Bounded-size ω→-witness subtournament
Question 5.9 · arXiv:2310.04265
Status disproved high confidence
Disproved by the arbitrarily large k-ω⃗-critical tournaments of Chen and Wang (Theorem 1.1, arXiv:2609.08658): for fixed k ≥ 3, no bound on witness size can hold at the unchanged threshold k.
Cited literature (2)
-
counterexample Cayley Tournaments Simultaneously Critical for the Clique and Dichromatic Numbers (2026)
Theorem 1.1 supplies arbitrarily large k-ω⃗-critical tournaments for every k ≥ 3, refuting the bounded-witness question.
-
Corollary 7 proves bounded-size witnesses under the stronger hypothesis ω⃗(T) ≥ f(k), settling the weaker Conjecture 5.8, not the unchanged-threshold Question 5.9.
Reviewer notes. Corrected on 2026-09-10 following Samuel Coulomb's report; both cited results were checked in the full text. To derive the counterexample, fix k ≥ 3 and choose a k-ω⃗-critical T larger than any proposed bound ℓ(k). Every candidate witness A omits a vertex v, so ω⃗(T[A]) ≤ ω⃗(T - v) = k - 1 by monotonicity. This does not contradict the weaker threshold result in Corollary 7.
Context
This is a stronger form of Conjecture 5.8 in which the function $f$ is taken to be the identity. The authors could not disprove it, and note that Conjecture 5.10 (infinitely many $k$-$\operatorname{\overrightarrow{\omega}}$-critical tournaments) would answer it negatively.
Source paper
Clique number of tournaments
Pierre Aboulker, Guillaume Aubian, Pierre Charbit, Raul Lopes · 2023-10-06
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04265