Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Minimum Number of Monochromatic Subgraphs of a Random Graph

Yatin Dandi, David Gamarnik, Haodong Zhu

TL;DR

The paper addresses the problem of minimizing monochromatic copies of a fixed strictly 1-balanced graph $F$ in random graphs under a random 2-coloring. It leverages a contiguity between appearance of $F$ in $\mathbb{G}(n,p)$ and independent copies in the hypergraph model $\mathbb{H}_F(n,q)$ to establish the existence of a limit $m(F,c)$ for $p= c n^{-1/d_1(F)}$, and provides explicit asymptotics for $m(F,c)$ as the host graph size and $c$ grow. The analysis proceeds by translating the optimization into a mean-field spin-glass framework, where the monochromatic count is expressed via a Gaussianized Hamiltonian and a constrained variational problem. Through extremizing a family of Gaussians, the authors derive the leading asymptotics of the limit, yielding $m(F,c) = \kappa(F,c,s,r) + (1+o_r(1))\sqrt{(2\log 2)\kappa(F,c,s,r)} + o_c(c^{s/2})$ with $\kappa(F,c,s,r)= c^s/(2^{r-1}\mathrm{aut}(F))$. This provides a rigorous bridge between random graph theory and mean-field spin-glass methods, enabling precise predictions in sparse regimes.

Abstract

We consider the problem of minimizing the number of monochromatic subgraphs of a random graph, when each node of the host graph is assigned one of the two colors. Using a recently discovered contiguity between appearance of strictly balanced subgraphs $F$ in a random graph, and random hypergraphs where copies of $F$ are generated independently, we show that the minimum value converges to a limit, when the expected number of copies of $F$ is linear in the number of nodes $|V|$. Furthermore, using the connections with mean field spin glass models, we obtain an asymptotic expression for this limit as the normalized expected number of copies of $F$ and the size of $F$ diverge to infinity.

Minimum Number of Monochromatic Subgraphs of a Random Graph

TL;DR

The paper addresses the problem of minimizing monochromatic copies of a fixed strictly 1-balanced graph in random graphs under a random 2-coloring. It leverages a contiguity between appearance of in and independent copies in the hypergraph model to establish the existence of a limit for , and provides explicit asymptotics for as the host graph size and grow. The analysis proceeds by translating the optimization into a mean-field spin-glass framework, where the monochromatic count is expressed via a Gaussianized Hamiltonian and a constrained variational problem. Through extremizing a family of Gaussians, the authors derive the leading asymptotics of the limit, yielding with . This provides a rigorous bridge between random graph theory and mean-field spin-glass methods, enabling precise predictions in sparse regimes.

Abstract

We consider the problem of minimizing the number of monochromatic subgraphs of a random graph, when each node of the host graph is assigned one of the two colors. Using a recently discovered contiguity between appearance of strictly balanced subgraphs in a random graph, and random hypergraphs where copies of are generated independently, we show that the minimum value converges to a limit, when the expected number of copies of is linear in the number of nodes . Furthermore, using the connections with mean field spin glass models, we obtain an asymptotic expression for this limit as the normalized expected number of copies of and the size of diverge to infinity.
Paper Structure (6 sections, 9 theorems, 111 equations)

This paper contains 6 sections, 9 theorems, 111 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

Let $F$ be a strictly 1-balanced graph with $s>0$ edges on $r \geq 2$ vertices. Given $c>0$, let $p= cn^{-1/{\rm d}_1(F)}$ and $q=p^s=c^sn^{1-r}$. There exists a constant $m(F,c)$ such that whp as $n\rightarrow\infty$.

Theorems & Definitions (17)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Theorem 1.2
  • Definition 2.1: Ordered copy
  • Example 2.2
  • Proposition 2.3: burghart2024sharp
  • Corollary 2.4
  • proof : Proof of Corollary \ref{['cor-erg-hg']}
  • proof : Proof of \ref{['thm-convergence']}
  • Lemma 3.1
  • proof
  • ...and 7 more