Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-05
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Property (*) and leaf reducibility yield five comb outcomes in a restricted graph

Statement

Suppose that F has property () and that F is leaf-reducible. Then there exist constants c1,c2,c3>0 and c4,c54 such that for every 0<xy24c5 and every y3-restricted F-free graph G, at least one of the following holds:

  1. there are disjoint sets X,YV(G) with Xyc4G,Y(1c5y)G, and Y is x-sparse or complete to X;
  2. G has a 2y4-restricted induced subgraph with at least yc4G vertices;
  3. G has a clique or stable set of size at least (x9G)c1;
  4. G has a complete or anticomplete (k,G/kc2+6/c3)-blockade for some real kyc3;
  5. G has a pure (,G/8)-blockade for some real [y1,x2].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite family F with property () and leaf-reducible, parameters 0<xy24c5, and a y3-restricted F-free graph G.

[L1]

Because F has property (), there exist constants c1,c2,c3>0 such that every special-vertex (,w)-comb with ,w4 in an F-free graph yields either a clique or stable set of size wc1, or a complete or anticomplete (k,w/kc2)-blockade with kc3, or a pure (,w/2)-blockade (Property (*) for a finite graph family).

[L2]

Since F is leaf-reducible, there exist constants d>0 and h1 such that every y3-sparse F-free graph has either a large anticomplete pair or a y12-restricted induced subgraph of size at least (y3)4d+1G=y12d+3G (Leaf-reducible families yield a large anticomplete pair or a deeper restricted induced subgraph).

[L3]

If G is y3-sparse and Gy4, then either there are disjoint sets X,YV(G) with Xy4G, Y(14y)G, and Y x-sparse to X, or G is 2y4-sparse, or G contains a special-vertex comb with parameters [y1,x2] and width w=y4G/2 (A sparse graph either sparsifies further or yields a comb or a large sparse pair).

Proof

technique · treat the dense side by applying the leaf-reducible lemma to $\overline G$, and otherwise apply the sparse comb lemma to $G$ and feed the comb branch into property $(*)$
1.1

Let c1,c2,c3 be the constants from [L1]. Let d>0 and h1 be the constants from [L2], and set c4:=max{12d+3,4},c5:=max{h,4}.

L1L2choose
1.2

[assume-case dense-side] Suppose first that G is y3-sparse. Because G is F-free, the complement graph G is F-free. Applying [L2] to G with the parameter y3 and b=4, we obtain either:

  1. disjoint sets X,YV(G) with Xy12d+3G, Y(1hy)G, and Y complete to X in G; or
  2. a y12-restricted induced subgraph of G with at least y12d+3G vertices.

In the first branch, c412d+3 and c5h, so outcome 1 holds. In the second branch, [L4] transfers restrictedness back to G, and because y122y4 for 0<y<1, outcome 2 holds. [step 1.1, L2, L4, given, algebra]

2.1

[assume-case sparse-side] We may therefore assume that G itself is y3-sparse. If Gx9, then (x9G)c11, so any vertex of G already gives outcome 3. Hence we may further assume that Gx9y4.

step 1.1step 1.2given
3.1

Apply [L3] to the sparse graph G. If its first branch holds, then outcome 1 holds immediately. If its second branch holds, then outcome 2 holds immediately. So only the comb branch remains.

step 2.1L3cases
4.1

In that comb branch, [L3] gives an integer 0[y1,x2], a width w:=y4G/02, an (0,w)-comb ((ai,Bi):i[0]), and a vertex v complete to iBi and anticomplete to the teeth. Since xy24c5 and c54, one has x216 and hence 0y14. Also x2x2+12x2, so w=y4G02y4G(2x2)2x8G4x9G, because yx and x14. Using Gx9 from step 2.1 and x216 again, this also gives wx1/44.

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1algebra
5.1

Apply [L1] to this special-vertex comb. If it yields a clique or stable set of size at least wc1, then step 4.1 gives wc1(x9G)c1, so outcome 3 holds.

step 1.1step 4.1L1algebra
5.2

If [L1] yields a complete or anticomplete (k,w/kc2)-blockade with k0c3, then wkc2G06kc2Gkc2+6/c3, and also k0c3yc3. So outcome 4 holds.

step 4.1L1algebra
5.3

If [L1] yields a pure (0,w/02)-blockade, set :=0/y. Because 0y1, one has y1 and also 0, so the same blockade has length at least . Since 02x2 and yx, 2=0/y2x2/x=2x3x4, because x12, and therefore x2. Finally, w02=y4G04=G8. Hence outcome 5 holds.

step 4.1L1algebra
6.1

Steps 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 exhaust all cases, so one of the five stated outcomes always holds.

step 1.2step 2.1step 3.1step 5.1step 5.2step 5.3cases-exhaustive

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

24 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources