Tiling in bipartite graphs with asymmetric minimum degrees Andrzej Czygrinow and Louis DeBiasio November 9, 018 arxiv:1310.0481v1 [math.co] 1 Oct 013 Abstract The problem of determining the optimal minimum degree condition for a balanced bipartite graph on ms vertices to contain m vertex disjoint copies of K s,s was solved by Zhao [10]. Later Hladký and Schacht [5], and Czygrinow and DeBiasio [1] determined the optimal minimum degree condition for a balanced bipartite graph on m(s + t) vertices to contain m vertex disjoint copies of K s,t for fixed positive integers s < t. For a balanced bipartite graph G[U, V ], let δ U = min{deg(u) : u U} and δ V = min{deg(v) : v V }. We consider the problem of determining the optimal value of δ U + δ V which guarantees that G can be tiled with K s,s. We show that the optimal value depends on D := δ V δ U. When D is small, we show that δ U + δ V n + 3s 5 is best possible. As D becomes larger, we show that δ U + δ V can be made smaller, but no smaller than n + s s. However, when D = n C for some constant C, we show that there exist graphs with δ U + δ V n + s s1/3 which cannot be tiled with K s,s. 1 Introduction If G is a graph on n = sm vertices, H is a graph on s vertices and G contains m vertex disjoint copies of H, then we say G can be tiled with H. We now state two important tiling results which motivate the current research. Theorem 1.1 (Hajnal-Szemerédi [4]). Let G be a graph on n = sm vertices. If δ(g) (s 1)m, then G can be tiled with K s. Kierstead and Kostochka generalized, and in doing so slightly improved, the result of Hajnal and Szemerédi. Theorem 1. (Kierstead-Kostochka [6]). Let G be a graph on n = sm vertices. If deg(x)+deg(y) (s 1)m 1, for all non-adjacent x, y V (G) then G can be tiled with K s. Both of these results can be shown to be best possible relative to the respective degree condition, i.e. no smaller lower bound on the degree will suffice. For the rest of the paper we will consider tiling in bipartite graphs. Given a bipartite graph G[U, V ] we say G is balanced if U = V. The following theorem is a consequence of Hall s matching theorem, and is an early result on bipartite graph tiling. School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8587, USA. E-mail address: andrzej.czygrinow@asu.edu. Research of this author is supported in part by NSA grant H9830-08-1-0046 Department of Mathematics, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056 USA. E-mail address: debiasld@miamioh.edu. 1
Theorem 1.3. Let G be a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices. If δ(g) n, then G can be tiled with K 1,1. Zhao determined the best possible minimum degree condition for a bipartite graph to be tiled with K s,s when s. Theorem 1.4 (Zhao [10]). For each s, there exists m 0 such that the following holds for all m m 0. If G is a balanced bipartite graph on n = ms vertices with then G can be tiled with K s,s. δ(g) { n + s 1 if m is even n+3s if m is odd, Hladký and Schacht, and the authors determined the best possible minimum degree condition for a balanced bipartite graph to be tiled with K s,t. Theorem 1.5 (Hladký, Schacht [5]; Czygrinow, DeBiasio [1]). For each t > s 1, there exists m 0 such that the following holds for all m m 0. If G is a balanced bipartite graph on n = m(s + t) vertices with n + s 1 if m is even n+t+s δ(g) 1 if m is odd and t s n+3s 1 if m is odd and t s + 1 then G can be tiled with K s,s. Now we consider a more general degree condition than δ(g). Given a bipartite graph G[U, V ], let δ U (G) := min{deg(u) : u U} and δ V (G) := min{deg(v) : v V }. We will write δ U and δ V instead of δ U (G) and δ V (G) when it is clear which graph we are referring to. The following theorem is again a consequence of Hall s matching theorem and is more general than Theorem 1.3. Theorem 1.6. Let G[U, V ] be a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices. If δ U + δ V can be tiled with K 1,1. n, then G Notice that when s =, Theorem 1.4 says that if G[U, V ] is a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices with δ(g) n + 1, then G can be tiled with K,. Wang made the following general conjecture about -factors in bipartite graphs which would in particular provide an analog of Theorem 1.6 for tiling with K,. Conjecture 1 (Wang [9]). Let G[U, V ] and H be balanced bipartite graphs on n vertices. δ U + δ V n + and (H), then H G. If The authors together with Kierstead [] proved Wang s conjecture when δ V δ U = Ω(n) and n is sufficiently large. The purpose of this paper is to explore a generalization of Theorem 1.4 in the way that Theorem 1.6 generalizes Theorem 1.3. As we will see, this generalization turns out to be less straightforward than one might anticipate. Our first result is as follows. Theorem 1.7. For all s and λ (0, 1 ), there exists m 0 such that the following holds for all m m 0. If G[U, V ] is a balanced bipartite graph on n = ms vertices with δ V δ U λn and δ U + δ V n + 3s 5, then G can be tiled with K s,s.
Note that a specific instance of Theorem 1.7 is that for sufficiently large n and δ V δ U = Ω(n), δ U + δ V n + 1 is sufficient for tiling with K, (compare this statement to Conjecture 1). Perhaps surprisingly, we show that a smaller degree sum will suffice when the difference between δ V and δ U is large enough. In order to precisely state our second result we need the following definition. Definition 1.8. Let c : Z + {0, 1} such that { 0 if q = 0 or p + 1 q p c(s) = 1 if 1 q p where p and q are the unique non-negative integers satisfying s = p + q and 0 q p. Theorem 1.9. For all s and λ (0, 1 ), there exists m 0 such that the following holds for all m m 0. Let G[U, V ] be a balanced bipartite graph on n = ms vertices with δ V δ U λn and let k 1 and k be the unique integers such that k 1 + k = m and δ U = k 1 s + s + r with 0 r s 1. For all 0 d s s + c(s) + 1, if k (s d)k 1 and then G can be tiled with K s,s. δ U + δ V n + s s + d + c(s), As mentioned earlier, Zhao gave examples which show that Theorem 1.4 is best possible. In particular, [10] contains an example of a bipartite graph G 0 with δ(g 0 ) = n+3s 3 which cannot be tiled with K s,s. Consequently, there are examples with δ U + δ V = δ(g) = n + 3s 6 which cannot be tiled with K s,s. So the degree condition in Theorem 1.7 cannot be improved in general. Notice that Theorem 1.4 gives a better bound on δ(g) when m is even, which may seem to suggest that δ U + δ V n + s 3 suffices when m is even (based on Theorem 1.7). However, we show that when m is even (or odd) there are graphs with δ U + δ V = n + 3s 7 that cannot be tiled with K s,s. Proposition 1.10. Let s. For every j N, there exists an integer m and a balanced bipartite graph G[U, V ] on n = ms vertices such that δ U +δ V = n+3s 7 and sj s 1 δ V δ U sj 1, but G cannot be tiled with K s,s. We also give examples to show that the degree is tight when d = 0 in Theorem 1.9. Proposition 1.11. For every s, there exists a balanced bipartite graph G[U, V ] with k sk 1 and δ U + δ V = n + s s + c(s) 1 such that G cannot be tiled with K s,s. Finally, when δ U is constant, we show that there exist graphs (without constructing them) with δ U + δ V much larger than n + 3s which cannot be tiled with K s,s. Proposition 1.1. There exists s 0, n 0 N such that for all s s 0, there exists a graph G[U, V ] on n n 0 vertices with δ U + δ V = n + s s1/3 such that G cannot be tiled with K s,s. The following figure summarizes the results of Theorems 1.7 and 1.9 and Propositions 1.10, 1.11, and 1.1 by plotting the degree sum needed for tiling with K s,s in terms of the difference between δ V and δ U. The first grey area in the figure represents a range of values of δ V δ U for which we cannot provide a matching lower bound on δ U + δ V. The second grey area represents a range of values of δ V δ U for which we cannot provide non-trivial upper or lower bounds on δ U + δ V. 3
{ Theorem 1.7 }} { Theorem 1.9 Prop 1.10 {}}{ {}}{ Prop 1.11 {}}{ Prop 1.1 {}}{ δu + δv n + s s1/3 n + 3s 5 n + 3s 4 s n + s s....? C s δ U... sδ U (1 λ)n n C δ V δ U Figure 1 Extremal Examples.1 Tightness when δ V δ U is constant As mentioned in the introduction, Zhao determined the optimal minimum degree condition so that G can be tiled with K s,s. If n is an odd multiple of s, then δ(g) n + 3s is best possible; however, if n is an even multiple of s, then δ(g) n + s 1 is best possible. In Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.9 we show that if δ V δ U = Ω(n), then δ U + δ V n + 3s 5 suffices to give a tiling of G with K s,s. We now give an example which shows that even when n is an even multiple of s, we cannot improve the coefficient of the s term in the degree condition. We will need to use the graphs P (m, p), where m, p N, introduced by Zhao in [10]. Lemma.1. For all p N there exists m 0 such that for all m N, m > m 0, there exists a balanced bipartite graph, P (m, p), on m vertices, so that the following hold: (i) P (m, p) is p-regular (ii) P (m, p) does not contain a copy of K,. First we recall Zhao s example which shows that there exist graphs with δ U + δ V = n + 3s 6 such that G cannot be tiled with K s,s. Let G[U, V ] be a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices with n = (k + 1)s. Partition U as U 1 U with U 1 = ks + 1, U = ks + s 1 and partition V as V 1 V with V 1 = ks + s 1, V = ks + 1. Let G[U 1, V 1 ] and G[U, V ] be complete, let G[U 1, V ] P (ks + 1, s ) and let G[U, V 1 ] P (ks + s 1, s 4). We now recall the argument which shows that G cannot be tiled with K s,s. Suppose G can be tiled with K s,s and let K be such a tiling. For F K and i = 1,, let X i (F ) := V (F ) U i, Y i (F ) := V (F ) V i and v(f ) = ( X 1 (F ), X (F ), Y 1 (F ), Y (F ) ). We say F K is crossing 4
ks + 1 ks + s 1 ks + s 1 s 4 s ks + 1 Figure : m is odd and δ U + δ V = n + 3s 6 if V (F ) (U 1 V 1 ) and V (F ) (U V ). We now claim that if F is crossing then v(f ) = (s 1, 1, s, 0) or v(f ) = (0, s, 1, s 1). It is not possible for X 1 (F ) and Y (F ) since G[U 1, V ] P (ks + 1, s ) and G[V 1, U ] is K, -free. Thus if X 1 (F ), then Y 1 (F ) = s, X (F ) 1, and X 1 (F ) s 1. If Y (F ), then X (F ) = s, Y 1 (F ) 1, and Y (F ) s 1. This shows that if F is crossing then v(f ) = (s 1, 1, s, 0) or v(f ) = (0, s, 1, s 1). Finally, since we are supposing that G can be tiled, there exists some l N and some subset K K such that every F K is crossing and F K X 1(F ) = ls + 1 and F K Y 1(F ) = ls + s 1. Let i 1 be the number of F K with v(f ) = (s 1, 1, s, 0) and let i be the number of F K with v(f ) = (0, s, 1, s 1). Then we have (i) (s 1)i 1 = ls + 1 and (ii) si 1 + i = ls + s 1 Which implies i 1 + i = s. However, (ii) implies that i s 1, a contradiction. Now we prove Theorem 1.10. Proof. We give two examples of graphs which cannot be tiled with K s,s ; one when m is even, one m is odd, and both with δ U + δ V = n + 3s 7. Let j be a non-negative integer and let m = k, where k is sufficiently large. Let U and V be sets of vertices such that U = V = ks. Let U be partitioned as U = U 1 U and V be partitioned as V = V 1 V with U 1 = (k j)s + 1, U = (k + j)s 1, V 1 = (k j + 1)s 1 and V = (k + j 1)s + 1. Let G[U i, V i ] be complete for i = 1,. Let G[U 1, V ] be the graph obtained from G[U 1, V ] P ((k + j)s s + 1, s ) by deleting (j 1)s vertices from U 1 while maintaining δ(v, U 1 ) s 3 (note that when s =, δ(v, U 1 ) = 0). Let G[U, V 1 ] be the graph obtained from G[U, V 1 ] P ((k + j)s 1, (j + 1)s 5) by deleting (j 1)s vertices from V 1 while maintaining δ(u, V 1 ) (j + 1)s 6. We have δ U = (k j)s + s 1 + s = (k j + )s 3, δ V = (k + j)s 1 + s 3 = (k j)s + 1 + (j + 1)s 5 = (k + j + 1)s 4, and thus δ U + δ V = ks + 3s 7 = n + 3s 7. Let j be a non-negative integer and let m = k + 1, where k is sufficiently large. Let U and V be sets of vertices such that U = V = (k + 1)s. Let U be partitioned as U = U 1 U and V be partitioned as V = V 1 V with U 1 = (k j)s + 1, U = (k + j)s + s 1, V 1 = (k j)s + s 1 and V = (k + j)s + 1. Let G[U i, V i ] be complete for i = 1,. Let G[U 1, V ] be the graph obtained from G[U 1, V ] P ((k + j)s + 1, s ) by deleting js vertices from U 1 while maintaining δ(v, U 1 ) s 3 (note that when s =, δ(v, U 1 ) = 0). Let G[U, V 1 ] be the graph obtained from G[U, V 1 ] P ((k + j)s + s 1, (j + )s 5) by deleting js vertices from V 1 while maintaining 5
(k j)s + 1 (k + j)s 1 (k j)s + 1 (k + j)s + s 1 s (j + 1)s 6 s (j + )s 6 (j + 1)s 5 s 3 (j + )s 5 s 3 (k j)s + s 1 Case: m even (k + j)s (s 1) (k j)s + s 1 Case: m odd (k + j)s + 1 Figure 3: δ U + δ V = n + 3s 7 δ(u, V 1 ) (j + )s 6. We have δ U = (k j)s + s 1 + s = (k j + )s 3, δ V = (k + j)s + s 1 + s 3 = (k j)s + 1 + (j + )s 5 = (k + j + )s 4, and thus δ U + δ V = (k + 1)s + 3s 7 = n + 3s 7. The same analysis given before the start of this proof shows that each of these graphs cannot be tiled with K s,s.. Tightness when δ V δ U is large Now we prove Theorem 1.11. k 1 s + y k s y s x k 1 s + s 1 k s s + 1 Figure 4: δ U + δ V = n + s x y 1 Proof. Let G = (U 1 U, V 1 V ; E) be a bipartite graph with U 1 = k 1 s + y, U = k s y, V 1 = k 1 s + s 1, V = k s s + 1 such that G[U 1, V 1 ], G[U, V ], and G[V 1, U ] are complete. Furthermore suppose V (s x) U 1, every vertex in U 1 has s x neighbors in V, and for all u, u U 1, (N(u) N(u )) V =. Thus we have 0 δ(v, U 1 ) (V, U 1 ) 1 with δ(v, U 1 ) = (V, U 1 ) = 1 only when V = (s x) U 1 and thus δ U + δ V k 1 s + s 1 + s x + k s y = n + s (x + y) 1 (1) Every copy of K s,s which touches both U 1 and U V must have one vertex from U 1, s 1 vertices from U, at most s x vertices from V, and at least x vertices from V 1. So if xy s, then G cannot be tiled. So in order to maximize δ U +δ V we minimize x+y subject to the condition that xy s. The result is that x = y = s, unless 1 q p in which case x = s 1, y = s suffices. Thus (1) gives δ U + δ V = n + s s 1 in general and δ U + δ V = n + s s when 1 q p. 6
3 Non-extremal Case In order to prove Theorem 1.7 and Theorem 1.9 we will first prove the following Theorem. Theorem 3.1. For every α > 0 and every positive integer s, there exist β > 0 and positive integer m 1 such that the following holds for all n = ms with m m 1. Given a bipartite graph G[U, V ] with U = V = n, if δ U + δ V (1 β)n, δ V δ U αn and δ U = k 1 s + s + r for some 0 r s 1 with k 1 + k = m, then either G can be tiled with K s,s, or there exist U 1 U, V V, such that U 1 = k 1 s, V = k s, d(u 1, V ) α. () α. If G is a graph for which () holds, then we say G satisfies the extremal condition with parameter 3.1 Regularity and Blow-Up Lemmas In this section we review the Regularity and Blow-up Lemmas. Let Γ be a simple graph on n vertices. For two disjoint, nonempty subsets U and V of V (Γ ), define the density of the pair (U, V ) as d(u, V ) = e(u, V ) U V. Definition 3.. A pair (U, V ) is called ɛ-regular if for every U U with U ɛ U and every V V with V ɛ V, d(u, V ) d(u, V ) ɛ. The pair (U, V ) is (ɛ, δ)-super-regular if it is ɛ-regular and for all u U, deg (u, V ) δ V and for all v V, deg (v, U) δ U. First we note the following facts that we will need. Fact 3.3 (Intersection Property). If (U, V ) is an ɛ-regular pair with density d, then for any Y V with (d ɛ) k 1 Y ɛ V there are less than kɛ U k k-tuples of vertices (u 1, u,..., u k ), u i U, such that Y N(u 1, u,..., u k ) (d ɛ) k Y. Fact 3.4 (Slicing Lemma). Let (U, V ) be an ɛ-regular pair with density d, and for some λ > ɛ let U U, V V, with U λ U, V λ V. Then (U, V ) is an ɛ -regular pair of density d where ɛ = max{ ɛ λ, ɛ} and d d ɛ. Our main tool in the proof will be the Regularity Lemma of Szemerédi [8] which we state in its multipartite form. Lemma 3.5 (Regularity Lemma - Bipartite Version). For every ɛ > 0 there exists M := M(ɛ) such that if G := G[U, V ] is a balanced bipartite graph on n vertices and d [0, 1], then there is a partition of U into clusters U 0, U 1,..., U t, a partition of V into clusters V 0, V 1,..., V t, and a subgraph G := G [U, V ] with the following properties: (i) t M, (ii) U 0 ɛn, V 0 ɛn, (iii) U i = V i = l ɛn for all i [t], (iv) deg G (x) > deg G (x) (d + ɛ)n for all x V (G), 7
(v) All pairs (U i, V i ), i, j [t], are ɛ-regular in G each with density either 0 or exceeding d. In addition, we will use the Blow-up Lemma of Komlós, Sárközy, and Szemerédi [7]. Lemma 3.6 (Blow-up Lemma). Given δ > 0, > 0 there exists ɛ > 0 such that the following holds. Let (U, V ) be an (ɛ, δ)-super-regular pair. If T is a U, V -bigraph with maximum degree (T ) and T is embeddable into the complete bipartite graph K U, V then it is also embeddable into (U, V ). 3. Proof of Theorem 3.1 Here we prove Theorem 3.1. We show that if G is not in the extremal case, we obtain a tiling with K s,s ; otherwise G is in the extremal case which we deal with in Section 4. The proof is adopted from Zhao [10]. Proof. Let ɛ, d, and β be positive real numbers such that ɛ d β α and suppose n is large. Let G[U, V ] be a bipartite graph with U = V = n, δ U + δ V (1 β)n, and δ V δ U αn. We also have δ U = k 1 s + s + r for some 0 r s 1 and we set k := m k 1. Let γ 1, γ be positive real numbers such that δ U (γ 1 β)n, δ V (γ β)n and γ 1 + γ = 1. Note that γ γ 1 α. We apply Lemma 3.5 to G with parameters ɛ and d. We obtain a partition of U into U 0, U 1,..., U t and V into V 0, V 1,..., V t such that U i = V i = l ɛn for all i [t] and U 0 = V 0 ɛn. In the graph G from Lemma 3.5, we have (U i, V j ), is ɛ-regular with density either 0 or exceeding d for all i, j [t]. We also have deg G (u) > (γ 1 β)n (ɛ + d)n for u U and deg G (v) > (γ β)n (ɛ + d)n for v V. We now consider the reduced graph of G. Let G r be a bipartite graph with parts U := {U 1,..., U t } and V := {V 1,..., V t } such that U i is adjacent to V j, denoted U i V j, if and only if (U i, V j ) is an ɛ-regular pair with density exceeding d. A standard calculation gives the following degree condition in the reduced graph, δ U (γ 1 β)t and δ V (γ β)t. Claim 3.7. If G r contains two subsets X U and Y V such that X (γ 1 3β)t, Y (γ 3β)t and there are no edges between X and Y, then () holds in G. Proof. Without loss of generality, assume that X = (γ 1 3β)t and Y = (γ 3β)t. Let U = Ui XU i and V = Vi Y V i. We have and (γ 1 4β)n < (γ 1 3β)tl = X l = U (γ 1 3β)n (γ 4β)n < (γ 3β)tl = Y l = V (γ 3β)n. Since there is no edge between X and Y we have e G (U, V ) = 0. Consequently e G (U, V ) e G (U, V ) + d U V + ɛn U < dk 1 sk s. By adding at most 4βk 1 s vertices to U and 4βk s vertices to V, we obtain two subsets of size k 1 s and k s respectively, with at most dk 1 sk s + 4βk 1 sk s + 4βk 1 sk s < αk 1 sk s edges, and thus () holds in G. For the rest of this proof, we suppose that () does not hold in G. 8
Claim 3.8. G r contains a perfect matching. Proof. Let M be a maximum matching of G r. After relabeling indices if necessary, we may assume that M = {U i V i : i [k], k t}. If M is not perfect, let x U and y V be vertices which are unsaturated by M. Then the neighborhood N(x) is a subset of V (M), otherwise we can enlarge M by adding an edge xz for any z N(x) \ V (M). We have N(y) V (M) for the same reason. Now let I = {i : V i N(x)} and J = {j : U j N(y)}. If I J ; that is, there exists i such xv i and yu i are both edges, then we can obtain a larger matching by replacing U i V i in M by xv i and yu i. Otherwise, assume that I J =. Since I (γ 1 β)t and J (γ β)t and () does not hold in G, then by the contrapositive of Claim 3.7 there exists an edge between {U i : i I} and {V j : j J}. This implies that there exist i j such that xv i, U i V j, and yu j are edges. Replacing U i V i, U j V j in M by xv i, U i V j and yu j, we obtain a larger matching, contradicting the maximality of M. By Claim 3.8 we assume that U i V i for all i [t]. If each ɛ-regular pair (U i, V i ) is also super-regular and s divides l, then the Blow-up Lemma (Lemma 3.6) guarantees that G [U i, V i ] can be tiled with K s,s (since K l,l can be tiled with K s,s ). If we also know that U 0 = V 0 =, then we obtain a K s,s -tiling of G. Otherwise we do the following steps (details of these steps are given next). Step 1 : For each i 1, we move vertices from U i to U 0 and from V i to V 0 so that each remaining vertex in (U i, V i ) has at least (d ɛ)l neighbors. Step : We eliminate U 0 and V 0 by removing copies of K s,s, each of which contains at most one vertex of U 0 V 0. Step 3 : We make sure that for each i 1, U i = V i > (1 d)l and U i is divisible by s. Finally we apply the Blow-up Lemma to each (U i, V i ) (which is still super-regular) to finish the proof. Note that we always refer to the clusters as U i, V i, i 0 even though they may gain or lose vertices during the process. Step 1. For each i 1, we remove all u U i such that deg(u, V i ) < (d ɛ)l and all v V i such that deg(v, U i ) < (d ɛ)l. Fact 3.3 (with k = 1) guarantees that the number of removed vertices is at most ɛl. We then remove more vertices from either U i or V i to make sure U i and V i still have the same number of vertices. All removed vertices are added to U 0 and V 0. As a result, we have U 0 = V 0 ɛn. Step. This step implies that a vertex in U 0, V 0 can be viewed as a vertex in U i or V i for some i 1. For a vertex x V (G) and a cluster C, we say x is adjacent to C, denoted x C, if deg G (x, C) dl. We claim that at present, each vertex in U is adjacent to at least (γ 1 β)t clusters. If this is not true for some u U, then we obtain a contradiction (γ 1 β)n deg G (u) (γ 1 β)tl + dlt + ɛn < (γ 1 3β/)n. Likewise, each vertex in V is adjacent to at least (γ β)t clusters. Assign an arbitrary order to the vertices in U 0. For each u U 0, we pick some V i adjacent to u. The selection of V i is arbitrary, but no V i is selected more than dl 6s times. Such V i exists even for the last vertex of U 0 because U 0 ɛn < (γ 1 β)t dl 6s. For each u U 0 and its corresponding V i, we remove a copy of K s,s containing u, s vertices in V i, and s 1 vertices in U i. Such a copy of K s,s can always be found even if u is the last vertex in U 0 because (U i, V i ) is ɛ-regular and deg G (u, V i ) dl > ɛl + dl 6s s thus Fact 3.3 (with k = s 1) allows us to choose s 1 vertices from U i and s vertices from N(u) V i to complete the copy of K s,s. As a result, U i now has one more vertex than V i, so one may view this process as moving u to U i. We repeat this process for all v V 0 as well. By the end of this step, 9
we have U 0 = V 0 =, and each U i, V i, i 1 contains at least l ɛl dl/3 vertices (for example, U i may have lost dl(s 1) 6s vertices because of U 0 and dl/6 vertices because of V 0 ). As a result, we have δ(g[u i, V i ]) ( d 3 ɛ)l for all i 1. Note that the sizes of U i and V i may currently be different. Step 3. We want to show that for any i j, there is a path U i V i1 U i1... V ia U ia V j U j (resp. V i U i1 V i1... U ia V ia U j V j ) for some 0 a. If such a path exists, then for each i b, 1 b a + 1 (assume that i = i 0 and j = i a+1 ), we may remove a copy of K s,s containing one vertex from U ib 1, s vertices from V ib, and s 1 vertices from U ib. This removal reduces the size of U i by one, increases the size of U j by one but does not change the sizes of other clusters (all modulo s). We may therefore adjust the sizes of U i and V i (for i 1) such that U i = V i and U i is divisible by s. To do this we will need at most t paths: (i) Let r := n t mod s. (ii) Pair up the current biggest set U i and current smallest set U j and move vertices from U i to U j until one of the sets has exactly n t r elements. (iii) Repeat this process until all but one set in U has exactly n t r elements (there will be one set, say U t, with as many as (t 1) extra vertices) (iv) Do the same for the clusters in V. Now we show how to find this path from U 1 to U. First, if U 1 V, then U 1 V U is a path. Let I = {i : U 1 V i } and J = {i : U i V }. If there exists i I J, then we find a path U 1 V i U i V U. Otherwise I J =. Since both I (γ 1 β)t and J (γ β)t, Claim 3.7 guarantees that there exists i I and j J such that U i V j. We thus have a path U 1 V i U i V j U j V U. Note that in this step we require that a cluster is contained in at most dl 3s paths. This restriction has little impact on the arguments above: we have I > (γ 1 3β)t and J > (γ 3β)t instead, still satisfying the conditions of Claim 3.7. Now U 0 = V 0 =, and for all i 1, U i = V i is divisible by s. Let K be the union of all vertices in existing copies of K s,s and note that, U i \ K = V i \ K l ɛl dl/3, which implies δ(g[u i, V i ]) ( d 3 ɛ)l d 4 l for i 1. Thus Fact 3.4 implies that each pair (U i, V i ) is (ɛ, d 4 )-super-regular. Applying the Blow-up Lemma to each (U i, V i ), we find the desired K s,s -tiling. 4 Extremal Case In this section we prove Theorems 1.7 and 1.9 in the case when G satisfies the extremal condition. Given s and λ (0, 1 ), let α > 0 be sufficiently small. Let G[U, V ] be a balanced bipartite graph on n = ms vertices for sufficiently large n. Without loss of generality suppose δ V δ U and note that δ U λn. Suppose G is edge minimal with respect to the condition δ U + δ V n + c, and that G satisfies the extremal condition with parameter α. Let k 1 be defined by δ U = k 1 s + s + r, where 0 r s 1 and let k s = n k 1 s. The proof will split into cases depending on whether k 1 (1 1 s )k (we say k k 1 ) or k 1 > (1 1 s )k (we say k 1 k ). When k 1 > (1 1 s )k, we are only dealing with Theorem 1.7 in which case we have δ U + δ V n + 3s 5. Since δ U = k 1 s + s + r, we have δ V k s + s 5 r. Since G is edge minimal we have δ V = k s + s 5 r, and since δ V δ U, we have k k 1. If δ V = δ U, then we have δ(g) n + 3s 5 > { n + s if m is even n+3s 3 if m is odd, 10
which is solved in [10]. So we may suppose that δ V > δ U. Claim 4.1. If k = k 1, then r s 6 and consequently δ V = k s + s 5 r k s + s. If k = k 1 + 1, then r s 3 and consequently δ V = k s + s 5 r k s + s. Proof. Both statements are implied the following inequality: k s + s 5 r = δ V > δ U = k 1 s + s + r. When k 1 (1 1 s )k, we either have k < (s d)k 1, in which case we are still only dealing with Theorem 1.7 and we will assume δ U + δ V n + 3s 5, or we have k (s d)k 1, in which case we are dealing with Theorem 1.9 and we will assume δ U + δ V δ U + δ V n + s s + d + c(s). 4.1 Pre-processing Let U = U \ U 1 and V 1 = V \ V. Let U 1 = {x U : deg(x, V ) < α 1/3 k 1 s}, V = {x V : deg(x, U 1) < α 1/3 k s}, U = {x U : deg(x, V 1) < α 1/3 k 1 s deg(x, V ) > (1 α 1/3 )k s}, V 1 = {x V : deg(x, U ) < α 1/3 k s deg(x, U 1) > (1 α 1/3 )k 1 s}, U 0 = U \ (U 1 U ), and V 0 = V \ (V 1 V ). Claim 4.. (i) k 1 s α /3 k s U 1, V 1 k 1 s + α /3 k 1 s (ii) k s α /3 k 1 s U, V k s + α /3 k s (iii) U 0, V 0 α /3 n (iv) δ(u 0, V 1 ) α 1/3 k 1 s α /3 k s, δ(u 0, V ) α 1/3 k 1 s α /3 k 1 s (v) δ(v 0, U 1 ) α 1/3 k s α /3 k s, δ(v 0, U ) α 1/3 k s α /3 k 1 s (vi) δ(g[u i, V i ]) k i s α 1/3 k i s α /3 k 3 i s (1 α 1/3 )k i s (vii) (U 1, V ) α 1/3 k 1 s, (V, U 1 ) α 1/3 k s Proof. We have α 1/3 k 1 s U 1 \ U 1 e(u 1 \ U 1, V ) e(u 1, V ) αk 1 sk s which gives U 1 \ U 1 α /3 k s and thus U 1 k 1 s α /3 k s. Also α 1/3 k s V \ V e(v \ V, U 1) e(v, U 1) αk 1 sk s which gives V \ V α /3 k 1 s and thus V k s α /3 k 1 s. Since e(u 1, V ) αk 1sk s, we have e(u, V ) k sk s αk 1 sk s and e(u 1, V 1 ) k 1sk 1 s αk 1 sk s. Thus α 1/3 k s U \ U ē(u, V ) αk 1 sk s 11
which gives U \ U α /3 k 1 s and thus U k s α /3 k 1 s. Also α 1/3 k 1 s V 1 \ V 1 ē(u 1, V 1) αk 1 sk s which gives V 1 \ V 1 α /3 k s and thus V 1 k 1 s α /3 k s. Putting these results together we have U 0, V 0 α /3 n, U 1, V 1 k 1 s + α /3 k 1 s, and U, V k s + α /3 k s. By the definition of U 1, U, V 1, V and the lower bounds on their sizes, we have δ(u 0, V 1 ) α 1/3 k 1 s α /3 k s, δ(u 0, V ) α 1/3 k 1 s α /3 k 1 s, δ(v 0, U 1 ) α 1/3 k s α /3 k s, and δ(v 0, U ) α 1/3 k s α /3 k 1 s. By the definition of U 1, V and the upper bounds on their sizes we have (U 1, V ) α 1/3 k 1 s and (V, U 1 ) α 1/3 k s. 4. Idea of the Proof We start with the partition given in Section 4.1 and we call U 0 and V 0 the exceptional sets. Let i {1, }. We will attempt to update the partition by moving a constant number (depending only on s) of special vertices between U 1 and U, denote them by X, and special vertices between V 1 and V, denote them by Y, as well as partitioning the exceptional sets as U 0 = U0 1 U 0 and V 0 = V0 1 V 0. Let U 1, U, V 1 and V be the resulting sets after moving the special vertices. Suppose u is a special vertex in the set U1. The degree of u in V 1 may be small, but u will have a set of at least s neighbors in V1 which are disjoint from the neighbors of any other special vertex in U1. Furthermore, these neighbors of u in V 1 will have huge degree in U 1, so it will be easy to incorporate each special vertex into a unique copy of K s,s. Our goal is to obtain two graphs, G 1 := G[U1 U 0 1, V 1 V 0 1] and G := [U U 0, V V 0 ] so that G 1 satisfies U1 U0 1 = l 1 s, V1 V0 1 = l 1 s and G satisfies U U0 = l s, V V0 = l s, for some positive integers l 1, l. We tile G 1 as follows. We incorporate all of the special vertices into copies of K s,s. We now deal with the exceptional vertices: Claim 4. gives U 0, V 0 α /3 n and δ(u 0, V i ), δ(v 0, U i ) sα /3 n, so they may greedily be incorporated into unique copies of K s,s. Then we are left with two balanced almost complete graphs, which can be easily tiled. So throughout the proof, if we can make, say U1 U 0 1 and V 1 V 0 1 equal and divisible by s, we simply state that we are done. 4.3 Preliminary Lemmas In this section we give some lemmas which will be used in the proof of Theorems 1.7 and 1.9. Recall that in each of those theorems we suppose k s k 1 s λn. Lemma 4.3 (Zhao [10], Fact 5.3). Let F be an A, B-bigraph with δ := δ(a, B) and := (B, A) Then F contains f h vertex disjoint h-stars from A to B, and g h vertex disjoint h-stars from B to A (the stars from A to B and those from B to A need not be disjoint), where f h (δ h + 1) A h + δ h + 1, 1 g h δ A (h 1) B + hδ h + 1.
Lemma 4.4. Let G[A, B] be a bipartite graph with B = ls + b for some positive integers l and b. Let 0 x s 1 and let γ be a small constant such that α 1/3 γ 1 s. If b < 1 γ and (i) δ(b, A) s x, (A, B) α 1/3 k s, and B α 1/6 A then there are at least b vertex disjoint (s x)-stars from B to A. Suppose k s + α /3 k s A, B k 1 s α /3 k s. If (ii) δ(a, B) s 1 + b and k 1 > (1 1 s )k, then there are at least b vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A. If b < 1 γ and (iii) δ(a, B) s, k 1 > (1 1 s )k, and (B, A) α 1/3 k s or (iv) δ(a, B) d, A s 1/ d B, and (B, A) α 1/3 k s, then there are at least b vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A. Furthermore, if b 1 γ and (v) δ(a, B) b/4 and (B, A) < α 1/3 k s or (vi) δ(b, A) b/4 and (A, B) < α 1/3 k s, then there are at least b vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A. Proof. (i) Suppose b < 1 γ, δ(b, A) s x, (A, B) α1/3 k s, and B α 1/6 A. Let S B be the maximum set of vertex disjoint (s x)-stars from B to A and let f s x = S B. By Lemma 4.3, we have f s x B (s x)α 1/3 k s + 1 α1/6 3sα 1/3 1 γ b (ii) Suppose δ(a, B) s 1 + b and k 1 > (1 1 s )k. Let S A be a maximum set of vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C B and leaves L A. Suppose C b 1. Then s( A L ) (s 1 + b C )( A L ) e(b \ C, A \ L) (s 1)( B C ), which implies s(k 1 s α /3 k s) (s 1)(k s + α /3 k s) + s L (s 1) C. Thus sk 1 (s 1 )k, contradicting the fact that k 1 > (1 1 s )k. (iii) Suppose b < 1 γ, δ(a, B) s, k 1 > (1 1 s )k, and (B, A) α 1/3 k s. Let S A be the maximum set of vertex disjoint s-stars from A to B and let g s = S A. By Lemma 4.3, we have g s s A (s 1) B α 1/3 k s + s s + 1 s(k 1s α /3 k s) (s 1)(k s + α /3 k s) 3α 1/3 k s Where the third inequality holds since sk 1 s > (s 1 )k s. 1 1α 1/3 1 γ b 13
(iv) Suppose b < 1 s 1/ γ, δ(a, B) d, A d B, and (B, A) α 1/3 k s. Let S B be the maximum set of vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A and let g s = S B. By Lemma 4.3, we have g s d A (s 1) B α 1/3 k s + sd s + 1 B / 3α 1/3 k s λ 6α 1/3 1 γ b (v) Suppose b 1 γ, δ(a, B) b/4 and (B, A) < α1/3 k s. Let S B be the maximum set of vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A and let g s = S B. By Lemma 4.3, we have g s b 4 A (s 1) B bλ/4 (s 1) α 1/3 k s + s b 4 s + 1 3α 1/3 b (vi) Suppose b 1 γ, δ(b, A) b/4 and (A, B) < α1/3 k s. Let S B be the maximum set of vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A and let f s = S B. By Lemma 4.3, we have f s ( b 4 s + 1) B sα 1/3 k s + b 4 s + 1 ( b 4 s + 1)λ 3α 1/3 b Lemma 4.5. Let G[A, B] be a bipartite graph with A = l 1 s + a and B = l s + b such that 1 b s 1. Suppose further that k s+α /3 k s A, B k 1 s α /3 k s and (A, B), (B, A) α 1/3 k s. If (i) a 1 and δ(a, B) + δ(b, A) s 3 + a + b or (ii) a = 0 and δ(a, B) + δ(b, A) s + b, then there is a set S A of a vertex disjoint s-stars from A to B and a set S B of b vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A such that the stars in S A are disjoint from the stars in S B. Proof. Let γ be a real number such that α 1/3 γ 1 s. Case 1 a > 1 γ. Suppose first δ(b, A) 1 (s 3 + a + b). In this case we apply Lemma 4.4(vi) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C B and leaves L A. Then since δ(b, A \ L) 1 (s 3 + a + b) bs > a 4 we apply Lemma 4.4(v) to get a set of a vertex disjoint s-stars from A \ L to B \ C. Now suppose δ(a, B) > 1 (s 3 + a + b). As before, we apply Lemma 4.4(v) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C B and leaves L A. Then since δ(a, B \ C) > 1 (s 3 + a + b) b > a 4 we apply Lemma 4.4(vi) to get a set of a vertex disjoint s-stars from A \ L to B \ C. Case 1 a 1 γ. Suppose first that δ(b, A) s 1 + a. We apply Lemma 4.4(ii) to get a set of a vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C A and leaves L B. We still have δ(b \ N(C), A \ C) s 1 + a and B \ N(C) B α1/3 γ k s α 1/6 A, thus we can apply Lemma 4.4(i) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars from B \ N(C) to A \ C. Now suppose δ(a, B) s + b. We apply Lemma 4.4(ii) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C B and leaves L A. We still have δ(a \ L, B \ C) s + b b = s so we apply Lemma 4.4(i) to get a vertex disjoint s-stars from A \ L to B \ C. 14
Case 3 a = 0. We have δ(a, B)+δ(B, A) s +b s 1 and thus δ(a, B) s or δ(b, A) s. In either case we can apply Lemma 4.4(i) or (iii) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars from B to A. In addition, we will use the following fact from [1]. Lemma 4.6. Suppose U 0 s. Let V 1 V 1 and V V such that δ(v 1, U 0)+δ(V, U 0) U 0 +s. If V 1 n 8 and V n 8, then for any 0 b s, there is a K s,s =: K with s vertices in U 0, b vertices in V 1 and s b vertices in V. 4.4 Case k k 1 In this section we prove Theorem 1.9 and prove Theorem 1.7 in the case that k 1 (1 1 s )k. Let G be a graph which satisfies the extremal condition and for which k 1 (1 1 s )k. Recall the bounds from Claim 4., specifically k 1 s α /3 k s U 1, V 1 k 1 s + α /3 k 1 s, k s α /3 k 1 s U, V k s + α /3 k s, and U 0, V 0 α /3 n. The fact that δ U + δ V n implies δ(v 1, U ) δ V U 0 U 1 (k k 1 α /3 k 1 )s ( 1 s k α /3 k 1 )s > 1 4s k s. (3) Proof. Note that s s + c(s) + 1 0 with equality if and only if s =, so d is defined for all s. Let α 1/3 γ 1 s. Let l 1 be maximal so that U 1 l 1 s and V 0 V 1 l 1 s. Let y := U 1 l 1 s and z := V 0 V 1 l 1 s. We note that n + 3s 5 n + s s + d + c(s) with equality if and only if s =. So for this proof we will assume δ U + δ V n + s s + d + c(s) with one exception that we point out. Claim 4.7. If there exists l such that V 0 V 1 ls and U 1 ls, then G can be tiled with K s,s. Proof. Suppose there exists such an l. By the choice of l 1, we can assume U 1 (l 1 + 1)s and V 0 V 1 (l 1 + 1)s. By (3) we have δ(v 1, U ) > 1 4s k s sα /3 n and thus we can greedily choose a set of z s vertex disjoint s-stars from V 1 to U with centers C V and leaves L U. Let V 1 := V 1 \C V and U := U \ L U, since δ(v 1, U ) 1 8s k s we may apply Lemma 4.3 to the graph induced by U and V 1 to get a set of s y vertex disjoint s-stars from U to V 1. We move the centers of the stars giving U 1 + (s y) = (l 1 + 1)s = V 0 V 1 (z s) and we are done. If z s, then by the maximality of l 1 we have y < s and thus we can apply Claim 4.7 to finish. If y = 0, then we can also apply Claim 4.7 to finish. So for the rest of the proof, suppose that 0 z s 1 and 1 y. Our goal is to show that there exists a set S U of vertex disjoint (s x)-stars from U 1 to V such that V 0 V 1 x S U U 1 S U = l 1 s and a set T V of vertex disjoint s-stars from V 1 to U so that V 0 V 1 x S U T V = l 1 s for some 0 x s 1. Since δ U + δ V n + s s + d + c(s), we have δ(u 1, V ) + δ(v, U 1 ) n + s s + d + c(s) V 0 V 1 U 0 U Case 1 U 1 V 0 V 1 > 0. s s + d + c(s) + y z (4) 15
Case 1.1 y 1 γ. We have δ(u 1, V ) + δ(v, U 1 ) s s + d + c(s) + y z y + s s + d + c(s) + 1 and thus there are two cases. Either δ(u 1, V ) 1 (y+s s +d+c(s)+1) and we apply Lemma 4.4(vi) to get y vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V or δ(v, U 1 ) > 1 (y + s s + d + c(s) + 1) and we apply Lemma 4.4(v) to get y vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V. We move the centers from U 1 to U to make U 1 = l 1 s. Then we move vertices from V 0 V 1 to V to make V 0 V 1 = l 1 s. Case 1. y < 1 γ. Case 1..1. δ(u 1, V ) s. Apply Lemma 4.4(i) with x = 0 to get y vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V. Case 1... δ(u 1, V ) s 1. By (4) we have δ(v, U 1 ) s s +d+c(s)+y z (s 1) = s s +d+c(s)+1+y z d+1. Since k (s d)k 1 and thus V (s 1 d) U 1 s 1 d+1 U 1, we can apply Lemma 4.4(iv) to get y vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V. Case. U 1 V 0 V 1 0. In this case we have y z. Rearranging (4) gives Also since k 1 k s d, we have δ(u 1, V ) + δ(v, U 1 ) s s + d + c(s) (z y). (5) δ(v 1, U ) δ V U 0 U 1 (k k 1 α /3 k 1 )s (1 1 + α/3 s d )k s s d 1 α/3 (s d)(1 + α /3 ) U s d 1 α1/3 U s d (6) If δ U +δ V n+3s 5, then (5) gives δ(u 1, V )+δ(v, U 1 ) s 3 since z y s. Thus we have δ(v, U 1 ) s 1 or δ(u 1, V ) s 1. In either case we can get y vertex disjoint (s 1)-stars from U 1 to V by Lemma 4.4(iii) or Lemma 4.4(i) with x = 1. For each (s 1)-star we choose a vertex from V 1 and (s 1)-vertices in U, which is possible by (6) and z y. So for the rest of the proof we assume δ U + δ V n + s s + d + c(s). Case.1. z y s s + c(s) + 1. Case.1.1. δ(u 1, V ) s 1. We can get y vertex disjoint (s 1)-stars from U 1 to V by Lemma 4.4(i) with x = 1. For each (s 1)-star we choose a vertex from V 1 and (s 1)-vertices in U, which is possible by (6) and z y. Case.1.. δ(u 1, V ) s. So (5) and the condition of Case..1. gives δ(v, U 1 ) s s + d + c(s) (s s + c(s) + 1) (s ) = d + 1. We can get y vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V by Lemma 4.4(iv) as in Case 1... Case.. z y s s + c(s) +. If δ(u 1, V ) s 1 or δ(v, U 1 ) d + 1, then we would be done as in the previous two cases. So suppose δ(u 1, V ) s and δ(v, U 1 ) d. By (5), we have s s x = δ(u 1, V ) s s + d + c(s) (z y) δ(v, U 1 ) (7) s s + c(s) + d + 1 16
for some x s d 1. Let S U be a set of y vertex disjoint (s x)-stars from U 1 to V, which exists by Lemma 4.4(i). For each (s x)-star in S U we will choose s 1 vertices from U and x vertices from V 1 to complete a copy of K s,s. Let u 1 be the center of a star in S U and ( let v1 1, v 1,.. )., vx 1 be a set of x vertices in N(u 1 ) V 1. By (6), we have N(v1 1, v 1,..., vx 1 ) U 1 x(1+α1/3 ) s d U. Let v 1, v,..., vs x be a set of s x vertices in V. By Claim 4., we have N(v 1, v,..., vs x ) U (1 (s x)α 1/3 ) U. Thus ( ) N(v1, 1 v1,..., v1 x, v, 1 v,..., v s x ) U 1 x(1 + α1/3 ) (s x)α 1/3 U α U s d and we can choose x vertices from V 1 and s 1 vertices from U to turn each s x star into a copy of K s,s. Finally we must be sure that V 0 V 1 xy ls, i.e. z xy. There are two cases. Case..1. 1 q p and consequently c(s) = 1. By (7) and δ(v, U 1 ) d, we get and thus x + y z (s s + 1) (8) ( ) z (s s + 1) xy z. The first inequality is by (8) and the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality. To verify the ( ) second inequality, let F (z) = z and note s s + 3 z s 1. Using z (s s +1) calculus, we see that F achieves a maximum at s s + 3, F is decreasing on the interval [s s + 3, s 1] and F (s 1) = s 1 ( s 1) = p + q 1 p 0. Case... q = 0 or p + 1 q p and consequently c(s) = 0. By (7) and δ(v, U 1 ) d, we get x + y z (s s ). (9) If z = s 1, then (9) gives x + y s 1. Since s 1 is odd, we have ( ) ( ) s s xy = s ( s 1) s 1 = z where the last inequality holds by the assumption of this case. So we may assume z s. So we have ( ) z (s s ) xy z. The first inequality holds by (9) and the arithmetic mean-geometric mean inequality. To verify the ( ) second inequality, let F (z) = z and note s s + z s. Using z (s s ) calculus, we see that F achieves a maximum at s s +, F is decreasing on the interval [s s +, s ] and F (s ) = s ( s 1). When q = 0 we have p, and thus F (s ) = s ( s 1) = p (p p + 1) = p 3 1. When q p + 1, we have F (s ) = s ( s 1) = p + q p = q 0. 17
4.5 Case k k 1 We are left to prove Theorem 1.7 when k 1 > (1 1 s )k. The proof is split into two cases depending on whether s = or s 3. The proof of the s 3 case follows a similar structure as the s = case, however the case analysis is extremely long and detailed. We start with a graph which satisfies the extremal condition after pre-processing. For i = 1,, let Ui M = {u U i : deg(u, V 3 i ) > α 1/3 n} and Vi M = {v V i : deg(v, U 3 i ) > α 1/3 n}. We call these vertices movable. Note that U1 M = = V M by Claim 4.. 4.5.1 Case s = Let γ be a real number such that α 1/3 γ 1 s. We assume that n = m and δ V > δ U, thus δ V n + 1. As a result v, v V, N(v) N(v ) (10) Furthermore, since δ V n + 1, and since there is some vertex u U with deg(u, V ) n, u U such that deg(u, V ) n +. (11) Case 1. U 0 U M or U is even. There are two cases: (i) V 0 V 1 > U 1 or (ii) V U 0 U. If (i) is the case there exists some l 1 N, X U 0 U M, and Y V 0 V1 M such that U 1 X = l 1 s, (V 0 V 1 )\Y l 1 s and (V 0 V 1 )\Y U 1 X is as small as possible. If (V 0 V 1 )\Y U 1 X = 0, then we are done. Otherwise there are no movable vertices left in (V 0 V 1 ) \ Y. If (ii) is the case, then there exists some l N and X U 0 U M with X 1 such that (U 0 U ) \ X = l s, V l s and V (U 0 U ) \ X is as small as possible. Notice that in either case, we are either done or there are no movable vertices left in (V 0 V 1 )\Y or V. Because of this symmetry we can suppose without loss of generality that that (i) is the case. We reset U 1 := U 1 X, U 0 := (U 0 U M) \ X, U := U \ U M, V 1 := V 1 \ Y, and V 0 := V 0 Y. Let l = m l 1. Let a := V 1 l 1 s. If a = 0, then we are done, so suppose a 1. Note that there are no movable vertices in V 1 or U. We have δ(v 1, U 0 U ) + δ(u 0 U, V 1 ) a + 1. (1) Case 1.1. a > 1 γ. We know that U 0 1, otherwise we could make a smaller by moving vertices from U 0 to U 1 while maintaining the fact that U 1 is even. Either δ(v 1, U ) δ(v 1, U 0 U ) 1 a+1 1 and we apply Lemma 4.4(vi) to get a vertex disjoint -stars from V 1 to U or else δ(u 0 U, V 1 ) > a+1 and we apply Lemma 4.4(v) to get a vertex disjoint -stars from V 1 to U. We move the centers from V 1 to V to make V 1 = l 1 s. Case 1.. a 1 γ. If δ(u 0 U, V 1 ), then we apply Lemma 4.4(iii) to get a set of a vertex disjoint -stars from V 1 to U. So suppose δ(u 0 U, V 1 ) 1 and thus δ(v 1, U 0 U ) a. (13) Case 1..1. a 3. We know that U 0 1, otherwise we could make a smaller by moving vertices from U 0 to U 1 while maintaining the fact that U 1 is even. Since a 3, we have δ(v 1, U ) δ(v 1, U 0 U 1 ) 1 by (13), and thus we can apply Lemma 4.4(i) to get a set of a vertex disjoint -stars from V 1 to U. So we only need to deal with the case a. 18
Case 1... a =. If U 0 =, then we can use (13) and apply Lemma 4.4(i) to get a set of a vertex disjoint -stars from V 1 to U. So suppose U 0 = {u 0 }. If there is a vertex u U with deg(u, V 1 ) = 0, then by (1) we have δ(v 1, U 0 U ) 3 and we are done since δ(v 1, U ) δ(v 1, U 0 U 1 ) 1. So suppose δ(u 0 U ) 1. If there is a vertex u U with deg(u, V 1 ), then we can move u 0 and u to U 1, thus for all u U, deg(u, V 1 ) = 1. Now suppose there is a vertex v 1 V 1 with deg(v 1, U ) and let u, u N(v) U. Let v 1 N(u 0) (V 1 \ {v 1 }). Since (U, V 1 ) 1, there exists some u (U \ {u, u }) N(v 1 ). Thus we can move v 1 and v 1. So for all v V 1, deg(v, U ) = 1. This implies that l s 1 = U = V 1 = l 1 s +, a contradiction. Case 1..3. a = 1. If U 0, then let u 0 U 0. Let u v 1 E(V 1, (U 0 U ) \ {u 0 }), which exists be (1). Let v N(u ) V. By (10), v 1 and v have a common neighbor u different than u. If u U 0 U, then we are done by simply moving v 1, so we have u U 1 which completes a K,. Now we move u 0 to U 1 to finish. Finally, suppose U 0 =. If there exists a vertex v V 1 such that deg(v, U ), then we can move v and be done. So suppose (V 1, U ) 1. Furthermore if there was a vertex v V 1 such that deg(v, U ) = 0, then (1) would imply δ(u, V 1 ) contradicting the fact that (V 1, U ) 1. So every vertex in V 1 has exactly one neighbor in U and (1) implies δ(u, V 1 ) 1. Since U is even and V 1 is odd, we must have V 1 U. If U > V 1, then δ(u, V 1 ) 1 would imply that there was a vertex in V 1 with two neighbors in U, so suppose V 1 > U. This implies that there exists some u 0 U such that deg(u 0, V 1 ). Let u v 1 E(V 1, U \ {u 0 }), which exists be (1). Let v N(u ) V. By (10), v 1 and v have a common neighbor u different than u. If u U, then we are done by simply moving v 1, so we have u U 1 which completes a K,. Now we move u 0 to U 1 to finish. Case. U 0 U M = and U is odd. Now there are no movable vertices in U 1 or U. So choose l 1, l such that U 1 = l 1 s + 1, U = l s 1. If it is not the case that V 0 V 1 l 1 s + or V 0 V l s, then V 0 =, V 1 = l 1 s + 1, V = l s 1, and V1 M =. Without loss of generality, suppose V 0 V 1 l 1 s + 1. Let b := V 1 V 0 U 1. Case.1. b = 0. Note that since b = 0, U 0 = V 0 = U M that if there is a vertex u i U i such that deg(u i, V 3 i ), then we would be done. Without loss of generality, suppose there exists u 1 U 1 such that deg(u 1, V ). Let v, v N(u 1 ) V. Since δ(v 1, U ) + δ(u, V 1 ) 1, there is an edge v 1 u E(V 1, U ). Let v V N(u ) \ {v, v }. By (10) we know that v 1 and v have a common neighbor u 0 which is different than u. If u 0 U 1, then we have a copy of K, with one vertex in each of U 1, U, V 1, V and we are done, so suppose u 0 U. Then we choose u (N(v) N(v )) (U \ {u 0 }). Thus we can move u and v 1 to finish. So we may suppose that (U 1, V ), (U, V 1 ) 1. (14) = V M 1 = for i = 1,. We first show By (11), there is a vertex u U such that deg(u, V ) n +. Without loss of generality, suppose u U 1. Then by (14) we have U 1 = V 1 n + 1, which in turn implies that U = V n 1. However, now we have δ(v, U 1 ), and thus there exists u U 1 such that deg(u, V ), contradicting (14). Case.. b 1. Suppose first that V 1 \ V M 1 l 1s + 3. Let b 1 := V 1 \ V M 1 (l 1s + ). We have δ(v 1 \ V M 1, U ) + δ(u, V 1 \ V M 1 ) n + 1 (l 1 s + 1 + l s b 1) = b 1 +. So we apply Lemma 4.5(i) with A = V 1 \ V1 M and B = U to get a set of b 1 vertex disjoint s stars from V 1 \ V1 M to U and one s-star from U to V 1 \ V1 M. 19
So we may suppose V 1 \ V1 M l 1s +. Reset V 1 := V 1 \ V1 M and V 0 := V 0 V1 M, then partition V 0 = V0 1 V 0 so that V 1 V0 1 = l 1s + and V V0 = l s. We have δ(v 1 V 1 0, U ) + δ(u, V 1 V 1 0 ) n + 1 (l 1 s + 1 + l s ) =. (15) We first observe that if δ(v 1 V0 1, U ), then there will be a vertex u U such that deg(u, V 1 ) in which case we would be done, so suppose not. This implies that U 1 n. First assume that V0 1 1. By (15), one of δ(u, V 1 V0 1) or δ(v 1 V0 1, U ) 1 must hold. Since V 1 V0 1 > U, in either case there is a vertex u U such that deg(u, V 1 V0 1 ), in which case we are done since V0 1 1. So suppose V0 1. Now if δ(v V0, U 1), then there will be a vertex u 1 U 1 such that deg(u 1, V ) in which case we would be done, since we can also move two vertices from V0, so suppose not. This implies that U n and since U 1 n, we have U 1 = U = n. So let v V with deg(v, U 1 ) = 1 and let v 1 N(u 1 ) V 1. By (10), v 1 and v have a common neighbor in U (since deg(v, U 1 ) = 1) which completes a K,. We finish by moving one additional vertex from V0 1 to V. 4.5. Case s 3 The following proof has many cases, so we provide an outline for reference. 1. V 1 k 1 s and V 0 V 1 k 1 s + r. l 1 k 1, Y V M 1 and V 0 V 0 such that (V 1 \ Y ) V 0 = l 1s..1. V 1 k 1 s.1.1. V 0 V 1 k 1 s + s.1.. V 0 V 1 < k 1 s + s.. V 1 > k 1 s..1. V 1 \ V M 1 k 1s..1.1. U 0 U k s..1.. U 0 U < k s..1..1. V 0 V 1 k 1 s + s..1..1.1. U 0 U 1 k 1 s + s..1..1.. U 0 U 1 < k 1 s + s..1... V 0 V 1 < k 1 s + s... V 1 \ V1 M > k 1s...1. l 1, Y V M 1 such that V 1 \ Y = l 1 s...1.1. U 0 U < l s (i.e. U 1 > l 1 s)...1.. U 0 U l s... l 1, V 0 V 0 such that V 1 V 0 = l 1s...1. U 0 U < l s... U 0 U l s 3. For some l 1 k 1 we have l 1 s < V 1 \ V M 1 V 1 V 0 < l 1 s + s 3.1. U \ U M l s 3.. U \ U M < l s 3..1. U 0 U 1 l 1 s + s 3..1.1. U 1 l 1 s 3..1.. U 1 > l 1 s 0
3..1..1. l 1 > k 1 3..1... l 1 = k 1 3... l 1 s < U 0 U 1 < l 1 s + s 3...1. U 1 l 1 s 3... U 1 > l 1 s 3...1. For some i {1, } we have δ(v i, U 3 i ) s or δ(u 3 i, V i ) s 3... For all i {1, } we have δ(v i, U 3 i ) < s and δ(u 3 i, V i ) < s Recall the following definitions. For i = 1,, Ui M = {u U i : deg(u, V 3 i ) > α 1/3 n} and Vi M = {v V i : deg(v, U 3 i ) > α 1/3 n}. Also recall U1 M = = V M by Claim 4.. Case 1 V 1 k 1 s and V 0 V 1 k 1 s + r. Let b := V k s and note that b r. We have δ(u 1, V ) k 1 s + s + r (k 1 s b ) s + r + b s. (16) Claim 4.8. If V 0 V 1 k 1 s, then there exists V 0 V 0 such that V 1 (V 0 \ V 0 ) = k 1s. If V 0 V 1 < k 1 s, then there exists a set of vertex disjoint s-stars with centers C V and leaves in U 1 such that V 0 V 1 + C = k 1 s. Proof. If V 0 V 1 k 1 s, we just choose V 0 V 0 such that V 1 (V 0 \ V 0 ) = k 1s. Otherwise b 0 and thus by (16) and (V, U 1 ) < α 1/3 k s, we can apply Lemma 4.4(ii) to get a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars from V to U 1 with centers C. So we have V 0 V 1 C = k 1 s. Let a := U k s. We have two cases. Suppose a 0. Claim 4.1 gives δ(v 1, U ) k s + s 5 r (k 1 s a ) s + a. So by Lemma 4.4(ii) there are a vertex disjoint s-stars from U to V 1 with centers C U. So we can make U 0 U 1 C U = k 1 s and apply Claim 4.8 to finish. Suppose a < 0. Then U 0 U 1 > k 1 s. If U 1 k 1 s, then there exists U 0 U 0 such that U 1 (U 0 \ U 0 ) = k 1s and we apply Claim 4.8 to finish. Otherwise U 1 > k 1 s and let a 1 := U 1 k 1 s > 0. If b > 0, then we have δ(u 1, V ) + δ(v, U 1 ) 3s 5 + a 1 + b, and we use Lemma 4.5(i) to get a set of a 1 vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V with centers C U and a set of b vertex disjoint s-stars from V to U 1 with centers C V. Thus U 1 \ C U = k 1 s and V 0 V 1 C V = k 1 s. Finally suppose b 0, i.e. V 0 V 1 k 1 s. If there exists a set of a 1 vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V, then we can apply Claim 4.8 to finish. We show that such a set exists. We have δ(v, U 1 ) k s + s 5 r (k s a 1 ) = s 5 r + a 1 s 4 + a 1. (17) If a 1 3, we use (16) and Lemma 4.4(i) with x = 0 to get a set of a 1 vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V with centers C U. Otherwise a 1 4 and we use (17) and Lemma 4.4(iii) or (v) to get a set of a 1 vertex disjoint s-stars from U 1 to V with centers C U. Case. There exists l 1 k 1, Y V M 1 and V 0 V 0 such that (V 1 \ Y ) V 0 = l 1s. Let l 1 k 1 be minimal. Case.1. V 1 k 1 s. By Case 1 we have V 0 V 1 > k 1 s + r. This implies that there exists V 0 V 0 such that V 1 V 0 = k 1s and (V 0 V ) \ V 0 = k s. We now try to make U 1 = k 1 s or U = k s. Reset U := U \U M and U 0 := U 0 U M. Let a 1 := U 1 k 1 s and a := U (k s s). We have δ(v, U 1 ) k s + s 5 r (k s a 1 ) = s 5 r + a 1 (18) 1