The converse to the (1,1)(1,1)-degeneracy characterization of subgraph query complexity

Let HH be a graph. A graph is (1,1)(1,1)-degenerate if its vertices can be partitioned into induced subgraphs T1,,TnT_1,\ldots,T_n that are trees and satisfy

N(v)i=1k1Ti1|N(v)\cap \bigcup_{i=1}^{k-1}T_i|\leq 1

for every k{1,,n}k\in\{1,\ldots,n\} and every vTkv\in T_k. A graph is 22-degenerate if every subgraph has a vertex of degree at most 22. Let f(H,p)f(H,p) denote the subgraph query complexity, and write bb for the relevant query parameter.

Converse to the (1,1)(1,1)-degeneracy characterization. If HH is a 22-degenerate graph that is not (1,1)(1,1)-degenerate, then

f(H,p)=b2o(1).f(H,p)=b^{2-o(1)}.

The preceding theorem proves the upper bound f(H,p)=O(b2ε)f(H,p)=O(b^{2-\varepsilon}) for every (1,1)(1,1)-degenerate graph and some ε=ε(H)>0\varepsilon=\varepsilon(H)>0. The conjecture asserts that failure of (1,1)(1,1)-degeneracy forces essentially quadratic query complexity; its resolution remains open.

Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Ryan Alweiss, Chady Ben Hamida, Xiaoyu He and Alexander Moreira, “On the subgraph query problem”, arXiv:1911.04413 (2020).

Progress summary

Never refreshed

Nothing recorded yet. Refresh searches the literature and the public web for attempts on this problem, and writes the first summary here.

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.