Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Phase Transitions in Random Planar Graphs
- Extremal Poset Theory
- Techniques for Taming Temporal Graphs
- Asymptotic Enumeration via Graph Containers and Entropy
- Graph Bootstrap Percolation – A Discovery of Slowness
- Rigidity of Graphs and Frameworks: A Matroid Theoretic Approach
- Monadic Second-Order Logic for Hypergraphs and Matroids
- Domino Tilings Beyond 2D
- References
Monadic Second-Order Logic for Hypergraphs and Matroids
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 June 2026
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Phase Transitions in Random Planar Graphs
- Extremal Poset Theory
- Techniques for Taming Temporal Graphs
- Asymptotic Enumeration via Graph Containers and Entropy
- Graph Bootstrap Percolation – A Discovery of Slowness
- Rigidity of Graphs and Frameworks: A Matroid Theoretic Approach
- Monadic Second-Order Logic for Hypergraphs and Matroids
- Domino Tilings Beyond 2D
- References
Summary
We consider the version of monadic second-order logic introduced in Hliněný’s analogue of Courcelle’s Theorem. This language establishes a natural connection between formal logics and the computational theory of hypergraphs. The theorems by Courcelle and Seese provide a framework for discussing this connection. Many of the ideas we use have their origins in the classical theorem by Büchi, Elgot, and Trakhtenbrot, showing that a set of strings forms a regular language if and only if it is defined by a monadic sentence.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Surveys in Combinatorics 2026 , pp. 231 - 266Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
van Bevern, René, Downey, Rodney G., Fellows, Michael R., Gaspers, Serge, and Rosamond, Frances A., Myhill-Nerode methods for hypergraphs, Algorithmica 73 (2015), no. 4, 696–729.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, Garrett, Abstract Linear Dependence and Lattices, Amer. J. Math. 57 (1935), no. 4, 800–804.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, Garrett, Combinatorial relations in projective geometries, Ann. of Math. (2) 36 (1935), no. 3, 743–748.Google Scholar
Bixby, Robert E., On Reid’s characterization of the ternary matroids, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 26 (1979), no. 2, 174–204.Google Scholar
Blumensath, A. and Courcelle, B., Recognizability, hypergraph operations, and logical types, Inform. and Comput. 204 (2006), no. 6, 853–919.Google Scholar
Bojańczyk, Mikołaj, The category of MSO transductions, 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18039.Google Scholar
Bojańczyk, Mikołaj and Pilipczuk, Michał, Definability equals recognizability for graphs of bounded treewidth, Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM-IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2016), ACM, New York, 2016, p. 10.Google Scholar
Bonin, Joseph E., Lattice path matroids: the excluded minors, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 100 (2010), no. 6, 585–599.Google Scholar
Brettell, Nick, The excluded minors for GF(5)-representable matroids on ten elements, Adv. in Appl. Math. 166 (2025), 102864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brettell, Nick, Campbell, Rutger, Funk, Daryl, and Mayhew, Dillon, The excluded minors for Z3-gainable and regular biased graphs, in preparation.Google Scholar
Richard Büchi, J., Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata, Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math. 6 (1960), 66–92.Google Scholar
Campbell, Rutger, Guillon, Bruno, Kanté, Mamadou Moustapha, Kim, Eun Jung, and Oum, Sang-il, Recognisability equals definability for finitely representable matroids of bounded path-width, 2025 40th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2025, pp. 678–690.Google Scholar
Courcelle, Bruno, The monadic second-order logic of graphs. I. Recognizable sets of finite graphs, Inform. and Comput. 85 (1990), no. 1, 12–75.Google Scholar
Courcelle, Bruno, The monadic second-order logic of graphs. V. On closing the gap between definability and recognizability, Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science ’89 (Porabka-Kozubnik, 1989), vol. 80, 1991, pp. 153–202.Google Scholar
Courcelle, Bruno and Engelfriet, Joost, Graph structure and monadic second-order logic, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 138, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012, A language-theoretic approach, With a foreword by Maurice Nivat.Google Scholar
Downey, R. G. and Fellows, M. R., Parameterized complexity, Monographs in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, Heinz-Dieter and Flum, Jörg, Finite model theory, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
Elgot, Calvin C., Decision problems of finite automata design and related arithmetics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1961), 21–51.Google Scholar
Funk, Daryl, On excluded minors and biased graph representations of frame matroids, Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2015.Google Scholar
Funk, Daryl, Matthews, Angus, and Mayhew, Dillon, Monadic non-definability and gain-graphic matroids, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00139.Google Scholar
Funk, Daryl, Mayhew, Dillon, and Newman, Mike, Defining bicircular matroids in monadic logic, Q. J. Math. 73 (2022), no. 1, 65–92.Google Scholar
Funk, Daryl, Mayhew, Dillon, and Newman, Mike, Tree automata and pigeonhole classes of matroids: I, Algorithmica 84 (2022), no. 7, 1795–1834.Google Scholar
Funk, Daryl, Mayhew, Dillon, and Newman, Mike, Tree automata and pigeonhole classes of matroids: II, Electron. J. Combin. 30 (2023), no. 3, Paper No. 3.6, 34.10.37236/11660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geelen, J. F., Gerards, A. M. H., and Kapoor, A., The excluded minors for GF(4)-representable matroids, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 79 (2000), no. 2, 247–299.Google Scholar
Geelen, Jim, Gerards, Bert, and Whittle, Geoff, Towards a structure theory for matrices and matroids, International Congress of Mathematicians. Vol. III, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2006, pp. 827–842.Google Scholar
Geelen, Jim, Gerards, Bert, and Whittle, Geoff, Excluding a planar graph from GF(q)-representable matroids, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 97 (2007), no. 6, 971–998.Google Scholar
Geelen, Jim, Gerards, Bert, and Whittle, Geoff, Towards a matroid-minor structure theory, Combinatorics, complexity, and chance, Oxford Lecture Ser. Math. Appl., vol. 34, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2007, pp. 72–82.Google Scholar
Geelen, Jim, Gerards, Bert, and Whittle, Geoff, Structure in minor-closed classes of matroids, Surveys in combinatorics 2013, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 409, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 327–362.Google Scholar
Geelen, Jim, Gerards, Bert, and Whittle, Geoff, Solving Rota’s conjecture, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 61 (2014), no. 7, 736–743.Google Scholar
Hliněný, Petr, On matroid representability and minor problems, Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 2006 (Berlin, Heidelberg) (Královič, Rastislav and Urzyczyn, Paweł, eds.), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 505–516.Google Scholar
Hliněný, Petr, Branch-width, parse trees, and monadic second-order logic for matroids (extended abstract), STACS 2003, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 2607, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 319–330.Google Scholar
Hliněný, Petr, On matroid properties definable in the MSO logic, Mathematical foundations of computer science 2003, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 2747, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 470–479.Google Scholar
Hliněný, Petr and Seese, Detlef, Trees, grids, and MSO decidability: from graphs to matroids, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 351 (2006), no. 3, 372–393.Google Scholar
Jowett, Susan, Mayhew, Dillon, Mo, Songbao, and Tuffley, Christopher, Monadic transductions and definable classes of matroids, 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12969.Google Scholar
Kahn, J. and Kung, J. P. S., Varieties of combinatorial geometries, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 271 (1982), no. 2, 485–499.Google Scholar
Karp, Richard M., Reducibility among combinatorial problems, Complexity of computer computations (Proc. Sympos., IBM Thomas J. Watson Res. Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1972), The IBM Research Symposia Series, Plenum, New York-London, 1972, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Kotek, Tomer and Makowsky, Johann A., Connection matrices and the definability of graph parameters, Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 10 (2014), no. 4, 4:1, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Král, Daniel, Decomposition width of matroids, Discrete Appl. Math. 160 (2012), no. 6, 913–923.Google Scholar
Libkin, Leonid, Elements of finite model theory, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
Saunders Mac Lane, Some Interpretations of Abstract Linear Dependence in Terms of Projective Geometry, Amer. J. Math. 58 (1936), no. 1, 236–240.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Dillon, Matroid complexity and nonsuccinct descriptions, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 22 (2008), no. 2, 455–466.Google Scholar
Mayhew, Dillon, Newman, Mike, and Whittle, Geoff, Yes, the ‘missing axiom’ of matroid theory is lost forever, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370 (2018), no. 8, 5907–5929.Google Scholar
Myhill, John, Finite automata and the representation of events, WADD Technical Report 57 (1957), 112–137.Google Scholar
Nakasawa, Takeo, Zur Axiomatik der linearen Abhängigkeit. I [Sci. Rep. Tokyo Bunrika Daigaku Sect. A 2 (1935), no. 43, 129–149; Zbl 0012.22001], A lost mathematician, Takeo Nakasawa, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2009, pp. 68–88.Google Scholar
Nerode, A., Linear automaton transformations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1958), 541–544.Google Scholar
Oum, Sang-il and Seymour, Paul, Approximating clique-width and branch-width, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96 (2006), no. 4, 514–528.Google Scholar
Oxley, James, Matroid theory, second ed., Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 21, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. O. and Scott, D., Finite automata and their decision problems, IBM J. Res. Develop. 3 (1959), 114–125.Google Scholar
Robertson, Neil and Seymour, P. D., Graph minors. V. Excluding a planar graph, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 41 (1986), no. 1, 92–114.Google Scholar
Robertson, Neil and Seymour, P. D., Graph minors. XX. Wagner’s conjecture, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 92 (2004), no. 2, 325–357.Google Scholar
Rota, Gian-Carlo, Combinatorial theory, old and new, Actes du Congrès International des Mathématiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 3, Gauthier-Villars Éditeur, Paris, 1971, pp. 229–233.Google Scholar
Seese, D., The structure of the models of decidable monadic theories of graphs, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 53 (1991), no. 2, 169–195.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. D., Matroid representation over GF(3), J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 26 (1979), no. 2, 159–173.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Ernst, Algebraische Theorie der Körper, J. Reine Angew. Math. 137 (1910), 167–309.Google Scholar
Strozecki, Yann, Monadic second-order model-checking on decomposable matroids, Discrete Appl. Math. 159 (2011), no. 10, 1022–1039.Google Scholar
Trahtenbrot, B. A., Finite automata and the logic of one-place predicates, Sibirsk. Mat. Ž. 3 (1962), 103–131.Google Scholar
Tutte, W. T., A homotopy theorem for matroids. I, II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 88 (1958), 144–174.Google Scholar
William Thomas Tutte, Selected papers of W. T. Tutte. Vol. II, Charles Babbage Research Centre, Winnipeg, MB, 1979.Google Scholar
Vámos, P., The missing axiom of matroid theory is lost forever, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 18 (1978), no. 3, 403–408.Google Scholar
Whitney, Hassler, On the Abstract Properties of Linear Dependence, Amer. J. Math. 57 (1935), no. 3, 509–533.Google Scholar
Zaslavsky, Thomas, Characterizations of signed graphs, J. Graph Theory 5 (1981), no. 4, 401–406.Google Scholar
Zaslavsky, Thomas, Biased graphs. I. Bias, balance, and gains, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 47 (1989), no. 1, 32–52.Google Scholar
Zaslavsky, Thomas, Biased graphs. II. The three matroids, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 51 (1991), no. 1, 46–72.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.