Skip to main content

Automorphism groups and fragment graphs

Structure generation involves not just graph theory, but group theory. Or, I should say, it does in some of the papers I have read. For example, in this paper by J.L.Faulon, there is the sentence:
"The two main steps are to compute the orbits of the automorphism group of G and to saturate all the atoms of a chosen orbit
which may well be incomprehensible to many readers, except if the reader is a mathematician.

I am no mathematician, but thanks to some books on groups, I now understand both what an automorphism group is and what an orbit is. On the other hand, I also believe that this definition of how the algorithm works is overly complex. A more simple term might just be "fragment sets" - as it is fairly clear, if not mathematically exact. So, for the fragment graph [CH3, CH3, CH2, CH2, CH, CH] the fragment set is [CH3, CH2, CH].

Anyway, here is a short analysis of the automorphism group of the fragment graph [CH2, CH2]. This first image shows the tiny group of permutations that swaps the two fragments:


The notation is taken from an excellent book called "Visual Group Theory" that is also associated with some software called group explorer on sourceforge. It might be quite general, I suppose (and I hope I'm using it right), but it shows the permutation that swaps the fragments as a circled s. This is an automorphism with respect to the edges - in other words, after the swap, there are still bonds between [1, 2], [2, 3], [4, 5], and [5-6].

Another part of the automorphism group is a 'flip' like:

which is a little more complex, but shows how 'flipping' each fragment separately combines to form four possible permutations. If this does not seem particularly tricky, consider what happens if you take the direct product of these two groups:

Assuming I have done it right, this should show most (all?) of the automorphisms of the fragment graph. It does look pretty cool, but I don't think that it gets me any closer to implementing the cursed algorithm :)

Comments

Anonymous said…
I really like your blog and i really appreciate the excellent quality content you are posting here for free for your online readers. thanks peace claudia.
Anonymous said…
Give never the wolf the wether to keep.

Popular posts from this blog

Generating Dungeons With BSP Trees or Sliceable Rectangles

So, I admit that the original reason for looking at sliceable rectangles was because of this gaming stackoverflow question about generating dungeon maps. The approach described there uses something called a binary split partition tree (BSP Tree) that's usually used in the context of 3D - notably in the rendering engine of the game Doom. Here is a BSP tree, as an example:



In the image, we have a sliced rectangle on the left, with the final rectangles labelled with letters (A-E) and the slices with numbers (1-4). The corresponding tree is on the right, with the slices as internal nodes labelled with 'h' for horizontal and 'v' for vertical. Naturally, only the leaves correspond to rectangles, and each internal node has two children - it's a binary tree.

So what is the connection between such trees and the sliceable dual graphs? Well, the rectangles are related in exactly the expected way:


Here, the same BSP tree is on the left (without some labels), and the slicea…

Common Vertex Matrices of Graphs

There is an interesting set of papers out this year by Milan Randic et al (sorry about the accents - blogger seems to have a problem with accented 'c'...). I've looked at his work before here.

[1] Common vertex matrix: A novel characterization of molecular graphs by counting
[2] On the centrality of vertices of molecular graphs

and one still in publication to do with fullerenes. The central idea here (ho ho) is a graph descriptor a bit like path lengths called 'centrality'. Briefly, it is the count of neighbourhood intersections between pairs of vertices. Roughly this is illustrated here:


For the selected pair of vertices, the common vertices are those at the same distance from each - one at a distance of two and one at a distance of three. The matrix element for this pair will be the sum - 2 - and this is repeated for all pairs in the graph. Naturally, this is symmetric:


At the right of the matrix is the row sum (∑) which can be ordered to provide a graph invarian…

Signatures with user-defined edge colors

A bug in the CDK implementation of my signature library turned out to be due to the fact that the bond colors were hard coded to just recognise the labels {"-", "=", "#" }. The relevant code section even had an XXX above it!

Poor show, but it's finally fixed now. So that means I can handle user-defined edge colors/labels - consider the complete graph (K5) below:

So the red/blue colors here are simply those of a chessboard imposed on top of the adjacency matrix - shown here on the right. You might expect there to be at least two vertex signature classes here : {0, 2, 4} and {1, 3} where the first class has vertices with two blue and two red edges, and the second has three blue and two red.

Indeed, here's what happens for K4 to K7:

Clearly even-numbered complete graphs have just one vertex class, while odd-numbered ones have two (at least?). There is a similar situation for complete bipartite graphs:

Although I haven't explored any more of these…