This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Classes of Perfect Graphs

Stefan Hougardy
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Institut für Informatik
10099 Berlin, Germany
[email protected]

February 28, 2003 revised October 2003, February 2005, and July 2007

Abstract. The Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture, suggested by Claude Berge in

1960, had a major impact on the development of graph theory over the last forty
years. It has led to the definitions and study of many new classes of graphs for
which the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture has been verified. Powerful concepts
and methods have been developed to prove the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture for
these special cases. In this paper we survey 120 of these classes, list their fundamental
algorithmic properties and present all known relations between them.

1 Introduction

A graph is called perfect if the chromatic number and the clique number have the same
value for each of its induced subgraphs. The notion of perfect graphs was introduced by
Berge [6] in 1960. He also conjectured that a graph is perfect if and only if it contains,
as an induced subgraph, neither an odd cycle of length at least five nor its complement.
This conjecture became known as the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture and attempts
to prove it contributed much to the developement of graph theory in the past forty years.
The methods developed and the results proved have their uses also outside the area of
perfect graphs. The theory of antiblocking polyhedra developed by Fulkerson [37], and
the theory of modular decomposition (which has its origins in a paper of Gallai [39]) are
two such examples.
The Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture has led to the definitions and study of many new
classes of graphs for which the correctness of this conjecture has been verified. For several
of these classes the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture has been proved by showing that

1
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

every graph in this class can be obtained from certain simple perfect graphs by repeated
application of perfection preserving operations. By using this approach Chudnovsky,
Robertson, Seymour and Thomas [19] were recently able to prove the Strong Perfect
Graph Conjecture in its full generality. After remaining unsolved for more than forty
years it can now be called the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem.
The aim of this paper is to survey 120 classes of perfect graphs. The criterion we used
to include a class of perfect graphs in this survey is that its study be motivated by making
progress towards a proof of the Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture. This criterion rules
out including classes of perfect graphs that are known to be perfect just by definition,
e.g. classes that are defined as subclasses of graphs already known to be perfect or classes
that are defined as the union of two classes of perfect graphs. Some exceptions are made.
For example we include some very basic classes such as trees or bipartite graphs. We have
also included a few classes which were not known to contain only perfect graphs without
using the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem. On the other hand, there probably exist several
classes of perfect graphs which satisfy our criterion, but which are not included in this
survey. We refer to [12, 13] for further information on graph classes.
A second motivation for studying perfect graphs besides the Strong Perfect Graph
Conjecture are their nice algorithmic properties. While the problems of finding the
clique number or the chromatic number of a graph are NP-hard in general, they can be
solved in polynomial time for perfect graphs. This result is due to Grötschel, Lovász
and Schrijver [47] from 1981. Unfortunately, their algorithms are based on the ellipsoid
method and are therefore mostly of theoretical interest. It is still an open problem to
find a combinatorial polynomial time algorithm to color perfect graphs or to compute
the clique number of a perfect graph. However, for many classes of perfect graphs, such
algorithms are known. In Section 4 we survey results of this kind. Moreover we consider
the recognition complexity of all these classes, i.e. the question of deciding whether a given
graph belongs to the class. Chudnovsky, Cornuejols, Liu, Seymour and Vušković [18]
recently proved that there exists a polynomial time algorithm for recognizing perfect
graphs. For several subclasses of perfect graphs such an algorithm is not yet known.
In many cases new classes of perfect graphs that have been introduced were motivated
by generalizing known classes of perfect graphs. Many classes of perfect graphs are,
therefore, subclasses of other classes of perfect graphs. We study the relation between all
the classes of perfect graphs contained in this survey. The relations are given in the form
of a table either stating that class A is contained in a class B or by giving an example
of a graph showing that A is not a subclass of B. The table containing this information
has 14400 entries. For several cases which had been open, the table answers the question
whether a class A is a subclass of a class B.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains all basic notations used through-

2
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

out this paper. The definitions of the classes of perfect graphs appearing in this paper are
given in Section 3. In Section 4 we survey algorithms for the recognition and for solving
optimization problems on classes of perfect graphs. The number of graphs contained
in each of the classes of perfect graphs considered is given in Section 5. The relations
between the classes of perfect graphs studied in this paper are presented in Section 6.
All counterexamples that are needed to prove that certain classes are not contained in
each other are described in Section 7.

2 Notation

Given a graph G = (V, E) with vertex set V and edge set E we denote by n and m the
cardinality of V and E. The degree of a vertex is the number of edges incident to this
vertex. The maximum degree ∆(G) is the largest degree of a vertex of G. A k-coloring
of the vertices of a graph G = (V, E) is a map f : V → {1, . . . , k} such that f (x) 6= f (y)
whenever {x, y} is an edge in G. The chromatic number χ(G) is the least number k such
that G admits a k-coloring. A clique is a graph containing all possible edges. A clique on
i vertices is denoted by Ki . The clique number ω(G) of a graph G is the size of a largest
clique contained in G as a subgraph. A stable set in a graph is a set of vertices no two
of which are adjacent. By Ii we denote a stable set of size i. The stability number α(G)
is the size of a largest stable set in G. The complement G of a graph G has the same
vertex set as G and two vertices in G are adjacent if and only if they are not adjacent in
G. Obviously, we have α(G) = ω(G), and the clique covering number θ(G) is defined as
χ(G).
A graph is called perfect if χ(H) = ω(H) for every induced subgraph H. A hole is
a chordless cycle of length at least four and an antihole is the complement of a hole.
An odd (respectively even) hole is a hole with an odd (respectively even) number of
vertices. A graph is called Berge if it contains no odd holes and no odd antiholes as
induced subgraphs. A star-cutset in a graph G is a subset C of vertices such that G \ C
is disconnected and such that some vertex in C is adjacent to all other vertices in C.
A complete bipartite graph, i.e. a bipartite graph with all possible edges between the
vertices of the two color classes of size r and s, respectively, is denoted by K r,s . A K1,3
is called a claw. A path on i vertices is denoted by P i and a cycle on i vertices by Ci .
The two vertices of degree one in a path are called the endpoints of the path. In a P 4
the vertices of degree two are called midpoints of the P 4 . The two edges of a P4 incident
to the endpoints of the P4 are called wings. The wing graph W (G) of a graph G has
as its vertices all edges of G and two edges are adjacent in W (G) if there is an induced
P4 in G that has these two edges as its wings. Given a graph G its k-overlap graph is

3
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

diamond paw bull house chair dart gem domino 3-sun

Figure 1: Some small graphs with special names.

defined as the graph whose vertices are all induced P 4 ’s of G and in which two vertices
are adjacent if the corresponding P 4 ’s in G have exactly k vertices in common. Two
vertices x, y in a graph are called partners if there exist vertices u, v, w distinct from x, y
such that {x, u, v, w} and {y, u, v, w} each induce a P 4 in the graph. The partner graph
of a graph G is the graph whose vertices are the vertices of G and whose edges join pairs
of partners in G.
Two vertices form an even pair if all induced paths between these two vertices have
even length. The line graph L(G) of a graph G is the graph that has the edges of G
as vertices and in which two vertices in L(G) are adjacent if the corresponding edges
of G are adjacent (that is, share a vertex). Some small graphs are given special names.
Figure 1 contains such graphs with the names that are used throughout this paper.

3 Definitions of Graph Classes

In this section we briefly present in alphabetical order the definitions of all classes of
perfect graphs appearing in this paper. For each class we give a reference to a proof that
all graphs in the class are perfect. Note that with the proof of the Strong Perfect Graph
Conjecture it follows immediately for all classes that they contain only perfect graphs.

alternately colorable A graph is called alternately colorable if its edges can be colored
using only two colors in such a way that in every induced cycle of length at least four
no two adjacent edges have the same color. This class of graphs has been defined by
Hoàng [61] who also proved the perfectness of these graphs.

alternately orientable A graph is called alternately orientable if it admits an ori-

entation of its edges such that in every induced cycle of length at least four the
orientation of the edges alternates. This class of graphs was defined by Hoàng [61]
who also proved the perfectness of these graphs.

AT-free Berge A graph is called AT-free Berge if it is a Berge graph and does not

4
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

contain an asteroidal triple. An asteroidal triple is an independent set of three vertices

such that each pair is joined by a path that avoids the neighborhood of the third.
This class of graphs was introduced in [80]. Perfectness of these graphs was observed
by Maffray [29, page 401]. As his argument is unpublished we briefly state it here. If
an AT-free Berge graph has stability number two then it must be the complement of
a bipartite graph and therefore perfect. If the graph has a stable set of size three, say
{x, y, z}, then since the graph is AT-free it must be that the set of all neighbours of
one of them, say z, separates x from y, i.e., z is the center of a star-cutset. Perfection
follows from [21].

BIP∗ A graph belongs to the class BIP∗ if all induced subgraphs H which are not
bipartite have the property that H or H contains a star–cutset. This class of graphs
was defined by Chvátal [21] who also proved the perfectness of these graphs.

bipartite A graph is called bipartite if its chromatic number is at most two. Perfectness
of bipartite graphs follows from the definition.

brittle A graph is called brittle if every induced subgraph H of G contains a vertex

that is not an endpoint or not a midpoint of a P 4 in H. This class of graphs was
introduced by Chvátal. Perfection follows easily as all brittle graphs are perfectly
orderable [63].

bull-free Berge A bull-free Berge graph is a Berge graph that does not contain a bull
(see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. Chvátal and Sbihi [24] proved that these
graphs are perfect.

C4 -free Berge A C4 -free Berge graph is a Berge graph that does not contain a cycle
on four vertices as an induced subgraph. Perfection of these graphs was shown by
Conforti, Cornuéjols, and Vušković [28].

chair-free Berge A chair-free Berge graph is a Berge graph that does not contain a
chair (see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. Perfection of these graphs was shown
by Sassano [107].

chordal see →triangulated.

claw-free Berge A graph is claw-free Berge if it is a Berge graph that does not contain a
K1,3 (which is called a claw) as an induced subgraph. Parthasarathy and Ravindra [96]
proved the perfectness of these graphs.

clique-separable A graph is called clique-separable if every induced subgraph that

does not contain a clique-cutset is of one of the following two types. Either it is
a complete multipartite graph or its vertex set can be partitioned into two sets V 1

5
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

and V2 such that V1 is a connected bipartite graph, V2 is a clique and all vertices
in V1 are connected to all vertices in V2 . This class of graphs appears first in the
paper of Gallai [38]. Gavril [41] invented the name for this class. Perfection follows
immediately from the definition.

co-class Complements of the graphs in →class.

cograph see →P4 -free.

cograph contraction A graph G is a cograph contraction if there exists a cograph H

and some pairwise disjoint independent sets in H such that G is obtained from H by
contracting each of the independent sets to a single vertex (resulting multiple edges
are identified) and joining the new vertices pairwise. Hujter and Tuza [73] introduced
this class of graphs and proved that they are perfect. A good characterization of
these graphs is given in [79].

comparability A graph is a comparability graph if there exists a partial order “<”

on its vertices such that two vertices x and y are adjacent in the graph if and only
if x < y or y < x. These graphs are also called transitively orientable. Perfectness
follows from a classical result of Dilworth [33].

∆ ≤ 6 Berge The class ∆ ≤ 6 Berge contains all Berge graphs in which the maximum
degree is at most 6. Grinstead [46] proved that these graphs are perfect.

dart-free Berge A graph is dart-free Berge if it is a Berge graph that does not contain
a dart (see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. Sun [114] proved the perfectness of
these graphs.

degenerate Berge A graph is called degenerate Berge if it is a Berge graph and every
induced subgraph H has a vertex of degree at most ω(H) + 1. This class of graphs
has been defined by Aı̈t Haddadène and Maffray [1] who also proved the perfectness
of these graphs.

diamond-free Berge A graph is diamond-free Berge if it is a Berge graph that does

not contain a diamond (a K4 with one edge removed, see Figure 1) as an induced
subgraph. Tucker [119] proved the perfectness of these graphs based on earlier results
of Parthasarathy and Ravindra [97].

doc-free Berge The name doc-free Berge is an abbreviation for the class of diamonded
odd cycle-free Berge graphs. These are Berge graphs that do not contain diamonded
odd cycles as induced subgraphs. A diamonded odd cycle on five vertices is a P 4
or a C4 together with a fifth vertex joined to all the others. An odd cycle C with
more than five vertices is called a diamonded odd cycle if it has two chords {x, y}

6
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

and {x, z} with {y, z} an edge of C and there exists a vertex w not on C adjacent to
y and z but not x. Moreover no edge of C other than {y, z} is on a triangle induced
by the vertices of C. Carducci [17] proved the perfectness of doc-free Berge graphs.
elementary A graph is called elementary if its edges can be colored by two colors so that
no monochromatic induced P3 occurs. Equivalently these are graphs whose Gallai-
graph is bipartite. Elementary graphs were introduced by Chvátal and Sbihi [25].
Perfectness of these graphs follows from the fact that they are claw-free Berge. Maf-
fray and Reed [84] give a description of the structure of elementary graphs.
forest A graph is called a forest if it does not contain a cycle. These graphs are perfect
as they are bipartite.
Gallai There exist two different classes of perfect graphs which have been given the
name Gallai. Historically → triangulated graphs were called Gallai graphs [9]. Later,
→ i-triangulated graphs were given this name.
gem-free Berge A graph is called gem-free Berge if it is a Berge graph without a gem
(see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. Perfection of these graphs follows from the
Strong Perfect Graph Theorem [19].
HHD-free A graph is called HHD-free if it does not contain a house (see Figure 1), a
hole of length at least 5 or a domino (see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. This
class of graphs was introduced in [63]. Perfectness follows easily from the observation
that these graphs are Meyniel.
Hoàng A graph is called Hoàng if its wing graph (see Section 2) is bipartite. This class
of graphs was introduced in [22]. Perfection of these graphs follows from the Strong
Perfect Graph Theorem [19].
i-triangulated A graph is called i-triangulated if every odd cycle of length at least
five has two non-crossing chords. These graphs are also called →Gallai. Gallai [38]
proved the perfectness of these graphs.
I4 -free Berge A graph is I4 -free Berge if it is Berge and does not contain a stable set
on four vertices. These are complements of → K 4 -free Berge graphs.
interval A graph is an interval graph if each vertex can be represented by an interval
on the real line in such a way that two vertices are adjacent if and only if their
corresponding intervals intersect. These graphs are → triangulated [43] and therefore
perfect.
K4 -free Berge A graph is K4 -free Berge if it is Berge and does not contain a clique on
four vertices. Tucker [118] proved the perfectness of these graphs.

7
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

(K5 , P5 )-free Berge A graph is (K5 , P5 )-free Berge if it is Berge and does not contain
a K5 or a P5 as an induced subgraph. Perfectness of these graphs was proved by
Maffray and Preissmann [82].
LGBIP The class LGBIP consists of all line graphs (see Section 2) of bipartite graphs.
As noted in [6] perfection of these graphs follows from a classical result of König [78].
line perfect A graph is called line perfect if its line graph is perfect. Perfection of
these graphs follows from a characterization of Trotter [116].
locally perfect A graph is called locally perfect if every induced subgraph admits a
coloring of its vertices such that for any vertex the number of colors used in the
neighborhood of this vertex equals the clique number of the neighborhood of the
vertex. This class of graphs was introduced by Preissmann [98] who also proved the
perfection of these graphs.
Meyniel A graph is called Meyniel if every odd cycle of length at least five has at least
two chords. Meyniel [87, 88] proved the perfectness of these graphs. The same result
was proven independently by Markosian and Karapetian [86].
murky A graph is called murky if it contains no C 5 , P6 or P 6 as an induced subgraph.
Hayward [52] proved that murky graphs are perfect.
1-overlap bipartite A graph belongs to the class 1-overlap bipartite if it is C 5 -free and
its 1-overlap graph (see Section 2) is bipartite. Hoàng, Hougardy and Maffray [62]
proved that these graphs are perfect.
opposition A graph is called opposition if it admits an orientation of its edges such that
in every induced P4 the two end edges both either point inwards or outwards. This
class of graphs was introduced by Chvátal [22]. Perfection follows from the Strong
Perfect Graph Theorem [19]. Note that there is another class of perfect graphs called
opposition [92] which additionally requires that the orientation of the edges be acyclic.
Therefore we call this class → strict opposition.
P4 -free A graph is called P4 -free if it does not contain a P4 as an induced subgraph.
These graphs are also called cographs. Perfection follows from a result of Sein-
sche [110].
P4 -lite A graph is called P4 -lite if every induced subgraph H with at most six vertices
contains either at most two induced P 4 ’s or H or H is the 3-sun (see Section 2).
These graphs were introduced in [76]. Perfection follows from the fact that they are
→ weakly triangulated.
P4 -reducible A graph is called P4 -reducible if every vertex belongs to at most one

8
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

induced P4 . These graphs were introduced in [75]. Perfection follows from the fact
that they are → weakly triangulated.
P4 -sparse A graph is called P4 -sparse if no set of five vertices induces more than one
P4 . This class of graphs was introduced in [60]. Perfection follows from the fact that
these graphs are → weakly triangulated.
P4 -stable Berge A graph is called P4 -stable Berge if it is a Berge graph containing
a stable set that intersects all induced P 4 ’s. Hoàng and Le [64] proved that these
graphs are perfect.
parity A graph is called parity if for every pair of nodes, the lengths of all induced paths
connecting them have the same parity. Burlet and Uhry [16] proved that a graph is
parity if and only if each odd cycle of length at least five has two crossing chords.
Perfection of these graphs was proved by Olaru [94].
partner-graph triangle-free The class partner-graph triangle-free contains all graphs
whose partner graph (see Section 2) is triangle free. Perfection of this class of graphs
was proved by Hayward and Lenhart [54].
paw-free Berge A graph is called paw-free Berge if it is a Berge graph that does not
contain a paw (see Figure 1) as an induced subgraph. Perfection follows from the
observation that these graphs are Meyniel. See [93] for a characterization of paw-free
graphs.
perfectly contractile A graph is called perfectly contractile if for any induced subgraph
H there exists a sequence H = H0 , H1 , . . . , Hk for some k such that Hi+1 is obtained
from Hi by contraction of an even pair (see Section 2) and H k is a clique. Bertschi [10]
introduced this class of graphs and proved that they are perfect.
perfectly orderable A graph is called perfectly orderable if there exists an acyclic
orientation of the edges such that in no induced P 4 the two end edges are oriented
inwards. This class of graphs was introduced by Chvátal [20] who also proved that
they are perfect.
permutation A graph is called a permutation graph if it can be represented by a
permutation π : {1, . . . , n} → {1, . . . , n} in such a way that two vertices i < j
are adjacent if and only if π(i) > π(j). Perfection of these graphs follows from a
characterization of Dushnik and Miller [35].
planar Berge The class planar Berge contains all Berge graphs that are planar. Per-
fection of these graphs was shown by Tucker [117].
preperfect A vertex x in a graph G is called predominant if there exists another vertex

9
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

y such that every maximum clique of G containing y contains x or every maximum

stable set containing x contains y. A graph is called preperfect if every induced
subgraph has a predominant vertex. Hammer and Maffray [49] introduced this class
of graphs and proved that all preperfect graphs are perfect.
quasi-parity A graph is called quasi-parity if for every induced subgraph H of G either
H or H contains an even pair (see Section 2). Meyniel [89] proved that quasi-parity
graphs are perfect.
Raspail A graph is called Raspail if every odd cycle has a short chord, i.e. a chord
joining two vertices that have distance two on the cycle. See [114] for an explanation
of where the name for this class comes from. Perfection of these graphs follows from
the Strong Perfect Graph Theorem [19].
skeletal A graph is called skeletal if it can be obtained by removing a collection S of
stars in a → parity graph. No two centers of stars in S must be joined by an induced
path of length at most two. Hertz [58] proved that these graphs are perfect.
slender A graph is called slender if it can be obtained from an →i-triangulated graph by
deleting all the edges of an arbitrary matching. Hertz [57] proved that these graphs
are perfect.
slightly triangulated A graph is called slightly triangulated if it contains no hole of
length at least five and every induced subgraph H contains a vertex whose neighbor-
hood in H does not contain a P4 . This class of graphs was introduced by Maire [85]
who also proved the perfectness of these graphs.
slim A graph is called slim if it can be obtained from a Meyniel graph by removing all
the edges that are induced by an arbitrary vertex set. Hertz [56] proved that slim
graphs are perfect.
snap A graph is called snap if it is Berge and every induced subgraph contains a vertex
whose neighborhood can be partitioned into a stable set and a clique. Maffray and
Preissmann [83] proved the perfection of snap graphs.
split A graph is called split if its vertex set can be partitioned into two sets V 1 and V2
such that V1 induces a stable set and V2 induces a clique. Perfection of split graphs
follows from the fact that they are triangulated.
strict opposition A graph is called strict opposition if it admits an acyclic orientation
of its edges such that in every induced P 4 the two end edges both either point inwards
or outwards. Olariu [92] proved that these graphs are perfect.
strict quasi-parity A graph is called strict quasi-parity if every induced subgraph

10
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

either contains an even pair (see Section 2) or is a clique. Meyniel [89] proved that
strict quasi-parity graphs are perfect.

strongly perfect A graph is called strongly perfect if every induced subgraph contains
a stable set that intersects all maximal cliques. Berge and Duchet [8] introduced
strongly perfect graphs and proved their perfection.

3-overlap bipartite A graph belongs to the class 3-overlap bipartite if its 3-overlap
graph (see Section 2) is bipartite. Hoàng, Hougardy and Maffray [62] proved that
these graphs are perfect.

3-overlap triangle free A graph belongs to the class 3-overlap bipartite if it is Berge
and its 3-overlap graph (see Section 2) is triangle free. Hoàng, Hougardy and Maf-
fray [62] proved that these graphs are perfect.

threshold A graph is called a threshold graph if it does not contain a C 4 , C 4 and

P4 as an induced subgraph. Perfection of these graphs follows easily as they are
triangulated.

totally unimodular see →unimodular.

transitively orientable see →comparability.

tree A connected graph that does not contain a cycle is called a tree. Trees are perfect
as they are bipartite.

triangulated A graph is called triangulated if every cycle of length at least four contains
a chord. These graphs are also called chordal. Perfection of triangulated graphs
follows from results of Hajnal and Surányi [48] and Dirac [34].

trivially perfect A graph is called trivially perfect if for each induced subgraph H the
stability number of H equals the number of maximal cliques in H. Golumbic [44]
introduced these graphs and proved their perfection. He also showed that a graph is
trivially perfect if and only if it contains no C 4 and no P4 as an induced subgraph.

2-overlap bipartite A graph belongs to the class 2-overlap bipartite if it is C 5 -free and
its 2-overlap graph (see Section 2) is bipartite. Hoàng, Hougardy and Maffray [62]
proved that these graphs are perfect.

2-overlap triangle free A graph belongs to the class 2-overlap triangle-free if it is

Berge and its 2-overlap graph (see Section 2) is triangle free. Hoàng, Hougardy and
Maffray [62] proved that these graphs are perfect.

2-split Berge A graph is called 2-split Berge if it is a Berge graph and if it can be

11
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

partioned into two → split graphs. Hoàng and Le [65] proved that 2-split graphs are
perfect.

2K2 -free Berge These are the complements of → C 4 -free Berge graphs.

unimodular A graph is called unimodular if its incidence matrix of vertices and maximal
cliques is totally unimodular, i.e. every square submatrix has determinant 0, 1, or −1.
Perfection of these graphs was proved by Berge [7].

weakly chordal see →weakly triangulated.

weakly triangulated A graph is called weakly triangulated if neither the graph nor
its complement contains an induced cycle of length at least five. These graphs are
also called weakly chordal. Hayward [51] proved that weakly triangulated graphs are
perfect.

wing triangulated A graph is called wing triangulated if its wing graph (see Section 2)
is triangulated. Hougardy, Le and Wagler [68] proved that wing triangulated graphs
are perfect.

4 Algorithmic Complexity

The following table lists what is known regarding algorithmic complexity for the 120
classes. Note that we do not include the complements of the classes as they have, except
in the case of linear time recognition, the same algorithmic behavior as the classes them-
selves. The column recognition contains information on polynomial time algorithms to
test whether a given graph is a member of the class. The columns ω, χ, α, and θ con-
tain information on polynomial time combinatorial algorithms to compute a maximum
clique, the chromatic number, the stability number or a clique covering. Note that all
these problems can be solved in polynomial time by the algorithms of Grötschel, Lovász,
and Schrijver [47]. However, their algorithms are based on the ellipsoid method and are
therefore not purely combinatorial.
We use the following notation in the table: P means there exists a polynomial time
algorithm but we do not specify its running time. A polynomial in n and m denotes
the running time of an algorithm. We left out the O-notation to improve readability.
References are usually given following the running time. If not then this means that the
algorithm is trivial. We use the abbreviation NPC for NP-complete problems. A question
mark indicates that a polynomial time algorithm seems not to be known. A question
mark together with a reference indicates that finding a polynomial time algorithm for

12
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

this problem is posed as an open problem in the literature.

class recognition ω χ α θ
alternately colorable P [61] ? ? ? ?
alternately orientable P [61] ? ? ? ?
AT-free Berge P [18] ? ? n4 [15] ?
BIP∗ ? [21] ? ? ? ?
√
bipartite n+m n+m n+m nm [67] P [40]
brittle m2 [109] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55]
bull-free Berge n5 [99] P [31] P [31] P [31] P [31]
C4 -free Berge P [18] ? ? ? ?
chair-free Berge P [18] ? ? P [2] ?
claw-free Berge P [25] n7/2 [72] n4 [69] n4 [108, 91, 81] n11/2 [72]
clique-separable P [41, 120] P [41, 120] P [41, 120] P [115, 120] P [120]
cograph contraction P [79] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55]
comparability 2
n [111] 2
n [111, 45] 2
n [111, 45] P [45] P [45]
∆ ≤ 6 Berge P [18] P ? ? ?
dart-free Berge P [23] ? ? ? ?
degenerate Berge ? [1] ? ? ? ?
diamond-free Berge P [36] ? 3
n [119] ? ?
doc-free Berge ? ? ? ? ?
elementary P n 7/2 [72] 4
n [69] n4 [108, 91, 81] n11/2 [72]
forest n n n n P [40]
gem-free Berge P [18] ? ? ? ?
HHD-free n3 [66] n + m [74] n + m [74] n + m [74] n + m [74]
Hoàng P ? ? ? ?
i-triangulated nm [103] P [41, 120] n + m [101] P [115, 120] P [120]
interval n + m [11] n + m [11] n + m [11] n + m [11] n + m [11]
K4 -free Berge P [18] P ? ? ?
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge P 4
n [82] ? [82] ? [82] ? [82]
√
LGBIP n + m [105] n + m [105] n log n [27] nm [67] n11/2 [72]
line perfect P [116] ? ? ? ?
locally perfect ? [98] ? ? ? ?
Meyniel 2
m [102] n3 [59] n2 [104] ? ?
murky P ? ? ? ?
1-overlap bipartite P ? ? ? ?

13
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

class recognition ω χ α θ
opposition ? ? ? ? ?
P4 -free n + m [30] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5]
P4 -lite P n + m [42] n + m [42] n + m [42] n + m [42]
P4 -reducible P [75] n + m [42] n + m [42] n + m [42] n + m [42]
P4 -sparse n + m [77] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5]
P4 -stable Berge NPC [64] ? ? ? ?
parity n + m [26] P [16] P [16] P [16] P [16]
partner-graph 4-free P ? ? ? ?
paw-free Berge P [18] n3 [59] n2 [104] ? ?
perfectly contractile ? ? ? ? ?
perfectly orderable NPC [90] ? ? ? ?
permutation n+m P [45] P [45] P [45] P [45]
planar Berge n3 [70] n + m [95] n3/2 [71, 113] P [71] ?
preperfect ? ? ? ? ?
quasi-parity ? [89] ? ? ? ?
Raspail ? [22] ? ? ? ?
skeletal ? ? ? ? ?
slender ? ? ? ? ?
slightly triangulated P [85] ? ? [85] ? ?
slim ? ? ? ? ?
snap ? [83] nm [83] ? [83] ? ?
split n + m [50] P [45] P [45] P [45] P [45]
strict opposition ? ? ? ? ?
strict quasi-parity ? [89] ? ? ? ?
strongly perfect ? ? ? ? ?
3-overlap bipartite P [62] ? ? ? ?
3-overlap 4-free P [18] ? ? ? ?
threshold P n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5]
tree n n n n P [40]
triangulated n + m [100] n + m [100] n + m [100] n + m [100] n + m [100]
trivially perfect n + m [44] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5] n + m [5]
2-overlap bipartite P [62] ? ? ? ?
2-overlap 4-free P [18] ? ? ? ?
2-split Berge P [65] P [65] ? P [3] ?
unimodular ? ? ? ? ?
weakly triangulated n2 m [112] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55] nm [55]
wing triangulated P [68] ? ? ? ?

14
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

5 The Number of Perfect Graphs

We have implemented an algorithm to check whether a given graph is perfect and counted
the number of non-isomorphic perfect graphs on up to 12 vertices. Table 1 contains these
numbers and compares them to the number of all non-isomorphic graphs on the same
number of vertices. Note that these numbers include disconnected graphs. It is well
known that the proportion of graphs which are perfect tends to zero (see for example
Proposition 11.3.1 in [32]).

Table 1: The number of all non-isomorphic graphs and the number of all non-isomorphic
perfect graphs on exactly n vertices for n = 5, . . . , 12.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
all graphs 34 156 1044 12346 274668 12005168 1018997864 165091172592
perfect 33 148 906 8887 136756 3269264 115811998 5855499195

We also implemented for each of the 120 classes of perfect graphs an algorithm for
recognizing these graphs. We ran these 120 algorithms on all graphs with up to 10 ver-
tices. The following table contains the number of graphs contained in each class for a
given number of vertices. These numbers give some impression of how large the classes
are. Note that we did not include the complements of the classes in the table, as the
complement of a class contains the same number of graphs as the class itself.

class 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
perfect 2 4 11 33 148 906 8887 136756 3269264
alternately colorable 2 4 11 32 136 749 6142 71759 1174550
alternately orientable 2 4 11 33 147 896 8673 130683 3012745
AT-free Berge 2 4 11 33 144 826 6836 76322 1126575
BIP∗ 2 4 11 33 147 896 8683 131332 3065093
bipartite 2 3 7 13 35 88 303 1119 5479
brittle 2 4 11 33 146 886 8472 125262 2799594
bull-free Berge 2 4 11 32 130 592 3275 19546 126842
C4 -free Berge 2 4 10 27 95 398 2164 14945 131562
chair-free Berge 2 4 11 32 126 546 2766 15014 88460
claw-free Berge 2 4 10 25 80 262 1003 4044 17983
clique-separable 2 4 11 32 129 630 4118 34375 364004
cograph contraction 2 4 11 33 139 737 5220 47299 542268
comparability 2 4 11 33 144 824 6793 75400 1107853

15
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

class 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
∆ ≤ 6 Berge 2 4 11 33 148 906 7981 84637 922648
dart-free Berge 2 4 11 32 124 512 2495 13245 79734
degenerate Berge 2 4 11 33 148 906 8884 136682 3265152
diamond-free Berge 2 4 10 24 75 249 1033 4918 28077
doc-free Berge 2 4 11 31 122 560 3395 24891 215455
elementary 2 4 10 25 79 253 936 3601 15486
forest 2 3 6 10 20 37 76 153 329
gem-free Berge 2 4 11 32 130 625 3964 30929 297142
HHD-free 2 4 11 32 128 608 3689 27238 244922
Hoàng 2 4 11 33 145 848 7111 77067 1007506
i-triangulated 2 4 11 31 117 504 2772 18738 158931
interval 2 4 10 27 92 369 1807 10344 67659
K4 -free Berge 2 4 10 28 112 568 4184 42450 576926
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge 2 4 11 31 124 565 3162 19531 132566
LGBIP 2 4 9 17 39 84 200 484 1263
line perfect 2 4 11 26 80 248 899 3441 15081
locally perfect 2 4 11 33 148 901 8664 126954 2769696
Meyniel 2 4 11 32 130 622 3839 28614 258660
murky 2 4 11 33 146 850 7069 77493 1072620
1-overlap bipartite 2 4 11 33 148 902 6349 38037 210384
opposition 2 4 11 33 146 848 6880 68743 778449
P4 -free 2 4 10 24 66 180 522 1532 4624
P4 -lite 2 4 11 33 94 278 841 2613 8314
P4 -reducible 2 4 11 27 76 212 631 1893 5846
P4 -sparse 2 4 11 27 78 218 653 1963 6088
P4 -stable Berge 2 4 11 33 147 894 8515 120263 2363930
parity 2 4 11 31 116 466 2207 11258 63098
partner-graph 4-free 2 4 11 33 132 494 1603 5038 16334
paw-free Berge 2 4 10 21 54 130 395 1323 5946
perfectly contractile 2 4 11 33 147 896 8683 131333 3065118
perfectly orderable 2 4 11 33 147 896 8682 131299 3062755
permutation 2 4 11 33 142 776 5699 50723 524572
planar Berge 2 4 11 32 134 711 5229 48736 543955
preperfect 2 4 11 33 148 906 8887 136755 3269254
quasi-parity 2 4 11 33 148 906 8886 136735 3268600
Raspail 2 4 11 33 148 901 8690 127853 2803340

16
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

class 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
skeletal 2 4 11 33 145 826 6266 54401 504200
slender 2 4 11 33 148 875 7675 93735 1557742
slightly triangulated 2 4 11 33 147 896 8682 131293 3059990
slim 2 4 11 33 147 892 8335 109568 1845372
snap 2 4 11 33 147 896 8677 130114 2951360
split 2 4 9 21 56 164 557 2223 10766
strict opposition 2 4 11 33 145 840 6757 66677 742244
strict quasi-parity 2 4 11 33 147 896 8684 131363 3066504
strongly perfect 2 4 11 33 147 896 8682 131303 3063185
3-overlap bipartite 2 4 11 33 134 492 1634 5127 16624
3-overlap 4-free 2 4 11 33 136 532 1783 5549 17906
threshold 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512
tree 1 1 2 3 6 11 23 47 106
triangulated 2 4 10 27 94 393 2119 14524 126758
trivially perfect 2 4 9 20 48 115 286 719 1842
2-overlap bipartite 2 4 11 33 138 582 2367 9421 37916
2-overlap 4-free 2 4 11 33 140 586 2379 9495 38436
2-split Berge 2 4 11 33 148 906 8887 136750 3268816
unimodular 2 4 11 33 144 822 6744 73147 1006995
weakly triangulated 2 4 11 33 146 886 8483 126029 2866876
wing triangulated 2 4 11 33 133 598 2836 13304 62243

6 Relations Between Classes of Perfect Graphs

This section contains a table of all known relations between the 120 classes of perfect
graphs covered in this paper. The table contains 14400 entries. There exist 150 cases
in which the relation between two classes are not known. Several of these undetermined
relations are well known open problems. This table contains two entries that have been
open problems before. We show that the class of strict quasi-parity graphs is not con-
tained in the class of perfectly contractile graphs as was asked in [10], and we show that
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge graphs are not quasi-parity, as was asked in [82].
In the following we list the undetermined relations which have been posed as open
problems in the literature and give references.

alternately orientable ∈ quasi-parity [89, 61]

alternately orientable ∈ strict quasi-parity [61, 22]
BIP∗ ∈ quasi-parity [89]

17
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

BIP∗ ∈ strict quasi-parity [22]

1-overlap bipartite ∈ quasi-parity [62]
quasi parity ∈ preperfect [49]
slim ∈ BIP∗ [56]
slim ∈ strict quasi-parity [56]
slender ∈ quasi-parity [57]
strongly perfect∈ perfectly contractile [10]
strongly perfect ∈ quasi-parity [89]
strongly perfect ∈ strict quasi-parity [22]
The table is split over several pages. Here is a short description on how to use the
table. In the upper left corner you find a small map helping you to find out which part of
the table you are currently looking at. If you are interested in knowing whether a class
C1 is a subclass of C2 , find the cell in the intersection of the row containing class C 1 and
the column containing class C2 . If the cell contains a “=” then the two classes are the
same. If the cell contains a “<” or a “l” then C 1 is a proper subclass of C2 . Here, “l”
denotes inclusions that belong to the transitive reduction of the inclusion-order. If the
cell is empty (gray) then it is not known whether C 1 is a subclass of C2 . In all other cases
class C1 is not a subclass of C2 . In this case you will find some letters and numbers in the
cell, which describe an example of a graph which is contained in C 1 but not in C2 and
have the following meaning:
Ki clique of size i
Ii stable set of size i
Pi path with i vertices
Ci cycle with i vertices
Kn,m a complete bipartite graph with n respectively m vertices on each side
nG n disjoint copies of the graph G
G the complement of G
Fi this graph is described in Section 7
Almost all of the counterexamples appearing in this table were found by a computer
program by “simply” scanning all 3416012 perfect graphs on up to 10 vertices. For each
of these graphs it was checked to which of the 120 classes it belongs. As several of these
membership tests require exponential time the total running time was about two month
on a 1.3GHz PC.
All counterexamples given in the table which have at most 10 vertices are smallest
possible with respect to the number of vertices.
Only the (currently 9) graphs on more than 10 vertices had to be found by hand.
Clearly the inclusions cannot be proven by a computer. However, only the transitive

18
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

reduction of the inclusion-order has to be typed in by hand, the transitive closure of the
relations is generated automatically (including consistency checks). Thus in total out of
the currently 14400 entries only 237 had to be made by hand.

19
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-alternately orientable
co-alternately colorable

co-cograph contraction
classes of perfect

alternately orientable
alternately colorable
graphs

co-clique-separable
co-chair-free Berge
co-claw-free Berge
co-AT-free Berge
clique-separable
chair-free Berge
claw-free Berge
bull-free Berge
AT-free Berge

C4 -free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-bipartite
7 8 9 10 11 12

bipartite

co-BIP∗
13 14 15 16 17 18

brittle
BIP∗
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable = C 6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
alternately orientable K2,3 = C6 l K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
AT-free Berge K2,3 C6 = C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
BIP∗ K2,3F41 C6 = K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
bipartite K2,3 < C6 < = C6 < C4 F7 K1,3 < < C6 < C6 I3 < < F4 P6
brittle K2,3F41 F15 < K3 = F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
bull-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 = C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
C4 -free Berge F43 F55 C6 F55 K3 C6 F5 = F7 K1,3F29K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
chair-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 = K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
claw-free Berge F54 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 l = F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
clique-separable K2,3 l C6 < K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 = K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-alternately colorable K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 = C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-alternately orientable K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 = C6 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-AT-free Berge K2,3 C6 l K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 = C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-BIP∗ K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 = I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-bipartite < C 6 < C6 K3 C6 < C4 < < F4 K2,3 < C6 < = F7 K1,3 < C6
co-chair-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 = K1,3 F4 P6
co-claw-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 F54 C6 C6 C6 I3 l = F4 P6
co-clique-separable K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 l C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 = C6
co-cograph contraction K2,3F56 F15 < K3 F42 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F39 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 =
co-comparability K2,3 C6 l C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 l C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-dart-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-degenerate Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-diamond-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 l K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 C6 C6
co-doc-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
co-elementary K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 l C6 C6 C6 I3 < l F 4 P6
co-forest < F61 < < K3 < < C4 < < F4 < < F24 < l F7 K1,3 < P7
co-gem-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
co-HHD-free K2,3F56 F15 < K3 l F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 F11

20
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-diamond-free Berge

co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

classes of perfect

co-degenerate Berge
graphs

co-P4 -stable Berge

co-dart-free Berge

co-gem-free Berge
co-doc-free Berge

co-locally perfect
co-i-triangulated
co-comparability
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge

co-line perfect
co-elementary

co-opposition
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-HHD-free

co-Meyniel
co-interval

co-LGBIP
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-Hoàng
co-forest
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
alternately orientable C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
AT-free Berge F21 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F23
BIP∗ C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
bipartite C6 I8 < 4K2 F1 F3 l I 3 F3 P5 < P5 C4 I 5 F1 I5 P7 P5 F24 C6
brittle F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F27
bull-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
C4 -free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
chair-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
claw-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
clique-separable C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
co-alternately colorable C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-alternately orientable F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-AT-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F14 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
co-BIP∗ F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-bipartite < K1,7 < K4,4 l < K1,3 C4 < C 6 C6 < C4 P5 K1,3 l < < C6 <
co-chair-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-claw-free Berge C6 I8 l 4K2 F1 F3 F15 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I 5 F1 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-clique-separable F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 l P5 C6 F27
co-cograph contraction F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 F14 F27
co-comparability = I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F23
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 = F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 C6
co-dart-free Berge C6 I8 = 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 C6
co-degenerate Berge C6 I8 F6 = F 1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 C6
co-diamond-free Berge C6 I8 l K4,4 = l K1,3 I3 < P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F57 P5 C6 C6
co-doc-free Berge C6 I8 F6 K4,4 F1 = K1,3 I3 l P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 C6 C6
co-elementary C6 I8 < 4K2 F1 F3 = I 3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I 5 F1 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-forest < K1,7 < < < < K1,3 = < < F35 < F24 P5 K1,3 < < < F35 <
co-gem-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F8 K1,3 I3 = P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 C6 C6
co-HHD-free F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 = F15 F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < l F14 F27

21
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-slightly triangulated
co-perfectly contractile
classes of perfect

co-perfectly orderable

co-strict quasi-parity

co-wing triangulated
cograph contraction
co-strict opposition
graphs

co-strongly perfect

co-trivially perfect
co-paw-free Berge

co-planar Berge

co-triangulated

co-unimodular
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-Raspail
co-skeletal
co-slender
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-parity

co-snap
co-slim

co-tree
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
alternately orientable P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
AT-free Berge P5 F2 I5 F51 F16 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
BIP∗ P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
bipartite P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 < C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
brittle P5 F2 < l I5 F31 F15 F19 2P4F31 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
bull-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
C4 -free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
chair-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
claw-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F29 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
clique-separable P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F26 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-alternately colorable P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-alternately orientable P5 F2 F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-AT-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-BIP∗ P5 F2 F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-bipartite < l < < K3,3 < < < C6 < < C6 < < K2 C4 C4 l F10 C6
co-chair-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F26 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-claw-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F54 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-clique-separable P5 F2 l F42 I5 F31 F15 F26 C6 F24 3K2 C6 < F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-cograph contraction P5 F2 < F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 2P4F24 3K2F14 < F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
co-comparability P5 F2 < l I5 l F16 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-dart-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-degenerate Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-diamond-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F26 C6 C6 F60 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 F54 C6 C6
co-doc-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 2C4 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 F40 C6 C6
co-elementary P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 l C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-forest < < < < l < < < < < < F35 < < K2 l P4 < F10 P6
co-gem-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-HHD-free F3 F2 < < I5 F56 F15 F19 2P4 < 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6

22
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

diamond-free Berge

(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

graphs

degenerate Berge
dart-free Berge

gem-free Berge
doc-free Berge

locally perfect
K4 -free Berge
i-triangulated
comparability
1 2 3 4 5 6

I4 -free Berge
∆ ≤ 6 Berge

line perfect
elementary
7 8 9 10 11 12

HHD-free

Meyniel
interval

LGBIP
Hoàng
13 14 15 16 17 18

forest
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable C6 K1,7 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
alternately orientable F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
AT-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F14 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
BIP∗ F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
bipartite < K1,7 < K4,4 l < K1,3 C4 < C 6 C6 < I4 C4 l P5 K1,3 l < <
brittle F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
bull-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
C4 -free Berge F15K1,7 F6 F72 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 C6 C6 F29 I4 C6 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 F65 F26
chair-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
claw-free Berge C6 K8 l 4K2 F1 F3 F15 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 F1 P5 P7 P5
clique-separable F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 l P5
co-alternately colorable C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-alternately orientable C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-AT-free Berge F21K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-BIP∗ C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-bipartite C6 K8 < 4K2 F1 F3 l K3 F3 P5 < P5 l C4 K4 K5 F1 P5 P7 P5
co-chair-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-claw-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-clique-separable C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-cograph contraction F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5
co-comparability C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F14 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-dart-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-degenerate Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-diamond-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-doc-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-elementary C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-forest F24 K8 < 4K2 F1 F3 < K3 F3 P5 < P5 < C4 K4 K5 F1 P5 P7 P5
co-gem-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-HHD-free F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5

23
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

partner-graph 4-free

perfectly contractile
graphs

perfectly orderable
1-overlap bipartite

P4 -stable Berge

paw-free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

planar Berge
permutation
P4 -reducible

quasi-parity
opposition

preperfect
7 8 9 10 11 12

P4 -sparse

Raspail
skeletal
slender
P4 -free
P4 -lite
murky
13 14 15 16 17 18

parity
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
alternately orientable P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F42 C6 K5 F31 F15 F19
AT-free Berge P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 F19
BIP∗ P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F42 C6 K5 F31 F15 F19
bipartite P6 F34 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 < < C6 l < < C6 K3,3 < < < < <
brittle P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 F9 F2 < l F15 K5 l < F31 F15 F19
bull-free Berge P6 F34 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 l F29 C6 F19
C4 -free Berge P6 F27 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 C6 F2 F62 F55 C6 K5 F74 F68 F66 F15 F29
chair-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F26 C6 F19
claw-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F54 C6 F19
clique-separable P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 l F42 C6 K5 l < F31 F15 F26
co-alternately colorable P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-alternately orientable P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 F19
co-AT-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 C6 F2 C6 K5 F51 F16 F19
co-BIP∗ P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 F19
co-bipartite P6 F34 F24 P4 C6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < < < C6 F19
co-chair-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-claw-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F29
co-clique-separable P6 F31 F14 P4 C6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 l < F26 C6 F19
co-cograph contraction P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 l P5 F9 F2 < l F15 K5 < F56 F15 F19
co-comparability P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < F31 C6 F19
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-dart-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-degenerate Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-diamond-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 C6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F26 C6 F19
co-doc-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F29 C6 F19
co-elementary P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F29
co-forest P6 F47 F24 P4 P6 P5 P5 2P4 P5 F9 F2 < < F24 K5 < < < P8 F19
co-gem-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F29 C6 F19
co-HHD-free P6 F27 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 F9 F2 < < F15 K5 < < F56 F15 F19

24
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

slightly triangulated

weakly triangulated
graphs

3-overlap bipartite

2-overlap bipartite
strict quasi-parity

wing triangulated
strict opposition

3-overlap 4-free

2-overlap 4-free
strongly perfect

trivially perfect

2K2 -free Berge

1 2 3 4 5 6

2-split Berge
triangulated

unimodular
7 8 9 10 11 12

threshold
13 14 15 16 17 18

snap
split
slim

tree
19 20 21 22 23 24
alternately colorable C6 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
alternately orientable C6 F313K2 C4 C6 F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
AT-free Berge C8 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
BIP∗ C6 F313K2 C4 C6 F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
bipartite C 6 < < C4 C6 < < F 9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 l C4 l C6 F10
brittle 2P4F313K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 l F10
bull-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
C4 -free Berge C6 F55 F69 C4 C6 F68 F62 F9 F9 C4 I2 C6 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 F15 C6 F10
chair-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
claw-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
clique-separable C6 F243K2 C4 C6 < F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-alternately colorable C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-alternately orientable C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-AT-free Berge C6 F313K2 C4 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-BIP∗ C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-bipartite C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 l C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-chair-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-claw-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-clique-separable C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-cograph contraction F313K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 l F10
co-comparability C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-dart-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-degenerate Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-diamond-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-doc-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-elementary C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-forest 2P4F243K2 C4 F24 < < F9 F9 P4 I2 C4 P4 F24 F24 < < 3K2 < F10
co-gem-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-HHD-free 2P4F243K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 < F10

25
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-alternately orientable
co-alternately colorable

co-cograph contraction
classes of perfect

alternately orientable
alternately colorable
graphs

co-clique-separable
co-chair-free Berge
co-claw-free Berge
co-AT-free Berge
clique-separable
chair-free Berge
claw-free Berge
bull-free Berge
AT-free Berge

C4 -free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-bipartite
7 8 9 10 11 12

bipartite

co-BIP∗
13 14 15 16 17 18

brittle
BIP∗
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng K2,3 C8 C6 C8 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-i-triangulated K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 < C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 l C6
co-interval K2,3 < F27 < K3 < F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 < < < < I3 F7 K1,3 < P7
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge K2,3F56 C6 F55 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-LGBIP K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 < K1,3 C6 < C6 C6 C6 I3 < < C6 C6
co-line perfect K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 < C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 < C6
co-locally perfect K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-Meyniel K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 C6 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
co-opposition K2,3 C8 C6 C8 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-P4 -stable Berge K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 F44 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-parity K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
co-paw-free Berge K2,3 C6 < C6 K3 C6 l C4 l K1,3 F4 K2,3 < C6 < I3 F7 K1,3 < C6
co-perfectly contractile K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 F55 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-perfectly orderable K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-planar Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-Raspail K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-skeletal K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-slender K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-slightly triangulated K2,3F41 C6 F44 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-slim K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-snap K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-strict opposition K2,3 C8 F15 C8 K3 C8 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 F15 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-strict quasi-parity K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 F44 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-strongly perfect K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 F55 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-tree < F61 < < K1,3 < < P5 < < P6 < < F24 < < F7 K1,3 < P7
co-triangulated K2,3F56 F15 < K3 < F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 l < F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 < P7
co-trivially perfect K2,3 < < < K3 < < C4 < K1,3 F4 < < < < I3 < K1,3 < <
co-unimodular K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
co-wing triangulated K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F45 C6 F55 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
cograph contraction K2,3F39 F15 < K3 F42 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6

26
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-diamond-free Berge

co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

classes of perfect

co-degenerate Berge
graphs

co-P4 -stable Berge

co-dart-free Berge

co-gem-free Berge
co-doc-free Berge

co-locally perfect
co-i-triangulated
co-comparability
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge

co-line perfect
co-elementary

co-opposition
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-HHD-free

co-Meyniel
co-interval

co-LGBIP
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-Hoàng
co-forest
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 = P 5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F24 C6
co-i-triangulated F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 C6 C6 = C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < l C6 F27
co-interval F27 I8 F6 < F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 < F35 < = I5 K1,3 I5 < < F35 F27
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 = K1,3 P5 P7 P5 F14 C6
co-LGBIP C6 I8 < F71 l < l I3 < P 5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 = I5 F57 P5 C6 C6
co-line perfect F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 l K1,3 I3 < C 6 C6 l C4 P5 K1,3 = < < C6 F58
co-locally perfect C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 = P5 C6 C6
co-Meyniel F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 C 6 C 6 F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 l = C6 F27
co-opposition C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 = C6
co-P4 -stable Berge F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 =
co-parity F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F8 K1,3 I3 l C6 C6 F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < l C6 F36
co-paw-free Berge l I8 l 4K2 F1 F8 K1,3 I3 < C6 C6 l C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < < C6 l
co-perfectly contractile F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-perfectly orderable F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-planar Berge C6 K1,7 F6 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 P5 K1,3 P5 P5 C6 C6
co-Raspail C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-skeletal F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F34
co-slender C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-slightly triangulated C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
co-slim F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-snap C6 I8 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
co-strict opposition F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 l F27
co-strict quasi-parity F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-strongly perfect F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
co-tree < K1,7 < < < < K1,3 l < < F35 < F24 P5 K1,3 < < < F35 <
co-triangulated F15 I8 F6 l F 1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 l F15 l F15 I5 K1,3 I5 < < F35 F27
co-trivially perfect < I8 F6 < F 1 l K1,3 I3 < < < < l I5 K1,3 I5 < < < <
co-unimodular C6 I8 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 C6 C6
co-wing triangulated F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 2P4
cograph contraction F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 F14 l

27
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-slightly triangulated
co-perfectly contractile
classes of perfect

co-perfectly orderable

co-strict quasi-parity

co-wing triangulated
cograph contraction
co-strict opposition
graphs

co-strongly perfect

co-trivially perfect
co-paw-free Berge

co-planar Berge

co-triangulated

co-unimodular
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-Raspail
co-skeletal
co-slender
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-parity

co-snap
co-slim

co-tree
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-i-triangulated F3 F2 < F73 I5 l F15 l C6 < 3K2 C6 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-interval F3 F2 < < I5 < F27 < < < < F35 < < K2 l P4 l F10 P6
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 2P3 F29 C6 F29 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-LGBIP P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 < C6 F26 C6 C6 F60 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 l C 6 C6
co-line perfect l F2 < F73K3,3 < < < C6 < l C6 < < K2 C4 C4 F10 C6
co-locally perfect P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-Meyniel F3 F2 l F67 I5 F56 F15 F19 C6 l 3K2 C6 < l K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-opposition P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-P4 -stable Berge P5 F2 F44 F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 F59 F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-parity = F2 < F73 I5 F56 l F19 C6 < 3K2 C6 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-paw-free Berge l = < < I5 < < < C6 < 3K2 C6 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-perfectly contractile P5 F2 = F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 l F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-perfectly orderable P5 F2 l = I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 < l K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-planar Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 = F31 C6 F29 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-Raspail P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 = C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-skeletal P5 F2 F63 I5 F28 = F19 C6 F24 3K2 C6 l F63 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-slender P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 = C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-slightly triangulated P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 = C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-slim P5 F2 F54 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 = 3K2 C6 F54 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-snap P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 = C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 F15 C6 C6
co-strict opposition P5 F2 I5 F28 F15 F19 2P4F31 3K2 = l K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
co-strict quasi-parity P5 F2 F44 F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 = F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-strongly perfect P5 F2 F55 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 = K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
co-tree < < < < < < < < < < < F35 < < = < P4 < F10 P6
co-triangulated F3 F2 < < I5 < F15 < l < l F35 < < K2 = P4 F15 F10 P6
co-trivially perfect < F2 < < I5 < < < < < < < < < K2 < = < < <
co-unimodular P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 2C4 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 = C6 C6
co-wing triangulated P5 F2 F55 I5 F53 F15 F19 C6 F32 3K2 C6 l K2 C4 C4 3K2 = C6
cograph contraction P5 F2 < l I5 F56 F15 F19 F31 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 =

28
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

diamond-free Berge

(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

graphs

degenerate Berge
dart-free Berge

gem-free Berge
doc-free Berge

locally perfect
K4 -free Berge
i-triangulated
comparability
1 2 3 4 5 6

I4 -free Berge
∆ ≤ 6 Berge

line perfect
elementary
7 8 9 10 11 12

HHD-free

Meyniel
interval

LGBIP
Hoàng
13 14 15 16 17 18

forest
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-i-triangulated C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-interval l K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F14 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge F15 K8 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 C 6 C 6 F4 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 F65 F26
co-LGBIP C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-line perfect C6 K8 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F49 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-locally perfect C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-Meyniel C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-opposition F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-P4 -stable Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-parity C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F49 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-paw-free Berge C6 K1,7 l K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 l P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-perfectly contractile C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-perfectly orderable C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-planar Berge C6 K8 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-Raspail C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-skeletal C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F14 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-slender C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-slightly triangulated F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-slim C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-snap C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-strict opposition F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-strict quasi-parity C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-strongly perfect C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-tree F24 P9 < F48 F7 P6 < K1,3 P6 P5 < P5 < P5 K1,4K1,5 F7 P5 P7 P5
co-triangulated F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-trivially perfect < K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F8 K1,3 K3 < < < F4 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
co-unimodular C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
co-wing triangulated C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
cograph contraction F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5

29
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

partner-graph 4-free

perfectly contractile
graphs

perfectly orderable
1-overlap bipartite

P4 -stable Berge

paw-free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

planar Berge
permutation
P4 -reducible

quasi-parity
opposition

preperfect
7 8 9 10 11 12

P4 -sparse

Raspail
skeletal
slender
P4 -free
P4 -lite
murky
13 14 15 16 17 18

parity
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 C6 F2 C8 C8 C6 K5 F31 F16 F19
co-i-triangulated P6 F27 F14 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < < F56 C6 F19
co-interval P6 F27 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 2P4 P5 F9 F2 < < F27 K5 < < < F25 F19
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge P6 F27 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 C6 F2 F62 F55 C6 K5 F68 F56 F15 F19
co-LGBIP P6 F46 C6 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F26 C6 F30
co-line perfect P6 F34 F24 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < < l C6 F19
co-locally perfect P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-Meyniel P6 F27 F14 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < F29 C6 F19
co-opposition P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 C6 F2 C8 C8 C6 K5 F74 F68 F31 F15 F19
co-P4 -stable Berge P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F59 F31 C6 F19
co-parity P6 F34 F24 P4 C6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 l < F29 C6 F19
co-paw-free Berge P6 F34 F24 P4 C6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < < C6 F19
co-perfectly contractile P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < F31 C6 F19
co-perfectly orderable P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < F31 C6 F19
co-planar Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F70 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-Raspail P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-skeletal P6 F27 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 < F29 C6 F19
co-slender P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 F31 C6 F19
co-slightly triangulated P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F44 F42 C6 K5 F31 F15 F19
co-slim P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 F29 C6 F19
co-snap P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-strict opposition P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 F9 F2 C8 C8 F15 K5 < F31 F15 F19
co-strict quasi-parity P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 l F31 C6 F19
co-strongly perfect P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 F19
co-tree P6 F47 F24 P4 P6 P5 P5 P9 P5 F9 P5 < < F24K1,5 < < < P8 F20
co-triangulated P6 F27 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 2P4 P5 F9 F2 < < F15 K5 < < F56 F15 F19
co-trivially perfect < < < l < < < < < < F2 < < < K5 < < < < F19
co-unimodular P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
co-wing triangulated P6 F37 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 < F29 C6 F19
cograph contraction P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 F9 F2 < F42 F15 K5 < F31 F15 F19

30
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

slightly triangulated

weakly triangulated
graphs

3-overlap bipartite

2-overlap bipartite
strict quasi-parity

wing triangulated
strict opposition

3-overlap 4-free

2-overlap 4-free
strongly perfect

trivially perfect

2K2 -free Berge

1 2 3 4 5 6

2-split Berge
triangulated

unimodular
7 8 9 10 11 12

threshold
13 14 15 16 17 18

snap
split
slim

tree
19 20 21 22 23 24
co-Hoàng C6 F243K2 C4 C6 C8 C8 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-i-triangulated C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-interval 2P4F373K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 P4 I2 C4 P4 F14 F14 3K3 < 3K2 < F10
co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge C6 F553K2 C4 C6 F68 F62 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-LGBIP C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F12 F12 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-line perfect C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-locally perfect C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-Meyniel C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-opposition C6 F243K2 C4 C6 C8 C8 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-P4 -stable Berge C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-parity C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-paw-free Berge C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-perfectly contractile C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-perfectly orderable C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-planar Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-Raspail C6 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-skeletal C8 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-slender C6 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-slightly triangulated C6 F313K2 C4 C6 F64 F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
co-slim C8 C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-snap C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-strict opposition C8 F243K2 C4 F14 C8 C8 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 C8 F10
co-strict quasi-parity C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-strongly perfect C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-tree P9 F24 F24 P5 F24 < < F9 F9 P4 I2 P5 P4 F24 F24 < < F13 < F10
co-triangulated 2P4F243K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 P4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 l 3K2 < F10
co-trivially perfect < < 3K2 C4 < < < < < C4 I2 C4 C4 < < 3K3 < 3K2 < <
co-unimodular C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
co-wing triangulated 2P4 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
cograph contraction 2P4F243K2 C4 F14 < F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 l F10

31
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-alternately orientable
co-alternately colorable

co-cograph contraction
classes of perfect

alternately orientable
alternately colorable
graphs

co-clique-separable
co-chair-free Berge
co-claw-free Berge
co-AT-free Berge
clique-separable
chair-free Berge
claw-free Berge
bull-free Berge
AT-free Berge

C4 -free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-bipartite
7 8 9 10 11 12

bipartite

co-BIP∗
13 14 15 16 17 18

brittle
BIP∗
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability K2,3 l C6 < K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 l C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
∆ ≤ 6 Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
dart-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
degenerate Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
diamond-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 C6 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 l K1,3 F4 P6
doc-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
elementary l C 6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 < l F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
forest < < F24 < l < < < F7 K1,3 < < F61 < < I3 < < F4 P6
gem-free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
HHD-free K2,3F56 F15 < K3 l F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
Hoàng K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 C6 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
i-triangulated K2,3 < C6 < K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 l K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
I4 -free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
interval < < < < K3 < F5 < F7 K1,3 < K2,3 < F27 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
K4 -free Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F56 C6 F55 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
LGBIP < C 6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 < < C6 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 < K1,3 P6 P6
line perfect K2,3 < C6 < K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 < K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
locally perfect K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
Meyniel K2,3F56 C6 l K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
murky K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 C6
1-overlap bipartite K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
opposition K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 C6 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
P4 -free K2,3 < < < K3 < l C4 < K1,3 F4 K2,3 < < < I3 < K1,3 F4 l
P4 -lite K2,3 F15 < K3 l F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 2P4
P4 -reducible K2,3 < < < K3 < F5 C4 < K1,3 F4 K2,3 < < < I3 < K1,3 F4 2P4
P4 -sparse K2,3 l F15 < K3 < F5 C4 l K1,3 F4 K2,3 l F15 < I3 l K1,3 F4 2P4
P4 -stable Berge K2,3F41 C6 F44 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
parity K2,3F56 C6 < K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
partner-graph 4-free K2,3 C8 F15 C8 K3 C8 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 F15 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6

32
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-diamond-free Berge

co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

classes of perfect

co-degenerate Berge
graphs

co-P4 -stable Berge

co-dart-free Berge

co-gem-free Berge
co-doc-free Berge

co-locally perfect
co-i-triangulated
co-comparability
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge

co-line perfect
co-elementary

co-opposition
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-HHD-free

co-Meyniel
co-interval

co-LGBIP
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-Hoàng
co-forest
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F14 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
dart-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
degenerate Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
diamond-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
doc-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
elementary C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
forest F24 I8 < 4K2 F1 F3 < I 3 F3 P5 < P5 C4 I 5 F1 I5 P7 P5 F242P4
gem-free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
HHD-free F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F23
Hoàng F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F23
i-triangulated C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
I4 -free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 P5 K1,3 P5 l P 5 C6 C6
interval l I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F14 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F142P4
K4 -free Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 C 6 C 6 F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F65 F26 C6 F27
LGBIP C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
line perfect C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F49 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F24 C6
locally perfect C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
Meyniel C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
murky C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 F22 P5 C6 C6
1-overlap bipartite C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 C6
opposition F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F23
P4 -free < I8 F6 4K2 F1 F8 K1,3 I3 < < < F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < < < <
P4 -lite F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P5 2P4
P4 -reducible < I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 < l F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < < l 2P4
P4 -sparse F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 l F15 F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < < 2P4
P4 -stable Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
parity C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F49 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F24 C6
partner-graph 4-free F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F27

33
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-slightly triangulated
co-perfectly contractile
classes of perfect

co-perfectly orderable

co-strict quasi-parity

co-wing triangulated
cograph contraction
co-strict opposition
graphs

co-strongly perfect

co-trivially perfect
co-paw-free Berge

co-planar Berge

co-triangulated

co-unimodular
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-Raspail
co-skeletal
co-slender
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-parity

co-snap
co-slim

co-tree
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
∆ ≤ 6 Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
dart-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
degenerate Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
diamond-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F26 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
doc-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
elementary P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F29 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
forest P5 F2 < < I5 < 2P4F19 2P4F24 3K2F24 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P7
gem-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
HHD-free P5 F2 < < I5 F56 F15 F19 2P4F24 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 F11
Hoàng P5 F2 C8 C8 I5 F31 F16 F19 C6 F24 3K2 C6 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
i-triangulated P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F56 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
I4 -free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 K3,3F31 C6 F29 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
interval P5 F2 < < I5 < F25 F19 2P4F37 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P7
K4 -free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge F3 F2 F62 F55 I5 F56 F15 F19 C6 F55 3K2 C6 F68 F62 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
LGBIP P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F26 C6 F30 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
line perfect P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 l C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
locally perfect P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
Meyniel P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
murky P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
1-overlap bipartite P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
opposition P5 F2 C8 C8 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F24 3K2 C6 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
P4 -free l F2 < < I5 < < F19 l < 3K2 l < < K2 C4 C4 3K2 l l
P4 -lite P5 F2 < < I5 F15 F19 2P42P53K2 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2 2P4
P4 -reducible F3 F2 < < I5 < 2P4F19 2P4 < 3K2 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2 2P4
P4 -sparse F3 F2 < < I5 F15 F19 2P4 < 3K2 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2 2P4
P4 -stable Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
parity P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
partner-graph 4-free P5 F2 C8 C8 I5 F31 F15 F19 2P4F31 3K2F14 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6

34
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

diamond-free Berge

(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

graphs

degenerate Berge
dart-free Berge

gem-free Berge
doc-free Berge

locally perfect
K4 -free Berge
i-triangulated
comparability
1 2 3 4 5 6

I4 -free Berge
∆ ≤ 6 Berge

line perfect
elementary
7 8 9 10 11 12

HHD-free

Meyniel
interval

LGBIP
Hoàng
13 14 15 16 17 18

forest
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability = K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 = F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
dart-free Berge C6 K1,7 = K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
degenerate Berge C6 K1,7 F6 = F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
diamond-free Berge C6 K1,7 l K4,4 = l K1,3 K3 < P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F57 P5
doc-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 = K1,3 K3 l P 5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5
elementary C6 K8 < 4K2 F1 F3 = K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 F1 P5 P7 P5
forest < K1,7 < < < < K1,3 = < < F35 < I4 F24 < P5 K1,3 < < <
gem-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F8 K1,3 K3 = P 5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5
HHD-free F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 = F15 F4 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < l
Hoàng C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 = P 5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
i-triangulated F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 C6 C6 = I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < l
I4 -free Berge C6 K8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 = C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
interval F27K1,7 F6 < F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 < F35 < I4 = K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < <
K4 -free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 = P5 K1,3 P5 l P5
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 = K1,3 P5 P7 P5
LGBIP C6 K8 < F71 l < l K3 < P 5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 = P5 F57 P5
line perfect F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 l K1,3 K3 < C 6 C6 l I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 = < <
locally perfect C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 = P5
Meyniel F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 C 6 C 6 F4 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 l =
murky C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5
1-overlap bipartite C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
opposition C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
P4 -free < K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F8 K1,3 K3 < < < F4 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
P4 -lite F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P5
P4 -reducible < K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 < l F4 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
P4 -sparse F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 l F15 F4 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
P4 -stable Berge F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
parity F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F8 K1,3 K3 l C 6 C 6 F4 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < l
partner-graph 4-free F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5

35
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

partner-graph 4-free

perfectly contractile
graphs

perfectly orderable
1-overlap bipartite

P4 -stable Berge

paw-free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

planar Berge
permutation
P4 -reducible

quasi-parity
opposition

preperfect
7 8 9 10 11 12

P4 -sparse

Raspail
skeletal
slender
P4 -free
P4 -lite
murky
13 14 15 16 17 18

parity
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 C6 F2 < l C6 K5 < l F16 F19
∆ ≤ 6 Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
dart-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
degenerate Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
diamond-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F26
doc-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
elementary P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 l C6 F19
forest P6 F47 F35 P4 P6 P5 P5 < < F9 < < < F24 l < < < < <
gem-free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
HHD-free P6 F27 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 F9 F2 < < F15 K5 < < F56 F15 F19
Hoàng P6 F31 F24 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F29 C6 F19
i-triangulated P6 F27 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 C6 F2 < F73 C6 K5 < < l F15 l
I4 -free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
interval P6 F27 F35 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 F9 F2 < < F27 K5 < < < F27 <
K4 -free Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K3,3F60 F46 F31 C6 F29
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge P6 F27 F14 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K3,3 F68 F29 C6 F29
LGBIP P6 F46 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 < C6 F26
line perfect P6 F34 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F58 l C6 F2 < F73 C6 K3,3 < < < < <
locally perfect P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
Meyniel P6 F27 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 C6 F2 l F67 C6 K5 < F56 F15 F19
murky = F27 C6 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F29 C6 F19
1-overlap bipartite P 6 = C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F29 C6 F19
opposition P6 F31 = P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F74 F68 F29 C6 F19
P4 -free < < < = < l < < l < F2 < < < K5 < < < < F19
P4 -lite l P4 = P5 P5 2P4 P5 l F2 < < F15 K5 < < F15 F19
P4 -reducible < < l P4 < = l 2P4 F3 < F2 < < l K5 < < < 2P4F19
P4 -sparse < l P4 l F15 = 2P4 F3 < F2 < < F15 K5 < < F15 F19
P4 -stable Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 = P 5 C6 F2 F44 F42 C6 K5 F59 F31 F15 F19
parity P6 F34 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F36 = C6 F2 < F73 C6 K5 l < F56 l F19
partner-graph 4-free P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 = F2 C8 C8 F15 K5 l F31 F15 F19

36
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

slightly triangulated

weakly triangulated
graphs

3-overlap bipartite

2-overlap bipartite
strict quasi-parity

wing triangulated
strict opposition

3-overlap 4-free

2-overlap 4-free
strongly perfect

trivially perfect

2K2 -free Berge

1 2 3 4 5 6

2-split Berge
triangulated

unimodular
7 8 9 10 11 12

threshold
13 14 15 16 17 18

snap
split
slim

tree
19 20 21 22 23 24
comparability C6 F313K2 C4 C6 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
∆ ≤ 6 Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
dart-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
degenerate Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
diamond-free Berge C6 C6 F60 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 F54 C6 C6
doc-free Berge C6 C6 2C4 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 F40 C6 C6
elementary C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
forest < < < C4 F35 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 l P4 F24 F24 < C4 < < F10
gem-free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
HHD-free 2P4 < 3K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 < F10
Hoàng C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
i-triangulated C6 < 3K2 C4 C6 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
I4 -free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
interval < < < C4 F35 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 l P4 F14 F14 3K3 C4 l < F10
K4 -free Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
(K5 , P5 )-free Berge C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C 6 F9 F9 C 4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
LGBIP C6 C6 F60 C4 C6 C6 C6 F12 F12 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 l C6 C6
line perfect C6 < l C4 C6 < < F 9 F9 C 4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 C6 F10
locally perfect C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C 6 F9 F9 C 4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
Meyniel C6 l 3K2 C4 C6 < l F 9 F9 C 4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
murky C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
1-overlap bipartite C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
opposition C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
P4 -free l < 3K2 C4 l < < < < C4 I2 C4 C4 < < 3K3 C4 3K2 < l
P4 -lite 2P42P53K2 C4 < < l < C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 <
P4 -reducible 2P4 < 3K2 C4 < < < < C4 I2 C4 P4 l < 3K3 C4 3K2 <
P4 -sparse 2P4 < 3K2 C4 < < < < C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 <
P4 -stable Berge C6 F313K2 C4 C6 F59 F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
parity C6 < 3K2 C4 C6 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
partner-graph 4-free C8 F313K2 C4 F14 C8 C8 F18 l C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 C8 F10

37
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-alternately orientable
co-alternately colorable

co-cograph contraction
classes of perfect

alternately orientable
alternately colorable
graphs

co-clique-separable
co-chair-free Berge
co-claw-free Berge
co-AT-free Berge
clique-separable
chair-free Berge
claw-free Berge
bull-free Berge
AT-free Berge

C4 -free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-bipartite
7 8 9 10 11 12

bipartite

co-BIP∗
13 14 15 16 17 18

brittle
BIP∗
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge K2,3 < C6 < K3 C6 l C4 F7 K1,3 < K2,3 C6 < C6 I3 l K1,3 F4 P6
perfectly contractile K2,3F41 C6 F55 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
perfectly orderable K2,3F41 C6 l K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
permutation K2,3 < < < K3 F38 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 < < < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
planar Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
preperfect K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
quasi-parity K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
Raspail K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
skeletal K2,3F41 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
slender K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
slightly triangulated K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 C6 F44 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
slim K2,3F41 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
snap K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
split < < F15 < K3 < F5 < F7 K1,3 < < < F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 < l
strict opposition K2,3F41 F15 l K3 C8 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 F15 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
strict quasi-parity K2,3F41 C6 F44 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
strongly perfect K2,3F41 C6 F55 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
3-overlap bipartite K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
3-overlap 4-free K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
threshold < < < < K3 < < < < K1,3 < < < < < I3 < K1,3 < <
tree < < F24 < < < < < F7 K1,3 < < F61 < < K1,3 < < P6 P6
triangulated l < F15 < K3 < F5 l F7 K1,3 < K2,3F56 F15 < I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
trivially perfect < < < < K3 < < < < K1,3 < K2,3 < < < I3 < K1,3 F4 <
2-overlap bipartite K2,3 C8 F17 C8 K3 C8 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 F17 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
2-overlap 4-free K2,3 C8 F17 C8 K3 C8 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C8 F17 C8 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
2-split Berge K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
2K2 -free Berge K2,3 C6 F15 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 F43 F55 C6 F55 I3 F7 K1,3F29 C6
unimodular K2,3 C6 C6 C6 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 C6 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
weakly triangulated K2,3F41 F15 l K3 F42 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3F41 F15 l I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6
wing triangulated K2,3F45 C6 F55 K3 C6 F5 C4 F7 K1,3 F4 K2,3 C6 F15 C6 I3 F7 K1,3 F4 P6

38
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-diamond-free Berge

co-(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

classes of perfect

co-degenerate Berge
graphs

co-P4 -stable Berge

co-dart-free Berge

co-gem-free Berge
co-doc-free Berge

co-locally perfect
co-i-triangulated
co-comparability
co-∆ ≤ 6 Berge

co-line perfect
co-elementary

co-opposition
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-HHD-free

co-Meyniel
co-interval

co-LGBIP
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-Hoàng
co-forest
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge C6 I8 l 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 l P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F24 C6
perfectly contractile C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
perfectly orderable C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
permutation l I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F14 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F23
planar Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
preperfect C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
quasi-parity C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
Raspail C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
skeletal C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F14 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
slender C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
slightly triangulated F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C6 F27
slim C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
snap C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
split F15 I8 F6 < F 1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 < F15 < F15 I5 K1,3 I5 < < l <
strict opposition F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F23
strict quasi-parity C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
strongly perfect C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6
3-overlap bipartite C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
3-overlap 4-free C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
threshold < I8 F6 < F 1 < K1,3 I3 < < < < < I5 K1,3 I5 < < < <
tree F24K1,8 < F48 F7 P6 < K1,3 P6 P5 < P5 P5 K1,5 F7 P5 P7 P5 F24 P9
triangulated F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F142P4
trivially perfect < I8 F6 4K2 F1 F8 K1,3 I3 < < < F4 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 < < < <
2-overlap bipartite F17 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 2P4
2-overlap 4-free F17 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F52 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F522P4
2-split Berge C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
2K2 -free Berge F15 I8 F6 F72 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 C6 C6 F29 C6 I5 K1,3 I5 F65 F26 C6 F27
unimodular C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 C 4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 C 6 C 6
weakly triangulated F15 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 F27
wing triangulated C6 I8 F6 4K2 F1 F3 K1,3 I3 F3 P5 F15 P5 C4 I5 K1,3 I5 P7 P5 F14 C6

39
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between

co-slightly triangulated
co-perfectly contractile
classes of perfect

co-perfectly orderable

co-strict quasi-parity

co-wing triangulated
cograph contraction
co-strict opposition
graphs

co-strongly perfect

co-trivially perfect
co-paw-free Berge

co-planar Berge

co-triangulated

co-unimodular
1 2 3 4 5 6

co-Raspail
co-skeletal
co-slender
7 8 9 10 11 12

co-parity

co-snap
co-slim

co-tree
13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
perfectly contractile P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
perfectly orderable P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
permutation P5 F2 < < I5 < F16 F19 2P4F22 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
planar Berge P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
preperfect P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
quasi-parity P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
Raspail P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
skeletal P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
slender P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
slightly triangulated P5 F2 F44 F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 C6 F31 3K2 C6 F64 F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 C6
slim P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
snap P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
split F3 F2 < < I5 < F15 < < < < < < K2 l P4 F15 F10 l
strict opposition P5 F2 C 8 C 8 I5 F31 F15 F19 2P4F24 3K2F14 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
strict quasi-parity P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
strongly perfect P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
3-overlap bipartite P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F28 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
3-overlap 4-free P5 F2 C6 C6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
threshold < F2 < < I5 < < < < < < < < < K2 < l < < <
tree P5 P5 < < K1,5 < P8 F20 P9 F24 F24 F24 < < K2 P5 P4 F13 F10 P7
triangulated P5 F2 < < I5 F56 F15 F19 2P4F24 3K2F14 < < K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P7
trivially perfect < F2 < < I5 < < F19 < < 3K2 < < < K2 C4 C4 3K2 < <
2-overlap bipartite P5 F2 C8 C8 I5 F25 F19 2P4 C8 3K2 C8 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
2-overlap 4-free P5 F2 C8 C8 I5 F50 F25 F19 2P4 C8 3K2 C8 C8 C8 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
2-split Berge P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
2K2 -free Berge F3 F2 F62 F55 I5 F66 F15 F29 C6 F55 F69 C6 F68 F62 K2 C6 P4 F15 F10 C6
unimodular P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F31 C6 F19 C6 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6
weakly triangulated P5 F2 l F42 I5 F31 F15 F19 2P4F31 3K2F14 < F42 K2 C4 C4 3K2F10 P6
wing triangulated P5 F2 C 6 C 6 I5 F29 C6 F19 2P4 C6 3K2 C6 C6 C6 K2 C4 C4 3K2 C6 C6

40
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

diamond-free Berge

(K5 , P5 )-free Berge

graphs

degenerate Berge
dart-free Berge

gem-free Berge
doc-free Berge

locally perfect
K4 -free Berge
i-triangulated
comparability
1 2 3 4 5 6

I4 -free Berge
∆ ≤ 6 Berge

line perfect
elementary
7 8 9 10 11 12

HHD-free

Meyniel
interval

LGBIP
Hoàng
13 14 15 16 17 18

forest
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge l K1,7 l K4,4 F1 F8 K1,3 K3 < C 6 C6 l I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < <
perfectly contractile F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
perfectly orderable F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
permutation l K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F14 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
planar Berge C6 K1,7 F6 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P5
preperfect C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
quasi-parity C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
Raspail C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
skeletal F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
slender C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
slightly triangulated C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
slim F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
snap C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
split F15K1,7 F6 < F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 < F15 < I4 F15 K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
strict opposition F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
strict quasi-parity F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
strongly perfect F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
3-overlap bipartite C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
3-overlap 4-free C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
threshold < K1,7 F6 < F1 < K1,3 K3 < < < < I4 < K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
tree < K1,7 < < < < K1,3 l < < F35 < K1,4F24 < P5 K1,3 < < <
triangulated F15K1,7 F6 l F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 l F15 l I4 F15 K4 P5 K1,3 K5 < <
trivially perfect < K1,7 F6 < F1 l K1,3 K3 < < < < I4 l K4 K5 K1,3 K5 < <
2-overlap bipartite F17K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
2-overlap 4-free F17K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F52 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
2-split Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
2K2 -free Berge C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 K5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
unimodular C6 K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 F22 P5
weakly triangulated F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 F15 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5
wing triangulated F15K1,7 F6 K4,4 F1 F3 K1,3 K3 F3 P5 C 6 P5 I4 C4 K4 P5 K1,3 P5 P7 P5

41
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

partner-graph 4-free

perfectly contractile
graphs

perfectly orderable
1-overlap bipartite

P4 -stable Berge

paw-free Berge
1 2 3 4 5 6

planar Berge
permutation
P4 -reducible

quasi-parity
opposition

preperfect
7 8 9 10 11 12

P4 -sparse

Raspail
skeletal
slender
P4 -free
P4 -lite
murky
13 14 15 16 17 18

parity
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge P6 F34 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 l l C6 = < < C6 K5 < < < < <
perfectly contractile P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 = F42 C6 K5 < F31 F15 F19
perfectly orderable P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 l = C6 K5 < F31 F15 F19
permutation P6 F34 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F23 P5 F9 F2 < < = K5 < < F16 F19
planar Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 = F70 F46 F31 C6 F29
preperfect P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 = F46 F31 C6 F19
quasi-parity P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 = F31 C6 F19
Raspail P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 = C6 F19
skeletal P6 F27 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F34 P5 C6 F2 F63 C6 K5 < F28 = F19
slender P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 =
slightly triangulated P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F31 C6 F19
slim P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F54 C6 K5 F31 F15 F19
snap P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F46 F31 C6 F19
split l F33 l P4 F9 F7 F7 < F 3 F9 F2 < < F15 K5 < < < F15 <
strict opposition P6 F31 l P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 F9 F2 F15 K5 < F28 F15 F19
strict quasi-parity P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F44 F42 C6 K5 l F31 F15 F19
strongly perfect P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 C6 F2 F55 C6 K5 F31 F15 F19
3-overlap bipartite P6 F46 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 F60 F46 F28 C6 F19
3-overlap 4-free P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C 6 C 6 C 6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
threshold < < < < < < < < < < F2 < < < K5 < < < < <
tree P6 F47 F35 P4 P6 P5 P5 < < F9 < < < F24 < < < < < <
triangulated P6 F27 F35 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 F3 F9 F2 < < F15 K5 < < < F15 <
trivially perfect < < < l < < < < < < F2 < < < K5 < < < < <
2-overlap bipartite P6 F37 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 8 P5 F9 F2 C8 C8 F17 K5 < F25 F19
2-overlap 4-free P6 F37 F52 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 8 P5 F9 F2 C8 C8 F17 K5 l F50 F25 F19
2-split Berge P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
2K2 -free Berge P6 F27 F14 P4 C6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F74 F68 F29 C6 F19
unimodular P6 F31 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 C 6 P5 C6 F2 C6 C6 C6 K5 F60 F46 F31 C6 F19
weakly triangulated P6 F31 F14 P4 P6 P5 P5 F27 P5 F9 F2 l F42 F15 K5 < F31 F15 F19
wing triangulated P6 F37 C6 P4 P6 P5 P5 2P4 P5 C6 F2 F55 C6 K5 < F53 F15 F19

42
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Inclusions between
classes of perfect

slightly triangulated

weakly triangulated
graphs

3-overlap bipartite

2-overlap bipartite
strict quasi-parity

wing triangulated
strict opposition

3-overlap 4-free

2-overlap 4-free
strongly perfect

trivially perfect

2K2 -free Berge

1 2 3 4 5 6

2-split Berge
triangulated

unimodular
7 8 9 10 11 12

threshold
13 14 15 16 17 18

snap
split
slim

tree
19 20 21 22 23 24
paw-free Berge C6 < 3K2 C4 C6 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
perfectly contractile C6 F313K2 C4 C6 l F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
perfectly orderable C6 F313K2 C4 C6 < l F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
permutation 2P4F223K2 C4 F14 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F14 F14 3K3 C4 3K2 l F10
planar Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
preperfect C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
quasi-parity C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
Raspail C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
skeletal C6 F243K2 C4 C6 l F63 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
slender C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
slightly triangulated = C6 3K2 C4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
slim C6 = 3K2 C4 C6 F54 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
snap C 6 C6 = C 4 C 6 C 6 C 6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 F15 C6 C6
split < < < = < < F9 F9 P4 I2 l P4 F15 F15 l < F15 < F10
strict opposition C8 F313K2 C4 = l F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 C8 F10
strict quasi-parity C6 F313K2 C4 C6 = F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
strongly perfect C6 F313K2 C4 C6 = F 9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 F10
3-overlap bipartite C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 = l C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
3-overlap 4-free C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F18 = C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 C6
threshold < < < l < < < < < = I2 < l < < < < < < <
tree < < < P5 F35 < < F9 F9 P4 = < P4 F24 F24 < P5 < < F10
triangulated l < l C4 F35 < < F9 F9 C4 I2 = P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 F15 < F10
trivially perfect < < < C4 < < < < < C4 I2 < = < < 3K3 C4 < < <
2-overlap bipartite C8 C8 3K2 C4 C8 C8 C8 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 = l 3K3 C4 3K2 C8 F10
2-overlap 4-free C8 C8 3K2 C4 C8 C8 C8 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F18 = 3K3 C4 3K2 C8 F10
2-split Berge C6 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 = C4 3K2 C6 C6
2K2 -free Berge C8 C6 3K2 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 P4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 = 3K2 C6 C6
unimodular C6 C6 2C4 C4 C6 C6 C6 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 = C6 C6
weakly triangulated 2P4F313K2 C4 F14 < F42 F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 F15 F15 3K3 C4 3K2 = F10
wing triangulated C6 F323K2 C4 C6 l F9 F9 C4 I2 C4 P4 C6 C6 3K3 C4 3K2 C6 =

43
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

7 Counterexamples

The counterexamples Fi appearing in the previous table to prove that some class is not
contained in some other class are shown in this section. Fortunately, while we give 12888
such counterexamples, it turns out that only 74 different counterexamples are needed.

F1 F2 F3 F4

F5 F6 F7 F8

F9 F10 F11 F12

F13 F14 F15 F16

44
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

F17 F18 F19 F20

F21 F22 F23 F24

F25 F26 F27 F28

F29 F30 F31 F32

F33 F34 F35 F36

45
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

F37 F38 F39 F40

F41 F42 F43 F44

F45 F46 F47 F48

F49 F50 F51 F52

F53 F54 F55 F56

46
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

F57 F58 F59 F60

F61 F62 F63 F64

F65 F66 F67 F68

F69 F70 F71 F72

F73 F74

47
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Mariano Zelke and Valentin Ziegler for some help in preparing the final
version of this paper. I thank Adrian Bondy, Chı́nh T. Hoàng, Van Bang Le, Frédéric
Maffray, Annegret Wagler and two anonymous referees for useful comments and I thank
Vašek Chvátal for suggestions improving the presentation of this paper.

References

[1] H. Aı̈t Haddadène, F. Maffray, Coloring perfect degenerate graphs, Discrete Math.
163 (1997), 211–215.

[2] V.E. Alekseev, A polynomial algorithm for finding the largest independent sets in
fork-free graphs, Discrete Analysis and Operations Research. Series. 1 6 (4) (1999)
3–19 (in Russian).

[3] V.E. Alekseev, V.V. Lozin, Independent sets of maximum weight in (p,q)-colorable
graphs, Discrete Math. 265 (2003), 351–356.

[4] S.R. Arikati, C.P. Rangan, An efficient algorithm for finding a two-pair, and its
applications, Discrete Appl. Math. 31 (1991), 71–74.

[5] L. Babel, On the P4 -structure of graphs, Habilitationsschrift, TU München 1997.

[6] C. Berge, Färbung von Graphen, deren sämtliche bzw. deren ungerade Kreise starr
sind, Wiss. Z. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg Math.-Natur. Reihe (1961),
114–115.

[7] C. Berge, Some classes of perfect graphs, in: Graph Theory and Theoretical Physics
(F. Harary, ed.) Academic Press, London, 1967, 155–165.

[8] C. Berge, P. Duchet, Strongly perfect graphs, Ann. Discrete Math. 21 (1984), 57–
61.

[9] C. Berge, J.L. Ramı́rez Alfonsı́n, Origins and Genesis, In: Perfect Graphs
(J.L. Ramı́rez Alfonsı́n and B.A. Reed eds.), John Wiley & sons 2001, 1–12.

[10] M.E. Bertschi, Perfectly contractile graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 50 (1990),
222–230.

48
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[11] K.S. Booth, G.S. Lueker, Testing for the consecutive ones property, interval graphs,
and graph planarity using PQ-tree algorithms, J. Comput. System Sci. 13 (1976),
335–379.

[12] A. Brandstädt, V.B. Le, J.P. Spinrad, Graph Classes: A Survey, SIAM Monographs
on Discrete Mathematics and Applications, 1999.

[13] A. Brandstädt, V.B. Le, T. Szymczak, F. Siegemund, H.N. de Ridder, S. Knorr,

M. Rzehak, M. Mowitz, N. Ryabova, U. Nagel, Information System on Graph Class
Inclusions v2.0, http://wwwteo.informatik.uni-rostock.de/isgci/.

[14] A. Brandstädt, H.-O. Le, J.-M. Vanherpe, Structure and stability number of chair-,
co-P- and gem-free graphs revisited, Inform. Process. Lett. 86 (2003), 161–167.

[15] H. Broersma, T. Kloks, D. Kratsch, H. Müller, Independent sets in asteroidal

triple-free graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 12:2 (1999), 276–287.

[16] M. Burlet, J.P. Uhry, Parity graphs, Ann. Discrete Math. 21 (1984), 253–277.

[17] O.M. Carducci, The strong perfect graph conjecture holds for diamonded odd cycle-
free graphs, Discrete Math. 110 (1992), 17–34.

[18] M. Chudnovsky, G. Cornuéjols, X. Liu, P. Seymour, K. Vušković, Recognizing

Berge graphs, Combinatorica 25:2 (2005), 143–186.

[19] M. Chudnovsky, N. Robertson, P. Seymour, R. Thomas, The strong perfect graph

theorem, manuscript, June 2002.

[20] V. Chvátal, Perfectly ordered graphs, Ann. Discrete Math. 21 (1984), 63–65.

[21] V. Chvátal, Star–cutsets and perfect graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 39 (1985),
189–199.

[22] V. Chvátal, Problems concerning perfect graphs, DIMACS workshop on perfect

graphs, Princeton University (1993).

[23] V. Chvátal, J. Fonlupt, L. Sun, A. Zemirline, Recognizing dart-free perfect graphs,

SIAM J. Comput. 31:5 (2002), 1315–1338.

[24] V. Chvátal, N. Sbihi, Bull-free Berge graphs are perfect, Graphs Combin. 3 (1987),
127–139.

49
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[25] V. Chvátal, N. Sbihi, Recognizing claw–free perfect graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser.
B 44 (1988), 154–176.

[26] S. Cicerone, G. Di Stefano, On the extension of bipartite to parity graphs, Discrete

Appl. Math. 95 (1999), 181–195.

[27] R. Cole, K. Ost, S. Schirra, Edge-coloring bipartite multigraphs in O(E log D) time,
Combinatorica 21 (1) (2001), 5–12.

[28] M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, K. Vušković, Square-free perfect graphs, J. Combin.

Theory Ser. B 90 (2004), 257–307.

[29] D.G. Corneil, S. Olariu, L. Stewart, Asteroidal triple-free graphs, SIAM J. Discrete
Math. 10:3 (1997), 399–430.

[30] D.G. Corneil, Y. Perl, L.K. Stewart, A linear recognition algorithm for cographs,
SIAM J. Comput. 14 (1985), 926–934.

[31] C.M.H. De Figueiredo, F. Maffray, Optimizing bull-free perfect graphs, SIAM J.

Discrete Math. 18:2 (2004), 226–240.

[32] R. Diestel, Graph Theory, Second Edition, Springer 2000.

[33] R.P. Dilworth, A decomposition theorem for partially ordered sets, Ann. Math.
51 (1950), 161–166.

[34] G.A. Dirac, On rigid circuit graphs, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 25 (1961),
71–76.

[35] B. Dushnik, E.W. Miller, Partially ordered sets, American Journal of Mathematics
63 (1941), 600–610.

[36] J. Fonlupt, A. Zemirline, A polynomial recognition algorithm for perfect K 4 \ {e}-

free graphs, Revue Maghrébine de Mathématiques 2:1 (1993), 1–26.

[37] D.R. Fulkerson, Blocking and anti-blocking pairs of polyhedra, Math. Programming
1 (1971), 168–194.

[38] T. Gallai, Graphen mit triangulierbaren ungeraden Vielecken, Magyar Tud. Akad.
Mat. Kutató Int. Közl. 7 (1962) 3–36.

50
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[39] T. Gallai, Transitiv orientierbare Graphen, Acta Mathematica Academiae Scien-

tiarum Hungaricae Tomus 18 (1–2), 1967, 25–66.

[40] M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability, Freeman, New York 1979.

[41] F. Gavril, Algorithms on clique separable graphs, Discrete Math. 19 (1977), 159–
165.

[42] V. Giakoumakis, F. Roussel, H. Thuillier, On P 4 -tidy graphs, Discrete Mathematics

and Theoretical Computer Science 1 (1997), 17-41.

[43] P.C. Gilmore, A.J. Hoffman, A characterization of comparability graphs and of

interval graphs, Canad. J. Math. 16 (1964), 539–548.

[44] M.C. Golumbic, Trivially perfect graphs, Discrete Math. 24 (1978), 105–107.

[45] M.C. Golumbic, Algorithmic Graph Theory and Perfect Graphs, Academic Press,
New York, 1980.

[46] C. Grinstead, The Perfect Graph Conjecture for toroidal graphs, J. Combin. Theory
Ser. B 30 (1981), 70–74.

[47] M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, A. Schrijver, The ellipsoid method and its consequences
in combinatorial optimization, Combinatorica 1 (1981), 169–197, see also Corri-
gendum: Combinatorica 4 (1984), 291–295.

[48] A. Hajnal, J. Surányi, Über die Auflösung von Graphen in vollständige Teil-
graphen, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. Eötvös Sect. Math. 1 (1958), 113–121.

[49] P.L. Hammer, F. Maffray, Preperfect graphs, Combinatorica 13 (1993), 199–208.

[50] P.L. Hammer, B. Simeone, The splittance of a graph, Combinatorica 1 (1981),

275–284.

[51] R.B. Hayward, Weakly triangulated graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 39 (1985),
200–209.

[52] R.B. Hayward, Murky graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 49 (1990), 200–235.

[53] R.B. Hayward, C.T. Hoàng, F. Maffray, Optimizing weakly triangulated graphs,
Graphs Combin. 5 (1989), 339–349, see also Erratum Graphs Combin. 6 (1990),
33–35.

51
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[54] R.B. Hayward, W.J. Lenhart, On the P 4 –structure of perfect graphs. IV. Partner
graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 48 (1990), 135–139.

[55] R.B. Hayward, J. Spinrad, R. Sritharan, Weakly chordal graph algorithms via
handles, Proceedings of the eleventh annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete
algorithms (2000), 42–49.

[56] A. Hertz, Slim graphs, Graphs Combin. 5 (1989), 149–157.

[57] A. Hertz, Slender graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 47 (1989), 231–236.

[58] A. Hertz, Skeletel graphs – a new class of perfect graphs, Discrete Math. 78
(1989), 291–296.

[59] A. Hertz, A fast algorithm for coloring Meyniel graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B
50 (1990), 231–240.

[60] C.T. Hoàng, Perfect Graphs, PhD-Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
(1985).

[61] C.T. Hoàng, Alternating orientation and alternating colouration of perfect graphs,
J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 42 (1987), 264–273.

[62] C.T. Hoàng, S. Hougardy, F. Maffray, On the P 4 -structure of perfect graphs V.

Overlap graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 67 (1996), 212–237.

[63] C.T. Hoàng, N. Khouzam, On brittle graphs, J. Graph Theory 12 (1988), 391–404.

[64] C.T. Hoàng, V.B. Le, On P4 -transversals of perfect graphs, Discrete Math. 216
(2000), 195–210.

[65] C.T. Hoàng, V.B. Le, Recognizing perfect 2-split graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math.
13:1 (2000), 48–55.

[66] C.T. Hoàng, R. Sritharan, Finding houses and holes in graphs, Theor. Comput.
Sci. 259 (2001), 233–244.

[67] J.E. Hopcroft, R.M. Karp, An n5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite
graphs, SIAM J. Comput. 2 (1973), 225–231.

[68] S. Hougardy, V.B. Le, A. Wagler, Wing-triangulated graphs are perfect, J. Graph
Theory 24:1 (1997), 25–31.

52
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[69] W.-L. Hsu, How to color claw-free perfect graphs, in: Studies on Graphs and
Discrete Programming, P. Hansen ed, (1981), 189–197.

[70] W.L. Hsu, Recognizing planar perfect graphs, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 34:2 (1987),
255–288.

[71] W.L. Hsu, The coloring and maximum independent set problems on planar perfect
graphs, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 35:3 (1988) 535–563.

[72] W.L. Hsu, G.L. Nemhauser, Algorithms for minimum covering by cliques and max-
imum clique in claw-free perfect graphs, Discrete Math. 37 (1981), 181–191.

[73] M. Hujter, Z. Tuza, Precoloring extensions III: Classes of perfect graphs, Combin.
Probab. Comput. 5 (1996), 35–56.

[74] B. Jamison, S. Olariu, On the semi-perfect elimination, Adv. in Appl. Math. 9

(1988), 364-376.

[75] B. Jamison, S. Olariu, P4 -reducible graphs — a class of uniquely tree-representable

graphs, Studies in Appl. Math. 81 (1989), 79–87.

[76] B. Jamison, S. Olariu, A new class of brittle graphs, Studies in Appl. Math. 81
(1989), 89–92.

[77] B. Jamison, S. Olariu, Recognizing P 4 -sparse graphs in linear time, SIAM J. Com-
put. 21 (1992), 381-406.

[78] D. König, Über Graphen und ihre Anwendung auf Determinantentheorie und Men-
genlehre, Math. Ann. 77 (1916), 453–465.

[79] V.B. Le, A good characterization of cograph contractions, J. Graph Theory 30

(1999), 309–318.

[80] C.G. Lekkerkerker, J.C. Boland, Representation of a finite graph by a set of intervals
on the real line, Fund. Math. 51 (1962), 45–64.

[81] L. Lovász, M.D. Plummer, Matching Theory, North-Holland 1986.

[82] F. Maffray, M. Preissmann, Perfect Graphs with no P 5 and no K5 , Graphs Combin.

10 (1994), 179–184.

53
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[83] F. Maffray, M. Preissmann, Split-neighbourhood graphs and the Strong Perfect

Graph Conjecture, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 63 (1995), 294–309.

[84] F. Maffray, B.A. Reed, A Description of Claw-Free Perfect Graphs, J. Combin.

Theory Ser. B 75 (1999), 134–156.

[85] F. Maire, Slightly triangulated graphs are perfect, Graphs Combin. 10 (1994), 263–
268.

[86] S.E. Markosian, I.A. Karapetian, Perfect graphs, Akad. Nauk Armjan. SSR Dokl.
63 (1976), 292–296.

[87] H. Meyniel, On the Perfect Graph Conjecture, Discrete Math. 16 (1976), 339–342.

[88] H. Meyniel, The graphs whose odd cycles have at least two chords, Ann. Discrete
Math. 21 (1984), 115–119.

[89] H. Meyniel, A new property of critical imperfect graphs and some consequences,
European J. Combin. 8 (1987), 313–316.

[90] M. Middendorf, F. Pfeiffer, On the complexity of recognizing perfectly orderable

graphs, Discrete Math. 80 (1990), 327–333.

[91] G.J. Minty, On maximal independent sets of vertices in claw-free graphs, J. Combin.
Theory Ser. B 28 (1980), 264–304.

[92] S. Olariu, All variations on perfectly orderable graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B
45 (1988), 150–159.

[93] S. Olariu, Paw-free graphs, Inform. Process. Lett. 28 (1988), 53–54.

[94] E. Olaru, Über die Überdeckung von Graphen mit Cliquen, Wiss. Z. Tech. Hochsch.
Ilmenau 15 (1969), 115–121.

[95] C.H. Papadimitriou, M. Yannakakis, The clique problem for planar graphs, Inform.
Process. Lett. 13 (1981), 131–133.

[96] K.R. Parthasarathy, G. Ravindra, The Strong Perfect-Graph Conjecture is true for
K1,3 -free graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 21 (1976), 212–223.

[97] K.R. Parthasarathy, G. Ravindra, The validity of the Strong Perfect–Graph Con-
jecture for (K4 − e)-free graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 26 (1979), 98–100.

54
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[98] M. Preissmann, Locally perfect graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 50 (1990), 22–40.

[99] B.A. Reed, N. Sbihi, Recognizing bull-free perfect graphs, Graphs Combin. 11
(1995), 171–178.

[100] D.J. Rose, R.E. Tarjan, G.S. Lueker, Algorithmic aspects of vertex elimination on
graphs, SIAM J. Comput. 5 (1976), 266–283.

[101] F. Roussel, I. Rusu, A linear algorithm to color i-triangulated graphs, Inform.

Process. Lett. 70 (1999), 57–62.

[102] F. Roussel, I. Rusu, Holes and dominoes in Meyniel graphs, Internat. J. Found.
Comput. Sci. 10 (1999), 127–146.

[103] F. Roussel, I. Rusu, Recognizing i-triangulated graphs in O(mn) time, Inform.

Process. Lett. 76 (2000), 141–147.

[104] F. Roussel, I. Rusu, An O(n2 ) algorithm to color Meyniel graphs, Discrete Math.
235 (2001), 107–123.

[105] N.D. Roussopoulos, A max {m,n} algorithm for determining the graph H from its
line graph G, Inform. Process. Lett. 2 (1973), 108–112.

[106] H. Sachs, On the Berge conjecture concerning perfect graphs, Combinatorial Struc-
tures and their Applications. Proceedings of the Calgary International Conference
on Combinatorial Structures and their Applications. R. Guy, H. Hanani, N. Sauer,
J. Schonheim (Editors), 1970, 377–384.

[107] A. Sassano, Chair-free Berge graphs are perfect, Graphs Combin. 13 (1997), 369–
395.

[108] N. Sbihi, Algorithme de rechereche d’un stable de cardinalité maximum dans un

graphe sans étoile, Discrete Math. 29 (1980), 53–76.

[109] A.A. Schäffer, Recognizing brittle graphs: remarks on a paper of Hoàng and
Khouzam, Discrete Appl. Math. 31 (1991), 29–35.

[110] D. Seinsche, On a property of the class of n–colorable graphs, J. Combin. Theory

Ser. B 16 (1974), 191–193.

[111] K. Simon, Effiziente Algorithmen für perfekte Graphen, Teubner, Stuttgart 1992.

55
This paper appeared in: Discrete Mathematics 306 (2006), 2529-2571

[112] J. Spinrad, R. Sritharan, Algorithms for weakly triangulated graphs, Discrete Appl.
Math. 59 (1995), 181–191.

[113] I.A. Stewart, An algorithm for colouring perfect planar graphs, Inform. Process.
Lett. 31 (1989), 97–101.

[114] L. Sun, Two classes of perfect graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 53 (1991), 273–292.

[115] R.E. Tarjan, Decomposition by clique seperators, Discrete Math. 55 (1985), 221–
232.

[116] L.E. Trotter Jr., Line perfect graphs, Math. Programming 12 (1977), 255–259.

[117] A. Tucker, The Strong Perfect Graph Conjecture for planar graphs, Canad. J.
Math. Vol. XXV, No.1 (1973), 103–114.

[118] A. Tucker, The validity of the Perfect Graph Conjecture for K 4 –free graphs, Ann.
Discrete Math. 21 (1984), 149–157.

[119] A. Tucker, Coloring perfect (K 4 − e)-free graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 42

(1987), 313–318.

[120] S.H. Whitesides, A method for solving certain graph recognition and optimization
problems, with applications to perfect graphs, Ann. Discrete Math. 21 (1984), 281–
297.

56