Variations on the Petersen colouring conjecture
Fran\c{c}ois Pirot, Jean-S\'ebastien Sereni, Riste, \v{S}krekovski

TL;DR
This paper investigates a variation of the Petersen colouring conjecture, providing a near-solution by showing that most edges in a bridgeless cubic graph can be coloured with four colours to nearly satisfy the conjecture's conditions.
Contribution
It introduces a new partial colouring approach for bridgeless cubic graphs that nearly satisfies the Petersen colouring conjecture, with a tight bound proven.
Findings
A 4-colour edge-colouring where at most 80% of edges violate the conjecture's condition.
The bound is tight and only the Petersen graph reaches this limit.
A simple discharging method is used for the proof.
Abstract
The Petersen colouring conjecture states that every bridgeless cubic graph admits an edge-colouring with colours such that for every edge , the set of colours assigned to the edges adjacent to has cardinality either or , but not . We prove that every bridgeless cubic graph admits an edge-colouring with colours such that at most edges do not satisfy the above condition. This bound is tight and the Petersen graph is the only connected graph for which the bound cannot be decreased. We obtain such a -edge-colouring by using a carefully chosen subset of edges of a perfect matching, and the analysis relies on a simple discharging procedure with essentially no reductions and very few rules.
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.
Variations on the Petersen Colouring Conjecture
François Pirot
Équipe Orpailleur, LORIA (Université de Lorraine, C.N.R.S., INRIA), Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France and Department of Mathematics, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
,
Jean-Sébastien Sereni
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (ICube, CSTB), Strasbourg, France.
and
Riste Škrekovski
Faculty of Information Studies, Novo Mesto, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, and FAMNIT, University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia.
Abstract.
The Petersen colouring conjecture states that every bridgeless cubic graph admits an edge-colouring with colours such that for every edge , the set of colours assigned to the edges adjacent to has cardinality either or , but not . We prove that every bridgeless cubic graph admits an edge-colouring with colours such that at most edges do not satisfy the above condition. This bound is tight and the Petersen graph is the only connected graph for which the bound cannot be decreased. We obtain such a -edge-colouring by using a carefully chosen subset of edges of a perfect matching, and the analysis relies on a simple discharging procedure with essentially no reductions and very few rules.
This work was partially supported by P.H.C. Proteus [37455VB]; ARRS [BI-FR-PROTEUS/17-18-009, P1-0383].
1. Introduction
At the ninth British Combinatorial Conference in 1983, Fouquet and Jolivet [FoJo83] introduced strong edge-colourings of cubic graphs. This notion was further studied by Jaeger, who formulated a conjecture which is, arguably, one of the most challenging conjecture in graph theory. Proving Jaeger’s conjecture to be true would have tremendous consequences, such as confirming the Cycle double cover conjecture, the Berge-Fulkerson conjecture and the nowhere-zero -flow conjecture.
For any integer , consider a -edge-colouring of a cubic graph , that is, a mapping such that for every two edges and that share a vertex. For an edge , let be the set of four edges adjacent to . The edge is rich if , while it is poor if . The edge-colouring is normal if every edge is either rich or poor. The Petersen colouring conjecture reads as follows.
Conjecture 1.1** (The Petersen coloring conjecture—Jaeger, 1985).**
Every cubic bridgeless graph admits a normal -edge-colouring.
Now it is maybe a good time to explain the links with the ubiquitous Petersen graph . A Petersen colouring of a cubic graph is a mapping that associates to each edge of an edge of such that if two edges and of share a vertex, then so do the edges and of . As observed by Jaeger [Jae85], normal colourings and Petersen colourings of cubic graphs are in one-to-one correspondence.
Indeed, as is well known, the Petersen graph can be seen as the Kneser graph with parameters and , defined as follows: the vertices are in one-to-one correspondence with the -element subsets of and two vertices are adjacent if and only if the corresponding subset are disjoint. With this definition in mind, we can label every edge of by the unique integer that does not belong to , where is the -element subset of that corresponds to , for every vertex of . Notice that if is a Petersen colouring of a cubic graph , then defined by is a normal colouring of .
Conversely, assume that is a normal -edge-colouring of a cubic graph . Keeping in mind the labelling of the edges of given above, we define the mapping as follows. For each edge , we define to be the edge of such that first , and second is incident to the vertex such that the three colours assigned by to the edges of incident to are the elements of . A straightforward checking ensures that is a Petersen colouring of . We just proved the following equivalence, which was first established by Jaeger [Jae85].
Proposition 1.2**.**
Let be a cubic graph. Then, admits a normal colouring if and only if admits a Petersen colouring.
Notice that a -edge-colouring of a (connected) cubic graph is precisely a normal colouring in which every edge is poor. Fouquet and Jolivet [FoJo83] coined the term strong colouring to define an edge-colouring in which every edge is rich. This corresponds precisely to an edge-colouring “at distance ” or, in other words, to a vertex-colouring of the square of the line graph of . The unique normal colouring of the Petersen graph is a strong colouring.
Despite original approaches [MaSk05, NeSa08, Sam11], few progress has been made on the Petersen colouring conjecture: ways to infirm it remain elusive as possible counter-examples must be snarks, that is bridgeless cubic graphs that are not -edge-colourable (the ones we know are usually obtained from well-structured graph operations, for which the Petersen colouring conjecture can be verified [Bil15, HaSt14]), and confirming the conjecture is expected to be a difficult task since as reported earlier this would confirm several difficult and most researched graph conjectures.
In view of the difficulty of the question, it is natural to ask for weaker versions of the conjecture. Because a strong colouring is normal, we know that every cubic graph admits a normal colouring using at most colours: indeed Andersen [And92] and, independently, Horák, He and Totter [HHT93] established this statement (which confirms, for the particular case of graphs with maximum degree , a conjecture of Erdős and Nešetřil formulated in 1985 during a seminar in Prague). Further, it has been noted before [Bil15] that Seymour’s -flow theorem provides, for any bridgeless cubic graph, a normal -edge-colouring. To the best of our knowledge, whether a normal -edge-colouring can be found for any such graph is still an open question. A line of study is then to find an edge-colouring that is normal on a large proportion of the graph, which we formalise in the next subsection. Before that, we end this part with a remark.
As mentioned earlier, a -edge-colourable graph always has a Petersen colouring: let , and be the three edges incident to an arbitrary vertex of the Petersen graph. Label by for each . If is a -edge-colouring of , then defining by yields a Petersen colouring of . This Petersen colouring is, in some sense, trivial: it only uses the incidences at a single vertex of the Petersen graph. This is equivalent to saying that the original graph admits a -edge-colouring. A fact that seems worth pointing out, however, is that Petersen colourings of bridgeless cubic graphs are either “trivial” (and hence the graph admits a -edge-colouring) or surjective.
1.1. The rich, the poor and the medium.
Given an edge-colouring of a cubic graph , define an edge to be medium if it is neither rich nor poor. Since the Petersen colouring conjecture states that every bridgeless cubic graphs admits a -edge-colouring such that no edge is medium, it seems interesting to investigate the minimum number of medium edges in edge-colourings of bridgeless cubic graphs. As observed by Bílková [Bil15]*p. 9, Petersen’s perfect matching theorem combined with Vizing’s edge-colouring theorem (and some further analysis if the graph has cycles of length less than ) directly yield for every bridgeless cubic graph a -edge-colouring such that at least one third of the edges are rich or poor. This lower bound was improved [Bil15]*Theorem 3.2 to two thirds of the edges for cubic graphs having a -factor consisting of two cycles of the same length — the class of “generalised prisms” — and to roughly half the edges in graphs with no short cycles [Bil15]*Theorem 3.6.
Ways how poor, rich and medium edges combine in edge-colourings looks intriguing. We already pointed out that an edge-colouring with poor edges only is actually a -edge-colouring. Oppositely, an edge-colouring with rich edges only is a strong colouring. Notice that every normal -edge-colouring of the Petersen graph actually contains no poor edge: it is thus a strong colouring.
We consider -edge-colourings and prove the following result.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Every connected cubic bridgeless graph admits a -edge-colouring such that at most edges are neither rich nor poor. Furthermore, no -edge-colouring of yields less medium edges if and only if is the Petersen graph.
Since an -vertex cubic graph has edges, Theorem 1.3 ensures that every bridgeless cubic graph admits a -edge-colouring containing at most medium edges. This bound cannot be improved in general, since the Petersen graph has edges and each of its -edge-colourings yields at least medium edges.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.3
We demonstrate the upper bound: every bridgeless cubic graph admits a -edge-colouring such that at most edges are medium. While developing the proof, we shall see that the only case where the bound must be attained is if is the Petersen graph. We proceed by induction on the number of vertices of . The induction yields the conclusion in a standard way if has a triangle, and we thus first deal with this case. To make the argument smoother, we actually prove the result for (loopless) bridgeless cubic multi-graphs. For instance any -edge-colouring of a triple edge between two vertices yields three poor edges. Similarly, if a cubic graph contains two vertices with exactly two parallel edges between them, then in any -edge-colouring of either both edges are poor or both edges are medium.
As reported earlier, every -edge-colouring of a cubic graph contains only poor edges, and hence the statement of Theorem 1.3 is correct if admits a -edge-colouring, and hence in particular if . We hence consider a connected bridgeless cubic multi-graph that admits no -edge-colouring, and we set (so ). Our first two arguments are standard and well known to people used to graph colouring but they are included for completeness.
We use induction to prove the statement if contains a multi-edge. Indeed, suppose that and are two different edges with end-vertices and . For each , let be the neighbour of different from . Since and because is bridgeless, . Let be the bridgeless cubic multi-graph obtained from by adding a new edge between and . The induction hypothesis ensures that admits a -edge-colouring yielding at most medium edges. It is straightforward to deduce from a -edge-colouring of with no more medium edges, which thus prove the statement (including “the furthermore part”) if contains a multi-edge. One obtains a -edge-colouring of by setting if and for each , and letting and be the two colours of the two edges of incident to that are different from . The obtained -edge-colouring of yields at most medium edges, which is less than . Consequently, we may assume that is simple.
We now use induction to prove the statement if contains a triangle . Indeed, we then define to be the multi-graph obtained from by contracting , and into a single vertex . It follows that is a bridgeless and cubic multi-graph with vertices, and therefore the induction hypothesis yields that admits a -edge-colouring yielding at most medium edges. This colouring can be extended into a -edge-colouring of by setting if and where is considered modulo and is the neighbour of not in . The obtained -edge-colouring yields no more medium edges in than does in . Consequently, we may assume that is a simple bridgeless cubic graph with no triangle.
It remains to deal with the case where is a bridgeless cubic graph with no triangles. Let a -factor of and the perfect matching such that . Because admits no -edge-colouring, we know that contains at least two odd cycles. In particular, there exists an edge in that is not a chord of a cycle in . Note also that cycles of with length (at most) have no chord, as has no triangle.
If , we define to be the cycle in to which belongs and to be the unique neighbour of in such that . For every cycle , there is a cyclic ordering of the vertices in , which we extend to the edges in that are incident to a vertex in : two edges and in that have each exactly one end-vertex on a given cycle are consecutive if their end-vertices in are consecutive with respect to . (Notice that chords are purposely excluded from this definition.)
An edge-selection is a subset of with the following properties:
- (1)
every edge in is incident to two different odd cycles in (in particular, no edge in is a chord of a cycle in ); 2. (2)
every cycle in is incident to at most two edges in ; and 3. (3)
if a cycle is incident to two edges in , then these two edges are consecutive.
Given an edge-selection and a cycle , the degree of in is the number of edges incident to that belong to , and hence . If in addition , then and are -adjacent if contains an edge incident to both and . An -component of is an inclusion-wise maximal subset of such that for every two distinct cycles and in , there exists a sequence of cycles in such that , and for every , the cycles and are -adjacent. The edges in joining two cycles in are said to be associated with . This relation is a surjective mapping from to the set of all -components of . We need a last definition. If is an -component, then we let be the multi-graph with vertex set and edges between and where is the number of edges in that are incident to both and in . It follows from the definitions that is either a single vertex, or a path, or a cycle, or two vertices joined by two parallel edges.
Among all edge-selections of maximum order, we choose one such that the number of -degree- cycles is as large as possible. We construct a -edge-colouring of with the following properties:
- •
every edge in is coloured and no other edge is coloured ;
- •
an edge is coloured only if it belongs to an odd cycle in ;
- •
every odd cycle in has exactly one edge coloured ;
- •
every edge in is adjacent to two edges coloured ; and
- •
if an edge in is medium, then it is associated with an -component such that is an odd cycle and is the only medium edge associated with .
To see why such a -edge-colouring exists, start by colouring the edges of that belong to with . Next colour the edges of every even cycle in using . By (2) and (3) every odd cycle has an edge that is incident to all the edges in incident to : colour this edge with . The remaining uncoloured edges span a vertex-disjoint collection of paths, and we colour them using , independently for each -component . If is not an odd cycle, then one can ensure that no edge associated with is medium. If is an odd cycle, then one can ensure that exactly one edge associated with is medium.
Our goal is to demonstrate that the obtained -edge-colouring of contains at most medium edges, where is the number of vertices of . We use a discharging argument to count the medium edges: we start by assigning a charge of to each medium edge, and thus throughout all the process the total charge in the graph is precisely the number of medium edges.
We shall define a number of discharging rules: in the first ones, medium edges send charge to cycles in to which they are incident. Later, some cycles in will send some charge to other cycles in . We apply the rules in order and analyse the global state of the charge in the graph after one or more rules have been applied. At the end, we prove that for each -component the sum of the charges of the cycles in is at most times the number of vertices belonging to cycles in , which implies the sought upper bound on the number of medium edges.
Fact 1**.**
A cycle in contains zero medium edge if it is even and medium edges if it is odd.
Proof.
Indeed, if the edge belongs to an even cycle, then its colour belongs to , and each of its end-vertices is incident to an edge coloured , which belongs to , and an edge coloured , which belongs to the even cycle. So is poor. Let is an odd cycle in with being its only edge coloured . For each , let be the colour of the edge . Then the edge is incident to two edges coloured and two edges coloured , and hence is poor. Consequently, the only medium edges on are , and . ∎
Our first rule reads as follows.
(R0) Every medium edge that belongs to a cycle in sends to .
After applying rule (R0), an edge has charge [math] except if it is a medium edge that belongs to , in which case it has charge . In addition, a cycle in has charge [math] if it is even and charge if it is odd. For our next rule, notice that if is a medium edge that belongs to , then is adjacent to an edge coloured , which must belong to an odd cycle in .
(R1) Let be a medium edge that belongs to , and let and be the two cycles in to which is incident, such that is odd and the edge coloured on is adjacent to . If is even, then sends to and to . If is odd its edge coloured is adjacent to , then sends to each of and . If is odd and its edge coloured is not adjacent to , then sends to and nothing to .
After applying rule (R1), every edge has charge [math]. If is an even cycle, then its charge is at most , which is less than . In addition, if is an odd cycle, then one of the following occurs:
- •
has -degree [math] and charge at most ;
- •
has -degree and charge at most ; or
- •
has -degree and charge at most .
Indeed, if is incident to exactly one edge in , then this edge cannot be medium by the construction of the -edge-colouring. If is incident to exactly two edges in , then at most one of them is medium, in which case it sends to . It follows that the charge of is at most than unless has length and -degree [math].
The next step is to apply the three following rules, the third one being illustrated in Figure 2.
(R2) If is a cycle of length in with -degree [math], then sends to for each .
(R3) Let be a cycle of length in of -degree , with being the unique edge in incident to . For each , if is not a cycle of length with -degree , then sends to through .
(R4) Let be a cycle of length in of -degree , with being the unique edge in incident to . Let . Suppose that is a cycle of length of -degree , written such that is its unique vertex incident to an edge in . If is a cycle of -degree then sends to through .
We now check that after applying (R2)–(R4), for every -component , the sum of the charges of the cycles in the component is at most times the number of vertices belonging to cycles in with equality only if contains only cycles of length . We first analyse the current charge of every cycle . If is even, then it has charge at most .
If is a cycle with -degree [math] and length , where , then does not receive any charge. Indeed, there cannot be an edge in incident to and a cycle of length and -degree [math], as would then contradict the maximality of . This shows that does not receive charge by (R2). Moreover, if would receive charge by (R3) then the definition of (R3) would imply the existence of a cycle in of length and -degree one such that and (or ). Consequently, would contradict the maximality of . Therefore, the final charge of is at most if , which is less than . If then by rule (R2) the final charge of is at most .
Let be a cycle with -degree . Note that can receive charge only because of (R2) and (R3). Moreover, does not receive charge through its vertex incident to an edge in . If has length with , then before applying (R2)–(R4) the charge of was at most since the edge in incident to is not medium, and hence its final charge is at most , which is less than since .
If has length , then let us write with . Recall that cannot be medium because the -component to which belongs is not an odd cycle. Furthermore, can receive charge only by (R2). Observe that none of and is an odd cycle with -degree [math] for otherwise adding the edge or to would contradict its choice. Therefore can receive charge only through or , for a total of at most . It follows that if sends through each of and , due to rules (R3) and (R4), then its final charge surely is at most . Let us identify precisely when sends charge through , the case for being identical. If is not a cycle of length with -degree , then (R3) applies. So assume that is a cycle of length with -degree , written . None of and is incident to an edge in , for otherwise adding the edge to would contradict its maximality. So we can assume without loss of generality that . Now we observe that if , then cannot be a cycle of -degree , for otherwise would contradict the fact that , among all edge-selections of maximum order, creates the maximum number of cycles with -degree . Therefore in this case is a cycle of -degree and hence sends to by (R4). It follows that the only case where does not send charge through is when and hence (or ). In this situation, we argue that cannot receive charge through . Indeed can receive charge through only by (R2), which applies if and only if is a cycle of length and -degree [math], as illustrated in Figure 3. In this case, would contradict the maximality of . Consequently, we proved that either sends through or receives nothing through . By symmetry of the roles played by and , either sends through or receives nothing through . Since can receive charge only through and , we therefore conclude that the final charge of is not greater than its charge before applying (R2)–(R4), that is .
It remains to deal with cycles with -degree . Let us write , where , with and . Suppose first that is not an odd cycle, where is the -component to which belongs. In particular, none of and is medium. In this case, we show that the charge of is at most , with equality only if . Observe that, for each , the cycle can receive some charge through only if is a cycle of length and -degree . Further, according to (R4), the cycle can receive at most through , because only the two vertices at distance two from on can be involved in an application of (R4). As a result, it is enough to prove that if receives through , then does not receive any charge through . More explicitly, if receives through then receives nothing through ; and if receives through then receives nothing through . In total, the final charge of would then be at most , which is at most since , with equality if and only if .
Let us establish the assertion above: assume without loss of generality that receives through because of (R4). Writing , we deduce that each of and is a cycle of length and -degree . In addition, by the definition of (R4) for each the vertex of incident to an edge in is a neighbour of on . Suppose first that , as illustrated in Figure 4. Then contradicts the maximality of . If, on the contrary, , then without loss of generality we may write with , as illustrated in Figure 5. Now, if receives charge through then is a cycle of length and -degree [math] or . In the latter case, we notice that the vertex of incident to an edge in is consecutive to on and, consequently in both cases . From this and the fact that , we deduce that in any case contradicts the choice of .
It remains to deal with the case where belongs to an -component such that is an odd cycle. In this case, we prove the sum of the charges of all cycles in to be less than times the number of vertices belonging to cycles in . Every cycle in is incident to exactly two edges in . It follows that none of these cycles receive charge by (R4). Moreover, exactly one edge in associated with is medium. Consequently, if is not incident to a medium edge that belongs to , then the final charge of is at most . If is one of the two cycles incident to the medium edge in associated with , then the final charge of is at most . It now suffices to sum these quantities over the cycles in : let us write where is an odd number at least . Setting for each , the sum of the final charges of the cycles in is at most
[TABLE]
It only remains to show that this last quantity is less than , that is,
[TABLE]
Since each cycle in has length at least , one has , and hence (1) holds because .
Looking at the above inequalities, we observe that as soon as contains a cycle of length different from , then the number of medium edges is less than . Therefore, the number of medium edges obtained is strictly less than unless contains only cycles of length . As it turns out, it has been proved [DMP08] that every connected bridgeless cubic graph different from the Petersen graph admits a -factor containing a cycle of length different from .111See also [DK] for a different and short argument. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.3.
3. Further work
We point out that, using more involved discharging rules and a lengthier analysis, one can show that there exists a positive (which we did not try to optimise) such that for every connected bridgeless cubic graph different from the Petersen graph, there exists a -edge-colouring yielding at most medium edges.
It seems stimulating to try and obtain upper bounds for the least possible number of medium edges in a -edge-colouring of a bridgeless cubic graph. As we saw, this number is [math] if and at most if . Since the Petersen colouring conjecture states that this number should be [math] when , can one obtain at least a sub-linear (in the number of vertices) upper bound in this case? What can be proved when ?
References
