Minimum Spanning Tree Cycle Intersection Problem

Abstract: Consider a connected graph $G$ and let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$. Every edge $e \in G-T$ induces a cycle in $T \cup \{e\}$. The intersection of two distinct such cycles is the set of edges of $T$ that belong to both cycles. We consider the problem of finding a spanning tree that has the least number of such non-empty intersections.

\section{Introduction}

In this article we present what we believe is a novel problem in
graph theory, namely the Minimum Spanning Tree Cycle Intersection
(\emph{MSTCI}) problem.

\bigskip

The problem can be expressed as follows. Let $G$ be a graph
and $T$ a spanning tree of $G$. Every edge $e \in G-T$ induces a
cycle in $T \cup \{e\}$. The intersection of two distinct such cycles
is the set of edges of $T$ that belong to both cycles. Consider the
problem of finding a spanning tree that has the least number of such
pairwise non-empty intersections.

\bigskip

The problem arose while investigating a (yet unpublished)
method for \emph{mesh deformation} in the area of \emph{digital geometry
processing}, see \cite{Botsch:2010}. The method requires to solve a
linear system and the sparsity of the matrix is related to the
solution of this problem.

\bigskip

The remaining of this section is dedicated to express the MSTCI problem
in the context of well established theories to motivate other points of
view. Section 2 sets some notation and convenient definitions. In
Section 3 the complete graph case is analyzed. Section 4 presents a
variety of interesting properties, and a conjecture in the slightly
general case of a graph (not necessarily complete) that admits a star
spanning tree. Section 5 explores programatically the space of spanning
trees to provide evidence that the conjecture is well posed. Section 6
collects the conclusions of the  article.

\subsection{Intersection graph theory}

\emph{Intersection graph theory} is a longstanding and central area of
graph theory covered in important textbooks \cite{McKee:1999}. It is
concerned with the study of \emph{intersection graphs}.

\smallskip

Let $\mathscr{F} = \{S_1,\dots,S_k\}$ be any family of sets. The
\emph{intersection graph} denoted
$\Omega(\mathscr{F})$ is the graph having $\mathscr{F}$ as vertex set
with $S_i$ adjacent $S_j$ if and only if $i \neq j$ and $S_i \cap S_j
\neq \varnothing$.

\bigskip

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $\mathscr{F} = \{S_1,\dots,S_k\}$ be the
family of edge sets corresponding to the cycles of $G$.  Then
$\Omega(\mathscr{F})$ has as vertex set the cycles of $G$ and two
vertices are adjacent if the corresponding cycles share at least one
edge. In this setting, let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$ and
$G-T \subset E$ the set of complementary edges of $T$. An edge $e \in
G-T$ induces a cycle in $T \cup \{e\}$ which obviously is a cycle of
$G$. So $T$ has a canonical mapping to some subgraph of
$\Omega(\mathscr{F})$. The MSTCI problem can
be expressed in the following terms: find the spanning tree $T$ such
that it maps to the sparsest possible subgraph in $\Omega(\mathscr{F})$.

\subsection{Matroid theory}

The classical \emph{matroid theory} as developed by Tutte in
\cite{Tutte:1965} is a fundamental theoretical toolbox with very deep
insights in graph theory.

\bigskip

The familiy of sets described in the previous subsection closely
resembles the \emph{polygon matroid}. An interesting formulation of the
MSTCI problem can be expressed in terms of its dual matroid $B(G)$,
namely the \emph{bond matroid}.

\bigskip

The bond matroid can be defined as follows. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a
connected graph. The \emph{atoms} of $B(G)$ are the edge subsets $A
\subset E$ such that $G-A$ determine two connected components $G_1$ and
$G_2$ and such that every edge of $A$ has one end in each component.

\bigskip

A \emph{dendroid} $D$ of a matroid $M$ is a set that intersects all the
atoms and is minimal, meaning that if we delete an element of $D$ then
there exists an atom $A \in M$ such that $A \cap D = \varnothing$. The
dendroids of $B(G)$ are the sets of edges of the spanning trees of $G$.

\bigskip

Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$. So the edges of $T$ define a
dendroid $D$ of $B(G)$. Note that for every edge $e \in T$, $T-\{e\}$
determine two subtrees that span two connected components $G_1$ and
$G_2$ of $G$. So there is a natural injective map between the edges of
$T$ and the atoms of $B(G)$:

$$\phi_T: E(T) \rightarrow B(G)$$
$$e \mapsto A$$

where $A$ is the atom corresponding to the set of edges
linking $G_1$ and $G_2$. As a remark, note that $e \in A$. In the
language of matroid theory this set of $|V|-1$ atoms (ie. the image of
$\phi_T$) of $B(G)$ is called the \emph{dendroid basis} determined by
$D$.

\bigskip

To formulate the MSTCI problem in this framework we have to be
precise about the pairwise intersection of cycles. In this sense let
$T$ be a spanning tree of a connected graph $G=(V,E)$. Let $S$ be the
dendroid basis determined by the edges of $T$ and $A \in S$ an atom.
Clearly there exist a unique edge $e \in T$ such that $\phi_T(e) = A$.
Note that each edge $e' \in A-\{e\}$ determine a cycle $c \in T \cup
\{e'\}$ and that $e \in c$. So two such cycles have non-empty
intersection. It is not difficult to realize that every non-empty
pairwise
intersection is of this form. If we manage to count the set of this
pair of edges of all the atoms of $S$ we could express the MSTCI problem
as an alternative minimization problem: find the spanning tree such
that its corresponding dendroid basis has the least number of such pair
of edges.

\subsection{Homology theory}

The importance of \emph{homological methods} \cite{Cartan:1956} in
topology and geometry cannot be overemphasized. These methods
constitute fundamental algebraic tools that enable the computation of
invariant quantities of spaces. In its original form the main invariant
was the number of ``holes'' of a space known as its \emph{Betti
numbers}.

\bigskip

We introduce some elementary notions based these notes
\cite{Dewan:2010}. Let $R$ be a commutative ring, and suppose we have a
sequence of $R$-modules $M_i$ and homomorphisms $d_i$

$$\dots \xrightarrow{d_3} M_2 \xrightarrow{d_2} M_1 \xrightarrow{d_1}
M_0 \xrightarrow{d_0} M_{-1} \xrightarrow{d_{-1}} \dots$$

such that $\forall i \ d_i \circ d_{i+1} = 0$. Such a sequence is called
a \emph{chain complex} of $R$-modules, and denoted $M_\bullet$.
Because the composition of adjacent homomorphisms is trivial,
$im(d_{i+1}) \subseteq ker(d_i)$. Therefore, for each module in the
chain there is a quotient

$$H_i(M_\bullet) = \frac{ker(d_i)}{im(d_{i+1})}$$

called the \emph{i-th homology group} of $M_\bullet$.

\smallskip

In graph theory this definitions become very concrete. Let $R$ be a
\emph{principal ideal domain} (ie. $\mathbb{Z}$) and  let $G=(V,E)$ be
a graph. Consider an arbitrary orientation of the edges that maps every
edge $e \in E$ to a triple: $e \mapsto (e,s,t)$, where $s,t \in V$ are
the source and target ends of the orientation of $e$. Let $M_0$ be the
free $R$-module
over $V$ (formal linear combinations of the vertices of $G$). And $M_1$
the $R$-module generated by the oriented edges subject to the relations
$(e,s,t) + (e,t,s) = 0$ (where $(e,t,s)$ expresses de traversal of the
edge $(e,s,t)$ in the opposite direction). Now consider the
\emph{boundary homomorphism}

$$\partial: M_1 \rightarrow M_0$$

defined on the generators as $\partial(e,s,t) = t - s$. Not
surprisingly $ker(\partial)$ is denoted the \emph{cycle space} of $G$,
$\mathscr{C}(G)$.
Since if we consider in $M_1$ the linear combination representing a
cycle $c$ of $G$ then $\partial(c) = 0$. It is not difficult to check
that $rank(\mathscr{C}(G)) = |E| - |V| + c$ where $c$ is the number of
connected components of $G$. Now we can define the following chain
complex $G_\bullet$:

$$\dots \xrightarrow{d_3 = 0} 0 \xrightarrow{d_2 = 0} M_1
\xrightarrow{d_1 = \partial}
M_0 \xrightarrow{d_0 = 0} 0 \xrightarrow{d_{-1} = 0} \dots$$

As $im(d_2) = 0$ then $H_1(G_\bullet) = ker(\partial) =
\mathscr{C}(G)$.

\smallskip

An interesting result is the following. Let $T$ be a spanning
tree of $G$. Note that if $e \in G-T$ then $T \cup {e}$ has only one
cycle: $c_e$. The set of those cycles generate $\mathscr{C}(G)$.
Symbolically:

$$<\{c_e \ \forall e \in G-T \}> = \mathscr{C}(G) = H_1(G_\bullet)$$

In other words: each spanning tree determines some basis of
$H_1(G_\bullet)$. In particular if $T$ is a spanning tree that is a
solution of the MSTCI problem then the \emph{tree intersection
number} (defined in the next section) of $T$ could be a finer invariant
of $G$.

\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Overview}

In the first part of this section we present some of the terms that are
used in the article. Then we define the notion of \emph{closest-point}
and \emph{closest-point-set}. Finally we show a convenient cycle
partition.

\subsection{Notation}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $T$ a spanning tree of $G$, then we will
refer to the edges $e\in T$ as \emph{tree-edges} and to the edges $e
\in G-T$ as \emph{cycle-edges}.

\smallskip

Every cycle-edge $e$ induces a cycle in $T \cup \{e\}$, we will
call such a cycle a \emph{tree-cycle}. And we shall call $C_T$ to the
set of tree-cycles of $T$.

\smallskip

The intersection of two tree-cycles is the set of edges
of $T$ that belong to both cycles. We will define three functions
concerning the intersection of  tree-cycles.

\smallskip

The first is $\cap_{T}(\cdot, \cdot): C_T \times C_T \rightarrow \{0,1\}$

$$\cap_{T}(c_i, c_j) :=
	\begin{cases}
	  1 & c_i \cap c_j \neq \varnothing \land c_i \neq c_j \\
	  0 & c_i \cap c_j = \varnothing \lor c_i = c_j \\
	\end{cases}
$$

Note that the trivial case $c_i = c_j$ is excluded. This
arbitrary decision will simplify future computations.

\smallskip

The second is
$\cap_{T}(\cdot): C_T \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$

$$\cap_{T}(c_i) := \sum_{c_j \in C_T} \cap_{T}(c_i, c_j)$$

We will call $\cap_{T}(c)$ the \emph{cycle intersection number} of
$c$. Given a tree-cycle $c$ we will denote $\cap_{T,c}$ as the set of
tree-cycles that have non-empty intersection with $c$. More precisely:

$$\cap_{T,c} \equiv \{c' \in C_T:  \cap_{T}(c, c') = 1 \}$$

Note that $|\cap_{T,c}| = \cap_{T}(c)$.

\smallskip

To define the third function consider $\mathscr{T}_G$ to be the
set of spanning trees of $G$, so the definition will be as follows:
$\cap_G: \mathscr{T}_G \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$

$$\cap_G(T) := \frac{1}{2}\sum_{c \in C_T} \cap_{T}(c)$$

We will call $\cap_G(T)$ the \emph{tree intersection number} of $T$.
Clearly the set $\displaystyle \min_{T}\cap_G(T)$ is the set of
solutions of the MSTCI problem. If the graph is clear from the context
we could drop the subindex and simply write: $\cap(T)$.

\bigskip

We shall call \emph{star} spanning tree to a spanning tree that
has one vertex that connects to all other vertices. And $K_n$ to the
complete graph on $n$ nodes. If $G=(V,E)$ we will say that $|V| = n$ is
the number of vertices of $G$, $|c| = k$ is the length of the cycle
$c$ and $|p|$ is the length of the path $p$. Also $uTv$ will denote the
unique path between $u,v \in V$ in the spanning tree $T$; $d_T(v)$ will
be the degree of $v \in V$ relative to the spanning tree $T$. We will
denote $N(v)$ to the set of neighbor nodes of $v \in V$.

\smallskip

Finally we use the terms ``node'' and ``vertex'' interchangeably.

\subsection{Closest point}

In this section we prove the following simple fact: if $G=(V,E)$ is a
connected graph, $T$ a spanning tree of $G$ and $c \in  C_T$ a
tree-cycle, then for every node $v \in V$ there exists a unique node $w
\in c$ that minimizes the distance to $v$ in $T$. We shall denote that
node $closest-point(v,c)$.

\bigskip

\begin{lemma}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph, $T$ a spanning tree of $G$ and $c
\in C_T$ a tree-cycle then for every node $v \in V$
there exists a unique node $w \in c$ such that

$$|vTw| \leq |vTu| \ \forall u \in c$$

Proof. The proof proceeds by contradiction. If $v \in c$ it is
obviously its own unique closest point. Suppose that $v \notin c$ and
that there are two distinct nodes $w, w' \in c$ such that $|vTw| =
|vTw'|
\leq |vTu| \ \forall u \in c$. Obviously $w' \notin vTw$ and $w
\notin vTw'$, we conclude that $vTw \cup wTw' \cup
vTw'$ determine a cycle in $T$ which contradicts the fact that
$T$ is a tree.$\square$
\end{lemma}

The uniqueness of the $closest-point(v,c)$ leads to the following
definition.

\begin{definition} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph, $T$ a spanning tree of $G$
and $c \in C_T$ a tree-cycle, then the set of closest points to a node
$w \in c$ is defined as follows

$$closest-point-set(u,c) := \{v \in V-c: $$
$$closest-point(v,c)=u \}$$
\end{definition}

\subsection{Tree cycle intersection partition}
Now we define a partition of the set $\cap_{T,c}$.
More precisely, let $G$ be a connected graph, $T$ a spanning tree of $G$ and $c \in
C_T$ a tree-cycle. As defined above the set $\cap_{T,c}$ is the set
of tree-cycles that have non-empty intersection with $c$.

\bigskip

Let us consider any tree-cycle $c' \in \cap_{T,c}$ induced by a
cycle-edge $e=(v,w)$. In this setting we can define the following
partition:

\begin{itemize}
	\item \emph{Internal tree-cycles}: $c'$ is \emph{internal} if $v, w
	\in c$.
	\item \emph{External tree-cycles}: $c'$ is \emph{external} if $v
	\notin c$ and $w \in c$.
	\item \emph{Transit tree-cycles}: $c'$ is \emph{transit} if
	$v, w \notin c$.
\end{itemize}

Let us denote them $\cap^i_{T,c}$, $\cap^e_{T,c}$,
$\cap^t_{T,c}$, respectively. This partition will be convenient to
simplify the computation of the \emph{intersection number} of $c$.

\section{Tree cycles of complete graphs}
\subsection{Overview}

In this section we analyze the complete graph case $G=K_n$. First we
deduce a formula to compute the cycle intersection number. Then we
prove that the tree-cycles of a star spanning tree achieve the minimum
cycle intersection number. Finally we conclude that the star spanning
trees are the unique solutions of the MSTCI problem.

\subsection{Cycle intersection number formula}

In this subsection we consider the problem of finding a formula to
count tree-cycle intersections. More precisely, let $G=K_n$,
$T$ a spanning tree of $G$ and $c$ a tree-cycle, we intend to derive a
formula to calculate $\cap_{T}(c)$.

\bigskip

The idea behind the formula is to consider the partition of
$\cap_{T,c}$, defined in the previous section. And then by
combinatorial arguments compute the number of elements in each class.

\smallskip

We shall analyze in turn the three classes: $\cap^i_{T,c}$,
$\cap^e_{T,c}$, $\cap^t_{T,c}$. In this section we will consider
$c' \in \cap_{T}(c)$ to be a tree-cycle induced by a cycle-edge
$e=(v,w)$.

\bigskip

The simplest case is the
internal tree-cycles class: $\cap^i_{T,c}$. Let $c'$ be an
internal tree-cycle. By definition the nodes $v$ and $w$ belong
to $c$, so the following holds: $(c' \cap T) \subset c$ because there is
a unique path from $v$ to $w$ in $T$. So basically counting the number
of internal tree-cycles reduces to count the pairings of the nodes of
$c$ excluding some obvious cases. The cases that should be excluded
are: the pairing of a node with itself and with its neighbors in $c$.
Then the number of internal tree-cycles is:

$$|\cap^i_{T,c}| = \frac{(k-3) k}{2}, $$
where $k$ is, as before, equal to $|c|$.
The quotient is obviously due to the fact that every cycle is counted
twice.

\smallskip

Next we consider the class of external tree-cycles. Now let $c'$
be an external tree-cycle. In this case exactly one of the extremal
nodes ($v$ or $w$) belong to $c$. Without loss of generality (as we are
considering undirected edges), suppose that $v \notin c$ and $w \in c$.
Clearly $w \neq closest-point(v,c)$ because in that case $c' \cap c =
\varnothing$ and consequently $c' \notin \cap_{T,c}$ which
contradicts our hypothesis. As that is the only particular case that
should be excluded, the number of external tree-cycles is:

$$|\cap^e_{T,c}| = (n-k) (k-1),$$
where $n=|V|$ is the number of vertices of $G$ and $k=|c|$ is the
length of $c$.

Last we consider the class of transit tree-cycles. In this case the key
observation depends on the $closest-point-set$ definition of the
previous section. Lets define two classes of cycle-edges:

\begin{enumerate}
	\item A cycle-edge $e=(v,w)$ is called \emph{intraset cycle-edge} if
	both $v,w \in closest-point-set(u_i,c)$ for some $u_i \in c$
	\item A cycle-edge $e=(v,w)$ is called \emph{interset cycle-edge} if
	$v \in closest-point-set(u_i,c)$ and $w \in closest-point-set(u_j,c)$
	where $u_i, u_j \in c$ and $u_i \neq u_j$
\end{enumerate}

Then:

\begin{itemize}
	\item Every \emph{intraset cycle-edge} induce a tree-cycle $c'$ such
	that $c' \cap c = \varnothing$
	\item Every \emph{interset cycle-edge} induce a tree-cycle $c'$ such
	that $c' \cap c \neq \varnothing$
\end{itemize}

So we should consider \emph{interset cycle-edges} or equivalently, the
pairing of the nodes that are in different
sets. Let $q_i = |closest-point-set(w_i,c)|$ be defined for all $w_i \in c$, then
the number of transit tree-cycles is:

$$|\cap^t_{T,c}| = \sum_{i<j} q_i q_j = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^k q_i
(n-k-q_i)$$

Finally, the intersection number formula is the aggregation of the three
classes:

$$\cap_{T}(c) = |\cap_{T,c}| = |\cap^i_{T,c}| +
|\cap^e_{T,c}| + |\cap^t_{T,c}| =$$

$$\frac{(k-3) k}{2} + (n-k) (k-1) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=1}^k q_i
(n-k-q_i),$$
where $n$ is the number of vertices of $G$, $k=|c|$ and
$q_i = |closest-point-set(w_i,c)|$ for $w_i \in c$.

\subsection{Main result}

In this subsection we start by defining \emph{transiteless}
tree-cycles. Then we
prove two lemmas. The first shows that for every
cycle $c \in G=K_n$ we can build a spanning tree $T$ such that $c$ is a
tree-cycle of $T$ and the intersection number $\cap_{T}(c)$ is
minimal. And the second calculates the intersection number of
tree-cycles of star spanning trees. Finally we prove the main result of
this section, namely that star spanning trees minimize $\cap(\cdot)$ in the
case of complete graphs.

\bigskip

\begin{definition} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph, $T$ a spanning tree of
$G$ and $c \in C_T$ a tree-cycle, we call $c$ a \emph{transitless}
tree-cycle if $|\cap^t_{T,c}| = 0$.
\end{definition}

As an important remark, note that the number of elements in the
internal and external classes of $c$ are independent of the spanning
tree because
they depend exclusively on the numbers $n=|V|$ and $k=|c|$. So
two spanning trees $T_1$ and $T_2$ that have $c$ as a
tree-cycle induce an intersection number (for $c$) that only differ in
the number of elements in their transit classes. We conclude that
transitless tree-cycles have minimal intersection number
$\cap_{T}(c)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemmatransitless}
Let $G=K_n$ and let $c$ be a cycle of $G$ then the following procedure
lead to a spanning tree $T$ that minimizes the intersection number of
$c$:

\begin{enumerate}
	\item Remove exactly one edge $e \in c$
	\item Choose a vertex $v \in c$
	\item Define $T$ as follows:
	\begin{itemize}
		\item The edges $c - e$
		\item A star centered at $v$ of the vertices $(G-c) \cup \{v\}$
	\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}

\smallskip

Proof. Note that $T$ is a spanning tree of $G$, and $c$ is a tree-cycle
of $T$. So if we prove that
$|\cap^t_{T,c}| = 0$ then the intersection number $\cap_{T}(c)$ is
minimal. This is the case, because by construction:

\begin{itemize}
	\item $|closest-point-set(u,c)| = 0$ $\forall u \in c, u \neq v$
	\item $|closest-point-set(v,c)| = n-k$
\end{itemize}

So $|\cap^t_{T,c}| = \sum_{i<j} q_i q_j = 0$.$\square$
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
Let $G=K_n$ and let $T_s$ be a star spanning tree of $G$. Then the
the following property holds

$$\cap_{T_s}(c) = 2(n - 3)$$

for any tree-cycle $c$ of $T_s$.

\smallskip

Proof. Clearly the tree-cycles in $T_s$ have the same intersection
number (by symmetry). Let $c$ be a tree-cycle of $T_s$.
Note that $c$ is a triangle ($|c| = 3$), so the corresponding internal
tree-cycles class is empty:
$|\cap^i_{T,c}| = 0$. Also note that $c$ is a transitless tree-cycle
because its nodes are: the
central node and two leaf nodes of $T_s$. So the external tree-cycle
class is the only non-empty class:

$$\cap_{T_s}(c) = |\cap^e_{T_s,c}| = 2(n - 3)$$

\end{lemma}

\begin{proposition}\label{propstar}
Let $G=K_n$ and let $T_s$ be a star spanning tree of $G$. Then the
following property holds

$$\cap_{T_s}(\cdot) \leq \cap_{T}(\cdot)$$

where $T$ is any spanning tree of $G$.

\smallskip

Proof. We shall prove the proposition by contradiction. Suppose that a
spanning tree $T$ and a tree-cycle $c$ of $T$ exist such that:

$$\cap_{T}(c) < \cap_{T_s}(\cdot) = 2(n - 3)$$

We can assume that $c$ is transitless because, if it's not the case, by
lemma \ref{lemmatransitless} we can build a spanning tree $T'$ such
that $\cap_{T'}(c) < \cap_{T}(c)$. In this context the
inequality can be expressed as

$$\cap_{T}(c) = |\cap^i_{T,c}| + |\cap^e_{T,c}| = $$
$$\frac{(k-3) k}{2} + (n-k) (k-1) < 2(n - 3)$$

Expanding and simplifying the expression we have

$$\frac{-1}{2} k^2 + (n-\frac{1}{2}) k - 3n + 6 < 0$$

The roots of this quadratic polynomial are: $r_1 = 3$ and $r_2 =
2(n-2)$.
We should consider two cases depending on the relation of the roots:

\begin{enumerate}
	\item $r_1 < r_2$
	\item $r_1 > r_2$
\end{enumerate}

The case $r_1 = r_2$ can be discarded because it leads to a
fractional number of nodes ($n = \frac{7}{2}$).
In the first case the inequality holds for $k < r_1 = 3$ or $k > r_2 =
2(n-2)$. The case $k < 3$ is an obvious contradiction since the size of
the cycle must be $|c| = k \geq
3$. The case $k > 2(n-2)$ combined with the fact that $k \leq n$
induces the following inequality

$$r_1 = 3 < r_2 = 2(n-2) < k \leq n$$

which implies a contradiction: $3 < n < 4$, since $n$ is a positive
integer.

The second case ($r_1 = 3 > r_2 = 2(n-2)$) imply $n < \frac{7}{2}$. So
the only case that should be considered is $k = n = 3$ since $k \leq
n$. But, this inequality is false because $k = 3$ is a
root of the quadratic polynomial.$\square$

\begin{corollary}\label{coromain}
Let $G=K_n$ and let $T_s$ be a star spanning tree of $G$. Then the
the following property holds

$$\cap(T_s) \leq \cap(T),$$
where $T$ is any spanning tree of $G$.

\smallskip

Proof. As expressed by proposition \ref{propstar}, a tree-cycle of a
star spanning tree has the minimal intersection number among all
tree-cycles. Since any tree-cycles of a star spanning tree has the same
intersection number, we conclude that the tree intersection number of
a star spanning tree $\cap(T_s)$ is minimal among all spanning trees.
$\square$
\end{corollary}

\smallskip

This corollary can be further improved to a strict inequality. In other
words: star spanning trees are the unique minimizers of $\cap(T)$.

\smallskip

\begin{corollary}\label{coromain2}
Let $G=(V,E)=K_n$ where $|V| = n > 4$ and let $T_s$ be a star spanning
tree of $G$. Then, the following property holds

$$\cap(T_s) < \cap(T),$$
where $T$ is any non-star spanning tree of $G$.

\smallskip

Proof. A careful reading of proposition \ref{propstar} leads to the
conclusion that the equality $\cap_{T_s}(c) = \cap_{T}(c)$
is achieved when $k$ is either $r_1=3$ or $r_2=2(n-2)$
(the roots of the quadratic polynomial). If $k = r_2 = 2(n-2)$, and
taking into account that $3 \leq k \leq n$, we conclude that
$\frac{7}{2} \leq n \leq 4$; this case is explicitly excluded from
our hypotheses (in fact, it is not difficult to check that the three
non-isomorphic spanning trees of $K_4$ all have the same tree
intersection number).

\smallskip

The other possibility is $k = r_1 = 3$. As all the tree-cycles
of $T_s$ fall into this category, it is enough to
show that $T$ has a tree-cycle $c$ such that $|c| = k > 3$ to conclude
our thesis. Let $w \in V$ be a node with maximum degree in $T$.
And let $d_T(w)$ denote the degree of $w$ in $T$ and
$N(w)$ to the set of neighbors of $w$ in $T$.
As $T$
is a non-star spanning tree then $2 \leq d_{T}(w) < n-1$. So there is
a node $u \in V$ such that $u \notin N(w)$ in $T$, and there is a node
$k \in N(w)$ such that $k \notin wTu$. Notice that the edge $e=(u,k) \notin T$
(since it would induce a cycle). Hence, it is a cycle-edge. Note that the
tree-cycle induced by $e$ has length at least 4.$\square$
\end{corollary}

\end{proposition}

This result can be summarized in the following way: star spanning trees
are the unique solutions of the MSTCI problem for complete graphs.

\section{Further generalization}

\subsection{Overview}

Now we explore some aspects of a slightly more general
case, namely: the MSTCI problem in the context of a graph (not
necessarily complete) $G=(V,E)$ that admits a star spanning tree
$T_s$. In the first part we present a formula to calculate $\cap(T_s)$.
In the second part we show that $\cap(T_s)$ is a local minimum in the
domain of what we refer to as the ``spanning tree graph''. In the third
part we prove a result that suggests a general observation: the fact
that a spanning tree of a graph $G$ being a solution of the MSTCI
problem doesn't depend on an intrinsic property of $T$ but on the
particular embedding of $T$ in $G$. Finally we conjecture a
generalization of Corollary \ref{coromain}: $\cap(T_s) \leq \cap(T)$
for every spanning tree $T$ of $G$.

\subsection{Formulas for star spanning trees}

In this subsection we present two formulas for graphs $G=(V,E)$ that admit
a star spanning tree $T_s$. Let us denote $v \in
V$ to the central node of $T_s$.

\bigskip

The first formula corresponds to the cycle intersection number of a
tree-cycle
$c = (u,v,w) \in C_{T_s}$, namely $\cap_{T_s}(c)$. Recall from the
previous section that $c$ does not intersect neither transit nor internal
tree-cycles: $|\cap^t_{T,c}| = 0$ and $|\cap^i_{T,c}| = 0$. So its
non-empty intersections are the tree-cycles in the set  $\cap^e_{T,c}$.
Note that the remaining
incident edges to $u$ and $w$, are the only source of tree-cycles that
have non-empty intersection with $c$. So the formula is
straightforward:

$$\cap_{T_s}(c) = d(u) - 2 + d(w) - 2,$$
where $d(u)$ and $d(w)$ are the degrees of $u$ and $w$, resp.

Now we shall deduce a formula for the tree intersection number
$\cap(T_s)$. Based on the preceding observations and the fact that each
node $u \in V - \{v\}$ is involved in $d(u)-1$ tree-cycles and for each
of those tree-cycles it produces $d(u) - 2$ non-empty intersections
(note that the pairwise intersections are counted twice).
The formula is as follows:

$$\cap(T_s) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{u \in V - \{v\}} (d(u) - 1) (d(u) - 2)
= $$

$$\frac{1}{2} \sum_{u \in V - \{v\}} d(u)^2 - 3 d(u) + 2$$

If we denote ${\bf d}$ as the degree vector of $G$, that is: a vector that
has in the $i$-th component the degree of the $i$-th vertex. And taking
into account that $\sum_{u \in V} d(u) = 2m$ where $m = |E|$, the
formula can be expressed as:

$$\cap(T_s) = \frac{1}{2} [||{\bf d}||_{2}^2 - 6m - (n-1)(n-6)]$$

\subsection{Star spanning tree as a local minimum}

In this subsection we prove that a star spanning tree is a local minimum
respect to the tree intersection number in the domain of the
\emph{spanning tree graph}. We start by defining this second order
graph of the original graph $G=(V,E)$. Then we analyze the structure of
the neighbors of a star spanning tree $T_s$. Finally
we demonstrate the result by a bijection between tree-cycles to
conclude that $\cap(T_s)$ is a local minimum.

\bigskip

\begin{definition}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, and $S$ a subgraph of $G$. We denote
as $e \leftrightarrow e'$ to the operation
of replacing the edge $e \in S$ with the edge $e' \in G-S$.
We call this operation \emph{edge replacement on $S$}.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. We denote
$SP_{_G}$ to the graph that has one node for every spanning
tree of $G$
and an edge between two nodes if the corresponding spanning trees
differ in exactly one edge replacement. We call this graph
the \emph{spanning tree graph of $G$}.
\end{definition}

\subsubsection{Neighborhood of $T_s$} Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that
admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ with $v \in V$ as its center. Let
$\alpha_{_{T_s}}$ be the node corresponding to $T_s$ in $SP_{_G}$ and
let $\alpha_{_T}$ (with corresponding spanning tree $T$) be any
neighbor of $\alpha_{_{T_s}}$. By definition $T_s$ and $T$ differ in
exactly one edge replacement $e \leftrightarrow e'$ where $e=(v,w) \in
T_s$ and $e'=(u,w) \in T$. Note that $T$ is exactly the same as $T_s$
except that the node $w$ is no longer connected to the central node $v$
but is connected to the intermediate node $u$. This similar structure
has direct consequences in the intersection numbers of both trees.

\bigskip

Now we prove the result of this section.

\begin{theorem}\label{teo:local}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ with $v
\in V$ as its center. Then, $T_s$ is a local minimum respect to
the tree intersection number in the domain of $SP_{_G}$.

\smallskip

Proof. Let $T$ be a spanning tree corresponding to a neighbor of $T_s$
in $SP_{_G}$. Then we want to prove that $\cap(T_s) \leq \cap(T)$.
We shall proceed by defining a bijection between the tree-cycles of
both trees $\{c \leftrightarrow d: c \in C_{_{T_s}} \wedge d
\in C_{_T} \}$ such that $\cap_{_{T_s}}(c) \leq
\cap_{_{T}}(d)$, this strategy clearly implies the thesis
since by definition:

$$\cap(T_s) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{c} \cap_{T_s}(c) \leq
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{d} \cap_{T}(d) = \cap(T)$$

\smallskip

Let $e_{_{T_s}} \leftrightarrow e_{_T}$ with $e_{_{T_s}}=(v,w) \in T_s$
and $e_{_{T}}=(u,w) \in T$ be the edge replacement in
$SP_{_G}$. Consider the following simple facts:

\begin{itemize}
	\item $e_{_{T}}$ is a cycle-edge in $T_s$, with corresponding
	tree-cycle $c$
	\item $e_{_{T_s}}$ is a cycle-edge in $T$, with corresponding
	tree-cycle $d$
	\item Except for $e_{_{T_s}}$ and $e_{_{T}}$, $T_s$ and $T$ have
	the same set of cycle-edges. For every $e \in E - T_s - T$ we
	denote $c_e$ and $d_e$ to the corresponding tree-cycles in $T_s$
	and $T$, resp.
\end{itemize}

according to this naming convention, we can define the following
``natural'' bijection between tree-cyles:

$$\{c \leftrightarrow d\} \cup \{c_e \leftrightarrow d_e: e \in E - T_s
- T\}$$

In order to compare the intersection numbers of the bijected pairs it
is convenient to distiguish the following partition:

\begin{itemize}
	\item Case 1: the pair induced by the edge replacement, $\{c
	\leftrightarrow d\}$
	\item Case 2: pairs induced by cycle-edges non-incident to $u$ nor
	to $w$, $\{c_e \leftrightarrow d_e: e \in E - T_s - T \wedge u \notin
	e \wedge w \notin e\}$
	\item Case 3: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to $u$ or
	$w$, $\{c_e \leftrightarrow d_e: e \in E - T_s - T \wedge (u \in e
	\lor w \in e) \}$
\end{itemize}

Case 1 is the easiest: note that $c$ and $d$ are the same tree-cycle
$(u,v,w)$, which is a transitless triangle, so its intersection number
is determined by its external intersections:

$$\cap_{_{T_s}}(c) = d(u) - 2 + d(w) - 2 = \cap_{_{T}}(d)$$

Case 2 is similar, let $e=(h,k)$ be a cycle-edge non-incident to $u$
or to $w$ and $c_e \leftrightarrow d_e$ its corresponding pair of
bijected tree-cycles. Clearly $e$ determines the transitless triangle
$(h,v,k)$ both in $T_s$ and $T$ and as $d_{_{T_s}}(h) = d_{_{T_s}}(k) =
d_{_{T}}(h) = d_{_{T}}(k) = 1$, then every other edge incident to $h$
or $k$ induces a tree-cycle that intersects $(h,v,k)$. We conclude
that:

$$\cap_{_{T_s}}(c_e) = d(h) - 2 + d(k) - 2 = \cap_{_{T}}(d_e)$$

Case 3 is the one that should be analyzed more carefully. As we already
know how to calculate intersection numbers of tree-cycles in $T_s$,
we will focus on the tree-cycles of $T$. We will further divide this
partition in two subpartitions:

\begin{itemize}
	\item Case 3.1: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to $u$, $\{c_e
	\leftrightarrow d_e: e \in E - T_s - T \wedge u \in e \}$
	\item Case 3.2: pairs induced by cycle-edges incident to $w$, $\{c_e
	\leftrightarrow d_e: e \in E - T_s - T \wedge w \in e \}$
\end{itemize}

In case 3.1 the situation is as follows: the cycle-edge $e=(u,k)$
defines the tree-cycle $c_e = d_e = (u,v,k)$ (both in $T$ and $T_s$).
The important details are:

\begin{itemize}
	\item $d_T(u) = 2$: $u$ induces $d(u) - 3$ intersections
	\item $d_T(k) = 1$: $k$ induces $d(k) - 2$ intersections
	\item $d_T(w) = 1$: $w$ induces $d(w) - 1$ intersections
	\item $d(w) \geq 2$ since it is connected at least to $u$ and $v$
	in $G$
	\item $w$ may have an incident cycle-edge connecting it to $k$, so
	we should avoid counting twice that intersection
\end{itemize}

Now we claim that

$$\cap_{_{T}}(d_e) \geq d(u) - 3 + d(k) - 2 + d(w) - 1 -
\epsilon(w,k)$$
$$\geq d(u) - 2 + d(k) - 2 = \cap_{_{T_s}}(c_e)$$

where

$$\epsilon(w,k)=
	\begin{cases}
	  1 & (w,k) \in E \\
	  0 & otherwise \\
	\end{cases}
$$

The inequality follows since $d(w) - 1 - \epsilon(w,k) \geq 1$.

\bigskip

In case 3.2 the situation is as follows: the cycle-edge $e=(w,h)$
defines the tree-cycle $d_e = (w,u,v,h)$ in $T$ and $c_e = (w,v,h)$ in
$T_s$. The important details are:

\begin{itemize}
	\item $d_T(u) = 2$: $u$ induces $d(u) - 2$ intersections
	\item $d_T(h) = 1$: $h$ induces $d(h) - 2$ intersections
	\item $d_T(w) = 1$: $w$ induces $d(w) - 2$ intersections
	\item $u$ may have an incident cycle-edge connecting it to $h$, so
	we should avoid counting twice that intersection
\end{itemize}

And we claim that

$$\cap_{_{T}}(d_e) \geq d(w) - 2 + d(h) - 2 + d(u) - 2 -
\epsilon(u,h)$$
$$\geq d(w) - 2 + d(h) - 2 = \cap_{_{T_s}}(c_e)$$

The inequality follows since $d(u) - 2 -
\epsilon(u,h) \geq 0$.

$\square$

\end{theorem}

\subsection{Intrinsic tree invariants}

In this subsection we consider the following question: is there any
correlation between an \emph{intrinsic tree invariant} and the
tree intersection number of the spanning trees for every graph? If so
we could formulate an alternative characterization of the MSTCI
problem expressed in terms of the invariant.

\bigskip

By \emph{intrinsic tree invariant} we denote a map $f: \mathscr{T}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ on the set of all trees. Of particular interest
are the  degree-based topological indices \cite{Gutman:2013}. The
topological index that motivated our question is the \emph{atom-bond
connectivity} (ABC) index \cite{Estrada:1998}. As shown by
\cite{Furtula:2009} the star trees are maximal among all trees respect
to the ABC index. In the previous section we proved that in the
complete graph the star spanning trees are minimal respect to the tree
intersection number. Consequently we can formulate a natural question:
is there a negative correlation between the ABC index of the spanning
trees and their corresponding intersection numbers?

\bigskip

We will prove that the answer to our question is negative. Without loss
of generality we will consider positive correlation (negative
correlation is analogous). The underlying idea of the proof is as
follows: suppose that there exists an intrinsic tree invariant $f:
\mathscr{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that for every graph $G$
the intersection number $\cap(\cdot)$ is positively correlated with
$f$, this can be expressed as:

$$f(T_1) \leq f(T_2) \iff \cap_G(T_1) \leq \cap_G(T_2), \forall G, T_1, T_2$$

According to this property if we consider two trees $T_1$
and $T_2$ and two graphs $G$ and $H$ such that $T_1, T_2 \in
\mathscr{T}_{G}$ and $T_1, T_2 \in \mathscr{T}_{H}$, then this
equivalence follows:

$$\cap_{G}(T_1) \leq \cap_{G}(T_2) \iff \cap_{H}(T_1) \leq \cap_{H}(T_2)$$

So it suffices to show that there exist $T_1$, $T_2$, $G$ and $H$
such that the equivalence is not satisfied to answer the question
negatively.

\smallskip

First we prove a simple lemma regarding the tree intersection number of
a spanning tree $T$ under the removal of a cycle-edge. Namely if a
cycle-edge $e$ is removed from $G$ then the tree intersection number of
$T$ decreases exactly in the intersection number of its corresponding
tree-cycle.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:edge_removal}
let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, $T \in \mathscr{T}_G$ a spanning tree, $e \in
G-T$ a cycle-edge, and $c$ the corresponding tree-cycle, then the
following holds:

$$\cap_{G-e}(T) = \cap_{G}(T)-\cap_{T}(c)$$

\smallskip

Proof. As the spanning tree $T$ is the same in both graphs: $G$ and
$G-e$, then the remaining cycle-edges define the same tree-cycles so
their pairwise intersection relations are identical. As $c$ is not a
cycle in $G-e$ then the equality follows. $\square$

\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}\label{intrinsic} There is no intrinsic tree invariant
$f: \mathscr{T} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ positively
correlated with the intersection number $\cap_G(\cdot)$ for every graph
$G$.

\smallskip

Proof. We will proceed by contradiction: let $f$ be such an intrinsic
tree invariant. Then by definition for arbitrary graphs $G$ and $H$ the
following equivalences hold

$$f(T_1) \leq f(T_2) \iff \cap_{G}(T_1) \leq \cap_{G}(T_2)$$

$$f(T_1) \leq f(T_2) \iff \cap_{H}(T_1) \leq \cap_{H}(T_2)$$

Where $T_1, T_2 \in \mathscr{T}_{G}$ and $T_1, T_2 \in
\mathscr{T}_{H}$. This in turn imply that

$$\cap_{G}(T_1) \leq \cap_{G}(T_2) \iff \cap_{H}(T_1) \leq \cap_{H}(T_2)$$

\smallskip

The proof will be based on showing two graphs and two spanning trees
such that the latter equivalence is not valid.

\begin{itemize}
	\item Let $G$ be the complete graph $K_n$
	\item Let $H$ be the graph $K_n - \{e_{i,1}, \dots, e_{i,n-3}\}$
	where the edges $e_{i,1}, \dots, e_{i,n-3}$ are $n-3$ edges incident
	to some arbitrary node $v_i$. We will refer to $v_i$ as the
	\emph{almost disconnected} node of $H$. Note that $d(v_i) = 2$.
	\item Let $T_1$ be the star spanning tree $T_s$
	\item Let $T_2$ be the spanning tree defined as $T_s - \{e_i\} \cup
	\{e_{i,j}\}$, where $e_i$ is the edge that connects some arbitrary
	node $v_i$ (in $H$ this role will be played by the almost
	disconnected node) to the center of the star and $e_{i,j}$ is an edge
	that connects $v_i$ to a different node $v_j$.
\end{itemize}

It is easy to check that $T_1$ and $T_2$ are spanning trees of both $G$ and
$H$. If we also suppose that $|V| = n > 4$ then by corollary \ref{coromain2}

$$\cap_G(T_1) < \cap_G(T_2)$$

By the previous equivalence it is expected that $\cap_H(T_1) <
\cap_H(T_2)$ as well. But we will show that this is not the case.

\smallskip

By a suitable labelling of the nodes of $H$ we can refer to: the center
of the star spanning tree as $v_1$, the almost disconnected node of $H$
as $v_2$ and the other neighbor of $v_2$ as $v_3$. By lemma
\ref{lemma:edge_removal} arises that

$$\cap_H(T_1) = \cap_{H-e_{_{2,3}}}(T_1) + \cap_{T_1}(c_{_{2,3}})$$

$$\cap_H(T_2) = \cap_{H-e_{_{1,2}}}(T_2) + \cap_{T_2}(c_{_{1,2}})$$

Where $c_{_{2,3}}$ and $c_{_{1,2}}$ are the tree-cycles induced by
$e_{_{2,3}}$ and $e_{_{1,2}}$ in $T_1$ and $T_2$, resp. Since the
remaining tree-cycles corresponding to both trees are the same then

$$\cap_{H-e_{_{2,3}}}(T_1) = \cap_{H-e_{_{1,2}}}(T_2)$$

And this imply the following

$$\cap_H(T_1) - \cap_H(T_2) = \cap_{T_1}(c_{_{2,3}}) -
\cap_{T_2}(c_{_{1,2}})$$

It is an easy exercise to check that

$$\cap_{T_1}(c_{_{2,3}}) = \cap_{T_2}(c_{_{1,2}}) = d(v_3) - 2 = n - 3$$

At this point we can conclude that

$$\cap_H(T_1) = \cap_H(T_2)$$

Contradicting the fact that $f$ is positively correlated with the
tree intersection number for every graph.$\square$
\end{theorem}

The underlying key fact of this result is that a spanning tree $T$ that
solves the the MSTCI problem for a graph $G$ does not depend on intrinsic
properties of $T$ but on the embedding of $T$ in $G$.

\bigskip

Note that as an interesting side effect this demonstration shows that
a star spanning tree is not necessarily a strict local minimum in the
spanning tree graph (see previous subsection).

\subsection{Intersection number conjecture}

In this subsection we present the conjecture
$\cap(T_s) \leq \cap(T)$ for every spanning tree $T$
generalizing theorem \ref{teo:local}. Then we explore two ideas to
simplify a hypothetical counterexample of the conjecture.
The first is based on the notion of \emph{interbranch} cycle-edge. We
show that if a non-star spanning tree $T$ exists such that $\cap(T) <
\cap(T_s)$, then the inequality must hold if we remove the interbranch
cycle-edges. The second is based on the notion of \emph{principal
subtree}. In this case we show that the inequality must hold for some
principal subtree of $T$. This ideas
will be of practical use in the next section.

\subsubsection{The conjecture statement}
We present below the conjecture that generalizes the case of complete
graphs.

\bigskip

\begin{conjecture}\label{conj}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$, then

$$\cap(T_s) \leq \cap(T)$$

for every spanning tree $T \in \mathscr{T}_G$.
\end{conjecture}

\bigskip

As an important remark, a demonstration of this result seems difficult
if
approached by a local-to-global strategy as in the complete graph
case exposed previously.

\subsubsection{Counterexample simplification}

\bigskip

In this part we consider some ideas to simplify a hypothetical
counterexample of conjecture \ref{conj}.

\bigskip

Below we define the notion of \emph{interbranch} cycle-edge.

\bigskip

\begin{definition}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ and let
$v \in V$ be the center of $T_s$. Let $T \in
\mathscr{T}_G$ be a spanning tree.
We call \emph{interbranch cycle-edge of $T$} to any
cycle-edge of $T$, $e=(u,w)$, such that $closest-point(v,c) \neq u,w$,
where $c$ is the induced tree-cycle of $e$ in $T$.
\end{definition}

The intuition behind this definition is that the paths $vTu$ and $vTw$
belong to different branches. Or equivalently, $u$ and $w$ are
not collinear with respect to $v$ in $T$. The following lemma shows
that if we can find a counterexample to the conjecture \ref{conj} (ie.:
$\cap(T) < \cap(T_s)$) then we can build a simpler counterexample
removing from $G$ the interbranch cycle-edges of $T$.

\smallskip

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:reduction1}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ with $v
\in V$ as its center. Let $T \in \mathscr{T}_G$ be a spanning tree such
that $\cap_{G}(T) < \cap_{G}(T_s)$ and let $\Delta_T$ be the set of
interbranch cycle-edges of $T$, then

$$\cap_{_{G-\Delta_T}}(T) < \cap_{_{G-\Delta_T}}(T_s)$$

\smallskip

Proof. Let $e=(u,w) \in \Delta_T$. Note that $e$ is also a cycle-edge in
$T_s$ since $v \neq u, w$ by definition of interbranch cycle-edge. So
$e$ determines the tree-cycle $c$ in $T_s$ and the tree-cycle $c'$ in
$T$. By the intersection number formula it arises that
$\cap_{_{T_s}}(c) = d(u) - 2 + d(w) - 2$. On the other hand, since the
other
neighbors of $u$ and $w$ are connected to $v$, they belong to distinct
tree-cycles with non-trivial intersection with respect to $c'$ in $T$.
We conclude that
$$\cap_{_{T}}(c') \geq d(u) - 2 + d(w) - 2 =
\cap_{T_s}(c).$$
Hence by lemma \ref{lemma:edge_removal},
\begin{align*}
\cap_{G-e}(T) = & \cap_{G}(T) - \cap_{T}(c') < &\\
&\cap_{G}(T_s) - \cap_{T_s}(c) = \cap_{G-e}(T_s)
\end{align*}
Applying the same procedure for every edge in $\Delta_T$, the claimed
inequality follows.$\square$
\end{lemma}

\begin{definition}
Let $T=(V,E)$ be a rooted tree graph with root $v \in V$. Let $w \in
N(v)$ then we call \emph{principal subtree respect to w} to the
subtree spanned by $v$ and the nodes $u \in V$ such that $w \in vTu$.
\end{definition}

The next lemma expresses the intersection number of a spanning tree
(without interbranch cycle-edges) as the sum of the intersection number
of its principal subtrees.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:partition}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ with $v
\in V$ as its center. Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$ without
interbranch cycle-edges (ie: $\Delta_T = \varnothing$), then the
following holds

$$\cap_G(T) = \sum_{w \in N(v)} \cap_{G_w}(T_w),$$

where $T_w$ is the principal subtree of $w \in N(v)$
considering $T$ as a rooted tree with $v$ as its root. And $G_w$ is the
subgraph spanned by $T_w$.

\smallskip

Proof. As $\Delta_T=\varnothing$ there are no cycle-edges
connecting any two such principal subtrees. This
implies that the nonempty intersections between tree-cycles of $T$ must
occur inside each subtree. This determines a partition of $C_T$ and the
claimed  expression follows.$\square$
\end{lemma}

The following corollary in line with lemma \ref{lemma:reduction1}
further simplifies a hypothetical counterexample of conjecture
\ref{conj}.

\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:reduction2}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning tree $T_s$ with $v
\in V$ as its center. Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $G$ without
interbranch cycle-edges (ie: $\Delta_T = \varnothing$) such that
$\cap(T) < \cap(T_s)$ then

$$\cap(T_w) < \cap(G_w \wedge T_s)$$

for some $G_w$. Where $T_w$ is the principal subtree of $w \in
N(v)$ considering $T$ as a rooted tree with $v$ as its root; $G_w$ is
the subgraph of $G$ spanned by $T_w$; $G_w \wedge T_s$ is the
subtree of $T_s$ restricted to $G_w$, namely the intersection between
$G_w$ and $T_s$.

\smallskip

Proof. First note that the $G_w$'s are edge disjoint since $\Delta_T =
\varnothing$. This partition of the edges of $G$ also determines a
partition of $T_s$ such that $\cap(T_s) = \sum_{w \in
N(v)} \cap(G_w \wedge T_s)$. As the parts are in a natural bijective
relation since they are the subtrees of $T$ and $T_s$ restricted to
each $G_w$, we can express the intersection number of $T$ and $T_s$ as
follows

$$\cap(T) = \sum_{w \in N(v)} \cap(T_w) < \sum_{w \in N(v)} \cap(G_w
\wedge T_s) = \cap(T_s)$$

And from the bijection we can deduce that
$\cap(T_w) < \cap(G_w \wedge T_s)$ for some $G_w$.
$\square$
\end{corollary}

\section{Programmatic exploration}

\subsection{Overview}

In this section we present some experimental results to reinforce
conjecture \ref{conj}. We proceed by
trying to find a counterexample based on our preceding observations. In
the first part we focus on the complete analysis of small graphs, ie:
graphs of at most 9 nodes. In the second part we analyze larger
families of graphs by random sampling instances.

\subsection{General remarks}

In the previous section we showed that the space of candidate
counterexamples of conjecture \ref{conj} can be reduced. The general
picture is as follows:

\begin{itemize}
	\item Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph that admits a star spanning
	tree $T_s$ with $v \in V$ as its center
	\item In the case that we can find some non-star spanning tree $T$ of
	$G$ such that $\cap(T) < \cap(T_s)$
	\item Then we can ``simplify'' the instance by removing the
	interbranch cycle-edges with respect to $T$ in $G$ without
	affecting the inequality (see lemma \ref{lemma:reduction1})
	\item We can further reduce the instance by focusing on the case where
	 $d_T(v) = 1$, that is: the degree of $v$ restricted to $T$ is 1
	 (see corollary \ref{corollary:reduction2})
\end{itemize}

This considerations can be used to implement  algorithms to explore the
space of spanning trees more efficiently. Since the algorithms will
generate instances in this `reduced' form instead of a brute force
approach.

\subsection{Complete analysis of small graphs}

In this subsection we present an algorithm to explore the spanning tree
 space. The algorithm proceed by exhaustively analyzing all the
 reduced graphs of a given number of nodes. The size of the space
 increases exponentially with respect to the number of nodes, so it has
 a major limitation: it can be used to analyze only small graphs. The
 main part  is sketched in Algorithm \ref{alg:alg1}.

\bigskip

The details of the algorithm are the following:

\begin{itemize}
	\item The input parameter $n$ is the number of nodes of the graphs to
	explore
	\item $GenerateAllTrees(n-1)$ is a function that returns
	the list of all trees of $n-1$ nodes
	\item $GenerateGraph(w,T')$ is a function that builds a graph $G$.
	Based on the tree $T'$, it adds a new node ($v$) that will play the role
	of the central node of a star spanning tree, then adds the edge
	$(v,w)$ to define our candidate tree counterexample $T$. Finally adds all
	the
	other edges that link $v$ to the rest of the nodes to obtain $G$. It
	returns the graph $G$ and ($\bar{\Delta}$) the set of ``possible''
	non-interbranch cycle edges.
	\item $IntersectionNumber(\phi, G)$ is a function that calculates
	the intersection number of $T$ in $G \cup \phi$, where $\phi
	\subset \bar{\Delta}$ is a subset of supplementary edges of $G$.
	\item $StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G)$ is a function that
	calculates the intersection number of the star spanning tree in $G
	\cup \phi$
	\item The algorithm finds a counterexample of the conjecture if:
	$IntersectionNumber(\phi, G) < StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G)$
\end{itemize}

Note that the analyzed graphs are reduced in the sense explained
previously. The cycle-edges are non-interbranch by construction and
$d_T(v) = 1$ since $v$ is only connected to $w$ in $T$ (ie. there is a
single principal subtree). As the
algorithm iterates over all possible spanning subtrees $T'$ and all the
combinations of possible non-interbranch cycle-edges, every instance is
guaranteed to be explored at least once.

\begin{algorithm}
    \caption{CounterexampleSearch($n$)}
	\begin{algorithmic}
		\State $\mathscr{T} \gets GenerateAllTrees(n-1)$
		\ForEach {tree $T' \in \mathscr{T}$}
			\ForEach {node $w \in T'$}
				\State $G, \bar{\Delta} \gets GenerateGraph(w,T')$
				\ForEach {subset $\phi \subset \bar{\Delta}$}
					\State \textbf{check} $(IntersectionNumber(\phi, G) <$
					\State $StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G))$
				\EndFor
			\EndFor
		\EndFor
	\end{algorithmic}
	\label{alg:alg1}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{table}
	\caption{Small instances results}
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{cr}
		\toprule
		nodes & instances (approx.) \\
		\midrule
		4 & 5 \\
		5 & 33 \\
		6 & 251 \\
		7 & 4200 \\
		8 & 125000 \\
		9 & 7900000 \\
		\bottomrule
		\label{tab:small-inst}
	\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\bigskip

To generate all non-isomorphic trees of $|V|-1$ nodes we used the
package \emph{nauty} \cite{McKay:2014}.

\bigskip

The proposed algorithm did not find a counterexample of the
intersection conjecture. Table \ref{tab:small-inst} shows the size of
the experiments. The column \emph{nodes} is the number of nodes of the
graph family, ie: $|V|$. The column \emph{instances} is the number of
instances processed.

\subsection{Random sampling of large graphs}

In this section we present another algorithm to explore the
spanning tree space. The strategy in this case is to sample reduced
graphs of a given number of nodes. The main part is sketched in
Algorithm \ref{alg:alg2}.

\bigskip

The details of the algorithm are the following:

\begin{itemize}
	\item The input parameters are: $n$ the number of nodes of the graphs
	and $k$ the size of the sample
	\item $GenerateRandomTree(n)$ is a function that returns
	a random tree $T$ of $n$ nodes, where the node $v$ that will play the
	role of center of the star has degree 1 restricted to $T$.
	\item $GenerateGraph(T)$ is a function that builds a reduced graph
	$G$. Based on the tree $T$, adds all the edges that link $v$ to
	the rest of the nodes to obtain $G$. It returns the graph $G$ and
	($\bar{\Delta}$) a random set of non-interbranch cycle edges.
	\item $IntersectionNumber(\phi, G)$ same as algorithm \ref{alg:alg1}
	\item $StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G)$ same as algorithm
	\ref{alg:alg1}
	\item The algorithm finds a counterexample of the conjecture if:
	$IntersectionNumber(\phi, G) < StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G)$
\end{itemize}

\begin{algorithm}
    \caption{CounterexampleRandomSearch($n, k$)}
	\begin{algorithmic}
		\For{\texttt{i := 1..k}}
			\State $T \gets GenerateRandomTree(n)$
			\State $G, \bar{\Delta} \gets GenerateRandomGraph(T)$
			\State \textbf{check} $(IntersectionNumber(\phi, G) <$
			\State $StarIntersectionFormula(\phi, G))$
		\EndFor
	\end{algorithmic}
	\label{alg:alg2}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{table}
	\caption{Random instances results}
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{cr}
		\toprule
		nodes & instances \\
		\midrule
		25 & 3000000 \\
		50 & 300000 \\
		100 & 30000 \\
		200 & 15000 \\
		400 & 300 \\
		\bottomrule
		\label{tab:random-inst}
	\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\bigskip

We used a uniformly distributed random number generator. To generate
trees we used a simple algorithm that randomly connects a
new node to an already connected tree. The non-interbranch cycle-edge
set is built by associating a \emph{Bernoulli} trial to each such
possible
edge. To achieve some diversity for
each tree we built three different sets to obtain a sparse, medium and
dense sets based on corresponding probabilities $0.1$, $0.5$, $0.9$.

\bigskip

The proposed algorithm did not find a counterexample of the
intersection conjecture. Table \ref{tab:random-inst} shows the size of the experiments. The
column \emph{nodes} is the number of nodes of the graph family, ie:
$|V|$. The column \emph{instances} is the number of instances processed.

\section{Conclusion}

In this article we introduced the \emph{Minimum Spanning Tree Cycle
Intersection} (MSTCI) problem.

\bigskip

We proved by enumerative
arguments that the star spanning trees are the unique solutions of the
problem in the context of complete graphs.

\bigskip

We conjectured a generalization to the case of graphs (not necessarily
complete) that admit a star
spanning tree. In this sense we showed that the star spanning tree is a
local minimum in the domain of the \emph{spanning tree graph}. We
deduced a closed  formula for the tree intersection number of star spanning
trees in this setting. We proposed two
ideas to attempt to find a counterexample of the conjecture. Those
ideas were the basis of two strategies to programatically explore the
space of solutions in the pursue of a counterexample. The negative
result of the experiments suggest that the
conjecture is well posed. Unlike the complete graph context, in this
slightly more general case, star spanning trees are not unique; there
are other spanning trees $T$ such that $\cap(T_s) = \cap(T)$.

\bigskip

We proved a general result that shows that
spanning trees that solve the MSTCI problem don't depend on some
intrinsic property but on their particular embedding in the ambient
graph.

\bigskip

An interesting direction of research is to consider the MSTCI
problem for other families of graphs, ie.: graphs that do not admit a
star spanning tree. Of particular interest is the class of triangular
meshes, ie.: graphs that model the immersion of compact surfaces in
the 3D euclidean space.

\bigskip

Another interesing direction of research is related to proving
to which complexity class the MSTCI problem belongs to. In case of
belonging to the NP-hard class, it will be important to find
approximate, probabilistic and heuristic algorithms.

Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM); Combinatorics (math.CO)