ProbXiv
sign in

Bi-Metric Dimension of Graphs

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by A. Raghavendra, B. Sooryanarayana, Chandru Hegde · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

Determine the least positive integer k such that β(G)βb(G)k\beta(G)-\beta_{b}(G)≤k for any graph G.

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "Bi-Metric Dimension of Graphs", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: For finite simple connected graphs GG, let β(G)\beta(G) be the usual metric dimension. Let δ(u,v)\delta(u,v) denote the length of a longest simple uu-vv path, with δ(u,u)=0\delta(u,u)=0. A set S={s1,,sk}V(G)S=\{s_1,\dots,s_k\}\subseteq V(G) is bi-resolving if every vertex xx is uniquely determined by

    ((d(x,s1),,d(x,sk)),(δ(x,s1),,δ(x,sk))).\bigl((d(x,s_1),\dots,d(x,s_k)),(\delta(x,s_1),\dots,\delta(x,s_k))\bigr).

    Let βb(G)\beta_b(G) be the minimum size of a bi-resolving set. The problem asks whether there is a least positive integer kk such that

    β(G)βb(G)k\beta(G)-\beta_b(G)\le k

    for every graph GG.

    This is the natural formalization from the paper title and notation: β\beta is standard metric dimension, and βb\beta_b is the bi-metric dimension using shortest and longest path distances.

    Result: No such integer exists. The difference β(G)βb(G)\beta(G)-\beta_b(G) is unbounded.

    For t2t\ge2, construct GtG_t as follows. Start with a path a1a2ata_1a_2\cdots a_t. Attach two leaves xi,yix_i,y_i to each aia_i. Add a new vertex rr adjacent to every other vertex. Thus

    V(Gt)={r}{ai,xi,yi:1it}.V(G_t)=\{r\}\cup\{a_i,x_i,y_i:1\le i\le t\}.

    The pairs {xi,yi}\{x_i,y_i\} are false twins, since

    N(xi)=N(yi)={r,ai}.N(x_i)=N(y_i)=\{r,a_i\}.

    Hence every metric or bi-metric resolving set must contain at least one vertex from each pair {xi,yi}\{x_i,y_i\}. Therefore

    βb(Gt)t.\beta_b(G_t)\ge t.

    Let S={x1,,xt}S=\{x_1,\dots,x_t\}. Distances to SS distinguish all vertices except possibly the yiy_i’s: each xix_i has a 00 in coordinate ii, each aia_i has a 11 in coordinate ii, rr has all coordinates 11, and every yiy_i has all distance coordinates 22.

    The detour distances distinguish the yiy_i’s. Indeed, for fixed ii, writing

    Mi=max{i1,ti},M_i=\max\{i-1,t-i\},

    one has

    δ(yi,xi)=Mi+4,\delta(y_i,x_i)=M_i+4,

    while for kik\ne i,

    δ(yk,xi)Mi+5.\delta(y_k,x_i)\ge M_i+5.

    The first equality follows because any longest yiy_i-xix_i path using rr can extend through the underlying tree on only one side of aia_i, while a path to a farthest leaf realizes length Mi+4M_i+4. The second inequality is realized by routing from yky_k through the longer side of the spine, then through rr, then back to xix_i; the two spine portions are disjoint, giving one more edge than the sibling case. Thus SS is bi-resolving, so

    βb(Gt)=t.\beta_b(G_t)=t.

    Now compute β(Gt)\beta(G_t). Since one vertex from each false-twin pair is necessary, suppose a resolving set contains exactly one from mm of the pairs. The unchosen vertices from those mm pairs all have equal distance 22 to every chosen twin vertex and equal distance 11 to rr. A support vertex aia_i distinguishes only the unchosen vertex from its own pair. Hence, among those mm unchosen vertices, at least m1m-1 corresponding support vertices are additionally necessary. This gives

    β(Gt)2t1.\beta(G_t)\ge 2t-1.

    Conversely,

    W={x1,,xt}{a1,,at1}W=\{x_1,\dots,x_t\}\cup\{a_1,\dots,a_{t-1}\}

    is a metric resolving set: the xix_i’s distinguish all xi,ai,rx_i,a_i,r, and the added a1,,at1a_1,\dots,a_{t-1} distinguish y1,,yty_1,\dots,y_t. Therefore

    β(Gt)=2t1.\beta(G_t)=2t-1.

    Thus

    β(Gt)βb(Gt)=(2t1)t=t1,\beta(G_t)-\beta_b(G_t)=(2t-1)-t=t-1,

    which is unbounded as tt\to\infty. Therefore no positive integer kk satisfies the proposed universal bound.

    Citation: No known prior resolution is used here. The notation and problem come from A. Raghavendra, B. Sooryanarayana, and Chandru Hegde, “Bi-Metric Dimension of Graphs,” 2014, DOI: 10.9734/BJMCS/2014/10491.

    Reviews

    1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The construction addresses the correct bi-metric dimension definition. The false-twin pairs force βb(Gt)t\beta_b(G_t)\ge t, and the proposed set {x1,,xt}\{x_1,\dots,x_t\} is bi-resolving: shortest-distance vectors distinguish all vertices except the yiy_i, and the stated detour-distance separation for the yiy_i's is valid. The metric-dimension lower bound β(Gt)2t1\beta(G_t)\ge 2t-1 follows from the same twin pairs plus the need to distinguish the unchosen twins, and the given set of size 2t12t-1 resolves. Hence β(Gt)βb(Gt)=t1\beta(G_t)-\beta_b(G_t)=t-1 is unbounded, so no universal positive integer kk exists.

      I found no evidence in the available literature search of an existing similar or stronger resolution.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The resolution appears genuinely new but is a short, elementary construction resolving a low-visibility open problem from a niche graph-invariant paper. The argument is useful as a note/correction, but by itself likely would not support a standard standalone combinatorics-journal paper without additional results.

      Literature check: I found no clear prior source proving that β(G)βb(G)\beta(G)-\beta_b(G) is unbounded, nor a stronger construction realizing arbitrary gaps. Searches covered the exact title, “bi-metric dimension,” “bi-resolving set/graph,” βb(G)\beta_b(G) with β(G)\beta(G), the exact open-problem wording, and Indonesian variants such as “dimensi bi-metrik” / “bi-dimensi metrik.” Semantic Scholar lists the original paper with no citing papers. The visible related literature is limited to computations/variants: cycle-related graphs, antiprism graphs, dumbbell-graph record with no accessible paper link, complement bi-metric dimension, and bi-edge metric dimension. None states or implies the universal-gap result in an inspectable way.

      Citation: A. Raghavendra, B. Sooryanarayana, and C. Hegde, “Bi-Metric Dimension of Graphs,” British Journal of Mathematics & Computer Science 4 (2014), 2699–2714, doi:10.9734/BJMCS/2014/10491. Related but not resolving: H. Iswadi, “BI-RESOLVING GRAPH OF CYCLE-RELATED GRAPHS” (2016); J. K. Sundusia and Rinurwati, “The complement bi-metric dimension of graphs,” AIP Conf. Proc. 2641, 020010 (2022), doi:10.1063/5.0131825; Hendy and M. Marzuki, “BI-DIMENSI METRIK DARI GRAF ANTIPRISMA,” doi:10.19184/mims.v20i2.19639.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.