Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated

Molloy reed 1997 bound strong chromatic index graph

../

lemma_1: Molloy and Reed's Lemma 1 (p. 105): in the square of the line graph of a graph of maximum degree Δ, the neighborhood of every vertex spans at most (1 − 1/36) times (2Δ² choose 2) edges, the sparsity half of their proof of the 1.998 Δ² bound on the strong chromatic index.

lemma_2: Molloy and Reed's Lemma 2 (p. 105): a graph of maximum degree at most X, X large, whose neighborhoods each span at most (1 − δ) times (X choose 2) edges has chromatic number at most (1 − γ)X, for γ below an explicit function of δ; the coloring half of their proof of the 1.998 Δ² bound.

theorem_1: Molloy and Reed's Theorem 1 (p. 104): a graph of sufficiently large maximum degree Δ has strong chromatic index at most 1.998 Δ², the first step of the chain of upper bounds on Problem 149 and the affirmative answer to the Erdős–Nešetřil question whether any (2 − ε)Δ² holds; from Lemma 1, the sparsity of the neighborhoods in the square of the line graph, and Lemma 2, a probabilistic coloring lemma for graphs with sparse neighborhoods.


Michael Molloy and Bruce Reed, A Bound on the Strong Chromatic Index of a Graph, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B 69 (1997), no. 2, 103--109, article no. TB971724, DOI 10.1006/jctb.1997.1724; received October 10, 1995; the authors at the Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, and the Equipe Combinatoire, CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris; supported by NATO Collaborative Research Grant CRG 9502 35 (footnote, p. 103). Cited as [MoRe97] on the problem page. Its eleven references (pp. 108--109) include Andersen 1992, filed as andersen_1992_strong_chromatic_index_cubic_graph_is_at_most_10 (the paper's [2]); Chung, Gyárfás, Trotter and Tuza 1990, filed as chung_1990_maximum_number_edges_2k2_free_graphs_bounded_degree ([3]); Erdős and Lovász 1975, the Local Lemma ([4]); Faudree, Gyárfás, Schelp and Tuza 1989, filed as faudree_1989_induced_matchings_bipartite_graphs ([5], the paper's source for the question); the same authors' 1990 Ars Combinatoria paper ([6], not held); Horák 1990 ([7], not held); Horák, Qing and Trotter 1993, filed as horak_1993_induced_matchings_cubic_graphs ([8], the second author printed "H. Qing" here); Alon and Spencer 1992, Jensen and Toft 1995, Spencer's 1994 ICM address ([10], the paper's source for Corollary 1) and Talagrand 1995 ([11]).

The copy read for this card is the publisher's version of record: 7 pages, printed pp. 103--109 = PDF pp. 1--7 (printed p. nn is PDF p. n−102n-102), the typeset production file (the file's metadata names Acrobat Distiller 3.0 for Macintosh and a creation date of 19 March 1997, and each page carries the compositor's footer "File: 582B 1724nn . By:CV . Date:19:03:97"), with a text layer that reads the prose cleanly and garbles the mathematics: Δ\Delta comes out as "2", ε\varepsilon as "=", the inequality signs are dropped, and the fractions and displays of pp. 105--107 come out as scattered digits. An author's PostScript preprint is listed on the first author's publication page; it was not retrieved or compared, and the version of record is the edition read. Provenance: the copy was obtained free of charge on 2026-09-22 from the publisher's open archive, the DOI https://doi.org/10.1006/jctb.1997.1724 resolving to the article's page on the publisher's site (PII S009589569791724X) and its PDF under the open-archive terms; 676,017 bytes. The file prints "Copyright © 1997 by Academic Press" and "All rights of reproduction in any form reserved." on its first page, every other right reserved.

Read status: claims checked for the title, the abstract, the definitions of a strong edge-coloring and of sχ′(G)s\chi'(G), the trivial bound, the Erdős--Nešetřil question and conjecture (p. 103), Theorem 1 with the paragraphs around it and the plan of the proof (p. 104), Talagrand's Inequality, Corollary 1, the notation and Lemmas 1 and 2 with the sentence deducing Theorem 1 from them (p. 105), the end of the proof of Lemma 2, § 4 Remarks and references 1--3 (p. 108), each read clause by clause on the page images of PDF pp. 1--3 and 6 on 2026-09-22; references 4--11 (p. 109) were read on the page image of PDF p. 7. The proofs of Lemma 1 (pp. 106--107) and Lemma 2 (pp. 107--108) were read on the page images of PDF pp. 4--6 for their structure; their estimates were not checked, and one numerical filing observation is recorded below. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Contents

  • Abstract and § 1, Introduction (pp. 103--104, page images). The abstract states the result as sχ′(G)≤(2−ε)Δ2s\chi'(G)\le(2-\varepsilon)\Delta^2 for some ε>0\varepsilon>0, for every graph of maximum degree Δ\Delta, and says that it settles a question Erdős and Nešetřil had asked. Definition (p. 103, quoted): "A strong edge-colouring of a (simple) graph, GG, is a proper edge-colouring of GG with the added restriction that no edge is adjacent to two edges of the same colour." The paper notes that in a proper edge-coloring no edge is adjacent to three edges of one color, and that a strong edge-coloring is the same as a proper vertex coloring of L(G)2L(G)^2, the square of the line graph; the strong chromatic index sχ′(G)s\chi'(G) is the least number of colors in a strong edge-coloring of GG. The trivial bound (p. 103) is sχ′(G)≤2Δ2−2Δ+1s\chi'(G)\le2\Delta^2-2\Delta+1 for a graph of maximum degree Δ\Delta, since L(G)2L(G)^2 has maximum degree at most 2Δ2−2Δ2\Delta^2-2\Delta. The question, quoted: in 1985 Erdős and Nešetřil (through [5]) "asked if there is any ε>0\varepsilon>0 such that, for every such GG, sχ′(G)≤(2−ε)Δ2s\chi'(G)\le(2-\varepsilon)\Delta^2"; the paper records their blow-up of the 55-cycle, which gives graphs of arbitrarily large Δ\Delta with sχ′(G)=54Δ2s\chi'(G)=\frac54\Delta^2, and their conjecture, quoted, that "for every GG with maximum degree Δ\Delta, sχ′(G)≤54Δ2s\chi'(G)\le\frac54\Delta^2". The paper answers the question in the affirmative "with ε=0.002\varepsilon=0.002" (p. 104). Theorem 1 (p. 104, quoted): "If GG has maximum degree Δ\Delta sufficiently large, then sχ′(G)≤1.998Δ2s\chi'(G)\le1.998\Delta^2." The authors' own assessment (p. 104): the proof is probabilistic and makes no attempt at the best possible ε\varepsilon; a simple modification, described in § 4, gives ε>0.01\varepsilon>0.01; and the techniques seem to them "not sufficient to find ε\varepsilon near 34\frac34". The plan (p. 104): if HH has maximum degree at most XX and each neighborhood of HH spans at most (1−δ)(X2)(1-\delta)\binom X2 edges, then χ(H)≤(1−γ)X\chi(H)\le(1-\gamma)X with γ=γ(δ)>0\gamma=\gamma(\delta)>0; the coloring assigns each vertex a uniformly random color, uncolors every vertex with a neighbor of the same color, shows that with positive probability every vertex sees at least γX\gamma X repeated colors in its neighborhood, and completes the coloring greedily. Theorem 1 then follows once L(G)2L(G)^2 is shown to meet these hypotheses with X=2Δ2X=2\Delta^2 and δ=136\delta=\frac1{36}, and γ(136)≥0.001\gamma(\frac1{36})\ge0.001.
  • § 2, Preliminaries (pp. 104--105, page images). The Local Lemma, cited to [4] (Erdős and Lovász): if each of nn events has probability at most pp and is mutually independent of all the other events except at most dd of them, and ep(d+1)<1ep(d+1)<1, then with positive probability none occurs. Talagrand's Inequality, cited to [11]: for a product probability space Ω=∏i=1ωΩi\Omega=\prod_{i=1}^\omega\Omega_i, A⊂ΩA\subset\Omega and t>0t>0, Pr⁡(A)×(1−Pr⁡(At))<e−t2/4\Pr(A)\times(1-\Pr(A_t))<e^{-t^2/4}, where y∈Aty\in A_t iff for any reals α1,…,αω\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_\omega some x∈Ax\in A has ∑xi≠yiαi<t∑αi2\sum_{x_i\ne y_i}\alpha_i<t\sqrt{\sum\alpha_i^2}. Corollary 1 (p. 105, quoted): for h:Ω→Rh:\Omega\to\mathbf R Lipschitz (changing one coordinate changes hh by at most 11) and ff-certifiable (h(x)≥sh(x)\ge s is certified by at most f(s)f(s) coordinates), "then for any bb and any t≥0t\ge0, Pr⁡(h(x)<b−tf(b))×Pr⁡(h(x)>b)<e−t2/4\Pr(h(x)<b-t\sqrt{f(b)})\times\Pr(h(x)>b)<e^{-t^2/4}", with the proof referred to [10]. Notation: NG(v)N_G(v), E(A,B)E(A,B), E(A)=E(A,A)E(A)=E(A,A), deg⁡A(v)\deg_A(v), "GG-edge"; all graphs are simple, and the standing convention, quoted: "We only claim all statements to hold for Δ\Delta or XX sufficiently large."
  • § 3, Details (pp. 105--108; statements on the page image of p. 105, the proofs on the page images of pp. 106--108 for structure). Lemma 1 (p. 105, quoted): "If GG has maximum degree Δ\Delta, then for each e∈V(L(G)2)e\in V(L(G)^2), NL(G)2(e)N_{L(G)^2}(e) has at most (1−136)(2Δ22)(1-\frac1{36})\binom{2\Delta^2}2 L(G)2L(G)^2-edges." Lemma 2 (p. 105, quoted): "Consider any δ,γ>0\delta,\gamma>0 such that γ<δ2(1−γ)e−3/(1−γ)\gamma<\frac{\delta}{2(1-\gamma)}e^{-3/(1-\gamma)}. Suppose that HH is a graph with maximum degree at most XX (sufficiently large), such that for each v∈V(H)v\in V(H), N(v)N(v) has at most (1−δ)(X2)(1-\delta)\binom X2 edges. Then χ(H)≤(1−γ)X\chi(H)\le(1-\gamma)X." Then: "Note that Theorem 1 follows immediately from Lemmas 1 and 2, as γ=0.001\gamma=0.001 satisfies the conditions of Lemma 2 with δ=136\delta=\frac1{36} and X=2Δ2X=2\Delta^2." Proof of Lemma 1 (pp. 106--107): GG is taken Δ\Delta-regular, H=L(G)2H=L(G)^2; for a GG-edge e=(u1,u2)e=(u_1,u_2) with A=NG(u1)A=N_G(u_1), B=NG(u2)B=N_G(u_2) and C=NG(A)∪NG(B)−(A∪B)C=N_G(A)\cup N_G(B)-(A\cup B), three cases: many edges inside A∪BA\cup B or a large ∣A∩B∣|A\cap B| (Case 1, ∣NH(e)∣<(2−130)Δ2|N_H(e)|<(2-\frac1{30})\Delta^2); many GG-paths of length at most 33 leaving NH(e)N_H(e) (Case 2); and otherwise (Case 3) a count of 44-cycles through EG(A∪B,C)E_G(A\cup B,C) by Cauchy--Schwarz over the vertices c∈Cc\in C of degree at least 23Δ\frac23\Delta into A∪BA\cup B, giving more than 136Δ4\frac1{36}\Delta^4 such cycles, each of which lowers the bound 2Δ42\Delta^4 on the number of HH-edges in NH(e)N_H(e) by two. Proof of Lemma 2 (pp. 107--108): HH is taken XX-regular; ζ=δ1−γe−3/(1−γ)\zeta=\frac{\delta}{1-\gamma}e^{-3/(1-\gamma)}; each vertex gets a uniformly random color from c=⌈(1−γ)X⌉c=\lceil(1-\gamma)X\rceil colors and every vertex adjacent to a vertex of the same color is uncolored; AvA_v is the event that the number of colored vertices in N(v)N(v) exceeds the number of colors used in N(v)N(v) by less than ζX−14Xlog⁡X\zeta X-14\sqrt{X\log X}; compatible pairs in N(v)N(v) (nonadjacent, same color, no neighbor and no other vertex of N(v)N(v) with that color) give the count DD of pairs retaining their colors, with expectation at least ζX\zeta X; Corollary 1 with h=−12D′h=-\frac12D', f(s)=1.5Xf(s)=1.5X and t=7log⁡Xt=7\sqrt{\log X} gives Pr⁡(Av)≤X−5\Pr(A_v)\le X^{-5}; each AvA_v depends on at most X4X^4 of the other events, so the Local Lemma gives a partial coloring that a greedy completion extends to (1−γ)X(1-\gamma)X colors, since γ<ζ\gamma<\zeta. A filing observation, not a review verdict: at δ=136\delta=\frac1{36} and γ=0.001\gamma=0.001 the printed condition of Lemma 2 evaluates to δ2(1−γ)e−3/(1−γ)≈0.00069<γ\frac{\delta}{2(1-\gamma)}e^{-3/(1-\gamma)}\approx0.00069<\gamma, so the inequality as printed does not hold at the constants p. 105 says satisfy it, while the proof's $\zeta=\frac{\delta}{1-\gamma}e^{-3/(1-\gamma)} \approx0.00138$, without the factor 22, does exceed γ\gamma; the proof writes DD for the count of compatible pairs that keep their colors where it defines it and D′D' where it uses it. Which of the two constants the argument needs was not checked here, and the statement of Theorem 1 is recorded as printed.
  • § 4, Remarks (p. 108, page image). The authors state that a simple modification of the method improves the constant of Theorem 1 to 1.991.99: each vertex vv gets a uniformly random real weight wv∈[0,1]w_v\in[0,1], and a vertex is uncolored only when some neighbor of the same color has a higher weight, instead of whenever it has a neighbor of the same color; and D′D' is allowed to count compatible pairs even when a few more vertices of N(v)N(v) share their color. Their assessment, quoted: the best constant these methods can reach "is not much smaller than 1.9 which is far from the objective of 1.25." No argument is printed for the constant 1.991.99.
  • Acknowledgment and references (pp. 108--109, page images): two anonymous referees are thanked; the eleven references are listed above.

Compiled scope

The paper is compiled at statement depth for the result Problem 149 consumes: Theorem 1 (p. 104) with the definitions of p. 103 and the deduction from Lemmas 1 and 2 (p. 105), read on the page images and quoted above, with result pages for Theorem 1 and for Lemmas 1 and 2, which the problem page cites as the two halves of the method. The proofs of the two lemmas were read on the page images for structure only, and no estimate was checked. The remark's constant 1.991.99 is an authors' statement without a printed argument. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Bears on. #149: Theorem 1 (printed p. 104, PDF p. 2), "If GG has maximum degree Δ\Delta sufficiently large, then sχ′(G)≤1.998Δ2s\chi'(G)\le1.998\Delta^2", is the bound sq(G)≤1.998Δ2\mathrm{sq}(G)\le1.998\Delta^2 for Δ\Delta sufficiently large that the site credits to Molloy and Reed, the first step of the chain 1.9981.998, 1.931.93, 1.8351.835, 1.7721.772 of upper bounds on sq(G)\mathrm{sq}(G) for large Δ\Delta, and the paper's own p. 104 puts it in the form (2−ε)Δ2(2-\varepsilon)\Delta^2 "with ε=0.002\varepsilon=0.002", answering the Erdős--Nešetřil question of 1985 as p. 103 states it, "if there is any ε>0\varepsilon>0 such that, for every such GG, sχ′(G)≤(2−ε)Δ2s\chi'(G)\le(2-\varepsilon)\Delta^2". The same passage (pp. 103--104) states the conjecture the problem asks about, "for every GG with maximum degree Δ\Delta, sχ′(G)≤54Δ2s\chi'(G)\le\frac54\Delta^2", and the blown-up five-cycle attaining 54Δ2\frac54\Delta^2, both credited to Erdős and Nešetřil through the paper's [5], the 1989 note; on p. 108 the authors judge that the best constant these methods can reach is "not much smaller than 1.9 which is far from the objective of 1.25", so the paper leaves the conjecture open and its threshold on Δ\Delta unspecified. The method, Lemma 1 (sparsity of the neighborhoods in L(G)2L(G)^2, p. 105) and Lemma 2 (coloring graphs with sparse neighborhoods, p. 105), is the one the later bounds on the problem refine; neither lemma bounds a strong chromatic index by itself.

Results.

  • Theorem 1 (p. 104): sχ′(G)≤1.998Δ2s\chi'(G)\le1.998\Delta^2 for every graph GG of sufficiently large maximum degree Δ\Delta; from Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 (p. 105) with X=2Δ2X=2\Delta^2, δ=136\delta=\frac1{36} and γ=0.001\gamma=0.001.
  • Lemma 1 (p. 105): in L(G)2L(G)^2, for GG of maximum degree Δ\Delta, every neighborhood spans at most (1−136)(2Δ22)(1-\frac1{36})\binom{2\Delta^2}2 edges, for Δ\Delta sufficiently large under the paper's standing convention.
  • Lemma 2 (p. 105): for δ,γ>0\delta,\gamma>0 with γ<δ2(1−γ)e−3/(1−γ)\gamma<\frac{\delta}{2(1-\gamma)}e^{-3/(1-\gamma)}, a graph HH of maximum degree at most XX, XX sufficiently large, whose neighborhoods each span at most (1−δ)(X2)(1-\delta)\binom X2 edges has χ(H)≤(1−γ)X\chi(H)\le(1-\gamma)X; the page records the filing observation on the printed constant.

No file of this source is held: no license on record permits its redistribution, and the card cites the edition it names above.