 Comparison of alternative QUBO formulations for Maximum Clique

The QUBO formulation was used for all previous investigations. This is due to the fact that, in contrast to, the former does not need the (usually unknown) clique size $K$ as an input parameter. Nevertheless, this section investigates whether the choice of formulation has an effect on the persistencies found and whether changing the QUBO formulation can result in more or fewer persistencies. If this is the case, then it may be worth investing time to search for formulations that are more suitable for the persistency algorithm.

In order to find the clique size that is needed for, we first run an alternative algorithm to find the maximum clique size $K$ for each tested graph. We then compute the QUBO coefficients for with parameter $K$ and identify strong and weak persistencies using Qpbo.

Table \[tab:qubo\_comparison\] shows results for a Hamming graph with parameters $n=8$ and $d=2$ and a c-fat graph with parameters $n=200$ and $c=1$. As can be seen from the table, formulation results in much larger QUBO problems (which are likely to also have a more complex structure, thus being more difficult to solve for Qpbo) and thus in fewer persistencies compared to, so clearly the latter formulation is preferable, at least for the type of graphs tested.

### Combining Qpbo with the decomposition algorithm {#sec:splitting_random}

We apply the graph splitting algorithm described in Section \[sec:decomp\] to solve the Maximum Clique problem on graphs of various sizes. However, before splitting a graph, we look for persistencies (in particular, for strong and weak persistencies since applying probing in each time step took prohibitively long) and, if found, reduce the size of the graph by removing the corresponding variables. We stop splitting when all generated (sub-)graphs are of size small enough to fit DW, which in our case is $45$ vertices.

We test the resulting algorithm on random graphs with $n=500$ vertices and an expected number of edges in the interval $[10000,40000]$.

![Proportional saving as a function of the expected number of edges of the random graph when using Qpbo in the graph splitting routine, computed as $(n_\text{qpbo}-n_\text{no-qpbo})/n_\text{
Comparison of alternative QUBO formulations for Maximum Clique 

 The QUBO formulation was used for all former probe. This is due to the fact that, in contrast to, the erstwhile does not want the (usually unknown) clique size $ K$ as an input signal parameter. Nevertheless, this part investigates whether the choice of conceptualization has an effect on the persistencies found and whether exchange the QUBO formulation can result in more or fewer persistencies. If this is the case, then it may be deserving investing time to search for conceptualization that are more suitable for the persistency algorithm. 

 In holy order to find the clique size that is necessitate for, we first run an alternative algorithm to find the maximum clique size $ K$ for each test graph. We then compute the QUBO coefficients for with parameter $ K$ and identify strong and weak persistencies using Qpbo. 

 Table   \[tab: qubo\_comparison\ ] shows results for a Hamming graph with parameters $ n=8 $ and $ d=2 $ and a c - fat graph with parameters $ n=200 $ and $ c=1$. As can be seen from the table, formulation results in a lot bigger QUBO problems (which are probable to besides have a more complex structure, thus being more difficult to resolve for Qpbo) and thus in fewer persistencies compared to, therefore clearly the latter formulation is preferable, at least for the type of graphs tested. 

 # # # Combining Qpbo with the decay algorithm { # sec: splitting_random } 

 We apply the graph splitting algorithm described in Section   \[sec: decomp\ ] to solve the Maximum Clique problem on graphs of various sizes. However, before burst a graph, we look for persistencies (in particular, for strong and weak doggedness since applying probing in each time step took prohibitively long) and, if found, reduce the size of the graph by removing the corresponding variable. We stop separate when all generated (sub-)graphs are of size minor enough to fit DW, which in our event is $ 45 $ vertices. 

 We screen the resulting algorithm on random graph with $ n=500 $ vertices and an expected number of edges in the time interval $ [ 10000,40000]$. 

! [ Proportional saving as a function of the expected number of edges of the random graph when using Qpbo in the graph splitting routine, computed as $ (n_\text{qpbo}-n_\text{no - qpbo})/n_\text {
 Colparison of alternative DUBO formulatiouw for Kaximuj Clique

Ghe QUBO formulation was usev foe all previous investigatiovs. This id due to the dact that, mh contrast to, bhe fmcmer does not nged the (usuanly unknown) clhqje size $K$ as an input parameter. Nevereheless, tjis section indestpgwtes whether the choice of formulation has an effect on thr persistencies found and ahetjer changing the QKBO formulajjon xan result iv more or fewer persisjencies. If this is the case, then it mcy be worth ibvedjing time to searbh for formulations tvat are more suitable foc thw persistency algoritim.

In order to find tre clique snze that is needed foe, qe fitst rgn av algerhavivs algogitim to find fhe maximum clique size $K$ for tacr tested graph. We thqn compute the QUBO coefficients for with padameter $K$ and identify wtrong and weak persidtencies tsing Qpbo.

Table \[tab:qubo\_comparison\] shows results fos a Hemoiny grapf wlth parameters $n=8$ and $d=2$ and a c-fat graph with [zrsmvters $n=200$ and $c=1$. As gan be seen from tne tsfle, formulatiun resbmta in much larger QKBO proflems (which art likrly to also have a more complex structuge, tyus being more difyicult to souve gor Qlbo) and thus in fewer pzrsistsncies compwred to, sk clearly the latger fmrmulation is preferable, ae least fir tke type uf gtaphs tqsted.

### Comblning Qpbo with the decolposijion angorithm {#sfc:splitting_random}

We apply the gceph splitting angogithm deseribed in Section \[ses:decomp\] to solre the Mcximum Clique prkblem oi graphs of darious sizes. Jowever, befoce splittyng q grqph, we uuok for persisyencies (iu parricular, for strong ana weak persistenenew since applyinb pfobynh mn easv time step dook prunibitkvely long) cna, if found, reduce the sise or the graph by rempvlng the cirresponqing variablex. We stop splittinh whei all jenerayed (sub-)graphs are of size small ehough to vit DW, which in our case is $45$ vextices.

We test the resulting algorithm on random graphs wijh $n=500$ vertices and an gxptcted number pf eddes in tha interval $[10000,40000]$.

![Proportiobal saving as a fmnction of the expectes numbar of edges of the random graph when using Qpbo in the graph splitting routine, compuveq as $(n_\text{qlbo}-n_\yext{nm-q'bo})/u_\text{
Comparison of alternative QUBO formulations for Maximum QUBO was used all previous investigations. fact in contrast to, former does not the (usually unknown) clique size $K$ an input parameter. Nevertheless, this section investigates whether the choice of formulation has effect on the persistencies found and whether changing the QUBO formulation can result more fewer If is the case, then it may be worth investing time to search for formulations that are suitable for the persistency algorithm. In order to the clique size that needed for, we first run alternative to find maximum size for each tested We then compute the QUBO coefficients for with parameter $K$ and identify strong and weak persistencies using Table \[tab:qubo\_comparison\] for a graph parameters and $d=2$ and graph with parameters $n=200$ and $c=1$. seen from the table, formulation results in much QUBO problems are likely to also have a complex structure, thus being more difficult to solve Qpbo) and thus in fewer persistencies compared to, so clearly the latter formulation is preferable, for the type of tested. ### Combining with decomposition {#sec:splitting_random} apply the splitting algorithm described in Section \[sec:decomp\] to solve the Maximum Clique on graphs of various sizes. However, before splitting a graph, for (in particular, for and weak persistencies since probing each time step took and, found, of graph removing the corresponding variables. stop splitting when all generated are of size small in our case is $45$ vertices. We test resulting algorithm on random graphs with $n=500$ and an expected number of edges in the interval $[10000,40000]$. ![Proportional saving a function expected number of edges of the random graph using Qpbo in the splitting routine, computed as $(n_\text{qpbo}-n_\text{no-qpbo})/n_\text{
 Comparison of alternative QUbO formulatIons fOr MAxiMuM CliQue

THe QUBO formulatIOn waS used for all previous invEstigAtIOns. THIs Is due To the faCT tHAT, in CoNtRasT tO, ThE formEr dOes not nEed the (usuaLly UnKnown) clique sIZe $k$ as an input ParAmeter. NevertHelEss, thiS sEctIOn invEstIgateS whethER the chOice of forMuLAtion hAS an effeCT On The pErsistencies found ANd WHether changing The QUBo fORmULAtiOn cAn result in MoRe or fEWer persIStENCIes. iF this is the casE, then it may bE WorTh inveStIng TIme to sEarch FoR ForMulations thAt arE more suitAble foR The persIStency aLgoritHm.

IN orDer tO FiNd The ClIQue SIzE thAT is Needed foR, wE fIrst rUn an ALTERnatIve AlgoRithm To find the maxiMum CliqUE siZe $K$ foR each TestEd Graph. we then CompuTe The QUBO coefficiEnts For with paRamEtEr $K$ AnD idenTIfy strOng And Weak perSistencIEs uSiNG qPbO.

Table \[tab:qubo\_compaRiSON\] sHows resuLts for A haMmINg graph wItH paRameTERs $n=8$ anD $d=2$ anD A c-Fat graph With paRAmEtErs $n=200$ and $C=1$. AS can be SeEn fRom The taBLe, foRmulatIon resulTs in mUCh larger QUBO prOBlems (which are LIkELY tO Also HavE a more complEx stRUctuRe, thUS bEinG More dIfficUlT To SOlve for Qpbo) and thus iN fEwer peRsistEncies compareD to, so clearLY THe latter FormULaTIon is preferablE, at leAst for the tYPe of grapHs tesTed.

### CombiNing Qpbo wITH the decoMpoSitIon AlgORItHm {#sec:splittinG_RAndoM}

WE apply tHe gRaph splIttIng AlgOriThM describeD in SectiOn \[SeC:dEcOmp\] To solVE the MaxiMuM ClIqUe pRobleM On grapHs of vArioUs SiZEs. HOwever, bEFoRE SpliTtInG a grAph, We Look fOr peRSisTencies (In particuLar, FOr stRoNg And weak Persistencies SiNce applyinG pRobIng in eACH time steP took prohibitively long) aND, if founD, reDuce tHe siZe of the grAph By remoVinG The corResponDing vArIabLES. We stOP SpLitTiNg when all gENEraTed (suB-)gRaphS are of sIze small enough to fiT dW, wHich in our case Is $45$ vErtiCES.

WE teST tHE reSuLTinG ALgorithm on randoM graphs witH $n=500$ VErTices and an EXpeCtEd numbeR of edgeS in thE IntervaL $[10000,40000]$.

![ProportiOnal savinG aS a fuNCTioN of the expeCted numbEr of edges OF the rANdOm graPh wHen usiNg qpbO in thE graph SPliTting RoutinE, cOmputeD as $(n_\tExT{qpbo}-n_\teXt{no-qpbo})/n_\text{
 Comparison of alternative  QUBO form ulati ons  fo rMaxi mumClique

The QU B O fo rmulation was used for  allpr e viou s  i nvest igation s .T h isis  d ueto th e fac t t hat, in  contrastto,  t he former do e snot need t he(usually unk now n) cli qu e s i ze $K $ a s aninputp aramet er. Never th e less,t his sec t i on  inv estigates whether th e  choice of for mulati on ha s aneff ect on the  p ersis t enciesf ou n d and whether chang ing the QUB O  fo rmulat io n c a n resu lt in  m o reor fewer pe rsis tencies.If thi s  is the case, t hen it  ma y b e wo r th  i nve st i ngt im e t o  se arch for  f or mulat ions t h a t ar e m oresuita ble for the p ers iste n cyalgor ithm. 

In  o rderto fin d the  c lique size that  isneeded fo r,we  fi rs t run an alt ern ati ve algo rithm t o  fi nd t h emaximum clique siz e$ K $for each  teste d  g ra p h. We th en  co mput e the Q UBOc oe fficient s forw it hparamet er  $K$ a nd  id ent ify s t rong  and w eak pers isten c ies using Qpbo . 

Table \[tab : qu b o \_ c ompa ris on\] showsresu l ts f or a Ha mmi n g gra ph wi th pa r ameters $n=8$ and $ d= 2$ and  a c- fat graph wit h paramete r s $n=200$and$ c= 1 $. As can be s een f rom the ta b le, form ulati on resul ts in muc h larger Q UBO  pr obl ems ( wh ich are likel y to a ls o havea m ore com ple x s tru ctu re , thus be ing more  d if fi cu ltto so l ve for Q pb o)an d t hus i n  fewer  pers iste nc ie s  co mparedt o, s o cl ea rl y th e l at ter f ormu l ati on is p referable , a t  lea st  f or thetype of graph stested.

# ##  Co mbinin g Qpbo wit h the decomposition alg o rithm { #se c:spl itti ng_random }
We app lyt he gra ph spl ittin galg o r ithmd e sc rib ed  in Sectio n \[s ec:de co mp\]  to sol ve the Maximum Cli q ueproblem on gr aph s of v ar iou s  s i zes .H owe v e r, before split ting a gra ph ,  w e look for per si stencie s (in p artic u lar, fo r strongand weakpe rsis t e nci es since a pplyingprobing i n  each ti me st eptook p ro hib itive ly lon g ) a nd, i f foun d,  reduc e the  s ize of t he graph by removing th e corr espon din g variabl es. Westop spli ttin g when all  ge ner ated(su b -)gra phsa re  of sizesmal l  enough t o  f itD W ,which in ou r c ase  is $ 45$ vertic es.
We test the resu l ting algorithm  onr a ndo m g r aphs  w ith $n=500$ ve rti ce s and an e xp ected numbe r of edg es in th e inte rval $ [10000, 4 0 00 0 ]$.

! [Pro por tional sa vin ga s a fun ct io n  of th e ex pe cted n umbero f ed g e s of the randomgraph w hen u s ing  Qpbo  i n the g r aphsplittingroutine, co mputed  as$(n_\ text{qp bo }-n_\t ext {n o-qpbo})/n _ \text{
 Comparison_of alternative_QUBO formulations for Maximum_Clique

The QUBO_formulation_was used_for_all previous investigations._This is due_to the fact that,_in contrast to,_the_former does not need the (usually unknown) clique size $K$ as an input parameter._Nevertheless,_this section_investigates_whether_the choice of formulation has_an effect on the persistencies_found and_whether changing the QUBO formulation can result in_more_or fewer persistencies._If this is the case, then it may be_worth investing time to search for_formulations that are_more_suitable_for the persistency algorithm.

In_order to find the clique size_that is needed for, we first_run an alternative algorithm to find the_maximum clique size $K$ for each_tested graph. We then compute_the QUBO_coefficients for with parameter $K$_and identify strong_and weak_persistencies using Qpbo.

Table \[tab:qubo\_comparison\]_shows results for a Hamming graph_with parameters $n=8$_and $d=2$ and a c-fat graph_with_parameters $n=200$ and_$c=1$._As_can be_seen from the_table,_formulation results_in_much larger QUBO problems (which are_likely_to also have a more complex structure,_thus being more difficult_to_solve for Qpbo) and_thus in fewer persistencies compared_to, so clearly the latter formulation_is preferable,_at least_for the type of graphs tested.

### Combining Qpbo with the decomposition_algorithm {#sec:splitting_random}

We apply the graph splitting_algorithm described in Section \[sec:decomp\]_to solve_the_Maximum Clique problem_on_graphs of_various sizes. However, before splitting a graph,_we look_for persistencies (in particular, for strong_and weak persistencies since_applying_probing in each time step took_prohibitively long) and, if found, reduce_the size of the graph_by_removing_the corresponding variables. We stop_splitting when all generated (sub-)graphs are_of size small_enough to fit DW, which in our_case_is $45$ vertices.

We test the resulting_algorithm_on random graphs with $n=500$ vertices_and_an_expected number of edges in_the interval $[10000,40000]$.

![Proportional saving as a_function of the expected number of edges of the_random graph when_using Qpbo in the graph_splitting_routine,_computed as $(n_\text{qpbo}-n_\text{no-qpbo})/n_\text{