1. Introduction
Symmetry occurs not only in geometry, but also in other branches of mathematics. Graph coloring plays an important role in the whole history of the area of graph theory, in which many symmetric properties are widely studied, such as symmetric graphs defined by the automorphism groups, symmetric drawings of planar graphs. In 1995, Stanley studied graph colorings and related symmetric functions [
1], and introduced a homogeneous symmetric function generalization of the chromatic polynomial of a graph. From then, many kind of generalizations have been studied including Tutte symmetric functions [
2]. In their book, Gross, Yellen and Anderson [
3] wrote a chapter
Graph Colorings and Symmetry
to explore the interplay between a graph’s symmetry and the number of different colorings of that graph.
Throughout this paper, we consider only simple graphs, i.e., without loops and multi-edges. Assume that G is a graph with vertex set , edge set , minimum degree , and maximum degree (for short, ). We say that two edges of G have distance d if their distance is d in the line graph of G. Given a vertex , we use and to denote the degree of v in G and the set of neighbors of v in G, respectively. If or , then v is called a k-vertex or a -vertex. The maximum average degree of G, denoted mad, is defined as .
If a graph G has a mapping from to so that any two adjacent edges receive different values, then is called an edge-k-coloring of G. If, in , each path of length three has distinct colors (or no path or cycle of length four is bichromatic), then is called a strong edge-coloring (or star edge-coloring). The chromatic index strong chromatic index , star chromatic index , respectively) is the least k so that G is edge-k-colorable (strongly edge-k-colorable, star edge-k-colorable, respectively).
It holds trivially that for any graph G.
About the strong edge-coloring of graphs, Erdos and Nešetřil raised the following challenging conjecture:
It was shown in [
4] that
for a graph
G when
is enough large. Very recently, Bonamy et al. [
5] improved this upper bound to
. It was shown in [
6] that every planar graph
G has
, and there exist planar graphs
H such that
.
The concept of the star edge-coloring of graphs was introduced by Liu and Deng [
7]. They showed that
if
G is a graph with
. In 2013, Dvořák et al. [
8] first established the following result for a complete graph
,
and then used it to prove that
for any graph
G.
Suppose that
G is a subcubic graph, i.e., a graph with maximum degree at most three. It was showed in [
8] that
and conjectured that 6 is enough. This result has been extended from two aspects below. Lužar et al. [
9] showed that
G is list star edge-7-colorable. Lei et al. [
10] proved that
if mad
, and
if mad
.
In 2016, Bezegová et al. [
11] verified: (i) a forest
F has
; (ii) an outerplanar graph
G has
. Note that the upper bound
of (i) is tight and the number 12 in (ii) was conjectured to be replaced by 1. By using an edge-partition technique, Wang et al. [
12] improved and extended the results in [
11] as follows:
Theorem 1 ([
12]).
Let G be a planar graph. Then(1) .
(2) if G has no 4-cycles.
(3) if G is outerplanar.
If a graph
G can be drawn in the plane such that each edge crosses at most one other edge, then
G is called a 1-planar graph. It was shown in [
13] that every 1-planar graph
G has
, and
. Note that the largest complete graph that is not 1-planar is
, and there exists a 7-regular 1-planar graph
, as shown in
Figure 1. Observe that both
and
are symmetric with respect to their vertices.
Call a 1-planar graph
Goptimal if
,
NIC-planar if any two pairs of crossing edges have at most one common end-vertices, and
IC-planar if any two pairs of crossing edges have no common end-vertices. Recently, Wang et al. [
14] studied the strong edge-coloring of 1-planar graphs and obtained the following results:
Theorem 2 ([
14]).
Let G be a 1-planar graph. Then(1) .
(2) if G is optimal.
(3) if G is IC-planar.
This paper is devoted to discuss the star edge-coloring of 1-planar graphs. The main results obtained are described in the Abstract.
2. Edge-Partition
Suppose that , and G are three graphs with same vertex set. If and , then is said to be an edge-partition of G.
Let
G be a 1-planar graph. Ackerman [
15] showed that
G admits an edge-partition into a planar graph and a forest. We say that
G is
k-nice, where
k is a fixed constant, if
G can be edge-partitioned into two planar graphs
and
such that
. It is easy to check that IC-planar graph is 1-nice. Moreover, for our purpose, we list the following more interesting results on
k-nice 1-planar graphs.
Lemma 1 ([
16]).
NIC-planar graphs are 3-nice, and the result is the best possible. Lemma 2 ([
17]).
Optimal 1-planar graphs are 4-nice, and the result is the best possible. Lemma 3 ([
18]).
All 3-connected 1-planar graphs are 6-nice, and the result is the best possible. To bind the linear 2-arboricity of 1-planar graphs, Liu et al. [
19] established the following structural theorem:
Lemma 4 ([
19]).
Every 1-planar graph G with can be edge-partitioned into two forests and a graph K such that and for . Corollary 1. Every 1-planar graph G with can be edge-partitioned into a forest F and a graph H such that and .
Proof. By Lemma 4, G has an edge-partition such that is a forest with for , and K is a graph with . Define and . Then is an edge-partition of G such that F is a forest with and . □
Given a graph G, identifying its vertices x and y means that gluing into a new vertex z such that each of the edges incident to x or y in G is joined to z. An edge e of G is contracted if it is deleted and its end-vertices are identified. Call an edge of G-edge if and . Set , and define .
The following lemma implies the existence of a light edge in a 1-planar graph with minimum degree at least three.
Lemma 5 ([
20]).
Let G be a 1-planar graph with . Then . Let
G be a 1-planar graph which is drawn in the plane such that each edge has at most one crossing. Moreover, we may require that the number of crossings in
G is as few as possible. Let
denote the set of crossings in
G. Define the associated plane graph
H of
G as follows:
where
denotes the set of non-crossed edges in
G and
and z is a crossing on
We say that a vertex is true if , and false if . Clearly, if , and if . Since G is 1-planar, there do not exist two adjacent false vertices in H.
Theorem 3. If G is a 1-planar graph with and without 4-cycles, then .
Proof. If , then the result holds from Lemma 5. Thus assume that . Suppose that the theorem is not true, i.e., . Let v be any 2-vertex of G with neighbors x and y. Then and . Let H be the associated plane graph of G such that the number of crossings is as few as possible. If is a crossing edge of G with crossing , then is a false vertex of H that satisfies and . Let denote the number of crossing edges of G in . Then . We say that v is of type 1 if and type 2 if .
We need to define the following operations (OP1)–(OP4):
- (OP1)
If v is of type 1, then remove the vertex v.
- (OP2)
If v is of type 2 and , say by the symmetry of x and y, then contract the edge .
Assume that v is of type 2 and . To introduce (OP3), we define an auxiliary graph B in the following way. Let S denote the set of all type 2 2-vertices u in H with . Then each is adjacent to two false vertices in H. Let T denote the set of false vertices in H which are adjacent to at least one vertex in S. Let , which is an induced subgraph of H on the set . □
Claim 1. B is a bipartite graph with.
Proof. It follows from that H contains no adjacent 2-vertices, so no two vertices in S are adjacent. Because H contains no adjacent false vertices, no two vertices in T are adjacent. Hence B is a bipartite graph with bipartitions S and T. Obviously, for every . Moreover, because , every false vertex is adjacent to at most two 2-vertices in H. Hence . Noting that , we derive that . This completes the proof of Claim 1. □
Let C be a component of B. By Claim 1, C is an even cycle of length at least 4 or a path of length at least 2 from a false vertex to another false vertex.
First, suppose that C is not a path of length 2, say is an even cycle or is a path, where , , and .
Let
be a sub-path of
C, where
and
. Then
and
. Let the neighbors of
in
H are
in a cyclic order. Then
and
are two crossing edges of
G. It is easy to check that no vertex in
is joined to any vertex in
. Define the following operation, as shown in
Figure 2:
() Remove , identify and into a new vertex , and then join to each of and .
In all figures of this paper, vertices marked • have no edges of H incident with them other than those shown, vertices marked ∘ may have edges connected to other vertices of H not in the configuration, and vertices marked ⊗ are false vertices of H.
We say that is an operator acted on the set .
Because and lie in the boundary of some common face of H, can be reasonably defined, i.e., the resultant graph is a simple 1-planar graph. The following Remark 1 holds obviously.
Remark 1. Let be the graph obtained from H by acting on the set . Then
;
For each vertex , .
Let
be a sub-path of
C, where
and
. Assume that the neighbors of
in
H are
in a cyclic order, and the neighbors of
in
H are
in a cyclic order. Similarly, no vertex in
is adjacent to any vertex in
, and no vertex in
is adjacent to any vertex in
. Note that
, for otherwise
G will contain a multi-edge. Moreover, if
, then
G will admit a new plane drawing such that
may not exist, which contradicts the assumption that the number of crossings in
G is as few as possible. Hence the only possibility for two vertices in
to be same is that
. To deal with this case, we define the following operation (see
Figure 3):
() Remove , identify into a new vertex , and then join to each of .
Note that when , i.e., and coincide into a vertex w, we connect only one edge between w and . This guarantees that the resultant graph is still a simple plane graph. Similarly, is called an operator acted on the set .
As an easy observation, we have the following:
Remark 2. Let be the graph obtained from H by acting on the set . Then
; and if and only if ;
For , ; and if and only if ;
For each vertex , .
Based on () and (), we furthermore define the following operation:
(OP3) If k is even, then act on , , …, , respectively. If k is odd, then act on , and on , …, , respectively.
Next, suppose that is a path of length 2 with and . Let the neighbors of in H be in a cyclic order. Then are true -vertices of H, , and . Because H is a simple graph, at least one of and is not adjacent to , say .
In view of the symmetry of the vertices
and
, we carry out the following operation, see
Figure 4:
(OP4) Remove , and then identify and into a new vertex . If , then join to ; otherwise, join to each of and .
Let denote the resultant graph after (OP4) are carried out. It is easy to see that is a simple plane graph. Moreover, the following Remark 3 holds clearly:
Remark 3.
; and if and only if ;
; and if and only if ;
, and .
By Remark 3(1), .
Let denote the resultant graph obtained from H by carrying out (OP1)-(OP4) for all 2-vertices of H. Then is a simple plane graph, which is the associated plane graph of some 1-planar graph K. Namely, we can construct a graph K from by performing the following operation for each false vertex x: Assuming that the neighbors of x in are in a cyclic order, then we remove x and add the diagonal edges and . It is easy to inspect that K is a simple 1-planar graph, and it may contain 4-cycles.
Let , where is the set of new vertices added when carrying out (OP3) and (OP4), and . Then .
Proof. It suffices to show that for each vertex . If , i.e., v is a vertex of form and , then Remarks 1–3 claim that . Otherwise, . (OP1)-(OP4) imply that . Let
,
.
For , let denote the number of 2-vertices of type i adjacent to v in G. From (OP1)-(OP4), we can see that if with , then and is still an edge of K. This implies that . So, if , then we are done. Otherwise, . Because , v is adjacent to a 2-vertex y in G. Because and , it follows that . Let with . Because G contains no 4-cycles, there exists at most one 2-vertex, say x, such that forms a 3-cycle of G, i.e., x is a 2-vertex of type 1 in G. So it follows that , and therefore .
For , let denote the set of type 2 2-vertices with . Suppose that , and let be the neighbor of y other than v. Then . By (OP2), we need to remove y and then add the edge to the resultant graph. Then . So, when , we have that . Otherwise, , so that . Namely, there are at least 35 2-vertices in which are required to carry out (OP3) or (OP4). It is easy to observe that when (OP3) or (OP4) is performed once, the degree of v in K is increased by at least one. It therefore follows that . This proves Claim 2. □
By Claim 2 and Lemma 5, K contains an edge such that .
Claim 3. There is an edge such that.
Proof. The proof is split into two cases as follows. □
Case 1..
There exist such that corresponds to x, and corresponds to y. In light of the symmetry of x and y, it suffices to define and to prove that . There are two possibilities as follows.
Case 1.1..
Assume that x is generated by acting () on two 2-vertices of G, say and . Then and by Remark 1(1). So can be defined as exactly one of and such that .
Assume that x is generated by acting () on three 2-vertices of G, say . Then and by Remark 2(1). So is exactly one of and such that .
Assume, by symmetry, that x is generated by carrying out (OP4) for a 2-vertex, say , and a -vertex, say , of G. Then , and is exactly one of and such that by Remark 3(1).
Case 1.2..
Set , and let . There are two possibilities to be handled.
Assume that with . If , then because G contains no 4-cycles, there exists at most one 2-vertex such that . By (OP1), the degree of in G caused by z is at most two. Otherwise, . There exists a 2-vertex such that . In this case, t is a neighbor of in G. By (OP2), the degree of in G caused by z stays unchanged.
Assume that . Then, by (OP3), (OP4) and Remarks 1-3, z can be split into at most three vertices in G, at most two of which are adjacent to . Thus, the degree of in G caused by z is at most two.
The above analysis implies that .
Case 2..
Then there is a 2-vertex such that by (OP2)-(OP4). Set and . Repeating the proof for Case 1, we can conclude that . This completes the proof of Claim 3.□
Claim 3 implies that , which contradicts the assumption that . This proves Theorem 3.□
The condition that G contains no 4-cycles in Theorem 3 is essential. For example, is a 1-planar graph (in fact, planar) with many 4-cycles, so that is not bounded by any given constant. Moreover, it should be pointed out that, in the proof of Theorem 3, we employed the symmetry of subgraphs considered many times.
Now, by using Theorem 3 and Theorem 2 in [
21], we obtain the following important edge-partition theorem of 1-planar graphs without 4-cycles.
Theorem 4. Let G be a 1-planar graph with and without 4-cycles. Then G has an edge-partition such that F is a forest with and H is a graph with .