arxiv: v1 [math.co] 1 Aug 2013

Transcription

1 Semi-degree threshold for anti-directed Hamiltonian cycles Louis DeBiasio and Theodore Molla May 11, 014 arxiv: v1 [math.co] 1 Aug 013 Abstract In 1960 Ghouila-Houri extended Dirac s theorem to directed graphs by proving that if D is a directed graph on n vertices with minimum out-degree and in-degree at least n/, then D contains a directed Hamiltonian cycle. For directed graphs one may ask for other orientations of a Hamiltonian cycle and in 1980 Grant initiated the problem of determining minimum degree conditions for a directed graph D to contain an anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle (an orientation in which consecutive edges alternate direction). We prove that for sufficiently large even n, if D is a directed graph on n vertices with minimum out-degree and in-degree at least n + 1, then D contains an anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle. This result is sharp. 1 Introduction A directed graph D is a pair (V (D), E(D)) where E(D) V (D) V (D). In this paper we will only consider loopless directed graphs, i.e. directed graphs with no edges of the type (v, v). An anti-directed cycle (path) is a directed graph in which the underlying graph forms a cycle (path) and no pair of consecutive edges forms a directed path. Note that an anti-directed cycle must have an even number of vertices. Let ADP, ADC stand for anti-directed path and anti-directed cycle respectively and let ADHP, ADHC stand for anti-directed Hamiltonian path and anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle respectively. Call an ADP P = v 1... v d proper if d is even and (v 1, v ) E(P ) and hence, (v d 1, v d ) E(P ). Given an (undirected) graph G, let δ(g) be the minimum degree of G. If D is a directed graph, then δ(d) will denote the minimum degree of the underlying multigraph, i.e. the minimum total degree of D. For a directed graph D, let δ + (D) and δ (D) be the minimum out-degree and minimum in-degree respectively. Finally, let δ 0 (D) = min{δ + (D), δ (D)} and call this quantity the minimum semi-degree of G. In 195, Dirac [6] proved that if G is a graph on n 3 vertices with δ(g) n/, then G contains a Hamiltonian cycle. In 1960, Ghouila-Houri extended Dirac s theorem to directed graphs. Theorem 1 (Ghouila-Houri [8]). Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If δ 0 (D) n/, then D contains a directed Hamiltonian cycle. (His original statement actually says that δ(d) n is sufficient if D is strongly connected.) Department of Mathematics, Miami University, Oxford, OH USA. address: debiasld@miamioh.edu. School of Mathematical Sciences and Statistics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8587, USA. address: tmolla@asu.edu. Research of this author is supported in part by NSA grant H

2 In 1973, Thomassen proved that every tournament on n 50 vertices contains an ADHC [16]. Since the total degree of every vertex in a tournament on n vertices is n 1, Grant wondered if all digraphs on n vertices with total degree n 1 have an ADHC. So in 1980, Grant made the weaker conjecture (replacing total degree by semi-degree) that if D is a directed graph on n vertices with δ 0 (D) n, then D contains an ADHC [9]. However, in 1983, Cai [] gave a counterexample to Grant s conjecture (see Figure 1a). Example. (Cai 1983) There exists a directed graph D on n vertices with δ 0 (D) = n, such that D does not contain an ADHC. X 1 = n 1 X 1 = n k y 1 y Y 1 = k Y = k X = n 1 (a) Cai s example where δ(d) = n and D contains no ADHC X = n k (b) A general example where δ(d) = n 1 and D contains no ADHC Figure 1: The solid arrows indicate all possible edges in the designated direction. The shaded sets with the curved arrows indicate all possible directed edges. Cai s example shows that the semi-degree threshold for an ADHC in a directed graph on n vertices is at least n + 1. There have been a sequence of partial results which have improved the threshold from the upper end. In 1980, Grant proved that if D is a directed graph on n vertices and δ 0 (D) 4 3 n + n log n, then D has an ADHC [9]. In 1995, Häggkvist and Thomason proved the very general result that if D is a directed graph on n vertices then the semi-degree threshold for all orientations of a cycle on n vertices is asymptotically n/ (we conjecture an exact bound in Section 5). Theorem 3 (Häggkvist, Thomason [10]). For sufficiently large n, if D is a directed graph on n vertices and δ 0 (D) n + n5/6, then D contains every orientation of a cycle on n vertices. Then in 008, Plantholt and Tipnis improved upon Grant s result by showing that if D is a directed graph on n vertices and δ 0 (D) 4 3n, then D has an ADHC [15] (note that this is for all n). Finally in 011, Busch, Jacobson, Morris, Plantholt, Tipnis improved upon all the results for ADHC s by showing that if D is a directed graph on n vertices and δ 0 (D) n n, then D has an ADHC [1]. The main goal of this paper is to determine, for sufficiently large n, the exact semi-degree threshold for an ADHC. Theorem 4. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If n is sufficiently large and δ 0 (D) n + 1, then D contains an anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle.

3 Since we have determined the semi-degree threshold for ADHC s, we go back and modify the original conjecture that Grant hinted at. Conjecture 5. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If δ(d) n + 1, then D contains an anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle. An anti-directed -factor on n vertices is a directed graph in which the underlying graph forms a -factor and no pair of consecutive edges forms a directed path (once again note that n must be even for an anti-directed -factor to exist). Diwan, Frye, Plantholt, and Tipnis conjectured that if D is a directed graph on n 8 vertices and δ 0 (D) n, then D contains an anti-directed -factor [7]. Slight modifications to the proof of Theorem 4 (we will point out the needed modifications at the appropriate places in the paper) gives the following result which implies their conjecture for sufficiently large n. Theorem 6. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If n is sufficiently large and δ 0 (D) n, then D contains an anti-directed -factor with at most two cycles. Let L n be the graph on vertex set {u 1,..., u n, v 1,..., v n } such that {u i, v j } E(L n ) if and only if i j 1. We call L n a ladder and note that L n contains every bipartite -factor on n vertices. Let L n be the directed graph obtained from L n by orienting every edge {u i, v j } from u i to v j. We call L n an anti-directed ladder and note that L n contains every anti-directed -factor on n vertices. Czygrinow and Kierstead determined the minimum degree threshold for a balanced bipartite graph to contain a spanning ladder. Theorem 7 (Czygrinow, Kierstead [4]). There exists n 0 such that if G is a balanced bipartite graph on n n 0 vertices with δ(g) n + 1, then L n G. We make the following conjecture which would significantly strengthen Theorem 4. Conjecture 8. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If n is sufficiently large and δ 0 (D) n+1, then L n D. In particular D contains every possible anti-directed -factor. We note that Conjecture 8 holds asymptotically. Observation 9. For all ε > 0, there exists n 0 such that if D is a directed graph on n n 0 vertices with δ 0 (D) (1 + ε)n, then L n D. Proof. Let X 1, X be a random balanced bipartition of V (D). We expect δ + (x, X ), δ (x, X 1 ) 1 (1 + ε)n for all x X 1 X, so by Chernoffs inequality there exists a such a partition X 1, X which satisfies δ + (X 1, X ) n + 1 and δ (X, X 1 ) n + 1. Let G be an X 1, X -bipartite graph such that {u, v} E(G) if and only if u X 1, v X and (u, v) E D (X 1, X ). Note that G is a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices with δ(g) n + 1 and thus by Theorem 7, G contains a spanning ladder L n which corresponds to a spanning anti-directed ladder L n in D. 3

4 Overview Note that Observation 9 also implies that Theorem 4 holds asymptotically. To get the exact result, we use the now common stability technique where we split the proof into two cases depending on whether D is close to an extremal configuration or not (see Figure 1b). If D is close to an extremal configuration, then we use some ad-hoc techniques which rely on the exact minimum semidegree condition and if D is not close to an extremal configuration then we use the recent absorbing method of Rödl, Ruciński, and Szemerédi (as opposed to the regularity/blow-up method). To formally say what we mean by close to an extremal configuration we need the following definition. Definition 10. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices. We say D is α-extremal if there exists A, B V (D) such that (1 α)n A, B (1 + α)n and + (A, B) αn and (B, A) αn. This definition is more restrictive than simply bounding the number of edges, thus it will help make the extremal case less messy. However, a non-extremal set still has many edges from A to B. Observation 11. Let 0 < α 1. Suppose D is not α-extremal, then for A, B V (D) with (1 α/)n A, B (1 + α/)n, we have e(a, B) α n. Proof. Let A, B V (D) with (1 α/)n A, B (1 + α/)n. Since D is not α-extremal, there is some vertex v A with deg + (v, B) αn or v B with deg (v, A) αn. Either way, we get at least αn edges. Now delete v, and apply the argument again to get another αn edges. We may repeat this until A or B drops below (1 α)n, i.e. for at least α n steps. This gives us at least α n edges in total. Finally, we make two more observations which will be useful when working with non-extremal graphs. Observation 1. Let 0 < λ α 1 and let D be a directed graph on n vertices. If D is not α-extremal and X V (D) with X λn, then D = D X is not (α λ)-extremal. Proof. Let A, B V (D ) V (D) with (1 α + λ) D A, B (1 + α λ) D. Note that (1 α)n (1 α + λ)(1 λ)n (1 α + λ) D A, B (1 + α λ) D (1 + α)n thus there exists v A such that deg + (v, B ) αn (α λ) D or v B such that deg (v, A ) αn (α λ) D. Lemma 13. Let X, Y V (D). If e(x, Y ) c X Y, then there exists (i) X X, Y Y such that X Y = and δ + (X, Y ) c 8 Y, δ (Y, X ) c 8 X and (ii) a proper anti-directed path in D[X Y ] on at least c 4 min{ X, Y } vertices. 4

5 Proof. (i) Let X = X \ Y and Y = Y \ X. Delete all edges not in E(X, Y ). Choose a partition {X, Y } of X Y which maximizes e(x X, Y Y ) and set X 0 = X X and Y 0 = Y Y. Note that e(x 0 ) + e(y 0 ) + e(x 0, Y 0 ) + e(y 0, X 0 ) = e(x, Y ). We have that e(x 0 ) = deg + (v, X 0 ) = deg (v, X 0 ) deg + (v, Y 0 ) e(x 0, Y 0 ) v X 0 v X v X where the inequality holds since if deg (v, X 0 ) > deg + (v, Y 0 ) for some v X, then we could move v to Y and increase the number of edges across the partition. Similarly, e(x 0, Y 0 ) e(y 0 ). Thus e(x 0, Y 0 ) 1 4 e(x, Y ) c 4 X Y. If there exists v X 0 such that deg + (v, Y 0 ) < c 8 Y or v Y 0 such that deg (v, X 0 ) < c 8 X, then delete v and set X 1 = X 0 \ {v} and Y 1 = Y 0 \ {v}. Repeat this process until there no vertices left to delete. This process must end with a non-empty graph because fewer than X c 8 Y + Y c 8 X = c 4 X Y edges are deleted in this process. Finally, let X and Y be the sets of vertices which remain after the process ends. (ii) Apply Lemma 13.(i) to obtain sets X X, Y Y such that X Y = and δ + (X, Y ) c 8 Y and δ (Y, X ) c 8 Y. Let G be an auxiliary bipartite graph on X, Y with E(G) = {{x, y} : (x, y) E(X, Y )}. Note that δ(g) c 8 min{ X, Y } and thus G contains a path on at least δ(g) c 4 min{ X, Y } vertices, which starts in X. This path contains a proper anti-directed path in D on at least c 4 min{ X, Y } vertices. 3 Non-extremal Case In this section we will prove that if D satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4 and D is not α-extremal, then D has an ADHC. We actually prove a stronger statement which in some sense shows that the extremal condition is stable, i.e. graphs which do not satisfy the extremal condition do not require the tight minimum semi-degree condition. Theorem 14. For any α (0, 1/3) there exists ε > 0 and n 0 such if D = (V, E) is a directed graph on n n 0 vertices, D is not α-extremal and δ 0 (D) (1 ε)n, then D contains an anti-directed Hamiltonian cycle. Lemma 15. For all 0 < ɛ β λ α 1 there exists n 0 such that if n n 0, D is a directed graph on n vertices, δ 0 (D) (1 ε)n, and D is not α-extremal, then there exists a proper anti-directed path P with P λn such that for all W V (D) \ V (P ) with w := W βn, D[V (P ) W ] contains a spanning proper anti-directed path with the same endpoints as P. Lemma 16. For all 0 < ɛ β λ α 1 there exists n 0 such that if n n 0, D is a directed graph on n vertices, δ 0 (D) (1 ε)n, D is not α-extremal, and P is a proper anti-directed path with P λn, then D contains an anti-directed cycle on at least ( β)n vertices which contains P as a segment. 5

6 First we use Lemma 15 and Lemma 16 to prove Theorem 14. Proof. Let α (0, 1/3) and choose 0 < ɛ β λ σ α. Let n 0 be large enough for Lemma 15 and Lemma 16. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices with δ 0 (D) (1 ε)n. Apply Lemma 15 to obtain an anti-directed path P having the stated property. Now apply Lemma 16 to obtain an anti-directed cycle C which contains P as a segment. Let W = D C and note that since C is an anti-directed cycle, C is even which implies W is even, since D is even. Finally apply the property of P to the set W to obtain an ADHC in D. 3.1 Absorbing To prove Lemma 15 we will use the following more general statement. Lemma 17. Let m, d N, a > 0, b (0, a d ) and c ( 0, b ( a d b)). There exists n 0 such that when V is a set of order n n 0 the following holds. For every S ( V m), let f(s) be a subset of V d. Call T V d a good tuple if T f(s) for some S ( ) V m. If f(s) an d for every S ( V m) then there exists a set F of at most bn/d good tuples such that f(s) F cn for every S ( V m) and the images of distinct elements of F are disjoint. Proof. Pick ε > 0 so that (1 + a)ε < ab d b c. Let b := b d, p := b ε and c := c + (d + 1)p. Let F be a random subset of V d where each T V d is selected independently with probability pn 1 d. Let { ( ) } V O := {T, T d } : im(t ) im(t ) and O F := O ( ) F. We only need to show that, for sufficiently large n 0, with positive probability O F < (d +1)p n, F < b n and f(s) F > c n for every S ( V m). We can then remove at most (d + 1)p n tuples from such a set F so that the images of the remaining tuples are disjoint. After also removing every T F for which there is no S ( V m) for which f(s) = T, the resulting set F will satisfy the conditions of the lemma. Clearly, O n d n d = d n d 1, and for any {T, T } ( V d E[ O F ] < d p n. So, by Markov inequality, ), Pr({T, T } F ) = p n d. Therefore, by the linearity of expectation, Pr ( O F (d + 1)p n ) d d + 1. Note that E[ F ] = pn and pn E[ f(s) F ] apn for every S ( V m). Therefore, by the Chernoff inequality, Pr( F b n) e εn/3 and, since ap c = ab d aε (d + 1) ( b d ε 6 ) c ab d b c aε > ε,

7 Pr( F f(s) c n) < e εn/3 for every S ( V m). Therefore, for sufficiently large n0, Pr ( O F (d + 1)p ) + Pr( F b n) + Pr( F f(s) c n) < 1. S ( V m) Let P := V {(x, x) : x V }. For any (x, y) P, call (a, b, c, d) V 4 an (x, y)-absorber if abcd is a proper anti-directed path and axcbyd is a proper anti-directed path (see Figure ) and call (a, b) V an (x, y)-connector if xaby is an anti-directed path where (a, b) is an edge (note that specifying one edge dictates the directions of all the other edges). Note that if (x, x), (y, y ) E(D) and (a, b) is an (x, y)-connector disjoint from {x, y } then x xabyy is an anti-directed path. For all (x, y) P, let f abs (x, y) = {T V 4 : T is an (x, y)-absorber} and f con (x, y) = {T V : T is an (x, y)-connector}. x a b c d y a x c b y d Figure : (a, b, c, d) is an (x, y)-absorber Claim 18. Let D satisfy the conditions of Lemma 15. For all (x, y) P we have (i) f abs (x, y) α 1 n 4 and (ii) f con (x, y) α 3 n. Proof. Let (x, y) P and let A = N (x) and B = N + (y). (i) By Observation 11 and Lemma 13, there exists A A and B B such that A B = and δ + (A, B ), δ (B, A ) α 16 (1 ε)n α3 n + 1. For all (c, b) E(A, B ), we have N (b) A α 3 n + 1 and N + (c) B α 3 n + 1. So there are more than (α 3 n) choices for (b, c), α 3 n choices for a and α 3 n choices for d, i.e. f abs (x, y) α 1 n 4. (ii) Similarly, by Observation 11, we have e(a, B) α n α 3 n, each of which is a connector. Claim 19 (Connecting-Reservoir). For all 0 < γ α and D D such that D ( λ)n, there exists a set of pairwise disjoint ordered pairs R such that if R = (a,b) R {a, b}, then R V (D ), R γn and for all distinct x, y V (D), f con (x, y) R γ n. 7

8 Proof. For every (x, y) P {(a, b) f con (x, y) : a, b V (D )} f con (x, y) D D n α 3 n /. Therefore, we can apply Lemma 17 to obtain a set R of disjoint good ordered pairs such that R γn/ and f con (x, y) R γα 3 n/4 γ n γ n and R V (D ). Now we prove Lemma 15. Proof. Since f abs (x, y) P(V ) α 1 n 4 we apply Lemma 17 to D obtain a set A of disjoint good 4-tuples {A 1,..., A l } such that A λn/8 and f abs (x, y) A λα 1 n/8 (λ/) n λ n. Let A = (a,b,c,d) A {a, b, c, d} and note that A λn/. Let (a i, b i, c i, d i ) := A i for every i [l], so a i b i c i d i is a proper ADP. Note that there are less than A n ordered pairs that contain a vertex from A, so since λ α, we can greedily choose vertex disjoint (x i, y i ) f con (d i, a i+1 ) for each i [l 1] such that x i, y i / A. Set P := A 1 x 1 y 1 A x y A... A l 1 x l 1 y l 1 A l and note that P λn and P is a proper ADP. To see that P has the desired property, let W V \ V (P ) such that w = W βn. Arbitrarily partition W into pairs and since β λ, we can greedily match the disjoint pairs from W with 4-tuples in A. By the way we have defined an (x, y)-absorber, D[V (P ) W ] contains a spanning proper anti-directed path starting with an out-edge from a 1 and ending with an in-edge to d l. 3. Covering The main challenge in the proof of Lemma 16 is to show that if a maximum length anti-directed path is not long enough, then we can build a constant number of vertex disjoint anti-directed paths whose total length is sufficiently larger. Claim 0. Under the conditions of Lemma 16, suppose P is a proper anti-directed path with P λn. For all R V (D P ) with R β n, if P is a proper anti-directed path in D R with beginning segment P such that P < ( β)n, then there exist disjoint proper anti-directed paths Q 1,..., Q r D R, such that r 6, Q 1 contains P as an initial segment and 1 Q 1 + Q r P + ε 4 log n. First we show how this implies Lemma 16. Proof. Let n be large enough so that we can apply Claim 19 and so that if m := 1 4 log n, then n 4mm ε β and m > 10β 4 ε 1. (1) Let P be a proper anti-directed path with P λn. Let D = D P. Now apply Claim 19 to D with γ = β to get R and R such that f con (x, y) R β 4 n for every (x, y) P and R β n. 8

9 Let P be a maximum length proper anti-directed path in D R that begins with P. If P < ( β)n, then we apply Claim 0. Now connect Q 1,..., Q r into a longer path using at most 5 pairs from R. Delete these vertices from R and reset R. We may repeat this process as long as there are sufficiently many pairs remaining in R. On each step, f con (x, y) R may be reduced by at most 5. However, in less than n εm steps, we will have a path of length greater than ( β)n in which case we would be done. By (1), 5 n εm < β4 n, so we can repeat the process sufficiently many times. Once we have a path P with P ( β)n, we use one more pair from R to connect the endpoints of P to form an anti-directed cycle C, which is possible since P is even. Note that C contains P as a segment by construction. Proof of Claim 0. Let n and m be as in (1). Let P be a maximum length proper ADP in D R containing P as an initial segment. Let ˆP be the shortest segment of P immediately following P so that P := v 1... v p = P (P ˆP ) is a multiple of m; thus ˆP < m. Set T := V \(V (P ) V (R)), and P i := v m(i 1)+1... v mi for i [s] where s := p m (which is an integer by the choice of ˆP ). Note that P i = m for every i [s]. Assume T > βn R > βn/. Claim 1. Let c (ε 1, 1), d [ε, 1 + c), and b := (1 + c d)m. If e(t, P i ) (1 + c)m T, then there exists X i V (P i ) and Y i T such that X i = b, Y i m and X i N + (y) for every y Y i. In particular, D[V (P i ) T ] contains a proper anti-directed path on b vertices. Proof. Let T = {v T : deg + (v, P i ) b} and since (1 + c)m T e(t, P i ) ( T T )(b 1) + T (m b + 1) T (1 + c d)m + T m we have T d T. Together with (1) this gives us T d ( m T ε βn/ m m > m b which by the pigeonhole principle implies that there exists X i V (P i ) with X i = b and Y i T such that Y i m and X i N H (y) for every y Y i. By Claim 1, if e(t, P i ) (1 + ε) T m there exists a proper anti-directed path Q 3 of length (1 + ε ε )m > ( + ε)m in D[T P i ]. Letting Q 1 := P ˆP P1 P i 1 and Q := P i+1 P q then satisfies the condition of the lemma. Therefore, we can assume that, e(t, P i ) < (1 + ε) T m for every i [s]. () ), We can also assume that e(t, T ) < ε T. (3) Otherwise by Lemma 13.(ii) there exists a proper anti-directed path Q of length ε 4 T εm in D[T ]. Then Q 1 := P and Q satisfy the condition of the lemma. 9

10 So (3) implies that e(t, P ) (1 ε)n T ( P + ˆP + R ) T e(t, T ) (1 ε λ β )n T m T ε T (1 λ)n T (4) Let λ σ α and let I := {i [s] : e(t, P i ) (1 σ) T m}. By () and (4), (1 λ)n T e(t, P ) (1 σ)m(s I ) T + (1 + ε)m I T (1 σ)n T + (σ + ε)m I T which implies that m I σ λ σ+ε n > (1 α )n. Also note that n P / m I. For every i I, let X i P i and Y i T be the sets guaranteed by Claim 1 with c := σ, d := σ and b := (1 σ)m. Let Z i := V (P i ) \ X i for i [I] and let Z := i I Z i. Note that Z i = m b for every i I so Z = (m b) I and ( 1 + α ) n > (1 + σ)n (m b) I m I > Therefore by Observation 11, e(z, Z) α Z. Because α e(z, Z) Z = 1 I i I j I e(z i, Z j ) (m b), ( 1 α ) n. there exists i, j I such that e(z i, Z j ) α (m b) /. Removing P i and P j divides P into three disjoint proper anti-directed paths (note that some of these paths may be empty). Label these paths Q 1, Q and Q 3 so that P ˆP Q1. By Lemma 13.(ii) there exists a proper anti-directed path Q 4 of length at least (α /8)(m b) (α /8)m in D[Z i Z j ]. By Claim 1, there also exists a proper anti-directed path Q 5 D[X i Y i ] such that Q 5 (1 σ)m. If i = j then Q 4 D[Z i ] and Q 1 + Q + Q 3 = P m. Therefore it is enough to observe that Q 4 + Q 5 (1 σ)m + (α /8)m m + εm. If i j, then Y j := Y j \ V (Q 4 ) has order at least m b m. So there exists a proper antidirected path Q 6 D[X j Y j ] such that Q 6 (1 σ)m. Since Q 1 + Q + Q 3 = P 4m and Q 4 + Q 5 + Q 6 4(1 σ)m + (α /8)m 4m + εm, the proof is complete. 4 Extremal Case Let 0 < α β γ 1. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices with δ 0 (D) n + 1 and suppose that D satisfies the extremal condition with parameter α. We will first partition V (D) in the preprocessing section, then we will handle the main proof. In this section we sometime use uv to denote the edge (u, v). 10

11 4.1 Preprocessing The point of this section is to make the following statement precise: If D satisfies the extremal condition, then D is very similar to the digraph in Figure 1b. Proposition. If there exists an α-extreme pair of sets A, B V (G), then there exists a partition {X 1, X, Y 1, Y, Z} of V (G) such that (i) Z 3α /3 n, X 1 X, Y 1 Y 3α/3 n and (ii) δ 0 (X 3 i, X i ), δ (Y 3 i, X i ), δ+ (Y i, X i ) X i α1/3 n and δ 0 (Y i, Y i ), δ (X i, Y i ), δ+ (X 3 i, Y i ) Y 1 α1/3 n for i = 1,. Proof. Let A, B V (D) such that (1 α)n A, B (1+α)n, + (A, B) αn, and (B, A) αn. We have that δ + (A, B) (1 α)n, and (5) δ (B, A) (1 α)n. (6) Set X 1 = V \(A B), X = A B, Ỹ1 = A\B, Ỹ = B \A. Note that Ỹ1 X = A and Ỹ X = B. Therefore, Ỹ1 Ỹ αn, and X 1 X αn, because X 1 X = V A B. Let Ŷ 1 = {v Ỹ1 : deg (v, X ) < X α 1/3 n or deg (v, Ỹ1) < Ỹ1 α 1/3 n}, Ŷ = {v Ỹ : deg + (v, X ) < X α 1/3 n or deg + (v, Ỹ) < Ỹ α 1/3 n}, ˆX 1 = {v X 1 : deg (v, Ỹ1) < Ỹ1 α 1/3 n or deg + (v, Ỹ) < Ỹ α 1/3 n or deg 0 (v, X ) < X α 1/3 n}, ˆB = Ŷ1 ˆX 1 and  = Ŷ ˆX 1. Note that ˆB B and  A. Now we show that each of these sets are small. Claim 3. Ŷ1, Ŷ, ˆX 1 α /3 n and Ŷ1 + Ŷ + ˆX 1 3α /3 n Proof. By (5) and the definition of ˆX1, Ŷ1, we have Ỹ1 X (1 α)n = A (1 α)n e(a, B) ( B ˆB ) A + ˆB ( A α 1/3 n) This implies Ŷ1 ˆX 1 = ˆB A ( B (1 α)n) α 1/3 n (1 + α)n((1 + α)n (1 α)n) α 1/3 n = (1 + α)α /3 n Now using (6), the same calculation (with the symbol A exchanged with the symbol B) gives that Ŷ ˆX 1 =  (1 + α)α/3 n. Thus Ŷ1 + Ŷ + ˆX 1 (1 + α)α /3 n 3α /3 n. Let X 1 = X 1 \ ˆX 1, X = X, Y i = Ỹi \ Ŷi for i = 1,, and Z = ˆX 1 Ŷ1 Ŷ. Note that Z 3α /3 n and X 1 X, Y 1 Y αn + α/3 n < 3α /3 n. The required degree conditions all follow from (5) and (6); the definitions of ˆX1, Ŷ1 and Ŷ; and Claim 3. 11

12 4. Finding the ADHC The following facts immediately follow from the Chernoff bound for the hypergeometric distribution [13]. Lemma 4. For any ε > 0, there exists n 0 such that if D is a digraph on n n 0 vertices, S V (D), m S and c := m/ S then there exists T S of order m such that for every v V N ± (v) T c N ± (v) S εn N ± (v) (S \ T ) (1 c) N ± (v) S εn. and We will need the following theorem and corollary. Theorem 5 (Moon, Moser [14]). If G is a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices such that for every 1 k n/4 there are less than k vertices v such that deg(v) k then G has a Hamiltonian cycle. Corollary 6. Let G be a U, V -bipartite graph on n vertices such that n is sufficiently large and 0 U V 1 and let C 3 be a positive integer. If n is even, let a U and b V and if n is odd, let a, b U. If δ(g) > C and deg(v) > n/5 for all but at most C vertices v then G has a Hamiltonian path with ends a and b. Proof. If n is even then iteratively pick v 0 N(b) a, v 1 N(v 0 ) b and v N(a) b v 1 and set R = {a, b, v 0, v 1, v }. If n is odd then iteratively pick v 1 N(a) and v N(b) v 1. and set R = {a, b, v 1, v }. In both cases, we can select v 1, v to have degree greater than n/5. Applying Theorem 5 to the graph formed by removing R from the graph and adding a new vertex to V which is adjacent to N(v 1 ) N(v ) \ R completes the proof. Looking ahead (in what will be the main case), we are going to distribute vertices from Z to the sets X 1, X, Y 1, Y to make sets X 1, X, Y 1, Y. Then we are going to partition each of the sets X 1 = X1 1 X 1, X = X 1 X, Y 1 = Y1 1 Y 1, and Y = Y 1 Y (so that each set is approximately split in half). Then we are going to look at the bipartite graphs induced by edges from X 1 Y 1 1 to X1 1 Y 1 and from X 1 Y to X Y 1 respectively (see Figure 3). By the degree conditions for X 1, X, Y 1, Y, these bipartite graphs will be nearly complete, however we must be sure that the vertices from Z each have degree at least γn in the bipartite graph. This next claim shows that the vertices of Z can be distributed so that this condition is satisfied. Definition 7. For z Z and A, B {X 1, X, Y 1, Y }, we say z Z(A, B) if deg+ (z, B) 5γn and deg (z, A) 5γn. Claim 8. Every vertex in Z belongs to at least one of the following sets: (i) Z(X i, X i ), (ii) Z(Y i, Y i ), (iii) Z(X i, X 3 i ), 1

13 X 1 n k Y 1 X 1 1 X 1 Y V 1 k n k n k k U Y 1 k Y k X n k U k n k n k 1 k Y 1 1 X 1 X Y 1 V Figure 3: The objective partition. (iv) Z(Y i, Y (v) Z 1 := (vi) Z := 3 i ), 1 i,j 1 i,j Z(Y i, X j) or Z(X i, Y j ). Proof. Let v Z and suppose that v is in none of the sets (i) (iv). Note that v must have at least (n Z )/4 out-neighbors in some set A {X 1, X, Y 1, Y }. Assume A = X i for some i = 1,. Because of the degree condition and the fact that v is in none of the sets (i) (iv), we have deg (v, Y 1 Y ) n 10γn Z (1 11γ)n, which implies deg + (v, X 1 X ) n 10γn Z (1 11γ)n. This implies, X 1 X n, Y 1 Y n 11γn. With Proposition, we have that (1/ 6γ)n X 1, X, Y 1, Y (1/ + 6γ)n so v Z 1. If A = Y i for some i = 1,, the previous argument (with the symbol X exchanged with the symbol Y ) gives us that v Z. Since a vertex may be in multiple sets (i) (vi), we arbitrarily pick one set for each vertex if necessary. Now we distribute vertices from Z. Procedure 9. (Distributing the vertices from Z) For 1 i, set X i := X i Z(X 3 i, X 3 i ) Z(Y i, Y 3 i ) and Y i := Y i Z(Y i, Y i ) Z(X 3 i, X i ) Z i. By Claim 8, {X 1, X, Y 1, Y } is a partition of V. (We allow empty sets in our partitions). Note that the vertices from Z 1 Z have no obvious place to be distributed, thus our choice is arbitrary. Call a partition of a set into two parts nearly balanced if the sizes of the two part differ by at most βn. Call a partition 1 i,j {Xj i, Y j i } of V a splitting of D if {X1 i, X i } is a nearly balanced partition of X i and {Yi 1, Y i } is a nearly balanced partition of Y i. Define U i := X3 i i Y i i and V i := Xi i Y i 3 i (see Figure 3). Note that, with Proposition, A n/ 3βn for any A 13

14 {U 1, U, V 1, V }. Furthermore, if u U i \Z, by Proposition, deg + (u, X i Y i ) X i Y i 4α1/3, so deg + (u, V i ) V i 4α 1/3 Z V i βn. (7) Similarly, if v V i \ Z, then deg (v, U i ) U i βn. (8) Let G be the bipartite graph on vertex sets U := U 1 U, V := V 1 V such that {u, v} E(G) if and only if u U, v V, and (u, v) E(D). Let G i := G[U i, V i ] and Q i = {v V (G i ) : deg G (v) < (1 γ)n/}. Call a splitting good if δ(g i ) γn and Q i βn for i 1,. If x X i is mapped to some X j i we say that x is preassigned to Xj i. Similarly, if y Y i is mapped to some Y j i y is preassigned to Y j i. we say that Claim 30. If P is a set of preassigned vertices such that P βn and for all 1 i, j, x j i and y j i are non-negative integers such that: (i) x j i and yj i are at least as large as the number of vertices preassigned to Xj i and Y j i respectively; (ii) x 1 i + x i = X i and y 1 i + y i = Y i ; and (iii) X i / x j i, Y i / y j i βn then there exists a good splitting of V such that X j i = xj i in its preassigned set. and Y j i = yj i and every vertex in P is Proof. We can split X i \ P and Y i \ P so that, after adding every vertex in P to its preassigned set, X j i = xj j i and Yi = yj i. When X i 5γn, by Lemma 4, we can also ensure that for every v V, N ± (v) X j i N ± (v) (X i \ P ) xj i P X i \ P αn ( N ± (v) X i βn ) (1/ βn/ X i ) αn N ± (v) X i / γn, since β/5γ γ. By a similar calculation, if Y i 5γn we can partition Y i so that N ± (v) Y j i N ± (v) Y i / γn for every v V. Let v V (G i ) for some i {1, }. If v Z, by the previous calculation, Claim 8 and Procedure 9, d Gi (v) γn. If v / Z, by 7 and 8, d Gi (v) (1 γ)n/. Therefore, δ(g i ) γn and Q i βn. Proposition 31. If there exists a good splitting of D and two independent edges uv and u v such that either (i) u U 1, v V, u U, v V 1 and U i = V 3 i for i = 1, ; or (ii) there exists i = 1, such that u, u U i, v, v V 3 i, U i = V i + 1 and V 3 i = U 3 i + 1 then D contains an ADHC. 14

15 Proof. Apply Corollary 6 to get a Hamiltonian path P i in G i so that the ends of P 1 and P are the vertices {u, u, v, v }. These paths and the edges uv and u v correspond to an ADHC in D. Note that the edges uv and u v played a special role in the previous proposition. Now we discuss what properties these edges must have and how we can find them (this will be the bottleneck of the proof in each case and is the only place where the exact degree condition will be needed). Definition 3. Let uv be an edge in D. We call uv a connecting edge if for some i = 1,, u X i and either v X i or v Y i ; or u Y i and either v Y 3 i or v X 3 i. Basically, connecting edges are edges which do not behave like edges in the graph shown in Figure 1b. The following simple equations are used to help find connecting edges and follow directly from the degree condition. For any A V and v A deg 0 (v, A) n + 1 A (9) deg 0 (v, A) n + 1 ( A 1) = n + A. (10) At this point, we take different routes depending on the order of the sets Y 1 and Y. Case 1: min{ Y 1, Y } > βn Claim 33. For each i = 1,, there exists a partition of X i as {Xi 1, X i } with X1 i X i αn and W i := Y i X1 i Xi such that either (i) W 1, W are odd and there are two independent connecting edges directed from W j to W 3 j for some j = 1, ; or (ii) W 1, W are even and there are two independent connecting edges, one directed from W 1 to W and the other directed from W to W 1. Proof. Without loss of generality suppose X 1 Y 1 X Y. By the case, we can choose distinct u, u Y 1. By (10), deg 0 (u, X Y ), deg 0 (u, X Y ). Thus we can choose distinct v N + (u) (X Y ) and v N + (u ) (X Y ). For i = 1,, let {Xi 1, X i } be a partition of X i such that Xi 1 X i αn and W i := Y i X1 i Xi with u, u W 1 and v, v W. If this can be done so that W 1 and W are odd then we are done, so suppose not. Then it must be the case that X 1 = and X {v, v }. Hence, W 1 = Y 1 and W = X Y. Suppose W 1 W, by (10) we have deg 0 (w, W 1 ) for all w W. In this case we choose u Y \ {v} and then v N + (u ) (W 1 \{u}) giving us the desired connecting edges uv and u v. So suppose W 1 < W, which implies deg 0 (w, W ) 3 for all w W 1 by (10). Let v W 1 \ {u} and u N (v ) (W \ (X {v})) (recall X {v, v } ) giving us the desired connecting edges uv and u v. By Claim 33 and Proposition for i = 1, we have X i 1 Xi αn + 3α/3 n. So since Y i βn we can assume that after we apply Claim 30, U i V i 1. Let uv and u v be the connecting edges from Claim 33. Suppose Claim 33.(i) holds and fix i {1, } so that u, u W i and v, v W 3 i. Preassign u, u, v and v so that, after splitting D 15

16 with Proposition 30, u, u U i and v, v V 3 i. Since W 1 and W are odd, we can ensure that U i = V i +1 and V 3 i = U 3 i +1. We can then apply Proposition 31.(ii) to find an ADHC. Now suppose Claim 33.(ii) holds and let u, v W 1, v, u W so that uv and u v are the connecting edges. Preassign u, u, v and v so that, after splitting D with Proposition 30, u U 1,v V, u U and v V 1. Since W 1 and W are even, we can apply Proposition 31.(i) to find an ADHC. Note about Theorem 6: We can either find a partition {W 1, W } so that W 1 and W are even in which case we find a spanning ADC in both subgraphs. If W 1 and W are odd and without loss of generality W 1 W, we try to find two independent connecting edges from W 1 to W and then construct an ADHC. Otherwise, by the degree condition, there exist two vertices in W 1 with a common out-neighbor z W. We can use this extra vertex z to find a spanning ADC of W 1 {z} and a spanning ADC of W \ {z}. Case : min{ Y 1, Y } βn Without loss of generality, suppose X 1 X. If X 1 > n, then let X 1 {v X 1 : deg (v, X 1 ) 5γn} be as large as possible subject to X 1 X 1 n. Reset X 1 := X 1 \ X 1 and, because deg (v, X 1 ) 5γn and deg + (v, X ) 5γn for every v X 1, reset Y := Y X 1. By Proposition, X 1 n + α/3 and Z 3α /3, thus X 1 5α3/ βn. Therefore, the conclusions of Claim 30 still hold with the redefined sets {X 1, X, Y 1, Y }. Case.1: X 1 n. If X 1 Y 1 = X Y = n, then choose u X 1 and u X. By (9), we have deg 0 (u, X 1 Y 1 ), deg 0 (u, X Y ) 1, so choose v N + (u) (X 1 Y 1 ) and v N + (u ) (X Y ). Preassign u to X1, u to X 1 and v, v so that v V 1 and v V. Because X 1 {u, v}, X {u, v } n, we can apply Claim 30, so that U 1 + V = U + V 1 = n, U 1 = V 1 and U = V. Applying Proposition 31.(i) then gives the desired ADHC. Now suppose X i Y i > X 3 i Y 3 i for some i = 1,. By (9), deg 0 (u, X i Y i ) for all u X i Y i. Let u, u X i and choose distinct v N + (u) (X i Y i ) and v N + (u ) (X i Y i ) with a preference for choosing v and v in X i. Note that if X i = n, then, by (9), deg + (u, X i ) 1. So we can assume, in all cases, that X i {u, u, v, v } n + 1. Therefore, after preassigning u, u to Xi 3 i and v, v to Xi i 3 i or Yi as appropriate, we can apply Claim 30 to get U 3 i + V i = n + 1, U 3 i = V 3 i + 1 and V i = U i + 1. Applying Proposition 31.(ii) then completes this case. Case.: X 1 n + 1. Definition 34. A star with k-leaves in which every edge is oriented away from the center is called a k-out star. A star with k-leaves in which every edge is oriented towards the center is called a k-in star. Lemma 35. Let G be a directed graph on n vertices and let d 1. (G) D, then G has at least n disjoint -in-stars. d 3(d+D) If δ + (G) d + 1 and Proof. Let M be a maximum collection of m vertex disjoint -in stars and let L = V (G) \ V (M). Note that v L deg+ (v, L) L = n 3m otherwise v L deg (v, L) = v L deg+ (v, L) > L would give a -in star disjoint from M. Thus d(n 3m) (d + 1)(n 3m) v L deg + (v, L) e(l, M) 3mD 16

17 which gives m d 3(d+D) n. Set d = X 1 n and recall that d βn. By (9), δ + (D[X 1 ]) d + 1. By the case, X 1 X 1 =, so d (D[X 1 ]) < 5γn and 3d+15γn n d + 1. Applying Lemma 35 gives {S 1,..., S d+1 } a collection of d+1 vertex disjoint -in stars in D[X 1 ]. Let uv and u v be one edge in S d and S d+1 respectively. Preassign the vertices in S 1,..., S d 1 and the vertices u and u to X1. Also, preassign v and v to X1 1. Recall that X1 1 X 1 U V 1, so we can use Claim 30, to get a good splitting of D such that U = n/ + d, V 1 = n/, V = n/ d + 1 and U 1 = n/ 1. We then use Corollary 6, to find a Hamiltonian path P 1 in G 1 with ends v and v. We now move the roots of the stars S 1,..., S d 1 from U to V and then use Corollary 6 to complete the proof. More explicitly, we greedily find a matching M between the leaves of the stars S 1,..., S d 1 and the vertices in V of degree at least (1 γ)n/ in G. For each 1 i d 1, let a i and b i be the vertices matched to the leaves of S i and replace V (S i ) {a i, b i } in G with a new vertex adjacent to N G (a i ) N G (b i ) minus the vertices of the stars. Apply Corollary 6 to get a Hamiltonian path P in the resulting graph with ends u and u. The stars S 1,..., S d 1 ; the edges in M; the paths P 1 and P ; and the edges uv and u v correspond to an ADHC in D. Note about Theorem 6: If X 1 = n + 1, then we find two 1-stars (i.e. connecting edges) instead of -stars. If X 1 n +, then we do the same thing as above. Furthermore, provided X 1 n we don t need connecting edges in Case because here we will find two ADC s which span D instead of an ADHC. 5 Conclusion We end with the following conjecture which along with Theorem 4 would provide a full generalization of Dirac s theorem to directed graphs with respect to minimum semi-degree. Conjecture 36. Let D be a directed graph on n vertices and let C be an orientation of a cycle on n vertices. If δ 0 (D) n, then C D unless C is anti-directed. We believe that the methods developed in this paper along with the ideas in [10] and [11] provide an approach to this problem. We intend to carry out this program in a subsequent paper. References [1] A. Busch, M. Jacobson, T. Morris, M. Plantholt, S. Tipnis, Improved Sufficient Conditions for the Existence of Anti-Directed Hamiltonian Cycles in Digraphs. to appear in Graphs and Combinatorics. [] M.C. Cai, A counterexample to a conjecture of Grant. Discrete Math., 44 (1), 111, (1983). [3] H. Chernoff, A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 3 no. 4, , (195).. 17

18 [4] A. Cyzgrinow, H.A.Kierstead, -factors in dense bipartite graphs. Discrete Math., 57 no., , (00). [5] R. Diestel, Graph Theory, 4th Edition, Springer (010). [6] G.A. Dirac, Some theorems on abstract graphs. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., (3), 69 81, (195). [7] A. Diwan, J. Frye, M. Plantholt, S. Tipnis, A sufficient condition for the existence of an anti-directed -factor in a directed graph. Discrete Math., 311 (011), no. 1, [8] A. Ghouila-Houri, Une condition suffisante d existence d un circuit hamiltonian. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 51, , (1960). [9] D.D. Grant, Antidirected hamiltonian cycles in digraphs. Ars Combin., 10, 05 09, (1980). [10] R. Häggkvist, A. Thomason, Oriented Hamilton cycles in digraphs. J. Graph Theory 19 (4), , (1995). [11] R. Häggkvist, A. Thomason, Oriented Hamilton cycles in oriented graphs. In Combinatorics, geometry and probability, Cambridge Univ. Press (1997), [1] I. Levitt, G.N. Sárközy, E. Szemerédi, How to avoid using the regularity lemma: Pósa s conjecture revisited. Discrete Math. 310 (010), no. 3, [13] S. Janson, T. Luczak, A. Rucinski, Random graphs, Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 000. [14] J. Moon, L. Moser, On Hamiltonian bipartite graphs. Israel J. Math. 1 (1963), no. 3, , [15] M. Plantholt, S. Tipnis, Vertex-oriented Hamilton cycles in directed graphs. Electron. J. Combin. 16 no. 1, Research Paper 115, 7pp., (009). [16] C. Thomassen, Antidirected Hamilton circuits and paths in tournaments. Math. Ann., , (1973). 18