Word-representability of co-bipartite graph
Biswajit Das, Ramesh Hariharasubramanian

TL;DR
This paper investigates the conditions under which co-bipartite graphs are word-representable, identifies classes of graphs with preserved word-representability under complement, and characterizes semi-transitive orientations for these graphs.
Contribution
It characterizes when co-bipartite graphs are word-representable, especially for fixed clique sizes, and provides conditions for semi-transitive orientations in these graphs.
Findings
Complement of path, even cycle, and generalized crown graphs are word-representable.
All co-bipartite graphs with a clique size of 2 are word-representable.
Certain co-bipartite graphs with a clique size of 3 are word-representable.
Abstract
A graph is word-representable, if there exists a word over the alphabet such that for letters , and alternate in if and only if . A graph is co-bipartite if its complement is a bipartite graph. Therefore, the vertex set of a co-bipartite graph can be partitioned into two disjoint cliques. The concept of word-representability for co-bipartite graphs has not yet been fully studied. In the book Words and Graphs written by Sergey Kitaev and Vadim Lozin, examples of co-bipartite graphs that are not word-representable are provided. The authors have stated that it remains an open problem to characterize word-representable co-bipartite graphs. It is known that taking the complement of word-representable graphs does not preserve their word-representability. In this paper, we first identify certain classes of bipartite graphs for which…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNatural Language Processing Techniques · semigroups and automata theory · Algorithms and Data Compression
