Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
quantamagazine.org
Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#2Is this an open door to graph classification or simplification?
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#3I read until the end and it turns out to be a nonconstructive proof via the probabilistic method!
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#4Is this an open door to graph classification or simplification?
Since you seem versed in these mysteries, do you have some reading recommendation for a gentle introduction to the topic?
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#5I did not completely understand to what graphs this applies. Certainly not generic ones, that can't be true.
Is it only complete ones? It seems intuitively true that complete graphs can be tiled this way.
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#6Is this an open door to graph classification or simplification?
Since you seem versed in these mysteries, do you have some reading recommendation for a gentle introduction to the topic?
I may be wrong, but I think the OP is asking if this method can be used to identify related graphs based on similarity. Take, for example, a graph of someone's movements between locations on a daily basis. Although not exactly the same, there may be similarities that reveal the person the graph relates to.
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.05003 For example
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#7I did not completely understand to what graphs this applies. Certainly not generic ones, that can't be true. Is it only complete ones? It seems intuitively true that complete graphs can be tiled this way.
The edges of complete graphs with 2n + 1 vertices can be covered with the edges of 2n + 1 identical copies of any tree with n + 1 vertices.
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#8I did not completely understand to what graphs this applies. Certainly not generic ones, that can't be true. Is it only complete ones? It seems intuitively true that complete graphs can be tiled this way.
I was wondering the same thing. It does concern complete graphs only, but note also the additional requirement of edge-disjointedness (that is, every edge in the large graph is covered by exactly one copy of the subgraph).
>A typical decomposition question asks whether the edges of some graph G can be partitioned into disjoint copies of another graph H. One of the oldest and best known conjectures in this area, posed by Ringel in 1963, concerns the decomposition of complete graphs into edge-disjoint copies of a tree. It says that any tree with n edges packs 2n+1 times into the complete graph K2n+1. In this paper, we prove this conjecture for large n.
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#9Is this an open door to graph classification or simplification?
Re:classification... afaict, only in the rare case of complete graphs. You can extract those.. but they're dull. The use of rainbow coloring IS indicative of what folks do for classification & motif finding already on real-world graphs and even tables:
-- Spectral methods: Similar to looking at the top eigen values for PCA, they score the connectivity matrix. I haven't seen a great explanation of this, but the Microsoft Defender talk at BlueHat last year shows a decent place where to use it.
-- Counting types in weakly connected components of a property graphs. Most graphs connect already-classified entities, and tons of methods let you get components out of them. You can get quite far just by making a vector like "cluster 3 has: two reds, three yellows". For a security graph, something like, "3 different IPs, and two alerts of type X". Matt Swann's talk at last year's https://www.graphtheplanet.com/ on a MS internal security team's scalable approach is great here. (We're about to release the last wave of tickets to this year's GraphThePlanet, if you're in SF next week!).
-- Tables: At the same Microsoft BlueHat event as the spectral methods talk, I demoed how to understand the structure behind a log alert dump via a simple & automatic 'hypergraph transform' that lets you use any of these methods even on regular data tables and logs: https://twitter.com/Graphistry/status/1189966458844930048 (jump to 12:45). This is how ~half of our users use Graphistry, and a generalization of what Matt does.
There are a bunch of papers on 'motif mining', and in deep learning, handling graph-y domains via random walks, and they often come down to a variant of #2 above. For deep learning, I'm curious about combining w/ #3 to go from 2010's era ~perception-on-pixels -> 2020 era ~behavior-on-traces.
Re: Rainbow Proof Shows Graphs Have Uniform Parts
#10Is this an open door to graph classification or simplification?
Re:classification... afaict, only in the rare case of complete graphs. You can extract those.. but they're dull. The use of rainbow coloring IS indicative of what folks do for classification & motif finding already on real-world graphs and even tables: -- Spectral methods: Similar to looking at the top eigen values for PCA, they score the connectivity matrix. I haven't seen a great explanation of this, but the Micros…
Just re spectral methods on graphs: There are a number of really interesting interpretations of spectral methods including energy stabilization of spring networks and discrete analogues to heat diffusion over grids. The area is really fascinating.
One general interpretation is that the eigenvalues of the adjacency & other matrices that capture the connectivity of the graph are solutions to optimization problems [0]. Usually, these optimization problems and their solutions correspond to relaxations of interesting combinatorial features or operations on graphs - e.g. different ways of cutting graphs to yield binary partitions on the nodes (spectral clustering [1]).