Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
However, counting the number of perfect matchings, even in bipartite graphs, is #P-complete. This is because computing the permanent of an arbitrary 0–1 matrix (another #P-complete problem) is the same as computing the number of perfect matchings in the bipartite graph having the given matrix as its biadjacency matrix.
It is also #P-complete to count perfect matchings, even in bipartite graphs, because computing the permanent of an arbitrary 0–1 matrix (another #P-complete problem) is the same as computing the number of perfect matchings in the bipartite graph having the given matrix as its biadjacency matrix.
Kőnig had announced in 1914 and published in 1916 the results that every regular bipartite graph has a perfect matching, [11] and more generally that the chromatic index of any bipartite graph (that is, the minimum number of matchings into which it can be partitioned) equals its maximum degree [12] – the latter statement is known as Kőnig's ...
The following are equivalent for a bipartite graph G = (X+Y, E): [13] G admits an X-perfect matching. G admits an X-perfect fractional matching. The implication follows directly from the fact that X-perfect matching is a special case of an X-perfect fractional matching, in which each weight is either 1 (if the edge is in the matching) or 0 (if ...
Since any 0–1 matrix is the biadjacency matrix of some bipartite graph, Valiant's theorem implies [9] that the problem of counting the number of perfect matchings in a bipartite graph is #P-complete, and in conjunction with Toda's theorem this implies that it is hard for the entire polynomial hierarchy. [10] [11]
The bipartite graphs, line graphs of bipartite graphs, and their complements form four out of the five basic classes of perfect graphs used in the proof of the strong perfect graph theorem. [22] It follows that any subgraph of a bipartite graph is also bipartite because it cannot gain an odd cycle.
It was conjectured by Lovász and Plummer that the number of perfect matchings contained in a cubic, bridgeless graph is exponential in the number of the vertices of the graph n. [5] The conjecture was first proven for bipartite , cubic, bridgeless graphs by Voorhoeve (1979) , later for planar , cubic, bridgeless graphs by Chudnovsky & Seymour ...
Also, any induced subgraph of a bipartite graph remains bipartite. Therefore, bipartite graphs are perfect. In n-vertex bipartite graphs, a minimum clique cover takes the form of a maximum matching together with an additional clique for every unmatched vertex, with size n − M, where M is the cardinality of the