This research demonstrates how varying covering numbers relate in hereditary graph classes, suggesting significant bounds.
For a graph class G and a graph H, the four G-covering numbers of H, namely global cngG(H), union cnᵤG(H), local cnₗG(H), and folded cnfG(H), each measure in a slightly different way how well H can be covered with graphs from G. For every G and H it holds \[ { cn}gG(H) ≥ { cn}ᵤG(H) ≥ { cn}ₗG(H) ≥ { cn}fG(H) \] and in general each inequality can be arbitrarily far apart. We investigate structural properties of graph classes G and H such that for all graphs H ∈ H, a larger G-covering number of H can be bounded in terms of a smaller G-covering number of H. For example, we prove that if G is hereditary and the chromatic number of graphs in H is bounded, then there exists a function f (called a binding function) such that for all H ∈ H it holds cnᵤG(H) ≤ f( cngG(H)). For G we consider graph classes that are component-closed, hereditary, monotone, sparse, or of bounded chromatic number. For H we consider graph classes that are sparse, M-minor-free, of bounded chromatic number, or of bounded treewidth. For each combination and every pair of G-covering numbers, we either give a binding function f or provide an example of such G,H for which no binding function exists.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goetze et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: