Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 0706.2223

Towards the Distribution of the Size of a Largest Planar Matching and Largest Planar Subgraph in Random Bipartite Graphs

Abstract

We address the following question: When a randomly chosen regular bipartite multi--graph is drawn in the plane in the ``standard way'', what is the distribution of its maximum size planar matching (set of non--crossing disjoint edges) and maximum size planar subgraph (set of non--crossing edges which may share endpoints)? The problem is a generalization of the Longest Increasing Sequence (LIS) problem (also called Ulam's problem). We present combinatorial identities which relate the number of r-regular bipartite multi--graphs with maximum planar matching (maximum planar subgraph) of at most d edges to a signed sum of restricted lattice walks in Z^d, and to the number of pairs of standard Young tableaux of the same shape and with a ``descend--type'' property. Our results are obtained via generalizations of two combinatorial proofs through which Gessel's identity can be obtained (an identity that is crucial in the derivation of a bivariate generating function associated to the distribution of LISs, and key to the analytic attack on Ulam's problem). We also initiate the study of pattern avoidance in bipartite multigraphs and derive a generalized Gessel identity for the number of bipartite 2-regular multigraphs avoiding a specific (monotone) pattern.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marcos Kiwi, Martin Loebl. 2007-06-15. Towards the Distribution of the Size of a Largest Planar Matching and Largest Planar Subgraph in Random Bipartite Graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2223

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Hecke Triangle Groups and Dessins d'Enfants

We study finite-index subgroups of the Hecke triangle group $H_q$ of signature $(2,q,\infty)$ through the finite-edge tessellation, special polygons, and the associated dessins. The quotient finite-edge graph is a connected bipartite ribbon graph in which even vertices have degree $1$ or $2$ and odd vertices may have any degree $d\mid q$; geometrically, degree $d$ records a $d$-cluster and an elliptic stabilizer of order $q/d$. We determine two finite ambiguities that arise when one passes from this quotient graph to a special polygon. First, all tree diagrams obtained from a fixed ribbon graph are classified by the possible spanning-tree cuts modulo graph automorphisms. Second, at a proper cluster one must record which cyclic gap contains the omitted branches of the universal $q$-star; every such choice develops to a special polygon. Combining the two gives an explicit finite description of all polygon orbits over a fixed dessin, together with a separate count of normalized realizations in the fixed tessellation. Concrete examples for $H_5$, $H_6$, and $H_7$ illustrate the geometry, and two arithmetic corollaries concern level-$2$ cusp labels and Galois orbits of principal congruence dessins.

math.CO↗

A new simple family of non-periodic tilings with square tiles

We define a new family of non-periodic tilings with square tiles that is mutually locally derivable with some family of tilings with isosceles right triangles. Both families are defined by simple local rules, and the proof of their non-periodicity is as simple as that of the non-periodicity of Robinson's tilings. We also relate the construction to the classical chair tiling: forgetting the decoration, our tilings map almost one-to-one onto the chair, our substitution is essentially a square root of the chair substitution, and our local rules are perfect, defining exactly the family of substitution tilings.

math.CO↗

Partitioning perfect graphs into comparability graphs

We study how many comparability subgraphs are needed to partition the edge set of a perfect graph. We show that many classes of perfect graphs can be partitioned into (at most) two comparability subgraphs and this holds for almost all perfect graphs. On the other hand, we prove that for interval graphs an arbitrarily large number of comparability subgraphs might be necessary.

math.CO↗