Maximum common edge subgraph
concept in graph theory

Given two graphs
G
{\displaystyle G}
and
G
′
{\displaystyle G'}
, the maximum common edge subgraph problem (or MCES problem) is the problem of finding a graph
H
{\displaystyle H}
with as many edges as possible which is isomorphic to both a subgraph of
G
{\displaystyle G}
and a subgraph of
G
′
{\displaystyle G'}
.
The maximum common edge subgraph problem on general graphs is NP-complete as it is a generalization of subgraph isomorphism: a graph
H
{\displaystyle H}
is isomorphic to a subgraph of another graph
G
{\displaystyle G}
if and only if the maximum common edge subgraph of
G
{\displaystyle G}
and
H
{\displaystyle H}
has the same number of edges as
H
{\displaystyle H}
. The problem also generalizes several other well-known graph problems, including maximum clique and maximum path. The problem is APX-hard, unless the two input graphs
G
{\displaystyle G}
and
G
′
{\displaystyle G'}
are required to have the same number of vertices.
The maximum common edge subgraph problem was first introduced by Bokhari in 1981 in the context of parallel programming applications in distributed memory environments. The problem also provides a measure of similarity between molecular structures. In computational biology, the problem is used for network alignment, which identifies mappings between biological networks to unravel common patterns. Applications include knowledge transfer between species, protein structure comparison, and studying human diseases. Non-biological applications include user privacy analysis in online social networks and object recognition in image analysis.
A stricter variant of the MCES problem requires the common subgraph to be connected.
“Maximum common edge subgraph” enters the record as concept in graph theory. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Maximum, common and edge can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Maximum common edge subgraph” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Maximum, common and edge provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6795885. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1981.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Maximum common edge subgraph”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Maximum common edge subgraph primary sources, Maximum common edge subgraph archive and Maximum research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Maximum common edge subgraph”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Maximum common edge subgraph” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.