F(M_0)$ be the set of spanning forests compatible with $M_0$, satisfying Condition (C).

<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example</span>. Applying the trimming algorithm to each of the spanning forests $F_1,F_2,F_3$ of Figure \[fig:fig6\] yields: $$\begin{aligned}
F_1:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1.
\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_2:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_2=2,3,5.
\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_3:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=4,\lambda_4=4,1.
\quad\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\end{aligned}$$ The spanning trees $F_1$ and $F_2$ satisfy Condition (C) but not $F_3$.\

$\,$

-   It is interesting to note that taking different perfect matchings $M_0$ yields different families of half-spanning forests. It is not clear a priori, without using the Pfaffian half-tree theorem, that these families should have the same total weight.

-   Suppose that we change the labeling of the vertices. Let $\tilde{A^R}$ be the corresponding skew-symmetric adjacency matrix, and $\tilde{A}$ be the matrix obtained by removing the $r$ last lines and columns. As long as the re-labeling does not affect vertices of $R$, the matrix $\tilde{A}$ is obtained from the matrix $A$ by exchanging lines and columns, so that $\Pf(\tilde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. Applying the Pfaffian half-tree theorem to the matrices $A$ and $\tilde{A}$ nevertheless yields a different set of half-spanning forests and again, it is not clear a priori that they should have the same total weight
F(M_0)$ be the set of spanning forests compatible with $ M_0 $, satisfying Condition (C). 

 < straddle style="font - variant: humble - caps;">Example</span >. Applying the trimming algorithm to each of the spanning forest $ F_1,F_2,F_3 $ of Figure   \[fig: fig6\ ] yields: $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 F_1:&\quad\text{Step 1: } { \ell}_1 ^ 1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1. 
 \quad\text{Step 2: } { \ell}_1 ^ 2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\ 
 F_2:&\quad\text{Step 1: } { \ell}_1 ^ 1=2,\lambda_2=2,3,5. 
 \quad\text{Step 2: } { \ell}_1 ^ 2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\ 
 F_3:&\quad\text{Step 1: } { \ell}_1 ^ 1=4,\lambda_4=4,1. 
 \quad\quad\text{Step 2: } { \ell}_1 ^ 2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\end{aligned}$$ The spanning trees $ F_1 $ and $ F_2 $ satisfy Condition (C) but not $ F_3$.\ 

 $ \,$ 

 -    It is interesting to notice that taking different perfect matchings $ M_0 $ output different families of half - cross forests. It is not clear a priori, without using the Pfaffian half - tree theorem, that these families should accept the same total weight. 

 -    Suppose that we change the labeling of the vertex. Let $ \tilde{A^R}$ be the corresponding skew - symmetric adjacency matrix, and $ \tilde{A}$ be the matrix prevail by removing the $ r$ last lines and column. As long as the re - labeling does not affect vertices of $ R$, the matrix $ \tilde{A}$ is obtained from the matrix $ A$ by change lines and columns, so that $ \Pf(\tilde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. Applying the Pfaffian half - tree theorem to the matrices $ A$ and $ \tilde{A}$ nevertheless give a different set of half - spanning forests and again, it is not clear a priori that they should have the same total weight
F(M_0)$ he the set of spanning furests compatible with $M_0$, satjsfying Zondition (C).

<span style="font-varmant:wmall-xaps;">Example</span>. Applyivg the trpmming altoriuhm to each of thx spanniky forsdts $Y_1,F_2,H_3$ of Figure \[fig:flg6\] yields: $$\bagin{aligned}
F_1:&\qudd\gert{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1.
\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\laibda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_2:&\qusd\hext{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lwmbds_2=2,3,5.
\zuad\fvxu{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_3:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\elm}_1^1=4,\lambda_4=4,1.
\xuad\quad\text{Syep 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\end{aligned}$$ Tje soanning trees $F_1$ anf $F_2$ satisfy Conqution (C) but vot $F_3$.\

$\,$

-   It is interestjng to note that taking differevt pexfect matchunts $L_0$ yields difherent families of half-spatning fprests. It is npt rleae a priori, without usmng the Pfaffian hals-tree themrzm, that these familiew whoulg haee tfw sxme tptzl weihht.

-   Suppose that we chqnge the labeling og eye vertices. Lst $\tilqe{W^R}$ be the corresponding skew-symmetric agjadency matrix, and $\tilde{A}$ be the matrix obtaingd by remoding the $r$ last lines and columns. As long as the se-labxlkng djdw jot affect vertices of $R$, the matrix $\tilde{A}$ is kbuaiked from the matvix $A$ by exchanginb pimgs and columns, so thcf $\Lf(\tilde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. Appljing thg Pfafdian half-uree yheorem to the matrices $A$ abd $\tilde{A}$ nenertyeless yields a diyferent set uf hslf-spsnning forests and agaiu, it ia not clear a priori ghat they should hane tve same uutal weight
F(M_0)$ be the set of spanning forests $M_0$, Condition (C). style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example</span>. Applying the the forests $F_1,F_2,F_3$ of \[fig:fig6\] yields: $$\begin{aligned} 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1. \quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\ F_2:&\quad\text{Step }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_2=2,3,5. \quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\ F_3:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=4,\lambda_4=4,1. \quad\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\end{aligned}$$ The spanning trees and $F_2$ satisfy Condition (C) but not $F_3$.\ $\,$ - It is interesting note taking perfect $M_0$ yields different families of half-spanning forests. It is not clear a priori, without using the half-tree theorem, that these families should have the total weight. - Suppose we change the labeling of vertices. $\tilde{A^R}$ be corresponding adjacency and $\tilde{A}$ be matrix obtained by removing the $r$ last lines and columns. As long as the re-labeling does not vertices of matrix $\tilde{A}$ obtained the $A$ by exchanging columns, so that $\Pf(\tilde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. Applying the to the matrices $A$ and $\tilde{A}$ nevertheless yields different set half-spanning forests and again, it is clear a priori that they should have the total weight
F(M_0)$ be the set of spanning foresTs compatibLe witH $M_0$, sAtiSfYing condItion (C).

<span stylE="Font-Variant:small-caps;">ExamplE</span>. apPLyinG ThE trimMing algORiTHM to EaCh Of tHe SPaNning ForEsts $F_1,F_2,F_3$ Of Figure \[fiG:fiG6\] yIelds: $$\begin{alIGnEd}
F_1:&\quad\texT{StEp 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1.
\qUad\Text{StEp 2: }{\Ell}_1^2=1,\LAmbda_1=1,4,5.\\
f_2:&\quAd\texT{Step 1: }{\eLL}_1^1=2,\lambdA_2=2,3,5.
\quad\text{stEP 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\laMBda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_3:&\quaD\TExT{SteP 1: }{\ell}_1^1=4,\lambda_4=4,1.
\quad\quaD\TeXT{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\End{aliGnED}$$ THE SpaNniNg trees $F_1$ anD $F_2$ SatisFY ConditIOn (c) BUT noT $f_3$.\

$\,$

-   It is interestIng to note thAT taKing diFfEreNT perfeCt matChINgs $m_0$ yields diffErenT families Of half-SPanning FOrests. IT is not CleAr a PrioRI, wItHouT uSIng THe pfaFFiaN half-treE tHeOrem, tHat tHESE FamiLieS shoUld haVe the same totaL weIght.

-   sUppOse thAt we cHangE tHe labEling oF the vErTices. Let $\tilde{A^R}$ Be thE correspoNdiNg SkeW-sYmmetRIc adjaCenCy mAtrix, anD $\tilde{A}$ BE thE mATRIx Obtained by removing ThE $R$ LaSt lines aNd coluMNs. as LOng as the Re-LabElinG DOes noT affECt Vertices Of $R$, the MAtRiX $\tilde{A}$ Is ObtainEd FroM thE matrIX $A$ by ExchanGing lineS and cOLumns, so that $\Pf(\tILde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. ApplYInG THe pFaffIan Half-tree theOrem TO the MatrICeS $A$ aND $\tildE{A}$ nevErTHeLEss yields a different SeT of halF-spanNing forests anD again, it is NOT Clear a prIori THaT They should have The saMe total weiGHt
F(M_0)$ be the set of span ning fores ts co mpa tib le  wit h $M _0$, satisfyin g  Con dition (C).

<span sty le="f on t -var i an t:sma ll-caps ; "> E x amp le </ spa n> .  A pplyi ngthe tri mming algo rit hm  to each oft he  spanningfor ests $F_1,F_ 2,F _3$ of  F igu r e \[f ig: fig6\ ] yiel d s: $$\ begin{ali gn e d}
F_1 : &\quad\ t e xt {Ste p 1: }{\ell}_1^1= 2 ,\ l ambda_{2}=2,3, 1.
\qu ad \ te x t {St ep2: }{\ell} _1 ^2=1, \ lambda_ 1 =1 , 4 , 5.\ \ 
F_2:&\quad\t ext{Step 1: }{\ ell}_1 ^1 =2, \ lambda _2=2, 3, 5 .
\ quad\text{S tep2: }{\ell }_1^2= 1 ,\lambd a _1=1,4, 5.\\
F _3: &\q uad\ t ex t{ Ste p1 : } { \e ll} _ 1^1 =4,\lamb da _4 =4,1. 
\qu a d \ q uad\ tex t{St ep 2:  }{\ell}_1^2= 1,\ lamb d a_1 =1,2, 3,5.\ end{ al igned }$$ Th e spa nn ing trees $F_1$  and  $F_2$ sa tis fy  Co nd ition (C) bu t n ot$F_3$.\ 

$\,$-  I t i sinteresting to not et h at  takingdiffer e nt  p e rfect ma tc hin gs $ M _ 0$ yi elds di fferentfamili e sof  half-s pa nningfo res ts.  It i s  not  clear  a prior i, wi t hout using the Pfaffian half - tr e e  t h eore m,that thesefami l iesshou l dhav e  thesameto t al weight.

-   Suppos ethat w e cha nge the label ing of the v e rtices.Let$ \t i lde{A^R}$ be t he co rrespondin g  skew-sy mmetr ic adjac ency matr i x , and $\ til de{ A}$  be t he  matrix obtai n e d by  r emoving  th e $r$ l ast  li nes  an dcolumns.As longas  t he  r e-l abeli n g does n ot  af fe ctverti c es of$R$,thema tr i x $ \tilde{ A }$ i s ob ta in ed f rom  t he ma trix $A$  by exc hanging l ine s  and  c ol umns, s o that $\Pf(\ ti lde{A})=\p m\ Pf( A)$. A p p lying th e Pfaffian half-tree th e orem to  th e mat rice s $A$ and  $\ tilde{ A}$ nevert heless  yiel ds  ad i ffere n t  s etof  half-span n i ngfores ts  and  again,  it is not clear a pri ori that they  sh ould h av e t h es ame  t o tal w eight
F(M_0)$ be_the set_of spanning forests compatible_with $M_0$,_satisfying_Condition (C).

<span_style="font-variant:small-caps;">Example</span>._Applying the trimming_algorithm to each_of the spanning forests_$F_1,F_2,F_3$ of Figure \[fig:fig6\]_yields:_$$\begin{aligned}
F_1:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_{2}=2,3,1.
\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_2:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=2,\lambda_2=2,3,5.
\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,4,5.\\
F_3:&\quad\text{Step 1: }{\ell}_1^1=4,\lambda_4=4,1.
\quad\quad\text{Step 2: }{\ell}_1^2=1,\lambda_1=1,2,3,5.\end{aligned}$$ The_spanning_trees $F_1$_and_$F_2$_satisfy Condition (C) but not_$F_3$.\

$\,$

-   It is_interesting to_note that taking different perfect matchings $M_0$ yields_different_families of half-spanning_forests. It is not clear a priori, without using_the Pfaffian half-tree theorem, that these_families should have_the_same_total weight.

-  _Suppose that we change the labeling_of the vertices. Let $\tilde{A^R}$ be_the corresponding skew-symmetric adjacency matrix, and $\tilde{A}$_be the matrix obtained by removing_the $r$ last lines and_columns. As_long as the re-labeling does_not affect vertices_of $R$,_the matrix $\tilde{A}$_is obtained from the matrix $A$_by exchanging lines_and columns, so that $\Pf(\tilde{A})=\pm\Pf(A)$. Applying_the_Pfaffian half-tree theorem_to_the_matrices $A$_and $\tilde{A}$ nevertheless_yields_a different_set_of half-spanning forests and again, it_is_not clear a priori that they should_have the same total_weight