Neurosymbolic Discovery of Algebraic Graph Constructions

David Seka; Stefan Szeider

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 17 references

Neurosymbolic Discovery of Algebraic Graph Constructions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A frozen language model, with an exact computer algebra verifier, recovered algebraic constructions for all 100 symmetric test graphs.

desk verdict Solid neurosymbolic pipeline with exact verification, but the 100/100 claim needs a transcript audit and the dispersability counterexample needs its check shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08118 v1 pith:DVAUN7MW submitted 2026-08-08 cs.AI cs.LGcs.SCmath.CO

David Seka , Stefan Szeider This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.LGcs.SCmath.CO

keywords algebraicgraphconstructionsneurosymbolicagentlargelanguagemodelisomorphismtestingSageMathtwo-orbitgraphsBernhart–Kainendispersabilityconjecture

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether raw graph data alone — a graph6 string or adjacency matrix — can be turned into a short algebraic description such as a Cayley graph or a lexicographic product. It proposes an agentic loop in which a frozen, general-purpose language model proposes constructions and tests them in SageMath, with a single exact isomorphism test deciding acceptance. On a benchmark of 100 highly symmetric two-orbit regular non-joins on up to 25 vertices, the agent produced verified non-fallback constructions for all 100, while a strong template-enumeration baseline reached only about 20% and catalog lookup identified none. The authors further report that the same approach found an explicit algebraic construction of the smallest known counterexample to the Bernhart–Kainen dispersability conjecture, a 16-vertex two-orbit graph that improves on the 20-vertex Folkman graph.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the ReAct-style agent loop: the LLM interleaves reasoning with calls to SageMath through an MCP server, proposing candidate Sage expressions and revising them after exact feedback. The load-bearing piece is SageMath's is_isomorphic test, which the paper treats as an unconditional trust base; because every accepted construction is certified by this single exact test, erroneous proposals are rejected rather than trusted. The testbed is a catalog of two-orbit graphs, whose symmetry roughly tracks the existence of algebraic structure.

What would settle it

Re-run the hundred benchmark graphs through an independent exact isomorphism checker, for instance a second computer algebra system or a standalone canonical-labeling tool, and compare its verdicts with the paper's accepted constructions; any mismatch breaks the certification chain. Separately, exhaustively test the claimed 16-vertex graph for a dispersable book embedding and enumerate all two-orbit graphs on 15 vertices to confirm that no smaller counterexample exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a neurosymbolic pairing — an untrained general-purpose LLM proposing over an open construction language, and a computer algebra system deciding correctness by exact isomorphism testing — can discover algebraic graph constructions that no fixed grammar or catalog finds. On the paper's evidence, all one hundred benchmark graphs were solved without the raw-encoding fallback, and the returned constructions cluster into identifiable families such as orbit partitions with parity cross-edge rules and wreath-product constructions. The same pipeline gave the 16-vertex counterexample an explicit construction as $C_{10} \oplus 2K_3$, exposing the parity coupling between a 10-cycle and two independent triples so that dispersability can be checked by inspecting the construction rather than by exhaustive search.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that SageMath's is_isomorphic is an unconditional, error-free trust base on every instance; if that test ever misclassifies an isomorphism, or the agent's expression is evaluated against the wrong target, the claimed 100/100 result and the counterexample's certification lose their guarantee.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Verified algebraic constructions can replace raw graph6 data as the output of graph search, exposing automorphism groups, degrees, and structural invariants.
The released MCP server is a general-purpose bridge, so the same agentic construction-discovery pattern can be applied to any discrete object SageMath can express.
The 16-vertex graph displaces the Folkman graph as the smallest known Bernhart–Kainen counterexample, and its explicit construction makes the dispersability check a matter of inspection.
The monotone decline in construction quality with decreasing symmetry indicates that falling back to raw data is a structural signal, not a search failure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 100/100 success rate is a property of the deliberately favorable regime — the most symmetric two-orbit regular non-joins — and should not be read as evidence that the approach generalizes to arbitrary graphs; the paper's own low-symmetry results (grades down to 2.3, with three fallbacks) bound that reading.
Because the entire certificate chain rests on one isomorphism test, swapping in an independent exact verifier would test the robustness of both the benchmark results and the counterexample's construction.
The construction families the agent rediscovered — parity cross-edge rules, wreath products, weighted blow-ups — could be compiled into a grammar that lifts the template-enumeration baseline, suggesting a hybrid between the agent and systematic search.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a solid, useful paper, but the headline claims need one round of verification before I'd trust them without checking transcripts myself.

What's genuinely new: pairing a frozen, off-the-shelf LLM with an exact CAS verifier through an MCP server, applied to turning raw graph6 strings into algebraic constructions. The MCP-Sage bridge is a real reusable artifact. On 100 two-orbit graphs, the agent reports finding verified constructions for all, with a mean canonicity grade of 4.4, while template enumeration gets ~20% and catalog lookup 0%. The 16-vertex counterexample to the Bernhart-Kainen conjecture, beating the 20-vertex Folkman graph, is a nice concrete win. They release transcripts and data, which is exactly what you want.

The soft spots are about verification, not the method. First, the fallback is defined syntactically as Graph(g6(G)) and the acceptance check only rejects that exact pattern. An agent could smuggle the raw data in as a matrix or edge-list expression, pass the isomorphism test, and be counted as a non-fallback construction. The paper never reports scanning the 100 transcripts for raw-data encodings. The transcripts are public, so this is checkable, but as written the 100/100 claim is not fully supported. Second, the dispersability counterexample is asserted but not verified: the paper just says 'we checked all two-orbit graphs' and claims dispersability can be checked by inspecting the construction, but gives no code, no exhaustive-search description, no reference. That's a load-bearing gap for the application claim. Third, the benchmark wasn't entirely fixed in advance — n=24 was added later. The paper discloses this, but the abstract's 'fixed in advance' is a bit strong. Minor.

None of this sinks the paper. The core design — model proposes, exact symbolic verifier decides — is sound, and the authors are honest about quality being subjective. This is for people working on LLM-based discovery and computational graph theory; a reading group would get a good discussion out of it. The work deserves peer review; a referee should ask for the transcript audit and the dispersability check. I'd be comfortable citing the MCP server and the benchmark after those are in.

Recommendation: engage it, but conditionally.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neurosymbolic pipeline in which a frozen general-purpose LLM, acting through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, proposes SageMath constructions for a target graph given only its graph6 string, and SageMath's exact isomorphism test certifies each accepted construction. The main experiment reports that the agent found verified non-fallback algebraic constructions for all 100 highly symmetric two-orbit graphs on up to 25 vertices, while a strong template-enumeration baseline covers only 21 and catalog lookup none. Additional experiments examine LLM backbone dependence, the degradation of construction quality on less symmetric random regular graphs, and recall on graphs with planted constructions. The paper concludes with a case study giving an algebraic construction for a claimed 16-vertex counterexample to the Bernhart–Kainen dispersability conjecture, smaller than the previously known 20-vertex Folkman graph.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable demonstration that a general-purpose frozen LLM, paired with an exact symbolic verifier, can turn raw enumeration data into short algebraic descriptions for a nontrivial class of graphs. The paper is unusually transparent: it releases the MCP server, the agent harness, the system prompts, run transcripts, and per-experiment data, and it reports detailed cost and token statistics. The baselines (template enumeration and database lookup) provide a meaningful comparison, and the symmetry-tracking and planted-recall experiments help calibrate when the method succeeds. The Bernhart–Kainen application, if verified, is a concrete and significant byproduct. The main technical risk is whether the 'no fallback' claim truly excludes raw-data encodings beyond the one exact syntactic pattern that is audited.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, fallback recognition] The paper states that 'the Graph(g6(G)) fallback is recognized by its syntax' and then reports in Section 4.2 that the agent used no fallback on the 100-graph benchmark. However, the construction language L also admits expressions such as Graph('...') containing the target graph6 string, Graph(matrix(...)) built from the target adjacency matrix, an edge-list constructor, or operations applied to a Graph(g6(G)) object; all of these would pass the sole is_isomorphic check. Since the input feature record includes the graph6 string, a raw-data construction in these disguised forms would be certified as a valid construction without exposing algebraic structure. The released transcripts make this checkable, but as written the 'not using the fallback' claim is established for only one exact syntactic pattern. Please report a systematic scan of the 100 accepted transcripts for the target graph6 string, adjacency-matrix entries, or edge lists, and either restrict L or broaden the fallback detector accordingly.
[Section 4.4, Bernhart–Kainen counterexample] The paper claims that a 16-vertex graph is the smallest known counterexample to the Bernhart–Kainen dispersability conjecture, but it does not show the dispersability computation. The algebraic construction C10 ⊕ 2K3 is verified only up to isomorphism; it does not by itself establish that every book embedding interleaves two edges of some color. The sentence 'Dispersability can therefore be checked by inspecting the construction rather than by exhaustive search over vertex orderings and page assignments' is an assertion, not a certificate. Please provide the exhaustive verification (e.g., the search code and its output) or a rigorous argument from the construction that proves non-dispersability.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.1, benchmark fixity] The text says the benchmark was 'fixed in advance,' but also that the n=24 order was added after the original 90-graph benchmark once its enumeration became feasible; please clarify the timeline so a reader can see exactly which targets were fixed before any agent runs.
[Section 4.2, family descriptions] The informal notation O1 ⊕ O2 for orbit-pair constructions is used repeatedly in the four family descriptions; a short formal definition or a representative Sage expression for one member of each family would make the taxonomy easier to verify.
[Section 4.2.1, LLM judge calibration] The phrase 'The judge is systematically 0.32 grades stricter' could be more precise, since strictness may vary by grade; the mean absolute error of 0.48 and the 24/25 agreement within one grade are the more informative statistics and could be reported together with the direction of the bias.
[Section 4.3.2, symmetry-tracking statement] The sentence 'The three fallbacks appeared in the two bins of lowest symmetry' is slightly ambiguous because the paper earlier says fallback was used for three graphs total; please state explicitly whether the three fallbacks are distinct graphs and which bins they belong to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: acceptance is decided by an external SageMath isomorphism check, and the benchmark/grading steps do not feed back into acceptance.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: raw graph6 input -> agent proposes a SageMath expression -> SageMath's is_isomorphic decides whether the expression is accepted as a construction. This decisive step is an exact, external check that is independent of the LLM proposer; no parameter is fitted to the benchmark, and the hundred targets were fixed in advance. The only author-specific inputs are the two-orbit graph catalog [Seka and Szeider, 2026] used to select targets and the LLM judge used for canonicity grades. Neither feeds back into acceptance: the catalog supplies the input graphs, and the judge operates only after a construction is accepted, with a human comparison on a 25-graph subset. Thus the core 100/100 claim does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The main skeptical concern is a support gap rather than circularity: Section 3 says 'the Graph(g6(G)) fallback is recognized by its syntax,' so an expression that smuggles the target's raw data through another constructor (e.g., an adjacency-matrix literal or an edge list) would pass the exact isomorphism test while not being an algebraic construction; the paper reports no transcript-level audit for such disguised forms. Separately, the 'smallest known counterexample' claim appears to rest on checking two-orbit graphs from the authors' catalog rather than an exhaustive check of all graphs below 16 vertices, which is a coverage-risk issue. These caveats weaken the strength of the stated claims, but they do not make the central verification chain circular. The result has independent content and an independently checkable trust base, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on trusting SageMath as an exact verifier and on the prior two-orbit catalog for benchmark selection. No new theoretical entities are introduced. The application claim (dispersability counterexample) rests on an unstated computation.

free parameters (1)

Benchmark order set and top-|Aut| selection rule = n in {12,14,15,16,18,20,21,22,24,25}; the 10 regular non-join two-orbit graphs with largest automorphism group per order
Hand-chosen evaluation rule, not fitted to a target result. It concentrates the benchmark on graphs most likely to have algebraic constructions, which limits generalization of the 100/100 success rate.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SageMath's is_isomorphic exactly decides isomorphism for all encountered graphs
The paper treats Sage as an unconditional trust base (Sections 2 and 3). This assumes correctness of partition-refinement graph isomorphism (nauty/Traces-style) in Sage for n<=25.
domain assumption The two-orbit graph catalog of Seka and Szeider (2026) is complete and correct
The benchmark is drawn from this catalog, and the 16-vertex counterexample was found by checking it; catalog errors would affect benchmark composition and the counterexample claim.
domain assumption For regular two-orbit non-join graphs on n vertices, the orbit sizes satisfy gcd(a,b)>1; consequently prime orders are all joins and excluded
Used in Section 4.1 to define admissible orders; cited from the prior paper rather than re-derived.
domain assumption The 16-vertex graph is a non-dispersable counterexample to the Bernhart-Kainen conjecture
The paper asserts this in Section 4.4 without describing the computation (e.g., SAT or search) that establishes the property; this is load-bearing for the headline application.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neurosymbolic Discovery of Algebraic Graph Constructions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVAUN7MW

@misc{pith2026260808118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neurosymbolic Discovery of Algebraic Graph Constructions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVAUN7MW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08118}
}

abstract

There are several methods for searching for graphs with prescribed properties, such as SAT solvers and specialized generators. These methods return the result as raw data: an adjacency matrix or a string encoding. The raw data certifies that the graph exists, but it does not reveal any structural properties of the graph. We ask whether one can automatically discover a short algebraic description if only this raw data is provided. We look for a description such as a Cayley graph $\mathrm{Cay}(\Gamma, S)$ or a lexicographic product $C_5[K_3]$. We address this question with a neurosymbolic approach. We propose an agent that runs on a general-purpose large language model with no fine-tuning or per-target training. The model interleaves reasoning with calls to the computer algebra system SageMath: it analyzes the target graph, proposes and tests candidate constructions, and revises them until the output matches the target. The agent communicates with SageMath through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server, which we release as a general-purpose bridge. Whether a construction matches the target is checked by a single exact isomorphism test, and therefore rests on the symbolic side and not on the model. We test the approach on a benchmark of 100 highly symmetric graphs, namely two-orbit graphs on up to 25 vertices; the benchmark was fixed in advance. Our agent could find verified algebraic constructions for all of them, without falling back to raw encodings. A strong template-enumeration baseline reaches only about $20\%$, and a catalog lookup could not identify any of these graphs. However, construction quality declines when symmetry is removed. As a concrete application, we identify the smallest known counterexample to the Bernhart-Kainen dispersability conjecture, a $16$-vertex graph that enumeration found as raw data. For this graph, our agent found an explicit algebraic construction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08118 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Smallest known counterexample to the Bernhart–Kainen conjecture: a 5-regular two-orbit graph on 16 vertices. The 10-cycle forms the outer ring, light red and blue marking odd and even positions. Groups A (dark red, inner) and B (dark blue, outer) are independent triples; each vertex of A joins every odd cycle vertex, each vertex of B every even one. agent found proper constructions for forty-seven of the fifty gra… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

Bekos, Vida Dujmovic, Martin Gronemann, Michael Kaufmann, and Sergey Pupyrev

Muhammad Jawaherul Alam, Michael A. Bekos, Vida Dujmovic, Martin Gronemann, Michael Kaufmann, and Sergey Pupyrev. On dispersable book embeddings. Theor. Comput. Sci., 861: 0 1--22, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2021.01.035

work page doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2021.01.035 2021
[2]

Frank Bernhart and Paul C. Kainen. The book thickness of a graph. J. Comb. Theory B , 27 0 (3): 0 320--331, 1979. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2

doi:10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2 1979
[3]

Dokovic, Ilias S

Curtis Bright, Dragomir Z. Dokovic, Ilias S. Kotsireas, and Vijay Ganesh. The SAT+CAS method for combinatorial search with applications to best matrices. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 87 0 (4): 0 321--342, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09681-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10472-019-09681-3 2019
[4]

Gunnar Brinkmann, Jan Goedgebeur, and Brendan D. McKay. Generation of cubic graphs. Discret. Math. Theor. Comput. Sci., 13 0 (2): 0 69--80, 2011. URL https://doi.org/10.46298/dmtcs.551

doi:10.46298/dmtcs.551 2011
[5]

House of graphs: A database of interesting graphs

Gunnar Brinkmann, Kris Coolsaet, Jan Goedgebeur, and Hadrien M \' e lot. House of graphs: A database of interesting graphs. Discret. Appl. Math., 161 0 (1-2): 0 311--314, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2012.07.018

doi:10.1016/j.dam.2012.07.018 2013
[6]

Breaking symmetries in graph representation

Michael Codish, Alice Miller, Patrick Prosser, and Peter James Stuckey. Breaking symmetries in graph representation. In Francesca Rossi, editor, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3-9, 2013 , pages 510--516. IJCAI/AAAI , 2013. URL http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJC...

work page 2013
[7]

House of graphs 2.0: A database of interesting graphs and more

Kris Coolsaet, Sven D'hondt, and Jan Goedgebeur. House of graphs 2.0: A database of interesting graphs and more. Discret. Appl. Math., 325: 0 97--107, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.10.013

doi:10.1016/j.dam.2022.10.013 2023
[8]

Thomas Hubert, Rishi Mehta, Laurent Sartran, Mikl \'o s Z. Horv \'a th, Goran Z u z i \'c , Eric Wieser, Aja Huang, Julian Schrittwieser, Yannick Schroecker, Hussain Masoom, Ottavia Bertolli, Tom Zahavy, Amol Mandhane, Jessica Yung, Iuliya Beloshapka, Borja Ibarz, Vivek Veeriah, Lei Yu, Oliver Nash, Paul Lezeau, Salvatore Mercuri, Calle S \"o nne, Bhavik ...

2026

Show all 17 references

[9]

Computer-assisted graph theory: a survey

Jorik Jooken. Computer-assisted graph theory: a survey. CoRR, abs/2508.20825, 2025. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.20825

2025 doi arXiv
[10]

SAT modulo symmetries for graph generation and enumeration

Markus Kirchweger and Stefan Szeider. SAT modulo symmetries for graph generation and enumeration. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. , 25 0 (3): 0 1--30, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3670405

2024 doi
[11]

Brendan D. McKay. Isomorph-free exhaustive generation. J. Algorithms, 26 0 (2): 0 306--324, 1998. URL https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1997.0898

1998
[12]

McKay and Adolfo Piperno

Brendan D. McKay and Adolfo Piperno. Practical graph isomorphism, II . J. Symb. Comput., 60: 0 94--112, 2014. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsc.2013.09.003

2014 doi
[13]

Algebraic and computer-based methods in the undirected degree/diameter problem - A brief survey

Hebert P \' e rez - Ros \' e s. Algebraic and computer-based methods in the undirected degree/diameter problem - A brief survey. Electron. J. Graph Theory Appl., 2 0 (2): 0 166--190, 2014. URL https://doi.org/10.5614/ejgta.2014.2.2.9

2014 doi
[14]

Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco J

Bernardino Romera - Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Matej Balog, M. Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Pengming Wang, Omar Fawzi, Pushmeet Kohli, and Alhussein Fawzi. Mathematical discoveries from program search with la...

2024 doi
[15]

Enumerating two-orbit graphs

David Seka and Stefan Szeider. Enumerating two-orbit graphs. CoRR, abs/2604.00898, 2026. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.00898

2026 doi
[16]

Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V

Trieu H. Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V. Le, He He, and Thang Luong. Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations. Nat., 625 0 (7995): 0 476--482, 2024. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5

2024 doi
[17]

Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023 . OpenRevie...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bekos, Vida Dujmovic, Martin Gronemann, Michael Kaufmann, and Sergey Pupyrev

Muhammad Jawaherul Alam, Michael A. Bekos, Vida Dujmovic, Martin Gronemann, Michael Kaufmann, and Sergey Pupyrev. On dispersable book embeddings. Theor. Comput. Sci., 861: 0 1--22, 2021. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2021.01.035

work page doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2021.01.035 2021

[2] [2]

Frank Bernhart and Paul C. Kainen. The book thickness of a graph. J. Comb. Theory B , 27 0 (3): 0 320--331, 1979. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2

doi:10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2 1979

[3] [3]

Dokovic, Ilias S

Curtis Bright, Dragomir Z. Dokovic, Ilias S. Kotsireas, and Vijay Ganesh. The SAT+CAS method for combinatorial search with applications to best matrices. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 87 0 (4): 0 321--342, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-019-09681-3

work page doi:10.1007/s10472-019-09681-3 2019

[4] [4]

Gunnar Brinkmann, Jan Goedgebeur, and Brendan D. McKay. Generation of cubic graphs. Discret. Math. Theor. Comput. Sci., 13 0 (2): 0 69--80, 2011. URL https://doi.org/10.46298/dmtcs.551

doi:10.46298/dmtcs.551 2011

[5] [5]

House of graphs: A database of interesting graphs

Gunnar Brinkmann, Kris Coolsaet, Jan Goedgebeur, and Hadrien M \' e lot. House of graphs: A database of interesting graphs. Discret. Appl. Math., 161 0 (1-2): 0 311--314, 2013. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2012.07.018

doi:10.1016/j.dam.2012.07.018 2013

[6] [6]

Breaking symmetries in graph representation

Michael Codish, Alice Miller, Patrick Prosser, and Peter James Stuckey. Breaking symmetries in graph representation. In Francesca Rossi, editor, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China, August 3-9, 2013 , pages 510--516. IJCAI/AAAI , 2013. URL http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJC...

work page 2013

[7] [7]

House of graphs 2.0: A database of interesting graphs and more

Kris Coolsaet, Sven D'hondt, and Jan Goedgebeur. House of graphs 2.0: A database of interesting graphs and more. Discret. Appl. Math., 325: 0 97--107, 2023. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.10.013

doi:10.1016/j.dam.2022.10.013 2023

[8] [8]

Thomas Hubert, Rishi Mehta, Laurent Sartran, Mikl \'o s Z. Horv \'a th, Goran Z u z i \'c , Eric Wieser, Aja Huang, Julian Schrittwieser, Yannick Schroecker, Hussain Masoom, Ottavia Bertolli, Tom Zahavy, Amol Mandhane, Jessica Yung, Iuliya Beloshapka, Borja Ibarz, Vivek Veeriah, Lei Yu, Oliver Nash, Paul Lezeau, Salvatore Mercuri, Calle S \"o nne, Bhavik ...

2026