License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2606.27682v1 [math.CO] 26 Jun 2026

Linkage problem on optimal 11-planar graphs

Shohei Koizumi, Ryosuke Osaka, Yusuke Suzuki Graduate School of Science and Technology, Niigata University, 8050 Ikarashi 2-no-cho, Nishi-ku, Niigata, 950-2181, Japan. E-mail: s-koizumi@m.sc.niigata-u.ac.jpGraduate School of Science and Technology, Niigata University, 8050 Ikarashi 2-no-cho, Nishi-ku, Niigata, 950-2181, Japan. E-mail: Department of Mathematics, Niigata University, 8050 Ikarashi 2-no-cho, Nishi-ku, Niigata, 950-2181, Japan. Email: y-suzuki@math.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp
Abstract

Enami and Maezawa [3] give a complete characterization of (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked planar graphs for any kk-tuple of positive integers. In this paper, we investigate linkage problems for optimal 1-planar graphs. In particular, we show that every optimal 1-planar graph with connectivity 66 is (5,5)(5,5)-linked. Moreover, for an optimal 11-planar graph GG that is not (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linked, we characterize disjoint vertex subsets S1,S2,S3S_{1},S_{2},S_{3} in GG with |S1|=|S2|=2|S_{1}|=|S_{2}|=2 and |S3|=1|S_{3}|=1 such that GG is not {S1,S2,S3}\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}\}-linked.

Keywords: linkage problem, (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked, optimal 11-planar graph.

1 Introduction

Throughout this paper, we consider only finite and simple graphs. We denote the vertex set and the edge set of a graph GG by V(G)V(G) and E(G)E(G), respectively. For a vertex subset SV(G)S\subset V(G), we denote the induced subgraph of GG on SS by G[S]G[S]. A vertex subset SS of a connected graph GG is a cut if GSG-S is disconnected. For a cut SS of GG, SS is a kk-cut of GG if |S|=k|S|=k. A cycle with length kk is a kk-cycle. A cycle CC in GG is separating if V(C)V(C) is a cut.

A graph GG is kk-linked if for any distinct 2k2k vertices a1,,ak,b1,,bka_{1},\ldots,a_{k},b_{1},\ldots,b_{k}, GG has disjoint kk paths P1,P2,,PkP_{1},P_{2},\ldots,P_{k} such that PiP_{i} joins aia_{i} and bib_{i} for all ii. This notion has been extensively studied (see [7, 16]). Let S1,S2,,SkS_{1},S_{2},\ldots,S_{k} be kk non-empty disjoint vertex subsets of GG. A graph GG is {S1,S2,,Sk}\{S_{1},S_{2},\ldots,S_{k}\}-linked, if GG contains vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs G1,G2,,GkG_{1},G_{2},\ldots,G_{k} such that SiV(Gi)S_{i}\subset V(G_{i}) for all ii. Let s1,s2,,sks_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k} be kk positive integers. Then, GG is (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked if GG has at least i=1ksi\sum_{i=1}^{k}s_{i} vertices and for any kk disjoint vertex subsets S1,S2,,SkS_{1},S_{2},\ldots,S_{k} of GG with |Si|=si|S_{i}|=s_{i} for each i{1,2,,k}i\in\{1,2,\ldots,k\}, GG is {S1,S2,,Sk}\{S_{1},S_{2},\ldots,S_{k}\}-linked. Note that a graph GG with at least 2k2k vertices is (2,2,,2)(2,2,\dots,2)-linked, i.e., sis_{i} = 22 for all 1ik1\leq i\leq k, if and only if GG is kk-linked. This notion was introduced by Chen et al. [2] and derived from the “Graph Minor argument” related to a graph linkage problem. There are several results relating to linkages, minors, and subdivisions (see for example [1, 10]).

A graph GG is planar if GG can be drawn on the sphere S2S^{2} (or the plane) without edge crossings. Graphs already drawn on S2S^{2} are plane graphs. Let GG be a plane graph. Then a connected component of S2GS^{2}-G, regarded as a topological space, is called a face of GG. That is, “a face” in this paper is not necessarily homeomorphic to an (open) 22-cell. In general, each boundary component of a face ff forms a closed walk of GG. That is, the boundary of ff is the union of closed walks of GG. In particular, if ff has the unique boundary component, then it is the boundary closed walk of ff. A planar graph GG is maximalmaximal if for any two non-adjacent vertices xx and yy of GG, the graph obtained from GG by joining xx and yy by an edge is not planar. Every maximal planar graph with at least three vertices can be embedded on S2S^{2} as a triangulation, that is, with each face bounded by a 33-cycle. Mori [11] characterized (3,3)(3,3)-linked planar graphs. Furthermore, as an extension of this result, Enami and Maezawa [3] give a complete characterization of (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked planar graphs for any kk-tuple of positive integers.

THEOREM 1 (Enami and Maezawa [3])

Let GG be a planar graph, and let s1s_{1} and s2s_{2} be two integers with 2s1s242\leq s_{1}\leq s_{2}\leq 4. Then GG is (s1,s2)(s_{1},s_{2})-linked if and only if GG is maximal and (s2+1)(s_{2}+1)-connected.

The result above also implies that if k3k\geq 3 and si,sj2s_{i},s_{j}\geq 2 for two distinct indices i,j{1,2,3,,k}i,j\in\{1,2,3,\ldots,k\}, then there is no (s1,s2,s3,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},\ldots,s_{k})-linked planar graph (for further details, see [3]).

A 11-plane graph is a graph drawn on S2S^{2} so that each edge crosses at most one other edge. An edge in a 11-plane graph is crossing if it crosses another edge, and non-crossing otherwise. A 11-planar graph is a graph that can be drawn on S2S^{2} as a 11-plane graph. The notion of 11-planar graphs was first introduced by Ringel [15]. It is known that every 11-planar graph GG with at least three vertices satisfies |E(G)|4|V(G)|8|E(G)|\leq 4|V(G)|-8 (see e.g., [4]). A 11-planar or 11-plane graph GG is optimal if it satisfies |E(G)|=4|V(G)|8|E(G)|=4|V(G)|-8. Briefly, an optimal 11-plane graph will be abbreviated as an O1PG in this paper. (In fact, there is no need to distinguish between “optimal 11-planar” and “optimal 11-plane”, since it was shown in [18] that every optimal 11-planar graph admits a unique 11-planar drawing in the unlabeled sense.) It was shown in [14] that every O1PG contains a 44-connected triangulation as a spanning subgraph. The following proposition can be obtained from this result and Theorem 1.

PROPOSITION 2

Every O1PG is (3,3)(3,3)-linked.

The aim of this paper is to characterize (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked O1PGs for certain kk-tuples of positive integers. In [5], Fujisawa et al. discussed connectivity of O1PGs, and showed that every O1PG has connectivity either 44 or 66. Observe that every O1PG with connectivity 44 (resp. 66) is not (4,n)(4,n)-linked (resp. (6,n)(6,n)-linked) for any integer n2n\geq 2.

The following is our first main result in the paper.

THEOREM 3

Every O1PG with connectivity 66 is (5,5)(5,5)-linked.

In [13], it was shown that every O1PG is obtained from a 33-connected quadrangulation HH by adding a pair of crossing edges in each face of HH. In other words, the spanning subgraph of an O1PG GG, which consists of all non-crossing edges of GG is a 33-connected quadrangulation. We denote such the quadrangulation HH in GG by Q(G)(=H)Q(G)(=H).

Let GG be a 11-plane graph. Then GG has a graph HH as a subdrawing if HH is a subgraph of GG, and HH can be obtained from GG on S2S^{2} by removing all the vertices and edges that are not in HH. The following is our second main result in the paper.

THEOREM 4

Let GG be an O1PG, and let S1S_{1}, S2S_{2}, and S3S_{3} be disjoint vertex subsets of GG with |S1|=|S2|=2|S_{1}|=|S_{2}|=2 and |S3|=1|S_{3}|=1. Then, GG is {S1,S2,S3}\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}\}-linked if and only if Q(G)Q(G) does not have a subdrawing KK such that KK is isomorphic to K2,4K_{2,4}, and S1,S2S_{1},S_{2}, and S3S_{3} are arranged on KK as shown in Fig.1.

S1\in S_{1}S2\in S_{2}S3\in S_{3}
Figure 1: A subdrawing of Q(G)Q(G) isomorphic to K2,4K_{2,4} with specified vertices

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we investigate the (5,5)(5,5)-linkedness of O1PGs. We first establish some preliminary facts, including a general result on subtrees containing a specified set of vertices. We then prove the first main result of this paper. In Section 3, we consider the (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linkedness of O1PGs and characterize the (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linked O1PGs by determining the configurations of specified vertices that cannot be covered by three disjoint connected subgraphs. Finally, in Section 4, we discuss several related topics concerning linkages and present some open problems.

2 (5,5)(5,5)-linkedness of O1PGs with connectivity 6

In the following discussion, we often consider the induced subgraph of Q(G)Q(G) by a vertex subset SS of an O1PG GG, which is Q(G)[S]Q(G)[S] under our definition. However, when the underlying graph GG is clear, we use Q[S]Q[S] in place of Q(G)[S]Q(G)[S], to simplify the notation. The following lemma is proved in [9].

LEMMA 5 (Koizumi and Suzuki [9])

Let GG be an O1PG and let SS be a vertex subset of GG. Then every face of Q[S]Q[S] contains at most one connected component of GSG-S.

Let GG be a connected graph. We denote the vertex subset of GG consisting of all vertices of degree kk by Vk(G)V_{k}(G). For SV(G)S\subset V(G), a tree TT contained in GG as a subgraph is an SS-subtree if SV(T)S\subset V(T) and all leaves of TT belongs to SS. Note that GG contains at least one SS-subtree for any SV(G)S\subset V(G); consider a spanning tree and remove vertices of degree 11 that is not in SS recursively. To prove the first main theorem, we will establish the following more general statement, which may admit other applications.

PROPOSITION 6

Let GG be a connected graph with |E(G)|=|V(G)|+1|E(G)|=|V(G)|+1, and let SS be a subset of V(G)V(G) with |S|2|S|\geq 2 such that every vertex vv of degree 11 belongs to SS. If every cycle in GG has length at least max{|S|1,4}\max\{|S|-1,4\}, and if for any two cycles C1C_{1} and C2C_{2}, |V(C1)V(C2)|2|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|\leq 2 holds, then GG contains an SS-subtree TT with |V(T)|<|V(G)||V(T)|<|V(G)|.

Proof. We use induction on |V(G)||V(G)|. Let TT be a spanning tree of GG, and denote two edges of E(G)E(T)E(G)\setminus E(T) by e1e_{1} and e2e_{2}. Furthermore, let C1C_{1} (resp. C2C_{2}) denote the unique cycle in T+e1T+e_{1} (resp. T+e2T+e_{2}). We first consider the case when δ(G)2\delta(G)\geq 2, which is actually the base case of the induction. Let DD be the vertex set of GG consisting of all vertices of degree at least 33. Since GG has exactly |V(G)|+1|V(G)|+1 edges and has no vertices of degree 11, we have 2|E(G)|=2(|V2(G)|+|D|+1)2|V2(G)|+3|D|2|E(G)|=2(|V_{2}(G)|+|D|+1)\geq 2|V_{2}(G)|+3|D|, and hence |D|2|D|\leq 2 holds. Therefore, we have |S|+|D||S|+2|S|+|D|\leq|S|+2.

If |V(C1)V(C2)|>|S|+2|V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|>|S|+2, then there is a vertex v(V(C1)V(C2))Sv\in(V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2}))\setminus S of degree 22. Thus, GvG-v is connected, and hence GvG-v contains a desired smaller tree. Thus, we assume that |V(C1)V(C2)||S|+2|V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|\leq|S|+2. By the assumption |C1|,|C2||S|1|C_{1}|,|C_{2}|\geq|S|-1 and |V(C1)V(C2)|2|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|\leq 2, we have 2|S|4|V(C1)V(C2)|2|S|-4\leq|V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|, and consequently |S|6|S|\leq 6 holds. If |S|5|S|\geq 5, then |V(C1)V(C2)||S|+2<2|S|2|V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|\leq|S|+2<2|S|-2 holds. On the other hand, if |S|4|S|\leq 4, then |V(C1)V(C2)|6|V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|\leq 6 holds by the argument above; note that |C1|,|C2|4|C_{1}|,|C_{2}|\geq 4 in this case by our assumption. That is, not depending on |S||S|, we may assume that |V(C1)V(C2)|1|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|\geq 1. Under the condition, we have |V(C1)V(C2)|+1|E(C1)E(C2)||V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})|+1\leq|E(C_{1})\cup E(C_{2})|. This implies that every component HH of G(V(C1)V(C2))G-(V(C_{1})\cup V(C_{2})) must be a tree such that HH is joined by exactly one edge to C1C2C_{1}\cup C_{2} by |E(G)|=|V(G)|+1|E(G)|=|V(G)|+1. However, there is no such component since δ(G)2\delta(G)\geq 2. Thus, we now conclude that G=C1C2G=C_{1}\cup C_{2}.

First, we assume that |V(C1)V(C2)|=2|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|=2. Since GG is a two points union of two cycles, GG is 22-connected . In addition, since |V(G)|max{6,2|S|4}|V(G)|\geq\max\{6,2|S|-4\}, we have |V(G)||S|+1|V(G)|\geq|S|+1; note that if |S|5|S|\leq 5, then |V(G)|6|V(G)|\geq 6, and |V(G)|2|S|4|S|+1|V(G)|\geq 2|S|-4\geq|S|+1 otherwise. Thus, there is a vertex vV(G)Sv\in V(G)\setminus S such that GvG-v is connected. Then, GG contains our desired SS-subtree. Next, assume that |V(C1)V(C2)|=1|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|=1, that is GG is a one point union of C1C_{1} and C2C_{2}. In this case, |V(G)|max{7,2|S|3}|V(G)|\geq\max\{7,2|S|-3\} holds, and we similarly have |V(G)||S|+2|V(G)|\geq|S|+2. This means that GG has a vertex vv of degree 22 that does not belong to SS. Thus, GvG-v contains our desired SS-subtree.

Then, we assume that δ(G)=1\delta(G)=1 below. Let vV(G)v\in V(G) be a vertex of degree 11; note that vSv\in S. Let P=v0vkP=v_{0}\cdots v_{k} (k1)(k\geq 1) denote a path with v=v0v=v_{0} such that (1) vkv_{k} satisfies either vkSv_{k}\in S or degG(vk)3\deg_{G}(v_{k})\geq 3, and (2) viSv_{i}\notin S for each {1,,k1}\{1,\ldots,k-1\} (if k2k\geq 2). Then, put P=PvkP^{\prime}=P-v_{k}, and G~=GP\tilde{G}=G-P^{\prime}.

Now, we further put S~=(S{v}){vk}\tilde{S}=(S\setminus\{v\})\cup\{v_{k}\}. Then, G~\tilde{G} and S~\tilde{S} satisfy the conditions in the proposition. Therefore, G~\tilde{G} contains a S~\tilde{S}-subtree T~\tilde{T} with |V(T~)|<|V(G~)||V(\tilde{T})|<|V(\tilde{G})| by the induction hypothesis. Then, T=T~PT=\tilde{T}\cup P is our desired SS-subtree with |V(T)|<|V(G)||V(T)|<|V(G)|.  

Now, we prove the first main result in this paper.

Proof of Theorem 3. Let GG be an O1PG with connectivity 66, and let S1S_{1}, S2S_{2} be disjoint subsets of V(G)V(G) with |S1|=|S2|=5|S_{1}|=|S_{2}|=5. Let GG^{\prime} be the graph obtained from GG by removing S1S_{1}. Since κ(G)=6\kappa(G)=6, GG^{\prime} is connected. Thus, GG^{\prime} contains a spanning tree. We choose a subtree TT of GG^{\prime}, which is a subdrawing of GG^{\prime}, so that it satisfies the following conditions (i)(i), (ii)(ii), and (iii)(iii).

  • (i)(i)

    TT contains all vertices of S2S_{2},

  • (ii)(ii)

    Subject to (i), the number of crossing edges of GG in TT is minimum, and

  • (iii)(iii)

    Subject to (i) and (ii), |V(T)||V(T)| is minimum.

CLAIM 1

All leaves of TT belong to S2S_{2}.

Proof. Suppose that there is a leaf vv of TT which does not belong to S2S_{2}. Then, TvT-v is a tree satisfying the condition (i)(i). Let ee be the unique edge of TT that is incident to vv. If ee is a crossing edge of GG, then the tree TvT-v has fewer crossing edges than TT, contradicting the condition (ii)(ii). If ee is a non-crossing edge of GG, then this contradicts the condition (iii)(iii).  

CLAIM 2

The tree TT is a plane graph.

Proof. Suppose that TT has two edges v0v2v_{0}v_{2} and v1v3v_{1}v_{3} that are crossing each other. Note that since GG is optimal, there are four non-crossing edges v0v1,v1v2,v2v3v_{0}v_{1},v_{1}v_{2},v_{2}v_{3}, and v3v0v_{3}v_{0} in GG. Since TT is a tree, we may assume that there exists the path joining v0v_{0} and v1v_{1} in TT, up to symmetry. Then, we can obtain a new tree TT^{\prime} from TT by removing the edge v1v3v_{1}v_{3} and adding the edge v3v0v_{3}v_{0}. The tree TT^{\prime} has fewer crossing edges than TT and satisfies the condition (i)(i). This contradicts the condition (ii)(ii).  

CLAIM 3

Assume that there is an edge eE(Q[V(T)])E(T)e\in E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T), and let CC be the unique cycle contained in T+eT+e. Then, every edge on CC is non-crossing in GG.

Proof. Suppose that CC contains a crossing edge uvuv. Then, Tuv+eT-uv+e is also a tree that satisfies the condition (i)(i) (see Fig.2). This contradicts the condition (ii)(ii).  

TTTuv+eT-uv+euuvvuuvveeee
Figure 2: TT and Tuv+eT-uv+e in Claim 33
CLAIM 4

Assume that there is an edge eE(Q[V(T)])E(T)e\in E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T), and let CC be the unique cycle contained in T+eT+e. Then, CC has length 44. Moreover, |E(Q[V(T)])E(T)|1|E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T)|\leq 1, that is, the subgraph Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] contains at most one cycle.

Proof. Suppose that CC has length at least 66. Note that since Q(G)Q(G) is bipartite, the length of CC is even. Then,

|V(C)S2|+|{vV(C):deg(T+e)(v)3}|5|V(C)\cap S_{2}|+|\{\,v\in V(C):\deg_{(T+e)}(v)\geq 3\,\}|\leq 5

holds by Claim 11. Therefore, there exists a vertex wV(C)S2w\in V(C)\setminus S_{2} with deg(T+e)(w)=2\deg_{(T+e)}(w)=2. Then, T+ewT+e-w satisfies the conditions (i)(i) and (ii)(ii). This contradicts the condition (iii)(iii). Thus, CC has length 44.

Suppose that |E(Q[V(T)])E(T)|2|E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T)|\geq 2, and let e1,e2E(Q[V(T)])E(T)e_{1},e_{2}\in E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T). Let C1C_{1} (resp. C2C_{2}) be the unique 44-cycle in T+e1T+e_{1} (resp. T+e2T+e_{2}). Then, T{e1,e2}T\cup\{e_{1},e_{2}\} has exactly |V(T{e1,e2})|+1|V(T\cup\{e_{1},e_{2}\})|+1 edges. Suppose that |V(C1)V(C2)|3|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|\geq 3. Since GG is 66-connected and C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} consist only of non-crossing edges of GG, each of C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} bounds a face of Q(G)Q(G). Thus, each of C1C_{1} and C2C_{2} has exactly two chords corresponding to crossing edges of GG, contradicting the simplicity of GG. Hence |V(C1)V(C2)|2|V(C_{1})\cap V(C_{2})|\leq 2. By Proposition 6, T{e1,e2}T\cup\{e_{1},e_{2}\} contains a subtree TT^{\prime} such that S2V(T)S_{2}\subset V(T^{\prime}), all leaves belong to S2S_{2}, and |V(T)|<|V(T)||V(T^{\prime})|<|V(T)|. This contradicts the condition (iii)(iii), and hence, |E(Q[V(T)])E(T)|1|E(Q[V(T)])\setminus E(T)|\leq 1.  

TTQ[V(T)]Q[V(T)]F1F_{1}F2F_{2}
Figure 3: Tree TT and Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)]

Now we consider an induced subgraph Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] of Q(G)Q(G). Observe that each connected component of Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] is either acyclic or, if it contains exactly one cycle, then such a cycle has length exactly 44 by claims 3 and 4. If every connected component of Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] is acyclic, then Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] has a unique face. By Lemma 5, GTG-T is connected, and hence we can obtain a connected subgraph in GTG-T containing all vertices of S1S_{1}.

Therefore, we assume that there is a connected component of Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] that is not acyclic (see the left-hand side and the right-hand side of Fig.3). Then, by Claim 4, Q[V(T)]Q[V(T)] has exactly two faces F1F_{1} and F2F_{2}, one of which, say F1F_{1}, is bounded by a 44-cycle. Since κ(G)=6\kappa(G)=6, the interior of F1F_{1} contains no vertices of GG. Then, the interior of F2F_{2} contains all vertices of V(G)V(T)V(G)\setminus V(T). By Lemma 5, GTG-T is connected and hence we can obtain a connected subgraph in GTG-T containing all vertices of S1S_{1}.  

3 Characterization of (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linked O1PGs

Seymour [16], Shiloach [17], and Thomassen [20] independently characterized (2,2)(2,2)-linked graphs. The following proposition can be obtained from the result above.

PROPOSITION 7 (Seymour [16], Shiloach [17], and Thomassen [20])

Let GG be a planar graph, and let S1={x1,x2}S_{1}=\{x_{1},x_{2}\} and S2={y1,y2}S_{2}=\{y_{1},y_{2}\} be disjoint vertex subsets of GG. Then GG is not {S1,S2}\{S_{1},S_{2}\}-linked if and only if GG has an embedding on S2S^{2} that satisfies the followings:

  • (i)

    There is a face ff whose boundary closed walk WW has length at least 44, and

  • (ii)

    The boundary walk WW contains x1,y1,x2,y2x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2} in this order.

Let GG be a plane graph. Then, GG is a near-triangulation if it is 22-connected and all faces, except at most one face, are triangles. A simple closed curve γ\gamma on S2S^{2} is a separating kk-curve if it passes only through kk vertices in a plane graph GG and each of two regions separated by γ\gamma contains at least one vertex of GG.

Proof of Theorem 4. Let GG be an O1PG, and let S1={r1,r2}S_{1}=\{r_{1},r_{2}\}, S2={b1,b2}S_{2}=\{b_{1},b_{2}\}, S3={y}S_{3}=\{y\} be disjoint subsets of V(G)V(G). The sufficiency is clear, and hence we shall prove the necessity. Assume that GG is not {S1,S2,S3}\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}\}-linked. Let BB and WW be the partite sets of Q(G)Q(G). We may assume that yWy\in W.

Let NG(y)={u1,u2,,u2k}N_{G}(y)=\{u_{1},u_{2},\ldots,u_{2k}\} with k3k\geq 3, and assume that the edges yu1,yu2,,yu2kyu_{1},yu_{2},\ldots,yu_{2k} appear in the clockwise order around yy. Then, we may assume that uiBu_{i}\in B when ii is even, and uiWu_{i}\in W otherwise (i{1,2,,2k})(i\in\{1,2,\ldots,{2k}\}). Let GG^{\prime} be the graph obtained from GG by removing yy (see the left-hand side of Fig. 4, where vertices in BB (resp. WW) are shown in black (resp. white)). Then GG^{\prime} contains a spanning subgraph that is a near-triangulation whose unique non-triangular face is bounded by C=u2u4u2kC^{\prime}=u_{2}u_{4}\ldots u_{2k}. Since CC^{\prime} consists only of black vertices, at most one edge in each pair of crossing edges can be a chord of CC^{\prime}. Therefore, we can take such a near-triangulation TT so that CC^{\prime} has no chords (see the center of Fig.4). Observe that TT is 33-connected. We denote by FF the unique non-triangular face of TT.

GG^{\prime}

\ldots

HHTTyy

\ldots

\ldots

Figure 4: GG^{\prime}, TT, and HH

Since GG is not {S1,S2,S3}\{S_{1},S_{2},S_{3}\}-linked, there are no two disjoint paths joining r1r_{1} to r2r_{2} and b1b_{1} to b2b_{2} in TT. Hence, by Proposition 7, there exists an embedding of TT on S2S^{2} such that there is a face whose boundary cycle containing r1,b1,r2r_{1},b_{1},r_{2}, and b2b_{2} in this order. Since TT is 33-connected, such an embedding is unique. Therefore, we may assume that r1,b1,r2,r_{1},b_{1},r_{2}, and b2b_{2} are contained in CC^{\prime} in this order.

Let HH be the subgraph of GG induced by BB (see the right-hand side of Fig.4). Observe that HH is a plane graph and the face FF of TT is also a face of HH. Since S1,S2V(C)S_{1},S_{2}\subset V(C^{\prime}), we have S1,S2V(H)S_{1},S_{2}\subset V(H). Furthermore, the boundary of each face of HH is a cycle, and hence HH is 22-connected. Let H1H_{1} (resp. H2H_{2}) be the graph obtained from HH by removing the vertices r1r_{1} and r2r_{2} (resp. b1b_{1} and b2b_{2}). Suppose that H1H_{1} or H2H_{2}, say H1H_{1} here, is connected. Then, there exists a path P1P_{1} joining b1b_{1} and b2b_{2} in H1H_{1} such that P1P_{1} only passes through the vertices of B{r1,r2}B-\{r_{1},r_{2}\}. Next, let ss (resp. tt) be a vertex in WNG(r1)W\cap N_{G^{\prime}}(r_{1}) (resp. WNG(r2)W\cap N_{G^{\prime}}(r_{2})). Note that s,t{b1,b2}s,t\notin\{b_{1},b_{2}\}, since b1,b2Bb_{1},b_{2}\in B. Since the subgraph G[W]G[W] of GG induced by WW is also 22-connected, the subgraph G[W]yG[W]-y is connected. Then, there exists a path P2P_{2} joining ss and tt such that P2P_{2} only passes through the vertices of W{y}W\setminus\{y\}. Then, the path P2{r1,r2}{r1s,r2t}P_{2}\cup\{r_{1},r_{2}\}\cup\{r_{1}s,r_{2}t\} and P1P_{1} are disjoint. This contradicts the assumption. The same argument applies when H2H_{2} is connected.

Therefore, we assume that both H1H_{1} and H2H_{2} are disconnected. Since H1H_{1} is disconnected, {r1,r2r_{1},r_{2}} is a 22-cut of HH. Then, there exists a separating 22-curve γ1\gamma_{1} passing through only r1r_{1} and r2r_{2}. Then γ1\gamma_{1} passes through the interior of a face F1F_{1} of HH other than FF whose boundary contains r1r_{1} and r2r_{2}. Since HH is the subgraph of GG induced by BB, there is exactly one vertex wWw\in W inside the face F1F_{1}. Similarly, there is a face F2F_{2} of HH whose boundary contains b1b_{1} and b2b_{2} and whose interior contains exactly one vertex uWu\in W. Under the situation, this implies that F1=F2F_{1}=F_{2} whose boundary contains r1,b1,r2,b2r_{1},b_{1},r_{2},b_{2} in this order, and that w=uw=u. Therefore, {r1,r2,b1,b2,y}\{r_{1},r_{2},b_{1},b_{2},y\} have the arrangement in GG as stated in the Theorem 4.  

Now, we can obtain the following corollary from Theorem 4.

COROLLARY 8

Every O1PG with connectivity 66 is (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linked.

4 Concluding remarks and related topics

In the previous sections, we established the (5,5)(5,5)-linkedness and the (2,2,1)(2,2,1)-linkedness of O1PGs with connectivity 66. A natural question is whether similar results hold for other tuples of integers. In fact, there exist infinitely many O1PGs with connectivity 66 that are not (2,2,2)(2,2,2)-linked. The following O1PG with eight vertices, shown in Fig.5, called XW6X\!W_{6}, is one such example; there are no three vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs, each containing SiS_{i} in the figure. As mentioned above, an XW6XW_{6} is a graph in an infinite series of graphs denoted by XW2kX\!W_{2k} with k3k\geq 3 (see, e.g., [19] for a definition). In fact, we have already observed that none of them is (2,2,2)(2,2,2)-linked; since the required case analysis is extensive, a detailed discussion will be given in a subsequent paper.

S1\in S_{1}S2\in S_{2}S3\in S_{3}
Figure 5: XW6X\!W_{6} that is not (2,2,2)(2,2,2)-linked

We briefly discuss several topics related to linkages. Let GG be a graph and let SS be a vertex subset of GG. The pair (G,S)(G,S) is knitted if for every partition of SS into non-empty subsets S1,S2,,StS_{1},S_{2},\ldots,S_{t}, there are disjoint connected subgraphs G1,G2,,GtG_{1},G_{2},\ldots,G_{t} in GG such that SiV(Gi)S_{i}\subseteq V(G_{i}) for each i{1,,t}i\in\{1,\ldots,t\}. A graph GG is ll-knitted if (G,S)(G,S) is knitted for all SV(G)S\subseteq V(G) with |S|=l|S|=l. The notion of a “knitted graph” was introduced by Bollobás and Thomason [1], and was later further generalized by Kawarabayashi and Yu [8]. Observe that a graph GG is ll-knitted if and only if GG is (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked for any list (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k}) with i=1ksi=l\sum_{i=1}^{k}s_{i}=l. In [8], the notion of a knitted graph was applied to study the connectivity of minimum counterexamples to Hadwiger’s conjecture.

By Corollary 8 and brief arguments, we can obtain the following proposition.

PROPOSITION 9

Every O1PG with connectivity 66 is 55-knitted.

However, there are O1PGs with connectivity 66 that are not 66-knitted, since there are infinitely many O1PGs with connectivity 66 that are not (2,2,2)(2,2,2)-linked as mentioned above; on the other hand, recall that every O1PG is (3,3)(3,3)-linked.

We introduce one more related topic. A graph GG is kk-ordered if for every kk vertices of a given order, there is a cycle containing the kk vertices of the given order. Note that if a graph GG is kk-ordered, then GG is kk-knitted. Goddard [6] showed the following theorem.

THEOREM 10 (Goddard [6])

Every 44-connected triangulation on the sphere is 44-ordered.

In fact, the result above has been extended to general closed surfaces by Mukae and Ozeki [12]. By Theorem 10 and the fact that every O1PG contains a 44-connected triangulation as a spanning subgraph, we obtain the following proposition.

PROPOSITION 11

Every O1PG is 44-ordered.

However, there exist O1PGs with connectivity 66 that are not 55-ordered. The following O1PG called XW8X\!W_{8} is one such example (see Fig.6). We can see that there are no cycles containing v1,v2,v3,v4,v_{1},v_{2},v_{3},v_{4}, and v5v_{5} in this order.

v2v_{2}v5v_{5}v4v_{4}v3v_{3}v1v_{1}
Figure 6: XW8X\!W_{8} that is not 55-ordered

From the discussion so far, we can see that there is a clear gap among linkage, knittedness, and orderedness. Finally, we propose several open problems.

PROBLEM 12

For a fixed integer kk and for any list (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k}) of positive integers, characterize (s1,s2,,sk)(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{k})-linked O1PGs.

PROBLEM 13

Characterize 66-knitted O1PGs with connectivity 66.

PROBLEM 14

Characterize 55-ordered O1PGs with connectivity 66.

References

  • [1] B. Bollobás and A. Thomason, Highly linked graphs, Combinatorica 16 (1996), 313–320.
  • [2] G. Chen, R. J. Gould, K. Kawarabayashi, F. Pfender and B. Wei, Graph minors and linkages, Journal of Graph Theory 49 (2005), 75–91.
  • [3] K. Enami and S. Maezawa, Characterization of (m,n)(m,n)-linked planar graphs, Graphs and Combinatorics 38 (2022), 131.
  • [4] I. Fabrici and T. Madaras, The structure of 11-planar graphs, Discrete Mathematics 307 (2007), 854–865.
  • [5] J. Fujisawa, K. Segawa and Y. Suzuki, The matching extendability of optimal 11-planar graphs, Graphs and Combinatorics 34 (2018), 1089–1099.
  • [6] W. Goddard, 4-connected maximal planar graphs are 4-ordered, Discrete Mathematics 257 (2002), 405–410
  • [7] K. Kawarabayashi, kk-linked graphs with girth condition, J. Graph Theory 45 (2004), 48–50.
  • [8] K. Kawarabayashi and G. Yu Connectivities for kk-knitted graphs and for minimal counterexamples to Hadwiger’s conjecture, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 103 (2013), 320–326.
  • [9] S. Koizumi and Y. Suzuki, The matching extendability of optimal 11-embedded graphs on the projective plane, Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 45 (2025), 1233–1248.
  • [10] D. G. Larman and P. Mani, On the existence of certain configurations within graphs and the 11-skeletons of polytopes, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 20 (1970), 144–160.
  • [11] R. Mori, (3,3)(3,3)-linked planar graphs, Discrete Mathematics 308 (2008), 5280–5283.
  • [12] R. Mukae and K. Ozeki, 4-connected triangulations and 4-orderedness, Discrete Mathematics 310 (2010), 2271–2272
  • [13] T. Nagasawa, K. Noguchi, Y. Suzuki, Optimal 11-embedded graphs which triangulate other surfaces, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 19 (2018), 1759–1770.
  • [14] K. Noguchi and Y. Suzuki, Relationship among triangulations, quadrangulations and optimal 11-planar graphs, Graphs and Combinatorics 31 (2015), 1965–1972.
  • [15] G. Ringel, Ein Sechsfarbenproblem auf der kugel, Abhandlungen aus dem Mathematischen Seminar der Universität Hamburg 29 (1965), 107–117.
  • [16] P.D. Seymour, Disjoint paths in graphs, Discrete Mathematics 29 (1980), 293–309.
  • [17] Y. Shiloach, A polynomial solution to the undirected two paths problem, Journal of the ACM 27 (1980), 445–456.
  • [18] Y. Suzuki, Re-embeddings of maximum 11-planar graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 24 (2010), 1527–1540.
  • [19] Y. Suzuki, K7K_{7}-minors in optimal 11-planar graphs, Discrete Mathematics 340 (2017), 1227–1234.
  • [20] C. Thomassen, 22-linked graphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 1 (1980), 371–378.