Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 1 1 44 9165 PDF
10 1 1 44 9165 PDF
10 1 1 44 9165 PDF
Donald E. Knuth
Note: QSTAB rst dened by Shannon [18], and the rst systematic study of STAB was
undertaken by Padberg [17]. TH was rst dened by Grotschel, Lovasz, and Schrijver in [6].
3. Monotonicity. Suppose G and G0 are graphs on the same vertex set V , with G G0
(i.e., u ?? v in G implies u ?? v in G0 ). Then
every stable set in G0 is stable in G, hence STAB(G) STAB(G0 );
every clique in G is a clique in G0 , hence QSTAB(G) QSTAB(G0 );
every orthogonal labeling of G is an orthogonal labeling of G0 ,
hence TH(G) TH(G0 ).
In particular, if G is the empty graph K n on jV j = n vertices, all sets are stable and all
cliques have size 1, hence
STAB(K n ) = TH(K n ) = QSTAB(K n ) = f x j 0 xv 1 for all v g, the n-cube.
If G is the complete graph Kn, all stable sets have size 1 and there is an n-clique, so
P
STAB(Kn ) = TH(Kn ) = QSTAB(Kn ) = f x 0 j v xv 1 g, the n-simplex.
Thus all the convex sets STAB(G), TH(G), QSTAB(G) lie between the n-simplex and the
n-cube.
Consider, for example, the case n = 3. Then there are three coordinates, so we can
visualize the sets in 3-space (although there aren't many interesting graphs). The QSTAB
xs ys zs
of is obtained from the unit cube by restricting the coordinates to x + y 1 and
y + z 1; we can think of making two cuts in a piece of cheese:
001
101
000
100 010
The vertices f000; 100; 010; 001; 101g correspond to the stable labelings, so once again we
have STAB(G) = TH(G) = QSTAB(G).
4. The theta function. The function #(G) mentioned in the introduction is a special
case of a two-parameter function #(G; w), where w is a nonnegative real labeling:
#(G; w) = maxf w x j x 2 TH(G) g ; (4:1)
#(G) = #(G; 1l) where 1l is the labeling wv = 1 for all v. (4:2)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 7
This function, called the Lovasz number of G (or the weighted Lovasz number when w 6= 1l),
tells us about 1-dimensional projections of the n-dimensional convex set TH(G).
Notice, for example, that the monotonicity properties of x3 tell us
G G0 ) #(G; w) #(G0 ; w) (4:3)
for all w 0. It is also obvious that # is monotone in its other parameter:
w w0 ) #(G; w) #(G; w0 ) : (4:4)
The smallest possible value of # is
#(Kn ; w) = maxfw1; : : : ; wng ; #(Kn ) = 1 : (4:5)
The largest possible value is
#(K n; w) = w1 + + wn ; #(K n) = n : (4:6)
We will restate such consequences of (5.1) later, but it may be helpful to keep that future
goal in mind.
6. Characterization via eigenvalues. The second variant of # is rather dierent; this
is the only one Lovasz chose to mention in [13].
We say that A is a feasible matrix for G and w if A is indexed by vertices and
A is real and symmetric;
Avv = wv for all v 2 V ;
p
Auv = wuwv whenever u 6?? v in G (6:1)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 9
The other elements of A are unconstrained (i.e., they can be anything between ?1 and
+1).
If A is any real, symmetric matrix, let (A) be its maximum eigenvalue. This is well
dened because all eigenvalues of A are real. Suppose A has eigenvalues f1; : : : ; n g; then
A = Q diag(1 ; : : : ; n) QT for some orthogonal Q, and kQxk = kxk for all vectors x, so
there is a nice way to characterize (A):
(A) = maxf xTAx j kxk = 1 g : (6:2)
Notice that (A) might not be the largest eigenvalue in absolute value. We now let
#2 (G; w) = minf (A) j A is a feasible matrix for G and w g : (6:3)
Lemma. #1(G; w) #2 (G; w).
Proof. Note rst that the trace tr A = Pv wv 0 for any feasible matrix A. The trace
is also well-known to be the sum of the eigenvalues; this fact is an easy consequence of the
identity
Xm X n
tr XY = xjk ykj = tr Y X (6:4)
j =1 k=1
valid for any matrices X and Y of respective sizes?m n and n m. In particular,
#2 (G; w)
is always 0, and it is = 0 if and only if w = 0 when also #1(G; w) = 0 .
So suppose w 6= 0 and let A be a feasible matrix that attains the minimum value
(A) = #2 (G; w) = > 0. Let
B = I ? A : (6:5)
The eigenvalues of B are minus the eigenvalues of A.
?For if A = Q diag( ; : : : ; ) QT
1 n
then B = Q diag( ? 1; : : : ; ? n) Q : Thus they are all nonnegative; such a matrix B
T
is called positive semidenite. By (0.5) we can write
B = XT X ; i.e., Buv = xu xv ; (6:6)
p p
when X = diag( ? 1; : : : ; ? n ) QT .
p
Let av = ( wv ; x1v ; : : : ; xrv )T . Then c(av ) = wv = kav k2 = wv =(wv + x21v + + x2rv )
and x21v +p + x2rv = Bvv = p ? wv , hence c(apv ) = wv =. Also if u 6?? v we have
au av = wuwv + xu xv = wuwv + Buv = wuwv ? Auv = 0. Therefore a is an
orthogonal labeling and maxv wv =c(av ) = #1 (G; w).
7. A complementary characterization. Still another variation is based on orthogonal
labelings of the complementary graph G.
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 10
P
In this case we let b be an orthogonal labeling of G, normalized so that v kbv k2 = 1,
and we let
(X
pw b ) (pw b )
#3 (G; w) = max ( u u v v
u;v
)
b is a normalized orthogonal labeling of G : (7:1)
Fact. If A is a symmetric matrix such that A B 0 for all symmetric positive semi-
denite B with Buv = 0 for u ?? v, then A = X + Y where X is symmetric positive
semidenite and Y is symmetric and Yvv = 0 for all v and Yuv = 0 for u 6?? v.
P
Here C B stands for the dot product of matrices, i.e., the sum u;v Cuv Buv , which can
also be written tr C T B. The stated fact is a duality principle for quadratic programming.
p
Assuming the Fact, let W be the matrix with W = w w , and let # = # (G; w).
uv u v 3 3
By denition (7.1), if b is any nonzero orthogonal labeling of G (not necessarily normalized),
we have Xp p X
( wu bu) ( wv bv ) #3 kbv k2 : (7:2)
u;v v
In matrix terms this says W B (#3 I ) B for all symmetric positive semidenite B with
Buv = 0 for u ?? v. The Fact now tells us we can write
#3I ? W = X + Y (7:3)
where X is symmetric positive semidenite, Y is symmetric and diagonally zero, and
Yuv = 0 when u 6?? v. Therefore the matrix A dened by
A = W + Y = #3 I ? X
is a feasible matrix for G, and (A) #3. This completes the proof that #2 (G; w)
#3 (G; w), because (A) is an upper bound on #2 by denition of #2 .
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 11
8. Elementary facts about cones. A cone in N -dimensional space is a set of vectors
closed under addition and under multiplication by nonnegative scalars. (In particular, it
is convex: If c and c0 are in cone C and 0 < t < 1 then tc and (1 ? t)c0 are in C , hence
tc + (1 ? t)c0 2 C .) A closed cone is a cone that is also closed under taking limits.
F1. If C is a closed convex set and x 2= C , there is a hyperplane separating x from C .
This means there is a vector y and a number b such that c y b for all c 2 C but x y > b.
Proof. Let d be the greatest lower bound of kx ? ck2 for all c 2 C . Then there's a
sequence of vectors ck with kx ? ck k2 < d +1=k; this innite set of vectors contained in the
sphere f y j kx ? yk2 d + 1 g must have a limit point c1, and c1 2 C since C is closed.
Therefore kx ? c1k2 d; in fact kx ? c1k2 = d, since kx ? c1k kx ? ck k + kck ? c1k
and the right-hand side can be made arbitrarily close to d. Since x 2= C , we must have
d > 0. Now let y = x ? c1 and b = c1 y. Clearly x y = y y + b > b. And if c is any
x ? ?cof+ C(1 and
element is
any small positive number, the vector c + (1 ? )c1 is in C , hence
? )c1
2 d. But
x ? ?c + (1 ? )c
2 ? d = kx ? c ? (c ? c )k2 ? d
1 1 1
= ? 2y (c ? c1) + 2 kc ? c1k2
can be nonnegative for all small only if y (c ? c1) 0, i.e., c y b.
If A is any set of vectors, let A = f b j a b 0 for all a 2 A g.
The following facts are immediate:
F2. A A0 implies A A0 .
F3. A A .
F4. A is a closed cone.
From F1 we also get a result which, in the special case that C = f Ax j x 0 g for a
matrix A, is called Farkas's Lemma:
F5. If C is a closed cone, C = C .
Proof. Suppose x 2 C and x 2= C , and let (y; b) be a separating hyperplane as in F1.
Then (y; 0) is also a separating hyperplane; for we have x y > b 0 because 0 2 C , and
we cannot have c y > 0 for c 2 C because (c) y would then be unbounded. But then
c (?y) 0 for all c 2 C , so ?y 2 C ; hence x (?y) 0, a contradiction.
If A and B are sets of vectors, we dene A + B = f a + b j a 2 A and b 2 B g.
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 12
F6. If C and C 0 are closed cones, (C \ C 0) = C + C 0 .
Proof. If A and B are arbitrary sets we have A + B (A \ B) , for if x 2 A + B
and y 2 A \ B then x y = a y + b y 0. If A and B are arbitrary sets including 0 then
(A + B) A \ B by F2, because A + B A and A + B B. Thus for arbitrary A
and B we have (A + B ) A \ B , hence
(A + B ) (A \ B ) :
Now let A and B be closed cones; apply F5 to get A + B (A \ B) .
F7. If C and C 0 are closed cones, (C + C 0) = C \ C 0 . (I don't need this but I might
as well state it.) Proof. F6 says (C \ C 0 ) = C + C 0 ; apply F5 and again.
F8. Let S be any set of indices and let AS = f a j as = 0 for all s 2 S g, and let S be all
the indices not in S . Then
AS = AS :
X
= c(b0v )wv #4 (G; w) (10:4)
v
P P
because v kb0v k2 = v kbv k2 = 1.
11. The nal link. Now we can close the loop:
Lemma. #4(G; w) #(G; w).
Proof. If b is an orthogonal labeling of G that achieves the maximum #4 , we will show
that the real labeling x dened by xv = c(bv ) is in TH(G). Therefore #4(G; w) = w x is
#(G; w).
We will prove that if a is any orthogonal labeling of G, and if b is any orthogonal
labeling of G, then X
c(av ) c(bv ) 1 : (11:1)
v
Suppose a is a labeling of dimension d and b is of dimension d0 . Then consider the d d0
matrices
Av = av bTv (11:2)
as elements of a vector space of dimension dd0 . If u 6= v we have
Au Av = tr ATu Av = tr buaTu av bTv = tr aTu av bTv bu = 0 ; (11:3)
because aTu av = 0 when u 6?? v and bTv bu = 0 when u ?? v. If u = v we have
Av Av = kav k2 kbv k2 :
The upper left corner element of Av is a1v b1v , hence the \cost" of Av is (a1v b1v )2 = kAv k2 =
c(av ) c(bv ). This, with (11.3), proves (11.1). (See the proof of Lemma 1.)
12. The main theorem. Lemmas 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 establish the ve inequalities
claimed in (5.1); hence all ve variants of # are the same
? function of G and w. Moreover,
all the inequalities in those ve proofs are equalities with the exception of (11.1) . We
can summarize the results as follows.
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 15
Theorem. For all graphs G and any nonnegative real labeling w of G we have
#(G; w) = #1 (G; w) = #2 (G; w) = #3(G; w) = #4 (G; w) : (12:1)
Moreover, if w 6= 0, there exist orthogonal labelings a and b of G and G, respectively, such
that
c(av ) = wv =# ; (12:2)
X
c(av ) c(bv ) = 1 : (12:3)
Proof. Relation (12.1) is, of course, (5.1); and (12.2) is (5.3). The desired labeling b is
what we called b0 in the proof of Lemma 10. The fact that the application of Cauchy's
inequality in (10.4) is actually an equality,
X p 2 X X b2
#= b1v wv = kbv k 2 1v
v kbv k2 wv ;
v v
(12:4)
bv 6=0
tells us that the vectors whose dot product has been squared are proportional: There is a
number t such that
pw
kbv k = t kb k v ; if bv 6= 0 ; kbv k = 0 i b1v pwv = 0 :
b 1v (12:5)
v
The labeling in the proof of Lemma 10 also satises
X
kbv k2 = 1 ; (12:6)
v
p
hence t = 1= # .
We can now show
c(bv ) = kbv k2 #=wv ; when wv 6= 0 : (12:7)
This relation is obvious if kbv k = 0; otherwise we have
av av s s
a0v = ; a0v = ? ; = wv0 ka k ; 0
0
= ww0v kav k ; (16:6)
0
wv0 v v 0
b0v = b0v = bv :
0 (16:7)
(We can assume by Lemma 15 that wv0 and wv0 are nonzero.) All orthogonality relations
0
We have 0 0
c(a0v ) = ck(aavk)2k+avk2 = 1 +cw(a0v )=w0 = c(awv )wv = w#v ;
2
v v v 0 v
and similarly c(a0v ) = wv0 =#; thus (12.2) and (12.3) are satised by a0 and b0 for G0 and w0 .
0 0
Notice that if all the weights are integers we can apply this lemma repeatedly to
establish that
#(G; w) = #(G0 ) ; (16:8)
where G0 is obtained from G by replacing each vertex v by a cluster ? of wv mutually
nonadjacent vertices that are adjacent to each of v's neighbors. Recall that #(G0 ) =
#(G0 ; 1l), by denition (4.2). In particular,
? if G is the trivial graph K2 and if we assign
the weights M and N , we have # K2 ; (M; N )T = #(KM;N ) where KM;N denotes the
complete bipartite graph on M and N vertices.
A similar operation called \duplicating" a vertex has a similarly simple eect:
Corollary. Let G0 be constructed from G as in the lemma but with an additional edge
between v and v0 . Then #(G; w) = #(G0 ; w0 ) if w0 is dened by (16.2) and
wv = max(wv0 ; wv0 ) : 0 (16:9)
Proof. We may assume that wv = wv0 and wv0 6= 0. Most of the construction (16.5){
0
s 0
= wv w?0 wv kav k : 0
v 0
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 19
Once again the necessary and sucient conditions are readily veried.
If the corollary is applied repeatedly, it tells us that #(G) is unchanged when we
replace the vertices of G by cliques.
17. Simple examples. We observed in section 4 that #(G; w) always is at least
#min = #(Kn ; w) = maxfw1; : : : ; wng (17:1)
and at most
#max = (K n; w) = w1 + + wn : (17:2)
What are the corresponding orthogonal labelings?
For Kn the vectors of a have no orthogonal constraints, while the vectors of b must
satisfy bu bv = 0 for all u 6= v. We can let a be the two-dimensional labeling
pwv
av = p# ? w ; # = #min (17:3)
v
so that kav k2 = # and c(av ) = wv =# as desired; and b can be one-dimensional,
(1) ; if v = vmax
bv = (17:4)
(0) ; if v 6= vmax
where vmax is any particular vertex that maximizes wv . Clearly
X
c(av ) c(bv ) = c(av#max ) = wv#max = 1 :
v
For K n the vectors of a must be mutually orthogonal while the vectors of b are
unrestricted. We can let the vectors a be the columns of any orthogonal matrix whose top
row contains the element p
wv =# ; # = #max (17:5)
in column v. Then kav k2 = 1 and c(av ) = wv =#. Once again a one-dimensional labeling
suces for b; we can let bv = (1) for all v.
18. The direct sum of graphs. Let G = G0 + G00 be the graph on vertices
V = V 0 [ V 00 (18:1)
where the vertex sets V 0 and V 00 of G0 and G00 are disjoint, and where u ?? v in G if and
only if u; v 2 V 0 and u ?? v in G0 , or u; v 2 V 00 and u ?? v in G00 . In this case
#(G; w) = #(G0 ; w0 ) + #(G00 ; w00 ) ; (18:2)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 20
where w0 and w00 are the sublabelings of w on vertices of V 0 and V 00 . We can prove (18.2)
by constructing orthogonal labelings (a; b) satisfying (12.2) and (12.3).
Suppose a0 is an orthogonal labeling of G0 such that
ka0v k2 = #0 a01v = wv0 ;
p (18:3)
and suppose a00 is a similar orthogonal labeling of G00 . If a0 has dimension d0 and a00 has
dimension d00 , we construct a new labeling a of dimension d = d0 + d00 as follows, where j 0
runs from 2 to d0 and j 00 runs from 2 to d00 :
if v 2 V 0 if v 2 V 00
p
a1v = wv0 = a01v ;
p
a1v = wv00 = a001v ;
p
aj v = #=#0 a0j v ; aj v = 0 ; (18:4)
p p
0 0 0
a(d +j )v = 0 ;
0 00 0
0
p
a(d +j )v = #=#00 a00j v :
00 00
Now if u; v 2 V 0 we have
p ? p 00 p
au av = wu0 wv0 + ##0 a0u a0v ? wu0 wv0 + ##0 wu0 wv0 = ##0 a0u a0v ; (18:5)
aj v = a0j v ; aj v = 0 ; (19:4)
p
0 0 0
a(d +j )v = 0 ;
0 00
p 0
0
More generally, if G0 is regular of degree r0 and G00 is regular of degree r00 , then G0 G00
is regular of degree (r0 + 1)(r00 + 1) ? 1 = r0 r00 + r0 + r00 .
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 22
I don't know the value of #(G; w) for arbitrary w, but I do know it in the special case
w(v ;v ) = wv0 wv00 :
0 00 0 00 (20:4)
Lemma. If G and w are given by (20.2) and (20.4), then
#(G; w) = #(G0 ; w0 ) #(G00 ; w00 ) : (20:5)
Proof. [12] Given orthogonal labelings (a0 ; b0 ) and (a00 ; b00 ) of G0 and G00 , we let a be the
Hadamard product
a(j ;j
0 00 )(v ;v ) = aj v aj v
0 00
0 0 0
00
00 00 ; 1 j 0 d0 ; 1 j 00 d00 ; (20:6)
where d0 and d00 are the respective dimensions of the vectors in a0 and a00 . Then
X
a(u ;u ) a(v ;v ) =
0 00 0 00 a0j u a00j u a0j v a00j v
0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00
j ;j
0 00
(u0 ; u00 ) 6?? (v0 ; v00 ) and (u0; u00 ) 6= (v0 ; v00 ) in G
) (u0 6?? v0 and u0 6= v0 in G0 ) or (u00 6?? v00 and u00 6= v00 in G00 )
) a(u ;u ) a(v ;v ) = 0 :
0 00 0 00
(In fact one of these relations is ,, but we need only ) to make (20.7) zero when it needs
to be zero.) Therefore a and b are orthogonal labelings of G that satisfy (12.2) and (12.3).
u v w
K 2 P3 = # = max(u + w; v) + max(x + z; y)
x y z
u v w
K 2 P3 = # = max(u + w + x + z; v + y)
x y z
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 24
(This graph is K 2 + K 4; we could also obtain it by applying Lemma 16 three times to P3 .)
u v w
K2 P 3 =
?
# = max max(u; x) + max(w; z); max(v; y)
x y z
u v w
K2 P 3 =
?
# = max max(u + w; x + z); max(v; y)
x y z
If the weights satisfy u = x, v = y, w = z for some parameter , the rst two formulas
for # both reduce to (1 + ) max(u + w; v), in agreement with (20.5) and (21.3). Similarly,
the last two formulas for # reduce to max(1; ) max(u + w; v) in such a case.
22. Odd cycles. Now let G = Cn be the graph with vertices 0; 1; : : : ; n ? 1 and
u ?? v () u ? v 1 (mod n) ; (22:1)
where n is an odd number. A general formula for #(Cn ; w) appears to be very dicult;
but we can compute #(Cn ) without too much labor when all weights are 1, because of the
cyclic symmetry.
It is easier to construct orthogonal labelings of C n than of Cn, so we begin with that.
Given a vertex v, 0 v < n, let bv be the three-dimensional vector
0 1
bv = @ cos v' A ; (22:2)
sin v'
where and ' remain to be determined. We have
bu bv = 2 + cos u' cos v' + sin u' sin v'
= 2 + cos(u ? v)' : (22:3)
Therefore we can make bu bv = 0 when u v 1 by setting
2 = ? cos ' ; ' = (nn? 1) : (22:4)
This choice of ' makes n' a multiple of 2, because n is odd. We have found an orthogonal
labeling b of C n such that
2
c(bv ) = 1 + 2 = 1 +coscos=n
=n : (22:5)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 25
Turning now to orthogonal labelings of Cn, we can use (2n ? 1)-dimensional vectors
0 0 1
B
B 1 cos v' C C
B
B sin v' C
C
B
B
1
2 cos 2v' C
C
B
av = B C
C ; (22:6)
B
B 2 sin2 v' C
C
B
B ..
. C
C
B
@ n?1 cos(n ? 1)v' C
A
n?1 sin(n ? 1)v'
with ' = (n ? 1)=n as before. As in (22.3), we nd
nX
?1
au av = 2k cos k(u ? v)' ; (22:7)
k=0
so the result depends only on (u ? v) mod n. Let ! = ei' . We can nd values of k such
that au av = x(u?v)modn by solving the equations
nX
?1
xj = 2k !jk : (22:8)
k=0
Now ! is a primitive nth root of unity; i.e., !k = 1 i k is a multiple of n. So (22.9) is
just a nite Fourier transform, and we can easily invert it: For 0 m < n we have
nX
?1 ?1 nX
nX ?1
! xj = k !j(k?m) = n 2m :
?mj 2
j =0 k=0 j =0
In our case we want a solution with x2 = x3 = = xn?2 = 0, and we can set x0 = 1,
xn?1 = x1 = x, so we nd
n 2k = x0 + !?k x1 + !k xn?1 = 1 + 2x cos k' :
We must choose x so that these values are nonnegative; this means 2x ?1= cos ', since
cos k' is most negative when k = 1. Setting x to this maximum value yields
1
1
1 + cos =n
c(av ) = 0 = n 1 ? cos ' = n cos =n :
2 (22:9)
So (22.5) and (22.9) give X X
c(av ) c(bv ) = 1=n = 1 : (22:10)
v v
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 26
This is (12.3), hence from (12.2) we know that #(Cn) = . We have proved, in fact, that
JH
J
s s
s s
s s is vertex-symmetric, not edge-symmetric. ( is a maximal clique)
s s
The graph C n is not edge-symmetric for n > 7 because it has more edges than automor-
phisms. Also, C 7 has no automorphism that takes 0 ?? 2 into 0 ?? 3.
Lemma. If G is edge-symmetric and regular, equality holds in Lemma 24.
Proof. Say that A is an optimum feasible matrix for G if it is a feasible matrix with
(A) = #(G)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 29
as in section 6. We can prove that optimum feasible matrices form a convex set, as follows.
First, tA + (1 ? t)B is clearly feasible when A and B are feasible. Second,
?
tA + (1 ? t)B t(A) + (1 ? t)(B) ; 0t1 (25:2)
holds for all symmetric ? matrices A and
B, ?by (6.2); this follows
because there is a unit
vector x such that tA + (1 ? t)B = x tA + (1 ? t)B x = txTAx + (1 ? t)xT Bx
T
t(A) + (1 ? t)(B). Third, if A and B are optimum feasible matrices, the right side of
(25.2) is #(G) while the left side is #(G) by (6.3). Therefore equality holds.
If A is an optimum feasible matrix for G, so is p(A), the matrix obtained by permuting
rows and columns by an automorphism p. (I mean p(A)uv = Ap(u)p(v).) Therefore the
average, A, over all p is also an optimal feasible matrix. Since p(A) = A for all automor-
phisms p, and since G is edge-symmetric, A has the form J + xB where B is the adjacency
matrix of G. The bound in Lemma 24 is therefore tight.
P P (Note: If p is a permutation, let Puv = 1 if u = p(v), otherwise 0. Then (P TAP )uv =
T T
uj Ajk Pkv = Ap(u)p(v), so p(A) = P AP .)
The argument in this proof shows that the set of all optimum feasible matrices A
for G has a common eigenvector x such that Ax = #(G)x. The argument also shows
that, if G has an edge automorphism taking u ?? v into u0 ?? v0 , we can assume without
loss of generality that Auv = Au v in an optimum feasible matrix. This simplies the
0 0
computation of (A), and justies our restriction to circulant matrices (22.14) in the case
of cyclic graphs.
Theorem. If G is vertex-symmetric, #(G) #( G ) = n.
Proof. Say that b is an optimum normalized labeling of G if it is a normalized orthogonal
labeling of G achieving equality in (7.1) when all weights are 1:
X X
#= bu bv ; kbv k2 = 1 ; bu bv = 0 when u ?? v : (25:3)
u;v v
P
Let B be the corresponding spud; i.e., Buv = bu bv and # = u;v Buv . Then p(B) is also
equivalent to an optimum normalized labeling, whenever p is an automorphism; and such
matrices B form a convex set, so we can assume as in the lemma that B = p(B) for all
automorphisms p. Since G is vertex-symmetric, we must have Bvv = 1=n for all vertices v.
Thus there is an optimum normalized labeling b with kbv k2 = 1=n, and the arguments of
Lemma 10 and Theorem 12 establish the existence of such a b with
c(bv ) = #(G)=n (25:4)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 30
for all v. But b is an orthogonal labeling of G, hence
#1 ( G; 1l) n=#(G)
by the denition (5.2) of #1 . Thus #( G )#(G) n; we have already proved the reverse
inequality in Lemma 23.
26. Consequence for eigenvalues. A curious corollary of the results just proved is
the following fact about eigenvalues.
Corollary. If the graphs G and G are vertex-symmetric and edge-symmetric, and if the
adjacency matrix of G has eigenvalues
1 2 n ; (26:1)
then
(1 ? n)(n ? 1 + 2) = ?n(2 + 1)n : (26:2)
Proof. By Lemma 25 and Theorem 25,
n(?B) n(?B ) = n ; (26:3)
(B) + (?B) ( B ) + (?B )
where B and B are the adjacency matrices of G and G, and where we interpret 0/0 as 1.
We have
B = J ?I ?B: (26:4)
If the eigenvalues of B are given by (26.1), the eigenvalues of B are therefore
n ? 1 ? 1 ?1 ? n ?1 ? 2 : (26:5)
(We use the fact that G is regular of degree 1 .) Formula (26.2) follows if we plug the
values (B) = 1 , (?B) = ?n, ( B ) = n ? 1 ? 1, (?B ) = 1 + 2 into (26.3).
27. Further examples
? of symmetric graphs. Consider the graph P (m; t; q) whose
m
vertices are all t subsets of cardinality t of some given set S of cardinality m, where
u ?? v () ju \ vj = q : (27:1)
We want 0 q < t and m 2t ? q, so that the graph isn't empty. In fact, we can assume
that m 2t, because P (m; r; q) is isomorphic to P (m; m ? t; m ? 2t + q) if we map each
subset u into the set dierence S n u:
j(S n u) \ (S n v)j = jS j ? ju [ vj = jS j ? juj ? jvj + ju \ vj : (27:2)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 31
The letter P stands for Petersen, because P (5; 2; 0) is the well known \Petersen graph" on
10 vertices,
12
Z
Z
t
35 ZZ
B
t
ZZ
34
JJ 25 QQ BB 13
Z
45
t t t t
JJ 24 QQQBB 14
J?? @@
t t
t t
15 23 (27:3)
These graphs are clearly vertex-symmetric and edge-symmetric, because every permutation
of S induces an automorphism. For example, to nd an automorphism that maps u ?? v
into u0 ?? v0 , let u = (u \ v) [ u, v = (u \ v) [ v, u0 = (u0 \ v0 ) [ u0, v0 = (u0 \ v0 ) [ v0 , and
apply any permutation that takes the q elements of u \ v into the q elements of u0 \ v0 , the
t ? q elements of u into
? the t ? q elements of u0 , and the t ? q elements of v into v0 . Thus
we can determine # P (m; t; q) from the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix. Lovasz [12]
discusses the case ? q = 0, and
?his discussion
readily generalizes ?to other values of q. It
turns m ?1
that # P (m; t; 0) = t?1 . This is also the value of P (m; t; 0) , because the
?m?1out
t?1 vertices containing any given point form a stable set.
The special case t = 2, q = 0 is especially interesting because those graphs also satisfy
the condition of Corollary 26. We have
m m ? 2
n = 2 ; 1 = 2 ; 2 = 1 ; n = 3 ? m ; (27:4)
ADB = 0 ; (29:1)
where D is the diagonal matrix with D00 = ?1 and Dvv = +1 for all v 6= 0. Conversely,
if A is -compatible with G and w and if B is 1-compatible with G and x, then (29.1)
implies that = w1 x1 + + wnxn = #(G; w).
Proof. Assume that A is -compatible with G and w, and B is 1-compatible with G
and x. Let B0 = DBD, so that B0 is a spud with B00 0 = 1, B00 v = Bv0 0 = ?xv , and
0 = Buv when u and v are nonzero. Then the dot product A B 0 is
Buv
? w1x1 ? ? wnxn ? w1x1 ? ? wnxn + w1x1 + + wnxn = ? (w1x1 + + wnxn) ;
because Auv Buv = 0 when u and v are vertices of G. We showed in the proof of F9
in section 9 that the dot product of spuds is nonnegative; in fact, that proof implies
that the dot product is zero if and only if the ordinary matrix product is zero. So =
w1x1 + + wnxn = #(G; w) i AB0 = 0, and this is equivalent to (29.1).
Equation (29.1) gives us further information about the orthogonal labelings a and b
that appear in Theorems 12 and 13. Normalize those labelings so that kak2 = wv and
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 34
kbk2 = xv . Then we have
X
wt (bt bv ) = # xv ; (29:2)
t2G
X
xt (at av ) = wv ; (29:3)
t2G
X
(at au )(bt bv ) = wuxv ; (29:4)
t2G
for all vertices u and v of G. (Indeed, (29.2) and (29.4) are respectively equivalent to
(AB0 )0v = 0 and (AB0 )vv = 0; (29.3) is equivalent to (B0 A)0v = 0.) Notice that if Ab and
Bb are the n n spuds; obtained by deleting row 0 and column 0 from optimum matrices
A and B, these equations are equivalent to
b = #x ;
Bw b = w;
Ax AbBb = wxT : (29:5)
Equation (29.1) is equivalent to (29.5) together with the condition w1x1 + + wnxn = #.
Since AB0 = 0 i B0 A = 0 when A and B0 are symmetric matrices, the optimum
matrices A and B0 commute. This implies that they have common eigenvectors: There is
an orthogonal matrix Q such that
A = Q diag (0 ; : : : ; n ) QT ; B0 = Q diag (0 ; : : : ; n) QT : (29:6)
Moreover, the product is zero, so
0 0 = = nn = 0 : (29:7)
The number of zero eigenvalues k is n +1 ? d, where d is the smallest dimension for which
there is an orthogonal labeling a with Auv = au av . A similar statement holds for B0 , since
the eigenvalues of B and B0 are the same; y is an eigenvector for B i Dy is an eigenvector
for B0 . In the case G = Cn, studied in section 22, we constructed an orthogonal labeling
(22.3) with only three dimensions, so all but 3 of the eigenvalues k were zero. When all
the weights wv are nonzero and #(G) is large, Theorem 28 implies that a large number of
k must be nonzero, hence a large number of k must be zero.
The \optimum feasible matrices" A studied in section 6 are related to the matrices Ab
of (29.5) by the formula
p p p p
#Ab = wwT ? # diag (w1; : : : ; wn) ? diag ( w1; : : : ; wn ) A diag ( w1; : : : ; wn ) ; (29:8)
because of the construction following (6.6). If the largest eigenvalue (A) = # of A occurs
with multiplicity r, the rank of #I ? A will be n ? r, hence Ab will have rank n ? r or
n ? r + 1, and the number of zero eigenvalues k in (29.6) will be r + 1 or r.
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 35
30. Antiblockers. The convex sets STAB, TH, and QSTAB dened in section 2 have
many special properties. For example, they are always nonempty, closed, convex, and
nonnegative; they also satisfy the condition
0 y x and x 2 X ) y 2 X : (30:1)
A set X of vectors satisfying all ve of these properties is called a convex corner.
If X is any set of nonnegative vectors we dene its antiblocker by the condition
abl X = f y 0 j x y 1 for all x 2 X g : (30:2)
Clearly abl X is a convex corner, and abl X abl X 0 when X X 0 .
Lemma. If X is a convex corner we have ablabl X = X .
Proof. (Compare with the proof of F5 in section 8.) The relation X abl abl X is
obvious by denition (30.2), so the lemma can fail only if there is some z 2 abl abl X with
z 2= X . Then there is a hyperplane separating z from X , by F1; i.e., there is a vector y
and a number b such that x y b for all x 2 X but z y > b. Let y0 be the same as y but
with all negative components changed to zero. Then (y0 ; b) is also a separating hyperplane.
[Proof: If x 2 X , let x0 be the same as x but with all components changed to zero where
y has a negative entry; then x0 2 X , and x y0 = x0 y b. Furthermore z y0 z y > b.]
If b = 0, we have y0 2 abl X for all > 0; this contradicts z y0 1. We cannot have
b < 0, since 0 2 X . Hence b > 0, and the vector y0 =b 2 abl X . But then z (y0 =b) must be
1, a contradiction.
Corollary. If G is any graph we have
STAB(G) = abl QSTAB(G) ; (30:3)
TH(G) = abl TH(G) ; (30:4)
QSTAB(G) = abl STAB(G) : (30:5)
Proof. First we show that
abl X = abl convex hull X: (30:6)
The left side surely contains the right. And any element y 2 abl X will satisfy
(1x(1) + + k x(k) ) y 1
when the 's are nonnegative scalars summing to 1 and the x(j) are in X . This proves
(30.6), because the convex hull of X is the set of all such 1x(1) + + k x(k).
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 36
Now (30.6) implies (30.5), because the denitions in section 2 say that
QSTAB(G) = abl f x j x is a clique labeling of G g
= abl f x j x is a stable labeling of G g ;
STAB(G) = convex hull f x j x is a stable labeling of G g :
And (30.5) is equivalent to (30.3) by the lemma, because STAB(G) is a convex corner. (We
must prove (30.1), and it suces to do this when y equals x in all but one component; and
in fact by convexity we may assume that y is 0 in that component; and then we can easily
prove it, because any subset of a stable set is stable.)
Finally, (30.4) is equivalent to Theorem 14, because TH(G) = abl f x j xv = c(av ) for
some orthogonal labeling of G g.
The sets STAB and QSTAB are polytopes, i.e., they are bounded and can be dened
by a nite number of inequalities. But the antiblocker concept applies also to sets with
curved boundaries. For example, let
X = f x 0 kxk 1 g (30:7)
be the intersection of the unit ball and the nonnegative orthant. Cauchy's inequality
implies that x y 1 whenever kxk 1 and kyk 1, hence X abl X . And if y 2 abl X
we have y 2 X , since y 6= 0 implies kyk = y (y= kyk) 1. Therefore X = abl X .
In fact, the set X in (30.7) is the only set that equals its own antiblocker. If Y = abl Y
and y 2 Y we have y y 1, hence Y X ; this implies abl Y X .
31. Perfect graphs. Let !(G) be the size of a largest clique in G. The graph G is
called perfect if every induced subgraph G0 of G can be colored with !(G0 ) colors. (See
section 15 for the notion of induced subgraph. This denition of perfection was introduced
by Claude Berge in 1961.)
Let G+ be G with vertex v duplicated, as described in section 16. This means we add
a new vertex v0 with the same neighbors as v and with v ?? v0.
Lemma. If G is perfect, so is G+.
Proof. Any induced subgraph of G+ that is not G+ itself is either an induced subgraph
of G (if it omits v or v0 or both), or has the form G0+ for some induced subgraph G0 of G
(if it retains v and v0 ). Therefore it suces to prove that G+ can be colored with !(G+ )
colors.
Color G with !(G) colors and suppose v is red. Let G0 be the subgraph induced
from G by leaving out all red vertices except v. Recolor G0 with !(G0 ) colors, and assign a
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 37
new color to the set G+nG0 , which is stable in G+ . This colors G+ with !(G0 ) + 1 colors,
hence !(G+ ) !(G0 ) + 1.
We complete the proof by showing that !(G+) = !(G0 ) + 1. Let Q be a clique of size
!(G0 ) in G0 .
Case 1. v 2 Q. Then Q [ fv0 g is a clique of G+.
Case 2. v 2= Q. Then Q contains no red element.
In both cases we can conclude that !(G+ ) !(G0 ) + 1.
Theorem. If G is perfect, STAB(G) = QSTAB(G).
Proof. It suces to prove that every x 2 QSTAB(G) with rational coordinates is a member
of STAB(G), because STAB(G) is a closed set.
Suppose x 2 QSTAB(G) and qx has integer coordinates. Let G+ be the graph obtained
from G by repeatedly duplicating vertices until each original vertex v of G has been replaced
by a clique of size qxv . Call the vertices of that clique the clones of v.
By denition of QSTAB(G), if Q is any clique of G we have
X
xv 1 :
v2Q
P
Every clique Q0 of G+ is contained in a clique of size v2Q qxv for some clique Q of G.
(Including all clones of each element yields this possibly larger clique.) Thus !(G+) q,
and the lemma tells us that G+ can be colored with q colors because G+ is perfect.
For each color k, where 1 k q, let x(vk) = 1 if some clone of v is colored k, otherwise
x(vk) = 0. Then x(k) is a stable labeling. Hence
1 X q
x(k) 2 STAB(G) :
q k=1
P P
But every vertex of G+ is colored, so qk=1 x(vk) = qxv for all v, so q?1 qk=1 x(k) = x.
32. A characterization of perfection. The converse of Theorem 31 is also true; but
before we prove it we need another fact about convex polyhedra.
Lemma. Suppose P is the set f x 0 j x z 1 for all z 2 Z g = abl Z for some nite
set Z and suppose y 2 abl P , i.e., y is a nonnegative vector such that x y 1 for all
x 2 P . Then the set
Q = fx 2 P j x y = 1g (32:1)
is contained in the set f x j x z = 1 g for some z 2 Z (unless Q and Z are both empty).
Proof. This lemma is \geometrically obvious"|it says that every vertex, edge, etc., of
a convex polyhedron is contained in some \facet"|but we ought also to prove it. The
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 38
proof is by induction on jZ j. If Z is empty, the result holds because P is the set of all
nonnegative x, hence y must be 0 and Q must be empty.
Suppose z is an element of Z that does not satisfy the condition; i.e., there is an
element x 2 P with x y = 1 and x z 6= 1. Then x z < 1. Let Z 0 = Z n fzg and
P 0 = abl Z 0 . It follows that x0 y 1 for all x0 2 P 0 . For if x0 y > 1, a convex combination
x00 = x + (1 ? )x0 will lie in P for suciently small , but x00 y > 1.
Therefore by induction, Q0 = f x 2 P 0 j x y = 1 g is contained in f x j x z0 = 1 g for
some z0 2 Z 0 , unless Q0 is empty, when we can take z0 = z. And Q Q0 , since P P 0 .
Theorem. G is perfect if and only if STAB(G) = QSTAB(G).
Proof. As in section 15, let GjU be the graph induced from G by restriction to vertices U .
If X is a set of vectors indexed by V and if U V , let X jU be the set of all vectors indexed
by U that arise from the vectors of X when we suppress all components xv with v 2= U .
Then it is clear that
QSTAB(GjU ) = QSTAB(G)jU ; (32:2)
because every x 2 QSTAB
P (GjU ) belongs to QSTAB(G) if we set xv = 0 for v 2= U , and every
x 2 QSTAB(G) satises v2Q xv 1 for every clique Q U . Also
STAB(GjU ) = STAB(G)jU ; (32:3)
because every stable labeling of GjU is a stable labeling of G if we extend it with zeros,
and every stable labeling of G is stable for GjU if we ignore components not in U .
Therefore STAB(G) = QSTAB(G) i STAB(G0 ) = QSTAB(G0 ) for all induced graphs. By
Theorem 31 we need only prove that STAB(G) = QSTAB(G) implies G can be colored with
!(G) colors.
Suppose STAB(G) = QSTAB(G). Then by Corollary 30,
STAB(G) = QSTAB(G) : (32:4)
Let P = STAB(G), and let y = 1l=!(G). Then x y 1 whenever x is a clique labeling
of G, i.e., whenever x is a stable labeling of G; so x y 1 for all x 2 P . Let Z be the
set of all stable labelings of G, i.e., clique labelings of G. Then P = QSTAB(G) = abl Z
and Z is nonempty. So the lemma applies and it tells us that the set Q dened in (32.1)
is contained in f x j x z = 1 g for some stable labeling z of G. Therefore every maximum
clique labeling x satises x z = 1; i.e., every clique of size !(G) intersects the stable set S
corresponding to z. So !(G0 ) = !(G) ? 1, where
G0 = Gj(V n S ) : (32:5)
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 39
By induction on jV j we can color the vertices of G0 with !(G0 ) colors, then we can use a
new color for the vertices of S ; this colors G with !(G) colors.
Lovasz states in [13] that he knows no polynomial time algorithm to test if G is perfect;
but he conjectures (\guesses") that such an algorithm exists, because the results we are
going to discuss next suggest that much more might be provable.
33. Another denition of #. The following result generalizes Lemma 9.3.21 of [7].
Lemma. Let a and b be orthogonal labelings of G and G that satisfy the conditions of
Theorem 12, normalized so that
kav k2kbv k2 = wv c(bv ) ; a1v 0 ; and b1v 0 ; (33:1)
for all v. Then X p
ajv bkv = 0; #(G; w) ; ifotherwise.
j = k = 1; (33:2)
v
p
Proof. Let a0 = ( #; 0; : : : ; 0)T and b0 = (?1; 0; : : : ; 0)T . Then the (n + 1) (n + 1)
matrices A = aT a and B = bT b are spuds, and A B = 0. (In the special case kav k2 = wv ,
kbv k2 = c(bv ), matrix B is what we called B0 in the proof of Theorem 29.) Therefore
0 = tr AT B = tr aT abT b = tr baT abT = (abT ) (abT ), and we have abT = 0. In other words
X
aj 0 bk 0 + ajv bkv = 0
v
for all j and k.
We now can show that # has yet another denition, in some ways nicer than the one
we considered in section 6. (Someday I should try to nd a simpler way to derive all these
facts.) Call the matrix B dual feasible for G and w if it is indexed by vertices and
B is real and symmetric;
Bvv = wv for all v 2 V ;
Buv = 0 whenever u 6?? v in G; (33:3)
and dene
#6 (G; w) = maxf (B) j
B is positive semidenite and dual feasible for G and w g : (33:4)
?Compare with the analogous denitions in (6.1) and (6.3).
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 40
Theorem. #(G; w) = #6(G; w).
Proof. If B is positive semidenite and dual feasible, and if is any eigenvalue of B,
we can
p write B = QDQT where Q is orthogonal and D is diagonal, with D11 = . Let
b = D QT ; then b is an orthogonal labeling of G with kbv k2 = wv for all v. Furthermore
2
c(bv ) = b1v =wv P 2
= qv1 =wv , where (q11 ; : : : ; qn1) is the rst column of Q. Therefore
P c(b )w = q2 = , and we have # (G; w) by (10.1). This proves that
v v v v v1 4
#6 #.
Conversely, let a and b be orthogonal labellings of G and G that satisfy the con-
ditions of Theorem 12. Normalize them so that kav k2 = c(bv ) and kbv k2 = wv . Then
a21v = c(av )c(bv ) = wv c(bv )=# = b21v =#. The lemma now implies that (b11 ; : : : ; b1n)T is an
eigenvector of bT b, with eigenvalue #. This proves that # #6.
Corollary. #(G) = 1 + maxf (B)=(?B) j B is dual feasible for G and 0 g.
Proof. If B is dual feasible for G and 0, its eigenvalues are 1 n where
1 = (B) and n = ?(?B). Then B0 = I + B=(?B) has eigenvalues 1 ? 1 =n; : : : ;
1 ? n=n = 0. Consequently B0 is positive semidenite and dual feasible for G and 1l,
and 1 + (B)=(?B) = (B0 ) #6 (G).
Conversely, suppose B0 is positive semidenite and dual feasible for G and 1l, with
(B0 ) = # = #(G). Let B = B0 ? I . Then B is dual feasible for G and 0, and 0
(?B) 1 since the sum of the eigenvalues of B is tr B = 0. It follows that # ? 1 =
(B) (B)=(?B).
34. Facets of TH. We know that TH(G) is a convex corner set in n-dimensional space,
so it is natural to ask whether it might have (n ? 1)-dimensional facets on its nontrivial
boundary|for example, a straight line segment in two dimensions, or a region of a plane
in three dimensions. This means it has n linearly independent vectors x(k) such that
X
x(vk)c(av ) = 1 (34:1)
v
for some orthogonal labeling a of G.
Theorem. If TH(G) contains linearly independent solutions x(1); : : : ; x(n) of (34.1), then
there is a maximal clique Q of G such that
1 ; v 2 Q;
c(av ) = 0 ; v 2= Q. (34:2)
Proof. Theorem 14 tell us that every x(k) 2 TH(G) has x(vk) = c(b(vk)) for some orthogonal
labeling of G. Set wv = c(av ); then #(G; w) = 1, by Theorem 13. We can normalize the
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 41
labelings so that kav k2 = a1v = wv and kb(vk)k2 = b(1kv) = x(vk). Hence, by Lemma 33,
011
X (k) B 0C
@ .. C
xv av = B A = e1 : (34:3)
v .
0
Let
Q = f v j a1v 6= 0 g = f v j c(av ) 6= 0 g (34:4)
and suppose Q has m elements. Then (34.3) is equivalent to the matrix equation
Ax(k) = e1 (34:5)
where A is a d m matrix and x(k) has m components x(vk), one for each v 2 Q. By
hypothesis there are m linearly independent solutions to (34.5), because there are n linearly
independent solutions to (34.3). But then there are m ? 1 linearly independent solutions
to Ax = 0, and it follows that A has rank 1: Every row of A must be a multiple of the top
row (which is nonzero). And then (34.5) tells us that all rows but the top row are zero.
We have proved that
c(av ) 6= 0 ) c(av ) = 1 : (34:6)
Therefore if u and v are elements of Q we have au av 6= 0, hence u ?? v; Q is a clique.
Moreover, Q is maximal. For if v 2= Q is adjacent to all elements of Q, there is a k
such that xP(vk) > 0. But the characteristic labeling of Q [ fvg is an orthogonal labeling a0
such that u x(uk)c(a0u ) = 1 + xv(h) > 1, hence x(k) 2= TH(G).
Conversely, it is easy to see that the characteristic labeling of any maximal clique Q
does have n linearly independent vectors satisfying (34.1), so it does dene a facet. For
each vertex u we let x(uu) = 1, and x(vu) = 0 for all v 6= u except for one vertex v 2 Q
with v 6?? u (when u 2= Q). Then xP (u) is a stable labeling so it is in TH(G). The point
of the theorem is that a constraint v xv c(av ) 1 of TH(G) that is not satised by all
x 2 QSTAB(G) cannot correspond to a facet of TH(G).
Corollary.
TH(G) is a polytope () TH(G) = QSTAB(G)
() TH(G) = STAB(G) () G is perfect:
Proof. If TH(G) is a polytope it is dened by facets as in the theorem, which are nothing
more than the constraints of QSTAB(G); hence TH(G) = QSTAB(G). Also the antiblocker of
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 42
a convex corner polytope is a polytope, so TH(G) is a polytope by (30.4); it must be equal
to QSTAB(G). Taking antiblockers, we have TH(G) = STAB(G) by (30.3). The converses
are easy since STAB and QSTAB are always polytopes. The connection to perfection is an
immediate consequence of Theorem 32 and Lemma 2.
We cannot strengthen the corollary to say that #(G) = (G) holds if and only if
#(G) = (G); the Petersen graph (section 27) is a counterexample.
35. Orthogonal labelings in a perfect graph. A perfect graph has
#(G; w) = (G; w) = maxfx w j x is a stable labeling of Gg ; (35:1)
and Theorem 12 tells us there exist orthogonal labelings of G and G such that (12.2)
and (12.3) hold. But it isn't obvious what those labelings might be; the proof was not
constructive.
The problem is to nd vectors av such that au av = 0 when u 6?? v and such that
(12.2) holds; then it is easy to satisfy (12.3) by simply letting b be a stable labeling where
the maximum occurs in (35.1).
The following general construction gives an orthogonal labeling (not necessarily op-
timum) in any graph: Let g(Q) be a nonnegative number for every clique Q, chosen so
that X
g(Q) = wv ; for all v : (35:2)
v2Q
Furthermore, for each clique Q, let
p
v 2 Q;
aQv = 0; g(Q); ifotherwise. (35:3)
Then X
au a v = g(Q) ;
fu;vgQ
p
hence au av = 0 when u 6?? v. If we also let aQ0 = g(Q) for all Q, a00 = 0, we nd
X
a0 av = av av = g(Q) = wv :
v2Q
We have constructed a matrix A that is -compatible with G and w, in the sense of
section 29, where X
= a0 a0 = g(Q) : (35:4)
Q
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 43
An orthogonal labeling with costs c(a0v ) = wv = can now be found as in the proof of
Lemma 29.
The duality theorem of linear programming tells us that the minimum of (35.4)
P subject
to the constraints (35.2) is equal to the maximum value of w x over all x with v2Q xv 1
for all Q. When x maximizes w x, we can assume that x 0, because a negative xv can
be replaced by 0 without decreasing w x or violating a constraint. (Every subset of a
clique is a clique.) Thus, we are maximizing w x over QSTAB(G); the construction in the
previous paragraph allows us to reduce as low as (G; w). But (G; w) = #(G; w) in a
perfect graph, so this construction solves our problem, once we have computed g(Q).
The special case of a bipartite graph is especially interesting, because its cliques have
only one or two vertices. Suppose all edges of G have the form u ?? v where u 2 U and
v 2 V , and consider the network dened as follows: There is a special source vertex s
connected to all u 2 U by a directed arc of capacity wu, and a special sink vertex t
connected from all v 2 V by a directed arc of capacity wv . The edges u ?? v of G are also
present, directed from u to v with innite capacity. Any
ow from s to t in this network
denes a suitable function g, if we let
g(fu; vg) = the
ow in u ! v ;
g(fug) = wu minus the
ow in s ! u ;
g(fvg) = wv minus the
ow in v ! t ;
for all u 2 U and v 2 V . Let S be a subset of U [ V . If we cut the edges that connect s
or t with vertices not in S , we cut o all paths from s to t if and only if S is a stable
set. The minimum cut (i.e., the minimum sum of capacities of cut edges) is equal to the
maximum
ow; and it is also equal to
X X X X
wu + wv ? maxfw x j x is a stable labelingg = wu + wv ? (G; w) :
u2U v2V u2U v2V
P P P
Thus the value of = Q g(Q) is u2U wu ? f
ow from sg + v2V wv ? f
ow to tg +
f
ow in u ! v arcsg = (G; w) = #(G; w) as desired.
For general perfect graphs G, a solution to (35.4) with = #(G; w) can be found in
polynomial time as shown in equation (9.4.6) of [7]. However, the methods described in
[7] are not ecient enough for practical calculation, even on small graphs.
36. The smallest non-perfect graph. The cyclic graph C5 is of particular interest
because it is the smallest graph that isn't perfect, and the smallest case where the function
#(G; w) is not completely known.
The discussion following Theorem 34 points out that TH(G) always has facets in com-
mon with QSTAB(G), when those facets belong also to STAB(G). It is not hard to see that
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 44
QSTAB(C5 ) has ten facets, dened by xj = 0 and xj + xj mod5 = 1 for 0 j < 5; and
STAB(C5 ) has an additional facet dened by x0 + x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 = 2. The weighted
functions and of section 4 are evaluated by considering the vertices of STAB and QSTAB:
(C5; fw0; : : : ; w4gT ) = max(w0 + w2; w1 + w3; w2 + w4; w3 + w0; w4 + w1) ; (36:1)
?
(C5; fw0; : : : ; w4gT ) = max (C5; fw0; : : : ; w4gT ); (w0 + + w4)=2 : (36:2)
Where these functions agree, they tell us also the value of #.
For example, let f (x) = #(C5 ; fx; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1gT ). Relations (36.1) and (36.2) imply p
that f (x) = x + 1 when x 2. Clearly f (0) = 2, and section 22 tells us that f (1) = 5.
Other values of f (x) are not yet known. Equation (23.2) gives the lower bound f (x)2
x2 + 4. Incidentally, the a vectors
0 px 1 0 p
x 1 0 p1 1 0 p1 1 0 p
x 1
B
B 1 CC B
B p1 C
C B
B ? xC C B
B ? xC C B
B p1 CC
B C B x C
@ 0 A @ p(x ? 2)(x + 1) A @ 0 A @ 0 A @ p 0
0 + 1 B 0 C B 0 C B ? x + 1 CA
0 0 0 0 (x ? 2)(x + 1)
and b = (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) establish f (x) for x 2 in the fashion of Theorems 12 and 13.
p
Let = (1+ 5 )=2 be the golden ratio. The matrices A and B0 of Theorem 29, when
G = C5 and w = 1l, are
0 p5 1 1 1 1 1 1
B
B 1 1 ?1 0 0 ? 1C
C
A=B
B
B
1
1
?
0
1
1
? 1
?
1
1
0
? 1
0
0
C
C
C ;
@1 0 0 ? 1 1 ? 1A
?1 0
1 0 ?1 1
0 p5 ?1 ?1 ?1 ?1 ?1 1
B
B ?1 1 0 ?1 ?1 0 C
B0 = p B
1
B ?1 0 1 0 ? 1 ? 1C C
C :
5@B ?1 ? 1 0 1 0 ? 1 C
?1 ? 1 ? 1 0 1 0 A
?1 0 ? 1 ? 1 0 1
They have the common eigenvectors
0 p5 1 0 p5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
B
B 1 C
C B
B ?1 CC B
B C C B
B 0 CC B
B 1 CC B
B 0 C
B
B 1 C
C B
B ? 1 C
C B
B 1 C
C B
B C
C B
B ? C
C B
B 1 CC
C ;
B 1 C B ? 1 C B ? 1 C B
@ 1 A @ ?1 A @ ? A @ ?1 A @ ?1 A @ A1 C B C B ? C
1 ?1 0 ? 0 ?1
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 45
p p p
with respective eigenvalues (0 ; : : : ; 5 ) = (2 5; 0; 5=; 5=; 0; 0) and (0; : : : ; 5 ) =
(0; 2; 0; 0; 1=; 1=). (Cf. (29.6) and (29.7).)
37. Perplexing questions. The book [7] explains how to compute #(G; w) with given
tolerance , in polynomial time using an ellipsoid method, but that method is too slow
and numerically unstable to deal with graphs that have more than 10 or so vertices. For-
tunately, however, new \interior-point methods" have been developed for this purpose,
especially by Alizadeh [1,2], who has computed #(G) when G has hundreds of vertices
and thousands of edges. He has also shown how to nd large stable sets, as a byproduct
of evaluating #(G; w) when w has integer coordinates. Calculations on somewhat smaller
cyclically symmetric graphs have also been reported by Overton [16]. Further computa-
tional experience with such programs should prove to be very interesting.
Solutions to the following four concrete problems may also help shed light on the
subject:
P1. Describe TH(C5 ) geometrically. This upright set is isomorphic to its own anti-
blocker. (Namely, if (x0 ; x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ) 2 TH(C5), then so are its cyclic permutations
(x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x0 ), etc., as well as the cyclic permutations of (x0 ; x4 ; x3 ; x2 ; x1 ); TH(C 5 )
contains the cyclic permutations of (x0 ; x2 ; x4 ; x1 ; x3 ) and (x0 ; x3 ; x1 ; x4 ; x2 ).) Can the
values f (x) = #(C5 ; fx; 1; 1; 1; 1gT ), discussed in section 36, be expressed in closed form
when 0 < x < 2, using familiar functions?
P2. What is? the probable value of #(G; w) when G is a random graph on n vertices,
n
where each of the 2 possible edges is independently present with some xed probability p?
(Juhasz [9] has solved this problem in the case w = 1l, showing that #(G)= (1 ? p)n=p
p
lies between 21 and 2 with probability approaching 1 as n ! 1.)
P3. What is the minimum d for which G almost surely has an orthogonal labeling
of dimension d with no zero vectors, when G is a random graph as in Problem p P2? (Theo-
rem 28 and the theorem of Juhasz [9] show that d must be at least of order n. But Lovasz
tells me that he suspects the correct answer is near n. Theorem 29 and its consequences
might be helpful here.)
P4. Is there a constant c such that #(G) cpn (G) for all n-vertex graphs G?
(This conjecture was suggested by Lovasz in a recent p letter. He knows no innite family
of graphs where #(G)=(G) grows faster than O( n= log n). The latter behavior occurs
for random graphs, which have (G) = log1=p n with high probability [4, Chapter XI].)
Another, more general, question is to ask whether it is feasible to study two- or three-
dimensional projections of TH(G), and whether they have combinatorial signicance. The
function #(G; w) gives just a one-dimensional glimpse.
Lovasz and Schrijver have recently generalized the topics treated here to a wide variety
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 46
of more powerful techniques for studying 0{1 vectors associated with graphs [15]. In
particular, one of their methods can be described as follows: Let us say that a strong
orthogonal labeling is a vector labeling such that kav k2 = c(av ) and au av 0, also
satisfying the relation
c(au) + c(av ) + c(aw ) ? 1 au av + av aw c(av ) (37:1)
whenever u 6?? w. In particular, when w = v this relation implies that au av = 0, so the
labeling is orthogonal in the former sense.
Notice that every stable labeling is a strong orthogonal labeling of G. Let S be a
stable set and let u and w be vertices such that u ?? w. If u and w are not in S , condition
(37.1) just says that 0 c(av ) 1, which surely holds. If u is in S , then w 2= S and (37.1)
reduces to c(av ) c(av ) c(av ); this holds even more surely.
Let
TH? (G) = f x j xv = c(bv ) for some strong orthogonal labeling of G g: (37:2)
(This set is called N+(FR(G)) in [15].) We also dene
#? (G; w) = maxf w x j x 2 TH? (G) g : (37:3)
The argument in the two previous paragraphs implies that
STAB(G) TH? (G) TH(G) ;
hence
(G; w) #? (G; w) #(G; w) : (37:4)
The authors of [15] prove that #? (G; w) can be computed in polynomial time, about as
easily as #(G; w); moreover, it can be a signicantly better approximation to (G; w).
They show, for example, that TH? (G) = STAB(G) when G is any cyclic graph Cn. In fact,
they prove that if x 2 TH?(G) and if v0 ?? v1, v1 ?? v2 , : : : , v2n ?? v0 is any circuit
or multicircuit of G, then xv0 + xv1 + + xv2n n. This suggests additional research
problems:
P5. What is the smallest graph such that STAB(G) 6= TH? (G)?
P6. What is the probable value of #? (G) when G is a random graph as in Prob-
lem P2?
A recent theorem by Arora, Lund, Motwani, Sudan, and Szegedy [3] proves that there
is an > 0 such that no polynomial algorithm can compute a number between (G) and
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 47
n(G) for all n-vertex graphs G, unless P = NP . Therefore it would be surprising if
the answer to P6 turns out to be that #? (G) is, say, O(log n)2 with probability ! 1 for
random G. Still, this would not be inconsistent with [3], because the graphs for which
(G) is hard to approximate might be decidedly nonrandom.
Lovasz has called my attention to papers by Kashin and Konyagin [10, 11], which
prove (in a very disguised form, related to (6.2) and Theorem 33) that if G has no stable
set with 3 elements we have
#(G) 22=3n1=3 ; (37:5)
moreover, such graphs exist with
p
#(G) =
(n1=3= log n ) : (37:6)
Further study of methods like those in [15] promises to be exciting indeed. Lovasz
has sketched yet another approach in [14].
References
[1] Farid Alizadeh, \A sublinear-time randomized parallel algorithm for the maximum
clique problem in perfect graphs," ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
2 (1991), 188{194.
[2] Farid Alizadeh, \Interior point methods in semidenite programming with applica-
tions to combinatorial optimization," preprint, 1993, available from alizadeh@icsi.
berkeley.edu.
[3] Sanjeev Arora, Carsten Lund, Rajeev Motwani, Madhu Sudan, and Mario Szegedy,
\Proof verication and intractability of approximation problems," Proceedings of
the 33rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1992), 14{23.
[4] Bela Bollobas, Random Graphs (Academic Press, 1985).
[5] Martin Grotschel, L. Lovasz, and A. Schrijver, \The ellipsoid method and its conse-
quences in combinatorial optimization," Combinatorica 1 (1981), 169{197.
[6] M. Grotschel, L. Lovasz. and A. Schrijver, \Relaxations of vertex packing," Journal of
Combinatorial Theory B40 (1986), 330{343.
[7] Martin Grotschel, Laszlo Lovasz, and Alexander Schrijver, Geometric Algorithms and
Combinatorial Optimization (Springer-Verlag, 1988), x9.3.
[8] A. S. Householder, \Unitary triangularization of a nonsymmetric matrix," Journal of
the Association for Computing Machinery 5 (1958), 339{342.
[9] Ferenc Juhasz, \The asymptotic behaviour of Lovasz' # function for random graphs,"
Combinatorica 2 (1982), 153{155.
The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1994), # A1 48
[10] B. S. Kashin and S. V. Konagin, \O sistemakh vektorov v Gil'bertovom prostranstve,"
Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni V. A. Steklova 157 (1981), 64{67. English
translation, \On systems of vectors in a Hilbert space," Proceedings of the Steklov
Institute of Mathematics (American Mathematical Society, 1983, issue 3), 67{70.
[11] S. V. Konagin, \O sistemakh vektorov v Evclidovom prostranstve i odno ekstremal'-
no zadache dla mnogochlenov," Matematicheskie Zametki 29 (1981), 63{74. En-
glish translation, \Systems of vectors in Euclidean space and an extremal problem
for polynomials," Mathematical Notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 29
(1981), 33{39.
[12] L. Lovasz, \On the Shannon capacity of a graph," IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory IT{25 (1979), 1{7.
[13] L. Lovasz, An Algorithmic Theory of Numbers, Graphs, and Convexity. CBMS Re-
gional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics (SIAM, 1986), x3.2.
[14] L. Lovasz, \Stable sets and polynomials," to appear in Discrete Mathematics.
[15] L. Lovasz and A. Schrijver, \Cones of matrices and set functions and 0{1 optimization,"
SIAM Journal on Optimization 1 (1991), 166{190.
[16] Michael Overton, \Large-scale optimization of eigenvalues," SIAM Journal on Opti-
mization 2 (1992), 88{120.
[17] M. W. Padberg, \On the facial structure of set packing polyhedra," Mathematical
Programming 5 (1973), 199{215.
[18] Claude E. Shannon, \The zero error capacity of a channel," IRE Transactions on
Information Theory 2, 3 (Sep 1956), 8{19.