arxiv: v1 [cs.dm] 27 Jun 2017 Darko Dimitrov a, Zhibin Du b, Carlos M. da Fonseca c,d

Transcription

1 Forbidden branches in trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index Agst 23, 2018 arxi: [cs.dm] 27 Jn 2017 Darko Dimitro a, Zhibin D b, Carlos M. da Fonseca c,d a Hochschle für Technik nd Wirtschaft Berlin, Germany & Faclty of Information Stdies, Noo Mesto, Sloenia darko.dimitro11@gmail.com b School of Mathematics and Statistics, Zhaoqing Uniersity Zhaoqing , China zhibind@126.com c Department of Mathematics, Kwait Uniersity Safat 13060, Kwait carlos@sci.kni.ed.kw d Department of Mathematics, Uniersity of Primorska Glagoljsaška 8, 6000 Koper, Sloenia carlos.dafonseca@famnit.pr.si Abstract The atom-bond connectiity (ABC) index has been, in recent years, one of the most actiely stdied ertex-degree-based graph inariants in chemical graph theory. For a gien graph G, the ABC index is defined as d()+d()2 E d()d(), where d() is the degree of ertex in G and E(G) denotes the set of edges of G. In this paper we present some new strctral properties of trees with a minimal ABC index (also refer to as a minimal- ABC tree), which is a step frther towards nderstanding their complete characterization. We show that a minimal-abc tree cannot simltaneosly contain a B 4 -branch and B 1 or B 2 -branches. Keywords: Atom-bond connectiity index; tree; extremal graphs 1

2 2 1 Introdction and preliminaries Let G = (V, E) be a simple ndirected graph with n ertices. For V, the degree of, denoted by d(), is the nmber of edges incident to. In 1998, Estrada, Torres, Rodrígez and Gtman [21] proposed a ertex-degree-based graph topological index - the atom-bond connectiity (ABC) index - defined as ABC(G) = f(d(), d()), E where f(d(), d()) = d() + d() 2. (1) d()d() It was shown that the ABC index can be a alable predictie tool in the stdy of heat formation in alkanes. Ten years later, Estrada elaborated in [20] an innoatie qantm-theory-like explanation of this topological index. Incontestably, this topic has triggered tremendos interest in both mathematical and chemical research commnities, leading to a nmber of reslts that incorporate the strctral properties and the comptational aspects of the graphs with extremal properties [1 5, 7 11, 14 18, 22 25, 27, 29 31, 35, 36, 38 40, 42 44, 46]. On the other hand, the physico-chemical applicability of the ABC index has also been confirmed and extended in seeral other stdies [6, 28, 32, 34, 45]. It has been proen that deleting/adding an edge in a graph strictly decreases/increases its ABC index [4, 8]. Conseqently, among all connected graphs, a tree/the complete graph has minimal/maximal ABC index. It has been shown that among the trees of a gien order, the star is the one with maximal ABC index [23]. Notwithstanding, a thoroghgoing characterization of trees with minimal ABC index, also referred to as minimal-abc trees, still remains an open problem. This paper represents a step frther towards the comprehensie classification of sch trees. In the seqel, we present some additional reslts and main notations that will be sed throghot the paper. A ertex of degree one is a pendant ertex. As in [31], a seqence of ertices of a graph G, S k = 0 1 k, will be called a pendant path if each two consectie ertices in S k are adjacent in G, d( 0 ) > 2, d( i ) = 2, for i = 1,..., k 1, and d( k ) = 1. The length of the pendant path S k is k. If d( k ) > 2, then S k is called an internal path of length k. A B 1 -branch is a path of length 2 attached to a ertex that has at least one child of degree at least 3. We call the ertex of degree 2 in a B 1 -branch as the center of sch B 1 -branch. A B k -branch, for k 2, is a (sb)graph comprised of ertex of degree k + 1 and k pendant paths of length 2 that all hae as a common ertex. We call the ertex also the center of the B k -branch. Moreoer, a Bk -branch, for k 1, is a (sb)graph obtainable from B k by attaching an additional ertex to a pendant ertex of B k -branch. A k-terminal ertex of a rooted tree is a ertex of degree k+1 3, which is a parent of only B 1 -branches, sch that at least one branch among them is a B 1 -branch (or B1 -branch). The (sb)tree, indced by a k-terminal ertex and all its (direct and indirect) children ertices, is called a k-terminal branch or T k -branch.

3 3 A seqence D = (d 1, d 2,..., d n ) is graphical if there is a graph whose ertex degrees are d i, i = 1,..., n. Additionally, if d 1 d 2 d n, then D is called a degree seqence. To determine the minimal-abc trees with an order less than 10 is a simple task, therefore to simplify the exposition in the rest of the paper, we assme that all the trees are of an order at least 10. In 2008, Wang [41] defined a greedy tree as follows. Definition 1.1. Sppose the degrees of the non-leaf ertices are gien, the greedy tree is achieed by the following greedy algorithm : 1. Label the ertex with the largest degree as (the root). 2. Label the neighbors of as 1, 2,..., assign the largest degrees aailable to them sch that d( 1 ) d( 2 ). 3. Label the neighbors of 1 (except ) as 11, 12,... sch that they take all the largest degrees aailable and that d( 11 ) d( 12 ) then do the same for 2, 3, Contine the labeling of the nlabeled ertices in the same manner as in 3., always starting with the neighbors of the labeled ertex with the largest degree. Next we present the so-called switching transformation explicitly stated by Lin, Gao, Chen, and Lin [37]. The switching transformation was sed in the proofs of some characterizations of the minimal-abc trees, as it was the case with Lemma 1.2 by Gan, Li, and Yo in [26]. Lemma 1.1 (Switching transformation). Let G = (V, E) be a connected graph with, xy E(G) and y, x / E(G). Let G 1 = G xy + y + x. If d() d(x) and d() d(y), then ABC(G 1 ) ABC(G), with the eqality if and only if d() = d(x) or d() = d(y). Lemma 1.2. In a minimal-abc tree, eery path 0 1 t t+1, where 0 and t+1 are leaes, has the properties: 1. if t is odd, then 2. if t is een, then d( 1 ) d( t ) d( 2 ) d( t1 ) d( t1 2 d( 1 ) d( t ) d( 2 ) d( t1 ) d( t+4 2 ) d( t+3 2 ) d( t 2 ) d( t+1 ); 2 ) d( t+2 ). 2 Almost simltaneosly, Xing and Zho [42], Gan, Li, and Yo [26] and Lin, Gao, Chen, and Lin [37] independently gae the following characterization. Theorem 1.3. Gien the degree seqence, the greedy tree minimizes the ABC index. In [31], Gtman, Frtla, and Ianoić obtained the following reslt. Theorem 1.4. A minimal-abc tree with n 10 ertices contains neither internal paths of any length k 2 nor pendant paths of length k 4.

4 4 An immediate, bt important, conseqence of Theorem 1.4 is the next corollary [31, 42]. Corollary 1.5. Let T be a minimal-abc tree. Then the sbgraph indced by the ertices of T whose degrees are greater than two is also a tree. An improement of Theorem 1.4 is the following reslt by Lin, Lin, Gao, and W [38]. Theorem 1.6. Each pendant ertex of a minimal-abc tree belongs to a pendant path of length k, where k = 2 or 3. Frther improement of Theorem 1.4 was gien by Gtman, Frtla, and Ianoić. Theorem 1.7 ( [31]). The n-ertex tree, n 10, with minimal ABC-index contains at most one pendant path of length 3. By Theorem 1.6 and Corollary 1.5, it follows that the minimal-abc trees can be obtained by nifying each pendant ertex of a tree T with the center ertex of a B k -branch. In particlar, if T is jst a star, then the minimal-abc trees are the same trees that are minimal with respect to Kragjeac trees [33]. In [13] it was shown that a minimal-abc tree contains at most one T k -branch, k 2. The next three reslts, which will be sed in the proofs in the next two sections, considering the bonds on the nmber of B 1 -branches, a (non)coexistence of some types of B k -branches that hae a common parent ertex as well as some conditions on the existence of pendant path of length 3. Theorem 1.8 ( [12]). A minimal-abc tree does not contain a B k -branch, k 5. Theorem 1.9 ( [12]). A minimal-abc tree does not contain more than for B 4 -branches. Theorem 1.10 ( [13]). A minimal-abc tree G contains at most for B 1 -branches. Moreoer, if G is a T k -branch itself, then it contains at most three B 1 -branches. Lemma 1.11 ( [12]). A minimal-abc tree does not contain (a) a B 1 -branch and a B 4 -branch, (b) a B 2 -branch and a B 4 -branch, that hae a common parent ertex. Lemma 1.12 ( [19]). A minimal-abc tree does not contain a B 3 -branch and a B 1 -branch that hae a common parent ertex. Theorem 1.13 ( [16]). A minimal-abc tree of order n > 18 with a pendant path of length 3 may contain B 2 -branches if and only if it is of order 161 or 168. Moreoer, in this case the minimal-abc tree is comprised of a single central ertex, B 3 -branches and one B 2 -branch, inclding a pendant path of length 3 that may belong to a B 3 - or B 2 -branch. For frther properties of the minimal-abc trees, the reader is referred to [11 13,16,18,19]. Before we proceed with the main reslts of this paper, we present the following obseration that will be applied in the frther analysis.

5 5 Obseration 1.1. Let G be a minimal-abc tree with the root ertex 0 and let 0, 1,..., n be the seqence of ertices obtain by the breadth-first search of G. If d( i ), d( j ) 3 and i < j, then by Lemma 1.1, we may assme that d( i ) d( j ). In what follows, we will present some new strctral properties of minimal-abc trees by strengthening Lemma In Section 2 we will show that a minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly, while in Section 3 we will show that a minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 1 -branch simltaneosly. 2 Trees containing simltaneosly B 4 - and B 2 -branches This section is deoted to proing that a minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly. First we state two technical lemmas which will be particlarly sefl throghot the paper. For the proof the reader can be referred to [12]. The fnction f(x, y) is defined as in (1). Lemma 2.1. Let g(x, y) = f(x, y)+f(x+ x, y y), with real nmbers x, y 2, x 0, 0 y < y. Then g(x, y) increases in x and decreases in y. De to the symmetry of f(x, y), Lemma 2.1 can be rewritten as follows. Lemma 2.2. Let g(x, y) = f(x, y)+f(x x, y + y), with real nmbers x, y 2, y 0, 0 x < x. Then g(x, y) decreases in x and increases in y. First, we present two crcial properties for the minimal-abc trees, which will be applied in the proof of the main reslt in this section - Theorem 2.5. Proposition 2.3. A minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly, where is the parent ertex of the center of a B 4 -branch, and is the parent ertex of the center of a B 2 -branch, when d() = 5 and d() d() 12; d() = 6 and d() d() 24; d() = 7 and d() d(). Proof. Sppose that G is a minimal-abc tree that contains a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly. Let 1 be the center ertex of a B 4 -branch, with the parent ertex, and 1 the center ertex of a B 2 -branch, with the parent ertex. From Obseration 1.1, we know that 1 occrs before 1 in the breadth-first search of G. Frthermore, by Lemma 1.1, it follows that d() d() d( 1 ) = 5. Here we apply the transformation T depicted in Figre 1. After applying T, the change of the ABC index of G is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = g 1 (d(), d()) = f(d(), 5) + f(d(), 4) f(d(), 3) + f(d(), 4).

6 6 G G T Figre 1: An illstration of the transformation T from the proof of Theorem 2.5. By Lemma 2.1, g 1 (d(), d()) increases in d(). For d() = 5, 6, 7, it can be erified that 13, 25, 67, respectiely, are the smallest ales of d() for which g 1 (d(), d()) is non-negatie. For d() = 8, we obtain that g 1 (d(), 8) = f(d(), 5) + f(d(), 4) f(8, 3) + f(8, 4) lim (f(d(), 5) + f(d(), 4)) f(8, 3) + f(8, 4) d() = 5 + f(8, 3) + f(8, 4) 4 < 0, (2) i.e., the fnction g 1 (d(), 8) is negatie. By Lemma 2.2, we hae that g 1 (d(), d()) decreases in d(), and ths also for d() > 8. Now the reslt follows. g 1 (d(), d()) g 1 (d(), 8) < 0 Applying the inerse transformation of the transformation T depicted in Figre 1, together with the proof of Proposition 2.3, the following proposition is immediate. Proposition 2.4. A minimal-abc tree cannot contain two B 3 -branches, attached to two different ertices, simltaneosly, where and are the two (different) parent ertices of the centers of two B 3 -branches, when d() = 5 and d() 13; d() = 6 and d() 25; d() = 7 and d() 67. We now state and proe the main reslt of this section. Theorem 2.5. A minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly. Proof. Sppose that G is a minimal-abc tree that contains a B 4 -branch and a B 2 -branch simltaneosly. Let 1 be the center ertex of a B 4 -branch, with the parent ertex and the grandparent ertex p (if existed). Let be the last ertex in the breadth-first search of G,

7 7 which is a parent of a B 2 -branch. Denote by 1 the center ertex of that B 2 -branch and p the parent of. Here also, by Obseration 1.1, we hae 1 occrs before 1 in the breadth-first search of G. Frthermore, by Lemma 1.1, it follows that d() d() d( 1 ) d( 1 ). Notice that the existence of B 4 - and B 2 -branches in G implies that eery pendant path in G is of length 2, from Theorem By Lemma 1.11(b), 1 and 1 cannot hae a common parent ertex, i.e.,. And by Proposition 2.3, the following cases remain to be considered: d() = 5 and d() 13; d() = 6 and d() 25; d() = 7 and d() 67. By Lemma 1.11(b), cannot be a parent ertex of a B 4 -branch. And we will show that cannot be a parent ertex of a B 3 -branch, either. Sppose to the contrary that there is a B 3 -branch attached to. From Proposition 2.4, no B 3 -branch is attached to. Sppose that eery branch attached to is a B k -branch, except the one containing (not necessarily exist sch branch). By Lemma 1.1 and Lemma 1.11(b), we know that eery branch attached to is actally a B 4 -branch. Howeer, Theorem 1.9 claims that there are at most for B 4 -branches in G, which is a contradiction to d() 13. Sppose that there is a branch attached to which is not a B k -branch, denote by w the child of in sch branch. If occrs before w in the breadth-first search of G, then by Obseration 1.1, there mst hae B 2 -branch attached to w, which is a contradiction to the choice of. If w occrs before in the breadth-first search of G ( is also a child of ), then by Obseration 1.1, either there exists B 3 -branch attached to w, which is a contradiction to Proposition 2.4, or there are at least fie B 4 -branch in G, which is a contradiction to Theorem 1.9. So no B 3 -branch is attached to, i.e., eery branch attached to is B 1 - or B 2 -branch. Let n 1 and n 2 be the nmber of B 1 - and B 2 -branches, correspondingly, that hae as the parent ertex. It holds that d() = n 1 + n 2 + 1, with n 1 0 and n 2 1. Moreoer, by Theorem 1.10, n 1 can be at most 4. In the rest of the proof, we will consider the remaining cases when d() = 5, 6, 7. Frther, we distingish six cases with respect to the ale of n 2 : n 2 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In addition, notice that cannot occr before in the breadth-first search of G, and recalling that from Lemma 1.11(b), ths there are for possibilities with respect to the relationship between ertices,, p and p, that we are interested in: (a),, p and p are all different ertices; (b) p and p denote the same ertex (i.e., p = p ); (c) is the parent of (i.e., = p ), and is not the root ertex of G; (d) is the parent of (i.e., = p ), and is the root ertex of G.

8 8 In the analysis of the following cases, first we will consider case (a). With the remaining cases (b), (c) and (d), we will proceed similarly. Case 1. n 2 = 6. First we consider case (a), i.e.,,, p and p are pairwise distinct ertices. Notice that in this case d() = 7 and n 1 = 0. Here we apply the transformation T 1 depicted in Figre 2. p G p T 1 p G p Figre 2: An illstration of the transformation T 1 from the proof of Theorem Case 1. After applying T 1, the degree of the ertex increases by 4, the degrees of the ertices 1, 2, 3 and 9 increase by 1, the degree of decreases by 3, while the degrees of 1, 5, 6, one child of 5 and one child of 6 decrease by 1, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 1 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 4)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 4) +3(f(3, 7) + f(4, d() + 4)) f(3, 7) + f(3, d() + 4) f(d( p ), 7) + f(d( p ), 4) +2(f(3, 7) + f(2, 4)), (3)

9 9 where x i, for i = 1,..., d() 1, are the neighbors of in G, except 1. Clearly, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 4) < 0 for all i = 1,..., d() 1, and both f(4, d() + 4) and f(3, d() + 4) decrease in d(). On the other hand, by Lemmas 2.2 and 2.1, f(5, d())+f(4, d()+4) and f(d( p ), 7)+f(d( p ), 4) increase in d() and d( p ), respectiely, which implies that and f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 4) < f(d( p ), 7) + f(d( p ), 4) < Now we hae lim (f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 4)) = d() lim (f(d( p), 7) + f(d( p ), 4)) = d( p) ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (f(3, 7) + f(4, )) f(3, 7) + f(3, ) (f(3, 7) + f(2, 4)) , (4) since d() > 66, when d() = 7. Ths, we hae shown that the change of the ABC index after applying the transformation T 1 is negatie, which is a contradiction to the initial assmption that G is a minimal-abc tree. In the aboe dedction for case (a), notice that the term on d( p ) may be neglected, ths, in case (b), i.e., when p = p, we may obtain the same negatie pper bond for the change of the ABC index after applying T 1 as in (4). For case (c), i.e., when = p and is not the root ertex of G, we can obtain the same pper bond for the change of the ABC index after applying T 1, jst by replacing d( p ) with d() in (3), i.e., ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()2 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 4)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 4) +3(f(3, 7) + f(4, d() + 4)) f(3, 7) + f(3, d() + 4) f(d(), 7) + f(d(), 4) +2(f(3, 7) + f(2, 4)). (5) Frthermore, similar to the argment regarding (4), we can obtain the same negatie pper bond for ABC(G ) ABC(G) as in (4).

10 10 Notice that (5) is independent of that if is the root ertex of G (i.e., the existence of the parent p of ), ths the pper bonds in cases (c) and (d) are actally the same. Case 2. n 2 = 5. First we consider case (a), i.e.,,, p and p are pairwise distinct ertices. In this case, either d() = 7 (i.e., n 1 = 1) or d() = 6 (i.e., n 1 = 0). Here, we apply the transformation T 2 depicted in Figre 3. After applying T 2, the degree p G p T 2 p G p Figre 3: An illstration of the transformation T 2 from the proof of Theorem Case 2. The dashed lines indicate that the attached branches may be optional. of the ertex increases by 3, the degrees of the ertices 1, 2, 3 and 9 increase by 1, the degree of decreases by 2, while the degrees of 1, 4, 5, one child of 4 and one child of 5 decrease by 1, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 2 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 3)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 3) +3(f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 3)) f(d( p ), d()) + f(d( p ), d() 2) +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, 4)), where x i, for i = 1,..., d() 1, are all the neighbors of in G, except 1.

11 11 A similar analysis as in Case 1 shows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 3)) 1 d() + 1 d() 2 +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, 4)). (6) Recall that here d() = 6 or d() = 7, and then d() 25 or d() 67, respectiely. Obsere that the right-hand side of (6) decreases in d(). Ths, for d() = 6, we obtain the pper bond on (6) when d() = 25, which is In the case of d() = 7, the pper bond on (6) is obtained when d() = 67 and it is The proofs for cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar to case (a), and the detailed illstration can be referred to that in Case 1. Case 3. n 2 = 4. First we consider case (a), i.e.,,, p and p are all different ertices. In this case, d() = 7, 6, 5 and n 1 = 2, 1, 0, correspondingly. Here, we apply the transformation T 3 depicted in Figre 4. After applying T 3, the degree p G p T 3 p G p Figre 4: An illstration of the transformation T 3 from the proof of Theorem Case 3. The dashed lines indicate that the attached branches may be optional. of the ertex increases by 2, the degrees of the ertices 1, 2 and 7 increase by 1, the

12 12 degrees of, 3, 4, one child of 3 and one child of 4 decrease by 1, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 3 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 2)) +2(f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 2)) f(d( p ), d()) + f(d( p ), d() 1) +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, 4)), (7) where x i, for i = 1,..., d(), are all the neighbors of in G. Similar analysis as in Case 1 shows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < 2(f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 2)) 1 d() + 1 d() 1 +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, 4)). (8) Clearly, the right-hand side of (8) decreases in d(), so the negatie change of the ABC index follows again from direct calclation, except the cases d() = 5 and d() = 13. For this case, we need only to analyze the following term in (7): d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 2)). Note that, from Lemma 2.2, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 2) decreases in d(x i ), and from Lemmas 1.1 and 1.11(b), the possible minimm degree among all the neighbors of in G, different from 1 and p, is 4. Ths d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 2)) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 2)). Now, it follows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 2)) +2(f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 2)) 1 d() + 1 d() 1 +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, 4)). Sbseqently a negatie pper bond follows from direct calclation, for d() = 5 and d() = 13. The proofs for cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar to that in case (a), and the detailed illstration can be referred to that in Case 1.

13 13 Case 4. n 2 = 3. First we consider case (a), i.e.,,, p and p are pairwise distinct ertices. In this case, d() = 7, 6, 5 and n 1 = 3, 2, 1, correspondingly. We distingish two sbcases regarding the degree of the ertex. Sbcase 4.1. d() = 5, 6. Here, we apply the transformation T 41 depicted in Figre 5. After applying T 41, the degrees p G p T 41 p G p Figre 5: Transformation T 41 from the proof of Theorem Sbcase 4.1, which reslts in a negatie change of the ABC index for d() = 5, 6. of the ertices and 6 increase by 1, the ertex 12 increases its degree from 1 to 5, while 1, 2, 3 and one child from each decrease their degrees by 1, the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 41 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) f(3, d()) + f(5, d() + 1) +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, d())), (9) where x i, for i = 1,..., d(), are all the neighbors of in G. Clearly, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1) < 0 for all i = 1,..., d(), ths one can obtain that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < f(3, d()) + f(5, d() + 1)

14 14 +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, d())). (10) Notice that the right-hand side of (10) decreases in d(), ths the negatie change of the ABC index follows, except the cases where d() = 5 and 13 d() 16; d() = 6 and 25 d() 69. For the remaining cases, we need only to consider (9), in particlar the term d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)). Note that, from Lemma 2.2, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1) decreases in d(x i ), and from Lemmas 1.1 and 1.11(b), the possible minimm degree among all the neighbors of in G, different from 1 and p, is 4. Hence d() (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)). Now, it follows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)) f(3, d()) + f(5, d() + 1) +2(f(3, d()) + f(2, d())). Conseqently we get a negatie pper bond by direct calclation. Sbcase 4.2. d() = 7. In this case, the nmber of the B 1 -branches is 3, i.e., n 1 = 3. Here, we apply the transformation T 42 depicted in Figre 6. After applying T 42, the degree of the ertex increases by 2, the degrees of 1 and 2 increase from 3 to 4, the degree of after applying T 42 is 4, the degree of 1 decreases from 5 to 4, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 42 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 2)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 2) +2(f(3, 7) + f(4, d() + 2)) f(d( p ), 7) + f(d( p ), 4) f(3, 7) + f(4, 3), (11) where x i, for i = 1,..., d()1, are the neighbors of in G, except 1. An analogos analysis to Case 1 shows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < 5 + 4

15 15 p G p T 42 p G p Figre 6: Transformation T 42 from the proof of Theorem Sbcase 4.2 which reslts in a negatie change of the ABC index for d() = 7. +2(f(3, 7) + f(4, d() + 2)) f(3, 7) + f(4, 3). (12) Clearly, the right-hand side of (12) decreases in d(), so the negatie change of the ABC index follows. The proofs for cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar to case (a), and the detailed illstration can be referred to that in Case 1. Case 5. n 2 = 2. First we consider case (a). In this case, since d() = 7, 6, 5, we hae that n 1 = 4, 3, 2, correspondingly. Here, we apply the transformation T 5 depicted in Figre 7. After applying T 5, the degree of the ertex increases by 1, the degree of 1 increases from 3 to 4, the degree of the ertex decreases by 1, the degree of 1 decreases from 5 to 4, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 5 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)

16 16 p G p T 5 1 p 2 G p Figre 7: Transformation T 5 from the proof of Theorem Case 5. f(3, d()) + f(4, 3) f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) f(d( p ), d()) + f(d( p ), d() 1), (13) where x i, for i = 1,..., d() 1, are the neighbors of in G, except 1. Similar techniqe in Case 1 shows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < f(3, d()) + f(4, 3) f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) 1 d() + 1 d() 1. (14) Clearly, the right-hand side of (14) decreases in d(), so the fact that the change of the ABC index being negatie follows from direct calclation, except the cases where d() = 5 and 13 d() 34; d() = 6 and 25 d() 48; d() = 7 and 67 d() 83.

17 17 For the aboe cases, we need only to analyze in (13) the term d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)). Note that, from Lemma 2.2, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1) decreases in d(x i ), and from Lemmas 1.1 and 1.11(b), the possible minimm degree among all the neighbors of in G, different from 1 and p, is 4. Therefore, we hae Now, we obtain d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)). ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)) f(3, d()) + f(4, 3) f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) 1 d() + 1 d() 1. Sbseqently a negatie pper bond follows from direct calclation. The proofs for cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar to that in case (a), and the detailed illstration can be referred to that in Case 1. Case 6. n 2 = 1. First we consider case (a), i.e.,,, p and p are pairwise distinct ertices. By Theorem 1.10 n 1 4. Ths, there are two possible configrations in this case: d() = 6, 5 and n 1 = 4, 3, correspondingly. Here, we apply the transformation T 6 depicted in Figre 8. After applying T 6, the degree of the ertex increases by 1, the degree of 1 increases from 3 to 4, the degree of the ertex decreases by 1, the degree of 1 decreases from 5 to 4, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 6 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) f(d( p ), d()) + f(d( p ), d() 1), (15) where x i, for i = 1,..., d() 1, are the neighbors of in G different from 1. A similar analysis as in Case 1 shows that ABC(G ) ABC(G) < 5 + 4

18 18 p G p T 6 p G p Figre 8: Transformation T 6 from the proof of Theorem Case 6. 3 f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) 1 d() + 1 d() 1. (16) Clearly, the right-hand side of (16) decreases in d(), so we can get a negatie pper bond throgh direct calclation, except for the case when d() = 5 and 13 d() 17. For the remaining cases, we need only to consider the term (15), which is as follows d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)). Note that, from Lemma 2.2, f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1) decreases in d(x i ), and from Lemmas 1.1 and 1.11(b), the possible minimm degree among all the neighbors of in G, different from 1 and p, is 4, ths Now what follows is that d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + 1)) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)). ABC(G ) ABC(G) < (d() 2)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + 1)) 5 + 4

19 19 f(3, d()) + f(4, d() + 1) 1 d() + 1 d() 1. Sbseqently a negatie pper bond follows from direct calclation. The proofs for cases (b), (c) and (d) are similar to that in case (a), and as before the detailed illstration can be referred to that in Case 1. By combining the aboe six cases, the claim of the theorem is finally obtained. 3 Trees containing simltaneosly B 4 - and B 1 -branches In the final section we proe that a minimal-abc tree does not contain a B 4 -branch and a B 1 -branch in simltaneity. Theorem 3.1. A minimal-abc tree cannot contain a B 4 -branch and a B 1 -branch simltaneosly. Proof. Let 1 be the center ertex of a B 4 -branch and 1 the center ertex of a B 1 -branch in a minimal-abc tree G. By Lemma 1.11(a), 1 and 1 cannot hae a common parent ertex. So, let be the parent of 1, and p the parent of if is not the root ertex of G. Similarly, let be the parent of 1, and p the parent of. On one hand, by Theorem 2.5 and Lemma 1.11(a), neither B 2 - nor B 4 -branch can be attached to. On the other hand, since has B 1 -branches as children, ths has a child of degree at least 3, i.e., there mst exist some B 3 -branches attached to, which also implies that no B1 -branch can be attached to from Lemma In conclsion, the branches attached to can only be B 1 - or B 3 -branches. Here also, by Obseration 1.1, we may assme that 1 occrs before 1 in the breadth-first search of G. Frthermore, by Lemma 1.1, it follows that d() d() d( 1 ) d( 1 ). First, we consider case (a), i.e., when the ertices,, p and p are pairwise distinct. Denote by n 1 the nmber of B 1 -branches attached to in G. Let s consider the transformation T 7 depicted in Figre 9. After applying T 7, the degree of increases by d() n 1 1, the degree of decreases by d() n 1 2, while the degree of 1 decreases by 1, and the rest of the ertices do not change their degrees. The change of the ABC index after applying T 7 is ABC(G ) ABC(G) = d()1 (f(d(x i ), d()) + f(d(x i ), d() + d() n 1 1)) f(5, d()) + f(4, d() + d() n 1 1) +(d() n 1 1)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + d() n 1 1)) f(d( p ), d()) + f(d( p ), n 1 + 2), where x i, for i = 1,..., d() 1, are all the neighbors of in G, with the exception of 1. We remark that d() n > n 1 + 1, since has B 1 -branches. Then, as preiosly, we obtain ABC(G ) ABC(G) < 5 + 4

20 20 p G p n 1 T 7 p G p 1 1 n Figre 9: Transformation T 7 from the proof of Theorem (d() n 1 1)(f(4, d()) + f(4, d() + d() n 1 1)) d() + n (17) Clearly, the right-hand side of (17) decreases in d(), so we can obtain a negatie pper bond throgh direct calclation procedre. Finally, the proofs for the remaining cases of (b), (c), and (d) are ery similar to this one. 4 Acknowledgment The athors wold like to thank the anonymos reiewers for their insightfl comments. The athors are especially indebted to the reiewer whose obserations also aided in the shortening the proof of Theorem 2.5. References [1] M. B. Ahmadi, D. Dimitro, I. Gtman, S. A. Hosseini, Disproing a conjectre on trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 72 (2014) [2] M. B. Ahmadi, S. A. Hosseini, P. Salehi Nowbandegani, On trees with minimal atom bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 69 (2013)

21 21 [3] M. B. Ahmadi, S. A. Hosseini, M. Zarrinderakht, On large trees with minimal atom bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 69 (2013) [4] J. Chen, X. Go, Extreme atom-bond connectiity index of graphs, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 65 (2011) [5] J. Chen, J. Li, X. Go, Some pper bonds for the atom-bond connectiity index of graphs, Appl. Math. Lett. 25 (2012) [6] J. Chen, J. Li, Q. Li, The atom-bond connectiity index of catacondensed polyomino graphs, Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc (2013) ID [7] K. C. Das, Atom-bond connectiity index of graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 158 (2010) [8] K. C. Das, I. Gtman, B. Frtla, On atom-bond connectiity index, Chem. Phys. Lett. 511 (2011) [9] K. C. Das, I. Gtman, B. Frtla, On atom-bond connectiity index, Filomat 26 (2012) [10] K. C. Das, M. A. Mohammed, I. Gtman, K. A. Atan, Comparison between atom-bond connectiity indices of graphs, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 76 (2016) [11] D. Dimitro, Efficient comptation of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index, Appl. Math. Compt. 224 (2013) [12] D. Dimitro, On strctral properties of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index, Discrete Appl. Math. 172 (2014) [13] D. Dimitro, On strctral properties of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index II: Bonds on B 1 - and B 2 -branches, Discrete Appl. Math. 204 (2016) [14] D. Dimitro, On strctral properties of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index IV: Soling a conjectre abot the pendent paths of length three, Appl. Math. Compt. (2017), [15] D. Dimitro, Extremal trees with respect to the atom-bond connectiity index, Bonds in Chemical Graph Theory, Mathematical Chemistry Monogrpahs No.20, K. Ch. Das, B. Frtla, I. Gtman, E. I. Miloanoić, I. Ž. Miloanoić (Eds.), Pages 53 67, 2017 [16] D. Dimitro, Z. D, C. M. da Fonseca, On strctral properties of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index III: Trees with pendant paths of length three, Appl. Math. Compt. 282 (2016) [17] D. Dimitro, Barbara Ikica, R. Škrekoski, Remarks on maximm atom-bond connectiity index with gien graph parameters, Discrete Appl. Math. 222 (2017) [18] Z. D, On the atom-bond connectiity index and radis of connected graphs, J. Ineq. Appl (2015) 188. [19] Z. D, C. M. da Fonseca, On a family of trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity, Discrete Appl. Math. 202 (2016)

22 22 [20] E. Estrada, Atom-bond connectiity and the energetic of branched alkanes, Chem. Phys. Lett. 463 (2008) [21] E. Estrada, L. Torres, L. Rodrígez, I. Gtman, An atom-bond connectiity index: Modelling the enthalpy of formation of alkanes, Indian J. Chem. 37A (1998) [22] G. H. Fath-Tabar, B. Vaez-Zadeh, A. R. Ashrafi, A. Graoac, Some ineqalities for the atom-bond connectiity index of graph operations, Discrete Appl. Math. 159 (2011) [23] B. Frtla, A. Graoac, D. Vkičeić, Atom-bond connectiity index of trees, Discrete Appl. Math. 157 (2009) [24] B. Frtla, I. Gtman, M. Ianoić, D. Vkičeić, Compter search for trees with minimal ABC index, Appl. Math. Compt. 219 (2012) [25] L. Gan, H. Ho, B. Li, Some reslts on atom-bond connectiity index of graphs, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 66 (2011) [26] L. Gan, B. Li, Z. Yo, The ABC index of trees with gien degree seqence, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 68 (2012) [27] Y. Gao, Y. Shao, The smallest ABC index of trees with n pendent ertices, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 76 (2016) [28] A. Graoac, M. Ghorbani, A new ersion of the atom-bond connectiity index, Acta Chim. Slo. 57 (2010) [29] I. Gtman, B. Frtla, Trees with smallest atom-bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 68 (2012) [30] I. Gtman, B. Frtla, M. B. Ahmadi, S. A. Hosseini, P. Salehi Nowbandegani, M. Zarrinderakht, The ABC index conndrm, Filomat 27 (2013) [31] I. Gtman, B. Frtla, M. Ianoić, Notes on trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 67 (2012) [32] I. Gtman, J. Tošoić, S. Radenkoić, S. Markoić, On atom-bond connectiity index and its chemical applicability, Indian J. Chem. 51A (2012) [33] S. A. Hosseini, M. B. Ahmadi, I. Gtman, Kragjeac trees with minimal atom-bond connectiity index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 71 (2014) [34] X. Ke, Atom-bond connectiity index of benzenoid systems and floranthene congeners, Polycycl. Aromat. Comp. 32 (2012) [35] W. Lin, J. Chen, Q. Chen, T. Gao, X. Lin, B. Cai, Fast compter search for trees with minimal ABC index based on tree degree seqences, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 72 (2014) [36] W. Lin, J. Chen, C. Ma, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, D. Zhang, F. Jia, On trees with minimal ABC index among trees with gien nmber of leaes, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 76 (2016) [37] W. Lin, T. Gao, Q. Chen, X. Lin, On the minimal ABC index of connected graphs with gien degree seqence, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 69 (2013)

23 23 [38] W. Lin, X. Lin, T. Gao, X. W, Proing a conjectre of Gtman concerning trees with minimal ABC index, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 69 (2013) [39] W. Lin, C. Ma, Q. Chen, J. Chen, T. Gao, B. Cai, Parallel search trees with minimal ABC index with MPI + OpenMP, MATCH Commn. Math. Compt. Chem. 73 (2015) [40] T. S. Vassile, L. J. Hntington, On the minimm ABC index of chemical trees, Appl. Math. 2 (2012) [41] H. Wang, Extremal trees with gien degree seqence for the Randić index, Discrete Math. 308 (2008) [42] R. Xing, B. Zho, Extremal trees with fixed degree seqence for atom-bond connectiity index, Filomat 26 (2012) [43] R. Xing, B. Zho, F. Dong, On atom-bond connectiity index of connected graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 159 (2011) [44] R. Xing, B. Zho, Z. D, Frther reslts on atom-bond connectiity index of trees, Discrete Appl. Math. 158 (2011) [45] J. Yang, F. Xia, H. Cheng, The atom-bond connectiity index of benzenoid systems and phenylenes, Int. Math. Form 6 (2011) [46] L. Zhong, Q. Ci, On a relation between the atom-bond connectiity and the first geometric-arithmetic indices, Discrete Appl. Math. 185 (2015)