arXiv:2102.13193v1 [cs.DM] 25 Feb 2021 ihd ehdfor method lished) non-empty pairwise such spanning of a number least finding intersections. the of has problem that of the tree edges Consider of cycles. set the both is cycles such distinct MKeadMMri,19] ti ocre ihthe with concerned is textbooks important It of in study 1999]. covered McMorris, theory and graph [McKee of area tral theory graph Intersection the 1.1. collects 6 Section article. posed. the well evidence of is provide conclusions conjecture to trees the spanning that progra- of explores space 5 Section the tree. matically complete) spanning necessarily star the (not a in admits graph that conjecture presents a of a 4 case and general Section properties, 3 slightly analyzed. interesting Section of is variety In case sets a 2 graph definitions. established Section complete convenient view. well the and of of notation points context other some the motivate to in theories problem MSTCI the the of problem. sparsity this the of and solution the system to linear related is a matrix solve to quires processing geometry nescingraph intersection G T rp and graph a Spanning ( Minimum Intersection the namely Tree theory, graph in problem least Introduction the 1. has that tree intersections. non-empty spanning such a of finding number of problem of the edges of set Abstract pnigte of tree spanning { ∪ − h rbe rs hl netgtn ytunpub- (yet a investigating while arose problem The nescingahtheory graph Intersection express to dedicated is section this of remaining The Let h rbe a eepesda olw.Let follows. as expressed be can problem The novel a is believe we what present we article this In T e } nue yl in cycle a induces Cnie once graph connected a —Consider h nescino w itntsc ylsi the is cycles such distinct two of intersection The . F nvria ainld Avellaneda de Nacional Universidad nescingraphs intersection po Tecnolog Dpto. = T { T Ingenier G S pnigte of tree spanning a aulDubinsky Manuel 1 vr edge Every . htbln obt yls econsider We cycles. both to belong that S , . . . , ehdeformation mesh denoted e Btc,21] h ehdre- method The 2010]. [Botsch, see , iiu pnigTe yl nescinProblem Intersection Cycle Tree Spanning Minimum Argentina ´ aInform ıa ´ ayAdministraci y ıa MSTCI T k } ∪{ Ω( . eayfml fst.The sets. of family any be salnsadn n cen- and longstanding a is F e e } ∈ problem. ) ) h nescino two of intersection The . atica ´ G stegahhaving graph the is − G nteae of area the in T vr edge Every . G nue yl in cycle a induces T n let and on ´ htbln to belong that T digital G ea be e nvria eCAECE, de Universidad F be ∈ po eMatem de Dpto. MS CONICET IMAS, ´ srMassri C´esar Argentina that de ftesann re of trees spanning the of edges once components connected tm of atoms e en dendroid a define once components connected aua netv a ewe h de of edges the between map injective natural deof edge ( l h tm n smnml enn hti edelete we if that meaning minimal, of is element and an atoms the all desubsets edge svre e with set as ..Mtodtheory Matroid 1.2. xrse ntefloigtrs n h pnigtree spanning the Ω( find terms: following T the in expressed es n de nti etn,let setting, at this share In of cycles edge. corresponding one the least if adjacent are vertices S osm ugahof subgraph some of to cycle a is obviously etefml feg escrepnigt h ylsof cycles the to corresponding sets edge G of family the be T omlto fteMTIpolmcnb xrse in expressed be matroid can dual its problem of MSTCI terms the of formulation the resembles closely tion theory. graph with toolbox in theoretical insights fundamental deep a very is 1965] [Tutte, in ,E V, i nedge An . Then . ∈ uhta tmp otesass osbesbrp in subgraph possible sparsest the to maps F it that such ∩ G Let A h classical The h odmtodcnb enda olw.Let follows. as defined be can matroid bond The Let h aii fst ecie ntepeiu subsec- previous the in described sets of familiy The A S T ) ) and . dendroid j , ∩ eacnetdgah The graph. connected a be G T 6= A T Ω( D B G atica ´ ∅ ( = easann reof tree spanning a be a n n nec component. each in end one has { − ( F = e − G . A ∈ ) ) ∅ ,E V, D T e : D a svre e h ylsof cycles the set vertex as has } G h edod of dendroids The . ⊂ ⊂ hnteeeit natom an exists there then ari theory matroid S eemn w utesta pntwo span that subtrees two determine φ D famatroid a of − ) i E T E eagahand graph a be T Ω( adjacent of : h e fcmlmnayegsof edges complementary of set the G E uhthat such nue yl in cycle a induces G G F B B So . ( colo Engineering, of School 1 1 oyo matroid polygon T ) ( ( h SC rbe a be can problem MSTCI The . G G and and rw University, Brown ) are Taubin Gabriel ) ) → T S oeta o vr edge every for that Note . aeythe namely , G j M a aoia mapping canonical a has G G B . fadol if only and if G sdvlpdb Tutte by developed as G atoms 2 2 USA ( T sastta intersects that set a is G B oteegsof edges the So . of n uhta every that such and − ) F ( easann tree spanning a be G A G ) of = oteei a is there So . ninteresting An . T eemn two determine r h esof sets the are odmatroid bond B { A { ∪ S ( T G ∈ G 1 i S , . . . , e ) 6= M } n two and n the and r the are which j G such and k = T } . e 7→ A ∂ : M1 → M0 where A is the atom corresponding to the set of edges linking G1 and G2. As a remark, note that e ∈ A. In the defined on the generators as ∂(e,s,t) = t − s. Not language of matroid theory this set of |V |− 1 atoms (ie. surprisingly ker(∂) is denoted the cycle space of G, C the image of φT ) of B(G) is called the dendroid (G). Since if we consider in M1 the linear combination determined by D. representing a cycle c of G then ∂(c)=0. It is not difficult to check that rank(C (G)) = |E| − |V | + c where c is To formulate the MSTCI problem in this framework the number of connected components of G. Now we can we have to be precise about the pairwise intersection define the following G•: of cycles. In this sense let T be a of a connected graph G = (V, E). Let S be the dendroid basis d3=0 d2=0 d1=∂ d0=0 d−1=0 ... −−−→ 0 −−−→ M1 −−−→ M0 −−−→ 0 −−−−→ ... determined by the edges of T and A ∈ S an atom. Clearly there exist a unique edge e ∈ T such that φT (e) = A. As im(d2)=0 then H1(G•)= ker(∂)= C (G). ′ Note that each edge e ∈ A − {e} determine a cycle An interesting result is the following. Let T be a ′ c ∈ T ∪{e } and that e ∈ c. So two such cycles have spanning tree of G. Note that if e ∈ G − T then T ∪ e non-empty intersection. It is not difficult to realize that has only one cycle: ce. The set of those cycles generate every non-empty pairwise intersection is of this form. If C (G). Symbolically: we manage to count the set of this pair of edges of all the atoms of S we could express the MSTCI problem as an C alternative minimization problem: find the spanning tree < {ce ∀e ∈ G − T } >= (G)= H1(G•) such that its corresponding dendroid basis has the least In other words: each spanning tree determines some number of such pair of edges. basis of H1(G•). In particular if T is a spanning tree that is a solution of the MSTCI problem then the tree 1.3. theory intersection number (defined in the next section) of T could be a finer invariant of G. The importance of homological methods [Cartan, 1956] in topology and geometry cannot be 2. Preliminaries overemphasized. These methods constitute fundamental algebraic tools that enable the computation of invariant 2.1. Overview quantities of spaces. In its original form the main invariant was the number of “holes” of a space known as In the first part of this section we present some of its Betti numbers. the terms that are used in the article. Then we define the notion of closest-point and closest-point-set. Finally we We introduce some elementary notions based these show a convenient cycle partition. notes [Dewan, 2010]. Let R be a commutative , and suppose we have a sequence of R-modules Mi and ho- 2.2. Notation momorphisms di Let G = (V, E) be a graph and T a spanning tree of d3 d2 d1 d0 d−1 G, then we will refer to the edges e ∈ T as tree-edges ... −→ M −→ M −→ M −→ M −−→ ... 2 1 0 −1 and to the edges e ∈ G − T as cycle-edges.

such that ∀i di ◦di+1 =0. Such a sequence is called a Every cycle-edge e induces a cycle in T ∪{e}, we chain complex of R-modules, and denoted M•. Because will call such a cycle a tree-cycle. And we shall call CT the composition of adjacent homomorphisms is trivial, to the set of tree-cycles of T . im(di+1) ⊆ ker(di). Therefore, for each in the The intersection of two tree-cycles is the set of edges chain there is a quotient of T that belong to both cycles. We will define three functions concerning the intersection of tree-cycles. ker(di) Hi(M•)= The first is ∩T (·, ·): CT × CT →{0, 1} im(di+1)

called the i-th homology group of M•. 1 ci ∩ cj 6= ∅ ∧ ci 6= cj In this definitions become very con- ∩T (ci,cj ) := 0 c ∩ c = ∅ ∨ c = c crete. Let R be a principal ideal domain (ie. Z) and let ( i j i j G = (V, E) be a graph. Consider an arbitrary orientation Note that the trivial case ci = cj is excluded. This of the edges that maps every edge e ∈ E to a triple: arbitrary decision will simplify future computations. e 7→ (e,s,t), where s,t ∈ V are the source and target ends The second is ∩T (·): CT → N of the orientation of e. Let M0 be the free R-module over V (formal linear combinations of the vertices of G). And ∩T (ci) := ∩T (ci,cj ) M1 the R-module generated by the oriented edges subject c ∈C to the relations (e,s,t) + (e,t,s)= 0 (where (e,t,s) jXT expresses de traversal of the edge (e,s,t) in the opposite We will call ∩T (c) the cycle intersection number of direction). Now consider the boundary homomorphism c. Given a tree-cycle c we will denote ∩T,c as the set of tree-cycles that have non-empty intersection with c. More 2.4. Tree cycle intersection partition precisely: Now we define a partition of the set ∩T,c. More ′ ′ ∩T,c ≡{c ∈ CT : ∩T (c,c )=1} precisely, let G be a connected graph, T a spanning tree of G and c ∈ CT a tree-cycle. As defined above the set ∩T,c Note that | ∩T,c | = ∩T (c). is the set of tree-cycles that have non-empty intersection To define the third function consider TG to be the set with c. of spanning trees of G, so the definition will be as follows: T N ′ ∩G : G → Let us consider any tree-cycle c ∈ ∩T,c induced by a 1 cycle-edge e = (v, w). In this setting we can define the ∩ (T ) := ∩ (c) following partition: G 2 T c∈CT ′ X • Internal tree-cycles: c is internal if v, w ∈ c. ′ We will call ∩G(T ) the tree intersection number of T . • External tree-cycles: c is external if v∈ / c and Clearly the set min ∩G(T ) is the set of solutions of the w ∈ c. T ′ MSTCI problem. If the graph is clear from the context we • Transit tree-cycles: c is transit if v,w∈ / c. could drop the subindex and simply write: ∩(T ). i e t Let us denote them ∩T,c, ∩T,c, ∩T,c, respectively. This partition will be convenient to simplify the computation We shall call star spanning tree to a spanning tree that of the intersection number of c. has one vertex that connects to all other vertices. And Kn to the complete graph on n nodes. If G = (V, E) we will 3. Tree cycles of complete graphs say that |V | = n is the number of vertices of G, |c| = k is the length of the cycle c and |p| is the length of the path p. Also uT v will denote the unique path between 3.1. Overview u, v ∈ V in the spanning tree T ; dT (v) will be the of v ∈ V relative to the spanning tree T . We will denote In this section we analyze the complete graph case N(v) to the set of neighbor nodes of v ∈ V . G = Kn. First we deduce a formula to compute the cycle intersection number. Then we prove that the tree- Finally we use the terms “node” and “vertex” inter- cycles of a star spanning tree achieve the minimum cycle changeably. intersection number. Finally we conclude that the star spanning trees are the unique solutions of the MSTCI 2.3. Closest point problem.

In this section we prove the following simple fact: if 3.2. Cycle intersection number formula G = (V, E) is a connected graph, T a spanning tree of G and a tree-cycle, then for every node there c ∈ CT v ∈ V In this subsection we consider the problem of finding a exists a unique node that minimizes the distance to w ∈ c formula to count tree-cycle intersections. More precisely, v in T . We shall denote that node closest − point(v,c). let G = Kn, T a spanning tree of G and c a tree-cycle, we intend to derive a formula to calculate ∩T (c). Lemma 1. Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph, T a spanning tree of G and c ∈ CT a tree-cycle then for The idea behind the formula is to consider the partition every node v ∈ V there exists a unique node w ∈ c of ∩T,c, defined in the previous section. And then by such that combinatorial arguments compute the number of elements in each class. |vT w| ≤ |vTu| ∀u ∈ c i e We shall analyze in turn the three classes: ∩T,c, ∩T,c, t ′ Proof. The proof proceeds by contradiction. If v ∈ c it ∩T,c. In this section we will consider c ∈ ∩T (c) to be a is obviously its own unique closest point. Suppose that tree-cycle induced by a cycle-edge e = (v, w). v∈ / c and that there are two distinct nodes w, w′ ∈ c such that |vT w| = |vT w′| ≤ |vTu| ∀u ∈ c. Obviously The simplest case is the internal tree-cycles class: w′ ∈/ vT w and w∈ / vT w′, we conclude that vT w ∪ i ′ ∩T,c. Let c be an internal tree-cycle. By definition the wT w′∪vT w′ determine a cycle in T which contradicts nodes v and w belong to c, so the following holds: the fact that T is a tree. (c′ ∩ T ) ⊂ c because there is a unique path from v to w The uniqueness of the closest − point(v,c) leads to in T . So basically counting the number of internal tree- the following definition. cycles reduces to count the pairings of the nodes of c excluding some obvious cases. The cases that should be Definition 2. Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph, T excluded are: the pairing of a node with itself and with a spanning tree of G and c ∈ C a tree-cycle, then T its neighbors in . Then the number of internal tree-cycles the set of closest points to a node w ∈ c is defined as c follows is:

i (k − 3)k | ∩T,c | = , closest − point − set(u,c) := {v ∈ V − c : 2 where is, as before, equal to . The quotient is obvi- closest − point(v,c)= u} k |c| ously due to the fact that every cycle is counted twice. Next we consider the class of external tree-cycles. that star spanning trees minimize ∩(·) in the case of Now let c′ be an external tree-cycle. In this case ex- complete graphs. actly one of the extremal nodes (v or w) belong to c. Without loss of generality (as we are considering undi- Definition 3. Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph, T a rected edges), suppose that v∈ / c and w ∈ c. Clearly spanning tree of G and c ∈ C a tree-cycle, we call ′ ∅ T w 6= closest − point(v,c) because in that case c ∩ c = c a transitless tree-cycle if | ∩t | =0. ′ T,c and consequently c ∈/ ∩T,c which contradicts our hy- pothesis. As that is the only particular case that should be As an important remark, note that the number of excluded, the number of external tree-cycles is: elements in the internal and external classes of c are independent of the spanning tree because they depend e exclusively on the numbers n = |V | and k = |c|. So | ∩T,c | = (n − k)(k − 1), two spanning trees T1 and T2 that have c as a tree-cycle where n = |V | is the number of vertices of G and k = |c| induce an intersection number (for c) that only differ in is the length of c. the number of elements in their transit classes. We con- Last we consider the class of transit tree-cycles. In clude that transitless tree-cycles have minimal intersection this case the key observation depends on the closest − number ∩T (c). point − set definition of the previous section. Lets define Lemma 4. Let G = Kn and let c be a cycle of G then two classes of cycle-edges: the following procedure lead to a spanning tree T that 1) A cycle-edge e = (v, w) is called intraset cycle- minimizes the intersection number of c: edge if both v, w ∈ closest − point − set(ui,c) 1) Remove exactly one edge e ∈ c for some ui ∈ c 2) Choose a vertex v ∈ c 2) A cycle-edge e = (v, w) is called interset cycle- 3) Define T as follows: edge if v ∈ closest − point − set(ui,c) and w ∈ • closest−point−set(uj,c) where ui,uj ∈ c and The edges c − e • ui 6= uj A star centered at v of the vertices (G − c) ∪{v} Then: ′ Proof. Note that T is a spanning tree of G, and c is a • Every intraset cycle-edge induce a tree-cycle c tree-cycle of T . So if we prove that | ∩t | =0 then such that c′ ∩ c = ∅ T,c ′ the intersection number ∩T (c) is minimal. This is the • Every interset cycle-edge induce a tree-cycle c case, because by construction: such that c′ ∩ c 6= ∅ • |closest − point − set(u,c)| =0 ∀u ∈ c,u 6= v So we should consider interset cycle-edges or equiv- • |closest − point − set(v,c)| = n − k alently, the pairing of the nodes that are in different sets. t  Let qi = |closest − point − set(wi,c)| be defined for all So | ∩T,c | = i

∩Ts (·) ≤ ∩T (·) In this subsection we start by defining transiteless tree- cycles. Then we prove two lemmas. The first shows that where T is any spanning tree of G. for every cycle c ∈ G = Kn we can build a spanning Proof. We shall prove the proposition by contradiction. tree T such that c is a tree-cycle of T and the intersection Suppose that a spanning tree T and a tree-cycle c of number ∩T (c) is minimal. And the second calculates the T exist such that: intersection number of tree-cycles of star spanning trees.

Finally we prove the main result of this section, namely ∩T (c) < ∩Ts (·)=2(n − 3) We can assume that c is transitless because, if it’s 2(n − 2), and taking into account that 3 ≤ k ≤ n, 7 not the case, by lemma 4 we can build a spanning we conclude that 2 ≤ n ≤ 4; this case is explicitly ′ tree T such that ∩T ′ (c) < ∩T (c). In this context the excluded from our hypotheses (in fact, it is not difficult inequality can be expressed as to check that the three non-isomorphic spanning trees of K4 all have the same tree intersection number). i e ∩T (c)= | ∩T,c | + | ∩T,c | = The other possibility is k = r1 = 3. As all the tree- (k − 3)k cycles of Ts fall into this category, it is enough to + (n − k)(k − 1) < 2(n − 3) show that T has a tree-cycle c such that |c| = k > 3 2 to conclude our thesis. Let w ∈ V be a node with Expanding and simplifying the expression we have maximum degree in T . And let dT (w) denote the −1 1 degree of w in T and N(w) to the set of neighbors k2 + (n − )k − 3n +6 < 0 of w in T . As T is a non-star spanning tree then 2 2 2 ≤ dT (w) r2 This result can be summarized in the following way: The case r1 = r2 can be discarded because it leads to a fractional number of nodes (n = 7 ). In the first star spanning trees are the unique solutions of the MSTCI 2 problem for complete graphs. case the inequality holds for k < r1 =3 or k > r2 = 2(n − 2). The case k< 3 is an obvious contradiction since the size of the cycle must be |c| = k ≥ 3. The 4. Further generalization case k> 2(n − 2) combined with the fact that k ≤ n induces the following inequality 4.1. Overview

r1 =3 < r2 = 2(n − 2) < k ≤ n Now we explore some aspects of a slightly more general case, namely: the MSTCI problem in the context which implies a contradiction: , since is 3

This corollary can be further improved to a strict number of a tree-cycle c = (u,v,w) ∈ CTs , namely inequality. In other words: star spanning trees are the ∩Ts (c). Recall from the previous section that c does not t unique minimizers of ∩(T ). intersect neither transit nor internal tree-cycles: |∩T,c | =0 i and |∩T,c| =0. So its non-empty intersections are the tree- Corollary 8. Let G = (V, E) = Kn where |V | = n > 4 e cycles in the set ∩T,c. Note that the remaining incident and let Ts be a star spanning tree of G. Then, the edges to u and w, are the only source of tree-cycles that following property holds have non-empty intersection with c. So the formula is straightforward: ∩(Ts) < ∩(T ),

where T is any non-star spanning tree of G. ∩Ts (c)= d(u) − 2+ d(w) − 2, Proof. A careful reading of proposition 6 leads to where d(u) and d(w) are the degrees of u and w, resp.

the conclusion that the equality ∩Ts (c) = ∩T (c) is Now we shall deduce a formula for the tree intersec- achieved when k is either r1 = 3 or r2 = 2(n − 2) tion number ∩(Ts). Based on the preceding observations (the roots of the quadratic polynomial). If k = r2 = and the fact that each node u ∈ V −{v} is involved in d(u) − 1 tree-cycles and for each of those tree-cycles it bijection between the tree-cycles of both trees {c ↔ produces d(u) − 2 non-empty intersections (note that the d : c ∈ CTs ∧ d ∈ CT } such that ∩Ts (c) ≤ ∩T (d), this pairwise intersections are counted twice). The formula is strategy clearly implies the thesis since by definition: as follows: 1 1 ∩(T )= ∩ (c) ≤ ∩ (d)= ∩(T ) 1 s 2 Ts 2 T ∩(Ts)= (d(u) − 1)(d(u) − 2) = c d 2 X X u∈VX−{v} Let eTs ↔ eT with eTs = (v, w) ∈ Ts and eT = 1 2 d(u) − 3d(u)+2 (u, w) ∈ T be the edge replacement in SPG . Consider 2 the following simple facts: u∈VX−{v} d If we denote as the degree vector of G, that is: a • eT is a cycle-edge in Ts, with corresponding tree- vector that has in the i-th component the degree of the i- cycle c th vertex. And taking into account that • u∈V d(u)=2m eTs is a cycle-edge in T , with corresponding tree- where m = |E|, the formula can be expressed as: cycle d P • Except for eTs and eT , Ts and T have the same 1 set of cycle-edges. For every e ∈ E − Ts − T we ∩(T )= [||d||2 − 6m − (n − 1)(n − 6)] s 2 2 denote ce and de to the corresponding tree-cycles in Ts and T , resp. 4.3. Star spanning tree as a local minimum according to this naming convention, we can define In this subsection we prove that a star spanning tree is the following “natural” bijection between tree-cyles: a local minimum respect to the tree intersection number in the domain of the spanning tree graph. We start by {c ↔ d}∪{ce ↔ de : e ∈ E − Ts − T } defining this second order graph of the original graph G = In order to compare the intersection numbers of the bi- (V, E). Then we analyze the structure of the neighbors of jected pairs it is convenient to distiguish the following a star spanning tree T . Finally we demonstrate the result s partition: by a bijection between tree-cycles to conclude that ∩(Ts) is a local minimum. • Case 1: the pair induced by the edge replacement, {c ↔ d} Definition 9. Let G = (V, E) be a graph, and S a • Case 2: pairs induced by cycle-edges non-incident ′ subgraph of G. We denote as e ↔ e to the operation to u nor to w, {ce ↔ de : e ∈ E − Ts − T ∧ u∈ / of replacing the edge e ∈ S with the edge e′ ∈ G−S. e ∧ w∈ / e} We call this operation edge replacement on S. • Case 3: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to u or w, {c ↔ d : e ∈ E−T −T ∧(u ∈ e∨w ∈ e)} Definition 10. Let G = (V, E) be a graph. We denote e e s

SPG to the graph that has one node for every spanning Case 1 is the easiest: note that c and d are the same tree of G and an edge between two nodes if the tree-cycle (u,v,w), which is a transitless triangle, so corresponding spanning trees differ in exactly one its intersection number is determined by its external edge replacement. We call this graph the spanning tree intersections: graph of G.

∩Ts (c)= d(u) − 2+ d(w) − 2= ∩T (d) 4.3.1. Neighborhood of Ts. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star spanning tree Ts with v ∈ V as its Case 2 is similar, let e = (h, k) be a cycle-edge non- incident to u or to w and c ↔ d its corresponding center. Let αTs be the node corresponding to Ts in SPG e e and let αT (with corresponding spanning tree T ) be any pair of bijected tree-cycles. Clearly e determines the transitless triangle (h,v,k) both in T and T and as neighbor of αTs . By definition Ts and T differ in exactly s ′ one edge replacement e ↔ e where e = (v, w) ∈ Ts dTs (h) = dTs (k) = dT (h) = dT (k)=1, then every and e′ = (u, w) ∈ T . Note that T is exactly the same as other edge incident to h or k induces a tree-cycle that Ts except that the node w is no longer connected to the intersects (h,v,k). We conclude that: central node v but is connected to the intermediate node u. This similar structure has direct consequences in the ∩Ts (ce)= d(h) − 2+ d(k) − 2= ∩T (de) intersection numbers of both trees. Case 3 is the one that should be analyzed more care- Now we prove the result of this section. fully. As we already know how to calculate intersec- Theorem 11. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a tion numbers of tree-cycles in Ts, we will focus on the star spanning tree T with v ∈ V as its center. Then, tree-cycles of T . We will further divide this partition s in two subpartitions: Ts is a local minimum respect to the tree intersection

number in the domain of SPG . • Case 3.1: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to Proof. Let T be a spanning tree corresponding to u, {ce ↔ de : e ∈ E − Ts − T ∧ u ∈ e}

a neighbor of Ts in SPG . Then we want to prove • Case 3.2: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to that ∩(Ts) ≤ ∩(T ). We shall proceed by defining a w, {ce ↔ de : e ∈ E − Ts − T ∧ w ∈ e} In case 3.1 the situation is as follows: the cycle-edge there a negative correlation between the ABC index of e = (u, k) defines the tree-cycle ce = de = (u,v,k) the spanning trees and their corresponding intersection (both in T and Ts). The important details are: numbers?

• d (u)=2: u induces d(u) − 3 intersections T We will prove that the answer to our question is • d (k)=1: k induces d(k) − 2 intersections T negative. Without loss of generality we will consider • d (w)=1: w induces d(w) − 1 intersections T positive correlation (negative correlation is analogous). • d(w) ≥ 2 since it is connected at least to u and v The underlying idea of the proof is as follows: suppose in G that there exists an intrinsic tree invariant f : T → R • w may have an incident cycle-edge connecting such that for every graph the intersection number it to k, so we should avoid counting twice that G ∩(·) intersection is positively correlated with f, this can be expressed as: Now we claim that f(T1) ≤ f(T2) ⇐⇒ ∩G(T1) ≤ ∩G(T2), ∀G, T1,T2

According to this property if we consider two trees T1 ∩T (de) ≥ d(u) − 3+ d(k) − 2+ d(w) − 1 − ǫ(w, k) and T2 and two graphs G and H such that T1,T2 ∈ TG T ≥ d(u) − 2+ d(k) − 2= ∩Ts (ce) and T1,T2 ∈ H , then this equivalence follows: where ∩G(T1) ≤ ∩G(T2) ⇐⇒ ∩H (T1) ≤ ∩H (T2) 1 (w, k) ∈ E ǫ(w, k)= So it suffices to show that there exist , , and 0 otherwise T1 T2 G ( H such that the equivalence is not satisfied to answer the The inequality follows since d(w) − 1 − ǫ(w, k) ≥ 1. question negatively. First we prove a simple lemma regarding the tree in- In case 3.2 the situation is as follows: the cycle-edge tersection number of a spanning tree T under the removal e = (w,h) defines the tree-cycle de = (w,u,v,h) in of a cycle-edge. Namely if a cycle-edge e is removed from T and ce = (w,v,h) in Ts. The important details are: G then the tree intersection number of T decreases exactly in the intersection number of its corresponding tree-cycle. • dT (u)=2: u induces d(u) − 2 intersections Lemma 12. let be a graph, T a • dT (h)=1: h induces d(h) − 2 intersections G = (V, E) T ∈ G spanning tree, a cycle-edge, and the • dT (w)=1: w induces d(w) − 2 intersections e ∈ G − T c • u may have an incident cycle-edge connecting corresponding tree-cycle, then the following holds: it to h, so we should avoid counting twice that intersection ∩G−e(T )= ∩G(T ) − ∩T (c) And we claim that Proof. As the spanning tree T is the same in both graphs: G and G − e, then the remaining cycle-edges define the same tree-cycles so their pairwise intersec- ∩ (d ) ≥ d(w) − 2+ d(h) − 2+ d(u) − 2 − ǫ(u,h) T e tion relations are identical. As c is not a cycle in G−e then the equality follows.  ≥ d(w) − 2+ d(h) − 2= ∩Ts (ce) The inequality follows since d(u) − 2 − ǫ(u,h) ≥ 0. Theorem 13. There is no intrinsic tree invariant f : T →  R positively correlated with the intersection number ∩G(·) for every graph G. 4.4. Intrinsic tree invariants Proof. We will proceed by contradiction: let f be such an intrinsic tree invariant. Then by definition for In this subsection we consider the following question: arbitrary graphs G and H the following equivalences is there any correlation between an intrinsic tree invariant hold and the tree intersection number of the spanning trees for every graph? If so we could formulate an alternative f(T1) ≤ f(T2) ⇐⇒ ∩G(T1) ≤ ∩G(T2) characterization of the MSTCI problem expressed in terms of the invariant. f(T1) ≤ f(T2) ⇐⇒ ∩H (T1) ≤ ∩H (T2)

By intrinsic tree invariant we denote a map f : Where T1,T2 ∈ TG and T1,T2 ∈ TH . This in turn T → R on the set of all trees. Of particular interest are imply that the degree-based topological indices [Gutman, 2013]. The topological index that motivated our question is the atom- bond connectivity (ABC) index [Estrada, 1998]. As shown ∩G(T1) ≤ ∩G(T2) ⇐⇒ ∩H (T1) ≤ ∩H (T2) by [Furtula, 2009] the star trees are maximal among all The proof will be based on showing two graphs and trees respect to the ABC index. In the previous section two spanning trees such that the latter equivalence is we proved that in the complete graph the star spanning not valid. trees are minimal respect to the tree intersection number. Consequently we can formulate a natural question: is • Let G be the complete graph Kn • Let H be the graph Kn −{ei,1,...,ei,n−3} where 4.5. Intersection number conjecture the edges ei,1,...,ei,n−3 are n − 3 edges incident to some arbitrary node vi. We will refer to vi as the In this subsection we present the conjecture ∩(Ts) ≤ almost disconnected node of H. Note that d(vi)= ∩(T ) for every spanning tree T generalizing theorem 11. 2. Then we explore two ideas to simplify a hypothetical • Let T1 be the star spanning tree Ts counterexample of the conjecture. The first is based on • Let T2 be the spanning tree defined as Ts −{ei}∪ the notion of interbranch cycle-edge. We show that if a {ei,j}, where ei is the edge that connects some non-star spanning tree T exists such that ∩(T ) < ∩(Ts), arbitrary node vi (in H this role will be played then the inequality must hold if we remove the interbranch by the almost disconnected node) to the center of cycle-edges. The second is based on the notion of princi- the star and ei,j is an edge that connects vi to a pal subtree. In this case we show that the inequality must different node vj . hold for some principal subtree of T . This ideas will be of practical use in the next section. It is easy to check that T1 and T2 are spanning trees of both G and H. If we also suppose that |V | = n > 4 4.5.1. The conjecture statement. We present below the then by corollary 8 conjecture that generalizes the case of complete graphs.

∩G(T1) < ∩G(T2) Conjecture 14. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star spanning tree T , then By the previous equivalence it is expected that s ∩H (T1) < ∩H (T2) as well. But we will show that this is not the case. ∩(Ts) ≤ ∩(T ) T By a suitable labelling of the nodes of H we can refer for every spanning tree T ∈ G. to: the center of the star spanning tree as v1, the almost disconnected node of H as v2 and the other neighbor As an important remark, a demonstration of this result of v2 as v3. By lemma 12 arises that seems difficult if approached by a local-to-global strategy as in the complete graph case exposed previously. ∩ (T )= ∩ (T )+ ∩ (c ) H 1 H−e2,3 1 T1 2,3

4.5.2. Counterexample simplification. In this part we ∩ (T )= ∩ (T )+ ∩ (c ) H 2 H−e1,2 2 T2 1,2 consider some ideas to simplify a hypothetical counterex- ample of conjecture 14. Where c2,3 and c1,2 are the tree-cycles induced by e2,3 and in and , resp. Since the remaining tree- e1,2 T1 T2 Below we define the notion of interbranch cycle-edge. cycles corresponding to both trees are the same then Definition 15. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a ∩H−e (T1)= ∩H−e (T2) 2,3 1,2 star spanning tree Ts and let v ∈ V be the center of Ts. Let T ∈ T be a spanning tree. We call interbranch And this imply the following G cycle-edge of T to any cycle-edge of T , e = (u, w), such that closest − point(v,c) 6= u, w, where c is the ∩H (T1) − ∩H (T2)= ∩T1 (c2,3 ) − ∩T2 (c1,2 ) induced tree-cycle of e in T . It is an easy exercise to check that The intuition behind this definition is that the paths vTu and vT w belong to different branches. Or equiv- ∩ (c )= ∩ (c )= d(v ) − 2= n − 3 alently, u and w are not collinear with respect to v in T1 2,3 T2 1,2 3 T . The following lemma shows that if we can find a At this point we can conclude that counterexample to the conjecture 14 (ie.: ∩(T ) < ∩(Ts)) then we can build a simpler counterexample removing from G the interbranch cycle-edges of T . ∩H (T1)= ∩H (T2) Lemma 16. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star Contradicting the fact that f is positively correlated spanning tree Ts with v ∈ V as its center. Let T ∈ TG  with the tree intersection number for every graph. be a spanning tree such that ∩G(T ) < ∩G(Ts) and let ∆T be the set of interbranch cycle-edges of T , then The underlying key fact of this result is that a spanning tree T that solves the the MSTCI problem for a graph G ∩ −∆ (T ) < ∩ −∆ (Ts) does not depend on intrinsic properties of T but on the G T G T embedding of T in G. Proof. Let e = (u, w) ∈ ∆T . Note that e is also a cycle-edge in Ts since v 6= u, w by definition of inter- Note that as an interesting side effect this demonstra- branch cycle-edge. So e determines the tree-cycle c in ′ tion shows that a star spanning tree is not necessarily Ts and the tree-cycle c in T . By the intersection num- a strict local minimum in the spanning tree graph (see ber formula it arises that ∩Ts (c)= d(u)−2+d(w)−2. previous subsection). On the other hand, since the other neighbors of u and w are connected to v, they belong to distinct tree- 5. Programmatic exploration cycles with non-trivial intersection with respect to c′ in T . We conclude that 5.1. Overview ′ ∩T (c ) ≥ d(u) − 2+ d(w) − 2= ∩Ts (c). In this section we present some experimental results Hence by lemma 12, to reinforce conjecture 14. We proceed by trying to find a ′ counterexample based on our preceding observations. In ∩G e(T )= ∩G (T ) − ∩T (c ) < − the first part we focus on the complete analysis of small ∩ (T ) − ∩ (c)= ∩ (T ) G s Ts G−e s graphs, ie: graphs of at most 9 nodes. In the second part Applying the same procedure for every edge in ∆T , we analyze larger families of graphs by random sampling the claimed inequality follows. instances. Definition 17. Let T = (V, E) be a rooted tree graph with root v ∈ V . Let w ∈ N(v) then we call principal 5.2. General remarks subtree respect to w to the subtree spanned by v and the nodes u ∈ V such that w ∈ vTu. In the previous section we showed that the space of candidate counterexamples of conjecture 14 can be The next lemma expresses the intersection number of reduced. The general picture is as follows: a spanning tree (without interbranch cycle-edges) as the sum of the intersection number of its principal subtrees. • Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star Lemma 18. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star spanning tree Ts with v ∈ V as its center spanning tree Ts with v ∈ V as its center. Let T be • In the case that we can find some non-star span- a spanning tree of G without interbranch cycle-edges ning tree T of G such that ∩(T ) < ∩(Ts) (ie: ∆T = ∅), then the following holds • Then we can “simplify” the instance by removing the interbranch cycle-edges with respect to T in G without affecting the inequality (see lemma 16) ∩G(T )= ∩Gw (Tw), w∈N(v) • We can further reduce the instance by focusing on X the case where dT (v)=1, that is: the degree of where Tw is the principal subtree of w ∈ N(v) v restricted to T is 1 (see corollary 19) considering T as a rooted tree with v as its root. And Gw is the subgraph spanned by Tw. This considerations can be used to implement al- gorithms to explore the space of spanning trees more Proof. As ∆T = ∅ there are no cycle-edges con- necting any two such principal subtrees. This implies efficiently. Since the algorithms will generate instances that the nonempty intersections between tree-cycles of in this ‘reduced’ form instead of a brute force approach. T must occur inside each subtree. This determines a partition of CT and the claimed expression follows. 5.3. Complete analysis of small graphs The following corollary in line with lemma 16 further In this subsection we present an algorithm to explore simplifies a hypothetical counterexample of conjecture 14. the spanning tree space. The algorithm proceed by exhaus- Corollary 19. Let G = (V, E) be a graph that admits a star tively analyzing all the reduced graphs of a given number spanning tree Ts with v ∈ V as its center. Let T be of nodes. The size of the space increases exponentially a spanning tree of G without interbranch cycle-edges with respect to the number of nodes, so it has a major ∅ (ie: ∆T = ) such that ∩(T ) < ∩(Ts) then limitation: it can be used to analyze only small graphs. The main part is sketched in Algorithm 1. ∩(Tw) < ∩(Gw ∧ Ts)

for some Gw. Where Tw is the principal subtree of The details of the algorithm are the following: w ∈ N(v) considering T as a rooted tree with v as • The input parameter is the number of nodes of its root; G is the subgraph of G spanned by T ; n w w the graphs to explore Gw ∧ Ts is the subtree of Ts restricted to Gw, namely • is a function that re- the intersection between G and T . GenerateAllT rees(n − 1) w s turns the list of all trees of n − 1 nodes Proof. First note that the ’s are edge disjoint ′ Gw • is a function that builds ∅ GenerateGraph(w,T ) since ∆T = . This partition of the edges of G a graph G. Based on the tree T ′, it adds a new also determines a partition of Ts such that ∩(Ts) = node (v) that will play the role of the central node w∈N(v) ∩(Gw ∧ Ts). As the parts are in a natural of a star spanning tree, then adds the edge (v, w) bijective relation since they are the subtrees of T P to define our candidate tree counterexample T . and Ts restricted to each Gw, we can express the Finally adds all the other edges that link v to the intersection number of T and Ts as follows rest of the nodes to obtain G. It returns the graph G and (∆¯ ) the set of “possible” non-interbranch

∩(T )= ∩(Tw) < ∩(Gw ∧Ts)= ∩(Ts) cycle edges. • is a function that w∈N(v) w∈N(v) IntersectionNumber(φ, G) X X calculates the intersection number of T in G ∪ φ, And from the bijection we can deduce that ∩(Tw) < where φ ⊂ ∆¯ is a subset of supplementary edges  ∩(Gw ∧ Ts) for some Gw. of G. Table 1. SMALL INSTANCES RESULTS Table 2. RANDOM INSTANCES RESULTS

nodes instances (approx.) nodes instances 4 5 25 3000000 5 33 50 300000 6 251 100 30000 7 4200 200 15000 8 125000 400 300 9 7900000

the edges that link v to the rest of the nodes to • StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G) is a function obtain G. It returns the graph G and (∆¯ ) a random that calculates the intersection number of the star set of non-interbranch cycle edges. spanning tree in G ∪ φ • IntersectionNumber(φ, G) same as algorithm 1 • The algorithm finds a counterexample of the • StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G) same as algo- conjecture if: IntersectionNumber(φ, G) < rithm 1 StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G) • The algorithm finds a counterexample of the Note that the analyzed graphs are reduced in the sense conjecture if: IntersectionNumber(φ, G) < explained previously. The cycle-edges are non-interbranch StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G) by construction and dT (v)=1 since v is only connected to w in T (ie. there is a single principal subtree). As Algorithm 2 CounterexampleRandomSearch(n, k) the algorithm iterates over all possible spanning subtrees i := 1..k ′ for do T and all the combinations of possible non-interbranch T ← GenerateRandomT ree(n) cycle-edges, every instance is guaranteed to be explored G, ∆¯ ← GenerateRandomGraph(T ) at least once. check (IntersectionNumber(φ, G) < Algorithm 1 CounterexampleSearch(n) StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G)) T ← GenerateAllT rees(n − 1) for each tree T ′ ∈ T do for each node w ∈ T ′ do We used a uniformly distributed random number gen- G, ∆¯ ← GenerateGraph(w,T ′) erator. To generate trees we used a simple algorithm that for each subset φ ⊂ ∆¯ do randomly connects a new node to an already connected check (IntersectionNumber(φ, G) < tree. The non-interbranch cycle-edge set is built by as- StarIntersectionFormula(φ, G)) sociating a Bernoulli trial to each such possible edge. To achieve some diversity for each tree we built three different sets to obtain a sparse, medium and dense sets based on corresponding probabilities 0.1, 0.5, 0.9. To generate all non-isomorphic trees of |V |− 1 nodes we used the package nauty [McKay and Piperno, 2014]. The proposed algorithm did not find a counterexample of the intersection conjecture. Table 2 shows the size of The proposed algorithm did not find a counterexample the experiments. The column nodes is the number of nodes of the intersection conjecture. Table 1 shows the size of of the graph family, ie: |V |. The column instances is the the experiments. The column nodes is the number of nodes number of instances processed. of the graph family, ie: |V |. The column instances is the number of instances processed. 6. Conclusion

5.4. Random sampling of large graphs In this article we introduced the Minimum Spanning Tree Cycle Intersection (MSTCI) problem. In this section we present another algorithm to explore the spanning tree space. The strategy in this case is to We proved by enumerative arguments that the star sample reduced graphs of a given number of nodes. The spanning trees are the unique solutions of the problem main part is sketched in Algorithm 2. in the context of complete graphs. The details of the algorithm are the following: We conjectured a generalization to the case of graphs • The input parameters are: n the number of nodes (not necessarily complete) that admit a star spanning tree. of the graphs and k the size of the sample In this sense we showed that the star spanning tree is a • GenerateRandomT ree(n) is a function that re- local minimum in the domain of the spanning tree graph. turns a random tree T of n nodes, where the node We deduced a closed formula for the tree intersection v that will play the role of center of the star has number of star spanning trees in this setting. We proposed degree 1 restricted to T . two ideas to attempt to find a counterexample of the • GenerateGraph(T ) is a function that builds a conjecture. Those ideas were the basis of two strategies reduced graph G. Based on the tree T , adds all to programatically explore the space of solutions in the pursue of a counterexample. The negative result of the experiments suggest that the conjecture is well posed. Unlike the complete graph context, in this slightly more general case, star spanning trees are not unique; there are other spanning trees T such that ∩(Ts)= ∩(T ).

We proved a general result that shows that spanning trees that solve the MSTCI problem don’t depend on some intrinsic property but on their particular embedding in the ambient graph.

An interesting direction of research is to consider the MSTCI problem for other families of graphs, ie.: graphs that do not admit a star spanning tree. Of particular interest is the class of triangular meshes, ie.: graphs that model the immersion of compact surfaces in the 3D euclidean space.

Another interesing direction of research is related to proving to which complexity class the MSTCI problem belongs to. In case of belonging to the NP-hard class, it will be important to find approximate, probabilistic and heuristic algorithms.

References

[Botsch, 2010] Botsch, M. and Kobbelt, L. and Pauly, M. and Alliez, P. and L´evy, B., Polygon Mesh Processing, A. K. Peters, 2010. [Cartan, 1956] Cartan, H. P. and Eilenberg, S., Homological Algebra, Princeton University Press, 1956. [Estrada, 1998] Estrada E. and Torres L. and Rodr´ıguez L. and Gutman I., An atom-bond connectivity index: modelling the enthalpy of formation of alkanes, Indian J. Chem. 37A (1998) 849–855. [Furtula, 2009] Furtula B. and Graovac A. and Vukiˇcevi´cD., Atom- bond connectivity index of trees, Discrete Appl. Math. 157 (2009) 2828–2835. [Gutman, 2013] Gutman I., Degree-based topological indices, Croat. Chem. Acta 86 (2013) 351–361. [Dewan, 2010] Dewan I., Graph Homology and Cohomology. [McKay and Piperno, 2014] McKay B.D. and Piperno A., Practical Graph Isomorphism, II, Journal of Symbolic Computation, 60 (2014), pp. 94-112. [McKee and McMorris, 1999] McKee T.A and McMorris F.R., Topics in intersection graph theory, SIAM monographs on discrete math- ematics and applications, 1999. [Tutte, 1965] Tutte W.T., Lecture on Matroids, Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, Vol. 69B Nos. 1 and 2 (1965).