Spectral characterizations of two families of nearly complete bipartite graphs

Abstract: It is not hard to find many complete bipartite graphs which are not determined by their spectra. We show that the graph obtained by deleting an edge from a complete bipartite graph is determined by its spectrum. We provide some graphs, each of which is obtained from a complete bipartite graph by adding a vertex and an edge incident on the new vertex and an original vertex, which are not determined by their spectra.

\section{Introduction}   \label{s1}

The {\it adjacency matrix} $A=(a_{ij})$ of a simple graph $G$ is a $0$-$1$ square matrix with rows and columns indexed by the vertex set $VG$ of $G$ such that for any $i, j\in VG$, $a_{ij}=1$ iff $i,j$ are adjacent in $G.$ The {\it spectrum} of $G$ is the set of eigenvalues of its adjacency matrix $A$ together with their multiplicities. Two graphs are {\it cospectral} (also known as isospectral) if they share the same graph spectrum. To start our study, let us consider the smallest non-isomorphic cospectral graphs first given by Cvetkovi\'{c} \cite{c:71} as shown in Figure 1: the graph union $K_{2,2}\cup K_1$ and the star graph $K_{1,4},$ where $K_{p,q}$ denotes the complete bipartite graph of bipartition orders $p$ and $q.$ It is quick to check that their spectrum are both $\{[0]^3,\pm 2\}.$ More constructions of cospectral graphs can be found in \cite{gm:82,cdgt:88,hs:95,s:00,dh:02}.

\begin{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{picture}(50,60)
\put(10,20){\circle*{3}} \put(10,40){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,10){\circle*{3}} \put(40,30){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,50){\circle*{3}}
\qbezier(10,20)(25,25)(40,30) \qbezier(10,20)(25,35)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,40)(25,35)(40,30) \qbezier(10,40)(25,45)(40,50)
\put(0, -30){$K_{2,2}\cup K_1$}
\end{picture}

\begin{picture}(50,80)
\put(10,60){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,10){\circle*{3}} \put(40,30){\circle*{3}} \put(40,50){\circle*{3}} \put(40,70){\circle*{3}}
\qbezier(10,60)(25,65)(40,70) \qbezier(10,60)(25,55)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,45)(40,30) \qbezier(10,60)(25,35)(40,10)
\put(10, -10){$K_{1,4}$}
\end{picture}
\end{multicols}
\bigskip

{\bf Figure 1:} Two non-isomorphic cospectral graphs $K_{2,2}\cup K_1$ and $K_{1,4}.$
\end{center}

A graph $G$ is {\it determined by the spectrum} if all the cospectral graphs of $G$ are isomorphic to $G.$ We abbreviate `determined by the spectrum' to DS in the following. The question `which graphs are DS?' goes back for more than half a century and originates from chemistry~\cite{gp:56,cs:57}, \cite[Chapter~6]{cds:80}. After that, there appeared many examples and applications for the DS graphs. One of them is that in 1966 Fisher \cite{f:66} modeled the shape of a drum by a graph from considering a question of Kac \cite{k:66}: `Can you hear the shape of a drum?' To see more details, Van Dam, Haemers and Brouwer gave a great amount of surveys for the DS graphs \cite{dh:02,dh:03,dh:09},\cite[Chapter~14]{bh:11} in the past decades.

In~\cite{ds:04} the non-regular bipartite graphs with four distinct eigenvalues were studied, and whether a such connected graph on at most $60$ vertices is DS or not was determined. In~\cite{ds:05} bipartite biregular graphs with $5$ eigenvalues were studied, and all such connected graphs on at most $33$ vertices were determined. In this research we study two families of nearly complete bipartite graphs one-edge different from a complete bipartite graph which also have $4$ or $5$ distinct eigenvalues without the assumptions of regularity, connectivity, or bounds on the number of vertices.

\medskip

Let $G$ be a simple bipartite graph with $e$ edges. The {\it spectral radius} $\rho(G)$ of $G$ is the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of $G.$ It was shown in~\cite[Proposition~2.1]{bfp:08} that $\rho(G) \leq \sqrt{e}$ with equality if and only if $G$ is a complete bipartite graph with possibly some isolated vertices. It is direct that for any positive integer $p$ the regular complete bipartite graph $K_{p,p}$ is DS but, for example, the non-isomorphic bipartite graphs $K_{1,6}$ and $K_{2,3} \cup 2K_1$ are cospectral. There are several extending results~\cite{bfp:08,cfksw:10,lw:15,cfw:15} of the above bound, which aim to solve an analog of the Brualdi-Hoffman conjecture for non-bipartite graphs~\cite{bh:85}, proposed in~\cite{bfp:08}.

\medskip

Our research is motivated from the following {\it twin primes bound}  proposed in~\cite[Theorem~5.2]{cfw:15}: For $e \geq 4,$ $(e-1,e+1)$ is a pair of twin primes if and only if
$$\rho(e) < \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-\sqrt{e-1})}}{2}}$$
where $\rho(e)$ denotes the maximal $\rho(G)$ of a bipartite graph $G$ on $e$ edges which is not a union of a complete bipartite graph and some isolated vertices.  We need to introduce the notations $K_{p,q}^-$ and $K_{p,q}^+$ of the graphs which are one-edge different from a complete bipartite graph. For $2 \leq \min\{p,q\},$ let $K_{p,q}^-$ denote the graph with $pq-1$ edges obtained from $K_{p,q}$ by deleting an edge, and $K_{p,q}^+$ denote the graph with $pq+1$ edges obtained from $K_{p,q}$ by adding a new vertex $x$ and a new edge $xy$ where $y$ is a vertex in the partite set of order $\min\{p,q\}.$ Note that $K_{2,q}^+ = K_{2,q+1}^-$ for $q \geq 2.$ Two examples of such graphs are shown in Figure 2.

\newpage

\begin{center}
\begin{multicols}{2}
\begin{picture}(50,100)
\put(10,40){\circle*{3}} \put(10,60){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\circle*{3}} \put(40,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,70){\circle*{3}}
\put(10,20){\circle*{3}} \put(40,10){\circle*{3}}
\qbezier(10,60)(25,65)(40,70) \qbezier(10,60)(25,55)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,45)(40,30) \qbezier(10,40)(25,55)(40,70)
\qbezier(10,40)(25,45)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,40)(25,35)(40,30)
\qbezier(10,20)(25,45)(40,70) \qbezier(10,20)(25,35)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,20)(25,25)(40,30)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,35)(40,10) \qbezier(10,40)(25,25)(40,10)
\put(10, -10){$K_{3,4}^-$}
\end{picture}

\begin{picture}(50,100)
\put(10,40){\circle*{3}} \put(10,60){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,30){\circle*{3}} \put(40,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,70){\circle*{3}}
\put(10,20){\circle*{3}} \put(40,10){\circle*{3}}
\put(40,90){\circle*{3}}
\qbezier(10,60)(25,65)(40,70) \qbezier(10,60)(25,55)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,45)(40,30) \qbezier(10,40)(25,55)(40,70)
\qbezier(10,40)(25,45)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,40)(25,35)(40,30)
\qbezier(10,20)(25,45)(40,70) \qbezier(10,20)(25,35)(40,50)
\qbezier(10,20)(25,25)(40,30)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,35)(40,10) \qbezier(10,40)(25,25)(40,10)
\qbezier(10,60)(25,75)(40,90)
\qbezier(10,20)(25,15)(40,10)
\put(10, -10){$K_{3, 4}^+$}
\end{picture}
\end{multicols}
\bigskip

{\bf Figure 2:} The graphs $K_{3,4}^-$ and $K_{3,4}^+$ which are one-edge different from $K_{3,4}.$
\end{center}

The paper is organized as follows. Preliminary contents are in Section~\ref{sec_pre}. Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq-} in Section~\ref{sec_Kpq-} proves that the all graphs $K_{p,q}^-$ for $2 \leq p \leq q$ are DS. Then Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq+} in Section~\ref{sec_Kpq+} find the all pairs $(p,q)$ such that the bipartite graph $K_{p,q}^+$ is DS. Furthermore, for each $K_{p,q}^+$'s which is not DS we also find its unique non-isomorphic cospectral graph.

\bigskip

\section{Preliminary}   \label{sec_pre}

Basic results are provided in this section for later used.
\medskip

\begin{lem}(\cite[Proposition~2.1]{bfp:08})   \label{lem_sqrte}
Let $G$ be a simple bipartite graph  with $e$ edges. Then
$$\rho(G) \leq \sqrt{e}$$ with equality
iff $G$ is a disjoint union of a complete bipartite graph and isolated vertices.
\end{lem}

\medskip

The following result gives the relations between the spectrum and the numbers of vertices and edges in a graph which is proved simply by the definition of the adjacency matrix and its square.
\begin{prop}\label{prop_order_size}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with eigenvalues $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_n.$ Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $G$ has $n$ vertices, and
\item[(ii)] $G$ has $\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \lambda_i^2$ edges.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}

\medskip

Since we focus on the bipartite graphs, a well-known spectral characterization of bipartite graphs \cite[Proposition~3.4.1]{bh:11} is used in this research.
\begin{prop}\label{prop_bipartite}
A simple graph $G$ is bipartite if and only if for each eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $G,$ $-\lambda$ is also an eigenvalue of $G$ with the same multiplicity.
\end{prop}

\medskip

Then a spectral characterization of complete bipartite graphs is direct.
\begin{prop}\label{prop_complete_bi}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with spectrum $\{[0]^{n-2},\pm \lambda\}$ where $n \geq 2$ is the number of vertices in $G.$ Then $\lambda^2$ is a nonnegative integer, and $G$ is the union of some isolated vertices (if any) and a complete bipartite graph with $\lambda^2$ edges.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{prop_bipartite} and Proposition~\ref{prop_order_size}(ii), $G$ is bipartite with $\lambda^2$ edges. Since the equality meets in Lemma~\ref{lem_sqrte}, the completeness follows.
\end{proof}

\medskip

From Proposition~\ref{prop_complete_bi} one can quickly find the all complete bipartite graphs which are DS.
\begin{cor}
For any positive integers $p\leq q,$ $K_{p,q}$ is DS if and only if $p'\leq p$ and $q'\geq q$ for any positive integers $p'\leq q'$ satisfying $p'q'=pq.$
\end{cor}

\medskip

It is not difficult to compute the spectrum of each bipartite graph $K_{p,q}^-$ or $K_{p,q}^+$ \cite{cfksw:10,lw:15,cfw:15}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop_sp}
Let $2 \leq \min\{p,q\}$ be positive integers.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The graph $K_{p,q}^-$ has spectrum
\begin{equation}
\left\{
[0]^{p+q-4},\pm\sqrt{\frac{pq-1\pm\sqrt{(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)}}{2}}
\right\},~~~\text{and}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\item[(ii)] the graph $K_{p,q}^+$ has spectrum
\begin{equation}
\left\{
[0]^{p+q-3},\pm\sqrt{\frac{pq+1\pm\sqrt{(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q}}{2}}
\right\}.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}

\medskip

We introduce some sets of bipartite graphs for later use.
\begin{defn}\label{defn_sets_K}
Let the sets of bipartite graphs
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{K}^0&:=&\{K_{p,q} \mid p,q \in \mathbb{N}\},
\\
\mathbb{K}^-&:=&\{K_{p,q}^- \mid 2 \leq p \leq q, (p,q)\neq(2,2)\},
\\
\mathbb{K}^+&:=&\{K_{p,q}^+ \mid 2 \leq p \leq q\}, \text{ and}
\\
\mathbb{K}&:=&\mathbb{K}^0\cup \mathbb{K}^- \cup \mathbb{K}^+.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{defn}
Then a Lemma is direct from \cite[Lemma~4.1]{cfw:15}.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma_cheng}
Let $G$ be a simple bipartite graph on $e$ edges without isolated vertices. If the spectral radius $\rho(G)$ of $G$ satisfies
$$\rho(G) \geq \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-\sqrt{e-1})}}{2}},$$
then $G \in \mathbb{K}.$
\end{lem}

\medskip

The following result \cite[Proposition~1]{dh:03} is well-known.
\begin{prop}\label{prop_path}
The path with $n$ vertices is DS.
\end{prop}

\bigskip

\section{Spectral characterizations of $K_{p,q}^-$}   \label{sec_Kpq-}

Note that the set $\mathbb{K}^-$ of nearly bipartite graphs is defined in Definition~\ref{defn_sets_K}. We prove that each graph $G\in \{K_{2,2}^-\}\cup \mathbb{K}^-$ is DS in this section.

\begin{thm}\label{thm_Kpq-}
For any positive integers $2 \leq p \leq q,$ the graph $K_{p,q}^-$ is DS.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
If $p=q=2$ then $K_{p,q}^-$ is a path on $4$ vertices. Hence $K_{2,2}^-$ is DS by Proposition~\ref{prop_path}.
Let $2<q$ and $G$ be a simple graph with the same spectrum as $K_{p,q}^-.$
From Proposition~\ref{prop_order_size}, the numbers of vertices and edges in $G$ are
$|V(G)| = p+q$ and $|E(G)| = pq-1.$
Additionally, Proposition~\ref{prop_bipartite} tells that $G$ is a bipartite graph.

\medskip

Suppose $G$ has at least $2$ nontrivial components $G_1$ and $G_2,$ where a nontrivial component is a connected graph with at least one edge. Then the spectra of $G_1$ and $G_2$ share the nonzero eigenvalues of $G.$ Since $G$ is bipartite, $G_1$ and $G_2$ are both bipartite. By Proposition~\ref{prop_bipartite} again and without loss of generality we have
$\text{sp}(G_1) =\{[0]^{m_1}, \pm e_1\}$
and
$\text{sp}(G_2) = \{[0]^{m_2}, \pm e_2\}$
for some nonnegative integers $m_1,m_2$ with $m_1+m_2+4 \leq p+q,$
where
$$e_1=\sqrt{\frac{pq-1+\sqrt{(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)}}{2}}$$
and
$$e_2=\sqrt{\frac{pq-1-\sqrt{(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)}}{2}}$$
by  Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}(i).
From Proposition~\ref{prop_complete_bi} $G_1$ is a complete bipartite graph with $e_1$ edges, and thus $(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)$ is a perfect square of type $(pq-1-2k)^2$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}.$ However,
\begin{eqnarray}
(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1) &=& (pq-1)^2 - 4(pq-p-q+1)
\nonumber \\
&>& (pq-1)^2 - 4(pq-2)
\nonumber \\
&=& (pq-3)^2,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which is a contradiction.

\medskip

Therefore $G$ has exactly one nontrivial component $G_0.$ Then
\begin{equation}
\text{sp}(G_0)=
\left\{[0]^m,\pm\sqrt{\frac{pq-1\pm\sqrt{(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)}}{2}}\right\}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
for some nonnegative integer $m$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_ver_G0}
|V(G_0)| = m+4 \leq p+q.
\end{equation}
Then by Proposition~\ref{prop_order_size}~(ii)
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_edge_G0}
e:=|E(G_0)|=|E(G)|=pq-1.
\end{equation}
Note that the spectral radius of $G_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(G_0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{pq-1+\sqrt{(pq-1)^2-4(p-1)(q-1)}}{2}}
\nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-(p+q-3))}}{2}}
\nonumber \\
&\geq& \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-\sqrt{e-1})}}{2}},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
since
\begin{equation}
(p+q-3)^2-(e-1)=(p-2)^2+(q-3)^2+p(q-2)-2 \geq 0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
for $2\leq p \leq q$ and $3 \leq q.$ By Lemma~\ref{lemma_cheng} $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}$. From Proposition~\ref{prop_complete_bi} $G_0$ is not a complete bipartite graph. Hence $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^-$ or $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^+.$ Suppose $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^+,$ \emph{i.e.}, $G_0 = K_{p',q'}^+$ for some $2 \leq p' \leq q'.$ Then by \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_ver_G0_2}
|V(G_0)| = p'+q'+1 \leq p+q,
\end{equation}
and by \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_edge_G0_2}
|E(G_0)| = p'q'+1 = e = pq-1.
\end{equation}
According to Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}~(ii),
\begin{equation}\label{eq_p'q'_G0}
(p'-1)q' = (p-1)(q-1).
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_2} and \eqref{eq_p'q'_G0} imply $q'+3=p+q.$ Then by \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0_2} $p'\leq 2,$ and hence $p'=2.$ Therefore $G_0=K_{2,q'}^+=K_{2,q'+1}^-$ for some $q' \geq 2,$ and we have $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^-.$ Let $G_0=K_{p'',q''}^-$ for some $2 \leq p''\leq q''$ and $3 \leq q''.$ Then we respectively rewrite the equations \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0_2}, \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_2} and \eqref{eq_p'q'_G0} as
\begin{eqnarray}
|V(G_0)| &=& p''+q'' \leq p+q,
\label{eq_num_ver_G0_3} \\
|E(G_0)| &=& p''q''-1 = pq-1~~~\text{ and}
\label{eq_num_edge_G0_3} \\
(p''-1)(q''-1) &=& (p-1)(q-1),
\label{eq_p''q''_G0}
\end{eqnarray}
where the third equation \eqref{eq_p''q''_G0} is from Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}~(i). \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_3} and \eqref{eq_p''q''_G0} imply $|V(G_0)|=p''+q''=p+q=|V(G)|.$ Hence $G_0=G.$ The equalities in both sum and product of $p''\leq q''$ and $p \leq q$ imply that $(p'',q'')=(p,q).$ Hence $G = G_0 = K_{p,q}^-,$ and the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}\label{rem_Kpq-}
From Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq-} we have $K_{2,q}^+=K_{2,q+1}^-$ is DS for $2 \leq q.$ However, not all graphs in $\mathbb{K}^+$ are DS. For example, the non-isomorphic graphs
$$K_{m+2,4m+2}^+~~~\text{ and }~~~K_{2m+2,2m+3}^-\cup mK_1$$
are cospectral for each $m \in \mathbb{N}.$
\end{rem}

\begin{cor}
$K_{2,q}^+$ is DS for $2 \leq q.$
\qed
\end{cor}

\bigskip

\section{Spectral characterizations of $K_{p,q}^+$}\label{sec_Kpq+}

Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq-} shows that for $2 \leq p \leq q$ the graph $K_{p,q}^-$ is DS and its proof seems useful for the study on the graph $K_{p,q}^+.$ However, Remark~\ref{rem_Kpq-} immediately gives a family of $K_{p,q}^+$'s which are not DS. In this section we present a sufficient and necessary condition to determine whether $K_{p,q}^+$ is DS or not for each pair $(p,q).$ Furthermore, we also find the all non-isomorphic cospectral graphs of every $K_{p,q}^+$ which is not DS.

\begin{thm}\label{thm_Kpq+}
Let $3 \leq p \leq q$ be positive integers. Then $K_{p,q}^+$ is not DS if and only if the quadratic polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{quadratic_polynomial}
x^2-(q+3)x+(pq+2)=0
\end{equation}
has two integral roots  $p''\leq q''$ in $[2, \infty).$ Moreover, if $K_{p,q}^+$ is not DS then $K_{p'',q''}^- \cup (p-2)K_1$ is its unique non-isomorphic cospectral graph.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a simple graph with the same spectrum as $K_{p,q}^+.$
We prove Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq+} by two steps. In the first part of proof we show that $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^- \cup \mathbb{K}^+$ where $G_0$ is obtained from $G$ by deleting all the isolated vertices (if any). This process is similar to what we have done in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq-}. In the second part of proof, we prove that $K_{p,q}^+$ is not DS if and only if \eqref{quadratic_polynomial} has two integral roots $p'',q''$ and $G_0 = K_{p'',q''}^-.$ Moreover, if $K_{p,q}^+$ is not DS then its only non-isomorphic cospectral graphs is obtained by adding a corresponding number $p-2$ of isolated vertices to $K_{p'',q''}^-.$

\medskip

From Proposition~\ref{prop_order_size}, the numbers of vertices and edges in $G$ are
$|V(G)| = p+q+1$ and  $|E(G)| = pq+1.$ Additionally, Proposition~\ref{prop_bipartite} tells that $G$ is a bipartite graph. Suppose $G$ has at least $2$ nontrivial components $G_1$ and $G_2$. Then the spectra of $G_1$ and $G_2$ share the nonzero eigenvalues of $G.$ Since $G$ is bipartite, $G_1$ and $G_2$ are both bipartite. By Proposition~\ref{prop_bipartite} and without loss of generality, we have
$sp(G_1) = \{[0]^{m_1},\pm e_1$
and
$sp(G_2) = \{[0]^{m_2},\pm e_2\}$
for some nonnegative integers $m_1,m_2$ with $m_1+m_2+4 \leq p+q+1,$
where $$e_1=\sqrt{\frac{pq+1+\sqrt{(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q}}{2}}$$
and $$e_2=\sqrt{\frac{pq+1-\sqrt{(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q}}{2}}$$ by  Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}(ii).
From Proposition~\ref{prop_complete_bi}, $G_1$ is a complete bipartite graph with $e_1$ edges, and thus $(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q$ is a perfect square of type $(pq+1-2k)^2$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}.$ However,
\begin{equation}
(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q > (pq+1)^2 - 4pq = (pq-1)^2,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
which is a contradiction.

\medskip

Therefore $G$ has exactly one nontrivial component $G_0.$ Then
\begin{equation}
\text{sp}(G_0)=
\left\{[0]^m,\pm\sqrt{\frac{pq+1\pm\sqrt{(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q}}{2}}\right\}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
for some nonnegative integer $m$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_ver_G0_+}
|V(G_0)| = m+4 \leq p+q+1.
\end{equation}
Then by Proposition~\ref{prop_order_size}~(ii)
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_edge_G0_+}
e:=|E(G_0)|=|E(G)|=pq+1.
\end{equation}
Note that the spectral radius of $G_0$
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(G_0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{pq+1+\sqrt{(pq+1)^2-4(p-1)q}}{2}}
\nonumber \\
&=& \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-q)}}{2}}
\nonumber \\
&\geq& \sqrt{\frac{e+\sqrt{e^2-4(e-1-\sqrt{e-1})}}{2}},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
since
\begin{equation}
q^2-(e-1)=q^2-pq=q(q-p) \geq 0
\nonumber
\end{equation}
for $3 \leq p \leq q.$ By Lemma~\ref{lemma_cheng} $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}$. From Proposition~\ref{prop_complete_bi}, $G_0$ is not a complete bipartite graph. Hence $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^-$ or $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^+.$ Here we complete the first part of proof.

\medskip

Suppose $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^+,$ \emph{i.e.}, $G_0 = K_{p',q'}^+$ for some $3 \leq p' \leq q'.$ Then by \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0_+}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_ver_G0_2_+}
|V(G_0)| = p'+q'+1 \leq p+q+1,
\end{equation}
and by \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_+}
\begin{equation}\label{eq_num_edge_G0_2_+}
|E(G_0)| = p'q'+1 = e = pq+1.
\end{equation}
According to Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}~(ii),
\begin{equation}\label{eq_p'q'_G0_+}
(p'-1)q' = (p-1)q.
\end{equation}
\eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_2_+} and \eqref{eq_p'q'_G0_+} imply $q'=q$ and $p'=p.$ Therefore $G=G_0=K_{p,q}^+.$
\medskip

Suppose $G_0 \in \mathbb{K}^-.$ Let $G_0=K_{p'',q''}^-$ for some $2 \leq p''\leq q''$ and $3 \leq q''.$
Similar to the equations \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0_2_+}, \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_2_+} and \eqref{eq_p'q'_G0_+} above, $G$ is not DS if and only if there exists integral pair $(p'',q'')$ that satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
|V(G_0)| &=& p''+q'' \leq p+q+1,
\label{eq_num_ver_G0_3_+} \\
|E(G_0)| &=& p''q''-1 = pq+1~~~\text{ and}
\label{eq_num_edge_G0_3_+} \\
(p''-1)(q''-1) &=& (p-1)q,
\label{eq_p''q''_G0_+}
\end{eqnarray}
where the third equation \eqref{eq_p''q''_G0_+} is from Proposition~\ref{prop_sp}. Note that \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_3_+} and \eqref{eq_p''q''_G0_+} imply
\begin{equation}
p''+q''=q+3
\label{eq_p''q''_q}
\end{equation}
and hence \eqref{eq_num_ver_G0_3_+} automatically holds.
Conversely, \eqref{eq_num_edge_G0_3_+} and \eqref{eq_p''q''_q} imply
\eqref{eq_p''q''_G0_+}.
 Hence the graph $G_0=K_{p'',q''}^-$ exists if and only if quadratic polynomial in \eqref{quadratic_polynomial} has two integral roots $p'',q''.$
Note that $G_0=K_{p'',q''}^-$ is the only graph found in $\mathbb{K}^-\cup\mathbb{K}^+$ except for $K_{p,q}^+.$
Hence we conclude that for each pair of positive integers $3 \leq p \leq q,$ $K_{p,q}^+$ is not DS if and only if \eqref{quadratic_polynomial} has two integral roots $p'',q''$ and the only non-isomorphic cospectral graph is obtained from $K_{p'',q''}^-$ by adding a corresponding number $(p+q+1)-(p''+q'')=p-2$ of isolated vertices by \eqref{eq_p''q''_q}. Here we complete the second part of proof, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\medskip

The following lemma helps us to exhaustedly enumerate $K_{p, q}^+$ which has a non-isomorphic cospectral graph by using Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq+}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem_abb't}
Let $3 \leq p \leq q$  be integers. Then the quadratic polynomial in \eqref{quadratic_polynomial}
has two integral roots $p'', q''\in [2, \infty)$ if and only if
there exist nonnegative integers $a,b,b',t$ with $1 \leq b,b' < a,$ $\text{gcd}(a,b)=1,$ $bb' \equiv 1~(\text{mod}~a),$ and $bb'+t \geq 2$ such that $p,q,p'',q''$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
p&=&b(a-b)t+bb'+\frac{b(1-bb')}{a}+1,
\label{eq_abb't_p} \\
q&=&a^2t+ab',
\label{eq_abb't_q} \\
p''&=&bq/a+1,~~~\text{and}~~~q''=q+2-bq/a.
\label{eq_abb't_p''q''}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For the necessity, suppose that the quadratic polynomial in \eqref{quadratic_polynomial} has two integral roots $p'', q''\in [2, \infty).$ Then $p''q''=pq+2$ and $p''+q''=q+3.$ Thus
\begin{equation}
(p''-1)\cdot(q+1-(p''-1))=(p-1)q.
\label{eq_multi}
\end{equation}
Note that $p''-1 \leq q,$ otherwise we have $p=2$ which contradicts to $3 \leq p.$ Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq_p''-1}
p''-1=\frac{bq}{a}
\end{equation}
where $1 \leq b <a$ are integers and $\text{gcd}(a,b)=1.$ Then $q \equiv 0$ (mod $a$). Let $q=as$ for some $s \in \mathbb{N}.$
Thus \eqref{eq_multi} becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{b((a-b)s+1)}{a}=p-1.
\label{eq_multi_2}
\end{equation}
Then $(a-b)s+1 \equiv 0$ (mod $a$) since $\text{gcd}(a,b)=1.$ Hence $bs \equiv 1$ (mod $a$). Let $s=at+b'$ where $t$ and $1\leq b'<a$ are nonnegative integers with $bb'=bs-bat\equiv 1$ (mod $a$). Therefore,
$q=as=a^2t+ab'$ as stated in (\ref{eq_abb't_q}).
Substituting the above $s=at+b'$ into \eqref{eq_multi_2}, we have (\ref{eq_abb't_p}).
The expression formulae of $p''$ and $q''$ are immediate from \eqref{eq_p''-1} and \eqref{eq_p''q''_q}.
Note that if $t=0$ and $bb'=1$ then $p=2$, violating the assumption $p\geq 3.$ Hence $bb'+t\geq 2.$
\medskip

For the sufficiency, we check that for nonnegative integers $a,b,b',t$ satisfying $1 \leq b,b' < a,$ $\text{gcd}(a,b)=1,$ $bb' \equiv 1~(\text{mod}~a),$ and $bb'+t \geq 2,$ the corresponding values of $p,q,p'',q''$ are feasible. Note that we can rewrite \eqref{eq_abb't_q} to \eqref{eq_abb't_p''q''} as
\begin{eqnarray}
p&=&\frac{b[(a-b)(at+b')+1]}{a}+1,
\nonumber \\
q&=&a(at+b'),
\nonumber \\
p''&=&b(at+b')+1,~~~\text{and}~~~q''=(at+b')(a-b)+2.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
One can immediately see that $p'',q''$ are both integers not less than $2.$ Moreover, the sum and product of $p'',q''$ are
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
  p''+q''=q+3 \\
  p''q''=pq+2
\end{array}
\right.,$$
which imply that $p'',q''$ are the two integral roots of \eqref{quadratic_polynomial}.
\end{proof}

\medskip

To quickly find a non-isomorphic cospectral graphs pair which are nearly complete bipartite, a special case of Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq+} is provided in the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor_kpq+}
For each pair of positive integers $(t,a)$ with $a \geq 2,$ the graph $$K_{(a-1)t+2,a^2t+a}^+$$ is not DS. Moreover, $$K_{at+2,a(a-1)t+a+1}^- \cup (a-1)tK_1$$ is its unique cospectral graph.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $b=b'=1$ in Lemma~\ref{lem_abb't}. Then \eqref{eq_abb't_p} to \eqref{eq_abb't_p''q''} become that
\begin{eqnarray}
p&=&(a-1)t+2,
\nonumber \\
q&=&a^2t+a,
\nonumber \\
p''&=&at+2,~~~\text{and}~~~q''=a(a-1)t+a+1.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting these data into Theorem~\ref{thm_Kpq+},  we immediately have the proof.
\end{proof}

\medskip

\begin{exam}
By computational programming, we list all $K_{p,q}^+$'s that are not DS for $q \leq 20$ in the following table including the corresponding unique cospectral graphs and the values of parameters $a,b,b',t.$ Note that the choices of $(a,b,b',t)$ are not unique.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
  \hline

   & \text{The unique cospectral graph} & $(a,b,b',t)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{3,6}^+$ & $K_{4,5}^- \cup K_1$ & $(2,1,1,1)$ or $(3,2,2,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{4,10}^+$ & $K_{6,7}^- \cup 2K_1$ & $(2,1,1,2)$ or $(5,3,2,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{5,14}^+$ & $K_{8,9}^- \cup 3K_1$ & $(2,1,1,3)$ or $(7,4,2,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{4,12}^+$ & $K_{5,10}^- \cup 2K_1$ & $(3,1,1,1)$ or $(4,3,3,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{5,15}^+$ & $K_{7,11}^- \cup 3K_1$ & $(3,2,2,1)$ or $(5,2,3,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{6,18}^+$ & $K_{10,11}^- \cup 4K_1$ & $(2,1,1,4)$ or $(9,5,2,0)$ \\
  \hline
  $K_{5,20}^+$ & $K_{6,17}^- \cup 3K_1$ & $(4,1,1,1)$ or $(5,4,4,0)$ \\
  \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

\end{exam}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research is supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan R.O.C. and Ministry of
Science and Technology of Taiwan R.O.C. respectively under the projects NSC 102-2115-M-009-
009-MY3 and MOST 103-2632-M-214-001-MY3-2.


Abstract: A simple variant of the BDDC preconditioner in which constraints are imposed on a selected set of subobjects (subdomain subedges, subfaces and vertices between pairs of subedges) is presented. We are able to show that the condition number of the preconditioner is bounded by $C \big(1+\log (L/h)\big)^2$, where $C$ is a constant, and $h$ and $L$ are the characteristic sizes of the mesh and the subobjects, respectively. As $L$ can be chosen almost freely, the condition number can theoretically be as small as $O(1)$. We will discuss the pros and cons of the preconditioner and its application to heterogeneous problems. Numerical results on supercomputers are provided.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
It is well-known in the literature
\cite{klawonn.et.al.02,mandel_convergence_2003,mandel_algebraic_2005,
widlundToselli05,brenner_bddc_2007,BrennerScott08}
that the condition number
of the BDDC method and the closely related FETI-DP method is
bounded by
$\kappa \leq C \big(1+\log (H/h)\big)^2$,
where $C$ is a constant, and $H$ and $h$ are the characteristic sizes of the
subdomain and the mesh, resp.  Consequently, when the mesh and its
partition
are fixed, users can only vary the number of constraints to adjust the
convergence rate.

Traditionally, these constraints are values at subdomain corners, or
average
values on subdomain edges or faces. In the perturbed formulation of
BDDC \cite{BadiaNguyenDD23,BadiaNguyen_perturbed}, any combination of vertex,
edge or face constraints can be used. Normally, these combinations provide
enough options for users to choose their desired convergence rate. However,
for difficult problems, such as the ones with heterogeneous
diffusion coefficients, see, e.g.,
\cite{BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}, the
convergence of the BDDC method \cite{dohrmann_preconditioner_2003} can
be
unsatisfied even if all possible constraints are used.

In this work, we propose to impose constraints on coarse objects
(subdomain subedges and
subfaces, and vertices between subedges) that are
adapted to the local mesh size and to the user's desired rate of
convergence. We refer to this new variant as BDDC-SO.
If $L$ is the characteristic size of the objects, we can prove that the
conditioned number $\kappa$ of the
BDDC-SO preconditioned operator is bounded by
\[\kappa \leq C \big(1+\log (L/h)\big)^2.\]

As $L$ can be as small as $h$, there is no restriction in the rate of
convergence of BDDC-SO. However, the trade-off is having to solve larger coarse
problems. Therefore, the BDDC-SO can be seen as a standalone method for
small to medium problems (tested up to 260 million unknowns on 8K
processors), or as a proven,  simple approach to improve the rate of
convergence. In addition, BDDC-SO is perfectly robust w.r.t. the variation of
the diffusion coefficient when coarse objects are chosen such that the
coefficient associated with each object is constant or varies mildly.
BDDC-SO also has great potentials to
be extended to multi-level.
\section{Model problem and abstract multispace BDDC
framework}\label{sec_model}
Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in ${\mathbb R}^n,\;
n=2, 3$. We consider the Poisson's equation with
homogeneous Dirichlet conditions.
Its weak formulation reads as follows: find $u(x)\in H^{1}_0(
\Omega )$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{weakform}
  a(u,v)= \langle F, v \rangle, \quad \forall v(x) \in H^1_0( \Omega
  ),
\end{equation}
where
$
a(u,v):=\int_{\Omega}  \nabla u\cdot \nabla v\, dx,\;
\langle F, v \rangle:=\int_{\Omega} f(x)\, v(x) dx.
$

Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a shape-regular
mesh of $\Omega$  with characteristic mesh size $h$,
and $U\subset H^{1}_0(\Omega)$ be the corresponding Finite Element (FE)
space of
continuous piecewise linear functions
that vanish on $\partial \Omega$. Then the discrete problem associated
with
\eqref{weakform} is to find $u\in U$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{discrete_form} a(u,v)=
  \langle F, v \rangle, \quad \forall v\in U.
\end{equation}

We quote the following definition of the abstract multispace BDDC
preconditioner from
\cite{mandel_multispace_2008}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:abstractBDDC} Assume that $a(\cdot,\cdot)$
is defined and symmetric
	semipositive definite on some larger space $W\supset U$ and there
	exist
	subspaces $V_k\subset W$
	and projections $Q_k: V_k\rightarrow U$,
	$k=1,\dots,N$, such that $V_k$ are a-orthogonal, i.e., $V_k\perp V_l$
	for
	$k\neq
	l$,
	$a(\cdot,\cdot)$ is positive definite on each $V_k$, $
	\widetilde{W}=\sum_{k=1}^{N}V_k\supset  U$ and
	\[\forall u\in U:\left[u=\sum_{k=1}^N v_k, \; v_k\in
	V_k\right]\Rightarrow u=\sum_{k=1}^{N} Q_k v_k. \]
	Then the abstract multispace BDDC preconditioner $B:r\in
	U^{\prime}\rightarrow U$ is defined by
	\[B:r\mapsto u=\sum_{k=1}^{N} Q_k v_k,\quad v_k\in V_k:
	a(v_k,z_k)=\langle r,Q_kz_k\rangle, \quad \forall z_k \in V_k.\]
\end{definition}
\section{Balancing domain decomposition by constraints associated with
subobjects}\label{sec:formulation}
We will present the formulation of our proposed BDDC preconditioner
using the abstract BDDC framework introduced in Section
\ref{sec_model}. First, we consider a partition
$\Theta=\{\Omega_i\}_{i=1}^N $ of
$\Omega$
into
 non-overlapping open subdomains. We further assume that every subdomain $
\Omega_i \in \Theta$ is a union of elements in
$\mathcal{T}$ and is connected.  Let $\Gamma$ be the interface of
$\Theta$. For each $\Omega_i$, let $W_i$ be
the space of FE functions which vanish on
$\partial\Omega\cap\partial\Omega_i$.  We define $W=W_1\times \cdots
W_N$ and note that functions in $W$ can be discontinuous across
$\Gamma$.

Let $a^{\Theta}(\cdot,\cdot)$ be the extension of
$a(\cdot,\cdot)$ \hnr{on $W$ associated} with $\Theta$:
$a^{\Theta}(u,v)=\sum_{\Omega_i\in \Theta} \int_{\Omega_i}\nabla u
\nabla v dx$. Denote by
$U_I$ the space of functions in $U$ that are zero on $\Gamma$.
Let
$P$ be the $a^{\Theta}$-orthogonal projection from $W$ onto $U_I$. The
functions in $(I-P)W$ are called \emph{discrete harmonic}.
They are
$a^{\Theta}$-orthogonal with functions in $U_I$ and they possess the
smallest
energy among functions in $W$ having the same values on $\Gamma$.

Given a mesh partition, the BDDC method is
characterized by the selection of certain \emph{coarse degrees of
freedom} and some \emph{weighting operator} that projects functions in
$W$ onto $U$.
\input{fig1.tex}
Coarse degrees of
freedom are usually defined as functionals, which are values at or
averages over some geometrical coarse objects. In the standard BDDC method,
these coarse objects are vertices and/or edges and/or faces of
subdomains.
For systematic ways of classifying degrees of
freedom into objects, we refer the reader to
\cite{klawonn07_heterogenous,BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}.

In this
work, we propose to further partition edges and faces of the subdomains
into subedges, subfaces and vertices between pairs of subedges. One way
to obtain
this is to
partition each subdomain $\Omega_i$ into smaller \hnr{subsubdomains}.
These
new
\hnr{subsubdomains} together form a new partition
$\widehat{\Theta}=\{\widehat{\Omega}_j\}_{j=1}^{\widehat{N}}$ of
$\Omega$. Denote by $\widehat{\Gamma}$ the interface of
$\widehat{\Omega}$, we emphasize that $\widehat{\Gamma}\supset\Gamma$.
The BDDC-SO method selects
objects from \emph{the set of
subdomain vertices, edges and faces of
$\widehat{\Theta}$} to define its coarse degrees of freedom. A simple
example in
2D is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:objects}. \hnr{On the left,
standard
coarse objects consisting of a vertex and four edges
are
shown.} On the right, obtained from a finer partition
$\{\widehat{\Omega}_j\}_{j=1}^{8}$, we have 8 subedges and
5 vertices between them. We emphasize that \emph{one normally does not
have to impose
constraints
on all available objects}.

\hnr{\begin{remark}
The decision to break each original subdomain $\Omega_i$ into smaller
subsubdomains $\widehat{\Omega}_j$ can be made locally in practice.
However, in
order to classify degrees of freedom (DOFs) into subobjects, see, e.g.,
\cite{klawonn_dual-primal_2006,BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}, one
needs to know the list of subsubdomains $\widehat{\Omega}_j$ each
interface
DOF belongs to. In a distributed-memory context, this can be obtained after a cheap nearest-neighbor communication
sweep among original
subdomains.
\end{remark}
}

Let $\widetilde{W}\subset W$ be the BDDC space (of BDDC-SO)
consisting of functions in
$W$ that have common values (continuous) at the selected coarse degrees
of
freedom. As we use a finer partition of the interface, the BDDC space
associated with BDDC-SO is generally
a subspace of the one associated with the
standard BDDC.

Next, let $E$ be the weighting operator (projection) from
$\widetilde{W}$ onto $U$, that takes weighted average of contributions
from subdomains, more precisely
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:W}
E u(\xi) \doteq
\sum_{i:\,\Omega_i\ni \xi} \delta^{\dagger}_{i}(\xi)\,
u_{i}(\xi), \quad \hbox{where }  \delta^{\dagger}_{i}(\xi) \doteq
\frac{\operatorname{card}(\{j:\; \widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi \text{ and }
\widehat{\Omega}_j \subset \Omega_i\})
}{\operatorname{card}(\{j:\; \widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi\})}.
\end{equation}
Here $\operatorname{card}(S)$ denotes the cardinality of the set $S$.
\hnr{In general, the weight
$\delta^{\dagger}_{i}(\xi)$ defined by \eqref{eq:W} is the same as the
usual multiplicity weighting in, e.g., \cite{widlundToselli05}. However,
for
some
(but
not all) DOFs on the interface of
the partition
$\widehat{\Theta}$, the two weightings can be different. An example of such a DOF is
depicted in Figure \ref{fig:objects} with a big solid dot and labeled
as $\xi$. For this particular DOF,
$$\delta^{\dagger}_{1}(\xi)=\frac{\operatorname{card(\{1,2\})}}{\operatorname{card(\{1,2,5\})}}=2/3,$$
while
its multiplicity weight would be $1/2$.}

It can be checked that
$a(\cdot,\cdot)=a^{\Theta}(\cdot,\cdot),\, V_1=U_I,\, V_2= \widetilde{W}, \,
Q_1=I\text{ and } Q_2=(I-P)E$ satisfy the
assumptions
in Definition \ref{def:abstractBDDC}; see, e.g., \cite{mandel_multispace_2008}.

\section{Convergence Analysis}\label{sec:analysis}
In order to establish the condition number bound for the
BDDC-SO preconditioner, we
consider an auxiliary BDDC
preconditioner, BDDC-A. This preconditioner is constructed similar to
BDDC-SO using the abstract multispace framework introduced in Section
\ref{sec_model}. However, there are three fundamental differences.
First, BDDC-A is defined on the partition
$\widehat{\Theta}=\{\widehat{\Omega}_j\}_{j=1}^{\widehat{N}}$ introduced
in Section \ref{sec:formulation} to form subobjects. This partition
has characteristic size $L$. The new partition leads to a larger space
of discontinuous functions $\widehat{W}\subset W$ and a different
projection $\widehat{P}$ onto the space of inner functions associated
with $\widehat{\Theta}$. Second,
coarse objects of BDDC-A are chosen
such that it shares the same BDDC space $\widetilde{W}$ with BDDC-SO. This
is done as follows: i) on $\Gamma$, subobjects of BDDC-SO, which are
associated with regular geometrical objects (vertices, edges and faces
of \hnr{subsubdomains} $\widehat{\Omega}_j$), are selected, ii) on
$\widehat{\Gamma}\backslash\Gamma$, each degree of
freedom is treated as a vertex. In other words, we impose full
continuity on the part of the interface outside of $\Gamma$. Third, the
weighting operator $\widehat{E}:\widetilde{W}\to U$ is the standard
counting weighting operator defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:W2}
\widehat{E} u(\xi) \doteq
\sum_{j:\,\widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi} \widehat{\delta}_{j}(\xi)\,
u_{j}(\xi), \quad \hbox{where }  \widehat{\delta}_{j}(\xi) \doteq
\frac{1
}{\operatorname{card}(\{j:\; \widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi\})}.
\end{equation}
From \eqref{eq:W} and \eqref{eq:W2}, it should be noted that
$\widehat{E}u=Eu$ for all $u\in\widetilde{W}$.

\hnr{Let
$a^{\widehat{\Theta}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ be the extension of
$a^{{\Theta}}(\cdot,\cdot)$
on $\widehat{W}$ associated with $\widehat{\Theta}$.} The following
is
our main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{lem:1}
The condition number $\kappa$ of the BDDC-SO preconditioner  is bounded
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KBApb}
\kappa \leq \max\left\{\sup_{w\in\widetilde{W}} \frac{\|(I-P)E
	w\|_{a^{\Theta}}}{\|w\|_{a^{\Theta}}}, 1 \right\}\leq
	\max\left\{\sup_{w\in\widetilde{W}}
	\frac{\|(\widehat{I}-\widehat{P})\widehat{E}
	w\|_{a^{\widehat{\Theta}}}}{\|w\|_{a^{\widehat{\Theta}}}}, 1
	\right\}\leq C
	(1+\log(L/h))^2.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since the formulation of BDDC-SO follows the abstract framework of
multispace BDDC, its condition number $\kappa$ can be bounded as in the
first inequality in \eqref{eq:KBApb}, see
\cite{mandel_convergence_2003,mandel_multispace_2008}. In addition, as
BDDC-A is a standard BDDC preconditioner with regular coarse
objects, standard weighting operator, and defined on the partition
$\widehat{\Theta}$ having characteristic size $L$, the third inequality
in \eqref{eq:KBApb} is a standard result (see
\cite{mandel_convergence_2003,mandel_multispace_2008}). We only need to
prove the second inequality in \eqref{eq:KBApb}.

First, we note that $w\in\widetilde{W}$ can be discontinuous across
$\Gamma$ but is always continuous in each $\Omega_i$. Therefore,
$\|w\|_{a^{\Theta}}=\|w\|_{a^{\widehat{\Theta}}}$ for all
$w\in\widetilde{W}$. Second, as $P$ and $\widehat{P}$ are projections
onto the space of inner functions that respectively vanish on $\Gamma$
and $\widehat{\Gamma}\supset\Gamma$, we have
$(I-P)Ew|_{\Gamma}=Ew|_{\Gamma}=\widehat{E}w|_{\Gamma}=(\widehat{I}-\widehat{P})\widehat{E}w|_{\Gamma}$.
 On the other hand, $(I-P)Ew$ is discrete harmonic in $\Omega$ with
 partition $\Theta$. This implies that it has the smallest
 $a^{\Theta}(\cdot,\cdot)$-norm among functions in $W$ which share its
 value on $\Gamma$. In other words,
 \[\|(I-P)E w\|_{a^{\Theta}} \leq \|(\widehat{I}-\widehat{P})\widehat{E}
 w\|_{a^{{\Theta}}}= \|(\widehat{I}-\widehat{P})\widehat{E}
 w\|_{a^{\widehat{\Theta}}}.\]
 Here, we note that the last equality is due to the fact that
 $(\widehat{I}-\widehat{P})\widehat{E} w$ is continuous in each
 $\Omega_i$.
This finishes the
proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rmk1}
	The BDDC-SO preconditioner can be extended
	to the case with variable diffusion coefficients, i.e., when the
	bilinear form becomes $a(u,v)=\int_{\Omega} \alpha \nabla u\cdot
	\nabla
	v\, dx$, where $\alpha$ varies from element to element. As our
	analysis relies on the convergence of the auxiliary
	preconditioner BDDC-A, the subobjects
	need to be chosen in such a way that the coefficient has
	to be constant in each \hnr{subsubdomain} $\widehat{\Omega}_j$. In
	addition, the weighting operator $E$ in \eqref{eq:W} needs to be
	updated to incorporate $\alpha$ with  $\widehat{\delta}_{i}(\xi)
	\doteq {\left(\sum_{j:\, \widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi,\,
	\widehat{\Omega}_j\subset \Omega_i}\alpha_j\right)
	}\slash{\left(\sum_{j:\, \widehat{\Omega}_j\ni \xi} \alpha_j
	\right)}.$
	We have explored this direction and
	obtained first results for multi-material problems in
	\cite{BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}.
\end{remark}
\hnr{
\begin{remark}
	As the proof of Theorem \ref{lem:1} is based on the standard result for
	an
	auxiliary BDDC preconditioner, we need to fulfill all requirements
	of that result \cite{klawonn.et.al.02,widlundToselli05}. Among these requirements, it is crucial to
	have enough primal constraints (the constraints we actually impose
	on subobjects) so that for every pair of
	neighboring subsubdomains, there exists an acceptable path, see
	\cite{klawonn.et.al.02,widlundToselli05,klawonn_dual-primal_2006,BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}.

        In general, we can
		guarantee the existence of acceptable paths by choosing either all edge
		or all face subobjects on the original interface. Using all the possible
		vertex constraints also leads to a scalable preconditioner but is
		less common in practice due to its poor performance, especially
		in
		3D, see, e.g.,\cite{widlundToselli05}. For algorithms
		to find close-to-minimal set of primal constraints, we refer the
		reader to
		\cite{klawonn_dual-primal_2006,BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material}.
\end{remark}}

\section{Numerical Experiments}\label{sec:numex}
The standard BDDC and BDDC-SO preconditioners have been implemented in
\texttt{FEMPAR}, a parallel
framework for the massively
parallel FE simulation of multiphysics problems
governed by PDEs
\cite{badia2018fempar,fempar}. We will test these preconditioners on
MareNostrum 4 at Barcelona Supercomputing Center on the Poisson
problem
\eqref{weakform} with $f=1$,
$\Omega$ the unit cube, and Dirichlet boundary conditions
imposed on the whole boundary of $\Omega$.
\subsection{A preconditioner with $O(1)$ condition number}\label{num1}
\begin{table}[htp!]
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{lccccccrrrrrr}
		\toprule
		&& \multicolumn{5}{c}{
		number of iterations}&&\multicolumn{5}{c}{size of the coarse
		problem
		}\\
	    \cmidrule{3-7}\cmidrule{9-13}
		Local problem size ($k$) && 4& 8&16&24 &32
		&&
		\multicolumn{1}{c}{4}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{8}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{16}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{24}
		 &\multicolumn{1}{c}{32} \\
		\hline
		BDDC(vef)   && 5&6  &9  &10 & 11 &&5,859&5,859&5,859&5,859&5,859
		\\
		BDDC-SO(vef)   && 4&4 &4  &4 & 4
		&&5,859&32,319&150,039&354,159&532,269\\
		BDDC-SO(vf-min)   && 5&4&4  &4  & 4
		&&2,304&13,259&53,919&146,979&236,439
		\\

		\bottomrule
	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Number of PCG iterations required by BDDC and BDDC-SO
	\hnr{and
	associated size of the coarse problem} for
		increasing local problem sizes $k$.}\label{Table1}
\end{table}
In the first
experiment, which is a proof of concept of the result in Theorem \ref{lem:1},
we solve the problem on a set of uniform meshes
with $10k  \times 10k\times 10k $ hexahedra, where $k=4, 8, 16, 24, 32$.
We use $10^3$ processors, each of which is responsible for a local problem of
size $k^3$ cells. In Table \ref{Table1}, we report the number of PCG
iterations required to reduce the 2-norm of the residual by a factor of $10^6$ using
BDDC and
BDDC-SO preconditioners. For both of them, vertex, edge and face
constraints (vef) will be used. For BDDC-SO, as the meshes get finer and
finer
we will use smaller subobjects to keep the ratio $L/h$ constant
($L/h=4$). We can see that, even when all the possible constraints
are used, the number of iterations of BDDC(vef) method increases as the
local
problem size increases. The number of iterations of BDDC-SO(vef), on
the other hand, remains constant throughout. In addition, even when we
drop edge constraints and only use half of the face constraints
(vf-min), the number of iterations is still the same except for
$k=4$. These results confirm the estimate in \eqref{eq:KBApb} and indicate
that one does not need to impose constraints on all available subobjects
to
achieve the desired rate of convergence.

\subsection{3D channels problem}
In practice, we rarely want to keep $L/h$ small at all cost as in
Section \ref{num1} because the size of the
coarse problem could be prohibitively large. In many situations, an introduction
of a relatively small number of subobjects can greatly improve the
convergence.
In order to demonstrate that, we consider \eqref{weakform} with
the modification
described in Remark
\ref{rmk1}. We assume that the material has the background with
$\alpha=1$ and a system of
channels with high diffusion coefficient $\alpha=10^{\ell},\, \ell=2, 4,
6, 8$, see Figure \ref{fig:3d_channels} (left). First, we test the
robustness of the two preconditioners when solving a small problem with
the
mesh  of $40\times 40 \times 40$ hexahedra partitioned into
$4\times4\times4 $ subdomains. For BDDC-SO,  each subdomain
is split into two smaller subdomains, one associated with the background
and the other associated with the channels. These smaller subdomains
form the fine partition $\{\widehat{\Omega}_j\}$ to define the
subobjects. In Figure \ref{fig:3d_channels} (right), we plot the number
of PCG iterations required by standard BDDC using all possible vertex,
edge
and face constraints (BDDC(vef)), and BDDC-SO using only face
constraints (BDDC-SO(f)) to reduce the 2-norm of the residual by a factor of
$10^{6}$. We can see that while the number of iterations of BDDC(vef)
increases significantly as the contrast ($\ell$) increases, the number
of iterations of BDDC-SO(f) is constant throughout. This verifies
that BDDC-SO can be very robust for heterogeneous material problems.
\begin{figure}[h!]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fibers.png}	\qquad
	\includegraphics[width=6cm]{iters_pb_bddc_vs_BDDC_cef.pdf}
	\caption{3D channels problem: channel of high
		coefficient (left) and contrast robustness of BDDC and
		BDDC-SO (right).}\label{fig:3d_channels}
\end{figure}

Next, we consider $\ell=8$. We build
uniform meshes with $32 m \times 32 m \times 32 m$ hexahedra. The
largest mesh  has more than 260 million grid points. These meshes are
partitioned into
regular partitions of $m \times m \times m$ subdomains,
for $m=2,4,6,8,10$. The subobjects of BDDC-SO are defined similarly.
In Figure \ref{fig:3d_channels_iterations_time}, we present the weak
scalability study in both PCG number of iterations and time (in seconds)
of
standard BDDC and BDDC-SO. For each preconditioner, we consider two
variants: one using vertex and edge constraints (ve), the other using
vertex, edge and face constraints (vef). We can observe
excellent weak scalability and robustness of BDDC-SO (bottom row).  On
the other hand, the
performance of standard BDDC (top row) varies widely as the number of
processors
increases. BDDC-SO methods are also much faster. They require less than
21 iterations and less than 9 seconds to converge. Standard BDDC
methods, on the
other hand, need more than 1500 iterations and more than 300 seconds to
converge when $m=6$ (512 subdomains).

\begin{figure}[htp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{3D_weak_32_iter.pdf}
		\qquad
\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{3D_weak_32_tot.pdf}
	\caption{Weak scalability in  number of PCG
		iterations (left) and in time in seconds (right).}
	\label{fig:3d_channels_iterations_time}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have introduced a new variant of BDDC preconditioner called BDDC-SO,
where constraints are imposed on a selected set of subobjects: subedges,
subfaces
and vertices between subedges of
subdomains. We are able to show that the new preconditioner has superior
rate of convergence: the condition number depends only on the ratio of
the characteristic sizes of the subobjects and the mesh. In
addition,
the proposed preconditioner is very robust w.r.t. the contrast in the
physical coefficient. Numerical results verify these for problems with
up to 260 millions of unknowns solved on 8K processors.
However, the advantages come at the cost of solving
larger coarse problems. Even though one does
not need to impose constraints on all available subobjects to maintain
the logarithmic bound of the condition number (only needs to have
enough subobjects to guarantee the existence of the so-called {\it
	acceptable paths} between neighboring fine subdomains, see
\cite{klawonn.et.al.02,klawonn07_heterogenous,BadiaMartinNguyen_multi_material})
the size of the coarse problem of BDDC-SO can be significantly larger
than that of BDDC. Therefore, two-level BDDC-SO is only suitable for
small to medium size problems. In order to use BDDC-SO for large scale
problems, one needs to extend BDDC-SO to its multi-level version,
see \cite{tu_three-level_2007,mandel_multispace_2008} for the formulation
of the multi-level BDDC method, and \cite{badia_extreme_2015} for its extreme scale HPC implementation. Indeed,
BDDC-SO is very appealing for the multi-level implementation approach in
\cite{badia_extreme_2015} \hnr{as users have great flexibility
in defining subobjects at all coarser levels to have suitable coarser
problem sizes and more balanced workload among
levels.}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
\fundthanks
\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{plain}