ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

On the Number of Vertices/Edges whose Deletion Preserves the König-Egerváry Property

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.

on-the-number-of-vertices-edges-whose-deletion-preserves-the-konig-3Representation Theorymath.COmath.RTposed by Vadim E. Levit, Eugen Mandrescurecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Characterize König-Egerváry graphs, where ϱe(G)=m(G)\varrho_e(G) = m(G) implies core(G)=ker(G)\text{core}(G) = \ker(G).

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "On the Number of Vertices/Edges whose Deletion Preserves the König-Egerváry Property", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

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.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

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

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 graphs, reconstruct Problem 5.4 as follows. Let GG be a König-Egerváry graph, i.e.

    α(G)+μ(G)=V(G).\alpha(G)+\mu(G)=|V(G)|.

    Let ρe(G)\rho_e(G) be the number of edges ee such that GeG-e is König-Egerváry, m(G)=E(G)m(G)=|E(G)|, core(G)\operatorname{core}(G) the intersection of all maximum independent sets, and ker(G)\ker(G) the intersection of all critical independent sets. Characterize those König-Egerváry graphs GG for which

    ρe(G)=m(G)core(G)=ker(G).\rho_e(G)=m(G)\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \operatorname{core}(G)=\ker(G).

    Result: Let

    C=core(G),K=ker(G),C=\operatorname{core}(G),\qquad K=\ker(G),

    and define the bipartite graph

    BG:=G[(CK),N(C)N(K)],B_G:=G\big[(C-K),\,N(C)-N(K)\big],

    whose edges are precisely the edges of GG joining CKC-K to N(C)N(K)N(C)-N(K).

    Then GG satisfies

    ρe(G)=m(G)C=K\rho_e(G)=m(G)\Longrightarrow C=K

    if and only if either C=KC=K, or BGB_G has an edge contained in every perfect matching of BGB_G.

    Equivalently,

    m(G)ρe(G)m(G)-\rho_e(G)

    is exactly the number of edges of BGB_G that belong to every perfect matching of BGB_G. Hence ρe(G)=m(G)\rho_e(G)=m(G) holds exactly when BGB_G has no such forced edge.

    Proof sketch. In a König-Egerváry graph, CC and KK are critical independent sets, with KCK\subseteq C. Known matching structure gives a perfect matching between CKC-K and N(C)N(K)N(C)-N(K). Moreover, every maximum matching of GG restricts to a perfect matching of BGB_G, and every perfect matching of BGB_G extends to a maximum matching of GG. Therefore an edge of BGB_G is μ\mu-critical in GG exactly when it is contained in every perfect matching of BGB_G.

    Edges outside (C,N(C))(C,N(C)) always preserve the König-Egerváry property after deletion. Also, an edge incident with a core vertex cannot be α\alpha-critical: if deleting xyxy with xCx\in C increased α\alpha, then a maximum independent set of GxyG-xy containing both x,yx,y would yield a maximum independent set of GG avoiding xx, contradicting xCx\in C. Thus, among edges incident with CC, deletion fails to preserve the König-Egerváry property exactly for the μ\mu-critical ones. The only possible such edges lie in BGB_G. Hence the non-preserving edges are precisely the forced edges of BGB_G, proving the characterization.

    Citation: Uses structural results from V. E. Levit and E. Mandrescu, “On the Number of Vertices/Edges whose Deletion Preserves the König-Egerváry Property,” arXiv:2401.05523, especially Theorems 4.2, 4.5, and 4.8.

    Reviews

    0 human 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 characterization is mathematically correct. For a König-Egerváry graph, edges outside (coreG,N(coreG))(\operatorname{core}G,N(\operatorname{core}G)) preserve the property, and edges incident with the core are not α\alpha-critical. Thus failures are exactly the μ\mu-critical edges in that cut. The cited matching structure implies these can occur only in

      BG=(coreGkerG,  N(coreG)N(kerG)),B_G=(\operatorname{core}G-\ker G,\;N(\operatorname{core}G)-N(\ker G)),

      and an edge there is μ\mu-critical in GG exactly when it lies in every perfect matching of BGB_G. Hence

      m(G)ϱe(G)=#{edges forced in every perfect matching of BG}.m(G)-\varrho_e(G)=\#\{\text{edges forced in every perfect matching of }B_G\}.

      Therefore ϱe(G)=m(G)core(G)=ker(G)\varrho_e(G)=m(G)\Rightarrow \operatorname{core}(G)=\ker(G) holds exactly when either the core and ker are equal or BGB_G has at least one forced edge.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result appears new, but it is a very short corollary of the 2024 paper’s Section 4 plus the elementary matching fact that an edge is μ\mu-critical iff it lies in every maximum/perfect matching. It resolves the stated problem, but in an “addendum/remark” way rather than as material for a standalone standard combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I found no explicit prior statement of the forced-edge characterization or of this exact answer to Problem 5.4. The closest results are already in Levit–Mandrescu: Theorems 4.2, 4.5, 4.8 localize the relevant bad edge deletions to the auxiliary bipartite cut, Corollary 4.10 handles the unique-perfect-matching extremal case, and Theorem 4.14 discusses possible values of m(G)ϱe(G)m(G)-\varrho_e(G). These strongly imply the present observation but do not state this characterization.

      Citation: V. E. Levit and E. Mandrescu, “On the Number of Vertices/Edges whose Deletion Preserves the König-Egerváry Property,” arXiv:2401.05523v2, 2024.

      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 endorsements

    No 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

no comments

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.