Rainbow saturation for complete graphs
Abstract
We call an edge-colored graph rainbow if all of its edges receive distinct colors. An edge-colored graph is called -rainbow saturated if does not contain a rainbow copy of and adding an edge of any color to creates a rainbow copy of . The rainbow saturation number is the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -rainbow saturated graph. Girão, Lewis, and Popielarz conjectured that for fixed . Disproving this conjecture, we establish that for every , there exists a constant such that
Recently, Behague, Johnston, Letzter, Morrison, and Ogden independently gave a slightly weaker upper bound which was sufficient to disprove the conjecture. They also introduced the weak rainbow saturation number, and asked whether this is equal to the rainbow saturation number of , since the standard weak saturation number of complete graphs equals the standard saturation number. Surprisingly, our lower bound separates the rainbow saturation number from the weak rainbow saturation number, answering this question in the negative. The existence of the constant resolves another of their questions in the affirmative for complete graphs. Furthermore, we show that the conjecture of Girão, Lewis, and Popielarz is true if we have an additional assumption that the edge-colored -rainbow saturated graph must be rainbow. As an ingredient of the proof, we study graphs which are -saturated with respect to the operation of deleting one edge and adding two edges.
1 Introduction
Throughout this paper, given graphs and we say that is -free if no subgraph of is isomorphic to . The following two ‘dual’ problems regarding -free graphs are well-studied in extremal combinatorics. The classical extremal problem asks for the maximum number, denoted by , of edges in an -vertex -free graph. Turán [37] solved this problem completely when is a complete graph . The graph saturation problem asks for the minimum number of edges in a maximal111maximal with respect to the subgraph relationship. -free graph with fixed number of vertices. The following three notions of graph saturation have appeared in the literature numerous times throughout the last half a century.
-
•
A graph is called -saturated if is a maximal -free graph, i.e., is -free and adding any edge to creates a copy of . The saturation number denotes the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -saturated graph.
-
•
A graph is called -semisaturated if adding any edge to creates a new copy of . The semisaturation number denotes the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -semisaturated graph.
-
•
A graph is called weakly -saturated if there is an ordering of the non-edges of such that for every , the graph contains a copy of using the edge . The weak-saturation number denotes the minimum number of edges in an -vertex weakly -saturated graph.
Observe that for every graph , the following holds:
(1) |
The first result on graph saturation was obtained by Zykov [38] and independently by Erdős, Hajnal, and Moon [14]. They proved that the unique -vertex -saturated graph with edges is , the join of and an independent set of size . It is also well-known (see [2, 6, 7, 34]) that for complete graphs , the inequalities in Eq. 1 in fact hold with equality.
Theorem 1.1 (Bollobas [6], Erdős–Hajnal–Moon [14], Zykov [38]).
For every ,
Moreover, the unique graph witnessing the saturation number of is .
For more results and problems related to graph saturation, we refer the readers to the survey by Faudree, Faudree, and Schmitt [15].
In the setting of edge-colored graphs, a rainbow copy of a graph (denoted ) is a graph isomorphic to whose edges are all assigned distinct colors. There is a long history of studying rainbow analogs of classical results in combinatorics in the setting of edge-colored graphs. To mention a few of them in the context of Turán-type extremal problems, see, e.g., [1, 10, 23, 28, 29] and the references therein. Graph saturation was first studied in the setting of edge-colorings with a bounded number of colors by Hanson and Toft [24], who focused on monochromatic cliques. In the same setting, Barrus, Ferrara, Vandenbussche, and Wenger [4] studied the saturation problem for rainbow copies of a given graph . Several further papers studied this problem for complete graphs and a few other simple graphs, such as paths, see, e.g., [4, 8, 17, 30].
In this paper, we focus on rainbow saturation problems in the setting of edge-colored graphs with infinitely many allowed colors (for concreteness, we can take the set of colors to be the set of natural numbers). An edge-colored graph is -saturated if it contains no subgraph and, for every non-edge and every color , adding to with color creates a copy of . This version of rainbow saturation was first considered by Girão, Lewis, and Popielarz [22], who defined the rainbow saturation number to be the minimum number of edges in an edge-colored -vertex -saturated graph. Note that if an edge-colored graph is -saturated, then the underlying graph (ignoring the edge-coloring) has the property that adding any edge creates a new copy of . Thus, Theorem 1.1 implies that whenever , we have that . Girão, Lewis, and Popielarz [22] conjectured the following.
Conjecture 1.2 ([22]).
For every , there exists a constant depending only on such that, for any , we have
This conjecture was speculated based on the following construction. Consider the join graph between an independent set of size and minus a perfect matching. Then, color all the edges with distinct colors. Disproving Conjecture 1.2 (it is also recently disproved in [5], however, we obtain a slightly better upper bound) and also improving upon the trivial lower bound obtained by applying Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following.
Theorem 1.3.
For each , there exist non-negative integers , and such that
-
•
,
-
•
, and
-
•
for all , we have
We believe that the value of is closer to the upper bound; see the concluding remarks for a precise conjecture on this. For fixed , calculating amounts to solving a finite combinatorial problem, which we describe and analyze in Section 3. In particular, we prove the following easy lower bound on .
Proposition 1.4.
For each , the integer defined in Theorem 1.3 satisfies that
-
1.
and
-
2.
for every .
For sufficiently large , this proposition already allows us to determine exactly for and to determine exactly for (see Theorem 3.9).
Behague, Johnston, Letzter, Morrison, and Ogden [5] asked whether, for each graph there exists a constant such that . Theorem 1.3 answers this question for complete graphs. We remark that the upper bound in Theorem 1.3 only disproves Conjecture 1.2 for . It turns out that Conjecture 1.2 is true for , as shown in Theorem 1.6.
Similar to ordinary saturation, we next define semisaturation and weak-saturation in the edge-colored setting. Define the rainbow semisaturation number to be the minimum number of edges in an edge-colored -vertex -semisaturated graph, where an edge-colored graph is called -semisaturated if adding any edge with any color to creates a copy of . Note that there is a -semisaturated edge-colored graph with underlying graph if and only if is -semisaturated. On the other hand, Behague, Johnston, Letzter, Morrison, and Ogden [5] defined an edge-colored graph to be weakly -saturated if there exists an ordering of the non-edges of such that, for any list of of distinct colors, the non-edges in color can be added to , one at a time, so that every added edge creates a new copy of . Then, define to be the minimum number of edges in an edge-colored -vertex weakly -saturated graph.
As remarked by Behague, Johnston, Letzter, Morrison, and Ogden [5], the requirement to have distinct colors excludes the possibility that all added edges have the same color, in which case the previously added edges do not contribute to making new copies of , and the problem trivially reduces to rainbow semisaturation.
Similar to the case of ordinary saturation, we observe the following.
Observation 1.5.
For every graph , we have
By a similar argument as before, it is easy to see that . We precisely determine for all and sufficiently large in the following theorem.
Theorem 1.6.
For every , there exists such that for all , we have
Moreover, the equality is uniquely achieved by if and by otherwise.
Next, answering Question 6.2 of [5] in the negative, we show that rainbow versions of the weak-saturation and semisaturation numbers of complete graphs of order at least are smaller than the rainbow saturation number by an additive linear factor. This behavior is different from the ordinary saturation numbers of complete graphs as mentioned in Theorem 1.1. As a simple corollary of Theorems 1.3, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.5, we obtain the following.
Corollary 1.7.
For every , there exists such that for all , we have
Now, we turn our attention to proving a variant of Conjecture 1.2 with an extra condition. Notably, our constructions for the upper bound in Theorem 1.3 are not rainbow. In fact, we show that a modified version of 1.2 is correct, with the added hypothesis that no color appears more than once in the -saturated graph. For any graph , let denote the minimum number of edges in an -vertex graph such that is -saturated, if such a graph exists; otherwise, define to be infinity222As an example, we show that for odd . Given an -vertex graph , observe that if is -free, then has no vertex of degree more than , and that some vertex has degree less than since is odd. When adding an edge to incident to , at most one copy of is created, and the color of the new edge may be chosen so that this copy is not rainbow.. Note that for every graph . We have the following result.
Theorem 1.8.
For every , there exists such that for all , we have
Moreover, the equality is uniquely achieved by , the rainbow the complete multipartite graph with parts of size and one part of size .
To prove Theorems 1.6 and 1.8, we consider a variant of graph saturation that does not involve colors. A graph is -saturated if is -saturated, and it is not possible to remove an edge and add two new edges without creating a copy of (see the concluding remarks for a discussion on a natural generalization of this notion). Note that if is an -vertex -saturated graph with the maximum possible number of edges, then it is -saturated. Let denote the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -saturated graph.
We use the following variant of semisaturation to prove Theorem 1.6. A graph is -semisaturated if is -semisaturated, and it is not possible to remove an edge and add two new edges without creating a copy of . Let denote the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -semisaturated graph. The next statement highlights the relationship of -saturation with rainbow saturation.
Proposition 1.9.
For all graphs and , if is -semisaturated, then is -semisaturated. In particular, if is -saturated, then is -saturated.
In light of 1.9, our strategy to prove Theorem 1.6 is to simultaneously determine and , and our strategy to prove Theorem 1.8 is to simultaneously determine and . Thus we also obtain the following results.
Theorem 1.10.
For every , there exists such that for all , we have
Moreover, the equality is uniquely achieved by if , and by otherwise.
Theorem 1.11.
For every , there exists such that for all , we have
Moreover, the equality is uniquely achieved by .
A major ingredient of all of our results is a structural lemma which we prove in the next section. Aside from unifying our proofs, the advantage of this lemma is that it gives us a form of structural stability for constructions that are within a small number of edges of the optimal bounds we obtain. In particular, for (and also for ), there is a unique construction within edges of the -saturation number. Conversely, for , we show in Section 3 that for sufficiently large in terms of , there are -vertex -saturated edge-colored graphs with any desired number of edges between and .
Organization. In the next section, we prove the structural lemma that will be used to prove the main results of this paper. In Section 3, we prove Theorem 1.3. We also determine for small values of , provide some explicit constructions, and prove some related results about -saturated graphs. In Section 4, we prove 1.9 and Theorems 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, and 1.11, obtaining stability results for edge-minimal constructions. In Section 5, we finish with several concluding remarks, which include (i) a few open questions and conjectures, (ii) a natural extension of the function along with some preliminary observations.
Notation. For a positive integer , we use the standard notation to denote the set . For a graph , we denote its vertex set by , its edge set by , and the maximum degree by . We denote by the clique number of , which is the maximum order of a clique in . For a graph and a set , let denote the subgraph induced by and denote the subgraph induced by . For , we will write instead of . For a vertex we denote by the set of neighbors of and by the set , and for a set we denote by the set . We may omit the subscripts if the graph is clear from the context. We use the same notation for edge-colored graphs, where a subgraph of an edge-colored graph inherits the restricted edge-coloring.
2 Central lemma
We start with a key lemma which we use to prove our main results (i.e., Theorems 1.3, 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, and 1.11) in this paper. Expanding on ideas used in [9, 11], this lemma determines the global structure of a graph with a linear number of edges based on some local forbidden substructures, which reduces all of the problems we consider to simpler problems. Not only does this unify the proofs of all of our main results, but it also gives us a form of structural stability each time we apply it. We expect that it may also be useful for providing lower bounds in other graph saturation problems.
Lemma 2.1.
Given positive integers and and a positive real number , there is some positive integer such that given , an -vertex graph with at most edges and family of -vertex graphs, at least one of the following holds for some subset of size :
-
1.
there is some independent set in of size at least and some such that for every , we have that and is not isomorphic to a graph in , or
-
2.
is complete to and is isomorphic to a graph in .
When applying the above lemma, we will always show that the first condition is impossible and thus obtain the second condition, which gives a lower bound on the number of edges. We remark that the above lemma with is sufficient for our main results. However, allowing gives us information about constructions that are close to optimal, and in some cases, gives a stability result. We can interpret this lemma as giving a lower bound on the number of edges in an -vertex graph with no such set of size . For integers , , and the graph has edges and does not satisfy either condition (regardless of the choice of or ), since every pair of non-adjacent vertices has more than common neighbors and no set of vertices is complete to its complement. Thus our lower bound is tight up to the term. It would be nice to replace with a constant depending only on and , and we suspect that this is possible.
Proof of Lemma 2.1.
Given sufficiently large, we will assume that the first condition fails and prove that the second condition holds.
We begin by defining to be the set of vertices with , and . Let be the graph with , such that vertices and are adjacent if the distance from to in is at most .
Since has at most edges, we have . Note that by the definition of , we have , and so
Note that . For each , define if is not isomorphic to a graph in , and otherwise define
If , then we can find an independent set in by setting and iteratively selecting for to be a vertex in . This is possible since . Since is independent in , we have for all , where the subset relation is strict if is isomorphic to a graph in . Since all graphs in have vertices, the first condition of the lemma is satisfied (with ).
We may therefore assume that for each , and hence (given that is sufficiently large) for any pair of vertices , there is some . Thus,
and is isomorphic to a graph in . It follows that there is a set of size such that is complete to , and is isomorphic to a graph in . Note that by the definition of , each vertex satisfies .
Now suppose there is a vertex which is not adjacent to every vertex of . We construct an independent set in by setting and for each , choosing an arbitrary vertex such that is at distance more than 2 from in . This works since the number of vertices at distance at most 2 from in is less than . Thus, the first condition is satisfied with the constructed .
We may therefore assume that is complete to . In particular, we have
Since each component of satisfies , it follows that has at least components provided is sufficiently large. Now, if some vertex is not complete to , we can find the independent set satisfying the first condition by taking each vertex from a different component of (with as the specially selected vertex). Hence, if the first condition does not hold, then is complete to , and the second condition is satisfied. ∎
3 Rainbow Complete Graphs — Proof of Theorem 1.3
In this section, we aim to prove Theorem 1.3. In the next subsection, we apply Lemma 2.1 to find an alternative description of in Theorem 1.3 as promised in the introduction. In the subsequent two subsections, using this alternative formulation, we provide upper and lower bounds on . We note that while we cannot precisely determine for , our machinery still gives us a surprising amount of structural information about -saturated graphs which have close to the minimum possible number of edges. In particular, these graphs contain as a subgraph (see, 3.2). On the other hand, we conclude this section by proving a non-stability result (see, Theorem 3.12), namely that for sufficiently large and any between and , there is a -saturated edge-colored graph with exactly vertices and edges.
3.1 Reducing -saturation to an equivalent problem
Given a positive integer , let be the class of all edge-colored graphs satisfying the following properties.
-
1.
does not contain ,
-
2.
for each , the edge-colored graph induced by contains , and
-
3.
for every color , contains a that does not use .
Define to be the smallest integer such that there exists an edge-colored -vertex graph in . Let be an -vertex -saturated edge-colored graph in with as few edges as possible (such a graph exists since the -vertex graph in with the most edges is -saturated). Let , and let be the minimum number of edges of an -vertex graph in .
The motivation for these definitions is the following construction. For positive integers and , we define to be the edge-colored graph obtained by taking the complete join of with an independent set of size , and assigning all edges incident with unique colors which do not appear anywhere else in the graph. Now Property 1 guarantees that is -free, Properties 2 and 3 ensure that adding any edge to in any color will create a copy of , and the fact that is saturated and ensures that adding any edge not incident to in any color will create a copy of . Thus is -saturated. The main result of this subsection is that this construction is either optimal or at most edges away from being optimal.
Given , let be the class of all -vertex edge-colored graphs such that some subgraph of is in .
Lemma 3.1.
Given positive integers and an -vertex -saturated edge-colored graph , there is no set of size for which there is an independent set in of size such that for some and every , we have that and .
Proof.
Suppose for contradiction that such an , , and exist. Let be a maximal subset of such that there is a set of size at least with the property that for all and , we have that and are edges of and have the same color. If , we take . Note that and so .
Fix a vertex , with if , and consider an arbitrary vertex . Consider the edge-colored graph obtained from by deleting every edge for which has the same color as or has the same color as . Now, if there is some vertex such that is -free, then we can add to and assign it the same color as without creating a copy of , a contradiction. Similarly, if there is some color which is used by every copy of in , then we can add to and assign it color without creating , a contradiction. Note that by our assumption and choice of , , since if , then . Hence, by the definition of , we conclude that contains . Now given that does not contain , for each there is some edge and some vertex such that has the same color as . Hence, for each , there is some and some vertex such that has the same color as . By the pigeonhole principle, there is a vertex and a subset of of size at least such that for all , we have that and are edges of and have the same color. Now contradicts the maximality of , which completes the proof. ∎
Now the following is an immediate corollary of Lemmas 2.1 and 3.1, where we take to be the class of all underlying graphs of edge-colored graphs in .
Corollary 3.2.
For every integer and real number , there is some positive integer such that for every , every -vertex edge-colored graph with at most edges which is -saturated has a set of vertices such that is complete to and .
We now prove the main result of this subsection, which shows that the constant in Theorem 1.3 is always equal to .
Lemma 3.3.
For every integer , there exist integers and such that
(2) |
and for all , we have
Proof.
For , the construction demonstrates that
Hence, by 3.2 with , there is some integer such that for and any -vertex -saturated edge-colored graph with -edges, there is a set of size such that is complete to , and . Thus, we already have
To show the existence of , we now show that there exists such that the function given by is non-decreasing, and is therefore eventually equal to some constant between and .
As before, consider an -vertex -saturated edge-colored graph with edges, where is large enough to deduce the existence of the set as above. Note that there are at least vertices such that . For each non-edge in and each color , let be the vertex set of a copy of which is created when is added with color . Note that for an arbitrary fixed color , we may choose for every color which does not appear in . Thus we may assume that the union of all sets over all colors and all has size at most . In particular, if is large enough, there is some vertex such that . Now since is -saturated, so is , so , as promised. This shows the existence of with .
Finally, to show (2), under the assumption that
suppose for contradiction that
Note that there is an independent set of size such that for every . Hence, by Lemma 3.1, . Now since
we have that and so by the definition of , and is an independent set. Since , it follows that is not -saturated. Thus we can add some edge in some color to without creating in , and hence without creating in , a contradiction. Therefore, this shows that the constant for which is between and , completing the proof. ∎
3.2 Upper bound constructions for and calculation of small values
This subsection focuses on constructions that establish upper bounds on . However, we start by proving the following lower bounds on , which are equivalent to 1.4.
Proposition 3.4.
For every , we have
-
1.
and
-
2.
for every .
Proof.
Property 2 immediately implies . We now show that for every , we have . Suppose, for a contradiction, that there is some such that . Thus, has vertices. Since , Property 2 implies that has no missing edges. Hence by Property 1, there must be two edges with the same color . We split into two cases.
-
•
If and are not incident, then every copy of in uses either or , contradicting Property 3.
-
•
If and are incident, then there must be a vertex that is adjacent to neither nor (since ). The graph contains both and and thus is -free, contradicting Property 2.
In both cases, we reached a contradiction, completing the proof of 3.4. ∎
The constructions for and are very simple.
Lemma 3.5.
, , , and .
Proof.
Proposition 3.4 together with the construction show that and . Proposition 3.4 together with the construction of a triangle with exactly two blue edges and one differently colored edge shows that . Furthermore, if is an edge-colored graph in with and , then violates Property 1, a contradiction. Hence . ∎
We next give a recursive construction for general .
Lemma 3.6.
For each positive integer , we have . In particular we have , and if equality holds then .
Proof.
Recall that is -saturated, so in particular Property 1 holds. Let and be the two vertices in . We can extend any in to a copy of in by adding either (in which case and all colors of edges incident to are avoided) or (in which case and all colors of edges incident to are avoided). Thus Properties 2 and 3 are satisfied. Thus is an upper bound for , and if this bound is tight then is an upper bound for . ∎
We remark that based on the lower bound on which we obtain in the next subsection, we have for infinitely many values of . This also allows us to push Lemma 3.5 one step further, as follows.
Lemma 3.7.
, , and .
Proof.
By 3.4, Lemma 3.5, and Lemma 3.6, we have and . Suppose for contradiction that there are two pairs and of non-adjacent vertices in , with . Since , there is some . Adding to with the same color as if is an edge does not create a copy of , contradicting the definition of . If is not an edge, adding with any color does not create a copy of , giving the same contradiction. Thus, .
We now present a -vertex graph in with exactly edges. Let . The complement of is exactly the edges and . The color of the edge is the same as the color , and all other colors are distinct (see Figure 2). It is straightforward to check that , and . Hence, .
To show that , let be an edge-colored graph with vertices and edges; we will show that . There are distinct edge graphs on vertices; see Figure 1. Referring to the figure, if the complement of is either or , then every in is incident to the right-most vertex; hence . If the complement of is either or , then the bottom vertex of is not in any . Hence, if , then the graph obtained by deleting this vertex is also in , contradicting the fact that . Thus , so . ∎
To recap, the proof of Lemma 3.5 gave an explicit construction for : a triangle with two blue edges and one differently colored edge. Thus we have an explicit construction of , which by Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.7 is an explicit construction for (see Figure 2). In turn, this gives us an explicit construction for . In this case, we know that for sufficiently large this construction achieves the rainbow saturation number , based on Theorem 1.8 and Lemma 3.7. It is tempting to conjecture that the graphs are optimal for all and sufficiently large (and thus that the constant in Theorem 1.3 is always equal to ). To illustrate the difficulty in proving this, the graph from Lemma 3.7 (see Figure 2) can be used in an alternate construction for as follows. First, add vertices and , complete to each other and , such that the color of is the same as that of , the color of is the same as that of (but different to the color of ), and all other new edges get their own unique color. Then add further vertices, each with neighborhood , with all colors of edges incident to these vertices being unique in the entire construction.
We next give a construction that will be used to prove the upper bound in Theorem 1.3. The construction is easiest to describe for with . Let be a graph obtained by subdividing each edge of twice. Note that . Each edge in that is incident to a vertex of inherits the color of the subdivided edge of , and each edge between subdivision vertices gets a unique color. Add edges to to make a complete graph , giving each added edge a unique color. It is straightforward to verify that , and a proof of this fact is given following the more general construction of Lemma 3.8. Hence, .
The following lemma generalizes the above construction for arbitrary values of .
Lemma 3.8.
For any integer , we have
Proof.
Let . Let . Note that
Since , we also have that and
Let and let . Let be a subdivision of a copy of , obtained by subdividing of its edges twice and subdividing the remaining edges once. Let be the set of vertices in the original copy of , and let be the set of subdivision vertices. Note that . For each of the paths of length or between vertices in , color the first and last edges of with some color unique to . Now add edges to make complete and color all of the as yet uncolored edges with unique colors, so that the total number of colors used is . Call this newly constructed edge-colored complete graph . Now it is easy to verify that the minimum size of a hitting set for the paths of length two and three in with repeated colors is , and that the complement of any hitting set of this size induces a copy of in . For any vertex , let be such that is in an -path of length or in , and observe that is a copy of . This also shows that any color which appears on only one edge can be avoided, since we can take to be an endpoint of . If is a repeated color, let be a vertex of which is not incident to any edge of color , and observe that is a copy of avoiding . This choice of is possible since . ∎
As a simple corollary of 3.4 and Lemmas 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8, we can determine for small values of as follows.
Theorem 3.9.
For sufficiently large , the following holds.
3.3 Lower bound of
In this subsection, we prove the following lemma which shows the lower bound in Theorem 1.3.
Lemma 3.10.
For each positive integer , we have
Proof.
Define the rainbow-clique number of an edge-colored graph as the number of vertices in a largest rainbow-clique in . Let be an edge-colored graph of minimum order such that the rainbow-clique number of is and, for every vertex , the rainbow-clique number of is still . Note that . Denote ; we show that .
For any color , let be the set of edges having color . Let be the set of sets of edges with duplicate colors, together with pairs of vertices that are not edges in :
With abuse of terminology, we refer to any set such that the edge-colored graph induced on is a as a hitting set.
For any set of vertices, let
where is the indicator function for the event that is incident to , be the number of incidences between vertices of and the pairs counted in . Note that and need not be equal for distinct hitting sets and .
The general plan is to give upper and lower bounds on , where is an arbitrary hitting set, as follows:
(3) |
It is straightforward to check that Eq. 3 is not satisfied for . Thus, it remains to prove the upper and lower bounds of Eq. 3.
Here comes the lower bound of Eq. 3. For each color that is used more than once, is incident to at least edges of , since otherwise the graph induced on will have two edges of color . Hence, if there are at least two edges of color ,
Similarly, if , then contains at least one of and .
Since the rainbow-clique number of is not changed when we remove a vertex, each vertex of is incident to an edge with a duplicated color, or to a missing edge. Hence,
Combining these observations,
which is the lower bound of Eq. 3.
For the upper bound of Eq. 3, we show that, for any fixed vertex ,
(4) |
Since has minimum order, each vertex must be in some . By definition, for each hitting set . Since Eq. 4 holds for each vertex, taking the sum over the vertices in an arbitrary hitting set yields the upper bound of Eq. 3.
If and for a hitting set , then . Let be those edges with color that are incident to . Since the graph induced on can contain at most one edge of color , all but one of the neighbors of via edges in must be in . Combining these observations, we have
Assume that, for each color with , and each edge , it is not possible to give a new color (not present anywhere else in the graph) without increasing the rainbow-clique number of . If this assumption does not hold for some edge , then recolor to a new color. This does not increase the order of , so it is sufficient to bound the order of the modified graph. Since this recoloring strictly increases the number of colors and the number of colors cannot exceed the number of edges, the procedure will terminate.
It follows from this assumption that, for any , there is an edge with and is not adjacent to through an edge of color , and a hitting set such that . Indeed, the assumption implies that there is a that includes and is rainbow except for having two edges of color . We take to be the other edge of color in this , and to be the complement of this together with .
Fix a hitting set with ; this is possible since is contained in some . Partition into and , as follows. If and there is a vertex of adjacent to through an edge of color , then put . Otherwise, put . For , does not contain a vertex incident to the edge of color that is incident to . Hence, must contain a vertex incident to .
For each set , there is a vertex such that , and for distinct colors . Hence, .
For each set , there is a vertex such that . For any vertex , let . Since and , we have .
Fix a vertex and a color such that . By the definition of , we have and . Note that is incident to at least edges of color for each color . Hence, for each edge , it follows that contains at least one of the vertex where and the vertex where is the edge of color incident to . Furthermore, each vertex in is adjacent to by at most edge and adjacent to by at most one edge. Combining these observations,
Hence, .
Taken together,
Combining this with Eq. 5 and the previously obtained bound on , we have
This finishes the proof of Lemma 3.10. ∎
Improving the preceding proof to give a bound on of the form would lead to a bound of the form , which would determine the value of up to a constant factor.
3.4 Non-stability for rainbow saturation
In this subsection, we aim to show that there is an abundance of constructions for -saturated graphs. To motivate this, we start by mentioning the following result for ordinary saturation which shows that there is a linear gap between the smallest and the second smallest number of edges in an -vertex -saturated graph.
Theorem 3.11 ([3]).
For every , if is an -vertex -saturated graph other than , then .
Contrary to the above, for sufficiently large , there is an -vertex -saturated construction for any given number of edges between the saturation number and .
Theorem 3.12.
For every , there exists such that for all and every integer satisfying , there is a -saturated graph with exactly vertices and edges.
Proof.
First choose to be sufficiently large in the sense of both 3.2 (with ) and Lemma 3.3, and let . Let . We will take . Let (the target number of missing edges). Note that if for , then
We split into two cases depending on . In each case, we leave it to the readers to verify that the constructions are, in fact, -saturated with the desired number of edges.
Case 1: . Let be the minimum positive integer such that , and let be such that . Note that by our previous observation. Observe that by our choice of , and by assumption. Now we can write as for some non-negative integers and with . Now if , then and . Otherwise, .
We now describe the construction for this case. Let and let be an edge-colored graph with vertices and edges which is saturated. There is a set of size which is complete to , and at most edges of have both endpoints in . Since , there are disjoint subsets , , and of of sizes , , and respectively such that is independent in and for all . For each vertex , we add three new vertices , and , such that for each , we have , and the color of is the color of for all , and all edges in the graph induced on are red (an arbitrarily chosen color which may appear elsewhere in the construction). For each vertex , we add one new vertex , such that for each , and the color of is the color of for all , and the edge is red. Since the graph is -saturated, so is the newly constructed graph. The number of missing edges is . We complete the construction by adding dominant vertices, so that all edges incident to them are red.
Case 2: . We first construct a -saturated graph with at most vertices and missing edges as follows. If , let be the vertex graph . Observe that has a unique non-edge which cannot be added without creating . Add all other non-edges in color red, and call this edge-colored graph . If , instead let be the edge-colored graph depicted in Figure 3. We take disjoint copies of , and make them complete to each other with red edges to obtain a -saturated graph with exactly missing edges. We then add dominant vertices so that all edges incident to them are red. ∎
4 -saturation and -semisaturation, with applications to rainbow saturation problems
In this section, for each and all sufficiently large , we determine , , , and . The first ingredient we will need is 1.9, which we now prove.
Proof of 1.9.
Consider removing an edge from and then adding edges and to . We aim to show that this creates a new copy of in . Without loss of generality, we assume that . Now, in , we add the edge with the same color as . This must create a new copy of and moreover this copy does not use the edge . Thus, removing and adding in creates a new copy of , which completes the proof. If we additionally assume that is -saturated, then is also -free, and thus -saturated. ∎
Our strategy to prove the results of this section is to apply Lemma 2.1 with an appropriately chosen , , and to obtain a lower bound which matches the upper bounds given by our constructions. In order to do this, the following lemma is essential for determining the constant and the family . In this way, it is analogous to Lemma 3.10 in the previous section.
Lemma 4.1.
If is a graph such that for each for each vertex of , then the complement of contains a matching of size . In particular, .
Proof.
Let be a clique of order in and let be a matching in of maximum possible size subject to the condition that and is complete to in . Suppose for contradiction that contains some vertex , and let be clique of order in . Let , let , and note that is bipartite with bipartition . If for some we have , then induces a clique in of order greater than , a contradiction. Hence, by Hall’s marriage theorem, there is a perfect matching from to in . Let , and for each let be the vertex in which is matched to in . Note that , since . Also, since is complete to in , the set is disjoint from , and so is a matching in which is strictly larger than . Finally, observe that is complete to in by the definition of , and that is complete to in since is a clique containing both sets. Hence contradicts our choice of . Therefore is empty, and so is the desired matching of size in . ∎
4.1 -semisaturation and -semisaturation
In this subsection, we prove Theorems 1.6 and 1.10 simultaneously. For an integer , we define to be the complete bipartite graph . For integers and , we define to be the complete -partite graph .
Theorem 4.2.
For every integer and real number , there exists such that for all and every -vertex graph with at most edges, the following are equivalent:
-
1.
is -semisaturated;
-
2.
;
-
3.
is -semisaturated.
In particular,
In view of the graph , the above theorem does not hold with . We define to be the class of all -vertex graphs, and for , we define .
Lemma 4.3.
For , given an -vertex -semisaturated graph , there is no set of size for which there is an independent set in of size such that for some and every , we have that and is not isomorphic to a graph in .
Proof.
Suppose for contradiction that such an , , and exist. Now for every , we have that and . Hence by Lemma 4.1, there is a vertex such that there is no copy of in (where can be chosen arbitrarily if ). Now by the pigeonhole principle, there are distinct vertices and in such that . By our choice of and the fact that and are not adjacent, we can subtract the edge from and then add the edges and without creating a new copy of . This contradicts that is -semisaturated, completing the proof. ∎
Proof of Theorem 4.2.
Pick according to Lemma 2.1 with and . Let be the class of all -vertex graphs if , and otherwise . Now Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 4.3 together show that (1) implies (2). Assuming (2), adding any edge to creates new copies of , such that no edge of is in their common intersection other than the newly added edge. Since each color appears at most once in , it follows that one of these copies avoids the color of the newly added edge. Thus (2) implies (3). Finally, it follows from 1.9 that (3) implies (1). ∎
4.2 -saturation and -saturation
In this subsection, we prove Theorems 1.8 and 1.11 simultaneously. Given positive integers and , we define to be the complete join of with an independent set of size .
Theorem 4.4.
For every integer and real number , there exists such that for all and every -vertex graph with at most edges, the following are equivalent:
-
1.
is -saturated;
-
2.
;
-
3.
is -saturated.
In particular,
In view of the graph , the above theorem does not hold with . Given an integer , we define to be the family of -vertex graphs such that and has a perfect matching.
Lemma 4.5.
Given positive integers and an -vertex -saturated graph , there is no set of size for which there is an independent set in of size and a vertex , such that for every we have that and is not isomorphic to a graph in .
Proof.
Suppose for contradiction that such an , , and exist. Consider an arbitrary vertex . Since -saturation implies -saturation, we have . Hence, by Lemma 4.1 there is some such that (where can be chosen arbitrarily if ). By the pigeonhole principle, there are distinct vertices and in such that . Now, adding the edges and to and subtracting the edge does not create a copy of , a contradiction. ∎
Proof of Theorem 4.4.
We pick according to Lemma 2.1 with , .
First suppose (1) holds. By Lemma 2.1 together with Lemma 4.5, there is a subset of of size such that is complete to , and . Since is -free, it follows that there is no edge in . Thus is a subgraph of , and since is -free and is -saturated, we have . Thus (1) implies (2).
5 Concluding remarks
It would be interesting to close the gaps between the lower and upper bounds of obtained in Theorem 1.3. By Lemma 3.3, this is equivalent to finding better bounds on .
Conjecture 5.1.
For every , .
More strongly, we conjecture that, for of the form where , the construction given in Lemma 3.8 is the unique graph in with vertices.
1.7 shows a linear gap between and for . By 1.7, 1.10 and 1.1, for every , we have
Thus it would be interesting to determine the gap between and . For ordinary saturation, the known proofs to determine use algebraic techniques, see, e.g. [2, 15], but it is unclear whether such methods can be generalized to the rainbow setting. In a similar vein to Question 6.2 of [5], we ask the following.
Question 5.2.
Given , is the following true?
It is possible to generalize the notion of -saturation in the following manner. For any , a graph is called -saturated if is -free, but removing any edges and then adding any edges (possibly including removed edges) creates a copy of . Thus, ordinary -saturation is the same as -saturation. Let denote the minimum number of edges in an -vertex -saturated graph. Note that for every , if is -saturated, then it is -saturated; thus, . The upper bound construction for -saturation can be extended to obtain an upper bound for .
Proposition 5.3.
For every , , and , the saturation number .
The above upper bound is achieved by the construction . However, the lower bound argument for Theorem 1.11 does not seem to generalize to arbitrary . A natural generalization of Lemma 4.1 for this purpose would be that, if is a graph such that for every of size at most , then . However, this is not true. For example, if is the complement of the Petersen graph, then for every with , and .
Question 5.4.
Given integers and , what is the minimum integer such that some -vertex graph satisfies for every of size at most ?
It is known that the ordinary saturation numbers are always at most linear in , see, e.g., [15, 27]. It would be thus interesting to investigate whether the other variants of saturation numbers also behave in the same way. Indeed, Behague, Johnston, Letzter, Morrison, and Ogden proved the following (which was originally conjectured by Girão, Lewis, and Popielarz).
Remember that can be infinite (for example, when and odd ). However we suspect that is finite for infinitely many . Indeed, it may be true that for every there exists a constant such that for infinitely many (note that for all even ). Instead of considering this problem directly, we may instead consider the closely related -saturation number , which has the advantage of always being finite (indeed it is bounded above by the extremal number ). Here, we ask the following.
Question 5.6.
Given a graph , does there exist a constant such that for infinitely many (or indeed for all positive integers )?
It is natural to consider the analogous question for saturation numbers with . However we make the following preliminary observation, answering this question in the negative for .
Theorem 5.7.
The saturation number is superlinear. In particular, we have
Proof.
Let be an -vertex graph which is -saturated. Given a pair of non-adjacent vertices and in , we say that is guarded by if is the central edge of a path of length from to in (note that such a path must exist in a -saturated graph). Let be a vertex of maximum degree in , and consider . Since has no , every component of has size at most .
Claim 5.8.
For every four distinct components , and of there exist distinct and such that the pair is guarded by an edge in .
Proof.
Since is -saturated, for every distinct and , we have that is guarded by an edge in . If , then there is no such path of length in containing , and . Let be an -path of length in . Since every neighbor of or in is in , the edge of which guards is in as required. Hence, we may assume . Let and for each , let contains a vertex . Consider the graph with and . Now contains a subgraph , since is -saturated. However, it is quick to check that is not a subgraph of . Hence, contains some vertex and some edge . Since has no subgraph, has at most one neighbor in , so some neighbor of in is in . Now guards , as required. ∎
Claim 5.9.
The maximum degree of satisfies
Proof.
Let be the set of pairs of vertices such that and is guarded by an edge in . Note that every edge guards at most one pair in , since otherwise either or is adjacent to two neighbors of , contradicting the fact the does not contain .
First, because otherwise Theorem 5.7 follows from Claim 5.9. Now, let be the set of vertices of degree at least in . Clearly, because otherwise the number of edges in is at least . Let . Then, we have by the known result on the extremal number of (i.e., , see [18, 32] for references).
Let . Now every pair in is guarded by some edge in , and every edge guards at most edges in . Hence we obtain by the bounds on and
Hence, we obtain , thus the number of edges in is . ∎
We finish by suggesting a couple of other directions for future research. There are studies of generalized rainbow Turán problems, see, e.g., [20, 25]. There are also studies on generalized saturation problems (where the objective is to minimize the number of copies of a fixed graph instead of edges) see, e.g., [11, 33]. It might be worth studying the generalized saturation problems in rainbow settings.
In another direction, graph saturation has been extended to the setting where the addition of the edges is restricted to some host graph other than the complete graph . There are studies with several several different host graphs such as complete bipartite graphs [9, 19], complete multipartite graphs [16, 21, 36], hypercubes [12, 26, 35] and random graphs [13, 31]. Rainbow saturation problems can be studied on such host graphs.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the Discrete Mathematics Group of the Institute for Basic Science for organizing the 2021 DIMAG Internal Workshop at Gangneung, where the authors initiated this project, and to the participants of this workshop for stimulating discussions. We are also thankful to the anonymous referee for their careful reading, and in particular for pointing out a small error in the proof of Theorem 3.12 in a previous version of this paper and observing that our argument for Lemma 3.10 yields a better second-order term than we had previously claimed.
References
- [1] R. Aharoni, M. DeVos, S. González Hermosillo de la Maza, A. Montejano, and R. Šámal. A rainbow version of Mantel’s theorem. Adv. Comb., pages Paper No. 2, 12, 2020.
- [2] N. Alon. An extremal problem for sets with applications to graph theory. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 40(1):82–89, 1985.
- [3] K. Amin, J. Faudree, R. J. Gould, and E. Sidorowicz. On the non--partite -free graphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory, 33(1):9–23, 2013.
- [4] M. D. Barrus, M. Ferrara, J. Vandenbussche, and P. S. Wenger. Colored saturation parameters for rainbow subgraphs. J. Graph Theory, 86(4):375–386, 2017.
- [5] N. Behague, T. Johnston, S. Letzter, N. Morrison, and S. Ogden. The rainbow saturation number is linear. arXiv:2211.08589, 2022.
- [6] B. Bollobás. On generalized graphs. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 16:447–452, 1965.
- [7] B. Bollobás. Weakly -saturated graphs. In Beiträge zur Graphentheorie (Kolloquium, Manebach, 1967), pages 25–31. Teubner, Leipzig, 1968.
- [8] S. Cao, Y. Ma, and Z. Taoqiu. A note on rainbow saturation number of paths. Appl. Math. Comput., 378:125204, 4, 2020.
- [9] D. Chakraborti, D. Q. Chen, and M. Hasabnis. Minimizing the number of edges in -saturated bipartite graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 35(2):1165–1181, 2021.
- [10] D. Chakraborti, J. Kim, H. Lee, H. Liu, and J. Seo. On a rainbow extremal problem for color-critical graphs. arXiv:2204.02575, 2022.
- [11] D. Chakraborti and P.-S. Loh. Minimizing the numbers of cliques and cycles of fixed size in an -saturated graph. European J. Combin., 90:103185, 20, 2020.
- [12] S. Choi and P. Guan. Minimum critical squarefree subgraph of a hypercube. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Southeastern International Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, volume 189, pages 57–64, 2008.
- [13] Y. Demidovich, A. Skorkin, and M. Zhukovskii. Cycle saturation in random graphs. arXiv:2109.05758, 2022.
- [14] P. Erdős, A. Hajnal, and J. W. Moon. A problem in graph theory. Amer. Math. Monthly, 71:1107–1110, 1964.
- [15] J. R. Faudree, R. J. Faudree, and J. R. Schmitt. A survey of minimum saturated graphs. Electron. J. Combin., DS19(Dynamic Surveys):36, 2011.
- [16] M. Ferrara, M. S. Jacobson, F. Pfender, and P. S. Wenger. Graph saturation in multipartite graphs. J. Comb., 7(1):1–19, 2016.
- [17] M. Ferrara, D. Johnston, S. Loeb, F. Pfender, A. Schulte, H. C. Smith, E. Sullivan, M. Tait, and C. Tompkins. On edge-colored saturation problems. J. Comb., 11(4):639–655, 2020.
- [18] Z. Füredi and M. Simonovits. The history of degenerate (bipartite) extremal graph problems. In Erdös centennial, volume 25 of Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., pages 169–264. János Bolyai Math. Soc., Budapest, 2013.
- [19] W. Gan, D. Korándi, and B. Sudakov. -saturated bipartite graphs. European J. Combin., 45:12–20, 2015.
- [20] D. Gerbner, T. Mészáros, A. Methuku, and C. Palmer. Generalized rainbow Turán numbers. Electron. J. Combin., 29(2):Paper No. 2.44, 20, 2022.
- [21] A. Girão, T. Kittipassorn, and K. Popielarz. Partite saturation of complete graphs. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 33(4):2346–2359, 2019.
- [22] A. Girão, D. Lewis, and K. Popielarz. Rainbow saturation of graphs. J. Graph Theory, 94(3):421–444, 2020.
- [23] W. T. Gowers and B. Janzer. Generalizations of the Ruzsa-Szemerédi and rainbow Turán problems for cliques. Combin. Probab. Comput., 30(4):591–608, 2021.
- [24] D. Hanson and B. Toft. Edge-colored saturated graphs. J. Graph Theory, 11(2):191–196, 1987.
- [25] B. Janzer. The generalized rainbow Turán problem for cycles. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 36(1):436–448, 2022.
- [26] J. R. Johnson and T. Pinto. Saturated subgraphs of the hypercube. Combin. Probab. Comput., 26(1):52–67, 2017.
- [27] L. Kászonyi and Z. Tuza. Saturated graphs with minimal number of edges. J. Graph Theory, 10(2):203–210, 1986.
- [28] P. Keevash, D. Mubayi, B. Sudakov, and J. Verstraëte. Rainbow Turán problems. Combin. Probab. Comput., 16(1):109–126, 2007.
- [29] P. Keevash, M. Saks, B. Sudakov, and J. Verstraëte. Multicolour Turán problems. Adv. in Appl. Math., 33(2):238–262, 2004.
- [30] D. Korándi. Rainbow saturation and graph capacities. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 32(2):1261–1264, 2018.
- [31] D. Korándi and B. Sudakov. Saturation in random graphs. Random Structures Algorithms, 51(1):169–181, 2017.
- [32] T. Kövari, V. T. Sós, and P. Turán. On a problem of K. Zarankiewicz. Colloq. Math., 3:50–57, 1954.
- [33] J. Kritschgau, A. Methuku, M. Tait, and C. Timmons. Few copies in -saturated graphs. J. Graph Theory, 94(3):320–348, 2020.
- [34] L. Lovász. Flats in matroids and geometric graphs. In Combinatorial surveys (Proc. Sixth British Combinatorial Conf., Royal Holloway Coll., Egham, 1977), pages 45–86. Academic Press, London, 1977.
- [35] N. Morrison, J. A. Noel, and A. Scott. Saturation in the hypercube and bootstrap percolation. Combin. Probab. Comput., 26(1):78–98, 2017.
- [36] B. Roberts. Partite saturation problems. J. Graph Theory, 85(2):429–445, 2017.
- [37] P. Turán. Eine Extremalaufgabe aus der Graphentheorie. Mat. Fiz. Lapok, 48:436–452, 1941.
- [38] A. A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. Mat. Sbornik N.S., 24(66):163–188, 1949.