16
$\begingroup$

Let $\Gamma$ be a connected graph. By (Kleitman-West, 1991), if every vertex of $\Gamma$ has degree $\geq 3$, then $\Gamma$ has a spanning tree with $\geq n/4+2$ leaves, where $n$ is the number of vertices of $\Gamma$.

It is relatively forward (though not completely trivial) to deduce that, if every vertex of $\Gamma$ has degree $\geq 2$, then $\Gamma$ has a spanning tree with $\geq n/4+2$ leaves, where $n$ is the number of vertices of $\Gamma$ of degree $\geq 3$.

Question: can the assumption on the degree of all vertices be dropped altogether? That is, is it true that every connected graph $\Gamma$ with $n$ vertices of degree $\geq 3$ has a spanning tree with $\geq n/4+2$ leaves? If not, can you give a counterexample?


Note 1: The one case in doubt is that where there is exactly one vertex of degree $1$. All other cases follow from (Bankevich-Karpov, 2011), which gives the lower bound $\geq m/4+3/2$, where $m$ is the number of vertices of $\Gamma$ of degree not $2$. Alternatively, one may reduce the general problem to the case where exactly one vertex has degree $1$ as follows: given two vertices $v_1$, $v_2$ of degree $1$, we may identify them (not changing the number of vertices of degree $\geq 3$ thereby) and apply the bound we are proving, recursively (since the number of vertices of degree $1$ has decreased); if the spanning tree contains the new vertex $v$ as a leaf, it is valid as a spanning tree of the original graph; if it contains $v$ as an internal vertex, we separate $v$ again into $v_1$ and $v_2$ (thus increasing the number of leaves by $2$), and find that we have two trees, covering all vertices of $\Gamma$; there is some edge of $\Gamma$ connecting them, and we may add it at a cost of at most $2$ leaves.

Note 2: It obviously follows from Bankevich-Karpov that, when there is exactly one vertex of degree $1$, the bound $\geq n/4+7/4$ holds. It then follows from (Karpov, 2012) that a counterexample to $\geq n/4 + 2$ would need to have no vertices of degree $>3$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by a "spanning" tree? I thought a "spanning" tree is one that contains all the vertices of the original graph, but I guess it means something else here. $\endgroup$
    – bof
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, sorry, leaves. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ Have you tried contacting Karpov directly? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but he hasn't answered. Perhaps I don't have the right email address. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 11, 2020 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ @TimothyChow I did. He promised to think about it. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 14, 2020 at 11:23

1 Answer 1

14
+100
$\begingroup$

Consider connected $G$ with $n$ vertices of degree $\ge 3$ and exactly one vertex $v$ of degree 1. Take an extra copy $G'$ of $G$ with $v'$ being its vertex of degree 1.

Now identify $v$ and $v'$ to make a new graph $H$ which has $2n$ vertices of degree $\ge 3$ and no vertices of degree 1. The identified $v=v'$ has become a cut-vertex of degree 2. By the previous theorems, $H$ has a spanning tree with at least $2n/4+2$ leaves, and so at least $n/4+1$ leaves on one side of the cut. $v=v'$ isn't one of these leaves since it is a cut-vertex. Now take this spanning tree back to $G$ and $G'$. The side, say $G$, which had $n/4+1$ leaves in $H$ now has the extra leaf $v$, making $n/4+2$ leaves.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ That's very nice. Is it a standard argument? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 15, 2020 at 10:47
  • $\begingroup$ @HAHelfgott I don't know if it is standard. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 15, 2020 at 14:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .