Independence polynomials and the weak Lefschetz property for tadpole graphs

Proposition 4.1 gives the classification when m=3 or n=1. We may therefore assume that m\geq4 and n\geq2.

If m+n\geq18, then Proposition 4.5 shows that A(T_{m,n}) does not have the WLP. The case m+n=16 is excluded by Proposition 4.7.

It remains to consider m+n\leq15 or m+n=17. These pairs lie in the range of Proposition 4.8, which gives their complete classification.

Combining these cases with those in Proposition 4.1 yields precisely the pairs listed in the statement.

Assume that

Then

Claim 1: \min(p, q) \leq r.

Proof of Claim 1: Assume to the contrary that r < \min(p, q) = s. Then r \leq s - 1 < s. Hence a_{s-1} \leq a_s and b_{s-1} \leq b_s, which implies a_{s-1} + b_{s-1} \leq a_s + b_s. On the other hand, since s - 1 \geq r and r is the mode of f + g, we have a_{s-1} + b_{s-1} \geq a_s + b_s. Thus a_{s-1} + b_{s-1} = a_s + b_s, which forces a_s = a_{s-1} and b_s = b_{s-1}. Since s=\min\{p,q\}, either s=p or s=q. In the first case, a_{s-1}<a_s, while in the second case, b_{s-1}<b_s. Either conclusion contradicts the equalities obtained above.

Claim 2: r \leq \max(p, q).

Proof of Claim 2: Assume the contrary that r > \max(p, q). Then r - 1 \geq \max(p, q), and hence a_{r-1} \geq a_r and b_{r-1} \geq b_r. It follows that a_{r-1} + b_{r-1} \geq a_r + b_r. However, since r is the mode of f + g, we must have a_{r-1} + b_{r-1} < a_r + b_r, a contradiction.

Claims 1 and 2 imply that \min(p, q) \leq r \leq \max(p, q).

The consecutive vertices of P_n are labeled as v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_n such that v and v_1 are connected by a bridge (see ?). We proceed by induction on n\ge 2.

If n=2, then by applying Proposition 2.7(i) to the vertex numbered v_2

If \nu_1^v(G)= \nu, then I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,2);t) is unimodal with mode \nu_2^v(G)\in \left\{\nu,\nu+1\right\} by ?; if \nu_1^v(G)=\nu+1, then it is immediate that I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,2);t) is unimodal with mode \nu+1. In both cases, we have 0\leq \nu_2^v(G)- \nu_1^v(G)\leq 1.

Assume that the assertion holds for every integer k<n, where n\geq3. We prove it for n. Applying Proposition 2.7(i) to the vertex v_n, we obtain

By the induction hypothesis, both I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,n-1);t) and I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,n-2);t) are unimodal and

We distinguish the following two cases.

Case 1: \nu_{n-1}^v(G)=\nu_{n-2}^v(G). In this case, the modes of I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,n-1);t) and tI(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,n-2);t) are \nu_{n-1}^v(G) and \nu_{n-1}^v(G)+1, respectively. By ?, I(\mathrm{Tail}(G,v,n);t) is unimodal, and its mode satisfies

Therefore, 0\leq \nu_n^v(G)-\nu_{n-1}^v(G)\leq 1.

Case 2: \nu_{n-1}^v(G)=\nu_{n-2}^v(G)+1. The two summands in the recurrence have the same mode, namely \nu_{n-1}^v(G). Their sum is therefore unimodal with mode

Thus 0\leq\nu_n^v(G)-\nu_{n-1}^v(G)\leq1.

This completes the induction and hence the proof.

By [NT24b, Proposition 3.3], the independence polynomial of C_m is unimodal with mode

For m\geq5, the mode estimates in [NT24b, Lemmas 3.4–3.6] imply that the independence polynomial of the pan graph T_{m,1} is unimodal with mode in \{\rho_m,\rho_m+1\}.

For m=3,4, we have

Both polynomials have mode 1, and \rho_3=\rho_4=1. Thus the hypotheses of Theorem 3.2 hold for every m\geq3. Since \mathrm{Tail}(C_m,v,n)=T_{m,n}, the result follows.

It suffices to prove the following two claims.

Proof of Claim 1: For d\geq 1, set A(d)= \sqrt{5d^2 + 20d+24}. It suffices to show that

This is equivalent to showing that

Since both sides of (?) are nonnegative, we may square them. After simplification, we obtain the equivalent inequality

Squaring both sides of (?) and simplifying, we obtain the equivalent inequality

This inequality holds for all m\geq 1 and n\geq 1. Taking ceilings and using

we obtain

which completes the proof of Claim Proof.

Next, we have the following.

Proof of Claim 2: Retaining the notation A(d)= \sqrt{5d^2+20d+24}, we first show that

This is equivalent to showing that

Squaring both sides of (?) and simplifying, we obtain the equivalent inequality

Since A(m)A(n) > 5mn and 8A(m)+ 8A(n)> 10(m+n) for all m\geq 1 and n\geq 1, inequality (?) holds immediately, which in turn yields (?).

Applying the ceiling inequality \left \lceil x \right \rceil+ \left \lceil y \right \rceil-1\leq \left \lceil x+y \right \rceil along with (?), we obtain

which completes the proof of Claim ?.

The result now follows from Claims Proof and ?.

Let F_0=0, F_1=1, and F_{r+2}=F_{r+1}+F_r be the Fibonacci numbers. Since

we have I(P_r;1)=F_{r+2}. Combinatorially, the quantity I'(P_r;1) counts pairs (S,v), where S is an independent set of P_r and v\in S is a distinguished vertex.

Write V(P_r)=\{v_1,\ldots,v_r\}, where v_i is adjacent to v_{i+1}. Fix a distinguished vertex v_j. After choosing v_j, the vertices that may still be selected lie to the left of v_{j-1} or to the right of v_{j+1}. The numbers of possible independent sets on these two sides are F_j and F_{r-j+1}, respectively. At an endpoint, the corresponding side is empty and contributes one choice, consistently with F_1=F_2=1. Thus the number of independent sets containing v_j is F_jF_{r-j+1}. Summing over all possible choices of v_j, we obtain

Using the Fibonacci convolution identity, we obtain

Consequently,

To estimate the last quotient, let \varphi=(1+\sqrt5)/2 and \alpha=\varphi^{-2}=(3-\sqrt5)/2. By Binet’s formula, F_r=(\varphi^r-\psi^r)/\sqrt5, where \psi=(1-\sqrt5)/2. Since \psi/\varphi=-\alpha, we obtain

Set

We show that F_r/F_{r+2}\leq B_r.

First, observe that

Indeed, \sqrt{5(r+2)^2+4}<1+\sqrt5(r+2) for every r\geq1.

Suppose first that r is even. Then

Now suppose that r is odd. For r=1, one checks directly that F_1/F_3=B_1=1/2. Assume that r\geq3. Then

Since \alpha<2/5, an elementary induction on odd r\geq3 gives \alpha^{r+1}\leq 1/\bigl(5(r+2)\bigr).

On the other hand, since \sqrt5(r+2)\geq3\sqrt5>91/30, we have

Therefore,

It follows that

Hence F_r/F_{r+2}\leq B_r also when r is odd. We conclude that

for every r\geq1. It follows that

Recall that \lambda_r=\left\lceil \bigl(5r+2-\sqrt{5r^2+20r+24}\bigr)/10 \right\rceil. Therefore,

This completes the proof.

Using the labeling in Figure ?, deleting x_{m-1} leaves a path on m+n-1 vertices, whereas deleting N[x_{m-1}] leaves the disjoint union P_{m-3}\cup P_n. Hence Proposition 2.7 gives

Set f(t):=I(P_{m-3};t)I(P_n;t) and s:=\lambda_{m-3}+\lambda_n. Since P_{m-3}\cup P_n is claw-free, the polynomial f(t) has only real negative roots. In particular, f(t) is log-concave and hence unimodal. By Theorem ?, if \mu denotes the mode of f, then

On the other hand,

Applying Lemma 3.5 to P_{m-3} and P_n, we obtain

Hence \mu\leq \left\lceil f'(1)/f(1)\right\rceil\leq s+1. Therefore, the mode of tf(t) is at most s+2.

Moreover, Lemma 3.4 gives |\lambda_{m+n-1}-\lambda_{m-3}-\lambda_n|\leq1, and hence \lambda_{m+n-1}\leq s+1. Since I(T_{m,n};t) is unimodal, Lemma 2.5 yields

Applying Theorem ? to each path independence polynomial, and using the elementary floor and ceiling inequalities, we obtain

Consequently, the mode of tf(t) is \mu+1, which satisfies

Applying Lemmas 2.5 and 3.4, we obtain \left| \lambda_{m+n-1}-\lambda_{m-3}-\lambda_n\right|\leq 1 and

Combining these inequalities with the bounds for \mu+1 obtained above, we conclude that \lambda_{m-3}+\lambda_n-1\leq\mu_{m,n} \leq\lambda_{m-3}+\lambda_n+2.

Since I is monomial, Proposition ? shows that A has the WLP if and only if \ell_A is a Lefschetz element of A. Consider the commutative diagram

If the upper horizontal map were surjective, then the lower horizontal map would also be surjective, contrary to the assumption. Since d\geq\mu and the Hilbert function of A is unimodal, we have \dim_{\Bbbk}[A]_d\geq\dim_{\Bbbk}[A]_{d+1}. Thus, maximal rank in this degree requires surjectivity. Therefore, \ell_A is not a Lefschetz element of A, and hence A does not have the WLP.

Write N=4q+r, where 0\leq r\leq3. Order the vertices by setting z_i=x_i for 1\leq i\leq m and z_{m+j}=y_j for 1\leq j\leq n. Then z_1,\ldots,z_N form a spanning path of T_{m,n}, and the only edge of T_{m,n} not belonging to this path is \{z_1,z_m\}.

For each 0\leq j\leq q-1, set a_j=z_{4j+1}+z_{4j+2}, b_j=z_{4j+3}+z_{4j+4}, and F_j=a_j-b_j. Since consecutive vertices along the spanning path are adjacent and the square of every variable is zero in A(T_{m,n}), we have a_j^2=b_j^2=0. Hence,

If r=0, define F=\prod_{j=0}^{q-1}F_j.

Suppose that r>0, and set H=z_{4q+1}+\cdots+z_{4q+r}. Define

Then HG=0. Indeed, this follows from the square-zero relations when r=1,2. When r=3, we have

because z_{4q+2} is adjacent to both z_{4q+1} and z_{4q+3}.

For every r>0, define F=\bigl(\prod_{j=0}^{q-1}F_j\bigr)G. The linear form \ell can be written as

when r=0, and as

when r>0. Since (a_j+b_j)F_j=0 for every j and HG=0 when r>0, it follows that \ell F=0. Moreover, \deg F=q when r=0 and \deg F=q+1 when r>0. Therefore, F\in[A(T_{m,n})]_d.

It remains to show that F\neq0. Set M_0=\prod_{j=0}^{q-1}z_{4j+2} and define

The monomial M occurs in F with coefficient 1: it is obtained uniquely by selecting z_{4j+2} from each factor F_j and, when r>0, selecting z_{4q+1} from G.

The indices of the variables occurring in M_0 differ successively by 4. When r>0, the last two selected indices are 4q-2 and 4q+1, which differ by 3. Thus, no two variables in M correspond to adjacent vertices of the spanning path. Furthermore, M does not contain z_1, so its support does not contain the additional edge \{z_1,z_m\}. Hence, the support of M is an independent set of T_{m,n}. Therefore, M is nonzero in A(T_{m,n}), and consequently F\neq0.

Thus, F is a nonzero element of [A(T_{m,n})]_d satisfying \ell F=0. Hence, multiplication by \ell from degree d to degree d+1 is not injective.

Finally, if \dim_{\Bbbk}[A(T_{m,n})]_d\leq \dim_{\Bbbk}[A(T_{m,n})]_{d+1}, then maximal rank in this degree requires injectivity. Therefore, A(T_{m,n}) does not have the WLP.

For N=18,19, the assertion follows from \lambda_{17}=\lambda_{18}=5.

Suppose that N\geq20. By the formula for the mode of a path,

We claim that

Indeed, this inequality is equivalent to

Since both sides are nonnegative, squaring shows that it is equivalent to

which holds for N\geq20. Taking ceilings gives the result.

Set

and let \ell be the sum of all the variables. By Corollary 3.3, the Hilbert function of A is unimodal. Denote its mode by \mu. Lemma 4.4 gives d\leq p.

Suppose first that \mu\leq p. Deleting x_{m-1} from T_{m,n} leaves a path on N-1 vertices. Hence there is a graded surjection

Since N-1\geq17, Theorem 2.13 shows that multiplication by the image of \ell on A(P_{N-1}) is not surjective from degree p to degree p+1. As p\geq\mu, Lemma 4.2 implies that A does not have the WLP.

Suppose next that \mu>p. Then d\leq p<\mu. The unimodality of the Hilbert function yields

On the other hand, Lemma 4.3 shows that multiplication by \ell from degree d to degree d+1 is not injective. Therefore, this map does not have maximal rank, and A does not have the WLP.

Applying Proposition 2.7(i) to the vertex x_{m-1}, we obtain

By [NT24b, Proposition 3.1], one has

It follows that

We use the convention that \binom{a}{b}=0 unless 0\leq b\leq a.

Since n=16-m, the assumptions give 4\leq m\leq14. Evaluating the preceding formula for k=4,5 yields

Thus h_4(m,n)<h_5(m,n) in every case.

Set A=A(T_{m,n}), and let \ell be the sum of all the variables. Since the Hilbert series of A equals I(T_{m,n};t), Lemma 4.6 gives

On the other hand,

Therefore, Lemma 4.3 shows that

is not injective. Hence this map does not have maximal rank. By Proposition ?, the algebra A does not have the WLP.

By Proposition ?, it suffices to consider multiplication by the sum \ell of all the variables. For each pair (m,n) in the stated range, we compute the matrices of

in every degree j and determine their ranks over \mathbb{Q}. Computations in Macaulay2 [GS], using the code in [HPS26M2], show that these maps have maximal rank exactly for the pairs listed in the statement and summarized in Table ?. The matrices have integer entries, so their ranks over an arbitrary field of characteristic zero agree with their ranks over \mathbb{Q}. Therefore, the same classification holds over every field of characteristic zero.