Estimating the circumference of a graph in terms of its leaf number

Abstract: Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the set of spanning trees of $G$ and let $L(T)$ be the number of leaves in a tree $T$. The leaf number $L(G)$ of $G$ is defined as $L(G)=\max\{L(T)|T\in \mathcal{T}\}$. Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and minimum degree $\delta$ such that $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1$. We show that the circumference of $G$ is at least $n-1$, and that if $G$ is regular then $G$ is hamiltonian.

\section{Introduction}
We will deal with only finite nontrivial simple graphs. Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$. The order and size of a graph $G$ are its number of vertices and edges, respectively. The notations $N_G(v)$ and $N_G[v]$ denote the neighborhood and closed neighborhood of $v\in V(G)$, respectively. The degree of $v$ is $d_G(v)=|N_G(v)|$. $\delta(G)$ and $\Delta(G)$ denote the minimum and maximum degree of a graph $G$, respectively. If the graph $G$ is clear from the context, we will omit it as subscript. For terminology and notations not explicitly described in this paper, the reader is referred the books \cite{BM,W}.

Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the set of spanning trees of $G$. $L(T)$ denotes the number of leaves in a tree $T$, where a leaf means a vertex of degree 1. Then the leaf number $L(G)=\max\{L(T)|T\in \mathcal{T}\}$. Many researchers have estimated the circumference of graphs by various invariants. The purpose of this paper is to estimate the circumference of a connected graph $G$ by the two invariants $\delta(G)$ and $L(G)$.

DeLaVi\~{n}a's computer program, Graffiti.pc, posed attractive conjectures \cite{DE} and some of the conjectures speculate sufficient conditions for traceability based on the minimum degree and leaf number. In 2013, Mukwembi gave a partial solution to the Graffiti.pc 190a. He \cite{M12013} showed that if $G$ is a finite connected graph with minimum degree $\delta(G)\geq 5$, and leaf number $L(G)$ such that $\delta(G)\geq L(G)-1$, then $G$ is hamiltonian and thus traceable. In the same year, he \cite{M22013} relaxed the condition $\delta(G)\geq 5$ to $\delta(G)\geq 3$. After that, Mukwembi \cite{M32013} proved that if $G$ is a connected claw-free graph with $\delta(G)\geq (L(G)+1)/2$, then $G$ is hamiltonian. In recent years, several authors reported on sufficient conditions for a graph to be hamiltonian or traceable based on minimum degree and leaf number, see \cite{M,MM,MMM,MMMV,MM2}.

We state the following results, some of which will be used later in this paper.

\begin{theo}\label{th1}\cite{MMMV}
If $G$ is a connected graph with $\delta(G)\geq (L(G)+2)/2$, then $G$ is hamiltonian.
\end{theo}

\begin{theo}\label{th2}\cite{MMM}
If $G$ is a connected graph with $\delta(G)\geq (L(G)+1)/2$, then $G$ is traceable.
\end{theo}

\begin{theo}\label{th3}\cite{MM2}
Let $G$ be a connected triangle-free graph with $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$. Then $G$ is either hamiltonian or $G\in \mathcal{F}_2$, where $\mathcal{F}_2$ is the class of non-hamiltonian graphs with leaf number $2\delta(G)-1$.
\end{theo}

Let $p(G)$ and $c(G)$ be the order of a longest path and a longest cycle in a graph $G$, respectively. Note that $c(G)$ is equal to the circumference of a graph $G$. Many researchers have investigated the relation between $p(G)$ and $c(G)$ (\cite{EHKS},\cite{L},\cite{OY},\cite{PY}). Motivated by Theorem \ref{th2}, we obtain the following main result.

\begin{theo}\label{th4}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. If $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G) -1$, then $c(G)\geq n-1$. The bound is sharp and the condition cannot be relaxed.
\end{theo}

We also consider regular graphs.

\section{Main results}
We start with some lemmas that will be used repeatedly.
\begin{lem}\label{lem5}\cite{M32013}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. If $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$, then $n\leq \max\{2\delta(G)+6, 3\delta(G)\}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem6}\cite{M32013}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$. Then $G$ is 2-connected.
\end{lem}

For a graph $G$, $\kappa(G)$ and $\alpha(G)$ denote the connectivity and independent number of $G$, respectively. Let $\sigma_k(G)$ be the minimum degree sum of $k$ independent vertices of $G$ if $\alpha(G)\geq k$. $K_n$ stands for the \emph{complete graph} of order $n$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem7}\cite{CE}
Let $G$ be a connected graph. If $\kappa(G)\geq \alpha(G)$, then $G$ is hamiltonian except for $G=K_2$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem8}\cite{EHKS}
Let $G$ be a 2-connected graph of order $n$. If $\sigma_3(G)\geq n+2$, then $c(G)\geq p(G)-1$.
\end{lem}

Now we first show that the result of Theorem \ref{th4} is true when $n\leq 3\delta(G)$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem9}\cite{M22013}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. If $\delta(G)=2$ and $L(G)\leq 3$, then $c(G)\geq n-1$.
\end{lem}

Given graphs $G$ and $H$, the notation $G + H$ means the \emph{disjoint union} of $G$ and $H$. Then $tG$ denotes the disjoint union of $t$ copies of $G$. The notation $G \vee H$ means the \emph{joint} of $G$ and $H$. For graphs we will use equality up to isomorphism, so $G = H$ means that $G$ and $H$ are isomorphic.

For any graph $G$, $G[S]$ denotes the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S \subseteq V(G)$. Let $A,B\subseteq V(G)$ and $A\cap B=\emptyset$. Denote by $E(A,B)$ the set of edges of $G$ with one end in $A$ and the other end in $B$ and $e(A,B)=|E(A,B)|$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem10}\cite{EHKS}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with order $n\geq 3$. If $\sigma_3(G)\geq n$, then $G$ satisfies $c(G)\geq p(G)-1$ or $G\in\mathcal{F}(n)$, where $\mathcal{F}(n)$ is the class of graphs defined below.
\end{lem}

$\mathcal{F}(n)$ consists six subclasses:\\
$$\mathcal{F}(n)=\mathcal{F}_1(n)\cup\mathcal{F}_2(n)\cup\mathcal{F}_3(n)\cup\mathcal{F}_4(n)\cup\mathcal{F}_5(n)\cup\mathcal{F}_6(n).$$

For any graph $G\in \mathcal{F}(n)$, we have $|V(G)|=n$ and $\sigma_3(G)\geq n$. The subclasses are defined as follows (more details can be found in \cite{EHKS}):

$\mathcal{F}_1(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_1(n)$ if $V(G)=A\cup B$ with $A\cap B=\emptyset$, $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ are hamiltonian or isomorphic to $K_2$, and $e(A,B)=1$.

$\mathcal{F}_2(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_2(n)$ if $V(G)=A\cup B$ with $A\cap B=\{x\}$, $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ are both hamiltonian or both isomorphic to $K_2$, and $e(A\setminus\{x\},B\setminus\{x\})=0$.

$\mathcal{F}_3(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_3(n)$ if $G$ is a 2-connected spanning subgraph of $K_2 \vee (K_a+ K_b+ K_c)$ with $a,b,c\geq 2$ ($n=a+b+c+2$).

$\mathcal{F}_4(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_4(n)$ if $G$ is a 2-connected spanning subgraph of $K_3 \vee (aK_2+ bK_3)$ with $a,b\geq 0$ and $a+b=4$ ($n=2a+3b+3$, $11\leq n\leq 15$).

$\mathcal{F}_5(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_5(n)$ if $G$ is a 2-connected spanning subgraph of $K_s \vee (sK_2+K_3)$ with $s\geq 4$ ($n=3s+3$).

$\mathcal{F}_6(n)$: $G\in \mathcal{F}_6(n)$ if $G$ is a 2-connected spanning subgraph of $K_s \vee (s+1)K_2$ with $s\geq 4$ ($n=3s+2$).

\begin{theo}\label{th11}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with order $n\leq 3\delta(G)$. If $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$, then $c(G)\geq n-1$.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with order $n\leq 3\delta(G)$ and $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$. By Lemma \ref{lem6}, $G$ is 2-connected. If $\alpha(G)\leq 2$, by Lemma \ref{lem7}, then $G$ is hamiltonian and hence $c(G)\geq n-1$. Clearly, $\delta(G)\neq 1$. By Lemma \ref{lem9}, the result holds true for $\delta(G)= 2$. Now, it suffices to consider the case of $\alpha(G)\geq 3$ and $\delta(G)=\delta
\geq 3$. Note that $G$ is a connected graph with order $n>3$, by Theorem \ref{th2} and Lemma \ref{lem10}, $c(G)\geq p(G)-1=n-1$ or $G\in\mathcal{F}(n)$. Suppose to the contrary that $G\in \mathcal{F}(n)$.

Recall that $G$ is 2-connected. This implies that $G\notin \mathcal{F}_1(n)\cup \mathcal{F}_2(n)$. First suppose $G\in\mathcal{F}_3(n)$. For any vertex $x$ of $V(K_a)$, $d_{K_a}(x)\geq \delta-2$ in $G$ and hence $|V(K_a)|\geq \delta-1$. Similarly, $|V(K_b)|\geq \delta-1$ and $|V(K_c)|\geq \delta-1$. Then
$$|V(K_a)|+|V(K_b)|+|V(K_c)|+2\geq 3(\delta-1)+2=3\delta -1.$$
It implies that either $n=3\delta-1$ or $n=3 \delta$. For the first case, $|V(K_a)|=|V(K_b)|=|V(K_c)|=\delta-1$ and hence $G=K_2 \vee (K_a+K_b+K_c)$. It can easily be shown that $G$ contains a spanning tree with leaf number at least $2\delta$, a contradiction. For the second case, exactly one of $|V(K_a)|$, $|V(K_a)|$ and $|V(K_a)|$ is equal to $\delta$, and the rest are equal to $\delta-1$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $|V(K_a)|=\delta$ and $|V(K_b)|=|V(K_c)|=\delta-1$. Then $G[G-V(K_a)]=K_2 \vee (K_b+ K_c)$. The subgraph induced by the vertex set of $G[G-V(K_a)]$ with one vertex of $V(K_a)$ has a spanning tree with leaf number $2\delta$, contradicting $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1$. Thus $G\notin \mathcal{F}_3(n)$.

Next assume that $G\in \mathcal{F}_4(n)$. For $n\leq 3\delta-2$, by Lemmas \ref{lem6} and \ref{lem8}, $c(G)\geq p(G)-1$ since $n\leq \sigma_3(G)-2$. For $3\delta-1\leq n\leq 3\delta$, $\delta=4$ or $5$ since $11\leq n\leq 15$. Note that $a+b=4$ and $n=a+b+c+2$. If $\delta=4$, $n=11,a=4,b=0$ or $n=12,a=3,b=1$. It is easy to check that $L(G)\geq 8>2\delta-1$ in both cases. If $\delta=5$, $n=14,a=1,b=3$ or $n=15,a=0,b=4$. Since $\delta=5$, the first case is not allowed. For $n=15,a=0,b=4$, we have $L(G)\geq 10>2\delta-1$. Thus $G\notin \mathcal{F}_4(n)$.

Now assume that $G\in \mathcal{F}_5(n)$. For any vertex $x$ of $V(sK_2)$, $d_{K_s}(x)\geq \delta-1$ in $G$ and hence $|V(K_s)|\geq \delta-1$. Then $n=3s+3\geq 3(\delta-1)+3=3\delta$. Since $n\leq 3\delta$, then $s=\delta-1$. It implies that $G[V(K_s)\cup V(sK_2)]$ contains $(\delta-1)K_1\vee (\delta-1)K_2$ as a subgraph. Note that the subgraph induced by $V(K_3)$ contains no isolated vertex in $G$. Then we can split this into two cases. For $G[V(K_3)]=K_3$, it is easy to check that $G$ contains a spanning tree with leaf number at least $2\delta$, a contradiction. For $G[V(K_3)]=P_3$, let $w_1,w_2\in V(G[V(K_3)])$ and $d_{G[V(K_3)]}(w_1)=d_{G[V(K_3)]}(w_2)=1$. Then $d_{K_s}(w_1)= d_{K_s}(w_2)=\delta -1$. We also obtain $G$ has a spanning tree with leaf number at least $2\delta$, contradicting $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1$. Thus $G\notin \mathcal{F}_5(n)$.

It follows that $G\in \mathcal{F}_6(n)$. Since $n=3s+2\leq 3\delta$, we have $s\leq \delta-1$. For any vertex $x$ of $V((s+1)K_2)$, $d_{K_s}(x)\geq \delta-1$ in $G$ since $d(x)\geq \delta$. Then $s=\delta-1$ and $n=3s+2=3\delta-1$. Further, $G$ contains $K_1\vee \delta K_2$ as a subgraph. Thus, $G$ has a spanning tree with leaf number at least $2\delta$, a contradiction. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{th11}.
\end{proof}

Before giving the proof of the main theorem, we prove a conclusion about regular graphs.

\begin{lem}\label{lem12}\cite{H}
Every 2-connected $k$-regular ($k\geq 3$) graph of order at most $3k + 3$ is hamiltonian except the Petersen graph $P$ and the graph obtained from $P$ by replacing one vertex of $P$ by a triangle.
\end{lem}
Denote by $P^{\triangle}$ be the graph obtained from $P$ by replacing one vertex of $P$ by a triangle.

\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F1.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F2.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
\end{figure}

\begin{theo}\label{th13}
Let $G$ be a $k$-regular connected graph. If $L(G)\leq 2k-1$, then $G$ is hamiltonian and the condition cannot be relaxed.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to verify that $L(P)= 6$ and $L(P^{\triangle})= 7$ (see Fig 1 and Fig 2). The Petersen graph $P$ is non-hamiltonian but satisfies $L(P)=6=2k$, so the condition cannot be relaxed.

Let $G$ be a $k$-regular connected graph of order $n$ with $L(G)\leq 2k-1$. Since $L(G)\geq 2$, then $k\geq 2$. Clearly, $G$ is hamiltonian when $k=2$. Next suppose that $k\geq 3$. By Lemma \ref{lem5}, we have $n\leq \max \{2k+6, 3k\}$. Note that $3k+3\geq \max \{2k+6, 3k\}$ when $k\geq 3$. By Lemmas \ref{lem6} and \ref{lem12}, $G$ is hamiltonian. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{th13}.
\end{proof}

The following lemmas play the key role in the proof of Theorem \ref{th4}.

\begin{lem}\label{lem14}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$. For $\delta(G)\geq 3$, if there is one vertex $x\in V(G)$ with degree $2\delta(G)-1$, then $|V(G)\setminus N[x]|\leq 2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$. Since $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$, each vertex of $N(x)$ has at most one neighbour in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$. By Lemma \ref{lem6}, $G$ is 2-connected. Then there are two vertices $y_1, y_2 \in V(G)\setminus N[x]$ have neighbors in $N(x)$. Similarly, each vertex of $\{y_1,y_2\}$ has at most one neighbour in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$ and hence at least $\delta(G)-1$ neighbors in $N(x)$. Suppose that $|V(G)\setminus N[x]|\geq 3$. There exists one vertex $y_3 \in V(G)\setminus (N[x]\cup \{y_1,y_2\})$ and $y_3$ is adjacent to $y_1$ or $y_2$. Clearly, $N(y_3)\cap N(x)=\emptyset$. Without loss of generality, assume that $y_3$ is adjacent to $y_1$. $G[N[x]\cup \{y_1\}\cup N(y_3)]$ contains a tree with leaf number $3\delta(G)-3$. Further, since $\delta(G)\geq 3$, we have $3\delta(G)-3>2\delta(G)-1$, a contradiction. This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem14}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{lem15}\cite{D}
Let $G$ be a 2-connected graph of order $n$ and let $C$ be a longest cycle in $G$. Then $|V(C)|\geq \min\{n,2\delta(G)\}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem16}\cite{GW}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$.\\
(1) If $\delta(G)\geq 4$, then $L(G)\geq \frac{2n+8}{5}$.\\
(2) If $\delta(G)\geq 5$, then $L(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem17}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$ and let $C=c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k,c_1$ be a longest cycle in $G$. The subscripts of the vertices $c_t$ are taken modulo $k$.\\
(1) The vertices $c_i$ and $c_{i+1}$ have no common neighbor in $V(G)\setminus V(C)$.\\
(2) Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$. If $c_i,c_j\in N_C(x)$, then $c_{i+1}$ and $c_{j+1}$ cannot both belong to $N(y)$.\\
(3) Let $P_C=p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_s$ be a longest path in $G-V(C)$. If the vertices $p_1$ and $p_s$ have distinct neighbors in $V(C)$, then $s\leq \lfloor\frac{k}{2}\rfloor-1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to show that the results of Lemma \ref{lem17}, so we omit them.
\end{proof}
Finally, we show that the proof of Theorem \ref{th4}.
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n$. For $n\leq 3\delta(G)$, by Theorem \ref{th11}, $c(G)\geq n-1$. For $n\geq 3\delta(G)+1$, by Lemma \ref{lem5}, we have $\delta(G)\leq 5$. Clearly, $\delta(G)\neq 1$. By Lemma \ref{lem9}, the result is true when $\delta(G)= 2$. Denote by $\delta(G)=\delta$. Now, it suffices to consider the case of $3\delta+1\leq n\leq 2\delta+6$ and $3\leq\delta\leq 5$.

{\it Case 1.} $\delta=3$

Note that $10\leq n\leq 12$. Since $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1=5$, we have $3\leq\Delta(G)\leq 5$. If $\Delta(G)=3$, by Theorem \ref{th13}, $G$ is hamiltonian and hence $c(G)\geq n-1$. If $\Delta(G)=5$, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 6+2=8<10$, a contradiction. Next suppose that $\Delta(G)=4$. We discuss it in two Subcases according to the order of $G$.

{\it Subcase 1.1.} Consider $n=10$. Let $C=c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k,c_1$ be a longest cycle in $G$ and let $P_C$ be a longest path in $G-V(C)$. By Lemmas \ref{lem6} and \ref{lem15}, $k\geq 6$. Now we show that $k\geq 9$. Suppose to the contrary that $6\leq k\leq 8$.

For $k=6$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (3), $|V(P_C)|\leq 2$. Recall that $\delta=3$ and $\Delta(G)=4$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), we obtain at most two isolated vertices in $G-V(C)$. Hence $|V(P_C)|=2$ and $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=2K_1+K_2$ or $2K_2$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$ and $x$ is adjacent to $y$. Since $k=6$, we have $d(x)=d(y)=3$ and $N(x)\setminus \{y\}=N(y)\setminus \{x\}$. Clearly, $N(x)\setminus \{y\}=\{c_1,c_4\}$ or $\{c_2,c_5\}$ or $\{c_3,c_6\}$. It is not difficult to see that the proof methods for the above three cases are similar. So let us just consider the first case. Note that $|V(G)\setminus V(C)|=4$ and $\Delta(G)=4$. There is one vertex $z\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$ is adjacent to at least one of $\{c_2,c_3,c_5,c_6\}$. Suppose $z$ is adjacent to $c_2$. The subgraph induced by $\{c_6,c_1,x,y,c_2,c_3,z\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 5. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 7+2=9$, a contradiction. The remaining cases can be proved in the same way.

For $k=7$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (3), $|V(P_C)|\leq 2$. If $|V(P_C)|= 2$, then $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=K_1+K_2$. Let $x,y,z\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$ and $x$ is adjacent to $y$. It is easy to check that $d(x)=d(y)=3$ and $N(x)\setminus \{y\}=N(y)\setminus \{x\}$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N(x)\setminus \{y\}=\{c_1,c_4\}$. Recall that $\delta=3$ and $\Delta(G)=4$. Then $z$ is adjacent to at least three vertices in $V(C)\setminus \{c_1,c_4\}$. If $z$ is adjacent to $c_2$, the subgraph induced by $\{c_6,c_1,x,y,c_2,c_3,z\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 5. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 7+2=9$, a contradiction. Using a similar argument as above, we deduce that $z$ is not adjacent to $c_3$, $c_5$ and $c_6$, contradicting $d(z)\geq 3$. Next suppose $|V(P_C)|= 1$. Then $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=3K_1$. Let $x,y,z\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$. By Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), $d(x)=d(y)=d(z)=3$ and $N(x)=N(y)=N(z)$. Then there is one vertex of $N(x)$ has degree at least 5, a contradiction.

For $k=8$, $|V(P_C)|\leq 2$ since $n=10$. If $|V(P_C)|= 2$, then $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=K_2$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$. Without loss of generality, suppose $x$ is adjacent to $c_1$. Since $C$ is a longest cycle in $G$, then $y$ is adjacent to $c_4$, $c_5$ or $c_6$. Obviously, we can split this into two cases. The first case is where $y$ is adjacent to $c_4$. One can easily show that $d(x)=d(y)=3$ and $N(x)\setminus\{y\}=N(y)\setminus\{x\}=\{c_1,c_4\}$. Consider the vertex $c_2$. If $c_2$ is not adjacent to $c_8$, the subgraph induced by $N(c_1)\cup N(c_2)$ contains a tree with leaf number 5 since $d(c_2)\geq 3$. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 7+2=9<10$, a contradiction. If $c_2$ is adjacent to $c_8$, $G$ contains a cycle $c_2,c_8,c_7,c_6,c_5,c_4,y,x,c_1,c_2$ with length 9 (see Fig. 3), contradicting to $k=8$. The second case is where $y$ is adjacent to $c_5$. Similarly, we have $d(x)=d(y)=3$ and $N(x)\setminus\{y\}=N(y)\setminus\{x\}=\{c_1,c_5\}$. The following results which are derived from the above proof: $c_2$ is adjacent to $c_8$ and $c_4$ is adjacent to $c_6$. Then $G$ contains a cycle $c_2,c_8,c_7,c_6,c_4,c_5,y,x,c_1,c_2$ with length 9, a contradiction.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F3.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F4.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
\end{figure}
Next suppose $|V(P_C)|= 1$ and hence $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=2K_1$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$. Since $C$ is a longest cycle in $G$ and $L(G)\leq 5$, then $d(x)=d(y)=3$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N(x)=\{c_1,c_3,c_5\}$ or $\{c_1,c_3,c_6\}$. For the first case, assert that $N(y)\cap N(x)=\emptyset$. Otherwise, $G$ contains a tree with leaf number at least 6 if $y$ is adjacent to $c_1$ or $c_5$ (see Fig.4), a contradiction. And if $y$ is adjacent to $c_3$, the subgraph induced by the vertex set $\{c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,x,y\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 5. Then, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 9$, a contradiction. So, $N(y)\subseteq V(C)\setminus N(x)$ and $|N(y)|=3$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), which is not allowed. For the second case, the proof method is similar to the first case, and will not be repeated here.

{\it Subcase 1.2.} Consider $n=11$ or $12$. Let $x\in V(G)$ with $d(x)=4$. Set $N(x)=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}$. Assert that any vertex of $N(x)$ has at most one neighbor in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$. Since $L(G)\leq 5$, we have $d_{G- N[x]}(x_i)\leq 2$ for $i\in \{1,2,3,4\}$. If there is one vertex of $N(x)$ has exactly two neighbors in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 5+2+2=9<11$, a contradiction. Hence, $e(N(x),V(G)\setminus N[x])\leq 4$. Let $N_2(x)\subseteq V(G)\setminus N[x]$ and each vertex of $N_2(x)$ has neighbor in $N(x)$. Similarly, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, we can show that each vertex of $N_2(x)$ has at most one neighbour in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$. Then each vertex of $N_2(x)$ has at least two neighbours in $N(x)$, since $\delta=3$. By Lemma \ref{lem6}, $G$ is 2-connected and hence $|N_2(x)|\geq 2$. Then $|N_2(x)|= 2$ and $e(N(x),V(G)\setminus N[x])= 4$. Set $N_2(x)=\{y_1,y_2\}$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N(y_1)\cap N(x)=\{x_1,x_2\}$ and $N(y_2)\cap N(x)=\{x_3,x_4\}$. It is easy to check that $y_1$ is not adjacent to $y_2$, since $n\geq 11$. Let $z_1=N(y_1)\setminus\{x_1,x_2\}$ and $z_2= N(y_2)\setminus\{x_3,x_4\}$. Since $G$ is 2-connected, then $z_1\neq z_2$. Note that $G[N(x)]$ contains $2K_2$. Then $G$ contains a path of length 8 with endpoints $z_1$ and $z_2$. For $n=11$, it remains two vertices $w_1$ and $w_2$. Obviously, $d(w_1)=d(w_2)=3$ and $N(w_1)=\{w_2,z_1,z_2\}$, $N(w_2)=\{w_1,z_1,z_2\}$. Thus $c(G)=n$. For $n=12$, it remains three vertices $w_1$, $w_2$ and $w_3$. One can easy show that $c(G)\geq n-1$. So Case 1 is proven.

{\it Case 2.} $\delta=4$

Note that $13\leq n\leq 14$. For $n=14$, by Lemma \ref{lem16} (1), $L(G)\geq \frac{2n+8}{5}=\frac{36}{5}>7$, contradicting $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1=7$. Then we only need to consider $n=13$. Suppose $n=13$. Since $L(G)\leq 7$, we have $4 \leq \Delta(G) \leq 7$. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $\Delta(G)\neq 7$. For $\Delta(G)=6$, let $x\in V(G)$ with $d(x)=6$. Then any vertex of $N(x)$ has at most two neighbors in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$. Let $N_2(x)\subseteq V(G)\setminus N[x]$ and each vertex of $N_2(x)$ has neighbor in $N(x)$. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, any vertex of $N(x)\cup N_2(x)$ has at most one neighbor in $V(G)\setminus N[x]$. This implies that $e(N(x),N_2(x))\leq 6$. Since $\delta=4$, then $|N_2(x)|\leq 2$. By Lemma \ref{lem6}, $G$ is 2-connected and hence $|N_2(x)|=2$. Clearly, $y_1$ is not adjacent to $y_2$ since $n=13$. Let $z_1\in N(y_1)$ and $z_2\in N(y_2)$. Recall that $G$ is 2-connected. $z_1\neq z_2$. Hence $|N(z_1)\setminus \{y_1\}|\geq 3$. From Fig.5, we obtain $G$ contains a tree with leaf number 8, a contradiction. For $\Delta(G)=4$, by Theorem \ref{th13}, $c(G)=n\geq n-1$.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F5.JPG}
\end{figure}

It remains the case of $\Delta(G)=5$. Let $C=c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k,c_1$ be a longest cycle in $G$ and let $P_C$ be a longest path in $G-V(C)$. By Lemmas \ref{lem6} and \ref{lem15}, $k\geq 8$. Now we show that $k\geq 12$. Suppose to the contrary that $8\leq k\leq 11$.

For $k=8$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (3), $|V(P_C)|\leq 3$. Since $\Delta(G)=5$, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), there are at most three isolated vertices in $G-V(C)$. Then $2\leq |V(P_C)|\leq 3$. If $|V(P_C)|=2$, then $G-V(C)=3K_1+K_2$ or $K_1+2K_2$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$ and $x$ is adjacent to $y$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $c_1\in N(x)$. By Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), $N(y)\subseteq\{x,c_1,c_4,c_5,c_6\}$. Then $N(y)=\{x,c_1,c_4,c_6\}$, since $C$ is a longest cycle and $\delta=4$. Further, we have $N(x)=\{c_1,y\}$, contradicting $d(x)\geq 4$. Next suppose $|V(P_C)|=3$. Let $P_C=x,y,z$. It follows that $N_C(x)=N_C(z)$ and $|N_C(x)|=|N_C(z)|=2$. Recall that $C$ is a longest cycle in $G$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N_C(x)=N_C(z)=\{c_1,c_5\}$. Since $\delta(G)=4$ and $|V(P_C)|=3$, we have $x$ is adjacent to $z$. Note that we have a new path $P'_C=y,x,z$ in $G-V(C)$. Similarly, $N_C(y)=N_C(z)$ and $|N_C(y)|=|N_C(z)|=2$. So, $N_C(x)=N_C(y)=N_C(z)=\{c_1,c_5\}$ and $d(x)=d(y)=d(z)=4$. Then $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=2K_1+K_3$. Let $\{u,v\}=V(G)\setminus (V(C)\cup\{x,y,z\})$. Clearly, $N(u)=N(v)=\{c_2,c_4,c_6,c_8\}$. The subgraph induced by $\{c_8,c_1,c_2,c_3,x,y,z,u,v\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 7 (see Fig.6). By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 9+2=11<13$, a contradiction.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F6.JPG}
\end{figure}

For $k=9$, by Lemma \ref{lem17}, $|V(P_C)|\leq 3$ and there are at most two isolated vertices in $G-V(C)$. Then $2\leq |V(P_C)|\leq 3$. If $|V(P_C)|=2$, then $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=2K_1+K_2$ or $2K_2$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(C)$ and $x$ is adjacent to $y$. One can easy show that $d(x)=d(y)=4$ and $N(x)\cap N(y)=\{c_1,c_4,c_7\}$ or $\{c_2,c_5,c_8\}$ or $\{c_3,c_6,c_9\}$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N(x)\cap N(y)=\{c_1,c_4,c_7\}$. Since $L(G)\leq 7$, any vertex of $V(G)\setminus (V(C)\cup \{x,y\})$ has no neighbor in $\{c_1,c_4,c_7\}$. Further, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]\neq 2K_1+K_2$ and $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]\neq 2K_2$, since $\delta=4$. Next suppose $|V(P_C)|=3$. Let $P_C=x,y,z$. Using the same method as the case of $k=8$ and $|V(P_C)|=3$, we obtain $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=K_1+K_3$ and $N_C(x)=N_C(y)=N_C(z)$. Without loss of generality, suppose that$N_C(x)=N_C(y)=N_C(z)=\{c_1,c_5\}$. Consider the vertex $c_2$. If $c_2$ is adjacent to $c_9$, $G$ contains a cycle $c_1,c_2,c_9,c_8,c_7,c_6,c_5,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 10, a contradiction. If $c_2$ is not adjacent to $c_9$, the subgraph induced by $N(c_1)\cup N(c_2)$ contains a tree with leaf number 7. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 10+2=12<13$, a contradiction.

For $k=10$, $|V(P_C)|\leq 3$. For $|V(P_C)|= 3$, let $V(G)\setminus V(C)=\{x,y,z\}$. Similarly, one can easy show that $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=K_3$ and $N_C(x)=N_C(y)=N_C(z)$ and $|N_C(x)|=|N_C(y)|=|N_C(z)|=2$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $N_C(x)=\{c_1,c_5\}$ or $\{c_1,c_6\}$. If $N_C(x)=\{c_1,c_5\}$, we consider the vertex $c_3$. Note that $d(c_1)=d(c_5)=5$. Then $|N(c_3)\cap (V(C)\setminus \{c_1,c_2,c_4,c_5\})|\geq 2$, since $\delta=4$. If $c_3$ is adjacent to $c_6$ (see Fig.7a) or $c_{10}$, then $G$ contains a cycle $c_5,c_4,c_3,c_6,c_7,c_8,c_9,c_{10},c_1,x,y,z,c_5$ with length 12 or a cycle $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_{10},c_9,c_8,c_7,c_6,c_5,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 12, a contradiction. If $c_3$ is adjacent to $c_7$ (see Fig.7b) or $c_9$, then $G$ contains a cycle $c_5,c_4,c_3,c_7,c_8,c_9,c_{10},c_1,x,y,z,c_5$ with length 11 or a cycle $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_9,c_8,c_7,c_6,c_5,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 11, a contradiction. Hence we have $N(c_3)\subseteq\{c_2,c_4,c_8\}$, contradicting $\delta=4$.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F7a.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
  \subfigure
  {
      \begin{minipage}[b]{.4\linewidth}
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{F7b.JPG}
      \end{minipage}
  }
\end{figure}
If $N_C(x)=\{c_1,c_6\}$, using the same method, we have $c_7,c_{10}\notin N(c_3)$ and $c_7,c_{10}\notin N(c_4)$. Now we show that $c_3$ and $c_4$ are both adjacent to exactly one of $\{c_8,c_9\}$. Suppose to the contrary that $c_3$ and $c_4$ are adjacent to $c_8$ and $c_9$ or $c_9$ and $c_8$, respectively. Then $G$ contains a cycle $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_8,c_9,c_4,c_5,c_6,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 11 or a cycle $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_9,c_8,c_4,c_5,c_6,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 11, contradicting $k=10$. Without loss of generality, suppose $c_9\in N(c_3)\cap N(c_4)$. Since $\delta=4$, $c_4$ is adjacent to $c_2$. Then $G$ contains a cycle $c_1,c_{10},c_9,c_3,c_2,c_4,c_5,c_6,z,y,x,c_1$ with length 11, a contradiction. For $|V(P_C)|\leq 2$, it implies that there exists at least one isolated vertex in $G-V(C)$. Assert that any isolated vertex of $G-V(C)$ has degree 4. Otherwise, suppose $d_{G-V(C)}(x)=0$ and $d(x)=5$. Then $N(x)=\{c_1,c_3,c_5,c_7,c_9\}$ or $\{c_2,c_4,c_6,c_8,c_{10}\}$. We show that the first case, the second can be proved by same method. Note the subgraph induced by $\{c_9,c_{10},c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4,c_5,c_6,c_7,x\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 7. By Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 10+2=12<13$, a contradiction. Let $V(G)\setminus V(C)=\{x,y,z\}$ and $d_{G-V(C)}(x)=0$. Then, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $N(y)\cap N(x)=\emptyset$ and $N(z)\cap N(x)=\emptyset$. By Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), $|V(P_C)|>1$ since $\delta=4$. Hence $|V(P_C)|=2$ and $y$ is adjacent to $z$. Since $d(x)=4$, then the neighbors of $x$ divide $C$ into four parts. The lengths of the four parts of $C$ are 2,2,2,4 or 2,2,3,3 or 2,3,2,3 (see Fig.8). By Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), it is easy to show that in each case there is a contradiction, so we omit it.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{F8.JPG}
\end{figure}

For $k=11$, $|V(P_C)|\leq 2$. Let $x,y\in V(G)\setminus V(P)$. Since $n=13$, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $d(x)=d(y)=4$. For $|V(P_C)|=2$, $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=K_2$. Note that the neighbors of $x$ in $V(C)$ divide $C$ into three parts. Then we have five cases and the lengths of the three parts of $C$ are 2,2,7 or 2,3,6 or 2,4,5 or 3,3,5 or 3,4,4. The proof methods for the first three cases are similar. Since $C$ is a longest cycle in $G$, one can easy show that $d(y)\leq 3<4$, a contradiction. The proofs for the latter two cases are similar, so we only give the proof for one of them here. Without loss of generality, suppose $N(x)=\{c_1,c_4,c_7\}$. Consider the vertex $c_3$. We assert that $N(c_3)\cap N(x)=\{c_4\}$. Otherwise, if $c_3$ is adjacent to $c_1$, the subgraph induced by $\{c_{11},c_1,c_2,c_3,x,y,c_4,c_6,c_7,c_8\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 7 and hence by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 12<13$, a contradiction. Similarly, we can show that $c_3$ is not adjacent to $c_7$. If $c_3$ is adjacent to $c_5$, $G$ contains a cycle $c_4,c_3,c_5,c_6,c_7,c_8,c_9,c_{10},c_{11},c_1,x,y,c_4$ of length 12, contradicting $k=11$. Hence $N(c_3)\cap \{x,y,c_1,c_5,c_7\}=\emptyset$. Note that the subgraph induced by $N[c_3]\cup \{x,y,c_1,c_5,c_7\}$ contains a tree with leaf number 7, since $d(c_3)\geq 4$. Then, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, $n\leq 12<13$, a contradiction. For $|V(P_C)|=1$, $G[V(G)\setminus V(C)]=2K_1$. Recall that $d(x)=d(y)=4$. We assert that $N(x)\cap N(y)=\emptyset$. Otherwise, by Lemma \ref{lem14}, we will have $n<13$. Note that the neighbors of $x$ in $V(C)$ divide $C$ into four parts and hence we have four cases. The lengths of each parts of $C$ are 2,2,2,5 or 2,2,3,4 or 2,3,2,4 or 2,3,3,3. Similarly, by Lemma \ref{lem17} (1) and (2), one can easy show that in each case there is a contradiction. Then Case 2 is proven.

{\it Case 3.} $\delta=5$

Note that $n=16$. By Lemma \ref{lem16} (2), $L(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2=10$, contradicting $L(G)\leq 2\delta-1$. So Case 3 is proven.

For the sharpness, consider the following graph. The graph $G_1$ of order $n$ is formed by taking the cycle $C_{n-1}=v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{n-2},v_{n-1},v_1$ and add one vertex $v_{n}$ together with edges $v_1v_n, v_3v_n$. Note that $\delta(G_1)=2$ and $L(G_1)=3$. Then $G_1$ satisfying $L(G_1)\leq 2\delta(G_1)-1$ and $c(G_1)=n-1$.

The condition $L(G)\leq 2\delta(G)-1$ cannot be relaxed. The graph $G_2$ with order $n\geq 8$ is formed by taking the cycle $C_{n-2}=v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{n-2},v_1$ and add two vertices $v_{n-1}$ and $v_n$ together with edges $v_1v_{n-1}, v_3v_{n-1}, v_{n-5}v_n, v_{n-3}v_n$. Clearly, $\delta(G_2)=2$ and $L(G_2)=4$. Then $G_2$ satisfying $L(G_2)\leq 2\delta(G_2)$ but $c(G_2)=n-2$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{th4}.
\end{proof}

{\bf Acknowledgement} This research was supported Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (STCSM) grant 18dz2271000.


Benford's Law and Distractors in Multiple Choice Exams

Abstract: Suppose that in a multiple choice examination the leading digit of the correct options follows Benford's Law, while the the leading digit of the distractors are uniform. Consider a strategy for guessing at answers that selects the option with the lowest leading digit with ties broken at random. We provide an expression for the probability that this strategy selects the correct option.

\section{Introduction}

Benford's Law  \cite{newcomb, benford} is a probability distribution on the integers $1, 2, \cdots, 9$ that has been show to
provide an excellent theoretical fit to the frequency of the leading digit in many data sets \cite{nigrini, bergerHill}.
Recently, an interesting article \cite{slepkov} examined whether knowledge of Benford's Law could provide an advantage over
pure guessing in multiple choice exams.    It was posited that the correct answers would have a Benford-like leading digit
frequency while the distractors (the incorrect choices) would be artificial, possibly following a uniform leading digit
distribution.  Since Benford's distribution is decreasing and  concentrates
more than 0.60 probability at the digits 1, 2, 3, students might improve their scores from pure guessing by selecting
the answer with the smallest leading digit.

In order to test this premise, the authors of \cite{slepkov} first examined a number of test banks for physics and
chemistry books and found that that the leading digit of the correct answers could be well-approximated by Benford's Law,
providing yet another manifestation of the pervasiveness of this distribution.  Knowing that Benford's Law was applicable
to the correct answers,  they simulated 5,000 mock multiple choice questions in which the correct option followed Benford's
Law while the distractors followed a uniform distribution of leading digits.  For each question they selected the option
with the lowest leading digits.  If multiple options had the same lowest leading  digit, then a choice was made from
them at random.    They found in the simulation that the expected scores for 3, 4, and 5 option examinations were
0.51, 0.41, and 0.33 respectively.

They then applied the strategy of selecting the answer with the lowest leading digit to {\em actual} testbanks where
it was unknown how the distractors were determined.
Surprisingly, they found for the 4-option questions (representing the majority of questions), that this strategy had a
success rate of only 24.6\%, which is consistent with what would obtain picking answers uniformly at random.

In order to understand this negative result, they then examined the distractors. Surprisingly they found that the distractors,
too, had a Benford-like distribution, which had the effect of mitigating the potential advantage of applying Benford's Law
as an exam-taking strategy when a student was uncertain of an answer.

In this note, a closed-form solution is provided giving the probability of a correct response when the
leading digit strategy is applied to exams where the correct answers follow Benford's Law while the distractors are uniform.

\section{Result}

Let $N$ denote the number of distractors in a multiple choice exam in which there is only one correct option per question
(so there are $N+1$ options per question) and  let $\text{Bin}(k,p)$ be a binomial random variable on $k$ trials, success probability $p.$  Let
$$
b_i = \log_{10}\left(\frac{i+1}{i}\right), \hspace{1em} i = 1, 2, \cdots, 9
$$
represent the probabilities of the leading digit in Benford's Law.
Consider a multiple choice examination in which the leading digit of the correct responses follows Benford's Law while each of
the distractors, independently of the correct answer and each other, has a leading digit  uniformly selected from $1, 2, \cdots, 9.$
Suppose the strategy of selecting the answer with the lowest leading digit is followed (with ties being broken at random).
Denote by
$P_N^B$ the probability that this strategy selects the correct answer in a question.

\begin{theorem}
\begin{equation}\label{BenfordProb}
\begin{split}
P^B_N &=  \sum_{i=1}^9 b_i \left(\frac{10-i}{9}\right)^{N}  E \left[ \frac{1}  {  \rm{Bin}(   N, \frac{1}{10-i}  ) +1}       \right] \\
& = \frac{1}{9^N(N+1)}   \sum_{i=1}^9 b_i [(10-i)^{N+1} - (9-i)^{N+1}]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $E$ denotes expectation.
\end{theorem}

\section{Proof}

For a given question, let  $X$ denote the leading digit of the correct answer and let $Y_1, \cdots, Y_N$ denote the leading digits
of each of  the $N$ distractors, where, for definiteness, the distractors are ordered as they appear in the choice of options.
The key to the argument is to recognize that $P^B_N$ is the probability that the correct answer has the smallest leading digit,
accounting for multiple options with the same leading digit.

We take $N=2$ first and consider all possible cases where the correct answer has a leading significant digit of 1.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
P(X=1, Y_1 \ge 2, Y_2 \ge 2) &= b_1 \left(\frac{8}{9}\right)^2\\
P(X=1, Y_1 = 1, Y_2 \ge 2, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_1 \left(\frac{1}{9}\right) \left(\frac{8}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\\
P(X=1, Y_1 \ge 2, Y_2 = 1, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_1 \left(\frac{8}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\\
P(X=1, Y_1 =1, Y_2 = 1, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_1 \left(\frac{1}{9}\right)^2 \left(\frac{1}{3}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

The sum of these four terms is the probability of selecting the correct answer and the correct answer having leading digit 1.
The ratios $\frac{1}{9}, \frac{8}{9}$
can be recognized as the success and failure probabilities, respectively, of a binomial random variable $W_1$ on $N=2$ trials with success probability   $\frac{1}{9}.$
 Multiplication of these by the fractions at the extreme right results in the expected value $E\left(\frac{1}{W_1+1}\right),$  and therefore the sum of the probabilities equals
$$
b_1 E\left(\frac{1}{W_1+1}\right).
$$
This takes care of the case $X = 1.$

For $X = 2$ the parallel  four equations above become
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
P(X=2, Y_1 \ge 3, Y_2 \ge 3) &= b_2 \left(\frac{7}{9}\right)^2\\
P(X=2, Y_1 = 2, Y_2 \ge 3, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_2 \left(\frac{1}{9}\right) \left(\frac{7}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\\\
P(X=2, Y_1 \ge 3, Y_2 = 2, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_2 \left(\frac{7}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{9}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\\\
P(X=2, Y_1 =2, Y_2 = 2, \text{select correct answer} ) &= b_2 \left(\frac{1}{9}\right)^2 \left(\frac{1}{3}\right)\\\
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

Because the fractions  $\frac{1}{9} + \frac{7}{9} \ne 1$ we cannot apply a binomial distribution argument directly.  But
if we replace the denominator 9 by 8 wherever it appears  then the new fractions $\frac{1}{8}  +\frac{7}{8}= 1$ so the
argument for $X=1$ can be applied and we merely need to account for the change in denominator by multiplying by  $\left(\frac{8}{9}\right)^2$ because of  the two appearances of 9 in the denominators.  We then find that the sum simplifies to
$\left(\frac{8}{9}\right)^2  E\left(\frac{1}{W_2+1}\right)$
where  $W_2$  is a binomial random variable  on $N$ trials with success probability   $\frac{1}{8}.$

The sum of the probabilities for these four cases corresponding to $X=2$ is thus
$$
b_2  \left(\frac{8}{9}\right)^{2}  E\left(\frac{1}{W_2+1}\right).
$$
Continuing this way for the remaining values $X = 3, \ldots, 9$ and summing, we obtain the first line of (\ref{BenfordProb}) for $N=2$ distractors.
An analogous argument is easily seen to apply for $N$ distractors in general.

The second line of (\ref{BenfordProb}) follows from substituting the binomial probabilities and simplifying.

Note that in place of  the probabilities of leading digits $\{b_i\}$ in (\ref{BenfordProb})
one can use any probability distribution, in particular the uniform for which (\ref{BenfordProb}) should, and does,  yield
$\frac{1}{N+1}$ for $N$ distractors.

Table 1 gives the results of (\ref{BenfordProb})  both $P_N^B$ for the Benford distribution of the correct answer and
$P_N^U$ for a uniform distribution of the correct answer.
The second column confirms the simulation results carried out in \cite{slepkov}.  Differences are due to the limited number (5,000) of simulated mock multiple choice exams in \cite{slepkov}.

\begin{table} [h]
  \caption{Probabilities of Choosing the Correct Option}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r  |r| r }
$N$ & $P^B_N$ & $P_N^U$\\
\hline
1 &  0.6733    & 0.5000\\
2 &   0.5291   & 0.3333\\
3 &   0.4421   & 0.2500\\
4 &   0.3821    & 0.2000\\
5 &   0.3375   & 0.1667\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{Using the First $r$ Digits}

Equation (\ref{BenfordProb}) assumes that ties are broken at random.
There is an extension of Benford's Law for the leading $r$  significant digits.  For a number with at least $r$ significant digits, denote by
$d = (d_1, \cdots, d_r)$  the sequence comprising the first, second, $\cdots, r^{th}$ significant digits, respectively.
Then Benford's distribution assigns probability $b_d$ to the sequence $d$
where
\begin{equation}\label{bd}
b_d = \log_{10}\left(\frac{1+\sum_{j=1}^r 10^{r-j} d_j}{\sum_{j=1}^r 10^{r-j} d_j}\right).
\end{equation}
From (\ref{bd}) we can find that the distribution of  each significant digit also decreases from 1 to 9.  As a result, rather than break ties at random, we may break ties according to which second leading digit is smallest.  This is equivalent to picking the answer with the smallest initial two significant
 digits, considered as an integer between 10 and 99, inclusive.  If there are ties with two significant digits, we then break them by picking the answer with the smallest initial three significant digits and so on.

This leads us to consider a multiple choice examination in which each correct answer and distractor has at least $r$ significant digits.  Assume that
the first $r$ leading significant digits of the correct responses follow Benford's Law while each of the distractors, independently of the correct answer and each other, has the first $r$ significant digits uniformly distributed on the set of $r$-digit integers
 \{$i: 10^{r-1} \le i \le 10^{r}-1\}.$  Suppose the strategy of selecting the answer with the lowest $r$ leading digits is followed (with ties again being broken at random).  Can we do better than the previous strategy for $r=1?$

 Let $P^{B,r}_N$ denote the probability that this strategy selects the correct answer for a question.
 The argument leading to Theorem 1 extends easily.  For simplicity we present the result when $r=2.$
\begin{theorem}
\begin{equation}\label{Benford2}
\begin{split}
P^{B,2}_N &=  \sum_{i=10}^{99} b_i \left(\frac{100-i}{90}\right)^{N}  E \left[ \frac{1}  {  \rm{Bin}(   N, \frac{1}{100-i}  ) +1}       \right] \\
& = \frac{1}{90^N(N+1)}   \sum_{i=10}^{99} b_i [(100-i)^{N+1} - (99-i)^{N+1}]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

It turns out (see Table 2) that there is a slight benefit for the strategy with $r=2$ over $r=1$, but little additional improvement beyond over randomly selecting  when there are ties. The reason would appear to be that the significant digits subsequent to the first one have a distribution approximating the uniform,
which is the distribution of the distractors.

\begin{table} [h]
  \caption{Probabilities of Choosing the Correct Option for $k=2, 3$}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{r  |r| r }
$N$ & $P^{B,2}_N$ & $P^{B,3}_N$\\
\hline
1 &   0.6768    & 0.6768\\
2 &   0.5348   & 0.5349\\
3 &   0.4495   & 0.4495\\
4 &   0.3908    & 0.3909\\
5 &   0.3474   & 0.3475\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}

Thanks to George Wesolowsky for drawing my attention to the interesting paper \cite{slepkov}.

Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability (physics.data-an); Probability (math.PR); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)