A 2/3 Bound for Vizing’s Conjecture

Adopt Setting 3.1 and write \gamma=\gamma(G) and \rho=\rho(G). By (3.7) and Lemma 3.4,

and hence

Therefore

By Lemma 3.5 and (3.6),

Combining (Proof) and (Proof) yields

Apply Theorem 1.1 to a maximum 2-packing P of H. Then r=\rho(H) and, as observed above, r+s\geq\gamma(H). By Lemma 2.1, 2\gamma(G)-\rho(G)\geq\gamma(G)>0, so (1.1) gives

which is (1.2). Since G\mathbin{\square}H\cong H\mathbin{\square}G, the same inequality holds with the roles of G and H interchanged. Taking the larger of the two bounds gives (1.2).

This follows immediately from (1.2), since the absolute-value term is nonnegative.

Write \gamma=\gamma(G) and \rho^{\{2\}}=\rho^{\{2\}}(G). By (3.7) and Lemma 3.4,

so

Thus

By Lemma 3.5 and (3.6),

This proves (1.4).

For (1.4), let P be a maximum 2-packing of H, so r=\rho(H). Since P dominates N_H[P] and Q dominates W, the set P\cup Q dominates H. Hence r+s\geq\gamma(H) and s\geq\gamma(H)-\rho(H). By Lemma 2.1, 3\gamma-\rho^{\{2\}}\geq\gamma>0, so substituting the lower bound on s into (1.4) gives

Let D be a minimum dominating set of G. If P is a 2-packing, each d\in D dominates at most one vertex of P, whereas D dominates all of P; hence |P|\leq|D|. If f is a 2-packing function, every vertex lies in N_G[d] for some d\in D, so, as f\geq0,

Let B be the graph on vertex set S in which distinct s_1,s_2\in S are adjacent if and only if N_G[s_1]\capN_G[s_2]\neq\varnothing. Let \{s_1s'_1,\ldots,s_ts'_t\} be a maximum matching of B, and choose d_i\inN_G[s_i]\capN_G[s'_i] for each i. The set

dominates S, so \gamma_G(S)\leq|S|-t. The unmatched vertices form an independent set in B by maximality of the matching, and hence a 2-packing of G contained in S. Thus |S|-2t\leq\rho_G(S). Combining these inequalities gives \gamma_G(S)\leq|S|-t\leq(|S|+\rho_G(S))/2.

Let g\inV(G). By (?), the vertex (g,h) is dominated by some (g',h')\in D with either h'=h and g'\inN_G[g], or g'=g and h'\inN_H(h). In both cases h'\inN_H[h] and g'\inN_G[g].

Let g\inV(G)\setminus L_i. Since C_g^i is not vertically dominated, some (g,h)\in C_g^i has no neighbor in D\cap(\{g\}\times(V(H)\setminus\pi_i)). The vertex (g,h) is dominated by some (g',h')\in D. By (?), either g'=g and h'\inN_H[h], in which case h'\in\pi_i by the choice of h, or h'=h\in\pi_i and g'\inN_G[g]. In both cases (g',h')\in D_i and g\inN_G[g'].

Let i\leq r and g\inV(G). By (?), the neighbors of (g,h_i) in the H-fiber at g are the vertices (g,h') with h'\inN_H(h_i)\subseteqN_H[h_i]=\pi_i. Thus (g,h_i)\in C_g^i has no neighbor in \{g\}\times(V(H)\setminus\pi_i), so C_g^i is not vertically dominated. The second assertion follows from Lemma 3.2.

For g\inV(G), let m_g be the number of indices i>r with g\in L_i. Then \sum_{i>r}|L_i|=\sum_gm_g, and it is enough to show

Fix g and put X:=P_H(D_g)\setminus P. We claim that

dominates W in H. Let u\in W, and let i>r be the index with u\in\pi_i. If g\notin L_i, then h_i\in Y dominates u because \pi_i\subseteqN_H[h_i]. If g\in L_i, then the cell C_g^i is vertically dominated, so (g,u) has a neighbor (g,h')\in D with h'\notin\pi_i. By (?), h'\inN_H(u). Since u\in W=V(H)\setminusN_H[P], no neighbor of u lies in P. Hence h'\notin P, so h'\in X\subseteq Y and h' dominates u.

Since s=\gamma_H(W),

and therefore m_g\leq|X|. Finally, P_H is injective on D_g, so

which proves (Proof). Summing over g gives the result.

By Lemma 2.4, |D_i|=|D\cap(V(G)\timesN_H[h_i])|\geq\gamma(G) for each i\leq r. Sum over i\leq r.

Fix i\leq r, write p=h_i, and let

If g\notin A_p, then by (?) the vertex (g,p) is dominated by some (g',p)\in D with g'\inN_G[g]. Hence P_G(D\cap(V(G)\times\{p\})) dominates V(G)\setminus A_p, and subadditivity gives

Moreover, |A_p|\leq|D\cap(V(G)\timesN_H(p))|, since distinct elements of A_p are witnessed by distinct vertices of D. Lemma 2.2 therefore gives

Using Lemma 2.3 instead gives the analogous inequality with denominator 3 and \rho^{\{2\}}(G) in the numerator.

Now sum over i\leq r. The singletons \{h_i\} are disjoint with union P, while the open neighborhoods N_H(h_i) are pairwise disjoint, disjoint from P, and have union N_H[P]\setminus P. The two summed inequalities are exactly (3.6) and (3.6).

For i>r, subadditivity, Lemma 3.2, and Lemma 2.2 applied to S=L_i give

Using Lemma 2.3 gives instead

Sum over the s indices i>r and use \sum_{i>r}|D_i|=w.

By (?) and its mirror image,

throughout the box. At (p,\tfrac12,p,\tfrac12), the functions in (?)–(?) take the values

all at most 2/3 for 0<p\leq1/3. The mirror images have the same values, so \Phi=2/3 there.

For the linear program, Lemma 3.5, (3.6), (3.6), and (3.7)–(3.7) combined with Lemma 3.4 give the constraints

with a,b,w\geq0 and objective a+b+w. At r=x_1=p, s=1-p, and x_2=1/2, put

Then a+b=p and a+b/2=p-p^2/2, so the first two constraints hold with equality. Also a+b/3=p-\tfrac23p^2\geq\tfrac23p for p\leq1/2. The fourth constraint holds with equality by the choice of w, and the fifth reduces to 3p^2-6p+2\geq0, which holds for p\leq1-1/\sqrt3. All variables are nonnegative for 0<p\leq1/3, and

The optimal value is at least 2/3 by the proof of Theorem 1.1, so it equals 2/3.