A Dichotomy Hierarchy Characterizing Linear Time Subgraph Counting in Bounded Degeneracy Graphs

Abstract

Subgraph and homomorphism counting are fundamental algorithmic problems. Given a constant-sized pattern graph H and a large input graph G, we wish to count the number of H-homomorphisms/subgraphs in G. Given the massive sizes of real-world graphs and the practical importance of counting problems, we focus on when (near) linear time algorithms are possible. The seminal work of Chiba-Nishizeki (SICOMP 1985) shows that for bounded degeneracy graphs G, clique and 4-cycle counting can be done linear time. Recent works (Bera et al, SODA 2021, JACM 2022) show a dichotomy theorem characterizing the patterns H for which H-homomorphism counting is possible in linear time, for bounded degeneracy inputs G. At the other end, Nesetril and Ossona de Mendez used their deep theory of "sparsity" to define bounded expansion graphs. They prove that, for all H, H-homomorphism counting can be done in linear time for bounded expansion inputs. What lies between? For a specific H, can we characterize input classes where H-homomorphism counting is possible in linear time? We discover a hierarchy of dichotomy theorems that precisely answer the above questions. We show the existence of an infinite sequence of graph classes G0 ⊃eq G1 ⊃eq ... ⊃eq G∞ where G0 is the class of bounded degeneracy graphs, and G∞ is the class of bounded expansion graphs. Fix any constant sized pattern graph H. Let LICL(H) denote the length of the longest induced cycle in H. We prove the following. If LICL(H) < 3(r+2), then H-homomorphisms can be counted in linear time for inputs in Gr. If LICL(H) ≥ 3(r+2), then H-homomorphism counting on inputs from Gr takes (m1+γ) time. We prove similar dichotomy theorems for subgraph counting.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…