On a class of polynomials connected to Bell polynomials

Abstract: In this paper, we study a class of sequences of polynomials linked to the sequence of Bell polynomials. Some sequences of this class have applications on the theory of hyperbolic differential equations and other sequences generalize Laguerre polynomials and associated Lah polynomials. We discuss, for these polynomials, their explicit expressions, relations to the successive derivatives of a given function, real zeros and recurrence relations. Some known results are significantly simplified.

\section{Introduction}

In \cite{erd}, there are many polynomials having applications on the
hyperbolic partial differential equation
\begin{equation*}
Au_{xx}+2Bu_{xy}+Cu_{yy}+Du_{x}+Eu_{y}+F=0\text{\ with }AD>BC,
\end{equation*
for which the following two sequences of polynomials $\left( U_{n}\left(
x\right) \right) $ and $\left( V_{n}\left( x\right) \right) $ defined b
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }U_{n}\left( x\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&\left(
1-t\right) ^{-1/2}\exp \left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{-1/2}-1\right)
\right) , \\
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }V_{n}\left( x\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&\left(
1-t\right) ^{-3/2}\exp \left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{-1/2}-1\right)
\right)
\end{eqnarray*
are considered. These polynomials have applications to the theory of
hyperbolic differential equations, see \cite[pp. 391--398]{cou}. They can be
expressed as follows \cite[pp. 257--258]{erd}
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{n}\left( x\right) &=&xe^{-x}\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{2}\right) }\right)
^{n}\left( x^{2n-1}e^{x}\right) , \\
V_{n}\left( x\right) &=&\frac{e^{-x}}{x}\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{2}\right)
}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{2n+1}e^{x}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
Recently, two studies of the sequence of polynomials $\left( U_{n}\left(
x\right) \right) $ are given in \cite{kim,qi}.\newline
Motivated by these works, to give more properties of these polynomials, we
prefer to consider their generalized sequence of polynomials $\left(
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) $ defined b
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left(
x\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!}=\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha }\exp \left( x\left(
\left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) \right) ,\  \  \alpha ,\beta \in \mathbb{
},\  \beta \neq 0..
\end{equation*
The first few values of the sequence $\left( P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta
\right) }\left( -\frac{x}{\beta }\right) ;n\geq 0\right) $ are to b
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{0}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( -\frac{x}{\beta }\right) &=&1, \\
P_{1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( -\frac{x}{\beta }\right)
&=&x-\alpha , \\
P_{2}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( -\frac{x}{\beta }\right)
&=&x^{2}-\left( 2\alpha +\beta -1\right) x+\left( \alpha \right) _{2}, \\
P_{3}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( -\frac{x}{\beta }\right)
&=&x^{3}-3\left( \alpha +\beta -1\right) x^{2}+\left( 3\alpha ^{2}+3\alpha
\beta -6\alpha +\beta ^{2}-3\beta +2\right) x-\left( \alpha \right) _{3},
\end{eqnarray*
where $\left( \alpha \right) _{n}:=\alpha \left( \alpha -1\right) \cdots
\left( \alpha -n+1\right) $ \ if \ $n\geq 1$ \ and \ $\left( \alpha \right)
_{0}:=1.$\newline
We use also the notation $\left \langle \alpha \right \rangle _{n}:=\alpha
\left( \alpha +1\right) \cdots \left( \alpha +n-1\right) $ \ if \ $n\geq 1$
\ and \ $\left \langle \alpha \right \rangle _{0}:=1.$\newline
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we give different
expressions for $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) .$ In
the third section we give a special expression for $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ and we show that it has only real zeros
under certain conditions on $\alpha $ \ and $\beta .$ In the fourth section,
we give differential equations arising from of the polynomials
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }$ and some recurrence relations, and,
in the last section we consider some particular polynomials.

\section{Explicit expressions for the polynomials $P_{n}^{\left( \protec
\alpha ,\protect \beta \right) }$}

In this section, we give some explicit expressions for $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) .$ Two expressions of $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ related to Dobinski's formula and
generalized Stirling numbers are given by the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}
\label{P1}There hol
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =e^{-x}\underset{k\geq
}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) x^{k},
\end{equation*
where
\begin{equation*}
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) =\frac{1}{k!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}
\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{k-j}\binom{k}{j}\left \langle -\alpha -\beta
j\right \rangle _{n}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The first identity follows from the expansio
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left(
x\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&e^{-x}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha }\exp \left(
x\left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }\right) \\
&=&e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }x^{k}\frac{\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha
+\beta k}}{k!} \\
&=&e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\frac{x^{k}}{k!}\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum
\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!} \\
&=&\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left( e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left
\langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}\right) \frac
t^{n}}{n!},
\end{eqnarray*
and, the second identity follows from the first by expansion $e^{-x}$ in
power series.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
\label{P5}There hold
\begin{equation*}
x^{n}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\widetilde{S}_{\alpha ,\beta }\left(
n,k\right) P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \  \  \text
with}\  \  \widetilde{S}_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) =\left( -1\right)
^{n-k}S_{-\frac{\alpha }{\beta },\frac{1}{\beta }}\left( n,k\right) .
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Sinc
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq k}{\sum }S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!
=\frac{1}{k!}\underset{n\geq k}{\sum }\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right)
^{k}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( 0\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!}
\frac{1}{k!}\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) ^{k}\left(
1-t\right) ^{\alpha },
\end{equation*
it result
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left( \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\widetilde
S}_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) \right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left(
-1\right) ^{k}P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \underset
n\geq k}{\sum }S_{-\frac{\alpha }{\beta },\frac{1}{\beta }}\left( n,k\right)
\frac{\left( -t\right) ^{n}}{n!} \\
&=&\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left( -1\right) ^{k}\frac{P_{k}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) }{k!}\left( \left( 1+t\right) ^{\frac{1}
\beta }}-1\right) ^{k}\left( 1+t\right) ^{-\frac{\alpha }{\beta }} \\
&=&\left( 1+t\right) ^{-\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum
P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \frac{\left( 1-\left(
1+t\right) ^{\frac{1}{\beta }}\right) ^{k}}{k!} \\
&=&\exp \left( xt\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
which shows the desired identity.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{C4}There hold
\begin{equation*}
\left \langle -\alpha -\beta x\right \rangle _{n}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}
\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,j\right) \left( x\right) _{j}.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $\left \langle -\alpha -\beta x\right \rangle _{n}=\underset{j=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}\delta \left( n,j\right) \left( x\right) _{j}.$ Then,
from Proposition \ref{P1} we ge
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =e^{-x}\underset{k\geq
}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}
\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\delta \left( n,j\right) \left( e^{-x
\underset{k\geq j}{\sum }\left( k\right) _{j}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}\right)
\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\delta \left( n,j\right) x^{j},
\end{equation*
which gives $\delta \left( n,j\right) =S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,j\right) .$
\end{proof}

\noindent If $\mathcal{B}_{n}$ denote the $n$-th Bell polynomial, then when
we replace $t$ by $1-e^{t}$ in the generating function of the sequence
\left( P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) ,$ then
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ can be written in the
basis $\left \{ 1,\mathcal{B}_{1}\left( x\right) ,\ldots ,\mathcal{B
_{n}\left( x\right) \right \} $ as follows:

\begin{proposition}
\label{P2}There hold
\begin{equation*}
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{k}S\left( n,k\right)
P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\binom{n}{k}\alpha ^{n-k}\beta ^{k}\mathcal{B}_{k}\left( x\right)
,
\end{equation*
or equivalentl
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\beta ^{j}\left( \underset{k=j}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left(
-1\right) ^{k}\left \vert s\left( n,k\right) \right \vert \alpha
^{k-j}\right) \mathcal{B}_{j}\left( x\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $s\left( n,k\right) $ and $S\left( n,k\right) $ are, respectively, the
Stirling numbers of the first and second kind.
\end{proposition}

\noindent Let $B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left( \left( a_{i},i\geq
1\right) ;\left( b_{i},i\geq 1\right) \right) $ are the partial $r$-Bell
polynomials \cite{cho,mih3,sha} defined b
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq k}{\sum }B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left(
a_{l};b_{l}\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!}=\frac{1}{k!}\left( \underset{j\geq 1}
\sum }a_{j}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}\right) ^{k}\left( \underset{j\geq 0}{\sum
b_{j+1}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}\right) ^{r}.
\end{equation*
and $B_{n,k}\left( \left( a_{i},i\geq 1\right) \right) =B_{n,k}^{\left(
0\right) }\left( \left( a_{i},i\geq 1\right) ;\left( b_{i},i\geq 1\right)
\right) $ are the partial Bell polynomials \cite{abo,com,mih1,mih2}. An
expression of $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ in
terms of the partial $r$-Bell polynomials is as follows.

\begin{proposition}
\label{P3}For any non-negative integer $r,$ there hol
\begin{equation*}
S_{r\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) =B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left(
\left \langle -\beta \right \rangle _{j};\left \langle -\alpha \right
\rangle _{j-1}\right) ,
\end{equation*
which impl
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( r\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left( \left \langle -\beta
\right \rangle _{j};\left \langle -\alpha \right \rangle _{j-1}\right) x^{k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
From definition we may stat
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{k}P_{n}^{\left(
r\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( 0\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&\left( \left(
1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) ^{k}\left( 1-t\right) ^{r\alpha } \\
&=&\left( \underset{n\geq 1}{\sum }\left \langle -\beta \right \rangle _{n
\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right) ^{k}\left( \underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle
-\alpha \right \rangle _{n}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\right) ^{r} \\
&=&k!\underset{n\geq k}{\sum }B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left( \left
\langle -\beta \right \rangle _{j};\left \langle -\alpha \right \rangle
_{j-1}\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!},
\end{eqnarray*
and by connection to $S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) $ defined above,
this last expansion gives\newline
$S_{r\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) =\frac{1}{k!}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{k}P_{n}^{\left( r\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( 0\right)
=B_{n+r,k+r}^{\left( r\right) }\left( \left \langle -\beta \right \rangle
_{j};\left \langle -\alpha \right \rangle _{j-1}\right) .$
\end{proof}

\section{Some properties of the polynomials $P_{n}^{\left( \protect \alpha
\protect \beta \right) }$}

In this section, we show the link of the sequence of polynomials $\left(
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) $ to the
successive derivatives of a given function and we give sufficient conditions
on $\alpha $ and $\beta $ for which the polynomial $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }$ has only real zeros.

\begin{lemma}
\label{L1}There hold
\begin{equation*}
P_{n+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\left( n-\alpha
-\beta x\right) P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) -\beta
\frac{d}{dx}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) .
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{P1} we have $e^{x}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) =\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta
k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}.$ The
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\beta x\frac{d}{dx}\left( e^{x}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left(
x\right) \right) &=&-\beta \underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }k\left \langle -\alpha
-\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!} \\
&=&\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left( -\alpha -\beta k+n\right) \left \langle
-\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}+\left( \alpha -n\right)
\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n
\frac{x^{k}}{k!} \\
&=&\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle
_{n+1}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}+\left( \alpha -n\right) \underset{k\geq 0}{\sum
\left \langle -\alpha -\beta k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!} \\
&=&e^{x}P_{n+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) +\left(
\alpha -n\right) e^{x}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
and this gives the desired identity.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{T4}For $x>0$ and $n\geq 0$ we hav
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x^{\beta }\right) &=&\left(
-1\right) ^{n}x^{n-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right)
^{n}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) , \\
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x^{-\beta }\right) &=&x^{\alpha
+1}e^{-x^{-\beta }}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{n-1-\alpha
}e^{x^{-\beta }}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
For the first identity, Lemma \ref{L1} give
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\left( n-1-\alpha
-\beta x\right) P_{n-1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right)
-\beta x\frac{d}{dx}P_{n-1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) ,
\end{equation*
and if we set $f_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) :=\left(
-1\right) ^{n}x^{\frac{\alpha -n}{\beta }}e^{x}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta
\right) }\left( x\right) ,$ the last identity can also be written a
\begin{equation*}
f_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\beta x^{1-\frac{1}
\beta }}\frac{d}{dx}f_{n-1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right)
\frac{d}{d\left( x^{1/\beta }\right) }f_{n-1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right)
\end{equation*
which implies $f_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\left(
\frac{d}{d\left( x^{1/\beta }\right) }\right) ^{n}f_{0}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{1/\beta }\right)
}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}e^{x}\right) .$ So, we ge
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\left( -1\right)
^{n}x^{\frac{n-\alpha }{\beta }}e^{-x}\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{1/\beta
}\right) }\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\frac{\alpha }{\beta }}e^{x}\right)
\end{equation*
or equivalently $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( y^{\beta
}\right) =\left( -1\right) ^{n}y^{n-\alpha }e^{-y^{\beta }}\left( \frac{d}{d
}\right) ^{n}\left( y^{\alpha }e^{y^{\beta }}\right) .$\newline
For the second identity, we proceed as follow
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{-1/\beta }\right) }\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\frac
\alpha +1-n}{\beta }}e^{x}\right) &=&\left( \frac{d}{dy}\right)
_{y=x^{-1/\beta }}^{n}\left( y^{n-\alpha -1}e^{y^{-\beta }}\right) \\
&=&\left( \frac{d}{dy}\right) _{y=x^{-1/\beta }}^{n}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum
\frac{1}{k!}y^{n-1-\alpha -k\beta } \\
&=&\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left( n-1-\alpha -k\beta \right) _{n}\left.
\frac{y^{-1-\alpha -k\beta }}{k!}\right \vert _{y=x^{-1/\beta }} \\
&=&x^{\frac{\alpha +1}{\beta }}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle
-\alpha -k\beta \right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!} \\
&=&x^{\frac{\alpha +1}{\beta }}e^{x}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
i.e. $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =x^{-\frac{\alpha
+1}{\beta }}e^{-x}\left( \frac{d}{d\left( x^{-1/\beta }\right) }\right)
^{n}\left( x^{\frac{\alpha +1-n}{\beta }}e^{x}\right) $ which is equivalent
to the desired identity.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The first hand of Theorem \ref{T4} can also be proved directly using
Proposition \ref{P1} as follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x^{\beta }\right)
&=&e^{-x^{\beta }}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle -\alpha -\beta
k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{\beta k}}{k!} \\
&=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{n-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum
\left( \alpha +\beta k\right) _{n}\frac{x^{\alpha +\beta k-n}}{k!} \\
&=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{n-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{n}\left( \underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\frac{x^{\alpha +\beta k}}{k!
\right) \\
&=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{n-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{remark}

\noindent Theorem \ref{T4} proves that $\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( x^{\beta
}\right) $ can also be written in a similar form as follows.

\begin{proposition}
For $x>0$ and $n\geq 0$ we hav
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( \lambda +x^{\beta }\right) =x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta
}}\left( x\frac{d}{dx}-\frac{\alpha }{\beta }+\lambda \right) ^{n}\left(
x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) ,\  \  \beta \neq 0
\end{equation*
In particular, $\lambda =\frac{\alpha }{\beta },$ we ge
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( \frac{\alpha }{\beta }+x^{\beta }\right) =x^{-\alpha
}e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( x\frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\alpha
}e^{x^{\beta }}\right) ,\  \  \beta \neq 0,
\end{equation*
or equivalentl
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( \frac{\alpha }{\beta }+e^{\beta y}\right)
=e^{-e^{\beta y}-\alpha y}\left( \frac{d}{dy}\right) ^{n}\left( e^{e^{\beta
y}+\alpha y}\right) ,\  \  \beta \neq 0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{P2} we ge
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\alpha ^{n}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right)
^{k}S\left( n,k\right) P_{k}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right)
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\binom{n}{k}\left( \frac{\beta }{\alpha
\right) ^{k}\mathcal{B}_{k}\left( x\right) ,
\end{equation*
which implies by using Theorem \ref{T4
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \frac{\beta }{\alpha }\right) ^{n}\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( x^{\beta
}\right) &=&\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{n-k}\binom{
}{k}\frac{1}{\alpha ^{k}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{\sum }}\left( -1\right)
^{j}S\left( k,j\right) P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x^{\beta
}\right) \\
&=&\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{n-k}\binom{n}{k
\frac{1}{\alpha ^{k}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{\sum }}\left( -1\right)
^{j}S\left( k,j\right) \left( -1\right) ^{j}x^{j-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta
}}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{j}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) \\
&=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n
{\sum }}\binom{n}{k}\left( -\frac{1}{\alpha }\right) ^{k}\underset{j=0}
\overset{k}{\sum }}S\left( k,j\right) x^{j}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right)
^{j}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
On using the identity $\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{\sum }}S\left( k,j\right)
x^{j}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{j}=\left( x\frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{k}$ \cit
{eu}, it follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( x^{\beta }\right) &=&\left( -\frac{\alpha }{\beta
\right) ^{n}x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }
\binom{n}{k}\left( -\frac{x}{\alpha }\frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{k}\left(
x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) \\
&=&\left( -\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right) ^{n}x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta
}}\left( 1-\frac{x}{\alpha }\frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\alpha
}e^{x^{\beta }}\right) \\
&=&x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( x\frac{d}{dx}-\frac{\alpha }{\beta
\right) ^{n}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{B}_{n}\left( \lambda +x^{\beta }\right) &=&\underset{j=0}{\overset{
}{\sum }}\binom{n}{j}\mathcal{B}_{n-j}\left( \lambda \right) \mathcal{B
_{j}\left( x^{\beta }\right) \\
&=&x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\binom{n}{j
\lambda ^{n-j}\left( x\frac{d}{dx}-\frac{\alpha }{\beta }\right) ^{j}\left(
x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) \\
&=&x^{-\alpha }e^{-x^{\beta }}\left( x\frac{d}{dx}-\frac{\alpha }{\beta
+\lambda \right) ^{n}\left( x^{\alpha }e^{x^{\beta }}\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*
which remains true for $\alpha =0.$
\end{proof}

\noindent To study the real zeros of $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) },$
we use the following known theorem. Indeed, let $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ be two
polynomials having only real zeros and let $x_{n}\leq \cdots \leq x_{1}$ and
$y_{m}\leq \cdots \leq y_{1}$ be the zeros of $P_{1}$ and $P_{2},$
respectively. Following \cite{wag}, we say that $P_{2}$ interlaces $P_{1}$
if $m=n-1$ an
\begin{equation*}
x_{n}\leq y_{n-1}\leq x_{n-1}\leq \cdots \leq y_{1}\leq x_{1}
\end{equation*
and that $P_{2}$ alternates left of $P_{1}$ if $m=n$ an
\begin{equation*}
y_{n}\leq x_{n}\leq y_{n-1}\leq x_{n-1}\leq \cdots \leq y_{1}\leq x_{1}.
\end{equation*}

\begin{theorem}
\label{T1}\cite[Th. 1]{wan} Let $a_{1},a_{2},\ b_{1},\ b_{2}$ be real
numbers, let $P_{1},$ $P_{2}$ be two polynomials whose leading coefficients
have the same sign and let $P\left( x\right) =\left( a_{1}x+b_{1}\right)
P_{1}\left( x\right) +\left( a_{2}x+b_{2}\right) P_{2}\left( x\right) .$
Suppose that $P_{1},\ P_{2}$ have only real zeros and $P_{2}$ interlaces
P_{1}$ or $P_{2}$ alternates left of $P_{1}.$ Then, if $a_{1}b_{2}\geq
b_{1}a_{2},$ $P(x)\ $has only real zeros.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}
\label{T3}Le
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &=&\left \{ \left( \alpha ,\beta \right) \in \mathbb{R}^{2}:\left( \beta
-1\right) ^{2}+4\alpha \beta \geq 0,\  \  \beta <0,\  \alpha \leq 2\right \} ,
\\
\widetilde{A} &=&\left \{ \left( \alpha ,\beta \right) \in \mathbb{R
^{2}:\beta >0,\  \alpha \geq 1\right \} .
\end{eqnarray*
Then, for $\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) \in A,$ the polynomial
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }$ has only real zeros, $n\geq 1,$ and,
for $\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) \in \widetilde{A},$ the polynomials
P_{1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) },\ldots ,P_{\left \lceil \alpha
\right
\rceil }^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }$ has only real zeros, where
$\left
\lceil \alpha \right \rceil $ is the smallest integer $\geq \alpha .$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $n\geq 1.$ For $n=1,$ the polynomial
P_{1}^{\left( \alpha \right) }\left( x\right) =-\beta x-\alpha $ has a real
zero, and for $n=2,$ the polynomial
\begin{equation*}
P_{2}^{\left( \alpha \right) }\left( x\right) =\beta ^{2}x^{2}+\beta \left(
2\alpha +\beta -1\right) x+\alpha \left( \alpha -1\right)
\end{equation*
has only real zeros when $\left( \beta -1\right) ^{2}+4\alpha \beta \geq 0$
and $\beta <0.$\newline
Assume that $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ has $n$
\left( \geq 2\right) $ real zeros different from zero, since the heading
coefficient of $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ is
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,n\right) =\left( -\beta \right) ^{n}$ and then
heading coefficient of $\frac{d}{dx}P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) $ is $nS_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,n\right) =n\left( -\beta
\right) ^{n},$ then they are of the same sign. Also, since $\frac{d}{dx
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ interlaces
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ it follows from
Theorem \ref{T1} that if $-\beta \left( n-\alpha \right) \geq 0,$
P_{n+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }$ has only real zeros. The condition
-\beta \left( n-\alpha \right) \geq 0$ is satisfied when $\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) \in A$ because $-\beta \left( n-\alpha \right) \geq -\beta
\left( 2-\alpha \right) \geq 0.$ It is also satisfied when $n\in \left[
1,\left \lceil \alpha \right \rceil -1\right] $ and $\left( \alpha ,\beta
\right) \in \widetilde{A}$ because $-\beta \left( n-\alpha \right) \geq
-\beta \left( \left \lceil \alpha \right \rceil -1-\alpha \right) \geq 0.$
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{C1}For $\alpha \leq 0$ and $\beta <0$ the sequence $\left( S_{\alpha
,\beta }\left( n,k\right) ;\ 0\leq k\leq n\right) $ is strictly log-concave,
more precisel
\begin{equation*}
\left( S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) \right) ^{2}\geq \left( 1+\frac{
}{k}\right) \left( 1+\frac{1}{n-k}\right) S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left(
n,k+1\right) S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k-1\right) ,\  \ 1\leq k\leq n-1.
\end{equation*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
For $\alpha \leq 0$ and $\beta <0$ the polynomial $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ has only real zeros and its coefficients
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) $ are non-negative, so Newton's
inequality \cite[pp. 52]{har} completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Recurrence relations}

In \cite[Sec. 2]{kim} (see also \cite{qi}), the authors give a differential
equation having as solution the function
\begin{equation*}
\left( 1-t\right) ^{-1/2}\exp \left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right)
^{-1/2}-1\right) \right)
\end{equation*
from which they conclude a generalized recurrence relation for the sequence
\left( U_{n}\left( x\right) \right) .$ The results of this section simplify
and generalize these results.

\begin{theorem}
\label{T2}The function
\begin{equation*}
F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) :=\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha }\exp
\left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) \right)
\end{equation*
satisfie
\begin{equation*}
\left( \frac{d}{dt}\right) ^{m}F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right)
=F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) \left( 1-t\right) ^{-m}P_{m}^{\left(
\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }\right) .
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
From the definition of $F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) $ and Corollary
\ref{C4} we obtai
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left( \frac{d}{dt}\right) ^{m}F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) &=&\left(
\frac{d}{dt}\right) ^{m}\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha }\exp \left(
x\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) \right) \right) \\
&=&e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\frac{x^{k}}{k!}\left( \frac{d}{dt}\right)
^{m}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha +k\beta } \\
&=&e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\frac{x^{k}}{k!}\left \langle -\alpha
-k\beta \right \rangle _{m}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha +k\beta -m} \\
&=&e^{-x}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha -m}\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,j\right) \underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left( k\right)
_{j}\frac{x^{k}\left( 1-t\right) ^{k\beta }}{k!} \\
&=&e^{-x}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha -m}\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,j\right) x^{j}\left( 1-t\right) ^{j\beta
\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\frac{x^{k}\left( 1-t\right) ^{k\beta }}{k!} \\
&=&\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha -m}\exp \left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right)
^{\beta }-1\right) \right) \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{\alpha
,\beta }\left( m,j\right) x^{j}\left( 1-t\right) ^{j\beta } \\
&=&F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) \left( 1-t\right) ^{-m}\underset{j=0}
\overset{m}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,j\right) x^{j}\left(
1-t\right) ^{j\beta } \\
&=&F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) \left( 1-t\right) ^{-m}P_{m}^{\left(
\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

\noindent The next corollary gives an expression of $P_{n+m}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ in terms of the family $\left(
x^{k}P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) .$ The
obtained expression is similar to the expression of the Bell number $B_{n+m}$
given in \cite{spi}, Bell polynomial $B_{n+m}$ given in \cite{bel,gou} and
several generalizations given later, see \cite{kar,mah,mez,mih4,xu}.

\begin{corollary}
\label{C3}For $n,m=0,1,2,\ldots ,$ we hav
\begin{equation*}
P_{n+m}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }}\binom{n}{j}\left
\langle m-\beta k\right \rangle _{n-j}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right)
x^{k}P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) .
\end{equation*
In particular, for $m=1$ or $n=0,$ we obtai
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{n+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) &=&-\underset{j=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}\binom{n}{j}\left( \alpha \left( n-j\right) !+\beta
x\left \langle 1-\beta \right \rangle _{n-j}\right) P_{j}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) , \\
P_{m}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\underset{k=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right) x^{k}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
On using Theorem \ref{T2}, we hav
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }P_{n+m}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left(
x\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} &=&\left( \frac{d}{dt}\right) ^{m}F_{\alpha ,\beta
}\left( t,x\right) \\
&=&F_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( t,x\right) \left( 1-t\right) ^{-m}P_{m}^{\left(
\alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }\right) \\
&=&\left( \underset{i\geq 0}{\sum }P_{i}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) \frac{t^{i}}{i!}\right) \left( \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}
\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right) x^{k}\left( 1-t\right) ^{-m+\beta
k}\right) \\
&=&\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right)
x^{k}\left( \underset{i\geq 0}{\sum }P_{i}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
}\left( x\right) \frac{t^{i}}{i!}\right) \left( \underset{j\geq 0}{\sum
\left \langle m-\beta k\right \rangle _{j}\frac{t^{j}}{j!}\right) \\
&=&\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right)
x^{k}\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left( \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }
\binom{n}{j}\left \langle m-\beta k\right \rangle _{n-j}P_{j}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!} \\
&=&\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\left( \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }
\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{\sum }}\binom{n}{j}\left \langle m-\beta k\right
\rangle _{n-j}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,k\right) x^{k}P_{j}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!}
\end{eqnarray*
which follows gives the desired identity.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For $n=1$ in Corollary \ref{C3} we ge
\begin{equation*}
P_{m+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}
\overset{m+1}{\sum }}\left( \left( m-\alpha -\beta j\right) S_{\alpha ,\beta
}\left( m,j\right) -\beta S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,j-1\right) \right)
x^{j}.
\end{equation*
So, since from Proposition \ref{P1} we have $P_{m+1}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta
\right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overset{m+1}{\sum }}S_{\alpha
,\beta }\left( m+1,j\right) x^{j},$ it result
\begin{equation*}
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m+1,j\right) =\left( m-\alpha -\beta j\right)
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m,j\right) -\beta S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left(
m,j-1\right) ,
\end{equation*
with $S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( m+1,j\right) =0$ if $j<0$ or $j>m+1.$
\end{remark}

\begin{proposition}
\label{P4}There hold
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{j}S_{\alpha -\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta
^{\prime }}\beta ,\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( n,j\right)
P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) }\left( x\right) .
\end{equation*
In particular, for $\left( \alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) =\left(
-\alpha ,-\beta \right) ,$ we ge
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{j}L\left( n,k\right) P_{k}^{\left( -\alpha
,-\beta \right) }\left( x\right) ,
\end{equation*
where $L\left( n,k\right) $ is the $\left( n,k\right) $-th Lah number, see
\cite{mih5,nyu}.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
From proposition \ref{P5} we have $x^{k}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{\sum }
\left( -1\right) ^{k-j}S_{-\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta ^{\prime }},\frac{
}{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( k,j\right) P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ^{\prime },\beta
^{\prime }\right) }\left( x\right) .$ \newline
So, use the identity $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right)
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) x^{k}$
of Proposition \ref{P1} to obtain

\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\underset{k=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) \left( \underset{j=0}
\overset{k}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{k-j}S_{-\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta
^{\prime }},\frac{1}{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( k,j\right) P_{j}^{\left(
\alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) }\left( x\right) \right) \\
&=&\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( \underset{k=j}{\overset{n}{\sum
}\left( -1\right) ^{k-j}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) S_{-\frac{\alpha
^{\prime }}{\beta ^{\prime }},\frac{1}{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( k,j\right)
\right) P_{j}^{\left( \alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) }\left(
x\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
Now, since from the proof of Proposition \ref{P5}, we hav
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq k}{\sum }S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!
=\frac{1}{k!}\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\beta }-1\right) ^{k}\left(
1-t\right) ^{\alpha },
\end{equation*
it follows that the exponential generating function of the sequence $\left(
M\left( n,j\right) ;n\geq j\right) $ defined b
\begin{equation*}
M\left( n,j\right) :=\underset{k=j}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right)
^{k-j}S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) S_{-\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta
^{\prime }},\frac{1}{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( k,j\right)
\end{equation*
is to b
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq j}{\sum }M\left( n,j\right) \frac{t^{n}}{n!}=\frac{\left(
-1\right) ^{j}}{j!}\left( 1-t\right) ^{\alpha -\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}
\beta ^{\prime }}\beta }\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{\frac{\beta }{\beta
^{\prime }}}-1\right) ^{j}
\end{equation*
which shows that $M\left( n,j\right) =\left( -1\right) ^{j}S_{\alpha -\frac
\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta ^{\prime }}\beta ,\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{\prime }
}\left( n,j\right) .$
\end{proof}

\noindent As a consequence of Proposition \ref{P4}, by combining it with
Propositions \ref{P1}, it results:

\begin{corollary}
For any real numbers $\alpha ,\alpha ^{\prime },\beta ,\beta ^{\prime }$
such that $\beta ^{\prime }\neq 0,$ there hol
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \langle -\alpha -\beta x\right \rangle _{n} &=&\underset{j=0}{\overset
n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{j}S_{\alpha -\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta
^{\prime }}\beta ,\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( n,j\right) \left
\langle -\alpha ^{\prime }-\beta ^{\prime }x\right \rangle _{j}, \\
S_{\alpha ,\beta }\left( n,k\right) &=&\underset{j=k}{\overset{n}{\sum }
\left( -1\right) ^{j}S_{\alpha -\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{\beta ^{\prime }
\beta ,\frac{\beta }{\beta ^{\prime }}}\left( n,j\right) S_{\alpha ^{\prime
},\beta ^{\prime }}\left( j,k\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{corollary}

\section{Application to particular polynomials}

\subsection{Application to the polynomials $U_{n}$ and $V_{n}$}

For $n\geq 1,$ the polynomials $U_{n}=P_{n}^{\left( -1/2,-1/2\right) }$ and
V_{n}=P_{n}^{\left( -3/2,-1/2\right) }$ defined above, Propositions \ref{P1
, \ref{P2} and \ref{P3} giv
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{ll}
U_{n}\left( x\right) =e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle \frac{k+
}{2}\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}, & V_{n}\left( x\right) =e^{-x
\underset{k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle \frac{k+3}{2}\right \rangle _{n}\frac
x^{k}}{k!}, \\
&  \\
U_{n}\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{-1/2,-1/2}\left(
n,k\right) x^{k}, & V_{n}\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }
S_{-3/2,-1/2}\left( n,k\right) x^{k}, \\
&  \\
U_{n}\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( \underset{k=j
{\overset{n}{\sum }}\frac{\left \vert s\left( n,k\right) \right \vert }{2^{k
}\right) \mathcal{B}_{j}\left( x\right) , & V_{n}\left( x\right) =\underset
j=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\frac{1}{3^{j}}\left( \underset{k=j}{\overset{n}
\sum }}\left \vert s\left( n,k\right) \right \vert \left( \frac{3}{2}\right)
^{k}\right) \mathcal{B}_{j}\left( x\right) , \\
&  \\
U_{n}\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}B_{n+1,k+1}^{\left(
1\right) }\left( \left \langle \frac{1}{2}\right \rangle _{j};\left \langle
\frac{1}{2}\right \rangle _{j-1}\right) x^{k}, & V_{n}\left( x\right)
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}B_{n+1,k+1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( \left
\langle \frac{1}{2}\right \rangle _{j};\left \langle \frac{3}{2}\right
\rangle _{j-1}\right) x^{k}
\end{array
\end{equation*
Theorem \ref{T3} proves that the polynomials $U_{n}$ and $V_{n},$ $n\geq 1,$
have only real zeros and Theorem \ref{T4} shows that, for $x>0,$ there hol
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{n}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\right) &=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{n}\sqrt{x
e^{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{
}}e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}}\right) , \\
V_{n}\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\right) &=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}x^{n+1}\sqrt{x
e^{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( \frac{1}{x\sqrt
x}}e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}}\right)
\end{eqnarray*
an
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{n}\left( \sqrt{x}\right) &=&\sqrt{x}e^{-\sqrt{x}}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{n}\left( x^{n-1}\sqrt{x}e^{\sqrt{x}}\right) , \\
V_{n}\left( \sqrt{x}\right) &=&\sqrt{x}e^{-x\sqrt{x}}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{n}\left( x^{n-1}\sqrt{x}e^{x\sqrt{x}}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}

\subsection{Application to the generalized Laguerre polynomials}

We note here that the sequence of generalized Laguerre polynomials $\left(
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) \right) $ (see for example
\cite{boy,djo,ras}) defined b
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right)
t^{n}=\left( 1-t\right) ^{-\lambda -1}\exp \left( -\frac{xt}{1-t}\right)
\end{equation*
presents a particular case of the sequence $\left( P_{n}^{\left( \alpha
,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) \right) ,$ i.e. $L_{n}^{\left( \lambda
\right) }\left( x\right) =\frac{1}{n!}P_{n}^{\left( -\lambda -1,-1\right)
}\left( x\right) .$\newline
Propositions \ref{P1}, \ref{P2} and \ref{P3} giv
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\frac{e^{-x}}{n!}\underset
k\geq 0}{\sum }\left \langle \lambda +1+k\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!},
\\
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\frac{1}{n!}\underset{k=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}S_{-\lambda -1,-1}\left( n,k\right) x^{k}, \\
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\frac{1}{n!}\underset{j=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}\left( \underset{k=j}{\overset{n}{\sum }}\left \vert
s\left( n,k\right) \right \vert \left( \lambda +1\right) ^{k-j}\right)
\mathcal{B}_{j}\left( x\right) , \\
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\frac{1}{n!}\underset{k=0}
\overset{n}{\sum }}B_{n+1,k+1}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( \left \langle
1\right \rangle _{j};\left \langle \lambda +1\right \rangle _{j-1}\right)
x^{k}.
\end{eqnarray*
To write $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ in the
basis $\left \{ 1,L_{1}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) ,\ldots
,L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) \right \} ,$ set $\left(
\alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) =\left( -\lambda -1,-1\right) $ in
Proposition \ref{P4} to obtai
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{j}j!S_{\lambda -\lambda \beta -\beta ,-\beta
}\left( n,j\right) L_{j}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) .
\end{equation*
Theorem \ref{T3} proves the known property on the generalized Laguerre
polynomials $L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) },$ $n\geq 1,$ that have only
real zeros (here for $\lambda \geq -2$) and Theorem \ref{T4} shows that, for
$x>0,$ there hol
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( \frac{1}{x}\right) &=&\frac{\left(
-1\right) ^{n}}{n!}x^{n+1+\lambda }e^{-\frac{1}{x}}\left( \frac{d}{dx
\right) ^{n}\left( x^{-\lambda -1}e^{\frac{1}{x}}\right) , \\
L_{n}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\left( x\right) &=&\frac{1}{n!}x^{-\lambda
}e^{-x}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{n+\lambda }e^{x}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*
We remark that for $\lambda =2r-1$ be a positive odd integer, we obtai
\begin{equation*}
L_{n}^{\left( 2r-1\right) }\left( \frac{1}{x}\right) =\frac{\left( -1\right)
^{n}}{n!}x^{n+2r}e^{-\frac{1}{x}}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( \frac
1}{x^{2r}}e^{\frac{1}{x}}\right) =\frac{1}{n!}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}
\sum }}\frac{L_{r}\left( n+r,k+r\right) }{x^{k}},
\end{equation*
where $L_{r}\left( n,k\right) $ is the $\left( n,k\right) $-th $r$-Lah
number, see \cite{mih5,nyu}.

\subsection{Application to the associated Lah polynomials}

Let $m$ be a positive integer. The sequence of the associated Lah
polynomials $\left( \mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right)
\right) $ are studied in \cite{ahu,nan} and are defined b
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n\geq 0}{\sum }\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right)
\frac{t^{n}}{n!}=\exp \left( x\left( \left( 1-t\right) ^{-m}-1\right)
\right) .
\end{equation*
This shows that $\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right)
=P_{n}^{\left( 0,-m\right) }\left( x\right) .$ Propositions \ref{P1}, \re
{P2} and \ref{P3} giv
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) =e^{-x}\underset{k\geq 0}
\sum }\left \langle mk\right \rangle _{n}\frac{x^{k}}{k!}, & \mathcal{L
_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }
S_{0,-m}\left( n,k\right) x^{k}, \\
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overset{n
{\sum }}m^{j}\left \vert s\left( n,j\right) \right \vert \mathcal{B
_{j}\left( x\right) , & \mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right)
\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{\sum }}B_{n,k}\left( \left \langle m\right
\rangle _{j}\right) x^{k}
\end{array
\end{equation*
To write $P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) $ in the
basis $\left \{ 1,\mathcal{L}_{1}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) ,\ldots
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) \right \} ,$ set $\left(
\alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }\right) =\left( 0,-m\right) $ in
Proposition \ref{P4} to obtain
\begin{equation*}
P_{n}^{\left( \alpha ,\beta \right) }\left( x\right) =\underset{j=0}{\overse
{n}{\sum }}\left( -1\right) ^{j}S_{\alpha ,-\frac{\beta }{m}}\left(
n,j\right) \mathcal{L}_{j}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x\right) .
\end{equation*
Theorem \ref{T3} proves a known property of the associated Lah polynomials
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) },$ $n\geq 1,$ that have only real zeros
and Theorem \ref{T4} shows that, for $x>0,$ there hol
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( \frac{1}{x^{m}}\right) &=&\left(
-1\right) ^{n}x^{n}e^{-1/x^{m}}\left( \frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left(
e^{1/x^{m}}\right) , \\
\mathcal{L}_{n}^{\left( m\right) }\left( x^{m}\right) &=&xe^{-x^{m}}\left(
\frac{d}{dx}\right) ^{n}\left( x^{n-1}e^{x^{m}}\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Number Theory (math.NT)


A criterion for nilpotency of a finite group by the sum of element orders

Abstract: Denote the sum of element orders in a finite group $G$ by $\psi(G)$ and let $C_n$ denote the cyclic group of order $n$. In this paper, we prove that if $|G|=n$ and $\psi(G)>\frac{13}{21}\,\psi(C_n)$, then $G$ is nilpotent. Moreover, we have $\psi(G)=\frac{13}{21}\,\psi(C_n)$ if and only if $n=6m$ with $(6,m)=1$ and $G\cong S_3\times C_m$. Two interesting consequences of this result are also presented.

\section{Introduction}
Given a finite group $G$, we consider the functions
\begin{equation}
\psi(G)=\sum_{x\in G}o(x) \mbox{ and } \psi'(G)=\frac{\psi(G)}{\psi(C_{|G|})}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}where $o(x)$ denotes the order of $x$. In \cite{1}, H. Amiri, S.M. Jafarian Amiri and I.M. Isaacs proved the following theorem:

\begin{thmy}
If $G$ is a finite group, then
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)\leq 1,\nonumber
\end{equation}and we have equality if and only if $G$ is cyclic.
\end{thmy}In other words, the cyclic group $C_n$ is the unique group of order $n$ which attains the maximal value $1$ of $\psi'(G)$ among groups of order $n$.\newpage

Since then many authors have studied the function $\psi(G)$ and its relations with the structure of $G$ (see e.g. \cite{2}-\cite{10}). In the papers \cite{4} and \cite{10} M. Amiri and S.M. Jafarian Amiri, and, independently, R. Shen, G. Chen and C. Wu started the investigation of groups with the second largest value of the sum of element orders. M. Herzog, P. Longobardi and M. Maj \cite{6} determined the exact upper bound for $\psi(G)$ for non-cyclic groups of order $n$:

\begin{thmy}
If $G$ is a finite non-cylic group and $q$ is the least prime divisor of the order of $G$, then
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)\leq f(q)=\frac{\left[(q^2-1)q+1\right](q+1)}{q^5+1}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}and the equality holds if and only if $|G|=q^2m$ with $(m,q!)=1$ and $G\cong(C_q\times C_q)\times C_m$.
\end{thmy}Note that the above function $f$ is strictly decreasing on $[2,\infty)$ and consequently the largest value of $\psi'(G)$ is $f(2)=\frac{7}{11}$\,, which is attained for $G\cong(C_2\times C_2)\times C_m$ with $m$ odd. Also, for any prime $q$ we have
\begin{equation}
f(q)<\frac{1}{q-1}\,.
\end{equation}

By using the sum of element orders, several criteria for solvability of finite groups have been also determined (see e.g. \cite{5,7}). Recall here the following theorem of M. Baniasad Asad and B. Khosravi \cite{5}:

\begin{thmy}
If for a finite group $G$ we have
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)>\frac{211}{1617}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}then it is solvable.
\end{thmy}Note that the groups $G\cong A_5\times C_m$ with $(30,m)=1$ satisfy $\psi'(G)=\frac{211}{1617}\,$.
\vspace{0.5mm}

Finally, we recall a recent result of M. Herzog, P. Longobardi and M. Maj \cite{8}, which gives an exact upper bound for $\psi(G)$ for non-cyclic groups of order $2m$ with $m$ odd:

\begin{thmy}
If $G$ is a non-cyclic group of order $2m$ with $m$ odd, then
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)\leq\frac{13}{21}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}and the equality holds if and only if $G\cong S_3\times C_{m'}$ with $(6,m')=1$.
\end{thmy}

Our main result is the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}
If $G$ and a finite group and
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}then $G$ is nilpotent. Moreover, we have $\psi'(G)=\frac{13}{21}$ if and only if $G\cong S_3\times C_m$ with $(6,m)=1$.
\end{theorem}

Using Theorem 1.1 and Lemma 2.2, we are able to determine the largest four values of $\psi'$ and the groups for which they are attained.

\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a finite group satisfying $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}$\,. Then $\psi'(G)\in\{\frac{27}{43}\,, \frac{7}{11}\,, 1\}$, and one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm a)}] $G\cong Q_8\times C_m$, where $m$ is odd;
\item[{\rm b)}] $G\cong (C_2\times C_2)\times C_m$, where $m$ is odd;
\item[{\rm c)}] $G$ is cyclic.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

In other words, $\frac{13}{21}$ is the fourth largest value of $\psi'$ on the class of finite groups.
\smallskip

A generalization of Theorem D can be also inferred from Theorem 1.1.

\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a non-cyclic group of order $2^km$ with $m$ odd and $k\neq 2,3$, then
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)\leq\frac{13}{21}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}and the equality holds if and only if $G\cong S_3\times C_{m'}$ with $(6,m')=1$.
\end{corollary}

For the proof of Theorem 1.1, we need some preliminary results from the papers \cite{1} and \cite{6}.

\begin{lemma}
The following statements hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm 1)}]{\rm ((\cite{6}, Lemma 2.2(3))} $\psi$ is multiplicative, that is if $G=A\times B$, where $A,B$ are subgroups of $G$ satisfying
$(|A|,|B|)=1$, then  $\psi(G)=\psi(A)\psi(B)$; note that this implies that $\psi'$ is also multiplicative;
\item[{\rm 2)}]{\rm ((\cite{6}, Lemma 2.9(1))} $\psi(C_{p^n})=\frac{p^{2n+1}+1}{p+1}$\,;
\item[{\rm 3)}]{\rm ((\cite{6}, Proof of Lemma 2.9(2))} If $n$ be a positive integer larger than $1$, with the largest prime
divisor $p$ and the smallest prime divisor $q$, then $\psi(C_n)\geq\frac{q}{p+1}n^2$\,;
\item[{\rm 4)}]{\rm ((\cite{1}, Corollary B)} If $P$ is a cyclic normal Sylow subgroup of $G$ then $\psi(G)\leq\psi(P)\psi(G/P)$, with equality if and only if $P$ is central in $G$;
\item[{\rm 5)}]{\rm ((\cite{6}, Lemma 2.2(5))} If $G=P\rtimes H$, where $P$ is a cyclic $p$-group, $|H|>1$ and $(p,|H|)=1$, then $\psi(G)=|P|\psi(H)+(\psi(P)-|P|)\psi(C_H(P))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

Inspired by the above results, we came up with the following conjecture.

\begin{conjecture}
If $G$ is a finite group and
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)>\frac{31}{77}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}then $G$ is supersolvable. Moreover, we have $\psi'(G)=\frac{31}{77}$ if and only if $G\cong A_4\times C_m$ with $(6,m)=1$.
\end{conjecture}

\section{Proofs of the main results}

Throughout this section, given a finite group $G$ we will denote by $q$ and $p$ the smallest
and the largest prime divisor of $|G|$, respectively.

\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a finite group. If $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}$ and $G$ is not a $2$-group, then it has a cyclic normal Sylow $r$-subgroup, where either $r=2$ or $r=p$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $G$ is cyclic, we are done. If $G$ is not cyclic, then the conditions $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}$ and (1) imply $q=2$. Also, we have $p\geq 3$ since $G$ is not a $2$-group. By Lemma 1.4, 3), it follows that
\begin{equation}
\psi(G)>\frac{13}{21}\,\psi(C_{|G|})\geq\frac{13}{21}\,\frac{2}{p+1}\,|G|^2=\frac{26}{21(p+1)}\,|G|^2\nonumber
\end{equation}and so there exists $x\in G$ with $o(x)>\frac{26}{21(p+1)}\,|G|$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
[G:\langle x\rangle]<\frac{21(p+1)}{26}\,.\nonumber
\end{equation}

Suppose first that $p\geq 5$. Then $\frac{21(p+1)}{26}<p$ and thus $\langle x\rangle$ contains a cyclic Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$ of $G$. Since $\langle x\rangle\leq N_G(P)$, it follows that $P$ is normal in $G$, as desired.\newpage

Next assume that $p=3$. Then $[G:\langle x\rangle]<\frac{42}{13}$ and thus $[G:\langle x\rangle]\in\{2,3\}$. If $[G:\langle x\rangle]=2$, then $\langle x\rangle$ contains a cyclic normal Sylow $3$-subgroup of $G$, as above. If $[G:\langle x\rangle]=3$, then $\langle x\rangle$ contains a cyclic Sylow $2$-subgroup $Q$ of $G$, and we have $\langle x\rangle\leq N_G(Q)$. Therefore either $N_G(Q)=G$, i.e. $Q\vartriangleleft G$, or $N_G(Q)=\langle x\rangle$. In the latter case, assume that there exists $y\in G\setminus\langle x\rangle$ with $o(y)=\frac{|G|}{2}\,$. Then $\langle y\rangle$ will contain a cyclic normal Sylow $3$-subgroup of $G$, and we are done. Assume now that $o(y)\leq\frac{|G|}{3}\,$, for all $y\in G\setminus\langle x\rangle$, and put $|G|=2^a3^b$ with $a,b\geq 1$. Using Lemma 1.4, 1) and 2), one obtains
$$\psi(G)=\psi(\langle x\rangle)+\psi(G\setminus\langle x\rangle)\leq\psi(\langle x\rangle)+\frac{2}{9}\,|G|^2=$$
$$\hspace{1mm}=\frac{(2^{2a+1}+1)(3^{2b-1}+1)+2^{2a+3}3^{2b-1}}{12}\,,$$and consequently
$$\psi'(G)\leq\frac{(2^{2a+1}+1)(3^{2b-1}+1)+2^{2a+3}3^{2b-1}}{(2^{2a+1}+1)(3^{2b+1}+1)}\leq\frac{3^{2b-1}+1}{3^{2b+1}+1}\,+$$
$$\hspace{3mm}+\frac{4}{9}\,\frac{2^{2a+1}3^{2b+1}}{(2^{2a+1}+1)(3^{2b+1}+1)}<\frac{1}{7}+\frac{4}{9}=\frac{35}{63}<\frac{13}{21}\,,$$a contradiction.
\end{proof}

In the following lemma we determine all finite nilpotent groups $G$ satisfying $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}\,$.

\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a finite group. If $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}$ and $G$ is nilpotent, then one of the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm a)}] $G\cong Q_8\times C_m$, where $m$ is odd;
\item[{\rm b)}] $G\cong (C_2\times C_2)\times C_m$, where $m$ is odd;
\item[{\rm c)}] $G$ is cyclic.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $G$ is not cyclic. As in the proof of Lemma 2.1, we have again $q=2$. Let $n=p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\cdots p_k^{n_k}$ be the decomposition of $n$ as a product of prime factors, where $k\in\mathbb{N}^*$, $p_1=2$ and $p_1<p_2<\cdots<p_k$. Since $G$ is nilpotent, it can be written as the direct product of its Sylow $p_i$-subgroups
\begin{equation}
G\cong G_1\times G_2\times\cdots\times G_k.\nonumber
\end{equation}By Lemma 1.4, 1), it follows that
\begin{equation}
\frac{13}{21}<\psi'(G)=\psi'(G_1)\psi'(G_2)\cdots\psi'(G_k)\leq\psi'(G_i),\, \forall\, i=2,3,...,k.
\end{equation}If there is $i$ such that $G_i$ is not cyclic, then (1) gives
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G_i)<\frac{1}{p_i-1}\leq\frac{1}{2}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}contradicting (2). So, we have
\begin{equation}
G\cong G_1\times C_m, \mbox{ where } m \mbox{ is odd},\nonumber
\end{equation}and
\begin{equation}
\frac{13}{21}<\psi'(G)=\psi'(G_1).\nonumber
\end{equation}This leads to
\begin{equation}
\psi(G_1)>\frac{13}{21}\,\psi(C_{2^{n_1}})\geq\frac{13}{21}\,\frac{2}{3}\,2^{2n_1}=\frac{26}{63}\,2^{2n_1}\nonumber
\end{equation}and so there exists $x\in G_1$ with $o(x)>\frac{26}{63}\,2^{n_1}$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
[G_1:\langle x\rangle]<\frac{63}{26}\,.\nonumber
\end{equation}Clearly, this implies that $[G_1:\langle x\rangle]=2$, i.e. $G_1$ possesses a cyclic maximal subgroup. Using  Theorem 4.1 of \cite{11}, II, we infer that either $G_1$ is abelian of type $C_2\times C_{2^{n_1-1}}$, $n_1\geq 2$, or non-abelian of one of the following types:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $M(2^{n_1})=\langle x,y\mid x^{2^{n_1-1}}=y^2=1\,, yxy=x^{2^{n_1-2}+1}\rangle$, $n_1\geq 4$;
\item[-] $D_{2^{n_1}}=\langle x,y\mid x^{2^{n_1-1}}=y^2=1\,, yxy=x^{-1}\rangle$;
\item[-] $Q_{2^{n_1}}=\langle x,y\mid x^{2^{n_1-1}}=y^4=1\,, yxy^{-1}=x^{2^{n_1-1}-1}\rangle$;
\item[-] $S_{2^{n_1}}=\langle x,y\mid x^{2^{n_1-1}}=y^2=1\,, yxy=x^{2^{n_1-2}-1}\rangle$, $n_1\geq 4$.
\end{itemize}If $G_1\cong C_2\times C_{2^{n_1-1}}$, then
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G_1)=\frac{2^{2n_1}+5}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}>\frac{13}{21}\Leftrightarrow 2^{2n_1}<\frac{92}{5}\Leftrightarrow n_1=2, \mbox{ i.e. } G_1\cong C_2\times C_2,\nonumber
\end{equation}while if $G_1$ is non-abelian, then we get:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $\psi'(M(2^{n_1}))=\displaystyle\frac{3\cdot 2^{n_1}}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}<\frac{13}{21}\,,\,\forall\, n_1\geq 4$;
\item[-] $\psi'(D_{2^{n_1}})=\displaystyle\frac{2^{2n_1-1}+3\cdot 2^{n_1}+1}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}<\frac{13}{21}\,,\,\forall\, n_1\geq 3$;
\item[-] $\psi'(Q_{2^{n_1}})=\displaystyle\frac{2^{2n_1-1}+3\cdot 2^{n_1+1}+1}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}>\frac{13}{21}\Leftrightarrow n_1=3$, i.e. $G_1\cong Q_8$;
\item[-] $\psi'(S_{2^{n_1}})=\displaystyle\frac{2^{2n_1-1}+9\cdot 2^{n_1-1}+1}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}<\frac{13}{21}\,,\,\forall\, n_1\geq 4$.
\end{itemize}This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

We also state an elementary lemma which will be useful to us in the sequel.

\begin{lemma}
Let $p$ be an odd prime and $P$ be a cyclic $p$-group of order $p^n$. Then
\begin{equation}
\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\leq\frac{3}{7}\,,\nonumber
\end{equation}and the equality occurs if and only if $p=3$ and $n=1$.
\end{lemma}

We are now able to prove our main result.

\bigskip\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem 1.1.} We will proceed by induction on $|G|$. If $G$ is cyclic, we are done. If $G$ is not cyclic, then $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}$ and (1) lead to $q=2$. Also, we can assume that $p\geq 3$, i.e. $G$ is not a $2$-group. Then $G$ has a cyclic normal Sylow $r$-subgroup $P$, where either $r=2$ or $r=p$, by Lemma 2.1. Now Lemma 1.4, 4), implies that
\begin{equation}
\frac{13}{21}<\psi'(G)\leq\psi'(P)\psi'(G/P)=\psi'(G/P)\nonumber
\end{equation}and so $G/P$ is nilpotent by the inductive hypothesis.

If $r=2$, then $G$ has a normal $2$-complement $H$ and we infer that
\begin{equation}
G\cong P\times H\cong P\times(G/P)\nonumber
\end{equation}is nilpotent, as desired.

Next assume that $r=p$. Since $\psi'(G)>\frac{13}{21}>\frac{211}{1617}\,$, Theorem C shows that $G$ is solvable\footnote{See Theorem 6 of \cite{6} for an alternative argument.}, and consequently it has a $p$-complement $H$. Also, since $H\cong G/P$ is nilpotent and $\psi'(H)>\frac{13}{21}\,$, by Lemma 2.2 it follows that\newpage
\begin{equation}
H\cong H_1\times C_m,\nonumber
\end{equation}where $m$ is odd and $H_1$ is isomorphic with $Q_8$, $C_2\times C_2$ or $C_{2^{n_1}}$. On the other hand, by Lemma 1.4, 5), we get
\begin{equation}
\psi(G)=|P|\psi(H)+(\psi(P)-|P|)\psi(C_H(P))\nonumber
\end{equation}and so
\begin{equation}
\psi'(G)=\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\,\psi'(H)+\left(1-\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\right)\,\frac{\psi(C_H(P))}{\psi(C_{|H|})}\,.
\end{equation}

Obviously, if the semidirect product $G=P\rtimes H$ is trivial, then $G$ is nilpotent. In what follows, we will prove that if the semidirect product $G=P\rtimes H$ is non-trivial, then $\psi'(G)\leq\frac{13}{21}\,$, contradicting our hypothesis.

Since $C_H(P)$ is a proper subgroup of $H$, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\psi(C_H(P))\leq {\rm max}\{\psi(M)\mid M \!=\!\!\mbox{ maximal subgroup of } H\}.
\end{equation}By looking to the structure of maximal subgroups of $H$, we are able to compute the right side of (4). We distinguish the following three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] Case 1. $H_1\cong Q_8$

\hspace{-12mm} We have $\psi'(H)=\frac{27}{43}$ and $\psi(C_H(P))\leq\psi(C_4\times C_m)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\frac{\psi(C_H(P))}{\psi(C_{|H|})}\leq\frac{11}{43}\nonumber
\end{equation}\hspace{-10mm}and (3) leads to
$$\hspace{-5mm}\psi'(G)\leq\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\,\frac{27}{43}+\left(1-\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\right)\frac{11}{43}=\frac{11}{43}\,+\frac{16}{43}\,\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\leq\mbox{ (by Lemma 2.3)}$$
$$\hspace{-65mm}\leq\frac{11}{43}\,+\frac{16}{43}\,\frac{3}{7}\,= \frac{125}{301}<\frac{13}{21}\,.$$
\item[] Case 2. $H_1\cong C_2\times C_2$

\hspace{-12mm} We have $\psi'(H)=\frac{7}{11}$ and $\psi(C_H(P))\leq\psi(C_2\times C_m)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\frac{\psi(C_H(P))}{\psi(C_{|H|})}\leq\frac{3}{11}\nonumber
\end{equation}\hspace{-10mm}and (3) leads to
$$\hspace{-5mm}\psi'(G)\leq\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\,\frac{7}{11}+\left(1-\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\right)\frac{3}{11}=\frac{3}{11}\,+\frac{4}{11}\,\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\leq\mbox{ (by Lemma 2.3)}$$
$$\hspace{-69mm}\leq\frac{3}{11}\,+\frac{4}{11}\,\frac{3}{7}\,= \frac{3}{7}<\frac{13}{21}\,.$$
\item[] Case 3. $H_1\cong C_{2^{n_1}}$

\hspace{-12mm} We have $\psi'(H)=1$ and $\psi(C_H(P))\leq\psi(C_{2^{n_1-1}}\times C_m)$. Then
\begin{equation}
\frac{\psi(C_H(P))}{\psi(C_{|H|})}\leq\frac{2^{2n_1-1}+1}{2^{2n_1+1}+1}\leq\!\footnote{Note that we have equality if and only if $n_1=1$.}\,\frac{1}{3}\nonumber
\end{equation}\hspace{-10mm}and (3) leads to
$$\hspace{-5mm}\psi'(G)\leq\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\,1+\left(1-\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\right)\frac{1}{3}=\frac{1}{3}\,+\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{|P|}{\psi(C_{|P|})}\leq\mbox{ (by Lemma 2.3)}$$
$$\hspace{-82mm}\leq\frac{1}{3}\,+\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{3}{7}\,= \frac{13}{21}\,.$$
\end{itemize}

Finally, we remark that we have $\psi'(G)=\frac{13}{21}$ if and only if $|P|=3$ and $n_1=1$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
G\cong C_3\rtimes(C_2\times C_m)\cong (C_3\rtimes C_2)\times C_m\cong S_3\times C_m \mbox{ with } (6,m)=1.\nonumber
\end{equation}The proof of Theorem 1.1 is now complete.$\qed$


An Analog of Matrix Tree Theorem for Signless Laplacians

Abstract: A spanning tree of a graph is a connected subgraph on all vertices with the minimum number of edges. The number of spanning trees in a graph $G$ is given by Matrix Tree Theorem in terms of principal minors of Laplacian matrix of $G$. We show a similar combinatorial interpretation for principal minors of signless Laplacian $Q$. We also prove that the number of odd cycles in $G$ is less than or equal to $\frac{\det(Q)}{4}$, where the equality holds if and only if $G$ is a bipartite graph or an odd-unicyclic graph.

\section{Introduction}
	For a simple graph $G$ on $n$ vertices $1,2,\ldots,n$ and $m$ edges $1,2,\ldots, m$ we define its \emph{degree matrix} $D$,  \emph{adjacency matrix} $A$, and \emph{incidence matrix} $N$ as follows:
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item $D=[d_{ij}]$ is an $n \times n$ diagonal matrix where $d_{ii}$ is the degree of the vertex $i$ in $G$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,n$.

		\item $A=[a_{ij}]$ is an $n \times n$ matrix with zero diagonals where $a_{ij}=1$ if vertices $i$ and $j$ are adjacent in $G$ and $a_{ij}=0$ otherwise for $i,j=1,2,\ldots,n$.

		\item $N=[n_{ij}]$ is an $n \times m$ matrix whose rows are indexed by vertices and columns are indexed by edges of $G$. The entry $n_{ij} = 1$ whenever vertex $i$ is incident with edge $j$ (i.e., vertex $i$ is an endpoint of edge $j$) and $n_{ij}=0$ otherwise.
	\end{enumerate}

	We define the {\it Laplacian matrix} $L$ and {\it signless Laplacian matrix} $Q$ to be $L=D-A$ and $Q=D+A$, respectively. It is well-known that both $L$ and $Q$ have nonnegative real eigenvalues \cite[Sec 1.3]{BH}.  	Note the relation between the spectra of $L$ and $Q$:
	\begin{theorem}\cite[Prop $1.3.10$]{BH}\label{CB2}
	Let $G$ be a simple graph on $n$ vertices. Let $L$ and $Q$ be the Laplacian matrix and the signless Laplacian matrix of $G$, respectively, with eigenvalues $0=\mu_1\leq \mu_2\leq \cdots \leq \mu_n$ for $L$, and $\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots \leq \lambda_n$ for $Q$. Then $G$ is bipartite if and only if
	$\{\mu_1,\mu_2, \ldots ,\mu_n\}=\{\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots ,\lambda_n\}.$
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{theorem}\cite[Prop $2.1$]{CRC}
	The smallest eigenvalue of the signless Laplacian of a connected graph is equal to $0$ if and only if the graph is bipartite. In this case $0$ is a simple eigenvalue.
	\end{theorem}

We use the following notation for submatrices of an $n \times m$ matrix $M$: for sets $I \subset \{ 1,2,\ldots,n\}$ and $J\subset \{ 1,2,\ldots,m\}$,
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $M[I ; J]$ denotes the submatrix of $M$ whose rows are indexed by $I$ and columns are indexed by $J$.
		\item $M(I ; J)$ denotes the submatrix of $M$ obtained by removing the rows indexed by $I$ and removing the columns indexed by $J$.
		\item $M(I ; J]$ denotes the submatrix of $M$ whose columns are indexed by $J$, and obtained by removing rows indexed by $I$.
	\end{itemize}

	We often list the elements of $I$ and $J$, separated by commas in this submatrix notation, rather than writing them as sets. For example, $M(2 ; 3,7,8]$ is a $(n-1) \times 3$ matrix whose rows are the same as the rows of $M$ with the  the second row deleted and columns are respectively the third, seventh, and eighth columns of $M$. Moreover, if $I=J$, we abbreviate $M(I ; J)$ and $M[I ; J]$ as $M(I)$ and $M[I]$ respectively. Also we abbreviate $M(\varnothing ; J]$ and $M(I;\varnothing)$ as $M(;J]$ and $M(I;)$ respectively.

	A {\it spanning tree} of $G$ is a connected subgraph of $G$ on all $n$ vertices with minimum number of edges which is $n-1$ edges. The number of spanning trees in a graph $G$ is denoted by $t(G)$ and is given by  Matrix Tree Theorem:

	\begin{theorem}[Matrix Tree Theorem]\cite[Prop $1.3.4$]{BH}\label{MTT}
	 Let $G$ be a a simple graph on $n$ vertices and $L$ be the Laplacian matrix of $G$ with eigenvalues $0=\mu_1\leq \mu_2\leq \cdots \leq \mu_n$. Then the number $t(G)$ of spanning trees of $G$ is
	 $$t(G)=\det\left(L(i)\right)=\frac{\mu_2\cdot \mu_3 \cdots \mu_n}{n},$$
	 for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$.
	\end{theorem}

	We explore if there is an analog of the Matrix Tree Theorem for the signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. First note that unlike $\det\left(L(i)\right)$,  $\det\left(Q(i)\right)$ is not necessarily the same for all $i$ as illustrated in the following example.

	\begin{example}
	For the paw graph $G$ with its signless Laplacian matrix $Q$ in Figure \ref{paw},  $\det\left(Q(1)\right)=7\neq 3=\det\left(Q(2)\right)=\det\left(Q(3)\right)=\det\left(Q(4)\right)$.
	\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\begin{tikzpicture}[colorstyle/.style={circle, fill, black, scale = .5}]

		\node (1) at (0,1)[colorstyle, label=above:$1$]{};
		\node (2) at (0,0)[colorstyle, label=below:$2$]{};
		\node (3) at (-1,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$3$]{};
		\node (4) at (1,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$4$]{};

		\draw [] (1)--(2)--(3)--(4)--(2);
		\node at (2,0)[label=right:{$Q=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
	1&1&0&0\\
	1&3&1&1\\
	0&1&2&1\\
	0&1&1&2
	\end{array}\right] $}]{};
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{Paw $G$ and its signless Laplacian matrix $Q$}\label{paw}
	\end{center}
	\end{figure}
	\end{example}

	The Matrix Tree Theorem can be proved by the Cauchy-Binet formula:
	\begin{theorem}[Cauchy-Binet]\cite[Prop $1.3.5$]{BH}\label{CB}
		Let $m \leq n$. For $m\times n$ matrices $A$ and $B$, we have
		\[
			\det(AB^T)=\sum_{S} \det(A(;S]) \det(B(;S]),
		\]
		where the summation runs over $\binom{n}{m}$ $m$-subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$.
	\end{theorem}

The following observation provides a decomposition of the signless Laplacian matrix $Q$ which enables us to apply the Cauchy-Binet formula on it.

\begin{obs}\label{CB3}
		Let $G$ be a simple graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices with $m$ edges, and $m \geq n-1$. Suppose $N$ and $Q$ are the incidence matrix  and  signless Laplacian matrix of $G$, respectively. Then
		\begin{enumerate}
			\item[(a)] $Q=NN^T$,
			\item[(b)] $Q(i)=N(i;)N(i;)^T$, $i=1,2,\ldots,n$, and
			\item[(c)] $\det(Q(i))=\det(N(i;)N(i;)^T)=\sum_{S} \det(N(i;S])^2,$
			where the summation runs over all $(n-1)$-subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$, (by Cauchy-Binet formula \ref{CB}).
		\end{enumerate}
\end{obs}

\section{Principal minors of signless Laplacians}
	In this section we find a combinatorial formula for a principal minor $\det(Q(i))$ for the signless Laplacian matrix $Q$ of a given graph $G$. We mainly use  Observation \ref{CB3}(c) given by Cauchy-Binet formula which involves determinant of submatrices of incidence matrices. This approach is completely different from the methods applied for related spectral results in \cite{CRC}. But we borrow the definition of $TU$-subgraphs from \cite{CRC} slightly modified as follows:  A {\it $TU$-graph} is a graph whose connected components are trees or odd-unicyclic graphs. A {\it $TU$-subgraph} of $G$ is a spanning subgraph of $G$ that is a $TU$-graph. The following lemma finds the number of trees in a $TU$-graph.

	\begin{lemma}\label{noofcyclesinTU}
		If $G$ is a $TU$-graph on $n$ vertices with $n-k$ edges consisting of $c$ odd-unicyclic graphs and $s$ trees,  then $s=k$.
	\end{lemma}
	\begin{proof}
		Suppose the number vertices of the cycles are $n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_c$ and that of the trees are $t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_s$. Then the total number of edges is
		\begin{align*}
			n-k = \sum_{i=1}^{c} n_i + \sum_{i=1}^{s} (t_i-1) = n - s
		\end{align*}
		which implies $s = k$.
	\end{proof}

Now we find the determinant of incidence matrices of some special graphs in the following lemmas.
	\begin{lemma}\label{incidencedet}
		If $G$ is an odd (resp. even) cycle, then the determinant of its incidence matrix is $\pm 2$ (resp. zero).
	\end{lemma}
	\begin{proof}
	Let $G$ be a cycle with the incidence matrix $N$. Then up to permutation we have
	$$N=PN'Q=P
	\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
	1&0&0&\cdots&0&1\\
	1&1&0&\cdots&0&0\\
	0&1&1&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
	\vdots&\ddots &\ddots&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\
	\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&1&0\\
	0&\cdots&\cdots&0&1&1\\
	\end{array}\right]Q,
	$$
	for some permutation matrices $P$ and $Q$. By a cofactor expansion across the first row we have
	$$\det(N)=\det(P)\det(N')\det(Q)=(\pm 1)(1+(-1)^{n+1})(\pm 1).$$
	If $n$ is odd (resp. even), then $\det(N)= \pm 2$ (resp. zero).
	\end{proof}

	\begin{lemma}\label{incidencedetoddcyclic}
	If $G$ is an odd unicyclic (resp. even unicyclic) graph, then the determinant of its incidence matrix is $\pm 2$ (resp. $0$).
	\end{lemma}
	\begin{proof}
	Let $G$ be a unicyclic graph with incidence matrix $N$ and $t$ vertices not on the cycle. We prove the statement by induction on $t$. If $t = 0$, then $G$ is an odd (resp. even) cycle and then $\det(N_i) = \pm 2$ (resp. $0$) by Lemma \ref{incidencedet}. Assume the statement holds for some $t \geq 0$. Let $G$ be a unicyclic graph with $t+1$ vertices not on the cylce. Then $G$ has a pendant vertex, say vertex $i$. The vertex $i$ is incident with exactly one edge of $G$, say $e_l = \{ i,j \}$. Then $i$th row of $N$ has only one nonzero entry which is the $(i,l)$th entry and it is equal to $1$. To find $\det(N)$ we have a cofactor expansion across the $i$th row and get
		\[
			\det(N)=\pm 1 \cdot \big( \pm \det(N(i ; l)) \big).
		\]
		Note that $N(i ; l)$ is the incident matrix of $G(i)$, which is a unicyclic graph with $t$ vertices not on the cycle. By induction hypothesis, $\det(N(i ; l)) = \pm 2$ (resp. $0$).  Thus $\det(N)=\pm 1 \cdot \big( \pm \det(N(i ; l)) \big)=\pm 2$ (resp. $0$).
	\end{proof}

By a similar induction on the number of pendant vertices we get the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{tree_det}
Let $H$ be a tree with at least one edge and $N$ be the incidence matrix of $H$. Then $\det(N(i;)) = \pm 1$ for all vertices $i$ of $H$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem_tree_and_one_more_edge}
		Let $H$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $n-1$ edges with incidence matrix $N$. If $H$ has a connected component which is a tree and an edge which is not on the tree, then $\det(N(i;)) = 0$ for all vertices $i$ not on the tree.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ have a connected component $T$ which is a tree and an edge $e_j$ which is not on $T$. Suppose $i$ is a vertex of $G$ that is not on $T$. If $T$ consists of just one vertex, then the corresponding row in $N(i;)$ is a zero row giving $\det(N(i;))=0$. Suppose  $T$ has at least two vertices.
		Now consider  the square submatrix $N'$ of $N(i;)$ with rows corresponding to verteices of $T$ and columns corresponding to edges of $T$ together with $e_j$. Then the column of $N'$ corresponding to $e_j$ is a zero row giving $\det(N')=0$. Since entries in rows of $N_i[S]$ corresponding to $T$ that are outside of $N'$ are zero, the rows of $N(i;)$ corresponding to $T$ are linearly dependent and consequently $\det(N(i;))=0$.
\end{proof}

	Now we break down different scenarios that can happen to a graph with $n$ vertices and $m=n-1$ edges.

	\begin{proposition}\label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg}
		Let $H$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $m = n-1$ edges. Then one of the following is true for $H$.
		\begin{enumerate}
			\item \label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_tree} $H$ is a tree.
			\item \label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_even_cycle} $H$ has an even cycle and a vertex not on the cycle.
			\item \label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_non_tu} $H$ has no even cycles, but $H$ has a connected component with at least two odd cycles and at least two connected components which are trees.
			\item \label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_tu} $H$ is a disjoint union of odd unicyclic graphs and exactly one tree, i.e., $H$ is a $TU$-graph.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{proposition}

	\begin{proof}
		If $H$ is connected then it is a tree. This implies Case \ref{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_tree}. Now assume $H$ is not connected. If $H$ has no cycles, then it is a forest with at least two connected components. This would imply that $m < n-2$, contradicting the assumption that $m = n-1$. Thus $H$ has at least one cycle. Suppose $H$ has $t \geq 2$ connected components $H_i$ with $m_i$ edges and $n_i$ vertices, where the first $k$ of them have at least a cycle and the rest are trees. For $i= 1,\ldots, k$, $H_i$  has $m_i \geq n_i$. Note that
\begin{equation}\label{treenumber}
-1 = m - n = \sum_{i=1}^{t} (m_i - n_i) =  \sum_{i=1}^{k} (m_i - n_i) + \sum_{i=k+1}^{t} (m_i - n_i)
\end{equation}

Since $H_i$  has a cycle for $i =1,\ldots,k$ and $H_i$ is a tree for $i = k+1,\ldots,t$,
		\[
			\ell := \sum_{i=1}^{k} (m_i - n_i) \geq 0,
		\]
		and
		\[
			\sum_{i=k+1}^{t} (m_i - n_i) = -(t - k).
		\]
Then $t-k = \ell + 1$ by (\ref{treenumber}). In other words, in order to make up for the extra edges in the connected components with cycles, $H$ has to have exactly $\ell + 1$ connected components which are trees.

		 If $H$ has an even cycle, then $\ell \geq 0$ and hence $t-k \geq 1$. This means there is at least one connected component which is tree and it contains a vertex which is not in the cycle. This implies Case \ref{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_even_cycle}. Otherwise, all of the cycles of $H$ are odd. If it has more than one cycle in a connected component, then $\ell \geq 1$ and thus $t-k \geq 2$. This implies Case \ref{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_non_tu}. Otherwise, each $H_i$ with $i=1,\ldots,k$ has exactly one cycle in it, which implies $\ell = 0$, and then $t-k =1$. This implies Case \ref{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg_case_tu}.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{theorem}\label{thm_casesQ_redo}
		Let $G$ be a simple connected graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices and $m$ edges with the incidence matrix $N$. Let $i$ be an integer from $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Let  $S$  be an $(n-1)$-subset of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ and $H$ be a spanning subgraph of $G$ with edges indexed by $S$. Then one of the following holds for $H$.
		\begin{enumerate}
			\item \label{thm_casesQ_redo_case_tree}  $H$ is a tree. Then $\det(N(i;S]) = \pm 1$.
			\item \label{thm_casesQ_redo_case_even_cycle} $H$ has an even cycle and a vertex not on the cycle. Then $\det(N(i;S]) = 0$.
			\item \label{thm_casesQ_redo_case_non_tu} $H$ has no even cycles, but it has a connected component with at least two odd cycles and at least two connected components which are trees. Then $\det(N(i;S]) = 0$.
			\item \label{thm_casesQ_redo_case_tu} $H$ is a $TU$-subgraph of $G$ consisting of $c$  odd-unicyclic graphs $U_1, U_2, \ldots , U_c$ and a unique tree $T$. If $i$ is a vertex of $U_j$ for some $j=1,2,\ldots,c$, then $\det(N(i;S]) =0$. If $i$ is a vertex of $T$, then  $\det(N(i;S]) =\pm 2^c$.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Suppose vertices and edges of $G$ are $1,2,\ldots,n$ and $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_m$, respectively. Note that $m\geq n-1$ since $G$ is connected.
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item  Suppose $H$ is a tree. Since $n\geq 2$, $H$ has an edge. Then by Lemma \ref{tree_det},  $\det(N(i;S]) = \pm 1$.

		\item Suppose $H$ contains an even cycle $C$ as a subgraph and a vertex $j$ not on $C$.

		{\it Case 1.} Vertex $i$ is not in $C$\\
		Then the square submatrix $N'$ of $N(i;S]$ corresponding to $C$ has determinant zero by Lemma \ref{incidencedetoddcyclic}. Since entries in columns of $N(i;S]$ corresponding to $C$ that are outside of $N'$ are zero, the columns of $N(i;S]$ corresponding to $C$ are linearly dependent and consequently $\det(N(i;S])=0$. \\

		{\it Case 2.} Vertex $i$ is in $C$\\
		Since $i$ is in $C$, we have $j\neq i$. Consider the square submatrix $N'$ of $N(i;S]$ that has rows corresponding to vertex $j$ and vertices of $C$ excluding $i$  and columns corresponding to edges of $C$. Since vertex $j$ is not on $C$, the row of $N'$ corresponding to vertex $j$ is a zero row and consequently $\det(N')=0$. Since entries in columns of $N_i[S]$ corresponding to $C$ that are outside of $N'$ are zero, the columns of $N(i;S]$ corresponding to $C$ are linearly dependent and consequently $\det(N(i;S])=0$.

	\item Suppose $H$ has no even cycles, but it has a connected component with at least two odd cycles and at least two connected components which are trees.  Then vertex $i$ is not in one of the trees. Then $\det(N(i;S])=0$ by Lemma \ref{lem_tree_and_one_more_edge}.

		\item Suppose $H$ is a $TU$-subgraph of $G$ consisting of $c$  odd-unicyclic graphs $U_1, U_2, \ldots , U_c$ and a unique tree $T$. If $i$ is a vertex of $U_j$ for some $j = 1, \ldots, c$, then  $\det(N(i;S])=0$ by Lemma \ref{lem_tree_and_one_more_edge}. If $i$ is a vertex of the tree $T$, then $N(i;S]$ is a direct sum of incidence matrices of odd-unicyclic graphs $U_1, U_2, \ldots , U_c$  and the incidence matrix of the tree $T$ with one row deleted (which does not exist when $T$ is a tree on the single vertex $i$). By Lemma \ref{incidencedetoddcyclic} and \ref{tree_det}, $\det(N(i;S])=(\pm 2)^c\cdot (\pm 1)= \pm 2^c$.

	\end{enumerate}
	\end{proof}

	The preceding results are summarized in the following theorem.
	\begin{theorem}\label{mainlemma}
	Let $G$ be a simple connected graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices and $m$ edges with the incidence matrix $N$. Let $i$ be an integer from $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Let  $S$  be an $(n-1)$-subset of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ and $H$ be a spanning subgraph of $G$ with edges indexed by $S$.
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item[(a)] If $H$ is not a $TU$-subgraph of $G$, then $\det(N(i;S])=0$
	\item[(b)] Suppose $H$ is a $TU$-subgraph of $G$ consisting of $c$  odd-unicyclic graphs $U_1, U_2, \ldots , U_c$ and a unique tree $T$. If $i$ is a vertex of $U_j$ for some $j=1,2,\ldots,c$, then $\det(N(i;S]) =0$. If $i$ is a vertex of $T$, then  $\det(N(i;S]) =\pm 2^c$.

	\end{enumerate}
	\end{theorem}

	For a $TU$-subgraph $H$ of $G$, the number of connected components that are odd-unicyclic graphs is denoted by $c(H)$. So a $TU$-subgraph $H$ on $n-1$ edges with $c(H)=0$ is a spanning tree of $G$.

	\begin{theorem}\label{mainresult}
	Let $G$ be a simple connected graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices $1,2,\ldots,n$ with the signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. Then
	$$\det(Q(i))=\sum_{H}4^{c(H)},$$
	 where the summation runs over all $TU$-subgraphs $H$ of $G$ with $n-1$ edges consisting of a unique tree on vertex $i$ and  $c(H)$ odd-unicyclic graphs.
	\end{theorem}
	\begin{proof}
	By Observation \ref{CB3}, we have,
	$$\det(Q(i))=\sum_{S} \det(N(i;S])^2,$$
where the summation runs over all $(n-1)$-subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. By Theorem \ref{mainlemma}, we have,
	$$\det(Q(i))=\sum_{S} \det(N(i;S])^2=\sum_{H}(\pm 2^{c(H)})^2=\sum_{H}4^{c(H)},$$
	where the summation runs over all $TU$-subgraphs $H$ of $G$ with $n-1$ edges consisting of a unique tree on vertex $i$ and  $c(H)$ odd-unicyclic graphs.
	\end{proof}

	\begin{example}
	Consider the Paw $G$ and its signless Laplacian matrix $Q$ in Figure \ref{paw}. To determine $\det(Q(1))$, consider the $TU$-subgraphs of $G$ with $3$ edges consisting of a unique tree on vertex $1$: $H_1$, $H_2$, $H_3$, $H_4$ in Figure \ref{tu}. Note $c(H_1)=c(H_2)=c(H_3)=0$ and $c(H_4)=1$. Then by Theorem \ref{mainresult},
	$$\det(Q(1))=\sum_{H}4^{c(H)}=4^{c(H_1)}+4^{c(H_2)}+4^{c(H_3)}+4^{c(H_4)}=4^{0}+4^{0}+4^{0}+4^{1}=7.$$

	\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\begin{tikzpicture
	[scale=1,colorstyle/.style={circle, draw=black!100,fill=black!100, thick, inner sep=0pt, minimum size=2mm},>=stealth]
		\node (1) at (0,1)[colorstyle, label=above:$1$]{};
		\node (2) at (0,0)[colorstyle, label=below:$2$]{};
		\node (3) at (-1,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$3$]{};
		\node (4) at (1,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$4$]{};
		\node at (0,-1.5)[label=below:$H_1$]{};
		\draw [] (1)--(2)--(3)--(4);

		\node (1b) at (3,1)[colorstyle, label=above:$1$]{};
		\node (2b) at (3,0)[colorstyle, label=below:$2$]{};
		\node (3b) at (2,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$3$]{};
		\node (4b) at (4,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$4$]{};
		\node at (3,-1.5)[label=below:$H_2$]{};
		\draw [] (1b)--(2b)--(4b)--(3b);

		\node (1c) at (6,1)[colorstyle, label=above:$1$]{};
		\node (2c) at (6,0)[colorstyle, label=below:$2$]{};
		\node (3c) at (5,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$3$]{};
		\node (4c) at (7,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$4$]{};
		\node at (6,-1.5)[label=below:$H_3$]{};
		\draw [] (1c)--(2c)--(3c);
		\draw [] (2c)--(4c);

		\node (1d) at (9,1)[colorstyle, label=above:$1$]{};
		\node (2d) at (9,0)[colorstyle, label=below:$2$]{};
		\node (3d) at (8,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$3$]{};
		\node (4d) at (10,-1)[colorstyle, label=below:$4$]{};
		\node at (9,-1.5)[label=below:$H_4$]{};
		\draw [] (4d)--(2d)--(3d)--(4d);
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{$TU$-subgraphs of Paw $G$ with $3$ edges consisting of a unique tree on vertex $1$}\label{tu}
	\end{center}
	\end{figure}

	\end{example}

	\begin{corollary}
	Let $G$ be a simple connected graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices $1,2,\ldots,n$. Let $Q$ be the signless Laplacian matrix of $G$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots \leq \lambda_n$. Then
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item[(a)]  $\det(Q(i))\geq t(G)$, the number of spanning trees of $G$, where the equality holds if and only if all odd cycles of $G$ contain vertex $i$.

	\item[(b)] $$\frac{1}{n}\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_n\leq n} \lambda_{i_1}\lambda_{i_2}\cdots \lambda_{i_{n-1}}
	=\frac{1}{n}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\det(Q(i))\geq t(G),$$
	where the equality holds if and only if $G$ is an odd cycle or a bipartite graph.
	\end{enumerate}
	\end{corollary}

	\begin{proof}
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item[(a)] First note that a $TU$-subgraph $H$ on $n-1$ edges with $c(H)=0$ is a spanning tree of $G$. Then $\det(Q(i))=\sum_{H}4^{c(H)}\geq \sum_{T}4^{0}$, where the sum runs over all spanning trees $T$ of $G$ containing vertex $i$. So  $\det(Q(i))$ is greater than or equal to the number of spanning trees of $G$ containing vertex $i$. Since each spanning tree contains vertex $i$, $\det(Q(i))\geq t(G)$ where the equality holds if and only if all odd-unicyclic subgraphs of $G$ contain vertex $i$ by Theorem \ref{mainresult}. Finally note that all odd-unicyclic subgraphs of $G$ contain vertex $i$ if and only if all odd cycles of $G$ contain vertex $i$.

	\item[(b)]  The first equality follows from the well-known linear algebraic result
		\[
			\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_n\leq n} \lambda_{i_1}\lambda_{i_2}\cdots \lambda_{i_{n-1}}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\det(Q(i)).
		\]
		Now by (a) $\det(Q(i))\geq t(G)$ where the equality holds if and only if all odd cycles of $G$ contain vertex $i$. Then
		\[
			\frac{1}{n}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\det(Q(i))\geq t(G)
		\]
		where the equality holds if and only if $\det(Q(i))=t(G)$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. So the equality holds if and only if all odd cycles of $G$ contain every vertex of  $G$ which means $G$ is an odd cycle or a bipartite graph ($G$ has no odd cycles).
	\end{enumerate}
	\end{proof}

\section{Number of odd cycles in a graph}
In this section we find a combinatorial formula for $\det(Q)$ for the signless Laplacian matrix $Q$ of a given graph $G$. As a corollary we show that the number of odd cycles in $G$ is less than or equal to $\frac{\det(Q)}{4}$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop_enn_vert_ennminusone_edg}
		Let $H$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $m = n$ edges. Then one of the following is true for $H$.
		\begin{enumerate}
		\item $H$ has a connected component which is a tree.
		\item  All connected components of $H$ are unicyclic and at least one of them is even-unicyclic.
		\item All connected components of $H$ are odd-unicyclic.
		\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $H$ has $t \geq 2$ connected components $H_i$ with $m_i$ edges and $n_i$ vertices, where the first $k$ of them have at least one cycle and the rest are trees. For $i= 1,\ldots, k$, $H_i$  has $m_i \geq n_i$. Note that
\begin{equation}\label{treenumber_m=n}
0= m - n = \sum_{i=1}^{t} (m_i - n_i) =  \sum_{i=1}^{k} (m_i - n_i) + \sum_{i=k+1}^{t} (m_i - n_i)
\end{equation}

Since $H_i$  has a cycle for $i =1,\ldots,k$ and $H_i$ is a tree for $i = k+1,\ldots,t$,
		\[
			\ell := \sum_{i=1}^{k} (m_i - n_i) \geq 0,
		\]
		and
		\[
			\sum_{i=k+1}^{t} (m_i - n_i) = -(t - k).
		\]
Then $t-k = \ell$ by (\ref{treenumber_m=n}). If $H$ has a connected component which is a tree, we have Case 1. Otherwise $t-k =0$ which implies $\ell = \sum_{i=1}^{k} (m_i - n_i)=0$. Then $m_i= n_i$, for $i=1,2,\ldots,k$, i.e., all connected components of $H$ are unicyclic. If one of the unicyclic components is even-unicyclic, we get Case 2. Otherwise  all connected components of $H$ are odd-unicyclic which is Case 3. Finally if $H$ is connected, it is unicyclic and cosequently it is Case 2 or 3.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{tree_and_one_more_edge}
Let $H$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $n$ edges with incidence matrix $N$. If $H$ has a connected component which is a tree and an edge which is not on the tree, then $\det(N) = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $H$ have a connected component $T$ which is a tree and an edge $e_j$ which is not on $T$. If $T$ consists of just one vertex, say $i$, then row $i$ of $N$ is a zero row giving $\det(N)=0$. Suppose  $T$ has at least two vertices.
		Now consider  the square submatrix $N'$ of $N$ with rows corresponding to vertices of $T$ and columns corresponding to edges of $T$ together with $e_j$. Then the column of $N'$ corresponding to $e_j$ is a zero row giving $\det(N')=0$. Since entries in rows of $N$ corresponding to $T$ that are outside of $N'$ are zero, the rows of $N$ corresponding to $T$ are linearly dependent and consequently $\det(N)=0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{oddunicycle}
Let $G$ be a simple graph on $n$ vertices and $m\geq n$ edges with the incidence matrix $N$. Let  $S$  be a $n$-subset of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ and $H$ be a spanning subgraph of $G$ with edges indexed by $S$. Then one of the following is true for $H$:
\begin{enumerate}
		\item $H$ has a connected component which is a tree. Then $\det(N[S])=0$.
		\item  All connected components of $H$ are unicyclic and at least one of them is even-unicyclic. Then $\det(N[S])=0$.
		\item $H$ has $k$ connected components which are all odd-unicyclic. Then $\det(N[S])=\pm 2^k$.
		\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$\;$
\begin{enumerate}
		\item Suppose $H$ has a connected component which is a tree. Since $H$ has $n$ edges, $H$ has an edge not on the tree. Then $\det(N[S])=0$ by Lemma \ref{tree_and_one_more_edge}.
		\item  Suppose all connected components of $H$ are unicyclic and at least one of them is even-unicyclic. Since $N[S]$ is a direct sum of incidence matrices of unicyclic graphs where at least one of them is even-unicyclic, then $\det(N[S])=0$ by Lemma \ref{incidencedet}.
		\item Suppose $H$ has $k$ connected components which are all odd-unicyclic. Since $N[S]$ is a direct sum of incidence matrices of $k$ odd-unicyclic graphs, then $\det(N[S])=(\pm 2)^k=\pm 2^k$ by Lemma \ref{incidencedet}.
		\end{enumerate}

\end{proof}

By Theorem \ref{CB} and \ref{oddunicycle}, we have the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{detQ}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. Then
$$\det(Q)=\sum_{H} 4^{c(H)},$$
where the summation runs over all spanning subgraphs $H$ of $G$ whose all connected components are odd-unicyclic.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{CB} and Observation \ref{CB3},
$$\det(Q)=\det(NN^T)=\sum_{S} \det(N(;S])^2,$$
where the summation runs over all $n$-subsets $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. By Theorem \ref{oddunicycle}, we have
$$\det(Q)=\sum_{S} \det(N(;S])^2=\sum_{H} (\pm 2^{c(H)})^2=\sum_{H} 4^{c(H)},$$
where the summation runs over all spanning subgraphs $H$ of $G$ whose all connected components are odd-unicyclic.
\end{proof}

Let $ous(G)$ denote the number of spanning subgraphs $H$ of a graph $G$ where each connected component of $H$ is an odd-unicyclic graph. So $ous(G)$ is the number of $TU$-subgraphs of $G$ whose all connected components are odd-unicyclic. Note that $c(H)\geq 1$ for all spanning subgraphs $H$ of $G$ whose all connected components are odd-unicyclic. By Theorem \ref{detQ}, we have an upper bound for $ous(G)$.

\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. Then $\det(Q)\geq 4ous(G)$.
\end{corollary}

For example, if $G$ is bipartite graph, then $\frac{\det(Q)}{4}=0=ous(G)$. If $G$ is an odd-unicyclic graph, then $\frac{\det(Q)}{4}=1=ous(G)$.\\

Note that by appending edges to an odd cycle in $G$ we get at least one $TU$-subgraph of $G$ with a unique odd-unicyclic connected component.   Let $oc(G)$ denote the number of odd cycles in a graph $G$. Then $oc(G)\leq ous(G)$, where the equality holds if and only if $G$ is a bipartite graph or an odd-unicyclic graph. Then we have the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}\label{numberofoddcycles}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. Then  $\frac{\det(Q)}{4}\geq oc(G)$, the number of odd cycles in $G$, where the equality holds if and only if $G$ is a bipartite graph or an odd-unicyclic graph.
\end{corollary}

\section{Open Problems}
In this section we pose some problems related to results in Sections 2 and 3. First recall Corollary \ref{numberofoddcycles} which gives a linear algebraic sharp upper bound for the number of odd cycles in a graph. So an immediate question would be the following:

\begin{question}
Find a linear algebraic (sharp) upper bound of the number of even cycles in a simple graph.
\end{question}

To answer this one may like to apply Cauchy-Binet Theorem as done in Sections 2 and 3. Then a special $n\times m$ matrix $R$ will be required with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $RR^T$ is a decomposition of a fixed matrix for a given graph $G$.
\item If $G$ is an even (resp. odd) cycle, then $\det(R)$ is $\pm c$ (resp. zero) for some fixed nonzero number $c$.
\end{enumerate}

For other open questions consider a simple connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices and $m\geq n$ edges with signless Laplacian matrix $Q$. The characteristic polynomial of $Q$ is
$$P_Q(x)=\det(x I_n-Q)=x^n+\sum_{i=1}^n a_i x^{n-i}.$$
It is not hard to see that $a_1=-2m$ and $a_2=2m^2-m-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^nd_i^2$ where $(d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_n)$ is the degree-sequence of $G$.
Theorem 4.4 in \cite{CRC} provides a broad combinatorial interpretation for $a_i$, $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. A combinatorial expression for $a_3$ is obtained in \cite[Thm 2.6]{WHAB} by using mainly Theorem 4.4 in \cite{CRC}. Note that
$$a_3=(-1)^3\displaystyle\sum_{1\leq i_1<i_2<i_3\leq n} \det(Q[i_1,i_2,i_3]).$$

So it may not be difficult to find corresponding combinatorial interpretation of $\det(Q[i_1,i_2,i_3])$ in terms of subgraphs on three edges. Similarly we can investigate other coefficients and corresponding minors which  we essentially did for $a_{n}$ and $a_{n-1}$ in Sections 3 and 2 respectively. So the next coefficient to study is $a_{n-2}$ which entails the following question:

\begin{question}
Find a combinatorial expression or a lower bound for $\det(Q(i_1,i_2))$.
\end{question}

By Cauchy-Binet Theorem,
 $$\det(Q(i_1,i_2))=\sum_{S} \det(N(i_1,i_2;S])^2,$$
where the summation runs over all $(n-2)$-subsets $S$ of the edge set $\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. So it comes down to finding a combinatorial interpretation of  $\det(N(i_1,i_2;S])$.

\vspace*{24pt}