Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2309.12248

Enumerating combinatorial resultant decompositions of 2-connected rigidity circuits

Abstract

A rigidity circuit (in 2D) is a minimal dependent set in the rigidity matroid, i.e. a minimal graph supporting a non-trivial stress in any generic placement of its vertices in $\mathbb R^2$. Any rigidity circuit on $n\geq 5$ vertices can be obtained from rigidity circuits on a fewer number of vertices by applying the combinatorial resultant (CR) operation. The inverse operation is called a combinatorial resultant decomposition (CR-decomp). Any rigidity circuit on $n\geq 5$ vertices can be successively decomposed into smaller circuits, until the complete graphs $K_4$ are reached. This sequence of CR-decomps has the structure of a rooted binary tree called the combinatorial resultant tree (CR-tree). A CR-tree encodes an elimination strategy for computing circuit polynomials via Sylvester resultants. Different CR-trees lead to elimination strategies that can vary greatly in time and memory consumption. It is an open problem to establish criteria for optimal CR-trees, or at least to characterize those CR-trees that lead to good elimination strategies. In [12] we presented an algorithm for enumerating CR-trees where we give the algorithms for decomposing 3-connected rigidity circuits in polynomial time. In this paper we focus on those circuits that are not 3-connected, which we simply call 2-connected. In order to enumerate CR-decomps of 2-connected circuits $G$, a brute force exp-time search has to be performed among the subgraphs induced by the subsets of $V(G)$. This exp-time bottleneck is not present in the 3-connected case. In this paper we will argue that we do not have to account for all possible CR-decomps of 2-connected rigidity circuits to find a good elimination strategy; we only have to account for those CR-decomps that are a 2-split, all of which can be enumerated in polynomial time. We present algorithms and computational evidence in support of this heuristic.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Goran Malic, Ileana Streinu. 2023-09-21. Enumerating combinatorial resultant decompositions of 2-connected rigidity circuits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.12248

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Adjunctions, Box Products, and Forcing Families

Sidorenko's conjecture states that the number of copies of any given bipartite graph in another graph of given density is asymptotically minimized by a random graph. For bipartite graphs containing a cycle, the forcing conjecture further asserts that asymptotic equality characterizes quasi-random graphs. We establish an adjoint identity for a general class of graph-substitution operators and use it to obtain Sidorenko and forcing results for balanced blow-ups, subdivisions, Cartesian products, and strong products.

math.CO

On the Cost Number of Graphs with Determining Number Two

A distinguishing vertex coloring of a graph $G$ is a vertex coloring such that only the identity automorphism of $G$ preserves the coloring. A graph is $2$-distinguishable if it admits a distinguishing vertex coloring with two colors, and its cost $ρ(G)$ is the minimum size of a color class in such a coloring. The determining number of a graph $G$, denoted by $Det(G)$, is the minimum size of a subset $S\subseteq V(G)$ such that only the trivial automorphism fixes every element of $S$ pointwise. Boutin (J. Combin. Math. Combin. Comput. 85: 161-171, 2013) asked if $ρ(G)$ and $Det(G)$ can be arbitrarily far apart. While the case for $Det(G) = 1$ is trivial, the answer remained unknown for $Det(G) \ge 2$. In this manuscript, we show that if $Det(G)=2$ then not only is $ρ(G)$ bounded, but in fact $ρ(G) \leq 4$. This is the first resolution of Boutin's question for any nontrivial fixed determining number. Moreover, for every fixed $Det(G)= n$, we construct examples giving a lower bound on any possible upper bound for $ρ(G)$ in terms of $n$.

math.CO