In complexity theory and graph theory, induced subgraph isomorphism is an NP-complete decision problem that involves finding a given graph as an induced subgraph of a larger graph.
Formally, the problem takes as input two graphs G1=(V1, E1) and G2=(V2, E2), where the number of vertices in V1 can be assumed to be less than or equal to the number of vertices in V2. G1 is isomorphic to an induced subgraph of G2 if there is an injective function f which maps the vertices of G1 to vertices of G2 such that for all pairs of vertices x, y in V1, edge (x, y) is in E1 if and only if the edge (f(x), f(y)) is in E2. The answer to the decision problem is yes if this function f exists, and no otherwise.
This is different from the subgraph isomorphism problem in that the absence of an edge in G1 implies that the corresponding edge in G2 must also be absent. In subgraph isomorphism, these "extra" edges in G2 may be present.
The complexity of induced subgraph isomorphism separates outerplanar graphs from their generalization series-parallel graphs: it may be solved in polynomial time for 2-connected outerplanar graphs, but is NP-complete for 2-connected series-parallel graphs.
The special case of finding a long path as an induced subgraph of a hypercube has been particularly well-studied, and is called the snake-in-the-box problem. The maximum independent set problem is also an induced subgraph isomorphism problem in which one seeks to find a large independent set as an induced subgraph of a larger graph, and the maximum clique problem is an induced subgraph isomorphism problem in which one seeks to find a large clique graph as an induced subgraph of a larger graph.
Famous quotes containing the words induced and/or problem:
“It is a misfortune that necessity has induced men to accord greater license to this formidable engine, in order to obtain liberty, than can be borne with less important objects in view; for the press, like fire, is an excellent servant, but a terrible master.”
—James Fenimore Cooper (1789–1851)
“What happened at Hiroshima was not only that a scientific breakthrough ... had occurred and that a great part of the population of a city had been burned to death, but that the problem of the relation of the triumphs of modern science to the human purposes of man had been explicitly defined.”
—Archibald MacLeish (1892–1982)