Universal and unavoidable graphs

Abstract: The Turán number $\text{ex}(n,H)$ of a graph $H$ is the maximal number of edges in an $H$-free graph on $n$ vertices. In $1983$ Chung and Erdős asked which graphs $H$ with $e$ edges minimize $\text{ex}(n,H)$. They resolved this question asymptotically for most of the range of $e$ and asked to complete the picture. In this paper we answer their question by resolving all remaining cases. Our result translates directly to the setting of universality, a well-studied notion of finding graphs which contain every graph belonging to a certain family. In this setting we extend previous work done by Babai, Chung, Erdős, Graham and Spencer, and by Alon and Asodi.

\section{Introduction}

\par The following question of Tur\'an dating back to 1941 \cite{Turan1941external} is one of the most classical problems of graph theory. Given a fixed graph $H,$ what is the maximal number of edges one can have in an $n$ vertex graph which does not contain a copy of $H$ as a subgraph? The answer to this question, denoted $\ex(n,H),$ is called the Tur\'an number of $H$. Tur\'an numbers have been extensively studied in the last 70 years, see for example the surveys \cite{sidorenko1995we,keevash2011hypergraph,furedi1991Turan,benny-survey,furedi-survey}.

Turan's problem leads to another very natural extremal question -- what is the largest size of a graph which we can not avoid in any graph on $n$ vertices and $e$ edges? In other words, what kind of a graph $H$ with a fixed number of edges has minimal Tur\'an number?

\par This question was first asked by Erd\H{o}s and Chung \cite{chung1983unavoidable} in 1983 and many questions of the similar flavour were later considered in  \cite{chung1987unavoidable,chung1983unavoidableS,chung1981minimal,duke1977systems}. Some of these questions have also featured in an Erd\H{o}s open problem collection \cite{chung1997open}.

In this paper we revisit the original question of Erd\H{o}s and Chung. They say a graph $H$ is \emph{$(n,e)$-unavoidable} if every graph on $n$ vertices and $e$ edges contains a copy of $H$ as a subgraph. Let $f(n,e)$ be the maximum number of edges in an $(n,e)$-unavoidable graph. Erd\H{o}s and Chung obtain the following bounds on $f(n,e)$:
\vspace{-0.2 cm}
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
    \item \label{itm:3} $f(n,e)=\Theta\left(\lceil e/n \rceil^2\right)$ if $e \le n^{4/3}$
    \item \label{itm:4} $f(n,e)=\Theta\left(\frac{\sqrt{e}\log n}{\log \left(\binom{n}{2}/e\right)}\right)$ if $cn^{4/3} < e < \binom{n}{2}-n^{1+c}$ for any $0<c<1$.
    \item \label{itm:7}
    $
    \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2 m} \right)\leq  \binom{n}{2}-f\left(n,e\right)\leq \Omega\left(\frac{m^2\log\log m}{\log m} \right)$ where $m=\binom{n}{2}-e,$ and $\binom{n}{2}-cn<e,$\\ for some $c>0$.

\end{enumerate}

In fact for certain regimes from parts $(i)$ and $(ii)$ they obtain even more precise bounds, some of which in a later paper \cite{chung1987unavoidable}. However, there is a gap between regimes of part $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ for which their methods fail to give an answer. Given this, they naturally ask what is the correct behaviour of $f(n,e)$ towards the end of the range, so when $e>\binom{n}{2}-n^{1+o(1)}$. In this paper we resolve this question and determine $f(n,e)$ for the remaining values of $e$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
For any $\varepsilon>0$, if we let $m= \binom{n}{2}-e$
$$f\left(n,e\right) = \begin{cases} \binom{n}{2}-\Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2 m}\right)  & \text{ if } m \leq n \log n \\
\Theta\left(\frac{n^3 \log n}{m}\right) & \text{ if } n \log n < m < n^{3/2-\varepsilon}
\end{cases}$$
\end{thm}
It is worth noting that the unavoidable graph we use in order to obtain the lower bound in the second part of the above theorem is the random Erd\H{o}s-Renyi graph. This is in stark contrast to the very structured graph used by Erd\H{o}s and Chung in regimes of $(ii)$ and $(iii)$ above. In particular, they use a disjoint union of complete bipartite graphs. Furthermore, for part of the regime both of these very different examples are extremal, up to a constant factor.

\subsection{Universality}
An $(n,e)$-unavoidable graph $H$ on $n$ vertices is contained in every graph $G$ on $n$ vertices and $e$ edges. Another way of saying this is that the complement of $H$ contains the complement of $G$. Since $G$ was arbitrary this means that $H$ is $(n,e)$-unavoidable if and only if its complement contains every graph on $n$ vertices and $m=\binom{n}{2}-e$ edges as a subgraph. This observation, made by Chung and Erd\H{o}s, links unavoidability to perhaps an even more natural and well studied notion, namely that of universality.

For a given family of graphs $\mathcal{H}$ we call a graph $\mathcal{H}$-universal if it contains a copy of each graph in $\mathcal{H}$. Given $\mathcal{H}$ one usually wants to find the smallest $\mathcal{H}$-universal graph, with respect to the number of edges or both vertices and edges.
Chung and Graham \cite{chung1979universal} were the first to use this general notion of universality in 1979. In \cite{chung1979universal} they survey a number of results in this setting. Universality problems have been extensively studied ever since, for some examples see \cite{chung1983universal,conlon2017almost,montgomery2019spanning,alon2007embedding,bhatt1989universal} and references therein.

Following the above observation by Chung and Erd\H{o}s the relevant family in our case is that of all graphs on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, which we denote as $\mathcal{H}(n,m)$. We denote by $g(n,m)$ the minimum number of edges in an $\mathcal{H}(n,m)$-universal graph on $n$ vertices. The above observation of Chung and Erd\H{o}s boils down to the following relation between the functions $f$ and $g$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relation}
     g(n,m)=\binom{n}{2}-f\left(n,e\right)\qquad
\end{equation}
where $m=\binom{n}{2}-e.$ This relation allows us to easily translate results between unavoidability and universality. For example, Theorem \ref{thm:main} is equivalent to the following statement.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:main2}
For any $\varepsilon>0$  we have
$$g(n,m) = \begin{cases} \Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2 m}\right)  & \text{ if } m \leq  n \log n \\
\binom{n}{2}-\Theta\left(\frac{n^3 \log n}{m}\right) & \text{ if } n \log n < m < n^{3/2-\varepsilon}
\end{cases}$$
\end{thm}

While in the unavoidability case one might arguably think that the very end of the regime is not that interesting since it only involves determining the behaviour of the second order term, we see here that this second order term becomes the main and only term for the case of universality. This regime in particular is related to previous work on universality for the family $\mathcal{E}(m)$ of graphs with exactly $m$ edges (and no isolated vertices).
This was first considered by Babai, Chung, Erd\H{o}s, Graham  and Spencer \cite{babai1982graphs} in 1982. They show that $\mathcal{E}(m)$-universal graphs have at most $\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{m^2\log\log m}{\log m}\right)$ edges. This was later improved upon by Alon and Asodi \cite{alon2002sparse} who show the upper bound of $\Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2m}\right),$ which matches the lower bound. Our bound on $g(2m,m)$ recovers the result of Alon and Asodi as any graph on $m$ edges can use at most $2m$ vertices, so any graph which is $\mathcal{H}(2m,m)$-universal is also $\mathcal{E}(m)$-universal. On the other hand when $m>n/2$ their results
can not be used to obtain a bound on $g(n,m)$ for the following reason. In order to bound $g(n,m)$ one needs to find an $\mathcal{H}(n,m)$-universal graph on $n$ vertices. This can never come from an $\mathcal{E}(m)$-universal graph as any such graph needs to have at least $2m>n$ vertices, in order to contain a matching of $m$ edges. Furthermore, $\mathcal{E}(m)$-universal construction of Alon and Asodi uses more than $4m$ vertices. Since any graph in $\mathcal{E}(m)$ has at most $2m$ vertices, this affords them a lot of leeway during the embedding process. In contrast, in our problem we need to find spanning universal graphs, which requires a different embedding technique. Proving such spanning results is often a harder problem.
While neither our nor the universal graphs used by Alon and Asodi are explicit, our embedding technique allows us to work with a weaker and simpler property of random graphs, which might be helpful in answering their question about finding explicit universal graphs.

\par Another related notion of universality deals with the family $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$ of graphs on $n$ vertices with degree bounded by $d$. Alon and Capalbo \cite{alon2008optimal} show that $\Theta\left(n^{2-2/d}\right)$ is the least number of edges in an $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$-universal graph. The $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$-universal graph they construct has more than $(1+\varepsilon)n$ vertices and it is a seemingly hard open problem in the area to obtain such a graph on exactly $n$ vertices. The best result in this direction is due to the same authors \cite{alon2007sparse} where they exhibit such a graph with  $\mathcal{O}\left(n^{2-2/d}\log^{4/d}n\right)$ edges. As already mentioned we need to overcome a similar difficulty in our setting since we require our universal graphs to be of the same order as the graphs we want to embed.

\textbf{Notation.} We will abbreviate $\mathcal{H}(n,m)$-universal by  $(n,m)$-universal throughout the paper. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph and $U\subseteq V$. We denote with $G[U]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $U$. We denote with $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ the standard Erd\H{o}s-Renyi random graph, i.e. the probability distribution on the set of all graphs on $n$ vertices where each graph $H$ has probability measure $p^{e(H)}(1-p)^{\binom{n}{2}-e(H)}$.
We say that $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ satisfies a property with high probability (whp) if a sample from $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ satisfies this property with probability tending to $1$ as $n$ tends to infinity. Let $f,g$ be functions from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{R}^+$. Then $f=\mathcal{O}(g)$ if there exists a constant $C$ such that $f(n)\leq Cg(n)$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Also, $f=\Omega(g)$ if $g=\mathcal{O}(f)$. Furthermore, $f=\Theta(g)$ if $g=\mathcal{O}(f)$ and $g=\Omega(f)$. If $\lim_{n\xrightarrow{} \infty}\frac{f(n)}{g(n)}=0$ then we write $f=o(g)$ and $g=\omega(f)$. With $\log n$ we denote the natural logarithm of $n$. We omit floors and ceils whenever they are not essential.

\section[Section lower bounds]{Lower bounds for $g(n,m)$}\label{lower bounds}
We start our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main2} with the lower bounds.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:counting}
Let $G$ be an $(n,m)$-universal graph with $t$ edges. Then the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
    \item If $m>n\log n$ then $t\geq \binom{n}{2}\left(1-\frac{n\log n}{m}\right)$.
    \item If $m\leq n\log n$ then $t\geq \frac{1}{4}\binom{m/\log m}{2}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The number of non-isomorphic graphs on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges is at least
\[
    \binom{\binom{n}{2}}{m}\frac{1}{n!},
\]
here the first term counts the number of labelled graphs on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, and we counted each graph at most $n!$ many times.

Since $G$ contains all these graphs, and there are $\binom{t}{m}$ subgraphs of $G$ with $m$ edges, we get
\[
       \binom{\binom{n}{2}}{m}\frac{1}{n!}\leq \binom{t}{m}.
\]
By using the inequality $\binom{b}{c}\leq \binom{a}{c}(\frac{b}{a})^c$ which holds for all $a>b>c\geq 0$ we conclude
\[
\frac{1}{n!}\leq \left( \frac{t}{\binom{n}{2}}\right)^m
\]
which gives

\begin{equation} \label{NEMANJAAAAAAAAA}
t > \binom{n}{2}(n!)^{-1/m} \ge \binom{n}{2}n^{-n/m}.
\end{equation}
Since $n^{-n/m}\ge 1-\frac{n\log n}{m}$ the first claim follows.
For the case when $m< n\log n$ let $k=m/\log m<n.$ So $G$ is also $(k,m)$-universal and the bound \eqref{NEMANJAAAAAAAAA} implies
$$ t > \binom{k}{2}k^{-k/m}=\binom{k}{2}\left(\frac{m}{\log m}\right)^{-1/\log m}>\binom{k}{2}m^{-1/\log m}=\binom{k}{2}e^{-1}.$$

\vspace{-0.7cm}
\end{proof}

\section[upper bounds]{Upper bounds for $g(n,m)$}
In order to give an upper bound on $g(n,m)$ one needs to exhibit an example of an $(n,m)$-universal graph. We distinguish two regimes, corresponding to the relations between $n$ and $m$ which give us different behaviours in \Cref{thm:main2}. Namely, in the first regime we will work with $n\log n<m<n^{3/2-\varepsilon}$ and in the second with $m \le n\log n$. In both regimes we have different examples but they share some common traits. We begin with a few results which will be useful for both regimes.

\par Let us state an immediate observation which we will use frequently, without further mention.
\begin{obs}\label{deletion}
Let $G$ be a graph with $m$ edges. If $G'$ is the subgraph of $G$ obtained by deleting $k$ vertices of highest degree, then $\Delta(G')\leq 2m/k$.
\end{obs}

The following lemma will allow us to pass from almost spanning universal graphs to spanning ones.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:almost-spanning-to-spaning}
Let $n>k$ and suppose there is a $k$-vertex $(k-\floor{ \frac{k(n-k)}{2m+k}},m)$ universal graph $U$. By adding $n-k$ new full degree vertices to $U$ we obtain an $n$-vertex $(n,m)$-universal graph.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $U$ be the universal graph given by the assumption. We construct $G$ by adding a set $F$ of $n-k$ new vertices to $U$ and joining each vertex of $F$ to all other vertices in $U \cup F$. We claim that $G$ is $(n,m)$-universal.

To show this consider an arbitrary $n$-vertex graph $H$ with $m$ edges. We prove that $H$ can be embedded into $G$. Let us pick a vertex $v_0$ in $H_0:=H$ of minimum degree and remove $v_0$ and all its neighbours from $H$ to obtain $H_1$. We repeat $\ell=\floor{k(n-k)/(2m+k)}$ many times, in step $i$ we pick a vertex $v_i$ in $H_{i-1}$ of minimum degree and create $H_i$ by removing $v_i$ and all its neighbours in $H_{i-1}$. By induction it is easy to see that after each step we are left with at least $k$ vertices in $H_{i}$. Indeed, if $H_{i-1}$ has at least $k$ vertices, then for $j \le i$ vertex $v_j$ has a degree of at most $2m/k$ in $H_{j-1}$ as $|H_{j-1}| \ge |H_{i-1}| \ge k$. So after deleting all such $v_j$'s and their neighbours, we have in total deleted at most $i\cdot (2m/k+1)\leq \ell(2m/k+1)\leq n-k$ vertices, so indeed we do have at least $k$ vertices in $H_i$ for each $i\in[\ell]$.

In particular, we obtain a subgraph $H_\ell$ of $H$ of size at least $k$ and an independent set $S=\{v_1 \ldots, v_{\ell}\}$ of $\ell$ vertices with no neighbours in $H_\ell$. We embed all vertices of $H \setminus (H_\ell \cup S)$ into $F$ (which we can since $|H \setminus H_\ell| \le n-k$) as well as as many vertices of $H_\ell$ as we can. If we are only left with vertices of $S$ we can embed them into $U$ (since they make an independent set). Otherwise we are left with a graph $H'$ such that $S \subseteq H'\subseteq H_\ell \cup S$. Note that $H'$ has $|G \setminus F|=k$ vertices, $\ell$ of which are independent (depicted by the first and last part of $H$ in \cref{fig:AlmostSpanning}). Since $U$ was $(k-\ell,m)$-universal we can embed $H'\setminus S$ into $U$ and place $S$ into unused vertices. This is permissible since vertices in $S$ were isolated in $H'$. Furthermore, since all other vertices got embedded into $F$ (whose vertices have full degree in $G$), we have found our embedding of $H$.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 0.8,yscale=0.7, xscale=1.7]
\defPt {1}{}{a1}

\defPt {0}{0}{a1};
\defPt {2}{3}{a2};
\defPt {2.75}{0}{a3};
\defPt {6.75}{3}{a4};
\defPt {7.75}{0}{a5};

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (a1) rectangle (a2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!60,line width =1 pt] (a2) rectangle (a3);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt] (a3) rectangle (a4);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=yellow!80,line width =1 pt] (a4) rectangle (a5);

\defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(a2)$)}{b1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a2)+0.5*(a3)$)}{b2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a3)+0.5*(a4)$)}{b3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a4)+0.5*(a5)$)}{b4}

\defPt {0}{-1.5}{c1}
\defPt {1}{-4.5}{c2}
\defPt {3}{-1.5}{c3}
\defPt {3.75}{-4.5}{c4}
\defPt {7.75}{-1.5}{c5}

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=yellow!80,line width =1 pt] (c1) rectangle (c2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (c2) rectangle (c3);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!60,line width =1 pt] (c3) rectangle (c4);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt] (c4) rectangle (c5);

\defPtm{($0.5*(c1)+0.5*(c2)$)}{b1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c2)+0.5*(c3)$)}{b2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c3)+0.5*(c4)$)}{b3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c4)+0.5*(c5)$)}{b4}

\node[scale=1.2] (b) at (b1)  {$\ell$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b2)  {};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b3)  {};
\node[scale=1.2] (b) at (b4) {$k-\ell$};

\defPt{0}{1.5}{s}

\defPtm{($0.5*(c1)+0.5*(c2)+(s)$)}{p1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c2)+0.5*(c3)+(s)$)}{p2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c3)+0.5*(c4)+(s)$)}{p3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c4)+0.5*(c5)+(s)$)}{p4}

\defPt{0}{-1.5}{s}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(a2)+(s)$)}{q1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a2)+0.5*(a3)+(s)$)}{q2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a3)+0.5*(a4)+(s)$)}{q3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a4)+0.5*(a5)+(s)$)}{q4}

\defPt{0}{3}{s}
\defPtm{($(a1)+(s)$)}{V_11}
\defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{V_12}
\defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{V_21}
\defPtm{($(a5)+(s)$)}{V_22}

  \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(V_11)$) -- ($(V_12)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.5cm] {$F$: full degree vertices};
   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(V_21)$) -- ($(V_22)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.5cm] {$U{:}\:(k{-}\ell,m)\text{-universal graph}$};

  \defPt{0}{-3}{s}
\defPtm{($(c5)+(s)$)}{R1}
\defPtm{($(c3)+(s)$)}{R2}

\defPtm{($(c1)+(s)$)}{S1}
\defPtm{($(c2)$)}{S2}

\defPtm{($(c2)$)}{N1}
\defPtm{($(c3)+(s)$)}{N2}

   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(R1)$) -- ($(R2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$H_\ell$};

      \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(S2)$) -- ($(S1)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$S$};

       \draw [ thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(N2)$) -- ($(N1)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$N(S)$};

   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p1) -- (q4);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p2) -- (q1);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p3) -- (q2);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p4) -- (q3);

  \node[scale=1.5] (G) at(-0.55,1.5) {$G$};
  \node[scale=1.5] (H) at(-0.55,-3) {$H$};

   \tikzstyle{every node}=[circle, draw, fill=black!50,
                        inner sep=0pt, minimum width=2pt]
   \node[] (t1) at (0.5,-4.1){};
   \node[] (n1) at (1.5,-4.3){};
   \node[] (n2) at (2.3,-4.1){};
   \node[] (n3) at (1.6,-3.9){};

   \node[] (t2) at (0.4,-3.7){};
   \node[] (n4) at (2.4,-3.4){};
   \node[] (n5) at (1.3,-3.7){};
   \node[] (n6) at (2.5,-3.9){};
   \node[] (n7) at (1.8,-3.1){};

   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n1);
   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n2);
   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n3);

   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n4);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n5);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n6);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n7);

   \node[] (t1) at (0.5,-1.9){};
   \node[] (n1) at (2.5,-1.7){};
   \node[] (n2) at (1.3,-1.9){};
   \node[] (n3) at (1.6,-2.1){};

   \node[] (t2) at (0.4,-2.3){};
   \node[] (n4) at (1.4,-2.6){};
   \node[] (n5) at (2.3,-2.3){};
   \node[] (n6) at (1.5,-2.1){};
    \node[] (n7) at (2.5,-3){};

   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n1);
   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n2);
   \draw[color=black] (t1) to (n3);

   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n4);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n5);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n6);
   \draw[color=black] (t2) to (n7);

\end{tikzpicture}

    \caption{Illustration of the final state of the embedding process when passing from almost spanning universality to spanning universality.} \label{fig:AlmostSpanning}
\end{figure}

This lemma shows that if we can establish a sufficiently strong version of almost spanning universality it only costs us a very few extra vertices of full-degree in order to obtain spanning universality. On the other hand since we want universality for $n$-vertex graphs with $m$ edges, we know that provided $m\ge n-1$ the host graph must contain some vertices of full degree, as the graphs we want to embed might also have some vertices of full degree. We note that this simple lemma is one of the main ingredients which allow us to find spanning universal graphs, which is usually a very hard problem. In addition it allows us to greatly simplify certain technical parts of our arguments.

We will construct a part of our universal graph $G$ to satisfy a property of the following type which will allow us to embed any graph on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges into $G$

 \begin{defn*}\label{defn:pseudorandom}
 A graph is said to have the $(r,s,t)$-domination property if for any set $R$ of size $r$ and any $t$ disjoint sets $S_1,\ldots, S_t$ of size $s$ which are disjoint from $R$, there is a vertex $v$ in $R$ and a set $S_i$ such that $v$ is a common neighbour of all vertices in $S_i$.
 \end{defn*}

A part of our universal graphs which will satisfy the above property is going to be provided by a random graph. Towards this end the following lemma establishes a condition on the parameters $r,s,t$ which implies that the random graph $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ has the $(r,s,t)$-domination property.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:random-is-pseudorandom}
 The random graph $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ has the $(r,s,t)$-domination property whp provided
 $$3 \log n   \le p^s\cdot  \min\left(\frac{r}{s},t\right).$$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The probability that a fixed vertex is a common neighbour of every vertex in a fixed set $S$ of size $s$ is $p^s$. By independence, the probability that a fixed set $R$ of size $r$ and $t$ fixed disjoint sets $S_1,\ldots, S_t$ of size $s$ are such that no vertex in $R$ is a common neighbour of every vertex in some $S_i$ is $(1-p^s)^{tr}$. So, by a union bound, the probability that some choice of sets $R,S_1,\ldots,S_t$ fails the desired condition is at most
$$\binom{n}{r}\binom{n}{s}^t(1-p^s)^{tr} \le n^{r + ts} e^{-p^str}=
 n^{r + ts -p^str/\log n} \le  n^{-r} = o(1). $$
\end{proof}

\subsection{The first regime}\label{The first regime}
Let us now turn to the first regime, so when $n\log n<m<n^{3/2-\varepsilon}.$ As part of our construction of an $(n,m)$-universal graph with $n$ vertices we first find a smaller almost spanning universal graph, in particular a graph on $k<n$ vertices which is $(k-r,m)$-universal for appropriately chosen parameters $k$ and $r$. We then finish the construction by applying \Cref{lem:almost-spanning-to-spaning}.

Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $k,m$ be integers such that $k \log k  < m < 3k^{3/2-\varepsilon}$ and $k$ is sufficiently large depending only on $\varepsilon$.
We let $G$ be a $k$-vertex graph consisting of
\begin{itemize}
    \item a set $F$ of $k/2$ vertices joined to every vertex and
    \item a set $V$ of $k/2$ vertices inducing a graph $G'$ with the $(r,s,t)$-domination property missing at least $\frac{\varepsilon k^3 \log k}{2^8m}$ edges
\end{itemize}  where $t=\frac{k^3}{2^{9}m^2}$, $s=\frac{8m}{k}$ and  $r=\frac{k^2}{4m}$. In order to ensure we can find such a graph $G'=G[V]$ we let $p=1-\frac{\varepsilon k \log k}{16m}>\frac12$. Then we have $$p^s=(1-(1-p))^s \ge e^{-2(1-p)s}=k^{-\varepsilon},$$ where we used that $1-x \geq e^{-2x}$,  provided $x<1/2$. In addition, since $m<3k^{3/2-\varepsilon}$, we also have
$$\min\left(\frac{r}{s},t\right)=t=k^3/(2^{9}m^2)\ge k^{2\varepsilon}/(3^2 2^{9})> 3 k^{\varepsilon}\log k,$$ as $k$ is large enough compared to $\varepsilon$. So, by Lemma \ref{lem:random-is-pseudorandom} $\mathcal{G}(k/2,p)$ has the $(r,s,t)$-domination property whp. Notice further that $\mathcal{G}(k/2,p)$ is also missing at least $(1-p)k^2/16=\frac{\varepsilon k^3 \log k}{2^8m}$ edges whp. So in particular it provides us with our $G'$. We now show $G$ is universal for almost spanning graphs with $m$ edges.

\begin{claim*}
$G$ is $\left(k-r,m\right)$-universal.
 \end{claim*}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 2, xscale=1.2, yscale=1.2]

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (-1.5,0) rectangle (-0.75,1);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!60,line width =1 pt] (-0.75,0) rectangle (-0,1);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt] (0,0) rectangle (1.25,1);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, line width =1 pt] (1.25,0) rectangle (1.5,1);
\node[scale=1.4] (a) at  (-1.125,0.5)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};
\node[scale=1.4] (b) at  (-1.125+0.75,0.5)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};
\node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (1.25/2,0.5)  {$\frac{k}{2}{-}r$};
\node[scale=1.4] (d) at (1.5-0.125,0.5){$r$};

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (-1.5,-1.5) rectangle (-0.75,-0.5);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt] (-0.75,-1.5) rectangle (-0.75+1.25,-0.5);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!60,line width =1 pt] (0.5,-1.5) rectangle (1.25,-0.5);
\node[scale=1.4] (a) at  (-1.125,-1)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};
\node[scale=1.4] (b) at  (-0.75+1.25/2,-1)  {$\frac{k}{2}{-}r$};
\node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (-0.75+1.25+0.375,-1)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};

\defPt{-1.5+0.375}{-0.5}{r1};
\defPt{-1.5+0.375}{0}{r2};

\defPt{1.5-0.25-0.375}{-0.5}{b1};
\defPt{-0.75+0.375}{0}{b2};

\defPt{-0.75+1.25/2}{-0.5}{g1};
\defPt{1.25-0.75}{0}{g2};

\defPt{-1.5}{1}{F1};
\defPt{0}{1}{F2};

\defPt{0}{1}{G'1};
\defPt{1.5}{1}{G'2};

\defPt{1.25}{-1.5}{H'1};
\defPt{-0.75}{-1.5}{H'2};
 \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(F1)$) -- ($(F2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$F$};

  \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(G'1)$) -- ($(G'2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$G'$};

  \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(H'1)$) -- ($(H'2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$H'$};
  \node[scale=1.5] (G) at(-2,0.5) {$G$};
  \node[scale=1.5] (H) at(-2,-1) {$H$};

  \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (r1) -- (r2);
  \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (b1) -- (b2);
  \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (g1) -- (g2);

  \defPt{-1.5}{0}{a1}
\defPt{-0.75}{1}{a2}
\defPt{0}{0}{a3}
\defPt{1}{1}{a4}
\defPt{1.5}{0}{a5}
\defPt{-4}{0}{s}
\foreach \i in {1,...,5}
{
\defPtm{($(a\i)+(s)$)}{a\i};
};

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (a1) rectangle (a2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!60,line width =1 pt] (a2) rectangle (a3);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt](a3) rectangle (a4);
\draw[rounded corners] (a4) rectangle (a5);

\defPt{-1.5}{-1.5}{b1}
\defPt{-0.75}{-0.5}{b2}
\defPt{0.25}{-1.5}{b3}
\defPt{1.5}{-0.5}{b4}
\foreach \i in {1,...,4}
{
\defPtm{($(b\i)+(s)$)}{b\i};
};

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!100,line width =1 pt] (b1) rectangle (b2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!80,line width =1 pt] (b2) rectangle (b3);
\draw[rounded corners] (b3) rectangle (b4);

\defPtm{($0.5*(b2)+0.5*(b3)$)}{e1}
\defPt{0.1}{0}{r}
\defPt{0}{-0.1}{d}
\defPt{0}{0.1}{u}
\defPt{-0.1}{0}{l}

\defPtm{($(e1)+2*(l)+4*(d)$)}{t1}
\defPtm{($(e1)+2*(l)+0*(u)$)}{t2}

\defPtm{($(e1)+1*(r)+4.5*(u)$)}{t3}
\defPtm{($(e1)+1*(r)+0.4*(u)$)}{t4}

\defPtm{($(e1)+3*(r)-4.8*(u)$)}{t5}
\defPtm{($(e1)+3*(r)-1.4*(u)$)}{t6}

\fitellipsis{t1}{t2}
\fitellipsis{t3}{t4}
\fitellipsis{t5}{t6}

\defPt{0}{1}{s}
\defPtm{($(a3)-(b2)+(s)$)}{trans}
\foreach \i in {1,...,6}
{
\defPtm{($(t\i)+(trans)$)}{g\i}
}

  \defPt{-3.35}{-0.59}{p1}
    \defPt{-3.7}{-0.95}{p2}
      \defPt{-3}{-1.3}{p3}

     \draw[color=black] (p2) to (t1)
     \draw[color=black] (p2) to (t2);

       \draw[color=black] (p1) to (t3);
     \draw[color=black] (p1) to (t4)

       \draw[color=black] (p3) to (t5);
     \draw[color=black] (p3) to (t6)

     \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (t2) to [bend left=30](g1);
     \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (t3) to [bend right=30](g4);
    \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (t6) to [bend right=70](g5);

  \defPt{0}{-1}{s}
   \defPtm{($(b2)+(s)$)}{B2}
   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(b3)$) -- ($(B2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$S$};

     \defPt{0}{1}{s}
   \defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{A3}
   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(A3)$) -- ($(a4)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$\pi(S)$};

      \defPtm{($(b4)-(s)$)}{B4}
      \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(B4)$) -- ($(b3)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.55cm] {$H'\setminus S$};

      \defPtm{($(a1)+(s)$)}{A1}
      \defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{A3}
      \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(A1)$) -- ($(A3)$) node [black,midway,yshift=+0.45cm] {$F$};

      \defPtm{($(a5)+(s)$)}{A5}
      \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(a4)$) -- ($(A5)$) node [black,midway,yshift=+0.45cm] {$R$};

     \defPtm{($0.5*(a4)+0.5*(a5)$)}{p}
     \draw[diredge, line width= 1.5 pt] (p3) to (p);
    \node[scale=1] (c) at  ([yshift=0.14cm]p)  {$\pi(v)$};
    \node[scale=1] (c) at  ([xshift=0.1cm]p3)  {$v$};

     \draw[color=black] (p) to (g5);
     \draw[color=black] (p) to (g6);

     \defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(a2)$)}{k1}
     \defPtm{($0.5*(a2)+0.5*(a3)$)}{k2}
     \defPtm{($0.5*(b1)+0.5*(b2)$)}{k3}

      \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (k1)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};
     \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (k2)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};
     \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (k3)  {$\frac{k}{4}$};

     \tikzstyle{every node}=[circle, draw, fill=black!50,
                        inner sep=0pt, minimum width=2pt]
 \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (p1)  {.};
 \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (p2)  {.};
 \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (p3)  {.};
 \node[scale=1.4] (c) at  (p)   {.};

\fitellipsis{g1}{g2}
\fitellipsis{g3}{g4}
\fitellipsis{g5}{g6}

\end{tikzpicture}

\caption{The picture on the left illustrates the embedding process while the one on the right illustrates the final state of the embedding.} \label{fig:R1}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}

 Let $H$ be a graph on $k-r$ vertices and $m$ edges. Our goal is to embed $H$ into $G$.

 Let us first delete $k/4$ vertices of largest degrees from $H$ to obtain $H'\subseteq H$ with $\Delta(H') \le 8m/k$ and $|H'| = 3k/4-r$. The deleted $k/4$ vertices we embed into $F$, leaving us with $k/4$ remaining vertices in $F$.

We continue by embedding vertices from $H'$ one by one into $G'$, making sure that whenever two embedded vertices make an edge in $H'$, their images also make an edge in $G'$. Let $S$ be the set of already embedded vertices from $H'$, i.e.\ assume that we have already found a distinct vertex $\pi(v)\in V(G')$ for every $v \in S \subseteq V(H')$. If $|S| \ge k/2-r$ we stop, so let us assume that $|S| < k/2-r$, which implies that we have at least $k/4$ vertices in $H'\setminus S$. For each $v\in H'\setminus S$, let $S_v=\pi(S) \cap \pi(N_{H'}(v))$, so the set of vertices of $G'$ which were already assigned to a neighbour of $v$ (see \cref{fig:R1}). We know that $|S_v| \le 8m/k=s$ since $\Delta(H') \le 8m/k$. Furthermore, the same max degree condition tells us that each $S_v$ can intersect at most $(8m/k)^2$ other such sets (since $S_v$ has size at most $8m/k$ and every vertex of $S_v$ can belong to at most $8m/k$ other $S_u$'s). This implies the existence of a family of at least $\frac{|H'\setminus S|}{(8m/k)^2+1}\geq \frac{k^3}{2^{9}m^2}=t$ disjoint sets $S_v$. We can find such a family by greedily choosing the $S_v$'s.

On the other hand we have a set $R$ of at least $|G'|-|S|\geq r$ yet unassigned vertices of $G'$. Since $G'$ is $(r,s,t)$-dominating we know that there is a vertex $u$ in $R$ and one of the sets $S_v$ such that $u$ is a common neighbour of every vertex in $S_v$. So we may embed $\pi(v)=u$ and repeat.

When we stop (i.e. when $|S|\geq k/2-r$), we will have embedded at least $k/2-r$ vertices of $H'$. We now embed the remaining $k/4$ vertices of $H'$ to the remaining $k/4$ vertices of $F$ to obtain the desired copy of $H'$ in $G'.$
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:upper-bound-big}
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $n \log n < m < n^{3/2-\varepsilon}$. There is an $n$-vertex graph missing at least $\frac{\varepsilon n^3 \log n}{2^{12}m}$ edges which is $(n,m)$-universal, provided $n$ is large enough depending only on $\varepsilon$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $k=n/2$, so $k \log k < m < 3k^{3/2-\varepsilon}$. By the previous claim $G$ is a $(k-r,m)$-universal graph which misses at least $\frac{\varepsilon k^3 \log k}{2^8m}\ge \frac{\varepsilon n^3 \log n}{2^{12}m}$ edges. Since
$r= \frac{k^2}{4m} \le \floor{\frac{k(n-k)}{2m+k}}$ Lemma \ref{lem:almost-spanning-to-spaning} implies that adding $n-k=n/2$ vertices of full degree to $G$ gives us the desired graph.
\end{proof}

Note that our final example for above theorem consisted of $3n/4$ vertices of full degree and $n/4$ vertices spanning a graph satisfying certain properties which hold for the random graph $\mathcal{G}(n/4,p)$ whp. Upon taking complements, what we have shown is that whp the random graph $\mathcal{G}(n/4,q)$, where $q=1-p,$ has Tur\'an number on $n$ vertices of at most $\binom{n}{2}-m=\binom{n}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon n \log \frac{n}{2}}{32q}=(1-\Theta(\frac{\log n}{nq}))\binom{n}{2}$, where we may choose an arbitrary $q$ such that $1/2>q>n^{-1/2+\varepsilon}$. Since in this regime $\chi(\mathcal{G}(n,q))= \Theta (nq/\log n)$ this is approximately what we would obtain by applying Erd\H{o}s-Stone-Simonovits theorem, despite the fact that our graph is of linear order while the usual Erd\H{o}s-Stone-Simonovits applies only to small forbidden graphs. We postpone further discussion to concluding remarks.

\subsection{The second regime}

In this subsection we deal with the case when $n/2<m<n\log n$. In this regime our goal is to construct an $(n,m)$-universal graph on $\Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2m}\right)$ edges to show the desired upper bound.

A part of our construction will again use a graph satisfying an appropriate domination property with few edges, similarly as in the first regime. We however require slightly different relation between parameters. The next lemma shows that the random graph still provides us with such a graph.

\begin{lem}\label{Gnp}
 $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ whp has the $(n^{\frac34},\frac{\log n}{2\log\frac{1}{p}},n^{\frac34})$-domination property for $p<\frac12$.
\end{lem}{}

\begin{proof}
 Using \Cref{lem:random-is-pseudorandom} and setting $r=n^{\frac34}$, $s=\frac{\log n}{2\log\frac{1}{p}}$ and $t=n^{\frac34}$ , it is enough to show that $3 \log n   \le p^s\cdot  \min\left(\frac{r}{s},t\right)$, which is equivalent to
 $3\log n\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\cdot \frac{n^{\frac34}}{s}$
 and since $s\leq \log n$, we are done.
\end{proof}

To upper bound $g(n,m)$ we will give a recursive construction of an $(n,m)$-universal graph. It will not be hard to ``extract'' the constructed graph later, but we use the recursive definition as it provides us with a convenient way of controlling the bounds.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:recursive step}
For $n/2 \le m \le \frac{n \log n}{2^{10}}$ we have $$g(n,m) \le \frac{32m^3}{n \log ^3 n}+g\left(n' , m\right)$$ where $n'=32m \cdot \log(\frac{n\log n}{m})/\log n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $n'$ is increasing in $m$ for $m \le \frac{n \log n}{2^{10}}$ so
\begin{equation}\label{n'<n}
    n'\leq 32 \frac{n\log n}{2^{10}}\cdot\frac{\log(2^{10})}{\log n}\leq\frac{2}{3}n.
\end{equation}
 Let $k=n-\frac{n}{\log^3 n}$. Our initial goal is to find a $k$-vertex, $(k-n^{\frac45},m)$-universal graph $G$ with at most $g(n',m)+\frac{17m^3}{n\log^3 n}$ edges. After this is done, we will finish the proof by applying \Cref{lem:almost-spanning-to-spaning}.
\par
We construct $G$ as follows. Let $p=\frac{m^3}{n^3\log^3n}<\frac12$. Let the vertex set $V$ of $G$ be the union of three disjoint sets $V=V_1\cup V_2\cup V_3$, of sizes $|V_1|=\frac{n}{\log^3n}+n^{\frac45}$, $|V_2|=n'$ and $|V_3|=k-|V_1|-|V_2|.$

We construct the edge set in three steps as follows:
\begin{itemize}
    \item  Let $V$ induce a graph with the $(n^{\frac34},\frac{\log n}{2\log\frac{1}{p}},n^{\frac34})$-domination property which has at most $n^2p$ edges.
    \item Make each vertex in $V_1$ adjacent to all other vertices.
    \item Finally, add at most $g(n',m)$ edges within $V_2$ to make $G[V_2]$ an $(n',m)$-universal graph.
\end{itemize}
The graph from the first step exists due to \Cref{Gnp}, as $\mathcal{G}(n,p)$ has both the $(n^{\frac34},\frac{\log n}{2\log\frac{1}{p}},n^{\frac34})$-domination property and at most $n^2p$ edges whp, and since both these properties are hereditary we may take any subgraph on $k<n$ vertices for our graph. Observe that $G$ has at most $$n^2p+n|V_1|+g(n',m) \le n^2p+\frac{2n^2}{\log^3n}+g(n',m)\leq \frac{17m^3}{n\log^3n}+g(n',m)$$ edges, as $n/2<m$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 0.8, xscale=1.3, yscale=0.7]
\defPt {1}{}{a1}

\defPt {-5.5}{0}{a1};
\defPt {-4}{3}{a2};
\defPt {-3}{0}{a3};
\defPt {-1}{3}{a4};
\defPt {4}{0}{a5};
\defPt {5}{3}{a6};

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!80,line width =1 pt] (a1) rectangle (a2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!100,line width =1 pt] (a2) rectangle (a3);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!100,line width =1 pt] (a3) rectangle (a4);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=yellow!100,line width =1 pt] (a4) rectangle (a5);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, line width =1 pt] (a5) rectangle (a6);

\defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(a2)$)}{b1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a2)+0.5*(a3)$)}{b2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a3)+0.5*(a4)$)}{b3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a4)+0.5*(a5)$)}{b4}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a5)+0.5*(a6)$)}{b5}

\node[scale=0.9] (b) at (b1)  {$\frac{n}{\log^3n}$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b2)  {$n^{\frac45}$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b3)  {$n'$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b4)  {$k-\frac{n}{\log^3n}-2n^{\frac45}-n'$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b5)  {$n^{\frac45}$};

\defPt {-5.5}{-1.5}{c1}
\defPt {-4}{-4.5}{c2}
\defPt {-2}{-1.5}{c3}
\defPt {3}{-4.5}{c4}
\defPt {4}{-1.5}{c5}

\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=red!80, line width =1 pt] (c1) rectangle (c2);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=green!100, line width =1 pt] (c2) rectangle (c3);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=yellow!100, line width =1 pt] (c3) rectangle (c4);
\draw[rounded corners, opacity = 0.5, fill=blue!100, line width =1 pt] (c4) rectangle (c5);

\defPtm{($0.5*(c1)+0.5*(c2)$)}{b1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c2)+0.5*(c3)$)}{b2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c3)+0.5*(c4)$)}{b3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c4)+0.5*(c5)$)}{b4}

\node[scale=0.9] (b) at (b1)  {$\frac{n}{\log^3n}$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b2)  {$n'$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b3)  {$k-\frac{n}{\log^3n}-2n^{\frac45}-n'$};
\node[scale=1] (b) at (b4) {$n^{\frac45}$};

\defPt{0}{1.5}{s}

\defPtm{($0.5*(c1)+0.5*(c2)+(s)$)}{p1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c2)+0.5*(c3)+(s)$)}{p2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c3)+0.5*(c4)+(s)$)}{p3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(c4)+0.5*(c5)+(s)$)}{p4}

\defPt{0}{-1.5}{s}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(a2)+(s)$)}{q1}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a2)+0.5*(a3)+(s)$)}{q2}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a3)+0.5*(a4)+(s)$)}{q3}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a4)+0.5*(a5)+(s)$)}{q4}

\defPt{0}{3}{s}
\defPtm{($(a1)+(s)$)}{V_11}
\defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{V_12}
\defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{V_21}
\defPtm{($(a4)$)}{V_22}
\defPtm{($(a4)$)}{V_31}
\defPtm{($(a6)$)}{V_32}

  \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(V_11)$) -- ($(V_12)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$V_1$};
   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(V_21)$) -- ($(V_22)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$V_2$};
    \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(V_31)$) -- ($(V_32)$) node [black,midway,yshift=0.45cm] {$V_3$};

  \defPt{0}{-3}{s}
\defPtm{($(c5)+(s)$)}{R1}
\defPtm{($(c3)+(s)$)}{R2}
   \draw [thick,decorate,decoration={brace,  amplitude=5pt,raise=2pt},yshift=0pt]($(R1)$) -- ($(R2)$) node [black,midway,yshift=-0.45cm] {$H'$};

   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p1) -- (q1);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p2) -- (q3);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p3) -- (q4);
   \draw[->,line width= 1 pt] (p4) -- (q2);

   \node[scale=1.5] (G) at(-6.5,1.5) {$G$};
  \node[scale=1.5] (H) at(-6.5,-3) {$H$};

 \end{tikzpicture}

\caption{Final state of the embedding process in the second regime} \label{fig:R2}
\end{figure}

We now show that $G$ is indeed $(k-n^{\frac45},m)$-universal. Let $H$ be an arbitrary graph on $k-n^{\frac45}$ vertices and $m$ edges. Our task is to find an embedding of $H$ into $G$.
\par First, embed the $\frac{n}{\log^3 n}$ vertices of highest degree from $H$ arbitrarily into $V_1$, and note that $n^{\frac45}$ vertices in $V_1$ remain free. Second, embed the next $n'$ vertices of highest degree into $V_2$. As the subgraph of $H$ induced by those vertices has less than $m$ edges, it can be embedded into $V_2$, as $G[V_2]$ is $(n',m)$-universal.
\par Let $H'$ be the subgraph consisting of the remaining vertices of $H.$ Note that $|H'|=k-n^{\frac45}-\frac{n}{\log^3n}-n'=|V_3|$. We embed vertices of $H'$ one by one into $V_3$ and delete them from $H'$ until only $n^{\frac45}$ are left. For each $v\in H'$ let $S_v$ be the image set of all $v$'s neighbours in $H$ which are already embedded into $V_2\cup V_3$. At each step we argue that we can find a vertex $v\in H'$ and a free vertex $u\in V_3$ such that $u$ is a common neighbour of $S_v$ and we embed $v$ into $u$.\par
Note that the size of each $S_v$ at each step is at most $\Delta_1=2m/n'=\frac{2\log n}{32\log(\frac{n\log n}{m})}\leq \frac{\log n}{2\log\frac{1}{p}}\leq \log n$, because $\Delta_1$ is an upper bound on the degree of vertices in $H'$. Note also that each vertex in $V_2\cup V_3$ can only be in at most $\Delta_2=2m/(\frac{n}{\log^3n})\leq \log^5n$ sets $S_v$, as vertices in $V_2\cup V_3$ cannot be images of one of the $\frac{n}{\log^3n}$ vertices of highest degree in $H$, so their degree in $H$ is at most $2m/(\frac{n}{\log^3n})$. Now we find a disjoint collection of $S_v$'s, by choosing them one by one and each time deleting all other sets which intersect the chosen one. Thus we get a collection of at least $\frac{|H'|}{\Delta_1\Delta_2+1}\ge n^{\frac34}$ disjoint sets $S_i$, since $|H'|\geq n^{\frac45}$. \par
To summarise we have found $n^{\frac34}$ disjoint sets $S_v$ each of size at most $\frac{\log n}{2\log(\frac{1}{p})}$. The set of remaining free vertices of $V_3$ has size $|H'| \ge n^{\frac45}$ and is disjoint from these $S_v$'s. Therefore, the domination property of $G$ implies that there is a free vertex in $V_3$ which is a common neighbour of all vertices in some set $S_v$. We embed $v$ into this vertex. We update each $S_v$ after every single embedding. When fewer than $n^{\frac45}$ vertices are left in $H'$ we embed them into the remaining free part of $V_1$ and are done. \par
We have shown the existence of a $k$-vertex graph $G$ which is $(k-n^{\frac45},m)$-universal. By making use of \Cref{lem:almost-spanning-to-spaning} and noting that $$k-\floor{ \frac{k(n-k)}{2m+k}}\leq k-\frac{n(n-k)}{9m}\leq k-\frac{n-k}{\log n}\le k-\frac{n}{\log^4 n} \leq k-n^{\frac45},$$ we conclude that by adding $n-k=\frac{n}{\log^3 n}$ full degree vertices to $G$ we get an $n$-vertex, $(n,m)$-universal graph. The number of edges of this graph is at most $$g(n',m)+\frac{17m^3}{n\log^3 n}+\frac{n^2}{\log^3n}\leq \frac{25m^3}{n\log^3n}$$ as $n/2\leq m$, which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:upper-bound-small}
For $n/2 \le m $ we have $$g(n,m) \le \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{m^2}{\log ^2 m}\right).$$
\end{cor}

\vspace{-0.7cm}
\begin{proof}
If $n<\frac{16m}{ \log m}$ then the statement holds trivially since a graph on $n$ edges has at most $\binom{n}{2}$ edges.

 For any fixed $m$ we will use the previous lemma and induction on $n$  to show
 \begin{equation}\label{induction hypothesis}
 g(n,m) \le \frac{2^{22}m^2}{\log^2 m}\left(1-\frac{2m}{n \log n}\right)
 \end{equation}
 holds for all $n$ such that $\frac{16m}{\log m} \le n \le 2m$. The lower bound on $n$ implies that $n \geq \sqrt{m}$ and therefore $\log m \leq 2 \log n$.
 For the base of the induction consider all $n$ in our range such that $n \le \frac{2^{11}m}{\log m}$. In this case the inequality \eqref{induction hypothesis} holds, since $n \ge \frac{16m}{\log m}$ implies $\frac{2m}{n \log n}\le \frac12$ and $n^2 \le \frac{2^{22}m^2}{\log^2 m}$ so the RHS is at least $n^2/2$ and as before any graph on $n$ vertices has at most $\binom{n}{2}$ edges.

 We now proceed to the induction step. Let $2m \ge n \ge \frac{2^{11}m}{\log m}$ and assume that the statement holds for all smaller $n$ (but still larger than $\frac{16m}{\log m}$).
 Since our bounds on $n$ imply $\frac{n\log n}{2^{10}}\geq m \ge n/2$ we have that:
 \begin{align*}
     g(n,m)&\leq \frac{32m^3}{n\log^3 n}+g(n',m)
 \end{align*}
 where $n'=\frac{32m}{\log n}\cdot \log(\frac{n\log n}{m})$ is given by the previous lemma. By inequality \eqref{n'<n} we have $n'<n$ and from the definition $n'\ge \frac{32m}{\log n}\ge \frac{16m}{\log m}$ so we can apply the induction hypothesis to $n'$ to obtain
 \begin{align*}
     g(n,m)&\leq \frac{32m^3}{n\log^3 n}+\frac{2^{22}m^2}{\log ^2 m}\left(1-\frac{2m}{n'\log n'}\right)
     \\ &= \frac{2^{22}m^2}{\log^2 m}\left(1+\frac{m\log^2m}{2^{17}n\log^3n}-\frac{2m}{n'\log n'}\right)
     \end{align*}
 In order to finish the proof it is enough to show that:
 \[\frac{2m}{n'\log n'}-\frac{m\log^2m}{2^{17}n\log^3n}\geq \frac{2m}{n\log n}\]
 or equivalently  \[\frac{2\log n}{n'\log n'}-\frac{\log^2m}{2^{17}n\log^2n}\geq \frac{2}{n}.\]
Recall that $\log m \leq 2 \log n$ and $\log n' < \log n$ (since $n'<n$). Thus it is enough to show
\[\frac{2}{n'}\geq\frac{3}{n}.\]
which is true by inequality \eqref{n'<n}, so we are done.
\end{proof}

If one looks at what kind of graph this recursive argument builds, in each step it will add a few more vertices of full degree, in total at most $\mathcal{O}(\frac{m^2}{n \log^2 m})$ since otherwise we would have used too many edges. The rest of the graph consists of several blocks which are initially small and have a large number (of randomly chosen) neighbours and progressively the blocks become bigger and bigger but they have less (randomly chosen) neighbours. The number of blocks we see is the number of times we needed to call upon the recursion and from definition of $n'$ we roughly have $\frac{ n' \log n'}{m} \approx \log \left(\frac{n \log n}{m} \right)$ where we used that $\log n' \approx \log n$ as throughout the argument we stay in the same range depending on $m$. What this means is that in each step we take a logarithm of the current value of $\frac{n \log n}{m}$ up until it reaches a constant. I.e. we need $\mathcal{O}\left(\log^*\left(\frac{n \log n}{m} \right)\right)$\footnote{$\log^*x$ is the function defined as the number of times we need to apply the logarithm function to $x$ in order to get to $1$, applied to the number of atoms in the universe it evaluates to about $5$.} many steps. See \Cref{fig:Recursion unpacked} for an illustration of the constructed graph.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale = 0.85, xscale=1.2, yscale=0.8]

\defPt {0}{0}{a1};
\defPt {1}{3}{a2};

\defPt {2}{0}{a3};
\defPt {4}{3}{a4};

\defPt {6}{0}{a5};
\defPt {9}{3}{a6};

\defPt {10}{0}{a7};
\defPt {14}{3}{a8};

\fill[opacity = 1, black!80] (a1) rectangle (a2);
\fill[ opacity = 0.8, black!60] (a3) rectangle (a4);
\fill[ opacity = 1, black!30] (a5) rectangle (a6);
\fill[opacity = 0.5, black!30] (a7) rectangle (a8);

\defPt{0}{3}{s}
\defPtm{($(a1)+(s)$)}{A1}
\defPtm{($(a3)+(s)$)}{A3}
\defPtm{($(a5)+(s)$)}{A5}
\defPtm{($(a7)+(s)$)}{A7}

\defPt{0}{-3}{s}
\defPtm{($(a2)+(s)$)}{A2}
\defPtm{($(a4)+(s)$)}{A4}
\defPtm{($(a6)+(s)$)}{A6}
\defPtm{($(a8)+(s)$)}{A8}

\filldraw[opacity=1, fill=black!80]
  (A1) to[bend left=20]
  (a4) --
  (A3) to[bend right=20]
  (a2) -- cycle;

  \filldraw[opacity=1, fill=black!80]
  (A1) to[bend left=30]
  (a6) --
  (A5) to[bend right=30]
  (a2) -- cycle;

  \filldraw[opacity=1, fill=black!80]
  (A1) to[bend left=40]
  (a8) --
  (A7) to[bend right=40]
  (a2) -- cycle;
 \filldraw[color=black!60, opacity=0.8, fill=black!60]
  (a3) to[bend right=30]
  (A8) --
  (a7) to[bend left=30]
  (A4) -- cycle;

  \filldraw[opacity=0.8, fill=black!60]
  (a3) to[bend right=20]
  (A6) --
  (a5) to[bend left=20]
  (A4) -- cycle;

\filldraw[opacity=1, fill=black!30]
  (a5) to[bend right=15]
  (A8) --
  (a7) to[bend left=15]
  (A6) -- cycle;

\defPt{-1}{0}{s}
\defPtm{($(s)+0.5*(a3)+0.5*(A7)$)}{tackice}
 \node[scale=1.5] (tackice) at (tackice) {$\ldots$};
\defPt{0}{-0.5}{s}
\defPtm{($0.5*(A1)+0.5*(a2)+(s)$)}{S1}
 \node[color=white, scale=1] (S1) at (S1) {$\frac{n}{\log^2n}$};
 \node[scale=1] () at ($(S1)-(1.76,0)$) {Size:};
\defPtm{($0.5*(A3)+0.5*(a4)+(s)$)}{S2}
 \node[color=white, scale=1] (S2) at (S2) {$n\cdot \frac{1}{\log n}$};
\defPtm{($0.5*(A5)+0.5*(a6)+(s)$)}{S3}
 \node[ scale=1] (S3) at (S3) {$n \cdot \frac{\log\log n}{\log n}$};
\defPtm{($0.5*(A7)+0.5*(a8)+(s)$)}{S4}
 \node[ scale=1] (S4) at (S4) {$(1-o(1))n$};

\defPt{0}{0.5}{s}
\defPtm{($0.5*(a1)+0.5*(A2)+(s)$)}{S1}
 \node[color=white, scale=0.9] (S1) at (S1) {$p=1$};
 \node[scale=1] () at ($(S1)-(1.5,0)$) {Density:};
\defPtm{($0.5*(a3)+0.5*(A4)+(s)$)}{S2}
 \node[color=white, scale=1] (S2) at (S2) {$p\sim \frac{1}{2}$};
\defPtm{($0.5*(a5)+0.5*(A6)+(s)$)}{S3}
 \node[ scale=0.9] (S3) at (S3) {$p\sim \frac{1}{\log^3 \log n}$};
\defPtm{($0.5*(a7)+0.5*(A8)+(s)$)}{S4}
 \node[ scale=1] (S4) at (S4) {$p{\sim} \frac{1}{\log^3 n}$};

 \end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The $(n,n)$-universal graph constructed by the recursion. Each vertex in a block has an edge towards another vertex in its own block or a vertex in a subsequent block with probability $p$. The density of the random edges, depicted by different shades of gray, decreases as the size of the block increases. } \label{fig:Recursion unpacked}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Completing the picture}
We are now ready to combine our results to show our main theorem.
\begin{proof}[ of \Cref{thm:main2}]
The lower bounds follow directly from \Cref{lem:counting}.
In \Cref{cor:upper-bound-small} we have proven the desired upper bound for $g(n,m)$ when $n/2\leq m\leq n\log n$. \Cref{thm:upper-bound-big} gives us the bound when $n\log n<m<n^{3/2-\varepsilon}$.

The remaining case is when $m<n/2$. Notice that in this case $g(n,m)\leq g(2m,m)=\Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2m}\right)$ since any graph with $e$ edges has at most $2m$ non-isolated vertices.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
We have shown that the function $g(n,m)$ exhibits different behaviour in the two regimes. Namely, when $m=o(n\log n)$ then $g(n,m)=\Theta\left(\frac{m^2}{\log^2 m}\right)=o(n^2)$ while if $m=\omega(n\log n)$ we have that $g(n,m)=\binom{n}{2}-\Theta\left(\frac{n^3\log n}{m}\right)=(1-o(1))\binom{n}{2}$. From our arguments one can see that as we transition from one regime to another both bounds become quadratic in $n$. The following corollary shows that $m=\Theta (n\log n)$ is precisely the transitioning point between the two behaviours.
\end{rem}

\begin{cor}
Let $\mu>0$ be a positive constant. Then there exist positive constants $0<c_1,c_2<1$ such that $c_1\binom{n}{2}\leq g(n,\mu n\log n)\leq  c_2\binom{n}{2}$
for all positive integers $n$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}

The lower bound follows from \Cref{lem:counting}. For the upper bound we have the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
    \item  When $m>n\log n$ the claim follows from \Cref{thm:upper-bound-big}.
    \item  When $m<\frac{n\log n}{2^{12}}$ the claim follows from \eqref{induction hypothesis}.
    \item If $\frac{n\log n}{2^{12}}\leq e\leq  n\log n$ then we use the inequality $g(n,x)\leq 2g(n/2,x)+(n/2)^2$ iterating it a constant number of times until we are able to use \Cref{thm:upper-bound-big}. This inequality holds as one can construct an $(n,x)$-universal graph by taking two disjoint copies of a $(n/2,x)$-universal graph and making every two vertices from different copies adjacent.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.8 cm}
\end{proof}

\section{Concluding Remarks}

In this paper we complete the study of the behaviour of $f(n,e)$ defined as the maximum size of an $(n,e)$-unavoidable graph.

As already mentioned in the introduction, in order to get a lower bound on $f(n,e)$ we want to find a graph $H$ with $f(n,e)$ edges and Tur\'an number $\ex(n,H)\le e.$ Inverting this statement we want to find graphs with fixed number of edges which minimise the Tur\'an number. The universal graph we used in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:upper-bound-big} consisted of a collection of vertices joined to every other vertex and a random graph on the remainder. By transferring this result into unavoidability language, as discussed at the end of \Cref{The first regime}, we obtain that whp the appropriate random graph $\mathcal{G}(n/4,q)$ is the desired minimiser of the Tur\'an number, provided $1/2>q>n^{-1/2+\varepsilon}$. Being a bit more careful with our estimates one can even obtain an almost spanning version of this result. Namely we can get:

\begin{thm}
Let $\varepsilon>0$. There is a $\delta>0$ such that for $G\sim  \mathcal{G}\big((1-\varepsilon)n, q\big)$ we have whp that $\ex(n,G)=\left(1-\Theta\left(\frac{\log n}{nq}\right)\right)\binom{n}{2},$ provided $n^{-1/2+\varepsilon}<q<\delta$.
\end{thm}

Note that for this range of $q$ the chromatic number of the above random graph $G$ whp satisfies $\chi(G) =\Theta\left(\frac{nq}{\log n}\right)$.
Interestingly, this shows that $\ex(n,G)$ behaves essentially the same as we would expect from the Erd\H{o}s-Stone-Simonovits theorem \cite{ES,ESS}, i.e. $\ex(n,G)=\left(1-\frac{\Theta(1)}{\chi(G)}\right)\binom{n}{2}$, despite the fact that $G$ is almost spanning! In contrast, in order for the Erd\H{o}s-Stone-Simonovits theorem to apply, the size of the host graph is required to be significantly larger than the graph being embedded. The question of the exact requirement on the parameters was considered by Bollob\'as \cite{bollobas} and Chvatal and Szemeredi who showed that the best one can hope for in general is that the Erd\H{o}s-Stone-Simonovits theorem holds for graphs of order $O(\log n)$, even in our approximate sense.

It could be interesting to determine whether the above theorem extends for values of $q$ smaller than $n^{-1/2}.$ The main obstacle for our argument is that our current embedding strategy requires too strong a domination property, which in particular is no longer satisfied by $\mathcal{G}(n,q).$ In light of this it might be interesting to try to find a weaker version of our property which would suffice for our embedding argument but is still satisfied by the sparser random graphs. Another possible benefit of such a weaker property is that it could possibly allow one to construct explicit universal graphs which one could use for our argument and answer a question of Alon and Asodi \cite{alon2002sparse} and later Hetterich, Parczyk and Person\cite{hetterich}.

Several bounded degree analogues of our universality problem arise quite naturally. Alon and Capalbo \cite{alon2008optimal} show that the minimal number of edges in a graph which is universal for the family $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$ of $n$-vertex graphs of maximum degree at most a constant $d$ is $\Theta\left(n^{2-2/d}\right)$. This is asymptotically very different from $g(n,dn)=\Theta\left(\frac{n^2}{\log^2n}\right)$ which we get from Theorem \ref{thm:main2}.
We determine $g(n,dn)$ up to a constant factor for any values of $n$ and $d$, even if we allow $d$ to depend on $n$. However, very little seems to be known about the above bounded degree problem if one allows $d$ to grow with $n$. In particular, what is the minimal number of edges in an $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$-universal graph when $d$ is allowed to depend on $n$. Another, possibly an even closer analogue, is what happens if we consider the spanning variant of this problem. So, what is the smallest number of edges in a graph on exactly $n$ vertices which is $\mathcal{E}(n,d)$-universal, where $d$ is allowed to depend on $n$?

\textbf{Acknowledgments.} The authors would like to thank Tuan Tran for bringing unavoidability problems to our attention.

\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}[1]{}
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}

Universal and unavoidable graphs


Boundary Integrals and Approximations of Harmonic Functions

Abstract: Formulae for the value of a harmonic function at the center of a rectangle are found that involve boundary integrals. The central value of a harmonic function is shown to be well approximated by the mean value of the function on the boundary plus a very small number (often just 1 or 2) of additional boundary integrals. The formulae are consequences of Steklov (spectral) representations of the functions that converge exponentially at the center. Similar approximation are found for the central values of solutions of Robin and Neumann boundary value problems. The results are based on explicit expressions for the Steklov eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.

\section{Introduction}\label{s1}

One of the best known theorems about solutions of Laplace's equation is the mean value theorem that says the value of a harmonic function $h$ at the center of the ball is the mean
value of the boundary values of $h$ on the boundary.
Epstein \cite{Ep} proved that if this holds for all harmonic functions on a region $\Omega$ then $\Omega$ must be a ball.

In a number of papers (see \cite{Au1} - \cite{Au4}), the first author has studied the representation of solutions of
elliptic boundary value problems via orthogonal expansions involving  the Steklov eigenfunctions.
These representations for harmonic problems may be regarded as   spectral representations of the Poisson integral  operator
for the solution of the harmonic Dirichlet problem on $\Omega$.

Steklov expansions give  the value of a harmonic function at any point $x \in \Omega$ is given by a series whose first term is the mean value of the boundary values of the function.
See \eqref{e3.9} below. The coefficient in these expansions only involve the boudnary values of the functions and the Steklov eigenfunctions as described in \eqref{e3.11} since the
definition of a Steklov eigenfunction relates an inner product over the domain to the $L^2$- inner product on the boundary. Theorem \ref{T3.3} below
that these Steklov expansions converge both in $H^1$ and uniformly on compact subsets of the region.

Here the special case of harmonic functions on a rectangle in the plane is investigated and some strong convergence properties are found. First the Steklov eigenvalues and eigenfunctions
for a rectangle are described explicitly in section 4. The eigenfunctions are classified by their symmetries and by the determining equation for a paprameter related to the eigenvalues.
The results hold for arbitrary rectangles in the plane upon scaling and possibly a rotation. In their recent survey, Girouard and Polterovich \cite{GP} outline similar results for the case of a square.

In the doctoral thesis of the second author \cite{Cho}  many aspects of the convergence of  Steklov approximation of harmonic functions on rectangles were studied numerically.
In particular Cho observed that these coefficients dacayed to zero very rapidly and that these Steklov approximations converged very rapidly away from the boundary of the rectangle.

The analysis here shows that this decay rate actually is exponential as described in theorems \ref{T5.1} and  \ref{T6.1}. The usual mean value theorem for discs and balls in 2 and higher dimensions
reflects the fact that all other Steklov eigenfunctions, (besides the first one which is constant,) are zero at the origen. Thus a natural question is what are the corresponding formulae at the center of
a rectangle or square?

At the origin 3 out of the 4 families of Steklov eigenfunctions are zero and the remaining family involves functions that are
exponentially  small at the center.
As a consequence, the Steklov approximations converge geometrically to the true value of the harmonic function at the
center.
The usual mean value theorem for discs and balls in 2 and higher dimensions reflects the fact that all other  Steklov eigenfunctions,
( besides the first one which is constant,)  are zero at the origin.
Our observation is that, on a square, the use of just one  further boundary integral is sufficient to guarantee relative accuracy of
better than 4\% for the central value.
Specific error estimates in terms of the 2-norm of the data is provide in Theorem \ref{T5.2} for a square and from a similar analysis
involving theorem \ref{T6.1} for a rectangle.

In section 7, analogous formulae for the central values of solutions of Robin and Neumann boundary value problems are
derived.
These involve the same  boundary integrals as for  the Dirichlet problem but with new weightings depending on the boundary
condition.
In particular these formulae indicate how solutions of Robin problems with non-zero mean values for the boundary data
behave as it converges to a Neumann problem.

A referee has pointed out that some other exponential convergence results are described in  theorem 1.1 of Hislop and
 Lutzer \cite{HL}.
 The results here differ from those of \cite{HL} as this paper studies  pointwise estimates  at specific points - not $H^1$ bounds.
Also here our  boundary  is Lipschitz but not $C^1$ so the very general methods used in \cite{HL} are not applicable.
The recent review paper \cite{GP} discusses a number of features of Steklov eigenproblems that change significantly
when the boundary is no longer smooth.

\vspace{1em}

\section{Notation and Definitions.}\label{s2}

Let $\Omega$ be a non-empty, bounded, connected, open subset of ${\Rb}^N, \ n \geq 2$, with boundary  $\partial \Omega$.
Such a set $\Omega$ is called a {\it region} and let its boundary be $\partial \Omega$.
Let $L^2 (\Om)$ be the usual real Lebesgue space of all functions $\varphi: \Omega \rightarrow [-\infty, \infty]$
which are square integrable with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\Omega$.

For our analysis we also require some mild regularity conditions on $\Omega$ and $\partial \Omega$.
Our basic criteria is that the boundary $\partial \Omega$ is Lipschitz in the sense of Evans and Gariepy,
\cite{EG}, section 4.2.

Let $\sigma, \ d \sigma$ represent Hausdorff $(n-1)-$dimensional measure and integration  with respect to this measure  respectively.
When $\partial \Omega$ is Lipschitz, the unit outer normal $\nu(x)$ is defined  $\sigma \, a.e.$ on $\partial \Omega$  and the  boundary traces of
functions in $W^{1,p}(\Om)$ are well-defined.
The trace operator will be noted $\gamma$ and usually will be omitted in boundary integrals.
See section 4.3 loc. cit. In particular, the divergence  theorem holds in the form
\begin{equation} \label{e2.3}
\int_{\Om} \  D_j \, \psi \ d^n x \ =\  \int_{\bdy} \  \psi \, {\nu}_j \ d \sigma \qquad \mbox{for all} \ 1\leq j \leq n, \ \psi \in W^{1,1}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
This follows from theorem 1, section 4.3 of \cite{EG} with p =1.
Our requirement is that $\Omega$  satisfy

\noindent{\bf Condition A:}  \quad  {\it $\Omega$ is a bounded open region and $\partial \Omega$ is a finite union of Lipschitz surfaces
with finite surface area. }

When (A) holds and $\psi \in H^1(\Om)$, then the standard trace theorem implies that $\gamma(\psi) \in L^p (\bdy; \dsg)$
for $p \in [1,p_T]$ where $p_T = 2(n-1)/(n-2)$ when $n \geq 3$ and for all $p \in [1,\infty)$ when $n=2$.
In particular they  are in $L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$ for every n.

Let $ L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$ be the usual space of   $L^2-$functions on $\Sigma, \partial \Omega$ respectively.
The inner product and norm on $L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$ is
\begin{equation} \label{e2.5}
\ang{u,v}_{\partial \Omega} \ :=\  |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  u \, v \ d \sigma.  \end{equation}

When $p=2$, the space $W^{1,2}(\Omega)$ will be denoted  $H^1(\Om)$ and an equivalent inner product is
\begin{equation}\label{ip2}
{[u , v]}_{\partial}  :=  \int_{\Om} \  \  \nabla u  \cdot \nabla v \  dx \, + \,
{|\partial \Omega|}^{-1} \, \int_{\partial \Omega} \  u \; v \ \ d \sigma.
\end{equation}
The corresponding norm will be denoted by  $ {\nm{u}}_{\partial}$.
The proof that this  norm is equivalent to the usual $(1,2)-$norm on $H^1(\Om)$ when
(A) holds is Corollary 6.2 of \cite{Au1} and also is part of theorem 21A of \cite{Z}.

A function $u \in H^1(\Om)$ is said to be {\it harmonic on $\Omega$} provided it is a solution of
Laplace's equation in the usual weak sense. Namely
\begin{equation} \label{Wharm}
\int_{\Om} \  \ \nabla u \cdot \nabla \varphi \ dx \ =\  0 \qquad \quad \mbox{for all} \quad \ \varphi \in C_c^1 (\Om).
\end{equation}
Here $C_c^1 (\Om)$ is the set of all $C^1-$functions on $\Omega$ with compact support in $\Omega$.

Define $\Hc^1(\Om)$ to be the space of all such $H^1-$harmonic functions on $\Omega$.
When (A)  holds, the closure of $C_c^1 (\Om)$ in the $H^1-$norm is the usual Sobolev space $H_0^1(\Om)$.
Then (\ref{Wharm}) is equivalent to saying  that $\Hc^1(\Om)$ is $\partial-$orthogonal to
$H_0^1(\Om)$. This may be expressed as
 \begin{equation} \label{e2.7}
H^1(\Om) \ =\  H_0^1(\Om) \oplus_{\partial}  \Hc^1(\Om),
\end{equation}
where $\oplus_{\partial}$ indicates that this is a $\partial-$orthogonal decomposition.
This result  is also discussed in section 22.4 of \cite{Z}.

The terminology of Axler, Bourdon and Ramey \cite{ABR} for harmonic functions will be used in discussing
harmonic functions. Other standard notation from the theory of elliptic boundary value problems should be
taken as that used  in Chipot \cite{Ch}.

\vspace{1em}

\section{Steklov Approximations of Harmonic functions. } \label{s3}

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded region in ${\Rb}^N$ that satisfies (A).
It is well-known that the Bergman space of all real $L^2-$harmonic functions on $\Omega$ is a reproducing
kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHS) with respect to the usual $L^2-$ inner product.
Since we wish to prove results involving boundary integrals, we will concentrate on the subspace
$\Hc^1(\Om)$ of all $H^1-$ harmonic functions.
This is also a RKHS of functions on $\Omega$ but now the functions have boundary traces - see Auchmuty
\cite{Au2} and  \cite{Au3} for results about such  spaces.
Trace theorems imply that for regions satisfying (A) the traces of functions in $\Hc^1(\Om)$ will be in $L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$,
so  the integrals involved here are  well-defined and finite.

 A non-zero function $s \in H^1(\Om)$  is said to be a {\it harmonic Steklov eigenfunction}  on $\Omega$
 corresponding to the  Steklov eigenvalue $\delta$ provided $s$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{HSeqn}
\int_{\Om} \  \;  \nabla s  \cdot  \nabla v  \; dx \ =\  \delta  \   \ang{s,v}_{\partial \Omega} \ =\  \delta |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  s \, v \ d \sigma.  \qquad
\mbox{for all} \quad v \in H^1(\Om).
\end{equation}

  This is the weak form of the boundary value problem
\begin{equation} \label{Weeqn}
\Delta \, s \ =\  0 \qquad \mbox{on $\Omega$ with} \quad  D_{\nu} \, s \ =\  \delta \ |\partial \Omega|^{-1} \  s
\quad \mbox{on} \ \partial \Omega.
\end{equation}
Here $\Delta$ is the Laplacian and $D_{\nu} \, s(x) := \nabla s(x) \cdot \nu(x)$ is the unit
outward normal derivative of s    at a point on the boundary.

Descriptions of the analysis of these eigenproblems may be found in Auchmuty \cite{Au1} - \cite{Au4}.
These eigenvalues and a corresponding family of $\partial-$orthonormal eigenfunctions
may be found using variational principles as described in sections 6 and 7 of Auchmuty \cite{Au1}.
$\delta_0 = 0$ is the least eigenvalue of this problem corresponding to the eigenfunction
$s_0 (x) \equiv 1$ on $\Omega$. This eigenvalue is simple as $\Omega$ is connected.
Let the first k Steklov eigenvalues be $0 = \delta_0 < \delta_1 \le \delta_2  \leq \ldots \leq \delta_{k-1}$
and $s_0, s_1, \ldots, s_{k-1}$ be a corresponding  set of  $\partial-$orthonormal eigenfunctions.
The k-th eigenfunction $s_k$ will be a maximizer of the functional
\begin{equation} \label{e3.3}
{\mathcal B}(u) \ :=\  |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \   \, | \gamma u|^2 \, \ d \sigma
\end{equation}
over the subset $B_k$ of functions in $H^1(\Om)$ which satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{e3.5}
\nm{u}_{\partial} \ \leq \  1 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \  \ang{\gamma u, \gamma s_l}_{\partial \Omega} \ =\  0 \quad
\mbox{for} \quad 0  \leq l \leq k-1.
\end{equation}

The existence and some properties of such eigenfunctions are described in sections  6 and 7 of \cite{Au1}
for a more general system.
In particular, that analysis shows that  each $\delta_j$ is of finite multiplicity and $\delta_j \rightarrow \infty$ as $j \rightarrow \infty$;
see Theorem 7.2 of   \cite{Au1}.
The maximizers not only are $\partial -$orthonormal but they also satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{\Om} \    \nabla s_k \cdot  \nabla s_l  \; dx \ =\   |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  \,  s_k \, s_l  \, \ d \sigma \ =\  0 \qquad
\mbox{for } \quad k \ne l. \label{e3.7} \\
\int_{\Om} \   | \nabla s_k |^2  \; dx \ =\  \frac{\delta_k}{1+\delta_k} \qquad \text{and} \quad
 |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  \,  |\gamma s_k|^2   \, \ d \sigma \ =\  \frac{1}{1+\delta_k} \quad \mbox{for} \quad k \ge 0.  \label{e3.8}
\end{eqnarray}
Recently  Daners \cite{D2}  corollary 4.3 has  shown that, when $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain, then the Steklov eigenfunctions are
continuous on $\overline{\Omega}$.

The analysis in this paper is based on the fact that the harmonic Steklov eigenfunctions on $\Omega$ can be chosen
to be an orthonormal  basis of both  $\Hc^1(\Om)$ and of $L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$.
Note, however,  that these functions are not $L^2-$orthogonal on $\Omega$ - so the following constructions are
quite different to  results from the much studied theory of  Bergman spaces.

Let ${\mathcal S} := \{s_j : j \geq 0 \}$ be the maximal family of  $\partial -$orthonormal  eigenfunctions constructed inductively as above.
Given $u \in H^1(\Om)$, consider  the  series
\begin{equation}   \label{e3.9}
P_H \, u(x) \ :=\  \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \quad [u,s_j]_{\partial} \  s_j(x).
\end{equation}
This  series will be called a {\it harmonic Steklov expansion} and represents a harmonic function on $\Omega$.
For any region $\Omega$ the first term in this expansion is the mean value of the function $u$ on the boundary $\partial \Omega$.
Then theorem 3.1 of \cite{Au3} may be stated as

\begin{thm} \label{T3.1}
Assume  $\Omega, \partial \Omega$ satisfy (A), then ${\mathcal S}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\Hc^1(\Om)$.
 $P_H$ defined by (\ref{e3.9}), is the $\partial -$orthogonal projection of $H^1(\Om)$ onto $\Hc^1(\Om)$.  \end{thm}
 \vspace{-1em}
\begin{proof} \quad
This follows from standard results about orthogonal expansions and theorem
7.3 of \cite{Au1} which says  that ${\mathcal S}$ is a  maximal orthonormal subset of $\Hc^1(\Om)$.
\end{proof}

In this paper, it is more convenient to use the Steklov eigenfunctions normalized by their boundary norms.
Define the functions $\tilde{\sj}(x) \ :=\  \sqrt{1+\delta_j} \ s_j(x)$ for $j \geq 0$.
From \eqref{e3.8}, these satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{e3.10}
 |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  \tilde{s_j} \, \tilde{s}_k \ d \sigma \ =\  0 \qquad \mbox{when} \quad j \neq k \quad \mbox{and} \quad   |\bdy|^{-1} \, \int_{\bdy} \  {\tilde{s_j}}^2  \ d \sigma \ =\  1.
   \end{equation}
 These Steklov eigenfunctions are said to be {\it boundary normalized} and the associated set
 $\tilde{\Sc} \ :=\  \{\tilde{\sj} : j \geq 0\} $ is an orthonormal basis of $L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$. See theorem 4.1 of \cite{Au2}.

When $h \in L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$, then  the Riesz-Fischer theorem and the fact that ${\mathcal S}$ is an orthonormal  basis of
$L^2 (\bdy, \dsg)$ implies that
 \begin{equation}   \label{e3.11}
h(x) \ :=\  \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \ c_j \, \tilde{\sj}(x)   \qquad \mbox{with} \quad c_j \ :=\  \ang{h,\tilde{\sj}}_{\partial \Omega}  \end{equation}
in an $L^2-$sense.
The first term in this series is  the mean value of h on $\partial \Omega; \ \overline{h} \ :=\    \ang{h,1}_{\partial \Omega}$.
The analysis in \cite{Au2} shows that the harmonic extension of this function to $\Omega$ has the same
representation for any $x \in \Omega$  and has finite energy on $\Omega$ if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{RF}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \ (1+\delta_j) \ |c_j|^2 \  < \ \infty.
\end{equation}

More details of this are to be found in \cite{Au2} where  \eqref{RF} is used as the definition for  $h$ to be in $H^{1/2}(\bdy) $.
 This  Steklov representation of the harmonic function $h$ only  involves  integrals  of the boundary values of  $h$.

Here our interest is in the approximation of harmonic functions by finite sums of this series.
 When $h \in \Hc^1(\Om)$ is an $H^1-$harmonic function on $\Omega$, then the M-th Steklov approximation of $h$
  is the function
  \begin{equation}  \label{e3.15}
  h_M(x) \ :=\  \overline{h} \, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^M \  \ang{h,\tilde{\sj}}_{\partial \Omega} \ \tilde{\sj}(x)  . \end{equation}

 The essential theorem about these approximations is the following.
 \begin{thm} \quad  \label{T3.3}
 Assume (A) holds, $h \in \Hc^1(\Om)$  and $h_M$ is defined by \eqref{e3.15}. Then $h_M$ converges strongly to $h$ in
 $H^1(\Om)$ and $\Hc^1(\Om)$ and it converges uniformly to $h$ on compact subsets of $\Omega$.
 \end{thm} \quad
 \vspace{-3em}
\begin{proof} \quad
The fact that $h_M$ converges strongly to $h$ in $\Hc^1(\Om)$ and $H^1(\Om)$ follows from the fact that ${\mathcal S}$ is an
orthonormal basis of $\Hc^1(\Om)$.
This sequence also converges  uniformly on compact sets from  theorem X, chapter X of Kellogg  \cite{K}.
The theorem in Kellogg  was only proved for regions in ${\Rb}^3$ - but a similar  proof  holds in  all dimensions $N \geq 2$.
\end{proof}

When $\Omega$ is a disc in ${\Rb}^2$, or a ball in ${\Rb}^N, \ N \geq 3$ these approximations have been
extensively studied by  Fourier analysts.
The Steklov eigenfunctions are $r^k \cos{k\theta}, r^k \sin{k \theta} $ for discs and $r^k Y_{kl}(\theta, \phi)$ on a ball in ${\Rb}^3$.
Here $Y_{kl}$ is a spherical harmonic function with k,l   integers.
Its worth noting that the usual mean value theorem for harmonic functions on  a disc or a ball follows from this theorem
as $s_j(0) = 0$ for all $j \geq 1$.

These eigenproblems have a scaling property.
Given a region ${\Om}_1  \subset {\Rb}^N$, define ${\Om}_L  := \{ Lx : x \in {\Om}_1  \}$ with $L > 0$.
When  $h$ is a harmonic function on ${\Om}_1 $, then the function $h_L(y) := h(y/L) $ will be a harmonic function on ${\Om}_L $.
When $h$ is a harmonic Steklov eigenfunction on ${\Om}_1 $ associated with an $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenvalue} \ \delta$, then $h_L$ will
 be a harmonic Steklov eigenfunction on ${\Om}_L $ with the $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenvalue} \ \delta / L $.
Thus it will generally suffice to study problems for a normalized bounded region ${\Om}_1 $; results for scalings of this
region then follow using this change of variables.

\vspace{1em}
\section{Harmonic Steklov Eigenproblems on a Rectangle}\label{s4}

In this paper we will concentrate on the analysis of harmonic functions on the rectangle $G_{\alpha} := (-1,1) \times (-\alpha, \alpha)
\subset {\Rb}^2$.
Here $\alpha$  is called the {\it aspect ratio} of the rectangle and $ \ \mbox{without loss of generality} \ $ is assumed to be in $(0,1]$.
This suffices for analysis on any rectangle upon scaling as described above and possibly a rotation by $\pi/2$.

Henceforth points in $G_{\alpha}$ will be denoted by $(x,y)$ and the boundary $\partial G_{\alpha}$ consists of 4 line segments
$\Gamma_j$ with $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_3$ being the vertical lines with $x=1, \ -1$ respectively and
$\Gamma_2, \Gamma_4$ being the horizontal lines with $y=\alpha, \ -\alpha$ respectively.
The perimeter $|\partial G_{\alpha}| = 4(1 + \alpha)$.

First note that if $s$ is a harmonic Steklov eigenfunction on $G_{\alpha}$, then the functions obtained by symmetrizing
$s$ about the x and y axes will either be 0 or will again be a harmonic Steklov eigenfunction, so it suffices
to look for eigenfunctions with specific symmetries about the axes.

Consider the eigenfunctions obtained by separating variables and assuming the following symmetries.  \\
Class I: \quad $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenfunction} $s that are even in x and y; \\
Class II: \quad  $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenfunction} $s that are odd in x and y; \\
Class III: \quad  $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenfunction} $s that are even in x and odd in y, and \\
Class IV: \quad  $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenfunction} $s that are odd in x and even in y.

The first  eigenfunction $s_0(x,y) \equiv 1$ is in class I and the other (unnormalized)  eigenfunctions have the forms
\begin{eqnarray}
s(x,y) \ :=\  \cosh{\nu x} \, \cos{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu \alpha} \, + \,  \tanh{\nu} \ =\  0, \label{e4.1} \\
s(x,y) \ :=\  \cos{\nu x} \, \cosh{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu} \, + \,  \tanh{\nu \alpha} \ =\  0. \label{e4.2}
\end{eqnarray}

When $\alpha =1$, the first eigenfunction in class II is $s_3(x,y) = xy$.
Otherwise the (unnormalized)  eigenfunctions and eigenvalues in this class have the form
\begin{eqnarray}
s(x,y) \ :=\  \sinh{\nu x} \, \sin{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu \alpha} \ =\   \tanh{\nu},  \label{e4.3}\\
s(x,y) \ :=\  \sin{\nu x} \, \sinh{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu} \ =\   \tanh{ \nu \alpha} . \label{e4.4}
\end{eqnarray}

Similarly eigenfunctions in class III have the forms
\begin{eqnarray}
s(x,y) \ :=\  \cosh{\nu x} \, \sin{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu \alpha} \ - \  \coth{\nu} \ =\   0, \label{e4.5} \\
s(x,y) \ :=\  \cos{\nu x} \, \sinh{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu} \, + \,  \coth{\nu \alpha} \ =\  0 \label{e4.6}
\end{eqnarray}

Finally the eigenfunctions in class IV have the forms
\begin{eqnarray}
s(x,y) \ :=\  \sinh{\nu x} \, \cos{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu \alpha} \, + \,  \coth{\nu} \ =\  0 \label{e4.7} \\
s(x,y) \ :=\  \sin{\nu x} \, \cosh{\nu y} &\qquad \mbox{when} \quad& \quad \tan{\nu} \ - \  \coth{\nu \alpha} \ =\  0. \label{e4.8}
\end{eqnarray}

These formulae show that the eigenfunctions  are products of trigonometric and hyperbolic functions and
the Steklov boundary conditions enforce conditions on the possible parameter $\nu$.
The equations for $\nu$ will be called the {\it determining equations}  and only need to consider positive solutions $\nu_j$
in view of the symmetries present.

For all  $\nu$, one has  $ \tanh{\nu \alpha} \ \leq \  \tanh{\nu} < 1 < \coth{\nu \alpha} \ \leq \  \coth{\nu}$ and each of
these terms converges to 1 as $\nu$ increases.
Hence the determining equations approximate either $\tan{\nu}  = \pm 1$ or else $\tan{\nu \alpha}  = \pm 1$
when  $\nu,  \, \nu \alpha$ are large enough.
Thus there are two families of values of these $\nu$ when $\alpha < 1$; these families asymptote either
 to odd multiples of $\pi/4$ or to  odd multiples of ${\pi}/{4 \alpha}$.

The $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenvalue} \mbox{s}$ are \\
(i) \quad $\delta =  \nu \tanh{\nu} \quad $ when $\nu$ is a solution of the equation in  \eqref{e4.1} or \eqref{e4.5}. \\
(ii) \quad $\delta =  \nu \tanh{(\nu \alpha)} \quad$ when $\nu$ is a solution of the equation in  \eqref{e4.2} or \eqref{e4.8}. \\
(iii) \quad $\delta =  \nu \coth{\nu} \quad $ when $\nu$ is a solution of the equation in   \eqref{e4.3} or \eqref{e4.7}. \\
(iv) \quad $\delta =  \nu \coth{(\nu \alpha)} \quad $ when $\nu$ is a solution of the equation in  \eqref{e4.4} or \eqref{e4.8}.

These  eigenvalues all are  positive and grow asymptotically linearly with the values $\nu$.
For given $\alpha \in (0,1]$, the functions $\nu \tanh{(\nu \alpha)}$ and $\nu \coth{(\nu \alpha)}$ are strictly increasing
functions of $\nu$ on  $[0,\infty)$ that have smooth inverses $g_1, g_2$ respectively.
These inverse functions also are strictly increasing and satisfy  $g_2(\delta) < \delta <  g_1(\delta) $ for all $\delta > 0$.
In the following,  the parameter $\nu$ rather than  the Steklov eigenvalues $\delta$ will be used for  the  analysis
to simplify many expressions.
For $\delta = O(1)$ , however, one has that $g_1(\delta)$ and $g_2(\delta)$ both are approximately equal to $\delta$
so they  are essentially the same parameter.

There is an asymptotic ordering of  the classes of eigenfunctions.
When $\alpha  =1$ all the eigenvalues will be multiple eigenvalues except for $\delta_0$ and $\delta_3$.
For all $\alpha$ the large eigenvalues  appear to be double, and then quartic,  though in fact  they differ by
exponentially small amounts.

The boundary normalized eigenfunctions $\tilde{\sj}$ used in section \ref{s3} are required to satisfy \eqref{e3.10}.
As will be seen our interest is primarily in $\ \mbox{Steklov eigenfunction} $s of class I, and the boundary integrals  of $s^2$ are found to be
\begin{eqnarray}   \label{e4.11}
 I(\alpha, \nu) & \ =\ & 2 \, \alpha \, {\cosh}^2{\nu}\,  [ 1 + \mbox{sinc} \, ( 2 \nu \alpha)] \, + \,  {\cos}^2{(\nu \alpha)}\, [2 + {\nu}^{-1} \sinh{(2 \nu \alpha)}]  \\
 J(\alpha, \nu) &\ =\ & 2 \, {\cosh}^2{\nu \alpha}\,  [ 1 + \mbox{sinc} \, ( 2 \nu)] \, + \,   {\cos}^2{(\nu)}\, [2 \alpha +  {\nu}^{-1} \,  \sinh{(2 \nu \alpha)}]
 \label{e4.12}
\end{eqnarray}
for the two functions in \eqref{e4.1} and \eqref{e4.2} respectively.
Here sinc$(\theta) \ :=\    {\theta}^{-1} \,  \sin{\theta}$ is the cardinal sine function.

Thus the normalized eigenfunction $s_{1j}$ associated with the j-th  solution ${\nu}_j$ of \eqref{e4.1} is
\begin{equation}  \label{e4.13}
\tilde{s}_{1j} (x,y) \ :=\  \sqrt{\frac{4(1+\alpha)}{I(\alpha, \nu_j)}} \ \cosh{(\nu_j x)} \ \cos{(\nu_j y)}
\end{equation}
while that associated with the  j-th  solution ${\nu}_j$ of \eqref{e4.2} is
\begin{equation}  \label{e4.14}
\tilde{s}_{2j} (x,y) \ :=\  \sqrt{\frac{4(1+\alpha)}{J(\alpha, \nu_j)}} \ \cos{(\nu_j x)} \ \cosh{(\nu_j y)}.
\end{equation}
These eigenfunctions will be $L^2-$orthogonal on the boundary and $\partial$-orthogonal on $G_{\alpha}$ whenever they
arise from distinct $\nu_j$.

A proof that these eigenfunctions provide a basis for the set of all  Steklov eigenfunctions for the case of a square is outlined
in section 3.1 of \cite{GP}.
The argument provided there generalizes to the case of a rectangle in a straightforward manner.

The general results of \cite{Au1} and theorem \ref{T3.3} say that Steklov approximations of the form \eqref{e3.15}
of the solutions of various harmonic boundary value problems converge strongly to harmonic functions in $H^1(G_{\alpha})$.
 This was explored numerically by the second author in his recent doctoral thesis \cite{Cho}.
 Given that $\Hc^1(\Om)$ is also a RKH space, this implies also that there is pointwise convergence of these approximations
 at interior points of $G_{\alpha}$.

 For most  of the following sections, our interest is in studying approximations of harmonic functions using only harmonic Steklov
eigenfunctions corresponding to small eigenvalues $\delta_j$.
Numerically our finite element computations found that all of the lowest harmonic Steklov eigenfunctions were represented
by some of eigenfunctions of separated variables form.
 The surprising result that was observed is that this convergence is extremely rapid at the center of the rectangle.
 So the value of a solution at the origin may be estimated quite accurately  by evaluating just  a few boundary integrals.
 The following sections provide an analysis of this phenomenon.

\vspace{1em}
\section{Central Value Formulae on a Square.}\label{s5}

In this section the results of the previous two sections will be combined to give explicit approximations
for the value of a harmonic function $h$ at the origin  in terms of boundary integrals of $h$  on the square $G_1$
with sides of length 2.
The formulae say that $h(0,0)$ is the mean value of $h$ on the boundary plus some simple integrals
with coefficients that converge geometrically to zero.

First note that the Steklov eigenfunctions of classes  II, III and IV all are zero at the origin and that the determining
equations for the two different eigenfunctions of class I will be the same when $\alpha = 1$.
Thus in this section $\nu_j$ will denote the j-th strictly positive solution of
\begin{equation} \label{e5.1}
\tan{\nu} \, + \,  \tanh{\nu} \ =\  0 \end{equation}
The set of all solutions of this equation is denoted ${\mathcal K}_1$.

The following table gives the value of the first 6 such zeroes to 8 decimal places, the first differences $\varDelta \nu_j:=\nu_j-\nu_{j-1}$,
and the Steklov eigenvalues.
Henceforth we will only consider harmonic Steklov eigenfunctions of class I so that $\delta_j$ will be the j-th Steklov eigenvalue
of this class (not over all eigenvalues).
Note that to six decimal places $\delta_j = \nu_j$ already when $j=4$, and the differences converge rapidly to $\pi$.\\

\begin{table}[here!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{16cm}{1.0cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
j& 1&2&3&4&5&6 \\ \hline
$\nu_j$&  2.36502037&5.49780392& 8.63937983& 11.7809725& 14.9225651& 18.0641578 \\ \hline
$\varDelta \nu_j$&    &3.13278355& 3.14157591& 3.14159262& 3.14159265& 3.14159265 \\ \hline
$\delta_{j}$& 2.32363775& 5.49761947& 8.63937929&11.7809724& 14.9225651& 18.0641578\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{0.8em}
\caption{The first 6 points in ${\mathcal K}_1$, their first differences and the Steklov eigenvalues.}
\end{center}
\end{table}

For larger j, the solutions are approximated  by
\begin{equation} \label{e5.3}
 \nu_j \ =\  \left(\frac{3}{4} \, + \,  j \right) \,  \pi \quad \mbox{and} \quad 0.999\, \nu_j < \  \delta_j \ < \ \nu_j \end{equation}
as the second term in  \eqref{e5.1} is essentially 1.

The m-th Steklov approximation of the value of $h(0,0)$ is, from \eqref{e3.15}
  \begin{equation}  \label{e5.5}
  h_m(0,0) \ :=\  \overline{h} \, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^m \  [\ang{h,\tilde{s}_{1j} + \tilde{s}_{2j}}_{\partial G_1}] \ \tilde{s}_{1j}(0,0)   . \end{equation}
  Here we have used the fact that $\tilde{s}_{1j}(0,0) = \tilde{s}_{2j}(0,0)$ to simplify the expression.
  This involves the mean value of $h$ on the boundary together with m further boundary integrals.

  Numerically the values of  of $\tilde{s}_{1j}(0,0) = \tilde{s}_{2j}(0,0)$ for small j were found to be

\begin{table}[here!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{15cm}{1cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
j& 1&2&3&4&5&6 \\ \hline
$\tilde{s}_{1j}(0,0)$&    0.36925721&    0.016382475  &    $7.079865\times 10^{-4}$   &    $3.0594874\times 10^{-5}$  &    $1.3221244\times 10^{-6}$ &    $5.7134174\times 10^{-8}$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{0.8em}
\caption{The values of the first 6 Steklov eigenfunctions of class I at (0,0)}
\end{center}
\end{table}

 Let  $\widetilde{s_{1j}}, \widetilde{s_{2j}}$ denote the unnormalized Steklov eigenfunctions of \eqref{e4.1} and \eqref{e4.2}, then this approximation
  becomes
    \begin{equation}  \label{e5.6}
  h_m(0,0) \ :=\  \overline{h} \, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^m \  c_j \ \int_{\partial G_1} \, h \, (\widetilde{s_{1j}} + \widetilde{s_{2j}}) \ d \sigma.
   \end{equation}
 with $c_j := 1/I(1,\nu_j)$.   The actual values of $c_j$  and $c_{j}/c_{j-1}$ found computationally were

\begin{table}[here!]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{15cm}{1cm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
j& 1&2&3&4&5&6 \\ \hline
$c_j$ & $1.7043861\times 10^{-2}$& $3.35481862\times 10^{-5}$&$ 6.26556108\times 10^{-8}$& $1.17005787\times 10^{-10}$&$ 2.18501606\times 10^{-13}$&
$ 4.08039237\times 10^{-16}$\\ \hline
 $c_{j}/c_{j-1}$&  &$1.9683443 \times 10^{-3}$&$1.8676303  \times 10^{-3}$&$1.8674431 \times 10^{-3}$&
 $1.8674427  \times 10^{-3}$& $1.8674427  \times 10^{-3}$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\vspace{0.8em}
\caption{The values of the first 6 coefficients in \eqref{e5.6}.}
\end{center}
\end{table}

These values appear to  converge rapidly to zero and a logarithmic graph shows that the convergence is geometric.
This may be  proved using  the following estimates.

\begin{thm} \quad  \label{T5.1}
When $I(1, \nu)$ is defined by \eqref{e4.11}  then, for $j \ \geq \  1,$
\begin{equation} \label{e5.7}
0 < c_j \,  < 2.56 \,  \exp{(-2 \, \nu_j)} \quad \mbox{and} \quad  0 < \tilde{s}_{1j}(0,0) \ =\   \tilde{s}_{2j}(0,0) \ \leq \  4.53 \,  \exp{(-\nu_j)}. \end{equation}
\end{thm} \quad
 \vspace{-2em}
\begin{proof} \quad
The coefficients $c_{j}$ are strictly positive as the $I(1,\nu_{j})$ are.
 To obtain a lower bound, note from (\ref{e4.1})
$|\tan \nu_j|=\tanh \nu_j \leq 1$. Hence $\cos^2 \nu_j \geq \frac{1}{2}$ and the properties of $\mbox{sinc}$ yield that $1+\mbox{sinc} 2\nu \geq 0.782$. Substitute in (\ref{e4.11}) then
\begin{align}
I(1,\nu_j) &\geq 1.564 \cosh^2 \nu_j + 1 +\frac{\sinh 2\nu_j}{2 \nu_j}\\
&\geq 0.391\ e^{2\nu_j}
\end{align}
Thus $c_j \leq 2.56 \ e^{-2\nu_j}$ and $s_{1j}(0,0) \leq 4.53\ e^{-\nu_j}$ as claimed.
\end{proof}

  For large $j$, this and  \eqref{e5.3} implies that upper bounds for successive coefficients $c_j$ in these approximations decay
  by a factor of  $e^{-2 \pi} = 1.8674428 \times 10^{-3}$.
  This decay rate is very close to the actual computations for $ j > 2.$

The extra terms in this expression may be regarded as  {\it correction terms} to the usual mean value theorem that account
for the fact that   our region is a rectangle rather than a disc.
Since the $I_{1,\nu}, J_{1,\nu}$ grow exponentially, a computable error estimate may be obtained for this approximation.
When $h$ is harmonic on $G_1$,  this leads to the following pointwise error bound  for approximating
$h(0,0)$ by $h_m(0,0)$.
\begin{thm} \ ({\bf Harmonic Central Value}) \label{T5.2}
Assume h is a $H^1-$harmonic function on $G_1$, then for $m \geq 1$ there is a $C_m > 0$ such that
 \begin{equation} \label{e5.9}
|h(0,0) \ - \  h_m(0,0)| \ \leq \  C_m \, e^{-{\nu}_m}  \ \|h||_{\partial G_1}. \end{equation}
 When $m \geq 3$ then $C_m < 0.41$. \end{thm} \quad
  \vspace{-3em}
\begin{proof} \quad
The Steklov series expansion for $h(0,0)$ converges pointwise at $(0,0)$ from properties of this RKHS and each term satisfies
\begin{equation}
|<h,s_{1j}+s_{2j}>_{\partial G_{1}}s_j(0,0)| \leq 2{\nm{h}}_{\partial G_{1}} s_{1j}(0,0) \leq 9.06 \, e^{-\nu_j} \, {\nm{h}}_{\partial G_{1}}
\end{equation}
upon using the normalization of the eigenfunctions. The boundary norm is the mean $L^2-$norm.
When (\ref{e5.3}) is used,
\begin{align}
 |h(0,0) \ - \  h_m(0,0)| &\leq 9.06 \, {\nm{h}}_{\partial G_{1}} \, e^{-\nu_{m+1}} \, \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \, e^{-j\pi}\\
  &=9.06 \, \left(\frac{e^{-\nu_m}}{e^{\pi}-1} \right) \, {\nm{h}}_{\partial G_{1}} \\
  &\leq 0.41e^{-\nu_m}{\nm{h}}_{\partial G_{1}} \hspace {2cm}\text{as} \ e^{\pi}-1=22.1407
 \end{align}
\end{proof}

That is, these Steklov approximations  converge exponentially to $h(0,0)$  with successive error estimates decreasing by
factors of $e^{-\pi} = 0.04321392$ when \eqref{e5.3} is used.
This is consistent with the observed  decrease for the numerical values of the coefficients seen in Table 3.
The following table gives upper bounds on the relative error for some small values of m.
 When m=3, it is an upper bound on $0.41e^{-\nu_3}$

\begin{table}[here!]
\begin{center}

\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
m& 1&2&3 \\ \hline
relative error &    0.039 &    $1.7 \times 10^{-3}$  &    $7.26\times 10^{-5}$  \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.8em}
\caption{Relative error coefficient for the central value.}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\vspace{1em}
\section{Central  Value Approximations  on  Rectangles.}\label{s6}

Here  we shall describe the corresponding results when the domain is a rectangle $G_{\alpha}$ with $\alpha < 1$.
First note that attention may be restricted to functions of class I as the other eigenfunctions are zero at the origin.
In this case the two determining equations differ and the values of the functions $\tilde{s}_{1j}$ and $\tilde{s}_{2j}$
at the origin will differ.

 Let $\nu_{j}^{(1)}$ be the j-th the strictly positive solution of
 \begin{equation} \label{e6.1}
 \tan \alpha \nu = -\tanh \nu
 \end{equation}
 and   $\nu_{j}^{(2)}$ be that of
 \begin{equation}\label{e6.2}
 \tan \nu = - \tanh \alpha \nu
 \end{equation}
 For moderate and large $\nu$, these are given by
 \begin{equation}\label{e6.3}
\nu_{j}^{(1)}=\left(\frac{3}{4}\, + \,  j\right) \ \frac{\pi}{\alpha} \qquad \text{and} \qquad  \nu_{j}^{(2)}\approx \ \alpha \  \nu_{j}^{(1)}\ < \  \nu_{j}^{(1)}
 \end{equation}
As before the  m-th Steklov approximation to $h(0,0)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{e6.4}
h_m(0,0)= \overline{h}\, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^{m} \ \int_{\pal \Gal} \  \, h \left[c_{1j}  \widetilde{s_{1j}} \, + \,  c_{2j} \widetilde{s_{2j}} \right]  \ d \sigma. \end{equation}
Here  $c_{1j}=1/{I(\alpha,\nu_j^{(1)})}$ and  $c_{2j}=1/{J(\alpha,\nu_j^{(2)})}$.
The following result provides bounds on the coefficients in the {\it correction terms} needed to accurately estimate the central value of $h$.

\begin{thm} \quad  \label{T6.1}
When $I(\alpha,\nu)$,   $J(\alpha,\nu)$ are defined by (\ref{e4.11}), (\ref{e4.12}) and $c_{1j}, c_{2j}$ as above then
\begin{align}
  & (i) \quad 0\ <\ c_{1j}\ <\ \frac{2.56}{\alpha}\ e^{-2\nu_j^{(1)}} \quad  \text{and also}\quad c_{1j}\  <\  4\ \nu_j^{(1)} \  e^{-2 \alpha \nu_j^{(1)}}\\
   \text{and} \quad & (ii) \quad 0\ <\ c_{2j}\  < \ 2.56 \ e^{-2\alpha \nu_j^{(2)}}
\end{align}
 \vspace{-2em}
 \begin{proof} \quad
 From (\ref{e4.11}) using (\ref{e4.1}) as before, one finds
 \begin{align}
  I(\alpha,\nu_j^{(1)})&\geq 1.564\  \alpha \ \cosh^2 \nu_j^{(1)} \pls1\, + \,  \frac{\sinh 2\alpha \nu_j^{(1)}}{2\nu_j^{(1)}}\\
  &\geq 0.391 \  \alpha\    e^{2\nu_j^{(1)}}
 \end{align}
 This yields the first part of (i). When $\alpha$ is small this goes to zero so for this case use
 \begin{equation}
  I(\alpha,\nu_j^{(1)}) \geq \frac{e^{2\alpha\nu_j^{(1)}}}{4\nu_j^{(1)}}\left[1\, + \,  1.564\ \alpha\ \nu_j^{(1)}e^{2(1-\alpha)\nu_j^{(1)}}\right]
\end{equation}
which yields  the second inequality in (i). This proves that there is exponential decay even with small $\alpha$.

 To prove (ii), note that from (\ref{e4.12})
 \begin{align}
J(\alpha,\nu_j^{(2)}) &\geq 1.564 \cosh^2 \alpha \nu_j^{(2)} \, + \,  2\alpha\\
&\geq 0.391\  e^{2 \alpha \nu_j^{(2)}}
 \end{align}
Hence (ii) follows.
 \end{proof}
\end{thm} \quad
In general one has that $\alpha \nu_j^{(2)}\ <\ \nu_j^{(2)}\ < \ \alpha \nu_j^{(1)} \ < \ \nu_j^{(1)}$ so the coefficients $c_{2j}$
typically are larger than the $c_{1j}$ but both decrease exponentially as j increases.
Combining \eqref{e6.3} with this theorem one sees that only  good approximations  of $h(0,0)$ may be obtained with
just a few additional boundary integrals.
The proof of theorem \ref{T5.2} is easily  modified to obtain a similar estimate here and the terms converge geometrically
with factors smaller than or equal to $e^{-\pi / \alpha}$.

\vspace{1em}
\section{Central Value Formulae for Robin Harmonic Problems.}\label{s7}

The results in the previous sections involved solutions of Dirichlet problems for Laplace's equations.
That is they provide formulae for $h(0,0)$ when h is harmonic and known on the boundary.

 The analysis can be extended to estimate the central value $h(0,0)$ of a harmonic function $h$ when Robin
  boundary conditions of the form
 \begin{equation} \label{e7.1}
 (1-t)D_{\nu}h \, + \,  th \ =\  \eta , \quad \text{on}\quad \partial G_{\alpha}
 \end{equation}
are prescribed.
Here $t\in (0,1]$ is a constant and it suffices that $\eta = L^{p}(\partial \Omega)$ for some $p>1$.
When this holds then the linear functional
\begin{equation}
b(u) \ :=\  \int_{\partial G_{\alpha}}  \eta \ u \ \ d \sigma
\end{equation}
is continuous on $H^{1}(G_{\alpha})$ and the solution of Laplace's equation subject to (\ref{e7.1}) is given by
\begin{equation} \label{e7.5}
h(x,y) \ =\  \frac{\overline{\eta}}{t} \  \, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{<\eta,\tilde{\sj}>_{\partial \Omega}}{(1-t)\delta_j + t} \ \tilde{\sj}(x,y).
\end{equation}

This series converges in $H^{1}(G_{\alpha})$ with the limit being  a $C^{\infty}$ function on $G_{\alpha}$.
The convergence is uniform on compact subsets of $G_{\alpha}$.
 In particular one sees  that
 \begin{equation}
 h(0,0) \ =\  \frac{\overline{\eta}}{t} \  \, + \,  \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty} \ \frac{<\eta,\tilde{\sj}>_{\partial \Omega}}{(1-t)\delta_j + t} \ \tilde{\sj}(0,0).
 \end{equation}
 This summation is over all the Steklov eigenfunctions.
 Since the only eigenfunctions that are non-zero at the origin are  those of class I, the summation may be restricted to this class.

 Then the m-th Steklov approximation of $h(0,0)$ is
 \begin{equation}\label{e7.2}
 h_m(0,0)=\frac{\overline{\eta}}{t} \, + \,  \sum_{j=1}^m \ \frac{\tilde{\sj}(0,0) }{\delta_j + t(1-\delta_j)}\  \int_{\partial G_{\alpha}}\eta\ [c_{1j} \,\widetilde{s_{1j}}  \, + \,  c_{2j} \, \widetilde{s_{2j}} \, ] \ \ d \sigma
 \end{equation}
with $c_{1j}, c_{2j}$ as below equation (\ref{e6.4}).
Note that the integrals here are the same as in \eqref{e6.4} - and this reduces to that equation when t=1.
Thus these coefficients decay exponentially as described in theorem \ref{T6.1} and these partial sums converge rapidly to the
actual value of $h(0,0)$ - which will be  close to $t^{-1} \overline{\eta}$.

When $t = 0$ in the boundary condition \eqref{e7.1}, we have  a Neumann harmonic boundary value problem that
has  solutions if and only if $\ \overline{\eta} = 0$.
When $t = 0$ and $\overline{\eta} =0$, the problem has a 1-parameter family of solutions and the solution with mean value 0 on $G_{\alpha}$
is given by the infinite sum in \eqref{e7.5}.
When $\overline{\eta} = 0$, these formulae show that  as $t\searrow 0^+$ the solutions of  Robin problems converge pointwise to this mean
zero solution of the Neumann problem

\vspace{2em}

Analysis of PDEs (math.AP); Numerical Analysis (math.NA)