130,711 research outputs found
Defective and Clustered Graph Colouring
Consider the following two ways to colour the vertices of a graph where the
requirement that adjacent vertices get distinct colours is relaxed. A colouring
has "defect" if each monochromatic component has maximum degree at most
. A colouring has "clustering" if each monochromatic component has at
most vertices. This paper surveys research on these types of colourings,
where the first priority is to minimise the number of colours, with small
defect or small clustering as a secondary goal. List colouring variants are
also considered. The following graph classes are studied: outerplanar graphs,
planar graphs, graphs embeddable in surfaces, graphs with given maximum degree,
graphs with given maximum average degree, graphs excluding a given subgraph,
graphs with linear crossing number, linklessly or knotlessly embeddable graphs,
graphs with given Colin de Verdi\`ere parameter, graphs with given
circumference, graphs excluding a fixed graph as an immersion, graphs with
given thickness, graphs with given stack- or queue-number, graphs excluding
as a minor, graphs excluding as a minor, and graphs excluding
an arbitrary graph as a minor. Several open problems are discussed.Comment: This is a preliminary version of a dynamic survey to be published in
the Electronic Journal of Combinatoric
Defective and Clustered Choosability of Sparse Graphs
An (improper) graph colouring has "defect" if each monochromatic subgraph
has maximum degree at most , and has "clustering" if each monochromatic
component has at most vertices. This paper studies defective and clustered
list-colourings for graphs with given maximum average degree. We prove that
every graph with maximum average degree less than is
-choosable with defect . This improves upon a similar result by Havet and
Sereni [J. Graph Theory, 2006]. For clustered choosability of graphs with
maximum average degree , no bound on the number of colours
was previously known. The above result with solves this problem. It
implies that every graph with maximum average degree is
-choosable with clustering 2. This extends a
result of Kopreski and Yu [Discrete Math., 2017] to the setting of
choosability. We then prove two results about clustered choosability that
explore the trade-off between the number of colours and the clustering. In
particular, we prove that every graph with maximum average degree is
-choosable with clustering , and is
-choosable with clustering . As an
example, the later result implies that every biplanar graph is 8-choosable with
bounded clustering. This is the best known result for the clustered version of
the earth-moon problem. The results extend to the setting where we only
consider the maximum average degree of subgraphs with at least some number of
vertices. Several applications are presented
Graph Treewidth and Geometric Thickness Parameters
Consider a drawing of a graph in the plane such that crossing edges are
coloured differently. The minimum number of colours, taken over all drawings of
, is the classical graph parameter "thickness". By restricting the edges to
be straight, we obtain the "geometric thickness". By further restricting the
vertices to be in convex position, we obtain the "book thickness". This paper
studies the relationship between these parameters and treewidth.
Our first main result states that for graphs of treewidth , the maximum
thickness and the maximum geometric thickness both equal .
This says that the lower bound for thickness can be matched by an upper bound,
even in the more restrictive geometric setting. Our second main result states
that for graphs of treewidth , the maximum book thickness equals if and equals if . This refutes a conjecture of Ganley and
Heath [Discrete Appl. Math. 109(3):215-221, 2001]. Analogous results are proved
for outerthickness, arboricity, and star-arboricity.Comment: A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the "Proceedings of
the 13th International Symposium on Graph Drawing" (GD '05), Lecture Notes in
Computer Science 3843:129-140, Springer, 2006. The full version was published
in Discrete & Computational Geometry 37(4):641-670, 2007. That version
contained a false conjecture, which is corrected on page 26 of this versio
- …