On Extremal Family Trees (\mathcal{T}_n)_{n\geqslant 3} Beyond Caterpillars and Greedy Constructions

Consider \mathscr{D}=(d_1,d_2,\dots,d_n) be any tree degree sequence on n vertices with d_1\geqslant d_2\geqslant \dots\geqslant d_n\geqslant 1. Assume \mathcal{T} be any tree with degree sequence \mathscr{D} that is not the greedy tree \mathcal{T}_\mathscr{D}. Let v_1 be a vertex of maximum degree d_1. By the monotone adjacency property, its neighbors are precisely the d_1 vertices with the next largest degrees. Otherwise, a vertex of larger degree would be adjacent to v_1 while a vertex of smaller degree remains unconnected. Then, we find that if \mathcal{T} contains two edges uv and xy (with u \neq x) such that d_\mathcal{T}(u)>d_\mathcal{T}(x), both u and x had remaining degree capacity when y was attached to x, and d_\mathcal{T}(v)<d_\mathcal{T}(y). Let \mathcal{T}' be a tree derived from \mathcal{T} by remove both of edges uv and xy, and add the edges uy and xv. Thus, if there exist vertices u,v,x,y such that d(u) \geq d(v) \geq d(x) \geq d(y), with edges uv, vx \in E(\mathcal{T}) where ux, vy \notin E(\mathcal{T}). Then,

Thus, in this case we find that \sigma(\mathcal{T})>\sigma(\mathcal{T}'). This implies that in any \sigma-minimal tree, edges respect the degree ordering: higher-degree vertices cannot connect to disproportionately lower-degree vertices when a more balanced pairing is possible. Thus, for any two vertices u,v with d(u) \geq d(v), the degrees of the neighbors of u are at least as large as those of the neighbors of v, up to permutation. Therefore, every non-greedy tree can be transformed into the greedy tree by a finite sequence of strictly \sigma-decreasing operations. It follows that \sigma(T)>\sigma(T_\mathscr{D}). This completes the proof.

Assume \mathcal{T}_n be the family of all trees on n vertices where n \geq 3. If \mathcal{T} is a caterpillar tree. Since \mathcal{T}_n is finite, the quantity \mu=\min\{\sigma(\mathcal{T})\mid \mathcal{T}\in\mathcal{T}_n\} is attained by at least one tree. Then, the class of caterpillar trees is a proper subset of \mathcal{T}_n for n\geqslant 4. Thus,

the inequality is strict. Similarity, for greedy trees are constructed to be locally optimal with respect to \sigma. Consequently, the value of \sigma attained by any greedy tree cannot be smaller than the global minimum of \sigma over \mathcal{T}_n.

Assume \mu_c=\min\{\sigma(\mathcal{T}) \mid \mathcal{T} \in \mathcal{T}_n\}, where \mathcal{T} is caterpillar tree, according to (Proof) we find that \mu<\mu_c. As \sigma takes only finitely many distinct values on \mathcal{T}_n, there exists \mathcal{T}^\ast \in \mathcal{T}_n such that

Such a \mathcal{T}^\ast is necessarily non-caterpillar. This tree is neither a caterpillar (its spine fails to dominate due to deep branches) nor greedy (it avoids balanced or star-like growth from low-degree vertices). Its value of \sigma(T) exceeds that of typical double-star-like trees because of a more uniform degree distribution, yet remains strictly smaller than that of most caterpillar trees, whose long spines produce many substantial terms of the form (d(u)-d(v))^2.

Consequently, there exists a non-empty open interval that separates the global minimum of \sigma from the minimum value of \sigma attained over the class of caterpillar trees. Non-caterpillar, non-greedy trees achieve \sigma-values lying strictly inside this interval. Therefore, relations (Proof) and (3.2) together imply (3.2), which completes the proof.

Assume the sequence x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n and the pendant vertices y_{1,1}, \dots, y_{i,j} are adjacent to x_i. Then d(x_1) = d(x_n) = m+1 and d(x_i)=m+2 for 2 \leqslant i \leqslant n-1. Hence,

For n = 2, the Sigma index of the caterpillar tree is given by: \sigma = 2m^3. For n = 3, we have: \sigma(\mathbb{C}(n,m)) = 2m^3 + m(m+1)^2+2, where d(x_1)=d(x_n)=m+1 at both ends of \mathbb{C}(n,m) and d(x_2)=m+2 in the central vertex of \mathbb{C}(n,m). Therefore,

The Sigma index is then computed as (d(x_1) - d (x_2))^2 + \dots + (d (x_{n+1}) - d (x_n))^2, which can be expressed as:

Let \mathbb{C} be a caterpillar tree with an increasing degree sequence \mathscr{D} = (d_1, d_2, d_3) and pendent vertices p. To prove (3.1), we consider the following valid cases. Suppose the degree sequence is \mathscr{D} ordered such that (d_1, d_2, d_3). Then, we have:

If d_1=d_2=d_3=k. Then, \sigma(\mathbb{C})=3p\,(k-1)^2. Now, consider the degree sequence \mathscr{D} ordered such that (d_2, d_1, d_3). We obtain:

If d_1=d_2=d_3=k. Then, \sigma(\mathbb{C})=3p\,(k-1)^2. Thus, if the degree sequence \mathscr{D} ordered such that(d_1, d_3, d_2). We obtain:

Thus, from (Proof)–(Proof) we find that

This completes the proof.

Assume \mathcal{T} be a tree with a spine, vertices on three levels, such that the first-level pendants each have degree 1+r, the second-level pendants each have degree 1+s, and the third-level pendants (leaves) each have degree 1. For the spine edges, we find that there are n-1 edges. Thus, for i=1 and i=n-1 the degrees are p+1 and p+2 implies that (p+1-(p+2))^2=1. For i=2,\dots,n-2 both endpoints have degree p+2 implies that (p+2-(p+2))^2=0. Now, to determine the value of edges between spine vertices and first-level pendants, we noticed that the edges incident to v_1 or v_n (there are 2p of them), the degrees p+1 and 1+r implies that (p+1-(1+r))^2=(p-r)^2 yields 2\,(p-r)^2. Also, for edges incident to internal spine vertices v_2,\dots,v_{n-1} (there are (n-2)p of them), the degrees p+2 and 1+r implies that (p+2-(1+r))^2=(p+1-r)^2 yields 2\,(p+1-r)^2. Thus,

For other levels, there are npr such edges for the second level. Thus, both endpoints have degrees 1+r and 1+s implies that ((1+r)-(1+s))^2=(r-s)^2 yields npr(r-s)^2. To determine the edges between second-level pendants and leaves, we noticed that there are nprs such edges. Thus, for the degrees are 1+s and 1 implies that ((1+s)-1)^2=s^2, yields nprs^3. Thus,

Therefore, from (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain on \sigma(\mathcal{T})=\sigma(\mathcal{T}_1)+\sigma(\mathcal{T}_2). Thus, the relationship (3.2) holds. This completes the proof.

Assume \mathcal{T} be a tree with a spine, vertices on three levels, according to Lemma 3.2, the first-level pendants each have degree (1+r)^2, the second-level pendants each have degree (1+s)^2, and the third-level pendants (leaves) each have degree 1. Thus,

Similarly, for the first and second level, each of the np first-level pendants has degree (1+r)^2, one edge goes to the spine, so it has (1+r)^2- 1 children implies that np((1+r)^2-1) and each such edge connects a vertex of degree (1+r)^2 to a vertex of degree (1+s)^2 implies that ((1+r)^2-(1+s)^2)^2 yields np\,((1+r)^2-1)\,((1+r)^2-(1+s)^2)^2. Also, to determine the value of the second level to leaf edges, we find that each of the np((1+r)^2-1) second-level pendants has degree (1+s)^2, one edge to its parent (first-level), so it has (1+s)^2-1 leaves. Thus there are np\,((1+r)^2-1)\,((1+s)^2-1) such edges. Therefore, we have

Hence, from (Proof) and (Proof) we obtain on \sigma(\mathcal{T})=\sigma(\mathcal{T}_1)+\sigma(\mathcal{T}_2). Thus, the relationship (3.3) holds. This completes the proof.

Assume \mathcal{T} be a tree with spine vertices v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n where n\geqslant 3. For the spine vertices and to the first level according to Lemma 3.2 we find that

Then, at the second level, each of the np first-level pendant vertices is adjacent to exactly 2p-1 second-level pendant vertices. Thus, there are np(2p-1) edges connecting the first level to the second level. Each such edge joins a vertex of degree 2p to a vertex of degree 2p^2, contributing (2p^2 - 2p)^2 = 4p^2(p-1)^2 to the \sigma-irregularity index. Therefore, the total contribution from these edges is

Now consider the edges incident to the third level. Each second-level pendant vertex has degree 2p^2 and is adjacent to exactly 2p^2-1 leaves of degree 1. Hence, there are np(2p-1)(2p^2-1) such edges, each contributing (2p^2-1)^2 to the \sigma-irregularity index. The total contribution from these edges is

Finally, combining the contributions from the spine and first level in (Proof) with those from (Proof) and (Proof) yields

which gives (3.4) and completes the proof.

Let \mathbb{C} be a caterpillar tree of order n, and let \mathscr{D} = (d_1, d_2, d_3, d_4) be a non-increasing degree sequence. We aim to determine which vertices at the ends of the sequence represent the largest values, and which vertices in the middle represent the smallest values. Assume the degrees satisfy a \leq b \leq c \leq d, where c and d are the two largest. For any ordering (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4), the Sigma index is

The term p\sum_{i=1}^{4}(x_i-1)^2 depends only on the multiset \{a,b,c,d\} and remains constant across all permutations. The condition that the two largest degrees are adjacent requires (c,d) or (d,c) to appear consecutively in (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4). Thus, we noticed that The six corresponding orderings are (c,d,a,b),\ (d,c,a,b),\ (a,c,d,b), and (a,d,c,b),\ (a,b,c,d),\ (a,b,d,c). For each ordering, according to Lemma 3.1 we noticed that

where \mathcal{S} denotes the sum of squared consecutive differences:

In each case, the term involving the two largest degrees is either (c-d)^2 or (d-c)^2, appearing exactly once since c and d are adjacent only once in a sequence of length 4. Thus, the maximum value of Sigma index according to (Proof) is

Adjacent terms are closest, minimizing the sum of squared differences. Therefore, the minimum value is

Thus, from (Proof)–(?) holds. This completes the proof.

The vertices of \mathcal{T} are partitioned into levels such that level 0 consists of the spine vertices, while level \ell satisfying 1\leqslant\ell\leqslant k contains all vertices at distance \ell from the spine. Edges exist only between consecutive levels. Hence, we consider each spine vertex has exactly m_0=p neighbors in level 1. Consequently, the total number of edges between levels 0 and 1 is np. For \ell \geqslant 1, every vertex in level \ell has exactly m_\ell=d_\ell-1 pendent vertices in level \ell+1. Thus, the number of edges between levels \ell and \ell+1 is

Therefore, from (Proof) we noticed that

where \sigma_{\ell,\ell+1} denotes the the terms arising from the edges connecting levels \ell and \ell+1. For \ell=1, each spine vertex has exactly p neighbors in level 1. As there are n spine vertices, the total number of edges between levels 1 and 2 is np. Each such edge connects a vertex of degree d_1 (in level 1) to a vertex of degree d_2 (in level 2). Then, \sigma_{1,2}(\mathcal{T})=np\,(d_1-d_2)^2.

Therefore, for 1 \leqslant \ell \leqslant k-2, each edge connecting a vertex at level \ell to a vertex at level \ell+1 contributes (d_\ell-d_{\ell+1})^2 to (Proof). Therefore, according to (Proof) we find that

Then, from (?) by considering \ell=k-1, it satisfies the property that every vertex at level k is a leaf of degree 1. Thus,

Now, for establishing \sigma_{0,1}(\mathcal{T}), we noticed that each edge between a spine vertex and a level-1 vertex contributes (d_0-d_1)^2, where d_0 denotes the degree of the spine vertex. Hence, two endpoint spine vertices v_1 and v_n each have degree d_0 = p+1 and p neighbors at level 1. Their combined contribution is therefore 2p(p+1-d_1)^2. Then, each of the n-2 internal spine vertices has degree d_0 = p+2 and p neighbors at level 1 yields p(n-2)(p+2-d_1)^2. Additionally, the two spine edges v_1v_2 and v_{n-1}v_n contribute 2. Therefore,

Thus, in this case if we consider \mu=\sigma_{0,1}(\mathcal{T}) both of (?) and (?) implies that the relationship (Proof). Therefore, the relationship (3.6) holds.

Assume \mathscr{D}=(d_1,d_2,\dots,d_n) is a degree sequence where d_1 \geqslant d_2 \geqslant \dots \geqslant d_n, with maximum degree \Delta, minimum degree \delta \geqslant 2, and average degree \lambda_{\mathscr{D}}. Clearly, n satisfies n > \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(d_i - d_{i+1})^2 and 2n > \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(d_i - d_{i+1})^3. These n-related terms establish the lower bounds for the Sigma index. Then

We compare the term 2n^3+n^2-2n+1 with the term \Delta(\Delta-1)^2 by considering the value of m-1,

Based on this reduction, the lower bound (Proof) is difficult to determine within a certain bound. Thus, we have \Delta (n - \Delta)^2 - \Delta (m - \Delta)^2 \geqslant \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\lambda_{\mathscr{D}} (d_i - d_{i+1})^3, and for the term \Delta(\Delta - 1)^2 compared with the term (2m^2 + 2m + n) / 2(n + m), considering that \sigma(\mathbb{C}) < 2m^2 + 2m + n holds, we obtain

The sharp lower bound of the Sigma index satisfies the inequality by considering (Proof) and the value of the term (d_1 - d_n)^2,

Thus, relationship (Proof) implies that \Delta (2n - m)^2 satisfies the lower bound according to the value of \lambda_{\mathscr{D}} and the upper bound according to the value d_i^2. Hence,

where

Therefore, from (Proof) and (Proof), the relationship with (Proof) implies (3.7).