdydz Each term in the expression can be written in terms of homomorphism densities of smaller graphs. By the definition of homomorphism densities:

[0,1]2W(x,y)dxdy=t(K2,W)
[0,1]3W(x,y)W(x,z)dxdydz=t(K1,2,W)
[0,1]3W(x,y)W(y,z)W(z,x)dxdydz=t(K3,W)

where K1,2 denotes the complete bipartite graph on 1 vertex on one part and 2 vertices on the other. It follows:

t(K3,W)+t(K3,1W)=13t(K2,W)+3t(K1,2,W).

t(K1,2,W) can be related to t(K2,W) thanks to the symmetry between the variables y and z: t(K1,2,W)=[0,1]3W(x,y)W(x,z)dxdydz=x[0,1](y[0,1]W(x,y))(z[0,1]W(x,z))=x[0,1](y[0,1]W(x,y))2(x[0,1]y[0,1]W(x,y))2=t(K2,W)2 where the last step follows from the integral Cauchy–Schwarz inequality. Finally: t(K3,W)+t(K3,1W)13t(K2,W)+3t(K2,W)2=1/4+3(t(K2,W)1/2)21/4. This proof can be obtained from taking the continuous analog of Theorem 1 in "On Sets Of Acquaintances And Strangers At Any Party"[9]

See also

References

  1. Large Networks and Graph Limits. American Mathematical Society. p. 297. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  2. Borgs, C.; Chayes, J. T.; Lovász, L.; Sós, V. T.; Vesztergombi, K. (2008-12-20). "Convergent sequences of dense graphs I: Subgraph frequencies, metric properties and testing". Advances in Mathematics. 219 (6): 1801–1851. arXiv:math/0702004. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2008.07.008. ISSN 0001-8708. S2CID 5974912.
  3. Large Networks and Graph Limits. American Mathematical Society. p. 297. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  4. Sidorenko, A. F. (1992). "Inequalities for functionals generated by bipartite graphs". Discrete Mathematics and Applications. 2 (5). doi:10.1515/dma.1992.2.5.489. ISSN 0924-9265. S2CID 117471984.
  5. Large Networks and Graph Limits. American Mathematical Society. p. 299. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  6. Large Networks and Graph Limits. American Mathematical Society. p. 298. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  7. Thomason, Andrew (1989). "A Disproof of a Conjecture of Erdős in Ramsey Theory". Journal of the London Mathematical Society. s2-39 (2): 246–255. doi:10.1112/jlms/s2-39.2.246. ISSN 1469-7750.
  8. Lovász, László (2012). Large Networks and Graph Limits. United States: American Mathematical Society Colloquium publications. pp. 297–298. ISBN 978-0821890851.
  9. Goodman, A. W. (1959). "On Sets of Acquaintances and Strangers at any Party". The American Mathematical Monthly. 66 (9): 778–783. doi:10.2307/2310464. ISSN 0002-9890. JSTOR 2310464.