pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.05291 · v2 · submitted 2025-01-09 · 🧮 math.CO

Independence, induced subgraphs, and domination in K_(1,r)-free graphs

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 05:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CO
keywords K_{1,r}-free graphsinduced subgraphsdomination numberchromatic numberindependence numberRamsey numbersk-independence number
0
0 comments X

The pith

In K_{1,r}-free graphs the largest induced subgraph with chromatic number at most k has size at most (r-1)k times the domination number.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves that when a graph G contains no induced star with r leaves, the biggest induced subgraph whose vertices can be colored with k colors is bounded by (r-1)k times the size of a smallest dominating set. The same argument recovers the bound that claw-free graphs have independence number at most twice their domination number and sharpens it for regular claw-free graphs. A Ramsey-number version extends the inequality to any edge-hereditary family of graphs, and a separate counting argument gives an explicit upper bound on the k-independence number in terms of order and minimum degree.

Core claim

For a K_{1,r}-free graph G and the family F of all graphs with chromatic number at most k, the maximum order α_F(G) of an induced F-subgraph satisfies α_F(G) ≤ (r-1)k γ(G). When F consists of edgeless graphs this yields α(G) ≤ 2γ(G) for claw-free graphs, refined to α(G) ≤ 2((d+1)/(d+2))γ(G) for d-regular claw-free graphs. Ramsey theory extends the relation to any edge-hereditary family via α_F(G) ≤ r(K_r, F*) γ(G), and specializes to (r(K_q, K_r)-1)γ(G) when G is also K_q-free. The k-independence number obeys α_k(G) ≤ ((r-1)(k+1)/(δ-k+(r-1)(k+1)))n whenever δ ≥ k+1.

What carries the argument

The quantity α_F(G), the maximum order of an induced subgraph belonging to a given family F, bounded linearly by the domination number γ(G) when G is K_{1,r}-free.

If this is right

  • Claw-free graphs satisfy α(G) ≤ 2γ(G).
  • d-regular claw-free graphs satisfy the tighter bound α(G) ≤ 2((d+1)/(d+2))γ(G), achieved for d=2,3,4.
  • Edge-hereditary families satisfy α_F(G) ≤ r(K_r, F*) γ(G) in K_{1,r}-free graphs.
  • K_q-free graphs satisfy α_F(G) ≤ (r(K_q, K_r)-1)γ(G).
  • The stated bound on the k-independence number is attained for every choice of the parameters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Computing a small dominating set may serve as a practical proxy for locating large low-chromatic induced subgraphs in these restricted classes.
  • The same linear-multiplier technique could apply to other forbidden induced subgraphs whenever suitable Ramsey numbers are known.
  • Domination emerges as a controlling parameter for many induced-subgraph measures inside hereditary graph families.

Load-bearing premise

The graph is exactly K_{1,r}-free and the families are defined only by a chromatic-number bound or by edge-hereditary closure.

What would settle it

A single K_{1,r}-free graph containing an induced subgraph with chromatic number at most k whose order exceeds (r-1)k times the domination number would disprove the central inequality.

read the original abstract

Let $G$ be a graph and $\mathcal{F}$ a family of graphs. Define $\alpha_{\mathcal{F}}(G)$ as the maximum order of any induced subgraph of $G$ that belongs to the family $\mathcal{F}$. For the family $\mathcal{F}$ of graphs with \emph{chromatic number} at most~$k$, we prove that if $G$ is $K_{1,r}$-free, then $\alpha_{\mathcal{F}}(G) \le (r-1)k\gamma(G)$, where $\gamma(G)$ is the \emph{domination number}. When $\mathcal{F}$ is the family of empty graphs, this bound simplifies to $\alpha(G) \le 2\gamma(G)$ for $K_{1,3}$-free (claw-free) graphs, where $\alpha(G)$ is the \emph{independence number} of $G$. For $d$-regular graphs, this is further refined to the bound $\alpha(G) \le 2\left(\frac{d+1}{d+2}\right)\gamma(G)$, which is tight for $d \in \{2, 3, 4\}$. Using Ramsey theory, we extend this framework to edge-hereditary graph families, showing that for $K_{1,r}$-free graphs, we have $\alpha_{\mathcal{F}}(G) \le r(K_r, \mathcal{F^*})\gamma(G)$, where $\mathcal{F^*}$ is the set of graphs not in $\mathcal{F}$. Specializing to $K_q$-free graphs, we show $\alpha_{\mathcal{F}}(G) \le (r(K_q, K_r) - 1)\gamma(G)$. Finally, for the \emph{$k$-independence number} $\alpha_k(G)$, we prove that if $G$ is $K_{1,r}$-free with order $n$ and minimum degree $\delta \ge k+1$, \[ \alpha_k(G) \le \left( \frac{(r-1)(k+1)}{\delta - k + (r-1)(k+1)} \right) n, \] and this bound is sharp for all parameters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper defines α_F(G) as the maximum order of an induced subgraph of G belonging to a family F. For the family F of graphs with chromatic number at most k, it proves that if G is K_{1,r}-free then α_F(G) ≤ (r-1)k γ(G). Special cases include the independence number bound α(G) ≤ 2γ(G) for claw-free graphs, a refinement α(G) ≤ 2((d+1)/(d+2))γ(G) for d-regular graphs that is tight for d=2,3,4, an extension via Ramsey numbers to α_F(G) ≤ r(K_r, F*) γ(G) for edge-hereditary families, a specialization to K_q-free graphs, and the bound α_k(G) ≤ [(r-1)(k+1)/(δ-k+(r-1)(k+1))]n for K_{1,r}-free graphs with δ ≥ k+1, asserted sharp for all parameters.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the results give clean, parameter-light upper bounds relating the size of induced subgraphs with bounded chromatic number (or other hereditary properties) to the domination number in K_{1,r}-free graphs. The direct counting argument from K_{1,r}-freeness and the use of standard Ramsey numbers r(K_q,K_r) are strengths; the explicit tightness claims for the regular-graph case and the k-independence bound for all parameters add value if the extremal examples are verified.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for recommending acceptance of the manuscript. The report accurately summarizes the main results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central bounds are derived directly from the definition of K_{1,r}-freeness (each vertex outside an independent set S dominates at most r-1 vertices in S) combined with the domination number γ(G) and standard chromatic/Ramsey numbers. The skeptic's explicit reduction |S| ≤ (r-1)γ(G) follows immediately from these definitions without fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. Ramsey extensions and the α_k bound for regular graphs are likewise obtained by the same covering argument applied to color classes or fractional covers; all steps remain external to the paper's own constructions and use only the given graph-theoretic primitives.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard definitions of graph parameters (independence number, domination number, chromatic number, induced subgraphs) and Ramsey numbers; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are visible in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard definitions of α(G), γ(G), chromatic number, and induced subgraphs hold in simple undirected graphs.
    Invoked throughout the abstract when defining α_F(G) and the bounds.
  • standard math Ramsey numbers r(K_r, F*) exist and are finite for the relevant families.
    Used in the extension to edge-hereditary families.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5950 in / 1403 out tokens · 21070 ms · 2026-05-23T05:48:08.018031+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.