 vertex ordering can make a substantial difference in the size of the search space, but that there is no “best” ordering.

Sequential Branch and Bound
---------------------------

In we give the underlying sequential procedure. The variable $C$ is a growing clique, and $P$ contains undecided vertices which could potentially be added to $C$. The best solution found so far is stored in $C_{max}$. The important part, for this discussion, is that we have a $\KwSty{for}$ loop, and that the $\FuncSty{expand}$ function calls itself recursively inside this loop. Some of these recursive calls are then avoided, by using a greedy graph colouring to prove that the current portion of the search space could not possibly lead to a better solution than the one in $C_{max}$ being found.

(Graph $G$, Set $C$, Set $P$, Set $C_{max}$) (Graph $G$) $\rightarrow$ Set

We may view the recursive calls made by a branch and bound algorithm as forming a tree, as in. Here, each node in the tree represents a recursive call; triangles represent large subtrees. We mark by $\star$ the location of an optimal solution. Nodes shown in medium blue are those which cannot be eliminated by the bound, regardless of the strength of the incumbent—we say such nodes are *ineliminable*. Nodes in light blue are those which could be eliminated by the bound, if $\star$ has been found—such nodes are *eliminable*. The tree is traversed in a manner similar to a depth-first search, exploring subtrees from left to right. Note that in a sequential run, the leftmost light blue subtree will *not* be eliminated by the bound, since the search will not yet have found $\star$. In other words, not all eliminable nodes are necessarily eliminated. We call eliminable nodes that are not eliminated in the sequential run *avoidable*.

In maximum clique terms, $\star$ is the location of a maximum clique, whose size is denoted $\omega$. The medium blue nodes are then the nodes which must be explored to prove that there is no clique of size $\omega + 1$ in the graph. Light blue nodes are those that would be eliminated by the bound, if the algorithm were to be initialised with an incumbent size of $\omega$ rather than $0$. For now we assume there is
vertex ordering can make a substantial difference in the size of the search quad, but that there be no “ best ” ordering. 

 Sequential Branch and Bound 
 --------------------------- 

 In we give the underlie sequential procedure. The variable star $ C$ is a growing clique, and $ P$ contains undecided vertex which could potentially be added to $ C$. The best solution find so far is store in $ C_{max}$. The authoritative part, for this discussion, is that we have a $ \KwSty{for}$ loop, and that the $ \FuncSty{expand}$ function calls itself recursively inside this cringle. Some of these recursive calls are then avoided, by using a avid graph colouring to prove that the current portion of the search space could not possibly leave to a better solution than the one in $ C_{max}$ being found. 

 (Graph $ G$, Set $ C$, Set $ P$, Set $ C_{max}$) (Graph $ G$) $ \rightarrow$ Set 

 We may view the recursive call made by a branch and bound algorithm as forming a tree, as in. Here, each node in the tree constitute a recursive call; triangles represent large subtrees. We mark by $ \star$ the location of an optimal solution. Nodes shown in medium blue are those which cannot be extinguish by the bound, regardless of the strength of the incumbent — we suppose such node are * ineliminable *. Nodes in light amobarbital sodium are those which could be eliminated by the bound, if $ \star$ has been found — such nodes are * eliminable *. The tree is traverse in a manner similar to a depth - first search, exploring subtrees from left to right. notice that in a sequential run, the leftmost light blue subtree will * not * be eliminated by the bound, since the search will not yet have find $ \star$. In other words, not all eliminable nodes are necessarily eliminated. We bid eliminable nodes that are not eliminated in the sequential run * avoidable *. 

 In maximum clique terms, $ \star$ is the location of a maximal clique, whose size is denoted $ \omega$. The medium blue nodes are then the nodes which must be research to prove that there embody no clique of size $ \omega + 1 $ in the graph. Light gloomy nodes are those that would be eliminate by the bound, if the algorithm were to be initialised with an incumbent size of $ \omega$ quite than $ 0$. For now we bear there is
 vegtex ordering can make a substantial diyderencx in ths size ow the search space, but that vherw is bo “best” ordering.

Sequengial Branbh and Boynd
---------------------------

Ii we give the unvsrlying sequehbial 'ricedure. The vatiable $C$ is d growing cliqge, aud $P$ contains undecided vertices whish coulc ootentially be addtd eo $C$. Nht best solution found so far is sfored ii $C_{max}$. The impottant part, for this discusdion, is that we have a $\KwSty{for}$ liop, wbd that the $\WuncSty{expand}$ function calls itself recursively insidd thix loop. Somg kf jhese recursmve cajls are then avoided, by usimg a greedy grsph cooouring to prove that the current portijn of the szarch space could not pissibny laad gi a beutec sklutioj tian the one in $C_{max}$ beung found.

(Graph $G$, Seu $C$, Wet $P$, Set $C_{mas}$) (Grapr $D$) $\rightarrow$ Set

We may view the recursine czlls made by a branch abd bound algorithm as forming w tree, as in. Here, each node in the tree representv a rxcjrsnyc cauo; hriangles represent large subtrees. We mark by $\atsr$ the location jf an optimsl spjution. Nodes rhown nh jedium blue are thlse whish cabnot be ejimimated by the bound, regardlews of the stgengrh of the incumbenc—we say such nodgs are *ineliminable*. Nodes in uighf blue are hhose whidf could be elimivatvd bf the bound, if $\star$ has beqn found—snch npdes ard *elominabje*. The tref is bsaversed in a mannfr silinar to a dfpth-first search, exploring subtcxes from left tm rpght. Note that in a sequentyal run, the leytmost lnght buue subtrev will *nov* be eliminaeed by the bogjd, since the search rill not yet haxd found $\star$. Im other words, not aol eliminable nodex ate necessarily elnounated. We call rlioinwbpe njges that are not elkkinatdd in the scqudntisl run *avoidable*.

In mdximhm clique terms, $\stsr$ is the oocation of a maximum clique, whose size is dxnoted $\omegs$. Tre medium blue nodes are then fhe nodes whlch must be evploved jo prove thct there is no clique of size $\omega + 1$ in the graph. Light boue nodes are those uhat would be elimynated by the bound, if the altorithm were to bt initialised with an ihcumbett sixe of $\omega$ rather than $0$. For now we assume there is
vertex ordering can make a substantial difference size the search but that there Branch Bound --------------------------- In give the underlying procedure. The variable $C$ is a clique, and $P$ contains undecided vertices which could potentially be added to $C$. best solution found so far is stored in $C_{max}$. The important part, for discussion, that have $\KwSty{for}$ loop, and that the $\FuncSty{expand}$ function calls itself recursively inside this loop. Some of these calls are then avoided, by using a greedy colouring to prove that current portion of the search could possibly lead a solution the one in being found. (Graph $G$, Set $C$, Set $P$, Set $C_{max}$) (Graph $G$) $\rightarrow$ Set We may view recursive calls a branch bound as a tree, as each node in the tree represents triangles represent large subtrees. We mark by $\star$ location of optimal solution. Nodes shown in medium are those which cannot be eliminated by the regardless of the strength of the incumbent—we say such nodes are *ineliminable*. Nodes in light those which could be by the bound, $\star$ been nodes *eliminable*. The is traversed in a manner similar to a depth-first search, exploring from left to right. Note that in a sequential run, light subtree will *not* eliminated by the bound, the will not yet have In words, nodes necessarily We call eliminable nodes are not eliminated in the run *avoidable*. In maximum location of a maximum clique, whose size is $\omega$. The medium blue nodes are then nodes which must be explored to prove that there is no clique size $\omega in the graph. Light blue nodes are those would be eliminated by bound, if the algorithm were to be initialised with incumbent of $\omega$ than $0$. For we assume there
 vertex ordering can make a subStantial diFfereNce In tHe Size Of thE search space, buT That There is no “best” ordering.

SEquenTiAL BraNCh And BoUnd
---------------------------

In we GIvE THe uNdErLyiNg SEqUentiAl pRocedurE. The variabLe $C$ Is A growing cliqUE, aNd $P$ containS unDecided vertiCes Which cOuLd pOTentiAllY be adDed to $C$. tHe best Solution fOuND so far IS stored IN $c_{mAx}$. ThE important part, for THiS Discussion, is thAt we haVe A $\kwsTY{foR}$ loOp, and that tHe $\funcSTY{expand}$ FUnCTIOn cALls itself recuRsively insiDE thIs loop. soMe oF These rEcursIvE CalLs are then avOideD, by using a Greedy GRaph colOUring to Prove tHat The CurrENt PoRtiOn OF thE SeArcH SpaCe could nOt PoSsiblY leaD TO A BettEr sOlutIon thAn the one in $C_{maX}$ beIng fOUnd.

(graph $g$, Set $C$, set $P$, seT $C_{max}$) (graph $G$) $\RightArRow$ Set

We may view The rEcursive cAllS mAde By A branCH and boUnd AlgOrithm aS forminG A trEe, AS IN. HEre, each node in the trEe REPrEsents a rEcursiVE cAlL; TriangleS rEprEsenT LArge sUbtrEEs. we mark by $\Star$ thE LoCaTion of aN oPtimal SoLutIon. nodes SHown In mediUm blue arE thosE Which cannot be eLIminated by the BOuND, ReGArdlEss Of the strengTh of THe inCumbENt—We sAY such Nodes ArE *InELiminable*. Nodes in ligHt Blue arE thosE which could be Eliminated BY THe bound, iF $\staR$ HaS Been found—such nOdes aRe *eliminabLE*. The tree Is traVersed in A manner siMILar to a dePth-FirSt sEarCH, ExPloring subtreES From LeFt to rigHt. NOte that In a SeqUenTiaL rUn, the leftMost lighT bLuE sUbTreE will *NOt* be elimInAteD bY thE bounD, Since tHe seaRch wIlL nOT yeT have foUNd $\STAr$. In OtHeR worDs, nOt All elIminABle Nodes arE necessarIly ELimiNaTeD. We call Eliminable nodEs That are not ElImiNated iN THe sequenTial run *avoidable*.

In maximUM clique TerMs, $\staR$ is tHe locatioN of A maximUm cLIque, whOse sizE is deNoTed $\OMEga$. ThE MEdIum BlUe nodes are THEn tHe nodEs WhicH must be Explored to prove thaT TheRe is no clique oF siZe $\omEGA + 1$ iN thE GrAPh. LIgHT blUE Nodes are those thAt would be eLiMInAted by the bOUnd, If The algoRithm weRe to bE InitialIsed with aN incumbenT sIze oF $\OMegA$ rather thaN $0$. For now wE assume thERe is
 vertex ordering can makea substant ial d iff ere nc e in  the  size of the s e arch  space, but that there  is n o“ best ”  o rderi ng.

Se q ue n t ial  B ra nch  a n dBound 
-- ------- ---------- --- -- ---

In we g i ve  the under lyi ng sequentia l p rocedu re . T h e var iab le $C $ is a growin g clique,  a n d $P$c ontains u nd ecid ed vertices which co u ld potentially  be ad de d  t o $C$ . T he best so lu tionf ound so fa r i s s t ored in $C_{m ax}$. The i m por tant p ar t,f or thi s dis cu s sio n, is thatwe h ave a $\K wSty{f o r}$ loo p , and t hat th e $ \Fu ncSt y {e xp and }$ fun c ti onc all s itself  r ec ursiv elyi n s i de t his  loo p. So me of these r ecu rsiv e  ca lls a re th en a vo ided,  by us ing a  g reedy graph col ouri ng to pro veth atth e cur r ent po rti onof thesearchs pac ec o u ld  not possibly lead  t o abetter s olutio n  t ha n  the one  i n $ C_{m a x }$ be ingf ou nd.

(Gr aph $G $ ,Se t $C$,Se t $P$,  S et$C_ {max} $ ) (G raph $ G$) $\ri ghtar r ow$ Set

We ma y  view the rec u rs i v ec alls  ma de by a bra ncha nd b ound al gor i thm a s for mi n ga  tree, as in. Here,  e ach no de in  the tree rep resents ar e c ursive c all; tr i angles represe nt la rge subtre e s. We ma rk by  $\star$  the loca t i on of an  op tim alsol u t io n. Nodes show n in m ed ium blu e a re thos e w hic h c ann ot  be elimi nated by  t he  b ou nd,  rega r dless of  t hest ren gth o f  the i ncumb ent— we  s a y s uch nod e sa r e *i ne li mina ble *.  Node s in lig ht blue  are thos e w h ichco ul d be el iminated by t he  bound, if  $ \st ar$ ha s been fou nd—such nodes are *elim i nable*.  Th e tre e is  traverse d i n a ma nne r  simil ar toa dep th -fi r s t sea r c h,  ex pl oring subt r e esfromle ft t o right . Note that in a s e que ntial run, th e l eftm o s tlig h tb lue  s u btr e e  will *not* beeliminated  b y  t he bound,s inc ethe sea rch wil l not yet hav e found $ \star$. I nothe r wor ds, not al l elimin able node s  aren ec essar ily  elimi na ted . Wecall e l imi nable  nodes  t hat ar e not  e liminate d in the sequential run  *avoi dable *.
In maxim umc liq ue terms,  $\s tar$ is th e l oca tionofa  maxi mumc li que ,  whos e si z e is deno t ed  $\ o m eg a$. The med i u m  bl ue no des are th en t he nodes which mu s t be exploredto p r o vetha t  the re  is no cliqueofsi z e  $\omega  +  1$ in thegraph. L ig h t blu e node s arethose t h a tw ould b e el imi nated bythe  b o und, if  t he algori thmwe re tobe ini t iali s e d with an incumb ent s i z e of$ \om ega$ra ther th a n $0 $. For now  we assumethereis
 vertex_ordering can_make a substantial difference_in the_size_of the_search_space, but that_there is no_“best” ordering.

Sequential Branch and_Bound
---------------------------

In we give_the_underlying sequential procedure. The variable $C$ is a growing clique, and $P$ contains undecided_vertices_which could_potentially_be_added to $C$. The best_solution found so far is_stored in_$C_{max}$. The important part, for this discussion, is_that_we have a_$\KwSty{for}$ loop, and that the $\FuncSty{expand}$ function calls itself_recursively inside this loop. Some of_these recursive calls_are_then_avoided, by using a_greedy graph colouring to prove that_the current portion of the search_space could not possibly lead to a_better solution than the one in_$C_{max}$ being found.

(Graph $G$, Set_$C$, Set_$P$, Set $C_{max}$) (Graph $G$)_$\rightarrow$ Set

We may_view the_recursive calls made_by a branch and bound algorithm_as forming a_tree, as in. Here, each node_in_the tree represents_a_recursive_call; triangles_represent large subtrees._We_mark by_$\star$_the location of an optimal solution._Nodes_shown in medium blue are those which_cannot be eliminated by_the_bound, regardless of the_strength of the incumbent—we say_such nodes are *ineliminable*. Nodes in_light blue_are those_which could be eliminated by the bound, if $\star$ has been_found—such nodes are *eliminable*. The tree_is traversed in a_manner similar_to_a depth-first search,_exploring_subtrees from_left to right. Note that in a_sequential run,_the leftmost light blue subtree will_*not* be eliminated by_the_bound, since the search will not_yet have found $\star$. In other_words, not all eliminable nodes_are_necessarily_eliminated. We call eliminable nodes_that are not eliminated in the_sequential run *avoidable*.

In_maximum clique terms, $\star$ is the location_of_a maximum clique, whose size is_denoted_$\omega$. The medium blue nodes are_then_the_nodes which must be explored_to prove that there is no_clique of size $\omega + 1$ in the graph._Light blue nodes_are those that would be_eliminated_by_the bound, if the algorithm were to be initialised with_an incumbent_size of $\omega$_rather than $0$. For now we assume there is