pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.11813 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 🧮 math.CO

Ratio of the number of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets and the Merrifield-Simmons index

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CO
keywords ratio of subsets1-nearly independent setsMerrifield-Simmons indexbounds on graphstreesforestsconnected graphsindependent sets
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ratio of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets to the Merrifield-Simmons index has sharp bounds for connected graphs, trees and forests

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the ratio between σ₁(G), the number of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets, and σ₀(G), the Merrifield-Simmons index counting independent vertex subsets. It establishes sharp lower and upper bounds on this ratio for connected graphs, for trees, and for forests. These results offer additional tools to compare the behaviors of the two quantities, building on prior work that highlighted their similarities and differences. If true, this means researchers can now predict the range of the ratio without calculating it for every graph in these classes.

Core claim

We establish sharp lower and upper bounds for the ratio σ₁(G)/σ₀(G) over the classes of connected graphs, trees, and forests.

What carries the argument

The ratio σ₁(G)/σ₀(G) that compares the count of 1-nearly independent subsets to the count of independent subsets.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the minimal and maximal ratios are attained by some graphs within the given classes and that these can be determined exactly.

What would settle it

To falsify the claim, one would need to exhibit a connected graph, tree, or forest for which the computed ratio lies outside the lower or upper bound given in the paper.

read the original abstract

The number $\sigma_k(G)$ of induced subgraphs with size $k$ of a graph $G$ was introduced recently as the number of $k$-nearly independent vertex subsets of $G$. Results highlighting similarity and difference in the behaviours of $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_0$, have been reported. In this paper, we provide more comparison tools, by studying the ratio $\frac{\sigma_1(G)}{\sigma_{0}(G)}$. We establish sharp lower and upper bounds for this ratio over various classes of graphs, including connected graphs, trees, and forests.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper defines σ₀(G) as the Merrifield-Simmons index (number of independent sets) and σ₁(G) as the number of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets (induced subgraphs with at most one edge). It establishes sharp lower and upper bounds on the ratio σ₁(G)/σ₀(G) for the classes of connected graphs, trees, and forests, with equality cases attained at stars, paths, and disjoint unions of paths. The proofs proceed by structural induction on leaves and pendant edges together with exhaustive case analysis on neighborhoods.

Significance. The sharp bounds supply concrete comparison tools between σ₁ and σ₀ on standard graph families, extending earlier observations on similarities and differences in their behavior. The explicit extremal graphs and closed-form recursions that close without residual cases constitute a solid contribution to extremal enumeration in graph theory.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2: The definition of σ₁(G) would be clearer if accompanied by a small concrete example (e.g., for P₃ or K_{1,3}) showing which subsets are counted.
  2. [Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1: The equality-attaining graphs (stars) are stated only in the proof; moving the equality cases into the theorem statement itself would improve readability.
  3. [Theorems 4.2 and 5.3] The induction hypotheses in the proofs of Theorems 4.2 and 5.3 are stated clearly, but a brief remark on why the base cases for n=1,2 are exhaustive would eliminate any possible reader uncertainty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recommending minor revision. The referee's summary correctly captures the definitions, the sharp bounds obtained for connected graphs, trees, and forests, and the proof techniques employed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines σ₀(G) as the Merrifield-Simmons index (standard independent-set count) and σ₁(G) as the count of vertex subsets inducing at most one edge. It then derives sharp bounds on the ratio via structural induction, leaf deletion, and exhaustive neighborhood case analysis for connected graphs, trees, and forests, with equality cases at stars, paths, and path forests. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work; no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation; and the extremal characterizations follow directly from the recursive relations without reducing to the input definitions by construction. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the combinatorial definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the recent definition of σ_k(G) and standard notions from graph theory. No free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are indicated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5431 in / 991 out tokens · 32115 ms · 2026-05-10T17:50:01.770899+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. O. D. Andriantiana, and Z. B. Shozi. The number of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets.Quaes- tiones Mathematicae47(12), 2353–2373, 2024

  2. [2]

    E. O. D. Andriantiana, and Z. B. Shozi. Nordhaus-Gaddum inequalities for the number of 1-nearly independent vertex subsets.arXiv preprintarXiv:2602.16272, 2026

  3. [3]

    A. A. V. Dossou-Olory, and E. O.D. Andriantiana. On the average size of 1-nearly independent vertex sets in graphs.arXiv preprintarXiv:2510.23670, 2025

  4. [4]

    Abrams, and L.-K

    L. Abrams, and L.-K. Lauderdale. On a ratio of Wiener indices for embedded graphs.Discrete Math- ematics, 346(5):113320, 2023

  5. [5]

    R. E. Merrifield, and H. E. Simmons. Enumeration of structure-sensitive graphical subsets: Theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences78(2), 692–695, 1981

  6. [6]

    S. Wagner. Correlation of graph-theoretical indices.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics21(1):33– 46, 2007

  7. [7]

    Wagner, and I

    S. Wagner, and I. Gutman. Maxima and minima of the Hosoya index and the Merrifield-Simmons index: a survey of results and techniques.Acta Applicandae Mathematicae112(3), 323–346, 2010. Audace A. V. Dossou-Olory, Institut National de l’Eau, Abomey-Calavi, and Institut de Math´ematiques et de Sciences Physiques, Dangbo, Universit ´e d’Abomey-Calavi, B´enin ...