Doubling constants and spectral theory on graphs

Abstract: We study the least doubling constant among all possible doubling measures defined on a (finite or infinite) graph $G$. We show that this constant can be estimated from below by $1+ r(A_G)$, where $r(A_G)$ is the spectral radius of the adjacency matrix of $G$, and study when both quantities coincide. We also illustrate how amenability of the automorphism group of a graph can be related to finding doubling minimizers. Finally, we give a complete characterization of graphs with doubling constant smaller than 3, in the spirit of Smith graphs.

\section{Introduction}

The aim of this paper is to exhibit the connection between combinatorial aspects of graph theory and geometric measure theory, by studying doubling measures on graphs. In particular, we will establish a new connection between spectral graph theory and doubling constants of certain measures on a graph.

We will deal with locally finite, unoriented, connected, simple graphs (without loops nor multiple edges), and we will consider both cases of finite and infinite sets of vertices. Such a graph $G$ with vertices $V_G$ and edges $E_G$ can be considered as a metric space in a standard way by means of the path distance: Given vertices $x,y\in V_G$, a path joining $x$ to $y$ is a collection of edges of the form $\{x_{i-1},x_i\}_{i=1}^k\subset E_G$, with $x_0=x$ and $x_k=y$. In this case, we say that the path has length $k$. Thus, for $x,y\in V_G$, the distance $d_G(x,y)$ is defined as the smallest possible length of a path joining $x$ to $y$.

A measure $\mu$ on a graph $G$ will always be induced by a positive weight function $\mu:V_G\rightarrow (0,\infty)$, and despite the slight abuse of terminology, we will denote $\mu(A)=\sum_{v\in A}\mu(v)$ for any set $A\subset V_G$. Such $\mu$  is said to be a \emph{doubling measure} whenever
$$
C_\mu=\sup_{v\in V_G, r\geq0}\frac{\mu(B(v,2r))}{\mu(B(v,r))}<\infty.
$$
Here, $B(v,r)=\{w \in V_G: d_G(v,w)\leq r\}$ denotes the closed ball of center $v\in V_G$ and radius $r\geq0$. The number $C_\mu$ is called the \emph{doubling constant} of the measure $\mu$.  Note that if $V_G$ is finite, every measure on $G$ is doubling for an appropriate constant.

Associated to a general metric space $(X,d)$, the following invariant was introduced in \cite{ST}
$$
C_{(X,d)}=\inf\Big\{\sup_{x\in X, r\geq0}\frac{\mu(B(x,2r))}{\mu(B(x,r))}: \mu \text{ doubling measure on } X\Big\},
$$
which will be referred to as the \emph{least doubling constant} of $(X,d)$. It was also shown in \cite{ST} that, if $X$ supports a doubling measure and contains more than one point, then $C_{(X,d)}\geq 2$. This invariant is somehow related to metric dimension theory and our purpose is to study its properties in the context of graphs.

For simplicity, we will denote $C_G=C_{(V_G,d_G)}$. In \cite{ST}, we already computed this invariant for certain families of finite graphs. Namely, let $K_n$ denote the complete graph with $n$ vertices, $S_n$ be the star-graph with $n+1$ vertices (one vertex of degree $n$ and $n$ leaves), and $C_n$ be the cycle-graph with $n$ vertices: For $n\geq 3$, we have
\begin{equation}
C_{K_n}=n,\quad \quad C_{S_n}=1+\sqrt{n}, \quad \quad C_{C_n}=3.
\end{equation}

We will here compute $C_G$ for other families of graphs, including for instance complete bipartite graphs $K_{m,n}$, wheel graphs $W_n$, friendship graphs or cocktail party graphs.

It is somehow surprising that, for all the examples listed so far, it turns out that $C_G$ coincides with $1+r(A_G)$, where $r(A_G)$ is the spectral radius (equivalently, the largest eigenvalue) of the adjacency matrix of the graph. This observation led us to look for the relation between doubling constants and spectral graph theory, which is the main goal of this work. We will prove in Theorems \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and \ref{thm:doubling spectra infinite}, that, in general, $$C_G\geq 1+r(A_G).$$ In the case of finite graphs, Proposition \ref{lemachorra} actually provides a characterization of when $C_G=1+r(A_G)$, in terms of the measure induced by the Perron eigenvector of $A_G$. From a more geometric point of view, Proposition \ref{p:diam2} yields in particular that every graph $G$ with diameter 2 also satisfies $C_G=1+r(A_G)$.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section~\ref{sec2} we start by showing, in Proposition~\ref{p:DMconvex}, the existence of doubling minimizers; that is, those measures $\mu$ for which $C_\mu=C_G$, as well as some stability properties of this set of measures. Section~\ref{sec3} is devoted to the proof of $C_G\geq 1+r(A_G)$ both for finite and infinite graphs, and some direct consequences related to monotonicity of the doubling constants and the chromatic number of a graph. In Section~\ref{sec4}, Theorem~{\ref{t:symmetric}} establishes the main correspondence between the amenability of the group of automorphisms of $G$ and the existence of invariant minimizers. This allows us to consider only symmetric measures when computing $C_G$, thus reducing the complexity of the problem in certain cases. We consider in Section~\ref{sec5} the question of whether $C_G$ can be determined by the spectra of $G$ and do a thorough study for several relevant cases of graphs with small diameter. We also provide explicit examples where $C_G>1+r(A_G)$. Finally, motivated by the works of J. H. Smith \cite{S} and D. Cvetkovi\'c and I. Gutman \cite{CG} on graphs with small spectral radius, in Section~\ref{sec6}, we completely characterize  those graphs $G$ with doubling constant $C_G\leq 3$ (see Corollaries~\ref{c:finiteCG3} and~\ref{c:infiniteCG3}).

Let us finally mention that in the companion paper \cite{DST}, we have focused our analysis on the not that simple case of path graphs. In particular, in \cite{DST} it is shown that
$$
1+2\cos\Big(\frac\pi{n+1}\Big)\leq C_{L_n}< 3,
$$
where $L_n$ denotes the path graph of $n$ vertices, and $C_{\mathbb Z}=C_{\mathbb N}=3$. Also, a careful analysis of the structure of the set of doubling minimizers for path graphs is provided. We refer to \cite{BM} for standard notations and basic facts on graph theory, as well as \cite{CRS} for a comprehensive introduction to spectral graph theory.

\section{Basic properties of the least doubling constant of a graph}\label{sec2}

A couple of comments on the kind of graphs we will be dealing with are in order. First recall that a metric space is called \textsl{metrically doubling} if there is a constant $K>0$ such that for every $r>0$ every ball of radius $r$ can be covered by at most $K$ balls of radius $r/2$ (a space with this property is also called a homogeneous space, cf. \cite{CW}). In particular, it is easy to check that every metric space supporting a doubling measure must be metrically doubling \cite{CW}. Refining earlier results for compact metric spaces given in \cite{VK}, it was shown in \cite{LuSa} that for complete metric spaces being metrically doubling is equivalent to supporting non-trivial doubling measures. Since a graph is always a discrete space (the distance between two distinct points cannot be smaller than 1) in particular every graph is a complete metric space and the previous result applies. In particular, if a graph supports a doubling measure then it must have uniformly bounded degree: $\Delta_G=\sup_{v\in V_G} d_v<\infty$. Also, since we are only dealing with connected graphs, note that the number of vertices must be at most countable.

Given a graph $G$, it is easy to see that
\begin{equation*}
C_G=\inf_{\mu}\sup\Big\{\frac{\mu(B(v,2k+1))}{\mu(B(v,k))}: v\in V_G,\,k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\} \Big\},
\end{equation*}
the infimum being taken over all doubling measures $\mu$ on $G$. Also, given $G$ we can consider its diameter: $\diam(G)=\sup\{d_G(v,w):v,w\in V_G\}$. If $\diam(G)<\infty$, we actually have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C_G}
C_G=\inf_{\mu}\sup\Big\{\frac{\mu(B(v,2k+1))}{\mu(B(v,k))}: v\in V_G,\,k\in\mathbb Z, \,0\leq k\leq \Big\lceil \frac{\diam(G)-1}{2}\Big\rceil \Big\},
\end{equation}
where $\lceil s\rceil=\min\{n\in\mathbb Z:s\leq n\}$.

Given a doubling measure $\mu$ on $G$, it will be convenient to consider the \textit{restricted doubling constants} associated to each radius $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$:
$$
C_\mu^k=\sup_{v\in V_G}\frac{\mu(B(v,2k+1))}{\mu(B(v,k))}.
$$
Also, let
\begin{equation*}
C_G^k=\inf_{\mu} C_\mu^k,
\end{equation*}
where the infimum is taken over all doubling measures $\mu$ on $G$.

Clearly, for a fixed measure $\mu$ on $G$, we have $C_\mu=\sup_{k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}} C_\mu^k$, and in the case when $\diam(G)<\infty$, we actually have $C_\mu=\sup_{0\leq k< \lceil \frac{\diam(G)-1}{2}\rceil+1} C_\mu^k$. It is easy to check that
\begin{equation*}
C_G\geq \sup_{k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}} C_G^k,
\end{equation*}
but we will later see that the inequality can in fact be strict (Proposition \ref{p:tripar}).

If the infimum in \eqref{eq:C_G} is attained at some $\mu$, such a measure will be called a \emph{doubling minimizer} for $G$. Given a graph $G$, with $C_G<\infty$, let us denote the set of doubling minimizers by
$$
DM(G)=\{\mu:\text{ doubling measure on }G \text{ and } C_\mu=C_{G}\},
$$
and similarly, for each $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$, let
$$
DM^k(G)=\{\mu:\text{ doubling measure on }G \text{ and } C_\mu^k=C_{G}^k\}.
$$

We will see next that the sets $DM(G)$ and $DM^k(G)$ are always non-empty convex cones. Before showing this, the following elementary lemma will be convenient throughout (see \cite{DST}).

\begin{lem}\label{l:holder}
Let $(\alpha_j)_{j=1}^m, (\beta_j)_{j=1}^m$ be positive real scalars. We have that
$$
\frac{\sum_{j=1}^m\alpha_j}{\sum_{j=1}^m\beta_j}\leq\max_{1\leq j\leq m}\Big\{\frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j}\Big\}.
$$
Moreover, equality holds if and only if $\frac{\alpha_i}{\beta_i}=\frac{\alpha_j}{\beta_j}$, for every $1\leq i,j\leq m$.
\end{lem}

\begin{prop}\label{p:DMconvex}
If  $G$ is a graph, with $C_G<\infty$, then $DM(G)$ and $DM^k(G)$ are non-empty convex cones for every $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will provide the proof in the case when $G$ is infinite, leaving to the reader the adaptations to the simpler case of a finite graph. Let $(v_j)_{j\in\mathbb N}$ be an enumeration of $V_G$. We show first that $DM(G)\neq \emptyset$. For every $n\in\mathbb N$, let $\nu_n$ be a measure on $G$ such that $C_{\nu_n}\leq C_G+\frac1n$. Set $\mu_n=\frac{\nu_n}{\nu_n(v_1)}$. Thus, we have $C_{\nu_n}=C_{\mu_n}\leq C_G+\frac1n$ and $\mu_n(v_1)=1$, for every $n\in\mathbb N$.

We claim that, for every $v\in V_G$, we have that  $\sup_n \mu_n(v)<\infty$. Indeed, this will follow by induction on $m=d(v,v_1)$: clearly, the statement holds for $m=0$; that is, when $v=v_1$; now suppose $\sup_n \mu_n(v)<\infty$, for every $v\in V_G$, with $d(v,v_1)\leq m$, and let $w\in V_G$ with $d(w,v_1)=m+1$; we can pick $v\in V_G$ with $d(v,v_1)=m$ and $d(v,w)=1$; hence, we have
$$
\mu_n(w)\leq \mu_n(B(v,1))\leq C_G^0 \mu_n(v),
$$
and the claim follows.

Therefore, we can take an infinite set $A_1\subset \mathbb N$ such that if we write $A_1=\{n^1_i:i\in\mathbb N\}$ with $n^1_i<n^1_{i+1}$ then $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty} \mu_{n^1_i}(v_1)$ exists. Inductively, for each $j\in\mathbb N$ we can take an infinite set $A_j\subset \mathbb N$ with $A_{j+1}\subset A_j$ and $A_j=\{n^j_i:i\in\mathbb N\}$ so that $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\mu_{n^j_i}(v_j)$ exists for every $j$.

Now, let us define $\mu$ on $G$ by
$$
\mu(v_j)=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty}\mu_{n_i^j}(v_j).
$$
Note that $\mu$ is well defined because of the claim. It is straightforward to check now that $C_\mu=C_G$.

Since for every positive scalar $\alpha$, $C_{\alpha\mu}=C_\mu$, in order to see that  $DM(G)$ is a convex cone, it is enough to show that if $\mu_1,\mu_2\in DM(G)$, then $\mu_1+\mu_2\in DM(G)$.  Thus, suppose $C_{\mu_i}=C_G$, for $i=1,2$ and let $\mu=\mu_1+\mu_2$. For every $v\in V_G$ and $k\in\mathbb Z$ with $0\leq k\leq \Big\lceil \frac{\diam(G)-1}{2}\Big\rceil$, by Lemma~\ref{l:holder}, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mu(B(j,2k+1))}{\mu(B(j,k))}&=\frac{\mu_1(B(j,2k+1))+\mu_2(B(j,2k+1))}{\mu_1(B(j,k))+\mu_2(B(j,k))}\\
&\leq \max\Big\{\frac{\mu_1(B(j,2k+1))}{\mu_1(B(j,k))},\frac{\mu_2(B(j,2k+1))}{\mu_2(B(j,k))}\Big\}\\
&\leq \max\{C_{\mu_1},C_{\mu_2}\}=C_{G}.
\end{align*}
It then follows  that $C_\mu\leq C_G$. By definition of $C_G$, it follows that $C_\mu=C_G$ as claimed.

A similar argument also yields that $DM^k(G)$ is a non-empty convex cone for every $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For finite graphs, we will see that $DM^0(G)$ consists of a single measure (up to multiplicative constants), which is actually given by the Perron eigenvector of the adjacency matrix $A_G$ (see Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra}). However, it is worth noting that in general each of the sets $DM(G)$ and $DM^k(G)$ can contain non-proportional measures. This is for instance the case when $G=\mathbb N$ (that is $V_\mathbb N=\mathbb N$ and $E_\mathbb N=\{\{j,j+1\}:j\in\mathbb N\}$), as shown in  \cite{DST}: For every $\frac{1}{2}\leq \alpha\leq 1$, the measure $\mu_\alpha$ given by
$$
\mu_\alpha(j)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
 \alpha, &   & j=1,  \\
 1, &   &   j>1,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
satisfies $C_{\mu_\alpha}=C_\mathbb N=C_{\mu_\alpha}^0=C_\mathbb N^0=3$.
\end{remark}

In the setting of infinite graphs, the relation between boundedness of maximal operators and the counting measure being doubling was explored in \cite{ST2}. As we have   mentioned above, the existence of a doubling measure on a graph, implies that $\Delta_G<\infty$, which could be interpreted as the counting measure being locally doubling. The following example illustrates that this cannot be further extended.

\begin{example}
A graph supporting doubling measures where the counting measure is not doubling.
\end{example}

\begin{proof}
We will consider the graphs $\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z$ and $\mathbb N$ joined by a vertex: Let $V_G=\{(m,n,0):m,n\in\mathbb Z\}\cup\{(0,0,p):p\in\mathbb N\}$ and edges connecting $(m,n,0)$ with $(m,n\pm1,0)$ and $(m\pm1,n,0)$, and $(0,0,p)$ connected with $(0,0,p-1)$ for every $m,n\in\mathbb Z$ and $p\in\mathbb N$.

It is straightforward to check that $G$ is metrically doubling: every ball of radius $r$ is contained in the union of at most 5 balls of radius $r/2$. Since $G$ is a discrete metric space, it follows from \cite{LuSa} that there exist doubling measures on $G$. On the other hand, the counting measure $|\cdot|$ is not doubling: $|(B(0,0,k),k)|=2k+1$ while $|B((0,0,k),2k+1)|\approx k^2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Doubling constants meet spectral graph theory}\label{sec3}

Recall that the adjacency matrix of a graph $G$ is the (possibly infinite) matrix $A_G$ indexed by $V_G\times V_G$, whose $(i,j)$ entry is $1$ if the edge $\{i,j\}\in E_G$ and $0$ otherwise. We will first deal with the case of finite graphs:

\begin{thm}\label{thm:doubling spectra}
For every finite graph $G$, it holds that
$$
C_G^0=1+r(A_G),
$$
where $r(A_G)$ denotes the spectral radius (which coincides with the largest eigenvalue) of the adjacency matrix of $G$. Moreover, in that case $DM^0(G)$ consists of a unique minimizer (up to multiplicative factors) which is the measure $\mu$ given by the Perron eigenvector corresponding to $r(A_G)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Since all the entries in the matrix $A_G$ are non-negative and $G$ is connected, by Perron-Frobenius theorem (cf. \cite[Theorem 8.26]{AA}), $\lambda_1(A_G)=r(A_G)$, the spectral radius of $A_G$, is an eigenvalue with one dimensional eigenspace generated by a vector $x_G=(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ with strictly positive entries, and all the remaining eigenvalues are (real and) strictly smaller than $r(A_G)$.

Let $\mu(i)=a_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. Note that for each $1\leq i\leq n$ we have
$$
\mu(B(i,1))=\mu(i)+\sum_{\{i,j\}\in E_G} \mu(j)=a_i+\sum_{\{i,j\}\in E_G} a_j=a_i+(A_G x_G)_i=a_i(1+\lambda_1(A_G)).
$$
Therefore,
$$
C_G^0\leq \sup_{i\in V_G}\frac{\mu(B(i,1))}{\mu(B(i,0))}=1+\lambda_1(A_G).
$$

For the converse inequality, we claim that given any strictly positive $y\in \mathbb R^n$ we must have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spectralradius}
\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}\frac{(A_G y)_i}{y_i}\geq \lambda_1(A_G).
\end{equation}

Indeed, suppose this is not the case. Therefore, there exists $y\in\mathbb R^n$ with strictly positive entries such that
$$
r=\sup_{1\leq i\leq n}\frac{(A_G y)_i}{y_i}< \lambda_1(A_G)=r(A_G).
$$
We can now define a norm in $\mathbb R^n$ as follows: given $x\in\mathbb R^n$
$$
\|x\|_0=\inf\{\lambda>0:|x|\leq \lambda y\}.
$$
This is indeed a norm because all the entries of $y$ are strictly positive. Note that if $0\leq x\leq\lambda y$ we have that
$$
A_G x\leq A_G \lambda y\leq r \lambda y.
$$
Iterating, we get that if $0\leq x\leq\lambda y$, then for every $j\in\mathbb N$ we have that
$$
A_G^j x\leq r^j\lambda y.
$$
Therefore, we have that
$$
\|A_G^j x\|_0\leq r^j \|x\|_0,
$$
so that $\|A_G^j\|\leq r^j$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_0$. Now, using Gelfand's formula for the spectral radius (cf. \cite[Theorem 6.12]{AA}) it would follow that
$$
r(A_G)=\lim_{j \rightarrow \infty} \|A_G^j\|^{\frac1j}\leq r.
$$
This is a contradiction, so we must have \eqref{eq:spectralradius}.

Hence, given any doubling measure $\nu$ on $G$, take $y\in\mathbb R^n$ such that $y_i=\nu(\{i\})>0$. We have that
$$
\sup_{i\in V_G}\frac{\nu(B(i,1))}{\nu(B(i,0))}=\sup_{i\in V_G}\frac{y_i+ (A_G y)_i}{y_i}\geq 1+ \lambda_1(A_G).
$$
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The previous result is somehow reminiscent of a classical theorem due to H. Wiedlandt \cite{Wie} about the spectral radius of non-negative irreducible matrices (see also \cite{Friedland} for further developments).
\end{remark}

Recall that $G_1$ is a subgraph of $G_2$, if $V_{G_1}\subset V_{G_2}$ and $E_{G_1}\subset E_{G_2}$. Note that if $G_1$ is a subgraph of $G_2$, then the adjacency matrices (up to completion by zeros) satisfy
$$
A_{G_1}\leq A_{G_2}
$$
with the order given entry-wise. It follows that for every $k\in\mathbb N$, we have $A_{G_1}^k\leq A_{G_2}^k$, so by Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and Gelfand's formula for the spectral radius, we have
$$
C^0_{G_1}=1+r(A_{G_1})=1+\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \|A_{G_1}^k\|^{\frac{1}{k}}\leq1+\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \|A_{G_2}^k\|^{\frac{1}{k}}=1+r(A_{G_2})=C^0_{G_2}.
$$
The following result is even more informative:

\begin{cor}\label{c:C0monotone}
Suppose $G_1$ is a (proper) subgraph of a finite graph $G_2$, then $C^0_{G_1}< C^0_{G_2}$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Use Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} together with the fact that if $G_1$ is a (proper) subgraph of $G_2$, then $r(A_{G_1})<r(A_{G_2})$ (cf. \cite[Propositions 1.3.9 \& 1.3.10]{CRS}).
\end{proof}

Our aim now is to provide a version of Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} in the context of infinite graphs. In order to do so, we need some notation and lemmas first. Given an infinite graph $G$, we can consider the infinite adjacency matrix $A_G$ whose $(v,w)$ entry is given, for $v,w\in V_G$, by
$$
A_G(v,w)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
 1, &   & \text{if }\{v,w\}\in E_G,  \\
 0, &   &   \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
Also, for $1\leq p\leq\infty$, let $\ell_p(V_G)$ denote the space of functions $f:V_G\rightarrow \mathbb R$ for which the norm $\|f\|_p=(\sum_{v\in V_G} |f(v)|^p)^{1/p}<\infty$ (as usual, $\|f\|_\infty=\sup_{v\in V_G}|f(v)|$). Let us recall the following well-known fact (cf. \cite[Theorem 4]{BR}):

\begin{lem}
Let $G$ be a graph supporting non-trivial doubling measures. For every $1\leq p\leq \infty$, $A_G:\ell_p(V_G)\rightarrow \ell_p(V_G)$ defines a bounded linear positive operator.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
For $v\in V_G$, let $e_v:V_G\rightarrow \mathbb R$ be given by $e_v(v)=1$ and $e_v(w)=0$ for $w\neq v$. Associated to the adjacency matrix we set a linear operator given by $A_G e_v=\sum_{w\in V_G} A_G(v,w)e_w$. Since $G$ supports non-trivial doubling measures, in particular we have that $\Delta_G<\infty$. Thus, for every $v\in V_G$ we have that
$$
\|A_G e_v\|_1=\sum_{(v,w)\in E_G} 1\leq \Delta_G.
$$
Hence, $A_G:\ell_1(V_G)\rightarrow \ell_1(V_G)$ is bounded with $\|A_G\|\leq \Delta_G$. Also, if $1_G$ denotes the constant 1 function on $V_G$, we have
$$
\|A_G 1_G\|_\infty=\sup_{v\in V_G}\sum_{(v,w)\in E_G} 1\leq \Delta_G.
$$
Therefore, by positivity of $A_G$ it follows that $A_G:\ell_\infty(V_G)\rightarrow \ell_\infty(V_G)$ is bounded with $\|A_G\|\leq \Delta_G$. The conclusion follows by standard interpolation.
\end{proof}

In order to extend Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} to the infinite setting, it is natural to consider the extensions of Perron-Frobenius theorem to the infinite dimensional context. These extensions, like the Krein-Rutman Theorem \cite[Theorem 7.10]{AA}, usually require compactness for an operator to have the spectral radius as an eigenvalue with positive eigenvector. However, the adjacency operator $A_G$ need not be compact in general, so a different approach is required. In this direction, it was shown by B. Mohar in \cite{Mohar} that if $r(A_G)$ denotes the spectral radius of the operator $A_G:\ell_2(V_G)\rightarrow \ell_2(V_G)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mohar}
r(A_G)=\sup\{r(A_F):F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}.
\end{equation}

We need an analogue of this fact for the restricted doubling constant as follows:

\begin{prop}\label{p:C0supsubgraph}
Let $G$ be an infinite graph supporting doubling measures. Then
$$C_G^0=\sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}.$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{p:DMconvex}, we can consider a measure $\mu$ on $G$ such that $C_G^0=C_\mu^0$. For each finite subgraph $F$ of $G$, we can take $\mu_F$ to be the restriction of $\mu$ to $F$. We have that
$$
C_F^0\leq C_{\mu_F}^0=\sup_{v\in V_F}\frac{\mu_F(B(v,1))}{\mu_F(v)}\leq \sup_{v\in V_F}\frac{\mu(B(v,1))}{\mu(v)}\leq C_\mu^0=C_G^0.
$$
Taking the supremum over all finite subgraphs of $G$, we get
$$
\sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}\leq C_G^0.
$$

For the converse inequality, let $(F_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be an increasing sequence (i.e., $F_n\subset F_{n+1}$) of finite subgraphs of $G$ such that $G=\bigcup_n F_n$. Let also $(v_k)_{k\in\mathbb N}$ be an enumeration of $V_G$ with $v_1\in F_1$. Since $G=\bigcup_n F_n$ for each $k\in\mathbb N$, we can consider
$$
n_k=\min\{n\in\mathbb N: v_k\in F_n\}.
$$
For each $n\in\mathbb N$, let $\mu_n$ be the measure on $F_n$ associated to the Perron eigenvector of the adjacency matrix $A_{F_n}$ so that
$$
C_{F_n}^0=C_{\mu_n}^0,
$$
and without loss of generality, let us assume $\mu_n(v_1)=1$. Note that by Corollary \ref{c:C0monotone} $C_{F_n}^0$ is a monotone increasing sequence. We claim that for every $k\in\mathbb N$,
$$
M_k=\sup_{n\geq n_k} \mu_n(v_k)<\infty, \quad\quad m_k=\inf_{n\geq n_k} \mu_n(v_k)>0.
$$
Indeed, this follows by induction on the distance to $v_1$ exactly as in the proof of Proposition \ref{p:DMconvex}. Similarly, there exists a decreasing family of infinite sets $A_k=\{n_i^k:i\in\mathbb N\}$ (with $n_i^k\geq n_k$ for every $i\in\mathbb N$) so that $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty} \mu_{n_i^k}(v_k)$ exists for every $k\in\mathbb N$. We can thus define the measure $\mu$ on $V_G$ by
$$
\mu(v_k)=\lim_{i\rightarrow \infty} \mu_{n_i^k}(v_k).
$$

Now, for a fixed $k\in \mathbb N$, let $B_k\subset \mathbb N$ be the finite set such that $B(v_k,1)=\{v_j:j\in B_k\}$ and let $j_k=\max B_k$. Given $\varepsilon>0$, let $\varepsilon_k=\frac{m_k^2\varepsilon}{M_k(\Delta_G+\varepsilon)+\sum_{j\in B_k} M_j}$ and take $m\in\mathbb N$ large enough so that $|\mu(v_j)-\mu_{n_i^{j_k}}(v_j)|\leq\varepsilon_k$ for $i\geq m$ and every $j\in B_k$. We have that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mu(B(v_k,1))}{\mu(v_k)}&=\frac{\sum_{j\in B_k} \mu(v_j) }{\mu(v_k)}\leq \frac{\sum_{j\in B_k} \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_j) +\varepsilon_k}{\mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_k)-\varepsilon_k}\\
&\leq\frac{ \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(B(v_k,1))}{ \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_k)}+\frac{(\Delta_G \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_k)+ \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(B(v_k,1)))\varepsilon_k}{ \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_k)( \mu_{n_m^{j_k}}(v_k)-\varepsilon_k)}\\
&\leq C_{\mu_{n_m^{j_k}}}^0+\varepsilon= C_{F_{n_m^{j_k}}}^0+\varepsilon\\
&\leq \sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}+\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Letting $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$ we get that
$$
\frac{\mu(B(v_k,1))}{\mu(v_k)}\leq \sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}.
$$
Since this holds for every $k\in\mathbb N$, we get that
$$
C_G^0\leq C_\mu^0=\sup_{k\in\mathbb N} \frac{\mu(B(v_k,1))}{\mu(v_k)}\leq \sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}.
$$
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:doubling spectra infinite}
For every graph $G$ such that $\Delta_G<\infty$ we have
$$
C_G^0=1+r(A_G),
$$
where $r(A_G)$ denotes the spectral radius of the adjacency operator $A_G:\ell_2(V_G)\rightarrow \ell_2(V_G)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
This follows by applying Proposition \ref{p:C0supsubgraph}, Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and Mohar's identity \eqref{eq:Mohar}:
\begin{align*}
C_G^0&=\sup\{C_F^0:F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}\\
&=\sup\{1+r(A_F):F \text{ a finite subgraph of }G\}\\
&=1+r(A_G).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

Note that the second part of Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} about $DM^0(G)$ consisting of a single ray is no longer true for infinite graphs: take $G=\mathbb N$ and let $\mu$ be the measure on $\mathbb N$ given by $\mu(n)=n$ for $n\in\mathbb N$; it is clear that $C_\mu^0=3=C_{|\cdot|}^0$.

Recall that a graph $G$ is $k$-colorable if there is a function $c:V_G\rightarrow\{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $c(v)\neq c(w)$ whenever $\{v,w\}\in E_G$. The chromatic number $\chi(G)$ is the least $k$ for which $G$ is $k$-colorable. As a consequence of Wilf's theorem \cite{Wilf} and its infinite dimensional extension \cite{BR} we get the following corollary to Theorems \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and \ref{thm:doubling spectra infinite}.

\begin{cor}
For every graph $G$ it holds that $\chi(G)\leq C_G^0$.
\end{cor}

\section{Symmetric doubling minimizers and amenability of $\aut(G)$}\label{sec4}

In this section we will see that if the action of the automorphism group of the graph is amenable, then the doubling constant can be computed considering only symmetric measures; that is, those invariant under the action of the automorphism group.

Recall that an automorphism of a graph $G = (V_G,E_G)$ is a permutation $\sigma:V_G\rightarrow V_G$, such that the pair $\{u,v\}\in E_G$ if and only if the pair $\{\sigma(u),\sigma(v)\}\in E_G$. Let $\aut(G)$ denote the group of all automorphisms on $G$. From the point of view of metric spaces, the automorphisms are the bijections on the space which preserve the distance, or simply the \textit{global isometries}.

Let us introduce the following notation: Given a graph $G$, a finite set $F\subset \aut(G)$, and a doubling measure $\mu$ on $G$, let $\mu_F$ be the measure given by
$$
\mu_F(v)=\sum_{\sigma\in F}\mu(\sigma(v)),
$$
for $v\in V_G$. This clearly defines an $F$-invariant measure; that is, $\mu_F(\sigma(v))=\mu_F(v)$ for every $\sigma\in F$.

\begin{lem}\label{l:finite}
Given a graph $G$, a finite set $F\subset \aut(G)$, and a doubling measure $\mu$ on $G$, let $\mu_F$ be as above. For every $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ we have $C^k_{\mu_F}\leq C^k_{\mu}$. In particular, $C_{\mu_{F}}\leq C_\mu.$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Note that for any $v\in V_G$, $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$ and $\sigma\in \aut(G)$ we have
$$
\sigma(B(v,k))=B(\sigma(v),k).
$$
Thus, for $k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$, applying Lemma \ref{l:holder}, we have that
\begin{align*}
\frac{\mu_{F}(B(v,2k+1))}{\mu_{F}(B(v,k))}&=\frac{\sum_{\sigma\in F}\mu(\sigma(B(v,2k+1)))}{\sum_{\sigma\in F}\mu(\sigma(B(v,k)))}\\
&=\frac{\sum_{\sigma\in F}\mu(B(\sigma(v),2k+1))}{\sum_{\sigma\in F}\mu(B(\sigma(v),k))}\\
&\leq\max_{\sigma\in F}\left\{\frac{\mu(B(\sigma(v),2k+1))}{\mu(B(\sigma(v),k))}\right\}\leq C^k_\mu.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have
$$
C^k_{\mu_{F}}\leq C^k_\mu,
$$
as claimed. Thus, we also have $C_{\mu_{F}}\leq C_\mu$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
For every graph $G$ whose automorphism group $\aut(G)$ is finite (in particular, for every finite graph), by Proposition \ref{p:DMconvex}, we can take $\mu\in DM(G)$ and consider $\mu_{\aut(G)}$ as above. Lemma \ref{l:finite} yields that $C_G=C_\mu=C_{\mu_{\aut(G)}}$, with $\mu_{\aut(G)}$ invariant under $\aut(G)$. Thus, for these graphs we always have symmetric doubling minimizers.
\end{remark}

Let us see next that this can be extended to graphs with a subgroup of $\aut(G)$ having an amenable action. We will say that a subgroup $\Gamma$ of $\aut(G)$ is amenable, if there exists a sequence of finite subsets $F_n\subset \Gamma$, for $n\in\mathbb N$, with
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[{(i)}] $F_n\subset F_{n+1}$,
     \item[{(ii)}]  $\bigcup_n F_n=\Gamma$,
     \item[{(iii)}]  For every $\sigma\in \Gamma$, $\frac{|F_n\cdot \sigma\Delta F_n|}{|F_n|}\underset{n\rightarrow \infty}\longrightarrow 0,$
\end{enumerate}
where $F_n\cdot \sigma=\{\tau\sigma:\tau\in F_n\}$ and $\Delta$ as usual denotes the symmetric difference of two sets (that is, $A\Delta B=(A\cup B)\backslash (A\cap B)$.) A sequence $(F_n)_{n\in \mathbb N}$ as above is usually called a F\o lner sequence in $\Gamma$ \cite{Folner}. Amenable actions on graphs have been thoroughly considered in the literature and have  connections to several areas (see for instance \cite{AL, SW, Woess}).

Also we will say that a measure $\mu$ is bounded on $G$ if $\sup_{v\in V_G} \mu(v)<\infty$.

\begin{thm}\label{t:symmetric}
Let $G$ be a graph and $\Gamma$ an amenable subgroup of $\aut(G)$. If there is a doubling measure $\mu$ which is bounded on $G$, then there is a doubling measure $\mu_\Gamma$ on $G$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[(i)] $\mu_\Gamma$ is invariant under $\Gamma$,
    \item[(ii)] $C_{\mu_\Gamma}\leq C_\mu$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
As $\Gamma$ is amenable, let $(F_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a F\o lner sequence in $\Gamma$. Suppose $\mu$ is a bounded doubling measure on $G$ and let $\|\mu\|_\infty=\sup_{v\in V_G}\mu(v)$. For $n\in\mathbb N$, and $v\in V_G$ let
$$
\mu_n(v)=\frac{\mu_{F_n}(v)}{|F_n|}=\frac1{|F_n|}\sum_{\sigma\in F_n}\mu(\sigma(v)).
$$
Let now $\mathcal U$ be an ultrafilter on $\mathbb N$ refining the order filter, and let
$$
\mu_{\Gamma}(v)=\lim_{n\in\mathcal U}\mu_n(v),
$$
the limit being taken along the ultrafilter $\mathcal U$. Note that $\mu_\Gamma(v)$ is well-defined because $\mu$ is bounded. By Lemma \ref{l:finite}, $C^k_{\mu_n}\leq C^k_\mu$, for every $k\in\mathbb N$, so it clearly follows that
$$
C_{\mu_\Gamma}\leq C_\mu.
$$
It remains to check that $\mu_\Gamma$ is invariant under $\Gamma$. To this end, fix $v\in V_G$ and $\sigma\in \Gamma$. For every $\varepsilon>0$, we can take $A\in\mathcal U$ such that for every $n\in A$ we have
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[{(a)}] $|\mu_\Gamma(v)-\mu_n(v)|<\varepsilon$,
     \item[{(b)}]  $|\mu_\Gamma(\sigma(v))-\mu_n(\sigma(v))|<\varepsilon$,
     \item[{(c)}]  $\frac{|F_n\cdot \sigma\Delta F_n|}{|F_n|}<\varepsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
It follows that, for $n\in A$
\begin{align*}
    \mu_\Gamma(\sigma(v))&\leq \mu_n(\sigma(v))+\varepsilon\\
    &=\frac1{|F_n|}\sum_{\tau \in F_n}\mu(\tau\sigma(v))+\varepsilon\\
    &=\frac1{|F_n|}\Big(\sum_{\tau \in F_n}\mu(\tau\sigma(v))+\sum_{\tau \in F_n}\mu(\tau(v))-\sum_{\tau \in F_n}\mu(\tau(v))\Big)+\varepsilon\\
    &\leq \frac1{|F_n|}\sum_{\tau \in F_n}\mu(\tau(v))+\frac{|F_n\cdot\sigma\Delta F_n|}{|F_n|}\|\mu\|_\infty+\varepsilon\\
    &\leq \mu_\Gamma(v)+(2+\|\mu\|_\infty)\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
As $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, it follows that $\mu_\Gamma(\sigma(v))\leq \mu_\Gamma(v)$. Since the argument holds for any $\sigma\in \Gamma$, we get that
$$
\mu_\Gamma(\sigma(v))= \mu_\Gamma(v),
$$
for every $\sigma\in \Gamma$ and every $v\in V_G$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

Recall that a graph $G$ is called vertex transitive, if for every pair of vertices $v,v'\in V_G$ there exists $\sigma\in \aut(G)$ such that $v'=\sigma(v)$. As a direct consequence of Theorem \ref{t:symmetric} we get:

\begin{cor}\label{c:vertextrans}
Let $G$ be a vertex transitive graph.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[{(i)}] Suppose $\aut(G)$ is amenable. Then, $G$ supports a bounded doubling measure if and only if the counting measure $|\cdot|$ is doubling.
    \item[{(ii)}]  If $G$ is finite, then $C_G=C_{|\cdot|}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}

Let us see next that property $(i)$ holds actually under more general assumptions.

\begin{prop}
Let $G$ be a vertex transitive graph. $G$ supports a doubling measure if and only if $|\cdot|$ is doubling.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $\mu$ is a doubling measure on $G$. A moment thought reveals that for every $v\in V_G$, $r>0$ and $\lambda\geq1$
$$
\mu(B(v,\lambda r))\leq C_\mu \lambda^{\log_2 C_\mu} \mu (B(v,r)).
$$
It follows (cf. \cite{VK}) that there is a constant $D$ (depending only on $C_\mu$), such that the cardinality of a set of $r$-separated points in $B(v,\lambda r)$ is always bounded by $D\lambda^{\log_2 C_\mu}$. In particular, this implies that for every $x\in V_G$, we can find a set $F\subset V_G$ with $|F|\leq D C_\mu$ such that
$$
B(x,2r)\subset \bigcup_{v\in F} B(v,r).
$$

Moreover, since $G$ is vertex transitive, it follows that $|B(v,r)|=|B(x,r)|$ for every $v\in V_G$ and $r>0$. In particular we have
$$
|B(x,2r)|\leq |F||B(x,r)|\leq D C_\mu|B(x,r)|,
$$
which shows that $|\cdot|$ is doubling.
\end{proof}

It should be noted that the fact that $\aut(G)$ is amenable, does not necessarily imply that there exists a doubling measure on $G$, as the following shows.

\begin{example}
For every $r\geq 3$ there is a graph $G$ with $\Delta_G=r+1$ such that $\aut(G)=\{id_{V_G}\}$ and $G$ does not support any non-trivial doubling measure.
\end{example}

\begin{proof}
For $r\geq3$, let $T_r$ denote the infinite $r$-homogeneous regular tree and let $(x_i)_{i\in\mathbb N}$ be an enumeration of its vertices. We will consider a graph $G$ whose vertex set $V_G$, consists of all pairs $(x_i,j)$ with $j=0,\ldots,i$, and two vertices $(x_i,j)$, $(x_{i'},j')$
are connected by an edge in $E_G$ if $i=i'$ and $|j-j'|=1$ or $i\neq i'$, $j=j'=0$ and $x_i$ is connected to $x_{i'}$ by an edge in $E_{T_r}$.

Let $d_{i,j}$ denote the degree of the vertex $(x_i,j)$. We have
$$
d_{i,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
    r+1, & \text{ if } j=0, \\
    1, & \text{ if } j=i,\\
    2, & \text{ otherwise.}\\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
Since automorphisms preserve the degree of each vertex, it is easy to check that $\aut(G)=\{id_{V_G}\}$.

On the other hand, in order to see that $G$ does not support a doubling measure it is enough to check that $G$ is not metrically doubling; that is, the number of $s$-separated points in a ball of the from $B(v,2s)$ is not uniformly bounded for $s>0$ (cf. \cite{LuSa}). This follows from the properties of $T_r$. Indeed, note that for every $s>0$ the ball $B(v,2s)$ for $v=(x_0,0)$, contains $r(r-1)^{s-1}$ vertices of the form $(x_{i},0)$ with $d(x_0,x_{i})=s$, and for each of them we can consider another vertex of the form $(x_{j_i},0)$ with $d(x_i,x_{j_i})=s$ and $d(x_0,x_{j_i})=2s$, so that $d(x_{j_i},x_{j_{i'}})>s$ for $i\neq i'$.
\end{proof}

\section{The least doubling constants $C_G$ vs. $C_G^0$}\label{sec5}

Given that the restricted doubling constant $C_G^0$ can be more easily computed by Theorems \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and \ref{thm:doubling spectra infinite} than $C_G$ itself, the purpose of this section is to clarify when $C_G=C_G^0$ and use this to compute $C_G$ for certain families of graphs. Let us begin with a simple observation that characterizes when $C_G=C_G^0$:

\begin{prop}\label{lemachorra}
For a finite graph $G$, let $\mu_0$ denote the measure associated to the Perron eigenvector of the adjacency matrix. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{(i)}] $C_G=C_G^0$.
\item[{(ii)}] $C_{\mu_0}=C_{\mu_0}^0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first $C_G=C_G^0$, and let $\mu\in DM(G)$. We have that
$$
C_{\mu}^0\leq C_\mu=C_G=C_G^0\leq C_{\mu}^0.
$$
Hence, we have that
\begin{equation*}
C_{\mu}^0= C_\mu=C_G=C_G^0.
\end{equation*}
In particular, by Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra}, it follows that $\mu=\alpha\mu_0$ for some scalar $\alpha>0$. Thus, $C_{\mu_0}^0= C_{\mu_0}$ as claimed.

Conversely, if $C_G^0<C_G$, then we have
$$
C_{\mu_0}^0=C_G^0<C_G\leq C_{\mu_0},
$$
as claimed.
\end{proof}

In \cite{ST} we computed the least doubling constant of some families of finite graphs, including complete graphs $K_n$, star graphs $S_n$ and cycles $C_n$:
$$
C_{K_n}=n, \quad \quad C_{S_n}=1+\sqrt{n}, \quad \quad C_{C_n}=3.
$$
In \cite{DST} we have analyzed the constants of path graphs $L_n$, $\mathbb N$, and $\mathbb Z$ and have shown that
$$
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} C_{L_n}=3=C_{\mathbb Z}=C_{\mathbb N},
$$
where $L_n$ denotes the path or linear graph of $n$ vertices. It was also shown in \cite{DST} that $C_{L_n}=C_{L_n}^0$ if and only if $n\leq 8$.

In order to expand this list, we will need the following result:

\begin{prop}\label{p:diam2}
Let $G$ be a graph with $\diam(G)=2$. For every measure $\mu$ on $G$ we have $C_\mu=C_\mu^0$. In particular,  $C_G=C_G^0$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Since $\diam(G)=2$, for every $v\in V_G$ we have that
\begin{equation}\label{bola2}
V_G=B(v,2)=\bigcup_{w\in B(v,1)}B(w,1).
\end{equation}
Hence, if $\mu$ is any measure on $G$, then for every $v\in V_G$, by \eqref{bola2} and Lemma \ref{l:holder}, we have that
$$
\frac{\mu(B(v,2))}{\mu(B(v,1))}\leq\frac{\sum_{w\in B(v,1)}\mu(B(w,1))}{\mu(B(v,1))}=\frac{\sum_{w\in B(v,1)}\mu(B(w,1))}{\sum_{w\in B(v,1)}\mu(w)}\leq \max_{w\in B(v,1)}\Big\{\frac{\mu(B(w,1))}{\mu(w)}\Big\}.
$$
It follows that $C_\mu= C_\mu^0$, and in particular $C_G=C_G^0$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Significant families of graphs with diameter 2}\label{subsec}
\begin{enumerate} [leftmargin=*]
\item[{(i)}] {\em Friendship graphs}: The celebrated Friendship Theorem \cite{ERS}, states that the only graphs with the property that every two vertices have exactly one neighbor in common are the friendship graphs $F_n$ ($2n+1$ vertices, obtained by joining $n$ copies of $C_3$ with a common vertex). Let $v_1$ be the vertex of degree $2n$, and $(v_i)_{i=2}^{2n+1}$ the vertices of degree 3. For every $n\in \mathbb N$ we have $C_{F_n}=C_{F_n}^0=1+\frac12(1+\sqrt{1+8n})$. Indeed, by Proposition \ref{p:diam2}, Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and \cite[Proposition~2.2]{AJR}, we have that
$$
C_{F_n}= C_{F_n}^0=1+r(A_{F_n})=1+\frac12(1+\sqrt{1+8n}).
$$
Moreover,
$$
\mu(v_i)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
4n,  &   & i=1,  \\
1+\sqrt{1+8n},  &   &   2\leq i\leq 2n+1,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
defines the unique doubling minimizer (up to constants).

\item[{(ii)}] {\em Wheel graphs}: Let $W_n$ denote the wheel graph with $n$ vertices, being $v_1$ a vertex of degree $n-1$ and the remaining vertices $(v_i)_{i=2}^n$ of degree 3. For every $n\in \mathbb N$ we have $C_{W_n}=C_{W_n}^0=2+\sqrt{n}$. Indeed, by Proposition \ref{p:diam2}, Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra} and \cite[5.6]{M}, it follows that
$$
C_{W_n}=C_{W_n}^0=1+r(A_{W_n})=2+\sqrt{n}.
$$
Moreover,
$$
\mu(v_i)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
n-1,  &   & i=1,  \\
1+\sqrt{n},  &   &   2\leq i\leq n,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
defines the unique doubling minimizer (up to constants).

\item[{(iii)}] {\em Complete bipartite graphs}: $C_{K_{m,n}}=1+\sqrt{mn}$

\item[{(iv)}] {\em Cocktail party graph}: $C_{R_{2n-2,2n}}=2n-1$. The {\em cocktail party} is the unique regular graph with $2n$ vertices of degree $2n-2$.

\item[{(v)}] {\em Petersen graph}: $C_{R_{3,10}}=4$.

\item[{(vi)}] {\em Hoffman-Singleton graph}: $C_{R_{7,50}}=8$.

\item[{(vii)}] {\em Clebsch graph}: $C_{R_{4,16}}=5$.

\end{enumerate}

Items (iv)-(vii) correspond to regular graphs. Recall that a regular graph of degree $k$ is a graph all of whose vertices have degree $k$. Let $\Delta(G)$ denote the maximum degree of $G$. It is well-know (cf. \cite[Theorem 6]{M}) that for connected graphs, $\lambda_1(A_G)=\Delta(G)$ if and only if $G$ is a regular graph. In particular, by Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra}, every $k$-regular graph $G$ satisfies $C_G^0=k+1$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{RegularDiameter2Paper.pdf}
\caption{Some of the graphs in Subsection~\ref{subsec}.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Graphs with $C_G>C_G^0$}

Let us consider the following three-legs graph $T$: this is a tree with one vertex $v_1$ of degree 3, whose 3 neighbors $v_2,v_3,v_4$ have degree 2, and each of these is connected to a leave $v_5,v_6,v_7$ (see Figure \ref{Tripar}). It can be easily checked that the Perron eigenvector of $A_T$ yields the measure
$$
\mu(v_i)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
3,  &   & i=1,  \\
2,  &   &   2\leq i\leq 4,\\
1,  &   & 5\leq i\leq 7.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
Since
$$
C_\mu\geq\frac{\mu(B(v_5,3))}{\mu(v_5)}=\frac{10}{3}>3=C_\mu^0,
$$
by Proposition \ref{lemachorra}, it follows that $C_T>C_T^0$. The following provides an accurate computation of $C_T$. Although the proof is completely elementary, we have decided to include the details as an illustration of the method that can be used for computing $C_G$ for other graphs.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{Tripar.pdf}
\caption{The three-legs graph $T$.}\label{Tripar}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{prop}\label{p:tripar}
Let $T$ be the  three-legs graph given above. It holds that $C_T-1$ coincides with the largest root of the polynomial $x^3+x^2-5x-3$. In particular,
$$
\sup_k C_T^k\leq3 <C_T\approx  3.0861.
$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
As $\diam(G)=4$ we have to show $C_G^k\leq 3$ for $k=0,1,2$. By Lemma \ref{l:finite}, we can assume all measures involved in the computations are symmetric; that is, we can set $a$ for the value of the measure on each leaf, $b$ for its value on the vertices of degree 2 and $c$ for that of the vertex of degree 3, as in Figure \ref{Tripar}.

Note that
\begin{equation*}
C_T^0=\inf_{a,b,c}\sup\Big\{\frac{a+b}{a},\frac{a+b+c}{b},\frac{3b+c}{c}\Big\},
\end{equation*}
so if we take $a=1$, $b=2$, $c=3$, it follows that $C_T^0\leq 3$.

Similarly, we also have
\begin{equation*}
C_T^1=\inf_{a,b,c}\sup\Big\{\frac{a+3b+c}{a+b},\frac{3a+3b+c}{a+b+c},\frac{3a+3b+c}{3b+c}\Big\},
\end{equation*}
so taking $a=b=1$ and $c=2$ we get $C_T^1\leq 3$.

Finally, note that
\begin{equation*}
C_T^2=\inf_{a,b,c}\sup\Big\{\frac{3a+3b+c}{a+b+c},1\Big\}\leq 3.
\end{equation*}
Now, let us compute explicitly $C_T$.
To give an upper bound let us consider the weights
$$
a=1\quad b= (1+r)/2\quad c= (-2 + r + r^2)/2,
$$
where $r\approx 2.0861$ is the largest zero of the polynomial $x^3+x^2-5x-3=0$. It is easy to check that for these particular weights $C_T\leq1+r.$

On the other hand, let $\overline{a}, \overline{b}, \overline{c}$ denote the weights that give $C_T$. We know that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sup\left\{\dfrac{\overline{a}+\overline{b}+\overline{c}}{\overline{b}},\dfrac{3\overline{b}+\overline{c}}{\overline{c}},\dfrac{\overline{a}+3\overline{b}+\overline{c}}{\overline{a}+\overline{b}}\right\}\leq C_T.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus, if we denote $x_1=\overline{a}+\overline{b}$, $x_2=\overline{b}$ and $x_3=\overline{c}$, then $C_T$ satisfies
$$
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
 (i)\quad x_1+2x_2+x_3&\leq C_T x_1  \\
 (ii) \quad x_1+x_3&\leq C_Tx_2\\
  (iii)\quad  3x_2+x_3&\leq C_Tx_3
  \end{array}
\right.
$$
Now, an appropriate recursion of this inequalities yields
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
&2x_2+x_3\stackrel{(i)}{\leq}x_1 (C_T-1) \stackrel{(ii)}{\leq} (C_Tx_2-x_3) (C_T-1)\Rightarrow 0\leq x_2(C_T^2-C_T-2)-x_3 C_T\\
&\stackrel{(iii)}{\Rightarrow}0\leq \frac{x_3}{3}(C_T-1)(C_T^2-C_T-2)-x_3 C_T \Rightarrow C_T^3-2C_T^2-4C_T+2\geq 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Observe that
$$
x^3-2x^2-4x+2=(x-1)^3+(x-1)^2-5(x-1)-3
$$
and
$$
\{x:(x-1)^3+(x-1)^2-5(x-1)-3=0\}=\{1+x:x^3+x^2-5x-3=0\}.
$$
Since $C_T\geq 3$, we conclude that $C_T\geq 1+r$.
\end{proof}

Proposition \ref{p:diam2} cannot be extended to graphs with diameter larger than 2, as the following shows.

\begin{example}
The {\em Doyle graph} (also known as the Holt graph \cite{Holt}) $\mathcal D$ is a vertex transitive 4-regular graph of diameter $3$ with $27$ vertices which satisfies
$$
C_{\mathcal D}>C_{\mathcal D}^0.
$$
\end{example}

Indeed, because $\mathcal D$ is a vertex transitive graph, if follows from Corollary \ref{c:vertextrans} that
$$
C_{\mathcal D}=C_{|\cdot|}=\sup\left\{\frac{|B(v,3)|}{|B(v,1|)}, \frac{|B(v,1)|}{|B(v,0)|}\right\}=\sup\left\{\frac{n}{k+1}, \frac{k+1}{1}\right\}=\sup\left\{\frac{27}{5}, 5\right\}=\frac{27}{5}.
$$
On the other hand, being a $4$-regular graph, we have $C_{\mathcal D}^0=5,$ and the claim follows.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{Doyle.pdf}
\caption{Doyle graph. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{A characterization of graphs with doubling constant $C_G\leq3$}\label{sec6}

Motivated by Smith's description of graphs with spectral radius no greater than 2 \cite{S}, our purpose in this Section is to classify those graphs $G$ with doubling constant $C_G\leq 3$. Note that $C_G=2$ only in the case when the graph consists of 2 vertices. Let us begin with some simple facts steaming directly from the definition of $C_G^0$:

\begin{lem}\label{l:localmax}
Given a graph $G$ and $\mu$ a measure on $G$. Suppose $v\in V_G$ has degree $d_v\geq 3$ and let $(v_i)_{i=1}^{d_v}$ be the set of its neighbors. Let $a_0=\mu(v)$, and $a_i=\mu(v_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq d_v$. If $a_0\leq a_i$ for some $1\leq i\leq d_v$, then $C^0_\mu\geq3$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $\sum_{j\neq i}a_i\leq a_0$, then there exists $j\neq i$ such that $a_j\leq \frac{a_0}{d_v-1}$. In this case, we have
$$
C^0_\mu\geq \frac{\mu(B(v_j,1))}{\mu(B(v_j,0))}\geq\frac{a_j+a_0}{a_j}\geq d_v\geq3.
$$
Otherwise, suppose now that $\sum_{j\neq i}a_i> a_0$. In that case, we have
$$
C^0_\mu\geq\frac{\mu(B(v,1))}{\mu(B(v,0))}\geq\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{d_v} a_i}{a_0}>3.
$$
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{CG3}
Let $G$ be a graph. Under any of the following conditions we have that $C^0_G\geq3$:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item[{(i)}] $G$ contains a cycle.
  \item[{(ii)}] $G$ contains a vertex of degree strictly larger than 3.
  \item[{(iii)}] $G$ contains 2 vertices of degree at least 3.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
To prove \textit{(i)}, let $\{v_i:i=1,\ldots,m\}\subset V_G$ be an $m$-cycle ($m\geq3$); that is, $\{v_1, v_m\},\,\{v_i, v_{i+1}\}\in E_G$ for $i=1\ldots,m-1$. For any measure $\mu$ on $G$, let $a_i=\mu(v_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,m$. Let $a_{i_0}=\min\{ a_i:1\leq i\leq m\}$. It follows that
$$
C^0_{\mu}\geq \frac{\mu(B(v_{i_0},1))}{\mu(B(v_{i_0},0))}\geq \frac{a_{i_0-1}+a_{i_0}+a_{i_0+1}}{a_{i_0}}\geq 3.
$$
Since $\mu$ is arbitrary, we have $C^0_\mu\geq3$.

 \textit{(ii)}: Suppose $v\in V_G$ has degree $d_v\geq 4$. Let $(v_i)_{i=1}^{d_v}\subset V_G$ be the neighbors of $v$. For any measure $\mu$ on $G$, let $a_0=\mu(v)$ and $a_i=\mu(v_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,d_v$. Suppose first that
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{d_v} a_i\geq 2a_0.
$$
In this case, we have
$$
C^0_\mu\geq \frac{\mu(B(v,1))}{\mu(B(v,0))}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{d_v} a_i}{a_0}\geq 3.
$$
Now, suppose on the other hand that
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{d_v} a_i< 2a_0.
$$
Then, necessarily, there is $1\leq j\leq d_v$ such that $a_j<\frac{2a_0}{d_v}$. In this case, as $d_v\geq4$, we have
$$
C^0_\mu\geq \frac{\mu(B(v_j,1))}{\mu(B(v_j,0))}\geq\frac{a_j+a_0}{a_j}>\frac{d_v}{2}+1\geq3.
$$
In either case, it follows that $C^0_G\geq3$.

 \textit{(iii)}: By  \textit{(i)} and \textit{(ii)}, we can assume that $G$ is a tree with maximal degree $\Delta_G=3$. Hence, without loss of generality, we can assume that $G$ contains two vertices of degree 3, $v_1,v_2$, which are connected by a path of length $p\in\mathbb N$, $\{w_{i-1},w_i\}$ for $1\leq i\leq p$, with all the vertices distinct from $v_1$ and $v_2$ having degree 2. Note that $v_1$ and $v_2$ could be neighbors; that is, $p=0$, in which case, the same proof works.

Given any measure $\mu$ on $G$, let $a_0=\mu(v_1)$, $a_i=\mu(w_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,p$, and $a_{p+1}=\mu(v_2)$. By Lemma \ref{l:localmax}, we can assume $a_0>a_1$ and $a_p<a_{p+1}$. It follows, that there must be some $1\leq i\leq p$ such that $a_i\leq \min\{a_{i-1},a_{i+1}\}$. Therefore, we have
$$
C^0_\mu\geq\frac{\mu(B(w_i,1))}{\mu(B(w_i,0))}\geq\frac{a_{i-1}+a_i+a_{i+1}}{a_i}\geq3.
$$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Alternatively, Proposition \ref{CG3} can be proved using the monotonicity of $C_G^0$ (which is a consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra}) and the fact that the graphs $S_n$ for $n\geq 4$, $C_n$ and $\widehat D_n$ satisfy $C_G^0\geq3$. However, we included the proof above as it is completely elementary.
\end{remark}

If a graph satisfies $C_G\leq3$, Proposition \ref{CG3} implies that $G$ must be a tree with at most one vertex of degree 3, and all the remaining vertices have degree 1 or 2. However, the list of graphs with $C_G\leq3$ is even smaller: By Theorem \ref{thm:doubling spectra}, we have that
$$
1+\lambda_1(A_G)=C^0_G\leq C_G\leq 3,
$$
so $\lambda_1(A_G)\leq 2$. The finite graphs with this property have been considered in \cite{S} and \cite{CG} (see Figure \ref{dynkin}).

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{GrafosSmith.pdf}
\caption{Graphs with small doubling constant.}\label{dynkin}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In particular, we have
$$
C^0_{D_n}=1+2\cos{\frac{\pi}{2(n-1)}}\qquad C^0_{L_n}=1+2\cos{\frac{\pi}{n+1}},
$$
$$
C^0_{E_6}=1+2\cos{\frac{\pi}{12}},\quad C^0_{E_7}=1+2\cos{\frac{\pi}{18}},\quad C^0_{E_8}=1+2\cos{\frac{\pi}{30}},
$$
and
\[
3=C^0_{\widehat{E}_6}=C^0_{\widehat{E}_7}=C^0_{\widehat{E}_8}=C^0_{C_n}=C^0_{\widehat{D}_n},
\]
where $n=|V_{D_n}|=|V_{L_n}|=|V_{\widehat{D}_n}|=|V_{C_n}|$.

\begin{cor}\label{c:finiteCG3}
The only finite graphs with $C_G\leq 3$ are $E_6$, $E_7$, $L_n$, $D_n$, $C_n$ and $\widehat{D}_n$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
In \cite{DST} it is proved that $C_{L_n}<3$ and in \cite{ST} it was checked that $C_{C_n}=3.$

On the other hand, consider in $D_n$ the measure $\mu$ that gives $1$ to the two leaves and $2$ to the rest of the vertexes. It is easy to see that $C_{D_n}\leq C_{\mu}=3$.

Let us consider in $E_6$ the measure $\mu$ and in $E_7$ the measure $\nu$ as in Figure \ref{E6E7}. One can check that $C_{E_6}\leq C_{\mu}<3$ and $C_{E_7}\leq C_{\nu}<3$. To see that $C_{E_8}>3$, one can proceed similarly as we did in Proposition \ref{p:tripar}. If we denote by $a_i$ ($1\leq i\leq 8$) a sequence of optimal weights to compute $C_{E_8}$ (see Figure \ref{E8}) one can check that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sup&\Big\{\frac{a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4+a_8}{a_1+a_2}, \frac{a_1+a_2+a_3}{a_2},\frac{a_2+a_3+a_4}{a_3}, \frac{a_3+a_4+a_5}{a_4}, \\&\frac{a_4+a_5+a_6}{a_5}, \frac{a_5+a_6+a_7}{a_6}, \frac{a_2+a_3+a_4+a_5+a_6+a_7+a_8}{a_5+a_6+a_7},\frac{a_3+a_8}{a_8} \Big\}\leq C_{E_8}=x,
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
implies
\begin{equation}\label{eqpolyE8}
2 x - 8 x^2 + 14 x^3 - 10 x^4 - 4 x^5 + 11 x^6 - 6 x^7 + x^8\geq 0.
\end{equation}
Since $x\geq 2$, $x\geq r\approx 3.02058$ where $r$ is the biggest root of the polynomial in \eqref{eqpolyE8}.
\begin{figure}[h]\label{E8}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{E8-2.pdf}
\caption{Graph $E_8$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Now, let $\mu_0$ denote the measure associated to the Perron eigenvector of the adjacency matrix (see Figure \ref{dynkin}).
If $G$ is $\widehat{E}_6, \widehat{E}_7$ or $\widehat{E}_8$ it can be numerically computed that $C_{\mu_0}>C_{\mu_0}^0$ so, by Proposition \ref{lemachorra}, $C_{\widehat{E}_6}>3$, $C_{\widehat{E}_7}>3$ and $C_{\widehat{E}_8}>3$ (notice that in Proposition \ref{p:tripar} we computed the exact value of $\widehat{E}_6$).

Finally, a similar argument as in the proof that the counting measure $\lambda$ on $L_n$ satisfies $C_{\lambda}=3$ can be used to show that $C_{\widehat{D_n}}=C^0_{\widehat{D_n}}=3$.

\begin{figure}[h]\label{E6E7}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{E6_E7.pdf}
\caption{Graphs $E_6$ and $E_7$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{c:infiniteCG3}
The only infinite graphs with $C_G\leq 3$ are $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Z$, and $D_{\infty}$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $G$ is an infinite graph with $C_G\leq3$. In particular, $C_G^0\leq 3$, so by Proposition \ref{p:C0supsubgraph}, every finite subgraph $F\subset G$ must have $C^0_F\leq 3$. However, by Corollary \ref{c:finiteCG3}, the only finite graphs of arbitrary size are $D_n$ and $L_n$. This makes $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Z$, and $D_{\infty}$ the only possible infinite graphs with constant no greater than 3.

The fact that actually $C_\mathbb N=C_\mathbb Z=3$ has been proved in \cite{DST}. As for $D_\infty$, let $(v_j)_{j\in\mathbb N}$ be an enumeration of the vertices, so that $v_1$ and $v_2$ correspond to the leaves, $v_3$ is the only vertex of degree 3, and the remaining vertices have degree 2. It is enough to consider the measure given by
$$
\mu(v_j)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
1,  &   & j=1,2,  \\
2,  &   &   j\geq 3,
\end{array}
\right.
$$
and a straightforward computation yields $C_{D_\infty}\leq C_\mu=3$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgment.} The first author would like to thank Professor Miguel \'Angel Sama (UNED),  for his valuable help with the numerical calculations (and some enlightening conversations)  involved in the preliminary versions of this manuscript. She would also like to thank Professor Jeremy T. Tyson (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) for a fruitful conversation regarding this topic.

Combinatorics (math.CO); Metric Geometry (math.MG)


Weighted enumeration of spanning subgraphs with degree constraints

Abstract: The Heilmann-Lieb Theorem on (univariate) matching polynomials states that the polynomial $\sum_k m_k(G) y^k$ has only real nonpositive zeros, in which $m_k(G)$ is the number of $k$-edge matchings of a graph $G$. There is a stronger multivariate version of this theorem. We provide a general method by which ``theorems of Heilmann-Lieb type'' can be proved for a wide variety of polynomials attached to the graph $G$. These polynomials are multivariate generating functions for spanning subgraphs of $G$ with certain weights and constraints imposed, and the theorems specify regions in which these polynomials are nonvanishing. Such theorems have consequences for the absence of phase transitions in certain probabilistic models for spanning subgraphs of $G$.

\section{Introduction.}

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite graph, possibly with loops or multiple edges.
For each natural number $k\in\NN$, let $m_k(G)$ denote the number of
$k$-edge matchings in $G$.  The univariate Heilmann-Lieb Theorem \cite{HL}
states that all zeros of the polynomial $\mu(G;y)=\sum_k m_k(G) y^k$ lie on the
negative real axis.  A stronger multivariate version has variables
$\x=\{x_v:\ v\in V\}$, one for each vertex, and concerns the polynomial
$$\widetilde{\mu}(G;\x)=\sum_M \x^{\deg(M)}$$
in which the sum is over all matchings $M$ of $G$,  $\deg(M):V\rightarrow\NN$
is the degree function of $M$, and for any $f:V\rightarrow\NN$
$$\x^f=\prod_{v\in V} x_v^{f(v)}.$$
The multivariate Heilmann-Lieb Theorem \cite{HL} states that if $|\arg(x_v)|<\pi/2$
for all $v\in V$ then $\widetilde{\mu}(G;\x)\neq 0$.  One sees that this
implies the univariate version by means of the relation
$$\mu(G;y)=\widetilde{\mu}(G;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$$
(which follows from the Handshake Lemma).

The purpose of this paper is to apply some standard results from the analytic
theory of complex polynomials to provide a general method by which
``theorems of Heilmann-Lieb type'' can easily be deduced.  The
multivariate Heilmann-Lieb Theorem itself appears as the simplest
-- and prototypical -- special case of the method.  Other direct applications
provide multivariate extensions of previous results of the author \cite{Wa1},
and of results of Ruelle \cite{Ru1,Ru2}. A variety of new results also appear
as natural special cases.

In the remainder of this Introduction we
describe the general combinatorial situation we will consider.  In Section 2
we gather the necessary results from the analytic theory of complex polynomials.
In Section 3 we state and prove the main theorem of the paper.  Section 4 illustrates
this result with several applications, including the previously known examples
mentioned above.  In Section 5 we explain an interpretation of the polynomials we
consider as partition functions, by analogy with the Boltzmann-Gibbs formalism
in statistical mechanics.  Results like those in Section 4 imply that when the
thermodynamic limit of the free energy exists it must be analytic in certain regions
of the complex plane.  As noted by Lee and Yang \cite{LY,YL}, this has implications
for the absence of phase transitions in these models (which enumerate spanning
subgraphs subject to certain weights and constraints).  A more thorough
investigation of the phase structure of these models would be very interesting,
but must be left for a later paper.

It is a pleasure to thank my good friend Alan Sokal, the anonymous referee,
whose detailed positive criticism of an earlier form of this paper prompted me to
rewrite it completely.  The result is, I think, much improved.\\

The general framework we consider is that of a finite graph $G=(V,E)$ (possibly
with loops or multiple edges) and a set of weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=\{\lambda_e:\ e\in E\}$
on the edges of $G$.  These weights can for some purposes be considered as
indeterminates, but will usually be taken to be complex numbers, and often
will be nonnegative real numbers.  (In combinatorial applications it is
most natural to set all the edge-weights equal to one.)  The starting point for the
theory is the elementary identity
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)=\prod_{vew\in E}(1+\lambda_e x_v x_w)=
\sum_{H\subseteq E} \boldsymbol{\lambda}^H \x^{\deg(H)}.
\end{eqnarray}
In this formula, the product is over the set of all edges $e\in E$, and the
notation $vew$ indicates that the ends of $e$ are the vertices $v$ and $w$
(note that $v=w$ is possible).  The sum is over the set of all spanning subgraphs
$(V,H)$ of $G$, each of which is determined by its edge-set $H\subseteq E$.
As above $\deg(H):V\rightarrow\NN$ is the degree function of $H$, and we use the
shorthand notations
$$\boldsymbol{\lambda}^H=\prod_{e\in H}\lambda_e$$
and
$$\x^{\deg(H)}=\prod_{v\in V} x_v^{\deg(H,v)}.$$

This $\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ is a relatively structureless object, since it sums over
all spanning subgraphs without preference.  On the other hand, the product formula
allows one to make very precise statements about its zero-set (as a subset
of $\CC^V$).  To make use of this, we introduce a sequence of
\emph{activities} at each vertex $v\in V$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\u^{(v)}=(u_0^{(v)}, u_1^{(v)},..., u_d^{(v)})\ \ \ \ (d=\deg(G,v))
\end{eqnarray}
which can be any complex numbers (usually taken to be nonnegative reals).
With these activities specified, a spanning subgraph $H\subseteq E$ will be
given the weight
\begin{eqnarray}
\u_{\deg(H)}=\prod_{v\in V} u_{\deg(H,v)}^{(v)}
\end{eqnarray}
and we will consider the correspondingly weighted version of $\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)=\sum_{H\subseteq E}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^H \u_{\deg(H)}\x^{\deg(H)}.
\end{eqnarray}
For example, if at every vertex we take $u_0=u_1=1$ and $u_k=0$ for all $k\geq 2$,
then
$$
\u_{\deg(H)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mathrm{if}\ H\ \mathrm{is\ a\ matching},\\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.
$$
and $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is an edge-weighted version of the multivariate matching
polynomial $\widetilde{\mu}(G;\x)$ above.

The strategy in what follows is to begin with information about the zero-set
of $\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ and to impose conditions on the vertex activities
$\u^{(v)}$ that are sufficient to imply similar information about the zero-set
of $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$.  To realize this plan, we need a few results from the
analytic theory of complex polynomials.

\section{Complex polynomials.}

The technique we use is known as \emph{Schur-Szeg\H{o} composition}.
We do not make use of the most general possible result, but
for thoroughness of exposition we derive what is needed
from the Grace-Szeg\H{o}-Walsh Coincidence Theorem.  For a more
complete treatment see Sections 15 and 16 of Marden \cite{Ma} and Chapters
3 and 5 of Rahman and Schmeisser \cite{RS}.

Let $F(\mathbf{z})$ be a polynomial in complex variables $\mathbf{z}:=\{z_{v}:\
v\in V\}$.  For a subset $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}\subset\CC$, we say that
$F$ is \emph{$\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing} if either $F\equiv 0$, or
$z_v\in\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ for all $v\in V$ implies that
$F(\mathbf{z})\neq 0$.  In the case that $F\not\equiv 0$ we say that $F$ is
\emph{strictly} $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing.

\begin{LMA}
Let $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ be nonempty, connected and open.
Let $F_n(\mathbf{z})$ be a sequence of strictly $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing
polynomials indexed by positive integers, and assume that
the limit $F(\mathbf{z})=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} F_n(\mathbf{z})$ exists.
Then $F$ is $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing.
\end{LMA}
\begin{proof}
Each $F_n$ is analytic and strictly nonvanishing on the subset $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}^V$ of $\CC^V$.
Since these functions are polynomials, the convergence to $F$ is uniform on
compact subsets of $\CC^{V}$.  By Hurwitz's Theorem (Theorem 1.3.8 of \cite{RS}),
either $F$ is identically zero or $F$ is nonvanishing on $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}^V$ as well.
\end{proof}

\begin{LMA}
Let $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ be nonempty, connected and open.
Let $F(\mathbf{z})$ be an $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing polynomial, and let
$w\in V$.  If $z_{w}$ is fixed at a complex value $\xi$ in the closure of $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$,
then the resulting polynomial in the variables
$\{z_{v}:\ v\in V\smallsetminus\{w\}\}$ is $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing.
\end{LMA}
\begin{proof}
The result is trivial if $F\equiv 0$, so assume instead that $F$ is strictly
$\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing.  Let $(\xi_n:\ n=1,2,...)$ be a sequence with each
$\xi_n\in\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \xi_n=\xi$.
Note that for all $n \geq 1$ the specialization $z_w= \xi_n$ results in
a polynomial $F_n$ that is strictly $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$--nonvanishing
in the variables $\{z_{v}:\ v\in V\smallsetminus\{w\}\}$.
The sequence $(F_n:\ n\geq 1)$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 2.1,
from which the result follows.
\end{proof}

We are concerned mostly with the following open subsets of $\CC$.\\
$\bullet$\  For $0<\theta\leq\pi$, the open sector
\begin{eqnarray}
\S[\theta]=\{z\in\CC:\ \ z\neq 0\ \mathrm{and}\ |\arg(z)|<\theta\}
\end{eqnarray}
centered on the positive real axis.  (For $z\neq 0$ we use the value of the
argument in the range $-\pi<\arg(z)\leq\pi$.)\\
$\bullet$\ For $\kappa>0$, the open interior of a disk
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}:=\{z\in\CC:\ |z|<\kappa\}.
\end{eqnarray}
$\bullet$\ Also for $\kappa>0$, the open exterior of a disk
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}:=\{z\in\CC:\ |z|>\kappa\}.
\end{eqnarray}
When $\kappa=1$ we more simply write just $\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$ and $\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$.

A \emph{circular region} in $\CC$ is a proper subset that is either open
or closed and is bounded by either a circle or a straight line.
A polynomial $F(\mathbf{z})=F(z_1,...,z_d)$ is \emph{multiaffine} if each
variable occurs at most to the first power.  The polynomial $F(\mathbf{z})$ is
\emph{symmetric} if it is invariant under every permutation of the variables.
The \emph{elementary symmetric functions} of the variables $\mathbf{z}=(z_1,...,z_d)$
are
\begin{eqnarray}
e_j(\mathbf{z})=\sum_{1\leq i_1< i_2<\cdots < i_j\leq d} z_{i_1} z_{i_2}\cdots z_{i_j}.
\end{eqnarray}
A multiaffine symmetric polynomial $F(z_1,...,z_d)$ is thus a linear combination of
the elementary symmetric functions $e_j(\mathbf{z})$ for $0\leq j\leq d$.

\begin{PROP}[Grace-Szeg\H{o}-Walsh]
Let $F(z_1,...,z_d)$ be a multiaffine symmetric polynomial, and let $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ be a
circular region.  Assume that either $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ is convex or the degree of $F$ is $d$.
Then, for any values $\zeta_1,...,\zeta_d\in\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ there exists a value
$\zeta\in\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ such that
$$
F(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_d)=F(\zeta,...,\zeta).
$$
\end{PROP}
For a proof in the case that $\deg F = d$, see
Theorem 15.4 of \cite{Ma} or Theorem 3.4.1b of \cite{RS}.  The theorem also
holds when $\deg F < d$ with the additional hypothesis that $\EuScript{A}} \renewcommand{\a}{\mathbf{a}$ is convex,
as explained in Theorem 2.12 of \cite{COSW}.

For an elaboration of the ideas of Proposition 2.4, see Lemma 5.5.4 and Theorem
5.5.5 of \cite{RS}.
\begin{PROP}[Schur-Szeg\H{o}]
Let $P(z)=\sum_j c_j z^j$ and $K(z)=\sum_{j=0}^d \binom{d}{j} u_j z^j$
be polynomials in one complex variable $z$, with $\deg P \leq d$,
and let $Q(z)=\sum_{j=0}^d u_j c_j z^j$.\\
\textup{(a)}\ For any $0\leq\alpha<\pi/2$, if $P(z)$ is $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing
and $K(z)$ is $\S[\pi-\alpha]$-nonvanishing, then $Q(z)$ is
$\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(b)}\ For any $\kappa>0$ and $\rho>0$, if $P(x)$ is $\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing
and $K(z)$ is $\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing, then $Q(z)$ is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(c)}\ For any $\kappa>0$ and $\rho>0$, if $P(x)$ is $\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing
and $K(z)$ is $\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing and $\deg K = d$,
then $Q(z)$ is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
\end{PROP}
\begin{proof}
The conclusions are trivial if $Q\equiv 0$, so we may assume that $Q\not\equiv 0$.

We begin by proving part (a) in the case that $K(0)\neq 0$.
In this case we have
\begin{eqnarray}
K(z)=C\prod_{i=1}^d(1+\theta_i z)
\end{eqnarray}
for some complex numbers $C\neq 0$ and $\theta_1,...,\theta_d$ such that
either $\theta_i=0$ or $|\arg(\theta_i)|\leq
\alpha$ for each $1\leq i\leq d$.  Consider the \emph{$d$-th polarization
of $P(z)$}:\ this is the multiaffine symmetric polynomial
$\widetilde{P}(\mathbf{z})=\widetilde{P}(z_1,...,z_d)$ obtained
from $P(z)$ by replacing each monomial $z^j$ by the normalized $j$-th elementary
symmetric function $\binom{d}{j}^{-1}e_j(\mathbf{z})$.  Since $\deg P \leq d$,
it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\widetilde{P}(z,z,...,z)=P(z)
\end{eqnarray}
as polynomials in $z$.  Since $P(z)$ is $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing and
$\S[\pi/2]$ is a circular region, it follows from (2.6) and Proposition 2.4
that $\widetilde{P}(\mathbf{z})$ is also $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing.
Now, consider complex numbers $\zeta_1,...,\zeta_d\in\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$.
For each $1\leq i\leq d$, either $\theta_i\zeta_i=0$ for all
$\zeta_i\in\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$ or $|\arg(\theta_i\zeta_i)|<\pi/2$ for all
$\zeta_i\in\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$.  From Lemma 2.2,
it follows that if $\widetilde{P}(\theta_1 z_1,...,\theta_d z_d)\not\equiv 0$
then $\widetilde{P}(\theta_1\zeta_1,...,\theta_d\zeta_d)\neq 0$
for every choice of $\zeta_1,...,\zeta_d\in\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$.  That is, it
follows that $\widetilde{P}(\theta_1 z_1,...,\theta_d z_d)$ is
$\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing.  A short calculation using the fact
that $\binom{d}{j}u_j= C e_j(\theta_1,...,\theta_d)$ verifies that
\begin{eqnarray}
Q(z) = C \widetilde{P}(\theta_1 z,...,\theta_d z),
\end{eqnarray}
and therefore $Q(z)$ is $\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing, as desired.

To handle the case in which $K(0)=0$, let $r$ be the multiplicity of $0$
as a root of $K(z)$ and write
\begin{eqnarray}
K(z)=C z^r \prod_{i=1}^{d-r}(1+\theta_i z).
\end{eqnarray}
For a positive integer $N$ let
\begin{eqnarray}
K_N(z)=C N^{-r}(1+Nz)^r \prod_{i=1}^{d-r}(1+\theta_i z).
\end{eqnarray}
and let $Q_N(z)$ be the polynomial in the conclusion constructed from
$P(z)$ and $K_N(z)$.  By the case we have done already, each $Q_N(z)$ is
$\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing.  Taking the limit as $N\rightarrow\infty$,
Lemma 2.1 implies that $Q(z)$ itself is also $\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing.

The proof of part (b) is similar.  Since $K(z)$ is $\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing
we have $K(0)\neq 0$, and so we can write $K(z)$ as in equation (2.5) with all
$|\theta_i|\leq 1/\kappa$.  Again we consider the $d$-th polarization
$\widetilde{P}(\mathbf{z})$ of $P(z)$.  Since $P(z)$ is $\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing and
$\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$ is a circular region, Proposition 2.3 and equation (2.6) imply
that $\widetilde{P}(\mathbf{z})$ is $\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing.  It follows that
$\widetilde{P}(\theta_1 z_1,...,\theta_d z_d)$ is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing,
and from equation (2.7) we conclude that $Q(z)$ is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing,
as desired.

The proof of part (c) repeats the same pattern once more.
Begin with $K(z)$ expressed as in equation (2.8) -- since  $K(z)$ is
$\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing, each $|\theta_i|\geq 1/\kappa$.  We work with
the polynomials $K_N(z)$ defined in equation (2.9) with $N\geq 1/\kappa$.
Since $P(z)$ is $\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing and
$\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$ is a circular region and $\deg \widetilde{P}=d$, Proposition 2.3 and
equation (2.6) imply that $\widetilde{P}(\mathbf{z})$ is $\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
It follows that
$$\widetilde{P}(\theta_1 z_1,...,\theta_{d-r} z_{d-r}, Nz_{d-r+1},...,Nz_d)$$
is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing,
and from equation (2.7) we conclude that $Q_N(z)$ is $\kappa\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
Taking the limit as $N\rightarrow\infty$ (using Lemma 2.1) we conclude that $Q(z)$ is
$\kappa\rho\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing, as desired.
\end{proof}
The polynomial $Q(z)$ in the conclusion of Proposition 2.4 is the
\emph{Schur-Szeg\H{o} composition} of $P(z)$ and $K(z)$.

\section{The main result.}

Consider a graph $G=(V,E)$ with complex edge weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$.
We begin with some easy information about the zero-set of the polynomial
$\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ defined in equation (1.1).
\begin{PROP}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph with complex edge weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$.\\
\textup{(a)}\  If $\lambda_e\geq 0$ for each $e\in E$ then
$\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ is $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(b)}\  If $|\lambda_e|\leq\lambda_{\max}$ for each $e\in E$ then
$\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ is $\lambda_{\max}^{-1/2}\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(c)}\  If $|\lambda_e|\geq\lambda_{\min}$ for each $e\in E$ then
$\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$ is $\lambda_{\min}^{-1/2}\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
\end{PROP}
\begin{proof}
In each case, each factor $1+\lambda_e z_v z_w$ in the product form for
$\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\mathbf{z})$ is seen to be nonvanishing in the appropriate region,
from which the result follows.
\end{proof}

Now assume that we also have a sequence of activities $\u^{(v)}$
at each vertex $v\in V$, as in equation (1.2).  The information about
these activities that we will use is recorded in the set of
\emph{key polynomials}
\begin{eqnarray}
K_v(z)=\sum_{j=0}^d \binom{d}{j} u_j^{(v)} z^j
\end{eqnarray}
in which $d=\deg(G,v)$.  There is one key polynomial for each vertex $v\in V$.

\begin{THM}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, with complex edge weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, and with vertex
activities $\u$ encoded by the key polynomials $K_v(z)$ ($v\in V$).\\
\textup{(a)}  Fix $0\leq \alpha<\pi/2$.
If $\lambda_e\geq 0$ for each $e\in E$ and $K_v(z)$ is
$\S[\pi-\alpha]$-nonvanishing for each $v\in V$,
then $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is $\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(b)}  Fix $\kappa>0$ and $\lambda_{\max}>0$.
If  $|\lambda_e|\leq\lambda_{\max}$ for each $e\in E$ and $K_v(z)$ is
$\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing for each $v\in V$,
then $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is $(\kappa/\lambda_{\max}^{1/2})\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(c)}  Fix $\kappa>0$ and $\lambda_{\min}>0$.
If  $|\lambda_e|\geq\lambda_{\min}$ for each $e\in E$ and $K_v(z)$ is
$\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing and $\deg K_v(z)=\deg(G,v)$ for each $v\in V$,
then $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is $(\kappa/\lambda_{\min}^{1/2})\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
\end{THM}
\begin{proof}
Identify the vertices $V$ with the numbers $V=\{1,2,...,n\}$ arbitrarily.
Define a sequence of polynomials $F_0(\x)$, $F_1(\x)$,..., $F_n(\x)$ as follows.
$F_0(\x)=\Omega(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda};\x)$, and for all $1\leq v\leq n$, $F_v(\x)$ is the
Schur-Szeg\H{o} composition of $F_{v-1}(\x)$ regarded as a polynomial
in the variable $x_v$ (the other variables being absorbed into the coefficients)
with $K_v(x_v)$.  One sees by induction that for $0\leq r\leq n$:
\begin{eqnarray}
F_r(\x)=\sum_{H\subseteq E}\boldsymbol{\lambda}^H
\left(\prod_{v=1}^r u_{\deg(H,v)}^{(v)}\right)\x^{\deg(H)},
\end{eqnarray}
so that $F_n(\x)=Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$.

We give the details to finish the proof of part (a) -- the arguments for parts
(b) and (c) are completely analogous.  We prove by induction on $1\leq v\leq n$
that if $(\zeta_j:\ 1\leq j\leq n)$ are complex numbers such that\\
$\bullet$\ $|\arg(\zeta_j)|<\pi/2-\alpha$ for all $1\leq j<v$, and\\
$\bullet$\ $|\arg(\zeta_j)|<\pi/2$ for all $v<j\leq n$,\\
then
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{v-1}(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_{v-1},x_v,\zeta_{v+1},...,\zeta_n)
\end{eqnarray}
is $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing.  The basis of induction follows from Proposition 3.1(a)
and Lemma 2.2.  The induction step follows from Proposition 2.4(a) and Lemma 2.2.
Finally, from the statement that whenever all $\zeta_i\in\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$,
then $F_{n-1}(\zeta_1,...,\zeta_{n-1},x_n)$ is
$\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing, we conclude by one more application of Proposition 2.4(a)
that $F_{n}(\x)$ is $\S[\pi/2-\alpha]$-nonvanishing, as desired.
\end{proof}

The univariate specialization of Theorem 3.2 is an important consquence.
\begin{CORO}
Adopt the notation of Theorem $3.2$.\\
\textup{(a)}\ Under the hypotheses of Theorem \textup{3.2(a)},\\
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u; y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is $\S[\pi-2\alpha]$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(b)}\ Under the hypotheses of Theorem \textup{3.2(b)},\\
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u; y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is $(\kappa^2/\lambda_{\max})\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing.\\
\textup{(c)}\ Under the hypotheses of Theorem \textup{3.2(c)},\\
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u; y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is $(\kappa^2/\lambda_{\min})\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
\end{CORO}

\section{Applications.}

Throughout this section, consider a graph $G=(V,E)$ with complex edge
weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and vertex activities $\u$ encoded by the key polynomials
$K_v(z)$ ($v\in V$).

\begin{EG}[Heilmann-Lieb \cite{HL}]\emph{
Assume that all edge weights are nonnegative reals, and that at each vertex
$u_0=u_1=1$ and $u_k=0$ for all $k\geq 2$.  The key polynomial at a
vertex of degree $d$ in $G$ is $K_v(z)= 1+dz$, which is $\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing.
Theorem 3.2(a) (with $\alpha=0$) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is $\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing -- this is the multivariate Heilmann-Lieb theorem.
Corollary 3.3(a) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is
$\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing -- this is the univariate Heilmann-Lieb theorem.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}[Wagner \cite{Wa1}]\emph
{
Assume that all edge weights are nonnegative reals, and that two functions
$f,g:V\rightarrow\NN$ are given such that $f(v)\leq g(v)\leq f(v)+1$ for each
$v\in V$.  Fix the vertex activities to be
\begin{eqnarray}
u_k^{(v)}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mathrm{if}\ f(v)\leq k\leq g(v),\\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}
As in Example 4.1, each key $K_v(z)$ is $\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing.
Theorem 3.2(a) (with $\alpha=0$) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is
$\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing -- this result is new.
Corollary 3.3(a) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is
$\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing -- when $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$ this is
Theorem 3.3 of \cite{Wa1}.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}[Ruelle \cite{Ru1,Ru2}]\emph{
Assume that all edge weights are nonnegative reals, and that at each vertex
$u_0=u_2=1$, $u_1=u$, and $u_k=0$ for all $k\geq 2$.  The key polynomial at a
vertex of degree $d$ in $G$ is $K_v(z)= 1+d u z+ \binom{d}{2}z^2$.
For $d\geq 2$, the zeros of this polynomial are at
$$z_{\pm}=\frac{-2}{d-1}\left(u\pm\sqrt{u^2-2+2/d}\right).$$
\indent
When $u=1$, all the keys $K_v(z)$ are $\S[3\pi/4]$-nonvanishing, and
Theorem 3.2(a) (with $\alpha=\pi/4$) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is
$\S[\pi/4]$-nonvanishing -- this is new.
Corollary 3.3(a) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is
$\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing -- when $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$
this is a slight weakening of Proposition 1 of \cite{Ru1}.\\ \indent
If $G$ has maximum degree $\Delta$ and $u\geq\sqrt{2-2/\Delta}$,
then all the keys $K_v(z)$ are $\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing, and
Theorem 3.2(a) (with $\alpha=0$) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is
$\S[\pi/2]$-nonvanishing -- this result is new.
Corollary 3.3(a) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is
$\S[\pi]$-nonvanishing -- when $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$
this is Proposition 2 of \cite{Ru1}.\\ \indent
Ruelle's method produces more detailed information than ours, but only for
particular choices of the vertex activities.  A systematic extension of his
method that handles all the cases we consider would be very interesting.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
Assume that all edge weights are nonnegative reals, and that two functions
$f,g:V\rightarrow\NN$ are given such that $f(v)\leq g(v)\leq f(v)+2$ for each
$v\in V$.  Fix the vertex activities as in equation (4.1).
Then each key $K_v(z)$ is $\S[2\pi/3]$-nonvanishing.
Theorem 3.2(a) (with $\alpha=\pi/3$) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is
$\S[\pi/6]$-nonvanishing, and Corollary 3.3(a) implies that
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is $\S[\pi/3]$-nonvanishing.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
Assume that all edge weights are nonnegative reals, and that two functions
$f,g:V\rightarrow\NN$ are given such that $f(v)\leq g(v)\leq f(v)+3$ for each
$v\in V$.  Fix the vertex activities as in equation (4.1).
If every vertex of $G$ has degree at most $\Delta$ then there is a small
angle $\varepsilon>0$ such that each key $K_v(z)$ is $\S[\pi/2+\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing.
To see this, the keys with at most three terms pose no problems (by Examples
4.2 and 4.4).  A key with four terms has the form
$$
K(z)=\binom{d}{f} z^f + \binom{d}{f+1} z^{f+1} + \binom{d}{f+2} z^{f+2}
+ \binom{d}{f+3} z^{f+3},
$$
and the inequality
$$\binom{d}{f+1}\binom{d}{f+2} > \binom{d}{f}\binom{d}{f+3}$$
ensures that the only zero of $K(z)$ with nonnegative real part is at the
origin.  Since $\Delta$ is fixed, only finitely many key polynomials need to
be considered -- taking the smallest positive argument of the (nonzero) zeros
of these to be $\pi/2+\varepsilon$ gives the desired angle.\\ \indent
Theorem 3.2(a) implies that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is
$\S[\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing, and Corollary 3.3(a) implies that
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is $\S[2\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
In Examples 4.1 and 4.2 we concluded that the polynomial
$Z(y)=Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ had only real (and nonpositive) zeros.
Let $N_j=N_j(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u)$ be the coefficient of $y^j$ in this polynomial.
It is ``folklore'' that if $Z(y)$ is $\S[2\pi/3]$-nonvanishing, then
$$N_i N_k\neq 0 \ \ \mathrm{implies\ that}\ \ N_j\neq 0\ \ \mathrm{for\ all}\
\ i\leq j\leq k$$
and
$$N_j^2\geq N_{j+1}N_{j-1}\ \ \mathrm{for\ all}\ \ j.$$
This property (\emph{logarithmic concavity with no internal zeros})
is very useful for obtaining good approximations to the sequence
$(N_j)$ (see \cite{FK,K,HL}, for example).\\ \indent
If all the keys $K_v(z)$ are $\S[5\pi/6]$-nonvanishing then $Z(y)$ is
$\S[2\pi/3]$-nonvanishing.  However, this hypothesis on the keys is
unreasonably strong.  Consider a key of the form
$$K(z)=\binom{d}{j-1}z^{j-1}+\binom{d}{j}z^{j}+\binom{d}{j+1}z^{j+1}$$
with $1\leq j\leq d-1$,
corresponding to three consecutive permissible degrees.  A short calculation
shows that this is $\S[5\pi/6]$-nonvanishing if and only if $2j(d-j)\leq d+2$.
This happens only for the pairs $(j,d)$ with $d\leq 4$ and $j=1$ or $j=d-1$.\\
\indent
Nonetheless, I venture the following conjecture.
}\end{EG}

\begin{CONJ}
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite graph, and let $f,g:V\rightarrow\NN$ be any two functions.
Fix the vertex activities $\u$ as in $(4.1)$.  Then the sequence of coefficients
$(N_j)$ of $Z(G,\boldsymbol{1},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ is logarithmically concave with no
internal zeros.
\end{CONJ}

\begin{EG}\emph{
Assume that all the edge weights have unit modulus, that $G$ is
$2k$-regular, and that the key at each vertex is
\begin{eqnarray}
K(z) = 1 + \binom{2k}{k} z^k + u z^{2k}.
\end{eqnarray}
If $4 u \geq \binom{2k}{k}^2$ then every zero of $K(z)$ has modulus
$\kappa=u^{-1/2k}$.  Parts (b) and (c) of Theorem 3.2 imply that
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is both $\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$- and $\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.
Corollary 3.3 implies that every zero of $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$
has modulus $u^{-1/k}$.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
Assume that all the edge weights have unit modulus, and that
$\deg K_v(z)=\deg(G,v)$ and every zero of $K_v(z)$ has unit modulus,
for each vertex $v\in V$.  Parts (b) and (c)
of Theorem 3.2 imply that $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;\x)$ is both $\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-
and $\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing.  Corollary 3.3 implies that every zero of
$Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$ has unit modulus.\\ \indent
In particular, these hypotheses evidently hold if $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$ and
the key polynomials are given by $K_v(z)=1+z+z^2+\cdots+z^{\deg(G,v)}$
for each $v\in V$.  Thus we conclude that every zero of
$$\sum_{H\subseteq E}\frac{y^{\#H}}{\prod_{v\in V}\binom{\deg(G,v)}{\deg(H,v)}}$$
has unit modulus.
}\end{EG}

\section{Analogy with statistical mechanics.}

We conclude with an interpretation of $Z(G,\boldsymbol{\lambda},\u; y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})$
inspired by analogy with the (canonical ensemble) partition functions
in statistical mechanics.
For simplicity, we restrict attention to a graph $G=(V,E)$ that is $d$-regular,
in which the edge weights $\boldsymbol{\lambda}\equiv\boldsymbol{1}$ are all one and the
activities are the same at every vertex (that is, all the key polynomials are equal).
The extension to the general case is straightforward.

The ``configuration space'' is the set of all spanning subgraphs
of $G$.  The \emph{energy} $U(H)$ of a spanning subgraph $H\subseteq E$ depends
on $d+2$ real parameters $J$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}=(\mu_0, \mu_1,..., \mu_d)$, as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
U(H)=J\cdot\#H+\sum_{j=0}^d \mu_j\cdot\#V_j(H),
\end{eqnarray}
in which $V_j(H)$ is the set of vertices of degree $j$ in $H$.
The quasi-physical interpretation of this is that $J$ is the energy of a single
edge, and $\mu_j$ is the ``chemical potential'' energy of a vertex of degree $j$.
With $T>0$ denoting absolute temperature, and $\beta=1/k_{\mathrm{B}} T$ where
$k_{\mathrm{B}}$ is Boltzmann's constant, the \emph{Boltzmann weight} of $H$ is
$$\e^{-\beta U(H)}$$ and the \emph{partition function} is
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_G(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})=\sum_{H\subseteq E} \e^{-\beta U(H)}.
\end{eqnarray}

This can be interpreted as defining a family  of probability measures
(parameterized by $\beta$, $J$, and $\boldsymbol{\mu}$) on
the set of all spanning subgraphs of $G$:\  a spanning subgraph $H\subseteq E$
is chosen at random with probability $\e^{-\beta U(H)}/Z_G(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$.
A short computation shows that, for $H$ chosen according to this distribution,
the expected number of edges is
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \#H \rangle =
-\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial J}\log Z_G(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})
\end{eqnarray}
and the expected number of vertices of degree $j$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \#V_j(H) \rangle =
-\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \mu_j}\log Z_G(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})
\end{eqnarray}

To continue with the analogy we consider a sequence of graphs
$G_1$, $G_2$,... that converges to an infinite, locally finite,
limit graph $\Gamma$. (The precise definition of convergence is not
important for this discussion -- the prototypical example is that,
as $n\rightarrow\infty$, the Cartesian product $C_n^r$ of $r$ cycles of length
$n$ should converge to the infinite graph $\ZZ^r$ with edges of Euclidean
length one.)  We will further assume that the
``thermodynamic limit'' \emph{(Helmholtz) free energy}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\Gamma(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})=-\frac{1}{\beta}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{\#V(G_n)}\log  Z_{G_n}(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})
\end{eqnarray}
exists.  As in the Lee-Yang theory \cite{LY,YL},
points in the parameter space at which the
free energy fails to be analytic can be interpreted as phase transitions
between differing qualitative properties of a random spanning subgraph of
$\Gamma$.  From the form of (5.5) we see that $f_\Gamma$ can fail to be
analytic only at an accumulation point of the union of the zero-sets of
all the $Z_{G_n}(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ ($n\geq 1$).  From the probabilistic
interpretation, we are most interested in such accumulation points for which
all the parameters $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ are real.

The partition functions can be expressed as polynomials in the variables
\begin{eqnarray}
y=\e^{-\beta J}\ \ \ \mathrm{and}\ \ \ u_j=\e^{-\beta\mu_j}\ (0\leq j\leq d).
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, a tiny calculation shows that in these variables
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_G(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})=Z(G,\boldsymbol{1},\u;y^{1/2}\boldsymbol{1})
\end{eqnarray}
with the RHS as defined in (1.4).  The point $y=1$ corresponds to
$\beta J=0$, which is the infinite-temperature limit.  If $J>0$ then
$y=0$ is the zero-temperature limit, and if $J<0$ then $y\rightarrow+\infty$
is the zero-temperature limit.  The positive real axis is thus the ``physically''
relevant part of the complex $y$-plane.  If all the chemical potentials $\mu_j$
are real then all the activities $u_j$ are positive reals.  A zero activity
$u_j=0$ corresponds to an infinite chemical potential $\mu_j=+\infty$,
which means that a vertex of degree $j$ is forbidden.  Notice that the
activity $u_j=\e^{-\beta\mu_j}$ also depends on temperature except when
$\mu_j$ is $+\infty$ or $0$:\ this is the case precisely when $u_j\in\{0,1\}$.

In this context, Corollary 3.3 has the following immediate consequence,
the proof of which is omitted.
\begin{PROP}
Let $(G_n:\ n\geq 1)$ be a sequence of $d$-regular graphs, and let
$\beta>0$ and $J\in\RR$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}\in\RR^{d+1}$ be such that the limit
$(5.5)$ exists.  Form the key polynomial
$$K(z)=K(\beta,\boldsymbol{\mu};z)=\sum_{j=0}^d \binom{d}{j} u_j z^j$$
with $(u_j)$ as in $(5.6)$.\\
\textup{(a)}\ If there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $K(z)$
is $\S[\pi/2+\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing then
$f_\Gamma$ is analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all $J\in\RR$.\\
\textup{(b)}\ If $\kappa>0$ is such that $K(z)$ is $\kappa\EuScript{D}} \renewcommand{\d}{\mathbf{d}$-nonvanishing
then $f_\Gamma$ is analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all
$$J>-\frac{2}{\beta}\log\kappa.$$
\textup{(c)}\ If $\kappa>0$ is such that $K(z)$ is $\kappa\EuScript{E}} \newcommand{\e}{\mathrm{e}$-nonvanishing
and of degree $d$ then $f_\Gamma$ is analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all
$$J<-\frac{2}{\beta}\log\kappa.$$
\end{PROP}

Finally, we revisit some of the examples of Section 4, maintaining as well
the assumptions of Proposition 5.1.

\begin{EG}\emph{
With the key polynomial $K(z)$ as in Example 4.3,
let $u=\e^{-\beta\mu}$.  If $\mu<+\infty$ (that is, if $u>0$) then $K(z)$ is
$\S[\pi/2+\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing for all $\beta\geq 0$, so that $f_\Gamma$ is
analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all $J\in\RR$.  In this case there is
no phase transition at any nonzero temperature.
On the other hand, if $\mu=+\infty$ (that is, if $u=0$) then both zeros
of $K(z)$ have modulus $\kappa=\binom{d}{2}^{-1/2}$, so that
$f_\Gamma$ is analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all
$$J>\frac{1}{\beta}\log\binom{d}{2}.$$
In this case there is no phase transition provided that the
temperature $T$ is sufficiently low compared to the edge energy $J$.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
With the key polynomial $K(z)$ as in Example 4.5,
$K(z)$ is $\S[\pi/2+\varepsilon]$-nonvanishing for all $\beta\geq 0$, so
that $f_\Gamma$ is analytic at $(\beta,J,\boldsymbol{\mu})$ for all $J\in\RR$.
Thus, there is never a phase transition in this model.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
With the key polynomial $K(z)$ as in Example 4.8, let $u=\e^{-\beta\mu}$
and $d=2k$.
If $\binom{2k}{k}^2\leq 4u$ then all the zeros of $K(z)$ have modulus $\kappa=u^{-1/2k}$
and $K(z)$ has degree $d$.  The only point on the positive $y$-axis at which
$f_\Gamma$ could fail to be analytic is at $y=u^{-1/k}$.  In terms of the ``physical''
parameters, this says that if
\begin{eqnarray}
-\beta\mu > 2\log\binom{2k}{k}-\log 4
\end{eqnarray}
then a phase transition can occur only at $J=-\mu/k$.  The inequality (5.8) requires
that $\mu<0$ (so that vertices of degree $2k$ in $H$ are energetically favoured) and
that $\beta$ is sufficiently large (so that the temperature is sufficiently low).
If this is the case then a phase transition can occur only when the edge energy $J$
and chemical potential $\mu$ are tuned to satisfy $J=-\mu/k$.
}\end{EG}

\begin{EG}\emph{
With the key polynomial $K(z)$ as in Example 4.9,
all the zeros of $K(z)$ have modulus one and $K(z)$ has degree $d$.
The only point on the positive $y$-axis at which
$f_\Gamma$ could fail to be analytic is at $y=1$.  In terms of the ``physical''
parameters, this says that a phase transition can occur only at $\beta J=0$ --
that is, only in the infinite temperature limit.
}\end{EG}

As these examples illustrate, Proposition 5.1 sees very little about the
limit graph $\Gamma$ -- in fact, only the degree of $\Gamma$ is relevant.
(On the other hand, the existence of the limit $f_\Gamma$ does depend on
the structure of $\Gamma$.)
Thus, for example, Proposition 5.1 can not tell the difference between the
3d cubical lattice and the 2d triangular grid -- both graphs are regular
of degree six.  Of course, in truth one expects that for any given model,
the free energies of these two graphs will have different phase diagrams.
Accounting for more detailed structural properties of $\Gamma$ remains an
interesting open problem.