On the expected exit time of planar Brownian motion from simply connected domains

Abstract: This paper presents some results on the expected exit time of Brownian motion from simply connected domains in $\CC$. We indicate a way in which Brownian motion sees the identity function and the Koebe function as the smallest and largest analytic functions, respectively, in the Schlicht class. We also give a sharpening of a result of McConnell's concerning the moments of exit times of Schlicht domains. We then show how a simple formula for expected exit time can be applied in a series of examples. Included in the examples given are the expected exit times from given points of a cardioid and regular $m$-gon, as well as bounds on the expected exit time of an infinite wedge. We also calculate the expected exit time of an infinite strip, and in the process obtain a probabilistic derivation of Euler's result that $\zeta(2)=\sum_{n=1}^\ff \frac{1}{n^2}= \frac{\pi^2}{6}$. We conclude by showing how the formula can be applied to some domains which are not simply connected.

\section{Introduction and statement of results}

A domain $U$ in $\mathbb{C}$ is {\it simply connected} if any curve in $U$ can be homotopically deformed to a point. Equivalently, $U$ is simply connected if $U^c$ is connected, where the complement is taken in the Riemann sphere, $\hat{\mathbb{C}}=\mathbb{C} \cup \{\infty\}$, which is the one point compactification of $\mathbb{C}$. Such domains are of paramount importance in complex analysis, due in large part to the Riemann Mapping Theorem, which states that for any simply connected domain $U \subsetneq \mathbb{C}$ and point $z \in U$ there is a conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ onto $U$ with $f(0)=z$. The {\it Schlicht class} ${\cal S}$ is the set of all conformal functions $f$ on $\mathbb{D}$ normalized so that $f(0)=0, f'(0)=1$. If a domain $U$ is equal to $f(\mathbb{D})$ for some $f\in {\cal S}$, we will call $U$ a {\it Schlicht domain}. Clearly, if $U$ is any simply connected domain smaller than $\mathbb{C}$ itself and $z \in U$ we may find a linear map sending $z$ to 0 and $U$ to a Schlicht domain. In this way the study of ${\cal S}$ is no less general than the study of arbitrary simply connected domains. In a number of different ways, the identity function $I(z)=z$ with image $I(\mathbb{D})=\mathbb{D}$ is considered to be the smallest in ${\cal S}$, and the Koebe function $K(z) = \frac{z}{(1-z)^2}$ with image $K(\mathbb{D})=\mathbb{C} \backslash (\infty, -1/4]$ is considered to be the largest. We may view this intuitively as follows. The normalization creates an equivalence between the notion of "size" and the notion of "closeness of $0$ to the boundary". The disc is the only domain in which $0$ is equally close to every boundary point. In that sense, $0$ is closer to the boundary in the unit disc than in any other Schlicht domain. On the other hand, the smallest nonempty complement of a simply connected domain seems likely to be a half-line $(-\infty,0]$, and a point $x$ on $(0,\infty)$ should be farther from the boundary than $e^{i \theta} x$, $\theta \in (0,\pi)$, for instance. Arguing in this manner indicates that $K(\mathbb{D}) = \mathbb{C} \backslash (\infty, -1/4]$ should be the Schlicht domain for which $0$ is farthest from the boundary. This intuition may be useful as far as it goes, but a far more sophisticated statement is the following celebrated theorem of de Branges, which was originally conjectured by Bieberbach.

\begin{theorem} \label{deb}
If $f \in {\cal S}$ with $f(z) = z + \sum_{n=2}^{\infty} a_n z^n$, then $|a_n| \leq n$ for all $n \geq 2$. If for any such $n$ we have $|a_n|=n$, then $f$ is of the form $e^{-i \alpha} K(e^{i \alpha}z)$ for real $\alpha$.
\end{theorem}

Thus, out of all functions in ${\cal S}$, the Koebe function and its rotations have the largest derivatives at $0$. The highly nontrivial proof of Theorem \ref{deb}, which follows decades of work by analysts, can be found in \cite{deb}.

\vspace{12pt}

These concepts can be connected to probabilistic considerations in the following way. The expected amount of time that it takes a Brownian motion starting at a point $z$ to leave a domain $U$ gives some sort of measure of the size of $U$ and the distance between $z$ and $U^c$. This was perhaps first noted by Davis in \cite{davis}. In that paper the question was raised of finding a way in which Brownian motion identifies the Koebe domain as the largest Schlicht domain and the unit disk as the smallest. Initially we may hope that the expected amount of time that it takes for a Brownian motion starting at $0$ to leave a Schlicht domain is bounded above and below by the corresponding times for the Koebe domain and unit disc, respectively. This turns out to be correct for the unit disc, and we may say more. In \cite{mac}, McConnell proved the following.

\begin{theorem} \label{}
Let $\Phi$ be a nonnegative, nondecreasing convex or concave function, where if $f$ is concave then we also require that $\Phi(e^{2x})$ is convex. Then, for any $f \in {\cal S}$ we have

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_0[\Phi(\tau(\mathbb{D}))] \leq E_0[\Phi(\tau(f(\mathbb{D})))]
\end{equation}

In particular, $E_0[\tau(\mathbb{D})^p] \leq E_0[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}))^p]$ for $0<p<\infty$.
\end{theorem}

We will prove the following addition to this result.

\begin{theorem} \label{add}
Let $\Phi$ be a nonnegative, strictly increasing convex or strictly concave function, where if $f$ is strictly concave then we also require that $\Phi(e^{2x})$ is convex. Assume further that $E_0[\Phi(\tau(\mathbb{D}))]<\infty$. Then, for any $f \in {\cal S}, f \neq I$ we have

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_0[\Phi(\tau(\mathbb{D}))] < E_0[\Phi(\tau(f(\mathbb{D})))]
\end{equation}

In particular, $E_0[\tau(\mathbb{D})^p] < E_0[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}))^p]$ for $0<p<\infty$.
\end{theorem}

Such a statement for $K(\mathbb{D})$ is harder to formulate and prove. To begin with, many of the moments of $\tau(K(\mathbb{D}),0)$ are infinite. It is a consequence of \cite[Thm. 4.1]{burk} that $E[\tau(K(\mathbb{D}),0)^p]<\infty$ if and only if $p<1/4$, and it seems likely that $E[\tau(K(\mathbb{D}),0)^p] > E[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}),0)^p]$ for all $p<1/4$ and $f \in {\cal S} \backslash {\cal K}$, where we let ${\cal K}$ denote the Koebe function and its rotations, that is, ${\cal K} = \{e^{-i \alpha} K(e^{i \alpha}z) : \alpha \in {\mathbb R}\}$. Unfortunately, this statement, if true, remains unproved. We consider a different approach to the problem for $K(\mathbb{D})$. We will use $f(r\mathbb{D})$ as a bounded approximation to $f(\mathbb{D})$ for all $f \in {\cal S}$. This is justified by the fact that $f(r\mathbb{D}) \longrightarrow f(\mathbb{D})$ in the sense of Carath\'eodory as $r \longrightarrow 1$(see \cite[Ch. 3]{dur}), and the approximation is in some sense uniform between domains. We will then show that Brownian motion leaves $K(r\mathbb{D})$ more quickly than $f(r\mathbb{D})$, where $f$ is any function in ${\cal S} \backslash {\cal K}$.

\begin{theorem} \label{greg}
If $f \in {\cal S}$ and $r \leq 1$, then

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_{0}[\tau(I(r\mathbb{D}))] \leq E_{0}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] \leq E_{0}[\tau(K(r\mathbb{D}))]
\end{equation}

If $E_{0}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] = E_{0}[\tau(I(r\mathbb{D}))]$ for any $r \leq 1$ then $f(z)=I(z)=z$, and if $E_{0}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] = E_{0}[\tau(K(r\mathbb{D}))]$ for any $r<1$ then $f\in {\cal K}$.
\end{theorem}

In this sense, Brownian motion sees $K(r\mathbb{D})$ as larger than $f(r\mathbb{D})$ for any $f \in {\cal S} \backslash {\cal K}$. We will also show

\begin{theorem} \label{kris}
If $f \in {\cal S}, f \notin {\cal K}$, then $E_{0}[\tau(K(r\mathbb{D}))] - E_{0}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))]$ is an increasing function of $r$ which is positive for $r>0$.
\end{theorem}

We may intuitively rephrase this result as "Brownian motion would take longer to exit $K(\mathbb{D})$ than any other Schlicht domain were it not that many of the expected exit times are infinite".

\section{Proofs of Theorems \ref{add}, \ref{greg}, and \ref{kris}}

Any analytic function can be expressed locally as a Taylor series(see \cite{rud}, \cite{ahl}, or \cite{schaum}). The Parseval Identity for analytic functions(see \cite[Thm. 10.22]{rud}) states that

\begin{equation} \label{par}
\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi}|g(s e^{i \theta})|^2 d\theta = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} |b_n|^2 s^{2n} ,
\end{equation}

for any $g(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} b_n z^n$ analytic on an open set containing $s\mathbb{D}$. This equality will be the key for the proof of all three theorems.

\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{add}}

Assume first that $\Phi$ is convex. We will follow the method given in \cite{mac}. Assume $f \in {\cal S}, f \neq I$. $f(B_t)$ is a time-changed Brownian motion(see \cite{durBM} or \cite{revyor}). That is, there is a complex Brownian motion $\hat{B}_t$ such that $f(B_t) = \hat{B}_{\sigma_t}$, where $\sigma_t = \int_{0}^{t}|f'(B_s)|^2 ds$. It follows that

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_{0}[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}))] = E \int_{0}^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)} |f'(B_s)|^2 ds
\end{equation}

The process $e^{i\theta}B_s$ is again a planar Brownian motion for real $\theta$. Let $f(z)$ have the Taylor expansion $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n z^n$. The assumptions on $f$ imply $a_1=1, a_m \neq 0$ for some $m\geq 2$. We therefore have by Jensen's inequality

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
E_0[\Phi(\tau(f(\mathbb{D})))] &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} E \Phi \Big( \int_0^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)} |f'(e^{i\theta}B_s)|^2 ds\Big)d\theta \\
& \geq E \Phi \Big( \int_0^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)}\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} |f'(e^{i\theta}B_s)|^2 d\theta ds \Big) \\
& = E \Phi \Big( \int_0^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2 |a_n|^2 |B_s|^{2n-2} ds\Big) \\
& > E \Phi \Big( \int_0^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)} |a_1|^2 ds \Big) \\
& = E \Phi \Big( \int_0^{\tau(\mathbb{D},0)} \! \! \! \! \! ds \Big) = E \Phi(\tau(\mathbb{D},0)) = E_0[\Phi(\tau(\mathbb{D}))]
\end{split}
\end{equation}

where Parseval's Identity \rrr{par} was applied to $f'(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n a_n z^{n-1}$.

\vspace{12pt}

Suppose now that $\Phi$ is strictly concave and $\Phi(e^{2x})$ is convex. Examining the proof corresponding to this statement in \cite{mac}, we see that the following consequence of Jensen's inequality for concave functions was used.

\begin{equation} \label{}
\Phi \Big( \int_{0}^{\tau} |f'(e^{i \theta}B_s)|^2 ds \Big) \geq \int_{0}^{\tau} \Phi(\tau |f'(e^{i \theta}B_s)|^2) \frac{ds}{\tau}
\end{equation}

However, with strictly concave $\Phi$, Jensen's inequality is easily seen to be strict when $\tau|f'(e^{i \theta}B_s)|^2$ is nonconstant and the integrals in question are finite. We see that if $E_0[\Phi(\tau(f(\mathbb{D})))]< \infty$ then McConnell's proof in \cite{mac} is sufficient to prove our result. Clearly, if $E_0[\Phi(\tau(f(\mathbb{D})))]= \infty$ then the result holds as well.

\vspace{12pt}

It remains only to show that $E[\tau(\mathbb{D})^p] < \infty$ for all $p>0$. There must surely be many proofs of this fact, but we will be content to state it as an immediate consequence of \cite[Thm. 4.1]{burk}. {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}

\subsection*{Proof of Theorems \ref{greg} and \ref{kris}}

Both theorems are a direct consequence of Lemma \ref{bigguy} below. Due to the simplicity of the proof, it seems almost certain that this lemma has been noted before. Nevertheless, a literature search has failed to yield a suitable reference. We therefore include a proof.

\begin{lemma} \label{bigguy}
Suppose $f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n z^n$ is conformal on $\mathbb{D}$. Then, for $0<r \leq 1$ we have

\begin{equation} \label{re}
E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2 r^{2n}
\end{equation}

In particular,

\begin{equation} \label{re2}
E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}))] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2
\end{equation}

\end{lemma}

{\bf Proof of lemma:} Assume first that $r<1$. As before, due to the fact that $f(B_t)$ is a time-changed Brownian motion we have

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] = E \int_{0}^{\tau(r\mathbb{D},0)} |f'(B_s)|^2 ds
\end{equation}

Set $\sigma_{t} = \int_{0}^{t} |f'(B_s)|^2 ds$. Applying the Optional Stopping Theorem to the martingale $|f(B_t)|^2 - 2 \sigma_t$ gives

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
2 E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] & = 2 E[\sigma_{\tau(r\mathbb{D},0)}] \\
& = E[|f(B_{\tau(r\mathbb{D},0)})|^2] \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} |f(re^{i\theta})|^2 d\theta \\ &= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2r^{2n}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

In order to set $r=1$ to obtain the final statement, we note first that if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2 = \infty$ then $E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))] \longrightarrow \infty$ as $r \longrightarrow 1$, so that \rrr{re2} holds. On the other hand, if $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2 < \infty$ then it is known that $f$ can be extended to a radial limit function $f(e^{i\theta})$ on $\delta \mathbb{D}$ for a.e. $\theta$(see \cite[Thm. 17.10]{rud} or \cite[Sec. 6.5]{durBM}) such that $\lim_{r \nearrow 1} \int_{0}^{2\pi} |f(re^{i\theta})-f(e^{i\theta})|^2d\theta = 0$ and $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2 = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi} |f(e^{i\theta})|^2 d\theta$. The result follows. An alternate proof of the lemma can be given using Green's function $G_r(z,0) = \frac{1}{\pi} \log\frac{r}{|z|}$, which satisfies the following "expected occupation time" formula(see \cite[Sec.'s 1.8,1.9]{durBM})

\begin{equation} \label{}
E\int_{0}^{\tau(r\mathbb{D},0)} g(B_t)dt = \int_{r\mathbb{D}}g(z) G_r(z,0) dA(z)
\end{equation}

for any measurable, nonnegative function $g$. We have for $r \leq 1$

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
E \int_{0}^{\tau(r\mathbb{D},0)} |f'(B_s)|^2 ds & = \int_{r\mathbb{D}} |f'(z)|^2 G_r(z,0)dA(z) \\
& = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{r} s \log \frac{r}{s} \int_{0}^{2\pi} |f'(se^{i\theta})|^2 d\theta ds \\
& = 2 \int_{0}^{r} s \log \frac{r}{s} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2 |a_n|^2 s^{2n-2} ds \\
& = 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2 |a_n|^2 \int_{0}^{r} s^{2n-1} \log\frac{r}{s} ds \\
& = 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2 |a_n|^2 r^{2n} \int_{0}^{1} s^{2n-1} \log \frac{1}{s} ds \\
& = 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^2 |a_n|^2 r^{2n} (\frac{1}{4n^2}) = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2 r^{2n}
\end{split}
\end{equation} {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}

Both theorems now follow. Theorem \ref{kris} and the upper bound in Theorem \ref{greg} are immediate from de Branges' Theorem because the coefficients of the Taylor series of any $f \in {\cal S}$ are dominated by those of $K(z)$. The lower bound in Theorem \ref{greg} is also clear since $I(z)$ is the only function in ${\cal S}$ with $a_n = 0$ for $n \geq 2$.

\vspace{12pt}

{\bf Remarks:} The expression \rrr{re2} is half of the square of the  $H^2$ Hardy norm of $f$, written $||f||^2_{H^2}$; see \cite{rud} for more details. In \cite{burk}, the $H^p$ norm of $f$ is used to study the finiteness of the $p/2$ moment of $\tau(f(\mathbb{D}),f(0))$. The upper bound of Theorem \ref{greg} can also be taken to be the special case $p=2$ of the following result of Baernstein in \cite{burn}.

\begin{theorem} \label{just}
If $f\in {\cal S}, f \notin {\cal K}$, $r \in (0,1)$ then

\begin{equation} \label{}
\int_{0}^{2\pi} |f(re^{i\theta})|^p d\theta < \int_{0}^{2\pi} |K(re^{i\theta})|^p d\theta
\end{equation}

for any $p \in (0,\infty)$.
\end{theorem}

The proof of Theorem \ref{just} given in \cite{burn}, however, is quite involved, so it seemed as well to give a simple proof based on de Branges' Theorem(which was not available when \cite{burn} was published), as we have done. We remark that the fact that Baernstein's result can be related to the exit time of Brownian motion was first noted by Betsakos in \cite{bets2}. In light of the connection given by Burkholder in \cite{burk} between Hardy norms of analytic functions and moments of the exit times of Brownian motion, it is tempting to conjecture that the following is a consequence of Theorem \ref{just}.

\begin{conjecture} \label{}
If $f\in {\cal S}, f \notin {\cal K}$, $r \in (0,1)$, then
\begin{equation} \label{}
E_{0}[\tau(f(r\mathbb{D}))^p] < E_{0}[\tau(K(r\mathbb{D}))^p]
\end{equation}

for any $p \in (0,\infty)$. The same holds when $r=1$ and $p \in (0,1/4)$.
\end{conjecture}

\vspace{12pt}

Unfortunately, the inequalities in \cite{burk} do not seem to be sufficient to prove this result.

\section{Further consequences of Lemma \ref{bigguy}} \label{cons}

Lemma \ref{bigguy}, if noticed before, does not seem to have been used in calculating the exit times of domains. In this section we give a few examples where it can be applied with relative ease. We also point out how the lemma can be used in a different application, namely, the summation of certain series. That is, Lemma \ref{bigguy} expresses the expected exit time as a sum. If we have a different way of evaluating the expected exit time, then we have obtained a value for the sum. The following derivation of a result due to Euler is perhaps the simplest example of this idea; see Example \ref{square} below for a more complex instance.

\begin{prop} \label{}
\begin{equation} \label{all}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}

{\bf Proof:} We will prove the corresponding statement obtained by summing only the odd terms, namely

\begin{equation} \label{odd}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n-1)^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{8}
\end{equation}

This is equivalent to \rrr{all}, as

\begin{equation} \label{}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n-1)^2} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} - \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(2n)^2} = (1-\frac{1}{4})\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{3}{4}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2}
\end{equation}

Let $W_t$ be a one-dimensional Brownian motion with $W_0=0$ a.s., and let $T= \inf_{t>0} \{|W_t| = \frac{\pi}{4}\}$. We will calculate $E[T]$ in two different ways. The first way is quite standard(see, for example, \cite[Ex. 7.5]{fima}). We apply the Optional Stopping Theorem to the martingale $W_t^2 - t$ to obtain

\begin{equation} \label{true}
E[T] = E[W_T^2] = \frac{\pi^2}{16}
\end{equation}

We now calculate $E[T]$ using Lemma \ref{bigguy}. $W_t$ may be taken to be the real part of our two dimensional Brownian motion $B_t$, and it is therefore clear that $E[T] = E_0[\tau(U)]$, where $U = \{ \frac{-\pi}{4} < \mbox{Re } z < \frac{\pi}{4} \}$. We need then to find a conformal map $f(z)$ mapping $\mathbb{D}$ onto $U$ with $f(0) = 0$. The function

\begin{equation}
\tan z = \frac{\sin z}{\cos z} = -i \frac{e^{2iz} - 1}{e^{2iz} + 1}
\end{equation}

maps $U$ conformally to $\mathbb{D}$. This can be seen by noting that the function $x+iy \longrightarrow e^{2i(x+iy)} = e^{-2y + 2ix}$ maps $U$ conformally to $\{ \mbox{Re } z > 0\}$, and then that the M\"obius transformation $z \longrightarrow -i(\frac{z-1}{z+1})$ maps $\{ \mbox{Re } z > 0\}$ conformally to $\mathbb{D}$. We conclude that the principal branch of $\tan^{-1}z$ maps $\mathbb{D}$ conformally to $U$. $\tan^{-1}z$ admits the Taylor series expansion

\begin{equation} \label{}
\tan^{-1}z = z - \frac{z^3}{3} + \frac{z^5}{5} - \ldots = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n+1} z^{2n-1}}{2n-1}
\end{equation}

Thus, by Lemma \ref{bigguy},

\begin{equation} \label{doubletrue}
E[T] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2n-1)^2}
\end{equation}

Equating \rrr{true} and \rrr{doubletrue} yields \rrr{odd}. {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}

Here are some further examples.

\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{disc}: Consider the disc $r\mathbb{D}$ for any $r > 0$, and let $a \in r\mathbb{D}$. It may be checked that

\begin{equation} \label{}
f(z) = r \frac{z+\frac{a}{r}}{1 + \frac{\bar{a}}{r} z} = r \frac{r z+a}{r + \bar{a} z}
\end{equation}
is a conformal map sending $\mathbb{D}$ to $r\mathbb{D}$ and $0$ to $a$. To find the power series for $f$ we expand

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
r \frac{z+\frac{a}{r}}{1 + \frac{\bar{a}}{r} z} & = r (z+\frac{a}{r})(1-\frac{\bar{a}z}{r}+ (\frac{\bar{a}z}{r})^2 - \ldots) \\
& = a + (r^2 - |a|^2) \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n-1} \bar{a}^{n-1}z^n}{r^{n}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Lemma \ref{bigguy} now gives

\begin{equation*} \label{}
E_a[\tau(r\mathbb{D})] = \frac{1}{2}(r^2 - |a|^2)^2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{|a|^{2n-2}}{r^{2n}} = \frac{(r^2 - |a|^2)^2}{2r^2} \frac{1}{1-\frac{|a|^2}{r^2}} = \frac{1}{2} (r^2 - |a|^2)
\end{equation*}

This is well known; see for example \cite[Ex. 7.4.2]{ox}.
\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{hp}: The function $f(z)=\frac{z}{1-z} = z + z^2 + z^3 + \ldots$ maps $\mathbb{D}$ conformally to $\{\mbox{Re }z> -\frac{1}{2}\}$. Lemma \ref{bigguy} gives $E_0[\tau(\{\mbox{Re }z> -\frac{1}{2}\})] = \infty$, and it is easy to see that $E_z[\tau(U)] = \infty$ whenever $U$ is a half-plane and $z \in U$. Letting $W_t = \mbox{Re }B_t$ we recover a known result on one-dimensional Brownian motion, that if $T=\inf_{t>0}\{W_t = a\}$ with $a \neq 0$ then $E[T] = \infty$.

\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{cardiod}: Let $U$ be the cardioid with boundary defined by the polar equation $r = 2(1+\cos \theta)$.

\hspace{1.2in} \includegraphics[width=70mm,height=70mm]{cardioid.PDF}

This is the conformal image under $z^2$ of the disc $\{|z-1|=1\}$. The conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ to $U$ mapping $0$ to $1$ is given by $f(z)=(z+1)^2 = 1+2z +z^2$. Applying Lemma \ref{bigguy} we get $E_1[\tau(U)] = \frac{5}{2}$.

\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{logimage}: Let $\gamma$ denote the curve in ${\mathbb R}^2$ defined by $e^x = 2 \cos y$ for $\frac{-\pi}{2} < y < \frac{\pi}{2}$.

\hspace{1.2in} \includegraphics[width=100mm,height=70mm]{catequalstrength.JPG}

This curve has been referred to as the "catenary of equal resistance". Let $U$ be the component of $\gamma^c$ which contains 0. Then $U$ is the conformal image of $\mathbb{D}$ under the map

\begin{equation}
f(z) = \log(1+z) = z -\frac{z^2}{2} + \frac{z^3}{3} - \frac{z^4}{4} + \ldots
\end{equation}

Applying Lemma \ref{bigguy} we obtain $E_0[\tau(U)] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{12}$.

\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{wedge}: Let ${\mathbb H} = \{ \mbox{Re }z > 0\}$ be the right half-plane\footnotemark
\footnotetext{This is at odds with standard practice in complex analysis, where usually ${\mathbb H} = \{ \mbox{Im }z > 0\}$ is the upper half-plane. It is convenient for our purposes, however.}
, and let ${\mathbb H}^p = \{|Arg(z)| < \frac{\pi p}{2}\}$ for $p \leq 1$, where $Arg(z)$ is the principal branch of the argument function taking values in $(-\pi,\pi]$. ${\mathbb H}^p$ is the infinite wedge of width $\pi p$ centered at the positive real axis, and ${\mathbb H}^1 = {\mathbb H}$. It was shown in $\cite{spitz}$, among other things, that $E_1[\tau({\mathbb H}^p)]< \infty$ if $p < \frac{1}{2}$, and $E_1[\tau({\mathbb H}^p)]= \infty$ if $p \geq \frac{1}{2}$. We will derive this result and find bounds for $E_1[\tau({\mathbb H}^p)]$ using Lemma \ref{bigguy}. The conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ to ${\mathbb H}^p$ is $g(z) = \frac{(1+z)^p}{(1-z)^p}$, but the Taylor series expansion for $g$ appears to be unwieldy for arbitrary $p$, so we will simplify somewhat. Define the principal branch of $z^p$ on ${\mathbb H}$, where $Arg(z^p) = p Arg(z)$. Then the inverse $z^{1/p}$ is well defined on ${\mathbb H}^p$. Let $\tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p = \{Re(z^{1/p})>1/2\}$. ${\mathbb H}^p$ is then the image of $\{\mbox{Re }z > \frac{1}{2}\}$ under $z^p$. The relationship between ${\mathbb H}^p$ and $\tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p$ is shown below.

\hspace{1.2in} \includegraphics[width=70mm,height=50mm]{Hp2.JPG}

It is clear that $\tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p \subseteq {\mathbb H}^p$, and it is also easy to check that ${\mathbb H}^p \subseteq \tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p_s := \{\frac{2^p-1}{2^p} z+\frac{1}{2^p} \in \tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p\}$. The conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ to $\tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p$ is given by $f(z) = \frac{1}{(1-z)^p}$, and the conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ to $\tilde{{\mathbb H}}^p_s$ is given by $\frac{2^p}{2^p-1}(f(z) - 1/2^p)$. We have

\begin{equation} \label{}
\frac{d^n}{dz^n} \frac{1}{(1-z)^p} \Big| _{z=0} = p(p+1) \ldots (p+n-1)
\end{equation}

The expression $(p)_n := p(p+1) \ldots (p+n-1)$ with $(p)_0 = 1$ is known as the {\it Pochhammer symbol}, and we see that $f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(p)_n z^n}{n!}$. Applying Lemma \ref{bigguy} we obtain

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_1[\tau(\tilde{\mathbb H}^p)] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{(p)_n^2}{(n!)^2}
\end{equation}

This series can be evaluated explicitly. Using the notation in \cite{luke} it is given by $_2 F_1(p,p;1;1)-1$, where $_2 F_1$ refers to the hypergeometric function. Applying Euler's integral formula \cite[Sec. 3.6]{luke} and using the standard definitions for the $\beta$ and $\Gamma$ functions, we calculate

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_1[\tau(\tilde{\mathbb H}^p)] = \frac{1}{2}(_2F_1(p,p;1;1)-1) = \frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{\Gamma(1)\beta(p,1-2p)}{\Gamma(1-p)\Gamma(p)} - 1 \Big)
\end{equation}

Similarly, we have

\begin{equation} \label{}
E_1[\tau(\tilde{\mathbb H}^p_s)] = \frac{2^{2p}}{2(2^p-1)^2} \Big(\frac{\Gamma(1)\beta(p,1-2p)}{\Gamma(1-p)\Gamma(p)} - 1 \Big)
\end{equation}

We obtain

\begin{equation} \label{}
\frac{2^{2p}}{2(2^p-1)^2} \Big(\frac{\Gamma(1)\beta(p,1-2p)}{\Gamma(1-p)\Gamma(p)} - 1 \Big) < E_1[\tau({\mathbb H}^p)] < \frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{\Gamma(1)\beta(p,1-2p)}{\Gamma(1-p)\Gamma(p)} - 1 \Big)
\end{equation}

This is finite for $p<\frac{1}{2}$, but infinite for $p \geq \frac{1}{2}$, as the integral defining $\beta(p,1-2p)$ diverges at $p=\frac{1}{2}$. This proves the given statement. Note that \cite{burk} also used the Hardy norm of $f$ in a similar manner to deduce a more general result.

\vspace{12pt}

\ccases{square} Let $m$ be an integer greater than 2 and set $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{m}}$. Let $U_m$ be the regular $m$-gon with vertices at $1, \omega, \omega^2, \ldots , \omega^{m-1}$. We will calculate $E_0[\tau(U_m)]$. Consider the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping given by

\begin{equation} \label{}
g(z) = \int_0^z \frac{d\zeta}{(1-\zeta)^{2/m}(1-\omega \zeta)^{2/m} \ldots (1-\omega^{m-1} \zeta)^{2/m}} = \int_0^z \frac{d\zeta}{(1-\zeta^m)^{2/m}}
\end{equation}

$g(z)$ is a conformal mapping of the unit disc onto an $m$-gon with all angles $\pi^{(m-2)/m}$(see \cite{tref} for details), and symmetry arguments show that the image is in fact a regular $m$-gon with vertices $W,\omega W,\ldots, \omega^{m-1}W$ for some $W>0$. The points $1,\omega,\ldots,\omega^{m-1}$ map to these vertices, and we can calculate

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
W & = g(1) = \int_0^1 \frac{dx}{(1-x^m)^{2/m}} = \frac{1}{m} \int_0^1 u^{-(m-1)/m}(1-u)^{-2/m}du \\
& = \frac{1}{m} \beta(1/m,(m-2)/m)
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Setting $f(z) = \frac{1}{W} g(z)$, we obtain our conformal map from $\mathbb{D}$ to $U_m$. Recall from Example \ref{wedge} that $\frac{1}{(1-z)^{2/m}} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(2/m)_n z^n}{n!}$. We see that

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
f(z)  & = \frac{1}{W} \int \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(2/m)_n z^{mn}}{n!} = \frac{1}{W} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(2/m)_n z^{mn+1}}{n!(mn+1)} \\
& = \frac{z}{W} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(1/m)_n(2/m)_n z^{mn}}{((m+1)/m)_nn!} = \frac{z}{W} {}_2F_1(1/m,2/m;(m+1)/m;z^m)
\end{split}
\end{equation}

where we have used the identity $(1/m)_n (mn+1) = ((m+1)/m)_n$. Theorem \ref{bigguy} gives

\begin{equation} \label{rte}
\begin{split}
E_0[\tau(U_m)] & = \frac{1}{2W^2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(2/m)^2_n (1/m)^2_n }{(n!)^2((m+1)/m)_n^2} \\
& = \frac{1}{2W^2} {}_4 F_3(1/m,1/m,2/m,2/m;(m+1)/m,(m+1)/m,1;1) \\
& = {}_4 F_3(1/m,1/m,2/m,2/m;(m+1)/m,(m+1)/m,1;1) \\
& \hspace{1.3in} \times \frac{m^2}{2\beta(1/m,(m-2)/m)^2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

In the cases $m=3,4$ we may compare this with known results. For the equilateral triangle, applying \cite[Thm. 1]{ala} gives $E_0[\tau(U_3)] = 1/6$. Computer approximation shows agreement with \rrr{rte} evaluated at $m=3$. We arrive at the following value for the hypergeometric sum.

\begin{equation} \label{}
{}_4 F_3(1/3,1/3,2/3,2/3;4/3,4/3,1;1) = \frac{\beta(1/3,1/3)^2}{27}
\end{equation}

For the case $m=4$, the square, \rrr{rte} gives

\begin{equation} \label{run}
E_0[\tau(U)] = {}_4F_3(1/4,1/4,1/2,1/2;5/4,5/4,1;1) \times \frac{8}{\beta(1/4,1/2)^2} \approx .294685
\end{equation}

This agrees with the approximation given in \cite[Tab. 10]{helm}\footnotemark \footnotetext{The value in \cite[Tab. 10]{helm} must be doubled, as the calculations there were for a square with unit side length rather than our normalization.}. This approximation was based on an explicit expression obtained from \cite{knight}\footnotemark \footnotetext{There is a misprint in \cite{knight}; the correct formula is given in \cite{helm}.}, and equating that expression with \rrr{run} we obtain the following strange identity.

\begin{equation} \label{}
\begin{split}
{}_4F_3(1/4,& 1/4,1/2,1/2;5/4,5/4,1;1) \times \frac{1}{\beta(1/4,1/2)^2} \\ & = \frac{8}{\pi^4} \sum_{n=1}^\infty \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{m+n}}{(2m-1)(2n-1)((2m-1)^2+(2n-1)^2)}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

The result \rrr{rte} for $m \geq 5$ may be new.

\section{Extension to arbitrary domains}

Although not the main focus of the paper, we would be remiss if we failed to observe that Lemma \ref{bigguy} can be extended to some analytic functions which are not conformal. Examining the proof of the theorem should reveal that the hypothesis of injectivity is not necessary for the statement to hold. Instead, the important property of conformal maps which was used is that $f(B_t)$ leaves $f(\mathbb{D})$ at time $\tau(\mathbb{D}, 0)$. This is not true of arbitrary analytic maps. For example, let $f$ map $\mathbb{D}$ conformally to the rectangle $V=\{-1 < \mbox{Re }z < 1, -2\pi < \mbox{Im }z < 2\pi\}$. Then $g=e^f$ maps $\mathbb{D}$ onto the annulus $\{\frac{1}{e} < |z| < e\}$. The boundary segments $\ell_1=\{-1 < \mbox{Re }z < 1,\mbox{Im }z = 2\pi\}$ and $\ell_2=\{-1 < \mbox{Re }z < 1,\mbox{Im }z = -2\pi\}$ are mapped by $e^z$ to the interior segment $\{\frac{1}{e} < \mbox{Re }z < e,\mbox{Im }z = 0\}$. We see that for any Brownian path $B_t(\omega)$ such that $B_{\tau(\mathbb{D},z)}(\omega) \in f^{-1}(\ell_1 \cup \ell_2)$ we have $g(B_{\tau(\mathbb{D},z)}(\omega)) \in \{\frac{1}{e} < \mbox{Re }z < e,\mbox{Im }z = 0\}$. Since $g(B_t)$ does not leave $g(\mathbb{D})$ with probability 1 at time $\tau(\mathbb{D}, 0)$, Theorem \ref{bigguy} will fail to hold.

\vspace{12pt}

With this in mind, let us define an analytic function $f$ on $\mathbb{D}$ to be $B-proper$ if a.s. $f(B_t)$ leaves every compact subset of $f(\mathbb{D})$ as $t$ increases to $\tau(\mathbb{D},0)$. Let a domain be called $B-proper$ if it is the image of a B-proper map on $\mathbb{D}$. The reason for this terminology is that analytic functions with the property that $f(z_n)$ leaves every compact set for every sequence $\{z_n\}$ which approaches $\delta \mathbb{D}$ are commonly referred to as $proper$. It is easy to see that every conformal map is proper. It is also clear that every proper function is B-proper, but the converse is not true, as the example given below shows. With the same proof as Lemma \ref{bigguy} we have the following.

\begin{lemma} \label{bigguy2}
Suppose $f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n z^n$ is B-proper on $\mathbb{D}$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{re3}
E_{f(0)}[\tau(f(\mathbb{D}))] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |a_n|^2
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

We now give an example showing that a function can fail to be proper but still be B-proper. Let $f(z) = e^{tan^{-1}z}$. $f$ maps $\mathbb{D}$ conformally to the annulus $\{e^{\frac{-\pi}{4}} < |z| < e^{\frac{\pi}{4}}\}$. If $z_n$ is a sequence in $\mathbb{D}$ approaching $i$ or $-i$ along the imaginary axis, $f(z_n)$ simply cycles around $A$ on the circle $\{ |z|=1 \}$. $f$ is, however, B-proper, since $f$ extends continuously to map $\{z=e^{i\theta}; -\frac{\pi}{2}<\theta <\frac{\pi}{2}\}$ to $\{ |z| = e^{\frac{\pi}{4}}\}$ and $\{z=e^{i\theta}; \frac{\pi}{2}<\theta <\frac{3\pi}{2}\}$ to $\{ |z| = e^{\frac{-\pi}{4}}\}$. We see that $f(B_t)$ leaves $f(\mathbb{D})$ with probability 1 as $t$ increases to $\tau(\mathbb{D})$.

\section{Acknowledgements}

I would like to thank George Markowsky and Kais Hamza for helpful conversations. I am also grateful for support from Australian Research Council Grant DP0988483.

\def\noopsort#1{} \def\printfirst#1#2{#1} \def\singleletter#1{#1}
   \def\switchargs#1#2{#2#1} \def\bibsameauth{\leavevmode\vrule height .1ex
   depth 0pt width 2.3em\relax\,}
\makeatletter \renewcommand{\@biblabel}[1]{\hfill#1.}\makeatother

\bibliographystyle{alpha}

Probability (math.PR); Complex Variables (math.CV)


Nested sets, set partitions and Kirkman-Cayley dissection numbers

Abstract: In this paper we show a a proof by explicit bijections of the famous Kirkman-Cayley formula for the number of dissections of a convex polygon. Our starting point is the bijective correspondence between the set of nested sets made by \(k\) subsets of \(\{1,2,...,n\}\) with cardinality \(\geq 2\) and the set of partitions of \(\{1,2,...,n+k-1\}\) into \(k\) parts with cardinality \(\geq 2\).

\section{Introduction}
Let  \(D_{n+1,k-1}\)  be the number of    dissections of a convex polygon with \(n+1\)  labelled edges by  \(k-1\) diagonals,  such that no two of the diagonals  intersect in their interior.  The  formula for \(D_{n+1,k-1}\)  dates back to     Kirkman  (see \cite{Kirkman}) and Cayley (who gave the first complete proof in \cite{Cayley}):
\[ D_{n+1,k-1}= \frac{1}{k}\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n+k-1}{k-1}\]

In \cite{sikora} and \cite{stanleydissections} one can find two elegant proofs of this formula via bijections.
In this paper  we show another proof  that consists in the description of  two explicit bijections and is based on the combinatorics of nested sets and set partitions. We also provide  a  proof of the classical formula (see Chapter 13 of \cite{gouldenjackson}) for the number of the dissections such that the types  of the internal polygons are prescribed.

We start a more detailed   outline   of the content of the present paper  by recalling   the notion of nested set.
This notion  appeared in geometry  in connection with models of configuration spaces,    first in Fulton and MacPherson paper \cite{fultonmacpherson}, then, with more generality, in De Concini and Procesi's papers    \cite{DCP2}, \cite{DCP1} (and later in \cite{DCPkirwan}) on wonderful models of subspace arrangements.

Some  generalizations of De Concini and Procesi's definition  successively appeared in various combinatorial contexts. We refer the reader  to \cite{feichtnerkozlovincidence} where the case of  meet semilattices is dealt with, or to \cite{postnikov} and
\cite{postnikoreinewilli} where some  polytopes named nestohedra are constructed, and finally to   \cite{petric2} where one can find a comparison among various definitions in the literature.

Let us denote by \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\) the subset of the power set \({\mathcal{P}}(\{1,2,...,n\})\) whose elements have cardinality greater than or equal to 2.
The following  definition  of nested set  of   \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\)  is a special case    of  the  more general  combinatorial definition.
\begin{defin}
\label{def:nestedpowerset}
Let \(n\geq 2\). A  subset  \(S\) of \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\)  is a nested set if and only if it contains \(\{1,2,...,n\}\) and for any \(I,J\in S\) we have that either \(I\subset J\) or \(J\subset I\) or \(I\cap J=\emptyset\).
We will denote by \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) the set of the nested sets \(S\)  of  \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\) such that \(|S|=k\).

\end{defin}

Now we observe that there is a bijective correspondence    between \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and the set \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) of partitions of the set \(\{1,2,...,n+k-1\}\) into \(k\) parts of cardinality greater than or equal to 2.
A   bijection  between these two sets  can be obtained as a particular case of the bijection between   rooted trees on \(n\) leaves and partitions proven by  P\'eter L Erd\H{o}s and L.A Sz\'ekely (see Theorem 1 of     \cite{PeErdos}).

To make our paper self contained we show in Section \ref{sec:maintheorem} (Theorem \ref{bijectionnested}) an explicit bijection  between \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) that is a variant of the bijection obtained from
 \cite{PeErdos}.

We notice that, for fixed \(n\),  the cardinalities \(|{\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)|=|{\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)|\)  are the Ward numbers (see \cite{ward}, and the sequence A134991 of OEIS) and can be read along the  diagonals in the table of the 2-associated Stirling numbers of the second kind  at  page 222 of \cite{comtet}. They can as well be interpreted  as the face numbers in the tropical Grassmannian \(G(2,n+1)\), i.e. the space of phylogenetic trees \(T_{n+1}\) (see \cite{billeravogtmann},\cite{feichtnercomplexestrees},\cite{speyersturmfels}). For a description of generating formulas for these numbers one can  also see Chapter 5 of \cite{stanleyenumerative2} (in particular Section 5.2.5 and Exercise 5.40).

As  it is well known (see Section \ref{sec:final}, Figure \ref{dissection}), the dissections of a convex polygon with \(n+1\) edges  by \(k-1\) diagonals are in bijection with the parenthesizations with \(k\) couples of parentheses of a list of \(n\) distinct numbers \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\) (the maximal couple of parentheses  is included and  every couple of parentheses contains at least two numbers).
We will denote   by \({\mathcal{S}}_2((a_1,a_2,...,a_n),k)\) the set of all these parenthesizations: as a consequence of the remark above,  \(|{\mathcal{S}}_2((a_1,a_2,...,a_n),k)|=D_{n+1,k-1}\).

Now, an `ordered' variant of Theorem \ref{bijectionnested} (stated in  Section \ref{sec:maintheorem}  as   Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested})   describes a bijection between \({\displaystyle \bigcup_{\sigma\in S_n}{\mathcal{S}}_2((a_{\sigma(1)},a_{\sigma(2)},...,a_{\sigma(n)}),k)}\)
 and the set of {\em admissible  internally ordered} partitions of \(\{1,2,...,n+k-1\}\) into \(k\) parts, i.e. partitions whose parts  have cardinality \(\geq 2\) and are equipped with an internal total ordering.

This leads to a proof   (in Section \ref{sec:final}, Corollary \ref{cor:cayleyformula})  of Kirkman-Cayley  formula, since the  enumeration of the admissible  internally ordered partitions is  provided, again by an explicit bijection,  by Theorem \ref{teo:semiordinate} in Section \ref{sec:enumeration}.

Even if our proof is purely combinatorial,  in the end of Section  \ref{sec:final} we  sketch out  a geometric interpretation: our  argument corresponds to counting in two different ways the boundary components of a  spherical model of \({\overline M}_{0,n+1}\),  the moduli space of real stable \(n+1\)-pointed   curves of genus 0.

The classical formula for the number of dissections of a convex polygon with \(n+1\) edges such that the types of the internal polygons are prescribed    also follows, in this combinatorial picture,  as an another quick application of Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested} (see Section \ref{sec:final}, Corollary  \ref{prescribedpolygons}).

\section{Nested sets and set partitions}
\label{sec:maintheorem}
For every \(i\in {\mathbb{Z}}\) and \(k\in {\mathbb{N}}\) let us denote by \([i,i+k]\) the interval  of integers \(\{i,i+1,...,i+k\}\).

As we pointed out in the Introduction,  from  Theorem 1 in \cite{PeErdos} one obtains a  bijection between \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and the set \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) of partitions of \([1, n+k-1]\) into \(k\) parts of cardinality greater than or equal to 2.
To make our paper self contained, the  first part of this  section is devoted to showing  an explicit    bijection between \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and  \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\)  that is a variant of the one that can be deduced from \cite{PeErdos}.
In the second part of the present  section an `ordered' version of this bijection, that involves partitions into ordered sets,  is  described (Theorem  \ref{orderedbijectionnested}).

\begin{defin}
\label{ordering}
We fix the following  (strict) partial ordering in \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\): given two sets \(I\) and \(J\) in \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\) we put \(I< J\)  if the minimal element in \(I\) is less than the minimal element in \(J\).
\end{defin}

\begin{teo}
\label{bijectionnested}Let us consider  two integers  \(n,k\) with \(n \geq 2\), \(n-1\geq k\geq 1\).
There is a bijection between \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and the set \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) of partitions of \([1, n+k-1]\) into \(k\) parts of cardinality greater than or equal to 2.
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Let us  consider a nested set \(S\in {\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\). It can be represented by an oriented  rooted tree on \(n\) leaves labelled by the numbers \(1,2,...,n\) in the following way. We consider the set \({\tilde S}=S\cup\{1\}\cup \{2\}\cup\cdots \cup \{n\}\).
Then the tree coincides  with the Hasse diagram of  \({\tilde S}\) viewed as a poset by the  inclusion relation:  the root is \(\{1,2,...,n\}\)  and the orientation goes from the root to the leaves, that are the vertices \(\{1\},\{2\},\ldots, \{n\} \) labelled respectively by the numbers \(1,2,...,n\).

We observe that we can partition the set of   vertices of the tree into {\em levels}:  level 0 is made by the leaves, and in general,   level \(j\)  is made by the vertices \(v\) such that the maximal length of an oriented  path that connects \(v\) to a leaf is \(j\).
We notice that, since the nested set has \(k\) elements, there are \(k\) internal vertices of this  tree, including the root.
Now we can label the internal vertices of the tree in the following way. Let us suppose that there are \(q\) vertices in level 1. These  vertices correspond, by the nested property, to pairwise disjoint  elements of  \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,n\})\)  and therefore we can totally order them using the ordering of Definition \ref{ordering}. Then  we  label them with  the numbers from \(n+1\) to \(n+q\) (the label  \(n+1\)  goes to the minimum, while \(n+q\) goes to the maximum).

At the same way, if there are   \(t\) vertices in level 2, we can label them with the numbers from \(n+q+1\) to \(n+q+t\) , and so on. At the end of the process, the root is labelled with the number \(n+k\): we have obtained an oriented labelled tree with \(n+k\) vertices, where at least two edges  stem from each internal vertex and  the leaves are labelled by  the numbers from 1 to \(n\).

We can now  associate to such a tree a partition in \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) by assigning  to every internal vertex \(v\) (including the root) the set of the labels of the vertices covered by \(v\). An example of this process is provided by Figure \ref{labellednestedtree}.

We have therefore described a map \(\phi\: : \: {\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k) \rightarrow {\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\). Let us  now describe its inverse.

 \begin{figure}[h]

 \center
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{labellednestedtree}
\caption{A nested set \(S\) with 6 elements  in \({\mathcal{P}}_2(\{1,2,...,9\})\) (top of the picture),   its associated oriented rooted tree and its associated partition in \({\mathcal{T}}_2(14,6)\) (bottom of the picture).}
 \label{labellednestedtree}
\end{figure}

Let us consider a partition \(P\) in \({\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) with \(k>1\) (the case \(k=1\) is trivial).
We observe that, since there are \(k\) parts in the partition,  at least one of these parts  is a subset of  \([1,n]\).
Let \({\tilde A_1},{\tilde A_2},...,{\tilde A_i}\) (with \(i\leq k-1\)) be the parts  that are subsets of  \([1,n]\); here  we  have indexed these sets according to the  ordering of Definition \ref{ordering}.

Now, if \(i=k-1\)  the set  \(S=\{\{1,2,...,n\}, {\tilde A_1},{\tilde A_2},...,{\tilde A_i} \}\) is the only one  nested set  in \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) such that  \(\phi(S)=P\). We observe that in the tree associated with this nested set the vertices in  level 1 correspond to the sets \({\tilde A_1},{\tilde A_2},...,{\tilde A_i}\).

If  \(i<k-1\) we notice  that at least one of the remaining \(k-i\) parts  in  the initial partition  \(P\) is a subset of the complement of \([n+i+1,n+k-1]\) in \([1, n+k-1]\), since the set \([n+i+1,n+k-1]\) has cardinality \(k-i-1\).

Let us then denote by \(A_{i+1},...,A_{i+s}\) (with \(1\leq s\leq k-1-i\)) these remaining parts  included in  the complement of \([n+i+1,n+k-1]\). For  every \(t=1,...,s\) we associate to  \(A_{i+t}\)
the set
\[{\tilde A_{i+t}}=\left( A_{i+t}\cap [1,n]\right )\; \cup \; \bigcup_{h \in A_{i+t}\cap [n+1,  n+i]}{\tilde A_{h-n}}\]
The indices have been chosen  in such a way  that, according to  the ordering of Definition \ref{ordering}, we have \({\tilde A_{i+1}}<{\tilde A_{i+2}}<\cdots <{\tilde A_{i+s}}\).

Now, if \(i+s=k-1\) the process stops, and the set \(S=\{\{1,2,...,n\}, {\tilde A_1},{\tilde A_2},...,{\tilde A_i}, {\tilde A_{i+1}},{\tilde A_{i+2}},\cdots ,{\tilde A_{i+s}} \}\) is the only one  nested set  in \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) such that   \(\phi(S)=P\).
We observe that in the tree associated with this nested set the vertices in  level 1 correspond to the sets \({\tilde A_1},{\tilde A_2},...,{\tilde A_i}\) and the vertices in  level 2 correspond to the sets \({\tilde A_{i+1}},{\tilde A_{i+2}},\cdots ,{\tilde A_{i+s}}\).

If \(i+s< k-1\) we can continue and we can construct, level after level,   the only one  nested set  in \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) such that  \(\phi(S)=P\).

\end{proof}

\begin{rem}

We notice that this  bijection introduces on \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) an action of the symmetric group \(S_{n+k-1}\). As one can easily check, when \(k>3\) this action  is not compatible with the usual   \(S_n\) action.  A geometric application of this remark will be discussed in the paper \cite{callegarogaiffi3}.
\end{rem}

We now state a variant of the theorem above, where  nested sets of ordered lists and internally ordered partitions come into play.

\begin{defin}
Let us consider   a  list of distinct numbers \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\) (with \(n\geq 2\)), and a parenthesization  of  \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\)  that includes  the maximal couple of parentheses \((a_1,a_2,...,a_n)\) and such that every couple of parentheses contains at least two numbers. We will  call this parenthesization   {\em a nested set of the list
} \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\),
 and we will denote by  \({\mathcal{S}}_2((a_1,a_2,...,a_n),k)\) the set whose elements are the  nested sets \(S\) of the list \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\)   with  \(|S|=k\). Furthermore, we will denote by  \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((a_1,a_2,...,a_n),k)\) the set:
\[ {\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((a_1,a_2,...,a_n),k)=\bigcup_{\sigma\in S_n}{\mathcal{S}}_2((a_{\sigma(1)},a_{\sigma(2)},...,a_{\sigma(n)}),k)\]
\end{defin}
We observe that if \(\{a_1,a_2,...,a_n\}=\{1,2,..,n\}\) we  can associate to  a nested set of the list
 \(a_1,a_2,...,a_n\) a nested set in \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) in the following obvious way: we associate to every couple of parentheses the set of the numbers contained in it.

\begin{defin}
\label{def:internallyordered}
An {\em  internally ordered \(k\)-partition} (with \(k\geq 1\)) of  a finite set \(X\) is given by
\begin{itemize}
\item an unordered partition \({\mathcal{P}}=\{P_1, P_2,...,P_k\} \) of \(X\) into \(k\) parts;
\item a complete   ordering of the elements of \(P_i\) for every \(1\leq i\leq k\).

\end{itemize}

If the cardinality of all the subsets \(P_1,P_2,...,P_k\)  is greater than or equal to 2 we say that the internally  ordered partition is {\em admissible}.
\end{defin}

\begin{teo}
\label{orderedbijectionnested}
Let us consider  two integers  \(n,k\) with \(n \geq 2\), \(n-1\geq k\geq 1\).
There is a bijection between \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2...,n),k)\)  and the set \({\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\) of  the admissible internally  ordered   \(k\)-partitions of \([1, n+k-1]\).
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}

Let us put \(a_1=1,a_2=2,...,a_n=n\).  Starting  from a nested set \(S\) in  \({\mathcal{S}}_2((a_{\sigma(1)},a_{\sigma(2)},...,a_{\sigma(n)}),k)\)  we can construct, in a similar way as  in the proof of Theorem \ref{bijectionnested},  an oriented rooted   labelled  tree.

The only difference from the construction described in  the proof of Theorem \ref{bijectionnested}  is the following one:   we draw the leaves  labelled by \(a_{\sigma(1)},a_{\sigma(2)},...,a_{\sigma(n)}\) from left to right, and, since we are dealing with a nested set of the  list \(a_{\sigma(1)},a_{\sigma(2)},...,a_{\sigma(n)}\), in the picture of  the tree   no two of the edges intersect in their interiors.

Finally we  construct an internally ordered  admissible \(k\)-partition of \([1, n+k-1]\) according to the following rule.
The parts \(P_1,...,P_k\) of the partition are produced by the internal vertices of the tree. The part  \(P_i\) is obtained from the vertex labelled by \(n+i\) and it is  an ordered set constructed in this way: if, from left to right, the vertices covered by the vertex labelled by \(n+i\) are labelled by \(b_1,b_2,...,b_r\), then \(P_i\) is the set \(\{b_1,b_2,...,b_r\}\) ordered by  \(b_1\prec b_2\prec \cdots \prec b_r\).

We have described a map \(\Gamma\: : \: {\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k) \rightarrow {\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\).
The inverse map is constructed by associating a tree to  an internally ordered  admissible \(k\)-partition \(\{P_1,...,P_k\}\)  of \([1 , n+k-1]\). The idea is essentially the same as in the  proof of Theorem \ref{bijectionnested},
with the only difference that we keep into account the internal orderings of the sets \(P_1,...,P_k\) and we draw the edges from left to right according to this ordering. At the end we produce a nested set of a permutation of the list \(1,2,...,n\) as it is illustrated in Figure \ref{orderednestedtree}.

\begin{figure}[h]

 \center
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{orderednestedtree}
\caption{The  internally ordered  partition of \([1,14]\) into 6 parts  that is on top of the picture (the internal orderings \(\prec\) are obtained reading from left to right), produces, via  its associated oriented rooted tree, the parenthesization of the list \(4,6,7,5,9,8,2,3,1\) written  on the bottom of the picture.}
 \label{orderednestedtree}
\end{figure}

 \end{proof}

\begin{rem}
A slight modification of the proof of  Theorem \ref{bijectionnested} shows that, as in \cite{PeErdos}, we can extend the bijection in the statement to a  bijection between the set of rooted trees  that have \(k\)  vertices (including the root) and  \(n\) labelled leaves and the set of all the partitions of \([1,n+k-1] \) into \(k\) parts.
 A similar remark applies to Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested}.
\end{rem}

\section{Enumeration of internally  ordered \(k\)-partitions}
\label{sec:enumeration}
In the preceding section, Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested} has pointed out   an  interesting combinatorial aspect of  the  admissible internally  ordered \(k\)-partitions of \([1, n+k-1]\).
In this section we are going to  count them  by showing an explicit bijection.
 It is useful to add to these partitions a further structure: we  mark    one of the parts, that becomes a {\em distinguished} part.

\begin{defin}

\label{def:semiordered}
A {\em distinguished  internally  ordered \(k\)-partition} (with \(k\geq 1\)) of  a finite set \(X\) is an admissible internally ordered \(k\)-partition where one of the  parts  of the partition is distinguished.
We will denote by \(X_1\) this distinguished set, therefore the partition is made by  the parts  \(X_1,P_2,...,P_k\).
\end{defin}

\begin{rem}
\label{remordering}
In the definition above, the partition of \(X-X_1\) provided by the sets \(P_i\) is  unordered.
Let  \(p_{i1}\) be, for every \(i\), the smallest  element of \(P_i\) with respect to its  internal ordering.
From now on we will consider the case when \(X\subset {\mathbb{Z}}\) and we will  assign, by convention,  the indices to the sets \(P_i\) in such a way that  if \(i<j\)   than \(p_{i1}<p_{j1}\).
\end{rem}

\begin{teo}
\label{teo:semiordinate}
Given two integers  \(n,k\) with \(n \geq 2\), \(n-1\geq k\geq 1\),  there is a bijection between the set of distinguished  internally  ordered \(k\)-partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\) and the triples \((I, \sigma, D)\) where
\begin{itemize}
\item \(I= i_1, i_2, ..., i_n\)  is a sublist of cardinality \(n\) extracted from the list \(L=1,2,..., n+k-1 \),
\item \(\sigma \)  is a permutation in the symmetric group \(S_n\),
\item   \(D\) is a sublist of cardinality \(k-1\) extracted from the list  \( i_{\sigma(2)}, ..., i_{\sigma(n-1)}\) (in particular,  for every  \(n\geq 2\), if \(k=1\)  then  \(D\) is the empty list).
\end{itemize}
Therefore the number of distinguished  internally  ordered \(k\)-partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\) is \[n!\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n+k-1}{k-1}\]

\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Let us   consider a triple \((I, \sigma, D)\) as in the statement of the theorem.

Then \(I= i_1, i_2, ..., i_n\) (with  \(i_1<i_2< \cdots < i_n\)) and we  denote by \(J=j_1,j_2,...,j_{k-1}\) the sublist of \(L\)  made by the numbers that do not belong to \(I\) (notice that \(j_1< j_2< \cdots < j_{k-1}\)).
Now we  use  \(\sigma \) to permute the list \(I\), obtaining a list
\[\sigma I= i_{\sigma(1)}, i_{\sigma(2)}, ..., i_{\sigma(n)}\]
To fix the notation we put    \(D= i_{\sigma(d_1)}, ..., i_{\sigma(d_{k-1})}\)  with \(d_1\geq 2, d_{k-1}\leq n-1\).

Let us  show how to associate to  \((I, \sigma, D)\) a distinguished  internally  ordered \(k\)-partition of \([1,n+k-1]\). First  we put \(X_1\) to be equal to the set \(\{i_{\sigma(n)}, i_{\sigma(1)},..., i_{\sigma(d_1-1)}\}\) equipped with the ordering \(i_{\sigma(n)}\prec i_{\sigma(1)}\prec \cdots \prec i_{\sigma(d_1-1)}\).
Then we build  the sets \[P_2=\{j_1, i_{\sigma(d_1)}, i_{\sigma(d_1+1)},..., i_{\sigma(d_2-1)}\}\]
\[P_3=\{j_2, i_{\sigma(d_2)}, i_{\sigma(d_2+1)},..., i_{\sigma(d_3-1)}\}\]
\[...\]
\[P_k=\{j_{k-1}, i_{\sigma(d_{k-1})}, i_{\sigma(d_{k-1}+1)},..., i_{\sigma(n-1)}\}.\]
and for every \(2\leq i\leq k\) we order the elements of \(P_i\) as displayed above (for instance, in \(P_2\) we have \(j_1\prec i_{\sigma(d_1)}\prec  i_{\sigma(d_1+1)}\prec\cdots \prec  i_{\sigma(d_2-1)}\)).

We notice that the sets \(P_2,...,P_k\) form  an unordered  partition of \([1,n+k-1]-X_1\), indexed according to Remark \ref{remordering}.
In conclusion, starting from the triple \((I, \sigma, D)\) we have produced a distinguished  internally  ordered \(k\)-partition of \([1,n+k-1]\) (see also the Example \ref{esempio} at the end of this section). It is easy to check that this  map is injective.

Let us now show that all the distinguished  internally ordered \(k\)-partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\) can be obtained starting from a triple. If \(k=1\) this is trivial. Let then \(k\geq 2\) and let   \(X_1,P_2,...,P_k\) be such a partition.
More in detail, let \(X_1\) be the ordered set \(\{x_1,x_2,...,x_{|X_1|}\}\), and, for every \(i\) with \(2\leq i\leq k\), let \(P_i\) be the ordered set \(P_i=\{p_{i1},p_{i2},...,p_{i|P_i|}\}\).
 According to the convention described in Remark \ref{remordering},  the indices of the
\( P_i\)'s  satisfy  \(p_{21}<\cdots < p_{k1}\). Let us denote by \(J\) the list \(p_{21},\ldots , p_{k1}\) and by \(I=i_1,...,i_n\) the sublist of \(L\) that is complementary to \(J\).
Then we choose the permutation \(\sigma \in S_n\) defined as the permutation such that  the list
\[\sigma I= i_{\sigma(1)},...,i_{\sigma(n-1)}, i_{\sigma(n)}\] coincides with the  list
\[x_2,..,x_{|X_1|}, p_{22},p_{23},...,p_{2|P_2|},p_{32},p_{33},...,p_{3|P_3|},p_{42},...,p_{4|P_4|},...,p_{k,2},..., p_{k|P_k|},x_1\]

As a last step,  we extract from the list \(\sigma I\), after cutting out its  first element and  its  last element,  the sublist of cardinality \(k-1\) \[D=i_{\sigma(|X_1|) }, i_{\sigma(|X_1|+|P_2|-1) },  i_{\sigma(|X_1|+|P_2|+|P_3|-2) }, ..., i_{\sigma(|X_1|+|P_2|+\cdots + |P_{k-1}|-(k-2)) }\]
 (in particular, if \(k=2\) this list is \(D=i_{\sigma(|X_1|) }\)).

 We observe that, by construction, the  triple \((I,\sigma, D)\) is associated with  the distinguished  internally  ordered partition \(X_1,P_2,...,P_k\).

\end{proof}

\begin{es}
\label{esempio}
Let \(n=7\), \(k=4\), and let us consider the triple \((I,\sigma, D)\) where:
\begin{itemize}
\item \({\displaystyle I=\stackrel {i_1}1, \stackrel {i_2}2,\stackrel {i_3}3,\stackrel {i_4}4,\stackrel {i_5}6,\stackrel {i_6}9,\stackrel {i_7}{10}} \) is a sublist of \(L=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10\).
\item \(\sigma\)  is the permutation in  \(S_7\) such that   \[\sigma I=\stackrel {i_{\sigma(1)}}2, \stackrel{i_{\sigma(2)}}6,\stackrel {i_{\sigma(3)}}1,\stackrel {i_{\sigma(4)}}{10},\stackrel {i_{\sigma(5)}}3,\stackrel {i_{\sigma(6)}}9,\stackrel {i_{\sigma(7)}}{4} \]
\item \({\displaystyle D=\stackrel {i_{\sigma(3)}}1, \stackrel{i_{\sigma(5)}}3,\stackrel {i_{\sigma(6)}}9}\)  is a sublist of the list \(6,1,10,3,9\) (i.e. the list  \(\sigma I\) without its initial and final term).

\end{itemize}
Let us associate to this triple a distinguished  internally  ordered  partition \(X_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\) of \([1,10]\) according to the bijection of Theorem \ref{teo:semiordinate}.

The set \(X_1\) is \(\{i_{\sigma(7)}, i_{\sigma(1)}, i_{\sigma(2)}\}\),  i.e. \(X_1=\{4,2,6\}\), ordered from left to right: \(4\prec 2 \prec 6\).

Now we notice that the complement of  \(I=1,2,3,4,6,9,10\) in \(L=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10\), is the list \(J=5,7,8\).
Then \(P_2=\{5, i_{\sigma(3)}, i_{\sigma(4)}\}\), i.e. \(P_2=\{5,1,10\}\) equipped with the ordering  \(5\prec 1 \prec 10\).  In an analogous way one finds \(P_3=\{7,3\}\) and \(P_4=\{8,9\}\).

\end{es}

\section{Kirkman-Cayley dissection numbers and numbers  of dissections of a   prescribed type}
\label{sec:final}

As it is well known,  \(D_{n+1,k-1}\) coincides with  \(|{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)|\): an  explicit bijection between  \({\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)\)  and  the set of the dissections of a convex polygon with \(n+1\) labelled edges by \(k-1\) non intersecting diagonals is  illustrated by Figure \ref{dissection}.

 \begin{figure}[h]

 \center
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{dissectiondue}
\caption{This dissection of the hexagon with  3 diagonals produces the  parenthesized list  \((1,((2,3),(4,5)))\) that has 4  couples of parentheses.}
\label{dissection}
\end{figure}

In view of this, a   proof of Kirkman-Cayley  formula via bijections immediately follows as  a corollary of the Theorems  \ref{orderedbijectionnested} and \ref{teo:semiordinate}.

\begin{cor}[A proof of Kirkman-Cayley formula]
\label{cor:cayleyformula}
\[D_{n+1,k-1}= \frac{1}{k}\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n+k-1}{k-1}\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We can count the cardinality of \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)\) in two different ways. On one hand  it is equal to
\[n! D_{n+1,k-1}\]
since  there are \(n!\) different lists based on the set of numbers \(\{1,2,...,n\}\)  and for every list we take into account all its nested sets with \(k\) couples of parentheses.

On the other hand, by the Theorem  \ref{orderedbijectionnested}, the cardinality of \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)\)  is equal to the number of   admissible internally  ordered  \(k\)-partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\).  This can be obtained dividing by \(k\) the number of distinguished internally  ordered  \(k\)-partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\).

Therefore by Theorem \ref{teo:semiordinate} we have:
\[n! D_{n+1,k-1}= \frac{1}{k}n!\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n+k-1}{k-1}\]
that, after dividing by \(n!\), gives Kirkman-Cayley formula.
\end{proof}
As another application of Theorem  \ref{orderedbijectionnested} we show a proof  of the  formula that counts the number of dissections of a prescribed type. This is a classical result (for another proof see for instance  Chapter 13 of \cite{gouldenjackson}; see also  Section 2.3. of \cite{devadossread}).

\begin{defin}
Given  a dissection of a convex polygon with \(n+1\)  labelled edges by  \(k-1\) diagonals,  such that no two of the diagonals  intersect in their interior, we say that the dissection is of type \((i_1^{m_1},i_2^{m_2},...,i_s^{m_s})\), with \(3\leq i_1<i_2 <\cdots < i_s\leq n+1\), if    the dissection  is made by  \(m_j\) polygons with \(i_j\) edges,  for every \(j=1,2,...,s\).
\end{defin}

\begin{rem}
\label{propfacile}
As one can immediately check, the  numbers that appear in the above definition  satisfy  the relations  \({\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^s m_j=k}\)  and \({\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^s i_j m_j=n+2k-1}\).
\end{rem}

\begin{cor}[A proof of the formula for the dissections of a  prescribed type]
\label{prescribedpolygons}
Let   \(n,k\) be two integers such that  \(n \geq 2\) and \(n-1\geq k\geq 1\). Given  a convex polygon with \(n+1\)  labelled edges, the number of  its   dissections of type \((i_1^{m_1},i_2^{m_2},...,i_s^{m_s})\) by  \(k-1\) diagonals  is
\begin{equation}
\label{prescribedformula}  \frac{(n+k-1)!}{n! \ m_1!m_2!\cdots m_s!}
\end{equation}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Let us consider a convex polygon with \(n+1\)   edges labelled counterclockwise from \(0\) to \(n\), as in the example of Figure \ref{dissection}. As we know,  a dissection of this polygon  by  \(k-1\) diagonals corresponds to a nested set of the list \(1,2,...,n\) and therefore,  in view of Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested}, to an admissible internally ordered \(k\)-partition of \([1,n+k-1]\).
By  construction of the bijection of Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested}, each  part of this partition describes one of the   polygons  of  the dissection, and  if it has cardinality \(a\) this  polygon  has \(a+1\) edges.
Therefore  each dissection  of type \((i_1^{m_1},i_2^{m_2},...,i_s^{m_s})\) corresponds to an  admissible   internally ordered partition of \([1,n+k-1]\)  that has \(m_j\) parts of cardinality \(i_j-1\) for every \(j=1,...,s\).

Let us then  denote by \(A\) the set  of  all the admissible   internally ordered partitions of \([1,n+k-1]\)  that have  \(m_j\) parts of cardinality \(i_j-1\), for every \(j=1,...,s\).
A quick and elementary computation shows that
\[|A|=\frac{(n+k-1)!}{m_1!m_2!\cdots m_s!}\]
Now by  Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested} we know that each of the partitions in \(A\)  corresponds to a nested set  of a  list that is a  permutation of  the list \(1,2,...,n\).
Then,  by  \(S_n\)-symmetry,  the partitions in \(A\) that correspond to a nested set of the list \(1,2,...,n\), i.e., to a dissection of the prescribed type,  are  exactly
\[\frac{1}{n!}|A|=\frac{1}{n!}\frac{(n+k-1)!}{m_1!m_2!\cdots m_s!}\]

\end{proof}

Even if our proof  of Kirkman-Cayley  formula
is    purely combinatorial, here we sketch out   a  geometric interpretation.
 Let us  consider  the real moduli space \({\overline M}_{0,n+1}\) of stable \(n+1\)-pointed  genus 0 curves.

In \cite{gaimrn0}, \cite{gaimrn} some spherical models of subspace arrangements are described, in the spirit of De Concini and Procesi construction of wonderful models in \(\cite{DCP1}\). These spherical models are manifolds with corners, and the minimal spherical model associated with   the root arrangement of type \(A_{n-1}\)
is made by  the disjoint union of \(n!\) copies of the \((n-2)\)-dimensional Stasheff's associahedron (for a concrete realization see \cite{gaiffipermutonestoedra}). Furthermore, there is a surjective map \(\Gamma\) from this  minimal spherical model to the minimal real compact De Concini-Procesi model of type \(A_{n-1}\), that is isomorphic to \({\overline M}_{0,n+1}\).

This  map \(\Gamma\) sends the \(k-1\)-codimensional faces of the associahedra into the \(k-1\)-codimensional strata of  the boundary of \({\overline M}_{0,n+1}\). We notice that these strata    are indexed by the elements of \({\mathcal{S}}_2(n,k)\) and the  resulting tessellation coincides with the one previously  described in \cite{Kapranov},  \cite{devadosstessellation} and  \cite{devadossread}.

The  picture above  leads to our computation since  one observes that the  \(k-1\)-codimensional faces in the minimal spherical model are indexed by \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)\).
On one hand they are \(n! D_{n+1,k-1}\), given that  \(D_{n+1,k-1}\) counts the \(k-1\)-codimensional faces of a \((n-2)\)-dimensional Stasheff's associahedron.
On the other hand,   one can count them by regrouping the ones whose images via \(\Gamma\) lie in the  same isomorphism class of boundary strata of \({\overline M}_{0,n+1}\). Now,  two strata belong to the same isomorphism class if and only if their associated nested sets give rise, under the bijection of Theorem \ref{bijectionnested}, to two  partitions whose  parts  have  the same sizes.
This remark  points out    the bijection, shown in  Theorem \ref{orderedbijectionnested}, between \({\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{S}}_2((1,2,...,n),k)\)  and  \({\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\).  Then the Kirkman-Cayley formula needs only a last step,  i.e. the computation of the cardinality of \({\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{T}}_2(n+k-1,k)\),  that is  provided by the bijection of Theorem \ref{teo:semiordinate}.

\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
\bibliographystyle{acm}


Order polynomials and Pólya's enumeration theorem

Abstract: Pólya's enumeration theorem is concerned with counting labeled sets up to symmetry. Given a finite group acting on a finite set of labeled elements it states that the number of labeled sets up to symmetry is given by a polynomial in the number of labels. We give a new perspective on this theorem by generalizing it to partially ordered sets and order preserving maps. Further we prove a reciprocity statement in terms of strictly order preserving maps generalizing a classical result by Stanley (1970). We apply our results to counting graph colorings up to symmetry.

\section{Introduction}
Counting objects up to symmetry is a basic problem of enumerative combinatorics. A fundamental result in this context is P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem which is concerned with counting \textbf{labelings} of a set of objects modulo symmetry. Here a labeling of a set $X$ is defined as a map $f\colon X\rightarrow Y$ where $Y$ is the set of labels. If $G$ is a group acting on $X$ then $G$ also acts on the set of labelings $Y^X := \lbrace f\colon X\rightarrow Y \rbrace $. P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem now states:
\begin{thm}[P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem \cite{polya1937kombinatorische}]
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a finite set $X$ and let $Y$ be a finite set of $n=\left|Y\right|$ labels. Then
\[
\left| {Y^X}/G \right| =\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} n^{c(g)}
\]
where ${Y^X}/G$ is the collection of orbits of ${Y^X}$ and $c(g)$ is the number of cycles of $g$ as permutation of $X$.
\end{thm}
We give a new perspective on this theorem by generalizing it in terms of partially ordered sets, or \textbf{posets} for short, and order preserving maps. More precisely, we consider a finite poset $P$ and a group $G$ acting on $P$ by \textbf{automorphisms}. Then $G$ acts in a natural way also on the set of all order preserving maps $\Hom (P,[n])$ from $P$ into the $n$-chain $[n]=\lbrace 1<\cdots <n\rbrace$. We show that the number of \textbf{orbits} of $\Hom (P,[n])$ is given by a polynomial $\Omega _{P,G} (n)$ which we call the \textbf{orbital order polynomial}. P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem then follows by specializing this result to antichains. Further we give a combinatorial interpretation for $\Omega _{P,G} (-n)$ in terms of orbits of strictly order preserving maps. This naturally generalizes the classical polynomiality and reciprocity theorems for order preserving maps due to Stanley \cite{stanley1970chromatic}.

The results can be applied to graph colorings. We consider a finite group $G$ acting by automorphisms on a finite simple graph $\Gamma=(V,E)$ and the function $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ counting proper colorings $c\colon V\rightarrow [n]$ up to group action. Cameron and Kayibi \cite{cameron2007orbital} seem to be the first who considered this function which they called the \textbf{orbital chromatic polynomial}. Previously, Hanlon \cite{hanlon1985chromatic} treated the case of $G$ being the automorphism group of $\Gamma$. It is easy to see that $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ indeed agrees with a polynomial for all $n\geq 1$. We further give a representation as a sum of order polynomials.

We also give a combinatorial interpretation for evaluating this polynomial at negative integers in terms of acyclic orientations and compatible colorings. This naturally generalizes Stanley's reciprocity for graph colorings \cite{stanley1973acyclic}.

\textbf{Acknowledgments.} We are grateful to Raman Sanyal for suggesting this project and constant support. We also want to thank Alexandru Chirvasitu and Yan X Zhang for fruitful conversations, and Darij Grinberg for careful reading and helpful comments.

\section{Order preserving P\'{o}lya-enumeration}
\subsection{Groups}
Let $G$ be a finite group with identity element $e$ and $X$ be a finite set. A \textbf{group operation} of $G$ on $X$ is a map $\cdot \colon G \times X \rightarrow X$ such that $g\cdot (h\cdot x)=(gh)\cdot x$ and $e\cdot x=x$ for all $g,h\in G$ and $x\in X$. We say that $G$ operates or \textbf{acts} on $X$. For every $g\in G$ we denote by $X^g$ the \textbf{fixpoints} of $g$, i.e.,\ $X^g=\lbrace x \in X \colon g\cdot x=x\rbrace$. For an element $x\in X$ we denote by $Gx=\lbrace g\cdot x \colon g\in G \rbrace $ the \textbf{orbit} of $x$. The set of all orbits partitions $X$ and is called $X/G$.

Burnside's lemma (see e.g. \cite[Theorem 10.5]{MR1871828}) gives a formula for the number of orbits in terms of fixpoints:
\begin{thm}[Burnside's lemma]\label{thm:burnside}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a finite set $X$. Then
\[
\left| X/G \right| \ = \ \frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} |X^g|.
\]
\end{thm}
For an element $x\in X$ the \textbf{stabilizer} of $x$ is $\Stab (x)=\lbrace g\in G \colon g\cdot x =x \rbrace$.
The operation can be restricted to any subgroup $H\subseteq G$. For $g\in G$ we denote by $\langle g\rangle =\lbrace e,g,g^2,\ldots\rbrace$ the cyclic subgroup generated by $g$. The orbit of $x$ under the action of $\langle g \rangle$ is denoted by $[x]_g$ and is called a \textbf{cycle} of $g$. In particular, $c(g)=\left| X/\langle g\rangle\right|$ is the number of cycles of $g$. Identifying $g$ with the corresponding permutation on $X$ gives the usual notion of cycles.
\begin{example}
Let $G=S_n$ be the symmetric group acting on $[n]=\lbrace 1,\ldots ,n\rbrace$ in the usual way. Every permutation $\sigma \in S_n$ can be written as product of disjoint cycles in $S_n$ and this representation is unique up to interchanging the order of the cycles in the product. In this case $[x]_{\sigma} =\lbrace y\in [n]\colon y \text{ and } x \text{ are in the same cycle}\rbrace$ and $c(\sigma)$ is the number of cycles in the unique representation as product of disjoint cycles.
\end{example}
If a set $X$ has additional structure we say that a group $G$ acts by \textbf{automorphisms} on $X$ if the group operation respects the structure, that is, for all $g\in G$ the map $x\mapsto g\cdot x$ is a \textbf{structure preserving bijection}.

Let $P$ be a finite \textbf{poset}. Then a group $G$ acts on $P$ by automorphisms if for all $g\in G$ and for all $p$ and $q$ in $P$ we have $g\cdot p \prec g \cdot q$ whenever $p\prec q$.

For a finite simple \textbf{graph} $\Gamma=(V,E)$ an action of a group $G$ on $V$ respects the structure of $\Gamma$ if for all edges $uv\in E$ we have that there is an edge between $g\cdot u$ and $g\cdot v$ for all $g\in G$.

The operation of $G$ on $X$ induces an operation on $Y^X$. This \textbf{induced operation} is defined by $(g \cdot f)(x)=f(g^{-1} x)$ for all $g \in G$, $f\in Y^X$ and $x \in X$.
\subsection{Order preserving maps}
Let $P$ be a finite poset. A map $\phi \colon P\rightarrow [n]$ is called \textbf{order preserving} if $\phi (p)\leq \phi (q)$ whenever $p\prec q$ and equality is forbidden for \textbf{strictly} order preserving maps. We denote the set of all order preserving maps by $\Hom (P,[n])$, and the set of strictly order preserving maps by $\Hom ^{\circ} (P,[n])$. Their cardinalities are given by the \textbf{order polynomials} $\Omega _P (n)$ and $\Omega ^{\circ} _P (n)$ respectively. The following classical result is due to Stanley \cite{stanley1970chromatic}.
\begin{thm}[Stanley \cite{stanley1970chromatic}]\label{thm:stan_ord}
For a finite poset $P$ the function $\Omega _P (n)$ agrees with a polynomial of degree $\left|P\right|$ for all $n\geq 1$, and
\[
\Omega ^{\circ} _P (n)=(-1)^{\left|P\right|}\Omega _P (-n).
\]
\end{thm}
 For every finite group $G$ acting on $P$ by automorphisms and for every $g\in G$ we define a partial order on $P_g=P/\langle g\rangle$ by defining $[x]_g \prec [y]_g$ whenever there are   $\tilde{x} \in [x]_g$ and $\tilde{y} \in [y]_g$ such that $\tilde{x}\prec \tilde{y}$.\\
This, in fact, yields a poset, the \textbf{quotient poset} (see e.g. \cite{stanley1984quotients}).
\begin{lem}
Let $P$ be a finite poset and $G$ a finite group acting by automorphisms on $P$. Then $P_g$ is a poset with $c(g)$ elements for all $g\in G$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First we observe that every cycle $[x]_g$ is an antichain. For that suppose $g^l x\prec g^k x$ for some $k,l \geq 0$ and consequently $x\prec g^{k-l}x$. From that we get $x\prec g^{k-l}x \prec g^{2(k-l)}x\prec \cdots \prec x$ as $g^{k-l}$ has finite order which is a contradiction.

For antisymmetry assume there are $\tilde{x},\bar{x} \in [x]_g$ and $\tilde{y},\bar{y} \in [y]_g$ with $\tilde{x}\prec \tilde{y}$ and $\bar{y}\prec \bar{x}$. Then $\bar{y}=g^l\tilde{y}$ for some $l\geq 0$ and we have $g^l \tilde{x}\prec g^l \tilde{y}=\bar{y}\prec \bar{x}$ which contradicts $[x]_g$ being an antichain.

For transitivity we let $\tilde{x}\in [x]_g$, $\tilde{y},\bar{y} \in [y]_g$ and $\bar{z}\in [z]_g$ with $\tilde{x} \prec \tilde{y}$ and $\bar{y} \prec \bar{z}$. Then there exists a $k\geq 0$ with $g^k \tilde{y}=\bar{y}$ and we have $g^k \tilde{x} \prec g^k \tilde{y}=\bar{y}\prec \bar{z}$.
\end{proof}
An order preserving action of $G$ on $P$ induces an action on $\Hom (P,[n])$ and $\Hom ^{\circ} (P,[n])$ as subsets of $[n]^P$.  For $n\geq 1$ we define the \textbf{orbital order polynomials} $\Omega _{P,G}(n)=\left| \Hom (P,[n])/G \right|$  and $\Omega _{P,G}^{\circ}(n)=\left| \Hom ^{\circ}(P,[n])/G \right|$. The following main theorem states that $\Omega _{P,G}(n)$ and $\Omega ^{\circ}_{P,G}(n)$ are indeed polynomials for $n\geq 1$, and gives formulas in terms of order polynomials:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:poly_poset}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting by automorphisms on a finite poset $P$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega _{P,G}(n) &=&\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} \Omega _{P_g} (n),\label{eqn:poly_poset}\\
\Omega ^{\circ}_{P,G}(n) &=&\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} \Omega ^{\circ}_{P_g} (n)\label{eqn:poly_posetstrict}
\end{eqnarray}
for $n\geq 1$. In particular, $\Omega _{P,G}(n)$ and $\Omega ^{\circ}_{P,G}(n)$ agree with polynomials of degree $|P|$ for $n\geq 1$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We only show equation \eqref{eqn:poly_poset} as the argument for equation \eqref{eqn:poly_posetstrict} is analoguous. By Theorem \ref{thm:burnside} we have
\[
\left| \Hom (P,[n])/G \right| =\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} \left|\Hom (P,[n]) ^g\right|
\]
By definition, $\phi \in \Hom (P,[n])^g$ if and only if $\phi (g^{-1} x)=\phi (x)$ for all $x\in P$. But this is equivalent to $\phi$ being constant on $[x]_g$. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Hom (P,[n])^g &\rightarrow & \Hom (P_g,[n])\\
\varphi &\mapsto &([x]_g \mapsto \varphi (x))
\end{eqnarray*}
is a one-to-one correspondence. Further, observe that  $\deg \Omega _{P_g} (n)=c(g)=|P|$ if and only if $g$ acts trivially on $P$, and $c(e)=|P|$.
\end{proof}

By applying Theorem \ref{thm:poly_poset} to antichains, we get P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem in the language of posets:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:P\'{o}lya}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting by automorphisms on a finite antichain $A$, and let $Y=[n]$. Then
\[
\left| {Y^A}/G \right| =\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} n^{c(g)}.
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
As $A$ is an antichain we have $\Hom (A,[n])=Y^A$. The result follows by observing that $A_g$ is an antichain with $c(g)$ elements for all $g\in G$ and $\Omega _{A_g}(n)=n^{\left|A_g\right|}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{ex:symm_group}
Let $S_k$ be the symmetric group acting on an antichain $A=\lbrace x_1,\ldots ,x_k\rbrace$ on $k$ elements by permuting indices, and let $Y=[n]$. Then
\[
\lbrace \phi \in Y^A \colon 1\leq \phi (x_1)\leq \cdots \leq \phi(x_k)\leq n\rbrace
\]
is a set of representatives of $\Hom(A,Y)/{S_k}$ and therefore $\Omega _{A,S_k}(n) =\Omega _{[k]}(n)$. By Corollary \ref{cor:P\'{o}lya} we conclude that
\[
\binom {n+k-1}{k}=\frac{1}{k!}\sum _{\sigma \in S_k} n^{c(\sigma)}.
\]
\end{example}
\subsection{Combinatorial reciprocity}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a finite poset $P$ by automorphisms. As the number of orbits $\left| \Hom (P,[n])/G \right|$ agrees with a polynomial by Theorem \ref{thm:poly_poset} we ponder the question if there is a combinatorial interpretation for evaluating this polynomial at negative integers. For that we have to consider a certain class of order preserving maps. The \textbf{sign} $\sgn (g)$ of an element $g\in G$ is defined as the sign of $g$ as a permutation of $P$ and is equal to $(-1)^{|P|+c(g)}$. An order preserving map $\phi \in \Hom (P,[n])$ is called \textbf{even} if for all $g\in \Stab (\phi)$ we have $\sgn (g)=1$. The set of all even order preserving maps is denoted by $\Hom _{+} (P,[n])$, and we define $\Hom ^{\circ}_{+} (P,[n]):=\Hom _{+} (P,[n])\cap \Hom ^{\circ} (P,[n])$ to be the set of even strictly order preserving maps. One observes that the action of $G$ on $\Hom (P,[n])$ restricts to an action on $\Hom_{+} (P,[n])$. For these notions the following reciprocities hold:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:reciprocity}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting by automorphisms on a finite poset $P$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega _{P,G}(-n)&=&(-1)^{|P|} \left| \Hom ^{\circ} _{+} (P,[n])/G \right|,\label{eq:recip}\\
\Omega ^{\circ}_{P,G}(-n)&=&(-1)^{|P|} \left| \Hom _{+} (P,[n])/G \right|.\label{eq:recipstrict}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Again, we only show equation \eqref{eq:recip} as equation \eqref{eq:recipstrict} follows by analogous arguments.
By equation \eqref{eqn:poly_poset} and Theorem \ref{thm:stan_ord} we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:poly_poset2}
\Omega _{P,G}(-n)=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} (-1)^{|P_g|}\Omega ^{\circ} _{P_g} (n).
\end{equation}
We observe that $|P_g|=c(g)$ is the number of orbits under the action of $\langle g\rangle$. Therefore equation \eqref{eqn:poly_poset2} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\Omega _{P,G}(-n)=(-1)^{|P|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} \sgn (g)\left| \Hom^{\circ} (P,[n])^g\right|=(-1)^{|P|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{\phi \in \Hom^{\circ} (P,[n])} \sum _{g\in \Stab (\phi)} \sgn (g).
\end{equation*}
For $\phi \in \Hom ^{\circ} (P,[n])$ and $g_0 \in \Stab (\varphi)$ such that $\sgn (g_0)=-1$ there is a bijection
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lbrace g\in \Stab (\phi) \colon \sgn (g)=1 \rbrace & \longrightarrow & \lbrace g\in \Stab (\phi) \colon \sgn (g)=-1 \rbrace\\
g& \mapsto &g_0 g
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $\sum _{g\in \Stab (\phi)} \sgn (g)=0$ whenever $\phi$ is not even.
Therefore the right-hand side of equation \eqref{eqn:poly_poset2} equals
\[
(-1)^{|P|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G}\left| \Hom^{\circ} _+(P,[n])^g\right|
\]
which equals $(-1)^{|P|}\left| \Hom ^{\circ} _{+} (P,[n])/G \right|$ by Theorem \ref{thm:burnside}.
\end{proof}
In the setting of P\'{o}lya's enumeration theorem the statement simplifies:
\begin{cor}
Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a finite antichain $A$, and let $Y=[n]$. Then
\[
\Omega _{A,G}(-n) =(-1)^{|A|} \left| \Hom _{+} (A,[n])/G \right|
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the fact that every order preserving map from an antichain is automatically strictly order preserving.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
In Example \ref{ex:symm_group} we have $\phi \in \Hom _{+} (A,[n])$ if and only if $\phi$ is injective. Therefore
\[
\lbrace \phi \in Y^A \colon 1\leq \phi (x_1)< \cdots < \phi(x_k)\leq n\rbrace
\]
is a set of representatives for $\Hom _{+} (A,[n])/S_k$. This is reflected by the fact that $(-1)^k\Omega _{[k]}(-n)$ equals by  Theorem \ref{thm:stan_ord} the number of strictly order preserving maps from $[k]$ to $[n]$.
\end{example}
\begin{rmk}
An alternative, geometric route is by way of Ehrhart theory of order polytopes. Geometrically the setting can be translated into counting lattice points in order polytopes where the action of the group is given by permuting coordinates. This complements results by Stapledon \cite{stapledon2011equivariant} who considers lattice preserving group actions and counts lattice points inside stable rational polytopes.
\end{rmk}
\section{Graphs}
Let $\Gamma=(V,E)$ be a finite simple graph and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $\Gamma$ by automorphisms. A \textbf{$n$-coloring} of $\Gamma$ is a map $c\colon V \rightarrow [n]$. The coloring is called \textbf{proper} if $c(v)\neq c(w)$ whenever there is an edge between $v$ and $w$. The action of $G$ on $\Gamma$ induces an action on the set of all colorings, and also on the set of all proper colorings which we denote by $\Col _n (\Gamma)$. The \textbf{orbital chromatic polynomial} $\chi _{\Gamma,G}$ is defined by $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)=\left| \Col _n (\Gamma)/G\right|$ for all $n\geq 1$. An \Emph{orientation} $\sigma\colon E\rightarrow V$ of $\Gamma$ assigns to every edge $e$ a vertex of $e$ called its head. An orientation is \Emph{acyclic} if there are no directed cycles. Every acyclic orientation $\sigma$ induces a partial order on the vertex set of $\Gamma$ by defining $v\prec _{\sigma}w$ if there is a directed path from $v$ to $w$. For the corresponding poset we write $\Gamma ^{\sigma}$. $G$ acts on the set $\Sigma$ of all acyclic orientations of $\Gamma$: For an edge $uv$ we define $(g\cdot \sigma )(uv)=g\cdot\sigma (g^{-1} \cdot uv)$.
The next theorem gives us an expression of $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ in terms of order polynomials. In particular, $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ is a polynomial for all $n\geq 1$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:poly_graph}
Let $\Gamma$ be a graph and let $G$ be a group acting on $\Gamma$. Then $G$ acts on $\Col _n (\Gamma)$ and we have
\[
\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n) =\frac{1}{|G|} \sum _{g\in G} \sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma ^g}  \Omega ^{\circ} _{\Gamma^{\sigma}_g} (n)
\]
for all $n\geq 1$. In particular, $\chi _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ agrees with a polynomial of degree $|\Gamma|$ for all $n\geq 1$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm:burnside} we have
\[
 \left| \Col _n (\Gamma)/G\right| =\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G} \left| \Col _n(\Gamma)^g\right|
\]
Let $\phi$ be an element of $\Col _n(\Gamma)^g$ and let $\sigma$ be the acyclic orientation induced by the coloring $\phi$, i.e.\ an edge $e = uv$ is oriented from $u$ to $v$ whenever $\phi(u) < \phi(v)$. Then $\phi$ is a strictly order preserving map from $\Gamma^{\sigma}$ into $[n]$ and $\sigma$ is fixed by $g$, because for every edge $vw\in E$ we have $v\prec _{\sigma} w$ by definition if and only if $\phi (v)< \phi (w)$, and as $\phi$ is fixed by $g$, this implies $\phi (gv)< \phi (gw)$ which is equivalent to $gv\prec _{\sigma} gw$, i.e. $\sigma \in \Sigma ^g$.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Let $k>2$. We consider a cycle $C^k$ on $k$ vertices $\lbrace x_i\rbrace _{i\in \mathbb{Z}_k}$. Then its symmetry group is the dihedral group
\[
D_k \ = \ \langle r,s \mid r^k=1 , s^2 =1 , srs^{-1}=r^{-1}\rangle
\]
which acts on $C^k$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
r \cdot x_i &=&x_{i+1}\\
s\cdot x_i &=& x_{-i}
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
\[
\chi _{C^k,D_k}(n)=\frac{1}{2k}\left(\sum _{l=1}^k \left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{r^l} \right| +\sum _{l=1}^k \left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{s r^l} \right|\right).
\]
Let $c\in \Col _n(C^k)$. If $l=2q$ is even, then $sr^{2q} \cdot c =c \Leftrightarrow (r^q \cdot c)=s\cdot(r^q \cdot c)$ and therefore
\[
\left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{sr^l} \right|=\left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{s} \right|=\begin{cases}
\left|  \Col _n([\frac{k}{2}+1]) \right| & \text{ if }k \text{ is even,}\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
If $l=2q+1$ is odd, then $sr^{2q+1} \cdot c =c \Leftrightarrow (r^{q+1} \cdot c)=rs\cdot (r^{q+1} \cdot c)$ and therefore
\[
\left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{s\cdot r^l} \right|=\left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{rs} \right|=0
\]
as $rs\cdot x_0=x_1$, and $x_0$ and $x_1$ are connected by an edge.
Further, for all $1\leq l \leq k$ we obtain
\[
\left|  \Col _n(C^k)^{r^l} \right|=\begin{cases}
\left|  \Col _n(C^{m}) \right| & \text{ if }m=\gcd (l,k)\neq 1,\\
0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
If $k>1$ is odd, we therefore get
\[
\chi _{C^k,D_k}(n)=\frac{1}{2}\chi _{C^k, \mathbb{Z}_k} (n),
\]
with $\mathbb{Z}_k:=\mathbb{Z}/k\mathbb{Z}=\langle r \rangle \subset D_k$. If $k=p> 2$ is a prime this simplifies even further:
\[
\left| \Col _n(C^p)/D_p \right| =\frac{1}{2p} \left|  \Col _n(C^{p}) \right|.
\]
This example is reminiscient of counting necklaces with colored beads (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 35]{MR1871828}).
\end{example}
A pair $(c,\sigma)$ consisting of a coloring $c\colon V\rightarrow [n]$ and an acyclic orientation $\sigma \colon E \rightarrow V$ is called \textbf{weakly compatible} if for every edge $e = uv$ we have $\sigma (uv)=v$ whenever $c(u) < c(v)$.
We define
\[
\Sigma _n (\Gamma)=\{ (c,\sigma)\in [n]^V \times \Sigma \colon  \text{weakly compatible}\}
\]
We observe that if $G$ acts on $\Gamma$ by automorphisms it also acts on $\Sigma _n (\Gamma)$ by $g\cdot (c,\sigma)=(g\cdot c, g\cdot \sigma)$ for all $(c,\sigma)\in\Sigma _n (\Gamma)$ and $g\in G$. An element $(c,\sigma)\in \Sigma _n (\Gamma)$ is called \textbf{even} if for all $g\in \Stab((c,\sigma))$ we have $\sgn (g)=1$ as permutation of the vertices. We denote the set of all even elements of $\Sigma _{n} (\Gamma)$ by $\Sigma _{n,+} (\Gamma)$. The action of $G$ restricts to an action on $\Sigma _{n,+} (\Gamma)$. We get the following reciprocity statement:

\begin{thm}\label{thm:reciprocity2}
Let $\Gamma$ be a graph and $G$ a group acting on $\Gamma$. Then
\[
\chi _{\Gamma, G}(-n)=(-1)^{|\Gamma|} \left|\Sigma _{n,+} (\Gamma)/G\right|
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm:poly_graph} and Theorem \ref{thm:stan_ord} and \mbox{$\sgn (g) =(-1)^{|\Gamma|+c(g)}$} we have
\[
\chi _{\Gamma, G}(-n)=(-1)^{\left|\Gamma\right|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G}\sgn (g)\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma ^g} \Omega _{\Gamma^{\sigma}_g} (n).
\]
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:poly_poset} we see $\Omega _{\Gamma^{\sigma}_g} (n)= |\Hom (\Gamma ^{\sigma} , [n]) ^g |$, and we observe
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:graphrec}
\left| \Sigma _n (\Gamma)^g\right| =\sum _{\sigma \in \Sigma ^g} |\Hom (\Gamma ^{\sigma} , [n]) ^g |.
\end{equation}
Now we argue the same way as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:reciprocity}: By equation \eqref{eqn:graphrec} we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:graphrec2}
\chi _{\Gamma,G}(-n)=(-1)^{\left|\Gamma\right|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G}\sgn g\left| \Sigma _n(\Gamma)^g\right|=(-1)^{\left|\Gamma\right|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{(c,\sigma)\in\Sigma _n(\Gamma)}\sum _{g\in \Stab ((c,\sigma))} \sgn (g) .
\end{equation}
For $(c,\sigma) \in \Sigma _n(\Gamma)$ and $g_0 \in \Stab((c,\sigma))$ such that  $\sgn g_0=-1$ as permutation of the vertices there is a bijection
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lbrace g\in \Stab ((c,\sigma)) \colon \sgn (g)=1 \rbrace & \longrightarrow & \lbrace g\in \Stab ((c,\sigma)) \colon \sgn (g)=-1 \rbrace\\
g& \mapsto &g_0 g
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $\sum _{g\in \Stab ((c,\sigma))} \sgn (g)=0$ whenever $(c,\sigma)$ is not even.
Therefore the right hand side of equation \eqref{eqn:graphrec2} equals
\[
(-1)^{|\Gamma|}\frac{1}{|G|}\sum _{g\in G}\left| \Sigma _{n,+}(\Gamma)^g\right|
\]
which by Theorem \ref{thm:burnside} equals $(-1)^{|\Gamma|}\left| \Sigma_{n,+}(\Gamma)/G \right|$.
\end{proof}

An easy interpretation can be given in the case of $G=\mathbb{Z}_2$:
\begin{cor}
Let $\Gamma$ be a graph and let $\mathbb{Z}_2=\lbrace e,\tau\rbrace$ act on $\Gamma$ by automorphisms such that $\sgn \tau=-1$. Then
\[
\chi _{\Gamma,\mathbb{Z}_2 }(-1)=(-1)^{| \Gamma|} \frac{\left| \Sigma _+ \right|}{2}
\]
where $\Sigma _+=\Sigma _{1,+}(\Gamma)$ is the set of even acyclic orientations of $\Gamma$.
\end{cor}
For $G$ acting trivially on $\Gamma$ we recover a well-known theorem by Stanley:
\begin{cor}[{\cite[Thm.~1.2]{stanley1973acyclic}}]
    Let $\Gamma$ be a graph and $\chi_{\Gamma}$ its chromatic polynomial. Then $|\chi_{\Gamma}(-n)|$ equals the number of weakly compatible pairs $(c,\sigma)$
    consisting of a $n$-coloring $c$ and an acyclic orientation $\sigma$ of $\Gamma$. In particular, $|\chi_{\Gamma}(-1)|$ is the number of
    acyclic orientations of $\Gamma$.
\end{cor}

Similarly as in Theorem \ref{thm:reciprocity} there is a twin reciprocity in the case of graph colorings. We say that a $n$-coloring $c$ of $\Gamma$ is \textbf{even} if for all $g\in \Stab (c)$ we have $\sgn g=1$ and define $\Col _{n,+} (\Gamma)$ as the set of all even proper $n$-colorings of $\Gamma$. Then the action of $G$ on $\Col _{n} (\Gamma)$ restricts to an action on $\Col _{n,+} (\Gamma)$. We further define $\chi ^+ _{\Gamma, G}(n)=\left|\Col _{n,+} (\Gamma)/G\right|$ as the function counting the number of orbits of even proper $n$-colorings for $n\geq 1$. By similar arguments as in Theorem \ref{thm:poly_graph} and Theorem \ref{thm:reciprocity2} we then have the following:
\begin{prop}
Let $\Gamma$ be a graph and $G$ a group acting on $\Gamma$ by automorphisms. Then $\chi ^+ _{\Gamma,G}(n)$ agrees with a polynomial of degree $|\Gamma|$ for $n\geq 1$ and we have
\[
\chi ^+ _{\Gamma, G}(-n)=(-1)^{|\Gamma|} \left|\Sigma _{n} (\Gamma)/G\right|.
\]
\end{prop}

\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{siam}