skip to main content
10.1145/3594805.3607133acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfogaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Finding Antimagic Labelings of Trees by Evolutionary Search

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 August 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Randomized search heuristics can sometimes be effective verifiers for combinatorial conjectures. In this paper, we demonstrate how a simple evolutionary algorithm can be used to confirm the antimagic tree conjecture for all trees up to order 25. This conjecture, which has been open for over thirty years, is that every tree except K2 has an antimagic labeling: a bijective edge labeling such that the sum of labels assigned to edges incident to a vertex v is unique for all vertices v ϵ V. Moreover, we formally prove that that simple evolutionary algorithms are guaranteed to find antimagic labelings in expected polynomial time on trees of any order for certain restricted classes (paths, combs, uniform caterpillars, uniform spiders and perfect binary trees).

References

  1. Hafiz Usman Afzal, Ahmed Alamer, and Muhammad Javaid. 2022. Computing Antimagic Labeling of Lattically Designed Symmetric Networks. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 32394--32405. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3160715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. R. E. L. Aldred and Brendan D. McKay. 1998. Graceful and harmonious labellings of trees. Bulletin of the Institute of Combinatorics and its Applications 23 (1998), 69--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. N. Alon, G. Kaplan, A. Lev, Y. Roditty, and R. Yuster. 2004. Dense Graphs Are Antimagic. J. Graph Theory 47, 4 (dec 2004), 297--309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Martin Bača, Mirka Miller, Joe Ryan, and Andrea Semaničová-Feňovčíková. 2019. Magic and Antimagic Graphs: Attributes, Observations and Challenges in Graph Labelings. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Nana Cabo Bizet, Cesar Damian, Oscar Loaiza-Brito, Damián Kaloni Mayorga Peña, and J. A. Montañez-Barrera. 2020. Testing Swampland Conjectures with Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2006.07290Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Luke Branson and Andrew M. Sutton. 2022. Evolving Labelings of Graceful Graphs. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Boston, Massachusetts) (GECCO '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 195--203. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512290.3528855Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Curtis Bright, Dragomir Ž. Đoković, Ilias Kotsireas, and Vijay Ganesh. 2019. The SAT+CAS method for combinatorial search with applications to best matrices. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 87, 4 (01 Dec 2019), 321--342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09681-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Feihuang Chang, Yu-Chang Liang, Zhishi Pan, and Xuding Zhu. 2016. Antimagic Labeling of Regular Graphs. Journal of Graph Theory 82, 4 (2016), 339--349. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgt.21905 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jgt.21905Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jacqueline W. Daykin, Costas S. Illopolous, Mirka Miller, and Oudone Phanalasy. 2015. Antimagicness of Generalized Corona and Snowflake Graphs. Mathematics in Computer Science 9 (2015), 105--111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11786-014-0213-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Jon Ernstberger and Andy D. Perkins. 2013. A Metaheuristic Search Technique for Graceful Labels of Graphs. Technical Report. LaGrange College. Presented at the 44th annual Southeastern International Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Wenjie Fang. 2010. A Computational Approach to the Graceful Tree Conjecture. CoRR abs/1003.3045 (2010). arXiv:1003.3045 http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3045Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Joseph A. Gallian. 2022. A dynamic survey of graph labeling. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics (2022). Dynamic Surveys #DS6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nora Hartsfield and Gerhard Ringel. 1990. Pearls in Graph Theory. Academic Press, Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jun He and Xin Yao. 2004. A study of drift analysis for estimating computation time of evolutionary algorithms. Nat. Comput. 3, 1 (2004), 21--35. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NACO.0000023417.31393.c7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Horton. 2003. Graceful Trees: Statistics and Algorithms. Bachelor's Thesis. University of Tasmania.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. OEIS Foundation Inc. 2023. Entry A000055 in The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. https://oeis.org/A000055.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mark Jerrum. 1985. Finding minimum-length generator sequences. Theoretical Computer Science 36 (1985), 265--289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Donald Knuth. 1998. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Antoni Lozano, Mercè Mora, Carlos Seara, and Joaqiín Tey. 2021. Caterpillars are Antimagic. Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics 18, 39 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Houra Mahmoudzadeh and Kourosh Eshghi. 2007. A Metaheuristic Approach to the Graceful Labeling Problem of Graphs. In 2007 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium. 84--91. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIS.2007.368030Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Saqib Nawaz, M. Zohaib Nawaz, Osman Hasan, Philippe Fournier-Viger, and Meng Sun. 2021. An evolutionary/heuristic-based proof searching framework for interactive theorem prover. Applied Soft Computing 104 (2021), 107200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107200Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jens Scharnow, Karsten Tinnefeld, and Ingo Wegener. 2004. The analysis of evolutionary algorithms on sorting and shortest paths problems. J. Math. Model. Algorithms 3, 4 (2004), 349--366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10852-005-2584-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tommaso Schiavinotto and Thomas Stützle. 2007. A review of metrics on permutations for search landscape analysis. Computers and Operations Research 34 (2007), 3143--3153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2005.11.022Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Pramod Shinde, Samina Boxwala, Aditi Phadke, Nilesh Mundlik, and Vikas Jadhav. 2022. Product Dimension of Uniform Spider. Palestine Journal of Mathematics 11, 4 (2022), 276--281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Robert Alan Wright, Bruce Richmond, Andrew Odlyzko, and Brendan D. McKay. 1986. Constant Time Generation of Free Trees. SIAM J. Comput. 15, 2 (1986), 540--548. https://doi.org/10.1137/0215039Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Finding Antimagic Labelings of Trees by Evolutionary Search

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      FOGA '23: Proceedings of the 17th ACM/SIGEVO Conference on Foundations of Genetic Algorithms
      August 2023
      169 pages
      ISBN:9798400702020
      DOI:10.1145/3594805

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 August 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate72of131submissions,55%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)69
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader