Modulo orientations with bounded out-degrees
Morteza Hasanvand

TL;DR
This paper proves that highly edge-connected graphs and graphs with many spanning trees can be oriented to have balanced out-degrees within certain bounds, extending understanding of graph orientations with degree constraints.
Contribution
It establishes new conditions under which graphs can be oriented to achieve bounded out-degrees, linking edge-connectivity and spanning trees to orientation properties.
Findings
Graphs with (3k-3)-edge-connectivity admit orientations with bounded out-degree deviations.
Graphs with 2k-2 edge-disjoint spanning trees can also be oriented with bounded out-degree, with stricter bounds.
The results generalize and strengthen previous orientation theorems based on connectivity and spanning tree conditions.
Abstract
Let be a graph, let be a positive integer, and let be a mapping with . In this paper, we show that if is -edge-connected, then it has an orientation such that for each vertex , ; also if contains edge-disjoint spanning trees, then it admits such an orientation but by imposing greater out-degree bounds.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Theory Research · Graph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Modulo orientations with bounded out-degrees
Morteza Hasanvand
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Let be a graph, let be a positive integer, and let be a mapping with . In this paper, we show that if is -edge-connected, then it has an orientation such that for each vertex , ; also if contains edge-disjoint spanning trees, then it admits such an orientation but by imposing greater out-degree bounds.
*Keywords: Modulo orientation; out-degree; edge-connected; partition-connected. *
1 Introduction
In this article, graphs have no loops, but multiple edges are allowed, and a general graph may have loops and multiple edges. Let be a graph. The vertex set and the edge set of are denoted by and , respectively. We denote by the degree of a vertex in the graph , whether is directed or not. If has an orientation, the out-degree and in-degree of are denoted by and . For a vertex set of with at least two vertices, the number of edges of with exactly one end in is denoted by . Also, we denote by the number of edges with both ends in and denote by the number of edges with one end in and one end in , where is a vertex set. For notational simplicity, we write for the vertex set . We denote by the induced subgraph of with the vertex set containing precisely those edges of whose ends lie in , and denote by the induced bipartite factor of with the bipartition . The graph is said to be trivial, if it has no edges. Let be a positive integer. The cyclic group of order is denoted by . For any integer , we denote by the unique integer such that and . For convenience, we write for . An orientation of is said to be -orientation, if for each vertex , , where is a mapping. For two rational numbers and , we say that , if is an integer divisible by . A graph is called -tree-connected, if it contains edge-disjoint spanning trees. Note that by the result of Nash-Williams [11] and Tutte [14] every -edge-connected graph is -tree-connected. A graph is said to be -partition-connected, if it can be decomposed into an -tree-connected factor and a factor having an orientation such that for each vertex , , where is an integer-valued function on . A graph is termed essentially -edge-connected, if all edges of any edge cut of size strictly less than are incident with a common vertex. A graph is called odd--edge-connected, if for every vertex set with odd. For a graph with a given vertex , we denote by the mapping such that and for all vertices with . Two different edges are called parallel, if have the same end vertices. For two edges and incident with the vertex , lifting of and is an operation that removes and and adds a new edge (when the purpose is to generate a loopless graph we must not add the next edge when ). Also, if one of and , as , is directed, then we direct toward when is toward , and direct away from when is away from . Throughout this article, all variables are nonnegative integers and all variables are positive integers.
In 2012 Thomassen constructed the following theorem about the existence of modulo orientations in highly edge-connected graphs.
Theorem 1.1
.([12])* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -edge-connected, then it has a -orientation.*
Later, Lovász, Thomassen, Wu, and Zhang (2013) refined Theorem 1.1 for odd integers by reducing the quadratic bound down to a linear bound as the following theorem. They also remarked that this number can be reduced to for even integers .
Theorem 1.2
.([9])* Let be a graph, let be an odd integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -edge-connected, then has a -orientation. In particular, the needed edge-connectivity can be replaced by odd-edge-connectivity , when for all vertices .*
In this paper, we refine Theorem 1.2 by pushing the required edge-connectivity down to , even for even numbers , and strengthen it by giving a sharp bound on out-degrees as mentioned in the abstract. In addition, we improve the needed edge-connectivity for Eulerian graphs for the following special case.
Theorem 1.3
.* Let be an even positive integer, let be an Eulerian graph, and let with even. If for every with odd, then admits an orientation such that for each , , and for each , .*
Recently, Thomassen (2020) applied Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 to establish the following elegant result about the existence of regular factorizations of edge-connected regular graphs. As an application, we applied these new improvements in [7] to refine Thomassen’s result.
Theorem 1.4
.([13])* Let be a natural number, and let be an -regular graph. Let be a natural number where is odd. If is odd and has odd-edge-connectivity at least , then can be edge-decomposed into -factors. If is even and has an even number of vertices and edge-connectivity at least , then can be edge-decomposed into -factors.*
In Section 4, we investigate modulo orientations with bounded out-degrees in partition-connected graphs and strengthen some recent results in [6, 8] toward this concept. As a consequence, we prove the following theorem.
Theorem 1.5
.* Let be a graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -tree-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each ,*
[TABLE]
2 Orientations modulo
In this section, we consider the existence of parity orientations. Our results are based on the following theorem which is a special case of a result due to Frank, Tardos, and Sebő (1984) who gave a criterion for the existence of parity factors with bounded degrees.
Theorem 2.1
.(see Theorem 6 in [4])* Let be a connected graph and let and be two integer-valued functions on with satisfying and for each vertex . Then has a -orientation modulo such that for each vertex , , if for any two disjoint subsets and of with ,*
[TABLE]
Corollary 2.2
.(see Theorem 4 in [4])* Let be a graph and let be a mapping with . If is connected, then has a -orientation.*
2.1 -edge-connected graphs
As we have stated above, edge-connectedness is sufficient for a graph to have a -orientation modulo . Here, we show that edge-connectedness is sufficient for a graph to have a -orientation modulo in which out-degrees fall in predetermined short intervals.
Theorem 2.3
.* Let be a graph and let be a mapping with . If is -edge-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for an arbitrary vertex , can be assigned to any plausible integer value in whose interval.
**Proof. **
For each vertex , define and such that . Obviously, . Note that if , we permit to replace by or replace by with respect to our purpose related to . For the first option, we have and for the second option, we have . Let and be two disjoint subsets of with . Since is -edge-connected, it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
which implies that
[TABLE]
Thus by Theorem 2.1, the graph has a -orientation such that for each vertex , , and the proof is completed.
- *
We shall here introduce an alternative proof using an induction.
**Proof. **
By induction on the sum of all taken over all vertices with . First, assume that for each vertex , . For , the proof is clear. So, suppose which implies that has no loops. It is not hard to check that there is an edge set incident with such that is connected, where when has even degree and when has odd degree. Orient the edge(s) of toward , if the desired condition on out-degree of is , and orient the edge(s) of away from if the desired condition on out-degree of is . By applying Corollary 2.2 to the graph , the pre-orientation of can be extended to a -orientation of satisfying the theorem. Now, assume that for a vertex , . By Fleischner’s splitting lemma, there are two edges and of incident with such that by lifting them the resulting general graph is still -edge-connected (possibly or ). Note that for each vertex , . Define so that . By the induction hypothesis, admits a -orientation such that for each vertex , . This orientation of induces an orientation for such that for each vertex , . This orientation of is a -orientation satisfying the desired properties. The extra condition on can be obtained by giving an appropriate condition on . Hence the theorem holds.
- *
2.2 -partition-connected graphs
In the following theorem, we develop Theorem 2.3 to a partition-connected version.
Theorem 2.4
.* Let be a graph and let be a mapping with . Let , , and be three integer-valued functions on satisfying and . If is -partition-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
For each vertex , define and such that . Note that the condition implies that and hence . By the assumption, the graph can be decomposed into two factors and such that is a spanning tree and admits an orientation such that for each vertex , . Let and be two disjoint subsets of . Since is connected, it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
Moreover, since for each vertex , we must have
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
which implies that
[TABLE]
Thus by Theorem 2.1, the graph has a -orientation such that for each vertex , , and the proof is completed.
- *
3 Orientations modulo : edge-connected graphs
In this section, we are going to improve Theorem 1.2 by giving a sharp bound on out-degrees and provide a common version for odd and even integers . We follow with the same innovative ideas that appeared in [9] and retain the same arguments, while modifications are inserted. The proof is based on defining a set function whose values lie in the set . It is inspired by the set function in [9] and the set function in [12]. More precisely, for odd integers , , and for odd and even integers , .
3.1 Definition and properties of set functions
Let be a graph, let be a positive integer, and let be a mapping. For each vertex , take to be a rational number such that and . In intuitive terms, specifies the distance between two points and on a circle whose circumference is , and the sign of determines the position of with respect to . Thus, it is intuitively clear and not difficult to show that is unique unless . For any vertex set , take to be a rational number such that and where and . When and are not clear from the context, we denote by and the value of and . Now, we present some basic properties of in the following propositions.
Proposition 3.1
.* Let be a graph and let be a mapping with . For any two vertex sets and , the following statements hold:*
If , then . 2. 2.
If , then 3. 3.
** 4. 4.
If for a vertex with , then 5. 5.
If , then . 6. 6.
* is an even integer.*
**Proof. **
To obtain (1), one can conclude that which implies that . To prove (2), it suffices to check that \alpha(A)+\alpha(B)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k}}{{\equiv}}(p(A)-d_{G}(A)/2)+(p(B)-d_{G}(B)/2)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k}}{{\equiv}}\big{(}p(A)+p(B)-d_{G}(A,B)\big{)}-\big{(}d_{G}(A)+d_{G}(B)-2d_{G}(A,B)\big{)}/2 which implies that Moreover, \alpha\big{(}V(G)\big{)}=0, since p\big{(}V(G)\big{)}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k}}{{\equiv}}\sum_{v\in V(G)}p(v)\;-e_{G}(V(G))\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k}}{{\equiv}}\sum_{v\in V(G)}p(v)\;-|E(G)|\stackrel{{\scriptstyle k}}{{\equiv}}0. Hence and which establishes (3). The proof of (4) can be obtained from . Since is an integer, is even and so is even which implies (6). Note that . If , then and have the same parity. Since and have different parity, we have , when . This can complete the proof.
- *
Proposition 3.2
.* Let be a graph and let be a mapping with . If is a graph obtained from by lifting two edges and , then for every vertex set we have , where*
[TABLE]
3.2 Graphs with edge-connectivity at least
Now, we are ready to refine the main result in [9].
Theorem 3.3
.* Let be a graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . Let be a pre-orientation of that is the set of edges incident with . Let . If , we let be a vertex of with smallest degree. Assume that*
, and the edges incident with are pre-directed such that . 2.
, for any vertex set with and .
Then the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of such that for each vertex ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
The proof is by contradiction. We assume (reductio ad absurdum) that is a counterexample so that . That is, the graph with mapping satisfies the conditions of the theorem but some pre-orientation cannot be extended to a -orientation of with the desired properties. Let be the collection of counterexamples such that is minimum. The proof is divided into two parts. The first part, Claims 1-5 below, establishes some properties of all members of . In the second part we choose a member of such that is minimum and prove that it is not a counterexample, yielding a contradiction. If we work with distinct graphs , , we use the terms and when is a vertex set of , and and when is a vertex set of .
Part I. Some properties of .
In Part 1 we let be any member of .
Claim 1. For every vertex set with , we have .
If , then we first get an extension of to the contracted graph by the minimality property of , since and . Then all edges of the edge-cut are oriented in this extension, where and is the set of edges with exactly one end in . Similarly we then contract into a single vertex as a new , and again, we use the minimality of to extend the orientation of to the edges of with both ends in .
Claim 2. .
Suppose and is a vertex of with smallest degree. We can assume that . Otherwise is an isolated vertex and we can remove it and use the minimality of . If has at least two neighbours, we lift one pair of edges incident with which are not parallel. Claim 1 implies that the resulting graph with the modified mapping satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem. Since , it holds that has the desired orientation, and so does , a contradiction.
Now suppose has only one neighbour . We must have . Otherwise,
[TABLE]
where , and then
[TABLE]
a contradiction to condition (i). If , then we extend to an orientation of by orienting half of the edges between and toward and the other half away from , yielding a contradiction. For the case , we have
[TABLE]
Then, we lift one pair of edges incident with and which are parallel. Claim 1 implies that the resulting graph with the modified mapping satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem. Since , it holds that has the desired orientation, and so does , again a contradiction.
Claim 3. is connected, and .
Suppose is disconnected and let and be two components of . By condition (ii) and Claim 2, we have and . Then
[TABLE]
a contradiction to condition (i).
Suppose and let be the graph constructed from by replacing an edge of with a directed path of length two through with . We have and hence satisfies condition (i). For any vertex set described in condition (ii), , if contains both and , and otherwise. So condition (ii) is clearly satisfied. Since and , this implies (by the definition of ) that an extension of exists in . This orientation results in an orientation of , a contradiction.
Claim 3.A. For each vertex , .
Suppose otherwise that for a vertex with . First, assume that has at least two neighbours. Then we lift one pair of edges incident with which are not parallel. Claim 1 implies that the resulting graph with the modified mapping satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem. Since , it holds that has the desired orientation, and so does , a contradiction. Next, assume that has only one neighbour . By Claim 3, we must have and so
[TABLE]
Then, we lift one pair of edges incident with and which are parallel. Claim 1 implies that the resulting graph with the modified mapping satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem. Since , it holds that has the desired orientation, and so does , again a contradiction.
By condition (i) and Claim 3.A, if has a -orientation, then for each vertex the following condition automatically holds,
[TABLE]
Claim 4. For any two distinct vertices , we have .
Suppose . By Claim 2, we may assume that and . By Claim 3, since is connected, we may also assume that . Let , and take to be the modified mapping.
Then and . If and satisfy the conditions of the theorem, then by the definition of , the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of and further to a -orientation of by adding a directed edge from to , yielding a contradiction. Hence, it suffices to verify the conditions of the theorem for and . Moreover, we only need to verify condition (ii) for single vertices and and vertex sets such that and which are affected by the deletion of .
Condition (ii) is satisfied for and , since
[TABLE]
For any vertex set (in condition (ii)) such that and , we have and by Claim 1,
[TABLE]
Hence condition (ii) is verified for . So .
Let and .
Note that if , then has two possible values, namely and .
Claim 5 . or .
By Claim 4, we have or . So it suffices to prove that for any vertex other than . If such that , then for any vertex distinct from and , we can choose or such that and get a contradiction to Claim 4.
Part II. Minimum members of .
Now choose to be a member of such that is minimum. Without loss of generality, assume that . For if , we reverse the directions of all edges incident with and replace by for each vertex (including ). Then the resulting graph with the modified mapping satisfies and is also a minimum member of .
For each vertex ,
[TABLE]
Claim 6. , and all edges incident with are directed away from .
By Claim 3, has a neighbour . By Claim 5, . If is directed toward , then we delete . By a proof similar to that of Claim 4, the resulting graph with modified mapping satisfies the conditions of the theorem. Since and , and is a smallest member of , the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of and then to a -orientation of which contradicts the fact that is a counterexample. So all edges incident with are directed away from , and . Now, we can assume that , where . By condition (i), we have and so . In the case , we derive that . Since
[TABLE]
we also derive that which is a contradiction. By Claim 3, we have .
The final step: is not a counterexample.
By Claim 6, let be a neighbour of , and let be an edge directed from to . We replace by multiple directed edges from to . Let be the resulting graph with . We are going to prove that with the mapping satisfies all conditions of the theorem and, furthermore, for the vertex . By Claim 6, . Since and , we have
[TABLE]
This implies that and therefore, . So, condition (i) is satisfied for and .
For condition (ii), we only need to consider and vertex sets containing . Since , we have
[TABLE]
and hence . In addition,
[TABLE]
Since , we have and so . By Claim 1, for any non-trivial vertex set of described in condition (ii) and containing , we also have
[TABLE]
So, condition (ii) is also satisfied.
Now if is also a counterexample, then , since and . But we have and , a contradiction to Claim 5. So is not a counterexample, and hence has a -orientation. Then the corresponding orientation of (obtained by replacing the edges from to with one edge in opposite direction) is a -orientation of satisfying the theorem. This completes the proof.
- *
When does not have small enough degree, one can replace the following version of Theorem 3.3. Note that by ignoring the extra condition on , the proof can easily be obtained after adding an additional vertex of degree zero which plays the role of the vertex in Theorem 3.3.
Corollary 3.4
.* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If for every vertex set with , then has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for an arbitrary vertex , can be assigned to any plausible integer value in whose interval.
**Proof. **
The proof is by induction on . For , the proof is trivial. Hence we may assume that . If , then the proof can easily be derived from Theorem 3.3. So, suppose . We claim that for any vertex set with , we have and so . For, if , then by a proof similar to that of Claim 1, we apply induction to and then we apply Theorem 3.3 to . If has at least two neighbours, then we lift one non-parallel pair of edges incident with . Otherwise, if has only one neighbour , we lift one parallel pair of edges incident with and . In this case, we have
[TABLE]
By applying the induction hypothesis the proof can be completed.
- *
Corollary 3.5
.* Let be a graph, let be a positive integer, let be a mapping with . If is -edge-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for an arbitrary vertex , can be assigned to any plausible integer value in whose interval.
**Proof. **
The proof of is clear; note that the extra condition on can be obtained by reversing the orientation (if necessary). The proof of follows from Theorem 2.3. The proof of follows from Corollary 3.4. Note that the condition directly implies that . Equivalently, , because and also when .
- *
3.3 Replacing odd-edge-connectivity condition
Motivated by Theorem 4.12 in [9], we improve Theorem 3.3 as the following strengthened version which discounts the condition for any vertex set with .
Theorem 3.6
.* Let be a graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . Let be a pre-orientation of that is the set of edges incident with . Assume that *
. 2.
, and the edges incident with are pre-directed such that . 3.
, for any vertex set with and .
Then the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of such that for each vertex ,
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
The proof is by induction on . For , the assertion holds by Theorem 3.3. So, suppose . We claim that for any vertex set such that and , we have . For, if , then by a proof similar to that of Claim 1, we apply induction to and then to . Then by a proof similar to that of Claim 2, we claim that there is no vertex of such that ; for otherwise we either remove or lift one pair of edges incident with , and next we apply induction. Now must have a vertex set such that , , and . For otherwise satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3.3, and Theorem 3.6 follows. Choose with minimal . We contract and use induction. Then we contract and by the minimality of we can apply Theorem 3.3 to the graph .
- *
When does not have small enough degree, one can replace the following version of Theorem 3.6.
Corollary 3.7
.* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If for every vertex set with , then has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for an arbitrary vertex , can be assigned to any plausible integer value in whose interval.
**Proof. **
By induction on . For , the proof is trivial. Hence we may assume that . Note that if , then the graph whose degrees are even and the theorem clearly holds. Also if , then we can take another vertex as without this property. Hence we may assume that . If , then the conclusion trivially holds, using Theorem 3.6. So, suppose . We claim that for any vertex set such that and , we have and so . For, if , then by a proof similar to that of Claim 1, we apply induction to and then we apply Theorem 3.6 to . If has at least two neighbours, then we lift one non-parallel pair of edges incident with . Otherwise, if has only one neighbour , we lift one parallel pair of edges incident with and . In this case, we have
[TABLE]
By applying the induction hypothesis the proof can be completed.
- *
Corollary 3.8
.* Let be a graph and let be an odd positive integer. If is odd--edge-connected, then it has an orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
The proof of is clear. So, suppose . For each vertex with even degree, define (mod ), and define (mod ) otherwise. By Corollary 3.7, the graph has a -orientation such that for each vertex , . This can complete the proof.
- *
Corollary 3.9
.* Let be a graph with even degrees, let be a positive integer, and let with even. If for every with odd, then has an orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
For each , define (mod ), and for each , define (mod ). It is easy to check that for every vertex set , we have when is even, and when is odd. Thus by Corollary 3.7, the graph has a -orientation modulo . For the special case , we can replace the condition for every vertex set with odd. For this purpose, we need to apply Theorem 2.3 to each component of separately.
- *
3.4 A new presentation: a lower bound independent of degrees of vertices
Our aim in this subsection is to introduce the following equivalent version of Theorem 3.3 which is useful for working with essentially edge-connected graphs. This version can directly be proved using the same arguments stated in the proof of Theorem 3.3. However, some parts in the proof would be shorter to state, some parts need more extra efforts.
Theorem 3.10
.* Let be a graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . Let be a pre-orientation of that is the set of edges incident with . Let . If , we let be a vertex of with smallest degree. Assume that*
, and the edges incident with are pre-directed such that . 2.
, for any vertex set with and .
Then the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of such that for each vertex ,
[TABLE]
Corollary 3.11
.* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , let be a mapping with . If is essentially -edge-connected and for each vertex , , then has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for an arbitrary vertex , can be assigned to any plausible integer value in whose interval.
Corollary 3.12
.* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with such that for each vertex , or . If is -edge-connected essentially -edge-connected, then it has a -orientation.*
The following proposition gives some useful relationship between the set functions and , which is a useful tool to show that why Theorems 3.3 and 3.10 are equivalent.
Proposition 3.13
.* Let be a positive integer and let and be two nonnegative integers with . Take to be a rational number such that and . Assume that . Then following statements hold:*
* if and only if .* 2. 2.
* if and only if or .* 3. 3.
* if and only if .* 4. 4.
* if and only if .*
**Proof. **
Let be the unique integer in such that . It is not difficult to show that
[TABLE]
This can confirm items (1), (2), and (3). Now, assume that so that . Thus or which implies that . This can complete the proof.
- *
4 Orientations modulo : partition-connected versions
In this section, we improve the needed edge-connectivity in Corollary 3.5, but require the graph to have many edge-disjoint spanning trees.
4.1 Basic tools: Lifting operations preserving partition-connectivity
In this subsection, we present a sufficient condition for the existence of lifting operations which preserves tree-connectivity.
Theorem 4.1
.* Let be a general graph with and let be a nonnegative integer-valued function on . Assume that is not incident with loops. If contains an -partition-connected factor with , then there are pair of edges incident with such that by lifting them the resulting general graph with is still -partition-connected.*
**Proof. **
First assume that . By the assumption, the graph has an orientation such for each vertex , . Let be the edges of incident with directed toward . Since , there are at least edges of incident with . Define to be the directed general graph with consisting of all directed edges of along with the new directed edges which is directed from to . It is easy to check that is -partition-connected.
Now, assume that and . We prove this case by induction on the number of components of . Let be the components of and let be edges of incident with such that . If , then is connected and the proof is clear. If , define to be the graph with consisting of all edges of along with the new edge . It is easy to check that is connected. So, suppose . Since , there is an edge of incident with . We may assume that . Define and to be the graphs obtained from and by removing the edges and and adding the new edge . It is easy to check that is still connected and has components. Moreover, we have and , which implies that . Now, by applying induction to the graphs and the proof of this part can easily be completed.
Now, we are going to prove the remaining cases by induction on . Suppose . Set , , , and . Decompose into two factors and such that each is -partition-connected. Also, decompose into two factors and such that each contains . Since , we must have for at least an integer . Let with . By induction hypothesis, there are pair of edges of incident with such that by lifting them the resulting general graph with is still -partition-connected. Define to be the factor of consisting of all edges of together with all remaining edges of incident with which are not lifted. According to the construction of , we must have . By induction hypothesis, there are pair of edges of incident with such that by lifting them the resulting general graph with is still -partition-connected. It is enough, now, to define . Hence the theorem is proved.
- *
Corollary 4.2
.([3])* Let be an -tree-connected graph with . If , then there are non-parallel pair of edges incident with such that by lifting them the resulting graph with is still -tree-connected.*
4.2 Graphs with partition-connectivity at least
In this subsection, we improve the needed edge-connectivity in Corollary 3.5, but require the graph to have many edge-disjoint spanning trees.
Theorem 4.3
.* Let be a general graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . Let , , and be three integer-valued functions on satisfying and . If is -partition-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
We may assume that is nonnegative and is loopless. The proof is by induction on . For the proof is straightforward. So, suppose . For notational simplicity, let us define . For proving the theorem, we shall consider the following four cases.
Cases 1. There is a vertex with such that and where .
By Theorem 4.1, there are pair of edges incident with such that by lifting them the resulting general graph with is still -partition-connected. Obviously, , where is the factor of consisting of all edges incident with that are not lifted. Since , the edges of can be orientated such that . Define and . By the assumption, we must have , and . Therefore, if then the orientation of can be selected such that . If , then and so we must automatically have
[TABLE]
Now, for each vertex of , define . It is easy to check that . Obviously, and . Thus by the induction hypothesis, has a -orientation modulo such that for each ,
[TABLE]
This orientation induces a -orientation for such that for each , , and also This can complete the proof of Case 1.
Case 2. .
Since , we must have and hence there is an edge incident with such that the graph is -partition-connected, where .
First assume that which implies that . Thus by the induction hypothesis, the graph has a -orientation such that for each vertex , . Now, this orientation induces the desired -orientation for by adding an edge directed from to .
Now, assume that . This implies that , because . Thus by the induction hypothesis, the graph has a -orientation such that for each vertex , . Now, this orientation induces the desired -orientation for by adding an edge directed from to . This completes the proof of Case 2.
Case 3. There is a nonempty proper subset of such that .
By the first case, we must have , because for each . Choose with minimal . We contract and use induction. Note that is also -partition-connected, where . Then we contract and by the minimality of , we can apply Theorem 3.3 to the graph . For verifying the condition on out-degrees of vertices of , we can apply the same arguments stated in the next case.
Case 4: For every nonempty proper subset of , .
By applying Theorem 3.3 or Corollary 3.4 (with respect to the case that or not), the graph has a -orientation such that and for all vertices . According to Case 2, which implies that . Let . If , then we must automatically have Otherwise, in which and . According to Case 1,
[TABLE]
which again implies that Hence the proof is completed.
- *
In the following theorem, we shall restate a simpler version of Theorem 4.3 which is refined by involving extension of pre-orientations.
Theorem 4.4
.* Let be a non-trivial graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -tree-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex ,*
[TABLE]
**Proof. **
The proof can be obtained by induction on as the arguments stated in the proof Theorem 4.3. For proving the assertion, one can consider the following three cases: Case (i) there is a vertex with . In this case, we should apply Theorem 4.2. Case (ii) there is a vertex set satisfying and . In this case, we choose with minimal . We contract and use induction. Note that is also -tree-connected. Then we contract and by the minimality of , we can apply Theorem 3.3 to the graph . Case (iii) fore every nonempty proper subset of , . In this case, we should apply Corollary 3.4.
- *
Corollary 4.5
.* Let be a non-trivial graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -tree-connected, then it has a -orientation such that for each vertex , *
**Proof. **
Apply Theorem 4.4.
- *
4.3 A generalization: definition of
In this subsection, we shall define a parameter and give an application of it on tree-connected graphs. For this purpose, we need to form the following consequence of Theorem 3.3 to show that the definition is well-defined by giving an upper bound on it. The following fact can be considered as an extension of Lemma 2.2 (i) in [6].
Theorem 4.6
.* Let be a graph with , let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . Let be a given pre-orientation of the edges incident with such that . If and for every nonempty proper subset of , then pre-orientation of can be extended a -orientation of .*
**Proof. **
Let be another pre-orientation of the edges incident with such that . For each vertex , we define (mod ). Since , it is easy to check that . Since , by Theorem 3.10, the pre-orientation of can be extended to a -orientation modulo of . Now, it is enough to replace the orientation of the edges of in the current orientation of to obtain the desired -orientation.
- *
For any positive integer with , we define to be the smallest positive integer such that the following holds: If is a graph with satisfying and for every nonempty proper subset of , then any suitable pre-orientation of the edges incident with can be extended a -orientation, where is a given arbitrary mapping with . According the definition of , one can now formulate the following result on modulo orientation of tree-connected graphs. Note that for defining , we could also restrict our attention to -tree-connected graphs to deduce the following result alternatively.
Theorem 4.7
.* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -tree-connected, then it has a -orientation.*
**Proof. **
Let . For proving the theorem, we consider the following three cases: Case (i) there is a vertex with . In this case, by Corollary 4.2, there are non-parallel pair of edges incident with such that by lifting them the resulting graph with is still -tree-connected. Thus edges are not lifted. Since , we must have . Let be the factor of consisting of the edges incident with that are not lifted. Since , the edges of can be directed such that . Now, by applying the induction hypothesis on , the orientation of can be extended to a -orientation of . Case (ii) there is a vertex set with and . Choose with minimal . We contract and use induction. Then we contract and by minimality of and the definition of , the pre-orientation can be extended to a -orientation of . Note that is also -tree-connected. Case (iii) is -edge-connected. This case also follows from the definition of by adding an artificial vertex .
- *
In 2012 Barát, Gerbner, and Thomassé proposed a conjecture on star-decomposition of simple graphs which can be reformulated to the following modulo orientation version, see [8]. Recently, Han, Li, Wu, and Zhang [5] showed that the following conjecture cannot be developed to the class of -tree-connected -edge-connected graphs, when . By the above-mentioned theorem, one can confirm this conjecture for -tree-connected graphs, if .
Conjecture 4.8
.([1])* Let be a graph, let be an integer, , and let be a mapping with . If is -tree-connected, then it has a -orientation.*
Remark 4.9
. Recently, Esperet, de Joannis de Verclos, Le, and Thomassé (2018) [2] utilized Theorems 1.2 to establish a result on additive bases and a result on weighted orientations. By reviewing their proofs, we find out one can replace Theorem 4.3 in their proofs to get further improvements.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Barát and D. Gerbner, Edge-decomposition of graphs into copies of a tree with four edges, Electron. J. Combin. 21 (2014), Paper 1.55, 11.
- 2[2] L. Esperet, R. de Joannis de Verclos, T.-N. Le, and S. Thomassé, Additive bases and flows in graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 32 (2018) 534–542.
- 3[3] Z. Fekete and L. Szegő, A note on [ k , l ] 𝑘 𝑙 [k,l] -sparse graphs, in Graph theory in Paris, Trends Math., Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007, pp. 169–177.
- 4[4] A. Frank, É. Tardos, and A.Sebő, Covering directed and odd cuts, Math. Program. Stud. 22 (1984) 99–112.
- 5[5] M. Han, J. Li, Y. Wu, and C.-Q. Zhang, Counterexamples to Jaeger’s Circular Flow Conjecture, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 131 (2018) 1–11.
- 6[6] M. Han, H-J. Lai, and J. Li, Nowhere-zero 3-flow and ℤ 3 subscript ℤ 3 \mathbb{Z}_{3} -connectedness in graphs with four edge-disjoint spanning trees, J. Graph Theory 88 (2018) 577–591.
- 7[7] M. Hasanvand, Equitable factorizations of edge-connected graphs, ar Xiv:1906.04325 v 3.
- 8[8] M. Hasanvand, Tutte’s 3-Flow Conjecture in 3 3 3 -tree-connected graphs, ar Xiv:1611.02231 v 2.
