Packing Plane Spanning Trees into a Point Set

Abstract: Let $P$ be a set of $n$ points in the plane in general position. We show that at least $\lfloor n/3\rfloor$ plane spanning trees can be packed into the complete geometric graph on $P$. This improves the previous best known lower bound $\Omega\left(\sqrt{n}\right)$. Towards our proof of this lower bound we show that the center of a set of points, in the $d$-dimensional space in general position, is of dimension either $0$ or $d$.

\section{Introduction}
	 In the two-dimensional space, a {\em geometric graph} $G$ is a graph whose vertices are points in the plane and whose edges are straight-line segments connecting the points. A subgraph $S$ of $G$ is {\em plane} if no pair of its edges cross each other. Two subgraphs $S_1$ and $S_2$ of $G$ are {\em edge-disjoint} if they do not share any edge.

	 Let $P$ be a set of $n$ points in the plane.
	 The {\em complete geometric graph} $\Kn{(P)}$ is the geometric graph with vertex set $P$ that has a straight-line edge between every pair of points in $P$.
	We say that a sequence $S_1,S_2,S_3,\dots$ of subgraphs of $\Kn{(P)}$ is {\em packed into} $\Kn{(P)}$, if the subgraphs in this sequence are pairwise edge-disjoint. In a packing problem, we ask for the largest number of subgraphs of a given type that can be packed into $\Kn{(P)}$. Among all subgraphs, plane spanning trees, plane Hamiltonian paths, and plane perfect matchings are of interest. Since $\Kn{(P)}$ has ${n(n-1)}/{2}$ edges, at most $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ spanning trees, at most $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ Hamiltonian paths, and at most $n-1$ perfect matchings can be packed into it.

	A long-standing open question is to determine whether or not it is possible to pack $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ plane spanning trees into $\Kn{(P)}$. If $P$ is in convex position, the answer in the affirmative follows from the result of Bernhart and Kanien~\cite{Bernhart1979}, and a characterization of such plane spanning trees is given by Bose et al.~\cite{Bose2006}. In CCCG 2014, Aichholzer et al.~\cite{Aichholzer2017} showed that if $P$ is in general position (no three points on a line), then $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ plane spanning trees can be packed into $\Kn{(P)}$; this bound is obtained by a clever combination of crossing family (a set of pairwise crossing edges)~\cite{Aronov1994} and double-stars (trees with only two interior nodes)~\cite{Bose2006}. Schnider~\cite{Schnider2016} showed that it is not always possible to pack $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ plane spanning double stars into $\Kn{(P)}$, and gave a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a packing.
	As for packing other spanning structures into $\Kn{(P)}$, Aichholzer et al.~\cite{Aichholzer2017} and Biniaz et al.~\cite{Biniaz2015} showed a packing of 2 plane Hamiltonian cycles and a packing of $\lceil\log_2 n\rceil -2$ plane perfect matchings, respectively.

	The problem of packing spanning trees into (abstract) graphs is studied by Nash-Williams~\cite{Nash-Williams1961} and Tutte~\cite{Tutte1961} who independently obtained necessary and sufficient conditions to pack $k$ spanning trees into a graph. Kundu~\cite{Kundu1974} showed that at least $\lceil (k-1)/2\rceil$ spanning trees can be packed into any $k$-edge-connected graph.

	In this paper we show how to pack $\lfloor n/3\rfloor$ plane spanning trees into $\Kn{(P)}$ when $P$ is in general position. This improves the previous $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ lower bound.

	\section{Packing Plane Spanning Trees}
	\label{proof-section}
	In this section we show how to pack $\lfloor {n}/{3}\rfloor$ plane spanning tree into $\Kn{(P)}$, where $P$ is a set of $n\geqslant 3$ points in the plane in general position (no three points on a line).
	If $n\in\{3,4,5\}$ then one can easily find a plane spanning tree on $P$. Thus, we may assume that $n\geqslant 6$.

	The {\em center} of $P$ is a subset $C$ of the plane such that any closed
	halfplane intersecting $C$ contains at least $\lceil {n}/{3}\rceil$ points of $P$. A {\em centerpoint} of $P$ is a member of $C$, which does not necessarily belong to $P$. Thus, any halfplane that contains a centerpoint, has at least $\lceil {n}/{3}\rceil$ points of $P$.
	It is well known that every point set in the plane has a centerpoint; see e.g. \cite[Chapter 4]{Edelsbrunner1987}.
	We use the following corollary and lemma in our proof of the $\lfloor {n}/{3}\rfloor$ lower bound; the corollary follows from Theorem~\ref{alternate-dimension-thr} that we will prove later in Section~\ref{center-section}.

	\begin{corollary}
		\label{dimension-cor}
		Let $P$ be a set of $n\geqslant 6$ points in the plane in general position, and let $C$ be the center of $P$. Then, $C$ is either $2$-dimensional or $0$-dimensional. If $C$ is $0$-dimensional, then it consists of one point that belongs to $P$, moreover $n$ is of the form $3k+1$ for some integer $k\geqslant 2$.
	\end{corollary}

\begin{lemma}
	\label{prop1}
	Let $P$ be a set of $n$ points in the plane in general position, and let $c$ be a centerpoint of $P$. Then, for every point $p\in P$, each of the two closed halfplanes, that are determined by the line through $c$ and $p$, contains at least $\lceil n/3\rceil+1$ points of $P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{1.1in}
	\centering
	\vspace{-12pt}
	\includegraphics[width=.95in]{fig/miss-pi.pdf}
	\vspace{-5pt}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent{{\em Proof.}}
For the sake of contradiction assume that a closed halfplane $\overline{H}$, that is determined by the line through $c$ and $p$, contains less than $\lceil n/3\rceil+1$ points of $P$. By symmetry assume that $\overline{H}$ is to the left side of this line oriented from $c$ to $p$; see the figure to the right. Since $c$ is a centerpoint and $\overline{H}$ contains $c$, the definition of centerpoint implies that $\overline{H}$ contains exactly $\lceil n/3\rceil$ points of $P$ (including $p$ and any other point of $P$ that may lie on the boundary of $\overline{H}$). By slightly rotating $\overline{H}$ counterclockwise around $c$, while keeping $c$ on the boundary of $\overline{H}$, we obtain a new closed halfplane that contains $c$ but misses $p$. This new halfplane contains less than $\lceil n/3\rceil$ points of $P$; this contradicts $c$ being a centerpoint of $P$.
\qed \vspace{8pt}

	Now we proceed with our proof of the lower bound. We distinguish between two cases depending on whether the center $C$ of $P$ is $2$-dimensional or $0$-dimensional. First suppose that $C$ is $2$-dimensional. Then, $C$ contains a centerpoint, say $c$, that does not belong to $P$.
	Let $p_1,\dots,p_n$ be a counter-clockwise radial ordering of points in $P$ around $c$. For two points $p$ and $q$ in the plane, we denote by $\overrightarrow{pq}$, the ray emanating from $p$ that passes through $q$.

	Since every integer $n\geqslant 3$ has one of the forms $3k$, $3k+1$, and $3k+2$, for some $k\geqslant 1$, we will consider three cases. In each case, we show how to construct $k$ plane spanning directed graphs $G_1,\dots, G_k$ that are edge-disjoint. Then, for every $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, we obtain a plane spanning tree $T_i$ from $G_i$. First assume that $n=3k$. To build $G_i$, connect $p_i$ by outgoing edges to $p_{i+1},p_{i+2},\dots,p_{i+k}$, then connect $p_{i+k}$ by outgoing edges to $p_{i+k+1},p_{i+k+2},\dots,\allowbreak p_{i+2k}$, and then connect $p_{i+2k}$ by outgoing edges to $p_{i+2k+1},p_{i+2k+2},\dots,p_{i+3k}$, where all the indices are modulo $n$, and thus $p_{i+3k}=p_i$. The graph $G_i$, that is obtained this way, has one cycle $(p_i,p_{i+k},p_{i+2k},p_i)$; see Figure~\ref{graph-fig}. By Lemma~\ref{prop1}, every closed halfplane, that is determined by the line through $c$ and a point of $P$, contains at least $k+1$ points of $P$. Thus, all points $p_i,p_{i+1},\dots,p_{i+k}$ lie in the closed halfplane to the left of the line through $c$ and $p_i$ that is oriented from $c$ to $p_i$. Similarly, the points $p_{i+k},\dots,p_{i+2k}$ lie in the closed halfplane to the left of the oriented line from $c$ to $p_{i+k}$, and the points $p_{i+2k},\dots,p_{i+3k}$ lie in the closed halfplane to the left of the oriented line from $c$ to $p_{i+2k}$. Thus, all the $k$ edges outgoing from $p_i$ are in the convex wedge bounded by the rays $\overrightarrow{cp_i}$ and $\overrightarrow{cp_{i+k}}$, all the edges
	outgoing from $p_{i+k}$ are in the convex wedge bounded by $\overrightarrow{cp_{i+k}}$ and $\overrightarrow{c_{i+2k}}$, and all the edges from $p_{i+2k}$ are in the convex wedge bounded by $\overrightarrow{cp_{i+2k}}$ and $\overrightarrow{c_{i+3k}}$. Therefore, the spanning directed graph $G_i$ is plane. As depicted in Figure~\ref{graph-fig}, by removing the edge $(p_{i+2k},p_i)$ from $G_i$ we obtain a plane spanning (directed) tree $T_i$. This is the end of our construction of $k$ plane spanning trees.

		\begin{figure}[htb]
			\centering
			\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0in}
			$\begin{tabular}{cc}
			\multicolumn{1}{m{.5\columnwidth}}{\centering\includegraphics[width=.41\columnwidth]{fig/graph1.pdf}}
			&\multicolumn{1}{m{.5\columnwidth}}{\centering\includegraphics[width=.41\columnwidth]{fig/graph2.pdf}}
			\end{tabular}$
			\caption{The plane spanning trees $T_1$ (the left) and $T_2$ (the right) are obtained by removing the edges $(p_{1+2k},p_1)$ and $(p_{2+2k},p_2)$ from $G_1$ and $G_2$, respectively.}
			\label{graph-fig}
		\end{figure}

	To verify that the $k$ spanning trees obtained above are edge-disjoint, we show that two trees $T_i$ and $T_j$, with $i\neq j$, do not share any edge. Notice that the tail of every edge in $T_i$ belongs to the set $I=\{p_i,p_{i+k},p_{i+2k}\}$, and the tail of every edge in $T_j$ belongs to the set $J=\{p_j,p_{j+k},p_{j+2k}\}$, and $I\cap J=\emptyset$. For contrary, suppose that some edge $(p_r,p_s)$ belongs to both $T_i$ and $T_j$, and without loss of generality assume that in $T_i$ this edge is oriented from $p_r$ to $p_s$ while in $T_j$ it is oriented from $p_s$ to $p_r$. Then $p_r\in I$ and $p_s\in J$. Since $(p_r,p_s)\in T_i$ and the largest index of the head of every outgoing edge from $p_r$ is $r+k$, we have that $s\leqslant (r+k)\mod n$. Similarly, since $(p_s,p_r)\in T_j$ and the largest index of the head of every outgoing edge from $p_s$ is $s+k$, we have that $r\leqslant (s+k)\mod n$. However, these two inequalities cannot hold together; this contradicts our assumption that $(p_r,p_s)$ belongs to both trees. Thus, our claim, that $T_1,\dots, T_k$ are edge-disjoint, follows.
	This finishes our proof for the case where $n=3k$.

	If $n = 3k + 1$, then by Lemma~\ref{prop1}, every closed halfplane that is determined by the line through $c$ and a point of $P$ contains at least $k+2$ points of $P$. In this case, we construct $G_i$ by connecting $p_i$ to its following $k + 1$ points, i.e., $p_{i+1},\dots,p_{i+k+1}$, and then connecting each of $p_{i+k+1}$ and $p_{i+2k+1}$ to their following $k$ points. If $n = 3k + 2$, then we construct $G_i$ by connecting each of $p_i$ and $p_{i+k+1}$ to their following $k+1$ points, and then connecting $p_{i+2k+2}$ to its following $k$ points. This is the end of our proof for the case where $C$ is $2$-dimensional.

	Now we consider the case where $C$ is $0$-dimensional. By Corollary~\ref{dimension-cor}, $C$ consists of one point that belongs to $P$, and moreover $n=3k+1$ for some $k\geqslant 2$. Let $p\in P$ be the only point of $C$, and let $p_1,\dots,p_{n-1}$ be a counter-clockwise radial ordering of points in $P\setminus\{p\}$ around $p$. As in our first case (where $C$ was $2$-dimensional, $c$ was not in $P$, and $n$ was of the form $3k$) we construct $k$ edge-disjoint plane spanning trees $T_1,\dots, T_k$ on $P\setminus\{p\}$ where $p$ playing the role of $c$. Then, for every $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, by connecting $p$ to $p_i$, we obtain a plane spanning tree for $P$. These plane spanning trees are edge-disjoint. This is the end of our proof. In this section we have proved the following theorem.

	\begin{theorem}
		Every complete geometric graph, on a set of $n$ points in the plane in general position, contains at least $\lfloor n/3\rfloor$ edge-disjoint plane spanning trees.
	\end{theorem}

	\section{The Dimension of the Center of a Point Set}
	\label{center-section}

		The {\em center} of a set $P$ of $n\geqslant d+1$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a subset $C$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that any closed halfspace intersecting $C$ contains at least $\alpha=\lceil {n}/{(d+1)}\rceil$ points of $P$. Based on this definition, one can characterize $C$ as the intersection of all closed halfspaces such that their complementary open halfspaces contain less than $\alpha$ points of $P$.
		More precisely (see \cite[Chapter 4]{Edelsbrunner1987}) $C$ is the intersection of a finite set of closed halfspaces $\overline{H_1}, \overline{H_2},\dots, \overline{H_m}$ such that for each $\overline{H_i}$
		\begin{enumerate}
			\item the boundary of $\overline{H_i}$ contains at least $d$ affinely independent points of $P$, and
			\item the complementary open halfspace $H_i$ contains at most $\alpha - 1$ points of $P$, and the
			closure of $H_i$ contains at least $\alpha$ points of $P$.
		\end{enumerate}

		Being the intersection of closed halfspaces, $C$ is a convex polyhedron. A {\em centerpoint} of $P$ is a member of $C$, which does not necessarily belong to $P$.
		It follows, from the definition of the center, that any halfspace containing a centerpoint has	at least $\alpha$ points of $P$.
		It is well known that every point set in the plane has a centerpoint \cite[Chapter 4]{Edelsbrunner1987}. In dimensions 2 and 3, a centerpoint can be computed in $O(n)$ time \cite{Jadhav1994} and in $O(n^2)$ expected time \cite{Chan2004}, respectively.

		A set of points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, with $d\geqslant 2$, is said to be in {\em general position} if no $k+2$ of them lie in a $k$-dimensional flat for every $k\in \{1,\dots,d-1\}$.\footnote{A flat is a subset of $d$-dimensional space that is congruent to a Euclidean space of lower dimension. The flats in 2-dimensional space are points and lines, which have dimensions 0 and 1.} Alternatively, for a set of points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ to be in general position, it suffices that no $d+1$ of them lie on the same hyperplane.
		In this section we prove that if a point set $P$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is in general position, then the center of $P$ is of dimension either 0 or $d$. Our proof of this claim uses the following result of Gr\"{u}nbaum.

		\begin{theorem}[Gr\"{u}nbaum, 1962 \cite{Grunbaum1962}]
			\label{Grunbaum-thr}
			Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a finite family of convex polyhedra in $\mathbb{R}^d$, let $I$ be their intersection, and let $s$ be an integer in $\{1,\dots, d\}$. If every intersection of $s$ members of $\mathcal{F}$ is of dimension $d$, but $I$ is $(d-s)$-dimensional, then there exist $s + 1$ members of $\mathcal{F}$ such that their intersection is $(d - s)$-dimensional.
		\end{theorem}

		\begin{figure}[htb]
			\centering
			\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0in}
			\vspace{10pt}
			$\begin{tabular}{ccc}
			\multicolumn{1}{m{.33\columnwidth}}{\centering\includegraphics[width=.26\columnwidth]{fig/dim-0.pdf}}
			&\multicolumn{1}{m{.33\columnwidth}}{\centering\includegraphics[width=.26\columnwidth]{fig/dim-1.pdf}}
			&\multicolumn{1}{m{.33\columnwidth}}{\centering\includegraphics[width=.26\columnwidth]{fig/dim-2.pdf}}
			\end{tabular}$
			\caption{The dimension of a point set in the plane, that is not in general position, can be any number in $\{0,1,2\}$.}
			\label{arbitrary-dim-fig}
			\vspace{5pt}
		\end{figure}

		Before proceeding to our proof, we note that if $P$ is not in general position, then the dimension of $C$ can be any number in $\{0,1,\dots,d\}$; see e.g. Figure~\ref{arbitrary-dim-fig} for the case where $d=2$.

\begin{observation}
	\label{dim-obs}
	For every $k\in\{1,\dots, d+1\}$ the dimension of a polyhedron defined by intersection of $k$ closed halfspaces in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is in the range $[d-k+1,d]$.
\end{observation}

	\begin{theorem}
			\label{alternate-dimension-thr}
			Let $P$ be a set of $n\geqslant d+1$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and let $C$ be the center of $P$. Then, $C$ is either $d$-dimensional, or contained in a $(d-s)$-dimensional polyhedron that has at least $n-(s+1)(\alpha -1)$ points of $P$ for some $s\in\{1,\dots,d\}$ and $\alpha=\lceil n/(d+1)\rceil$. In the latter case if $P$ is in general position and $n\geqslant d+3$, then $C$ consists of one point that belongs to $P$, and $n$ is of the form $k(d+1)+1$ for some integer $k\geqslant 2$.
		\end{theorem}

		\begin{proof}
			The center $C$ is a convex polyhedron that is the intersection of a finite family $\mathcal{H}$ of closed halfspaces such that each of their complementary	open halfspaces contains at most $\alpha-1$ points of $P$ \cite[Chapter 4]{Edelsbrunner1987}.
			Since $C$ is a convex polyhedron in $\mathbb{R}^d$, its dimension is in the range $[0,d]$.
			For the rest of the proof we consider the following two cases.
			\begin{enumerate}
				\item[$($a$)$] The intersection of every $d+1$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is of dimension $d$.
				\item[$($b$)$] The intersection of some $d+1$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is of dimension less than $d$.
			\end{enumerate}

			First assume that we are in case (a). We prove that $C$ is $d$-dimensional. Our proof follows from Theorem~\ref{Grunbaum-thr} and a contrary argument. Assume that $C$ is not $d$-dimensional. Then, $C$ is $(d-s)$-dimensional for some $s\in\{1,\dots,d\}$. Since the intersection of every $s$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is $d$-dimensional, by Theorem~\ref{Grunbaum-thr} there exist $s+1$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ whose intersection is $(d-s)$-dimensional. This contradicts the assumption of case (a) that the intersection of every $d+1$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is $d$-dimensional. Therefore, $C$ is $d$-dimensional in this case.

			Now assume that we are in case (b). Let $s$ be the largest integer in $\{1,\dots, d\}$ such that every intersection of $s$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is $d$-dimensional; notice that such an integer exists because every single halfspace in $\mathcal{H}$ is $d$-dimensional. Our choice of $s$ implies the existence of a subfamily $\mathcal{H}'$ of $s+1$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ whose intersection is $d'$-dimensional for some $d'<d$. Let $s'$ be an integer such that $d'=d-s'$. By Observation~\ref{dim-obs}, we have that $d'\geqslant d-s$, and equivalently $d-s'\geqslant d-s$; this implies $s'\leqslant s$. To this end we have a family $\mathcal{H}'$ with $s+1$ members for which every intersection of $s'$ members is $d$-dimensional (because $s'\leqslant s$ and $\mathcal{H}'\subseteq \mathcal{H}$), but the intersection of all members of $\mathcal{H'}$ is $(d-s')$-dimensional. Applying Theorem~\ref{Grunbaum-thr} on $\mathcal{H'}$ implies the existence of $s'+1$ members of $\mathcal{H'}$ whose intersection is $(d-s')$-dimensional. If $s'<s$, then this implies the existence of $s'+1\leqslant s$ members of $\mathcal{H}'\subseteq \mathcal{H}$, whose intersection is of dimension  $d-s'<d$. This contradicts the fact that the intersection of every $s$ members of $\mathcal{H}$ is $d$-dimensional. Thus, $s'=s$, and consequently, $d'=d-s'=d-s$. Therefore $C$ is contained in a $(d-s)$-dimensional polyhedron $I$ which is the intersection of the $s+1$ closed halfspaces of $\mathcal{H}'$.
			Let $H_1,\ldots ,H_{s+1}$ be the complementary open halfspaces of members of $\mathcal{H}'$, and recall that each $H_i$ contains at most $\alpha-1$ points of $P$. Let $\overline{I}$ be the complement of $I$. Then,

			\begin{align}
			n&\notag =|I\cup \overline{I}|=|I\cup H_1\cup \dots\cup H_{s+1}|\\
			&\notag \leqslant |I|+|H_1|+\dots+|H_{s+1}| \leqslant |I|+ (s+1)(\alpha-1),
			\end{align}

			where we abuse the notations $I$, $\overline{I}$, and $H_i$ to refer to the subset of points of $P$ that they contain. This inequality implies that $I$ contains at least $n-(s+1)(\alpha-1)$ points of $P$. This finishes the proof of the theorem except for the part that $P$ is in general position.

			Now, assume that $P$ is in general position and $n\geqslant d+3$. By the definition of general position, the number of points of $P$ in a $(d-s)$-dimensional flat is not more than $d-s+1$. Since $I$ is $(d-s)$-dimensional, this implies that

			$$n-(s+1)(\alpha-1) \leqslant d-s+1.$$

			Notice that $n$ is of the form $k(d+1)+i$ for some integer $k\geqslant 1$ and some $i\in\{0,1,\dots, d\}$. Moreover, if $i$ is 0 or 1, then $k\geqslant 2$ because $n\geqslant d+3$. Now we consider two cases depending on whether or not $i$ is 0. If $i=0$, then $\alpha =k$. In this case, the above inequality simplifies to $k(d-s)\leqslant d-2s$, which is not possible because $k\geqslant 2$ and $d\geqslant s\geqslant 1$. If $i\in\{1,\dots,d\}$, then $\alpha=k+1$. In this case, the above inequality simplifies to $(k-1)(d-s)+i\leqslant 1$, which is not possible unless $d=s$ and $i=1$. Thus, for the above inequality to hold we should have $d=s$ and $i=1$. These two assertions imply that $n=k(d+1)+1$, and that $I$ is $0$-dimensional and consists of one point of $P$. Since $C\subseteq I$ and $C$ is not empty, $C$ also consists of one point of $P$.
\end{proof}

{\bf Acknowledgements.} Ahmad Biniaz was supported by NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship. Alfredo Garc\'{\i}a was partially supported by MINECO project MTM2015-63791-R.

\vspace{5pt}

\begin{minipage}[l]{0.17\textwidth} \includegraphics[trim=10cm 6cm 10cm 5cm,clip,scale=0.15]{fig/eu_logo} \end{minipage}  \hspace{-1cm} \begin{minipage}[l][1cm]{0.83\textwidth}
		Alfredo Garc\'{\i}a has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk\l{}odowska-Curie grant agreement No 734922.
\end{minipage}

	\bibliographystyle{abbrv}

Computational Geometry (cs.CG); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM)


Balanced generalized lower bound inequality for simplicial polytopes

Abstract: A remarkable and important property of face numbers of simplicial polytopes is the generalized lower bound inequality, which says that the $h$-numbers of any simplicial polytope are unimodal. Recently, for balanced simplicial $d$-polytopes, that is simplicial $d$-polytopes whose underlying graphs are $d$-colorable, Klee and Novik proposed a balanced analogue of this inequality, that is stronger than just unimodality. The aim of this article is to prove this conjecture of Klee and Novik. For this, we also show a Lefschetz property for rank-selected subcomplexes of balanced simplicial polytopes and thereby obtain new inequalities for their $h$-numbers.

\section{Introduction}
The study of face numbers of convex polytopes
is one of the main themes in algebraic and geometric combinatorics and has attracted a lot of attention during the last decades.
It has been of great interest to completely characterize the possible face numbers of simplicial polytopes and to find sufficient and necessary conditions for face numbers of classes of simplicial complexes.
The starting point of this paper is a conjecture by Klee and Novik concerning the face numbers of balanced simplicial polytopes \cite{KN}.

We first explain this conjecture of Klee and Novik.
For a simplicial $d$-polytope $P$,
let $f_i(P)$ denote the number of its $i$-dimensional faces for $-1 \leq i \leq d-1$, where $f_{-1}(P)=1$
and define the {\em $h$-number} $h_i(P)$ of $P$ by
$
h_i(P)=\sum_{j=0}^i (-1)^{j-i} {d-j \choose i-j} f_{j-1}(P)
$
for $0 \leq i\leq d$.
The following Generalized Lower Bound Theorem, which holds for all simplicial polytopes, was originally conjectured by McMullen and Walkup \cite{MW} and later proved in \cite{MN,MW,St1}.

\begin{theorem}[Generalized Lower Bound Theorem]
\label{GLBT}
Let $P$ be a simplicial $d$-polytope. Then
$$h_0(P) \leq h_1(P) \leq \cdots \leq h_{\lfloor \frac d 2 \rfloor}(P).$$
Moreover,
$h_{i-1}(P)=h_i(P)$ for some $i \leq \frac d 2$
if and only if $P$ is $(i-1)$-stacked, that is,
$P$ can be triangulated without introducing faces of dimension $\leq d-i$.
\end{theorem}

We say that a simplicial $d$-polytope is {\em balanced} if its underlying graph is $d$-colorable.
Inspired by Theorem \ref{GLBT},
Klee and Novik \cite[Conjecture 5.5]{KN} proposed the following balanced analogue.

\begin{conjecture}[Balanced Generalized Lower Bound Conjecture]
\label{bglbc}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope. Then
$$\frac {h_0(P)} {{d\choose 0}} \leq \frac {h_1(P)} {{d\choose 1}} \leq
\cdots \leq \frac {h_{\lfloor \frac d 2 \rfloor}(P)} {{d\choose \lfloor \frac d 2 \rfloor}}.$$
Moreover,
one has $\frac {h_{i-1}(P)} {{ d \choose i-1}}= \frac {h_{i}(P)} { {d\choose i}}$
for some $i \leq \frac d 2$ if and only if $P$ has the balanced $(i-1)$-stacked property.
\end{conjecture}

We refer the reader to \cite[Definition 5.3]{KN} for the definition of the balanced stacked property.

It is easy to see that the first inequality, namely, $h_0(P) \leq \frac {h_1(P)} d$ indeed holds.
Goff, Klee and Novik \cite{GKN} proved $(d-1) h_1(P) \leq 2 h_2(P)$, which implies the  second inequality of the conjecture
(see also \cite{BK} and \cite{KN} for further generalizations).

Moreover, the ``if'' part of the equality case was proved in \cite[Theorem 5.8]{KN}, and the ``only if'' part could be verified for $i\leq 2$ \cite[Theorem 4.1]{KN}.
In this paper, we give an affirmative answer to the first part of the conjecture.

For a balanced simplicial simplicial $d$-polytope $P$, let
$$\overline g_i(P) = i h_i(P)-(d-i+1)h_{i-1}(P),$$
be the \emph{balanced $g$-numbers}, as introduced in \cite{KN}.
Then it is easy to see that
$\frac {h_{i-1}(P)} {{ d \choose i-1}}\leq \frac {h_{i}(P)} { {d\choose i}}$
if and only if $\overline g_i(P) \geq 0$.
Thus the next result proves the first part of Conjecture \ref{bglbc}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1.2}
For any balanced simplicial $d$-polytope $P$, one has
$\overline g_i(P) \geq 0$ for all $i=0,1,\dots, \lfloor \frac d 2 \rfloor$.
\end{theorem}

In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm1.2}, we
study so-called rank-selected subcomplexes.
For a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope $P$, whose vertices are colored by elements in $[d]=\{1,2,\dots,d\}$, and for $T \subseteq [d]$
let $P_T$ be the rank-selected subcomplex of $P$
(see Section \ref{sect:Basics} for a precise definition).
We will deduce Theorem \ref{thm1.2} from the following statement for rank-selected subcomplexes.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1.3}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope.
Then for any $T \subseteq [d]$
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $h_i(P_T) \leq h_{\#T -i} (P_T)$ for all $i \leq \frac {\#T} 2$.
\item[(ii)] $h_0(P_T) \leq h_1(P_T) \leq \cdots \leq h_{\lfloor \frac {\#T+1} 2 \rfloor} (P_T)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

To prove the above theorem we actually show that Stanley-Reisner rings of rank-selected subcomplexes exhibit a Lefschetz property (Theorem \ref{3.2}).
This gives a partial affirmative answer to a question posed by Bj\"orner and Swartz in \cite[Problem 4.2]{Sw}.

It follows from the $g$-theorem \cite[III Theorem 1.1]{St} that if $P$ is a simplicial $d$-polytope,
then $h_{i-2}(P)=h_{i-1}(P)$ forces $h_{i-1}(P)=h_i(P)$ for $i \leq \frac d 2$.
We prove that a similar property holds for balanced $g$-numbers.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1.4}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope.
If $\overline g_{i-1}(P)=0$ for some $i \leq \frac d 2$,
then $\overline g_{i}(P)=0$.
\end{theorem}

Note that the above theorem also gives further evidence for the equality case of Conjecture \ref{bglbc}. Indeed, if the conjecture is true, then it would also imply the statement of the previous theorem.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{sect:Basics} we provide the necessary background on balanced simplicial complexes and study algebraic properties of their Stanley-Reisner rings. Those results will then be employed in Section \ref{sect:Proofs} to provide the proofs of the main results Theorem \ref{thm1.2}, Theorem \ref{thm1.3} and Theorem \ref{thm1.4}.

\section{Stanley-Reisner rings of balanced simplicial complexes}\label{sect:Basics}

In this section, we recall some basic properties of balanced simplicial complexes,
and study algebraic properties of their Stanley-Reisner rings.

We first recall basic definitions on simplicial complexes.
Let $\Delta$ be a (finite abstract) simplicial complex on the vertex set $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$.
Thus $\Delta$ is a collection of subsets of $[n]$ satisfying that
$F \in \Delta$ and $G \subset F$ imply $G \in \Delta$.
Elements of $\Delta$ are called {\em faces} of $\Delta$
and maximal faces (under inclusion) are called {\em facets}.
The {\em dimension} of a face $F \in \Delta$ is $\dim F=\#F-1$, where $\#X$ denotes the cardinality of a finite set $X$,
and the {\em dimension} of $\Delta$ is the maximum dimension of its faces.
Faces of dimension $0$ are called {\em vertices} and faces of dimension $1$ are called {\em edges}.
We define the $f$-numbers $f_{-1}(\Delta),\dots,f_{d-1}(\Delta)$
and $h$-numbers $h_0(\Delta),\dots,h_d(\Delta)$ of a $(d-1)$-dimensional simplicial complex $\Delta$
in the same way as for simplicial polytopes.

We say that a $(d-1)$-dimensional simplicial complex $\Delta$ on $[n]$ is {\em balanced} (completely balanced in some literature)
if
its graph is $d$-colorable,
that is,
there is a map $\kappa :[n] \to [d]$, called a coloring map of $\Delta$,
such that $\kappa(x) \ne \kappa(y)$ for any edge $\{x,y\} \in \Delta$.
For the rest of this paper,
we will assume that $\Delta$ is endowed with a fixed coloring map $\kappa:[n] \to [d]$
and we will always use this coloring map.
For a subset $S \subseteq [d]$, we define
$$f_S(\Delta)=\# \{F \in \Delta: \kappa(F) = S\},$$
where $f_\emptyset(\Delta)=1$,
and
$$h_S(\Delta)= \sum_{T \subseteq S} (-1)^{\#S - \#T} f_S(\Delta).$$
The vectors $(f_S(\Delta) : S \subseteq [d])$
and $(h_S(\Delta): S \subseteq [d])$
are called the {\em flag $f$-vector} and the {\em flag $h$-vector} of $\Delta$, respectively.
For $T \subseteq [d]$, the simplicial complex
$$\Delta_T=\{F \in \Delta: \kappa(F) \subseteq T\}$$
is called the {\em rank-selected subcomplex} of $\Delta$.
It is easy to see that $f_S(\Delta)=f_S(\Delta_T)$ and $h_S(\Delta)=h_S(\Delta_T)$ if $S \subseteq T$.
Also, the usual $f$-numbers and $h$-numbers can be recovered from their flag counterparts by
$f_{i-1}(\Delta)=\sum_{\# S=i} f_S(\Delta)$ and $h_i(\Delta)=\sum_{\#S =i} h_S(\Delta)$.

For a face $F \in \Delta$,
the subcomplexes
$${\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(F)=\{ G \in \Delta: F \cup G \in \Delta,\ F \cap G = \emptyset\}$$
and
$$\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)=\{ G \in \Delta: F \cup G \in \Delta\}$$
are called the {\em link} of $F$ in $\Delta$ and
the {\em star} of $F$ in $\Delta$, respectively.
We say that $\Delta$ is {\em Gorenstein*} (over a field $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$) if, for any face $F \in \Delta$ (including the empty face $\emptyset$),
${\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(F)$ has the same $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$-homology as a $(d-1-\#F)$-sphere.
The following symmetry of flag $h$-vectors of Gorenstein* balanced simplicial complexes is well-known (see \cite[Corollary 4.7]{BB}).

\begin{lemma}
\label{2.1}
If $\Delta$ is a Gorenstein* balanced simplicial complex of dimension $d-1$,
then $h_S(\Delta)=h_{[d]\setminus S}(\Delta)$ for all $S \subseteq [d]$.
\end{lemma}

Next, we recall Stanley-Reisner rings.
Let $\Delta$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional balanced simplicial complex on $[n]$
and let $R= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over an infinite field $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$.
The ring
$$ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]=R/(x_F: F \subseteq [n],\ F \not \in \Delta),$$
where $x_F=\prod_{i \in F} x_i$,
is called the {\em Stanley-Reisner ring of $\Delta$}.
The rings $R$ and $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ have a nice $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$-graded structure induced by the coloring map $\kappa$.
More precisely, for $1\leq i\leq n$, we define $\deg x_i=\mathbf{e}_{\kappa(i)}$,
where $\mathbf{e}_1,\dots,\mathbf{e}_d$ are the unit vectors of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
For a $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$-graded $R$-module $M$,
we write $M_\mathbf{a}$ for the graded component of $M$ of degree $\mathbf{a}$.

Let $I \subset R$ be a homogeneous ideal and let $A=R/I$.
The {\em Krull dimension} of $A$ is the minimal number $k$
such that there is a sequence $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k \in R$ of linear forms
such that $\dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} A/(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k)A< \infty$.
It is well-known that the Krull dimension of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ equals $\dim \Delta +1$ \cite[II Theorem 1.3]{St}.
If $A$ is of Krull dimension $d$, then a sequence $\Theta=\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d$ of linear forms such that
$\dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} A/\Theta A< \infty$ is called a {\em linear system of parameters} (l.s.o.p.\ for short) of $A$.
We say that a simplicial complex $\Delta$ is {\em Cohen-Macaulay} (over $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$)
if the ring $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ is Cohen-Macaulay, that is, any l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$
is a regular sequence of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$.
By Reisner's criterion \cite[II Corollary 4.2]{St},
Gorenstein* simplicial complexes are Cohen-Macaulay.
The following results due to Stanley (see \cite{St0} or \cite[III Section 3]{St}) will be of importance later on.

\begin{lemma}
\label{2.2}
Let $\Delta$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional balanced simplicial complex on $[n]$
and let $\displaystyle{\theta_i=\sum_{v \in [n],\ \kappa(v)=i} x_v}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,d$.
Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] we have an equality of formal power series in variables $t_1,\dots,t_d$
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\mathbf{a} \in  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d}\big( \dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} \big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]\big)_\mathbf{a} \big) \mathbf{t}^\mathbf{a}
= \frac 1 {(1-t_1)(1-t_2) \cdots (1-t_d)} \left\{ \sum_{S \subseteq [d]} h_S(\Delta) \big( \textstyle \prod_{i \in S} t_i\big) \right\},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{t}^\mathbf{a}=t_1^{a_1} \cdots t_d^{a_d}$
for $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,\dots,a_d) \in  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
\item[(ii)] for any variable $x_v$ with $\kappa(v)=i$,
$x_v^2$ is equal to zero in $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\theta_i  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta])$.
\item[(iii)]
$\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$.
\item[(iv)]
if $\Delta$ is Cohen-Macaulay,
so are its rank-selected subcomplexes $\Delta_T$ for $T\subseteq [d]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

In the remaining part of this section,
we will prove algebraic properties of Stanley-Reisner rings of balanced simplicial complexes,
which will play a crucial role in the proofs of the main theorems.
Let $\Delta$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional balanced simplicial complex on $[n]$ and let $A= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$.
Fix an integer $p$ with $0 \leq p \leq d$, and let
$$S=\{1,2,\dots,p\} \mbox{ and } T=\{p+1,\dots,d\}.$$
Let $\Theta=\theta_1,\dots,\theta_p,\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_d'$ be an l.s.o.p.\ of $A$
satisfying the following conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item $\displaystyle{\theta_i=\sum_{v \in [n],\ \kappa(v)=i} x_v}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,p$.
\item $\theta_i' \in  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[x_v: \kappa(v) \in T]$ for $i=p+1,\dots,d$.
\end{itemize}
(Note that such an l.s.o.p.\ exists by Lemma \ref{2.2}(iii).)
We require these somewhat technnical conditions since, in Section \ref{sect:Proofs}, we will need to choose $\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_d'$
as generic linear forms in $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[x_v: \kappa(v) \in T]$.
For simplicity, let $\Theta_S=\theta_1,\dots,\theta_p$
and $\Theta_T'=\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_d'$.

We consider the $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$-grading of $R$ (and $A$) defined by
$\deg x_v= \mathbf{e}_{\kappa(v)}$ if $\kappa(v) \in S$ and $\deg x_v=\mathbf{e}_{0}$ if $\kappa(v) \in T$,
where $\mathbf{e}_0,\dots,\mathbf{e}_p$ are the unit vectors of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$.
Throughout the rest of this section, we only work with this grading rather than the $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$-grading used in Lemma \ref{2.2}.
Note that $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_p,\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_d'$ are homogeneous with respect to this grading.
Let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module having the just defined $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$-graded structure.
As we did for the usual $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^d$-grading, we use $M_\mathbf{a}$ to denote the graded component of $M$ of degree $\mathbf{a}$, where $\mathbf{a}\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$.
Similarly, we write $M_{\geq \mathbf{a}} = \bigoplus_{\mathbf{b} \geq \mathbf{a}} M_\mathbf{b}$,
where $\mathbf{b}=(b_0,\dots,b_p) \geq (a_0,\dots,a_p)=\mathbf{a}$ if $b_i \geq a_i$ for all $i$.
Moreover,  $M(\mathbf{a})$ refers to the graded module $M$ with grading shifted by degree $\mathbf{a}$ so that $M(\mathbf{a})_\mathbf{b}=M_{\mathbf{b}+\mathbf{a}}$. Note that $M_{\geq \mathbf{a}}$ is a submodule of $M$.
The ($ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$-graded) {\em Hilbert series of $M$} is the formal power series in variables $t_0,t_1,\dots,t_p$ defined by
$$ \mathrm{Hilb}(M;t_0,t_1,\dots,t_p)
= \sum_{\mathbf{a} \in  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}} ( \dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} M_\mathbf{a}) \mathbf{t}^\mathbf{a},$$
where $\mathbf{t}^{\mathbf{a}}=t_0^{a_0} \cdots t_p^{a_p}$ for $\mathbf{a}=(a_0,\dots,a_p)\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$.
For $X \subseteq S$, we set $\mathbf{t}^X=\prod_{i \in X} t_i$ and $\mathbf{e}_X= \sum_{i \in X} \mathbf{e}_i$.
By Lemma \ref{2.2} (i),
the Hilbert series of $A= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{2-1}
\mathrm{Hilb}(A;t_0,\dots,t_p)= \frac 1 { (1-t_0)^{d-p} \prod_{i=1}^p (1-t_i)}
\left\{ \sum_{X \subseteq S,\ Y \subseteq T} h_{X \cup Y} (\Delta) \mathbf{t}^X t_0^{\#Y} \right\}.
\end{align}
For a $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$-graded $R$-module $M$,
we write $M^\vee$ for the (graded) Matlis dual of $M$ \cite[I Section 12]{St}.
Note that if $\dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} M < \infty$, then $M^\vee$ is isomorphic to $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}\hspace{1pt}_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}(M, \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}})$
(we only consider this case in this paper).
From now on we assume that
all maps are degree preserving $R$-homomorphisms.

\begin{lemma}
\label{2.3}
With the same notation as above,
the following properties hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Let
$$N=\bigoplus_{F \in \Delta,\ \kappa(F)=S} \big(  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(F)]/\big(\Theta'_T  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(F)]\big)\big).$$
There exists a surjection of modules
$ \psi: N(-\mathbf{e}_S) \to (A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}.$
\item[(ii)]
If $\Delta$ is Cohen-Macaulay, then
$$\mathrm{Hilb}(A/\Theta A;t_0,\dots,t_p)=
\sum_{X \subseteq S,\ Y \subseteq T} h_{X \cup Y}(\Delta) \mathbf{t}^X t_0^{\#Y}.$$
\item[(iii)]
Let $A_T= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta_T]$.
If $\Delta$ is Gorenstein*, then
$$(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T))^\vee \cong ((A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}) (\mathbf{e}_S+(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0).$$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
(i)
For any $F \in \Delta$ with $\kappa(F)=S$, let
$$\varphi_F:  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)] (-\mathbf{e}_S) \to A_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$$
be the map defined by $\varphi_F(\alpha)=x_F \alpha$.
Note that $\varphi_F$ is well-defined since $x_F x_G =0$ in $A= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ for any $G \not \in \mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)$.
Since $A_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$ is generated by monomials $x_F$ with $F\in \Delta$ and with $\kappa(F)=S$,
the sum of the maps $\varphi_F$
$$\bigoplus_{F \in \Delta,\ \kappa(F)=S}  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)] (-\mathbf{e}_S)\to A_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$$
is surjective.
By composing the above map with the natural surjection $A_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S} \to (A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$, we obtain a surjection
$$\varphi: \bigoplus_{F \in \Delta,\ \kappa(F)=S}  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)] (-\mathbf{e}_S) \to (A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}.$$
Since, by Lemma \ref{2.1}(ii), $\varphi_F (x_i)=x_ix_F=0$ for any $i \in F$,
the kernel of $\varphi$ contains
$$\bigoplus_{F \in \Delta,\ \kappa(F)=S} \big((x_i:i \in F)+(\Theta_T')\big) \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)].$$
Using that
$$ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)]/\big((x_i:i\in F) \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\mathrm{st}_\Delta(F)]\big)\cong  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(F)],$$
we conclude that the map $\varphi$ induces a surjection from $N$ to $(A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$.

(ii)
Since $A$ is Cohen-Macaulay,
$\Theta_S$ is a regular sequence of $A$.
Then the short exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow A/((\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{i-1})A) (-\mathbf{e}_i)
\stackrel{\times \theta_i} \longrightarrow
A/((\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{i-1})A)
\longrightarrow
A/((\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{i})A)
\longrightarrow 0$$
shows that
\begin{align}
\label{2-1-2}
\mathrm{Hilb}(A/\Theta_S A;t_0,\dots,t_p)&=
(1-t_1) \cdots (1-t_p)\mathrm{Hilb}(A;t_0,\dots,t_p).
\end{align}
Similarly, since $\Theta_T'$ is a regular sequence of $A/\Theta_SA$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Hilb}(A/\Theta A;t_0,\dots,t_p)&=
(1-t_0)^{d-p}\ \! \mathrm{Hilb}(A/\Theta_SA ;t_0,\dots,t_p)\\
&= \sum_{X \subseteq S,\ Y \subseteq T} h_{X\cup Y}(\Delta) \mathbf{t}^X t_0^{\#Y},
\end{align*}
where we use \eqref{2-1} and \eqref{2-1-2} for the second equality.

(iii) Recall that for any $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^{p+1}$-graded $R$-module $M$, one has
\begin{align}
\label{hoshi}(M^\vee)_\mathbf{a} \cong \ensuremath{\mathrm{Hom}}\hspace{1pt}_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}(M_{-\mathbf{a}}, \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}) \cong M_{-\mathbf{a}}
\end{align}
as $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$-vector spaces.
Since $\Delta$ is Gorenstein*,
$A/\Theta A$ is a Gorenstein graded algebra of Krull dimension $0$.
Thus $A/\Theta A$ and $(A/\Theta A)^\vee$ are isomorphic up to a certain shift in grading \cite[I Theorem 12.5]{St}.
Since $h_{[d]}(\Delta)=h_\emptyset(\Delta)=1$, \eqref{hoshi} and the formula for the Hilbert series of $A/\Theta A$ stated in part (ii) shows that this shift of degree must be $\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0$, that is,
$$(A/\Theta A)^\vee \cong (A/\Theta A) (\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0).$$
Then the natural surjection
$$A/\Theta A \to A/\big(\big((x_v: \kappa(v) \in S)+(\Theta)\big)A \big) \cong A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T)$$
induces an injection
\begin{align}
\label{2-2}
(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T))^\vee \to (A/\Theta A)^\vee \cong (A/\Theta A) (\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0).
\end{align}
Since $A/\Theta A$ has Krull dimension $0$,
so has $A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T)$.
Using that $A_T$ has Krull dimension $\dim \Delta_T +1 = \#T$, we can thus conclude that
$\Theta_T'$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $A_T$.
Since $\Delta_T$ is Cohen-Macaulay, we infer from
 part (ii) (applied to the situation that $A=A_T$ and $S= \emptyset$)
$$\mathrm{Hilb}(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T);t_0,\dots,t_p)= \sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_Y(\Delta_T) t_0^{\#Y} = \sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_Y(\Delta) t_0^{\#Y}.$$
In particular, by \eqref{hoshi} we have
\begin{align}
\label{2-3}
\mathrm{Hilb}\big(\big(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T)\big)^\vee ;t_0,\dots,t_p\big) = \sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_Y(\Delta) t_0^{-\#Y}.
\end{align}
This implies $(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T))^\vee=(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T))^\vee_{\geq -(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0}$.
Then since
$$( A/\Theta A)(\mathbf{e}_S+(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0)_{\geq -(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0}
=((A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S})(\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0),$$
the map \eqref{2-2} induces an injection
$$\big(A_T/(\Theta_T'A_T)\big) ^\vee
\to ((A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S})(\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0).$$
Now, to obtain the desired isomorphism,
it is enough to show that the module
$((A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S})(\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0)$
has the same Hilbert series as $(A_T/(\Theta_T'A_T))^\vee$, which has been computed in \eqref{2-3}.
Indeed, part (ii) and Lemma \ref{2.1} say that the Hilbert series of $(A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$ equals
$$\textstyle
\sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_{S \cup Y}(\Delta) \mathbf{t}^S t_0^{\#Y}
=\sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_{T \setminus Y}(\Delta) \mathbf{t}^S t_0^{\#Y},$$
and therefore we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{Hilb}\big(\big((A/\Theta A)_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S} \big) (\mathbf{e}_S +(d-p)\mathbf{e}_0 );t_0,\dots,t_p\big)
= \sum_{Y \subseteq T} h_{T\setminus Y} (\Delta) t_0^{\#Y -\#T}
\end{align*}
which is equal to the right-hand side of \eqref{2-3}, as desired.
\end{proof}

\section{Proofs of the main results}\label{sect:Proofs}

In this section, we provide the proofs of the results listed in the introduction.
Throughout this section,
we consider the standard $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-grading of the polynomial ring $R= \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ defined by $\deg x_i=1$ for all $i$.
For a $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$-graded $R$-module $M$, let $M_k$ be the graded component of $M$ of degree $k$
and let $M(k)$ be the graded module $M$ with grading shifted by $k$.

We say that a $(d-1)$-dimensional Gorenstein* simplicial complex $\Delta$ has the {\em strong Lefschetz property} (SLP for short) over $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$ if there exist  an l.s.o.p.\ $\Theta$ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$ and a linear form $\omega$ such that the multiplication map
$$\times \omega^{d-2i} : \big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\Theta  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta])\big)_i \to \big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\Theta  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta])\big)_{d-i}$$
is an isomorphism for all $i\leq \frac d 2$.
A linear form $\omega$ satisfying the above condition is called a {\em Lefschetz element} of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\Theta  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta])$.
It is known that if $\Delta$ has the SLP, then, for a generic choice of linear forms $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d,\omega$, the sequence
$\Theta=\theta_1,\dots,\theta_d$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$
and
$\omega$ is a Lefschetz element of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\Theta  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta])$ (see \cite[Proposition 3.6]{Sw}).
Throughout this section,
we regard a simplicial polytope $P$ as a simplicial complex by identifying $P$
with its boundary complex.
By this identification, every simplicial $d$-polytope is a Gorenstein* simplicial complex of dimension $d-1$.
The following result follows from the Hard Lefschetz theorem for projective toric varieties.
See \cite[III Section 1]{St}.

\begin{lemma}\label{Stanley:Lefschetz}
A simplicial $d$-polytope has the SLP over $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}$.
\end{lemma}

We also recall the following well-known fact (see e.g., \cite[II Section 3]{St}).

\begin{lemma}
\label{cm}
Let $\Delta$ be a simplicial complex and let $\Theta$ be an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]$.
If $\Delta$ is Cohen-Macaulay over $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}$, then $\dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}} ( \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]/(\Theta  \ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}[\Delta]))_i=h_i(\Delta)$ for all $i$.
\end{lemma}

The following statement is crucial for the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm1.2}, \ref{thm1.3} and \ref{thm1.4}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{3.2}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplcial $d$-polytope, $T \subseteq [d]$ and $A_T= \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$.
There exist an l.s.o.p.\ $\Theta_T$ of $A_T$ and a linear form $\omega$ such that
the multiplication
$$\times \omega ^{\#T-2i} : \big(A_T/(\Theta_T A_T)\big)_i \to \big(A_T/(\Theta_T A_T)\big)_{\#T-i}$$
is injective for $i \leq \frac {\# T} 2$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof
Let $S=[d] \setminus T$.
We may assume that $S=\{1,2,\dots,p\}$ and $T=\{p+1,\dots,d\}$ for some $0 \leq p \leq d$.
Let $\Theta_S=\theta_1,\dots,\theta_p$ with $\theta_i=\sum_{\kappa(v)=i} x_v$ for $i=1,2,\dots,p$.
Since a link in a simplicial polytope is again a simplicial polytope,
for a sufficiently generic choice of linear forms $\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_{d}',\omega$ in $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[x_v: \kappa(v) \in T]$,
we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\Theta_T'=\theta_{p+1}',\dots,\theta_d'$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_P(F)]$ and $\omega$ is a Lefschetz element of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_P(F)]/(\Theta_T'  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_P(F)])$ for any face $F$ of $P$ with $\kappa(F)=S$.
\item[(b)] $\Theta_T'$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$.
\item[(c)] $(\Theta_S,\Theta_T')$ is an l.s.o.p.\ of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P]$.
\end{itemize}
((b) and (c) follow from \cite[III Lemma 2.4]{St}.)
Let $M=( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P]/((\Theta_S,\Theta_T')  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P]))_{\geq \mathbf{e}_S}$
and
$\displaystyle{N=\bigoplus_{F \in P,\ \kappa(F)=S}  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_P(F)]/(\Theta_T'  \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[{\mathrm{lk}}_P(F)])}$.
By Lemma \ref{2.3} (i), there exists a surjection $\psi: N(-\#S) \to M$.
Consider the commutative diagram
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
N_{\#T-i} & \stackrel \psi \longrightarrow & M_{\# T-i+\#S}\medskip\\
\times \omega^{\#T -2i} \uparrow\hspace{40pt} & & \hspace{40pt} \uparrow \times \omega^{\#T -2i}\smallskip\\
N_{i} & \stackrel \psi \longrightarrow & M_{i+\#S},
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $i \leq \frac {\#T} 2$.
Since $\psi$ and the left vertical map are surjective by (a),
the multiplication
\begin{align*}
\times \omega^{\#T -2i} : M_{i+ \#S} \longrightarrow M_{\# T-i+\#S}=M_{d-i}
\end{align*}
is surjective for $i \leq \frac {\#T} 2$.
Since, by Lemma \ref{2.3} (iii), $M$ and $(A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T))^\vee$ are isomorphic up to a shift of degree $d$, the above surjectivity implies that the multiplication
$$\times \omega^{\#T -2i} : \big( A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T)\big)^\vee _{i+\#S-d}
\to \big( A_T/(\Theta_T' A_T)\big)^\vee _{-i}
$$
is surjective for $i \leq \frac {\#T} 2$.
Since $i+\#S-d=-(\#T-i)$,
the desired injectivity follows from the fact that $(L^\vee)^\vee \cong L$ for any graded $R$-module $L$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
It was asked by Bj\"orner and Swartz \cite[Problem 4.2]{Sw} if the conclusion of Theorem \ref{3.2} holds for all doubly Cohen-Macaulay complexes.
As rank-selected subcomplexes of balanced simplicial polytopes are doubly Cohen-Macaulay, Theorem \ref{3.2} gives a partial affirmative answer to this question. It was shown by Swartz that the conjecture is true for simplicial complexes, which have convex ear decompositions \cite[Theorem 3.9]{Sw}. However, it is not known at present if rank-selected subcomplexes $P_T$ have convex ear decompositions.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
Although Theorem \ref{3.2} does not show that rank-selected subcomplexes possess the strong or weak Lefschetz property in the sense of \cite{Book}, it does    show that those complexes have a similar (though weaker) property.
This type of property is often referred to as Lefschetz properties.
\end{remark}

We can now provide the proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.3}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.3}]
We use the same notation as in Theorem \ref{3.2}.
Since $P_T$ is Cohen-Macaulay,
$\dim_ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}(A_T/(\Theta_T A_T))_k=h_k(P_T)$ for all $k$.
Then the first statement directly follows from the injectivity in Theorem \ref{3.2}.
From this injectivity we also deduce that the multiplication map
$\times w :(A_T/(\Theta_T A_T))_{i-1} \to (A_T/(\Theta_T A_T))_{i}$
is injective for $i \leq \frac {\#T+1} 2$, which implies the second statement.
\end{proof}

Next, we prove Theorem \ref{thm1.2}.

It follows from the next lemma that Theorem \ref{thm1.3} implies Theorem \ref{thm1.2}. This was also noted in \cite{GKN} (see discussion after Theorem 5.3 in \cite{GKN}), but we include the proof for completeness.

\begin{lemma}
\label{3.3}
Let $\Delta$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional balanced simplicial complex.
For $i \leq k \leq d$, we have
$${d-i \choose k-i} h_i(\Delta)= \sum_{T \subseteq [d],\ \#T=k} h_i(\Delta_T).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The assertion follows  from equations $h_i(\Delta)=\sum_{\# S=i} h_S(\Delta)$
and $h_i(\Delta_T)=\sum_{S \subseteq T,\ \#S=i} h_S(\Delta)$
by a routine double counting argument.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1.2}]
By Lemma \ref{3.3},
$$ {d-i \choose i-1} h_i(P)= \sum_{T \subseteq [d],\ \#T=2i-1} h_i(P_T)$$
and
$$ {d-i+1 \choose i} h_{i-1}(P)= \sum_{T \subseteq [d],\ \#T=2i-1} h_{i-1}(P_T).$$
Since $i {d-i+1 \choose i} = (d-i+1){d-i \choose i-1}$,
the above equations say
\begin{align*}
{d-i+1 \choose i}\overline{g}_i(P)
&=(d-i+1) \left\{ {d-i \choose i-1}h_i(P)- { d-i+1 \choose i} h_{i-1}(P) \right\}\\
&=(d-i+1) \left( \sum_{T \subseteq [d],\ \#T =2i-1} h_i(P_T)-h_{i-1}(P_T)\right),
\end{align*}
which is non-negative by Theorem \ref{thm1.3}, as desired.
\end{proof}

The above proof clearly implies the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}
\label{3.4}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope and $1\leq i\leq  \lfloor \frac {d+1} 2 \rfloor$. Then, $\overline g_i(P)=0$ if and only if
$h_i(P_T)=h_{i-1}(P_T)$ for all $T \subseteq [d]$ with $\#T=2i-1$.
\end{corollary}

We finally prove Theorem \ref{thm1.4}.
Before giving a proof,
we show the following simple lemma.
A simplicial complex is said to be \textit{pure}
if all its facets have the same cardinality.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:balancedG}
Let $\Delta$ be a $(d-1)$-dimensional pure balanced simplicial complex on $[n]$.
For $0\leq i \leq d$, we have
$$\sum_{v\in [n]}\overline{g}_i \big({\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(v) \big)=i\overline{g}_{i+1}(\Delta)+(d-i)\overline{g}_i(\Delta).$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By the definition of the balanced $g$-numbers, we have
\begin{align}
\label{3-3}
\sum_{v\in [n]}\overline{g}_i({\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(v))=
i\left(\sum_{v\in [n]}  h_i\big({\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(v)\big) \right)-(d-i) \left(\sum_{v\in[n]}h_{i-1}\big({\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(v)\big) \right).
\end{align}
On the other hand, since $\Delta$ is pure,
it follows from \cite[Proposition 2.3]{Sw2} that
$$\textstyle \sum_{v\in [n]}h_i\big({\mathrm{lk}}_\Delta(v)\big) = (i+1)h_{i+1}(\Delta)+(d-i)h_{i}(\Delta)$$
for all $i$.
By substituting the above equation in \eqref{3-3},
we get the desired equation.
\end{proof}

Now Theorem \ref{thm1.4} directly follows from Lemma \ref{lem:balancedG} and the next proposition.

\begin{proposition}
Let $P$ be a balanced simplicial $d$-polytope and let $v$ be a vertex of $P$.
If $\overline g_i(P)=0$ for some $i \leq \frac d 2$, then $\overline g_i({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))=0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{3.4}, what we must prove is
\begin{align}
\label{3-2}
h_i\big(({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T\big) - h_{i-1}\big(({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T\big)=0
\end{align}
for all $T \subseteq [d] \setminus \{ \kappa (v)\}$ with $\#T=2i-1$.
Fix a subset $T \subseteq [d] \setminus \{ \kappa (v)\}$ with $\#T=2i-1$.
We prove \eqref{3-2}.

Consider $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$ and $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]$.
Note that both $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$ and $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]$ are of Krull dimension $\#T$.
By Theorem \ref{3.2}, there is a linear system of parameters $\Theta$ for both $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$ and $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]$, and a linear form $\omega $ such that
\begin{align*}
& \dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]/((\Theta,\omega) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T])\big)_i\\
&=
\dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]/(\Theta \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T])\big)_i \! -\!  \dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]/(\Theta \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T])\big)_{i-1}\\
&=h_{i}(P_T)-h_{i-1}(P_T),
\end{align*}
where we use the injectivity in Theorem \ref{3.2} for the first equality
and use Lemmas \ref{2.2} (iv) and \ref{cm} for the second equality,
and similarly
$$\dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]/\big((\Theta,\omega) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]\big)\big)_i=h_i\big(\big({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v)\big)_T\big)-h_{i-1}\big(\big({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v)\big)_T\big).$$
Since $({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T$ is a subcomplex of $P_T$,
$ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]$ is a quotient ring of $ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]$ and
thus
$$
\dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T]/((\Theta,\omega) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[({\mathrm{lk}}_P(v))_T])\big)_i
\leq
\dim_{ \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}}\big( \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T]/((\Theta,\omega) \ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}[P_T])\big)_i.$$
As the assumption $\overline g_i(P)=0$ implies  $h_i(P_T)-h_{i-1}(P_T)=0$ by Corollary \ref{3.4},
we get the desired equation \eqref{3-2}.
\end{proof}

\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgments}:
The second author was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI 25400043.
We would like to thank Steven Klee and Isabella Novik for their helpful comments on the paper.

Combinatorics (math.CO); Commutative Algebra (math.AC)