Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.13610

A merging procedure for labelings of bipartite graphs

Abstract

Let $G$ a bipartite graph with vertex bipartition $\{A,B\}$ and let $m=|E(G)|$. An $(A,B)$-uniformly ordered labeling of $G$ is a labeling $f\colon V\rightarrow [0,2m]$ which, among other conditions, requires that there exists $λ\in \mathbb N$ such that $f(a)\le λ$ and $f(b)>λ$ for all $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. The existence of such a labeling for $G$ implies the existence of a cyclic $G$-decomposition of $K_{2mx+1}$ for all positive integers $x$. In this paper, as a starting point, through this type of labeling we prove the existence of a cyclic $G$-decomposition in the case that $G$ is a cycle of even length with either one or two pendant paths of any length. Then, through a merging procedure, we are able to get this type of labeling for a specific class of bipartite graphs, which are obtained by iteratively adding an even cycle and a pendant path.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Paola Bonacini, Lucia Marino. 2026-05-13. A merging procedure for labelings of bipartite graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13610

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

On Perfect Divisibility of Bull-Free Graphs Without Long Paths

A graph $G$ is {\em perfectly divisible} if, for every induced subgraph $H$ of $G$, $V(H)$ can be partitioned into $A$ and $B$ such that $H[A]$ is perfect and $ω(H[B])<ω(H)$. Chudnovsky and Sivaraman [J. Graph Theory \textbf{90} (2019) 54-60] proved that every ($P_5$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible, while Chen and Xu [Discrete Appl. Math. \textbf{372} (2025) 298-307] proved the same for ($P_7,C_5$, bull)-free graphs. We extend these results by proving that every ($P_8,C_5$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible and that, letting $F$ denote the Grötzsch graph, a ($P_6$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible if and only if it is $F$-free.

math.CO

Covering graphs by isometric trees

A connected subgraph of a graph is isometric if it preserves distances. Recently, graphs admitting a vertex or edge covering by a small number of isometric paths have been studied. In this paper, we consider the analogous problem for isometric trees, focusing on the treewidth of graphs admitting a vertex or edge covering by a small number of such trees. Baste, De Meyer, Giocanti, Objois, and Picavet showed that for coverings by two isometric trees, the treewidth is bounded. We show that already for three isometric trees, the treewidth can be linear in the number of vertices. On the positive side, we show that for graphs of bounded degree coverable by a small number of isometric trees, the treewidth is sublinear in the number of vertices.

math.CO

Tree-independence number of $P_5$-free graphs with no large bicliques

The tree-independence number of a graph is the minimum, over all tree-decompositions of the graph, of the maximum size of an independent set contained in a bag. Graph classes of bounded tree-independence number have strong structural and algorithmic properties; however, the parameter can be unbounded even in quite restricted classes. In particular, the presence of an induced biclique $K_{\ell,\ell}$ forces tree-independence number at least $\ell$. This leads to the question whether large induced bicliques are the only obstruction to bounded tree-independence number in natural hereditary classes. A conjecture of Dallard, Krnc, Kwon, Milanič, Munaro, Štorgel, and Wiederrecht states that for all positive integers $t$ and $\ell$, ${\{P_t,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graphs have bounded tree-independence number. We prove this conjecture for ${t=5}$ by showing that every ${\{P_5,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graph has tree-independence number at most ${4\ell-4}$. We also obtain related bounds for the weaker parameter of $α$-degeneracy and answer a question of Hilaire, Milanič, and Vasić whether tree-independence number of ${\{P_5,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graphs exceeds $\ell$ by at most an additive constant.

math.CO