1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider undirected, simple graphs. For a given graph H, a graph G is called H-free if G contains no induced subgraphs isomorphic to H. Let
be different graphs. If for any
, G is
-free, then we say that G is
-free. A graph
is k-colorable if there exists a function
such that for any
, there is
. The chromatic number of G is the minimum integer k such that G is k-colorable, denoted by
. For a graph
, a subset S of
is called a clique if S induces a complete subgraph. We use
to denote the maximum size of cliques of G. It is well-known that
for every graph G. A graph is perfect if for any induced subgraph
of G,
. Chudnovsky et al. [1] gave an equivalent characterization of perfect graphs, which is also called as the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem.
Theorem 1.1. [1] A graph is perfect if and only if it contains neither odd cycles of length at least five nor the complements of these odd cycles.
We say a hereditary graph class
is
-bounded, if there exists a function f such that for any
,
. Moreover, f is called a
-binding function of
. Erdös [2] showed that for arbitrary integers
, there exists a graph G with girth at least l and
, which implies that the class of H-free graphs is not
-bounded when H contains a cycle. Gyárfás conjectured that the graph class obtained by forbidding a tree (or forest) is
-bounded.
Conjecture 1.2. [3] Let T be a tree (or forest), then there exists a function
such that, for any T-free graph G,
.
Moreover, Gyárfás [3] verified this conjecture when
, and showed that
. When
, Esperet et al. [4] gave a
-binding function of
-free graphs as following.
Theorem 1.3. [4] Suppose G is a
-free graph with clique number
. Then
.
As far as we know, for
,
is the optimal
-binding function of
-free graphs at present. Furthermore, determining a polynomial
-binding function of the class of
-free graphs is an open problem. A result in [5] shows that the class of H-free graphs has a linear
-binding function f, if and only if
and H is an induced subgraph of
, which means that the class of
-free graphs has no linear
-binding function.
In this paper, we focus on subclasses of
-free graphs. While the class of
-free graphs has no linear
-binding function, some subclasses of
-free have linear
-binding functions.
Theorem 1.4. [6] [7] [8] [9] Suppose
, then the class of
-free graphs has a
-binding function.
More formally, Chudnovsky et al. [6] proved that the class of
-free graphs has a
-binding function
. Huang and Karthick [7] showed that
graphs have a
-binding function
. Karthick and Maffray [8] gave a
-binding function
for
-free graphs. And Randerath [9] showed that
-free graphs have a
-binding function
(diamond, gem, paraglider and paw are given in Figure 1).
It is worth noting that a result in [10] shows that when H contains an independent set with size at least 3, the class of
-free graphs has no linear
-binding function.
Figure 1. Examples of diamond, gem, paraglider and paw.
Theorem 1.5. [10] The class of
-free graphs has no linear
-binding function.
Obviously, when H is a graph with independent number at least 3,
-free graphs is a superclass of
-free graphs. Thus the class of
-free graphs has no
-binding function.
The following theorem shows that some subclasses of
-free graphs have a
-binding function
(The addition forbidden subgraphs are given in Figure 2).
Theorem 1.6. [10] [11] [12] The class of
-free graphs has a
-binding function
when
.
In [13], Schiermeyer proved that the class of
-free graphs has a
-binding function
for
(see Figure 3).
In addition to the subclasses of
-free graphs we mentioned above, there are many subclasses had been proved that admit a polynomial
-binding function, which is given in [14] and [15]. More results on
-binding function, see [16].
The class of
-free graphs, which is a superclass of
-free graphs, has been studied by Chudnovsky and Sivaraman [11]. They showed that every
-free graph with clique number
is
-colorable. In this paper, we obtain the following result. In the next section, we will give the proof.
Theorem 1.7. Every
-free graph G with clique number
has
.
2. The Proof of Main Result
For two vertex sets A and B, let
. We say that A is complete to B, if for any
and
,
. For a given graph
, let
denote the neighborhood of
, and for a subset S of
, set
. An induced subgraph D of G is called a dominating D, if there is
. In this paper, for an induced
:
, we simply write
as P. First, we give a lemma based on the structure of a
-free graph.
Figure 2. Examples of bull, hammer and house.
Figure 3. Examples of claw, cricket, dart and gem+.
Lemma 2.1. If
is a dominating
of a
-free graph G, then
is a dominating edge of G.
Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists a vertex
. Since P is a dominating
,
. By symmetry, we may assume that
. If
, then
would be an induced
. If
, then
would be an induced
. Either deduces a contradiction.
Next, we show that a subclass of
-free graphs has a
-binding function
. Let
be the graph consisted of one edge and i isolated vertices.
Lemma 2.2. Every
-free graph G with clique number
has
.
Apply induction on
. If
, it is obviously true. When
, it is also true because every
-free graph is a bipartite graph. Moreover, when
, by Theorem 1.3,
. Next, consider the cases
. If G is
-free, then G is perfect by Theorem 1.1. So we may suppose that
is an induced
. We claim that P is a dominating
of G. Otherwise, there would exist a vertex
. Noting that
,
induces a
, a contradiction. By Lemma 2.1,
is a dominating edge of G. Next, denote
For clarity, we give this partition in Figure 4. Let
denote the subgraph of G induced by S. Clearly,
is
-free. (Otherwise, let
be an induced
of
. Then
would induce a
.) By Theorem 1.1,
is perfect. Noting that
, we have
. Similarly,
. Moreover, there is
. By induction,
.
Now we color G. Let
be a color set. First, we color
and
by colors 1 and 2, respectively. Noting that
,
can be colored by
. Similarly,
can be colored by
. Thus,
. Since
is a dominating edge of G,
. So we have
Note that the bound given by Lemma 2.2 is tight for
, and
is a
-free graph with clique number 2 and chromatic number 2.
Proof of Theorem 1.7
When
, it is obviously true. Next, assume that
. If G is
-free, then
by Theorem 1.1. So we may suppose that
is an induced
of G. Let
and
. Moreover, for arbitrary different
, denote
Clearly,
and
. Since G is
-free,
. So
.
The partition is shown in Figure 5. Since G is
-free, there is no vertex with a distance of 4 to P. So we can partition
into
,
,
, and color these sets respectively. Next, we give two claims based on
and
.
Claim 1
.
Otherwise, suppose there are vertices
and
such that
. Let
be a neighbor of
. If
, then
would induce a cricket, a contradiction. So there exists
and
(
) such that
,
and
. Now
is an induced
, a contradiction.
Claim 2 Let T be a connected component of
with
, then then at least one vertex of
is complete to
.
First, we show that every edge
in T has
. Suppose, to the contrary, that there exists a vertex
. Similar to the proof of Claim 1, there is an induced cricket or induced
, a contradiction. So, for each
, x and y have same neighborhood in
. By connectivity and transitivity, all vertices in T have same neighborhood in
. Then there is at least one vertex, say u, in
such that
is complete to
.
Next, we pick an arbitrary edge
in T. Then
is a triangle. If
, then
would be an induced
. And if
, then
would induce a cricket. Up to symmetry, there must be
.
By Claim 2, for an arbitrary connected component T of
, there exists a vertex
such that
is complete to
. If there exists
such that
, then
would induce a cricket. Thus
is a clique with size at most
, which implies that
(1)
Let
. Note that P is a dominating
of
. By Lemma 2.1,
is a dominating edge of
. Thus
can be partitioned into
, which is defined as in Lemma 2.2. Since
is
-free, both
and
are
-free. Thus, by the coloring described in Lemma 2.2, there is
. Moreover, noting that
is complete to
, we have that
is
-free and
. By Lemma 2.2,
. Thus,
(2)
By Claim 1,
. Hence, by Inequality (1) and (2), there is