On the connectivity of the k-clique polyhedra - Lamsade

**On** **the** **connectivity** **of** **the**

k-**clique** **polyhedra**

J. F. Maurras and R. Nedev

LIF, Univ. de la Méditerranée

Introduction

• Let P nk be **the** polyhedron **of** **the** edges incidence

vectors X k **of** **the** **clique**s with k vertices (k-**clique**s)

**of** K n , **the** complete graph with n vertices.

P nk = conv(X k )

• A polyhedron P is h-neighbourly if every subset W

**of** h vertices is **the** set **of** vertices **of** a face **of** P.

LIF - Marseille 2

Neighbourlicity

Σα e

= β

e ∈ E(K b )

Σα e < β

e ∈ E(K g )

Contradiction: β < β

LIF - Marseille 3

Neighbourlicity

Σα e

+ 2Σα n

= β

e ∈E(K b

), n ∈E(K n

)

Σα e + 2Σα n < β

e ∈E(K g

), n ∈E(K n

)

The same contradiction: β < β

LIF - Marseille 4

Neighbourlicity

LIF - Marseille 5

5-Cliques

γ 1

: α 1

+α 2

+α 3

+α 4

+α 5

= 1

γ 2

: α 6

+α 7

+α 8

+α 9

+α 10

= 1

i ≠1,2 : γ i

: Σe ∈ γ i

α e

< 1

Multipliers -1 for **the** two

equations and 1/5 for **the** ten

inequations yields 0 < 0.

Thus **the** 5-cycle polyhedron is

not 2-neighbourly!

Neighbourlicity

Suppose that P nk

is not 3-neighbourly, **the**n **the**re exists 3 k-

**clique**s C 1

, C 2

, C 3

, s.t. **the** system :

is impossible.

∀i ∈{1,2,3}, Σ e∈E

α e

x i e ≥ 1,

∀C ≠ C 1

, C 2

, C 3

, Σ e∈E

α e

x i e < 1,

Thus **the**re exists λ 1

, λ 2

, λ 3

≤ 0, not all zero, and λ C

≥ 0 st :

∀e ∈ E, λ 1

x e

C 1 + λ 2

x e

C 2 + λ 3

x e

C 3 + Σ C∉{C1 ,C 2 ,C 3 } λ e x e C = 0,

λ 1

+ λ 2

+ λ 3

+ Σ C ∉{C1 ,C 2 ,C 3 } λ e ≤ 0.

LIF - Marseille 7

Support condition

The last inequality implies that **the** support (i.e.

**the** graph **the** edges **of** which have a non-zero

coefficient) **of** **the** second set **of** **clique**s has to

be included in **the** one **of** **the** first.

Obviously, in order that **the** left hand side **of** :

∀e ∈ E, λ 1

x e

C 1 + λ 2

x e

C 2 + λ 3

x e

C 3 + Σ C∉{C1 ,C 2 ,C 3 } λ e x e C = 0

can be ≥ 0, both supports have to be equal.

Neighbourlicity

1. Suppose w.l.o.g. that C 1

has a vertex x ∉ V(C 2

) ∪ V(C 3

) ,

its star can only be covered by C 1

. Thus P nk

is ‘obviously’

2-neighbourly. To make zero **the** left part we need C 1

and

analogously C 2

and C 3

(C 2

≠ C 3

).

2. Thus w.l.o.g. V(C 1

) ⊂ V(C 2

) ∪ V(C 3

).

3. We denote V(C 1,2,3

), (resp. E(C 1,2,3

)) **the** common vertices

(resp. edges) **of** C 1

, C 2

, C 3

. For i,j ∈ {1,2,3} , V(C i,j

), (resp.

E(C i,j

)) **the** common vertices (resp. edges) **of** C i

, C j

and

V(C i

), (resp. E(C i

)) **the** vertices (resp. edges) belonging

only to C i

.

LIF - Marseille 9

Neighbourlicity

2-1. E(C i

), E(C 1

) for example, is **the** edge-set **of** **the** complete

bipartite graph with vertex sets:

V(C 1,3

)\V(C 1,2,3

) and V(C 1,2

)\V(C 1,2,3

)

• Consider **the** graph with values λ 1

x C 1 + λ 2

x C 2 +λ 3

x C 3 assigned to

**the** edges. Suppose that **the** same value can be obtain with

o**the**r **clique**s. The edges **of** C 1

with value λ 1

+ λ 2

+ λ 3

are

contained in all **clique**s. The edges with value λ 1

are

contained only in **the** **clique** with E(C 1

).

• Thus **the** union **of** **the** **the**se edges has a vertex set V(C 1

) and

it forms **the** unique **clique** C 1

.

LIF - Marseille 10

Neighbourlicity

2-2. Suppose that a **clique** **of** C\{C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 }, say K has

some vertices in V(C 1,2 )\V(C 1,2,3 ), in V(C 2,3 )\V(C 1,2,3 )

and in V(C 1,3 )\V(C 1,2,3 ).

If λ K > 0, we can never have :

∀e ∈ E, λ 1

x e

C 1 + λ 2

x e

C 2 + λ 3

x e

C 3 + Σ C∉{C 1,C2,C3} λ e x eC

= 0.

Consequently a **clique** **of** C\{C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 } has vertices in, for

instance,V(C 1,2 )\V(C 1,2,3 ) and in V(C 2,3 )\V(C 1,2,3 ), and

thus is, in this case, is C 2 …

LIF - Marseille 11

Neighbourlicity

λ g

+λ r

λ g

λ r

C

λ b

+λ g

λ r

+λ b

λ b

With **the** selected **clique** C∉{C b

,C g

,C r

}, we will have definitely a deficiency **of**

weight on **the** black edges.

LIF - Marseille 12

Neighbourlicity

2-2. The previous pro**of** supposed that ei**the**r: E(C 1,2,3 ) ≠ ∅ or C 1,2,3

≠ ∅. Thus suppose C 1,2,3 = {v}, and suppose that one **clique** that

contains E(C 1

) does not contain v but u ∈ (V(C 2 ) ∩ V(C 3 ))\ {v}.

It follows that **the**re is an edge from E(C 2,3 ) that contains u with

value greater than λ 2 and λ 3 , a contradiction.

LIF - Marseille 13

Hypergraphs . Neighbourlicity.

• Let K n

r

= (X,E) be **the** complete r-uniforme hypergraph

with |X| = n and E = {e ⊂ X, |e| = r}. As before, we will

study **the** neighbourlicity **of** **the** convex hull P nk

r

**of** **the** k-

**clique**s.

• We will search for **the** least number **of** **clique**s which share

**the** same edges.

LIF - Marseille 14

Hypergraphs . Neighbourlicity.

Consider a set **of** k-**clique**s indexed by J ⊂ I (**the** set **of** all

**clique**s) which do not form a face **of** P nk r , i.e.**the** system:

∀j ∈ J, Σ e∈E α e x j e = β,

∀i ∈ I\J, Σ e∈E α e x i e < β,

has no solution (α E ,β).

LIF - Marseille 15

Hypergraphs. Neighbourlicity.

The previous system doesn’t have a solution iff **the**re are µ i ≤ 0,

not all zero and λ j ≥ 0, s.t. **the** system:

∀e ∈ E, Σ iJ µ i X i e + Σ j∈J λ j X j e= 0

has a solution.

Σ iJ µ i β + Σ j∈J λ j β ≤ 0

This leads us to **the** following model which gives us **the**

neighbourliclity **of** **the** polyhedron.

LIF - Marseille 16

Hypergraphs. Neighbourlicity

Mixed boolean program:

The value **of** **the** solution **of** this program is

**the** neighbourlicity **of** **the** polyhedron + 1.

LIF - Marseille 17

Hypergraphs. Neighbourlicity

Exact values **of**

neighbourlicity

LIF - Marseille 18

Neighbourlicity. An upper bound

• Consider **the** subgraph C n (r) **of** K n r , s.t. C n (r) is **the** edge graph

**of** **the** cross polytope with (r+1) dimensions.

• There is a bijection between **the** maximum **clique**s **of** C n (r)

and **the** vertices **of** **the** unit-hupercube with (r+1) dimensions.

• An upper bound **of** neighbourlicity can be obtained from **the**

maximum stable set **of** **the** unit hypercube with (r+1)

dimensions.

LIF - Marseille 19

The octahedron and its dual

(,1,)

(1,0,1)

(1,1,1)

(0,0,1)

(0,1,1)

(,,1)

(0,,)

(0,0,0) (0,1,0)

(,0,)

(0,,)

(,,0)

(1,0,0)

(1,1,0)

0,0,0

LIF - Marseille 20

Hypercube **of** dimension 4

(0,0,1,0)

(0,0,1,1)

4-**clique**s :

abcd, ab’c’d, ab’cd’, abc’d’,

a’bc’d, a’b’cd, a’b’c’d’, a’bcd’

(0,1,1,0)

(0,1,1,1)

(0,1,0,0)

(0,1,0,1)

(0,0,0,0)

(0,0,0,1)

(1,0,1,0)

(1,0,1,1)

(1,1,1,0)

(1,1,1,1)

(1,1,0,0)

(1,0,0,1)

Facets defined by :

a : x ≥ 0, a’ : x ≤ 1, b : y ≥ 0, b’: y ≤ 1,

c : z ≥ 0, c’ : z ≤ 1, d : t ≥ 0, d’ : t ≤ 1.

(1,0,0,0)

(1,0,0,1)

LIF - Marseille 21

Hypergraphs. Unit-hypercube

• As before, we can generalize **the** upper bound **of**

neighbourlicity by induction. The following argument can

be used: If we assume that **the** d-dimensional hyper-cube

contains a stable set with cardinality M, **the** (d+1)-

dimensional hyper-cube contains a stable set **of** cardinality

2M, as its edge-graph do not contain a cycle **of** odd lenght.

• Thus an upper bound **of** neighbourlicity for P nk

r

is 2 r – 1.

LIF - Marseille 22