Abstract

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)G = (V, E) on nn vertices and a property P\mathcal{P} are given. A black-box access to an unknown subset S⊆VS \subseteq V is provided via queries of the form `Does i∈Si \in S?'. We are interested in the minimum number of queries needed in worst case in order to determine whether G[S]G[S], the subgraph of GG induced on SS, satisfies P\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 GG, namely that of vertex-transitivity, the query complexity for any hereditary graph property in our setting is the worst possible, i.e., nn. We show that in the absence of any symmetry on GG it can fall as low as O(n1/(d+1))O(n^{1/(d + 1) }) where dd denotes the minimum possible degree of a minimal forbidden sub-graph for P\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(n1/k)Ω(n^{1/k}) for some constant kk 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)Ω(\log n/ \log \log n) bound. Interestingly, our lower bound proofs rely on the famous Sunflower Lemma due to Erdös and Rado.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.