A claw is another name for the complete bipartite graphK1,3 (that is, a star graph comprising three edges, three leaves, and a central vertex). A claw-free graph is a graph in which no induced subgraph is a claw; i.e., any subset of four vertices has other than only three edges connecting them in this pattern. Equivalently, a claw-free graph is a graph in which the neighborhood of any vertex is the complement of a triangle-free graph.
Claw-free graphs were initially studied as a generalization of line graphs, and gained additional motivation through three key discoveries about them: the fact that all claw-free connected graphs of even order have perfect matchings, the discovery of polynomial time algorithms for finding maximum independent sets in claw-free graphs, and the characterization of claw-free perfect graphs.[1] They are the subject of hundreds of mathematical research papers and several surveys.[1]
Examples
The regular icosahedron, a polyhedron whose vertices and edges form a claw-free graph.
The line graphL(G) of any graph G is claw-free; L(G) has a vertex for every edge of G, and vertices are adjacent in L(G) whenever the corresponding edges share an endpoint in G. A line graph L(G) cannot contain a claw, because if three edges e1, e2, and e3 in G all share endpoints with another edge e4 then by the pigeonhole principle at least two of e1, e2, and e3 must share one of those endpoints with each other. Line graphs may be characterized in terms of nine forbidden subgraphs;[2] the claw is the simplest of these nine graphs. This characterization provided the initial motivation for studying claw-free graphs.[1]
The de Bruijn graphs (graphs whose vertices represent n-bit binary strings for some n, and whose edges represent (n−1)-bit overlaps between two strings) are claw-free. One way to show this is via the construction of the de Bruijn graph for n-bit strings as the line graph of the de Bruijn graph for (n−1)-bit strings.
It is straightforward to verify that a given graph with n vertices and m edges is claw-free in time O(n4), by testing each 4-tuple of vertices to determine whether they induce a claw.[6] With more efficiency, and greater complication, one can test whether a graph is claw-free by checking, for each vertex of the graph, that the complement graph of its neighbors does not contain a triangle. A graph contains a triangle if and only if the cube of its adjacency matrix contains a nonzero diagonal element, so finding a triangle may be performed in the same asymptotic time bound as n×nmatrix multiplication.[7] Therefore, using the Coppersmith–Winograd algorithm, the total time for this claw-free recognition algorithm would be O(n3.376).
Kloks, Kratsch & Müller (2000) observe that in any claw-free graph, each vertex has at most 2√m neighbors; for otherwise by Turán's theorem the neighbors of the vertex would not have enough remaining edges to form the complement of a triangle-free graph. This observation allows the check of each neighborhood in the fast matrix multiplication based algorithm outlined above to be performed in the same asymptotic time bound as 2√m×2√m matrix multiplication, or faster for vertices with even lower degrees. The worst case for this algorithm occurs when Ω(√m) vertices have Ω(√m) neighbors each, and the remaining vertices have few neighbors, so its total time is O(m3.376/2)=O(m1.688).
Enumeration
Because claw-free graphs include complements of triangle-free graphs, the number of claw-free graphs on n vertices grows at least as quickly as the number of triangle-free graphs, exponentially in the square of n. The numbers of connected claw-free graphs on n nodes, for n=1,2,... are
1, 1, 2, 5, 14, 50, 191, 881, 4494, 26389, 184749, ... (sequence A022562 in the OEIS).
If the graphs are allowed to be disconnected, the numbers of graphs are even larger: they are
1, 2, 4, 10, 26, 85, 302, 1285, 6170, ... (sequence A086991 in the OEIS).
Sumner's proof that claw-free connected graphs of even order have perfect matchings: removing the two adjacent vertices v and w that are farthest from u leaves a connected subgraph, within which the same removal process may be repeated.
Sumner (1974) and, independently, Las Vergnas (1975) proved that every claw-free connected graph with an even number of vertices has a perfect matching.[8] That is, there exists a set of edges in the graph such that each vertex is an endpoint of exactly one of the matched edges. The special case of this result for line graphs implies that, in any graph with an even number of edges, one can partition the edges into paths of length two. Perfect matchings may be used to provide another characterization of the claw-free graphs: they are exactly the graphs in which every connected induced subgraph of even order has a perfect matching.[8]
Sumner's proof shows, more strongly, that in any connected claw-free graph one can find a pair of adjacent vertices the removal of which leaves the remaining graph connected. To show this, Sumner finds a pair of vertices u and v that are as far apart as possible in the graph, and chooses w to be a neighbor of v that is as far from u as possible; as he shows, neither v nor w can lie on any shortest path from any other node to u, so the removal of v and w leaves the remaining graph connected. Repeatedly removing matched pairs of vertices in this way forms a perfect matching in the given claw-free graph.
The same proof idea holds more generally if u is any vertex, v is any vertex that is maximally far from u, and w is any neighbor of v that is maximally far from u. Further, the removal of v and w from the graph does not change any of the other distances from u. Therefore, the process of forming a matching by finding and removing pairs vw that are maximally far from u may be performed by a single postorder traversal of a breadth first search tree of the graph, rooted at u, in linear time. Chrobak, Naor & Novick (1989) provide an alternative linear-time algorithm based on depth-first search, as well as efficient parallel algorithms for the same problem.
Faudree, Flandrin & Ryjáček (1997) list several related results, including the following: (r−1)-connected K1,r-free graphs of even order have perfect matchings for any r≥2; claw-free graphs of odd order with at most one degree-one vertex may be partitioned into an odd cycle and a matching; for any k that is at most half the minimum degree of a claw-free graph in which either k or the number of vertices is even, the graph has a k-factor; and, if a claw-free graph is (2k+1)-connected, then any k-edge matching can be extended to a perfect matching.
Independent sets
A non-maximum independent set (the two violet nodes) and an augmenting path
Both approaches use the observation that in claw-free graphs, no vertex can have more than two neighbors in an independent set, and so the symmetric difference of two independent sets must induce a subgraph of degree at most two; that is, it is a union of paths and cycles. In particular, if I is a non-maximum independent set, it differs from any maximum independent set by even cycles and so called augmenting paths: induced paths which alternate between vertices not in I and vertices in I, and for which both endpoints have only one neighbor in I. As the symmetric difference of I with any augmenting path gives a larger independent set, the task thus reduces to searching for augmenting paths until no more can be found, analogously as in algorithms for finding maximum matchings.
Sbihi's algorithm recreates the blossom contraction step of Edmonds' algorithm and adds a similar, but more complicated, clique contraction step. Minty's approach is to transform the problem instance into an auxiliary line graph and use Edmonds' algorithm directly to find the augmenting paths. After a correction by Nakamura & Tamura 2001, Minty's result may also be used to solve in polynomial time the more general problem of finding in claw-free graphs an independent set of maximum weight. Generalizations of these results to wider classes of graphs are also known.[9] By showing a novel structure theorem, Faenza, Oriolo & Stauffer (2011) gave a cubic time algorithm, which also works in the weighted setting.
Coloring, cliques, and domination
A perfect graph is a graph in which the chromatic number and the size of the maximum clique are equal, and in which this equality persists in every induced subgraph. It is now known (the strong perfect graph theorem) that perfect graphs may be characterized as the graphs that do not have as induced subgraphs either an odd cycle or the complement of an odd cycle (a so-called odd hole).[10] However, for many years this remained an unsolved conjecture, only proven for special subclasses of graphs. One of these subclasses was the family of claw-free graphs: it was discovered by several authors that claw-free graphs without odd cycles and odd holes are perfect. Perfect claw-free graphs may be recognized in polynomial time. In a perfect claw-free graph, the neighborhood of any vertex forms the complement of a bipartite graph. It is possible to color perfect claw-free graphs, or to find maximum cliques in them, in polynomial time.[11]
Unsolved problem in mathematics:
Do claw-free graphs always have list chromatic number equal to their chromatic number?
In general, it is NP-hard to find the largest clique in a claw-free graph.[12] It is also NP-hard to find an optimal coloring of the graph, because (via line graphs) this problem generalizes the NP-hard problem of computing the chromatic index of a graph.[6] For the same reason, it is NP-hard to find a coloring that achieves an approximation ratio better than 4/3. However, an approximation ratio of two can be achieved by a greedy coloring algorithm, because the chromatic number of a claw-free graph is greater than half its maximum degree. A generalization of the edge list coloring conjecture states that, for claw-free graphs, the list chromatic number equals the chromatic number; these two numbers can be far apart in other kinds of graphs.[13]
The claw-free graphs are χ-bounded, meaning that every claw-free graph of large chromatic number contains a large clique. More strongly, it follows from Ramsey's theorem that every claw-free graph of large maximum degree contains a large clique, of size roughly proportional to the square root of the degree. For connected claw-free graphs that include at least one three-vertex independent set, a stronger relation between chromatic number and clique size is possible: in these graphs, there exists a clique of size at least half the chromatic number.[14]
Although not every claw-free graph is perfect, claw-free graphs satisfy another property, related to perfection. A graph is called domination perfect if it has a minimum dominating set that is independent, and if the same property holds in all of its induced subgraphs. Claw-free graphs have this property. To see this, let D be a dominating set in a claw-free graph, and suppose that v and w are two adjacent vertices in D; then the set of vertices dominated by v but not by w must be a clique (else v would be the center of a claw). If every vertex in this clique is already dominated by at least one other member of D, then v can be removed producing a smaller independent dominating set, and otherwise v can be replaced by one of the undominated vertices in its clique producing a dominating set with fewer adjacencies. By repeating this replacement process one eventually reaches a dominating set no larger than D, so in particular when the starting set D is a minimum dominating set this process forms an equally small independent dominating set.[15]
Despite this domination perfectness property, it is NP-hard to determine the size of the minimum dominating set in a claw-free graph.[6] However, in contrast to the situation for more general classes of graphs, finding the minimum dominating set or the minimum connected dominating set in a claw-free graph is fixed-parameter tractable: it can be solved in time bounded by a polynomial in the size of the graph multiplied by an exponential function of the dominating set size.[16]
Structure
Chudnovsky & Seymour (2005) overview a series of papers in which they prove a structure theory for claw-free graphs, analogous to the graph structure theorem for minor-closed graph families proven by Robertson and Seymour, and to the structure theory for perfect graphs that Chudnovsky, Seymour and their co-authors used to prove the strong perfect graph theorem.[10] The theory is too complex to describe in detail here, but to give a flavor of it, it suffices to outline two of their results. First, for a special subclass of claw-free graphs which they call quasi-line graphs (equivalently, locally co-bipartite graphs), they state that every such graph has one of two forms:
A fuzzy circular interval graph, a class of graphs represented geometrically by points and arcs on a circle, generalizing proper circular arc graphs.
A graph constructed from a multigraph by replacing each edge by a fuzzy linear interval graph. This generalizes the construction of a line graph, in which every edge of the multigraph is replaced by a vertex. Fuzzy linear interval graphs are constructed in the same way as fuzzy circular interval graphs, but on a line rather than on a circle.
Chudnovsky and Seymour classify arbitrary connected claw-free graphs into one of the following:
Six specific subclasses of claw-free graphs. Three of these are line graphs, proper circular arc graphs, and the induced subgraphs of an icosahedron; the other three involve additional definitions.
Graphs formed in four simple ways from smaller claw-free graphs.
Antiprismatic graphs, a class of dense graphs defined as the claw-free graphs in which every four vertices induce a subgraph with at least two edges.
Much of the work in their structure theory involves a further analysis of antiprismatic graphs. The Schläfli graph, a claw-free strongly regular graph with parameters srg(27,16,10,8), plays an important role in this part of the analysis. This structure theory has led to new advances in polyhedral combinatorics and new bounds on the chromatic number of claw-free graphs,[5][17] as well as to new fixed-parameter-tractable algorithms for dominating sets in claw-free graphs.[18]
This is a glossary of graph theory. Graph theory is the study of graphs, systems of nodes or vertices connected in pairs by lines or edges.
In graph theory, an interval graph is an undirected graph formed from a set of intervals on the real line, with a vertex for each interval and an edge between vertices whose intervals intersect. It is the intersection graph of the intervals.
In graph theory, an independent set, stable set, coclique or anticlique is a set of vertices in a graph, no two of which are adjacent. That is, it is a set of vertices such that for every two vertices in , there is no edge connecting the two. Equivalently, each edge in the graph has at most one endpoint in . A set is independent if and only if it is a clique in the graph's complement. The size of an independent set is the number of vertices it contains. Independent sets have also been called "internally stable sets", of which "stable set" is a shortening.
In graph theory, a perfect graph is a graph in which the chromatic number equals the size of the maximum clique, both in the graph itself and in every induced subgraph. In all graphs, the chromatic number is greater than or equal to the size of the maximum clique, but they can be far apart. A graph is perfect when these numbers are equal, and remain equal after the deletion of arbitrary subsets of vertices.
In graph theory, the perfect graph theorem of László Lovász states that an undirected graph is perfect if and only if its complement graph is also perfect. This result had been conjectured by Berge, and it is sometimes called the weak perfect graph theorem to distinguish it from the strong perfect graph theorem characterizing perfect graphs by their forbidden induced subgraphs.
In the mathematical discipline of graph theory, the line graph of an undirected graph G is another graph L(G) that represents the adjacencies between edges of G. L(G) is constructed in the following way: for each edge in G, make a vertex in L(G); for every two edges in G that have a vertex in common, make an edge between their corresponding vertices in L(G).
In graph theory, a proper edge coloring of a graph is an assignment of "colors" to the edges of the graph so that no two incident edges have the same color. For example, the figure to the right shows an edge coloring of a graph by the colors red, blue, and green. Edge colorings are one of several different types of graph coloring. The edge-coloring problem asks whether it is possible to color the edges of a given graph using at most k different colors, for a given value of k, or with the fewest possible colors. The minimum required number of colors for the edges of a given graph is called the chromatic index of the graph. For example, the edges of the graph in the illustration can be colored by three colors but cannot be colored by two colors, so the graph shown has chromatic index three.
In the mathematical area of graph theory, a chordal graph is one in which all cycles of four or more vertices have a chord, which is an edge that is not part of the cycle but connects two vertices of the cycle. Equivalently, every induced cycle in the graph should have exactly three vertices. The chordal graphs may also be characterized as the graphs that have perfect elimination orderings, as the graphs in which each minimal separator is a clique, and as the intersection graphs of subtrees of a tree. They are sometimes also called rigid circuit graphs or triangulated graphs.
In graph theory, the strong perfect graph theorem is a forbidden graph characterization of the perfect graphs as being exactly the graphs that have neither odd holes nor odd antiholes. It was conjectured by Claude Berge in 1961. A proof by Maria Chudnovsky, Neil Robertson, Paul Seymour, and Robin Thomas was announced in 2002 and published by them in 2006.
In the mathematical field of graph theory, the complement or inverse of a graph G is a graph H on the same vertices such that two distinct vertices of H are adjacent if and only if they are not adjacent in G. That is, to generate the complement of a graph, one fills in all the missing edges required to form a complete graph, and removes all the edges that were previously there.
Paul D. Seymour is a British mathematician known for his work in discrete mathematics, especially graph theory. He was responsible for important progress on regular matroids and totally unimodular matrices, the four colour theorem, linkless embeddings, graph minors and structure, the perfect graph conjecture, the Hadwiger conjecture, claw-free graphs, χ-boundedness, and the Erdős–Hajnal conjecture. Many of his recent papers are available from his website.
In the mathematical field of graph theory, an induced subgraph of a graph is another graph, formed from a subset of the vertices of the graph and all of the edges connecting pairs of vertices in that subset.
In graph theory, an adjacent vertex of a vertex v in a graph is a vertex that is connected to v by an edge. The neighbourhood of a vertex v in a graph G is the subgraph of G induced by all vertices adjacent to v, i.e., the graph composed of the vertices adjacent to v and all edges connecting vertices adjacent to v.
In graph theory, a rook's graph is an undirected graph that represents all legal moves of the rook chess piece on a chessboard. Each vertex of a rook's graph represents a square on a chessboard, and there is an edge between any two squares sharing a row (rank) or column (file), the squares that a rook can move between. These graphs can be constructed for chessboards of any rectangular shape. Although rook's graphs have only minor significance in chess lore, they are more important in the abstract mathematics of graphs through their alternative constructions: rook's graphs are the Cartesian product of two complete graphs, and are the line graphs of complete bipartite graphs. The square rook's graphs constitute the two-dimensional Hamming graphs.
In graph theory, a mathematical discipline, a factor-critical graph is a graph with n vertices in which every subgraph of n − 1 vertices has a perfect matching.
In graph theory, a branch of mathematics, a split graph is a graph in which the vertices can be partitioned into a clique and an independent set. Split graphs were first studied by Földes and Hammer, and independently introduced by Tyshkevich and Chernyak (1979), where they called these graphs "polar graphs".
In graph theory, a clique cover or partition into cliques of a given undirected graph is a partition of the vertices into cliques, subsets of vertices within which every two vertices are adjacent. A minimum clique cover is a clique cover that uses as few cliques as possible. The minimum k for which a clique cover exists is called the clique cover number of the given graph.
In graph theory, a starSk is the complete bipartite graph K1,k : a tree with one internal node and k leaves. Alternatively, some authors define Sk to be the tree of order k with maximum diameter 2; in which case a star of k > 2 has k − 1 leaves.
In the mathematical field of graph theory, the bull graph is a planar undirected graph with 5 vertices and 5 edges, in the form of a triangle with two disjoint pendant edges.
In graph theory, a branch of mathematics, the Erdős–Hajnal conjecture states that families of graphs defined by forbidden induced subgraphs have either large cliques or large independent sets. It is named for Paul Erdős and András Hajnal.
References
Beineke, L. W. (1968), "Derived graphs of digraphs", in Sachs, H.; Voss, H.-J.; Walter, H.-J. (eds.), Beiträge zur Graphentheorie, Leipzig: Teubner, pp.17–33.
Hermelin, Danny; Mnich, Matthias; van Leeuwen, Erik Jan; Woeginger, Gerhard (2011), "Domination when the stars are out", Automata, Languages and Programming: 38th International Colloquium, ICALP 2011, Zurich, Switzerland, July 4-8, 2011, Proceedings, Part I, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.6755, Zurich, Switzerland, pp.462–473, arXiv:1012.0012, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22006-7_39, S2CID3080073{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
Kloks, Ton; Kratsch, Dieter; Müller, Haiko (2000), "Finding and counting small induced subgraphs efficiently", Information Processing Letters, 74 (3–4): 115–121, doi:10.1016/S0020-0190(00)00047-8, MR1761552 .
Las Vergnas, M. (1975), "A note on matchings in graphs", Cahiers du Centre d'Études de Recherche Opérationnelle, 17 (2–3–4): 257–260, MR0412042 .
Minty, George J. (1980), "On maximal independent sets of vertices in claw-free graphs", Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 28 (3): 284–304, doi:10.1016/0095-8956(80)90074-X, MR0579076 .
Poljak, Svatopluk (1974), "A note on stable sets and colorings of graphs", Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, 15: 307–309, MR0351881 .
Sbihi, Najiba (1980), "Algorithme de recherche d'un stable de cardinalité maximum dans un graphe sans étoile", Discrete Mathematics, 29 (1): 53–76, doi:10.1016/0012-365X(90)90287-R, MR0553650 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
