Stronger Spectral Bound for Clique Number

Hareshkumar Jadav, Sudipta Mallik, Akhilesh Panchangam and Ranveer Singh

arXiv: 2610.21388v1 · PDF · 15 October 2026
Categories: math.CO
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Given an integer k, deciding whether a graph has a clique of size k is an NP-complete problem. Wilf’s inequality provides a spectral lower bound for the clique number of a graph. Strengthening this bound, Elphick and Wocjan proposed a conjecture in 2018 using positive adjacency eigenvalues. In this paper, we present an infinite family of graphs for which the Elphick and Wocjan conjecture is true. We find a stronger spectral lower bound for the clique number for this family of graphs.

Items 19

Definition

Definition 2.1

E059

[Duan23] For an integer t \geq 2, let K_{\lceil \frac{t}{2} \rceil} and K_{\lfloor \frac{t}{2} \rfloor} be vertex-disjoint complete graphs with vertex sets

V = \{r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_{\lceil \frac{t}{2} \rceil}\} \quad\text{and}\quad W = \{w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_{\lfloor \frac{t}{2} \rfloor}\},

respectively. Let N_W(x) denote the neighborhood of any vertex x in W. Let G_t (see Figure ? for t=8 and Figure ? for t=9) be the graph obtained by applying the following operations:

If t is even, we insert new edges such that
\begin{aligned} &N_W(r_1) = \varnothing \subset N_W(r_2) = \{w_{\frac{t}{2}}\} \subset N_W(r_3) = \{w_{\frac{t}{2}}, w_{\frac{t}{2}-1}\} \subset \cdots \\ &\subset N_W(r_{\frac{t}{2}-1}) = \{w_{\frac{t}{2}}, w_{\frac{t}{2}-1}, \ldots, w_3\} \subset N_W(r_{\frac{t}{2}}) = \{w_{\frac{t}{2}}, w_{\frac{t}{2}-1}, \ldots, w_2\}. \end{aligned}
For t odd, we insert new edges such that
\begin{aligned} &N_W(r_1) = \varnothing \subset N_W(r_2) = \{w_{\frac{t-1}{2}}\} \subset N_W(r_3) = \{w_{\frac{t-1}{2}}, w_{\frac{t-1}{2}-1}\} \subset \cdots \\ &\subset N_W(r_{\frac{t+1}{2}-1}) = \{w_{\frac{t-1}{2}}, w_{\frac{t-1}{2}-1}, \ldots, w_2\} \subset N_W(r_{\frac{t+1}{2}}) = \{w_{\frac{t-1}{2}}, w_{\frac{t-1}{2}-1}, \ldots, w_1\}. \end{aligned}

Note that when t is odd, the above construction of G_t can equivalently be obtained using G_{t-1} by adding the vertex r_{\frac{t+1}{2}} and joining it to all the vertices of G_{t-1}.

Theorem

Theorem 2.2

J06P

[Oboudi, Theorem 2.18] Let G be a graph of order n \geq 3 with two positive eigenvalues and zero nullity.

(i) If G is disconnected, then G is isomorphic to the disjoint union of K_{n_1} and K_{n_2} for some integers n_1, n_2 \geq 2;
(ii) If G is connected, then G is isomorphic to B_t({n_1}, {n_2}, \ldots, {n_t}), where 3 \leq t \leq 12 and n_1 + n_2 + \cdots + n_t = n, for some positive integers n_1, n_2, \ldots, n_t.

Theorem

Theorem 2.3

EQBU

[Oboudi, Theorem 2.21] Let t \ge 2 be an integer and let G_t be a graph on t vertices with adjacency matrix A = [a_{ij}]. Let n_1, \ldots, n_t be some positive integers such that n_1 + \cdots + n_t=n. Define the t \times t matrix M = [m_{ij}] by

m_{ij} := \begin{cases} n_i - 1, & \text{if } i = j,\\[2pt] a_{ij}n_j, & \text{if } i \neq j. \end{cases}

Then the eigenvalues of B_t({n_1}, \ldots, {n_t}) are -1 with multiplicity n - t and the rest of the eigenvalues are the eigenvalue of M. Moreover, for a fixed vertex ordering of G_t, the matrix M admits a nice block structure.

Used by Example 2.4, Example 3.2, Proof, Example 3.8

Example

Example 2.4

ZYUM

Consider the graph B_4(2,3,1,2) with vertex set \{v_1,\ldots,v_8\}. We order the vertices as

v_1,v_2 \in K_2,\quad v_3,v_4,v_5 \in K_3,\quad v_6 \in K_1,\quad v_7,v_8 \in K_2,

as illustrated in Figure ?. In this case, t=4 and (n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4) = (2,3,1,2). Therefore, the matrix M by Theorem 2.3 is

M = \begin{bmatrix} n_1-1 & n_2 & 0 & 0\\ n_1 & n_2-1 & 0 & n_4\\ 0 & 0 & n_3-1 & n_4\\ 0 & n_2 & n_3 & n_4-1 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 3 & 0 & 0\\ 2 & 2 & 0 & 2\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 2\\ 0 & 3 & 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix}.

The eigenvalues of M are

\lambda_1 \approx 5.0899,\quad \lambda_2 \approx 1.6266,\quad \lambda_3 \approx -2.2956,\quad \lambda_4 \approx -0.4209.

By Theorem 2.3, the spectrum of B_4(2,3,1,2) is \{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4,-1,-1,-1,-1\}.

Uses Theorem 2.3

Theorem

Theorem 2.5

IGOL

Let M be the 2s \times 2s matrix as defined in Theorem 2.3. Then

\operatorname{tr}(M^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{2s} \lambda_i^2 = \left( \sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i \right)^2 + \left( \sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i \right)^2 + 2 \sum_{i=2}^{s} \sum_{j=2s-i+2}^{2s} n_{i} n_{j} - 2n + 2s.

Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.5

Since \operatorname{tr}(M^2)=\sum_{i,k} m_{ik}m_{ki}. Using the definition of M,

\operatorname{tr}(M^2) =\sum_{i=1}^{2s}(n_i-1)^2 \;+\;\sum_{i\neq j} a_{ij}a_{ji}\,n_in_j.

Since A(G_{2s}) is symmetric, a_{ij}=a_{ji}\in\{0,1\}, so

\operatorname{tr}(M^2) =\sum_{i=1}^{2s}(n_i-1)^2 \;+\; 2\!\!\sum_{1\le i<j\le 2s}\!\! a_{ij}\,n_in_j.

Let us now simplify the last term of (Proof). To do so, we partition the edge set of G_{2s} according to the block structure of its adjacency matrix. The subgraph of G_{2s} induced by the first s vertices is a clique thus

2\sum_{1\le i<j\le s} n_i n_j = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i^2.

Similarly, the subgraph of G_{2s} induced by the last s vertices is a clique and

2\sum_{s+1\le i<j\le 2s} n_i n_j = \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i^2.

The remaining edges in G_{2s} join the first and last s vertices as in Definition 2.1. These edges (say crossing edges) are

E_{\mathrm{cross}} = \{(i,j): 2 \le i \le s,\;\; 2s-i+2 \le j \le 2s\},

and therefore they contribute

2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j.

Substituting these three pieces into (Proof) gives

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}(M^2) &=\sum_{i=1}^{2s}(n_i-1)^2 \;+\Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i^2+\Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i^2+ 2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j\\ &= \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s}n_i\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s}n_i\Bigr)^2 + 2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j+ \sum_{i=1}^{2s}(n_i-1)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{2s}n_i^2\\ &= \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s}n_i\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s}n_i\Bigr)^2 + 2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j+ \sum_{i=1}^{2s}(n_i^2-2n_i+1) - \sum_{i=1}^{2s}n_i^2 \end{aligned}

and simplifying the last two terms yields -2n+2s. This yields the claimed formula.

Theorem

Theorem 2.6

6XAZ

Let M be the (2s+1) \times (2s+1) matrix as defined in Theorem 2.3. Then

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}(M^2) =\sum_{i=1}^{2s+1}\lambda_i^2=\Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s}n_i\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s}n_i\Bigr)^2 &+ 2\sum_{i=2}^{s}\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j \\ &- n_{2s+1}^2 + 2n\,n_{2s+1} + (2s+1) - 2n. \end{aligned}

Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.6

Again we have

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}(M^2)=\sum_{i,k} m_{ik}m_{ki} &=\sum_{i=1}^{t}(n_i-1)^2 \;+\; \sum_{i\ne j} a_{ij}a_{ji}\,n_in_j \\ &=\sum_{i=1}^{2s+1}(n_i-1)^2 \;+\; 2\sum_{1\le i<j\le 2s+1}\!\! a_{ij}\,n_in_j. \end{aligned}

Let us now simplify the last term of (Proof). We again partition the edge set of G_{2s+1} according to the block structure of its adjacency matrix. The subgraph of G_{2s+1} induced by the first s vertices is a clique thus

2\sum_{1\le i<j\le s} n_i n_j = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i^2.

Similarly, the subgraph of G_{2s+1} induced by the vertices indexed by \{s+1,\dots,2s\} is a clique and

2\sum_{s+1\le i<j\le 2s} n_i n_j = \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i^2.

The edges between these two halves (the first s and the next s vertices) follow the same pattern as in G_{2s+1}. Thus the set of crossing edges is

E_{\mathrm{cross}} = \bigl\{(i,j): 2 \le i \le s,\;\; 2s - i + 2 \le j \le 2s\bigr\},

and therefore they contribute

2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j.

Finally, the vertex indexed by 2s+1 in G_{2s+1}, is adjacent to every other vertex. Therefore the edges incident with part 2s+1 contribute

2\sum_{i=1}^{2s} n_{2s+1} n_i = 2n\,n_{2s+1} - 2n_{2s+1}^2,

Substituting these four contributions into the edge–sum term of (Proof) and then adding the diagonal contribution

\sum_{i=1}^{2s+1} (n_i - 1)^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{2s+1} (n_i^2 - 2n_i + 1),

we obtain

\begin{aligned} \operatorname{tr}(M^2) & = \sum_{i=1}^{2s+1} (n_i^2 - 2n_i + 1)+ \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 - \sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i^2 \\ &\quad\quad\hspace{3cm}+ 2\sum_{i=2}^{s}\;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j + 2n\,n_{2s+1} - 2n_{2s+1}^2 \\ &= \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 + 2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j \\ &\quad\quad\hspace{3cm} + \sum_{i=1}^{2s+1} (n_i^2 - 2n_i + 1) - \sum_{i=1}^{2s} n_i^2 + 2n\,n_{2s+1} - 2n_{2s+1}^2. \end{aligned}

The square–sum terms simplify to

\sum_{i=1}^{2s+1} n_i^2 - \sum_{i=1}^{2s} n_i^2 - 2n_{2s+1}^2= -\,n_{2s+1}^2,

and

\sum_{i=1}^{2s+1}(-2n_i + 1) = -2n + 2s+1.

Substituting these back yields exactly

\operatorname{tr}(M^2) = \Bigl(\sum_{i=1}^{s} n_i\Bigr)^2 + \Bigl(\sum_{i=s+1}^{2s} n_i\Bigr)^2 + 2\sum_{i=2}^{s} \;\sum_{j=\,2s-i+2}^{\,2s} n_i n_j \;-\; n_{2s+1}^2 \;+\; 2n\,n_{2s+1} \;+\; (2s+1) - 2n,

This yields the claimed formula.

Observation

Observation 2.7

2F97

For the family of graphs B_t(n_1,\hdots, n_t), the bounds (A) and (B) are incomparable: there exist graphs for which (A) is stronger and graphs for which (B) is stronger.

Theorem

Theorem 3.1

A09P

Let G=B_{3}(n_1, n_2, n_3) be a graph of order n with positive integers n_1,n_2,n_3. Let \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3 be the adjacency eigenvalues of G different from -1. If (n_1,n_2)\neq (1,1), then

\sqrt{\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2}\ \le\ n \left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right).

In particular, for n_1=n_2=1 and n_3\ge 1, the inequality (3.1) does not hold.

Proof of Theorem 3.1

Define

n:=n_1+n_2+n_3,\qquad \omega:=\max\{n_1+n_3,n_2+n_3\}.

We consider three cases: n_1>n_2, n_1<n_2, and n_1=n_2.

Case 1: n_1>n_2.

By Theorem 2.6 with s=1,

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 = n_1^2+n_2^2 - n_3^2 + 2n\,n_3 + 3 - 2n,

Since \omega=n_1+n_3 in this case, squaring (3.1) and using \lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2\ge 0, we obtain the equivalent inequality

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 \ \le\ n^2\left(1-\frac{1}{n_1+n_3}\right)^2 .

Substituting n=n_1+n_2+n_3 into (?) gives

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 = n_1^2+n_2^2-n_3^2+2(n_1+n_2+n_3)n_3+3-2(n_1+n_2+n_3).

Define

\Delta(n_1,n_2,n_3) := n^2\left(1-\frac{1}{n_1+n_3}\right)^2 -\bigl(\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2\bigr).

Then (?) is equivalent to

\Delta(n_1,n_2,n_3)\ge 0.

Clearing denominators using (?) yields

\Delta(n_1,n_2,n_3)=\frac{D(n_1,n_2,n_3)}{(n_1+n_3)^2},

where

\begin{aligned} D(n_1,n_2,n_3) =\ &(n_1+n_3-1)^2(n_1+n_2+n_3)^2\\ &-(n_1+n_3)^2\Bigl(n_1^2+n_2^2-n_3^2+2(n_1+n_2+n_3)n_3+3-2(n_1+n_2+n_3)\Bigr). \end{aligned}

Since (n_1+n_3)^2>0, by (?) the condition (?) is equivalent to

D(n_1,n_2,n_3)\ge 0.

Now fix n_1 and n_3 and write D(n_2):=D(n_1,n_2,n_3) for n_2\in[1,n_1-1]. Set

a:=n_1+n_3.

A direct expansion of (?) shows that D(n_2) is a quadratic polynomial in the single variable n_2:

D(n_2)=(1-2a)\,n_2^2+\beta(n_1,n_3)\,n_2-2a^2,

where

\beta(n_1,n_3) :=2n_1^3+4n_1^2n_3-2n_1^2+2n_1n_3^2-4n_1n_3+2n_1-2n_3^2+2n_3 .

Since n_1,n_3\ge 1, we have a\ge 2, hence

1-2a<0,

so D(n_2) is concave down on \mathbb{R}. Therefore, on the interval [1,n_1-1] its minimum is attained at an endpoint:

\min_{\,n_2\in[1,n_1-1]} D(n_2)=\min\{D(1),D(n_1-1)\}.

It thus suffices to prove

D(1)\ge 0 \qquad\text{and}\qquad D(n_1-1)\ge 0.

Now substituting n_2=1 into (?) and simplifying yields

D(1)=D(n_1,1,n_3)=2(n_1-2)(n_1+n_3)^2+1=2(n_1-2)a^2+1.

Since n_1>n_2\ge 1, we have n_1\ge 2. If n_1=2, then D(1)=1. If n_1\ge 3, then n_1-2\ge 1 and a^2>0, hence D(1)\ge 1. Thus

D(1)\ge 1.

Substituting n_2=n_1-1 into (?) and simplifying gives

D(n_1-1)=D(n_1,n_1-1,n_3) =(n_1-1)^2+2(n_1-2)a\bigl(n_1a-(n_1-1)\bigr).

If n_1=2, then n_2=1 and D(n_1-1)=D(1)=1. Assume n_1\ge 3. Then n_1-2>0 and a=n_1+n_3\ge n_1+1\ge 4, and

n_1a-(n_1-1)=n_1(a-1)+1\ge 1.

Hence the second term in (?) is nonnegative, so

D(n_1-1)\ge (n_1-1)^2\ge 1.

Combining (?), (?), and (?), we obtain D(n_2)\ge 0 for all n_2\in[1,n_1-1]. Therefore (?) holds, which implies (?) by (?), hence (?) and thus (3.1). This completes the proof of Case 1.

Case 2: n_1<n_2.
This case is symmetric to Case 1 after interchanging the roles of n_1 and n_2, so the same argument proves (3.1).

Case 3: n_1=n_2.
Set t:=n_1=n_2. Recall n=n_1+n_2+n_3=2t+n_3 and

\omega=\max\{n_1+n_3,n_2+n_3\}=t+n_3.

By Theorem 2.6 with s=1,

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 = n_1^2+n_2^2-n_3^2+2nn_3+3-2n.

Substituting n_1=n_2=t and n=2t+n_3 into (?) yields

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 = n_3^2+4tn_3-2n_3+2t^2-4t+3.

Since \omega\geq t+n_3, squaring (3.1) and using \lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2\ge 0 gives the equivalent inequality

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 \ \le\ n^2\left(1-\frac{1}{t+n_3}\right)^2.

Define

\Delta(t,n_3) := n^2\left(1-\frac{1}{t+n_3}\right)^2 -\bigl(\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2\bigr), \qquad n=2t+n_3.

Then (?) is equivalent to

\Delta(t,n_3)\ge 0.

Clearing denominators (using (?)) gives

\Delta(t,n_3)=\frac{D(t,n_3)}{(t+n_3)^2},

where

D(t,n_3) :=(t+n_3-1)^2(2t+n_3)^2-(t+n_3)^2\bigl(n_3^2+4tn_3-2n_3+2t^2-4t+3\bigr).

Since (t+n_3)^2>0, by (?) it suffices to prove

D(t,n_3)\ge 0 \qquad (t\ge 2,\ n_3\ge 1).

A direct expansion of (?) shows that D(t,n_3) is a quadratic polynomial in the single variable n_3:

D(t,n_3)=A(t)\,n_3^2+B(t)\,n_3+C(t),

where

A(t)=2(t^2-t-1),\qquad B(t)=2t(2t^2-3t-1),\qquad C(t)=t^2(2t^2-4t+1).

For t\ge 2, we have A(t)>0 and B(t)>0. Hence for every n_3\ge 1,

D(t,n_3)-D(t,1)=A(t)(n_3^2-1)+B(t)(n_3-1)\ \ge\ 0.

So the minimum over n_3\ge 1 is attained at n_3=1:

D(t,n_3)\ge D(t,1)\qquad (t\ge 2,\ n_3\ge 1).

Substituting n_3=1 into (?) gives

D(t,1)=2t^4-3t^2-4t-2.

Using 2(t-1)^2\ge 0, we have -4t\ge -2t^2-2, and therefore

D(t,1)=2t^4-3t^2-4t-2\ \ge\ 2t^4-5t^2-4.

The polynomial \phi(t):=2t^4-5t^2-4 is increasing for t\ge 2 since

\phi'(t)=8t^3-10t=2t(4t^2-5)>0\qquad (t\ge 2),

and \phi(2)=8>0. Hence

D(t,1)\ge 0 \qquad (t\ge 2).

Combining (?) and (?) yields D(t,n_3)\ge 0 for all t\ge 2 and n_3\ge 1. Consequently, (?) holds, which implies (?) by (?), and therefore (?) and (3.1). This completes the proof of Case 3 when t\ge 2.

Now consider t=1. Then n_1=n_2=1 and n_3\ge 1, and hence

n=n_1+n_2+n_3=n_3+2, \qquad \omega=\max\{1+n_3,1+n_3\}=n_3+1.

Substituting t=1 into (?) gives

\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2 =n_3^2+4n_3-2n_3+2-4+3 =(n_3+1)^2,

and hence

\sqrt{\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2}=n_3+1.

We can rewrite (3.1) as

\frac{n}{\,n-\sqrt{\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2+\lambda_3^2}\,}\ \le\ \omega.

Substituting (?) and (?) into (?) yields

\frac{n_3+2}{(n_3+2)-(n_3+1)}\le n_3+1 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad n_3+2\le n_3+1,

which is a contradiction. Therefore (3.1) fails for B_3(1,1,n_3).

This completes the proof.

Uses Theorem 2.6

Example

Example 3.2

1NE3

Consider the graph B_3(2,3,2) of order n=7 and the associated matrix M of order t=3:

M= \begin{bmatrix} 1&0&2\\ 0&2&2\\ 2&3&2 \end{bmatrix}.

Let \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3 denote the eigenvalues of M. A direct computation gives

\lambda_1 \approx 4.52,\quad \lambda_2 \approx 1.39,\quad \lambda_3 \approx -1.91.

Hence, by Theorem 2.3, the eigenvalues of B_3(2,3,2) are -1 with multiplicity n-t=4 together with (?), i.e.,

\operatorname{spec}\bigl(B_3(2,3,2)\bigr) =\{4.52,\ 1.39,\ -1.91,\ -1,\ -1,\ -1,\ -1\}.

Therefore

\sum_{i=1}^{3}\lambda_i^2 \approx (4.52)^2+(1.39)^2+(1.91)^2 \approx 26, \qquad\text{so}\qquad \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{3}\lambda_i^2}\approx 5.10.

Since \omega=\max\{n_1+n_3,\;n_2+n_3\}=\max\{4,5\}=5, we have

n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right)=7\!\left(1-\frac{1}{5}\right)=\frac{28}{5}=5.60,

and hence the inequality (3.1)

holds for B_3(2,3,2).

Uses Theorem 2.3

Remark

Remark 3.3

0RK5

We now verify that the Elphick–Wocjan conjecture holds for B_3(1,1,n_3). Note that B_3(1,1,n_3) is the complete multipartite graph K_{2,1,1,\ldots,1} and consequently it has exactly one positive eigenvalue [Smith1970]. Then \sqrt{s^+}=\lambda_1. Thus for this family the Elphick–Wocjan conjecture is equivalent to the Wilf bound, which always holds.

Corollary

Corollary 3.4

9WWD

The Elphick-Wocjan conjecture holds for B_3(n_1, n_2, n_3) for any positive integers n_1, n_2, n_3.

Theorem

Theorem 3.5

R8NK

Let G = B_4(n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4) be a graph of order n with positive integers n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4. Let \lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4 be the adjacency eigenvalues of G different from -1. Then

\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lambda_i^2}\;\le\; n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right),

except when (n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)=(1,1,1,1).

Proof of Theorem 3.5

By Theorem 2.3, the matrix M has eigenvalues \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \lambda_4. In particular,

\operatorname{tr}(M^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{4} \lambda_i^2.

Hence the Wilf-type bound (3.5) is equivalent to

\operatorname{tr}(M^2)\;\le\; n^2\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right)^2.

We set

p := n_1 + n_2,\quad q := n_3 + n_4,\quad \omega \geq \max\{p,q\}, \quad n= p + q=\sum_{i=1}^{4}n_i.

To establish (Proof), we consider the following three cases:

\text{(1) } p > q,\qquad \text{(2) } p = q,\qquad \text{(3) } p < q.

Case 1: p>q.
In this case \omega\geq\max\{p,q\}=p and s=2.

Put s=2 in (2.5) to obtain (Proof) with \omega \ge p. It therefore suffices to prove:

p^2 + q^2 + 2 n_2n_4 - 2n + 4 \;\leq\; n^2\!\left(1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)^2.

Expanding the right-hand side,

n^2\!\left(1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)^2 = n^2 - \frac{2n^2}{p} + \frac{n^2}{p^2}.

Since

n^2= (p+q)^2 = p^2 + q^2 + 2 p q,

inequality (?) can be rewritten as

\begin{aligned} p^2 + q^2 + 2 n_2n_4 - 2n + 4 \leq p^2 + q^2 + 2 p q - \frac{2n^2}{p} + \frac{n^2}{p^2}. \end{aligned}

Cancelling the common terms from both sides yields

2n_2n_4 - 2n + 4 \;\le\; 2pq - \frac{2n^2}{p} + \frac{n^2}{p^2}.

Since n = p+q, we rewrite (?) as

2n_2n_4 - 2(p+q) + 4 \;\le\; 2pq - 2(p+q)\left(1 + \frac{q}{p}\right) + \left(1 + \frac{q}{p}\right)^2.

Rewriting the above inequality, we get the following

\begin{aligned} 0 &\leq 2pq - 2n_2 n_4 - 2(p+q) \frac{q}{p} + \left(1+ \frac{q}{p}\right)^2-4\\ &= 2pq - 2n_2n_4 - 2q - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-3, \end{aligned}

For the worst case (to minimize the right-hand side) we make the negative term -2n_2n_4 as small as possible. Since

n_2 \le p-1,\qquad n_4 \le q-1,

we have

n_2n_4 \le (p-1)(q-1) \quad\Longrightarrow\quad -2n_2n_4 \;\ge\; -2(p-1)(q-1).

Therefore

\begin{aligned} &2pq - 2n_2n_4 - 2q - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-3\\ &\hspace{3cm}\geq2pq - 2(p-1)(q-1) - 2q - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-3\\ &\hspace{3cm}=2pq - 2(pq-p-q+1) - 2q - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-3\\ &\hspace{3cm}=2p + 2q - 2 - 2q - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-3\\ &\hspace{3cm}=2p - 2 \frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2 \frac{q}{p}-5. \end{aligned}

Now to complete Case 1 it suffices to show that

2p - 2\frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2\frac{q}{p} - 5 \;\ge\; 0.

for all integers p\ge3, q\ge2 with q \le p-1 and p>q.

Since p>0, multiplying (?) by p^2 preserves the inequality and gives

p^2\!\left( 2p - 2\frac{q^2}{p} + \frac{q^2}{p^2} + 2\frac{q}{p} - 5 \right) = 2p^3 - 5p^2 + 2pq - 2pq^2 + q^2.

Define, for a fixed p\geq 3,

f_p(q) := 2p^3 - 5p^2 + 2pq - 2pq^2 + q^2 = (1-2p)q^2 + 2pq + (2p^3-5p^2).

Then (?) is equivalent to f_p(q)\ge 0 for all integers 2\le q\le p-1. Note that f_p(q) is a quadratic in q with leading coefficient 1-2p<0 (since p\ge3), so f opens downward. Then f(q) achieve its maximum at

q_{\mathrm{v}} = -\frac{2p}{2(1-2p)} = \frac{p}{2p-1},

and for p\ge3 we have q_{\mathrm{v}} \le \tfrac{3}{5} < 1. Hence f is strictly decreasing on [2,\infty).

In our range 2 \le q \le p-1, the minimum of f is therefore attained at q=p-1. A direct computation yields

\begin{aligned} f(p-1) &=(1-2p)(p-1)^2 + 2p(p-1)+(2p^3 - 5p^2)= 2p^2 - 6p + 1. \end{aligned}

The polynomial g(p) := 2p^2 - 6p + 1 is upward-opening, with discriminant \Delta = 28, so its roots are

p = \frac{6 \pm \sqrt{28}}{4} = \frac{3 \pm \sqrt{7}}{2}.

Thus g(p) \ge 0 for all integers p \ge 3. Consequently f(q) \ge 0 for all integers p \ge 3 and 2 \le q \le p-1 and hence (?) holds.

Case 2: p=q.
Here \omega\geq \max\{p,q\}=p=q, so n=2p and q/p=1. Returning to (?) and substituting q/p=1 and n=2p, the right-hand side becomes

2pq - 2n\!\left(1+\frac{q}{p}\right) + \left(1+\frac{q}{p}\right)^2 = 2p^2 - 2n\cdot 2 + 2^2 = 2p^2 - 4n + 4 = 2p^2 - 8p + 4.

Thus (?) is equivalent to

\begin{aligned} 2 n_2n_4 - 2n + 4 \;\le\; 2p^2 - 4n + 4 &\;\Longleftrightarrow\; 2 n_2n_4 \;\le\; 2p^2 - 2n\\ &\;\Longleftrightarrow\; n_2n_4 \;\le\; p^2 - n = p(p-2). \end{aligned}

On the other hand, using n_1+n_2=p and n_3+n_4=q=p with n_i\ge1 we have 1\le n_2\le p-1 and 1\le n_4\le p-1, so

n_2n_4 \;\le\; (p-1)^2 .

Comparing, we see that the inequality

n_2n_4 \;\le\; p(p-2)

holds

whenever n_2 or n_4 is at most p-2. The only way this inequality fails is when n_2=n_4=p-1 (consequently n_1=p-n_2=1 and n_3=p-n_4=1), i.e., when

(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)=(1,p-1,\,1,p-1).

Now we show that (3.5) holds for all p\ge3 and fails only for p=2, i.e., only for (n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)=(1,1,1,1).

In this case, the clique number

\omega\geq 2p-2.

A direct substitution n_1=n_3=1 and n_2=n_4=p-1 into (2.5) gives

\operatorname{tr}(M^2)=4p^2-8p+6.

With n=2p and \omega\ge 2p-2, we have

n^2\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right)^2 \ge (2p)^2\left(1-\frac{1}{2p-2}\right)^2.

Expanding the left-hand side gives

(2p)^2\left(1-\frac{1}{2p-2}\right)^2 =4p^2\cdot \frac{(2p-3)^2}{4(p-1)^2} =\frac{p^2(2p-3)^2}{(p-1)^2} =\frac{4p^4-12p^3+9p^2}{(p-1)^2}.

Therefore, to prove (3.5) it suffices to show

4p^2-8p+6 \le \frac{4p^4-12p^3+9p^2}{(p-1)^2},

equivalently it reduce to

0\le (4p^4-12p^3+9p^2)-(4p^2-8p+6)(p-1)^2 =4p^3-17p^2+20p-6.

Set

f(p):=4p^3-17p^2+20p-6.

Then f(2)=-2<0, so the inequality fails at p=2, i.e., for (n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)=(1,1,1,1). Moreover,

f'(p)=12p^2-34p+20,

whose real roots are p=\frac{10}{12}<2 and p=\frac{24}{12}=2, so f'(p)>0 for all p>2. Hence f(p) is strictly increasing on (2,\infty) and since f(3)=9>0, we obtain f(p)>0 for every integer p\ge3. Therefore (3.5) holds for all p\ge3 and fails only at p=2, that is, only for (n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)=(1,1,1,1). This completes the proof of Case 2.

Case 3: p<q.

This case is symmetric to Case 1 after interchanging the roles of p and q, so the same argument proves (3.5). This completes the proof.

Uses Theorem 2.3, Theorem 2.5

Corollary

Corollary 3.6

GIPM

The Elphick-Wocjan conjecture holds for B_4(n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4) for any positive integers n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4.

Example

Example 3.7

J1I4

Consider the graph B_4(2,3,1,2) in Example 2.4. The spectrum of B_4(2,3,1,2) is

\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4,-1,-1,-1,-1\},

where

\lambda_1 \approx 5.09,\quad \lambda_2 \approx 1.63,\quad \lambda_3 \approx -2.30,\quad \lambda_4 \approx -0.42.

Therefore

\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lambda_i^2 \approx (5.09)^2+(1.63)^2+(2.30)^2+(0.42)^2 \approx 34, \qquad\text{so}\qquad \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lambda_i^2}\approx 5.83.

Here n=8 and \omega\geq\max\{n_1+n_2,\ n_3+n_4\}=\max\{5,3\}=5, so

n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right) \geq8\!\left(1-\frac{1}{5}\right) =\frac{32}{5}=6.40.

Hence

\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{4}\lambda_i^2}\approx 5.83 \le 6.40 \leq n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right).

Example

Example 3.8

FMHZ

Consider the graph B_5(1,2,1,1,1) of order n=6 and the associated matrix M of order t=5:

M= \begin{bmatrix} 0&2&0&0&1\\ 1&1&0&1&1\\ 0&0&0&1&1\\ 0&2&1&0&1\\ 1&2&1&1&0 \end{bmatrix}.

Let \lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_5 denote the eigenvalues of M. A direct computation gives

\lambda_1\approx 3.86,\quad \lambda_2\approx 0.78,\quad \lambda_3\approx -0.38,\quad \lambda_4\approx -1.48,\quad \lambda_5\approx -1.78.

Hence, by Theorem 2.3, the eigenvalues of B_5(1,2,1,1,1) are -1 with multiplicity n-t=1 together with (3.8), i.e.,

\operatorname{spec}\bigl(B_5(1,2,1,1,1)\bigr) =\{3.86,\ 0.78,\ -0.38,\ -1,\ -1.48,\ -1.78\}.

The clique number of B_5(1,2,1,1,1) is \omega=4. Therefore

n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right) =6\!\left(1-\frac{1}{4}\right) =\frac{9}{2}.

For Elphick–Wocjan conjecture, the positive eigenvalues are \lambda_1 and \lambda_2, hence

s^+=\lambda_1^2+\lambda_2^2\approx 15.50

and thus

\sqrt{s^+}\approx 3.94\ \le\ \frac{9}{2}=n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right).

For our bound, since \sum_{i=1}^{5}\lambda_i^2=\operatorname{tr}(M^2) and \operatorname{tr}(M^2)=21, we obtain

\sum_{\lambda\in\operatorname{spec}(M)} \lambda^2=\operatorname{tr}(M^2)=21.

Consequently,

\sqrt{\sum_{\lambda\in\operatorname{spec}(M)} \lambda^2} =\sqrt{21}\approx 4.58 \not\le \frac{9}{2}=n\!\left(1-\frac{1}{\omega}\right).

In this example, the Elphick-Wocjan conjecture holds. However, our stronger bound fails for B_5(1,2,1,1,1). This suggests that, for t=5, there may be additional parameter choices for which our bound fails.

Uses Theorem 2.3

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.21388v1 by Hareshkumar Jadav, Sudipta Mallik, Akhilesh Panchangam and Ranveer Singh, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2610/2610.21388.jsonl.