On the Anti-Ramsey Number of Spanning Linear Forests with Paths of Lengths 2 and 3

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2509.25949
• Title: On the Anti-Ramsey Number of Spanning Linear Forests with Paths of Lengths 2 and 3
• Authors: Ali Ghalavand, Xueliang Li (Nankai University Center for Combinatorics)
• Classification: math.CO (Combinatorics)
• Submission Date: November 7, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25949v2

Abstract

This paper investigates the anti-Ramsey number in edge colorings of the complete graph $K_n$. For the linear forest $kP_3 \cup tP_2$ (consisting of $k$ paths of length 2 and $t$ paths of length 1), the authors determine the anti-Ramsey number when $k \geq 1$, $t \geq 2$, and $n = 3k + 2t$ (exactly equal to the forest size). The main result shows: $AR(n, kP_3 \cup tP_2) = \frac{1}{2}(3k + 2t - 3)(3k + 2t - 4) + 1$. The proof requires no specific relationship between $k$ and $t$, significantly generalizing previous results.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem

The anti-Ramsey number problem investigates: in an edge coloring of the complete graph $K_n$, what is the maximum number of colors that can be used such that no rainbow copy (a copy with all edges having distinct colors) of a given graph $G$ appears? This is the dual problem of classical Ramsey theory.

2. Problem Significance

• Theoretical Value: Anti-Ramsey theory, introduced by Erdős et al. in 1975, has deep connections with Turán numbers and represents an important research direction in extremal combinatorics
• Structural Significance: Studying anti-Ramsey numbers for different graph structures helps understand coloring properties and structural characteristics
• Application Prospects: Potential applications in network design, coding theory, and related fields

3. Limitations of Existing Work

For the linear forest $kP_3 \cup tP_2$:

• Gilboa and Roditty (2016): Provided upper bounds for sufficiently large $n$
• He and Jin (2025): Resolved the case $t \geq 2$, $n \geq 2t+3$
• Jie et al. (2025): Required strict conditions $k \geq 2$, $t \geq \frac{k^2-k+4}{2}$, $n \geq 3k+2t+1$

Key Deficiency: When the host graph size $n$ equals exactly the forest size $3k+2t$ (the critical case) and $t$ is relatively small compared to $k$, a complete characterization is lacking.

4. Research Motivation

• Fill the theoretical gap for $n = 3k+2t$ (spanning case)
• Remove the quadratic relationship restriction between $k$ and $t$
• Provide a more general and unified proof framework

Core Contributions

1. Main Theorem: Proves that for $k \geq 1$, $t \geq 2$, $n = 3k+2t$: $AR(n, kP_3 \cup tP_2) = \frac{1}{2}(3k + 2t - 3)(3k + 2t - 4) + 1$
2. Methodological Innovation: Proposes a proof framework based on induction and exhaustive case analysis, including systematic analysis of 16 complex scenarios
3. Result Generalization:
   • Allows the case $k=1$ (previous work required $k \geq 2$)
   • Removes the restriction $t \geq \frac{k^2-k+4}{2}$
   • Covers the critical case $n = 3k+2t$
4. Technical Tools: Establishes a key lemma (Lemma 1.3) that characterizes lower bound properties of subgraph color counts

Method Details

Task Definition

Input: Positive integers $k, t, n$ satisfying $k \geq 1$, $t \geq 2$, $n = 3k+2t$
Objective: Determine the exact value of $AR(n, kP_3 \cup tP_2)$
Constraint: Edge coloring of $K_n$ contains no rainbow copy of $kP_3 \cup tP_2$

Where:

• $P_3$: Path with 3 vertices (2 edges)
• $P_2$: Path with 2 vertices (1 edge)
• $kP_3 \cup tP_2$: $k$ disjoint copies of $P_3$ and $t$ disjoint copies of $P_2$

Proof Architecture

1. Bidirectional Proof Strategy

The proof proceeds in two directions:

Case 1 (Lower Bound): Constructive Proof

• Construct an edge coloring $c$ of $K_n$ using $\frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+1$ colors
• Construction method: Select the subgraph $K_{n-3}$, color all edges distinctly (rainbow), and use new colors for remaining edges
• Verify that this coloring contains no rainbow copy of $kP_3 \cup tP_2$

Case 2 (Upper Bound): Proof by Contradiction + Induction

• Assume there exists a coloring using $\frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+2$ colors
• Prove that a rainbow copy of $kP_3 \cup tP_2$ must exist

2. Key Lemma (Lemma 1.3)

Statement: If $|c(K_n)| \geq \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+2$ and $K_{n-3}$ is the subgraph maximizing $|c(K_{n-3})|$, then: $|c(K_{n-3})| \geq \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-6)(3k+2t-7)+2$

Proof Idea:

• Let $G$ be a rainbow spanning subgraph of $K_n$ with $|c(K_n)|$ colors
• Analyze two cases:
  • Case I: Each vertex has degree at least $3k+2t-6$ in $K_{n-3}$
  • Case II: There exists a low-degree vertex; counting argument leads to contradiction

3. Inductive Proof Framework

Induction on $k$:

• Base Case ($k=1$): Use He and Jin's Theorem 1.2
• Inductive Step ($k \geq 2$):
  1. Select $K_{n-3}$ maximizing $|c(K_{n-3})|$
  2. By the lemma, $K_{n-3}$ contains a rainbow copy $H$ of $(k-1)P_3 \cup tP_2$
  3. Let $S = \{s_1, s_2, s_3\}$ be $V(K_n) - V(K_{n-3})$
  4. Analyze the coloring pattern of $K_n[S]$ (subgraph induced by $S$)

Technical Innovation Points

1. Systematic Case Analysis

The coloring pattern of $K_n[S]$ is subdivided into 16 scenarios (Scenarios 2.1-2.16):

Classification by Number and Source of Colors:

• Scenario 2.1: $|c(K_n[S]) - c(H)| \geq 2$ (at least 2 new colors)
• Scenarios 2.2-2.5: $|c(K_n[S])| = 3$ and $|c(K_n[S]) - c(H)| = 1$ (exactly 1 new color)
  • 2.2: 1 new color, 2 from same $P_3$
  • 2.3: 1 new color, 2 from two different $P_2$'s
  • 2.4: 1 new color, from 1 $P_2$ and 1 $P_3$
  • 2.5: 1 new color, from 2 different $P_3$'s
• Scenarios 2.6-2.11: Special coloring patterns (repeated colors)
• Scenarios 2.12-2.14: Repeated colors in $K_n[S]$
• Scenarios 2.15-2.16: $c(K_n[S]) \subseteq c(H)$ (no new colors)

2. Edge Counting Technique

For each scenario, define the set $S_{2.x}(l_1, \ldots, l_h)$ representing the maximum set of edges not in $G$ under conditions $l_1, \ldots, l_h$. Through counting arguments: $|c(K_n)| \leq \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t)(3k+2t-1) - |S_{2.x}(\cdots)|$

If the right side is at most $\frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+1$, a contradiction is derived.

3. Recursive Simplification Strategy

Certain scenarios are transformed into previously handled scenarios by redefining $S$ and $H$, avoiding redundant analysis.

Example (Scenario 2.6): If $c(s_1s_2) \notin c(H)$ and $c(s_1s_3) = c(s_2s_3) = c(x_1^a x_2^a)$, redefine:

• $S \leftarrow \{x_1^a, x_2^a, x_3^a\}$
• $V(P_3^a) \leftarrow \{s_1, s_2, s_3\}$

Then apply Scenarios 2.1-2.5.

Experimental Setup

Note: This is a pure mathematics theoretical paper with no experimental verification. All results are obtained through rigorous mathematical proof.

Verification Method

• Logical Reasoning: Each scenario verified through exhaustive case analysis and counting arguments
• Induction: Ensures completeness and correctness of the proof
• Citation of Known Results: Base case utilizes Theorem 1.2 (He and Jin, 2025)

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem 1.1: For $k \geq 1$, $t \geq 2$, $n = 3k+2t$: $AR(n, kP_3 \cup tP_2) = \frac{1}{2}(3k + 2t - 3)(3k + 2t - 4) + 1$

Specific Numerical Examples:

• $k=1, t=2, n=7$: $AR(7, P_3 \cup 2P_2) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot 4 \cdot 3 + 1 = 7$
• $k=2, t=2, n=10$: $AR(10, 2P_3 \cup 2P_2) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot 7 \cdot 6 + 1 = 22$
• $k=2, t=3, n=12$: $AR(12, 2P_3 \cup 3P_2) = \frac{1}{2} \cdot 9 \cdot 8 + 1 = 37$

Comparison with Previous Results

Theoretical Significance

1. Completeness: Provides complete characterization of the spanning case ($n = 3k+2t$)
2. Generality:
   • Allows arbitrary $k \geq 1$ and $t \geq 2$
   • No requirement for quadratic growth of $t$ relative to $k$
3. Simplicity: Provides a unified closed-form formula

Related Work

1. Foundations of Anti-Ramsey Theory

• Erdős et al. (1975): Introduced the concept of anti-Ramsey numbers, establishing connections with Turán numbers
• Simonovits & Sós (1984): Determined anti-Ramsey numbers for paths $P_t$
• Montellano-Ballesteros & Neumann-Lara (2005): Determined anti-Ramsey numbers for cycles $C_t$

2. Anti-Ramsey Numbers for Matchings

• Schiermeyer (2004): $tP_2$ for $n \geq 3t+3$
• Chen et al. (2009) and Fujita et al. (2009): Improved to $n \geq 2t+1$
• Haas & Young (2012): Resolved the critical case $n = 2t$

3. General Linear Forests

• Gilboa & Roditty (2016): Provided upper bounds for multiple classes of linear forests, including $kP_3 \cup tP_2$
• Fang et al. (2021): Asymptotic formula $AR(n,F) = \left(\sum \lfloor p_i/2 \rfloor - \epsilon\right)n + O(1)$
• Xie et al. (2020): Exact formulas for linear forests with even components

4. Combinations of Paths and Matchings

• Bialostocki et al. (2015): Anti-Ramsey numbers for small graphs, including $P_3 \cup P_2$ and $P_3 \cup 2P_2$
• He & Jin (2025): Complete results for $P_3 \cup tP_2$ and $2P_3 \cup tP_2$
• Jie et al. (2025): Results for $kP_3 \cup tP_2$ when $t$ is large

Positioning of This Paper

This paper fills the gap for $n = 3k+2t$ (spanning) with arbitrary $t$ relative to $k$, providing the most general result to date.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Exact Formula: Determines $AR(3k+2t, kP_3 \cup tP_2) = \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+1$
2. Universality: Proof holds for all $k \geq 1$, $t \geq 2$ without additional conditions
3. Methodology: Establishes a systematic case analysis framework potentially applicable to other linear forests

Limitations

1. Scope Restriction: Only resolves the case $n = 3k+2t$; cases with $n > 3k+2t$ and small $t$ remain unresolved
2. Proof Complexity: The exhaustive analysis of 16 scenarios makes the proof lengthy, lacking a unified elegant argument
3. Computational Nature: Proof relies heavily on case checking, difficult to generalize to more complex forest structures
4. Non-constructive: Upper bound proof is primarily by contradiction; lacks explicit construction of extremal colorings

Future Directions

The authors explicitly identify in Section 3:

Open Problems: Determine $AR(n, kP_3 \cup tP_2)$ when:

• $n \geq 3k+2t+1$ (exceeding forest size)
• $t < \frac{k^2-k+4}{2}$ (small $t$ relative to $k$)

Possible Research Directions:

1. Generalize to other path length combinations (e.g., $kP_4 \cup tP_2$)
2. Study anti-Ramsey numbers for non-linear forests
3. Develop more unified proof techniques reducing case analysis
4. Explore connections between anti-Ramsey numbers and other extremal parameters

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Significant Theoretical Contribution

• Fills Important Gap: Resolves the spanning case, a natural and important critical problem
• Removes Restrictions: No longer requires $t \geq \frac{k^2-k+4}{2}$, making results more general
• Unified Framework: Provides a unified formula for all satisfying $k, t$

2. Rigorous Proof Technique

• Clear Inductive Structure: Builds from the known result for $k=1$ to the general case
• Effective Key Lemma: Lemma 1.3 cleverly ensures the feasibility of inductive steps
• Complete Case Analysis: 16 scenarios cover all possible coloring patterns

3. Standard Mathematical Expression

• Clear symbol definitions and complete logical chains
• Explicit conditions and conclusions for each scenario
• Detailed counting arguments with precise boundary handling

4. Academic Value

• Advances anti-Ramsey theory in the linear forest direction
• Provides methodological reference for subsequent research
• Well-integrated with existing literature with sufficient citations

Weaknesses

1. Lengthy and Complex Proof

• 16 Scenarios: Each scenario contains multiple sub-conditions (e.g., Scenario 2.2 has 15 conditions), resulting in extremely lengthy proof
• Repeated Patterns: Many scenarios share similar argument structures but lack unified lemmas
• Readability: Main ideas are obscured by technical details

2. Lack of Intuitive Explanation

• Why is the formula $\frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+1$? Lacks combinatorial interpretation
• Classification of 16 scenarios appears exhaustive rather than systematic
• No explicit construction or structural characterization of extremal colorings

3. Limited Method Generalizability

• Case Analysis Dependency: Difficult to extend to other forest structures
• Non-algorithmic: Cannot be converted to effective computational methods
• Lack of Unified Theory: Does not reveal deep structural properties of anti-Ramsey numbers

4. Incomplete Results

• Only resolves $n = 3k+2t$; cases with $n > 3k+2t$ (especially small $t$) remain open
• Gap exists with Jie et al.'s results: this paper $n = 3k+2t$, Jie et al. $n \geq 3k+2t+1$ but requires $t \geq \frac{k^2-k+4}{2}$

5. Technical Detail Issues

• Scenario 2.2 condition 12 contains $c(s_2s_2)$, likely a typo (should be $c(s_1s_2)$)
• Inconsistent symbol usage (e.g., definition of $S_{2.x}$ varies slightly across scenarios)

Impact

1. Contribution to the Field

• Theoretical Completion: Completes characterization of $kP_3 \cup tP_2$ in spanning case
• Methodological Framework: Systematic case analysis may inspire research on similar problems
• Citation Potential: As the latest progress in this direction, likely to be widely cited

2. Practical Value

• Purely Theoretical: Anti-Ramsey numbers are primarily of theoretical interest with limited direct applications
• Potential Applications: Possible indirect applications in network design and coding theory
• Educational Value: Demonstrates typical proof techniques in extremal combinatorics

3. Reproducibility

• Fully Verifiable: Pure mathematical proof that anyone can verify step-by-step
• No Experiments Required: Does not depend on computational experiments or data
• Logically Consistent: Based on published lemmas (Theorem 1.2) and standard techniques

4. Potential for Follow-up Research

• Clear Open Problems: Section 3 clearly identifies future directions
• Transferable Techniques: Inductive framework and lemmas may apply to other forests
• Research Challenge: Remaining gaps ($n > 3k+2t$ with small $t$) retain research value

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Research

• Researchers in extremal graph theory studying anti-Ramsey numbers
• Advanced topics in combinatorics courses
• Research on dual problems in Ramsey theory

2. Methodological Reference

• Combinatorial optimization problems requiring exhaustive case analysis
• Applications of induction in graph theory
• Edge counting techniques in extremal problems

3. Extension Directions

• Anti-Ramsey numbers for other path length combinations (e.g., $kP_4 \cup tP_2$)
• Anti-Ramsey problems for non-linear forests
• Computational complexity of anti-Ramsey numbers

Summary of Technical Highlights

Core Techniques

1. Induction + Case Analysis: Induction on $k$ with exhaustive classification of $K_n[S]$ coloring patterns
2. Edge Counting Lower Bounds: Derive contradictions through estimation of $|S_{2.x}(\cdots)|$
3. Recursive Simplification: Transform certain scenarios into previously handled cases through redefinition

Key Inequalities

In multiple scenarios, the core inequality takes the form: $|c(K_n)| \leq \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t)(3k+2t-1) - (\alpha t + \beta(k-\gamma) + \delta)$ where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta$ are scenario-dependent constants. By choosing appropriate parameters, the right side is shown to be $\leq \frac{1}{2}(3k+2t-3)(3k+2t-4)+1$.

Proof Techniques

• Maximality Argument: Select $K_{n-3}$ maximizing $|c(K_{n-3})|$ to ensure it contains required rainbow subgraph
• Degree Analysis: Derive edge count constraints through vertex degree bounds
• Color Conflict: Exploit rainbow property (distinct edge colors) to exclude certain edges

Key References

1. Erdős et al. (1975): Foundational work introducing anti-Ramsey numbers
2. He & Jin (2025): Provides Theorem 1.2 for $k=1$ case, the base case of this paper
3. Jie et al. (2025): Closest prior work, directly generalized by this paper
4. Gilboa & Roditty (2016): Provides general upper bounds for multiple linear forest classes
5. Fang et al. (2021): Asymptotic theory for anti-Ramsey numbers of linear forests

Overall Assessment

This is a solid theoretical paper in combinatorics that rigorously solves the anti-Ramsey number problem for the linear forest $kP_3 \cup tP_2$ in the spanning case. The main strength lies in removing restrictive parameter conditions from previous work, providing more general results. However, the lengthy and complex proof is a notable weakness; the exhaustive analysis of 16 scenarios, while ensuring completeness, lacks unified theoretical insight.

From an academic value perspective, this paper fills an important theoretical gap and makes substantive contributions to anti-Ramsey theory. From a technical standpoint, the combination of induction and case analysis is effective but lacks elegance. For researchers in this field, the paper provides important reference results and methodological insights, while also revealing the necessity of developing more concise and unified proof techniques.

Recommendation Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)
Target Audience: Researchers in extremal combinatorics, particularly those working on anti-Ramsey theory and graph coloring problems