Paper detail

Very well-covered graphs with log-concave independence polynomials

If for any $k$ the $k$-th coefficient of a polynomial $I(G;x)$ is equal to the number of stable sets of cardinality $k$ in the graph $G$, then it is called the independence polynomial of $G$ (Gutman and Harary, 1983). Alavi, Malde, Schwenk and Erdos (1987) conjectured that $I(G;x)$ is unimodal, whenever $G$ is a forest, while Brown, Dilcher and Nowakowski (2000) conjectured that $I(G;x)$ is unimodal for any well-covered graph G. Michael and Traves (2003) showed that the assertion is false for well-covered graphs with $a(G)$ > 3 ($a(G)$ is the size of a maximum stable set of the graph $G$), while for very well-covered graphs the conjecture is still open. In this paper we give support to both conjectures by demonstrating that if $a(G)$ < 4, or $G$ belongs to ${K_{1,n}, P_{n}: n > 0}$, then $I(G*;x)$ is log-concave, and, hence, unimodal (where $G*$ is the very well-covered graph obtained from $G$ by appending a single pendant edge to each vertex).

preprint2004arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.