2-distance 20-coloring of planar graphs with maximum degree 6
Abstract
A 2-distance -coloring of a graph is a proper -coloring such that any two vertices at distance two or less get different colors. The 2-distance chromatic number of is the minimum such that has a 2-distance -coloring, denoted by . In this paper, we show that for every planar graph with maximum degree at most six, which improves a former bound .
1 Introduction
All graphs considered in this paper are simple, finite, and planar. For a graph , we denote the set of vertices, the set of edges, and the set of faces by , , and , respectively. For a graph and a vertex in , let denote the graph obtained from by deleting the vertex and all edges incident with . The set of neighbours of a vertex in a graph is denoted by . The degree of a vertex in a graph , denoted by , is the number of edges of incident with . The maximum degree and minimum degree of a graph are denoted by and ( and for short). A vertex of degree (respectively, at least , at most ) is said to be a -vertex (respectively, -vertex, -vertex). For , let denote the subgraph of induced by . A face is said to be incident with the vertices and edges in its boundary, and two faces are adjacent if their boundaries have an edge in common. The degree of a face in a graph , denoted by , is the number of edges in its boundary. A face of degree (respectively, at least , at most ) is said to be a -face (respectively, -face, -face). A is a -face with vertices on its boundary. For a vertex in a graph , let denote the number of -faces incident with , and let denote the number of -vertices adjacent to .
Let be a partial coloring of a graph . For a vertex in a graph , let denote the set of colors assigned to the vertices within distance two from . A 2-distance -coloring of a graph is a mapping such that for any two vertices with , where is the distance between the two vertices and . The 2-distance chromatic number of is the minimum such that has a 2-distance -coloring, denoted by . Let denote the number of vertices within distance two from a vertex . Any definitions and notations not explicitly stated in this paper conform to those in [1].
The study of 2-distance coloring originated from the research on square coloring, which was first introduced by Kramer and Kramer [12, 11]. The square of a graph , denoted by , is obtained by adding edges between all pairs of vertices that have a common neighbour in . In 1977, Wegner made the following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.1.
[15] If is a planar graph, then if , if , and if .
The case of was independently proven by Thomassen [14] and by Hartke et al. [7]. Havet et al. [8, 9] proved that the conjecture holds asymptotically. Bousquet et al. [3] proved that for using an automatic discharging method. Deniz [5] proved that for . For a comprehensive overview of 2-distance coloring and related research, we refer the reader to [4].
The upper bound on for has been gradually improving. Zhu and Bu [16] proved that for , which was improved by Krzyziński et al. [13] to for . In this paper, we show that for every planar graph with , which improves the result of proved by Bousquet et al. [2]. We prove the following theorem.
Theorem 1.2.
If is a planar graph with maximum degree , then .
Remark.
Recently, Deniz [6] posted the first version of the proof on arXiv on March 18, 2024, showing that for planar graphs. The proof in this version covers the cases , , and . According to this inequality, when , it follows that . However, the proof for the case in this initial version is incomplete and requires further elaboration.
2 Reducible configurations
Let be a minimum counterexample to Theorem 1.2 with minimum . That is is a planar graph with , such that for any planar subgraph with and , we have . Obviously, is a connected graph.
Let be a set of colors. We call a graph proper with respect to if is obtained from by deleting some edges or vertices and adding some edges such that for any two vertices , with , we have . This definition of proper is the same as the one used in [5, 10]. In this section, we present some reducible configurations of . The proofs of the lemmas generally follow a similar pattern: We construct a graph that is proper with respect to by deleting a vertex from and adding some edges. By the minimality of , there exists a 2-distance 20-coloring of . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for the deleted vertex , is colored using . If , then a safe color exists for . By coloring with the safe color, can be extended to a 2-distance 20-coloring of . This implies that , which is a contradiction. The essence of the proof is to construct a proper such that .
Lemma 2.1.
We have .
Proof.
Assume that contains a 1-vertex . It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction. Next, we assume that has a 2-vertex with . Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.2.
Let be a 3-vertex. Then,
-
(1)
,
-
(2)
, and
-
(3)
.
Proof.
Let , , and be the neighbours of . (1) Assume that is adjacent to a -vertex. Without loss of generality, let be a -vertex. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
(2) Assume that is incident to a 3-face . Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
(3) Assume that is incident to two 4-faces and . It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.3.
Let be a 4-vertex. Then . In particular, if , then , , and for any 6-vertex adjacent to .
Proof.
Let , , , and be the neighbours of in clockwise order. First, we show that . Assume that is incident to three 3-faces , , and . Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Now, we consider the case . Let and be two 3-faces incident to . First, we show that . Assume that is incident to a 4-face . If and are adjacent, say and , then let . If and are not adjacent, say and , then let . In both cases, is proper with respect to and by the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since in each case, we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
Next, we prove that . Assume that is incident to a -vertex. Without loss of generality, let be a -vertex. If and are adjacent, say and , then let . If and are not adjacent, say and , then let . In both cases, is proper with respect to and , a contradiction.
Finally, we prove that for any 6-vertex adjacent to . To show that cannot be incident to more than five 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Let . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces of . This implies that there exists a vertex such that is a common neighbour of and . If and are adjacent, say , then let . If and are not adjacent, say , then let . In both cases, is proper with respect to and , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.4.
Let be a 4-vertex with . Then . In particular, if , then , and .
Proof.
Let , , , and be the neighbours of in clockwise order and let be a 3-face incident to . First, we show that . Assume that is incident to three 4-faces , , and . Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Now, we suppose that . Let and be two 4-faces incident to . First, we prove that . Assume that is adjacent to a 4-vertex. Let be a 4-vertex. Regardless of whether and are adjacent, let . (If a vertex other than is a 4-vertex, then we construct by deleting and adding edges from to each neighbour of with .) The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20 coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. Second, we show that . Assume that is adjacent to two 5-vertices. There are six possible arrangements of two 5-vertices among the four neighbors of . Regardless of whether and are adjacent, the construction of depends on which neighbours of are the two 5-vertices. If is one of the two 5-vertices, then we construct . Similarly, if is one of the two 5-vertices, then we construct . Otherwise, if and are two 5-vertices, then we construct . In all cases, is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
Next, we suppose that . Let be a 4-face incident to . The proof of is similar to the proof when we supposed that . Assume that is adjacent to a 4-vertex and let be a 4-vertex. We construct in the same way as before, regardless of the position of : . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . The only difference is that, in this case, . We can color with a safe color, a contradiction. Finally, we prove that . Assume that is adjacent to two 5-vertices. There are six possible arrangements of two 5-vertices among the four neighbors of . We consider two cases based on the position of . Case 1: . If is one of the two 5-vertices, then we construct . Similarly, if is one of the two 5-vertices, then we construct . Otherwise, if and are the two 5-vertices, then we construct . Case 2: . In this case, we construct , regardless of which neighbours of are the two 5-vertices. In all cases, is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Now, we discuss the properties of a 5-vertex in . Let be a 5-vertex and let be the neighbours of in clockwise order.
Lemma 2.5.
Let be a 5-vertex. If , then and for any 6-vertex adjacent to .
Proof.
Suppose that is incident to five 3-faces. First, we show that . Assume that is adjacent to a -vertex. Without loss of generality, let be a -vertex. It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Next, we prove that for any 6-vertex adjacent to . To show that cannot be incident to more than five 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Without loss of generality, we assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. This implies that there exists a vertex such that is a common neighbour of and . It is clear that is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.6.
Let be a 5-vertex with and = 1. Then , , and for any 6-vertex adjacent to .
Proof.
Suppose that is incident to four 3-faces , , , , and one 4-face . First, we show that . By Lemma 2.2(1), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex. Thus it suffices to show that is not adjacent to any 4-vertex. Assume that is adjacent to a 4-vertex. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Next, we assume that is incident to two 5-vertices. It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. Thus holds. This implies that .
Finally, we prove that for any 6-vertex adjacent to . Assume that is a 6-vertex. Since is incident to a 4-face, can be incident to at most five 3-faces. By symmetry, the same holds if we assume that is a 6-vertex. Next, we prove that if , , or is a 6-vertex, then it can be incident to at most five 3-faces. Without loss of generality, we assume that is a 6-vertex and is incident to six 3-faces. In this case, each of the edges and is contained in two 3-faces. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.7.
Let be a 5-vertex with and = 1. Then , , and . In particular, if , then .
Proof.
Suppose that is incident to four 3-faces , , , , and one -face that contains and . Obviously, we have by Lemma 2.2(1). Now, we show that . Assume that is adjacent to two 4-vertices. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Next, we prove that . Assume that is adjacent to three 5-vertices. It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
Finally, we consider the case . Assume that is adjacent to a 5-vertex. Obviously, is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.8.
Let be a 5-vertex with and = 1. Then the number of 4-vertices, 5-vertices, and 6-vertices adjacent to must be one of the following:
-
(a)
(, , ) = (1, 0, 4),
-
(b)
(, , ) = (0, 2, 3),
-
(c)
(, , ) = (0, 1, 4), or
-
(d)
(, , ) = (0, 0, 5).
Moreover, let be any 6-vertex adjacent to . Then the following hold:
-
(1)
If is in case (a), then .
-
(2)
If is in case (b), then .
-
(3)
If is in case (c), then there exists at least one 6-vertex with .
-
(4)
If is in case (d), then there exist at least two 6-vertices , with and .
Proof.
The first statement of the lemma follows directly from Lemma 2.7. We now prove the remaining statements, from (1) to (4). Suppose that is incident to four 3-faces , , , , and one -face that contains and .
(1) To show that cannot be incident to more than five 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since and , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
(2) The proof is similar to that of (1). To show that cannot be incident to more than five 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. As in (1), let , which is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . In case (b), we have and , which leads to . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
(3) In case (c), we have and . It follows that at least one of and must be a 6-vertex. Let be such a 6-vertex. Since is incident to one -face, it can be incident to at most five 3-faces. Therefore, (3) holds.
(4) In case (d), all neighbours of are 6-vertices. It follows that both and are 6-vertices. Let and . Since each of and is incident to one -face, it can be incident to at most five 3-faces. Therefore, (4) holds. ∎
Next, we examine the properties of a 6-vertex in . Let be a 6-vertex and let be the neighbours of in clockwise order.


Lemma 2.9.
Let be a 6-vertex with and and let be any 5-vertex adjacent to . Then the following hold:
-
(1)
.
-
(2)
If , then .
-
(3)
If , then . Moreover, if , then .
-
(4)
If , then . Moreover, the following hold:
-
(4.1)
If , then .
-
(4.2)
If , then there exist at most two 5-vertices with .
-
(4.3)
If , then there exist at most two 5-vertices with .
-
(4.1)
Proof.
Suppose that is incident to five 3-faces , , , , , and one 4-face . By Lemma 2.2(2), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex.
(1) In the proof of Lemma 2.3, we showed that if is a 4-vertex with , then no edge in is contained in two 3-faces. Thus , , , and cannot be 4-vertices. Among the neighbours of , at most two vertices, namely, and , can be 4-vertices.
(2) We suppose that and are 4-vertices. Assume that is adjacent to two 5-vertices. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
(3) Without loss of generality, we suppose that is a 4-vertex. Assume that is adjacent to four 5-vertices. The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
Now, we consider the case = 3. To show that any 5-vertex adjacent to cannot be incident to more than four 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(4) We suppose that is not adjacent to any 4-vertex. Assume that all neighbours of are 5-vertices. Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(4.1) Suppose that is adjacent to five 5-vertices. To show that any 5-vertex adjacent to cannot be incident to more than four 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. There are six possibilities for which neighbours of is a 6-vertex. Due to symmetry, it suffices to consider the cases where , , or is a 6-vertex. In each of these cases, let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(4.2) Suppose that is adjacent to four 5-vertices. We consider two cases based on whether both and are 6-vertices or not. First, we show that if and are both 6-vertices, then and . By symmetry, we only need to consider . Let and be the neighbours of other than , , and . Assume that is incident to four 3-faces. We have two cases: Case 1: The four 3-faces are , , , and . Case 2: The four 3-faces are , , , and . In Case 1, let . In Case 2, let . In each case, is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. Therefore, if and are 6-vertices, then there are at most two 5-vertices adjacent to with , namely and .
Next, we discuss the case where is not a 6-vertex or is not a 6-vertex. To show that there exist at most two 5-vertices adjacent to with , it suffices to prove that at most one edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that two edges and for with are contained in two 3-faces. If and are 6-vertices, then we construct . (Otherwise, we construct as follows: remove , add the edge , and choose one 5-vertex in the neighbourhood of other than and , and connect to the two vertices in the neighbourhood of that are at distance two from .) The graph is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(4.3) Suppose that is adjacent to three 5-vertices. There are twenty possible combinations of three 5-vertices. However, by symmetry, we only discuss ten cases: (see Figure 1.) Case 1: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 2: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 3: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 4: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 5: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 6: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 7: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 8: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 9: The three 5-vertices are , , and . Case 10: The three 5-vertices are , , and .
First, we consider Cases 3, 4, and 7. We show that in these cases. Assume that is incident to four 3-faces. Let and be the neighbours of other than , , and . Since is already incident to two 3-faces, namely and , the remaining two 3-faces must be one of the following: (i) and , or (ii) and . In case (i), we construct . In case (ii), we construct . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since in each case, we can color with a safe color, a contradiction.
Next, we consider Cases 1, 2, 5, and 9. We prove that in these cases. Assume that is incident to four 3-faces. It is clear that is proper with respect to . Since in each case, there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
We can similarly show that in Case 8. Assume that is incident to four 3-faces. Let and be the neighbours of other than , , and . Since is already incident to two 3-faces, namely and , the remaining two 3-faces must be one of the following: (i) and , or (ii) and . In case (i), we construct . In case (ii), we construct . The graph is proper with respect to . Since in each case, there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
Finally, we discuss Case 6 and Case 10. To show that there exist at most two 5-vertices adjacent to with , it suffices to prove that at most two edges in are contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that three edges in are contained in two 3-faces. In each case, we construct . The graph is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. From the above, there are at most two 5-vertices adjacent to with in Case 1 through Case 10. ∎
Lemma 2.10.
Let be a 6-vertex with and and let be any 5-vertex adjacent to . Then the following hold:
-
(1)
.
-
(2)
If , then .
-
(3)
If , then . Moreover, if , then .
-
(4)
If and , then .
-
(5)
If and , then there exist at most two 5-vertices with .
Proof.
Suppose that is incident to five 3-faces , , , , , and one -face that contains and . By Lemma 2.2(2), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex.
(1) The proof is the same as that of Lemma 2.9(1). The vertices and can be 4-vertices.
(2) We suppose that and are 4-vertices. Assume that is adjacent to three 5-vertices. Regardless of which neighbours of other than and are the three 5-vertices, we construct . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
(3) Without loss of generality, we suppose that is a 4-vertex. Assume that is adjacent to five 5-vertices. It is clear that is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. Now, we suppose that is adjacent to four 5-vertices. To show that any 5-vertex adjacent to cannot be incident to more than four 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. Let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(4) Suppose that all neighbours of are 5-vertices. To show that any 5-vertex adjacent to is incident to at most three 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. Let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(5) Suppose that is adjacent to five 5-vertices and one 6-vertex. To show that there exist at most two 5-vertices adjacent to with , it suffices to prove that at most one edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that two edges and for with are contained in two 3-faces. Due to symmetry, it suffices to consider the cases where , , or is a 6-vertex. In each of these cases, let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.11.
Let be a 6-vertex with and . Then the following hold:
-
(1)
.
-
(2)
If , then .
-
(3)
If , then for any 5-vertex adjacent to .
Proof.
We have three cases where is incident to four 3-faces and two 4-faces: Case 1: The 4-faces are and , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 2: The 4-faces are and , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 3: The 4-faces are and , and the 3-faces are , , , and .
(1) By Lemma 2.2(2), a 3-vertex is not incident to any 3-face, and by Lemma 2.2(3), a 3-vertex is incident to at most one 4-face. Thus is not adjacent to any 3-vertex in each case.
(2) Suppose that is adjacent to one 4-vertex. Assume that all other neighbours of are 5-vertices. First, we consider Case 1. In the proof of Lemma 2.3, we showed that if is a 4-vertex with , then no edge in is contained in two 3-faces. Thus only , , or can be a 4-vertex. In each case, let . Then is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since and , there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Next, we consider Case 2. For the same reason, only , , , or can be a 4-vertex. In each case, let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
Finally, we consider Case 3. Each neighbour of can be a 4-vertex. By symmetry, it suffices to consider the cases where or is a 4-vertex. In each case, let . Then is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction.
(3) Suppose that all neighbours of are 5-vertices. To show that any 5-vertex adjacent to cannot be incident to more than four 3-faces, it suffices to prove that no edge in is contained in two 3-faces of . Assume that the edge is contained in two 3-faces. In Case 1, let . In Case 2, let . In Case 3, let . In each case, is proper with respect to . Since , there exists a safe color for , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.12.
Let be a 6-vertex with , , and . Then . In particular, if , then .
Proof.
We have three cases where is incident to four 3-faces, one 4-face, and one -face: Case 1: The 4-face is and the -face is , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 2: The 4-face is and the -face is , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 3: The 4-face is and the -face is , and the 3-faces are , , , and .
First, we show that is adjacent to at most one 3-vertex. By Lemma 2.2(2), a 3-vertex is not incident to any 3-face. Thus is not adjacent to any 3-vertex in Case 2 and Case 3. In Case 1, only can be a 3-vertex. Thus holds.
Now we consider Case 1 and suppose that is a 3-vertex. Assume that is adjacent to a 4-vertex. In the proof of Lemma 2.3, we showed that if is a 4-vertex with , then no edge in is contained in two 3-faces. Hence only or can be a 4-vertex. If is a 4-vertex, then we construct . Otherwise, we construct . In both cases, is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.13.
Let be a 6-vertex with and . Then . In particular, if , then .
Proof.
We have three cases where is incident to four 3-faces and two -faces: Case 1: The -faces are , , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 2: The -faces are , , and the 3-faces are , , , and . Case 3: The -faces are , , and the 3-faces are , , , and .
The proof is similar to that of Lemma 2.12. Only can be a 3-vertex in Case 1. Thus holds. We suppose that is a 3-vertex and assume that is adjacent to a 4-vertex. Only or can be a 4-vertex. If is a 4-vertex, then we construct . Otherwise, we construct . In both cases, is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.14.
Let be a 5-face of . Then there is at most one 3-vertex incident to . In particular, if is incident to one 3-vertex, then is not incident to any 4-vertex.
Proof.
Let be a 5-face. By Lemma 2.2(1), a 3-vertex is not adjacent to any -vertex. Assume that and are 3-vertices with and . Let . The graph is proper with respect to . By the minimality of , has a 2-distance 20-coloring . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , it follows that and . Therefore, there exists a safe color for . By coloring with the safe color, becomes a 2-distance 20-coloring of , a contradiction.
Now, suppose that is a 3-vertex with . Assume that is a 4-vertex. It is clear that is proper with respect to . Let be a coloring of such that every vertex in , except for , is colored using . Since , we can color with a safe color, a contradiction. ∎
We obtain the following corollary from Lemma 2.2.
Corollary 2.15.
A -face is incident to at most 3-vertices.
3 Discharging
In this section, we design discharging rules and complete the proof of Theorem 1.2. We can derive the following equation by Euler’s formula .
We assign an initial charge to each vertex and to each face. We design appropriate discharging rules and redistribute the charges of the vertices and faces according to those rules. Let and denote the final charges of the vertices and faces, respectively, after the discharging process. During the process, the sum of charges remains constant. If and , the following contradiction arises.
We design the following discharging rules, which are based on the rules in [5].
-
R1
Every 3-face receives from each of its incident vertices.
-
R2
Every 3-vertex receives from each of its adjacent 6-vertices with .
-
R3
Every 3-vertex receives from each of its incident -faces.
-
R4
Every 4-vertex receives from each of its incident -faces.
-
R5
Every 4-vertex receives from each of its adjacent 6-vertices with .
-
R6
Every 5-vertex receives from each of its incident -faces.
-
R7
Every 5-vertex with receives from each of its adjacent 6-vertices with .
-
R8
Every 6-vertex receives from each of its incident -faces , if does not contain any 3-vertex adjacent to .
-
R9
Every 6-vertex receives from each of its incident -faces , if contains a 3-vertex adjacent to .
First, we prove that for each .
Next, we prove that for each . By Lemma 2.1 and , we only consider the cases where .
- Case 1.
-
The initial charge is . By Lemma 2.2(1), all neighbours of are 6-vertices. By Lemma 2.2(2) and Lemma 2.2(3), is incident to either one 4-face and two -faces or three -faces. In each case, holds for any 6-vertex adjacent to . If is incident to one 4-face and two -faces, then by R2 and R3. Otherwise, by R2 and R3. - Case 2.
- Case 2.1.
-
By Lemma 2.3, we have , , and for any 6-vertex adjacent to . This implies that is incident to two 3-faces and two -faces, all neighbours of are 6-vertices, and R5 can be applied to . By R1, R4, and R5, . - Case 2.2.
-
By Lemma 2.4, we have . In particular, if , then and . If , then the remaining face incident to is a -face, and is adjacent to at least three 6-vertices. By R1, R4, and R5, . If , then the remaining two faces incident to are -faces, and is adjacent to at least three 6-vertices. By R1, R4, and R5, . If , then the remaining three faces incident to are -faces. Regardless of the number of 6-vertices adjacent to , we have by R1 and R4. - Case 2.3.
-
In this case, is not incident to any 3-face, which implies that R1 cannot be applied. Thus . - Case 3.
-
The initial charge is . By Lemma 2.2(1), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex. We divide the case based on the value of . - Case 3.1.
-
By Lemma 2.5, we have and for any 6-vertex adjacent to . Thus R7 can be applied to . By R1 and R7, . - Case 3.2.
-
The remaining face incident to is either one 4-face or one -face. First, we consider the case where the remaining face is a 4-face. By Lemma 2.6, we have , , and for any 6-vertex adjacent to . Thus R7 can be applied to . If is adjacent to one 5-vertex and four 6-vertices, then by R1 and R7. If is adjacent to five 6-vertices, then by R1 and R7. Next, we consider the case where the remaining face is a -face. By Lemma 2.8, the pattern of the degrees of the vertices adjacent to must be one of the cases (a) through (d). In each case, we show that .- (a).
-
(, , ) = (1, 0, 4).
By Lemma 2.8(1), we have for any 6-vertex adjacent to . Thus R7 can be applied to . By R1, R6, and R7, . - (b).
-
(, , ) = (0, 2, 3).
By Lemma 2.8(2), we have for any 6-vertex adjacent to . Thus R7 can be applied to . By R1, R6, and R7, . - (c).
-
(, , ) = (0, 1, 4).
By Lemma 2.8(3), there exists at least one 6-vertex adjacent to with . Thus receives at least from such a 6-vertex by R7. By R1, R6, and R7, . - (d).
-
(, , ) = (0, 0, 5).
By Lemma 2.8(4), there exist at least two 6-vertices , adjacent to with and . Thus receives at least from such 6-vertices by R7. By R1, R6, and R7, .
- Case 3.3.
-
The only rule by which loses charge is R1. By R1 and , we have . - Case 4.
-
The initial charge is . We divide the case based on the value of . - Case 4.1.
-
Since , R2, R5, and R7 cannot be applied to . The only rule by which loses charge is R1. Thus . - Case 4.2.
-
By R1, sends to each of its incident 3-faces. Since , loses charge. By Lemma 2.2(2), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex. The remaining face incident to is either one 4-face or one -face. First, we consider the case where the remaining face is a 4-face. By Lemma 2.9(1), we have . Thus we further divide the case based on the value of .- Case 4.2.1. ,
-
By Lemma 2.9(2), we have . In the worst situation, is adjacent to one 5-vertex with . By R1, R5, and R7, . - Case 4.2.2. ,
-
By Lemma 2.9(3), we have , and if , then for any 5-vertex adjacent to . Thus if , then does not lose charge by R7. The vertex loses the most charge when is adjacent to two 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R5, and R7, . - Case 4.2.3. ,
Next, we consider the case where the remaining face is a -face. By Lemma 2.10(1), we have . Thus we further divide the case based on the value of .
- Case 4.2.4. ,
-
By Lemma 2.10(2), we have . This implies that loses at most charge by R7. By R1, R5, R7, and R8, . - Case 4.2.5. ,
-
By Lemma 2.10(3), we have , and if , then for any 5-vertex adjacent to . Thus if , then does not lose charge by R7. The vertex loses the most charge when is adjacent to three 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R5, R7, and R8, . - Case 4.2.6. ,
- Case 4.3.
-
By R1, sends to each of its incident 3-faces. Since , loses charge. We further divide the case based on the faces incident to , which can be either two 4-faces, one 4-face and one -face, or two -faces.- Case 4.3.1.
-
By Lemma 2.11(1), is not adjacent to any 3-vertex. The rule by which loses the most charge, except for R1, is R7. Thus if all neighbours of are 5-vertices to which R7 applies, then loses by R7. This discussion implies that . However, by Lemma 2.11(3), the situation does not arise. The next situation in which loses the most charge is when is adjacent to five 5-vertices with and one 4-vertex, but by Lemma 2.11(2), this situation cannot occur. In the possible cases, loses the most charge when is adjacent to either four 5-vertices with and two 4-vertices, or five 5-vertices with and one 6-vertex. In the former case, by R1, R5, and R7. In the latter case, by R1 and R7. - Case 4.3.2.
-
By Lemma 2.12, is adjacent to at most one 3-vertex, and if is adjacent to one 3-vertex, then is not adjacent to any 4-vertex. Since is incident to one -face, R8 or R9 can be applied to . If is adjacent to one 3-vertex, then loses the most charge when is adjacent to five 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R2, R7, and R9, . If is not adjacent to a 3-vertex, then loses the most charge when is adjacent to six 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R7, and R8, . - Case 4.3.3.
-
By Lemma 2.13, is adjacent to at most one 3-vertex, and if is adjacent to one 3-vertex, then is not adjacent to any 4-vertex. Since is incident to two -faces, receives at least charge by R9. If is adjacent to one 3-vertex, then loses the most charge when is adjacent to five 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R2, R7, and R9, . If is not adjacent to a 3-vertex, then loses the most charge when is adjacent to six 5-vertices to which R7 applies. By R1, R7, and R8, .
- Case 4.4.
-
By R1, loses at most charge. The rule by which loses the most charge, except for R1, is R7. Thus if all neighbours of are 5-vertices with , then loses charge by R7. The final charge is , which implies that holds when .
Now, we have confirmed for all , which is a contradiction. Therefore, Theorem 1.2 holds.
References
- [1] J. A. Bondy and U. S. R. Murty. Graph theory, volume 244 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2008.
- [2] N. Bousquet, Q. Deschamps, L. de Meyer, and T. Pierron. Improved square coloring of planar graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 346(4):113288, 2023.
- [3] N. Bousquet, Q. Deschamps, L. de Meyer, and T. Pierron. Square coloring planar graphs with automatic discharging. SIAM J. Discrete Math., 38(1):504–528, 2024.
- [4] D. W. Cranston. Coloring, list coloring, and painting squares of graphs (and other related problems). Electron. J. Combin., DS25:42, 2023.
- [5] Z. Deniz. On 2-distance 16-coloring of planar graphs with maximum degree at most five. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15899, 2023.
- [6] Z. Deniz. A 2-distance -coloring of planar graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12302, 2024.
- [7] S. G. Hartke, S. Jahanbekam, and B. Thomas. The chromatic number of the square of subcubic planar graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06504, 2016.
- [8] F. Havet, J. van den Heuvel, C. McDiarmid, and B. Reed. List colouring squares of planar graphs. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 29:515–519, 2007. European Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Applications.
- [9] F. Havet, J. van den Heuvel, C. McDiarmid, and B. Reed. List colouring squares of planar graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:0807.3233, 2017.
- [10] J. Hou, Y. Jin, L. Miao, and Q. Zhao. Coloring squares of planar graphs with maximum degree at most five. Graphs and Combinatorics, 39(2):20, 2023.
- [11] F. Kramer and H. Kramer. Ein färbungsproblem der knotenpunkte eines graphen bezüglich der distanz p. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl, 14(2):1031–1038, 1969.
- [12] F. Kramer and H. Kramer. Un probleme de coloration des sommets d’un graphe. CR Acad. Sci. Paris A, 268(7):46–48, 1969.
- [13] M. Krzyziński, P. Rza̧ żewski, and S. Tur. Coloring squares of planar graphs with small maximum degree. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory, 44(3):817–835, 2024.
- [14] C. Thomassen. The square of a planar cubic graph is 7-colorable. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 128:192–218, 2018.
- [15] G. Wegner. Graphs with given diameter and a coloring problem. Technical University of Dortmund, 1977.
- [16] J. Zhu and Y. Bu. Minimum 2-distance coloring of planar graphs and channel assignment. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 36(1):55–64, 2018.