Abstract.

Let $G$ be a simple graph of order $n$ satisfying the following Ore-type condition: For any two nonadjacent vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$, $d_{G}(x)+d_{G}(y)\geq n+k-2$, where $1\leq k\leq n-1$, $kn$ is even and $d_{G}(x)$ is the degree of $x$ in $G$. It is well known that $G$ has a $k$-factor for $k=1$ or $2$. Lu and Ning (J. Graph Theory, 94(2020), 307-319) proved that if $k\geq n/2$, then $G$ has a $k$-factor. In this paper, we show that $G$ has a $k$-factor for any $1\leq k\leq n-1$.

Keywords: Regular factor; Ore-type condition; Tutte’s theorem.
MSC(2020): 05C07; 05C70

1. Introduction

The graphs considered in this paper are simple if not specified. Let $G$ be a graph. Denote by $V(G)$, $E(G)$ and $\delta(G)$ the vertex set, the edge set and the minimum degree of $G$, respectively. Denote by $|V(G)|$ and $|E(G)|$ the order and size of $G$, respectively. For a vertex $v\in V(G)$ and a subgraph $H$ of $G$, denote by $N_{G}(v)$ the set of neighbors of $v$ in $G$, and $d_{G}(v)=|N_{G}(v)|$, and define $N_{H}(v)=N_{G}(v)\cap V(H)$ and $d_{H}(v)=|N_{H}(v)|$. For two disjoint subsets $S,T$ of $V(G)$, let $E_{G}(S,T)$ denote the set of edges between $S$ and $T$ in $G$, and set $e_{G}(S,T)=|E_{G}(S,T)|$. If $S=\{v\}$, we write $E_{G}(v,T)$ and $e_{G}(v,T)$ in place of $E_{G}(\{v\},T)$ and $e_{G}(\{v\},T)$, respectively. For a positive integer $n$, set $[n]=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Other terminology and notation not defined here can be found in [1].

The existence of prescribed subgraphs is a central and long-standing theme in graph theory. Perhaps the best-known result is Dirac’s theorem [2] in 1952, which states that every graph of order $n$ contains a Hamilton cycle if $\delta(G)\geq n/2$. Ore [9] later generalized Dirac’s theorem by imposing a degree sum lower bound on all pairs of nonadjacent vertices in a graph.

Let $k\geq 1$ be an integer. A $k$-factor of a graph $G$ is a spanning $k$-regular subgraph of $G$. The seminal work of Tutte in 1952 established a complete necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of $k$-factors, laying the theoretical foundation for the entire field. However, Tutte’s criterion requires verifying a combinatorial inequality over all pairs of disjoint vertex subsets, which is computationally prohibitive for large graphs. This inherent limitation has motivated decades of research devoted to deriving simple, easily verifiable sufficient conditions for the existence of $k$-factors. Among all categories of sufficient conditions, degree-based criteria constitute the most extensively studied and fruitful class. Following the classical Dirac-type minimum degree paradigm, the Ore-type framework - which imposes a lower bound on the degree sum of every pair of nonadjacent vertices - also serves as a highly flexible and powerful research tool.

For a graph $G$, the invariant $\sigma_{2}(G)$ is defined to be the minimum degree sum of two nonadjacent vertices of $G$, i.e.,

$$\sigma_{2}(G)=\mathrm{min}\{d_{G}(x)+d_{G}(y):x,y\in V(G),x\neq y,xy\notin E(G)\}$$

if $G$ is not complete; otherwise, let $\sigma_{2}(G)=+\infty$.

A classical result of Ore [9] says that a simple graph $G$ of order $n$ has a Hamilton path (hence $G$ has a 1-factor when $n$ is even) if $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n-1$ and $G$ has a Hamilton cycle (i.e., a $2$-factor) if $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n$. A natural problem is: Suppose that a simple graph $G$ of order $n$ satisfies the following Ore-type condition: $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n+k-2$, where $1\leq k\leq n-1$ and $kn$ is even. Has $G$ a $k$-factor?

Several progressively refined degree-based results concerning the existence of $k$-factors are well-known, as stated below.

Theorem 1.1.

Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer, and $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ such that $\delta(G)\geq k$ and $kn$ is even. If one of the following three conditions holds, then $G$ has a $k$-factor.
(1). $\delta(G)\geq n/2$ and $n\geq 4k-5$. (Egawa and Enomoto [3]; Katerinis [5])
(2). $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n$ and $n\geq 4k-5$. (Iida and Nishimura [4])
(3). $\max\{d_{G}(x),d_{G}(y)\}\geq n/2$ for every pair of nonadjacent vertices $x$ and $y$ of $G$ and $n\geq 4k-3$. (Nishimura [8]).

By the theorem above, if $G$ satisfies the Ore-type condition above, then $G$ has a $k$-factor if $k\leq(n+5)/4$. On the other hand, Lu and Ning [7] obtained the following result for the existence of large $k$-factors.

Theorem 1.2 ([7]).

Let $n$ and $k$ be two integers such that $1\leq k\leq n-1$ and $kn$ is even. Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$. If $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n+k-2$ and $k\geq n/2$, then $G$ contains a $k$-factor.

Hence Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 partially answer the problem above. In this paper, we obtain the following result which completely solves this problem.

Theorem 1.3.

Let $n$ and $k$ be two integers such that $1\leq k\leq n-1$ and $kn$ is even. Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$. If $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n+k-2$, then $G$ contains a $k$-factor.

The assumption that $\sigma_{2}(G)\geq n+k-2$ in Theorem 1.3 cannot be weakened any further. Let $G=K_{k-1}+(K_{n-k}\cup K_{1})$, where the plus sign denotes join. Obviously, $G$ contains no $k$-factor. However, it is easy to check that $\sigma_{2}(G)=n+k-3$.

The main tools in the work of Lu and Ning [7] are Tutte’s $k$-factor theorem and the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker theorem. Our main technique is to optimize and simplify the method of Lu and Ning. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce necessary preliminaries. In Section 3, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.3.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we first introduce some notation and terminology related to the Tutte’s $k$-factor theorem. For a graph $G$ and any pair of disjoint subsets $S,T\subset V(G)$, a component $C$ of $G-S-T$ is called a $k$-odd-component if

$$e_{G}(V(C),T)+k\,|V(C)|\equiv 1\pmod{2}.$$

Let $q(S,T)$ denote the number of $k$-odd components of $G-S-T$. Unless otherwise specified, we always let $C_{1},\ldots,C_{q}$ be all $k$-odd-components of $G-S-T$, and let $U=\bigcup_{i=1}^{q}C_{i}$, where $q=q(S,T)$.

The well-known Tutte’s $k$-factor theorem is stated as follows.

Theorem 2.1 (Tutte [10]).

Let $k$ be a positive integer. A graph $G$ contains no $k$-factor if and only if there exist disjoint subsets $S,T\subset V(G)$, such that

$$k\,|S|-k\,|T|+\sum_{x\in T}d_{G-S}(x)-q(S,T)\leq-2.$$ (2.1)

From Tutte’s theorem, Katerinis and Woodall [6] deduced the following.

Theorem 2.2 (Katerinis and Woodall [6]).

Let $k\geq 1$ be an integer. If a graph $G$ contains no $k$-factor, then there exist two disjoint subsets $S,T\subset V(G)$ such that there holds (2.1), and for all $v\in V(U)$

$$e_{G}(v,T)\leq k-1,\quad\text{and}$$ (2.2)

$$d_{G-S}(v)\geq k+1,\quad\text{and}$$ (2.3)

$$|V(C_{i})|\geq 3\quad\text{for every $i\in[q]$.}$$ (2.4)

3. Proof of Theorem 1.3

Proof of Theorem 1.3 To prove the theorem, we argue by contradiction. Suppose that $G$ contains no $k$-factor. By Theorem 2.2, we can choose disjoint $S,T\subset V(G)$ satisfying Ineqs. (2.1)-(2.4). Let $C_{1},\dots,C_{q}$ be all $k$-odd components of $G-S-T$, and let $U=\bigcup_{i=1}^{q}C_{i}$. Let $s=|S|$, $t=|T|$ and $c_{i}=|V(C_{i})|$ for $i\in[q]$. Hence, by Ineqs. (2.2)-(2.4), $e_{G}(v,T)\leq k-1$ and $d_{G-S}(v)\geq k+1$ for every $v\in V(U)$, and $c_{i}\geq 3$ for every $i\in[q]$. So, $|V(U)|=\sum_{i=1}^{q}c_{i}\geq 3q$ and $n\geq s+t+3q$.

If $T\neq\emptyset$, then let $h_{1}:=\min\{d_{G-S}(x):x\in T\}$, and let $u_{1}\in T$ such that $d_{G-S}(u_{1})=h_{1}$. Set $P=(N_{G}(u_{1})\cap T)\cup\{u_{1}\}$ and $p=|P|$. If $T\backslash P\neq\emptyset$, then let $h_{2}:=\min\{d_{G-S}(x):x\in T\backslash P\}$ and choose $u_{2}\in T\backslash P$ such that $d_{G-S}(u_{2})=h_{2}$. Obviously, $p=d_{T}(u_{1})+1$, $u_{1}u_{2}\notin E(G)$ and $h_{1}\leq h_{2}$.

Claim 1.

$G$ is $k$-connected; hence, $\delta(G)\geq k$.

Proof.

If there exists a vertex subset $W$ such that $G-W$ is disconnected, then let $C_{1}^{\prime},C_{2}^{\prime}$ be two components of $G-W$. Let $x\in V(C_{1}^{\prime})$ and $y\in V(C_{2}^{\prime})$. Then we can see that $xy\notin E(G)$. Hence,

$$n+k-2\leq d_{G}(x)+d_{G}(y)\leq|V(C_{1}^{\prime})|-1+|W|+|V(C_{2}^{\prime})|-1+|W|.$$

Note that $n\geq|V(C_{1}^{\prime})|+|V(C_{2}^{\prime})|+|W|$. Hence, $|W|\geq k$, and moreover, $\delta(G)\geq k$. ∎

Claim 2.

We have $q<ks+2$; hence, $T\neq\emptyset$ and $h_{1}\leq k-1$.

Proof.

If not, then $q\geq ks+2\geq 2$, which implies $G-S-T$ is not connected. That is, $S\cup T$ is a vertex-cut of $G$. By Claim 1, we have $s+t\geq k$. Note that

$$\sum_{i=1}^{q}c_{i}=|V(U)|\leq n-s-t\leq n-k.$$ (3.1)

Recall that $|V(U)|\geq 3q$. Then we have

$$n-k\geq 3q\geq 3ks+6.$$ (3.2)

For every $i\in[q]$, let $x_{i}\in V(C_{i})$. Then $N_{G}(x_{i})\subseteq(V(C_{i})\setminus\{x_{i}\})\cup S\cup T$. By Ineq. (2.2),

$$d_{G}(x_{i})\leq c_{i}-1+s+e_{G}(x_{i},T)\leq c_{i}+s+k-2.$$

Hence, for any $i,j\in[q]$ with $i\neq j$, we first have $x_{i}x_{j}\notin E(G)$ and then

$$c_{i}+s+k-2+c_{j}+s+k-2\geq d_{G}(x_{i})+d_{G}(x_{j})\geq n+k-2.$$

That is, $c_{i}+c_{j}\geq n-k-2s+2$. Without loss of generality, we suppose that $c_{1}\leq c_{2}\leq\ldots\leq c_{q}$. It is clear that

$$\frac{c_{1}+c_{2}}{2}\leq\frac{1}{q}\sum_{i=1}^{q}c_{i}\leq\frac{n-k}{q}.$$

where the second inequality holds by Ineq. (3.1). Hence we have

$$n-k-2s+2\leq c_{1}+c_{2}\leq\frac{2}{q}(n-k).$$ (3.3)

That is, $q(n-k-2s+2)\leq 2(n-k)$. Note that by Ineq. (3.2),

$$n-k-2s+2\geq 3ks+6-2s+2=(3k-2)s+8>0.$$ (3.4)

However,

$$q(n-k-2s+2)-2(n-k) \geq(ks+2)(n-k-2s+2)-2(n-k) q\geq ks+2$$ (by )

$$=ks(n-k)-(ks+2)(2s-2)$$

$$\geq ks(3ks+6)-(ks+2)(2s-2)$$ (by (3.2))

$$=(ks+2)(3ks-2s+2)$$

$$\geq(ks+2)(s+2) k\geq 1$$ (by )

$$>0,$$

a contradiction. Thus $q<ks+2$. It is obvious that $T\neq\emptyset$. Otherwise, by Ineq. (2.1),

$$ks-q\leq-2,$$

a contradiction. Recalling the definition of $h_{1}$, it is clear that $d_{G-S}(x)\geq h_{1}$ for every $x\in T$. If $h_{1}\geq k$, then by Ineq. (2.1),

$$q\geq ks-kt+\sum_{x\in T}d_{G-S}(x)+2\geq ks-kt+kt+2=ks+2,$$

a contradiction. Hence, we have $h_{1}\leq k-1$.

The following two claims are obvious:

Claim 3.

$k\leq\delta(G)\leq d_{G}(u_{1})\leq d_{G-S}(u_{1})+s=h_{1}+s$.

Claim 4.

$p=d_{T}(u_{1})+1\leq d_{G-S}(u_{1})+1=h_{1}+1\leq k$.

Finally, we require the following important result:

Claim 5.

If $V(U)\not\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$, then

$$s\geq k-h_{1}+3(q-1).$$

Proof.

Without loss of generality, take $x\in V(C_{j})\subseteq V(U)$ for some $j\in[q]$, and suppose that $xu_{1}\notin E(G)$. Recall that $c_{i}\geq 3$ for every $i\in[q]$. Hence we have

$$c_{j}\leq n-s-t-\sum_{i\neq j}c_{i}\leq n-s-t-3(q-1).$$ (3.5)

It is obvious that $N_{G}(x)\subseteq(V(C_{j})\setminus\{x\})\cup S\cup(T\setminus\{u_{1}\})$. Furthermore, by Ineq. (3.5),

$$d_{G}(x)\leq c_{j}+s+t-2\leq n-s-t-3(q-1)+s+t-2=n-3(q-1)-2.$$ (3.6)

By Claim 3, $d_{G}(u_{1})\leq h_{1}+s$. So we have

$$n+k-2\leq d_{G}(x)+d_{G}(u_{1})\leq n-3(q-1)-2+h_{1}+s.$$

That is,

$$s\geq k-h_{1}+3(q-1).$$

The result thus holds. ∎

We now consider three cases to derive a contradiction.

Case 1. $T\setminus P=\emptyset$. That is, $T=P$.

Let $r=k-h_{1}$. By Claims 2-4, we have $r\geq 1$, $s\geq r$ and $t=p\leq k$. Furthermore, by Ineq. (2.1), we have

$$q \geq ks-kt+\sum_{x\in T}d_{G-S}(x)+2$$

$$\geq ks-kt+h_{1}t+2$$

$$=ks-rt+2$$ (3.7)

$$\geq 2. k\geq t s\geq r$$ (by , )

Claim 6.

$V(U)\not\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$.

Proof.

If $V(U)\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$, then $h_{1}=d_{G-S}(u_{1})\geq|V(U)|+t-1$, since $T=P$. Note that for every $x\in V(U)$, $N_{G-S}(x)\subseteq(V(U)\setminus\{x\})\cup T$. Hence,

$$d_{G-S}(x)\leq|V(U)|-1+t\leq h_{1}.$$

But by Ineq. (2.3), $d_{G-S}(x)\geq k+1$. That is, $h_{1}\geq k+1$, which contradicts Claim 2. ∎

By Claims 6 and 5, we have $s\geq r+3(q-1)$. Furthermore, by Ineq. (3.7),

$$q \geq ks-rt+2$$

$$\geq k\big(r+3(q-1)\big)-rk+2 s\geq r+3(q-1),\,t\leq k$$ (by )

$$=3k(q-1)+2$$

$$\geq 3(q-1)+2 k\geq 1$$ (by )

$$>q, q\geq 2$$ (by )

a contradiction. This completes the proof for Case 1.

Case 2. $T\setminus P\neq\emptyset$ and $h_{2}\geq k$.

Let $r=k-h_{1}$. By Claims 2-4, we have $r\geq 1$, $s\geq r$ and $p\leq h_{1}+1\leq k$. Recall that $h_{2}:=\min\{d_{G-S}(x):x\in T\backslash P\}$ if $T\setminus P\neq\emptyset$. By Ineq. (2.1), we have

$$q \geq ks-kt+\sum_{x\in P}d_{G-S}(x)+\sum_{x\in T\setminus P}d_{G-S}(x)+2$$

$$\geq ks-kt+h_{1}p+h_{2}(t-p)+2$$

$$\geq ks-kt+h_{1}p+k(t-p)+2$$

$$=ks-rp+2$$ (3.8)

$$\geq r(k-p)+2$$ (3.9)

$$\geq 2.$$

Claim 7.

$V(U)\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$.

Proof.

If $V(U)\not\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$, then $s\geq r+3(q-1)$ by Claim 5. Furthermore, by Ineq. (3.8),

$$q \geq ks-rp+2$$

$$\geq k\big(r+3(q-1)\big)-rk+2 s\geq r+3(q-1),\,p\leq k$$ (by )

$$=3k(q-1)+2$$

$$\geq 3(q-1)+2 k\geq 1$$ (by )

$$>q, q\geq 2$$ (by )

a contradiction. The claim thus holds. ∎

Since $V(U)\subseteq N_{G}(u_{1})$ and $|V(U)|\geq 3q$, we have $h_{1}=d_{G-S}(u_{1})\geq 3q+p-1$. That is,

$$p\leq h_{1}-3q+1.$$ (3.10)

Furthermore, by Ineqs. (3.9) and (3.10), we have

$$q\geq r(k-p)+2\geq r(k-h_{1}+3q-1)+2\geq(1+3q-1)+2>q,$$

where the third inequality holds since $r=k-h_{1}\geq 1$, a contradiction. This completes the proof for Case 2.

Case 3. $T\setminus P\neq\emptyset$ and $h_{2}\leq k-1$.

Recall that $u_{1}u_{2}\notin E(G)$, so we have

$$n+k-2\leq d_{G}(u_{1})+d_{G}(u_{2})\leq d_{G-S}(u_{1})+s+d_{G-S}(u_{2})+s=h_{1}+h_{2}+2s.$$

That is,

$$s\geq\frac{n+k-2-h_{1}-h_{2}}{2}.$$ (3.11)

On the other hand, by Claim 3,

$$s\geq k-h_{1}.$$ (3.12)

Let $\lambda=\frac{h_{2}}{2k-h_{2}}$. Then $0\leq\lambda<1$ since $h_{2}\leq k-1$, and

$$(2k-h_{2})\lambda=h_{2}\;\;\mathrm{and}\;\;\frac{(2k-h_{2})(1-\lambda)}{2}=k-h_{2}.$$ (3.13)

By Ineqs. (3.11) and (3.12),

$$s=\lambda s+(1-\lambda)s\geq\lambda(k-h_{1})+(1-\lambda)\frac{n+k-2-h_{1}-h_{2}}{2}.$$ (3.14)

Since $2k-h_{2}>0$, by Ineqs. (3.13) and (3.14),

$$(2k-h_{2})s \geq(2k-h_{2})\lambda(k-h_{1})+\frac{(2k-h_{2})(1-\lambda)}{2}(n+k-2-h_{1}-h_{2})$$

$$=h_{2}(k-h_{1})+(k-h_{2})(n+k-2-h_{1}-h_{2}).$$ (3.15)

Note that $n\geq s+t+|V(U)|\geq s+t+3q$. That is,

$$t\leq n-s-3q.$$ (3.16)

Obviously, $h_{1}-h_{2}\leq 0$. By Claim 4, $p\leq h_{1}+1$. Hence,

$$(h_{1}-h_{2})p\geq(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1).$$ (3.17)

Furthermore, by Ineq. (2.1), we have

$$0 \geq ks-kt+\sum_{x\in P}d_{G-S}(x)+\sum_{x\in T\setminus P}d_{G-S}(x)+2-q$$

$$\geq ks-kt+h_{1}p+h_{2}(t-p)+2-q$$

$$=ks-(k-h_{2})t+(h_{1}-h_{2})p+2-q$$

$$\geq ks-(k-h_{2})(n-s-3q)+(h_{1}-h_{2})p+2-q$$ (by (3.16))

$$\geq ks-(k-h_{2})(n-s-3q)+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2-q$$ (by (3.17))

$$=(2k-h_{2})s-(k-h_{2})n+\big(3(k-h_{2})-1\big)q+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2$$

$$\geq(2k-h_{2})s-(k-h_{2})n+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2.$$

∎

Let $f=(2k-h_{2})s-(k-h_{2})n+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2$. Then $f\leq 0$. However,

$$f =(2k-h_{2})s-(k-h_{2})n+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2$$

$$\geq h_{2}(k-h_{1})+(k-h_{2})(n+k-2-h_{1}-h_{2})-(k-h_{2})n+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2$$ (by (3.15))

$$=h_{2}(k-h_{1})+(k-h_{2})(k-2-h_{1}-h_{2})+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2.$$

Set $a=k-1-h_{1}$ and $b=k-1-h_{2}$. Then $a\geq b\geq 0$. By elementary calculations,

$$f \geq h_{2}(k-h_{1})+(k-h_{2})(k-2-h_{1}-h_{2})+(h_{1}-h_{2})(h_{1}+1)+2$$

$$=1+a^{2}-ab+b^{2}$$

$$=1+(a-b)^{2}+ab$$

$$\geq 1,$$

which contradicts $f\leq 0$. This completes the proof for Case 3, and hence the theorem follows.

Declaration of competing interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.