Upper bounds for critical probabilities in Bernoulli Percolation models

Abstract: We consider bond and site Bernoulli Percolation in both the oriented and the non-oriented cases on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and obtain rigorous upper bounds for the critical points in those models for every dimension $d \geq 3$.

\section{Introduction}

The study of Bernoulli  percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ is more than 60 years old and the existence of a non-trivial phase transition for $d\geq 2$ is well established for the model and several of its variants, but the exact value of the critical parameter $p_c$ is seldom known. A celebrated result of Kesten (see \cite{K3}) proved that the critical probability in Bernoulli bond percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^2$ is $1/2$. Beyond that, a handful of planar lattices had their critical probability established and planarity was always the key factor. On the other hand, for dimensions $d\geq 3$, there is not much hope of finding exact values for the critical probability and the best we can expect are numerical results via Monte Carlo Methods (see the very efficient algorithm in \cite{NZ}), statistical estimates based on a comparison with dependent percolation (see Section 6.2 of \cite{BR} for an overview) or rigorous bounds (see for instance \cite {W,WP}). In this paper, we focus on finding rigorous upper bounds for site and bond Bernoulli Percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ for every $d\geq 3$, in both the oriented and the non-oriented cases.

The primary tools we use are couplings between the models we seek to understand and models where bounds or precise values for the critical probabilities are known. Although those bounds are still far from the values obtained from Monte Carlo simulations, we believe that most of them are the best rigorous upper bounds in the literature.

The remainder of the text is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:model} we define more precisely the models and state the main results, in Section \ref{sec:couplings} we establish some dynamical couplings, in Section \ref{sec:proofs} we prove the theorems and in Section \ref{sec:comments} we give a numerical table with upper bounds for the critical probabilities in homogeneous Bernoulli percolation models for dimensions up to $d=9$.

\section{The models and main results}\label{sec:model}

For $d \geq 1$, the underlying graph for all the models will be the $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice in which the set of vertices is $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and the set of edges is the set of non ordered pairs $E(\mathbb{Z}^d) : = \{ \langle v, u \rangle : v, u \in \mathbb{Z}^d ~ \text{and} ~ |v-u| =1\}$. We abuse notation and denote this graph simply by $\mathbb{Z}^d$.

\subsection{Bond percolation}

Given  $p \in [0,1]$, consider a family of independent random variables $\{X_e\}_{e \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d)}$, where, for each $e \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d)$, $X_e$ has Ber($p$) distribution. Let $\mu_e$ be the law of $X_e$, and let $\mathbb{P}_p := \prod_{e \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d)} \mu_e$ be the resulting product measure. We declare an edge $e$ to be {\it open} if $X_e=1$ and {\it closed} otherwise.

We first consider the non-oriented case and denote by $\{x \leftrightarrow y\}$ the event where  $x, y \in \mathbb{Z}^d$ are connected by an open path, i.e., there exist $x_0, \dots, x_n$ such that $x_0 = x$, $x_n =y$ and each $\langle x_{j-1}, x_j \rangle$ belongs to $ E(\mathbb{Z}^d)$ and is open for $j=1, \dots, n$. Let  $\mathcal{C}^b_0 := \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}^d:  0 \leftrightarrow x\}$ be the open cluster of the origin, and $|\mathcal{C}^b_0|$ its size.

We define the percolation probability by
$\theta^{b}_d(p) := \mathbb{P}_p(|\mathcal{C}^b_0|= \infty)$. The critical point for the {\it non-oriented bond} Bernoulli percolation model will be denoted by \[p_c^{b}(d)=\sup\{p \geq 0 : \theta^b_d(p)=0\}.\]

We now consider the oriented case. Let $\{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$ be the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^d$. We denote by $\{x \rightarrow y\}$ the event where  $x, y \in \mathbb{Z}^d$ are connected by an oriented open path, i.e., there exist $x_0, \dots, x_n$ such that $x_0 = x$, $x_n =y$ and for each $j=1, \dots, n$, we have $x_j = x_{j-1} + e$, for some $e \in \{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$ and $\langle x_{j-1}, x_j\rangle$ is open. Let $\vv{\mathcal{C}}^b_0 := \{ x \in \mathbb{Z}^d : 0 \rightarrow x\}$ be the oriented open cluster of the origin, and $|\vv{\mathcal{C}}^b_0|$ its size.

Analogously, we define
$\vv{\theta}^{\, b}_d(p) :=  \mathbb{P}_p(|\vv{\mathcal{C}}^b_0|= \infty)$ the corresponding oriented percolation probability, and we denote the critical point for the {\it oriented bond} Bernoulli percolation model by \[\vv{p}_c^{\, b}(d)=\sup\{p \geq 0 : \vv{\theta}^{\,b}_d(p)=0\}.\]

Our results are the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{theo:bounds} Consider non-oriented bond Bernoulli percolation and
let $p^{\ast}(d)$ be the unique solution in $(0,1)$ of
\[\prod_{i=0}^2 \left(1-(1-p)^{\lfloor\frac{d+i}{3}\rfloor}\right)=2-\sum_{i=0}^2(1-p)^{\lfloor\frac{d+i}{3}\rfloor}.\]

Then, for every $d\geq 3$, we have $p_c(d) \leq p^{\ast}(d)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{theo:bondO}
Consider oriented bond Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$.

1) If $d$ is even, then $ \vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d)\leq 1-(1/3)^{2/d}$;

2) For $d \geq 4$, we have that \[\vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d)\leq \frac{1}{d}+\frac{C_d}{d^2},\]

where \[C_d=1+\frac{8}{d}+\frac{d^{5/2}}{(\sqrt{2\pi})^{d-1}}\left[\frac{d-1}{d-3}\right]e^{\frac{1}{12d}}.\]

3) For any dimension $d\geq 2$, we have that  $\vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d+1)\leq f(d)$, where $f(d)$ is the unique solution  in $(0,1)$ of
\[ p = \vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d) \left[p + (1-p)^{(d+1)/d}\right]. \]

\end{theorem}

{\bf Remark:} It is known (see \cite{CD}) that $\vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d)\sim 1/d$, hence the third upper bound above is asymptotically sharp.

\subsection{Site percolation}

Given a parameter $p \in [0,1]$, we consider a family $\{X_v\}_{v \in \mathbb{Z}^d}$ of independent Bernoulli random variables with parameter $p$. As before, $\mathbb{P}_p$ will denote the resulting product measure. A vertex $v \in \mathbb{Z}^d$ is declared to be {\it open} if  $X_v = 1$ and {\it closed} otherwise.

Now, the sequence of vertices $(x_0, \dots, x_n)$ is said to be an open path if all the vertices are open and for each $j = 1, \dots, n$, $\langle x_{j-1}, x_j\rangle \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d)$. If in addition to these conditions, for each $j = 1, \dots, n$, we have $x_j = x_{j-1}+ e$ for some $e \in \{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$, the sequence is said to be an oriented open path. Having these definitions we  define $\mathcal{C}^s_0$, $\vv{\mathcal{C}}^s_0$, $\theta_d^{\, s}(p)$ and $\vv{\theta}_d^{\, s}(p)$ accordingly.

Finally, the critical points for {\it non-oriented} and {\it oriented} site Bernoulli percolation are respectively given by
\[ p_c^{s}(d)=\sup\{p \geq 0 : \theta^s_d(p)=0\} \quad \quad \text{and} \quad \quad \vv{p}_c^{\, s}(d)=\sup\{p \geq 0 : \vv{\theta}^{\,s}_d(p)=0\} .\]

For site percolation models, our results are the following

\begin{theorem}\label{theo:siteNO}
Consider non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$.

1) If $d$ is even, then $ p_c^{s}(d)\leq 1-(0,32)^{2/d}$;

2) If $d$ is divisible by 3, then $p_c^{s}(d)\leq 1-(0,5)^{3/d}$;

3) For any dimension $d\geq 2$, we have that $p_c^{s}(d+1)\leq g(d)$, where $g(d)$ is the unique solution in $(0,1)$ of
\[ p = p^{\,s}_c(d) \left[p + (1-p)^{2d/(2d-1)}\right]. \]

\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{theo:siteO}
Consider oriented site Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$.

1) If $d$ is even, then $ \vv{p}_c^{\,s}(d) \leq 1-(0,25)^{2/d}$;

2) For any dimension $d \geq 2$, we have that $\vv{p}_c^{\,s}(d+1) \leq h(d)$, where $h(d)$ is the unique solution in $(0,1)$ of
\[p = \vv{p}^{\,s}_c(d) \left[p + (1-p)^{(d+1)/d}\right]. \]

\end{theorem}

\section{The Dynamical Couplings}\label{sec:couplings}

Although we are only interested in homogeneous percolation, some of the tools we will use are related to couplings between {\it anisotropic} bond percolation models.

We now define the anisotropic (or inhomogeneous) non-oriented and oriented bond percolation models. For each $i=1, \dots, d$, let $E_i = \{ \langle x, x + e_i \rangle: x \in \mathbb{Z}^d\}$ be the set of edges parallel to $e_i$. Given $p_1, \dots, p_d \in [0,1]$,  we consider a family of independent random variables $\{X_e\}_{e \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d)}$, but now, for each $e \in E_i$, $X_e$ has Ber($p_i$) distribution, $i=1, \dots, n$. The open cluster of the origin $\mathcal{C}^b_0$ and the oriented open cluster of the origin $\vv{\mathcal{C}}^b_0$ are  defined analogously. The probabilities that $|\mathcal{C}^b_0|$, $|\vv{\mathcal{C}}^b_0|$ are infinite, will be denoted by $\theta_d(p_1, \dots, p_d)$ and $\vv{\theta}_d (p_1, \dots, p_d)$ respectively.

The first coupling is the content of Proposition 1 in \cite{GPS2}:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:coupling}
Consider inhomogeneous non-oriented Bernoulli bond percolation in $\mathbb{Z}^d$. Let $p_1, \dots, p_{d+1} \in [0,1]$ and let $\Tilde{p}_d \in [0,1]$ be such that \[(1-\Tilde{p}_d) = (1-p_d)(1-p_{d+1}).\] Then,
    $\theta_{d+1}(p_1, \dots,p_d,  p_{d+1})  \geq \theta_{d}(p_1, \dots, p_{d-1}, \Tilde{p}_{d}) .$
\end{proposition}

Now we define bond and site percolation models in the triangular lattice $\mathbf{T}$. This lattice is simply $\mathbb{Z}^2$ with  extra edges of the form $\langle v,v+(1,1)\rangle$. That is, $\mathbf{T} = (V_{\mathbf{T}}, E_{\mathbf{T}})$ where $V_{\mathbf{T}} = \mathbb{Z}^2$ and $E_{\mathbf{T}}$ is the set of non ordered pairs $\{\langle v, u\rangle : v-u = (1,0), (0,1) \text{ or } (1,1) \}$. We will denote by $\theta^b_{\mathbf{T}}$ and $\theta^s_{\mathbf{T}}$ the corresponding percolation probability for bond and site models, respectively.

We will consider inhomogeneous bond percolation on $\mathbf{T}$, where the corresponding parameters $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ will refer to edges of the form $\langle v,v+(1,0)\rangle$, $\langle v,v+(0,1)\rangle$ and   $\langle v,v+(1,1)\rangle$, respectively.

In the next proposition, we construct a monotonic coupling between inhomogeneous bond percolation on the  triangular lattice $\mathbf{T}$ with parameters $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ and on $\mathbb{Z}^3$ with the same parameters.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:triangular}
Let  $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\in [0,1]$ and consider two inhomogeneous bond Bernoulli percolation processes on the triangular lattice  and on $\mathbb{Z}^3$, both with parameters $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$. Then
\[\theta^b_{\mathbf{T}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)\leq\theta^b_3(p_1,p_2,p_3).\]
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}

We will construct a dynamic coupling between the percolation process on $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$ with parameters $(p_1,p_2, p_3)$  and an infection process over $\mathbf{T}$.  We will do it in such a way that the law of infected sites in $\mathbf{T}$ is the same as the law of the open cluster of the origin for anisotropic percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^3$ and also that, if the infection process survives, the open cluster of the origin of the process in $\mathbb{Z}^3$ must be infinite.

The coupling will be built based on a susceptible-infected strategy described as follows. First, we declare  the origin of $\mathbf{T}$ as the \textit{initial} infected component. Next, at each time-step, we possibly grow the infected component and associate each new vertex $v$ of the infected component in $\mathbf{T}$ to a vertex $x(v)$  in the open cluster of the origin in $\mathbb{Z}^3$.  More precisely, consider a vertex $v$ in the infected component of $\mathbf{T}$ and a neighbor $v+u$ out of the infected component. The vertex $v$, in the infected component in $\mathbf{T}$, will be associated with some vertex $x(v)$ in the  open cluster of the origin in $\mathbb{Z}^3$. According to $u = \pm(1,0) , \pm(0,1)$ or $\pm(1,1)$ we denote $\tau(u) = \pm(1,0,0)$, $\tau(u) = \pm(0,1,0)$ or $\tau(u) = \pm(0,0,1)$ respectively. If $\langle x(v), x(v)+\tau(u) \rangle$,  is open, we infect $v+u$. (and write $x(v+u) = x(v) + \tau(u)$).

Let's define the sequence of sets $(I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n)_{n \geq 0}$. Here, $I_n$ represents the \textit{infected vertices} in $\mathbf{T}$ and $x(I_n)$ represents the vertices in $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$ associated with the infected vertices. $R_n$ represents the \textit{removed edges} of $\mathbf{T}$. Finally, given $I_n$, $x(I_n)$ and $R_n$, the \textit{susceptible edges set} is given by
\begin{equation*}
    S_{n} := \{ \langle v, u \rangle : v \in I_{n} \: \mbox{and} \: u \notin I_{n} \} \cap R_{n}^C.
\end{equation*}
At time $n=0$, we set
\begin{itemize}
    \item $I_0 = \{0\} \subset V_{\mathbf{T}}$;

    \item $R_0 = \emptyset \subset E_{\mathbf{T}}$;

    \item $x(0) = 0 \in \mathbb{Z}^{3}$;

    \item $S_0 := \{ \langle v, u \rangle : v \in I_{0} \: \mbox{and} \: u \notin I_{0} \} \cap R_{0}^C \:\: = \{ \langle 0, \pm (1,0)\rangle, \langle 0,\pm (1,0)\rangle ,\langle 0,\pm (1,1)\rangle \}$.
\end{itemize}

This means that, at time $n=0$, only the vertex $0$ is infected, and it can potentially infect any of its neighbours, so all edges containing the origin are susceptible. After that, in each step, an infected vertex tries to infect a non-infected vertex through a susceptible edge (if the latter exists). From now on, we choose an arbitrary, but fixed, ordering of the edges in $\mathbf{T}$. Suppose that $I_n, x(I_n), R_n$ and $S_n$ are already defined. If there is no susceptible edge then the process stops. More specifically, if $S_n = \emptyset$, then for all $k \geq 1$,
    \begin{itemize}
        \item $I_{n+k} = I_n$;

        \item $R_{n+k} = R_n$;

        \item $S_{n+k} = S_n$.
    \end{itemize}
Otherwise, if there exists some susceptible edge, then the infected vertex in the smallest (in the previously fixed ordering) such edge tries to infect its non-infected neighbour. Let us write it in symbols. Suppose $S_n \neq \emptyset$ and let $g_n$ be the smallest edge in $S_n$.
Since $g_n \in S_n$, it has to be equal to some $\langle v, v+u_n \rangle$, where $v \in I_n$, $v+u_n \notin I_n$, and $u_n \in \{ \pm (0,1), \pm (1,0), \pm (1,1)\}$.
We set $\tau(\pm(1,0))=\pm (1,0,0)$, $\tau(\pm(0,1))=\pm (0,1,0)$ and $\tau(\pm(1,1))=\pm (0,0,1)$ .
Then, $v$ \textit{infects} $v+u_n$ if $\langle x(v), x(v)+\tau (u_n) \rangle$ is open in $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$. More precisely, if $\langle x(v), x(v)+\tau (u_n) \rangle$ is open in $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$ then we write

\[ I_{n+1} := I_n \cup \{v+u_n\},\]
and define
\[ x(v+u_n) := x(v) + \tau(u_n). \]
Otherwise, if $\langle x(v), x(v)+ \tau(u_n) \rangle$ is closed in $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$,  we set $I_{n+1}:= I_n$.

Now that we have explored $g_n$, we \textit{remove} it and write
\[ R_{n+1} := R_n \cup \{ g_n \}.\]
Next, to conclude our induction step, we set
\begin{equation*}
  S_{n+1} := \{ \langle v, u \rangle : v \in I_{n+1} \: \mbox{and} \: u \notin I_{n+1} \} \cap R_{n+1}^C.
\end{equation*}
Observe that the function $x: \cup_n I_n \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{3}$ is injective.
In fact, if $v= (v_1, v_2) \in I_n$, then by construction, we have that $x(v) = (x_1,x_2,x_3)$ satisfies
\[ v_1=x_1+x_3 \mbox{ and }
    v_2=x_2+x_3.\]
Now, observe that the image of $x$ is contained in the  open cluster of the origin $\mathcal{C}^b_0$ of $\mathbb{Z}^{3}$. Since $x$ is injective,  $|\cup_n I_n| \leq |\mathcal{C}^b_0|$.  Also, note that $\cup_{n} I_n$ has the same  law as  $\mathcal{C}^{\mathbf{T}}_0$, where $\mathcal{C}^{\mathbf{T}}_0$ is the  open cluster of the origin in $\mathbf{T}$ with parameters $p_1, p_2,p_3$.  Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
 \theta^b_{\mathbf{T}}(p_1,p_2,p_3) \leq \theta_{3}^b (p_1,p_2,p_3),
\end{equation*}
and the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:triangular} follows.
\end{proof}

To conclude this section, we construct two couplings that will be used to prove Item 3 of Theorem \ref{theo:bondO}, along with its site version, which will be used in the proofs of Item 3  of Theorem \ref{theo:siteNO} and Item 2 of Theorem \ref{theo:siteO}. These couplings are reminiscent of the coupling in \cite{GSS} and give an upper bound for the critical probability for any percolation model in $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ as a function of the corresponding critical probability in $\mathbb{Z}^d$.  Since our goal is to obtain better upper bounds, we need to improve the coupling.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:crossover}
Consider oriented bond Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ and suppose that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:crossbond}
    p > \vv{p}^{\,b}_c(d) \left[p + (1-p)^{(d+1)/d}\right].
\end{equation}
Then, $\vv{\theta}^{\,b}_{d+1}(p)>0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let ${\mathcal{E}} = \{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$ denote the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^d$. To avoid ambiguities, we denote the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ by $\{ u_1, \dots, u_{d+1}\}$. Consider the multigraph $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$ defined as follows: the set of vertices is $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ and the set of edges is given by $E(\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}):= \left( \cup_{i=1}^d E_i \right) \cup E_{\mathcal{E}}$ where  $E_i = \{ \langle x, x + u_i \rangle: x \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}\}$, $i=1, \dots, d$, and we define $E_{\mathcal{E}} := \{\langle v, v+u_{d+1}\rangle_e : v \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1} , e \in {\mathcal{E}}\}$. In words, each edge of $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ parallel to $u_{d+1}$ is partitioned into another $|{\mathcal{E}}|$ edges indexed by ${\mathcal{E}}$ in $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$, while edges parallel to all other directions remain unmodified.

We prove this proposition in two steps. First, we will define a multigraph $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$ and show that, with certain parameters, the model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$ is equivalent to the homogeneous model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ with parameter $p$. To conclude, we will show that if $p$ satisfies Inequality \eqref{eq:crossbond}, then this new model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$ dominates a supercritical model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$.

Consider now inhomogeneous oriented bond Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$, where edges in $\cup_{i=1}^d E_i$ are open with probability $p$ and edges in $E_{\mathcal{E}}$ are open with probability $q$, where $q$ is such that $(1-p) = (1-q)^{|{\mathcal{E}}|}$. Clearly, the distribution of the  open cluster in this model is the same as in the homogeneous model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ with parameter $p$.  We will construct a coupling showing that the model on $\mathbb{Z}_{\mathcal{E}}^{d+1}$ with parameters $p$ and $q$ as above, dominates the homogeneous model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$ with parameter $p/[1 - (1-p)q]$.

First, for each $e_i \in \mathcal{E}$, let $ \sigma(e_i):= u_i \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$. Then,  for each $v \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ and each $e \in {\mathcal{E}}$, let $A(v,e)$ be the event where either the edge $\langle v, v+\sigma(e) \rangle$ is open or, for some $k \geq 1$,
\begin{itemize}
    \item the edges $\langle v+ iu_{d+1}, v + (i+1)u_{d+1}  \rangle_e$, $i = 0, \dots, k-1$, are open and
    \item the edges $\langle v + iu_{d+1}, v + iu_{d+1} + \sigma(e) \rangle$, $i = 0, \dots, k-1$ are closed, and
    \item $\langle v + ku_{d+1}, v + ku_{d+1} + \sigma(e) \rangle$ is open.
\end{itemize}
In the event  $A(v,e)$, we define $u(v,e) = v+\sigma(e)$ if $\langle v, v+\sigma(e) \rangle$ is open, or $u(v,e) = v + k u_{d+1} + \sigma(e)$ if $k \geq 1$ is such that the above three conditions are met. Observe  that
\begin{eqnarray*}
    \mathbb{P}(A(v,e)) &=&
    p\sum_{i = 0}^{\infty} \left[q(1-p)\right]^i
    = \frac{p}{1 - (1-p)q}\\
    &=& \frac{p}{1-(1-p)(1-(1-p)^{1/d})} \\
    &=& \frac{p}{ p + (1-p)^{(d+1)/d} }.
\end{eqnarray*}

Similarly to what was done in Proposition \ref{prop:triangular}, we now build the sequence of sets $(I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n)_{n \geq 0}$. For $n =0$, we set
\begin{itemize}
    \item $I_0 = \{0\} \subset \mathbb{Z}^d$;
    \item $R_0 = \emptyset \subset E(\mathbb{Z}^d)$;
    \item $x(0) = 0 \in \mathbb{Z}_{\mathcal{E}}^{d+1}.$
\end{itemize}
Suppose that, for some $n \geq 0$, $I_n, x(I_n)$ and $R_n$ are already defined. Then $S_n \subset E(\mathbb{Z}^d)$ is given by
\begin{equation*
    S_{n} := \{ \langle v, u \rangle : v \in I_{n} \: \mbox{and} \: u \notin I_{n} \} \cap R_{n}^C.
\end{equation*}
If $S_n = \emptyset$, our sequence becomes constant, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:stop}
    (I_{n+k}, x(I_{n+k}), R_{n+k}, S_{n+k}) = (I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n), \quad \forall k \geq 1.
\end{equation}
Otherwise, let $g_n = \langle v , v + e \rangle$ be the smallest (according to a prefixed ordering, as in Proposition~\ref{prop:triangular}) edge of $S_n$, where $v \in I_n$, $e \in {\mathcal{E}}$, and $v+e \notin I_n$. We set $R_{n+1} = R_n \cup \{g_n\}$. We also set
\begin{equation*}
    I_{n+1} =
    \begin{cases} I_n \cup \{v+e\}, &\text{if } A(x(v),e) \text{ occurs};\\
                  I_n, & \text{otherwise}.
    \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
In case  $A(x(v),e)$ occurs, we set $x(v+e) = u(x(v),e)$.

Once our sequence $(I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n)_ {n \geq 0}$ is built, note that by construction, the function $x: \cup_n I_n \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_{\mathcal{E}}$ is injective. In fact, for each $v \in \cup_n I_n$, the projection of $x(v)$ into $\mathbb{Z}^d$ is equal to $v$. The conclusion of the proof follows in a similar way to that of Proposition \ref{prop:triangular}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:crossoversite}
Consider non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ and suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cross1}
p > p^s_c(d)  \left[p + (1-p)^{2d/(2d-1)}\right].
\end{equation}
Then $\theta^s_{d+1}(p)>0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The strategy of the proof is similar to the previous proposition. As before, let $\{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$ denote the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and let $\{ u_1, \dots, u_{d+1}\}$ denote the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$. We will consider a graph where each vertex of $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ will be partitioned into another $2d-1$ vertices.

For each $v \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$, we define the set of split vertices $V_v := \{v^{(1)}, \dots, v^{(2d-1)}\}$. Let $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V$ be the graph with vertex set  $\cup_{v \in \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}} V_v$ and  edge set
\begin{equation*}
    E(\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V) := \left\{ \langle x,y \rangle ~:~ x \in V_v \text{ and } y \in V_u, \text{ for some } \langle v,u \rangle \in E(\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}) \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Given $p$ satisfying \eqref{eq:cross1}, let $q$ be such that $(1-p) = (1-q)^{2d-1}$. We will consider the non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V$ with parameter $q$. Note that the distribution of the open cluster of the origin in this new model is the same as in the model on $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}$ with parameter $p$.

To build the coupling between $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V$ with parameter $q$ and $\mathbb{Z}^d$ with parameter $p/[1  - (1-p)q]$, we again construct a sequence of sets $(I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n)_{n \geq 0}$. Since we are  considering a site model, for each $n \geq 0$, the sets $R_n$ and $S_n$ will be, respectively, the sets of {\it removed} and {\it susceptible} vertices (instead of edges) at step $n$. We start with two infected vertices (otherwise the origin should have been split into $2d$ vertices, instead of $2d-1$). For $n = 0$, we set
\begin{itemize}
    \item $I_0 = \{0, e_1\} \subset \mathbb{Z}^d$;
    \item $R_0 = \emptyset \subset \mathbb{Z}^d$;
    \item $x(0) = 0^{(1)} \in \mathbb{Z}_V^{d+1} \text{ and } x(e_1) = u_1^{(1)} \in \mathbb{Z}_V^{d+1}. $
\end{itemize}
Inductively, if for some $n \geq 0$, the sets $I_n, x(I_n)$ and $R_n$ are already defined, we set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SnSITE}
    S_n = \{u \in \mathbb{Z}^d : \langle v,u \rangle \in E(\mathbb{Z}^d) \text{ for some } v \in I_n\} \cap (I_n \cup R_n)^C.
\end{equation}
If $S_n = \emptyset$, the sequence becomes constant, as in \eqref{eq:stop}. Otherwise, let $a_n$ be the smallest (in a preset ordering) vertex of $S_n$. We can write $a_n =  v+ e$, such that $v \in I_n$ and $e \in \{\pm e_1, \dots, \pm e_d\}$. In this case, let $j_n$ denote the number of susceptible neighbors of $v$ (including $a_n$), that is
\begin{equation*}
    j_n := \left\vert \{ u \in S_n : \langle v, u \rangle \in  E(\mathbb{Z}^d)  \} \right\vert .
\end{equation*}
Since we start with two infected vertices, necessarily $|S_n| \neq 2d$, and then $1 \leq j_n \leq 2d-1$.

For each $i \in \{1, \dots, d\}$, we set the notation $\sigma(\pm e_i) = \pm u_i$.

Consider the event $A_n$ where, either, for some $\ell \in \{1, \dots, 2d-1 \}$, the vertex $(x(v)+\sigma(e))^{(\ell)}$ is open or, for some $k \geq 1$ and $\ell \in \{1, \dots, 2d-1\}$,
\begin{itemize}
    \item the vertices $\left( x(v) + iu_{d+1} \right)^{(j_n)}$, $i = 1, \dots, k$, are open, and
    \item the vertices $\left( x(v) + i u_{d+1} + \sigma(e) \right)^{(j)}$,  are closed $\forall j \in \{1, \dots, 2d-1 \}$, $i = 0, \dots. k-1$, and
    \item the vertex $\left( x(v) + ku_{d+1} + \sigma(e) \right)^{(\ell)}$ is open.
\end{itemize}
Note that  $A_n$ has probability
\begin{eqnarray*}
    \mathbb{P}(A_n) &=& \left(1 - (1-q)^{2d-1}\right) \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \left[q(1-q)^{2d-1}\right]^i \\
    &=& \frac{p}{1 - (1-p)q}\\
    &=& \frac{p}{1-(1-p)\left(1-(1-p)^{1/(2d-1)}\right)} \\
    &=& \frac{p}{ p + (1-p)^{2d/2d-1} }.
\end{eqnarray*}

To conclude our induction step, we set
\begin{itemize}
    \item $R_{n+1} =
    \begin{cases} R_n \cup \{v+e\}, &\text{if } A_n \text{ does not occur};\\
                  R_n, & \text{otherwise};
    \end{cases}$
    \item $I_{n+1} =
    \begin{cases} I_n \cup \{v+e\}, &\text{if } A_n \text{ occurs};\\
                  I_n, & \text{otherwise}.
    \end{cases}$
\end{itemize}
In the event $A_n$, if for some $\ell \in \{1, \dots, 2d-1 \}$ the vertex $(x(v)+\sigma(e))^{(\ell)}$ is open, we set $x(v+e) =( x(v)+\sigma(e) )^{(\ell)}$. Otherwise, let $k \geq 1$ and $\ell \in \{1, \dots, 2d-1\}$ be such that the above three conditions are satisfied, in this case, we set $x(v+e) =( x(v)+ k u_{d+1} + \sigma(e) )^{(\ell)}$.

By construction, for each $v \in \cup_n I_n$, the projection of $x(v)$ onto $\mathbb{Z}^d$ is equal to $v$. Therefore $x: \mathbb{Z}^d \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V$ is also injective. It follows that the site percolation model in $\mathbb{Z}^{d+1}_V$ (with $e_1^{(1)}$ declared open), dominates the infection process $(I_n)_{n \geq 0}$.
Since  $|\cup_n I_n|$ has the same distribution as the size of the open cluster of $\{0, e_1\}$ in a supercritical percolation model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$, the proof follows.

\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorems}\label{sec:proofs}
In this section, we prove the theorems using the couplings of the last section

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:bounds}}

\begin{proof}
Given Propositions \ref{prop:coupling} and \ref{prop:triangular}, the proof of Theorem \ref{theo:bounds} is quite straightforward. Recall that for bond percolation on the triangular lattice with parameters $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$, assuming $p_1,p_2,p_3<1$, we have (see Theorem 11.116 in \cite{Grim})
\begin{equation*}
\theta_{\mathbf{T}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)>0 \Leftrightarrow p_1+p_2+p_3-p_1p_2p_3>1.
\end{equation*}

Consider now the partition
\begin{equation*}
    d=\left\lfloor\frac{d}{3}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d+1}{3}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d+2}{3}\right\rfloor.
\end{equation*}

Let $p>p^{\ast}(d)$ and set, for $i=1,2,3$,
\begin{equation*}
    p_i=1-(1-p)^{\lfloor \frac{d+i-1}{3}\rfloor}.
\end{equation*}
Then, iteratively applying Proposition \ref{prop:coupling} and finally Proposition \ref{prop:triangular}, we have
\begin{equation*}
    \theta_d(p)\geq\theta_3(p_1,p_2,p_3)\geq \theta_{\mathbf{T}}(p_1,p_2,p_3)>0,
\end{equation*}
which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:bondO}}
\begin{proof}
First, we remark that  Proposition \ref{prop:coupling} holds {\it mutatis mutandis} for inhomogeneous oriented bond Bernoulli percolation. As a consequence, we have the following corollary which we state without proof.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Cor}
Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $d$ is divisible by $k$. Given $p \in [0,1]$, let $\tilde{p}$ be such that
\[(1-\tilde{p}) = (1-p)^{d/k}.\]
Then,  $\vv{\theta}^{\, b}_d(p) \geq \vv{\theta}_k^{\, b}(\tilde{p})$.
\end{lemma}

Taking $k=2$ in Lemma \ref{lem:Cor} and using  Liggett's upper bound $\vv{p}_c^{\, b}(2) \leq 2/3$ (see \cite{L}), the first item of Theorem \ref{theo:bondO} follows. The third item is equivalent to Proposition \ref{prop:crossover}.

 Finally, the second item is implicitly proved in \cite{GPS}.
 There, the authors defined a quantity $\lambda(1/d, \dots, 1/d)$ and showed that (see Equation (3.2)), if $p \in [0,1]$ satisfies
\[\phi(d) :=  \lambda(1/d, \dots, 1/d) \leq dp -1,\]
then $\vv{\theta}^{\, b}_d(p) > 0$. In particular,
\[ \vv{p}_c^{\, b}(d) \leq \frac{1+\phi(d)}{d}.\]
The conclusion follows from the estimate given in Subsection 3.1 of \cite{GPS} (see the equation above (3.5)), that is
\[\phi(d) \leq \frac{1}{d}+\frac{8}{d^2}+\frac{d^{3/2}}{(\sqrt{2\pi})^{d-1}}\left[\frac{d-1}{d-3}\right]e^{\frac{1}{12d}}. \]
\begin{comment}
 Let $\{S_n^1\}_{n \geq 0}$ and $\{S_n^2\}_{n \geq 0}$ be two independent, oriented, simple and symmetrical random walks on $\mathbb{Z}^d$, starting on the origin. In the paper \cite{GPS} was shown that, if $p \in [0,1]$ is such that
\[\phi(d) := \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathbb{P}\left( S_n^1 = S_n^2 \right)  \leq dp -1,\]
then $\vv{\theta}^{\, b}_d(p) > 0$. In particular,
\[ \vv{p}_c^{\, b}(d) \leq \frac{1+\phi(d)}{d}.\]
The conclusion follows from the estimate given in Subsection 3.1 of \cite{GPS} (see the equation above 3.5),
\[\phi(d) \leq \frac{1}{d}+\frac{8}{d^2}+\frac{d^{3/2}}{(\sqrt{2\pi})^{d-1}}\left[\frac{d-1}{d-3}\right]e^{\frac{1}{12d}}. \]
\end{comment}
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:siteNO}}
Inhomogeneous percolation is not well defined for site models, and therefore, we are not able to  formulate a version of Proposition \ref{prop:coupling} for site percolation. But note that Lemma \ref{lem:Cor} only involves homogeneous models. In the following, we give its site version.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ksite}
Consider non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $d$ is divisible by $k$. Given $p \in [0,1]$, let $\tilde{p}$ be such that
\[(1-\tilde{p}) = (1-p)^{d/k}.\]
Then, we have ${\theta}^s_d(p) \geq {\theta}^s_k(\tilde{p})$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The lemma follows by a coupling between non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation on $\mathbb{Z}^d$, with parameter $p$, and on $\mathbb{Z}^{k}$, with parameter $\tilde{p}$. To establish this coupling, we again construct a sequence of vertex sets $(I_n, x(I_n), R_n, S_n)_{n \geq 0}$.

First, we recall that $\mathcal{E} = \{e_1, \dots, e_d\}$ is the set of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and let $(D_{u_1}, \dots, D_{u_k})$ be a uniform partition of $\mathcal{E}$ into $k$ subsets indexed by the set $\{u_1, \dots, u_k \}\subset\mathbb{Z}^k$ of positive unit vectors of $\mathbb{Z}^k$. For each $u \in \{u_1, \dots, u_k \} $, let $D_{-u} = -D_u$.

Consider the non-oriented site Bernoulli percolation model on $\mathbb{Z}^d$, with parameter $p$. For each $v \in \mathbb{Z}^d$ and each $u \in \{\pm u_1, \dots, \pm u_k\}$, we define the following event
\begin{equation*}
    B(v,u) := \{ v+e \text{ is open, for some } e \in D_u \}.
\end{equation*}
If the event $B(v,u)$ occurs, we set $e(v,u) = v+e$, where $e$ is an open vertex that guarantee the occurrence of $B(v,u)$. Note that  $\mathbb{P}(B(v,u)) = \tilde{p}.$

For $n = 0$, we define
\begin{itemize}
    \item $I_0 = \{0\} \subset \mathbb{Z}^k$;
    \item $R_0 = \emptyset \subset \mathbb{Z}^k$;
    \item $x(0) = 0 \in \mathbb{Z}^d$.
\end{itemize}
If for some $n \geq 0$, the sets $I_n, x(I_n)$ and $R_n$ are already defined, let $S_n$ be as given in \eqref{eq:SnSITE}. If $S_n = \emptyset$, the sequence becomes constant as in \eqref{eq:stop}. Otherwise, let $v_n$ be the smallest vertex of $S_n$ (according to a preset ordering of $\mathbb{Z}^k$). In this case, we write $v_n = v+u \notin I_n$, where $v \in I_n$ and $u \in \{\pm u_1, \dots, \pm u_k\}$. To conclude the induction step, we define
\begin{itemize}
    \item $R_{n+1} =
    \begin{cases} R_n \cup \{v+u\}, &\text{if } B(x(v),u) \text{ does not occurs};\\
                  R_n, & \text{otherwise};
    \end{cases}$
    \item $I_{n+1} =
    \begin{cases} I_n \cup \{v+u\}, &\text{if } B(x(v),u) \text{ occurs};\\
                  I_n, & \text{otherwise}.
    \end{cases}$
\end{itemize}
If $B(x(v),u)$ occurs, we define $x(v+u) = e(x(v),u)$.

Note  that, by construction, the function $x: \cup_n I_n \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^d$ is such that, for each $v = v_{u_1}u_1+ \cdots + v_{u_k}u_k \in \cup_n I_n$, writing $x(v) = x_{e_1} e_1 + \cdots + x_{e_d} e_d$, we have
\begin{equation*}
    \sum_{e \in D_u} x_e = v_u, \quad \forall u \in \{u_1, \dots, u_k\}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $x: \cup_n I_n \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}^d$ is injective. The conclusion of the lemma follows as in previous couplings.
\end{proof}

With Lemma \ref{lem:ksite} we are now able to conclude the goal of this section.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:siteNO}]
The first item of Theorem \ref{theo:siteNO} follows by taking $k=2$ in Lemma \ref{lem:ksite} toghether with Wierman's upper bound $p_c^s(2)\leq 0.68$ (see \cite{W2}). Taking $k=3$ in Lemma \ref{lem:ksite} and using the upper bound $p_c^s(3) < 1/2$ of Campanino-Russo (see \cite{CR}), the second item follows. The third item follows directly by Proposition \ref{prop:crossoversite}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo:siteO}}
\begin{proof}
First, we remark that Lemma \ref{lem:ksite} and Proposition \ref{prop:crossoversite} hold {\it mutatis mutandis} for oriented site Bernoulli percolation. Therefore to conclude the proof of Theorem \ref{theo:siteO}, the last ingredient is  Liggett's upper bound $\vv{p}^{\,s}_c(2) \leq 3/4$ (see \cite{L}).
\end{proof}

\section{Explicit bounds}\label{sec:comments}

In this section, we present a table with upper bounds for bond and site  Bernoulli Percolation in $\mathbb{Z}^ d$, up to $d=9$, in both the oriented and the non-oriented cases.

In each column we give a numerical upper bound rounded to four decimals for the critical probability in the head of the column.

\begin{center}

\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}  \hline
\textbf{Dimension} & $p_c^b(d)$ & $\vv{p_c}^b(d)$ & $p_c^s(d)$ &   $\vv{p_c}^s(d)$\\ \hline

3 & 0,3473 &0,5680 &0,5000 &0,6422 \\   \hline

4 & 0,2788  &0,4227 &0,4344 &0,5000 \\   \hline

5 & 0,2284 & 0,3926 &0,4156& 0,4615 \\   \hline

6 & 0,1922 & 0,2734 & 0,2929 & 0,3701 \\   \hline

7 & 0,1682  & 0,2028 & 0,2866 & 0,3533\\   \hline

8 & 0,1486 &0,1627  & 0,2479  &0,2929\\   \hline

9 & 0,1326  &0,1371 &0,2063 &0,2844\\   \hline

\end{tabular}

\end{center}

\vspace{0.5cm}

To obtain each bound, we used the following:

\vspace{0.5cm}

\textbf{Non-oriented bond percolation.} All bounds were obtained from Theorem \ref{theo:bounds}.

\textbf{Oriented bond percolation} All bounds came from Theorem \ref{theo:bondO}. For  $d=4$ we used Item 1), for  $d=5$ we used the upper bound for $d= 4$, and  Item 3). For  $d\geq 6$ we used Item 2).

\textbf{Non-oriented site percolation.} The bound for  $d=3$ follows from Campanino-Russo (see \cite{CR}). The others  follow from Theorem \ref{theo:siteNO}. For  $d=4$ and $d=8$ we used Item 1). For   $d=6$ and $d=9$ we used  Item 2). For  $d=5$ and $d=7$ we used Item 3) along with the upper bounds obtained for $d=4$ and $d=6$.

\textbf{Oriented site percolation.}   All the bounds came from Theorem \ref{theo:siteO}.
For even dimensions the bounds follow from  Item 1), and for odd dimensions the bounds follow from Item 2) using the upper bounds for even dimensions.

\begin{comment}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}  \hline
\textbf{Dimension} & $p_c^b(d)$ & $\vv{p_c}^b(d)$ & $p_c^s(d)$ &   $\vv{p_c}^s(d)$\\ \hline

3 & 0,3473 &0,5680 &0,5000 &0,6422 \\   \hline

4 & 0,2787  &0,4227 &0,4344 &0,5528\\   \hline

5 & 0,2283 & 0,3926 &0,4156& 0,5086 \\   \hline

6 & 0,1921 & 0,2733 & 0,2929 & 0,3701 \\   \hline

7 & 0,1681  & 0,2028 & 0,2796 & 0,3533\\   \hline

8 & 0,1485 &0,1627  & 0,2479  &0,2929\\   \hline

9 & 0,1326  &0,1370 &0,2063 &0,2843\\   \hline

\end{tabular}
\end{comment}

\vspace{1.2cm}
{\bf \Large Acknowledgements}

The authors thank Roger Silva for valuable comments on the manuscript. P.A. Gomes has been supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant 2020/02636-3 and grant 2017/10555-0.
R. Sanchis has been partially supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), CAPES and by FAPEMIG (PPM 00600/16).

\thebibliography{}

\bibitem{BR} Bollob\'as, B., and Riordan, O. {\it Percolation}, Cambridge University Press (2006).

\bibitem{CR} Campanino, M., and Russo, L. {\it An upper bound on the critical percolation probability for the three-dimensional cubic lattice}, Ann. Prob. 13 (2), 478-491, (1985).

\bibitem{CD} Cox, J.T., and  Durrett, R. {\it Oriented percolation in dimensions $d \geq 4$: bounds and asymptotic formulas.} Math Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. Vol. 93(1), pp.151-162, (1983).

\bibitem{GPS} Gomes, P.A., Pereira, A., and Sanchis, R. {\it Anisotropic oriented percolation in high dimensions}. ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat. 17 (1), 531-543, (2020).

\bibitem{GPS2}  Gomes, P.A., Pereira, A., and Sanchis, R. {\it Anisotropic percolation in high dimensions: the non-oriented case}. ArXiv:2106.09083.

\bibitem{GSS} Gomes P.A., Sanchis, R. and Silva, R.W.C. {\it A note on the dimensional crossover critical exponent.} Lett. Math. Phys. 110 (12), 3427–3434, (2020).

\bibitem{Grim} Grimmett, G.R. {\it Percolation.} Second edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1999).

\bibitem{K3} Kesten, H. {\it The Critical Probability of Bond Percolation
on the Square Lattice Equals 1/2}, Commun. Math. Phys. 74 (1), 41-59, (1980).

\bibitem{L} Liggett, T.M. {\it Survival of discrete time growth models with applications to oriented percolation.} Ann. Appl. Probab. 5 (3), 613-636, (1995).

\bibitem{NZ} Newman, R.E.J., and Ziff, R.M. {\it Fast Monte Carlo algorithm for site or bond percolation}, Phys. Rev. E, 64 (1), 016706, (2001).

\bibitem{W} Wierman, J.C. {\it Bond percolation critical probability bounds for the Kagomé lattice by a substitution method}. In: Disorder in Physical Systems, Grimmett, G. and Welsh, D. J. A. (eds.),
pp.349-360, (1990).

\bibitem{W2} Wierman, J.C. {\it Substitution method critical probability bounds for the square lattice site percolation model}.
Combin. Probab. Comput. 4 (2), 181-188 (1995).

\bibitem{WP} Wierman, J.C.,  and Parviainen, R.  {\it Ordering Bond Percolation Critical Probabilities}, UUDM Report, (2002)
\url{http://www.ams.jhu.edu/~wierman/Papers/Bond-Pc-ordering.pdf}

\vspace{2cm}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
Pablo Almeida Gomes\\
Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, Brasil\\
E-mail: \url{pagomes@usp.br}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.5cm}

\begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
Alan Pereira\\
Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Brasil\\
E-mail: \url{alan.pereira@im.ufal.br}
\end{minipage}

\vspace{0.5cm}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
R\'emy Sanchis\\
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil\\
E-mail: \url{rsanchis@mat.ufmg.br}
\end{minipage}

\end{document}


Bipartite biregular Moore graphs

Abstract: A bipartite graph $G=(V,E)$ with $V=V_1\cup V_2$ is biregular if all the vertices of a stable set $V_i$ have the same degree $r_i$ for $i=1,2$. In this paper, we give an improved new Moore bound for an infinite family of such graphs with odd diameter. This problem was introduced in 1983 by Yebra, Fiol, and Fàbrega.\\ Besides, we propose some constructions of bipartite biregular graphs with diameter $d$ and large number of vertices $N(r_1,r_2;d)$, together with their spectra. In some cases of diameters $d=3$, $4$, and $5$, the new graphs attaining the Moore bound are unique up to isomorphism.

\section{Introduction}
The {\emph{degree/diameter problem}} for graphs consists in finding the largest order of a graph with prescribed degree and diameter. We call this number the \emph{Moore bound}, and a graph whose order coincides with this bound is called a {\emph{Moore graph}}.

	There is a lot of work related to this topic (see a survey by Miller and \v{S}ir\'a\v{n} \cite{MS16}), and also some restrictions of the original problem. One of them is related to the bipartite Moore graphs. In this case, the goal is finding regular bipartite graphs with maximum order and fixed diameter. In this paper, we study the problem, proposed by Yebra, Fiol and  F\`abrega \cite{YFF83} in 1983, that consists in finding biregular bipartite Moore graphs.

	A bipartite graph $G=(V,E)$ with $V=V_1\cup V_2$ is biregular if, for $i=1,2$, all the vertices of a stable set $V_i$ have the same degree. We denote $[r,s;d]$-bigraph a bipartite biregular graph of degrees $r$ and $s$ and diameter $d$; and by  $[r,s;d]$-bimoore graph the bipartite biregular graph of diameter $d$ that attains the Moore bound, which is denoted    $M(r,s;d)$.
	Notice that constructing these graphs is equivalent to construct block designs, where one partite set corresponds to the points of the block design, and the other set corresponds to the blocks of the design. Moreover, each point is in a fixed number $s$ of blocks, and the size of each block is equal to $r$. The incidence graph of this block design is an $[r,s;d]$-biregular bipartite graph of diameter $d$.

	This type of graph is often used as an alternative to a hypergraph in modeling some interconnection networks. Actually, several applications deal with the study of bipartite graphs such that all vertices of every partite set have the same degree. For instance, in an interconnection network for a
	multiprocessor system, where the processing elements communicate through buses, it is useful that each processing element is connected to the same number of buses and also that each bus is connected to the same number of processing elements to have a uniform traffic through the network. These networks can be modeled by hypergraphs (see Bermond,  Bond, Paoli, and Peyrat \cite{BeBoPaPe83}), where the vertices indicate the processing elements and the edges indicate the buses of the system. They can also be modeled by bipartite graphs with a set of vertices for the processing elements, another one for the buses, and
	edges that represent the connections between processing elements and buses since all vertices of each set have the same degree.

	The degree/diameter problem is strongly related to the  {\em degree\/}/{\em girth problem\/} (also known as {\em the cage problem\/}) that consists in finding the smallest order of a graph with prescribed degree and girth (see the survey by Exoo and Jajcay \cite{ExooJaj08}). Note that when for an even girth of the graph, $g=2d$, the lower bound of this value coincides with the Moore bound for bipartite graphs (the largest order of a bipartite regular graph with given diameter $d$).

	In the bipartite biregular problem, we have the same situation. In 2019, Filipovski, Ramos-Rivera and Jajcay \cite{FilRamRivJaj19} introduced the concept of bipartite biregular Moore cages and presented lower bounds on the orders of bipartite biregular $(m,n;g)$-graphs. The bounds when $g=2d$ and $d$ even also coincide with the bounds given by Yebra, Fiol, and  F\`abrega in \cite{YFF83}. Note that these bounds only coincide when the diameter is even. The cases for odd diameter and girth $g=2d$ are totally different, even for the extreme values.

The contents of the  paper are as follows. In the rest of this introductory section, we recall the Moore-like bound  $M(r,s;d)$ derived in Yebra, Fiol, and F\`abrega \cite{YFF83} on the order of a bipartite biregular graph with degrees $r$ and $s$, and diameter $d$. Following the same problem of obtaining good bounds,  in Section \ref{sec:improvedMoore} we prove that, for some cases of odd diameter,  the Moore bound of \cite{YFF83} can be improved (see the new bounds in Tables \ref{tab:d=3} and \ref{tab:d=5}).
In the two following sections, we basically deal with the case of even diameter because known constructions provide optimal (or very good) results. Thus, Section \ref{gen-pols} is devoted to the Moore bipartite biregular graphs associated with generalized polygons.
In Section \ref{gen-cons}, we propose two general graph constructions: the subdivision graphs giving Moore bipartite biregular graphs with even diameter, and the semi-double graphs that, from a bipartite graph of any given diameter, allows us to obtain another bipartite graph with the same diameter but with a greater number of vertices. For these two constructions, we also give the spectrum of the obtained graphs.

	Finally, a numeric construction of bipartite biregular Moore graphs for diameter $d=3$ and degrees $r$ and $3$ is proposed in Section \ref{sec:d=3}.

\subsection{Moore-like bounds}

Let $G=(V,E)$,  with $V=V_1\cup V_2$,  be a $[r,s;d]$-bigraph, where each vertex of $V_1$ has degree $r$, and each vertex of $V_2$ has degree $s$. Note that, counting in two ways the number of edges of $G$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{basic=}
r N_1=s N_2,
\end{equation}
where $N_i=|V_i|$, for $i=1,2$.

Moreover, since $G$ is bipartite with diameter $d$, from one vertex $u$ in one stable set, we must reach {\bf all} the vertices of the other set in at most $k-1$ steps.
Suppose first that the diameter is even, say, $k=2m$ (for $m\ge 1$). Then, by simple counting, if $u\in V_1$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{N2-even}
N_2\le r+r(r-1)(s-1)+\cdots+r[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m-1}= r\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1},
\end{equation}
and, if $u\in V_2$,
\begin{equation}
\label{N1-even}
N_1\le s\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}.
\end{equation}
In the case of equalities in \eqref{N2-even}  and \eqref{N1-even}, condition \eqref{basic=} holds,
and the Moore bound is
\begin{equation}
\label{Moore-even}
M(r,s;2m)= (r+s)\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}.
\end{equation}
The Moore bounds for $2\le s\le r\le 10$ and $d=4,6$ are shown in Tables \ref{tab:d=4} and \ref{tab:d=6}, where values in boldface are known to be attainable.

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$r\setminus s$ & 2            & 3            & 4   & 5   & 6   & 7   & 8    & 9   & 10    \\
\hline \hlin
2              & $\textbf{8}^{\bullet}$                                                      \\ \cline{1-3}
3              & $\textbf{15}^{* \diamond}$  & \textbf{30}                                               \\ \cline{1-4}
4              & $\textbf{24}^{* \diamond}$  & 49  & \textbf{80}                                         \\ \cline{1-5}
5              & $\textbf{35}^*$  & $\textbf{72}^{\bullet}$  & 117 & \textbf{170}                                  \\ \cline{1-6}
6              & $\textbf{48}^*$  & 99           & 160 & 231 & \textbf{312}                            \\ \cline{1-7}
7              & $\textbf{63}^*$  & 130          & 209 & 300 & 403 & $\stackrel{(518)}{516}$                      \\ \cline{1-8}
8              & $\textbf{80}^*$  & 165          & 264 & 377 & 504 & 645 & \textbf{800}                \\ \cline{1-9}
9              & $\textbf{99}^*$  & 204          & 325 & 462 & 615 & 784 & 969  & \textbf{1170}        \\ \cline{1-10}
10            & $\textbf{120}^*$ & 247          & $\textbf{292}^{\bullet}$ & 555 & 736 & 935 & 1152 & 1387 & \textbf{1640} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip-.25cm
\caption{Moore bounds for diameter $d=4$. The attainable known values are in boldface.
The asterisks correspond to the subdivision graphs $S(K_{r,r})$, see Section \ref{sec:subdiv-graphs}.
The symbol `$\bullet$' indicates the orders of the graphs according to Theorem \ref{bb-Moore} and the diamonds correspond  to unique graphs.}
\vskip1cm
\label{tab:d=4}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$r\setminus s$ & 2            & 3            & 4   & 5   & 6   & 7   & 8    & 9   & 10    \\
\hline \hlin
2              & $\textbf{12}^{\bullet}$                                                      \\ \cline{1-3}
3              & \textbf{35*}  & \textbf{126}                                               \\ \cline{1-4}
4              & \textbf{78*} & 301   & \textbf{728}                                         \\ \cline{1-5}
5              &  \textbf{147*}  & 584    & 1431      & \textbf{2730}                                  \\ \cline{1-6}
6              &  \textbf{248*}  & 999    & 2410      & 4631       & \textbf{7812}                            \\ \cline{1-7}
7              &  387   & 1570   & 3773     & 7212       & 12103   &   $\stackrel{(18662)}{18660}$                    \\ \cline{1-8}
8              &  \textbf{570*}  & 2321   & 5556    & 10569      & 17654   & 27105      & \textbf{39216}                \\ \cline{1-9}
9              &  \textbf{803*}   & 3276   & $\textbf{7813}^{\bullet}$   &14798       & 24615   & 37648      & 54281     & \textbf{74898}        \\ \cline{1-10}
10             &  \textbf{1092*} & 4459  & 10598 & 19995      & 33136  &  50507      & 72594     & 99883          & \textbf{132860} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vskip-.25cm
\caption{Moore bounds for diameter $d=6$. The attainable known values are in boldface. The asterisks correspond to the bimoore graphs of Proposition \ref{bb(s=2,d=6)-Moore}.  The `$\bullet$' indicates the order of the graph according to Theorem
\ref{bb-Moore}.}
\label{tab:d=6}
\end{table}

Similarly, if the diameter is odd, say, $k=2m+1$ (for $m\ge 1$), and $u\in V_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{N1-odd}
N_1\le 1+r(s-1)+\cdots + r(s-1)[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m-1}=1+r(s-1)\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}=N_1',
\end{equation}
whereas, if $u\in V_2$,
\begin{equation}
\label{N2-odd}
N_2\le 1+s(r-1)\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}=N_2'.
\end{equation}
But, in this case, $N_1'r\neq N_2's$ and, hence, the Moore bound must be smaller than $N_1'+N_2'$. In fact, it was proved in Yebra, Fiol, and F\`abrega \cite{YFF83} that, assuming $r>s$,
\begin{equation}
\label{N1-N2-odd}
N_1\le \left\lfloor \frac{N_2'}{\rho}\right\rfloor \sigma\qquad\mbox{and}
\qquad N_2\le \left\lfloor \frac{N_2'}{\rho}\right\rfloor \rho,
\end{equation}
where $\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$ and $\sigma=\frac{s}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$.
Then, in this case, we take the Moore bound
\begin{equation}
\label{Moore-odd}
M(r,s;2m+1)= \left\lfloor\frac{1+s(r-1)\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}}{\rho}\right\rfloor (\rho+\sigma).
\end{equation}

Two bipartite biregular graphs with diameter three attaining the Moore bound \eqref{Moore-odd}  were given in \cite{YFF83}. Namely, in Figure \ref{3unics}$(a)$, with $r=4$ and $s=3$, we would have the unattainable values $(N_1',N_2')=(9,10)$, whereas we get $(N_1,N_2)=(6,8)$, giving $M(4,3;3)=14$. In Figure \ref{3unics}$(b)$, with $r=5$ and $s=3$, $(N_1',N_2')=(11,13)$, and $(N_1,N_2)=(6,10)$, now corresponding to $M(5,3;3)=16$.

\begin{figure}[t]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{3unics.pdf}
	\vskip-6.75cm
	\caption{$(a)$ The only [4,3;3]-bimoore graph on $14$ vertices; $(b)$ One of the two [5,3;3]-bimoore graph on $16$ vertices; $(c)$ The only [6,3;3]-bimoore graph on $21$ vertices.}
	\label{3unics}
\end{figure}

As shown in Section \ref{sec:improvedMoore}, the bound \eqref{Moore-odd} can be improved  for some values of the degree $r$.
So, we display there the tables of the new Moore bounds for small values of $r,s$ and diameters $d=3$ and $d=5$.

Recall that
if $G=(V,E)$ is an $r$-regular graph of diameter $d$, then its \emph{defect} is $\delta=\delta(G)=M(r;d)-|V|$, where $M(r;d)$ stands for the corresponding Moore bound. Thus, in this paper, the defect of a $[r,s;d]$-bigraph $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ is defined as $\delta=M(r,s;d)-|V_1\cup V_2|$.

\section{An improved Moore bounds for odd diameter}
\label{sec:improvedMoore}

Let us begin with a simple result concerning the girth of the  possible  biregular bipartite graphs attaining the bound \eqref{Moore-odd} for odd diameter.

\begin{lemma}
\label{g<=4m}
Every biregular bipartite graph $G$ of odd diameter $d=2m+1$ with order attaining the Moore bound \eqref{Moore-odd} has girth $g\le 4m$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $G$ is bipartite, we must have $g\le 2d=4m+2$. Consider the trees $T_1$  rooted at $u\in V_1$ , and $T_2$ rooted at $v\in V_2$, of vertices at distance at most $2m$ of their roots. If  $G$ has girth $g=4m+2$, all vertices of $T_1$ must be different (otherwise, $T_1$ could not have the maximum number of vertices), and the same holds for all the vertices of $T_2$. This occurs if and only if $T_1$ and $T_2$ have numbers of vertices $N_1'$ and $N_2'$ given
by \eqref{N1-odd} and \eqref{N2-odd}, respectively.
But this is not possible because the Moore bound \eqref{Moore-odd} is obtained from \eqref{N1-N2-odd} as $\lfloor N_2'/\rho\rfloor(\rho+\sigma) <N_1'+N_2'$ (since $r>s\Rightarrow N_2'>N_1'$). Hence, the girth of $G$ is at most $4m$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The case of diameter three}
As a consequence of the following result, we prove in Corollary \ref{coro:optimal} that the $[6,3;3]$-graph of Figure \ref{3unics}$(c)$ has the maximum possible order.
\\
\begin{proposition}
\label{nonupperbound}
If $\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$  divides $s-1$, then there is no $[r,s;3]$-graph with order attaining the Moore-like bound in \eqref{Moore-odd}.
Instead, the new improved Moore bound is
\begin{equation}
\label{Moore-odd-improved(d=3)}
M^*(r,s;3)= (1+s(r-1)-\rho)\left(1+\frac{\sigma}{\rho}\right),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{N1-N2-(d=3)}
N_1\le [1+s(r-1)-\rho]\frac{\sigma}{\rho}
\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad N_2\le 1+s(r-1)-\rho,
\end{equation}
where $\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$ and $\sigma=\frac{s}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that, under the hypothesis, there exists a $[r,s;3]$-graph $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ that attains the upper bound in  \eqref{Moore-odd}. Then, with $r>s$, $|V_1|$ is the number of vertices of degree $r$,  $ |V_2|$ is the number of vertices of degree $s$, and $N_1=|V_1|< |V_2|=N_2$.
Thus, for diameter $d=3$, we have
$$
N_2=\left\lfloor \frac{1+s(r-1)}{\rho}\right\rfloor\rho=1+s(r-1)=N_2'.
$$
This means that there is only one shortest path of length at most 2 from any vertex $v\in V_2$ to all the vertices of $V_2$.
Hence, the girth of $G$ is larger than 4. If not, we would have a cycle
$u_1\sim v_1\sim u_2\sim v_2 (\sim u_1)$, with $u_i\in V_1$ and $v_i\in V_2$ for $i=1,2$. So, there would be 2 shortest 2-paths between $v_1$ and $v_2$.
This is a contradiction with Lemma \ref{g<=4m} and, hence, the upper bound \eqref{Moore-odd} cannot be attained.

\end{proof}
Otherwise, if $\rho$ does not divide $s-1$, we have the bound \eqref{Moore-odd} with $m=1$, where \eqref{N1-N2-odd} yields
\begin{equation}
\label{N1-N2(d=3)not-divide}
N_1\le \left\lfloor s\cdot \gcd\{r,s\}-\frac{s-1}{\rho}\right\rfloor \sigma\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad N_2\le \left\lfloor s\cdot \gcd\{r,s\}-\frac{s-1}{\rho}\right\rfloor\rho.
\end{equation}

In Table \ref{tab:d=3}, we show the values of the Moore bounds in \eqref{Moore-odd} and \eqref{Moore-odd-improved(d=3)} for $s\le 2\le r\le 11$ and diameter $d=3$.
The values between parenthesis correspond to the old bound \eqref{Moore-odd} that was given in \cite{YFF83}.  The attainable known values are in boldface. The asterisks indicate the values obtained in this paper (see Proposition \ref{propo:(r,3)}). The $[6,3;3]$-bigraph with $21$ vertices of Figure \ref{3unics}$(c)$ can be shown to be unique, up to isomorphisms.

\begin{table}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
			\hline
			$r\setminus s$ & 2            & 3   & 4   & 5   & 6   & 7   & 8    & 9   & 10  & 11  \\
			\hline \hlin
			2   & \textbf{6}                                                      \\ \cline{1-3}
			3   & \textbf{5}   & \textbf{14}                                               \\ \cline{1-4}
			4   & \textbf{9}   & $\textbf{14}^{* \diamond}$       & \textbf{26}                                \\ \cline{1-5}
			5   & \textbf{7}   & \textbf{16*}            &  27  & \textbf{42}   \\ \cline{1-6}
			6   & \textbf{12} &  $\stackrel{(24)}{\textbf{21}^{\diamond}}$ & $\stackrel{(35)}{30}$                       &  44  & \textbf{62}                             \\ \cline{1-7}
			7   & \textbf{9}   & \textbf{20*}          & 33                       & 48  &  65 &  86                       \\ \cline{1-8}
			8   & \textbf{15} & \textbf{22*}          & 42                       & 52  & 70  &  90  & \textbf{114}                \\ \cline{1-9}
			9   & \textbf{11} & 32                           & 39                       & 56  & 80  & 96  &  119 & \textbf{146}          \\ \cline{1-10}
			10 & \textbf{18} & \textbf{26*}          &  49 & $\stackrel{(69)}{66}$  &  $\stackrel{(88)}{80}$  & 102 & 126 & 152 & \textbf{182}  \\ \cline{1-11}
			11 & \textbf{13} & \textbf{28*}          & 45                       & 64  & 85  & 108 & 133 & 160  & 189  & 222  \\
			\hline
		\end{tabular}
	\end{center}
	\vskip-.25cm
	\caption{Best Moore bounds for diameter $d=3$. The attainable known values are in boldface.
The asterisks correspond to the graphs obtained according to Proposition \ref{propo:(r,3)}, and the diamonds correspond to unique graphs. The values between parenthesis correspond to the old (unattainable) bound \eqref{Moore-odd}.}
\label{tab:d=3}
\vskip1cm
\end{table}

As a consequence of the above results, we get the following Moore bounds when the degree $r$ is a multiple of the degree $s$.
\begin{corollary}
For $s\ge 2$, the best Moore bounds for the orders $N_1$ and $N_2$ of a $[\rho s,s;3]$-graph are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$] If $\rho|(s-1)$, then
\begin{equation*}
N_1 \le (s^2-1)-\frac{s-1}{\rho},\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad N_2 \le \rho(s^2-1)-(s-1).
\end{equation*}
\item[$(i)$] If $\rho\nmid (s-1)$, then
\begin{equation*}
N_1 \le s^2-\left\lceil s/\rho\right\rceil,\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
N_2 \le \rho(s^2-\left\lceil s/\rho\right\rceil).
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that, under the hypothesis, $\gcd\{r,s\}=s$, $\rho=\frac{r}{s}$, and $s=1$.
Then, $(i)$ follows from \eqref{N1-N2-(d=3)}.
Concerning $(ii)$, the values in \eqref{N1-N2(d=3)not-divide} become
$$
N_1\le \left\lfloor s^2-\frac{s-1}{\rho}\right\rfloor\qquad\mbox{\rm and}\qquad
N_2\le \left\lfloor s^2-\frac{s-1}{\rho}\right\rfloor\rho,
$$
which are expressions equivalent to those given above.
\end{proof}

Assuming that $\rho=2$ and $s$ is odd, we get the following consequence.

\begin{corollary}
\label{coro:2s-s}
There is no $[2s,s;3]$-bimoore graph for $s$ odd.
\label{coro:optimal}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From the first statement, the Moore bound $M(6,3;3)=24$ given in \eqref{Moore-odd} is not attained. With this bound, we have $N_2'=16$ vertices of degree $3$, and $N_1'=8$ vertices of degree $6$. So, the first possible values are $N_2=14$ vertices of degree $3$ and $N_1=7$ vertices of degree $6$, which corresponds to the graph depicted in Figure \ref{3unics}$(c)$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The general case}

Proposition \ref{nonupperbound} can be extended for any odd diameter, as shown in the following result.

\begin{theorem}\label{nonupperbound2m+1}
If $\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$ divides $s\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}-1$, then there is no $[r,s;2m+1]$-graph with order attaining the Moore-like bound in \eqref{Moore-odd}. Instead, the new improved Moore bound is
\begin{equation}
\label{Moore-odd-improved}
M^*(r,s;2m+1)= \left(\frac{1+s(r-1)\frac{[(r-1)(s-1)]^{m}-1}{(r-1)(s-1)-1}}{\rho}-1\right) (\rho+\sigma),
\end{equation}
where, as before, $\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$ and $\sigma=\frac{s}{\gcd\{r,s\}}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof that the bound in \eqref{Moore-odd} is not attainable follows the same reasoning as in Proposition \ref{nonupperbound}.
Indeed, from the hypothesis, if there exists a $[r,s;2m+1]$-graph $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ with order attaining the upper bound in \eqref{Moore-odd}, we would have
$N_2=N_2'$, and the girth would be larger than $4m$, a contradiction.
Then, as before, the new possible bounds in \eqref{N1-N2-odd} are
$$
N_1\le \left( \frac{N_2'}{\rho}-1\right) \sigma\qquad\mbox{and}
\qquad N_2\le \left(\frac{N_2'}{\rho}-1\right) \rho,
$$
as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{table}[t]
	\begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
			\hline
			$r\setminus s$ & 2   & 3   & 4    & 5    & 6     & 7    & 8    & 9    & 10     \\
			\hline \hlin
			2              & 10                                                            \\ \cline{1-3}
			3              & $\textbf{15}^\diamond$  & 62                                                     \\ \cline{1-4}
			4              & 36  & $\stackrel{(112)}{105}$ & 242                                               \\ \cline{1-5}
			5              & 56  & 168 & 369  & 682                                        \\ \cline{1-6}
			6              & 80  & $\stackrel{(249)}{246}$ & $\stackrel{(535)}{530}$  & 957  & 1562                                \\ \cline{1-7}
			7              & 108 & 330 & 715 & $\stackrel{(1284)}{1272}$ & 2067  & 3110                        \\ \cline{1-8}
			8              & 140 & 429 & 924  & $\stackrel{(1651)}{1638}$ & 2646  & 3945 & 5602                \\ \cline{1-9}
			9              & 176 & 544 & $\stackrel{(1157)}{1144}$ & 2044  & 3280  & 4880 &  6885 & 9362          \\ \cline{1-10}
			10             & 216 & 663 & 1407 & $\stackrel{(2499)}{2496}$ & $\stackrel{(3976)}{3968}$  & 5882 & 8289 & 11229 & 14762 \\
			\hline
		\end{tabular}
	\end{center}
	\vskip-.25cm
	\caption{Best Moore bounds for diameter $d=5$. The diamond corresponds to unique graphs. The values between parenthesis correspond to old (unattainable)  bounds \eqref{Moore-odd}.

}
\label{tab:d=5}
\end{table}

Table \ref{tab:d=5} shows the values of the Moore bounds in \eqref{Moore-odd} and \eqref{Moore-odd-improved} for $s\le 2\le r\le 10$ and diameter $d=5$. As before, the values between parenthesis correspond to old (unattainable) bounds, as those in \eqref{Moore-odd}

\subsection{Computational results}
The enumeration of bigraphs with maximum order can be done with a computer whenever the Moore bound is small enough. To this end, given a diameter $d$, first we generate with {\em Nauty} \cite{MP13} all bigraphs with maximum orders $N_1=|V_1|$ and $N_2=|V_2|$ allowed by the Moore bound $M(r,s;d)$. Second, we filter the generated graphs keeping those with diameter $d$ using the library {\em NetworkX} from Python. Computational resources forces to study the cases where $\max\{N_1,N_2\} \leq 24$ and $n=N_1+N_2 \leq 32$. Computational results are shown in Table \ref{tab:comput}.
\begin{table}[t]
 \begin{center}
  \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
   \hline
   $[r,s;d]$ & $n$ & $N_1$ & $N_2$ & Generated graphs & Graphs with diameter $d$ \\ \hline\hline
   $[4,3;3]$ & ${\bf 14}^\diamond$ & 6 & 8 & 18 & 1 \\ \hline
   $[5,3;3]$ & {\bf 16} & 6 & 10 & 45 & 2 \\ \hline

   $[6,3;3]$ & 24 & 8 & 16 & 977278 & 0 \\
             & ${\bf 21}^\diamond$ & 7 & 14 & 7063 & 1 \\ \hline
   $[7,3;3]$ & {\bf 20} & 6 & 14 & 344 & 4 \\ \hline
   $[8,3;3]$ & {\bf 22} & 6 & 16 & 950 & 10 \\ \hline
   $[9,3;3]$ & 32 & 8 & 24 & $>$122996904 & ? \\
             & 28 & 7 & 21 & 2262100 & 1 \\ \hline

   $[10,3;3]$ & {\bf 26} & 6 & 20 & 6197 & 19 \\ \hline
   $[11,3;3]$ & {\bf 28} & 6 & 22 & 14815 & 16 \\ \hline
   $[5,4;3]$ & 27& 12 & 15 & 822558 & 0 \\
   & {\bf 18}  & 8 & 10 & 3143 & 583 \\ \hline
    $[3,2;4]$ & ${\bf 15}^\diamond$ & 6 & 9 & 6 & 1 \\ \hline
    $[4,2;4]$ & ${\bf 24}^\diamond$ & 8 & 16 & 204 & 1 \\ \hline
   $[3,2;5]$ & 20 & 8 & 12 & 20 & 0 \\
   & ${\bf 15}^\diamond$  & 6 & 9 & 6 & 1 \\ \hline

  \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
	\vskip-.25cm
	\caption{Complete enumeration of bipartite biregular Moore graphs for some (small) cases of the degrees $r,s$ and diameter $d$.}\label{tab:comput}
\end{table}

Even with the computational limitations on the order of the sets $V_1$ and $V_2$, some of the optimal values given in Tables \ref{tab:d=4}, \ref{tab:d=3}, and \ref{tab:d=5} have been found with this method. When there is no graph for the largest values $N_1$ and $N_2$, the following lower feasible pair values may decrease dramatically, producing a large number of optimal graphs, as it happens in the case $[5,4;3]$. The particular case $[9,3;3]$ is computationally very hard, and it is out of our computational resources (which are very limited), but our guess is that there is no Moore graph in this case. Finally, we point out that these results encourage us to study the case $s=d=3$ and $3 \nmid r$ more in detail (see Section \ref{sec:d=3}), where computational evidence shows that there is always a Moore graph.

\section{Bipartite biregular Moore graphs from generalized polygons}
\label{gen-pols}

In the first part of this section, we recall the connection between Moore graphs and generalized polygons that was extensively studied (see, for instance, Bamberg, Bishnoi, and Royle \cite{BamBisRoy}) because we will use it for the rest of the paper. In fact, our first result is an immediate consequence of the result proved by Araujo-Pardo, Jajcay, and Ramos in  \cite{AraJajRam}, and the analysis given in the introduction about the coincidence of the bounds for bipartite biregular cages and bipartite biregular Moore graphs when $d$ is even.

	\begin{theorem}\cite{AraJajRam}
		Whenever a generalized quadrangle, hexagon, or octagon
		${\mathcal G}$ of order
		$(s,t)$ exists, its point-line incidence graph is an $(s+1,t+1;8)$-,
		$(s+1,t+1;12)$- or $(s+1,t+1;16)$-cage, respectively.

		Hence, there exist infinite families of bipartite biregular
		$(n+1,n^2+1;8)$-, $(n^2+1,n^3+1;8)$-, $(n,n+2;8)$-, $(n+1,n^3+1;12)$- and $(n+1,n^2+1;16)$-cages.
	\end{theorem}

	Then, immediately we conclude  the following result.
	\begin{theorem}
		\label{bb-Moore}
		There exists infinite families of bipartite biregular
		$[r^2+1,r+1;4]$-, $[r^3+1,r^2+1;4]$-, $[r+2,r;4]$-, $[r^3+1,r+1;6]$- and $[r^2+1,r+1;8]$-bimoore graphs.
	\end{theorem}

	In the following, we give some results related to generalized $n$-gons that we use in the rest of the paper.

	\begin{lemma}[\cite{VM98}, Lemma 1.3.6]\label{VMLemma}
		A geometry $\Gamma = (\cal{P},\cal{L},{\bf I})$ is a (weak) generalized $n$-gon if and
		only if the incidence graph of $\Gamma$ is a connected bipartite graph of diameter $d=n$ and
		girth $g=2d$, such that each vertex is incident with at least three (at least two) edges.
	\end{lemma}
	As every generalized polygon $\Gamma$ can be associated with a pair $(r,s)$,
	called the {\em order} of $\Gamma$, such that every line is incident with $r+1$
	points, and every point is incident with $s+1$ lines (see van Maldeghem \cite{VM98}). This means,
	in particular, that the incidence graph of $\Gamma$ is a bipartite biregular graph
	with degrees $r+1$ and $s+1$. Besides, the following result
	determines the orders of both partite sets.

	\begin{theorem}[\cite{VM98}, Corollary 1.5.5]\label{PL}
		If there exists a $\Gamma = (\cal{P},\cal{L},{\bf I})$ (weak) generalized $n$-gon of order $(r,s)$ for $n \in \{3,4,6,8\}$, then

		\begin{itemize}
			\item
			For $n=3$,  $|{\cal{P}}|= r^2+r+1$\ and\ $|{\cal{L}}|=s^2+s+1$.
			\item
			For $n=4$,  $|{\cal{P}}|=(1+r)(1+rs)$\ and\ $|{\cal{L}}|=(1+s)(1+rs)$.
			\item
			For  $n=6$,  $|{\cal{P}}|=(1+r)(1+rs+r^2s^2)$\ and\  $|{\cal{L}}=(1+s)(1+rs+r^2s^2)$.
			\item
			For $n=8$,  $|{\cal{P}}|=(1+r)(1+rs)(1+r^2s^2)$\ and\ $|{\cal{L}}|=(1+s)(1+rs)(1+r^2s^2)$.
		\end{itemize}

	\end{theorem}

	In 1964, Feit and Higman proved that finite generalized $n$-gons exist only for $n=\{3,4,6,8\}$. When $n=3$, we have the projective planes; when $n=4$, we have the generalized quadrangles, which are known to exist for parameter pairs
	$(q,q), (q,q^2), (q^2,q),(q^2,q^3), $
	$(q^3,q^2), (q-1,q+1),(q+1,q-1) $; when $n=6$, we have the generalized hexagons with parameters
	$ (q,q),(q,q^3),(q^3,q)$, in both cases for $q$ prime power; and, finally, for $n=8$, we have the generalized octagons, which are only known to exist for the pairs $(q,q^2),(q^2,q)$, where $q$ is an odd power of $2$.

\section{Two  general constructions}
\label{gen-cons}

In this section, we construct some infinite families of Moore or large semiregular bipartite graphs derived from two general constructions: the subdivision graphs and the semi-double graphs

\subsection{The subdivision graphs}
\label{sec:subdiv-graphs}

Given a graph $G=(V,E)$, its {\em subdivision graph} $S(G)$ is obtained by inserting a new vertex in every edge of $G$. So, every edge $e=uv\in E$ becomes two new edges, $ux$ and $xv$, with new vertex $x$ of degree two ($\deg(x)=2$).

In our context, we have the following result.

\begin{proposition}
\label{propo:subdiv}
Let $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ be an $r$-regular bipartite graph with $n$ vertices, $m$ edges,
diameter $D(\ge 2)$, and spectrum
$\spec G=\{\lambda_0^{m_0},\lambda_1^{m_1},\ldots,\lambda_{d-1}^{m_{d-1}},\lambda_d^{m_d}\}$,
where $\lambda_i=-\lambda_{d-i}$ and $m_i=m_{d-i}$ for $i=0,\ldots,\lfloor d/2\rfloor$. Then, its
{\em subdivision graph} $S(G)$, is a bipartite biregular graph with degrees $(r,2)$,  $n+m$ vertices, $2m$ edges, has  diameter $2D$, and spectrum
\begin{equation}
\label{spec-double}
\spec S(G)= \pm\sqrt{\spec G+r} \cup \{0^{m-n}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $S(G)$ have partite sets $U_1$ and $U_2$, with $U_1=V_1\cup V_2$ (the old vertices of $G$), and $U_2$ being the new vertices of degree 2. Let $x_{uv}\in U_2$ denote the vertex inserted in the previous edge $uv$.
The first statement is obvious. To prove that the diameter of $S(G)$ is $2m$, we consider three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$]
Since $G$ has diameter $d$, there is a path of length $\ell \le d$ from any vertex $u\in U_1$ to any other vertex $v\in U_1$, say $u_0(=u),u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_{\ell}$. This path clearly induces a path of length $2\ell$ in $S(G)$. Namely, $u_0(=u),x_{u_0u_1},u_1,x_{u_1u_2}u_2,\ldots,x_{u_{\ell-1}u_{\ell}}u_{\ell}$.
\item[$(ii)$]
Since $G$ is bipartite, there is a path of length $\ell\le d-1$ between any two vertices in the same partite set (if $d$ is odd) or in different partite sets (if $d$ is even). Thus, from a vertex $x_{u_1u_2}\in U_2$,  there is a path of length $2\ell+1\le 2d-1$ to any vertex $v\in U_1$. (This is because either $u_1$ or $u_2$ are at distance $\ell\le d-1$.)
\item[$(iii)$]
Finally, a path of length at most $2d$ between vertices $x_{u_1u_2},x_{v_1v2}\in U_2$ is obtained by considering first the path from $x_{u_1u_2}$ to $v_i$, for some $i\in\{1,2\}$ (which, according to $(ii)$, has length at most $2d-1$), together with the edge $v_ix_{v_1v2}$.
\end{itemize}
The result about the spectrum of $S(G)$ follows from a result by Cvetkovi\'{c}~\cite{Cv75}, who proved that, if $G$ is an  $r$-regular graph with $n$ vertices and $m\big(=\frac{1}{2}nr\big)$ edges, then the characteristic polynomials of $S(G)$ and $G$ satisfy
$\phi_{S(G)}(x) = x^{m-n} \phi_{G}(x^2-r)$.
\end{proof}

For instance, the $[2,r;4]$-Moore graphs proposed in Yebra, Fiol, and F\`abrega \cite{YFF83}, with $N_1=2r$ and $N_2=r^2$ can be obtained as the subdividing graphs $S(K_{r,r})$ (see the values in column of $s=2$ in Table \ref{tab:d=4}).

For larger diameters, we can use the same construction with the known Moore bipartite graphs, which correspond to the incidence graphs of generalized polygons with $r=s$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{bb(s=2,d=6)-Moore}
For any value of $r\ge 3$, with $r-1$ a prime power, there exist three infinite families of bimoore graphs with corresponding parameters
$[r,2;2m]$ for $m\in\{3,4,6\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
According to \eqref{Moore-even}, a bipartite biregular Moore graph with degrees $r$ and $2$ and diameter $d=2m$ has order $M(r,2;d)=\frac{r+2}{r-2}[(r-1)^m -1]$. Then, from Proposition \ref{propo:subdiv}, these are the parameters obtained when considering the subdividing graph $S(G)$ of a bipartite Moore graph $G$ of degree $r$ and diameter $m$. (For diameter $d=6$, see the values in the column $s=2$ of Table \ref{tab:d=6}.)
\end{proof}

\subsection{The semi-double graphs}
Let $G$ be a bipartite graph with stable sets $V_1$ and $V_2$.
Given $i\in \{1,2\}$, the {\em semi-double(-$V_i$)  graph} $G^{2V_i}$ is obtained from $G$ by doubling each vertex of $V_i$, so that each vertex $u\in V_i$ gives rise to another vertex $u'$ with the same neighborhood as $u$, $G(u')=G(u)$. Thus, assuming, without loss of generality, that $i=1$, the graph $G^{2V_1}$ is bipartite with stable sets $V_1\cup V_1'$ and $V_2$, and satisfies the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:semi-double}
Let $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ be a bipartite graph on $n=n_1+n_2=|V_1|+|V_2|$ vertices, diameter $D(\ge 2)$, and spectrum
$\spec G$.
Then, its semi-double graph $G^{2V_1}$, on $N=2n_1+n_2$ vertices, has the same diameter $D$, and spectrum
\begin{equation}
\label{spec-semi-double}
\spec G^{2V_1}=\sqrt{2}\cdot \spec G \cup \{0^{n_1}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $p : u_1(=u),u_2,\ldots,u_{\delta-1},u_{\delta}(=v)$ be a shortest path in $G$ between vertices $u$ and $v(\neq u')$, for $2\le \delta\le D$.
 If $u,v\in V_1\cup V_2$, $p$ also is a shortest path in $G^{2V_1}$. Otherwise, the following also are shortest paths in $G^{2V_1}$:
 \begin{align*}
  & u_1(=u),u_2,\ldots,u_{\delta-1},u_{\delta}'(=v');\\
  & u_1'(=u'),u_2,\ldots,u_{\delta-1},u_{\delta}(=v);\\
  & u_1'(=u'),u_2,\ldots,u_{\delta-1},u_{\delta}'(=v').
 \end{align*}
 Finally, the distance from $u$ to $u'$ is clearly two.
 \\
 To prove \eqref{spec-semi-double}, notice that the adjacency matrices $\mbox{\boldmath $A$}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $A$}^{[1]}$ of $G$ and $G^{2V_1}$,  are
 $$
 \mbox{\boldmath $A$}=\left(
 \begin{array}{c|c}
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$} \\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
\mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0}
 \end{array}
 \right)\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad
 \mbox{\boldmath $A$}^{[1]}
 =\left(
 \begin{array}{c|c|c}
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$} \\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$}\\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
\mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0}
 \end{array}
 \right),
 $$
respectively, where $\mbox{\boldmath $N$}$ is an $n_1\times n_2$ matrix. Now, we claim that, if $\mbox{\boldmath $v$}=(\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1 | \mbox{\boldmath $v$}_2)^{\top}$ is a $\lambda$-eigenvector of $\mbox{\boldmath $A$}$, then $\mbox{\boldmath $v$}^{[1]}=(\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1 | \mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1| \sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2)^{\top}$ is a $\sqrt{2}\lambda$-eigenvector of $\mbox{\boldmath $A$}^{[1]}$. Indeed, from
\begin{equation*}
 \mbox{\boldmath $A$}\mbox{\boldmath $v$}=\left(
 \begin{array}{c|c}
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$} \\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
\mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0}
 \end{array}
 \right)
 \left(
 \begin{array}{c}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1\\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_2
\end{array}
 \right)
 =\lambda \left(
 \begin{array}{c}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1\\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_2
\end{array}
 \right)
 \qquad \Rightarrow \qquad \mbox{\boldmath $N$}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2=\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} _1\quad{\rm and}\quad \mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _1=\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2,
 \end{equation*}
we have
$$
 \mbox{\boldmath $A$}^{[1]}\mbox{\boldmath $v$}^{[1]}=
 \left(
 \begin{array}{c|c|c}
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$} \\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
 \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$} \\
 \hline \\
 [-.4 cm]
\mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top} & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0}
 \end{array}
 \right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1\\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $v$}_1\\
\hline \\
 [-.45 cm]
\sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2
\end{array}
 \right)=
 \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $N$}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2\\
\hline
\sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $N$}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2\\
\hline \\
 [-.45 cm]
2\mbox{\boldmath $N$}^{\top}\mbox{\boldmath $v$} _1
\end{array}
 \right
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sqrt{2}\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} _1\\
\hline
\sqrt{2}\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} _1\\
\hline
2\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} _2
\end{array}
\right)
=\sqrt{2}\lambda \mbox{\boldmath $v$} ^{[1]}.
$$
Moreover, if $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_1\\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_2
\end{array}
\right)$
is a matrix whose columns are the $n$ independent eigenvectors of $\mbox{\boldmath $A$}$, then the $n$ columns of the matrix
 $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}'=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_1\\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_1\\
\hline \\
 [-.45 cm]
\sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_2
\end{array}
\right)$
also are independent since, clearly, $\rank \mbox{\boldmath $U$}'=\rank \mbox{\boldmath $U$}=n_1+n_2$.
Consequently, $\spec \mbox{\boldmath $A$}\subset \spec \mbox{\boldmath $A$}^{[1]}$. Finally, each of the remaining $n_1$ eigenvalues $0$ corresponds to an eigenvector with $u$-th component $+1$ and $u'$-th component $-1$ for a given $u\in V_1$, and $0$ elsewhere. This is because the matrix $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}^{[1]}$ obtained by extending $\mbox{\boldmath $U$}'$  with such eigenvalues, that is,
 $$
 \mbox{\boldmath $U$}^{[1]}=\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_1 & \mbox{\boldmath $I$} \\
\hline
\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_1 & -\mbox{\boldmath $I$} \\
\hline \\
 [-.45 cm]
\sqrt{2}\mbox{\boldmath $U$}_2 & \mbox{\normalfont\Large\bfseries 0}
\end{array}
\right)
$$
has rank $n=2n_1+n_2$, as required.
\end{proof}

In general, we can consider the $k$-tuple graph $G^{kV_i}$, which is defined as expected by replacing each vertex $u\in V_i$ of $G$  by $k$ vertices $u_1,\ldots,u_k$ with the same adjacencies as $u$. Then, similar reasoning as in the proof of Theorem
\ref{th:semi-double} leads to the following result.
\\
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:k-tuple}
Let $G=(V_1\cup V_2,E)$ be a bipartite graph on $n=n_1+n_2=|V_1|+|V_2|$ vertices, diameter $D(\ge 2)$, and spectrum
$\spec G$.
Then, its $k$-tuple graph $G^{kV_1}$, on $N=kn_1+n_2$ vertices, has the same diameter $D$, and spectrum
\begin{equation}
\label{spe-k-yuble}
\spec G^{kV_1}=\sqrt{k}\cdot \spec G \cup \{0^{(k-1)n_1}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

As a consequence of Theorem \ref{th:semi-double}, we introduce a family of $[r,2r;d]$-graphs for $d=\{3,4,6\}$ using the existence of bipartite Moore graphs of order $M(r;d)$ for $r-1$ a prime power and these values of $d$. That is, the incidence graphs of the mentioned generalized polygons.

\begin{theorem}
\label{r2r}
The following are $[r,2r;d]$-biregular bipartite graphs for $r\geq 3$, $r-1$ a prime power, and diameter $d\in \{3,4,6\}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)]
A $[r,2r;3]$-biregular bipartite graph has order $n=3r^2-3r+3$ with defect $\delta=\frac{3}{2}(r-1)$ for odd $r$, and $\delta=\frac{3r}{2}-3$ for even $r$.
\item [$(ii)$]
A $[r,2r;4]$-biregular bipartite graph has order $n=3r^3-6r^2+10r$ with defect  $\delta=3r^3-3r^2-2r$.
\item [$(iii)$]
A $[r,2r;6]$-biregular bipartite graph has order $n=2r^5-8r^4+14r^3-12r^2+6r$ with defect  $\delta=10r^5-28r^4+31r^3-15r^2-3r$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$(i)$ Let $G$ be a $[r,3]$-Moore graph, that is, the incidence graph of a projective plane of order $r-1$. As already mentioned, $G$ is bipartite, has $2r^2-2r+1$ vertices, and diameter $3$.
Then, by Theorem \ref{th:semi-double}, the semi-double graph $G^{[1]}$ (or $G^{[2]}$) is
a bipartite graph on $3r^2-3r+3$ vertices, biregular with degrees $r$ and $2r$, and diameter $3$.
Thinking on the projective plane, this corresponds to duplicate, for instance, each line, so that each point is on $2r$ lines, and each line has $r$ points, as before. Then,  $G^{[1]}$ is the incidence graph of this new incidence geometry ${\cal{I}}_G$.
Moreover, the Moore bound \eqref{Moore-even} is
$M(2r,r;3)=3r^2-\frac{3}{2}(r-1)$ if $r$ is odd, and $M(2r,r;3)=3r^2-\frac{3}{2}r$ if $r$ is even. Thus,  a simple calculation gives that the defect of $G$ is equal to $\delta=\frac{3}{2}(r-1)$ for $r$ odd and $\delta=\frac{3}{2}r-3$ for $r$ even.

Figure \ref{3unics}$(c)$ depicts the only $[6,3;3]$-biregular bipartite graph of order $21$ obtained from the Heawood graph (that is, the incidence graph of the Fano plane).
Notice that, by Corollary \ref{coro:2s-s}, this is a Moore graph since it has the maximum possible number of vertices (see Table \ref{tab:d=3}).

$(ii)$ In this case, we apply Theorem \ref{th:semi-double} to  $G$ being the $[r;4]$-Moore graph (that is, the incidence graph of a generalized quadrangle of order $r-1$). Now the semi-double graph $G^{[1]}$ is $[r,2r;4]$-bipartite biregular
with $3[(r-1)^3+(r-1)^2+(r-1)+1]=3r^3-6r^2+10r$ vertices, whereas the Moore bound in  \eqref{Moore-even} is  $M(2r,r;3)=6r^3-9r^2+6r$. Hence, the defect is $\delta=3r^3-3r^2-2r$.
For example, the $[3,6;4]$-bigraph of order $45$ obtained from the Tutte graph (that is, the incidence graph of the generalized quadrangle of order $2$) has defect $\delta=54$.

$(iii)$ Finally, to obtain a  $[r,2r;6]$-bigraph of order $2r^5-8r^4+14r^3-12r^2+6r$, we apply Theorem \ref{th:semi-double} to the $[r;6]$-Moore graph (the incidence graph of a generalized hexagon of order $r-1$). Then, we obtain a $[r,2r;6]$-bigraph with
$2r^5-8r^4+14r^3-12r^2+6r$
vertices, whereas  the Moore bound in \eqref{Moore-even} is $M(2r,r;6)=12r^5-36r^4+45r^3-27r^2+9r$, yielding a defect $\delta=10r^5-28r^4+31r^3-15r^2-3r$.
\end{proof}

Notice that,  in Theorem \ref{r2r}, we only state results for Moore graphs constructed with regular generalized quadrangles; clearly, it is possible to do the same starting with biregular bipartite Moore graphs of diameters $6$ and $8$ given as in Theorem \ref{bb-Moore}, but since the bounds are far to be tight, we
restricted the details to the best cases.

\section{Bipartite biregular Moore graphs of diameter $3$}
\label{sec:d=3}

We have already seen some examples of large biregular graphs with diameter three. Namely, the Moore graphs with degrees $(3,4)$, $(3,5)$, and $(3,6)$ of Figure  \ref{3unics} (the last one in Theorem \ref{r2r}$(i)$).
Now, we begin this section with the simple case of bimoore graphs with degrees  $r$ (even)  and $2$, and diameter $3$. For these values, the Moore bounds in \eqref{Moore-odd} and \eqref{Moore-even} turn out to be $M(r,2;3)=2+r$ when $r(>1)$ is odd, and $M(r,2;3)=3\left(1+\frac{r}{2}\right)$ ($N_1=3$ and $N_2=3r/2$) when $r(>2)$ is even, respectively.
In the first case, the bound is attained by the complete bipartite graph $K_{2,r}$ and, hence, the diameter is, in fact, $2$.
In the second case, the Moore graphs are obtained via Theorem \ref{th:k-tuple}. Let $G$ be a hexagon (or $6$-cycle) with vertex set $V_1\cup V_2=\{u_1,u_3,u_5\}\cup \{2,4,6\} $. Then,  the $k$-tuple $G^{kV_1}$ with $k=r/2$ is a $[2,2r;3]$-bimoore graph on $3(r+1)$ vertices (see Table \ref{tab:d=3}).

In general, and in terms of designs, to guarantee that the diameter is equal to $3$, it is necessary that any pair of points shares a block, and any pair of blocks has a non-empty intersection.
It is well known that this kind of structure exists when $r=m$ and $r-1$ is a  prime power. Namely, the so-called projective plane of order $r-1$. In this case, any pair of blocks (or lines) intersects in one and only one point and, for any pair of points, they share one and only one block (or line).
 For more details about projective planes, you can consult, for instance, Coxeter \cite{Cox93}.  In our constructions of block designs giving graphs of diameter $3$, this condition is not necessary, and two blocks can be intersected in more than one point, and two points can share one or more blocks. Moreover, we may have the same  block appearing more than once.

\subsection{Existence of bipartite biregular Moore graphs of diameter 3 and degrees $r\ge 3$ and  $s=3$}
\label{sec:d=3}

Let us consider the diameter $3$ case together with $r>s=3$. According to Eqs. \eqref{N1-odd} and \eqref{N2-odd}, the maximum numbers of vertices for the partite sets, in this case, are $N_1'=2r+1$ and $N_2'=3r-2$. We recall that the equality $N_1'r=3N_2'$ does not hold when the diameter is odd. Since
$$
\rho=\frac{r}{\gcd\{r,3\}}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
                              r & \textrm{if} \ \ 3 \nmid r \\
                              \frac{r}{3} & \textrm{otherwise}
                             \end{array}\right.
\quad \textrm{and} \quad \sigma=\frac{3}{\gcd\{r,3\}}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
                              3 & \textrm{if} \ \ 3 \nmid r \\
                              1 & \textrm{otherwise}
                             \end{array}\right.
$$
we obtain the Moore-like bounds (see \eqref{N1-N2-odd}):
\[
N_1 \leq \left\lfloor \frac{3r-2}{\rho}\right\rfloor \sigma = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
                              3\omega & \textrm{if} \ \ 3 \nmid r \\
                              \omega' & \textrm{otherwise}
                             \end{array}\right.
\quad \textrm{and} \quad N_2\le \left\lfloor \frac{3r-2}{\rho}\right\rfloor \rho = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
                              r\omega & \textrm{if} \ \ 3 \nmid r \\
                              \frac{r\omega'}{3} & \textrm{otherwise}
                             \end{array}\right.
\]
where $\omega=\left\lfloor \frac{3r-2}{r}\right\rfloor=2$ and $\omega'=\left\lfloor \frac{3r-2}{r/3}\right\rfloor=8$. As a consequence, whenever $3 \nmid r$, we obtain Moore-like bounds $N_1\leq 6$ and $N_2 \leq 2r$. Otherwise, when $3|r$, we have
the bounds $N_1\leq 8$ and $N_2 \leq \frac{8}{3}r$.

The following graphs have orders that either attain or are close to such Moore bounds.
Given an integer $n\ge 6$, let $G_{6+n}=(V_1 \cup V_2, E)$ be the bipartite graph with independent sets $V_1=\{(0,j) \ | \ j \in \mathbb{Z}_6\}$, $V_2=\{(1,i) \ | \ i \in \mathbb{Z}_{n}\}$, and where $(1,i) \sim (0,j)$ for all $i \in \mathbb{Z}_{n}$ if and only if $j \equiv i \pmod{6}$ or $j \equiv i+1 \pmod{6}$ or $j \equiv i+3 \pmod{6}$.

Thus, $G_{6+n}$ is a bipartite graph with $n+6$ vertices, where every vertex $v\in V_2$ has degree $3$ and,  assuming that $n=6k+\rho$ ($n\equiv \rho \pmod{6}${\color{blue})}, vertex $u\in V_1$ has the degree indicated in Table  \ref{tab:degreesV1}.
Indeed, let us consider the case $\rho=2$ (the other cases are analogous), where $n=6k+2$ and, for simplicity, let  $V_2= \{0,1,\ldots,6k-1\}$. According to the adjacency rules,
the vertex $(0,i)\in V_1$, for $i\in \ns{Z}_6$, is adjacent to all the vertices $ j\in V_2$ with $j\equiv i,i-1,i-3 \pmod{6}$. Then, we have the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item
 If $i=0$, $V_2$ contains $k+1$ numbers $j\equiv 0 \pmod6$, $k$ numbers $j\equiv-1\equiv 5 \pmod6$, and $k$ numbers $j\equiv-3\equiv 3 \pmod6$. Thus, the degree of $(0,0)$ is $3k+1$.
\item
 If $i=1$, $V_2$ contains $k+1$ numbers $j\equiv 1 \pmod6$, $k+1$ numbers $j\equiv0 \pmod6$, and $k$ numbers $j\equiv-2\equiv 4 \pmod6$. Thus, the degree of $(0,2)$ is $3k+2$.
\item
 If $i=2$, $V_2$ contains $k$ numbers $j\equiv 2 \pmod6$, $k+1$ numbers $j\equiv1 \pmod6$, and $k$ numbers $j\equiv-1\equiv 5 \pmod6$. Thus, the degree of $(0,3)$ is $3k+1$.
\item[ \mbox{\boldmath $v$} dots]
\item
 If $i=5$, $V_2$ contains $k$ numbers $j\equiv 5 \pmod6$, $k$ numbers $j\equiv4 \pmod6$, and $k$ numbers $j\equiv2 \pmod6$. Thus, the degree of $(0,5)$ is $3k$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[h]
	\begin{center}
		\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
			\hline
			$\rho\setminus u$ &  (0,0)   & (0,1) & (0,2)   & (0,3)    &  (0,4)     & (0,5)      \\
			\hline
			0              &  $3k$ & $3k$ & $3k$ & $3k$ & $3k$ & $3k$ \\
			1              & $3k+1$  & $3k+1$ & $3k$ & $3k+1$ &  $3k$ & $3k$ \\
			2              & {\boldmath  $3k+1$}  &  {\boldmath $3k+2$} &  {\boldmath $3k+1$} &  {\boldmath $3k+1$} &  {\boldmath $3k+1$} &  {\boldmath $3k$}   \\
			3               & $3k+1$  & $3k+2$ & $3k+2$ & $3k+2$ & $3k+1$ & $3k+1$   \\
			4              & {\boldmath $3k+2$}  & {\boldmath $3k+2$} & {\boldmath $3k+2$} & {\boldmath $3k+3$} & {\boldmath $3k+2$} & {\boldmath $3k+1$}   \\
			5              & $3k+2$  & $3k+3$ & $3k+2$ & $3k+3$ & $3k+3$ & $3k+2$   \\
			\hline
		\end{tabular}
	\end{center}
	\caption{Degrees of the vertices $u=(0,j)\in V_1$ when $|V_2|=n=6k+\rho$. }
	\label{tab:degreesV1}
\end{table}

\begin{proposition}
\label{G(6+n)}
The diameter of the bipartite graph $G_{6+n}=(V_1\cup V_2, E)$, on $n+6$ vertices, is $d=3$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove that every pair of different vertices $u,u'\in V_1$, and every pair of different vertices $v,v'\in V_2$, are at distance two.
In the first case, notice that $u=(0,j)\in V_1$ is adjacent to every vertex $v=(1,i)\in V_2$ such that $i\equiv j,j-1, j-3 \pmod6$.
Moreover, vertex $(1,j)\in V_2$ is adjacent to vertices $(0,j+1),(0,j+3)\in V_1$, vertex $(1,j-1)\in V_2$ is adjacent to vertices
 $(0,j-1),(0,j+2)\in V_1$, and  vertex $(1,j-3)\in V_2$ is adjacent to vertices
 $(0,j-3),(0,j-2)\in V_1$. Schematically (with all arithmetic modulo 6),
\begin{align}
(0,j)\quad & \sim \quad (1, j), (1,j-1), (1, j-3) \label{u-u'}\\
 & \sim \quad (0,j+1),(0,j+3),(0,j-1),(0,j+2),(0,j-3),(0,j-2) \nonumber,
\end{align}
which are all vertices of $V_1$ different from $(0,j)$.
Similarly, starting from a vertex  of $V_2$, we have
 \begin{align*}
(1,i)\quad & \sim \quad (0, i), (0,i+1), (0, i+3)\\
 & \sim \quad (1,i), (1,i-1),(1,i-3),(1,i+1),(1,i-2),(1,i+3),(1,i+1),
\end{align*}
with the last two representing all vertices of $V_2$ because the second entries cover all values modulo 6. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

The following result proves the existence of an infinite family of Moore bipartite biregular graphs with diameter three.
\begin{proposition}
\label{propo:(r,3)}
For any integer $r\ge 6$  such that $3 \nmid r$, there exists a bipartite graph $G$ on $2r+6$ vertices (the Moore bound for the case of degrees $(r,3)$ and diameter $3$) with degrees $3,r,r\pm 1$ and diameter $d=3$.
Moreover, when $r\equiv 2 \mod3$, there exists a Moore bipartite biregular graph with degrees $(r,3)$  and diameter $3$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From the comments at the beginning of this subsection, if $3 \nmid r$, the graph  $G_{6+n}$ of Proposition \ref{G(6+n)} with $n=2r$  has maximum order for diameter $3$. However, as shown before, not every vertex of $u\in V_1$ has degree $r$ since it is required to become a bipartite biregular Moore graph. More precisely,  if $2r=6k+\rho$ (with $\rho=2$ or $\rho=4$, since $3 \nmid r$), from the two rows in boldface of Table \ref{tab:degreesV1}, we have
 $$
\deg(u)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
                             r & \textrm{if} \ \ u \in \{(0,0),(0,2),(0,3),(0,4)\}, \\
                              r+1 & \textrm{if} \ \ u=(0,\rho-1), \\
                              r-1 & \textrm{if} \ \ u=(0,5). \\
                             \end{array}\right.
$$
This proves the first statement.

When  $r\equiv 2 \pmod3$, that is $\rho=4$, we obtain biregularity by modifying only one adjacency of $G_{6+n}$, as follows. Let $G'_r$ be the graph $G_{6+r}$ defined above, but where the edge $(0,3)\sim(1,i)$, for some $i\equiv 0 \pmod 3$, is switched to $(0,5)\sim(1,i)$. Then, $G'_r$ is a bipartite semiregular Moore graph of diameter $3$ for all $r\ge 5$.
To prove that $G'_r$ has diameter $d=3$, let us check again that every pair of different vertices $u,u'\in V_1$, and every pair of different vertices $v,v'\in V_2$, are at distance two.
\begin{itemize}
\item
If  $u,u'\in V_1$, we only need to consider the case when $u=(0,3)$. Then, the paths are as follows (where $(1,i)$ represents any vertex $(1,i')$ with $i'\equiv i \pmod6$):
\begin{align*}
(0,3)\quad & \sim \quad (1, 3), (1,2), (1, 0)\quad \sim \quad (0,4),(0,0),(0,2),(0,5),(0,1),
\end{align*}
because $(0,3)$ was initially adjacent to more than one vertex of type $(0,i)$ with  $i\equiv 0 \pmod 3$. Thus, all vertices of $V_0$ are reached from $(0,3)$.
\item
If  $v,v'\in V_2$, assume that $v=(1,i)$ with $i\equiv 0 \pmod6$ (the case where $i\equiv 3 \pmod6$ is similar). Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $v=(1,0)$, we have the paths
\begin{align*}
(1,0)\quad & \sim \quad (0, 0), (0,1), (0,5)
 \quad \sim \quad (1,0),(1,3),(1,1),(1,4),(1,2).
\end{align*}
 Notice that, in this case, the first step is not $(1,0)\sim (0,3)$ (deleted edge), but $(1,0)\sim (0,5)$. Despite this, we still reach all vertices of $V_2$, as required.
 \item
 If $v=(1,i)$ with $i\neq 0$, the first step is
 \begin{align*}
(1,i)\quad & \sim \quad (0, i), (0,i+1), (0,i+3)
\end{align*}
So, the only problem would be when some $i,i+1,i+3$ is $3$, since we have not the adjacency $(0,3)\sim (1,0)$. But, if so, we have the following alternative adjacencies: if $i=0,3$, we  have $(0,0)\sim (1,0)$; and if $i=2$, we  have $(0,5)\sim (1,0)$.
Again, all vertices of $V_2$ are reached, completing the proof.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\vskip-.5cm
 \end{proof}

Bipartite biregular Moore graphs