Indexed metadata

Covering Families for DP-Coloring of Cartesian Products with Complete Bipartite Graphs

Hemanshu Kaul, Jeffrey A. Mudrock, Emily A. Psyhogios, Gunjan Sharma, Illia Siutkin, Aparna Upadhyay

Source record

Source: arXiv

Published: Sep 27, 2026

arXiv: 2609.33966

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

A famous folklore result in list coloring demonstrating that the gap between the list chromatic number and chromatic number of a graph can be arbitrarily large is: χℓ(Kl,t)=1+lχ_{\ell}(K_{l,t}) = 1+l if and only if t≥llt \geq l^l. DP-coloring (also called correspondence coloring) is a well-studied generalization of list coloring introduced in 2015. In 2018, Mudrock studied the DP analogue of the aforementioned folklore result. He proved that for l∈Nl \in\mathbb{N}, if μ(l)μ(l) is the smallest integer tt such that χDP(Kl,t)=1+lχ_{DP}(K_{l,t})=1+l, then ⌈ll/l!⌉≤μ(l)≤1+ll(log⁡(l!)+1)/l!\left\lceil l^l/l!\right\rceil \leq μ(l) \leq 1+l^l(\log(l!)+1)/l!. Recently, Kaul, Mudrock, and Sharma studied a more general version of this problem by studying the smallest tt for which χDP(G□Kl,t)=k+lχ_{DP}(G \square K_{l,t}) = k + l, where GG satisfies certain criticality conditions and G□Kl,tG \square K_{l,t} denotes the Cartesian product of GG and Kl,tK_{l,t}. In this paper, we introduce a notion we call covering families that gives a new perspective on these DP-coloring questions. In particular, if κ(l)κ(l) denotes the minimum size of a covering family of [l]l[l]^l, we show that μ(l)=κ(l)μ(l)=κ(l). We use this equivalence to prove μ(4)=12μ(4)=12 and to obtain new general lower bounds on μ(l)μ(l). We also prove a general upper bound on the minimum size of covering families which yields an improved general upper bound on μ(l)μ(l) and gives improvements on known bounds for related DP-coloring questions involving Cartesian products with complete bipartite graphs.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.