Covering Partial Cubes with Zones

Abstract: A partial cube is a graph having an isometric embedding in a hypercube. Partial cubes are characterized by a natural equivalence relation on the edges, whose classes are called zones. The number of zones determines the minimal dimension of a hypercube in which the graph can be embedded. We consider the problem of covering the vertices of a partial cube with the minimum number of zones. The problem admits several special cases, among which are the problem of covering the cells of a line arrangement with a minimum number of lines, and the problem of finding a minimum-size fibre in a bipartite poset. For several such special cases, we give upper and lower bounds on the minimum size of a covering by zones. We also consider the computational complexity of those problems, and establish some hardness results.

\section{Introduction}

As an introduction and motivation to the problems we consider, let us
look at two puzzles.
\medskip

\begin{wrapfigure}[16]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-9mm
\kern5pt\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{pcube-ex.png}
\caption{\label{fig:pcube} A partial cube with vertex
labels representing an isometric embedding in $Q_7$
and a highlighted zone.}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent
{\bf Hitting a consecutive pair.} Given a set of $n$ elements, how
many pairs of them
 must be chosen so that every permutation of the $n$
elements has two consecutive elements forming a chosen pair?
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Guarding cells of a line arrangement.} Given an arrangement of
$n$ straight lines in the plane, how many lines must be chosen so that
every cell of the arrangement is bounded by at least one of the chosen
line?
\vskip8pt

\noindent
While different, the two problems can be cast as special cases of a
general problem involving {\em partial cubes}.  The $n$-dimensional
hypercube $Q_n$ is the graph with the set $\{0,1\}^n$ of binary words
of length $n$ as vertex set, and an edge between every pair of
vertices that differ on exactly one bit. A~{\em partial cube} $G$ of
dimension $n$ is a subgraph of the $n$-dimensional hypercube with the
property that the distance between two vertices in $G$ is equal to
their Hamming distance, i.e., their distance in $Q_n$. In general, a
graph $G$ is said to have an {\em isometric embedding} in another
graph $H$ whenever $G$ is a subgraph of $H$ and the distance between
any two vertices in $G$ is equal to their distance in $H$. Hence
partial cubes are the graphs admitting an isometric
embedding in $Q_n$, for some $n$. The edges of
a partial cube can be partitioned into at most $n$ equivalence classes
called {\em zones}, each corresponding to one of the $n$ directions of
the edges of $Q_n$.

We consider the following problem:
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Partial Cube Covering:} {\it Given a partial cube, find a
  smallest subset $S$ of its zones such that every vertex is incident
  to an edge of one of the zones in $S$.}
\medskip

If we refer to the labeling of the vertices by words in $\{0,1\}^n$,
the problem amounts to finding a smallest subset $I$ of $[n]$ such
that for every vertex $v$ of the input partial cube, there is at least
one $i\in I$ such that flipping bit $i$ of the word of $v$ yields
another vertex.

\section{Classes of Partial Cubes}

The reader is referred to the books of Ovchinnikov~\cite{O11} and
Imrich and Klav\v{z}ar~\cite{IK00} for known results on partial cubes.
Let us also mention that some other structures previously defined in
the literature are essentially equivalent to partial cubes. Among them
are {\it well-graded families of sets} defined by Doignon and
Falmagne~\cite{DF11}, and {\it Media}, defined by Eppstein, Falmagne, and
Ovchinnikov~\cite{EFO08}.

We are interested in giving bounds on the minimum number of zones
required to cover the vertices of a partial cube, but also in the
computational complexity of the problem of finding such a minimum
cover.  Regarding bounds, it would have been nice to have a general
nontrivial result holding for every partial cube. Unfortunately, only
trivial bounds hold in general.

In one extreme case, the partial cube $G=(V,E)$ is a star, consisting
of one central vertex connected to $|V|-1$ other vertices of degree
one. This is indeed a partial cube in dimension $n=|V|-1$, every zone
of which consists of a single edge. Since there are $n$ vertices of
degree one, all $n$ zones must be chosen to cover all vertices.  In
the other extreme case, the partial cube is such that there exists a
single zone covering all vertices. This lower bound is attained by the
hypercube $Q_n$.

Table~\ref{tab:res} gives a summary of our results for the various families of
partial cubes that we considered. For each family, we consider upper and lower
bounds and complexity results. We now briefly describe the various families we
studied. The proofs of the new results are in the following sections.

\subsection{Hyperplane Arrangements}

The dual graph of a simple arrangement of $n$ hyperplanes in
$\mathbb{R}^d$ is a partial cube of dimension $n$. The partial cube
covering problem becomes the following: given a simple hyperplane
arrangement, find a smallest subset $S$ of the hyperplanes such that
every cell of the arrangement is bounded by at least one hyperplane in
$S$.

\begin{wrapfigure}[10]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-10mm
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{duallinearr.pdf}
\caption{An arrangement of 4 lines superimposed with its dual.}
\label{fig:larr}
\end{wrapfigure}

The case of line arrangements was first considered
in~\cite{BCHKLT12}. In fact it was this problem that motivated us to
investigate the generalization to partial cubes. The best known lower and
upper bounds for line arrangements on $|S|$ are of order $n/6$
and $n-O(\sqrt{n\log n})$ (see~\cite{AP12}). The
complexity status of the optimization problem is unknown.

Instead of lines and hyperplanes it is also possible to consider
Euclidean or spherical arrangements of pseudo-lines and pseudo-hyperplanes,
their duals are still partial cubes. Actually, all the cited results apply
to the case of arrangements of pseudo-lines.

Spherical arrangements of pseudo-hyperplanes are equivalent to
oriented matroids, this is the Topological Representation Theorem of
Folkman and Lawrence. The pseudo-hyperplanes correspond to the elements of the
oriented matroid and the cells of the arrangement correspond to the
topes of the oriented matroid. Hence our covering problem
asks for a minimum size set $C$ of elements such that for every tope $T$
there is an element $c\in C$ such that $T \oplus c$ is another tope.
For more on oriented matroids we refer to~\cite{blwsz-om-93}.

\subsection{Acyclic Orientations}

\begin{wrapfigure}[15]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-16mm
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{flip-graph-c4.pdf}
\caption{Flip graph of acyclic orientations of the 4-cycle.}
\label{fig:aoC4}
\end{wrapfigure}
From a graph $G=(V,E)$, we can define a partial cube $H$ in which
every vertex is an acyclic orientation of $G$, and two orientations
are adjacent whenever they differ by a single edge reversal ({\it flip}).
This partial cube has dimension equal to the number of edges
of $G$. It is also the dual graph of the arrangement of the $|E|$
hyperplanes of equation $x_i = x_j$ for $ij\in E$ in
$\mathbb{R}^{|V|}$. Every cell of this arrangement corresponds to an
acyclic orientation, and adjacent cells are exactly those that differ
by a single edge. This observation, in particular, shows that $H$ is
connected.
The graph $H$ and the notion of edge flippability have been studied by
Fukuda et al.~\cite{FPS01} and more recently by Cordovil and
Forge~\cite{CF12}.

The partial cube covering problem now becomes the following: given a
graph $G=(V,E)$, find a smallest subset $S\subseteq E$ such that for
every acyclic orientation of $G$, there exists $e\in S$ such that
flipping the orientation of $e$ does not create a cycle.

\subsection{Median Graphs}

A median graph is an undirected graph in which every three vertices
$x$, $y$, and $z$ have a unique {\it median}, i.e., a vertex
$\mu(x,y,z)$ that belongs to shortest paths between each pair of $x$,
$y$, and $z$. Median graphs form structured subclass of partial cubes
that has been studied extensively, see~\cite{Chen12} and references
therein. Since the star and the hypercube are median graph there are
no non-trivial upper or lower bounds for the zone cover problem on
this class. We use a construction of median graphs
to prove hardness of the zone cover problem.

\subsection{Distributive Lattices}

\begin{wrapfigure}[12]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-9mm
\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth]{d-lat-repr.pdf}
\caption{A poset (left) and its lattice of down-sets (right).}
\label{fig:poset}
\end{wrapfigure}
Cover graphs of distributive lattices are partial cubes. From
Birkhoff's representation theorem (a.k.a.~Fundamental Theorem of
Finite Distributive Lattices) we know that there is a poset $P$ such that
the vertices of the partial cube are the downsets of $P$, the zones
 of the partial cube in turn correspond to the elements of $P$.

The problem becomes: given a poset $P$, find a smallest subset
$S$ of its elements such that for every downset $D$ of $P$, there
exists $v\in S$ such that either $D\cup\{v\}$ or $D\setminus \{v\}$ is
a downset, distinct from $D$.

\subsection{Trees}

Trees with $n$ edges are partial cubes of dimension exactly
$n$. Since every zone contains exactly one edge, the
partial cube covering problem on trees boils down to the edge cover
problem on trees. There are instances attaining the lower and upper bounds of
$n/2$ and $n-1$, moreover, there is a simple dynamic programming algorithm
that computes an optimal cover in linear time.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\small\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\small\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\begin{tabular}{|L{.30\textwidth}|C{.14\textwidth}|C{.15\textwidth}|L{.31\textwidth}|}
\hline
Partial Cube & Lower bound & Upper bound & Complexity \\
\hline
\hline
Arrangements of $n$ lines\break
in $\mathbb{R}^2$ &
\vskip-5pt $n-o(n)$
\hbox{(Thm. \ref{thm:exlb})} &
\vskip-5pt
\hbox{$n-\Omega (\sqrt{n\log n})$} \cite{AP12} &
\vskip-3pt {\hfil -- \hfil} \\
\hline
Arrangements of $n$ hyperplanes in $\mathbb{R}^d$ &
\vskip-3pt -- &
\vskip-3pt $n-\Omega (n^{1/d})$
\hbox{(Thm. \ref{thm:ubhyper})}&
\vskip-3pt {\hfil -- \hfil} \\
\hline
\vskip-5pt Acyclic orientations &
\vskip2pt -- & Minimum edge cut (Thm.~\ref{thm:cut}) &
Recognition is coNP-complete, even for complete graphs (Thm.~\ref{thm:recgs}) \\
\hline
\vskip-5pt Median graphs &
\vskip-3pt 1 &
\vskip-3pt $n$ & NP-complete (Cor.~\ref{cor:medfromtri}), APX-hard (Cor.~\ref{cor:medfromtriapx}) \\
\hline
Distributive lattices with representative poset of $n$ elements &
\vskip2pt -- &
\vskip-3pt $2n/3$ (Cor.~\ref{cor:fibre}) &
Recognition is coNP-complete (Cor.~\ref{cor:recposet})
 $\Sigma_2^P$-complete (Cor.~\ref{cor:findposet}) \\
\hline
Trees with $n$ edges & $n/2$ & $n-1$ & P (min edge cover)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{tab:res}Worst-case bounds and complexities for the special cases of the partial cube covering problem. When used, $n$ denotes the dimension of the partial cube.}
\end{table}
\section{Line Arrangements}

We first give a lower bound on the size of a guarding set for an arrangement of lines.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:exlb}
The minimum number of lines needed to guard the cells of any arrangement of $n$ lines is $n-o(n)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is a direct consequence of known results on the following problem from Erd\H{o}s:
given a set of points in the plane with no four points on a line, find the largest subset in general position, that is, with no three points on a line.
Let $\alpha (n)$ be the minimum size of such a set over all arrangements of $n$ points.
F\"uredi observed~\cite{F91} that $\alpha (n) = o(n)$ follows from the density version of the Hales-Jewett theorem~\cite{FK89}.
But this directly proves that we need at least $n - o(n)$ lines to guard all cells of an arrangement.
The reduction is the one observed by Ackerman et al.~\cite{AP12}: consider the line arrangement that is dual to the point set, and slightly perturb it so
that each triple of concurrent lines forms a cell of size three. Now the complement of any guarding set is in general position in the primal point set.\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{comment}
In this section, we first describe the following lower bound, obtained together with Michael Hoffmann, improving on~\cite{BCHKLT12}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:exlb}
For each $n$  there exists simple arrangements of $6n$ lines
for which the size of every guarding set of lines is at least $4n$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{wrapfigure}[16]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-5mm
\gdef\SetFigFont#1#2#3#4#5{}
\centering{\footnotesize
\input{Figures/linearr6.pdf_t}
\caption{An arrangement of six lines that requires four lines
to guard the highlighted cells.}}
\label{fig:linearr6}
\end{wrapfigure}

Take a regular hexagon and consider its six supporting lines. Slightly
tilting one of the lines supporting a pair of opposite edges we obtain an arrangement
equivalent to the one shown in Figure~\ref{fig:linearr6}. We claim that this
arrangement has no guarding set of three or fewer lines. Name the six lines
$X_0,X_1,Y_0,Y_1,Z_0,Z_1$ as in the figure. Since $X_0$ and $X_1$ are the
bounding lines of a cell, one of them has to be in any guarding set. The same
holds for $Y_0$ and $Y_1$ as well as for $Z_0$ and $Z_1$. If there is a
guarding set of size three it has to be $\{X_i,Y_j,Z_k\}$ for some $i,j,k \in
0,1$. In Figure~\ref{fig:linearr6} we have labeled each highlighted cell with
$(i,j,k)$ if its bounding lines are $X_i,Y_j,Z_k$. This cell is a certificate that
$\{X_{\bar{i}},Y_{\bar{j}},Z_{\bar{k}}\}$ is not guarding (where $\bar{a} =
1-a$). Note that if we take $(*,1,0)$ as a representative for $(0,1,0)$ and
$(1,1,0)$, then each possible triple appears as a marking of a cell.  Hence,
there is no guarding set of size three for this arrangement.
\medskip

To design large examples on the basis of the six lines arrangement,
and thus prove the theorem, we need three observations.
\bigskip

\noindent
{\bf Obs. 1.} With an affine transformation the six lines can be made
to have almost the same slope with the faces $(X_0,X_1)$, $(Y_0,Y_1)$, and
$(Z_0,Z_1)$ on the same side. The transformation is called {\it flattening}.

\begin{wrapfigure}[13]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-7mm
{\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{combine.pdf}
\caption{Combining 4 flattened arrangements of 6 lines into an arrangement
of 24 lines. The critical cells of the flattened subarrangements are confined
to the highlighted regions.}
\label{fig:combine}}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent
{\bf Obs. 2.}  To prove that four lines are needed to guard the six line
arrangement we have only argued with the highlighted cells of
Figure~\ref{fig:linearr6}, we call them the {\it critical cells}.
\medskip

\noindent
{\bf Obs. 3.} A set of flattened six line arrangements can be combined to a
larger arrangement such that all critical cells of the flattened examples
remain intact. Figure~\ref{fig:combine} indicates the construction.
\medskip

Note that the gap between the lower and the upper bound is very large. It is
not known whether $\Omega (n)$ lines are required in the worst case to guard
all cells of a line arrangement. Ackerman et al.~\cite{AP12} explain how this
problem is connected to a long-standing open question from Erd\H{o}s on
selecting subsets of points in general position.  The connection shows that
any progress on the guarding problem would yield progress on this
question. See also F\"uredi~\cite{F91}.
\end{comment}

We now show that for arrangements of hyperplanes in $\mathbb{R}^d$, with $d=O(1)$,
there always exists a guarding set of size at most $n-\Omega (n^{1/d})$. This generalizes
a result for $d=2$ obtained in \cite{BCHKLT12}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:ubhyper}
In every arrangement of hyperplanes in general position in $\mathbb{R}^d$ (with $d=O(1)$),
there exists a subset of the hyperplanes of size at most $n-\Omega (n^{1/d})$ such that
every cell is bounded by at least one hyperplane in the subset.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We will prove that every such arrangement has an independent set of size $\Omega (n^{1/d})$, where
an independent set is defined as the complement of a guarding set, that is,
a subset of the hyperplanes such that no cell is bounded by hyperplanes of the subset only.

Let $H$ be a set of $n$ hyperplanes, and consider an arbitrary, inclusionwise maximal independent set $I$.
For each hyperplane $h\in H\setminus I$, there must be a cell $c_h$ of the arrangement that is bounded by a set of hyperplanes $C\cup\{h\}$ with
$C\subseteq I$, since otherwise we could add $h$ to $I$, and $I$ would not be maximal. If $c_h$ has size at least $d+1$, there must be a vertex of
the arrangement induced by $I$ that is also a vertex of $c_h$. We charge $h$ to this vertex. Note that each vertex can only be charged $2^d=O(1)$ times.
If $c_h$ has size $d$, we charge $h$ to the remaining $(d-1)$-tuple of hyperplanes of $I$ bounding $c_h$. This tuple can also be charged at most $O(1)$
times. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
|H\setminus I| = n-|I| & \leq & 2^d \cdot O(|I|^d) + O(|I|^{d-1}) \\
|I| & = & \Omega (n^{1/d}) .
\end{eqnarray}
\qed\end{proof}

\section{Acyclic Orientations}

Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ we wish to find a subset $S\subseteq E$ such
that for every acyclic orientation of $G$, there exists a {\em
  flippable} edge $e\in S$, that is, an edge $e\in S$ such that
changing the orientation of $e$ does not create any cycle. Let us call
such a set a {\em guarding set} for $G$. Note that an oriented edge
$e=uv$ in an acyclic orientation is flippable if and only if it is not
{\em transitive}, that is, if and only if $uv$ is the only oriented
path from $u$ to $v$.

\subsection{Complexity}

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:recgs}
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a subset $S\subseteq E$ of its edges, the
problem of deciding whether $S$ is a guarding set is coNP-complete,
even if $G$ is a complete graph.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  The set $S$ is not a guarding set if and only if there exists an
  acyclic orientation of $G$ in which all edges $e\in S$ are
  transitive.

  Consider a simple graph $H$ on the vertex set $V$, and define $G$ as
  the complete graph on $V$, and $S$ as the set of non-edges of $H$.
  We claim that $S$ is a guarding set for $G$ if and only if $H$ does
  not have a Hamilton path. Since deciding the existence of a
  Hamilton path is NP-complete, this proves the result.

  To prove the claim, first suppose that $H$ has a Hamilton path,
  and consider the acyclic orientation of $G$ that corresponds to the
  order of the vertices in the path.  Then by definition, no edge of
  $S$ is in the path, hence all of them are transitive, and $S$ is not
  a guarding set.  Conversely, suppose that $S$ is not guarding. Then
  there exists an acyclic orientation of $G$ in which all edges of $S$
  are transitive.  The corresponding ordering of the vertices in $V$
  yields a Hamilton path in $H$.\qed
\end{proof}

\subsection{Special cases and an upper bound}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:complete}
The minimum size of a guarding set in a complete graph on $n$ vertices is $n-1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  First note that there always exists a guarding set of size $n-1$
  that consists of all edges incident to one vertex.

  Now we need to show that any other edge subset of smaller size is
  not a guarding set. This amounts to stating that every graph with at
  least ${n\choose 2} - (n-2)$ edges has a Hamilton path. To see this,
  proceed by induction on $n$.  Suppose this holds for graphs with
  less than $n$ vertices. Consider a set $S$ of at most $n-2$ edges of
  the complete graph. Let $u,v$ be two vertices with $uv\in
  S$.  One of the two vertices, say $v$, is incident to at most
  $\lfloor (n-2)/2\rfloor$ edges of $S$. Consider a Hamilton path on
  the $n-1$ vertices $\neq v$, which exists by induction
  hypothesis. Then vertex $v$ must have one or two incident edges that do not
  belong to $S$ and connect $v$ to the first, or the last, or two
  consecutive vertices of this path. Hence we can integrate $v$ in
  the Hamilton path.\qed
\end{proof}

Since acyclic orientations of the complete graph $K_n$ correspond to
the permutations of $S_n$, this is in fact the solution to the
puzzle ``hitting a consecutive pair" in the introduction.  The dual
graph of the arrangements of hyperplanes corresponding to the complete
graph is known as the permutohedron.  Hence the above result can also
be stated in the following form.

\begin{corollary}
  The minimum size of a set of zones covering the vertices of the
  $n$-dimensional permutohedron is $n-1$.
\end{corollary}

We now give a simple, polynomial-time computable upper bound on the size of a guarding set.
A set $C\subseteq E$ is an {\em edge cut} whenever the graph $(V,E\setminus C)$ is not connected.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:cut}
Every edge cut of $G$ is a guarding set of $G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  Consider an edge cut $C\subseteq E$ and an acyclic orientation
  $A_G$ of $G$. This acyclic orientation can be used to define a
  partial order on $V$. Let us consider a total ordering of $V$ that
  extends this partial order, and pick an edge $e=uv\in C$ that
  minimizes the rank difference between $u$ and $v$. We claim that $e$
  is flippable. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $e$ is not
  flippable. Then $e$ must be transitive and there exists a directed
  path $P$ in $A_G$ between $u$ and $v$ that does not use
  $e$. Since $C$ is a cut, $u$ and $v$ belong to distinct connected
  components of $(V,E\setminus C)$, and $P$ must use another edge
  $e'\in C$. By definition, the endpoints of $e'$ have a rank
  difference that is smaller than that of $u$ and $v$, contradicting
  the choice of $e$.\qed
\end{proof}

An even shorter proof of the above can be obtained by reusing the
following observation from Cordovil and Forge~\cite{CF12}: for every
acyclic orientation of $G$, the set of flippable edges is a spanning
set of edges. Therefore, every such set must intersect every edge cut.

While guarding sets are hard to recognize, even for complete graphs,
we show that a minimum-size guarding set can be found in polynomial
time whenever the input graph is chordal. In that case, the upper
bound given by the minimum edge cut is tight, and the result
generalizes Lemma~\ref{lem:complete}.

\begin{theorem}
The minimum size of a guarding set in a chordal graph is the size of a minimum edge cut.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  We need to show that whenever a set $S$ of edges of a chordal graph
  $G$ has size strictly less than the edge connectivity of $G$, there
  exists an acyclic orientation of $G$ in which all edges of $S$ are
  transitive. Let us denote by $k$ the edge connectivity of $G$, and
  $n$ its number of vertices.

  We proceed by induction. The base case consists of a complete graph
  on $k+1$ vertices. From Lemma~\ref{lem:complete}, the minimum size
  of a guarding set is $k$.  Now suppose the statement holds for every
  chordal graph with $n-1$ vertices, and that there exists a $k$ edge
  connected chordal graph $G$ on $n$ vertices with a guarding set $S$
  of size $k-1$.  Since $G$ is chordal, it has at least two
  nonadjacent simplicial vertices $u$ and $v$. The degree of both $u$
  and $v$ is at least $k$. Hence one of them, say $v$, is incident to
  at most $\lfloor (k-1)/2\rfloor \leq \lfloor (d(v)-1)/2\rfloor$
  edges of $S$. Now remove $v$ and consider, using the induction
  hypothesis, a suitable acyclic orientation of the remaining
  graph. This orientation induces a total order, i.e., a path $p$ with
  $d(v)$ vertices, on the neighbors $N(v)$ of $v$.  Then vertex $v$
  must have one or two incident edges that do not belong to $S$ and
  connect $v$ to the first, or the last, or two consecutive vertices
  of path $p$. Hence we can integrate $v$ in the path such that all
  the edges of $S$ that are incident to $v$ are transitive. This
  yields a suitable acyclic orientation for $G$ and completes the
  induction step.\qed
\end{proof}

When the graph is not chordal, it may happen that the minimum size of
a guarding set is arbitrarily small compared to the edge
connectivity. We can in fact construct a large family of such
examples.

\begin{theorem}
  For every natural number $t\geq 2$ and odd natural number $g$ such
  that $3 \leq g\leq t$, there exists a graph $G$ with edge
  connectivity $t$ and a guarding set of size $g$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{wrapfigure}[12]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-9mm
\quad\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{counter-ex.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:exconn}A graph $G$ with edge connectivity 6 and a guarding
  set of size 3.}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent{\it Proof.}
The graph $G$ is constructed by considering a wheel with $g+1$
  vertices and center $c$, and replacing every edge incident to the
  center $c$ by a copy of the complete graph $K_{t-1}$ such that each vertex
  of the complete graph is connected to both endpoints of the original
  wheel edge. Figure~\ref{fig:exconn} shows an example. Let us call $C_g$
  the cycle induced by the non-center vertices.

  Let us first look at the edge connectivity of $G$. Vertices
  belonging to one of the $K_{t-1}$ have $t$ incident edges. On the
  other hand we easily construct $t$ edge-disjoint paths between every
  pair of vertices. Hence, the edge connectivity of $G$ equals $t$.

  We now show that the set of vertices of $C_g$ is a guarding set.

  Suppose the opposite: there exists an acyclic orientation for which
  no edge of the cycle is flippable, hence all of them are transitive.
  Since $C_g$ is odd, there must exist two consecutive edges of $C_g$
  with the same orientation, say $uv$ and $vw$,
 with $uv$ oriented
  from $u$ to $v$, and $vw$ from $v$ to $w$.

The only way to make $vw$
  transitive is to construct an oriented path from $v$ to $w$ going
  through the center $c$. Hence there must exist an oriented path of
  the form $vPc$, where $P$ is a path in the complete graph $K_{t-1}$
  attached to $v$. To make $uv$ transitive we need a directed path
  $cP'v$. The oriented cycle $vPcP'v$ is in contradicion to the acyclicity.
  Therefore, some edge of $C_g$ is always flippable.\qed

\section{Median Graphs}
\begin{wrapfigure}[15]{r}{0.44\textwidth}%
\vskip-9mm
{\centering
\includegraphics[width=.44\textwidth]{med-constr.pdf}
\caption{A graph $G$ and the $G'$ obtained by the construction.}
\label{fig:medgraph}}
\end{wrapfigure}

A median graph is an undirected graph in which every three vertices $x$, $y$,
and $z$ have a unique {\it median}, i.e., a vertex $\mu(x,y,z)$ that belongs
to shortest paths between each pair of $x$, $y$, and $z$. Imrich, Klav\v{z}ar,
and Mulder~\cite{IKM99} proposed the following construction of median graphs:
Start with any triangle-free graph $G=(V,E)$. First add an apex vertex $x$
adjacent to all vertices of $V$, then subdivide every edge of $E$ once, and let
$G'$ be the resulting graph. Figure~\ref{fig:medgraph} illustrates the construction.

We only need that $G'$ is a partial cube. This can be shown with the explicit
construction of an isometric embedding into $Q_n$. Let $V=\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$
and map these vertices bijectively to the standard basis, i.e., $v_i \to
e_i$. Apex $x$ is mapped to $0$ and the subdivision vertex $w_{ij}$ of an edge
$v_iv_j$ is mapped to $e_i+e_j$. The embedding shows that the zones are in
one-to-one correspondence with the vertices of $G$, where the zone of $v_i$ consists
of the edge $xv_i$ together with all edges $w_{ij}v_{j}$. Hence, a zone cover
of $G'$ corresponds to a subset of $V(G)$.  Let us call $w_e$ the vertex of
$G'$ subdividing the edge $e\in E(G)$. The construction of the embedding into
$Q_n$ shows that the transformation $G \to G'$ yields a partial cube even if
$G$ contains triangles, only membership in the smaller class of median graphs
is lost in this case.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:medfromtri}
If $G$ has no isolated vertices, then
the minimum size of a zone cover of $G'$ equals the minimum
size of a minimum vertex cover of $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We first show that a vertex cover $S$ of $G$ corresponds to a zone
  cover of $G'$ of the same size.  For a vertex $w_{ij}$ at least one
  of $v_i$ and $v_j$ is in $S$, hence $w_{ij}$ is covered. If $v_i$
  belongs to $S$ then it is covered by its own zone. Otherwise there
  is an edge $v_iv_j$ and necessarily $v_j\in S$, therefore in this case $v_i$ is
  covered by the zone of $v_j$. The apex $x$ is covered by every zone.

  The other direction is straightforward. A zone cover of $G'$ must in
  particular cover all subdivision vertices $w_e\in V(G')$. Hence the zone
  corresponding to at least one of the endpoint of $e$ must be
  selected, yielding a vertex cover in $G$.\qed
\end{proof}

Given a connected triangle-free graph $G$, one can construct the median graph
$G'$ in polynomial time. Since deciding whether $G$ has a vertex cover of size at
most $k$ is NP-complete, even on triangle-free graphs, we obtain:

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:medfromtri}
Given a median graph $G'$ and an integer $k$, deciding whether there
exists a zone cover of size at most $k$ of $G'$ is NP-complete.
\end{corollary}

The minimum vertex cover problem is hard to
approximate, even on triangle-free graphs. This directly yields the
following corollary.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:medfromtriapx}
Given a median graph $G'$, finding a minimum size zone cover of $G'$ is
APX-hard.
\end{corollary}

\section{Distributive Lattices}

In this special case of the partial cube covering problem, we
are given a poset $P$, and we wish to find a subset $S$ of its
elements such that the following holds: for every downset $D$ of $P$,
there exists $x\in S$ such that either $D\cup\{x\}$ or $D\setminus
\{x\}$ is a downset, distinct from $D$.  Given a poset $P$, we
refer to a suitable set $S$ as a {\em guarding set} for $P$, and let
$g(P)$ be the size of a smallest guarding set.
Figure~\ref{fig:poset} gives an example of poset and the corresponding partial cube.

\subsection{Relation to poset fibres}

We first establish a connection between guarding sets and fibres.
A {\em fibre} of a poset is a subset of its elements that meets every nontrivial maximal antichain.
Let $f(P)$ be the size of a smallest fibre of $P$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:fibre}
Every fibre is a guarding set. In particular, $g(P)\leq f(P)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Consider a poset $P=(V,\leq )$ and one of its downset $D\subseteq
  V$. Let $F := V\setminus D$, $A:=\max (D)$, and $B:=\min (F)$.  By
  definition, a guarding set is a hitting set for the collection of
  subsets $A\cup B$ constructed in this way.

  Let us now consider the subset $A\cup B'\subseteq A\cup B$, where
  $B' := \{ b\in B: b \text{\ is\ incomparable\ to\ } a, \forall a\in
  A \}$. This set is easily shown to be a maximal antichain. Hence, it
  must be hit by any fibre.\qed
\end{proof}

Duffus, Kierstead, and Trotter~\cite{DKT91} have shown that
every poset on $n$ elements has a fibre of size at most $2n/3$. This
directly yields the following.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:fibre}
For every $n$-element poset $P$, $g(P)\leq 2n/3$.
\end{corollary}

We now consider a special case for which the notions of guarding set and fibre
coincide.  A poset is bipartite if $P=\min(P) \cup \max(P)$, i.e., if the
height of $P$ is at most 2.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:bip}
For a bipartite poset $P$, a set $S$ is a guarding set for $P$ if and only if it is a fibre of $P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We know from Lemma~\ref{lem:fibre} that every fibre is a guarding
  set. The other direction is as follows.

  Consider a guarding set $S$ and let $A$ be any maximal antichain of $P$. Let
  $T := A\cap \max (P)$, and let $D$ be the downset generated by $T$. As a
  downset $D$ is guarded, hence either an element of $T$ is hit by $S$, or an
  element of $\min (P\setminus D)$ is hit, but since $A$ is maximal $A=T \cup
  \min (P\setminus D)$, hence $A$ is hit. Therefore, $S$ is a fibre.\qed
\end{proof}

\subsection{Complexity}

Lemma~\ref{lem:bip} yields two interesting corollaries on the
complexity of recognizing and finding guarding sets.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:recposet}
Given a poset $P$ and a subset $S$ of its elements, the problem of
deciding whether $S$ is a guarding set is coNP-complete.  This holds
even if $P$ is bipartite.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  Recognition of fibres in bipartite posets has been proved
  coNP-complete by Duffus et al.~\cite{DKT91}.  From
  Lemma~\ref{lem:bip}, this is the same problem as recognizing
  guarding sets.\qed
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:findposet}
Given a poset $P$ and an integer $k$, the problem of deciding whether
there exists a guarding set of size at most $k$ is
$\Sigma_2^P$-complete. This holds even if $P$ is bipartite.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  Again, this is a consequence of Lemma~\ref{lem:bip} and a recent
  result of Cardinal and Joret~\cite{CJ12} showing that the
  corresponding problem for fibres in bipartite posets is
  $\Sigma_2^P$-complete.\qed
\end{proof}

Duffus et al.~\cite{DSSW91} mention that it is possible to construct
posets on $15n+2$ elements, every fibre of which must contain at least
$8n+1$ elements, which gives a lower bound with a factor $8/15$. The
guarding sets for these examples do not seem to require as many
elements.

\section*{Open Problems}
We left a number of problems open. For instance, we do not know the complexity
status of the problem of deciding whether there exists a guarding set of edges
of size at most $k$ in a given graph. A natural candidate class would be
$\Sigma_2^P$. For the same problem, we do not have any nontrivial lower bound
on the minimum size of a guarding set. It would also be interesting to give
tighter lower and upper bounds on the minimum size of a guarding set in a
poset and in a line arrangement. Finally, questions involving
partial cubes derived from antimatroids, such as elimination orderings in chordal
graphs, are currently under investigation.

\paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
This work was initiated at the 2nd ComPoSe Workshop held at the TU Graz,
Austria, in April 2012. We thank the organizers and the participants for the
great working atmosphere. We also acknowledge insightful discussions on
related problems with several colleagues, in particular Michael Hoffmann (ETH
Z\"urich) and Ferran Hurtado (UPC Barcelona).

\bibliographystyle{siam}
\global\advance\itemsep12pt

Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM); Combinatorics (math.CO)

Covering Partial Cubes with Zones


Dual Cheeger constant for weighted graphs over ordered fields

Abstract: We consider a dual Cheeger constant $\overline h$ for finite graphs with edge weights from an arbitrary real-closed ordered field. We obtain estimates of $\overline h$ in terms of number of vertices in graph. Further, we estimate the largest eigenvalue for the discrete Laplace operator in terms of $\overline h$ and show the sharpness of estimates. As an example we consider graphs over non-Archimedean field of the Levi-Civita numbers.

\section*{Introduction}
The Cheeger isoperimetric constant $h$ was firstly introduced for compact Riemannian manifold by Jeff Cheeger \cite{Cheeger} in 1969 and then considered for graphs (e.g. \cite{Chung, Mohar}). The dual Cheeger constant $\overline h$ was introduced directly on weighted graphs in \cite{BauerJost}. The dual Cheeger constant shows how close the graph is to bipartite and it is used in estimation of the largest eigenvalue of discrete Laplacian.  Classical approach to weighted graph assume, that edge weights are positive real numbers. In this paper we consider the model, which was introduced in previous works by author (see \cite{Muranova1, Muranova2, MuranovaPreprint22}), where edge weights are positive elements of an arbitrary  real-closed ordered field $(\mathbb{K}, \succ)$. We introduce the notion of dual Cheeger constant $\overline h$ for finite graphs analogously to the classical case of field $\Bbb R$ and prove its estimates in terms of number $N$ of vertices in graph. We show, that for even $N$ holds
$$
\overline h\succeq \dfrac{N}{2(N-1)}
$$
and for odd $N$ holds
$$
\overline h\succeq \dfrac{N+1}{2N}.
$$
These estimates improve the result in \cite{BauerJost}, which states that $\overline h\ge \dfrac{1}{2}$ for the field $\Bbb R$. The sharpness of our result follows from examples in \cite{BauerJost}, since the equality holds for a complete graph with all the weights equal $1$ over $\mathbb R$(and over any real-closed field, due to the same calculations).

Further, we show that for any $\mathbb K$ the largest eigenvalue of the Laplace operator can be estimated as
\begin{equation}\label{eqLambdah}
2 \overline h\preceq \lambda_{N-1} \preceq 1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2},
\end{equation}
where the both equalities hold for any bipartite graph.

In Section \ref{LC}, we consider graphs over a non-Archimedean field of the Levi-Civita numbers $\mathcal{R}$ and show, that left inequality in \label{eqLambdah} can hold also for complete graphs, while the right one is precise for them in a sense, that there is a sequence of graphs, for which the difference $|\lambda_{N-1} - 1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2}|$ converges in an order topology.

\section{Preliminaries}

\subsection{Real-closed ordered field}
Firstly we remind a concept of real-closed ordered field. More detailed description can be found in textbooks on Algebra see e. g. \cite{Lang, Waerden}.

\begin{definition}
A field $\mathbb{K}$ is called {\em ordered}, if there exist a subset $\mathbb{K}^+~\subset \mathbb{K}$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$0\not \in \mathbb{K}^+$,
\item
for any non-zero element $k\in \mathbb{K}$ either $k\in \mathbb{K}^+$ or $-k\in \mathbb{K}^+$,
\item
if $k_1, k_2\in \mathbb{K}^+$, then $k_1+k_2\in \mathbb{K}^+$ and $k_1k_2\in \mathbb{K}^+$.

\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The total order in the  ordered field is then defined as follows: for $k_1,k_2 \in \mathbb{K}$ we write $k_1\succ k_2$ (or, equivalently, $k_2\prec k_1$) if $(k_1-k_2)\in \mathbb{K}^+$. Further $k_1\succeq k_2$ (equiv. $k_1\preceq k_2$) if $(k_1-k_2)\in \mathbb{K}^+\cup\{0\}$.

An ordered field $\mathbb{K}$ is {\em non-Archimedean} if there exist an {\em infinitesimal}, i.e. $\epsilon \in \mathbb{K}$ such that
$$
{\epsilon}\prec \dfrac{1}{n}=\dfrac{1}{\underbrace{1+\dots+1}_{n\mbox{ times}}}
$$
for any $n\in \Bbb N\subset\mathbb{K}$. Otherwise, the field is called {\em Archimedean}. All Archimedean fields are isomorphic to some (not necessary proper) subfield of real numbers. Examples of non-Archimedean fields are ordered field of rational functions \cite[p. A.VI.21]{Bourbaki}, Levi-Civita field \cite{Berz, Hall}, super-real field \cite{DalesHughWoodin}.

By \emph{absolute value of $k\in \mathbb{K}$} we mean $|k|\in \mathbb{K}^+\cup\{0\}$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
|k|=\begin{cases}
k, \mbox{ if }k\succeq 0\\
-k, \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}

The convergence of sequence $\{k_n\}_{n\in \Bbb N}$ to $k$ in ordered topology of the ordered field means by definition, that for any element $a\in \mathbb{K}$ exists $N_0\in \Bbb N$ such that for any $n\ge N_0$ we have
$$
|k_n-k|\preceq a.
$$

There are several equivalent definitions of a real-closed field \cite[p. 38]{DalesHughWoodin}. We remind some of them.\\

An ordered field $\mathbb{K}$ is {\em real-closed} if one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\mathbb{K}$ has no proper algebraic extension to an ordered field,
\item
the complexification of $\mathbb{K}$ is algebraically closed,
\item
every positive element in $\mathbb{K}$ has a square root and every polynomial over $\mathbb{K}$ of odd degree has a root in $\mathbb{K}$.
\end{enumerate}

It is well known, that order can be introduced in any real-closed field. Moreover, any ordered field has an algebraic real-closed extension closure, which is unique up to isomorphism, preserving the order (Artin-Schreier Theorem, see \cite[p. 38]{DalesHughWoodin}). Therefore, further in this note we consider exclusively real-closed ordered fields, e.g. algebraic numbers, real numbers, Levi-Civita field.

\subsection{Graphs over ordered field}
The concept of graph over an ordered field was introduced in previous works by author (see \cite{Muranova1, Muranova2}). Graphs over the field $\Bbb R$ of real numbers are classical weighted graphs. Here we shortly remind the definition.  field.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathbb{K}$ be a real-closed ordered. \emph{A graph oven an ordered field $K$ (OF-graph)}  is a couple $(V, b)$, where $V$ is a set of vertices (i.e. arbitrary set)
and $b:V\times V\rightarrow \mathbb{K}^+\cup\{0\}$ satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$b(x,y)=b(y,x)$ for any $x,y\in V$,
\item
$b(x,x)= 0$ for any $x\in V$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The last property mean that we consider graphs {\em without loops}. We write $x\sim y$ whenever $b(x,y)\ne 0$ and say that there is an {\em edge} between $x$ and $y$.

A {\em subgraph} of a graph $(V,b)$ is any graph $(U,b\left|_{U\times U}\right.)$, where $U\subset V$.

A {\em path} between any vertices $x,y\in V$ is any sequence $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n, n\in \Bbb N$ such that
$$
x=x_0\sim x_1\sim x_2\sim \dots \sim x_n=y.
$$
A graph is called {\em connected}, if there exists a path between any two vertices of it.

A {\em connected component} of a graph is any its connected subgraph that is not part of any larger connected subgraph. Therefore, set of vertices of graph is a disjoint union of vertices of all its connected components.

Further in this note we consider finite ($\#V<\infty$) graphs. For the sake of brevity futher we refer to a graph by its set of vertices (e.g. $V$).

A graph is called {\em bipartite}, if there exist a partition $V=V_1\cup V_2$ of vertices,
such that from $x\sim y$ follows that $x\in V_1, y\in V_2$ or $x\in V_2, y\in V_1$.

A graph is called {\em complete}, if $x\sim y$ for any two $x,y\in V$ with $x\ne y$.

The \emph{normalized} weight on edges is defined by
\begin{equation}
p(x,y)=\dfrac{b(x,y)}{b(x)}, \mbox{ for any }x,y \in V,
\end{equation}
where $b(x)=\sum_y b(x,y)$. If $b(x)=0$ then the vertex $x$ is called {\em {isolated vertex}}. Further we consider graphs without isolated vertices, therefore $p(x,y)$ is well defined.

For any $V_1\subset V$ we denote
$$
b(V_1)=\sum_{x\in V_1}b(x)$$
and for any $V_1,V_2\subset V$ with $V_1\cap ~V_2=\emptyset$ we denote
$$
b(V_1,V_2)=\sum_{\substack{x\in V_1,\\y\in V_2}}b(x,y).
$$

\subsection{Laplace operator}
Our main interest is {normalized Laplace operator (Laplacian)} defined on the set of functions
$$
\mathfrak F_V=\{f \mid f:V\to \mathbb{K}\}
$$
by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L f(x)=\sum_{y\in V} (f(x)-f(y))\dfrac{b(x,y)}{b(x)}=\sum_{y\in V} (f(x)-f(y))p(x,y).
\end{equation}
An {\em eigenvalue} of $\mathcal L$ is defined as $\lambda$ such that $\mathcal Lf=\lambda v$, where $v$ is called {\em eigenfunction}.
It is proven in \cite{MuranovaPreprint22} that all $N=\#V$ eigenvalues of the Laplacian for a connected graph belong to the same field $\mathbb{K}$ as edge weights and all the eigenfunctions are in $\mathfrak F_V$. Moreover, it is shown there that the largest eigenvalue of the connected graph
satisfies
 $$
\dfrac{N}{N-1}\preceq\lambda_{N-1}\preceq 2
$$ and $\lambda_{N-1}=2$ if and only if the graph is bipartite.

For non-connected graph the eigenvalues are union of eigenvalues of its connected components (with multiplicities) and eigenfunctions are extension of eigenfunctions of connected components to the whole graph, which are $0$ on the other components.

Here and further we order eigenvalues of Laplacian as
$$
0=\lambda_0\preceq \lambda_1\preceq\lambda_2\preceq \dots \preceq \lambda_{N-1}\preceq 2.
$$
 The multiplicity of the eigenvalue $0$ is equal to the number of connected components of the graph.

For any function $f\in \mathfrak F_V$ we denote
$$
V_f^+=\{x\in V\mid f(x)\succ 0\}
$$
and
$$
V_f^-=\{x\in V\mid f(x)\prec 0\}.
$$
We introduce an analogue of scalar product on $\mathfrak{F}_V$ by
$$
\langle f,g\rangle=\sum_{x\in V}f(x)g(x)b(x).
$$
for any $f,g \in \mathfrak{F}_V$.
The Green formula (see e.g. \cite{Muranova1}) states, that
$$
\langle \L f,g\rangle=\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in V}(f(x)-f(y))(g(x)-g(y))b(x,y).
$$

\section{Dual Cheeger constant}
The dual Cheeger constant for weighted graphs was introduced in \cite{BauerJost}. Here we introduce it in the same way for OF-graphs.
\begin{definition}
Let $V$ be an OF-graph with $N=\#V$ vertices. Then its {\em dual Cheeger constant} is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{dualCheeger}
\overline h=\max_{\substack{\emptyset \ne V_1\subset V,\\ \emptyset \ne V_2\subset V,\\V_1\cap V_2=\emptyset}}\dfrac{2b(V_1,V_2)}{b(V_1)+b(V_2)},
\end{equation}
i.e. the maximum is taken over all pairs of non-empty disjoint subsets of $V$.
\end{definition}

\begin{lemma}
For any connected graph the dual Cheeger constant satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{hpreceq}
\overline h\preceq 1.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\overline h=1$ if and only if the graph is bipartite.
\end{lemma}
The proof follows the same outline as in \cite{BauerJost}.
\begin{proof}
 The inequality \eqref{hpreceq} follows immediately, since $b(V_1,V_2)\preceq b(V_l)$ for $l=1,2.$

Further, let $V$ is bipartite with the partition $V=V_1\cup V_2$. Then equality in \eqref{hpreceq} is attained on this partition.
Let now $\overline h=1$. Then
$$
2b(V_1,V_2)=b(V_1)+b(V_2),
$$
i.e. there is no edges between the vertices from the same $V_l$, for $l=1,2$. Moreover, since the graph is connected, $V_3=\emptyset$. Therefore, the graph is bipartite and $V=V_1\cup V_2$ is its partition.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{MainThm1}

\textnormal {(a)} For a graph $V$ with $N=2K\ge 2$ vertices and at least one edge, we have
$$
\overline h \succeq \frac{N}{2(N-1)}.
$$
\textnormal {(b)}  For a graph $V$ with $N=2K+1>2$ vertices and at least one edge, we have
$$
\overline h \succeq \dfrac{N+1}{2N}.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(a) Let us consider only such $V_1, V_2\subset V$  that $V=V_1\cup V_2$ is a partition of the graph with  $\#V_1=\# V_2=K$. There are ${N\choose K}=\frac{N!}{K!(N-K)!}$ such partitions.  For each such $V_1, V_2$ we define
$$
\overline h (V_1,V_2):=\frac{2b(V_1,V_2)}{b(V_1)+b(V_2)}.
$$
therefore $\overline h\succeq \overline h(V_1,V_2)$.

For every such a partition $V=V_1\cup V_2$ we have
$$
\overline h(V_1,V_2)=\frac{2\sum_{x\in V_1,y\in V_2}b(x,y)}{b(V)}=\frac{2\sum_{x\in V_1,y\in V_2}b(x,y)}{\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)},
$$
and thus
\begin{equation}\label{thm1ineq}
\frac{2\sum_{x\in V_1,y\in V_2}b(x,y)}{\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)}\preceq \overline h
\end{equation}
Note that $b({x_0},y_0)$ for some $x_0,y_0\in V$ is in numerator if and only if ${x_0}\in V_1$ and ${y_0}\in V_2$. It's easy to count that among all the considered partitions
there are ${{N-2}\choose {K-1}}$ such partitions for any given ordered pair $(x_0,y_0)$ .
Now we sum up all inequalities \eqref{thm1ineq}, rewrite the numerator using the last observation and obtain
$$
{{N-2}\choose {K-1}}\frac{2\sum_{x_0,y_0\in V}b(x_0,y_0)}{\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)}\preceq\overline h {N\choose K}
$$
from where follows
$$
2{{N-2}\choose {K-1}}\preceq\overline h {N\choose K}
$$
and, further,
$$
\overline h \succeq \dfrac{2(N-K)K}{N(N-1)}=\dfrac{K}{(N-1)}=\dfrac{N}{2(N-1)},
$$
since $N=2K$.

(b) The idea of the proof is the same, as in the part (a), but the corresponding partitions are $\#V_1=K, \# V_2=K+1$. Then, following the same outline as in (a), we get
$$
\overline h \succeq \dfrac{2(N-K)K}{N(N-1)}=\dfrac{N-K}{N}=\dfrac{N+1}{2N},
$$
since $N=2K+1$.

\end{proof}

Therefore, the following Corollary, which improves the result $\overline h\ge\frac{1}{2}$ in \cite{BauerJost}, holds:
\begin{corollary}
For any finite graph with at least one edge
$$
\overline h \succ \dfrac{1}{2}.
$$
\end{corollary}

\section{Largest eigenvalue of the graph Laplacian}
In this section we show the relation between dual Cheeger constant and the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_{N-1}$ of the discrete Laplacian for the finite graph over an ordered field. For the field $\Bbb R$ it is done in \cite{BauerJost} and the result is similar to the result, which relate Cheeger constant and smallest non-zero eigenvalue (see e. g. \cite{Chung}, \cite{Grigoryan} for $\Bbb R$ and \cite{MuranovaPreprint22} for ordered fields).

\begin{theorem}\label{thmlambda}
The largest eigenvalue $\lambda_{N-1}$ of the graph Laplacian satisfies
$$
2 \overline h\preceq \lambda_{N-1} \preceq 1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2}.
$$
\end{theorem}

For the proof of this theorem we need the following important lemma, which is proved in \cite{BauerJost} for $\Bbb K=\Bbb R$ , but there the proof uses integrals.
Here we present the proof of the lemma, which is analogous to the prove of Theorem 2 in \cite{MuranovaPreprint22} and uses the technique, used in \cite{Chung} for the proof of the relation between the smallest non-zero eigenvalue of Laplacian and Cheeger constant.

\begin{lemma}
Let $(V,b)$ be a graph without isolated vertices and $f\in \mathfrak{F}_V$ be such that $V^+_f\ne\emptyset$ and $V\setminus V^+_f\ne\emptyset$. Let
\begin{equation*}
h(f)=\min_{\emptyset\ne S\subset V^+_f}\dfrac{b(S, V\setminus S)}{b(S)}
\end{equation*}
and
$$
f_+(x)=\begin{cases}
f(x), x\in V^+_f,\\
0, \mbox{ otherwise},
\end{cases}
$$
then
\begin{equation*}
1-\sqrt{1-h^2(f)}\preceq \dfrac{\langle\L f_+, f_+\rangle}{\langle f_+, f_+\rangle} \preceq 1+\sqrt{1-h^2(f)}.
\end{equation*}

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let us denote
\begin{equation*}
W:=\dfrac{\langle\L f_+, f_+\rangle}{\langle f_+, f_+\rangle}.
\end{equation*}
By Green formula we can rewrite $W$ as
\begin{equation*}
W=\dfrac{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x,y\in V}(f_+(x)-f_+(y))^2b(x,y)}{\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)}.
\end{equation*}
Then multiplying the numerator and the denominator by $\sum_{x,y\in V}(f_+(x)+f_+(y))^2b(x,y)$ and using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get
\begin{equation}\label{W1}
W\succeq \dfrac{\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)\left|f_+^2(x)-f_+^2(y)\right|\right)^2}{\left(\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)\right)\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}(f_+(x)+f_+(y))^2b(x,y)\right)}.
\end{equation}
From the other hand,
\begin{align*}
&W\cdot {\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)}=\langle\L f_+,f_+\rangle\\
&=2\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)-\left(\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)+\sum_{x,y\in V}f_+(x)f_+(y)b(x,y)\right)\\
&=2\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)-\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}f_+(x)(f_+(x)+f_+(y))b(x,y)\right)
\\
&=2\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)-\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}f_+(y)(f_+(x)+f_+(y))b(x,y)\right)\\
&=2\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)-\frac12\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}(f_+(x)+f_+(y))^2b(x,y)\right),
\end{align*}
where in the last two lines we have switched notations for $x,y$ in the second sum and sum up two lines and divided by two in the last line. Using this in denominator of \eqref{W1} we get
\begin{equation}\label{W2}
W\succeq\dfrac{\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)\left|f_+^2(x)-f_+^2(y)\right|\right)^2}{\left(\sum_{x\in V}f_+^2(x)b(x)\right)^2\left(4-2 W\right)}.
\end{equation}
Now our goal is to estimate the numerator of \eqref{W2}
$$
A:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x,y\in V}b(x,y)\left|f_+^2(x)-f_+^2(y)\right|\right)^2
$$
in terms of $h(f)$.
Firstly, let us order all the vertices of the graph as $x_1,x_2\dots,x_N$ in the way that $f(x_i)\preceq f(x_{i+1})$. Further, let us denote
$$
S_k=\{x_{k+1},\dots,x_N\}\subset~V\;\;\;\mbox{ and }\;\;\;n_0=\max_i\{i\mid x_i\not \in V^+_f, 0\le i<N \},
$$
i.e. for any $k\ge n_0$ we have $S_k\subset~V^+_f$.

Now we can rewrite $A$ as
\begin{align*}
A&=2\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^N b(x_i,x_j)\left(f_+^2(x_j)-f_+^2(x_i)\right)\right)^2\\
&=2\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^N b(x_i,x_j)\sum_{k=i}^{j-1}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=2\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{j=i+1}^N \sum_{k=i}^{j-1}b(x_i,x_j)\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=[\mbox{change limits of summation for $k$ and $j$}]\\
&=2\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\sum_{k=i}^{N-1} \sum_{j=k+1}^{N}b(x_i,x_j)\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=[\mbox{change limits of summation for $i$ and $k$}]\\
&=2\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^{k} \sum_{j=k+1}^{N}b(x_i,x_j)}_{b(S_k,V\setminus S_k)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=2\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}{b(S_k,V\setminus S_k)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=2\left(\sum_{k=n_0}^{N-1}{b(S_k,V\setminus S_k)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&\succeq 2\left(\sum_{k=n_0}^{N-1}{h(f)b(S_k)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&= 2h^2(f)\left(\sum_{k=n_0}^{N-1}{\sum_{i=k+1}^{N}b(x_i)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=[\mbox{change limits of summation for $i$ and $k$}]\\
&=2h^2(f)\left(\sum_{i=n_0+1}^{N}{\sum_{k=n_0}^{i-1}b(x_i)}\left(f_+^2(x_{k+1})-f_+^2(x_k)\right)\right)^2\\
&=2h^2(f)\left(\sum_{i=n_0+1}^{N}{b(x_i)}\left(f_+^2(x_i)-f_+^2(x_{n_0})\right)\right)^2\\
&=2h^2(f)\left(\sum_{i=n_0+1}^{N}{b(x_i)}f_+^2(x_i)\right)^2=2h^2(f)\left(\sum_{x\in V}{b(x)}f_+^2(x)\right)^2,
\end{align*}
where we have used several times that $f_+(x_k)=0$ for any $k\le n_0$.
Applying the last estimate to \eqref{W2} we obtain
$$
W \succeq \dfrac{2 h^2(f)}{(4-2W)},
$$
from where immediately follows the statement of the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thmlambda}]
The proof follows exactly the same outline as proof of the Theorem 3.2 in \cite{BauerJost} and we do not repeat it here.
Note that the facts that
$$
\lambda_{N-1}=\sup_{f\ne 0}\dfrac{\langle \L f,f\rangle}{\langle f,f\rangle}=\max_{f\ne 0}\dfrac{\langle \L f,f\rangle}{\langle f,f\rangle},
$$
where maximum is attained on the corresponding eigenfunction and
$$
2-\lambda_{N-1}=\inf_{f\ne 0}\dfrac{\langle (2\mathcal I-\L) f,f\rangle}{\langle f,f\rangle},
$$
where $\mathcal I:\mathfrak{F}_V\rightarrow \mathfrak{F}_V$ is the identical operator, follow from decomposition of $f$ by orthonormal basis, consisting of eigenfunctions of $\L$ (for more details see \cite{MuranovaPreprint22}).

\end{proof}

\section{Examples}\label{LC}
\subsection{Levi-Civita field}
The Levi-Civita field was  introduced by Tullio Levi-Civita in 1862 \cite{LeviCivita}.
The Levi-Civita field is the smallest non-Archimedean real-closed ordered field, which is Cauchy complete in the order topology. Moreover, it has a subfield, isomorphic to the field of rational functions, whose elements naturally appear as edge weights in the theory of electrical networks (see e.g. \cite{Muranova1, Muranova2}).

Firstly, we recall the definition and main notations for the Levi-Civita field $\mathcal R$ (see e.g. \cite{Berz, Hall, Shamseddine, Shamseddinethesis, ShamseddineBerz}).

\begin{definition}
A subset $M$ of the rational numbers $\Bbb Q$ is called \emph{left-finite} if for every number $r\in \Bbb Q$ there are only finitely many elements of $M$ that are smaller than $r$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}\cite{LeviCivita}\label{LCfield}
We define the Levi-Civita field $\mathcal R$ as a field of formal power series
\begin{equation}
a=\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\epsilon^{q_i},
\end{equation}
with $a_i\in \Bbb R$ and $Q=\{q_i\}_{i=0}^\infty\subset \mathbb Q$ being left-finite.
\end{definition}
Addition and multiplication are defined naturally as for formal power series. The order is defined as follows: $a\succ 0$ if $a_0>0$.

Note that $\epsilon$ here is considered as a `fixed' variable. It is infinitesimal, as well as e.g. $\epsilon^2$, $5\epsilon^\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon$, etc.

From the definition of elements of the Levi-Civita field follows that to prove the convergence $r_n\to r\in \mathcal{R}$ it is enough to prove, that for any $m\in \Bbb N$ exists $N_0\in \Bbb N$ such that
$|r_n- r|<\epsilon^m$ for any $n>N_0$.
\subsection{Examples of graphs over $\mathcal R$}
\begin{example}
Let us consider a family of complete graphs $V(n)$ with $3$ vertices and weights as at the Figure \ref{fig:example} (i.e. $b(x,y)=\epsilon^n$ in $V(n)$).

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering

\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.75]

    \draw [line width=1.5pt, fill=gray!2] (0,0) -- (60:4) -- (4,0) -- cycle;

    \coordinate[label=left:$x$]  (x) at (0,0);
    \coordinate[label=right:$y$] (y) at (4,0);
    \coordinate[label=above:$z$] (z) at (2,3.464);

    \coordinate[label=below:$\epsilon^n$](c) at ($ (x)!.5!(y) $);
    \coordinate[label=left:$1$] (b) at ($ (x)!.5!(z) $);
    \coordinate[label=right:$1$](a) at ($ (y)!.5!(z) $);

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
 One can check, that non-constant eigenvectors of the Laplacian are

$$
v_1(n)=(-1,1,0) \mbox { and }
v_2(n)=\left(-\dfrac{1}{1+\epsilon^n},-\dfrac{1}{1+\epsilon^n},1\right)
$$
with the corresponding eigenvalues
$$\lambda_1(n)=\dfrac{1+2\epsilon^n}{1+\epsilon^n} \mbox{ and }
\lambda_2(n)=\dfrac{2+\epsilon^n}{1+\epsilon^n}=2-\epsilon^n+\epsilon^{2n}-\epsilon^{3n}\dots,
$$
where for $\lambda_2(n)$ we have represented ratio as formal power series.

Considering all the posibilities, one can see that the dual Cheeger constant
$$
\overline h(n)=\dfrac{2}{2+\epsilon^n}=1-\dfrac{\epsilon^n}{2}+\dfrac{\epsilon^{2n}}{4}-\dfrac{\epsilon^{3n}}{8}\dots
$$
is attained on the partition of vertices $\{x,y\}\cup\{z\}$.
Then
$$
1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h(n))^2}=2-\dfrac{\epsilon^{2n}}{8}+\dfrac{\epsilon^{3n}}{8}\dots.
$$
Note that the difference
$$
1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h(n))^2}-2\overline h(n)\to 0, \mbox{ as }n\to\infty
$$
in a sence of the ordered topology. Indeed, the graph $V(n)$ differ from a bipartite graph by the edge $x\sim y$, whose weight $b(x,y)=\epsilon^n$  is infinitesimal and the weights converge to $0$ as $n\to\infty$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let us consider a complete graph $V$ with $N=2K$ vertices and the following edge weights: let fix a partition of vertices $V=V_1\cup V_2$ with $\#V_1=\#V_2=K$ and let $b(x,y)=\epsilon^n$ (where  $n\in \Bbb N$ is fixed) if $x,y$ belong to the same $V_i$ and $b(x,y)=1$ otherwise. Firstly we calculate the dual Cheeger constant for this graph. For any $x\in V$ we have $b(x)={K+(K-1)\epsilon^n}$. Let $U_1, U_2$ be disjoint subsets of $V$.

\textbf{1 case.} Let $\#U_1=K_1> K$ and then $\#U_2=K_2< K$. In this case
$$
\overline h(U_1,U_2):=\dfrac{2\sum_{x\in U_1,y\in U_2}b(x,y)}{(K_1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)}
$$
is maximazed for fixed $K_1, K_2$ as
$$
\overline h(K_1,K_2):=\dfrac{K K_2+(K_1-K_2)\epsilon^n}{(K_1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)},
$$
i.e. when $U_1\supset V_1$ (or $U_1\supset V_2$). Further,
\begin{align}
\overline h(K_1,K_2)=&\dfrac{2(K K_2+(K_1-K)\epsilon^n)}{(K_1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)}\\
\preceq& \dfrac{2K (K_2+1)}{(K+1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)},
\end{align}
since $K_1\succeq K+1$ and $(K_1-K)\epsilon^n$ is infinitesimal. Therefore,
$$
\overline h(K_1,K_2)\le \overline h(V_1,U),
$$
where $\#U=K_2+1, U\subset V_2$ and it is enough to consider the following case.

\textbf{2 case.} Let $\#U_1=K_1\leq K$ and $\#U_2=K_2\leq K$. If
$$
\overline h(U_1,U_2):=\dfrac{2\sum_{x\in U_1,y\in U_2}b(x,y)}{(K_1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)}
$$
then the maximum of $\overline h(U_1,U_2)$ for fixed $K_1,K_2$ is attained when all the edges between $U_1$ and $U_2$ have weight $1$ (which is possible for $U_1\subset V_1$ and $U_2\subset V_2$). This maximum is
$$
\overline h(K_1,K_2)=\dfrac{2K_1 K_2}{(K_1+K_2)(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)}
$$
and further, maximazing the ratio ${K_1 K_2}/(K_1+K_2)$ gives
$$
\max_{K_1\leq K, K_2\leq K}\overline h(K_1,K_2)=\dfrac{2 K^2}{2K(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)}=\dfrac{K}{K+(K-1)\epsilon^n},
$$
where the maximum is attained on $K_1=K_2=K$.

From all the above, the dual Cheeger constant for the given graph is
\begin{align*}
\overline h&=\dfrac{K}{K+(K-1)\epsilon^n}\\
&=1-\left(\frac{K-1}{K}\right)\epsilon^n+\left(\frac{K-1}{K}\right)^2\epsilon^{2n}+\left(\frac{K-1}{K}\right)^3\epsilon^{3n} \dots,
\end{align*}
where we have represented ratio as formal power series.

Therefore, taking $n$ large enough we can get $|1-\overline h|\prec r$ for any given $r\in \mathcal R$. It is an intuitively clear result, since such a graph is close to bipartite (all edges in the same part of partition have weight $\epsilon^n$, while all edges between $V_1$ and $V_2$ have weight $1$).

The matrix of Laplacian in this case is
$$
\frac{1}{B}
 \left(
    \begin{array}{ccccc|ccccc}
      B&-\epsilon^n&\dots&-\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n& -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1\\
      -\epsilon^n&B&\dots&-\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n& -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1\\
	\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots\\
    -\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n&\dots&B&-\epsilon^n& -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1\\
   -\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n&\dots&-\epsilon^n&B& -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1\\
      \hline
      -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1&B&-\epsilon^n&\dots&-\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n\\
      -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1&-\epsilon^n&B&\dots&-\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n\\
	\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots&\dots\\
      -1&-1&\dots&-1&-1&-\epsilon^n&-\epsilon^n&\dots&B&-\epsilon^n\\
      \multicolumn{5}{c|}{\underbrace{-1\;\;\;\;-1\;\;\;\dots\;\;\;-1\;\;-1}_{K}}&\multicolumn{5}{c}{\underbrace{-\epsilon^n\;\;-\epsilon^n\;\;\dots\;\;\;-\epsilon^n\;\;\;\;B}_{K}}\\
    \end{array}
    \right),
$$
where $B=b(x)={K+(K-1)\epsilon^n}$. Then the eigenvectors are:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$
v_0=(1,1,\dots,1,1)
$
with an eigenvalue $\lambda_0=0$;
\item
$
v_m=(-1,0,\dots, 0,1, 0,\dots, 0),$ where $1$ stays at the place $(m+~1)$ for $m=1,\dots,K-1$ with eigenvalues $$\lambda_m=\dfrac{K+K\epsilon^n}{K+(K-1)\epsilon^n};
$$
\item
$
v_m=(\underbrace{0,0,0\dots 0}_K,-1,0,\dots, 0,1, 0,\dots,0),
$
where $1$ stays at the place $(m+2)$ for $m=K, \dots, N-2$
with the same eigenvalues as in the previous case
$$\lambda_m=\dfrac{K+K\epsilon^n}{K+(K-1)\epsilon^n};
$$
\item$
v_{N-1}=({\underbrace{1,1,\dots,1,1}_{K}}, {\underbrace{-1,-1,\dots,-1,-1}_{K}}),
$
with the eigenvalue $$\lambda_{N-1}=\dfrac{2K}{K+(K-1)\epsilon^n}.
$$
\end{itemize}
Note that $\lambda_{N-1}=2\overline h$ and can be written as formal power series as
\begin{align*}
\lambda_{N-1}=2-2\frac{K-1}{K}\epsilon^n+2\left(\frac{K-1}{K}\right)^2\epsilon^{2n}-2\left(\frac{K-1}{K}\right)^3\epsilon^{3n} \dots.
\end{align*}
From the other hand,
\begin{align*}
 1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2}&=1+\sqrt{\dfrac{K^2+2K(K-1)\epsilon^n}{(K+(K-1)\epsilon^n)^2}}\\
\\
&=2-\frac{(K-1)^2}{2 K^2}\epsilon^{2n}+\frac{(K-1)^3}{K^3}\epsilon^{3n} \dots.
\end{align*}
Therefore, the estimate
$$
\lambda_{N-1}\preceq  1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2}
$$
is precise up to the order $\epsilon^n$ for the considered graph and the difference
$$
1+\sqrt{1-(1-\overline h)^2} - \lambda_{N-1}
$$
converge to $0$ in a sence of convergence in order topology in $\mathcal{R}$ if we consider a family of graphs with $n\to\infty$.

\end{example}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Spectral Theory (math.SP)