Partial cubes: structures, characterizations, and constructions
Partial cubes: structures, characterizations, and
constructions
Sergei Ovchinnikov
Mathematics Department
San Francisco State University
San Francisco, CA 94132
sergei@sfsu.edu
May 8, 2006
Abstract
Partial cubes are isometric subgraphs of hypercubes. Structures on a
graph defined by means of semicubes, and Djoković’s and Winkler’s rela-
tions play an important role in the theory of partial cubes. These struc-
tures are employed in the paper to characterize bipartite graphs and par-
tial cubes of arbitrary dimension. New characterizations are established
and new proofs of some known results are given.
The operations of Cartesian product and pasting, and expansion and
contraction processes are utilized in the paper to construct new partial
cubes from old ones. In particular, the isometric and lattice dimensions of
finite partial cubes obtained by means of these operations are calculated.
Key words: Hypercube, partial cube, semicube
1 Introduction
A hypercube H(X) on a set X is a graph which vertices are the finite subsets
of X ; two vertices are joined by an edge if they differ by a singleton. A partial
cube is a graph that can be isometrically embedded into a hypercube.
There are three general graph-theoretical structures that play a prominent
role in the theory of partial cubes; namely, semicubes, Djoković’s relation θ, and
Winkler’s relation Θ. We use these structures, in particular, to characterize bi-
partite graphs and partial cubes. The characterization problem for partial cubes
was considered as an important one and many characterizations are known.
We list contributions in the chronological order: Djoković [9] (1973), Avis [2]
(1981), Winkler [20] (1984), Roth and Winkler [18] (1986), Chepoi [6, 7] (1988
and 1994). In the paper, we present new proofs for the results of Djoković [9],
Winkler [20], and Chepoi [6], and obtain two more characterizations of partial
cubes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0010v1
The paper is also concerned with some ways of constructing new partial
cubes from old ones. Properties of subcubes, the Cartesian product of partial
cubes, and expansion and contraction of a partial cube are investigated. We
introduce a construction based on pasting two graphs together and show how
new partial cubes can be obtained from old ones by pasting them together.
The paper is organized as follows.
Hypercubes and partial cubes are introduced in Section 2 together with
two basic examples of infinite partial cubes. Vertex sets of partial cubes are
described in terms of well graded families of finite sets.
In Section 3 we introduce the concepts of a semicube, Djoković’s θ and Win-
kler’s Θ relations, and establish some of their properties. Bipartite graphs and
partial cubes are characterized by means of these structures. One more charac-
terization of partial cubes is obtained in Section 4, where so-called fundamental
sets in a graph are introduced.
The rest of the paper is devoted to constructions: subcubes and the Carte-
sian product (Section 6), pasting (Section 7), and expansions and contractions
(Section 8). We show that these constructions produce new partial cubes from
old ones. Isometric and lattice dimensions of new partial cubes are calculated.
These dimensions are introduced in Section 5.
Few words about conventions used in the paper are in order. The sum
(disjoint union) A+B of two sets A and B is the union
({1} ×A) ∪ ({2} ×B).
All graphs in the paper are simple undirected graphs. In the notation G =
(V,E), the symbol V stands for the set of vertices of the graph G and E stands
for its set of edges. By abuse of language, we often write ab for an edge in a
graph; if this is the case, ab is an unordered pair of distinct vertices. We denote
〈U〉 the graph induced by the set of vertices U ⊆ V . If G is a connected graph,
then dG(a, b) stands for the distance between two vertices a and b of the graph
G. Wherever it is clear from the context which graph is under consideration, we
drop the subscript G in dG(a, b). A subgraph H ⊆ G is an isometric subgraph
if dH(a, b) = dG(a, b) for all vertices a and b of H ; it is convex if any shortest
path in G between vertices of H belongs to H .
2 Hypercubes and partial cubes
Let X be a set. We denote Pf (X) the set of all finite subsets of X .
Definition 2.1. A graph H(X) has the set Pf (X) as the set of its vertices; a
pair of vertices PQ is an edge of H(X) if the symmetric difference P∆Q is a
singleton. The graph H(X) is called the hypercube on X [9]. If X is a finite
set of cardinality n, then the graph H(X) is the n-cube Qn. The dimension of
the hypercube H(X) is the cardinality of the set X .
The shortest path distance d(P,Q) on the hypercube H(X) is the Hamming
distance between sets P and Q:
d(P,Q) = |P∆Q| for P,Q ∈ Pf . (2.1)
The set Pf (X) is a metric space with the metric d.
Definition 2.2. A graph G is a partial cube if it can be isometrically embedded
into a hypercube H(X) for some set X . We often identify G with its isometric
image in the hypercube H(X), and say that G is a partial cube on the set X .
Figure 2.1: A graph and its isometric embedding into Q3.
An example of a partial cube and its isometric embedding into the cube Q3
is shown in Figure 2.1.
Clearly, a family F of finite subsets of X induces a partial cube on X if and
only if for any two distinct subsets P,Q ∈ F there is a sequence
R0 = P,R1, . . . , Rn = Q
of sets in F such that
d(Ri, Ri+1) = 1 for all 0 ≤ i < n, and d(P,Q) = n. (2.2)
The families of sets satisfying condition (2.2) are known as well graded fam-
ilies of sets [10]. Note that a sequence (Ri) satisfying (2.2) is a shortest path
from P to Q in H(X) (and in the subgraph induced by F).
Definition 2.3. A family F of arbitrary subsets ofX is a wg-family (well graded
family of sets) if, for any two distinct subsets P,Q ∈ F, the set P∆Q is finite
and there is a sequence
R0 = P,R1, . . . , Rn = Q
of sets in F such that |Ri∆Ri+1| = 1 for all 0 ≤ i < n and |P∆Q| = n.
Example 2.1. The induced graph can be a partial cube on a different set if
the family F is not well graded. Consider, for instance, the family
F = {∅, {a}, {a, b}, {a, b, c}, {b, c}}
of subsets of X = {a, b, c}. The graph induced by this family is a path of length
4 in the cube Q3 (cf. Figure 2.2). Clearly, F is not well graded. On the other
hand, as it can be easily seen, any path is a partial cube.
Figure 2.2: A nonisometric path in the cube Q3.
Any family F of subsets of X defines a graph GF = (F, EF), where
EF = {{P,Q} ⊆ F : |P∆Q| = 1}.
Theorem 2.1. The graph GF defined by a family F of subsets of a set X is
isomorphic to a partial cube on X if and only if the family F is well graded.
Proof. We need to prove sufficiency only. Let S be a fixed set in F. We define
a mapping f : F → Pf (X) by f(R) = R∆S for R ∈ F. Then
d(f(R), f(T )) = |(R∆S)∆(T∆S)| = |R∆T |.
Thus f is an isometric embedding of F into Pf (X). Let (Ri) be a sequence of
sets in F such that R0 = P , Rn = Q, |P∆Q| = n, and |Ri∆Ri+1| = 1 for all
0 ≤ i < n. Then the sequence (f(Ri)) satisfies conditions (2.2). The result
follows.
A set R ∈ Pf (X) is said to be lattice between sets P,Q ∈ Pf (X) if
P ∩Q ⊆ R ⊆ P ∪Q.
It is metrically between P and Q if
d(P,R) + d(R,Q) = d(P,Q).
The following theorem is a well-known result about these two betweenness re-
lations on Pf (X) (see, for instance, [3]).
Theorem 2.2. Lattice and metric betweenness relations coincide on Pf (X).
Let F be a family of finite subsets of X . The set of all R ∈ F that are
between P,Q ∈ F is the interval I(P,Q) between P and Q in F. Thus,
I(P,Q) = F ∩ [P ∩Q,P ∪Q],
where [P ∩Q,P ∪Q] is the usual interval in the lattice Pf .
Two distinct sets P,Q ∈ F are adjacent in F if J(P,Q) = {P,Q}. If sets P
and Q form an edge in the graph induced by F, then P and Q are adjacent in
F, but, generally speaking, not vice versa. For instance, in Example 2.1, the
vertices ∅ and {b, c} are adjacent in F but do not define an edge in the induced
graph (cf. Figure 2.2).
The following theorem is a ‘local’ characterization of wg-families of sets.
Theorem 2.3. A family F ⊆ Pf (X) is well graded if and only if d(P,Q) = 1
for any two sets P and Q that are adjacent in F.
Proof. (Necessity.) Let F be a wg-family of sets. Suppose that P and Q are
adjacent in F. There is a sequence R0 = P,R1, . . . , Rn = Q that satisfies
conditions (2.2). Since the sequence (Ri) is a shortest path in F, we have
d(P, Pi) + d(Pi, Q) = d(P,Q) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Thus, Pi ∈ I(P,Q) = {P,Q}. It follows that d(P,Q) = n = 1.
(Sufficiency.) Let P and Q be two distinct sets in F. We prove by induction
on n = d(P,Q) that there is a sequence (Ri) ∈ F satisfying conditions (2.2).
The statement is trivial for n = 1. Suppose that n > 1 and that the
statement is true for all k < n. Let P and Q be two sets in F such that
d(P,Q) = n. Since d(P,Q) > 1, the sets P and Q are not adjacent in F.
Therefore there exists R ∈ F that lies between P and Q and is distinct from
these two sets. Then d(P,R) + d(R,Q) = d(P,Q) and both distances d(P,R)
and d(R,Q) are less than n. By the induction hypothesis, there is a sequence
(Ri) ∈ F such that
P = R0, R = Rj , Q = Rn for some 0 < j < n,
satisfying conditions (2.2) for 0 ≤ i < j and j ≤ i < n. It follows that F is a
wg-family of sets.
We conclude this section with two examples of infinite partial cubes (more
examples are found in [17]).
Example 2.2. Let Z be the graph on the set Z of integers with edges defined
by pairs of consecutive integers. This graph is a partial cube since its vertex set
is isometric to the wg-family of intervals {(−∞,m) : m ∈ Z} in Z.
Example 2.3. Let us consider Zn as a metric space with respect to the ℓ1-
metric. The graph Zn has Zn as the vertex set; two vertices in Zn are connected
if they are on the unit distance from each other. We will show in Section 6
(Corollary 6.1) that Zn is a partial cube.
3 Characterizations
Only connected graphs are considered in this section.
Definition 3.1. Let G = (V,E) be a graph and d be its distance function. For
any two adjacent vertices a, b ∈ V let Wab be the set of vertices that are closer
to a than to b:
Wab = {w ∈ V : d(w, a) < d(w, b)}.
Following [11], we call the sets Wab and induced subgraphs 〈Wab〉 semicubes of
the graph G. The semicubes Wab and Wba are called opposite semicubes.
Remark 3.1. The subscript ab in Wab stands for an ordered pair of vertices,
not for an edge of G. In his original paper [9], Djoković uses notation G(a, b)
(cf. [8]). We use the notation from [15].
Clearly, two opposite semicubes are disjoint. They can be used to charac-
terize bipartite graphs as follows.
Theorem 3.1. A graph G = (V,E) is bipartite if and only if the semicubes Wab
and Wba form a partition of V for any edge ab ∈ E.
Proof. Let us recall that a connected graph G is bipartite if and only if for every
vertex x there is no edge ab with d(x, a) = d(x, b) (see, for instance, [1]). For
any edge ab ∈ E and vertex x ∈ V we clearly have
d(x, a) = d(x, b) ⇔ x /∈ Wab ∪Wba.
The result follows.
The following lemma is instrumental and will be used frequently in the rest
of the paper.
Lemma 3.1. Let G = (V,E) be a graph and w ∈ Wab for some edge ab ∈ E.
d(w, b) = d(w, a) + 1.
Accordingly,
Wab = {w ∈ V : d(w, b) = d(w, a) + 1}.
Proof. By the triangle inequality, we have
d(w, a) < d(w, b) ≤ d(w, a) + d(a, b) = d(w, a) + 1.
The result follows, since d takes values in N.
There are two binary relations on the set of edges of a graph that play a
central role in characterizing partial cubes.
Definition 3.2. Let G = (V,E) be a graph and e = xy and f = uv be two
edges of G.
(i) (Djoković [9]) The relation θ on E is defined by
e θf ⇔ f joins a vertex in Wxy with a vertex in Wyx.
The notation can be chosen such that u ∈Wxy and v ∈ Wyx.
(ii) (Winkler [20]) The relation Θ on E is defined by
eΘf ⇔ d(x, u) + d(y, v) 6= d(x, v) + d(y, u).
It is clear that both relations θ and Θ are reflexive and Θ is symmetric.
Lemma 3.2. The relation θ is a symmetric relation on E.
Proof. Suppose that xy θ uv with u ∈ Wxy and v ∈ Wyx. By Lemma 3.1 and
the triangle inequality, we have
d(u, x) = d(u, y)− 1 ≤ d(u, v) + d(v, y)− 1 = d(v, y) =
= d(v, x)− 1 ≤ d(v, u) + d(u, x) − 1 = d(u, x).
Hence, d(u, x) = d(v, x) − 1 and d(v, y) = d(u, y)− 1. Therefore, x ∈ Wuv and
y ∈ Wvu. It follows that uv θ xy.
Lemma 3.3. θ ⊆ Θ.
Proof. Suppose that xy θ uv with u ∈Wxy, v ∈ Wyx. By Lemma 3.1,
d(x, u) + d(y, v) = d(x, v) − 1 + d(y, u)− 1 6= d(x, v) + d(y, u).
Hence, xyΘ uv.
Example 3.1. It is easy to verify that θ is the identity relation on the set of
edges of the cycle C3. On the other hand, any two edges of C3 stand in the
relation Θ. Thus, θ 6= Θ in this case.
Bipartite graphs can be characterized in terms of relations θ and Θ as follows.
Theorem 3.2. A graph G = (V,E) is bipartite if and only if θ = Θ.
Proof. (Necessity.) Suppose that G is a bipartite graph, two edges xy and uv
stand in the relation Θ, that is,
d(x, u) + d(y, v) 6= d(x, v) + d(y, u),
and that edges xy and uv do not stand in the relation θ. By Theorem 3.1, we
may assume that u, v ∈ Wxy. By Lemma 3.1, we have
d(x, u) + d(y, v) = d(y, u)− 1 + d(x, v) + 1 = d(x, v) + d(y, u),
a contradiction. It follows that Θ ⊆ θ. By Lemma 3.3, θ = Θ.
(Sufficiency.) Suppose that G is not bipartite. By Theorem 3.1, there is an
edge xy such that Wxy ∪Wyx is a proper subset of V . Since G is connected,
there is an edge uv with u /∈ Wxy ∪Wyx and v ∈ Wxy ∪Wyx. Clearly, uv does
not stand in the relation θ to xy. On the other hand,
d(x, u) + d(y, v) 6= d(x, v) + d(y, u),
since u /∈ Wxy ∪Wyx and v ∈ Wxy ∪Wyx. Thus, xyΘ uv, a contradiction, since
we assumed that θ = Θ.
By Theorem 3.2, the relations θ and Θ coincide on bipartite graphs. For
this reason we use the relation θ in the rest of the paper.
Lemma 3.4. Let G = (V,E) be a bipartite graph such that all its semicubes are
convex sets. Then two edges xy and uv stand in the relation θ if and only if the
corresponding pairs of mutually opposite semicubes form equal partitions of V :
xy θ uv ⇔ {Wxy,Wyx} = {Wuv,Wvu}.
Proof. (Necessity) We assume that the notation is chosen such that u ∈ Wxy
and v ∈ Wyx. Let z ∈ Wxy ∩Wvu. By Lemma 3.1, d(z, u) = d(z, v) + d(v, u).
Since z, u ∈ Wxy and Wxy is convex, we have v ∈ Wxy, a contradiction to the
assumption that v ∈Wyx. Thus Wxy ∩Wvu = ∅. Since two opposite semicubes
in a bipartite graph form a partition of V , we haveWuv =Wxy andWvu =Wyx.
A similar argument shows that Wuv = Wyx and Wvu = Wxy, if u ∈ Wyx
and v ∈ Wxy.
(Sufficiency.) Follows from the definition of the relation θ.
We need another general property of the relation θ (cf. Lemma 2.2 in [15]).
Lemma 3.5. Let P be a shortest path in a graph G. Then no two distinct edges
of P stand in the relation θ.
Proof. Let i < j and xixi+1 and xjxj+1 be two edges in a shortest path P from
x0 to xn. Then
d(xi, xj) < d(xi, xj+1) and d(xi+1, xj) < d(xi+1, xj+1),
so xi, xi+1 ∈ Wxjxj+1 . It follows that edges xixi+1 and xjxj+1 do not stand in
the relation θ.
The converse statement is true for bipartite graphs (we omit the proof); a
counterexample is the cycle C5 which is not bipartite.
Lemma 3.6. Let G = (V,E) be a bipartite graph. The following statements are
equivalent
(i) All semicubes of G are convex.
(ii) The relation θ is an equivalence relation on E.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Follows from Lemma 3.4.
(ii) ⇒ (i). Suppose that θ is transitive and there is a nonconvex semicube
Wab. Then there are two vertices u, v ∈ Wab and a shortest path P from u to
v that intersects Wba. This path contains two distinct edges e and f joining
vertices of semicubes Wab and Wba. The edges e and f stand in the relation θ
to the edge ab. By transitivity of θ, we have e θf . This contradicts the result
of Lemma 3.5. Thus all semicubes of G are convex.
We now establish some basic properties of partial cubes.
Theorem 3.3. Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube. Then
(i) G is a bipartite graph.
(ii) Each pair of opposite semicubes form a partition of V .
(iii) All semicubes are convex subsets of V .
(iv) θ is an equivalence relation on E.
Proof. We may assume that G is an isometric subgraph of some hypercube
H(X), that is, G = (F, EF) for a wg-family F of finite subsets of X .
(i) It suffices to note that if two sets in H(X) are connected by an edge then
they have different parity. Thus, H(X) is a bipartite graph and so is G.
(ii) Follows from (i) and Theorem 3.1.
(iii) LetWAB be a semicube of G. By Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 2.2, we have
WAB = {S ∈ F : S ∩B ⊆ A ⊆ S ∪B}.
Let Q,R ∈WAB and P be a vertex of G such that
d(Q,P ) + d(P,R) = d(Q,R).
By Theorem 2.2,
Q ∩R ⊆ P ⊆ Q ∪R.
Since Q,R ∈WAB , we have
Q ∩B ⊆ A ⊆ Q ∪B and R ∩B ⊆ A ⊆ R ∪B,
which implies
P ∩B ⊆ (Q ∪R) ∩B ⊆ A ⊆ (Q ∩R) ∪B ⊆ S ∪B.
Hence, P ∈ WAB, and the result follows.
(iv) Follows from (iii) and Lemma 3.6.
Remark 3.2. Since semicubes of a partial cube G = (V,E) are convex subsets
of the metric space V , they are half-spaces in V [19]. This terminology is used
in [6, 7].
The following theorem presents four characterizations of partial cubes. The
first two are due to Djoković [9] and Winkler [20] (cf. Theorem 2.10 in [15]).
Theorem 3.4. Let G = (V,E) be a connected graph. The following statements
are equivalent:
(i) G is a partial cube.
(ii) G is bipartite and all semicubes of G are convex.
(iii) G is bipartite and θ is an equivalence relation.
(iv) G is bipartite and, for all xy, uv ∈ E,
xy θ uv ⇒ {Wxy,Wyx} = {Wuv,Wvu}. (3.1)
(v) G is bipartite and, for any pair of adjacent vertices of G, there is a unique
pair of opposite semicubes separating these two vertices.
Proof. By Lemma 3.6, the statements (ii) and (iii) are equivalent and, by The-
orem 3.3, (i) implies both (ii) and (iii).
(iii) ⇒ (i). By Theorem 3.1, each pair {Wab,Wba} of opposite semicubes of
G form a partition of V . We orient these partitions by calling, in an arbitrary
way, one of the two opposite semicubes in each partition a positive semicube.
Let us assign to each x ∈ V the set W+(x) of all positive semicubes containing
x. In the next paragraph we prove that the family F = {W+(x)}x∈V is well
graded and that the assignment x 7→ W+(x) is an isometry between V and F.
Let x and y be two distinct vertices of G. We say that a positive semicube
Wab separates x and y if either x ∈ Wab, y ∈ Wba or x ∈ Wba, y ∈ Wab. It is
clear that Wab separates x and Y if and only if Wab ∈ W
+(x)∆W+(y). Let P
be a shortest path x0 = x, x1, . . . , xn = y from x to y. By Lemma 3.5, no two
distinct edges of P stand in the relation θ. By Lemma 3.4, distinct edges of P
define distinct positive semicubes; clearly, these semicubes separate x and y. Let
Wab be a positive semicube separating x and y, and, say, x ∈Wab and y ∈Wba.
There is an edge f ∈ P that joins vertices in Wab and Wba. Hence, f stands in
the relation θ to ab and, by Lemma 3.4, Wab is defined by f . It follows that any
semicube inW+(x)∆W+(y) is defined by a unique edge in P and any edge in P
defines a semicube in W+(x)∆W+(y). Therefore, d(W+(x),W+(y)) = d(x, y),
that is x 7→W+(x) is an isometry. Clearly, F is a wg-family of sets.
By Theorem 2.1, the family F is isometric to a wg-family of finite sets.
Hence, G is a partial cube.
(iv) ⇒ (ii). Suppose that there exist an edge ab such that semicube Wba is
not convex. Let p and q be two vertices in Wba such that there is a shortest
path P from p to q that intersects Wab. There are two distinct edges xy and uv
in P such that x, u ∈ Wab and y, v ∈ Wba. Since ab θ xy and ab θ uv, we have,
by (3.1),
Wab =Wxy =Wuv.
Hence, u ∈ Wxy and v ∈Wyx. By Lemma 3.1,
d(x, u) = d(x, v) − 1 = 1 + d(v, y)− 1 = d(v, y),
a contradiction, since P is a shortest path from p to q.
(ii) ⇒ (iv). Follows from Lemma 3.4.
It is clear that (iv) and (v) are equivalent.
4 Fundamental sets in partial cubes
Semicubes played an important role in the previous section. In this section we
introduce three more classes of useful subsets of graphs. We also establish one
more characterization of partial cubes.
Let G = (V,E) be a connected graph. For a given edge e = ab ∈ E, we
define the following sets (cf. [15, 16]):
Fab = {f ∈ E : e θf} = {uv ∈ E : u ∈Wab, v ∈Wba},
Uab = {w ∈Wab : w is adjacent to a vertex in Wba},
Uba = {w ∈Wba : w is adjacent to a vertex in Wab}.
The five sets are schematically shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Fundamental sets in a partial cube.
Remark 4.1. In the case of a partial cube G = (V,E), the semicubes Wab and
Wba are complementary half-spaces in the metric space V (cf. Remark 3.2).
Then the set Fab can be regarded as a ‘hyperplane’ separating these half-spaces
(see [17] where this analogy is formalized in the context of hyperplane arrange-
ments).
The following theorem generalizes the result obtained in [16] for median
graphs (see also [15]).
Theorem 4.1. Let ab be an edge of a connected bipartite graph G. If the
semicubes Wab and Wba are convex, then the set Fab is a matching and induces
an isomorphism between the graphs 〈Uab〉 and 〈Uba〉.
Proof. Suppose that Fab is not a matching. Then there are distinct edges xu
and xv with, say, x ∈ Uab and u, v ∈ Uba. By the triangle inequality, d(u, v) ≤ 2.
Since G does not have triangles, d(u, v) 6= 1. Hence, d(u, v) = 2, which implies
that x lies between u and v. This contradicts convexity of Wba, since x ∈ Wab.
Therefore Fab is a matching.
To show that Fab induces an isomorphism, let xy, uv ∈ Fab and xu ∈ E,
where x, u ∈ Uab and y, v ∈ Uba. Since G does not have odd cycles, d(v, y) 6= 2.
By the triangle inequality,
d(v, y) ≤ d(v, u) + d(u, x) + d(x, y) = 3.
Since Wba is convex, d(v, y) 6= 3. Thus d(v, y) = 1, that is, vy is an edge. The
result follows by symmetry.
By Theorem 3.4(ii), we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.1. Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube. For any edge ab the set Fab
is a matching and induces an isomorphism between induced graphs 〈Uab〉 and
〈Uba〉.
Figure 4.2: Graph G.
Example 4.1. Let G be the graph depicted in Figure 4.2. The set
Fab = {ab, xu, yv}
is a matching and defines an isomorphism between the graphs induced by subsets
Uab = {a, x, y} and Uba = {b, u, v}. The set Wba is not convex, so G is not a
partial cube. Thus the converse of Corollary 4.1 does not hold.
We now establish another characterization of partial cubes that utilizes a
geometric property of families Fab.
Theorem 4.2. For a connected graph G the following statements are equivalent:
(i) G is a partial cube.
(ii) G is bipartite and
d(x, u) = d(y, v) and d(x, v) = d(y, u), (4.1)
for any ab ∈ E and xy, uv ∈ Fab.
Proof. (i)⇒(ii). We may assume that x, u ∈ Wab and y, v ∈ Wba. Since θ is an
equivalence relation, we have xy θ uv θab. By Lemma 3.4, Wuv = Wxy = Wab.
By Lemma 3.1,
d(x, u) = d(x, v) − 1 = d(v, y) + 1− 1 = d(y, v).
We also have
d(x, v) = d(y, v) + 1 = d(y, u),
by the same lemma.
(ii)⇒(i). Suppose that G is not a partial cube. Then, by Theorem 3.4, there
exist an edge ab such that, say, semicube Wba is not convex. Let p and q be two
vertices in Wba such that there is a shortest path P from p to q that intersects
Wab. Let uv be the first edge in P which belongs to Fab and xy be the last edge
in P with the same property (see Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: An illustration to the proof of theorem 4.2.
Since P is a shortest path, we have
d(v, y) = d(v, u) + d(u, x) + d(x, y) 6= d(x, u),
which contradicts condition (4.1). Thus all semicubes of G are convex. By
Theorem 3.4, G is a partial cube.
Remark 4.2. One can say that four vertices satisfying conditions (4.1) define
a rectangle in G. Then Theorem 4.2 states that a connected graph is a partial
cube if and only if it is bipartite and for any edge ab pairs of edges in Fab define
rectangles in G.
5 Dimensions of partial cubes
There are many different ways in which a given partial cube can be isometrically
embedded into a hypercube. For instance, the graph K2 can be isometrically
embedded in different ways into any hypercube H(X) with |X | > 2.
Following Djoković [9] (see also [8]), we define the isometric dimension,
dimI(G), of a partial cube G as the minimum possible dimension of a hypercube
H(X) in which G is isometrically embeddable. Recall (see Section 2) that the
dimension of H(X) is the cardinality of the set X .
Theorem 5.1. (Theorem 2 in [9].) Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube. Then
dimI(G) = |E/θ|, (5.1)
where θ is Djoković’s equivalence relation on E and E/θ is the set of its equiv-
alence classes (the quotient-set).
The quotient-set E/θ can be identified with the family of all distinct sets Fab
(see Section 4). If G is a finite partial cube, we may consider it as an isometric
subgraph of some hypercube Qn. Then the edges in each family Fab are parallel
edges in Qn (cf. Theorem 4.2). This observation essentially proves (5.1) in the
finite case.
Let G be a partial cube on a set X . The vertex set of G is a wg-family F of
finite subsets of X (see Section 2). We define the retraction of F as a family F′
of subsets of X ′ = ∪F \ ∩F consisting of the intersections of sets in F with X ′.
It is clear that F′ satisfies conditions
∩ F′ = ∅ and ∪ F′ = X ′. (5.2)
Proposition 5.1. The partial cubes induced by a wg-family F and its retraction
F′ are isomorphic.
Proof. It suffices to prove that metric spaces F and F′ are isometric. Clearly,
α : P 7→ P ∩X ′ is a mapping from F onto F′. For P,Q ∈ F, we have
(P ∩X ′)∆(Q ∩X ′) = (P∆Q) ∩X ′ = (P∆Q) ∩ (∪F \ ∩F) = P∆Q.
Thus, d(α(P ), α(Q)) = d(P,Q). Consequently, α is an isometry.
Let G be a partial cube on some set X induced by a wg-family F satisfying
conditions (5.2), and let PQ be an edge of G. By definition, there is x ∈ X such
that P∆Q = {x}. The following two lemmas are instrumental.
Lemma 5.1. Let PQ be an edge of a partial cube G on X and let P∆Q = {x}.
The two sets
{R ∈ F : x ∈ R} and {R ∈ F : x /∈ R}
form the same bipartition of the family F as semicubes WPQ and WQP .
Proof. We may assume that Q = P + {x}. Then, for any R ∈ F,
R∆Q = R∆(P + {x}) =
(R∆P ) + {x}, if x ∈ R,
R∆P, if x /∈ R.
Hence, |R∆P | < |R∆Q| if and only if x ∈ R. It follows that
WPQ = {R ∈ F : x ∈ R}.
A similar argument shows that WQP = {R ∈ F : x /∈ R}.
Lemma 5.2. If F is a wg-family of sets satisfying conditions (5.2), then for
any x ∈ X there are sets P,Q ∈ F such that P∆Q = {x}.
Proof. By conditions 5.2, for a given x ∈ X there are sets S and T in F such
that x ∈ S and x /∈ T . Let R0 = S,R1, . . . , Rn = T be a sequence of sets in
F satisfying conditions (2.2). It is clear that there is i such that x ∈ Ri and
x /∈ Ri+1. Hence, Ri∆Ri+1 = {x}, so we can choose P = Ri and Q = Ri+1.
By Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2, there is one-to-one correspondence between the set
X and the quotient-set E/θ. From Theorem 5.1 we obtain the following result.
Theorem 5.2. Let F be a wg-family of finite subsets of a set X such that
∩F = ∅ and ∪F = X, and let G be a partial cube on X induced by F. Then
dimI(G) = |X |.
Clearly, a graph which is isometrically embeddable into a partial cube is a
partial cube itself. We will show in Section 6 (Corollary 6.1) that the integer
lattice Zn is a partial cube. Thus a graph which is isometrically embeddable
into an integer lattice is a partial cube. It follows that a finite graph is a partial
cube if and only if it is embeddable in some integer lattice. Examples of infinite
partial cubes isometrically embeddable into a finite dimensional integer lattice
are found in [17].
We call the minimum possible dimension n of an integer lattice Zn, in which
a given graph G is isometrically embeddable, its lattice dimension and denote
it dimZ(G). The lattice dimension of a partial cube can be expressed in terms
of maximum matchings in so-called semicube graphs [11].
Definition 5.1. The semicube graph Sc(G) has all semicubes in G as the set
of its vertices. Two vertices Wab and Wcd are connected in Sc(G) if
Wab ∪Wcd = V and Wab ∩Wcd 6= ∅. (5.3)
If G is a partial cube, then condition (5.3) is equivalent to each of the two
equivalent conditions:
Wba ⊂Wcd ⇔ Wdc ⊂Wab, (5.4)
where ⊂ stands for the proper inclusion.
Theorem 5.3. (Theorem 1 in [11].) Let G be a finite partial cube. Then
dimZ(G) = dimI(G) − |M |,
where M is a maximum matching in the semicube graph Sc(G).
Example 5.1. Let G be the graph shown in Figure 2.1. It is easy to see that
dimI(G) = 3 and dimZ(G) = 2.
Example 5.2. Let T be a tree with n edges and m leaves. Then
dimI(T ) = n and dimZ(T ) = ⌈m/2⌉
(cf. [8] and [14], respectively).
Example 5.3. For the cycle C6 we have (see Figure 8.2)
dimI(C6) = dimZ(C6) = 3.
6 Subcubes and Cartesian products
Let G be a partial cube. We say that G′ is a subcube of G if it is an isometric
subgraph of G.
Clearly, a subcube is itself a partial cube. The converse does not hold; a
subgraph of a graph G can be a partial cube but not an isometric subgraph of
G (cf. Example 2.1).
If G′ is a subcube of a partial cube G, then dimI(G
′) ≤ dimI(G) and
dimZ(G
′) ≤ dimZ(G). In general, the two inequalities are not strict. For
instance, the cycle C6 is an isometric subgraph of the cube Q3 (see Figure 8.2)
dimI(C6) = dimZ(C6) = dimI(Q3) = dimZ(Q3) = 3.
Semicubes of a partial cube are examples of subcubes. Indeed, by Theo-
rem 3.4, semicubes are convex subgraphs and therefore isometric. In general,
the converse is not true; a path connecting two opposite vertices in C6 is an
isometric subgraph but not a convex one.
Another common way of constructing new partial cubes from old ones is by
forming their Cartesian products (see [15] for details and proofs).
Definition 6.1. Given two graphs G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2), their
Cartesian product
G = G1�G2
has vertex set V = V1 × V2; a vertex u = (u1, u2) is adjacent to a vertex
v = (v1, v2) if and only if u1v1 ∈ E1 and u2 = v2, or u1 = v1 and u2v2 ∈ E2.
The operation � is associative, so we can write
G = G1� · · ·�Gn =
for the Cartesian product of graphs G1, . . . , Gn. A Cartesian product
i=1Gi
is connected if and only if the factors are connected. Then we have
dG(u, v) =
dGi(ui, vi). (6.1)
Example 6.1. Let {Xi}
i=1 be a family of sets and Y =
i=1 be their sum.
Then the Cartesian product of the hypercubes H(Xi) is isomorphic to the hy-
percube H(Y ). The isomorphism is established by the mapping
f : (P1, . . . , Pn) 7→
Formula (6.1) yields immediately the following results.
Proposition 6.1. Let Hi be isometric subgraphs of graphs Gi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Then the Cartesian product
i=1Hi is an isometric subgraph of the Cartesian
product
i=1Gi.
Corollary 6.1. The Cartesian product of a finite family of partial cubes is a
partial cube. In particular, the integer lattice Zn (cf. Examples 2.2 and 2.3) is
a partial cube.
The results of the next two theorems can be easily extended to arbitrary
finite products of finite partial cubes.
Theorem 6.1. Let G = G1�G2 be the Cartesian product of two finite partial
cubes. Then
dimI(G) = dimI(G1) + dimI(G2).
Proof. We may assume that G1 (resp. G2) is induced by a wg-family F1 (resp.
F2) of subsets of a finite set X1 (resp. X2) such that ∩F1 = ∅ and ∪F1 = X1
(resp. ∩F2 = ∅ and ∪F2 = X1) (see Section 5). By Theorem 5.2,
dimI(G1) = |X1| and dimI(G2) = |X2|.
It is clear that the graph G is induced by the wg-family F = F1 +F2 of subsets
of the set X = X1 + X2 (cf. Example 6.1) with ∩F = ∅, ∪F = X . By
Theorem 5.2,
dimI(G) = |X | = |X1|+ |X2| = dimI(G1) + dimI(G2).
Theorem 6.2. Let G = (V,E) be the Cartesian product of two finite partial
cubes G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2). Then
dimZ(G) = dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
Proof. Let W(a,b)(c,d) be a semicube of the graph G. There are two possible
cases:
(i) c = a, bd ∈ E2. Let (x, y) be a vertex of G. Then, by (6.1),
dG((x, y), (a, b)) = dG1(x, a) + dG2(y, b)
dG((x, y), (c, d)) = dG1(x, c) + dG2(y, d).
Hence,
dG((x, y), (a, b)) < dG((x, y), (c, d)) ⇔ dG2(y, b) < dG2(y, d).
It follows that
W(a,b)(c,d) = V1 ×Wbd. (6.2)
(ii) d = b, ac ∈ E1. Like in (i), we have
W(a,b)(c,d) =Wac × V2. (6.3)
Clearly, two semicubes given by (6.2) form an edge in the semicube graph
Sc(G) if and only if their second factors form an edge in the semicube graph
Sc(G2). The same is true for semicubes in the form (6.3) with respect to their
first factors. It is also clear that semicubes in the form (6.2) and in the form (6.3)
are not connected by an edge in Sc(G). Therefore the semicube graph Sc(G) is
isomorphic to the disjoint union of semicube graphs Sc(G1) and Sc(G2). If M1
is a maximum matching in Sc(G1) and M2 is a maximum matching in Sc(G2),
then M =M1 ∪M2 is a maximum matching in Sc(G). The result follows from
theorems 5.3 and 6.1.
Remark 6.1. The result of Corollary 6.1 does not hold for infinite Cartesian
products of partial cubes, as these products are disconnected. On the other
hand, it can be shown that arbitrary weak Cartesian products (connected com-
ponents of Cartesian products [15]) of partial cubes are partial cubes.
7 Pasting partial cubes
In this section we use the set pasting technique [5, ch.I, §2.5] to build new partial
cubes from old ones.
Let G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2) be two graphs, H1 = (U1, F1) and
H2 = (U2, F2) be two isomorphic subgraphs of G1 and G2, respectively, and
ψ : U1 → U2 be a bijection defining an isomorphism between H1 and H2. The
bijection ψ defines an equivalence relation R on the sum V1+V2 as follows: any
element in (V1 \U1)∪ (V2 \U2) is equivalent to itself only and elements u1 ∈ U1
and u2 ∈ U2 are equivalent if and only if u2 = ψ(u1). We say that the quotient
set V = (V1 + V2)/R is obtained by pasting together the sets V1 and V2 along
the subsets U1 and U2. Since the graphs H1 and H2 are isomorphic, the pasting
of the sets V1 and V2 can be naturally extended to a pasting of sets of edges
E1 and E2 resulting in the set E of edges joining vertices in V . We say that
the graph G = (E, V ) is obtained by pasting together the graphs G1 and G2
along the isomorphic subgraphs H1 and H2. The pasting construction allows
for identifying in a natural way the graphs G1 and G2 with subgraphs of G, and
the isomorphic graphs H1 and H2 with a common subgraph H of both graphs
G1 and G2. We often follow this convention below.
Remark 7.1. Note that in the above construction the resulting graph G de-
pends not only on graphs G1 and G2 and their isomorphic subgraphs H1 and
H2 but also on the bijection ψ defining an isomorphism from H1 onto H2 (see
the drawings in Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
Figure 7.1: Pasting of two trees.
Figure 7.2: Another pasting of the same trees.
In general, pasting of two partial cubes G1 and G2 along two isomorphic
subgraphs H1 and H2 does not produce a partial cube even under strong as-
sumptions about these subgraphs as the next example illustrates.
Figure 7.3: Pasting partial cubes G1 and G2.
Example 7.1. Pasting of two partial cubes G1 = C6 and G2 = C6 along
subgraphs H1 and H2 is shown in Figure 7.3. The resulting graph G is not a
partial cube. Indeed, the semicubeWab is not a convex set. Note that subgraphs
H1 and H2 are convex subgraphs of the respective partial cubes.
In this section we study two simple pastings of connected graphs together,
the vertex-pasting and the edge-pasting, and show that these pastings produce
partial cubes from partial cubes. We also compute the isometric and lattice
dimensions of the resulting graphs.
Let G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2) be two connected graphs, a1 ∈ V1,
a2 ∈ V2, and H1 = ({a1},∅), H2 = ({a2},∅). Let G be the graph obtained
by pasting G1 and G2 along subgraphs H1 and H2. In this case we say that
the graph G is obtained from graphs G1 and G2 by vertex-pasting. We also say
that G is obtained from G1 and G2 by identifying vertices a1 and a2. Figure 7.4
illustrates this construction. Note that the vertex a = {a1, a2} is a cut vertex
of G, since G1 ∪ G2 = G and G1 ∩ G2 = {a}. (We follow our convention and
identify graphs G1 and G2 with subgraphs of G.)
Figure 7.4: An example of vertex-pasting.
In what follows we use superscripts to distinguish subgraphs of the graphs
G1 and G2. For instance, W
stands for the semicube of G2 defined by two
adjacent vertices a, b ∈ V2.
Theorem 7.1. A graph G = (V,E) obtained by vertex-pasting from partial
cubes G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2) is a partial cube.
Proof. We denote a = {a1, a2} the vertex of G obtained by identifying vertices
a1 ∈ V1 and a2 ∈ V2. Clearly, G is a bipartite graph. Let xy be an edge of G.
Without loss of generality we may assume that xy ∈ E1 and a ∈ Wxy. Note
that any path between vertices in V1 and V2 must go through a. Since a ∈Wxy,
we have, for any v ∈ V2,
d(v, x) = d(v, a) + d(a, x) < d(v, a) + d(a, y) = d(v, y),
which implies V2 ⊆ Wxy and Wyx ⊆ V1. It follows that Wxy = W
xy ∪ V2 and
Wyx = W
yx . The sets W
xy , W
yx and V2 are convex subsets of V . Since
xy ∩ V2 = {a}, the set Wxy = W
xy ∪ V2 is also convex. By Theorem 3.4(ii),
the graph G is a partial cube.
The vertex-pasting construction introduced above can be generalized as
follows. Let G = {Gi = (Vi, Ei)}i∈J be a family of connected graphs and
A = {ai ∈ Gi}i∈J be a family of distinguished vertices of these graphs. Let G
be the graph obtained from the graphs Gi by identifying vertices in the set A.
We say that G is obtained by vertex-pasting together the graphs Gi (along the
set A).
Example 7.2. Let J = {1, . . . , n} with n ≥ 2,
G = {Gi = ({ai, bi}, {aibi})}i∈J , and A = {ai}i∈J .
Clearly, each Gi is K2. By vertex-pasting these graphs along A, we obtain the
n-star graph K1,n.
Since the star K1,n is a tree it can be also obtained from K1 by successive
vertex-pasting as in Example 7.3.
Example 7.3. Let G1 be a tree and G2 = K2. By vertex-pasting these graphs
we obtain a new tree. Conversely, let G be a tree and v be its leaf. Let G1 be
a tree obtained from G by deleting the leaf v. Clearly, G can be obtained by
vertex-pasting G1 and K2. It follows that any tree can obtained from the graph
K1 by successive vertex-pasting of copies of K2 (cf. Theorem 2.3(e) in [12]).
Any connected graph G can be constructed by successive vertex-pasting of
its blocks using its block cut-vertex tree [4] structure. Let G1 be an endblock of
G with a cut vertex v and G2 be the union of the remaining blocks of G. Then
G can be obtained from G1 and G2 by vertex-pasting along the vertex v. It
follows that any connected graph can be obtained from its blocks by successive
vertex-pastings.
Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube. We recall that the isometric dimension
dimI(G) of G is the cardinality of the quotient set E/θ, where θ is Djoković’s
equivalence relation on the set E (cf. formula (5.1)).
Theorem 7.2. Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube obtained by vertex-pasting
together partial cubes G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2). Then
dimI(G) = dimI(G1) + dimI(G2).
Proof. It suffices to prove that there are no edges xy ∈ E1 and uv ∈ E2 which
are in Djoković’s relation θ with each other. Suppose that G1 and G2 are
vertex-pasted along vertices a1 ∈ E1 and a2 ∈ E2 and let a = {a1, a2} ∈ E. Let
xy ∈ E1 and uv ∈ E2 be two edges in E. We may assume that u ∈ Wxy. Since
a is a cut-vertex of G and u ∈Wxy, we have
d(u, a) + d(a, x) = d(u, x) < d(u, y) = d(u, a) + d(a, y).
Hence, d(a, x) < d(a, y), which implies
d(v, x) = d(v, a) + d(a, x) < d(v, a) + d(a, y) = d(v, y).
It follows that v ∈ Wxy. Therefore the edge xy does not stand in the relation θ
to the vertex uv.
The next result follows immediately from the previous theorem. Note that
blocks of a partial cube are partial cubes themselves.
Corollary 7.1. Let G be a partial cube and {G1, . . . , Gn} be the family of its
blocks. Then
dimI(G) =
dimI(Gi).
In the case of the lattice dimension of a partial cube we can claim only much
weaker result than one stated in Theorem 7.2 for the isometric dimension. We
omit the proof.
Theorem 7.3. Let G be a partial cube obtained by vertex-pasting together partial
cubes G1 and G2. Then
max{dimZ(G1), dimZ(G2)} ≤ dimZ(G) ≤ dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
The following example illustrate possible cases for inequalities in Theo-
rem 7.3. Let us recall that the lattice dimension of a tree with m leaves is
⌈m/2⌉ (cf. [14]).
Example 7.4. The star K1,6 can be obtained from the stars K1,2 and K1,4 by
vertex-pasting these two stars along their centers. Clearly,
max{dimZ(K1,2), dimZ(K1,4)} < dimZ(K1,6) = dimZ(K1,2) + dimZ(K1,4).
The same star K1,6 is obtained from two copies of the star K1,3 by vertex-
pasting along their centers. We have dimZ(K1,3) = 2, dimZ(K1,6) = 3, so
max{dimZ(K1,3), dimZ(K1,3)} < dimZ(K1,6) < dimZ(K1,3) + dimZ(K1,3).
Let us vertex-paste two stars K1,3 along their two leaves. The resulting
graph T is a tree with four vertices. Therefore,
max{dimZ(K1,3), dimZ(K1,3)} = dimZ(T ) < dimZ(K1,3) + dimZ(K1,3).
We now consider another simple way of pasting two graphs together.
Let G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2) be two connected graphs, a1b1 ∈ E1,
a2b2 ∈ E2, and H1 = ({a1, b1}, {a1b1}), H2 = ({a2, b2}, {a2b2}). Let G be the
graph obtained by pasting G1 and G2 along subgraphs H1 and H2. In this case
we say that the graph G is obtained from graphs G1 and G2 by edge-pasting.
Figures 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5 illustrate this construction.
Figure 7.5: An example of edge-pasting.
As before, we identify the graphs G1 and G2 with subgraphs of the graph
G and denote a = {a1, a2}, b = {b1, b2} the two vertices obtained by pasting
together vertices a1 and a2 and, respectively, b1 and b2. The edge ab ∈ E is
obtained by pasting together edges a1b1 ∈ E1 and a2b2 ∈ E2 (cf. Figure 7.5).
Then G = G1∪G2, V1∩V2 = {a, b} and E1∩E2 = {ab}. We use these notations
in the rest of this section.
Proposition 7.1. A graph G obtained by edge-pasting together bipartite graphs
G1 and G2 is bipartite.
Proof. Let C be a cycle in G. If C ⊆ G1 or C ⊆ G2, then the length of C is
even, since the graphs G1 and G2 are bipartite. Otherwise, the vertices a and
b separate C into two paths each of odd length. Therefore C is a cycle of even
length. The result follows.
The following lemma is instrumental; it describes the semicubes of the graph
G in terms of semicubes of graphs G1 and G2.
Lemma 7.1. Let uv be an edge of G. Then
(i) For uv ∈ E1, a, b ∈ Wuv ⇒ Wuv =W
uv ∪ V2, Wvu =W
(ii) For uv ∈ E2, a, b ∈ Wuv ⇒ Wuv =W
uv ∪ V1, Wvu =W
(iii) a ∈ Wuv, b ∈Wvu ⇒ Wuv =Wab.
Figure 7.6: Edge-pasting of graphs G1 and G2.
Proof. We prove parts (i) and (iii) (see Figure 7.6).
(i) Since any path from w ∈ V2 to u or v contains a or b and a, b ∈Wuv, we
have w ∈Wuv. Hence, Wuv =W
uv ∪ V2 and Wvu =W
(iii) Since ab θ uv in G1, we have W
uv = W
, by Theorem 3.4(iv). Let w
be a vertex in W
uv . Then, by the triangle inequality,
d(w, u) < d(w, v) ≤ d(w, b) + d(b, v) < d(w, b) + d(b, u).
Since any shortest path from w to u contains a or b, we have
d(w, a) + d(a, u) = d(w, u).
Therefore,
d(w, a) + d(a, u) < d(w, b) + d(b, u).
Since ab θ uv in G1, we have d(a, u) = d(b, v), by Theorem 4.2. It follows that
d(w, a) < d(w, b), that is, w ∈ W
. We proved that W
uv ⊆ W
symmetry, W
vu ⊆ W
. Since two opposite semicubes form a partition of V2,
we have W
uv =W
. The result follows.
Theorem 7.4. A graph G obtained by edge-pasting together partial cubes G1
and G2 is a partial cube.
Proof. By Theorem 3.4(ii) and Proposition 7.1, we need to show that for any
edge uv of G the semicube Wuv is a convex subset of V . There are two possible
cases.
(i) uv = ab. The semicube Wab is the union of semicubes W
and W
which are convex subsets of V1 and V2, respectively. It is clear that any shortest
path connecting a vertex in W
with a vertex in W
contains vertex a and
therefore is contained in Wab. Hence, Wab is a convex set. A similar argument
proves that the set Wba is convex.
(ii) uv 6= ab. We may assume that uv ∈ E1. To prove that the semicube
Wuv is a convex set, we consider two cases.
(a) a, b ∈ Wuv. (The case when a, b ∈ Wvu is treated similarly.) By
Lemma 7.1(i), the semicube Wuv is the union of the semicube W
uv and the
set V2 which are both convex sets. Any shortest path P from a vertex in V2 to
a vertex in W
uv contains either a or b. It follows that P ⊆ W
uv ∪ V2 = Wuv.
Therefore the semicube Wuv is convex.
(b) a ∈ Wuv, b ∈ Wvu. (The case when b ∈ Wuv , a ∈ Wvu is treated
similarly.) By Lemma 7.1(ii), Wuv = Wab. The result follows from part (i) of
the proof.
Theorem 7.5. Let G be a graph obtained by edge-pasting together finite partial
cubes G1 and G2. Then
dimI(G) = dimI(G1) + dimI(G2)− 1.
Proof. Let θ, θ1, and θ2 be Djoković’s relations on E, E1, and E2, respectively.
By Lemma 7.1, for uv, xy ∈ E1 (resp. uv, xy ∈ E2) we have
uv θ xy ⇔ uv θ1xy (resp. uv θ xy ⇔ uv θ2xy).
Let uv ∈ E1, xy ∈ E2, and uv θ xy. Suppose that (uv, ab) /∈ θ. We may
assume that a, b ∈ Wuv . By Lemma 7.1(i), V2 ⊂ Wuv, a contradiction, since
xy ∈ E2. Hence, uv θ xy θ ab. It follows that each equivalence class of the
relation θ is either an equivalence class of θ1, an equivalence class of θ2 or the
class containing the edge ab. Therefore
|E/θ| = |E1/θ1|+ |E2/θ2| − 1.
The result follows, since the isometric dimension of a partial cube is equal to the
cardinality of the set of equivalence classes of Djoković’s relation (formula (5.1)).
We need some results about semicube graphs in order to prove an analog of
Theorem 7.3 for a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting of two partial cubes.
Lemma 7.2. Let G be a partial cube and WpqWuv , WqpWxy be two edges in
the graph Sc(G). Then WxyWuv is an edge in Sc(G).
Proof. By condition (5.4), Wqp ⊂ Wuv and Wyx ⊂ Wqp. Hence, Wyx ⊂ Wuv.
By the same condition, WxyWuv ∈ Sc(G).
As before, we identify partial cubes G1 and G2 with subgraphs of the partial
cube G. Then G1 ∪G2 = G and G1 ∩G2 = ({a, b}, {ab}) = K2 (cf. Figure 7.6).
Lemma 7.3. Let G be a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting together partial
cubes G1 and G2. Let W
xy (resp. W
xy ) be an edge in the semicube
Sc(G1) (resp. Sc(G2)). Then WuvWxy is an edge in Sc(G).
Figure 7.7: Semicubes forming an edge in Sc(G1).
Proof. It suffices to consider the case of Sc(G1) (see Figure 7.7). By condi-
tion (5.4),W
vu ⊂W
xy andW
yx ⊂W
uv . Suppose that a ∈ W
vu and b ∈W
(the case when b ∈ W
vu and a ∈ W
yx is treated similarly). Then ab θ1xy and
ab θ1uv. By transitivity of θ1, we have uv θ1xy, a contradiction, since semicubes
uv and W
xy are distinct. Therefore we may assume that, say, a, b ∈ W
Then, by Lemma 7.1, Wvu = W
vu ⊂ V1. Since W
vu ⊂ W
xy ⊆ Wxy, we have
Wvu ⊂Wxy. By condition (5.4), WuvWxy is an edge in Sc(G).
Lemma 7.4. LetM1 andM2 be matchings in graphs Sc(G1) and Sc(G2). There
is a matching M in Sc(G) such that
|M | ≥ |M1|+ |M2| − 1.
Proof. By Lemma 7.3, M1 and M2 induce matchings in Sc(G) which we denote
by the same symbols. The intersection M1 ∩M2 is either empty or a subgraph
of the empty graph with vertices Wab and Wba.
If M1 ∩M2 is empty, then M = M1 ∪M2 is a matching in Sc(G) and the
result follows.
If M1 ∩M2 is an empty graph with a single vertex, say, in M1, we remove
fromM1 the edge that has this vertex as its end vertex, resulting in the matching
M ′1. Clearly, M =M
1 ∪M2 is a matching in Sc(G) and |M | = |M1|+ |M2| − 1.
Suppose now that M1 ∩M2 is the empty graph with vertices Wab and Wba.
Let WabWuv, WbaWpq (resp. WabWxy, WbaWrs) be edges in M1 (resp. M2).
By Lemma 7.2, WxyWrs is an edge in Sc(G2). Let us replace edgesWabWxy and
WbaWrs in M2 by a single edge WxyWrs, resulting in the matching M
2. Then
M =M1 ∪M
2 is a matching in Sc(G) and |M | = |M1|+ |M2| − 1.
Corollary 7.2. Let M1 and M2 be maximum matchings in Sc(G1) and Sc(G2),
respectively, and M be a maximum matching in Sc(G). Then
|M | ≥ |M1|+ |M2| − 1. (7.1)
By Theorem 5.3, we have
dimI(G1) = dimZ(G1) + |M1|, dimI(G2) = dimZ(G2) + |M2|,
dimI(G) = dimZ(G) + |M |,
where M1 and M2 are maximum matchings in Sc(G1) and Sc(G2), respectively,
and M is a maximum matching in Sc(G). Therefore, by Theorem 7.5 and (7.1),
we have the following result (cf. Theorem 7.3).
Theorem 7.6. Let G be a partial cube obtained by edge-pasting from partial
cubes G1 and G2. Then
max{dimZ(G1), dimZ(G2)} ≤ dimZ(G) ≤ dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
Example 7.5. Let us consider two edge-pastings of the stars G1 = K1,3 and
G2 = K1,3 of lattice dimension 2 shown in figures 7.1 and 7.2. In the first case
the resulting graph is the star G = K1,5 of lattice dimension 3. Then we have
max{dimZ(G1), dimZ(G2)} < dimZ(G) < dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
In the second case the resulting graph is a tree with 4 leaves. Therefore,
max{dimZ(G1), dimZ(G2)} = dimZ(G) < dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
Let c1a1 and c2a2 be edges of stars G1 = K1,4 and G2 = K1,4 (each of
which has lattice dimension 2), where c1 and c2 are centers of the respective
stars. Let us edge-paste these two graphs by identifying c1 with c2 and a1 with
a2, respectively. The resulting graph G is the star K1,7 of lattice dimension 4.
Thus,
max{dimZ(G1), dimZ(G2)} ≤ dimZ(G) = dimZ(G1) + dimZ(G2).
8 Expansions and contractions of partial cubes
The graph expansion procedure was introduced by Mulder in [16], where it is
shown that a graph is a median graph if and only if it can be obtained from
K1 by a sequence of convex expansions (see also [15]). A similar result for
partial cubes was established in [6] (see also [7]) as a corollary to a more general
result concerning isometric embeddability into Hamming graphs; it was also
established in [13] in the framework of oriented matroids theory.
In this section we investigate properties of (isometric) expansion and con-
traction operations and, in particular, prove in two different ways that a graph is
a partial cube if and only if it can be obtained from the graph K1 by a sequence
of expansions.
A remark about notations is in order. In the product {1, 2} × (V1 ∪ V2), we
denote V ′i = {i} × Vi and x
i = (i, x) for x ∈ Vi, where i, j = 1, 2.
Definition 8.1. Let G = (V,E) be a connected graph, and let G1 = (V1, E1)
and G2 = (V2, E2) be two isometric subgraphs of G such that G = G1 ∪ G2.
The expansion of G with respect to G1 and G2 is the graph G
′ = (V ′, E′)
constructed as follows from G (see Figure 8.1):
(i) V ′ = V1 + V2 = V
1 ∪ V
(ii) E′ = E1 + E2 +M , where M is the matching
x∈V1∩V2
{x1x2}.
In this case, we also say that G is a contraction of G′.
Figure 8.1: Expansion/contraction processes.
It is clear that the graphs G1 and 〈V
1〉 are isomorphic, as well as the graphs
G2 and 〈V
We define a projection p : V ′ → V by p(xi) = x for x ∈ V . Clearly, the
restriction of p to V ′1 is a bijection p1 : V
1 → V1 and its restriction to V
2 is a
bijection p2 : V
2 → V2. These bijections define isomorphisms 〈V
1〉 → G1 and
〈V ′2〉 → G2.
Let P ′ be a path in G′. The vertices of G obtained from the vertices in P ′
under the projection p define a walk P in G; we call this walk P the projection
of the path P ′. It is clear that
ℓ(P ) = ℓ(P ′), if P ′ ⊆ 〈V ′1〉 or P
′ ⊆ 〈V ′2〉. (8.1)
In this case, P is a path in G and either P = p1(P
′) or P = p2(P
′). On the
other hand,
ℓ(P ) < ℓ(P ′), if P ′ ∩ 〈V ′1〉 6= ∅ and P
′ ∩ 〈V ′2 〉 6= ∅, (8.2)
and P is not necessarily a path.
We will frequently use the results of the following lemma in this section.
Lemma 8.1. (i) For u1, v1 ∈ V ′1 , any shortest path Pu1v1 in G
′ belongs to 〈V ′1 〉
and its projection Puv = p1(Pu1v1) is a shortest path in G. Accordingly,
dG′(u
1, v1) = dG(u, v)
and 〈V ′1〉 is a convex subgraph of G
′. A similar statement holds for u2, v2 ∈ V ′2 .
(ii) For u1 ∈ V ′1 and v
2 ∈ V ′2 ,
dG′(u
1, v2) = dG(u, v) + 1.
Let Pu1v2 be a shortest path in G
′. There is a unique edge x1x2 ∈M such that
x1, x2 ∈ Pu1v2 and the sections Pu1x1 and Px2v2 of the path Pu1v2 are shortest
paths in 〈V ′1 〉 and 〈V
2 〉, respectively. The projection Puv of Pu1v2 in G
′ is a
shortest path in G.
Proof. (i) Let Pu1v1 be a path in G
′ that intersects V ′2 . Since 〈V1〉 is an isometric
subgraph of G, there is a path Puv in G that belongs to 〈V1〉. Then p
1 (Puv) is
a path in 〈V ′1 〉 of the same length as Puv. By (8.1) and (8.2),
ℓ(p−11 (Puv)) < ℓ(Pu1v1).
Therefore any shortest path Pu1v1 in G
′ belongs to 〈V ′1 〉. The result follows.
(ii) Let Pu1v2 be a shortest path in G
′ and Puv be its projection to V .
By (8.2),
dG′(u
1, v2) = ℓ(Pu1v2) > ℓ(Puv) ≥ dG(u, v).
Since there is no edge of G joining vertices in V1 \ V2 and V2 \ V1, a shortest
path in G from u to v must contain a vertex x ∈ V1 ∩ V2. Since G1 and G2
are isometric subgraphs, there are shortest paths Pux in G1 and Pxv in G2 such
that their union is a shortest path from u to v. Then, by the triangle inequality
and part (i) of the proof, we have (cf. Figure 8.1)
dG′(u
1, v2) ≤ dG′(u
1, x1) + dG′(x
1, x2) + dG′(x
2, v2) = dG(u, v) + 1.
The last two displayed formulas imply dG′(u
1, v2) = dG(u, v) + 1.
Since u1 ∈ V ′1 and v
2 ∈ V ′2 the path Pu1v2 must contain an edge, say x
1x2, in
M . Since this path is a shortest path in G′, this edge is unique. Then the sec-
tions Pu1x1 and Px2v2 of Pu1v2 are shortest paths in 〈V
1 〉 and 〈V
2〉, respectively.
Clearly, Puv is a shortest path in G.
Let a1a2 be an edge in the matchingM = ∪x∈V1∩V2{x
1x2}. This edge defines
five fundamental sets (cf. Section 4): the semicubes Wa1a2 and Wa2a1 , the sets
of vertices Ua1a2 and Ua2a1 , and the set of edges Fa1a2 . The next theorem
follows immediately from Lemma 8.1. It gives a hint to a connection between
the expansion process and partial cubes.
Theorem 8.1. Let G′ be an expansion of a connected graph G and notations
are chosen as above. Then
(i) Wa1a2 = V
1 and Wa2a1 = V
2 are convex semicubes of G
(ii) Fa1a2 =M defines an isomorphism between induced subgraphs 〈Ua1a2〉 and
〈Ua2a1〉, which are isomorphic to the subgraph G1 ∩G2.
The result of Theorem 8.1 justifies the following constructive definition of
the contraction process.
Definition 8.2. Let ab be an edge of a connected graph G′ = (V ′, E′) such
(i) semicubes Wab and Wba are convex and form a partition of V
(ii) the set Fab is a matching and defines an isomorphism between subgraphs
〈Uab〉 and 〈Uba〉.
A graph G obtained from the graphs 〈Wab〉 and 〈Wba〉 by pasting them along
subgraphs 〈Uab〉 and 〈Uba〉 is said to be a contraction of the graph G
Remark 8.1. If G′ is bipartite, then semicubesWab andWba form a partition of
its vertex set. Then, by Theorem 4.1, condition (i) implies condition (ii). Thus
any pair of opposite convex semicubes in a connected bipartite graph defines a
contraction of this graph.
By Theorem 8.1, a graph is a contraction of its expansion. It is not difficult
to see that any connected graph is also an expansion of its contraction.
The following three examples give geometric illustrations for the expansion
and contraction procedures.
Example 8.1. Let a and b be two opposite vertices in the graph G = C4.
Clearly, the two distinct paths P1 and P2 from a to b are isometric subgraphs
of G defining an expansion G′ = C6 of G (see Figure 8.2). Note that P1 and P2
are not convex subsets of V .
Example 8.2. Another isometric expansion of the graph G = C4 is shown
in Figure 8.3. Here, the path P1 is the same as in the previous example and
G2 = G.
Example 8.3. Lemma 8.1 claims, in particular, that the projection of a shortest
path in an extension G′ of a graphG is a shortest path in G. Generally speaking,
Figure 8.2: An expansion of the cycle C4.
Figure 8.3: Another isometric expansion of the cycle C4.
the converse is not true. Consider the graph G shown in Figure 8.4 and two
paths in G:
V1 = abcef and V2 = bde.
The graph G′ in Figure 8.4 is the convex expansion of G with respect to V1 and
V2. The path abdef is a shortest path in G; it is not a projection of a shortest
path in G′.
Figure 8.4: A shortest path which is not a projection of a shortest path.
One can say that, in the case of finite partial cubes, the contraction procedure
is defined by an orthogonal projection of a hypercube onto one of its facets.
By Theorem 8.1, the sets V ′1 and V
2 are opposite semicubes of the graph G
defined by edges in M . Their projections are the sets V1 and V2 which are not
necessarily semicubes of G. For other semicubes in G′ we have the following
result.
Lemma 8.2. For any two adjacent vertices u, v ∈ V ,
Wuivi = p
−1(Wuv) for u, v ∈ Vi and i = 1, 2.
Proof. By Lemma 8.1,
dG′(x
j , ui) < dG′(x
j , vi) ⇔ dG(x, u) < dG(x, v)
for x ∈ V and i, j = 1, 2. The result follows.
Corollary 8.1. If uv is an edge of G1 ∩G2, then Wu1v1 =Wu2v2 .
The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Lemma 8.1. We shall
use it implicitly in our arguments later.
Lemma 8.3. Let u, v ∈ V1 and x ∈ V1 ∩ V2. Then
x1 ∈Wu1v1 ⇔ x
2 ∈Wu1v1 .
The same result holds for semicubes in the form Wu2v2 .
Generally speaking, the projection of a convex subgraph of G′ is not a con-
vex subgraph of G. For instance, the projection of the convex path b2d2e2 in
Figure 8.4 is the path bde which is not a convex subgraph of G. On the other
hand, we have the following result.
Theorem 8.2. Let G′ = (V ′, E′) be an expansion of a graph G = (V,E) with
respect to subgraphs G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2). The projection of a
convex semicube of G′ different from 〈V ′1〉 and 〈V
2 〉 is a convex semicube of G.
Proof. It suffices to consider the case when Wuv = p(Wu1v1) for u, v ∈ V1 (cf.
Theorem 8.2). Let x, y ∈Wuv and z ∈ V be a vertex such that
dG(x, z) + dG(z, y) = dG(x, y).
We need to show that z ∈Wuv.
Figure 8.5: A shortest path from x to y.
(i) x, y ∈ V1 (the case when x, y ∈ V2 is treated similarly). Suppose that
z ∈ V1. Then x
1, y1, z1 ∈ V ′1 and, by Lemma 8.1,
dG′(x
1, z1) + dG′(z
1, y1) = dG′(z
1, y1).
Since x1, y1 ∈ Wu1v1 and Wu1v1 is convex, z
1 ∈ Wu1v1 . Hence, z ∈Wuv.
Suppose now that z ∈ V2 \ V1. Consider a shortest path Pxy in G from x
to y containing z. This path contains vertices x′, y′ ∈ V1 ∩ V2 such that (see
Figure 8.5)
dG(x, x
′) + dG(x
′, z) = dG(x, z) and dG(y, y
′) + dG(y
′, z) = dG(y, z).
Since Pxy is a shortest path in G, we have
dG(x, x
′) + dG(x
′, y) = dG(x, y), dG(x, y
′) + dG(y
′, y) = dG(x, y),
′, z) + dG(z, y
′) = dG(x
′, y′).
Since x, x′, y ∈ V1, we have x
1, x′1, y1 ∈ V ′1 . Because x
1, y1 ∈ Wu1v1 and Wu1v1
is convex, x′1 ∈ Wu1v1 . Hence, x
′ ∈ Wuv and, similarly, y
′ ∈ Wuv. Since
x′2, y′2, z2 ∈ V ′2 and Wu1v1 is convex, z
2 ∈Wu1v1 . Hence, z ∈Wuv.
(ii) x ∈ V1 \V2 and y ∈ V2 \V1. We may assume that z ∈ V1. By Lemma 8.1,
dG′(x
1, y2) = dG(x, y) + 1 = dG(x, z) + dG(z, y) + 1
= dG′(x
1, z1) + dG′(z
1, y2).
Since x1, y2 ∈ Wu1v1 and Wu1v1 is convex, z
1 ∈ Wu1v1 . Hence, z ∈Wuv.
By using the results of Lemma 8.1, it is not difficult to show that the class
of connected bipartite graphs is closed under the expansion and contraction
operations. The next theorem establishes this result for the class of partial
cubes.
Theorem 8.3. (i) An expansion G′ of a partial cube G is a partial cube.
(ii) A contraction G of a partial cube G′ is a partial cube.
Proof. (i) Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube and G′ = (V ′, E′) be its expansion
with respect to isometric subgraphs G1 = (V1, E1) and G2 = (V2, E2). By
Theorem 3.4(ii), it suffices to show that the semicubes of G′ are convex.
By Lemma 8.1, the semicubes 〈V ′1〉 and 〈V
2〉 are convex, so we consider a
semicube in the formWu1v1 where uv ∈ E1 (the other case is treated similarly).
Let Px′y′ be a shortest path connecting two vertices in Wu1v1 and Pxy be its
projection to G. By Theorem 8.2, x, y ∈ Wuv and, by Lemma 8.1, Pxy is a
shortest path in G. Since Wuv is convex, Pxy belongs to Wuv. Let z
′ be a
vertex in Px′y′ and z = p(z
′) ∈ Pxy. By Lemma 8.1,
dG(z, u) < dG(z, v) ⇒ dG′(z
′, u1) ≤ dG′(z
′, v1).
Since G′ is a bipartite graph, dG′(z
′, u1) < dG′(z
′, v1). Hence, Px′y′ ⊆ Wu1v1 ,
so Wu1v1 is convex.
(ii) Let G = (V,E) be a contraction of a partial cube G′ = (V ′, E′). By
Theorem 3.4, we need to show that the semicubes of G are convex. By The-
orem 8.2, all semicubes of G are projections of semicubes of G′ distinct from
〈V ′1〉 and 〈V
2〉. By Theorem 8.2, the semicubes of G are convex.
Corollary 8.2. (i) A finite connected graph is a partial cube if and only if it
can be obtained from K1 by a sequence of expansions.
(ii) The number of expansions needed to produce a partial cube G from K1
is dimI(G).
Proof. (i) Follows immediately from Theorem 8.3.
(ii) Follows from theorems 8.2 and 5.1 (see the discussion in Section 5 just
before Theorem 5.2 ).
The processes of expansion and contraction admit useful descriptions in the
case of partial cubes on a set. Let G = (V,E) be a partial cube on a set X ,
that is an isometric subgraph of the hypercube H(X). Then it is induced by
some wg-family F of finite subsets of X (cf. Theorem 2.1). We may assume (see
Section 5) that ∩F = ∅ and ∪F = X .
In what follows we present proofs of the results of Theorem 8.3 and Corol-
lary 8.2 given in terms of wg-families of sets.
The expansion process for a partial cube G on X can be described as follows:
Let F1 and F2 be wg-families of finite subsets of X such that F1 ∩ F2 6= ∅,
F1∪F2 = F, and the distance between any two sets P ∈ F1 \F2 and Q ∈ F2 \F1
is greater than one. Note that 〈F1〉 and 〈F2〉 are partial cubes, 〈F1〉∩ 〈F2〉 6= ∅,
and 〈F1〉 ∪ 〈F2〉 = 〈F〉 = G. Let X
′ = X + {p}, where p /∈ X , and
2 = {Q+ {p} : Q ∈ F2}, F
′ = F1 ∪ F
It is quite clear that the graphs 〈F′2〉 and 〈F2〉 are isomorphic and the graph
G′ = 〈F′〉 is an isometric expansion of the graph G.
Theorem 8.4. An expansion of a partial cube is a partial cube.
Proof. We need to verify that F′ is a wg-family of finite subsets of X ′. By
Theorem 2.3, it suffices to show that the distance between any two adjacent
sets in F′ is 1. It is obvious if each of these two sets belong to one of the families
F1 or F
2. Suppose that P ∈ F1 and Q+ {p} ∈ F
2 are adjacent, that is, for any
S ∈ F′ we have
P ∩ (Q+ {p}) ⊆ S ⊆ P ∪ (Q+ {p}) ⇒ S = P or S = Q+ {p}. (8.3)
If Q ∈ F1, then
P ∩ (Q + {p}) ⊆ Q ⊆ P ∪ (Q+ {p}),
since p /∈ P . By (8.3), Q = P implying d(P,Q + {p}) = 1.
If Q ∈ F2 \ F1, there is R ∈ F1 ∩ F2 such that
d(P,R) + d(R,Q) = d(P,Q),
since F is well graded. By Theorem 2.2,
P ∩Q ⊆ R ⊆ P ∪Q,
which implies
P ∩ (Q + {p}) ⊆ R+ {p} ⊆ P ∪ (Q+ {p}).
By (8.3), R + {p} = Q+ {p}, a contradiction.
It is easy to recognize the fundamental sets (cf. Section 4) in an isometric
expansion G′ of a partial cube G = 〈F〉. Let P ∈ F1∩F2 and Q = P +{p} ∈ F
be two vertices defining an edge in G′ according to Definition 8.1(ii). Clearly,
the families F1 and F
2 are the semicubes WPQ and WQP of the graph G
′ (cf.
Lemma 5.1) and therefore are convex subsets of F′. The set FPQ is the set
of edges defined by p as in Lemma 5.1. In addition, UPQ = F1 ∩ F2 and
UQP = {R+ {p} : R ∈ F1 ∩ F2}.
Let G be a partial cube induced by a wg-family F of finite subsets of a set
X . As before, we assume that ∩F = ∅ and ∪F = X . Let PQ be an edge of G.
We may assume that Q = P + {p} for some p /∈ P . Then (see Lemma 5.1)
WPQ = {R ∈ F : p /∈ R} and WQP = {R ∈ F : p ∈ R}.
Let X ′ = X \ {p} and F′ = {R \ {p} : R ∈ F}. It is clear that the graph G′
induced by the family F′ is isomorphic to the contraction of G defined by the
edge PQ. Geometrically, the graph G′ is the orthogonal projection of the graph
G along the edge PQ (cf. figures 8.2 and 8.3).
Theorem 8.5. (i) A contraction G′ of a partial cube G is a partial cube.
(ii) If G is finite, then dimI(G
′) = dimI(G)− 1.
Proof. (i) For p ∈ X we define F1 = {R ∈ F : p /∈ R}, F2 = {R ∈ F : p ∈ R},
and F′2 = {R \ {p} ∈ F : p ∈ R}. Note that F1 and F2 are semicubes of G
and F′2 is isometric to F2. Hence, F1 and F
2 are wg-families of finite subsets
of X ′. We need to prove that F′ = F1 ∪ F
2 is a wg-family. By Theorem 2.3,
it suffices to show that d(P,Q) = 1 for any two adjacent sets P,Q ∈ F′. This
is true if P,Q ∈ F1 or P,Q ∈ F
2, since these two families are well graded. For
P ∈ F1 \ F
2 and Q ∈ F
2 \ F1, the sets P and Q + {p} are not adjacent in F,
since F is well graded and Q /∈ F. Hence there is R ∈ F1 such that
P ∩ (Q+ {p}) ⊆ R ⊆ P ∪ (Q + {p})
and R 6= P . Since p /∈ R, we have
P ∩Q ⊆ R ⊆ P ∪Q.
Since R 6= P and R 6= Q, the sets P and Q are not adjacent in F′. The result
follows.
(ii) If G is a finite partial cube, then, by Theorem 5.2,
dimI(G
′) = |X ′| = |X | − 1 = dimI(G)− 1.
9 Conclusion
The paper focuses on two themes of a rather general mathematical nature.
1. The characterization problem. It is a common practice in mathematics
to characterize a particular class of object in different terms. We present new
characterizations of the classes of bipartite graphs and partial cubes, and give
new proofs for known characterization results.
2. Constructions. The problem of constructing new objects from old ones
is a standard topic in many branches of mathematics. For the class of partial
cubes, we discuss operations of forming the Cartesian product, expansion and
contraction, and pasting. It is shown that the class of partial cubes is closed
under these operations.
Because partial cubes are defined as graphs isometrically embeddable into
hypercubes, the theory of partial cubes has a distinctive geometric flavor. The
three main structures on a graph—semicubes and Djoković’s and Winkler’s
relations—are defined in terms of the metric structure on a graph. One can say
that this theory is a branch of discrete metric geometry. Not surprisingly, geo-
metric structures play an important role in our treatment of the characterization
and construction problems.
References
[1] A.S. Asratian, T.M.J. Denley, and R. Häggkvist, Bipartite Graphs and
their Applications, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[2] D. Avis, Hypermetric spaces and the Hamming cone, Canadian Journal of
Mathematics 33 (1981) 795–802.
[3] L. Blumenthal, Theory and Applications of Distance Geometry, Oxford
University Press, London, Great Britain, 1953.
[4] J.A. Bondy, Basic graph theory: Paths and circuits, in: R.L. Graham,
M. Grötshel, and L. Lovász (Eds.), Handbook of Combinatorics, The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 3–110.
[5] N. Bourbaki, General Topology, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., 1966.
[6] V. Chepoi, Isometric subgraphs of Hamming graphs and d-convexity, Con-
trol and Cybernetics 24 (1988) 6–11.
[7] V. Chepoi, Separation of two convex sets in convexity structures, Journal
of Geometry 50 (1994) 30–51.
[8] M.M. Deza and M. Laurent, Geometry of Cuts and Metrics, Springer, 1997.
[9] D.Ž. Djoković, Distance preserving subgraphs of hypercubes, J. Combin.
Theory Ser. B 14 (1973) 263–267.
[10] J.-P. Doignon and J.-Cl. Falmagne, Well-graded families of relations, Dis-
crete Math. 173 (1997) 35–44.
[11] D. Eppstein, The lattice dimension of a graph, European J. Combinatorics
26 (2005) 585–592, doi: 10.1016/j.ejc.2004.05.001.
[12] A. Frank, Connectivity and network flows, in: R.L. Graham, M. Grötshel,
and L. Lovász (Eds.), Handbook of Combinatorics, The MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, 1995, pp. 111–177.
[13] K. Fukuda and K. Handa, Antipodal graphs and oriented matroids, Dis-
crete Mathematics 111 (1993) 245–256.
[14] F. Hadlock and F. Hoffman, Manhattan trees, Util. Math. 13 (1978) 55–67.
[15] W. Imrich and S. Klavžar, Product Graphs, John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
[16] H.M. Mulder, The Interval Function of a Graph, Mathematical Centre
Tracts 132, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1980.
[17] S. Ovchinnikov, Media theory: representations and examples, Discrete Ap-
plied Mathematics, (in review, e-print available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CO/0512282).
[18] R.I. Roth and P.M. Winkler, Collapse of the metric hierarchy for bipartite
graphs, European Journal of Combinatorics 7 (1986) 371–375.
[19] M.L.J. van de Vel, Theory of Convex Structures, Elsevier, The Netherlands,
1993.
[20] P.M. Winkler, Isometric embedding in products of complete graphs, Dis-
crete Appl. Math. 8 (1984) 209–212.
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CO/0512282
	Introduction
	Hypercubes and partial cubes
	Characterizations
	Fundamental sets in partial cubes
	Dimensions of partial cubes
	Subcubes and Cartesian products
	Pasting partial cubes
	Expansions and contractions of partial cubes
	Conclusion
