On Hamiltonian cycles in balanced $k$-partite graphs

Abstract: For all integers $k$ with $k\geq 2$, if $G$ is a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n\geq 3$ vertices with minimum degree at least \[ \left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil+\left\lfloor\frac{n+2}{2\lceil\frac{k+1}{2}\rceil}\right\rfloor-\frac{n}{k}=\begin{cases} \lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil+\lfloor\frac{n+2}{k+1}\rfloor-\frac{n}{k} & : k \text{ odd }\\ \frac{n}{2}+\lfloor\frac{n+2}{k+2}\rfloor-\frac{n}{k} & : k \text{ even } \end{cases}, \] then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle unless $k=2$ and 4 divides $n$, or $k=\frac{n}{2}$ and 4 divides $n$. In the case where $k=2$ and 4 divides $n$, or $k=\frac{n}{2}$ and 4 divides $n$, we can characterize the graphs which do not have a Hamiltonian cycle and see that $\left\lceil\frac{n}{2}\right\rceil+\left\lfloor\frac{n+2}{2\lceil\frac{k+1}{2}\rceil}\right\rfloor-\frac{n}{k}+1$ suffices. This result is tight for all $k\geq 2$ and $n\geq 3$ divisible by $k$.

\section{Introduction}

The study of Hamiltonian cycles in balanced $k$-partite graphs begins with the following classic results of Dirac, and Moon and Moser.  Dirac \cite{D} proved that for all graphs $G$ on $n\geq 3$ vertices, if $\delta(G)\geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}$, then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle. Moon and Moser \cite{MM} proved that for all balanced bipartite graphs $G$ on $n\geq 4$ vertices, if $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n+2}{4}$, then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.

Over 30 years later Chen, Faudree, Gould, Jacobson, and Lesniak \cite{CFGJL} beautifully tied these results together by proving that for all $k\geq 2$, if $G$ is a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n$ vertices with
\begin{equation}\label{cfgjl}
\delta(G)> \frac{n}{2}+\frac{n}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}-\frac{n}{k},
\end{equation}
then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.  It turns out that while their result is nearly optimal, in most cases the degree condition can be improved by 1.  The purpose of this note is simply to provide the precise minimum degree condition in all cases thereby filling the lacuna in the above result (and as we point out in the Appendix, it is unfortunately not as simple as replacing the strict inequality in \eqref{cfgjl} with a weak inequality).

\begin{thm}\label{main} Let $k$ be an integer with $k\geq 2$.  For all balanced $k$-partite graphs $G$ on $n$ vertices, if
\begin{equation}\label{cf}
\delta (G) \geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}=\Dk,
\end{equation}
then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle unless $k=2$ and 4 divides $n$, or $k=\frac{n}{2}$ and 4 divides $n$.
\end{thm}

Since a graph on $n$ vertices can be viewed as a $k$-partite graph with $k=n$, note that when $k=n$, we have $\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}=\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}$ and thus Theorem \ref{main} reduces to Dirac's theorem.  When $k=2$, we have $\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}=\floor{\frac{n+2}{4}}$ and thus when 4 does not divide $n$, Theorem \ref{main} reduces to Moon and Moser's theorem; and when 4 does divide $n$, Ferrara, Jacobson, and Powell \cite{FJP} characterized all balanced bipartite graphs $G$ on $n\geq 4$ vertices such that $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{4}$, yet $G$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.  So our proof will only handle the cases when $3\leq k\leq \frac{n}{2}$.

We will also prove the following which will handle the case when $k=\frac{n}{2}$ and 4 divides $n$.  Together with the results in \cite{FJP}, this gives a complete characterization of balanced $k$-partite graphs $G$ on $n$ vertices which satisfy $\delta (G) \geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}$, but do not have a Hamiltonian cycle.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:n=2k}
Let $n\geq 8$ be divisible by $4$, let $k=\frac{n}{2}$, and let $G$ be a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n$ vertices.  If $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}=\frac{n}{2}-1$ and $G$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle, then $G$ belongs to one of the families of examples described in Example \ref{n=2k}.
\end{prop}

\subsection{Overview}

We give the lower bound examples in Section \ref{sec:example}, we collect the main lemmas in Section \ref{sec:example} (while it is a combination of existing results, Lemma \ref{domcycle} may be of independent interest), we deal with the first two exceptions in Section \ref{sec:filter} before starting the main proof in Section \ref{sec:main}. Finally, in the Appendix, we collect some numerical lemmas which are needed because of the floors and ceilings appearing in \eqref{cf}.

This project grew out of an earlier work of the first author together with Krueger, Pritikin, and Thompson \cite{DKPT}, where we considered Hamiltonian cycles in unbalanced $k$-partite graphs for $k\geq 3$.  The upcoming Example \ref{tight_gen} first appeared in a more general form in \cite{DKPT}.  In fact, it was this example which indicated to us that \eqref{cfgjl} is not always tight.  By using Theorem \ref{chv} and Lemma \ref{domcycle}, we were able to streamline the original proof of Chen et al.\ with the correct degree condition; however, because of the unexpected (to us) exceptional cases which arose when $k=\frac{n}{2}$, our overall proof didn't end up being any shorter than the original.  Again, we emphasize that Chen et al.\ have a beautiful result which places Dirac's theorem and Moon and Moser's theorem on a common spectrum.  It is only because of the fundamental nature of these results that we have expended the effort necessary to provide the tight degree condition in all cases.

\subsection{Notation}

For $S\subseteq V(G)$, we let $N(S) = \bigcup_{v}N(v)$ and $\overline{S}= V(G)\setminus S$.
Given disjoint sets $A, B\subseteq V(G)$, we let $\delta(A,B)=\min\{|N(v)\cap B|: v\in A\}|$.

Given a cycle $v_1v_2\dots v_kv_1$, $i\in [k]$, and an integer $t$, we assume that the addition in the indices, such as $v_{i+t}$, is taken modulo $k$.

\section{Tightness examples}\label{sec:example}

\begin{exa}\label{tight_gen}
For all $k\geq 2$ and all $n$ divisible by $k$, there exists a family $\mathcal{F}$ of balanced $k$-partite graphs on $n$ vertices such that for all $F\in \mathcal{F}$,
$$\delta(F)\geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}-1,$$ but $F$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.
\end{exa}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = .25]
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (-18, 1) rectangle (-16, 2);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (-16, 1) rectangle (-12, 1.5);
\draw[pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray] (-18, -6) rectangle (-4, 1);
\draw (-21, 1) node[left]{$\floor{\frac{\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}$} -- (-19, 1);
\draw[dashed] (-20, 1) -- (8, 1);
\draw (-18, -6) node[below right]{$V_1$} rectangle (-16, 4);
\draw (-16, -6) node[below right]{$V_2$} rectangle (-14, 4);
\draw (-14, -6) rectangle (-12, 4);
\draw (-12, -6) rectangle (-10, 4);
\draw (-10, -6) rectangle (-8, 4);
\draw (-8, -6) rectangle (-6, 4);
\draw (-6, -6) node[below]{$~~~~~~~~~V_{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}$} rectangle (-4, 4);
\draw (-4, -6) rectangle (-2, 4);
\draw (-2, -6) rectangle (0, 4);
\draw (0, -6) rectangle (2, 4);
\draw (2, -6) rectangle (4, 4);
\draw (4, -6) rectangle (6, 4);
\draw (6, -6) node[below]{$~~~~V_k$} rectangle (8, 4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The family of graphs $\mathcal{F}$.  The shaded sets represent $X_1, \dots, X_{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}$.}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
First note that
\begin{equation}\label{equal}
\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}=\floor{\frac{\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}.
\end{equation}
Since if $k$ is even, then both sides of the equation equal $\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}$; if $k$ is odd and $n$ is even, then both sides of the equation equal $\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+1}}$; and if $k$ is odd and $n$ is odd then we get that $\floor{\frac{n+1}{k+1}} = \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+1}}$, which is true since $\frac{n+2}{k+1}$ is not an integer.

Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the family of graphs which can be obtained from a complete $k$-partite graph with parts $V_1, \dots, V_k$ such that $|V_i|=\frac{n}{k}$ for all $i\in [k]$, by selecting some $X_i\subseteq V_i$ for all $i\in [\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}]$ such that $|X_1|\geq \dots\geq |X_{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}|=\floor{\frac{\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}$ and $|X_1\cup\dots\cup X_{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}|=\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}$.  Add all edges between parts except for those between a vertex in $X_i$ and $X_j$ for all $i, j \in [\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}]$. Note that every $F\in \mathcal{F}$ has an independent set of size $\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}$ and thus does not contain a Hamiltonian cycle.

Finally to see that the degree condition is satisfied, let $i\in [\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}]$ and let $v\in X_{i}$.  We have by \eqref{equal}
\begin{align*}
d(v)&=(1-\frac{1}{k})n-|X_1\cup \dots X_{i-1}\cup X_{i+1}\cup  \dots\cup X_{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}|\\
&\geq (1-\frac{1}{k})n-\left(\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}-\floor{\frac{\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}\right)
=\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}-1. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{exa}\label{n=2k} Let $n\geq 8$ be divisible by $4$ and let $k=\frac{n}{2}$.
\begin{enumerate}[label=\emph{(\roman*)}]
\item\label{e1}  There exists a family $\mathcal{F}_1$ of balanced $k$-partite graphs on $n$ vertices such that for all $F_1\in \mathcal{F}_1$, $\delta(F_1)\geq \frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}=\frac{n}{2}-1$, but $\kappa(F_1)\leq 1$ and thus $F_1$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.

\item\label{e2} There exists a 2-connected balanced 4-partite graph $F_2$ on 8 vertices with $\alpha(F_2)=3$ such that $F_2$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.

\item\label{e3} There exists a family $\mathcal{F}_3$ of balanced $k$-partite graphs on $n$ vertices such that for all $F_3\in \mathcal{F}_3$, $\delta(F_3)\geq \frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}=\frac{n}{2}-1$, $\kappa(F_2)\geq 2$, and $\alpha(F_3)=\frac{n}{2}$, but $F_3$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.
\end{enumerate}
\end{exa}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{F2.pdf}
\caption{The graph $F_2$.}\label{fig_F2}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $V_i=\{x_i, y_i\}$ for all $i\in [k]$.  Add all edges inside $\{x_1, \dots, x_k\}$, add all edges from $y_k$ to $\{y_1, \dots, y_{k-1}\}$, and for all $i\in [k-1]$ add at least $k-1$ edges from $y_i$ to $\{y_1, \dots, y_{i-1}, y_{i+1}, \dots, y_{k-1}\}\cup \{x_{k}\}$.  Let $\mathcal{F}_1$ be the family of graphs thus obtained.  Note that every graph $F_1\in \mathcal{F}_1$ has $\delta(F_1)=k-1=\frac{n}{2}-1$ and $\kappa(F_1)\leq 1$ and thus $F_1$ does not have a Hamiltonian cycle.

\item We let $F_2$ be the graph in Figure \ref{fig_F2} which can be seen to be a balanced 4-partite graph (with vertices of the same shape being in the same part of the partition) which is 2-connected and has $\alpha(F_2)=3$.  Note that $F_2$ has no Hamiltonian cycle since $G-x_1-x_4$ has three components.

\item Let the parts be labeled $X_1, \dots, X_{k/2}$, $Y_1, \dots, Y_{k/2}$ and let $X=\cup_{i=1}^{k/2} X_i$ and $Y=\cup_{i=1}^{k/2}Y_i$.  Let $y'\in Y_{k/2}$, let $y''\in Y\setminus \{y'\}$, and let $x'\in X$. Add all edges between $X$ and $Y\setminus \{y', y''\}$, all edges from $y''$ to $X\setminus \{x'\}$, and all edges from $y'$ to $\{x'\}\cup (Y\setminus Y_{k/2})$.  Furthermore, we may add any number of other edges between the parts $Y_1, \dots, Y_{k/2}$ and we may add the edge $x'y''$.  Let $\mathcal{F}_3$ be the family of graphs thus obtained.  Let $F_3\in \mathcal{F}_3$ and let $H$ be the bipartite graph induced by $[X,Y]$.  It is easily seen that $\delta(F_3)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$, $\kappa(F_2)\geq 2$, and $\alpha(F_3)=\frac{n}{2}$.  Since $X$ is an independent set, if $F_3$ has a Hamiltonian cycle, it must be in $H$; however, since $y'$ has degree 1 in $H$, there is no Hamiltonian cycle in $H$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\section{General lemmas}\label{sec:lemmas}

In this section we state three general results which are useful for finding Hamiltonian cycles, beginning with two classics.

\begin{thm}[Dirac \cite{D}]\label{dir}
Let $n\geq d\geq 3$.  If $G$ is 2-connected and $\delta(G)\geq d/2$, then $G$ has a cycle of length at least $d$.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}[Chv\'atal \cite{C}]\label{chv}
Let $G=(U,V,E)$ be a bipartite graph on $n\geq 4$ vertices with vertex sets $U=\{u_1, \dots, u_{n/2}\}$ and $V=\{v_1, \dots, v_{n/2}\}$.  If for all $1\leq k<n/2$, $$d(v_k)\leq k \Rightarrow d(u_{n/2-k})\geq \frac{n}{2}-k+1,$$
then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.
\end{thm}

The main lemma which we use to begin the proof of Theorem \ref{main} and Proposition \ref{prop:n=2k} is the following combination of the well known result of Nash-Williams \cite{NW} and a (slight weakening of a) result of Bauer, Veldman, Morgana, Schmeichel \cite{BVMS}.  We provide a proof for completeness.

We say that a cycle $C$ in a graph $G$ is \emph{strongly dominating} if $V(G)\setminus V(C)$ is an independent set and no two vertices of $\bigcup_{u\in V(G)\setminus V(C)}N(u)$ appear consecutively on $C$.

\begin{lem}[see {\cite[Lemmas 1,2,3,4]{NW}} and {\cite[Lemma 8]{BVMS}}]\label{domcycle}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices.  If $G$ is 2-connected and $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n+2}{3}$, then every longest cycle of $G$ is strongly dominating.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $C=v_1v_2\dots v_kv_1$ be a longest cycle in $G$ and let $P=u_1u_2\dots u_r$ be a longest path in $G-C$.  If $r\leq 1$, then we are done; so suppose $r\geq 2$.  We have $k+r\leq n$ and note that by Theorem \ref{dir}, we have $k\geq 2\delta(G)\geq \frac{2n+4}{3}$ and thus
\begin{equation}\label{nrlower}
3r+4\leq n.
\end{equation}
Let $X=N(u_1)\cap V(C)$ and $Y=N(u_r)\cap V(C)$ and note that
\begin{equation}\label{XYlower}
|X|, |Y|\geq \delta(G)-(r-1).
\end{equation}

The key observation is that by the maximality of $C$, no two vertices in $X\cup Y$ are consecutive along $C$, and furthermore if $v_i\in X\cap Y$, then none of $v_{i-r}, \dots, v_{i-1}, v_{i+1}, \dots, v_{i+r}$ are in $X\cup Y$.

First suppose that $X\subseteq Y$ or $Y\subseteq X$; without loss of generality $X\subseteq Y$.  In this case we have by \eqref{XYlower},
\begin{equation}\label{Xineq}
n-r\geq k\geq (r+1)|X|\geq (r+1)(\delta(G)-(r-1)).
\end{equation}

First suppose $r=2$, in which case \eqref{Xineq} becomes $n-2\geq 3\left(\frac{n+2}{3}-1\right)=n-1$, a contradiction.  Now suppose $r\geq 3$ in which case \eqref{Xineq} becomes $$n\leq \frac{3r^2-5r-5}{r-2}=3r+1-\frac{3}{r-2},$$ contradicting \eqref{nrlower}.

Now suppose that $X\setminus Y\neq \emptyset$ and $Y\setminus X\neq \emptyset$.  There are vertices $v_i, v_j\in V(C)$ with the following properties: $v_i\in X\setminus Y$ and the next vertex $v_{i'}\in X\cup Y$ which appears after $v_i$ satisfies $v_{i'}\in Y$ (meaning that $i'\geq i+r+1$), and $v_j\in Y\setminus X$ and the next vertex $v_{j'}\in X\cup Y$ from $X\cup Y$ which appears after $v_j$ satisfies $v_{j'}\in X$ (meaning that $j'\geq j+r+1$).  Each vertex of $((X\setminus Y)\cup (Y\setminus X))\setminus \{v_i, v_j\}$ is followed by at least one vertex from $V(C)\setminus (X\cup Y)$ and each vertex of $(X\cap Y)\cup \{v_i, v_j\}$ is followed by at least $r$ vertices from $V(C)\setminus (X\cup Y)$.  So we have
\begin{align*}
n-r\geq k&\geq 2(|X\setminus Y|+|Y\setminus X|-2)+(r+1)(|X\cap Y|+2)\\
&=|X|+|Y|+|X\cup Y|+(r-2)|X\cap Y|+2(r-1)\\
&\geq \min\{4\delta(G)-2(r-1), 3\delta(G)-1\}\\
&\geq \min\{4(n+2)/3-2(r-1), n+1\},
\end{align*}
where the second to last inequality is seen by using \eqref{XYlower} and splitting into cases whether $|X\cap Y|=0$ or not.  However, $4(n+2)/3-2(r-1)\leq n-r$ implies $n\leq 3r-14$, contradicting \eqref{nrlower}.

To see that the second part of the definition of strongly dominating is satisfied, suppose that $C=v_1\dots v_kv_1$ is a longest cycle and suppose $V(G)\setminus V(C)=\{u_1, \dots, u_r\}$ is an independent set.  If $|V(G)\setminus V(C)|\leq 1$, we are done, so suppose $r\geq 2$.  Let $X=N(u_1)\cap V(C)$ and suppose (without loss of generality) for contradiction that $v_1\in X$ and $v_2\in N(u_2)$.  By the maximality of $C$, this implies that $v_3\not \in N(u_2)$ and for all $i\geq 3$, if $v_i\in X$, then $v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}\not\in N(u_2)$.  Since $k\leq n-2$, this implies that
$$\frac{n+2}{3}\leq |N(u_2)|\leq k-(2|N(u_1)|-1)\leq n-1-2\left(\frac{n+2}{3}\right)=\frac{n-7}{3},$$ a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\section{Filtering out $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $F_2$}\label{sec:filter}

We want to say that every balanced $k$-partite graph satisfying \eqref{cf} is both 2-connected and every longest cycle in strongly dominating; however, there are two exceptions and we deal with those exceptions before beginning the main proof in next Section.

First, we show that every balanced $k$-partite graph satisfying \eqref{cf} is either $2$-connected or belongs to the family $\mathcal{F}_1$ in Example \ref{n=2k}.\ref{e1}.

\begin{lem}\label{F1}
Let $k\geq 3$, let $n$ be an integer such that $n\geq 2k$, and let $G$ be a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n$ vertices.  If $$\delta(G) \geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k},$$ then $G$ is 2-connected unless $n=2k$ and $G\in \mathcal{F}_1$ (see Example \ref{n=2k}.\ref{e1}).
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} Let $V_1, \dots, V_k$ be the parts of $G$.  Suppose for contradiction that $\kappa(G)\leq 1$.  Let $A, B, C$ be a partition of $V(G)$ such that $|C|\leq 1$ and $G-C$ is not connected.

First suppose that there exists $i\in [k]$ such that $V_i\subseteq A\cup C$ or $V_i\subseteq B\cup C$.  Without loss of generality suppose $V_i\subseteq B\cup C$ and let $u\in A$ and $v\in B\cap V_i$.  We have
$$2\delta(G)\leq d(u)+d(v)\leq |A|+|C|-1+|B|+|C|-\frac{n}{k}=(1-\frac{1}{k})n+|C|-1\leq (1-\frac{1}{k})n,$$
contradicting Fact \ref{ineq}.\ref{f1} when $k$ is even and $n\geq 3k$, and contradicting Fact \ref{ineq}.\ref{f2} when $k$ is odd and $n\geq 2k$.

So unless $k$ is even and $n=2k$, we must have that for all $i\in [k]$, $V_i\cap A\neq \emptyset$ and $V_i\cap B\neq \emptyset$.  Either $C=\emptyset$ and we let $u\in A$ and $v\in B$, or $C\neq \emptyset$ and suppose without loss of generality that $V_1\cap C\neq \emptyset$ in which case we let $u\in V_1\cap A$ and $v\in V_1\cap B$.  Either way we have
$$2\delta(G)\leq d(u)+d(v)\leq n-\frac{n}{k},$$
contradicting Fact \ref{ineq}.\ref{f1} when $k$ is even and $n\geq 3k$, and contradicting Fact \ref{ineq}.\ref{f2} when $k$ is odd and $n\geq 2k$.

Finally, suppose $k$ is even and $n=2k$ which implies $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$.  For all $u\in A$ we have $\frac{n}{2}-1\leq d(u)\leq |A|+|C|-1$ which implies $|A|\geq \frac{n}{2}-|C|$ and for all $v\in B$ we have $\frac{n}{2}-1\leq d(v)\leq |B|+|C|-1$ which implies $|B|\geq \frac{n}{2}-|C|$.  If $C=\emptyset$, this implies $|A|=\frac{n}{2}$ and $|B|=\frac{n}{2}$.  If $C\neq \emptyset$, we have $|A|\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$ and $|B|\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$, so without loss of generality suppose $|A|+|C|=\frac{n}{2}$ and $|B|=\frac{n}{2}$.

If there exists $i\in [k]$ such that $V_i\subseteq A\cup C$ or $V_i\subseteq B$; say $V_i\subseteq A\cup C$, then for $u\in V_i\cap A$, we have
\[\frac{n}{2}-1\leq d(u)\leq |A|+|C|-|V_i|=\frac{n}{2}-2,\]
a contradiction.  Thus for all $i\in [k]$, we have $|V_i\cap (A\cup C)|=1$ and $|V_i\cap B|=1$.  Let $V_i=\{x_i,y_i\}$ for all $i\in [k]$ and let $X=\{x_1, \dots, x_k\}$ and $Y=\{y_1, \dots, y_k\}$ and suppose $X=A\cup C$ and $Y=B$.  So it must be the case that every vertex $u\in A$ is adjacent to precisely the vertices in $X\setminus \{u\}$ which means $G[X]$ is a clique.  Also every vertex $v\in Y$ is adjacent to at least $\frac{n}{2}-1$ of the $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices in $(Y\cup C)\setminus \{v\}$.  Thus $G\in \mathcal{F}_1$.
\end{proof}

We now prove a lemma which shows that when $G$ is a 2-connected balanced $k$-partite graph satisfying \eqref{cf}, we either have that every longest cycle in $G$ is strongly dominating or $G$ is isomorphic to the graph $F_2$ in Example \ref{n=2k}.\ref{e2}.

\begin{lem}\label{F2}
Let $k\geq 3$ and let $n\geq 2k$ and let $G$ be a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n$ vertices.  If $G$ is 2-connected and $\delta(G)\geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}$, then every longest cycle of $G$ is strongly dominating unless $n=8$ and $G\cong F_2$ (see Example \ref{n=2k}.\ref{e2}).
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We will show that, unless $n=8$ and $k=4$, we have $\delta(G)\geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}\geq \frac{n+2}{3}$ and thus we are done by Lemma \ref{domcycle}.

First suppose $k$ is odd, in which case $\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}=\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+1}}-\frac{n}{k}$.  First note that when $k=3$ and $n=6$ or $n=9$ we have by direct inspection that $\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+1}}-\frac{n}{k}\geq \frac{n+2}{3}$.  So in the remaining cases we have
\begin{equation}\label{n10}
n\geq 10\geq 10-\frac{24k-60}{k^2+k-6}=\frac{2k(5k-7)}{k^2+k-6}.
\end{equation}
Thus, using Fact \ref{kodd}, we have
\begin{align*}
\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+1}}-\frac{n}{k}-\frac{n+2}{3}&\geq \frac{n}{2}+\frac{n+2-(k-1)}{k+1}-\frac{n}{k}-\frac{n+2}{3}\\
&=\left(\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{k(k+1)}\right)n-\frac{2}{3}-\frac{k-3}{k+1}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{n10}}{\geq} \left(\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{k(k+1)}\right)\frac{2k(5k-7)}{k^2+k-6}-\frac{2}{3}-\frac{k-3}{k+1}=0,
\end{align*}
as desired.

Now suppose $k$ is even, in which case $\ceiling{\frac{n}{2}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}-\frac{n}{k}=\frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}$.  Note that aside from the case $n=8$ and $k=4$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{n12}
n\geq 12\geq 12-\frac{2(k+18)(k-4)}{k^2+2k-12}=\frac{2k(5k-2)}{k^2+2k-12}.
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{align*}
\frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}-\frac{n+2}{3}&\geq \frac{n}{2}+\frac{n+2-k}{k+2}-\frac{n}{k}-\frac{n+2}{3}\\
&=\left(\frac{1}{6}-\frac{2}{k(k+2)}\right)n-\frac{2}{3}-\frac{k-2}{k+2}\\
&\stackrel{\eqref{n12}}{\geq} \left(\frac{1}{6}-\frac{2}{k(k+2)}\right)\frac{2k(5k-2)}{k^2+2k-12}-\frac{2}{3}-\frac{k-2}{k+2}=0,
\end{align*}
as desired.

Finally suppose $n=8$ and $k=4$ and let $C$ be a longest cycle of $G$.  Since $G$ is 2-connected and $\delta(G)\geq \frac{8}{2}+\floor{\frac{10}{6}}-\frac{8}{4}=3$, Theorem \ref{dir} implies that $C$ has length at least $6$.  If $C$ had length at least 7, it would be a strongly dominating cycle, so suppose $C$ has length 6.  Let $C=x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5x_6$ and let $x'$ and $x''$ be the two vertices in $V(G)\setminus V(C)$.  If $x'x''\not\in E(G)$, then by the maximality of $C$ it is easily seen that, without loss of generality, $N(x')=N(x'')=\{x_1,x_3,x_5\}$ and thus $C$ is strongly dominating; so suppose that $x'x'' \in E(G)$.

Without loss of generality suppose $x'x_1 \in E(G)$. If either $x''x_2\in E(G)$ or $x''x_6\in E(G)$, then $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle; and if either $x''x_3\in E(G)$ or $x''x_5\in E(G)$, then $G$ has a cycle longer than $C$, a contradiction.  Since $\delta(G)\geq 3$, this forces $x''x_1,x''x_4 \in E(G)$.  By the same argument we get $x'x_4 \in E(G)$.  If $x_6x_3 \in E(G)$, then $x_6x_3x_2x_1x'x''x_4x_5x_6$ is a Hamiltonian cycle, so $x_6x_3 \not \in E(G)$, and by symmetry $x_2x_5 \not \in E(G)$. If $x_6x_2 \in E(G)$, then $x_6x_2x_3x_4x'x''x_1x_6$ is a cycle longer than $C$, a contradiction. So $x_6x_2 \not \in E(G)$ and by symmetry $x_3x_5 \not \in E(G)$. Since $\delta(G)\geq 3$, this forces $x_6x_4,x_5x_1,x_2x_4,x_3x_1 \in E(G)$. Therefore $G \cong \mathcal{F}_2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main} and Proposition \ref{prop:n=2k}}\label{sec:main}

Let $k\geq 3$ and let $G$ be a balanced $k$-partite graph on $n$ vertices.  Let $V_1,V_2, \dots, V_k$ denote the parts and note that $|V_i|=\frac{n}{k}=:m $ for all $i\in [k]$.  Since the case $k=n$ is Dirac's theorem, we suppose $k\leq \frac{n}{2}$ and since the case $k=2$ is handled in \cite{MM} and \cite{FJP}, we suppose $k\geq 3$.  Furthermore, if $k=\frac{n}{2}$, we suppose that $G\not\in \mathcal{F}_1$ and $G\not\cong F_2$ (see Example \ref{n=2k}).  Now let $C$ be a maximum length cycle and suppose for contradiction that $C$ is not Hamiltonian.  By Lemma \ref{F1} and Lemma \ref{F2} we may assume that $C$ is strongly dominating.

Without loss of generality, let
$z\in V_1\setminus V(C)$.

Let $S=(V(G)\setminus V(C))\cup \{v_{i+1}: v_i\in N(z)\}$ and $R=(V(G)\setminus V(C))\cup \{v_{i-1}: v_i\in N(z)\}$ and note that
\begin{equation} \label{SR}
|S|, |R|\geq \delta(G)+1.
\end{equation}
Since $C$ is strongly dominating, both $S$ and $R$ are independent sets.
For each $i \in [k]$, set $$S_i = S
\cap V_i \text{ and } R_i = R \cap V_i.$$
Define $\ell=|\{i\in [k]: S_i\neq \emptyset\}|$ and $\ell'=|\{i\in [k]: R_i\neq \emptyset\}|$ and without loss of generality suppose $$\ell\leq \ell'.$$  Furthermore, without loss of generality, we may suppose that
\begin{align*}
S_i \neq \emptyset \text{ for all } i\in [\ell] \text{ and } S_j=\emptyset \text{ for all } j\in [k]\setminus [\ell].
\end{align*}

\begin{cla}\label{elllower}
$\ell, \ell'\geq \ceiling{\frac{k}{2}}$
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
We claim that $|R|,|S|\geq \delta(G)+1>(\ceiling{\frac{k}{2}}-1)\frac{n}{k}$, which implies the result.  Indeed, we have
\begin{equation}\label{k/2}
\delta(G) + 1 - (\ceiling{\frac{k}{2}} - 1)\frac{n}{k} \geq \ceiling{\frac{n}{2}} + \floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}} + 1 - \frac{n}{k}\ceiling{\frac{k}{2}}.
\end{equation}
When $k$ is even, \eqref{k/2} reduces to $\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}} + 1 > 0$, and when $k$ is odd, by Fact \ref{kodd}, \eqref{k/2} reduces to  $\frac{n}{2}+\frac{n}{k+1}-\frac{k-3}{k+1}-\frac{n}{k}\left(\frac{k+1}{2}\right)+1=\frac{n}{k+1}-\frac{n}{2k}+1-\frac{k-3}{k+1}=\frac{(k-1)n}{2k(k+1)}+\frac{4}{k+1}>0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cla}\label{Si}~
\begin{enumerate}[label=\emph{(\roman*)}]
\item \label{c1} For all $y \in S$,
$|\overline {N(y)} \setminus  S| \leq n-2\delta(G)-1.$  For all $y \in R$,
$|\overline {N(y)}  \setminus R| \leq n-2\delta(G)-1.$

\item \label{c2} For all $i\in [k]$, if $S_i\neq \emptyset$, then $|S_i| \geq  2\delta(G)+1-(1-\frac{1}{k})n\geq \frac{1}{2}(\frac{n}{k}-(\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G))).$  For all $i\in [k]$, if $R_i\neq \emptyset$, then $|R_i| \geq  2\delta(G)+1-(1-\frac{1}{k})n\geq \frac{1}{2}(\frac{n}{k}-(\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G))).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since $C$ is a longest cycle of $G$, the vertex subsets
$N(y)$, $S$, and $\overline{N(y)}  \setminus S$ are pairwise disjoint for all $y \in S$.
Thus
$ n= |N(y)| + |S| + |\overline{N(y)}  \setminus S|\geq 2\delta(G)+1+|\overline{N(y)}  \setminus S|$, where the inequality holds by \eqref{SR}.  Thus $|\overline {N(y)}  \setminus S| \leq n-2\delta(G)-1.$  Similarly, $N(y)$, $R$, and $\overline{N(y)}  \setminus R$ are pairwise disjoint for all $y \in R$, so $|\overline{N(y)}  \setminus R| \leq n - 2\delta(G) - 1$

\item Let $y\in S_i$.  We have that $V_i\setminus S_i\subseteq \overline {N(y)}  \setminus S$ so by (i) we have that $|S_i|\geq \frac{n}{k}-|\overline {N(y)}  \setminus S|\geq 2\delta(G)+1-(1-\frac{1}{k})n$ as desired.   Similarly, if $y \in R_i$, then by (i) we have that $|R_i|\geq \frac{n}{k} - |\overline{N(y)}  \setminus R| \geq 2\delta(G) + 1 - (1 - \frac{1}{k})n$.

Finally, we have $2\delta(G)+1-(1-\frac{1}{k})n\geq \frac{1}{2}(\frac{n}{k}-(\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G)))$ by Fact \ref{ineq}.\ref{f3}.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{cla}\label{zVi}~
For all $i\in [k]$, if $S_i\cap R_i\neq \emptyset$, then $|N(z)\cap V_i| \leq \floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G).$
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}

Let $2\leq i\leq k$ such that $S_i\cap R_i\neq \emptyset$ and let $y \in S_i\cap R_i$. So $y$ is a successor along $C$ of some vertex
in $N(z)$, and a predecessor along $C$ of some vertex in $N(z)$ as well.
Since $C$ is a longest cycle of $G$, neither $N(z)$ nor $N(y)$ contains
two consecutive vertices of $C$, so $N(y)\cap (S\cup R)
= \emptyset$. Thus,
$$n-1\geq  |V(C)| \geq 2 |N(z)\cup N(y)| = 2(d(y) + |N(z)  \setminus N(y)|)
\geq 2(d(y) +|N(z)\cap V_i|).$$
Rearranging gives the result.
\end{proof}

\begin{cla}\label{ellupper}
$\frac{\ell+\ell'}{2}< \ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}$
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
Let $i_1\leq i_2\leq \dots\leq i_{\ell'}$ be the indices such that $R_{i_j}\neq \emptyset$ for all $j\in [\ell']$.  By Claim \ref{Si}.\ref{c2} and  Claim \ref{zVi} and the fact that $z\in S_1\cap R_1$ we see that each of the sets $S_2, \dots, S_\ell$, $R_{i_2}, \dots, R_{i_{\ell'}}$ contributes at least $\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{n}{k}-\left(\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G)\right)\right)$ to $|\overline{N(z)} \setminus V_1|$.  So we have
$$
\delta(G)\leq d(z) \leq (1-\frac{1}{k})n-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{n}{k}-\left(\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}-\delta(G)\right)\right)(\ell+\ell'-2).
$$

Solving the above inequality for $\frac{\ell+\ell'}{2}$, we have
$$
\frac{\ell+\ell'}{2}\leq  \frac{\ceiling{\frac{n+1}{2}}}{\floor{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}}+1}\leq \frac{\frac{n+2}{2}}{\frac{n+2}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}-\frac{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}-1}{2\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}}+1}=\frac{n+2}{n+3}\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}<\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}},$$
as desired.
\end{proof}

Since we are supposing without loss of generality that $\ell\leq \ell'$, we have by Claim \ref{elllower} and Claim \ref{ellupper}  that $$\ceiling{\frac{k}{2}}\leq \ell<\ceiling{\frac{k+1}{2}}.$$  Thus if $k$ is odd, we have a contradiction.  So for the rest of the proof we will suppose that $k$ is even and consequently by Claim \ref{elllower} and \ref{ellupper}, we have $\ell=\frac{k}{2}$.

\subsection{$k$ is even and $\ell=\frac{k}{2}$}

Let $$A = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\ell}V_i ~\text{ and }~ B = \bigcup_{i= \ell+1}^kV_i,$$ and let $H$ be the bipartite graph induced by $[A,B]$. Label the vertices of $A$ as $u_1, \dots, u_{n/2}$ such that $d_H(u_1)\leq \dots\leq d_H(u_{n/2})$ and label the vertices of $B$ as $v_1, \dots, v_{n/2}$ such that $d_H(v_1)\leq \dots\leq d_H(v_{n/2})$.  Recall that $S\subseteq A$.

Since we are in the case where $k$ is even, \eqref{cf} reduces to $$\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{n}{k}.$$

\begin{cla}\label{AB}~
\begin{enumerate}[label=\emph{(\roman*)}]
\item\label{SB} $\delta(S, B)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{2n}{k}+1$, with equality only if $S_i=V_i$ for some $i\in [\ell]$
\item\label{ASB} $\delta(A\setminus S, B)\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}\geq |A\setminus S|+1$,
\item\label{BA} $\delta(B,A)\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}\geq |A\setminus S|+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item This follows from  Claim \ref{Si}.\ref{c1} since for all $y\in S$,  $$d(y, B)\geq |B|-|\overline{N(y)} \setminus S|\geq |B|-(n-2\delta(G)-1)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{2n}{k}+1.$$
If we have equality above, this implies that $\overline{N(y)} \setminus S\subseteq B$, which in particular implies that if $y\in V_i$, then $V_i\setminus S_i=\emptyset$.

\item We have
\begin{align*}
\delta(A\setminus S, B)&\geq \delta(G)-(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n}{k})\\
&\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}
\geq \frac{n}{k}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}
\geq \frac{n}{2}-\delta(G)\stackrel{\eqref{SR}}{\geq}  \frac{n}{2}-|S|+1=|A\setminus S|+1,
\end{align*}
where the third inequality holds by Fact \ref{ff}.\ref{ff1}. \qedhere

\item Since $\delta(B,A)\geq \delta(G)-(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{n}{k})$, the rest of the calculation is the same as in  \ref{ASB}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

Before proceeding with the rest of the proof, we finally filter out $\mathcal{F}_3$.

\begin{cla}\label{n/2-1}
If $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$, then either $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle or $k=\frac{n}{2}$ and $G\in \mathcal{F}_3$.
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
By \eqref{SR} and the fact that $\ell=\frac{k}{2}$, we have $|S|=\frac{n}{2}$ and thus $A=S$ which means $A$ is an independent set.  So by Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{SB}, we have $\delta(A,B)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$.  Furthermore we have by Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{BA} that $\delta(B,A)\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}$.  If $\delta(B,A)\geq 2$, then by Theorem \ref{chv}, $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.

So suppose $\delta(B,A)=1$ which implies $n=2k$.  In this case there is a vertex $y' \in B$ such that $y'$ only has one neighbor in $A$, say $x'$.  We have $\delta(A,B)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1=|B|-1$ so every vertex in $A\setminus \{x'\}$ is adjacent to every vertex in $B\setminus \{y'\}$.  Since $d(y', A)=1$ and $d(y')=\frac{n}{2}-1$, it must be the case that $y'$ is adjacent to everything in $B$ except the other vertex in its own part.  Now we have all the edges between $A \setminus \{x'\}$ and $B \setminus \{y'\}$, the edge $x'y'$, all the edges from $y'$ to $B$ excluding the vertex in its own part, and we have all but possibly one edge from $x'$ to $B \setminus \{y'\}$, so $G \in \mathcal{F}_3$.
\end{proof}

Now for the rest of the proof we may suppose that $n\geq 3k$ (i.e. $m\geq 3$).  We now use Theorem \ref{chv} to show that $H$, and therefore $G$, has a Hamiltonian cycle.

Suppose there exists $i\in [\frac{n}{2}]$ such that $d_H(v_i)\leq i$.  By Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{BA}, we must have
\begin{equation}\label{i}
i\geq \delta(B, A)\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}.
\end{equation}

\noindent
\tbf{Case 1} ($\frac{n}{2}-i\leq |A\setminus S|$)  By Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{ASB} we have $d_H(u_{\frac{n}{2}-i})\geq \delta(A\setminus S, B) \geq |A\setminus S|+1\geq \frac{n}{2}-i+1$.

\noindent
\tbf{Case 2} ($\frac{n}{2}-i\geq |A\setminus S|+1$)

\tbf{Case 2.1} ($k\geq 6$) Note that since $k\geq 6$, when $3k\leq n\leq 5k$, we have $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$ and thus we are done by Claim \ref{n/2-1}.  So for remainder of this case, suppose $n\geq 6k$ (i.e. $m\geq 6$).

By Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{SB} $$d_H(u_{\frac{n}{2}-i})\geq \delta(S, B)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{2n}{k}+1\geq \frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}+1\stackrel{\eqref{i}}{\geq} \frac{n}{2}-i+1,$$
where the third inequality holds by Fact \ref{ff}.\ref{ff2} since $m\geq 6$ and $k\geq 6$.

Thus the conditions of Theorem \ref{chv} are satisfied and therefore $H$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.

\tbf{Case 2.2} ($k=4$)

By Claim \ref{AB}.\ref{SB}, we either don't have equality and thus $$d_H(u_{\frac{n}{2}-i})\geq \delta(S, B)\geq \frac{n}{2}+2\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{2n}{k}+2\geq \frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}+1\stackrel{\eqref{i}}{\geq} \frac{n}{2}-i+1,$$
where the third inequality holds by Fact \ref{ff}.\ref{ff2} since $m\geq 3$ and $k\geq 4$, and thus we are done as in the previous case; or $\delta(S, B)= \frac{n}{2}+2\floor{\frac{n+2}{k+2}}-\frac{2n}{k}+1$ and without loss of generality, $S_1=V_1$.

When $3k\leq n\leq 4k$, we have $\delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{2}-1$ and thus we are done by Claim \ref{n/2-1}.  So for remainder of this case, suppose $n\geq 5k$ (i.e. $m\geq 5$).  Also note that
since $k=4$, \eqref{cf} reduces to $$\delta(G) \geq \frac{n}{4}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}.$$

\begin{cla}\label{42}~
\begin{enumerate}[label=\emph{(\roman*)}]
\item \label{42i} $|S_2|\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1$.
\item \label{42ii} $\delta(S_1, B)\geq 2\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1$.
\item \label{42iii} $\delta(S_2, B)\geq \delta(G)\geq \frac{n}{4}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cla}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Since $|S|\geq \delta(G)+1$, we have $$|S_2|=|S|-|S_1|\geq |S|-\frac{n}{4}\geq \delta(G)+1-\frac{n}{4}=\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1.$$

\item Each vertex in $S_1$ has at most $|V_{2}\setminus S_{2}|$ neighbors in $V_{2}$ and thus by \ref{42i}, at least $\frac{n}{4}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}-(\frac{n}{4}-|S_{2}|)\geq \floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1=2\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1$
neighbors in $B$.

\item Since $S_1=V_1$, the vertices in $S_2$ have no neighbors in $A$ and thus all of their neighbors are in $B$. \qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

We are in the case where $\frac{n}{2}-i\geq |A\setminus S|+1$, so if
\begin{equation}\label{i2}
\frac{n}{2}-i\leq \frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}-1,
\end{equation}
then by Claim \ref{42}.\ref{42ii} we have
$$d_H(u_{\frac{n}{2}-i})\geq \delta(S_1, B)\geq 2\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1\geq \frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}\stackrel{\eqref{i2}}{\geq} \frac{n}{2}-i+1,$$
where the third inequality holds by Fact \ref{ff}.\ref{ff2} (in particular $3\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1\geq 3(\frac{n+2-4}{6})+1=\frac{n}{2}$).
Otherwise together with \eqref{i}, we have
$\frac{n}{2}-i=\frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}},$
so by Claim \ref{42}.\ref{42i},\ref{42iii} we have
$$d_H(u_{\frac{n}{2}-i})\geq \delta(S_2, B)\geq\frac{n}{4}+\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}\geq \frac{n}{2}-\floor{\frac{n+2}{6}}+1= \frac{n}{2}-i+1,$$
where the third inequality holds by Fact \ref{ff}.\ref{ff1} since $m\geq 5$ and $k=4$.

This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{main} and Proposition \ref{prop:n=2k}. \qed


Weakly reinforced Pólya urns on countable networks

Abstract: We study the long-time asymptotics of a network of weakly reinforced Pólya urns. In this system, which extends the WARM introduced by R. van der Hofstad et. al. (2016) to countable networks, the nodes fire at times given by a Poisson point process. When a node fires, one of the incident edges is selected with a probability proportional to its weight raised to a power $\alpha < 1$, and then this weight is increased by $1$.We show that for $\alpha < 1/2$ on a network of bounded degrees, every edge is reinforced a positive proportion of time, and that the limiting proportion can be interpreted as an equilibrium in a countable network. Moreover, in the special case of regular graphs, this homogenization remains valid beyond the threshold $\alpha = 1/2$.

\section{Proof of \cref{mainThm} (1)}\label{sec:bounded}
In this section, we establish part (1) of \cref{mainThm}. That is, we show
homogenization for $\alpha < 1/2$ and graphs of bounded degree. First, in
\cref{sec:existence_equi}, we prove existence of a non-vanishing equilibrium.
Then, in \cref{sec:bounded_limit}, we show that $X_t$ converges to such an
equilibrium, which is in fact uniquely determined.
\subsection{Existence of equilibrium}\label{sec:existence_equi}

Henceforth, we call an equilibrium $\mu \in \mb R_+^E$ \emph{non-vanishing} if $\mu(e) > 0$ for every $e \in E$.
Before discussing existence of non-vanishing equilibria on general graphs, we present the
$\Delta$-regular case as a particularly easy example.
\begin{example}[$\Delta$-regular graphs]\label{lemma:equi_zd}
 Let $G$ be a $\Delta$-regular graph. Then, $\mu \equiv 2/\Delta$ defines a non-vanishing equilibrium.
Indeed, checking \cref{eqn:equi} leads to
 $$
  \sum_{v\in e}
 \frac{\mu^\alpha}{\sum_{e'\in E_v}\mu^\alpha}\\
  = \sum_{v\in e}
 \frac1{\sum_{e'\in E_v}1}\\
  = \frac2\Delta = \mu.
 $$
\end{example}

 The general case of bounded-degree graphs does not admit such an easy analysis as
the equilibrium could in principle assume an infinite number of different values. Nevertheless, we deduce existence from a compactness argument.
\begin{proposition}[Existence of non-vanishing equilibria]\label{lemma:existence_for_all}
	Every graph with degrees uniformly bounded by $\Delta$ exhibits at least one non-vanishing
    equilibrium $\mu$ {{with $\mu(e) \ge 2/\Delta^{1/(1-\alpha)}$ for all
    $e\in E$}}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	%

	%
	By \cref{eqn:equi}, the equilibria correspond to fixed points of the continuous operator
 \begin{align}
 T\colon \mb R_+^E&\longrightarrow \mb R_+^E\\
 \mu(\cdot)&\longmapsto
 \sum_{v\in \cdot}
 \frac{{\mu(\cdot)}^\alpha}
  {\sum_{e'\in E_v}{\mu(e')}^\alpha}.
 \end{align}

	%

	%
	As a product of locally convex and Hausdorff spaces, $\mb R_+^E$ is again locally convex and Hausdorff.
Now, define the closed set
    {$C = {[2\Delta^{-1/(1 - \alpha)}, 2]}^E$},
	which as a product of convex and
    compact sets, is again convex and compact. We claim that
		$T(C) \subseteq C.$
	Once this claim is established, Schauder's fixed point theorem yields a
    non-vanishing equilibrium in $C$.

	To prove $T(C) \subseteq C$, note that for every $\mu\in C$ and $e = \{v_1, v_2\} \in E$ we have
 \begin{align}
	 T(\mu)(e)
  =
 \frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
	 {\sum_{e'\in E_{v_1}}{\mu(e')}^\alpha} + \frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
	 {\sum_{e'\in E_{v_2}}{\mu(e')}^\alpha}
  \le 2\;,
 \end{align}
 and
 \begin{align}
	 T(\mu)(e)
  = \sum_{i \le 2}
 \frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
	 {\sum_{e'\in E_{v_i}}{\mu(e')}^\alpha}
 \ge \sum_{i \le 2}
 \frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
  {2^\alpha\ms{deg}(v_i)}
  \ge \frac{2\mu(e)^\alpha}{2^\alpha {\Delta}}
  \ge \frac2{{{\Delta}}^{1/(1 - \alpha)}},
 \end{align}
 as claimed.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{mainThm} (1)}\label{sec:bounded_limit}
The proof of part (1) of Theorem \ref{mainThm} is based on three pivotal ingredients.

First, as each edge is incident to two vertices firing at rate 1, its weight grows at rate at most 2. In other words, for every $e \in E$, almost surely,
$$X_+(e) : = \limsup_{t \to \infty}X_t(e) \le 2.$$
\begin{lemma}[Rate upper bound]\label{lemma:loc_firstboundonC}
	Let $e \in E$ be arbitrary. Then, $\mb P(X_+(e) \le 2) = 1$.
\end{lemma}

Second, we derive a positive lower bound for the growth rate
\begin{align}
        X_-(e) :=\liminf_{t\rightarrow\infty}X_t(e).
\end{align}
 This task is slightly more subtle than the upper bound, since arbitrarily
 small rates can occur with positive probability. To approach this challenge,
 we fix throughout this section a non-vanishing equilibrium $\mu$  as in
 \cref{lemma:existence_for_all} and write
$$E_e := \{e' \in E:\, e' \cap e \ne \emptyset\}$$
for the family of edges adjacent to a given edge $e \in E$. Then, an edge $e \in E$ is \emph{$\delta$-stable} if
\begin{align}
	\min_{e' \in E_e} \frac{X_-(e')}{\mu(e')} \ge \delta.
\end{align}

\begin{lemma}[Rate lower bound]
	\label{noPercLem}
	There exists $\delta_0 > 0$ such that with probability $1$,
    all connected components of $\delta_0$-unstable edges are finite.
\end{lemma}

Finally, we rely on a bootstrapping procedure to push the weights iteratively closer to 1.
To that end, define
\begin{align}
	\mc C(e) : = [X_-(e), X_+(e)]
\end{align}
as the smallest interval containing the accumulation points of $X_t(e)$.

\begin{lemma}[Bootstrap on bounded degree graphs]
	\label{bootStrapLem}
    Let $\alpha < 1/2$ and $\varrho>1$. If $e\in E$ is such that $\mc C(e') \subseteq
    [\varrho^{-1}\mu(e'), \varrho\mu(e')]$ holds for all $e' \in E_e$, then $\mc C(e)
    \subseteq [\varrho^{-2\alpha}\mu(e), \varrho^{2\alpha}\mu(e)]$.
\end{lemma}

Before establishing Lemmas~\ref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC}--\ref{bootStrapLem},
we elucidate how they can be combined to yield the proof of part (1) of \cref{mainThm}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{mainThm}(1)]
        Let $\delta_0 > 0$ be as in \cref{noPercLem}. { Assume without
                loss of generality that $\delta_0 \le \Delta^{-1/(1-\alpha)}$ so that $2\le
        \mu(e)\Delta^{1/(1-\alpha)}\le \mu(e)/\delta_0$ for any $e\in E$ where the first
        inequality follows from $\mu(e)\ge 2/\Delta^{1/(1-\alpha)}$ given by
        \cref{lemma:existence_for_all}}. We first claim that $X_-(e) \ge \delta_0\mu(e)$
        almost surely for every $e \in E$.  { Indeed, assume the contrary
        and let $S$ be a connected component of $\delta_0$-unstable edges. By
        \cref{noPercLem}, $S$ is finite and we choose $e^*\in S$ (randomly)
        such that $\varrho:=\frac{\mu(e^*)}{X_-(e^*)}$ is maximal.} Then, $\varrho^{-1}
        \ge \delta_0$ almost surely since otherwise \cref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC}
        and the bootstrap property of \cref{bootStrapLem}{,
        combined with $2\le \mu(e)/\delta_0\le \varrho\mu(e)$,} would give that
        $\mc C(e^*) \subseteq [\varrho^{-2\alpha}\mu(e^*), 2]$, thereby contradicting that
        \[\frac{X_-(e^*) }{ \mu(e^*)} =
        \varrho^{-1} < \varrho^{-2\alpha}.\]
    {{Hence, the infimum
    \[\varrho_* := \inf\{\varrho > 1\colon\mc C(e) \subseteq [\varrho^{-1}\mu(e),
    \varrho\mu(e)] \text{ for every $e \in E$}\}\]
	is at most $\delta_0^{-1}$. }}Now,   $\varrho_* = 1$ almost surely
    since otherwise the bootstrap property yields that $\mc C(e)
	\subseteq [\varrho_*^{-2\alpha}\mu(e), \varrho_*^{2\alpha}\mu(e)]$ for every $e \in
    E$, thereby contradicting the choice of $\varrho_*$.
\end{proof}
It remains to establish the auxiliary results. We start by proving Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC}]
One extremal case is that each clock-ring event for $P_v$ increments
the value for an edge $e = \{v, w\}\in E$.
The process
\begin{align}
	Y_t := \frac{P^{}_v([0, t]\times[0, 1])
 + P_w([0, t]\times[0, 1])}t
\end{align}
counts the normalized occurrences for this upper bound and has an expected value of
\begin{align}
 \mb E[Y_t]
 = \frac{\mb E[P^{}_v([0, t]\times [0, 1])]
  + \mb E[P^{}_w([0, t]\times [0, 1])]}t
 = \frac{2t}t = 2\;.
\end{align}
Then, the strong law of large numbers for homogeneous Poisson point
processes, gives that almost surely
$ \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}Y_t = 2$.
Now,
$
 X_t(e)\le Y_t + \frac1t
 $
for all $t \ge 0$, implies that almost surely,
$
 \limsup_{t \rightarrow \infty} X_t(e)\le \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
 Y_t = 2.
 $
\end{proof}

Next, we verify the bootstrap property.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{bootStrapLem}]
    Let $\varrho > 1$ and $e = \{v_1, v_2\} \in E$ be such that $\mc C(e') \subseteq
    [\varrho^{-1}\mu(e'), \varrho\mu(e')]$ for all $e' \in E_e$. Moreover, for $\varepsilon > 0$
    set $\varrho_\varepsilon = (1 + \varepsilon) \varrho$. Then, there exists a random time $T  < \infty $
    such that $X_t(e') \in [\varrho_\varepsilon^{-1}\mu(e'), \varrho_\varepsilon\mu(e')]$ for all $t \ge T$
    and $e' \in E_e$. In particular, for every $i \in \{1, 2\}$,
    {
    \begin{align}
            \ms{pol}_{v_i,e}(X_t)
            = \frac{{N_t(e)}^\alpha}
                   {\sum\limits_{\mathclap{e'\in E_{v_i}}}{N_t(e')}^\alpha}
		   \ge            \frac{{(\varrho_\varepsilon^{-1}\mu(e))}^\alpha}
		{\sum\limits_{\mathclap{e'\in E_{v_i}}}{{(\varrho_\varepsilon\mu(e'))}^\alpha}}
           = \varrho_\varepsilon^{-2\alpha}
           \frac{{\mu(e)}^\alpha}
                {\sum\limits_{\mathclap{e'\in E_{v_i}}}{{\mu(e')}^\alpha}}.
    \end{align}}
	Therefore, using that $\mu$ is an equilibrium, $\{N_t(e)\}_{t \ge T}$ is dominated from below by a Poisson process with intensity
	$$\varrho_\varepsilon^{-2\alpha}\frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
 {
  \sum\limits_{{\mathclap{\substack{e'\in E_{v_1}}}}}
 {		{\mu(e')^\alpha}{}}}
	 + \varrho_\varepsilon^{-2\alpha}\frac{\mu(e)^\alpha}
 {
  \sum\limits_{{\mathclap{\substack{e'\in E_{v_2}}}}}
	{		{\mu(e')^\alpha}{}}} = \varrho_\varepsilon^{-2\alpha} \mu(e).
	$$
	Hence, almost surely, $X_-(e) \ge \varrho_\varepsilon^{-2\alpha} \mu(e)$. Similar arguments yield that $X_+(e) \le \varrho_\varepsilon^{2\alpha} \mu(e)$.
\end{proof}

The proof of Lemma \ref{noPercLem} is the most challenging part of
the auxiliary results. The main ingredient is
\cref{lemma:loc_secondboundonC} below. It states that $X_-(e)$ is
bounded away from 0 with a high probability, even when conditioning
on $\mc F_{e^c}$, where for $e \in E$ we let
\[\mc F_{e^c} := \sigma(\{P_v\}_{v \not \in \cup_{e' \in E_e}e'})\]
denote the $\sigma$-algebra generated by all Poisson processes at nodes that are at distance at least~2 away from the edge $e$.
\begin{lemma}[Compact containment of $\mc C(e)$]
	\label{lemma:loc_secondboundonC}
	For every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $\delta > 0$ such that almost surely
	$$\inf_{e \in E}\mb P( X_-(e) \ge \delta\,|\, \mc F_{e^c}) \ge 1 - \varepsilon.$$
	In particular, $\mb P( X_-(e) > 0\,|\, \mc F_{e^c}) = 1$ for every $e \in E$.

\end{lemma}
Hence, we conclude from dependent percolation theory in the form of \cite[Theorem 0.0]{domProd} that the edges violating the lower bound are restricted to finite, well-separated islands. To make the presentation self-contained, we give an elementary direct proof.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{noPercLem}]
    Let $v \in V$ be arbitrary. We resort to a first-moment argument and show
    that for sufficiently small $\delta$ the expected number of length-$n$
    self-avoiding paths of $\delta$-unstable edges tends to 0 as $n \to \infty$.
    Since the number of length-$n$ self-avoiding paths in $G$ starting from $v$
    is at most $\Delta^n$, it suffices to show that the probability for any fixed
    self-avoiding path to consist of $\delta$-unstable edges only is of the order
    at most $(2\Delta)^{-n}$.

	Note that the number of edges that are at graph distance at most 3 of a given edge is bounded above by $2\Delta^3$. Hence, any self-avoiding path of length $n$ contains at least $n / (2\Delta^3)$ edges that are of pairwise distance at least 4, so that by Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_secondboundonC}, the probability that they are all $\delta$-unstable is at most $\varepsilon(\delta)^{n / (2\Delta^3)}$. In particular, choosing $\delta > 0$ such that $\varepsilon(\delta)^{1 / (2\Delta^3)} \le 1 / (2\Delta)$ concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

It remains to prove Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_secondboundonC}. To that end, we invoke a conditioning argument in the spirit of \cite[Lemma 5.2]{benaim} to provide a bootstrap result propagating large edge weights at a current time point to a considerable duration into the future.
For $k, \ell \ge 1$ put
 \begin{align}
   a_{k, \ell} := \Delta^{-\frac1{1 - \alpha}}
    2^{k(\ell - 1) - k \sum_{2 \le i \le \ell}\alpha^i}.
 \end{align}
\begin{lemma}[Bootstrapped lower bound]
	\label{lemma:loc_HilfsLemma}
	There exists a constant $c = c(\alpha, \Delta) > 0$ such that for all $k$ large enough, all $\ell\ge 1$ and all $e \in E$, almost surely,
	\begin{align}\label{eqn:condProb}
  &\mb P(N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}(e)
		\le a_{k, \ell + 1} \text{ and }N_{2^{k\ell}}(e) \ge a_{k, \ell}
 \,|\, \mc F_{e^c} )
		\le e^{
 			-c2^{k\ell(1 - \alpha)}
 }.
 \end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be arbitrary.
	Then, the Poisson concentration inequality \cite[Lemma 1.2]{penrose} implies that the event
	 \begin{align}
		 A_e:=\{N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}({e'}) \le		 2^{1 + \varepsilon +  k(\ell +
         1)}\ \text{for all}\ e'\in E_{e}\}\label{eqn:upper_bound_weights}
 \end{align}
		has a probability tending to $1$ with an error decaying exponentially in
        $2^{k\ell}$.

	Further, under the event $\{N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\} \cap A_e$,
 \cref{eqn:polya_weight} has a lower bound for times
 $t \in T_\ell : = [2^{k\ell}, 2^{k(\ell + 1)}]$ given by
 \begin{align}
 {\mathsf{pol}_{v, e}(N_t)}
  = \frac
  {N_t(e)^\alpha}{\sum_{e'\in E_v}N_t({e'})^\alpha}
 \ge
 \frac
  {a_{k, \ell}^\alpha}{a_{k, \ell}^\alpha
   + \Delta
  2^{(1 + \varepsilon + k(\ell + 1))\alpha}}.
 \end{align}
	Since $\Delta a_{k, \ell + 1} = a_{k, \ell}^\alpha 2^{k (\ell + \alpha) (1 - \alpha)}$, putting $\alpha_\varepsilon = \alpha (1 + \varepsilon)$, we deduce that
	\begin{align}
		{\mathsf{pol}_{v, e}(N_t)}&\ge
		\frac1{1 + 2^{\alpha_\varepsilon} 2^{k (\ell + 1) \alpha}
    a_{k, \ell + 1}^{-1} 2^{k (\ell + \alpha)(1 - \alpha)}
  }
		 = \frac1{1 + 2^{\alpha_\varepsilon + k(\ell + 1 - (1 - \alpha)^2)}
    a_{k, \ell + 1}^{-1}
}.
	\end{align}
	Hence,
	\begin{align}
	{\mathsf{pol}_{v, e}(N_t)}
		\ge \frac {2^{-\alpha_\varepsilon + k((1 - \alpha)^2 - \ell - 1)} a_{k, \ell + 1}}
    {1 + 2^{-k\alpha}}
 = :{G_{k, \ell}}\;.
 \end{align}
 In particular, for $t\in T_\ell$,
 the Poisson processes $P_v$ and $P_w$ having points in
 $[2^{k\ell}, t]\times U_e$
 where $U_e\subseteq[0, 1]$ and $|U_e|\ge
 G_{k, \ell}$ implies weight increases of the edge $e$
 (by one or more) in the time interval $[2^{k\ell}, t]$.
 Therefore, using \cref{eqn:upper_bound_weights}, we find a constant $c$ such  that
 \begin{align}
     &\mb P\left(N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}(e)
             \le a_{k, \ell + 1}\text{ and }
 N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\right)\\
        &\quad\le\mb P\left(N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}(e)-N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\le
 a_{k, \ell + 1}\text{ and }
 N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\right)\\
        &\quad\le
  \mb P\left(P_v(T_\ell\times U_e)
  + P_w(T_\ell\times U_e)\le a_{k, \ell + 1}
  \text{ and } N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\right)
  + {O}\big(e^{-c 2^{k\ell}}\big)\\
 &\quad \le \mb P
 \left(
  \mathsf{Poi}\left(
  2|T_\ell| G_{k, \ell}\right)
  \le a_{k, \ell + 1}\label{eqn:poisson_param}
  \right) + {O} \big( e^{-c 2^{k\ell}} \big).
 \end{align}
 Since
 \begin{align}
 2|T_\ell|G_{k, \ell} =
 a_{k, \ell + 1}2^{1 - \alpha_\varepsilon + k(1 - \alpha)^2}
 \frac{1 - 2^{-k}}{1 + 2^{-k\alpha}}
 \end{align}
 there exists $\tilde c > 1$ such that $
 2|T_\ell|G_{k, \ell}
  > \tilde c\cdot a_{k, \ell + 1}
  $ holds for all $k$ large enough.
 Thus, by \cite[Lemma 1.2]{penrose},
 \begin{align}
 \mb P\left(N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}(e)\le a_{k, \ell + 1}\text{ and }
 N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\right)&\le
  \exp\left((1 - \tilde c + \log(\tilde c))a_{k, \ell + 1}\right)\;.
 \end{align}
 Now, we conclude the proof by noting that $a_{k, \ell + 1} \ge \Delta^{-\frac1{1 - \alpha}}
		2^{k\ell(1 - \alpha)}$ and that  the coefficient of
 $a_{k, \ell + 1}$ is negative.
 \end{proof}
\cref{lemma:loc_HilfsLemma} propagates the lower bounds
on the edge weights through time. As $t \rightarrow \infty$,
these lower bounds allow to exclude vanishing edge weights.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_secondboundonC}] Defining
	$F = \cap_{\ell \ge 1}\{N_{2^{k\ell}}(e)\ge a_{k, \ell}\}$ and
$\delta_0 = \liminf_{\ell \to \infty}a_{k, \ell}2^{-k\ell} > 0,$
	we note that
	$X_-(e) \ge \delta_0$ holds under the event $F$. 	Hence, it remains to establish a lower bound on $\mb P(F|\mc F_{e^c})$.

Since $a_{k, 1} \le 1$, the bound $N_{2^k}(e) \ge a_{k, 1}$ holds for any $k \ge 1$. Hence, if the event $F$ does not occur, then there exists $\ell_0 \ge 1$ such that $N_{2^{k(\ell_0 + 1)}}(e)		\le a_{k, \ell_0 + 1}$ and $N_{2^{k\ell_0}}\ge a_{k, \ell_0}$. In particular, by Lemma \ref{lemma:loc_HilfsLemma}, almost surely,
	$$1 - \mb P(F\,|\, \mc F_{e^c}) \le \sum_{\ell \ge 1}\mb P(N_{2^{k(\ell + 1)}}(e)
		\le a_{k,\ell + 1} \text{ and }N_{2^{k\ell}}\ge a_{k, \ell}\,|\,\mc F_{e^c}) \le \sum_{\ell \ge 1}e^{		-c2^{k\ell (1 - \alpha)} },$$
which becomes smaller than $\varepsilon$ for sufficiently large $k > 0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
P\'olya's urn process is the paradigm model for a random process incorporating reinforcement effects. However, when thinking in the direction of applications, a single urn often does not represent complex interactions accurately. For instance, in the field of social sciences, the formation of friendship networks could be related to reinforcement effects in social interactions \cite{rolles}. In economy, in a network of companies competing on a variety of products, the global reputation could influence the market shares of the products differently \cite{benaim, lucas}. Finally, in the domain of neuroscience, it is plausible that synapses that were successful in the past should be selected again in the future and reinforced with a higher probability \cite{warm1}.

In the present paper, we focus on the network formation model proposed in \cite{warm1} and study its long-time behavior in the regime of weak reinforcement. In that model, starting from a base network, nodes are picked sequentially at random. Once a node is selected, we choose one of the incident edges with a probability proportional to its weight to some power $\alpha > 0$ and increase that weight by 1. The analysis of \cite{warm1} concerns the asymptotic proportion of times that edges are reinforced in the regime of strong reinforcement, where $\alpha > 1$. In this regime, the limiting proportion is random and coincides with some stable equilibrium in an associated dynamical system, which is typically concentrated on a small subset of the edges if $\alpha$ is large.

In contrast, we consider the regime of weak reinforcement, where $\alpha < 1$ and find that in many settings the reinforcement proportions converge to a uniquely determined limit equilibrium, which is supported on all edges of the base network. Figure \ref{frontFig} illustrates the network at an early and at a late time point.

\begin{figure}[!htpb]
	\input{early}\hspace{0.8cm}
	\input{late}
	\caption{Weakly reinforced P\'olya model after time $2$ (left) and time $100$ (right). Dashed edges have not been reinforced until the considered time. The widths of solid edges are proportional to time-normalized weights.}
	\label{frontFig}
\end{figure}

Hence, together with the analysis in \cite{warm1, warm2}, our main result is a first step towards a network-based analog of Rubin's dichotomy for classical P\'olya urns:\, while for strong reinforcement some edges are only reinforced finitely often, in the weakly reinforced regime all edges are reinforced a positive proportion of time. Although this description outlines the broader picture, more research is needed to carve out the precise conditions for this dichotomy. Indeed, \cite{rubin} describes an example of a meticulously designed network together with firing rates where even for $\alpha > 1$ there is percolation of edges that are reinforced a positive proportion of time.

Similarly to the setting of \cite{main_paper}, one major difficulty in the analysis stems from the choice of the base graph. In contrast to \cite{benaim, warm1}, we do not restrict our attention to finite base graphs, but work on a countable network with uniformly bounded degrees. In particular, the highly developed machinery of stochastic approximation algorithms invoked in \cite{benaim, warm1} is not available as the state space of the associated dynamical system would be infinite-dimensional. In \cite{main_paper}, the very strong reinforcement leads to an effective decomposition of the countable network into finite islands separated by edges that are never reinforced. This trick recovers the finite-dimensional setting. However, the strategy cannot work in the regime of weak reinforcement, where we expect all edges to be reinforced a positive proportion of time.

Hence, in the present paper, we follow an entirely different plan to prove our
main result. Namely, convergence of the normalized edge weights to an
equilibrium for (1) all graphs of uniformly bounded degree if $\alpha < 1/2$, (2)
regular graphs if $\alpha < 1/2+\varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon>0$, and (3) $\mb Z$ if $\alpha < 1$. This plan consists of three critical steps. First, we invoke a compactness argument to obtain an equilibrium on the entire countable network. Second, we establish that all edges are reinforced a positive proportion of time. This step rests on a percolation argument, where we decompose the network again into finite islands separated by edges that are now reinforced a positive proportion of time. Finally, to obtain convergence to the equilibrium, we rely on a homogenizing bootstrap argument. It formalizes the intuition that for weak reinforcement, deviations from the equilibrium decrease over time.

The rest of the manuscript is organized as follows. \cref{sec:results} introduces the model and states
the main contribution of the paper, a homogenization result in the sub-linear
regime for three different combinations of graphs and exponents. In
\cref{sec:bounded}, we consider graphs of bounded degree and $\alpha < 1/2$.
Finally, \cref{seg:regular} deals with regular graphs of degree $\Delta$ and covers $\alpha <
1/2+\varepsilon$ for $\Delta  >  2$ and $\alpha < 1$ for the graph $\mb Z$.

\subsection*{Acknowledgement.}The authors thank both anonymous referees for the
careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive feedback. Their comments
and suggestions substantially helped to improve the presentation of the
material. The authors thank M.~Holmes and V.~Kleptsyn for illuminating
discussions and ideas for future work.

\section{Regular graphs}\label{seg:regular}
Throughout this section, we assume $G$ to be $\Delta$-regular.  The key to the
proof of parts (2) and (3) of \cref{mainThm} is the following bootstrap property.

\begin{lemma}[Bootstrap on regular graphs]\label{lemma:multi_tightenBounds}
    Let $a < 2/\Delta$, $b > 2/\Delta$ and $e \in E$ be such that $\mc C(e) \subseteq
    [a,b]$ holds almost surely for all $e' \in E_e$. Furthermore, define the
    function $$f(r, s) :=\frac{2r^\alpha}{r^\alpha + (\Delta - 1)s^\alpha}.$$ Then,
    $\mc C(e)\subseteq[f(a, b), f(b, a)]$ holds almost surely. In particular, for
    $G = \mb Z$ there exist $a'\in [a, 1)$ and $b' \in (1,b]$ such
    that $a'/b' \ge {(a / b)}^\alpha$ and $\mc C(e)\subseteq[a', b']$ holds almost
    surely.  \end{lemma} Before proving Lemma \ref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds}
    we explain how it implies part (3) of \cref{mainThm}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of part (3) of \cref{mainThm}]
	%

	%
First, $X_-(e)$ is strictly positive by \cref{noPercLem} using a similar
argument to the proof of part (1) of \cref{mainThm}. Hence,
\cref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds} gives that $X_-(e) \ge X_-(e)^\alpha 2^{-\alpha}$,
	i.e., $X_-(e) \ge 2^{-\alpha / ( 1 - \alpha)}$.
	%

	%
	In other words, almost surely $\mc C(e) \subseteq [a_1, b_1]$ where $a_1 := 2^{-\alpha / ( 1 - \alpha)}$ and $b_1 := 2$. Applying Lemma \ref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds} iteratively yields sequences ${\{a_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ and
        ${\{b_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ such that
        \begin{enumerate}
                \item ${\{a_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ is increasing and bounded above
                        by $1$,
                \item ${\{b_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ is decreasing and bounded below
                        by $1$,
                \item $b_{i + 1}/a_{i + 1}\le (b_i/a_i)^\alpha < b_i/a_i$, and
		\item $\mc C(e)\subseteq \bigcap_{i \ge 1}[a_i, b_i]$
                       holds almost surely for all $ e\in E$.
        \end{enumerate}
	Since the first three items imply that $a_i$ and $b_i$ converge to 1, we arrive at
	\begin{align}
\mb P(\mc C(e) = 1) = \mb P(\cap_{i\ge 0}\{
                 \mc C(e)\subseteq[a_i,b_i]\})
                 = \lim_{i \to \infty}\mb P(
                \mc C(e)\subseteq[a_i,b_i])
                =  1,\label{eqn:regular_almost_sure_limit}
        \end{align}
	as asserted.
\end{proof}

Next, we prove Lemma~\ref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds}]
        Let
        \begin{align}
                G_{a,b} := \cap_{e'\in E_e}\{\mc C(e')\subseteq[a,b]\}
        \end{align}
        denote the event that $\mc C(e')\subseteq [a, b]$ holds for all
        $e'\in E_e$.
        Under this event, $X_t^{\{v,w\}}$ gains mass
        at a rate of at least
        \begin{align}
		a'' = f(at, bt) = f(a, b),
	\end{align}
        for $t$ large enough.
        More precisely, under $G_{a,b}$ one can find a sequence
        ${\{\varepsilon_t\}}_{t\ge 0}$ with $\varepsilon_t\searrow 0$ such
        that almost surely
        \begin{align}
                N_t^{\{v,w\}}\ge P_v([0,t]\times U_{v,t})
                + P_w([0,t]\times U_{w,t}) + 1
        \end{align}
	for all $t>0$ where
        $|U_{v,t}| = |U_{w,t}| = a''/2- \varepsilon_t$.
        Analogous arguments to the one in the proof of
        \cref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC} give that almost surely
        \begin{align}
                \liminf_{t\to\infty} X_t^{\{v,w\}} \ge a',
        \end{align}
	where  {$a':=a\vee a''$}.
        Similar arguments give the upper bound $b' := b\wedge b''$ where $b''
        := f(b,a)$. { In the special case $\Delta=2$ (i.e.\ $G=\mb Z$)
        we find $a'/b'\ge {(a/b)}^{\alpha}$ as desired.}
        \end{proof}
Now, let $G$ be $\Delta$-regular for some $\Delta \ge 2$. In this case we do
not have $a'/b'\ge {(a/b)}^{\alpha}$ to prove \cref{mainThm}, but we still have the
sequences ${\{a_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ and ${\{b_i\}}_{i\ge 1}$ with
$b_{i+1}/a_{i+1}\le b_i/a_i$. The idea is to show that for $\alpha$ sufficiently close to
$1/2$ the inequality is strict.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:improve_at_least_one}
        For $\alpha=1/2+\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon$ small enough and $0<a<2/\Delta<b<2$
        we have $f(a,b)>a$ or $f(b,a)<b$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
        Assume both statements are wrong, i.e. $f(a,b)\le a$ and $f(b,a)\ge b$, then
        this gives
        \begin{align}
                \rho \le\rho^{2\alpha}
                \frac{1+\frac{\rho^{-\alpha}}{\Delta-1}}{1+\frac{\rho^{\alpha}}{\Delta-1}}
                \label{eqn:regular_to_contradict}
        \end{align}
for $\rho:=b/a$.
        Insert $\alpha=1/2+\varepsilon$ and take log on both sides to get
        \begin{align}
                0\le 2\varepsilon\log\rho +
                \log\Big(1+\frac{\rho^{-1/2-\varepsilon}}{\Delta-1}\Big)
                - \log\Big(1+\frac{\rho^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\Delta-1}\Big)\;.
        \end{align}
        Note that equality holds for $\rho=1$ so if the right-hand side is decreasing in $\rho$ then
        this contradicts the above inequality for $\varrho>1$. To that end, note that
        the derivative
        \begin{align}
                \frac1\rho\Big(2\varepsilon
                -(1/2+\varepsilon)
                \Big(\frac{1}{1+(\Delta-1)\rho^{-1/2-\varepsilon}}
                +
                \frac1{1+(\Delta-1)\rho^{1/2+\varepsilon}}
        \Big)\Big)
        \end{align}
        of the right-hand side is bounded above for all $\rho\ge 1$ by
        \begin{align}
                \frac1\rho\Big(2\varepsilon
                -\frac{(1/2+\varepsilon)}{\Delta}\Big)
        \end{align}
        which is negative for $\varepsilon$ small enough and hence we get a
        contradiction to \ref{eqn:regular_to_contradict}.
\end{proof}
Not improving both bounds at each application of the bootstrap property means that the proof for a uniform lower bound on
$\mathcal C(e)$ in part (1) of \cref{mainThm} does not work since
we do not immediately get a contradiction. The following Lemma helps remedy
this.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:lower_threshold_for_improvement}
        For $a<2\Delta^{-1/(1-\alpha)}$ we have $f(a,2)>a$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
        Straightforward calculation as
        \begin{align}
                f(a,2)=\frac{2a^{\alpha}}{a^{\alpha}+(\Delta-1)2^{\alpha}}
                > \frac{2a^{\alpha}}{2^{\alpha}\Delta}
                =a \frac{2^{1-\alpha}}{a^{1-\alpha}\Delta}
		>a.&\qedhere
        \end{align}
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of part (2) of \cref{mainThm}]
        Take the $\varepsilon$ from \cref{lemma:improve_at_least_one} and
        consider $\alpha=1/2+\varepsilon$. $X_-(e)$ is bounded above by
        \cref{lemma:loc_firstboundonC} and strictly positive by
        \cref{noPercLem} and \cref{lemma:lower_threshold_for_improvement} using
        analogous arguments as in the proof of part (1) of this theorem.  So we
        find $a \le 2/\Delta$ and $b \ge 2/\Delta$ such that
        $\mathcal{C}(e)\subseteq[a,b]$ for all $e\in E$.
	    We choose $a$ maximal and $b$ minimal with that property. To derive a contradiction, assume that $a < b$.
        Then, by \cref{lemma:multi_tightenBounds} and \cref{lemma:improve_at_least_one} we can tighten the bounds as
        \begin{align}
                \mathcal{C}(e)\subseteq [a\vee f(a,b), b\wedge
		f(b,a)] \subsetneq [a, b]\;\label{eqn:new_bounds_on_C}.
        \end{align}
        This contradicts the maximality/minimality of $a$ and $b$,
        and since $f(a,b)\le 2/\Delta \le f(b,a)$ therefore gives $a = b = 2/\Delta$.
\end{proof}

\section{Model definition and main result}\label{sec:results}
Let $G  =  (V, E)$ be a countable graph with uniformly bounded degrees. That is, the vertex set $V$ is countable and
$$\Delta := \sup_{v \in V} \ms{deg}(v) < \infty.$$
If $\Delta=\ms{deg}(v)$ for every $v\in V$ then the graph is regular with degree
$\Delta$, which we write as $\Delta$-regular.

We investigate a system of random variables
\begin{align}
	N_t := {\{N_t(e)\}}_{e\in E}
\end{align}
of interacting P\'{o}lya-type urns on the edge set $E$ at continuous time $t \ge 0$ on a probability space $(\Omega, \mb P)$. The
dynamics of $N_t$ are a continuous-time analog of the process considered
in~\cite{warm1}. Loosely speaking, every vertex has a Poisson clock and
whenever that clock rings at a node $v \in V$, the dynamics choose and increment the weights on one
of the incident edges $E_v = \{e\in E:\,v\in e\}$ by 1.
The choice of the edge happens using the power-weighted P\'{o}lya-scheme
\begin{align}\label{eqn:polya_weight}
        \ms{pol}_{v,e}(N_t): = \frac{{N_t(e)}^\alpha}
                                      {\sum_{e'\in E_v}N_t(e')^\alpha}\;,
                                      \qquad \alpha\ge 0\;.
\end{align}
Henceforth, we tacitly assume that $\alpha < 1$.
More precisely, the weights $N_t(e)$ are initialized at $1$ and the
dynamics of $N_t$ are governed by an iid family of Poisson
processes ${\{P_v\}}_{v\in V}$ on $[0, \infty)\times[0,1]$ with
intensity $1$ counting clock-ring events at vertex $v\in V$
in a time window $[0,\infty)$ with marks in the range
$[0,1]$.
If the process $P_v$ contains an atom of the form $(t, u) \in [0, \infty) \times [0, 1]$, then increment the mass of an edge $e_i \in E_v = \{e_1, \dots e_{\ms{deg}(v)}\}$ by 1 if $u\in U_{v,e_i}$, where ${\{U_{v,
e_i}\}}_{i \le \ms{deg}(v)}$ is a partition of $[0,1]$ given by
\begin{align}
	U_{v, e_i} & =  \Big(\sum_{j \le i - 1}\ms{pol}_{v, e_{j}}(N_t),\sum_{j \le i }
        \ms{pol}_{v, e_{j}}(N_t) \Big]\;.
\end{align}
For the existence of the process $\{N_t\}_{t \ge 0}$ on bounded-degree graphs, see \cite{main_paper}.

Finally, a non-negative vector $\mu\in\mb R_+^E$ defines an \emph{equilibrium on $G$} if
\begin{align}\label{eqn:equi}
        \mu(e)  :=  \sum_{v\in e}\frac{{\mu(e)}^\alpha}
                                    {\sum_{e'\in E_v}{\mu(e')}^\alpha}
\end{align}
holds for all $e\in E$ with $\mu(e) > 0$. This is a straightforward extension
of the notion of finite equilibria from~\cite{warm1} to countable networks. Now, let
\begin{align}
	X_t:=\frac{N_t}t
\end{align}
denote the time-normalized system of weights at time $t > 0$. We say that $X_t$ exhibits
\emph{homogenization} if the equilibrium measure $\mu$ exists, is unique
and $X_t \to \mu$ almost surely.

\begin{conjecture}[Homogenization]
	Let $G$ be a countable graph with uniformly bounded degrees. Then, $X_t$ exhibits homogenization.
\end{conjecture}

In the present work, we verify this conjecture for three combinations of $G$ and $\alpha$.

\begin{theorem}[Homogenization]\label{mainThm}
$X_t$ exhibits homogenization in the following cases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The degree of $G$ is uniformly bounded and $\alpha < 1/2$.
\item $G$ is $\Delta$-regular and $\alpha < 1/2+\varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon>0$.
\item $G = \mb Z$ and $\alpha < 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}