## Parity Separation: A Scientifically Proven Method for Permanent Weight Loss

### AI-generated Key Points

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

- Radu Curticapean introduces a weight removal technique called "parity separation" for reducing the weighted sum of all perfect matchings in an edge-weighted graph to unweighted instances.
- Two unweighted graphs G1 and G2 are constructed such that the weighted sum over all perfect matchings in G is equal to the difference between the weighted sums over all perfect matchings in G1 and G2.
- Parity separation provides an alternative approach to counting perfect matchings beyond classical #P-hardness proofs.
- The paper derives several applications of parity separation, including an alternative #P-completeness proof for counting unweighted perfect matchings and C=P-completeness for deciding whether two given unweighted graphs have the same number of perfect matchings.
- This is the first C=P-completeness result for any natural counting problem that is not already #P-hard under parsimonious reductions.
- An alternative tight lower bound is derived for counting unweighted perfect matchings under the counting exponential-time hypothesis #ETH.
- The technique used in parity separation is based on matchgates and the Holant framework.
- Curticapean also applies matchgates for an alternative #P-hardness proof of PerfMatch on graphs with edge weights -1 and 1.

**Authors:**
Radu Curticapean

**Abstract:** Given an edge-weighted graph G, let PerfMatch(G) denote the weighted sum over all perfect matchings M in G, weighting each matching M by the product of weights of edges in M. If G is unweighted, this plainly counts the perfect matchings of G. In this paper, we introduce parity separation, a new method for reducing PerfMatch to unweighted instances: For graphs G with edge-weights -1 and 1, we construct two unweighted graphs G1 and G2 such that PerfMatch(G) = PerfMatch(G1) - PerfMatch(G2). This yields a novel weight removal technique for counting perfect matchings, in addition to those known from classical #P-hardness proofs. We derive the following applications: 1. An alternative #P-completeness proof for counting unweighted perfect matchings. 2. C=P-completeness for deciding whether two given unweighted graphs have the same number of perfect matchings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first C=P-completeness result for the "equality-testing version" of any natural counting problem that is not already #P-hard under parsimonious reductions. 3. An alternative tight lower bound for counting unweighted perfect matchings under the counting exponential-time hypothesis #ETH. Our technique is based upon matchgates and the Holant framework. To make our #P-hardness proof self-contained, we also apply matchgates for an alternative #P-hardness proof of PerfMatch on graphs with edge-weights -1 and 1.

### Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

**Why do we need votes?**

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

## Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation**Look for similar papers (in beta version)**

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

**Disclaimer:** The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.