CSE 713: Random Graphs and Applications Lecturer: Hung Q.

Ngo
SUNY at Buffalo, Fall 2003 Scribe: Anusha R. Iyer

Lecture 6: Alterations

Often the random object generated must be altered before the result may be obtained. This is termed
as an alteration.

1 Applications
1.1 Dominating Set
Recall the example from the first lecture. Let G = (V, E) be a graph on n vertices with δ(G) = δ > 1.
We constructed a dominating set of G by randomly picking a set of vertices X, where each vertex belongs
to X with probability p. The set X was then augmented with vertices Y ⊆ V − X such that for each
y ∈ Y , both y and its neighbors are not in X. The set X ∪ Y is then a dominating set.

1.2 Ramsey Numbers

Definition 1.1. R(k, k) is the minimum natural number n such that any 2-edge coloring (with BLUE or
RED) of Kn contains either a RED Kk or a BLUE Kk .

Proposition 1.2. R(k, k) > n0 where n0 = 1e k2k/2 (1 + o(1))

1
Proof. Randomly color edges of Kn with RED/BLUE with probability 2 each. Let
(
0 if S is not monochromatic,
IS =
1 if S is a monochromatic.

Then, summing over all k-subsets S of [n], we get

#  
X X n 1−(k)
E[# monochromatic Kk ] = E [ IS ] = E[IS = 2 2 (1)
k
S S

We have used the following argument: if E[# monochromatic Kk ] < 1 then R(k, k) > n, which implied
k
R(k, k) > 2b 2 c . However, the bound was not too good.
The method of alteration gives a better bound. Remove one vertex from each monochromatic Kk .
k k
We have at least n − nk 21−(2) vertices left. Let n0 = n − nk 21−(2) , then R(k, k) > n0 . We then only



k
need to find n that maximizes n0 (n). Elementary analysis gives n0 = 1e k2 2 (1 + O(1)).

1.3 Independence Number α(G)

nd nd
Proposition 1.3. Let G = (V, E) where |V | = n and |E| ≤ 2 and d ≥ 1. Then, α(G) ≥ 2 .

1
Proof. We show there is an independent set whose size is at least nd
2 .
Pick each vertex of G at random with probability p. Let X be the set of chosen vertices. The chosen
set X may not necessarily be a independent set. Let Y be the set of edges both of whose endpoints are
in X. For each y ∈ Y , discard one of the endpoints. The result is an independent set of size at least
(|X| − |Y |). Let (
0 if both endpoints of e are not in X
Ie =
1 if both endpoints of e are in X
Then

E[|X| − |Y |] = E[|X|] − E[|Y |]

X
= np − E[ Ie ]
e
= np − |E|p2
nd 2
≥ np − p
2

nd
Find p that maximizes E[|X| − |Y |], then E[|X| − |Y |] ≥ 2 as desired.

Side note: we will later discuss the Markov and Chebyshev inequalities that measure the probability
of deviating from the expected value.

1.4 Extremal Set Theory

Recall from the first lecture that a hypergraph H = (V, E) has property B if it is two-colorable, i.e. there
exists a two-coloring so that no edge is monochromatic.
Let m(n) be the minimum number of edges m such that there is an n-uniform hypergraph with m
edges and it is not 2-colorable. Our problem is to find m(n) or good bounds for m(n).
To find an upper bound m for m(n), we just have to find some n-uniform
hypergraph with at least
m edges which is not 2-colorable. A trivial upper bound is then m(n) ≤ 2n−1 n (why?).
To find a lower bound m for m(n), we show that for any n-uniform hypergraph H, there is a positive
probability that a 2-coloring of H is good. In what follows, we try to find some good lower bound.

1.4.1 Naive Approach #1

Consider an n-uniform hypergraph H = (V, E) with m edges. Randomly 2-color v ∈ V . If

P[no monochromatic edge] > 0,

then there exists a good coloring for the graph H. This implies m(n) > m.

1.4.2 Naive Approach #2

Take any hypergraph H = (V, E) with |E| = m. Let
(
0 if e is not monochromatic
Ie =
1 if e is monochromatic.

2
Then
X
E[#monochromatic edges] = E[ Ie ]
e
= mE[Ie ]
= m21−n .

Thus, if m < 2n−1 then there is a good 2-coloring, which implies m(n) > 2n−1 .

Some History
Erdös (1965) m(n) ≥ 2n−1
1
Beck (1978) m(n) ≥ Ω(2n n 3 )
n 12
..., ... (2000) m(n) ≥ Ω(2n ( lnn ) )
Open Problem 1.4. The gap between the upper and lower bound is still very large.

1.4.3 Using Alterations

Algorithm:

1. Order all vertices randomly

2. For each v ∈ V , flip 2 coins.

coin 1: head/tail with probability 21 / 1
2
coin 2: head/tail with probability p/ 1 − p Let ci (v) be the value of coin i of v.

3. Color v
RED if c1 (v) = head
BLUE if c1 (v) = tail

4. Let D = {v|v is in some monochromatic edge}

For each v ∈ D in the random ordering, if v is still in some monochromatic edge e of the first
coloring and e is still monochromatic at the point when v is considered, then switch v’s color if
c2 (v) = head.

We bound the probability that the coloring fails to be good:

X
P[the coloring is not good] ≤ Pr[e is monochromatic]
e∈E
X
≤ 2 Pr[e is RED]
e∈E

Let Ae be the event that e is RED in the first place and none of the vertices in e changed color. Let Ce be
the event e started with some BLUE vertices and then e was RED at the end.

Pr[e is RED] ≤ Pr[Ae ] + Pr[Ce ]

1
≤ ( )n (1 − p)n + ...
2

Let v be the last vertex of e which changed color from BLUE to RED. The reason v changed its color
was because there is some f ∈ E such that f was BLUE in the first coloring, and remains blue until the

3
point v is considered. Moreover, f ∩ e = {v}, since another v 0 ∈ f ∩ e would necessarily be BLUE
(v 0 ∈ f ) and necessarily be RED after the second coloring (v 0 ∈ e); however, v 0 must have changed its
color before v, which means f was no longer BLUE at the point v was considered.
Consequently, if Ce happens then there exists and edge f such that

• e ∩ f = {v}

• v was the last of e that changed color.

• When v changed color, f was still BLUE.

• The first coloring of f was BLUE, but the second coloring of e is RED.

Let Bef be the event that e and f are related in this way.
Each random coloring of V induces a random coloring σ of f ∪ e. Let i be the # of elements of e
that come before v in σ. Let j be the # of elements of f that come before v in σ.
p
P[Bef |σ] ≤ 2× (v started BLUE, turned RED)
1
2n−1
× (the rest of f is BLUE)
1
2n−1−i
× (all of elements of e after v are RED)
j
(1 − p) × (the elements of f before v are unaltered)
( 21 + p2 )j × (every elem of e before v must be RED already or BLUE turned RED)
p
= 22n−1
(1 − p)j (1 + p)j

Therefore
X
P[Bef ] = P[Bef |σ]P[σ]
σ
X p 1
= 2n−1
(1 − p)j(σ) (1 + p)j(σ)
σ
2 (2n − 1)!
n−1
X n−1   
p 1 i n−1 n−1
X
j
≤ (1 − p) (1 + p) (i + j)!(2n − 2 − i − j)!
22n−1 (2n − 1)! i j
j=0 i=0
≤ ...
p
≤
22n−1
Now
X m2 p
P[Ce ] <
e
2 22n−1

Returning to our original equation

(1 − p)n m2 p
P[failing] ≤ 2[m + ]
2n 2 22n−1
1
n 2
If P[failing] < 1, then m(n) > m. After some analysis, we may arrive at m(n) > Ω(2n ( lnn ) ).