Monomial ideals of weighted oriented graphs

Abstract: Let I=I(D) be the edge ideal of a weighted oriented graph D. We determine the irredundant irreducible decomposition of I. Also, we characterize the associated primes and the unmixed property of I. Furthermore, we give a combinatorial characterization for the unmixed property of I, when D is bipartite, D is a whisker or D is a cycle. Finally, we study the Cohen-Macaulay property of I.

\section{Introduction}

A {\it weighted oriented graph\/} is a triplet $D=(V(D),E(D),w)$, where $V(D)$ is a finite set, $E(D) \subseteq V(D) \times V(D)$ and $w$ is a function $w:V(D) \to\mathbb{N}$. The vertex set of $D$ and the edge set of $D$ are $V(D)$ and $E(D)$, respectively. Some times for short we denote these sets by $V$ and $E$ respectively. The \emph{weight} of $x\in V$ is $w(x)$. If $e=(x,y)\in E$, then $x$ is the tail of $e$ and $y$ is the head of $e$. The {\it underlying graph\/} of $D$ is the simple graph $G$ whose vertex set is $V$ and whose edge set is $\{\{x,y\}| (x,y)\in E\}$. If $V(D)=\{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}$, then we consider the polynomial ring $R=K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ in $n$ variables over a field $K$. In this paper we introduce and study the edge ideal of $D$ given by $I(D)=(x_{i}x_{j}^{w(x_{j})}:(x_{i},x_{j})\in E(D))$ in $R$, (see Definition \ref{I(D)}).

 \vspace{1ex}

In Section 2 we study the vertex covers of $D$. In particular we introduce the notion of strong vertex cover (Definition \ref{strong-cover-defn}) and we prove that a minimal vertex cover is strong. In Section 3 we characterize the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$. In particular we show that the minimal monomial irreducible ideals of $I(D)$ are associated with the strong vertex covers of $D$. In Section 4 we give the following characterization of the unmixed property of $I(D)$.

 \vspace{1ex}

\tikzstyle{block} = [draw, rectangle, text width=10em, text centered, minimum height=10mm, node distance=5em]
\begin{center}
\noindent
\begin{tikzpicture}

\draw[implies-implies,double equal sign distance] (1.3,0) -- (2.7,0)
\draw[implies-implies,double equal sign distance] (0,-.5) -- (0,-1.5)
\draw[implies-implies,double equal sign distance] (4,-.5) -- (4,-1.5)
\draw[implies-implies,double equal sign distance] (8.5,-.5) -- (8.5,-1.5)

\node (D-U) at (0,0) {$I(D)$ is unmixed};
\node (G-U) at (7,0) {$G$ is unmixed and $D$ has the minimal-strong property};
\node[block, yshift=-5em](S-M) at (0,-.7) {All strong vertex covers have the same cardinality};
\node[block, yshift=-5em](M-C) at (4.3,-.7) {All minimal vertex covers have the same cardinality};
\node[block, yshift=-5em](S-C) at (8.6,-.7) {All strong vertex covers are minimals};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

 \vspace{1ex}

Furthermore, if $D$ is bipartite, $D$ is a whisker or $D$ is a cycle, we give an effective (combinatorial) characterization of the unmixed property. Finally in Section 5 we study the Cohen-Macaulayness  of $I(D)$. In particular we characterize the Cohen-Macaulayness when $D$ is a path or $D$ is complete. Also, we give an example where this property depend of the characteristic of the field $K$.

\section{Weighted oriented graphs and their vertex covers}

In this section we define the weighted oriented graphs and we study their vertex covers. Furthermore, we define the strong vertex covers and we characterize when $V(D)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$. In this paper we denote the set $\{x\in V\mid w(x)\neq 1\}$ by $V^{+}$.

\begin{defn}
A {\it vertex cover\/} $C$ of $D$ is a subset of $V$, such that if $(x,y)\in E$, then $x\in C$ or $y\in C$. A vertex cover $C$ of $D$ is {\it minimal\/} if each proper subset of $C$ is not a vertex cover of $D$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
Let $x$ be a vertex of a weighted oriented graph $D$, the sets $N_{D}^{+}(x)=\{y:(x,y)\in E(D)\}$ and $N_{D}^{-}(x)=\{y:(y,x)\in E(D)\}$ are called the {\it out-neighbourhood\/} and the {\it in-neighbourhood\/} of $x$, respectively. Furthermore, the {\it neighbourhood\/} of $x$ is the set $N_{D}(x)=N_{D}^{+}(x)\cup N_{D}^{-}(x)$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}\label{L-sets}
Let $C$ be a vertex cover of a weighted oriented graph $D$, we define
\[
L_1(C)=\{x\in C\mid N_{D}^{+}(x)\cap C^{c}\neq \emptyset \},
\]
\[
L_2(C)=\{x\in C\mid\mbox{$x\notin L_1(C)$ and $N^{-}_{D}(x)\cap C^c\neq\emptyset$}\} \text{ and }
\]
\[
L_3(C)=C\setminus(L_1(C)\cup L_2(C)),
\]
where $C^{c}$ is the complement of $C$, i.e. $C^{c}=V\setminus C$.
\end{defn}

\begin{prop}\label{remark-L3}
If $C$ is a vertex cover of $D$, then
\begin{center}
$L_{3}(C)=\{x\in C \mid N_{D}(x)\subset C\}$.
\end{center}
\end{prop}

\proof
If $x\in L_{3}(C)$, then $N_{D}^{+}(x)\subseteq C$, since $x\notin L_{1}(C)$. Furthermore $N^{-}_{D}(x)\subseteq C$, since $x\notin L_{2}(C)$. Hence $N_{D}(x)\subset C$, since $x\notin N_{D}(x)$. Now, if $x\in C$ and $N_{D}(x)\subset C$, then $x\notin L_{1}(C)\cup L_{2}(C)$. Therefore $x\in L_{3}(C)$.
\qed

\begin{prop}\label{minimalcover-L3}
If $C$ is a vertex cover of $D$, then $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$ if and only if $C$ is a minimal vertex cover of $D$.
\end{prop}

\proof
 $\Rightarrow)$ If $x\in C$, then by Proposition \ref{remark-L3} we have $N_{D}(x)\not\subset C$, since $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$. Thus, there is $y\in N_{D}(x)\setminus C$ implying $C\setminus \{x\}$ is not a vertex cover. Therefore, $C$ is a minimal vertex cover.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$\Leftarrow)$ If $x\in L_{3}(C)$, then by Proposition \ref{remark-L3}, $N_{D}(x)\subseteq C\setminus \{x\}$. Hence, $C\setminus\{x\}$ is a vertex cover. A contradiction, since $C$ is minimal. Therefore $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$.

\begin{defn}\label{strong-cover-defn}
A vertex cover $C$ of $D$ is {\it strong\/} if for each $x\in L_3(C)$ there is $(y,x)\in E(D)$ such that $y\in L_2(C)\cup L_{3}(C)$ with $y\in V^{+}$ (i.e. $w(y)\neq 1$).
\end{defn}

\begin{rem}\label{strong-cover}
Let $C$ be a vertex cover of $D$. Hence, by Proposition \ref{remark-L3} and since $C=L_{1}(C)\cup L_{2}(C)\cup L_{3}(C)$, we have that $C$ is strong if and only if for each $x\in C$ such that $N(x)\subset C$, there exist $y\in N^{-}(x)\cap(C\setminus L_{1}(C))$ with $y\in V^{+}$.
\end{rem}

\begin{cor}\label{C-minimal-strong}
If $C$ is a minimal vertex cover of $D$, then $C$ is strong.
\end{cor}
\proof
By Proposition \ref{minimalcover-L3}, we have $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$, since $C$. Hence, $C$ is strong.
\qed

\begin{rem}\label{V-strong}
The vertex set $V$ of $D$ is a vertex cover. Also, if $z\in V$, then $N_{D}(z)\subseteq V\setminus z$. Hence, by Proposition \ref{remark-L3}, $L_{3}(V)=V$. Consequently, $L_{1}(V)=L_{2}(V)=\emptyset$. By Proposition \ref{minimalcover-L3}, $V$ is not a minimal vertex cover of $D$. Furthermore since $L_{3}(V)=V$, $V$ is a strong vertex cover if and only if $N_{D}^{-}(x)\cap V^{+}\neq \emptyset$ for each $x\in V$.
\end{rem}

\begin{defn}
If $G$ is a cycle with $E(D) = \{(x_1,x_2), \ldots, (x_{n-1},x_n), (x_n,x_1)\}$ and $V(D)=\{x_1,\ldots, x_n\}$, then $D$ is called {\it oriented cycle\/}.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
$D$ is called {\it unicycle oriented graph\/} if it satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item The underlying graph of $D$ is connected and it has exactly one cycle $C$.
\item $C$ is an oriented cycle in $D$. Furthermore for each $y\in V(D)\setminus V(C)$, there is an oriented path from $C$ to $y$ in $D$.
\item $w(x)\neq 1$ if $deg_{G}(x)\geq 1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}\label{lemma2-V}
If $V(D)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$ and $D_{1}$ is a maximal unicycle oriented subgraph of $D$, then $V(D^\prime)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D^\prime=D\setminus V(D_{1})$.
\end{lem}

\proof
We take $x\in V(D^\prime)$. Thus, by Remark \ref{V-strong},  there is $y\in N_{D}^{-}(x)\cap V^{+}(D)$. If $y\in D_{1}$, then we take $D_{2}=D_{1}\cup \{(y,x)\}$. Hence, if $C$ is the oriented cycle of $D_{1}$, then $C$ is the unique cycle of $D_{2}$, since $deg_{D_{2}}(x)=1$. If $y\in C$, then $(y,x)$ is an oriented path from $C$ to $x$. Now, if $y\notin C$, then there is an oriented path $\mathcal{L}$ form $C$ to $y$ in $D_1$. Consequently, $\mathcal{L } \cup \{(y,x)\}$ is an oriented path form $C$ to $x$. Furthermore, $deg_{D_{2}}(x)=1$ and $w(y)\neq 1$, then $D_{2}$ is an unicycle oriented graph. A contradiction, since $D_{1}$ is maximal. This implies $y\in V(D^\prime)$, so $y\in N^{-}_{D^\prime}(x)\cap V^{+}(D^{\prime})$. Therefore, by Remark \ref{V-strong}, $V(D^\prime)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D^\prime$.
\qed

\begin{lem}\label{lemma1-V}
If $V(D)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$, then there is an unicycle oriented subgraph of $D$.
\end{lem}

\proof
Let $y_{1}$ be a vertex of $D$. Since $V=V(D)$ is a strong vertex cover, there is $y_2\in V$ such that $y_2\in N^{-}(y_1)\cap V^{+}$. Similarly, there is $y_3\in N^{-}(y_2)\cap V^{+}$. Consequently, $(y_3,y_2,y_1)$ is an oriented path. Continuing this process, we can assume there exist $y_2,y_3,\ldots, y_{k}\in V^{+}$ where $(y_k,y_{k-1},\ldots,y_2,y_1)$ is an oriented path and there is $1\leq j\leq k-2$ such that $(y_{j},y_k)\in E(D)$, since $V$ is finite. Hence, $C=(y_k,y_{k-1},\ldots, y_j,y_k)$ is an oriented cycle and $\mathcal{L}=(y_j,\ldots,y_1)$ is an oriented path form $C$ to $y_1$. Furthermore, if $j=1$, then $w(y_1)\neq 1$. Therefore, $D_1=C\cup \mathcal{L}$ is an unicycle oriented subgraph of $D$.
\qed

\begin{prop}\label{prop-unicycle}
Let  $D=(V,E,w)$ be a weighted oriented graph, hence $V$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$ if and only if there are $D_{1},\ldots, D_s$ unicycle oriented subgraphs of $D$ such that $V(D_1),\ldots, V(D_s)$ is a partition of $V=V(D)$.
\end{prop}

\proof
$\Rightarrow)$ By Lemma \ref{lemma1-V}, there is a maximal unicycle oriented subgraph $D_1$ of $D$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{lemma2-V}, $V(D^\prime)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D^\prime=D\setminus V(D_1)$. So, by Lemma \ref{lemma1-V}, there is $D_2$ a maximal unicycle oriented subgraph of $D^\prime $. Continuing this process we obtain unicycle oriented subgraphs $D_1,\ldots, D_s$ such that $V(D_1),\ldots, V(D_s)$ is a partition of $V(D)$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$\Leftarrow)$ We take $x\in V(D)$. By hypothesis there is $1\leq j\leq s$ such that $x\in V(D_j)$. We assume $C$ is the oriented cycle of $D_j$. If $x\in V(C)$, then there is $y\in V(C)$ such that $(y,x)\in E(D_{j})$ and $w(y)\neq 1$, since $deg_{D_j}(y)\geq 2$ and $D_{j}$ is a unicycle oriented subgraph. Now, we assume $x\notin V(C)$, then there is an oriented path $\mathcal{L}=(z_1,\ldots, z_r)$ such that $z_1\in V(C)$ and $z_r=x$. Thus, $(z_{r-1},x)\in E(D)$. Furthermore, $w(z_{r-1})\neq 1$, since $deg_{D_{j}}(z_{r-1})\geq 2$. Therefore $V$ is a strong vertex cover.
\qed

\section{Edge ideals and their primary decomposition}

As is usual if $I$ is a monomial ideal of a polynomial ring $R$, we denote by $\mathcal{G}(I)$ the minimal monomial set of generators of $I$.  Furthermore, there exists a unique decomposition, $I=\mathfrak{q}_{1}\cap \cdots \cap \mathfrak{q}_{r}$, where $\mathfrak{q}_{1},\ldots, \mathfrak{q}_{r}$ are irreducible monomial ideals such that $I\neq \bigcap_{i\neq j}^{}\mathfrak{q}_{i}$ for each $j=1,\ldots, r$. This is called the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I$. Furthermore, $\mathfrak{q}_{i}$ is an irreducible monomial ideal if and only if $\mathfrak{q}_{i}=(x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots , x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}})$ for some variables $x_{i_{j}}$. Irreducible ideals are primary, then a irreducible decomposition is a primary decomposition. For more details of primary decomposition of monomial ideals see \cite[Chapter 6]{monalg-2}.  In this section, we define the edge ideal $I(D)$ of a weighted oriented graph $D$ and we characterize its irredundant irreducible decomposition. In particular we prove that this decomposition is an irreducible primary decomposition, i.e, the radicals of the elements of the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$ are different.

\begin{defn}\label{I(D)}
Let $D=(V,E,w)$ be a weighted oriented graph with $V=\{x_{1},\ldots, x_{n}\}$. The {\it edge ideal of $D$\/}, denote by $I(D)$, is the ideal of $R=K[x_{1},\ldots, x_{n}]$ generated by $\{x_{i}x_{j}^{w(x_{j})} \mid (x_{i},x_{j})\in E\}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
A {\it source\/} of $D$ is a vertex $x$, such that $N_{D}(x)=N_{D}^{+}(x)$. A {\it sink\/} of $D$ is a vertex $y$ such that $N_{D}(y)=N_{D}^{-}(y)$.
\end{defn}

\begin{rem}\label{rem3.3}
Let $D=(V,E,w)$ be a weighted oriented graph. We take $D^\prime=(V,E,w^\prime)$ a weighted oriented graph such that $w^\prime(x)=w(x)$ if $x$ is not a source and $w^\prime(x)=1$ if $x$ is a source. Hence, $I(D)=I(D^\prime)$. For this reason in this paper, we will always assume that if $x$ is a source, then $w(x_{i})=1$.

\end{rem}

\begin{defn}
Let $C$ be a vertex cover of $D$,
 the {\it irreducible ideal associated to $C$\/} is the ideal
\[
I_C=\bigl( L_1(C)\cup\{x_j^{w(x_{j})}\mid x_j\in L_2(C)\cup L_3(C)\}\bigr).
\]
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}\label{rem01}
$I(D)\subseteq I_C$ for each vertex cover $C$ of $D$.
\end{lem}
\proof
We take $I=I(D)$ and $m\in \mathcal{G}(I)$, then $m=xy^{w(y)}$, where $(x,y)\in D$. Since $C$ is a vertex cover, $x\in C$ or $y\in C$. If $y\in C$, then $y \in I_{C}$ or $y^{w(y)}\in I_{C}$. Thus, $m=xy^{w(y)}\in I_{C}$. Now, we assume $y\notin C$, then $x\in C$. Hence, $y\in N_{D}^{+}(x)\cap C^{c}$, so $x\in L_{1}(C)$. Consequently, $x\in I_{C}$ implying $m=xy^{w(y)}\in I_{C}$. Therefore $I\subseteq I_{C}$.
\qed

\begin{defn}
Let $I$ be a monomial ideal. An irreducible monomial ideal $\mathfrak{q}$ that contains $I$ is called a {\it minimal irreducible monomial ideal of $I$\/} if for any irreducible monomial ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ such that $I\subseteq \mathfrak{p}\subseteq \mathfrak{q}$ one has that $\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{q}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}\label{lemma1}
Let $D$ be a weighted oriented graph. If $I(D)\subseteq (x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots , x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}})$, then $\{x_{i_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}\}$ is a vertex cover of $D$.
\end{lem}
\proof
We take $J=(x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}})$. If $(a,b)\in E(D)$, then $ab^{w(b)}\in I(D)\subseteq J$. Thus, $x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}|ab^{w(b)}$ for some $1\leq j\leq s$. Hence, $x_{i_{j}}\in \{a,b\}$ and $\{a,b\}\cap\{x_{i_{1}}\ldots x_{i_{s}}\}\neq \emptyset$. Therefore $\{x_{i_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}\}$ is a vertex cover of $D$.
\qed

\begin{lem}\label{lemma2}
Let $J$ be a minimal irreducible monomial ideal of $I(D)$ where $\mathcal{G}(J)=\{x_{i_{1}}^{a_{s}}, \ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. If $a_{j}\neq 1$ for some $1\leq j \leq s$, then there is $(x,x_{i_{j}})\in E(D)$ where $x\notin \mathcal{G}(J)$.
\end{lem}
\proof
By contradiction suppose there is $a_{j}\neq 1$ such that if $(x,x_{i_{j}})\in E(D)$, then $x\in M=\{x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots,x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. We take the ideal $J^\prime=(M\setminus \{x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}\})$. If $(a,b)\in E(D)$, then $ab^{w(b)}\in I(D)\subseteq J$. Consequently, $x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}|ab^{w(b)}$ for some $1\leq k\leq s$. If $k\neq j$, then $ab^{w(b)}\in J^\prime$. Now, if $k=j$, then by hypothesis $a_{j}\neq 1$. Hence, $x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}|b^{w(b)}$ implying $x_{i_{j}}=b$. Thus, $(a,x_{i_{j}})\in E(D)$, so by hypothesis $a\in M\setminus \{x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}\}$. This implies $ab^{w(b)}\in J^\prime$. Therefore $I(D)\subseteq J^{\prime}\subsetneq J$. A contradiction, since $J$ is minimal.

\qed

\begin{lem}\label{lemma3}
Let $J$ be a minimal irreducible monomial ideal of $I(D)$ where $\mathcal{G}(J)=\{x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. If $a_{j}\neq 1$ for some $1\leq j\leq s$, then $a_{j}=w(x_{i_{j}})$.
\end{lem}
\proof
By Lemma \ref{lemma2}, there is $(x,x_{i_{j}})\in E(D)$ with $x\notin M=\{x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. Also, $xx_{i_{j}}^{w(x_{i_{j}})}\in I(D)\subseteq J$, so $x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}|xx_{i_{j}}^{w(x_{i_{j}})}$ for some $1\leq k\leq s$. Hence, $x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}|x_{i_{j}}^{w(x_{i_{j}})}$, since $x\notin M$. This implies, $k=j$ and $a_{j}\leq w(x_{i_{j}})$. If $a_{j}<w(x_{i_{j}})$, then we take $J^{\prime}=(M^{\prime})$ where $M^\prime=\{M\setminus\{x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}\}\}\cup \{x_{i_{j}}^{w(x_{i_{j}})}\}$. So, $J^{\prime}\subsetneq J$. Furthermore, if $(a,b)\in E(D)$, then $m=ab^{w(b)}\in I(D)\subseteq J$. Thus, $x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}| ab^{w(b)}$ for some $1\leq k\leq s$. If $k\neq j$, then $x_{i_{k}}^{a_{k}}\in M^{\prime}$ implying $ab^{w(b)}\in J^{\prime}$. Now, if $k=j$ then $x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}|b^{w(b)}$, since $a_{j}>1$. Consequently, $x_{i_{j}}=b$ and $x_{i_{j}}^{w(x_{i_{j}})}|m$. Then $m\in J^\prime$. Hence $I(D)\subseteq J^\prime\subsetneq J$, a contradiction since $J$ is minimal. Therefore $a_{j}=w(x_{i_{j}})$.
\qed

\begin{thm}\label{thm-irredDecom}
The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $J$ is a minimal irreducible monomial ideal of $I(D)$.
\item There is a strong vertex cover $C$ of $D$ such that $J=I_C$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\proof
{\it 2)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 1)} By definition $J=I_C$ is a monomial irreducible ideal. By Lemma~\ref{rem01}, $I(D)\subseteq J$. Now, suppose $I(D)\subseteq J^\prime\subseteq J$, where $J^\prime$ is a monomial irreducible ideal. We can assume $\mathcal{G}(J^\prime)=\{x_{j_{1}}^{b_{1}},\ldots, x_{j_{s}}^{b_{s}}\}$. If $x\in L_1(C)$, then there is $(x,y)\in E(D)$ with $y\notin C$. Hence, $xy^{w(y)}\in I(D)$ and $y^r\notin J$ for each $r\in\mathbb{N}$. Consequently $y^r\notin J^\prime$ for each $r$, implyinig $y\notin\{x_{j_{1}},\ldots, x_{j_{s}}\}$. Furthermore $x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}|xy^{w(y)}$ for some $1\leq  i \leq s$, since $xy^{w(y)}\in I(D)\subseteq J^\prime$. This implies, $x=x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}\in J^\prime$. Now, if $x\in L_2(C)$, then there is $(y,x)\in E(D)$ with $y\notin C$. Thus $y\notin J$, so $y\notin \{x_{j_{1}}^{b_{1}},\ldots, x_{j_{s}}^{b_{s}}\}$. Also, $x^{w(x)}y\in I(D)\subseteq J^\prime$, then $x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}|x^{w(x)}y$ for some $1\leq i\leq s$. Consequently, $x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}|x^{w(x)}$ implies $x^{w(x)}\in J^{\prime}$. Finally if $x\in L_3(C)$, then there is $(y,x)\in E(D)$ where $y\in L_2(C)\cup L_{3}(C)$ and $w(y)\neq 1$, since $C$ is a strong vertex cover. So, $x^{w(x)}y\in I(D)\subseteq J^\prime$ implies $x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}|x^{w(x)}y$ for some $i$. Furthermore $y\notin J=I_{C}$, since $y\in L_{2}(C)\cup L_{3}(C)$ and $w(y)\neq 1$. This implies $y\notin J^\prime$ so, $x_{j_{i}}^{b_{i}}|x^{w(x)}$ then $x^{w(x)}\in J^\prime$. Hence, $J=I_{C}\subseteq J^\prime$. Therefore, $J$ is a minimal monomial irreducible of $I(D)$.

\vspace{1ex}

\noindent
{\it 1)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 2)} Since $J$ is irreducible, we can suppose $\mathcal{G}(J)=\{x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. By Lemma \ref{lemma3}, we have $a_{j}=1$ or $a_{j}=w(x_{i_{j}})$ for each $1\leq j\leq s$. Also, by Lemma \ref{lemma1}, $C=\{x_{i_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}\}$ is a vertex cover of $D$. We can assume $\mathcal{G}(I_{C})=\{x_{i_{1}}^{b_{1}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{b_{s}}\}$, then $b_{j}\in \{1,w(x_{i_{j}})\}$ for each $1\leq j\leq s$. Now, suppose $b_{k}=1$ and $w(x_{i_{k}})\neq 1$ for some $1\leq k\leq s$. Consequently $x_{i_{k}}\in L_{1}(C)$. Thus, there is $(x_{i_{k}},y)\in E(D)$ where $y\notin C$. So, $x_{i_{k}}y^{w(y)}\in I(D)\subseteq J$ and $x_{i_{r}}^{a_{r}}|x_{i_{k}}y^{w(y)}$ for some $1\leq r\leq s$. Furthermore $y\notin C$, then $r=k$ and $a_{k}=a_{r}=1$. Hence, $I_{C}\cap V(D)\subseteq J\cap V(D)$. This implies, $I_{C}\subseteq J$, since $a_{j},b_{j}\in \{1,w(x_{i_{j}})\}$ for each $1\leq j\leq s$. Therefore $J=I_{C}$, since $J$ is minimal. In particular $a_{i}=b_{i}$ for each $1\leq i\leq s$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
Now, assume $C$ is not strong, then there is $x\in L_{3}(C)$ such that if $(y,x)\in E(D)$, then $w(y)=1$ or $y\in L_{1}(C)$. We can assume $x=x_{i_{1}}$, and we take $J^\prime$ the monomial ideal with $\mathcal{G}(J^\prime)=\{x_{i_{2}}^{a_{2}},\ldots, x_{i_{s}}^{a_{s}}\}$. We take $(z_{1},z_{2})\in E(D)$. If $x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}| z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}$ for some $2\leq j\leq s$, then $z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}\in J^\prime$. Now, assume $x_{i_{j}}^{a_{j}}\nmid z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}$ for each $2\leq j\leq s$. Consequently $z_{2}\notin\{x_{i_{2}}\ldots x_{i_{s}}\}$, since $a_{j}\in\{1,w(x_{i_{j}})\}$. Also $z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}\in I(D)\subseteq J$, then $x_{i_{1}}^{a_{1}}| z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}$. But $x_{i_{1}}\in L_{3}(C)$, so $z_{1}, z_{2}\in N_{G}[x_{i_{1}}]\subseteq C$. If $x_{i_{1}}=z_{1}$, then there is $2\leq r\leq s$ such that $z_{2}=x_{i_{r}}$. Thus $x_{i_{r}}^{a_{r}}\mid z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}$. A contradiction, then $x_{i_{1}}=z_{2}$, $z_{1}\in C$ and $(z_{1},x_{i_{1}})\in E(D)$. Then, $w(z_{1})=1$ or $z_{1}\in L_{1}(C)$. In both cases $z_{1}\in \mathcal{G}(I_{C})$. Furthermore $z_{1}\neq z_{2}$ since $(z_{1}, z_{2})\in E(D)$. This implies $z_{1}\in \mathcal{G}(J^{\prime})$. So, $z_{1}z_{2}^{w(z_{2})}\in J^{\prime}$. Hence, $I(D)\subseteq J^{\prime}$. This is a contradiction, since $J$ is minimal. Therefore $C$ is strong.

\qed

\begin{thm}\label{decomposition}
If $\mathcal{C}_{s}$ is the set of strong vertex covers of $D$, then the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$ is given by $I(D)=\bigcap_{C\in \mathcal{C}_{s}} I_{C}$.
\end{thm}

\proof
By \cite[Theorem 1.3.1]{Herzog-Hibi}, there is a unique irredundant irreducible decomposition $I(D)=\bigcap_{i=1}^{m}I_{i}$. If there is an irreducible ideal $I_{j}^{\prime}$ such that $I(D)\subseteq I_{j}^{\prime}\subseteq I_{j}$ for some $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, then $I(D)=(\bigcap_{i\neq j}^{}I_{i})\cap I_{j}^{\prime}$ is an irreducible decomposition. Furthermore this decomposition is irredundant. Thus, $I_{j}^{\prime}=I_{j}$. Hence, $I_{1},\ldots, I_{m}$ are minimal irreducible ideals of $I(D)$. Now, if there is $C\in \mathcal{C}_{s}$ such that $I_{C}\notin\{I_{1},\ldots,I_{m}\}$, then there is $x_{j_{i}}^{\alpha_{i}}\in I_{i}\setminus I_{C}$ for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$. Consequently, $m=lcm(x_{j_{1}}^{\alpha_{1}},\ldots, x_{j_{m}}^{\alpha_{m}})\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{m}I_{i}=I(D)\subseteq I_{C}$. Furthermore, if $C=\{x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_{k}}\}$, then $I_{C}=(x_{i_1}^{\beta_1},\ldots, x_{i_{k}}^{\beta_k})$ where $\beta_{j}\in\{1,w(x_{i_{j}})\}$. Hence, there is $j\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$ such that $x_{i_{j}}^{\beta_j}|m$. So, there is $1\leq u\leq m$ such that $x_{i_{j}}^{\beta_j}\mid x_{j_{u}}^{\alpha_u}$. A contradiction, since $x_{j_{u}}^{\alpha_{u}}\notin I_{C}$. Therefore $I(D)=\bigcap_{C\in \mathcal{C}_{s}}I_{C}$ is the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$.
\qed

\begin{rem}\label{ass-primes}
If $C_{1},\ldots, C_{s}$ are the strong vertex covers of $D$, then by Theorem \ref{decomposition}, $I_{C_{1}}\cap\cdots\cap I_{C_{s}}$ is the irredundant irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$. Furthermore, if $P_i=rad(I_{C_i})$, then $P_{i}=(C_i)$. So, $P_{i}\neq P_{j}$ for $1\leq i<j\leq s$. Thus, $I_{C_{1}}\cap\cdots\cap I_{C_{s}}$ is an irredundant primary decomposition of $I(D)$. In particular we have ${\rm Ass}(I(D))=\{P_{1},\ldots, P_{s}\}$.
\end{rem}

\begin{exmp}\label{example1}
Let $D$ be the following oriented weighted graph
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1.1pt,scale=0.95]
		\tikzstyle{every node}=[inner sep=0pt, minimum width=4.5pt]

\draw [->] (-1.45,.45)--(-0.1,1.7);
\draw [->] (-1.05,-1.3)--(-1.5,.3);
\draw [->] (-.93,-1.31) --(1.4,.35);
\draw [->] (.9,-1.38)--(-.9,-1.38);
\draw [->] (1.45,.35)--(1,-1.28);

\draw (-1,-1.38) node (v3) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
\draw (1,-1.38) node (v4) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
\draw (1.5,.4) node (v5) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
\draw (0,1.7) node (v1)[draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
\draw (-1.5,.4) node (v2) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};

\node at (-1.5,-1.35) {$x_{3}$};
\node at (1.5,-1.38) {$x_{4}$};
\node at (1.7,.8) {$x_{5}$};
\node at (0,2.1) {$x_{1}$};
\node at (-2,.4) {$x_{2}$};

\node at (-.9,-1.7) {$5$};
\node at (1.1,-1.7) {$2$};
\node at (1.7,.10) {$2$};
\node at (0,1.4) {$3$};
\node at (-1.2,.4) {$4$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\noindent
whose edge ideal is $I(D)=(x_{1}^{3}x_{2},x_{2}^{4}x_{3},x_{3}^{5}x_{4},x_{3}x_{5}^{2},x_{4}^{2}x_{5})$. From Theorem \ref{thm-irredDecom} and Theorem \ref{decomposition}, the irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$ is:
\begin{center}
$I(D)=(x_{1}^{3},x_{3},x_{4}^{2})\cap(x_{1}^{3},x_{3},x_{5})\cap(x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}^{2})\cap(x_{2},x_{3}^{5},x_{5})\cap(x_{2},x_{4},x_{5}^{2})\cap(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{4},x_{3}^{5},x_{5})\cap(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{4},x_{4},x_{5}^{2})\cap(x_{2},x_{3}^{5},x_{4}^{2},x_{5}^{2})\cap(x_{1}^{3},x_{2}^{4},x_{3}^{5},x_{4}^{2},x_{5}^{2})$.
\end{center}

\end{exmp}

\begin{exmp}\label{example2}
Let $D$ be the following oriented weighted graph
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1.1pt,scale=0.95]
		\tikzstyle{every node}=[inner sep=0pt, minimum width=4.5pt]

\draw [->] (0,0) --(1.9,0);
\draw [->] (2.1,0) --(3.9,0);
\draw [->] (4.1,0) --(5.9,0);

	\draw (0,0) node (x1) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
	\draw (2,0) node (x2) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
		\draw (4,0) node (x3) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};
			\draw (6,0) node (x4) [draw, circle, fill=gray] {};

\node at (.2,.3) {$x_{1}$};
\node at (2.2,.3) {$x_{2}$};
\node at (4.2,.3) {$x_{3}$};
\node at (6.2,.3) {$x_{4}$};

\node at (2.2,-.3) {$2$};
\node at (4.2,-.3) {$5$};
\node at (6.2,-.3) {$7$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\noindent
Hence, $I(D)=(x_{1}x_{2}^{2},x_{2}x_{3}^{5},x_{3}x_{4}^{7})$. By Theorem \ref{thm-irredDecom} and Theorem \ref{decomposition}, the irreducible decomposition of $I(D)$ is:
\begin{center}
$I(D)=(x_{1},x_{3})\cap(x_{2}^{2},x_{3})\cap(x_{2},x_{4}^{7})\cap(x_{1},x_{3}^{5},x_{4}^{7})\cap(x_{2}^{2},x_{3}^{5},x_{4}^{7})$.
\end{center}

\end{exmp}

\vspace{1ex}

In Example \ref{example1} and Example \ref{example2}, $I(D)$ has embedding primes. Furthermore the monomial ideal $(V(D))$ is an associated prime of $I(D)$ in Example \ref{example1}. Proposition \ref{prop-unicycle} and Remark \ref{ass-primes} give a combinatorial criterion for to decide when $(V(D))\in {\rm Ass}(I(D))$.

\section{Unmixed weighted oriented graphs}
Let $D=(V,E,w)$ be a weighted oriented graph whose underlying graph is $G=(V,E)$. In this section we characterize the unmixed property of $I(D)$ and we prove that this property is closed under c-minors. In particular if $G$ is a bipartite graph or $G$ is a whisker or $G$ is  a cycle, we give an effective (combinatorial) characterization of this property.

\begin{defn}
An ideal $I$ is {\it unmixed\/} if each one of its associated primes has the same height.
\end{defn}

\begin{thm}\label{unmixed}
The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $I(D)$ is unmixed.
\item Each strong vertex cover of $D$ has the same cardinality.
\item $I(G)$ is unmixed and $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$ for each strong vertex cover $C$ of $D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\proof Let $C_{1},\ldots , C_{\ell}$ be the strong vertex covers of $D$. By Remark \ref{ass-primes}, the associated primes of $I(D)$ are $P_{1},\ldots, P_{\ell}$, where $P_{i}=rad(I_{C_{i}})=(C_{i})$ for $1\leq i \leq \ell$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$1) \Rightarrow 2)$ Since $I(D)$ is unmixed, $|C_{i}|= ht(P_{i})=ht(P_{j})=|C_{j}|$ for $1\leq i<j\leq\ell$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$2) \Rightarrow 3)$ If $C$ is a minimal vertex cover, then by Corollary \ref{C-minimal-strong}, $C\in\{C_{1},\ldots, C_{\ell}\}$. By hypothesis, $|C_{i}|=|C_{j}|$ for each $1\leq i\leq j\leq \ell$, then $C_{i}$ is a minimal vertex cover of $D$. Thus, by Lemma \ref{minimalcover-L3}, $L_{3}(C_{i})=\emptyset$. Furthermore $I(G)$ is unmixed, since $C_{1},\ldots,C_{\ell}$ are the minimal vertex covers of $G$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$3) \Rightarrow 1)$
By Proposition \ref{minimalcover-L3}, $C_{i}$ is a minimal vertex cover, since $L_{3}(C_{i})=\emptyset$ for each $1\leq i \leq \ell$. This implies, $C_{1},\ldots,C_{\ell}$ are the minimal vertex covers of $G$. Since $G$ is unmixed, we have $|C_{i}|=|C_{j}|$ for $1\leq i<j\leq \ell$. Therefore $I(D)$ is unmixed.
\qed

\begin{defn}\label{star-property}
A weighted oriented graph $D$ has the {\it minimal-strong property\/} if each strong vertex cover is a minimal vertex cover.
\end{defn}

\begin{rem}\label{star-L3}
Using Proposition \ref{minimalcover-L3}, we have that $D$ has the minimal-strong property if and only if $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$ for each strong vertex cover $C$ of $D$.
\end{rem}

\begin{defn}
$D^\prime$ is a {\it c-minor\/} of $D$ if there is a stable set $S$ of $D$, such that $D^\prime =D\setminus N_{G}[S]$.
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}\label{star-lemma}
If $D$ has the minimal-strong property, then $D^\prime =D\setminus N_{G}[x]$ has the minimal-strong property, for each $x\in V$.
\end{lem}

\proof
We take a strong vertex cover $C^\prime$ of $D^\prime =D\setminus N_{G}[x]$ where $x\in V$. Thus, $C=C^\prime \cup N_{D}(x)$ is a vertex cover of $D$. If $y^\prime\in L_{3}(C^\prime)$, then by Proposition \ref{remark-L3}, $N_{D^\prime}(y^\prime)\subseteq C^\prime$. Consequently, $N_{D}(y^\prime)\subseteq C^\prime \cup N_{D}(x)=C$ implying $y^\prime\in L_{3}(C)$. Hence, $L_{3}(C^{\prime})\subseteq L_{3}(C)$. Now, we take $y\in L_{3}(C)$, then $N_{D}(y)\subseteq C$. This implies $y\notin N_{D}(x)$, since $x\notin C$. Then, $y\in C^\prime$ and $N_{D^{\prime}}(y)\cup(N_{D}(y)\cap N_{D}(x))=N_{D}(y)\subseteq C=C^{\prime}\cup N_{D}(x)$. So, $N_{D^{\prime}}(y)\subseteq C^{\prime}$ implies $y\in L_{3}(C^{\prime})$. Therefore $L_{3}(C)=L_{3}(C^{\prime})$.

\noindent
Now, if $y\in L_{3}(C)=L_{3}(C^{\prime})$, then there is $z\in C^\prime\setminus L_{1}(C^{\prime})$ with $w(z)\neq 1$, such that $(z,y)\in E(D^{\prime})$. If $z\in L_{1}(C)$, then there exist $z^\prime\notin C$ such that $(z,z^\prime)\in E(D)$. Since $z^\prime\notin C$, we have $z^{\prime}\notin C^{\prime}$, then $z\in L_{1}(C^\prime)$. A contradiction, consequently $z\notin L_{1}(C)$. Hence, $C$ is strong. This implies $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$, since $D$ has the minimal-strong property. Thus, $L_{3}(C^\prime)=L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$. Therefore $D^\prime$ has the minimal-strong property.
\qed

\begin{prop}\label{N-unmixed}
If $D$ is unmixed and $x\in V$, then $D^{\prime}=D\setminus N_{G}[x]$ is unmixed.
\end{prop}
\proof
By Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $G$ is unmixed and $D$ has the minimal-strong property. Hence, by \cite{monalg-2}, $G^\prime=G\setminus N_{G}[x]$ is unmixed. Also, by Lemma \ref{star-lemma} we have that $D^\prime$ has the minimal-strong property. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $D^{\prime}$ is unmixed.
\qed

\begin{thm}\label{c-minor-umixed}
If $D$ is unmixed, then a c-minor of $D$ is unmixed.
\end{thm}
\proof
If $D^{\prime}$ is a c-minor of $D$, then there is a stable $S=\{a_{1},\ldots,a_{s}\}$ such that $D^\prime=D\setminus N_{G}[S]$. Since $S$ is stable, $D^{\prime}=(\cdots ((D\setminus N_{G}[a_{1}])\setminus N_{G}[a_{2}])\setminus \cdots )\setminus N_{G}[a_{s}]$. Hence, by induction and Proposition \ref{N-unmixed}, $D^\prime$ is unmixed.
\qed

\begin{prop}\label{prop-mixed}
If $V(D)$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$, then $I(D)$ is mixed.
\end{prop}

\proof
By Proposition \ref{remark-L3} $V(D)$ is not minimal, since $L_{3}(V(D))=V(D)$. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $I(D)$ is mixed.
\qed

\begin{rem}\label{remark-mixed}
If $V=V^{+}$, then $I(D)$ is mixed.
\end{rem}
\proof
If $x_{i}\in V$, then by Remark \ref{rem3.3} $N^{-}_{D}(x_{i})\neq \emptyset$, since $V=V^{+}$. Thus, there is $x_{j}\in V$ such that $(x_j,x_i)\in E(D)$. Also, $w(x_j)\neq 1$ and $x_{j}\in V=L_{3}(V)$. So, $V$ is a strong vertex cover. Hence, by Proposition \ref{prop-mixed}, $I(D)$ is mixed.
\qed

\vspace{1ex}
In the following three results we assume that $D_{1},\ldots, D_{r}$ are the connected components of $D$. Furthermore $G_{i}$ is the underlying graph of $D_{i}$.

\begin{lem}\label{L3-ci}
Let $C$ be a vertex cover of $D$, then
$L_{1}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{1}(C_{i})$ and $L_{3}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{3}(C_{i})$, where $C_{i}=C\cap V(D_{i})$.
\end{lem}

\proof
We take $x\in C$, then $x\in C_{j}$ for some $1\leq j\leq r$. Thus, $N_{D}(x)=N_{D_{j}}(x)$. In particular $N_{D}^{+}(x)=N_{D_{j}}^{+}(x)$, so $C\cap N_{D}^{+}(x)=C_{j}\cap N_{D_{j}}^{+}(x)$. Hence, $L_{1}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{1}(C_{i})$. On the other hand,
\begin{center}
$x\in L_{3}(C) \Leftrightarrow N_{D}(x)\subseteq C\Leftrightarrow N_{D_{j}}(x)\subseteq C_{j} \Leftrightarrow x\in L_{3}(C_{j})$.
\end{center}
Therefore, $L_{3}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{3}(C_{i})$.
\qed

\begin{lem}\label{ci-strong}
Let $C$ be a vertex cover of $D$, then $C$ is strong if and only if each $C_{i}=C\cap V(D_{i})$ is strong with $i\in\{1,\ldots, r\}$.
\end{lem}

\proof
$\Rightarrow)$ We take $x\in L_{3}(C_{j})$. By Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $x\in L_{3}(C)$ and there is $z\in N_{D}^{-}(x)\cap V^{+}$ with $z\in C\setminus L_{1}(C)$, since $C$ is strong. So, $z\in N_{D_{j}}^{-}(x)$ and $z\in V(D_{j})$, since $x\in D_{j}$. Consequently, by Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $z\in C_{j}\setminus L_{1}(C_{j})$. Therefore $C_{j}$ is strong.

\vspace{1ex}
 \noindent
 $\Leftarrow)$ We take $x\in L_{3}(C)$, then $x\in C_{i}$ for some $1\leq i\leq r$. Then, by Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $x\in L_{3}(C_{i})$. Thus, there is $a\in N_{D_{i}}^{-}(x)$ such that $w(a)\neq 1$ and $a\in C_{i}\setminus L_{1}(C_{i})$, since $C_{i}$ is strong. Hence, by Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $a\in C\setminus L_{1}(C)$. Therefore $C$ is strong.

\qed

\begin{cor}
$I(D)$ is unmixed if and only if $I(D_{i})$ is unmixed for each $1\leq i\leq r$.
\end{cor}

\proof
 $\Rightarrow)$ By Theorem \ref{c-minor-umixed}, since $D_{i}$ is a c-minor of $D$.

 \vspace{1ex}
 \noindent
 $\Leftarrow)$ By Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $G_{i}$ is unmixed thus $G$ is unmixed. Now, if $C$ is a strong vertex cover, then by Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $C_{i}=C\cap V(D_{i})$ is a strong vertex cover. Consequently, $L_{3}(C_{i})=\emptyset$, since $I(D_{i})$ is unmixed. Hence, by Lemma \ref{L3-ci}, $L_{3}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{3}(C_{i})=\emptyset$. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $I(D)$ is unmixed.
\qed

\begin{defn}
Let $G$ be a simple graph whose vertex set is $V(G)=\{x_1,\ldots, x_{n}\}$ and edge set $E(G)$. A {\it whisker\/} of $G$ is a graph $H$ whose vertex set is $V(H)=V(G)\cup \{y_{1},\ldots, y_{n}\}$ and whose edge set is $E(H)=E(G)\cup \{\{x_1,y_1\},\ldots, \{x_{n},y_{n}\}\}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
Let $D$ and $H$ be weighted oriented graphs. $H$ is a {\it weighted oriented whisker\/} of $D$ if $D\subseteq H$ and the underlying graph of $H$ is a whisker of the underlying graph of $D$.
\end{defn}

\begin{thm}\label{unmixed-whiskers}
Let $H$ a weighted oriented whisker of $D$, where $V(D)=\{x_{1},\ldots, x_{n}\}$ and $V(H)=V(D)\cup \{y_{1},\ldots, y_{n}\}$, then the following conditions are equivalents:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $I(H)$ is unmixed.
\item If $(x_{i},y_{i})\in E(H)$ for some $1\leq i\leq n$, then $w(x_{i})=1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\proof
$2) \Rightarrow 1)$ We take a strong vertex cover $C$ of $H$. Suppose $x_{j}, y_{j}\in C$, then $y_{j}\in L_{3}(C)$, since $N_{D}(y_{j})=\{x_{j}\}\subseteq C$. Consequently, $(x_{j},y_{j})\in E(G)$ and $w(x_{j})\neq 1$, since $C$ is strong. This is a contradiction by condition $2)$. This implies, $|C\cap \{x_{i},y_{i}\}|=1$ for each $1\leq i\leq n$. So, $|C|=n$. Therefore, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $I(H)$ is unmixed.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$1) \Rightarrow 2)$ By contradiction suppose $(x_{i},y_{i})\in E(H)$ and $w(x_{i})\neq 1$ for some $i$. Since $w(x_{i})\neq 1$ and by Remark \ref{rem3.3}, we have that $x_{i}$ is not a source. Thus, there is $x_{j}\in V(D)$, such that $(x_{j},x_{i})\in E(H)$. We take the vertex cover $C=\{V(D)\setminus x_{j}\}\cup \{y_{j},y_{i}\}$, then by Proposition \ref{remark-L3}, $L_{3}(C)=\{y_{i}\}$. Furthermore $N_{D}(x_{i})\setminus C=\{x_{j}\}$ and $(x_{j},x_{i})\in E(H)$, then $x_{i}\in L_{2}(C)$. Hence C is strong, since $L_{3}(C)=\{y_{i}\}$, $(x_{i},y_{i})\in E(G)$ and $w(x_{i})\neq 1$. A contradiction by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, since $I(H)$ is unmixed.
\qed

\begin{thm}\label{unmixed-bipartite}
Let $D$ be a bipartite weighted oriented graph, then $I(D)$ is unmixed if and only if
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $G$ has a perfect matching $\{\{x_{1}^{1},x_{1}^{2}\},\ldots,\{x_{s}^{1},x_{s}^{2}\}\}$  where $\{x_{1}^{1},\ldots, x_{s}^{1}\}$ and $\{x_{1}^{2},\ldots, x_{s}^{2}\}$ are stable sets. Furthermore if $\{x_{j}^{1},x_{i}^{2}\}$, $\{x_{i}^{1},x_{k}^{2}\}\in E(G)$ then $\{x_{j}^{1},x_{k}^{2}\}\in E(G)$.
\item If $w(x_{j}^{k})\neq 1$ and $N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})=\{x_{i_{1}}^{k^\prime},\ldots, x_{i_{r}}^{k^\prime}\}$ where $\{k,k^\prime\}=\{1,2\}$, then $N_{D}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ and $N_{D}^{-}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$ for each $1\leq \ell \leq r$. \end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\proof
$\Leftarrow)$ By $1)$ and \cite[Theorem 2.5.7]{gitler-Vill}, $G$ is unmixed. We take a strong vertex cover $C$ of $D$. Suppose $L_{3}(C)\neq \emptyset$, thus there exist $x_{i}^{k}\in L_{3}(C)$. Since $C$ is strong, there is $x_{j}^{k^{\prime}}\in V^{+}$ such that $(x_{j}^{k^\prime},x_{i}^{k})\in E(D)$, $x_{j}^{k^\prime}\in C\setminus L_{1}(C)$ and $\{k, k^\prime\}=\{1,2\}$. Furthermore $N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k^\prime})\subseteq C$, since $x_{j}^{k^{\prime}}\notin L_{1}(C)$. Consequently, by $3)$, $N_{D}(x_{i}^{k^\prime})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k^\prime})\subseteq C$ and $N_{D}^{-}(x_{i}^{k^{\prime}})\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$. A contradiction, since $x_{i}^{k^{\prime}}\in L_{3}(C)$ and $C$ is strong. Hence $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$ and $D$ has the strong-minimal property. Therefore $I(D)$ is unmixed, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$\Rightarrow)$ By Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $G$ is unmixed. Hence, by \cite[Theorem 2.5.7]{gitler-Vill}, $G$ satisfies $1)$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
If $w(x_{j}^{k})\neq 1$, then we take $C=N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})\cup\{x_{i}^{k}\mid N_{D}(x_{i}^{k})\not\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})\}$ and $k^{\prime}$ such that $\{k,k^{\prime}\}=\{1,2\}$. If $\{x_{i}^{k},x_{i^{\prime}}^{k^{\prime}}\}\in E(G)$ and $x_{i}^{k}\notin C$, then $x_{i^{\prime}}^{k^{\prime}}\in N_{D}(x_{i}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})\subseteq C$. This implies, $C$ is a vertex cover of $D$. Now, if $x_{i_{1}}^{k}\in L_{3}(C)$, then $N_{D}(x_{i_{1}}^{k})\subseteq C$. Consequently  $N_{D}(x_{i_{1}}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ implies $x_{i_{1}}^{k}\notin C$. A contradiction, then $L_{3}(C)\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$. Also, $N_{G}^{-}(x_{j}^{k})\neq \emptyset$, since $w(x_{j}^{k})\neq 1$. Thus $x_{j}^{k}\in L_{2}(C)$, since $N_{G}^{-}(x_{j}^{k})\cap C=\emptyset$. Hence $C$ is strong, since $L_{3}(C)\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ and $x_{j}^{k}\in V^{+}$. Furthermore $\{x_{1}^{\prime},\ldots, x_{s}^{\prime}\}$ is a minimal vertex cover, then by Theorem \ref{unmixed} $|C|=s$, since $D$ is unmixed. We assume $N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})=\{x_{i_{1}}^{k^{\prime}},\ldots x_{i_{r}}^{k^{\prime}}\}$. Since $C$ is minimal, $x_{i_{\ell}}^{k}\notin C$ for each $1\leq \ell \leq r$. So, $N_{D}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$. Now, suppose $z\in N_{D}^{-}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\cap V^{+}$, then $z=x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^{\prime}}$ for some $1\leq\ell^{\prime}\leq r$, since $N_{D}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$. We take $C^\prime=N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})\cup\{x_{i}^{k}\mid i\notin\{i_{1},\ldots,i_{r}\}\}\cup N_{D}^{+}(x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^\prime})$. Since $N_{D}(x_{i_{u}}^{k})\subseteq N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ for each $1\leq u\leq r$, we have that $C^{\prime}$ is a vertex cover. If $\{x_{q}^{k},x_{q}^{k^\prime}\}\cap L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$, then $\{x_{q}^{k},x_{q}^{k^\prime}\}\subseteq C^\prime$, so $x_{q}^{k^{\prime}}\in N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ implies $q\in \{i_{1},\ldots, i_{r}\}$. Consequently, $x_{q}^{k}\in N_{D}^{+}(x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^{\prime}})$, since $x_{q}^{k}\in C^{\prime}$. This implies, $(x_{j}^{k},x_{q}^{k^\prime}), (x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^\prime}, x_{q}^{k})\in E(D)$. Moreover, $N_{D}^{+}(x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^\prime})\cup N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})\subseteq C^\prime$, then $x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^\prime}\notin L_{1}(C^\prime)$ and $x_{j}^{k}\notin L_{1}(C^{\prime})$. Thus, $C^\prime$ is strong, since $x_{j}^{k},x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^{\prime}}\in V^{+}$. Furthermore, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $|C^{\prime}|=s$. But $x_{i_{\ell}}^{k^{\prime}}\in N_{D}^{+}(x_{j}^{k})$ and $x_{i_{\ell}}^{k}\in N_{D}^{+}(x_{i_{\ell^{\prime}}}^{k^{\prime}})$, hence $x_{i_{\ell}}^{k^{\prime}}, x_{i_{\ell}}^{k}\in C^{\prime}$. A contradiction, so $N_{D}^{-}(x_{i_{\ell}}^{k})\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$. Therefore $D$ satisfies $2)$.
\qed

\begin{lem}\label{lem1-cycle}
If the vertices of $V^{+}$ are sinks, then $D$ has the minimal-strong property.
\end{lem}

\proof
We take a strong vertex cover $C$ of $D$. Hence, if $y\in L_{3}(C)$, then there is $(z,y)\in E(D)$ with $z\in V^{+}$. Consequently, by hypothesis, $z$ is a sink. A contradiction, since $(z,y)\in E(D)$. Therefore, $L_{3}(C)=\emptyset$ and $C$ is a minimal vertex cover.
\qed

\begin{lem}\label{lem2-cycle}
Let $D$ be a weighted oriented graph, where $G\simeq C_{n}$ with $n\geq 6$. Hence, $D$ has the minimal-strong property if and only if the vertices of $V^{+}$ are sinks.
\end{lem}

\proof
$\Leftarrow)$ By Lemma \ref{lem1-cycle}.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$\Rightarrow)$ By contradiction, suppose there is $(z,y)\in E(D)$, with $z\in V^{+}$. We can assume $G=(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n},x_{1})\simeq C_{n}$, with $x_{2}=y$ and $x_{3}=z$. We take a strong vertex cover $C$ in the following form: $C=\{x_{1},x_{3},\ldots, x_{n-1}\}\cup \{x_{2}\}$ if $n$ is even or $C=\{x_{1},x_{3},\ldots, x_{n-2}\}\cup \{x_{2},x_{n-1}\}$ if $n$ is odd. Consequently, if $x\in C$ and $N_{D}(x)\subseteq C$, then $x=x_{2}$. Hence, $L_{3}(C)=\{x_{2}\}$. Furthermore $(x_{3},x_{2})\in E(D)$ with $x_{3}\in V^{+}$. Thus, $x_{3}$ is not a source, so, $(x_{4},x_{3})\in E(D)$. Then, $x_{3}\in L_{2}(C)$. This implies $C$ is a strong vertex cover. But $L_{3}(C)\neq \emptyset$. A contradiction, since $D$ has the minimal-strong property.
\qed

\begin{center}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=.5pt,scale=0.75]
		\tikzstyle{every node}=[inner sep=0pt, minimum width=5.5pt]

\tiny{
\node[draw, circle] (1) at (0,0){$x_{1}$};
\node[draw, circle] (2) at (2,0) {$x_{2}$};
\node[draw, circle] (5) at (0,-2) {$x_{5}$};
\node[draw, circle] (3) at (2,-2){$x_{3}$};
\node[draw, circle] (4) at (1,-3.5){$x_{4}$};

\draw[->] (2) to (1);
\draw[->] (5) to (1);
\draw[->] (4) to (5);
\draw[->] (4) to (3);
\draw[->] (3) to (2);

\node at (0,.4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (2,.4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (-.7,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{5})\neq 1$}}
\node at (1,-3.9) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (2.55,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{3})\neq 1$}}
\node at (1,1) {\normalsize{$D_{1}$}};

\node[draw, circle] (1) at (4,0){$x_{1}$};
\node[draw, circle] (2) at (6,0) {$x_{2}$};
\node[draw, circle] (5) at (4,-2) {$x_{5}$};
\node[draw, circle] (3) at (6,-2){$x_{3}$};
\node[draw, circle] (4) at (5,-3.5){$x_{4}$};

\draw[->] (1) to (5);
\draw[line width=1pt] (5) -- (4);
\draw[->] (2) to (1);
\draw[line width=1pt] (4) -- (3);
\draw[->] (3) to (2);

\node at (4,.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{1})\neq 1$}}
\node at (6,.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{2})\neq 1$}}
\node at (3.6,-2) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (5,-3.9) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (6.4,-2) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (5,1) {\normalsize{$D_{2}$}};

\node[draw, circle] (1) at (8,0){$x_{1}$};
\node[draw, circle] (2) at (10,0) {$x_{2}$};
\node[draw, circle] (5) at (8,-2) {$x_{5}$};
\node[draw, circle] (3) at (10,-2){$x_{3}$};
\node[draw, circle] (4) at (9,-3.5){$x_{4}$};

\draw[line width=1pt] (2) -- (1);
\draw[->] (1) to (5);
\draw[->] (5) to (4);
\draw[->] (4) to (3);
\draw[line width=1pt] (3) -- (2);

\node at (8,0.4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (10,.4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (7.4,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{5})\neq 1$}}
\node at (9,-4) {\tiny{$w(x_{4})\neq 1$}}
\node at (10.7,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{3})\neq 1$}}
\node at (9,1) {\normalsize{$D_{3}$}};

\node[draw, circle] (1) at (13,0){$x_{1}$};
\node[draw, circle] (2) at (15,0) {$x_{2}$};
\node[draw, circle] (5) at (13,-2) {$x_{5}$};
\node[draw, circle] (3) at (15,-2){$x_{3}$};
\node[draw, circle] (4) at (14,-3.5){$x_{4}$};

\draw[->] (1) to (2);
\draw[->] (2) to (3);
\draw[->] (4) to (3);
\draw[->] (4) to (5);
\draw[line width=1pt] (5) -- (1);

\node at (13,0.4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (15,.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{2})\neq 1$}}
\node at (12.4,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_{5})\neq 1$}}
\node at (14,-4) {\tiny{$1$}}
\node at (15.5,-2.4) {\tiny{$w(x_3)\neq 1$}}
\node at (14,1) {\normalsize{$D_{4}$}};
}
\end{tikzpicture}

\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

\end{center}

\begin{thm}
If $G\simeq C_{n}$, then $I(D)$ is unmixed if and only if one of the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $n=3$ and there is $x\in V(D)$ such that $w(x)=1$.
\item $n\in\{4,5,7\}$ and the vertices of $V^{+}$ are sinks.
\item $n=5$, there is $(x,y)\in E(D)$ with $w(x)=w(y)=1$ and $D\not\simeq D_{1}, D\not\simeq D_{2}, D\not\simeq D_{3}$.
\item $D\simeq D_{4}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\proof
$\Rightarrow)$ By Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $D$ has the minimal- strong property and $G$ is unmixed. Then, by \cite[Exercise 2.4.22]{gitler-Vill}, $n\in\{3,4,5,7\}$. If $n=3$, then by Remark \ref{remark-mixed}, $D$ satisfies $1)$. If $n=7$, then by Lemma \ref{lem2-cycle}, $D$ satisfies $2)$. Now suppose $n=4$ and $D$ does not satisfies $2)$, then we can assume $x_{1}\in V^{+}$ and $(x_{1},x_{2})\in E(D)$. Consequently, $(x_{4},x_{1})\in E(G)$, since $w(x_{1})\neq 1$. Furthermore, $\mathcal{C}=\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ is a vertex cover with $L_{3}(\mathcal{C})=\{x_2\}$. Thus, $x_{1}\in L_{2}(\mathcal{C})$ and $(x_1,x_2)\in E(D)$ so $\mathcal{C}$ is strong. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}$ is not minimal. This implies $D$ satisfies $2)$. Finally suppose $n=5$. If $D\simeq D_{1}$, then $\mathcal{C}_{1}=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5\}$ is a vertex cover with $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_{1})=\{x_1,x_2\}$. Also $(x_{5},x_1), (x_{3},x_{2})\in E(D)$ with $x_{5},x_{3}\in V^{+}$. Consequently, $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ is strong, since $x_{5},x_{3}\in L_{2}(\mathcal{C}_{1})$. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ is not minimal. If $D\simeq D_{2}$, then $\mathcal{C}_{2}=\{x_1,x_2,x_4,x_5\}$ is a vertex cover where $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_{2})=\{x_1,x_5\}$ and $(x_{2},x_1), (x_{1},x_{5})\in E(D)$ with $x_{2}, x_{1}\in V^{+}$. Hence, $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ is strong, since $x_{2},x_{1}\notin L_{1}(\mathcal{C}_{2})$. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ is not minimal. If $D\simeq D_{3}$, $\mathcal{C}_{3}=\{x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5\}$ is a vertex cover where $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_{3})=\{x_3,x_4\}$ and $(x_{4},x_3), (x_{5},x_{4})\in E(D)$ with $x_{4},x_{5}\in V^{+}$. Thus, $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ is strong, since $x_{4},x_{5}\notin L_{1}(\mathcal{C}_{3})$. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}_{3}$ is not minimal. Now, since $n=5$ and by $3)$ we can assume $(x_2,x_3)\in E(D)$, $x_{2},x_{3}\in V^{+}$ and there are not two adjacent vertices with weight $1$. Since $x_2\in V^{+}$, $(x_1,x_2)\in E(D)$. Suppose there are not $3$ vertices $z_1,z_2,z_3$ in $V^{+}$ such that $(z_1,z_2,z_3)$ is a path in $G$, then $w(x_4)=w(x_1)=1$. Furthermore, $w(x_5)\neq 1$, since there are not adjacent vertices with weight $1$. So, $\mathcal{C}_4=\{x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5\}$ is a vertex cover of $D$, where $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_4)=\{x_3,x_4\}$. Also $(x_2,x_3)\in E(G)$ with $w(x_{2})\neq 1$. Hence, if $(x_{3},x_4)\in E(D)$ or $(x_{5},x_{4})\in E(D)$, then $\mathcal{C}_4$ is strong, since $x_{3},x_{5}\in V^{+}$. But $\mathcal{C}_{4}$ is not minimal. Consequently, $(x_{4},x_3),(x_4,x_5)\in E(D)$ and $D\simeq D_{4}$. Now, we can assume there is a path $(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})$ in $D$ such that $z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\in V^{+}$. Since there are not adjacent vertices with weight $1$, we can suppose there is $z_{4}\in V^{+}$ such that $\mathcal{L}=(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)$ is a path. We take $\{z_5\}=V(D)\setminus V(\mathcal(L))$ and we can assume $(z_2,z_3)\in E(D)$. This implies, $(z_1,z_2)$, $(z_5,z_1)\in E(D)$, since $z_1,z_2\in V^{+}$. Thus, $\mathcal{C}_{5}=\{z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}$ is a vertex cover with $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_{5})=\{z_2,z_3\}$. Then $\mathcal{C}_{5}$ is strong, since $(z_1,z_2), (z_2,z_3)\in E(D)$ with $z_2\in L_{3}(\mathcal{C}_{5})$ and $z_1\in L_{2}(\mathcal{C}_{5})$. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}_{5}$ is not minimal.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
$\Leftarrow)$ If $n\in\{3,4,5,7\}$, then by \cite[Exercise 2.4.22]{gitler-Vill} $G$ is unmixed. By Theorem \ref{unmixed}, we will only prove that $D$ has the minimal-strong property. If $D$ satisfies $2)$, then by Lemma \ref{lem1-cycle}, $D$ has the minimal-strong property. If $D$ satisfies $1)$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is a strong vertex cover, then by Proposition \ref{prop-unicycle}, $|\mathcal{C}|\leq 2$. This implies $\mathcal{C}$ is minimal. Now, suppose $n=5$ and $\mathcal{C}^\prime$ is a strong vertex cover of $D$ with $|\mathcal{C}^\prime|\geq 4$. If $D\simeq D_4$, then $x_2,x_5\notin L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)$, since $(N_{D}^{-}(x_{2})\cup N_{D}^{-}(x_{5}))\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$. So $N_{D}(x_{2})\not\subseteq \mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ and $N_{D}(x_{5})\not\subseteq \mathcal{C}^{\prime}$. Consequently, $x_{1}\notin \mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ implies $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}=\{x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5\}$. But $x_4\in L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^{\prime})$ and $N_{D}^{-}(x_{4})=\emptyset$. A contradiction, since $\mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ is strong. Now assume $D$ satisfies $3)$. Suppose there is a path $\mathcal{L}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ in $G$ such that $w(x_1)=w(x_2)=w(x_3)=1$. We can suppose $(x_4,x_5)\in E(D)$ where $V(D)\setminus V(\mathcal{L})=\{x_4,x_5\}$. Since $w(x_1)=w(x_3)=1$, $x_2\notin L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)$. If $x_2\notin \mathcal{C}^\prime$, then $\mathcal{C}^\prime=\{x_1,x_3,x_4,x_5\}$ and  $x_4\in L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)$. But $N_{D}^{-}(x_4)=\{x_3\}$ and $w(x_3)=1$. A contradiction, hence $x_2\in \mathcal{C}^\prime$. We can assume $x_3\notin\mathcal{C}^\prime$, since $x_2\notin L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)$. This implies $\mathcal{C}^\prime=\{x_1,x_2,x_4,x_5\}$ and $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)=\{x_1,x_5\}$. Thus, $(x_5,x_1)\in E(D)$, $x_{5},x_{4}\in V^{+}$. Consequently $(x_3,x_4)\in E(D)$, since $x_4\in V^{+}$. A contradiction, since $D\not\simeq D_{2}$. Hence, there are not three consecutive vertices whose weights are $1$. Consequently, since $D$ satisfies $3)$, we can assume $w(x_1)=w(x_2)=1$, $w(x_3)\neq 1$ and $w(x_5)\neq 1$. If $w(x_4)=1$, then $x_3,x_5\notin L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)$ since $N_{D}(x_3,x_5)\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$. This implies $N_{D}(x_{3})\not\subseteq \mathcal{C}^{\prime}$ and $N_{D}(x_5)\not\subseteq \mathcal{C}^{\prime}$. Then, $x_4\notin \mathcal{C}^\prime$ and $\mathcal{C}^\prime=\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5\}$. Thus, $(x_5,x_1), (x_3,x_2)\in E(D)$, since $L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^\prime)=\{x_1,x_2\}$. Consequently, $(x_4,x_5), (x_4,x_3)\in E(D)$, since $x_5,x_3\in V^{+}$. A contradiction, since $D\not \simeq D_1$. So, $w(x_4)\neq 1$ and we can assume $(x_5,x_4)\in E(D)$, since $x_4\in V^{+}$. Furthermore $(x_1,x_5)\in E(D)$, since $x_5\in V^{+}$. Hence, $(x_3,x_4)\in E(D)$, since $D\not\simeq D_{3}$. Then $(x_2,x_3)\in E(D)$, since $x_3\in V^{+}$. This implies $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_5\notin L_{3}(\mathcal{C}^{\prime})$, since $N^{-}_{D}(x_{i})\cap V^{+}=\emptyset$ for $i\in \{1,2,3,5\}$. A contradiction, since $|\mathcal{C}^{\prime}|\geq 4$. Therefore $D$ has the minimal-strong property.
\qed

\section{Cohen-Macaulay weighted oriented graphs}
In this section we study the Cohen-Macaulayness of $I(D)$. In particular we give a combinatorial characterization of this property when $D$ is a path or $D$ is complete. Furthermore, we show the Cohen-Macaulay property depends of the characteristic of $K$.

\begin{defn}
The weighted oriented graph $D$ is {\it Cohen- Macaulay\/} over the field $K$ if the ring $R/I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

\end{defn}

\begin{rem}\label{radical}
If $G$ is the underlying graph of $D$, then $rad(I(D))=I(G)$.
\end{rem}

\begin{prop}
If $I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then $I(G)$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $D$ has the minimal-strong property.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
 By Remark \ref{radical}, $I(G)=rad(I(D))$, then by \cite[Theorem 2.6]{Radical-Herzog}, $I(G)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.  Furthermore $I(D)$ is unmixed, since $I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay. Hence, by Theorem \ref{unmixed}, $D$ has the minimal-strong property.

\end{proof}

\begin{exmp}
In Example \ref{example1} and Example \ref{example2} $I(D)$ is mixed. Hence, $I(D)$ is not Cohen-Macaulay, but $I(G)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{exmp}

\begin{conj}
$I(D)$ is Cohen- Macaulay if and only if $I(G)$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $D$ has the minimal-strong property. Equivalently $I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if $I(D)$ is unmixed and $I(G)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{conj}

\begin{prop}\label{prop-path}
Let $D$ be a weighted oriented graph such that $V=\{x_{1},\ldots, x_{k}\}$ and whose underlying graph is a path $G=(x_{1},\ldots, x_{k})$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $R/I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\item $I(D)$ is unmixed.
\item $k=2$ or $k=4$. In the second case, if $(x_{2},x_{1})\in E(D)$ or $(x_{3},x_{4})\in E(D)$, then $w(x_{2})=1$  or $w(x_3)=1$ respectively.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}

\proof
{\it 1)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 2)} By \cite[Corollary 1.5.14]{gitler-Vill}.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
{\it 2)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 3)} By Theorem \ref{unmixed-bipartite}, $G$ has a perfect matching, since $D$ is bipartite. Consequently $k$ is even and $\{x_1,x_2\}, \{x_3,x_4\}, \ldots, \{x_{k-1},x_k\}$ is a perfect matching. If $k\geq 6$, then by Theorem \ref{unmixed-bipartite}, we have $\{x_2,x_5\}\in E(G)$, since $\{x_2,x_3\}$ and $\{x_4,x_5\}\in E(G)$. A contradiction since $\{x_2,x_5\}\notin E(G)$. Therefore $k\in\{2,4\}$. Furthermore by Theorem \ref{unmixed-bipartite}, $w(x_{2})=1$ or $w(x_{3})=1$ when $(x_{2},x_{1})\in E(D)$ or $(x_{3},x_{4})\in E(D)$, respectively.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
{\it 3)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 1)} We take $I=I(D)$. If $k=2$, then we can assume $(x_1,x_2)\in E(D)$. So, $I=(x_{1}x_{2}^{w(x_2)})=(x_{1})\cap (x_{2}^{w(x_{2})})$. Thus, by Remark \ref{ass-primes}, ${\rm Ass}(I)=\{(x_1),(x_2)\}$. This implies, ${\rm ht}(I)=1$ and $\dim(R/I)=k-1=1$. Also, ${\rm depth}(R/I)\geq 1$, since $(x_1,x_2)\notin {\rm Ass}(I)$. Hence, $R/I$ is Cohen-Macaulay. Now, if $k=4$, then ${\rm ht}(I)={\rm ht}({\rm rad}(I))={\rm ht}(I(G))=2$. Consequently, $\dim(R/I)=k-2=2$. Furthermore one of the following sets $\{x_2-x_1^{w(x_1)},x_3-x_4^{w(x_4)}\}$, $\{x_2-x_1^{w(x_1)},x_4-x_3^{w(x_3)}\}$, $\{x_1-x_2^{w(x_2)},x_4-x_3^{w(x_3)}\}$ is a regular sequence of $R/I$, then ${\rm depth}(R/I)\geq 2$. Therefore, $I$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\qed

\begin{thm}
If $G$ is a complete graph, then the following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[1)]
\item $I(D)$ is unmixed.
\item $I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\item There are not $D_1,\ldots, D_{s}$ unicycles orientes subgraphs of $D$ such that $V(D_{1}),\ldots, V(D_s)$ is a partition of $V(D)$
\end{enumerate}

\end{thm}

\proof
 We take $I=I(D)$. Since $I(G)=rad(I)$ and $G$ is complete, ${\rm ht}(I)={\rm ht}(I(G))=n-1$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
{\it 1)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 3)} Since ${\rm ht}(I)=n-1$ and $I$ is unmixed, $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\notin {\rm Ass}(I)$. Thus, by Remark \ref{ass-primes}, $V(D)$ is not a strong vertex cover of $D$. Therefore, by Proposition \ref{prop-unicycle}, $D$ satisfies $3)$.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
{\it 3)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 2)} By Proposition \ref{prop-unicycle}, $V(D)$ is not a strong vertex cover of $D$. Consequently, by Remark \ref{ass-primes}, $(x_1,\ldots, x_n)\notin {\rm Ass}(I)$. This implies, ${\rm depth}(R/I)\geq 1$. Furthermore, $\dim(R/I)=1$, since ${\rm ht}(I)=n-1$. Therefore $I$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

\vspace{1ex}
\noindent
{\it 2)} $\Rightarrow$ {\it 1)} By \cite[Corollary 1.5.14]{gitler-Vill}.

\qed

\vspace{1ex}

If $D$ is complete or $D$ is a path, then the Cohen-Macaulay property does not depend of the field $K$. It is not true in general, see the following example.

\begin{exmp}
Let $D$ be the following weighted oriented graph:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[line width=1.1pt,scale=0.75]
		\tikzstyle{every node}=[inner sep=0pt, minimum width=6.5pt]

\node[draw, circle] (3) at (0,0){$x_{3}$};
\node[draw, circle] (2) at (0,3) {$x_{2}$};
\node[draw, circle] (1) at (0,5) {$x_{1}$};
\node[draw, circle] (9) at (5,0){$x_{9}$};
\node[draw, circle] (8) at (5.3,1.5){$x_{8}$};
\node[draw, circle] (7) at (5,6.5) {$x_{7}$};
\node[draw, circle] (6) at (3,1) {$x_{6}$};
\node[draw, circle] (5) at (2.3,5.3) {$x_{5}$};
 \node[draw, circle] (4) at (2.5,7) {$x_{4}$};
\node[draw, circle] (11) at (7,3) {$x_{11}$};
\node[draw, circle] (10) at (8,6){$x_{10}$};

\draw[->] (4) to (1);
\draw[->] (8) to (1);
\draw[->] (5) to (1);
\draw[->] (9) to (1);

\draw[->] (10) to (2);
\draw[->] (5) to (2);
\draw[->] (11) to (2);
\draw[->] (8) to (2);
\draw[->] (6) to (2);

\draw[->] (7) to (3);
\draw[->] (10) to (3);
\draw[->] (6) to (3);
\draw[->] (9) to (3);

\draw[->] (4) to (8);
\draw[->] (7) to (4);
\draw[->] (4) to (11);

\draw[->] (10) to (5);
\draw[->] (11) to (5);
\draw[->] (9) to (5);

\draw[->] (9) to (6);
\draw[->] (6) to (8);
\draw[->] (6) to (11);

\draw[->] (10) to (7);
\draw[->] (11) to (7);

\draw[->] (11) to (9);

\node at (-.45,0) {$2$};
\node at (-.45,3) {$2$};
\node at (-.45,5) {$2$};
\node at (3,.5) {$1$}
\node at (2.5,7.5) {$1$}
\node at (2.3,5.8) {$1$}
\node at (5.4,-.25) {$1$}
\node at (5.7,1.5) {$1$}
\node at (5,7) {$1$}
\node at (8.5,6) {$1$}
\node at (7.5,3) {$1$}

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

\noindent
Hence,
\begin{center}
$I(D)=(x_{1}^{2}x_{4}, x_{1}^{2}x_{8}, x_{1}^{2}x_{5}, x_{1}^{2}x_{9}, x_{2}^{2}x_{10},x_{2}^{2}x_{5}, x_{2}^{2}x_{11},x_{2}^{2}x_{8}, x_{2}^{2}x_{6}, x_{3}^{2}x_{7}, x_{3}^{2}x_{10}, x_{3}^{2}x_{6},$

$x_{3}^{2}x_{9}, x_{4}x_{8}, x_{4}x_{7}, x_{4}x_{11}, x_{5}x_{10}, x_{5}x_{9}, x_{5}x_{11}, x_{6}x_{8}, x_{6}x_{9}, x_{6}x_{11}, x_{7}x_{10}, x_{7}x_{11}, x_{9}x_{11})$.
\end{center}
\noindent
By \cite[Example 2.3]{ex-CM-char}, $I(G)$ is Cohen- Macaulay when the characteristic of the field $K$ is zero but it is not Cohen-Macaulay in characteristic $2$. Consequently, $I(D)$ is not Cohen-Macaulay when the characteristic of $K$ is $2$. Also, $I(G)$ is unmixed. Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lem1-cycle}, $I(D)$ has the minimal-strong property, then $I(D)$ is unmixed. Using {\it Macaulay$2$\/} \cite{mac2} we show that $I(D)$ is Cohen-Macaulay when the characteristic of $K$ is zero.
\end{exmp}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}


Eigenvalue estimates for the Laplacian on a metric tree

Abstract: We provide explicit upper bounds for the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a finite metric tree subject to standard vertex conditions. The results include estimates depending on the average length of the edges or the diameter. In particular, we establish a sharp upper bound for the spectral gap, i.e. the smallest positive eigenvalue, and show that equilateral star graphs are the unique maximizers of the spectral gap among all trees of a given average length.

\section{Introduction}

Spectral theory of differential operators on metric graphs, so-called quantum graphs, has been a very active field of research in recent years, see, e.g., the monograph~\cite{BK13}. Amongst other topics, particular attention was paid to eigenvalue inequalities for Laplace and Schr\"odinger operators on metric graphs. For a selection of recent contributions in this field we refer the reader to~\cite{BK12,DR16,D15,DH10,EFK11,EJ12,KKT16,LP08,NS00} and the references therein. An often-considered model operator is the standard (sometimes also called free or Kirchhoff) Laplacian $- \Delta_G$ on a finite metric graph~$G$, i.e., the (negative) second derivative operator in $L^2 (G)$ subject to standard matching conditions at all vertices; cf.\ Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries} for the details. The selfadjoint operator $- \Delta_G$ and the properties of its purely discrete spectrum have been studied intensively and there has been considerable interest in explicit bounds for the eigenvalues
\begin{align*}
 0 = \lambda_1 (G) < \lambda_2 (G) \leq \lambda_3 (G) \leq \dots
\end{align*}
of $- \Delta_G$ and, particularly, for the {\em spectral gap}, i.e., the first positive eigenvalue~$\lambda_2 (G)$, see~\cite{F05,K15,KMN13,KN14,N87}. In the recent paper~\cite{KKMM16} the estimate
\begin{align}\label{eq:KKMMboundIntro}
 \lambda_2 (G) \leq \frac{|E|^2 \pi^2}{L (G)^2}
\end{align}
was established, where $|E|$ denotes the number of edges and $L (G)$ is the total length of $G$, and the class of maximizers of $\lambda_2 (G)$ among all graphs of a given average length $L (G) / |E|$ is specified. Moreover, it was shown in~\cite{KKMM16} that an upper estimate for the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$ in terms of the diameter of $G$ only cannot hold.

In the present note we consider an important subclass of graphs, the class of trees, i.e., graphs without cycles. Our main aim is to expose two peculiarities of this class of graphs with respect to which they differ essentially from the general case. First, we prove that within the class of trees the estimate~\eqref{eq:KKMMboundIntro} can be improved and that, in fact,
\begin{align}\label{eq:averageIntro}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 |E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2}
\end{align}
holds for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ if $G$ is any finite tree with $|E| \geq 2$. For the spectral gap of a tree this implies
\begin{align}\label{eq:gapToll}
 \lambda_2 (G) \leq \frac{|E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2}.
\end{align}
Moreover, we show that equality in~\eqref{eq:gapToll} holds if and only if $G$ is an equilateral star graph. In other words, the equilateral star graphs are the unique maximizers of the spectral gap among all trees of a given average length.

Second, we observe that trees---in contrast to general graphs---admit an upper bound for the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$ in terms of the diameter only, namely,
\begin{align}\label{eq:diamIntro}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{\diam (G)^2}
\end{align}
for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. This is related to the fact that the diameter of a tree is given by the length of a path which connects two boundary vertices. The proofs of both estimates~\eqref{eq:averageIntro} and~\eqref{eq:diamIntro} rely on a domain monotonicity principle for the eigenvalues of the free Laplacian on a graph.

In addition to these results we provide an eigenvalue bound of slightly different nature: We compare the eigenvalues of the standard Laplacian on a tree $G$ with those of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $G$, i.e.\ the Laplacian subject to a Dirichlet condition at each vertex. This leads to the estimate
\begin{align}\label{eq:soso}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \lambda_k^{\rm D}, \quad k \in \mathbb{N},
\end{align}
for any finite tree $G$, where $\lambda_1^{\rm D} \leq \lambda_2^{\rm D} \leq \dots$ are the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian. This can be viewed as a graph counterpart of the inequality between Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a Euclidean domain found in~\cite{F91}, see also~\cite{F04}. We remark that the estimate~\eqref{eq:soso} can also be derived from Lemma~4.5 in~\cite{BBW15} with a totally different proof. However, the proof provided in the present paper is a little more direct and allows, in addition, to characterize the class of trees for which the estimate~\eqref{eq:soso} is strict for all $k$. Note that the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian depend only on the edge lengths but are independent of the geometry of $G$ and can be computed explicitly. Therefore the estimate~\eqref{eq:soso} leads to explicit estimates for the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$. As an immediate consequence we get
\begin{align}\label{eq:juche}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{L_{\max}^2}, \quad k \in \mathbb{N},
\end{align}
for any finite tree $G$, where $L_{\max}$ is the length of the longest edge in $G$. We provide an example which shows that the bound~\eqref{eq:juche} is sharp for the spectral gap, i.e.\ for $k = 1$. Our proof of~\eqref{eq:soso} is based on the construction of appropriate test functions similar to those used in the PDE case in~\cite{F04}.

\begin{ack}
The author wishes to thank Gregory Berkolaiko for drawing his attention to the eigenvalue inequalities contained in~\cite{BBW15}. Moreover, the author gratefully acknowledges financial support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project P~25162-N26.
\end{ack}

\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:preliminaries}

In this section we provide preliminaries on Laplacians on metric graphs; for more details we refer the reader to the monograph~\cite{BK13}. A finite metric graph is a discrete graph $G$ consisting of a finite set of vertices $V$ and a finite set of edges $E$ which is equipped, in addition, with a length function $L : E \to (0, \infty)$, which assigns a length to each edge. Any edge $e \in E$ is then identified with the interval $[0, L (e)]$, and this way of choosing coordinates induces a metric on $G$. In the following we simply write that $G$ is a graph and mean a metric graph. We denote the total length of a graph by $L (G) = \sum_{e \in E} L (e)$ and say that a graph $G$ is equilateral if the length function $L$ is constant on $E$. For any $e \in E$ we write $o (e)$ for the vertex from which the edge $e$ originates and $t (e)$ for the vertex at which $e$ terminates. Throughout this paper we will assume for simplicity that $G$ is connected, that is, each two vertices in $G$ are connected by a path; the obvious analogs of the results for disconnected graphs hold as well. Moreover, in most of what follows we assume that $G$ is a tree, i.e., $G$ does not contain cycles or, equivalently, $|V| = |E| + 1$. By a boundary vertex we mean a vertex of degree one; accordingly, a boundary edge is an edge which is incident to a boundary vertex. Vertices of degree two or larger are called interior vertices.

On a finite, connected graph $G$ we denote by $L^2 (G)$ the space of square-integrable functions $f : G \to \mathbb{C}$, equipped with the standard norm and inner product. For $f \in L^2 (G)$ we denote by $f_e$ the restriction of $f$ to an edge $e \in E$, identified with a function on $[0, L (e)]$. Moreover, we consider the Sobolev spaces
\begin{align*}
 \widetilde H^k (G) = \bigoplus_{e \in E} H^k (e), \quad k = 1, 2, \dots,
\end{align*}
and say that a function $f \in \widetilde H^1 (G)$ is continuous on $G$ if and only if the limits of $f_e$ and $f_{\hat e}$ towards a vertex $v$ coincide whenever $e$ and $\hat e$ are edges incident to $v$. Accordingly we define
\begin{align*}
 H^1 (G) = \big\{ f \in \widetilde H^1 (G) : f~\text{is~continuous~on}~G \big\}.
\end{align*}
For $f \in H^1 (G) \cap \widetilde H^2 (G)$ we use the abbreviation
\begin{align*}
 \partial_\nu f (v) = \sum_{t (e) = v} f_{e}' (L (e)) - \sum_{o (e) = v} f_e' (0)
\end{align*}
for the sum of the normal derivatives of the edges incident to a vertex $v \in V$.

The object of our interest is the {\em standard Laplacian} $- \Delta_G$ in $L^2 (G)$ defined by
\begin{align*}
 (- \Delta_G f)_e & = - f_e'', \quad e \in E, \\
 {\text{\rm dom\,}} (- \Delta_G) & = \big\{ f \in H^1 (G) \cap \widetilde H^2 (G) : \partial_\nu f (v) = 0~\text{for~all}~v \in V \big\}.
\end{align*}
The operator $- \Delta_G$ is selfadjoint in $L^2 (G)$ and its spectrum consists of isolated, nonnegative eigenvalues with finite multiplicities. A nondecreasing enumeration of all eigenvalues, counted with multiplicities, is given by the min-max principle
\begin{align}\label{eq:minmax}
 \lambda_k (G) = \min_{\substack{F \subset H^1 (G) \\ \dim F = k}} \max_{\substack{f \in F \\ f \neq 0}} \frac{\int_G |f'|^2 d x}{\int_G |f|^2 d x}, \quad k = 1, 2, \dots;
\end{align}
cf.~\cite[Chapter~3]{BK13}. Note that in the formula~\eqref{eq:minmax} we have $\lambda_1 (G) = 0$, which is obtained by plugging in any constant function $f$ on~$G$. For later use we also point out the following consequence of~\eqref{eq:minmax}: Denote by $N_G (\iota)$ the number of eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$, counted with multiplicities, within the real interval $\iota$, that is,
\begin{align*}
 N_G (\iota) = \# \left\{k \in \mathbb{N} : \lambda_k (G) \in \iota \right\}.
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:numberEV}
 N_G ([0, \mu]) = \max \Big\{\!\dim F : F \subset H^1 (G), \int_G |f'|^2 d x \leq \mu \int_G |f|^2 d x, f \in F \Big\}
\end{align}
holds for any $\mu \geq 0$.

In the following we shortly visit two basic classes of trees and the spectra of the corresponding standard Laplacians; they will play a role later.

\begin{example}\label{ex:path}
A {\em path graph} is a connected tree $G$ which contains only vertices of degrees one and two. Due to the standard vertex conditions of each $f \in {\text{\rm dom\,}} (- \Delta_G)$ the Laplacian $- \Delta_G$ on a path graph $G$ can be identified with the operator $- \frac{d^2}{d x^2}$ on an interval of length $L (G)$ subject to Neumann boundary conditions at both endpoints. Thus the nonzero eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$ are given by
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) = \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{L (G)^2}, \quad k \in \mathbb{N},
\end{align*}
for any path graph $G$.
\end{example}

\begin{example}\label{ex:star}
A {\em star graph} is a tree $G$ with a vertex $v_0$ such that each edge $e \in E$ is incident to $v_0$. We assume $|E| \geq 2$ for any star graph. For an equilateral star graph with constant edge length $L = L (e)$ for each $e \in E$, a simple calculation shows that the spectrum of $- \Delta_G$ consists of the numbers
\begin{align*}
 \frac{m^2 \pi^2}{L^2} \quad \text{and} \quad \frac{(m + \frac{1}{2})^2 \pi^2}{L^2}, \quad m = 0, 1, 2, \dots,
\end{align*}
where each eigenvalue of the latter form has the multiplicity $|E| - 1$ and each eigenvalue of the form $\frac{m^2 \pi^2}{L^2}$ has multiplicity one. For the eigenvalues counted with multiplicities this means
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_{|E| j + 1} (G) = \frac{j^2 \pi^2}{L^2} \quad \text{and} \quad \lambda_{|E| j + 2} (G) = \dots = \lambda_{|E| j + |E|} (G) = \frac{(j + \frac{1}{2})^2 \pi^2}{L^2},
\end{align*}
$j = 0, 1, 2, \dots$ In particular, the spectral gap is given by $\lambda_2 (G) = \frac{\pi^2}{4 L^2} = \frac{|E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2}$.
\end{example}

\section{Estimates involving the average length and the diameter}

In this section we provide estimates for the eigenvalues of the standard Laplacian on a tree in terms of the arithmetic mean of the edge lengths and in terms of the diameter. As a special case it turns out that among all trees of a given average length the equilateral star graphs are the unique maximizers of the spectral gap.

The proofs of the main results of this section are based on the following domain monotonicity principle. Following the terminology used in~\cite{KKMM16} we say that a {\em pendant graph} is attached to a given graph $H$ if an additional finite, connected graph is attached to precisely one vertex of $H$. We remark that the special case $\lambda_2 (G) \leq \lambda_2 (H)$ of the following proposition can also be derived from~\cite[Theorem~2]{KMN13} or~\cite[Lemma~2.3]{KKMM16}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:monotonicity}
Let $H$ be a finite, connected graph and let $G$ be the graph which arises from attaching pendant graphs to vertices of $H$. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:monotone}
 \lambda_k (G) \leq \lambda_k (H), \quad k \in \mathbb{N}.
\end{align}
If $H$ is a path graph and one of the boundary vertices of $H$ appears as an interior vertex in $G$ then the inequality is strict for all $k \geq 2$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
For $k = 1$ the inequality~\eqref{eq:monotone} is trivially satisfied. Let $k \geq 2$ and $\mu = \lambda_k (H) > 0$. Moreover, define $F = \spann \bigcup_{\lambda \leq \mu} \ker (- \Delta_H - \lambda)$. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:usualEst}
 \int_H |f'|^2 d x \leq \mu \int_H |f|^2 d x, \quad f \in F.
\end{align}
For each $f \in F$ let $\widetilde f : G \to \mathbb{C}$ be such that $\widetilde f |_H = f$ and $\widetilde f = f (v)$ identically on the pendant graph attached to a vertex $v$ of $H$, if any. Then $\widetilde f \in H^1 (G)$, the derivative $\widetilde f'$ vanishes on $G \setminus H$ and, hence,
\begin{align}\label{eq:fastFertig}
 \int_G |\widetilde f'|^2 d x = \int_H |f'|^2 d x \leq \mu \int_H |f|^2 d x \leq \mu \int_G |\widetilde f|^2 d x
\end{align}
by~\eqref{eq:usualEst}. As $\dim F \geq k$,~\eqref{eq:monotone} follows with the help of the min-max principle~\eqref{eq:minmax}.

Let us now assume that $H$ is a path graph and that there exists a boundary vertex $v$ of $H$ which is an interior vertex of $G$.  We claim that the inequality~\eqref{eq:fastFertig} is strict for each nontrivial $f \in F$. In fact, if we assume that for some nontrivial $f \in F$ we have $\int_G |\widetilde f'|^2 d x = \mu \int_G |\widetilde f|^2 d x$ then in particular the last inequality in~\eqref{eq:fastFertig} must be an equality, which implies $\widetilde f |_{G\setminus H} = 0$ and, in particular, $f (v) = 0$. Moreover, $f'$ vanishes on $v$ as $f \in {\text{\rm dom\,}} (- \Delta_H)$ and $v$ is a boundary vertex. As $- \widetilde f'' = \mu \widetilde f$ on the path graph $H$, which can be identified with a single interval, it follows $f = 0$ identically on $H$, a contradiction. Thus $\int_G |\widetilde f'|^2 d x < \mu \int_G |\widetilde f|^2 d x$ for all nontrivial $f \in F$ and the min-max principle implies the second assertion.
\end{proof}

With the help of Proposition~\ref{prop:monotonicity} we can prove the following theorem. Its proof extends an idea in the proof of~\cite[Theorem~4.2]{KKMM16}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:average}
Let $G$ be a finite, connected tree with $|E| \geq 2$. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:yippieh}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 |E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2}, \quad k \in \mathbb{N}.
\end{align}
Moreover, for $k = 1$ equality holds in~\eqref{eq:yippieh} if and only if $G$ is any equilateral star; for $k \geq 2$ equality holds in~\eqref{eq:yippieh} if and only if $G$ is an equilateral star with $|E| = 2$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $e_1, e_2$ be two distinct edges in $G$ such that $e_1 \geq e_2 \geq e$ holds for each $e \in E \setminus \{e_1\}$ and let $H$ be the unique path through $G$ which starts with $e_1$ and terminates with $e_2$. Note that the arithmetic mean of $L (e_1)$ and $L (e_2)$ is greater or equal to $L (G) / |E|$ and thus
\begin{align}\label{eq:einmal}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (H) = \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{L (H)^2} \leq \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{( L(e_1) + L (e_2) )^2} \leq \frac{k^2 |E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2},
\end{align}
see Example~\ref{ex:path}. Observe that $G$ can be obtained by attaching pendant graphs to the vertices of $H$ and thus Proposition~\ref{prop:monotonicity} together with~\eqref{eq:einmal} yields
\begin{align}\label{eq:undNochmal}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \lambda_{k + 1} (H) \leq \frac{k^2 |E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2},
\end{align}
which is the first assertion of the theorem. Note further that by Proposition~\ref{prop:monotonicity} the first inequality in~\eqref{eq:undNochmal} is strict if $H$ does not connect boundary vertices of $G$, i.e., if at least one of the edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ is not incident to a boundary vertex. Moreover, note that the first inequality in~\eqref{eq:einmal} is strict if $H$ contains edges additional to $e_1$ and $e_2$, i.e., if $e_1$ and $e_2$ are not incident to a joint vertex, and that the second inequality in~\eqref{eq:einmal} is strict if the arithmetic mean of $L (e_1)$ and $L (e_2)$ is not equal to the arithmetic mean of all edge lenghts, i.e., whenever $G$ is not equilateral. Summing up, equality in~\eqref{eq:undNochmal} is only possible if $G$ is equilateral and $e_1$ and $e_2$ are boundary edges which are incident to a joint vertex. But in the equilateral case the above reasoning is true for any choice of distinct edges $e_1, e_2$ of $G$. Hence equality in~\eqref{eq:undNochmal} is only possible if $G$ is equilateral and any two edges in $G$ are boundary edges which are incident to a joint vertex, that is, if $G$ is an equilateral star graph. It follows from the explicit representation of the eigenvalues of an equilateral star in Example~\ref{ex:star} that for $k = 1$ equality holds for any equilateral star and that for $k \geq 2$ this is only true if $G$ is an equilateral star consisting of only two edges. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

For the spectral gap of a finite tree we obtain the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:spectralGap}
For each finite, connected tree with $|E| \geq 2$ the spectral gap satisfies
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_2 (G) \leq \frac{|E|^2 \pi^2}{4 L (G)^2}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, equality holds if and only if $G$ is any equilateral star graph.
\end{corollary}

Next we come to estimates involving the diameter of the graph. Recall that the diameter $\diam (G)$ of a graph $G$ is defined as
\begin{align*}
 \diam (G) = \sup \left\{ {\text{\rm dist}} (x, y) : x, y \in G \right\},
\end{align*}
where ${\text{\rm dist}} (x, y)$ is the distance of two arbitrary points on the graph with respect to the metric induced by the parametrization of the edges. In particular, for a tree the diameter coincides with the length of the longest path between two boundary vertices.

It was shown in~\cite{KKMM16} that among all finite graphs of a given diameter there is no maximizer for the spectral gap: the authors of~\cite{KKMM16} construct a sequence of graphs $G_n$ of a fixed diameter such that $\lambda_2 (G_n) \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$. However, the situation is different within the class of finite trees, which can be observed in the following easy way.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:diameter}
Let $G$ be a finite, connected tree. Then
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{\diam (G)^2}
\end{align*}
holds for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
As $G$ is a tree, the diameter is attained by a path $H$ through $G$ which connects two boundary vertices. Moreover, $G$ can be obtained by attaching pendant trees to vertices of $H$. Thus Proposition~\ref{prop:monotonicity} implies
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \lambda_{k + 1} (H) = \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{L (H)^2} = \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{\diam (G)^2}
\end{align*}
for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$; cf.\ Example~\ref{ex:path}. This is the assertion of the theorem.
\end{proof}

We remark that equality in Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter} holds for each path graph and that for $k = 1$ equality is also satisfied for each equilateral star; cf.~Example~\ref{ex:star}.

\section{Estimates involving Dirichlet eigenvalues}

In this section we prove estimates for the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$ for a tree $G$ in terms of the Dirichlet eigenvalues of $G$. For the following theorem let $- \Delta_G^{\rm D}$ be the selfadjoint Dirichlet Laplacian in $L^2 (G)$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
 (- \Delta_G^{\rm D} f)_e & = - f_e'', \quad e \in E,\\
 {\text{\rm dom\,}} (- \Delta_G^{\rm D}) & = \big\{f \in \widetilde H^2 (G) \cap H^1 (G) : f (v) = 0~\text{for all}~v \in V \big\},
\end{align*}
and denote by $\lambda_1^{\rm D} (G) \leq \lambda_2^{\rm D} (G) \leq \dots$ its eigenvalues, counted with multiplicities. Note that for any given tree $G$ these eigenvalues can be computed explicitly. They are given by the numbers
\begin{align}\label{eq:DirichletEV}
 \frac{m^2 \pi^2}{L (e)^2}, \quad e \in E, m = 1, 2, \dots,
\end{align}
where eigenvalues appearing several times in~\eqref{eq:DirichletEV} have respective multiplicities. In particular, the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G^{\rm D}$ depend only on the edge lengths of $G$ and ignore the geometry of the graph. Note that variational inequalities immediately imply
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_k (G) \leq \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G)
\end{align*}
for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. This bound is not sharp even in the case of a graph consisting of a single interval of length $L$, where $\lambda_k (G) = (k - 1)^2 \pi^2 / L^2$ but $\lambda_k^{\rm D} (G) = k^2 \pi^2 / L^2$. In fact, for any tree it can be improved as follows; see also~\cite[Lemma~4.5]{BBW15}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:GD}
Let $G$ be a finite, connected tree. Then
\begin{align}\label{eq:Friedlander}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G)
\end{align}
holds for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Moreover, the inequality~\eqref{eq:Friedlander} is strict for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ if and only if $G$ contains two edges with rationally independent lengths.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ be arbitrary and let $\mu = \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G) > 0$. Moreover, define
\begin{align*}
 F = \spann \bigcup_{\lambda \leq \mu} \ker \big(- \Delta_G^{\rm D} - \lambda \big) \subset H^1 (G).
\end{align*}
Then $\dim F \geq k$ and
\begin{align}\label{eq:formMu}
 \int_G |f'|^2 d x \leq \mu \int_G |f|^2 d x, \quad f \in F.
\end{align}
Furthermore, let us define a function $g : G \to \mathbb{C}$ in the following way. Fix an arbitrary boundary vertex $v_0$ of $G$ and assume without loss of generality that the edges of $G$ are parametrized in the direction away from $v_0$, i.e., ${\text{\rm dist}} (o (e), v_0) < {\text{\rm dist}} (t (e), v_0)$ for each $e \in E$. For each $e \in E$ define
\begin{align}\label{eq:g}
 g_e (x) = e^{i \sqrt{\mu} ({\text{\rm dist}} (o (e), v_0) + x)}, \quad x \in [0, L (e)].
\end{align}
Then for each edge $e \in E$ we have
\begin{align*}
 g_e (0) = e^{i \sqrt{\mu} {\text{\rm dist}} (o (e), v_0)} \quad \text{and} \quad g_e (L (e)) = e^{i \sqrt{\mu} {\text{\rm dist}} (t (e), v_0)},
\end{align*}
which implies that $g$ is continuous on $G$. Thus $g \in H^1 (G)$. Clearly, $g$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq:wichtig}
 g' = i \sqrt{\mu} g \quad \text{and} \quad - g'' = \mu g
\end{align}
inside each edge.

Let now $f \in F$, $\eta \in \mathbb{C}$ and $h \in \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu)$. (Note that the latter space may be trivial.) Then integration by parts yields
\begin{align*}
 \int_G |f' + \eta g' + h'|^2 d x & = \int_G \big( |f'|^2 + |\eta g'|^2 + |h'|^2 \big) d x + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G (\eta g' + h') \overline{f'} d x \\
 & \quad + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G \eta g' \overline{h'} d x \\
 & = \int_G \big( |f'|^2 + |\eta g'|^2 + |h'|^2 \big) d x + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G (- \eta g'' - h'') \overline{f} d x \\
 & \quad + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G \eta g \overline{(- h'')} d x,
\end{align*}
where we have used $f (v) = \partial_\nu h (v) = 0$ for all $v \in V$. With the help of~\eqref{eq:formMu} and~\eqref{eq:wichtig} we conclude
\begin{align}\label{eq:jetztGehtsLos}
\begin{split}
 \int_G |f' + \eta g' + h'|^2 d x & \leq \mu \Big( \int_G \big( |f|^2 + |\eta g|^2 + |h|^2 \big) d x + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G (\eta g + h) \overline{f} d x \\
 & \qquad + 2 {\text{\rm Re}} \int_G \eta g \overline{h} d x \Big) \\
 & = \mu \int_G |f + \eta g + h|^2 d x.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that $|g (x)| = 1$ for all $x \in G$ and, hence, $g \notin F$. Thus~\eqref{eq:jetztGehtsLos} with $h = 0$ implies
\begin{align*}
 N_G ([0, \mu]) \geq \dim (F + \spann \{g\}) \geq k + 1;
\end{align*}
cf.~\eqref{eq:numberEV}. As $\mu = \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G)$, this implies the first assertion of the theorem.

Let us now come to the case that there exist two edges in $G$ with rationally independent edge lengths. Observe first that
\begin{align}\label{eq:linUnab}
 (F + \spann \{g\}) \cap \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu) = \{0\}.
\end{align}
Indeed, assume that for some $f \in F$ and $\eta \in \mathbb{C}$ we have $h := f + \eta g \in \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu)$. Then $f \in \ker (- \Delta_G^{\rm D} - \mu)$ and $f' + \eta g'$ vanishes on each boundary vertex of $G$. If there exists a boundary vertex $v$ with edge $e$ incident to $v$ such that $\sqrt{\mu} \notin \frac{\pi}{L (e)} \mathbb{N}$ then $f$ vanishes on $e$ and thus the derivative of $\eta g$ must vanish at $v$, which is only possible if $\eta = 0$. If, conversely, $\sqrt{\mu} \in \frac{\pi}{L (e)} \mathbb{N}$ for each boundary edge $e$ then the restriction of $f + \eta g$ to the tree $G'$ obtained from $G$ by removing all boundary edges belongs to $\ker (- \Delta_{G'} - \mu)$. Again we conclude $\eta = 0$ if $\sqrt{\mu} \notin \frac{\pi}{L (e)} \mathbb{N}$ for some boundary edge $e$ of $G'$ or we remove all boundary edges from $G'$. Since $G$ is a finite tree and contains two edges with rationally independent edges, after finitely many repetitions of this procedure we arrive at a boundary edge $e$ of a subgraph of $G$ such that $\sqrt{\mu} \notin \frac{\pi}{L (e)} \mathbb{N}$ and obtain $\eta = 0$, i.e., $f = h \in \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu)$. But this implies $f = 0$. Indeed, $f$ and $f'$ must both vanish at each boundary vertex of $G$ and hence must be zero identically on each boundary edge. Applying the standard vertex conditions, the same holds for all boundary edges of the tree obtained from $G$ by removing all boundary edges and then, successively, for each edge of $G$. As $G$ is a tree this can be repeated until no edges are left; hence $h = f = 0$ and we have shown~\eqref{eq:linUnab}. Using this and~\eqref{eq:jetztGehtsLos} we obtain
\begin{align*}
 N_G ([0, \mu]) \geq \dim F + 1 + \dim \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu) \geq k + 1 + \dim \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu),
\end{align*}
which leads to
\begin{align*}
 N_G ( [0, \mu) ) = N_G ([0, \mu]) - \dim \ker (- \Delta_G - \mu) \geq k + 1.
\end{align*}
As $\mu = \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G)$ this yields $\lambda_{k + 1} (G) < \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G)$.

Let now the edge lengths of $G$ be pairwise rationally dependent. Then there exists a real $x > 0$ such that $x L (e) \in \mathbb{N}$ for each $e \in E$. For each $e$ denote by $T_e^{\rm N}$ the selfadjoint operator $- \frac{d^2}{d x^2}$ in $L^2 (e)$ subject to Neumann boundary conditions and let $- \Delta_G^{\rm N}$ be the direct sum of the operators $T_e^{\rm N}$. Then $- \Delta_G^{\rm N}$ is selfadjoint in $L^2 (G)$ and its eigenvalues, counted with multiplicities, are given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:minMaxNeumann}
 \lambda_k^{\rm N} (G) = \min_{\substack{F \subset \widetilde H^1 (G) \\ \dim F = k}} \max_{\substack{f \in F \\ f \neq 0}} \frac{\int_G |f'|^2 d x}{\int_G |f|^2 d x}, \quad k \in \mathbb{N}.
\end{align}
On the one hand,~\eqref{eq:minMaxNeumann} and the inequality~\eqref{eq:Friedlander} obtained in the first part of the proof yield
\begin{align}\label{eq:vonWegen}
 \lambda_{k + 1}^{\rm N} (G) \leq \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \lambda_k^{\rm D} (G) = \lambda_{k + |E|}^{\rm N} (G)
\end{align}
for each $k \in \mathbb{N}$. On the other hand, note that for each $e \in E$ the number $x^2 \pi^2 = \frac{(x L (e))^2 \pi^2}{L (e)^2}$ is an eigenvalue of $T_e$ and $T_e$ has precisely $x L (e)$ eigenvalues strictly below $x^2 \pi^2$. Hence $- \Delta_G^{\rm N}$ has precisely $\sum_{e \in E} (x L (e)) = x L (G)$ eigenvalues strictly below $x^2 \pi^2$ and $x^2 \pi^2$ is eigenvalue of $- \Delta_G^{\rm N}$ with multiplicity $|E|$. Thus
\begin{align}\label{eq:vielGleich}
 \lambda_{x L (G) + 1}^{\rm N} (G) = \dots = \lambda_{x L (G) + |E|}^{\rm N} (G) = x^2 \pi^2.
\end{align}
Comparing~\eqref{eq:vonWegen} with~\eqref{eq:vielGleich} implies equality in~\eqref{eq:Friedlander} for $k = x L (G)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

A particularly simple consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:GD} is the following estimate; here $L_{\max}$ denotes the length of the longest edge in $G$.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:explicit}
Let $G$ be a finite, connected tree. Then the estimate
\begin{align}\label{eq:firstEstimate}
 \lambda_{k + 1} (G) \leq \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{L_{\max}^2}
\end{align}
holds for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$. If $G$ contains two edges with rationally independent lengths then the inequality~\eqref{eq:firstEstimate} is strict for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{corollary}

We remark that the estimate~\eqref{eq:firstEstimate} (and thus also the estimate in Theorem~\ref{thm:GD}) does not hold in general for a graph with cycles. For instance, for the graph formed by one vertex and one loop of length $L$ one has $\lambda_2 (G) = \frac{4 \pi^2}{L^2}$, which contradicts the estimate~\eqref{eq:firstEstimate} for $k = 1$ in this case. Furthermore, note that equality holds in~\eqref{eq:firstEstimate} if and only if $G$ is a single interval; this can be seen with the help of the monotonicity principle in Proposition~\ref{prop:monotonicity}. The following example shows that for $k = 1$ the estimate~\eqref{eq:firstEstimate} is sharp for $|E| = 3$. Analogous examples can be easily constructed for any $|E| \geq 2$.

\begin{example}
Consider a star graph $G$ consisting of three edges $e_1, e_2, e_3$ with lengths $L (e_1) = L (e_2) = \pi/n$ and $L (e_3) = \pi$ with a given, fixed even number $n \in \mathbb{N}$. A simple computation gives the eigenvalues of $- \Delta_G$. In fact, $\lambda \geq 0$ is an eigenvalue if and only if either
\begin{align}\label{eq:aha}
 \sqrt{\lambda} = n \Big(k + \frac{1}{2} \Big), \quad k \in \mathbb{N},
\end{align}
or
\begin{align}\label{eq:interessant}
 \cos \Big(\sqrt{\lambda} \frac{\pi}{n} \Big) \sin \big(\sqrt{\lambda} \pi \big) + 2 \sin \Big(\sqrt{\lambda} \frac{\pi}{n} \Big) \cos \big(\sqrt{\lambda} \pi \big) = 0.
\end{align}
For any $n \geq 2$ the eigenvalues obtained through~\eqref{eq:aha} satisfy $\lambda \geq 1$. On the other hand, it can be shown that the equation~\eqref{eq:interessant} has exactly one solution $\lambda (n)$ in $(0, 1)$, which satisfies $\lambda (n) \to 1$ as $n \to \infty$. Thus
\begin{align*}
 \lambda_2 (G) = \lambda (n) \to 1 = \frac{\pi^2}{L_{\max}^2} \quad \text{as} \quad n \to \infty.
\end{align*}
\end{example}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Spectral Theory (math.SP); Mathematical Physics (math-ph)