Proof of the Caccetta-Haggkvist conjecture for digraphs with small independence number
Patrick Hompe

TL;DR
This paper proves the Caccetta-H"aggkvist conjecture for digraphs with small independence number, extending previous results to a broader class of graphs with independence number up to (k+1)/2.
Contribution
It generalizes the proof of the conjecture to digraphs with independence number at most (k+1)/2, beyond the previously known case of independence number two.
Findings
Confirmed the conjecture for digraphs with independence number ≤ (k+1)/2.
Extended the class of graphs for which the conjecture holds.
Provided a new bound relating independence number and cycle length.
Abstract
For a digraph and , let be the number of out-neighbors of in . The Caccetta-H\"{a}ggkvist conjecture states that for all , if is a digraph with such that for all , then G contains a directed cycle of length at most . In [2], N. Lichiardopol proved that this conjecture is true for digraphs with independence number equal to two. In this paper, we generalize that result, proving that the conjecture is true for digraphs with independence number at most .
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.
Proof of the Caccetta-Häggkvist conjecture for digraphs with small independence number
Patrick Hompe
Abstract
For a digraph and , let be the number of out-neighbors of in . The Caccetta-Häggkvist conjecture states that for all , if is a digraph with such that for all , then G contains a directed cycle of length at most . In [2], N. Lichiardopol proved that this conjecture is true for digraphs with independence number equal to two. In this paper, we generalize that result, proving that the conjecture is true for digraphs with independence number at most .
1 Introduction and definitions
For the rest of the paper, we use the words cycle and path to refer to a directed cycle and directed path, respectively, and every graph considered is a digraph. Furthermore, every digraph is simple, meaning it has no loops or parallel edges. Let the girth of a digraph be the length of its shortest cycle, and for a vertex , let denote the number of out-neighbors of in . Let be the minimum out-degree of a vertex in . For vertices , let the distance from to be the length of the shortest path from to (define this to be zero if ). For and , let be the set of vertices with , and let be the set of vertices with . For a digraph , call a set of vertices independent if there are no edges between any two vertices of . Let the independence number of a digraph be the size of the largest independent set . For disjoint sets , say that is stable with if there are no edges between a vertex in and a vertex in .
We begin with the following simple observation.
Lemma 1.1
Suppose that is a digraph containing a cycle; then .
Proof. Let be a cycle of with minimum length, and suppose has at least vertices. Then there exists a subset of size such that no pair of vertices of are adjacent in . Then there is an edge in between some pair of vertices in , which gives a shorter cycle in , a contradiction. This proves Lemma 1.1.
The next lemma immediately follows from Lemma 1.1, and is used repeatedly throughout the paper.
Lemma 1.2
Suppose is a digraph with , and that is a subgraph of with . Then is acyclic.
Proof. If contains a cycle, then Lemma 1.1 shows that contains a cycle of length at most , which is a contradiction. This proves Lemma 1.2.
In this paper, we deal with the following formulation of the Caccetta-Häggkvist conjecture, which was introduced in [References]:
Conjecture 1.1** (Caccetta-Haggkvist)**
For , , if is a digraph with and , then .
For and it follows that the digraph is not simple, a contradiction. So, to prove Conjecture 1.1, we can assume .
Now, Lemma 1.1 gives that Conjecture 1.1 is true for . In this paper, we prove that Conjecture 1.1 is true for .
2 Main Results
We need the following two lemmas.
Lemma 2.1
Suppose that is an acyclic digraph; then for all , there exists a path of length at most to a vertex of out-degree zero in .
Proof. Since is acyclic, there exists a path from to a vertex of out-degree zero in . Let be a shortest such path. Then is induced, so if then is an independent set of size at least , which is a contradiction. Thus has length at most , as desired. This proves Lemma 2.1.
Lemma 2.2
Let be an simple digraph with minimum out-degree , , and . Set , and suppose is a vertex with . For odd , let be the subgraph of induced by the vertex set . Then, for each odd , there exists a unique vertex such that . Furthermore, .
Proof. Every has , since otherwise we obtain a cycle of length at most , a contradiction. Since , it follows that for odd .
Now, for odd , we iteratively choose such that . Let be vertices such that for all odd (if , this set of vertices is empty). The set (if , then ) is stable with , so , and thus is acyclic by Lemma 1.1. Thus there exists with out-degree zero in .
Now, we claim that . If not, then has an edge to a vertex , which has an edge to a vertex . Let be the subgraph of induced by the set of vertices with no edge to . We may assume . We have that is stable with , so . Then by Lemma there exists a path of length at most from to a vertex with out-degree zero in . If has out-degree in equal to zero, then since , it follows that has an out-neighbor in and we obtain a cycle of length at most , a contradiction. If instead has an out-neighbor to , then we again obtain a cycle of length at most , a contradiction. It follows that has for odd , as claimed.
Now, for odd , let be the set of vertices such that has out-degree zero in . Let . For , since , it follows that is an independent set, so . We also know that the are nonempty, so . Thus for all odd . This proves the first part of the lemma, namely that for each odd there exists a unique vertex with . For the remainder of the proof, let be those unique vertices.
For odd , define , and let . is stable with , so by Lemma 1.2, is acyclic and contains a vertex with out-degree zero in . We claim that , and consequently . If not, then there exists a path of length at most 2 from to a vertex . Since is stable with , . Lemma 2.1 gives a path from to of length at most . These two paths together form a cycle in of length at most , which is a contradiction.
Thus, for odd , we have . Also, gives , and by the definition of we have . Together with the vertex , these give:
[TABLE]
as desired. This proves Lemma 2.2.
Lemma 2.2 is used to prove the following two theorems.
Theorem 2.1
Suppose that is a digraph with minimum out-degree and ; then .
Proof. As mentioned above, it suffices to consider simple digraphs with . The case is proved in [References], so we may further assume that . Now, for the sake of contradiction, suppose that . Then Lemma 2.2 implies that , which together with gives . is stable with , so and is a transitive tournament. Let be the unique Hamiltonian path of the transitive tournament .
Now, is stable with , so is a transitive tournament. Let its unique Hamiltonian path be . , so there is an out-neighbor of with . It follows that has an edge to a vertex not in . An edge from to or to for some yields a cycle of length at most , a contradiction. If, instead, has an edge to , then has an edge to , and we obtain a cycle of length at most three, a contradiction. This proves Theorem 2.1.
Theorem 2.2
Suppose is a digraph with minimum out-degree and ; then .
Proof. As mentioned above, it suffices to consider simple digraphs with . The case is proved in [References], so we further assume that . For the sake of contradiction, suppose . Lemma 2.2 gives a set of vertices indexed by odd such that . is stable with (otherwise we obtain a cycle of length four), so Lemma 1.2 gives that is acyclic. So, there exists with out-degree zero in . If has an edge to any vertex not in , we obtain a cycle of length at most , a contradiction. Thus, we must have and it follows that .
But Lemma 2.2 also gives that , which together with implies that , contradicting the assumption that . This proves Theorem 2.2.
Theorem 2.3
Conjecture 1.1 is true for digraphs with .
Proof. Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2 together with Lemma 1.1 give the desired result. This proves Theorem 2.3.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. Caccetta, R. Häggkvist, “On minimal digraphs with given girth”, Congr. Numer. , 21:181-187, 1978.
- 2[2] N. Lichiardopol, “Proof of the Caccetta-Häggkvist conjecture for oriented graphs with positive minimum out-degree and of independence number two”, Discrete Math , 313(14):1540-1542, 2013.
