Circular chromatic number of signed graphs
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
It is not known whether there is a finite k-chromatic graph of girth at least g and with \chi_{c}^{s}(G)=2k.
Context
Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "Circular chromatic number of signed graphs", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
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.
NEW
Problem: Reconstructed statement: for every pair of integers , does there exist a finite simple -chromatic graph of girth at least such that its signed circular chromatic number
equals ?
This is the natural formalization because the cited paper proves the supremum is approached for -chromatic graphs of girth at least , and then asks whether the bound is attained.Result: Yes.
Theorem. For every , there is a finite simple graph with , girth at least , and .
Proof sketch with full probabilistic core.
Let , where . Put independently, between each pair of vertices in different parts, either no edge with probability , or a positive/negative edge with probabilities , where
(for , take any small ). No edges are placed inside parts, so the underlying graph is -partite.
Key lemma. Fix even , , and . Call two colors neutral if both signs would satisfy the -constraint, equivalently
The neutral graph on has no . Indeed, for each color , the two arcs of length starting at and are disjoint from the corresponding arcs of every neutral neighbor. Thus a neutral clique of size gives , so .
Now fix any map . For every choice of one vertex from each part , some pair receives non-neutral colors. Counting over all such choices shows that at least cross-part vertex pairs are non-neutral. For each such pair, a random signed edge, if present, violates with probability at least . Hence the expected number of violating edges is at least , and Chernoff bounds give probability that has fewer than violations.
There are only
possible relevant -color maps, since finite signed graphs on vertices have circular chromatic number attained with numerator . Because , a union bound shows that, with high probability, every -map with has at least violating edges.
Similarly, for every ordinary -coloring of the underlying graph, at least cross pairs are monochromatic, so with high probability every such coloring has at least monochromatic edges.
Finally, the expected number of cycles of length is
Thus with positive probability the graph has fewer than short cycles. Delete one edge from each cycle of length . The resulting signed graph still has no -coloring with , and its underlying graph still has no -coloring. Therefore , the girth is at least , and
On the other hand, since is -partite, every signature on is -free -colorable by assigning the parts distinct positive colors, so . Hence
Citation: No prior published resolution is used here. Definitions and the finite-attainment fact for are from Naserasr–Wang–Zhu, “Circular chromatic number of signed graphs,” arXiv:2010.07525.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2
PASS
The argument attacks the correct statement (for every fixed ) and is mathematically sound. The probabilistic construction gives a -partite graph with a signature such that every -coloring with has many violations; the finite-attainment bound makes the union bound legitimate. The deletion of fewer short-cycle edges preserves both non--colorability and non--colorability below , yielding girth at least , , and . Since is -partite, every signature is circular -colorable, so .
A literature search found related special cases (e.g. signed bipartite graphs with circular chromatic number and high negative girth), but no prior result resolving this large ordinary-girth -chromatic statement in full.
Novelty assessment
TYPE2
Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new and resolves an explicit open finite-attainment question from Naserasr–Wang–Zhu. It is not a top-journal-scale advance: the proof is a clean probabilistic construction/refinement of standard Erdős high-girth/high-chromatic methods. But resolving a published open problem with a sharp exact value for all should plausibly support a short standalone paper in a standard combinatorics journal.
Literature check: I checked the original paper, arXiv records, Crossref/OpenAlex searches, and the citation graph of Naserasr–Wang–Zhu. The original paper proves only the approximate statement: for every and , there is a -chromatic graph of girth at least with , and immediately asks whether equality is attainable by a finite graph. Later citing/related papers I found concern signed bipartite circular cliques, planar/bipartite signed graphs, series-parallel graphs, circular flows, and density of critical signed graphs; none gives this arbitrary -chromatic large-girth exact-attainment theorem.
Citation: Reza Naserasr, Zhouningxin Wang, Xuding Zhu, “Circular Chromatic Number of Signed Graphs,” Electron. J. Combin. 28(2) (2021), #P2.44, DOI: 10.37236/9938. The open question appears after Theorem 30.
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.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.