arXiv subjects

Sepehr Hajebi

Publications and source records attributed to Sepehr Hajebi.

39 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2022

Induced subgraphs and tree decompositions V. One neighbor in a hole

What are the unavoidable induced subgraphs of graphs with large treewidth? It is well-known that the answer must include a complete graph, a complete bipartite graph, all subdivisions of a wall and line graphs of all subdivisions of a wall (we refer to these graphs as the "basic treewidth obstructions"). So it is natural to ask whether graphs excluding the basic treewidth obstructions as induced subgraphs have bounded treewidth. Sintiari and Trotignon answered this question in the negative. Their counterexamples, the so-called "layered wheels," contain wheels, where a wheel consists of a hole (i.e., an induced cycle of length at least four) along with a vertex with at least three neighbors in the hole. This leads one to ask whether graphs excluding wheels and the basic treewidth obstructions as induced subgraphs have bounded treewidth. This also turns out to be false due to Davies' recent example of graphs with large treewidth, no wheels and and no basic treewidth obstructions as induced subgraphs. However, in Davies' example there exist holes and vertices (outside of the hole) with two neighbors in them. Here we prove that a hole with a vertex with at least two neighbors in it is inevitable in graphs with large treewidth and no basic obstruction. Our main result is that graphs in which every vertex has at most one neighbor in every hole (that does not contain it) and with the basic treewidth obstructions excluded as induced subgraphs have bounded treewidth.

math.CO↗

arXiv2022

Minimal induced subgraphs of two classes of 2-connected non-Hamiltonian graphs

In 1981, Duffus, Gould, and Jacobson showed that every connected graph either has a Hamiltonian path, or contains a claw ($K_{1,3}$) or a net (a fixed six-vertex graph) as an induced subgraph. This implies that subject to being connected, these two are the only minimal (under taking induced subgraphs) graphs with no Hamiltonian path. Brousek (1998) characterized the minimal graphs that are $2$-connected, non-Hamiltonian and do not contain the claw as an induced subgraph. We characterize the minimal graphs that are $2$-connected and non-Hamiltonian for two classes of graphs: (1) split graphs, (2) triangle-free graphs. We remark that testing for Hamiltonicity is NP-hard in both of these classes.

math.CO↗

arXiv2016

Edge Clique Cover of Claw-free Graphs

The smallest number of cliques, covering all edges of a graph $ G $, is called the (edge) clique cover number of $ G $ and is denoted by $ cc(G) $. It is an easy observation that for every line graph $ G $ with $ n $ vertices, $cc(G)\leq n $. G. Chen et al. [Discrete Math. 219 (2000), no. 1--3, 17--26; MR1761707] extended this observation to all quasi-line graphs and questioned if the same assertion holds for all claw-free graphs. In this paper, using the celebrated structure theorem of claw-free graphs due to Chudnovsky and Seymour, we give an affirmative answer to this question for all claw-free graphs with independence number at least three. In particular, we prove that if $ G $ is a connected claw-free graph on $ n $ vertices with $ α(G)\geq 3 $, then $ cc(G)\leq n $ and equality holds if and only if $ G $ is either the graph of icosahedron, or the complement of a graph on $10$ vertices called twister or the $p^{th}$ power of the cycle $ C_n $, for $1\leq p \leq \lfloor (n-1)/3\rfloor $.

math.CO↗