Spanning trees of a claw-free graph whose reducible stems have few leaves
Abstract
Let be a tree, a vertex of degree one is a leaf of and a vertex of degree at least three is a branch vertex of . For two distinct vertices of , let denote the unique path in connecting and For a leaf of , let denote the nearest branch vertex to . For every leaf of , we remove the path from , where denotes the path connecting to in but not containing . The resulting subtree of is called the reducible stem of . 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 be a graph with vertex set and edge set . For any vertex , we use and (or and if there is no ambiguity) to denote the set of neighbors of and the degree of in , respectively. For any , we denote by the cardinality of . Sometime, we denote by instead of We define and . The subgraph of induced by is denoted by . We define to be the graph obtained from by deleting the edge , and to be the graph obtained from by adding a new edge joining two non-adjacent vertices and of . For two vertices and of , the distance between and in is denoted by . We use to denote the complete graph on vertices. We write to rename as . We refer to [4] for terminology and notation not defined here.
For an integer let denote the number defined by
for all distinct vertices
For an integer , we define
for all distinct vertices
For convenience, we define if . We note that, is often written , which is independence number of and is often written , which is minimum degree sum of independent vertices.
Let be a tree. A vertex of degree one is a leaf of and a vertex of degree at least three is a branch vertex of . The set of leaves of is denoted by and the set of branch vertices of is denoted by . The subtree of is called the stem of and is denoted by .
For two distinct vertices of , let denote the unique path in connecting and For a leaf of , let denote the nearest branch vertex to . For every leaf of , we remove the path from , where denotes the path connecting to in but not containing . Moreover, the path is called the leaf-branch path of incident to and and denoted by . The resulting subtree of is called the reducible stem of and denoted by .
There are several sufficient conditions (such as the independence number conditions and the degree sum conditions) for a graph 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 and has at most leaves.
Theorem 1.1
(Win [20]) Let and be integers and let be a -connected graph. If , then has a spanning tree with at most leaves.
Later, Broersma and Tunistra gave the following degree sum condition for a graph to have a spanning tree with at most leaves.
Theorem 1.2
(Broersma and Tuinstra [1]) Let be a connected graph and let be an integer. If , then has a spanning tree with at most leaves.
Motivating by Theorem 1.1, a natural question is whether we can find sharp sufficient conditions of for a connected graph has a few leaves. This question is still open. But, in certain graph classes, the answers have been determined.
For a positive integer a graph is said to be free graph if it contains no as an induced subgraph. If the 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 be a connected claw-free graph and let be an integer. If , then has a spanning tree with at most 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 be a connected graph and let be an integer. If , then have a spanning tree whose stem has at most leaves.
Theorem 1.5
(Kano and Yan [12]) Let be a connected graph and let be an integer. If either or , then G has a spanning tree whose stem has at most leaves.
Theorem 1.6
(Yan [19]) Let be a connected graph and be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then have a spanning tree whose stem has at most branch vertices.
-
(a)
-
(b)
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 be a connected graph and let be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most leaves.
-
(i)
-
(ii)
Here, the notation stands for the biggest integer not exceed the real number
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 be a connected graph and let be an integer. If the following conditions holds, then has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most branch vertices.
Very recently, Hanh stated the following theorem.
Theorem 1.9
(Hanh [10]) Let be a connected claw-free graph and let be an integer. If one of the following conditions holds, then has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most leaves.
-
(i)
-
(ii)
The open question is whether we may give a sharp condition of to show that has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most 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 be a connected claw-free graph and let be an integer (). If , then has a spanning tree whose reducible stem has at most leaves.

To show that our result is sharp, we will give the following example. Let and be integers, and let and be disjoint copies of the complete graph of order . Let be a complete graph with Let be vertices not contained in . Join to all the vertices of and to all the vertices of for every . Adding edges and joining to for every . Let denote the resulting graph (see Figure 1). Then, we have Moreover, take a vertex and a vertex for for every We obtain
But has no spanning tree whose reducible stem has leaves. Hence the condition of Theorem 1.10 is sharp.
2 A new proof of Theorem 1.3
Definition 2.1 ([5])
Let be a tree. For each and , we denote and as the vertex incident to which is the nearest vertex of in .
Definition 2.2 ([5])
Let be a spanning tree of a graph and let and . Denote as the vertex incident to farthest away from in . We say is an oblique neighbor of with respect to if .
Definition 2.3 ([5])
Let be a spanning tree of a graph . Two vertices are pseudoadjacent with respect to if there is some which has them both as oblique neighbors. Similarly, a vertex set is pseudoindependent with respect to if no two vertices in the set are pseudoadjacent with respect to .
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 has no spanning tree with at most leaves. Choose some spanning tree of such that:
(T1) is as small as possible.
By the assumption, must have at least leaves.
We have the following claims.
Claim 2.4
is pseudoindependent with respect to . In particular, is independent.
Proof.Suppose two leaves and are pseudoadjacent with respect to . Then there is some edge such that . Let and be the nearest branch vertices of and , respectively. Consider the following two cases.
Case 1: Suppose . Then and , so . We consider the spanning tree
Hence, This violates (T1). So case 1 does not happen.
Case 2: Suppose . Define . Then and denoted by vertex . Since is not -free , so we have either or or . Consider the tree
Hence, This violates the condition (T1). So case 2 does not happen.
Therefore, the claim 2.4 is proved.
Claim 2.5
For each branch vertex , there are at least edges of incident with such that they have no oblique neighbor in .
Proof.
Set
Assume that there exist two vertices such that for all and for all Then is -free for every . This is a contradiction. Therefore we conclude that there exists at most one vertex such that for all
Let Then there exists some vertex such that Set To complete Claim 2.5, we will need only to prove that is not an oblique neighbor of with respect to for every Indeed, to the contrary, assume that there exists some vertex such that is an oblique neighbor of with respect to Consider the tree
Hence, This violates with (T1).
Claim 2.5 holds.
Claim 2.6
There are at least distinct edges of such that they have no oblique neighbor in
Proof. By Claim 2.4, we obtain that for each has at most an oblique neighbor in Moreover, if an edge is incident with two branch vertices of then has to be an edge of the subgraph of Then, there are at most edges which are adjacent with two branch vertices of Hence, combining with Claim 2.5, there exist at least
distinct edges in which have no oblique neighbor in .
On the other hand, we have
Therefore, the claim is proved.
For any , we now have if and only if is an oblique neighbor of with respect . Therefore, the number of edges of with as an oblique neighbor equals the degree of in . Combining with Claims 2.4 and 2.6, we obtain that
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 of , let denote the unique path in connecting and We define the orientation of is from to . For each vertex , we denote by and the successor and predecessor of in , respectively, if they exist. For any set and and and
Proof of Theorem 1.10. Suppose to the contrary that there does not exist a spanning tree of such that Then every spanning tree of satisfies .
Choose to be a spanning tree of such that
-
C0
is as small as possible,
-
C1
is as small as possible, subject to (C0),
-
C2
is as small as possible, subject to (C0) and (C1).
Set By the definition of reducible stem of , we have the following claim.
Claim 3.1
For every , there exist at least two leaf-branch paths of which are incident to .
Claim 3.2
For each , there exist such that are incident to and and .
Proof. Let be the subset of such that is adjacent to . By Claim 3.1, we obtain
Suppose that there are more than vertices satisfying
.
Without lost of generality, we may assume that for all Set and for all . Consider the spanning tree
Then satisfies and where is not in This contradicts either the condition (C0) or the condition (C1). Therefore, Claim 3.2 holds.
Claim 3.3
For every if and then and In particular, we have and .

Proof. By the same role of and we only need to prove Suppose the assertion of the claim is false. Set Then is a subgraph of including a unique cycle which contains both and . Since , then Hence, we obtain . Then there exists a branch vertex of contained in Let be an edge incident to such a vertex in and . By removing the edge from we obtain a spanning tree (see Figure 2). Hence satisfies the reason is that either has only one new leaf and are not leaves of or (or ) is still a leaf of but has no new leaf and (or respectively ) is not a leaf of . This is a contradiction with the condition (C0). So Claim 3.3 is proved.
We obtain the following claim as a corollary of Claim 3.3.
Claim 3.4
is an independent set in .
Set . For each we also set and
Claim 3.5
is an independent set in .
Proof. Suppose that there exist two vertices such that Without lost of generality, we may assume that for some Consider the spanning tree Then If then is not a branch vertex of Hence this contradicts either the conditions (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have and where either has only one new leaf and are not leaves of or is still a leaf of but has no any new leaf and is not a leaf of . This contradicts the condition (C2). The proof of Claim 3.5 is completed.
Now, we choose to be a spanning tree of satisfying
-
C3
is as small as possible, subject to (C0)-(C2),
-
C4
is as large as possible, subject to (C0)-(C3).
Set
Claim 3.6
is an independent set in .
Proof.
Suppose that there exist two vertices such that By Claims 3.4 and 3.5, without lost of generality, we may assume that and for some Moreover, by Claim 3.3, we now only need to consider the case
Set
If Consider the spanning tree Then If then is not a branch vertex of Hence this contradicts either the conditions (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have and this contradicts the condition (C2). Now, since is not -free, we obtain that or We consider the spanning tree
If then we obtain and a contradiction with (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have and This also violates the condition (C3).
Therefore, the proof of Claim 3.6 is completed.
By Claim 3.6 we conclude that
Claim 3.7
For every then .

Proof. Set such that . Let Then we consider
Assume that there exists a vertex such that for some Consider the spanning tree
This contradicts either the condition (C2) if or the condition (C4) for otherwise. Therefore, we conclude that
Assume that there exist for some and such that Set
Then is a subgraph of including a unique cycle which contains both and . Since , then Hence, we obtain . Then there exists a branch vertex of contained in Let be an edge incident to such a vertex in . By removing the edge from we obtain a spanning tree of satisfying the reason is that either has only one new leaf and are not leaves of or (or ) is still a leaf of but has no new leaf and (or respectively) is not a leaf of (see Figure 3 for an example). This is a contradiction with the condition (C0). Therefore, we concludes that for every Now we obtain the following
Claim 3.7 is proved.
Claim 3.8
For every , then and
Proof. By the same role of and we only need to prove
We consider
Subclaim 3.8.2. We have
Indeed, if we set Then since is not -free we obtain either or . Without loss of generality, we may assume that Consider the spanning tree If then we obtain and a contradiction with (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have and This violates the conditions (C3). Subclaim 3.8.2 is proved.
Subclaim 3.8.3. If then .
Suppose that there exists such that . Consider the spanning tree . Then If then is not a branch vertex of Hence this contradicts the condition (C1). Otherwise, we have and This is a contradiction with the condition (C2). Therefore, Subclaim 3.8.3 holds.
Subclaim 3.8.4. If then .
Suppose that there exists such that for some . By Subclaim 3.8.2, consider the spanning tree . Then and this contradicts the conditions either (C0) or (C1). Otherwise, we have and This contradicts with the condition (C2). Therefore,
Subclaim 3.8.4 holds.
Subclaim 3.8.5. We have
Indeed, suppose to the contrary that We consider the spanning tree Hence, is a spanning tree of satisfying and where is not a leaf of This contradicts the conditions (C0), (C1) or (C2). Subclaim 3.8.5 is proved.
Subclaim 3.8.6. If then .
Indeed, assume that By Subclaim 3.8.5 and Claim 3.6, we obtain and there exists Combining with is not -free we get or
If Combining with Subclaim 3.8.2, we consider the spanning tree
Hence If then is not a branch vertex of Hence this contradicts the condition (C1). Otherwise, we have and , this contradicts the condition (C2).
Otherwise, we have We set Since is not -free we obtain either or or . Consider the spanning tree
Then we have and This violates the conditions (C0), (C1), (C2) or (C3).
Subclaim 3.8.6 holds.
By Subclaims 3.8.3-3.8.4 we conclude that and are pairwise disjoint subsets in . Combining with Claim 3.6 and Subclaims 3.8.1, 3.8.6-3.8.7, we obtain
This completes the proof of Claim 3.8.
Now, repeating the proof of Theorem 1.3 for the subtree we obtain the following claim.
Claim 3.9
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 -ended trees in -connected -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 -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 -ended tree, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 305 (2021), 142-144.
- [7] Ha, P. H., Hanh, D. D.: Spanning trees of connected -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 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 leaves in -free graphs, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), 6146–6148.
- [15] Kyaw, A.: Spanning trees with at most leaves in -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.