WorksMathematics
Counterexamples to a conjecture and improved bounds for bipanchromatic colorings
Abstract
We study the bipanchromatic number , introduced by Lalou et al. (Discrete Appl. Math. 391 (2026), 511-522) as the maximum number of colors in a panchromatic hypergraph coloring where every color appears at least twice. They show that merging uniquely occurring colors in a maximum panchromatic coloring gives the lower bound , where is the panchromatic number and is the minimum number of such colors among maximum panchromatic colorings. They conjectured that and subsequently disproved it (arXiv:2610.08042). We identify the smallest counterexample, with six vertices and three hyperedges, both minimum possible. We show that the ratio bound is asymptotically sharp and prove minimality results for the order and hyperedge count. For we show that every integer from to occurs as while and are held fixed. Furthermore, we discover that the values directly decide whether the conjectured equality holds except when , where a matching reduction resolves the ambiguity. We derive the optimal universal lower bound depending only on in the nontrivial regime . Finally, we prove and , with sharp and asymptotically sharp as .
Introduction
A panchromatic coloring [1, 2, 3, 4] uses every color in every hyperedge, with maximum colors. Lalou et al. [1] introduced bipanchromatic colorings to study completely independent spanning trees in split graphs. These colorings use each color at least twice overall, with maximum . Let be the minimum number of colors occurring once in a -coloring. Their conjecture [1 Conjecture 1] predicts by merging those colors.
The same authors subsequently disproved this conjecture [5]. They construct counterexamples as three-hyperedge sunflowers with a common set of vertices and three disjoint petals of size , where and . Their parameters are , , and . Thus the conjectured value is exceeded by exactly , on vertices. Our three-hyperedge construction uses vertices for the same excess (Proposition 2).
Without restricting the number of hyperedges, we prove that the minimum order is and classify all examples attaining it (Theorem 6). Their family has actual-to-conjectured ratio at most . We determine the sharp worst-case ratio over all hypergraphs, proving that it is strictly below two and can approach two (Theorem 5). We develop the coloring bounds and equality criteria suggested in their concluding remarks [5 Section 5].
Sections 2–3 introduce the colorings and counterexamples. Section 4 establishes sharp bounds and characterizes minimum-size counterexamples. Section 5 determines, with minimum order, all possible values with fixed and , showing that no formula depending only on and can determine for every hypergraph. Section 6 shows that the hypergraph order, and determine if the conjectured equality holds, except when which is resolved by maximum matching. In Section 7, the optimal lower bound for is determined from , and , with and , where is sharp and is asymptotically sharp as .
Preliminaries
A hypergraph consists of a non-empty set (the vertices of ) and a hyperedge set . If every hyperedge of contains exactly vertices, is -uniform. A proper coloring of a hypergraph assigns colors to its vertices so that no hyperedge of size at least two is monochromatic.
Definition 1 (Panchromatic colors). A panchromatic -coloring of assigns colors to its vertices so that each hyperedge contains at least one vertex of each color. The maximum such is the panchromatic number .
Definition 2 (Minimum unique-color count). A color is unique in a panchromatic coloring of if it is used on exactly one vertex. For every integer , let denote the minimum number of vertices with unique colors among all panchromatic -colorings of . By convention, .
Definition 3 (Bipanchromatic colors). A panchromatic -coloring is bipanchromatic [1] if no color is unique. The bipanchromatic number of is the maximum such that admits a bipanchromatic coloring.
Observe that . Since every color appears on at least two vertices, it follows that .
When the hypergraph is implied, we omit the argument and write , , and . Write . Lalou et al. [1 Conjecture 1] conjectured that
This equality was disproved in [5 Proposition 1]. For , choose a panchromatic -coloring with unique colors. Merge the unique colors in pairs. If one unique color remains, merge it with any other color. This results in a bipanchromatic coloring with colors. Thus, is a lower bound for . The equality in [1 Conjecture 1] would mean that this merging procedure is optimal. The examples in § 3 have bipanchromatic colorings with more colors than this procedure produces. We define excess which measures the difference between and the lower bound in (1).
Counterexamples
The sunflower is an -uniform hypergraph with vertices and hyperedges. The set of vertices is , where and are disjoint, and its hyperedges are for all .
Theorem 1 (Sunflower counterexamples). For with ,
Consequently, , so every is a counterexample to [1 Conjecture 1]. In particular, for every , has vertices, hyperedges, and .
Proof. We can color each by , and all by . This is a panchromatic coloring (Figure 1(a)), and . Any panchromatic -coloring of uses each color only once per hyperedge . The colors on have to be unique, thus and every has the same color. Merging the unique colors gives colors (Figure 1(b)). However, we can color each distinctly (Figure 1(c)). Each hyperedge then contains colors, none of which is unique. Notice that , thus and .

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 1. colorings. Hyperedges are . (a) Unique colors on and one color on give colors. (b) Merging on gives colors. (c) Each has its own color, giving colors.
Thus, the gap between and the quantity in [1 Conjecture 1] is unbounded. In particular, adding any fixed constant to the right-hand side cannot make the conjecture valid in general.
Figure 1(a) shows a -coloring of attaining . Figure 1(b) shows a bipanchromatic coloring obtained by merging unique colors. Figure 1(c) shows a bipanchromatic coloring with more colors.
For excess , the three-hyperedge construction in [5 Proposition 1] uses at least vertices. The following construction uses . It is obtained by enlarging . Replace each vertex by a group of vertices and each hyperedge by the union of the groups corresponding to its vertices.
Proposition 2 (Three-hyperedge counterexamples). For , let , , , be pairwise disjoint sets with and . Let , , and . The excess is equal to .
Proof. Color the vertices of with distinct colors. Using additional distinct colors, color the vertices of each with distinct colors. This is panchromatic, so . Any -coloring of uses each color only once per hyperedge , so only the colors on are unique, thus . Now color the vertices of with distinct colors and repeat each such color on exactly one vertex in . This gives . Thus, .
Bounds and minimality
Consider an arbitrary hypergraph with panchromatic number . For any integer , let . In particular, let . [1 Conjecture 1] asserts that , but this does not hold in general. However, for any -panchromatic coloring of attaining , the pairing argument used in [1] produces a bipanchromatic coloring with colors. Thus, for every we obtain a lower bound for , and the largest of these bounds equals .
Corollary 3 (Merging-based lower bound). For an arbitrary hypergraph and for each integer we obtain that . Furthermore, we have that .
Lemma 4 (Equality cases and counterexample bounds). (i) If , then . In particular, equality holds if . (ii) If , then and .
Proof. (i) Corollary 3 gives . If , a -coloring is already bipanchromatic, so . If , no -coloring is bipanchromatic, so . For , . If , then , so , so .
(ii) By (i), . Thus . Corollary 3 gives , and gives as above.
Let denote the actual-to-conjectured ratio.
Theorem 5 (Sharp ratio bounds). If , then , and the upper bound is asymptotically sharp. For , the sharper bound is attained for every fixed value of .
Proof. By Lemma 4 it holds that , with equality precisely when (1) is true. Suppose that . If , then Lemma 4(ii) gives the upper bound. For , Theorem 1 gives . The sharp bounds are strictly below 2 and tend to 2 as .
The order of a hypergraph is the number of its vertices . We show has minimum order among hypergraphs satisfying .
Theorem 6 (Excess-based minimum order). If a hypergraph satisfies , then . Moreover, if and , then, after removing hyperedges that properly contain other hyperedges, .
Proof. By Lemma 4(ii), and . Hence
Thus, , and consequently .
Suppose that and . It follows from (3) that and . Since (), we obtain . Moreover, . Since it follows that .
Consider a panchromatic -coloring of , and let be the set of its uniquely colored vertices. All remaining vertices have a common color . For every vertex of color , there is a hyperedge . Otherwise, if every hyperedge containing also contained another vertex of ’s color, recoloring with an existing unique color preserves panchromaticity and contradicts the supposed . Removing hyperedges that properly contain other hyperedges leaves .
Every counterexample has at least three hyperedges. Choose a -coloring attaining . If every non-unique color occurred twice, then , so , a contradiction. Thus some color occurs on at least three vertices. Since , the same recoloring argument shows that each such vertex is the only -colored vertex in some hyperedge. These hyperedges are distinct.
Proposition 2 attains this three-hyperedge minimum with for every . However, Theorem 6 implies that every hypergraph of minimum order satisfying has at least hyperedges. Thus, for , the minimum numbers of vertices and hyperedges cannot be attained simultaneously.
Nondetermination
By Corollary 3 and Lemma 4, if , then . We will show that every integer value of in this range can be realized for the given pair . Thus, cannot be expressed as a function of and alone.
Proposition 7 (Realization of prescribed coloring parameters). Let , , be integers satisfying
Then there exists a hypergraph satisfying , , .
Proof. Start with two hyperedges and , each of size , whose intersection is a set of size , as shown in Figure 2(a). Choose vertices and , and write
where .
Since any hypergraph admitting a bipanchromatic -coloring has at least vertices, we set
and add new vertices . Let . We then add new hyperedges
see in Figure 2(b). This gives a -uniform hypergraph , where
By (4) and the definition of , . We define a -panchromatic coloring of as follows:
The vertices of receive pairwise distinct colors.
The vertices of and are paired, with each pair receiving its own color. This introduces additional colors.
Introduce one new color. Assign that same color to every vertex of .
See Figure 2(b) for details. Every hyperedge contains all colors, so . Moreover, exactly the colors assigned to the vertices of are unique in any -coloring, and hence .
To obtain a bipanchromatic -coloring of (Figure 2(c)), we retain the colors assigned to the vertices of . Since , we can pair the vertices of with a subset of . We then merge the colors of the remaining vertices of in pairs, as indicated in the figure. We recolor any leftover vertex with an existing pair’s color. The resulting coloring is bipanchromatic and uses colors. Thus, .

Figure 2. Proposition 7 at and . , and . The contours represent the hyperedges , . (a) The initial construction. (b) Adding new vertices and hyperedges, and 8-coloring. (c) Bipanchromatic coloring by pairing.
The construction realizes the prescribed parameters using at most hyperedges, each of size . Together with Lemma 4(i), this shows that and uniquely determine only when .
The minimum number of vertices in a hypergraph with prescribed feasible parameters is . Indeed, a -coloring attaining gives . A bipanchromatic -coloring also gives .
For , the construction in Proposition 7 has exactly vertices.
In the remaining cases, Lemma 4(i) gives . Take two sets of size intersecting in vertices, use them as hyperedges, and take their union as the vertex set. When , this gives just one hyperedge. The panchromatic number is , and every maximum panchromatic coloring has unique colors precisely on the common vertices. The same lemma therefore gives bipanchromatic number . This construction has vertices, attaining the lower bound.
Characterization of equality
Here we discuss conditions characterizing (equivalently ) for an arbitrary hypergraph.
Proposition 8 (Zero excess characterization). Assume that is a hypergraph with . Then if and only if .
Proof. Assume that and consider a -coloring of . Let if is odd and otherwise. If a color occurs at least times, recolor all vertices of color with existing unique colors, using each at least once. Merge the remaining uniquely colored vertices in pairs. This yields a bipanchromatic coloring of , contradicting . Therefore, if is odd, then every color occurs at most twice, and if is even, every color occurs at most thrice. If two distinct colors each occur three times, recolor their six vertices with six colors that are used only once (since ), and then merge the remaining uniquely colored vertices in pairs, again obtaining a coloring with colors. Thus, at most one color occurs thrice, so , and .
The converse follows from the definition.
For a hypergraph with , the equality requires further consideration. Consider mutually disjoint sets , and for . We define two hypergraphs and whose hyperedge sets are, respectively
Notice that , , and . However, and .
Therefore, if , we need an additional analysis. For a given hypergraph , define a simple graph , where
Proposition 9 (Matching reduction). Let be a hypergraph with and let be the size of a maximum matching of . Then if and only if .
Proof. Since and , then . Consider any bipanchromatic -coloring. Each color occurring exactly twice determines an edge of . These edges are vertex-disjoint, so they form a matching in . Therefore, we have at most colors used exactly two times. Consequently, , so .
If , then , and therefore .
For the converse, assume and choose a panchromatic -coloring attaining . If some color occurs at least four times, we can recolor all vertices of color with the four colors that are used only once. This produces a bipanchromatic coloring with colors, contradicting .
Therefore, every color is used at most three times. Let denote the number of colors used exactly times. Then, , and .
The pairs corresponding to the color classes must form a maximum matching in , where is the set of vertices receiving the four unique colors. Otherwise, an augmenting path would yield a larger matching, whose pairs could be assigned distinct colors in a panchromatic coloring of (the pairs intersect every hyperedge). The endpoints and of such an augmenting path belong to three-vertex color classes . Reassign the colors so that each matching pair forms its own color class. If and belong to the same three-vertex color class, assign the color of one of the four uniquely colored vertices to the third vertex of that class. This produces a -coloring with three uniquely colored vertices, a contradiction. If and belong to different three-vertex color classes, assign the four unique colors to their other four vertices. This produces a bipanchromatic coloring with colors, again a contradiction, since . Thus, , and thus
Given and promises and , (or ) is decidable in polynomial time.
Order-aware improved bounds
In this section, we introduce another lower bound for the bipanchromatic number, based on our construction, and show that . Thus, improves the lower bound .
Consider a hypergraph with and . If , then . Indeed, the unique vertices can be paired with the non-unique vertices, and any remaining vertices can be assigned colors so that every color used occurs at least twice. For the sunflower (see Theorem 1), where , we have and , while as .
We now consider the case and choose a panchromatic -coloring of with unique colors. Let denote the number of colors used more than once. Suppose that color is used on vertices, where
Observe that .
Let be the smallest index such that . Such an integer exists because . Recolor all vertices in the first color classes with the unique colors so that each of these colors is used at least twice. This yields a bipanchromatic coloring of with colors.
Since for every , we have . Consequently, .
To obtain a bound for , write Euclidean division of by as:
Define
Unlike , which uses the chosen coloring, depends only on , , and .
Proposition 10 (Least class recoloring). Assume that the parameters of a hypergraph are defined as above. If , then
Proof. For every , if , the first classes contain at least vertices. Otherwise, the last classes contain at most vertices, so the first contain at least . Thus
The balanced sequence
attains equality for every . Its first terms sum to at least exactly when both and , so is its least such index. Therefore . Since and , the formula for gives , proving the stated bounds.
Remark. If the three-hyperedge family described in [5 Proposition 1] satisfies , then its parameters considered in Proposition 10 are , , and . Thus . The boundary case is covered by the observation at the start of this section. So, our order-aware bound gives the exact bipanchromatic number throughout that family.
Let . If , then , and is an upper bound for .
Now, we examine the relations between , , and .
Theorem 11 (Improved bound ratio). The bounds and always satisfy
In particular, implies . For all feasible inputs,
Proof. Use the balanced sequence from Proposition 10. These are not necessarily the actual color-class sizes of . Their sum is , and is the least index for which the first terms sum to at least .
Set . We prove that . Since , we obtain . By minimality of , it follows that
Consequently,
Since , and for ,
Since and (by definition), inequality (11) yields
We use and to consider the following four cases:
| From (12) | From (10) | Conclusion | |
| 2 | – | ||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| – |
Table 1.
Therefore, , which gives . For we obtain . For ,
□
Remark. The conclusions of Theorem 11 also hold with in place of . Indeed, , so and .
We prove that for fixed parameters , without more information, the bound is the best possible.
Proposition 12 (Optimality). For any valid parameters , with , there exists a hypergraph with these prescribed parameters that satisfies .
Proof. Compute and as before. Set and consider pairwise disjoint sets with , , and . Choose with . We define the hypergraph , where
Thus is attained, and every hyperedge has size . Now, we define a coloring of such that vertices in receive distinct colors, each uses all remaining colors once, and, if , each color from is used exactly once on . This gives a panchromatic coloring of with colors. In any panchromatic -coloring of , precisely the vertices in have unique colors, so is attained.
Now, we consider a bipanchromatic -coloring of . Assume that precisely colors occur on . Each of the other colors occurs in every , so at least times. Those also absent from must occur on , so they occur at least times. At most of the colors occur on . Therefore
Substituting , , and gives
By the definition of , it follows that
Thus every bipanchromatic coloring has at most colors. Since also by Proposition 10, we obtain .
Therefore, at every feasible triple in this range, any universally valid lower bound using only is at most . Since is itself valid, it is the strongest such lower bound.
Corollary 13 (Optimal ratio guarantees). For , the factor in (8) is attained. The constant in (9) is asymptotically sharp as . These are optimal constants from , , .
Proof. For any , Proposition 7 describes a hypergraph whose parameters are . Here we obtain , , , and , so
This is at and tends to as . Proposition 12 confirms optimality.
AI Assistance
ChatGPT was used to assist with proof development. All AI-assisted arguments were reviewed and revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final manuscript.
References
- [1]M. Lalou, N. Mbarek, A. Skender, O. Togni, Completely independent spanning trees in split graphs: Structural properties and complexity, Discrete Appl. Math. 391 (2026), 511–522.
- [2]L. Lovász, A generalization of König’s theorem, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 21 (1970), 443–446.DOI
- [3]B. Bollobás, D. Pritchard, T. Rothvoß, A. Scott, Cover-decomposition and polychromatic numbers, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 27 (2013), 240–256.
- [4]D. Cherkashin, A note on panchromatic colorings, Discrete Math. 341 (2018), 652–657.arxiv.org/abs/1705.03797
- [5]M. Lalou, N. Mbarek, A. Skender, O. Togni, On hypergraph colorings and completely independent spanning trees in chordal graphs, arXiv:2610.08042v1 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2610.08042