MHB Probability of Having a Totally Dominating Set (Probabilistic Methods)

  • Thread starter Thread starter joypav
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability Set
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that a randomly chosen vertex set S in an r-regular n-vertex graph G is totally t-dominating with a probability greater than 1/2, given specific conditions on r, t, and n. The approach involves calculating the expected number of neighbors of any vertex v in S and applying Chernoff's bound to estimate the probability that v has fewer than t neighbors in S. By bounding the probability of this "bad" event for all vertices and summing these probabilities, it is shown that the total probability of failure is less than 1/2. Consequently, this leads to the conclusion that the probability of S being totally t-dominating exceeds 1/2.
joypav
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Problem: A vertex set $S$ in a graph $G$ is said to be totally t-dominating, for a positive integer t, if
$|N(v) \cap S| \geq t$ for all $v \in V (G)$.
Suppose that r, t, n are positive integers such that $r > 2t$ and $t \geq \frac{14}{3}\cdot ln(2n)$, and let $G$ be an r-regular n-vertex graph. Choose a random vertex set $S$ by independently adding each vertex to $S$ with probability p, where $p =\frac{2t}{r}$. Prove that $P[S$ is totally t-dominating$] > \frac{1}{2}$.

I honestly am not sure where to begin with this problem.
I know that $E[|S|] = n \cdot p = n \cdot \frac{2t}{r}$ (the expectation of the size of $S$) and $|E(G)| = \frac{nr}{2}$ (because G is r-regular). I don't know if either of these will be of any use...

Here is what I was thinking.
Fix $v \in V(G)$. $G$ is r-regular, so label each of $v$'s neighbors: $N(v) = \left\{u_1,...,u_r\right\}$.
Let $A_{v,u_i}$ be the event that $u_i \in S$.
Let $X_{v,u_i}$ be the indicator for $A_{v,u_i}$, (i.e. it is equal to 1 if $u_i \in S$ and 0 otherwise).
Let $X_v$= the # of neighbors of $v$ that are in $S$.
Then, $X_v = \sum_{u_i \in N(v)} X_{v,u_i}$.

We "want" $v$ to have at least t neighbors in $S$. So then we'd like to look at $P[X_v \geq t]$.

Then, consider the event $X$: $S$ is totally t-dominating.
We want to show that $P[X] > \frac{1}{2}$.

Is this at all on the right track?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Another proof for your consideration (I was busy busy busy working on problems today!).

Proof:
Fix $v \in V(G)$. G is r-regular, so we know $|N(v)|=r$. Label $v$'s neighbors $u_1, ..., u_r$. Let $A_{u_i}$ be the event that $u_i \in S$ and let $X_{u_i}$ be its indicator. Let $X_v = \sum_{i=1}^r X_{u_i}$, (giving the number of neighbors that $v$ has in $S$). Using Chernoff's, we may bound the "bad" event: that $v$ has less than $t$ neighbors in $S$. Apply Chernoff's with,
$$E[X_v] = \sum_{i=1}^r X_{u_i} = r(p) = r(\frac{2t}{r})=2t$$
$$P[|N(v) \cap S| \leq t] = P[X_v \leq t] = P[X_v \leq 2t - t] = P[X_v \leq E[X_v] - t]$$
$$\leq e^{-\frac{t^2}{2(np+t/3)}} = e^{-\frac{t^2}{2(4tn/r+2t/3)}} = e^{-\frac{t^2}{\frac{12tn+2tr}{3r}}} = e^{-\frac{3rt^2}{12tn+2tr}} = e^{-\frac{3rt}{12n+2r}} < e^{-\frac{3(14/3ln(2n)}{14}} = e^{-ln(2n)}$$
Then,
$$\sum_{v \in V(G)} P[|N(v) \cap S| \leq t] = \sum_{v \in V(G)} P[X_v \leq t] < n \cdot e^{-ln(2n)} = e^{ln(n)-ln(2n)} = e^{ln(n/2n)} = e^{ln(1/1)} = \frac{1}{2}$$
If the probability of the "bad" event is less than $\frac{1}{2}$, then the probability of $S$ being totally t-dominating $> 1-\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2}$.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...

Similar threads