Advertisement

Computing Maximum Unavoidable Subgraphs Using SAT Solvers

  • C. K. Cuong
  • M. J. H. Heule
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9710)

Abstract

Unavoidable subgraphs have been widely studied in the context of Ramsey Theory. The research in this area focuses on highly structured graphs such as cliques, cycles, paths, stars, trees, and wheels. We propose to study maximum unavoidable subgraphs measuring the size in the number of edges. We computed maximum unavoidable subgraphs for graphs up to order nine via SAT solving and observed that these subgraphs are less structured, although all are bipartite. Additionally, we found large unavoidable bipartite subgraphs up to order twelve. We also present the concept of multi-component unavoidable subgraphs and show that large multi-component subgraphs are unavoidable in small graphs. We envision that maximum unavoidable subgraphs can be exploited using an alternative approach to breaking graph symmetries.

Keywords

Satisfiability solving Unavoidable subgraph Combinatorics Graph theory Symmetry breaking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number CCF-1526760 and acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin for providing grid resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Aloul, F.A., Sakallah, K.A., Markov, I.L.: Efficient symmetry breaking for boolean satisfiability. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2003, Acapulco, Mexico, 9–15 August 2003, pp. 271–276. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audemard, G., Simon, L.: Predicting learnt clauses quality in modern SAT solvers. In: Boutilier, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, Pasadena, California, USA, pp. 399–404, 11–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bondy, J.A., Erdős, P.: Ramsey numbers for cycles in graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 14(1), 46–54 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burr, S.A., Erdős, P.: Extremal Ramsey theory for graphs. Utilitas Math. 9, 247–258 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Codish, M., Miller, A., Prosser, P., Stuckey, P.J.: Breaking symmetries in graph representation. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp. 510–516. IJCAI/AAAI (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerencsér, L., Gyárfás, A.: On Ramsey-type problems. Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis 10, 167–170 (1967)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham, R.L., Rothschild, B.L., Spencer, J.H.: Ramsey Theory. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harary, F.: Recent results on generalized ramsey theory for graphs. In: Alavi, Y., Lick, D.R., White, A.T. (eds.) Graph Theory and Applications. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 303, pp. 125–138. Springer, Heidelberg (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heule, M.J.H., Kullmann, O., Marek, V.W.: Solving and verifying the boolean pythagorean triples problem via cube-and-conquer. In: Creignou, N., Le Berre, D. (eds.) SAT 2016. LNCS, vol. 9710, pp. 228–245. Springer, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konev, B., Lisitsa, A.: A SAT attack on the Erdős discrepancy conjecture. In: Sinz, C., Egly, U. (eds.) SAT 2014. LNCS, vol. 8561, pp. 219–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKay, B.D., Piperno, A.: Practical graph isomorphism, II. J. Symbol. Comput. 60, 94–112 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McKay, B.D., Radziszowski, S.P.: R(4, 5) = 25. J. Graph Theory 19(3), 309–322 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radziszowski, S.P.: Small Ramsey numbers. Electron. J. Combin., #DS1 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radziszowski, S.P., Jin, X.: Paths, cycles and wheels in graphs without antitriangle. Australas. J. Combin. 9, 221–232 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thurley, M.: sharpSAT – counting models with advanced component caching and implicit BCP. In: Biere, A., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) SAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4121, pp. 424–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations