This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Spanning trees of a claw-free graph whose reducible stems have few leaves

Pham Hoang Ha
Department of Mathematics
Hanoi National University of Education
136 XuanThuy Street, Hanoi, Vietnam
E-mail: ha.ph@hnue.edu.vn
Abstract

Let TT be a tree, a vertex of degree one is a leaf of TT and a vertex of degree at least three is a branch vertex of TT. For two distinct vertices u,vu,v of TT, let PT[u,v]P_{T}[u,v] denote the unique path in TT connecting uu and v.v. For a leaf xx of TT, let yxy_{x} denote the nearest branch vertex to xx. For every leaf xx of TT, we remove the path PT[x,yx)P_{T}[x,y_{x}) from TT, where PT[x,yx)P_{T}[x,y_{x}) denotes the path connecting xx to yxy_{x} in TT but not containing yxy_{x}. The resulting subtree of TT is called the reducible stem of TT. In this paper, we first use a new technique of Gould and Shull to state a new short proof for a result of Kano et al. on the spanning tree with a bounded number of leaves in a claw-free graph. After that, we use that proof to give a sharp sufficient condition for a claw-free graph having a spanning tree whose reducible stem has few leaves.

Keywords: spanning tree, leaf, claw-free graph, reducible stem

AMS Subject Classification: Primary 05C05, 05C70. Secondary 05C07, 05C69

1 Introduction

In this paper, we only consider finite graphs without loops or multiple edges. Let GG be a graph with vertex set V(G)V(G) and edge set E(G)E(G). For any vertex vV(G)v\in V(G), we use NG(v)N_{G}(v) and degG(v)\deg_{G}(v) (or N(v)N(v) and deg(v)\deg(v) if there is no ambiguity) to denote the set of neighbors of vv and the degree of vv in GG, respectively. For any XV(G)X\subseteq V(G), we denote by |X||X| the cardinality of XX. Sometime, we denote by |G||G| instead of |V(G)|.|V(G)|. We define NG(X)=xXNG(x)N_{G}(X)=\bigcup\limits_{x\in X}N_{G}(x) and degG(X)=xXdegG(x)\deg_{G}(X)=\sum\limits_{x\in X}\deg_{G}(x). The subgraph of GG induced by XX is denoted by G[X]G[X]. We define GuvG-uv to be the graph obtained from GG by deleting the edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G), and G+uvG+uv to be the graph obtained from GG by adding a new edge uvuv joining two non-adjacent vertices uu and vv of GG. For two vertices uu and vv of GG, the distance between uu and vv in GG is denoted by dG(u,v)d_{G}(u,v). We use KnK_{n} to denote the complete graph on nn vertices. We write A:=BA:=B to rename BB as AA. We refer to [4] for terminology and notation not defined here.

For an integer m2,m\geq 2, let αm(G)\alpha^{m}(G) denote the number defined by

αm(G)=max{|S|:SV(G),dG(x,y)m\alpha^{m}(G)=\max\{|S|:S\subseteq V(G),d_{G}(x,y)\geq m\, for all distinct vertices x,yS}.\,x,y\in S\}.

For an integer p2p\geq 2, we define

σpm(G)=min{degG(S):SV(G),|S|=p,dG(x,y)m\sigma_{p}^{m}(G)=\min\{\deg_{G}(S):S\subseteq V(G),|S|=p,d_{G}(x,y)\geq m for all distinct vertices x,yS}.\;x,y\in S\}.

For convenience, we define σpm(G)=+\sigma^{m}_{p}(G)=+\infty if αm(G)<p\alpha^{m}(G)<p. We note that, α2(G)\alpha^{2}(G) is often written α(G)\alpha(G), which is independence number of G,G, and σp2(G)\sigma_{p}^{2}(G) is often written σp(G)\sigma_{p}(G), which is minimum degree sum of pp independent vertices.

Let TT be a tree. A vertex of degree one is a leaf of TT and a vertex of degree at least three is a branch vertex of TT. The set of leaves of TT is denoted by L(T)L(T) and the set of branch vertices of TT is denoted by B(T)B(T). The subtree TL(T)T-L(T) of TT is called the stem of TT and is denoted by Stem(T)Stem(T).

For two distinct vertices u,vu,v of TT, let PT[u,v]P_{T}[u,v] denote the unique path in TT connecting uu and v.v. For a leaf xx of TT, let yxy_{x} denote the nearest branch vertex to xx. For every leaf xx of TT, we remove the path PT[x,yx)P_{T}[x,y_{x}) from TT, where PT[x,yx)P_{T}[x,y_{x}) denotes the path connecting xx to yxy_{x} in TT but not containing yxy_{x}. Moreover, the path PT[x,yx)P_{T}[x,y_{x}) is called the leaf-branch path of TT incident to xx and yxy_{x} and denoted by BxB_{x}. The resulting subtree of TT is called the reducible stem of TT and denoted by R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T).

There are several sufficient conditions (such as the independence number conditions and the degree sum conditions) for a graph GG to have a spanning tree with a bounded number of leaves or branch vertices. Win [20] obtained the following theorem, which confirms a conjecture of Las Vergnas [16]. Beside that, recently, the author [6] also gave an improvement of Win by giving an independence number condition for a graph having a spanning tree which covers a certain subset of V(G)V(G) and has at most ll leaves.

Theorem 1.1

(Win [20]) Let m1m\geq 1 and l2l\geq 2 be integers and let GG be a mm-connected graph. If α(G)m+l1\alpha(G)\leq m+l-1, then GG has a spanning tree with at most ll leaves.

Later, Broersma and Tunistra gave the following degree sum condition for a graph to have a spanning tree with at most ll leaves.

Theorem 1.2

(Broersma and Tuinstra [1]) Let GG be a connected graph and let l2l\geq 2 be an integer. If σ2(G)|G|l+1\sigma_{2}(G)\geq|G|-l+1, then GG has a spanning tree with at most ll leaves.

Motivating by Theorem 1.1, a natural question is whether we can find sharp sufficient conditions of σl+1(G)\sigma_{l+1}(G) for a connected graph GG has a few leaves. This question is still open. But, in certain graph classes, the answers have been determined.

For a positive integer t3,t\geq 3, a graph GG is said to be K1,tK_{1,t}- free graph if it contains no K1,tK_{1,t} as an induced subgraph. If t=3,t=3, the K1,3K_{1,3}- free graph is also called the claw-free graph. About this graph class, Kano, Kyaw, Matsuda, Ozeki, Saito and Yamashita proved the following theorem.

Theorem 1.3

(Kano et al. [11]) Let GG be a connected claw-free graph and let l2l\geq 2 be an integer. If σl+1(G)|G|l\sigma_{l+1}(G)\geq|G|-l, then GG has a spanning tree with at most ll leaves.

For other graph classes, we refer the readers to see [2], [3], [5], [14], [15] and [17] for examples.

The first main purpose of this paper is to give a new short proof for Theorem 1.3 base on the new technique of Gould and Shull in [5].

Moreover, many researchers studied spanning trees in connected graphs whose stems have a bounded number of leaves or branch vertices (see [7], [12], [13], [18] and [19] for more details). We introduce here some results on spanning trees whose stems have a few leaves or branch vertices.

Theorem 1.4

(Tsugaki and Zhang [18]) Let GG be a connected graph and let k2k\geq 2 be an integer. If σ3(G)|G|2k+1\sigma_{3}(G)\geq|G|-2k+1, then GG have a spanning tree whose stem has at most kk leaves.

Theorem 1.5

(Kano and Yan [12]) Let GG be a connected graph and let k2k\geq 2 be an integer. If either α4(G)k\alpha^{4}(G)\leq k or σk+1(G)|G|k1\sigma_{k+1}(G)\geq|G|-k-1, then G has a spanning tree whose stem has at most kk leaves.

Theorem 1.6

(Yan [19]) Let GG be a connected graph and k0k\geq 0 be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then GG have a spanning tree whose stem has at most kk branch vertices.

  1. (a)

    α4(G)k+2,\alpha^{4}(G)\leq k+2,

  2. (b)

    σk+34(G)|G|2k3.\sigma^{4}_{k+3}(G)\geq|G|-2k-3.

Recently, Ha, Hanh and Loan gave a sufficient condition for a graph to have a spanning tree whose reducible stem has few leaves. In particular, they proved the following theorem.

Theorem 1.7

(Ha et al. [8]) Let GG be a connected graph and let k2k\geq 2 be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then GG has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most kk leaves.

  1. (i)

    α(G)2k+2,\alpha(G)\leq 2k+2,

  2. (ii)

    σk+14(G)|G|k2.\sigma_{k+1}^{4}(G)\geq\left\lfloor\frac{|G|-k}{2}\right\rfloor.

Here, the notation r\lfloor r\rfloor stands for the biggest integer not exceed the real number r.r.

After that, Ha, Hanh, Loan and Pham also gave a sufficient condition for a graph to have a spanning tree whose reducible stem has few branch vertices.

Theorem 1.8

(Ha et al. [9]) Let GG be a connected graph and let k2k\geq 2 be an integer. If the following conditions holds, then GG has a spanning tree TT whose reducible stem has at most kk branch vertices.

σk+34(G)|G|2k22.\sigma_{k+3}^{4}(G)\geq\bigg{\lfloor}\frac{|G|-2k-2}{2}\bigg{\rfloor}.

Very recently, Hanh stated the following theorem.

Theorem 1.9

(Hanh [10]) Let GG be a connected claw-free graph and let k2k\geq 2 be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then GG has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most kk leaves.

  1. (i)

    α(G)3k+2,\alpha(G)\leq 3k+2,

  2. (ii)

    σk+16(G)|G|4k22.\sigma_{k+1}^{6}(G)\geq\left\lfloor\frac{|G|-4k-2}{2}\right\rfloor.

The open question is whether we may give a sharp condition of σ3k+3(G)\sigma_{3k+3}(G) to show that GG has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most kk leaves.

For the last purpose of this paper, we will give an affirmative answer to this question. In particular, we prove the following theorem.

Theorem 1.10

Let GG be a connected claw-free graph and let kk be an integer (k2k\geq 2). If σ3k+3(G)|G|k\sigma_{3k+3}(G)\geq\left|G\right|-k, then GG has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most kk leaves.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Graph G

To show that our result is sharp, we will give the following example. Let k2k\geq 2 and m1m\geq 1 be integers, and let R0,R1,,RkR_{0},R_{1},...,R_{k} and H0,H1,,HkH_{0},H_{1},...,H_{k} be 2k+22k+2 disjoint copies of the complete graph KmK_{m} of order mm. Let DD be a complete graph with V(D)={wi}i=0k.V(D)=\{w_{i}\}_{i=0}^{k}. Let {xi,xiy,xiz}i=0k\{x_{i},x_{iy},x_{iz}\}_{i=0}^{k} be 3k+33k+3 vertices not contained in i=0k(V(Ri)V(Hi){wi})\cup_{i=0}^{k}\bigg{(}V(R_{i})\cup V(H_{i})\cup\{w_{i}\}\bigg{)}. Join xiyx_{iy} to all the vertices of V(Ri)V(R_{i}) and xizx_{iz} to all the vertices of V(Hi)V(H_{i}) for every 0ik0\leq i\leq k. Adding 3k+33k+3 edges xixiy,xixiz,xiyxizx_{i}x_{iy},x_{i}x_{iz},x_{iy}x_{iz} and joining xix_{i} to wiw_{i} for every 0ik0\leq i\leq k. Let GG denote the resulting graph (see Figure 1). Then, we have |G|=(k+1)(2m+4).|G|=(k+1)(2m+4). Moreover, take a vertex uiV(Ri)u_{i}\in V(R_{i}) and a vertex viV(Hi)v_{i}\in V(H_{i}) for for every 0ik.0\leq i\leq k. We obtain

σ3k+3(G)\displaystyle\sigma_{3k+3}(G) =\displaystyle= i=0k(degG(ui)+degG(vi)+degG(xi))\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{k}\bigg{(}\deg_{G}(u_{i})+\deg_{G}(v_{i})+\deg_{G}(x_{i})\bigg{)}
=\displaystyle= (k+1)m+(k+1)m+3(k+1)=(k+1)(2m+3)\displaystyle(k+1)m+(k+1)m+3(k+1)=(k+1)(2m+3)
=\displaystyle= |G|k1.\displaystyle|G|-k-1.

But GG has no spanning tree whose reducible stem has kk leaves. Hence the condition of Theorem 1.10 is sharp.

2 A new proof of Theorem 1.3

Before begining to prove Theorem 1.3 we recall some definitions in [5].

Definition 2.1 ([5])

Let TT be a tree. For each eE(T)e\in E(T) and u,vV(T)u,v\in V(T), we denote {uv}=V(PT[u,v])NT(u)\{u_{v}\}=V(P_{T}[u,v])\cap N_{T}(u) and eve_{v} as the vertex incident to ee which is the nearest vertex of vv in TT.

Definition 2.2 ([5])

Let TT be a spanning tree of a graph GG and let vV(G)v\in V(G) and eE(T)e\in E(T). Denote g(e,v)g(e,v) as the vertex incident to ee farthest away from vv in TT. We say vv is an oblique neighbor of ee with respect to TT if vg(e,v)E(G)vg(e,v)\in E(G).

Definition 2.3 ([5])

Let TT be a spanning tree of a graph GG. Two vertices are pseudoadjacent with respect to TT if there is some eE(T)e\in E(T) which has them both as oblique neighbors. Similarly, a vertex set is pseudoindependent with respect to TT if no two vertices in the set are pseudoadjacent with respect to TT.

We note here that pseudoadjacency (with respect to any tree) is a weaker condition than adjacency, while pseudoindependence is a stronger condition than independence.

Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.3.
Proof of Theorem 1.3. Suppose that GG has no spanning tree with at most ll leaves. Choose some spanning tree TT of GG such that:
(T1) |L(T)||L(T)| is as small as possible.

By the assumption, TT must have at least l+1l+1 leaves.

We have the following claims.

Claim 2.4

L(T)L(T) is pseudoindependent with respect to TT. In particular, L(T)L(T) is independent.

Proof.Suppose two leaves ss and tt are pseudoadjacent with respect to TT. Then there is some edge eE(T)e\in E(T) such that sg(e,s),tg(e,t)E(G)sg(e,s),tg(e,t)\in E(G). Let bb and uu be the nearest branch vertices of ss and tt, respectively. Consider the following two cases.

Case 1: Suppose g(e,s)g(e,t)g(e,s)\not=g(e,t). Then es=g(e,t)e_{s}=g(e,t) and et=g(e,s)e_{t}=g(e,s), so set,tesE(G)se_{t},te_{s}\in E(G). We consider the spanning tree

T:={Te+set, if e=uut,T{e,uut}+{set,tes}, if euut.T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T-e+se_{t},&\;\mbox{ if }e=uu_{t},\\ T-\{e,uu_{t}\}+\{se_{t},te_{s}\},&\;\mbox{ if }e\not=uu_{t}.\end{array}\right.

Hence, |L(T)|<|L(T)|.|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|. This violates (T1). So case 1 does not happen.

Case 2: Suppose g(e,s)=g(e,t)g(e,s)=g(e,t). Define a:=g(e,s)=g(e,t)a:=g(e,s)=g(e,t). Then es=et{s,t}e_{s}=e_{t}\not\in\{s,t\} and denoted by vertex zz. Since G[a,z,s,t]G[a,z,s,t] is not K1,3K_{1,3}-free , so we have either stE(G)st\in E(G) or ztE(G)zt\in E(G) or zsE(G)zs\in E(G). Consider the tree

T:={Tuut+st, if stE(G),T{e,uut}+{zt,sa}, if ztE(G),T{e,bbs}+{zs,ta}, if zsE(G).T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T-uu_{t}+st,&\;\mbox{ if }st\in E(G),\\ T-\{e,uu_{t}\}+\{zt,sa\},&\;\mbox{ if }zt\in E(G),\\ T-\{e,bb_{s}\}+\{zs,ta\},&\;\mbox{ if }zs\in E(G).\end{array}\right.

Hence, |L(T)|<|L(T)|.|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|. This violates the condition (T1). So case 2 does not happen.
Therefore, the claim 2.4 is proved. \Box

Claim 2.5

For each branch vertex bB(T)b\in B(T), there are at least degT(b)1\deg_{T}(b)-1 edges of TT incident with bb such that they have no oblique neighbor in L(T)L(T).

Proof. Set NT(b)={s1,s2,,sq},q3.N_{T}(b)=\{s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{q}\},q\geq 3.
Assume that there exist two vertices si,sjNT(b)s_{i},s_{j}\in N_{T}(b) such that sistE(G)s_{i}s_{t}\not\in E(G) for all t{1,,q}{i}t\in\{1,...,q\}\setminus\{i\} and sjstE(G)s_{j}s_{t}\not\in E(G) for all t{1,,q}{j}.t\in\{1,...,q\}\setminus\{j\}. Then G[b,si,sj,st]G[b,s_{i},s_{j},s_{t}] is K1,3K_{1,3}-free for every t{1,,q}{i,j}t\in\{1,...,q\}\setminus\{i,j\}. This is a contradiction. Therefore we conclude that there exists at most one vertex sNT(b)s\in N_{T}(b) such that sstE(G)ss_{t}\not\in E(G) for all sts.s_{t}\not=s.

Let stNT(b){s}.s_{t}\in N_{T}(b)\setminus\{s\}. Then there exists some vertex siNT(b){st,s}s_{i}\in N_{T}(b)\setminus\{s_{t},s\} such that stsiE(G).s_{t}s_{i}\in E(G). Set e:=bst.e:=bs_{t}. To complete Claim 2.5, we will need only to prove that xx is not an oblique neighbor of ee with respect to TT for every xL(T).x\in L(T). Indeed, to the contrary, assume that there exists some vertex xL(T)x\in L(T) such that xx is an oblique neighbor of ee with respect to T.T. Consider the tree

T:={T{e,bsi}+{bx,stsi}, if g(e,x)=b,xst,Tbsi+stsi, if g(e,x)=b,x=st,Te+xst, if g(e,x)=st.T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T-\{e,bs_{i}\}+\{bx,s_{t}s_{i}\},&\;\mbox{ if }g(e,x)=b,x\not=s_{t},\\ T-bs_{i}+s_{t}s_{i},&\;\mbox{ if }g(e,x)=b,x=s_{t},\\ T-e+xs_{t},&\;\mbox{ if }g(e,x)=s_{t}.\end{array}\right.

Hence, |L(T)|<|L(T)|.|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|. This violates with (T1).
Claim 2.5 holds. \Box

Claim 2.6

There are at least ll distinct edges of TT such that they have no oblique neighbor in L(T).L(T).

Proof. By Claim 2.4, we obtain that for each eE(T),e\in E(T), ee has at most an oblique neighbor in L(T).L(T). Moreover, if an edge ee is incident with two branch vertices of TT then ee has to be an edge of the subgraph T[{b}bB(T)]T[\{b\}_{b\in B(T)}] of T.T. Then, there are at most |B(T)|1|B(T)|-1 edges which are adjacent with two branch vertices of T.T. Hence, combining with Claim 2.5, there exist at least

bB(T)(degT(b)1)|B(T)|+1=bB(T)(degT(b)2)+1\sum\limits_{b\in B(T)}(\deg_{T}(b)-1)-|B(T)|+1=\sum\limits_{b\in B(T)}(\deg_{T}(b)-2)+1

distinct edges in E(T)E(T) which have no oblique neighbor in L(T)L(T).
On the other hand, we have

|L(T)|\displaystyle|L(T)| =\displaystyle= 2+bB(T)(degT(b)2)\displaystyle 2+\sum\limits_{b\in B(T)}(\deg_{T}(b)-2)
\displaystyle\Rightarrow bB(T)(degT(b)2)+1=|L(T)|1l.\displaystyle\sum\limits_{b\in B(T)}(\deg_{T}(b)-2)+1=|L(T)|-1\geq l.

Therefore, the claim is proved. \Box

For any v,xV(T)v,x\in V(T), we now have vxE(G)vx\in E(G) if and only if vv is an oblique neighbor of xxvxx_{v} with respect TT. Therefore, the number of edges of TT with vv as an oblique neighbor equals the degree of vv in GG. Combining with Claims 2.4 and 2.6, we obtain that

σl+1(G)|E(T)|l=|V(T)|1l=|G|1l,\sigma_{l+1}(G)\leq|E(T)|-l=|V(T)|-1-l=|G|-1-l,

which contradicts the assumption of Theorem 1.3. The proof of Theorem 1.3 is completed.  

3 Proof of theorem 1.10

For two distinct vertices u,vu,v of TT, let PT[u,v]P_{T}[u,v] denote the unique path in TT connecting uu and v.v. We define the orientation of PT[u,v]P_{T}[u,v] is from uu to vv. For each vertex xV(PT[u,v])x\in V(P_{T}[u,v]), we denote by x+x^{+} and xx^{-} the successor and predecessor of xx in PT[u,v]P_{T}[u,v], respectively, if they exist. For any XV(G),X\subseteq V(G), set (N(X)PT[u,v])={x|xV(PT[u,v]){u}(N(X)\cap P_{T}[u,v])^{-}=\{x^{-}|x\in V(P_{T}[u,v])\setminus\{u\} and xN(X)}x\in N(X)\} and (N(X)PT[u,v])+={x+|xV(PT[u,v]){v}(N(X)\cap P_{T}[u,v])^{+}=\{x^{+}|x\in V(P_{T}[u,v])\setminus\{v\} and xN(X)}.x\in N(X)\}.

Proof of Theorem 1.10. Suppose to the contrary that there does not exist a spanning tree TT of GG such that |L(R_Stem(T))|k.|L(R\_Stem(T))|\leq k. Then every spanning tree TT of GG satisfies |L(R_Stem(T))|k+1|L(R\_Stem(T))|\geq k+1.

Choose TT to be a spanning tree of GG such that

  • ((C0))

    |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R\_Stem(T))| is as small as possible,

  • ((C1))

    |R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T)| is as small as possible, subject to (C0),

  • ((C2))

    |L(T)||L(T)| is as small as possible, subject to (C0) and (C1).

Set L(R_Stem(T))={x1,x2,,xl},lk+1.L(R\_Stem(T))=\{x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{l}\},l\geq k+1. By the definition of reducible stem of TT, we have the following claim.

Claim 3.1

For every i{1,2,,l}i\in\{1,2,...,l\}, there exist at least two leaf-branch paths of TT which are incident to xix_{i}.

Claim 3.2

For each i{1,2,,l}i\in\{1,2,...,l\}, there exist yi,ziL(T)y_{i},z_{i}\in L(T) such that Byi,BziB_{y_{i}},B_{z_{i}} are incident to xix_{i} and NG(yi)(V(R_Stem(T)){xi})=N_{G}(y_{i})\cap(V(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\})=\emptyset and NG(zi)(V(R_Stem(T)){xi})=N_{G}(z_{i})\cap(V(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\})=\emptyset.

Proof. Let {aij}j=1m\{a_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{m} be the subset of L(T)L(T) such that BaijB_{a_{ij}} is adjacent to xix_{i}. By Claim 3.1, we obtain m2.m\geq 2.
Suppose that there are more than m2m-2 vertices {aij}j=1m\{a_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{m} satisfying

NG(aij)(V(R_Stem(T)){xi})N_{G}(a_{ij})\cap\left(V(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\}\right)\neq\emptyset.

Without lost of generality, we may assume that NG(aij)(V(R_Stem(T)){xi})N_{G}(a_{ij})\cap\left(V(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\}\right)\neq\emptyset for all j=2,,m.j=2,...,m. Set bijNG(aij)(V(R_Stem(T)){xi})b_{ij}\in N_{G}(a_{ij})\cap\left(V(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\}\right) and vijNT(xi)V(PT[aij,xi])v_{ij}\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(P_{T}[a_{ij},x_{i}]) for all j{2,,m}j\in\{2,...,m\}. Consider the spanning tree

T:=T+{aijbij}j=2m{xivij}j=2m.T^{\prime}:=T+\{a_{ij}b_{ij}\}_{j=2}^{m}-\{x_{i}v_{ij}\}_{j=2}^{m}.

Then TT^{\prime} satisfies |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))||L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))| and |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, where xix_{i} is not in V(R_Stem(T)).V(R\_Stem(T^{\prime})). This contradicts either the condition (C0) or the condition (C1). Therefore, Claim 3.2 holds. \Box

Claim 3.3

For every i,j{1,2,,k+1},ij,i,j\in\{1,2,...,k+1\},i\neq j, if uV(PT[yi,xi])u\in V(P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}]) and vV(PT[yj,xj]),wV(PT[zj,xj])v\in V(P_{T}[y_{j},x_{j}]),w\in V(P_{T}[z_{j},x_{j}]) then uvE(G)uv\not\in E(G) and uwE(G).uw\not\in E(G). In particular, we have NG(yi)V(Byj)=N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{j}})=\emptyset and NG(yi)V(Bzj)=N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{z_{j}})=\emptyset.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Tree T′′T^{\prime\prime}

Proof. By the same role of yjy_{j} and zj,z_{j}, we only need to prove uvE(G).uv\not\in E(G). Suppose the assertion of the claim is false. Set T:=T+uv.T^{\prime}:=T+uv. Then TT^{\prime} is a subgraph of GG including a unique cycle C,C, which contains both xix_{i} and xjx_{j}. Since k2k\geq 2, then |L(R_Stem(T))|3.|L(R\_Stem(T))|\geq 3. Hence, we obtain |B(R_Stem(T))|1|B(R\_Stem(T))|\geq 1. Then there exists a branch vertex of R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T) contained in C.C. Let ee be an edge incident to such a vertex in CC and R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T). By removing the edge ee from TT^{\prime} we obtain a spanning tree T′′T^{\prime\prime} (see Figure 2). Hence T′′T^{\prime\prime} satisfies |L(R_Stem(T′′))|<|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}))|<|L(R\_Stem(T))|, the reason is that either R_Stem(T′′)R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}) has only one new leaf and xi,xjx_{i},x_{j} are not leaves of R_Stem(T′′)R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}) or xix_{i} (or xjx_{j}) is still a leaf of R_Stem(T′′)R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}) but R_Stem(T′′)R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}) has no new leaf and xjx_{j} (or xix_{i} respectively ) is not a leaf of R_Stem(T′′)R\_Stem(T^{\prime\prime}). This is a contradiction with the condition (C0). So Claim 3.3 is proved. \Box

We obtain the following claim as a corollary of Claim 3.3.

Claim 3.4

L(R_Stem(T))L(R\_Stem(T)) is an independent set in GG.

Set U1={yi,zi}i=1lU_{1}=\{y_{i},z_{i}\}_{i=1}^{l}. For each i{1,,l}i\in\{1,...,l\} we also set xiyNT(xi)V(Byi)x_{iy}\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) and xizNT(xi)V(Bzi).x_{iz}\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(B_{z_{i}}).

Claim 3.5

U1U_{1} is an independent set in GG.

Proof. Suppose that there exist two vertices u,vU1u,v\in U_{1} such that uvE(G).uv\in E(G). Without lost of generality, we may assume that v=yiv=y_{i} for some i{1,2,,l}.i\in\{1,2,...,l\}. Consider the spanning tree T:=T+uyixiyxi.T^{\prime}:=T+uy_{i}-x_{iy}x_{i}. Then |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|.|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|. If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then xix_{i} is not a branch vertex of T.T^{\prime}. Hence |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, this contradicts either the conditions (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have |L(R_Stem(T))|=|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|=|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)|,|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|, where either TT^{\prime} has only one new leaf and yi,uy_{i},u are not leaves of TT^{\prime} or yiy_{i} is still a leaf of TT^{\prime} but TT^{\prime} has no any new leaf and uu is not a leaf of TT^{\prime}. This contradicts the condition (C2). The proof of Claim 3.5 is completed. \Box

Now, we choose TT to be a spanning tree of GG satisfying

  • ((C3))

    i=1ldegT(xi)\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T}(x_{i}) is as small as possible, subject to (C0)-(C2),

  • ((C4))

    i=1l(|Byi|+|Bzi|)\sum_{i=1}^{l}\bigg{(}|B_{y_{i}}|+|B_{z_{i}}|\bigg{)} is as large as possible, subject to (C0)-(C3).

Set U=U1L(R_Stem(T)).U=U_{1}\cup L(R\_Stem(T)).

Claim 3.6

UU is an independent set in GG.

Proof. Suppose that there exist two vertices u,vUu,v\in U such that uvE(G).uv\in E(G). By Claims 3.4 and 3.5, without lost of generality, we may assume that uL(R_Stem(T))u\in L(R\_Stem(T)) and v=yiU1v=y_{i}\in U_{1} for some i{1,2,,l}.i\in\{1,2,...,l\}. Moreover, by Claim 3.3, we now only need to consider the case u=xi.u=x_{i}.
Set tNT(xi)V(R_Stem(T)).t\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(R\_Stem(T)).

If yixizE(G).y_{i}x_{iz}\in E(G). Consider the spanning tree T:=T+yixizxizxi.T^{\prime}:=T+y_{i}x_{iz}-x_{iz}x_{i}. Then |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|.|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|. If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then xix_{i} is not a branch vertex of T.T^{\prime}. Hence |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, this contradicts either the conditions (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have |L(R_Stem(T))|=|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|=|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)|,|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|, this contradicts the condition (C2). Now, since G[xi,t,xiz,yi]G[x_{i},t,x_{iz},y_{i}] is not K1,3K_{1,3}-free, we obtain that txizE(G)tx_{iz}\in E(G) or tyiE(G).ty_{i}\in E(G). We consider the spanning tree

T:={T+txizxizxi, if txizE(G),T+tyixiyxi, if tyiE(G).T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T+tx_{iz}-x_{iz}x_{i},&\;\mbox{ if }tx_{iz}\in E(G),\\ T+ty_{i}-x_{iy}x_{i},&\;\mbox{ if }ty_{i}\in E(G).\end{array}\right.

If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then we obtain |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))||L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))| and |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, a contradiction with (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have L(R_Stem(T))=L(R_Stem(T))={xi}i=1k+1,L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))=L(R\_Stem(T))=\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{k+1}, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)|, |L(T)|=|L(T)||L(T^{\prime})|=|L(T)| and i=1ldegT(xi)<i=1ldegT(xi).\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T^{\prime}}(x_{i})<\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T}(x_{i}). This also violates the condition (C3).
Therefore, the proof of Claim 3.6 is completed. \Box

By Claim 3.6 we conclude that α(G)3l3k+3.\alpha(G)\geq 3l\geq 3k+3.

Claim 3.7

For every pL(T)U1,p\in L(T)\setminus U_{1}, then uU|NG(u)V(Bp)||Bp|\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|\leq|B_{p}|.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Tree TT^{\prime}

Proof. Set vpB(T)v_{p}\in B(T) such that (V(PT[p,vp]){vp})B(T)=\left(V(P_{T}[p,v_{p}])\setminus\{v_{p}\}\right)\cap B(T)=\emptyset. Let V(Bp)NT(vp)={vp}.V(B_{p})\cap N_{T}(v_{p})=\{v_{p}^{-}\}. Then we consider Bp=PT[p,vp].B_{p}=P_{T}[p,v_{p}^{-}].

Assume that there exists a vertex xV(Bp)x\in V(B_{p}) such that xuE(G)xu\in E(G) for some uU1.u\in U_{1}. Consider the spanning tree

T:={T+xuvpvp, if x{vp,p},T+xuxx+, if x{vp,p}.T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T+xu-v_{p}^{-}v_{p},&\;\mbox{ if }x\in\{v_{p}^{-},p\},\\ T+xu-xx^{+},&\;\mbox{ if }x\not\in\{v_{p}^{-},p\}.\end{array}\right.

This contradicts either the condition (C2) if x{vp,p}x\in\{v_{p}^{-},p\} or the condition (C4) for otherwise. Therefore, we conclude that uU1|NG(u)V(Bp)|=0.\sum_{u\in U_{1}}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|=0.

Assume that there exist xi,xjL(R_Stem(T))x_{i},x_{j}\in L(R\_Stem(T)) for some iji\not=j and xV(Bp)x\in V(B_{p}) such that xxi,xxjE(G).xx_{i},xx_{j}\in E(G). Set

G:={T+xxj, if xi=vp,T+{xxi,xxj}{vpvp}, if xivp.G^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T+xx_{j},&\;\mbox{ if }x_{i}=v_{p},\\ T+\{xx_{i},xx_{j}\}-\{v_{p}v_{p}^{-}\},&\;\mbox{ if }x_{i}\not=v_{p}.\end{array}\right.

Then GG^{\prime} is a subgraph of GG including a unique cycle C,C, which contains both xix_{i} and xjx_{j}. Since k2k\geq 2, then |L(R_Stem(T))|3.|L(R\_Stem(T))|\geq 3. Hence, we obtain |B(R_Stem(T))|1|B(R\_Stem(T))|\geq 1. Then there exists a branch vertex of R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T) contained in C.C. Let ee be an edge incident to such a vertex in CC. By removing the edge ee from GG^{\prime} we obtain a spanning tree TT^{\prime} of GG satisfying |L(R_Stem(T))|<|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|<|L(R\_Stem(T))|, the reason is that either R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T^{\prime}) has only one new leaf and xi,xjx_{i},x_{j} are not leaves of R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T^{\prime}) or xix_{i} (or xjx_{j}) is still a leaf of R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T^{\prime}) but R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T^{\prime}) has no new leaf and xjx_{j} (or xix_{i} respectively) is not a leaf of R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T^{\prime}) (see Figure 3 for an example). This is a contradiction with the condition (C0). Therefore, we concludes that uL(R_Stem(T))|NG(u){x}|1\sum_{u\in L(R\_Stem(T))}|N_{G}(u)\cap\{x\}|\leq 1 for every xV(Bp).x\in V(B_{p}). Now we obtain the following

uU|NG(u)V(Bp)|=uU1|NG(u)V(Bp)|+uL(R_Stem(T))|NG(u)V(Bp)||Bp|.\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|=\sum_{u\in U_{1}}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|+\sum_{u\in L(R\_Stem(T))}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|\leq|B_{p}|.

Claim 3.7 is proved. \Box

Claim 3.8

For every 1ik+11\leq i\leq k+1, then uU|NG(u)V(Byi)||Byi|\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|\leq|B_{y_{i}}| and uU|NG(u)V(Bzi)||Bzi|.\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{z_{i}})|\leq|B_{z_{i}}|.

Proof. By the same role of yiy_{i} and zi,z_{i}, we only need to prove

uU|NG(u)V(Byi)||Byi|.\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|\leq|B_{y_{i}}|.

We consider Byi=PT[yi,xiy].B_{y_{i}}=P_{T}[y_{i},x_{iy}].

By Claim 3.3, we obtain the following.
Subclaim 3.8.1. NG(U1)V(Byi)=NG({yi,zi})V(Byi)N_{G}(U_{1})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})=N_{G}(\{y_{i},z_{i}\})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}).

Subclaim 3.8.2. We have xiyxizE(G).x_{iy}x_{iz}\in E(G).

Indeed, if xiyxizE(G)x_{iy}x_{iz}\not\in E(G) we set tNT(xi)V(R_Stem(T)).t\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(R\_Stem(T)). Then since G[xi,t,xiy,xiz]G[x_{i},t,x_{iy},x_{iz}] is not K1,3K_{1,3}-free we obtain either xiytE(G)x_{iy}t\in E(G) or xiztE(G)x_{iz}t\in E(G). Without loss of generality, we may assume that xiytE(G).x_{iy}t\in E(G). Consider the spanning tree T=Txixiy+xiyt.T^{\prime}=T-x_{i}x_{iy}+x_{iy}t. If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then we obtain |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))||L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))| and |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, a contradiction with (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have L(R_Stem(T))=L(R_Stem(T)),L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))=L(R\_Stem(T)), |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)|, |L(T)|=|L(T)||L(T^{\prime})|=|L(T)| and i=1ldegT(xi)<i=1ldegT(xi).\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T^{\prime}}(x_{i})<\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T}(x_{i}). This violates the conditions (C3). Subclaim 3.8.2 is proved.

Subclaim 3.8.3. If xNG(yi)V(Byi)x\in N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) then xNG(zi)V(Byi)x^{-}\notin N_{G}(z_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}).

Suppose that there exists xNG(yi)Byix\in N_{G}(y_{i})\cap B_{y_{i}} such that xNG(zi)Byix^{-}\in N_{G}(z_{i})\cap B_{y_{i}}. Consider the spanning tree T:=T+{xyi,zix}{xx,xiyxi}T^{\prime}:=T+\{xy_{i},z_{i}x^{-}\}-\{xx^{-},x_{iy}x_{i}\}. Then |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|.|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|. If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then xix_{i} is not a branch vertex of T.T^{\prime}. Hence |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, this contradicts the condition (C1). Otherwise, we have |L(R_Stem(T))|=|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|=|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)|.|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|. This is a contradiction with the condition (C2). Therefore, Subclaim 3.8.3 holds.

Subclaim 3.8.4. If xNG(yi)V(Byi)x\in N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) then xNG(xi)V(Byi)x^{-}\notin N_{G}(x_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}).

Suppose that there exists xNG(yi)V(Byi)x\in N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) such that xNG(xi)V(Byi)x^{-}\in N_{G}(x_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) for some wL(R_Stem(T))w\in L(R\_Stem(T)). By Subclaim 3.8.2, consider the spanning tree T:=T+{xyi,xix,xiyxiz}{xx,xixiy,xixiz}T^{\prime}:=T+\{xy_{i},x_{i}x^{-},x_{iy}x_{iz}\}-\{xx^{-},x_{i}x_{iy},x_{i}x_{iz}\}. Then |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))||L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))| and |R_Stem(T)||R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|\leq|R\_Stem(T)|, this contradicts the conditions either (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have |L(R_Stem(T))|=|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|=|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)|.|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|. This contradicts with the condition (C2). Therefore, Subclaim 3.8.4 holds.

Subclaim 3.8.5. We have xiyNG(zi).x_{iy}\notin N_{G}(z_{i}).

Indeed, suppose to the contrary that xiyziE(G).x_{iy}z_{i}\in E(G). We consider the spanning tree T:=T+xiyzixixiy.T^{\prime}:=T+x_{iy}z_{i}-x_{i}x_{iy}. Hence, TT^{\prime} is a spanning tree of GG satisfying |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)||R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|\leq|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)|,|L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|, where ziz_{i} is not a leaf of T.T^{\prime}. This contradicts the conditions (C0), (C1) or (C2). Subclaim 3.8.5 is proved.

Subclaim 3.8.6. If xNG(zi)V(Byi)x\in N_{G}(z_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}}) then xixE(G)x_{i}x\notin E(G).

Indeed, assume that xixE(G).x_{i}x\in E(G). By Subclaim 3.8.5 and Claim 3.6, we obtain xiziE(G)x_{i}z_{i}\not\in E(G) and there exists x+.x^{+}. Combining with G[x,xi,x+,zi]G[x,x_{i},x^{+},z_{i}] is not K1,3K_{1,3}-free we get x+xiE(G)x^{+}x_{i}\in E(G) or x+ziE(G).x^{+}z_{i}\in E(G).
If x+xiE(G).x^{+}x_{i}\in E(G). Combining with Subclaim 3.8.2, we consider the spanning tree

T:={T+{xiyxiz,zix}{xx+,xixiz} if x+=xiy,T+{x+xi,xiyxiz,zix}{xx+,xixiy,xixiz} if x+xiy.T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T+\{x_{iy}x_{iz},z_{i}x\}-\{xx^{+},x_{i}x_{iz}\}&\;\mbox{ if }x^{+}=x_{iy},\\ T+\{x^{+}x_{i},x_{iy}x_{iz},z_{i}x\}-\{xx^{+},x_{i}x_{iy},x_{i}x_{iz}\}&\;\mbox{ if }x^{+}\not=x_{iy}.\\ \end{array}\right.

Hence |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|.|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|. If degT(xi)=3\deg_{T}(x_{i})=3 then xix_{i} is not a branch vertex of T.T^{\prime}. Hence |R_Stem(T)|<|R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|<|R\_Stem(T)|, this contradicts the condition (C1). Otherwise, we have |L(R_Stem(T))|=|L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|=|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)|=|R_Stem(T)||R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|=|R\_Stem(T)| and |L(T)|<|L(T)||L(T^{\prime})|<|L(T)|, this contradicts the condition (C2).
Otherwise, we have x+ziE(G).x^{+}z_{i}\in E(G). We set tNT(xi)V(R_Stem(T)).t\in N_{T}(x_{i})\cap V(R\_Stem(T)). Since G[xi,t,xiz,x]G[x_{i},t,x_{iz},x] is not K1,3K_{1,3}-free we obtain either xtE(G)xt\in E(G) or xiztE(G)x_{iz}t\in E(G) or xxizE(G)xx_{iz}\in E(G). Consider the spanning tree

T:={T+{xt,x+zi}{xx+,xixiy}, if xtE(G),T+xiztxixiz, if xiztE(G),T+{xxiz,x+zi}{xx+,xixiz}, if xxizE(G).T^{\prime}:=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}T+\{xt,x^{+}z_{i}\}-\{xx^{+},x_{i}x_{iy}\},&\;\mbox{ if }xt\in E(G),\\ T+x_{iz}t-x_{i}x_{iz},&\;\mbox{ if }x_{iz}t\in E(G),\\ T+\{xx_{iz},x^{+}z_{i}\}-\{xx^{+},x_{i}x_{iz}\},&\;\mbox{ if }xx_{iz}\in E(G).\\ \end{array}\right.

Then we have |L(R_Stem(T))||L(R_Stem(T))|,|L(R\_Stem(T^{\prime}))|\leq|L(R\_Stem(T))|, |R_Stem(T)||R_Stem(T)|,|R\_Stem(T^{\prime})|\leq|R\_Stem(T)|, |L(T)||L(T)||L(T^{\prime})|\leq|L(T)| and i=1ldegT(xi)<i=1ldegT(xi).\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T^{\prime}}(x_{i})<\sum_{i=1}^{l}\deg_{T}(x_{i}). This violates the conditions (C0), (C1), (C2) or (C3).
Subclaim 3.8.6 holds.

On the other hand, it follows from Claim 3.3 that.
Subclaim 3.8.7. We have NG(w)V(Byi)=N_{G}(w)\cap V(B_{y_{i}})=\emptyset for all wL(R_Stem(T)){xi}.w\in L(R\_Stem(T))\setminus\{x_{i}\}.

By Subclaims 3.8.3-3.8.4 we conclude that {yi},NG(yi)V(PT[yi,xi])\{y_{i}\},N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}]) and (NG({zi,xi})(PT[yi,xi])+\left(N_{G}(\{z_{i},x_{i}\})\cap(P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}]\right)^{+} are pairwise disjoint subsets in PT[yi,xi]P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}]. Combining with Claim 3.6 and Subclaims 3.8.1, 3.8.6-3.8.7, we obtain

uU|NG(u)V(Byi)|\displaystyle\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{y_{i}})| =\displaystyle= |NG(yi)V(Byi)|+|NG(zi)V(Byi)|+|NG(xi)V(Byi)|\displaystyle|N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|+|N_{G}(z_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|+|N_{G}(x_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|
=\displaystyle= |NG(yi)V(Byi)|+|NG({zi,xi})V(Byi)|\displaystyle|N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|+|N_{G}(\{z_{i},x_{i}\})\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|
=\displaystyle= |NG(yi)V(PT[yi,xi])|+|(NG({zi,xi})P[yi,xi])+|\displaystyle|N_{G}(y_{i})\cap V(P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}])|+|(N_{G}(\{z_{i},x_{i}\})\cap P[y_{i},x_{i}])^{+}|
\displaystyle\leq |PT[yi,xi]|1=|Byi|.\displaystyle|P_{T}[y_{i},x_{i}]|-1=|B_{y_{i}}|.

This completes the proof of Claim 3.8. \Box

Now, repeating the proof of Theorem 1.3 for the subtree R_Stem(T)R\_Stem(T) we obtain the following claim.

Claim 3.9

|NG(L(R_Stem(T)))V(R_Stem(T))||R_Stem(T)||L(R_Stem(T))|.|N_{G}(L(R\_Stem(T)))\cap V(R\_Stem(T))|\leq|R\_Stem(T)|-|L(R\_Stem(T))|.

By Claim 3.2 and Claims 3.7-3.9 we obtain that

degG(U)\displaystyle\deg_{G}(U) =\displaystyle= i=1l(uU|NG(u)V(Byi)|+uU|NG(u)V(Bzi)|)+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{l}\bigg{(}\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{y_{i}})|+\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{z_{i}})|\bigg{)}+
+\displaystyle+ pL(T)U1uU|NG(u)V(Bp)|+|NG(L(R_Stem(T)))V(R_Stem(T))|\displaystyle\sum_{p\in L(T)\setminus U_{1}}\sum_{u\in U}|N_{G}(u)\cap V(B_{p})|+|N_{G}(L(R\_Stem(T)))\cap V(R\_Stem(T))|
\displaystyle\leq i=1l|Byi|+i=1l|Bzi|+pL(T)U1|Bp|+|R_Stem(T)||L(R_Stem(T))|\displaystyle\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{l}|B_{y_{i}}|+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{l}|B_{z_{i}}|+\displaystyle\sum_{p\in L(T)\setminus U_{1}}|B_{p}|+|R\_Stem(T)|-|L(R\_Stem(T))|
=\displaystyle= |G||L(R_Stem(T))|\displaystyle|G|-|L(R\_Stem(T))|
=\displaystyle= |G|l.\displaystyle|G|-l.

Hence

σ3k+3(G)\displaystyle\sigma_{3k+3}(G) \displaystyle\leq σ3l(G)degG(U)\displaystyle\sigma_{3l}(G)\leq\deg_{G}(U)
\displaystyle\leq |G|l|G|k1.\displaystyle|G|-l\leq|G|-k-1.

This contradicts the assumption of Theorem 1.10. Therefore, the proof of Theorem 1.10 is completed.

References

  • [1] Broersma, H., Tuinstra, H.: Independence trees and Hamilton cycles, J. Graph Theory 29 (1998), 227–237.
  • [2] Chen, Y., Chen, G., Hu, Z.: Spanning 33-ended trees in kk-connected K1,4K_{1,4}-free graphs, Sci. China Math. 57 (2014), 1579–1586.
  • [3] Chen, Y., Ha, P. H., Hanh, D. D.: Spanning trees with at most 4 leaves in K1,5K_{1,5}-free graphs, Discrete Math. 342 (2019), 2342-2349.
  • [4] Diestel, R.: Graph Theory, 3rd Edition, Springer, Berlin, 2005.
  • [5] R. Gould and W. Shull: On spanning trees with few branch vertices, Discrete Math. 343, Issue 1 (2020), 111581.
  • [6] Ha, P. H., A note on the independence number, connectivity and kk-ended tree, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 305 (2021), 142-144.
  • [7] Ha, P. H., Hanh, D. D.: Spanning trees of connected K1,tK_{1,t}-free graphs whose stems have a few leaves, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 43 (2020), 2373-2383.
  • [8] Ha, P. H., Hanh, D. D., Loan, N. T.,: Spanning trees with few peripheral branch vertices, Taiwanese J. Math., Vol. 25, No. 3 (2021), pp. 435- 447.
  • [9] Ha, P. H., Hanh, D. D., Loan, N. T., Pham, N. D.: Spanning trees whose reducible stems have a few branch vertices, Czech Math J. 71 (146) (2021), 697-708.
  • [10] Hanh, D. D.: Spanning trees with few peripheral branch vertices in a connected claw-free graph, preprint.
  • [11] Kano M., Kyaw, A., Matsuda, H., Ozeki, K., Saito, A., Yamashita, T.: Spanning trees with a bounded number of leaves in a claw-free graph, Ars Combin. 103 (2012), 137–154.
  • [12] Kano, M., Yan, Z.: Spanning trees whose stems have at most kk leaves, Ars Combin. CXIVII (2014), 417-424.
  • [13] Kano, M., Yan, Z.: Spanning trees whose stems are spiders, Graphs Combin. 31 (2015), 1883-1887.
  • [14] Kyaw, A.: Spanning trees with at most 33 leaves in K1,4K_{1,4}-free graphs, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), 6146–6148.
  • [15] Kyaw, A.: Spanning trees with at most kk leaves in K1,4K_{1,4}-free graphs, Discrete Math. 311 (2011), 2135–2142.
  • [16] Las Vergnas, M.: Sur une propriété des arbres maximaux dans un graphe, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A 272 (1971), 1297–1300.
  • [17] Maezawa, S., Matsubara, R., Matsuda, H.: Degree conditions for graphs to have spanning trees with few branch vertices and leaves, Graphs Combin. 35 (2019), 231–238.
  • [18] Tsugaki, M., Zhang, Y: Spanning trees whose stems have a few leaves, Ars Combin. CXIV (2014), 245-256.
  • [19] Yan, Z.: Spanning trees whose stems have a bounded number of branch vertices. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 36 (2016), 773-778.
  • [20] Win, S.: On a conjecture of Las Vergnas concerning certain spanning trees in graphs. Resultate Math. 2 (1979), 215–224.