Jeff Remmel introduced the concept of a -11-representable graph in 2017. This concept was first explored by Cheon et al. in 2019, who considered it as a natural extension of word-representable graphs, which are exactly 0-11-representable graphs. A graph is -11-representable if it can be represented by a word such that for any edge (resp., non-edge) in the subsequence of formed by and contains at most (resp., at least ) pairs of consecutive equal letters. A remarkable result of Cheon et al. is that any graph is 2-11-representable, while it is still unknown whether every graph is 1-11-representable. Cheon et al. showed that the class of 1-11-representable graphs is strictly larger than that of word-representable graphs, and they introduced a useful toolbox to study 1-11-representable graphs, which was extended by additional powerful tools suggested by Futorny et al. in 2024. In this paper, we prove that all graphs on at most 8 vertices are 1-11-representable hence extending the known fact that all graphs on at most 7 vertices are 1-11-representable. Also, we discuss applications of our main result in the study of multi-1-11-representation of graphs we introduce in this paper analogously to the notion of multi-word-representation of graphs suggested by Kenkireth and Malhotra in 2023.
Keywords: 1-11-representable graph, multi-1-11- representation of graphs, word-representable graph
1. Introduction
Various methods for representing graphs extend far beyond the
conventional use of adjacency or incidence matrices; for example, see
[9] for a discussion. Of
particular relevance to our paper are representations of graphs by words
or sequences, where adjacency between a pair of vertices is determined
by the occurrence of a fixed pattern in the subword or subsequence
formed by the vertices. For instance, in the extensively studied
word-representable graphs [6], first studied in [7] and defined in Subsection 2.1, edges are
determined by the strict alternation of vertices.
Another representation method is -11-representation, introduced by Jeff
Remmel in 2017 and defined in Subsection 2.2, where
at most violations of strict
alternation are allowed to define an edge between two vertices.
Consequently, word-representable graphs correspond precisely to
0-11-representable graphs. The concept of -11-representable graphs was first
studied by Cheon et al. [2].
While not all graphs are word-representable, all graphs are known to
be 2-11-representable [2]. The most intriguing open question in the
theory of -11-representable graphs
is whether all graphs are 1-11-representable, and it remains challenging
to predict an answer to this question. Recent research in this area has
focused on developing powerful tools to study 1-11-representable graphs
[3]; see Subsection 2.2.
1.1. Our main
results and the organization of the paper
In Section 2, we introduce the necessary
definitions and known results that will be used throughout this paper.
In Section 3, we prove that all graphs with
at most 8 vertices are 1-11-representable, thereby extending the
previously known result that all graphs with at most 7 vertices are
1-11-representable [2,3]. In Section 4, we introduce the concept of
the multi--11-representation
number of a graph, which generalizes the notion of the
multi-word-representation number of a graph [5].
As an application of our main results in this paper, in Section 4, we demonstrate that all
graphs with at most 24 vertices have a multi-1-11-representation number
of at most 2. Finally, in Section 5, we provide
concluding remarks and outline open problems.
2. Preliminaries
An orientation of a graph is transitive, if the
presence of the edges and
implies the presence of the edge . An undirected graph is a comparability
graph if admits a
transitive orientation.
2.1. Word-representable graphs and semi-transitive
orientations
Two letters and alternate in a word if, after deleting all letters in except for and , we obtain either the word or (of even or odd length). A
graph is
word-representable if and only if there exists a
word over the alphabet such that letters and , with , alternate in if and
only if . The word is called a
word-representant for .
The unique minimum (by the number of vertices) non-word-representable
graph with 6 vertices is the wheel graph . Moreover, there are 25
non-word-representable graphs on 7 vertices. Notably, the original list
of 25 non-word-representable graphs with 7 vertices, as presented
in [6], contains two
incorrect graphs. For the corrected catalog of these 25 graphs, we refer
the reader to [8].
An orientation of a graph is semi-transitive if
it is acyclic, and for any directed path either there is no edge from to , or is an edge for all
. An induced
subgraph on at least four vertices of an oriented
graph is a shortcut if it is acyclic,
non-transitive, and contains both the directed path and the edge , that is called the shortcutting
edge. A semi-transitive orientation can then be
alternatively defined as an acyclic shortcut-free orientation. A
fundamental result in the area of word-representable graphs is the
following theorem.
Theorem 2.1 ([4]). A graph is
word-representable if and only if it admits a semi-transitive
orientation.
For instance, it follows from Theorem 2.1 that every
3-colourable graph is word-representable (simply direct each edge from a
lower colour to a higher one). In the literature, word-representable
graphs are often referred to as semi-transitive graphs.
2.2. -11-representable graphs
A factor in a word is a word for . For any word , let be the initial
permutation of
obtained by reading from left to
right and recording the leftmost occurrences of the letters in . Denote by the reverse of
, that is, written in the reverse order. Finally,
for a pair of letters and in a word , let be the subword induced by
the letters and . For example, if then and
.
Let . A graph is –-representable if there
exists a word over the alphabet
such that the word contains in total at most
occurrences of the factors in
if and only if is an edge in . Such a word is called ’s –-representant. Note that
–-representable graphs are precisely
word-representable graphs, and that –-representants are precisely
word-representants. A graph
is permutationally –-representable if it has a
–-representant that is a concatenation
of permutations of . The “11” in
“–-representable” refers to counting
occurrences of the consecutive pattern 11 in the
word induced by a pair of letters , which is exactly the total
number of occurrences of the factors in .
A uniform (resp., -uniform) representant of a
graph is a word, satisfying the
required properties, in which each letter occurs the same (resp., ) number of times. It is known that each
word-representable graph has a uniform representant [7], the class of 2-uniform
representable graphs is exactly the class of circle graphs [6], while the class of -uniform –-representable graphs is the class of
interval graphs [2].
The main result in [2]
is the following theorem.
Theorem 2.2 ([2]). Every graph is permutationally –-representable.
Thus, when determining whether each graph is –-representable for a fixed , the only case left to study is (as the answer is no for and yes for ).
2.3. Known tools to study 1-11-representable
graphs
Each word-representable graph is 1-11-representable. Indeed, if is a word-representant of then, for instance, or are its 1-11-representants.
Moreover, each graph on at most 7 vertices is 1-11-representable [2,3]. The key tools to
study 1-11-representation of graphs from [2,3] can be unified as follows.
(a) Let and
be –-representable graphs. Then their
disjoint union, glueing them in a vertex or connecting them by an edge
results in a –-representable graph.
(b) If is –-representable then for any edge adding a new vertex adjacent to and only, gives a –-representable graph.
In the following lemma, .
Lemma 2.4 ([2]). Let be a word-representable graph, and . Then
(a) is a –-representable graph;
(b) is a –-representable graph.
In particular, Lemma 2.4(b) is frequently referred to
in this paper as the “star operation” or “adding a star”, and it is used
as follows: to prove the 1-11-representability of a given graph, we
identify a set of new edges, all sharing the same vertex as an endpoint,
and demonstrate that the resulting graph is word-representable.
Lemma 2.5 ([2]). Let be a graph with a vertex . is –-representable if at least one of the
following conditions holds:
(a) is
a comparability graph;
(b) is
a circle graph.
Lemma 2.6 ([3]).Let be pairwise disjoint
subsets of , the set of vertices
of a word-representable graph . We
denote by the set of all
edges of having both end-points
in . Then, the graph , obtained by removing all edges belonging to for all , is –-representable.
As a corollary of Lemma 2.6, we obtain the
following lemma, which is frequently used in this paper and referred to
as “adding a matching” or “applying a matching operation”.
Lemma 2.7 ([3]). Let the
graph be obtained from a graph
by adding a matching (that is, by
adding new edges no pair of which shares a vertex). If is word-representable then is –-representable.
Lemma 2.8 ([3]).Suppose that the vertices of a graph can be partitioned into a comparability
graph formed by vertices in and an independent
set formed by vertices in . Then is permutationally –-representable.
3. Graphs on at most 8 vertices
In what follows, denotes
the chromatic number of . We say
that a graph is -colourable
if it can be coloured with
colours, but not with colours,
and the -th colour class,
corresponding to colour , is the
set
of size . Our typical
assumption, w.l.o.g., is that . However, in certain cases, we deviate
from this assumption to be able to facilitate our arguments.
Remark 3.1. It is easy to see
that the induced subgraph is a clique.
Definition 3.2. A -shortcut is a shortcut with the directed path
, where for . A –)-shortcut is any
-shortcut such
that for , and .
For sets of vertices and in a graph, let denote the number of (directed or
undirected) edges between and
. For brevity, a singleton set
is denoted as . Additionally, for a graph with disjoint subsets of vertices , where is an independent set for , let represent the induced
-partite subgraph of on the vertices in . Finally, a
split graph is a graph whose vertex set can be
partitioned into a comparability graph and an independent set.
Lemma 3.3. If a graph is -colourable, then is –-representable.
Proof. Clearly, is a
split graph with an independent set of size , and by Theorem 6 in [3], any split graph is
permutationally 1-11-representable.
Lemma 3.4. For an
-colourable
graph , where , if for some , then the vertex in and its unique neighbour in are adjacent to all vertices in for .
Proof. Assume that is adjacent to a vertex . Since , by Remark 3.1,
the claim holds for . Now,
suppose that is not adjacent to
some for . By recolouring the vertices in
in colour
and the vertex in colour , we obtain a -colouring of , which contradicts the assumption that
. Therefore, must be adjacent to all vertices in
for .
The proof of the following theorem can be reduced to considering the
929 non-word-representable graphs on 8 vertices ([6, p. 47]) since any word-representable graph is
1-11-representable. Our final Section 5 contains an
intriguing question about this. However, our arguments are not
restricted to the 929 graphs – we consider all graphs on 8 vertices
based on their chromatic number and prove their
1-11-representability.
Theorem 3.5. All graphs on at most
vertices are –-representable.
Proof. We begin with the easier cases and continue with the
more involved ones.
Case 1. . Any such graph is word-representable and hence
1-11-representable.
Case 2. . This is a complete
graph which is word-representable and hence 1-11-representable.
Case 3. . By Lemma 3.3,
is word-representable, and hence
1-11-representable.
Our strategy for the remainder of the proof is to consider a suitable
-colouring of
. We then orient edges , where and with , as . Next, we apply a star or
a matching operation to add additional edges, oriented again from
smaller colour to larger colours, to eliminate potential shortcuts. This
process ensures a semi-transitive orientation, demonstrating that the
resulting graph is word-representable and, consequently, that the
original graph is 1-11-representable.
Case 4. . Then is either -colourable or -colourable. By Lemma 3.3, we
can assume that is -colourable, with its
vertices coloured as shown in the picture below. No edges are drawn in
the picture (as is the case with all the pictures below), and, in
particular, the vertices in form a clique. In
the picture, colours to correspond to red, blue, green, orange,
yellow, and black, respectively.
Suppose that is not adjacent
to a vertex in . W.l.o.g., assume
that is not an edge.
Clearly, is an edge;
otherwise, can be coloured red,
contradicting . But then,
by Lemma 3.4, is adjacent to every vertex in
.
The considerations above can also be applied to and instead of and . By renaming (resp., ) and (resp., ), if necessary, we can assume
that both and are adjacent to all vertices in . Add any missing edges between and the vertices in to obtain a graph , and rename the vertices in , if necessary, so that the neighbours
of in are in the set for
(note that may be empty). Finally, orient the
edges in as and , for , and and (if any of
these edges exists). It is easy to check that the obtained orientation
is semi-transitive (in fact, transitive), so by Theorem 2.1, is word-representable, and by
Lemma 2.4(b), is 1-11-representable. Case 5. . The only possible
shortcuts in this graph are (12345)-, (1234)-, (1235)-, (1245)-,
(1345)-, or (2345)-shortcuts and possible missing edges appear only in
, , , , .
is -, -, or -colourable. By Lemma 3.3, we
can assume that is not -colourable.
If is -colourable as in the picture
below, which is equivalent to
being -colourable, then
is a triangle;
for and or else we can recolour some
vertex in and
obtain a 4-colouring of , which is
impossible; and
, and hence
, or we can
recolour some vertices and get a (4,1,1,1,1)-colouring.
We first prove the following fact, which will be used multiple times
below: if there are at least two vertices among that have only one neighbour
in , then is 1-11-representable. W.l.o.g., we
assume and
. By Lemma 3.4, is adjacent to , , and . Now, by adding all edges in and , we add at most two edges,
which can only result from applying a star or matching operation. By
Lemma 2.4 or Lemma 2.7, we claim that
there is no shortcut now, so the original graph is 1-11-representable. Indeed, possible
(12345)-, (1345)-, (1235)-, (1245)-, or (2345)-shortcuts must end with
edge or , but , , and are complete bipartite and
. Moreover,
(1234)-shortcuts do not exist because and are complete bipartite.
Therefore, the orientation is indeed semi-transitive, and is indeed 1-11-representable. Hence, in
the rest of the proof, we may assume that there are at least two
vertices among that
have more than one neighbours in .
Now, let us discuss the different cases based on the possible values
of , where . Consider the multiset
. Let
be the number of occurrences
of 1 in this multiset. We consider four cases.
i) , which means for . We can assume that and as stated
before. By adding at most two edges we can make and complete bipartite. Note that
, , and are already complete
bipartite, so there is no shortcut in the above orientation and is 1-11-representable.
ii) . By recolouring
, if necessary, we can
assume that , , and . By symmetry, we can
assume that (if not, swap and ). We can add to , by a matching or star operation, edge
(resp., , ) if (resp., , ) is an edge in , and edges .
In fact, we need to add at most two edges because and . We claim that then
there is no shortcut in the above orientation: (12–)-shortcuts must
start with , but and
, , , and are complete bipartite so
there is no such shortcut; (1345), (2345)-shortcuts do not exist because
, , and are complete bipartite.
iii) . By recolouring
, if necessary, we can
assume that .
Note that earlier we assumed that there are at least two vertices among
that have more than one
neighbour in . Therefore, by
symmetry, we can further assume that
Similarly to the above, we assume that then . By symmetry, we
assume that . We can add at most one edge to ensure , and
then add at most one additional edge to ensure that is complete bipartite. Now
there is no shortcut.
iv) , which means that
for . We assume then . By symmetry, we
assume .
Using the same method as in Case iii), we get a semi-transitive
orientation by adding at most 2 edges, which means is 1-11-representable.
If is -colourable as shown in the
picture below, we can assume that , , and all have perfect matchings.
Otherwise, we can recolour some vertices to obtain a -colouring.
For , let .
Then .
First we assume that there are different , such that .
By symmetry we can assume ,
. That is, .
By Lemma 3.4, we can
assume that . Now we see that , or we can recolour and green, recolour red, recolour yellow and get a 4-colouring,
contradiction. By adding at most two edges we can make and complete bipartite. We claim
that then there is no shortcut in the above orientation and the original
is 1-11-representable. Indeed, (1–)-shortcuts must start from , or , but , and and are complete bipartite, so no
such shortcut exists.
Let be the number of 2 in
the triple for . Now, let us discuss the different
cases based on the possible values of . First note that
, otherwise we can find
two different ,
such that .
i) and for . Then by symmetry we can assume
.
Then we can add a matching to make and complete bipartite. But , , and are already complete
bipartite, so there is no shortcut in the above orientation and the
original graph is 1-11-representable.
ii) . By symmetry we can
assume , . By Lemma 3.4, we can
assume . After
adding all edges in we
add at most a matching or we can recolour some vertices and get a
(3,2,1,1,1)-colouring or a 4-colouring. We claim that then there is no
shortcut in the above orientation and the original is
1-11-representable: ,
, , and are complete bipartite, and
shortcuts are
(123–)-shortcuts, which starts from , , but so no such shortcut
exists.
iii) . By the above
discussion, there are no different , such that .
Thus by symmetry, we can assume that
and . Then
also by symmetry and Lemma 3.4 we can assume
that . By adding at most a matching (or we can get a
(3,2,1,1,1)-colouring or a 4 colouring) we can make and complete bipartite. We claim
that then there is no shortcut in the above orientation and the original
graph is 1-11-representable: (12–)-shortcuts must start from or , but and , , and are complete bipartite, so no
such shortcut exists; (1345)-shortcuts do not exist because and are complete; (2345)-shortcuts
must start from , and so it’s easy to see that no such shortcuts
exists.
iv) The only remained case is that , but there is some , such that . By symmetry, we can assume
for . Further, by symmetry we
can assume .
We claim that .
Otherwise, for example, . Then we can change the
colour of and to get a new -colouring. In this colouring,
the triples satisfy the
condition we have discussed before.
Again, we claim that is not the empty
graph. Otherwise we recolour red and recolour green, and we get a
(3,2,1,1,1)-colouring. Without loss of generality, we can assume . Since , we see that
.
Then we can change the colour of and get a new -colouring. In this colouring,
the triples again satisfy
the condition we have discussed before.
Case 6. . The only shortcuts
in this graph are only (1234)-shortcuts and possible missing edges
appear only in .
If is -colourable then, by Lemma 3.3,
is 1-11-representable.
If is -colourable as in the picture
below, we can assume by symmetry. If , we can add all edges in
by adding at most a star
subgraph. Then and are complete bipartite and
there is no shortcut in the above orientation. So the original graph is
1-11-representable. If , by Lemma 3.4, we can
assume . Then
still we add all edges in by adding at most a star
subgraph and there is no shortcut in the above orientation. Indeed, a
(1234)-shortcut must end with and , but and are complete bipartite, which
is a contradiction. So, the original graph is 1-11-representable.
If is -colourable as in the picture
below, we see that
for . If
, by Lemma 3.4 we can assume
. We can add
all edges in by adding
at most a star subgraph and there is no shortcut in the above
orientation. Indeed, a (1234)-shortcut must end with and , but and are complete bipartite, which
is a contradiction. So the original graph is 1-11-representable. Now by
symmetry we can assume for , . Then, by adding at most two
edges we can make and
complete bipartite and
there is no shortcut in the above orientation. So the original graph is
1-11-representable.
If is -colourable as in the picture
below, we can assume that is not
-colourable, so we can add
a matching into to make
it a complete bipartite graph. If , then we can add a
matching into to make and complete bipartite graphs and
then there is no shortcut under the above orientation, and so the
original graph is 1-11-representable.
Thus, we see that .
Then by swapping and we can assume as in the picture
below. Note that ,
so by colouring green and
colouring red (it is still a
proper colouring), we can assume . In this case, we can
add a matching into to make and complete bipartite graphs and
then there is no shortcut under the above orientation: (1234)-shortcuts
must start with , but and are complete bipartite. So the
original graph is 1-11-representable.
If is -colourable as in the picture
below, we can assume that is not
-colourable. Note that for
any , we can add
a matching to make a
complete bipartite graph, otherwise, there is a vertex with no edge in . Then we can assume and recolour it with the colour
of , thereby obtaining a -colouring. Thus, we can add a
matching into to make and complete bipartite graphs. By
adding this vertex to the component, we will get a -colouring, contradiction. Thus
there is no shortcut under the above orientation, and so is 1-11-representable.
All cases have been considered; thus, the theorem is proved.
4. Multi-1-11-representation number of a
graph
In this section, we generalize and extend the notion of the
multi-word-representation number of a graph,
introduced in [5] by
Kenkireth and Malhotra. The key idea involves using multiple words over
the same alphabet to represent different graphs, and declaring that the
union of these word-representants represents the union of graphs.
Definition 4.1. Suppose
that the graphs share the same vertex set, i.e., and that the
graphs and satisfy the following:
and ;
, , and
for
.
Further assume that each ,
, is -11-representable, and that is minimal
possible value for
and . Then, we define the
(resp., strict) multi-–-representation number of
(resp., ) to be .
Note that, according to our terminology, the
multi-word-representation number in [5] is precisely the multi-0-11-representation
number. Also, the strict version of the “multi-word representation
number” is introduced by us for the first time.
Since each graph is -11-representable for (see [2]), the (strict) multi--11-representation number of such a
graph is 1. Hence, Definition 4.1 is meaningful
only in the case . In
particular, unless it is proven that all graphs are 1-11-representable,
establishing the (strict) multi--11-representation number for graphs, or
classes of graphs, remains an interesting and challenging problem.
Furthermore, note that the multi-1-11-representation number is clearly
at most equal to the strict multi-1-11-representation number.
Using the approach in [5]
and applying our results from Section 3, we
can prove the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2. All graphs on at most vertices have a strict multi-–-representation number of at most .
Proof. Suppose is a
graph on 24 vertices (for smaller graphs, the statement will follow by
the hereditary nature of 1-11-representation). Consider an arbitrary
partition of into three
disjoint subsets , , and , each containing 8 vertices. By
Theorem 3.5, the graph , , is 1-11-representable.
Furthermore, by Lemma 2.3(a), the graph can
be 1-11-represented by a word .
Next, removing all edges within , , and from , we obtain a 3-colourable graph , which is word-representable
and therefore 1-11-representable [2]. Thus, we can find a word that 1-11-represents .
Since , , and
, the strict 1-11-representation number
of is at most 2.
5. Concluding remarks
We conclude this paper with several open directions for future
research:
Are all 4-colourable
graphs 1-11-representable? If this is the case, the result of Theorem 4.2 could be immediately improved by
replacing 24 with 32. Indeed, in the proof of that theorem, we could
partition the vertex set of into
four sets, each containing 8 vertices, and use the 1-11-representability
of the 4-colourable .
If proving or disproving
that all 4-colourable graphs are 1-11-representable proves too
challenging, one could instead address the same question for all planar
graphs, a subclass of 4-colourable graphs.
Assuming that proving or
disproving that any graph is 1-11-representable remains infeasible with
existing tools, one could focus on proving or disproving that the
(strict) multi-1-11-representation number of any graph is at most 2.
This question is likely easier, at least for various classes of graphs,
than proving 1-11-representability. It should also be more tractable
than resolving the open problem of whether the multi-word-representation
number of any graph is at most 2 (since graphs can be modified by adding
edges).
The notions of strict
and non-strict multi--11-representation numbers are
equivalent for . What can
be said about ? Is it
possible to construct any counterexamples in this case?
Definition 4.1 can, in fact, be
refined to the -multi--11-representation number, where any
edge can belong to at most
subgraphs. In this framework, the strict multi--11-representation corresponds to the
case . Could such a
refinement lead to interesting results for (word-representation) or (assuming not all graphs are
1-11-representable)?
Finally, Herman Chen’s
experiments [1] suggest
that the 1-11-representability of graphs on 8 vertices can be
established by adding at most one new edge (each of the 929
non-word-representable graphs can be converted into a word-representable
graph by adding a single edge). However, our arguments in Section 3 often rely on adding more than
one edge. Is it possible to prove (not computationally) that adding at
most one edge is sufficient? Such a proof could lead to useful
techniques, for example, to establish the 1-11-representability of all
graphs with 9 vertices (if they are indeed 1-11-representable).
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Brian Ritchie and Hehui Wu for their
useful discussions related to the paper. Additionally, the authors would
like to thank the anonymous referee for providing many helpful comments
that improved the presentation.
References:
H. Z. Q. Chen. Private communication, 2024.
G.-S. Cheon, J. Kim, M. Kim, S. Kitaev, and A. Pyatkin. On k-11-representable graphs. Journal of Combinatorics, 10(3):491–513, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.4310/JOC.2019.v10.n3.a3.
M. Etorny, S. Kitaev, and A. Pyatkin. New tools to study 1-11-representation of graphs. Graphs and Combinatorics, 40(5):Paper No. 97, 13, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-024-02825-1.
M. M. Halldórsson, S. Kitaev, and A. Pyatkin. Semi-transitive orientations and word-representable graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics. The Journal of Combinatorial Algorithms, Informatics and Computational Sciences, 201:164–171, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2015.07.033.
S. Kitaev and V. Lozin. Words and Graphs. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Cham, 2015, pages xviii+264.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25859-1. With a foreword by Martin Charles Golumbic.
S. Kitaev and A. Pyatkin. On representable graphs. Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics, 13(1):45–54, 2008.
S. Kitaev and H. Sun. Human-verifiable proofs in the theory of word-representable graphs. RAIRO Theoretical Informatics and Applications (RAIRO: ITA), 58:Paper No. 9, 10, 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1051/ita/2024004.
J. P. Spinrad. Efficient Graph Representations. Fields Institute Monographs, 19:1–342, 2003.
https://doi.org/10.1090/fim/019.