Eigenvalue ratios of nonnegatively curved graphs

Abstract: We derive an optimal eigenvalue ratio estimate for finite weighted graphs satisfying the curvature-dimension inequality $CD(0,\infty)$. This estimate is independent of the size of the graph and provides a general method to obtain higher order spectral estimates. The operation of taking Cartesian products is shown to be an efficient way for constructing new weighted graphs satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$. We also discuss a higher order Cheeger constant ratio estimate and related topics about expanders.

\section{Introduction}

Exploring the influence of eigenvalues on graph structures is one of
the central topics in spectral graph theory, see e.g. \cite{AM1985},
\cite{Chung89}, \cite{Chung}, \cite{CGY}, \cite{Mohar91}. In this
area, the first nonzero (normalized or non-normalized) Laplacian
eigenvalue and the Cheeger constant play a fundamentally important
role and their close relations have found tremendous applications in
both theoretical and applied fields. Recently, the understanding of
the higher-order versions of them, i.e. the $k$-th nonzero Laplacian
eigenvalues and the $k$-way isoperimetric constants have been improved
significantly due to the work of Miclo \cite{Miclo2008},
Lee-Gahran-Trevisan \cite{LGT2013}, Kwok et al. \cite{KLLGT2013}, and
also see, e.g., \cite{Tanaka13}, \cite{Liu13}, \cite{Mimura2014}.

In particular, Mimura \cite{Mimura2014} proved an upper bound estimate
for the ratio of (consecutive) multi-way isoperimetric constants on
vertex-transitive graphs. As commented there, similar results for
eigenvalue ratios seems to be open.

In this paper, we establish an eigenvalue ratio estimate for an
interesting class of nonnegatively curved graphs. More precisely, we
consider the class of graphs satisfying the curvature-dimension
inequality $CD(0,\infty)$ in the sense of Bakry-\'{E}mery \cite{BaEm},
firstly studied for graphs by Lin-Yau \cite{LinYau}. This estimate is
achieved by an approach that has been carried out for Riemannian
manifolds in \cite{Liu14}. Its optimality in several aspects will
be confirmed via various examples.

We now introduce the necessary technical terms and describe the
results more precisely. We are working on a general structure denoted
by the pair $(G,\mu)$. $G=(V, E, w)$ stands for an undirect weighted
finite connected graph, where $V$ and $E$ are the sets of vertices and
edges, respectively, and $w$ is a function describing the edge
weights, i.e., to two vertices $x,y\in V$ with $e=(x,y)\in E$ we
associate a positive symmetric weight $w_{xy}$. Alternatively, we
write $x\sim y$ for an edge $e=(x,y)$ in $E$. We say the graph is
unweighted, if $w_{xy}=1$ for any $e=(x,y)\in E$. Let
$d_x:=\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}$ be the degree of a vertex $x$ and
$d_G:=\max_{x\in V}d_x$ be the maximal degree of the graph $G$. $\mu:
V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ stands for a finite positive measure
assigned to the vertex set $V$ of the graph G.

For any function $f:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and any vertex $x\in V$,
the associated Laplacian $\Delta$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\Delta f(x):=\frac{1}{\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}(f(y)-f(x)).
\end{equation*}
This operator is called $\mu$-Laplacian in \cite{BHLLMY13}. The
normalized and the non-normalized Laplacian are contained in this
general setting as the following special cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item non-normalized Laplacian: if $\mu(x)=1$ $\forall\,\,x\in V$
  ($\mu=\mathbf{1}_V$ for short);
\item normalized Laplacian: if $\mu(x)=d_x$ $\forall\,\,x\in V$
  ($\mu=\mathbf{d}_V$ for short).
\end{itemize}
Then the curvature-dimension inequality can be formulated purely via
this operator (Definition \ref{defn:CDinequality}).

Given two weighted graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$, we denote their Cartesian
product by $G_1\times G_2$. We show that the class of graphs
satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ is actually rich since, in many interesting
cases, new examples can be constructed via taking Cartesian
products. Here is the general result (which is stated later again as
Theorem \ref{thm:CartesianProduct}.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:CartesianProductIntroduction}
  If $(G_1, \mathbf{1}_{V_1})$ and $(G_2, \mathbf{1}_{V_2})$ satisfy
  $CD(K_1, n_1)$ and $CD(K_2, n_2)$ respectively, then $(G_1\times
  G_2, \mathbf{1}_{V_1\times V_2})$ satisfies $CD(K_1\wedge K_2,
  n_1+n_2)$.
\end{thm}

Here we used the notion $K_1\wedge K_2:=\min\{K_1,K_2\}$. The above
estimate is optimal at least for the Cartesian product of a graph $G$
with itself (Remark \ref{rmk:optimalCartesian}). Theorem
\ref{thm:CartesianProductIntroduction} can be extended to include the
case of regular graphs with normalized Laplacian operators (Remark
\ref{rmk:extendCartesian}). In particular, the property of satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$ is preserved when taking Cartesian product in many
cases.

We call $\lambda$ an eigenvalue of $\Delta$ if there exists a function
$f\not\equiv 0$ such that $\Delta f=-\lambda f$. We order the
eigenvalues of $\Delta$ with multiplicity as follows
\begin{equation}
  0=\lambda_1(G,\mu)<\lambda_2(G,\mu)\leq \cdots \leq \lambda_N(G,\mu)\leq 2D_G^{non},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of vertices in $V$. The following two
quantities $D_G^{non}$ and $D_G^{nor}$ appear naturally in our
arguments.
\begin{equation*}
  D_G^{non}:=\max_{x\in V}\frac{\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}}{\mu(x)}, \,\,\text{ and }\,\, D_G^{nor}:=\max_{x\in V}\max_{y,y\sim x}\frac{\mu(x)}{w_{xy}}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that on an unweighted graph, in either of the cases
$\mu=\mathbf{1}_V$ or $\mu=\mathbf{d}_V$ we always have
$D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}=d_G$.

We prove the following eigenvalue ratio estimate (stated below again
as Theorem \ref{thm:eignevalueratio}). Note that the result does not
depend on the size of graphs.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:eignevalueratioIntroduction}

  For any graph $(G,\mu)$ satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and any natural
  number $k\geq 2$, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:eigenvalueratioIntroduction}
    \lambda_k(G,\mu)\leq \left(\frac{20\sqrt{2}e}{e-1}\right)^2
    D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}k^2\lambda_2(G,\mu).
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

We will present examples which show that in the above estimate the
order of $k$ is optimal and the dependence on $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}$ is
necessary and optimal. We also find a sequence of graphs with size
tending to infinity, each of which has only two vertices violating
$CD(0,\infty)$ and which does not have the property
(\ref{eq:eigenvalueratioIntroduction}).

Theorem \ref{thm:eignevalueratioIntroduction} can be used as a general
source to derive various intereseting higher-order estimates between
geometric invariants and spectra. We use it to show a higher-order
Buser inequality (Theorem \ref{thm:higherBuser}), which states a
strengthened relation between $\lambda_k(G,\mu)$ and the $k$-way
isoperimetric constant $h_k(G,\mu)$ (Definition
\ref{defn:multi-wayIso}). By extending the inequalities of Alon-Milman
\cite{AM1985}, we prove a higher-order eigenvalue-diameter estimate
(Theorem \ref{thm:higherCheng}), which compares nicely with the
celebrated Cheng estimate (Corollary 2.2 in \cite{Cheng75}) for
compact Riemannian manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature. Both
two inequalities seem to be the first ones of its kind established in
the graph setting.

In combination with the higher-order Cheeger inequalities of
Lee-Oveis Gharan-Trevisan \cite{LGT2013}, the eigenvalue ratio estimate
implies naturally the following the multi-way isoperimetric constant
ratio estimate (stated below again as Theorem
\ref{thm:isoperimetricratio}).

\begin{thm}\label{thm:isoperimetricratioIntroduction}
  There exists a universal constant $C$ such that for any graph
  $(G,\mu)$ satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and any natural number $k\geq 2$
  we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:isoperimetricratioIntroduction}
   h_k(G,\mu)\leq C D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}k\sqrt{\log k}h_2(G,\mu).
 \end{equation}
\end{thm}

We use an example by Mimura \cite{Mimura2014} to show that the
dependence of $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}$ in the above estimate is necessary
and optimal. For graphs with bounded genus and satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$, we obtain an improvement of Theorem
\ref{thm:isoperimetricratioIntroduction} with optimal order of $k$
(Corollary \ref{coro:genus}). As in \cite{Mimura2014}, this ratio
estimate is closely related with the topics about (multi-way)
expanders.

We organize the rest of the article as follows. In Section
\ref{section:cdinequ}, we discuss in detail the curvature-dimension
inequality and introduce several interesting examples for later
use. In Section \ref{section:eigenratio}, we show the eigenvalue ratio
estimate and present applications. In Section \ref{section:isoratio},
we discuss the multi-way isoperimetric constant ratio estimate and
related topics about expanders. Finally in the Appendix, we give more
details about the curvature dimension inequality calculations in some
examples and also a self-contained proof of Buser's inequality for
graphs satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$.

\section{Curvature-dimension inequality}\label{section:cdinequ}

The curvature-dimension inequality (CD-inequality for short) was
introduced by Bakry-\'{E}mery \cite{BaEm} as a substitute of the lower
Ricci curvature bound of the underlying space. It was first studied on
graphs by Lin-Yau \cite{LinYau}, see also \cite{JostLiu14},
\cite{ChungLinYau14}. Recall that the operators $\Gamma$ and
$\Gamma_2$ are defined iteratively as follows.

\begin{definition}
  For any two functions $f,g: V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma}
    \Gamma(f,g):=\frac{1}{2}\{\Delta(fg)-f\Delta g-g\Delta f\},
  \end{equation}
  and
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:Gammatwo}
    \Gamma_2(f,g):=\frac{1}{2}\{\Delta\Gamma(f,g)-\Gamma(f, \Delta g)-
    \Gamma(g, \Delta f)\}.
  \end{equation}
\end{definition}

We also write $\Gamma(f):=\Gamma(f,f)$ and
$\Gamma_2(f):=\Gamma_2(f,f)$ for short. In particular, by the
definition above we have for any $x\in V$ and any $f,g$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gradient}
  \Gamma(f,g)(x)=\frac{1}{2\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}(f(y)-f(x))(g(y)-g(x)).
\end{equation}
A useful fact is the following summation by part formula,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:summaBypart}
\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\Gamma(f,g)(x)=-\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)f(x)\Delta g(x),
\end{equation}
and also
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gammaHolder}
\Gamma(f,g)\leq\sqrt{\Gamma(f)}\sqrt{\Gamma(g)}.
\end{equation}
Rewriting (\ref{eq:Gamma}) provides the following chain rule,
\begin{equation}
  \Delta(f^2)=2\Gamma(f)+2f\Delta(f).
\end{equation}

\begin{definition}\label{defn:CDinequality}
  Let $K \in \mathbb {R}$ and $n \in {\mathbb N} \cup \{0\}$. We say
  that $(G,\mu)$ satisfies the CD-inequality $CD(K,n)$ if for any
  functions $f$ and any vertex $x$, the following inequality holds,
  \begin{equation}
    \Gamma_2(f)(x)\geq \frac{1}{n}(\Delta f(x))^2+K\Gamma(f)(x).
  \end{equation}
\end{definition}

In particular, we say that $(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$ if for
any functions $f$ we have $\Gamma_2(f)\geq 0$.

\subsection{Examples of graphs satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$}

We will be mainly concerned with the class of graphs satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$. From (\ref{eq:Gammatwo}), we see $\Gamma_2$ is a
symmetric bilinear form. At every vertex $x\in V$, we denote the
matrix corresponding to $\Gamma_2(f,g)(x)$ by $\Gamma_2(x)$. Let
$B_2(x):=\{y\in V: \text{dist}(y,x)\leq 2\}$, where $\text{dist}$
stands for the usual shortest-path metric on $V$. Then $\Gamma_2(x)$
is a symmetric matrix of size $|B_2(x)|\times |B_2(x)|$. A graph
$(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$ if and only if $\Gamma_2(x)$ is
positive-semidefinite at every vertex $x\in V$. Observe that
$\Gamma_2(x)+\text{Id}$ is a stochastic matrix since
$\Gamma_2(x)\mathbf{c}=0$ for any constant vector $\mathbf{c}$. In
particular, if all the diagonal entries are nonnegative and all the
off-diagonal entries are nonpositive, then the matrix $\Gamma_2(x)$ is
diagonally dominant and hence positive-semidefinite.

Next we present some usefulexamples.

\begin{example}\label{example:triangle}
  Consider the triangle graph $\triangle_{xyz}$ with positive edge
  weights $a,b,c$, as shown in Figure \ref{F1}. Assign a measure $\mu$
  to the vertices such that $\mu(x):=C, \mu(y):=B, \mu(z):=A$.
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Normalized case: Suppose $A=b+c, B=a+c, C=a+b$. Then
    $(\triangle_{xyz},\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$.
  \item Non-normalized case: Suppose $A=B=C=1$. Then
    $(\triangle_{xyz},\mu)$ does not always satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$. If
    in particular $a=c$, it satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$. But when $a=1,
    c=1/b$, it does not satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$ if $b$ is large/small
    enough. In fact, when $b\geq 5.01$ or $b\leq 0.12$, the symmetric
    curvature matrix $\Gamma_2(x)$ has a negative eigenvalue.
\end{itemize}
\end{example}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{WeightedTriangle.pdf}
\caption{Triangle\label{F1}}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Tetrahedron.pdf}
\caption{Tetrahedron\label{F2}}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

\begin{example}\label{example:tetrahedron}
  Consider the tetrahedron graph $T_4$ with positive edge weights
  $a,b,c$ as shown in Figure \ref{F2}. Observe that this graph is
  regular, i.e., $d_{x_i}=a+b+c$ is a constant for every $i$. Assign a
  measure $\mu$ on the vertices such that $\mu(x_i)=A$ for all $i$,
  where $A$ is a positive constant. (Note that this includes both the
  cases of normalized and non-normalized Laplacians.) Then $(T_4,\mu)$
  always satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$.
\end{example}

The details about the curvature matrix $\Gamma_2$ of the triangle
graph and the tetrahedron graph are given in Appendix
\ref{section:appendixTT}. For the normalized case, the curvature of
unweighted triangle graphs was calculated in Proposition 1.6 of
\cite{LinYau}, and the curvature of general unweighted complete graphs
was calculated in Proposition 3 of \cite{JostLiu14}.

In fact, the tetrahedron graph in Figure \ref{F2} belongs to a large
class of graphs called Ricci flat graphs with consistent edge
weights. The concept of a Ricci flat graph was introduced by Chung-Yau
\cite{ChungYau96} and that of consistent edge weights was further
introduced in Bauer et al. \cite{BHLLMY13}. We refer the reader to
\cite{ChungYau96,BHLLMY13} for the precise definitions. Every graph in
this class is a regular graph (in fact both its unweighted and
weighted degree are constant) and satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$ if we
assign a measure $\mu$ such that $\mu(x)=A$ for all vertices $x$ (see
\cite{LinYau, ChungYau96} for the unweighted case, the weighted case
follows from the same calculations). In particular, every abelian
Cayley graph is Ricci flat and hence satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$.

\subsection{CD-inequalities of Cartesian product graphs}

In this subsection we discuss a method for constructing new graphs
satisfying certain CD-inequalities from known examples, that is,
taking the Cartesian product.

Given two (possibly infinite) graphs $G_1=(V_1, E_1, w)$ and
$G_2=(V_2, E_2, \overline{w})$, their Cartesian product $G_1\times
G_2=(V_1\times V_2, E_{12}, w^{12})$ is a weighted graph with vertex
set $V_1\times V_2$ and edge set $E_{12}$ given by the following
rule. Two vertices $(x_1,y_1), (x_2, y_2)\in V_1\times V_2$ are
connected by an edge in $E_{12}$ if $$x_1=x_2, y_1\sim y_2\text{ in
}E_2\,\,\,\text{ or }\,\,\,x_1\sim x_2 \text{ in }E_1, y_1=y_2.$$
In the first case above we chose the edge weight to be
$\overline{w}_{y_1y_2}$ and in the second case $w_{x_1x_2}$.

We have the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:CartesianProduct}
  If $(G_1, \mathbf{1}_{V_1})$ and $(G_2, \mathbf{1}_{V_2})$ satisfy
  $CD(K_1, n_1)$ and $CD(K_2, n_2)$, respectively, then $(G_1\times
  G_2, \mathbf{1}_{V_1\times V_2})$ satisfies $CD(K_1\wedge K_2,
  n_1+n_2)$.
\end{thm}

Let $f:V_1\times V_2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a function on the
product graph. For fixed $y\in V_2$, we will write
$f_y(\cdot):=f(\cdot,y)$ as a function on $V_1$. Similarly,
$f^x(\cdot):=f(x,\cdot)$.  The following lemma is crucial for the
proof of Theorem \ref{thm:CartesianProduct}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:cartesianproduct}
  For any function $f:V_1\times V_2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ and any
  $(x,y)\in V_1\times V_2$, we have
  \begin{equation}
    \Gamma_2(f)(x,y)\geq \Gamma_2(f_y)(x)+\Gamma_2(f^x)(y),
  \end{equation}
  where the operators $\Gamma_2$ are understood to be on different
  graphs according to the functions they are acting on.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  For simplicity, we will denote by $x_i$ a neighbor of $x\in V_1$,
  and write shortly $w_i:=w_{xx_i}$ in this proof. Similar notions are
  used for $y\in V_2$ and $\overline{w}$.

  Recall $2\Gamma_2(f)(x,y)=\Delta\Gamma(f)(x,y)-2\Gamma(f,\Delta
  f)(x,y)$. By definition, we have
  \begin{align*}
    \Delta\Gamma(f)(x,y)=&\sum_{x_i\sim
      x}w_i\left(\Gamma(f)(x_i,y)-\Gamma(f)(x,y)\right)
    \\&+\sum_{y_k\sim
      y}\overline{w}_k\left(\Gamma(f)(x,y_k)-\Gamma(f)(x,y)\right):=L_1+L_2.
  \end{align*}
  For the first term $L_1$, we calculate
  \begin{align*}
    L_1=&\sum_{x_i\sim x}w_i\left[\Gamma(f_y)(x_i)+\Gamma(f^{x_i})(y)-\Gamma(f_y)(x)-\Gamma(f^x)(y)\right]\\
    =&\Delta\Gamma(f_y)(x)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x_i\sim x}\sum_{y_k\sim y}w_i\overline{w}_k\big[(f(x_i,y_k)-f(x_i,y))^2\\
    &\hspace{5cm}-(f(x,y_k)-f(x,y))^2\big].
  \end{align*}
  Similarly, we obtain
  \begin{align*}
    L_2=&\Delta\Gamma(f^x)(y)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{y_k\sim y}\sum_{x_i\sim
      x}\overline{w}_kw_i\big[(f(x_i,y_k)-f(x,y_k))^2
    \\&\hspace{5cm}-(f(x_i,y)-f(x,y))^2\big].
  \end{align*}
  Furthermore, we have
  \begin{align*}
    2\Gamma(f,\Delta f)(x,y)=&\sum_{x_i\sim x}w_i(f(x_i, y)-f(x,y))\left(\Delta f(x_i,y)-\Delta f(x,y)\right)+\\
    &\sum_{y_k\sim y}\overline{w}_k(f(x, y_k)-f(x,y))\left(\Delta f(x,y_k)-\Delta f(x,y)\right)\\
    :=&G_1+G_2.
  \end{align*}
  Then for the term $G_1$, we have
  \begin{align*}
    G_1=&\sum_{x_i\sim x}w_i(f(x_i, y)-f(x,y))\left(\Delta f_y(x_i)+\Delta f^{x_i}(y)-\Delta f_y(x)-\Delta f^x(y)\right)\\
    =&2\Gamma(f_y,\Delta f_y)(x)+\sum_{x_i\sim x}\sum_{y_k\sim
      y}w_i\overline{w}_k(f(x_i,y)-f(x,y))\times
    \\&\hspace{4cm}(f(x_i, y_k)-f(x_i,y)-f(x,y_k)+f(x,y)).
  \end{align*}
  Similarly, we also have
  \begin{align*}
    G_2=&2\Gamma(f^x,\Delta f^x)(y)+\sum_{y_k\sim y}\sum_{x_i\sim
      x}\overline{w}_kw_i(f(x,y_k)-f(x,y))\times
    \\&\hspace{4cm}(f(x_i, y_k)-f(x,y_k)-f(x_i,y)+f(x,y)).
  \end{align*}
  Observing the fact that
  \begin{align*}
    &(f(x_i,y_k)-f(x,y_k))^2-(f(x_i,y)-f(x,y))^2\\
    =&(f(x_i,y_k)-f(x,y_k)-f(x_i,y)+f(x,y))^2+\\
    &2(f(x_i,y_k)-f(x,y_k)-f(x_i,y)+f(x,y))(f(x_i,y)-f(x,y)),
  \end{align*}
  We arrive at
  \begin{align}\label{eq:halflemm1}
    L_2-\Delta\Gamma(f^x)(y)-(G_1-2\Gamma(f_y,\Delta f_y)(x))\geq 0,
  \end{align}
  and
  \begin{align}\label{eq:halflemm2}
    L_1-\Delta\Gamma(f_y)(x)-(G_2-2\Gamma(f^x,\Delta f^x)(y))\geq 0.
  \end{align}
  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  The intuition of the above calculation is that the mixed terms are
  "flat". In fact, Lemma \ref{lemma:cartesianproduct} still holds if
  we replace $\Gamma_2(f)$ by $\widetilde{\Gamma}_2(f):=
  \frac{1}{2}\Delta\Gamma(f)-\Gamma\left(f,\frac{\Delta(f^2)}{2f}\right)$.
  Explicitly, for any positive function $f:V_1\times V_2\rightarrow
  \mathbb{R}$ and any $(x,y)\in V_1\times V_2$, we have
  \begin{equation}
    \widetilde{\Gamma}_2(f)(x,y)\geq \widetilde{\Gamma}_2(f_y)(x)+\widetilde{\Gamma}_2(f^x)(y).
  \end{equation}
  The proof is done in a similar way. The operator
  $\widetilde{\Gamma}_2$ was introduced in Bauer et
  al. \cite{BHLLMY13} to define a modification of the CD-inequality,
  called exponential curvature-dimension inequality $CDE(K, n)$ (see
  Definition 3.9 in \cite{BHLLMY13}). Under the assumption of their
  new notion of curvature lower bound, they prove Li-Yau type gradient
  estimates (dimension-dependent) for the heat kernels on graphs.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:CartesianProduct}]
  By Lemma \ref{lemma:cartesianproduct}, we have for any function $f:
  V_1\times V_2\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and any $(x,y)\in V_1\times
  V_2$,
  \begin{align}
    &\Gamma_2(f)(x,y)\geq \Gamma_2(f_y)(x)+\Gamma_2(f^x)(y)\notag\\
    \geq &\frac{1}{n_1}(\Delta f_y(x))^2+\frac{1}{n_2}(\Delta f^x(y))^2+K_1\Gamma(f_y)(x)+K_2\Gamma(f^x)(y)\notag\\
    \geq &\frac{1}{n_1+n_2}(\Delta f_y(x)+\Delta f^x(y))^2+K_1\wedge
    K_2(\Gamma(f_y)(x)+\Gamma(f^x)(y)).\label{eq:dimensionestiamte}
  \end{align}
  In the last inequality above we used Young's inequality. Recalling
  the facts $\Delta f_y(x)+\Delta f^x(y)=\Delta f(x,y)$ and
  $\Gamma(f_y)(x)+\Gamma(f^x)(y)=\Gamma (f)(x,y)$, we complete the
  proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rmk:extendCartesian}
  We can have more flexibility concerning the measures assigned to
  vertices. Suppose the vertex measures assigned to $G_1, G_2$ and
  $G_1\times G_2$ take the constant values $\mu_1, \mu_2$ and
  $\mu_{12}$ on each vertex, respectively, then the modified
  conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:CartesianProduct} is that $(G_1\times
  G_2, \mu_{12})$ satisfies
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:CartesianGeneral} CD\left(\frac{1}{\mu_{12}^2}
      (\mu_1^2K_1\wedge\mu_2^2K_2),\frac{\mu_{12}^2}{\mu_1^2\mu_2^2}
      (\mu_2^2n_1+\mu_1^2n_2)\right).
  \end{equation}
  This modification covers the case of normalized Laplacians on
  regular graphs. In particular, if both $(G_1, \mu_1)$ and $(G_2,
  \mu_2)$ satisfy $CD(0, \infty)$, then $(G_1\times G_2, \mu_{12})$
  also satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rmk:optimalCartesian}
  The estimates of the CD-inequality in Theorem
  \ref{thm:CartesianProduct} (in fact also
  (\ref{eq:CartesianGeneral})) are tight at least for the Cartesian
  product of a graph $G$ with itself. That is, if $G$ satisfies $CD(K,
  n)$ precisely (i.e., the given $n$, $K$ in combination are largest
  possible), then the CD-inequality in Theorem
  \ref{thm:CartesianProduct} (or in (\ref{eq:CartesianGeneral})) is
  optimal for $G\times G$. This can be seen as follows. First note
  that this tightness depends on that of (\ref{eq:halflemm1}),
  (\ref{eq:halflemm2}) and (\ref{eq:dimensionestiamte}). By
  assumption, there exists a function $f$ on the graph $G$ and a
  vertex $x$ of the graph such that
  \begin{equation*}
    \Gamma_2(f)(x)=\frac{1}{n}(\Delta f(x))^2+K\Gamma(f)(x),
  \end{equation*}
  with $\Gamma(f)(x)\neq 0$. We can then choose a particular function
  $F$ on $G\times G$ such that (\textrm{i}) $F(x,x)=f(x)$;
  (\textrm{ii})$F(x_i,x)=f(x_i)$ for all neighbors $x_i$ of $x$ in
  $G$; (\textrm{iii}) $F(x,x_k)=f(x_k)$ for all neighbors $x_k$ of $x$
  in $G$; (\textrm{iv}) $F(x_i,x_k)=F(x,x_k)+F(x_i,x)-F(x,x)$. For
  such a $F$ the equalities in (\ref{eq:halflemm1}) and
  (\ref{eq:halflemm2}) are attained at $(x,x)$ and $\Delta
  F_x(x)=\Delta F^x(x)$, hence the equality in
  (\ref{eq:dimensionestiamte}) is also attained. Therefore we obtain
  \begin{equation*}
    \Gamma_2(F)(x,x)=\frac{1}{2n}(\Delta F(x,x))^2+K\Gamma(F)(x,x),
  \end{equation*}
  which confirms the postulated tightness.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Bakry-\'{E}mery type gradient estimate}

Consider the following continuous time heat equation,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heateq}
  \left\{
    \begin{array}{ll}
      \frac{\partial}{\partial t}u(x,t)=\Delta u(x,t),\\
      u(x,0)=f(x).
    \end{array}
  \right.
\end{equation}
This is in fact a matrix differential equation.  Its solution $u:
V\times [0,\infty)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ can be written as
$u(x,t)=P_tf(x)$ where $P_t:=e^{t\Delta}$.  Let us choose an
orthonormal basis $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ of the space $l^2(V)$ (the
function space defined by the inner product $(f,g)_\mu:=\sum_{x\in
  V}f(x)g(x)\mu(x)$), consisting of eigenfunctions of $\Delta$. One
can derive the following properties from the definition.

\begin{pro}[see, e.g., \cite{BHLLMY13,Chung}]\label{pro:heatsemigroup}
  The operator $P_t, t\geq 0$ satisfies the following properties:
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item $P_t$ is a self-adjoint operator;
  \item $P_t$ commutes with $\Delta$, i.e. $P_t\Delta=\Delta P_t$;
  \item $P_tP_s=P_{t+s}$ for any $t,s\geq 0$;
  \item $P_tf(x)=\sum_{y\in V}f(y)p_t(x,y)\mu(y)$,
    where $$p_t(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^Ne^{-\lambda_it}\psi_i(x)\psi_i(y)\geq
    0$$ and $\sum_{y\in V}p_t(x,y)\mu(y)=1$. In particular, $0\leq
    P_t(\chi_S)\leq 1$, where $\chi_S$ is the characteristic function
    of a subset $S\subset V$;
  \item $\sum_{x\in V}P_tf(x)\mu(x)=\sum_{x\in V}f(x)\mu(x)$.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{pro}

The following Bakry-\'{E}mery type gradient estimate of $P_tf$ is an
important feature of the CD-inequality.

\begin{lemma}[see e.g. \cite{Ledoux04}]\label{lemma:BEgradient}
  If $(G, \mu)$ satisfies $CD(-K,\infty)$ ($K\geq 0$), then we have
  for any function $f:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
  \begin{equation}
    \Gamma(P_tf)\leq e^{2Kt}P_t(\Gamma(f)).
  \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  The proof in Ledoux \cite{Ledoux04} (see (5.3) there) works still
  for the graph setting. For any $0\leq s\leq t$, define
  \begin{equation}
    F(s):=e^{2Ks}P_s(\Gamma(P_{t-s}f)).
  \end{equation}
  Observe that $F(0)=\Gamma(P_tf)$ and
  $F(t)=e^{2Kt}P_t(\Gamma(f))$. Hence it remains to check the sign of
  the derivative $\frac{d}{ds}F(s)$. We calculate
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{d}{ds}F(s)=2Ke^{2Ks}P_s(\Gamma(P_{t-s}f))+e^{2Ks}\Delta P_s(\Gamma(P_{t-s}f))+e^{2Ks}P_s(\frac{d}{ds}\Gamma(P_{t-s}f)).
  \end{equation*}
  Recalling the equations (\ref{eq:gradient}) and (\ref{eq:heateq}),
  it is straightforward to see for any $x\in V$
  \begin{align*}
    \frac{d}{ds}\Gamma(P_{t-s}f)(x)&=\frac{1}{\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim
      x}w_{xy}(P_{t-s}f(y)-P_{t-s}f(x))(-\Delta P_{t-s}f(y)+\Delta
    P_{t-s}f(x))\\&=-2\Gamma(P_{t-s}f, \Delta P_{t-s}f)(x).
  \end{align*}
  Now we observe that
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{d}{ds}F(s)=2e^{2Ks}P_s(\Gamma_2(P_{t-s}f)+K\Gamma(P_{t-s}f))\geq 0,
  \end{equation*}
  where we used (\ref{eq:Gammatwo}) and our curvature condition. This
  completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Eigenvalue ratios and higher order spectral
  bounds}\label{section:eigenratio}

We will use the Cheeger constant to relate the $k$-th with the second
eigenvalue, from which we deduce an eigenvalue ratio estimate. For a
given $(G, \mu)$, recall that the expansion $\phi_{w,\mu}(S)$ of a
nonempty subset $S$ of $V$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
  \phi_{w,\mu}(S):=\frac{|E(S, V\setminus S)|_w}{\mu(S)},
\end{equation*}
where $|E(S, V\setminus S)|_w:=\sum_{x\sim y, x\in S, y\not\in
  S}w_{xy}$ and $\mu(S):=\sum_{x\in S}\mu(x)$.

\begin{definition}[Multi-way isoperimetric constants \cite{Miclo2008,LGT2013}]\label{defn:multi-wayIso}
  For a natural number $k$, the $k$-way isoperimetric constant of
  $(G,\mu)$ is defined as
  \begin{equation*}
    h_k(G,\mu):=\min_{S_1,\ldots,S_k}\max_{1\leq i\leq k}\phi_{w,\mu}(S_i),
  \end{equation*}
  where the minimum is taken over all collections of $k$ non-empty,
  mutually disjoint subsets $S_1,\ldots, S_k$, i.e., all
  $k$-subpartitions of $V$.
\end{definition}

Note that $h_2(G,\mu)$ coincides with the classical Cheeger constant
and that $h_{k}(G,\mu)\leq h_{k+1}(G,\mu)$.

\subsection{Eigenvalue ratio}
As in \cite{Liu14} for the Riemannian manifold case, we need to
combine the improved Cheeger inequality with a Buser type inequality.
Buser's inequality is shown on graphs by Bauer et al. \cite{BHLLMY13}
under their exponential curvature-dimension inequality constraints. As
mentioned in \cite{BHLLMY13}, in an unpublished manuscript
\cite{KlarKozma}, Klartag and Kozma proved Buser's inequality for
non-normalized Laplacian with CD-inequality constraints. In our
general setting it reads as below.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:Buser}
  Let $(G,\mu)$ satisfy $CD(-K,\infty)$ for some $K\geq 0$. Then we
  have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:Buser}
    \lambda_2(G,\mu)\leq 8\max\left\{\sqrt{D_G^{nor}K}h_2(G,\mu),
      \left(\frac{e}{e-1}\right)^2D_G^{nor}h_2^2(G,\mu)\right\}.
  \end{equation}
  In particular, when $(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:BuserCD0}
    h_2(G,\mu)\geq \frac{e-1}{2e}\frac{1}{\sqrt{D_G^{nor}}}
    \sqrt{\lambda_2(G,\mu)}.
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

Note that inequality $(\ref{eq:BuserCD0})$ is slightly better than the
one obtained by directly inserting $K=0$ into $(\ref{eq:Buser})$.
Actually, with formulas (\ref{eq:summaBypart}),
(\ref{eq:gammaHolder}), Proposition \ref{pro:heatsemigroup} and Lemma
\ref{lemma:BEgradient} in hand, Theorem \ref{thm:Buser} follows via
the same proof as for closed Riemannian manifolds in Section 5 of
Ledoux \cite{Ledoux04}. For the reader's convenience, we present a
proof for (\ref{eq:BuserCD0}) in Appendix
\ref{section:appendixBuser}. The dependence on $D_G^{nor}$ comes from
Lemma \ref{lemma:boundaryMeasure} there, see also \cite{BHLLMY13}.

We also need the following improved Cheeger inequality due to Kwok et
al. \cite{KLLGT2013} to obtain the eigenvalue ratio estimate.

\begin{thm}
  On $(G,\mu)$ we have for any natural number $k \ge 2$,
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:improveCheeger}
    h_2(G,\mu)\leq 10\sqrt{2D_G^{non}}k\frac{\lambda_2(G,\mu)}{\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

Here the setting is slightly more general than that in
\cite{KLLGT2013}. To obtain (\ref{eq:improveCheeger}), one needs to be
careful about the final calculations in the proof of Proposition 3.2
in \cite{KLLGT2013} (pp.16 in the full version of \cite{KLLGT2013})
and the fact that $\lambda_k\leq 2D_G^{non}$.

Combining (\ref{eq:BuserCD0}) and (\ref{eq:improveCheeger}), we get
the following eigenvalue ratio estimate.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:eignevalueratio}
  For any graph $(G,\mu)$ satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and any natural
  number $k\geq 2$, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:eigenvalueratio}
    \lambda_k(G,\mu)\leq \left(\frac{20\sqrt{2}e}{e-1}\right)^2D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}k^2\lambda_2(G,\mu).
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

We remark that this estimate does not depend on the size of the graph.
Moreover, the following example shows that the order of $k$ in the
above estimate is optimal.

\begin{example}\label{example:Cycle}
  Consider an unweighted cycle $\mathcal{C}_N$ with $N\geq 3$
  vertices. Note that $\mathcal{C}_N$ can be considered as an abelian
  Cayley graph and hence satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$. Assign to it a
  measure $\mu$ which takes the constant value $2$ on every
  vertex. Then the eigenvalues of the associated Laplacian are given
  by (see e.g. Example 1.5 in \cite{Chung} or Section 7 in
  \cite{Liu13}),
  \begin{equation*}
    \lambda_k(\mathcal{C}_N)=1-\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{N}\left\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor\right), \,\,\,k=1,2,\ldots,N.
  \end{equation*}
  Observe that we have
  \begin{equation*}
    \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\lambda_k(\mathcal{C}_N)}{\lambda_2(\mathcal{C}_N)}=\left\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor^2.
  \end{equation*}
\end{example}

The dependence on the term $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}$ is also necessary in
the estimate (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}). This can be concluded from
the following examples.

\begin{example}
  Let us revisit the triangle graph $(\triangle_{xyz},\mu)$ in Example
  \ref{example:triangle}. Consider the special case that $A=B=C=1$ and
  $a=c$. Suppose $b\geq a$. Then this graph satisfies
  $CD(0,\infty)$. The eigenvalues of the non-normalized Laplacian are
  \begin{equation*}
    \lambda_1 = 0< \lambda_2 = 3a \leq \lambda_3 = a+2b.
  \end{equation*}
  Note further that $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}=(a+b)/a$. Therefore, we have
  \begin{equation}
    \frac{1}{3}D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}\leq\frac{\lambda_3(\triangle_{xyz})}{\lambda_2(\triangle_{xyz})}\leq\frac{2}{3}D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}.
  \end{equation}
\end{example}

We give another example which works for the eigenvalue ratios of both
non-normalized and normalized Laplacians.

\begin{example}
  Consider the tetrahedron graph $(T_4,\mu)$ in Example
  \ref{example:tetrahedron} with the assumption that $b\geq
  a=c$. Recall $\mu=A$ is a constant measure. Then the eigenvalues of
  the $\mu$-Laplacian are
  \begin{equation*}
    \lambda_1 = 0 < \lambda_2 = \frac{4a}{A} \leq \lambda_3 = \lambda_4 =
    \frac{2a+2b}{A}.
  \end{equation*}
  Moreover, we have $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor} = (2a+b)/a$. Hence we obtain
  \begin{equation}
    \frac{1}{4}D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}\leq\frac{\lambda_3(T_4)}{\lambda_{2}(T_4)}\leq D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}.
  \end{equation}
\end{example}

The following example shows that we cannot expect that the eigenvalue
ratio estimate (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) remains valid if a graph
$(G,\mu)$ possesses a small portion of vertices not satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$.

\begin{example}\label{example:dumbbell}
  Consider a sequence of dumbbell graphs
  $\{G_N\}_{N=3}^{\infty}$. Given two copies of complete graphs over
  $N$ vertices, $\mathcal{K}_N$ and $\mathcal{K}_N'$, $G_N$ is the
  graph obtained via connecting them by a new edge $e=(y_0, y'_0)$ as
  shown in Figure \ref{F3}.
  \begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DumbbellGraph.pdf}
    \caption{The dumbbell graph $G_5$\label{F3}}
  \end{figure}
  It was shown in \cite{JostLiu14} that the complete graph
  $\mathcal{K}_N$ with normalized Laplacian satisfies
  $CD\left(\frac{N+2}{2(N-1)}, \infty\right)$. Modifying the
  calculation in the proof of this fact in \cite{JostLiu14}, we obtain
  the following results.
  \begin{itemize}
  \item With the normalized Laplacian, $G_N$ satisfies
    $CD\left(\frac{1}{2},\infty\right)$ at every vertex which is not
    $y_0,y_0'$. At $y_0, y_0'$, $CD(0,\infty)$ does not hold when
    $N\geq 3$.
  \item With the non-normalized Laplacian, $G_N$ satisfies
    $CD\left(\frac{N}{2},\infty\right)$ at every vertex which is not
    $y_0,y_0'$. At $y_0, y_0'$, $CD(0,\infty)$ does not hold when
    $N\geq 3$.
  \end{itemize}
  We present the calculations in Appendix
  \ref{section:appendixDumbell}. With only $2$ of $2N$ vertices
  violating the curvature condition, the eigenvalue ratio estimate
  (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) does not hold any more. Indeed, for the
  normalized Laplacian, we observe by Cheeger's inequality that
  $\lambda_2(G_N)\leq \frac{2}{N(N-1)+1}$. Recall that the spectrum of
  a complete graph $\mathcal{K}_N$ is the simple eigenvalue $0$ and
  the eigenvalue $\frac{N}{N-1}$ with multiplicity $N-1$. By an
  interlacing theorem for edge-deleting due to Chen et
  al. \cite{Chenetal2004}, we conclude that $\lambda_4(G_N)\geq
  \frac{N}{N-1}$. Therefore we have
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{\lambda_4(G_N)}{\lambda_2(G_N)}\geq \frac{1}{2}N^2.
  \end{equation*}
  Since in this case $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}=N$,
  (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) does not hold when $N$ is large. Similar
  arguments show also for the non-normalized Laplacian that
  (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) is no longer true for all $N$. (The
  interlacing theorem for non-normalized Laplacian is well-known, see
  e.g. \cite{Heuvel95}).
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
  Replacing the sequence of complete graphs $\mathcal{K_N}$ above by a
  sequence of expanders, we obtain graphs \emph{of bounded degree}
  violating the curvature condition and for which
  (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) does not hold.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Higher-order Buser inequality}

A higher-order Buser inequality was first established by Funano
\cite{Funano2013} in the Riemannian setting and then improved in
\cite{Liu14}. The following inequality seems to be the first
higher-order Buser type inequality in the graph setting.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:higherBuser}
  For any graph $(G, \mu)$ satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and any
  natural number $k$, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:higherorderBuser}
    h_k(G,\mu)\geq h_2(G,\mu)\geq \frac{(e-1)^2}{40\sqrt{2}e^2}\frac{1}{D_G^{nor}\sqrt{D_G^{non}}}\frac{1}{k}\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)}.
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
  The first inequality is given by the monotonicity of the multi-way
  isoperimetric constant. The second inequality follows from Buser's
  inequality (\ref{eq:BuserCD0}) and Theorem
  \ref{thm:eignevalueratio}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} The higher-order Cheeger inequality of
  Lee-Oveis Gharan-Trevisan \cite{LGT2013} reads as
  \begin{equation}
    h_k(G,\mu)\leq C\sqrt{D_G^{non}}k^2\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)},
  \end{equation}
  where $C$ is an universal constant. (For the generalization into our
  setting, one needs to slightly modify the calculation for
  $\mathbb{E}\left(\sum_{i=1}^mw(E(\hat{S}_i,\overline{\hat{S}}_i))\right)$
  in Lemma 4.7 of \cite{LGT2013}.)  Hence, for a graph $(G,\mu)$
  satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and with bounded degree, $h_k(G,\mu)$ and
  $\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)}$ are equivalent up to polynomials of $k$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
  In \cite{BHLLMY13}, Bauer et al. proved for a graph $(G,\mu)$
  satisfying the exponential curvature-dimension inequality $CDE(0,n)$
  (see Definition 3.9 in \cite{BHLLMY13}) and for a fixed $0<\alpha<1$
  that there exists a constant $C(\alpha)$, depending only on $\alpha$,
  such that
  \begin{equation}
    \lambda_2(G,\mu)\leq C(\alpha)D_G^{nor}n h_2(G,\mu)^2.
  \end{equation}
  That is, they obtain a dimension-dependent Buser inequality. Our
  approach also applies to their setting. In particular, we obtain the
  following eigenvalue ratio estimate and higher-order Buser
  inequality under the condition $CDE(0,n)$,
  \begin{equation}
    \lambda_k(G,\mu)\leq C_1(\alpha)D_G^{nor}D_G^{non}nk^2\lambda_2(G,\mu),
  \end{equation}
  \begin{equation}
    h_k(G,\mu)\geq h_2(G,\mu)\geq C_2(\alpha)\frac{1}{D_G^{nor}\sqrt{D_G^{non}}}\frac{1}{nk}\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)},
  \end{equation}
  where $C_1(\alpha)$, $C_2(\alpha)$ are constants depending only on
  $\alpha$.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Higher-order Alon-Milman inequalities}

In this subsection, we derive the higher-order counterparts of the
Alon-Milman \cite{AM1985} concentration inequality and the
eigenvalue-diameter estimate for graphs satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$.
The higher order eigenvalue-diameter estimate can be considered as an
analogue of the celebrated Cheng estimate (Corollary 2.2 in
\cite{Cheng75}) in the setting of compact Riemannian manifolds with
nonnegative Ricci curvature.

Given a graph $(G=(V,E,w), \mu)$ and two disjoint subset $S_1, S_2$ of
$V$, we introduce
$$s_1:=\frac{\mu(S_1)}{\mu(V)}\text{ and }s_2:=\frac{\mu(S_2)}{\mu(V)}.$$
Then we have the following result.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:alonMilmanConcentration}
  Let $(G,\mu)$ satisfy $CD(0,\infty)$. Assume that the distance
  $\text{dist}(S_1,S_2)$ between two subsets $S_1$ and $S_2$ is larger
  than $\rho\geq 1$. Then we have for any $k\geq 2$,
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:AMConcentration}
    s_2\leq(1-s_1)\exp\left\{-\ln(1+2s_1)\left\lfloor\frac{e-1}{20\sqrt{2}eD_G^{non}k}\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_k(G,\mu)}{D_G^{nor}}\rho}\right\rfloor\right\}.
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

This inequality is closely related to constructing a concentrated
family of graphs (see Definition 1.2 in \cite{AM1985}). It can also be
considered as an asymptotic isoperimetric inequality since it provides
an estimate for the maximal possible $\mu$-volume of vertices of
distance larger than $\rho$ from a set possessing half of the whole
$\mu$-volume.

\begin{proof}
  We first need to extend the concentration inequality in terms of the
  smallest non-zero eigenvalue of the non-normalized Laplacian of
  Alon-Milman (see Theorem 2.6 in \cite{AM1985}) to our present
  setting. We outline the critical steps here. As a finer version of
  the easier part of Cheeger's inequality, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:finerCheeger}
    \lambda_2(G,\mu)\mu(V)\leq \frac{1}{\text{dist}(S_1,S_2)^2}\left(\frac{1}{s_1}+\frac{1}{s_2}\right)(|E|_w-|E_{S_1}|_w-|E_{S_2}|_w),
  \end{equation}
  where we use $E_{S_i}$ for the set of edges with both ends in $S_i$,
  $i=1,2$ and $|\cdot|_w$ for the sum of weights of edges in the
  corresponding set. Observe that when $\text{dist}(S_1,S_2)>1$, every
  edge in $E\setminus(E_{S_1}\cup E_{S_2})$ is incident with at least
  one of the vertices in $V\setminus(S_1\cup S_2)$. Hence we have
  \begin{align*}
    &|E|_w-|E_{S_1}|_w-|E_{S_2}|_w\leq \sum_{x\in V\setminus(S_1\cup
      S_2)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy} \\\leq
    &D_G^{non}(\mu(V)-\mu(S_1)-\mu(S_2))=D_G^{non}\mu(V)(1-s_1-s_2).
  \end{align*}
  Combining this with (\ref{eq:finerCheeger}), we obtain in the case
  $\text{dist}(S_1,S_2)>1$ that
  \begin{equation}
    s_2\leq\frac{1-s_1}{1+(\lambda_2(G,\mu)/D_G^{non})s_1\text{dist}(S_1,S_2)^2}.
  \end{equation}
  Applying of the above inequality iteratively, we arrive at (see
  details in \cite{AM1985})
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:AMlambda2}
    s_2\leq(1-s_1)\exp\left\{-\ln(1+2s_1)\left\lfloor\frac{\lambda_2(G,\mu)}{2D_G^{non}}\rho\right\rfloor\right\}.
  \end{equation}
  Now (\ref{eq:AMConcentration}) follows from (\ref{eq:AMlambda2}) and
  Theorem \ref{thm:eignevalueratio}.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{thm:higherCheng}
  If $(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$ then we have for the diameter
  of $G$ and any $k \ge 2$
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:AMlambdak}
    {\rm diam}(G)\leq 2\left\lfloor\frac{40e}{e-1}D_G^{non}\sqrt{D_G^{nor}}\frac{k}{\sqrt{\lambda_k(G,\mu)}}\log_2\frac{\mu(V)}{\min_{x\in V}\mu(x)}\right\rfloor.
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
  We can either derive this theorem directly from Theorem
  \ref{thm:alonMilmanConcentration} or first extend the Alon-Milman
  eigenvalue-diameter estimate to our present setting as
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:AMdiameter}
    {\rm diam}(G)\leq 2\left\lfloor\sqrt{\frac{2D_G^{non}}{\lambda_2(G,\mu)}}\log_2\frac{\mu(V)}{\min_{x\in V}\mu(x)}\right\rfloor.
  \end{equation}
  For this extension, we only need to be aware of the fact that
  $\mu(S)< \min_{x\in V}\mu(x)$ implies $S=\emptyset$. Then combining
  (\ref{eq:AMdiameter}) with Theorem \ref{thm:eignevalueratio} implies
  (\ref{eq:AMlambdak}).
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  Note that there are various further developments in connection with
  Alon-Milman's estimate (\ref{eq:AMdiameter}), see, e.g., the work of
  Chung \cite{Chung89}, Mohar \cite{Mohar91}, Chung-Grigor'yan-Yau
  \cite{CGY} and Houdr\'{e}-Tetali \cite{HT01}. In principle, the
  estimate (\ref{eq:AMlambdak}) can be improved accordingly.
\end{remark}

\section{Ratios of multi-way isoperimetric constants}\label{section:isoratio}

\begin{thm} \label{thm:isoperimetricratio}
  There exists a universal constant $C$ such that for any graph
  $(G,\mu)$ satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ and for any natural number
  $k\geq 2$, we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:isoperimetricratio}
    h_k(G,\mu)\leq C D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}k\sqrt{\log k}h_2(G,\mu).
  \end{equation}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
  For this estimate, we need the following result of Lee-Oveis
  Gharan-Trevisan \cite{LGT2013} (Theorem 1.2 there),
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:LGTshifted}
    h_k(G,\mu)\leq C_1\sqrt{D_G^{non}\log k\lambda_{2k}},
  \end{equation}
  where $C_1$ is a universal constant.  Then
  (\ref{eq:isoperimetricratio}) follows from applying Theorem
  \ref{thm:eignevalueratio} and Buser inequality (\ref{eq:BuserCD0})
  in turn.
\end{proof}

In fact, Lee-Oveis Gharan-Trevisan removed the dependence on $k$ in
the estimate (\ref{eq:LGTshifted}) in the case when more information
about the geometry of the graph $(G,\mu)$ is known. When $G$ has genus
at most $g\geq 1$ (i.e. $G$ can be embedded into an orientable surface
of genus at most $g$ without edge crossings), they prove that there
exists a universal constant $C_1'$ such that
\begin{equation}
  h_k(G,\mu)\leq C_1'\log(g+1)\sqrt{D_G^{non}\lambda_{2k}}.
\end{equation}

Therefore we have the following result.

\begin{coro}\label{coro:genus}
  There exists a universal constant $C$ such that if $(G,\mu)$
  satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$, then for any $k\geq 2$,
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:isoperimetricratioPlanar}
    h_k(G,\mu)\leq C D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}\log(g_G+1)kh_2(G,\mu),
  \end{equation}
  where $g_G\geq 1$ is an upper bound of the genus of $G$.
\end{coro}

\begin{remark}
  The order of $k$ in (\ref{eq:isoperimetricratioPlanar}) is
  optimal. This follows from the example of unweighted cycles
  $\mathcal{C}_N$ (which are planar) with the same measure $\mu$ as in
  Example \ref{example:Cycle}, since we have (see e.g. Proposition 7.3
  in \cite{Liu13}).
  \begin{equation*}
    h_k(\mathcal{C}_N)=\frac{1}{\left\lfloor\frac{N}{k}\right\rfloor},\,\,\,\text{ for }2\leq k\leq N.
  \end{equation*}
\end{remark}

The dependence on $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}$ of the ratio estimate is also
necessary. This follows from the following example analyzed in Mimura
\cite{Mimura2014}.

\begin{example}
  Consider the Cartesian product graph $G_{N,2}$ of the unweighted
  complete graphs $\mathcal{K_N}$ and $\mathcal{K}_2$. Assign the
  measure $\mu=\mathbf{1}$ to it. Since complete graphs satisfy
  $CD(0,\infty)$ (see \cite{JostLiu14}), we know by Theorem
  \ref{thm:CartesianProduct} that $G_{N,2}$ satisfies
  $CD(0,\infty)$. It is straightforward to see that $h_2(G_{N,2})\leq
  1$. Observe that we can partition $G_{N,2}$ into two induced
  subgraphs $\mathcal{K}_N$ and $\mathcal{K}_N'$. By Lemma 1 of Tanaka
  \cite{Tanaka13} (see also \cite{Mimura2014}), we
  have $$h_3(G_{N,2})\geq h_2(\mathcal{K}_N)=\frac{N}{2}.$$ (Note that
  Tanaka's lemma was stated for the constants $\{\mathfrak{h}_k(G)\}$
  defined below. One can check that it also works for $\{h_k(G)\}$
  here.) Therefore, we obtain
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:exampleMimura}
    \frac{h_3(G_{N,2})}{h_2(G_{N,2})}\geq \frac{N}{2}=\frac{1}{2}d_G.
  \end{equation}
  This shows the necessity of the dependence on the term
  $D_G^{non}D_G^{nor}=d_G$. Note (\ref{eq:exampleMimura}) also holds
  for the normalized measure $\mu$. We comment that one can also
  analyse the eigenvalues of this example to show the necessity of the
  dependence on the degree in (\ref{eq:eigenvalueratio}) (see also
  \cite{Mimura2014}) using an interlacing theorem or Lemma 6 of
  \cite{Tanaka13}.
\end{example}

Now we restrict our considerations to the setting $w\equiv 1$ and
$\mu=\mathbf{1}$, that is, $G=(V,E)$ is now an unweighted graph with
non-normalized Laplacian.

Recently, the concept of multi-way expanders was defined and studied
in Tanaka \cite{Tanaka13} and Mimura \cite{Mimura2014}.
We denote $\mathfrak{h}_k(G)$ to be the following larger $k$-way
isoperimetric constant (compare with Definition
\ref{defn:multi-wayIso})
\begin{equation}
  \mathfrak{h}_k(G):=\min_{S_1,\ldots, S_k}\max_{1\leq i\leq k}\phi_{1,\mathbf{1}}(S_i),
\end{equation}
where the minimum is taken over all partitions of $V$,
i.e. $V=\bigsqcup_{i=1}^kS_i$, $S_i\neq\emptyset$ for all $i$.

\begin{definition}[Multi-way expanders
  \cite{Tanaka13,Mimura2014}] \label{defn:multi-wayExpanders}
  Let $k \ge 2$ be a natural number. A sequence of finite graphs
  $\{G_m=(V_m, E_m)\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}}$ is called a sequence of
  $k$-way expanders if we have (i) $\sup_md_{G_m}<\infty$; (ii)
  $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty}|V_m|=\infty$; (iii)
  $\inf_m\mathfrak{h}_k(G_m)>0$.
\end{definition}

Observe that $2$-way expander families coincide with classical
families of expanders. In general, the property of being $(k+1)$-way
expanders is strictly weaker than being $k$-way expanders (see
\cite{Mimura2014}). However,
Mimura \cite{Mimura2014} proved that the concepts of $k$-way expanders
for all $k\geq 2$ are equivalent within the class of finite,
connected, vertex transitive graphs.

As a consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:isoperimetricratio}, we have

\begin{coro}\label{thm:multi-way expanders}
  For the class of finite connected graphs satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$,
  the concepts of $k$-way expanders for all $k\geq 2$ are equivalent.
\end{coro}

\begin{proof}
  Using the relation (see Theorem 3.8 in \cite{LGT2013},
  \cite{Mimura2014})
  \begin{equation}
    h_k(G)\leq \mathfrak{h}_k(G)\leq kh_k(G),
  \end{equation}
  and employing (\ref{eq:isoperimetricratio}) yields
  \begin{equation}
    \mathfrak{h}_k(G)\leq Cd_Gk^2\sqrt{\log k}\mathfrak{h}_2(G).
  \end{equation}
  Hence, when $d_G<\infty$, $\inf_m\mathfrak{h}_k(G_m)>0$ implies
  $\inf_m\mathfrak{h}_2(G_m)>0$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Abelian Cayley graphs lie in the intersection of the class of vertex
transitive graphs and the class of graphs satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$. It is well known that there are no expanders in the
class of abelian Cayley graphs (see Alon-Roichman
\cite{AR94}). Moreover, Friedman-Murty-Tillich \cite{FMT06} proved an
explicit upper estimate for $\lambda_2$ which implies this
fact. Therefore, we also obtain the following explicit upper estimate
for $\lambda_k$ implying the nonexistence of sequences of multi-way
expanders in this class.

\begin{coro}
  For any abelian Cayley graphs with degree $d$ and of vertex size
  $N$, there exists a universal constant $C$ such that for any $k\geq
  2$,
  \begin{equation}
    \lambda_k\leq Ck^2d^2N^{-\frac{4}{d}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{coro}

As indicated, this is a direct consequence of Theorem
\ref{thm:eignevalueratio} and the estimate $\lambda_2\leq
CdN^{-\frac{4}{d}}$ in \cite{FMT06}. Therefore, it is natural to ask
the following question.

\begin{quest}
  Does there exist a sequence of expanders satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$?
\end{quest}

We are inclined to a negative answer. For example, the nonexistence of
expander families satisfying $CD(0,\infty)$ would follow if one could
prove that every graph of vertex degree at most $d$ and satisfying
$CD(0,\infty)$ possesses polynomial volume growth with degree
depending only on $d$.

\section*{Appendix}\label{section:appendix}

\renewcommand\thesection{\Alph{section}}

\setcounter{section}{1}
\setcounter{thm}{0}

\subsection{Curvature matrix of the triangle and tetrahedron
  graphs}\label{section:appendixTT}

The curvature matrix $\Gamma_2(x)$ for the graph
$(\triangle_{xyz},\mu)$ in Figure \ref{F1} is
\begin{equation*}
  \frac{1}{4C}\left(
  \begin{array}{ccc}
    \frac{3a^2}{B}+\frac{3b^2}{A}+\frac{(a+b)^2}{C} & \frac{bc}{A}-\frac{a(3a+c)}{B}-\frac{a(a+b)}{C} & \frac{ac}{B}-\frac{b(3b+c)}{A}-\frac{b(a+b)}{C}\\
  \frac{bc}{A}-\frac{a(3a+c)}{B}-\frac{a(a+b)}{C}   & \frac{bc}{A}+\frac{3a(a+c)}{B}+\frac{a(a-b)}{C} & \frac{2ab}{C}-\frac{2ac}{B}-\frac{2bc}{A}\\
 \frac{ac}{B}-\frac{b(3b+c)}{A}-\frac{b(a+b)}{C}    & \frac{2ab}{C}-\frac{2ac}{B}-\frac{2bc}{A} & \frac{3b(b+c)}{A}+\frac{b(b-a)}{C}+\frac{ac}{B} \\
  \end{array}
\right).
\end{equation*}

Let us have a closer look at the special case that $A=B=C=1$ and
$a=c$. Then the matrix $4\Gamma_2(x)=4\Gamma_2(z)$ reduces to
\begin{equation*}
\left(
  \begin{array}{ccc}
    4a^2+2ab+4b^2 & -5a^2 & a^2-2ab-4b^2 \\
    -5a^2 & 7a^2 & -2a^2 \\
     a^2-2ab-4b^2 & -2a^2 & a^2+2ab+4b^2 \\
  \end{array}
\right),
\end{equation*}
and the matrix $4\Gamma_2(y)$ is
\begin{equation*}
 \left(
   \begin{array}{ccc}
     10a^2 & -5a^2 & -5a^2 \\
     -5a^2 & 3a^2+4ab & 2a^2-4ab \\
     -5a^2 & 2a^2-4ab & 3a^2+4ab \\
   \end{array}
 \right).
\end{equation*}
Observe that when $b\geq a/2$, the above two matrices are both
diagonally dominant and hence positive-semidefinite. In fact they are
always positive-semidefinite for any $a,b\geq 0$.

The matrix $4A^2\Gamma_2(x)$ for the tetrahedron graph $(T_4,\mu)$ in
Figure \ref{F2} is given by
\begin{equation*}
  \begin{pmatrix}
    \begin{smallmatrix}
      2ab+2ac+2bc+4a^2+4b^2+4c^2 & -2ab+2ac-2bc-4b^2 & 2ab-2ac-2bc-4c^2 & -2ab-2ac+2bc-4a^2 \\
      -2ab+2ac-2bc-4b^2& 2ac+2ab+2bc+4b^2 & -2ab-2ac+2bc & -2bc-2ac+2ab \\
      2ab-2ac-2bc-4c^2    & -2ab-2ac+2bc &  2ab+2ac+2bc+4c^2& -2ab+2ac-2bc \\
      -2ab-2ac+2bc-4a^2    & -2bc-2ac+2ab &  -2ab+2ac-2bc& 2ab+2ac+2bc+4a^2 \\
    \end{smallmatrix}
  \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
This is a positive-semidefintie matrix.

\subsection{Proof of Buser inequality}\label{section:appendixBuser}

In this subsection, we present a proof of Buser's inequality
(\ref{eq:BuserCD0}), following closely Ledoux \cite{Ledoux04} (see
also \cite{BHLLMY13,KlarKozma}). The following Lemma can be considered
as a reverse Poincar\'{e} inequality.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:revPoin}
  Assume that $(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$. Then, we have for
  any function $f:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, any $t\geq 0$, and any
  $x\in V$,
  \begin{equation}
    P_t(f^2)(x)-(P_tf)^2(x)\geq 2t\Gamma(P_tf)(x).
  \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  For $0\leq s\leq t$, set $G(s)=P_s((P_{t-s}f)^2)$.  Then we have
  $G(0)=(P_tf)^2$, $G(t)=P_t(f^2)$.  Using the gradient estimate in
  Lemma \ref{lemma:BEgradient}, we have
  \begin{align*}
    \frac{d}{ds}G(s)&=\Delta P_s((P_{t-s}f)^2)+P_s(-2P_{t-s}f\Delta P_{t-s}f)\\
    &=2P_s(\Gamma(P_{t-s}f))\geq 2\Gamma(P_tf).
  \end{align*}
  Now we arrive at
  \begin{equation*}
    G(t)-G(0)=\int_0^t \frac{d}{ds}G(s) ds\geq 2\Gamma(P_tf)\int_0^tds= 2t\Gamma(P_tf).
  \end{equation*}
  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Define the $l_p$ norm of a function $f:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as
$\Vert f\Vert_p:=\left(\sum_{x\in
    V}\mu(x)|f(x)|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}$.  We have the following
direct corollary.

\begin{coro}\label{coro:l1norm}
  Assume that $(G,\mu)$ satisfies $CD(0,\infty)$. Then, we have for
  any function $f:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and any $t\geq 0$,
  \begin{equation*}
    \Vert f-P_tf\Vert_1\leq \sqrt{2t}\Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(f)}\Vert_1.
  \end{equation*}
\end{coro}

\begin{proof}
  Note first that, by Lemma \ref{lemma:revPoin} and Proposition
  \ref{pro:heatsemigroup} (4), we have
  \begin{equation}\label{eq:inftynorm}
    \Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(P_tf)}\Vert_{\infty}\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2t}}\Vert f\Vert_{\infty}.
  \end{equation}
  Let $g:V\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be $g(x):={\rm
    sgn}(f(x)-P_tf(x))$. Then we obtain
  \begin{align*}
    \Vert f-P_tf\Vert_1&=\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)(f(x)-P_tf(x))g(x)=-\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\int_0^t\Delta P_sf(x)ds g(x)\\
    &=-\int_0^t\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)P_sg(x)\Delta f(x)ds=\int_0^t\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\Gamma(P_sg(x),f(x))ds\\
    &\leq \int_0^t\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\sqrt{\Gamma(P_sg)(x)}\sqrt{\Gamma(f)(x)}ds\\&\leq \Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(f)}\Vert_1\int_0^t\Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(P_sg)}\Vert_{\infty}ds\leq \Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(f)}\Vert_1\Vert g\Vert_{\infty}\int_0^t\frac{1}{\sqrt{2s}}ds\\
    &\leq \sqrt{2t}\Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(f)}\Vert_1,
  \end{align*}
  where we used Proposition \ref{pro:heatsemigroup} (1-2),
  (\ref{eq:summaBypart}), (\ref{eq:gammaHolder}) and
  (\ref{eq:inftynorm}).
\end{proof}

Recall that $\chi_S$ denotes the characteristic function of $S\subset
V$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:boundaryMeasure}
  We have
  \begin{equation}
    \Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(\chi_S)}\Vert_1\leq\sqrt{2D_G^{nor}}E(S,V\setminus S).
  \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  This follows from the direct calculation given here:
  \begin{align*}
    \Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(\chi_S)}\Vert_1&=\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}(\chi_S(x)-\chi_S(y))^2}\\
    &\leq \sum_{x\in V}\sqrt{\frac{\mu(x)}{2}}\sum_{y,y\sim x}\sqrt{w_{xy}}|\chi_S(x)-\chi_S(y)|\\
    &\leq \sqrt{\frac{D_G^{nor}}{2}}\sum_{x\in V}\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}|\chi_S(x)-\chi_S(y)|\\
    &=\sqrt{2D_G^{nor}}E(S,V\setminus S).
  \end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (\ref{eq:BuserCD0})]
  Using Corollary \ref{coro:l1norm} and Lemma
  \ref{lemma:boundaryMeasure}, we have
  \begin{align}
    &\sqrt{2t}\Vert\sqrt{\Gamma(\chi_S)}\Vert_1\leq 2\sqrt{D_G^{nor}t}E(S, V\setminus S)\notag\\
    \geq&\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)|\chi_S(x)-P_t\chi_S(x)|=\sum_{x\in S}(1-P_t\chi_S(x))+\sum_{x\in V\setminus S}\mu(x)P_t\chi_S(x)\notag\\

    =&2\mu(S)-2\sum_{x\in S}P_t(\chi_S)(x)\mu(x),\label{eq:tobeInset}
  \end{align}
  where we used Proposition \ref{pro:heatsemigroup} (4-5).

  Now let $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be $N$ constants such that
  $\chi_S=\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_i\psi_i$, where $\{\psi_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$
  are the orthonormal basis of $l^2(V,\mu)$ given by eigenfunctions.
  Then we have $\Vert\chi_S\Vert_2^2=\sum_{i=1}^N\alpha_i^2=\mu(S)$
  and
  \begin{equation*}
    \alpha_1=(\chi_S,\psi_1)=\sum_{x\in V}\mu(x)\chi_S(x)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu(V)}}=\frac{\mu(S)}{\sqrt{\mu(V)}}.
  \end{equation*}
  Now we have by Proposition \ref{pro:heatsemigroup} (4)
  \begin{align*}
    &\sum_{x\in S}P_t(\chi_S)(x)\mu(x)=\sum_{x\in V}(P_{\frac{t}{2}}\chi_S)^2(x)\mu(x)\\
    =&\sum_{x\in V}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N}e^{-\frac{\lambda_it}{2}}\alpha_i\psi_i\right)^2\mu(x)=\sum_{i=1}^Ne^{-\lambda_it}\alpha_i^2\leq e^{-\lambda_2t}\sum_{i=2}^N\alpha_i^2+\alpha_0^2\\
    =&e^{-\lambda_2t}\left(\mu(S)-\frac{\mu(S)^2}{\mu(V)}\right)+\frac{\mu(S)^2}{\mu(V)}.
  \end{align*}
  Inserting the above estimate into (\ref{eq:tobeInset}), we arrive at
  \begin{equation}
    2\sqrt{D_G^{nor}t}E(S, V\setminus S)\geq 2\left(\mu(S)-\frac{\mu(S)^2}{\mu(V)}\right)(1-e^{-\lambda_2t}).
  \end{equation}
  Taking $t=\frac{1}{\lambda_2}$, we obtain for those $S$ with
  $\mu(S)\leq \frac{1}{2}\mu(V)$,
  \begin{equation*}
    2\sqrt{\frac{D_G^{nor}}{\lambda_2}}E(S, V\setminus S)\geq \mu(S)(1-e^{-1}).
  \end{equation*}
  This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{CD-inequalities of dumbbell
  graphs}\label{section:appendixDumbell}

In this subsection we present the calculations for the CD-inequalities
of dumbbell graphs $G_N$ claimed in Example
\ref{example:dumbbell}. They are modified from that of Proposition 3
in \cite{JostLiu14}.

A general formula representing $\Gamma_2(f)$ is given by
\begin{align}
  \Gamma_2(f)(x)=& Hf(x)+\frac{1}{2}(\Delta f(x))^2-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sum_{y,y\sim x}w_{xy}}{\mu(x)}\Gamma(f)(x)\notag\\
  &-\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim
    x}w_{xy}(f(y)-f(x))^2\frac{\sum_{z,z\sim
      y}w_{yz}}{\mu(y)},\label{eq:gamma2general}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation*}
Hf(x):=\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\mu(x)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}\frac{w_{xy}}{\mu(y)}\sum_{z,z\sim y}w_{yz}(f(x)-2f(y)+f(z))^2.
\end{equation*}
This is an extension of (2.9) in \cite{JostLiu14} to our general
setting $(G,\mu)$.

Let us first consider the case of the unweighted normalized
Laplacian. Let $x$ be a vertex of $G_N$ which is different from $y_0$
or $y'_0$ (see Figure \ref{F3}). First observe that
\begin{equation*}
  Hf(x)\geq \frac{1}{4N(N-1)}\sum_{y,y\sim x}\sum_{\substack{z,z\sim y\\z\neq y'_0}}(f(x)-2f(y)+f(z))^2.
\end{equation*}
Now our calculations reduce to the complete graph $\mathcal{K}_N$
itself. Note that when $y,z\neq x$,
\begin{align*}
  &(f(x)-2f(y)+f(z))^2+(f(x)-2f(z)+f(y))\\
  =&(f(x)-f(y))^2+(f(x)-f(z))^2+4(f(y)-f(z))^2.
\end{align*}
Then we have
\begin{align*}
  Hf(x)\geq
  \frac{N+2}{2N}\Gamma(f)(x)+\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{(y,z)}(f(y)-f(z))^2,
\end{align*}
where the second summation is over all unordered pair of neighbors of
$x$. By (\ref{eq:gamma2general}), we arrive at
\begin{equation*}
  \Gamma_2(f)(x)\geq \frac{2-N}{2N}\Gamma(f)(x)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\Delta f(x)\right)^2+\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{(y,z)}(f(y)-f(z))^2.
\end{equation*}
The last two terms above can be further manipulated as follows,
\begin{align*}
  &\frac{1}{2(N-1)^2}\left(\sum_{y,y\sim x}(f(y)-f(x))\right)^2+\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\sum_{(y,z)}(f(y)-f(z))^2\\
  \geq &\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\Bigg[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{y,y\sim x}(f(y)-f(x))^2-\sum_{(y,z)}(f(y)-f(x))(f(z)-f(x))\\
  &\hspace{2cm}+\sum_{(y,z)}\left((f(y)-f(x))^2+(f(z)-f(x))^2\right)\Bigg]\\
  =&\frac{1}{N(N-1)}\Bigg[\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{N-2}{2}\right)\sum_{y,y\sim x}(f(y)-f(x))^2+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{(y,z)}(f(y)-f(z))^2\Bigg]\\
  \geq&\frac{N-1}{N}\Gamma(f)(x).
\end{align*}
Therefore we have $\Gamma_2(f)(x)\geq\frac{1}{2}\Gamma(f)(x)$. That
is, $G_N$ satisfies $CD\left(\frac{1}{2},\infty\right)$ at any vertex
$x\neq y_0, y_0'$.

\begin{remark}
  We note that this CD-inequality at vertex $x$ still holds even if we
  attach different graphs to every vertex in $\mathcal{K}_N$ other
  than $x$ via single edges.
\end{remark}

At $y_0$, $CD(0,\infty)$ does not hold. Let $f_0$ be the function
taking the value $1$ at $y_0'$, $2$ at all other vertices in
$\mathcal{K}_N'$, and $0$ at all vertices in $\mathcal{K}_N$. Then one
can check by (\ref{eq:gamma2general})
that
$$\Gamma_2(f_0)(y_0)=\frac{3-N}{2N^2}<0, \,\,\,\text{if }N \geq 4.$$
In the case $N=3$, we can use another function $g_0$ taking the value
$1$ at $y_0$, $-1$ at all other vertices in $\mathcal{K}_3$, $4$ at
$y_0'$, and $7$ at other vertices in $\mathcal{K}_3'$. One can then
check directly that $\Gamma_2(g_0)(y_0)=-\frac{1}{9}<0$.

For the case of the unweighted non-normalized Laplacian, the
calculations are similar. Note in this case at $x\neq y_0,y_0'$, we
have
\begin{align*}
  \Gamma_2(f)(x)=&Hf(x)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\Delta f(x)\right)^2-\frac{d_x}{2}\Gamma(f)(x)-\frac{1}{4}\sum_{y,y\sim x}(f(y)-f(x))^2d_y\\
  \geq &Hf(x)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\Delta f(x)\right)^2-N\Gamma(f)(x).
\end{align*}
Carrying out the calculation in the same way as in the normalized case
we finally conclude $\Gamma_2(f)(x)\geq \frac{N}{2}\Gamma(f)(x)$. The
arguments for CD-inequalities at $y_0, y_0'$ can be done with the same
special functions as in the normalized case.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Frank Bauer for valuable communications about Buser's
inequality on graphs in \cite{BHLLMY13} and \cite{KlarKozma}. This
work was supported by the EPSRC Grant EP/K016687/1 "Topology, Geometry
and Laplacians of Simplicial Complexes".

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