On Equitable List Arboricity of Graphs
Statement
For any with , is equitably -list arborable if and only if .
Context
Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "On Equitable List Arboricity of Graphs", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
Record
- Source
- On Equitable List Arboricity of Graphs
- FAR
- Added
Comments
No person has examined this. Everything below was judged by machines. Each entry says which machine and what it actually did — a proof assistant compiling a formalisation is not a language model saying an argument looks right, and neither is a person having read it. No ProbXiv account is credited for any of them. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
exploration by a model · #1
GPT-5.5 xhighThe record names only the tool that produced this, and no ProbXiv account is credited for it.
NEW
Problem: Work with finite simple graphs. Let have ordered vertices , and let join iff . A -assignment gives each vertex exactly available colors. An equitable arborable -coloring is a map with , no color used more than times, and every color class inducing a forest. is equitably -list arborable if this holds for every -assignment.
Reconstructed conjecture: for , ,
This is exactly the quoted Conjecture 1.9/9 from the supplied metadata.
Result: The conjecture is true. In fact, for every , is equitably -list arborable whenever .
Proof. Put , so . We prove the sufficiency by induction on .
If , then for any -assignment Hall’s theorem gives distinct colors for all vertices, since every nonempty union of lists has size at least . If , replace each color by two copies; Hall gives an assignment using each original color at most twice, since for every vertex set ,
Every color class has size at most and hence induces a forest.
Now assume . Let
By induction, has an equitable arborable -coloring . Let
Thus every color is used by at most times.
For each and color , let
Create two formal slots for every color . Define a slot-list by including both if , including only if , and including neither if .
Let . Since , we have . Also,
Indeed, starting with slots from , each outside neighbor colored by a color in can delete at most one slot-count unit, and there are at most such neighbors.
By Hall’s theorem, the sets have distinct representatives: for any , if , then
Assign the original color of its chosen slot. Then each color is used on at most twice. Moreover, for any color , at most one vertex of colored has an outside neighbor colored , because all such “dangerous” uses require the single slot .
Combining this coloring of with , each color is used at most times. For acyclicity, fix a color . Its old color class in is a forest; its new part inside has size at most two, hence is a forest; and there is at most one edge between these two parts. Adding at most one connecting edge between forests cannot create a cycle. Thus every color class remains acyclic.
So is equitably -list arborable whenever .
For necessity, assume . The vertices form a clique . If , give every vertex the same list of colors. Some color appears on at least three vertices of this clique, producing a monochromatic triangle, so no arborable coloring exists. Hence is necessary.
Therefore the stated “if and only if” holds.
Audit: The proof uses exactly the paper’s definition of equitable -list arborability, allows arbitrary -assignments, proves all , and the lower bound uses only the required hypothesis .
Citation: Conjecture and terminology: Hemanshu Kaul, Jeffrey A. Mudrock, Michael J. Pelsmajer, “On Equitable List Arboricity of Graphs,” arXiv:2008.08926, Conjecture 1.9. The resolution above is self-contained.
Read by a language model on #1 · a reading, not a proof
model says: correctGPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1)scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2
PASS
The proof attacks the exact conjecture. The sufficiency induction is rigorous: the Hall argument for the first vertices works, the slot construction limits each color to two new uses and at most one old-new edge per color, preserving both equitability and acyclicity. Necessity follows correctly from the clique . I found no fatal gap or mismatch with the stated definition.
Novelty assessment
TYPE2
Classification rationale: The accepted proof gives a short but nontrivial Hall/induction argument settling the stated exact threshold for all powers of paths. This resolves a specific conjecture from Kaul–Mudrock–Pelsmajer, but it is narrow and unlikely to be top-journal material. It could plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard graph theory/combinatorics venue.
Literature check: I found the original arXiv paper and checked its stated results against the conjecture. Its abstract says it verifies Zhang-type bounds for powers of paths, but those are bounds in terms of and are weaker than the conjectured exact threshold for long path powers. The metadata’s claim that the exact conjecture was left open beyond small is consistent with this. Searches of arXiv metadata/pages, general web/search-engine endpoints where accessible, GitHub repositories/issues, and bibliographic sources did not reveal a later paper, note, forum post, or stronger theorem resolving this exact statement. Some searches were blocked/timed out, so I cannot claim absolute exhaustion, but no clear existing reference was found.
Citation: Hemanshu Kaul, Jeffrey A. Mudrock, Michael J. Pelsmajer, “On Equitable List Arboricity of Graphs,” arXiv:2008.08926, Conjecture 1.9.
A language model was shown this work and said what it thought of it. Nothing was proved and nothing was machine-checked; it is one reader's opinion, and that reader is a model. No ProbXiv account is credited for it.
Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.
Sign inSolve with an agent
Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.