On the variational distance of independently repeated experiments

Abstract: Let P and Q be two probability distributions which differ only for values with non-zero probability. We show that the variational distance between the n-fold product distributions P^n and Q^n cannot grow faster than the square root of n.

\section{Preliminaries}

Let $P$ be a probability distribution with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$ and let $n \in
{\mathbb{N}}$. We denote by $P^n$ the $n$-fold \emph{product
  distribution}, that is,
\[
  P^n(z_1, \ldots, z_n) = \prod_{i=1}^n P(z_i)
\]
for any $z_1, \ldots, z_n \in {\mathcal{Z}}$. Note that $P^n$ describes $n$
independently repeated random experiments with distribution $P$.

The \emph{variational distance} between two probability distributions
$P$ and $Q$ with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is defined as\footnote{See, e.g.,
  \cite{CovTho91}. $\delta(\cdot, \cdot)$ is also called
  \emph{statistical difference}~\cite{Reyzin04}, \emph{Kolmogorov
    distance}, or \emph{trace distance}~\cite{NieChu00}.}
\[
\delta(P,Q) := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{z \in {\mathcal{Z}}} |P(z) - Q(z)| \ .
\]
Note that $\delta$ is a distance measure on the set of probability
distributions with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$. In particular, $\delta$ is symmetric,
$\delta(P,Q) = 0$ if and only if $P=Q$, and the triangle inequality
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tri}
  \delta(P, Q) \leq \delta(P, P') + \delta(P', Q)
\end{equation}
holds.

\section{Main Result and Proof}

\subsection{Upper Bounds for the Variational Distance}

Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability distributions with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$.  It
is a direct consequence of the triangle inequality~\eqref{eq:tri} that
the variational distance $\delta(P^n, Q^n)$ between the $n$-fold
product distributions $P^n$ and $Q^n$ cannot grow faster than linearly
in $n$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linear}
  \delta(P^n, Q^n) \leq n \delta(P, Q) \ .
\end{equation}
Moreover, it is easy to find examples where this inequality is almost
tight. Let, e.g., $P$ and $Q$ be two binary distributions with range
${\mathcal{Z}} = \{0,1\}$ such that $P(1)=0$ and $Q(1) = \varepsilon$ for some
$\varepsilon>0$. If $n \varepsilon \ll 1$ then the variational
distance $\delta(P^n, Q^n)$ is roughly equal to $n \delta(P, Q) = n
\varepsilon$.

However, the upper bound~\eqref{eq:linear} can only be close to
optimal if, for some element $z \in {\mathcal{Z}}$, the relative difference
$|P(z)-Q(z)|/(P(z) + Q(z))$ between the probabilities is large. (Note
that, in the above example, this relative difference for $z=1$ equals
one.)  Indeed, the following result states that, in all other cases,
$\delta(P^n, Q^n)$ cannot grow more than the square root of~$n$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:int}
  Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability distributions with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$,
  let ${\mathcal{D}} := \{z \in {\mathcal{Z}} : P(z) \neq Q(z)\}$ be the subset of ${\mathcal{Z}}$
  where $P$ and $Q$ differ, and let ${\bar{p}}:=\inf_{z \in {\mathcal{D}}}(\min(P(z),
  Q(z)))$. If ${\bar{p}}>0$ then, for any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$,
  \[
    \delta(P^n, Q^n)
  \leq
      \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi {\bar{p}}}}  \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{{\bar{p}}}}
    \, \delta(P, Q)
  \]
  and
   \[
    \delta(P^n, Q^n)
  \leq
      \sqrt{\frac{n}{2 {\bar{p}}}} \, \delta(P, Q) \ .
  \]
\end{lemma}

The first bound of Lemma~\ref{lem:int} is optimal in the sense that,
for any ${\bar{p}}>0$, there are probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ with
minimum probability ${\bar{p}}$ such that the quotient between the left and
the right hand side of the inequality approaches one for increasing
$n$ (as long as $\delta(P^n,Q^n) \ll 1$). On the other hand, the
constant $\frac{1}{2}$ in the second bound is the smallest value of
$c$ such that $\delta(P^n, Q^n) \leq \sqrt{c n/{{\bar{p}}}} \, \delta(P, Q)$
always holds.

The result of Lemma~\ref{lem:int} is also complementary to a lower
bound derived in~\cite{Reyzin04}, which states that, if the maximum
probabilities of $P$ and $Q$ are small enough and if $n$ is not too
large, then $\delta(P^n, Q^n) \geq \Omega(\sqrt{n}) \delta(P,Q)$.

\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:int}}

To prove Lemma~\ref{lem:int}, we consider a probability distribution
$P_t$ parameterized by some real value $t$ and compute a bound on the
derivative, with respect to $t$, of the variational distance
$\delta(P_t^n, P_{t_o}^n)$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:der}
  Let $\{P_{t}\}_{t \in {\mathbb{R}}}$ be a family of probability distributions
  with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$ parameterized by $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, let $t_0 \in {\mathbb{R}}$,
  and let $z_1, z_2 \in {\mathcal{Z}}$ such that\footnote{$\der{
      f(t)}{t}{t_0}$ denotes the right derivative $\lim_{t \to
      t_0^{+}} \frac{f(t) - f(t_0)}{t-t_0}$ of the function $f$ at
    $t=t_0$.}
  \[
    \der{P_t(z)}{t}{t_0}
  =
    \begin{cases}
      1 & \text{if $z = z_1$} \\
      -1 & \text{if $z = z_2$}
    \end{cases}
  \]
  and $P_t(z) = P_{t_0}(z)$ for any $z \in {\mathcal{Z}} \backslash
  \{z_1, z_2\}$.  If $p:=P_{t_0}(z_1)$ and $p':=P_{t_0}(z_2)$
  are nonzero then
  \[
     \der{\delta(P_{t}^n, P_{t_0}^n)}{t}{t_0}
  \leq
      \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
    \sqrt{\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{p'}}
    \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{\min(p,p')}}
  \]
  and
  \[
     \der{\delta(P_{t}^n, P_{t_0}^n)}{t}{t_0}
  \leq
      \frac{1}{2}
    \sqrt{\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{p'}}
    \, \sqrt{n} \ .
  \]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Assume without loss of generality that $t_0 = 0$. Since $P_t(z)$
  does not depend on $t$ for $z \in {\mathcal{Z}} \backslash \{z_1,
  z_2\}$, we have $P_t(z_1) + P_t(z_2) = p + p'$, and thus, by
  the definition of the variational distance,
  \[
    \delta(P_{t}^n, P_{0}^n)
  =
    \frac{1}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{n}
      q(k) \sum_{r=0}^{k} \binom{k}{r} | a_{k,r}(t) |
  \]
  where
   \[
    q(k) := \binom{n}{k} (p+p')^k (1-p-p')^{n-k}
  \]
  and
  \[
    a_{k,r}(t)
  :=
      \left(\frac{p}{p+p'}\right)^r
        \left(\frac{p'}{p+p'}\right)^{k-r}
    - \left(\frac{P_{t}(z_1)}{p+p'}\right)^r
        \left(\frac{P_{t}(z_2)}{p + p'}\right)^{k-r}
     \ .
  \]
  Let $a'_{k,r}(0):=\der{a_{k,r}(t)}{t}{0}$.  Because $a_{k,r}(0)=0$,
  we have
  \[
  \der{|a_{k,r}(t)|}{t}{0} = |a'_{k,r}(0)| \ .
  \]
  Moreover, it follows from~\eqref{eq:derpot} that $a'_{k,r}(0) \geq
  0$ if and only if $r \leq {\bar{r}} := \lfloor k \frac{p}{p+p'} \rfloor$.
  We thus conclude
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:completesum}
    \der{\delta(P_{t}^n, P_{0}^n)}{t}{0}
  =
    \sum_{k=0}^{n} q(k)
      \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}} \binom{k}{r}
        a'_{k,r}(0) \ .
  \end{equation}
  Let $\alpha:=\frac{p}{p+p'}$ and $\beta:=\frac{p'}{p+p'}$. The last
  sum in the above expression can then be rewritten as
  \begin{align}
    \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}} \binom{k}{r}
      a'_{k,r}(0)
  & =
    \frac{1}{p+p'} \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}}
    \left[
      \binom{k}{r} (k-r) \alpha^r \beta^{k-r-1}
      - \binom{k}{r} r \alpha^{r-1} \beta^{k-r}
    \right] \nonumber \\
  & =
    \frac{k}{p+p'}
      \left[
        \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}}
          \binom{k-1}{r} \alpha^r \beta^{k-r-1}
        - \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}-1}
          \binom{k-1}{r} \alpha^r \beta^{k-r-1}
      \right] \nonumber \\
  & =
    \frac{k}{p+p'}
    \binom{k-1}{{\bar{r}}} \alpha^{\bar{r}}  \beta^{k-{\bar{r}}-1} \ .  \label{eq:intsum}
  \end{align}
  With the definition ${\tilde{\alpha}}:=\frac{{\bar{r}}+1}{k+1}$,
  ${\tilde{\beta}}:=\frac{(k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1)}{k+1}$, we have
  \begin{align}
    \binom{k-1}{{\bar{r}}} \alpha^{\bar{r}} \beta^{k-{\bar{r}}-1}
  & =
    \binom{k+1}{{\bar{r}}+1} \frac{({\bar{r}}+1) ((k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1))}{k (k+1)}
      \frac{\alpha^{{\bar{r}}+1} \beta^{(k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1)}}{\alpha \beta} \nonumber \\
  & \leq
    \binom{k+1}{{\bar{r}}+1} \frac{({\bar{r}}+1) ((k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1))}{k (k+1)}
      \frac{{\tilde{\alpha}}^{{\bar{r}}+1} {\tilde{\beta}}^{(k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1)}}{\alpha \beta} \nonumber\\
  & \leq
    \sqrt{\frac{1}{2 \pi (k+1) {\tilde{\alpha}} {\tilde{\beta}}}}
    \cdot \frac{({\bar{r}}+1) ((k+1)-({\bar{r}}+1))}{k (k+1)\alpha \beta} \nonumber\\
  & =
    \frac{1}{k} \sqrt{\frac{k+1}{2 \pi \alpha \beta}} \,
      \sqrt{\frac{{\tilde{\alpha}} {\tilde{\beta}}}{\alpha \beta}} \ , \label{eq:intbinombound}
  \end{align}
  where the first inequality follows from~\eqref{eq:maxpot} and the
  second from Lemma~\ref{lem:stirbin}.  Using the definition of ${\bar{r}}$
  and letting $\gamma:=k \alpha - \lfloor k \alpha \rfloor$, the
  expression in the second square root of the last term can be bounded
  by
  \begin{multline}
    \frac{{\tilde{\alpha}} {\tilde{\beta}}}{\alpha \beta}
  =
    \frac{\lfloor k \alpha \rfloor+1}{\alpha (k+1)}
      \cdot \frac{(k+1) - (\lfloor k \alpha \rfloor +1)}{ \beta (k+1)}
  =
    \frac{k \alpha+(1-\gamma)}{\alpha (k+1)}
      \cdot \frac{k \beta + \gamma}{\beta (k+1)} \\
  =
    \frac{k + \frac{1-\gamma}{\alpha}}{k+1}
    \cdot \frac{k + \frac{\gamma}{\beta}}{k+1}
  \leq
    \frac{k+\frac{1}{\min(\alpha, \beta)}}{k+1} \ ,
  \end{multline}
  where the last inequality follows from the fact that
  $\frac{1-\gamma}{\alpha} = \frac{1-\gamma}{1-\beta}$ and
  $\frac{\gamma}{\beta}$ cannot both be larger than one, since $\beta,
  \gamma \in [0,1]$.  Combining this with~\eqref{eq:intbinombound}
  and~\eqref{eq:intsum}, we find
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:partsumone}
    \sum_{r=0}^{{\bar{r}}} \binom{k}{r}
      a'_{k,r}(0)
  =
    \frac{k}{p+p'} \binom{k-1}{{\bar{r}}} \alpha^{\bar{r}} \beta^{k-{\bar{r}}-1}
  \leq
    s(k)
    \ ,
  \end{equation}
  where
  \[
    s(k)
  :=
      \frac{1}{p+p'}
    \sqrt{\frac{k+\frac{1}{\min(\alpha, \beta)}}{2 \pi\alpha \beta}} \ .
  \]
  Alternatively, the left hand side of~\eqref{eq:partsumone} can be
  upper bounded by
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:salt}
    {\tilde{s}}(k)
  :=
    \frac{1}{p+p'} \, \sqrt{\frac{k}{4 \alpha \beta}} \ .
  \end{equation}
  To see this, assume first that $\alpha k \geq 2$ and $\beta k \geq
  2$. Then $\frac{1}{\min(\alpha, \beta)} \leq \frac{k}{2}$ which
  implies
  \[
    s(k)
  \leq
    \frac{1}{p+p'} \sqrt{\frac{\frac{3}{2} k}{2 \pi \alpha \beta}}
  <
    {\tilde{s}}(k) \ .
  \]
  On the other hand, if $\alpha k < 2$ or $\beta k < 2$, the bound
  follows from a straightforward calculation using~\eqref{eq:maxpot}.
  (In this case, ${\bar{r}}$ or $(k-1)-{\bar{r}}$ is either $0$ or $1$, i.e., the
  binomial $\binom{k-1}{{\bar{r}}}$ in~\eqref{eq:partsumone} equals $1$ or
  $k-1$.)

  When~\eqref{eq:completesum} is combined with~\eqref{eq:partsumone},
  we obtain
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:sumcompletebound}
    \der{\delta(P_t^n, P_{0}^n)}{t}{0}
  \leq
    \sum_{k=0}^{n} q(k) s(k) \ .
  \end{equation}
  Note that $s(k)$ is a concave function in $k$ and that $q(k)$ are
  the probabilities of a binomial distribution with mean $n (p+p')$,
  that is, $\sum_{k=0}^n q(k) = 1$ and $\sum_{k=0}^n q(k) k = n
  (p+p')$.  We can thus apply Jensen's inequality to find an upper
  bound for the sum on the right hand side
  of~\eqref{eq:sumcompletebound}, i.e.,
  \[
    \der{\delta(P_t^n, P_0^n)}{t}{0}
  \leq
    \sum_{k=0}^{n} q(k)  s(k)
  \leq
    s\bigl(\sum_{k=0}^{n} q(k) k\bigr)
  =
    s(n (p+p')) \ ,
  \]
  from which the first inequality of the lemma follows.

  Similarly, because ${\tilde{s}}(k)$ is concave in $k$ as well, we have
  \[
    \der{\delta(P_t^n, P_0^n)}{t}{0}
  \leq
    {\tilde{s}}(n  (p+p')) \ ,
  \]
  which implies the second inequality of the lemma.
\end{proof}

We now use the bounds provided by Lemma~\ref{lem:der} to prove our
main result.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:int}]

  We first prove the first inequality of the lemma for the special
  case where the probabilities $P$ and $Q$ only differ for two values
  $z_1$ and $z_2$. Assume (without loss of generality) that
  $P(z_1) \leq Q(z_1)$ and let $p:=P(z_1)$, $p':= P(z_2)$,
  $q:=Q(z_1)$.  For $t \in [p,q]$, let $P_t$ be the distribution
  with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$ given by
\[
  P_t := \frac{q-t}{q-p} P + \frac{t-p}{q-p} Q \ .
\]
i.e., $P_t(z_1) = t$, $P_t(z_2) = p+p'-t$, and $P_t(z) = P(z)
= Q(z)$ for any $z \in {\mathcal{Z}} \backslash \{z_1, z_2\}$. We can
thus apply the first inequality of Lemma~\ref{lem:der} which gives
\[
\begin{split}
  \der{\delta(P_s^n, P_{t}^n)}{s}{t}
& \leq
       \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
    \sqrt{\frac{1}{t} + \frac{1}{p+p'-t}}
    \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{\min(t,p+p'-t)}} \\
& \leq
      \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
    \sqrt{\frac{2}{{\bar{p}}}}
    \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{{\bar{p}}}}   \ .
\end{split}
\]
Using Lemma~\ref{lem:pathint}, we obtain
\[
  \delta(P^n, Q^n) = \delta(P_p^n, P_q^n)
\leq
  \int_{p}^{q}  \der{\delta(P_s^n, P_{t}^n)}{s}{t} {\mathrm{d}} t
\leq
  (q-p) \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
    \sqrt{\frac{2}{{\bar{p}}}}
    \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{{\bar{p}}}} \ .
\]
Since $q-p = \delta(P,Q)$, this concludes the proof of the first
inequality of the lemma for the special case where the probabilities
$P$ and $Q$ differ for at most two values in ${\mathcal{Z}}$.

To prove the general case, we first observe that if the set ${\mathcal{D}}$ is
infinite, then ${\bar{p}}$ equals zero and nothing has to be proven. On the
other hand, if ${\mathcal{D}}$ is finite, it is easy to see that there exists a
sequence $(P_i)_{i=1, \ldots, m}$ (for some $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$) of
distributions with range ${\mathcal{Z}}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $P_1 = P$ and $P_m = Q$,
\item for any $i \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$, the distributions $P_i$ and
  $P_{i+1}$ differ only for two elements in ${\mathcal{D}}$,
\item $\min_{z \in {\mathcal{D}}} P_i(z) \geq {\bar{p}}$, for all $i \in \{1, \ldots,
  m\}$, and
\item $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \delta(P_i, P_{i+1}) = \delta(P_1, P_m)$.
\end{itemize}
The general assertion then follows directly from the special case
proven above and the triangle inequality~\eqref{eq:tri}, i.e.,
\[
\begin{split}
  \delta(P^n, Q^n)
\leq
  \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \delta(P_i^n P_{i+1}^n)
& \leq
  \sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi {\bar{p}}}} \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{{\bar{p}}}}
    \, \delta(P_i, P_{i+1}) \\
& =
  \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi {\bar{p}}}} \, \sqrt{n+\frac{1}{{\bar{p}}}}
    \, \delta(P, Q) \ .
\end{split}
\]

The second inequality follows by exactly the same reasoning based on
the second inequality of Lemma~\ref{lem:der}.
\end{proof}


Butler's Method applied to $\mathbb{Z}_p[C_p\times C_p]$-permutation modules

Abstract: Let $G$ be a finite $p$-group with normal subgroup $N$ of order $p$. The first author and Zalesskii have previously given a characterization of permutation modules for $\mathbb{Z}_pG$ in terms of modules for $G/N$, but the necessity of their conditions was not known. We apply a correspondence due to Butler to demonstrate the necessity of the conditions, by exhibiting highly non-trivial counterexamples to the claim that if both the $N$-invariants and the $N$-coinvariants of a given lattice $U$ are permutation modules, then so is $U$.

\section{Introduction}

Let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring whose residue field has characteristic $p$ ($R$ will almost always be $\Z_p$ or $\mathbb{F}_p$) and let $G$ be a finite $p$-group.  An $RG$-module is a \emph{lattice} if it is free of finite $R$-rank.  An $RG$-lattice is a \emph{permutation module} if it possesses an $R$-basis that is set-wise preserved by multiplication from $G$.  Given an $RG$-module $U$ and a normal subgroup $N$ of $G$, the \emph{$N$-invariants} of $U$, $U^N$, is the largest submodule of $U$ on which $N$ acts trivially, and the \emph{$N$-coinvariants} of $U$, $U_N$, is the largest quotient module of $U$ on which $N$ acts trivially.

\medskip

In \cite{MacquarrieZalesskiiDM}, extending the famous sufficient condition of Weiss \cite[Theorem 2]{WeissAnnals} to a characterization, the first author and Pavel Zalesskii proved the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{DM theorem}
Let $G$ be a finite $p$-group, $U$ a $\Z_pG$-lattice and $N$ a normal subgroup of $G$ of order $p$.  Then $U$ is a permutation module if, and only if
\begin{enumerate}
    \item\label{condition inv and coinv} $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation $\Z_p[G/N]$-modules and
    \item $(U/U^N)_N$ is a permutation $\mathbb{F}_p[G/N]$-module.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Simple examples are given in \cite{MacquarrieZalesskiiDM} showing that we cannot remove the conditions of Part 1.  It was however left open whether Condition 2 is redundant.  That is, whether $U$ is a permutation module if, and only if, both $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules.  We will show here that Condition 2 cannot be removed, by exhibiting examples of lattices $U$ for $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$ ($p$ odd) and for $\Z_2[C_2\times C_2\times C_2]$ for which both $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules, but $U$ is not.  The examples seem to be highly non-trivial

We believe that the methods used to construct these examples are interesting in their own right, utilizing in a new way a wonderful correspondence due to Butler \cite{ButlerKlein4, ButlerAbelian}, wherein he associates to a lattice what he calls a ``diagram''.  For Butler,
the idea was to analyze the \emph{category} of lattices for a given abelian $p$-group, using the correspondence to compare it with a category that is better understood.  The novelty of our approach is to use Butler's correspondence to analyze the structure of a \emph{given} lattice, by analyzing how prescribed properties of the lattice
affect the corresponding diagram.  In particular, we will characterize the diagrams of those $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$-lattices $U$ for which $U$, $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules.  Using these characterizations, we find a diagram whose corresponding lattice $U$ has the properties that both $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules, but $U$ is not.  In the future, we believe that analyses of this type will yield further insights in the study of permutation modules.

\section{Preliminaries}

Notations introduced here will be used throughout our discussion.  In what follows, $G$ is always a finite abelian $p$-group and $N$

is a subgroup of $G$ of order $p$.

Given a $\Z_pG$-lattice $U$, the $\Z_p[G/N]$-modules of $N$-invariants $U^N$ and $N$-coinvariants $U_N$ are, respectively, the largest submodule and the largest quotient module of $U$ on which $N$ acts trivially.  Explicitly
\begin{align*}
    U^N & = \{u\in U\,|\, nu = u\,\,\forall n\in N\} \\
    U_N & = U/I_NU
\end{align*}
where $I_N$, the augmentation ideal of $\Z_pN$, is the ideal generated by the kernel of the map $\Z_pN\to \Z_p$ sending $\sum_{n\in N} \lambda_nn$ to $\sum \lambda_n$.

By \cite[Theorem 2.6]{HellerReinerAnnals} there are three isomorphism classes of indecomposable $\Z_pN$-lattice, being the trivial module $\Z_p$, the free module $\Z_pN$ and a non-permutation module $S$ of $\Z_p$-rank $p-1$, which can be described in either of the following equivalent ways:
$$S = I_N = \Z_pN/(\Z_pN)^N.$$

\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 8]{MacquarrieZalesskiiDM}}]\label{lemma UresN perm iff N coinv lattice}
Let $H$ be a cyclic group of order $p$ and $U$ a $\Z_pH$-lattice.  Then $U_H$ is a lattice if, and only if, $U$ is a permutation module.
\end{lemma}

If ever $H$ is a subgroup of $G$, we use the symbol $\widehat{H}$ to denote the element $\sum_{h\in H}h$ in $\Z_pG$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma multiply sums formulas}
Let $G = C_p\times C_p$ and $H,K$ subgroups of $G$.  In $\Z_pG$ we have $\widehat{H}\cdot \widehat{K} = |H\cap K|\cdot\widehat{HK}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This follows by direct calculations.

\end{proof}

\section{Butler's Correspondence for $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$}

We describe the parts we require from \cite{ButlerAbelian} for the special case of $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$, which is what we require to construct examples for $p$ odd.  The case of $p=2$ must be treated separately, but the methods are similar and we only present the example, in Section \ref{section p equals 2 case}.

In what follows, $G = C_p\times C_p = N\times C$
.  We denote as usual by $\Q_p, \mathbb{F}_p$ the field of fractions and the residue field of the $p$-adic integers $\Z_p$, respectively.  The group algebra $\Q_pG = \Q_p\otimes_{\Z_p}\Z_pG$ has a decomposition
$$\Q_pG = e_0\Q_pG \times \prod_{\substack{H\leqslant G \\ |H|=p}} {e_{H}\Q_pG},$$
where the $e_i$ are the $p+2$ primitive orthogonal idempotents of $\Q_pG$, given as
$$e_0 = \frac{1}{p^2}\widehat{G}\,,\quad e_H = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{H} - \widehat{G}).$$
Denote by $I$ the indexing set $\{0, H_1, \hdots, H_{p+1}\}$ of the primitive idempotents, where the $H_i$ are the subgroups of $G$ of order $p$.
For each $i\in I$ we denote by $\Lambda_{(i)}$ both the $\Z_pG$-algebra $e_i\Z_pG$ and the free $e_i\Z_pG$-module of rank 1\footnote{we write $\Lambda_{(i)}$ rather than $\Lambda_i$  to avoid confusion with coinvariants.}.  Recall that $\Z_pG$ is a local algebra, with maximal ideal $I_G + p{\Z_pG}$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma LambdaH facts}
Let $H, K$ be distinct subgroups of order $p$.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item
    $\widehat{H}\cdot e_K = 0$,
    \item $\Lambda_{(K)}$ has no non-zero $H$-fixed points,
    \item $J(\Lambda_{(K)}) = I_H\Lambda_{(K)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item By Lemma \ref{lemma multiply sums formulas},
    $$\widehat{H}\cdot e_K = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{H}\widehat{K} - \widehat{H}\widehat{G}) = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{G} - p\widehat{G}) = 0.$$
    \item $\widehat{H}$ acts as multiplication by $p$ on a fixed point of $\Lambda_{(K)}$, and so ${\Lambda_{(K)}}^H=0$ by Part 1.

    \item $p\Lambda_{(K)}\subseteq I_H\Lambda_{(K)}$ because by Part 1
    $$pe_K = pe_K - \widehat{H}e_K = \sum_{h\in H}(1-h)e_K\in I_H\Lambda_{(K)}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{defn}
The $\Z_pG$-lattice $U$ is \emph{reduced} if it has neither free direct summands nor summands isomorphic to any $\Lambda_i$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}[{\cite[\S 2.2]{ButlerAbelian}}]
A \emph{diagram} for $C_p\times C_p$ is a $(p+3)$-tuple $V_* = (V; V_{(i)}\,,\, i\in I)$, where
\begin{itemize}
    \item $V$ is a finitely generated $\mathbb{F}_p[C_p\times C_p]$-module,
    \item the $V_{(i)}$ are $\mathbb{F}_p[C_p\times C_p]$-submodules of $V$, \item for each $j\in I$ we have $\sum_{i\neq j}V_{(i)} = V$,
    \item for each $i\in I$, the induced action of $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$ on $V_{(i)}$ factors through the canonical surjection $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]\to \Lambda_{(i)}$ sending $1$ to $e_i$.
\end{itemize}
A \emph{map of diagrams} $V_*\to V'_*$ is an $\mathbb{F}_p[C_p\times C_p]$-module homomorphism $\rho:V\to V'$ such that $\rho(V_{(i)})\subseteq V'_{(i)}$ for each $i\in I$.
\end{defn}

We make explicit how one obtains a diagram from a reduced lattice, and vice-versa, fixing as we do some notation that will remain in force throughout the rest of the article.  As we follow Butler's arguments in \cite{ButlerAbelian}, simply specialising to the case of $\Z_p[C_p\times C_p]$ (which simplifies things slightly), we don't give any justifications.

\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Getting a diagram from a reduced lattice:} Let $U$ be a reduced lattice.  We regard $U$ as the sublattice $1\otimes U$ of the $\Q_pG$-module $\Q_pU = \Q_p\otimes_{\Z_p}U$.  Defining for each $i\in I$ the submodule $U_{(i)} := e_iU$ of $\Q_pU$, the sum
$$U_* := \sum_{i\in I} U_{(i)}$$
is direct, and since $U$ is reduced we have
$$pU_*\subsetneq U\subsetneq U_*.$$
Defining
$$V = U_*/U\,,\quad V_{(i)} = (U_{(i)} + U)/U,$$
the tuple $V_* = (V ; V_{(i)}\,,\, i\in I)$ is the diagram corresponding to $U$.

\item \textbf{Getting a reduced lattice from a diagram:} Let $V_* = (V ; V_{(i)}\,,\, i\in I)$ be a diagram.  For each $i\in I$, let $F_{(i)}$ be the direct sum of $\textnormal{dim}_{\mathbb{F}_p}(V_{(i)}/\textnormal{Rad}(V_{(i)}))$ copies of $\Lambda_{(i)}$ and denote by $F$ the direct sum $\bigoplus_{i\in I}F_{(i)}$.  For each $i$ let $f_{i} : F_{(i)}\to V_{(i)}$ be a surjective homomorphism of $\Lambda_{(i)}$-modules inducing an isomorphism $F_{(i)}/\textnormal{Rad}(F_{(i)})\to V_{(i)}/\textnormal{Rad}(V_{(i)})$.  We thus obtain for each $i$ a map $F_{(i)}\xrightarrow{f_{i}}V_{(i)}\hookrightarrow V$ and hence by summing these maps, a map $f : F\to V$.  The reduced lattice corresponding to $V_*$ is $\textnormal{Ker}(f)$.
\end{itemize}

These processes are mutually inverse in the sense that if $U'$ is the reduced lattice obtained from the diagram of $U$, then $U'\cong U$ as $\Z_pG$-lattices, and if $V'_*$ is the diagram coming from the reduced lattice associated to $V_*$, then $V'_*\cong V_*$.

\medskip

It follows that given a reduced lattice $U$, we may associate a unique (up to isomorphism) diagram $V_*$ and from this, the modules $F_{(i)}, F$, with $U$ being considered as a submodule of $F$.  We will use these notations freely in what follows.

\section{Characterizations using diagrams}

Throughout this section, $U$ is a reduced $\Z_pG$-lattice with diagram $V_* = (V; V_{(i)}\,,\,i\in I)$ and $F_{(i)}, F$ are the corresponding modules defined in the previous section.  Given an element $x\in F$, we denote by $\overline{x}$ its image in $V$.  Throughout, the letters $H,K$ will always refer to subgroups of order $p$.  If an element of $\bigoplus F_{(i)}$ is written like $x = \sum_{H\neq N}x_H$, this should be taken to mean that $x\in \bigoplus_{\substack{H\leqslant G \\ |H|=p\\H\neq N}} F_{(H)}$ with each $x_H\in F_{(H)}$, and similarly in $V$.

\begin{theorem}\label{prop U perm char}
The reduced lattice $U$ is a permutation module if, and only if,
$G$ acts trivially on each $V_{(i)}$ and $V = V_{(0)} = \bigoplus_{\substack{H\leqslant G \\ |H|=p}}V_{(H)}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
A direct calculation shows that the reduced permutation lattice $\Z_p[G/H] = \langle u\rangle$ has diagram
$$(\mathbb{F}_p; \mathbb{F}_p, 0, \hdots, 0, \mathbb{F}_p, 0, \hdots, 0)$$
where the last non-zero entry occurs in the position indexed by $H$: taking $K$ to be any subgroup of order $p$ different from $H$ we have by Lemma \ref{lemma multiply sums formulas}:
\begin{align*}
    e_0\cdot u & = \frac{1}{p^2}\widehat{G}u = \frac{1}{p^2}\widehat{K}\widehat{H}u = \frac{1}{p}\widehat{K}u \\
    e_H\cdot u & = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{H} - \widehat{K}\widehat{H})u = \frac{1}{p}(p\widehat{1} - \widehat{K})u \\
    e_K\cdot u & = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{K} - \widehat{H}\widehat{K})u = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{1} - \widehat{H})\widehat{K}u = \frac{1}{p^2}(p\widehat{1} - p\widehat{1})\widehat{K}u = 0.
\end{align*}
Since $e_0\cdot u + e_H\cdot u = u\in U$, $U_*/U$ has dimension 1 and the claim follows.  A reduced permutation module is a direct sum of modules $\Z_p[G/H]$ for different $H$ of order $p$, and the diagram of a direct sum is the direct sum of the diagrams.  The result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma properties of invariants}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $U^N = U\cap (F_{(0)} + F_{(N)})$
    \item For any subgroup $H\neq N$ of order $p$ we have $I_HU^N\subseteq U\cap F_{(N)}$, with equality if, and only if, $U^N$ is a permutation module.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $N$ acts trivially on $F_{(0)}, F_{(N)}$, while $F_{(H)}$ has no $N$-fixed points for $H\neq N$ by Lemma \ref{lemma LambdaH facts}.  Part 1 now follows because $F$ is the direct sum of the $F_{(i)}$.

    \item The inclusion follows from Part 1 because $I_HF_{(0)} = 0$.  For any $u\in U\cap F_{(N)}$ we have $\widehat{H}u = \widehat{H}e_Nu = 0$ by Lemma \ref{lemma LambdaH facts} and so
    $$pu = pu - \widehat{H}u = \sum_{h\in H}(1-h)u\in I_HU^N.$$
    If $U^N$ is a permutation module, then $U^N/I_HU^N$ is a lattice by Lemma \ref{lemma UresN perm iff N coinv lattice} and so $u\in I_HU^N$.  On the other hand, if $I_HU^N = U\cap F_{(N)}$ then
    $$U^N/I_HU^N = U^N/(U^N\cap F_{(N)}),$$
    which is a lattice since $F_{(N)}$ is a summand of $F$, and so $U^N$ is a permutation module by Lemma \ref{lemma UresN perm iff N coinv lattice} again.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{prop invariants perm char}
The lattice $U^N$ is a permutation module if, and only if, ${V_{(N)}}^G\subseteq V_{(0)}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $U^N$ is a permutation module and fix $\overline{x}\in {V_{(N)}}^G$, with lift $x\in F_N$.  Since $(1-c)\overline{x} = 0$, we have $(1-c)x\in U\cap F_{(N)}$.  But by Lemma \ref{lemma properties of invariants}, $U\cap F_{(N)} = I_CU^N$ so by Part 1 of Lemma \ref{lemma properties of invariants} there are $x_0\in F_{(0)}, x_N\in F_{(N)}$ with $x_0+x_N\in U$ and $(1-c)x = (1-c)(x_0 + x_N) = (1-c)x_N$.  As $(1-c)(x-x_N)=0$ and $F_{(N)}$ has no non-zero $C$-fixed points, $x=x_N$, so that $x_0 + x \in U$.  Hence  $\overline{x} = - \overline{x_0}\in V_{(0)}$, as required.

Suppose now that ${V_{(N)}}^G\subseteq V_{(0)}$.  To conclude that $U^N$ is a permutation module, it is enough to check that $U\cap F_{(N)}\subseteq I_CU^N$, by Lemma \ref{lemma properties of invariants}.  So fix $y\in U\cap F_{(N)}$.  Since $U$ is reduced, $y\in \textnormal{Rad}(F_{(N)}) = I_CF_{(N)}$, by Lemma \ref{lemma LambdaH facts}, so we may write $y = (1-c)x$ with $x\in F_{(N)}$.  Since $(1-c)\overline{x} = 0$, $\overline{x}\in {V_{(N)}}^G$, so in $V_{(0)}$ by hypothesis.  Thus there is $x_0\in F_{(0)}$ with $\overline{x_0} = \overline{x}$, hence $x - x_0\in U^N$ and so $y = (1-c)(x-x_0)\in I_CU^N$ as required.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma UN lattice upstairs char}
We have
$$I_NU\subseteq U \cap \Big(\bigoplus_{H\neq N}F_{(H)}\Big)$$
with equality if, and only if, $U_N$ is a lattice.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The inclusion is clear because $(1-n)(F_{(0)} + F_{(N)}) = 0$.  Suppose that $U_N$ is a lattice and take $x$ in the right hand set.  Since $\widehat{N}x = 0$ by Lemma \ref{lemma LambdaH facts}, $px = \sum_{n\in N} (1-n)x\in I_NU$ and hence $x\in I_NU$ since $U_N$ is a lattice.  On the other hand, the right hand set is a pure submodule of $U$ because $\bigoplus_{H\neq N}F_{(H)}$ is a summand of $F$, and hence if this set is equal to $I_NU$ then $U_N$ is a lattice.
\end{proof}

We need a technical lemma:

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma technical exists map}
Fix $a\in I$ and $B\subseteq I\backslash\{a\}$.  The homomorphism
\begin{align*}
    \varphi : U\cap \bigoplus_{i\in B\cup\{a\}}F_{(i)} & \to V_{(a)}\cap \sum_{i\in B}V_{(i)} \\
    \sum x_i \quad& \mapsto \quad \overline{x_a}
\end{align*}
is well-defined and surjective.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The element $\overline{x_a}$ is in $V_{(a)}\cap \sum_{i\in B}V_{(i)}$ because $\sum x_i\in U$, and hence $\overline{x_a} = -\sum_{i\in B}\overline{x_i}$.  Given $v\in V_{(a)}\cap \sum_{i\in B}V_{(i)}$, write $v = -\sum_{i\in B}v_i$ and lift $v$ to $x_a$ in $F_{(a)}$ and each $v_i$ to $x_i$ in $F_{(i)}$.  The element $\sum_{i\in B\cup\{a\}}x_i\in U\cap \bigoplus_{i\in B\cup\{a\}}F_{(i)}$ and maps to $v$ by $\varphi$.
\end{proof}

Recall that by Lemma \ref{lemma UresN perm iff N coinv lattice}, $U_N$ is a lattice if, and only if, the restriction $U\res{N}$ of $U$ to $N$ is a permutation module.  Thus the following theorem is also a characterization of those reduced $U$ for which $U\res{N}$ is a permutation module.

\begin{theorem}\label{prop coinvariants lattice char}
The module $U_N$ is a lattice if, and only if
\begin{enumerate}
    \item For each $H\neq N$ of order $p$, $V_{(H)}\cap (\sum_{K\neq N,H}V_{(K)})\subseteq I_NV_{(H)}$, and
    \item $V^N\subseteq V_{(0)} + V_{(N)}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $U_N$ is a lattice.  We check the first condition, so fix an element $v\in V_{(H)}\cap (\sum_{K\neq N,H}V_{(K)})$.  By Lemma \ref{lemma technical exists map} there is $u = \sum_{K\neq N}u_K \in U\cap \bigoplus_{K\neq N}F_{(K)}$ such that $\overline{u_H} = v$.  By Lemma \ref{lemma UN lattice upstairs char}, there is  $u' = \sum_{i\in I}u'_i\in U$ such that $u=(1-n)u' = \sum (1-n)u'_i$.  As the sum of the $F_{(i)}$ is direct, we have $u_H = (1-n)u_H'$ and hence
$$v = \overline{u_H} = (1-n)\overline{u_H'}\in I_NV_{(H)}.$$
To show the second condition, it is enough to confirm that $(\sum_{H\neq N}V_{(H)})^N\subseteq V_{(0)} + V_{(N)}$ so fix $v = \sum_{H\neq N}\overline{x_H}\in V^N$ and a lift $\sum_{H\neq N}x_H$ of $v$.  Then $(1-n)\sum_{H\neq N}x_H\in U\cap \bigoplus_{H\neq N}F_{(H)}$, which is $I_NU$ by Lemma \ref{lemma UN lattice upstairs char} and so
$$(1-n)\sum_{H\neq N}x_H = (1-n)\sum_{i\in I}y_i$$
with $\sum y_i\in U$.  As $F_{(H)}$ has no non-zero $N$-fixed points, $x_H = y_H$ for each $H\neq N$.  Hence
$$ V_{(0)} + V_{(N)}\ni -(\overline{y_0} + \overline{y_N}) = \sum_{H\neq N}\overline{y_H} = \sum_{H\neq N}\overline{x_H} = v.$$

Suppose conversely that Conditions $1$ and $2$ hold for $U$.  We will check the conditions of Lemma \ref{lemma UN lattice upstairs char}.  Given $u = \sum x_H\in U\cap \bigoplus_{H\neq N}F_{(H)}$, Lemma \ref{lemma technical exists map} and Condition 1 imply that $\overline{x_H}\in I_NV_{(H)} = \textnormal{Rad}(V_{(H)})$ for each $H\neq N$ and hence, since $F_{(H)}/\textnormal{Rad}(F_{(H)})\to V_{(H)}/\textnormal{Rad}(V_{(H)})$ is an isomorphism, $x_H\in \textnormal{Rad}(F_{(H)}) = I_NF_{(H)}$.  For each $H\neq N$, write $x_H = (1-n)y_H$ for some $y_H\in F_{(H)}$. Then $(1-n)\sum_{H\neq N}\overline{y_H} = 0$ so that $\sum_{H\neq N}\overline{y_H}\in V^N$ and hence
$$\sum_{H\neq N}\overline{y_H} = -\overline{y_0} - \overline{y_N}\in V_{(0)}+V_{(N)}$$
for some $y_0\in F_{(0)}$ and $y_N\in F_{(N)}$, by Condition 2.  Thus $y = \sum_{i\in I}y_i\in U$ and $$I_NU \ni (1-n)y = \sum_{H\neq N}x_H = u.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma UN perm upstairs char}
Let $U$ be a reduced lattice such that $U_N$ is a lattice.  Then
$$I_GU\subseteq U \cap \Big(\bigoplus_{H}F_{(H)}\Big)$$
with equality if, and only if, $U_N$ is a permutation module.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The inclusion is clear because $(1-g)F_{(0)}=0$ for every $g\in G$.  Since $U_N$ is a lattice, Lemma \ref{lemma UresN perm iff N coinv lattice} says that $(U_N)_C = U/I_GU$ is a lattice if, and only if, $U_N$ is a permutation module.  Suppose that $U_N$ is a permutation module and fix $u = \sum_{H}x_H\in U \cap \bigoplus_{H}F_{(H)}$.  By Lemma \ref{lemma multiply sums formulas}, $(p\cdot 1 - \widehat{K})u = \sum_{H\neq K}px_H\in I_GU$, and hence, summing over the subgroups of order $p$ we get that $\sum_H p^px_H = p^pu\in I_GU$, and hence $u\in I_GU$ since $U/I_GU$ is a lattice.  On the other hand, the right hand submodule is pure in $U$ because $\bigoplus_H F_{(H)}$ is a summand of $F$, so if the sets are equal then $I_GU$ is pure in $U$ and $U_N$ is a permutation module.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Lemma \ref{lemma UN perm upstairs char} is false without the condition that $U_N$ be a lattice:  the given equality applies for the $\Z_2[C_2\times C_2]$-lattice $U$ whose diagram has $V = \mathbb{F}_2\oplus \mathbb{F}_2, V_{(0)} = \langle (1,1)\rangle, V_{(N)} = 0, V_{(C)} = \langle(1,0)\rangle$ and $V_{(\langle nc\rangle)} = \langle(0,1)\rangle$.  Here $U_N$ is not a lattice.

\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{prop coinvariants perm char}
Let $U$ be a reduced lattice such that $U_N$ is a lattice.  Then $U_N$ is a permutation module if, and only if
$V_{(H)} \cap \sum_{K\neq H}V_{(K)}\subseteq I_GV_{(H)}$ for every subgroup $H$ of order $p$.

\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $U_N$ is a permutation module.  Given an element $\overline{x_H} = \sum_{K\neq H}\overline{x_K}$ in $V_{(H)} \cap \sum_{K\neq H}V_{(K)}$,
then $x_H - \sum_{K\neq H}x_K \in U \cap \Big(\bigoplus_{H}F_{(H)}\Big)$, hence in $I_GU\subseteq I_GF$ by Lemma \ref{lemma UN perm upstairs char}.  Thus $x_H\in I_GF_{(H)}$ and hence $\overline{x_H}\in I_GV_{(H)}$.

\medskip

Suppose now that $V_{(H)} \cap \sum_{K\neq H}V_{(K)}\subseteq I_GV_{(H)}$ for every $H$.  By Lemma \ref{lemma UN perm upstairs char}, to prove that $U_N$ is a permutation module, it is enough to consider an element $u\in U\cap \bigoplus_K F_{(K)}$ and check that it is in $I_GU$.  The given inclusion implies that $U\cap (\bigoplus_{K}F_{(K)})\subseteq I_G(\bigoplus_{K}F_{(K)})$, so we can write
$$u = (1-c)y_N - (1-n)\sum_{K\neq N}y_K,
$$
so that $(1-c)\overline{y_N} = (1-n)\sum_{K\neq N}\overline{y_K}$.  But by the definition of a diagram, we have $V = V_{(0)} + \sum_{K\neq N}V_{(K)}$ and so we can write $\overline{y_N} = \overline{x_0} + \overline{x_C} + \sum_{K\neq N,C}\overline{x_K}$, and hence
$$(1-c)\overline{y_N} = (1-c)\sum_{K\neq N,C}\overline{x_K}.$$
Thus the element $w := (1-c)y_N - (1-c)\sum_{K\neq N,C}x_K$ is in $U$, and indeed in $I_CU$ because $y_N - \sum_{K\neq N,C}x_K - x_0 - x_C\in U$ and
$$w = (1-c)(y_N - x_0 - x_C -  \sum_{K\neq N,C}x_K).$$
On the other hand, since
$$(1-n)\sum_{K\neq N}\overline{y_K} = (1-c)\overline{y_N} = (1-c)\sum_{K\neq N,C}\overline{x_K},$$
the element $w' := (1-n)\sum_{K\neq N}y_K - (1-c)\sum_{K\neq N,C}x_K \in U\cap \bigoplus_{K\neq N}F_{(K)}$, so $w'\in I_NU$ by Lemma \ref{lemma UN lattice upstairs char} since $U_N$ is a lattice.  It follows that $u = w-w'\in I_CU + I_NU = I_GU$, as required.
\end{proof}

\section{Examples for $C_p\times C_p$}

If $p=2$, it follows from Theorem \ref{DM theorem} that a $\Z_2[C_2\times C_2]$-lattice $U$ is a permutation module if, and only if, both $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules, because every $\mathbb{F}_2[G/N]$-module is a permutation module so that Condition 2 is automatically satisfied.  But this is not the case for odd primes.  Here we present a counterexample for each odd prime $p$, using the results from the previous section.

\begin{example}
Fix an odd prime $p$ and let $G = C_p\times C_p = \langle n\rangle\times \langle c\rangle$.  We construct a diagram for $\Z_pG$.  Let $V$ be the $\mathbb{F}_p[C_p\times C_p]$-module with $\mathbb{F}_p$-basis $v_1, \hdots, v_{p+2}$ and action from $G$ given as follows:
$$n\cdot v_1 = v_1, \quad n\cdot v_2 = v_2, \quad n\cdot v_j = v_1 + v_j\quad\forall j\geqslant 3,$$
$$c\cdot v_1 = v_1, \quad c\cdot v_2 = v_1 + v_2, \quad c\cdot v_3 = v_3,\quad c\cdot v_j = -k_jv_1 + v_j\quad\forall j\geqslant 4,$$
where $k_j\in \{1, \hdots, p-1\}$ is such that $(j-3)k_j = 1$ modulo $p$.  The submodules $V_{(i)}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
    V_{(0)} & = \langle v_1,\, v_2 - v_3 + v_4,\, (k_{j+1}-k_j)v_2 - v_j + v_{j+1}\hbox{ for } 4\leqslant j\leqslant p+1\rangle,\\
    V_{(N)} & = \langle v_1, v_2\rangle,\\
    V_{(C)} & = \langle v_1, v_3\rangle,\\
    V_{(\langle nc^a\rangle)} & = \langle v_1, v_{a+3}\rangle, \qquad a\in \{1,\hdots,p-1\}
\end{align*}
The tuple $(V ; V_{(i)}\,,\, i\in I)$ is a diagram,
with corresponding reduced lattice $U$.  Then
\begin{itemize}
    \item $U^N$ is a permutation module by Theorem \ref{prop invariants perm char}, because ${V_{(N)}}^G = \langle v_1\rangle \subseteq V_{(0)}$.

    \item $U_N$ is a lattice by Theorem \ref{prop coinvariants lattice char}: the first condition is satisfied because $V_{(H)}\cap \sum_{K\neq N,H}V_{(K)} = \langle v_1\rangle$ and $v_1 = (n-1)v_j$ for any $j\geqslant 3$.  The second condition is satisfied because the element $\sum_{j=1}^{p+2}\lambda_jv_j\in V^N$ if, and only if, $p\mid \sum_{j=3}^{p+2}\lambda_j$, and hence $V^N$ is generated by $v_1, v_2$ and the elements $v_j - v_{j+1}$ for $j\in \{3, \hdots, p+1\}$, which are in $V_{(0)} + V_{(N)}$.

    \item $U_N$ is a permutation module by Theorem \ref{prop coinvariants perm char}: $V_{(H)}\cap \sum_{K\neq H}V_{(K)} = \langle v_1\rangle$ which is in $I_NV_{(H)}$ if $H\neq N$ and, since $v_1 = (c-1)v_2$, is in $I_CV_{(H)}$ if $H = N$.

    \item But $U$ is not a permutation module by Theorem \ref{prop U perm char}, since $G$ does not act trivially on $V$.
\end{itemize}
The lattice $U$ has $\Z_p$-rank $p^2 + p - 1$.  In the smallest case, when $p=3$, it has $\Z_3$-rank $11$ and with respect to some $\Z_3$-basis of $U$, the matrices of the actions of $n$ and $c$ respectively, are
$$\begin{psmallmatrix}
1 & 0 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -3 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -3 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{psmallmatrix}\hbox{ and }\begin{psmallmatrix}
1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{psmallmatrix}.
$$
\end{example}

\section{Example for $C_2\times C_2\times C_2$}\label{section p equals 2 case}

A similar application of Butler's Correspondence to the group $G = C_2\times C_2\times C_2 = \langle n\rangle \times \langle b\rangle\times \langle c\rangle$ yields the following lattice $U$ for which $U^N$ and $U_N$ are permutation modules, but $U$ is not.  The matrices of $n,b,c$ respectively, are:
$$\begin{psmallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{psmallmatrix}\,,\,\begin{psmallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{psmallmatrix}\,,\,\begin{psmallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1
\end{psmallmatrix}.$$

\bibliographystyle{alpha}


Two-vertex generators of Jacobians of graphs

Abstract: We give necessary and sufficient conditions under which the Jacobian of a graph is generated by a divisor that is the difference of two vertices. This answers a question posed by Becker and Glass and allows us to prove various other propositions about the order of divisors that are the difference of two vertices. We conclude with some conjectures about these divisors on random graphs and support them with empirical evidence.

\section{Introduction}

Given a finite, undirected, connected multigraph $ G$ without loops, a \textit{divisor} is an assignment of integer values to the vertices. The \textit{degree} of a divisor is the sum of these values. The \textit{Jacobian} of $ G$, denoted $ \text{Jac}(G)$, is a finite abelian group defined as the quotient of the degree zero divisors by an equivalence relation determined by chip-firing on the graph (see Section~\ref{sec:chipfiring}). The Jacobian is often cyclic, and recent work of several authors \cite{CLP14, CKLPW14, W14} considers the likelihood that a random graph has cyclic Jacobian. It has been conjectured in \cite{CKLPW14} based on a Cohen-Lenstra heuristic and empirical evidence that the probability of cyclic Jacobian in an Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph goes to $ \prod_{i=1}^\infty \zeta(2i +1 )^{-1} \approx .79$ as the number of vertices goes to infinity. Indeed, Wood in \cite{W14} proved this to be an upper bound, but no nontrivial lower bound on this probability is known.

The central object of study in this paper is the divisor $ \delta_{xy}$ which is -1 at vertex $ x$, 1 at vertex $ y$, and 0 elsewhere. Since the collection of all $\delta_{xy}$ together generate the whole Jacobian, $\delta_{xy}$ presents an ideal candidate for a generator of $\text{Jac}(G)$.
In \cite[5.1]{Lor1}, Lorenzini constructs a graph $G_1$ by removing an edge $(x,y)$ from $G$ and proves that the condition $\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|, |\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = 1$ implies that the Jacobians of $G$ and $G_1$ are both cyclic. Lorenzini's proof does not establish explicit generators for these Jacobians, however. More recently, Becker and Glass \cite[Open~Question~2.8]{BnG} ask whether $\delta_{xy}$ generates $\text{Jac}(G)$ under the same assumption that $\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|, |\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = 1$.

In this paper we resolve the question of \cite{BnG} with an affirmative answer, provide a stronger result, and also prove its converse. The approach we take allows us to treat the cases of adding and removing an edge between $x$ and $y$ similarly. Our work strengthens the original theorem of Lorenzini \cite[5.1]{Lor1} and the question of Becker-Glass in two ways: 1) we consider the gcd of $|\text{Jac}(G)|$ and $|\text{Jac}(G_1)|$ in general rather than only in the relatively prime case, and 2) we show that $\delta_{xy}$ is an explicit generator of the Jacobian under certain conditions.

\begin{theorem}\label{maintheorem}
Fix vertices $ x,y $ in $ G$. Let $ G_1 $ be $ G $ with an edge added or
removed between $ x $ and $ y$. Then
\begin{align*}
[\text{Jac}(G): \langle\delta_{xy} \rangle] \ \big|\ \gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|, |\text{Jac}(G_1)|)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|, |\text{Jac}(G_1)|) \ \big|\ [\text{Jac}(G): \langle\delta_{xy} \rangle]^2.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\noindent For more general and precise statements of this theorem, see Theorems~\ref{T:GOQ2.8} and \ref{GCOQ}. Theorem~\ref{maintheorem} implies the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}\label{ifftheorem}
The divisor $\delta_{xy}$ is a generator of $ \text{Jac}(G) $ if and only if\begin{align*}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|, |\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = 1,
\end{align*} where $ G_1$ is the graph $ G$ with an edge added or removed between $ x $ and $ y $.
\end{corollary}

These results relate the order of $ \delta_{xy} $ to deleting and inserting edges in $ G$. Our main theorem is proven in Section~\ref{sec:maintheorem}. In Section~\ref{sec:contractions} we show that similar results hold under edge contraction. In Section~\ref{sec:bounding} we move on to considering lower bounds on the order of $ \delta_{xy}$. Finally, with the hope of eventually extending statements about $ \delta_{xy}$ to random graphs we provide some conjectures and empirical evidence in Section~\ref{sec:random} relating to the probability that some $ \delta_{xy} $ generates the Jacobian.

\subsection{Acknowledgments}
This project was completed as part of the 2017 Summer Undergraduate Mathematics Research at Yale (SUMRY) program, where the third and fifth authors were supported as mentors and the first, fourth, sixth, and seventh authors were supported as participants. We thank everyone in the program for fostering a productive research environment. We benefited from conversations with  Darren Glass, Dave Jensen, and Dhruv Ranganathan. We thank Sam Payne for suggesting the problem.

\section{Background}
\subsection{Chip-firing and the Jacobian of graphs}\label{sec:chipfiring}

Unless specified otherwise, throughout this paper we will assume that any graph $G$ is a connected, undirected multigraph without loops. Let $V(G)$ and $E(G)$ denote the vertex and edge sets of $G$ respectively, and let $n = |V(G)|$ be the number of vertices. For a vertex $v\in V(G)$, let $\Val(v)$ denote the valency of $v$ --- i.e. the number of edges incident to $v$.

Following \cite{baknor}, a \emph{divisor} $D \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ on $G$ is a formal $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination of the vertices of $G$. Divisors are often interpreted as assignments of an integer number of ``chips'' to each of the vertices of $G$. The \emph{degree} of a divisor $\Deg(D) = \sum_{v \in V(G)}D(v)$ is the divisor's total number of chips. $\Div(G)$ denotes the group of all divisors on $G$, and $\Div^0(G)$ denotes the subgroup of divisors with degree zero.

There is an equivalence relation on the elements of $\Div(G)$ based on the well-known \emph{chip-firing game}, which is defined as follows. Given any divisor $D \in \Div(G)$, let $K_{v,w}$ denote the number of edges between two vertices $v,w \in V(G)$. We can \emph{fire} a vertex $v$ by sending one chip from $v$ along each of its incident edges to adjacent vertices. This operation produces a new divisor $D'$, given by:
\[
	D'(w) =
    \begin{cases}
    	D(v) - \Val(v) &\text{if }  w=v \\
        D(w) + K_{v,w} &\text{if w is adjacent to v} \\
        D(w)  &\text{otherwise}.
    \end{cases}
\]
Note that any chip-firing move at a given vertex can be reversed by firing at all of the other vertices. We define a \emph{firing script} to be a vector $\sigma \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ whose entries specify the number of times each vertex in $G$ should be fired. We say that two divisors $D_1$ and $D_2$ are \emph{equivalent} if there exists a firing script taking one to the other. We denote this relation by $\sim$. Note that the degree of a divisor is invariant under chip-firing. The set of \emph{principal divisors} $\Prin(G)$ is the set of divisors equivalent to the divisor with zero chips on every vertex, which we will call the \emph{zero divisor}.

The \emph{Jacobian} $\text{Jac}(G) := \Div^0(G)/\Prin(G)$ is the group of equivalence classes of divisors on $G$ with degree zero. The Jacobian is sometimes also referred to as the \emph{sandpile group} or the \emph{critical group}. If $D \in \Div^0(G)$, we denote the equivalence class containing $D$ by $[D]$. $\text{Jac}(G)$ is always finite for a connected graph, and its order is equal to the number of spanning trees on $G$ by the matrix-tree theorem (see \cite{baknor}, or \cite{CorPerk}).

The Jacobian of a graph is equal to the torsion subgroup of the cokernel of the graph's \emph{Laplacian}, which is an $n \times n$ integer matrix denoted by $L$ and defined as follows. Let $\Delta$ be the diagonal matrix with $(i,i)$--entry equal to $\Val(v_i)$, and let $A$ be the adjacency matrix of $G$. Then $L = \Delta - A$. $L$ gives a map from the the space of firing scripts to the space of principal divisors: if $\sigma$ is a firing script, then $L\sigma$ is the principal divisor obtained by applying $\sigma$ to the zero divisor (again, see \cite{baknor} or \cite{CorPerk}).

For a given choice of $i \in \{ 1,...,n\}$ the \emph{reduced Laplacian} $\tilde{L}$ is $L$ with the $i$th row and $i$th column removed. $\tilde{L}$ is invertible if $G$ is connected, regardless of the choice of $i$, and furthermore we have $\det(\tilde{L}) = |\text{Jac}(G)|$.

In similar fashion, if $D \in \Div^0(G) \subset \mathbb{Z}^n$ then we define the \emph{reduced divisor} $\tilde{D} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ to be $D$ with the $i$th entry deleted. If $D \in \Div^0(G)$, then $D$ is uniquely specified by $n-1$ of its entries, since the final entry must be the negative sum of the other $n-1$ entries.

Likewise, since the all-ones vector generates the kernel of $L$, for any firing script $\sigma$ there is a unique firing script $\sigma_0$ such that the $i$th entry of $\sigma_0$ is zero and $L\sigma = L\sigma_0$. We define the \emph{reduced firing script} $\tilde{\sigma} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ of $\sigma$ to be $\sigma_0$ with the $i$th entry deleted. Unless specified otherwise, we will always let $i=n$ be the index deleted when referring to a reduced Laplacian, divisor, or firing script. Note that $ \widetilde{L\sigma} = \tilde{L}\tilde{\sigma}$ as expected.

\begin{notation} \label{notat}
Throughout this paper, we will let $m$ denote $|\text{Jac}(G)|$. There is a bijection $\phi$ between the degree zero divisors and the reduced divisors given by $\phi(D) = \tilde{D}$ and a bijection $\rho$ between the firing scripts mod the all-ones vector and the reduced firing scripts given by $\rho(\sigma) = \tilde{\sigma}$.
\end{notation}

\subsection{Monodromy weights}
In \cite{Shok}, Shokrieh considers a symmetric, bilinear map from $\text{Jac}(G)\times\text{Jac}(G)$ to $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$ known as the monodromy pairing. To prove our main results, we will utilize a related map from $\text{Jac}(G)$ to $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ that we will call monodromy weights. The relationship between monodromy weights and Shokrieh's monodromy pairing will be made explicit in section \ref{MonPair}.

Any homomorphism $\phi: \text{Div}^0(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ has to take the form of a dot product, thus for $D \in \Div^0(G)$ we can write $\phi(D) = w \cdot D \pmod{m}$, where $w \in \mathbb{Z}^n$. The entries of $w$ correspond to an assignment of integer weights to vertices of $G$. For any given homomorphism $\phi$, there are many possible weight vectors $w$ representing it: we can add any multiple of $m$ to the weight on a given vertex without changing $\phi$, and we can also add a constant vector to $w$ without changing $\phi$.

While any arbitrary weight vector $w \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ represents a homomorphism $\phi : \text{Div}^0(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, this homomorphism descends to a well-defined map from $\text{Jac}(G)$ to $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ if and only if $w \cdot D \equiv 0 \pmod{m}$ for all $D \in \Prin(G)$. We call such a weight vector a \emph{monodromy weight} on $G$. The following proposition provides a method of finding monodromy weights.

\begin{proposition}\label{P2.1}
Given a graph $G$ with Laplacian $L$, a vector $w$ satisfies $Lw \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$ if and only if it is a monodromy weight.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma$ be a firing script and let $D_0 = L\sigma$ be the corresponding principal divisor. For $w$ to be a monodromy weight, we require that $w \cdot D_0 = w \cdot L\sigma \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$. Since $L$ is symmetric, this is equivalent to saying $Lw\cdot \sigma \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$. Since $\sigma$ is arbitrary, this is the same as requiring that $Lw \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$. Thus the solutions of $Lw \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$ are precisely the monodromy weights on $G$.
\end{proof}

Proposition \ref{P2.1} gives us an idea of how to find monodromy weights. However, actually solving the equation is not as simple, since $L$ is singular over the integers. Furthermore, infinitely many monodromy weights represent the same homomorphism from $\text{Jac}(G)$ to $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$; we would like to identify a set of representatives among the monodromy weights, one for each homomorphism.

If $w$ is a monodromy weight representing a homomorphism $\phi$, then by adding a constant vector to $w$ we can make its $n$th entry zero without changing the homomorphism $w$ represents, obtaining a new monodromy weight $w_0$. Let $\tilde{w}$ denote the first $n-1$ entries of $w_0$; we call $\tilde{w}$ a \emph{reduced monodromy weight} representing $\phi$. The following two propositions address the first of the problems mentioned above, providing a means of solving for the monodromy weights.

\begin{proposition} \label{P2.2}
Let $w \in \mathbb{Z}^n$ be a weight vector. Then $w$ is a monodromy weight if and only if $\tilde{L}\tilde{w} \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Observe that since $w$ and $w_0$ represent the same homomorphism, $Lw \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$ if and only if $Lw_0 \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$. The first $n-1$ entries of $Lw_0$ are simply $\tilde{L}\tilde{w_0}$. The last row of $L$ is the negative sum of the first $n-1$ rows by the definition of the Laplacian; hence, if the dot product of $w_0$ with each of the first $n-1$ rows of $L$ is zero modulo $m$, the dot product of $w_0$ with the $n$th row must also be zero, implying that $Lw_0 \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$. Thus we see that $Lw_0 \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$ if and only if $\tilde{L}\tilde{w_0} \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition} \label{FindWeight} Any reduced monodromy weight $\tilde{w}$ can be found by solving the equation $\tilde{L}\tilde{w} = m\tilde{D}$ for $\tilde{w}$ over the integers for some $D\in\Div^{0}(G)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
First note that $\tilde{L}$ is invertible over the rationals, so there is a unique solution $\tilde{w} = m\tilde{L}^{-1}\tilde{D}$ for $\tilde{w}$. We have $\tilde{L}\tilde{w} = \tilde{L} m \tilde{L}^{-1} \tilde{D} = m \tilde{D} \equiv \boldmath{0} \pmod{m}$, so by Proposition \ref{P2.2} $\tilde{w}$ is a reduced monodromy weight.
\end{proof}

Proposition \ref{FindWeight} gives us a concrete way of finding reduced monodromy weights. We now address the second problem mentioned earlier by showing that if we consider reduced monodromy weights modulo m, they correspond bijectively with the elements of $\text{Jac}(G)$.

\begin{proposition}\label{LEquiv}
Let $D_1, D_2 \in \Div^0(G)$ and let $\tilde{w_1},\tilde{w_2}$ be derived from $D_1, D_2$ as described in Proposition \ref{FindWeight}. Then $\tilde{w_1} \equiv \tilde{w_2} \pmod{m}$ if and only if $D_1 \sim D_2$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
If $D_1 \sim D_2$, then $\tilde{D}_1 = \tilde{L}\tilde{\sigma} + \tilde{D}_2$ for some reduced firing script $\tilde{\sigma}$.  It is easy to check that $\tilde{w}_1 = \tilde{w}_2 + m\tilde{\sigma}$, which gives $\tilde{w_1} \equiv \tilde{w_2} \pmod{m}$. Conversely, if $\tilde{w_1} \equiv \tilde{w_2} \pmod{m}$ then $\tilde{w}_1 = \tilde{w}_2 + mv$ for some $v \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$. By the derivation of $\tilde{w_1}$ and $\tilde{w_2}$, this means that $m\tilde{L}^{-1}(\tilde{D}_1 - \tilde{D}_2) = mv$, so we have $\tilde{D}_1 - \tilde{D}_2 = \tilde{L}v$, which implies that $D_1 \sim D_2$.
\end{proof}

Let $\operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ be the group of homomorphisms $\phi: \text{Jac}(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, let $K$ be the group of reduced monodromy weights taken modulo $m$, and let $C^{\tilde{L}}=m\tilde{L}^{-1}$ be the cofactor matrix of the reduced Laplacian. Propositions \ref{FindWeight} and \ref{LEquiv} tell us that there is an isomorphsim $F : \text{Jac}(G) \to K$ given by $[D]\mapsto C^{\tilde{L}}D\pmod{m}$, which suggests that $\operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ may also be isomorphic to $\text{Jac}(G)$. This is indeed the case, and is in fact a manifestation of a far more general and well-known result: any finite abelian group is (non-canonically) isomorphic to its Pontryagin dual. Given $\tilde{w}\in K$, let $\phi_{\tilde{w}}\in \operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ be the associated homomorphism mapping $[D]\mapsto \tilde{w}\cdot \tilde{D}\pmod{m}$; let $\Phi:K\to \operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ be the map $\tilde{w}\mapsto\phi_{\tilde{w}}$. The earlier discussion shows that $\Phi$ is surjective.

\begin{proposition} \label{CanIsom}
The composition $\Phi\circ F:\text{Jac}(G)\to K\to\operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ is a canonical isomorphism between $\text{Jac}(G)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
It remains only to show that $\Phi$ is injective. Suppose that $\phi_{\tilde{w}_1}=\phi_{\tilde{w}_2}$. Then $(\tilde{w}_1 - \tilde{w}_2)\cdot \tilde{D} \equiv 0 \pmod{m}$ for all $\tilde{D} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$. Since $\tilde{D}$ can be chosen arbitrarily, this implies that $\tilde{w}_1 - \tilde{w}_2 \equiv 0 \pmod{m}$.
\end{proof}

Note that the uniqueness of the reduced monodromy weight in $K$ representing a given homomorphism $\phi \in \operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ implies that any two monodromy weights represent the same homomorphism if and only if their difference taken modulo $m$ is a constant vector. Proposition \ref{CanIsom} can also be used to obtain information about the cardinality of a minimum generating set for $\text{Jac}(G)$, which we will denote as $\text{rk}(\text{Jac}(G))$. Let $\text{rk}_m(A)$ denote the rank of $A$ over $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ and let $\text{nul}_m(A)$ denote the nullity of $A$ over $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$. Then we can derive the following corollary.

\begin{corollary} \label{rankcor}
Over $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$, we have $\text{nul}_m(\tilde{L}) = \text{rk}_m(C^{\tilde{L}}) = \text{rk}(\text{Jac}(G))$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{CanIsom} implies that $\text{rk}_m(C^{\tilde{L}}) = \text{rk}(\text{Jac}(G))$. If $\tilde{u} \in \ker\tilde{L}$, then by Proposition \ref{P2.2} $\tilde{u} \in K$, so by Proposition \ref{CanIsom} $\tilde{u} \in \Ima C^{\tilde{L}}$. Conversely, if $\tilde{u} \in \Ima C^{\tilde{L}}$, then over $\mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ we have $\tilde{u} + m\tilde{v} = m\tilde{L}^{-1}\tilde{w}$ for some $\tilde{v},\tilde{w} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$. Thus $\tilde{L}\tilde{u} = m(\tilde{w} - \tilde{L}\tilde{v}) = 0 \pmod{m}$, so $\tilde{u} \in \ker\tilde{L}$. Consequently, we have $\ker\tilde{L} = \Ima C^{\tilde{L}}$, which implies that $\text{nul}_m(\tilde{L}) = \text{rk}_m(C^{\tilde{L}})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Let $G$ be the cycle graph on six vertices. Note that $\text{Jac}(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$, so $m=6$. $\tilde{L}$ and $C^{\tilde{L}}$ are the following over $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$:
\[
\tilde{L} =
\begin{bmatrix}
2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 2 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 2
\end{bmatrix}
\qquad
C^{\tilde{L}} =
\begin{bmatrix}
5 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 0 & 4 & 2 \\
3 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 3 \\
2 & 4 & 0 & 2 & 4 \\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5
\end{bmatrix}
\]
Let $\text{col}_i$ denote the $ith$ column of $C^{\tilde{L}}$. Observe that modulo 6, we have $\text{col}_i = i \cdot\text{col}_1$, which implies that $\text{rk}_m(C^{\tilde{L}}) = 1$. Since $\text{Jac}(G)$ is cyclic, it has a generating set of cardinality 1, so likewise $\text{rk}(\text{Jac}(G)) = 1$. Finally, it can easily be verified that the kernel of $\tilde{L}$ over $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ is generated by the vector $v = (1,2,3,4,5)$, so $\text{nul}_m(\tilde{L}) = 1$ as well.
\end{example}

\subsection{Relationship to the monodromy pairing} \label{MonPair}

We now make the relationship between monodromy weights and the monodromy pairing explicit. Let $M$ be any generalized inverse of the Laplacian matrix. Shokrieh's pairing is given by $\langle \cdotp , \cdotp \rangle :\text{Jac}(G) \times \text{Jac}(G) \to \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, evaluated as follows:
\[
\langle D_1 , D_2 \rangle = D_1^T M D_2.
\]
Using the isomorphism $\Phi\circ F:\text{Jac}(G)\to \operatorname{Hom}(\text{Jac}(G),\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ we can define a map $\varphi : \text{Jac}(G) \times \text{Jac}(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ by $([D_1],[D_2])\mapsto \Phi\circ F([D_1])([D_2])$. The map can be computed as follows. Let $D_1, D_2$ be representatives of elements of $\text{Jac}(G)$. Then $\varphi([D_1],[D_2])$ is given by
\[
\rd{D}_1^T C^{\tilde{L}} \rd{D}_2 \pmod{m}.
\]
In this computation, the reduction modulo $m$ of $C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{D}_2$ is $F([D_2])$, and multiplying by $\rd{D}_1^T$, i.e.\ taking the dot product with $\rd{D}_1$, is then just the application of the corresponding homomorphism to $[D_1]$.

This map is, in essence, the same as the map defined by Shokrieh, differing only by a multiplicative factor of $m$ and the use of any generalized inverse in the monodromy pairing instead of $\tilde{L}^{-1}$. Since the matrix obtained from $\tilde{L}^{-1}$ by making the $n$th row and columns all $0$ is a generalized inverse of $L$, we see that the two pairings are really the same.

\section{Edge deletion and insertion} \label{sec:maintheorem}

In this section, we provide the proofs of the two main theorems from the introduction. First we provide a lemma relating the order of a divisor to the monodromy weights.

\begin{lemma}\label{GTwsur}
Let $D \in \Div^0(G)$ be a divisor, $\rd{w} = C^{\tilde{L}} \rd{D} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}$ with each component taking a value at least 0 and less than $ m$.
Let $\phi: \Div^0(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ be the map induced by inner product with $\rd{w}$. Then
\begin{align*}
|[D]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} = |\text{Im}(\phi)| = m/\gcd(m, \rd{w})
\end{align*}
where $\gcd(m,\rd{w})$ denotes the gcd of $m$ and the entries of the vector $\rd{w}$, and $|\cdot|_{\text{Jac}(G)}$ gives the order of an element of $ \text{Jac}(G)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The order of $[D]$ is the smallest integer $k$ such that the divisor $kD$ is linearly equivalent to the zero divisor $\textbf{0}$. Thus we have $ kD - L\sigma = \textbf{0}$ for some firing script $\sigma$. Thus $\tilde{L}\rd{\sigma} = k\rd{D}$, and multiplying both sides by $\tilde{L}^{-1}$ gives $k\tilde{L}^{-1}\rd{D} = \rd{\sigma}$. Since $\sigma$ is a firing script, it must be an integer vector, thus $k$ is the smallest integer such that $k\tilde{L}^{-1}\rd{D}$ is an integer vector.

Then since $k$ is minimal, the gcd of the entries of $\rd{\sigma}$ and $k$ is $1$. Since $\rd{w} = C^{\tilde{L}} \rd{D}$, we can write $\rd{w} = (m/k)\rd{\sigma}$, and thus $\gcd(m,\rd{w}) = m/k$. So, $\text{Im}(\phi)$ is a subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ generated by $(m/k)$ since we can generate any multiple of $ m/k$ via inner product with $ w$ by the Euclidean algorithm. Therefore, $|\text{Im}(\phi)| = m/(m/k) = k = m/\gcd(m,\rd{w})$.
\end{proof}

The following statement is implied.

\begin{corollary}\label{orderCor}
Let $D \in \Div^0(G)$, then
\begin{align*}
|[D]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} = \det{\tilde{L}}/\gcd(C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{D}, \det{\tilde{L}})
\end{align*}
where $\gcd(C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{D}, \det{\tilde{L}})$ represents the greatest common divisor of the components of the vector $C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{D}$ and $\det{\tilde{L}}$.
\end{corollary}

Before proving our first main theorem, we offer one last lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{Cyylem}
Let $ G $ be a multigraph with an edge between vertices $ x $ and $ y$, and let $ \tilde{L} $ be the Laplacian of $ G $ reduced by the vertex $ x$. Then $ C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy} $ is the number of spanning trees in $ G $ that include the edge $ (x,y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $ G_1 $ the graph obtained by deleting an edge between the vertices $ x $ and $ y$. Let $ x $ be the deleted row and column in our definition of the reduced Laplacian of both $ G $ denoted $ \tilde{L}$ and $ G_1$ denoted $\tilde{L}_1$. Note that the only difference between the two matrices is that $ (\tilde{L}_1)_{yy} = \tilde{L}_{yy} - 1$. Now we note that writing the determinants of the reduced Laplacians in terms of their cofactors expanded along the $ y $ column, we have that:
	\begin{align*}
		\det \tilde{L}_1 &= \sum_{w \in V(G) \backslash \{x\}} (\tilde{L}_1)_{wy} C_{wy}^{\tilde{L_1}} = (\tilde{L}_1)_{yy}C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}_1} +  \sum_{w \in V(G) \backslash \{x,y\}} (\tilde{L}_1)_{wy} C_{wy}^{\tilde{L_1}} \\ &= (\tilde{L}_{yy} - 1)C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} + \sum_{w \in V(G) \backslash \{x\}} \tilde{L}_{wy} C_{wy}^{\tilde{L}} \\ &= \det \tilde{L} -  C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}
	\end{align*}

Recall that $ \det \tilde{L}$ equals the number of spanning trees of $G$. Furthermore, the number of spanning trees on $ G $ is the sum of the number of spanning trees including $ (x,y) $ and the number of spanning trees without $ (x,y)$. Since $ \det \tilde{L}_1 $ is the number of spanning trees of $ G $ without $ (x,y)$, the above equation gives us the desired result that $ C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ is the number of spanning trees including $ (x,y)$.
\end{proof}

We can use these lemmas to answer the question of when a divisor supported on only two vertices is a generator. The following theorem provides and generalizes an affirmative answer to a question by Becker and Glass \cite[Open~Question~2.8]{BnG} based off of a theorem of Lorenzini \cite[5.1]{Lor1}.

\begin{theorem}\label{T:GOQ2.8}
Let $G$ be a connected multigraph, and $G_1$ the multigraph obtained by deleting any integer $ k_{xy} $ of the edges between the vertices $x$ and $y$ (where negative $ k_{xy}$ represents adding edges). Let $S$ be the subgroup  of $\text{Jac}(G)$ generated by $[\delta_{xy}]$. Then
\begin{align*}
[\text{Jac}(G): S] \ \big\vert\  gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|).
\end{align*} Let $S_1$ be the subgroup  of $\text{Jac}(G_1)$ generated by $[\delta_{xy}]$. Then
\begin{align*}
[\text{Jac}(G): S_1]\ \big\vert\ gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|).
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Recall that $ m = |\text{Jac}(G)|$. As in Lemma \ref{Cyylem}, let $ x $ correspond to the row and column in our definition of the reduced Laplacian of both $ G $ denoted $ \tilde{L}$ and $ G_1$ denoted $\tilde{L}_1$. By Lemma \ref{Cyylem}, we have that $ C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ is the number of spanning trees using a specific $ x,y $ edge. So, $k_{xy} 				C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ gives the number of spanning trees using any of the $ k_{xy} $ edges that are removed to form $ G_1$. Since the number of spanning trees in $ G$ must be the sum of the number of spanning trees in the graph without $ k_{xy} $ edges plus the number of trees including those edges, we get by the matrix tree theorem that:
    \begin{align*}
    	\det \tilde{L} = \det \tilde{L}_1 + k_{xy} 				C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}.
    \end{align*}

    So we let $ gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = \gcd(\det \tilde{L} , \det \tilde{L}_1 ) $, so that both
	\begin{align*}
		&\gcd(\det{\tilde{L}}, C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}) \ \big|\  gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) \\ \ \ \text{and} \ \ &\gcd(\det{\tilde{L}_1}, C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}) \ \big|\ gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|).
	\end{align*}
	Note that both of these statements would be equality if $ k_{xy} = \pm 1$, which is guaranteed if we force $ G $ to be simple.

	Now let $w = C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{\delta}_{xy} = C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}\rd{\delta}_{xy}$, noting that the reduced $ \delta_{xy}$ is just the indicator vector of vertex $ y$. Then, by Corollary \ref{orderCor} we have that
	\begin{align*}
		|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} = \det{\tilde{L}} / \gcd(\det{\tilde{L}}, C^{\tilde{L}} \rd{\delta}_{xy}),
	\end{align*}
	and similarly that
	\begin{align*}
		|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G_1)} = \det{\tilde{L}_1} / \gcd(\det{\tilde{L}_1}, C^{\tilde{L}_1} \rd{\delta}_{xy}).
	\end{align*}

	Putting these facts together, we get that
	\begin{align*}
		[\text{Jac}(G): S] &= \frac{det \tilde{L}}{|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)}} = \gcd(\det{\tilde{L}}, C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{\delta}_{xy}) \ \big|\ \gcd(\det{\tilde{L}}, C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}})\\ &\big|\   gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|),
	\end{align*}
	and similarly
	\begin{align*}
		[\text{Jac}(G_1): S_1]\ \big|\ gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|).
	\end{align*}

\end{proof}

Following the statement of this theorem, it is natural to ask if the converse is also true. That is, if $[\delta_{xy}]$ is a generator of the Jacobian, are the orders of the Jacobians with and without an edge necessarily relatively prime? The following theorem answers this question.

\begin{theorem}\label{GCOQ}
Let $G$ be a connected multigraph, and $G_1$ the graph obtained by removing $ k_{xy}$ edges $(x,y)$ where negative $ k_{xy} $ is adding edges. Moreover, assume that $ \gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,k_{xy}) = 1$. Let $S$ be the subgroup of $\text{Jac}(G)$ generated by $[\delta_{xy}]$. Then
\begin{align*}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|)\ \big\vert\ [\text{Jac}(G):S]^2.
\end{align*}
Similarly, let $S_1$ be the subgroup of $\text{Jac}(G_1)$ generated by $[\delta_{xy}]$. Then
\begin{align*}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|)\ \big\vert\ [\text{Jac}(G_1):S_1]^2.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8} we choose $ \tilde{L} $ to be the reduced Laplacian, reducing at vertex $ x$.

Note that since $\gcd(m,k_{xy}) = 1$ and $\det \tilde{L} = \det \tilde{L}_1 + k_{xy} C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} $ as in the proof of the previous theorem, we have that
\begin{align}\label{newline}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = \gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|).
\end{align}

Let $\tilde{w} = C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{\delta}_{xy}$, where $C^{\tilde{L}}$ is the cofactor matrix of the reduced Laplacian. Then let $\phi:\text{Jac}(G) \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ be the map induced by inner product with $ w$. Now, note that $ \phi $ is a group homomorphism, so $m = |\text{Im}(\phi)| \cdot |\ker(\phi)|$. So, we also have that
\begin{align}\label{tgline1}
|\ker(\phi)|  = m / |\text{Im}(\phi)|.
\end{align}

Now, let $\phi_{S}: S \to \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ be the map $\phi$ restricted to the subgroup generated by $[\delta_{xy}]$. Note that since $w = C^{\tilde{L}}\rd{\delta}_{xy}$, we have that the weight on the $y$th vertex is exactly $C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}$. Thus the image of $S$ (the subgroup consisting of multiples of $\delta_{xy}$, ie multiples with weight only on $ y $ in the reduced Laplacian) under the map $\phi$ is the subgroup consisting of multiples of $\gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|)$ in $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$. The order of this subgroup is $m/\gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|)$, so $|\text{Im}(\phi_{S})| = m/\gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|)$, and thus
\begin{align}\label{tgline2}
\gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|) = m/|\text{Im}(\phi_{S})|.
\end{align}

Observe that this is similar to but not the same as Lemma \ref{GTwsur}, since now we have $ \gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|)$ in the denominator rather than $ \gcd(m,\tilde{w})$.

Since $ \varphi $ is also a homomorphism, we have $ |S| = |\text{Im}(\phi_{S})| \cdot |\ker(\phi_{S})|$. This gives us that
\begin{align}\label{tgline3}
|\text{Im}(\phi_{S})|  = |S| / |\ker(\phi_{S})|.
\end{align}

The last fact we need is that $ \ker(\phi_{S})$ is a subgroup of $ \ker(\phi)$. Thus, we have that for some integer $c$ that
\begin{align}\label{ttgline4}
|\ker(\phi_{S})| = |\ker(\phi)| / c.
\end{align}

Now we have that by (\ref{newline}), (\ref{tgline2}), and (\ref{tgline3})
\begin{align*}
	\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) &= \gcd(m,|C^{\tilde{L}}_{yy}|) = \frac{m}{|\text{Im}(\phi_{S})|} = \frac{m}{|S| / |\ker(\phi_{S})|}.
\end{align*}
By lemma \ref{GTwsur} we have that $ |S| = |\text{Im}(\phi)|$. So, with (\ref{ttgline4}) and (\ref{tgline1}) we conclude that
\begin{align*}
\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) &= \frac{m}{|\text{Im}(\phi)| / |\ker(\phi_{S})|} = \frac{m}{|\text{Im}(\phi)|} |\ker(\phi_{S})|\\ & = \frac{m}{|\text{Im}(\phi)|} \left(\frac{|\ker(\phi)|}{c}\right) = \frac{m}{|\text{Im}(\phi)|} \left(\frac{m/|\text{Im}(\phi)|}{c}\right)
	\\ &= \frac{(m/|\text{Im}(\phi)|)^2}{c} = \frac{[\text{Jac}(G): S]^2}{c}.
\end{align*}
This proves the theorem for $ G $ and $ S $, and in addition, the multiplicative factor is the index of $\ker(\phi|_{S})$ in $\ker(\phi)$. The proof for $G_1$ and $ S_1 $ follows immediately since we allowed removing or adding edges.
\end{proof}

Note that we have proved Theorem \ref{GCOQ} for multigraphs where $ k_{xy}$ is relatively prime to $ m$. If we have a simple graph, then $ k_{xy} = \pm 1$ is relatively prime with $ m$ immediately, so we get the same result. From the above theorems we can now give a precise condition for when $ [\delta_{xy}] $ is a generator of $\text{Jac}(G)$ by considering the case when $ \gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G_1)|) = 1$, proving Corollary~\ref{ifftheorem} from the introduction.

\section{Edge contraction} \label{sec:contractions}

Theorems \ref{T:GOQ2.8} and \ref{GCOQ} shed some light on the behavior of the Jacobian when an edge is removed from the graph. It would be natural to ask what happens when a vertex is removed. This is the subject of the following corollary and proposition resulting from our main theorem.

\begin{corollary}\label{C:2.4}
Let $G$ be graph and let $e = (x,y)$ be an edge. Let $G/e$ denote the graph obtained by identifying the vertices $x$ and $y$. Let $S$ be as defined in Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8}. Then $[\text{Jac}(G):S]$ $\big\vert$ $gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G/e)|)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $T(G)$ denote the number of spanning trees of $G$. As explained in \cite{kocay}, $T(G)$ obeys the following recurrence: $T(G) = T(G-e) + T(G/e)$, where $G-e$ denotes the graph obtained from $G$ upon removal of the edge $e$. Thus $\gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G/e)|) = \gcd(|\text{Jac}(G)|,|\text{Jac}(G-e)|)$, and the result follows by Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
This corollary essentially is saying that $ T(G/(x,y)) = C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ where $ \tilde{L} $ is $ L $ with the $ x $ row and column deleted. This can be seen by comparing the above recurrence with the equation for $\det \tilde{L}$ in the proof of Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8}.
\end{remark}

It would then be natural to ask whether $\text{Jac}(G/e)$ is cyclic if the orders of the Jacobians of $G$ and $G/e$ are relatively prime. Theorem 5.1 of \cite{Lor1} proves that in this case $\text{Jac}(G)$ is cyclic, and in Lemma 6.2 of \cite{Lor2} this result is extended to show that $\text{Jac}(G-e)$ is cyclic. We now apply Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8} to show that on an undirected graph, $\text{Jac}(G/e)$ must be cyclic as well.

\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a graph, and $e$, $G/e$ defined as above. Let $z$ be the vertex obtained by identifying $x$ and $y$. If $|\text{Jac}(G)|$ and $|\text{Jac}(G/e)|$ are relatively prime and
\[
	D_x(v) =
    \begin{cases}
    	0 & (v,x) \notin E(G) \\
        (\text{val}_G(x)-1) & v = z \\
        -1 & (v,x) \in E(G), v \ne z,
    \end{cases}
\]
then $\text{Jac}(G/e)$ is cyclic and $ [D_x] $ generates it.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Consider some arbitrary $D' \in$ Div$^0(G/e)$ and let $D \in$ Div$^0(G)$ such that $\forall v \neq x,y$, $D(v) = D'(v)$. Then since the values sum to 0, we have $D'(z) = D(x) + D(y)$. Consider the firing script $\sigma$ taking $D$ to an equivalent multiple of $\delta_{xy}$, and let $\sigma(v)$ denote the number of times the vertex $v$ is fired. Without loss of generality let $\sigma(x) = 0$. Now let $\sigma'$ be a set of firing moves on $G/e$ such that $\sigma'(z) = \sigma(y)$ and $\sigma'(v) = \sigma(v)$ otherwise. Let $D_1'$ be the divisor obtained from $D'$ after the firing of $\sigma'$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
    D_1'(v) &= D'(v) - \text{val}_{G/e}(v)\sigma'(v) + \sum_{(u,v)\in G/e}\sigma'(u) \\
    &=
    \begin{cases}
    	0 & (v,x) \notin G \\
        -\sigma'(z)(\text{val}_G(x)-1) & v = z \\
        \sigma'(z) & (v,x) \in G, v \ne z.
    \end{cases}
\end{align*}
Thus $D_1' = -\sigma'(z)D_x$, where $D_x$ is the divisor given by
\[
	D_x(v) =
    \begin{cases}
    	0 & (v,x) \notin G \\
        (\text{val}_G(x)-1) & v = z \\
        -1 & (v,x) \in G, v \ne z.
    \end{cases}
\]
Thus every $D' \in \text{Div}^0(G/e)$ is a equivalent to a multiple of $D_x$. Hence $\text{Jac}(G/e)$ is generated by $[D_x]$, thus it is cyclic.
\end{proof}

Note that the form of $D_x$ depends on a choice of ordering of $x$ and $y$. The following remark gives the relation between the generators if the ordering is reversed.

\begin{remark}
Let $D_y$ be the divisor obtained by reversing the ordering of $x$ and $y$ such that $ [D_y]$ generates $\text{Jac}(G)$. Then $D_x \sim -D_y$.
\end{remark}

\section{Bounding the order of $[\delta_{xy}]$ below} \label{sec:bounding}

The following proposition bounds the maximal order of some $[\delta_{xy}]$.

\begin{proposition}\label{weakbounds}
Let $G$ be a graph with $n=|V(G)|$ vertices and $\epsilon=|E(G)|$ edges.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists some edge $(x,y)$ such that $|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \ge \epsilon/(n-1)$.
\item There exists some edge $(u,v)$ such that $|[\delta_{uv}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \ge \epsilon/(\epsilon-n+1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

Note that in the first inequality the bound is tight for a spanning tree on $n$ vertices, and in the second the bound is tight for an $n$-cycle.

\begin{proof}
Recall from Lemma \ref{Cyylem} that $C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ gives exactly the number of spanning trees of $G$ containing the edge $(x,y)$. Using the pigeonhole principle, we obtain the following bound: there exists $(x,y)$ such that $C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} \le m(n-1)/\epsilon$. By Theorem \ref{T:GOQ2.8}, we have $m/|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \le \gcd(m, C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}) \le C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} \le m(n-1)/\epsilon$. The first of the above inequalities follows.

For the second, we instead bound $C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}$ from below: there is some $(x,y)$ such that $C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} \ge m(n-1)/\epsilon$. Thus $\gcd(m, C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}}) \le m - C_{yy}^{\tilde{L}} \le m - m(n-1)/\epsilon$ and the second inequality follows.
\end{proof}

Note that Lemma 27 of \cite{GJRWW14} gives a lower bound for $|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)}$ in a biconnected graph as val$(x)$, and the maximum valency of any vertex is bounded from below by $2\epsilon/n$. This is almost always better than the bounds of Corollary \ref{weakbounds}, but ours hold more generally. In fact, for a biconnected graph we are able to strengthen the result of \cite{GJRWW14}.

\begin{proposition}\label{GSUMRY14}
Given a biconnected simple graph $G$ and an edge $(x,y)$,
\[
|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \ge val(x) + \frac{val(x)-1}{val(y)-1}.
\]
\end{proposition}

\noindent This is always stronger than the result of \cite{GJRWW14}, and equality is attained when $G$ is a complete graph.

\begin{proof}
Let $a$ be an integer such that $a\delta_{xy} \sim 0$, and let $\sigma$ be the firing script taking $a\delta_{xy}$ to $0$. Now let $z$ be the vertex such that $z$ is fired the least times (i.e. $\sigma(z)$ is the minimum of $\sigma$). Without loss of generality by Convention \ref{notat}, we can set $\sigma(z) = 0$. Now note that since $\sigma(v) \ge 0$ for all $v$, the value of the divisor on $z$ can only increase upon firing $\sigma$. We have 3 cases:

{\setlength{\parindent}{0cm}
\underline{Case 1}: $z = y$.

This case is not possible since the initial value on $y$ is $a$. If $\sigma(y) = 0$, $\sigma$ can only increase the value of the divisor on $y$, thus in this case we cannot have that $a\delta_{xy} + L\sigma = \textbf{0}$.

\underline{Case 2}: $z \neq x,y$.

We assume $\sigma(y) > 0$, else we consider it as Case 1. $z$ does not fire, and hence for the value of the divisor to remain at $0$ we require that all neighbors of $z$ do not fire as well. We repeat this argument for all neighbors of $z$ that are not $x$ or $y$. Since $G$ is biconnected there exists a path from each vertex $z$ to $y$ not passing through $y$. Thus we eventually conclude that $\sigma(y) = 0$. This is a contradiction since we initially assumed that $\sigma(y) > 0$.

\underline{Case 3}: $z = x$.

We can assume that for all $v \neq x$, $\sigma(v) > 0$, since otherwise this would reduce to one of the earlier cases. Thus each neighbor of $x$ fires at least once. For the value on $y$ to be zero after firing, $y$ must fire at least $a/\text{val}(y)$ times. In fact, each neighbor of $y$ that is not $x$ must fire at least once (else we have Case 2), thus $y$ needs to fire at least $(a + \text{val}(y) - 1)/\text{val}(y)$ times. Since $a = \sum \sigma(v)$ over all neighbors $v$ of $x$, we have $a \ge \text{val}(x) - 1 + (a + \text{val}(y) - 1)/\text{val}(y) = \text{val}(x) + (a - 1)/\text{val}(y)$. Further manipulation gives the result.
}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} Much of this proof follows immediately from the fact that $\sigma$ is an integer-valued harmonic function on the graph $G$ with source $y$ and sink $x$. This necessarily implies that $y$ and $x$ are the unique maximum and minimum of $\sigma$ respectively. The bound follows soon after.
\end{remark}

We have a similar result for multigraphs.

\begin{proposition}\label{GSUMRY14v2}
Given a multigraph $G$ and an edge $(x,y)$,
\[
|[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \ge (val(x) -1)\frac{val(y)}{val(y)-1}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof proceeds similarly, except this time we can only bound the number of times $y$ fires by $a/\text{val}(y)$. Thus we have $a \ge \text{val}(x) - 1 + a/\text{val}(y)$. Solving this gives the result.
\end{proof}
Note that as long as $x$ is chosen to be the vertex with higher valency, this result is always stronger than that of \cite{GJRWW14}.

\section{Conjectures and experimental results on random graphs} \label{sec:random}

\subsection{Random graph conjectures}
As in the introduction, we consider Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graphs.
One of the original motivations of our research was to use facts about generators to find a lower bound on the probability that the Jacobian of a graph is cyclic. As mentioned previously, it has been proven in \cite{W14} that $\prod_{i=1}^\infty \zeta(2i + 1)^{-1}$ is an upper bound on the probability. However, no lower bound is known. It is conceivable that better understanding of when $ [\delta_{xy}] $ generates the Jacobian will shed light on a lower bound.

By Corollary \ref{ifftheorem} we have that $ [\delta_{xy}] $ is a generator of $ \text{Jac}(G)$ exactly when $|\text{Jac}(G)| $ and $|\text{Jac}(G_1)|$ are relatively prime. The question then becomes how the orders of these two groups depend on each other. Two positive integers chosen uniformly at random from the integers less than $ n $ are coprime with probability $ \zeta(2)^{-1}$ as $ n $ goes to infinity \cite{AN10}. We know that $|\text{Jac}(G)| $ and $|\text{Jac}(G_1)|$ are not independent. For example, if $ \text{Jac}(G) $ is not cyclic, Corollary \ref{ifftheorem} tells us that the orders cannot be relatively prime. However, when $ \text{Jac}(G) $ is cyclic, there is no obvious relationship between $|\text{Jac}(G)| $ and $|\text{Jac}(G_1)|$. So, the question becomes whether $|\text{Jac}(G)| $ and $|\text{Jac}(G_1)|$ behave like random integers when $\text{Jac}(G) $ is cyclic and we choose an edge $ (x,y) $ at random to remove (or add if it is not an edge of the graph).  Performing various simulations led us to the following conjecture.

\begin{conjecture}\label{fixconj}
Let $ p $ be fixed and $ G_{n,p} $ be the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph. For each graph, fix vertices $ x $ and $ y$. Then
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left([\delta_{xy}] \text{ generates } \text{Jac}(G_{n,p}) \ |\ \text{Jac}(G_{n,p}) \text{ cyclic}\right) = \zeta(2)^{-1} \approx 0.607927
\end{align*}
\end{conjecture}

If this is true and there is a reasonable amount of independence across choices of $ x $ and $ y$, we would expect to be able to find some edge $ x,y $ that allows us to make $ |\text{Jac}(G)|$ and $ |\text{Jac}(G_1)| $ coprime. This leads us to the following conjecture.

\begin{conjecture}\label{existconj}
Let $ p $ be fixed and $ G_{n,p} $ be the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph. Then
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P} \left(\exists\ [\delta_{xy}] \text{ generator of } \text{Jac}(G_{n,p}) \ |\  \text{Jac}(G_{n,p}) \text{ cyclic} \right) = 1
\end{align*}
Or equivalently, that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P} \left(\exists\ [\delta_{xy}] \text{ generator of } \text{Jac}(G_{n,p})  \right) =  \lim_{n\to \infty} \mathbb{P} \left(\text{Jac}(G_{n,p}) \text{ cyclic} \right)
\end{align*}
\end{conjecture}

\subsection{Experimental data}
To provide some support beyond intuition for Conjectures \ref{fixconj} and \ref{existconj}, we conducted simulations using SageMath \cite{sage} for various values of $ n$ (available on GitHub at \cite{git}). For each $ n $ we conducted 100,000 trials where each trial consisted of generating $ G_{n,1/2} $ with a cyclic Jacobian and checking the desired property.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
n & $\mathbb{P}($ fixed $[\delta_{xy}]$ generates $\text{Jac}(G)$) & $\mathbb{P}( \exists\  [\delta_{xy}]$ that generates $\text{Jac}(G)$) \\ \hline
5 & 0.75561 & 1.00000 \\ \hline
10 & 0.58766 & 0.99890 \\ \hline
20 & 0.60732 & 1.00000 \\ \hline
40 & 0.60793 & 1.00000 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We believe that these data support both of the above conjectures.

\subsection{Conjecture on the order of $ [\delta_{xy}]$}

In Section ~\ref{sec:bounding}, we proved some lower bounds on the order of some $ [\delta_{xy}] $ in the graph. However, by experimentation these do not seem to be the best possible lower bounds. We conjecture that a better bound can be found if we assert that a graph is biconnected. Here biconnected means that any vertex can be removed while leaving a connected graph on $ n -1 $ vertices, which is equivalent to saying the graph cannot be decomposed into the wedge product of two proper subgraphs that are not just vertices. This condition prevents the construction of pathological counterexamples using wedge products and gives, based on computations of Dhruv Ranganathan and Jeffrey Yu \cite{dhruv}, the following conjecture.

\begin{conjecture}
Let $ G $ be a biconnected, simple graph with $ n $ vertices. Fix a vertex $ x $. Then there exists a vertex $ y $ such that $ |[\delta_{xy}]|_{\text{Jac}(G)} \geq n$.
\end{conjecture}

We further tested this conjecture on random graphs of varying size and all biconnected graphs on small numbers of vertices, and we could not find any counterexamples. An affirmative resolution of this conjecture could provide some leverage over finding classes of graphs with cyclic Jacobian. Moreover, following the work of \cite{GJRWW14}, this conjecture would prove that for any positive integer $ n $ there exists an integer $ k_n $ such that for all $ k > k_n $ there is no biconnected graph $ G $ with $ \text{Jac}(G) \cong (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^k$.

\bibliographystyle{siam}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Algebraic Geometry (math.AG)