Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

On the edge-biclique graph and the iterated edge-biclique operator

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The edge-biclique operator: convergence, divergence, connectivity

desk verdict A paper with a genuinely new and elegant burgeon/line-graph commutation result, but the main connectivity theorem is false as stated because the defining condition is impossible for edge-containing vertex sets, so Section 3 needs a rethink. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06656 v3 pith:6D3SE6YT submitted 2019-08-19 cs.DM

Leandro Montero , Sylvain Legay This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DM MSC 05C7505C7605C85
keywords edge-bicliquegraphbicliquesiteratedoperatorsdivergentgraphsconvergentburgeonlinenecklace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies the edge-biclique graph $KB_e(G)$, whose vertices are the maximal induced complete bipartite subgraphs (bicliques) of a graph $G$ and whose edges record pairs of bicliques sharing a common edge. Its main contributions are a proposed characterization of when $KB_e(G)$ is connected, an $O(nm)$ algorithm for that decision problem, and a first pass at the dynamics of the iterated operator: graphs of girth at least five converge to the subgraph formed by cycles and connecting paths, while graphs containing an induced cycle with 'good neighbors' plus an attached clique (an $(n,m)$-necklace) diverge as that clique grows. For burgeon graphs, the paper proves the identity $KB_e(B(G)) = B(L(G))$ linking the edge-biclique operator, the burgeon construction, and the line graph, and this yields a complete convergence/divergence classification for that family. The paper closes with conjectures that every graph either converges or diverges under $KB_e$ and that divergence is equivalent to eventually containing a necklace with good neighbors.

What carries the argument

Three constructions carry the argument. The bicliques of $G$—maximal induced complete bipartite subgraphs—are the vertices of $KB_e(G)$, so adjacency means sharing an actual edge rather than just a vertex. The 'good neighbors' condition says that any vertex outside an induced cycle that sees both neighbors of a cycle vertex must also see that cycle vertex; the paper shows this property survives iteration and keeps the cycle induced in every $KB_e^k(G)$. The $(n,m)$-necklace, an induced $C_n$ with a $K_m$ attached to one edge, supplies the growth engine: under $KB_e$, the attached clique expands, so the graph cannot converge. The burgeon graph $B(G)$ replaces each vertex $v$ of $G$ by a clique of size $d(v)$, and the identity $KB_e(B(G))=B(L(G))$ is what transfers the line-graph classification to the edge-biclique setting.

What would settle it

Take the triangle $K_3$: its three edges are its three bicliques, no two share an edge, so $KB_e(K_3)$ consists of three isolated vertices and is disconnected, while no proper subset of vertices has equal internal neighborhoods and an internal edge. That single example contradicts the stated 'if and only if'.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a structural bridge between the edge-biclique operator and line-graph dynamics, plus a set of sufficient conditions that sort graphs into convergent and divergent regimes. The connectivity theorem states that for a connected $G$, $KB_e(G)$ is connected if and only if there is no proper vertex subset $S$ with all restricted neighborhoods $N_S(v)$ equal and with at least one edge inside $G[S]$; the accompanying algorithm decomposes $E(G)$ into edge sets that lie in the same connected component of $KB_e(G)$. The iteration results show that girth-five graphs converge to the graph spanned by cycles and the paths joining them, that complete graphs die in two steps, and that any graph containing an induced $(n,m)$-necklace whose cycle has good neighbors is divergent because the necklace reappears with a larger clique after two or three iterations. For burgeon graphs, the equality $KB_e(B(G)) = B(L(G))$ imports the known line-graph divergence criterion, so $B(G)$ diverges unless $G$ is a cycle, a path, or $K_{1,3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The characterization assumes that a proper vertex subset can have all internal neighborhoods equal and still contain an edge, yet for any edge $uv$ in the subset, $u$ lies in $N_S(v)$ but not in $N_S(u)$, so no such subset exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $G$ has girth at least five, repeated application of $KB_e$ drives $G$ to the subgraph induced by its cycles and the paths connecting them; with no degree-one vertices, $KB_e(G)=G$.
  • Complete graphs $K_n$ converge to the empty graph in exactly two steps, and trees converge to the empty graph.
  • Any graph containing an induced $(n,m)$-necklace with good neighbors ($n\ge 5$, $m\ge 1$) diverges: the necklace's clique size increases through iterations, so the number of vertices grows without bound.
  • For burgeon graphs, behavior under $KB_e$ matches line graphs: $B(G)$ diverges exactly when $G$ is not a cycle, a path, or $K_{1,3}$, and otherwise converges to itself, to the empty graph, or to $C_6$.
  • Connectivity of $KB_e(G)$ is claimed to be decidable in $O(nm)$ time without listing all bicliques, by propagating edges through shared bicliques.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The burgeon identity $KB_e(B(G))=B(L(G))$ suggests a transfer principle: once iterated line-graph behavior is understood for any class of base graphs, the same classification holds for the corresponding burgeon graphs under $KB_e$.
  • The necklace-growth mechanism could serve as a practical divergence certificate: to certify that a graph diverges, one only needs to find an induced necklace with good neighbors at some iterate, rather than track the whole evolution.
  • A natural testable extension is whether the 'good neighbors' invariance can be relaxed to shorter cycles; if it survives in a weak form, the necklace-divergence theorem might extend from girth-five settings to graphs with triangles or squares.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the edge-biclique graph operator KB_e, whose vertices are the maximal induced complete bipartite subgraphs (bicliques) of a graph and whose edges indicate that two bicliques share an edge. It claims a characterization of when KB_e(G) is connected (Theorem 3.1) and gives a polynomial-time algorithm for this connectivity test (Algorithm 1 and Proposition 3.2). It then gives sufficient conditions for convergence and divergence under iterating KB_e, including a convergence theorem for girth-at-least-five graphs and a divergence theorem for graphs containing certain necklace graphs with good neighbors. Section 6 proves a commutation relation KB_e(B(G)) = B(L(G)) between the edge-biclique, burgeon, and line-graph operators, and uses it to characterize the dynamics of burgeon graphs. Section 7 states four conjectures about periodic, fixed, and divergent graphs.

Significance. The paper's setting is natural, and the results are stated explicitly in terms of graph substructures, making them directly testable. The most valuable part is Theorem 6.2, which gives an elegant commutation between the edge-biclique operator and the burgeon/line-graph construction and yields a clean dichotomy for burgeon graphs. However, the central connectivity result of Section 3 is false as stated, and because the algorithm and its correctness proof are presented as consequences of that theorem, the main algorithmic claim of the paper is unsupported. The divergence machinery in Sections 4 and 5 is plausible but does not compensate for the failure of the stated core result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 is false as stated. For any set S containing an edge uv, the vertex u belongs to N_S(v) but not to N_S(u), so N_S(v) cannot equal N_S(u). Hence the uniform-neighborhood condition cannot hold for any S with |E(G[S])| >= 1. The right-hand side of the equivalence is therefore automatically true for every connected graph with at least one edge, while the left-hand side is not: the paper itself observes that KB_e(K_n) consists of n(n-1)/2 isolated vertices. The proof of the converse direction attempts to prove exactly the impossible equality N_{SV(B)}(u) = N_{SV(B)}(u') for an edge-containing connected set SV(B). In addition, even if the equality were not impossible, the argument that every u' is adjacent to one endpoint of a chosen edge would only show a common neighbor, not equal restricted neighborhoods; a star is a counterexample to that inference.
  2. [Section 3, Proposition 3.2 and Algorithm 1] The correctness proof of Algorithm 1 is invalid as written. It relies on Claim 1 of Theorem 3.1, and its final step uses the false Theorem 3.1 to conclude that when the algorithm outputs k > 1 parts, KB_e(G) is disconnected. The algorithm may be salvageable with a different proof, but the present paper does not supply one. Moreover, on K_3 the algorithm outputs three singleton parts, which matches the actual disconnectedness of KB_e(K_3) but contradicts the statement of Theorem 3.1; this internal inconsistency reinforces that the connectivity characterization is not correct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Conjecture 7.2] The note following Conjecture 7.2 reverses the logical direction: Corollary 4.3 proves that the girth-at-least-five plus no-degree-one-vertices condition is sufficient for KB_e(G) = G, so it supports the "if" direction of the conjecture, not the "only if" direction as stated in the text.
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2] The statement that the operator "converges towards the graph induced by the union of all the cycles and paths connecting cycles" is not made precise: the proof should define the limiting graph explicitly and justify that iterating KB_e deletes degree-one vertices exactly until that subgraph remains.
  3. [Section 6, Definition 6.1 and Theorem 6.2] The definition of B(G) does not specify how to handle vertices of degree zero. Since L(K_2) = K_1, the statement of Theorem 6.2 for n = 2 should address this edge case, otherwise the isomorphism KB_e(B(G)) = B(L(G)) is unclear for graphs with isolated vertices in L(G).
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including "veryfing" for "verifying" in the proof of Theorem 3.1 and "neigborhood" in Section 2; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is definitional and self-contained; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived directly from the definitions of bicliques, edge-biclique graphs, and the KBe operator. Theorem 3.1 is an attempted characterization with a proof from first principles; although the condition it states is in fact unsatisfiable for any edge-containing set S, so the theorem is false as written, this is a mathematical validity defect, not a circular reduction: the proof does not assume the connectivity conclusion, fit any parameter, or rely on the authors' prior work. Algorithm 1's correctness is argued through Claim 1 inside Theorem 3.1, an internal lemma of the same proof, and again involves no fitted or pre-supplied data. Sections 4 and 5 build on elementary observations about girth, stars, and necklace graphs. Section 6 proves KBe(B(G)) = B(L(G)) directly from the definitions of burgeon graphs, line graphs, and edge-bicliques; Corollaries 6.3-6.5 then apply the external, non-author theorem [38] on line-graph divergence. The authors' own earlier works ([12,14,15,16,17,31]) are cited for background and definitional context, including the biclique graph, the edge-biclique graph, and the fact that KB(G) preserves connectivity; none of these citations is the justification for the new claims. Thus no step reduces to its own inputs, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is smuggled in through self-citation. The paper is therefore assessed as having no significant circularity, regardless of the separate correctness concerns in Section 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is purely mathematical: no empirical parameters, no fitted constants, no invented physical entities. It relies on standard graph theory definitions and one classical external theorem (line graph divergence [38]) used as a black box. The central claims are derived from definitions, though with proof errors.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard definitions of graphs, bicliques, and intersection graphs (Section 2), including the assumption that graphs are simple and connected unless stated.
    The paper builds on these definitions without proof.
  • domain assumption The known result of van Rooij and Wilf [38] that a graph diverges under the line graph operator if and only if it is not a cycle, path, or K_{1,3}.
    Used in Corollary 6.3 to characterize burgeon graph divergence; the paper does not prove this classical result.
  • standard math For finite graphs the family of maximal bicliques is finite, so the edge-biclique operator is well-defined on finite graphs.
    Implicit in the iterated operator definition.
  • domain assumption The empty graph is considered convergent under the KB_e operator (stated in Section 2).
    A convention adopted by the authors to handle graphs with no bicliques.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the edge-biclique graph and the iterated edge-biclique operator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6D3SE6YT

@misc{pith2026190806656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the edge-biclique graph and the iterated edge-biclique operator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6D3SE6YT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06656}
}
abstract

A biclique of a graph $G$ is a maximal induced complete bipartite subgraph of $G$. The edge-biclique graph of $G$, $KB_e(G)$, is the edge-intersection graph of the bicliques of $G$. A graph $G$ diverges (resp. converges or is periodic) under an operator $H$ whenever $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}|V(H^k(G))|=\infty$ (resp. $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}H^k(G)=H^m(G)$ for some $m$ or $H^k(G)=H^{k+s}(G)$ for some $k$ and $s \geq 2$). The iterated edge-biclique graph of $G$, $KB_e^k(G)$, is the graph obtained by applying the edge-biclique operator $k$ successive times to $G$. In this paper, we first study the connectivity relation between $G$ and $KB_e(G)$. Next, we study the iterated edge-biclique operator $KB_e$. In particular, we give sufficient conditions for a graph to be convergent or divergent under the operator $KB_e$, we characterize the behavior of \textit{burgeon graphs} and we propose some general conjectures on the subject.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unique two options for an edge vw belonging to two different bicliques. Proof of Claim 1. First observe that since |SV (Be) | ≥ 3, there exists a vertex, say v1 ∈ SV (Be) , adjacent to v and not adjacent to w, i.e., the biclique containing the edge vw is bigger than a K1,1. This implies 1Note that this Claim is valid for any edge in a graph that belongs to two bicliques. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In this example we can see three set of edges, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The graph C7 is the smallest graph satisfying KBe(G) = G with girth less than five. From Theorem 4.2, we also obtain the following results. Corollary 4.4. For every k ≥ 1, there is a graph that converges in k steps under the operator KBe. Proof. Just take any induced cycle Cn, n ≥ 5, and join one of its vertices to the endpoint of a path Pk. Observe that this graph converges to Cn in exactly k steps (see [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Graph G that converges in k steps under the operator KBe 5 Divergence In this section we study the divergence of the operator KBe. We start with the following definition. Definition 5.1. Let G be a graph and let C = v0v1 . . . vn−1 be an induced cycle of length n ≥ 5. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: G has a cycle with good neighbors while G0 has not, since v is adjacent to vi−1 and vi+1 but not adjacent to vi . Now we present an important proposition that assures that the good neighbors property is invariant through the iterations of the operator KBe. Proposition …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (5, 1) − necklace and (6, 3) − necklace graphs. Now we present the main theorem of this section. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: First iteration of the operator KBe applied to G containing an induced (n, m) − necklace with good neighbors. j = 1, . . . , m, and furthermore, these m + 1 bicliques are different to the bicliques Bet for t = 0, . . . , n−1. Observe that (Tm j=1 Be2 j )∩B1 1 = {bi , b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Case A: Second iteration of the operator KBe. set {b 1 j , bi , bi+1, b2 j} for each j = 1, . . . , m. These bicliques contain the edge bibi+1 and they are different to the bicliques Bet for t = 0, . . . , n − 1. Then, if eb 0 j , j = 1, . . . , m, are the correspondin…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case B: Second iteration of the operator KBe. Now, let βt , t = 0, . . . , n − 1, be bicliques of KB2 e (G) that contain the vertices {ebt−1,ebt ,ebt+1} (mod n), respectively, and βet , t = 0, . . . , n−1, the cor￾responding vertices in KB3 e (G) to the bicliques βt . …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case B: Third iteration of the operator KBe. As a corollary, we obtain the following divergence theorem. Theorem 5.5. Let G be a graph that contains an induced (n, m)−necklace, n ≥ 5, m ≥ 1, such that its cycle has good neighbors. Then G diverges under the operator KB…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Graph G and the construction of B(G). Recall the definition of the line graph of a graph G, denoted by L(G), as the intersection graph of the edges of G, that is, L(G) has one vertex for each edge of G and two vertices v, w in L(G) are adjacent if their corresponding …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example of the relationship of Theorem 6.2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The net graph. Note that one can verify in polynomial time if given a graph G, there exists some graph H such that G = B(H). Moreover, since checking if G is a cycle, a path or the net graph can also be done in polynomial time, we can conclude that deciding the behavo…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The paw and the chair graphs. 7 Open problems We propose the following conjectures. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Graphs C7 and G9 satisfying KBe(G) = G with girth less than five. Note that Corollary 4.3 together with the fact that KBe(C7) = C7, KBe(G9) = G9 prove the “only if” part of Conjecture 7.2. Conjecture 7.3. It is computable to decide if a graph diverges or converges und…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alc´ on, L

    L. Alc´ on, L. Faria, C. M. H. de Figueiredo, and M. Gutierrez. The complexity of clique graph recognition. Theoret. Comput. Sci., 410(21- 23):2072–2083, 2009. 24

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Atluri, J

    G. Atluri, J. Bellay, G. Pandey, C. Myers, and V. Kumar. Discov- ering coherent value bicliques in genetic interaction data. In Proceed- ings of 9th International Workshop on Data Mining in Bioinformatics (BIOKDD’10), 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Bandelt and E

    H.-J. Bandelt and E. Prisner. Clique graphs and Helly graphs. J. Com- bin. Theory Ser. B , 51(1):34–45, 1991

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Booth and G

    K. Booth and G. Lueker. Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs, and graph planarity usingPQ -tree algorithms. J. Com- put. System Sci. , 13(3):335–379, 1976

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Brandst¨ adt, V

    A. Brandst¨ adt, V. Le, and J. P. Spinrad. Graph Classes: a Survey . SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. Soci- ety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    D. Bu, Y. Zhao, L. Cai, H. Xue, X. Zhu, H. Lu, J. Zhang, S. Sun, L. Ling, N. Zhang, G. Li, and R. Chen. Topological structure analysis of the protein-protein interaction network in budding yeast. Nucleic Acids Research, 31(9):2443–2450, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    C. P. de Mello, A. Morgana, and M. Liverani. The clique operator on graphs with few P4’s. Discrete Appl. Math. , 154(3):485–492, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Escalante

    F. Escalante. ¨Uber iterierte Clique-Graphen. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg, 39:59–68, 1973

    work page 1973

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    M. E. Fr´ ıas-Armenta, V. Neumann-Lara, and M. A. Piza˜ na. Disman- tlings and iterated clique graphs. Discrete Math. , 282(1-3):263–265, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    D. R. Fulkerson and O. A. Gross. Incidence matrices and interval graphs. Pacific J. Math. , 15:835–855, 1965

    1965

  3. [11]

    F. Gavril. The intersection graphs of subtrees in trees are exactly the chordal graphs. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B , 16:47–56, 1974

    1974

  4. [12]

    Groshaus, A

    M. Groshaus, A. L. Guedes, and L. Montero. Almost every graph is divergent under the biclique operator. Discrete Appl. Math. , 201:130 – 140, 2016. 25

    2016

  5. [13]

    Groshaus, P

    M. Groshaus, P. Hell, and J. Stacho. On edge-sets of bicliques in graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. , 160(18):2698 – 2708, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Groshaus and L

    M. Groshaus and L. Montero. On the iterated biclique operator. J. Graph Theory, 73(2):181–190, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    Groshaus and L

    M. Groshaus and L. Montero. Structural properties of biclique graphs and the distance formula. CoRR, abs/1708.09686v5, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Groshaus and J

    M. Groshaus and J. L. Szwarcfiter. Biclique graphs and biclique matri- ces. J. Graph Theory, 63(1):1–16, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    M. E. Groshaus. Bicliques, cliques, neighborhoods y la propiedad de Helly. PhD thesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2006

    2006

  10. [18]

    W. H. Haemers. Bicliques and eigenvalues. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B, 82(1):56 – 66, 2001

    2001

  11. [19]

    R. C. Hamelink. A partial characterization of clique graphs. J. Combi- natorial Theory, 5:192–197, 1968

    1968

  12. [20]

    S. T. Hedetniemi and P. J. Slater. Line graphs of triangleless graphs and iterated clique graphs. In Graph theory and applications (Proc. Conf., Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, Mich., 1972; dedicated to the memory of J. W. T. Youngs) , pages 139–147. Lecture Notes in Math.,...

    1972

  13. [21]

    Kumar, P

    R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, S. Rajagopalan, and A. Tomkins. Trawling the web for emerging cyber-communities. In Proceeding of the 8th in- ternational conference on World Wide Web, pages 1481–1493, 1999. , 2000

    1999

  14. [22]

    Larri´ on, C

    F. Larri´ on, C. P. de Mello, A. Morgana, V. Neumann-Lara, and M. A. Piza˜ na. The clique operator on cographs and serial graphs. Discrete Math., 282(1-3):183–191, 2004

    2004

  15. [23]

    Larri´ on and V

    F. Larri´ on and V. Neumann-Lara. A family of clique divergent graphs with linear growth. Graphs Combin., 13(3):263–266, 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Larri´ on and V

    F. Larri´ on and V. Neumann-Lara. Clique divergent graphs with un- bounded sequence of diameters. Discrete Math., 197/198:491–501, 1999. 16th British Combinatorial Conference (London, 1997). 26

    1999

  17. [25]

    Larri´ on and V

    F. Larri´ on and V. Neumann-Lara. Locally C6 graphs are clique diver- gent. Discrete Math., 215(1-3):159–170, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Larri´ on, V

    F. Larri´ on, V. Neumann-Lara, and M. A. Piza˜ na. Whitney triangu- lations, local girth and iterated clique graphs. Discrete Math., 258(1- 3):123–135, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Larri´ on, M

    F. Larri´ on, M. A. Piza˜ na, and R. Villarroel-Flores. Equivariant col- lapses and the homotopy type of iterated clique graphs. Discrete Math., 308:3199–3207, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    P. G. H. Lehot. An optimal algorithm to detect a line graph and output its root graph. J. ACM, 21(4):569–575, 1974

    1974

  21. [29]

    G. Liu, K. Sim, and J. Li. Efficient mining of large maximal bicliques

  22. [30]

    T. A. McKee and F. R. McMorris. Topics in Intersection Graph The- ory. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    L. Montero. Convergencia y divergencia del grafo biclique iterado. Mas- ter’s thesis, Departamento de Computaci´ on, Facultad de Ciencias Ex- actas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    Nagarajan and C

    N. Nagarajan and C. Kingsford. Uncovering genomic reassortments among influenza strains by enumerating maximal bicliques. 2012 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine , 0:223– 230, 2008

    2012

  25. [33]

    Neumann Lara

    V. Neumann Lara. Clique divergence in graphs. In Algebraic methods in graph theory, Vol. I, II (Szeged, 1978) , volume 25 of Colloq. Math. Soc. J´ anos Bolyai, pages 563–569. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981

    1978

  26. [34]

    M. A. Piza˜ na. The icosahedron is clique divergent. Discrete Math. , 262(1-3):229–239, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    E. Prisner. Bicliques in graphs i: Bounds on their number. Combina- torica, 20(1):109–117, 2000

    2000

  28. [36]

    F. S. Roberts and J. H. Spencer. A characterization of clique graphs. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B , 10:102–108, 1971. 27

    1971

  29. [37]

    Szpilrajn-Marczewski

    E. Szpilrajn-Marczewski. Sur deux propri´ et´ es des classes d’ensembles. Fund. Math., 33:303–307, 1945

    1945

  30. [38]

    A. C. M. van Rooij and H. S. Wilf. The interchange graph of a finite graph. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. , 16:263–269, 1965. 28

    1965

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.