The Maximum Wiener Index of Trees with Given Degree Sequences

Abstract: The Wiener index of a connected graph is the sum of topological distances between all pairs of vertices. Since Wang gave a mistake result on the maximum Wiener index for given tree degree sequence, in this paper, we investigate the maximum Wiener index of trees with given degree sequences and extremal trees which attain the maximum value.

\section{Introduction}
The Wiener index of a molecular graph, introduced by Wiener
\cite{wiener1947} in 1947,
 is one of the oldest and most widely used topological indices in
the quantitative structure property relationships. In the
mathematical
 literature,  the Wiener index seems to be the first studied  by
 Entringer et al. \cite{entringer1976}.  For more information and background,
 the readers may refer to  a  recent and very
 comprehensive survey \cite{dobrynin2001} and a book \cite{rouvray2002}
 which is dedicated to Harry Wiener  on  the Wiener index and the references therein.

  Through this paper, all graphs are finite, simple and undirected.
    Let $G= (V,~E)$ be a simple connected graph with
vertex set $V(G)=\{v_1,\cdots, v_n\}$ and edge set $E(G)$.  Denote
by $d_G(v_i)$ (or for short $ d(v_i)$) the {\it degree} of vertex
$v_i$. The {\it distance} between vertices $v_i$ and $v_j$ is the
minimum number of edges between $v_i$ and $v_j$ and denoted by
$d_G(v_i, v_j)$ (or for short $d(v_i,v_j)$). The {\it Wiener index}
of a connected graph $G$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{weiner-def}
W(G)=\sum_{\{v_i, v_j\}\subseteq V(G)}d(v_i, v_j).
\end{equation}

A {\it tree} is a connected and acyclic graph.  A {\it caterpillar}
is a tree in which a single path (called {\it Spine}) is incident to
(or contains) every edge. For
 other terminology and notions, we follow from \cite{bondy1976}.

 Entringer et al. \cite{entringer1976} proved  that
  the path $P_n$  and the star $K_{1, n-1}$  have
the maximum  and minimum Wiener indices, respectively, in the set
consisting of all trees of order $n$. Dankelmann
\cite{dankelmann1994} obtained the all extremal graphs in the set of
all connected graphs with given  the order and the matching number
which attained the maximum  Wiener value. Moreover, Fischermann et
al. \cite{fischermann2002} and Jelen et al. \cite{jelen2003}
independently determined all trees which have the minimum Wiener
indices  among all trees of order $n$ and maximum degree $\Delta$.
 A nonincreasing
sequence of nonnegative integers
 $\pi=(d_1,d_2,\cdots, d_{n})$ is called {\it graphic} if there
 exists a  simple graph having $\pi$ as its  vertex degree sequence.
  Hence it is natural to
consider the following problem.
\begin{problem}\label{problem}
Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$ be graphic degree sequence and
 $${\mathcal{G}}_{\pi}=\{G: {\rm \ the\  degree \  sequence\  of} \ G\ {\rm is} \ \pi\}.$$
 Find the upper (lower) bounds  for the Wiener index  of
all graphs $G$ in ${\mathcal G}_{ \pi}$ and characterize all
extremal graphs which attain the upper (lower) bounds.
\end{problem}
Moreover, we call a graph {\it maximum (minimum) optimal} if it
maximizes (minimizes) the Wiener index in $\mathcal{G_{\pi}}$.
Recently, by the different techniques, Wang \cite{wang2008} and
Zhang et al.\cite{zhang2008} independently characterized the tree
that minimizes the Wiener index among trees of given degree
sequences. Moreover, they proved that the  minimum optimal trees for
a given tree degree sequence $\pi$ are unique.
 On the other hand,
Wang in \cite{wang2008} also "{\it proved}" the only maximum optimal
tree that maximizes the Wiener index among trees of given degree
sequences. The result can be stated as follows:
\begin{theorem}\cite{wang2008}\label{wang}
Given the degree sequence and the number of vertices, the greedy
caterpillar maximizes the Wiener index, where the greedy caterpillar
with degree sequence $(d_1,\cdots, d_n)$ ($ d_1\ge d_2\ge \cdots \ge
d_k\ge 2>d_{k+1}=1$) is formed by attaching pending edges to a path
$v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_k$ of length $k-1$ such that
$$d(v_1)\ge d(v_k)\ge d(v_2)\ge d(v_{k-1})\ge \cdots\ge
d(v_{\lceil\frac{k+1}{2}\rceil}). $$
\end{theorem}

Unfortunately, this result is not correct. For example:
\begin{example}\label{example}
Let $\pi=(13, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 1, \cdots, 1)$ be a degree sequence of
tree with $31$ vertices.   Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be two trees with
degree sequences $\pi$ (see Fig.1).

 \setlength{\unitlength}{0.1in}
\begin{picture}(60,15)
\put(3,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(3.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(13.5,5){\circle{0.5}}\put(13.75,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(24,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(24.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(34.5,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(34.75,5){\line(1,0){10}}
 \put(45,5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(45.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
 \put(55.5,5){\circle{0.5}}

\put(2.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(3.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(13.5,5.25){\line(0,1){7}}

\put(23.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(24.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(34.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(34.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(44.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(45.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(55.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(55.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(-0.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(6.87,12.5){\circle{0.5}}

\put(2.2,12){$\cdots$}\put(2.2,13.3){$12$} \put(2.5,3.3){$v_{1}$}

\put(13.5,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(13,3.3){$v_{2}$}

\put(20.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(27.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(23.2,13.3){$2$} \put(23.2, 3.3){$v_{3}$}

\put(30.61,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(38.3,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(33.7,12){$\cdots$} \put(34.8,13.3){$3$} \put(34, 3.3){$v_{4}$}

\put(41.3,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(48.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(44,12){$\cdots$} \put(44.8,13.3){$3$}\put(44, 3.3){$v_{5}$}

\put(51.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}}\put(59.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
 \put(54.5,12){$\cdots$}\put(55,13.3){$4$}\put(55, 3.3){$v_{6}$}
\put(28, 1){$T_1$}
          \end{picture}

\setlength{\unitlength}{0.1in}
\begin{picture}(60,15)
\put(3,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(3.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(13.5,5){\circle{0.5}}\put(13.75,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(24,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(24.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(34.5,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(34.75,5){\line(1,0){10}}
 \put(45,5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(45.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
 \put(55.5,5){\circle{0.5}}

\put(2.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(3.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(13.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(13.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(23.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(24.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(34.5,5.25){\line(0,1){7}}

\put(44.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(45.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(55.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(55.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}

\put(-0.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(6.87,12.5){\circle{0.5}}

\put(2.2,12){$\cdots$}\put(2.2,13.3){$12$} \put(2.5,3.3){$v_{1}$}

\put(9.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(17.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(12.6,12){$\cdots$} \put(13.5,13.3){$3$}
 \put(13,3.3){$v_{2}$}

\put(20.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(27.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(23.2,13.3){$2$} \put(23.2, 3.3){$v_{3}$}

\put(34.5,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
 \put(34, 3.3){$v_{4}$}

\put(41.3,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(48.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(44,12){$\cdots$} \put(44.8,13.3){$3$}\put(44, 3.3){$v_{5}$}

\put(51.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}}\put(59.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
 \put(54.5,12){$\cdots$}\put(55,13.3){$4$}\put(55, 3.3){$v_{6}$}
\put(20, 1){$T_2$} \put(25,-1){\bf Figure 1 $T_1$ and $T_2$}
          \end{picture}

\end{example}
Clearly, $T_2$ is a greedy caterpillar  and $T_1$ is not a greedy
caterpillar. Moreover, they have the same degree sequences $\pi$. By
calculation, it is easy to see that
$$W(T_2)=9870< W(T_1)=9886.$$
Hence this example illustrates that Theorem~\ref{wang} in
\cite{wang2008} is not correct.

Motivated by Problem \ref{problem} and Example \ref{example},  we
try to investigate the extremal trees which attain the maximum
Wiener index among all trees with given degree sequences. The
problem seems to be difficult. Because we find that the extremal
tree depends on the values of components of degree sequences.
 The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2,
  we discuss some properties of the extremal tree with the maximum Wiener
  index and give an upper bound in terms  of degree sequences.
 In Section
3, the extremal  trees with the maximum  Wiener index among given
degree sequences $(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$, where $d_1\ge \cdots \ge
d_k\ge 2>d_{k+1}=1$ and $k\le 6$ are characterized. Moreover, the
extremal maximal trees are not unique.

\section{Properties of extremal trees with the maximum Wiener index }

Let $\mathcal{T_{\pi}}$ be the set of all trees with degree
sequences $\pi=(d_1, d_2, \cdots,  d_n)$ with $d_1\ge
d_2\ge\cdots\ge d_n$.  Shi in \cite{shi1993} proved that a maximum
optimal tree must be a caterpillar.

\begin{lemma}\cite{shi1993}\label{shi}
Let $T^*$ be a maximum optimal tree in $\mathcal{T_{\pi}}$. Then
$T^*$ is a caterpillar.
\end{lemma}
From Lemma~\ref{shi}, we only need to consider all caterpillars with
a degree sequence $\pi$. In order to study the structure of the
maximum optimal trees, we present a formula for Wiener index of any
caterpillar.
\begin{lemma}\label{formula}
Let $T$ be a caterpillar of order $n$ with the degree sequence
$\pi=(d(v_1), \cdots,$ $ d(v_k), d(v_{k+1}),\cdots,d(v_n))$(see
Figure 2).

 \setlength{\unitlength}{0.1in}
\begin{picture}(60,20)
\put(10,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(10.25,5){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(20.5,5){\circle{0.5}}\put(20.75,5){\line(1,0){5}}

\put(26.5,4.55){$\cdot$}\put(27.5,4.55){$\cdot$}\put(28.5,4.55){$\cdot$}
\put(30,5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(31.5,4.55){$\cdot$}\put(32.5,4.55){$\cdot$}\put(33.5,4.55){$\cdot$}

\put(35.25,5){\line(1,0){5}}
\put(40.5,5){\circle{0.5}} \put(40.75,5){\line(1,0){10}}
 \put(51,5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(9.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(10.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}
\put(20.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(20.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}
\put(29.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(30.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}
\put(40.3,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(40.7,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}
\put(50.8,5.2){\line(-1,2){3.5}} \put(51.2,5.2){\line(1,2){3.5}}
\put(6.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(13.8,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(16.65,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(24.25,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(26.23,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(33.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(36.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(44.23,12.5){\circle{0.5}}
\put(47.2,12.5){\circle{0.5}} \put(54.7,12.5){\circle{0.5}}

\put(9,12){$\cdots$}\put(19,12){$\cdots$}\put(29,12){$\cdots$}
\put(39,12){$\cdots$}\put(50,12){$\cdots$}

\put(9,13.3){$y_1$}\put(18.2,13.3){$y_{2}-1$}
\put(28.5,13.3){$y_{i}-1$} \put(37.5,13.3){$y_{k-1}-1$}
\put(50,13.3){$y_{k}$}

 \put(9.5,3.3){$v_{1}$}
\put(20,3.3){$v_{2}$} \put(30, 3.3){$v_{i}$} \put(40,3.3){$v_{k-1}$}
\put(50.2,3.3){$v_{k}$}
 \put(25,1){\bf Figure 2}\put(34, 1){$T$}
          \end{picture}
 If $d(v_i)=y_i+1\ge 2$ for $i=1, \cdots, k$ and
$d(v_{k+1})=\cdots=d(v_n)=1$, then
\begin{equation}\label{weiner-f}
W(T)=(n-1)^2+F(y_1, \cdots, y_k),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{fx}
F(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j).
\end{equation}
 \end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is well known \cite{hosoya1971} that the formula
(\ref{weiner-def}) is equal to
$$W(T)=\sum_{e}n_1(e)n_2(e),$$
where $e=(u, v)$ is an edge of $T$, and $n_1(e)$ (resp. $n_2(e)$) is
the number of vertices of the component of $T-e$ containing $u$
(resp. $v$). For $e_i=(v_i, v_{i+1})\in E(T),$ the numbers of
vertices of the two components of $T-e_i$ are
$\sum_{j=1}^id(v_j)-(i-1)$ and $\sum_{j=i+1}^kd(v_j)-(k-i-1)$ for
$i=1, \cdots, k-1,$ respectively.  Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
W(T)&=&\sum_{e\in E(T)}n_1(e)n_2(e)\\
&=&\sum_{e {\rm {\  is \  pendent\ edge}}}n_1(e)n_2(e)+
\sum_{ e  {\rm \  is \ not \ pendent\  edge}}n_1(e)n_2(e)\\
&=&
(n-1)(n-k)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^id(v_j)-(i-1))(\sum_{j=i+1}^kd(v_j)-(k-i-1))
\\
&=&(n-1)(n-k)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(1+\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(1+\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j)\\
&=&(n-1)(n-k)+(k-1)(1+\sum_{j=1}^ky_j)+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j)\\
&=&(n-1)^2+F(y_1, \cdots, y_k),
\end{eqnarray*}
where last equality is due to
$\sum_{j=1}^ky_j=\sum_{j=1}^kd(v_j)-k=2(n-1)-(n-k)-k=n-2$. This
completes the proof.
\end{proof}
{\bf Remark}  In this sequel, the caterpillar $T$ in
Lemma~\ref{formula} is denoted by $T(y_1,\cdots, y_k)$. Then degree
sequence of $T(y_1,\cdots, y_k)$ is $(y_1+1, \cdots, y_k+1, 1,
\cdots, 1)$. The following theorem give a characterization of a
maximum optimal tree.
\begin{theorem}\label{optimal-equal}
Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$ with $d_1\ge\cdots \ge d_k\ge 2\ge
d_{k+1}=\cdots=d_n=1$. Then $T$ is a maximum optimal tree in
${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$ if and only if  $T$ is a caterpillar $T(x_1,
\cdots, x_k)$ and $(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
F(x_1, \cdots , x_k)=\max\{F(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j):\  y_1\ge
y_k \},
\end{equation}
where $(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$ is any permutation of $(d_1-1, \cdots,
d_k-1)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Necessity. Since $T$ is a maximum optimal tree in  ${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$, by
Lemmas~\ref{shi}, $T$ must be a caterpillar and can be denoted by
$T(z_1, \cdots, z_k)$ with $(z_1, \cdots, z_k)$ is the permutation
of $(d_1-1, \cdots, d_k-1)$. Moreover, by Lemma~\ref{formula}, we
have
$$W(T(z_1, \cdots, z_k))=(n-1)^2+F(z_1, \cdots, z_k).$$
For any permutation $(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$ of $(d_1-1, \cdots, d_k-1)$
with $y_1\ge y_k$, there exists a caterpillar $T_1$ with the degree
sequence $\pi$ such that
$$W(T_1)=(n-1)^2+F(y_1, \cdots, y_k).$$
Because $T(z_1, \cdots, z_k)$ is a maximum optimal tree in
${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$, we have
$$F(y_1, \cdots, y_k)=W(T_1)-(n-1)^2\le W(T(z_1, \cdots, z_k))-(n-1)^2=F(z_1, \cdots,
z_k).$$

Sufficiency. If $T$ is a caterpillar $T(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ and
$(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
F(x_1, \cdots , x_k)=\max\{F(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j): y_1\ge
y_k \},
\end{equation}
where the maximum is taken over all permutations $(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)$
 of $(d_1-1, \cdots, d_k-1)$. Let $T_1$ be any tree with the degree
sequence $\pi$. By Lemma~\ref{shi}, there exists a caterpillar $T_2$
with the degree sequence $\pi$ such that $W(T_1)\le W(T_2)$.   Then
$T_2$ must be $T(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$, where $(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$ is
the permutation of $(d_1-1, \cdots, d_k-1)$. Hence
$$W(T_1)\le W(T_2)= (n-1)^2+F(y_1, \cdots, y_k)\le (n-1)^2+F(x_1, \cdots,
x_k)=W(T(x_1, \cdots, x_k)).$$ Therefore $T(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ is a
maximum optimal tree. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

 Now we can present an upper bound for the Wiener index of any tree
with given degree sequence $\pi$ in terms of degree sequences.
\begin{theorem}\label{upperbound}
Let $T$ be a tree with a given  degree sequence $\pi=(d_1,\cdots,
d_n)$, where $d_1\ge \cdots\ge d_k>d_{k+1}=\cdots=d_n=1$. Then
\begin{equation}
W(T)\le (n-1)^2+\frac{k(k-1)}{4}\sum_{i=1}^k(d_i-1)^2
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $k=2$ and $d_1=d_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
 Let $T(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ be a
caterpillar and
 $(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
F(x_1, \cdots , x_k)=\max\{F(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j): y_1\ge
y_k \},
\end{equation}
where $(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$ is any permutation of $(d_1-1, \cdots,
d_k-1)$. By Theorem~\ref{optimal-equal}, $W(T)\le W(T(x_1, \cdots,
x_k))$. Clearly,
\begin{eqnarray*} F(x_1,
\cdots, x_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^ix_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^kx_j)
=\frac{1}{2}(x_1, \cdots, x_k)C(x_1,\cdots, x_k)^T,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $$ C=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc} 0  &1&
2 &\cdots & k-2& k-1\\
1 & 0& 1& \cdots & k-3& k-2\\
\cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\
k-1& k-2 & k-3&\cdots & 1 &0
\end{array}\right).$$
By Perron-Frobenius theorem (for example, see \cite{horn1985}), the
largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1(C)$ of $C$ is at most
$\frac{k(k-1)}{2}$ with equality if and only if $k=2$. Hence by
Rayleigh quotient,
$$(x_1, \cdots, x_k)C(x_1,\cdots, x_k)^T\le
\lambda_1(C)\sum_{i=1}^kx_i^2$$ with equality if and only if $(x_1,
\cdots, x_k)^T$ is an eigenvector of $C$ corresponding to the
eigenvalue $\lambda_1(C)$. Therefore,
$$F(x_1,
\cdots, x_k)\le \frac{k(k-1)}{4}\sum_{i=1}^kx_i^2$$ with equality if
and only if $k=2$ and $x_1=x_2$. Hence
$$ W(T)\le (n-1)^2+\frac{k(k-1)}{4}\sum_{i=1}^k{x_i}^2\le
(n-1)^2+\frac{k(k-1)}{4}\sum_{i=1}^k(d_i-1)^2$$ with equality if and
only if $k=2$ and $d_1=d_2$, since $(d(v_1), \cdots, d(v_k))$ is a
permutation of $(d_1, \cdots, d_k)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{function}
Let $w_1\ge w_2\ge\cdots\ge w_k\ge 1$ be the positive integers with
$k\ge 5$. Let
$$F(z_1, \cdots, z_k)=\max\{F(y_1, \cdots, y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j): y_1\ge y_k\},$$
where $(y_1, \cdots, y_k)$ is any permutation of $(w_1, \cdots,
w_k)$. Then there exists a $2\le t\le k-2$ such that the following
holds:
\begin{equation}\label{z1-zt}
z_1+\cdots+ z_{t-2}\le z_{t+1}+\cdots+z_k \end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\label{zt-zk}
z_1+\cdots+z_{t-1}>z_{t+2}+\cdots+z_k.
\end{equation}
Further, if equations (\ref{z1-zt}) is strict, then
\begin{equation}\label{z1-zt-ztrict}
z_1\ge z_2\ge\cdots\ge  z_t, \quad \quad z_t\le z_{t+1}\le \cdots\le
z_k.
\end{equation}
If equations (\ref{z1-zt}) becomes equality, then
\begin{equation}\label{lemma-z1-zt-1}
z_1\ge z_2\ge\cdots\ge  z_t, \quad \quad z_t\le z_{t+1}\le \cdots\le
z_k
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}\label{lemma-z1-zt-2}
z_1\ge z_2\ge\cdots\ge  z_{t-1}, \quad \quad z_{t-1}\le z_{t}\le
\cdots\le z_k.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $$f(p)=\sum_{i=1}^{p-2}z_i-\sum_{i=p+1}^kz_i,\ \ \  2\le p\le
k-2.$$ Clearly $f(2)<0$, $f(k-1)>0$ and
$$f(2)\le f(3)\le\cdots\le f(k-1).$$
Hence there exists a $ 2\le t\le k-2$ such that $f(t)\le 0$ and
$f(t+1)>0$. In other words, equations (\ref{z1-zt}) and
(\ref{zt-zk}) hold. By the definition of $F(z_1, \cdots, z_k),$ we
have for $1\le i\le k-1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
0&\le&  F(z_1, \cdots,z_{i-1}, z_i, z_{i+1}, \cdots, z_k)-F(z_1,
\cdots, z_{i-1},  z_{i+1}, z_i, \cdots, z_k)\\
&=&(z_{i+1}-z_i)(\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}z_j-\sum_{j=i+2}^kz_j) .
\end{eqnarray*}
But for $1\le i\le t-2$, by (\ref{z1-zt}), we have
$\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}z_j<\sum_{j=i+2}^kz_j$. Hence $z_1\ge \cdots\ge
z_{t-1}$. On the other hand,  for $t\le i\le k-1$, by (\ref{zt-zk}),
we have $\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}z_j>\sum_{j=i+2}^kz_j$. Therefore $z_t\le
z_{t+1}\cdots\le z_k$.

 If  (\ref{z1-zt}) is strict, then   $(z_1+\cdots+z_{t-2})-(z_{t+1}+\cdots+z_k)<0$,
 which implies
$z_{t-1}\ge z_t$. So (\ref{z1-zt-ztrict}) holds.

If (\ref{z1-zt}) becomes equality, i.e.,
$z_1+\cdots+z_{t-2}=z_{t+1}+\cdots+z_k$, then it is easy to see that
(\ref{lemma-z1-zt-1})  or (\ref{lemma-z1-zt-2}) holds. This
completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{k=6fun}
Let $w_1\ge w_2\ge\cdots\ge w_6\ge 1$ be the positive integers. Let
$$F(z_1, \cdots, z_6)=\max\{F(y_1, \cdots, y_6)=
\sum_{i=1}^{5}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^6y_j):\ \ y_1\ge
y_6\},$$ where $(y_1, \cdots, y_6)$ is any permutation of $(w_1,
\cdots, w_6)$. Then $(z_1, \cdots, z_6)$  is equal to one of  the
following five $(w_1, w_6, w_5, w_4, w_3, w_2)$,  $(w_1, w_5, w_6,
w_4, w_3, w_2)$, $(w_1, w_4, w_6, w_5, w_3, w_2)$, $(w_1, w_4, w_5,
w_6, w_3, w_2)$ and $(w_1, w_3, w_6, w_5, w_4, w_2)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{function}, there are just three cases:

{\bf Case 1} $t=2$. Then by Lemma~\ref{function}, $z_1\ge z_2$ and
$z_2\le z_3\le z_4\le z_5\le z_6$. Hence $(z_1, \cdots, z_6)$ must
be $(w_1, w_6, w_5, w_4, w_3, w_2)$.

{\bf Case 2} $t=3$. Then $z_1\le z_4+ z_5+z_6$ and
$z_1+z_2>z_5+z_6.$ Moreover,  $z_1\ge z_2\ge z_3$ and $ z_3\le
z_4\le z_5\le z_6$; or $z_1\ge z_2$ and $z_2\le z_3\le z_4\le z_5\le
z_6$.  Therefore $(z_1, \cdots, z_6)$ must be  one of  $(w_1, w_6,
w_5, w_4, w_3, w_2)$, $(w_1, w_5, w_6, w_4, w_3, w_2)$, $(w_1, w_4,
w_6, w_5, w_3, w_2)$ and $(w_1, w_3, w_6, w_5, w_4, w_2)$.

{\bf Case 3} $t=4$. Then $z_1+z_2\le z_5+z_6$. Moreover, $z_1\ge
z_2\ge z_3$ and $ z_3\le z_4\le z_5\le z_6$; or $z_1\ge z_2\ge
z_3\ge z_4$ and $z_4\le z_5\le z_6$. Therefore, $(z_1, \cdots, z_6)$
must be  one of  $(w_1, w_4, w_6, w_5, w_3, w_2)$,   $(w_1, w_5,
w_6, w_4, w_3, w_2)$ and $(w_1, w_4, w_5, w_6, w_3, w_2)$. This
completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{char} Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$ be a  tree
degree sequence with $d_1\ge d_2\ge\cdots\ge d_k\ge 2$,
$d_{k+1}=\cdots=d_n=1$ and $k\ge 5$. If a caterpillar $T(x_1,
\cdots, x_k)$ is a maximum optimal tree in ${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$
with $F(x_1, \cdots, x_k)$ in equation (\ref{weiner-f}). Then there
exists a $2\le t\le k-2$ such that either
$$\sum_{i=1}^{t-2}x_i\le\sum_{i=t+1}^kx_i,\quad
\sum_{i=1}^{t-1}x_i>\sum_{t+2}^kx_i,\quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\cdots\ge
x_{t-1}\ge x_t, \quad  x_{t}\le x_{t+1}\le \cdots\le x_k;$$  or
$$\sum_{i=1}^{t-2}x_i=\sum_{i=t+1}^kx_i,\quad
\sum_{i=1}^{t-1}x_i>\sum_{t+2}^kx_i, \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\cdots\ge
x_{t-1}\ge x_t, \quad  x_{t}\le x_{t+1}\le \cdots\le x_k;$$
 or
$$\sum_{i=1}^{t-2}x_i=\sum_{i=t+1}^kx_i,\quad
\sum_{i=1}^{t-1}x_i>\sum_{t+2}^kx_i, \quad x_1\ge x_2\ge\cdots\ge
x_{t-1}, \quad  x_{t-1}\le x_{t}\le \cdots\le x_k.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It follows from Theorem~\ref{optimal-equal} and
Lemma~\ref{function} that the assertion  holds.
\end{proof}

\section{The maximum optimal tree with  many leaves}

 In this section, for a given degree sequence $\pi=(d_1, \cdots,
 d_n)$ with at least $n-6$ leaves, we give the maximum optimal trees with
 the maximum Wiener index in ${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$. Moreover, the
 maximum optimal tree may be not unique.
 \begin{theorem}\label{k=2--4}
 Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots,d_k, \cdots, d_n)$ be tree degree sequence with
 $n-k$ leaves for $2\le k\le 4.$  Then the maximum optimal tree in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$ is
 the greedy  caterpillar.
 In other words,

 if $k=2$, then  $W(T)=(n-1)^2+(d_1-1)(d_2-1)$, for $T\in {
 \mathcal{T}}_{\pi}.$

 If $k=3$, then for any $T\in {\mathcal{T}}_{\pi},$
  $$W(T)\le (n-1)^2+(d_1-1)(d_2+d_3-2)+(d_1+d_2-2)(d_3-1)$$
 with equality if and only if $T$ is the caterpillar $T(d_1-1, d_3-1,
 d_2-1).$

 If $k=4,$ then for  any $T\in {\mathcal{T}}_{\pi},$
 $$W(T)\le (n-1)^2+(d_1-1)(d_2+d_3+d_4-3)+(d_1+d_2-2)(d_3+d_4-2)+(d_1+d_2+d_3-3)(d_4-1)$$
 with equality if and only if $T$ is the caterpillar $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_3-1,
 d_2-1)$.
   \end{theorem}

\begin{proof} If $k=2$, it is obvious. If $k=3$,   it is easy to see
that  $F(d_1-1, d_2-1, d_3-1)\le F(d_1-1, d_3-1, d_2-1). $ By
Theorem~\ref{optimal-equal}, the assertion holds.

If $k=4$, then by Theorem~\ref{optimal-equal},  let $T$ be a
caterpillar $T(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$ and
 $$F(x_1, x_2, x_3,
x_4)=\max\{F(y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4): y_1\ge y_4\},$$
 where $(y_1, y_2,
y_3, y_4)$ is any permutation of $(d_1-1, d_2-1, d_3-1, d_4-1)$.
Because
$$F(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)-F(x_2, x_1, x_3, x_4)=(x_1-x_2)(x_3+x_4)\ge
0$$ and $$ F(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)-F(x_1, x_2, x_4,
x_3)=(x_4-x_3)(x_1+x_2)\ge 0,$$ we have $x_1\ge x_2$ and $x_4\ge
x_3$. So $(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)=(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$. This
completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{k=5}
 Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots,d_k, \cdots, d_n)$ be tree degree sequence with
 $n-5$ leaves.

(1).  If $d_1> d_2+d_3$, then  the maximum optimal tree in
${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$ is the only
 caterpillar $T(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

(2). If $d_1=d_2+d_3$, then  there are the exactly two maximum
optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$:  one tree is the
 caterpillar  $T(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$;
  the other tree is the caterpillar $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1,
  d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

 (3). If $d_1< d_2+d_3$, then  the maximum optimal tree  in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$ is the only
 caterpillar  $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.
 \end{theorem}
\begin{proof} By Theorem\ref{optimal-equal}, let $T(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5)$
be a maximum optimal tree in ${\mathcal{T}}_{\pi}$.  If
$d_1>d_2+d_3$, then by Theorem~\ref{char}, it is easy to see that
$t=2$, and $x_1\ge x_2$ and $x_2\le x_3\le x_4\le x_5$. Hence $(x_1,
x_2, x_3, x_4, x_5)=(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

If $d_1<d_2+d_3$, then by Theorem~\ref{char}, it is easy to see that
 $x_1\ge x_2\ge x_3$ and $x_3\le x_4\le x_5$. Hence $(x_1, x_2, x_3,
x_4, x_5)=(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$  or $(d_1-1, d_3-1,
d_5-1, d_4-1, d_2-1)$. But $W(T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_3-1,
d_2-1))-W(T(d_1-1, d_3-1, d_5-1, d_4-1,
d_2-1))=2(d_1-d_2)(d_3-d_4)\ge 0$ with equality if and only if
$d_1=d_2$ or $d_3=d_4$. Hence the assertion (3) holds.

If $d_1=d_2+d_3$, then by Theorem ~\ref{char}, it is easy to see
that  either $x_1\ge x_2$ and $x_2\le x_3\le x_4\le x_5$; or $x_1\ge
x_2\ge x_3$ and $x_3\le x_4\le x_5$. Hence $(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4,
x_5)=(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$ or $(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1,
d_3-1, d_2-1)$. Moreover, $F(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)=F
(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$. Hence  (2) holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{6diff}
Let $w_1\ge w_2\ge\cdots\ge w_6\ge 1$ be positive integers and
$$ F(y_1, \cdots,
y_k)=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(\sum_{j=1}^iy_j)(\sum_{j=i+1}^ky_j).$$ Then
\begin{equation}\label{k61}
F(w_1, w_6, w_5, w_4, w_3, w_2)-F(w_1, w_5, w_6, w_4, w_3,
w_2)=(w_1-w_2-w_3-w_4)(w_5-w_6),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{k62}
F(w_1, w_5, w_6, w_4, w_3, w_2)-F(w_1, w_4, w_6, w_5, w_3,
w_2)=2(w_1-w_2-w_3)(w_4-w_5),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{k63}
F(w_1, w_4, w_6, w_5, w_3, w_2)-F(w_1, w_4, w_5, w_6, w_3,
w_2)=(w_1+w_4-w_2-w_3)(w_5-w_6),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{k64}
F(w_1, w_4, w_5, w_6, w_3, w_2)-F(w_1, w_3, w_6, w_5, w_4,
w_2)=(3w_3-3w_4-w_5+w_6)(w_1-w_2).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a simple calculation, it is easy to see that the assertion holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{k=6}
 Let $\pi=(d_1, \cdots,d_6, \cdots, d_n)$ be tree degree sequence with
 $n-6$ leaves, i.e., $d_1\ge\cdots\ge d_6\ge 2$ and $d_7=\cdots=d_n=1$.

 (1). If $d_1>d_2+d_3+d_4-2$, then
there is only  one maximum optimal tree $T(d_1-1, d_6-1, d_5-1,
d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$ in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$.

(2). If $d_1=d_2+d_3+d_4-2$, then
 there are exactly two maximum optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: one maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1, d_6-1, d_5-1,
d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$; the other maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1,
d_5-1, d_6-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

(3). $d_2+d_3-1<d_1<d_2+d_3+d_4-2$, then there is only  one maximum
optimal tree $T(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_6-1, d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$ in
${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$.

(4). If $d_2+d_3-1=d_1$, then there are exactly two maximum optimal
trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: one maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1, d_5-1, d_6-1,
d_4-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$; the other maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1,
d_4-1, d_6-1, d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

(5). If  $\  \ \max\{d_2+d_3-d_4,\
d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)\}<d_1<d_2+d_3-1$, then there is only  one
maximum optimal tree $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_6-1, d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$
in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$.

(6). If $d_1=d_2+d_3-w_4> d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)$, then there are
exactly two maximum optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: one maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_6-1,
d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$; the other maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1,
d_4-1, d_5-1, d_6-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.

(7). If $d_1= d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)>d_2+d_3-d_4$, then there are
exactly two maximum optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: one maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_6-1,
d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$; the other maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1,
d_3-1, d_6-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_2-1)$.

(8). If $d_1=d_2+d_3-d_4= d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)$, then there are
exactly three maximum optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: they are  $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_6-1,
d_5-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$; $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_6-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$
and $T(d_1-1, d_3-1, d_6-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_2-1)$.

 (9). If $d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)\le d_1<d_2+d_3-d_4$, or $d_1\le d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)<
 d_2+d_3-d_4$,
  then there is only  one
maximum optimal tree $T(d_1-1, d_4-1, d_5-1, d_6-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$
in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$.

(10). If $d_2+d_3-d_4\le d_1<d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)$; or $d_1\le
d_2+d_3-d_4< d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)$,
 then there is only  one
maximum optimal tree $T(d_1-1, d_3-1, d_6-1, d_5-1, d_4-1, d_2-1)$
in ${\mathcal T}_{ \pi}$.

(11). If $d_1< d_2+\frac{1}{3}(d_5-d_6)=
 d_2+d_3-d_4$,
then there are exactly two maximum optimal trees in ${\mathcal T}_{
 \pi}$: one maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1, d_3-1, d_6-1,
d_5-1, d_4-1, d_2-1)$; the other maximum optimal tree is $T(d_1-1,
d_4-1, d_5-1, d_6-1, d_3-1, d_2-1)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
 The proof is referred to appendix since it is technique.
\end{proof}
{\bf Remark}. From Theorem~\ref{k=6}, we can see that the maximum
optimal trees depend on the values of all components of the tree
degree sequences and not unique, while the minimum optimal tree is
unique for a given tree degree sequence. Moreover, Theorem~\ref{k=6}
explains that it seems to be difficult for characterize all the
maximum optimal trees for a given tree degree sequence.

\frenchspacing


Neighborhoods of univalent functions

Abstract: The main result shows a small perturbation of a univalent function is again a univalent function, hence a univalent function has a neighborhood consisting entirely of univalent functions.For the particular choice of a linear function in the hypothesis of the main theorem, we obtain a corollary which is equivalent to the classical Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion.We also present an application of the main result in terms of Taylor series, and we show that the hypothesis of our main result is sharp.

\section{Introduction}

We denote by $U_{r}=\left\{ z\in \mathbb{C}:\left\vert z\right\vert
<r\right\} $ the open disk of radius $r>0$ centered at the origin and we let
$U=U_{1}$. The class of functions $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ analytic in
the domain $D$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{A}\left( D\right) $.

It is known that if $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is a univalent map in a
domain $D$, then $f^{\prime }\neq 0$ in $D$. The non-vanishing of the
derivative of an analytic function (local univalence) is not in general
sufficient to insure the univalence of the function, as it can be seen by
considering for example the exponential function $f\left( z\right) =e^{z}$
defined in the upper half-plane.

The classical Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion gives a partial
converse of the above result, as follows:

\begin{theorem}
If $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is analytic in the convex domain $D$
and
\begin{equation*}
\func{Re}f^{\prime }\left( z\right) >0,\qquad z\in D,
\end{equation*}%
then $f$ is univalent in $D$.
\end{theorem}

In the present paper we introduce the constant $K\left( f,D\right) $
associated with a function $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ analytic in a
domain $D$, which is a measure of the "degree of univalence" of $f$
(see Proposition \ref{characterization of univalence} and the remark
following it).

Using the constant $K\left( f,D\right) $ thus introduced, in Theorem
\ref{main theorem} we obtain a sufficient condition for univalence,
which shows that a small perturbation of a univalent function is
again univalent. As a theoretical consequence of this result, it
follows that a univalent function has a neighborhood consisting
entirely of univalent functions (see Remark \ref{Nbds of univalent
functions}).

The Theorem \ref{main theorem} is sharp, in the sense that we cannot
replace the upper bound appearing in the hypothesis of this theorem
by a larger one, as shown in Example \ref{Exemplul 1}.

For the particular choice of a linear function in Theorem \ref{main
theorem}, we obtain a simple sufficient condition for univalence
(Corollary \ref{corollary of main theorem 2}), which is shown to be
equivalent to the Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion.
The main result in Theorem \ref{main theorem} can be viewed
therefore as a generalization of this classical result, in which the
linear function is replaced by a general univalent function.

The paper concludes with another application of the main result in
the case of analytic functions defined in the unit disk. Thus, in
Theorem \ref{Application to Taylor series} and the corollary
following it, we obtain sufficient conditions for the univalence of
an analytic function defined in the unit disk in terms of the
coefficients of its Taylor series representation, which might be of
independent interest.

\section{Main results}

Given a function $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ analytic in the domain $D$ we
introduce the constant $K\left( f,D\right) $ defined as follows:

\begin{equation}
K\left( f,D\right) =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D  \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{%
f\left( a\right) -f\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert
\end{equation}

Note that from the definition follows immediately that if the function $f$
is not univalent in $D$ then $K\left( f,D\right) =0$ The constant $K\left(
f,D\right) $ characterizes the univalence of the function $f$ in $D$  in the
following sense:

\begin{proposition}
\label{characterization of univalence}Let $f:D\rightarrow
\mathbb{C}$ be an analytic function in the domain $D$. If $K\left(
f,D\right) >0$ then $f$ is univalent in $D$.

Conversely, if $f$ is univalent in $D$ and $\Omega \subset \overline{\Omega }%
\subset D$ is a domain strictly contained in $D$, then $K\left( f,\Omega
\right) >0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The first statement follows from the inequality
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f\left( a\right) -f\left( b\right) \right\vert \geq \left\vert
a-b\right\vert K\left( f,D\right) >0,
\end{equation*}%
for any distinct points $a,b\in D$.

To prove the converse, note that%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( f,\Omega \right) \geq \inf_{a,b\in \overline{\Omega }}\left\vert
F\left( a,b\right) \right\vert ,
\end{equation*}%
where $F:\overline{\Omega }\times \overline{\Omega }\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
is the function defined by%
\begin{equation*}
F\left( a,b\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{f\left( a\right) -f\left( b\right) }{a-b},\qquad a\neq b \\
f^{\prime }\left( a\right) ,\qquad \quad a=b%
\end{array}%
\right. .
\end{equation*}

Note that since $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is analytic, $F$ is continuous
on the closed set $\overline{\Omega }\times \overline{\Omega }$, and
therefore $F$ attains its minimum modulus on this set:%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( f,\Omega \right) \geq \inf_{a,b\in \overline{\Omega }}\left\vert
F\left( a,b\right) \right\vert =\left\vert F\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
\right\vert ,
\end{equation*}%
for some $\alpha ,\beta \in \overline{\Omega }$.

If $\alpha \neq \beta $, then $\left\vert F\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
\right\vert =\left\vert \frac{f\left( \alpha \right) -f\left( \beta \right)
}{\alpha -\beta }\right\vert >0$ since $\alpha ,\beta \in \overline{\Omega }%
\subset D$ and $f$ is univalent in $D$, and if $\alpha =\beta $ then $%
\left\vert F\left( \alpha ,\alpha \right) \right\vert =\left\vert f^{\prime
}\left( \alpha \right) \right\vert >0$, again by the univalence of $f$ in $D$%
. It follows that in all cases we have%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( f,\Omega \right) \geq \left\vert F\left( \alpha ,\beta \right)
\right\vert >0,
\end{equation*}%
concluding the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{K might be 0}Note that the converse in the above proposition may not
hold for $\Omega =D$ without the additional hypothesis, as shown in the
example below.

In order to have the equivalence%
\begin{equation*}
f\text{ univalent in }D\Longleftrightarrow \text{ }K\left( f,D\right) >0,
\end{equation*}%
one needs additional hypotheses, which guarantee the existence of a
continuous extension of $f,f^{\prime }$ to $\overline{D}$, such that
$f$ is injective on $\overline{D}$ and $f^{\prime }\neq 0$ in
$\overline{D}$.

For example, in the case $D=U$, if the boundary of the image domain $f\left(
U\right) $ is a Jordan curve of class $C^{1,\alpha }$ $\left( 0<\alpha
<1\right) $, by Carath\'{e}odory theorem the function $f$ has a continuous
injective extension to $\overline{D}$, and also, by Kelogg-Warschawski
theorem, the function $f^{\prime }$ has continuous extension to $\overline{D}
$, with $f^{\prime }\neq 0$ in $\overline{D}$ (see for example \cite%
{Pommerenke}, p. 24 and pp. 48 -- 49). Following the proof above with $%
\Omega $ replaced by $U$, we obtain $K\left( f,U\right) >0$, and therefore
in this case we have
\begin{equation*}
f\text{ univalent in }U\Longleftrightarrow \text{ }K\left( f,U\right) >0.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}

\begin{example}
Let $D=U-\left[ 0,1\right] $ be the unit disk with a slit along the positive
real axis. Since $D$ is simply connected, there exists a conformal map $%
f:U\rightarrow D$ between the unit disk $U$ and $D$ (see Figure \ref{Figura
1} below). The map $f$ has a continuous extension to $\overline{U}$, and
without loss of generality we may assume that there exists $\theta \in
(0,2\pi )$ such that $f\left( e^{i\theta }\right) =f\left( e^{-i\theta
}\right) \in \left( 0,1\right) $.

The function $f$ is univalent in $U$, but $K\left( f,U\right) =0$ since
\begin{equation*}
K\left( f,U\right) \leq \lim_{\substack{ a\rightarrow e^{i\theta }  \\ %
b\rightarrow e^{-i\theta }}}\left\vert \frac{f\left( a\right) -f\left(
b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert =\left\vert \frac{f\left( e^{i\theta }\right)
-f\left( e^{-i\theta }\right) }{e^{i\theta }-e^{-i\theta }}\right\vert =0.
\end{equation*}
\end{example}

\begin{figure}[thb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{fig1}
\caption{An example of a univalent function in $U$ for which
$K\left( f,U\right) =0$.}
\label{Figura 1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The main result is contained in the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{main theorem}Let $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be a non-constant
analytic function in the convex domain $D$. If there exists an analytic
function $g:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ univalent in $D$ such that%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -g^{\prime }\left( z\right)
\right\vert \leq K\left( g,D\right) ,\qquad z\in D,
\label{sufficient condition for univalency}
\end{equation}%
then the function $f$ is also univalent in $D$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Assuming that $f$ is not univalent in $D$, there exists distinct points $%
z_{1,2}\in D$ such that $f\left( z_{1}\right) =f\left( z_{2}\right) $.
Integrating the derivative of $f-g$ along the line segment $\left[
z_{1},z_{2}\right] \subset D$ and using the hypothesis (\ref{sufficient
condition for univalency}) we obtain%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\vert g\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) \right\vert
&=&\left\vert \left( f\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{2}\right) \right)
-\left( f\left( z_{1}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) \right) \right\vert  \\
&=&\left\vert \int_{\left[ z_{1},z_{2}\right] }f^{\prime }\left( z\right)
-g^{\prime }\left( z\right) dz\right\vert  \\
&\leq &\int_{\left[ z_{1},z_{2}\right] }\left\vert f^{\prime }\left(
z\right) -g^{\prime }\left( z\right) \right\vert \left\vert dz\right\vert  \\
&\leq &\int_{\left[ z_{1},z_{2}\right] }K\left( g,D\right) \left\vert
dz\right\vert  \\
&=&K\left( g,D\right) \left\vert z_{1}-z_{2}\right\vert .
\end{eqnarray*}

Since the points $z_{1,2}$ are assumed to be distinct, from the definition
of the constant $K\left( g,D\right) $ we obtain equivalently%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert \frac{g\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) }{z_{2}-z_{1}}%
\right\vert \leq K\left( g,D\right) =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}%
\left\vert \frac{g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert \leq
\left\vert \frac{g\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) }{z_{2}-z_{1}}%
\right\vert ,
\end{equation}%
and therefore%
\begin{equation}
K\left( g,D\right) =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{%
g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert =\left\vert \frac{%
g\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) }{z_{2}-z_{1}}\right\vert .
\label{minimum attained}
\end{equation}

Consider now the auxiliary function $G:D-\left\{ z_{2}\right\} \rightarrow
\mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
G\left( z\right) =\frac{g\left( z\right) -g\left( z_{2}\right) }{z-z_{2}}%
,\qquad z\in D-\left\{ z_{2}\right\} ,
\end{equation}%
and note that since $g$ is analytic in $D$, $G$ is also analytic in $%
D-\left\{ z_{2}\right\} $ and moreover the limit
\begin{equation}
\lim_{z\rightarrow z_{2}}G\left( z\right) =\lim_{z\rightarrow z_{2}}\frac{%
g\left( z\right) -g\left( z_{2}\right) }{z-z_{2}}=g^{\prime }\left(
z_{2}\right)
\end{equation}%
exists and it is finite. The function $G$ can be therefore extended by
continuity to an analytic function in $D$, denoted also by $G$.

Since%
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{z\in D}\left\vert G\left( z\right) \right\vert =\inf_{\substack{ z\in D
\\ z\neq z_{2}}}\left\vert G\left( z\right) \right\vert =\inf_{\substack{ %
z\in D \\ z\neq z_{2}}}\left\vert \frac{g\left( z\right) -g\left(
z_{2}\right) }{z-z_{2}}\right\vert \geq \inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\
a\neq b }}\left\vert \frac{g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right)
}{a-b}\right\vert =K\left( g,D\right) ,
\end{equation*}%
combining with (\ref{minimum attained}) we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{z\in D}\left\vert G\left( z\right) \right\vert \geq K\left( g,D\right)
=\left\vert \frac{g\left( z_{2}\right) -g\left( z_{1}\right) }{z_{2}-z_{1}}%
\right\vert =\left\vert G\left( z_{1}\right) \right\vert \geq \inf_{z\in
D}\left\vert G\left( z\right) \right\vert ,
\end{equation*}%
which shows that minimum value of the modulus of $G$ in $D$ is attained at $%
z_{1}$:%
\begin{equation*}
\inf_{z\in D}\left\vert G\left( z\right) \right\vert =\left\vert G\left(
z_{1}\right) \right\vert .
\end{equation*}

However, since the function $g$ is univalent in $D$, from the definition of $%
G$ it follows that $G\left( z\right) \neq 0$ for any $z\in D-\left\{
z_{2}\right\} $, and also $G\left( z_{2}\right) =g^{\prime }\left(
z_{2}\right) \neq 0$, and therefore the function $G$ does not vanish in $D$.
Applying the maximum modulus principle to the analytic function $1/G$ it
follows that $\left\vert G\right\vert $ must be constant in $D$, and
therefore $G$ is constant in $D$.

It follows that
\begin{equation}
g\left( z\right) =g\left( z_{2}\right) +c\left( z-z_{2}\right) ,\qquad z\in
D,  \label{g must be linear}
\end{equation}%
for a certain constant $c\in \mathbb{C}$ (from the definition of $G$ it can
be seen that the constant $c$ can be written in the form $c=g^{\prime
}\left( z_{2}\right) e^{i\theta }$, for some $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$).

The relation (\ref{g must be linear}) shows that $g$ is a linear function,
and therefore the constant $K\left( g,D\right) $ becomes in this case%
\begin{eqnarray*}
K\left( g,D\right)  &=&\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert
\frac{g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert  \\
&=&\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{\left( g\left(
z_{2}\right) +c\left( a-z_{2}\right) \right) -\left( g\left( z_{2}\right)
+c\left( b-z_{2}\right) \right) }{a-b}\right\vert  \\
&=&\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{c\left( a-b\right)
}{a-b}\right\vert  \\
&=&\left\vert c\right\vert .
\end{eqnarray*}

The hypothesis (\ref{sufficient condition for univalency}) of the theorem
can be written therefore as follows%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -c\right\vert \leq \left\vert
c\right\vert ,\qquad z\in D,
\end{equation*}%
which shows that either $f$ is linear in $D$ (and thus univalent, since $f$
is assumed to be non-constant in $D$), or the following strict inequality
holds%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -c\right\vert <\left\vert c\right\vert
,\qquad z\in D.
\end{equation*}

Repeating the proof above with $g\left( z\right) \equiv cz$ we obtain%
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\vert cz_{2}-cz_{1}\right\vert &=&\left\vert \left( f\left(
z_{2}\right) -cz_{2}\right) -\left( f\left( z_{1}\right)
-cz_{1}\right) \right\vert \\
&=&\left\vert \int_{\left[ z_{1},z_{2}\right] }f^{\prime }\left(
z\right) -cdz\right\vert \\
& \leq & \int_{\left[ z_{1},z_{2}\right] }\left\vert f^{\prime
}\left( z\right) -c\right\vert \left\vert dz\right\vert
\\
&<& \left\vert c\right\vert \left\vert z_{2}-z_{1}\right\vert ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
a contradiction.

The contradiction obtained shows that the function $f$ is univalent in $D$,
concluding the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

In the particular case $D=U$, from the previous thereom we obtain
immediately the following sufficient criterion for univalence in the unit
disk:

\begin{theorem}
\label{main theorem 2}Let $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be a non-constant
analytic function in the unit disk. If there exists an analytic function $%
g:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ univalent in $U$ such that%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -g^{\prime }\left( z\right)
\right\vert \leq K\left( g,U\right) ,\qquad z\in U,
\label{sufficient condition for univalency 2}
\end{equation}%
then the function $f$ is also univalent in $U$.
\end{theorem}

As a corollary of Theorem \ref{main theorem} we obtain immediately
the following:

\begin{corollary}
\label{corollary of main theorem 2}If $f:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is
non-constant and analytic in the convex domain $D$ and there exists $c>0$ such that%
\begin{equation}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -c\right\vert \leq c,\qquad
z\in D, \label{Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff type condition}
\end{equation}%
then $f$ is univalent in $D$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Considering the univalent function $g:D\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
defined by $g\left( z\right) =cz$, we have $g^{\prime }\left(
z\right) =c$
for $z\in D$ and%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( g,D\right) =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert
\frac{g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert =\inf_{\substack{ %
a,b\in D \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{ca-cb}{a-b}\right\vert =c,
\end{equation*}%
and therefore the claim follows from Theorem \ref{main theorem}
above.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Let us note that the previous corollary can also be obtained as a direct
consequence of the classical Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion,
since the hypothesis (\ref{Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff type condition})
implies the hypothesis%
\begin{equation}
\func{Re}f^{\prime }\left( z\right) >0,\qquad z\in D.
\label{Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff hypothesis}
\end{equation}%
of this theorem (the fact that the above inequality is a strict
inequality follows from the maximum principle, the function $f$
being assumed to be non-constant in $D$).

Conversely, the Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion
follows from the previous corollary. To see this, note that in order
to prove the univalence of $f$, it suffices to prove the univalence
of $f$ in $D_{r}=r D$, for an arbitrarily fixed $r\in (0,1)$.

If the condition (\ref{Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff hypothesis}) holds,
there exists $c>0$ such that $$f^{\prime }\left( D_{r}\right)
\subset \left\{ w\in
\mathbb{C}:\left\vert w-c\right\vert <c\right\} ,$$ or equivalent%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -c \right\vert <c,\qquad z\in
D_{r}.
\end{equation*}%

Applying Corollary \ref{corollary of main theorem 2} to the
restriction of of $f$ to $D_r$, it follows that the function $f$ is
univalent in $D_{r}.$ Since $r\in \left( 0,1\right) $ was
arbitrarily fixed, it follows that $f$ is univalent in $U$,
concluding the proof of the claim.
\end{remark}

The remark above shows that Corollary \ref{corollary of main theorem
2} and the Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion are
equivalent, and therefore Theorem \ref{main theorem} is a
generalization of it. The Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence
criterion can be viewed as a particular case of the main Theorem
\ref{main theorem}, corresponding to the choice of a linear function
$g$.

\begin{remark}
\label{Nbds of univalent functions}Fixing an arbitrarily univalent function $%
g:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ for which $K\left( g,U\right) \neq 0$ (see Remark %
\ref{K might be 0} above), Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} shows that a whole
neighborhood $V\left( g\right) =\left\{ f\in \mathcal{A}:\left\vert
\left\vert f^{\prime }-g^{\prime }\right\vert \right\vert \leq K\left(
g,U\right) \right\} $ of $g$ consists entirely of univalent functions in $U$
($\left\vert \left\vert \cdot \right\vert \right\vert $ denotes here the
supremum norm in the space $\mathcal{A}_{0}=\left\{ f\in \mathcal{A}:f\left(
0\right) =0\right\} $ of normalized analytic functions). Loosely stated,
Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} shows that an univalent function has a
neighborhood consisting entirely of univalent functions.
\end{remark}

The hypotheses of Theorem \ref{main theorem} and Theorem \ref{main theorem 2}
are sharp, in the sense that we cannot replace the right side of the
inequalities (\ref{sufficient condition for univalency}), respectively (\ref%
{sufficient condition for univalency 2}), by larger constants, as can be
seen from the following example.

\begin{example}
\label{Exemplul 1}Consider the function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined
by $f\left( z\right) =z+az^{2}$, $z\in U$, where $a\in \mathbb{C}$ is a
parameter.

Using Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} above with $g\left( z\right) \equiv z$,
for which $K\left( g,U\right) =1$, we obtain that the function $f$ is
univalent in $U$ if
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert 2az\right\vert \le 1,\qquad z\in U,
\end{equation*}%
that is if $\left\vert 2a\right\vert \leq 1$.

This result is sharp, since the function $f$ is univalent iff $\left\vert
a\right\vert \leq \frac{1}{2}$, as it can be checked by direct computation.
\end{example}

The univalence of the function $f$ in the previous example can also be
obtained by using the Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion (for $%
\left\vert a\right\vert \leq 1/2$ we have $\func{Re}f^{\prime }\left(
z\right) >0$ for any $z\in U$). The next example shows that we may still use
Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} also in situations when the
Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion cannot be applied:

\begin{example}
\label{Exemplul 2}Consider the linear map $g:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
defined by $g\left( z\right) =\frac{z}{1-z}$. The function $g$ is univalent
in $U$ and we have%
\begin{equation*}
K\left( g,U\right) =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in U \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{%
g\left( a\right) -g\left( b\right) }{a-b}\right\vert =\inf_{\substack{ %
a,b\in U \\ a\neq b}}\left\vert \frac{\frac{a}{1-a}-\frac{b}{1-b}}{a-b}%
\right\vert =\inf_{\substack{ a,b\in U \\ a\neq b}}\frac{1}{\left\vert
1-a\right\vert \left\vert 1-b\right\vert }=1.
\end{equation*}

The function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined by $f\left( z\right) =\frac{%
z^{2}}{1-z}$ is analytic in $U$ and satisfies%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -g^{\prime }\left( z\right)
\right\vert =1\leq K\left( g,U\right) ,\qquad z\in U,
\end{equation*}%
and therefore by Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} it follows that $f$ is
univalent in the unit disk.

The univalence of $f$ does not follow however by the
Noshiro-Warschawski-Wolff univalence criterion since
$\func{Re}f^{\prime }\left( z\right) $ takes (arbitrarily small)
negative values for $z\in U$ sufficiently close to $1$.
\end{example}

As another application of Theorem \ref{main theorem 2}, in the next result
we show that by perturbing the coefficients of the Taylor series of an
univalent function, the resulting function is also univalent. More
precisely, we have the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{Application to Taylor series} Let $g:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$
be an analytic univalent function with
Taylor series representation%
\begin{equation}
g\left( z\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }b_{n}z^{n},\qquad z\in U\text{.}
\label{Taylor series for g}
\end{equation}

If the coefficients $a_{0},a_{1},\ldots \in \mathbb{C}$ satisfy the
inequality
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }n\left\vert a_{n}-b_{n}\right\vert <K\left( g,U\right)
\label{hypothesis on coefficients of Taylor series}
\end{equation}%
then the function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
f\left( z\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }a_{n}z^{n},\qquad z\in U,
\label{Taylor series for f}
\end{equation}%
is analytic and univalent in $U$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since $g$ is univalent in $U$, the radius of convergence of the Taylor
series (\ref{Taylor series for g}) is at least $1$, hence
\begin{equation*}
\lim \sup \sqrt[n]{\left\vert b_{n}\right\vert }\leq 1,
\end{equation*}%
and therefore $\left\vert b_{n}\right\vert \leq 1$ for all $n$ sufficiently
large.

Using the hypothesis (\ref{hypothesis on coefficients of Taylor series}) we
obtain%
\begin{equation*}
\lim \sup \sqrt[n]{\left\vert a_{n}\right\vert }\leq \lim \sup \sqrt[n]{%
\left\vert b_{n}\right\vert +\left\vert a_{n}-b_{n}\right\vert }\leq \lim
\sup \sqrt[n]{1+\frac{K\left( g,U\right) }{n}}=1,
\end{equation*}%
and therefore the radius of convergence of the series in (\ref{Taylor series
for f}) is at least $1$, thus the function $f$ is well defined by (\ref%
{Taylor series for f}) and it is analytic in $U$.

Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\vert f^{\prime }\left( z\right) -g^{\prime }\left( z\right)
\right\vert &=&\left\vert \sum_{n=0}^{\infty
}na_{n}z^{n-1}-\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }nb_{n}z^{n-1}\right\vert \\
&\leq &\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }n\left\vert a_{n}-b_{n}\right\vert \left\vert
z\right\vert ^{n-1} \\
&\leq &\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }n\left\vert a_{n}-b_{n}\right\vert \\
&<&K\left( g,U\right) ,
\end{eqnarray*}%
for any $z\in U$, by Theorem \ref{main theorem 2} follows that $f$ is
univalent in $U$, concluding the proof.
\end{proof}

Using a comparison with the generalized harmonic series, from the
above we can obtain the following:

\begin{corollary}
Let $g:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ be an analytic univalent function with
Taylor series representation%
\begin{equation}
g\left( z\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }b_{n}z^{n},\qquad z\in U\text{.}
\end{equation}

If the coefficients $a_{0},a_{1},\ldots \in \mathbb{C}$ satisfy the
inequality
\begin{equation}
\left\vert a_{n}-b_{n}\right\vert <K\left( g,U\right) \frac{\zeta \left(
p\right) }{n^{p+1}},\qquad n=1,2,\ldots ,
\end{equation}%
for some $p>1$ ($\zeta $ denotes the Riemann zeta function), then the
function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
f\left( z\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }a_{n}z^{n},\qquad z\in U,
\end{equation}%
is analytic and univalent in $U$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{example}
Considering the function $g\left( z\right) =\frac{z}{1-z}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty
}z^{n}$ defined in Example \ref{Exemplul 2}, which is analytic and univalent
in $U$ and has $K\left( g,U\right) =1$, from the previous theorem it follows
that the function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ defined by $f\left( z\right)
=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }a_{n}z^{n}$ is analytic and univalent in $U$ if the
coefficients $a_{n}$ satisfy the inequality%
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }n\left\vert a_{n}-1\right\vert <1.
\end{equation*}

Using for example the fact that $\zeta \left( 2\right) =\frac{\pi ^{2}}{6}%
\approx 1.645$, from the previous corollary it follows that the function $f$
is also analytic and univalent in $U$ if the coefficients $a_{n}$ satisfy
the inequality%
\begin{equation*}
\left\vert a_{n}-1\right\vert \leq \frac{\pi ^{2}}{6n^{3}}\approx \frac{1.645%
}{n^{3}},\qquad n=1,2,\ldots
\end{equation*}
\end{example}

Neighborhoods of univalent functions