z-logo
Premium
A characterization of nonfeasible sets in matching covered graphs
Author(s) -
Liu Qinghai,
Cui Qing,
Feng Xing,
Lu Fuliang
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of graph theory
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.164
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1097-0118
pISSN - 0364-9024
DOI - 10.1002/jgt.22570
Subject(s) - combinatorics , bipartite graph , mathematics , vertex (graph theory) , matching (statistics) , cograph , discrete mathematics , graph , characterization (materials science) , set (abstract data type) , 1 planar graph , chordal graph , computer science , statistics , materials science , programming language , nanotechnology
Let G be a matching covered graph and let X ⊆ E ( G ) . Then X is called feasible if there exist two perfect matchings M 1 and M 2 in G such that ∣ M 1 ∩ X ∣ ≢ ∣ M 2 ∩ X ∣(mod 2 ) ; otherwise, it is nonfeasible. For any vertex v ∈ V ( G ) , the switching operation of X in v is defined as the symmetric difference of X and ∂ ( v ) , where ∂ ( v ) denotes the set of all edges in G incident with v . Two sets X 1 , X 2 ⊆ E ( G ) are switching‐equivalent if X 1 can be obtained from X 2 by a series of switching operations and vice visa. Lukot'ka and Rollová showed that if G is a regular bipartite graph, then X is nonfeasible if and only if X is switching‐equivalent to ∅ (as well as E ( G ) ). In this paper, we give a complete characterization of nonfeasible sets in matching covered graphs. We prove that if G is a matching covered graph and X is an arbitrary nonfeasible set of G , then X is switching‐equivalent to both ∅ and E ( G ) if and only if G is bipartite, and X is switching‐equivalent to either ∅ or E ( G ) (but not both) if and only if G is nonbipartite and G has an ear decomposition with exactly one double ear. We also show that for any two integers s and k with s ≥ 2 and k ≥ max { 3 , s } , there exist infinitely many k ‐regular simple graphs G of class 1 with arbitrarily large brick number, connectivity s and a nonfeasible set X such that X is not switching‐equivalent to either ∅ or E ( G ) . This gives negative answers to two problems proposed by Lukot'ka and Rollová and by He et al, respectively.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here