A Lower Bound on the Failed Zero Forcing Number of a Graph

Abstract: Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a set of vertices marked as filled, we consider a color-change rule known as zero forcing. A set $S$ is a zero forcing set if filling $S$ and applying all possible instances of the color change rule causes all vertices in $V$ to be filled. A failed zero forcing set is a set of vertices that is not a zero forcing set. Given a graph $G$, the failed zero forcing number $F(G)$ is the maximum size of a failed zero forcing set. An open question was whether given any $k$ there is a an $\ell$ such that all graphs with at least $\ell$ vertices must satisfy $F(G)\geq k$. We answer this question affirmatively by proving that for a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices, $F(G)\geq \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$.

\section{Introduction}

Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a subset $S\subseteq V$ of filled vertices, we consider the following the color change rule. If any filled vertex $v$ is adjacent to exactly one unfilled vertex $w$, then $v$ ``forces'' $w$, and  we mark $w$ as filled. The set of filled vertices after all possible instances of the rule are applied is called the derived set of $S$. If the derived set of $S$ is all of $V$, we say that $S$ is a zero forcing set for $G$. Otherwise it is a failed zero forcing set. The zero forcing number of a graph $G$, denoted $Z(G)$ is the minimum size of any zero forcing set of $G$. The failed zero forcing number $G$, denoted $F(G)$ is the maximum size of any failed zero forcing set of $G$. Zero forcing numbers and their relation to minimum rank problems have been studied extensively, for example in \cite{barioli}. Failed zero forcing numbers were introduced and studied in \cite{fetcie}.

Any path $P_n$ satisfies $Z(P_n)=1$. This can be seen by taking the initial set of filled vertices to consist of exactly one end vertex of the path. The end vertex forces its neighbor, which in turn forces its unfilled neighbor, and so on until the entire path is filled. Hence there are graphs with arbitrarily large vertex set whose zero forcing number is 1.

In \cite{fetcie}, the authors asked whether a similar property holds for the failed zero forcing number. Intuition tells us that for any fixed integer $k$ there should not be arbitrarily large graphs satisfying $F(G)=k$. The larger the graph, the more room there is to distribute a fixed number of filled vertices sparsely in such a way that no filled vertex can force. We confirm this intuition by proving that for any graph $G$ on $n$ vertices $F(G)\geq\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$. This is the best bound possible, as it was shown in \cite{fetcie} that any path $P_n$  satisfies
$F(P_n)=\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$. Strikingly, for any given number of vertices, the minimum possible zero forcing number and maximum possible failed zero forcing number are both obtained by paths.

The bound makes it possible in principle to classify all graphs with a given failed zero forcing number $k$ by exhaustively checking all graphs such that $n\leq 2k + 2$. This classification was done in \cite{fetcie} for $k=0,1$, and in \cite{gomez} for $k=2$, the latter using a special case of the bound proven here.

In what follows we prove our main result by showing a somewhat stronger result for graphs with minimum vertex degree of at least three. We then show the desired bound inductively for graphs with minimum degree one and two.

\section{Graphs with minimum degree at least three}

The main result of this section is the following lower bound on the failed zero forcing number of a graph of minimum degree three or more:

\begin{theorem}\label{delta3}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph on $n$ vertices satisfying $\delta(G)\geq 3$. Then $F(G) \geq \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor$. If $G$ contains a circuit of even length (and $n$ is odd), we can improve the bound  to $F(G) \geq \lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$.
\end{theorem}

\tikzset{
unfilled/.style = {circle, draw = black, minimum size = 0.5cm},
filled/.style = {unfilled, fill = blue!40, minimum size = 0.5cm},
collection/.style = {ellipse, draw = black, thick}
}

We develop  machinery needed to prove this result, starting with some terminology. If a set of vertices $S\neq V$ is its own derived set, then we say that $S$ is stalled. Note that any maximal failed zero forcing set is stalled. We will distinguish between vertices that cannot force because all of their neighbors are filled and vertices that cannot force because they have multiple unfilled neighbors.
\begin{defn}
Let $G=(V,E)$, $S\subseteq V$ be a set of filled vertices, and  $v\in S$. We say $v$ is \emph{spent} if all neighbors of $v$ are in $S$. Otherwise, $v$ is \emph{unspent}.
\end{defn}

\noindent\textbf{Observation:} If we have a maximal failed zero forcing set $S$ in $G$ in which all vertices are unspent, then all filled vertices are adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices. In this case, we can add any number of edges to $G$, and $S$ will still be a failed zero forcing set. This is a special case of lemma 3 in \cite{gomez}.

We next have a result about  bipartite graphs.

\begin{lemma}\label{bipartite}
If $G=(V,E)$ is a bipartite graph with bipartition $V=L\sqcup R$, and $\delta(G)\geq 2$, then $F(G)\geq\max\{|L|,|R|\}$. In particular, $F(G)\geq\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If we fill all the vertices in, say, $L$, then every filled vertex is adjacent to at least two (unfilled) vertices in $R$, and therefore cannot force.
\end{proof}

Note that all vertices in the failed zero forcing set obtained in lemma (\ref{bipartite}) are unspent. Combining the lemma with the observation we have:

\begin{corollary}
If $G$ has a bipartite spanning subgraph $H$ such that $\delta(H)\geq 2$, then $F(G)\geq\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$
\end{corollary}

A vertex cut in a connected graph $G$ is a set of vertices whose
removal causes $G$ to be disconnected or trivial. The connectivity of a connected graph $G$, denoted $\kappa(G)$, is the size of the smallest vertex cut.

We need the following:

\begin{lemma}\label{cut_vert}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph on $n$ vertices satisfying $\delta(G)\geq 3$ and $\kappa(G)=1$. Then $F(G)\geq \lfloor\frac{n+1}{2}\rfloor$

\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{The graph $G$ with the vertices in $S \cup \{v\}$ colored.}
    \label{fig:cut_vert}
    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \draw[fill = blue!40] (0, 0) ellipse(2.5cm and 1cm);
        \draw (0, -3) ellipse(0.75cm and 0.75cm);

        \node[filled, label=right:{$v$}] (v) at (0, -1.75){};
        \node (d2) at (-1.5, 0){};
        \node (d3) at (1.5, 0){};
        \node (d1) at (0, -3){};
        \node[unfilled, label=right:{$w$}] (w) at (0, -2.75){};
        \node (w1) at (-.25, -3.5){};
        \node (w2) at (.25, -3.5){};

        \draw (v) -- (w);
        \draw (v) -- (d2);
        \draw (v) -- (d3);
        \draw (w) -- (w1);
        \draw (w) -- (w2);
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \centering
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
Since $\kappa(G) = 1$ there is a vertex cut consisting of a single  vertex $v$. Let $G'$ be the graph induced by $V-\{v\}$. Since $G'$ is disconnected, we can label $k$ connected components of $G'$, $D_1, D_2,...,D_k$ with corresponding vertex sets $Y_1, Y_2,...,Y_k$, in order of increasing size.
Let $S = \bigcup_{i = 2}^k Y_i$. Note that $|S| + 1 \ge \lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor$.

The only vertex in $V - D_1$  adjacent to a vertex in $D_1$ is $v$. No vertex in $S$ can force a vertex in $D_1$, so we need only consider the color changing rule applied to $v$. If $v$ is adjacent to at least two vertices in $D_1$, then $S \cup \{v\}$, is stalled. If $v$ is adjacent to exactly one vertex in $D_1$, call it $w$ (see Figure \ref{fig:cut_vert}). Since $\delta(G) \ge 3$, $w$ has at least two neighbors in $D_1$. The derived set of $S \cup \{v\}$ would then include $w$, but not $w$'s neighbors in $D_1$ since there would be at least two of them. In either case, the derived set of $S \cup v$ excludes vertices in $D_1$, making it a failed zero forcing set. Thus, $F(G) \ge |S \cup \{v\}| \ge |S| + 1 \ge \lfloor \frac{n+1}{2} \rfloor$.

 \end{proof}

 Now we need to handle the case where $G$ has no cut vertices. We give an algorithm for finding a failed zero forcing set with at least $\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ vertices in any graph $G$ satisfying $\delta(G)\geq 3$ and $\kappa(G)\geq 2$. The algorithm for produces a stalled zero forcing set of the required size, all of whose vertices are unspent.

\begin{algo}\label{algo}     Our strategy will be to partition $V$ into  three subsets $L$, $R$ and $O$ such that any vertex in $L$ is adjacent to at least two vertices in $R\cup O$, and any vertex in $R$ is adjacent to at least two vertices in $L\cup O$. We may then obtain a stalled set by filling either all the vertices in $L$, or all of the vertices in $R$. We will have that $|O|= 0$ or $|O|=1$, so that we are guaranteed to be able to fill at least $\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$  vertices by choosing the larger of $L$ and $R$. In what follows, we refer to $L$ and $R$ as the ``sides'' of the partition. At any stage of the algorithm we let $A=L\cup R\cup O$ be the set of vertices that have already been assigned to one set in the partition, and we use $U$ the set of all vertices that remain unassigned.

Since $\delta(G)\geq 3$, $G$ has at least one cycle. If $G$ has a cycle $C
$ of even length, then assign alternating vertices of $C$ to $L$ and $R$ and let $O=\emptyset$. This guarantees that all assigned vertices are adjacent to two vertices on the other side of the partition.
If $G$ has no even cycles, then choose any odd cycle $C$ and let $O=\{v_0\}$ for an arbitrary chosen $v_0\in C$. Starting from either neighbor of $v_0$ in $C$ assign alternating vertices to $L$ and $R$. The neighbors of $v_0$ are each adjacent to a vertex in $O$ and a vertex on the other side of the partition, and all other vertices in $C$ are adjacent to two vertices on the other side of the partition.

Now, while any vertices remained unassigned we find a new vertex or vertices to assign by checking the following conditions in order of priority:

\begin{enumerate}
\item If there is any vertex $v$  that is adjacent to at least two vertices in $L\cup O$, we assign  $v$ to $R$.
\item If there is any   $v$ that is adjacent to at least two vertices in $R\cup O$, we assign   $v$ to $L$.
\item If there is any $v$ that is adjacent to exactly two vertices $w_1,w_2$ in $A$, where $w_1\in L$ and $w_2\in R$, we proceed as follows. Note that there must be a path $u_0,u_1,\ldots,v$ from some other vertex $u_0\in A$ to $v$, or else $v$ would be a cut vertex. We may assume the interior vertices of the path are in $U$. We assign $u_1$ to the opposite side of the partition as $u_0$ (or either side if $u_0\in O$), and proceed to alternate assignments until we reach (and assign) $v$. Interior assigned vertices are assigned two neighbors on the opposite side of the partition. The vertex $v $ itself has one neighbor that was just assigned to the opposite side of the partition. Together with one of its previously assigned neighbors, it now has two neighbors with the opposite assignment as itself.

\begin{figure}[H]
  \caption{Case 3 of Algorithm. A red label indicates the label was newly assigned in this stage. }\label{case3}
  \centering
    \begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{vertex} = [circle, draw=black]
\tikzstyle{filled_vertex} = [circle, draw=black, fill = blue!40]

\draw(0,0) ellipse(3.5cm and 1.75cm);

\node (v0) at (0,1){$A$};
\node[vertex,label=above:{$w_1$}] (v1) at (-1.5,-1){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,label=above:{$w_2$}] (v2) at (-.5,-1){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$v$}] (v3) at (-1,-2.25){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v4) at (0,-2.25){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v5) at (1,-2.25){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$u_1$}] (v6) at (2,-2.25){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,label=above:{$u_0$}] (v7) at (2,-.75){\tiny R};

\draw (v1) -- (v3);
\draw (v2) -- (v3);
\draw (v3) -- (v4);
\draw (v4) -- (v5);
\draw (v6) -- (v5);
\draw (v6) -- (v7);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\item If none of the previous three cases apply at any stage, we have that all vertices in $U$ that have adjacencies in $A$ have exactly one neighbor in $A$. Let $H$ be the subgraph induced by $U$. Note that  $\delta(H)\geq 2$, so $H$ contains a cycle. If $H$ contains a cycle of even length, then we may simply assign vertices in the cycle to alternating sides of the partition, as in the initial step of the algorithm. So we may assume that all cycles have odd length. Choose any cycle $C$ in $H$. Let $P$ be a path from any vertex $c_0\in C$ to a vertex $v_U\in U$,  such that $v_u$ is adjacent to a vertex $v_A\in A$. We may choose $P$ so that $P\cap C=\{c_0\}$ and $P\cap A =\{v_A\}$. (It is possible that $c_0=v_U$.) Note that there must be a path $Q$ from some vertex $c_i\in C$,  $c_i\neq c_0$, to a vertex $w_U\in U$ that is adjacent to a vertex $w_A\in A$, or else $c_0$ would be a cut vertex of $G$.  We may also assume $Q\cap C=\{c_i\}$ and $Q\cap A=\{w_A\}$. It is possible that $v_A=w_A$. However, $P\cap Q=\emptyset$, for otherwise we would be able to produce two cycles of opposite parity containing $v_U$ using $P$, $Q$ and the two paths from $c_0$ to $c_i$ in $C$, and hence $U$ would contain an even cycle. We have two paths from $v_U$ to $w_U$ in $H$ via $c_0$ and $c_i$, taking opposite paths around $C$. Since $C$ is of odd length, the paths' lengths have opposite parity. If $v_A$ and $w_A$ are on opposite side of the partition, then give $v_U$ the opposite label of $v_A$, and proceed along the even-length path alternating labels.  If $v_A$ and $w_A$ are on opposite side of the partition, then give $v_U$ the opposite label of $v_A$, and proceed along the odd-length path alternating labels.
\end{enumerate}

\begin{figure}[H]
  \caption{Case 4 of Algorithm. In the event that $v_A$ and $w_A$ have opposite labels, we alternate labels along an odd-length path  $v_A$ and $w_A$  }
  \centering
    \begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{vertex} = [circle, draw=black, minimum size = .5cm]
\tikzstyle{filled_vertex} = [circle, draw=black, fill = blue!40]

\node[vertex,label=below:{$v_A$}] (v1) at (0,0){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red,label={[align=left]$c_0=$\\$v_U$}] (v2) at (1,0){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v3) at (2.5,1){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v4) at (2,-1){};
x\node[vertex,text=red] (v5) at (3,-1){};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$c_i$}] (v6) at (4,0){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$w_U$}] (v7) at (5,0){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,label=below:{$w_A$}] (v8) at (6,0){\tiny R};

\draw (v1)--(v2);
\draw (v2)--(v3);
\draw (v2)--(v4);
\draw (v4)--(v5);
\draw (v6)--(v5);
\draw (v3)--(v6);
\draw (v7)--(v6);
\draw (v7)--(v8);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[H]
  \caption{Case 4 of Algorithm. In the event that $v_A$ and $w_A$ have the same label, we alternate labels along an even-length path  $v_A$ and $w_A$  }
  \centering
    \begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{vertex} = [circle, draw=black, minimum size = .5cm]
\tikzstyle{filled_vertex} = [circle, draw=black, fill = blue!40]

\node[vertex,label=below:{$v_A$}] (v1) at (0,0){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red,label={[align=left]$c_0=$\\$v_U$}] (v2) at (1,0){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v3) at (2.5,1){};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v4) at (2,-1){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red] (v5) at (3,-1){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$c_i$}] (v6) at (4,0){\tiny L};
\node[vertex,text=red,label=below:{$w_U$}] (v7) at (5,0){\tiny R};
\node[vertex,label=below:{$w_A$}] (v8) at (6,0){\tiny L};

\draw (v1)--(v2);
\draw (v2)--(v3);
\draw (v2)--(v4);
\draw (v4)--(v5);
\draw (v6)--(v5);
\draw (v3)--(v6);
\draw (v7)--(v6);
\draw (v7)--(v8);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

 Any time we make new assignments, we repeat the process, checking which case applies in order. The cases are exhaustive and in any of the cases we can assign labels to more vertices while maintaining the property that any labeled vertex has as least two neighbors each of which either has the opposite label or is labeled $O$. Hence the process will terminate with all vertices assigned a label and the final labeling satisfying the required property.
 \end{algo}

In the case where $G$ contains an even cycle, note that $O=\emptyset$, and all vertices  are labeled either $L$ or $R$ upon termination. Therefore $F(G)\geq \lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$ by Lemma \ref{bipartite}.

 Lemma \ref{cut_vert} and Algorithm \ref{algo} exhaust all possibilities for connected graphs with minimum degree at least three. Hence, we have proven Theorem \ref{delta3}.

\section{The General Case}

Next we handle the case where $G$ has vertices of degree less than three with an inductive argument.

\begin{theorem}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph on $n$ vertices. $F(G)\geq \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}

If $G$ is disconnected, we may find a failed zero set $S$ satisfying  $|S|\geq \lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil$ by filling all vertices in all but the smallest connected component of $G$.  If $G$ is connected and $\delta(G)\geq 3$, we know from Theorem \ref{delta3} that the desired inequality holds.  So we only need to consider the cases where $\delta(G)=1$ and $\delta(G)=2$.

We proceed by induction on $n$. If $n=1$, $F(G)=0=\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ and the result holds. Now assume the inequality holds for all graphs with fewer than $n$ vertices.

Suppose $\delta(G) = 1$ and let $v \in V$ with $\deg(v) = 1$. Let $v$ be adjacent to $w$ and  let $G'$ be the subgraph induced by $V' = V-\{v,w\}$ .   By the inductive hypothesis,  $F(G') \ge \lfloor \frac{(n - 2) - 1}{2} \rfloor$. Let $S'\subset V'$ be a stalled set that achieves this bound.

\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{The graph $G$ with $\delta(G) = 1$. Case where $w$ is adjacent to $x \in V' - S'$.}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=below:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=below:{$w$}] at (1,0) (w) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, -1) (w_1) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=right:{$x$}] at (2, 0) (w_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 1) (w_3) {};

        \draw (v) -- (w);
        \draw (w) -- (w_1);
        \draw (w) -- (w_2);
        \draw (w) -- (w_3);

        \node[collection, minimum height = 4cm, minimum width = 3.5cm, dotted] at (3.2, 0) (W) {$G'$};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=below:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[filled, label=below:{$w$}] at (1,0) (w) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, -1) (w_1) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=right:{$x$}] at (2, 0) (w_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 1) (w_3) {};

        \draw (v) -- (w);
        \draw (w) -- (w_1);
        \draw (w) -- (w_2);
        \draw (w) -- (w_3);

        \node[collection, minimum height = 4cm, minimum width = 3.5cm, dotted] at (3.2, 0) (W) {$G'$};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

Suppose $w$ is adjacent to an unfilled vertex $x\in V'$. We claim $S = S' \cup \{w\}$ is stalled in $G$. Consider $y \in S'$. We see $y$ is either only adjacent to vertices in $S' \cup \{w \}$, or it is adjacent to at least 2 unfilled vertices in $G'$. Either way, $y$ cannot force any of its neighbors in $G$. We also see that $w$ cannot force its neighbors since $w$ is adjacent to $v$ and $x$ which are both unfilled. Thus, $S$ is stalled. Note $|S' \cup \{w\}| \ge \lfloor \frac{(n - 2) - 1}{2} \rfloor + 1 = \lfloor \frac{n - 1}{2} \rfloor$.
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{The graph $G$ with $\delta(G) = 1$. Case where $w$ is adjacent to only vertices in $S' \cup v$.}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=below:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=below:{$w$}] at (1,0) (w) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, -1) (w_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 0) (w_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 1) (w_3) {};

        \draw (v) -- (w);
        \draw (w) -- (w_1);
        \draw (w) -- (w_2);
        \draw (w) -- (w_3);

        \node[collection, minimum height = 4cm, minimum width = 3.5cm, dotted] at (3.2, 0) (W) {$G'$};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=below:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[filled, label=below:{$w$}] at (1,0) (w) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, -1) (w_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 0) (w_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (2, 1) (w_3) {};

        \draw (v) -- (w);
        \draw (w) -- (w_1);
        \draw (w) -- (w_2);
        \draw (w) -- (w_3);

        \node[collection, minimum height = 4cm, minimum width = 3.5cm, dotted] at (3.2, 0) (W) {$G'$};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
If $w$ is adjacent to only filled vertices in $G'$, we see then $S = S' \cup \{v, w\}$ is stalled. This is because $v$ and $w$ do not cause any forcing in $G'$. Since $S' \ne V'$, we have $S \ne V$. So $S$ is a failed forcing set with $|S| = |S'| + 2 \ge \lfloor \frac{n + 1}{2} \rfloor$.

In either case, we find a stalled set of size at least $\lfloor \frac{n - 1}{2} \rfloor$.

Now let $\delta(G) = 2$. Then there exists some vertex $v \in V$ such that $\deg(v) = 2$. Let $x,y$ be the neighbors of $v$. Let $X$ be the set of all the vertices in $V - \{v\}$  adjacent to $x$. Let $Y$ be the set of all the vertices in $V - \{v\}$ adjacent to $y$.
We construct a graph $G'$ by condensing  the $x-v-y$ subgraph to a single vertex $w$. More precisely, let $G'=(V',E')$ be obtained from the subgraph of $G$ induced by $V-\{v,x,y\}$, by adding a new vertex $w$, and adding the edge $(w,z)$ for each $z\in X\cup Y$.
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{Graph $G$ (left) with $\delta(G) = 2$ with corresponding $G'$ (right).}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$x$}] at (-1,-1) (x) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$y$}] at (1,-1) (y) {};
        \node[] at (-1.5, -2) (x_1) {};
        \node[] at (-0.5, -2) (x_2) {};
        \node[] at (1.5, -2) (y_1) {};
        \node[] at (0.5, -2) (y_2) {};

        \draw (y) -- (v) -- (x);
        \draw (x) -- (x_1);
        \draw (x) -- (x_2);
        \draw (y) -- (y_1);
        \draw (y) -- (y_2);

        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (-1, -2) (X) {$X$};
        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (1, -2) (Y) {$Y$};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$w$}] at (0,0) (w) {};

        \node[] at (-1.5, -1) (x_1) {};
        \node[] at (-0.5, -1) (x_2) {};
        \node[] at (1.5, -1) (y_1) {};
        \node[] at (0.5, -1) (y_2) {};

        \draw (w) -- (x_1);
        \draw (w) -- (x_2);
        \draw (w) -- (y_1);
        \draw (w) -- (y_2);
        \node[collection, minimum width = 4cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (0, -1) (XY) {$X \cup Y$};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}

 We inductively assume $F(G') \ge \lfloor \frac{(n - 2) - 1}{2} \rfloor$. Let $S'$ be a corresponding stalled set. We consider the following cases:

\begin{enumerate}
\item
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{Case when $w \not \in S'$ and corresponding stalled set in $G$.}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$w$}] at (0,0) (w) {};

        \node[] at (-1.5, -1) (x_1) {};
        \node[] at (-0.5, -1) (x_2) {};
        \node[] at (1.5, -1) (y_1) {};
        \node[] at (0.5, -1) (y_2) {};

        \draw (w) -- (x_1);
        \draw (w) -- (x_2);
        \draw (w) -- (y_1);
        \draw (w) -- (y_2);
        \node[collection, minimum width = 4cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (0, -1) (XY) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$x$}] at (-1,-1) (x) {};
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$y$}] at (1,-1) (y) {};
        \node[] at (-1.5, -2) (x_1) {};
        \node[] at (-0.5, -2) (x_2) {};
        \node[] at (1.5, -2) (y_1) {};
        \node[] at (0.5, -2) (y_2) {};

        \draw (y) -- (v) -- (x);
        \draw (x) -- (x_1);
        \draw (x) -- (x_2);
        \draw (y) -- (y_1);
        \draw (y) -- (y_2);

        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (-1, -2) (X) {};
        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (1, -2) (Y) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
If $w \not \in S'$, then $S = S' \cup \{v\}$ is stalled in $G$. We see that any $z \in S'$ that could not force $G'$ also cannot force in $G$ since $x$ and $y$ are unfilled to match the unfilled $w$. We also see that $v$ cannot zero force in $G$ since $v$ is adjacent to $x,y \not \in S$. Thus, $S$ is a stalled set.

    \item If $w \in S'$, it is either adjacent to only filled vertices or adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $G'$.
\begin{enumerate}

    \item
    \begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{Case when $w$ is adjacent to filled vertices in $G'$ and corresponding stalled set in $G$.}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$w$}] at (0,0) (w) {};

        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -1) (x_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (-0.5, -1) (x_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (1.5, -1) (y_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (0.5, -1) (y_2) {};

        \draw (w) -- (x_1);
        \draw (w) -- (x_2);
        \draw (w) -- (y_1);
        \draw (w) -- (y_2);
        \node[collection, minimum width = 4cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (0, -1) (XY) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$x$}] at (-1,-1) (x) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$y$}] at (1,-1) (y) {};
        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -2) (x_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (-0.5, -2) (x_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (1.5, -2) (y_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (0.5, -2) (y_2) {};

        \draw (y) -- (v) -- (x);
        \draw (x) -- (x_1);
        \draw (x) -- (x_2);
        \draw (y) -- (y_1);
        \draw (y) -- (y_2);

        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (-1, -2) (X) {};
        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (1, -2) (Y) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{figure}
    If $w$ is adjacent to only  filled vertices in $G'$, then $S = (S' - \{w\}) \cup \{v,x,y\}$ is a stalled set in $G$. If a vertex was spent in $S'$, we see it must also be spent in $S$ since both $x$ and $y$ get filled. If a vertex $z$ was adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $S'$, it must also be adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $S$ as $z$ could not not have been adjacent to $x$ or $y$. Thus, $S$ is stalled.
\item
If $w$ is adjacent to at least two vertices not in $S'$, we will fill $x$ and $y$ in $G$. We first observe that every vertex in $(S' - \{w\})$ in $G$ is spent or adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices. If a vertex $z \in S'$ was adjacent to $w$, then $z$ is adjacent to $x$ or $y$ or both in $G$. Since we fill $x$ and $y$ to match $w$ being filled, we see $z$ cannot force in $G'$. Since $w$ is adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $G'$, at least two vertices in $X \cup Y$ are not in $S'$.
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{Case when $w$ is adjacent to exactly one unfilled vertex in $X$ and one in $Y$. Corresponding stalled set in $G$.}
    \label{fig:oneXoneY}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$w$}] at (0,0) (w) {};

        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -1) (x_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (-0.5, -1) (x_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (1.5, -1) (y_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (0.5, -1) (y_2) {};

        \draw (w) -- (x_1);
        \draw (w) -- (x_2);
        \draw (w) -- (y_1);
        \draw (w) -- (y_2);
        \node[collection, minimum width = 4cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (0, -1) (XY) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[unfilled, label=above:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$x$}] at (-1,-1) (x) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$y$}] at (1,-1) (y) {};
        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -2) (x_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (-0.5, -2) (x_2) {};
        \node[filled] at (1.5, -2) (y_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (0.5, -2) (y_2) {};

        \draw (y) -- (v) -- (x);
        \draw (x) -- (x_1);
        \draw (x) -- (x_2);
        \draw (y) -- (y_1);
        \draw (y) -- (y_2);

        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (-1, -2) (X) {};
        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (1, -2) (Y) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item

    If there is at least one vertex in $X - S'$ and at least one vertex in $Y - S'$, then both $x$ and $y$ are adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $G$ since both $x$ and $y$ are adjacent to some unfilled vertex in $(X \cup Y)$ as well as $v$. This means $S = (S' - \{w\}) \cup \{x, y\}$ is a stalled set in $G$. (As seen in Figure \ref{fig:oneXoneY}).
    \item

    \begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{Case when $w$ is adjacent to at least two unfilled vertices in $X$ or $Y$. Corresponding stalled set in $G$.}
    \centering

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$w$}] at (0,0) (w) {};

        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -1) (x_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (-0.5, -1) (x_2) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (1.5, -1) (y_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (0.5, -1) (y_2) {};

        \draw (w) -- (x_1);
        \draw (w) -- (x_2);
        \draw (w) -- (y_1);
        \draw (w) -- (y_2);
        \node[collection, minimum width = 4cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (0, -1) (XY) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}

    \begin{tikzpicture}
        \node[filled, label=above:{$v$}] at (0,0) (v) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$x$}] at (-1,-1) (x) {};
        \node[filled, label=above:{$y$}] at (1,-1) (y) {};
        \node[filled] at (-1.5, -2) (x_1) {};
        \node[filled] at (-0.5, -2) (x_2) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (1.5, -2) (y_1) {};
        \node[unfilled] at (0.5, -2) (y_2) {};

        \draw (y) -- (v) -- (x);
        \draw (x) -- (x_1);
        \draw (x) -- (x_2);
        \draw (y) -- (y_1);
        \draw (y) -- (y_2);

        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (-1, -2) (X) {};
        \node[collection,  minimum width = 2.5cm, minimum height = 0.75cm] at (1, -2) (Y) {};
    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{figure}
    If $X - S' = \emptyset$ or $Y - S' = \emptyset$, we claim $S = (S' - \{w\}) \cup \{v, x, y\}$ is stalled in $G$. Without loss of generality, assume $X - S' = \emptyset$ and $|Y - S'| \ge 2$. Note $x$ has neighbors $X \cup \{v\}$ in $G$. Since $v \in S$ and $X \subset S$, all of $x$'s neighbors are in $S$. Also, since $x, y \in S$, all of $v$'s neighbors are in $S$. Finally, $y$ has at least two vertices in $V - S$ since $|Y - S'| \ge 2$. Thus, none of $x, y$, or $v$ can force, making $S$ a stalled set.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
In any case, we see we can fill at least one more vertex in $G$ than we could $G'$. That is, $|S| \ge |S'| + 1$ and thus $|S| \ge \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor$.
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusions and Future Work}

We now know there are finitely many graphs where $F(G) = k$ for any given $k$ and we can enumerate them by checking all graphs with fewer than $2k + 2$ vertices. For $k\leq 4$ we can do this fairly quickly by computing $F(G)$  for all graphs $G$ with no more than ten vertices.  For $k > 4$ the number of graphs one must check gets very large.
We let $F_k$ be the set of all connected graphs $G$ such that $F(G) = k$, and $F_k(n)$ be the number of graphs in $F_k$ on $n$ vertices. Using a exhaustive search on all connected graphs up to 10 vertices we get:
\begin{figure}[H]
    \caption{}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
     $n =$ & 3& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 9& 10  \\
     \hline
     $F_1(n)$ & 2& 1&  &  &  &  &  & \\
     $F_2(n)$ &  & 5& 5& 2&  &  &  & \\
     $F_3(n)$ &  &  &16&29&16& 1&  & \\
     $F_4(n)$ &  &  &  &81&277&268&14& 1\\
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
The rows of the table correspond to graphs in $F_k$ while the columns correspond to graphs with $n$ vertices. For example, $F_1$ contains three graphs: two with three vertices and one with four vertices. We can sum the rows to get $|F_2| = 12$, $|F_3| = 62$, and $|F_4| = 641$. This confirms the result by \cite{gomez} where it was shown that there are $15$ graphs with a failed zero forcing number of two, twelve of which were connected.

We can apply our lower bound to another question problem posed in $\cite{fetcie}$: the classification of graphs that satisfy $Z(G) = F(G)$. For small $k$ we can enumerate all graphs where $F(G) = k$, and see which of these satisfy $Z(G) = k$. This gives us an exhaustive list of $G$ for which $F(G) = Z(G) = k$. We define $E_k$ to be the set of all connected graphs $G$ such that $F(G) = Z(G) = k$, and   $E_k(n)$ to be the number of graphs on $n$ vertices in $E_k$. We have computed $E_k(n)$ for $1 \le k \le 4$ and have found the following:\\
\begin{figure}[H]\label{ekn}
    \caption{}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
     $n = $ & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10  \\
     \hline
     $E_1(n)$ & 1& 1&  &  &  &  &  & \\
     $E_2(n)$ &  & 4& 4& 1&  &  &  & \\
     $E_3(n)$ &  &  & 9&10& 4&  &  & \\
     $E_4(n)$ &  &  &  &19&29& 2&  & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{figure}
 The columns of the table correspond to graphs with $n$ vertices; the sum across a row is then $|E_k|$.  For example, the pair of $1$s in the first row corresponds to two graphs in $E_1$, one with three vertices and the other with four. These graphs are $P_3$ and $P_4$, the only graphs such that $F(G) = Z(G) = 1$. Furthermore, we see that $|E_1| = 2$, $|E_2| = 9$, $|E_3| = 23$, and $|E_4| = 50$. In \cite{fetcie} it was claimed that graphs where $F(G) = Z(G)$ seem to be rare. The above gives us a quantitative method to evaluate this claim,  by finding the number of graphs with a fixed failed zero forcing number $k$ that have the same zero forcing number. For example, we see that among the 641 graphs with failed zero forcing number of four, exactly 50 have zero forcing number four.

Interesting questions to consider include finding bounds on $|E_k|$ and characterizing $n$ for which $E_k(n)\neq 0$. Toward the latter question, we note $k = F(G) \le n - 2$ for any connected graph $G$ and so any graph with $n$ vertices in $E_k$ must satisfy $n \ge k + 2$. This inequality gives us the lower diagonal in Figure 12 and Figure 13. However, we see an upper diagonal in Figure 13 that is stricter than the one in Figure 12. That is, given a connected graph $G$ with $n$ vertices in $E_k$, we ask whether $n \le k + 4$. We have checked this holds true for all connected graphs $G$ up to ten vertices.


Trigonometric Interpolation and Quadrature in Perturbed Points

Abstract: The trigonometric interpolants to a periodic function $f$ in equispaced points converge if $f$ is Dini-continuous, and the associated quadrature formula, the trapezoidal rule, converges if $f$ is continuous. What if the points are perturbed? With equispaced grid spacing $h$, let each point be perturbed by an arbitrary amount $\le \alpha h$, where $\alpha\in [\kern .5pt 0,1/2)$ is a fixed constant. The Kadec 1/4 theorem of sampling theory suggests there may be be trouble for $\alpha\ge 1/4$. We show that convergence of both the interpolants and the quadrature estimates is guaranteed for all $\alpha<1/2$ if $f$ is twice continuously differentiable, with the convergence rate depending on the smoothness of $f$. More precisely it is enough for $f$ to have $4\alpha$ derivatives in a certain sense, and we conjecture that $2\alpha$ derivatives is enough. Connections with the Fejér--Kalmár theorem are discussed.

\section{Introduction and summary of results}

The basic question of robustness of mathematical algorithms is,
what happens if the data are perturbed?  Yet little
literature exists on the effect on interpolants, or on quadratures,
of perturbing the interpolation points.

The questions addressed in this paper arise in two almost equivalent
settings: interpolation by algebraic polynomials (e.g., in
Gauss or Chebyshev points) and periodic interpolation by
trigonometric polynomials (e.g., in equispaced points).
Although we believe essentially the same results hold in
the two settings, this paper deals with just the trigonometric case.
Let $f$ be a real or complex function on $[-\pi,\pi)$, which we take
to be $2\pi$-periodic in the sense that any assumptions of
continuity or smoothness made for $f$ apply periodically at $x=-\pi$ as
well as at interior points.
For each $N\ge 0$, set $K = 2N+1$, and consider the
centered grid of $K$ equispaced points in $[-\pi,\pi)$,
\begin{equation}
x_k^{} = kh, \quad -N \le k \le N, \quad h = {2\pi\over K}.
\end{equation}
There is a unique degree-$N$ trigonometric
interpolant through the data $\{f(x_k^{})\}$, by which we mean a function
\begin{equation}
t_N^{}(x) = \sum_{k=-N}^N c_k^{} e^{ikx}
\end{equation}
with $t_N^{}(x_k^{}) = f(x_k^{})$ for each $k$.
If $I$ denotes the integral of $f$,
\begin{equation}
I = \int_{-\pi}^\pi f(x) \,dx,
\end{equation}
the associated quadrature approximation
is the integral of $t_N^{}(x)$, which can be shown to be
equal to the result of applying the trapezoidal rule to $f$:
\begin{equation}
I_N^{} = h\!\sum_{k=-N}^N f(x_k^{}) = \int_{-\pi}^\pi t_N^{}(x) \,dx = 2\pi c_0^{} .
\label{traprule}
\end{equation}
It is known that if $f$ is continuous, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} | I - I_N^{} | = 0,
\label{quadconv}
\end{equation}
and if $f$ is Dini-continuous, for which H\"older or Lipschitz continuity
are sufficient conditions, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \| f - t_N^{} \| = 0 .
\label{approxconv}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the convergence rates are tied to the
smoothness of $f$, with exponential convergence
if $f$ is analytic.  Here and throughout,
$\|\cdot\|$ is the maximum norm on $[-\pi,\pi)$.

The problem addressed in this paper is the generalization of
these results to configurations in which
the interpolation points are perturbed. For fixed
$\alpha\in ( 0,1/2)$, consider a set of points
\begin{equation}
\tilde x_k^{} = x_k^{} + s_k^{} h, \quad -N\le k \le N,
\quad |s_k|\le \alpha \, .
\label{ppoints}
\end{equation}
Note that since $\alpha < 1/2$, the $\tilde x_k^{}$ are necessarily
distinct.  Let $\tilde t_N^{}(x)$ be the unique degree-$N$
trigonometric interpolant to $\{f(\tilde x_k^{})\}$, and let
$\tilde I_N^{} = \int \tilde t_N^{}(x) \kern .7pt dx$ be the
corresponding quadrature approximation.  As in (\ref{traprule}),
this will be a linear combination of the function values, although
no longer with equal weights in general.

Let $\sigma>0$ be any positive real number, and write $\sigma
= \nu + \gamma$ with $\gamma\in (\kern .5pt 0,1]$.  We say
that $f$ {\em has $\sigma$ derivatives} if $f$ is $\nu$
times continuously differentiable and, moreover, $f^{(\nu)}$
is H\"older continuous with exponent $\gamma$.  Note that
if $\sigma$ is an integer, then for $f$ to ``have $\sigma$
derivatives'' means that $f$ is $\sigma-1$ times continuously
differentiable and $f^{(\sigma-1)}$ is Lipschitz continuous.
We will prove the following main theorem, whose central estimate
is the bound on $\|f-\tilde t_N^{}\|$ in (\ref{thmrate2}).
The estimates (\ref{thmconv})--(\ref{thmrate2}) are new, whereas
(\ref{thmrate3}) follows from the work of Kis~\cite{kis}, as
discussed in Section~\ref{confluent}.  Numerical illustrations
of these bounds can be found in~\cite{austin}.

\medskip

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}
For any $\alpha\in (\kern .5pt 0,1/2)$,
if $f$ is twice continuously differentiable, then
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\to\infty} | I - \tilde I_N^{} | =
\lim_{N\to\infty} \| f - \tilde t_N^{} \| = 0.
\label{thmconv}
\end{equation}
More precisely, if
$f$ has $\sigma$ derivatives for some $\sigma > 4\alpha$, then
\begin{equation}
| I - \tilde I_N^{} | ,
\| f - \tilde t_N^{} \| = O(N^{4\alpha-\sigma}).
\label{thmrate2}
\end{equation}
If $f$ can be analytically continued
to a $2\pi$-periodic
function for $-a < {\rm Im}\kern 2pt x < a$ for some $a>0$, then
for any\/ $\hat a < a$,
\begin{equation}
| I - \tilde I_N^{} | ,
\| f - \tilde t_N^{} \| = O(e^{-\hat aN}).
\label{thmrate3}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\medskip

Our proofs are based on combining standard estimates of
approximation theory, the Jackson theorems, with a new bound
on the Lebesgue constants associated with perturbed grids,
Theorem~\ref{thmbound}.  Our bounds are close to sharp,
but not quite.  Based on extensive numerical experiments
presented in Section 3.3.2 of~\cite{austin}, we conjecture that
$4\alpha$ can be improved to $2\alpha$ in (\ref{thmrate2}) and
(\ref{bigestimate}); for (\ref{bigestimate}) the result would
probably then be sharp, but for (\ref{thmrate2}) a slight further
improvement may still be possible.  For the quadrature problem
in particular, further experiments presented in Section 3.5.2
of~\cite{austin} lead us to conjecture that $\tilde I_N^{}
\to I$ as $N\to\infty$ for all continuous functions $f$ for
all $\alpha<1/2$.  This conjecture is based on the theory of
P\'olya in 1933~\cite{polya}, who showed that such convergence
is ensured if and only if the sums of the absolute values of the
quadrature weights are bounded as $N\to\infty$.  Experiments
indicate that for all $\alpha<1/2$, these sums are indeed bounded
as required.  On the other hand, $\tilde I_N^{}\to I$ cannot be
guaranteed for any $\alpha\ge 1/2$, since in that case the
interpolation points may come together, making the quadrature
weights unbounded.

Theorems~\ref{thm1} and~\ref{thmbound} suggest that from the
point of view of approximation and quadrature, $\alpha = 1/4$
is not a special value.  In Section~\ref{sampling} we
comment on the significance of the appearance of this number
in the Kadec 1/4 theorem and more generally on the relationship
between approximation theory and sampling theory, two subjects
that address closely related questions and yet have little
overlap of literatures or experts.

All the estimates reported here were worked out by the first
author and presented in his D.\ Phil.\ thesis~\cite{austin}.
This work was motivated by work of the second author with
Weideman in the review article ``The exponentially convergent
trapezoidal rule''~\cite{tw}.  It is well known that on an
equispaced periodic grid, the trapezoidal rule is exponentially
convergent for periodic analytic integrands~\cite{davis,tw}.
With perturbed points, it seemed to us that exponential
convergence should still be expected, and we were surprised
to find that there seemed to be no literature on this subject.
A preliminary discussion was given in~\cite[Sec.~9]{tw}.

Section~\ref{lebesguesec} reduces Theorem~\ref{thm1} to a
bound on the Lebesgue constant, Theorem~\ref{thmbound}.
Sections~\ref{confluent} and \ref{sampling} are devoted
to comments on problems with $\alpha\ge 1/2$ and on
the link with sampling theory and Kadec's theorem,
respectively.  Section~\ref{bound} outlines the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thmbound}.

\section{\label{lebesguesec}Reduction to a Lebesgue constant estimate}

A fundamental tool of approximation theory is the Lebesgue
constant: for any linear projection $L:f\mapsto t$, the
Lebesgue constant is the operator norm $\Lambda = \|L\|$.
For our problem the operator is the map $\tilde L_N^{}$ from a
function $f$ to its trigonometric interpolant $\tilde t_N^{}$
through the values $\{f(\tilde{x}_k^{})\}$, and the norm on $L$
is the operator norm induced by $\|\cdot\|$, the $\infty$-norm
on $[-\pi,\pi)$.  We denote the Lebesgue constant by $\tilde
\Lambda_N$.

Lebesgue constants are linked to quality of approximations
by the following well-known bound.  If
$\tilde \Lambda_N^{}$ is the Lebesgue constant
associated with the projection $\tilde L_N^{}:
f \mapsto \tilde t_N^{}$ and $t_N^*$ is the best approximation to
$f$ of degree $N$, then
\begin{equation}
\|f-\tilde t_N^{}\| \le (1+\tilde \Lambda_N^{}) \| f-t_N^*\| .
\label{basicbound}
\end{equation}
It follows that if $\tilde \Lambda_N^{}$ is small, then $\tilde
t_N^{}$ is a near-optimal approximation to $f$.  If $f$ has
a certain smoothness property for which the optimal approximations
$t_N^*$ are known to converge at a certain rate, this
implies that the interpolants $\tilde t_N^{}$ converge at nearly
the same rate.

Applying (\ref{basicbound}), we prove Theorem~\ref{thm1}
by combining a bound on the Lebesgue constants $\tilde
\Lambda_N^{}$ with bounds on the best approximation errors $\|f-
t_N^*\|$.  Our estimates of best approximations are standard
Jackson theorems, going back to Dunham Jackson in 1911 and 1912.
The nonstandard part of the argument, which from a technical
point of view is the main contribution of this paper, is the
following estimate of the Lebesgue constant, the proof of which
is outlined in Section~\ref{bound}.

\medskip

\begin{theorem}
\label{thmbound}
There is a universal constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}
\tilde \Lambda_N^{} \le {C(N^{4\alpha}-1)\over \alpha(1-2\alpha)}
\label{bigestimate}
\end{equation}
for all\/ $\alpha\in [\kern .5pt 0,1/2)$ and $N> 0$.
For $\alpha=0$ this bound is to be interpreted by its
limiting value given, for example, by L'Hopital's rule,
$\tilde\Lambda_N^{} \le 4\kern1pt C\log N$.
\end{theorem}

\medskip

The $\log N$ bound for an equispaced grid with $\alpha = 0$
is standard, so the substantive result here concerns $\alpha\in
(0,1/2)$.  This is what we can prove, but as mentioned in the
previous section, based on numerical experiments, we conjecture that
(\ref{bigestimate}) actually holds with $N^{4\alpha}$ replaced
by $N^{2\alpha}$.

Given Theorem~\ref{thmbound}, we prove Theorem~\ref{thm1} as follows.

\medskip

{\em Proof of Theorem\/~$\ref{thm1}$, given Theorem\/~$\ref{thmbound}$.}
The Jackson theorems of approximation theory relate the smoothness
of a function $f$ to the accuracy of its best
approximations~\cite{jackson,meinardus}.
According to one of these theorems, given for example as
Theorem~41 of~\cite{meinardus},
if $f$ is a periodic function
on $[-\pi,\pi)$ that has $\sigma$ derivatives for
some $\sigma>0$ in the sense defined in Section 1, then
\begin{equation}
\| f-t_N^*\|  = O(N^{-\sigma}).
\end{equation}
Combining this with Theorem~\ref{thmbound}
gives (\ref{thmrate2}).  The bound (\ref{thmrate3})
follows similarly from the estimate
\begin{equation}
\| f-t_N^*\|  = O(e^{-\hat aN})
\end{equation}
for any $2\pi$-periodic function $f$ analytic and bounded in
the strip of half-width $\hat a>0$ about the real axis; see, for
example, eq.~(7.17) of~\cite{tw}. \endproof

\section{\label{confluent}\boldmath $\alpha \ge 1/2$, confluent
points, and analytic functions} Our framework (\ref{ppoints}) for
perturbed points can be generalized to values $\alpha \ge 1/2$.
For $\alpha\in [1/2, 1)$, two grid points may coalesce, so one
must assume that $f'$ exists in order to ensure that there are
appropriate data to define an interpolation problem (in this case,
trigonometric Hermite interpolation).  Similarly for $\alpha\in
[1,3/2)$, three points may coalesce, so one must assume $f''$
exists; and so on analogously for any finite value of $\alpha$.
(We wrap grid points around as necessary if the perturbation moves
them outside of $[-\pi, \pi)$; equivalently, one could extend $f$
periodically.)

Looking at the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm1} but considering
values $\alpha \ge 1/2$, one notes that the assumption of
$\sigma>4\alpha$ derivatives is enough to ensure that the necessary
derivatives exist for the interpolation problem to make sense; the
conjectured sharper condition of $\sigma> 2\alpha$ derivatives is
also (\kern .7pt just) enough.  This coincidence seems suggestive,
and we consider it possible that Theorem~\ref{thm1} and its
conjectured improvement with $2\alpha$ may in fact be valid for
arbitrary $\alpha>0$, not just $\alpha \in (\kern .5pt 0,1/2)$.
We have not attempted to prove this, however.  As a practical
matter, trouble can be expected in floating-point arithmetic as
sample points coalesce, so we regard the case $\alpha \ge 1/2$
as somewhat theoretical.

Going further, what if we allow arbitrary perturbations of the
interpolation points, so that each $\tilde x_k^{}$ may lie
anywhere in $[-\pi,\pi)$?  Doing so makes sense mathematically
if $f$ is infinitely differentiable; so in particular, it
makes sense if $f$ is analytic, which implies that it can be
analytically continued to a $2\pi$-periodic function on the
whole real line.  We are now in an area of approximation theory
(and potential theory) going back to the work of Runge~\cite{runge}
and Fej\'er~\cite{fejer}, in which a major contributor was Joseph
Walsh~\cite{gaier,walsh}.  For arbitrary $x_k^{}$, convergence
will occur if $f$ is analytic in a sufficiently wide strip around
the real axis in the complex $x$-plane.  Repeated points
are permitted, with interpolation at such points interpreted
in the Hermite sense involving values of both the function
and its derivatives.  If the points $x_k$
are {\em uniformly distributed\/} in the sense that the fraction
of points falling in any interval $[a,b)\subseteq [-\pi,\pi)$
converges to $(b-a)/2\pi$ as $N\to\infty$, then it is enough for
$f$ to be analytic in {\em any\/} strip around the real axis.
Such results were first developed for polynomial approximation
on the unit circle of functions analytic in the unit disk, the
so-called Fej\'er--Kalm\'ar theorem~\cite{fejer,kalmar,walsh}.
The extension to functions analytic in an annulus was considered by
Hlawka~\cite{hlawka}, and the equivalent problem of trigonometric
interpolation of $2\pi$-periodic functions on $[-\pi,\pi)$ was
considered by Kis~\cite{kis}.  All these results may fail in
practice because of rounding errors on the computer, however.
For example, Figure~3.7 of~\cite{austin} shows an example with
uniformly distributed random interpolation points in $[-\pi,\pi)$,
with rounding errors beginning to take over at $N\approx 20$.
For the case of interpolation by algebraic polynomials, this
kind of effect is familiar in the context of the Runge phenomenon,
where polynomial interpolants in equispaced points in $[-1,1]$
will diverge on a computer as $N\to\infty$ even for a function
like $f(x) = \exp(x)$ for which in principle they should converge.

\section{\label{sampling}Sampling theory and the Kadec \boldmath$1/4$
theorem} The field of approximation theory
goes back to Borel, de la Vall\'ee Poussin, Fej\'er, Jackson,
Lebesgue, and others at the beginning of the 20th century, and
its central question might be characterized like this:

\medskip

\begin{quotation}
\noindent
\em Given a function $f$ of a certain regularity, how
fast do its approximations of a given kind converge?
\end{quotation}

\medskip

\noindent
For example, if $f$ is periodic and analytic on $[-\pi, \pi)$, then
its equispaced trigonometric interpolants converge exponentially.
The same holds if $f$ is analytic in a strip surrounding the
whole real line and satisfies a decay condition at $\infty$,
with trigonometric interpolants generalized to interpolatory
series of sinc functions.

The field of sampling theory goes back to Gabor, Kotelnikov,
Nyquist, Paley, Shannon, J. M. and E. T. Whittaker, and Wiener a
few years later.  Its central question might be characterized
like this:

\medskip

\begin{quotation}
\noindent
\em Given a function $f$ of a certain regularity, which of
its approximations of a given kind are
exactly equal to $f\kern 1pt ?$
\end{quotation}

\medskip

\noindent
For example, if $f$ is periodic and analytic on $[-\pi,\pi)$,
then its equispaced trigonometric interpolant is exact if $f$
is band-limited (has a Fourier series of compact support) and
the grid includes at least two points per wavelength for each
wave number present in the series.  The same holds if $f$ is a
band-limited analytic function on the whole real line, with the
Fourier series generalized to the Fourier transform, and again
with trigonometric interpolation generalized to sinc interpolation.

Obviously we have worded these characterizations to highlight
the similarities between the two fields, which in fact differ in
significant ways.  Still, it is remarkable how little interaction
there has been between the two.  What makes this relevant to the
present paper is that our theorems and orientation are very much
those of approximation theory, whereas most of the scientific
interest in perturbed grids in the past has been from the side
of sampling theory, and the Kadec 1/4 theorem is the known result
in this general area.

Kadec's theorem is an answer to a question of sampling theory that
originates with Paley and Wiener~\cite{pw}.  The exponentials
$\{\exp(i\lambda_k^{} x)\}$, $-\infty < k < \infty$, form an
orthonormal basis for $L^2[-\pi,\pi]$ if $\lambda_k^{} = k$
for each $k$.  Thus, the sampling theorist would say that one can
recover a function $f\in L^2[-\pi,\pi]$ from its inner products
with the functions $\{\exp(i\lambda_k^{} x)\}$.  Now suppose these
wave numbers are perturbed so that $|\tilde \lambda_k^{} - k | \le
\alpha$ for some fixed $\alpha$.  Can one still recover the signal?
Specifically, does the family $\{\exp(i\tilde \lambda_k^{} x)\}$
form a {\em Riesz basis} for $L^2[-\pi,\pi]$, that is, a basis
that is related to the original one by a bounded transformation
with a bounded inverse?  Paley and Wiener showed that this is
always the case for $\alpha < 1/\pi^2$, and Levinson showed it
is not always the case for $\alpha \ge 1/4$.  Kadec's theorem
shows that Levinson's construction was sharp: for any $\alpha <
1/4$, the family $\{\exp(i\tilde \lambda_k^{} x)\}$ forms a Riesz
basis~\cite{aldgro,christensen,kadec,young}.

Note that the standard setting of Kadec's theorem involves
perturbation of wave numbers from equispaced values, in contrast
to the results of this paper, which involve perturbation of
interpolation points from equispaced values.  In view of
the Fourier transform, however, these settings are related, so one might
imagine, based on Kadec's theorem, that $\alpha = 1/4$ might be a
critical value for trigonometric interpolation in perturbed points.
Instead, we have found that the critical value is $\alpha = 1/2$.

We explain this apparent discrepancy as follows.  The Paley--Wiener
theory and Kadec's theorem are results concerning the $L^2$
norm, which in many applications would represent energy.  In our
application of trigonometric interpolation, something related to
the $L^2$ norm does indeed happen at $\alpha = 1/4$.  Suppose we
look at a {\em $2$-norm Lebesgue constant} $\tilde\Lambda_N^{(2)}$
for the perturbed grid interpolation problem, defined as the
operator norm on $L: f\mapsto \tilde t_N^{}$ induced by the
discrete $\ell^2$-norm on the data $\{f(\tilde x_k^{})\}$ and
on the Fourier coefficients of the interpolant $\tilde t_k^{}$.
Numerical experiments reported in Section 3.4.3 of~\cite{austin}
indicate that whereas the usual $\infty$-norm Lebesgue constant
is unbounded for all $\alpha$, $\tilde\Lambda_N^{(2)}$ is bounded
as $N\to\infty$ for any $\alpha < 1/4$ but not always bounded for
$\alpha \ge 1/4$.  (Indeed Kadec's theorem may imply this result.)
For $\alpha \in (1/4,1/2)$, we conjecture
$\tilde \Lambda_N^{(2)} = O(N^{4\alpha - 1})$.

Thus a sampling theorist might say that for $\alpha \in
[1/4,1/2)$, trigonometric interpolation is {\em unstable} in
the sense that it may amplify signals unboundedly in $\ell^2$
as $N\to\infty$.  On the other hand the approximation theorist
might note that the instability is very weak, involving not
even one power of $N$.  Assuming that the conjectured sharpening of
the estimate (\ref{thmrate2}) of Theorem~\ref{thm1} is valid,
one derivative of smoothness of $f$ is enough to suppress the
instability, ensuring $\|f-\tilde t_N^{}\|\to 0$ as $N\to\infty$
for all $\alpha < 1/2$.  The numerical analyst might add that on a
computer, amplification of rounding errors by $o(N)$ is unlikely
to cause trouble.  For $\alpha \ge 1/2$, in strong contrast,
the amplification is unbounded in any norm even for finite $N$,
and trouble is definitely to be expected.

\section{\label{bound}Proof of the Lebesgue constant estimate,
Theorem~\ref{thmbound}} A full proof of Theorem~\ref{thmbound},
filling 20 pages, is the subject of Chapter~4 of the first author's
D.\ Phil.\ thesis~\cite{austin}.  Many detailed trigonometric estimates
are involved, and we do not know how to shorten it significantly.
For readers interested in full details, that chapter has been made
available in the Supplementary Materials attached to this paper.

Here, we outline the argument.
To prove the bound (\ref{bigestimate}) on the Lebesgue constant,
\begin{equation}
\tilde \Lambda_N^{} \le {C(N^{4\alpha}-1)\over \alpha(1-2\alpha)},
\label{bigestimateagain}
\end{equation}
we begin by noting that $\tilde \Lambda_N^{}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde \Lambda_N^{}= \max_{x\in[-\pi,\pi]} \tilde L(x),
\label{maxdef}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde L$ is the Lebesgue function
\begin{equation}
\tilde L(x) = \sum_{k=-N}^N |\tilde \ell_k^{}(x) |,
\label{basicsum}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\ell}_k^{}$ is the $k$th
Lagrange cardinal trigonometric polynomial for the perturbed grid,
\begin{equation}
\tilde \ell_k^{}(x) = \prod_{j\ne k}\left.
\sin\Big({x-\tilde x_j^{}\over 2}\Big)
\right/ \sin\Big({\tilde x_k^{}-\tilde x_j^{}\over 2}\Big).
\end{equation}
The function $\tilde\ell_k^{}(x)$ takes the values $1$ at $\tilde
x_k^{}$ and $0$ at the other grid points $\tilde x_j^{}$, and the
sum (\ref{basicsum}) adds up contributions at a point $x$ from
all the $2N+1$ cardinal functions associated with grid points to
its left and right.

The argument begins by showing that on the interval $[x_{-(k + 1)}^*,
x_{-k}^*]$, $\tilde{\ell}_0$ satisfies the bound
\begin{equation}
|\tilde{\ell}_0(x)| \leq M_k, \quad x\in [x_{-(k + 1)}^*, x_{-k}^*], \quad 0 \leq k \leq N,
\label{Mbounds}
\end{equation}
for certain numbers $M_0, \ldots, M_N$, independently of the choice of
perturbed points $\{\tilde{x}_k\}$.  The points $x_k^*$ are defined by $x_0^* =
0$, $x_{-(N + 1)}^* = -\pi$, and
\[
x_k^* = 2\arctan\left(\frac{\cos(kh) - \cos(\alpha h) + \tan(\tilde{x}_0/2)\sin(kh)}{\tan(\tilde{x}_0/2)\bigl(\cos(kh) + \cos(\alpha h)\bigr) - \sin(kh)}\right), \quad -N \leq k \leq N, k \neq 0;
\]
the most important fact about them is that they satisfy the inequalities
\[
(k - \alpha)h \leq x_k^* \leq (k + \alpha)h, \quad -N \leq k \leq N.
\]
Thus, (\ref{Mbounds}) bounds $\tilde{\ell}_0$ on certain subintervals of
$[-\pi, 0]$.  By exploiting symmetry, these bounds yield similar bounds on
$\tilde{\ell}_0$ on similar subintervals of $[0, \pi]$ as well as bounds on the
other $2N$ contributions to $\tilde{L}$ in (\ref{basicsum}).  We are eventually
led to the estimate
\[
\tilde{L}(x) \leq 9 \sum_{k = 0}^N M_k,
\]
which holds uniformly for $x \in [-\pi, \pi]$.

For sufficiently large $N$, the $M_k$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
M_k^{} \le {10 \pi\over 1-2\alpha}, \quad k = 0, 1
\label{Mineq1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M_k^{} \le {3 \pi (k+1)^{2\alpha}\over (1-2\alpha) (k-1)^{1-2\alpha}}, \quad 2 \le k \le N.
\label{Mineq2}
\end{equation}
The bound (\ref{bigestimateagain}) follows by an estimation of the sums of
(\ref{Mineq1}) and (\ref{Mineq2}) over all $k$.  The numbers $M_k^{}$ are
defined by
\begin{equation}
M_k^{} =
\max_{x \in [-\pi, 0] \cap R_k^{}} \frac{P_k^{}(x)}{Q_k^{}},
\quad 0 \le k \le N,
\label{Mdef}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{displaymath} P_k^{}(x)
= \prod_{i=1}^N \left|\sin\left(\frac{x - (i -
\alpha)h}{2}\right)\right|  \times\prod_{i=1}^k
\left|\sin\left(\frac{x + (i - \alpha)h}{2}\right)\right|
 \times\prod_{i = k + 1}^N \left|\sin\left(\frac{x + (i +
\alpha)h}{2}\right)\right|
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
 Q_k^{} = \prod_{i = 1}^N \left|\sin\left(\frac{(2\alpha
- i)h}{2}\right)\right|  \times\prod_{i = 1}^k
\left|\sin\left(\frac{ih}{2}\right)\right|
\times\prod_{i = k + 1}^N \left|\sin\left(\frac{(2\alpha +
i)h}{2}\right)\right|.
\end{displaymath}
The set $R_k^{}$ in the definition of the range of
the maximum in (\ref{Mdef}) is the interval
\begin{displaymath}
R_k^{} = [(-k - 1 - \alpha)h, (-k + \alpha)h].
\end{displaymath}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

Many friends and colleagues have helped us along the way.  In
particular, we thank Stefan G\"uttel, Andrew Thompson, Alex Townsend,
and Kuan Xu.  Thompson showed us how we could improve $N^{4\alpha}$ to
$N^{4\alpha}-1$ in our main estimate (\ref{bigestimate}).

\vskip .1in

~~


The number of distinct eigenvalues of a matrix after perturbation

Abstract: We prove a new theorem relating the number of distinct eigenvalues of a matrix after perturbation to the prior number of distinct eigenvalues, the rank of the update, and the degree of nondiagonalizability of the matrix. In particular, a rank one update applied to a diagonalizable matrix can at most double the number of distinct eigenvalues. The theorem applies to both symmetric and nonsymmetric matrices and perturbations, of arbitrary magnitudes. An an application, we prove that in exact arithmetic the number of Krylov iterations required to exactly solve a linear system involving a diagonalizable matrix can at most double after a rank one update.

\section{Distinct eigenvalues after perturbation}
The spectrum of a matrix after perturbation is of interest in a wide variety
of applications and has been studied extensively in various particular cases,
with most work focussing on the case of symmetric rank one perturbations
\cite{wilkinson1965,golub1973,bunch1978,ipsen2009}. More general results
concern the Jordan form of the matrix after ``generic'' rank one
perturbations, i.e.~the set of rank one perturbations for which the analysis
does not hold has Lebesgue measure zero
\cite{hormander1994,savchenko2003,moro2003,mehr2013}. In this work we prove a
new theorem regarding the number of distinct eigenvalues of arbitrary matrices
perturbed by updates of arbitrary rank.

Let $\Lambda(M)$ be the set of distinct eigenvalues of a matrix $M$. Let $m_a(M,
\lambda)$ and $m_g(M, \lambda)$ be the algebraic and geometric multiplicity of $\lambda$ as an eigenvalue of $M$,
respectively.
\begin{definition}[Defectivity of an eigenvalue] \label{def:defectivity}
The defectivity of an eigenvalue $d(M, \lambda) \ge 0$ is the difference between
its algebraic and geometric multiplicities,
\begin{equation}
d(M, \lambda) \equiv m_a(M, \lambda) - m_g(M, \lambda).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Defectivity of a matrix]
The defectivity of a matrix $d(M)$ is the sum of the defectivities of its
eigenvalues:
\begin{equation}
d(M) \equiv \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(M)} \big( m_a(M, \lambda) - m_g(M, \lambda) \big).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Recall that $m_a(M, \lambda) \ge m_g(M, \lambda)$ for all $M$ and $\lambda$. Thus,
$d(M, \lambda) \ge 0$, and $d(M) \ge 0$.
Defectivity is a quantitative measure of nondiagonalizability: a matrix
is diagonalizable if and only if it has defectivity zero.
\begin{remark}
The defectivity of a matrix is clear from its Jordan form: it is the number of
off-diagonal ones.
\end{remark}

We now give the central theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fullthm}
Let $A, B \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$. If $C = A + B$, then $\left|\Lambda(C)\right| \le (\rank{B}+1) \left|\Lambda(A)\right| + d(A)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly $\left|\Lambda(C)\right| = \left|\Lambda(C) \cap \Lambda(A)\right| + \left|\Lambda(C)
\setminus \Lambda(A)\right|$, and the first term is bounded by $\left|\Lambda(A)\right|$. We seek an
upper bound for the quantity
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\begin{subarray}

\lambda \in \Lambda(C) \\
\lambda \notin \Lambda(A) \\
\end{subarray}} m_a(C, \lambda)
\end{equation}
as this bounds the number of new eigenvalues that the perturbation can introduce. (Every
eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $C$ must have $m_a(C, \lambda) \ge 1$.) Since for $M \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(M)} m_a(M, \lambda) = n,
\end{equation}
it follows that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\begin{subarray}

\lambda \in \Lambda(C) \\
\lambda \notin \Lambda(A) \\
\end{subarray}} m_a(C, \lambda) + \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} m_a(C, \lambda) = n,
\end{equation}
with the convention that $m_a(C, \lambda) = 0 \iff \lambda \notin \Lambda(C)$. Thus, the upper bound on the number of new eigenvalues
introduced is maximized when
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} m_a(C, \lambda)
\end{equation}
is minimized.

Let $\lambda \in \Lambda(A)$. We first
investigate $m_g(C, \lambda)$, the geometric multiplicity of $\lambda$ as an
eigenvalue of the perturbed matrix $C$. Using the fact that $\rank{X + Y} \le
\rank{X} + \rank{Y}$, we derive a lower bound for $m_g(C, \lambda)$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{alignat}{2}
&\quad &\rank{A + B - \lambda I} &\le \rank{A - \lambda I} + \rank{B} \\
&\implies &n - \dk{A + B - \lambda I} & \le n - \dk{A - \lambda I} + \rank{B} \label{eqn:rankB} \\
&\implies &m_g(C, \lambda) &\ge m_g(A, \lambda) - \rank{B}. \label{eqn:rank_lowerbound}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Hence, the geometric multiplicity of an eigenvalue can at most decrease
by $r$ on perturbation by a rank-$r$ operator.

It therefore follows that
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:allinequality}
\begin{align}
\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} m_a(C, \lambda) &\ge \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} m_g(C, \lambda) \\
                                              &\ge \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} \big(m_g(A, \lambda) - \rank{B}\big) \qquad \qquad \qquad \ \text{ (by \eqref{eqn:rank_lowerbound})} \label{eqn:beforediagonalisability} \\
                                              &=   \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(A)} \big(m_a(A, \lambda) - \rank{B} - d(A, \lambda)\big) \qquad \text{ (by Definition \ref{def:defectivity})} \label{eqn:diagonalisability} \\
                                              &=   n - \rank{B}\left|\Lambda(A)\right| - d(A). \label{eqn:lowerbound}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}

The maximal number of new eigenvalues is achieved when
\eqref{eqn:allinequality} is an equality,
and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\begin{subarray}

\lambda \in \Lambda(C) \\
\lambda \notin \Lambda(A) \\
\end{subarray}} m_a(C, \lambda) = n - \left(n - \rank{B}\left|\Lambda(A)\right| - d(A)\right) = \rank{B}\left|\Lambda(A)\right| + d(A).
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{align}
\left|\Lambda(C)\right| &= \left|\Lambda(C) \cap \Lambda(A)\right| + \left|\Lambda(C) \setminus \Lambda(A)\right| \nonumber\\
                                  &\le \left|\Lambda(A)\right| + \rank{B}\left|\Lambda(A)\right| + d(A) = (\rank{B}+1)\left|\Lambda(A)\right| + d(A).
\end{align}
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
Let $A$ be diagonalizable $($i.e., $d(A) = 0)$ and let $B$ have rank one. If $C = A + B$, then $\left|\Lambda(C)\right| \le 2 \left|\Lambda(A)\right|$.
\end{corollary}

\section{Krylov iterations after a rank one update}
Consider the linear systems $Ax = b$ and $Cy = d$.
If $A$ is diagonalizable, then its minimal polynomial degree $\mpd{A} =
\left|\Lambda(A)\right|$, and an optimal Krylov method (GMRES \cite{saad1986},
MINRES \cite{paige1975}, or CG \cite{hestenes1952}, if applicable) will
compute $x$ exactly in the same number of iterations. (Here, and henceforth, exact
arithmetic is assumed.)

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:krylov}
Consider the linear systems $Ax = b$ and $Cy = d$.
Let $A$ be diagonalizable, and let $B$ have rank one. If $C = A + B$, then $y$
can be computed exactly with an optimal Krylov method in at most double the
number of iterations required for $x$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $C$ is diagonalizable, then $\mpd{C} = \left|\Lambda(C)\right| \le
2\left|\Lambda(A)\right| = 2\ \mpd{A}$, i.e.~the number of distinct eigenvalues
bounds the number of Krylov iterations required to solve the perturbed matrix.

If $C$ is not diagonalizable, we know from \eqref{eqn:rank_lowerbound} that the
number of Jordan blocks associated with an eigenvalue $\lambda \in \Lambda(A)$
can decrease by at most $1 = \rank{B}$ in $C$. Since by diagonalizability of $A$
all its Jordan blocks are of size $1 \times 1$, the largest Jordan block of
$C$ can be at most of size $\left|\Lambda(A)\right| \times
\left|\Lambda(A)\right|$, which can occur when all eigenvalues of $A$ lose exactly
one Jordan block. It is straightforward to calculate that with any
arrangement of new Jordan blocks of $C$ with sizes adding to $\left|\Lambda(A)\right|$,
the number of Krylov iterations required to compute $y$ is bounded by twice that
of $x$.
\end{proof}

\section{Application: Schur complement preconditioners and deflation}
Theorem \ref{thm:fullthm} is mainly of interest in situations where
$|\Lambda(A)|$ is expected to be small. Such a situation arises in the
application of preconditioners based on Schur complements.

Let $F: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}^n$ be the (discretized) residual of a nonlinear problem
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:problem}
F(u) = 0
\end{equation}
with block-structured Jacobian
\begin{equation}
J =
\begin{bmatrix}
X & Y \\
Z & 0
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
with $X$ invertible. This structure arises in many problems, including the
Stokes and Navier--Stokes equations, and in equality-constrained optimization
\cite{benzi2005}. Linear systems involving $J$ are typically solved with Schur
complement preconditioners. Define
\begin{equation}
P =
\begin{bmatrix}
X & 0 \\
0 & -S
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the Schur complement $S = -ZX^{-1}Y$. If $P$ is used as a preconditioner,
then the preconditioned operator $P^{-1}J$ is diagonalizable and has exactly
three distinct eigenvalues (with exact inner solves for the application of
$P^{-1}$) \cite{murphy2000}. Similar results hold for more general
block-structured Jacobians and preconditioners based on the Schur
complement: the preconditioned operator has a small number of distinct
eigenvalues \cite{ipsen2001}.

Suppose \eqref{eqn:problem} supports multiple solutions. One approach to compute them is to
initialize Newton's method from many different initial guesses, hoping to start
in different basins of convergence. A highly effective alternative is to
\emph{deflate} known solutions \cite{farrell2014}. Suppose one solution $u_1^*$
of \eqref{eqn:problem} has been computed from an initial guess $u_0$ and
additional solutions are sought. We construct a modified residual
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:deflatedproblem}
G(u) = M(u; u_1^*) F(u),
\end{equation}
via the application of a \emph{deflation operator} $M: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ to the residual
$F$. This deflation operator guarantees two properties. The first is the
preservation of solutions of $F$, i.e.  for $u \neq u_1^*$, $G(u) = 0 \iff F(u)
= 0$. The second is that Newton's method (or other rootfinding algorithms)
applied to $G$ will not discover $u_1^*$ again, as
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{u \rightarrow u_1^*} \|G(u)\| > 0,
\end{equation}
i.e.~along any sequence converging to the known root, its existence is masked by
the nonconvergence of the deflated residual to zero. ($M$ achieves this by introducing
a pole of the appropriate strength at the known solution.) Thus, if Newton's method
applied to $G$ converges from $u_0$, it will converge to another solution $u_2^*
\neq u_1^*$. A typical deflation operator is
\begin{equation}
M(u; u_1^*) = \frac{1}{\|u - u_1^*\|^p} + 1,
\end{equation}
where $p$ controls the strength of the pole introduced.

The process can then be repeated until no more solutions are found
from $u_0$ in a fixed number of Newton iterations. Several solutions can
be deflated with an operator $M: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n \times \cdots \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ via
\begin{equation}
M(u; u_1^*, \dots, u_k^*) = \frac{1}{\|u - u_1^*\|^p} \cdots \frac{1}{\|u - u_k^*\|^p} + 1.
\end{equation}
For full details, see Brown
and Gearhart \cite{brown1971} and Farrell
et al.~\cite{farrell2014}.

The Jacobian $\tilde{J}$ of the deflated problem \eqref{eqn:deflatedproblem} is a rank one
update of a scaling of the Jacobian of the original problem \eqref{eqn:problem}, regardless of
the number of solutions deflated:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{J} = M J + F E^T,
\end{equation}
where $E = M' \in \mathbb{R}^n$.
Hence, the preconditioned deflated Jacobian is also a rank one update of the
preconditioned original Jacobian,
\begin{equation}
C = P^{-1} \tilde{J} = M P^{-1} J + (P^{-1} F) E^T = A + B,
\end{equation}
and Theorem \ref{thm:krylov} guarantees that the solutions of linear systems involving
the deflated Jacobian can be computed exactly in no more than twice the number
of Krylov iterations required for the undeflated Jacobian.

\bibliographystyle{siam}

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Numerical Analysis (math.NA)