Additive Collatz Trajectories

Abstract: Collatz Conjecture (also known as Ulam's conjecture and 3x+1 problem) concerns the behavior of the iterates of a particular function on natural numbers. A number of generalizations of the conjecture have been subjected to extensive study. This paper explores Additive Collatz Trajectories, a particular case of a generalization of Collatz conjecture and puts forward a sufficient and necessary condition for looping of Additive Collatz Trajectories, along with two minor results. An algorithm to compute the number of equivalence classes when natural numbers are quotiented by the limiting behavior of their corresponding trajectories is also proposed.

\section{Introduction}

\subsection{The Collatz Conjecture}

The $3x + 1$ problem is most simply stated in terms of the Collatz function $C(x)$ defined on integers as:

\[ C(x) = \begin{cases}
      3x + 1 & \text{if } x \equiv 1 \mod 2\\
      \frac{x}{2} &\text{if } x \equiv 0 \mod 2\\
   \end{cases}
\]

The Collatz Conjecture states that every for every $m \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that iterate $T^{(k)}(m) = 1$. \cite{lagarias}. One natural generalization of Collatz function would be to consider an arbitrary affine linear map of $x$ instead of $3x + 1$.

\subsection{Generalization}

We introduce the concept of a generalized Collatz function $C_{a,d,m}'(x)$ as:

\[ C'_{a,d,m}(x) = \begin{cases}
      mx + a & \text{if } x \not\equiv 0 \mod d\\
      \frac{x}{d} &\text{if } x \equiv 0 \mod d\\
   \end{cases}
\]

where $x,a,d,m \in \mathbb{N}$. For an arbitrary choice of $(x, a, d, m)$ and for sufficient large values of $k \in \mathbb{N}$, we would like to explore the nature of $C_{a,d,m}'^{(k)}(x)$ \cite{generalized}. In this paper, we look at a particular case of the generalized Collatz function, which we term as the Additive Collatz function. An additive Collatz function $T_{a,d}(x)$ is defined as $C_{a,d,1}'(x)$.

\subsection{Terminology}

We use the following definitions:

\begin{definition}
An additive Collatz trajectory $O_{a,d}$ of an integer $x$ is the infinite tuple

$$O_{a,d}(x) = (x, T_{a,d}(x), T_{a,d}^{(2)}(x), ... )$$
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}

A trajectory $O = (o_0, o_1, o_2 ... )$ is said to loop if $\exists k, N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall n > N$, $o_n = o_{n+k}$.

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}

Given $a, d \in \mathbb{N}$, two natural numbers $x_1$ and $x_2$ are said to be equivalent under the orbit equivalence relation if $\exists n_1, n_2, N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall k > N$:

$$ T_{a,d}^{(k+n_1)}(x_1) = T_{a,d}^{(k+n_2)}(x_2) $$

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}

Given $a, d \in \mathbb{N}$, an orbit is an element of partition of  $\mathbb{N}$ under the orbit equivalence relation.

\end{definition}

\section{Analysis of Additive Collatz Trajectories}

The limiting behavior of an additive Collatz trajectory is identified based on the eventual formation of loops. It is a straightforward observation that if $a$ and $d$ are not co-prime, then the trajectory does not necessarily loop.

\begin{proposition}

For non-coprime $a,d \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists $x \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $O_{a,d}(x)$ does not loop.

\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} Consider $ r \not\equiv 0 \mod \gcd(a,d) $. Then, $O_{a,d}(r)$ does not loop. This can be proved by induction on natural numbers. \\

Claim: $\forall k \in \mathbb{N}, T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) = r + ak$ \\

Base Case: Trivially true for $k = 0$\\

Induction Hypothesis: $\exists k \in \mathbb{N} \ni T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) = r + ak$ \\

Induction Step: Let $\delta= \gcd(a,d)$.

$$T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) = r + ak \equiv r \mod \delta \implies T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) \not\equiv 0 \mod d$$
$$\implies T_{a,d}^{(k+1)}(r) = T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) + a = r + ka + a = r + (k+1)a$$

Hence, the trajectory is an increasing progression, and does not loop. \\
\end{proof}

It can be observed that if $r$ is not a multiple of $\gcd(a,d)$, then $O_{a,d}(r)$ does not loop. We would now like to analyze the converse of this statement.

\begin{lemma}
Given $a,d \in \mathbb{N}$, if $r \equiv 0 \mod \delta$, $$T_{a,d}^{(k)}(r) = \delta T_{\frac{a}{\delta},\frac{d}{\delta}}^{(k)}\Big( \frac{r}{\delta} \Big)$$ where $\delta = \gcd(a,d)$
\end{lemma}

If $r$ is a multiple of $\gcd(a,d)$, then Lemma 1 permits us to reduce our analysis to a case where $a$ and $d$ are co-prime. We now only consider the cases where $a$ and $d$ are co-prime and prove that for all natural numbers $x$, the additive Collatz trajectory $O_{a,d}(x)$ loops. This analysis is divided into three propositions.

\begin{proposition}
For co-prime $a,d \in \mathbb{N}$ given $x \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists $N(x) \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $T_{a,d}^{N(x)}(x) \leq a$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Consider $(n_i)$ as a sub-trajectory of $O_{a,d}(x)$ such that $$n_0 = x$$ $$n_i = T_{a,d}^{(z_i)}(x)$$

where $T_{a,d}^{(z_i - 1)}(x) = dT_{a,d}^{(z_i)}(x)$. As $a$ and $d$ are co-prime, B\'{e}zout's Lemma forces the existence of such a sub-trajectory. Let $y_i = z_{i+1} - z_i - 1$. Then,

\begin{equation} \label{1}
n_{i+1} = \frac{n_i + ay_i}{d}
\end{equation}

On solving the recursion,

$$n_{k+1} = \frac{n_0 + a\sum_{i = 0}^k y_id^i}{d^{k+1}}$$

By definition, $y_i$ is the least non-negative integer such that $n_i + ay_i$ is divisible by $d$, and hence $y_i$ is strictly less than $d$. Hence,

$$n_{k+1} \leq \frac{n_0 + a\sum_{i = 0}^k (d-1)d^i}{d^{k+1}}$$

Which simplifies to

$$n_{k+1} \leq \frac{n_0 - a}{d^{k+1}} + a$$

For sufficiently large $k$, $d^{k+1} > n_0 - a$. Hence, there is an element in the trajectory which is less than or equal to $a$. \\
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
For co-prime $a,d \in \mathbb{N}$, $O_{a,d}(x)$ loops for all $x \leq a$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Equation (1) and the fact that $y_i  \leq (d-1) $ implies that if $ n_i \leq a$,  then $ n_{i+1} \leq \dfrac{a + a(d-1)}{d} = a $ . Thus if  $x = n_0   \leq a $ then $ \forall j \in \mathbb{N} $ $n_j \leq a $. As there are only finitely many natural numbers less than or equal to $a$, trajectory loops.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
Given $a,d \in \mathbb{N}$, $O_{a,d}(r)$ loops for all $r \equiv 0 \mod \gcd(a,d)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma 1, $O_{a,d}(r)$ loops if and only if $O_{\frac{a}{\delta},\frac{d}{\delta}}(\frac{r}{\delta})$ loops where $\delta = \gcd(a,d)$.

Let $a' = a/\delta$, $d' = d/\delta$ and $r' = r/\delta$. By Proposition 2, there exists $N(r')$ such that $T_{a,d}^{(N(r'))}(r') \leq a$. Let $T_{a,d}^{(N(r'))}(r') = k$. As the each term of the trajectory depends only on the previous term, $O_{a',d'}(r')$ is equal to $O_{a',d'}(k)$.
By Proposition 3, $O_{a',d'}(k)$ loops, hence $O_{a',d'}(r')$ loops. This implies that $O_{a,d}(r)$ loops. \\
\end{proof}

A straightforward implication of Proposition 4 is that if $a$ and $d$ are co-prime, then $\forall x \in \mathbb{N}$, $O_{a,d}(x)$ loops.

\section{Orbit Counting}

For co-prime $a$ and $d$, we have shown that $O_{a,d}(x)$ loops. We would now like to characterize the number of unique loops possible. For this, the concept of orbit equivalence relation is proposed. Two natural numbers are said to be equivalent, if their trajectories are the same, eventually. Formally speaking, given $a, d \in \mathbb{N}$, two natural numbers $x_1$ and $x_2$ are said to be equivalent under the orbit equivalence relation if $\exists n_1, n_2, N \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\forall k > N$:

$$ T_{a,d}^{(k+n_1)}(x_1) = T_{a,d}^{(k+n_2)}(x_2) $$

Under the orbit equivalence relation, the set of natural numbers can be partitioned into equivalence classes. The number of equivalence classes is the same as the number of unique loops of trajectories possible.

Proposition 3 and Proposition 4 imply that the number of unique loops formed by $O_{a,d}(x)$ where $x \in \mathbb{N}$ is the same as the number of unique loops formed by $O_{a,d}(x)$ where $x \in \mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z}$. In order to count the equivalence classes, we identify them with orbits of a group action and use P\'{o}lya's Enumeration Theorem to count them.
\subsection{Group Action}

Consider the sub-trajectory $(n_i)$ as defined in the proof of Proposition 2. We observe that given a trajectory $O_{a,d}(x)$, one can construct the sub-trajectory $(n_i)$ and vice-versa. Hence, the number loops of the sub-trajectories have a one-to-one correspondence with the loops of the trajectories.

By definition of the sub-trajectory $(n_i)$

$$n_{i+1} = d^{-1}n_i \mod a$$

For some $k$, all elements of the sub-trajectory are eventually smaller than $a$. This allows us to identify the limiting behavior of the sub-trajectory with $$(n_k,\: d^{-1}n_k \mod a,\: d^{-2}n_k \mod a,\: d^{-3}n_k \mod a,\: ...)$$ where $n_k \leq a$. Each element of the sub-trajectory is a power of $d^{-1}$ multiplied by $n_k$ and hence, the sub-trajectory can be identified with the action of the group of negative powers of $d$ on $n_k$ under multiplication modulo $a$.

Under the binary operation of multiplication modulo a natural number $a$, the numbers co-prime to $a$ (modulo $a$) form an Abelian group denoted by $(\mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z})^*$. For some $d$ in $(\mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z})^*$, let $H$ be the subgroup generated by $d$.

$$H = \{ d^i : i \in \mathbb{Z} \}$$

Then, the number of orbits formed by quotienting natural numbers by the nature of limiting behavior of the additive Collatz trajectory $O_{a,d}(x)$ is given by the number of orbits under the action of $H$ on $\mathbb{Z}/a\mathbb{Z}$ under the binary operation multiplication modulo $a$.

\subsection{Computation}

Let $\xi(a,d)$ denote the number of orbits of $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ when $H$ acts on it. By P\'{o}lya's Enumeration Theorem, we have:

$$\xi(a,d) = \frac{1}{|H|} \sum_{x \in S} |H_x|$$

where $H_x = \{g \in H: gx \equiv x \mod a \}$. $|H_x|$ can be computed by finding the number of solutions for $d^t \in H$ in the equation:

\begin{equation}
d^tx \equiv x \mod a
\end{equation}

Let $m_x = \gcd(x,a)$, $p_x = \frac{a}{m_x}$ and $q_x = \frac{x}{m_x}$. On substitution in equation (2), we have:

\begin{equation}
d^tm_xq_x \equiv m_xq_x \mod (m_xp_x)
\end{equation}

As $\gcd(p_x,q_x) = 1$, the number of solutions to equation (3) is same as the number of solutions to :

$$d^t \equiv 1 \mod p_x$$

Let the smallest solution to equation be termed as $\alpha_{p_x} (d)$. Therefore the total number of solutions to equation (2) are:
$\frac{|H|}{\alpha_{p_x}(d)}$

Hence, we have:

$$\xi(a,d) = \frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{x \in S}\frac{|H|}{\alpha_{p_x}(d)} = \sum_{x \in S} \frac{1}{\alpha_{p_x}(d)}$$

For each $p_x$, $q_x$ takes values co prime to $p_x$, hence, by counting repetitions, we get:

$$\xi(a,d) = \sum_{f | a} \frac{\phi(f)}{\alpha_{f}(d)}$$

where $\phi$ is the Euler-totient function.

\subsection{Upper and Lower Bounds}

We can set a lower bound on $\xi(a,d)$ by considering the Carmichael function $\lambda$.

$$\lambda(m) = \max \{ \alpha_m(d) : d \in (Z/mZ) \}$$

Hence,

$$\xi(a,d) = \sum_{f | a} \frac{\phi(f)}{\alpha_{f}(d)} \geq \sum_{f | a} \frac{\phi(f)}{\lambda(f)} = \xi_{inf}(a)$$

One can further claim that $\xi_{inf}(a)$ is a strong lower bound for $\xi(a,d)$ as for every $a$, there exists $d$ such that for all factors $f$ of $a$, $\alpha_{f}(d) = \lambda(f)$. The proof of this claim relies on the decomposition of $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$ into cyclic groups.

The strong upper bound for $\xi(a,d)$ is $a$, which is attained when $d$ is $1$.

\subsection{Applications}

The computation of $\xi(a,d)$ employs factorization as well as the discrete logarithm function (in computation of $\alpha_{f}(d)$). There are no known efficient algorithms to compute either of them, making computation of $\xi(a,d)$ difficult. This difficulty can be employed for public-key cryptography. Knowing the prime factorization of $a$, can make the computation of $\xi(a,d)$ easier. Consider two primes $p$ and $q$. Then, for some $d$ co-prime to $pq$,

$$\xi(pq,d) = 1 + \frac{\phi(p)}{\alpha_{p}(d)} + \frac{\phi(q)}{\alpha_{q}(d)} + \frac{\phi(pq)}{\alpha_{pq}(d)}$$

On simplification, we have:

$$\xi(pq,d) = 1 + \frac{p-1}{\alpha_{p}(d)} + \frac{q-1}{\alpha_{q}(d)} + \frac{(p-1)(q-1)}{\alpha_{p}(d)\alpha_{q}(d)}\gcd(\alpha_{p}(d),\alpha_{q}(d))$$

Computing $\xi(pq,d)$ would be cumbersome without using equation (9), however, it is much simpler using the prime factorization. This provides much hope for the possibility of design of a public key cryptography algorithm or key exchange system using additive Collatz trajectories.

\section{Results}

This paper puts forward the concept of Additive Collatz Trajectories and provides an analysis of their limiting behavior. A necessary and sufficient condition is provided for eventual looping of the Additive Collatz trajectories, along with a formula to compute the number of unique trajectories possible up to the orbit equivalence relation.

\section{Further Scope}

\subsection{Generalized Collatz Trajectories}

The spirit and strategy of this paper can be used to deal with generalized Collatz trajectories. One immediate result is that if the equation:

\begin{equation}
m^{r+1} x + a ( m^r + m^{r-1} + ... +m +1)  \equiv 0 \mod d
\end{equation}
does not have a solution for any $r$, then for all $x \in \mathbb{N}$, the trajectory formed by iteration of $C_{a,d,m}'(x)$ would not loop. Also, if $ m \equiv 1 \mod d $, then the equation will always have a solution. We can then define a sub-trajectory similar to that done in Proposition 2 as:
$$n_0 = x$$
$$n_{i} = C_{a,d,m}'^{(z_i)}(x)$$
where $C_{a,d,m}'^{(z_i - 1)}(x) = dC_{a,d,m}'^{(z_i)}(x)$.
We will be able to show that:

If $ d \not | n_i $ $$ n_{i+1} = \dfrac{m^{r_i}n_i + a( m^{r_i-1} + ... +m +1 )}{d}$$ where $ r  \equiv  -a^{-1}n_i \mod d$ and $ 0 < r_i \leq (d-1) $ \\

else,$$  n_{i+1} = \dfrac{n_i}{d} $$
\subsection{Public-key Cryptography}

As mentioned in subsection 3.4, there is a hope for developing a public-key cryptography system that relies on Additive Collatz Trajectories, particularly on counting the number of equivalence classes formed under the orbit equivalence relation. Much effort and study is required to design an implementable cryptography design, as there are a number of challenges. Firstly, there is no trivial characteristic that is common among the elements of an orbit equivalence class. Secondly, the formula for counting the number of orbit equivalence classes employs a number of functions, hence there is no natural way to compute the inverse for decryption. Lastly, the formula uses the discrete logarithm function which cannot practically be computed for larger cases. One must deal with these challenges in the process of an encryption algorithm design using the results proved in this paper.

Additive Collatz Trajectories


When Fourth Moments Are Enough

Abstract: This note concerns a somewhat innocent question motivated by an observation concerning the use of Chebyshev bounds on sample estimates of $p$ in the binomial distribution with parameters $n,p$. Namely, what moment order produces the best Chebyshev estimate of $p$? If $S_n(p)$ has a binomial distribution with parameters $n,p$, there it is readily observed that ${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}{\mathbb E}S_n^2(p) = {\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}np(1-p) = \frac12,$ and ${\mathbb E}S_n^2(\frac12) = \frac{n}{4}$. Rabi Bhattacharya observed that while the second moment Chebyshev sample size for a $95\%$ confidence estimate within $\pm 5$ percentage points is $n = 2000$, the fourth moment yields the substantially reduced polling requirement of $n = 775$. Why stop at fourth moment? Is the argmax achieved at $p = \frac12$ for higher order moments and, if so, does it help, and compute $\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(\frac12)$? As captured by the title of this note, answers to these questions lead to a simple rule of thumb for best choice of moments in terms of an effective sample size for Chebyshev concentration inequalities.

\section{Introduction}

This note concerns a somewhat innocent question motivated by an observation
concerning the use of Chebyshev bounds on sample estimates of $p$ in the
binomial distribution with parameters $n,p$. Namely, what moment order
produces the best Chebyshev estimate of $p$? Chebyshev is arguably the most
basic concentration inequality to occur in risk probability estimates and the
use of second moments is a textbook example in elementary probability and
statistics. Consider i.i.d. Bernoulli $0-1$ random variables $X_1,X_2,\dots,X_n$
with parameter $p\in[0,1]$, and let $S_n(p) = \sum_{j=1}^n(X_j-p)$. There it
is readily observed that
${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}{\mathbb E}S_n^2(p) = {\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}np(1-p) = \frac12$.
It is also a well-known probability exercise to check that 4-th moment
Chebyshev bounds improve the rate of convergence that can more generally be
used for a proof of the strong law of large numbers, e.g. see (Bhattacharya and
Waymire, 2016; p.100).  Somewhat relatedly, Rabi Bhattacharya
(personal communication) recently noticed, after a mildly tedious calculation
to check ${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}{\mathbb E}S_n^4(p) = \frac12$, that the
second moment Chebyshev bound is rather significantly improved by consideration
of fourth moments as well.  In particular, while the second moment Chebyshev
sample size for a $95\%$ confidence estimate within $\pm 5$ percentage points
is $n = 2000$, the fourth moment yields the substantially reduced polling
requirement of $n = 775$.  While the Chebyshev inequality is one among several
inequalities used to obtain sample estimates, it is no doubt the simplest; see
(Bhattacharya and Waymire, 2016) for comparison of fourth order Chebyshev to
other concentration inequality bounds, and (Skinner, 2017) for numerical
comparisons to higher order Chebyshev bounds.

So why stop at fourth moments?  Is
${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(p) = \frac12$ for all $m,n$ and,
if so, does it improve the estimate? Somewhat surprisingly we were not able to
find a resolution of such basic questions in the published literature. In any
case, with the argmax question resolved in part $(a)$ of the theorem below,
part $(b)$ provides a direct computation of $\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(\frac12)$. Part
$(c)$ then provides a more readily computable version.
\begin{theorem}\label{mainthm}
\begin{enumerate}[label=$(\alph*)$]
\item For all $m\ge 1$ and all $n$ sufficiently large,
${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}\mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(p) = \frac12$.
\item For all positive $m$ and $n$,
$\mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(\frac12) =
4^{-m}\sum_{\mu\in\pi(m), |\mu|\le m\wedge n}\binom{2m}{2\mu_1,\dots,2\mu_{|\mu|}}
\binom{n}{|\mu|}$,
\item For all positive $m$ and $n$,
${\mathbb E}S^{2m}_n(\frac12) = 2^{-2m-n}\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} (2k-n)^{2m}$.
\end{enumerate}\noindent
Here $\pi(m)$ is the set of ordered integer partitions of $m$, also referred to
as integer compositions, and $|\mu|$ denotes the number of parts of
$\mu\in\pi(m)$. We refer to $|\mu|$ as the {\it size} of the partition $\mu$.
\end{theorem}

The equivalent calculus challenge is to show for fixed $m$ that for all
sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqMoment}
\text{argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}\frac{d^{2m}}{dt^{2m}}(pe^{qt} + qe^{-pt})^n|_{t=0}
= \frac12.
\end{equation}
The example below illustrates the challenge to locating absolute maxima
for such polynomials (in $p$), especially to proofs by mathematical
induction.  The proof given here is based on explicit combinatorial computation
of ${\mathbb E}S_n^{2m}(p)$ in terms of ordered partitions of $2m$,
after introducing a few preliminary
lemmas.  The lemmas are relatively simple to check using the
statistical independence and identical distributions of the terms $X_i-p$ and $X_j-p$,
$i\neq j$, and make good exercises in calculus, probability, and number theory.
However let us first observe that part $(a)$ of the theorem does not hold for $m > n$.

\

\noindent {\bf Counter example to Theorem \ref{mainthm}$(a)$ for
(small)  $n< m$:}
Observe for $n = 1$ and $m=2$, the function
$${\mathbb E}S_1^4(p) = p - 4p^2 + 6p^3 - 3p^4, \quad 0\le p\le 1,$$
has a {\it minimum} at $p=\frac12$, with two local maxima
at $\frac12 \pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}$.  In particular,
$${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}{\mathbb E}S_1^4(p)
= \frac12 \pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{4}.$$
In particular, the polynomial is generally {\it not} unimodal.
So the restriction to sufficiently large $n$
is necessary for part $(a)$ of Theorem \ref{mainthm}. There is also the question of how large is sufficiently
large. We do not address this here, but computations suggest a bound along the
lines of $m\le c\cdot n^{\varepsilon}$, with $\varepsilon$ a little less than $\frac12$.
We let $m_n$ denote the largest value of $m$, dependent on $n$, such that
Theorem \ref{mainthm}$(a)$ holds for all $m\le m_n$. We leave it as an open problem
to determine an exact formula for $m_n$ and to determine a formula for
${\rm argmax}_{0\le p\le1}\mathbb{E}_n^{2m}(p)$ for $m>m_n$.

\section{Proofs and Remarks}

Let $\pi(2m)$ denote the set of ordered partitions of $2m$. We we will use
$|\mu| = k$ to denote the number of parts of $\mu$.  Finally, for
$\mu\in\pi(2m)$, let
\begin{equation*}
f_i(\mu,p) = pq^{\mu_i} + q(-p)^{\mu_i}, \quad
0\le p\le 1, q=(1-p), 1\le i\le |\mu|.
\end{equation*}

\begin{lemma}
\label{basiclemma} Let $0\le p\le 1$ and $q = 1-p$. The following hold,
\begin{enumerate}[label=$(\alph*)$]
\item $S_n(p) = -^{\text{dist}} S_n(q)$,
\item $\mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(p) = \mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(q)$,
\item  $\mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(p)
= \sum_{\mu\in\pi(2m)}\binom{n}{|\mu|} \binom{2m}{\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{|\mu|}}\prod_{i=1}^{|\mu|}f_i(\mu,p)$,
\item $\frac{d}{dp}\mathbb{E}S^{2m}_n(p)
= \sum_{\mu\in\pi(2m)}\binom{n}{|\mu|} \binom{2m}{\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{|\mu|}}\sum_{i=1}^{|\mu|}
f_i^\prime(\mu,p)\prod_{j\ne i}^{|\mu|}f_j(\mu,p)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
\label{derivlem}
Let $\mu\in\pi(2m)$ and $1\le i\le |\mu|$. Then,
$$\frac{d}{dp}f_i(\mu,p) =
q^{\mu_i}\left(1-\frac{p}{q}\mu_i\right) + (-1)^{\mu_i+1}
p^{\mu_i}\left(1-\frac{q}{p}\mu_i\right).$$
\end{lemma}

It now follows easily that
\begin{equation}
\label{fi}
f_i\left(\mu,\frac12 \right) =
\begin{cases}
2^{-\mu_i} & \text{for even}\  \mu_i,\\
0 &  \text{for odd}\  \mu_i,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{fiprime}
f^\prime_i\left(\mu,\frac12 \right) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{for even}\  \mu_i,\\
-2(\mu_i-1)2^{-\mu_i} &  \text{for odd}\  \mu_i.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}

The keys to the following proof of Theorem \ref{mainthm} reside in
(1) the parity conflicts between
\eqref{fi} and \eqref{fiprime} and (2) the expansion
$(d)$ in Lemma \ref{basiclemma}, viewed as a polynomial in $n$.

\begin{proof}[Proof (of theorem)]
That $p=\frac12$ is a critical point follows from $(d)$ of Lemma \ref{basiclemma}
together with \eqref{fi} and \eqref{fiprime} by examining the terms
$f_i^\prime(\mu,\frac12)\prod_{j\ne i}^{|\mu|}f_j(\mu,\frac12)$.
In particular, for partitions of $2m$, if $\mu_i$ is odd then there must be a
$j\neq i$ such that $\mu_j$ is odd as well. To see that $p=\frac12$ is an
absolute maximum, the trick is to observe that for $0\le p < \frac12 < q$,
the leading coefficient of $\frac{d}{dp}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(p)$, viewed as a
polynomial in $n$, is obtained at the $m$-part composition $\mu = (2,2,\dots,2)$
of $2m$. Namely, it is obtained from
$\binom{n}{m}\binom{2m}{2,2,\dots,2}m(q^2-p^2)(pq)^{m-1}$,
and therefore is positive for all $p<\frac12$. Thus, for sufficiently large $n$,
$$\frac{d}{dp}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(p) > 0, \quad\mbox{for } 0\le p < 1/2.$$
In view of the symmetry expressed in
$(b)$ of Lemma \ref{basiclemma}, it follows that $p =\frac12$ is the unique
global maximum.

For part $(b)$ of the theorem one simply computes from independence,
writing $\tilde{X}_i = X_i-\frac12, i =1,2,\dots, n$. In particular,
$\tilde{X}_i = \pm\frac12$ with equal probabilities. So,
for $m\ge 1$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}\left(\frac12\right)
&=
\sum_{1\le j_1,\dots,j_{2m}\le n}{\mathbb E}\prod_{i=1}^{2m}\tilde{X}_{j_i}
\\
&=
\sum_{2m_1+\cdots +2m_n = 2m}\prod_{i=1}^{n}{\mathbb E}\tilde{X}_{i}^{2m_i}
\\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^{m\wedge n}\sum_{2m_1+\cdots +2m_n = 2m, \#\{j:m_j\ge 1\}=k}\prod_{i=1}^{n}4^{-m_i}
\\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^{m\wedge n}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_k)\in\pi(m)}
\binom{2m}{2\mu_1,\dots,2\mu_k}4^{-m}.
\end{align*}
Here one adopts the convention that a sum over an empty set is
zero so that if there are no partitions $\mu$ of $m$ with $|\mu|=k$
then the indicated sum is zero for this choice of $k$. So
nonzero contributions to the  sum are provided by ordered partitions $\mu$
of size $|\mu|\le m\wedge n$.

To simplify the computation in terms of ordered partitions $(b)$ one
may proceed as follows to obtain the formula in $(c)$. We instead compute
$\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(\frac12)$ as the $2m$-th moment of $S_n(\frac12)$ as
given in \eqref{eqMoment}. By the binomial theorem, we have that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}\left(\frac12\right)
&=
\frac{d^{2m}}{dt^{2m}}
\left[\left(
	\frac{e^{\frac{t}{2}}}{2}
	+
	\frac{e^{-\frac{t}{2}}}{2}
\right)^n\right]_{t=0}
=
\frac{d^{2m}}{dt^{2m}}
\left[
2^{-n}
\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k}
e^{\frac{t}{2}(2k-n)}
\right]_{t=0}
\\&=
2^{-n-2m}\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} (2k-n)^{2m}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
A linear recurrence in $m$ is possible
to aid the pre-asymptotic (in $n$) computation
of $\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(\frac12)$.
Namely,
\begin{align}
\label{recur}
\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m+2\ell+2}\left(\frac12\right)
&=
\sum_{j=0}^\ell
c_j 2^{2j-2\ell-2}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m+2j}\left(\frac12\right),
\end{align}
where
$\ell=\left\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\right\rfloor$,
$a_k = (2k-n)^2$, and $(c_0,c_1,\dotsc,c_\ell)$ is the unique solution to
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0^0&a_0^1&\dots&a_0^\ell\\
a_1^0&a_1^1&\dots&a_1^\ell\\
\vdots
\\
a_\ell^0&a_\ell^1&\dots&a_\ell^\ell\\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
c_0\\c_1\\ \vdots\\ c_\ell
\end{pmatrix}
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_0^{\ell+1}\\ a_1^{\ell+1}\\ \vdots\\ a_\ell^{\ell+1}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
To see this, write
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}\left(\frac12\right)
&=
	2^{-2m-n+1}\sum_{k=0}^{\ell}
	\binom{n}{k} (2k-n)^{2m}	.
\end{align*}
Then \eqref{recur} follows  since
\begin{align*}
&\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m+2\ell+2}\left(\frac12\right)
-
\sum_{j=0}^\ell
c_j 2^{2j-2\ell-2}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m+2j}\left(\frac12\right)
\\
&=
	2^{-2m-2\ell-n-1}\sum_{k=0}^{\ell}\binom{n}{k}a_k^{m+\ell+1}
	-
	\sum_{j=0}^{\ell}c_j 2^{-2m-2\ell-n-1}
	\sum_{k=0}^{\ell}\binom{n}{k}a_k^{m+j}
\\
&=
	2^{-2m-2\ell-n-1}\sum_{k=0}^{\ell}\binom{n}{k}a_k^{m}
	\left(a_k^{\ell+1}-\sum_{j=0}^{\ell}c_ja_k^j \right)
=0.
\end{align*}

\end{remark}

\

\

For the application to statistical estimation one may
combine Theorem \ref{mainthm}
 with  Chebyshev's inequality to obtain,
\begin{corollary} For $\epsilon > 0$, we have that
$
P\left(|\frac{1}{n}S_n(p)| > \epsilon\right) \le \min_{1\le m\le m_n}
\left(
\frac{\sqrt[2m]{{\mathbb E}S^{2m}_n(\frac12)}}
{n\epsilon}\right)^{2m}.
$
\end{corollary}
Noting the scaling invariance
$
\text{argmax}_{0\le p \le 1}\mathbb{E}S_n^{2m}(p) =
\text{argmax}_{0\le p\le 1}\mathbb{E}\frac{S_n^{2m}(p)}{n^m},
$
and
${\mathbb E}Z^{2m} = 2^{-m}\frac{(2m)!}{m!}$ for the standard normal random
variable $Z$, in the limit ``$n \to\infty, \epsilon \to 0, n\epsilon^2\to \tilde{n}$''
one has
\begin{equation*}
B_m :=
\mathbb{E}\frac{S^{2m}_n(\frac12)}{n^{2m}\epsilon^{2m}}
=
\mathbb{E}
\frac{\left(\frac{S_n(\frac12)}{\sqrt{n/4}}\right)^{2m}}{n^{2m}\epsilon^{2m}}
\left(\frac{n}{4}\right)^m
\to
2^{-2m}\tilde{n}^{-m}{\mathbb E}Z^{2m} = 2^{-3m}\frac{(2m)!}{m!}\tilde{n}^{-m}.
\end{equation*}
In particular, one may ask for the best choice of $m$ for large $n$, i.e,
in the above limit as $n\to\infty,\epsilon\downarrow 0, n\epsilon^2\to \tilde{n}$.
The quantity $\tilde{n} = n\epsilon^2$ denotes
an {\it effective sample size} in the sense of the risk assessment defined
by $P(|S_n(p)| > n\epsilon) < \epsilon$; see (Duchi et al. 2013) for
an introduction of this artful terminology in a much broader context.
Observe that in the limit of large $n$
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\to\infty, \epsilon\downarrow 0, n\epsilon^2 = \tilde{n}}
\frac{B_{m+1}}{B_m} = \frac{2m+1}{4\tilde{n}}
\begin{cases}
\le 1\\
= 1\\
\ge 1
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
if and only if
\begin{equation*}
m
\begin{cases}
\le 2\tilde{n} -\frac12\\
= 2\tilde{n} -\frac12\\
\ge 2\tilde{n} -\frac12.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}

\

\

The take-away is perhaps best summarized in terms of the following
informally interpreted optimal estimation principle.

\

\

\noindent {\bf Approximate Rule of Thumb:}
{\it For large $n$ the optimal moment order $2m$
for the Chebyshev bound is quadruple the effective sample size.
In particular,  the fourth moment is optimal for a one unit
effective sample size!}

\section{References}

\noindent Bhattacharya, R.N., and  Waymire, E.C. (2016),
``A Basic Course in Probability Theory'', 2nd ed.,
Universitext,
Springer, NY.

\

\noindent Duchi, J. and Wainwright, M. J. and Jordan, M. I. (2013),
``Local privacy and minimax bounds: Sharp rates for probability estimation'',
in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,
1529-1537.

\

\noindent Skinner, Dane, 2017, ``Concentration of Measure Inequalities'',
Master of Science, Oregon State University
 \

 \end{document}

\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bibselect{DSEW_bib}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}

\end{document}

Probability (math.PR); Statistics Theory (math.ST)

When Fourth Moments Are Enough


Eigenvalue bounds of the Kirchhoff Laplacian

Abstract: We prove that each eigenvalue l(k) of the Kirchhoff Laplacian K of a graph or quiver is bounded above by d(k)+d(k-1) for all k in {1,...,n}. Here l(1),...,l(n) is a non-decreasing list of the eigenvalues of K and d(1),..,d(n) is a non-decreasing list of vertex degrees with the additional assumption d(0)=0. We also prove that in general the weak Brouwer-Haemers lower bound d(k) + (n-k) holds for all eigenvalues l(k) of the Kirchhoff matrix of a quiver.

\section{The theorem}

\paragraph{}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a {\bf finite simple graph} with $n$ vertices.
Denote by $\lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq \cdots \leq \lambda_n$ the ordered
list of eigenvalues of the {\bf Kirchhoff matrix} $K=B-A$, where $B$ is the
diagonal vertex degree matrix with ordered vertex degrees
$d_1 \leq d_2 \leq \cdots \leq d_n$ and where $A$ is the adjacency matrix of $G$.

\paragraph{}
We assume $d_0=0$ so that $d_1+d_0=d_1$ and prove

\begin{thm} $\lambda_k \leq d_k+d_{k-1}$, for all $1 \leq k \leq n$.  \label{1} \end{thm}

The case $d=n$ is the {\bf spectral radius} estimate
$\lambda_n \leq d_n+d_{n-1}$ of Anderson and Morley \cite{AndersonMorley1985}
which we will use in the proof. The case $k=1$ is obvious because $\lambda_1=0$
and $k=2$ is a special case of the Schur-Horn
inequality \cite{Brouwer} as $\lambda_2 = \lambda_1+\lambda_2 \leq d_1+d_2$.
Already the case $\lambda_3 \leq d_3+d_2$ appears to be new as it goes beyond the
Schur-Horn inequality. Note that any estimate on the spectral radius $\lambda_n$
provides upper bounds on $\lambda_k$ and there are many improvements since
the ground breaking Anderson-Morley paper
\cite{GroneMerrisSunder1,GroneMerrisSunder2,Zhang2004,Das2004,
Guo2005,Shi2007,ShiuChan2009, LiShiuChan2010,ZhouXu}.
They would give better upper bounds also for $\lambda_k$
but look less elegant.

\paragraph{}
Already the corollary $\lambda_k \leq 2d_k$ is stronger than
what the {\bf Gershgorin circle theorem}
\cite{Gershgorin,GershgorinAndHisCircles}
gives in this case: the circle theorem provides in every interval $[0,2d_k]$ at
least one eigenvalue $\lambda_l$ of $K$. It does not need to be the k'th one.
In the Kirchhoff case, where the Gershgorin circles are nested,
$0$ is always in the spectrum. Theorem~(\ref{1}) gives more information.
The spectral data $\lambda_1=0,\lambda_2=10,\lambda_3=10$ for example are
Gershgorin compatible to $d_1=1, d_2=3, d_3=7$ because there is
an eigenvalue in each closed ball $[0,2], [0,6]$ and $[0,14]$.
But these data contradict Theorem~(\ref{1}) as
$\lambda_2 = 2 d_2+4$. Theorem~\ref{1} keeps the eigenvalues more
aligned with the degree sequence, similarly as the Schur-Horn theorem does.

\paragraph{}
An application is that the pseudo determinant ${\rm Det}(K)= \prod_{k=2}^n \lambda_k$
which by the Kirchhoff-Cayley {\bf matrix tree theorem} count
the number of rooted spanning trees has an upper bound $2^n \prod_k d_k$
and that ${\rm det}(1+K)$ by the Chebotarev-Shamis matrix forest theorem
count the number of rooted spanning forests has an upper bound $2^n \prod_k (1+d_k)$.
These determinant inequalities do not follow from the Gershgorin nor from the
Schur-Horn inequalities. We like to rephrase the determinant
bounds as bound on the spectral potential
$U(z)=(1/n) \log \det(K-z) \leq 2 + (1/n) \log\det(M-z)$,
where $M={\rm Diag}(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ is the diagonal matrix and $z \leq 0$ is real.
We made use of Theorem~(\ref{1}) to show that $U(z)$ has a Barycentric limit. It bounds the
potential $U$ of the interacting system with the potential $(1/n) \log\det(M-z)$ of the non-interacting
system where $M$ can be thought of as the Kirchhoff matrix of a non-interacting system where we have
$d_k$ self-loops at vertices $k$, even-so the tree and forest interpretations do not make sense any more.

\section{The proof}

\paragraph{}
If we make he statement slightly stronger, also the induction assumption becomes
more powerful. Let $\mathcal{K}$ the class of symmetric matrices which are obtained
as principal submatrices of a Kirchhoff matrices of a finite simple graph
obtained by deleting the rows and columns to a maximal diagonal entry.
In other words, we close the class of Kirchhoff matrices under the operation of taking
principal submatrices. The stronger statement is that for all $A \in \mathcal{K}$,
the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ and diagonal entries $d_k$, when ordered in an ascending order,
satisfy $\lambda_k \leq d_k+d_{k-1}$.

\paragraph{}
The class $\mathcal{K}$ is invariant under
the operation $\phi$ which removes corresponding rows and columns. This allows induction.
The induction foundation $n=1$ is obvious because the result holds for any
$1 \times 1$ matrix with non-negative entries. For $2 \times 2$ matrices
$K=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} d_1 & -t \\ -t & d_2 \end{array} \right]$ we have
with the trace $T=d_1+d_2$ the eigenvalue $\lambda_2= (T+\sqrt{T^2+4t^2-4d_1 d_2})/2$
which is $\leq T=d_1+d_2$ if $t \leq \sqrt{d_1 d_2}$ and especially if $t \leq d_1$.

\paragraph{}
The induction step uses the {\bf Cauchy interlace theorem} or {\bf Separation theorem}
\cite{HornJohnson2012}:
if $\mu_k$ are the eigenvalues of $\phi(K)$, then $\lambda_k \leq \mu_k \leq \lambda_{k+1}$.
(The interlace theorem follows from the {\bf Hermite interlace theorem} for real polynomials
\cite{Hwang2004,Fisk2005}. If $f$ is a monic polynomial of degree $n$ with real roots
$\lambda_1 \leq \cdots \leq \lambda_n$
and $g$ is a monic polynomial of degree $n-1$ with real roots
$\mu_1 \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{n-1}$ then
{\bf $g$ interlaces $f$} if
$\lambda_1 \leq \mu_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{n-1} \leq \lambda_n$.
Equivalent for $f$ and $g$ to interlace is that the interpolation $t f+(1-t)g$
has real roots for all $t \in [0,1]$.)

\paragraph{}
The interlace theorem does not catch the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$.
This requires an upper bound
for the {\bf spectral radius}.
This is where Anderson and Morley \cite{AndersonMorley1985} come in.
They realized that $K=F^* F$ is essentially isospectral to $F F^*$.
The later is the adjacency matrix of the line graph but with the modification
that all diagonal entries are $2$. Since the row or column sum
of $F F^*$ is bound by $d_k(a) + d_k(b)$ for any edge $(a,b)$,
the upper bound holds. But we need to extend this estimate to $\mathcal{K}$.

\begin{lemma}[Upgrade of Anderson and Morley]
For any matrix in $\mathcal{K}$, the spectral radius
satisfies $\lambda_n \leq d_n + d_{n-1}$.
\end{lemma}

\paragraph{}
We can assume that after a coordinate change
the diagonal entries of $K \in \mathcal{K}$ are ordered. This simply requires to
order the vertices compatible with the order of the $d_j$.
\cite{AndersonMorley1985} estimate $\lambda_n \leq d_n+d_{n-1}$
for Kirchhoff matrices and even show that
$\lambda_n \leq {\rm  max}_{(a,b) \in E(G)} d(a)+d(b)$.
We now verify that this extends to $\mathcal{K}$.

\paragraph{}
We have already seen the induction assumption for $n=1$ and $n=2$.
Let $K$ be a $n \times n$ matrix in $\mathcal{K}$ and assume we know
the answer already for all $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ matrices in $\mathcal{K}$.
When taking a principal submatrix of $K$ by deleting
the first row and first column, we do not change $d_n$ nor $d_{n-1}$.
The reason is that decoupling the
lowest degree vertex does not change the largest two diagonal elements.
The upper bound $d_n+d_{n-1}$ is therefore not affected.

\paragraph{}
Let $\mu_1 \leq \mu_2 \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{n-1}$ be the eigenvalues of the principal
submatrix where the first row and column are deleted.
The Cauchy interlacing result gives $\lambda_{n-1} \leq \mu_{n-1} \leq \lambda_n$
The largest eigenvalue $\mu_{n-1}$ of the deformed matrix is smaller or equal than than
the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ and so smaller or equal than
$d_n + d_{n-1}$. The inequality $\mu_{n-1} \leq d_n + d_{n-1}$ is what we wanted to show.

\paragraph{}
One could also explicitly track how the  maximal eigenvalue decreases
if all the non-diagonal entries in the first row and column is multiplied by $t$.
If $v$ is the normalized eigenvector to the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$,
then since the matrices are symmetric, $v$ is perpendicular to
$[1,1,\dots, 1,1]$ the eigenvector to $\lambda_1=0$.
This implies $\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} v_k = -v_1$. Let now $E$ be the matrix in
which the first row and first column except $E_{11}$ contains only 1 and
everything else is zero. We need to understand how
$K - t E$ changes the largest eigenvalue $\lambda$.
The {\bf first Hadamard deformation formula} gives $\lambda(t)' = v^T E v = v_1^2>0$.
The {\bf second Hadamard deformation formula} would even show $\lambda(t)''>0$,
illustrating {\bf eigenvalue repulsion}. In any case, the largest eigenvalue increases
under the deformation. Since at $t=1$, the end of the deformation,
we have $\lambda_n \leq d_n+d_{n-1}$ this is also the case for
$t=0$, where the connections to the weak vertex link have all been capped.

\begin{comment}
s = RandomGraph[{20, 50}];
a = RandomChoice[VertexList[s]];
S = VertexList[NeighborhoodGraph[s, a]];
A = Normal[KirchhoffMatrix[s]];
Q[t_]:=Module[{U = A},Do[U[[a, S[[k]]]] = -t; U[[S[[k]], a]] = -t, {k, Length[S]}]; U]
F[t_]:=Module[{}, B = Q[t]; l = Max[Sort[N[Eigenvalues[B]]]];
  d = Sort[Table[B[[k, k]], {k, Length[B]}]];
  d1 = Prepend[Delete[d, Length[d]], 0]; l]
Plot[F[t], {t, 0, 1}]
\end{comment}

\section{Remarks}

\paragraph{}
Similarly than the Schur-Horn inequality
$\sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j \leq \sum_{j=1}^k d_j$
which is true for any symmetric matrix with diagonal entries $d_j$,
Theorem~(\ref{1}) controls how close the ordered eigenvalue sequence
is to the ordered vertex degree sequence. But it is different.
For example, if the eigenvalues increase exponentially like $\lambda_k = 6^k$, then
the inequality $\lambda_k \leq 2 d_k$ implies
on a logarithmic scale $\log(\lambda_k) \leq \log(2) + \log(d_k)$. Schur-Horn does
not provide that. As for the {\bf Gershgorin circle theorem}, it
would only establish $\log(\lambda) \leq \log(2) + \log(d_n)$,
where $d_n$ is the largest entry because the theorem assures only that in each
Gershgorin circle, there is at least one eigenvalue.

\paragraph{}
Anderson and Morley \cite{AndersonMorley1985} have the better bound
$\max_{(x,y) \in E} d(x) + d(y)$ and Theorem~(\ref{1}) could be improved in that
$d_k+d_{k-1}$ can be replaced by ${\rm max}_{(x,y) \in E} d_k+d_j$.
Any general better upper bound of the spectral radius leads to better results.
The Anderson-Morley estimate as an early use of a {\bf McKean-Singer super symmetry}
\cite{McKeanSinger} (see \cite{knillmckeansinger} for graphs).
in a simple case where one has only $0$-forms and $1$-forms. There, it reduces to
the statment that  $K=F^* F$ is essentially isospectral to $F F^*$ which is true for
all matrices. It uses that the Laplacian $K$ is of the form $F^* F = {\rm div} {\rm grad}$,
where $F={\rm grad}$ is the {\rm incidence matrix} $F f( (a,b) ) = f(b)-f(a)$ for functions
$f$ on vertices (0-forms) leading to functions on oriented edges (1-form).

\paragraph{}
There is much work on the spectral radius of the Kirchhoff Laplacian. It is bounded above
by the spectral radius of the {\bf signless Kirchhoff Laplacian} $|K|$ in which one takes the
absolute values for each entry.  This matrix is a non-negative matrix in the connected case
has a power $|K|^n$ with all positive entries so that by the Perron-Frobenius theorem, the
maximal eigenvalue is unique. (The Kirchhoff matrix itself of course can have multiple maximal
eigenvalues like for the case of the complete graph). Also, unlike $K$ which is never
invertible $|K|$ is invertible if $G$ is not bipartite.
If we treat a graph as a one-dimensional simplicial complex
(ignoring 2 and higher dimensional simplices in the graph), and denote $d$
the exterior derivative of this skeleton complex, then
$(d+d^*)^2 = K_0 + K_1$ where $K=K_0=d^* d$ is the Kirchhoff matrix and $K_1=d d^*$ is the
one-form matrix with the same spectral radius. This leads to \cite{AndersonMorley1985}.
Much work has gone in improving this
\cite{BrualdiHoffmann,Stanley1987,LiZhang1997,Zhang2004,FengLiZhang,Shi2007,LiShiuChan2010}.
We have used that an identity coming from connection matrices \cite{Hydrogen}.

\paragraph{}
We stumbled on the theorem when looking for bounds on the {\bf tail distribution}
$\mu([x,\infty))$ of the {\bf limiting density of states}
$\mu$ of the Barycentric limit $\lim_{n \to \infty} G_n$ of a
finite simple graph $G=G_0$, where $G_n$ is the Barycentric
refinement of $G_{n-1}$ in which the complete subgraphs
of $G_{n-1}$ are the vertices and two are connected if one is contained
in the other  \cite{KnillBarycentric,KnillBarycentric2}.
We wanted a {\bf potential} $U(z) = \int_0^{\infty} \log(z-w) \; d\mu(w)$ because
$U(-1)$ measures the exponential growth of rooted spanning trees while $U(0)$ measures
the exponential growth of the rooted spanning forests.

The connection is
that in general, the {\bf pseudo determinant}  \cite{cauchybinet}
${\rm Det}(K)=\prod_{\lambda \neq 0} \lambda$
is the number of {\bf rooted spanning trees} in $G$ by
the {\bf Kirchhoff matrix tree theorem} and
${\rm det}(1+K)$ is the number of rooted spanning forests in $G$
by the {\bf Chebotarev-Schamis matrix forest theorem}
\cite{ChebotarevShamis1,ChebotarevShamis2,Knillforest}. All these relations follow directly
from the {\bf generalized Cauchy-Binet theorem} that states
that for any $n \times m$ matrices $F,G$, one has the pseudo determinant version
${\rm Det}(F^T G) = \sum_{|P|=k} \det(F_P) \det(G_P)$ with $k$ depends on $F,G$ and
$\det(1+x F^T G) = \sum_P x^{|P|} \det(F_P) \det(G_P)$.
{\bf Pythagorean identities} like ${\rm Det}(F^T F) = \sum_{|P|=k} \det^2(F_P)$
and $\det(1+F^T F) = \sum_P \det^2(F_P)$ follow for an arbitrary $n \times m$ matrix $F$.
Applied to the {\bf incidence matrix} $F$ of a connected graph, where $k(A)=n-1$ is the rank of $K=F^T F$,
the first identity counts on the right spanning trees and the second identity counts on the right
the number of spanning forests

\paragraph{}
Having noticed that the
{\bf tree-forest ratio}
$\tau(G)={\rm Det}(1+K)/{\rm Det}(K)=\prod_{\lambda \neq 0} (1+1/\lambda)$
has a Barycentric limit $\lim_{n \to \infty} (1/|G_n|) \log(\tau(G_n))$,
we interpreted this as $U(-1)-U(0)$ requiring the normalized potential
to exist. By the way, for complete graphs $G=K_n$ the tree-forest
ratio is $(1+1/n)^{n-1}$ and converges to
the {\bf Euler number} $e$. For triangle-free
graphs, $\log(\tau(G_n))/|V(G_n)|$ converges to $\log(\phi^2)$, where
$\phi$ is the {\bf golden ratio}.
For example, for $G=C_n$, where ${\rm Det}(K)=n^2$ and the number of rooted spanning forests is
the alternate {\bf Lucas number} recursively given by
$L(n+1) = 3 L(n)-L(n-1)+2, L(0)=0,L(1)=1$.
We proved in general that $\log(\tau(G_n))/|V(G_n))|$ converges under
{\bf Barycentric refinements} $G_0 \to G_1 \to G_2 \dots$
for arbitrary graphs to a universal constant that only
depends on the maximal dimension of $G=G_0$.

\paragraph{}
Theorem~(\ref{1}) needs to be placed in the context of the
spectral graph literature like
\cite{Biggs,VerdiereGraphSpectra,Godsil,Brouwer,Chung97,DvetkovicDoobSachs,Spielman2009}
or articles like \cite{Guo2005,Stephen,GroneMerrisSunder}.
Most research work in this area has focused on small
eigenvalues like $\lambda_2$ or large
eigenvalues like the spectral radius $\lambda_n$. For $\lambda_2$,
there is a {\bf Cheeger estimate} $h^2/(2d_n) \leq \lambda_2 \leq h$
for the eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ and Cheeger constant
$h=h(G)$ \cite{Cheeger1970} first defined for Riemannian manifolds,
meaning in the graph case that one needs remove $h |H|$ edges
to remove a subgraph $H$ from $G$.
For the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ the Anderson-Morley bound
has produced an industry of results.

\paragraph{}
Let us look at some example. Figure~\ref{(1)} shows more visually
what happens in some examples of graphs with $n=10$ vertices. \\
a) For the cyclic graph $C_4$, the Kirchhoff
eigenvalues are $\lambda_1=0,\lambda_2=2,\lambda_3=2,\lambda_4=4$
and the edge degrees are $d_1=d_2=d_3=d_4=2$. \\
b) For the star graph with $n-1$ spikes, the eigenvalues are
$\lambda_1=0,\lambda_2= \cdots \lambda_{n-1}=1,
\lambda_n=n$ while the degree sequence is
$d_1=\cdots = d_{n-1}=1, d_n=n$. \\
c) For a complete bipartite graph $K_{n,m}$ with $m \leq m$,
we have $0 \leq m \leq \cdots \leq m \leq n \cdots n$ with
$m-1$ eigenvalues $m$ and $n-1$ eigenvalues $n$. The degree sequence
has $m \leq m \leq \cdots \leq m \leq n \leq \cdots \leq n$ with
$m$ entries $m$ and $n$ entries $n$.

\paragraph{}
From all the $38$ isomorphism classes of connected graphs with $4$ vertices,
there are only $3$, for which equality holds in Theorem~(\ref{1}) and $7$ for
which $\lambda_k = 2 d_k$. From the $728$
isomorphism classes of connected graphs with $5$ vertices, there are none for
Theorem~(\ref{1}) and $5$ for $\lambda_k = 2 d_k$.
From the $26704$ isomorphism classes of connected graphs with $6$ vertices,
there are $70$ for which Theorem~(\ref{1}) has equality and $76$ for which
$\lambda_k = 2 d_k$. It is always only the largest eigenvalue, where we have seen
equality $\lambda_n=2d_n$ to hold.

\paragraph{}
The theorem implies  $\sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j \leq 2\sum_{j=1}^k d_j$ which is
weaker than the Schur-Horn inequality $\sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j \leq \sum_{j=1}^k d_j$.
The later result is of wide interest.
It can be seen in the context of partial traces
\cite{TaoSchurHorn} $\sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j = {\rm inf}_{dim(V)=k} {\rm tr}(A|V)$ and is
special case of the {\bf Atiyah-Guillemin-Sternberg convexity theorem}
\cite{Atiyah1982,GuilleminSternberg1982}. The Schur inequality has been
sharpened a bit for Kirchhoff matrices to
$\sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j \leq \sum_{j=1}^k d_j-1$ \cite{Brouwer}
Proposition 3.10.1.

\paragraph{}
There is a general lower bound $\lambda_k \geq d_k-(n-k)+1$
which had been conjectured of Guo \cite{Guo2007}
and is now a theorem \cite{BrouwerHaemers2008} (see also \cite{Brouwer} Proposition 3.10.2.).
This Brouwer-Haemers estimate from 2008 generalizes $\lambda_n \geq d_n+1$
\cite{GroneMerrisSunder2} $\lambda_{n-1} \geq d_{n-1}$ (\cite{LiPan1999} and
$\lambda_{n-2} \geq d_{n-2}-1$ \cite{Guo2007}.
It follows also from $K=-A+B$ with $B={\rm Diag}(d_1,\cdots d_n)$ positive semi definite
that $\lambda_k(K) \geq \lambda_k(-A)$ \cite{HornJohson2012} (Corollary 4.3.12).

\paragraph{}
Unlike the Schur-Horn inequality, Theorem~(\ref{1}) does not extend to general
symmetric matrices. Already for $A=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 3 \\ 3 & 1 \end{array} \right]$
which has eigenvalues $\lambda_1=-2, \lambda_2=4$ and with $d_1=1,d_2=1$, the inequality
$\lambda_2 \leq 2 d_2$ fails. It also does not extend to symmetric matrices
with non-negative eigenvalues, but also this does not work as
$A=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 \end{array} \right]$ shows,
as this matrix has eigenvalues $0,0,3$ and diagonal entries $1,1,1$. The case of $n \times n$
matrices with constant entries $1$ is an example with eigenvalues $0$ and $n$ showing that no
estimate $\lambda_n \leq C d_n$ is in general possible for symmetric matrices even when
asking the diagonal entry to dominate the other entries.

\section{Open ends}

\paragraph{}
Theorem~(1) also would follow from the statement
\begin{equation} \sum_{j=1}^k d_j
- \sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j \leq d_{k}
\end{equation}
which would be of independent interest as it
estimates the {\bf Schur-Horn error}.  Indeed, the Schur-Horn gives together
with such a hypothetical error bound $0 \leq \sum_{j=1}^k d_j - \sum_{j=1}^k \lambda_j
+ d_{k+1}-\lambda_{k+1} \leq d_k+ d_{k+1} - \lambda_{k+1}$,
which is $\lambda_k \leq d_k+d_{k+1}$. Can we prove the above
Schur-Horn error estimate (1)? We do not know yet but our experiments
indicate: \\

{\bf Conjecture A:} [Schur-Horn error]  Estimate (1) holds for all finite simple graphs

\paragraph{}
We have mentioned the Brouwer-Haemers bound $\lambda_k \geq d_k-(n-k)+1$
which is very good for large $k$ but far from optimal for smaller $k$. (Note that
part of the graph theory literature labels the eigenvalues in decreasing order.
We use an ordering more familiar in the manifold case, where one has no largest
eigenvalue and which also appears in the earlier literature like
\cite{HornJohnson2012}.) The guess $d_{k-1}/2 \leq \lambda_k$
assuming $d_{-1}=0$ is a {\bf rule of thumb}, as it fails only in rare cases.
The next thing to try is $d_{k-2}/2 \leq \lambda_k$ and this is still wrong
in general but there are even less counter examples.
We can try $d_{k-2}/3$ for which we have not found a counter example yet but
it might just need to look for larger networks to find a counter example.
We still believe that there is an affine lower bound. This is based only on
limited experiments like for $A=1/3$ where it already looks good.

{\bf Conjecture B:} [Affine Brouwer-Haemers bound]
There exist constants $0<A<1$ and $B$
such that for all graphs and $1 \leq k \leq n$ we have
$A d_k - B \leq \lambda_k$.

\paragraph{}
We see for many Erd\"os-R\'enyi graphs that an upper bound
$\lambda_k \leq C d_k$ holds for most graphs
for any $C>1$, if the graphs are large. A possible conjecture is that \\

{\bf Conjecture C:} [Linear bound for Erdoes-Renyi]
For all $C>1$ and all $p \in [0,1]$, the probability of the
set of graphs in the Erd\"os-R\'enyi probability space
$E(n,p)$ with $\lambda_k \leq C d_k$ for all $1 \leq k \leq n$
goes to $1$ for $n \to \infty$.

\section{Illustration}

\paragraph{}
Here are a few examples of spectra with known upper and
lower bounds:

\begin{figure}[!htpb]
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/stargraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/cyclegraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/lineargraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/wheelgraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/completegraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/bipartite.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/petersen.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/gridgraph.pdf}}
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{figures/randomgraph.pdf}}
\label{Spectra}
\caption{
This figure shows examples of spectra and compares them
with known upper and lower bounds.
We see first the {\bf Star, Cycle and Path graph}, then
the {\bf Wheel, Complete, Bipartite graph},
and finally the {\bf Petersen, Grid and Random graph},
all with $10$ vertices. The eigenvalues are outlined thick (in red).
Above we see the upper bound (in blue) as proven in the present
paper. Then there are the Brouwer-Haemers and Horn-Johnson lower
bounds which, as the examples show, do not always compete
but complement each other.
}
\end{figure}

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM)