arXiv++ Combinatorics

We pursue the study of edge-irregulators of graphs, which were recently introduced in [Fioravantes et al. Parametrised Distance to Local Irregularity. IPEC, 2024]. That is, we are interested in the parameter Ie(G), which, for a given graph G, denotes the smallest k >= 0 such that G can be made locally irregular (i.e., with no two adjacent vertices having the same degree) by deleting k edges. We exhibit notable properties of interest of the parameter Ie, in general and for particular classes of graphs, together with parameterized algorithms for several natural graph parameters. Despite the computational hardness previously exhibited by this problem (NP-hard, W[1]-hard w.r.t. feedback vertex number, W[1]-hard w.r.t. solution size), we present two FPT algorithms, the first w.r.t. the solution size plus Delta and the second w.r.t. the vertex cover number of the input graph. Finally, we take important steps towards better understanding the behaviour of this problem in dense graphs. This is crucial when considering some of the parameters whose behaviour is still uncharted in regards to this problem (e.g., neighbourhood diversity, distance to clique). In particular, we identify a subfamily of complete graphs for which we are able to provide the exact value of Ie(G). These investigations lead us to propose a conjecture that Ie(G) should always be at most m/3 + c, where $m$ is the number of edges of the graph $G$ and $c$ is some constant. This conjecture is verified for various families of graphs, including trees.

A monitoring edge-geodetic set of a graph is a subset $M$ of its vertices such that for every edge $e$ in the graph, deleting $e$ increases the distance between at least one pair of vertices in $M$. We study the following computational problem \textsc{MEG-set}: given a graph $G$ and an integer $k$, decide whether $G$ has a monitoring edge geodetic set of size at most $k$. We prove that the problem is NP-hard even for 2-apex 3-degenerate graphs, improving a result by Haslegrave (Discrete Applied Mathematics 2023). Additionally, we prove that the problem cannot be solved in subexponential-time, assuming the Exponential-Time Hypothesis, even for 3-degenerate graphs. Further, we prove that the optimization version of the problem is APX-hard, even for 4-degenerate graphs. Complementing these hardness results, we prove that the problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm for interval graphs, a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm for general graphs with clique-width plus diameter as the parameter, and a fixed-parameter tractable algorithm for chordal graphs with treewidth as the parameter. We also provide an approximation algorithm with factor $\ln m\cdot OPT$ and $\sqrt{n\ln m}$ for the optimization version of the problem, where $m$ is the number of edges, $n$ the number of vertices, and $OPT$ is the size of a minimum monitoring edge-geodetic set of the input graph.

A monitoring edge-geodetic set, or simply an MEG-set, of a graph $G$ is a vertex subset $M \subseteq V(G)$ such that given any edge $e$ of $G$, $e$ lies on every shortest $u$-$v$ path of $G$, for some $u,v \in M$. The monitoring edge-geodetic number of $G$, denoted by $meg(G)$, is the minimum cardinality of such an MEG-set. This notion provides a graph theoretic model of the network monitoring problem. In this article, we compare $meg(G)$ with some other graph theoretic parameters stemming from the network monitoring problem and provide examples of graphs having prescribed values for each of these parameters. We also characterize graphs $G$ that have $V(G)$ as their minimum MEG-set, which settles an open problem due to Foucaud \textit{et al.} (CALDAM 2023), and prove that some classes of graphs fall within this characterization. We also provide a general upper bound for $meg(G)$ for sparse graphs in terms of their girth, and later refine the upper bound using the chromatic number of $G$. We examine the change in $meg(G)$ with respect to two fundamental graph operations: clique-sum and subdivisions. In both cases, we provide a lower and an upper bound of the possible amount of changes and provide (almost) tight examples.