Equitable vertex arboricity conjecture holds for graphs with low degeneracy
Xin Zhang, Bei Niu, Yan Li, Bi Li

TL;DR
This paper proves that graphs with low degeneracy can be equitably colored with forests under certain degree conditions, confirming a conjecture in this area.
Contribution
It establishes the equitable vertex arboricity conjecture for graphs with low degeneracy by proving a new coloring property under specific degree constraints.
Findings
Every d-degenerate graph with maximum degree at most Δ is equitably tree-k-colorable for k ≥ (Δ+1)/2.
The conjecture holds for graphs where Δ ≥ 9.818d.
Provides theoretical validation for equitable tree-coloring in low degeneracy graphs.
Abstract
The equitable tree-coloring can formulate a structure decomposition problem on the communication network with some security considerations. Namely, an equitable tree--coloring of a graph is a vertex coloring using distinct colors such that every color class induces a forest and the sizes of any two color classes differ by at most one. In this paper, we show some theoretical results on the equitable tree-coloring of graphs by proving that every -degenerate graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable for every integer provided that , confirming the equitable vertex arboricity conjecture for graphs with low degeneracy.
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.
Equitable vertex arboricity conjecture holds for graphs with low degeneracy
Xin Zhang, Bei Niu, Yan Li, Bi Li
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xidian University, Xi’an, 710071, China
Abstract.
The equitable tree-coloring can formulate a structure decomposition problem on the communication network with some security considerations. Namely, an equitable tree--coloring of a graph is a vertex coloring using distinct colors such that every color class induces a forest and the sizes of any two color classes differ by at most one. In this paper, we show some theoretical results on the equitable tree-coloring of graphs by proving that every -degenerate graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable for every integer provided that , confirming the equitable vertex arboricity conjecture for graphs with low degeneracy.
Key words and phrases:
equitable coloring; tree-coloring; vertex arboricity; degeneracy
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11871055,11701440)
1. Introduction
Almost all relationships in the real world can be modeled by networks, so doing theoretical research on the structure of a network is necessary and interesting. Actually, finding treelike structures in a network is a fascinating topic. It attracts the attentions from many researchers including [1, 9, 12, 14, 16].
While decomposing a large communication network into small pieces, we are sometimes required to make each of its small pieces having an “acyclic” property due to some security considerations. In this way, the local structure around a node in a small piece is so clear that it can be easily tested using some classic algorithmic tools, and thus we can effectively identify any possible node failure. Meanwhile, we do not want to have too many small pieces and hope that the scales of any two distinct pieces would not differ a lot. These requirements help us to keep up the communication network effectively even if we have a low budget. Practically, this structure decomposition problem can be modeled by equitable tree-coloring, which was introduced by Wu, Zhang and Li [17] in 2013.
From now on, we do not distinguish graph from network, and introduce some graph-based definitions and notations. A graph is -degenerate if its every subgraph has a vertex of degree at most . The smallest integer such that is -degenerate is the degeneracy of , which is used to measure the sparseness of the graph. Clearly, the degeneracy of a graph is upper-bounded by its maximum degree. Let and be two subsets of the vertex set of a graph . By , we denote the number of edges that have one end-vertex in and the other in . By , we denote the degree of the vertex in . By , we denote the number of edges of . For other undefined notation, we refer the readers to the book [2].
An equitable tree--coloring (resp. equitable -coloring) of is a function from to so that induces a forest (resp. an independent set) for every , and \big{|}|c^{-1}(i)|-|c^{-1}(j)|\big{|}\leq 1 for every pair of with . The smallest integer such that admits an equitable tree--coloring, denoted by , is the equitable vertex arboricity of . An equitably tree--colorable graph may not be equitably tree--colorable for some . For instance, , but is not equitably tree-3-colorable. In view of this, a new chromatic parameter, the equitable vertex arboreal threshold, was introduced. Precisely, it is the smallest integer , denoted by , such that has an equitable tree--coloring for any integer . Those concepts were initially introduced by Wu, Zhang and Li [17] in 2013, who proposed the following two conjectures.
Conjecture 1.1**.**
[Equitable Vertex Arboricity Conjecture (EVAC)] Every graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable for any integer , i.e, .
Conjecture 1.2**.**
There exists a constant such that every planar graph is equitably tree--colorable for any integer , i.e, .
Zhang [23] showed that every subcubic graph is equitably tree--colorable for any integer , and thus Conjecture 1.1 holds for . Chen *et al * [4] verified Conjecture 1.1 for all 5-degenerate graphs, which implies that Conjecture 1.1 holds for . On the other hand, Zhang and Wu [20], and Zhang and Niu [18] proved that Conjecture 1.1 holds for .
In 2015, Esperet, Lemoine and Maffray [8] confirmed Conjecture 1.2 by showing that for any planar graph . Since the vertex arboricity of every planar graph is at most 3 [3], it is natural to put forward the following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.3**.**
Every planar graph is equitably tree--colorable, i.e., for any planar graph .
Conjecture 1.3 has been verified for some classes of graphs including planar graphs with maximum degree at most 5 [4], planar graphs with girth at least 5 [17], and planar graphs with some conditions on the cycles [22].
For -generate graphs , Esperet, Lemoine and Maffray [8] showed that . This implies the following result.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Every -degenerate graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable for any integer provided that .
The aim of this paper is to lower the exponential lower bound of in Theorem 1.4 (for ) to . Precisely, we are to prove the following theorem, confirming the equitable vertex arboricity conjecture for graphs with low degeneracy in terms of its maximum degree
Theorem 1.5**.**
Every -degenerate graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable for any integer provided that .
2. The proof of Theorem 1.5
To begin with, it may be worthy to mention a relative result as follows.
Theorem 2.1**.**
[11, Kostochka and Nakprasit]** Every -degenerate graph with maximum degree at most is equitably -colorable for any integer provided that and .
Remark that Theorem 1.5 cannot be established by Theorem 2.1 or by its proof with just replacing the condition on . Although one may see below that the idea of proving Theorem 1.5 partially comes from the proof of Theorem 2.1, one shall simultaneously realize, on the other hand, that some quite different ideas are introduced to break a barrier.
Actually, an equitable tree--coloring of a graph on vertices with , say where , cannot be directly reduced from an equitable tree--coloring of the graph (the reason is that in an tree--coloring of , we do not have the good property that distinct vertices receive different colors — but this good property exists and is applicable, as in the proof of Theorem 2.1, if one is working on the equitable -coloring). Therefore, in our proof, if we still want to reduce the equitable tree--coloring of to , we shall fix in advance a rainbow coloring for that , at the expense of taking care of the parameter throughout the remaining arguments, see (2.1), (2.12), (2.27) and (2.32) for some undertanding later.
In what follows, we give the detailed proof of Theorem 1.5. During the proof, the following lemma is applicable for setting up.
Lemma 2.2**.**
[11*, Kostochka and Nakprasit]**
Let be a -degenerate graph on vertices, where is an integer. If is an ordering of the vertices of from the highest degree to the lowest degree, then for every .*
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
Since 0-degenerate graphs or 1-degenerate graphs are forests and it is trivial that every forest admits an equitably tree--colorable for every integer , we assume .
We proceed by induction on . If , then the result is trivial. So we assume that the result holds for every -degenerate graph on less than vertices, and work on a -degenerate graph on vertices with , where is a positive integer.
If (resp. ), then we arbitrarily partition the vertices of into subsets such that each of them has either one or two vertices (resp. at most one vertex). Clearly, this partition is an equitable tree--coloring of . Hence we assume , and precisely, let , where . We now claim that
[TABLE]
Since is -degenerate, there is a vertex with . By the induction hypothesis, has an equitable tree--coloring . Since , exactly color classes of are of size and other color classes are of size . If , then among those color classes of size , there is at least one having at most one neighbor of . In such a case we move into this color class and get an equitably tree--coloring of . Hence we assume (2.1).
Suppose that is an ordering of the vertices of from the highest degree to the lowest degree with the property that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Since by Lemma 2.2, by (2.2), (2.7) and (2.8). This implies, by the induction hypothesis, that the graph induced by has an equitable tree--coloring , and
[TABLE]
Let . By (2.1), is -degenerate. By , we denote the vertices of the -component of . We now extend to a partial coloring of by coloring with , where . Clearly, is an equitable tree--coloring and by (2.9),
[TABLE]
where .
We color one by one in such an ordering. Precisely, in the -th step (), we attempt to color the vertex with a color from , and meanwhile, recolor (if necessary) earlier colored vertices so that the resulting coloring satisfies
(a) each color class induces a forest,
(b) each color appears on at most vertices among ,
(c) no vertex among is recolored.
If we succeed in a step, then turn to the next step unless all vertices of have been colored, in which case the algorithm returns TRUE, and if we fail to do such a task, the algorithm returns FALSE and ends.
In the following, we prove that the algorithm will always return TRUE. Therefore, every vertex of will be colored, and by (a) and (b), the resulting coloring is an equitable tree--coloring so that each color class contains exactly vertices, since . Furthermore, as the vertices of the -component of have been initially colored with distinct colors and those colors would not be changed during the execution of the algorithm by (c), restricting the coloring of to results in an equitable tree--coloring of , and we win.
Suppose for contradiction that the algorithm returns FALSE at the -th step with . This means that cannot be colored (even possibly with some earlier colored vertices recolored) so that (a), (b) and (c) hold. The graph induced by is denoted by . In the following, we find contradictions by dividing the arguments into two major cases.
Case 1. .
Let be a -coloring of satisfying (a), (b) and (c). A color class of is big if it has exactly vertices, and is small otherwise (note that there may be an empty color class). If there is a small color class of that contains at most one neighbor of in , then can be moved into this class, and the algorithm will be turned to the -th step. Therefore, every small color class of contains at least two neighbors of in . This implies that there are small classes, big classes in , and at least vertices have been colored under . Hence by (2.7) and (2.8), we have (note that by the choice of , , and thus )
[TABLE]
Note that by (2.1), (2.7) and (2.8).
From (2.16), one immediately concludes that if , which contradicts the fact that . Therefore, . By (2.12),
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Lemma 2.2. This implies
[TABLE]
Since and ,
[TABLE]
Since and , by (2.17) and (2.18), we conclude
[TABLE]
Let and . Since by (2.16) and by the condition of this case, . Since
[TABLE]
decreases if and increases if . Hence
[TABLE]
which implies by (2.19), contradicting the fact that .
Case 2. .
Let be a -coloring of satisfying (a), (b) and (c). Define an auxiliary digraph on the color classes of by if and only if some vertex has at most one neighbor in . In this case we say that witnesses . If is a path in and () is a vertex in such that witnesses , then switching witnesses along means moving to for every . This operation decreases by one and increases by one, while leaving the sizes of the interior vertices of (color classes) unchanged.
Let be the set of small color classes of , i.e, color classes having less than vertices. By , we denote the set of color classes of such that
(i) , and
(ii) for any color class there exists a color class so that .
Let and let . If has at most one neighbor in some color class , then move into and switch witnesses along , where (). At this moment, has been colored with some earlier colored vertices recolored so that (a), (b) and (c) hold, a contradiction. Therefore, has at least two neighbors in every color class of , i.e.,
[TABLE]
If there is a vertex with , then
[TABLE]
otherwise has at most one neighbor in some color class and thus , where , a contradiction to the choice of .
Divide into two subsets and so that and . By (2.21), every vertex in has at least two neighbors in every color class of , which implies
[TABLE]
By the choice of and by (2.2), if . Therefore, the number of edges that are incident with is exactly
[TABLE]
Note that the graph induced by is -degenerate and thus .
By (2.20) and by Lemma 2.2, we have
[TABLE]
Note that is made up of the vertices from the color classes of that are not involved in . By the choice of , those color classes are big, i.e, each of them has exactly vertices. This concludes
[TABLE]
By (2.22), (2.23) and (2.24), we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since is -degenerate, . It follows from (2.25) and (2.26) that
[TABLE]
We now claim that
[TABLE]
Suppose first that
[TABLE]
By (2.24), we have . Since ,
[TABLE]
This implies (2.28).
On the other hand, if , then by (2.27). Using (2.1), (2.27) and the fact that , we have
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Again, by (2.24), we have . Since ,
[TABLE]
This implies (2.28) again.
By (2.9) and by the condition (c) that no vertex among would be recolored in any step, every color class of has at most vertices in . Since and ,
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
by (2.25).
Since less than vertices of are colored and there are color classes in , there is at least one color class having less than vertices, which implies that . Choose . It follows that . Let and let . By (2.9), . Since contains vertices that are not in , each of which has degree less than by the choice of , the number of neighbors of is at most , which implies
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by (2.21), every vertex in has at least two neighbors in . Since , there is no edge between and . Hence every vertex in has at least two neighbors in , which implies
[TABLE]
by (2.1) and (2.29). Combining (2.31) with (2.28) and (2.30), we immediately have
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
We now divide the proofs into two subcases according to the value of .
Subcase 2.1. .
In this case by (2.6) and by (2.3). Since , we can deduce from (2.32) that
[TABLE]
which implies , a contradiction.
Subcase 2.2. .
In this case by (2.3). Since , we can deduce from (2.32) that
[TABLE]
Since and , or , contradicting (2.8).
3. Remarks and Problems for Further Research
We note that by being a little more careful the condition in Theorem 1.5 can be replaced by . With this result in mind, we conjecture that the bound in Conjecture 1.1 can be improved for most connected graphs with maximum degree that is even.
Conjecture 3.1**.**
Every graph is equitably tree--colorable unless is a cycle or a complete graph on odd number of vertices.
As referred in Section 1, Esperet, Lemoine and Maffray [8] showed that for every -degenerate graph . Actually, it is interesting to find an upper bound (partial result can be found in [19]). Recently, Li and Zhang [13] proved that for every graph with treewidth at most , and showed that the upper bound of the equitable vertex arboreal threshold is sharp. Indeed, there are graphs with treewidth that are not equitably tree--colorable, see [13]. Since every graph with treewidth at most is -degenerate, we naturally release the following conjecture.
Conjecture 3.2**.**
Every -degenerate graph is equitably tree--colorable for any integer , i.e, .
Another interesting problem is to lower the bound of in Theorem 1.5. If it can be improved to , then Equitable Vertex Arboricity Conjecture (Conjecture 1.1) will be verified. This can be easily seen from a trivial fact that every graph with maximum degree at most is -degenerate. For Conjecture 1.3, it may be also interesting to investigate the following problem firstly, instead of proving Conjecture 1.3 directly.
Problem 3.3**.**
Find a constant (the larger the better) such that every -vertex planar graph with maximum degree at most is equitably tree--colorable provided that .
Clearly, if is an affirmative answer to the above problem, then Conjecture 1.3 will be verified.
No suprisely, the list version of Equitable Vertex Arboricity Conjecture [10, 21, 5, 6, 7, 15] and the list version of all problems considered or mentioned in this paper are also interesting.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] M. Abu-Ata, F. F. Dragan. Metric tree-like structures in real-world networks: an empirical study. Networks 67(1) (2016) 49–68.
- 2[2] J. A. Bondy, U. S. R. Murty. Graph Theory . Springer, GTM 244, 2008.
- 3[3] G. Chartrand, H. V. Kronk. The point-arboricity of planar graphs. J. London Math. Soc. 44 (1969) 612–616.
- 4[4] G. Chen, Y. Gao, S. Shan, G. Wang, J.-L. Wu. Equitable vertex arboricity of 5 5 5 -degenerate graphs. J. Comb. Optim. 34(2) (2017) 426–432.
- 5[5] E. Drgas-Burchardt, J. Dybizbański, H. Furmańczyk, E. Sidorowicz, Equitable list vertex colourability and arboricity of grids. Filomat 32:18 (2018) 6353–6374.
- 6[6] E. Drgas-Burchardt, H. Furmańczyk, E. Sidorowicz, Equitable improper choosability of graphs. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 844 (2020) 34–45.
- 7[7] E. Drgas-Burchardt, H. Furmańczyk, E. Sidorowicz, Equitable d 𝑑 d -degenerate Choosability of Graphs. L. Ga̧sieniec et al. (Eds.): IWOCA 2020, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 12126 (2020) 251-–263.
- 8[8] L. Esperet, L. Lemoine, F. Maffray. Equitable partition of graphs into induced forests. Discrete Math. 338 (2015) 1481–1483.
