Weighted Padovan graphs

We define \alpha: V(\Phi^{n}_{k}) \rightarrow V(A_{2n-3k-2, 2k-n+1}) as follows. Let u\in V(\Phi^{n}_{k}). Then \alpha(u) is a obtained from u by replacing from left to right each 011 by b, each 01 by a, and removing the ending 0. If k_a and k_b are the respective numbers of as and bs in \alpha(u), then the number of 1s in u is k_a + 2 k_b, that is, k = k_a + 2 k_b. Moreover, 2 k_a + 3 k_b = n-1. From these two equations we obtain that k_a = 2n - 3k - 2 and k_b = 2k - n +1 which implies that \alpha maps vertices of \Phi^{n}_{k} to vertices of A_{2n-3k-2, 2k-n+1}. Moreover, it is straightforward to check that \alpha is a bijection.

Let uv\in E(\Phi^{n}_{k}). Then we may assume without loss of generality that u = \ldots 01\ldots and v = \ldots 10\ldots, where ``\ldots" means that u and v coincide in all the other positions. By the definition of Padovan words we next infer that actually u = \ldots 010110\ldots and v = \ldots 011010\ldots. This in turn implies that \alpha(v) is obtained from \alpha(u) by changing exactly one subword ab to ba. So \alpha maps edges to edges. Moreover, by the same argument as above we also see that \alpha maps the vertices of N_{\Phi^{n}_{k}}(u) to the vertices of N_{A_{2n-3k-2, 2k-n+1}}(\alpha(u)). We may conclude that \alpha is an isomorphism.

Let p = 2n - 3k - 2 and q = 2k - n +1. We will show that A_{p,q} \cong \Pi_{p,q}. Let \beta \colon V(A_{p,q}) \to V(\Pi_{p,q }) be as follows. For u \in V(A_{p,q}), let 1 \leq i_1 \leq \cdots \leq i_q \leq p+q be positions of bs in u. Then \beta(u) is the weak partition ((p+1) - i_1, \ldots, (p+q) - i_q). Since u contains q bs and is of length p+q, it clearly holds that m \leq i_m \leq p+m, thus all parts are between 0 and p, and the sum of all parts is at most pq. Thus \beta is well-defined and it is easy to see that it is a bijection.

Let uv \in E(A_{p,q}). Then we may assume without loss of generality that u = \ldots ab \ldots and v = \ldots ba\ldots, where again ``\ldots" means that u and v coincide in all the other positions. This means that v is obtained from u by subtracting one from the position of one b. So \beta(v) is obtained from \beta(u) by adding 1 to one part of the weak partition. Thus \beta maps edges to edges. Moreover, by the same argument as above we also see that \beta maps the vertices of N_{A_{p,q}}(u) to the vertices of N_{\Pi_{p,q}}(\beta(u)), so \beta is an isomorphism.

By Theorem 2.6 we have \Phi^{n}_{k} \cong A_{2n-3k-2, 2k-n+1}. For the latter graph it is clear that |V(A_{2n-3k-2, 2k-n+1})| = \binom{n-k-1}{2n-3k-2} because its vertices are words of length (2n-3k-2) + (2k-n+1) = n-k-1.

By the fundamental decomposition, the vertices of the graph \Phi^{n}_{k} can be decomposed into \mathbf{01} \Phi^{n-2}_{k-1} and \mathbf{011} \Phi^{n-3}_{k-2}. The only edges between these two sets are of the form 010110x \sim 011010x, where 0x \in V(\Phi^{n-5}_{k-3}). From here the claimed formula for |E(\Phi^{n}_{k})| follows.

If p=0 or q=0, A_{p,q} contains at most one vertex, and has no edges.

If p=1, then V(A_{p,q}) = \{a b^{q}, bab^{q-1}, \ldots, b^q a\}, and A_{1,q} is isomorphic to a path on q+1 vertices and has q = q \binom{1+q-1}{0} edges. Analogously, the formula holds if q = 1.

Suppose now that p \geq 2 and q \geq 2. It follows from Theorem 2.6 that A_{p,q} \cong \Phi^{2p+3q+1}_{p+2q}, and from Proposition 3.1 that |E(A_{p,q})| = |E(A_{p-1,q})| + |E(A_{p,q-1})| + |V(A_{p-1,q-1})|. As p,q \geq 2, p-1, q-1 \geq 1, we can use the induction hypothesis to obtain

Recall that two vertices in A_{p,q} are adjacent if one can be obtained from the other by changing one subword ab to ba. Now every edge x ab y \sim_{A_{p,q}} x ba y can be represented by xcy: the shared part in the beginning, then letter c, then shared part at the end (word representing the edge can, of course, also begin or end with c). It is easy to see that this representation yields a bijection between E(A_{p,q}) and the set of all different words with p-1 as, q-1 bs and one c.

Let v \in V(A_{p,q}). Clearly, \deg(v) is the sum of the number of appearances of the words ab and ba in v. Thus, to count the number of vertices of degree d, it suffices to count the number of words with p as, q bs, and exactly d subwords ab and ba. Observe that occurrences of ab and ba in such a vertex alternate from left to right (and can overlap), so the vertex can be written in the form a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1} \cdots a^{\alpha_m} b^{\beta_m}, where \alpha_i, \beta_i \geq 1 for all i \in \{2,\ldots,m-1\}, \alpha_1, \beta_m \geq 0, \alpha_1 + \cdots + \alpha_m = p, \beta_1 + \cdots + \beta_m = q and 2m-1 - (1-\alpha_1) - (1-\beta_m) = d (which means that the number of nonempty blocks of as and bs is equal to d+1).

In the proof below, we will repeatedly use that the number of compositions of n into k parts, i.e. the number of integer solutions of x_1 + \cdots + x_k = n, x_i \geq 1 for all i \in [k], is equal to \binom{n-1}{k-1}.

If \alpha_1, \beta_m \geq 1, then d = 2m-1, so d is odd, and m = \frac{d+1}{2}. Thus, by the comment above, there is \binom{p-1}{\frac{d+1}{2}-1} \binom{q-1}{\frac{d+1}{2}-1} such vertices. Similarly we count the ones starting with b and ending with a, that is, the ones with \alpha_1 = \beta_m = 0.

If \alpha_1 \geq 1 and \beta_m = 0, then d = 2m-2, so d is even, and m = \frac{d}{2} + 1. Thus there is \binom{p-1}{\frac{d}{2}} \binom{q-1}{\frac{d}{2} - 1} such words. Similarly, we count the ones starting and ending with b, that is, the ones with \alpha_1 = 0 and \beta_m \geq 1.

By definition, \binom{n}{k} \geq 1 if and only if 0 \leq k \leq n, thus the formulas for minimum and maximum degree of A_{p,q} follow from the determined number of vertices of degree d.

Recall that by definition, \lambda_1 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_q and \mu_1 \geq \cdots \geq \mu_q. Clearly, d(\lambda, \mu) = \displaystyle \min \sum_{i=1}^q |\lambda_i - \mu_{\sigma(i)}|, where the minimum is taken over all permutations \sigma of [q]. The same \sigma that minimizes this sum also minimizes \sum_{i=1}^q (\lambda_i - \mu_{\sigma(i)})^2 = \sum_{i = 1}^q \lambda_i^2 + \sum_{i = 1}^q \mu_i^2 - 2 \sum_{i=1}^q \lambda_i \mu_{\sigma(i)}. The \sigma minimizing this expression is exactly the same as the one maximizing \sum_{i=1}^q \lambda_i \mu_{\sigma(i)}. By the rearrangement inequality from [hardy-1952, Theorem 368], this sum is maximized if \sigma(i) is such that \mu_{\sigma(1)} \geq \cdots \geq \mu_{\sigma(q)}, so when \sigma is the identity.

Let p=2n-3k-2 and q=2k-n+1. Then by Theorem 2.6, \Phi^{n}_{k} \cong \Pi_{p,q}. Let x = (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_q)\in V(\Pi_{p,q}). Then 0\le \lambda_i\le p, i\in [q]. Set

where \alpha_1(x)\ldots \alpha_q(x) stands for the concatenation of the binary words \alpha_1(x), \ldots, \alpha_q(x). The mapping \alpha can thus be considered as

Let x = (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_q) and y = (\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_q) be arbitrary vertices of \Pi_{p,q}. By Proposition 4.1 we have d_{\Pi_{p,q}}(x,y) = \sum_{i=1}^q |\lambda_i - \mu_i|. By the definition of \alpha, the words \alpha_i(x) and \alpha_i(y) differ in |\lambda_i - \mu_i| positions. Hence \alpha(x) and \alpha(y) differ in \sum_{i=1}^q |\lambda_i - \mu_i| positions, that is,

Let x = (\lambda_1,\ldots, \lambda_q), y = (\mu_1,\ldots, \mu_q), and z = (\tau_1,\ldots, \tau_q) be arbitrary vertices of \Pi_{p,q}. For each i\in [q], let \sigma_i be the median value of the set \{\lambda_i, \mu_i, \tau_i\}. Then in view of Proposition 4.1 and (Proof) we infer that m(\alpha(x),\alpha(y),\alpha(z)) = \alpha(\sigma_1,\ldots, \sigma_q) is a median of \alpha(x), \alpha(y), and \alpha(z). Moreover, m(\alpha(x),\alpha(y),\alpha(z)) \in V(\alpha(\Pi_{p,q})).

We have thus proved that \alpha(\Pi_{p,q}) is an isometric subgraph of Q_{pq} such that with any three vertices of \alpha(\Pi_{p,q}), their median in Q_{pq} is a vertex of \alpha(\Pi_{p,q}). Applying the theorem of Mulder [mulder-1978] (cf. also [klavzar-1999]) asserting that a graph G is a median graph if and only if G is a connected isometric subgraph of some Q_n such that with any three vertices of G their median in Q_n is also a vertex of G, the argument is complete.

Let p=2n-3k-2 and q=2k-n+1. Since \operatorname{diam}(Q_{pq}) = pq and the mapping \alpha: V(\Pi_{p,q})\rightarrow V(Q_{pq}) from the proof of Theorem 4.2 is an isometric embedding, we get \operatorname{diam}(\Phi^{n}_{k}) \le pq. On the other hand, \alpha((0,\ldots, 0)) = 0^{pq} and \alpha((p,\ldots, p)) = 1^{pq}, so that

Let Q_m be an induced subgraph of \Phi^{n}_{k}. By the fundamental decomposition, exactly one of the following holds:

1. Q_m is an induced subgraph in 01\Phi^{n-2}_{k-1} \cong \Phi^{n-2}_{k-1},

2. Q_m is an induced subgraph in 011\Phi^{n-3}_{k-2} \cong \Phi^{n-3}_{k-2}, or

3. Q_m = Q_{m-1} \,\square\, K_2, where the edges of K_2 correspond exactly to edges between copies of 01\Phi^{n-2}_{k-1} and 011\Phi^{n-3}_{k-2} in \Phi^{n}_{k}, so Q_{m-1} is an induced subgraph in \Phi^{n-5}_{k-3}.

Thus, if n \geq 5 and k \geq 3, then the cube polynomial of \Phi^{n}_{k} satisfies the following recursive relation:

Let the generating function of the cube polynomial be

By using the recurrence relation and the values

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{0},x\right) y^{0}z^{k}=0,

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{1},x\right) yz^{k}=y,

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{2},x\right) y^{2}z^{k}=0,

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{3},x\right) y^{3}z^{k}=y^{3}z,

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{4},x\right) y^{4}z^{k}=y^{4}z^{2},

• \sum_{k\geq 0}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{n},x\right) y^{n}z^{k}=\sum_{k\geq 3}C\left( \Phi _{k}^{n},x\right) y^{n}z^{k}+ y^{5}z^{2}, n\geq 5,

we get

With Theorem 5.1 in hand, we can compute as follows:

Let m = \min\{p,q\}. Let (ab)^m x \in V(A_{p,q}). Vertices \{ t_1\ldots t_m x \colon t_i \in \{ab, ba\}\} clearly induce Q_m in A_{p,q} (remove x and replace each ab with 0 and each ba with 1).

Suppose that A_{p,q} contains Q_{m+1} as an induced subgraph, and let W be a vertex set of Q_{m+1} in A_{p,q}. Observe that if v \in V(Q_{m+1}) and x,y \in N(v), then x,y have another common neighbor z \neq v. Without loss of generality assume that m = q. If v = s aba t \in V(A_{p,q}), then the vertices sbaat and saabt cannot have another common neighbor. Thus for every vertex w \in W and for every b in w, at most one neighbor of w in W is obtained by switching this b. Hence \deg_{Q_{m+1}}(w) is at most the number of bs in w which is equal to q = m. This is a contradiction since Q_{m+1} \cong A_{p,q}[W] is (m+1)-regular.

To count the number of Q_ms in A_{p,q}, again assume (without loss of generality) that m = q. After q abs are positioned into a word of length p, the whole word is determined (the remaining positions are filled with as), and we obtain a word of length p+q with p as and q bs. This can be done in \binom{p}{q} different ways, and each of them corresponds to a different induced hypercube Q_m.

Suppose that x has at least two nonzero parts of different sizes, so x = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q) and there exist i,j \in [q], i \neq j, \lambda_i > \lambda_j \geq 1. Let y be obtained from x by changing \lambda_i to \lambda_i-1, and let z be obtained from x by changing \lambda_j to \lambda_j-1. Clearly xy, xz \in E(G), and y,z are in the layer d(x,0) - 1. Thus x is not lonely.

Without loss of generality let \ell=0, and denote d(w,0) = d. Let w = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q). For i\in [q], let \mu_i be obtained from \lambda by changing \lambda_i to \lambda_i+1. Clearly, the neighbors of w in layer d+1 are contained in the set \{\mu_i \colon i \in [q]\}. Suppose that some \mu_i \in N(w) is lonely. Then \lambda_j = \lambda_i+1 for all j \in [q]\setminus\{i\} by Lemma 6.1. But then, since \min\{p,q\} \geq 2, no other \mu_i can be lonely since \lambda_i would be smaller than the other part(s). Hence, w has at most one lonely neighbor in layer d+1.

Without loss of generality assume that \ell=0 and suppose that y and z have at least one common neighbor, x, such that d(x,0)=d+1. Since x is not lonely, not all parts of x are of the same size by Lemma 6.1. Let y = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q) and z = (\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_q). Thus there exist i \neq j such that x is obtained from y by changing \lambda_i to \lambda_i+1, which is equal to obtaining x from z by changing \mu_j to \mu_j+1. This means that \lambda_k = \mu_k for all k \in [q] \setminus \{i,j\}, \lambda_i+1=\mu_i and \lambda_j = \mu_j+1.

Let x' be another neighbor of y in layer d+1. Then x' is obtained from y by changing \lambda_m to \lambda_m+1 for some m \in [q] \setminus \{i\}. But then as \lambda_m + 1 \neq \mu_m, x' is not a common neighbor of y and z.

Let x \in G(d+1,0) \setminus G(d,0). Observe that since \varphi is an automorphism on its image, \varphi(0) is also a leaf.

Case 1: x is not lonely.
Then there exist vertices y \neq z in layer d that are both neighbors of x. By Lemma 6.3 x is the unique common neighbor of y and z. Vertices \varphi(y) and \varphi(z) are in layer d with respect to \varphi(0) and by Lemma 6.3 they have at most one common neighbor in layer d+1 with respect to \varphi(0), say x'. Since \varphi is an automorphism on its image, \psi(x) can only be x' (if it exists).

Case 2: x is lonely.
Then x has exactly one neighbor w in layer d. By Lemma 6.2 x is the only lonely neighbor of w. The vertex \varphi(w) is in layer d with respect to \varphi(0), and by Lemma 6.2 it has at most one lonely neighbor, say x'. Thus \psi(x) can only be x' (if it exists).

Let p < q. Suppose that it is possible to extend \varphi to \psi \colon G(p,0) \to V(G) such that \psi is an automorphism on its image. Then we show that \psi(\langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle) = \langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle, \psi(\langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle) = \langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle. This is clearly true for p=2. Consider p \geq 3 and assume that it is true for p-1. Neighbors of \langle p-1, 0^{q-1} \rangle in layer p are \langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle (which is lonely) and \langle p-1,1, 0^{q-2} \rangle. Neighbors of \langle 1^{p-1}, 0^{q-p+1} \rangle in layer p are \langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle (which is lonely) and \langle 2, 1^{p-2}, 0^{q-p+1} \rangle. Since \psi should be an automorphism, lonely neighbors have to be mapped into lonely neighbors, thus \psi(\langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle) = \langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle, \psi(\langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle) = \langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle. Note that \psi is unique by Lemma 6.4.

Observe that G(p+1,0)\setminus G(p,0) contains all weak partitions of p+1 except from \langle p+1, 0^{q-1} \rangle. Thus \langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle \in G(p,0) has only one neighbor in layer p+1: \langle p,1, 0^{q-2} \rangle. However, \psi(\langle p, 0^{q-1} \rangle) = \langle 1^p, 0^{q-p} \rangle has two neighbors in layer p+1: \langle 1^{p+1}, 0^{q-p-1} \rangle and \langle 2, 1^{p-1}, 0^{q-p} \rangle. Thus, \psi cannot be extended into an automorphism on G(p+1,0).

An analogous argument settles the case when p > q.

Since G has exactly two leaves, 0 = \langle 0^q \rangle and pq = \langle p^q \rangle, every automorphism of G either maps 0 \mapsto 0, pq \mapsto pq, or 0 \mapsto pq, pq \mapsto 0. This uniquely determines how the unique neighbors 1 = \langle 1, 0^{q-1} \rangle and pq-1 = \langle p^{q-1},p-1 \rangle of the leaves are mapped. However, since \min\{p,q\} \geq 2, vertices 1 and pq-1 each have two neighbors, which can again be mapped either identically or into each other. For illustration, see Figure ?.

Let \varphi \colon V(G) \to V(G) be an automorphism. By the above, there are only 2 \cdot 2 = 4 possibilities of how \varphi maps N[1]. By inductively applying Lemma 6.4, \varphi|_{N[1]} determines the whole \varphi uniquely. Thus \operatorname{Aut}(G) \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2.

However, if p \neq q and \varphi(N[1]) = N[1], then Lemma 6.5 shows that \varphi|_{N[1]} = id|_{N[1]}. Thus \operatorname{Aut}(G) \neq \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2, and by the Lagrange’s theorem, |\operatorname{Aut}(G)| \in \{1,2\}.

Let \tau \colon V(G) \to V(G) be defined so that \tau((\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q)) = (p-\lambda_q, \ldots, p-\lambda_1). Clearly, \tau is well-defined. Let xy \in E(G). So x = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q) and y is obtained from x by changing \lambda_i to \lambda_i+1 for some i \in [q]. Thus \tau(x) = (p-\lambda_q, \ldots, p - \lambda_i, \ldots, p-\lambda_1) and \tau(y) = (p-\lambda_q, \ldots, p-\lambda_i-1, \ldots, p-\lambda_1), so \tau(x) \tau(y) \in E(G). Similarly we obtain that \tau(N(x)) = N(\tau(x)). Hence, \tau is an automorphism. Thus if p \neq q, \operatorname{Aut}(G) = \mathbb{Z}_2 = \{id, \tau\}.

If p = q, let \rho \colon V(G) \to V(G) be defined as \rho(\lambda) = \lambda'. Recall that the conjugate \lambda' of a weak partition \lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q) is obtained by interchanging the rows and columns of the Ferrers diagram of \lambda. In other words, the number of parts of \lambda' equal to i is \lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1}. Since \lambda has q parts which are all at most p, \lambda' has at most p parts which are all at most q. Finally, we add a sufficient number of parts of size 0 to the end of \lambda' so it has exactly p parts. Since p=q, \rho is well-defined. Let xy \in E(G). So x = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_q) and y is obtained from x by changing \lambda_i to \lambda_i+1 for some i \in [q]. Consider now \rho(x) and \rho(y). The number of parts that equal j is equal in both \rho(x) and \rho(y) for all j \in [q] \setminus \{ i-1, i\}, while the number of parts of size i-1 and i differ for 1 between \rho(x) and \rho(y). Thus \rho(x) \rho(y) \in E(G). Similarly, we see that \rho(N(x)) = N(\rho(x)), and so \rho is an automorphism of G. Since \rho(0) = 0 and \tau(0) = pq, \rho \neq \tau. Thus \operatorname{Aut}(G) = \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2 = \{id, \tau, \rho, \tau \circ \rho\}.