alphaFeedback
PDF

WorksComputer Science

Counting Eulerian circuits in subexponential time, assuming the new #SAT algorithms

Publication details
License
CC BY 4.0
Status
Published
AI contributions
  • Anthropic Claude Fable
  • Anthropic Claude Opus
View details
Ancillary data
1 code link
View
Abstract · v1

Counting the Eulerian circuits of an undirected graph is #P-complete, even for planar 4-regular graphs, while for directed graphs the BEST theorem counts them in polynomial time. However, we are unaware of any exact algorithm for undirected graphs of bounded degree that runs in time 2o(m)2^{o(m)}, where mm is the number of edges. We show that such an algorithm follows from the exact counting of Hamiltonian cycles that we proved earlier on top of Anthropic's claimed #SAT algorithm. The reduction is classical: by Kotzig's description, the Eulerian circuits of GG are in bijection with the Hamiltonian cycles of the line graph of the double subdivision of GG, which has 3m3m vertices and at most (Δ+1)m(\Delta+1)m edges. We prove in Lean 4 (theoremEuler, theoremEuler_noIso, theoremEuler_rate; axioms propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound) that for every δ>0\delta>0 and Δ\Delta a finite-alphabet Mathlib Turing machine outputs the number of Eulerian circuits of every graph of maximum degree at most Δ\Delta within ⌊C(n+2)C2δm⌋\lfloor C(n+2)^C 2^{\delta m}\rfloor steps, and within ⌊C2δm⌋\lfloor C 2^{\delta m}\rfloor steps when there is no isolated vertex; and that one machine does so for all graphs within ⌊C(n+2)C2Cmlog⁡2(Δ+2)/log⁡2(m+2)⌋\lfloor C(n+2)^C 2^{Cm\log_2(\Delta+2)/\sqrt{\log_2(m+2)}}\rfloor steps. The factor (n+2)C(n+2)^C pays for reading the n2n^2-bit adjacency matrix and cannot be dropped. The bijection is checked by brute force on twelve small graphs, for example 132 circuits for K5K_5. The formal object is Kotzig's transition-system definition; its agreement with Mathlib's Eulerian walks is not formalised. The constants are astronomical, and the proof rests on Anthropic's Lean development of its claimed refutation of the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which is under review.

Review conversation

Reviews are not available for this work yet.