Extension from Precoloured Sets of Edges

Abstract: We consider precolouring extension problems for proper edge-colourings of graphs and multigraphs, in an attempt to prove stronger versions of Vizing's and Shannon's bounds on the chromatic index of (multi)graphs in terms of their maximum degree $\Delta$. We are especially interested in the following question: when is it possible to extend a precoloured matching to a colouring of all edges of a (multi)graph? This question turns out to be related to the notorious List Colouring Conjecture and other classic notions of choosability.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G = (V,E)$ be a (multi)graph and let $\mathcal{K}=[K]=\{1,\dots,K\}$ be a
palette of available colours. (In this paper, a \emph{multigraph} can have
multiple edges, but no loops; while a \emph{graph} is always simple.) We
consider the following question: given a subset $S\subseteq E$ of edges and
a proper colouring of elements of~$S$ (i.e., adjacent edges must receive
distinct colours) using only colours from~$\mathcal{K}$, is there a proper
colouring of all edges of~$G$ (again using only colours from~$\mathcal{K}$) in
concordance with the given colouring on~$S$? We may consider the set~$S$ as
a set of \emph{precoloured} edges, while the full colouring, if it exists,
may be considered as \emph{extending} the precolouring. Clearly, if the
set~$S$ forms a matching in~$G$, then the precolouring of~$S$ can be
arbitrary from~$\mathcal{K}$.

An early appearance of a problem regarding precolouring extension of
edge-colourings can be found in Marcotte and Seymour~\cite{MS90}.
Nevertheless, since then its counterpart for vertex-colourings has been
more comprehensively studied. We hope to provoke interest in
edge-precolouring extension and in particular introduce the following
conjecture.

\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:main}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph with maximum degree~$\Delta(G)$ and maximum
  multiplicity~$\mu(G)$. Using the palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+\mu(G)]$, any
  precoloured matching can be extended to a proper edge-colouring of all
  of~$G$.
\end{conjecture}

\noindent
If true, Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} would extend Vizing's
theorem~\cite{Viz64}, which is independently due to Gupta,
cf.~\cite{Gup74}. It strengthens a conjecture of Albertson and Moore
\cite[Conj.~1]{AlMo01}, which deals with graphs and imposes a stronger
minimum distance condition between precoloured edges. A weaker form of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} was proved by Berge and
Fournier~\cite[Cor.~2]{BeFo91} --- they showed that extension is
guaranteed, provided that all edges of the matching have been precoloured
with the same colour.

Note that even for trees, Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} is false if we replace
the palette~$\mathcal{K}$ by $[\Delta(G)]$ or by $[\chi'(G)]$ (where $\chi'(G)$ is,
as usual, the chromatic index of $G$): consider a star with all leaves
subdivided exactly once; see Figure~\ref{fig:extree}.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \input{extree}
  \caption{A representative of a class of bipartite planar graphs~$G$, with
    a non-extendable precoloured (distance-$2$) matching using palette
    $[\Delta(G)]=[\chi'(G)]$. Dashed lines indicate edges precoloured with
    colour~$1$.\label{fig:extree}}
\end{figure}

The main contribution of this paper is to provide evidence in support of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} by confirming it in some important special cases,
in particular, for bipartite multigraphs, subcubic multigraphs, and planar
graphs of large enough maximum degree. We discuss this further in
Subsection~\ref{sub:main}; however, first allow us to place the conjecture
in context by giving some preliminary observations.

The obvious relationship between edge-precolouring and its vertex
counterpart --- in which we can see edge-precolouring extension of~$G$ as
vertex-precolouring extension in its line graph~$L(G)$ --- yields immediate
implications. For us, the distance between two edges in~$G$ is their
corresponding distance in~$L(G)$, i.e., the number of \emph{vertices}
contained in a shortest path in~$G$ between any of their end-vertices. A
\emph{distance-$t$ matching} is a set of edges having pairwise distance
greater than $t$. (This means that a matching is a distance-$1$ matching,
while an induced matching is a distance-$2$ matching. Any set of edges is a
distance-$0$ matching.) We point out the following consequence of a result
of Albertson \cite[Thm.~4]{Alb98} (see Subsection~\ref{sub:background}) and
Vizing's theorem. This consequence is in two senses a weaker statement than
that of Conjecture~\ref{conj:main}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:albertson1}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$ and maximum
  multiplicity $\mu(G)$. Using the palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+\mu(G)+1]$, any
  precoloured distance-$3$ matching can be extended to a proper
  edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
Evidently, we believe that in edge-precolouring the distance requirement
ought to be not as strong as it is for vertex-precolouring extension.
Naturally, one might wonder if a strong enough distance requirement on the
precoloured set yields an improved palette bound, i.e., with palette
$[\Delta(G)]$ or $[\chi'(G)]$. This fails however even for bipartite
graphs; see Figure~\ref{fig:exdistant}.

\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \input{exdistant}
  \caption{A representative of a class of bipartite graphs $G$, with a
    non-extendable matching consisting of two edges that can be made
    arbitrarily distant, using the palette $[\Delta(G)]=[\chi'(G)]$. Dashed
    lines indicate edges precoloured with colour $1$. (There is a general
    construction for $\Delta(G)$ even: within each diamond-shaped block
    replace each of the two independent sets of size three with one of size
    $\tfrac12\Delta(G)$ and replace the central independent set of size
    five with one of size $\Delta(G)-1$; next increase the distance between
    the precoloured edges by replacing the two blocks by a chain of
    arbitrarily many blocks.)
    \label{fig:exdistant}}
\end{figure}

By the following easy observation, Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} is also
related to list edge-colouring, and therefore to the \emph{List Colouring
  Conjecture} (LCC) which states that $\ch'(G)=\chi'(G)$ for any
multigraph~$G$ (where $\ch'(G)$ is, as usual, the list chromatic index of
$G$). For a non-precoloured edge, we define its \emph{precoloured degree}
as the number of adjacent precoloured edges.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:choose}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph with list chromatic index $\ch'(G)$. For a
  positive integer~$k$, take the palette as $\mathcal{K}=[\ch'(G)+k]$. If~$G$ is
  properly precoloured so that the precoloured degree of any
  non-precoloured edge is at most~$k$, then the precolouring can be
  extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
So, if we assume that the LCC holds, then the following weak form of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} holds as well: any precoloured matching can be
extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$ with the palette
$\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+\mu(G)+2]$; moreover, if the precoloured matching is
induced, then we may use $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+\mu(G)+1]$.

Due to the remarkable work of Kahn~\cite{Kah96b,Kah96a,Kah00} on
edge-colourings and list edge-colourings of (multi)graphs, not only does an
asymptotic form of Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} hold, but so does a
precolouring extension of an asymptotic form of the Goldberg--Seymour
Conjecture (which we review in Subsection~\ref{sub:background}). Kahn's
theorem and Proposition~\ref{prop:choose} together imply the following.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:kahn}\mbox{}\\*
  For any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a constant~$C_\varepsilon$ such that the
  following holds. For any multigraph~$G$ with $\chi'(G)\ge C_\varepsilon$, any
  precoloured matching using the palette $\mathcal{K}=[(1+\varepsilon)\chi'(G)]$ can be
  extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
If we replace $\chi'(G)$ in the statement above by $\Delta(G)+\mu(G)$ or by
the Goldberg--Seymour bound, then the statement remains valid, either due
to Vizing's theorem or due to another theorem of Kahn.

One of our motivations for the formulation and study of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} comes from the close connections with
vertex-precolouring and with the LCC.

\subsection{Main Results}\label{sub:main}

Although it appears that the LCC and our conjecture are independent
statements, we have obtained several results corresponding to specific
areas of success in list edge-colouring. For clarity, in this subsection we
mostly present our main results restricted to precoloured matchings, but
more general statements hold. In summary, we have confirmed
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} for bipartite multigraphs, subcubic multigraphs,
and planar graphs of large enough maximum degree; we have also obtained a
precolouring extension variant of Shannon's theorem.

Our first result is an edge-precolouring extension of K\H{o}nig's theorem
that any bipartite multigraph~$G$ is $\Delta(G)$-edge-colourable, whereas
the subsequent result is an edge-precolouring analogue of Shannon's theorem
that any multigraph~$G$ is
$\bigl\lfloor\tfrac32\Delta(G)\bigr\rfloor$-edge-colourable.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bipartite}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a bipartite multigraph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$. With
  the palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+1]$, any precoloured matching can be extended
  to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
As we saw in Figures~\ref{fig:extree} and~\ref{fig:exdistant}, the palette
size in Theorem~\ref{thm:bipartite} is sharp.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:shannonmain}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$. With the palette
  $\mathcal{K}=\bigl[\,\bigl\lfloor\tfrac32\Delta(G)+\tfrac12\bigr\rfloor\,\bigr]$,
  any precoloured matching can be extended to a proper edge-colouring of
  all of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
Due to the Shannon multigraphs, this last statement is sharp if $\Delta(G)$
is even, and within~$1$ of being sharp if $\Delta(G)$ is odd.
Theorems~\ref{thm:bipartite} and~\ref{thm:shannonmain} are proved in
Section~\ref{sec:bipartite} using powerful list colouring tools developed
by Borodin, Kostochka and Woodall~\cite{BKW97}.

\medskip
The following theorem concerns multigraphs that are subcubic, i.e, of
maximum degree at most~$3$. Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:subcubic} improves
upon Theorem~\ref{thm:shannonmain} for $\Delta(G)=3$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:subcubic}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a subcubic multigraph. With the palette $\mathcal{K}=[4]$, any
  precoloured matching can be extended to a proper edge-colouring of all
  of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
A form of Theorem~\ref{thm:subcubic}, for subcubic graphs and with a
distance condition on the precoloured matching, was observed by Albertson
and Moore~\cite{AlMo01}. Although the LCC remains open for subcubic graphs,
Juvan, Mohar and \v{S}krekovski~\cite{JMS98} have made a significant
attempt. (They showed that for any subcubic graph~$G$, if lists of~$3$
colours are given to the edges of a subgraph~$H$ with $\Delta(H)\le2$ and
lists of~$4$ colours to the other edges, then~$G$ has a proper
edge-colouring using colours from those lists.)

Theorem~\ref{thm:subcubic} is a direct corollary of the following theorem,
which may be of interest in its own right. Its proof uses a
degree-choosability condition and can be found in Section~\ref{sec:gallai}.
For a vertex, we define its \emph{precoloured degree} as the number of
incident precoloured edges.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:gallai}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a connected multigraph. Choose a non-negative integer~$k$ so
  that $\Delta(L(G))\le\Delta(G)+k$, and take the palette as
  $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+k]$. If~$G$ is properly precoloured so that the
  precoloured degree of any vertex is at most~$k$, then the precolouring
  can be extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$, except in the
  following cases:

  \smallskip
  \qitem{(a)}$k=0$ and~$G$ is a simple odd cycle;

  \smallskip
  \qitem{(b)}$G$ is a triangle with edges of multiplicity $m_1,m_2,m_3$ and
  $k=\min\{m_1,m_2,m_3\}-1$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
Note that, when restricted to precoloured matchings, this theorem produces
weak or limited bounds for larger maximum degree. On the other hand, if we
replace every precoloured edge in the example of Figure~\ref{fig:extree} by
a precoloured multi-edge of multiplicity $k$ (or $k+1$) and a precolouring
from $[k]$ (or $[k+1]$), we see that the palette bound (or precoloured
degree condition) is best possible.

In the case where $k=\Delta(L(G))-\Delta(G)$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:gallai},
the number of colours used is equal to the maximum degree of the line
graph. In that sense the theorem can be considered as a precolouring
extension of Brooks's theorem restricted to line graphs. It is relevant to
mention that vertex-precolouring extension versions of Brooks's
theorem~\cite{AKW05,Axe03,Rac09} require, among other conditions, a large
minimum distance between the precoloured vertices.

\medskip
The class of planar graphs could be of particular interest. There is a
prominent line of work on (list) edge-colouring for this class, which we
discuss further in Subsection~\ref{sub:background} and
Section~\ref{sec:planar}. Our main contributions to this area are the
following results, the second one of which can be viewed as a strengthening
of an old result of Vizing~\cite{Viz65}, provided the graph's maximum
degree is large enough.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:planar}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a planar graph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)\ge17$. Using the
  palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+1]$, any precoloured matching can be extended to
  a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:planar2}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a planar graph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)\ge20$. Using the
  palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)]$, any precoloured distance-$3$ matching can be
  extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
Due to the trees exhibited in Figure~\ref{fig:extree}, the palette size in
Theorem~\ref{thm:planar} cannot be reduced, while the minimum distance
condition in Theorem~\ref{thm:planar2} cannot be weakened. In
Section~\ref{sec:planar}, we give some more results on when it is possible
for a precoloured matching in a planar graph to be extended. A summary of
the results is given in Table~\ref{tab:planar}.

\begin{table}
  \centering
  \begin{tabular}{clclp{42mm}}
    \toprule
    & Palette $\mathcal{K}$ & Distance $t$ & Max.\ degree $\Delta$
    \qquad\qquad\quad & Reference\\
    \midrule
    1. & $[\Delta+4]$ & 1 & all $\Delta$ &
    Thm.~\ref{thm:shannonmain} ($\Delta\le7$) and\hspace*{\fill}\linebreak
    Prop.~\ref{prop:choose} with~\cite{Bon13+} ($\Delta\ge8$)\\
    2. & $[\Delta+3]$ & 1 & $\Delta\le5$; $\Delta\ge8$ &
    Thm.~\ref{thm:shannonmain}; Prop.~\ref{prop:choose}
    with~\cite{Bon13+}\\
    3. & $[\Delta+2]$ & 1 & $\Delta\ge12$ & Prop.~\ref{prop:choose}
    with~\cite{BKW97}\\
    4. & $[\Delta+2]$ & 2 & $\Delta\le4$; $\Delta\ge8$ & \cite{JMS99};
    Prop.~\ref{prop:choose} with~\cite{Bon13+}\\
    5. & $[\Delta+2]$ & 3 & all $\Delta$ & Prop.~\ref{prop:albertson1}\\
    6. & $[\Delta+1]$ & 1 & $\Delta\le3$; $\Delta\ge17$ &
    Thm.~\ref{thm:subcubic}; Thm.~\ref{thm:planar}\\
    7. & \mbox{}$[\Delta+1]$ & \mbox{}2 & $\Delta\ge12$ &
    Prop.~\ref{prop:choose} with~\cite{BKW97}\\
    8. & $[\Delta]$ & 3 &  $\Delta\ge20$ & Thm.~\ref{thm:planar2}\\
    \bottomrule
  \end{tabular}
  \caption{Summary of edge-precolouring extension results for planar graphs
    with maximum degree~$\Delta$, when a distance-$t$ matching~$M$ is
    precoloured using the palette~$\mathcal{K}$. See Section~\ref{sec:planar} for
    further details how these results can be obtained.}\label{tab:planar}
\end{table}

\medskip
Some basic knowledge of edge-colouring is a prerequisite to the
consideration of edge-precolouring extension problems --- we provide some
related background in the next subsection. To our frustration, many of the
major methods for colouring edges (such as Kempe chains, Vizing fans,
Kierstead paths, Tashkinov trees) seem to be rendered useless by
precoloured edges. Though Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} may at first seem as
if it should be an ``easy extension'' of Vizing's theorem, it might well be
very difficult to confirm (if true at all). We are keen to learn of related
edge-precolouring results independent of current list colouring
methodology.

\subsection{Further Background}\label{sub:background}

Edge-colouring is a classic area of graph theory. We give a quick overview
of some of the most relevant history for our study. The reader is referred
to the recent book by Stiebitz, Scheide, Toft and Favrholdt~\cite{SSTF12}
for detailed references and fuller insights. The lower bound
$\chi'(G)\ge\Delta(G)$ is obviously true for any multigraph $G$. Close to a
century ago, K\H{o}nig proved that all bipartite multigraphs meet this
lower bound with equality. Shannon~\cite{Sha49} in 1949 proved that
$\chi'(G)\le\bigl\lfloor\tfrac32\Delta(G)\bigr\rfloor$ for any multigraph
$G$. Somewhat later, Gupta (as mentioned in~\cite{Gup74}) and,
independently, Vizing~\cite{Viz64} proved that
$\chi'(G)\le\Delta(G)+\mu(G)$ for any multigraph~$G$, so
$\chi'(G)\in\{\Delta(G),\Delta(G)+1\}$ if~$G$ is simple. Both the Shannon
bound and the Gupta--Vizing bound are tight in general due to the Shannon
multigraphs, which are triangles whose multi-edges have balanced
multiplicities. (Note however that the latter bound can be improved for
specific choices of $\Delta(G)$ and $\mu(G)$ as described in the work of
Scheide and Stiebitz~\cite{ScSt09}.)

A notable conjecture on edge-colouring arose in the 1970s, on both sides of
the iron curtain. The Goldberg--Seymour Conjecture, due independently to
Goldberg~\cite{Gol73} and Seymour~\cite{Sey79}, asserts that
$\chi'(G)\in\{\Delta(G),\Delta(G)+1,\lceil\rho(G)\rceil\}$ for any
multigraph~$G$, where
\[\rho(G)=\max\biggl\{\,\frac{2|E(G[T])|}{|T|-1}\;:\;
T\subseteq V,\;|T|\ge3,\;\text{$|T|$ odd}\,\biggr\}.\]
The parameter $\rho(G)$ is a lower bound on $\chi'(G)$ based on the maximum
ratio between the number of edges in~$H$ and the number of edges in a
maximum matching of~$H$, taken over induced subgraphs~$H$ of~$G$. This
conjecture remains open and is regarded as one of the most important
problems in chromatic graph theory. Perhaps the most outstanding progress
on this problem is due to Kahn, who established an asymptotic
form~\cite{Kah96a}.

The list variant of edge-colouring can be traced as far back as list
colouring itself. The concept of list colouring was devised independently
by Vizing~\cite{Viz76} and Erd\H{o}s, Rubin and Taylor~\cite{ERT80}, with
the iron curtain playing its customary role here too. The List Colouring
Conjecture (LCC) was already formulated by Vizing as early as 1975 and was
independently reformulated several times, a brief historical account of
which is given in, e.g., H{\"a}ggkvist and Janssen~\cite{HaJa97}. For more
on the LCC, particularly with respect to the probabilistic method, consult
the monograph of Molloy and Reed~\cite{MoRe02}. The results on the LCC most
relevant to our investigations also happen to be two of the most striking,
both from the mid-1990s. First, Galvin~\cite{Gal95} used a beautiful short
argument to prove Dinitz's Conjecture (which concerned the extension of
partially completed Latin squares), thereby confirming the LCC for
bipartite multigraphs. Not long after Galvin's work, Kahn applied powerful
probabilistic methods, with inspiration from extremal combinatorics and
statistical physics, to asymptotically affirm the LCC~\cite{Kah96a,Kah00}.
For more background on Kahn's proof, related methods, and improvements,
consult~\cite{HaJa97,MoRe00,MoRe02}.

Inspiration for this class of problems may also be taken from list
vertex-colouring. For instance, we utilise a degree-choosability criterion
due independently to Borodin~\cite{Bor77} and Erd\H{o}s, Rubin and
Taylor~\cite{ERT80}. See for example a survey of Alon~\cite{Alo93} for an
excellent (if older) survey on list colouring in somewhat more generality.
We should mention that part of the motivation for studying list colouring
was to use it to attack other, less constrained colouring problems. The
connection has gone back in the other direction as well, as precolouring
extension demonstrates.

Activity in the area of precolouring extension increased dramatically as a
result of the startling proof by Thomassen of planar
$5$-choosability~\cite{Tho94}; a key ingredient in that proof was a
particular type of precolouring extension from some pair of adjacent
vertices, according to a specific planar embedding. A little bit later,
Thomassen asked about precolouring extension for planar graphs under a more
general setup~\cite{Tho97}. Eliding the planarity condition,
Albertson~\cite{Alb98} quickly answered Thomassen's question and proved
more: in any $k$-colourable graph, for any set of vertices with pairwise
minimum distance at least~$4$, any precolouring of that set from the
palette $[k+1]$ can be extended to a proper colouring of the entire graph.
(This implies Proposition~\ref{prop:albertson1} above.)

Since Albertson's seminal work, a large body of research has developed
around precolouring extension. But this research has focused almost
exclusively on extension of vertex-colourings. One of the few papers we are
aware of that deals with edge-precolouring extension is by Marcotte and
Seymour~\cite{MS90}, in which a different type of necessary condition for
extension is studied --- curiously, this paper predates the above mentioned
activity in vertex-precolouring.

For planar graphs, there has been significant interest in both
edge-colouring and list edge-colouring. It is known that planar graphs $G$
with $\Delta(G)\ge7$ satisfy $\chi'(G)=\Delta(G)$. This was proved in 1965
by Vizing~\cite{Viz65} in the case $\Delta(G)\ge8$, and much later by
Sanders and Zhao \cite{SaZh01} for $\Delta(G)=7$. We remark that
Theorem~\ref{thm:planar2} strengthens this for $\Delta(G)$ somewhat larger.
Vizing conjectured that the same can be said for planar graphs $G$ with
$\Delta(G)=6$, but this long-standing question remains open. Vizing also
noted that not every planar graph $G$ with $\Delta(G) \in \{4,5\}$ is
$\Delta(G)$-edge-colourable. Regarding list edge-colouring, Borodin,
Kostochka and Woodall~\cite{BKW97} proved the LCC for planar graphs with
maximum degree at least $12$, i.e., they proved that such graphs have list
chromatic index equal to their maximum degree. The LCC remains open for
planar graphs with smaller maximum degree, though it is known that if
$\Delta(G)\le4$, or $\Delta(G)\ge8$, then $\ch'(G)\le\Delta(G)+1$. This is
due to Juvan, Mohar and \v{S}krekovski~\cite{JMS99}, and to
Bonamy~\cite{Bon13+} and Borodin~\cite{Bor90}, respectively. As noted
above, it is not true that planar graphs $G$ with $\Delta(G)\in\{4,5\}$ are
always $\Delta(G)$-edge-choosable.

\section{Extensions of K\H{o}nig's and Shannon's Theorems}
\label{sec:bipartite}

Theorem~\ref{thm:predegree} below implies Theorem~\ref{thm:bipartite}, and
hence verifies Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} for bipartite multigraphs.
Theorem~\ref{thm:shannon} implies Theorem~\ref{thm:shannonmain}. Recall
that, for a vertex, we define its precoloured degree as the number of
incident precoloured edges.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:predegree}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a bipartite multigraph and $k\ge1$. Take the palette as
  $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+k]$. If~$G$ is properly precoloured so that the
  precoloured degree of any vertex is at most~$k$, then this precolouring
  can be extended to a proper edge-colouring of all of $G$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:shannon}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph and $k\ge1$. Take the palette as
  $\mathcal{K}=\bigl[\,\bigl\lfloor\tfrac32\Delta(G)+\tfrac12k\bigr\rfloor\,\bigr]$.
  If~$G$ is properly precoloured so that the precoloured degree of any
  vertex is at most~$k$, then this precolouring can be extended to a proper
  edge-colouring of all of~$G$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
The two results are corollary to two theorems of Borodin, Kostochka and
Woodall~\cite{BKW97}. Let~$G$ be a multigraph and $f\colon
E(G)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z^+}$. We say~$G$ is \emph{$f$-edge-choosable} if,
for any assignment of lists where every edge~$e$ receives a list of size at
least~$f(e)$, there is a proper edge-colouring of~$G$ using colours from
the lists.

\begin{theorem}[Borodin, Kostochka \& Woodall
  \cite{BKW97}]\label{thm:bkw}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a bipartite multigraph, and set $f(uv)=\max\{d(u),d(v)\}$ for
  each edge $uv\in E(G)$. Then~$G$ is $f$-edge-choosable.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}[Borodin, Kostochka \&
  Woodall~\cite{BKW97}]\label{thm:bkwshannon}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph, and set
  $f(uv)=\max\{d(u),d(v)\}+
  \bigl\lfloor\tfrac12\min\{d(u),d(v)\}\bigr\rfloor$ for each edge $uv\in
  E(G)$. Then~$G$ is $f$-edge-choosable.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:bkw} is a strengthening of Galvin's theorem;
while Theorem~\ref{thm:bkwshannon} is a list colouring version of Shannon's
theorem (and in fact follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:bkw}).

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorems~\ref{thm:predegree} and~\ref{thm:shannon}]
  For a vertex~$v$ in a properly precoloured multigraph~$G$, let $k(v)$ be
  the number of precoloured edges incident with~$v$. Let~$G'$ be obtained
  from~$G$ by deleting all precoloured edges. To each edge $e\in E(G')$,
  assign a list $\ell(e)$ consisting of those colours in~$\mathcal{K}$ that do not
  appear on precoloured edges adjacent to~$e$ in~$G$.

  Next consider any uncoloured edge $e=uv$, and assume that
  $d_G(u)-k(u)=d_{G'}(u)\le d_{G'}(v)=d_G(v)-k(v)$.

  In the bipartite case, since $\Delta(G)\ge d_G(v)$ and $k\ge k(u)$, we
  infer that
  \begin{align*}
    |\ell(e)|&\ge(\Delta(G)+k)-k(u)-k(v)=(\Delta(G)-k(v))+(k-k(u))\\
    &\ge d_{G'}(v)=\max\{d_{G'}(u),d_{G'}(v)\}.
  \end{align*}
  As this holds for every edge $e=uv$ in~$G'$, Theorem~\ref{thm:bkw}
  guarantees a colouring of the edges of~$G'$ from their lists. This
  colouring is an extension of the precolouring of~$G$, completing the
  proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:predegree}.

  In the general case, again because
  $\Delta(G)\ge\max\{\,d_G(u),d_G(v)\,\}$ and $k\ge k(u)$,  we infer
    that
  \begin{align*}
    |\ell(e)|&\ge\bigl\lfloor\tfrac32\Delta(G)+
    \tfrac12k\bigr\rfloor-k(u)-k(v)=(\Delta(G)-k(v))+
    \bigl\lfloor\tfrac12\Delta(G)+\tfrac12k-k(u)\bigr\rfloor\\
    &\ge d_{G'}(v)+\bigl\lfloor\tfrac12(\Delta(G)-k(u))\bigr\rfloor\ge
    d_{G'}(v)+\bigl\lfloor\tfrac12d_{G'}(u)\bigr\rfloor\\
    &=\max\{d_{G'}(u),d_{G'}(v)\}+
    \bigl\lfloor\tfrac12\min\{d_{G'}(u),d_{G'}(v)\}\bigr\rfloor.
  \end{align*}
  Analogously to the previous paragraph, we use
  Theorem~\ref{thm:bkwshannon} to complete the proof of
  Theorem~\ref{thm:shannon}.
\end{proof}

\section{An Approach using Gallai Trees}
\label{sec:gallai}

In this section, we use a slight refinement of a result due independently
to Borodin~\cite{Bor77} and Erd\H{o}s, Rubin and Taylor~\cite{ERT80}. This
is a list version of an older result of Gallai~\cite{Gal63} on
colour-critical graphs, and it follows for instance from Theorem~4.2
in~\cite{Tho97}. A connected graph all of whose blocks are either complete
graphs or odd cycles is called a \emph{Gallai tree}.

\begin{theorem}[Borodin~\cite{Bor77}, Erd\H{o}s, Rubin \&
  Taylor~\cite{ERT80}]\label{thm:gallaitree}\mbox{}\\*
  Given a connected graph $G=(V,E)$, let $\ell(v)$, for $v\in V$, be an
  assignment of lists where each vertex~$v$ receives at least~$d(v)$
  colours. Then there is a proper colouring of~$G$ using colours from the
  lists, unless $G$ is a Gallai tree and $|\ell(v)|=d(v)$ for all~$v$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
With this we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:gallai}, which implies
Theorem~\ref{thm:subcubic}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:gallai}]
  Assume to the contrary that the connected multigraph~$G$ and the
  non-negative integer~$k$ satisfy $\Delta(L(G))\le\Delta(G)+k$, but that,
  using the palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+k]$, there is a proper
  edge-precolouring of~$G$ of the required type that does not extend to a
  proper edge-colouring of~$G$. For a vertex~$v$, let $K(v)\subseteq\mathcal{K}$ be
  the set of colours appearing on the precoloured edges incident with~$v$,
  and set $k(v)=|K(v)|$.

  Let~$G'$ be obtained from~$G$ by deleting all precoloured edges. To each
  edge $e=uv$ in~$G'$, we assign a list $\ell(e)$ containing those colours
  in~$\mathcal{K}$ not appearing on precoloured edges adjacent to~$e$ in~$G$. For
  any edge $e=uv$ in~$G'$ we obtain, using that
  $\Delta(G)+k\ge\Delta(L(G))\ge d_{L(G)}(e)$,
  \begin{equation}\label{eq1}
    \begin{array}{@{}r@{}l@{}}
      |\ell(e)|&{}=|\mathcal{K}|-|K(u)\cup K(v)|=
      (\Delta(G)+k)-|K(u)\cup K(v)|\\[1mm]
      &{}\ge d_{L(G)}(e)-|K(u)\cup K(v)|=d_{L(G')}(e).
    \end{array}
  \end{equation}
  Since there is no extension of the precolouring of $L(G)$ to a full
  colouring of $L(G)$, it follows that $L(G')$ is not edge-choosable with
  the lists $\ell(e)$, for $e\in E(G')$. In particular, there is a
  component~$C'$ of~$G'$ such that $L(C')$ is not edge-choosable with the
  lists $\ell(e)$, for $e\in E(C')$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:gallaitree},
  $L(C')$ must be a Gallai tree such that $|\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}(e)$ for
  every~$e$. This also means that we must have equality in all inequalities
  used to derive~\eqref{eq1}; in particular:
  \begin{subequations}
    \begin{align}
      &\forall e\in E(C'),\qquad
      d_{L(G)}(e)=\Delta(L(G))=\Delta(G)+k;\label{eq2a}\\
      &\forall e\in E(C'),\qquad
      |\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}(e)=d_{L(G)}(e)-|K(u)\cup K(v)|.\label{eq2b}
    \end{align}
  \end{subequations}

  Now note that $d_{C'}(v)+k(v)=d_G(v)\le\Delta(G)$ for every vertex~$v$.
  So, analogously to~\eqref{eq1} above, we infer that for each edge $e=uv$
  in~$C'$ the order of $\ell(e)$ is at least the degree in~$C'$ of each of
  its end-vertices:
  \begin{equation}\label{eq3}
    \begin{array}{@{}r@{}l@{}}
      |\ell(e)|&{}=(\Delta(G)+k)-|K(u)\cup K(v)|=
      (\Delta(G)+k)-k(u)-k(v)+|K(u)\cap K(v)|\\[1mm]
      &{}\ge d_{C'}(v)+(k-k(u))+|K(u)\cap K(v)|\ge d_{C'}(v).
    \end{array}
  \end{equation}

  We require the following statements.

  \begin{claim}\label{cl1}
    \ Every vertex in~$C'$ has at least two neighbours.
  \end{claim}

  \begin{proof}
    Suppose to the contrary that the vertex~$u$ has the vertex~$v$ as its
    unique neighbour. Then for the edge $e=uv$ we have
    $d_{L(C')}(e)=d_{C'}(v)-1$ (this holds even if~$uv$ is a multi-edge).
    But since $|\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}(e)$, this gives $|\ell(e)|<d_{C'}(v)$,
    contradicting~\eqref{eq3}.
  \end{proof}

  \begin{claim}\label{cl2}
    \ If~$C'$ is a simple odd cycle, then $k=0$ and $G=C'$.
  \end{claim}

  \begin{proof}
    Suppose that~$C'$ is a simple odd cycle. If $e=uv$ is an edge in~$C'$,
    then $|\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}(e)=d_{C'}(v)=2$. From this we can assume, by
    permuting the colours, that $\ell(e)=\{1,2\}$ for every $e\in L(C')$.
    (Indeed, the only way to assign lists of length~$2$ to the edges of an
    odd cycle in such a way that there is no proper colouring of the cycle
    using colours from the lists is by making all lists identical.) There
    must also be equality everywhere in~\eqref{eq3}. Combining that
    with~\eqref{eq2b} means in particular that for every edge $e=uv$ we
    have $K(u)\cup K(v)=\{3,4,\ldots,\Delta(G)+k\}$ and
    $K(u)\cap K(v)=\varnothing$. By an easy parity argument, we can see
    that this is only possible if all the sets~$K(u)$, for $u\in V(G)$, are
    empty. This means that $k=0$. Since~$G$ is connected, if there are no
    precoloured edges, then~$G$ can have only one component, which must
    be~$C'$.
  \end{proof}

  \noindent
  We continue by considering the case that~$C'$ is not an odd cycle. Since
  line graphs are claw-free, it follows that odd cycle blocks of length at
  least five are impossible in $L(C')$. We deduce that all blocks of
  $L(C')$ are cliques. The only way that a leaf block~$B$ of $L(C')$ could
  be part of a nontrivial block structure is if it corresponds to a set of
  edges in~$C'$ that are all incident with a unique vertex, with one of the
  edges corresponding to the cut-vertex of~$B$. This is ruled out by
  Claim~\ref{cl1}. We conclude that $L(C')$ must itself be a clique. In
  turn, the only way that a line graph $L(C')$ of a multigraph is a clique
  is if~$C'$ is a star or a triangle, with possibly multiple edges. The
  first option is ruled out by Claim~\ref{cl1}, so~$C'$ must be a triangle,
  possibly with multi-edges.

  Let $u,v,w$ be the vertices in~$C'$ and set $m=|E(C')|$. Then for all
  $e\in E(C')$ we have $|\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}=m-1$. It is easy to check that
  with lists of this size, the only way that~$C'$ is not edge-choosable is
  if all the lists are the same. This also means that the sets $K(u)\cup
  K(v)$, $K(u)\cup K(w)$ and $K(v)\cup K(w)$ are the same.

  Let $A(u)$ be the set of colours that appear on precoloured edges which
  are incident with~$u$, but not with~$v$ or~$w$; define $A(v)$ and $A(w)$
  analogously. (In other words, these are colours on the edges that
  connect~$C'$ to the rest of the graph~$G$.) Let~$D$ be the set of colours
  that appear on precoloured edges with end-vertices contained in
  $\{u,v,w\}$. From~\eqref{eq2a} and~\eqref{eq2b} we deduce that
  $|\ell(e)|=d_{L(C')}(e)$ for every edge $e$ in $C'$, which, applied to an
  edge between~$u$ and~$v$, implies that $A(u)\cap A(v)=\varnothing$,
  $A(u)\cap D=\varnothing$ and $A(v)\cap D=\varnothing$. By symmetry,
  $A(v)\cap A(w)=\varnothing$, $A(u)\cap A(w)=\varnothing$ and
  $A(w)\cap D=\varnothing$.

  Now recall that all edges in~$C'$ must have the same list. Consequently,
  the disjointness of the sets $A(u)$, $A(v)$ and $A(w)$ implies that these
  three sets are empty. Thus we find that there are no precoloured edges
  between any of $u,v,w$ and the rest of the graph. Since~$G$ is connected,
  it follows that $V(G)=\{u,v,w\}$. Let $m(uv),m(uw),m(vw)$ be the
  multiplicities of the edges of~$G$. Then
  $\Delta(L(G))=m(uv)+m(uw)+m(vw)-1$, while
  $\Delta(G)=m(uv)+m(uw)+m(vw)-\min\{m(uv),m(uw),m(vw)\}$. Since
  $\Delta(L(G))=\Delta(G)+k$, we have shown that part~(b) of the statement
  of the theorem holds, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Planar Graphs}\label{sec:planar}

In this section, for brevity we usually write~$\Delta$ for $\Delta(G)$.

In the next subsection we prove Conjecture~\ref{conj:main} for planar
graphs of large enough maximum degree (at least~$17$), which is the
assertion of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar}. As mentioned earlier, the LCC is
known to hold for planar graphs with maximum degree at least~$12$. This is
yet another result of Borodin, Kostochka and Woodall~\cite{BKW97}: they
indeed show that $\ch'(G)\le\Delta$ for such graphs~$G$. Combining this
with Proposition~\ref{prop:choose} gives the bounds in lines~3 and~7 of
Table~\ref{tab:planar}.

Borodin~\cite{Bor90} showed $\ch'(G)\le\Delta+1$ for planar graphs~$G$ of
maximum degree $\Delta\ge9$. Recently, Bonamy~\cite{Bon13+} extended this
last statement to the case $\Delta=8$. Combining this result with
Proposition~\ref{prop:choose} implies that for planar graphs with maximum
degree $\Delta\ge8$ a precoloured matching can be extended to a proper
colouring of the entire graph with the palette $[\Delta+3]$, while a
precoloured distance-$2$ matching can be extended with the palette
$[\Delta+2]$.

For smaller values of~$\Delta$, we can use Theorems~\ref{thm:shannonmain}
and~\ref{thm:subcubic}, and the result of Juvan, Mohar and
\v{S}krekovski~\cite{JMS99} that $\ch'(G)\le\Delta(G)+1$ for a planar
graph~$G$ with $\Delta(G)\le4$, to achieve several of the bounds in
Table~\ref{tab:planar}. In particular, it follows that $\Delta+4$ colours
suffice for any planar graph with maximum degree~$\Delta$.

The final proof we present is of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar2}. As discussed in
Subsection~\ref{sub:background}, Vizing conjectured~\cite{Viz65} that any
planar graph with maximum degree $\Delta\ge6$ has a
$\Delta$-edge-colouring. The examples in Figure~\ref{fig:extree} show that
this statement is false if we allow an adversarial precolouring of a
distance-$2$ matching. But does it remains true with the adversarial
precolouring of any distance-$3$ matching? We prove that this is indeed the
case if $\Delta\ge20$. We expect that this lower bound on~$\Delta$ can be
reduced, though, as noted before, certainly not below~$6$.

\medskip
The proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:planar} and~\ref{thm:planar2} can be found
in the next two subsections. They use a common framework, terminology and
notation, which we outline now.

Whenever considering a planar graph~$G$, we fix a drawing of~$G$ in the
plane. (So we really should talk about a \emph{plane graph}.) Because of
this fixed embedding we can talk about the \emph{faces} of the graph.
If~$G$ is connected, then the boundary of any face~$f$ forms a closed
walk~$W_f$.

We adopt the following notation to classify vertices of a graph~$G$
according to degree and incidence with vertices of degree~$1$. Let~$V_i$ be
the set of vertices of degree~$i$. Also, identify by $T_i\subseteq V_i$
those vertices of degree~$i$ that are adjacent to a vertex of degree~$1$,
and set $U_i=V_i\setminus T_i$. Write $T=\cup_{i\ge1}T_i$ and
$U=V(G)\setminus T$. We also adopt the shorthand notation $V_{[i,j]}$,
$U_{[i,j]}$ and $T_{[i,j]}$ to mean, respectively, the sets of vertices in
$V$, $U$ and $T$ with degrees between~$i$ and~$j$ inclusively.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar}}

The statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar} is true for graphs with maximum
degree~$17$ and exactly~$17$ edges. We use induction on $E(G)$, and proceed
with the induction step. We may easily assume that~$G$ is connected with at
least~$18$ vertices, since $\Delta\ge17$. Let~$M$ be a precoloured
matching.

We first observe that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:sum1}
  \text{if $uv\in E(G)\setminus M$, then $d(u)+d(v)\ge\Delta+3$.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, suppose that the inequality does not hold for some edge
$uv\notin M$. Then, by induction, $M$ can be extended to a colouring of
$G-uv$ so that at most~$\Delta$ colours are used on the edges adjacent
to~$uv$, and so we can easily extend the colouring further to~$uv$. It
follows from this observation that~$G$ has no vertices of degree~$2$, that
every vertex with degree~$1$ is incident with an edge of~$M$ and that any
vertex has at most one neighbour of degree~$1$. We will use these facts
often without reference in the remainder of the proof.

For a face~$f$, let $V^-(f)=V(f)\setminus V_1$, and denote by $W^-_f$ the
sequence of vertices on the boundary walk~$W_f$ after removing vertices
from~$V_1$. For a vertex~$v$, let $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{d(v)}$ be the
neighbours of~$v$, listed in clockwise order according to the drawing
of~$G$. Write~$f_i$ for the face incident with~$v$ lying between the edges
$vv_i$ and $vv_{i+1}$ (taking addition modulo~$d(v)$).

If $v\in T$ has a (unique) neighbour in~$V_1$, then we always choose~$v_1$
to be this neighbour. In that case we have $f_{d(v)}=f_1$; we denote that
face by~$f_1$ again. Note that it is possible for other faces to be the
same as well (if~$v$ is a cut-vertex), but we will not identify those
multiple names of the same face. So, if $v\in U$, then the faces around~$v$
in consecutive order are $f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_{d(v)}$; while, if $v\in T$,
then the faces around~$v$ are $f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_{d(v)-1}$.

\begin{claim}\label{claim:vdeltav3}
  \ $|V_\Delta|>|V_3|$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
  Consider the set~$F$ of edges in $E(G)\setminus M$ with one end-vertex
  in~$V_3$ and the other in~$V_\Delta$. The subgraph with vertex set
  $V_3\cup V_\Delta$ and edge set~$F$ is bipartite; we claim it is acyclic.
  For suppose there exists an (even) cycle $C\in F$. By induction, we can
  extend the precolouring of $E(G)\setminus M$ to $G-C$. But then we can
  further extend this colouring to the edges of~$C$, since each edge of~$C$
  is adjacent to only $\Delta-1$ coloured edges, and even cycles are
  $2$-edge-choosable.

  Since each vertex in~$V_3$ is incident with at least two edges in~$F$, we
  have $|V_\Delta|+|V_3|>|F|\ge2|V_3|$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}

\noindent
We use a discharging argument to continue the proof of the theorem. First,
let us assign to each vertex~$v$ a charge

\smallskip
\qitem{$\alpha1$:} $\alpha(v)=3d(v)-6$,

\smallskip\noindent
and to each face~$f$ a charge

\smallskip
\qitem{$\alpha2$:} $\alpha(f)=-6$.

\smallskip
For each vertex~$v$ we define $\beta(v)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta1$:} If $v\in V_\Delta$, then $\beta(v)=-2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta2$:} If $v\in V_3$, then $\beta(v)=2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta3$:} In all other cases, $\beta(v)=0$.

\smallskip
For each vertex~$v$ and edge $e=vu$, we define $\gamma_e(v)$ and
$\gamma_e(u)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma1$:} If $v\in V_1$, then $\gamma_e(v)=-\gamma_e(u)=3$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma2$:} If $v,u\notin V_1$, then $\gamma_e(v)=\gamma_e(u)=0$.

\smallskip
Finally, for each face~$f$ and vertex $v\in W^-_f$ we define
$\delta_{f}(v)$ and $\delta_v(f)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta1$:} If $v\in T_3$, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=1$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta2$:} If $v\in U_3$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=\tfrac53$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta3$:} If $v\in T$ and $4\le d(v)\le\Delta-2$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=3-\dfrac{6}{d(v)-1}$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta4$:} If $v\in U$ and $4\le d(v)\le\Delta-2$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=3-\dfrac{6}{d(v)}$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta5$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$, $|V^-(f)|=3$, and both neighbours
of~$v$ in $V^-(f)$ are vertices in $U_{[3,8]}$ that are joined by an edge
in~$M$, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=3$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta6$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$, $|V^-(f)|=3$, and~$v$ has a
neighbour in $V^-(f)\cap(T_{[3,6]}\cup U_{[3,5]})$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=\tfrac52$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta7$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$, $|V^-(f)|=3$, and none of
$\delta6$ and $\delta7$ applies, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta8$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$, $|V^-(f)|\ge4$, and~$v$ has a
neighbour in $V^-(f)\cap{T_{[3,6]}}$, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta9$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$, $|V^-(f)|\ge4$, and~$\delta9$ does
not apply, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_{f}(v)=\tfrac32$.

\smallskip
For a vertex~$v$, write $\gamma(v)$ for the sum of $\gamma_e(v)$ over all
edges~$e$ that have~$v$ as an end-vertex. For a vertex~$v$ of degree~$1$ we
set $\delta(v)=0$. For any other vertices, write~$\delta(v)$ for the sum
over the faces~$f$ around~$v$ of $\delta_f(v)$. Similarly, for a face~$f$,
write $\delta(f)$ for the sum over the vertices~$v$ on the reduced
walk~$W^-_f$ around~$f$ of the values of $\delta_v(f)$.

By the definitions of~$\gamma$ and~$\delta$,
\[\textstyle\sum_v\gamma(v)+\sum_v\delta(v)+\sum_{f}\delta(f)=0.\]
It follows from Claim~\ref{claim:vdeltav3} that
\[\textstyle\sum_v\beta(v)<0.\]
Finally, from Euler's Formula for simple plane graphs, we obtain
\[\textstyle\sum_{v}\alpha(v)+\sum_{f}\alpha(f)<0.\]
Thus, in order to reach a contradiction, it is enough to show that for
every vertex~$v$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discvertex}
  \alpha(v)+\beta(v)+\delta(v)+\gamma(v)\ge0,
\end{equation}
and that for every face~$f$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discregion}
  \alpha(f)+\delta(f)\ge0.
\end{equation}

Let~$f$ be a face. As~$G$ is simple, $|V^-(f)|\ge3$. Since $\alpha(f)=-6$,
to establish~\eqref{eq:discregion} it is enough to show that
$\delta(f)\ge6$. Let~$v$ be the vertex in $V^-(f)$ for which $\delta_v(f)$
is minimum. If $\delta_v(f)\cdot|V^-(f)|\ge6$, then~\eqref{eq:discregion}
clearly holds, and so we only need to deal with cases
$\delta1$\,--\,$\delta4$. Also, if $v\in T_{[7,\Delta-2]}\cup
U_{[6,\Delta-2]}$, then~$\delta3$ and~$\delta4$ give $\delta_v(f)\ge2$, and
hence again~\eqref{eq:discregion} is verified.

If $v\in T_{[3,4]}$, then $\delta_{v}(f)\ge1$ by~$\delta1$ or~$\delta3$
and, by~\eqref{eq:sum1}, the neighbours~$u$ and~$w$ of~$v$ in $V^-(f)$ have
degree at least $\Delta-1$. If $|V^-(f)|=3$, then~$\delta6$ applies to
both~$u$ and~$w$, so $\delta_{u}(f)=\delta_{w}(f)=\tfrac52$. If
$|V^-(f)|\ge4$, then~$\delta8$ applies, so $\delta_{u}(f)=\delta_{w}(f)=2$,
while a fourth vertex~$z$ in~$V^-(f)$ satisfies $\delta_z(f)\ge1$.
So~\eqref{eq:discregion} always follows.

If $v\in T_{[5,6]}$, then $\delta_v(f)\ge\tfrac32$, so we may assume that
$|V^-(f)|=3$ (as $\delta_v(f)\le\delta_u(f)$ whenever~$u\in V^-(f)$).
Moreover, $v$ has neighbours $u,w$ in $V^-(f)$ with degree at least
$\Delta-3\ge9$. If $d(u)\ge\Delta-1$, then~$\delta6$ gives
$\delta_u(f)=\tfrac52$. If $d(u)\in\{\Delta-3,\Delta-2\}$, then~$\delta3$
and~$\delta4$ give $\delta_u(f)\ge\tfrac94$, as $\Delta\ge5$. Since similar
bounds hold for $\delta_w(f)$, we deduce that~\eqref{eq:discregion} holds.

We are left with the case where $v\in U_{[3,5]}$. By~$\delta2$
and~$\delta4$ we find that $\delta_v(f)\ge\tfrac32$, and hence we again
only have to consider the case where $|V(f)|=3$. Rules
$\delta3$\,--\,$\delta6$ ensure that any other vertex~$u$ in~$V^-(f)$ with
$d(u)\ge9$ satisfies $\delta_u(f)\ge\tfrac94$. So we may suppose that there
is a vertex $u\in V^-(f)$ with $d(u)\le8$. Since $|V^-(f)|=3$, we must in
fact have $uv\in E(G)$. Moreover, as $\Delta\ge12$, we know
by~\eqref{eq:sum1} that the edge~$uv$ belongs to the matching~$M$. This
means that $u\in U_{[3,8]}$. Let~$w$ be the third vertex in~$V^-(f)$. If
$v\in U_{[3,4]}$, then $d(w)\ge\Delta-1$ by~\eqref{eq:sum1}, and so
$\delta_w(f)=3$ by~$\delta5$, confirming~\eqref{eq:discregion}. As the
final case, assume that $v\in U_5$ and
$\delta_u(f)\ge\delta_v(f)=\tfrac95$. Since also $d(w)\ge\Delta-2\ge11$,
one of $\delta3$\,--\,$\delta6$ applies, yielding that
$\delta_w(f)\ge\tfrac{12}{5}$. So again $\delta(f)\ge6$,
confirming~\eqref{eq:discregion} for all faces.

\medskip
Now let~$v$ be a vertex. Recall the convention that if $v\in T$, then the
two consecutive faces incident with~$v$ neighbouring the neighbour of
degree~$1$ are counted as one face, while all other faces are counted
separately.

If $d(v)=1$, then $\alpha(v)=-3$ and $\gamma(v)=3$. Since
$\beta(v)=\delta(v)=0$, we immediately obtain~\eqref{eq:discvertex}.

Recall that~$G$ has no vertices of degree~$2$. If $d(v)=3$, then
$\alpha(v)=3$, while $\beta(v)=2$ by~$\beta2$. If $v\in T_3$, then
$\gamma(v)=-3$ and~$\delta1$ implies that $\delta(v)=-2$. If $v\in U_3$,
then $\gamma(v)=0$ and~$\delta2$ implies that $\delta(v)=-5$. This
confirms~\eqref{eq:discvertex} if $d(v)=3$.

Next suppose that $4\le d(v)\le\Delta-2$. Recall that $\alpha(v)=3d(v)-6$,
and observe that $\beta(v)=0$. If $v\in T$, then $\gamma(v)=-3$
by~$\gamma1$. By~$\delta3$ we have
$\delta(v)=(d(v)-1)\cdot\Bigl(-3-\dfrac{6}{d(v)-1}\Bigr)=9-3d(v)$.
Similarly, if $v\in U$, then $\gamma(v)=0$, and~$\delta4$ implies that
$\delta(v)=6-3d(v)$. This proves~\eqref{eq:discvertex} for those
vertices~$v$.

Now suppose that $d(v)\ge\Delta-1$. As a next step towards
proving~\eqref{eq:discvertex}, we consider the average value of
$\delta_{f}(v)$ over the faces incident with~$v$.

\begin{claim}\label{claim:avg}
  \ For any two consecutive faces~$f_i$ and $f_{i+1}$ incident with~$v$ it
  holds that $\delta_{f_i}(v)+\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)\ge-5$ (where the addition
  is modulo $d(v)$ if $v\in U$, and modulo $d(v)-1$ if $v\in T$).
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
  We may assume that one of $\delta_{f_i}(v)$ or $\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)$ is
  smaller than~$-\tfrac52$, otherwise the stated inequality holds. Suppose
  first that $\delta_{f_i}(v)<-\tfrac52$. By the definitions of
  $\delta5$\,--\,$\delta9$, it follows that~$\delta5$ was applied to $f_i$,
  and consequently $\delta_{f_i}(v)=-3$. Hence~$v_i$ and~$v_{i+1}$ both
  belong to~$U$, have degree at most~$8$, and there is an edge from~$M$
  between them. Since~$M$ is a matching, it cannot also be the case that
  $\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)=-3$. If $\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)=-\tfrac52$,
  then~$\delta6$ was applied to the face~$f_{i+1}$. But then the
  vertex~$v_{i+2}$ has degree at most~$6$ and there is an edge
  $v_{i+1}v_{i+2}$, which contradicts~\eqref{eq:sum1}. So
  $\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)\ge-2$ and the statement follows.

  By symmetry, the same arguments apply if $\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)<-\tfrac52$.
\end{proof}

\noindent
If we add up the values of $\delta_{f_i}(v)+\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)$ for
$i\in\{1,2,\ldots,d(v)\}$ if $v\in U$, or for
$i\in\{1,2,\ldots,\linebreak[1]d(v)-1\}$ if $v\in T$, then
Claim~\ref{claim:avg} yields that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum2}
  \textstyle\delta(v)=
  \tfrac12\sum_i\bigl(\delta_{f_i}(v)+\delta_{f_{i+1}}(v)\bigr)\ge
  \left\{\begin{array}{l@{}l@{}}
      -\tfrac52d(v)+\tfrac52,&\quad\text{if $v\in T$};\\[1mm]
      -\tfrac52d(v),&\quad\text{if $v\in U$}.\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}

First suppose that $d(v)=\Delta-1$. Then $\alpha(v)=3\Delta-9$ and
$\beta(v)=0$. If $v\in T$, then $\gamma(v)=-3$ and~\eqref{eq:sum2} gives
$\delta(v)\ge-\tfrac52(\Delta-1)+\tfrac52$. Since $\Delta\ge14$,
inequality~\eqref{eq:discvertex} follows. If $v\in U$, then $\gamma(v)=0$
and $\delta(v)\ge-\tfrac52(\Delta-1)$. The hypothesis that $\Delta\ge13$
guarantees that~\eqref{eq:discvertex} is valid again.

Finally, suppose that $d(v)=\Delta$. Now $\alpha(v)=3\Delta-6$ and
$\beta(v)=-2$. If $v\in T$, then $\gamma(v)=-3$ and
$\delta(v)\ge-\tfrac52\Delta+\tfrac52$. We see that~\eqref{eq:discvertex}
holds, as $\Delta\ge17$. If $v\in U$, then~$\gamma(v)=0$ and
$\delta(v)\ge-\tfrac52\Delta$. So~\eqref{eq:discvertex} is verified,
provided that $\Delta\ge16$.

This confirms~\eqref{eq:discvertex} for all vertices and completes the
proof of the theorem.\qquad\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar2}}

Recall the notation and terminology introduced in the introduction of this
section. The statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar2} is true for graphs with
maximum degree~$20$ and exactly~$20$ edges. We use induction on $E(G)$, and
proceed with the induction step. We may easily assume that~$G$ is connected
with at least~$21$ vertices, since $\Delta\ge20$. Let~$M$ be a precoloured
\mbox{distance-$3$} matching.

We first observe that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:sum3}
  \text{if $uv\in E(G)\setminus M$, then $d(u)+d(v)\ge\Delta+2$.}
\end{equation}
Indeed, suppose that the inequality does not hold for some $uv\notin M$.
Then~$M$ can be extended to a colouring of $G-uv$ so that at most
$\Delta-1$ colours are used on the edges adjacent to~$uv$, and so we can
easily extend the colouring further to~$uv$. From~\eqref{eq:sum3} it
follows that every vertex with degree~$1$ is incident with an edge in~$M$
and that if~$v$ has degree~$2$ and $uv\notin M$, then $d(u)=\Delta$. In
particular, if a vertex~$v$ with degree greater than~$1$ has a neighbour
in~$T_2$, then $d(v)=\Delta$. Moreover, since edges in~$M$ are at distance
at least~$4$ in $G$, a vertex can have at most one neighbour in $V_1\cup
T_2$.

Let~$V_2'$ be the set of vertices of degree~$2$ that are not incident with
an edge of~$M$. For a face~$f$, let $V^-(f)=V(f)\setminus(V_1\cup T_2)$,
and let $W^-_f$ be the sequence of vertices on the boundary walk~$W_f$
after removing vertices from $V_1\cup T_2$. For a vertex~$v$, let
$v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{d(v)}$ be the neighbours of~$v$, listed in clockwise
order according to the drawing of~$G$. Write~$f_i$ for the face incident
with~$v$ lying between the edges $vv_i$ and $vv_{i+1}$ (taking addition
modulo~$d(v)$).

If a vertex~$v$ has a (unique) neighbour in $V_1\cup T_2$, then we always
choose~$v_1$ to be this neighbour. In that case $f_{d(v)}=f_1$, and that
face is called~$f_1$ again. Note that it is possible for other faces to be
the same as well (if~$v$ is a cut-vertex), but we will not identify those
multiple names of the same face.

\begin{claim}\label{claim:vdeltav2}
  \ $|V_{\Delta}|>|V_2'|$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
  Consider the set~$F$ of edges in $E(G)\setminus M$ with one end-vertex
  in~$V_2'$ and the other in~$V_{\Delta}$. The subgraph with vertex set
  $V_2'\cup V_{\Delta}$ and edge set~$F$ is bipartite; we claim it is
  acyclic. For suppose there exists an (even) cycle $C\in F$. By induction,
  we can extend the precolouring of $E(G)\setminus M$ to $G-C$. But then we
  can further extend this colouring to the edges of~$C$, since each one
  sees only $\Delta-2$ coloured edges, and even cycles are
  $2$-edge-choosable.

  Since each vertex in~$V_2'$ is incident with at least two edges in~$F$,
  we have $|V_\Delta|+|V_2'|>|F|\ge2|V_2'|$. The claim follows.
\end{proof}

\noindent
We use a discharging argument to complete the proof. First, let us assign
to each vertex~$v$ a charge

\smallskip
\qitem{$\alpha1$:} $\alpha(v)=3d(v)-6$,

\smallskip\noindent
and to each face~$f$ a charge

\smallskip
\qitem{$\alpha2$:} $\alpha(f)=-6$.

\smallskip
For each vertex~$v$ we define $\beta(v)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta1$:} If $v\in V_\Delta$, then $\beta(v)=-2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta2$:} If $v\in V_2'$, then $\beta(v)=2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\beta3$:} In all other cases, $\beta(v)=0$.

\smallskip
For each vertex~$v$ and edge $e=vu$, we define $\gamma_e(v)$ and
$\gamma_e(u)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma1$:} If $v\in V_1$, then $\gamma_e(v)=-\gamma_e(u)=3$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma2$:} If $v\in T_2$ and $u\in V_\Delta$, then
$\gamma_e(v)=-\gamma_e(u)=3$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma3$:} If $v\in U_2\setminus V_2'$ and $u\in V_\Delta$, then
$\gamma_e(v)=-\gamma_e(u)=2$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\gamma4$:} In all other cases, $\gamma_e(v)=0$.

\smallskip
Finally, for each face~$f$ and vertex $v\in W^-_f$ we define
$\delta_{f}(v)$ and $\delta_v(f)$ as follows.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta1$:} If $v\in U_2$, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=1$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta2$:} If $v\in T$ and $3\le d(v)\le\Delta-4$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=3-\dfrac{6}{d(v)-1}$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta3$:} If $v\in U$ and $3\le d(v)\le\Delta-4$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=3-\dfrac{6}{d(v)}$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta4$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-3$, $|V^-(f)|=3$, and both neighbours
of~$v$ in $V^-(f)$ are joined by an edge in~$M$, then
$\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=4$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta5$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-3$ and~$v$ has a neighbour in
$V^-(f)\cap T_3$, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=3$.

\smallskip
\qitem{$\delta6$:} If $d(v)\ge\Delta-3$ and none of~$\delta4$ and~$\delta5$
applies, then $\delta_v(f)=-\delta_f(v)=\tfrac52$.

\smallskip
For a vertex~$v$ and face~$f$, let $\gamma(v)$, $\delta(v)$ and~$\delta(f)$
be defined as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:planar}. By definition we
have $\sum_v\gamma(v)+\sum_v\delta(v)+\sum_{f}\delta(f)=0$. It follows from
Claim~\ref{claim:vdeltav2} that $\sum_v\beta(v)<0$. From Euler's Formula we
obtain $\sum_{v}\alpha(v)+\sum_{f}\alpha(f)<0$.

Thus, in order to reach a contradiction, it is enough to show that for
every vertex~$v$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discvertex3}
  \alpha(v)+\beta(v)+\delta(v)+\gamma(v)\ge0,
\end{equation}
and that for every face~$f$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discregion3}
  \alpha(f)+\delta(f)\ge0.
\end{equation}

Let~$f$ be a face. As~$G$ is simple, $|V^-(f)|\ge3$. Since $\alpha(f)=-6$,
it follows that~\eqref{eq:discregion3} is verified if we can show that
$\delta(f)\ge6$. Let~$v$ be the vertex in $V^-(f)$ for which $\delta_v(f)$
is minimum. If $\delta_v(f)\cdot|V^-(f)|\ge6$, then~\eqref{eq:discregion3}
clearly holds. So, by checking $\delta1$\,--\,$\delta6$, we see we only
have to consider the case where $v\in T_{[3,6]}\cup U_{[2,5]}$. (Recall
that vertices from $V_1\cup T_2$ do not appear in~$W^-_f$.)

If $v\in U_2$, then let~$u$ and~$w$ be the neighbours of~$v$. Consider
first the case where both~$u$ and~$w$ have degree~$\Delta$. Then they both
belong to $V^-(f)$, so~\eqref{eq:discregion3} follows, since
$\delta_v(f)=1$ and $\delta_u(f)\ge\tfrac52$, $\delta_w(f)\ge\tfrac52$ by
$\delta4$\,--\,$\delta6$. Suppose now that~$u$ has degree less
than~$\Delta$, which implies by~\eqref{eq:sum3} that $uv\in M$ and,
consequently, $vw\notin M$. In particular, $w\in V^-(f)$ and~$w$ has
degree~$\Delta$. Note also that necessarily $u\in V^-(f)$. If $|V^-(f)|=3$,
then $\delta_w(f)=4$ by~$\delta4$. As $\delta_u(f)\ge\delta_v(f)=1$, it
follows that~\eqref{eq:discregion3} holds. If $|V^-(f)|\ge4$, then~$u$ has
a neighbour~$u'$ in $V^-(f)\setminus\{v,w\}$. We assert that
$\delta_u(f)+\delta_{u'}(f)\ge\tfrac{5}{2}$. Indeed, this holds if either
of~$u$ and~$u'$ has degree at least $\Delta-3$, by $\delta5$ and $\delta6$.
Otherwise, $\delta2$ or~$\delta3$ applies to both~$u$ and~$u'$. So
$\delta_u(f)+\delta_{u'}(f)\ge6-\dfrac{6}{d(u)-1}-\dfrac{6}{d(u')-1}$.
Since $d(u)\ge3$, $d(u')\ge3$ and $d(u')\ge\Delta+2-d(u)$, it is easy to
see that the expression $6-\dfrac{6}{d(u)-1}-\dfrac{6}{d(u')-1}$ is
minimised if $d(u)=d(u')=\tfrac12(\Delta+2)$. We infer that
$\delta_u(f)+\delta_{u'}(f)\ge6-2\cdot\dfrac{6}{\tfrac12\Delta}
\ge\tfrac52$, because $\Delta\ge7$. The assertion follows. As a result, we
deduce that~\eqref{eq:discregion3} holds, since $\delta_w(f)\ge\tfrac52$
by~$\delta5$\ and~$\delta6$.

If $v\in T_3$, then $\delta_v(f)=0$, but~$v$ has two neighbours in $V^-(f)$
that have degree at least $\Delta-1$ each. Equation~\eqref{eq:discregion3}
then follows from~$\delta5$.

For the remaining cases we always have $\delta_v(f)\ge1$. Rules
$\delta2$\,--\,$\delta6$ ensure that any vertex $u\in V^-(f)$ with
$d(u)\ge13$ satisfies $\delta_u(f)\ge\tfrac52$; hence there can be at most
one such vertex and, in particular, a neighbour~$u$ of~$v$ in $V^-(f)$ must
have degree at most~$12$. As~$v$ itself has degree at most~$6$,
by~\eqref{eq:sum3} we have $uv\in M$, which also implies that $u,v\in U$.
Hence in particular $v\in U_{[3,5]}$. Let~$w$ be the neighbour of~$v$ in
$V^-(f)\setminus\{u\}$. Since $v\in U_{[3,5]}$ and $vw\notin M$, it
necessarily holds that $d(w)\ge\Delta-3$. If $|V^-(f)|=3$,
then~\eqref{eq:discregion3} holds by~$\delta4$ since
$\delta_u(f)\ge\delta_v(f)\ge1$. If $|V^-(f)|\ge4$, then~$u$ has a
neighbour~$u'$ in $V^-(f)\setminus\{v,w\}$, which has degree at least
$\Delta+2-d(u)\ge10$. Consequently, $\delta_{u'}(f)\ge\tfrac52$ by
$\delta3$, $\delta5$ or~$\delta6$. We deduce that~\eqref{eq:discregion3}
holds, as $\delta_w(f)\ge\tfrac{5}{2}$ by~$\delta5$ or~$\delta6$.

This confirms~\eqref{eq:discregion3} for all faces.

\medskip
Now let~$v$ be a vertex. Recall that $\alpha(v)=3d(v)-6$. Furthermore,
if~$v$ has a neighbour in $V_1\cup T_2$, then the two consecutive faces
incident with that neighbour are counted as one face; all other faces are
counted separately. Finally, as noted earlier, a vertex can have at most
one neighbour in $V_1\cup T_2$

If $d(v)=1$, then $\alpha(v)=-3$ and $\gamma(v)=3$. Since
$\beta(v)=\delta(v)=0$, we immediately obtain~\eqref{eq:discvertex3}.

If $d(v)=2$, then $\alpha(v)=0$. If $v\in T_2$, then both~$\gamma1$
and~$\gamma2$ apply; hence $\gamma(v)=0$. Again one can check that
$\beta(v)=\delta(v)=0$, confirming~\eqref{eq:discvertex3}. Otherwise $v\in
U_2$, and~$\delta1$ implies that $\delta(v)\ge-2$, as~$v$ is incident with
at most two faces. If $v\in V_2'$ as well, then~$\beta2$ yields that
$\beta(v)=2$ and $\gamma(v)=0$. If $v\notin V_2'$, then $\gamma(v)=2$ while
$\beta(v)=0$. In either case~\eqref{eq:discvertex3} follows.

Next suppose that $3\le d(v)\le\Delta-4$. Observe that $\beta(v)=0$. If
$v\in T$, then $\gamma(v)=-3$ by~$\gamma1$. Since~$v$ has a neighbour with
degree one, we know that~$v$ is incident with $d(v)-1$ regions, and
so~$\delta2$ yields that
$\delta(v)=(d(v)-1)\cdot\bigl({-3}-\dfrac{6}{d(v)-1}\bigr)= 9-3d(v)$.
Similarly, if $v\in U$, then $\gamma(v)=0$, and~$\delta4$ yields that
$\delta(v)=6-3d(v)$. This proves~\eqref{eq:discvertex3} for those
vertices~$v$.

Suppose now that $d(v)\in\{\Delta-3,\Delta-2,\Delta-1\}$. Then
$\beta(v)=0$. If $v\in T$, then $\gamma(v)=-3$ by~$\gamma1$. Since $M$ is
distance-$3$, none of~$\delta4$ and~$\delta5$ applies to~$v$, and~$v$ is
incident with $d(v)-1$ faces. From~$\delta6$ we deduce that
$\delta(v)=-\tfrac52(d(v)-1)$. Since $d(v)\ge\Delta-3\ge13$, it follows
that $3d(v)-6-3-\tfrac52(d(v)-1)=\tfrac12d(v)-\tfrac{13}2\ge0$, and
hence~\eqref{eq:discvertex3} is satisfied again. Next assume that $v\in U$,
and so $\gamma(v)=0$. The fact that~$M$ is distance-$3$ ensures
that~$\delta6$ applies to at least $d(v)-1$ faces incident with~$v$. This
implies that $\delta(v)\ge-(4+\tfrac52(d(v)-1))$. Combined with the
assumption that $\Delta\ge15$, this is always enough to
satisfy~\eqref{eq:discvertex3}.

Finally, suppose that $d(v)=\Delta$. In this case $\beta(v)=-2$. If
$v\in T$, then the distance condition on~$M$ ensures that $\gamma(v)=-3$
and $\delta(v)=-\tfrac52(\Delta-1)$. Since $\Delta\ge17$ this
confirms~\eqref{eq:discvertex3}.

So we are left with the case where $v\in U$. Since~$M$ is a distance-$3$
matching, at most one of $\gamma2$, $\gamma3$, $\delta4$ or $\delta5$
applies. Moreover, if~$\gamma2$ does apply, then $\gamma(v)=-3$, the
vertex~$v$ is incident with $\Delta-1$ faces and for all those faces~$f$ we
have $\delta_f(v)=-\frac52$. If~$\gamma3$ does apply, then $\gamma(v)=-2$,
the vertex~$v$ is incident with~$\Delta$ faces and for all those faces~$f$
we have $\delta_f(v)=-\frac52$. If~$\delta4$ or~$\delta5$ does apply, then
$\gamma(v)=0$, the vertex~$v$ is incident with~$\Delta$ faces, for all
those faces~$f$ but one we have $\delta_f(v)=-\tfrac52$, while for the
final face~$f$ we have $\delta_f(v)\in\{-4,-3\}$. Finally, if none of
$\gamma2$, $\gamma3$, $\delta4$ or $\delta5$ applies, then $\gamma(v)=0$,
the vertex~$v$ is incident with~$\Delta$ faces and for all those faces~$f$
we have $\delta_f(v)=-\tfrac52$. Using that $\Delta\ge20$, we can check
that~\eqref{eq:discvertex3} is satisfied in all cases.

This confirms~\eqref{eq:discvertex3} for all vertices and completes the
proof of the theorem.\qquad\hspace*{\fill}$\Box$

\section{A Final Conjecture}

Suppose that we would go to any means to get an extension form of Vizing's
theorem, say, by weakening the precolouring condition. We still let
$\mathcal{K}=[K]$ be a palette of available colours. Given a subset $S\subseteq E$
of edges and an arbitrary (i.e., not necessarily proper) colouring of
elements of~$S$ using only colours from~$\mathcal{K}$, is there a proper colouring
of all edges of~$G$ (using colours from~$\mathcal{K}$) that \emph{disagrees} with
the given colouring on every edge of~$S$? We may consider the coloured
set~$S$ as a set of \emph{forbidden} (coloured) edges, while the full
colouring, if it can be produced, is called an \emph{avoidance} of the
forbidden edges. The following is a significant weakening of
Conjecture~\ref{conj:main}, and is not implied by the LCC, nevertheless its
proof eludes us.

\begin{conjecture}\label{conj:weak}\mbox{}\\*
  Let~$G$ be a multigraph with maximum degree $\Delta(G)$ and maximum
  multiplicity $\mu(G)$. Using the palette $\mathcal{K}=[\Delta(G)+\mu(G)]$, any
  forbidden matching can be avoided by a proper edge-colouring of all
  of~$G$.
\end{conjecture}