In 1978, Woodall conjectured the following: in a planardigraph, the size of a shortest dicycle is equal to the maximum cardinality of a collection of disjoint transversals of dicycles. We prove that this conjecture is true when the underlying graph is a planar 3-tree.
1Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología (UTEC), Lima, Perú E-mail: jgutierreza@utec.edu.pe
1 Introduction and Preliminaries
A directed graph, or digraph,is a pair , where is a setof nodes and is a set of ordered distinct pairnodes, called arcs.A directed cycle, or dicycle, in a digraph is a closed directed walk in which the origin and all internal vertices are different.A dicut in a digraph is a partition of into two subsets, so that each arc with ends in both subsets leaves the same set of the partition,and a dijoin in is a subset of that intersects every dicut.In 1978, Woodall make the next conjecture.
Conjecture 1([12]).
For every digraph, the size of a minimum dicut isequal to the cardinality of a maximum collection of disjoint dijoins.
Woodall’s Conjecture remains one of thebiggest open problems in Graph Theory,but there seems to be few positive results regardingConjecture 1.Feofiloff and Younger, and Schrijver proved independently that Conjecture 1holds for source-sink connected digraphs [6, 10],and Lee and Wayabayashi showed it when the underlying graph isseries-parallel [7].
We are interested in the correspondent dual of Conjecture 1 when the underlying graph is planar.A directed path, or dipath, in a digraph is a dicycle inwhich the origin and end are distinct.Given a digraph, a transversalis a set of arcs that intersects every dicycle of the digraph. A packing is a set of disjoint transversals.We denote by the size of a maximum packing in a digraph and by the length of a shortest dicycle in .It is straightforward to observe that for planar digraphs, every dicut corresponds to a dicycle,and every dijoin corresponds to a transversal in the dual digraph.Hence, by duality, we have the next conjecture.
Conjecture 2([12]).
For every planar digraph with at least one dicycle, .
A graph is a pair , where is a setof vertices and is a set of unordered distinct pair vertices, called edges.In this paper, we are interested in study Conjecture 2 when the underlying graph has bounded treewidith.The concept of treewidth hasbig relevance in the proof of the graph minor theorem by Robertson and Seymour [9]as well as in the field of combinatorial optimization,where a large class of problems can be solved using dynamic programmingwhen the graph has bounded treewidth [1, 3]
Next we give the definition of treewidth.A tree decomposition of a graphis a pair consisting of a tree anda collection ,satisfying the following conditions:
(T1)
(T2)
for every, there exists a such that
(T3)
if a vertex for ,then for every in the path of that joins and.In other words, for any fixed vertex ,the subgraph of induced by the vertices in sets that contain is connected.
The elements in are called the bags of ,and the vertices of are called nodes.The width of is the number,and the treewidth of isthe width of a tree decomposition of with minimum width.
Graphs with treewidth one are the trees and forests. Graphs with treewidth at most two are the series-parallel graphs [5].Lee and Wakabayashi showed thatConjecture 2 is true for digraphs whose underlying graph is series-parallel.
Theorem 3([7]).
Conjecture 2 is true when the underlying graph is series-parallel.
Hence, it seems natural to answer Conjecture 2 forplanar digraphs whose underlying graph has treewidth at most three.
Problem 4.
Show Woodall’s conjecture (Conjecture 2) forplanar digraphs whose underlying graph has treewidth at most three.
Regarding Problem 4, we have the the next result, due to Lee and Williams.Given two graphs and , we say that is a minor of if can beobtained from by deletingedges, vertices and by contracting edges.
Theorem 5([8]).
Conjecture 2 is true when the underlying graph has no minor.
As series-parallel graphs do not have -minor,Theorem 5 generalizes Theorem 3.The following observation shows that minor-free graphs hastreewidth at most three,and thus Theorem 5 solves partially Problem4.We will use the following characterization of partial 3-trees given by Arnborg [2].A -tree is a graph obtained from by successively choosing a triangle in the graph and adding a new vertex adjacent to its three vertices.A partial 3-tree is any subgraph of a 3-tree.It is known that partial 3-trees are exactly the graphs oftreewidth at most 3 [4, Theorem 35].
Theorem 6([2, Theorem 1.2]).
The set of minimal forbidden minors for partial 3-treesconsists of four graphs: , and (see Figure 1).
Observation 7.
Every minor free graph has treewidth at most 3.
Proof.
Let be a minor free graph.Suppose by contradiction that is not a partial 3-tree.By Theorem 6, has one of or as a minor.If has a minor, then it is clear that also has a minor, and we obtain a contradiction.Suppose now that has as a minor, and supposethe vertices of areas in Figure 1.Then, by contracting edge we obtain a , a contradiction.Suppose now that has as a minor, and supposethe vertices of areas in Figure 1.Then, by contracting edges and we obtain a , a contradiction.Finally, let us suppose that has as a minor, and supposethe vertices of areas in Figure 1.Then, by contracting edges and we obtain a , again a contradiction.∎
In this paper, we progress towards Problem 4,tackling the casewhen the underlying graph is a 3-tree.Note that planar 3-trees are not contained in the classof minor free graphs.Indeed, the is itself a planar 3-tree, and by adding new vertices, we can obtain an infinite family of planar 3-trees with as a minor.
Theorem 8.
If is a planar digraph, with at least one dicycle, whose underlying graph is a planar 3-tree, then.
We finish this section with the next Proposition, whose proof is straightforward.
Proposition 9.
Let be the degree 3 vertices of a planar 3-tree. Then is an independent set, and is also a planar 3-tree.
2 Proof of the main theorem
Given two dipaths and,if is a dipath or a dicycle,it is denoted by.For a pair of vertices in a dicycle,let and be the dipathssuch that and.We refer to these dipaths as the -parts of.Moreover, we can extend this notation and define,for a triple of verticesin a dicycle, the -parts of;and, when the context is clear, we denote by , , and the corresponding-parts of.
A ditriangle in a digraph is a dicycle of size 3.A graph is called chordal if every induced cyclehas size 3.We begin by showing the next useful property.
Proposition 10.
Let be a digraph whose underlying graph is a planar 3-tree. If contains at least a dicycle, then contains a ditriangle.
Proof.
Let be a dicycle in with minimum length.Suppose by contradiction that.As the underlying graph of is a chordal graph [4], contains a chord, say.Let and be the -parts of .Without loss of generality, suppose that starts at and end at.Then either or isis a dicycle in with length less than, a contradiction.∎
We are now ready to prove our main theorem.A separator in a connected graph is a subset of vertices whose removal disconnects the graph.We sometimes abuse notation and we refer to the set of vertices of the corresponding nodes of a ditriangle in the underlying graph with the same term.
See 8
Proof.
For the case when see Remark 13.So we may assume, by Proposition 10, that.We will show, by induction on, that has a packing of size 3.If, then is a ditriangle, and the set that consists on the three arcs of is a packing of size 3.Suppose now that. We divide the rest of the proof in two cases.
Case 1:
There exists a ditriangle in that is a separator (in the underlying graph), say.
Let and be the digraphs whose underlying graphs are planar 3-trees and.By induction hypothesis, has a packingand has a packing.We may assume, without loss of generality, that, and. We will show that is a packing of.Let be a dicycle in. If either or, then we are done.Hence, we may assume thatand.This implies that.
First suppose that,and, without loss of generality, that.Let and be the two-parts of,with and.Suppose without loss of generalitythat starts at and ends at .Note that is a dicyclein and that is a dicycle in.Hence,and,and we are done(Figure 2()).
Now suppose that.First suppose thatthe dipath from to in contains .Let be the corresponding-partsof. Without loss of generality, we may assumethat and.Note that is a dicyclein and that is a dicycle in.Hence,andand we are done(Figure 2()).
Now suppose thatthe dipath from to in contains .Let be the corresponding-partsof. Without loss of generality, we may assumethat and.Note that is a dicyclein and that is a dicycle in.Hence,and and we are done(Figure 2()).
Case 2:
There exists no ditriangle in that is a separator (in the underlying graph).
Let. In this case, we letand define and according to the next rule.Let and suppose that the neighbors of in the underlying 3-tree are and .Note that does not induce a ditriangle in .Indeed, otherwise is a separator in.Thus, we may assume that.If the digraph induced by has no ditriangle, then we addall incident arcs of to.Otherwise, if is a ditriangle, with, then we add to and to.Any other arc is added to (Figure 3).
We will show that is a packing of.Note that, by Proposition 9, the underlying graph ofis a planar 3-tree.Thus, by Proposition 10, has no dicycles; otherwise, as, we will have a ditriangle in, which is a separator in the underlying graph of.Let be a dicycle in. By the previous observation,.
For each, let be the arc whose endsare neighbors of in.LetAs, is not a dicycle by Proposition 10.Hence, there exists such that is a ditriangle.Thus, by the definition of and , and.If, then we are done,as every arc of is in.Thus, let us assume thatand suppose by contradiction that.This implies, by the definition of and , that consists of an even sequence of arcs that alternates between arcs in and .But in this case, is a dicycle in, a contradiction.
This finishes the proof of Theorem 8.∎
3 Final remarks and open problems
In this paper, we showed Woodall’s conjecture (Conjecture 2) for directed graphs whose underlying graph is a planar 3-tree. This result is a progress towards proving Woodall’s conjecture for digraphs whose underlying graph has bounded treewidth. Particularly, the conjecture when the graph has treewidth at most three (a partial 3-tree), is still open.As Woodall’s conjecture seems difficult to tackle in its current form, we can define, for every with, the following families of conjectures111see also http://www.openproblemgarden.org/op/woodalls_conjecture.
Conjecture 11(Conjecture ).
Let be a planar digraph. If then .
Conjecture 12(Conjecture ).
Let be a planar digraph. If then .
Note that if we solve for any , thenWoodall’s conjecture holds.Also, note that a solution for implies a solution for .Indeed, if that is the case, then .Conjecture is equivalent to the problemof decomposing the arcs of a digraph into two acyclic digraphs.There is a folklore solution to this problem: consider an arbitrary sequence of the nodes and divide the set of arcs of the digraph into two sets, whether it consists on an increasing or decreasing pair according to the sequence.
Remark 13.
The set of arcs of any digraph can be decomposed into twoacyclic digraphs.
Extending this result, Wood prove that any digraph can be decomposed in an arbitrary number of acyclic digraphs. Moreover, any such digraph has small outdegree proportional to its original outdegree [11].However, the families of conjectures given here are more difficult to prove, as they ask to decomposethe arcs of a digraph into acyclic digraphs, but with the extra condition that the union of any of this digraphs is also acyclic.
No known result for Conjecture is known.As we mention before, Conjecture ,and thus Conjecture , are already settled.As we can see next, we can answer Conjecture for partial 3-trees.
Corollary 14.
Let be a planar digraph with .If the underlying graph of is a partial 3-tree, then .
Proof.
We direct any pair of vertices not in arbitrarily, creating a digraph whose underlying graph is a planar 3-tree.As we did not create any antiparallel arc, we have that .By Theorem 8, .As any dicycle in exists also in , we have as we wanted.∎
References
[1]S.Arnborg and A.Proskurowski, Linear time algorithms for NP-hardproblems restricted to partial k-trees, Discrete Applied Mathematics23 (1989), no.1, 11–24.
[2]S.Arnborg, A.Proskurowski, and D.G. Corneil, Forbidden minorscharacterization of partial 3-trees, Discrete Mathematics 80(1990), no.1, 1–19.
[3]H.L. Bodlaender, Dynamic programming on graphs with bounded treewidth,Automata, Languages and Programming, Springer, 1988, pp.105–118.
[4] , A partial -arboretum of graphs with bounded treewidth,Theoretical Computer Science 209 (1998), no.1, 1–45.
[5]A.Brandstädt, V.B. Le, and J.P. Spinrad, Graph classes: A survey,Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1999.
[7]O.Lee and Y.Wakabayashi, Note on a min-max conjecture of woodall,Journal of Graph Theory 38 (2001), no.1, 36–41.
[8]O.Lee and A.Williams, Packing dicycle covers in planar graphs with no minor, LATIN 2006: Theoretical Informatics, 7th Latin AmericanSymposium, Valdivia, Chile, March 20-24, 2006, Proceedings, Lecture Notes inComputer Science, vol. 3887, Springer, 2006, pp.677–688.
[9]N.Robertson and P.D. Seymour, Graph minors. IV. Tree-width andwell-quasi-ordering, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 48(1990), no.2, 227–254.
Introduction: My name is Kareem Mueller DO, I am a vivacious, super, thoughtful, excited, handsome, beautiful, combative person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.
We notice you're using an ad blocker
Without advertising income, we can't keep making this site awesome for you.