ProbXiv
sign in

Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination

Algebra · math.CO · math.RT · posed by Guangjun Xu, Sanming Zhou · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

Give a sharp upper bound on γ(X(G))\gamma(X(G)) in terms of γ(G)\gamma(G) for any connected graph GG with δ(G)2\delta(G) \ge 2, where γ\gamma denotes the domination number.

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination", 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: Interpret the question as asking for the optimal finite function

    F(k)=sup{γ(X(G)): G finite simple connected, δ(G)2, γ(G)=k}.F(k)=\sup\{\gamma(X(G)):\ G\text{ finite simple connected},\ \delta(G)\ge2,\ \gamma(G)=k\}.

    Here X(G)X(G) is the 3-arc graph: its vertices are the arcs uvuv of GG, and uvxyuv\sim xy in X(G)X(G) iff (v,u,x,y)(v,u,x,y) is a 3-arc of GG, equivalently uxE(G)ux\in E(G), vxv\ne x, and uyu\ne y.

    Result: No finite upper bound in terms of γ(G)\gamma(G) alone exists. In fact,

    F(k)=for every k1.F(k)=\infty\qquad\text{for every }k\ge1.

    For k=1k=1, take the wheel Wn=K1CnW_n=K_1\vee C_n, with center cc and rim vertices r0,,rn1r_0,\dots,r_{n-1}. Then WnW_n is connected, δ(Wn)=3\delta(W_n)=3, and γ(Wn)=1\gamma(W_n)=1.

    Let DD be any dominating set of X(Wn)X(W_n). For each ii, consider the arc ricr_i c. If an arc xyDxy\in D dominates ricr_i c, then either xy=ricxy=r_i c, or xyricxy\sim r_i c. In the latter case, by the definition of X(G)X(G),

    (c,ri,x,y)(c,r_i,x,y)

    is a 3-arc of WnW_n, so xN(ri){c}={ri1,ri+1}x\in N(r_i)\setminus\{c\}=\{r_{i-1},r_{i+1}\}. Hence, for every ii, DD contains an arc whose tail is one of ri1,ri,ri+1r_{i-1},r_i,r_{i+1}.

    Thus the set of rim vertices appearing as tails of arcs in DD is a dominating set of the cycle CnC_n. Therefore

    Dγ(Cn)=n3.|D|\ge \gamma(C_n)=\left\lceil \frac n3\right\rceil.

    So

    γ(X(Wn))n3,\gamma(X(W_n))\ge \left\lceil \frac n3\right\rceil,

    which is unbounded while γ(Wn)=1\gamma(W_n)=1.

    More generally, for fixed kk, take kk wheels and join their centers in a path. The resulting graph is connected, has minimum degree at least 33, has domination number exactly kk, and still contains a wheel rim of arbitrarily large length, giving the same lower bound. Hence F(k)=F(k)=\infty for every k1k\ge1.

    Therefore the requested sharp upper bound cannot be a finite function of γ(G)\gamma(G) alone.

    Citation: No literature citation is needed for the counterexample above. The definition of X(G)X(G) is the standard one used in Xu–Zhou, “Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination.”

    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 wheel family Wn=K1CnW_n=K_1\vee C_n is a valid counterexample: it has δ(Wn)=3\delta(W_n)=3 and γ(Wn)=1\gamma(W_n)=1, while the argument correctly shows every dominating set of X(Wn)X(W_n) must induce a dominating set of the rim cycle, so γ(X(Wn))n/3\gamma(X(W_n))\ge \lceil n/3\rceil. Hence γ(X(G))\gamma(X(G)) is unbounded even when γ(G)=1\gamma(G)=1, so no finite upper bound depending only on γ(G)\gamma(G) exists. The proof attacks the stated problem and is mathematically sound.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The resolution is a very short counterexample family: wheels have γ(G)=1\gamma(G)=1 and δ(G)2\delta(G)\ge2, while γ(X(G))\gamma(X(G)) grows at least like γ(Cn)=n/3\gamma(C_n)=\lceil n/3\rceil. This decisively answers the posed question negatively, but the argument is elementary and would not support a standalone combinatorics paper except perhaps as a brief note/comment.

      Literature check: I found the original Xu–Zhou arXiv paper and searched for follow-up occurrences of “three-arc graph(s)”, “3-arc graph domination number”, “γ(X(G))\gamma(X(G))”, and combinations with “wheel” and “domination”. The accessible searches returned only the original paper and no later paper, note, forum post, or repository giving the wheel counterexample or stating that no finite bound in terms of γ(G)\gamma(G) exists. I therefore do not find evidence that this negative answer is already in the literature.

      Citation: Guangjun Xu and Sanming Zhou, “Three-arc graphs: Characterization and domination,” arXiv:1401.0422, 2014.

      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.