Paper detail

Graph properties in node-query setting: effect of breaking symmetry

The query complexity of graph properties is well-studied when queries are on edges. We investigate the same when queries are on nodes. In this setting a graph $G = (V, E)$ on $n$ vertices and a property $\mathcal{P}$ are given. A black-box access to an unknown subset $S \subseteq V$ is provided via queries of the form `Does $i \in S$?'. We are interested in the minimum number of queries needed in worst case in order to determine whether $G[S]$, the subgraph of $G$ induced on $S$, satisfies $\mathcal{P}$. Apart from being combinatorially rich, this setting allows us to initiate a systematic study of breaking symmetry in the context of query complexity of graph properties. In particular, we focus on hereditary graph properties. The monotone functions in the node-query setting translate precisely to the hereditary graph properties. The famous Evasiveness Conjecture asserts that even with a minimal symmetry assumption on $G$, namely that of vertex-transitivity, the query complexity for any hereditary graph property in our setting is the worst possible, i.e., $n$. We show that in the absence of any symmetry on $G$ it can fall as low as $O(n^{1/(d + 1) })$ where $d$ denotes the minimum possible degree of a minimal forbidden sub-graph for $\mathcal{P}$. In particular, every hereditary property benefits at least quadratically. The main question left open is: can it go exponentially low for some hereditary property? We show that the answer is no for any hereditary property with {finitely many} forbidden subgraphs by exhibiting a bound of $Ω(n^{1/k})$ for some constant $k$ depending only on the property. For general ones we rule out the possibility of the query complexity falling down to constant by showing $Ω(\log n/ \log \log n)$ bound. Interestingly, our lower bound proofs rely on the famous Sunflower Lemma due to Erdös and Rado.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.