Bounds on curvature in regular graphs

Abstract: We study the curvature-dimension inequality in regular graphs. We develop techniques for calculating the curvature of such graphs, and we give characterizations of classes of graphs with positive, zero, and negative curvature. Our main result is to compare the curvature-dimension inequality in these classes to the so-called Ollivier curvature. A consequence of our results is that in the case that the graph contains no subgraph isomorphic to either $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$ these curvatures usually have the same sign, and we characterize the exceptions.

\section{Introduction}
Recently there have been several attempts to translate the well-understood concept of curvature from Riemannian geometry to discrete spaces.  In the continuous setting, the Bochner formula characterizes harmonic functions in terms of the curvature.  Based on this, Bakry and \'{E}mery \cite{BE} developed the Curvature-Dimension inequality, which has since been adapted to define curvature in a discrete setting \cite{KKRT15}.  There have recently been many results on the spectral and isoperimetric properties of graphs under a bound on the CD-curvature \cite{CLY14}\cite{KKRT15} with further references therein.

An alternate notion of discrete curvature is the Ollivier curvature, proposed by Y. Ollivier\cite{Oll07} and independently by Sammer \cite{Sam05} which has been further investigated at length, e.g. \cite{Oll09}.  This curvature compares the minimum-transport distance of balls on a curved space to that of balls in Euclidean space.

In this work we investigate the CD-curvature for regular graphs, and compare to the Ollivier curvature.  It is known that these notions are not in general equivalent, indeed, in this work we give examples of graphs for which the curvature is positive in one notion but not the other.  For graphs that are triangle-free and have no subgraph isomorphic to $K_{2,3}$, we develop rules for calculating both types of curvature, and observe that the signs of the curvatures are usually equivalent.  We also characterize the classes of graphs for which the signs are not equivalent.  We calculate the curvature for several examples of interest, including the graph of the state space of the random interchange process.

In Section 2, we provide the definitions of both the curvature-dimension inequality and of Ollivier's curvature.  In Sections 3 and 4, we investigate the curvature of regular graphs that have no subgraph isomorphic to either $K_3$.  In addition we prove a number of short results related to these notions of curvature.

\section{Preliminaries}

\subsection{Curvature-Dimension inequality} The $CD$-inequality was introduced in \cite{BE85} and several variations have been studied.  Our definitions follow from \cite{KKRT15} and we use the non-normalized Laplacian matrix.  For a $d$-regular graph, the curvature differs from that explored by Chung, Lin, Yau \cite{CLY14} by a multiplicative factor of $d$; those definitions result from choosing a normalized Laplacian.

If $G = (V,E)$ is a locally finite graph and $f,g:V\to{\mathbb R}$, then

\[\Gamma (f,g)(x) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{y\sim x}\parens{f(y)-f(x)}\parens{g(y)-g(x)},\]
\[\Gamma f(x) :=\Gamma(f,f)(x),\]
\[\Delta f(x) = \sum_{y\sim x} f(y)-f(x),\]
\[\text{and }\Gamma_2 f = \frac{1}{2} \Delta\Gamma f - \Gamma(f,\Delta f).\]

Let $f:V\to{\mathbb R}$ and $x\in V$. Because $\Delta f = \Delta (f+c)$ and $\Gamma f = \Gamma(f+c)$, we may (and will) assume that $f(x) = 0$.  In that case straightforward manipulation (as in \cite{KKRT15}) reveals a form for $\Gamma_2f(x)$ that often simplifies computation:

\begin{align*}\label{gamma}
2\Gamma_2f(x) = &\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{u\sim v\sim x\\ d(x,u) = 2}}\parens{f(u)-2f(v)}^2 + \parens{\sum_{v\sim x}f(v)}^2 + \sum_{v\sim x} \frac{4-d(x)-d(v)}{2}f^2(v)
\nonumber\\
 +&\sum_{\Delta(x,v,u)}\biggl[2\parens{f(v)-f(u)}^2 + \frac{1}{2}\parens{f^2(v) + f^2 (u)}\biggr]\,,
\end{align*}

where $\Delta(x,v,u)$ means that $x\sim v\sim u\sim v$.

\begin{definition} We say that $G$ satisfies the $CD(\rho,\infty)$ condition at $x$ iff for all $f:V\to{\mathbb R}$, $\Gamma_2f(x)\geq\rho \Gamma f(x)$.\end{definition}

\begin{remark} Whether $CD(\rho,\infty)$ is satisfied for $G$ at $x$ is a local property; in particular, it depends only on the structure of edges that are incident to at least one neighbor of $x$.  It is possible to remove all other edges without affecting the curvature at $x$.
\end{remark}

An obvious concern is to characterize the non-constant function $f$ that minimizes $\Gamma_2f(x)/\Gamma f(x)$.  It is understood how to calculate the $f(u)$ if $d(x,u) = 2$.  A simple optimization reveals that, holding $f(v)$ constant for all $v\sim x$, the value of $f(u)$ minimizing $\Gamma_2f(x)$ is
\[f(u) = \frac{2\sum_{v: x\sim v\sim u} f(v)}{\#\{v:x\sim v\sim u\}}.\]

\subsection{Ollivier curvature}

The second form of discrete curvature that we consider is the so-called Ollivier curvature.

For probability measures $\mu,\nu$ on $V$, the $L_1$ Wasserstein (i.e., minimum-transport) distance is \begin{align*}W_1(\mu,\nu) = \min_m \int_{V\times V} d(x,y) dm(x,y),\end{align*} where the minimum is taken over all probability measures $m$ on $V\times V$ so that \begin{align*}\int_V m(x,y) d\nu(y) = \mu(x)\text{ and } \int_V m(x,y) d\mu(x) = \nu(y).\end{align*}  In plain words, we transport $\mu$ to $\nu$ by shifting a load of size $m(x,y)$ along an $(x,y)$-geodesic, and $W_1$ minimizes the average distance transported over all choices of transport function $m$.

Let $G$ be a $d$-regular graph.  For $x\in V$, define a probability measure $\mu_x$ so that \begin{align*}\mu_x(v) = \begin{cases}
      \tfrac{1}{2} & \text{if }v = x \\
      \frac{1}{2d} & \text{if }v \sim x \\
      0 & \text{otherwise.}
   \end{cases}\end{align*}

\begin{definition} If $x,y\in V$ and $x\sim y$, the curvature is $\kappa(x,y) = 1-W_1(\mu_x,\mu_y)$.
\end{definition}

\section{$K_{2,3}$ and triangle-free graphs}

In this section we compare the $CD$ curvature to Ollivier's curvature for regular graphs that contain no subgraphs isomorphic to either $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$.

\begin{definition}If $x\in V$ and $y,z\sim x$, we say that $y$ and $z$ are \textit{linked} if there is a vertex $w\neq x$ so that $y\sim w\sim z$.  We write $
y\approx z$ if $y$ and $z$ are linked and $y\not\approx z$ if not.\end{definition}

\begin{definition} If $x,y\in V$ and $x\sim y$, the non-linking number $N_x(y)$ is the number of other neighbors of $x$ that are not linked to $y$: $|\{w\sim x:w\neq y, w\not\approx y\}|$.\end{definition}

\begin{theorem} Let $G$ be $d$-regular and have no subgraph isomorphic to either $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$.  Let $N = \max_{y\sim x} N_x(y)$.

(i) If $N = 0$, then $G$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ at $x$ iff $\rho \leq 2$ ($G$ is positively curved at $x$.)

(ii) If $N = 1$, then $G$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ at $x$ iff $\rho \leq 0$. ($G$ is flat at $x$.)

(iii) If $N \geq 2$, then $G$ does not satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$ at $x$. ($G$ is negatively curved at $x$.)
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Because $G$ has no subgraph isomorphic to $K_{2,3}$, if neighbors $y,z$ of $x$ are linked, then they are linked by a unique vertex $w$, and the link $w$ cannot be adjacent to any neighbor of $x$ other than $y$ and $z$.\\

(i) If $N=0$, then $G$ is locally isomorphic to the hypercube $\Omega_d$. That is, there is a local isomorphism $\phi:V(G)\to V(\Omega_d)$ with the property that $\Gamma_2 f(x) = \Gamma_2 f\circ\phi(x)$ and $\Gamma f(x) = \Gamma f\circ\phi(x)$ for all $f:V\to{\mathbb R}$.  It is well-known \cite{KKRT15} that $\Omega_d$ has positive curvature, likewise $G$ has positive curvature.\\

(ii) To show that $CD(\rho,\infty)$ fails at $x$ if $\rho > 0$, we describe a test-function $f$ for which $\Gamma_2 f (x) = 0$:

  Let $y,z$ be a pair of unlinked neighbors of $x$, set $f(x) = 0$, $f(y) = 1$, $f(z) = -1$.  For any other neighbor of $x$, set $f = 0$.  On the second-neighbors of $x$, set $f$ to be twice the average of $f$ evaluated on all neighbors of $x$ adjacent to that vertex, so as to minimize $\Gamma_2$.  Notice that $y$ will be linked to $d-2$ neighbors of $x$(all besides $z$ and itself) by $d-2$ distinct vertices, each with $f = 1$, and will have one neighbor that is not adjacent to any other neighbor of $x$, at which $f = 2$.  Likewise, $z$ will have $d-2$ neighbors with $f = -1$ and one neighbor with $f = -2$.  And, each other neighbor of $x$ will be adjacent to one vertex with $f = 1$ and one with $f = -1$: the vertices linking them to $y$ and $z$ respectively.

With this function it is straightforward to see that $2\Gamma_2 f(x) = 0$.\\

We now show that for any function $f$, $2\Gamma_2f(x) \geq 0$, and therefore $CD(\rho,\infty)$ holds for any $\rho \leq 0$:

Because there is a bijection between pairs of linked neighbors of $x$ and the linking vertices,

\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{u\sim v\sim x\\ d(x,u) = 2}}\parens{f(u)-2f(v)}^2 \geq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}} \parens{f(y)-2f(w)}^2 + \parens{f(z)-2f(w)}^2 \geq \sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}} \parens{f(y)-f(z)}^2,
\end{align*} where $w$ is the vertex linking $y$ and $z$, and the sum is taken over all unordered pairs $y,z$ of linked neighbors of $x$.

Using this in the expression for $\Gamma_2$, we find

\begin{align*} 2\Gamma_2f(x) &\geq \sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}} \parens{f(y)-f(z)}^2+\parens{\sum_{y\sim x}f(v)}^2 + (2-d)\sum_{y\sim x} f^2(v) \\&= \sum_{y\sim x} (3-d + \#\{z\sim x:y\approx z\})f^2(y) + \sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}}2f(y)f(z) \\ &\geq \sum_{y\sim x} f^2(y) + \sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}}2f(y)f(z) \geq \sum_{\substack{y,z\sim x\\ y\approx z}}\parens{f(y)-f(z)}^2 \geq 0,
\end{align*} because each neighbor $y$ of $x$ is linked to at least $d-2$ of the $d-1$ other neighbors of $x$, and not linked to at most $1$ other neighbor of $x$.\\

(iii).  Let $y$ be a neighbor of $x$ with $N_x(y)>1$.  Define a test-function $f$: $f(x) = 0$, $f(y) = d-1$, otherwise if $z\sim x$, $f(z) = -1$, and choose the values of $f$ on the second-neighbors of $x$ to minimize $\Gamma_2$.

It is straightforward to calculate that \begin{align*}
2\Gamma_2f(x) &= \biggl(\sum_{\substack{z\sim x\\ y\approx z}} \parens{f(y)-f(z)}^2\biggr) + (2-d)[(d-1)^2 + (d-1)]\\ &\leq (d-3)d^2 + (2-d)(d^2 - d) = -2d < 0,
\end{align*} and therefore $CD(0,\infty)$ fails at $x$.  The bound on the first term is due to the fact that $y$ is unlinked to at least $2$ of the $d-1$ other neighbors of $x$.

\end{proof}

We give a similar characterization of the Ollivier curvature:

\begin{theorem} Let $G$ be $d$-regular and have no subgraph isomorphic to either $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$.  Let $N = \max_{y\sim x} N_x(y)$.

(i) If $N = 0$, then $\kappa(x,y) > 0$.

(ii) If $N = 1$, then $\kappa(x,y) \geq 0$.

(iii) If $N \geq 2$, then $\kappa(x,y) \leq 0$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(i) As in our previous result $G$ must be locally isomorphic to $\Omega_d$, it is well-known that $\kappa(x,y) = \tfrac{1}{d}$ in this case.\\

(ii) Let $y,z$ be an unlinked pair of neighbors of $x$, and let $v_1,\dots, v_{d-2}$ be the other neighbors of $x$.  For each $v_i$ there is a $w_i$ that links $v_i$ and $y$, let $u$ be the neighbor of $y$ that is not in $\{x,w_1,\dots, w_{d-2}\}$.  $d(u,z)\leq 3$ as $u\sim y\sim x\sim z$.  To bound $W_1(\mu_x,\mu_y)$ from above, consider the transfer of mass along paths $x\to y, v_i \to w_i$ and $z\to u$.  This gives a bound of $W_1(\mu_x,\mu_y) \leq 1$, and so $\kappa(x,y)\geq 0$.\\

(iii) Let $y$ be a neighbor of $x$ with $N_x(y)>1$.  We use a test-function $f$ to bound the dual formulation of $W_1$,\begin{align}\label{wdual} W_1(\mu,\nu) = \max_{f\in Lip(1)} \int f\ d\mu-\int f\ d\nu.\end{align}  For a test-function, set $f(x) = 0$, $f(y) = 1$, $f(v) = 0$ if $v$ is any other neighbor of $x$, $f(w) = 1$ if $w$ links $y$ to a neighbor of $x$, $f(u) = 2$ if $u$ is any other neighbor of $y$, and $f = 1$ on every other vertex, so that $f$ is $1$-lipschitz.

\begin{align*} W_1(\mu_x,\mu_y)\geq \int f\ d\mu_y -\int f\ d\mu_x = 1 + \frac{N-2}{2d}\geq 1,\end{align*} so $\kappa(x,y) \leq 0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} $\kappa > 0$ is satisfied under hypothesis (ii) for $G = C_5$, or graphs with similar structure for which (in the language of the proof) $d(u,z) = 2$.  $\kappa = 0$ is satisfied under hypothesis (iii) e.g. for the dodecahedral graph, again because $d(u,z) = 2$.  \end{remark}

We combine the previous results to show a relationship between the curvatures.

\begin{corollary} Let $G$ be $d$-regular and have no subgraph isomorphic to either $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$.  Let $x\in V$.\\
(i) If and only if there exists $\rho > 0$ so that $G$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ at $x$, then $\kappa(x,y)>0$ for all $y\sim x$.\\
(ii) If $G$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$ at $x$, then $\kappa(x,y) \geq 0$ for all $y\sim x$.\\
(iii) If $G$ does not satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$ at $x$, then there is a vertex $y\sim x$ for which $\kappa(x,y)\leq 0$.  If there is a vertex $y\sim x$ for which $\kappa(x,y) < 0$, then $G$ does not satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$ at $x$. \end{corollary}

\subsection
{Examples}
We give examples of graphs with no subgraph isomorphic to $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$, categorized by which subhypothesis of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 they satisfy.  Most of these graphs are vertex-transitive, so the curvature is identical at every vertex.

As before, let $v$ be a neighbor of $x$ that is not linked to the largest number of other neighbors of $x$, and let $N$ be that number.
\\
Common graphs with $N=0$, satisfying hypothesis (i) include \begin{itemize}
\item The hypercube $\Omega_d$.
\end{itemize}

Common graphs with $N = 1$, satisfying hypothesis (ii) include

\begin{itemize}
\item The square lattice ${\mathbb Z}^n$ where $n\geq 1$.
\item The cyclic graph $C_k$ if $k\geq 5$.
\item Any product of the above graphs, or product of these graphs with a graph from the previous list.
\end{itemize}

Common graphs with $N > 1$, satisfying hypothesis (iii) include

\begin{itemize}
\item The infinite $d$-regular tree if $d\geq 3$.
\item Any $d$-regular graph with girth $\geq 5$ if $d\geq 3$.
\item The graph of triangulations of an $n$-gon ($n\geq 6$), with edges representing the action of flipping one interior arc of the polygon.
\item $S_n$ with edges corresponding to adjacent transpositions.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Interchange Process}
Given an underlying graph $H = ([n],F)$, the interchange process labels the vertices of $H$ and at each step, we are allowed to exchange the labels of a pair of adjacent vertices.  Let $G$ be the graph of possible states with an edge between two states if we can move from one state to the other in a single step.  In other words, $G$ is the Cayley graph of the subgroup of $S_n$ with generating set $A = \{(i,j):\{i,j\}\in F\}$.

$G$ is always $K_3$-free, and will be $K_{2,3}$-free if and only if $H$ is triangle-free.  If $x\in V(G)$ and $a,b\in A$, $ax\approx bx$ iff $a$ and $b$ are not incident to the same vertex as edges of $H$.  Because of this, we can easily determine the value of $N$ for the interchange process in terms of $H$.

\begin{itemize}

\item If $H$ is a matching, $G$ satisfies hypothesis (i).

\item If $H$ is the disjoint union of paths with length $\leq 2$ (at least one of which has length equal to $2$), $G$ satisfies hypothesis (ii).

\item If $H$ has any vertex of degree $\geq 3$ or any path of length $\geq 3$, then $G$ satisfies hypothesis (iii).
\end{itemize}

\section{Triangle-free regular graphs.}

In this section we compare the curvature-dimension inequality to the Ollivier curvature for regular triangle-free graphs.  Unlike Section 3, we allow the graph to have $K_{2,3}$ as a subgraph.  In this more general case our results are less complete.  In both notions of discrete curvature we give characterizations of classes of graphs with positive curvature, but it remains open to give a full characterization of graphs with positive curvature.

Let $G = (V,E)$ be a triangle-free $d$-regular graph.

\begin{definition}Let $u,w$ be two neighbors of $x$.  The \textit{linkage} of $u$ and $w$ is calculated by summing over all vertices $z\neq x$ for which $u\sim z\sim w$: \begin{align*}
l(u,w) = \sum_z \frac{1}{|\{y: x\sim y\sim z\}|}
\end{align*}
\end{definition}

\begin{remark} As discussed in Section 2, if $G$ contains no subgraph isomorphic to $K_{2,3}$, then there can be at most one vertex $z$ with $z\neq x, u\sim z\sim w$, which will have $\{y:x\sim y\sum z\} = \{u,w\}$.  In this case $l(u,w) = 1/2$ and (as before) we say that $u$ and $w$ are linked.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a triangle-free graph, and $x\in V(G)$.  If for every pair $u,w$ of neighbors of $x$, $l(u,w)\geq \frac{1}{2}$, then $G$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ at $x$ iff $\rho \leq 2$.\\
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
It is known that any triangle-free graph $G$ fails $CD(\rho,\infty)$ if $\rho > 2$ \cite{KKRT15}.

Recall that if $f$ is the minimizer of $\Gamma_2f(x)/\Gamma f(x)$ and $d(x,z) = 2$, \begin{align*}f(z) = \frac{2}{\# y: x\sim y\sim z}\sum_{y:x\sim y\sim z} f(y).\end{align*}

With this minimization (and the assumption of a triangle-free graph), straightforward algebraic manipulation reveals a form for $\Gamma_2 f$:
\begin{align}\label{gamma_linkage}2\Gamma_2 f(x) = \sum_{y\sim x} (3-d)f^2(y) + \sum_{w,y\sim x}2f(y) f(w) + \sum_{w,y\sim x} 2l(w,y) \parens{f(w)-f(y)}^2
\end{align}

Because $l\geq 1/2$ we can bound this equation:

\begin{align*}2\Gamma_2 f(x) &\geq \sum_{y\sim x} (3-d)f^2(y) + \sum_{w,y\sim x}2f(y) f(w) + \sum_{w,y\sim x} \parens{f(w)-f(y)}^2\\ &= \sum_{y\sim x} (3-d)f^2(y) + \sum_{w,y\sim x}2f(y) f(w) +\sum_{y\sim x} (d-1)f^2(y)- \sum_{w,y\sim x}2f(y)f(w)\\ &= 2\sum_{y\sim x}f^2(x) = 4\Gamma f(x),
\end{align*}
and therefore $CD(2,\infty)$ is satisfied.
\end{proof}

We prove a result regarding the Ollivier curvature of a related class of graphs:

\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a triangle-free graph. If every pair of adjacent edges of $G$ are contained within exactly one maximal complete bipartite induced subgraph whose parts have equal size, then $\kappa(x,y) = \frac{1}{d}$ for all pairs of neighbors $x,y$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $x,y$ be a pair of neighboring vertices in $G$.  The neighbors $w$ of $x$ with $w\neq y$ are partitioned into $S_1,...,S_k$ according to which maximal complete bipartite subgraph contains $\{xy\}$ and $\{xw\}$.  Similarly neighbors of $y$ (other than $x$) are partitioned into $T_1,...,T_k$, so that $\{x\}\cup T_i,\{y\}\cup S_i$ are the equally sized parts of a maximal complete bipartite graph.

To minimize $W_1(\mu(x),\mu(y))$ requires shifting a mass of size $\frac{|S_i|}{2d}$ from vertices of $S_i$ to those in $T_i$ and a mass of size $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2d}$ from $x$ to $y$ at a total cost of $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2d}+\frac{1}{2d}\sum_{i}|S_i| = 1 - \frac{2}{2d}$, this proves the theorem.
\end{proof}

Observe that under the hypothesis of Theorem 4.2, a pair of vertices $y,w$ that are neighbors of $x$ will be contained within a copy of $K_{m,m}$ for some value $m\geq 2$.  In this case, $l(w,y)\geq (m-1)\frac{1}{m}\geq 1/2$, so the hypothesis of Theorem 4.1 is also satisfied, and such a graph will have positive curvature both in terms of the $CD$ inequality and Ollivier curvature.

Examples of common graphs:\begin{itemize}

\item The hypercube $\Omega_n$, where neighbors $w$ and $y$ of $x$ are linked by a unique vertex $z$, so that $x,z,w,y$ are the vertices of a copy of $K_{2,2}$, and $l(x,y) = 1/2$.  $\Omega_n$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ iff $\rho \leq 2$ and has $\kappa = 1/n$.

\item $G = K_{n,n}$ for $n\geq 2$, which has $l(y,w) = \frac{n-1}{n}$.  $K_{n,n}$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ iff $\rho \leq 2$ and has $\kappa = 1/n$.

\item The Cayley graph of $S_n$ generated by all interchanges $(ij):i,j\in [n]$:

If $y = (ij)x$ and $w=(ik)x$, then $x,w,y$ are contained within the copy of $K_{3,3}$ that also includes $(jk)x,(ijk)x,(jik)x$.  In this case $l(w,y) = 2/3$.

On the other hand if $y = (ij)x$ and $w = (kl)x$, those vertices are contained within a square that includes $x$ and $(ij)(kl)x$, and $l(w,y) = 1/2$.

$G$ satisfies $K_{n,n}$ satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ iff $\rho \leq 2$ and has $\kappa = 1/\binom{n}{2}$

\item If $X = ([n],E)$ is a graph, the interchange process on $X$ will always give an $|E|$-regular triangle-free graph.  If $X$ is a union of disjoint cliques, it is simple to see that $G$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2.  Indeed many of the previous examples are of this type: $\Omega_d$ corresponds to $X$ being a perfect matching on $2d$ vertices, and $S_n$ corresponds to $X = K_n$.

\item An $(n,d,k)$-incidence graph is a $d$-regular bipartite graph with partite sets $A_1,A_2$ of $n$ elements each so that each pair of elements in $A_i$ share $k$ common neighbors in $A_{1-i}$.  In order that such a graph exists, $(n-1)k = d(d-1)$ must count the number of $2$-paths starting (and not ending) at $x$.

Without loss of generality $x\in A_1$ and $x$ has neighbors $y,w\in A_2$, then $y$ and $w$ share $k-1$ other neighbors, each of which is adjacent to $k$ neighbors of $x$.  $l(w,y) = \frac{k-1}{k}$.  If $k\geq 2$, an $(n,d,k)$ incidence graph satisfies $CD(\rho,\infty)$ iff $\rho \leq 2$.

\end{itemize}

\section{Other Results}

\subsection{zig-zag product}
The zig-zag product is defined \cite{RVW} for graphs $G_1,G_2$, where
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_1$ is regular with degree $d = |V_2|$, and for each $a\in V(G_1)$ the incident edges are indexed by $V_2$ - so that we can write $a[x]$ for the unique neighbor of $a$ that shares an edge labelled $x$ with $a$.
\item $G_2$ is $D$-regular.
\item The vertex set of the zig-zag product is $G_1\times G_2$.
\item If $x\sim y\sim z$ is a $2$-walk in $G_2$, then $(a,x)\sim (a[y],z)$.
\end{itemize}

The zig-zag product is a $D^2$-regular graph that inherits its expansion properties from $G_1$, which may have much larger degree.  For this reason the zig-zag product is useful in generating expander graphs of bounded degree.  The question arises whether the zig-zag product inherits the curvature properties from $G_1$ or $G_2$.  In general this is not the case, we give an example of such a graph:

If $G_1$ and $G_2$ are both abelian Cayley graphs, it is not in general true that the zig-zag product will have non-negative curavture: as a simple example if $G_1 = \Omega_d$ and $G_2 = Z_d$ with vertices $1\dots, d$ labelled in order around the cycle, and $x\in V_1$ with $y = x[2]$, $z = x[d]$, then $(x,1)$ has four neighbors - $(y,1), (y,3), (z,1), (z,d-1)$.\\$(y,1)$ has neighbors $(x,1),(x,3),(y[d],1),(y[d],d-1)$.\\
$(y,3)$ has neighbors $(x,1),(x,3),(y[4],3),(y[4],5)$.\\
$(z,1)$ has neighbors $(x,1),(x,d-1),(z[2],1),(z[2],3)$.\\
$(z,d-1)$ has neighbors $(x,1), (x,d-1),(z[d-2],d-1),(z[d-2],d-3)$.

$G$ is $K_3$ and $K_{2,3}$-free, we examine which pairs of neighbors of $(x,1)$ are not linked.  We see that $(y,3)\not\approx (z,1), (y,3)\not\approx (z,d-1), (y,1)\not\approx (z,d-1)$.  As such, $N=2$, and $G$ satisfies hypothesis (iii) of Theorems 3.1-2.

As such, $G$ fails $CD(0,\infty)$, and simple calculation gives $\kappa((x,1),(y,3)) = -\tfrac{1}{4}$.

\subsection{Diameter bounds}
It is well-known that a positive lower bound on Ollivier curvature gives an upper bound on the diameter of the graph, according to the following argument developed from \cite{Oll07}.

Assume for every pair of neighboring vertices $x,y$, $\kappa(x,y)\geq \kappa*>0$.  Let $x_0,\dots,x_l$ be a geodesic path, then \begin{align*}W_1(\mu_{x_0},\mu_{x_l})\leq \sum_{i=1}^l W_1(\mu_{x_{i-1}},\mu_{x_i}) \leq l(1-\kappa*),\end{align*} but, considering the $1$-Lipschitz function $f(y) = d(x_0,y)$, \begin{align*}W_1(\mu_{x_0},\mu_{x_l})\geq \int f d\mu_{x_l}-\int fd\mu_{x_0}\geq (l-\tfrac{1}{2})-(\tfrac{1}{2}) = l-1.\end{align*}

Thus $l(1-\kappa*)\geq l-1$, and $1\geq l\kappa*$; as the diameter is achieved on a geodesic path, its length $D$ is bounded above by $D\leq \frac{1}{\kappa*}$.

\begin{corollary}If $G$ is a $d$-regular graph with positive curvature, then the diameter is bounded by $D\leq 2d$.\end{corollary}

For any $x,z\in V$, $\mu_x(z)$ is an integer multiple of $\tfrac{1}{2d}$.  There is an optimal solution to the minimum-transport problem between $\mu_x$ and $\mu_y$ with the property that a multiple of $\tfrac{1}{2d}$ is transported along each path used - as each path has integer length, $W_1(\mu_x,\mu_y)$ is a multiple of $\tfrac{1}{2d}$.  If $x,y$ are neighbors and $\kappa(x,y) > 0$, then it must be $\kappa(x,y) \geq \tfrac{1}{2d}$.  If $x,y$ are not neighbors, then for any $z\sim x$ along the shortest $x-y$ path, $\kappa(x,y)\geq \kappa(x,z)\geq \tfrac{1}{2d}$.  Thus $\kappa* \geq \tfrac{1}{2d}$, and $D\leq 1/\kappa* \leq 2d$.

\begin{remark}
If $d$ is instead an upper bound on the degree of the vertex, then for any $x,y,z,w$, $\mu_x(z)$ and $\mu_y(w)$ are both multiples of $\frac{1}{2d_xd_y}$, and the same argument follows with $\kappa(x,y)\geq \frac{1}{2d_xd_y} \geq \frac{1}{2d^2-2d}$ and thus $D\leq 2d^2-2d$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
This argument depends in the specifics on the definition of $\mu_x$ which is not universal, but for any of the other common definitions I am aware of a similar argument will follow.
\end{remark}

\begin{corollary} There is no infinite family of bounded-degree graphs with a lower bound on curvature of $\kappa > 0$.
\end{corollary}

It is known that a planar graph with bounded degree on $n$ vertices has spectral gap $\lambda = O(1/n)$\cite{ST07}.  The previous theorem tells us that among planar graphs with bounded degree, there is no infinite family that makes the bound $\kappa = O(1/n)$ tight, indeed, $\kappa \leq 0$ for all but finitely many bounded degree graphs.

In the case of graphs without bounded degree, it is true that $\kappa = 1/n$ for the star graph with $n$ leaves, which is planar.

\section*{Acknowledgements} The author thanks Max Fathi and Prasad Tetali for valuable discussions and examples of graphs relevant to this topic.

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}

Bounds on curvature in regular graphs


Higher-dimensional linking integrals

Abstract: We derive an integral formula for the linking number of two submanifolds of the n-sphere S^n, of the product S^n x R^m, and of other manifolds which appear as "nice" hypersurfaces in Euclidean space. The formulas are geometrically meaningful in that they are invariant under the action of the special orthogonal group on the ambient space.

\section{Introduction}
	\label{sec:intro}
	In \cite{Gauss}, Carl Friedrich Gau\ss \ defined an integral whose purpose was to compute the linking number of two closed curves in Euclidean 3-space.  Gau\ss's linking integral follows from at least two elementary arguments: one involves thinking of the curves as wires, running a current through one and applying Amp\`ere's Law, while the other is a straightforward degree-of-map argument (see \cite{Epple}).  The latter extends easily to all Euclidean spaces (as we will see in Section \ref{sec:rN}), but cannot be directly adapted to spheres.  As such, when Dennis DeTurck and Herman Gluck set out to derive integral formulas for the linking number of closed curves in the 3-sphere and in hyperbolic 3-space \cite{DG1}, they adapted the first argument, developing steady-state versions of electrodynamics in those spaces.

	The integrals defined by Gau\ss \ in the case of $\mathbb{R}^3$ and by DeTurck and Gluck in the case of $S^3$ and $H^3$ apply to the simplest of the eight 3-dimensional model geometries and motivate the search for a linking integral in the next simplest geometry, $S^2 \times \mathbb{R}$.  An explicit formula for this case is given in Section \ref{sec:examples}, but the techniques developed to obtain this formula apply to a much broader class of manifolds, which we call ``visible hypersurfaces''.

	Call a smooth hypersurface $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ {\it visible from the point $p$} if each ray from $p$ either misses $M^n$ completely, or else meets it just once transversally.  We will always arrange things so that $p$ is the origin in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and simply call our hypersurfaces {\it visible}.  The principal examples are $S^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and $S^n \times \mathbb{R}^m \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+m+1}$.  Every closed manifold is homotopically equivalent to a visible hypersurface in some Euclidean space.  Our main theorem gives explicit linking integrals in all visible hypersurfaces:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
	Let $K^k$ and $L^\ell$ be disjoint, closed, oriented, null-homologous submanifolds of a visible hypersurface $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ such that $k + \ell = n-1$.  Then their linking number is given by
	\begin{equation}\label{eqn:snxrmIntegral}
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{K \times L} \frac{\Omega_{k, \ell}(\alpha)}{|x|^{k+1} |y|^{\ell+1} \sin^{n}\alpha} \, [x, dx, y, dy]
	\end{equation}
	where
	\[
		\Omega_{k, \ell}(\alpha) = \int_{\theta=\alpha}^\pi \sin^k (\theta - \alpha) \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta.
	\]
	Here $\alpha(x, y)$ is the angle between $x \in K$ and $y \in L$, thought of as vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and the notation $[x,dx, y, dy]$ is as defined in Section \ref{sec:sn}.
\end{theorem}

In $\mathbb{R}^3$, or equivalently $S^3$, the linking number of $K$ with $L$ is defined to be the oriented intersection number of $K$ with a chain $\overline{L}$ bounded by $L$.  Extend this definition to higher dimensions by defining the linking number of two submanifolds $K^k$ and $L^\ell$ to be the oriented intersection number $K \cdot \overline{L}$ of $K$ with a chain $\overline{L}$ bounded by $L$.  This intersection number only makes sense when $k$ and $\ell$ are as in \thmref{thm:main}.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:affine}
	The integrand in \eqref{eqn:snxrmIntegral} is $SO(n+1)$-invariant, meaning that it will be the same for $K$ and $L$ in $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ as it is for $h(K)$ and $h(L)$ in $h(M)$ for all $h \in SO(n+1)$, whether or not $M^n$ is invariant under $h$.
\end{remark}

As an immediate corollary to \thmref{thm:main}, we get an integral formula for the linking number of submanifolds of $S^n$ which agrees with the formulas obtained independently and by quite different methods by Kuperberg \cite{Kuperberg} and DeTurck and Gluck \cite{DG2}:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sn}
	Let $K^k$ and $L^\ell$ be disjoint, closed, oriented submanifolds of the round $n$-sphere $S^n$ with $k + \ell = n-1$.  Then
	\[
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\,  S^n} \int_{K \times L} \frac{\Omega_{k, \ell}(\alpha)}{\sin^n \alpha} \, [x, dx, y, dy]
	\]
	where
	\[
		\Omega_{k, \ell} (\alpha)= \int_{\theta = \alpha}^\pi \sin^k(\theta - \alpha) \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta.
	\]
	Here $\alpha(x,y)$ is the distance in $S^n$ from $x \in K$ to $y \in L$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:geometricallyMeaningful}
	The integrand in \thmref{thm:sn} is invariant under orientation-preserving isometries of $S^n$.
\end{remark}

To prove \thmref{thm:main}, we first adapt the degree-of-map proof of the Gau\ss \ linking integral to get an integral formula for the linking number of closed submanifolds of $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ for all $N$.  Then, for submanifolds $K$ and $L$ of the visible hypersurface $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, we associate to $K$ a family of closed singular submanifolds $CK_R \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ of one higher dimension for $R \in (1,\infty)$.  We apply the integral formula in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ to the pair $(CK_R,L)$ and, after taking an appropriate limit, deduce the integral in \thmref{thm:main}.

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
\label{sub:acknowledgements}
	We owe a considerable debt of gratitude to Dennis DeTurck and Herman Gluck for introducing us to linking integrals and for many helpful and illuminating conversations.

\section{A linking integral for $\mathbb{R}^N$}
\label{sec:rN}
	To obtain a linking integral formula for $\mathbb{R}^N$, we directly adapt the degree-of-map proof of the Gau\ss \ linking integral.

	Let $K^k, L^\ell \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ be disjoint, closed, oriented submanifolds such that $k + \ell = N-1$.  Let $x: \mathbb{R}^k \to K \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ and $y: \mathbb{R}^\ell \to L \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ be oriented local coordinates for $K$ and $L$, where ${\bf s} = (s_1, \ldots , s_k)$ and ${\bf t} = (t_1, \ldots , t_\ell)$ give the coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^k$ and $\mathbb{R}^\ell$, respectively.  Then, up to sign, we can express $Lk(K, L)$ as the degree of a map:
	\begin{lemma}\label{lem:degree}
		If $K$ and $L$ are as above and $f: K \times L \to S^{N-1}$ is given by
		\[
			f(x, y) = \frac{x-y}{|x-y|},
		\]
		then the degree of the map $f$ is equal to $(-1)^N$ times the linking number of $K$ and $L$.  In other words, if $\omega$ is a volume form on $S^{N-1}$, then
		\[
			Lk(K, L) = \frac{(-1)^N}{\mathrm{vol}\,  S^{N-1}} \int_{K \times L} f^* \omega.
		\]
	\end{lemma}
	The idea of the proof of \lemref{lem:degree} is the following: if we change $K$ by a homology in the complement of $L$ (or {\it vice versa}), the degree of $f$ remains unchanged.  Hence, we can replace $K$ and $L$ by pairwise meridional round $k$- and $\ell$-spheres (with multiplicity). In this special case, it is a straightforward exercise to check that the degree of $f$ is $(-1)^N$ times the linking number.

	With \lemref{lem:degree} in hand, we turn to finding a linking integral for submanifolds of $\mathbb{R}^{N}$.  In the following theorem and throughout the rest of this paper we will use the notation $(v_1, \ldots , v_{N})$ to denote the $N\times N$ matrix with rows given by the vectors $v_1, \ldots , v_{N} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$.
	\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rN}
		With $K$ and $L$ as above,
		\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rn+1Integral}
			Lk(K, L) = \frac{(-1)^{k+1}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{N-1}}\int_{K \times L} \frac{1}{|x-y|^{N}} \, [x-y, dx, dy],
		\end{equation}
		where
		\[
			[x-y, dx, dy] = \det \left(x-y, \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_1} , \cdots , \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_k}, \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_1} , \cdots , \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_\ell} \right) d{\bf s} \, d{\bf t}.
		\]
	\end{theorem}
	\begin{remark}\label{rem:tripleProduct}
		\thmref{thm:rN} is a direct generalization of the original Gau\ss \ linking integral,
		$$Lk(K,L) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{K \times L} \frac{x-y}{|x-y|^3}  \cdot \left( \frac{dx}{ds} \times \frac{dy}{dt} \right) ds \, dt,$$
		since $\frac{1}{|x-y|^3}[x-y, dx, dy]$ is equal to the triple product in the above integrand.
	\end{remark}

	\begin{proof}\label{pf:lemrn+1}
		By \lemref{lem:degree}, it suffices to show that
		\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rn+1IntegralEquivalent}
			f^* \omega = \frac{(-1)^\ell}{|x-y|^{N}} \, [x-y, dx, dy]
		\end{equation}
		where $\omega$ is the volume form on $S^{N-1}$.

		For $S^{N-1}$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^N$ in the usual way, we can give an explicit formula for the volume form $\omega$ on $S^{N-1}$: if $p \in S^{N-1}$ and $V_1, \ldots , V_{N-1} \in T_pS^{N-1}$, then $\omega_p(V_1, \ldots, V_{N-1})$ is equal to the volume of the parallelpiped spanned by the vectors $p, V_1, \ldots , V_{N-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$:
		\[
			\omega_p(V_1, \ldots , V_{N-1}) = \det(p, V_1, \ldots , V_{N-1}).
		\]

		Therefore,
		\begin{equation}\label{eqn:degreedet}
			f^*\omega\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial s_k}, \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial t_\ell}\right)  = \det\left(f(x,y), \frac{\partial f}{\partial s_1}, \ldots, \frac{\partial f}{\partial s_k}, \frac{\partial f}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial f}{\partial t_\ell}\right).
		\end{equation}
		Note that, if $f(x,y) = (f_1(x,y),\dots,f_N(x,y))$, then
		\begin{equation}\label{eqn:dfidsj}
			\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial s_\eta} = \frac{\partial}{\partial s_\eta}\left(\frac{x_i - y_i}{|x-y|}\right) = \frac{\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial s_\eta}}{|x-y|} + (x_i - y_i) \frac{\partial}{\partial s_\eta}\left(\frac{1}{|x-y|}\right)
		\end{equation}
		and
		\begin{equation}\label{eqn:dfidtj}
			\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial t_\nu} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t_\nu} \left(\frac{x_i - y_i}{|x-y|}\right) = \frac{-\frac{\partial y_i}{\partial t_\nu}}{|x-y|} + (x_i - y_i) \frac{\partial}{\partial t_\nu}\left(\frac{1}{|x-y|}\right).
		\end{equation}
		However, since, in \eqref{eqn:degreedet}, $f_i(x,y) = \frac{x_i - y_i}{|x-y|}$ is in the same column as both $\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial s_\eta}$ and $\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial t_\nu}$, the second terms in both \eqref{eqn:dfidsj} and \eqref{eqn:dfidtj} contribute nothing to the determinant.

		Thus, combining \eqref{eqn:degreedet}, \eqref{eqn:dfidsj} and \eqref{eqn:dfidtj}, we see that
		\[
			f^*\omega\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial s_k}, \frac{\partial}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial t_\ell}\right) = \frac{(-1)^\ell}{|x-y|^{N}}\det\left(x-y, \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_k} ,  \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_\ell} \right),
		\]
		which is just a restatement of \eqref{eqn:rn+1IntegralEquivalent}.
	\end{proof}

\section{A linking integral for visible hypersurfaces}
\label{sec:sn}
In this section, we prove \thmref{thm:main} by making use of the linking integral in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.  We assume $n >1$; in the special case that $n=1$, $K$ and $L$ are both zero-dimensional and \thmref{thm:main} can be verified directly.  To set notation, let $K^k$ and $L^\ell$ be disjoint, closed, oriented, null-homologous submanifolds of the visible hypersurface $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ such that $k + \ell = n-1$.  We use $x$, $y$, ${\bf s}$ and ${\bf t}$ as in Section \ref{sec:rN} and use $[x, dx, y, dy]$ to denote
\[
	\det\left(x, \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_k}, y,  \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_\ell} \right)d{\bf s} \, d{\bf t}.
\]

Since the linking number is symmetric up to sign, we may assume, without loss of generality, that $k \leq \ell$.

The key idea is to derive an integral formula for linking numbers in $M^n$ from the one in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ appearing in \thmref{thm:rN}.  This is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:keyfigure} in the case $M^n = S^n$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
	\centering
	\subfigure[ ]{\label{fig:submanifolds}\includegraphics[scale=.75]{conev4no1.pdf}}
	\subfigure[ ]{\label{fig:cone}\includegraphics[scale=.75]{conev4no2.pdf}}
	\subfigure[ ]{\label{fig:cap}\includegraphics[scale=.75]{conev4no35.pdf}}
	\caption{ }
	\label{fig:keyfigure}
\end{figure}

In Figure \ref{fig:submanifolds}, we see the cycles $K$ and $L$ in $S^n$.  In Figure \ref{fig:cone}, we see the cycles $CK$ and $L$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, where $CK := \{\tau x : x \in K, 0 \leq \tau < \infty \}$ is the (half-infinite) cone over $K$.

We intend to take the formula for $Lk(CK,L)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, expressed as an integral over $CK \times L$, and partially integrate it over the rays $0 \leq \tau < \infty$ to reduce it to an integral over $K \times L$ for $Lk(K,L)$ in $S^n$.

The noncompactness of $CK$ raises questions about the meaning of $Lk(CK,L)$ and the convergence of the linking integral, which we handle by approximation as follows.  In Figure \ref{fig:cap}, we see the cycles $CK_R$ and $L$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, where $CK_R$ consists of the truncated cone $\{\tau x : x \in K, 0 \leq \tau \leq R\}$, capped off by the scaled version $R\overline{K}$ of a chain $\overline{K}$ in $M$ bounded by $K$.  We see that $Lk_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}}(CK_R,L) = Lk_{S^n}(K,L)$ because $CK_R$ meets a chain $\overline{L}$ bounded by $L$ exactly as $K$ does.  We then show that the integral for $Lk(CK_R,L)$ converges to the integral for $Lk(CK,L)$ as $R \to \infty$ because the contribution to the linking integral coming from the cap $R\overline{K}$ vanishes as $R \to \infty$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:nonclosed}
	With $K$ and $L$ as in \thmref{thm:main} and provided $n > 1$,
	\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nonclosed}
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{(-1)^{k}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{CK \times L} \frac{1}{|\tau x - y|^{n+1}} \, [\tau x - y, d(\tau x), d y].
	\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	We will interpret \eqref{eqn:nonclosed} as the limit of integrals given by applying \thmref{thm:rN} to the family of closed, singular manifolds $CK_R$, $1 < R < \infty$.  By construction, $Lk(K, L) = Lk(CK_R, L)$ for all $R > 1$.  Since the singularities of $CK_R$ have measure zero, we can use \thmref{thm:rN} to compute $Lk(CK_R, L)$:

	\begin{align}
	\nonumber	Lk(CK_R, L) & = \frac{(-1)^{k+2}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{CK_R \times L} \frac{1}{|\xi - y|^{n+1}} \, [\xi - y, d\xi, dy] \\
	\label{eqn:nonclosedSplit} & = \frac{(-1)^{k+2}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{\{\tau x:x\in K, \tau \in [0,R]\}\times L} \frac{1}{|\tau x - y|^{n+1}} \, [\tau x-y, d(\tau x), dy] \\
	\nonumber & \qquad	+ \frac{(-1)^{k+2}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}}  \int_{\overline{K} \times L} \frac{1}{|R z-y|^{n+1}} \, [R z-y, d(R z), dy].
	\end{align}
	As $R \to \infty$, the first term on the right hand side of \eqref{eqn:nonclosedSplit} approaches the right hand side of \eqref{eqn:nonclosed}.  Therefore, to complete the proof we need only show that
	\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nonclosedSecondTerm}
		\frac{(-1)^{k+2}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{ \overline{K} \times L} \frac{1}{|R z-y|^{n+1}} \, [R z-y, d(R z), dy] \to 0
	\end{equation}
	as $R \to \infty$.  However, as $R$ gets large the numerator in the integrand grows like $R^{k+2}$, whereas the denominator grows like $R^{n+1}$.  The assumptions $k \leq \ell$ and $n > 1$ imply that $k+2 < n+1$.  Therefore, the integrand vanishes in the limit, implying \eqref{eqn:nonclosedSecondTerm} and completing the proof.

\end{proof}

Now we are ready to prove the linking integral formula for $M^n$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \thmref{thm:main}]
	By \lemref{lem:nonclosed},
	\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mainproof1}
	Lk(K, L) = \frac{(-1)^{k}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{CK \times L} \frac{1}{|\tau x-y|^{n+1}} \, [\tau x-y, d(\tau x), dy].
	\end{equation}
	Focusing first on $[\tau x-y, d(\tau x), dy]$, we see that
	\begin{align*}
		[\tau x-y, d(\tau x), dy] & = d\tau \wedge \left[\det \left(\tau x-y, x, \tau \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_1}, \ldots , \tau \frac{\partial x}{\partial s_k}, \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_1}, \ldots , \frac{\partial y}{\partial t_\ell} \right)  d{\bf s} \, d{\bf t}\right] \\
		&  = (-1)^k\tau^k d\tau \wedge [x, dx, y, dy].
	\end{align*}
	Combining this with \eqref{eqn:mainproof1}, we see that
	\[
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{n}} \int_{K \times L} \int_{\tau = 0}^\infty \frac{\tau^k}{|\tau x -y|^{n+1}} \, d\tau \wedge [x, dx, y, dy].
	\]
	Therefore, it suffices to show that
	\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tauThetaIntegrals}
		\int_{\tau = 0}^\infty \frac{\tau^k}{|\tau x-y|^{n+1}} \, d\tau = \frac{1}{|x|^{k+1}|y|^{\ell+1}\sin^{n} \alpha} \int_{\theta = \alpha}^\pi \sin^k(\theta - \alpha) \sin^\ell\theta \, d\theta.
	\end{equation}
	\begin{figure}[htbp]
		\centering
	        \includegraphics[width=1.7in]{triangle2.pdf}
			\caption{}
			\label{fig:triangle}
	\end{figure}

As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:triangle}, we can re-write $|\tau x - y|^{n+1}$ as
	\[
		|\tau x -y|^{n+1} = \left(|y|^2 + \tau^2|x|^2 - 2\tau \langle x, y \rangle \right)^{\frac{n+1}{2}} = \left(|y|^2 +  \tau^2|x|^2 - 2\tau |x||y| \cos \alpha \right)^{\frac{n+1}{2}},
	\]
where we recall that $\alpha(x,y)$ is the angle (in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$) formed by $x$ and $y$.

	Now make the substitution $u = \tau - \frac{|y|}{|x|} \cos \alpha$ in the left hand side of \eqref{eqn:tauThetaIntegrals} to get
	\[
		\frac{1}{|x|^{n+1}}\int_{-\frac{|y|}{|x|}\cos \alpha}^\infty \frac{\left(u + \frac{|y|}{|x|}\cos \alpha\right)^k}{\left(u^2 + \frac{|y|^2}{|x|^2}\sin^2 \alpha\right)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}} \, du.
	\]
	Substituting $-\frac{|y|}{|x|}\sin \alpha \cot \theta$ for $u$ and simplifying yields
	\begin{multline*}
		\frac{1}{|x|^{k+1}|y|^{\ell+1}\sin^{n} \alpha} \int_{\theta = \alpha}^\pi (\cos \alpha - \sin \alpha \cot \theta)^k \sin^{n-1}\theta \, d\theta \\ = \frac{1}{|x|^{k+1}|y|^{\ell+1}\sin^{n} \alpha} \int_{\theta = \alpha}^\pi \sin^k(\theta - \alpha) \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta,
	\end{multline*}
	which is the right hand side of \eqref{eqn:tauThetaIntegrals}, completing the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\section{A few examples}
\label{sec:examples}
	To see that \thmref{thm:main} is useful in practice, we apply it to some prototypical examples.  First, we note that \thmref{thm:sn} can be used to recover the linking integral in $S^3$.  In this case, $k = \ell = 1$, so
	\begin{align*}
		\Omega_{1,1} (\alpha)& =  \int_\alpha^\pi \sin(\theta - \alpha)\sin\theta \, d\theta \\
		& = \frac{(\pi - \alpha ) \cos \alpha + \sin \alpha}{2}.
	\end{align*}
	Thus, the linking number of disjoint closed curves $K$ and $L$ in $S^3$ is given by
	\[
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int_{K \times L} \frac{(\pi - \alpha) \cos \alpha + \sin \alpha}{\sin^3 \alpha} \, [x, dx, y, dy].
	\]
	This is equivalent to the formulas obtained by DeTurck and Gluck in \cite{DG1} and Kuperberg in \cite{Kuperberg}.

	This same computation for disjoint, closed curves in $S^2 \times \mathbb{R}$ yields the linking formula
	\[
		Lk(K, L) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int_{K \times L} \frac{(\pi-\alpha)\cos \alpha + \sin \alpha}{|x|^2|y|^2 \sin^3 \alpha} \, [x,dx,y,dy].
	\]
As noted in the introduction, the integrand in this linking integral formula is invariant under the action of $SO(4)$ on the ambient Euclidean space, so it is invariant under rotations in the $S^2$ factor, though not necessarily under translations in the $\mathbb{R}$ factor.  This is in contrast to the formulas of Gau\ss \ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and DeTurck and Gluck in $S^3$ and $H^3$, whose integrands are invariant under the full group of orientation-preserving isometries of their respective manifolds.

	Now we turn to more concrete examples.  Let $K = S^k$ and $L = S^\ell$ be two great spheres contained in $S^{k+\ell + 1}$ at constant geodesic distance $\pi/2$.  Up to ambient isometry, we may as well take $K$ as the unit sphere in the first $k+1$ coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^{k+\ell+2}$ and $L$ as the unit sphere in the last $\ell + 1$ coordinates.  Then, by construction, $Lk(K, L) = 1$; we want to see that \thmref{thm:sn} gives the same result.

	To simplify the computation, we recall the following fact relating integrals of sines and cosines to the volumes of spheres:
	\begin{fact}\label{fact:sinecosinevolspheres}
		\[
			\mathrm{vol}\, S^{k+\ell+1} = \mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell\int_0^{\pi/2} \cos^k \theta \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta .
		\]
	\end{fact}
	Fact \ref{fact:sinecosinevolspheres} follows from viewing $S^{k+\ell+1}$ as the spherical join of orthogonal great spheres $S^k$ and $S^\ell$ and computing the volume in the natural coordinates that result from this identification.

	In our example, since $K$ and $L$ are at constant geodesic distance $\pi/2$, the above fact implies that $\Omega_{k, \ell}$ has the form
	\begin{align*}
		\Omega_{k, \ell} (\alpha)& = \int_{\pi/2}^\pi \sin^k (\theta - \pi/2) \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta \\
		& = \int_0^{\pi/2} \cos^k \theta \sin^\ell \theta \, d\theta \\
		& = \frac{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{k+\ell+1}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell}.
	\end{align*}
	Therefore,
	\begin{align*}
		Lk(K, L) & = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{k+\ell+1}} \int_{K \times L} \frac{1}{\sin^{k+\ell+1} (\pi/2)}  \frac{\mathrm{vol}\, S^{k+\ell+1}}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell} \, [x,dx,y,dy] \\
		& = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell} \int_{K\times L} [x,dx,y,dy] \\
		& = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell} \mathrm{vol}\, S^k \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^\ell \\
		& = 1.
	\end{align*}
	The second-to-last equality follows because, since $K$ is contained in the  $\mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ factor and $L$ is contained in the $\mathbb{R}^{\ell+1}$ factor of $\mathbb{R}^{k+\ell+2} = \mathbb{R}^{k+1} \times \mathbb{R}^{\ell+1}$, $[x,dx,y,dy] = [x,dx] \wedge [y, dy] = d\mr{Vol}_{S^k} \wedge d\mr{Vol}_{S^\ell}$.

	Finally, we use \thmref{thm:main} to compute the simplest example in $S^2 \times \mathbb{R}$.  Thinking of the $\mathbb{R}$ factor as time, let $K$ be the instantaneous equator on the $S^2$ factor at time 0 and let $L$ be the union of the eternal north pole traversed positively in time with the eternal south pole traversed negatively in time.  We can think of $L$ as the limit when $\tau \to \infty$ of the curves $L_\tau$ shown in Figure \ref{fig:s2xrloop}.

	\begin{figure}[htbp]
		\centering
		\begin{picture}(370,92)
			\put(0,12){\includegraphics[width=370px]{s2xrloop.pdf}}
			\put(228, 53){\textcolor{blue}{$K$}}
			\put(100, 82){\textcolor{red}{$L_\tau$}}
			\put(22, 0){$t = -\tau$}
			\put(174, 0){$t = 0$}
			\put(322, 0){$t = \tau$}
		\end{picture}
		\caption{$K$ and $L_\tau$ in $S^2 \times \mathbb{R}$}
		\label{fig:s2xrloop}
	\end{figure}

	  With this choice of $K$ and $L$, $\alpha$ is again equal to $\pi/2$ for all $x\in K$ and $y\in L$.  Therefore,
	\[
		\Omega_{1,1}(\alpha) = \frac{\mathrm{vol}\, S^3}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^1 \ \mathrm{vol}\, S^1} = \frac{\mathrm{vol}\, S^3}{4\pi^2}.
	\]
	Thus,
	\begin{align*}
		Lk(K, L) & = \frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\, S^3} \int_{K \times L} \frac{\mathrm{vol}\, S^3}{|y|^2 4\pi^2 } \, [x,dx,y,dy] \\
		& = 2 \cdot \frac{1}{4\pi^2}  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{1}{1+t^2} \det \left(\begin{array}{cccc} \cos s & \sin s & 0 & 0 \\  -\sin s & \cos s & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & t \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) ds\, dt \\
		& = \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{1}{1+t^2}\, ds\, dt \\
		& = 1.
	\end{align*}
	In the second equality we use the symmetry of $L$ to eliminate the integral over the south pole component by doubling the contribution of the north pole component.

Geometric Topology (math.GT); Differential Geometry (math.DG)

Higher-dimensional linking integrals