Strengthening Hadwiger's conjecture for $4$- and $5$-chromatic graphs

Abstract: Hadwiger's famous coloring conjecture states that every $t$-chromatic graph contains a $K_t$-minor. Holroyd [Bull. London Math. Soc. 29, (1997), pp. 139--144] conjectured the following strengthening of Hadwiger's conjecture: If $G$ is a $t$-chromatic graph and $S \subseteq V(G)$ takes all colors in every $t$-coloring of $G$, then $G$ contains a $K_t$-minor rooted at $S$. We prove this conjecture in the first open case of $t=4$. Notably, our result also directly implies a stronger version of Hadwiger's conjecture for $5$-chromatic graphs as follows: Every $5$-chromatic graph contains a $K_5$-minor with a singleton branch-set. In fact, in a $5$-vertex-critical graph we may specify the singleton branch-set to be any vertex of the graph.

\section{Introduction}

Given a graph $G$ and a number $t \in \mathbb{N}$, a \emph{$K_t$-minor} in $G$ is a collection $(B_i)_{i=1}^{t}$ of pairwise disjoint non-empty subsets of $V(G)$ such that $G[B_i]$ is connected for every $i \in [t]$ and for every distinct $i, j \in [t]$ the sets $B_i$ and $B_j$ are adjacent\footnote{Two subsets $A, B$ of the vertex-set $V(G)$ of a graph $G$ are called \emph{adjacent} if there exists an edge in $G$ with one endpoint in $A$ and one endpoint in $B$.} in $G$. The sets $B_1, \ldots,B_t$ are also called the \emph{branch-sets} of the $K_t$-minor.

Hadwiger's conjecture, among the most famous and difficult open problems in graph theory, states the following.

\begin{conjecture}[Hadwiger 1943~\cite{hadwiger}]
For every integer $t \ge 1$, every graph $G$ with $\chi(G)=t$ contains a $K_t$-minor.
\end{conjecture}

Hadwiger's conjecture was proved for $t \le 4$ by Hadwiger himself~\cite{hadwiger}, and also by Dirac~\cite{dirac}, while the case $t=5$ was shown to be equivalent to the Four-Color-Problem by Wagner~\cite{wagner}. Since Appel and Haken's proof of the Four-Color-Theorem~\cite{appelhaken1,appelhaken2} in 1976 and its later independent proof by Robertson, Sanders, Seymour and Thomas~\cite{robertson2}, Hadwiger's conjecture was known to hold for $t=5$. In a tour de force, in 1993 Robertson, Seymour and Thomas~\cite{robertson1} proved Hadwiger's conjecture for $t=6$ by reducing it to the Four-Color Theorem. All the cases $t \ge 7$ remain wide open as of today. Much of recent research has focused on asymptotic bounds for coloring graphs with no $K_t$-minor rather than on the precise version of the conjecture, and there has been some exciting progress in this direction recently~\cite{del,norin}. For further partial results on Hadwiger's conjecture and background, we refer the reader to the survey article~\cite{survey} by Seymour.

In this paper, we investigate a strengthening of Hadwiger's conjecture proposed by Holroyd~\cite{holroyd} in 1997. His stronger version of Hadwiger's conjecture concerns the containment of minors in graphs of given chromatic number that are \emph{rooted} at a particular set of vertices.
Rooted minors have received significant attention before, we refer to~\cite{demasi,ellen,rooted,hayashi,kriesell,kriesell2,marx,wollan} for a selection of results on rooted minors in graphs. Here we use the following definition: For a set $S \subseteq V(G)$, we say that a $K_t$-minor $(B_i)_{i=1}^{t}$ in $G$ is \emph{$S$-rooted} or \emph{rooted at $S$} if $B_i \cap S \neq \emptyset$ for all $i \in [t]$. A second notion we need to introduce before stating Holroyd's conjecture is that of \emph{colorful sets}. For a graph $G$ and $S \subseteq V(G)$ we say that $S$ is \emph{colorful} in $G$ if for every proper $\chi(G)$-coloring of $G$ there are vertices of all $\chi(G)$ colors contained in $S$.

A colorful set in a graph may be seen as a part of the graph that ``is hard to color''. In that sense, it is quite intuitive that one may hope to find a $K_t$-minor rooted at this part of the graph. This is exactly Holroyd's conjecture (named ``Strong Hadwiger's conjecture'' in~\cite{holroyd}):

\begin{conjecture}[Strong Hadwiger's conjecture, Holroyd 1997~\cite{holroyd}]
Let $G$ be a graph with $\chi(G)=t$, and let $S$ be a colorful set in $G$. Then $G$ contains an $S$-rooted $K_t$-minor.
\end{conjecture}

Holroyd proved his conjecture for $t \le 3$ in~\cite{holroyd}. Here, we take the next step and prove the Strong Hadwiger's conjecture for $t=4$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $G$ be a graph with $\chi(G)=4$ and let $S$ be a colorful set in $G$. Then $G$ contains an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor.
\end{theorem}

As was already noted by Holroyd (Theorem~2 in~\cite{holroyd}), the truth of the Strong Hadwiger's conjecture for a value $t$ implies the truth of Hadwiger's conjecture for the value $t+1$. Therefore, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} implies Hadwiger's conjecture for $t=5$. In fact, combining Holroyd's argument with Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we obtain a slight strengthening of Hadwiger's conjecture for $t=5$ as follows.

\begin{corollary}\noindent
\begin{itemize}
\item Every $5$-vertex-critical graph $G$ for every $v \in V(G)$ has a $K_5$-minor containing $\{v\}$ as a singleton branch-set.
\item Every $5$-chromatic graph contains a $K_5$-minor with a singleton branch-set.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}\noindent
\begin{itemize}
    \item Let $v \in V(G)$. Then by criticality of $G$ we have $\chi(G)=5, \chi(G-v)=4$. This implies that $N_G(v)$ is a colorful set in $G-v$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:main} there exists an $N_G(v)$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G-v$, and adding to it the branch-set $\{v\}$ yields the desired $K_5$-minor.
    \item This follows from the first item since every $5$-chromatic graph has a $5$-critical subgraph.
\end{itemize}

\end{proof}
\noindent To the best of our knowledge these strengthenings of Hadwiger's conjecture for $t=5$ are novel.

\medskip

\paragraph{\textbf{Organization and Outline.}} The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. In Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we prepare the proof by discussing a few results from the literature that will be needed in our proof. Most crucially, we will rely on a characterization for the existence of $K_4$-minors rooted at a set of four distinct vertices by Fabila-Monroy and Wood~\cite{rooted}. We then present our proof in Section~\ref{sec:proof}. A main part of the proof is to establish several properties of a smallest counterexample $G$ to Theorem~\ref{thm:main} in terms of connectivity and the distribution of the vertices in $S$ over the graph. In another step, these structural properties can then either be used to find the desired rooted $K_4$-minor directly, or to restrict the structure of $G$ to a planar graph (Lemma~\ref{lma:rootyness}). At this final stage, we invoke the Four-Color-Theorem to derive a $4$-coloring that shows that $S$ cannot be colorful and this yields the desired contradiction.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
In this section we state a few preliminary results from the literature that we will use in our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. The first is a precise characterization when a graph admits a $K_3$-minor rooted at $3$ given vertices due to Holroyd~\cite{holroyd} and Linusson and Wood~\cite{linusson}.
\begin{lemma}[Theorem~6 in~\cite{holroyd}, Lemma~5 in~\cite{linusson}]~\label{lemma:K3minor}
Let $G$ be a graph, and let $a,b,c \in V(G)$ be three distinct vertices. If for every vertex $v \in V(G)$ at least two of $a,b,c$ are in a common component of $G-v$, then there exists an $\{a,b,c\}$-rooted $K_3$-minor in $G$.
\end{lemma}

Second, we will need a result by Fabila-Monroy and Wood \cite{rooted} for characterising when a graph contains a $K_4$-minor rooted at four given verties $a,b,c,d$. Following the notation in~\cite{rooted}, given a graph $H$, we denote by $H^+$ a graph obtained from $H$ by, for each triangle $T$ in $H$, adding a disjoint (possibly empty) set of vertices $C_T$ to $H$, making them a clique and adjacent to the three vertices of the triangle $T$ in $H$ (the sets $C_T$ and $C_{T'}$ must be chosen disjoint for different triangles $T, T'$ in $H$). An $\{a, b, c, d\}$-web is a graph $H^+$ where $H$ has a planar embedding with outerface $\{a, b, c, d\}$ in some order, and such that every triangle in $H$ forms a face in this embedding. Fabila-Monroy and Wood~\cite{rooted} give a precise description of the edge-maximal graphs with no $K_4$-minor rooted at four specified vertices. Here, we will only need a weaker version of their main result.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:wood}
Let $G$ be a graph with four marked vertices $a,b,c,d$ such that $G$ contains no $\{a,b,c,d\}$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Then either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $G$ is a spanning subgraph of an $\{a,b,c,d\}$-web, or
\item there exist vertices $u,v \in V(G)$ such that $G-\{u,v\}$ has at least three distinct connected components.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem 15 in \cite{rooted}, $G$ is a spanning subgraph of a graph in one the classes $\mathcal{A}$-$\mathcal{F}$. Class $\mathcal{D}$ is precisely the $\{a,b,c,d\}$-webs in which case $(1)$ holds. It can be directly checked that all graphs in the remaining classes (and thus also their spanning subgraphs) have a $2$-separator as described in $(2)$.
\end{proof}

Throughout the proof we will use the following convenient (and standard) terminology to speak about separators in graphs:
A \emph{separation} of a graph is a tuple $(A,B)$ where $A, B$ are subsets of $V(G)$ with $A \cup B=V(G)$, such that $A \setminus B\neq \emptyset \neq B \setminus A$ and such that there are no edges in $G$ connecting a vertex in $A\setminus B$ to a vertex in $B \setminus A$. The \emph{order} of a separation is $|A \cap B|$, and $A\cap B$ is called the \emph{separator} of the separation $(A,B)$. It is easy to see that a graph is $k$-connected if and only if all its separations have order at least $k$. In the proof, we repeatedly use Menger's theorem for vertex-disjoint paths in the following two variants:

\begin{theorem}[Menger's theorem-set versions, cf. Theorem~3.3 in~\cite{diestel}]
Let $G$ be $k$-connected, $v \in V(G)$ and $A, B \subseteq V(G)$.
\begin{itemize}
    \item There are $\min\{k,|A|,|B|\}$ vertex-disjoint paths in $G$ each with endpoints in $A$ and $B$.
\item If $v\notin A$ then there are $\min\{k,|A|\}$ paths in $G$, each of them connecting $v$ to a vertex in $A$, and any two of them only sharing the vertex $v$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

We note that in the above statement as well as throughout the whole manuscript we allow paths to consist of single vertices (i.e., be of length $0$).

\section{The proof}\label{sec:proof}

For a $3$-connected graph $G$ and a subset $S \subseteq V(G)$ of vertices, we say that $S$ is \emph{spread out in $G$} if for every separation $(A,B)$ in $G$ of order $3$, it holds that $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset \neq S \setminus B$. The following auxiliary statement will be of crucical use in our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lma:rootyness}
Let $G$ be a $3$-connected graph, and let $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that $|S|\ge 4$ and $S$ is spread out in $G$. If $G$ contains no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor then the graph $G^a(S)$, obtained from $G$ by adding a new vertex and making it adjacent to every element of $S$, is planar.
\end{lemma}

We will prove Lemma \ref{lma:rootyness} by combining Theorem \ref{theorem:wood} with the following statement.
\begin{lemma}\label{lma:induction}
Let $G$ be a 3-connected graph, and let $S\subseteq V(G)$ be spread out in $G$ such that $G$ contains no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Then for any separation $(A, B)$ of order $3$ such that $|A\cap S|\geq 3$, it holds that $G[B]$ has a planar embedding with $A\cap B$ on the outerface.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lma:induction}]

We prove Lemma \ref{lma:induction} by induction on the size of $B$. Note that for any separation, we have $|B|\geq 4$. Moreover, for $|B|=4$, it is clear that such a planar embedding exists. Turning to the induction step, we fix any separation $(A, B)$ as above with $|B|\geq 5$, and assume the statement is true for any separation $(A', B')$ as above with $|B'|<|B|$. Furthermore, we pick some $S' \in \binom{A \cap S}{3}$.

\begin{claim}\label{claim:connected} $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ are connected.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}

By Menger's theorem, any $v\in A\setminus B$  is connected to $A\cap B$ in $G$ by three paths that pairwise only share $v$ as a common vertex. These paths are completely contained in $A$ as $A\cap B$ is a separator, so, in particular, $G[A]$ is connected. Similarly, any $v\in B\setminus A$ is connected to $A\cap B$ by three internally disjoint paths in $G$, so $G[B]$ is also connected.
\end{claimproof}
\begin{claim}\label{claim:cherryminor}
There exist enumerations $\{s_1, s_2, s_3\}=S'$ and $\{c_1, c_2, c_3\} = A\cap B$ and disjoint sets $A_1, A_2, A_3 \subseteq A$ such that $\{s_i, c_i\}\subseteq A_i$ and $G[A_i]$ is connected for each $i \in [3]$ and such that $A_2$ is adjacent to $A_1$ and $A_3$ in $G$.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
Since $G$ is $3$-connected, there exists three vertex-disjoint paths from $S'$ to $A\cap B$. Let $P_1, P_2, P_3$ be an ordering of the paths such that $\text{dist}_{G[A]}(V(P_1), V(P_2))+\text{dist}_{G[A]}(V(P_2), V(P_3))$ is minimized. Then letting $A_1 = V(P_1)$, $A_3=V(P_3)$ and $A_2$ equal the connected component of $G[A\setminus (V(P_1) \cup V(P_3))]$ containing $V(P_2)$, we obtain sets with the desired properties (by the minimality assumption a shortest path from $V(P_2)$ to $V(P_i)$ for $i \in \{1,3\}$ does not intersect $V(P_{4-i})$, certifying that $A_2$ is adjacent to $A_i$).
\end{claimproof}

We will below let $s_1, s_2, s_3$ and $c_1, c_2, c_3$ denote the orderings of the respective sets, as prescribed by Claim \ref{claim:cherryminor}

\begin{claim}\label{claim:cspread}
Let $X\subseteq B$ be such that $|X| \in \{1,2\}$. Any connected component of $G[B\setminus X]$ contains at least one of the vertices $c_1, c_2, c_3$.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
$G-X$ is connected by $3$-connectivity of $G$. Thus for any $v\in B\setminus X$ there exists a shortest path from $v$ to $(A\cap B)\setminus X$ in $G-X$. By minimality, this path is contained in $B$. Hence $v$ is in the same connected component of $G[B\setminus X]$ as the end-point of this path.
\end{claimproof}

\begin{claim}\label{claim:cutvertex} If $G[B]$ has a cut-vertex, then $G[B]$ has a planar embedding with $A\cap B$ on its outerface.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}

Let $x$ be a cut-vertex in $G[B]$. By Claim \ref{claim:cspread}, one of $c_1, c_2, c_3$ has to be in a connected component of $G[B\setminus \{x\}]$ that does not contain the other two vertices. We may w.l.o.g. assume that $c_1$ has this property. As each vertex in $G[B\setminus\{x,c_1\}]$ is in the same connected component as $c_2$ or $c_3$, it follows that $c_1$ is isolated in $G[B\setminus\{x\}]$, hence $x$ is the only neighbor of $c_1$ in $G[B]$.

It is straight-forward to see that $(A\cup \{c_1\}, B\setminus\{c_1\})$ is a separation in $G$ with separator $\{x, c_2, c_3\}$. By the induction hypothesis, $G[B\setminus\{c_1\}]$ has a planar embedding with $x, c_2, c_3$ on the outerface, which by adding $c_1$ to the outerface of the embedding and connecting it to $x$ can be extended to a planar embedding of $G[B]$ with $c_1,c_2,c_3$ on the outerface.

\end{claimproof}

It remains to consider the case where $G[B]$ is 2-connected and $|B|\geq 5$. For this we will use Theorem \ref{theorem:wood}.

Let $s_4 \in S\cap (B\setminus A)$ (such a vertex exists since $S$ is spread out in $G$). Observe that $G[B]$ has no $K_4$-minor rooted at $\{c_1, c_2, c_3, s_4\}$ as then using Claim \ref{claim:cherryminor} we could immediately extend it to a $K_4$-minor rooted at $S$ (replace any occurrence of a vertex $c_i$ in a branch-set by the connected set $A_i \supseteq \{s_i,c_i\}$ in $A$). Hence, $G[B]$ must satisfy either Cases $(1)$ or $(2)$ of Theorem \ref{theorem:wood}.

Let us first consider Case $(1)$. Then $G[B]$ is a spanning subgraph of a $\{c_1,c_2,c_3,s_4\}$-web $H^+$. Concretely, $H$ is a planar graph that admits a planar embedding with outerface $\{c_1,c_2,c_3,s_4\}$ (in some possibly permuted order) and such that every triangle $T$ in $H$ forms a face in this embedding. Further, for every triangle $T$ in $H$ there is a disjoint (possibly empty) set $C_T$ of vertices in $H^+$ such that $H^+$ is formed from $H$ by making $C_T$ a clique fully connected to the three vertices of $T$ for every triangle $T$.

Now note that for every triangle $T$ in $H$ for which $C_T \neq \emptyset$, we have that $(V(H),V(T) \cup C_T)$ forms a separation of order $3$ in $G[B]$ with separator $V(T)$. Further, $(A \cup V(H), V(T) \cup C_T)$ is a separation of order $3$ in the whole graph $G$. Since $H$ contains at least $4$ vertices, we have $|V(T) \cup C_T|<|B|$ for every triangle $T$ in $H$ and now the inductive assumption implies that $G[V(T) \cup C_T]$ admits a planar embedding with $V(T)$ on its outerface, for every triangle $T$ in $H$. It is now easy to see that we can take the planar embedding of $H$ as prescribed above, and for each triangular face $T$ with $C_T \neq \emptyset$ glue into it an embedding of $G[V(T) \cup C_T]$ with $V(T)$ on its outerface, to overall reach a planar embedding with $c_1,c_2,c_3$ (and in fact also $s_4$) on its outerface. After deleting some edges from this embedding we reach a planar embedding of $G[B]$ with $c_1,c_2,c_3$ on the outerface. This is the desired outcome and concludes the proof in this case.

It only remains to consider Case $(2)$. By Claims \ref{claim:connected} and \ref{claim:cutvertex} we may assume that $G[B]$ is $2$-connected. Let $\{x, y\} \subseteq B$ be the prescribed cut such that $G[B\setminus \{x,y\}]$ has at least $3$ distinct connected components. As by Claim \ref{claim:cspread}, any connected component of $G[B\setminus\{x,y\}]$ contains a vertex among $c_1, c_2, c_3$, we conclude that $G[B\setminus\{x,y\}]$ has exactly three connected components $C_1, C_2, C_3$ where we may w.l.o.g. assume $c_i\in C_i$ for $i=1, 2, 3$.

To conclude the induction proof, we will show that these assumptions are sufficient to find branch sets $c_1\in B_1, c_2\in B_2, c_3\in B_3, s_4\in B_4 \subseteq B$ such that any pair of sets except for possibly $B_2$ and $B_3$ are adjacent. Combining this with Claim \ref{claim:cherryminor}, this would imply the existence of an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor (with branch-sets $A_1 \cup B_1, A_2 \cup B_2, A_3 \cup B_3$ and $B_4$), hence concluding the proof.

As $G[B]$ is $2$-connected, there exist for each $i=1, 2, 3$ two internally disjoint paths $P_i, Q_i$ in $G[B]$ with endpoints $c_i, x$ and $c_i, y$, respectively. Then as $\{x, y\}$ separates $C_i$ from the rest of $B$, we must have $V(P_i), V(Q_i) \subseteq C_i\cup \{x, y\}$. Let $X:=\bigcup_{i=1}^{3}{(V(P_i)\setminus \{c_i\})}$ and $Y:=\bigcup_{i=1}^{3}{(V(Q_i)\setminus \{c_i\})}$. Note that $G[X]$ and $G[Y]$ are connected. If $s_4$ is already contained in either $X$ or $Y$, let us w.l.o.g. assume $X$, then $B_1=\{c_1\}\cup Y, B_2 = \{c_2\}, B_3=\{c_3\}$ and $B_4=X$ are vertex sets with the desired properties. Otherwise $s_4$ is contained in some component $C_i$. Note that by choice of $s_4$ it is distinct from $c_i$. Let $P$ be a shortest path from $s_4$ to $X\cup Y$ in $G[B\setminus\{c_i\}]$. Such a path exists as $G[B]$ is $2$-connected. Let us, w.l.o.g., assume that the end-point of $P$ is in $X$. Then similar to before $B_1=\{c_1\}\cup Y, B_2 = \{c_2\}, B_3=\{c_3\}$ and $B_4=X\cup V(P)$ have the desired properties. This concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{lma:induction}.
\end{proof}

Before giving the proof of Lemma~\ref{lma:rootyness} it will be useful to observe the following simple statement about planar graphs.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:kuratowski}
Let $G$ be a planar graph and let $S \subseteq V(G)$ be a set with $|S|\ge 4$. Suppose that for every choice of vertices $s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4 \in S$ there is a planar embedding of $G$ in which $s_1,\ldots,s_4$ are on the boundary of the outerface. Then the graph $G^a(S)$, obtained from $G$ by adding a new vertex whose neighbors are the elements of $S$, is planar.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We claim that for every 4-subset $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\} \subseteq S$, the graph $G^a(s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4)$, obtained by adding a new vertex to $G$ with neighborhood $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}$, is planar. Indeed, given a planar embedding with $s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4$ on the outerface, we can simply embed the new vertex in the outerface and preserve a planar embedding. Now, suppose towards a contradiction that $G^a(S)$ is non-planar. By Kuratowksi's theorem, this means that $G^a(S)$ contains a subdivision of $K_5$ or of $K_{3,3}$. Fix one such subdivision of a Kuratowski graph. It is a subgraph of $G^a(S)$ of maximum degree at most $4$. But then it has to be also contained in a graph $G^a(s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4)$ for some $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\} \subseteq S$, a contradiction, since the latter graph is planar.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lma:rootyness}.]
Take any four vertices $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4\in S.$ By Theorem \ref{theorem:wood} it follows that if there is no $K_4$-minor rooted at these four vertices, then as $G$ is $3$-connected it must satisfy Case $(2)$ with $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$ on the outerface. Concretely, $G$ is a spanning subgraph of an $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}$-web $H^+$. This means $H$ is a graph with a planar embedding with outerface $\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}$ (in some order) and every triangle $T$ in $H$ forms a face in this embedding. Further, for every triangle $T$ in $H$ there is a disjoint set $C_T$ of vertices in $H^+$ such that $H^+$ is formed from $H$ by making $C_T$ a clique fully connected to the three vertices of $T$ for every triangle $T$. Since for every triangle $T$ in $H$ we have that $(V(H),V(T) \cup C_T)$ forms a $3$-separation in $G$, by applying Lemma \ref{lma:induction} we find for every triangle $T$ in $H$ a planar embedding of $G[V(T)\cup C_T]$ with $V(T)$ on the outerface. Hence, by taking the prescribed planar embedding of $H$ and glueing for every triangle $T$ a planar embedding of $G[V(T) \cup C_T]$ as above into the corresponding face, we find a planar embedding of a supergraph of $G$ that has $s_1, s_2, s_3, s_4$ on the outerface. This yields a planar embedding also of $G$ with $s_1,\ldots,s_4$ on the outerface.

Since our choice of $s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4$ was arbitrary, Lemma~\ref{lemma:kuratowski} implies that $G^a(S)$ is planar.
\end{proof}

Equipped with Lemma~\ref{lma:rootyness} we can now present the proof of our main result.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
We prove the theorem by contradiction. Suppose (reductio ad absurdum) that a graph $G$ is a smallest counterexample (in terms of $|V(G)|$). Then $\chi(G)=4$, and there is a colorful set $S$ of vertices in $G$ such that $G$ contains no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor. We start by establishing some simple facts concerning the connectivity of $G$.
\begin{claim}
$G$ is connected.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
Suppose not, then there exists a partition $(A,B)$ of $V(G)$ with $A, B \neq \emptyset$ such that no edge in $G$ connects $A$ and $B$. Then $\chi(G[A]), \chi(G[B]) \le 4$ and $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ respectively do not contain a $K_4$-minor rooted at $S \cap A$ and $S \cap B$ respectively. By minimality of $G$, there exist proper $4$-colorings $c_A:A \rightarrow [4]$ and $c_B:B \rightarrow [4]$ such that $S \cap A$ does not contain all $4$ colors in $c_A$, and $S \cap B$ does not contain all $4$ colors in $c_B$. By permuting colors we may assume w.l.o.g. that $c_A(S \cap A) \subseteq \{2,3,4\}$ and $c_B(S \cap B) \subseteq \{2,3,4\}$. But then putting together $c_A$ and $c_B$ yields a proper coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$, a contradiction to $S$ being colorful.
\end{claimproof}
\begin{claim}
$G$ is $2$-connected.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
Towards a contradiction, suppose there exists a separation $(A,B)$ of $G$ of order $|A \cap B|=1$. Write $A \cap B=\{v\}$. Clearly, $\chi(G[A]), \chi(G[B]) \le 4$.

Suppose first that $S \cap A =\emptyset$ or $S \cap B=\emptyset$. By symmetry, we may assume w.l.o.g. that the latter holds, i.e. $S \subseteq A\setminus B$. Then $G[A]$ contains no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor, hence there is a proper $4$-coloring $c_A:A \rightarrow [4]$ of $G[A]$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$. Let $c_B:B \rightarrow [4]$ be a proper $4$-coloring of $G$. Possibly after permuting colors in $c_B$ we have $c_A(v)=c_B(v)$, and then the common extension of $c_A$ and $c_B$ to $G$ forms a proper $4$-coloring in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$, a contradiction.

Moving, suppose that $S \cap A \neq\emptyset \neq  S \cap B$. We claim that $G[A]$ does not contain an $(S \cap A) \cup \{v\}$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Indeed, if $G[A \cup \{v\}]$ contains a $K_4$-minor $(B_i)_{i=1}^{4}$ rooted at $(S \cap A) \cup \{v\}$, then one of the branch-sets must contain $v$ (for otherwise $(B_i)_{i=1}^{4}$ is an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$), say $v \in B_1$. By connectivity, there exists a path $P$ in $G$ connecting $v$ to a vertex in $S \cap B$, and $V(P) \subseteq B$. Then $(B_1 \cup V(P), B_2, B_3, B_4)$ form the branch-set of an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. The symmetric argument works to show that $G[B]$ contains no $(S \cap B) \cup \{v\}$-rooted $K_4$-minor.

By minimality of $G$, it follows that there exist proper $4$-colorings $c_A:A \rightarrow [4]$ of $G_A$ and $c_B:B \rightarrow [4]$ of $G_B$ such that $(S \cap A) \cup \{v\}$ and $(S \cap B) \cup \{v\}$ do not contain a vertex of color $1$. Then $c_A(v) \neq 1 \neq c_B(v)$, and by applying a suitable $1$-invariant permutation of the colors in $c_B$ we may assume w.l.o.g. that $c_A(v)=c_B(v)$. Now, the common extension of $c_A$ and $c_B$ is a proper coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$, a contradiction.
\end{claimproof}
\begin{claim}
$G$ is $3$-connected.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
Suppose not, then there exists a separation $(A,B)$ of $G$ of order $|A \cap B|=2$. Write $A \cap B=\{u,v\}$. Let us fix (arbitrarily) a proper coloring $c:V(G)\rightarrow [4]$ of $G$. We now consider two cases depending on the distribution of $S$ on the two sides $A$ and $B$ of the separation.

\medskip
\textbf{Case 1.} $|S \cap A| \ge 2$ and $|S \cap B| \ge 2$. Since $G$ is $2$-connected, by Menger's theorem there exist two vertex-disjoint paths $P_u^A, P_v^A$ in $G$ starting in $S \cap A$ and ending at $u, v$ respectively. Similarly, there exist two disjoint paths $P_u^B, P_v^B$ starting at $S \cap B$ and ending at $u$ and $v$ respectively. Clearly, the paths $P_u^A, P_v^A$ are fully contained in $G[A]$ and the paths $P_u^B, P_v^B$ are fully contained in $G[B]$. Since $G$ is $2$-connected, it is easy to see that $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ are connected graphs, for otherwise $u$ or $v$ would form a cut-vertex of $G$. This implies that there exists a path $P^A$ in $G[A]$ and a path $P^B$ in $G[B]$ such that $P^A$ has endpoints $p_u^A \in V(P_u^A)$ and $p_v^A \in V(P_v^A)$, while $P^B$ has endpoints $p_u^B \in V(P_u^B)$ and $p_v^B \in V(P_v^B)$. W.l.o.g. (by choosing shortest paths) we may assume $V(P_u^A) \cap V(P^A)=\{p_u^A\}, V(P_v^A) \cap V(P^A)=\{p_v^A\}$ and $V(P_u^B) \cap V(P^B)=\{p_u^B\}, V(P_v^B) \cap V(P^B)=\{p_v^B\}$. It is then easy to see that the sets $(V(P_u^A), V(P_v^A) \cup (V(P^A)\setminus\{p_u^A\}))$ form a $K_2$-minor in $G[A]$ rooted at $u,v$ and at $S$, and similarly $(V(P_u^B), V(P_v^B) \cup (V(P^B)\setminus\{p_u^B\}))$ form a $K_2$-minor in $G[B]$ rooted at $u,v$ and at $S$.

Consider first the case that $c(u) \neq c(v)$. Then we define $G_A, G_B$ as the graphs obtained from $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ respectively by adding an edge between $u$ and $v$ (if it does not already exist). Since $c$ induces proper colorings on $G_A$ and $G_B$, we have $\chi(G_A), \chi(G_B) \le 4$. Let us further define $S_A:=(S \cap A) \cup \{u,v\}, S_B:=(S \cap B) \cup \{u,v\}$. We claim that $G_A$ contains no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Indeed, if $G_A$ were to contain an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor, then replacing every occurrence of $u$ or $v$ in one of its branch-sets by the sets $V(P_u^B)$ or $V(P_v^B) \cup (V(P^B)\setminus\{p_u^B\})$ in $G$ respectively would yield an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. A symmetric argument shows that $G_B$ contains no $S_B$-rooted $K_4$-minor.

The above facts, $|V(G_A)|, |V(G_B)|<|V(G)|$ and the minimality assumption on $G$ now imply that there exist proper colorings $c_A:V(G_A) \rightarrow [4]$ of $G_A$ and $c_B:V(G_B)\rightarrow [4]$ of $G_B$ such that no vertex in $S_A$ receives color $1$ in $G_A$ and no vertex in $S_B$ receives color $1$ in $G_B$. In particular, $c_A(u), c_A(v)$ are distinct and not equal to $1$, and the same is true for $c_B(u), c_B(v)$. Hence, after applying a $1$-invariant permutation of $[4]$ that maps $c_B(u)$ to $c_A(u)$ and $c_B(v)$ to $c_A(v)$, we may assume w.l.o.g. that $c_A(u)=c_B(u), c_A(v)=c_B(v)$. Now, the common extension of $c_A$ and $c_B$ to $V(G)$ forms a proper coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$. This is a contradiction to $S$ being colorful and shows that the case $c(u) \neq c(v)$ cannot occur.

Next, suppose that $c(u)=c(v)$. Then we define $G_A$ and $G_B$ as the graphs obtained from $G[A]$ and $G[B]$ by identifying $u$ and $v$ into a new vertex $x_{uv}$, and define $S_A:=S \cup \{x_{uv}\}$ and $S_B:=S \cup \{x_{uv}\}$. Similar to the previous case we claim that $G_A$ contains no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Indeed, if it did, then possibly after replacing the occurence of the vertex $x_{uv}$ in one of the four branch-sets with the set $V(P_u^B) \cup V(P^B) \cup V(P_v^B)$ in $G$ yields the four branch-sets of an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. A symmetric argument shows that $G_B$ contains no $S_B$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Note that $c$ induces a proper $4$-coloring on both $G_A$ and $G_B$, so that $\chi(G_A), \chi(G_B) \le 4$. These facts imply (using the minimality of $G$ and that $G_A$ and $G_B$ are smaller than $G$) the existence of proper $[4]$-colorings $c_A, c_B$of $G_A$ and $G_B$ respectively in which no vertex in $S_A$ and $S_B$ respectively gets assigned color $1$. In particular, this means $c_A(x_{uv}) \neq 1 \neq c_B(x_{uv})$. Hence (possibly after applying a $1$-invariant permutation of the color-set $[4]$ in $c_B$ that maps $c_B(x_{uv})$ to $c_A(x_{uv})$) we may assume w.l.o.g. that $c_A(x_{uv})=c_B(x_{uv})$. It is now easy to see that $c^\ast:V(G)\rightarrow [4]$ defined by $c^\ast(u):=c^\ast(v):=c_A(x_{uv})$, $c^\ast(x):=c_A(x)$ for $x \in A \setminus \{u,v\}$, $c^\ast(x):=c_B(x)$ for $x \in B \setminus \{u,v\}$, forms a proper $4$-coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ gets assigned color $1$. This yields a contradiction to the fact that $S$ is colorful and hence shows that also the case $c(u)=c(v)$ is impossible. All in all, we conclude that Case~1 cannot occur.

\medskip
\textbf{Case 2.} $|S \cap A|\le 1$ or $|S \cap B| \le 1$. W.l.o.g. we assume $|S \cap B|\le 1$ in the following. We denote by $P$ a path in $G[B]$ connecting $u$ and $v$ (such a path must exist, since $G$ is $2$-connected). Furthermore, if $S \setminus A\neq \emptyset$, that is, $S \cap B=\{s\}$ for some $S \in B \setminus A$, then by $2$-connectivity of $G$ and Menger's theorem there exist two internally disjoint paths in $G$ connecting $s$ to $u$ and $v$, which we denote by $P_u$ and $P_v$ respectively. Clearly, $P_u$ and $P_v$ have to be entirely contained in $G[B]$.

Moving on, let us first consider the case $c(u)=c(v)$. Let $G_A$ be the graph obtained from $G[A]$ by identifying $u$ and $v$ into a single vertex $x_{uv}$. Note that $c$ induces a proper $4$-coloring on $G_A$, and so $\chi(G_A) \le 4$. We furthermore define a set $S_A$ of vertices in $G_A$ as $S_A:=S$ if $S \cap B=\emptyset$ and $S_A:=S \cup \{x_{uv}\}$ if $S \cap B \neq \emptyset$. We claim that $G_A$ does not contain an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor. In the case $S \subseteq A$, this follows since the occurrence of $x_{uv}$ in any branch-set of an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G_A$ can be replaced by the full set $V(P)$ in $G$, which would result in an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. Similarly, in the case $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$ the occurrence of $x_{uv}$ in a branch-set of an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G_A$ can be replaced by the set $V(P_1) \cup V(P_2)$ in $G$, again resulting in an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. Hence, $G_A$ is $4$-colorable, contains no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor and is smaller than $G$. By minimality of $G$ there must exist a proper coloring $c_A:V(G_A) \rightarrow [4]$ in which no vertex in $S_A$ receives color $1$. Let $\pi \in S_4$ be a permutation with $\pi(c(u))=\pi(c(v))=c_A(x_{uv})$ and such that $\pi(s) \neq 1$ in the case that $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$. The existence of such a $\pi$ in can be seen as follows: Either we have $c(s)=c(u)=c(v)$, in which any choice of $\pi$ with $\pi(c(u))=\pi(c(v))=c_A(x_{uv})$ automatically satisfies $\pi(c(s))=c_A(x_{uv})\neq 1$, since $x_{uv} \in S_A$ by definition. And otherwise if $c(s) \neq c(u)=c(v)$, we have enough freedom to choose $\pi$ such that it maps $c(u)=c(v)$ to $c_A(x_{uv})$ and $c(s)$ to an element distinct from $1$.
Having found the permutation $\pi$, we can see that the coloring $c^\ast$ of $G$, defined by $c^\ast(x):=c_A(x)$ if $x \in A \setminus B$, and $c^\ast(x):=\pi(c(x))$ if $x \in B$, forms a proper coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$. This is a contradiction to $S$ being colorful and shows that the subcase $c(u)=c(v)$ cannot occur.

Next, let us consider the case $c(u) \neq c(v)$. We let $G_A$ be the graph obtained from $G[A]$ by adding an edge between $u$ and $v$ (if it not already exists). Given our assumption on $c$, we have $\chi(G_A) \le 4$. We define a set $S_A\subseteq V(G)$ as follows: If $S \subseteq A$, then $S_A:=S$. If $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$, then we define $S_A:=S \setminus \{s\}$ if $c(s) \notin \{c(u),c(v)\}$, $S_A:=(S \setminus \{s\}) \cup \{u\}$ if $c(s)=c(u)$ and $S_A:=(S \setminus \{s\}) \cup \{v\}$ if $c(s)=c(v)$. We claim that in each case, $G_A$ does not contain an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Suppose towards a contradiction such a rooted minor $(B_i)_{i=1}^4$ exists in $G_A$. If $S \subseteq A$ or $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$ and $c(s) \notin \{c(u),c(v)\}$, then $S_A \subseteq S$, so that we can replace any branch-set $B_i$ containing $u$ by the set $B_i \cup (V(P)\setminus \{v\})$ to obtain an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$.
If $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$ and $c(s)=c(u)$, we replace any branch-set $B_i$ containing $u$ by $B_i \cup (V(P_1) \cup V(P_2))\setminus \{v\}$ to obtain an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$. Finally, if $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$ and $c(s)=c(v)$, we replace any branch-set $B_i$ containing $v$ by $B_i \cup ((V(P_1) \cup V(P_2))\setminus \{u\})$ to obtain an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$.
As an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$ does not exist by initial assumption, we find that there is indeed no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G_A$. Using the minimality of $G$ we conclude the existence of a proper $4$-coloring $c_A:V(G_A) \rightarrow [4]$ of $G_A$ in which no vertex in $S_A$ receives color $1$. Note that $c_A(u)\neq c_A(v)$. Let $\pi:[4]\rightarrow [4]$ be a permutation such that $\pi(c(u))=c_A(u), \pi(c(v))=c_A(v)$ and $\pi(c(s)) \neq 1$ in the case $S\setminus A \neq \emptyset$. The existence of $\pi$ can be easily seen as follows: If $S \subseteq A$, this is obvious, as we just have to map two distinct colors to a set of two other distinct colors. If $S \setminus A \neq \emptyset$ and $c(s) \notin \{c(u),c(v)\}$, we can use the range of $4$ colors to map $c(u)$ to $c_A(u)$, $c(v)$ to $c_A(v)$ and $c(s)$ to an element of $[4]\setminus\{1,c_A(u),c_A(v)\}$. If $S\setminus A \neq \emptyset$ and $c(s)=c(u)$, then $u \in S_A$ ensures that $\pi(c(s))=\pi(c(u))=c_A(u)\neq 1$ for any $\pi$ that maps $c(u)$ to $c_A(u)$ and $c(v)$ to $c_A(v)$. A symmetric argument works in the case $c(s)=c(v)$.

Having found the permutation $\pi$, consider the $[4]$-coloring $c^\ast$ of $G$ defined as $c^\ast(x):=c_A(x)$ if $x \in A \setminus B$, and $c^\ast(x):=\pi(c(x))$ if $x \in B$. This coloring is proper and no vertex in $S$ is assigned color $1$. Again, this contradicts $S$ being colorful and shows that also the assumption $c(u)\neq c(v)$ leads to a contradiction.

Since both assumptions on the colors of $u$ and $v$ eventually yield a contradiction, we conclude that Case~2 cannot occur.

\medskip
We found that neither Case~1 nor Case~2 is feasible. Thus our initial assumption on the existence of a separation of order $2$ in $G$ must have been wrong. $G$ is a $3$-connected graph.
\end{claimproof}

\begin{claim}
$S$ is spread out in $G$.
\end{claim}
\begin{claimproof}
Towards a contradiction, suppose there exists a separation $(A,B)$ in $G$ of order $3$ such that $S \subseteq A$.

Suppose first that $|B \setminus A|=1$. Writing $B \setminus A=\{x\}$, we can see that all neighbors of the vertex $x$ in $G$ are members of the separator $A \cap B$ of size $3$. Hence $x$ has degree at most $3$ in $G$. By initial assumption on $(A,B)$, we have $x \notin S$. Now, consider the graph $G-x$. By minimality of $G$, there exists a proper $[4]$-coloring of $G-x$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$. We may extend this to a proper coloring of $G$ by picking a color for $x$ that does not appear on its neighborhood. In this coloring of $G$ still no vertex in $S$ receives color $1$, contradicting that $S$ is colorful.

Next, suppose $|B \setminus A|\ge 2$. Write $\{d_1,d_2,d_3\}=A \cap B$ for the vertices in the separator induced by $(A,B)$. Note that since $G$ is $3$-connected, by Menger's theorem for every $b \in B \setminus A$ there exist $3$ internally disjoint paths connecting $b$ to $d_1, d_2$ and $d_3$ respectively. Clearly, these paths have to be fully contained in $G[B]$. We now claim that for every vertex $v \in B$, at least two of $d_1,d_2,d_3$ are contained together in a common connected component of $G[B]-v$. Indeed, pick a vertex $b \in (B\setminus A)\setminus\{v\}$. Since $b$ is connected to $d_1,d_2,d_3$ by three internally disjoint paths in $G[B]$, at least two of these paths still exist in $G[B]-v$ and thus certify that their endpoints in $\{d_1,d_2,d_3\}$ are contained in a common connected component of $G[B]-v$. Now Lemma~\ref{lemma:K3minor} implies the existence of a $K_3$-minor in $G[B]$ rooted at $A \cap B$. Let $(D_i)_{i=1}^{3}$ be the branch-sets of such a rooted $K_3$-minor in $G[B]$ with $d_i \in D_i, i=1,2,3$.

Moving on, fix any proper $4$-coloring $c:V(G) \rightarrow [4]$ of $G$. W.l.o.g. (possibly after relabelling colors and vertices) we may assume that one of the following three cases holds: (1) $c(d_1)=c(d_2)=c(d_3)=1$, (2) $c(d_1)=c(d_2)=1, c(d_3)=2$, (3) $c(d_1)=1, c(d_2)=2, c(d_3)=3$.

\medskip
\textbf{Case 1.} $c(d_1)=c(d_2)=c(d_3)=1$. Let $G_A$ be defined as the graph obtained from $G[A]$ by identifying $d_1, d_2, d_3$ into a single vertex $d_A$. Let $S_A \subseteq V(G_A)$ be defined as $S_A:=S$ if $S \cap \{d_1,d_2,d_3\}=\emptyset$ and $S_A:=S \cup \{d_A\}$ if $S \cap \{d_1,d_2,d_3\} \neq \emptyset$. Note that $c$ induces a proper $4$-coloring of $G_A$ by assigning color $1$ to $d_A$. Further, $G_A$ contains no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor: Towards a contradiction, suppose that $(B_i)_{i=1}^{4}$ form branch-sets of an $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G_A$. Then either $d_A \notin \bigcup_{i=1}^{4}{B_i}$ and then $(B_i)_{i=1}^{4}$ form an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction. Otherwise, we have $d_A \in B_i$ for some $i \in [4]$ (w.l.o.g. $d_A \in B_1$) and then $((B_1\setminus \{d_A\}) \cup D_1 \cup D_2 \cup D_3, B_2, B_3, B_4)$ are easily seen to form the branch-sets of an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, again, a contradiction.
The facts that $\chi(G_A)\le 4$, that $G_A$ contains no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor, that $|V(G_A)|<|V(G)|$ and the minimality assumption on $G$ now imply that $G_A$ admits a proper $4$-coloring $c_A:V(G_A)\rightarrow [4]$ such that no vertex in $S_A$ receives color $j$, for some $j \in [4]$. Possibly after permuting colors we may assume w.l.o.g. that $c_A(d_A)=1$. But then the coloring $c^\ast:V(G)\rightarrow [4]$ defined by $c^\ast(x):=c_A(x)$ for every $x \in A \setminus B$ and $c^\ast(x):=c(x)$ for every $x \in B$ forms a proper $4$-coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $j$, a contradiction to $S$ being colorful. This shows that Case~1 cannot occur.

\medskip
\textbf{Case 2.}
$c(d_1)=c(d_2)=1, c(d_3)=2$. In this case, we define $G_A$ as the graph obtained from $G[A]$ by identifying only $d_1$ and $d_2$ into a new vertex $d_A$ and adding an edge between $d_A$ and $d_3$ (if it does not already exist). Again it is easy to see that the coloring $c$ induces a proper $4$-coloring of $G_A$ by assigning color $1$ to $d_A$. Let $S_A:=S$ if $S \cap \{d_1,d_2\}=\emptyset$ and $S_A:=S \cup \{d_A\}$ otherwise. We claim that there is no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G_A$. Towards a contradiction, suppose such a minor would be described by branch-sets $(B_i)_{i=1}^{4}$.
For each $i \in [4]$, set
$$B_i^\ast:=\begin{cases}B_i, & \text{if }B_i \cap \{d_A,d_3\}=\emptyset, \cr (B_i\setminus \{d_A\}) \cup (D_1 \cup D_2), & \text{if }B_i \cap \{d_A,d_3\}=\{d_A\}, \cr (B_i\setminus \{d_3\}) \cup D_3, & \text{if }B_i \cap \{d_A,d_3\}=\{d_3\}, \cr (B_i\setminus \{d_A,d_3\}) \cup (D_1 \cup D_2 \cup D_3), & \text{if } B_i \supseteq \{d_A,d_3\}
\end{cases}.$$  It is then easy to see that $(B_i^\ast)_{i=1}^{4}$ form an $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor in $G$, a contradiction.

Given that $G_A$ is a $4$-colorable graph with no $S_A$-rooted $K_4$-minor which is smaller than $G$, there must exist a proper $4$-coloring $c_A:V(G_A)\rightarrow [4]$ of $G_A$ such that for some $j \in [4]$ no vertex in $S_A$ receives color $j$. Since necessarily $c_A(d_A) \neq c_A(d_3)$ in this coloring, we may assume w.l.o.g. (possibly after permuting colors) that $c_A(d_A)=1, c_A(d_3)=2$. But then it is easy to see that $c^\ast:V(G) \rightarrow [4]$, defined by $c^\ast(x):=c_A(x)$ for every $x \in A\setminus B$ and $c^\ast(x):=c(x)$ for every $x \in B$ forms a proper coloring of $G$ such that no vertex in $S$ receives color $j$. This is a contradiction to $S$ being colorful and shows that also Case~2 cannot occur.

\medskip
\textbf{Case 3.} $c(d_1)=1, c(d_2)=2, c(d_3)=3$. In this final case we define a graph $G_A$ on the vertex set $A$ simply by adding all the three edges $d_1d_2, d_1d_3,d_2d_3$ to $G[A]$ (if they do not exist already). Since $c$ induces a proper coloring also with the added edges, we have $\chi(G_A)\le 4$. We further claim that $G_A$ has no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor. Indeed if it did, then we could easily obtain a $K_4$-minor rooted at $S$ in $G$ by replacing each occurrence of a vertex $d_i$ in one of its branch-sets by the full set $D_i\subseteq B$ in $G$. Hence, and by minimality of $G$, we find that there is a proper $[4]$-coloring $c_A$ of $G_A$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $j$, for some $j \in [4]$. Since $c_A(d_1),c_A(d_2),c_A(d_3)$ have to be pairwise different, we may assume w.l.o.g. $c_A(d_i)=i$ for $i=1,2,3$. However, then clearly the coloring $c^\ast$ of $G$ which is the common extension of $c_A$ and the restriction of $c$ to $B$ is a proper $[4]$-coloring of $G$ in which no vertex in $S$ receives color $j$. This again is a contradiction to our assumption that $S$ is colorful in $G$. Thus, Case~3 cannot occur as well.

As we have reached contradictions in all $3$ cases, we conclude that our initial assumption on the existence of a $3$-separation $(A,B)$ with $S \subseteq A$ was wrong. This proves the claim, $S$ is indeed spread out.
\end{claimproof}

Having established that $G$ is a $3$-connected graph and $S$ is spread out in $G$ in the previous claims, and since $G$ has no $S$-rooted $K_4$-minor by assumption, we now may apply Lemma~\ref{lma:rootyness} to $G$ (note that $|S|\ge 4$ holds trivally, for otherwise $S$ is not colorful). We thus find that $G^a(S)$ (the graph obtained from $G$ by adding a new vertex adjacent to all elements of $S$) is planar. But then the $4$-color theorem guarantees the existence of a proper $4$-coloring of $G^a(S)$. Then in the induced proper $4$-coloring of $G$, no vertex in $S$ can have the color assigned to the additional vertex in $G^a(S)$. This is a contradiction to $S$ being colorful. This contradiction shows that our initial assumption on the existence of a smallest counterexample $G$ was wrong, and concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
\end{proof}


Every point in a Riemmanian manifold is critical

Abstract: We show that for any point $p$ in a closed Riemannian manifold $M$, there exists at least one point $q\in M$ such that $p$ is critical for the distance function from $q$. We also show that such a point $q$ cannot always be reached with geodesic loops based at $q$ with midpoint $p$.

\section{Main results}
Critical point theory has been of central importance in many areas of mathematics. In Riemannian geometry, however, the most natural functions are distance functions and, due to their possible lack of differentiability at the cut locus, it was not clear for some time what a critical point should be. This situation was corrected in \cite{GroShio}, where a point $p$ in a Riemannian manifold $M$ was considered to be \emph{critical} for $q$ if the set of tangent vectors  to minimal geodesics connecting $q$ to $p$ forms a $\pi/2$-net  at the unit tangent sphere at $p$.

The surveys \cite{Chee} and \cite{Gro}, as well as \cite[Chapter 11]{Pet}, make plain the importance of critical point theory for distance functions and  its use in giving unified conceptual proofs of many of the main results in Riemannian geometry. Nevertheless, it is rare to see critical points studied by themselves. An exception to this is \cite{BIVZ}, where the authors prove that any point $p$  in a closed Alexandrov surface has to be critical for some point $q$. The purpose of this note is to give a short proof of this fact  for closed Riemannian manifolds of arbitrary dimension. Our proof, however, does not carry over to Alexandrov spaces.

\begin{theorem}
\label{T:Smooth}
Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. Then, for any point $p\in M$, there exists at least one point $q\in M$ such that $p$ is critical for the distance function from $q$.
\end{theorem}
Observe that this theorem is no longer true in the non-compact case. For example, in Euclidean space no point is critical for any point.  A naive approach  to proving Theorem~\ref{T:Smooth} would be to look for the point $q$ among the points at maximal distance from $p$. This, however, fails, as  shown for the surface of revolution in Figure~\ref{F:Ellipsoid}. The point $q$ farthest away from $p$  is critical for the distance function from $p$ but, clearly, $q$ is not critical for $p$, as pointed out to us by J.~Itoh.

\begin{figure}
\label{F:Ellipsoid}
\begingroup%
  \makeatletter%
  \providecommand\color[2][]{%
    \errmessage{(Inkscape) Color is used for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'color.sty' is not loaded}%
    \renewcommand\color[2][]{}%
  }%
  \providecommand\transparent[1]{%
    \errmessage{(Inkscape) Transparency is used (non-zero) for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'transparent.sty' is not loaded}%
    \renewcommand\transparent[1]{}%
  }%
  \providecommand\rotatebox[2]{#2}%
  \ifx\svgwidth\undefined%
    \setlength{\unitlength}{276.46303689bp}%
    \ifx\svgscale\undefined%
      \relax%
    \else%
      \setlength{\unitlength}{\unitlength * \real{\svgscale}}%
    \fi%
  \else%
    \setlength{\unitlength}{\svgwidth}%
  \fi%
  \global\let\svgwidth\undefined%
  \global\let\svgscale\undefined%
  \makeatother%
  \begin{picture}(1,0.47504526)%
    \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{elipsoide.eps}}%
    \put(0.50906515,0.45521959){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$p$}}%
    \put(-0.00091796,0.10909302){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$q$}}%
    \put(0.8054782,0.45706107){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$v$}}%
  \end{picture}%
\endgroup%
\caption{The point $q$ is critical for $p$ but not viceversa: the tangent vector $v$ forms an angle greater than $\pi/2$ with the two geodesics connecting $q$ to $p$.}
\end{figure}

Once we know that any point $p\in M$ is critical for some $q$, a natural question arises: \emph{What type of critical point is $p$?} Among critical points, the simplest situation corresponds to midpoints of geodesic loops from $q$. For this case, there are exactly two minimal geodesics from $q$ to $p$ forming an angle $\pi$ at $p$. The criticality condition is clearly satisfied, since any point in the tangent sphere at $p$ is contained in one of the two closed hemispheres that the two geodesics determine at $p$. It is then interesting to know if this is always the case, namely: \emph{Is it true that for any Riemannian metric on $M$, every point is the midpoint of a geodesic loop with the property that half of the loop is minimal?} We thank Burkhard Wilking for bringing this question to our attention, and we give a negative answer to it.

\begin{theorem}
\label{T:Loops} Let $M$ be a closed smooth manifold. Then there exists a Riemannian metric on $M$ such that not every point is the midpoint of a geodesic loop with the property that half the loop is minimal.
\end{theorem}

We prove  Theorem~\ref{T:Smooth} in Section~\ref{S:Proof_Smooth}. We prove Theorem~\ref{T:Loops} in Section~\ref{S:Loops}, using a construction introduced by Gluck and Singer \cite{GS} to construct Riemannian manifolds with prescribed cut locus.

\begin{ack}The authors would like to thank Burkhard Wilking, for a critical observation, the Posgrado de Excelencia Internacional en Matem\'aticas at the Universidad Aut\'o\-noma de Madrid, where the work contained in this article was initiated, and the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, for its hospitality and its pleasant work environment. Luis Guijarro would also like to thank Jin-ichi Itoh, for bringing to his attention the work in \cite{BIVZ}.
\end{ack}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:Smooth}}
\label{S:Proof_Smooth}

Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold. We will prove the theorem by contradiction. Thus,  we will assume that there exists some point $p_0$ in $M$ that is not critical for any other point in $M$.  Consider the submanifold $M^{p_0}=M \times \{p_0\} $ inside the product $M\times M$. We will  construct a section of the normal bundle $\nu(M^{p_0})$ of $M^{p_0}$ with an isolated zero of non-zero index. Since the normal bundle is trivial, we derive a contradiction by looking at its Euler class (cf.~\cite{BT}).

We would like to define the section of $\nu(M^{p_0})$ at a point $(q,p_0)\in M^{p_0}$ as the gradient vector at $p_0$ of the distance function $d_q$ from $q$. To do so, we will use the non-criticality of $p_0$ with respect to $q$. Because distance functions are not everywhere differentiable, we need to smooth out the function $d_q$ first. After doing this, we must modify the section so that it depends smoothly on $q$. Therefore, we need to smooth out the distance function on $M$ with respect to each one of its two variables. To achieve this, we apply the smoothing technique for distance functions as appearing, for instance, in \cite{GroShio}. We divide the proof in seven steps.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 1.} Choose some function $\phi:[0,\infty)\to [0,1]$ with support contained in $[0,1)$, $\phi'\leq 0$, and $\phi\equiv 1$
at points close to $0$.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 2.} Let $i(M)$ be the injectivity radius of $M$ and fix $p\in M$. Given $\rho < i(M)$,  denote by $d\mu_p$ the measure on  $B_\rho(p)$ induced by $\exp_p$ and the Lebesgue measure on $B_\rho(0)$.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 3.}  Define a $\rho$-mollifier kernel as the map $\Phi_\rho:M\times M\to \mathbb{R}$, given by

\[
 \Phi_\rho(x,y)=\left(\int_{B_\rho(x)}\,\phi\left(\frac{1}{\rho} d(x,\cdot)\right)\,d\mu_x\right)^{-1}\cdot
\phi\left(\frac{1}{\rho}d(x,y) \right).
\]

It is clear that $\Phi_{\rho}$ is smooth, symmetric in $x$ and $y$, and that the first factor in the above expression is independent of the $x$ used.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 4.}  By \cite[Proposition~2.1]{GroShio}, the function
\[
d_{q,\rho}(y):=\int_{B_\rho(y)}\,d_q(z)\, \Phi_\rho(y,z)\,d\mu_y(z)
\]
is smooth with respect to $y$. We need to improve this to obtain smoothness with respect to $q$.

We now consider the point $q$ as a variable of $d_{q,\rho}(y)$. After a second smoothing, we obtain the function $\widetilde{d}_\rho:M\times M\to\mathbb{R}$ given by
\[
\widetilde{d}_\rho(q,y):=\int_{p\in B_\rho(q)}\,d_{p,\rho}(y)\,\Phi_\rho(q,p)\,d\mu_q(p).
\]
This expression can be expanded into

\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:Dbl_smooth}
\widetilde{d}_\rho(q,y)=\int_{p\in B_\rho(q)}\,\int_{z\in B_\rho(y)}\,d(p,z)\Phi_{\rho}(y,z)\Phi_\rho(q,p)\, d\mu_y(z)\,d\mu_q(p),
\end{equation}

\noindent where, to facilitate the reading, we have incorporated into each measure the variable with respect to which we integrate. Equation~\eqref{Eq:Dbl_smooth} above can be interpreted as the smoothing of the function $d:M\times M\to \mathbb{R} $ after convolution with a product mollifier kernel. Therefore, the function $\widetilde{d}_{\rho}$ is smooth.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 5.}
Let $u\in T_pM$. Following \cite[p.~208]{GroShio}, we construct a smooth vector field $U$ on $B_{\rho}(p)$ as follows. Let $\gamma$ be the unique geodesic with $\gamma'(0)=u$ and define for each $y\in B_\rho(p)$ a smooth curve $\gamma_y$ by
\[
\gamma_y(t)=\exp_{\gamma(t)}\big(P_{\gamma(t)}\big(\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(0)}(y)\big)\big).
\]
We then set $U_y=\gamma'(0)$.

Recall that the distance function $d:M\times M\to \mathbb{R}$ is smooth almost everywhere with bounded gradient. The remark before \cite[Theorem~2.3]{GroShio} implies the following two lemmas:

\begin{lem}
Let $u_1\in T_qM$, $u_2\in T_xM$ and let $U_1$, $U_2$ be the vector fields constructed on $B_\rho(q)$, $B_\rho(y)$, respectively, from $u_1$ and $u_2$ as indicated above.Then
\begin{multline}
\ip{\nabla\widetilde{d}_\rho(q,y)}{(u_1,u_2)}= \\
=\int_{M\times M}\ip{\nabla d}{(U_1,U_2)}(p,z)
\Phi_{\rho}(y,z)\Phi_\rho(q,p)\, d\mu_y(z)\,d\mu_q(p).
\end{multline}
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}
\label{L:close}
Let $(q,y)\in M\times M$.
For any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\rho<i(m)$ such that
\begin{align}
\left\|(\nabla\widetilde{d}_\rho)_{(q,y)} - \int_{B_\rho(q)}\int_{B_{\rho}(y)} (P_{q,y}\circ\nabla d)\cdot \Phi_\rho(q,\cdot)\Phi_\rho(y,\cdot)d\mu_yd\mu_q\right\|<\varepsilon.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
In Lemma~\ref{L:close} above, $P_{q,y}$ denotes parallel transport along the unique geodesic from $(p,z)$ to $(q,y)$, for $(p,z)$ in the domain of integration.
\\

\noindent\textbf{Step 6.}  Use  $\partial_q\tf_\rho(q,y)$ and $\partial_y\tf_\rho(q,y)$, respectively, to denote the components of the gradient  $(\nabla\widetilde{d}_\rho)_{(q,y)}$ under the splitting
\[
T_{(q,y)}(M\times M) = T_qM\oplus T_yM.
\]

\begin{lem}
If $p_0$ is not critical for any point $q$ different from $p_0\in M$, then there is $\rho >0$ sufficiently small such that
$\partial_y\tf_\rho(q,p_0)\neq 0$ for any point $q\neq p_0$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $\varepsilon>0$.
Using Lemma~\ref{L:close} at the point $(q,p_0)\in M\times M$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:Norm}
\left\| (\nabla\widetilde{d}_\rho)_{(q,p_0)} - \int_{B_\rho(q)}\int_{B_{\rho}(p_0)} (P_{q,p_0}\circ\nabla d)\cdot \Phi_\rho(q,\cdot)\Phi_\rho(p_0,\cdot)d\mu_{p_0}d\mu_q\right\|<\varepsilon.
\end{align}
for some $\rho< i(M)$ small enough.
Now we look at the second component of the vector inside the integral in Equation~\eqref{Eq:Norm}. We may write
\[
\nabla d_{(p,z)}= ((\nabla d_z)(p),(\nabla d_p)(z)),
\]
where $d_z,d_p :M\to \mathbb{R}$ are, respectively, the distance functions from $z$ and $p$.
 Using that parallel transport in the product $M\times M$ is the product of parallel transport on each factor, we deduce that
 \[
\left\| \partial_y\tf_\rho(q,p_0)- \int_{p\in B_\rho(q)}\int_{B_{\rho}(p_0)} (P_{q,p_0}\circ\nabla d_p)\cdot \Phi_\rho(q,p)\Phi_\rho(p_0,\cdot)d\mu_{p_0}d\mu_q\right\|<\varepsilon.
 \]

Consider some $q\in M$; since $p_0$ is not critical for $q$, there are balls of radius $\rho$ around $q$ and $p_0$ such that no point in $B_\rho(p_0)$ is critical for any point in $B_\rho(q)$. For any pair of different points $p$, $y$, denote the set of unit vectors at $y$ tangent  to geodesics connecting $p$ to $y$ as $\mathcal{R}_{p,y}$. Non-criticality implies that for any $p\in B_\rho(q)$, $y\in B_\rho(p_0)$, the set $\mathcal{R}_{p,y}$ is contained in an open half-space of $T_{y}M$.  As in
\cite{GroShio} construct a non-zero vector $X(p,y)\in T_{y}M$ forming an angle greater than $\pi/2+\delta$ with every vector in $\mathcal{R}_{p,y}$ for some $\delta>0$ independent of $p$ and $y$ in the above balls.  Furthermore, the norm of $X$ is bounded below.

This implies that there is some $\tau<0$ such that  $\ip{X}{\nabla d_p}\leq \tau$ for every pair  $(p,y)\in B_\rho(q)\times B_\rho(p_0)$. If $\rho$ is small enough, we can assure that
$\ip{X}{P_{q,p_0}\nabla d_p}\leq \tau/2$, and as a consequence
$\partial_y\tf_\rho(q,p_0)\neq 0$ as we wanted to show.
\end{proof}

\noindent\textbf{Step 7.} Identify the normal bundle $\nu(M^{p_0})$ with $M^{p_{0}}\times (\{0\}\oplus T_{p_{0}}M)$ via the decomposition  $T(M\times M) = TM \oplus TM$. Consider the section $V(q,p_0)$ of $\nu(M^{p_0})$ that takes the value $(0,\partial_y\tf_\rho(q,p_0))$ at the point $(q,p_0)$. Observe that $V$ is defined on $M^{p_0}\setminus(p_0, p_0)$, and does not vanish. On a sufficiently small geodesic ball centered at $p_0$, the vector $\partial_y\tf_\rho(q,p_0)$ is arbitrarily close, as $\rho$ approaches $0$,  to the tangent vector at $p_0$ to the unique geodesic connecting $q$ to $p_0$.
This, and a simple partition of unity argument, permits us to refine the second component of the section $V$ to agree with the gradient field of the function $\dist_{p_0}^2$
It follows that the index of $V$ at $(p_0,p_0)$  is non-zero (cf.~\cite[Theorem 11.16]{BT}). This is a contradiction, since the normal bundle $\nu(M^{p_0})$ is trivial.

\hfill $\square$

\begin{rem} A similar statement to Theorem~\ref{T:Smooth} is true if we replace $q$ by a set of $k\geq 2$ distinct points in $M$. Indeed, it is not difficult to find $k\geq 2$ distinct points $q_1,\ldots,q_k$ in $M$ such that $p$ is critical for the distance function to the union of the $q_i$. To find such a collection of points, take a sufficiently small geodesic sphere $S(\delta)$ centered at $p$, with $\delta<\mathrm{inj}(M)$, and let $q_1$ and $q_2$ be antipodal points in $S(\delta)$. We then complete the collection by arbitrarily adding $k-2$ distinct points in $S(\delta)$.
\end{rem}

\begin{rem} The argument used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{T:Smooth} yields the following:

\begin{thm}Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold and let $f:M\times M\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ be a smooth function such that $f(p,q)=0$ if and only if $p=q$. Then, for any point $p\in M$, there exists at least one point $q\in M$ such that $p$ is critical for $f(\cdot,q)$.
\end{thm}

Pushing farther the argument, one could extend the preceding theorem to the case where $f$ is a Lipschitz function with continuous non-zero gradient close to the diagonal (although not necessarily defined on it).
\end{rem}

\section{Criticality through geodesic loops}
\label{S:Loops}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{T:Loops}]
First, observe that if $p$ is critical for $q$, then $q$ is in the cut locus of $p$, that we denote as $C(p)$.  In our case, if $p$ is the midpoint of a geodesic loop then there should be a point $q$ in $C(p)$ and two geodesic segments from $q$ to $p$ whose tangent vectors are antipodal at $p$. Our strategy would be to construct a metric on $M$ such that this condition is not satisfied for any point in $C(p)$.

We will start by assuming  $M$ to be diffeomorphic to the standard sphere $\mathbb{S}^n$; the desired metric will be obtained using a
construction of Gluck and Singer (see \cite{GS}). They show how to glue geodesic fields in the northern and southern hemispheres along a preasigned diffeomorphism of the equator $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\subset\mathbb{S}^{n}$  so that in the  metric the glued curves remain geodesics.

\begin{figure}
\begingroup%
  \makeatletter%
  \providecommand\color[2][]{%
    \errmessage{(Inkscape) Color is used for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'color.sty' is not loaded}%
    \renewcommand\color[2][]{}%
  }%
  \providecommand\transparent[1]{%
    \errmessage{(Inkscape) Transparency is used (non-zero) for the text in Inkscape, but the package 'transparent.sty' is not loaded}%
    \renewcommand\transparent[1]{}%
  }%
  \providecommand\rotatebox[2]{#2}%
  \ifx\svgwidth\undefined%
    \setlength{\unitlength}{358.30567673bp}%
    \ifx\svgscale\undefined%
      \relax%
    \else%
      \setlength{\unitlength}{\unitlength * \real{\svgscale}}%
    \fi%
  \else%
    \setlength{\unitlength}{\svgwidth}%
  \fi%
  \global\let\svgwidth\undefined%
  \global\let\svgscale\undefined%
  \makeatother%
  \begin{picture}(1,0.44380261)%
    \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=\unitlength]{figure_one.eps}}%
    \put(0.7805629,0.20225655){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$N$}}%
    \put(0.24054607,0.19990857){\color[rgb]{0,0,0}\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$S$}}%
  \end{picture}%
\endgroup%
\caption{Geodesic fields in the southern hemisphere (left) and the northern hemisphere (right).}
\label{F:Fields}
\end{figure}

We consider the fields  shown in Figure~\ref{F:Fields}. The left hand side corresponds to the southern hemisphere, equipped with the standard metric, and the right hand side corresponds to the northern hemisphere, where we consider a tree with three edges along great circles meeting at the north pole and making an angle of $2\pi/3$.
The dotted lines denote the geodesic fields. We take the gluing diffeomorphism to be the identity. After the gluing, the tree is the cut locus of the south pole $S$.  By construction, this new metric contains no geodesic loops passing through the north pole $N$.

For a general manifold $M$, take the above metric in $\mathbb{S}^n$ and connect it to $M$ by a narrow tube as in \cite[Section 8, Figure 6]{GS}. \end{proof}

The fact that geodesic loops converge to geodesic loops in the $C^\infty$ topology for the space of Riemannian metrics on a closed Riemannian manifold implies the following corollary to the preceding theorem.

\begin{cor}Let $M$ be a closed smooth manifold. Then there exists an open set  of Riemannian metrics  on $M$ (in the $C^\infty$ topology) such that not every point is the midpoint of a geodesic loop with the property that half the loop is minimal.
\end{cor}

Differential Geometry (math.DG); Metric Geometry (math.MG)


Isoperimetric relations between Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues

Abstract: Inequalities between the Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian have received much attention in the literature, but open problems abound. Here, we study the number of Neumann eigenvalues no greater than the first Dirichlet eigenvalue. Based on a combination of analytical and numerical results, we conjecture that this number is controlled by the isoperimetric ratio of the domain. This has applications to the nodal deficiency of eigenfunctions and is closely related to a long-standing conjecture of Yau on the Hausdorff measure of nodal sets.

\section{Introduction}
Let $\Omega \subset \bbR^n$ be a bounded domain with sufficiently smooth boundary. Denote the Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues of $-\Delta$ by
\[
	0 < \lambda_1 < \lambda_2 \leq \lambda_3 \leq \cdots
\]
and
\[
	0 = \mu_1 < \mu_2 \leq \mu_3 \leq \cdots
\]
respectively. In the one-dimensional case, the interlacing property
\[
	\mu_k < \lambda_k \leq \mu_{k+1}
\]
holds for every $k$. The extent to which these inequalities generalize to higher dimensions has received much attention over the years. However, most results impose rather strong assumptions (e.g. convexity) on the geometry on $\p\Omega$, and the optimal results for general domains remain unknown.

\subsection{Survey of known results}
The variational formulation of the eigenvalue problem immediately gives $\mu_k \leq \lambda_k$ for all $k$. It was shown by P\'olya that $\mu_2 < \lambda_1$ always holds \cite{P52}. In the case of a convex planar domain with $C^2$ boundary, Payne \cite{P55} showed that $\mu_{k+2} < \lambda_k$ for any $k$.

By imposing assumptions on various combinations of the principal curvatures of the boundary, Levine and Weinberger \cite{LW86} showed that $\mu_{k+r} < \lambda_k$ for a $C^{2,\alpha}$ domain, where $1 \leq r \leq n$ depends on the geometric assumptions. In particular, $\mu_{k+n} < \lambda_k$ when $\Omega$ is convex. Through a limiting argument, they obtained $\mu_{k+n} \leq \lambda_k$ for a general (not necessarily smooth) convex domain. They also obtained (as a special case) a result of Aviles \cite{A86}, that $\mu_{k+1} < \lambda_k$ when the mean curvature is nonnegative.

More generally, it was shown by Friedlander \cite{F91} that $\mu_{k+1} \leq \lambda_k$ on any domain with $C^1$ boundary. This result was extended to Lipschitz domains by Arendt and Mazzeo \cite{AM12} and even further by Filinov \cite{F04} to domains of finite Lebesgue measure for which the embedding $H^1(\Omega) \subset L^2(\Omega)$ is compact. In fact, the latter two references obtain the strict inequality $\mu_{k+1} < \lambda_k$.

\subsection{Open problems and conjectures}
The question of whether or not $\mu_{k+n} \leq \lambda_k$ holds for non-convex domains remains open.\footnote{A purported counterexample in \cite{LW86} is easily seen to be wrong, as has been pointed out in \cite{BLP09}.} More precisely, given a Dirichlet eigenvalue $\lambda_k$, one can ask how many Neumann eigenvalues, $\mu$, exist with $\mu \leq \lambda_k$, and how this number depends on the geometry of $\Omega$. We investigate this when $k=1$, where little is known beyond the general results described above.

The case $k=1$ is particularly important when studying nodal domains of eigenfunctions. This is because any eigenvalue $\lambda$ is necessarily the first Dirichlet eigenvalue on any nodal domain of its associated eigenfunction. Several applications of this idea are described in Section \ref{sec:apply}.

Given a domain $\Omega$, we define the number
\begin{align}\label{eq:Ndef}
	N(\Omega) = \#\{k \in \bbN : \mu_k \leq \lambda_1\}.
\end{align}
It follows from the results surveyed above that $N(\Omega) \geq 2$ for any domain, and $N(\Omega) \geq n+1$ when $\Omega$ is convex.

To obtain further intuition, we use the finite-element method (FEM) to approximate $N(\Omega)$ for a wide variety of planar domains. In every case, our finite-element approximations satisfy $N(\Omega) \geq 3$, whether or not $\Omega$ is convex. In fact, the farther $\Omega$ is from a ball, the larger $N(\Omega)$ is seen to be, bringing to mind the remark of Osserman \cite{O78} that ``One has the somewhat ironic situation that the more irregular the boundary, the stronger will be the isoperimetric inequality, but the harder it is to prove."

We quantify this irregularity using the isoperimetric ratio
\begin{align}
	{\mathcal{I}}(\Omega) = \frac{|\p\Omega|^2}{|\Omega|},
\end{align}
where $|\Omega|$ denotes the area of the domain and $|\p\Omega|$ the perimeter. Computing $N(\Omega)$ and ${\mathcal{I}}(\Omega)$ numerically for a wide variety of examples, we arrive at the following conjecture.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{combined_isoplot_1_20pt}
\caption{$N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ for planar domains of varying geometry and topology}
\label{fig:combined}
\end{figure}

\begin{conj}\label{con:2D}
There exist constants $c_1,c_2 > 0$ so that
\[
	c_1 {\mathcal{I}}(\Omega) \leq N(\Omega) \leq c_2 {\mathcal{I}}(\Omega)
\]
for any bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega \subset \bbR^2$.
\end{conj}

The computations leading to this conjecture are described in Sections \ref{sec:analytical} and \ref{sec:numerical} and summarized in Figure \ref{fig:combined}.

While our numerical investigations focus on $n=2$, we conjecture that the same result also holds in higher dimensions. For $\Omega \subset \bbR^n$ we define the isoperimetric ratio
\begin{align}
	{\mathcal{I}}(\Omega) = \frac{|\p\Omega|^n}{|\Omega|^{n-1}},
\end{align}
where $|\Omega|$ is the Lebesgue measure of $\Omega$, and $|\p\Omega|$ is the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of the boundary.

\begin{conj}\label{con:general}
There exist constants $c_1,c_2 > 0$, depending only on $n$, so that
\[
	c_1 {\mathcal{I}}(\Omega) \leq N(\Omega) \leq c_2 {\mathcal{I}}(\Omega)
\]
for any Lipschitz domain $\Omega \subset \bbR^n$.
\end{conj}

In Theorem \ref{thm:rectangle}, we verify this conjecture for $n$-dimensional rectangles. For the unit ball, $B^n \subset \bbR^n$, we prove in Theorem \ref{thm:ball} that $N(B^n)$ grows faster than any polynomial function of $n$. The isoperimetric ratio satisfies
\[
	{\mathcal{I}}(B^n) = \frac{(n\omega_n)^{n}}{\omega_n^{n-1}} = n^n \omega_n,
\]
where $\omega_n = \pi^{n/2} / \Gamma(n/2+1)$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\bbR^n$, and Stirling's approximation for the Gamma function implies $\omega_n \approx C n^{-(n+1)/2}$ for large $n$.  Therefore, ${\mathcal{I}}(B^n) \approx C n^{(n-1)/2}$ also has superpolynomial growth in $n$.

To the best of our knowledge, none of the known isoperimetric inequalities for Dirichlet and Neuman eigenvalues are of use in resolving Conjecture \ref{con:general}. Instead, we suggest that more detailed information be sought in the spectrum of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, building on the work of Friedlander \cite{F91}. As described in Sections \ref{sec:nodal} and \ref{sec:size}, such information would also improve our understanding of Courant's nodal domain theorem and Yau's conjecture of the size of the nodal set.

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Ram Band for helpful discussions and comments on this work. G.C. acknowledges the support of NSERC grant RGPIN-2017-04259.  The work of S.M. was partially supported by NSERC discovery grants RGPIN-2014-06032 and RGPIN-2019-05692. L.S. was supported by an NSERC Undergraduate Summer Research Award and the aforementioned NSERC grants.

\section{Motivation and implications}\label{sec:apply}
In this section, we explain our motivation for considering the quantity $N(\Omega)$ in the first place, and describe the consequences Conjecture \ref{con:general} would have if true.

\subsection{Relation to the nodal deficiency}\label{sec:nodal}
Our investigation into the quantity $N(\Omega)$ was inspired by a recent result in \cite{CJM17} (see also \cite{BCM19}) on the nodal deficiency of Laplacian eigenfunctions. Combining this with Friedlander's lemma for the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, we obtain an upper bound on the spectral position of an eigenvalue.

To state the result in its simplest form, let $\phi$ be a Dirichlet eigenfunction of the Laplacian on $\Omega$, corresponding to a simple eigenvalue $\lambda$, and define the regions $\Omega_+ = \{\phi(x) > 0\}$ and $\Omega_- = \{\phi(x) < 0\}$. Since $\lambda$ is simple, it equals $\lambda_k$ for a unique $k \in \bbN$, which we call the spectral position of $\lambda$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:position}
The spectral position of $\lambda$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{kbound}
	k \leq N(\Omega_+) + N(\Omega_-),
\end{align}
where the indices on the right-hand side count eigenvalues with either Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions on the interior boundaries $\p\Omega_\pm \cap \Omega$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\p\Omega$.
\end{theorem}

This formula remains valid if $\Omega$ is replaced by a compact Riemannian manifold, and a modified version holds for degenerate eigenvalues; see \cite{BCM19} for details.

\begin{proof}
Let $\nu_\pm$ denote the number of connected components of $\Omega_\pm$, so the total number of nodal domains is $\nu = \nu_+ + \nu_-$. On $\Omega_\pm$, the first Dirichlet eigenvalue is $\lambda$, with multiplicity $\nu_\pm$. Thus, for sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$, $0$ is not an eigenvalue of the operator $\Delta + (\lambda+\epsilon)$ on $\Omega_\pm$, so the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps $\Lambda_\pm$ are well defined (see \cite{CJM17} for details).

The nodal deficiency of $\phi$ is defined to be $\delta(\phi) = k - \nu$. From \cite[Corollary 2.5]{CJM17}, we have $\delta(\phi) = \Mor(\Lambda_+ + \Lambda_-) \leq \Mor(\Lambda_+) + \Mor(\Lambda_-)$, where $\Mor$ denotes the Morse index, i.e. the number of negative eigenvalues. Moreover, \cite[Lemma 1.2]{F91} implies  $\Mor(\Lambda_\pm) = N(\Omega_\pm) - \nu_\pm$ when $\epsilon$ is sufficiently small, so we obtain $
k - \nu  \leq \big(N(\Omega_+) - \nu_+\big) + \big(N(\Omega_-) - \nu_-\big)$ and the result follows.
\end{proof}

If Conjecture \ref{con:general} is true, then Theorem \ref{thm:position} implies that highly deficient eigenfunctions have nodal domains with large isoperimetric ratios. For instance, if $\phi_k$ is an eigenfunction with only two nodal domains, then one of them, say $\Omega_+$, must have $N(\Omega_+) \geq k/2$ and hence ${\mathcal{I}}(\Omega_+) \geq c_1k/2$, where the constant $c_1$ only depends on the dimension. This is particular useful when one has a subsequence of eigenfunctions $(\phi_{j_{_k}})$ each having just two nodal domains; see \cite{CH53,L77,S25} for classical examples of such eigenfunctions, and \cite{JZ18} for a recent construction.

In general, denoting the nodal domains by $\Omega_1, \ldots, \Omega_\nu$, we have
\[
	k \leq N(\Omega_1) + \cdots +  N(\Omega_\nu) = \nu \overline{N(\Omega_\ast)},
\]
where $\overline{N(\Omega_\ast)}$ denotes the mean of the numbers $N(\Omega_1), \ldots, N(\Omega_\nu)$. Generalizing the two-dimensional result of Pleijel \cite{P56}, B\'erard and Meyer showed in \cite{BM82} that
\[
	\limsup_{k \to \infty} \frac{\nu(\phi_k)}{k} \leq \gamma(n)
\]
where $\gamma(n) < 1$ is a universal constant that only depends on the dimension. From this we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:Pleijel}
	\liminf_{k \to \infty} \overline{N(\Omega_\ast)} \geq \frac{1}{\gamma(n)}.
\end{align}
When $n=2$ we have $\gamma(2) = (2/j_{0,1})^2 < 0.7$, so \eqref{eq:Pleijel} yields $\liminf \overline{N(\Omega_\ast)} \geq 1.4$. This is not anything new, since Friedlander has already shown that $N(\Omega_i) \geq 2$ for every $i$, so the same is true of the mean. Thus, for \eqref{eq:Pleijel} to be of any use, one must have $\gamma(n) < 1/2$, as this would imply $\liminf \overline{N(\Omega_\ast)} > 2$. It was shown in \cite{HP16} that the constant $\gamma(n)$ is strictly decreasing in $n$, with $\gamma(n) < 1/2$ for $n \geq 3$. In fact, one has $\gamma(n) \leq C (2/e)^n$ for some uniform constant $C>0$.

\subsection{The size of the nodal set}\label{sec:size}
Recall that $\Sigma = \{\phi(x) = 0\}$ denotes the nodal set of a fixed eigenfunction. A well-known conjecture of Yau suggests that
\begin{align}\label{Yau}
	c_1 \sqrt\lambda \leq |\Sigma| \leq c_2 \sqrt\lambda,
\end{align}
where $\lambda$ is the eigenvalue corresponding to $\phi$. This result is known to be true when $n=2$ \cite{B78}, and on real analytic manifolds \cite{DF88}. Recently, Logunov showed that the lower bound on $|\Sigma|$ holds on a smooth manifold of any dimension \cite{L18lower}, and proved the upper bound $|\Sigma| \leq c_2 \lambda^\alpha$ for some constant $\alpha>1/2$ that depends only on $n$ \cite{L18upper}.

We observe here that the upper bound in \eqref{Yau} follows from Conjecture \ref{con:general} and an additional assumption on the nodal domains and nodal sets. Recall that $\Omega_1, \ldots, \Omega_\nu$ denote the nodal domains of an eigenfunction. If we assume that there exist constants $a$ and $b$ such that $\nu |\Omega_i| \geq a$ and $\nu |\p\Omega_i| \leq b |\Sigma|$, uniformly in $\lambda$, then it follows from Theorem \ref{thm:position} and Conjecture \ref{con:general} that
\begin{align*}
	k &\leq N(\Omega_1) + \cdots + N(\Omega_\nu) \\
	&\leq c_2 \left( \frac{|\p\Omega_1|^n}{|\Omega_1|^{n-1}} + \cdots + \frac{|\p\Omega_\nu|^n}{|\Omega_\nu|^{n-1}} \right) \\
	&\leq c_2 b^n a^{1-n} |\Sigma|^n.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, Weyl's law implies $\lambda_k^{n/2} \leq C k$ for some uniform constant $C$, so we obtain $\lambda_k^{n/2} \leq C |\Sigma|^n$, as desired. However, the assumed uniform bounds on the nodal domains and nodal sets are not known.

We conclude by stating an equivalent form of Yau's conjecture in terms of the nodal deficiency.
It follows from the argument of Pleijel \cite{P56} that $c_1 \lambda^{n/2} \leq \delta(\phi) \leq c_2 \lambda^{n/2}$, from which we see that \eqref{Yau} is, in fact, equivalent to the existence of uniform constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that
\begin{align}
	c_1 |\Sigma|^n \leq \delta(\phi) \leq c_2 |\Sigma|^n
\end{align}
for all eigenfunctions $\phi$.
From this equivalence, Logunov's upper and lower bounds on the size of the nodal set immediately imply there exist positive constants $c_1,c_2$ and $\beta  = \beta(n)$ such that $c_1 |\Sigma|^{n/\beta} \leq \delta(\phi) \leq c_2 |\Sigma|^n$, where $\beta(2)= 1$ and $\beta(n) > 1$ for $n > 2$.

We find this formulation of Yau's conjecture particularly appealing in light of the formula $\delta(\phi) = \Mor(\Lambda_+ + \Lambda_-)$ for the nodal deficiency, which was proved in \cite{CJM17} and used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:position} above. In particular, it suggests an alternate route to studying the conjecture through the spectra of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps, $\Lambda_\pm$.

\section{Analytical results}\label{sec:analytical}

In this section, we consider a few separable examples, where the calculations are relatively explicit.

\subsection{Rectangles}\label{sec:rectangle}

We first consider an $n$-dimensional rectangle with side lengths $\ell_1, \ldots, \ell_n$. In this case, we are able to verify Conjecture \ref{con:general}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rectangle}
There exist positive constants, $c_1(n)$ and $c_2(n)$, such that
\[
	c_1 {\mathcal{I}}(R) \leq N(R) \leq c_2 {\mathcal{I}}(R)
\]
for any rectangle $R \subset \bbR^n$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}

The Dirichlet eigenvalues are $(m_1\pi/\ell_1)^2 + \cdots + (m_n\pi/\ell_n)^2$
for $m_i \in \bbN$, while the Neumann eigenvalues are given by the same formula but with $m_i \in \bbN_0 = \bbN \cup \{0\}$. Therefore
\begin{align}
	N(R) = \#\left\{ (m_1, \ldots, m_n) \in \bbN_0^n : \frac{m_1^2}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{m_n^2}{\ell_n^2} \leq \frac{1}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{\ell_n^2}\right\}.
\end{align}

This equals the number of nonnegative lattice points in the $n$-ellipsoid with axes $a_i = \ell_i\rho$, where $\rho^2 = \ell_1^{-2} + \cdots + \ell_n^{-2}$.
Denote this ellipsoid by ${\mathcal{E}}(a)$, and let $L = {\mathcal{E}}(a) \cap \bbN_0^n$, so $N(R) = \# L$. For each $m = (m_1,\ldots,m_n) \in L$ let $C_m$ denote the unit cube with smallest vertex at $m$,
and define the set
\[
	E = \bigcup_{m \in L} C_m,
\]
so that $N(R) = \# L = |E|$. Finally, let $P \subset \bbR^n$ denote the first quadrant, where all coordinates are nonnegative. We claim that
\begin{align}\label{Econtain}
	{\mathcal{E}}(a) \cap P \subset E \subset {\mathcal{E}}(2a) \cap P,
\end{align}
where ${\mathcal{E}}(2a)$ is the ellipsoid with axes $2 a_i = 2 \ell_i \rho$.

Let $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in {\mathcal{E}}(a) \cap P$ and define $m = \lfloor x \rfloor \in \bbN^n_0$ componentwise. Then
\[
	\frac{m_1^2}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{m_n^2}{\ell_n^2} \leq \frac{x_1^2}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{x_n^2}{\ell_n^2} \leq \rho^2,
\]
hence $m \in L$ and $x \in C_m \in E$. On the other hand, for $m \in L$ we have
\[
	\frac{(m_1 + 1)^2}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{(m_n + 1)^2}{\ell_n^2} \leq 4 \rho^2,
\]
hence $C_m \subset {\mathcal{E}}(2a) \cap P$. It follows that $E \subset {\mathcal{E}}(2a) \cap P$, so we have verified \eqref{Econtain}, and conclude that the volume $|E|= N(R)$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{rec:Nbound}
	\frac{\omega_n}{2^n} a_1 \cdots a_n \leq |E| \leq  \omega_n a_1 \cdots a_n,
\end{align}
where $\omega_n$ is the volume of the unit ball in $\bbR^n$.

We next estimate the isoperimetric ratio ${\mathcal{I}}(R)$. The rectangle has volume $|R| = \ell_1 \cdots \ell_n$, and the boundary has area
\[
	|\p R| = 2 \sum_{i=1}^n \ell_1 \cdots \widehat \ell_i \cdots \ell_n,
\]
where $\ell_1 \cdots \widehat \ell_i \cdots \ell_n$ denotes the product with the $i$th term omitted. Note that
\[
	\frac{1}{\ell_1^2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{\ell_n^2} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (\ell_1 \cdots \widehat \ell_i \cdots \ell_n)^2}{(\ell_1 \cdots \ell_n)^2}
\]
and hence
\[
	a_1 \cdots a_n = \frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^n (\ell_1 \cdots \widehat \ell_i \cdots \ell_n)^2\right)^{n/2}}{(\ell_1 \cdots \ell_n)^{n-1}}.
\]

Using the inequalities
\[
	\frac1n \left( \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \right)^2 \leq \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 \leq \left( \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \right)^2
\]
for nonnegative numbers $(x_i)$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{rec:Ibound}
	\frac{1}{2^n n^{n/2}} \frac{|\p R|^n}{|R|^{n-1}} \leq a_1 \cdots a_n \leq \frac{1}{2^n} \frac{|\p R|^n}{|R|^{n-1}}.
\end{align}

Combining \eqref{rec:Nbound} and \eqref{rec:Ibound} completes the proof.
\end{proof}

For a rectangle in $\bbR^2$ we can obtain a more precise result. Assume without loss of generality that the side lengths are $1$ and $\ell \geq 1$. The inequality
\[
	m^2 + \frac{n^2}{\ell^2} \leq 1 + \frac{1}{\ell^2}
\]
is only satisfied by $(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, $(1,1)$ and $(0,n)$ with $1 \leq n^2 \leq 1 + \ell^2$, so we have
\begin{align}\label{rec:2D}
\begin{split}
	N(R) &= 3 + \lfloor \sqrt{\ell^2+1}\rfloor \\
	{\mathcal{I}}(R) &= 4(1+\ell)^2/\ell.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In particular, we see that $N(R) / {\mathcal{I}}(R) \to 1/4$ as $\ell \to \infty$.

\subsection{The unit ball}
Levine and Weinberger observed in \cite{LW86} that $\mu_3 < \lambda_1 < \mu_4$ on the disc in $\bbR^2$, and $\mu_4 < \lambda_1 < \mu_5$ for the ball in $\bbR^3$. Here, we investigate extensions of these inequalities to the unit ball, $B^n \subset \bbR^n$, for $n>3$. Since $B^n$ is strictly convex, \cite[Theorem 2.1]{LW86} implies $\mu_{n+1}(B^n) < \lambda_1(B^n)$. However, we observe numerically that the inequality $\lambda_1(B^n) < \mu_{n+2}(B^n)$ is false for $n > 3$, and prove that the number of Neumann eigenvalues below $\lambda_1(B^n)$ grows faster than any polynomial function of $n$.

The eigenvalue equation $\Delta u + \lambda u$ is separable, with radial solutions given by the so-called ultraspherical Bessel functions, $r^{1-n/2} J_{n/2+\ell-1}(\sqrt\lambda r)$, for $\ell \in \bbN \cup\{0\}$; see \cite{AB93,LS94}. The positive Neumann eigenvalues are, thus, of the form $(p_{n/2,k}^{(\ell)})^2$, where $p_{\nu,k}^{(\ell)}$ denotes the $k$th positive zero of  $[x^{1-\nu} J_{\nu+\ell-1}(x)]'$. The corresponding angular solution is a spherical harmonic of degree $\ell$, so eigenvalues corresponding to $\ell=0$ are simple, those corresponding to $\ell=1$ have multiplicity $n$, and those corresponding to $\ell > 1$ have multiplicity
\begin{align}\label{multiplicity}
	\binom{n+\ell-1}{n-1} - \binom{n+\ell-3}{n-1}.
\end{align}
(It is immediate that $(p_{n/2,k}^{(\ell)})^2$ has multiplicity at least \eqref{multiplicity}; the fact that the multiplicity is no greater is a consequence of the fact that, for any $m \in \bbN$, the functions $[x^{1-\nu} J_{\nu+\ell-1}(x)]'$ and $[x^{1-\nu} J_{\nu+\ell+m-1}(x)]'$ have no zeros in common, which was established in \cite[Lemma 2.5]{HP16}.)

Similarly, the first Dirichlet eigenvalue is given by $\lambda_1 = \big(j_{n/2-1,1}\big)^2$, where $j_{\nu,1}$ denotes the first positive zero of $J_{\nu}$. It follows from standard properties of Bessel functions (see \cite{LS94}) that $j_{\nu,k} = p_{\nu,k}^{(0)}$.

Since $j_{\nu,1}$ is an increasing function of $\nu$ (provided $\nu>0$, see \cite[p. 508]{W44}), we have $\sqrt{\lambda_1} = j_{n/2-1,1} < j_{n/2,1} = p_{n/2,1}^{(0)}$, and hence $p_{n/2,k}^{(0)} > \sqrt{\lambda_1}$ for all $k$. Moreover, it follows from Dixon's interlacing theorem \cite[p. 480]{W44} that the zeros of $[x^{1-\nu} J_{\nu+\ell-1}(x)]'$ interlace with those of $J_{\nu+\ell-1}(x)$. In particular, $J_{n/2}$ must have a zero between $p_{n/2,1}^{(1)}$ and $p_{n/2,2}^{(1)}$. Therefore $p_{n/2,2}^{(1)} > j_{n/2,1} > \sqrt{\lambda_1}$, and so $p_{n/2,k}^{(1)} > \sqrt{\lambda_1}$ for $k \geq 2$.

On the other hand, the inequality
\begin{align}\label{LSineq}
	\frac{2\ell(\nu+\ell)(\nu+\ell+1)}{\nu+2\ell+1} < \big(p_{\nu,1}^{(\ell)}\big)^2 < 2\ell(\nu + \ell)
\end{align}
of Lorch and Szego \cite{LS94} implies that $p_{\nu,1}^{(1)} < p_{\nu,1}^{(\ell)}$ for $\nu>0$ and $\ell \geq 2$. Therefore $(p_{n/2,1}^{(1)})^2$ is the smallest positive Neumann eigenvalue of $B^n$, with multiplicity $n$, and the only other Neumann eigenvalues potentially less than $\lambda_1$ are $(p_{n/2,k}^{(\ell)})^2$ for $\ell \geq 2$. Numerically, we observe that $p_{n/2,1}^{(2)} < j_{n/2-1,1}$ for $n \geq 4$; see Table \ref{table:zeros}. Thus there are more than $n+1$ Neumann eigenvalues below the first Dirichlet eigenvalue whenever $n \geq 4$. In terms of the quantity $N$ defined in \eqref{eq:Ndef}, this means $N(B^n) > n+1$ when $n \geq 4$.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
	$n$ & $p_{n/2,1}^{(1)}$ & $p_{n/2,1}^{(2)}$ & $p_{n/2,1}^{(3)}$ & $j_{n/2-1,1}$\\   \hline
	2 & 1.84 & 3.05 & 4.42 & 2.40 \\
	3 & 2.08 & 3.34 & 4.51 & 3.14 \\
	4 & 2.30 & 3.61 & 4.81 & 3.83 \\
	5 & 2.52 & 3.86 & 5.09 & 4.49 \\
	6 & 2.69 & 4.10 & 5.37 & 5.14 \\
	7 & 2.86 & 4.33 & 5.63 & 5.76 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparing zeros of ultraspherical Bessel functions with the first zero of $J_{n/2-1}$}
\label{table:zeros}
\end{table}

More precisely, when $p_{n/2,1}^{(2)} < j_{n/2-1,1}$ we obtain an additional Neumann eigenvalue below $\lambda_1$. The angular part of the eigenfunction is a spherical harmonic of degree $\ell$, so the multiplicity is
\[
	\binom{n+1}{n-1} - \binom{n-1}{n-1} = \frac12 n(n+1) - 1.
\]
Adding this to the $n+1$ Neumann eigenvalues already known to exist below $\lambda_1$, we find that $N(B^n) \geq \frac12 n(n+3)$.

This argument can be generalized, using the fact that for any fixed $\ell$, we have $p_{n/2,1}^{(\ell)} < j_{n/2-1,1}$ once $n$ is sufficiently large. (For $\ell=3$ we observe numerically that $n=7$ suffices; see Table \ref{table:zeros}.) As a result, we find that $N(B^n)$ grows faster than any polynomial function in $n$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:ball}
For any $\ell \in \bbN$ there exists $n_0 \in \bbN$ such that $N(B^n) \geq n^\ell$ for all $n \geq n_0$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
From the upper bound in \eqref{LSineq} and the lower bound $j_{\nu,1} > \nu$ (see \cite[p. 485]{W44}), we find that $\big(p_{n/2,1}^{(2)}\big)^2 < \lambda_1$ if $2\ell(n/2 + \ell) \leq (n/2-1)^2$. For fixed $\ell$, this will be satisfied by all sufficiently large $n$. For any such $n$, there is thus a Neumann eigenvalue below $\lambda_1$, of multiplicity
\[
	\binom{n+\ell-1}{n-1} - \binom{n+\ell-3}{n-1} = \frac{n^\ell}{\ell!} + \text{ lower order terms},
\]
so for large enough $n$, we can guarantee $N(B^n) \geq n^\ell/(2 \ell!)$.

Applying the above argument to $\ell+1$, we obtain $N(B^n) \geq n^{\ell+1}/(2 (\ell+1)!)$ when $n$ is sufficiently large, say $n \geq n_1$. Thus, for $n \geq \max\{n_1,2(\ell+1)!\}$ we have $N(B^n) \geq n^\ell$.
\end{proof}

\section{Numerical results}\label{sec:numerical}
In this section, we present the numerical results that motivated Conjecture \ref{con:2D}.

Using a finite-element method (FEM), we compute $N(\Omega)$ and plot it against ${\mathcal{I}}(\Omega)$ for different choices of $\Omega$. Note that the size of $\Omega$ is irrelevant as both quantities are scale invariant.

\subsection{Overview of FEM}
In general, a finite-element method approximates solutions to either a PDE or the associated eigenvalue problem by projecting the weak form of the problem onto a finite-dimensional subspace \cite{DBraess_2001, SCBrenner_LRScott_1994a}.  For a symmetric and positive-definite operator, as considered here, a standard Galerkin projection is typically chosen, with the finite-dimensional approximation space determined by low-order piecewise polynomial basis functions on an appropriate discretization of the domain, $\Omega$.  Considering the weak form of the Laplacian eigenvalue problem, finding $u\in \mathcal{V} \subset H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\[
\int_\Omega \nabla u \cdot \nabla v = \lambda \int_\Omega uv \text{ for all }v\in\mathcal{V},
\]
we define a space $\mathcal{V}^h \subset \mathcal{V}$ in terms of a finite-dimensional basis, and simply solve the eigenvalue problem restricted to $\mathcal{V}^h$ in place of the continuum weak form.  Once restricted to a finite-dimensional basis set, the approximate eigenvalue calculation becomes a standard matrix eigenvalue problem, for which efficient numerical methods are well-known \cite{YSaad_2011a}. The form above is equally valid for both the Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalue problems (or combinations of these boundary conditions), simply by appropriately choosing $\mathcal{V} = H^1_0(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{V} = H^1(\Omega)$, respectively. For the Dirichlet problem, the boundary condition is enforced strongly, as it is automatically satisfied by all test functions in $\mathcal{V}$, whereas, for the Neumann problem, the boundary condition is enforced weakly.

In the calculations that follow, we consider only polygonal domains, $\Omega$.  As such, we directly discretize the domain by considering triangulations, $\mathcal{T}^h$, such that $\Omega = \cup_{T\in\mathcal{T}^h} T$, where the union is taken over planar triangles.  The superscript $h$ is given to indicate the discrete nature of the triangulation (and the associated approximation space, $\mathcal{V}^h$), and may be taken to be the maximum edge length (or diameter) of any triangle in $\mathcal{T}^h$, for example.  The approximation space, $\mathcal{V}^h$, is then defined as
\[
\mathcal{V}^h = \{ u \in C^0(\Omega) \mid u_T \in \mathcal{P}^k(T) \text{ for every }T\in\mathcal{T}^h \},
\]
where $u_T$ is the restriction of $u$ to triangle $T$, and $\mathcal{P}^k(T)$ is the space of polynomials of total degree no more than $k$ on $T$.  The calculations below are computed using the FEniCS finite-element package \cite{MAlnaes_etal_2015a}, with eigenvalue calculations performed using the SLEPc package \cite{Hernandez:2005:SSF}.

\subsection{Rectangles}
Let $R_\ell$ denote the rectangle with side lengths of $1$ and $\ell \geq 1$. Our numerical results, shown in Figure  \ref{fig:rectanglecomb}, are consistent with the explicit formulas for $N(R_\ell)$ and ${\mathcal{I}}(R_\ell)$ given in \eqref{rec:2D}. In particular, the graph of $N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ is asymptotic to a line of slope $1/4$ as ${\mathcal{I}} \to \infty$.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{rectangle_isoplot20pt}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{comb_isoplot20pt}
\caption{$N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ for rectangles (left) and combs (right)}
\label{fig:rectanglecomb}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Combs}
We next consider a family of so-called ``comb" domains. The comb with $m$ teeth, denoted $C_m$, is the union of $m$ $1\times 2$ rectangles with $m-1$ squares with unit side length, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:CW}. It has area $3m-1$ and perimeter $6m$; hence, the isoperimetric ratio ${\mathcal{I}}(C_m) = 36 m^2/(3m-1)$ is approximately linear in $m$. The corresponding values of $N(C_m)$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig:rectanglecomb}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
	\draw[thick] (0,0) -- (5,0) -- (5,2) -- (4,2) -- (4,1) -- (3,1) --
		(3,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,1) -- (1,1) -- (1,2) -- (0,2) -- (0,0) -- (5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
	\draw[thick] (0,0) -- (5,0) -- (5,5) -- (0,5) -- (0,0);
	\draw[thick] (1,1) -- (1,2) -- (2,2) -- (2,1) -- (1,1);
	\draw[thick] (3,1) -- (3,2) -- (4,2) -- (4,1) -- (3,1);
	\draw[thick] (1,3) -- (1,4) -- (2,4) -- (2,3) -- (1,3);
	\draw[thick] (3,3) -- (3,4) -- (4,4) -- (4,3) -- (3,3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The comb $C_3$ (left) and the waffle $W_2$ (right)}
\label{fig:CW}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{reg_poly_isoplot20pt}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{rand_poly_indep_isoplot20pt}
\caption{$N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ for regular polygons (left) and random polygons (right)}
\label{fig:poly}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Regular polygons}
Let $P_m$ be a regular $m$-sided polygon. One easily calculates the isoperimetric ratio, ${\mathcal{I}}(P_m) = 4m \tan(\pi/m)$, which decreases towards $4\pi$ as $m\to\infty$. On the other hand, it is also known (see, for instance, \cite[Theorem VI.10]{CH53}) that the Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues satisfy
\[
	\lambda_k(P_m) \to \lambda_k(D), \quad \mu_k(P_m) \to \mu_k(D)
\]
as $m \to \infty$, where $D \subset \bbR^2$ is the unit disc. Since $\mu_3(D) < \lambda_1(D) < \mu_4(D)$, we obtain $\mu_3(P_m) < \lambda_1(P_m) < \mu_4(P_m)$, and hence $N(P_m) = 3$, for all sufficiently large $m$. We observe numerically that it suffices to take $m = 5$; see Figure \ref{fig:poly}.

\subsection{Random polygons}\label{sec:random}
We next consider a family of random polygons, generated by the following algorithm.

First, three distinct random points within the unit square are chosen and ordered counter clockwise in a vertex list: $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$. Then, until the desired number of vertices is achieved, new vertices are added as follows:
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\arabic{enumi})}
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Generate a random point $P$ distinct from the existing vertices $(v_1,\ldots,v_m)$, and select a random index $i \in \{1,\ldots,m\}$ for a position in the current list of vertices.
	\item Check if creating edges between $P$ and the vertices $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$ would cause any edges in the new polygon to intersect. If no edges intersect, then $P$ is added to the vertex list between $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$.
	\item If an intersection occurs, replace $i$ with $i+1 \ (\operatorname{mod} m)$ and go to step 2.
	\item If $P$ cannot be added between any adjacent vertices without causing an intersection, return to step 1. (The necessity of this step is demonstrated by Figure \ref{fig:counter}.)
\end{enumerate}

\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.4]
	\draw[thick] (-0.8,-0.85) -- (1,2) -- (0.5,1) -- (2,-2) -- (1.35,-1) -- (-2,-1)
	-- (-0.8,-0.85);
	\fill (0.4,-0.2) circle[radius=2pt];
	\node at (0.4,0.1) {$P$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The point $P$ cannot be added between any adjacent vertices without causing an intersection in the resulting seven-sided polygon}
\label{fig:counter}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:randomsteps} tracks the evolution of $N$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ throughout this process, for two different realizations of this algorithm. The resulting domains tend to be highly non-convex; some representative 30-sided examples are shown in Figure \ref{fig:random}. In Figure \ref{fig:poly}, we plot $N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ for twelve such random polygons, generating two each with 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 sides.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{rand_poly_step_1_isoplot20pt}
		\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{rand_poly_step_2_isoplot20pt}
\caption{Evolution of $N$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ (as vertices are added) for two realizations of the random polynomial generator}
\label{fig:randomsteps}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{rand_poly_30_no1}
		\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{rand_poly_30_no2}
\caption{Two of the randomly generated polygons considered in Section \ref{sec:random}}
\label{fig:random}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Non-simply connected domains}
The domains considered above were all simply connected. In this section, we consider two families of domains with holes. In both cases, we observe behaviour consistent with Conjecture \ref{con:2D}, providing evidence that the conjectured bounds on $N(\Omega)$ hold uniformly for $\Omega \subset \bbR^2$, independent of its topology.

The first is the so-called ``square annulus," consisting of a unit square with a smaller concentric square removed from its interior. The results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:annulus}, where the interior side length ranges from 0.1 to 0.9.

\begin{figure}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{square_one_hole_isoplot20pt}
	\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{square_uniform_holes_isoplot20pt}
\caption{$N$ vs. ${\mathcal{I}}$ for square annuli (left) and waffles (right)}
\label{fig:annulus}
\end{figure}

The next example is the family of ``waffle" domains. The $m$th waffle domain, $W_m$, consists of a square of side length $2m+1$ with $m^2$ evenly spaced unit squares removed from its interior; see Figure \ref{fig:CW} for an illustration of a waffle and Figure \ref{fig:annulus} for the numerical results with $1 \leq m \leq 8$.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we numerically approximated the quantity $N(\Omega)$ for many planar domains, with varying geometry and topology. In all cases, we observed that $N(\Omega)$ is controlled by the isoperimetric ratio, ${\mathcal{I}}(\Omega)$. Based on these observations, we hypothesized that this relationship always holds (Conjecture~\ref{con:2D}). We also suggested that this holds in higher dimensions (Conjecture \ref{con:general}). We also discussed some implications these conjectures would have if they are indeed true. In particular, our conjectures, combined with results from \cite{CJM17}, yield a direction connection between the spectral position of an eigenfunction and the isoperimetric ratio of its nodal sets.

We suggest that these conjecture be approached using the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map formalism in \cite{CJM17,F91}. This approach seems promising in light of results giving isoperimetric control on Steklov eigenvalues; see, for instance, \cite{CEG11}.

In terms of the finite-element experiments presented in this paper, a natural generalization would be the numerical study of domains in higher dimensions, where the geometry and topology can be much more complicated than in the planar case studied here.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Analysis of PDEs (math.AP); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Differential Geometry (math.DG); Spectral Theory (math.SP)