A refinement of Cayley's formula for trees

Abstract: A proper vertex of a rooted tree with totally ordered vertices is a vertex that is less than all its proper descendants. We count several kinds of labeled rooted trees and forests by the number of proper vertices. Our results are all expressed in terms of the polynomials P_n(a,b,c)= c(a+(n-1)b+c)(2a+(n-2)b+c)...((n-1)a+b+c) which reduce to (n+1)^{n-1} for a=b=c=1.Our study of proper vertices was motivated by A. Postnikov's hook length formula for binary trees (arXiv:math.CO/0507163), which was also proved by W. Y. C. Chen and L. L. M. Yang (arXiv:math.CO/0507163) and generalized by R. R. X. Du and F. Liu (arXiv:math.CO/0501147). Our approach gives a new proof of Du and Liu's results and gives new hook length formulas.We also find an interpretation of the polynomials P_n(a,b,c) in terms of parking functions: we count parking functions according to the number of cars that park in their preferred parking spaces.

\section{Introduction}

Cayley \cite{cayley} showed that there are $n^{n-2}$ (unrooted) trees on $n$ vertices. Equivalently,
there are $(n+1)^{n-1}$ forests of rooted labeled trees on $n$ vertices. In this paper
we study the homogeneous polynomials
\begin{equation}
\label{e-0}
P_n(a,b,c)= c\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(ia+(n-i)b +c).
\end{equation}
which reduce to $(n+1)^{n-1}$ for $a=b=c=1$. We refine Cayley's formula by showing that $P_n(a,b,c)$ counts rooted forests by the number of trees and the number of \emph{proper vertices}, which are vertices
that are less than all of their proper descendants. Moreover, other
evaluations of $P_n(a,b,c)$ have similar interpretations for other types of trees and forests: $k$-ary trees, forests of ordered trees, and forests of $k$-colored ordered trees (which reduce to ordered trees for $k=1$). We also give an interpretation of $P_n(a,b,c)$ in terms of parking functions.

This work developed from a problem posed by Alexander Postnikov at the Richard Stanley 60th Birthday Conference. He gave the following identity, which he had derived indirectly \cite{post1, post2} and asked for a direct proof:
\begin{equation}
\label{e-P1}
(n+1)^{n-1}=\frac{n!}{2^n}\sum _T \prod_{v}\left(1+\frac1{h(v)}\right),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all unlabeled (incomplete) binary trees $T$ on $n$ vertices, the product is over all vertices $v$ of $T$, and $h(v)$ is the \emph{hook length} of $v$, which is the number of descendants of $v$, including $v$.

Direct combinatorial proofs of Postnikov's identity were given by
Seo \cite{seo}, Du and Liu \cite{du-liu}, and Chen and Yang \cite{chen-yang}. Seo's approach involved  counting binary trees by proper vertices in the following way:
We rewrite \eqref{e-P1} as
\begin{equation}
\label{e-P2}
2^n(n+1)^{n-1}=n!\sum _T \prod_{v}\left(1+\frac1{h(v)}\right),
\end{equation}

As we will see in Section \ref{s-hook} (see also \cite{seo}), a straightforward argument shows that
the right side of \eqref{e-P2} is equal to
$
\sum_B 2^{\prop B}
$
where the sum is over all labeled binary trees $B$ on $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ and $\prop B$ is the number of proper vertices of $B$. This observation led us to consider the polynomial
$\sum_B t^{\prop B}$, which was shown in \cite{seo} to be equal to
$P_n(2,t,t).$ Extending this result to other kinds of forests and trees by proper vertices, and we found, surprisingly, that all of the results can be expressed in terms of the polynomials
$P_n(a,b,c)$. Moreover, each type of forest or tree has a hook length formula analogous to Postnikov's. (Some of these hook length formulas have been found earlier by Du and Liu \cite{du-liu}.)

A closely related statistic to the number of proper vertices is the number of \emph{proper edges}, studied by Shor \cite{shor},  Zeng \cite{zeng}, and Chen and Guo \cite{chen-guo}, where an edge $\{i,j\}$ is proper if $i$ is the parent of $j$ and  $i$ is less than all the descendants of $j$. Despite the similarity in definitions, the distribution of proper edges in trees is very different from that of proper vertices.

\medskip

In Section 2, we prove some lemmas relating proper vertices of forests  to hook length formulas. Sections 3 and 4 contain background information on exponential generating functions and the enumeration of trees and forests. Some properties of the polynomials $P_n(a,b,c)$, including a differential equation satisfied by its generating function, are proved in Section 5.
The next three sections contain our main results on the enumeration by proper vertices of forests of rooted trees, $k$-ary trees, and forests of ordered trees, with corresponding hook length formulas. In Section 9 we discuss another interpretation of $P_n(a,b,c)$, due to
E\u gecio\u glu and Remmel \cite{eg-rem}, in terms of ascents and descents in forests, and in Section 10 we give a parking function interpretation to a specialization of $P_n(a,b,c)$.

\section{Hook length formulas}
\label{s-hook}
Throughout this paper, all trees are rooted, and all forests are forests of rooted trees. An \emph{ordered tree} is a tree in which the children of each vertex are linearly ordered. An \emph{ordered forest} is a forest of ordered trees in which the trees are also linearly ordered. We write $V(F)$ for the set of vertices of the forest $F$.

A vertex $v$  in a tree is a \emph{descendant} of a vertex $u$ if $u$ lies on the unique path from the root to $v$. If $v$ is a descendant of $u$, it is a \emph{proper descendant} if it is not equal to~$u$.

Let $F$ be a forest with $n$ vertices. Then a \emph{labeling} of $F$ is a bijection from $V(F)$ to~$[n]$. A vertex of $F$ is \emph{proper} with respect to a labeling of $F$ if its label is less than the labels of all its proper descendants. The \emph{hook length} $h(v)$ of a vertex $v$ in a forest is the number of descendants of $v$, including $v$.

We will consider various kinds of trees and forests in this paper, and for each of them we will have a ``hook length formula" something like \eqref{e-P2}. These hook length formulas follow from our results on counting forests by proper vertices and the  following lemmas, which relates hook lengths to proper vertices.

\begin{lemma}
\label{l-1}
Let $F$ be a forest with  $n$ vertices, and let $S$ be a subset of $V(F)$. The the number of labelings of $F$ in which every vertex in $S$ is proper is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{n!}{\prod_{v\in S}h(v)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If all labelings of $F$ are equally likely, then the probability that a vertex $v$ is proper is $1/h(v)$. It can be shown that these probabilities
are independent, and this implies the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{l-hook1}
Let $F$ be a forest with $n$ vertices. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-hook1}
\sum_{L} (1+\alpha)^{\prop L} =n!\!\!\prod_{v\in V(F)}
\left(1+\frac {\alpha}{h(v)}\right),
\end{equation}
where $L$ runs over all labelings of $F$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The left side of \eqref{e-hook1} is equal to
\begin{math}
\sum_{L,S} \alpha^{|S|}
\end{math}
where $L$ runs over all labelings of $F$ and $S$ runs over all subsets of the set of vertices of $F$ that are proper with respect to $L$.
The right side of \eqref{e-hook1} is equal to
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{S\subseteq V(F)}\frac{n!}{\prod_{v\in S} h(v)}\alpha^{|S|}.
\end{equation*}
The result then follows from Lemma \ref{l-1}.
\end{proof}

Let us say that two labelings of a forest $F$ are \emph{isomorphic} if there is an automorphism of $F$ that takes one labeling to the other. (An automorphism of an ordered forest must preserve the order structure, so ordered forests have no nontrivial automorphisms.) Let $F$ be a forest on $n$ vertices with automorphism group $G$. Then the $n!$ labelings of $F$ fall into $n!/|G|$ isomorphism classes. It is clear that isomorphic labelings have the same number of proper vertices, so we obtain the following lemma by dividing Lemma \ref{l-hook1} by $|G|$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{l-reps}
Let $F$ be a forest with $n$ vertices and let $\mathcal L$ be a set of representatives of isomorphism classes of labelings of $F$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-iso}
\sum_{L\in \mathcal L} (1+\alpha)^{\prop L}=|\mathcal L|\!\! \prod_{v\in V(F)}\left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Let us now define a \emph{labeled forest} to be a forest whose vertex set is $[n]$ for some $n$. Thus replacing each vertex of a labeling of an arbitrary forest gives a labeled forest, and two labelings give the same labeled forest if and only if the labelings are isomorphic.

Then \eqref{e-iso}, together with linearity, gives the following result.

\begin{lemma}
\label{l-hook3}
Let $\mathcal F$ be a class of labeled forests with vertex set $[n]$ in which membership depends only on isomorphism class. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{F\in \mathcal F}(1+\alpha)^{\prop F}=\sum_{F\in \mathcal F}
\prod_{v\in [n]}\left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

For ordered forests, which have no nontrivial automorphisms, we can simplify this result, since each isomorphism class of ordered forests on $n$ vertices corresponds to $n!$ labeled ordered forests. An \emph{unlabeled forest} may be formally defined as an isomorphism class of forests, though we think of an unlabeled forest as a forest in which the identity of the vertices is irrelevant. Then the following lemma follows from either Lemma \ref{l-reps} or Lemma \ref{l-hook3}:

\begin{lemma}
\label{l-hook}
Let $\mathcal A$ be a set of unlabeled ordered forests with $n$ vertices,
and let $\mathcal F$ be the corresponding set of labeled ordered forests. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-hook}
\sum_{F\in \mathcal F}(1+\alpha) ^{\prop F}
= n! \sum_{F\in \mathcal A}\prod_{v\in V(F)}
  \left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right),
\end{equation}
where the product is over all vertices $v$ of $F$.
\end{lemma}

In later sections, it will be convenient to use the term ``labeled forest" to refer more generally to any forest whose vertices are integers.

\section{Exponential generating functions}
\label{s-egf}

We assume that the reader is familiar with the combinatorial interpretation of basic operations on exponential generating functions: addition, multiplication, composition, and differentiation, as described, for example in \cite[Chapter 5]{ec2} or \cite{bll}.
Rather than adapting the formal language of \cite{bll}, we take a more informal approach to the connection between exponential generating functions and the objects that they count. Thus in deriving functional or differential equations for generating functions we will describe the decompositions that lead to these equations, but omit the straightforward details of how the equations follow from the decompositions. All of our exponential generating functions will be in the variable~$x$, so we will usually omit it, and write, for example $A$ instead of $A(x)$. Since nearly all our generating functions are exponential, we will usually call them simply ``generating functions"; when we use ordinary generating functions we will note this explicitly.

There are two kinds of decompositions of labeled objects that are especially important: \emph{unordered} and \emph{ordered} decompositions. An \emph{unordered} decomposition is a decomposition of a labeled object into an unordered collection of objects. An important example is the decomposition of a forest  into its component trees. When there is an unordered decomposition of objects counted by a generating function $f$ into objects counted by $g$, the generating functions are related by the ``exponential formula" $f=e^g$. Decompositions may depend on a total ordering of the labels. For example, we can decompose a permutation (considered as a linear arrangement) by cutting it before each left-right minimum, yielding a set of permutations each starting with its smallest element. (Thus the permutation $4 7 5 3 1 2 6$ is decomposed into $\{4 7 5, 3, 1 2 6\}$.) The permutation can be reconstructed from its constituents by arranging them in decreasing order of their first elements.
The generating function identity in this example is
\begin{equation}
\label{e-explog}
\egf{n!}
=\exp\biggl(\sumo n (n-1)! \dpow xn\biggr).
\end{equation}

An \emph{ordered decomposition} is a decomposition into a sequence of objects. If objects counted by $f$ have an ordered decomposition into objects counted by $h$ then $f$ and $h$ are related by $f=1/(1-h)$.  The simplest example is the decomposition of a permutation, considered as a linear arrangement, into the sequence of its entries; here $g=x$ and $f=1/(1-x)$.
Another important example is the decomposition of an ordered forest into its constituent trees.

If an ordered decomposition for a class of labeled objects, then an unordered decomposition must also exist: if $f=1/(1-h)$ then $f = \exp(\log (1-h)^{-1})$ and we can interpret this by replacing $x$ with $h$ in the combinatorial interpretation given above for \eqref{e-explog}. We will see an example of this kind of decomposition in Section \ref{s-of}.

\section{Trees and forests}
\label{s-tf}
We introduce here the types of trees and forests that we will count by various parameters in later sections. Most of this material is well known, but it is convenient to clarify the definitions and state the known  formulas that we will generalize later.

Let $A$ be the generating function for labeled forests.  Then since a tree consists of a root together with the forest of proper descendants of the root, the generating function for trees is $xA$, and since a forest is a set of trees, the generating function for forests is $e^{xA}$. Thus $A$ satisfies the functional equation
\begin{equation}
\label{e-forests}
A= e^{xA}.
\end{equation}
It is well known that the solution of $\eqref{e-forests}$ is
\[A = \egf{(n+1)^{n-1}},\]
and that more generally,
\begin{equation}
\label{e-c2}
A^c = \egf{c(n+c)^{n-1}}.
\end{equation}
Equivalent formulas can be found in \cite[Sections 1.2.5 and 1.2.7]
{g-j},  \cite[Proposition 5.4.4]{ec2} and \cite[p.~97]{riordan}.
Since $A^c = e^{c\log A} = e^{c xA}$, the coefficient of $c^i$ in $A^c$ is the generating function for forests of $i$ trees.

We say that a vertex of a tree has \emph{degree $d$} if it has $d$ children.
A $k$-ary tree is an ordered tree in which every vertex has degree $k$ or 0. The ordinary generating function $D$ for unlabeled $k$-ary trees in which the coefficient of $x^n$ is the number of $k$-ary trees with $n$ vertices of degree $k$ (and thus $1+(k-1)n$ vertices of degree 0) satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{e-k0}
D = 1 +xD^k,
\end{equation}
and it is well known that\begin{equation}
\label{e-k1}
D^c = \sumz n \frac{c}{kn+c} \binom{kn+c}n x^n.
\end{equation}
See, for example, \cite[Exercise 2.7.1]{g-j}, \cite[Proposition 6.2.2]{ec2}, and \cite[pp.~200--201]{gkp}. In computing hook lengths of $k$-ary trees, we will ignore vertices of degree 0. Thus the hook length of the root of the ternary tree in Figure \ref{f-2} is 6.

For our purposes a labeled $k$-ary tree is a $k$-ary tree in which only the vertices of degree $k$ are labeled.
Figure~\ref{f-2} shows a labeled ternary tree.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{ternary}
   \caption{A labeled ternary tree}
   \label{f-2}
\end{figure}
The exponential generating function for labeled $k$-ary trees is the same, as a power series, as the ordinary generating function for unlabeled $k$-ary trees, but as an exponential generating function we would rewrite
\eqref{e-k1} as
\[
D^c = \egf{c (kn+c-1)(kn+c-2)\cdots ((k-1)n+c+1) }
\]

The generating function $E$ for ordered trees (by the total number of vertices) satisfies
$E = x/(1-E).$
As in the case of $k$-ary trees this formula holds for both the ordinary generating function, which counts unlabeled ordered trees, and for the exponential generating function, which counts labeled ordered trees. The generating function $F$ for ordered forests (in either the unlabeled or labeled version) satisfies
$F=1/(1-E)$ and $E=xF$, and thus $F=1/(1-xF)$.

The formula $F=1/(1-xF)$ is easily transformed into $F=1+xF^2$, so, as is well known, the generating function for ordered forests is the same as that for binary trees. In order to generalize this to $k$-ary trees, we introduce \emph{$k$-colored ordered forests} with generating function $F$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kcolor}
F=\frac 1{1-xF^k}.
\end{equation}
A $k$-colored ordered forest is a forest of ordered trees in which the edges are colored in colors 1, 2, \dots,  $k$ with the property that  among the children of any vertex, those of color 1 come first, then those of color 2, and so on. (But not every color must appear.)
\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=3in]{2color}
   \caption{A 2-colored forest}
   \label{f-2color}
\end{figure}
For example, Figure \ref{f-2color} shows a 2-colored ordered forest in which color 1 is represented by solid lines  and  color 2 by dotted lines.
Since \eqref{e-kcolor} is equivalent to $F=1+xF^{k+1}$, $k$-colored forests are equinumerous with $(k+1)$-ary trees, and the well-known bijection from forests of ordered trees  to binary trees
(see, e.g., Stanton and White \cite[p.~61]{sw}) generalizes easily to this situation.

\section{The generating function for $P_n(a,b,c)$}

Our main objects of study are the polynomials $P_n(a,b,c)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{e-1}
P_n(a,b,c)= c\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(ia+(n-i)b +c).
\end{equation}
Note that $P_n(a,b,c)$ is symmetric in $a$ and $b$. It is also homogeneous of degree of $n$ in $a$, $b$, and $c$, so with no loss of information we could set any of the variables to one (or to any other nonzero value).

We denote by $Q_n(a,b)$ the coefficient of $c$ in $P_n(a,b,c)$, so
\begin{equation*}
Q_n(a,b) = c^{-1}P_n(a,b,c)\Big|_{c=0} =
       \prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(ia+(n-i)b).
\end{equation*}

The polynomials $P_n(a,b,c)$ generalize the counting formulas of the previous section, since
\[c(n+c)^{n-1}=P_n(1,1,c)\]
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e-P3}
 \frac{c}{kn+c} \binom{kn+c}n  n! = P_n(k-1,k,c).
\end{equation}
Since the polynomial \eqref{e-P3} has two free parameters, by rescaling we can obtain $P_n(a,b,c)$ and we find that for $a\ne b$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-P4}
P_n(a,b,c)/n! = (b-a)^n\frac{ \bar c}{\bar b n + \bar c}
\binom{\bar b n +\bar c}{n},
\end{equation}
where $\bar b = b/(b-a)$ and $\bar c=c/(b-a)$.

It follows from \eqref{e-P4}, \eqref{e-k0} and \eqref{e-k1} that
\[
\egf{P_n(a,b,c)}  = G^{c/(b-a)},
\]
where $G$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{e-Pgf}
G = 1 + (b-a)x G^{b/(b-a)}.
\end{equation}
It does not seem to be easy to obtain a combinatorial interpretation for $P_n(a,b,c)$ directly from \eqref{e-Pgf}. Instead, we derive a differential equation whose combinatorial meaning is clearer. Let $H=G^{1/(b-a)}$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-PH}
\egf{P_n(a,b,c)} = H^c.
\end{equation}
We claim that $H$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{e-H3}
H' = H^{a+1}+bxH^a H'.
\end{equation}
To see this, \eqref{e-Pgf} gives

\begin{equation}
\label{e-H1}
H^{b-a} = 1+(b-a)xH^b.
\end{equation}
Differentiating with respect to $x$ and dividing both sides by $(b-a)H^{b-a-1}$ gives \eqref{e-H3}.
(Although this derivation is not valid for $a=b$, a limit argument shows that \eqref{e-H3} does hold in this case.)
Conversely, \eqref{e-H3}, together with the initial value $H(0)=1$, implies \eqref{e-H1}, and thus \eqref{e-PH}.

We note that \eqref{e-H1} can be written in the more symmetric and combinatorially suggestive form
\begin{equation}
\label{e-Hsym}
H^b(1+axH^{a})=H^a(1+bxH^{b});
\end{equation}
however, we have not found a combinatorial interpretation to
\eqref{e-Hsym}.

We now give a completely self-contained proof that \eqref{e-H3} implies \eqref{e-PH}. For our applications, it is convenient to
add another redundant variable to the differential equation.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t-1'}
Let $g=g(x)$ be the solution of the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{e-1'}
g'=ug^{b+1} +axg^b g'
\end{equation}
with $g(0)=1$, where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $x$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-gc}
g^c = \egf{P_n(a,bu,cu)}.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e-Q}
\log g = \sumo n uQ_n(a,bu)\dpow xn.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
\renewcommand{\P}{\bar P}

Let  $\P_n(c)$ be the coefficient of $x^n\!/n!$ in $g^c$, where the dependence of $\P_n(c)$ on $u$, $a$, and $b$ is implicit.
From \eqref{e-1'} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{e-2'}
(g^c)' = c u g^{b+c} + acxg^{b+c-1} g' = cug^{b+c}
       + \frac{acx}{b+c}(g^{b+c})'
\end{equation}
Equating coefficients of $x^n\!/n!$ in \eqref{e-2'} gives
\begin{align*}
\P_{n+1}(c) &= cu\P_n(b+c)+\frac{nac}{b+c}\P_n(b+c)\\
    &=\frac{c(na+bu+cu)}{b+c}\P_n(b+c).
\end{align*}
Since  $\P_0(c)=1$, we get
$$\P_n(c)=cu(a+(n-1)bu+cu)(2a+(n-2)bu+cu)\cdots((n-1)a+bu+cu).$$
The formula for $\log g$ follows by taking the coefficient of $c$ in $g^c$.
\end{proof}

\section{Counting forests by proper vertices}

As noted earlier, $P_n(1,1,1) = (n+1)^{n-1}$ is the number of forests on $[n]$. Thus we might hope that $P_n(a,b,c)$ counts these forests according to some parameters. Theorem~\ref{t-2} shows that this is the case.

For a forest $F$, let $\prop F$ be the number of proper vertices and let $\tree F$ be the number of trees in $F$. We give two proofs of the following result, one using the differential equation for the generating function for $P_n(a,b,c)$ and one which is more combinatorial, though not completely bijective.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t-2}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-T1b}
\sum_F a^{n-\prop F} b^{\prop F -\tree F}c^{\tree F}=P_n(a,b,c),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all forests $F$ on $[n]$.

\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}[First proof]
Let $I$ be the generating function for forests by the number of proper vertices; i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
I=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_F u^{\prop F} \dpow xn
\end{equation*}
where $F$ runs over all forests on $[n]$.

Let $J$ be the generating function for trees weighted by proper vertices. Then $I=e^J$.  Next we will show that $J' = uI +xI'$.
Let $T$ be a tree on $\{0,1,\dots, n\}$, interpreted as a labeled object with label set $[n]$. Then $T$ consists of a root together with the forest $F$ obtained by deleting the root. If the root of $T$ is 0 then $T$ has one more proper vertex than $F$. Thus the contribution to $J'$ from trees in which the root is 0 is $uI$. If the root is not 0, then $T$ has an improper root with a label in $[n]$, and 0 appears in $F$. Thus the contribution to $J'$ from trees in which the  root is not 0 is $xI'$.

Then \[I' = (e^J)' = e^J J' = I(uI+xI') = uI^2 + xII',\]
so by Theorem \ref{t-1'},
\[
I= \egf{P_n(1,u,u)},
\]
as shown by Seo \cite[Corollary 8]{seo}.

The number of proper vertices of a forest is the same as the number of proper vertices in all its constituent trees, so
 $I^c = \exp( cJ)$ counts forests  by proper vertices in which every tree is weighted by $c$, which gives
\begin{equation}
\label{e-T1a}
\sum_F u^{\prop F}c^{\tree F} = P_n(1,u,cu)
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $P_n(a,b,c)$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $n$ in $a$, $b$, and $c$, we can rescale \eqref{e-T1a} to get \eqref{e-T1b}.
\end{proof}

We can interpret \eqref{e-T1b} as counting forests on $[n]$ in which each vertex is assigned a weight. We will call a vertex
\emph{weakly proper} if it is proper, but not the smallest vertex in its tree and \emph{minimal} if it is the smallest vertex in its tree. Then \eqref{e-T1b} counts forests in which every improper vertex is weighted $a$, every weakly proper vertex is weighted $b$, and every minimal vertex is weighted $c$.

\begin{proof}[Second proof of Theorem \ref{t-2}]
Let $p_n(a,b,c)$ count forests $F$ on $[n]$ in which every improper
vertex is weighted $a$,
every weakly proper vertex is weighted $b$, and every minimal vertex in a
component of $F$ is weighted $c$.
Then $c^{-1}p_n(a,b,c)$ counts forests with the same weight on each
vertex
except that the smallest vertex of $F$ is weighted by $1$.
Suppose that a forest $F$ on $[n]$ is weighted in this way.
If $1$ is a root of $F$, delete the vertex $1$ of $F$.
Then we obtain a forest on $\{2,3,\ldots,n\}$ in which the minimal
vertices
are weighted either $b$ or~$c$. (See (a) of Figure~\ref{f-1}.)
\begin{figure}[htbp]    \centering
   \includegraphics[width=5.5in]{forest-decomp}
   \caption{A weight preserving decomposition of forests}
   \label{f-1}
\end{figure}
Thus these forests are counted by $p_{n-1}(a,b,b+c)$.
If $1$ is not a root of $F$, interchange the label $1$ and its parent $i$
and delete the vertex $i$.
Then we have a forest on $[n]\setminus\{i\}$ such that the smallest
vertex $1$ is weighted $1$ and
the other minimal vertices are weighted either $b$ or $c$.
Moreover, there are $n-1$ possibilities for the parent $i$ of~$1$  and it is weighted $a$.
Thus these forests are counted by
$(n-1)\,a\cdot(b+c)^{-1}p_{n-1}(a,b,b+c)$. (See (b) of Figure~\ref{f-1}.)
Combining two cases yields
$$
c^{-1}p_n(a,b,c)=p_{n-1}(a,b,b+c)+(n-1)\,a\,(b+c)^{-1}p_{n-1}(a,b,b+c),
$$
with the initial condition $c^{-1}p_1(a,b,c)=1$. It follows easily that
\[p_n(a,b,c)=P_n(a,b,c).\]

\end{proof}

The symmetry $P_n(a,b,c)=P_n(b,a,c)$ implies that among forests of $j$ trees, the number with $i$ improper vertices is equal to the number with $i$ weakly proper vertices. (It is clear that the case $j=1$ of this symmetry implies the general case.) We do not have a bijective proof of this symmetry.

 It is instructive to look at the case $i=0$ of this symmetry, which can be explained by known bijections. By the homogeneity of the polynomials $P_n(a,b,c)$, the symmetry is equivalent to the identity $P_n(0,1,c)=P_n(1,0,c)=c(c+1)\cdots(c+n-1)$, in which the coefficients are unsigned Stirling numbers of the first kind. First, $P_n(0,1,c)$ counts forests on $[n]$ with $n$ proper vertices. These are increasing forests, and there is a well known bijection \cite[p.~25]{ec1}
that takes an increasing forest of $j$ trees to a permutation with $j$ left-right minima.
Next, $P_n(1,0,c)$ counts forests in which the number of proper vertices equals the number of trees. Since every tree has at least one leaf, and every leaf is proper, in these forests every tree has a single leaf, which is the least vertex of the tree. If we read the trees from leaf to root, we get a set of $j$ permutations, each of which starts with its least element, and as described in Section \ref{s-egf} this set of permutations can be arranged to form a permutation with $j$ left-right minima.

A different symmetry of forests that has a very similar special case is described in \cite{gessel}. (See also \cite{kalikow}.)

Since the proper vertices of a forest are the same as the proper vertices of its component trees, \eqref{e-Q} gives a corresponding result for trees;
\begin{cor}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_T a^{n-\prop T}b^{\prop T -1}= Q_n(a,b),
\end{equation*}
where $T$ runs over all trees on $[n]$.\qed
\end{cor}

Applying Lemma \ref{l-hook3} gives a hook-length formula for forests:
\begin{cor}
\label{c-forest-hook}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{F} c^{\tree F}\prod_{v\in [n]}
  \left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right)
 = P_n(1, 1+\alpha, c(1+\alpha)),
 \end{equation*}
 where $F$ runs over all forests on $[n]$.\qed
 \end{cor}
 In particular, taking $\alpha=1$ gives
 \begin{equation*}
\frac1{n!}\sum_{F\in \mathcal F} c^{\tree F}\prod_{v\in [n]}
  \left(1+\frac1{h(v)}\right)
 = \frac1{n!}\,P_n(1, 2, 2c) = \frac c{n+c} \binom{2n+2c}{n},
\end{equation*}
which for $c=1$ is the Catalan number $C_{n+1}$.

\section{$k$-ary trees}

In this section we give an analogue of Theorem \ref{t-2} for $k$-ary trees.
We first count $k$-ary trees by proper vertices, obtaining a result of
Seo \cite[Corollary 7]{seo}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t-k-ary}
We have
\begin{equation}
\sum_T u^{\prop T}= P_n(k,(k-1)u, u),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all $k$-ary trees $T$ on $[n]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $J$ be the generating function for $\sum_T u^{\prop T}$ as in the statement of the theorem. By reasoning similar to that used in the proof of Theorem \ref{t-2}, we will obtain the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{e-k-ary}
J' = u J^k + kxJ^{k-1}J'.
\end{equation}
We consider $k$-ary trees on the vertex set $\{0,1,\dots, n\}$ and look at the location of vertex~0. The term $uJ^k$ in \eqref{e-k-ary} corresponds to the case in which 0  is the root of the tree. If 0 is not the root, the tree can be decomposed into a root $R$ (the factor $x$), the subtree containing~0 rooted at a child of $R$ (the factor $J'$) and a $(k-1)$-tuple of the other subtrees rooted at the children of $R$ (the factor $J^{k-1}$). The factor $k$ is the number of positions  in which the subtree containing 0 can
lie in relation to the other subtrees.

So by Theorem \ref{t-1'},
\begin{equation}
\label{e-ktree}
J = \egf {P_n(k, (k-1)u, u)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

Applying Lemma \ref{l-hook1}, gives the following hook-length formula for $k$-ary trees, which is equivalent to Corollary 3.11 of Du and Liu \cite{du-liu}. The case $k=2$, $\alpha = 1$ is equivalent to Postnikov's formula \eqref{e-P2}.

\begin{cor}
\label{c-k-ary-hook}
We have
\begin{equation*}
n!\sum_T \prod_{v\in V(T)} \left(1+\frac {\alpha}{h(v)}\right)
 = P_n(k,(k-1)(1+\alpha ), 1+\alpha)
\end{equation*}
where $T$ runs over all unlabeled $k$-ary trees on $n$ vertices.
\end{cor}

We can generalize Theorem \ref{t-k-ary} to include a parameter that corresponds to the number of trees in a forest, and thereby find a result analogous to Theorem \ref{t-2}. In order to do this, we must find an unordered decomposition of $k$-ary trees that is compatible with proper vertices; i.e., no improper vertex of a $k$-ary tree becomes proper when restricted to its component. To define this decomposition we first specify a particular path in a $k$-ary tree $T$ from the root to a leaf. The rule is that we always go from a labeled vertex $v$ to the first child of $v$ unless $v$ is improper and the smallest descendant of $v$ is also a descendant of the first child of $v$. In this case we go to the second child of $v$. When we reach a leaf, we stop. We call this path the \emph{decomposing path} of $T$. For example, Figure \ref{f-dpath} shows a binary tree with its
decomposing path.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=3in]{kdecomp}
   \caption{A binary tree and its decomposing path}
   \label{f-dpath}
\end{figure}
The unordered decomposition of the $k$-ary $T$ is obtained by removing each edge on its decomposing path\ (except the last edge ending at a leaf) and replacing each lost child with a leaf. We
denote by $\comp T$ the number  components in the decomposition of $T$, which is the same as the number of labeled vertices in the decomposing path.
 The unordered decomposition of the tree of Figure \ref{f-dpath} is shown in Figure \ref{f-decomposed}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
   \centering
   \includegraphics[width=3in]{kdecomposede}
   \caption{Decomposition of the tree of Figure \ref{f-dpath}}
   \label{f-decomposed}
\end{figure}

\begin{theorem}
\label{t-kcomps}
For $k>1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kary0}
\sum_{T} v^{n-\prop T}u^{\prop T -\comp T}w^{\comp T}
=P_n(kv,(k-1)u,  w).
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all $k$-ary trees $T$ on $[n]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first prove
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kary1}
\sum_T u^{\prop T}c^{\comp T}= P_n(k,(k-1)u, cu).
\end{equation}

By \eqref{e-gc} and Theorem \ref{t-k-ary},  to prove \eqref{e-kary1} it is sufficient to show that the generating function for the left side is $J^c$, where $J$ is as in the proof of Theorem  \ref{t-k-ary}.
This follows from a verification that the unordered decomposition for
a $k$-ary tree has several properties. Let the decomposition of a $k$-ary  tree $T$ be $\{T_1, \dots, T_m\}$. We must show that $\comp T_i= 1$ for each $i$, that $T$ can be recovered from $\{T_1, \dots, T_m\}$, and that $\prop T = \sum_i \prop T_i$. Moreover we must also show that any such set of trees $\{T_1, \dots, T_m\}$ with disjoint labels comes from the decomposition of some $k$-ary tree.

The components $T_i$ are characterized by the  property that either the first child of $T_i$ is a leaf, or the root of $T_i$ is improper, its smallest descendant is a descendant of its first child, and its second child is a leaf. This implies that $\comp T_i =1$. We can reconstruct the order of the components since
the first component $T_1$  will contain the smallest vertex of $T$, the next component $T_2$ will contain the smallest vertex of $T$ not in $T_1$, and so on. To reconstruct $T$, let $r_i$ denote the  root of tree $T_i$. Then in $T$, $r_{i+1}$ must have been either the first or second child of $r_{i}$: $r_{i+1}$ was the first child of $r_i$ in $T$ if and only if the first child of $T_i$ is a leaf. The decomposition preserves proper and improper vertices since the smallest descendant of any improper vertex $v$ on the decomposing path\ remains a descendant of $v$ in its component (and descendants of vertices not on the decomposing path\ are not changed). The last assertion is clear.

The homogeneity of $P_n(a,b,c)$, together with \eqref{e-kary1}, implies that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_T v^{n-\prop T}u^{\prop T}c^{\comp T}= P_n(kv,(k-1)u, cu).
\end{equation*}
Replacing $c$ with $w/u$ gives \eqref{e-kary0}.
\end{proof}

In should be pointed out that Theorem \ref{t-kcomps} is not valid for unary trees. However, there is a different (and simpler) decomposition for unary trees that gives an analogue of Theorem
\ref{t-kcomps} in this case.

In contrast to Corollary \ref{c-forest-hook}, we cannot use Theorem \ref{t-kcomps} to add a parameter for components to Corollary \ref{c-k-ary-hook}, since the number of components of a $k$-ary tree is not an isomorphism invariant.

\section{Ordered forests}
\label{s-of}

Next we count $k$-colored ordered forests by proper vertices. The case $k=1$ of the next theorem was given by Seo \cite[equation (14)] {seo}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t-kcolor0}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kcolor1}
\sum_{F} u^{\prop F}=P_n(k,(k+1)u,u),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all $k$-colored ordered forests $F$ on $[n]$,
and for $n\ge 1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kcolor2}
\sum_{T}u^{\prop T} = -P_n(k, (k+1)u, -u),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all $k$-colored ordered trees $T$ on $[n]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $K$ be the generating function for $k$-colored ordered forests, where a forest $F$ is weighted $u^{\prop F}$. Let $L$ be the analogous generating function for $k$-colored ordered trees, so $K=1/(1-L)$.
We claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-KL}
L' = uK^k+kxK^{k-1}K'.
\end{equation}
By similar reasoning to that used before, we see that in \eqref{e-KL} the term $uK^k$ counts $k$-colored ordered trees on $\{0,1,\dots, n\}$ in which 0 is the root, and for each $i$ from 1 to $k$,
$xK^{k-1}K'$ is the generating function for forests in which 0 is in a forest joined to the root by an edge of color $i$.
It follows from \eqref{e-KL} and $K=1/(1-L)$ that
\[K' = uK^{k+2} + kxK^{k+1}K'.\]
So by Theorem \ref{t-1'} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-K}
K=\egf{P_n(k,(k+1)u,u)},
\end{equation}
proving the first formula.

For the second formula, we note that
\[L=1-K^{-1},\]
and a formula for the coefficients of $K^{-1}$ follows from
\eqref{e-K} and \eqref{e-gc}.

\end{proof}

Applying Lemma \ref{l-hook} to Theorem \ref{t-kcolor} gives hook length formulas for $k$-colored ordered forests and trees. A result equivalent to the case $k=1$ of \eqref{e-kchook} was given by Du and Liu \cite[Theorem 4.14]{du-liu}.

\begin{cor} We have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-kchook}
n!\sum_F \prod_{v\in V(F)}\left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right)
  = P_n(k, (k+1)(1+\alpha),1+\alpha),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all unlabeled $k$-colored ordered forests $F$ on $n$ vertices, and
\begin{equation*}
n!\sum_T \prod_{v\in V(T)}\left(1+\frac\alpha{h(v)}\right)
  = -P_n(k, (k+1)(1+\alpha),-(1+\alpha)),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all unlabeled $k$-colored ordered trees $F$ on $n$ vertices.
\end{cor}

From the ordered decomposition of $k$-colored ordered forests into $k$-colored ordered trees, we get an unordered decomposition as described in Section \ref{s-egf}. One way to do this is to look at the sequence of roots, and cut the forest after each left-right minimum in this sequence.  (Instead of using the root of each tree for comparison, we could use the smallest  or largest element of each tree.) Thus we decompose each $k$-colored ordered forest into components which are $k$-colored ordered forests in which the first root is the smallest.
For a $k$-colored ordered forest $F$, let $\comp F$ be the number of components in this sense; that is, the number of left-right minima in the sequence of roots.
Then since
\begin{equation*}
K^c=\egf{P_n(k,(k+1)u,cu)},
\end{equation*}
we have
\begin{equation*}
P_n(k,(k+1)u,cu) = \sum_F u^{\prop F}c^{\comp F}.
\end{equation*}

By the same reasoning as in Theorem \ref{t-kcomps}, this leads to the analogous formula for $k$-colored ordered trees:
\begin{theorem}
\label{t-kcolor}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_F u^{n-\prop F} v^{\prop F -\comp F} w^{\comp F}
   =P_n(ku, (k+1)v, w),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all $k$-colored ordered forests on $[n]$.
\end{theorem}

As noted in Section \ref{s-tf}, there is a simple bijection from $k$-colored ordered forests to $(k+1)$-ary trees, but this bijection does not
preserve proper vertices. However, we do have a relation between proper vertices of these forests and trees:

\begin{cor}
\label{c-ksym}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{T} v^{n-\prop T}u^{\prop T -\comp T}w^{\comp T}
= \sum_F u^{n-\prop F} v^{\prop F -\comp F} w^{\comp F}
\end{equation*}
where $T$ runs over $(k+1)$-ary trees on $[n]$ and $F$ runs over $k$-colored ordered forests on $[n]$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{t-kcolor}, the sum on $F$ is equal to $P_n(ku, (k+1)v, w)$.
In \eqref{e-kary0} we replace $k$ by $k+1$, switch $u$ and $v$, and
use  $P_n(a,b,c)=P_n(b,a,c)$ to show that the sum on $T$ is also equal to
$P_n(ku, (k+1)v, w)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Descents in trees}
In this section, we describe another forest interpretation, due to
E\u gecio\u glu and Remmel \cite{eg-rem}, for $P_n(a,b,c)$.
If vertex $i$ is the parent of vertex $j$ in a tree, we call the edge $\{i,j\}$ an \emph{ascent} if $i<j$ and a \emph{descent} if $i>j$, and for a forest $F$ we write $\asc F$ for the number of ascents of $F$ and $\des F$ for the number of descents of $F$. (A different notion of descents in trees was studied in \cite{gessel}.) We use the differential equation approach to count forests by ascents and descents;
E\u gecio\u glu and Remmel \cite{eg-rem} gave a bijective proof of a more general result.

\begin{theorem}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-des}
\sum_{F} a^{\des F} b^{\asc F} c^{\tree F}=P_n(a,b,c),
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all forests $F$ on $[n]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since the ascents and descents of a forest are the same as those of its constituent trees, it is sufficient to prove the case $c=1$ of $\eqref{e-des}$.
Let $M$ be the generating function for the polynomials $\sum_F a^{\des F} b^{\asc F}$. We shall show that $M$ satisfies the differential equation

We shall show that $M$ satisfies the differential equation
\[M' = M^{b+1} + axM^b M', \]
which by Theorem \ref{t-1'} implies the result.

Let $N = \log M$, so that $M$ counts trees by descents and ascents. Now let $F$ be a forest
on the vertex set $\{0,1,\dots, n\}$. We decompose $F$ into forests $F_1$ and $F_2$ that together contain all the vertices of $F$ other than 0. We let $F_1$ be the forest of proper descendants of 0, and we let $F_2$ be the forest of all vertices that are not descendants of 0. In order to reconstruct $F$ from $F_1$ and $F_2$ we consider two cases. First, suppose that 0 is a root of $F$. Then $F$ is determined by $F_1$ and $F_2$ and the ascents and descents of $F$ are the same as those of $F_1$ and $F_2$, except that $F$ has one additional ascent for each edge joining 0 to one of its children. The contribution to $M'$ from forests in which 0 is a root is thus $e^{bN}M=M^b M=M^{b+1}$.

If 0 is not a root of $F$, then to reconstruct $F$ from $F_1$ and $F_2$ it is sufficient to know the parent of 0 in $F$; thus $F$ is determined by $F_1$, $F_2$, and the choice of a vertex in $F_2$. All of the ascents and descents of $F_1$ and $F_2$ will be ascents and descents of $F$, and as in the first case, $F$ will have an extra ascent for every child of 0. In addition, $F$ will have an extra descent for the edge joining 0 to its parent. The generating function for forests with a marked vertex is $xM'$, so the contribution to $M'$ from forests in which 0 is not a root is $aM^b \cdot xM'$.
\end{proof}

\section{Parking functions}

A parking function on an $n$-set $K$ is a function $f: K\to [n+1]$ satisfying a certain property, described below. We think of the elements of $K$ as cars and the elements of $[n+1]$ as parking spaces and we think of $f$ as a function that assigns to each car its favorite parking space. The cars arrive in some order at their favorite parking spaces. If space $f(z)$ is not already occupied when car $z$ arrives there, then car $z$ parks in space $f(z)$. More generally, if there is some available space $s$, with $f(z) \le s < n+1$, then car $z$ parks in the first (i.e., smallest) such space. Otherwise, car $z$ does not park at all. If all cars are able to park, then we call $f$ a \emph{parking function}. Although cars are not allowed to park in space $n+1$, we will see that the existence of this space is useful.
It is well known (and easy to see) that whether all cars are able to park or not does not depend on their arrival order. However, we will assume that the cars are  totally ordered and that they arrive in increasing order.

It is useful to represent the parking function $f: K \to [n+1]$ by the ordered partition $(B_1, \dots, B_{n+1})$ of $K$ in which $B_i=f^{-1}(i)$; i.e., $B_i$ is the set of cars that prefer to park in space $i$.
A necessary and sufficient condition for $f$ to be a parking function is that for each $i$, $|B_1|+\cdots + |B_i|\ge i$.

It is well known that the number of parking functions on $[n]$ is $(n+1)^{n-1}$ \cite[p.~140]{ec2}. So the exponential generating function for parking functions is \[A=\egf{(n+1)^{n-1}}.\]

We  consider a slight generalization of parking functions. Instead of taking the set of parking spaces for $n$ cars to be $[n+1]$, we take it to be $[n+c]$, for some positive integer $c$ (but we keep the number of cars at $n$). Then we call $f$ a \emph{$c$-parking function} if all cars are able to park using the same parking procedure as before, except that cars may now park in spaces 1 to $n+c-1$.
An alternative characterization of $c$-parking functions is that with $B_i = f^{-1}(i)$, we have $|B_1|+\cdots + |B_i|\ge i-c+1$.
It is clear that if all cars park, they will leave exactly $c$ empty spaces, one of which will be the last space, $n+c$. Thus if we represent a $c$-parking function by an ordered partition, then cutting it after every empty parking space decomposes it into a concatenation of $c$ ordinary parking functions.
Therefore the generating function for $c$-parking functions is
\[A^c = \egf{c(n+c)^{n-1}}.\]
Further properties of $c$-parking functions can be found in Yan \cite{yan}.

If $f$ is a parking function $K\to [n+1]$ then we call a car $z\in K$ \emph{lucky} if it
succeeds in parking in its preferred space. Let $\lucky f$ denote the number of lucky cars associated to~$f$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t-parking}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_f u^{\lucky f}=P_n(1,u,u),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all parking functions $f:[n]\to [n+1]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $q_n(u) = \sum_f u^{\lucky f}$, where the sum is over all parking functions
$f$ on $[n]$  and let
$Q= \sum_{n=0}^\infty q_n(u) x^n/n!$.
We will show that $Q$ satisfies the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\label{e-parking}
Q' = u Q^2 + xQ' Q,
\end{equation}
which by Theorem \ref{t-1'} implies the result.
To do this we evaluate $Q'$ by counting parking functions $f:[n+1]\to [n+2]$.
The restriction $f^-$ of such a parking function to $[n]$ is a 2-parking function, which leaves two empty spaces, $e+1$ and $n+2$, for some $e$ with $0\le e\le n$. If $n+1$ is lucky in $f$, then $f(n+1)$ must be $e+1$, and the contribution to $Q'$ from this case is $uQ^2$. If $n+1$ is not lucky in $f$ then $f(n+1)$ is 1, 2, \dots, or~$e$.  In this case $f^-$ decomposes into a parking function on $e$ cars, with one of the first $e$ spaces ``marked," followed by a parking function on $n-e$ cars. The  generating function for parking functions with a marked space is $xQ'$  so the contribution to $Q'$ from this case is  $xQ'Q$. Adding together these two contributions gives \eqref{e-parking}.
\end{proof}

Since the number of lucky cars in a $c$-parking function is the total number of lucky cars among its constituents, the generating function for $c$-parking functions by lucky cars is $Q^c$, and we have the following result:

\begin{cor}
For any positive integer $c$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_f u^{\lucky f}=P_n(1,u,cu),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all c-parking functions $f:[n]\to [n+c]$.
\end{cor}

There is an ordered decomposition for parking functions that gives us a result analogous to equation \eqref{e-kcolor2}.
We modify the ordered partition
representation of a parking function $f:K\to [n+1]$, where $|K|=n$,  by removing
the empty block $B_{n+1}$. Let us call the result the
\emph{reduced ordered partition} corresponding to $f$.
Then $f$ is called a \emph{prime parking function} if its
reduced ordered partition cannot be decomposed as a
nontrivial concatenation of reduced ordered partitions
for parking functions; equivalently, if $(B_1,
B_2,\dots, B_n)$ is the reduced ordered partition of
$f$, then $|B_1|+|B_2|+\cdots +|B_i| > i$ for $1\le i <
n$. Then every parking function can be decomposed
uniquely into prime parking functions.

\begin{cor}
For $n\ge1$,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_f u^{\lucky f}=-P_n(1,u,-u),
\end{equation*}
where the sum is over all prime parking functions $f$ on $[n]$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $R$ be the generating for prime parking functions $f$ weighted by $u^{\lucky f}$. Then since the number of lucky cars in a parking function is compatible with the decomposition into prime parking functions, we have
$Q=1/(1-R)$, with $Q$ as in the proof of Theorem \ref{t-parking}.
Thus $R=1-Q^{-1}$, and the result follows from Theorem \ref{t-parking} and
\eqref{e-gc}.
\end{proof}


Laplacian Distribution and Domination

Abstract: Let $m_G(I)$ denote the number of Laplacian eigenvalues of a graph $G$ in an interval $I$, and let $\gamma(G)$ denote its domination number. We extend the recent result $m_G[0,1) \leq \gamma(G)$, and show that isolate-free graphs also satisfy $\gamma(G) \leq m_G[2,n]$. In pursuit of better understanding Laplacian eigenvalue distribution, we find applications for these inequalities. We relate these spectral parameters with the approximability of $\gamma(G)$, showing that $\frac{\gamma(G)}{m_G[0,1)} \not\in O(\log n)$. However, $\gamma(G) \leq m_G[2, n] \leq (c + 1) \gamma(G)$ for $c$-cyclic graphs, $c \geq 1$. For trees $T$, $\gamma(T) \leq m_T[2, n] \leq 2 \gamma(G)$.

\section{Introduction}
Let $G = (V,E)$ be an undirected graph with vertex set
$V = \{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$.
For $v \in V$, its {\em open neighborhood} $N(v)$ denotes the set of vertices adjacent to $v$.
The {\em adjacency matrix} of $G$ is the $n \times n$
matrix $A = [a_{ij}]$ for which
$a_{ij} = 1$ if $v_i$ and $v_j$ are adjacent,
and $a_{ij} = 0$ otherwise.

The {\em Laplacian matrix} of $G$ is defined as $L_G = D - A$, where $D = [d_{ij}]$
is the diagonal matrix in which $d_{ii} = \deg(v_i)$, the degree of $v_i$.
The {\em Laplacian spectrum} of $G$ is the multi-set of eigenvalues of $L_G$,
we number
$$
 \mu_1 \geq \mu_2 \geq \ldots \geq \mu_n = 0.
$$
It is known that $\mu_1 \leq n$.
Unless indicated otherwise, all eigenvalues in this paper are Laplacian.
We refer to \cite{mohar,mohar92} for more background on the Laplacian
spectra of graphs.

A set $S \subseteq V$ is {\em dominating} if every $v \in V-S$ is
adjacent to some member in $S$.
The {\em domination number} $\dom{G}$
is the minimum size of a dominating set.
Its  decision problem is well-known to be NP-complete,
and it is even hard to approximate.

Since 1996, several papers have been written
relating the Laplacian spectrum of a graph $G$ with $\dom{G}$.
Often these results obtain a bound, involving $\dom{G}$,
for a {\em specific} eigenvalue such as $\mu_1$ or $\mu_{n-1}$.
For example,
it was shown that $\mu_1 < n - \theratio{\dom{G}  - 2}{2}$
by Brand and Seifter
\cite{Brand96}
for $G$ connected and $\dom{G} \geq 3$.
This was recently improved in \cite{XingZhou2015}.
We refer to the introduction of \cite{HJT2015}
for a summary of these results.

Other spectral graph theory papers,
including this one,
are interested in {\em distribution}, that is,
the number of Laplacian eigenvalues in an interval.
For a real interval $I$, $m_G (I)$ denotes the number
of Laplacian eigenvalues of $G$ in $I$.
There exist several papers in the literature that relate
Laplacian distribution to specific graph parameters, including $\dom{G}$.
For example, the paper by
Zhou, Zhou and Du
\cite{MR3313404}
shows that for trees $T$, $m_T [0,2) \leq  n - \dom{T}$.

The following spectral lower bound for $\dom{G}$
was proved in \cite{HJT2015}:
\begin{Thr}
\label{lemgamma}
If $G$ is a graph, then $m_G[0,1) \leq \dom{G}$.
\end{Thr}

In this paper we observe that for $G$ isolate-free one has
$$
\dom{G} \leq m_G [2,n].
$$
Since $m_G[0,2) + m_G[2,n] = n$,
this inequality generalizes the result in \cite{MR3313404} for trees.

Our paper seeks {\em applications} to the inequalities $m_G[0,1) \leq  \dom{G}$ and $\dom{G} \leq m_G [2,n]$.
We also seek insight into the {\em ratios} of these numbers.
In the examples given in \cite{HJT2015},
the numbers $\dom{G}$ and $m_G[0,1)$
were equal or differed by one.
We will see that this does not happen in general.

The remainder of our paper is organized as follows.
We finish this introduction by considering the sharpness of these inequalities.
In the next section we recall the proof of
Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} and modify it to obtain an inequality involving $m_G[2,n]$.
In Section~\ref{sec:apps} we obtain several
new results based on existing
Nordhaus-Gaddum inequalities
and Gallai-type theorems.
One interesting new Nordhaus-Gaddum result is that
for any graph $G$, $m_G[0,1) + m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) \leq  n + 1$
with equality if and only if $G = K_n$ or $G = \bar{K_n}$.
Another interesting result is that a graph must have fewer than $\sqrt{n}$
Laplacian eigenvalues in at least one of the intervals $[0,1)$ or $(n-1,n]$.
In Section~\ref{sec:approx},
using results from the approximation literature,
we explain why we can't expect the quantities
$m_G[0,1)$ or $m_G [2,n]$ to be close to $\dom{G}$.
Using some results on Vizing's conjecture,
we show that $\frac{\dom{G} }{ m_G[0,1) } \notin O(\log n)$.
For  trees, $\dom{T} \leq m_T[2,n] < 2 \dom{T}$.
For $c$-cyclic graphs $G$, $c \geq 1$, $m_G[2,n]  \leq (c+ 1) \dom{G}$.
These results seem interesting
in light of the domination number's
general inapproximability.
In Section~\ref{sec:concluding} we observe that many results
also hold for the signless Laplacian spectrum.

\vspace{.1in}
\paragraph{\bf{Tightness}}
We briefly discuss whether $\dom{G}$ is the natural
graph parameter bounded below by $m_G[0,1)$ and above by $m_G[2,n]$.
For example, one might ask
if there exists a graph parameter $p(G)$ for which
$$
m_{G}[0,1) \leq p(G) \leq \dom{G} .
$$
We considered three well-known graph parameters, each bounded above by $\dom{G}$,
and observed that they are not always bounded below by $m_{G}[0,1)$.
More precisely, while the {\em 2-packing number} $\rho(G)$ (see \cite{MR2014537})
is always at most $\dom{G}$, we can find a graph for which $\rho(G) < m_{G}[0,1)$.
Similar examples can be found
for the {\em fractional domination number} $\fractional{G}$ \cite{Grinstead1989},
and the {\em irredundance number} $\ir(G)$ \cite{Damaschke1991}.
We omit the details.

One can also ask if there exists a graph parameter $q(G)$
for which
$$
\dom{G} \leq q(G) \leq m_G [2,n]
$$
for isolate-free $G$.
Graph parameters $q(G)$ for which $\dom{G} \leq q(G)$
include the {\em independent domination number} $i(G)$,
the {\em edge covering number} $\alpha_1 (G)$,
and
the matching number
$\beta_1 (G)$.
In the first two cases we can provide counter examples to show
they are not necessarily bounded above by $ m_G [2,n]$.
Interestingly, we will see that
$\dom{G} \leq \beta_1 (G) \leq m_G [2,n]$,
when $G$ is isolate-free.

\section{Upper bound for $\dom{G}$}
\label{sec:upperbound}
In this section we show how to modify
the proof of Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}
to obtain a new inequality.
For convenience, we recall the facts used to prove
Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}.
Proofs or references can be found in \cite{HJT2015}.
In this paper, a {\em star} $S_n$ is the complete bipartite graph $K_{1, n-1}$, and $n \geq 2$.

\begin{Lem}
\label{lemstar}
The star $S_n$ on $n$ vertices has Laplacian
spectrum $0, 1^{n-2}, n$.
\end{Lem}

\begin{Lem}
\label{lemlaplaciansum}
For graphs $G_1 = (V, E_1)$ and $G_2 = (V,E_2)$ where $E_1 \cap E_2 = \emptyset$,
and $G = (V, E_1 \cup E_2)$, we have $L_G = L_{G_1} + L_{G_2}$.
\end{Lem}

Let $\lambda_i (A)$ denote the $i$-th largest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix $A$.
\begin{Lem}
\label{lemcourantweyl}
If $A$ and $B$ are Hermitian matrices of order $n$, and $B$ is positive semi-definite,
then $\lambda_i (A + B) \geq \lambda_i (A)$,
for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
\end{Lem}

\begin{Lem}
\label{lemsubgraph}
Let $G = (V,E)$ and $H = (V,F)$ be graphs with $F \subseteq E$.  Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $i$, $\mu_i (H) \leq \mu_i (G)$;
\item for any $a$, $m_H[0,a) \geq m_G[0,a)$;
\item for any $a$, $m_H [a,n] \leq m_G [a,n]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lem}

Let $S$ be a set of vertices, and $u \in S$.
A vertex $v \in V - S$ is an {\em external private neighbor} of
$u$ (with respect to $S$) if $N(v) \cap S = \{u\}$.
That is, $v \in V - S$ is a neighbor of $u$, but not
a neighbor of any other member of $S$.

\begin{Lem}
[\cite{MR542545}]
\label{lembollabascockayne}
Any graph without isolated vertices has a minimum dominating set
in which every member has an external private neighbor.
\end{Lem}

We will say that $G$ has a {\em star forest} $F = ( S_{n_1}, \ldots , S_{n_k} )$,
if there exists a sequence of pairwise vertex-disjoint subgraphs $H_i$ of $G$,
with $H_i \simeq S_{n_i}$, for all $i$, $1 \leq i \leq k$.
We emphasize that stars have order $n \geq 2$.

\begin{Lem}
\label{lemspanningforest}
Any isolate-free graph $G = (V,E)$ with domination number $\gamma$ has
a star forest $F = ( S_{n_1}, \ldots , S_{n_\gamma})$ such that every $v \in V$ belongs
to exactly one star, and the centers of the stars form a minimum dominating set.
\end{Lem}

Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}
is a spectral lower bound for $\dom{G}$.
The key to its proof
was to take the star forest
that cover all vertices,
$$
F = (S_{n_1}, S_{n_2}, \ldots, S_{n_{\dom{G}} }),
$$
guaranteed by Lemma~\ref{lemspanningforest}.
By Lemma~\ref{lemstar} $m_{S_{n_i}}[0,1) = 1$,
and so $m_F [0,1) = \dom{G}$.
By part (2) of Lemma~\ref{lemsubgraph}
we have $\dom{G} = m_F [0,1) \geq m_G [0,1)$.

If instead of counting the {\em smallest} eigenvalue
in each star we count the {\em largest},
we can also obtain a spectral {\em upper} bound for $\dom{G}$.
Assume that $G$ is isolate-free.
In the construction of $F$,
each star $S_k$ contains $k \geq 2$ vertices.
When $k = 2$, the star has eigenvalues $0, 2$.
When $k \geq 3$, the star has eigenvalues $0, 1^{k-2}, k$.
So $m_{S_{n_i}}[2,n] = 1$ for all $i$.
Since these are disjoint stars, $m_F [2,n] = \dom{G}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemsubgraph},
part (3),
$m_F [2,n] \leq  m_G [2,n]$.
We conclude that
\begin{Thr}
\label{gammatwo}
If $G$ is an isolate-free graph, then $\dom{G} \leq  m_G [2,n]$.
\end{Thr}

We will use some ideas from our proof of Theorem~\ref{gammatwo}
to establish Theorem~\ref{thr:treeratiob} and Theorem~\ref{thr:ccylicratiob},
later in Section~\ref{sec:approx}.
However, there is actually an alternative and simpler proof to
Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} which we sketch.
Recall that the {\em matching number} $\beta_1(G)$,
is the size of a largest set of independent edges in $G$.
We first claim that
$\beta_1(G) \leq m_G[2,n]$
{\em for any graph} $G$.
To see this, let $F$ be the subgraph of $G$ consisting of
$\beta_1(G)$ disjoint $K_2$'s and $n - 2 \beta_1(G)$ isolated vertices.
Then $m_F[2,n] = \beta_1(G)$.
By part (3) of Lemma~\ref{lemsubgraph}, we must have $\beta_1(G) = m_F[2,n] \leq m_G[2,n]$.
Finally, it is known \cite{HHS1998}
that if $G$ is isolate-free then $\dom{G} \leq  \beta_1(G)$, and so Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} follows.

A connection between $\beta_1(G)$ and the number of Laplacian eigenvalues
{\em strictly} greater than two was shown in 2001 by Ming and Wang \cite{MingWang2001}.
They proved that if $G$ is connected and $n > 2\beta_1(G)$,
then $\beta_1(G) \leq m_G(2,n]$.

Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} strengthens a recent result
by Zhou, Zhou and Du \cite{MR3313404}
which says that for trees $T$, $m_T [0,2) \leq  n - \dom{T}$.
Note that Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} requires $G$ be isolate-free
while Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} does not.
This happens because isolates in Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}
can be disregarded as they
increase both sides of the inequality by one.
In Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} an isolate increases one side
of the inequality but not the other.
Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} and Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} imply
\begin{Cor}
\label{upperlower}
If $G$ is isolate-free then $m_G[0,1) \leq  \dom{G} \leq m_G [2,n]$.
\end{Cor}

It seems interesting in its own right that
\begin{Cor}
If $G$ is isolate-free, then $m_G[0,1) \leq  m_G [2,n]$.
\end{Cor}

When combined with a known lower bound on
$m_T[0,2)$ for trees, Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} implies something
interesting about the interval $[1,2)$.
\begin{Cor}
If $T$ is a tree, then $m_T[1,2) \geq \theratio{n}{2} - \dom{T}$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_T[1,2) & = & m_T [0,2) - m_T[0,1) \\
         & \geq & \theratio{n}{2} - m_T[0,1) \\
         & \geq & \theratio{n}{2} - \dom{T}
\end{eqnarray*}
The first inequality follows by the bound $m_T[0,2) \geq \theratio{n}{2}$
for trees given in \cite[Thr. 4.1]{Braga2013}.
The second inequality follows from Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}.
\end{proof}

\section{Applications}
\label{sec:apps}
Recall that the {\em distance} between vertices $u$ and $v$ is the
number of edges in a shortest path between them,
and the graph's {\em diameter}, $\diam (G)$, is the greatest distance
between any two vertices.
It is known \cite{GroneMerrisSunder} that for trees $T$,
$\floorratio { \diam (T) }{2}$
is a lower bound for both $m_T(0,2)$ and $m_T(2,n]$.
For $G$ connected, it is also known \cite{HHS1998} that
$\frac{ 1 + \diam(G) }{3} \leq \dom{G}$,
so Theorem~\ref{gammatwo} implies
\begin{Cor}
\label{diam-upper}
For connected graphs $G$, $\frac{ 1 + \diam(G) }{3} \leq m_G [2,n]$.
\end{Cor}

\paragraph{\bf{Nordhaus-Gaddum inequalities}}
A {\em Nordhaus-Gaddum} inequality is a bound on the sum or product
of a parameter for a graph $G$ and its complement $\bar{G}$.
For an overview of Nordhaus-Gaddum inequalities for domination-related parameters
we refer to Chapter 10 in \cite{HHS1998}.
A result of Jaeger and Payan \cite{Jaeger72} says that if $G$ is a graph
then
\begin{eqnarray}
\dom{G} + \dom{\bar{G}} & \leq & n + 1  \label{NGaa} \\
\dom{G} \dom{\bar{G}} & \leq & n
\label{NGbb}
\end{eqnarray}
and these bounds are tight.
The following theorem
by Cockayne and Hedetniemi
characterizes when
equality occurs in (\ref{NGaa}).
\begin{Thr}[\cite{Cockayne77}]
\label{thr:cock-hedet}
For any graph $G$, $\dom{G} + \dom{\bar{G}}  \leq  n + 1$ with equality if and only if
$G = K_n$ or $G = \bar{K_n}$.
\end{Thr}
We can use this to obtain the following:
\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:our-nord}
For any graph $G$, $m_G[0,1) + m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) \leq  n + 1$
with equality if and only if $G = K_n$ or $G = \bar{K_n}$.
\end{Thr}
\begin{proof}
From Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} and (\ref{NGaa}) we must have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sandwich}
m_G[0,1) + m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) \leq  \dom{G} + \dom{\bar{G}} \leq  n + 1
\end{equation}
for any $G$.
Since $m_{K_n} [0,1) = 1$ and $m_{ \bar{ K_n }} [0,1) = n$,
we must have equality
if $G = K_n$ or $G = \bar{K_n}$.
Conversely if $m_G[0,1) + m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) =  n + 1$, then (\ref{eq:sandwich}) forces
$\dom{G} + \dom{\bar{G}} = n + 1$.
By Theorem~\ref{thr:cock-hedet} it follows that $G = K_n$ or $G = \bar{K_n}$.
\end{proof}

From Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} and (\ref{NGbb}) we also have
\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:NGbb}
For any graph $G$, $m_G[0,1) \cdot m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) \leq  n$.
\end{Thr}

Recall \cite[Theorem 3.6]{mohar}
that if $G$ has Laplacian eigenvalues
$$
0 = \mu_1 \leq \mu_2 \leq \ldots \leq \mu_n
$$
then
the Laplacian eigenvalues
of $\bar{G}$ are:
$$
0, ~~ n - \mu_n, ~~ n - \mu_{n-1}, ~~~ \ldots,  ~~ n - \mu_2
$$
It follows that $m_{\bar{G}}[0,1) = m_G(n-1,n] + 1$.
Then from Theorem~\ref{thr:NGbb}
\begin{eqnarray*}
m_G[0,1) \cdot m_G(n-1,n] & < &   m_G[0,1) \cdot  ( m_G(n-1,n] + 1 )   = \\
m_G[0,1) \cdot  m_{\bar{G}}[0,1)  & \leq   & n .
\end{eqnarray*}
We have
\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:intproducts}
For any graph $G$, $m_G[0,1)  \cdot m_G(n-1,n] < n$.
\end{Thr}
We conclude that any graph of order $n$ must have fewer than $\sqrt{n}$
Laplacian eigenvalues in at least one of the intervals $[0,1)$ or $(n-1,n]$.

\vspace{.1in}
\paragraph{\bf{Gallai-type theorems}}
A {\em Gallai-type} theorem has the form $x(G) + y(G) = n$ where $x(G)$ and $y(G)$
are graph parameters.
There are exactly $n$
Laplacian eigenvalues,
so the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gallai-eigen}
m_G[0,1) + m_G [1,n] = n
\end{equation}
can be regarded as a trivial Gallai-type theorem.
A {\em spanning forest} of a graph $G$ is a spanning
subgraph which contains no cycles.
Let $\varepsilon(G)$ denote the maximum number of pendant edges
in a spanning forest of $G$.
\begin{Thr} [ Nieminen \cite{Nieminen74} ]
\label{thr:Nieminen}
For any graph $G$, $\dom{G} + \varepsilon(G) = n$.
\end{Thr}

\begin{Cor}
\label{greaterthanone}
For any graph $G$,
$\varepsilon (G) \leq m_G [1,n]$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
From Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}
and (\ref{eq:gallai-eigen})
we know that
\begin{equation}
\label{ineq:dom1n}
n - \dom{G} \leq m_G [1,n]
\end{equation}
the left side being $\varepsilon (G)$
by Theorem~\ref{thr:Nieminen}.
\end{proof}

\begin{Cor}
$\dom{G} = m_G[0,1)$ if and only if $\varepsilon (G) = m_G [1,n]$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from (\ref{eq:gallai-eigen}) and Theorem~\ref{thr:Nieminen}.
\end{proof}

Berge \cite{Berge73} gives an early bound for $\dom{G}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{berge}
\dom{G} + \Delta (G) \leq n
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ denotes the maximum vertex degree.
In \cite{DomkeDunbarMarkus97} the authors study when equality
in (\ref{berge}) occurs.
Combining (\ref{ineq:dom1n})
and (\ref{berge}) give
\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:maxdegree}
For any graph $G$, $m_G [1,n] \geq \Delta(G)$.
\end{Thr}
As a simple application to Theorem~\ref{thr:maxdegree},
suppose we are given a list $\sigma$
$$
0  = \mu_n \leq  \mu_{n-1} \leq \ldots \leq \mu_1
$$
of non-negative numbers
and wish to know if there is a graph $G$ whose  Laplacian spectrum is $\sigma$.
Then Theorem~\ref{thr:maxdegree} imposes a {\em necessary} condition on $G$.
Let $B = | \{ i : \mu_i \geq 1 \} |$.
Any graph $G$ such that $\spec(G) = \sigma$ must have vertices whose
degrees are bounded by $B$.

\section{Approximating $\dom{G}$}
\label{sec:approx}
In this section we explain why it is hard to approximate $\dom{G}$
with a polynomial computable spectral quantity
of the form $m_G[a,b]$.  We show that $m_G[0,1)$ and $m_G[2,n]$
do not even achieve logarithmic approximation ratios.
Yet, for certain classes of graphs such as
trees and $c$-cyclic graphs, $\frac{m_G [2,n]} { \dom{G} }$ is bounded by a constant.

\vspace{.1in}
\paragraph{\bf{Inapproximability}}
It is well-known that the decision problem
DOMINATING SET
is NP-complete \cite{GareyandJohnson79},
even for planar graphs.
In the approximation algorithm literature
the problem is classified as class II in the taxonomy
of NP-complete problems given in \cite{AroraLund}.
Roughly speaking, this means that approximating with better
than a logarithmic ratio is hard.
A problem is called {\em quasi-NP-hard} if a polynomial-time algorithm
for it could be used to solve all NP problems in time $2^{\poly(\log n)}$.
Thus the notion is slightly weaker than NP-hard.

Lund and Yannakakis \cite[Thr. 3.6]{Lund1994} showed that it is quasi-NP-hard
to compute a polynomial-time function $f(G) \geq \dom{G}$ for which
$$
\frac{f(G)}{\dom{G}} \leq c \log_2 n
$$
when $0 < c < \frac{1}{4}$.
Letting $g(G) = \frac { f(G) }{ c \log_2 n}$, we see this is equivalent to
computing a polynomial time $g(G) \leq \dom{G}$ for which
$$
\frac{\dom{G}}{g(G)} \leq c \log_2 n .
$$

Good approximations of $\dom{G}$ do exist.
The fractional domination number $\fractional{G}$
can be computed in polynomial time using linear programming.
Given a vertex ordering,
we can compute in polynomial time
an approximation $\gamma_g(G)$
for $\dom{G}$ using the greedy domination algorithm.
Clearly for any graph $G$,
$$
\fractional{G} \leq \dom{G} \leq \gamma_g(G).
$$
In \cite{CGH2015} Chappell, Gimbel and Hartman
proved that $\frac{ \gamma_g(G) }{ \fractional{G} }$
is in  $O(\log n)$.
It follows that
both
$\frac{ \gamma_g(G) }{ \dom{G} }$
and
$\frac{ \dom{G} }{ \fractional{G} }$
must also be in $O(\log n)$.
Note this result does not contradict that of Lund and Yannakakis,
provided the constants of proportionality are sufficiently large.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\input{figure1.tex}
\caption{ \label{treefig} $m_T[0,1) = 24 < \dom{T} = 25$ }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\vspace{.1in}
\paragraph{\bf{Example}}
We now construct an infinite sequence of graphs for which the ratio
$\frac{\dom{G} }{ m_G[0,1)  } \not\in O(\log n)$.
Our construction uses the tree $T$ of order $n = 65$, shown in Figure~\ref{treefig}.
It is known \cite{HJT2015} that $m_T[0,1) = 24$  and $\dom{T} = 25$.

Recall that the {\em Cartesian product} $G \times H$ of two graphs $G = (V,E)$ and $H = (W,F)$ is the graph
with vertex set $V \times W$ for which $(v_1, w_1)$ and $(v_2, w_2)$
are adjacent if and only if $v_1 = v_2$ and $w_1 w_2 \in F$ or $w_1 = w_2$ and $v_1 v_2 \in E$.

In 1968 V. G. Vizing conjectured \cite{MR0240000}
that for all graphs $G$ and $H$,
\begin{equation}
\label{vizingeq}
\dom{G} \cdot \dom{H} \leq \dom{G \times H}
\end{equation}

While this currently remains
an open problem, many partial results exist.
We say that $G$ {\em satisfies Vizing's conjecture} if (\ref{vizingeq})
holds for all graphs $H$.
Many classes of graphs are known to satisfy Vizing's conjecture.
\begin{Lem}[ Theorem 8.2, \cite{MR2864622}]
\label{lemtreesVizings}
All trees satisfy Vizing's conjecture.
\end{Lem}

It is easy to show that the Cartesian product is an associative operation.
Let $G^k$ denote the Cartesian product $G \times \ldots \times G$ of $k$ copies of $G$.

\begin{Lem}
\label{lemVizingproduct}
If $G$ satisfies Vizing's conjecture, then $\dom{G}^k \leq \dom{G^k}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
By induction on $k$, the case for $k = 1$ being trivial.
Assume that $\dom{G}^k \leq \dom{G^k}$.
Using the induction assumption, the fact that $G$ satisfies Vizing's conjecture,
and the associativity of $\times$, we have
$$
\dom{G}^{k+1} = \dom{G} \dom{G}^k \leq \dom{G} \dom{G^k} \leq \dom{G \times G^k} = \dom{G^{k+1}}
$$
completing the proof.
\end{proof}

The following is well-known (See, for example, \cite[Thr. 3.5]{mohar}).
\begin{Lem}
\label{lemproduct}
Let $G$ and $H$ be graphs with Laplacian spectra
$$
0  = \mu_n \leq  \mu_{n-1} \leq \ldots \leq \mu_1
$$
and
$$
0  = \mu^{\prime}_m \leq  \mu^{\prime}_{m-1} \leq \ldots \leq \mu^{\prime}_1
$$
respectively.
Then the Laplacian spectrum of $G \times H$ is
$$
\{ \mu_i + \mu^{\prime}_j | 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq m \} .
$$
\end{Lem}

\begin{Lem}
\label{leminequal}
For any graphs $G$ and $H$, $m_{G \times H} [0,1) \leq m_G [0,1) \cdot m_H [0,1)$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemproduct},
Laplacian eigenvalues of $G \times H$
are of the form
$\mu_i + \mu^{\prime}_j$,
where $\mu_i$ and $\mu^{\prime}_j$ are eigenvalues of $G$ and $H$ respectively.
A necessary condition for
$\mu_i + \mu^{\prime}_j < 1$
is that $\mu_i < 1$ and $\mu^{\prime}_j < 1$.
There are at most $m_G [0,1) \cdot m_H [0,1)$ such pairs.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lem}
\label{leminequalA}
For any graph $G$ and any $k \geq 1$, $m_{G^k} [0,1) \leq m_G [0,1)^k $.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
The case $k=1$ is trivial, and $k=2$ is handled by
Lemma~\ref{leminequal}.
Assume $m_{G^k} [0,1) \leq m_G [0,1)^k $.
Then using Lemma~\ref{leminequal} and the induction assumption,
we have:
$$
m_{G^{k+1}} [0,1) = m_{G \times G^{k}} [0,1) \leq m_G [0,1) \cdot m_{G^k}[0,1) \leq m_G [0,1) \cdot m_G [0,1)^k .
$$
The right side is $m_G[0,1)^{k+1}$ completing the induction.
\end{proof}

Let $T$ be the tree of order $65$ in Figure~\ref{treefig}
for which
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tree-facts}
m_T[0,1) = 24  \mbox{ and } \dom{T} = 25 .
\end{equation}
We claim that for all $k \geq 1$
\begin{equation}
\label{longinequal}
m_{T^k} [0,1) \leq m_T [0,1)^k \leq \dom{T}^k \leq \dom{T^k}
\end{equation}
The first inequality follows by Lemma~\ref{leminequalA},
and the second inequality follows by Theorem~\ref{lemgamma}.
The third inequality follows by
Lemma~\ref{lemtreesVizings} and Lemma~\ref{lemVizingproduct}.

\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:lowerratio}
There exists a sequence of graphs $G_k$
with $\frac{ \dom{G_k} }{ m_{G_k} [0,1) }  \not\in O(\log n)$.
\end{Thr}
\begin{proof}
We let $G_k = T^k$.
Using $n = 65^k$,  (\ref{eq:tree-facts}) and (\ref{longinequal}) we have
$$
\frac{ \dom{T^k} }{ m_{T^k} [0,1) } \geq
\frac{ \dom{T}^k }{ m_T [0,1)^k } =
\left ( \frac{25}{24} \right )^k =
\left ( \frac{25}{24} \right )^ {\log_{65} n} =
n^ {\log_{65} \frac{25}{24}} = n^{.009779} .
$$
\end{proof}

\paragraph{\bf{Ratios for certain classes}}
Consider the two approximation ratios:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\dom{G} }{ m_G[0,1) } \label{ratiob} \\
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\frac{ m_G[2,n] }{\dom{G}} \label{ratioa}
\end{equation}

Both ratios can get arbitrarily large.
By Theorem~\ref{thr:lowerratio}
the first of these ratios
is not bounded by $\log (n)$.
The second ratio also gets arbitrarily large.
When $G = K_n$ is the complete graph,
we see that ratio (\ref{ratioa}) is $n-1$.

Consider (\ref{ratioa}) for paths $P_n$.
It is well-known that $\dom{P_n} = \theratio{n}{3}$.
By Thr. 4.1 in \cite{Braga2013}
we also know $m_{P_n}[2,n] \leq \floorratio{n}{2}$,
and so (\ref{ratioa}) is at most $\frac{3}{2}$.
Using ideas from Section~\ref{sec:upperbound},
we show that for {\em all trees}  ratio (\ref{ratioa}) is less than two.

\begin{Lem}
\label{lem:addedge}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $m < {n \choose 2}$ edges,
and let
$G^\prime$
be the graph obtained by adding an edge.
Then for any $a \geq 0$,
$$
m_G[a,n] \leq m_{G^\prime}[a,n] \leq m_G[a,n] + 1 .
$$
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
$0 = \mu_n \leq \ldots \leq \mu_2 \leq \mu_1$
and
$0 = \mu^\prime_n \leq \ldots \leq \mu^\prime_2 \leq \mu^\prime_1$
be the respective Laplacian spectra of $G$ and $G^\prime$.
By the well-know interlacing theorem \cite[Thr. 2.4]{MR2494114}
for Laplacian eigenvalues we know
$$
0 = \mu_n = \mu^\prime_n \leq \ldots \leq \mu_k \leq \mu^\prime_k \leq \ldots \leq
\mu_2 \leq \mu^\prime_2 \leq \mu_1 \leq \mu^\prime_1
$$
If $a = 0$, then $m_G[a,n] = m_{G^\prime}[a,n] = n$.
If $\mu_1 < a$ then $m_G[a,n] =  m_{G^\prime}[a,n] = 0$.
We may assume that $0 < a \leq \mu_1$.
Choose $k$ to be the largest index for which $a \leq \mu_k$.
Then $\mu_{k+1} < a \leq \mu_k$.
There is a single eigenvalue of $G^\prime$,
namely $\mu^\prime_{k+1}$ in $[ \mu_{k+1}, \mu_k ] $.
If $\mu^\prime_{k+1} \leq a$,
then $m_{G^\prime}[a,n] = m_G[a,n] + 1$.
Otherwise, $m_{G^\prime}[a,n] = m_G[a,n]$.
\end{proof}

\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:treeratiob}
 If $T$ is a tree, then $1 \leq \frac{ m_T[2,n] }{ \dom{T} } < 2$.
\end{Thr}
\begin{proof}
Let $F = ( S_{n_1}, \ldots , S_{n_\gamma})$ be the star forest guaranteed by
Lemma~\ref{lemspanningforest}.
Then $m_F [2,n]$ is exactly $\dom{T}$.
Starting with $F$, we can construct
$T$ by {\em adding} $\dom{T} - 1$ edges.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:addedge} the addition of each edge
can increase $m_T[2,n]$ by at most one.
Therefore
$$
m_F[2,n] \leq m_T[2,n] \leq m_F[2,n] + \dom{T} - 1 .
$$
But the right side is $2 \dom{T} - 1$
and the theorem follows.
\end{proof}

A connected graph having $n - 1 + c$ edges is called {\em c-cyclic}.
We can generalize Theorem~\ref{thr:treeratiob} as follows.
\begin{Thr}
\label{thr:ccylicratiob}
If $G$ is $c$-cyclic, $c \geq 1$, then $1 \leq \frac{ m_G[2,n] }{ \dom{G} } \leq c+ 1$.
\end{Thr}
\begin{proof}
Let $F = ( S_{n_1}, \ldots , S_{n_\gamma})$ be the star forest in $G$
from Lemma~\ref{lemspanningforest}.
Then we may select $\dom{G} - 1$ additional edges to form a
spanning tree $T$.
Since $T$ has $n-1$ edges, there must be $c$ remaining edges.
Therefore $G$ can be constructed from $F$ by adding $\dom{G} - 1 + c$ edges.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:addedge}
$$
 m_G[2,n] \leq m_F[2,n] + \dom{G} - 1  + c = 2 \dom{G} + c - 1,
$$
or
$$
\frac{ m_G[2,n] }{ \dom{G} } \leq 2 + \frac{c-1}{\dom{G}}  \leq 2 + c - 1 ,
$$
the last inequality holding because $c \geq 1$ and $\dom{G} \geq 1$.
\end{proof}

Let us now consider ratio (\ref{ratiob}) for trees.
For the tree in Figure~\ref{treefig}, the ratio (\ref{ratiob}) is $\frac{25}{24}$.
It is possible to generalize this example.  We construct the tree $T_k$
on $65k + 1$ vertices by taking $k$ copies of this tree, and adjoining the root to each copy.
Using the algorithm in \cite{Braga2013}, it is straightforward to determine
that $ m_{T_k} [0,1) = 24k$.
Using the domination algorithm in \cite{CGH1975}
it can be shown that $\dom{T_k} = 25k$.
Thus, the difference between $\dom{T_k} - m_{T_k} [0,1)$ grows arbitrarily large.
However, the
ratio (\ref{ratiob}) remains at $\frac{25}{24}$.
In all known examples of trees
ratio (\ref{ratiob})
is either $1$ or $\frac{25}{24}$,
and it is tempting to conjecture that
the ratio is bounded by a constant for trees.

\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:concluding}
Many of the results of this paper also apply to the {\em signless Laplacian spectrum}.
For example, if we let $m_{G}^+ I$ denote the number of
signless Laplacian eigenvalues of $G$ in $I$, then
Theorem~\ref{lemgamma} and Theorem~\ref{gammatwo}
are also true if we replace $m_G$ with $m_{G}^+$.

We conclude by suggesting two problems for further study.
First, characterize those graphs $G$ for which $m_G[0,1) = \dom{G}$.
Second, determine if $\frac{\dom{T}} { m_T[0,1) }$ bounded by a constant for trees $T$.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Commutative Algebra (math.AC)

Laplacian Distribution and Domination


Simplicity of tangent bundles of smooth horospherical varieties of Picard number one

Abstract: Recently, Kanemitsu has discovered a counterexample to the long-standing conjecture that the tangent bundle of a Fano manifold of Picard number one is (semi)stable. His counterexample is a smooth horospherical variety. There is a weaker conjecture that the tangent bundle of a Fano manifold of Picard number one is simple. We prove that this weaker conjecture is valid for smooth horospherical varieties of Picard number one. Our proof follows from the existence of an irreducible family of unbendable rational curves whose tangent vectors span the tangent spaces of the horospherical variety at general points.

\section{Introduction}

Tangent bundles of Fano manifolds have been studied from various   points of view,  in relation with the existence of K\"ahler-Einstein metric.  For example,  if  $X$ admits  a K\"ahler-Einstein metric, then the Lie algebra of holomorphic vector fields on $X$ is reductive.
 A weaker condition, the existence of Hermitian-Einstein metric on the tangent bundle $TX$ is equivalent to the polystability of $TX$, and is equivalent to the stability of $TX$ when $X$ has Picard number one.

 In this regards, when $X$ has Picard number one, the tangent bundle $TX$ of a Fano manifold $X$  has been expected to be semistable for a long time.

 \begin{conjecture} [Conjecture 0.1 of \cite{Ka20}]
 The tangent bundle of a Fano manifold of Picard number one is semistable.
 \end{conjecture}

 This conjecture has been verified in many cases (e.g., \cite{PW95}, \cite{Hw98}).  Recently, however, a counterexample
is discovered by Kanemitsu (\cite{Ka20}):
 The tangent bundle of a smooth horospherical variety $X$ of Picard number one   is not semistable if $X$ is of type $(B_n, \varpi_{n-1}, \varpi_n)$, where $n \geq 4$ or of type $(F_4, \varpi_3, \varpi_2)$, and is stable, otherwise. For the types of horospherical varieties of Picard number one, see Proposition \ref{prop:horospherical varieties pasquier}.

Only scalar multiplications are endomorphisms of a stable vector bundle, so that  stable vector bundles are simple. Instead of stability,
we consider a weaker conjecture.

\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:simplicity}  The tangent bundle of a Fano manifold of Picard number one is simple.
\end{conjecture}

 In this paper, we prove that Conjecture \ref{conj:simplicity} is valid for any smooth horospherical variety of Picard number one.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:simplicity of horospherical}
The tangent bundle of any smooth horospherical varieties of Picard number one  is simple.
\end{theorem}

To prove Theorem \ref{thm:simplicity of horospherical} we use  unbendable rational curves. A rational curve $f:\mathbb P^1 \rightarrow X$ in a uniruled projective manifold $X$ is said to be {\it unbendable} if the pull-back $f^*TX$ of the tangent bundle $TX$ of $X$ is nonnegative and is decomposed as $\mathcal O(2) \oplus \mathcal O(1)^p \oplus \mathcal O^q$ for some nonnegative integers $p,q$.
An irreducible component $\mathcal H$ of the Hilbert scheme of rational  curves in $X$ containing an unbendable rational curve is called an {\it unbendable rational component} of $X$.
Minimal rational curves are unbendable but the converse is not true. Here, by a minimal rational curve we mean a rational curve $f:\mathbb P^1 \rightarrow X$ with $f^*TX$ being nonnegative, and the degree of $f$ with respect to a fixed ample line bundle is minimal among all such rational curves.

We expect  unbendable rational components   will play  an important role in understanding the geometry of a uniruled projective manifold $X$ as minimal rational components did (e.g., \cite{Hw12} and \cite{Mo08} and references therein).
When $X$ has Picard number one, we get the simplicity of the tangent bundle $TX$  if there is an irreducible family of unbendable rational curves whose tangent vectors span   $\mathbb PT_x X$ at a general point $x $  in $X$ (Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity}).

We prove that for a rational homogeneous variety $G/P$ with $G$ simple or a smooth horospherical variety of Picard number one,
 such an unbendable rational component exists
(Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}
and Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in smooth horospherical variety}).
Then Theorem \ref{thm:simplicity of horospherical} follows from Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity} and the condition that $X$ has Picard number one.

In relation with Conjecture \ref{conj:simplicity} we ask whether there is such an unbendable rational components for any Fano manifolds of Picard number one.

\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:nondegenerate unbendable curves} A Fano manifold of Picard number one admits an irreducible family of unbendable rational curves
whose tangent vectors span the tangent spaces of the Fano manifold at general points.
\end{conjecture}

If Conjecture \ref{conj:nondegenerate unbendable curves} holds, then so does Conjecture \ref{conj:simplicity} by Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate  unbendable curve implies simplicity}. Minimal rational curves are unbendable curves, but it is not necessary  that their  tangent vectors generate  the tangent space at a general point.
Since a Fano manifold of Picard number one is rationally connected,  there  exists an irreducible family of rational curves whose tangent vectors span the tangent space  at a general point, but the restriction of the tangent bundle to rational curves in this family may have more than one $\mathcal O(2)$-factors, or more generally, may have $\mathcal O(a)$-factors with $a \geq 3$.
The question is whether we have an irreducible family of rational curves having both properties, rational curves in the family is unbendable and tangent vectors to rational curves in this family span the tangent space at a general point.

 \section{Unbendable rational curves}

Let $X$ be a uniruled projective manifold.
A rational curve $f:\mathbb P^1 \rightarrow X$ in  $X$ is said to be {\it unbendable} if the pull-back $f^*TX$ of the tangent bundle $TX$ of $X$ is nonnegative and is decomposed as $\mathcal O(2) \oplus \mathcal O(1)^p \oplus \mathcal O^q$ for some nonnegative integers $p,q$.
 An irreducible component $\mathcal H$ of the Hilbert scheme of rational  curves in $X$ containing an unbendable rational curve is called an {\it unbendable rational component} of $X$.

Fix    an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ of $X$.
 For a   point $x \in X$ denote by $\mathcal H_x$ the subscheme  of $\mathcal H$ consisting of members passing through $x$, and  define the tangent map $$\tau_x:\mathcal H_x \rightarrow \mathbb PT_x X$$ by sending $[C] \in \mathcal H_x$ to $\mathbb PT_xC$. The image $\mathcal C_x$ of $\tau_x$ is called the {\it variety of tangents} at $x$ of the family $\mathcal H$.

 \begin{proposition} [Theorem 2 of \cite{Hw02}] \label{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity}
If $X$ has    an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item   the variety of tangents at $x$ of $\mathcal H$ is nondegenerate  in the projective tangent space $\mathbb P T_xX$ for general $x \in X$;
\item   a general point of $X$ is joined to a point in $X$ by a connected chain of curves  in $\mathcal H$.
\end{enumerate}
then $TX$ is    simple, that is, any endomorphism of $TX$ is a scalar multiplication.

\end{proposition}

For example, the moduli of semistable vector bundles of rank $r$ and with a fixed determinant  (\cite{Hw02}) or a wonderful group compactification (\cite{BF15}) have an unbendable rational component whose variety of tangents is nondegenerate in $\mathbb P(T_xX)$ at a general point $x \in X$. In these cases, in fact,  a  minimal rational component satisfies the desired property.  As we will see from the case of rational homogeneous varieties $G/P$, minimal rational components do not satisfy the property (1) in Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity}, and we need to consider unbendable rational components which are not minimal to get the desired property.

 \section{Existence of unbendable rational curves}
 \subsection{Rational homogeneous varieties}

 Let $\frak g$ be a complex simple Lie algebra. Let $\Delta=\{\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_{\ell}\}$ be a system of simple roots with a choice of a Cartan subalgebra $\frak  h$ and a Borel subalgebra $\frak b$ containing $\frak h$. For each root $\alpha$, there is an element $H_{\alpha}$ in $\frak h$ satisfying that $\alpha(H)= (H_{\alpha}, H)$ for any $H \in \frak h$, where $ (\,,\,)$ is the  Killing form of $\frak g$. Then the Killing form induces a symmetric bilinear form $(\,,\,)$ on the set $\Phi$ of roots defined  by $(\alpha, \beta):=(H_{\alpha}, H_{\beta})$ for $\alpha, \beta \in \Phi$.
 Put $h_{\alpha}:=2H_{\alpha}/ (\alpha, \alpha)$ and $\alpha^{\vee}:=2\alpha/(\alpha, \alpha)$ for $\alpha \in \Phi$. Then   $\beta(h_{\alpha})=(\beta, \alpha^{\vee})$.

For a subset $\Delta_1\subset \Delta$, define a function $n_{\Delta_1}: \Phi \rightarrow \mathbb Z$ by $$n_{\Delta_1}(\alpha) = \sum_{\alpha_i \in \Delta_1} n_i$$
for $\alpha = \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} n_i \alpha_i \in \Phi$. Define $\Phi_{\Delta_1}^{\pm} $ and $\Phi_{\Delta_1}^0$ by
$$\Phi_{\Delta_1}^{\pm}:= \{\alpha \in \Phi: \Phi: n_{\Delta_1}(\alpha) \in \mathbb Z_{\pm} \} \text{ and } \Phi_{\Delta_1}^0 :=\{ \alpha \in \Phi: n_{\Delta_1}(\alpha) =0\}  .$$
and put  $\frak p_{\Delta_1} =\frak h \oplus (\oplus_{\alpha \in \Phi_{\Delta_1}^0 \cup \Phi_I^-} \frak g_{\alpha}   )$  and $\frak m_{\Delta_1} = \oplus_{\alpha \in \Phi_{\Delta_1}^+} \frak g_{\alpha}$.
Then $\Phi = \Phi_{\Delta_1}^- \cup \Phi_{\Delta_1}^0 \cup \Phi_{\Delta_1}^+$ and
$\frak g = \frak p_{\Delta_1} \oplus \frak m_{\Delta_1} $.
Fix $\mathfrak p=\mathfrak p_{\Delta_1}$ and $\frak m = \frak m_{\Delta_1}$ from now on.

Let $G$ be a  simple algebraic group with Lie algebra $\frak g$ and $P$ be the subgroup of $G$ with Lie algebra $\frak p$.
 For each root $\alpha$,
 take $E_{\alpha} \in \frak g_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha} \in \frak g_{-\alpha}$ such that $(E_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha})=1$. Then  $ [E_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha}]=H_{\alpha}  \in \frak h$ and $E_{\alpha}, E_{-\alpha}, H_{\alpha}$ generate a subalgebra $\frak{sl}_{\alpha}$ of $\frak g$ which is isomorphic to  $\frak{sl}_2$.
 Let
 $S_{\alpha}$ be the subgroup of $G$ with Lie algebra $\frak {sl}_{\alpha}$.
    The $S_{\alpha}$-orbit of $o \in G/P$  is a rational curve in $G/P$,  denoted by  $C_{\alpha}$.

    The tangent bundle $T(G/P)$ is the homogeneous vector bundle on $G/P$ associated to the representation $P \rightarrow GL(\frak m)$.
      The tangent bundle  $T(G/P)$  restricted to $C_{\alpha}$ is decomposed as $\oplus_{\beta \in \Phi_I^+} \mathcal O(\beta(h_{\alpha}))=\oplus_{\beta \in \Phi_I^+} \mathcal O((\beta,\alpha ^{\vee}))$.

 \begin{proposition} \label{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}  Let $ G/P$ be a  rational homogeneous variety. Assume that $G$ is simple.
 Then there is an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ whose variety $\mathcal C_y$ of    tangents at any $y \in   G/P$ is nondegenerate in $\mathbb PT_y (G/P)$.
 \end{proposition}

   \begin{proof}
   Let $\theta$ be the maximal positive root of $\frak g$. Since $\theta$ has nonzero coefficient in $\alpha_i$ for any $i=1, \dots,\ell$, $S_{\theta}$ is not contained in $  P_{\Delta_1}$ for any subset $\Delta_1 $ of $\Delta$, and thus $C_{\theta}$ is a (nonconstant) rational curve in $G/P$ for any $P=P_{\Delta_1}$. We will show that $C_{\theta}$ is an unbendable rational curve in $G/P$. It suffices to show that $(\beta, \theta^{\vee}) \leq 1$ for all $\beta \in \Phi^+_{\Delta_1} \backslash \{\theta\}$. To do this we will use the following two facts:
   \begin{enumerate}
   \item[(i)] If $G$ is not of type $A$, then there is $i_0 \in \{1, \dots, \ell\}$ such that  $(\alpha_i, \theta)  =0$ for all $i \not =i_0 $ in $\{1, \dots, \ell\}$   and $(\alpha_{i_0}, \theta^{\vee}) = 1$.
   \item[(ii)] If $G$ is of type $A$, then $(\alpha_j, \theta)=0$ for all $j   \in \{2, \dots, \ell-1\}$ and $(\alpha_1, \theta^{\vee}) = (\alpha_{\ell}, \theta^{\vee}) =1$.
   \end{enumerate}
Following the conventions in \cite{OV90} for the indices of simple roots,    we have $i_0=2$ if $G$ is of type $B_{\ell}, C_{\ell}, D_{\ell}$ and $i_0=6$ ($ 6,1,4,2$, respectively) if $G$ is of type $E_6$ ($E_7, E_8, F_4, G_2$, respectively).   See the affine Dynkin diagram of $\Delta^{(1)}$ in Table 6 of \cite{OV90}, which  is the diagram of the union $\Delta \cup\{-\theta\}$ of  $\Delta$ in Table 1 of \cite{OV90} and  $\{-\theta\}$.  \\

    If $G$ is not of type $A$, then there is $i \in \{1, \dots, \ell\}$ such that  $(\alpha_j, \theta)  =0$ for all $j \not =i $ in $\{1, \dots, \ell\}$   and $(\alpha_i, \theta^{\vee}) = 1$. Thus the maximal root among roots in $\Phi \backslash \{\theta\}$ is $\theta-\alpha_i$.
  Since $( \theta-\alpha_i, \theta ^{\vee}) = 2-1=1$,  we have $(\beta, \theta^{\vee}) \leq 1$ for all $\beta \in \Phi^+_{\Delta_1} \backslash \{\theta\}$.
  If $G$ is of type $A$, then $(\alpha_j, \theta)=0$ for all $j   \in \{2, \dots, \ell-1\}$ and $(\alpha_1, \theta^{\vee}) = (\alpha_{\ell}, \theta^{\vee}) =1$.
Thus among roots in $\Phi \backslash \{\theta\}$, maximal one is either $\theta-\alpha_1$ or $\theta-\alpha_{\ell}$. From $(\theta-\alpha_1, \theta^{\vee})=(\theta-\alpha_{\ell}, \theta^{\vee}) = 1$ it follows that $(\beta, \theta^{\vee}) \leq 1$ for all $\beta \in \Phi^+_{\Delta_1} \backslash \{\theta\}$.

The curve $C_{\theta}$ is tangent to $\mathbb C E_{\theta} \subset T_{o}G/P$. The variety $\mathcal C_{o}$ of tangents at the base point $o$ is the closure of the $P$-orbit  $P.[E_{\theta}]$ in $ \mathbb P(\frak m )$. We claim that $\mathcal C_{o}$ is nondegenerate in $\mathbb P(\frak m )$.
Consider the projection $\frak g \rightarrow \frak g/\frak p = \frak m $. The closure of the $P$-orbit $P.[E_{\theta}]$ in $\mathbb P(\frak g)$ is the $G$-orbit $G.[E_{\theta}]$, which is nondegenerate in $\mathbb P(\frak g)$ because it is the highest weight orbit. Therefore, the closure of $P$-orbit $P.[E_{\theta}]$ in $\mathbb P(\frak m )$ is nondegenerate in $\mathbb P(\frak m )$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
 The inequality $(\beta, \theta^{\vee}) \leq 1$ for any $\beta \in \Phi^+\backslash \{ \theta\}$ also follows from Proposition 25 in  VI.1.8   of \cite{Bo07}.
\end{remark}

Together with Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity},  Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety} reproves the following result.
\begin{proposition} [Theorem 2.1 of \cite{AzBi10}] Let $X=G/P$ be a rational homogeneous variety with $G$ being simple.
Then the tangent bundle of $X$ is simple.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity} and Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}, it suffices to show that a general point $x$ in $G/P$ is joined to the base point $o$ by a connected chain of curves in the unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ constructed in Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}.

Let $\Sigma$ denote the subset of $G/P$ consisting of $x \in G/P$ which is joined to $o$ by a connected chain of curves in $\mathcal H$. Then   the stabilizer $Q$ of $\Sigma$ in $G$ contains the subgroup of $G$ generated by $P$ and $S_{\theta}$ because the action of $S_{\theta}$ moves the point $o$ to a point in $C_{\theta}$.  Thus $Q$ contains $P$ properly.

Let $\{\varpi_1, \dots, \varpi_{\ell}\}$ denote the   system of fundamental weights corresponding the system $\Delta$ of simple roots. Then each $\varpi_j$ can be written as a linear combination of $\alpha_i$'s with positive coefficients (See Table 2 of \cite{OV90}). By (i) and (ii) in the proof of Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}, $(\varpi_j, \theta^{\vee})$ is positive for any $j=1, \dots, \ell$. Therefore, it cannot be contained in a fiber of a nontrivial projection $G/P \rightarrow G/Q$. Since $Q/P$ is not a point, $G/Q$ is a point, that is, $G$ is $Q$ and $\Sigma$ is $G/P$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Smooth horospherical varieties of Picard number one}
    For $i=1, \dots, \ell$, let $V_{\varpi_i}  $ be the irreducible representation of highest weight  $\varpi_i $ and let $v_{\varpi_i}$ be a highest weight vectors of  $V_{\varpi_i}$.
  Let $(G, \varpi_i, \varpi_j)$ denote the closure of the $G$-orbit of the sum $v_{\varpi_i}+ v_{\varpi_j}$ in $\mathbb P(V_{\varpi_i} \oplus V_{\varpi_j})$.

\begin{proposition}[\cite{Pa09}] \label{prop:horospherical varieties pasquier}
Let $X$ be a smooth horospherical variety of Picard number one. Then, $X$ is either a rational homogeneous variety    or one of the following:

\begin{enumerate}
\item $(B_n, \varpi_{n-1}, \varpi_n)$ ($n \geq 3$)
\item $(B_3, \varpi_1, \varpi_3)$
\item $(C_n, \varpi_{k }, \varpi_{k-1})$ ($n \geq 2$, $2 \leq k \leq n$)
\item $(F_4, \varpi_3, \varpi_2)$
\item $(G_2, \varpi_2, \varpi_1)$.
\end{enumerate}
In the latter case, the automorphism group $\Aut^0(X)$ is given by $\widetilde{G} \ltimes H^0(G/P, G \times_PV)$, where $\widetilde{G}$ is a reductive group with $G$ a maximal semisimple subgroup,  and  the open $\Aut^0(X)$-orbit $\mathcal O$  in $X$ is $G$-equvariantly biholomorphic to      the total space of a homogeneous vector bundle $G\times_PV$ on $G/P$, where $P$ is the maximal parabolic subgroup associated to
$$\varpi_{n-1}, \,\, \varpi_1, \,\,\varpi_{k-1},\,\,\varpi_3,\,\, \varpi_2, \text{ respectively }$$
and $V$ is the simple $P$-module of highest weight $\lambda_V$
$$\varpi_{n-1} - \varpi_{n}, \,\,\varpi_1- \varpi_3, \,\,\varpi_{k }-\varpi_{k-1},\,\, \varpi_3-\varpi_2, \,\,\varpi_2-\varpi_1,   \text{ respectively }.$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
We remark that  our convention is different from that of \cite{Pa09}.
The way of indexing simple roots and fundamental weights  is the same as in \cite{OV90} in this paper while \cite{Pa09} follows the convention in \cite{Bo07}.
The isotropy subgroup $P$ contains the negative Borel subgroup in this paper while it contains the positive Borel subgroup in \cite{Pa09}.
\end{remark}

 \begin{proposition} \label{pro:unbendable curves in smooth horospherical variety}  Let $ X$ be a  smooth horospherical variety of Picard number one.
 Then there is an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ whose variety $\mathcal C_x$ of   tangents at any $x $ in the open $\Aut^0(X)$-orbit $\mathcal O$ is nondegenerate in $\mathbb PT_x X$.
 \end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We will show that there is an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ such that  for any point $x $ in the open $\Aut^0(X)$-orbit $\mathcal O$, the variety of tangents of $\mathcal H$ at $x$ is nondegenrate in $\mathbb P T_xX$.  Since $G \times H^0(G/P, G \times_PV)$ acts on $\mathcal O = G\times_PV$ transitively, we may assume that $x=[o,0]$, where $o$ is the base point in $G/P$ and $0$ is the element zero in $V$. Identify $G/P$ with the zero section $Y$ of $G \times_PV$ and let $C_{\theta}$ be the rational curve in $G/P \simeq Y$ constructed in Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}.  Then $C_{\theta}$ is   an unbendable curve in $\mathcal O$. Indeed,  by the fact (i) and (ii) in the proof of Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous variety}, $( \lambda_V, \theta^{\vee}) $ is one or zero, where $\lambda_V$ is the highest weight of $V$ listed in Proposition \ref{prop:horospherical varieties pasquier}. Here, we use Table 2 in \cite{OV90} for the description of $\varpi_i$ as a linear combination of simple roots. Therefore,
the vector bundle $G \times_P V$ restricted to $C_{\theta} \subset G/P$ splits as $\oplus_{i=1}^m\mathcal O(a_i)$, where $$1 \geq a_1 \geq \cdots \geq a_m \geq 0. $$
  From this property and  the nonnegativity of $TY|_{C_{\theta}}$, it follows that the short exact sequence $0 \rightarrow TY \rightarrow TX|_Y \rightarrow G \times_P V \rightarrow 0$  restricted to $C_{\theta}$ splits. Since $TY|_{C_{\theta}}$   has only one $\mathcal O(2)$-factor by Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in rational homogeneous  variety},  we get that   $TX|_{C_{\theta}}$ is also nonnegative and has only one $\mathcal O(2)$-factor.

Now
let $\mathcal V$ be the vector space  spanned by $$\{ T_{[o,0]}(a C_{\theta}): [o,0] \in a C_{\theta}, a \in G \ltimes H^0(G/P, G \times_PV) \}.$$ Then  the projection of $\mathcal V$ to $V$ is a nonzero $P$-invariant subspace of $V$, and thus is the whole $V$ because $V$ is an irreducible $P$-module. Hence  the tangent directions to translates of $C_{\theta}$ passing through $[o,0]$ spans $T_{[o,0]}\mathcal O$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:simplicity of horospherical}]
 By Proposition \ref{pro:unbendable curves in smooth horospherical variety}, there is an unbendable rational component $\mathcal H$ whose variety of tangents is nondegenerate in $\mathbb P(T_xX)$ for any $x \in \mathcal O$.
  Since $X$ has Picard number one, a general point of $\mathcal O$ is joined to the base point $[o,0]$ by a connected chain of curves in $\mathcal H$. By Proposition \ref{prop:nondegenerate unbendable curve implies simplicity}
  any endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $X$ is a scalar multiple.
\end{proof}