Almost all entries in the character table of the symmetric group are multiples of any given prime

Abstract: We show that almost every entry in the character table of $S_N$ is divisible by any fixed prime as $N\to\infty$. This proves a conjecture of Miller.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

In~\cite{Miller2019}, Miller computed the character table of $S_N$ for all $N$ up to $38$, and noticed that the proportion of entries not divisible by $2$, $3$, or $5$ seemed to tend to zero. Based on this, he conjectured that, for every fixed prime $p$, almost every entry in the character table of $S_N$ is divisible by $p$ as $N\to\infty$. Recently, Gluck~\cite{Gluck2019} (for $p=2$) and Morotti~\cite{Morotti2020} (for all primes $p$) have shown that the proportion of entries not divisible by $p$ in a sparse but infinite set of columns of the character table tends to zero, and it has been known for a long time, due to work of McKay~\cite{McKay1972}, that almost every character of $S_N$ has even degree. Even more recently, the first author~\cite{Peluse2020} proved Miller's conjecture for $p=2,3,5,7,11,$ and $13$.

In this paper, we completely resolve Miller's conjecture, proving it for all primes. We also give an explicit bound, uniform in $p$ almost up to $\log{N}$, for the number of entries in the character table not divisible by $p$:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}   Let $N$ be large, and $p \le (\log N)/(\log \log N)^2$ be a prime.  The number of entries in the character table of $S_N$ that are not divisible by $p$ is at most
\[
O\Big(p(N)^2 N^{-\frac{1}{12p}} \Big).
\]
In particular, almost all entries in the character table for $S_N$ are multiples of
\[
\prod_{p\le (\log N)/(\log \log N)^2} p.
\]
\end{theorem}

Here $p(N)$ denotes the number of unrestricted partitions of $N$, which is the number of irreducible representations of $S_N$.   We recall the famous Hardy--Ramanujan asymptotic formula (see \cite{Rademacher1937} for even more precise asymptotics)
$$
p(N) \sim \frac{1}{4N\sqrt{3}} \exp\Big( \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{6}} \sqrt{N}\Big).
$$

Miller~\cite{Miller2019} also computed the density of entries in the character table of $S_N$ divisible by $4,8,9,25,27$, and $125$, as well as the density of zeros in the character table. From this, it looks like the density of entries divisible by any fixed prime power may go to $1$, while the density of zeros may be approaching a positive constant less than $1$. Our arguments do not seem to be able to shed light on this data. However, in the related setting of finite simple groups of Lie type with rank going to infinity, Larsen and Miller~\cite{LarsenMiller2020} have shown that almost every entry of the character table is zero.

\medskip

\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments.}    The first author is partially supported by the NSF Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DMS-1903038 and by the Oswald Veblen Fund.  The second author is partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, and a Simons Investigator Grant from the
Simons Foundation.

\section{Plan of the proof}\label{sec2}
For any two partitions $\lambda$ and $\mu$ of $N$, let $\chi_\mu^{\lambda}$ denote the value of the character of $S_N$ corresponding to the partition $\lambda$ on the congruence class of permutations with cycle type $\mu$. The basic idea of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm1} is the same as that used in~\cite{Peluse2020} to prove Miller's conjecture for $p\leq 13$: we will show that, for most partitions $\mu$ of $N$, one has $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda}\equiv\chi_{\widetilde{\mu}}^{\lambda}\pmod{p}$ for some partition $\widetilde{\mu}$ of $N$ that possesses a part so large that $\chi_{\widetilde{\mu}}^{\lambda}$ is forced to be zero for most partitions $\lambda$ of $N$. To that end, our first proposition, which is a quantification of an argument in~\cite{Morotti2020}, states that if the partition $\mu$ of $N$ has a large part, then for most partitions $\lambda$ of $N$ one has $\chi_\mu^{\lambda}=0$.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop1}  Let $1\le A \le \log N/\log \log N$ be a real number.  Suppose that $\mu$ is a partition of $N$ such that the largest part of $\mu$ is
\[
\ge \frac{\sqrt{6}}{2\pi} \sqrt{N} (\log N)  \Big( 1 +  \frac 1A\Big).
\]
Then the number of partitions $\lambda$ of $N$ with $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda} \neq 0$ is at most
\[
O\Big(p(N) \frac{\log N}{N^{\frac 1{2A}}}\Big).
\]
\end{proposition}
Erd{\H o}s and Lehner~\cite{ErdosLehner1941} showed that a random partition of $N$ has largest part of size $\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2\pi} \sqrt{N} \log N + O(\sqrt{N})$, so that the partitions $\mu$ considered in Proposition \ref{prop1} are just a little bit atypical.

We will, as in~\cite{Peluse2020}, use repeated applications of the following lemma to move from our original partition $\mu$ to the partition $\widetilde{\mu}$ that we aim to show has a large part.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}   Let $p$ be a prime. Suppose $\mu$ is a partition of $N$, and that $\nu$ is another partition of $N$
obtained from $\mu$ by replacing $p$ parts of the same size $m$ by one part of size $pm$.  Then for all partitions
$\lambda$ of $N$ we have
\[
\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda} \equiv \chi_{\nu}^{\lambda} \pmod p.
\]
\end{lemma}

This is a simple consequence of Frobenius's formula for computing character values, see for example Section 3 of~\cite{OdlyzkoRains2000}, or Proposition 1 of~\cite{Miller2019}.

Our second proposition says that, for a typical partition $\mu$, the partition $\widetilde{\mu}$ obtained by repeatedly applying the procedure described in Lemma~\ref{lem1} until no part appears more than $p-1$ times has a part significantly larger than $\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2\pi} \sqrt{N} \log N$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop2}  Let $p \le (\log N)/(\log \log N)^2$ be a prime.
Starting with a partition $\mu$ of $N$, we repeatedly replace every occurrence of $p$ parts of the same size $m$ by one part of size $pm$ until we arrive
at a partition $\widetilde{\mu}$ where no part appears more than $p-1$ times.  Then the largest part of $\widetilde{\mu}$ exceeds
\[
\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2\pi} \sqrt{N}  (\log N) \Big(1 +\frac{1}{5p} \Big),
\]
except for at most
\[
O\Big(p(N) \exp\Big(- N^{\frac{1}{15p}} \Big)\Big)
\]
 partitions $\mu$.
\end{proposition}
Theorem~\ref{thm1} is now a straightforward consequence of Propositions~\ref{prop1} and~\ref{prop2}, which we will prove in Sections~\ref{sec3} and~\ref{sec5}, respectively.
\begin{proof}[Deducing Theorem~\ref{thm1}]  We are given a prime $p\le (\log N)/(\log \log N)^2$, and wish to bound the number of
partitions $\lambda$, $\mu$ with $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda} \not\equiv 0 \pmod p$.   Let ${\widetilde \mu}$ be as in Proposition~\ref{prop2}.
If the largest part of $\widetilde \mu$ is below $\frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1+\frac{1}{5p} )$ then Proposition~\ref{prop2} tells us that
there are at most
\[
O\Big( p(N) \exp(-N^{\frac{1}{15p}}) \times p(N) \Big)= O\Big( p(N)^2 \exp (-N^{\frac{1}{15p}}) \Big)
\]
choices for $\mu$ and $\lambda$.

On the other hand, if the largest part of $\widetilde \mu$ exceeds
$\frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1+ \frac{1}{5p})$, then by Proposition~\ref{prop1} $\chi_{\widetilde \mu}^{\lambda} \neq 0$ for at most
$O(p(N) (\log N) N^{-\frac{1}{10p}})$ partitions $\lambda$.  Thus, in this situation, since $\chi_\mu^\lambda \equiv \chi_{\widetilde \mu}^\lambda \pmod p$ by Lemma~\ref{lem1}, the number of partitions $\mu$ and $\lambda$ with $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda} \not \equiv 0 \pmod p$ is at most
\[
O\Big(p(N) \times p(N) \frac{\log N}{N^{\frac{1}{10p}}} \Big)= O\Big( p(N)^2 N^{-\frac{1}{12p}}\Big).
\]
Combining this (which is the bottleneck to improving Theorem~\ref{thm1} quantitatively) with our earlier bound, we conclude that there are at most
\[
O\Big( p(N)^2 N^{-\frac{1}{12p}} \Big)
\]
pairs $\mu$, $\lambda$ with $p\nmid \chi_{\mu}^{\lambda}$. This establishes the first assertion of the theorem, and the second assertion follows upon summing this bound over all $p\le (\log N)/(\log \log N)^2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop1}}\label{sec3}

To prove Proposition~\ref{prop1}, we will need the notion of a $t$-core partition. For any box $b$ in the Young diagram of a partition, the \textit{hook-length} of $b$ is $1$ plus the number of boxes directly to the right of $b$ plus the number of boxes directly below $b$. For example, the Young diagram of $\lambda=(4,2,1)$ below has each box labeled with its hook-length.
\begin{center}
	\begin{figure}[h]
		\ytableausetup{mathmode}
		\begin{ytableau}
		6 & 4 & 2 & 1 \\
		3 & 1 \\
                1 \\
		\end{ytableau}
		\caption{Hook-lengths for $\lambda=(4,2,1)$.}
                \label{fig1}
	\end{figure}
\end{center}
A partition is called a \textit{$t$-core} if none of the hook lengths of its Young diagram are divisible by $t$. For example, from Figure~\ref{fig1} one can see that $(4,2,1)$ is a $5$-core.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop1}]
Let $t$ denote the largest part of $\mu$, so that $t\ge \frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1+ 1/A)$ by assumption.  If the partition $\lambda$ is a $t$-core, then it follows from the Murnaghan--Nakayama rule (see Subsection 4.3 of~\cite{FultonHarris1991}) that $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda}=0$. Now, from Lemma 5 of~\cite{Morotti2020}, we know that there are at most $(t+1) p(N-t)$ partitions $\lambda$ that are not $t$-cores.  Therefore, the number of partitions $\lambda$ with $\chi_{\mu}^{\lambda} \neq 0$ is at most
\[
(t+1) p(N-t) \ll \frac{t+1}{N-t+1} \exp\Big( \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{6}} \sqrt{N-t} \Big) \le
\frac{t+1}{N-t+1} \exp\Big( \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{6}} \sqrt{N} - \frac{\pi t}{\sqrt{6N}}\Big),
\]
where in the first inequality we have used the asymptotic formula for $p(n)$. For $N\ge t\ge \frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1+ 1/A)$, the right side above is maximized at the lower end point
$t =  \frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N)(1+1/A)$, yielding the bound
\[
\ll \frac{\sqrt{N}\log N}{N} N^{-\frac 12(1+\frac 1A)} \exp\Big(  \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{6}} \sqrt{N} \Big) \ll p(N) \frac{\log N}{N^{\frac 1{2A}}}.
\]
This establishes Proposition~\ref{prop1}.
\end{proof}

\section{Preliminaries for the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop2}}\label{sec4}

Let ${\widetilde p}(j)$ denote the number of partitions of $j\geq 0$ into powers of $p$, with the convention that ${\widetilde p}(0)=1$. We define the generating function $F_p(x)$ of $\widetilde{p}(j)$ by
\[
F_p(x) := \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} {\widetilde p}(j) e^{-j/x} = \prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-p^j/x})^{-1}
\]
for a real number $x>0$.   Both ${\widetilde p}(j)$ and the generating function $F_p(x)$ have been studied extensively for fixed primes $p$, beginning with work of Mahler~\cite{Mahler1940} and
de Bruijn~\cite{deBruijn1948}.  In our work we need only some simple estimates for these objects, but with uniformity in $p$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem2}  In the range $0 < x\le 1$, we have $F_p(x) = O(1)$.  When $x\ge 1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{1}
\frac{(\log x)^2}{2\log p} + \frac 12 \log x + O(1) \le \log F_p(x) \le \frac{(\log x)^2}{2\log p} + \frac 12 \log x+ \frac 18 \log p +O(1).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} When $x\le 1$, note that $F_p(x) \leq\prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-p^j})^{-1}\leq\prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-2^j})^{-1}$, so that $F_p(x)=O(1)$.  Now suppose $x \ge 1$.  Note that
 the terms in the product $\prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-p^j/x})^{-1}$ with $p^j > x$ multiply out to a quantity bounded by $\prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-p^j})^{-1}$, so that they are bounded by an absolute constant.  For the terms with $p^j\le x$,
 note that $\log (1-e^{-p^j/x})^{-1} = \log (x/p^j) + O(p^j/x)$, so that
 \begin{align*}
 \log  \prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1- e^{-p^j/x})^{-1} &= \sum_{0\le j\le \log x/\log p} \log\frac{x}{p^j}  + O(1) \\
& = (\log x) \Big(1+\Big\lfloor \frac{\log x}{\log p} \Big\rfloor\Big) - \frac{\log p}{2} \Big\lfloor \frac{\log x}{\log p} \Big\rfloor\Big(1+\Big\lfloor \frac{\log x}{\log p} \Big\rfloor\Big) +O(1).\\
\end{align*}
 The estimates in \eqref{1} follow at once.
\end{proof}

In the second lemma of this section, we will record some basic properties of $\widetilde{p}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem3}  The function ${\widetilde p}(k)$ is monotone non-decreasing in $k$.   For all $r\ge  2$ we have
\[
{\widetilde p}(p^r) \ge \frac{p^{r(r-1)/2}}{(r-1)^{r-1}}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}  Appending $1$ to a partition of $k$ into powers of $p$ produces a partition of $k+1$ into powers of $p$.  This shows that
${\widetilde p}(k)$ is monotone non-decreasing in $k$.

Suppose $r\ge 2$.  For each $1\le j\le r-1$, pick a non-negative integer $k_j$ with
$0\le k_j \le p^{r-j}/(r-1)$.  Each choice for the $k_j$'s gives a partition counted in ${\widetilde p}(p^{r})$ by using $k_j$
copies of $p^j$, and then using $p^r - \sum_{j=1}^{r-1} k_j p^{j}$ copies of $1$.  Therefore
\[
{\widetilde p}(p^r) \ge \prod_{j=1}^{r-1} \frac{p^{r-j}}{(r-1)} =\frac{p^{r(r-1)/2}}{(r-1)^{(r-1)}},
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop2}}\label{sec5}

Let us analyze the process of transforming a partition $\mu$ to a partition ${\widetilde \mu}$ as in Proposition~\ref{prop2}. Consider an integer $k$ coprime to $p$, and all parts in $\mu$ of the form $kp^j$ with $j\ge 0$.  If these parts sum to $k \ell$, then
in the partition ${\widetilde \mu}$ we would have corresponding parts of the form $kp^j$ also summing to $k\ell$ with the additional
property that no part appears more than $p-1$ times.  But this simply means that the number of parts of size $kp^j$ in $\widetilde{\mu}$ equals the coefficient (or `digit') of $p^j$ in the base $p$ expansion of $\ell$.  In particular, if $\ell \ge p^r$, then
the partition $\widetilde \mu$ must have a part $kp^j$ with some $j\ge r$ (since $\ell$ must have more than $r$ digits in base $p$).

Next, suppose ${\widetilde \mu}$ has parts of the form $kp^j$ summing to $k\ell$ with no part appearing more than $p-1$ times.  From
how many partitions $\mu$ could this $\widetilde \mu$ have arisen?  Restricting our attention to these parts of the form $kp^j$, note that $\mu$ could
have had any collection of parts $kp^j$ that sum to $k\ell$; or in other words there are ${\widetilde p}(\ell)$ (the number of partitions of
$\ell$ into powers of $p$) choices for parts of the form $kp^j$ in ${\mu}$.

Let ${\mathcal K}$ be a set of integers $k$ with $(k,p)=1$.  We wish to count the number of partitions $\mu$ such that
for $k\in {\mathcal K}$ the parts of the form $kp^j$ in $\mu$ sum to $k\ell$ with $\ell < p^r$; call this quantity $p(N;{\mathcal K}, p^r)$.  In other words, these are the partitions
$\mu$ for which $\widetilde \mu$ does not have a part $kp^j$ with $j\ge r$ for all $k\in {\mathcal K}$.  By our remarks above, the count of such partitions $\mu$ is
the coefficient of $q^N$ in the generating function
\begin{equation}
\label{4.1}
\prod_{\substack { (k,p)=1 \\ k \notin {\mathcal K}}} (1+  {\widetilde p}(1) q^k + {\widetilde p}(2) q^{2k} +\ldots ) \prod_{k\in {\mathcal K}}
 \Big( \sum_{\ell=0}^{p^r-1} {\widetilde p}(\ell) q^{k\ell} \Big) =
 \prod_{\substack { (k,p)=1 \\ k \notin {\mathcal K}}} \prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1-q^{kp^j})^{-1}\prod_{k\in {\mathcal K}}
 \Big( \sum_{\ell=0}^{p^r-1} {\widetilde p}(\ell) q^{k\ell} \Big) .
\end{equation}
For example, if ${\mathcal K}=\emptyset$ then we are just counting all partitions of $N$, and the above generating function may be seen to be
$\prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-q^n)^{-1}$.

Since the coefficients in the expansion of the generating function \eqref{4.1} are all positive, for any $0< q<1$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{4.2}
p(N;{\mathcal K},r) &\le q^{-N}  \prod_{\substack { (k,p)=1 \\ k \notin {\mathcal K}}} \prod_{j=0}^{\infty} (1-q^{kp^j})^{-1}\prod_{k\in {\mathcal K}}
 \Big( \sum_{\ell=0}^{p^r-1} {\widetilde p}(\ell) q^{k\ell} \Big) \nonumber \\
& = \Big( q^{-N} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-q^n)^{-1}\Big) \prod_{k\in {\mathcal K}}
 \Big( \frac{\sum_{\ell=0}^{p^r-1} {\widetilde p}(\ell) q^{k\ell} }{\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} {\widetilde p}(\ell) q^{k\ell}} \Big).
\end{align}
Here we shall take $q= e^{-1/x}$ with $x= \sqrt{N}/\sqrt{\zeta(2)} = \sqrt{6N}/\pi$.  This choice of $q$ is motivated by the fact that the asymptotic for
the unrestricted partitions $p(N)$ arises from a contour integral computation integrating $q$ over a circle with approximately this radius.  For this choice
of $q$, one has
\[
q^{-N} \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} (1-q^n)^{-1} \sim \exp\Big( 2\sqrt{N\zeta(2)} - \frac 12 \log (\sqrt{24N})\Big) \ll  N^{\frac 34} p(N)
\]
(see Section VIII.6 of~\cite{FlajoletSedgewick2009}). Thus, with this choice of $x$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{4.3}
p(N;{\mathcal K},r) \ll N^{\frac 34} p(N) \prod_{k \in {\mathcal K}}
\Big( \frac{\sum_{\ell=0}^{p^r-1} {\widetilde p}(\ell) e^{-k\ell/x} }{\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} {\widetilde p}(\ell) e^{-k\ell/x}} \Big).
\end{equation}

We are now ready for the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop2}]
We apply the above considerations, taking
\[
r=\Big \lfloor \frac{\log N}{2ep}\Big \rfloor
\]
and ${\mathcal K}$ to be the set of integers $k\ge K$ with $(k,p)=1$ where
\[
K = \frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi p^r} (\log N) \Big( 1 + \frac{1}{5p}\Big).
\]
Then $p(N;{\mathcal K}, r)$ gives an upper bound for the number of partitions $\mu$ for which $\widetilde \mu$ has largest part below
$Kp^r= \frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1 + 1/(5p))$, which is the quantity we desire to bound.   Thus \eqref{4.3} furnishes here
the upper bound
\begin{equation}
\label{4.4}
\ll N^{\frac 34} p(N) \exp\Big( - \sum_{\substack{ k\ge K \\ (k,p)=1}} \sum_{\ell \ge p^r} \frac{{\widetilde p}(\ell) e^{-\ell k/x} }{F_p(x/k)}\Big)
= N^{\frac 34} p(N) \exp( - \Delta),
\end{equation}
say, for this quantity.

It remains to show that $\Delta$ is suitably large.  Since ${\widetilde p}(\ell )\ge {\widetilde p}(p^r)$ for $\ell \ge p^r$, and $F_p(x/k) \le F_p(x/K)
\le F_p(2p^r/\log {N})$ for $k\ge K$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{4.5}
\Delta \ge \frac{{\widetilde p}(p^r) }{F_p(2p^r/\log {N})} \sum_{\substack{k \ge K\\ (k,p)=1}} \sum_{\ell \ge p^r} e^{-\ell k/x}
&= \frac{{\widetilde p}(p^r) }{F_p(2p^r/\log {N})} \sum_{\substack{k \ge K\\ (k,p)=1}} \frac{e^{-p^r k/x}}{(1-e^{-k/x})}
\nonumber \\
&\ge \frac{{\widetilde p}(p^r) }{F_p(2p^r/\log{N})} \sum_{\substack{k \ge K\\ (k,p)=1}} e^{-p^rk/x} \frac{x}{k}.
\end{align}
Restricting just to the terms $K \le k \le K+x/p^r (\le 2K)$ the sum over $k$ above is
\begin{equation}
\label{4.6}
\ge \frac{x}{2K} e^{-Kp^r/x -1} \sum_{\substack{ K \le k \le K+x/p^r \\ (k,p)=1}} 1 \ge
\frac{1}{20} \frac{x}{K} \frac{x}{p^r} e^{-Kp^r/x}
\ge \Big( 20 N^{\frac{1}{10p}} \log N\Big)^{-1}
\end{equation}
after a small calculation.   Further, by Lemma~\ref{lem2} we have
\begin{align*}
\log F_p(2p^r/\log N) &\le \frac{1}{2\log p} \Big(\log \frac{p^r}{\log \sqrt{N}}\Big)^2 + \frac 12 \log \frac{p^r}{\log \sqrt{N}} + \frac 18 \log p + O(1) \\
&\le \frac{1}{2\log p} \Big(\log \frac{p^r}{\log \sqrt{N}}\Big)^2 + \frac r2 \log p + O(1),
\end{align*}
and combining this with the lower bound of Lemma~\ref{lem3} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\log \frac{\widetilde{p}(p^r)}{F_p(2p^r/\log N)}
&\ge \frac{r^2}{2}\log p - \frac{1}{2\log p} \Big( \log \frac{p^r}{\log \sqrt{N}}\Big)^2 - r\log (pr) +O(1) \\
&= r\log \Big(\frac{\log \sqrt{N}}{pr}\Big) - \frac{1}{2\log p} (\log \log \sqrt{N})^2 +O(1).
\end{align*}
Using this and \eqref{4.6} in \eqref{4.5}, and recalling that $r= \lfloor (\log \sqrt{N})/(ep)\rfloor$, we conclude that
\[
\Delta \gg N^{\frac{1}{2ep} - \frac{1}{10p}} \exp\Big( - \frac{1}{2\log p} (\log \log \sqrt{N})^2 -\log \log N\Big) \gg N^{\frac{1}{12p}}.
\]
Using this in \eqref{4.4}, we conclude that the number of partitions $\mu$ for which $\widetilde \mu$ has
 largest part below  $\frac{\sqrt{6N}}{2\pi} (\log N) (1+ 1/(5p))$ is
\[
 \ll p(N) N^{\frac 34} \exp( - \Delta) \le  p(N) \exp\big( - N^{\frac{1}{15p}}\big),
\]
 establishing Proposition~\ref{prop2}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Number Theory (math.NT); Representation Theory (math.RT)


Optimal Domination Polynomials

Abstract: Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges and $D(G,x)$ the domination polynomial of $G$. In this paper we completely characterize the values of $n$ and $m$ for which optimal graphs exist for domination polynomials. We also show that there does not always exist least optimal graphs for the domination polynomial. Applications to network reliability are highlighted.

\section{Introduction}

Consider a graph $G$ with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$ (we assume throughout that all graphs are {\em simple}, that is, without loops and multiple edges, as neither of these affect domination). Let $S$ be a subset of vertices or edges such that $S$ has a particular graph property, $P$. Perhaps $P$ is that $S$ is independent, complete, a dominating set or a matching.
The sequences of the number of sets of varying cardinality that have property $P$ have also been studied, particularly through the associated generating polynomials (which are {\em graph polynomials}). Independence, clique, dominating and matching polynomials have all arisen and been studied in this setting.
The evaluation of these polynomials at $1$ yields the counts of the number of subsets in question,  important graph invariants, and all of the graph polynomials can all be considered as functions on the domain $[0,\infty)$.

If the number of vertices $n$ and edges $m$ are fixed, one can ask whether there exists {\em optimal} graphs with respect to a property, in the following sense. Let $\mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ denote the set of (simple) graphs of order $n$ and size $m$ (that is, with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges). A graph $H\in \mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ is {\em optimal} if $f(H,x) \geq f(G,x)$ for all graphs $G\in \mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ and {\em all} $x \geq 0$ (for any particular value of $x \geq 0$, of course, there is such a graph $H$, as the number of graphs of order $n$ and size $m$ is finite, but we are interested in {\em uniformly} optimal graphs). Of course, if there is a graph $H$ such that the counts for the associated property sets are each greater than or equal to that for any other graph of the same order and size, that graph will be optimal.

Optimality has been studied for independence polynomials \cite{coxbrownindp}, as well for other graph polynomials such as network reliability over the domain $[0,1]$ \cite{ath,suffel,boesch91,browncox,gross,myrvold} and  chromatic polynomials \cite{sakaloglu,chromatic}.
In this paper we will investigate optimality of domination polynomials. Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$ and size $m$. A subset of vertices is called {\em dominating} if every vertex of $G$ is either in $S$ or adjacent to a vertex of $S$. The cardinality of the smallest dominating set is the domination number, written $\gamma(G)$. We define the {\em domination polynomial} of $G$ as
\[D(G,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{|V(G)|} d(G,i)x^i = \sum_{i=\gamma (G)}^{|V(G)|} d(G,i)x^i.\]
where  $d(G,i)$ is the number of dominating sets of cardinality $i$.
We will completely characterize the values of $n$ and $m$ for which optimal graphs exist (which contrasts sharply with the other graph polynomials mentioned where only partial results are known).

\section{Optimality for Domination Polynomials}
\label{sec:Opt}

We begin our study with a useful observation that compares the coefficients of the domination polynomials of two graphs to determine which is more optimal for arbitrarily large and small values of $x$.

\subsection{Optimal Graphs for Domination Polynomials}
\label{sec:OptGreat}

\begin{observation}
\label{obs:Coeff}
Suppose that $G$ and $H$ are graphs on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges with

$$D(G,x) = \sum_{j=1}^{|V(G)|} d(G,j)x^j$$

\noindent and

$$D(H,x) = \sum_{j=1}^{|V(G)|} d(H,j)x^j$$

\noindent Then

\begin{itemize}
\item if $d(G,j) = d(H,j)$ for $j < l$ but $d(G,l) > d(H,l)$, then $D(G,x) > D(H,x)$ for $x$ arbitrary small positive values of $x$ and

\item if $d(G,j) = d(H,j)$ for $t > j$ but $d(G,t) > d(H,t)$, then $D(G,x) > D(H,x)$ for $x$ arbitrary large.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}

Given two graphs $G$ and $H$, if $D(G,x)>D(H,x)$ for $x> 0$ then we say that $G$ is more optimal than $H$.

\vspace{0.2in}

Our first result will be regarding the existence of optimal sparse graphs. The following lemma describes an operation that uniformly increases the domination polynomial on $[0,\infty)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{optoperation}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n\geq 3$ vertices with at least one isolated vertex $x$ and at least one edge $e=uv$. Let $H$ be the graph $(G-e) \cup ux$.
Then
\[ D(H,x)\geq D(G,x) \mbox{ for } x\geq 0. \]
Moreover, if $v$ has degree at least $2$, then
\[ D(H,x) > D(G,x) \mbox{ for } x > 0. \]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We begin by showing that every dominating set of $G$ of size $i$ corresponds uniquely to a dominating set of $H$ of the same size.

Let $S_i$ be a dominating set of size $i$ of $G$. Note that since $x$ is an isolated vertex, it appears in every dominating set of $G$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Case 1: If both $u$ and $v$ are in $S_i$ then $S_i$ dominates in $H$.
\item Case 2: If $u\in S_i$, $v\not\in S_i$ then $(S_i-x) \cup \{v\}$ is a dominating set of size $i$ in $H$ which does not dominate in $G$.
\item Case 3: If $u\notin S_i$, $v\in S_i$ then $S_i$ dominates in $H$ as $x \in S_i$ and $u \in N[x]$.
\item Case 4: If neither $u$ nor $v$ are an element of $S_i$ both $u$ and $v$ must be dominated in $G-e$, and therefore $S_i$ a dominating set of $H$ as well.
\end{itemize}

Thus, every dominating set of size $i$ of $G$ corresponds to a dominating set of $H$ of size $i$. Moreover, it is not hard to verify that the dominating sets of $H$ produced are different. Hence  $d(H,i)\geq d(G,i)$ for $i\geq 1$ and so $D(H,x)\geq D(G,x)$ for $x\geq 0$ as was to be shown.

Moreover, if $v$ has degree at least $2$, it has another vertex $w \neq u$ adjacent to it. Consider the set $S = V(G) - \{v,x\}$. Then $S$ is not a dominating set of $G$ (as it does not contain $x$ but it is a dominating set in $H$). Moreover, it is straightforward to verify that $S$ is not matched up with any dominating set of $G$ above. It follows that $d(H,n-2) > d(G,n-2)$, and so $D(H,x) > D(G,x)$ for $x > 0.$
\end{proof}

We will now apply this lemma to show the following.

\begin{corollary}\label{optiso}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n\geq 3$ vertices and $m \geq \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$ edges. If $G$ has an isolated vertex, then there exists a graph $H$ of same order and size with no isolated vertices such that $D(H,x)> D(G,x)$ for $x > 0$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $G'$ be the graph such that $G=G' \cup rK_1$ where $r\geq 1$ is the number of isolated vertices in $G$. Then $G'$ has $n-r$ vertices and $m \geq \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$ edges. We will now show $\Delta(G') \geq 2$. Suppose not -- that is, suppose $\Delta(G') < 2$. Then the sum of all the degrees of vertices in $G'$ is at most $n-r$. Furthermore,

$$n-r \geq \sum_{v \in G'} \deg (v) = 2m \geq 2\left\lceil \frac{n}{2} \right\rceil\geq n.$$

This is a contradiction as $r\geq 1$. Thus there indeed exists a vertex $v \in G'$ with degree two or more. Let $u \in N(v)$ and $H$ be the graph constructed in Lemma \ref{optoperation} by removing the edge $uv$ from $G$ and adding an edge from $u$ to an isolated vertex. By Lemma \ref{optoperation}, $D(H,x) > D(G,x)$ for $x > 0$ and $H$ has one less isolated vertex. Hence by iterating this process we will find a graph with no isolated vertices which is more optimal than $G$.
\end{proof}

Using the previous result, we can now prove that optimal sparse graphs exist. Two non-isomorphic graphs can have the same domination polynomial, thus for a fixed $n$ and $m$, it is possible for two graphs from $\mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ to both be optimal. If $G \in \mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ is the only optimal graph in $\mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ we call it the \emph{unique optimal} graph.

\begin{corollary}
\label{sparesopt}
For a given $n \geq 2$ and $ m= \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$, the unique optimal graph is $mK_2$ if $n$ is even and $(m-2)K_2 \cup K_{1,2}$ if $n$ is odd.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $m= \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$ edges.
By Corollary~\ref{optiso}, if $G$ has an isolated vertex, there exists a graph $H$ with $n$ vertices, $m$ edges, and no isolated vertices which is more optimal than $G$. Depending on parity of $n$, as $m= \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$ there is only one graph with no isolated vertices: $mK_2$ if $n$ is even and $(m-2)K_2 \cup K_{1,2}$ if $n$ is odd. Hence these graphs must be the unique optimal graphs in their class $\mathcal{G}_{n,m}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}~\label{sparsmost}
Fix $m\geq 1$ and let $n=2m+r$, $r\geq 0$. Then the unique optimal graph is $m K_2 \cup r K_1$. That is, for $n \geq 2$ and $m < \left\lceil \frac{n}{2} \right\rceil$ a unique optimal graph exists.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We will induct on $r$. When $r=0$, we know by Corollary~\ref{sparesopt} that $mK_2$ is the unique optimal graph. Suppose that $G_{m,r}=m K_2 \cup r K_1$ is optimal for $1\leq r \leq t$. We will show that for $r=t+1$ that  $m K_2 \cup (t+1)K_1$ is the unique optimal graph.

Let $H$ be a graph on $m$ edges and $n=2m+(t+1)$ vertices. The graph $H$ has at least one isolated vertex. Let $H=H^{\prime}\cup K_1$. Then $D(H,x)=xD(H^{\prime},x)$. Now for $x > 0$, if $H^{\prime} $ is not isomorphic to $G_{m,r-1}$, then for $x > 0$,
\[ D(G_{m,r},x) =xD(G_{m,r-1},x) > xD(H^{\prime},x) = D(H,x),\]
and we are done.
\end{proof}

To contrast, we will now show that optimal graphs need not exist. To do so, we will need the following lemmas regarding the minimum degree of $G$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:MinDeg}
\textnormal{\cite{2010Char}} Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$ then  \[d(G,n-j) = {n \choose j} \mbox{ for all } j \leq \delta (G)\]
\QED
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}  \label{Lem:d(G,n-d-1)}
Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices. Then

$$d(G,n-\delta(G)-1)={n \choose \delta(G)+1} - |\{N[v]:\deg (v)=\delta(G)\}|.$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Clearly ${n \choose \delta(G)+1}-d(G,n-\delta(G)-1)$ counts the largest subsets of $V$ which do not dominate $G$. A subset $S \subseteq V$ is a dominating set if and only if for every vertex $v \in V$, $N[v] \cap S \neq \emptyset$. Therefore
the maximum non-dominating subsets of $V$ are $\{V-N[v]:\deg (v)=\delta(G)\}$. As $|\{V-N[v]:\deg (v)=\delta(G)\}|=|\{N[v]:\deg (v)=\delta(G)\}|$ we get our result.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:0.5nton}
Let $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil <m \leq n-1$. Then for $n\geq 4$ an optimal graph does not exist of order $n$ and size $m$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} To reach a contradiction suppose there exists an optimal graph $G$ with $n$ vertices with $n-r$ edges where $1 \leq r < \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor$. Consider the domination number of $G$. By Observation \ref{obs:Coeff}, there is no graph with the same order and size of $G$ but of smaller domination number. Let $H=(r-1)K_2 \cup K_{1,n-2r+1}$. As $H$ has $n$ vertices, $n-r$ edges and $\gamma(H)=r$, it follows that $\gamma(G) \leq r$. Furthermore $\gamma(G)$ is bounded below by the number of components in $G$. As $G$ has $n$ vertices and $n-r$ edges, $G$ has at least $r$ components. Therefore $\gamma(G) \geq r$, and so $\gamma(G) = r$. It follows that $G$ must be a disjoint union of $r$ graphs, each with an universal vertex. As $G$ has $n-r$ edges, $G$ must be a forest consisting of $r$ star graphs.

Again by Observation \ref{obs:Coeff}, there is no graph $F$ with the same order and size of $G$ but with $d(F,r) > d(G,r)$. Let $F=(r-1)K_2 \cup K_{1,n-2r+1}$ and note that $d(F,r)=2^{r-1}$. Thus $d(G,r) \geq 2^{r-1}$. Now $d(G,r)$ is the number of minimum dominating sets in $G$, and thus is equal to the product of the number of minimum dominating sets for each of its $r$ components. However the only star graph with more than one minimum dominating set is $K_2$, which has two. Now $m > \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$ implies $G \not\cong rK_2$, so $G$ has at most $(r-1)$ $K_2$ components. It follows that $n-2r+1 \geq 3$ and $d(G,r) \leq 2^{r-1}$. So $d(G,r) = 2^{r-1}$ and $G \cong F=(r-1)K_2 \cup K_{1,n-2r+1}$ as the last component must also be a star.

We will now show that a star graph is not optimal, and hence $G$, which has a star component, cannot optimal. Consider $P_n$. By Lemma~\ref{Lem:d(G,n-d-1)}, $d(P_n,n-2)={n \choose 2} - 2$, while  $d(K_{1,n-1},n-2)={n \choose 2} - (n-1)$, and hence $d(P_n,n-2)>d(K_{1,n-1},n-2)$ for $n \geq 4$. Thus by Observation \ref{obs:Coeff}, a star graph is not optimal for $n \geq 4$. This contradiction implies that there is no optimal graph on $n$ vertices and $n-1$ edges for $n \geq 4$.
Thus there cannot exist an optimal graph of order $n$ and size  $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil <m \leq n-1$.
\end{proof}

Now, we will show that there also does not exist dense graphs that are optimal.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:d(g,1)}

\textnormal{\cite{2014Intro}} Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$. Then
\[d(G,1) = |\{v\in V(G)|deg(v) = n-1\}|. \]
 \QED
\end{lemma}

The {\em join} of two disjoint graphs $G$ and $H$, written $G \vee H$ is the graph formed from there disjoint union by adding in all edges $uv$ where $u$ is a vertex of $G$ and $v$ is a vertex of $H$ (if $G$ and $H$ are not disjoint, one merely uses disjoint isomorphic copies).

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:graphjoin}

\textnormal{\cite{2014Intro}} Let $G$ be a graph of order $n$. Then
$$D(K_r \vee G,x) = ((1+x)^{r}-1)(1+x)^{n} + D(G_2,x).$$
\QED
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:OptGreatG}
If a graph $G$ of order $n$ and size $m \geq n-1$ is optimal then $G$ is of the form $K_r \vee H$, the join of $K_r$ and $H$, where $0 \leq r \leq n$ and $H$ is optimal on $n-r$ vertices and at most $n-r-2$ edges.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:d(g,1)} and Observation \ref{obs:Coeff} we wish to maximize the number of degree $n-1$ vertices. Let $r$ be the maximum number of degree $n-1$ vertices $G$ could have with $m$ edges and $n$ vertices. Clearly $0 \leq r \leq n$, $G = K_r \vee H$, and $H$ has $n-r$ vertices. Furthermore $H$ has no degree $n-r-1$ vertices, otherwise such vertices would be degree $n-1$ in $G$. Therefore $H$ has at most $n-r-2$ edges.

Finally we show $H$ is optimal on $n-r$ vertices and $m_H \leq n-r-2$ edges. Let  $H'$ be any another graph of equal order and size to $H$. As $G$ is optimal, $D(G,x)=D(K_r \vee H,x) \geq D(K_r \vee H',x)$ for all $x > 0$. By Lemma \ref{lem:graphjoin},

\begin{eqnarray}
D(K_r \vee H,x) & = & ((1+x)^{r}-1)(1+x)^{n-r} + D(H,x) \nonumber \\
D(K_r \vee H',x) & = & ((1+x)^{r}-1)(1+x)^{n-r} + D(H',x) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\noindent Thus $D( H,x) \geq D(H',x)$ for all $x > 0$ and $H$ is optimal.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
For $n \geq 6$ vertices and $n-1 \leq m < {n \choose 2}-6$ there does not exist an optimal graph for the domination polynomial.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
To show a contradiction suppose a graph $G$ of order $n$ and size $m$ is optimal. By Lemma \ref{lem:OptGreatG}, $G$ is the join of $K_r$ and $H$ for some $r \geq 0$ and optimal graph $H$ with $n-r$ vertices and at most $n-r-2$ edges. Let $m_H$ be the number of edges in $H$; then $m = m_H + {{r} \choose {2}} + r(n-r) \geq {{r} \choose {2}} + r(n-r)$. Let $M_G=\{N_G[v]:\deg_G (v)=\delta(G)\}$. Thus it is sufficient to give another graph $G'$, of equal order and size, with $|M_G|>|M_{G'}|$ as Lemma \ref{Lem:d(G,n-d-1)} and Observation \ref{obs:Coeff} imply $D(G',x)>D(G,x)$ for arbitrarily large values of $x$.

We consider the following three cases: $m_H < \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$, $m_H = \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$, and $m_H > \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$.

\vspace{0.1in}
\noindent \emph{Case 1}:
$m_H < \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$.

\vspace{0.1in}
\noindent In this case, $H$ is an optimal graph on $n-r$ vertices and less than $\ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$ edges. Using Theorem \ref{sparsmost}, $H$ must be the following optimal graph

 $$H=m_HK_2 \cup (n-r-2m_H)K_1.$$

Note that $n-r-2m_H>0$, so $\delta(G)=r$. Furthermore no two vertices of degree $r$ are adjacent. Therefore

$$|M_G|=|\{v \in V:\deg (v)=r\}|=n-r-2m_H.$$

As $n-1 \leq m < {n \choose 2}-6$ and $m \geq {{r} \choose {2}} + r(n-r)$, it follows that $1 \leq r < n-4$ and hence $|H| = n-r > 4$. Let $u$ be a vertex of minimum degree in $G$, $v$ be any other vertex in $H$, and $x$ be a universal vertex in $G$. Further, let $G'$ be the graph formed by replacing the edge $vx$ in $G$ with the edge $uv$. The graphs $G$ and $G'$ have the same size, order and $\delta(G') \geq \delta(G)$. If $\delta(G') > \delta(G)$, then $d(G',n-r-1)={n \choose r+1}>{n \choose r+1}-(n-r-2m_H)$ and hence we get a contradiction. Thus $\delta(G') = \delta(G)=r$. Every vertex in $G'$, other than $x$ and $u$, has the same degree as they did in $G$. Furthermore $\deg_{G'}(x)=n-2>r$ and $\deg_{G'}(u)=\deg_{G}(u)+1=r+1$. Therefore $G'$ has $n-r-2m_H-1$ vertices of degree $r$. Since $|M_{G'}| \leq |\{v \in V:\deg_{G'} (v)=r\}|$, $|M_G|>|M_{G'}|$.

\vspace{0.1in}

\noindent \emph{Case 2}:
$m_H = \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$.

\vspace{0.1in}
\noindent $H$ has $n-r$ vertices and is optimal. By Corollary \ref{sparesopt}, $H=m_HK_2$ is uniquely optimal if $n-r$ is even and $H=(m_H-2)K_2 \cup K_{1,2}$ is uniquely optimal if $n-r$ is odd. Also $\delta(G) = r+1$, regardless of parity.

\vspace{0.1in}
\hfill\begin{minipage}{\dimexpr\textwidth-1cm}
\emph{Case 2a}: $n-r$ is even.

\vspace{0.1in}
Then $n-r \geq 6$ and without loss of generality let $G = K_r \vee H$ where $H=m_HK_2$ with $m_H \geq 3$. Note that the vertices of degree $r+1$ are exactly the vertices of $H$ and each degree $r+1$ vertex in $H$ shares its closed neighbourhood with its only neighbour in $H$. Therefore $|M_G|=m_H$.

\vspace{0.1in}

Let $u_1,u_2,v_1, v_2$ and $x$ be vertices in $G$ such that $x$ is a universal vertex in $G$ and $u_1,u_2$ and $v_1, v_2$ each induce $K_2$ components in $H$. Note $N_G[u_1] =N_G[u_2] \in M_G$ and $N_G[v_1] =N_G[v_2] \in M_G$. Let $G'$ be the graph formed by replacing the edges $xu_1$, $xu_2$, $xv_1$ and $xv_2$ with $v_1u_1$, $v_1u_2$, $v_2u_1$ and $v_2u_2$. Note the degree of $u_1,u_2,v_1$ and  $v_2$ have all increased from $G$ to $G'$, $\deg_{G'}(x)=\deg_{G}(x)-4=n-5 \geq r+1$, and the closed neighbourhood of every other vertex is unchanged. Therefore $M_{G'} \subseteq M_{G} \cup \{N_{G'}[x]\} -\{N_G[u_1],N_G[v_1]\}$ and hence $|M_G|>|M_{G'}|$.

\xdef\tpd{\the\prevdepth}
\end{minipage}

\vspace{0.1in}

\vspace{0.1in}
\hfill\begin{minipage}{\dimexpr\textwidth-1cm}
\emph{Case 2b}: $n-r$ is odd.

\vspace{0.1in}

Then $n-r \geq 5$ and without loss of generality let $G = K_r \vee H$ where $H=(m_H-2)K_2 \cup K_{1,2}$ with $m_H-2 \geq 1$. Let $u_1,u_2,v$ and $x$ be vertices in $G$ such that $x$ is a universal vertex in $G$, $u_1,u_2$ induce a $K_2$ component in $H$ and $v$ is a leaf in the $K_{1,2}$ component of $H$. Note $N_G[u_1] =N_G[u_2] \in M_G$ and $N_G[v] \in M_G$. Let $G'$ be the graph formed by replacing the edges $xu_1$ and $xu_2$ with $vu_1$, $vu_2$. The degree of $u_1$ and $u_2$ remain $r+1$ and $N_{G'}[u_1] =N_{G'}[u_2] \in M_{G'}$. Furthermore $\deg_{G'}(x)=\deg_{G}(x)-2=n-3 > r+1$ and $\deg_{G'}(v)=\deg_{G}(v)+2=r+3$ so $N_{G'}[v] \notin M_{G'}$. As the closed neighbourhood of every other vertex is unchanged, $|M_G|>|M_{G'}|$.

\xdef\tpd{\the\prevdepth}
\end{minipage}

\vspace{0.1in}

\noindent \emph{Case 3}:
$m_H > \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$.

\vspace{0.1in}
By Lemma \ref{lem:OptGreatG}, $H$ is an optimal graph on $n-r$ vertices and $m_H > \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$ edges, where $m_H \leq n-r-2 < n-r-1$. As in case 1, $n-r \geq 5$. By Theorem \ref{thm:0.5nton}, there is no optimal graph on $n-r$ vertices and $m_H > \ceil{\frac{n-r}{2}}$ edges. Thus this case is a contradiction.
\end{proof}

Clearly for $m={n \choose 2}$ and $m={n\choose 2}-1$, unique optimal graphs exist, since there is only one graph in each case, but we now show for other dense graphs optimal graphs do not exist.

\begin{theorem}
\label{optimalk}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n\geq 6$ vertices and $m={n \choose 2}-k$, $2\leq k\leq 6$ Then an optimal graph does not exist.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Observation~\ref{obs:Coeff} we know that ane optimal graph for values of $x$ close to 0 will have the most number of universal vertices. For $k=2,3,4,5,6$ we will show that the graph $H_k$ which is $K_n$ with a matching of size $k$ removed is optimal for larger values of $x$. It is easy to see that $D(H_k,x)=(1+x)^n-1-2kx$. Note that $d(H_k,i)={n \choose i}$ for $i\geq 2$.

\begin{itemize}
\item
For $k=2$ consider the graph $G$ which is $K_n$ with the edges of a $P_3$ removed. The domination polynomial for this graph is $D(G,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(x^2+3x)$. This is the unique graph of order $n$ and $m={n \choose 2}-2$ with $n-3$ universal vertices.

\item For $k=3$ let $G$ be a $K_n$ with the edges of a $K_3$ removed, which has a domination polynomial of $D(G,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(3x^2+3x)$. The graph $G$ is the unique graph with $n-3$ universal vertices.

\item For $k=4$ there are two graphs of order $n$ and size $m = m={n \choose 2}-k$ on with $n-4$ universal vertices, $G$, namely $K_n$ with the edges of a $C_4$ removed and $K_n$ with the edges of a $K_3$ with a leaf removed. We can compute that $D(G,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(2x^2+4x)$ and $D(G',x)=(1+x)^n-1-(x^3+3x^2+4x)$. It is easy to see that $D(G,x)\geq D(G',x)$ for $x \geq 0$.

\item For $k=5$ consider the graph $G$ which is $K_n$ with the edges of a $K_4$ with an edge removed. The domination polynomial for this graph is $D(G,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(2x^3+6x^2+4x)$. This is the unique graph of order $n$ and $m={n \choose 2}-5$ with $n-4$ universal vertices.

\item Lastly, for $k=6$ consider the graph $G$ which is $K_n$ with the edges of a $K_4$ removed. The domination polynomial for this graph is $D(G,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(4x^3+6x^2+4x)$. This is the unique graph of order $n$ and size $m={n \choose 2}-6$ with $n-4$ universal vertices.
\end{itemize}

Clearly for all the above described graphs $d(G,i)= {n\choose i}$ for $i=4,\ldots n$, but $d(G,i) < {n \choose 2}$ for some $i \in \{2,3\}$. For the largest value of $i$ where $d(G,i)<{n \choose i}$ it is the case that $d(H_k,i)={n \choose i}$, therefore by Observation~\ref{obs:Coeff} $H_k$ is optimal for arbitrarily large values of $x$, hence an optimal graph does not exist.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:compile}
For graphs of order $n\geq 6$,

\begin{itemize}
\item $mK_2 \cup rK_1$ where $r = n-2m$ is uniquely optimal when $m < \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$.
\item $mK_2$ is uniquely optimal when $n$ is even and $m = \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$.
\item $(m-2)K_2 \cup K_{1,2}$ is uniquely optimal when $n$ is odd and $m = \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil$.
\item No optimal graph exists for $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil <m  < {n \choose 2}-1$.
\item $K_n-e$ is uniquely optimal for $m = {n \choose 2}-1$, for $e\in E(G)$.
\item $K_n$ is uniquely optimal for $m = {n \choose 2}$.
\end{itemize}

\QED
\end{corollary}
In fact, via some calculations, Corollary \ref{cor:compile} can been seen to hold for $n < 6$ as well, with the exception of $K_1 \vee 2K_2$ which is the unique optimal graph on five vertices and six edges.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Conclusion}

In \cite{domrel} the domination reliability polynomial was defined as follows. For a given graph $G$ we assume that vertices are independently operational with probability $p \in [0,1]$; the {\em domination reliability} $Drel(G,p)$ of $G$ is the probability that the operational vertices form a  dominating set of the graph. As for all-terminal reliability, the existence of optimal reliability polynomials is an open area of study. Noting that $Drel(G,p) = (1-p)^{n}\cdot D(G,\frac{p}{1-p})$, from Corollary~\ref{cor:compile} we obtain a complete characterization of values of $n$ and $m$ for which optimal graphs exist for domination reliability.

\begin{corollary}\label{domrel}
For $n\geq 6$ and $m\leq \lceil \frac{n}{2}\rceil$ uniquely optimal graphs exist for domination reliability. For  $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil <m  < {n \choose 2}-1$ optimal graphs do not exist for domination reliability. For  ${n \choose 2}-1 \geq m  \geq {n \choose 2}$ uniquely optimal graphs exist for domination reliability.
\QED
\end{corollary}

On another note, we can ask what graphs are the {\em least}-optimal (a graph $H\in \mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ is {\em least-optimal} if $f(H,x) \leq f(G,x)$ for all graphs $G\in \mathcal{G}_{n,m}$ and {\em all} $x \geq 0$). While, of course, for $m = n-1$ or $n$ there are least-optimal graphs (as there is only a single graph in each such class), we can show that, in general, such graphs need not exist.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:leastopt}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n\geq 7$ vertices and $m={n \choose 2}-k$, $2 \leq k \leq \frac{n}{2}$ edges. Then a least-optimal graph does not exist.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Observation~\ref{obs:Coeff} we know that the least optimal graph for values of $x$ close to 0 will have the least number of universal vertices. For $k=2$ there are only two possible graphs and so by Theorem~\ref{optimalk} an least optimal graph does not exist.
Thus we can assume $k \geq 3$.

Let $G_k$ be $K_n$ with the edges of a matching of size $k$ removed. This is the unique graph of order $n$ and size $m={n \choose 2}-k$, $2 \leq k \leq \frac{n}{2}$ that has $n-2k$ non-universal vertices, that is, it is least optimal for values of $x$ near 0. The domination polynomial for this graph is $D(G_k,x)=(1+x)^{n}-1-2kx$. Consider the graph $H$, which is $K_n$ with the edges of a $P_{k+1}$ removed. The domination polynomial for this graph is $D(H,x)=(1+x)^n-1-(k+1)x-(k-2)x^2$. Since $D(G_k,x) \leq D(H,x)$ holds if and only if $(-k+1)x+(k-2)x^2\leq 0$, which is true precisely when $x \leq \frac{k-1}{k-2}$, so outside this range (i.e. when $x \in (k-1)/(k-2),\infty)$), $H$ is less optimal. Thus a least-optimal graph does not exist.
\end{proof}

An open problem is to characterize the values of $n$ and $m$ such that least optimal graphs exist.

\vspace{0.5cm}

\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}\\

\vspace{0.05in}
\noindent J.I. Brown acknowledges support from NSERC (grant application RGPIN 170450- 2013). D. Cox acknowledges research support from NSERC (grant application RGPIN 2017-04401).

\vspace{0.1in}

Optimal Domination Polynomials


Spherical mean transform from the pde point of view

Abstract: We study the spherical mean transform on $\rN^n$. The transform is characterized by the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation. By looking at the spherical harmonic expansions, we obtain a system of 1+1-dimension hyperbolic equations, which provide a good machinery to attack problems of spherical mean transform.As showcases, we discuss two known problems. The first one is a local uniqueness problem investigated by M. Agranovsky and P. Kuchment, [{\em Memoirs on Differential Equations and Mathematical Physics}, 52:1--16, 2011]. We present a simple proof which works even under a weaker condition. The second problem is to characterize the kernel of spherical mean transform on annular regions, which was studied by C. Epstein and B. Kleiner [{\em Comm. Pure Appl. Math.}, 46(3):441--451, 1993]. We present a short proof that simultaneously obtains the necessity and sufficiency for the characterization. As a consequence, we derive a reconstruction procedure for the transform with additional interior (or exterior) information.We also discuss how the approach works for the hyperbolic and spherical spaces.

\section{Introduction}\label{S:Intro}
Let $f$ be a function defined on $\mathbb{R}^n$. The spherical mean transform $\mathcal{R}(f)$ of $f$ is defined as $$\mathcal{R}(f)(x,t) = \frac{1}{|S(x,t)|} \int\limits_{S(x,t)} f(x) d\sigma(x). $$ Here, $S(x,t) \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is the sphere of radius $t$ centered at $x$, $d\sigma(x)$ is the surface measure on $S(x,t)$, and $|S(x,t)|$ is the total measure of $S(x,t)$.  The spherical mean transform has been intensively studied due to its applications to PDEs, approximation theory, inverse scattering, and thermoacoustic tomography (e.g., \cite{CH2,Jo,Be1,Be2,FHR,LP1,LP2,AQ}).

The spherical mean transform can be characterized by the Darboux (or Euler-Poisson-Darboux) equation. Namely, if $f$ is smooth enough (for example $f \in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n))$, then $G(x,t)=\mathcal{R}(f)(x,t)$ satisfies (e.g., \cite{Jo}):
\begin{equation}\label{E:D} \left\{\begin{array} {l} G_{tt}(x,t) + \frac{n-1}{t} G_t(x,t) -\Delta_x G(x,t)=0,~  (x,t) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}_+,\\
G(x,0)=f(x),~ G_t(x,0)=0, \quad x \in \mathbb{R}^n. \end{array}\right. \end{equation}
Conversely, if $G(x,t) \in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n \times \overline{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ satisfies the above equation then $G=\mathcal{R}(f)$.
Let us recall the polar coordinate decomposition of the Laplacian in $\mathbb{R}^n$: $$\Delta = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{r^2} \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}},$$ where $r= |x|$ and $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$.  Hence, for any twice differentiable function $g=g(r)$: $$\Delta\left[ g(r) r^m Y^m(\theta) \right] = r^m Y^m(\theta) \left [\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right] g(r),$$
where $Y^m$ is any spherical harmonics of degree $m$.

Let us expand $f$ and $G$ in terms of spherical harmonics: \begin{eqnarray}  \label{E:Decom} f(x) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{l=1}^{l_m} f_{ml}(r) r^m Y^m_{l}(\theta),~ G(x, t) =\sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{l=1}^{l_m} g_{ml}(r,t) r^m Y^m_{l}(\theta).\end{eqnarray}
For each $m \geq 0$, we denote $\mathcal{B}_{r,m} = \left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right]$. Then, (\ref{E:D}) is equivalent to \begin{equation}\label{E:1dD} \left\{\begin{array} {l}\mathcal{B}_{t,0} g_{ml}(r,t)  - \mathcal{B}_{r,m}g_{ml} (r,t) =0,~ (r,t) \in \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}_+, \\
g_{ml} (r,0)=f_{ml}(r),~\partial_t g_{ml} (r,0)=0,~r \in \mathbb{R}, \end{array}\right. \end{equation} for each $m \geq 0$ and $l=1,..,l_m$. This equation can be symmetrized by a differential operator. Indeed, let
$$\mathcal{Q}_m = \left(\frac{r}{n} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)\left(\frac{r}{n+2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)...\left(\frac{r}{n+2(m-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right).$$
We then have (see Appendix):
\begin{equation} \label{E:Qk} \mathcal{Q}_m \mathcal{B}_{r,m} = \mathcal{B}_{r,0} \mathcal{Q}_m.\end{equation}
Applying $\mathcal{Q}_m$ to (\ref{E:1dD}), we obtain the symmetric equation \begin{equation} \label{E:1dDs}\left[\mathcal{B}_{t,0} -\mathcal{B}_{r,0}\right]\alpha (r,t) =0,\end{equation} where  $\alpha = \mathcal{Q}_m g_{ml}$, for any $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $l=1,..,l_m$.

In this article, we exploit equations (\ref{E:1dD}) and (\ref{E:1dDs}) to present some short and clear proofs for some (old and new) properties of spherical mean transform.

The article is organized as follows. In Section \ref{S:Local}, we revisit a local uniqueness result by Agranovsky and Kuchment \cite{AK-S}. We also point out that the same result still holds under a weaker condition.  We then discuss a result by Epstein and Kleiner \cite{Ep}  for spherical mean transform on the annular region in Section {\ref{S:Ann}}. We provide a reconstruction procedure for the transform when some additional interior (or exterior) information is provided. Finally, we discuss how the decompostion and symmetrization work on the hyperbolic and spherical spaces.

\section{A local uniqueness result}\label{S:Local}
Let us recall the following result by Agranovsky and Kuchment \cite[Theorem 10]{AK-S}:
\begin{theorem}\label{T:Main} Let $f \in C^\infty(B_{R+\varepsilon})$ such that $f(x)=0$ for $x \in B_R$. Assume that $\mathcal{R}(f)(x,R)=0$ for all $x \in B_\varepsilon$. Then, $f(x) = 0$ for $x \in B_{R+\varepsilon}$. Here, $B_R$ is the sphere of radius $R$ centered at $0$. \end{theorem}
The above theorem was proved by utilizing the notion of ridge function and Titchmarsh theorem. We present here an alternative proof using equation (\ref{E:1dD}) and simple energy arguments. Let us start with a basic domain of dependence argument which will be repeatedly used in this article:
\begin{prop}\label{P:DoD} Let $c>0$, $\varepsilon \geq 0$, and $u$ satisfy the equation: \begin{eqnarray}\label{E:DG} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \left(\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{c}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\Delta_y \right) u(r,y) =0,~y \in \mathbb{R}^n,~ r \geq \varepsilon, \\ u(\varepsilon,y)=u_\varepsilon(y),~u_r(\varepsilon,y)=0,~ y \in \mathbb{R}^n. \end{array}  \right.\end{eqnarray}
Assume that $u_\varepsilon(y)=0$ for all $y \in B(y_0,r_0)$. Then, $u(r,y) =0$ if $r \geq \varepsilon$ and $|y-y_0|+r \leq r_0+\varepsilon$. \end{prop}
\noindent The proof Proposition \ref{P:DoD} is well known (see, e.g., \cite{CH2}). It consists in only a simple energy argument. We will provide in Appendix for the sake of completeness.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{T:Main}]
Let us consider the series expansion (\ref{E:Decom}) of $f$ and $G=\mathcal{R}(f)$. We observe that the conditions $f(x)=0$ for $ x \in B_R$ and $G(x,R) = \mathcal{R}(f)(x,R) =0$ for $x \in B_\varepsilon$ imply \begin{equation}\label{E:Conds} g_{ml}(0,t)=0,~ t \in [0,R], \mbox{ and }  g_{ml}(r,R)=0,~s \in [0,\varepsilon]. \end{equation}
The goal is to prove that $f_{ml}(t) = g_{ml}(0,t) = 0$ for $t \in [0,R+\varepsilon]$. Our idea is to transform equation (\ref{E:1dD}):
 \begin{eqnarray*} \left\{\begin{array} {l} \left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2} + \frac{n-1}{t} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right] g_m(r,t)  -\left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right] g_m(r,t) =0,~ (r,t) \in \mathbb{R}^2, \\
g_{ml} (r,0)=f_{ml}(r),\quad \partial_t g_{ml} (r,0)=0,~\forall r \in \mathbb{R}, \end{array}\right. \end{eqnarray*}
 to a Darboux equation for which $r$ is the temporal variable.  Indeed, let us introduce the function $u(r,y) =g_{ml}(r, |y|)$, which is radially symmetric with respect to the variable $y \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Then for any $y$ such that $|y|=t$,  $$ \Delta_y u(r,y) = \left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2} + \frac{n-1}{t} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right] g_m(r,t). $$
We, hence, obtain the Darboux equation: \begin{equation} \label{E:Std}\left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right] u(r,y) - \Delta_y u(r,y) =0.\end{equation}
From (\ref{E:Conds}), we obtain the following zero initial and boundary values of $u$:  $$u(0,y) =0,~\forall y \in B_R, \quad u(r,y)=0,~\forall (r,y) \in [0,\varepsilon] \times S_R.$$
A simple energy argument shows that $u(r,y)=0$ for all $(r,y) \in B_R \times [0,\varepsilon]$. Indeed, let $$E(r) = \int\limits_{B(0,R)} \left[|u_r(r,y)|^2 +|\nabla u(r,y)|^2 \right] dy.$$ Since $u(r,y)=0$ for $y \in S_R$, integration by parts gives $$\frac{d E(r)}{dr} =2  \int\limits_{B(0,R)} \left[u_r(r,y) -\Delta u(r,y) \right] u_r(r,y) dy.$$ Due to (\ref{E:Std}), $$\frac{d E(r)}{dr} =- \frac{2(n-1)}{r} \int\limits_{B(0,R)} |u_r(r,y)|^2 dy \leq 0.$$
We obtain $E(r) \leq E(0)=0$ for all $0 \leq r \leq \varepsilon$. This implies $E(r)=0$ or $u(r,y)=0$ for all $(r,y) \in [0,\varepsilon] \times B_R$.

We now arrive to the equation \begin{eqnarray*}\left\{\begin{array}{l} \left(\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\Delta_y \right) u(r,y) =0, \\ u(\varepsilon,y) = u_r(\varepsilon,y)=0,~ y \in \mathbb{R}^n.\end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*}
Due to Proposition \ref{P:DoD}, we obtain $u(y,t)=0$ for $|y|+r \leq R + \varepsilon$. This means $g_{ml}(r,t)=0$ for all $(r,t)$ such that $r+t \leq R+ \varepsilon$.  In particular, $f_{ml}(s) = g_{ml}(0,s)=0$ for $s \in [0,R+\varepsilon]$.

We conclude, due to the expansion (\ref{E:Decom}),  $f(x) =0$ for all $x \in B_{R+\varepsilon}$. \end{proof}

The condition $f(x)=0$ for $x \in B_R$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{R}(f)(x,t)=0$ for all $(x,t)$ such that $|x|+t \leq R$. It is much stronger than: $D^\alpha_x\mathcal{R}(f)(0,t)=0$ for any multiindex $\alpha$ and $t \in [0,R]$. Following the above proof, we obtain the same conclusion under this weaker condition:
\begin{theorem}\label{T:Mainc} Let $f \in C^\infty(B_{R+\varepsilon})$ such that $D_x^\alpha \mathcal{R}(f)(0,t)=0$ for all multi-indices $\alpha$ and $t \in [0,R]$. Assume that $R(f)(x,R)=0$ for all $x \in B_\varepsilon$. Then $f (x)= 0$ for all $x \in B_{R+\varepsilon}$. \end{theorem}

\section{Spherical mean transform on the annular region} \label{S:Ann}
Given $0<a<A$, let us consider the annular region $$Ann(a,A)=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^n: a<|x|<A\}.$$ We denote by  $Z^\infty(a,A)$ the space of all functions $f \in C^\infty(Ann(a,A))$ satisfying $\mathcal{R}(f)(x,t) =0$ for all $(x,t) \in \mathcal{A}$. Here, \begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Annu} \mathcal{A} = \{(x,t): S(x,t) \subset Ann(a,A) \mbox{ and } S(0,a) \subset B(x,t) \},\end{eqnarray} where $B(x,t)$ is the ball of radius $t$ centered at $x$. The following result characterize all the functions $f\in Z^\infty(a,A)$:
\begin{theorem}\label{T:Ep} A function $f$ belongs to $ Z^\infty(a,A)$ if and only if $f_0=0$ and $f_{ml}$ is of the form  \begin{eqnarray}\label{E:fm} f_{ml}(r) = \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} c^i_{ml} r^{m-(n+2i)}, \end{eqnarray} for any $m>0$ and $\l=1,..,l_m$.
\end{theorem}
This result was proved in \cite{Ep}. The necessity was obtained by a projection formula on spaces of spherical harmonics. The sufficiency was proved by a series of lemmas concerning the connection between the functions in $Z^\infty(a,\infty)$ and harmonic functions with certain behavior at infinity.  In this section, we present an argument to simultaneously prove the necessity and sufficiency. It also provides a reconstruction procedure for the transform with additional interior/exterior information, which might find applications in biomedical imaging.

\begin{rem} By some convolution arguments as in \cite{Ep}, we can deduce from Theorem \ref{T:Ep} the same characterization for functions $f \in Z(a,A)$. Here, $Z(a,A)$ is the set of functions $f \in C(Ann(a,A))$ such that $\mathcal{R}(f)(x,t)=0,~\forall (x,t) \in \mathcal{A}$.  \end{rem}

Without loss of generality, we might also assume that $f \in C^\infty(\overline{Ann(a,A)})$. Otherwise, we prove the same characterization on the region $Ann(a+\varepsilon,A-\varepsilon)$ (for small enough $\varepsilon>0$) and then let $\varepsilon \to 0$.

Let us extend $f$ smoothly to $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then, $G=\mathcal{R}(f) \in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n \times \overline{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ satisfies the equation (\ref{E:D}). The condition $f \in Z^\infty(a,A)$ is equivalent to \begin{equation}\label{E:Gvn} G(x,t)=0,~(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times (a,A), \mbox{ such that } |x| + \left|t -\frac{a+A}{2} \right| \leq \frac{A-a}{2}. \end{equation}
\begin{lemma}\label{L:ZAa} Consider the decomposition of $G$ as in (\ref{E:Decom}). Then $f \in Z^\infty(a,A)$ if and only if \begin{equation}\label{E:ag} g_{ml}(0,t)=0, ~\forall t \in (a,A), \end{equation} for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $l=1,..,l_m$. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} It suffices to prove that (\ref{E:Gvn}) and (\ref{E:ag}) are equivalent. The fact that (\ref{E:Gvn}) implies (\ref{E:ag}) is obvious. We now prove the other implication. Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{T:Main}, we translate equation (\ref{E:1dD}) to a Darboux equation by introducing the function $u(r,y) =g_{ml}(r, |y|)$. We then obtain: \begin{eqnarray*}  \left(\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1+2m}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\Delta_y \right) u(r,y) =0. \end{eqnarray*}
 Let $y_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $|y_0|=\frac{a+A}{2}$. The condition $g_{ml}(0,t)=0$ for $t \in (a,A)$ implies $$u(0,y)=0,~\mbox{for all }y \in B(y_0,r_0),$$ where $r_0=\frac{A-a}{2}$. The domain of dependence argument (see Proposition \ref{P:DoD}) then implies $$u(r,y)=0,~\mbox{ for all $(y,r) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}_+$ such that } |y-y_0|+ r \leq r_0.$$
Recalling that $u(r,y) = g_{ml}(r,|y|)$, we obtain $$g_{ml}(r,t)=0, \mbox{ for all } (x,t) \mbox{ such that } \left|t - |y_0| \right| +r \leq r_0. $$
That is, $$g_{ml}(r,t)=0, \mbox{ for all } (r,t) \mbox{ such that } \left|t - \frac{a+A}{2}\right| +r \leq \frac{A-a}{2}. $$
Since this is true for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $l=1,..,l_m$, we conclude $$G(x,t)=0, \mbox{ for all } (x,t) \mbox{ such that } \left|t - \frac{a+A}{2}\right| +|x| \leq \frac{A-a}{2}. $$
This finishes our proof. \end{proof}
We now present our proof for Theorem \ref{T:Ep}. It simultaneously provides the necessity and sufficiency of the characterization in Theorem \ref{T:Ep}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{T:Ep}] Let $\alpha(r,t) = \mathcal{Q}_m g_{ml}(r,t)$, where \begin{equation}\label{E:Qm}\mathcal{Q}_m = \left(\frac{r}{n} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)\left(\frac{r}{n+2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)...\left(\frac{r}{n+2(m-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right).\end{equation}
Due to (\ref{E:Qk}), we arrive to the symmetric equation (\ref{E:1dDs}):
 \begin{eqnarray*} \left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial t^2} + \frac{n-1}{t} \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right] \alpha(r,t)  -\left[ \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r^2} + \frac{n-1}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} \right] \alpha(r,t) =0,~ (r,t) \in \mathbb{R}^2\end{eqnarray*}
We obtain (e.g., \cite{Jo,HelGeo}):
$$\alpha(s,0) = \alpha (0,s).$$ Simple observations show: $$\alpha(0,s) = g_{ml}(0,s), ~\alpha(0,s) = [\mathcal{Q}_m f_{ml}](s).$$
Therefore, \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:fg} [\mathcal{Q}_{m}f_{ml}](s) = g_{ml}(0,s). \end{eqnarray}
From Lemma \ref{L:ZAa}, $f \in Z^\infty(a,A)$ if and only if $g_{ml}(0,s)=0$ for $s \in (a,A)$. Or, equivalently,  \begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Qm0} [\mathcal{Q}_m f_{ml}](s)=0,~\forall s \in (a,A).\end{eqnarray}
Due to formula (\ref{E:Qm}) of $\mathcal{Q}_m$, (\ref{E:Qm0}) is equivalent to \begin{eqnarray*}  f_{ml}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{m-1}c^i_{ml} r^{-n-2i}, \mbox{ if } m \geq 1, \\ 0,\quad \mbox { if } m=0.\end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray*}
This finishes our proof. \end{proof}

We are now interested in reconstructing $f$ on $Ann(a,A)$ from $\mathcal{R}(f)|_\mathcal{A}$. The problem does not have a unique answer since the kernel described in Theorem \ref{T:Ep} is nontrivial.  We, therefore, make one more assumption: $f \in C^\infty(Ann(r_0, A))$ and it is known in the interior region $Ann(r_0,a]=\{x \in \mathbb{R}^n: r_0 < |x| \leq a\}$, for some number $0 \leq r_0<a$. The problem of reconstructing $f$ from $\mathcal{R}(f)|_{\mathcal{A}}$ and $f|_{Ann(r_0,a]}$ resembles interior tomography with prior interior knowledge, which is widely investigated in biomedical imaging (e.g.,\cite{kudo2008tiny,courdurier2008solving}). The following result provide a formula useful for the reconstruction:

\begin{theorem} \label{T:Interior} Consider the spherical harmonic decomposition (\ref{E:Decom}) of $f$ and $G=\mathcal{R}(f)$. Let $$k_{ml}(r) = \frac{n (n+2)...[n+2(m-1)]}{2^{(m-1)} (m-1)!}r^{-[n+2(m-1)]}\int\limits_a^r g_{ml}(0,\tau) \tau^{n-1}(r^2-\tau^2)^{m-1} d\tau.$$
Then for $r \in \mathbb{R}_+$: \begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Diff} q_{ml}(r):= f_{ml}(r)-k_{ml}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{m-1}c^i_{ml} r^{-n-2i}, \mbox{ if } m \geq 1, \\ 0,\quad \mbox { if } m=0.\end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We claim that \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:km} \mathcal{Q}_{m} k_{ml} = g_{ml}.\end{eqnarray} Indeed, direct calculations show:
\begin{eqnarray*}\left(\frac{r}{n+2(m-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right) k_{ml}(r) = \frac{n ...[n+2(m-2)]}{2^{m-2}(m-2)!}r^{-[n+2(m-2)]} \\ \times  \int\limits_a^r g_{ml}(0,\tau) \tau^{n-1}(r^2-\tau^2)^{m-2} d\tau. \end{eqnarray*}
We recall that $$\mathcal{Q}_m =\left(\frac{r}{n} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)\left(\frac{r}{n+2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)...\left(\frac{r}{n+2(m-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right).$$
By induction, we obtain
\begin{equation*} \mathcal{Q}_m k_{lm}(r) =\left(\frac{r}{n} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right) \left[ nr^{-n} \int\limits_a^r g_{ml}(0, \tau) \tau^{n-1}d\tau\right]=g_{ml}(0, r).\end{equation*}
This proves (\ref{E:km}). Since $f_{ml}$ also satisfies the same equation (\ref{E:fg}), $$\mathcal{Q}_m (f_{ml}-g_{ml}) =0.$$
Therefore, $q_{ml}(r):= f_{ml}(r)-k_{ml}(r)$ has the form (\ref{E:Diff}).
\end{proof}
We now arrive to a procedure to compute $f$ on $Ann(a,A)$ from $\mathcal{R}{f}|_\mathcal{A}$ and $f|_{Ann(r_0,a]}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] Compute $f_{ml}(r)$ for $r \in (r_0,a]$ from $f|_{Ann(r_0,a]}$.
\item[2)] Compute $g_{ml}(0,s)$ for $s \in (a,A)$ from $G=\mathcal{R}(f)|_{\mathcal{A}}$.
\item[3)] Compute $q_{ml}(s)=f_{ml}(s) - k_{ml}(s)$ and its derivatives at $s=a$ from the above knowledge of $f_{ml}$ and $g_{ml}$. Use them to compute $c^i_{ml}$.
\item[4)] Compute $f_{ml}= k_{ml} + q_{ml}$ on $(a,A)$. Then, compute $f$ on $Ann(a,A)$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{rem} The same procedure also works when $f(x)$ is provided in an exterior domain $Ann[A,R)=\{A \leq |x| < R\}$, for some $R>A$. \end{rem}
\section{The approach for Hyperbolic and Spherical spaces}\label{S:DR}
We have considered the spherical mean transform from a PDE point of view. We decomposed the Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation into the $1+1$-dimension hyperbolic equations. By exploiting them and their symmetrized versions, we obtain some old and new properties for spherical mean transform. In this section, we describe the approach for the hyperbolic and spherical spaces.

Let us consider the spherical mean transform on the hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^n$, which is the unit ball with the metric $$ds^2= \frac{4}{(1-|x|^2)^2} dx^2.$$
The Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ on $\mathbb{H}^n$ is $\Delta = \frac{1}{4}(1-|x|^2)^{n} \nabla \left((1-|x|^2)^{2-n}\nabla \right)$. In terms of polar coordinates,\begin{equation} \label{E:Polar}\Delta = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+(n-1) \coth(r) \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \frac{1}{\sinh^2(r)} \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}.\end{equation} Here, $r=d_{\mathbb{H}^n}(x,0)$ and $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the Euclidean unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n-1} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ applying to the variable $\theta = \frac{x}{|x|}$.

The spherical mean transform $\mathcal{R}(f)$ of a function $f$ is characterized by (e.g., \cite{HelGeo}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:Darbh} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} [\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} +(n-1)  \coth(t) \frac{\partial}{\partial t}  -\Delta] G(x,t) =0, (x,t) \in \mathbb{H}^n \times \mathbb{R}_+.\\  G(x,0)=f(x),~ G_t(x,0) = 0,~ x \in \mathbb{H}^n. \end{array}\right. \end{eqnarray} Conversely, if $G(x,t) \in C^\infty(\mathbb{H}^n \times \overline{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ satisfies the above equation,  then $G(x,t) = \mathcal{R}(f)(x,t)$. Let us consider the decompositions\footnote{This is different from the decomposition (\ref{E:Decom}) on the Euclidean space.}:
\begin{eqnarray}  \label{E:Decomh} f(x) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{l=1}^{l_m} f_{ml}(r) Y^m_{l}(\theta),~ G(x, t) =\sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{l=1}^{l_m} g_{ml}(r,t) Y^m_{l}(\theta).\end{eqnarray}
Let us consider the operator $$\mathcal{D}_{m,r} = \frac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2} +(n-1) \coth(r) \frac{\partial}{\partial r} - \frac{m(m+n-2)}{\sinh^2 r}.$$
Since $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}} Y^m_l=-m(m+n-2) Y_l^m$, for any function $g=g(r)$: $$\Delta [g(r) Y_l^m(\theta)] = (\mathcal{D}_k g)(r) Y_l^m(\theta).$$
We obtain the following analog of equation (\ref{E:1dD}) in Section \ref{S:Intro}:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{E:1dDh} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} (\mathcal{D}_{0,t} - \mathcal{D}_{m,r}) g_{ml} (r,t)=0, \\  g_{ml} (r,0)=f_{ml} (r),~ \frac{\partial}{\partial r} g_{ml} (r,0)=0. \end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
This equation can be symmetrized by the operator $\mathcal{Q}_m= \Gamma_1...\Gamma_m$, where $\Gamma_{k} = \frac{\partial }{\partial r} + (n+k-2) \coth(r)$. Indeed, one can verify (see \cite{Constant}): $$\mathcal{Q}_m \mathcal{D}_{m,r} =\mathcal{D}_{0,r} \mathcal{Q}_m.$$
Due to (\ref{E:1dDh}), we obtain the symmetric equation for $\alpha(r,t) = \mathcal{Q}_m g_{ml}(r,t)$: \begin{eqnarray} \label{E:1dDhs}  (\mathcal{D}_{0,t} - \mathcal{D}_{0,r}) \alpha(r,t)=0. \end{eqnarray}
This equation provides a good tool to work with spherical mean transform on $\mathbb{H}^n$. For example, it was exploited in \cite{Constant} to characterize the functions $f$ such that $\partial^\alpha_x \mathcal{R}(f)(0,R)=0$ for a fixed $R>0$ and all multi-index $\alpha$.

For the spherical space $\mathbb{S}^n$, which is the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, the same argument as above works; except that one need to replace the hyperbolic trigonometric functions ($\cosh, \sinh, \coth, etc$) by the usual ones ($\cos,\sin,\cot,etc$).

Finally, we remark that one can use the same approach to investigate the ball transform (e.g., \cite{Volch-b}), instead of the spherical mean transform.

\section*{Appendix}
In this Appendix, we present the proofs of equation \ref{E:Qk} and Proposition \ref{P:DoD}.
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of equation \ref{E:Qk}}]
Let us recall that $$\mathcal{Q}_m = \prod_{i=0}^{m-1} \left(\frac{r}{n+2i} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)= \left(\frac{r}{n} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)\left(\frac{r}{n+2} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right)...\left(\frac{r}{n+2(m-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} +1 \right).$$ One could easily check:
\begin{eqnarray*} && \left(\frac{r}{n+2(k-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}  +1 \right)\mathcal{B}_{r,k} =\mathcal{B}_{r,k-1} \left(\frac{r}{n+2(k-1)} \frac{\partial}{\partial r}  +1 \right).\end{eqnarray*}
By induction, we obtain: $$\mathcal{Q}_m \mathcal{B}_{r,m} = \mathcal{B}_{r,0} \mathcal{Q}_m.$$ \end{proof}

\begin{proof}[\bf {Proof of Proposition \ref{P:DoD}}]
For $\varepsilon < r \leq r_0+\varepsilon$, let $$E(r) = \int\limits_{B(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} [|u_r(r,y)|^2 + |\nabla u(r,y)|^2] dy.$$
Then \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{d E(r)}{dr} &=& 2 \int\limits_{B(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} [u_r(r,y)u_{rr}(r,y) + \nabla u(r,y) \nabla u_r(r,y)] dy \\ &-&  \int\limits_{S(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} (|u_r(r,y)|^2 + |\nabla u(r,y)|^2) dy.\end{eqnarray*}
Taking integration by parts, we obtain \begin{eqnarray*} \frac{d E(r)}{dr} &=& 2 \int\limits_{B(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} [u_r(r,y)u_{rr}(r,y) - \Delta u(r,y) u_r(r,y)] dy \\ &-&  \int\limits_{S(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} \left[|u_r(r,y)|^2 -2 u_r(r,y) \partial_\nu u(r,y) + |\nabla u(r,y)|^2\right] dy.\end{eqnarray*}
Here, $\partial_\nu$ is the outer normal derivative on $S(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon-r)$. Since $|\partial_\nu u| \leq \|\nabla u\|$, the last integral is nonnegative. Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{d E(r)}{dr}  && \leq  2 \int\limits_{B(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon-r)} \left[u_r(r,y)u_{rr}(y,r) - \Delta u(r,y) u_r(r,y) \right] dy \\ && \leq 2 \int\limits_{B(y_0,r_0+\varepsilon -r)} \left[u_{rr}(r,y) + \frac{n+2m-1}{r} u_r(r,y) - \Delta u(r,y) \right] u_r(r,y) dy.\end{eqnarray*}
Due to equation (\ref{E:DG}), we obtain $\frac{d E(r)}{dt} \leq 0$ for all $\varepsilon < r \leq r_0+\varepsilon$. Since $E(\varepsilon) =0$, we obtain $E(r)=0$ for all $\varepsilon \leq r \leq r_0+\varepsilon$. This implies $u(r,y)=0$ for all $y \in B(y_0, r_0+\varepsilon -r)$. Equivalently, $u(r,y)=0$ for all $(r,y)$ such that $r \geq \varepsilon$ and $|y-y_0|+ r \leq r_0+\varepsilon$.  \end{proof}

\def\leavevmode\hbox to 0pt{\hskip.2ex \accent"16\hss}d{\leavevmode\hbox to 0pt{\hskip.2ex \accent"16\hss}d}