Minimal Euclidean representations of graphs

Abstract: A simple graph G is said to be representable in a real vector space of dimension m if there is an embedding of the vertex set in the vector space such that the Euclidean distance between any two distinct vertices is one of only two distinct values a or b, with distance a if the vertices are adjacent and distance b otherwise. The Euclidean representation number of G is the smallest dimension in which G is representable. In this note, we bound the Euclidean representation number of a graph using multiplicities of the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix. We also give an exact formula for the Euclidean representation number using the main angles of the graph.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

Recently, Nguyen Van Th\'e \cite{NguyenVanThe08} revived a problem of representing graphs in Euclidean space, which, according to Pouzet \cite{Pouzet79}, was originally introduced by Specker before 1972.

A simple graph is \defn{representable} in $\re^m$ if there is an embedding of the vertex set in $\re^m$ and distinct positive constants $\al$ and $\be$ such that for all vertices $u$ and $v$,
\[
\nrm{u-v} = \begin{cases}
\al, & u \sim v; \\
\be, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
(Here $\nrm{x} := \sqrt{x^Tx}$.) We will call the smallest $m$ such that $G$ is representable in $\re^m$ the \defn{Euclidean representation number} of $G$ and denote it $\Rep(G)$. The complete graph $K_n$ and its complement, the empty graph, are representable in $\re^{n-1}$ via a regular simplex. By a bound on the size of a Euclidean $1$-distance set \cite{Bannai83,Blokhuis84}, they are not representable in smaller dimensions, so $\Rep(K_n) = n-1$. Nguyen Van Th\'e \cite{NguyenVanThe08} showed that if $G$ is a graph on $n$ vertices that is not the complete graph or empty graph, then $\Rep(G) \leq n-2$. Here, we use the multiplicities of the smallest and second smallest eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix $A(G)$ to give upper and lower bounds for the representation number. The main result is the following.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:summary}
Let be $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices which is not complete or empty. If $G$ or its complement is the disjoint union of complete graphs, $r$ of which are of maximal size, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-\max\{r,2\}.
\]
Otherwise, let $m_1$ and $m_2$ respectively denote the multiplicity of the smallest and second smallest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of $G$, and similarly define $\overline{m_1}$ and $\overline{m_2}$ for the complement of $G$. Then
\[
n-1-\max\{m_1,\overline{m_1},m_2+1,\overline{m_2}+1\} \; \leq \; \Rep(G) \; \leq \; n-\max\{m_1,\overline{m_1},2\}.
\]
If $G$ is regular, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-1-\max\{m_1,\overline{m_1}\}.
\]
\end{theorem}

To get a precise characterization for irregular graphs, we must consider not just the eigenvalues but the actual eigenspaces, or at the very least, the main angles of eigenspaces. An exact formula for the representation number is given below in Theorem \ref{thm:representation}.

It is not surprising that the Euclidean representation number of a graph is closely related to the multiplicity of the smallest eigenvalue. If $\tau_1$ is the smallest eigenvalue of $A(G)$, then the positive semidefinite matrix $A(G) - \tau_1 I$ is the Gram matrix of a set of $n$ vectors in $\re^{n-m_1}$. This technique is perhaps the most common method of embedding a graph in a vector space and it plays a critical role in, for example, the characterization of graphs with least eigenvalue $\tau_1 \geq -2$ and the theory of two-graphs and equiangular lines \cite{Cameron91,Cvetkovic95,Godsil01}.

Any representation of a graph in $\re^m$ is by definition a \defn{Euclidean $2$-distance set}: a set of vectors such that only two nontrivial distances occur between vectors \cite{Bannai83,Blokhuis84}. Conversely, the distance relation of any Euclidean $2$-distance set of size $n$ defines an $n$-vertex graph. The problem of finding the largest $2$-distance set (and its corresponding graph) in a given dimension $m$ has been well studied, but to our knowledge the issue in this paper --- finding the smallest dimension for a given graph --- has not previously been resolved. On the other hand, the main tool used in this paper, namely the Euclidean distance matrix, has been applied to $s$-distance sets quite often (see for example Larman, Rogers, and Seidel \cite{Larman77}). Moreover, there is a related problem in graph network theory that has received considerable attention: given a graph, and specifying the length of each edge, find an embedding of the graph in $\re^m$ \cite{Alfakih98}. That problem is NP-hard \cite{Saxe79}.

Theorem \ref{thm:summary} says in particular that a graph with all simple eigenvalues (eigenvalues with multiplicity $1$) has Euclidean representation number $n-2$ or $n-3$. Since eigenvalues of a random graph are almost surely simple, Nguyen Van Th\'e's upper bound of $\Rep(G) \leq n-2$ is often tight. (For the distribution of eigenvalues in random graphs see Chung, Lu \& Vu \cite{Chung03}.) In fact, Theorem \ref{thm:representation} shows that almost surely, the representation number of a random graph is $n-2$. It seems that only special graphs, such as line graphs or graphs with a high degree of regularity or symmetry, can be represented in smaller dimensions.

\section{General graphs}\label{sec:general}

We characterize representations of $G$ using Euclidean distance matrices. An $n \times n$ matrix $M$ is a \defn{Euclidean distance matrix} of a set of $n$ vectors in $\re^m$ if the rows and columns of $M$ are indexed by the vectors, and $M_{u,v} = ||u-v||^2$. Thus every Euclidean distance matrix is nonnegative with zero diagonal.

Let $A := A(G)$ denote the adjacency matrix of $G$, let $J$ denote the all-ones matrix and let $\overline{A} := J-I-A$ be the adjacency matrix of the complement of $G$. Then up to scaling, the Euclidean distance matrix of a representation of $G$ has the form $M = A + b\overline{A}$, for some $b > 0$ and $b \neq 1$. The smallest dimension $m$ such that $M$ is the distance matrix of a set of points in $\re^m$ is called the \defn{embedding dimension} of $M$ or \defn{dimensionality} of $M$ \cite{Gower85,Hayden91}. Therefore the Euclidean representation number of $G$ is the smallest embedding dimension of a Euclidean distance matrix representing $G$.

We will use two characterizations of Euclidean distance matrices: the first is due to Schoenberg \cite{Schoenberg38}. Let $\one$ denote the all-ones vector and let $P := I - \frac{1}{n}\one\one^T$, the projection matrix for the space $\one^\perp$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:edmchar}
Let $M$ be a symmetric matrix zero diagonal and positive off-diagonal entries. Then $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if $PMP$ is negative semidefinite (that is, $M$ is negative semidefinite on $\one ^\perp$). The embedding dimension of $M$ is the rank of $PMP$.
\end{theorem}

The second characterization is a generalization of Schoenberg's due to Gower \cite{Gower85,Gower82}.

\begin{theorem}
Let $M$ be a symmetric matrix zero diagonal and positive off-diagonal entries. For any real vector $v$ such that $v^T\one = 1$, let
\[
F := (I - \one v^T)M(I - v\one^T).
\]
Then $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if $F$ is negative semidefinite. The embedding dimension of $M$ is the rank of $F$.
\label{thm:edmchar2}
\end{theorem}

In order to give a complete description of the representation number, we will also use the main angles \cite[Chapter 5]{Cvetkovic97} of a graph $G$. It will be convenient to order the distinct eigenvalues of $A(G)$ from smallest to largest as $\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots,\tau_s$. Given an eigenvalue $\tau_i$, with an eigenspace $E_i$ and projection matrix $P_i$ onto that eigenspace, the \defn{main angle} of $\tau_i$ is
\[
\be_i := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\nrm{P_i \one}.
\]
Note that $0 \leq \be_i \leq 1$, and $\be_i = 0$ if and only if $E_i \subseteq \one^\perp$. In particular $\be_s > 0$, as the largest eigenvalue $\tau_s$ has an eigenvector with nonnegative entries by the Perron-Frobenius Theorem (see \cite[Theorem 0.2]{Cvetkovic95} or \cite[Theorem 8.2.11]{Horn85}). Also note that if $G$ has $n$ vertices, then
\[
n \be_i^2 = \max_{\substack{v \in E_i \\ v^Tv = 1}} (v^T\one)^2 = \max_{v \in E_i} \frac{(v^T\one)^2}{v^Tv}
\]
and likewise
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n \be_i^2} = \min_{v \in E_i} \frac{v^Tv}{(v^T\one)^2} = \min_{\substack{v \in E_i \\ v^T\one = 1}} v^Tv.
\label{eqn:mainvaluechar}
\end{equation}
If $\be_i \neq 0$, then $\tau_i$ is called a \defn{main eigenvalue} of $G$.

We now consider Euclidean distance matrices of the form $M = A + b\overline{A}$. If $b = 1$, then $M = J-I$, which is not the distance matrix of a valid representation of a graph unless $G$ is the complete or empty graph. Therefore there are two separate cases: $b > 1$ and $0< b < 1$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $b > 1$, provided that we also consider Euclidean representations of the complement of $G$.

Any graph which is not a disjoint union of complete graphs has at least one eigenvalue smaller than $-1$ (see \cite[Exercise 3.1]{Cameron91} or \cite[Chapter 1, Proposition 6.1]{Beineke04}).

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:edmtau}
Let $G$ be a graph which is not the disjoint union of complete graphs and let $\tau_1 < -1$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $A$, with multiplicity $m_1$ and main value $\be_1$. If $b = \tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$, then $M = A + b\overline{A}$ is a Euclidean distance matrix. The embedding dimension of $M$ is $n-m_1-1$ if $\be_1 = 0$ and $n-m_1$ otherwise.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $b = \tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$ and $\tau_1 < -1$, then $b > 1$. Let
\[
M = A + b\overline{A} = (1-b)A - bI + bJ.
\]
Since $b > 0$, $M$ has positive off-diagonal entries. Therefore $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if $PMP$ is negative semidefinite.
Instead of $M$, consider
\[
X := (1-b)A - bI.
\]
$X$ has largest eigenvalue $(1-b)\tau_1 - b = 0$. Therefore $X$ is negative semidefinite, so $PXP = PMP$ is also negative semidefinite. Thus $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix.

By Theorem \ref{thm:edmchar}, the embedding dimension of $M$ is the rank of $PMP = PXP$. Since $X$ is negative semidefinite, say $X = -U^TU$, the rank of $PXP = -PU^TUP$ is the rank of $UP$. The null space of $U$ is $N(X) = E_1$, the eigenspace of $\tau_1$. Therefore the null space of $UP$ is $\langle\one\rangle \oplus (E_1 \cap \one^\perp)$. The dimension of this space is $m_1+1$ if $\be_1 = 0$ and $m_1$ otherwise.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Consider $G = \overline{C_6}$, the complement of the cycle graph on six vertices. The eigenvalues of this graph are $\{3, 1, 0, 0, -2, -2\}$, so $m_1 = 2$. Moreover, $\one$ is an eigenvector for the eigenvalue $3$, so $E_1$ is contained in $\one^\perp$ and $\be_1 = 0$. By Lemma \ref{lem:edmtau}, $M = A + 2\overline{A}$ is a Euclidean distance matrix of embedding dimension $3$. On the other hand, consider $G = 2P_3$, the disjoint union of 2 paths of 3 vertices each. The eigenvalues are $\{\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2},0,0,-\sqrt{2},-\sqrt{2}\}$, so again $m_1 = 2$. However, $E_1$ is not contained in $\one^\perp$, so $\be_1 > 0$ and the embedding dimension of $M = A + (2+\sqrt{2})\overline{A}$ is $4$.
\end{example}

In addition to $b = \tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$, there is a second choice of $b$ that sometimes results in a distance matrix with small embedding dimension: $b = \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:edmtau2}
Let $\tau_i$ denote the $i$-th smallest distinct eigenvalue of $A$, with multiplicity $m_i$ and main angle $\be_i$. Assume $\tau_2 < -1$, and let $b = \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$ and $M = A + b\overline{A}$. Then $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if $m_1 = 1$, $\be_2 = 0$, and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\be_1^2}{\tau_2-\tau_1} \geq \sum_{i \geq 3} \frac{\be_i^2}{\tau_i-\tau_2}.
\label{eqn:tau2cond}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the embedding dimension of $M$ is either $n-m_2-2$ if equality holds in \eqref{eqn:tau2cond} and $n-m_2-1$ otherwise.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $\eps_i := \tau_i(1-b) - b = (\tau_i - \tau_2)/(\tau_2+1)$. Since $\tau_i$ is the $i$-th smallest eigenvalue of $A$, $\eps_i$ is the $i$-th largest eigenvalue of $X = (1-b)A - bI$. Let $E_i$ denote the eigenspace of $\eps_i$.

Since $\eps_1 > 0$ and $\eps_2 = 0$, we have $x^TXx \geq 0$ for every $x$ in $E_1 \oplus E_2$, with equality if and only if $x$ is in $E_2$. If $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix, then $X$ is negative semidefinite on $\one^\perp$. So, any $x \in (E_1 \oplus E_2) \cap \one^\perp$ satisfies $x^TXx = 0$ and is therefore in $E_2$. That is, $(E_1 \oplus E_2) \cap \one^\perp \subseteq E_2$. Since the dimension of $(E_1 \oplus E_2) \cap \one^\perp$ is at least $\dim(E_2) + \dim(E_1) - 1 \geq \dim(E_2)$, it follows that $(E_1 \oplus E_2) \cap \one^\perp = E_2$. Therefore $\dim(E_1) = 1$, $E_1 \nsubseteq \one^\perp$, and $E_2 \subseteq \one^\perp$. In other words, $m_1 = 1$, $\be_1 \neq 0$, and $\be_2 = 0$.

Now, suppose $m_1 = 1$, $\be_1 \neq 0$, and $\be_2 = 0$. Let $v_1$ be the eigenvalue in $E_1$, normalized so that $v_1^T\one = 1$. By Theorem \ref{thm:edmchar2}, $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if
\[
F := (I - \one v_1^T)M(I - v_1\one^T) = (I - \one v_1^T)X(I - v_1\one^T)
\]
is negative semidefinite. Note that $Fv_1 = 0$, and for any $v_2 \in E_2 \subseteq \one^\perp$, $Fv_2 = 0$. Therefore is suffices to consider if $x^TFx \leq 0$ for $x$ of the form $x = \sum_{i\geq3} a_iv_i$, with $v_i \in E_i$. Without loss of generality, assume $x^T\one = 1$ and $v_i^T \one = 1$, so $\sum_{i \geq 3} a_i = 1$. Then
\[
x^TFx = \sum_{i \geq 3}a_i^2\eps_i(v_i^Tv_i) + \eps_1(v_1^Tv_1).
\]
Using the main values of $A$ as in \eqref{eqn:mainvaluechar}, the smallest value of $v_i^Tv_i$ ($i \geq 3$) is $1/n\be_i^2$. So, $F$ is negative semidefinite if and only if
\begin{equation}
\max_a \sum_{i \geq 3}a_i^2\eps_i/\be_i^2 + \eps_1/\be_1^2 \text{ subject to } \sum_{i \geq 3} a_i = 1
\label{eqn:quadmax}
\end{equation}
is nonpositive. This quadratic optimization problem (see for example \cite[Chapter 9]{Wismer78}) obtains its maximum at $a_i = -c\be_i^2/\eps_i$, where $c$ is a normalization constant $c = 1/(\sum_{i \geq 3} -\be_i^2/\eps_i)^2$. Plugging this maximum into \eqref{eqn:quadmax}, we find that $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix if and only if
\[
\frac{1}{-\sum_{i \geq 3}\be_i^2/\eps_i} \geq \eps_1/\be_1^2,
\]
from which \eqref{eqn:tau2cond} follows.

If equality holds in \eqref{eqn:tau2cond}, then the choice of $x = \sum_{i\geq3} a_iv_i$ with equality satisfies $x^TFx = 0$ and therefore $Fx = 0$. In this case, the null space of $F$ contains $x$, $E_1$, and $E_2$, so the embedding dimension is $n-m_2-2$. Otherwise, the null space of $F$ is $E_1 \oplus E_2$ and the embedding dimension is $n-m_2-1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Consider $G = G_1$ in Figure \ref{fig:sevenverts}. The eigenvalues of $G$ are $\{3.694$, $1.252,0.618, -1, -1.618, -1.946\}$, with multiplicities $\{1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1\}$ and main values $\{0.955, 0.124, 0, 0, 0, 0.269\}$ respectively. It follows that inequality \eqref{eqn:tau2cond} holds without equality, so by Lemma \ref{lem:edmtau2}, $M = A + 2.618\overline{A}$ is a Euclidean distance matrix of embedding dimension $n-m_2-1 = 5$. On the other hand, consider $G = G_2$ in Figure \ref{fig:sevenverts}. The eigenvalues are $\{(1+\sqrt{21})/2$, $(-1+\sqrt{5})/2, 0, (-1-\sqrt{5})/2, (1-\sqrt{21})/2\}$, with multiplicities $\{1,1, 3, 1, 1\}$ and main values
\[
\Big\{\sqrt{\tfrac{10 + 2\sqrt{21}}{21 + \sqrt{21}}}, 0, \sqrt{\tfrac{1}{5}}, 0, \sqrt{\tfrac{34 - 6\sqrt{21}}{105 + 5\sqrt{21}}}\Big\}
\]
respectively. Equality holds in \eqref{eqn:tau2cond}, so $M = A + \tfrac{1}{2}(3+\sqrt{5})\overline{A}$ is a Euclidean distance matrix of embedding dimension $n-m_2-2 = 4$.
\end{example}

\begin{figure}
\center{\includegraphics[width=100mm]{figure1.eps}}
\caption{graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ have representations in $\re^{n-m_2-1}$ and $\re^{n-m_2-2}$ respectively.\label{fig:sevenverts}}
\end{figure}

Next, we show that a Euclidean distance matrix of the form $M = A + b\overline{A}$ can not have small embedding dimension unless $b = \tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$ or $b = \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$. (For related results about eigenvalues of Euclidean distance matrices, see \cite{Larman77,Neumaier81}.)

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:edmsmaller}
Let $b > 1$ and let $M = A + b\overline{A}$ be a Euclidean distance matrix. If $\tau_2$ denotes the second smallest distinct eigenvalue of $A$ and $\tau_2 < -1$, then $b \leq \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$. Moreover, the embedding dimension of $M$ is at least $\rk(X)-2$, where $X = (1-b)A - bI$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $\eps_1 := \tau_1(1-b) - b$ and $\eps_2 := \tau_2(1-b) - b$. Since $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are the smallest and second smallest eigenvalues of $A$, $\eps_1$ and $\eps_2$ are largest and second largest eigenvalues of $X = (1-b)A - bI$. Now $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix, so $X$ is negative semidefinite on $\one^\perp$. Since $\one^\perp$ is a space of dimension $n-1$, it follows that $X$ can have at most one positive eigenvalue. Thus $\eps_2 \leq 0$, which implies $b \leq \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$.

The embedding dimension of $M$ is the rank of $PMP = PXP$. Since $P$ has rank $n-1$, we see that $\rk(XP) \geq \rk(X) - 1$ and $\rk(PXP) \geq \rk(XP)-1 \geq \rk(X) -2$.
\end{proof}

We combine the results of Lemmas \ref{lem:edmtau}, \ref{lem:edmtau2} and \ref{lem:edmsmaller} to find the choice of $b>1$ in $M = A + b\overline{A}$ that gives the best representation of $G$. Nguyen Van Th\'e \cite{NguyenVanThe08} showed that $\Rep(G) \leq n-2$. Lemma \ref{lem:edmsmaller} shows that in order of find a smaller representation, we must choose $b$ such that $X = (1-b)A - bI$ has less than full rank. But $\rk(X) < n$ only if $b = \tau_i/(\tau_i+1)$, where $\tau_i$ is some eigenvalue of $A$. Moreover, by Lemma \ref{lem:edmsmaller}, $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix with $b > 1$ only if $b \leq \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$. So the only possible choices of $b$ are $\tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$ and $\tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$. When $b = \tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$, Lemma \ref{lem:edmtau} shows that $M$ is a Euclidean distance matrix and the embedding dimension is either $n-m_1$ or $n-m_1-1$. When $b = \tau_2/(\tau_2+1)$, Lemma \ref{lem:edmtau2} shows that $M$ is sometimes a Euclidean distance matrix, with embedding dimension of $M$ is either $n-m_2-1$ or $n-m_2-2$.

By considering both $G$ and its complement, this gives a complete description of Euclidean representation number of $G$, which we now summarize as a theorem.

Recall that for any graph, the smallest eigenvalue $\tau_1$ is at most $-1$, with equality if and only if $G$ is a disjoint union of complete graphs. Now consider the largest component of such a disjoint union (that is, the complete subgraph with the most number of vertices). If $G$ has $r$ such components of largest size, then the largest eigenvalue of $A$ has multiplicity $r$ and the smallest eigenvalue $\overline{\tau_1}$ of $\overline{A}$ has multiplicity $r-1$. Moreover, it is not difficult to verify that the eigenspace of $\overline{\tau_1}$ is orthogonal to $\one$, so the Euclidean distance matrix given in Lemma \ref{lem:edmtau} for the complement of $G$ has embedding dimension $n-(r-1)-1 = n-r$. This representation is optimal provided that $r \geq 2$. When $G$ is not a disjoint union of complete graphs, the optimal representation either has dimension $n-2$ or occurs when $b \in \{\tau_1/(\tau_1+1)$, $\tau_2/(\tau_2+1)\}$, for either $G$ or its complement.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:representation}
Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and $e$ edges. If $G$ or its complement is the complete graph, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-1.
\]
If $G$ or its complement is the disjoint union of at least $2$ complete graphs, $r$ of which are of largest size, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-\max\{r,2\}.
\]
Otherwise, let $\tau_i$ be the $i$-th smallest distinct eigenvalue of $A = A(G)$, with multiplicity $m_i$ and main value $\be_i$. Define
\[
m_1' := \begin{cases}
m_1+1, & \text{if } \be_1 = 0; \\
m_1, & \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
and
\[
m_2' := \begin{cases}
m_2 + 2, & \text{if } \tau_2 < -1, m_1 = 1, \be_2 = 0, \text{ and } \tfrac{\be_1^2}{\tau_2-\tau_1} = \sum_{i \geq 3} \tfrac{\be_i^2}{\tau_i-\tau_2}; \\
m_2 + 1, & \text{if } \tau_2 < -1, m_1 = 1, \be_2 = 0, \text{ and } \tfrac{\be_1^2}{\tau_2-\tau_1} > \sum_{i \geq 3} \tfrac{\be_i^2}{\tau_i-\tau_2}; \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
Similarly define $\overline{m_1}'$ and $\overline{m_2}'$ for the complement of $G$. Then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-\max\{m_1',m_2',\overline{m_1}',\overline{m_2}',2\}.
\]
\end{theorem}

As an application of Theorem \ref{thm:representation}, consider line graphs. If $G$ is a graph with $n$ vertices and $e$ edges, then the \defn{line graph} $L(G)$ is the graph whose vertices are the edges of $G$, with two edges adjacent if and only if they share a common vertex in $G$. The line graph has $e$ vertices and has smallest eigenvalue $\tau_1 = -2$, with multiplicity $m_1$ at least $e-n$. (This result is due to Sachs \cite{Sachs67}; see also \cite[Theorem 3.8]{Biggs93}.) If follows that $L(G)$ is representable in $\re^n$. More precisely, let $B$ denote the $n \times e$ unoriented incidence matrix of $G$ (the matrix in which $B_{ij} = 1$ if vertex $i$ is incident with edge $j$ and $B_{ij} = 0$ otherwise). Then the adjacency matrix of $L(G)$ is $B^TB - 2I$, so $m_1 = e-\rk(B)$. Moreover, the rank of the incidence matrix of $G$ is easy compute: if $r$ denotes the number of connected components of $G$ that are bipartite, then the rank of $B$ is $n-r$ (see \cite[Theorem 8.2.1]{Godsil01}). Finally, the $\tau_1$-eigenspace $E_1$ of $L(G)$ is orthogonal to $\one$ \cite[Corollary to Theorem 3.38]{Cvetkovic95}, so the representation number of $G$ is $e-m_1-1$, provided that $m_1 \geq \overline{m_1}$. We have:

\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices, $e$ edges, and $r$ bipartite connected components. Then
\[
\Rep(L(G)) \leq n-1-r.
\]
If $e \geq 2(n-r)$, then $\Rep(L(G)) = n-1-r$.
\end{corollary}

Theorem \ref{thm:representation} gives the Euclidean representation number of $G$ in terms of the eigenspaces of $G$ and its complement. In general, there is a relationship between the eigenspace of $\tau_i$ for $A$ and the eigenspace of $-\tau_i-1$ for $\overline{A}$: their dimensions differ by at most one (see \cite{Cvetkovic71} or \cite[Theorem 2.5]{Cvetkovic95}). More generally, the spectrum of the complement of $G$ is determined by the eigenvalues, multiplicities, and main angles of $G$. The following observation is due to Cvetkovic and Doob (\cite{Cvetkovic85}, see also \cite[Proposition 4.5.2]{Cvetkovic97}).

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:complement}
Let $G$ be a graph with distinct eigenvalues $\{\tau_i\}$, multiplicities $m_i$, and main angles $\be_i$, so the characteristic polynomial of $G$ is $P_G(x) = \prod_i (x-\tau_i)^{m_i}$. Then
\[
P_{\overline{G}}(x) = (-1)^nP_G(-x-1) \left(1 - n\sum_i \frac{\be_i^2}{x+1+\tau_i}\right).
\]
\end{theorem}

\section{Regular graphs} \label{sec:regular}

A graph is \defn{regular} if every vertex has the same degree (number of neighbours). For regular graphs, the formula for the Euclidean representation number of a graph in Theorem \ref{thm:representation} depends only on the multiplicities of the eigenvalues rather than both the multiplicities and the main angles.

If $G$ is regular and the disjoint union of $r$ complete graphs, then $G = rK_{n/r}$. Here $G$ and its complement have representation number $n-r$ (each $K_{n/r}$ is represented in $\re^{n/r-1}$ as a regular simplex, and each component is embedded into a distinct orthogonal subspace of $\re^{n-r}$.) Otherwise, assume $G$ is regular of degree $k$. Then $A\one = k\one$, so $\one$ is an eigenvector of $A$. It follows that the eigenspace of $\tau_1$ is contained in $\one^\perp$ and $\be_1 = 0$. From Theorem \ref{thm:representation}, we see that the representation number any regular $G$ which is not a disjoint union of complete graphs or its complement is
\[
\Rep(G) = n-1-\max\{m_1,\overline{m_1}\}.
\]

Moreover, the eigenvalues of $A$ precisely determine the eigenvalues of $\overline{A}$. The following now standard result is due to Sachs \cite{Sachs62}. (The result follows from Lemma \ref{thm:complement}, but for a combinatorial proof, see \cite[Theorem 2.6]{Cvetkovic95}).

\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be an $n$-vertex $k$-regular graph with (not necessarily distinct) eigenvalues $\la_1 = k, \la_2,\ldots,\la_n$, where $\la_i \geq \la_{i+1}$. Then the eigenvalues of $\overline{A}$ are $n-k-1$,$-\la_n-1$,\ldots,$-\la_2-1$.
\end{theorem}

As before, denote the $s$ distinct eigenvalues of $G$ by $\tau_1 < \ldots < \tau_s = k$ with multiplicities $m_1,\ldots,m_s$ respectively. If $G$ is connected, then the multiplicity $\overline{m_1}$ of the smallest eigenvalue of $\overline{A}$ is exactly $m_{s-1}$, the multiplicity of the second largest eigenvalue of $A$. If $G$ is disconnected, then $\overline{m_1} = m_s-1$, where $m_s$ is the multiplicity of $\tau_s = k$ and is also the number of components in $G$. Combining these observations, we have:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:regrepresentation}
Let be $G$ be a regular graph on $n$ vertices. If $G = rK_{n/r}$ ($r \neq n$) or its complement, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-r.
\]
Otherwise, let $m_1$ and $m_{s-1}$ be the multiplicities of the smallest and second largest distinct eigenvalues of $G$. If $G$ is connected, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-1-\max\{m_1,m_{s-1}\}.
\]
If $G$ is disconnected with $r$ components, then
\[
\Rep(G) = n-1-\max\{m_1,r-1\}.
\]
\end{theorem}

For more information about the smallest and second largest eigenvalues, see the survey by Seidel \cite{Seidel89}.

By way of application, consider strongly regular graphs; for background, see \cite{Cvetkovic95}, \cite{Godsil01}, or \cite{Biggs93}. A strongly regular graph $G$ with parameters $(n,k,\la,\mu)$ is a graph with $n$ vertices and valency $k$ such that two distinct vertices have $\la$ common neighbours if they are adjacent and $\mu$ common neighbours otherwise. Such a graph has only two eigenvalues other than $k$, which have multiplicities
\[
m_1,m_2 = \frac{1}{2} \left(n-1 \pm \frac{(n-1)(\mu-\la) - 2k}{\sqrt{(\mu-\la)^2 + 4(k-\mu)}}\right).
\]
The only disconnected strongly regular graph is $rK_{n/r}$, which has representation number $n-r$. Excluding $rK_{n/r}$ and its complement, we have the following:

\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a strongly-regular graph which is not a complete multipartite graph or its complement, and has parameters $(n,k,\la,\mu)$. Then
\[
\Rep(G) = \frac{1}{2} \left(n-1 - \frac{\abs{(n-1)(\mu-\la) - 2k}}{\sqrt{(\mu-\la)^2 + 4(k-\mu)}}\right).
\]
\end{corollary}

\begin{example}
The Petersen graph has eigenvalues $3$, $1$, and $-2$, with multiplicities $1$, $5$, and $4$ respectively. Therefore it is representable in $\re^4$ \cite{Lisonek97}.
\end{example}

More generally, given the intersection array of a distance-regular graph $G$, one may readily compute the eigenvalues and multiplicities of $G$ and use Theorem \ref{thm:regrepresentation} to find the Euclidean representation number of $G$. For example, $C_n$, the cycle on $n$ vertices, is a distance-regular graph whose second largest eigenvalue has multiplicity $2$. So for $n \geq 5$, $C_n$ is representable in $\re^{n-3}$.

As another application, consider the following theorem of Petersdorf and Sachs (\cite{Petersdorf70}, see also \cite[Proposition 16.6]{Biggs93}). A graph is \defn{vertex-transitive} is its automorphism group acts transitively on the vertices.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:vertextransitive}
Let $G$ be a vertex-transitive graph of degree $k$ and $n$ vertices, and let $\tau_i$ be a simple eigenvalue of $G$. If $n$ is odd, then $\tau_i = k$. If $n$ is even, then $\tau_i = 2\al - k$, where $\al$ is an integer between $0$ and $k$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a vertex-transitive graph other than the complete or empty graph, and $G$ has an odd number of vertices $n$, then $G$ is representable in $\re^{n-3}$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
The smallest eigenvalue of $G$ has multiplicity at least $2$. If $G$ is $rK_{n/r}$ or its complement, then $r$ is an odd number, so $r \geq 3$ and therefore $\Rep(G) = n-r \leq n-3$. Otherwise, the result follows from Theorems \ref{thm:regrepresentation} and \ref{thm:vertextransitive}.
\end{proof}

In a similar vein, a graph $G$ is \defn{symmetric} if for all vertices $w,x,y,z$, if $w \sim x$ and $y \sim z$, then there is a an automorphism of $G$ mapping $w$ to $y$ and $x$ to $z$. Every symmetric graph is vertex-transitive. The following theorem due to Biggs \cite[Proposition 16.7]{Biggs93}.

\begin{theorem}
If $G$ is a symmetric graph of degree $k$ and $\tau_i$ is a simple eigenvalue of $G$, then $\tau_i = \pm k$.
\end{theorem}

The eigenvalue $\tau_1 = -k$ occurs in a $k$-regular graph if and only if the graph is bipartite.

\begin{corollary}
If $G$ is a non-bipartite symmetric graph on $n$ vertices, and $G$ is not $K_n$ or $2K_{n/2}$, then $G$ is representable in $\re^{n-3}$.
\end{corollary}

\section{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank Lionel Nguyen Van Th\'e, Chris Godsil, and an anonymous referee for their helpful input. This research is supported by NSERC, MITACS, PIMS, iCORE, and the University of Calgary Department of Mathematics and Statistics Postdoctoral Program.

\input{embedding7arxiv.bbl}

\end{document}


Weakly saturated random graphs

Abstract: As introduced by Bollobás, a graph $G$ is weakly $H$-saturated if the complete graph $K_n$ is obtained by iteratively completing copies of $H$ minus an edge. For all graphs $H$, we obtain an asymptotic lower bound for the critical threshold $p_c$, at which point the Erdős--Rényi graph ${\mathcal G}_{n,p}$ is likely to be weakly $H$-saturated. We also prove an upper bound for $p_c$, for all $H$ which are, in a sense, strictly balanced. In particular, we improve the upper bound by Balogh, Bollob{á}s and Morris for $H=K_r$, and we conjecture that this is sharp up to constants.

\section{Introduction}\label{S_intro}

The concept of {\it weak saturation} was introduced
and studied in early work of Bollob{\'a}s \cite{B65}.
Given graphs $G$ and $H$, the graph $\l G\r_H$ is obtained
by iteratively completing copies of $H$ minus an edge, starting with $G$.
Formally, set $G_0=G$, and for $t\ge1$, construct $G_t$ by adding every edge
not in $G_{t-1}$ which if added creates a new copy of $H$.
We let $\l G\r_H=\bigcup_{t} G_t$ denote the result of this procedure.
If $\l G\r_H$ is the complete graph on the vertex set of $G$, that is, if
all missing edges are eventually added,
we say that $G$ is {\it weakly $H$-saturated,} or that it {\it $H$-percolates}.

This procedure
can be viewed as a type of cellular automaton  \cite{U50,vN66},
of which bootstrap percolation
\cite{PRK75,CLR79,vE87,AL88,S92,H03,BBDCM12}
is a well-studied example.
With this in mind, Balogh, Bollob{\'a}s and Morris \cite{BBM12}
introduced a random process called {\it graph bootstrap percolation,}
taking $G$ above to be the
Erd{\H{o}}s--R{\'e}nyi \cite{ER59} graph $\G_{n,p}$.
The critical point $p_c$, at which $\G_{n,p}$ is likely
to $H$-percolate, is defined formally as
\[
p_c(n, H)=\inf\{p>0:\P(\l\G_{n,p}\r_{H}=K_n)\ge1/2\}.
\]
For $r\ge5$,
$p_c(n,K_r)$ is estimated in \cite{BBM12}
up to poly-logarithmic multiplicative factors.
Our first result locates the critical threshold up to constant
factors,
answering Problem~3 in \cite{BBM12}.

For a graph $H$, let $v_H$ and $e_H$ denote the number of
vertices and edges in $H$. We put $\lambda=(e_H-2)/(v_H-2)$.

\begin{thm}\label{T_main}
For $r\ge5$,
 $p_c(n,K_r)=\Theta(n^{-1/\lambda})$.
\end{thm}

The cases $r\ge5$ behave similarly, however very differently than
$r\le4$. Another result of \cite{BBM12} estimates
$p_c(n,K_4)$ up to constant factors, and recent work
\cite{AK17,AK18,K17} shows that
$p_c\sim1/\sqrt{3n\log n}$.
A graph $K_3$-percolates if and only if it is connected,
so it follows $\P(\l\G_{n,p}\r_{K_3}=K_n)\to \exp(-e^{-c})$ if $p=(\log n +c)/n$
by the fundamental work \cite{ER59}.
All graphs $K_2$-percolate (any missing edge is added at time $t=1$)
so trivially $p_c(n,K_2)=0$.

The upper bound for $p_c$ proved in \cite{BBM12} holds
for a more general class of graphs.
We note that $H$-percolation is trivial if $v_H\le3$
or if the minimum
degree $\delta_H=1$. In the latter
case, it is easy to see (Proposition 26 in \cite{BBM12})
that $p_c$ essentially coincides with the threshold for
a copy of $H$ minus an edge in $\G_{n,p}$. That is,
$p_c=\Theta(n^{-1/\lambda'})$, where
$\lambda'=\min_{e\in H}\max_{F\subset H\setminus e}e_F/v_F$.
We therefore assume throughout this work
that $\delta_H\ge2$ and $v_H\ge4$.
In particular, this implies $\lambda\ge1$.

\begin{defn}\label{D_bal}
We say that a graph $H$ is {\it balanced} if
$(e_F-1)/(v_F-2)\le \lambda$
for all proper subgraphs $F\subset H$
with $v_F\ge 3$.
\end{defn}

This is related to the
notion of a {\it $2$-balanced} graph $G$,
such that
$(e_F-1)/(v_F-2)$ is maximized (over $F\subset G$
with $v_F\ge 3$) when $F=G$.
This concept plays a role in \cite{BMS15,CG16,ST15,S16},
for example,
where the maximal number of edges in an
$H$-free subgraph (Tur\'an's problem) of $\G_{n,p}$
is studied.
Indeed, a graph $H$ is balanced as above if and only if
$H\setminus e$ is 2-balanced, for all edges $e\in H$.
It also follows that $H$ is connected.
See \cref{A_supp} for a proof of these facts.

Balanced graphs are studied in \cite{BBM12}, however, with the
extra requirement that  $e_H\ge2(v_H-1)$,
as this condition (implying $\lambda\ge2$) is used in the
proof of their Lemma 6.
We find this to be unnecessary, see
\cref{L_Hladder} below.
For balanced graphs, it is shown in \cite{BBM12}
(see Proposition 3)
that $p_c(n,H)\le n^{-1/\lambda+o(1)}$.

On the other hand, the lower bound (when $H=K_r$)
relies on a so-called
{\it witness set algorithm,} which assigns to each $e\in\l G\r_H$
a {\it witness graph} $W_e\subset G$ such that $e\in\l W_e\r_H$.
These graphs are defined in time with the dynamics, and
most importantly, satisfy an Aizenman--Lebowitz \cite{AL88}
type property (the maximum size grows by at most a factor of $e_H$
in each time step, see \cref{L_HAL} below) thus allowing standard
techniques from bootstrap percolation theory to intervene.
A lower bound for $p_c$ is obtained using this, together with
the fact (Lemma 9 in \cite{BBM12}) that if $H=K_r$
then a witness graph on $k$ vertices has at least
$\lambda(k-2)+1$ edges.
The verification of this fact, however,
is somewhat abstract and lengthy.
The authors state that
``the proof is delicate,
and does not seem to extend easily to other graphs.''

In this work, we present a short and simple proof
(\cref{L_HREA} below)
that works
directly with the dynamics, and naturally for {\it all} graphs $H$.
Moreover, the argument allows for an analysis of witness graphs with
a given number of edges, which is key to
finding the sharp lower bound in \cref{T_main}.
(The upper bound is more technical, involving
two applications of the second moment method,
see \cref{L_UBstrict} below.)
We expect our techniques to be useful for analyzing graph
bootstrap percolation in more general settings.

\begin{defn}
For a graph $H$, we put
\[
\lambda_*
=
\min\frac{e_H-e_{F}-1}{v_H-v_{F}}
\]
minimizing over all subgraphs $F\subset H$ with
$2\le v_F<v_H$.
\end{defn}

It is easy to see that $\lambda_*\le\lambda$, with equality
if and only if $H$ is balanced (see \cref{L_lamstar}).
In \cref{S_REA} below, we show that
a witness graph $W_e$ for some $e\in\l G\r_H$
with $k$ vertices has at least $\lambda_*(k-v_H)+e_H-1$ edges.
Note that $K_r$ is balanced, and so this reduces to $\lambda(k-2)+1$
in that case, recovering Lemma 9 in \cite{BBM12}.
A general lower bound follows.

\begin{thm}\label{T_LBgen}
For any graph $H$,
$p_c(n,H)\ge\Omega(n^{-1/\lambda_*}(\log{n})^{1/\lambda_*-1})$.
\end{thm}

As a result, we partially answer Problem 1 in \cite{BBM12}.

\begin{corollary}\label{C_Hmain}
If $H$ is balanced then $p_c(n,H)=n^{-1/\lambda+o(1)}$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{defn}
We call $H$ {\it strictly balanced}
if the inequality $(e_F-1)/(v_F-2)< \lambda$
is strict
in \cref{D_bal}.
\end{defn}
For such graphs $H$,
we establish
sharper results.

\begin{thm}\label{T_Hmain}
If $H$ is strictly balanced then
$p_c(n,H)=\Theta(n^{-1/\lambda})$.
\end{thm}

Since $H=K_r$ is strictly balanced, for all $r\ge5$, we
obtain \cref{T_main} as a special case.
The graph $H=K_4$ is balanced, but not strictly.
In this case, the lower bound given by \cref{T_LBgen}
includes the correct poly-logarithmic factor.
We also note that Bayraktar and Chakraborty \cite{BC19}
recently studied the complete bipartite case.
Extending the arguments in \cite{BBM12} for $H=K_r$ to $K_{r,s}$,
they find $p_c$
up to poly-logarithmic factors in the balanced case (partially answering
Problem 5 in \cite{BBM12}).
By  \cref{T_LBgen,C_Hmain,T_Hmain}, we recover these results
(and improve the poly-logarithmic factors in their bounds).

Bidgoli et al.\ \cite{BMTR18}
obtained some results when $H=K_{2,t}$.
For these unbalanced graphs, even finding
the correct power $\gamma$ in $p_c=n^{-1/\gamma+o(1)}$ remains open.
In \cite{BBM12}, the ``double barbell'' $H=DD_r$ (two copies of
$K_r$, $r\ge4$, joined by a pair of disjoint edges)
is given as an example of an (unbalanced)
graph for which $p_c=n^{-1/\gamma+o(1)}$, with
$\gamma\in(\lambda',\lambda)$ (recall $\lambda'$ defined above \cref{D_bal}).
We note that, in this instance, $\gamma=[{r\choose2}+1]/r=\lambda_*$.
Towards a full solution to Problem 1 in \cite{BBM12},
it would be interesting to determine the class of graphs for which
$p_c=n^{-1/\lambda_*+o(1)}$.

\section{A general lower bound}\label{L_LBgen}

\subsection{Witness graphs}
In \cite{BBM12}
the {\it witness set algorithm (WSA)}
is introduced, which
assigns a {\it witness graph} $W_e\subset G$ to each $e\in\l G\r_H$
such that $e\in\l W_e\r_H$.
These graphs are defined in time with the dynamics.
Let $E_t$ denote the set of edges in $G_t\setminus G_{t-1}$
added at time $t$.
For edges $e\in G$, we put $W_e=e$.
For $e\in E_t$, $t\ge1$, let
$W_e=\bigcup_{f\in H_e\setminus e} W_f$, where
$H_e$ is a copy (chosen arbitrarily if not unique)
of
$H$ completed by $e$ at time $t$.
Since $H_e\setminus e\subset G_{t-1}$, the procedure
is well-defined.

\begin{defn}
For a witness graph $W_e$, we define $v_W-2$, the number of vertices
in $W_e$ besides the endpoints of $e$, to be its {\it size}.
\end{defn}

(The ``size'' of a graph often refers to its number of edges,
however, we do not follow this
convention in the current article.)

A key property of this construction is the
following Aizenman--Lebowitz \cite{AL88} type property
(cf.\ Lemma 13 in \cite{BBM12}), as is easily observed.

\begin{lem}\label{L_HAL}
Suppose that  $W_e$ for some $e\in \l G\r_H$
is of size at least $k$. Then, for some
$k'\in[k,e_Hk]$, there is an $f\in \l G\r_H$
so that $W_f$ is of size $k'$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $M_t$
be the maximal size of a witness graph $W_f$, for $f\in G_t$.
Note that $M_0=0$ and $M_1=v_H-2$ (assuming $E_1\neq\emptyset$).
Then for any $e\in E_{t+1}$, $t\ge1$,
$W_e$ is of size at most
$v_H-2+(e_H-1)M_t\le e_H M_t$, since
$M_t\ge M_1 =v_H-2$.
\end{proof}

In \cite{BBM12} a lower bound for $p_c$, in the special case of $H=K_r$,
is obtained using this observation together with a lower bound for the number
of edges in a witness graph. Specifically, it is shown that if $W_e$
is of size $k$, then it has at least $\lambda k+1$ edges.
To this end, a certain
reparametrization of WSA, called the
{\it red edge algorithm (REA),} is introduced that is more amenable
to analysis.
This procedure describes the formation of
$W_e$ one step at a time:
Slow down the dynamics so that edges $e_1,\ldots,e_m=e$
are added in order, until finally $e$ is added.
In the $j$th step,
a copy $H_j$ of $H$ is added, and
one of its {\it new} edges $e_j\in H_j\setminus \bigcup_{i<j}H_i$
is colored red.
Red edges are in $\l G\r_H\setminus G$.
We obtain $W_e$ by removing all the red edges,
$W_e=\bigcup_{j=1}^m H_j\setminus \{e_j\}_{j=1}^m$.

\subsection{REA, revisited}\label{S_REA}

Recall the definition of $\lambda_*$ given in \cref{S_intro}.
In this section, we prove the following result.

\begin{prop}\label{P_lamstar}
If $W_e$ is a witness graph for an edge  $e\in\l G\r_H$ on $k\ge v_H$
vertices, then
$W_e$ has at least $\lambda_*(k-v_H)+e_H-1$ edges.
\end{prop}

The next lemma shows, in particular, that
\[
\lambda_*(k-v_H)+e_H-1\ge \lambda_*(k-2)+1
\]
with equality if $H$ is balanced.

\begin{lem}\label{L_lamstar}
We have $\lambda_*\le \lambda$, with equality if and only
if $H$ is balanced.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The case that $F=e\in H$ shows that $\lambda_*\le \lambda$.
To see the second claim, note that, for $F\subset H$ with $3\le v_F<v_H$,
\[
\lambda = \frac{e_H-\lambda(v_F-2)-2}{v_H-v_F}\le \frac{e_H-e_F-1}{v_H-v_F}
\]
if and only if $\lambda(v_F-2)\ge e_F-1$.
\end{proof}

Since $K_r$ is balanced,  and so $\lambda_*=\lambda$ in this case,
we obtain Lemma 9 in \cite{BBM12} as a special case
of \cref{P_lamstar}.

We note here that our general lower bound \cref{T_LBgen} for $p_c$
follows by
\cref{L_HAL,P_lamstar}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{T_LBgen}]
Fix $e\in K_n$.
Let $p=\alpha n^{-1/\lambda_*}(\log{n})^{1/\lambda_*-1}$.
We show that, for $\alpha>0$ sufficiently small,
$e\notin \l\G_{n,p}\r_H$ with high probability.

If $e\in\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$ then
by \cref{L_HAL}
either (1) $e\in\G_{n,p}$, (2)
$W_e$ is of size $k\in[v_H-2,\log n]$, or else,
(3) some $W_f$ is of size
$k'\in(\log{n},e_H\log n]$.
By \cref{P_lamstar},
a witness graph of size $k$ has at least $\lambda_*k+1$
edges.
There are
$kO(k^{\lambda_*})^k$  (using ${n\choose \ell}\le (ne/\ell)^\ell$)
graphs
with exactly $\lambda_*k+1$ edges
on a given set of $k+2$ vertices. Therefore, taking a union bound,
\begin{align*}
\P(e\in\l\G_{n,p}\r_H)&\le p+p\sum_k kO(np^{\lambda_*} k^{\lambda_*-1})^k
+n^2p\sum_{k'} k'O(np^{\lambda_*} (k')^{\lambda_*-1})^{k'}\\
&\le O[p(\log n)^2(1+n^{2+\log O(\alpha)})]\ll1
\end{align*}
for $\alpha$ sufficiently small.
\end{proof}

We turn now to the proof of \cref{P_lamstar}.
As in \cite{BBM12},
it is useful to consider a sequence ${\mathcal H}_1,\ldots,{\mathcal H}_m$ of hyper-graphs
associated with REA. After $j$ steps, the copies $H_1,\ldots,H_j$
of $H$ have been added.
Let ${\mathcal H}_j$ denote the uniform hyper-graph with a hyper-edge
for each $H_i$, $i\le j$, containing all $e_H$ of its edges as vertices.
We put ${\mathcal H}_e={\mathcal H}_m$.
For a connected component ${\mathcal C}$ in some ${\mathcal H}_j$,
we refer to $C=\bigcup_{H_i\in{\mathcal C}} H_i$ as the corresponding
{\it component}.
Note that different components $C_1, C_2$ can share vertices (but not edges).

By induction it follows that, for any $e\in\l G\r_H$, the hyper-graph
${\mathcal H}_e$
is connected. Indeed, simply recall that
$W_e=\bigcup_{f\in H_e\setminus e} W_f$, and note that each
$W_f$ has an edge $f\in H_e$.
Therefore we obtain \cref{P_lamstar} by the next result
(which also implies Lemma~10 in \cite{BBM12} as a special case,
once the terminology there is unpacked).

\begin{lemma} \label{L_HREA}
Let $W_e$ be a witness graph for an edge  $e\in\l G\r_H$ on $k\ge v_H$
vertices.
Then, after any number of steps of the corresponding instance of REA,
any component $C$
has at least $\lambda_*(v_C-v_H)+e_H-1$ non-red edges.
\end{lemma}

\begin{defn}\label{D_lamstar}
We let ${\mathcal V}_*\subset\{2,\ldots,v_H-1\}$ be the set
for which $\lambda_*$ is attained by some subgraphs $F\subset H$ with
$v_F\in{\mathcal V}_*$. We put
\[
\xi=
\min \frac{e_H-e_{F}-1}{v_H-v_{F}}
-\lambda_*
\]
minimizing over $F\subset H$ with
$v_F\in\{2,\ldots,v_H-1\}\setminus {\mathcal V}_*$.
\end{defn}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{L_HREA}]
The proof is by induction on the number of steps $j$ taken.
The base case $j=1$ is trivial, since
$H_1\setminus e_1$ has $v_H$ vertices and $e_H-1$ edges.
Likewise, the same reasoning applies if in some step $j>1$ a new
component is created.
Hence suppose that in step $j>1$, the addition of $H_j$ causes
exactly $h\ge1$ (edge-disjoint) components $C_1,\ldots, C_h$
(each with at least one edge in $H_j$) to merge with $H_j$
into a single component $C$.
By assumption, we assume that the $C_i$
have $k_i$ vertices and
$\lambda_* (k_i-v_H)+e_H-1+\ell_i$ non-red edges, for some $\ell_i\ge0$.
Let $k$ denote the number of vertices in $C$.
Note that
\[
k=v_H+\sum_i[
k_i-\varepsilon_i-\delta_i]
\]
where  $\varepsilon_i$ is the number of vertices in $C_i\cap H_j$, and
$\delta_i$ is the number of vertices in
$C_i\cap\left(\bigcup_{i'<i}C_{i'}\setminus H_j\right)$.
To complete the proof, we show that $C$ has at least
$\lambda_*(k-v_H)+e_H-1$ non-red edges.

{\it Case 1.} If $H_j\setminus e_j$ is contained in some component
then necessarily $h=1$, since the components $C_i$ are edge-disjoint.
In this case, the result follows immediately,
since then $k=k_1$ and a single red edge (and no black edge)
is added to form $C$.

{\it Case 2.} On the other hand, suppose that no $C_i$ contains
$H_j\setminus e_j$.
It is more convenient to first add $H_j$ and color $e_j$ red,
and then merge the $C_i$ one at a time.
In these time-reversed dynamics, any edge in
$C_i\cap H_j$ that is red in $C_i$ remains red after merging.
Initially, we have the $e_H-1$ non-red edges in
$H_j$. In the $i$th sub-step,
$k_i-\varepsilon_i-\delta_i$ vertices are added.
Note that, by the choice of $\lambda_*$ and $\xi$,
at least
\[
(v_H-\varepsilon_i)(\lambda_*+\xi{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i\notin {\mathcal V}_*})+{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i=v_H}
\]
of the
$e_H-1$
edges in $H_j\setminus e_j$
are not in $C_i$.
Therefore, since the $C_{i'}$ are edge-disjoint,
the number of non-red edges increases by at least
\begin{equation}\label{E_REA}
\lambda_*(k_i-\varepsilon_i)+\ell_i
+(v_H-\varepsilon_i)\xi{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i\notin {\mathcal V}_*}+{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i=v_H}
\end{equation}
in the $i$th sub-step.
Altogether $C$ has $k$ vertices and at least
\[
[\lambda_*(k-v_H)+e_H-1]
+\sum_i[\ell_i+\lambda_*\delta_i
+(v_H-\varepsilon_i)\xi{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i\notin {\mathcal V}_*}+{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i=v_H}]
\]
non-red edges.
\end{proof}

\section{Lower bound for strictly balanced $H$}\label{L_LBstrict}

In this section, we prove the lower bound in \cref{T_Hmain},
showing that $p_c\ge\Omega(n^{-1/\lambda})$ for strictly
balanced graphs.
Recall the quantities ${\mathcal V}_*$ and $\xi$
introduced in \cref{S_REA} above, and that $\lambda_*=\lambda$
when $H$ is balanced (\cref{L_lamstar}).
Note that $H$ is balanced if $2\in {\mathcal V}_*$ and strictly balanced if
${\mathcal V}_*=\{2\}$.

\subsection{Witness graph combinatorics}

To establish a sharp lower bound for $p_c$,
we must carefully consider witness graphs with any number
of edges.

\begin{defn}
Let ${\mathcal W}_{k,\ell}$ denote the number of
witness graphs for $e=(1,2)$ of size $k$
on $\{1,2,\ldots,k+2\}$ that can be obtained by WSA
(over all possible underlying graphs $G$)
with exactly $\lambda k+1+\ell$ edges.
\end{defn}

Informally, ${\mathcal W}_{k,\ell}$ counts all possible outputs $W_e$ by WSA
with size $k$ and $\ell$ more edges than the minimal number $\lambda k+1$
(\cref{P_lamstar}).
For convenience,  we fix the vertex set and edge $e$.

\begin{lem}\label{L_HWkell}
For all $k$
and $\ell\le O(k)$,
we have that ${\mathcal W}_{k,\ell}\le \gamma^{\ell k}k!$
for some constant $\gamma>1$ (depending only on $v_H$).
\end{lem}

The first step towards proving \cref{L_HWkell} is the following observation, which
follows almost immediately by the proof of \cref{L_HREA}.
We
refer to steps in REA as either Case 1 or 2 steps, as in that proof.
For simplicity, we include steps in which a new component is formed
as a trivial instance of a
Case 2 step.

\begin{lem}\label{L_M}
Suppose that $W$ is a witness graph for some edge $e$ with $k$ vertices and
$\lambda (k-2)+1+\ell$ edges.
Let $\xi'=\min\{1,\xi\}$ (see \cref{D_lamstar}).
Then there are at most $(k-2)/(v_H-2)+\ell/\xi'$ Case 2 steps
in REA.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We show by induction that, after any number of steps of REA,
any component $C$ with $k$ vertices and
$\lambda (k-2)+1+\ell$ non-red edges is formed with at most
$(k-2)/(v_H-2)+\ell/\xi'$ Case 2 steps.
Since ${\mathcal H}_e$ is connected, this proves the result.

We use the notation in the proof of \cref{L_HREA}.
In particular, suppose that
in the $j$th step of REA,
components $C_1,\ldots,C_h$ are merged with $H_j$
to form a new component $C$.
First note if $h=0$ (that is, a new component is formed)
the
statement is trivial, since then $C=H_j$ has $v_H$ vertices and
$e_H-1=\lambda(v_H-2)+1$
non-red edges, and is formed in
a single (trivial)
Case 2 step. Otherwise, suppose that $h\ge1$, and
that the $C_i$ have $k_i$ vertices and
$\lambda (k_i-2)+1+\ell_i$ edges. Assume that each $C_i$
is formed with at most $(k_i-2)/(v_H-2)+\ell_i/\xi'$ Case 2 steps.
Recall that $C$ has
\[
k=v_H+\sum_i[
k_i-\varepsilon_i-\delta_i
]
\]
vertices, and that in the $i$th sub-step, when $C_i$ is merged with $H_j$
and $\bigcup_{i'<i}C_{i'}$,
we add $k_i-\varepsilon_i-\delta_i$ vertices and at least
(using \eqref{E_REA})
\[
\lambda(k_i-\varepsilon_i-\delta_i)+\ell_i+\lambda\delta_i
+\xi'{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i>2}
\]
non-red edges.
Therefore the lemma follows, noting that
\[
(\varepsilon_i-2+\delta_i)/(v_H-2)
\le
{\bf 1}_{\varepsilon_i>2}+(\lambda/\xi')\delta_i
\]
since $\varepsilon_i-2\le v_H-2$,  $(v_H-2)\lambda= e_H-2>1$
and $\xi'\le1$.
\end{proof}

We now turn to the proof of the main result of this section.

\begin{defn}
A step of REA is called a {\it tree step} if
it creates a new component (the trivial case) or else, as in the proof of
\cref{L_HREA}, all $\varepsilon_i=2$ and $\delta_i=0$.
\end{defn}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{L_HWkell}]
Suppose that $W$ is a witness graph
contributing to ${\mathcal W}_{k,\ell}$.
Recall that we assume $\ell\le O(k)$.
Let $H_1',\ldots,H_M'$
be the copies of $H$ added in Case 2 steps of REA (including the
trivial cases, where a new component is formed).
By \cref{L_M}, we have $M\le O(k)$.
Consider a disjoint union ${\mathcal U}$ of $M$ unlabelled copies
of $H$.
Note that $W$ is obtained by assigning each vertex in ${\mathcal U}$
a label in $\{1,2,\ldots,k+2\}$ (thus identifying some
vertices in ${\mathcal U}$) and then coloring each edge
either black or red, in some way, as determined by REA.
With this in mind, we upper bound the number of possibilities for $W$
as follows:

{\it Step 1.} For simplicity, we bound the number of possible
edge-colorings of ${\mathcal U}$ by $2^{e_H M}\le e^{O(k)}$.
This allows us to
not consider Case 1 steps any further.

{\it Step 2.} Next, we consider
how the $H_1',\ldots,H_M'$ overlap.
To this end, we first construct
a weighted forest $F_W$ that encodes the contribution from
tree steps. In the $j$th step of REA, we add a new vertex
$v_j$ if $H_j'$ is added in a tree step;
and otherwise, we proceed to the next step of REA.
Edges incident to $v_j$ are added as follows: If some edge of
$H_j'$ was included
in a previous
tree step, then
add an edge from $v_j$ to $v_i$, $i<j$, where $v_i$ corresponds to the
most recently added such copy $H_i'$ of $H$. We also add one of $e_H^2$ possible
weights to this edge, to encode the way in which $H_j'$ and $H_i'$ overlap.
By induction, $F_W$ is a forest.
There are at most $e^{O(M)}$
unlabelled forests on $M$ vertices, and so at most
$e_H^{2e_HM} e^{O(M)}\le e^{O(k)}$
possibilities for $F_W$.

{\it Step 3.}
The forest $F_W$ describes how copies of $H$ added in tree steps
share edges, and thus how many (most if $\ell$ is small)
of the vertices in ${\mathcal U}$
are to be identified.
Although the components of $F_W$ correspond to
edge-disjoint unions of copies of $H$, these unions may not be vertex-disjoint in $W$.
Moreover, other overlaps are created in
non-tree steps, not accounted for by $F_W$.
However,
by the proof of \cref{L_HREA},
there are at most $O(\ell)$ other vertices in ${\mathcal U}$
(besides those given by $F_W$)
to be identified with some number of vertices (some possibly in
$F_W$) in ${\mathcal U}$.
Therefore, the number of other possible identifications in ${\mathcal U}$
is bounded by $(2^{v_HM})^{O(\ell)}\le e^{O(\ell k)}$.

Altogether, we find that
${\mathcal W}_{k,\ell}
\le e^{O(\ell k)}(k+2)!
\le \gamma^{\ell k} k!$
for some $\gamma>0$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The lower bound}
With \cref{L_HWkell} at hand, our lower bound for $p_c$
follows by a straightforward application of \cref{L_HAL}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{T_Hmain} (lower bound)]
Fix $e\in K_n$. Put $p=(\alpha/n)^{1/\lambda}$.
We show that for $\alpha>0$ sufficiently small,
$\P(e\in\l\G_{n,p}\r)\to0$. Also let $\beta>0$ be a small
constant, to be determined below.

There are at most $O(k^{\lambda+1})^{k+2}$ graphs on
$k+2$ vertices with exactly $(\lambda+1)(k+2)$ edges.
Hence, the expected number of subgraphs of $\G_{n,p}$
with $k+2\le e_H\beta\log{n}$
vertices and at least $(\lambda+1)(k+2)$ edges
is at most
\[
\sum_{k}[O(\alpha k^\lambda p)]^{k+2}
\le O[(\log{n})^{\lambda+1} p]\ll1.
\]

Hence, by \cref{L_HAL}, it remains to consider the cases that
either (1) $e\in\G_{n,p}$, (2) $W_e$ is of size $k\le \beta\log{n}$ with
$\lambda k+1+\ell<(\lambda+1)(k+2)$ edges,
or else, (3)  there is a witness graph $W_f$
of size $k'=\beta'\log{n}$, for some $\beta'\in[\beta,e_H \beta]$,
with  $\lambda k'+1+\ell<(\lambda+1)(k'+2)$ edges.
Taking a union bound (similar to the proof of \cref{T_LBgen})
we find by \cref{P_lamstar,L_HWkell} that
the probability that any of these events occur is
bounded by
\begin{multline*}
p+p\sum_{k}\sum_{\ell\ge0}\alpha^k(\gamma^kp)^\ell
+n^2p \sum_{k'}\sum_{\ell\ge0}\alpha^{k'}(\gamma^{k'}p)^\ell\\
\le p+e_H\beta\log n\cdot p(1+n^{2+\beta\log \alpha})
\sum_{\ell\ge0} n^{(e_H\beta\log\gamma-1/\lambda)\ell}
\ll1
\end{multline*}
if
$\beta\log\alpha<1/\lambda-2$
and $\beta<1/(\lambda e_H\log\gamma)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Upper bound for strictly balanced $H$}\label{L_UBstrict}

Next, we prove the upper bound
in \cref{T_Hmain}.
We show that, for a strictly balanced graph $H$,
with high probability $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H=K_n$, if $p=(\alpha/n)^{1/\lambda}$
and $\alpha>0$ is sufficiently large.

Two applications of the second moment method are involved.
First we show that with probability bounded away from 0
(and tending to 1 as $\alpha\to\infty$) any given edge
$e\in K_n$ is added in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$ due to a simple
type of witness graph, which we call a {\it $H$-ladder}.
These graphs were considered in \cite{BBM12}.
The main difference here is that we consider {\it induced}
$H$-ladders,
resulting in an easier analysis of
correlations (overlapping
ladders). Then we show that the events that two given edges are added
in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$
by induced $H$-ladders (of suitable heights) are roughly independent.
Hence, a significant proportion
(tending to 1 as $\alpha\to\infty$)
of all ${n\choose2}$ edges
in $K_n$ are included in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$.
Full percolation is then easily deduced
(by Tur\'an's Theorem and sprinkling).

\subsection{$H$-ladders}\label{S_LadderLemmas}

We consider the following type of
edge-minimal witness graph,
where the associated hyper-graph
is a hyper-path.

\begin{defn}
To form an {\it $H$-ladder} $L$ of height $h$, take $h$ copies $S_i$ (called {\it steps})
of $H$ minus two non-incident edges (called {\it rungs}) $(u_{i-1},v_{i-1})$ and
$(u_{i},v_{i})$,
for each $1\le i\le h$.
Note that $S_i$ shares a rung with $S_{i+1}$, for  $i<h$.
Finally, we let $L$ be the union of the $S_i$ and the {\it top rung} $(u_h,v_h)$.
We call
$(v_H-2)h$ the {\it size,}
$h$ the {\it height} and
$(u_0,v_0)$ the {\it base} of $L$.
We often write $k=(v_H-2)h$.
\end{defn}

Note that $L$ is a witness graph for its base edge
of size $k$ with $\lambda k+1$ edges,
the minimal possible number by \cref{P_lamstar}.
It is convenient, although slightly informal, to speak of vertices and edges
of a ladder $L$ that are ``above'' and ``below'' its various rungs.
In this sense, note that $\lambda$ is the average number of edges
``sent down the ladder'' by vertices ``above'' the base.
See \cref{F_ladder} below.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{F_ladder}
\caption{
A $K_5$-ladder of height $h=3$ and size $k=(5-2)h=9$
has $k+2=11$ vertices and $\lambda k+1=[{5\choose2}-2]h+1=25$ edges.
}
\label{F_ladder}
\end{figure}

In \cite{BBM12} (see Lemma 6) it is shown that any subgraph $X\subset L$ containing
$x+2< k+2$ vertices of $L$, including those in its base, has at most $\lambda x$ edges.
Equality is obtained if
$X=\bigcup_{i\le h'} S_i$ for some $1\le h'<h$.
We prove the following estimate,
which bounds the
inefficiency of edge sharing in the other cases.

Since $H$ is strictly balanced,
\[
\xi=
\min\frac{e_H-e_{F}-1}{v_H-v_{F}}
-\lambda>0
\]
minimizing over $F\subset H$ with $3\le v_F<v_H$.
The case of $F$ with $v_F=v_H-1$ gives the bound
$\xi\le \delta_H-1-\lambda\le \delta_H-2$
(recall that $\delta_H\ge2$, and so
$\lambda\ge1$).

\begin{lem}\label{L_Hladder}
Let $L$ be a ladder of size $k=(v_H-2)h$.
Let $X$ be a proper induced subgraph of $L$
that contains $x$ vertices above the base of $L$.
Then $X$ has at most $\lambda x-\xi \sigma$ edges, where
$\sigma$ is the number of steps $S_i\not\subset X$ of $L$ such that
$X$ contains at least one vertex
in $S_i\setminus\{u_{i-1},v_{i-1}\}$.
\end{lem}

Note that $\sigma=0$ if and only if
$x=0$ or
$X=\bigcup_{i\le h'} S_i$ for some $1\le h'<h$.
This result, in particular, implies Lemma 6 in \cite{BBM12}
(without the condition $\lambda\ge2$).
Also note that we do not require that $X$ contains the base vertices of $L$.
This allows for an easier inductive proof. Moreover, this result
will be useful for analyzing overlapping ladders with different bases
(\cref{L_2ndMM} below).

\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on the height $h$ of $L$.
If $x=0$ (and so also $\sigma=0$) the statement is trivial.
Thus we assume $x\ge1$.

{\it Base case.}
If $h=1$ then $1\le x\le v_H-2$ and $\sigma=1$ (since $X$ is proper).
There are $\lambda(v_H-2)+1$ edges in $L$.

{\it Case 1a.}
If $x=v_H-2$, then
at least one vertex in the base of $L$ is
not in $X$.
Hence there are at least $\delta_H-1\ge \xi+1$ edges in $L\setminus X$,
and so at
most $\lambda x-\xi$ in $X$.

{\it Case 1b.}
If  $1\le x< v_H-2$, then there are at least
$(\lambda+\xi)(v_H-2-x)+1$
edges in $L\setminus X$,
and so at most
$\lambda x-\xi(v_H-2-x)\le \lambda x-\xi$
in $X$.

{\it Inductive step.} Suppose  $h>1$.
Let $L'\subset L$ be the ladder of height $h-1$
based at the first rung $(u_1,v_1)$ of $L$.

{\it Case 2.} If $S_1\subset X$ or $X\cap S_1\subset\{u_0,v_0\}$,
then the result follows immediately by the inductive
hypothesis applied to $L'$ (since in either case $X\cap L'\subset L'$ is
proper).

{\it Case 3.} Suppose that $X$ contains $x_1\ge1$
vertices in
$S_1\setminus\{u_0,v_0\}$ and $S_1\not\subset X$.
Then, by the base case,
$X$ contains at most $\lambda x_1-\xi-{\bf 1}_{u_1,v_1\in X}$ edges in $S_1$
(since $h>1$, the edge $(u_1,v_1)\notin L$).

{\it Case 3a.}
If $X\cap L'= L'$ (in which case $\sigma=1$,
and $u_1,v_1\in X$)
the claim follows, since then there are $\lambda x_1-\xi-1$
edges in $X$ below the first rung, $\lambda(k-x_1)+1$
above, and so $\lambda x-\xi$ in total.

{\it Case 3b.}
Otherwise, applying the inductive hypothesis
to the remaining $x-x_1$ vertices of $X$ in $L'$,
it follows that there are at most $\lambda(x-x_1)-\xi(\sigma-1)$
edges in $X\cap L'$. Hence $L$ has at most
$\lambda x-\xi\sigma$ edges.
\end{proof}

\subsection{$H$-Ladders in $\G_{n,p}$}

Having established the combinatorial \cref{L_Hladder},
we turn to the upper bound for $p_c$.
We first obtain a lower bound on the probability that a given
edge $e\in K_n$ is the base of an $H$-ladder of height $h$ in
$\G_{n,p}$. This gives a lower bound on the probability that $e\in\l \G_{n,p}\r_H$.
We then verify the approximate independence for different bases.
This strategy thus involves
two applications of
the second moment method.
Most crucially,
we restrict to the case of
induced ladders. As already discussed,
this simplifies the analysis of correlations.

\begin{lem}\label{L_gamma}
Fix $\alpha,\beta>0$ such that
\[
\log2<1/\lambda\beta<(v_H-2)\log\alpha.
\]
Put $p=(\alpha/n)^{1/\lambda}$ and $h=\beta\log n$.
Then any given $e\in K_n$ is the base of an induced
$H$-ladder of height $h$ in $\G_{n,p}$ with probability
at least $\gamma-o(1)$, where
\[
\gamma=1-\frac{1}{\alpha^{v_H-2}-1}.
\]
\end{lem}

For ease of exposition, we write quantities such as $h=\beta\log n$
as is, instead of replacing them with their integer parts.

\begin{proof}
Let $N_k$ denote the
number of induced $H$-ladders
in $\G_{n,p}$
of size $k=(v_H-2)h$ with a given base $e$.
Then  (using $k^2p\ll1$)
\[
{\bf E} N_k =
\tbinom{n-2}{k} k!p^{\lambda k+1}(1-p)^{{k+2\choose2}-(\lambda k+1)}
\ge p\alpha^k(1-o(1)).
\]
Since $(v_H-2)\log\alpha>1/\lambda\beta$, we have ${\bf E} N_k\gg1$.

Let $L_i$, $1\le i\le {n-2\choose k} k!$, enumerate all $H$-ladder subgraphs
of $K_n$
of size $k$ based at $e$. Let $A_i$ be the event that $L_i$ is an induced
subgraph of $\G_{n,p}$.
Following Section 4.3 of \cite{AS16}, and using symmetry,
\begin{align}\label{EQ_2ndMM}
\P(N_k=0)
&\le\frac{{\bf E}(N_k^2)}{({\bf E} N_k)^2}-1
=\frac{1}{{\bf E} N_k}+\frac{1}{({\bf E} N_k)^2}\sum_{i\neq j}\P(A_i\cap A_j)-1\\\nonumber
&=\frac{1}{{\bf E} N_k}\left[1+\sum_{i>1}\P(A_i|A_1)\right]-1.
\end{align}
Since we are considering
induced subgraphs of $\G_{n,p}$, for any $i\neq 1$,
we have $\P(A_i|A_1)=0$ unless $V(L_i)\neq V(L_1)$.
Let $S_i$, $1\le i\le h$, denote the steps of $L_1$.

{\it Case 1.}
First, we consider the case that $L_i$ ``breaks cleanly'' from $L_1$ at one of its rungs.
If
$L_i\cap L_1=e$ then $\P(A_i|A_1)\le p^{\lambda k+1}$.
Similarly, if
$L_i\cap L_1=\bigcup_{i\le h'} S_i$, for some $1\le h'<h$,
then $\P(A_i|A_1)\le p^{\lambda k'+1}$, where $k'=(v_H-2)(h-h')$.
Summing over all such $L_i$,
\[
\frac{1}{{\bf E} N_k}\sum \P(A_i|A_1)\le
(1+o(1))\sum_{h'=0}^{h-1} \alpha^{-(v_H-2)h'}\le \frac{1+o(1)}{1-1/\alpha^{v_H-2}}.
\]

{\it Case 2.}
Next, we show that all other cases are of lower order.
If $L_i$ does not ``break cleanly'' (as above) from $L_1$ then
by \cref{L_Hladder}, $\P(A_i|A_1)\le p^{\lambda(k-x)+1+\xi\sigma}$,
where $x$ is the number of vertices in $X=L_i\cap L_1$ above the base of $L_1$, and
$\sigma\ge1$ is the number of $S_i\not\subset X$ such that
$X\cap(S_i\setminus\{u_{i-1},v_{i-1}\})\neq\emptyset$.

For any such $L_i$, let $s\ge0$ be the number of maximal subgraphs
$\bigcup_{i=h_1}^{h_2} S_i\subset X$, $h_1\le h_2$.
Let $y\ge0$ denote the number of
other vertices in $X$ (not inside such a subgraph).
Note that $s+y\ge1$ since $\sigma\ge1$.
We claim that
\[
\sigma\ge\max\{1,(s-1+y)/v_H\}\ge(s+y)/(v_H+1).
\]
To see this,
note that there are at least $2(s-1){\bf 1}_{s\ge1}+y$ vertices
of $X$ in steps $S_i\not\subset X$,
since
if $\bigcup_{i=h_1}^{h_2} S_i\subset X$ is maximal and $h_1>1$, then
$S_{h_1-1}\not\subset X$ and $u_{h_1-1},v_{h_1-1}\in X$.

Next, we claim that there are at most
\[
\tbinom{h+1}{2s}s!8^s\tbinom{h}{s}\tbinom{k}{y}\tbinom{n}{k-x}(k-x+y)!
\le O(k^3)^{s+y} n^{k-x}
\]
ladders $L_i$ with a given $x,s,y$. To see this, observe that $\tbinom{h+1}{2s}$
bounds the number of choices for the top and bottom rungs
for the $s$ maximal subgraphs $\bigcup_{i=h_1}^{h_2} S_i\subset X$.
Then $s!8^s\tbinom{h}{s}$
bounds the number of ways they can be ``ordered, rotated
and placed'' in $L_i$. In particular, $\tbinom{h}{s}$
bounds the number of possible bottom rungs in $L_i$
for these maximal subgraphs. The final three factors bound the choices for the
$k-x+y$ other vertices in $L_i$ and the order in which they are ``placed'' in $L_i$.

Hence, summing over all such $L_i$ with a given $x,s,y$, we
find  that
\[
\frac{1}{{\bf E} N_k}\sum \P(A_i|A_1)\le
\alpha^{-x}O(k^3)^{s+y}
p^{\xi\sigma}
\ll n^{-\delta}
\]
for any $\delta<\xi/\lambda(v_H+1)$.
Since there are only $O(k^3)$ relevant $x,s,y$ the same
holds summing over all $L_i$ (not included in Case 1).

Therefore, combining the two cases,
\[
\frac{1}{{\bf E} N_k}\sum_{i\ge1}\P(A_i|A_1)
\le \frac{1+o(1)}{1-1/\alpha^{v_H-2}}
\]
and so
\[
\P(N_k>0)\ge1-\frac{1+o(1)}{\alpha^{v_H-2}-1}.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

Next, by another application of the second moment method,
we show that with high probability a significant proportion
(tending to 1 as $\alpha\to\infty$)
of edges in $K_n$
are bases of $H$-ladders in $\G_{n,p}$, and so included
in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$.

\begin{lem}\label{L_2ndMM}
Fix $\alpha,\beta>0$ satisfying the conditions in
\cref{L_gamma} and
\[
\lambda\beta(v_H-2)\log\alpha<1+\xi/2(v_H+1).
\]
Put $p=(\alpha/n)^{1/\lambda}$.
Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, with high probability, there
are at least $(\gamma-\varepsilon){n\choose2}$
edges in $K_n$ which are bases of induced
$H$-ladders of height $h=\beta\log n$ in $\G_{n,p}$.
\end{lem}

Since $\xi>0$, for any large $\alpha$, there exists $\beta$
satisfying the conditions on $\alpha,\beta$
in \cref{L_gamma,L_2ndMM}.

\begin{proof}
Let $e_i$, $1\le i\le{n\choose 2}$, enumerate the edges of $K_n$
and let $E_i$ denote the event that $e_i$ is the base of an induced $H$-ladder
of height $h$ in $\G_{n,p}$. We show that
\[
\frac{1}{[{n\choose2}\P(E_1)]^2}\sum_{i\neq j}\P(E_i\cap E_j)\sim 1
\]
from which, together with \cref{L_gamma}, the result follows (as then
the number of such edges $\sum_i{\bf 1}_{E_i}$,
divided by its expectation ${n\choose2}\P(E_1)$,
converges to 1 in probability, see again
Section 4.3 of \cite{AS16} and the technique used in
\eqref{EQ_2ndMM}).

To this end, we bound the event $E_i\cap E_j$ by the union of events (1)
$E_i\circ E_j$ that there are edge-disjoint induced $H$-ladders of heights $h$
based at $e_i$ and $e_j$, and, (2) $E_{ij}$ that there is an induced ladder of height
$h$ based at $e_j$ that includes an edge of such a ladder based at $e_i$.
By the BK Inequality and symmetry, $\P(E_i\circ E_j)\le \P(E_1)^2$.
It thus suffices to show that
\[
\sum_{i\neq j}\P(E_{ij})\ll n^4.
\]
Let $L_1$ be a fixed $H$-ladder of height $h$ in $K_n$ based at $e_1$,
and  let $A_1$ denote the event that $L_1$ is an induced subgraph of $\G_{n,p}$.
For $j>1$, let $B_{j}$ be the event that there is an induced $H$-ladder in $\G_{n,p}$
of height $h$ based at $e_j$ that includes at least one edge in $L_1$.
Putting $k=(v_H-2)h$, by symmetry, we have
\[
\sum_{i\neq j}\P(E_{ij})
\le n^{2+k}\P(A_1)\sum_{j>1}\P(B_j|A_1)
\le n^2 p\alpha^k\sum_{j>1}\P(B_j|A_1).
\]
Hence, it suffices to show that
\[
p\alpha^k\sum_{j>1}\P(B_j|A_1)\ll n^2.
\]

Finally, we bound $\sum_{j>1}\P(B_j|A_1)$ by
a union bound, considering the expected number
(conditioned on $A_1$) of induced $H$-ladders $L$ of
height $h$ based at some $e\neq e_1$ that include at least one edge of $L_1$,
and hence at least one vertex not in its base $e_1$.
We take two cases, with respect to whether (as in the proof of \cref{L_gamma})
$L$ and $L_1$ ``intersect cleanly.''
Let $S_i$, $1\le i\le h$, denote the steps of $L_1$.

{\it Case 1.} If $L\cap L_1=\bigcup_{i\le h'}S_i$
for some $1\le h'<h$, then there are $O(h)$ possibilities for where
(i.e., the height at which)
$L\cap L_1$ is ``placed'' in $L$. Apart from this, by an argument similar to that in
Case 1 in proof of \cref{L_gamma}, we see that the expected number of such $L$
is at most ${n\choose2}O(h p\alpha^k/n^2)\le O(k p\alpha^k)$.
The compensating factor $1/n^2$ here is due to the fact that
there are $(v_H-2)h'+2$ vertices in $L\cap L_1$, but only
$\lambda(v_H-2)h'$ edges.

{\it Case 2.} Otherwise, if $L$ and  $L_1$ do not ``intersect cleanly'' then,
arguing as in Case 2 in the proof of \cref{L_gamma}, the expected number of such $L$
in this case is $\ll{n\choose2}n^{-\delta}p\alpha^k$, for any
$\delta<\xi/\lambda(v_H+1)$.

Altogether, for any such $\delta$,
\[
\frac{p\alpha^k}{n^2}\sum_{j>1}\P(B_j|A_1)
\le O[(p\alpha^k)^2(kn^{-2}+n^{-\delta})]\ll1
\]
provided that $\lambda\beta(v_H-2)\log\alpha<1+\xi/2(v_H+1)$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The upper bound}

With \cref{L_2ndMM} at hand, we obtain our upper bound for $p_c$
by an adaptation of the argument found at the end of
Section 2 in \cite{BBM12}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{T_main} (upper bound)]
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph.
If only $\varepsilon n$ vertices $v$
have degree $d_v\ge\delta (n-1)$, for some $\delta$,
then $|E|\le [\varepsilon+(1-\varepsilon)\delta]{n\choose2}$.
Hence, if $|E|>\gamma{n\choose2}$, there is a set
$S$ of size $|S|/n\ge(\gamma-\delta)/(1-\delta)$
so that all $v\in S$ have $d_v\ge\delta(n-1)$.

Therefore, by  \cref{L_2ndMM}, for $\alpha>0$
large (and so $\gamma$ close to $1$)
there is a set $S$ of size $\Omega(n)$ such that all neighborhoods
$N_v$  in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$ of vertices $v\in S$ are of size at least $(3/4)n$.
Also, for $\alpha$ large enough, all induced
subgraphs of $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$ of size $n/4$ contain a copy of $K_{v_H-2}$
by Tur\'an's Theorem.
Hence all edges between vertices in $S$ are in $\l\G_{n,p}\r_H$.
The result now follows easily by sprinkling
(as in \cite{BBM12}).
\end{proof}

Probability (math.PR); Combinatorics (math.CO)

Weakly saturated random graphs