Polarization of Koszul cycles with applications to powers of edge ideals of whisker graphs

Abstract: In this paper, we introduced the polarization of Koszul cycles and use it to study the depth function of powers of edge ideals of whisker graphs.

\section*{Introduction}

 Polarization is a technique to deform an arbitrary monomial ideal $I$ in a polynomial ring $S$ into a squarefree monomial ideal $I^\wp$ in a larger polynomial ring $S^\wp$ such that $S/I$ is a quotient of $S^\wp/ I^\wp$ modulo a regular sequence of linear forms. The polarized ideal $I^\wp$ has a nice property that it has the same graded Betti numbers as $I$. Therefore, many questions regarding monomial ideals can be reduced to the study of squarefree monomial ideals. The fact that $I$ and $I^\wp$ has same graded Betti numbers implies that the corresponding Koszul homology modules of the ideal and its polarization have the same vector-space dimension. Therefore, it is natural to ask whether cycles whose homology classes form a basis of the Koszul homology of $I$ can be naturally lifted to cycles representing a basis for the Koszul homology of $I^\wp$. In Theorem~\ref{main}, it is shown that this is indeed the case.

 In his book \cite[Proposition 6.3.2]{V}, Villarreal uses polarization to give a simple proof of the fact that the edge ideal of a whisker graph is Cohen-Macaulay. Given a finite simple graph $G$ on the vertex set $V(G)= \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$ and the edge set $E(G)$. One defines whisker graph $G^*$ of $G$ to be the graph with vertex set $\{x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n\}$ and edge set $E(G) \cup \{ \{x_i, y_i\} : \;  i=1, \ldots, n\}$. By using the results of Section~\ref{polarization}, one easily sees that the homology classes of the cycles
 \begin{eqnarray}\label{basis1}
 x_{i_1} \ldots x_{i_k}  e_{j_1} \wedge e_{j_{n-k}}\wedge f_{i_1} \wedge \ldots \wedge f_{i_k}
 \end{eqnarray}
with ${\mathcal S} = \{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}$ a maximal independent set of $G$ and $\{j_1, \ldots, j_{n-k}\}=V(G) \setminus {\mathcal S}$, form a basis of the Koszul homology $H_n(x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n ; S^*/I(G^*))$. Here $e_1, \ldots, e_n, f_1, \ldots, f_n$ is a $S^*$-basis of free module $K_1(x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n; S^*/I(G^*))$ with $\partial (e_i) = x_i$ and $\partial (f_j)= y_j$. A basis cycle as described in (\ref{basis1}) is used in Section~\ref{whisker graphs} in the study of the powers of edge ideals of whisker graphs.

The homological and algebraic behavior of powers of an ideal has been subject of many research papers in recent years. In particular, the nature of the depth function $f(k)= \depth(S/I^k)$ of a graded ideal $I$ in a polynomial ring $S$ is still quite mysterious. While it is known by a classical result of Brodmann \cite{Br1} that $f(k)$ for $k \gg 0$ is constant, the behavior of $f(k)$ is not so well understood for initial values of $k$. In \cite{HH1}, it is shown that any non-decreasing bounded integer function $f(k)$ is the depth function of a suitable monomial ideal and it is conjectured that $f(k)$ can be any convergent nonnegative integer valued function. In support of this conjecture, it was shown in \cite{BHH} that $f(k)$ may have arbitrarily many local maxima. On the other hand, it seems that the depth function for the edge ideals behave more tamely. In particular, it is expected that the depth function of an edge ideal is a non-increasing function. This is indicated by the fact that edge ideals satisfy the persistence property for the associated prime ideals of their powers, as shown in \cite{CMS}. Interesting lower bounds for the depth function of an edge ideal have been achieved by Morey \cite{M}. On the other hand, even for simple graphs like a line graph or a cycle, the precise depth function is unknown.

In this paper we give an upper bound for the depth function for any connected whisker graph. In fact we show in Theorem~\ref{whisker} that for any connected graph $G$ on the vertex set $[n]$, we have $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) \leq n-k+1$ for $k= 1, \ldots , n$. It can be shown by examples that this upper bound is no longer valid if we drop the assumption that $G$ is connected. For connected graph this upper bound is obtained by constructing suitable non-vanishing homology classes for the Koszul homology of the powers of $I(G^*)$. The cycles representing these non-vanishing homology classes are obtained as products of certain 1-cycles and an $(n-1)$-cycle which is defined via an independent set of $G$. For showing that the homology of this product of cycles in the corresponding homology group is non-vanishing, we use a combinational fact proved in Proposition~\ref{gamma} which says that any connected graph admits a friendly independent set in the sense as described in this proposition. By using results from \cite{CMS} and \cite {EH2}, we show in Corollary~\ref{limit} that  $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) =1$ for $k\geq n$ if $G$ is bipartite and  $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) =0$ for $k\geq n$ if $G$ is non-bipartite.

The upper bound for the depth of the powers of a whisker graph given by our Theorem~\ref{whisker} is not always attained. The simplest examples for such case are the whisker graphs of a $3$-cycle or $4$-cycle. On the other hand, Villarreal \cite[Proposition 6.3.7]{V}, has shown that $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^2) \geq n-1$ if $G$ is tree (or even a forest)  on the vertex set $[n]$. In Theorem~\ref{tree}, we extend the result of Villarreal and show that for any forest $G$ one has $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) \geq n-k+1$ for $k=1, \ldots , n$. Together with Theorem~\ref{whisker} we conclude that for any tree $G$ we have $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) = n-k+1$ for $k=1, \ldots, n$.

 \section{Polarization of Koszul cycles} \label{polarization}

 Let $K$ be a field and $I\subset S=K[x_1,\ldots,_n]$ a monomial ideal in the polynomial ring $S$. We denote as usual by $G(I)$ the unique minimal set of monomial generators  of $I$. If $u=x_1^{a_1}\cdots x_n ^{a_n}$ is a monomial, we call ${\bold a}=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ the multi-degree of $u$ and set $\deg_{x_i}u=a_i$ for all $i$.

 Let $c_i=\max\{\deg_{x_i} u\:\; u\in G(I)\}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, and let $S^{\wp}$ be the polynomial ring over $K$ in the variables $x_{ij}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$,  $j=1,\ldots.c_i$. The {\em polarization}  of $I$ is the squarefree monomial $I^\wp\subset S^\wp$ generated by the monomials $u^\wp$ with $u\in G(I)$ where for $u=x_1^{a_1}\cdots x_n^{a_n}$ one sets
 \[
 u^\wp=\prod_{i=1,\ldots,n}\prod_{j=1,\ldots,a_i} x_{ij}.
\]

We extend this polarization operation to elements in the Koszul complex. Let $K({\bold x};I)$ be the Koszul complex of the sequence ${\bold x}=x_1,\ldots,x_n$ with values in $I$.  Recall that $K_i({\bold x})=\bigwedge^iF$ where $F=\Dirsum_j^nSe_j$ and where $\partial e_j=x_j$ for $j=1,\ldots,n$, and that $K({\bold x};I)=K({\bold x})\tensor I$. Thus an element of $K_i({\bold x};I)$ is of the form
\[
\sum_{J}f_Je_J,
\]
where the sum is taken over all ordered sets $J=\{j_1<j_2<\cdots <j_i\}$ of cardinality $i$, where $f_J\in I$ and where $e_J=e_{j_1}\wedge e_{j_2}\wedge \cdots \wedge e_{j_i}$.

Next we consider the Koszul complex $K({\bold x}^\wp; I^\wp)$. Here ${\bold x}^\wp$ is the sequence
\[
x_{11},x_{12},\ldots,x_{1c_1},x_{21},\ldots, x_{2c_2},\ldots, x_{n1},\ldots, x_{nc_n},
\]
and $K_i({\bold x}^\wp)=\bigwedge^i G$ where $G=\Dirsum_{i=1,\ldots,n}\Dirsum_{j=1,\ldots,c_i}S^{\wp}e_{ij}$.

We call an element $u_Je_J$ a {\em monomial} of $K({\bold x};I)$ if $u_J$ is a monomial. We set
\[
\deg_{x_i}(u_J e_J)= \deg_{x_i}u_J + \delta_j ,
\]
where
\[
\delta_j= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
       1, & \;\textnormal{if $j\in J$}, \\ 0, & \;\text{otherwise.}
        \end{array} \right.
\]
and call
\[
\deg(u_J e_J) = (\deg_{x_1}(u_J e_J), \ldots, \deg_{x_n} (u_J e_J) )
\]
the multi-degree of $u_Je_J$.

For any monomial $u_J e_J$ of multi-degree $\leq {\bold c}$ (componentwise) where ${\bold c}= (c_1, \ldots, c_n)$, we define the  polarization of $u_Je_J$ to be the monomial
\[
(u_Je_J)^\wp=u_J^\wp e_{j_1a_{j_1}+1}\wedge e_{j_2a_{j_2}+1}\wedge \cdots \wedge e_{j_ia_{j_i}+1},
\]
in $K({\bold x}^{\wp};I^\wp)$, where  $J=\{j_1<j_2<\cdots <j_i\}$, and $a_i = \deg_{x_i} u_J$.

We  extend this polarization operator to an arbitrary multi-homogeneous element $f=\sum_J\lambda_Ju_Je_J$, $\lambda_J\in K$,  of multi-degree $\leq {\bold c}$ , by setting
\[
f^\wp= \sum_J\lambda_J(u_Je_J)^\wp.
\]
If follows from \cite[Theorem 3.1]{BHbook} that any non-vanishing homology class of $H_i({\bold x};I)$ can be represented by a multi-homogeneous cycle $z=\sum_J\lambda_Ju_Je_J$ in $K_i({\bold x};I)$ with $\deg z \leq {\bold c}$. Thus the polarization of such cycles is defined.

\medskip

The following example demonstrate the polarization of cycles: let $I=(x_1^2 x_2, x_1 x_2^2)$. Then $z= x_1x_2^2 e_1 - x_1^2x_2 e_2$ is a cycle in $K_1(x_1, x_2;I)$, and $z^\wp = x_{11}x_{21} x_{22} e_{12} - x_{11}x_{12}x_{21}e_{22}$.
\medskip

With the notation introduced, we have

\begin{Theorem} \label{main}
Let $I \subset S=K[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ be a monomial ideal and let ${\bold c}=(c_1, \ldots, c_n)$  be the integer vector with $c_i=\max\{\deg_{x_i} u\:\; u\in G(I)\}$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$. Let $z_1, \ldots, z_r$ be multi-homogeneous cycles with multi-degree $\leq {\bold c}$, whose  homology classes form a $K$-basis of $H_i({\bold x};I)$. Then  the homology classes of the cycles $z_1^\wp, \ldots, z_r^\wp$ form  a $K$-basis of $H_i({\bold x}^\wp; I^\wp)$.
\end{Theorem}

The theorem will be a consequence of the following

\begin{Lemma}
\label{comparison}
Let $M$ be a finitely graded $S$-module, and assume that $x_1$ is a non zero-divisor modulo $M$. Then there is a natural isomorphism
\[
\varphi: H_{i}(x_1,\ldots,x_n;M)\to H_i(x_2,\ldots,x_n;\bar{M}),
\]
where $\bar{M}$ is the $\bar{S} = S/x_1S$-module $M/x_1M$. This isomorphism is given as follows: let $z \in Z_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n;M)$ and write $z=e_1\wedge z_0+z_1$ with $z_1\in K_i(x_2,\ldots,x_n;M)$. Then the homology class $[z]\in H_{i}(x_1,\ldots,x_n;M)$ is mapped to $[\bar{z}_1]\in H_{i}(x_2,\ldots,x_n;\bar{M})$, where $\bar{z}_1$ is obtained from $z_1$ by taking the residue classes of the coefficients of $z_1$ modulo $x_1$.
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Observe that $\bar{z_1}$ is indeed a cycle in $K(x_2, \ldots x_n; \bar{M})$, because $0= x_1 z_0 - e_1 \wedge \partial z_0 + \partial z_1$. From this equation it follows that $e_1 \wedge \partial z_0 =0$ and hence $\partial \bar{z_1} =0$. Next we show that $\varphi$ is well defined. Let $z$ be as in the statement and let $w=z+\partial b$ where $b \in K_{i+1}(x_1, \ldots, x_n;M)$. Let $b= e_1 \wedge b_0 + b_1$ with $b_1 \in K_{i+1}(x_2, \ldots, x_n; M)$. Then $w= e_1\wedge w_0 + w_1 $ where $w_1 = z_1 + x_1 b_0 + \partial b_1$. We have to show that $[\bar{w}_1] = [\bar{z}_1]$. But this is obvious, because $\bar{w}_1 = \bar{z}_1 + \partial \bar{b}_1$, so that $\bar{w}_1$ and $\bar{z}_1$ differ only by a boundary in $K_{i}(x_2, \ldots, x_n;\bar{M})$.

Since $H_i (x_1, \ldots, x_n ; M) \iso \Tor_i^S (K;M)$ and $H_i (x_2, \dots, x_n; \bar{M}) \iso \Tor_i^{\bar{S}} (K, \bar{M})$, we conclude that $\dim_K H_i (x_1, \ldots, x_n ; M) = \dim_K H_i (x_2, \dots, x_n; \bar{M})$. Indeed, since $x_1$ is a non-zero on $M$, the graded minimal free resolution of $\bar{M}$ is obtained from the graded minimal free resolution of $M$ be reduction modulo $x_1$. This implies that $\dim_K \Tor_i^S (K;M) = \dim_K  \Tor_i^{\bar{S}} (K, \bar{M})$. Hence, in order to prove that $\varphi$ is an isomorphism, it suffices to show that $\varphi$ is surjective.

Let $[v] \in H_i (x_2, \ldots, x_n ; \bar{M})$. There exists $z_1 \in K_i (x_2, \ldots, x_n; M)$ with $\bar{z_1} = v$. It follows that $\partial z_1 = -x_1 z_0$ for some $z_0 \in K_{i-1} (x_2, \ldots, x_n;M)$. Since $0= \partial^2 z_1 = -x_1 \partial z_0$, we see that $\partial z_0 =0$. Now we set $z= e_1 \wedge z_0 + z_1$. Then $z$ is a cycle and $\varphi [z] = [v] $.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{main}]
Fix an integer $1 \leq i \leq n$. For each $u \in G(I)$ we define

\[
u'= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
       (u/x_i)y , & \;\textnormal{if $x_i^2 | u$}, \\ u, & \;\text{otherwise.}
        \end{array} \right.
\]
The element $u'$ is called the {\em $1$-step polarization} of $u$ with respect to the variable $x_i$, and the ideal
$I' = (\{u'| u \in G(I)\})$ is called a 1-step polarization of $I$. Obviously, the (complete) polarization of $I$ can be obtained by a sequence of 1-step polarization.

Let $I'$ be the 1-step polarization of $I$ with respect to $x_i$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $i=1$.  We consider the Koszul complex $K(y,x_1, \ldots, x_n; I')= (\bigwedge H) \tensor I'$ where $H$ is the free $S[y]$-module with basis $f, e_1 \ldots, e_n$ and where $\partial f = y$ and $\partial e_j = x_j$ for $j=1, \ldots, n$. Let $z= \sum_{J} \lambda_J u_J e_J $ be a multi-homogenous cycle of $K_i(x_1, \ldots, x_n;I)$ with $\deg z \leq {\bold c}$ whose homology class is non-zero.

We set $z' = \sum_{J} \lambda_J (u_J e_J)'$, where
\[
(u_J e_J)'= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
       u_J e_J , & \;\textnormal{if $x_1 \nmid u_J$}, \\ u_{J}'e_J, & \;\text{if $x_1|u_J$ and $1 \notin J$},
       \\ u_{J}e_{J}', & \;\text{if $x_1|u_J$ and $1 \in J$}.
        \end{array} \right.
\]

Here $e_{J}'$ is obtained from $e_J$ by replacing the factor $e_1$ in $e_J$  by $f$.
\medskip

As an example we consider again the cycle $z= x_1x_2^2 e_1 - x_1^2x_2 e_2$ in $K_1(x_1,x_2;I)$ where $I=(x_1^2 x_2, x_1x_2^2)$. Then $z' = x_1 x_2^2 f - x_1 y x_2 e_2$.

\medskip

We claim that $z'$ is a cycle in $K_i(y, x_1, \ldots, x_n; I')$, and that the map
\[
 H_i (y, x_1, \ldots, x_n;I') \rightarrow H_i( x_1, \ldots, x_n; I), \quad [z'] \mapsto [z]
\]
is an isomorphism. From this claim the theorem follows by induction on the number of 1-step polarization which are required to obtain the polarization $I^{\wp}$ of $I$.

\medskip
Proof of the claim: we first show that $z'$ is a cycle. We first discuss the case when $\deg_{x_1} z \leq 1$.

By the definition of $(u_J e_J)'$, we have $(u_J e_J)' = u_J e_J$, for all $J$. It shows that $z=z'$ and hence $z'$ is a cycle.

Now we discuss the case when $\deg_{x_1}z > 1$. Let $z=e_1\wedge z_0+z_1$  and $z'= f \wedge z'_0 +z'_1$ with $z_1\in K_i(x_2,\ldots,x_n;I)$ and $z'_1\in K_i(x_1,\ldots,x_n;I')$. Moreover,  $z_0 = \sum_{1 \in J} \lambda_J u_J e_{J \setminus \{1\}}$ and $z_1 = \sum_{1 \notin J} \lambda_J u_J e_J$. From the definition of $z'$ we see that $z'_0 = z_0$ and $z'_1  = \sum_{1\notin J} \lambda _J u'_J e_J$ where $u'_J = y u_J / x_1 $. It implies that $z'_1 = (y/x_1 ) z_1$. By applying $\partial$ on $z'$, we get $\partial (z') = y z_0 + \partial (z'_1) = y z_0 + (y/x_1) \partial (z_1)$. It  shows that $x_1\partial (z') = y \partial (z)  = 0$. Hence $\partial (z') = 0$.

We first observe that $y-x_1$ is a non-zero divisor on $S[y]/I'$ and that $I' / (y-x_1)I' = I$. Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{comparison}, there exists the isomorphism $\varphi : H_i(y, x_1, \ldots, x_n) = H_i(y-x_1, x_1, \ldots, x_n; I') \rightarrow H_i (x_1, \ldots, x_n; I)$. Thus it remains to be shown that  $\varphi([z']) = [z]$. Applying the Lemma~\ref{comparison}, we write $z'= (f-e_1) \wedge w_0 +w_1$.

By definition,
\begin{eqnarray*}
z'&=& \sum_{x_1 \nmid u_J} u_Je_J + \sum_{x_1 | u_J, 1 \notin J} u'_Je_J + \sum_{x_1|u_J, 1 \in J} u_J f \wedge e_{J \setminus \{1\}} \\
&=& \sum_{x_1 \nmid u_J} u_Je_J + \sum_{x_1 | u_J, 1 \notin J} u'_Je_J + \sum_{x_1|u_J, 1 \notin J} u_J (f-e_1) \wedge e_{J \setminus \{1\}} +  \sum_{x_1|u_J, 1 \in J} u_J  e_{J}.
\end{eqnarray*}

Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
w_1&=& \sum_{x_1 \nmid u_J} u_Je_J + \sum_{x_1 | u_J, 1 \notin J} u'_Je_J +  \sum_{x_1|u_J, 1 \in J} u_J  e_{J}.
\end{eqnarray*}

From this it follows that $\bar{w}_1 = z$,  which by the definition of $\varphi$ implies that $\varphi ([z']) = [z]$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{Corollary}\label{polarize}
Let $I\subset S$ be a monomial ideal as in Theorem~\ref{main}. Let $z_1, \ldots, z_r$ be multi-homogeneous cycles with multi-degree $\leq {\bold c}$, whose  homology classes form a $K$-basis of $H_i({\bold x};S/I)$ for $i \geq 1$. Then  the homology classes of the cycles $z_1^\wp, \ldots, z_r^\wp$ form  a $K$-basis of $H_i({\bold x}^\wp; S^\wp/I^\wp)$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{proof}
We notice that for $i \geq 1$ there is an isomorphism $\varphi: H_i({\bold x}^\wp;S^\wp/I^\wp) \rightarrow H_{i+1}({\bold x}^\wp;I^\wp)$ with $\varphi ([z]) = [\partial(w)]$ and $w \in K({\bold x}^\wp; S^\wp)$ such that $z=w+I^\wp K({\bold x}^\wp;S^\wp)$. Since $\partial(f^\wp) = (\partial(f))^\wp$ for any multi-homogenous element $f \in K({\bold x}; S^\wp)$ with $\deg f \leq {\bold c}$, the desired conclusion follows.
\end{proof}

As an example for the polarization of Koszul cycles, we consider whisker graphs. Let $G$ be a finite simple graph on the vertex set $[n]=\{1, \ldots, n\}$. The {\em whisker graph} $G^*$ of $G$ is the graph with the vertex set $V(G^*)=\{1, \ldots, n\} \cup \{1', \ldots, n'\}$ and the edge set $E(G^*)=E(G) \cup \{ \{1, 1'\}, \{2, 2'\}, \ldots, \{n, n'\} \}$.

\medskip
Figure~\ref{one} displays the whisker graph of the graph $G$ with edges $\{1,2\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}$ and $\{4,2\}$.

\begin{figure}[hbt] \begin{center} \label{one}
\psset{unit=0.6cm}\begin{pspicture}(0.5,1)(4.5,5) \pspolygon(2,2)(3,3.71)(4,2)\psline(3,3.71)(3,5.2)\psline(0.6,1.1)(2,2)\psline(4,2)(4,3.49) \psline(2,2)(2,3.49) \psline(0.6,1.1)(0.6,2.59) \rput(0.6,2.59){$\bullet$} \rput(2,3.49){$\bullet$}\rput(4,3.49){$\bullet$}\rput(2,2){$\bullet$}\rput(3,3.71){$\bullet$}\rput(4,2){$\bullet$}\rput(3,5.2){$\bullet$}\rput(0.6,1.1){$\bullet$}\rput(0.6,3.1){$1'$}\rput(2,4){$2'$}\rput(4.25,4){$3'$}\rput(2,1.5){$2$}\rput(3.25,4){$4$}
\rput(4,1.5){$3$}\rput(3.1,5.7){$4'$}\rput(0.6,0.6){$1$}
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{example}\end{figure}

Let $K$ be a field. The edge ideal $I(G)$ of $G$ is the monomial ideal in $S=K[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$ generated by the monomials $x_ix_j$ with $\{i,j\} \in E(G)$. We consider the edge ideal $I(G^*)$ of the whisker graph $G^*$ of $G$ as the monomial ideal in $S^*=K[x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n]$ with $I(G^*) = I_G + (\{ x_k y_k |  k \in [n]  \})$.

Next, we let $J(G) = ( I(G) , x_1^2 , \ldots, x_n^2 )$. Then, obviously, $I(G^*) = J(G)^{\wp}$, where for simplicity  we set $x_i = x_{i1} , y_i = x_{i2}$, for $i= 1, \ldots, n$. For the polarized Koszul complex of $K(x_1, \ldots, x_n; I(G))$ we use the notation $e_i = e_{i1}$ and $f_i = e_{i2}$. Given a cycle $\sum_J \lambda_J u_J e_J \in K(x_1, \ldots, x_n; J(G))$ representing a non-zero homology class, the polarized cycle in $K(x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n ; I(G^*))$ is given as $\sum_J \lambda_j u_j e_{J'}$ where $e_{J'} $ is obtained from $e_J$ by replacing $e_{j}$ for $j \in J$ by $f_j$ if $x_j |u$.

Note that $H_n(x_1, \ldots, x_n; J(G))$ is minimally generated by the homology classes $[u e_1\wedge \ldots \wedge e_n]$ with $u = x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}$ where $\{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}$ is a maximal independent set of $G$. Recall that a subset ${\mathcal S} \subset V(G)$ is an {\em independent set} of $G$ if $\{i,j\} \notin E(G)$ for all $i,j \in {\mathcal S}$. The set ${\mathcal S}$ is called a maximal independent set if ${\mathcal S} \cup \{k\}$ is not independent for all $k \notin V(G) \setminus {\mathcal S}$.

 It follows from Corollary \ref{polarize}, that the elements
 \begin{eqnarray}\label{basis}
 x_{i_1} \ldots x_{i_k}  e_{j_1} \wedge e_{j_{n-k}}\wedge f_{i_1} \wedge \ldots \wedge f_{i_k}
 \end{eqnarray}
form a basis of $H_n(x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_i, \ldots, y_n ; S^*/I(G^*))$ where ${\mathcal S} = \{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}$ is a maximal independent set of $G$ and $\{j_1, \ldots, j_{n-k}\}=V(G) \setminus {\mathcal S}$.

\section{Powers of whisker graphs}\label{whisker graphs}

In this section, we want to study the powers of whisker graphs. For the formulation of the main result we introduce the following concept. Let $G$ be a finite simple graph on $[n]$, and let ${\mathcal S}$ be a maximal independent subset of $V(G)$. We define the graph $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ with vertex $V(\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)) =  {\mathcal S}$ and $\{i,j\} \in E(\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G))$ if and only if there exists $k \in V(G) \setminus {\mathcal S}$ such that $\{i,k\}, \{j,k\}
 \in E(G)$.

\begin{Proposition}\label{gamma}
Let $G$ be a finite simple connected graph. Then there exists an independent set ${\mathcal S}$ such that $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ is connected.
\end{Proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\Delta(G)$ be the clique complex of $G$ with cliques $F_1, \ldots, F_r$. We are going to construct the independent set ${\mathcal S}$ of $G$ as follows. Let $v_1 \in V(F_1)$. We may assume that $v_1 \in V(F_i)$ for $i = 1, \ldots, t$ and $v_1 \notin V(F_i)$ for $i>t$. If $t=r$, then we are done. Assume that $t <r$. Since $G$ is connected, there exists  $F_i$ with $i>t$, say $F_{t+1}$, such that $V(F_{t+1}) \cap V(F_j) \neq \emptyset $ for some $j \leq t$. Since $F_{t+1}$ is a maximal clique,  $V(F_{t+1}) \not\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^t V(F_i) $ because otherwise $v_1 \in V(F_{t+1})$, a contradiction. Hence, we may choose $v_2 \in V(F_{t+1} )\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^t V(F_i) $. We may assume that $v_2 \in V(F_i)$ for $i=t+1, \ldots, s$ and does not belong to any other clique. If $s=r$, then $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G) $ is a line graph with vertex set $ \{v_1, v_2\}$. Indeed, $\{v_1, v_2\} \notin E(G)$  because the set of neighbors of $v_1$ is equal to $\bigcup_{i=1}^t F_i$ and $v_2 \notin \bigcup_{i=1}^t F_i $. On the other hand, if $k \in V(F_{t+1}) \cap V(F_j)$. then $\{v_1,k\}, \{v_2,k\} \in E(G)$. Therefore, $\{v_1, v_2\} \in E(\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G))$.

Consider all $F_j$ for $j >s$ such that $V(F_j) \subset \bigcup_{i=1}^t V(F_i)$. We may assume that it is the case for $F_{s+1}, \ldots, F_k$. If $k=r$, then $\{v_1, v_2\}$ is an independent set for $G$, and we are done. If $k<r$, then since $G$ is connected there exists a clique $F_i$, say $F_{k+1}$, such that $V(F_{k+1}) \cap V(F_j) \neq \emptyset $ for some $j<k$ and $V(F_{k+1}) \not\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^s V(F_i) (=  \bigcup_{i=1}^k V(F_i) ) $. We choose $v_3 \in V(F_{k+1}) \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^s V(F_i)$. If $j<t$ then $\{v_1, v_3\} $ will be an edge of $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$, and if $t+1\leq j\leq s$, then $\{v_2,v_3\}$ will be an edge of $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$. Proceeding this way, we obtain the desired independent set ${\mathcal S}$ of $G$ such that $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ is connected.
\end{proof}

We call an independent set ${\mathcal S}$ of $G$ {\em friendly} if it satisfies the condition that $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ is connected. For example, if we consider the line graph $L$ on vertex set $[4]$ with edges $\{\{1,2\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}\}$. Then ${\mathcal S}= \{1,3\}$ is a friendly independent set  of $L$ while $\{1,4\}$ is not a friendly independent set of $L$.

\begin{Theorem}\label{whisker}
Let $G$ be a finite simple connected graph on vertex set $[n]$, and $G^*$ be the whisker graph of $G$. Furthermore, let $I(G^*)\subset S^*=K[x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n]$ be the edge ideal of $G^*$. Then
\[
\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) \leq n-k+1 , \text{\; for \;} k= 1, \ldots, n.
\]
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be an $S^*$-module and consider the Koszul complex
\[
K(M) = K(x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n;M)
\]
with $K_1(M) = \Dirsum_{i=1}^n M e_i \dirsum \Dirsum_{j=1}^n M f_j$ and $\partial e_i = x_i$ and $\partial f_j = y_j$, for all $i,j$.

We first show that
\[
H_{2n-2} (I(G^*)^n) \neq 0.
\]

This will imply that $\depth (S^*/ I(G^*)^n) \leq 1$. To see that the above Koszul homology does not vanish, we proceed as follows.

By Proposition~\ref{gamma} we may choose a friendly independent set ${\mathcal S}$ of $G$ with $|{\mathcal S}| =s$. Since $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ is connected, there exists a spanning tree $T$ of $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$ with $s-1$ edges $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{s-1}$. We may assume that $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{s-1}$ is a leaf order for $T$. In other words, the following conditions are satisfied: (i) $\alpha_1$ has a free vertex in $T$, (ii) for each $j>1$, $ \alpha_j \cap \alpha_i \neq \emptyset$ for some $i<j$ and $\alpha_j$ has a free vertex in the tree $T_j= \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{j}$. Now, we label the vertices of $T$ inductively as follows: $1$ is the free vertex of $\alpha_1$ in $T_1$ and the other vertex in $T_1$ is given the label $2$. Suppose, the labeling of $T_{j-1}$ is defined. Then we give the new vertex of $T_j$, the label $j+1$. Then $\alpha_1=\{1,2\}$ and for each $j>1$, $\alpha_j=\{i_j,j+1\}$, where $\{i_j\}= \alpha_j \cap \alpha_i$.

The following Figure~\ref{two}, gives an example of such a labeling.

\begin{figure}[hbt]\begin{center}\label{two}
\psset{unit=0.6cm}\begin{pspicture}(0.5,1.5)(4.5,3)\psline(2,2)(4,2)\psline(0,1)(2,2) \psline(0,3)(2,2)\psline(4,2)(6,1)\psline(4,2)(6,3)\rput(2,2){$\bullet$}\rput(4,2){$\bullet$}\rput(0,1){$\bullet$}
\rput(0,3){$\bullet$}\rput(6,1){$\bullet$}\rput(6,3){$\bullet$}\rput(2,1.5){$2$}\rput(4,1.5){$4$}\rput(-0.4,0.9){$1$}
\rput(-0.4,3.1){$3$}\rput(6.4,0.9){$5$}\rput(6.4,3.1){$6$}\rput(3,1.6){$\alpha_3$}\rput(1.3,1.1){$\alpha_1$}
\rput(1.3,2.9){$\alpha_2$}\rput(4.9,2.9){$\alpha_4$}\rput(5,1.1){$\alpha_5$}
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{}
\label{example}\end{figure}

According to our labeling of $T$, we have ${\mathcal S}= \{1, \ldots, s\}$. By definition of $\Gamma_{{\mathcal S}}(G)$, there exists for each edge $\alpha_j=\{i_j,j+1\} \in E(T)$, a vertex $v_j \in \{s+1, \ldots, n\}$ such that $\{i_j,v_{j}\}, \{v_j,j+1\} \in E(G)$. Then $z_j= x_{i_j}x_{v_j} e_{j+1} - x_{j+1} x_{v_j} e_{i_j}$ is a cycle belonging to $Z_1(I(G^*))$.

Furthermore, for each $k \in \{s+1, \ldots, n\}$, we choose $j_k \in {\mathcal S}$ such that $\{k, j_k\} \in E(G)$. Then $z_k = x_k x_{j_k} f_k - x_k y_k e_{j_k} $ is a cycle belonging to $Z_1(I(G^*))$. This gives $n-s$ such cycles.

Let
\[
c= \prod _{i =1}^s x_i  e_{s+1} \wedge \ldots \wedge e_n \wedge f_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge f_s.
\]
Note that by (\ref{basis}), $c$ is a cycle in $Z_n(S^*/I(G^*))$ whose homology class $[c]$ in $H_n(S^*/I(G^*))$ is non-zero. In particular, $[\partial (c)]$ is non-zero homology class in $H_{n-1}(I(G^*))$.

Let
\[
a=c \wedge  z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge z_{s-1} \wedge z_{s+1} \wedge \ldots \wedge z_n.
\]
Observe that $a \in K_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^{n-1})$. We set $z= \partial (a)$. Then $z \in Z_{2n-2} (I(G^*)^n)$. Indeed, $z = \partial (c) \wedge z_1\wedge \ldots \wedge z_{s-1} \wedge z_{s+1} \wedge \ldots \wedge z_n$, and it has coefficients in $I(G^*)^n$ because $\partial (c)$ and each $z_i$ has coefficients in $I(G^*)$.

 We claim that $[z]$ is a non-zero homology class in $H_{2n-2} (I(G^*)^n)$. To prove the claim, we show that $z$ is not a boundary, that is, there does not exist any $b \in K_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^n)$ such that $z= \partial b$. On contrary, assume that such $b$ exists. Then $\partial (b) = \partial (a) =z$ implies $\partial ( a-b) = 0$ which gives $a-b \in Z_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^{n-1} )$. Then, there exists $b'  \in K_{2n}(S^*)$ such that $\partial (b')= a-b$ where $b' = v e_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge e_n \wedge f_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge f_n$ and $v$ is a monomial in $S^*$ because all cycles under consideration are ${\NZQ Z}^{2n}$-graded.

Note that
\[
 w= ( \prod _{i=1}^s x_i  ) (\prod_{k=s+1}^n x_k x_{j_k} )  (\prod_{j=1}^{s-1}  x_{i_j} x_{v_j}) e_2 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{n} \wedge f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_n
 \]
with $i_j, j_k \in {\mathcal S}$, $k, v_j \in \{s+1, \ldots, n\}$  is a non-zero term of $a$ and it is not cancelled by any other term of $a$ because the product $ e_2 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_n \wedge f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_n$ appears only once in the expansion of $a$. To see this, consider
\begin{eqnarray}\label{c}
c \wedge z_{s+1} \wedge \cdots \wedge z_n =  ( \prod _{i=1}^s x_i  ) (\prod_{k=s+1}^n x_k x_{j_k} )  e_{s+1} \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{n}  \wedge f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_n.
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore, it follows that the term $w$ appears only once in the expansion of $a$ if $e_2 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{s-1}$ appears only once in the expansion of $z_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge z_{s-1}$. Now to see this, we write $z_j=g_j - h_j$, where $g_j=x_{i_j}x_{v_j} e_{j+1} $ and $h_j=x_{j+1} x_{v_j} e_{i_j}$ for $j= 1, \ldots, s-1$. Note that for $1 \leq t \leq s-1$ the wedge product $z_1\wedge \cdots \wedge z_{t}$ is a linear combination of $g_{i_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge g_{i_k} \wedge h_{j_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge h_{j_t}$ with $\{i_1, \ldots, i_k\}\cup\{ j_1, \ldots, j_t\}= \{1, \ldots, t\}$. We prove by induction on $t$ that among these terms $g_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge g_t$ is the only term that does not contain $e_1$. For $t=1$, the assertion is trivial. Now let $t>1$ and assume that th sonly term that does not contain $e_1$ is $g_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge g_{t-1}$. Then, the only terms of $z_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge z_t$ which do not contain $e_1$ are either
$g_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge g_{t}$ or $g_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge g_{t-1} \wedge h_t$. However, by the definition of the cycles $z_j$ given in terms of the tree $T$ it follows that $i_t = \{2, \ldots, t-1\}$. Therefore, $g_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge g_{t-1} \wedge h_t=0$.

\medskip
Next, we show that $a  \in K_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^{n-1}) \setminus K_{2n-1} (I(G^*)^n)$. For this it suffice to show that $w   \in K_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^{n-1}) \setminus K_{2n-1} (I(G^*)^n)$, because $w$ is a non-zero term of $a$ which does not cancel against any other term in $a$, as we have just seen. In fact, $ ( \prod _{i=1}^s x_i  ) (\prod_{k=s+1}^n x_k x_{j_k} )  (\prod_{j=1}^{s-1}  x_{i_j} x_{v_j}) $ which is coefficient of $w$, there are $n-1$ terms with indices in $\{s+1, \ldots, n\}$ and $n+s-1$ terms with indices in ${\mathcal S}=\{1, \ldots, s\}$. Since ${\mathcal S}$ is a maximal independent set, this implies that $w$ contains a product of exactly $n-1$ generator of $I(G^*)$.

Since all coefficients of $b=a-\partial(b')$ are in $I(G^*)^n$ and the term $w$ which appears in the expansion of $a$ does not have coefficient in $I(G^*)^{n}$, $w$ must be cancelled by some term of $\partial (b')$. This gives
\[
v x_1 e_2 \wedge \cdots  \wedge e_{n} f_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge f_n = ( \prod _{i=1}^s x_i  ) (\prod_{k=s+1}^n x_k x_{j_k} )  (\prod_{j=1}^{s-1}  x_{i_j} x_{v_j}) e_2 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{n} \wedge f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_n,
\]
which implies
\[
v= ( \prod _{i=2}^s x_i  ) (\prod_{k=s+1}^n x_k x_{j_k} )  (\prod_{j=1}^{s-1}  x_{i_j} x_{v_j})  \in I(G^*)^{n-1}.
\]

The coefficient of the term $v y_n e_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge e_n f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_{n-1} $ which appears in the expansion of $\partial(b')$ does not belong to $I(G^*)^{n}$ because $x_n$ is the only neighbor of $y_n$.  Also the term $v y_n e_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge e_n f_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge f_{n-1} $ is not cancelled by any of the terms of $a$ because from (\ref{c}) we can see that all terms of $a$ contain the wedge product $f_1\wedge \cdots \wedge f_n$ as a factor. Hence, our assumption that $z$ is a boundary leads us to contradiction.

For simplicity of notation, we set $z'_i=z_i$ for $i = 1, \ldots, s-1$ and $z'_i=z_{i+1}$ for $i=s+1, \ldots, n-1$. Note that $\partial(c)\wedge z'_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge z'_{k-1} \in Z_{n+k-2}(I(G^*)^k)$. We claim that this cycle is not a boundary in $K(I(G^*)^k)$. This then implies that $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) \leq n+k-1$ since $H_{n+k-1}(S^*/I(G^*)^k) \iso H_{n+k-2} (I(G^*)^k) \neq 0$.

In order to prove the claim, assume that there exists $b \in K_{n+k-1}(I(G^*)^k)$ such that $\partial (b) = \partial (c) \wedge z'_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge z'_{k-1}$. Let $b'=b \wedge z'_k \wedge \cdots \wedge z'_{n-1} $. Then $b' \in K_{2n-1}(I(G^*)^n)$ and $\partial(b') =  \partial (b) \wedge z'_k \wedge \cdots \wedge z'_{n-1} = z$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

Our hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{whisker} which requires that $G$ is connected is needed. For example, if we take the disconnected graph $G$ on vertex $[4]$ with edge $\{\{1,2\}, \{3,4\}\}$, then $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^4) = 2$.

\begin{Remark}{\em
Let $I$ be an arbitrary monomial ideal in $K[x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n]$. In \cite[Theorem 3.3]{HQ}, it is shown that $\depth (S/I^k) \leq 2n-k+1$ for $k=1, \ldots, r$, where $r< 2n$ is a number depending on $I$. Comparing this result with our Theorem~\ref{whisker}, where $I$ is the edge ideal of a whisker graph, our bound is about half of the bound which is valid for general monomial ideals.}
\end{Remark}

\begin{Corollary}\label{limit}
Let $G$ be a finite simple connected graph on vertex set $[n]$, $G^*$ be the whisker graph of $G$, and $I(G^*)\subset S^*$ be the edge ideal of $G^*$. If $G$ is bipartite, then $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) =1$ for all $k \geq n$, and if $G$ is non-bipartite, then $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) =0$ for all $k\geq n$.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $G$ is bipartite. Then $G^*$ is bipartite as well. It follows from \cite[Theorem 5.9]{SVV} that the $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k )\geq 1$ for all $k$. Thus our Theorem~\ref{whisker} implies that $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^n)=1$. On the other hand, since the Rees ring $R(I(G^*))$ of $I(G^*)$ is Cohen-Macaulay  (see for example \cite[Corollary 5.20]{EH}), the result of Eisenbud and Huneke \cite[Proposition 3.3]{EH2}  yields the desired conclusion.

Now let $G$ be a non-bipartite graph. It follows from \cite[Corollary 4.3]{CMS}, applied to our case, that $\Ass (S^*/I(G^*)^k) = \Ass(S^*/I(G^*)^{n})$ for all $k \geq n$. On the other hand, since $G$ is non-bipartite, we know by \cite[Corollary 3.4]{CMS} that  $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) =0$ for $k \gg 0$. This implies that $\depth (S^*/I(G^*)^k) =0$ for all $k\geq n$.
\end{proof}

In general the upper bounds  for the depth of the powers of the edge ideal of a whisker graph given in Theorem~\ref{whisker} are not attained. For example, if $G$ is a 3-cycle then $\depth(S^*/I(G^*))=3 $ and $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k)=0$ for all $k \geq 2$. Even if $G$ is bipartite, this bound is not attained. For example, if $G$ is a 4-cycle, then $\depth(S^*/I(G^*))=4$, $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^2)=3$ and $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) =1$ for $k \geq 3$.

On the other hand, Villarreal showed \cite[Proposition 6.3.7]{V}, that if $G$ is a forest then $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^2) \geq n-1$. Together with our Theorem~\ref{whisker} it follows that $\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^2) = n-1$.  By using the arguments applied in Villarreal's proof, we now show more generally

\begin{Theorem} \label{tree}
\label{whiskertree}
Let $G$ be a forest on $n$ vertices and let
\[
I=I(G^*)\subset S^*=K[x_1,\dots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n]
\]
be the edge ideal of $G^*$. Then
\[
\depth(S^*/I^k) \geq n-k+1 \quad  \text{for $k=1,\ldots,n$}.
\]
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
We show this by induction on $k + n$. If $k+n=1$, then either $k=1$ or $n=1$. If $k=1$, then $\depth(S^*/I^k)=n$ since $I$ is a Cohen-Macaulay of height $n$ and for $n=1$ the assertion is trivial.

Let $x_n$ be a free vertex of the forest $G$ with $\{x_{n-1}, x_n\} \in E(G)$. Following the notation used in the proof  \cite[Proposition 6.3.7]{V}, we denote by $J$ the ideal which is obtained by $I$ by substituting $x_n=0$ and by $L$ the ideal which obtained from $J$ by substituting $x_{n-1} = 0$.  Furthermore, we set $K=(J^k, x_{n-1}x_n, x_ny_n)$. Since $(J^k, x_{n-1}x_n):x_n = (L^k, x_{n-1})$, we obtain the exact sequence
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{depth1}
0 \rightarrow S^*/ (L^k, x_{n-1}) \rightarrow S^* / ( {J^k, x_{n-1}x_n} )\rightarrow S^* / (J^k, x_n) \rightarrow 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}

Since $J$ is edge of a whisker forest on $n-1$ vertices and $L$ is the edge ideal of the whisker forest on $n-2$ vertices, our induction hypothesis implies that
\[
\depth (S^*/ (L^k, x_{n-1})) \geq n-k+2  \text{ and } \depth (S^* / (J^k, x_n)) \geq n-k+1.
\]
This implies that

\begin{eqnarray}\label{depth2}
\depth (S^* / (J^k, x_{n-1}x_n )) \geq n-k+1.
\end{eqnarray}

Since $(J^k, x_{n-1}x_n): x_ny_n = (L^k, x_{n-1})$, we obtain the exact sequence

\begin{eqnarray}\label{depth3}
0 \rightarrow S^*/ (L^k, x_{n-1}) \rightarrow S^* / ( {J^k, x_{n-1}x_n} )\rightarrow S^* / K \rightarrow 0 .
\end{eqnarray}

From (\ref{depth2}) and (\ref{depth3}), we obtain

\begin{eqnarray}\label{depth4}
\depth (S^* / K) \geq n-k+1.
\end{eqnarray}

Note that $(I^k, x_n y_n) = (J, x_{n-1}x_n)^k + (x_n y_n)$. Therefore, $(I^k , x_n y_n) : x_{n-1} x_n = (J, x_{n-1} x_n)^k : x_{n-1}x_n + (y_n)$. Since $(J, x_{n-1} x_n)$ is the edge ideal of the graph for which $\{n-1, n\}$ is an edge with free vertex $n$, it follows by result of Morey \cite[Lemma 2.10]{M} that  $(J, x_{n-1} x_n)^k : x_{n-1}x_n = (J, x_{n-1} x_n)^{k-1}$. Therefore, altogether we have that $(I^k, x_ny_n): x_{n-1}x_n = (J, x_{n-1}x_n)^{k-1} + (y_n)$. Thus, we obtain the exact sequence

\begin{eqnarray}\label{depth5}
0 \rightarrow S^*/ ((J, x_{n-1x_n})^{k-1} + (y_n) ) \rightarrow S^* / ( {I^k, x_n y_n} )\rightarrow S^* / K \rightarrow 0 .
\end{eqnarray}

We claim that for $k=2, \ldots, n$ we have $\depth (S^*/ (J, x_{n-1}x_n)^{k-1} ) \geq n-k+2$. Therefore, (\ref{depth4}) and (\ref{depth5}) implies

\begin{eqnarray}\label{depth6}
\depth (S^* / ({I^k, x_n y_n}) ) \geq n-k+1.
\end{eqnarray}

By using (\ref{depth6}) and our induction hypothesis, the exact sequence
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 \rightarrow S^*/ I^{k-1} \rightarrow S^* / I^k \rightarrow S^* / (I^k, x_n y_n) \rightarrow 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}
yields that $\depth (S^*/ I^k) \geq n-k+1$ and proves our theorem.

It remains to prove the claim. For that we use induction on $k$. For $k=2$, this inequality is shown in the proof of \cite[Proposition 6.3.7]{V}. Suppose that $k>2$. Since $(J, x_{n-1}x_n)$ is the edge ideal of a tree with free vertex $n$, we may apply \cite[Lemma 2.10]{M}, and obtain the exact sequence
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{depth7}
0 \rightarrow S^*/ (J, x_{n-1x_n})^{k-2}  \rightarrow S^* / ( J,  x_{n-1} x_n )^{k-1} \rightarrow S^* / (J^{k-1}, x_{n-1}x_n) \rightarrow 0 .
\end{eqnarray*}

 By our induction hypothesis, $\depth ( S^*/ (J, x_{n-1x_n})^{k-2} ) \geq n-k+3$ and (\ref{depth2}) applied for $k-1$ yields $\depth ( S^*/ (J, x_{n-1x_n})^{k-2}  ) \geq n-k+2$. Therefore, it follows that $\depth (S^* / ( J,  x_{n-1} x_n )^{k-1} ) \geq n-k+2$, as desired.
\end{proof}

By combining Theorem~\ref{whisker} and Theorem~\ref{tree}, we obtain
\begin{Corollary}
Let $G$ be a tree. Then
\[
\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) = n-k+1 \quad  \text{for $k=1,\ldots,n$}.
\]
\end{Corollary}

More generally, we expect that if $G$ is a forest with $m$ connected components, then
\[
\depth(S^*/I(G^*)^k) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
          n-k+1, &  \text{if $k\leq n-m+1$}, \\
         m, &\text{if  $k \geq n-m+1$}.        \end{array} \right.
\]


Projection error-based guaranteed L2 error bounds for finite element approximations of Laplace eigenfunctions

Abstract: For conforming finite element approximations of the Laplacian eigenfunctions, a fully computable guaranteed error bound in the $L^2$ norm sense is proposed. The bound is based on the a priori error estimate for the Galerkin projection of the conforming finite element method, and has an optimal speed of convergence for the eigenfunctions with the worst regularity. The resulting error estimate bounds the distance of spaces of exact and approximate eigenfunctions and, hence, is robust even in the case of multiple and tightly clustered eigenvalues. The accuracy of the proposed bound is illustrated by numerical examples. The demonstration code is available at https://ganjin.online/xfliu/EigenfunctionEstimation4FEM .

\section{Introduction}

Deriving guaranteed error bounds for approximate eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator is a challenging task due to possible ill-posedness of eigenfunctions. In the case of multiple and tightly clustered eigenvalues, the corresponding exact
\LIU{eigenfunctions} are sensitive even to small perturbations of the problem and may change abruptly. Any accurate  error bound has to take into  account this sensitivity. Therefore, the recent results \cite{CanDusMadStaVoh2017,CanDusMadStaVoh2018,CanDusMadStaVoh2020,LiuVej2022} consider an arbitrary cluster of eigenvalues and the space generated by corresponding eigenfunctions. The resulting error bounds then estimate a distance between the eigenfunction spaces associated to exact and approximate eigenvalues. The particular distances between spaces are naturally based either on the energy or $L^2$ norm.

Interestingly, the $L^2$ norm bounds  provided by Algorithm I of  \cite{LiuVej2022}, which is based on the Rayleigh quotients of the approximate eigenfunctions, are considerably less accurate than the corresponding bounds in the energy norm.
For the linear FEM solutions to the Laplacian eigenvalue problems, Algorithm I of \cite{LiuVej2022} provides the error bounds in the energy norm that exhibit the optimal rate of convergence. However, the $L^2$ error bounds often converge sub-optimally and are considerably less accurate. It is worth pointing out that, the residual error-based Algorithm II of  \cite{LiuVej2022} provides an optimal $L^2$ norm bound through the re-constructed flux and the Prager--Synge method; see the computation results for the L-shaped domain in \S \ref{sec:l-shape}.

\medskip

In this paper, we bound the $L^2$ error by utilizing the {\em a priori} error estimation
 proposed {in} \cite{LiuOis2013} for the boundary value problems, and the resulting bound achieves the optimal rate of convergence and more accurate numerical results.
For eigenfunction space $E$ associated to eigenvalues in a cluster $\mathcal{C}$ with eigenvalues $\{\lambda_n, \cdots, \lambda_N\}$, we obtain the following bounds in Lemma \ref{thm:u_and_pi_k_u_new_ver} and Theorem \ref{th:main_new_}:
\begin{equation*}
\delta_b(E,E_h)
\le  (1+\beta)
  \max_{u \in E, \|\nabla u\|=1} \|u - P_h u\|
  \le (1+\beta) {\lambda_N} C_h^2~.
\end{equation*}
Here, $\delta_b(E,E_h)$ is the $L^2$ norm directed distance  to measure the distance between $E$ and its approximate eigenspace $E_h$;
$\beta$ is a quantity related to the cluster width and the gap between the
cluster $\mathcal{C}$  and the rest
of the spectrum;
$C_h$ is a quantity  with
an explicitly known or computable value that comes from
the {\em a priori} error estimation for the projection operator $P_h$. The proposed
estimate
of quantity $\beta$ can be regarded as an improvement of \cite{CarGed2011}; see the comparison in Remark \ref{remark:comparison_carsten_gedick}. Also, the obtained explicit bounds are consistent with the standard  qualitative analysis for the eigenfunction approximations; see the discussion in Remark \ref{remark:convergence-rate}.

\medskip

To evaluate the bounds on eigenfunctions, suitable lower and upper bounds on eigenvalues are required. In this paper, we assume that sufficiently accurate two-sided bounds on eigenvalues are available, although we admit that computing guaranteed eigenvalue bounds, especially from below, is not a simple task.
We use the recent method \cite{Liu2015} based on the explicitly know interpolation constant for the Crouzeix--Raviart finite element method; see also, \cite{LiuOis2013,CarGal2014,CarGed2014}. This method provides lower bounds on eigenvalues and we further use the Lehmann--Goerisch method \cite{Lehmann1949,Lehmann1950,GoeHau1985} to compute their high-precision improvements.

Let us note that there is a vast literature on error estimates for symmetric elliptic eigenvalue problems. Classical works \cite{Chatelin1983,BabOsb:1991,Boffi:2010} provide the fundamental theories.
Many existing {\em a posteriori} error bounds on eigenvalues contain unknown constants or are valid asymptotically; see, e.g., \cite{DurGasPad1999,ArmDur2004,Yang2010,MehMie2011,DarDurPad2012,GiaHal2012,JiaCheXie2013,HuHuaLin2014}.
In the last years, several results providing fully computable and guaranteed a posteriori error estimates for eigenvalues appeared; see \cite{CarGal2014,CarGed2014,Liu2015,LiuOis2013,SebVej2014,Vejchodsky2018b,Vejchodsky2018,carstensen2021direct}.
These estimates contain no unknown constants and bound eigenvalues on all meshes, not only asymptotically.

In particular, the general framework proposed in \cite{Liu2015} was applied to the Stokes eigenvalue problem \cite{Xie2LIU-2018}, Steklov eigenvalue problem \cite{you-xie-liu-2019}, and biharmonic operators related to the quadratic interpolation error constants \cite{liu-you:2018,LiaoYuLiu2019}.
The series of papers \cite{CanDusMadStaVoh2017,CanDusMadStaVoh2018,CanDusMadStaVoh2020} provides guaranteed, robust, and optimally convergent {\em a posteriori} bounds for eigenvalues and even for corresponding eigenfunctions for both conforming and nonconforming approximations. The last paper in the series solves the difficult case of multiple and tightly clustered eigenvalues.
The recent work \cite{LiuVej2022} proposes two algorithms to handle multiple and tightly clustered eigenvalues as well and provides alternative guaranteed and fully computable error bounds for eigenfunctions.
Particularly, the residual error-based  Algorithm II of \cite{LiuVej2022} provides high-precision bounds by successfully extending  the Davis--Kahan theorem to weakly formulated eigenvalue problems.

\medskip

The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
Section~\ref{se:eigenproblem} briefly recalls the Laplace eigenvalue problem, its discretization by the finite element method, and division of the spectrum into clusters.
Section~\ref{se:optimalL2} derives a project error-based bound for finite element eigenfunctions in the $L^2$ {sense}.
Section~\ref{se:numex} presents the results of two numerical examples and Section~\ref{se:conclusions} draws the conclusions.
Below is url of the online demonstration:
\begin{center}

\url{https://ganjin.online/xfliu/EigenfunctionEstimation4FEM}

\end{center}

\section{Laplace eigenvalue problem}
\label{se:eigenproblem}

Let us considers the Laplace eigenvalue problem to find eigenvalues $\lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}$ and corresponding eigenfunctions $u_i \neq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:modpro}
  -\Delta u_i = \lambda_i u_i \quad\text{in }\Omega,
  \qquad
  u_i = 0 \quad\text{on }\partial\Omega,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded, Lipschitz $d$-dimensional domain.
The weak formulation of this eigenvalue problem reads: find $\lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}$ and $u_i \in H^1_0(\Omega) \setminus \{0\}$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:weakf}
  (\nabla u_i, \nabla v) = \lambda_i (u_i,v) \quad \forall v \in H^1_0(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $H^1_0(\Omega)$ is the usual Sobolev space of square integrable functions with the square integrable gradients and with zero traces on the boundary $\partial\Omega$; and $(\cdot,\cdot)$ stands for the $L^2(\Omega)$ inner product.

The Laplace eigenvalue problem is well studied in \cite{BabOsb:1991,Boffi:2010}.
There exists a countable sequence of eigenvalues
$$
  0 < \lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq \cdots,
$$
where we repeat each eigenvalue according to its multiplicity.
The corresponding eigenfunctions $u_i \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ are assumed to be normalized such that
$$
  (u_i,u_j) = \delta_{ij}, \quad i,j = 1,2, \dots.
$$

We discretize problem \eqref{eq:weakf} by the standard conforming finite element method. For simplicity, we assume $\Omega$ to be a polytope.
We consider the usual conforming simplicial mesh
$\mathcal{T}_h$ in $\Omega$ and define the finite element space $V_h$ of piece-wise polynomial and continuous functions over the mesh
$\mathcal{T}_h$ satisfying the Dirichlet boundary conditions as
$$
V_h =\{v_h  \in H^1_0(\Omega)  :  {v_h} |_K \in \mathbb{P}_p(K) \text{ for all } K \in \mathcal{T}_h \},
$$
where $\mathbb{P}_p(K)$ stands for the space of polynomials of degree at most $p$ defined in $K$.

The finite element eigenvalue problem reads:
find $\lambda_{h,i}\in\mathbb{R}$ and $u_{h,i} \in V_h\setminus\{0\}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eig_pro_with_fem}
(\nabla u_{h,i,} \nabla v_h) = \lambda_{h,i} (u_{h,i}, v_h)\quad \forall v_h \in V_h,
\end{equation}
where $i=1,2,\dots,\operatorname{dim} (V_h)$.
Discrete eigenfunctions are assumed to be normalized such that $(u_{h,i},u_{h,j})=\delta_{ij}$ and $(\nabla u_{h,i},\nabla u_{h,j})=\lambda_{h,i} \delta_{ij}$.

As we mentioned in the introduction, {we will formulate the $L^2$ error bound on eigenfunctions for clusters of eigenvalues.} For the purpose of the theory, the splitting of the spectrum into clusters can be arbitrary.
Let $n_k$ and $N_k$ stand for indices of the first and the last eigenvalue in the $k$th cluster; see Figure~\ref{fi:clusters}.
{Note that eigenvalues in a cluster need not equal to each other}.
We consider the $k$th cluster to be of interest, and set $n=n_k$ and $N=N_k$
to simplify the notation.
Let $E_k$ be the space of exact eigenfunctions associated to
$k$th cluster of eigenvalues:
$$
E_k = \operatorname{span}\{ u_{n}, u_{n+1}, \dots, u_{N} \}
~.
$$
Similarly, finite element approximations $u_{h,i} \in H^1_0(\Omega)$
of exact eigenfunctions $u_i$, {for $i=n,n+1,\dots,N$}, form the corresponding approximate space:
$$
E_{h,k} = \operatorname{span}\{  u_{h,n}, u_{h,n+1}, \dots,  u_{h, N} \}~.
$$

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\newcommand{0.1}{0.1}
\newcommand{\tick}[1]{\draw [semithick] (#1,-0.1)--(#1,0.1);}
\draw [semithick] (0,0)--(6.2,0);
\draw [thick,dotted] (6.2+0.2,0)--(6.2+1.3,0);
\draw [thick] (6.2+1.5,0)--(6.2+7,0);

\tick{0.5}\node [below] at (0.5,-0.1) {$0$};

\tick{1.7}\node [above] at (1.7,0.1) {$\lambda_{n_1}$};
\tick{1.9}
\tick{2.5}\node [above] at (2.3,0.1) {$\cdots$};
\tick{2}
\tick{2.7}
\node [above] at (2.9,0.1) {$\lambda_{N_1}$};
\node [below] at (2.25,-0.1) {$1$st cluster};

\tick{4}\node [above] at (4,0.1) {$\lambda_{n_2}$};
\tick{4.25}
\tick{4.6}\node [above] at (4.7,0.1) {$\cdots$};
\tick{5.1}
\tick{5.2}
\node [above] at (5.3,0.1) {$\lambda_{N_2}$};
\node [below] at (4.75,-0.1) {$2$nd cluster};

\tick{9.5}\node [above] at (9,0.1) {$(\lambda_n:=)\lambda_{n_k}$};
\tick{9.65}
\tick{10}
\tick{10.1}
\tick{10.35}
\tick{10.5}
\tick{10.7}
\tick{10.8}
\tick{11}\node [above] at (11.75,0.1) {$\lambda_{N_k}(=:\lambda_{N})$};
\node [below] at (10.5,-0.1) {$k$th cluster};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Clusters of eigenvalues on the real axis.}
\label{fi:clusters}
\end{figure}

Denoting by $\|\cdot\|$ the $L^2(\Omega)$ norm, the directed distances of spaces measured in the energy and $L^2$ norms are defined as follows.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Delta}
\delta_a(E_k, E_{h,k}) = \max_{\substack{v \in E_k\\ \|\nabla v \|=1}} \min_{ v_h \in E_{h,k}} \|\nabla v - \nabla v_h \|
,\quad
\delta_b(E_k, E_{h,k}) = \max_{\substack{v \in E_k\\ \| v \|=1}} \min_{ v_h \in E_{h,k}} \| v- v_h \|.
\end{equation}

For reader's convenience and for the later reference, we recall the recent error bounds from \cite{LiuVej2022}.
Take $\rho$ such that
$\lambda_n < \rho \leq \lambda_{N+1}$, then
{
\begin{align}
  \label{eq:Deltaest}
  \delta_a^2(E_k,E_{h,k})
  &\leq  {\frac{\rho (\hat\lambda^{(k)}_N -  \lambda_n)  + \lambda_n \hat\lambda^{(k)}_N \vartheta^{(k)}}{\hat\lambda^{(k)}_N(\rho - \lambda_n)}}
   \quad\text{and}
\\
  \label{eq:deltaest}
  \delta_b^2(E_k,E_{h,k})
  &\leq {\frac{\hat\lambda^{(k)}_N - \lambda_n + \theta^{(k)}}{\rho - \lambda_n}},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
  \hat\lambda^{(k)}_N &= \max_{v_h \in E_{h,k}} \frac{\norm{\nabla v_h}^2}{\norm{v_h}^2},
\quad
  \vartheta^{(k)} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} \left( \frac{\rho}{ \lambda_{n_\ell} } - 1 \right) \left[ \hat{\zeta}(E_{h,\ell},E_{h,k}) + \delta_a(E_\ell,E_{h,\ell}) \right]^2,

\\
  \theta^{(k)} &= \sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} \left(\rho - \lambda_{n_\ell}\right) \left[ \hat{\varepsilon}(E_{h,\ell},E_{h,k}) + \delta_b(E_\ell,E_{h,\ell}) \right]^2.
\end{align*}
Note that quantities
\begin{equation*}

  \hat{\zeta}(E_{h,\ell},E_{h,k}) = \max_{\substack{v\in E_{h,\ell}\\ \|\nabla v\|=1}} \max_{\substack{w\in E_{h,k}\\ \|\nabla w\|=1}} (\nabla v, \nabla w),
\quad
  \hat{\varepsilon}(E_{h,\ell},E_{h,k}) = \max_{\substack{v\in E_{h,\ell}\\ \| v\|=1}} \max_{\substack{w\in E_{h,k}\\ \|w\|=1}} ( v , w )
\end{equation*}
}%
measure the non-orthogonality between spaces of approximate eigenfunctions for the previous clusters and can be easily computed by using \cite[Lemma~2]{LiuVej2022}.
{Further}
{note that in \cite{LiuVej2022}, the approximate eigenfunction $\{u_{h,i}\}$
are considered as
arbitrary and the orthogonality of $\{u_{h,i}\}$ is not required.}

\section{Projection error-based estimate in the $L^2$ norm}
\label{se:optimalL2}

The result of \cite[Theorem 8.1]{Boffi:2010}, and the explicitly known value of the constant in the \emph{a priori} error estimate for the energy projection \cite{LiuOis2013} enable us to mimic this approach for the eigenvalue problem and derive an optimal order convergent guaranteed and fully computable upper bound on the directed distance of the exact and approximate spaces of eigenfunctions measured in the $L^2(\Omega)$-norm.

First, we mention that $u_{h,i}$ is not available in practical computation, in general, because it is a result of a
generalized matrix eigenvalue solver polluted typically by rounding errors and truncation errors of iterative algorithms.
In principle,
{we could apply the interval arithmetic to have a rigorous representation of $u_{h,i}$,}
{but such} argument would make the paper lengthy and not easy to read. Therefore, we concentrate here on a theoretical analysis of the discretization error $(u_{h,i}-u_i)$,
{where $u_{h,i}$ is the exact solution of the discrete problem \eqref{eq:eig_pro_with_fem}.}

For the reader's convenience, we recall several results about the \emph{a priori} error estimates for finite element solutions of the Poisson equation. These \emph{a priori} error estimates will play an important role in subsequent error bounds for eigenfunctions.

Given $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, let $u\in H_0^1(\Omega)$ be the weak solution of the Poisson problem satisfying
$$
(\nabla u, \nabla v) = (f,v) \quad \forall v \in H^1_0(\Omega).
$$
The corresponding Galerkin approximation $u_h \in V_h(\subset H^1_0(\Omega))$ is determined by the identity
$$
(\nabla u_h, \nabla v_h) = (f,v_h) \quad \forall v_h \in V_h.
$$
The energy projector $P_h : H_0^1(\Omega) \rightarrow V_h$ is defined by
$(\nabla (u - P_h u), \nabla v_h) = 0$ for all $v_h \in V_h$. Clearly,  $u_h = P_h u$.

In \cite{LiuOis2013}, Liu proposed the following constructive \emph{a priori} error estimate with a computable constant $C_h$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Ch}
\|\nabla(u-P_h u) \| \le C_h \|f\|, \quad \| u - P_h u \| \le C_h \| \nabla(u-P_h u) \| \le C_h^2 \|f\|
\end{equation}
and the following lower eigenvalue bounds:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{k} \ge \frac{\lambda_{h,k}}{1+C_h^2 \lambda_{h,k}}~\quad (k=1, 2,\cdots, \operatorname{dim}(V_h)).
\end{equation}
\iffalse
\cred{Do we need the first inequality? It is included in the second one. If you think it can be deleted, please, remove it. If not, keep it.}
\cblue{It depends. For some non-conforming FEM space $V_h$, we can evaluate $C_h$ in $ \| u - P_h u \| \le C_h \| \nabla(u-P_h u) \|$ directly and without additional cost, compared with the hypercircle method which has to solve a side problem.}
\cred{So, would you like to keep it as it is? (It is fine with me.)}
\cblue{Yes.leave it unchanged. There is no pace to discuss the non-conforming case. }
\fi
In case of non-convex domains, the value of $C_h$ can be computed by solving a dual saddle-point problem based on the hypercircle method; see \cite[Sections 3.2--3.3]{LiuOis2013}.
In case of convex domains, the value of $C_h$ can be easily computed by considering the Lagrange interpolation error constant; see \cite[Theorem~3.1]{LiuOis2013}.
The specific value of $C_h$ is provided below in Section~\ref{se:numex} for the considered examples.

Throughout this section, we consider an arbitrary cluster of eigenvalues $\lambda_n, \lambda_{n+1}, \dots, \lambda_N$.
We denote by
$\mathcal{C} = \{n, n + 1, \dots, N\}$
the set of indices of eigenvalues in this cluster
and by $|\mathcal{C}| = N - n + 1$ their number.
Spaces of exact and finite element eigenfunctions corresponding to this clusters are
$E = \operatorname{span}\{ u_i : i \in \mathcal{C} \}$ and
$E_h = \operatorname{span}\{ u_{h,i} : i \in \mathcal{C} \}$, respectively.

It is also assumed that
\begin{equation}    \label{eq:no_overlap_of_eigs}
\lambda_{h,n-1} < \lambda_n, \quad \lambda_N < \lambda_{h,N+1}.
\end{equation}
Such an assumption makes it possible to define the following quantities:
\begin{equation*}
\tau = \max_{j \in \mathcal{C}}\max_{i {\in}\mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}}\frac{\lambda_j}{|\lambda_{h,i}-\lambda_j|}
,\quad
\tau_h = \max_{j \in \mathcal{C}}\max_{i {\in}\mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}}\frac{\lambda_{h,i}}{|\lambda_{h,i}-\lambda_j|},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{I} = \{1,2,\dots,\operatorname{dim} (V_h)\}$ stands for the set of all indices.
These quantities extend the one in \cite[pages 53, 57]{Boffi:2010} and have their origin in \cite{raviart1983introduction}.
The application of the quantity $\tau $ can be found in \cite[Prop.~3.1]{CarGed2011}. The result in  Lemma~\ref{thm:u_and_pi_k_u} can be regarded an improvement of the one of \cite{CarGed2011}.

To derive
the projection error-based
upper bound
on the directed distance of the exact and approximate spaces of eigenfunctions measured in the $L^2(\Omega)$-norm
by applying estimates \eqref{eq:Ch}, we need to
bound the error of the $L^2(\Omega)$ orthogonal projection $\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h: H^1_0(\Omega) \rightarrow E_h$
by the error of the energy projection $P_h: H^1_0(\Omega) \rightarrow V_h$. To achieve this goal, we first introduce several quantities and two auxiliary lemmas.

\medskip

Let us introduce the unit ball $E^B := \{ u \in E : \|u\|=1 \}$.
For the given cluster of eigenfunction, we introduce $\beta$
as the optimal (minimal) quantity  that makes the
inequality
\begin{equation}
 \label{def:beta}

 \|(I-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u\| \le
\beta
  \max_{\substack{v \in E^B}} \|v - P_h v\| \quad
  \mbox{hold for any } u\in E^B
 ~,
\end{equation}
and aim to obtain an upper bound of $\beta$.
In case $\|u - P_h u\|=0$ for all $u\in E^B$, it is natural to define $\beta=0$.
Given $u =\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}} c_j u_j \in E^B$,
let $\kappa:E^B \to E^B$ be the mapping such that
\begin{equation}
	\label{eq:def-kappa-h}
\kappa u =
\overline{\lambda}^{-1}
\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}} {c_j \lambda_j}  u_j,\quad
\text{where}\quad
{\overline{\lambda}^2} =\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}}c_j^2 \lambda_j^2 .
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that $\kappa:E^B \to E^B$ is bijective.
We set $\overline u = \kappa u$, define the relative width $\xi := (\lambda_N - \lambda_n)/\lambda_n$ of the eigenvalue cluster of interest, and note that the following estimate holds:
$$
\|u-\overline{u}\|^2 = \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C} } c_j^2 (1-\lambda_j/\overline{\lambda})^2 \le \xi^2.
$$

\begin{lemma}\label{thm:u_and_pi_k_u}
Given an arbitrary clusters of eigenvalues,
the quantity $\beta$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:est_of_beta_k}
    \beta \leq \tau  |\mathcal{C}|^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
Further, if
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:condition_for_lemma}
\tau_h\xi < 1 - |\mathcal{C}|^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:est_of_beta_k_sharper}
    \beta \leq \frac{\tau}{1-\tau_h\xi} ~.

\end{equation}

\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
Note that if condition \eqref{eq:condition_for_lemma} is satisfied than the estimate \eqref{eq:est_of_beta_k_sharper} is always sharper then the bound \eqref{eq:est_of_beta_k}.
Further, a smaller relative width of the cluster $\xi$  leads to a sharper upper bound \eqref{eq:est_of_beta_k_sharper}.
 In the extreme case of a multiple eigenvalue such that $\lambda_n=\lambda_N$, we have $\xi = 0$ and hence $\beta \le \tau$.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
{First, for
 $u_j \in E^B$ as an eigenfunction, let us apply the standard argument (see, e.g., \cite{Boffi:2010}) to show that
 $\|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u_j\| \le \tau \| (I - P_h) u_j\|$. }
 Note that
$$
(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u_j = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}} (P_h u_j, u_{h,i}) u_{h,i} \in V_h,
$$
which leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:IPik}
\|(I  - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h ) P_h u_j\|^2 = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}} (P_h u_j, u_{h,i})^2\:.
\end{equation}
In equality
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:equality_in_lemma}
\lambda_{h,i} (P_h u_j , u_{h,i}) = (\nabla P_h u_j, \nabla u_{h,i})
= (\nabla u_j, \nabla u_{h,i}) = \lambda_j (u_j,u_{h,i}),
\end{equation}
we subtract $\lambda_j (P_h u_j,u_{h,i})$ on both sides and obtain
$$
(P_h u_j, u_{h,i}) = \frac{\lambda_j}{\lambda_{h,i} -\lambda_j } (u_j - P_h u_j,u_{h,i}).
$$
Summation over $i \in \mathcal{I}\setminus\mathcal{C}$ gives
$$
\sum_{i \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}} (P_h u_j, u_{h,i})^2 \le \tau^2 \sum_{i \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{C}} (u_j - P_h u_j,u_{h,i})^2 \le \tau^2 \|u_j - P_h u_j\|^2,
$$
where the last inequality follows form the identity $\sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}} (u_j - P_h u_j,u_{h,i})^2 = \| \Pi_h(u_j - P_h u_j) \|^2$ with $\Pi_h : H^1_0(\Omega) \rightarrow V_h$ denoting the $L^2(\Omega)$ orthogonal projector.
Using this in \eqref{eq:IPik}, we finally derive
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:est_for_single_uj}
\|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u_j\| \le \tau \| (I - P_h) u_j\|.
\end{equation}

Next,
we consider any $u \in E^B$ and express it in the form $u =\sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}} c_j u_j$ with $\sum_{j\in\mathcal{C}} c_j^2 = 1$.
Denoting the linear operator $(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h $ by $L$,
the estimate \eqref{eq:est_for_single_uj} leads to
$$
\|L u \|^2 = \left\| \sum_{j \in \mathcal{C}}  c_j L u_j \right\|^2 \le \sum_{j \in \mathcal{C}} \|Lu_j\|^2    \le \tau^2 \sum_{j \in \mathcal{C}}  \| (I - P_h) u_j\|^2.
$$
Thus, we can estimate $\|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u\|$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lemma_estimate_for_general_u_ver0}
\|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u \| \le
 \tau  |\mathcal{C}|^{1/2} \max_{u \in E^B} \|u - P_h u\|
\end{equation}
and statement \eqref{eq:est_of_beta_k} easily follows.

Finally, we consider the case when the condition \eqref{eq:condition_for_lemma} holds true.
Given $u\in E^B$, we take $\overline{u}=\kappa u$ and $\overline{\lambda}$ as defined in \eqref{eq:def-kappa-h}.
Using inequality \eqref{eq:equality_in_lemma}, we obtain for $u$ the identity
$$
\lambda_{h,i} (P_h u , u_{h,i})
= \overline{\lambda} (\overline{u},u_{h,i}).
$$
Subtracting $\overline{\lambda} (P_h \overline{u},u_{h,i})$ on both sides, we derive
$$
\left( \lambda_{h,i} P_h (u - \overline{u})
+ (\lambda_{h,i}
 -\overline{\lambda}) P_h \overline{u} , u_{h,i} \right) = \overline{\lambda} (\overline{u} -P_h \overline{u} ,u_{h,i}).
$$
Thus,
$$
(P_h \overline{u}, u_{h,i}) = \frac{\overline{\lambda}}{\lambda_{h,i} -\overline{\lambda} } ( \overline{u} - P_h \overline{u},u_{h,i})
-
\frac{\lambda_{h,i}}{\lambda_{h,i} -\overline{\lambda} }
(P_h (u - \overline{u}), u_{h,i}).
$$
Since function $g(t)=t/ |\lambda_{h,i}-t|$ satisfies
$g(t) \le \max(g(\lambda_n), g(\lambda_N))$ for all $t \in [\lambda_n, \lambda_N]$
and function $g_h(t)=\lambda_{h,i}/|\lambda_{h,i}-t|$ is bounded in the same way, we have
$$
|(P_h \overline{u}, u_{h,i})| \leq \tau |\left(( I - P_h) \overline{u},u_{h,i}\right)| + \tau_h
|(P_h (u - \overline{u}), u_{h,i})|.
$$
Now, considering these inequalities for $i\in\mathcal{I}\setminus\mathcal{C}$, using the geometric inequality\footnote{
Given  vectors $a=(a_1, \cdots, a_n), b=(b_1, \cdots, b_n), c=(c_1, \cdots, c_n)$ with $a_i,b_i,c_i>0$ and
$a_i\leq b_i+c_i$, then their Euclidean norms satisfy
$\|a\| \le \|b\|+\|c\|.$
}
and the general fact that
$\sum_{i\in \mathcal{I}\setminus\mathcal{C}} (\varphi,u_{h,i})^2
= \| (I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) \Pi_h \varphi \|^2$ for any $\varphi \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ with $\Pi_h: H^1_0(\Omega) \rightarrow V_h$ being the $L^2(\Omega)$ orthogonal projector,
we derive the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sub_inequality_1}
\|(I-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h)P_h {\overline{u}}\| \le
\tau \|\overline{u}-P_h \overline{u}\| +
\tau_h
\|(I-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h)P_h (u - \overline{u})\|.
\end{equation}
Since $\|u-\overline{u}\| \le \xi $, the definition of $\beta$ gives
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:sub_inequality_2}
\|(I-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h (u-\overline{u})\|
\le
\xi \beta \max_{u \in E^B} \|u - P_h u\|.
\end{equation}
Inequalities \eqref{eq:sub_inequality_1} and  \eqref{eq:sub_inequality_2} lead to the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lemma_estimate_for_general_u_2}
\|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h \overline{u} \| \le
\left( \tau   + \tau_h \xi  \beta \right)
 \max_{u \in E^B} \|u - P_h u\|.
\end{equation}
Since $\overline u = \kappa u$ and $\kappa: E^B \to E^B$ is a bijection, we have
$$
  \max_{u\in E^B} \|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h \kappa u \|
= \max_{u\in E^B} \|(I - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h) P_h u \|.
$$
Consequently,
from the bound \eqref{eq:lemma_estimate_for_general_u_2} and the definition of $\beta$, we obtain
$$
\beta \le  \tau   + \tau_h \xi \beta.
$$
Since condition \eqref{eq:condition_for_lemma} implies $1-\tau_h\xi>0$, the estimate \eqref{eq:est_of_beta_k_sharper} follows.
\end{proof}

In next lemma, we show the relation between $\delta_b(E,E_h)$ and the projection error using the quantity $\beta$.

\begin{lemma}\label{thm:u_and_pi_k_u_new_ver}
For the given cluster of eigenvalues,
the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:thm_u_and_pi_k_u_new_}
\delta_b(E,E_h) = \max_{u\in E^B} \|u-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h u\| \le
(1+\beta)
  \max_{u \in E^B} \|u - P_h u\|.
 \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For any $u\in E^B$, since $\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h u$ provides the best approximation of $u$ under the $L^2$ norm in $E_h$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lem_triangle_inequality_new_}
\|u - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h u \|
 \le \|u - \Pi^\mathcal{C}_h P_h u \|
 \le \|u - P_h u \| + \|P_h u-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h P_h u  \| .
\end{equation}
Using the definition of the quantity $\beta$, we easily draw the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark:comparison_carsten_gedick}
In Proposition 3.2 of \cite{CarGed2011}, with $m:=|\mathcal{C}|=N-n+1$, the following result is obtained: For $u_{h,j} $ in $E$ as an eigenfunction associated to $\lambda_{h,j}$,
$$
\min_{u\in E} \|u_{h,j}-u\| \le
\sqrt{2} m(2m+1)(1+\tau)
 \max_{u_j\in E^B} \|u_j-P_h u_j\|~.
$$
If such a result is applied to  $\delta_b(E,E_h)$, one can obtain the following estimate.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:overestimation}
\delta_b(E,E_h) \le \sqrt{2} m(2m+1)(1+\tau)   \max_{u \in E^B} \|u - P_h u\|~.
\end{equation}
This bound is larger than the result in Lemma~\ref{thm:u_and_pi_k_u_new_ver}.
Particularly, if
the eigenvalue cluster is tight, i.e., $\xi\approx 0$, we have $\beta\approx \tau$ and the bound
\eqref{eq:overestimation}
is overestimated by the factor $\sqrt{2} m(2m+1)$.
\end{remark}

Bounding $\beta$ by Lemma~\ref{thm:u_and_pi_k_u}, the following theorem presents
the main result.

\begin{theorem}\label{th:main_new_}
Let $\beta$ be the quantity defined in \eqref{def:beta}.
For an arbitrary cluster of eigenvalues,
the following estimate holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:l2_norm_optimal}
\delta_b(E,E_h)  \le (1+\beta) {\lambda_N} C_h^2~.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Given $u\in E_k$, $u = \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}}c_j u_j$, let $\overline{u}=\kappa u$ and $\overline{\lambda}^2 = \sum_{j\in \mathcal{C}}c_j^2 \lambda_j^2$.
Then the identity
$$
(\nabla u, \nabla v)= (\overline{\lambda}\overline{u}, v), \quad \forall v\in V,
$$
holds and the {\em a priori} error estimate \eqref{eq:Ch} with $f=\overline{\lambda}\overline{u}$ yields
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:local_est_1_new}
    \|u-P_h u\| \le C_h^2 \| \overline{\lambda}\overline{u}\| \le C_h^2\lambda_N .
\end{equation}
Definition of $\delta_b(E,E_h)$ and bounds \eqref{eq:thm_u_and_pi_k_u_new_} and \eqref{eq:local_est_1_new} give
\begin{equation*}
    \label{eq:est2_new}
\delta_b(E,E_h) = \max_{u\in E^B} \|u-\Pi^\mathcal{C}_h u\|
  \leq (1+\beta) \max_{u \in E^B} \| u - P_h u \| \le (1+\beta) C_h^2 \lambda_N.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{remark:convergence-rate}
The result \cite{LiuOis2013} shows how to compute the quantity $C_h$. For convex domains, the solution of the Poisson problem has the regularity $u\in H^2(\Omega)$ and, consequently, we have
$C_h=O(h)$ via the Lagrange interpolation error estimation.
For non-convex domains, the solution $u$ belongs to
$H^{1+\alpha}(\Omega)$, where $\alpha \in (0,1]$ depends on the angles of re-entrant non-convex corners.
In this case, the value of $C_h$ is evaluated by the hypercircle method using the Raviart--Thomas FEM, and it is expected that
$C_h=O(h^{\alpha})$.

 As {it} is pointed out in \cite[Theorem 9.13]{Boffi:2010}, the FEM solutions approximate the eigenfunction independently.
 That is, even for non-convex domains, if an
 eigenfunction has the $H^2$-regularity, then the FEM approximation to such an eigenfunction has the $O(h^2)$ convergence rate under $L^2$ norm.
Since the projection error in the estimation \eqref{eq:thm_u_and_pi_k_u_new_} is restricted to the function in $E$ for the specified eigenvalue cluster, the estimation of Lemma \ref{thm:u_and_pi_k_u_new_ver} is consistent with the theoretical analysis of \cite{Boffi:2010}.

The proposed estimation \eqref{eq:l2_norm_optimal} using $C_h$ has a defect that, in case of non-convex domains, for an eigenfunction with a better regularity, the proposed bound still keeps the degenerated convergence rate, which is because the {\em a priori} error estimation is considering the worst case for the projection error.
 If the regularity for eigenfunction in $E$ is known, then the estimation in Theorem \ref{th:main_new_} can also be improved since the estimation only depends on the projection error for eigenfunctions in the specified cluster.
For example, in the case of an L-shaped domain of \S \ref{sec:l-shape},
 the eigenfunction $u=\sin(\pi x)\sin (\pi y)$ associated to  $\lambda_3=2\pi^2$ has the
$H^2$-regularity, thus one can take $C_h<0.493h$ (where $h$ is the largest leg length for right triangles in the triangulation) for FEM approximation using triangulation with right triangles.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
Theorem 3 in \cite{LiuVej2022} provides the following estimate:
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:energy_by_L2}
  \delta_a^2(E,E_h) \leq {2 - 2 \lambda_n \left( \frac{1 - \delta_b^2(E,E_h) }{\lambda_N \lambda_{h,N}} \right)^{1/2}} ~,
\end{equation}
where the energy error $\delta_a(E,E_h)$ {is bounded by} the $L^2$ error $\delta_b(E,E_h)$.
However, bound \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2} is not optimal for clusters of a positive widths, i.e., $\lambda_n<\lambda_{N}$. On the other hand, for clusters consisting of a simple or a multiple eigenvalue, we have $\lambda_n = \lambda_N$ and the bound \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2} has the optimal speed of convergence. Indeed, in this case, it can be easily shown that the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2} is dominated by $|\lambda_{h,N} - \lambda_N|$ and the other terms, including $\delta_b^2(E,E_h)$ are of higher order.
{Consequently, bound \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2} combined with \eqref{eq:l2_norm_optimal} provides a guaranteed and fully computable error bound in the energy norm with the optimal speed of convergence for a cluster consisting of only one simple or multiple eigenvalue.}
\end{remark}

\iffalse
\begin{remark}\label{re:re2}
Theorem 8.1 of \cite{Boffi:2010} proves the estimate
$$
\Delta(E_{h,K}, E_K) \le C(K) \sup_{v\in E_1\cup \cdots  \cup E_{K}, \|v\|=1} \|\nabla(v-P_h v)\|,
$$
where we use the notation of the current paper.
Although the explicit bound on $\Delta(E_{h,K}, E_K)$ is not given in \cite{Boffi:2010}, we believe that using the constant $C_h$ from \eqref{eq:Ch}, we can provide an explicit bound on $C(K)$ and $\|\nabla(v-P_h v)\|$ and, thus,
an estimate for $\Delta(E_{h,K}, E_K)$.
In our future work, we will derive this estimate and compare it with bounds derived in the current paper.
[DO WE WANT TO PROMISE THIS?]
\cred{[What is your idea?]}
\LIU{[In Corollary 9.11 of \cite{Boffi:2010}, there is a stronger result. But be careful that the assumption there is that the cluster width is zero. In case of zero width of cluster, our result in \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2} already proves this property.]} \LIU{[As a conclusion, there is no direct evidence or idea that we can obtain the ``optimal" explicit estimation of $\delta_a$ for a cluster with different eigenvalues. So, the remark shall be further weakened or removed.]}
\cred{[OK, please, remove this remark completely. We do not need it for the current paper at all.]}
\end{remark}

\fi

\section{Numerical examples}
\label{se:numex}

This section provides numerical examples to  illustrate the accuracy of proposed bounds on the directed
distances of spaces of exact and approximate eigenfunctions. The first example is the Laplace eigenvalue problem \eqref{eq:modpro} in the unit square domain for which
{the exact eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are well known.}
The second example is the same problem considered
{in a non-convex L-shaped domain where eigenfunctions may have singularities at the re-entrant corner.}

Both examples are computed in
the floating point arithmetic and the influence of rounding errors is not taken into account
{for simplicity.}
However, if needed, mathematically rigorous estimates could be obtained by employing the interval arithmetic \cite{moore2009introduction}.

\subsection{The unit square domain}
\label{sec:unit_square}
Consider the Laplace eigenvalue problem with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions in the unit square $\Omega=(0,1)^2$:
find eigenvalues $\lambda_i \in \mathbb{R}$ and corresponding eigenfunctions $u_i \neq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:modpro}
  -\Delta u_i = \lambda_i u_i \quad\text{in }\Omega;
  \qquad
  u_i = 0 \quad\text{on }\partial\Omega.
\end{equation}

\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{\label{ta:square_domain_clusters}The four leading clusters for the unit square.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule[-2mm]{0cm}{6mm}{}
 Cluster & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\
 \hline
\rule[-2mm]{0cm}{6mm}{}
Eigenvalues & $\lambda_1 = 2\pi^2$ &
 $\lambda_2 = \lambda_3 = 5\pi^2$  &
 $\lambda_4 = 8\pi^2$   &
 $\lambda_5 = \lambda_6 = 10\pi^2$  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

The exact eigenpairs are known analytically to be
$$
\lambda_{ij} = (i^2+j^2)\pi^2,\quad u_{ij}=\sin(i\pi x) \sin(j\pi y), \quad i,j=1,2,3, \dots.
$$
These eigenvalues are either simple or multiple
and we cluster them according to the multiplicity.
The first four clusters are listed in Table~\ref{ta:square_domain_clusters}.
Since the exact eigenvalues are known, we use them to evaluate error bounds.
{To compute bounds \eqref{eq:Deltaest} and \eqref{eq:deltaest} for
the cluster $\{\lambda_{n}, \lambda_{n+1}, \cdots, \lambda_{N}\}$,
we choose $\rho = \lambda_{N+1}$.
}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
    \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{square_uniform.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:uniform_mesh_square} The uniform mesh with $h=1/4$ for the unit square.%
}
\label{fi:squaremesh}
\end{figure}

{Problem \eqref{eq:modpro}} is discretized by the conforming finite element method using piecewise linear functions. The finite element mesh $\mathcal{T}_h$ is chosen as the uniform triangulation consisting of
isosceles right triangles;
{see Figure~\ref{fi:squaremesh} for an illustration.
}
The projection error constant can be easily obtained through the interpolation error constant
{as}
$C_h\le h/0.493$.

{
For each cluster, we compute bounds on $\delta_b(E_k,E_{h,k})$ and $\delta_a(E_k,E_{h,k})$ by
the estimate \eqref{eq:l2_norm_optimal} from Theorem~\ref{th:main_new_} and its combination with the relation \eqref{eq:energy_by_L2}, respectively.
We then compare these results with the bounds \eqref{eq:Deltaest} and \eqref{eq:deltaest} computed by Algorithm I of \cite{LiuVej2022}.
}

The convergence behavior of computed bounds for the four leading clusters is shown in Figure ~\ref{fig:unit-square-l2} and \ref{fig:unit-square-h1}.
The results confirm the expected optimal convergence rate $O(h^2)$ of the estimate \eqref{eq:l2_norm_optimal}
for {$\delta_b(E_k,E_{h,k})$}, and the sub-optimal rate $O(h)$ from Algorithm I of \cite{LiuVej2022}.

The estimate by Algorithm II of \cite{LiuVej2022} can provide impressively sharp bounds and the optimal convergence rate for the error of approximate eigenfunctions under both $L^2$ and $H^1$ norms. Since such an approach needs more {effort to post-process the approximate eigenfunction, reconstruct the flux, and estimate the} residual error of the eigenfunction approximation, the comparison with Algorithm II of \cite{LiuVej2022} is omitted here.

\begin{figure}[htp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Unitsquare_L2.eps}
    \caption{\label{fig:unit-square-l2}Bounds on the $L^2(\Omega)$ distances of spaces of eigenfunctions
    {$\delta_b(E_k,E_{h,k})$} for the square domain and four leading clusters of eigenvalues
    {$k=1,2,3,4$.}
    }

\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Unitsquare_H1.eps}
    \caption{\label{fig:unit-square-h1}
    Bounds on the energy distances of spaces of eigenfunctions {$\delta_a(E_k,E_{h,k})$} for the square domain and the four leading clusters {$k=1,2,3,4$}.
    }
\end{figure}

\subsection{The L-shaped domain}
\label{sec:l-shape}
We consider the Laplace eigenvalue problem \eqref{eq:modpro} in the L-shaped domain $\Omega = (-1,1)^2\setminus(-1,0]^2$
to present the standard example with singularities of eigenfunctions
and also to demonstrate the versatility of the proposed method. We solve this problem by using the classical linear conforming finite element space over a uniform mesh.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{L_shape_mesh.eps}
    \caption{L-shaped domain and the initial mesh
    }
    \label{fig:l_shaped_domain}
\end{figure}

Since the exact eigenvalues are not known,
the eigenvalue bounds
are evaluated by using
two-sided bounds on eigenvalues, which were computed in \cite{liu2014high}
and we list them in Table~\ref{tab:l_shaped_eig_lower_bound}.
The first four eigenvalues are simple and form trivial clusters.
The values of the projection error constants are obtained by applying the hypercircle method proposed in \cite{LiuOis2013}; see Table \ref{table:lshape-projection-error-constant}.

\begin{table}[ht]
    \centering
    \caption{Lower bounds on the leading eigenvalues for the L-shaped domain.}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
    \hline
    \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}{}
    $\lambda_1$  & $\lambda_2$ &$\lambda_3$ & $\lambda_4$ & $\lambda_5$ \\
        \hline
    \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}{}
    $9.6397_{1}^{3}$ & $15.1972_{5}^{6}$ & $19.7392_0^1$ & $29.5214_7^9$ & $31.9126_2^4$ \\
        \hline
    \end{tabular}

    \label{tab:l_shaped_eig_lower_bound}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
    \centering
    \caption{\label{table:lshape-projection-error-constant}Projection error constants}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
    \hline
    \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}{}
    $h$  & $1/32$ &$1/64$ & $1/128$ & $1/256$ \\
        \hline
    \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{6mm}{}
    $C_h$ & $0.0359$ & $0.0218$ & $0.0134$ & $0.00832$ \\
        \hline
    \end{tabular}

\end{table}

The initial finite element mesh is displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:l_shaped_domain}.
First, we apply the bounds \eqref{eq:Deltaest} and \eqref{eq:deltaest} to the four leading eigenvalue clusters. Since the exact error $\delta_b$ cannot be evaluated directly, we apply the residual error-based estimation, i.e., Algorithm II of \cite{LiuVej2022} to obtain a sharp bound of $\delta_b$. Numerical evaluation of such a bound implies that $\delta_b$ has the convergence rate as $O(h^{3/2})$ for the first cluster and $O(h^{2})$ for the rest $3$ clusters.
Figure~\ref{fig:lshape-l2} shows the bounds on the $L^2(\Omega)$ distance $\delta_b$.
Figure~\ref{fig:lshape-h1} compares the bounds on the energy distance $\delta_a$.
The results confirm that the newly proposed estimate of $\delta_b$ based on the projection error estimate, namely the estimate \eqref{eq:l2_norm_optimal} in Theorem~\ref{th:main_new_}, provides improved convergence rates in comparison with the bound \eqref{eq:deltaest}.

\begin{figure}[htp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{LShape_L2_with_REE.eps}
    \caption{\label{fig:lshape-l2}Bounds on the $L^2(\Omega)$ distances of spaces of eigenfunctions
    {$\delta_b(E_k,E_{h,k})$} for the L-shaped domain and four leading clusters {$k=1,2,3,4$}.
    }
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{LShape_H1_N.eps}
    \caption{\label{fig:lshape-h1}Bounds on the energy distances of spaces of eigenfunctions {$\delta_a(E_k,E_{h,k})$} for the L-shaped domain and the four leading clusters {$k=1,2,3,4$}.
    }
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}
\label{se:conclusions}

For finite element eigenfunctions, we derived
a projection error-based
bound on the $L^2$
distance $\delta_b$ by employing the explicitly
known value of the constant {$C_h$} in the \emph{a priori} error estimate for the energy projection.
The obtained optimal estimate of $\delta_b$ can be further utilized to improve the bound for the energy distance $\delta_a$.
The derived bound is fully computable and guaranteed.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}