On the connectivity of manifold graphs

Abstract: This paper is concerned with lower bounds for the connectivity of graphs (one-dimensional skeleta) of triangulations of compact manifolds. We introduce a structural invariant b_M for simplicial d-manifolds M taking values in the range 0 <= b_M <= d-1. The main result is that b_M influences connectivity in the following way: The graph of a d-dimensional simplicial compact manifold M is (2d - b_M)-connected.The parameter b_M has the property that b_M = 0 if the complex M is flag. Hence, our result interpolates between Barnette's theorem (1982) that all d-manifold graphs are (d+1)-connected and Athanasiadis' theorem (2011) that flag d-manifold graphs are 2d-connected.The definition of b_M involves the concept of banner triangulations of manifolds, a generalization of flag triangulations.

\section{Introduction}

Consider a pure $d$-dimensional polyhedral complex $\Delta$.
The {\em graph ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$}, or {\em $1$-skeleton}, of $\Delta$ is the undirected simple graph that has the
vertices of $\Delta$ as nodes and the one-dimensional faces of $\Delta$ as edges.

The study of graph-theoretic  connectivity of skeleta of
polyhedral  complexes has its beginning with Steinitz' Theorem from 1922,
which states that a graph is the $1$-skeleton of the boundary
complex of
some $3$-dimensional convex polytope if and only if it is $3$-connected and planar.
Later, Balinski \cite{Balinski1961} generalized
part of this to higher dimensions by showing that the graph of every $(d+1)$-dimensional
convex polytope is $(d+1)$-connected.
This was generalized further by Barnette \cite{Barnette1982} who showed that the
graph of every $d$-dimensional polyhedral
pseudomanifold is $(d+1)$-connected.

In this paper we consider the simplicial case.
A simplicial pseudomanifold is said to be {\em flag} if its faces coincide with the cliques
of its $1$-skeleton, and it is said to be {\em normal} if
all links of faces are connected.
It was shown by Athanasiadis \cite{Athanasiadis2011} that the graph of a flag
simplicial $d$-pseudomanifold is $2d$-connected.

We introduce an invariant $b_{\Delta}$ of a pure $d$-dimensional simplicial complex
$\Delta$ taking values in the range $0\le b_{\Delta} \le d-1$.
It is shown to affect connectivity in the following way.

\begin{theorem} \label{main}
Let ${\Delta}$ be a $d$-dimensional normal simplicial pseudomanifold.
Then the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is $(2d-b_{\Delta})$-connected.
\end{theorem}

The definition of $b_{\Delta}$ involves the
concept of {\em banner}  triangulations, a generalization of
flag triangulations. We have that $b_{\Delta} =0$ if and only if the complex ${\Delta}$ is banner,
and in particular if $\Delta$ is flag. Thus, for the case of normal simplicial pseudomanifolds
our result interpolates between the theorems of Barnette
and Athanasiadis.

\section{Preliminaries}

In this section we collect some definitions and review some auxiliary results needed later in the paper.

\subsection{Simplicial complexes}

We assume basic knowledge about simplicial complexes.
Throughout the paper, $\Delta$ will denote a pure finite
$d$-dimensional simplicial complex on vertex set $V$.

Let $\tau$ be a face of $\Delta$. The {\em link} of $\tau$ in $\Delta$,
denoted $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(\tau)$,
is the subcomplex
that contains a face $\sigma \in \Delta$ if
$\sigma\cap\tau=\emptyset$ and $\sigma\cup\tau \in \Delta$.

Let $x \in V$ be a vertex of $\Delta$.
The {\em closed star} $\star_\Delta(x)$ is the subcomplex of $\Delta$ which is the cone over $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ with apex $x$.
The
 {\em antistar} $\operatorname{astar}_\Delta(x)$ is the subcomplex of $\Delta$ induced
 on the set of vertices $V\setminus \{x\}$. Note that
 $\star_\Delta(x) \cap \operatorname{astar}_\Delta(x) = \operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$.

A pure $d$-dimensional  complex $\Delta$ is a {\em pseudomanifold} if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] every $(d-1)$-dimensional  face is contained in exactly two facets (maximal faces),
\item[(ii)] $\Delta$ is strongly connected,
meaning that the {\em facet graph} (whose vertices are the facets and edges the pairs of adjacent facets) of $\Delta$ is connected.
\end{itemize}

We use the following property of pseudomanifolds at a crucial point in the paper.

\begin{lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 2]{Barnette1982}}]
\label{lem:astar_sc}
The antistar of any vertex in a pseudomanifold is strongly connected.
\end{lemma}

A pure simplicial complex $\Delta$ is a {\em homology manifold} if $\Delta$ is connected and
$\operatorname{link}_\Delta(\tau)$ has the homology of a sphere of the appropriate dimension
for every nonempty face $\tau \in \Delta$.
The complex $\Delta$ is a {\em homology sphere} if it is a homology manifold and itself has the homology of a sphere of the same dimension.

A pseudomanifold is called {\em normal} if all links  $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(\tau)$ of dimension at least one are connected.
The condition of being normal is quite
natural and holds e.g.\ for all homology manifolds.
Most importantly, it is not hard to check that the class of
normal pseudomanifolds is closed under taking links. This is not the case for pseudomanifolds in general.

Of the following four properties for a pure simplicial complex $\Delta$,
each implies its successor:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Delta$ is a triangulation of a compact topological manifold,
\item[(ii)] $\Delta$ is a homology manifold,
\item[(iii)] $\Delta$ is a normal pseudomanifold,
\item[(iv)]  $\Delta$ is a pseudomanifold.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Graph theory}

We assume basic knowledge about graphs and refer to \cite{Diestel2005} for details.

A graph $G$ is said to be {\em $k$-connected} if $G$ has more than $k$ vertices and $G \setminus S$ is connected for every set of vertices $S$ with $|S| < k$, where $G \setminus S$ denotes the graph that one obtains by deleting the vertices in $S$ and all incident edges.

The following well-known theorem relates the connectivity of a graph to families of independent paths. Here a family of paths between two vertices $x$ and $y$ is called {\em independent} if the only vertices contained in more than one path of the family are $x$ and $y$.

\begin{theorem}[Menger's Theorem \cite{Diestel2005}]
A graph $G$ with at least $k+1$ vertices is $k$-connected if and only if any two vertices
can be joined by $k$ independent paths.
\end{theorem}

It turns out that it suffices to check this condition for vertices at distance two in the graph.
This fact plays a central role for proving the connectivity results in this paper.

\begin{lemma}[Liu's criterion, \cite{Liu1990}]
\label{liu}
Let $G$ be a connected graph with at least $k+1$ vertices. If for any two
vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$ with distance $d_G(u, v) = 2$ there are $k$
independent $u$ --- $v$ paths in $G$, then $G$ is $k$-connected.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Assume that $G$ is not $k$-connected. Choose a set $S$ with less than $k$ vertices such that $G \setminus S$ is disconnected and such that every proper subset of $S$ does not disconnect $G$. Then there are two vertices $x,y$ in different components of $G \setminus S$ and a path from $x$ to $y$ in $G$ that contains exactly one element $s$ of $S$. Consider the vertices
$u$ and $v$  immediately before and after $s$ on this path. They are at distance two in $G$ and cannot be connected by a path in $G \setminus S$, because $x$ and $y$ cannot.
Thus, every $u$ --- $v$ path in $G$ must pass through $S$, so there are at most $|S| \leq k-1$ independent $u$ --- $v$ paths in $G$.
\end{proof}

\section{Banner complexes}

Here we present the concept of banner triangulations, a generalization
of flag triangulations.

\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate} \item A {\em clique} is a subset $T\subseteq V$ such that
$\{u,v\}\in\Delta$ for all $u,v\in T$. It is a $j$-clique if $|T|=j$.
\item A clique $T$  is {\em spanning} if $T\in \Delta$.
\item The complex  $\Delta$ is said to be a {\em flag complex} if every clique is spanning.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

Flag complexes have been shown to have very strong properties in many situations. This is also the case for the connectivity of their edge graphs ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ as the following result shows.

\begin{proposition}[Athanasiadis {\cite{Athanasiadis2011}}]
Let $\Delta$ be a  $d$-dimensional simplicial pseudomanifold. If $\Delta$ is flag,
 then the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is $2d$-connected.
\end{proposition}

The aim of this paper is to interpolate between the connectivity result of Barnette
for general pseudomanifolds
and the one of Athanasiadis for flag pseudomanifolds.
 For that purpose, we introduce the concept of banner complexes.

\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A clique $T$  is {\em critical} if
$T\setminus \{v\}\in \Delta$, for some $v\in T$.
\item A pure $d$-dimensional complex $\Delta$ is said to be a {\em banner complex} if
\begin{itemize}
\item every critical  $(d+1)$-clique is spanning and
\item $\Delta$ does not contain the boundary complex of a $(d+1)$-simplex as a subcomplex.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

\vspace{5mm}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{A}{$A$}
\psfrag{B}{$B$}
\includegraphics{not_banner}
\caption{A critical non-spanning $4$-clique}
\label{fig:banner1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\vspace{5mm}

Every clique in a flag complex is spanning.
Let us call
a pure $d$-dimensional complex $\Delta$, not containing the boundary of
a $(d+1)$-simplex as a subcomplex, strongly banner
if every $(d+1)$-clique is spanning.
Then
$$\mbox{flag \ $\Rightarrow$ \ strongly banner \ $\Rightarrow$ \ banner}$$

All triangle-free graphs with no isolated vertices are strongly banner.
For two-dimensional complexes the concepts of banner and flag coincide.
This is so because every $3$-clique is critical and a non-spanning $3$-clique
is the same thing as an empty triangle. Furthermore, if every $3$-clique is spanning but there is a non-spanning $4$-clique then the complex contains the boundary of a $3$-simplex as subcomplex.
The three concepts become distinct starting in dimension three,
as shown by the following examples.

\begin{example}
\label{rem0}

For any graph $G=(V, E)$ we construct a pure  $3$-dimensional simplicial
complex $\Gamma(G)$ as follows. Just expand each edge $e$ of $G$ to a tetrahedron
$\sigma_e =\{v_1, v_2, e_1, e_2\}$, where $v_1$ and $v_2$ are the two endpoints
of $e$, and $e_1$ and $e_2$ are new vertices specific to $e$.
Then $\Gamma(G)$ is defined as the complex with facets
$\sigma_e$, $e\in E$. Thus, $\Gamma(G)$ consists of tetrahedra, one for each edge $e\in E$,
that pairwise meet in a vertex exactly when the corresponding edges do.

Let $G=K_n$, the complete graph on $n$ vertices. One sees that
$\Gamma(K_3)$ is strongly banner but not flag, while
$\Gamma(K_4)$ is  banner but not strongly banner.
\end{example}

\begin{example}
\label{rem1}
We now present a detailed
construction of a shellable  $3$-ball $\Gamma$ on $16$ vertices that is strongly banner but not flag.
The vertices are ($ i=1,2,3$):

\vspace{3mm}

$x_i, a_i, b_i, c_i, d_i$ and $y$,
\vspace{3mm}

\noindent
and the 26 facets are ($i=1,2,3$):
\vspace{3mm}

$
\begin{array}{lllllll}
x_i, x_{i+1}, a_i, b_i &  &&
x_i, a_i, b_i, b_{i-1} & &&
y, a_1, a_2, a_3 \\
x_i, x_{i+1}, b_i, c_i & &&
x_i, a_i, a_{i-1}, b_{i-1} & &&
y, b_1, b_2, b_3 \\
x_i, x_{i+1}, c_i, d_i & &&
y, a_i, b_i, a_{i+1} & && \\
x_i, x_{i+1}, a_i, d_i & &&
y, b_i, a_{i+1}, b_{i+1}& &&
\end{array}
$

\vspace{3mm}

\noindent
Figure 2 shows part of the structure of $\Gamma$, namely
the subcomplex generated by the $12$ facets

$
\begin{array}{llllllllll}
x_i, x_{i+1}, a_i, b_i &  &&
x_i, x_{i+1}, b_i, c_i &&&
x_i, x_{i+1}, c_i, d_i &  &&
x_i, x_{i+1}, a_i, d_i
\end{array}
$

\vspace{3mm}

\noindent
This subcomplex, a ``ring of three bananas,''
consists of  $3$ octahedra on vertices
$\{x_i, x_{i+1}, a_i, b_i, c_i, d_i\}$,
$i\in \mathbb{Z} /3\mathbb{Z}$, glued together
at the common vertices $x_1, x_2, x_3$.
The rest of $\Gamma$ is used to ``fill the hole'' in this octahedral ring.

\vspace{5mm}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{a1}{$a_1$}
\psfrag{a2}{$a_2$}
\psfrag{a3}{$a_3$}
\psfrag{b1}{$b_1$}
\psfrag{b2}{$b_2$}
\psfrag{b3}{$b_3$}
\psfrag{c1}{$c_1$}
\psfrag{c2}{$c_2$}
\psfrag{c3}{$c_3$}
\psfrag{d1}{$d_1$}
\psfrag{d2}{$d_2$}
\psfrag{d3}{$d_3$}
\psfrag{x1}{$x_1$}
\psfrag{x2}{$x_2$}
\psfrag{x3}{$x_3$}
\includegraphics{bannernotflag}
\caption{The three bananas part of the ball $\Gamma$}
\label{fig:banner2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\vspace{5mm}

The complex $\Gamma$ is shellable. Shellings are obtained by starting
with the $8$ facets in $\star_{\Gamma}(y)$, at the center of $\Gamma$,
and then moving out to the facets of the three octahedra.
Thus, being a shellable pseudomanifold with boundary, $\Gamma$ is a
$3$-dimensional ball. Its $f$-vector is
$(1, 16, 54, 65, 26)$.
Its boundary is a $2$-sphere with $f$-vector $(1, 15, 39, 26)$.

The complex $\Gamma$ has a unique empty triangle, namely $\{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$.
Hence, it is not flag. However, it is strongly banner.
One can reason as follows to see that every $4$-clique is spanning.

Suppose that $F$ is a $4$-clique in ${\mathcal{G}}(\Gamma)$. Dividing the
vertices into $3$ groups

$$X=\{x_i\} \qquad  A=\{a_i, b_i, c_i, d_i\} \qquad Y=\{y\}
$$
we observe that none of the three sets contains a $4$-clique
and that  either $F\cap X=\emptyset$ or
$F\cap Y=\emptyset$, since there are no edges $\{x_i, y\}$.
So there are two cases to consider:
$F\subseteq X\cup A$  and $F\subseteq  A\cup Y$.
We leave to the reader the few easy steps left to verify
that in both cases $F$ must be one of the $26$ facets.

From this ball a triangulated $3$-sphere that is strongly banner but not flag
can be derived, see Example \ref{rem2} below.
\end{example}

\vspace{2mm}

\begin{example} \label{rem9}
A triangulation of a $3$-ball that is banner but not
strongly banner can be constructed along the same lines as our 3-ball in
Example 3.5, starting this time from a $4$-clique, embedding its $6$ edges into
octahedra to form a ``tetrahedron of six bananas'',
and then filling in the rest so that it is banner.
\end{example}

\vspace{4mm}

The properties of being banner or strongly banner are inherited by some related
complexes, such as links, cones and suspensions. Here are a few useful
such constructions.

\begin{proposition}
\label{lem:banner_link}
Let $\Delta$ be a pure $d$-dimensional simplicial complex. If $\Delta$ is banner and $x$ is a vertex of $\Delta$, then $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is banner. The same is true for being strongly banner.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Because $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is $(d-1)$-dimensional, we need to show that every critical $d$-clique is spanning and that $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ does not contain the boundary of the $d$-simplex.

Let $T$ be a critical $d$-clique in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$. Then $T \setminus v$ is a face of $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ for some vertex $v \in T$. If we set $T' = T \cup \{x\}$, then $T'$ is a clique and $T' \setminus v$ is a face of $\Delta$. So, $T'$ is a critical $(d+1)$-clique and thus spanning because $\Delta$ is banner. Equivalently, $T$ is a face of $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ and thus spanning.

Assume that $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ contains the boundary of the $d$-simplex as a subcomplex. Then the set $T$ of vertices of that simplex in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is a critical $(d+1)$-clique in $\Delta$. Because $\Delta$ is banner, $T$ is spanning and the subcomplex of $\Delta$ on vertices $T \cup \{x\}$ is the boundary of a $(d+1)$-simplex.
\end{proof}

\vspace{4mm}

If a triangulated $d$-ball $\Delta$ is
extended by raising a cone with apex $x$ over its boundary complex  $\partial \Delta$,
we obtain a triangulated $d$-sphere  $\widetilde{\Delta} = \Delta \cup
(\partial \Delta \ast x)$, see Figure \ref{fig:banner3}.

\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\psfrag{x}{$x$}
\psfrag{y}{$y$}
\psfrag{z}{$z$}
\psfrag{u}{$u$}
\psfrag{w}{$w$}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figure_3_new}
\caption{The sphere $\widetilde{\Delta}$}
\label{fig:banner3}
\end{center}
\vspace{5mm}
\end{figure}

The $j$-cliques in ${\mathcal{G}}(\widetilde{\Delta})$ are of three kinds:
\smallskip

(1) the $j$-cliques of  ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$,

(2) the $(j-1)$-cliques of ${\mathcal{G}}(\partial \Delta)$ augmented by $x$, and

(3) the $(j-1)$-cliques of ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ with no interior vertex
and not of type (2),
\hspace*{10mm} augmented by $x$.

For example, in Figure \ref{fig:banner3} the triangle $xyz$  is a $3$-clique of type $(3)$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{thm:conesusp} For a pure simplicial complex $\Delta$,
let property X denote either ``banner'', ``strongly banner'', or ``flag''. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
 \item[(i)]
${\Delta} \mbox{ has property X } \Leftrightarrow \; \mathrm{cone}(\Delta)  \mbox{ has property X}$ \\
 \item[(ii)]
${\Delta} \mbox{ has property X } \Leftrightarrow \; \mathrm{susp}(\Delta)   \mbox{ has property X}$ \\
 \item[(iii)] If $\Delta$ is a $d$-ball lacking $(j-1)$-cliques of type (3), then \\
$\widetilde{\Delta} \mbox{ has property X } \Leftrightarrow \; \Delta \mbox{ and }
\partial \Delta\mbox{ have property X}
$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

The proofs are in all cases straightforward verifications.

\begin{example}
\label{rem2}
Parts (i) and (ii) of the proposition can be used to give examples in all dimensions of complexes that
are exactly one of  banner, strongly banner and flag.
Part (iii) applied to the $3$-ball $\Gamma$ of Example \ref{rem1}
shows how to
construct a shellable $3$-sphere
that is strongly banner but not flag.
Applying the construction instead to the $3$-ball
of Example \ref{rem9} we obtain a banner shellable $3$-sphere that is not strongly banner.
\end{example}

\vspace{2mm}

The three classes of complexes that we have considered  have the property that
the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ determines the whole complex, or almost. Any complex
is of course determined by its facets, and in a strongly banner
complex $\Delta$ the facets are determined by the $(d+1)$-cliques of ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$.

The situation for banner complexes is slightly weaker. Suppose that
$\Delta$ is banner, strongly connected, and every codimension one face is contained in exactly
$k$ facets (e.g., if $\Delta$ is a banner pseudomanifold, the $k=2$ case). Then it can be shown that
if we know one particular $(d+1)$-clique to be a facet, then
we can identify the rest of the facets among the other $(d+1)$-cliques.

\section{Connectivity of banner pseudomanifolds}

The aim of this section is to prove the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:bannergraph}
Let $\Delta$ be a normal $d$-dimensional pseudomanifold.
If $\Delta$ is banner, then its  graph ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is $2d$-connected.
\end{theorem}

To prove Theorem \ref{thm:bannergraph}, we will use a few lemmas.
For $x\in V$ let $N(x)$ be the set of vertices of $\star_{\Delta}(x)$,
that is, $x$ together with its neighboring vertices $z\in V$ such that $\{x,z\} \in \Delta$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:banner_1}
Let $\Delta$ be a  banner pseudomanifold. If $\{x,y\}\in\Delta$
then $N(y) \not\subseteq N(x)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $F$ be any maximal face in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ that contains $y$. Then,
since $\Delta$ is a pseudomanifold,  $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(F)$ consists of two isolated vertices, one of which is $x$. Let $w$ be the other such vertex, so that $F \cup \{w\} \in \Delta$ and $w \not\in F$.

Assume that $w$ is adjacent to $x$, and as usual let $ d= \dim(\Delta)$.
For any vertex $v \in F$, the set $F \setminus v \cup \{x,w\}$ is a critical $(d+1)$-clique in $\Delta$, sincce
$\left( F \setminus v \cup \{x,w\} \right) \setminus x = (F \setminus v) \cup w$
is a face of $\Delta$.
Because $\Delta$ is assumed to be banner, $F \setminus v \cup \{x,w\}$ is a face of $\Delta$.
Since $v \in F$ is arbitrary, this implies that $\Delta$ contains the boundary of the $(d+1)$-simplex on vertex set $F \cup \{x,w\}$, in contradiction to our assumption that it is banner. Therefore, $w$ is not adjacent to $x$ and
$N(y) \not\subseteq N(x)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:banner_Gnotcomplete}
Let $\Delta$ be a
pseudomanifold. If $\Delta$ is banner, then ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is not a complete graph.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Follows from the preceding Lemma and is also easy to see directly from the definition.
\end{proof}

We remark that banner complexes that are not pseudomanifolds can have a complete
graph. However, this happens only for complexes that are the
$d$-skeleton of  a $k$-simplex with $k \ge d+2$.
\medskip

Let $\Delta$ be a banner pseudomanifold, $x \in V(\Delta)$ an arbitrary vertex of $\Delta$ and
let $\Gamma$ denote the subcomplex of $\Delta$
induced on the set $V\setminus N(x)$.
We need for our proof that  $\Gamma$ is nonempty and connected.
It is clear from Lemma \ref{lem:banner_1}  that $N(x)\neq V$.
That $\Gamma$ is connected  seems very natural
but is not to be taken
automatically for granted. For instance, for the complex shown in
Figure \ref{fig:banner3} (which is not banner)
the subcomplex  $\Gamma$ consists of two isolated vertices $u$ and $w$.

We offer two proofs. The first one is entirely elementary, relying on
Barnette's Lemma \ref{lem:astar_sc}. The second uses Lefschetz
duality, and is therefore valid only for homology manifolds.

\begin{lemma}
\label{prop:banner_outsidepath}
Let $x$ be a vertex of  a banner pseudomanifold  $\Delta$.
Then  the  subcomplex $\Gamma$
induced on the set of vertices not adjacent to $x$  is connected.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}[First proof.]
Let $u$ and $w$ be vertices not adjacent to $x$, and let
$\sigma$ and $\tau$ be facets of $\operatorname{astar}_{\Delta}(x)$
such that $u\in\sigma$ and $w\in\tau$.
From Lemma \ref{lem:astar_sc} we know that $\operatorname{astar}_\Delta(x)$ is strongly connected,
so we may choose a path $\sigma =\sigma_0 \rightarrow
\sigma_1 \rightarrow \cdots\rightarrow  \sigma_k = \tau$
in the facet graph of $\operatorname{astar}_\Delta(x)$.

This given, we want to  choose vertices $u_1, \ldots, u_k$ such that for all $i$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $u_i\in \sigma_{i-1}\cap\sigma_i$, \item $u_i \notin \star(x) $
\end{enumerate}
If this is possible we are done, because then $ u=u_0 \rightarrow
u_1 \rightarrow \cdots\rightarrow  u_k \rightarrow w$
is a path in $\operatorname{astar}(x) \setminus \star(x)$, that is, in $\Gamma$.

Suppose that for some $i$, such a choice of $u_i$ is impossible. Then
$$\sigma_{i-1}\cap \sigma_i \subseteq \star(x).
$$
The ridge $\mu :=\sigma_{i-1}\cap \sigma_i $ has the following properties:

1. $\mu\cup\{x\}$ is a $(d+1)$-clique,

2.  $\mu\cup\{x\}$ is critical, since $\mu\in\Delta$,

3. $\mu\cup\{x\}$ is not spanning, since $\Delta$ is a pseudomanifold and $\mu$ is already contained in the facets
$\sigma_{i-1} $ and $\sigma_i$.

This contradicts the assumption that $\Delta$ is banner.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Second proof.]
Here we assume that $\Delta$ is a homology manifold.
All homology groups are taken over $\mathbb{Z}_2$.
We have  that $H_d(\Delta) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$, as is true for all pseudo-manifolds
\cite[Exercise 43.5d]{Munkres1984}.

Let $\Sigma$ be the subcomplex of $\Delta$ induced on the
set $N(x)$ and let  $\Gamma$ be the complex
induced on the complementary set of vertices,  as before.
Consider the long exact sequence for relative homology
\[
  H_d(\Sigma) \rightarrow H_d(\Delta) \rightarrow H_d(\Delta;\Sigma) \rightarrow H_{d-1}(\Sigma)
\]

 We have that $\star_{\Delta}(x)\subseteq \Sigma$, and our assumption that $\Delta$ is banner implies that $\star_{\Delta}(x)$ and $\Sigma$
have the same faces of dimensions $d$ and $d-1$. Because $\star_{\Delta}(x)$ is contractible,
it follows that $H_d(\Sigma) = H_{d-1}(\Sigma) = 0$, and thus that $H_d(\Delta;\Sigma) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$.

By Lefschetz duality \cite[Theorem 70.2]{Munkres1984}, we get that
$$H^0( ||\Delta|| \setminus ||\Sigma|| ) \cong H_d(\Delta;\Sigma) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2,$$
which means that the space $||\Delta|| \setminus ||\Sigma||$  is connected.
Finally, $\Gamma$ is a deformation retract of $||\Delta|| \setminus ||\Sigma||$  \cite[Lemma 70.1]{Munkres1984},
and is therefore also connected. This is equivalent to ${\mathcal{G}}(\Gamma)$ being connected.
\end{proof}

We have now assembled all pieces needed to
prove Theorem \ref{thm:bannergraph}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bannergraph}]
We use induction on $d$ and Liu's Lemma  \ref{liu}.
For $d=1$, $\Delta$ is a cycle graph and thus $2$-connected.

Assume that $d > 1$, and let $y$ and $z$ be a pair of vertices at distance two.
From Lemma \ref{lem:banner_Gnotcomplete} we know that ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is not a complete graph, so
such pairs  exist.

Let $x$ be a vertex of $\Delta$ such that $y$ and $z$ are contained in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$.
Because $\Delta$ is normal, $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is a $(d-1)$-dimensional normal pseudomanifold.
Using Proposition \ref{lem:banner_link} we see that $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is banner. So, by induction, the  graph of $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ is $2(d-1)$-connected. This means that
$\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ contains more than $2(d-1)$ vertices, and
we can find $2(d-1)$ independent paths from $y$ to $z$ in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$.

By Lemma  \ref{lem:banner_1} we may choose vertices $u\in N(y)\setminus N(x)$
and $w\in N(z)\setminus N(x)$.
Thus, $u, w \in \Gamma$.
We obtain a path from $y$ to $z$ by first going to $u$. Then, by Lemma \ref{prop:banner_outsidepath},  we can continue along  a path from $u$ to $w$ with all vertices in $\Gamma$. Finally we go from $w$ to $z$. Note that this path has no interior vertices in $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$.

Thus, together with the path $y \rightarrow  x \rightarrow z$ we have found $2d$ paths from $y$ to $z$ which by construction are independent. Also, $y$ and $z$ are not adjacent, so the path outside $\star_\Delta(x)$ has at least one inner vertex. This vertex and $x$ are both outside $\operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$, so $\Delta$ has more than $2d$ vertices.
\end{proof}

\section{Complexes with banner links}

By definition,  a one-dimensional pseudomanifold is banner if and only if
it is not the cycle graph $C_3$, the boundary of a triangle.
However, every one-dimensional pseudomanifold -- including the boundary of a triangle -- is
$2$-connected. This observation motivates including $C_3$ in the following definition.

\begin{definition}
Given a pure simplicial complex $\Delta$, let
\[
 b_{\Delta}= \min \{j  :  \operatorname{link}_\Delta(\sigma) \mbox{ is banner or $C_3$ for all } \sigma \in \Delta \mbox{ such
 that } |\sigma| = j \}.
\]
\end{definition}

We say that $b_{\Delta}$ is the {\em banner number} of $\Delta$.
Directly from the definition we get the following properties,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $0 \leq b_{\Delta} \leq d-1$,
\item $b_{\Delta} = 0 \Leftrightarrow \Delta$ is banner.
\end{enumerate}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:tentlinks}
Let $\Delta$ be a pure simplicial complex of dimension $d$ and let $\sigma \in \Delta$ be a face.
If $b_{\Delta} \geq |\sigma|$, then $b_{\operatorname{link}_\Delta(\sigma)} \leq b_{\Delta}- |\sigma|$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}

It is a consequence of Proposition  \ref{lem:banner_link} that the link of any face $\tau$ with
$|\tau | \ge b_{\Delta}$ is banner or $C_3$.
Let $\tau \in \operatorname{link}_\Delta(\sigma)$ be any face with $|\tau| \geq b_{\Delta} - |\sigma| \geq 0$. Then
$$\operatorname{link}_{\operatorname{link}_\Delta(\sigma)} (\tau) = \operatorname{link}_\Delta(\sigma \cup \tau)$$
is banner, because $|\sigma \cup \tau| = |\sigma| + |\tau| \geq b_{\Delta}$.
\end{proof}

We can now prove Theorem \ref{main}, stated in the introduction.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}]
We use induction on $b_{\Delta}$. If $b_{\Delta} = 0$, then $\Delta$ is banner and the statement follows from Theorem \ref{thm:bannergraph}.

Assume that $b_{\Delta} > 0$ and let $x \in \Delta$ be any vertex. Let $\Gamma = \operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$. By induction, ${\mathcal{G}}(\Gamma)$ is $(2(d-1)-b_{\Gamma})$-connected. Using Lemma \ref{lem:tentlinks}, we see that $2(d-1)-b_{\Gamma} \geq 2d - b_{\Delta} - 1$. Thus, ${\mathcal{G}}(\Gamma)$ is $(2d-b_{\Delta}-1)$-connected and has at least $2d - b_{\Delta}$ vertices. Together with $x$, then ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ has at least $2d-b_{\Delta}+1$ vertices.

If ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$ is complete, then we are done. If not, let $z,y \in \Delta$ be two vertices at distance $2$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$. Then we find a vertex $x \in \Delta$ such that $y,z \in \operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$ and again, let $\Gamma = \operatorname{link}_\Delta(x)$. By induction and Lemma \ref{lem:tentlinks}, there are $2d - b_{\Delta} - 1$ independent paths from $y$ to $z$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(\Gamma)$. Together with the path $y - x - z$, this gives us $2d - b_{\Delta}$ independent paths from $y$ to $z$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(\Delta)$. By Liu's Lemma \ref{liu}, this proves the result.
\end{proof}

\bigskip

\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.}
We want to thank C. Athanasiadis for bringing Barnette's Lemma \ref{lem:astar_sc}
to our attention, A. Goodarzi for suggesting Example \ref{rem0}, and S. Klee and I. Novik
for spotting an error in an earlier version. We also thank the anonymous referee who made made several
suggestions that led to improvements of the exposition.

Combinatorics (math.CO); Geometric Topology (math.GT)

On the connectivity of manifold graphs


Colored Multipermutations and a Combinatorial Generalization of Worpitzky's Identity

Abstract: Worpitzky's identity expresses $n^p$ in terms of the Eulerian numbers and binomial coefficients: $$n^p = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} \genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i} \binom{n+i}{p}.$$Pita-Ruiz recently defined numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ implicitly to satisfy a generalized Worpitzky identity $$\binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp},$$ and asked whether there is a combinatorial interpretation of the numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.We provide such a combinatorial interpretation by defining a notion of descents in colored multipermutations, and then proving that $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is equal to the number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents. We use this to give combinatorial proofs of several identities involving $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$, including the aforementioned generalized Worpitzky identity.

\section{Generalized Eulerian Numbers}

The famous \emph{Eulerian numbers} $\displaystyle\eu{p}{i}$ appear first in Euler's 1755 manuscript \emph{Institutiones calculi differentialis}~\cite{euler:foundations} and are now known to count a variety of combinatorial objects. The Eulerian numbers can be defined by the recurrence
\[
    \eu{p}{i} = (p-i)\eu{p-1}{i-1} + (i+1)\eu{p-1}{i}
\]
for $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, with $\displaystyle\eu{p}{0} = \displaystyle\eu{p}{p-1} = 1$ for $p \geq 1$.

Among the many identities involving the Eulerian numbers is Worpitzky's identity~\cite{worpitzky:identity},
\[
    n^p = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} \eu{p}{i}\binom{n+i}{p},
\]
which demonstrates that the Eulerian numbers are the necessary coefficients to write the powers $n^p$ using a basis of binomial coefficients. Moreover, an explicit formula is known:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-Eul}
    \eu{p}{i} = \sum_{j=0}^{i+1} (-1)^j \binom{p+1}{j} (i-j+1)^p.
\end{equation}
We refer interested readers to Petersen's excellent book \emph{Eulerian Numbers}~\cite{petersen:eulerian-numbers}.

In a recent pair of papers, Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps} defines a family of generalized Eulerian numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ and proves an incredible number of identities, explicit formulas, and recurrences. While there are many different generalizations of the Eulerian numbers (see~\cite{rzadkowski:generalization-euler} and the references therein), it is notable for the purposes of this paper that Pita-Ruiz's definition is not combinatorially-based, but rather an implicit definition  to satisfy a generalization of Worpitzky's identity:
\begin{equation}
\label{equation:def-of-A}
    \binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp}.
\end{equation}
Note that when $a=1$ and $b=0$, the left side involves powers of binomials $\displaystyle\binom{n}{r}$, and analytical proofs of equations involving summations of these powers, and some generalizations, were given by Alzer and Prodinger~\cite{alzer:combinatorial-identities} with corresponding combinatorial proofs given by Engbers and Stocker~\cite{engbers:two-comb-proofs, engbers:comb-proofs-Alzer-Prodinger}.

Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps} derives a summation formula
\[
    A_{a,b,r}(p,i) = \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p
\]
that bears some resemblance to the summation formula for the ordinary Eulerian numbers in \eqref{eq-Eul}, and asks whether there is a combinatorial interpretation of these numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.

One of the many interpretations of the ordinary Eulerian numbers is that $\displaystyle\eu{p}{i}$ is equal to the number of permutations of $\{1, \ldots, p\}$ with $i$ descents\footnote{A descent in a permutation $\pi = \pi(1)\cdots\pi(p)$ is a pair of consecutive entries $\pi(i)\pi(i+1)$ with $\pi(i) > \pi(i+1)$.}. In the following sections, we provide a combinatorial interpretation of $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.  In particular, we define a type of colored multipermutation with a generalized notion of a descent such that:

\emph{$A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is the number of colored multipermutations on $p$ symbols with multiplicity $r$, with $a$ colors, and with $i$ weak descents.}

We remark that $b$ is a parameter that varies the definition of a weak descent.

In Section \ref{sec:coloredmulti}, we describe the colored multipermutations that we use in our combinatorial interpretation, and then utilize these in Section \ref{sec:b=0} to provide the interpretation when $b=0$.  The extension to the case $0<b<a$, followed by remarks about $b \geq a$, appears in Section \ref{sec:b>0}.  Finally, in Section \ref{sec:Worpitzky} we use the combinatorial interpretation to provide a combinatorial proof of the generalized Worpitzky identity given in  Equation~\eqref{equation:def-of-A}.

\section{Colored Multipermutations}\label{sec:coloredmulti}

For positive integers $p$ and $r$, let $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ denote the multiset that contains $r$ copies of each element of $\{1, 2, \ldots, p\}$. A linear ordering of the elements of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ is called a \emph{multipermutation}; for example, $311232$ is a multipermutation of $\{1^2, 2^2, 3^2\}$.

A \emph{colored multipermutation with $a$ colors} is a multipermutation in which entry has been assigned one of $a$ colors. There are no restrictions to how these colors may be assigned. We represent the colors $c_1, \ldots, c_a$ as superscripts, e.g.,
\[
    \lc{3}{1}\lc{1}{5}\lc{1}{2}\lc{2}{7}\lc{3}{2}\lc{2}{2}
\]
can be considered a colored multipermutation of $\{1^2, 2^2,3^2\}$ with $9$ colors, even though we have only used four of the available colors. From these definitions, it can be readily seen that the number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors is
\[
    a^{rp} \frac{(rp)!}{(r!)^p}.
\]

In order to define the notion of a descent in a colored multipermutation, we define a natural ordering on the set of colored entries, which is the lexicographic order first on color, then on value:
\[
    \lc{1}{1} < \lc{2}{1} < \cdots < \lc{p}{1} < \lc{1}{2} < \lc{2}{2} < \cdots < \lc{p}{2} < \quad\cdots\quad < \lc{1}{a} < \lc{2}{a} < \cdots < \lc{p}{a}.
\]
A \emph{non-terminal descent} in a colored multipermutation is a pair of adjacent entries $\lc{i_1}{j_1}\lc{i_2}{j_2}$ such that $\lc{i_1}{j_1} > \lc{i_2}{j_2}$ according to the order defined above. Further, a \emph{non-terminal weak descent} (which could alternatively be called a \emph{non-terminal non-ascent}) is a pair of adjacent entries $\lc{i_1}{j_1}\lc{i_2}{j_2}$ such that $\lc{i_1}{j_1} \geq \lc{i_2}{j_2}$.

We now introduce one final parameter $b$ that determines whether or not there is a \emph{terminal descent} after the final entry of a colored multipermutation. Let $0 \leq b < a$ be an integer. The final entry $\lc{i}{j}$ is considered to be itself a terminal descent if its color has value greater than $b$, i.e., $j > b$. When $b=0$, for example, the final entry is always a terminal descent, while when $b = a-1$, the final entry is a terminal descent only if its color is $c_a$. The set of \emph{weak descents} consists of the set of non-terminal weak descents, together with the terminal descent if there is one. We call a colored multipermutation of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors ``$(p,r,a,b)$-type'' when its descents should be counted with respect to the parameter $b$.

The ideas of adding colors or multiplicity to permutations are not new---they have been studied in myriad combinations, including with regard to their descents (which have also been defined in many ways); see, e.g.,~\cite{park:r-multipermutations,moynihan:colored-eulerian-descent-algebra,chen:labeled-partitions-colored-perms, bagno:counting-descent-pairs}.

In the following sections, we prove that the family of numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ defined implicitly by Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps} to satisfy Equation~(\ref{equation:def-of-A}) has in fact a very nice combinatorial interpretation: {\em $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is the number of $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations with $i$ weak descents}. This  interpretation allows us to easily provide combinatorial proofs for several identities of Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps} involving $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.

\section{The $b=0$ Case}\label{sec:b=0}

We start with a thorough explanation of the case when $b=0$, from which the $0 < b < a$ case follows with only minor adaptations. When $b=0$, the last entry is always considered to be a weak descent. Recall that we call this the terminal weak descent and call all other weak descents non-terminal. The following theorem provides a formula for the number of colored multipermutations with a fixed number of non-terminal weak descents, and the simple corollary following it recovers combinatorially the formula of Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps}.

\begin{theorem}
    \label{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case}
    The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ non-terminal weak descents is
    \[
        \sum_{j=0}^{i+1 } (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j+1)}{r}^p.
    \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}

    Fix positive integers $r$, $p$, $a$, and $i$. We first define a \emph{segmented colored multipermutation} (SCM) with $i$ segments to be a colored multipermutation split into $i$ contiguous parts by $i-1$ dividing lines with the property that each segment contains no non-terminal weak descents. We call the dividing lines \emph{walls}. It is permissible for some segments to be empty, so that two or more walls are adjacent. For example,
    \[
        \lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}\lc{1}{3}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{2}{2}\lc{5}{2}\lc{5}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{5}{1}\lc{4}{2}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{3}{3}
    \]
    is an SCM with six segments (and thus five walls).
    Note that the underlying colored multipermutation contains only three non-terminal weak descents, found between the pairs of entries on either side of the first, third, and fifth walls.

    We call a wall in an SCM \emph{extraneous} if either of two conditions hold:
    \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
        \item the segments to the left and right are nonempty, and the deletion of the wall creates a larger segment with no non-terminal weak descents, or
        \item the segment to the left is empty.
    \end{enumerate}

    The first wall in the example SCM given above is not extraneous because its removal creates the segment
    \[
        \lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}\lc{1}{3}\lc{3}{3}
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}
    \]
    which contains the weak descent $\lc{3}{3}\lc{1}{1}$. On the other hand, the second wall is extraneous because its removal creates the segment
    \[
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}
        \lc{2}{2}\lc{5}{2}\lc{5}{3}
    \]
    which contains no weak descents. The fourth wall is extraneous because the segment to its left is empty, and the third and fifth walls are not extraneous.

    There is an obvious bijection
    between the set of $(p,r,a,0)$-type colored multipermutations with $i$ non-terminal weak descents and the set of SCMs with $i+1$ segments (thus $i$ walls) and no extraneous walls and whose underlying colored multipermutation has type $(p,r,a,0)$. This bijection is easily described as inserting or removing walls between all non-terminal weak descents. As a consequence, we focus now on the enumeration of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. With the aim of eventually applying the inclusion-exclusion principle, we start by calculating the enumeration of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no restriction on the number of extraneous walls.

    An SCM with $i+1$ segments whose underlying colored multipermutation has type $(p,r,a,0)$ can be constructed bijectively with the following procedure. Imagine that there are $i+1$ columns, each with $a$ bins, arranged from left-to-right as in Figure~\ref{figure:bins-1}.

    \begin{figure}[h]
        \begin{center}

            \begin{tikzpicture}
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                \node at (0.5, 1.85) {$\vdots$};
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);

                \begin{scope}[shift={(1.5,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \node at (0.5, 1.85) {$\vdots$};
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(4.5,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \node at (0.5, 1.85) {$\vdots$};
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);
                \end{scope}

                \node at (3.5, 0.2) {$\cdots$};
                \node at (3.5, 0.95) {$\cdots$};

                \node at (3.5, 2.45) {$\cdots$};

                \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $1$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (2, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $2$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $i+1$}};

                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $1$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 1) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $2$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 2.5) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $a$}};

                \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.9);
                \draw[gray] (2.75, -0.25) -- (2.75, 2.9);
                \draw[gray] (4.25, -0.25) -- (4.25, 2.9);
            \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \vspace*{-0.6cm}
        \captionsetup{width=.8\linewidth}
        \caption{An arrangement of $a(i+1)$ bins into $i+1$ columns and $a$ rows.}
        \label{figure:bins-1}
    \end{figure}

    Then, distribute $r$ copies of each of the symbols $1, 2, \ldots, p$ into these $a(i+1)$ bins such that each bin contains at most one copy of each symbol (but different symbols are allowed in the same bin). This can be done in $\binom{a(i+1)}{r}^p$ ways. An SCM is then formed from this choice by arranging the entries in each column in the unique manner with no non-terminal weak descents and concatenating the resulting words from left-to-right while placing a wall between the entries from each column. Figure~\ref{figure:bins-assignment} shows the assignment of entries to bins for $r = 3$ and $p = 5$ that results in the SCM used as an example above:
    \[
        \lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}\lc{1}{3}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{2}{2}\lc{5}{2}\lc{5}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{5}{1}\lc{4}{2}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{3}{3}.
    \]
    This shows that the number of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no constraints on the number of extraneous walls is $\binom{a(i+1)}{r}^p$.

    \begin{figure}[h]
        \begin{center}
            \begin{tikzpicture}
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $1$}};
                \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.15);
                \node at (0.5, 0.25) {\footnotesize \textsf{2}\;\;\!\textsf{4}};
                \node at (0.5, 1) {\footnotesize };
                \node at (0.5, 1.75) {\footnotesize \textsf{1}\;\;\!\textsf{3}};

                \begin{scope}[shift={(1.5,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $2$}};
                    \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.15);
                    \node at (0.5, 0.25) {\footnotesize \textsf{1}\;\;\!\textsf{2}\;\;\!\textsf{4}};
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(3.0,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $3$}};
                    \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.15);
                    \node at (0.5, 1) {\footnotesize \textsf{2}\;\;\!\textsf{5}};
                    \node at (0.5, 1.75) {\footnotesize \textsf{5}};
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(4.5,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $4$}};
                    \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.15);
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(6.0,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $5$}};
                    \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 2.15);
                    \node at (0.5, 0.25) {\footnotesize \textsf{1}\;\;\!\textsf{5}};
                    \node at (0.5, 1) {\footnotesize \textsf{4}};
                    \node at (0.5, 1.75) {\footnotesize \textsf{3}};
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(7.5,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25);
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $6$}};
                    \node at (0.5, 1.75) {\footnotesize \textsf{3}};
                \end{scope}

                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $1$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 1) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $2$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 1.75) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $3$}};

            \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \vspace*{-0.6cm}
        \captionsetup{width=.8\linewidth}
        \caption{An assignment of the elements of $\{1^3,2^3,3^3,4^3,5^3\}$ into an arrangement of bins with $6$ columns and $3$ rows.}
        \label{figure:bins-assignment}
    \end{figure}

    Define the \emph{position} of a wall in an SCM to be the number of entries to its left. For example, in an SCM whose underlying colored multipermutation has $rp$ entries, a wall to the left of all entries is in position $0$ and a wall to the right of all entries is in position $rp$. Two walls can be in the same position if the segment between them is empty.

    For any set $S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}$ let $A_S$ denote the set of SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments such that there is at least one extraneous wall in each position in $S$. There are permitted to be extraneous walls in other positions as well. The set $A_{\emptyset}$ consists of all SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments. Now set
    \begin{align*}
        Q &= A_{\emptyset} \smallsetminus \bigcup_{\substack{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}\\S \neq \emptyset}} A_S\\
        &= \bigcap_{\substack{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}\\S \neq \emptyset}} \overline{A_S}.
    \end{align*}
    The set $Q$ consists of the SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. We observed earlier that $Q$ is in bijection with the set of objects we wish to count, the colored multipermutations with exactly $i$ non-terminal weak descents. By the inclusion-exclusion principle, the size of $Q$ can be calculated by
    \[
        |Q| = \sum_{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}|A_S|,
    \]
    and so it remains only to determine $|A_S|$. For this we define one final bijection, inspired by the proof of Theorem 1.11 in B\'ona's \emph{Combinatorics of Permutations}~\cite{bona:combinatorics-of-permutations}.

    For any set $S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}$, define a function $g_S$ whose domain is $A_S$ and whose codomain is the set of $(p, r, a, 0)$-type SCMs with $i+1-|S|$ segments as follows. For $\alpha$ in the domain of $g_S$, form $\beta$ by deleting one wall in each of the positions in $S$. Since $\alpha$ must have at least one extraneous wall in each of the positions in $S$ (by the definition of $A_S$), the result $\beta$ is a valid SCM with $i-|S|$ walls and thus $i+1-|S|$ segments. The inverse map takes as input an SCM $\beta$ with $i-|S|$ walls and adds one wall in each position of $S$ (if a wall is already present, the added wall is placed on the right of the existing wall). Each added wall is then guaranteed to be extraneous, and the resulting SCM has $i+1$ segments.

    We have already calculated earlier in this proof that the number of SCMs with $\ell$ segments is $\binom{a\ell}{r}^p$, and thus the bijection above demonstrates that
    \[
        |A_S| = \displaystyle\binom{a(i+1-|S|)}{r}^p.
    \]

    Plugging this into the result of the inclusion-exclusion above yields
    \begin{align*}
        |Q| &= \sum_{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}|A_S|\\

        &= \sum_{j=0}^{i+1} (-1)^j\binom{rp+1}{j}\binom{a(i-j+1)}{r}^p,
    \end{align*}
    which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
    The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents is
    \[
        \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)}{r}^p,
    \]
    and this quantity is equal to $A_{a,0,r}(p,i)$ as defined by Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
    The statement of the corollary differs from the statement of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case} in three ways: ``$i$ non-terminal weak descents'' has been replaced by ``$i$ weak descents'', the upper bound of summation has changed from $i+1$ to $i$, and the upper term in the second binomial coefficients has changed from $a(i-j+1)$ to $a(i-j)$.

    The quantity given in Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case} counts the number of $(p, r, a, 0)$ colored multipermutations with $i$ non-terminal weak descents, and since the final entry of such a colored multipermutation is always a descent, this can be accounted for by shifting the $i$-index by one, giving
    \[
        \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)}{r}^p = A_{a,0,r}(p,i)
    \]
    as claimed.
\end{proof}

\section{The $0 < b < a$ Case}\label{sec:b>0}

We now adapt the proof from the previous section to allow for the case where $b$ is constrained by $0 < b < a$.

\begin{theorem}
    \label{theorem:main-b-neq-0}
    Suppose $0 < b < a$. The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents, with the consideration that the final position is considered a weak descent if and only if the color of the last entry has value strictly greater than $b$, is
    \[
       \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p,
    \]
    and this quantity is equal to $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ as defined by Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
    As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case}, we start by defining an auxiliary object. A $b$-segmented colored multipermutation ($b$-SCM) with $i$ segments is as before, a colored multipermutation split into $i$ contiguous parts by $i-1$ dividing lines with the property that each segment contains no weak descents, together with the additional constraint that the color of all entries in the final segment must have color value at most $b$. The example
     \[
        \lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}\lc{1}{3}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{2}{1}\lc{4}{1}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{2}{2}\lc{5}{2}\lc{5}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{1}{1}\lc{5}{1}\lc{4}{2}\lc{3}{3}
        \,\Bigg|\,
        \lc{3}{3}
    \]
    used previously, for which the color of the final entry has value $3$, is a $3$-SCM, but is neither a $1$-SCM nor a $2$-SCM. A wall is called \emph{extraneous} if one of three conditions hold (the first two being identical to those in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case}):
    \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
        \item the segments to the left and right are nonempty, and the deletion of the wall creates a larger segment with no weak descents,
        \item the segment to the left is empty, or
        \item the wall is the final wall, the segment to its right is empty, and the segment to its left contains only entries whose color value is at most $b$.
    \end{enumerate}
    If the example above contained a wall in the final position, that wall would be extraneous when $b \geq 3$ (because in this case there is \emph{not} a descent in the final position) and non-extraneous when $b=1,2$ (because in this case there is).

    We claim at this point that the set of $(p,r,a,b)$-colored multipermutations with $i$ weak descents is equinumerous to the set of $b$-SCMs with $i+1$ segments, no extraneous walls, and whose underlying colored multipermutation has $(p,r,a,b)$ type. The bijection mimics that from the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-equals-0-case}---a colored multipermutation is mapped to a $b$-SCMs by adding walls between each weak descent and adding a wall after the last entry if it has color value strictly greater than $b$; a $b$-SCM with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls is mapped to a colored multipermutation by simply removing the walls.

    To complete the proof, we must enumerate the set $Q$ of $b$-SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. Turning again to the inclusion-exclusion principle, for any set $S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}$ define $A_S$ to be the set of $b$-SCMs of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1$ segments such that there is at least one extraneous wall in each position in $S$. Then,
    \[
        |Q| = \sum_{S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}} (-1)^{|S|} |A_S|.
    \]
    We can determine $|A_S|$ as before by observing that $A_S$ is in bijection with the set of $b$-SCMs of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1-|S|$ segments, the bijection again involving just adding/removing the extraneous walls.

    To construct a $b$-SCM of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1-|S|$ segments, start by considering $i+1-|S|$ columns of bins, the first $i-|S|$ each containing $a$ bins and the final containing only $b$ bins, as shown in Figure~\ref{figure:bins-assignment-b-neq-0}. Out of the $a(i-|S|)+b$ bins, we must choose $r$ in which to place $1$, $r$ in which to place $2$, etc., yielding a total of
    \[
        \binom{a(i-|S|)+b}{r}^p
    \]
    placements. Each placement corresponds uniquely to a $b$-SCM with $i+1-|S|$ segments by assigning colors to each entry according to which bin they are in, ordering the entries in each column in the unique way with no weak descents, and lining them up from left to right with a wall between each grouping.

    \begin{figure}[ht]
        \begin{center}
            \begin{tikzpicture}
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                \node at (0.5, 1.15) {$\vdots$};
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                \node at (0.5, 2.6) {$\vdots$};
                \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,3) rectangle (1,3.5);

                \node at (2.0, 0.2) {$\cdots$};
                \node at (2.0, 1.85) {$\cdots$};
                \node at (2.0, 3.15) {$\cdots$};

                \begin{scope}[shift={(3.0,0)}]
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \node at (0.5, 1.15) {$\vdots$};
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                    \node at (0.5, 2.6) {$\vdots$};
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,3) rectangle (1,3.5);
                \end{scope}

                \begin{scope}[shift={(4.5,0)}]
                   \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,0) rectangle (1,0.5);
                    \node at (0.5, 1.15) {$\vdots$};
                    \draw[thick,darkgray,rounded corners=0.5ex] (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
                \end{scope}

                \node[darkgray] at (0.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column $1$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (3.5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column}};
                \node[darkgray] at (3.5, -0.5) {\scriptsize \texttt{$i-|S|$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (5, -0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{column}};
                \node[darkgray] at (5, -0.5) {\scriptsize \texttt{$i-|S|+1$}};

                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 0.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $1$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 1.75) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $b$}};
                \node[darkgray] at (-0.6, 3.25) {\scriptsize \texttt{color $a$}};

                \draw[gray] (1.25, -0.25) -- (1.25, 3.65);
                \draw[gray] (2.75, -0.25) -- (2.75, 3.65);
                \draw[gray] (4.25, -0.25) -- (4.25, 3.65);
            \end{tikzpicture}
        \end{center}
        \vspace*{-0.6cm}
        \captionsetup{width=.8\linewidth}
        \caption{An arrangement of $a(i-|S|)+b$ bins into $i-|S|+1$ columns. The first $i-|S|$ columns have $a$ bins each, while the last has $b$ bins.}
        \label{figure:bins-assignment-b-neq-0}
    \end{figure}

    As each set $|A_S|$ is in bijection with the set of $b$-SCMs with $i+1-|S|$ segments, we conclude that
    \begin{align*}
        |Q| &= \sum_{S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}\binom{a(i-|S|)+b}{r}^p\\
        &= \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j\binom{rp+1}{j}\binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p
    \end{align*}
    as desired.
\end{proof}

Since the total number of $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations is independently known, Theorem~\ref{theorem:main-b-neq-0} admits as a corollary a nice binomial identity, which is analytically proved in~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps}.

\begin{corollary}
    Suppose $0 \leq b < a$. Then
    \[
        \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p = a^{rp} \frac{(rp)!}{(r!)^p}.
    \]
\end{corollary}

The definition of $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ given by Pita-Ruiz~\cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps} does not constrain $b$ to be less than $a$, as we have here. We believe that a combinatorial interpretation of the case $b \geq a$ ($b \in \mathbb{Z}$) similar to the ones we have given here could be found, although the modifications to the definition of descents --- beyond terminal and non-terminal --- seem less straight-forward. Furthermore, as Pita-Ruiz shows in \cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian}, the numbers $A_{1,4,3}(p,i)$ include negative entries, which obviously complicates any combinatorial explanation.  In this present work, we simply note that the simplification
\[
    \binom{an + b}{r}^p = \binom{a\left(n + \lfloor b/a \rfloor\right) + \left(b - a\lfloor b/a \rfloor\right)}{r}^p
\]
reduces the general case to the cases we have discussed here; when $b \geq a$,  the bins interpretation of Figure \ref{figure:bins-assignment-b-neq-0} would necessitate a final column that is taller than the others.  The algebraic manipulation above reflects the fact that, if the notion of ``weak descent'' is suitably redefined, the bins in the final column can be split into some positive number of full columns with $a$ bins each, and a final column with fewer than $a$ bins.

\section{A Combinatorial Proof of the Generalized Worpitzky Identity}
\label{sec:Worpitzky}
The ideas of the previous sections allow us to give a combinatorial derivation of the generalized Worpitzky identity in Equation~\eqref{equation:def-of-A} as well as for a summed version. (See \cite{engbers:two-comb-proofs} for the case $a=1$ and $b=0$.)

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:sum}
Suppose $n \geq 0$, $a \geq 1$, $p \geq 1$, $r \geq 1$, and $0 \leq b < a$.  Then
\[
\sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{ak+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+1+rp-i}{rp+1}.
\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Consider an arrangement of bins with $n+1$ columns and $a$ bins per column, as in Figure~\ref{figure:bins-1}.

An \emph{admissible} bin placement is one formed in the following way:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
    \item designate one column, say column $k+1$;
    \item amongst the $ak+b$ bins comprising the leftmost $k$ columns and the bottommost $b$ bins of column $k+1$, place $r$ copies of $1$, $r$ copies of $2$, etc.; and
    \item place one extra $1$ in bin $b+1$ of column $k+1$.
\end{enumerate}
We remark that each admissible bin placement corresponds to an \emph{augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation}, which takes a $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation and appends $1^{c_{b+1}}$ to the end.  We now count admissible bin placements in two ways.

The first way is quite simple. Fixing the designated column $k+1$, there are $\binom{ak+b}{r}^p$ ways to distribute $r$ copies of each of the $p$ symbols into the $ak+b$ permitted bins. Summing over all possible designated columns gives the left side of the identity.

Alternately, we may count admissible bin placements by partitioning the set of all bin placements in the following way.  We group together those bin placements whose augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations have exactly $i+1$ weak descents. Note that there is always a terminal weak descent after the final entry $1^{c_{b+1}}$ in an augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation, as the color has value larger than $b$.  Further, the augmented element $1^{c_{b+1}}$ assures that the final position of the (non-augmented) $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation is a weak descent if and only if the color of the last entry has value strictly greater than $b$, and so by Theorem \ref{theorem:main-b-neq-0} there are $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ such augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations with $i+1$ weak descents.

Given a fixed augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation with exactly $i+1$ weak descents, we must enumerate the number of ways of assigning columns to the entries to recover the bin placements. Therefore, we must assign columns to each of the $rp+1$ entries of the augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation under the restriction that the columns not decrease when read from left-to-right.  Once the columns are chosen for each element, the bin is determined by the color.

We now calculate the number of ways that columns can be assigned to the elements of an augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation. Each non-terminal weak descent $i_1^{c_{j_1}} i_2^{c_{j_2}}$ requires $i_1$ and $i_2$ to lie in distinct columns, while for each ascent $i_3^{c_{j_3}} i_4^{c_{j_4}}$ the symbols $i_3$ and $i_4$ may either occur within a single column or span multiple columns. Suppose that exactly $\ell$ columns out of the total of $n+1$ contain at least one symbol. This can only be done if $\ell \geq i+1$ as each non-terminal weak descent forces a transition from one column to the next, and this further implies that exactly $\ell-(i+1)$ of the $rp+1-(i+1)=rp-i$ ascents span multiple columns. Therefore, the number of such column assignments is
\[
    \sum_{\ell=i+1}^{n+1} \binom{n+1}{\ell}\binom{rp-i}{\ell-i-1} = \sum_{\ell=i}^{n+1} \binom{n+1}{\ell}\binom{rp-i}{rp-\ell+1} = \binom{n+1+rp-i}{rp+1}.
\]
Each choice of columns corresponds to a unique admissible bin placement, and each admissible bin placement is represented by such a choice of columns. This gives the right side of the identity.
\end{proof}

A combinatorial proof of the generalization of Worpitzky's identity from \eqref{equation:def-of-A} follows quickly from the ideas contained in the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:sum}.

\begin{porism}
Suppose $n \geq 0$, $a \geq 1$, $p \geq 1$, $r \geq 1$, and $0 \leq b < a$.  Then
\[
\binom{an+b}{r}^{p} = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp}.
\]
\end{porism}

\begin{proof}
Consider only the admissible bin placements from the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:sum} in which the designated column is $n+1$. The number of ways to assign $r$ copies of each of the $p$ symbols into the $an+b$ total boxes is $\binom{an+b}{r}^p$, the left side of the identity.

As before, we find the right side of the identity by counting the number of ways that columns can be assigned to each of the entries. Here we must add the condition that the final column must be one of those that is selected. Thus, in this case, the number of such column assignments is
\[
  \sum_{\ell=i+1}^n \binom{n}{\ell-1}\binom{rp-i}{\ell-i-1} = \sum_{\ell=i+1}^n \binom{n}{\ell-1}\binom{rp-i}{rp-\ell+1} = \binom{n + rp - i}{rp}.
\]
The remaining details are identical to the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:sum}.
\end{proof}

At this point, it is worth mentioning that the form of the generalization of Worpitzky's identity in Equation~\eqref{equation:def-of-A} is motivated by $f$-Eulerian numbers \cite{pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian,stanleyec1}. An alternate way to generalize Worpitzky's identity, fitting work from \cite{engbers:two-comb-proofs}, would be to define numbers $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ by
\[
    \binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A'_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+i}{rp}.
\]
The translation here is $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i) = A_{a,b,r}(p,rp-i)$, and so this would lead to an interpretation of $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i)$  involving ``ascents'' instead of ``weak descents.''  We leave the details to the interested reader.