Inertia and spectral symmetry of the eccentricity matrices of a class of bi-block graphs
Abstract
The eccentricity matrix of a simple connected graph is obtained from the distance matrix of by retaining the largest non-zero distance in each row and column, and the remaining entries are defined to be zero. A bi-block graph is a simple connected graph whose blocks are all complete bipartite graphs with possibly different orders. In this paper, we study the eccentricity matrices of a subclass (which includes trees) of bi-block graphs. We first find the inertia of the eccentricity matrices of graphs in , and thereby we characterize graphs in with odd diameters. Precisely, if with diameter of greater than three, then we show that the eigenvalues of the eccentricity matrix of are symmetric with respect to the origin if and only if the diameter of is odd. Further, we prove that the eccentricity matrices of graphs in are irreducible.
AMS Subject Classification (2010): 05C12, 05C50.
Keywords. Eccentricity matrix, bi-block graph, inertia, spectral symmetry.
1 Introduction
Let be a simple connected graph on vertices with the vertex set . In literature, many properties and structural characteristics of have been studied by associating several matrices corresponding to , see [2]. Let us recall some of them which are pertinent to our discussion here. The adjacency matrix of , denoted by , is an matrix whose -th entry is one if and are adjacent and zero elsewhere. Let denote the length of a shortest path between the vertices and . The distance matrix of , is an matrix such that for all and . Clearly, the adjacency matrix can be obtained from the distance matrix by retaining the smallest non-zero distance (which is equal to one) in each row and column and by setting the rest of the entries equal to zero. Inspired by this, Randić [12] associated a new matrix corresponding to , namely , which is derived from the distance matrix by keeping the largest non-zero distance in each row and each column of and defining the remaining entries equal to zero. Later, Wang et al. [15] obtained an equivalent definition of using the notion of eccentricity of a vertex and called it the eccentricity matrix. Recall that the eccentricity of a vertex is defined by = max . The eccentricity matrix of is an matrix whose -th entry is given by
This matrix has been well studied in the literature (see [7, 10, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 14, 16]) and has applications in Chemistry, see [12, 15, 14].
It is significant to note that the adjacency and distance matrices of connected graphs are always irreducible, but the eccentricity matrix fails to satisfy this property for a general connected graph. For example, the eccentricity matrix of a complete bipartite graph is reducible for all , see [15]. However, for some classes of graphs, the associated eccentricity matrices are irreducible. It is proved in [15] that the eccentricity matrix of a tree with at least two vertices is irreducible, and an alternative proof of this result is given in [8]. This result has been extended to some larger classes of graphs in [7] and [16]. It is shown in [11] that the eccentricity matrices of the coalescence of complete graphs are irreducible. Characterizing the graphs whose eccentricity matrices are irreducible, posed by Wang et al. [15], remains an open problem. In this paper, we provide a class of bi-block graphs , defined below, whose eccentricity matrices are irreducible.
To introduce the graph class , let us recall the following definitions. A block of a graph is a maximal connected subgraph of which has no cut-vertex. A connected graph is called a bi-block graph (block graph) if all its blocks are complete bipartite graphs (respectively, complete graphs) of possibly varying orders. Note that the complete bipartite graphs are bi-block graphs with exactly one block. Since the spectral properties of the eccentricity matrices of complete bipartite graphs are already explored in [8], it is sufficient to consider the bi-block graphs with at least two blocks. The main focus of this article is to analyze the spectral symmetry of the eccentricity matrices of bi-block graphs. In Section 4, it is shown that the spectral symmetry result is not true for a bi-block graph having more than two cut-vertices in a block. In view of these, we define the class which is the collection of all bi-block graphs with at least two blocks and at most two cut-vertices in each block. Clearly, contains all trees with at least three vertices.
In what follows, we present a brief survey of the literature on bi-block graphs. In [4], the authors studied the spectral radius of the adjacency matrix of a class of bi-block graphs with a given independence number. The permanent, determinant, and the rank of the adjacency matrices of bi-block graphs were computed in [13]. The inverse formula given for the distance matrix of a tree was extended to a subclass of bi-block graphs in [6]. Inspired by these, in this article, we study the eccentricity matrices of the subclass of bi-block graphs.
A primary motivation for studying this paper comes from the following spectral symmetry results. In related to this, we first recall a well-known characterization for bipartite graphs. A graph is a bipartite graph if and only if the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix are symmetric with respect to the origin (i.e., if is an eigenvalue of with multiplicity then - is also an eigenvalue of with multiplicity ). In [10], the authors studied a similar equivalence for the eccentricity matrices of trees and gave a characterization for trees of odd diameters. Specifically, the eigenvalues of of a tree are symmetric with respect to the origin if and only if is odd. An analogous result has been proved for a subclass of block graphs (namely, clique trees) in [7]. The problem of characterizing the graphs whose eigenvalues of the eccentricity matrices are symmetric with respect to the origin, posed in [10], remains open. Motivated by these, in this article, we consider the spectral symmetry equivalence for the eccentricity matrices of graphs in . Precisely, we prove that the eigenvalues of are symmetric with respect to the origin if and only if is odd, whenever with . By means of examples, we show that this equivalence does not hold for a general bi-block graph and for with .
To present another motivation for this paper, we now turn our attention to the inertias of graph matrices (i.e., matrices that arise from graphs). Let us recall the notion of inertia. Let be an real symmetric matrix and let , and denote the number of positive, negative and zero eigenvalues of , respectively, including the multiplicities. The inertia of is the ordered triple , and is denoted by . It is known that . An interesting and challenging problem in spectral graph theory is finding the eigenvalues and inertias of graph matrices, see [2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 15, 14, 16] and the references therein. Among other results, it has been proved that the inertia of the distance matrix of a tree on vertices is , see [2]. The inertias of the eccentricity matrices of lollipop graphs, coalescence of complete graphs, coalescence of two cycles, trees, and clique trees have been computed in [7, 10, 8, 11]. One of the objectives of this article is to find the inertias of the eccentricity matrices of the graphs in . Some of the results obtained and the ideas used in this paper are similar to those in [7, 10] but the proofs are different in many cases.
The outline of this article is as follows. In the next section, we recall some results and notation used in this article. In Section 3, we associate a tree for each and study their relationships where is a subclass of bi-block graphs. Using these results, we derive the centers of graphs in . Section 4 deals with the inertia and the spectral symmetry of eccentricity matrix of . Among other things, we give an equivalent condition for the spectrum of to be symmetric with respect to the origin where . Finally, we prove the irreducibility of the eccentricity matrices of graphs in .
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we recall basic definitions and notation that will be used in the sequel.
We denote the vertex set and the edge set of a graph by and , respectively. A graph is said to be a subgraph of if and . A subgraph of is called an induced subgraph of if the edges of are precisely the edges of whose ends are in . We denote the induced subgraph by and call it as the subgraph induced by . A vertex is said to be a cut-vertex of if is a disconnected graph. The notation stands for the collection of all cut-vertices of . A maximal connected subgraph of a graph is known as a component of . The radius and the diameter of are, respectively, denoted by and , and are defined by and . A path in is a subgraph of whose vertices are arranged in a sequence such that two vertices are adjacent in if and only if they are consecutive in the sequence. We denote a path of length between two vertices and in by , where for all . We write the length of the path by . A diametrical path in is a shortest path between two vertices and such that . A vertex is said to be a central vertex if . The center of , denoted by , is the collection of all central vertices of .
A graph is said to be bipartite if can be partitioned into two non-empty subsets and such that each edge of has one end in and the other end in . The pair is called a bipartition of the bipartite graph and the sets and are referred to as the partite sets of . A bipartite graph with bipartition is said to be a complete bipartite graph if every vertex of is adjacent to all the vertices of , and is denoted by where stands for the cardinality of . For more details on graph-theoretic notions and terminologies, we refer to the book [1].
Let and let be a block of . Then is a complete bipartite graph . Throughout this article, we assume that is the bipartition of . The block of is said to be a bridge block if , and a leaf block if .
Let be an matrix. We write the transpose of , -th row of , -th column of and the rank of by , , and , respectively. We denote the principal submatrix of whose rows and columns are indexed, respectively, by the sets and by . The notations and are used to denote the matrices with all elements equal to and , respectively, and the orders of the matrices are clear from the context. The determinant of a square matrix is written by .
In the following, we collect some known results which are needed in this paper.
Theorem 2.1 ([17]).
Let and be and real matrices, respectively, and let be a symmetric partitioned matrix of order . If is nonsingular, then
-
(i)
.
-
(ii)
.
In fact, the above result holds for any non-singular principal submatrix of .
Theorem 2.2 ([17, P.25]).
If is an real matrix, then the characteristic polynomial of is given by where denotes the sum of all principal minors of order for all .
Theorem 2.3 ([17]).
Let be a symmetric matrix of order and be a principal submatrix of order where . If the eigenvalues of and are and , respectively, then . Moreover,
3 Relations between and its associated tree
In this section, we associate a tree for each graph and obtain some interconnections between and by employing the properties of trees. In particular, we show that and . Making use of these relations, we explicitly find the centers of graphs in . These results will be used in the next section to study the inertia and the spectral symmetry of the eccentricity matrix of a graph in .
The idea of analyzing a graph through the associated tree is motivated by [7, 10]. In [7], the authors studied the eccentricity matrices of clique trees by constructing trees of particular types. While defining trees, they considered non-cut-vertices only from the leaf blocks of clique trees. In our case, we have to include non-cut-vertices from both leaf blocks and bridge blocks of in order to obtain a tree satisfying specific properties and thus the construction is different from [7].
Let us begin this section by associating a subgraph for each . It will be shown later that is a tree. We collect some selected vertices from each block of to define . If , then we collect both the vertices of . Suppose that and is a bridge block with . If both the cut-vertices and lie on the same partite set, say , then we choose three vertices from , which are , and a non-cut-vertex in with the minimum vertex label; otherwise, we collect exactly two vertices and from . In the case of leaf block , we collect exactly three vertices, which are the cut-vertex in , and non-cut-vertices with the minimum vertex label in each partite sets and . The graph is defined as the subgraph induced by the vertex set which is the union of all selected vertices in each block of . The precise construction of is given below.
Definition 3.1.
Let and let be a block of with bipartition . For , we denote the non-cut-vertex with the minimum vertex label in , if it exists, by . If , we define
If , then we set . Let where runs over all blocks of . Define as the subgraph induced by the vertex subset . That is,
(1) |
Remark 3.1.
We mention that the choice of a non-cut-vertex with the minimum vertex label ensures the uniqueness of .
Example 3.1.
We illustrate the construction of for a given graph through the following figures. The graph has three leaf blocks ( and ) and three bridge blocks ( and ).
In the following, we mention a few properties of that are needed in the sequel. For more details, we refer to [1, 5].
-
Suppose that is a block of with bipartition . Then if and only if .
-
Any shortest path in can contain at most three consecutive vertices from a single block of .
-
Cycles of are exactly cycles of its blocks.
-
Let . Then is a cut-vertex of if and only if it lies in at least two blocks of .
Using the property and the fact that each edge of lies on exactly one block of (P. in [1]), we obtain the following remark.
Remark 3.2.
Let and be a block of . If and are edges in such that and , then . Moreover, if is a shortest path between and in such that the edge belongs to the block for some and , then . That is, a shortest path leaves a block of and enters into another block of through a cut-vertex of which lies in .
Many results of this section deals the relationship between and its associated graph . We first show that the graph is a tree. In order to distinguish, we use the notations and , respectively, to denote the distance between the vertices and with respect to , and with respect to .
Lemma 3.1.
Let and be the subgraph of defined in (1). Then is a tree and for all .
Proof.
Note that each block of is a complete bipartite graph. Since has at most three vertices from each block of , by , contains no cycle. We claim that is connected. Let . Since is connected, there is a path between the vertices and in . Let be a shortest path in . If for all then the claim follows. Suppose that for some . Let be the smallest index such that . Then is not a cut-vertex of because all the cut-vertices of belong to . Assume that the edge belongs to the block of . If then take . Without loss of generality, we assume that . Then . Since , by Remark 3.2, where we take if . By the construction of , it is clear that . Choose . We now show that . Clearly, and . If there exists such that then is a path between and whose length is strictly less than which is not possible. Therefore for all . Similarly, we see that for all . Hence . We obtain a new path from by replacing the edges and , respectively, by and . Clearly, . We replace by . Repeating the above argument leads to obtain a path in such that . This implies that is connected and . Since is a subgraph of , we have . Hence . ∎
The following lemma is useful in establishing the result . For notational simplicity, we also use the notation to denote the distance between two vertices and in instead of .
Lemma 3.2.
Let . Given and in , there exist and in such that .
Proof.
Let . If then the result follows. Consider the case . We claim that there exists such that . Let be a path such that where and for some block of . We first prove the claim for .
Case 1: Suppose that . Then by Remark
3.2,
, and by , where we take
if . Therefore, by Remark 3.2, .
Subcase 1.1:
Let be a leaf block. By the construction of , there exists a
non-cut-vertex . Using and
, we see that and .
Therefore, is a
path. It is clear that for all
shortest paths
between the vertices and . Hence
.
Subcase 1.2:
Assume that is a bridge block and is a cut-vertex of in
other than .
Subcase 1.2.1: If then, by , . Therefore, is a
path. Again by , for all shortest
paths between and . This fact leads to
. Since , we have . Therefore, in this case, choose
.
Subcase 1.2.2: Suppose that . Then
because . So, by , , and for all shortest paths
between and . This implies that
.
Since , by , for some
block . By the construction of , there exists
such that is
adjacent to . Again by , and for
all shortest paths between and
.
Therefore,
.
Case 2: Let . Since
with , we have because . Therefore, .
Subcase 2.1:
If is a leaf block, then choose . We
show that . On the contrary, assume that
. Then, by , . Also, by
Remark 3.2, which is not possible because is a
leaf
block with . Hence and this
yields
. Therefore, by (), we observe that
, and by Remark 3.2, for
all shortest paths
between and . Clearly,
is a
path, and we have .
Subcase 2.2: Suppose that is a bridge
block. Let with .
Subcase 2.2.1: If then take . Rest of the proof in this case is same as that of
subcase .
Subcase 2.2.2: Let .
If , then . By , , and for all shortest paths between and . Therefore, is a shortest path
and hence .
Suppose that . Since , there exists such that
is adjacent to where is a block of different from
. Then, by , , and for all shortest
paths . By considering the
path
, we obtain
.
Hence, from the above cases, we have
for some . The proof for the
case can be verified similarly. If
then the result follows. If then repeat the above argument
to the newly obtained path to find such that . This completes the proof.
∎
The next two lemmas are the consequences of the above result.
Lemma 3.3.
For each , .
Proof.
Let be a connected graph and let . We denote the eccentricity of a vertex with respect to by , and the subscript is omitted if it is clear from the context.
Lemma 3.4.
If , then for all .
Proof.
Since most of the results of this paper hold for graphs in with diameters at least four (for instance, see Example 4.2), we deal only with those graphs hereafter. In the following lemma, the eccentricity of a non-cut-vertex (when it exists) of is presented in terms of the eccentricities of the cut-vertices of . In Section 4, we see the usefulness of this lemma in proving the spectral symmetry of .
Lemma 3.5.
Let be such that . Let be a block of and let be a non-cut-vertex of .
-
(i)
Suppose that is a bridge block of and and are cut-vertices of belong to . If , then
-
(ii)
If is a leaf block and is a cutvertex of belongs to , then
Proof.
Since is a bridge block with , there exists a vertex such that . Let be a shortest path between and in . We claim that . On the contrary, assume that . Then, by and Remark 3.2, for all paths . Therefore, , which contradicts the assumption . Hence the claim follows. This implies that . Let . Note that for all shortest paths by and Remark 3.2. Therefore, , and hence
(2) |
Since , there always exists such that . Let be a shortest path between and . Suppose that and . Then, by () and Remark 3.2, any shortest path contains . This implies that Therefore, we have
(3) | ||||
(4) |
If , then by Remark 3.2, . Also, by , for all shortest paths . Then . Hence
(5) | ||||
(6) | ||||
(7) |
Case 1: Let . Since is a
shortest path between and , by Remark 3.2, we have
where is the set of all
vertices in the path . Now, the result follows from (2),
(4) and (7), case-by-case.
Case 2: Assume that and .
Subcase 2.1: Let . From (2),
. To prove the other inequality, we first show
that . On the
contrary, assume that . Then by Remark 3.2, and so, by , for all shortest
paths
.
Therefore,
.
That is, where the last
inequality follows from
(2). This contradicts the assumption .
Hence .
If and then by (4), . Suppose
that . Then
. This
completes the proof in this case.
Subcase 2.2: Suppose that . Let
for some
and
let
be a shortest path between and in . If then by , for all shortest paths . We have
and . This implies that
.
Suppose that . Then again by , , and by Remark 3.2, for all paths . So,
. Therefore, . If then the
other
inequality, follows from (3) and
(6). If then
.
We claim that there exists such that . If then the claim follows. Consider the case . Suppose that the claim does not hold. Then for all . That is, is adjacent to all . This leads to , a contradiction to the hypothesis. Hence the claim. Let . By Remark 3.2, any path passes through . So, . This implies and hence for some . Note that . Hence . Similarly, the proof follows for the remaining cases. ∎
Let and let be a block of such that . Suppose that is a leaf block and . From Lemma 3.5, we have . If is a bridge block such that the cut-vertices and of are not in the same partite set then also we have for some . Suppose that the cut-vertices and of the bridge block are in the same partite set, say , then when and . Hence in the above cases. Therefore, a non-cut-vertex of the block can belong to only when is a bridge block whose cut-vertices are in one partite set of and lies in the other partite set of . Precisely, the result is given in the following remark.
Remark 3.3.
Let with and let for some block of . If , then is a bridge block with .
The next lemma is a main tool in finding the central vertices of the graphs in .
Lemma 3.6.
Let and let . Then .
Proof.
Let . Then by Lemma 3.4, . Let . Suppose that . Then . If , then because . Assume that for some block . If is a leaf block such that , then by Lemma 3.5, we have Suppose that is a bridge block such that . Consider the case and . Then, by Lemma 3.5, for all . In particular, by the construction of , there exists such that . This implies For the remaining cases of , it directly follows from Lemma 3.5 that . Hence , which completes the proof. ∎
Recall the following result to study some properties of the central vertices of .
Lemma 3.7 ([1], see [10, 7]).
Let be a tree on vertices and . Then the center of has either a single vertex or two adjacent vertices and such that for all , where if is an even integer, and if is an odd integer. Moreover, if is even, and if is odd.
Let be such that is odd and greater than three. Then by Lemmas 3.3 and 3.7, . Assume that . Again by Lemma 3.7, the vertices and are adjacent, and by Lemma 3.6, . Suppose that both and are not in . Then by Remark 3.3, the block of containing and should be a bridge block such that the cut-vertices of in are in one partite set (say ), and and are in the other partite set (), which is not possible because and are adjacent. Therefore, we arrive at the following remark.
Remark 3.4.
Let with . Then whenever .
The following result presents the collection of all central vertices of graphs in . This will be used frequently in the proofs of the next section.
Theorem 3.1.
Let be such that and let be its associated tree.
-
(i)
Suppose that is even and where for some block . Then
-
(ii)
Let be odd and where and for some block . Then
Proof.
Case 1:
Let . By Lemma 3.6,
it is
sufficient to show that . Let . We first
claim
that . On the contrary, assume that . Then by
Remark 3.3 and Lemma 3.5, for some bridge block
such that the cut-vertices of in belong to
and with
for all . In particular, there exists
such that
where the existence of is guaranteed by the
construction
of . Note that as and
.
By Lemma 3.4, , and we
have
. Since ,
which implies .
That is, , which is not possible because and . Hence the claim
follows. Therefore, and . We have
,
which yields . That is, and
hence . Therefore, .
Case 2: Assume that . Since , it follows
from Remark 3.3 that must be a bridge block whose
cut-vertices are in . Also, by Lemma 3.5, we get
for all . Using the fact that , we have . To prove
, let . We now show that .
Suppose that . Then and by Lemma 3.4, we have
. This implies
and hence
. That is, , which is absurd as and . Therefore, .
Since , by Remark 3.3,
for some bridge block
with . As in the previous case, we
have for some
and . This yields . Since and , it follows by that
and
.
This implies , which completes the proof in this case.
It is similar to the proof of item . ∎
Remark 3.5.
It is clear from Theorem 3.1 that all the central vertices of a graph with lie completely in one specific block of . In particular, all the central vertices of belong to exactly one partite set of if and only if is even.
4 Inertia, spectral symmetry and irreducibility
The inertias of the distance matrices of trees, and the eccentricity matrices of lollipop graphs, trees, clique trees and coalescence of certain graphs are computed in the literature, see [2, 7, 10, 8, 11]. Along these lines, here we find the inertias of the eccentricity matrices of graphs in .
It is shown that the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of a graph are symmetric about the origin if and only if is bipartite [2]. In [10], it is proved that the eigenvalues of the eccentricity matrix of a tree are symmetric about the origin if and only if is odd. A similar equivalence is established for a subclass of block graphs (clique trees) in [7]. Motivated by these, in this section, we prove an analogous result for the class . In the last part of this section, we prove the irreducibility of the eccentricity matrices of graphs in .
4.1 Inertia and spectral symmetry of eccentricity matrices of graphs in with odd diameters
In this subsection, we consider graphs in with odd diameters and find the inertias of the eccentricity matrices of these graphs. Also, we show the spectral symmetry (with respect to the origin) of the above considered matrices. We begin with an example.
Example 4.1.
Consider the bi-block graph and the associated tree given in Example 3.1. For the purpose of illustrating Theorem 4.1, let us relabel the vertices , and by , and , respectively. Note that , and where and are adjacent with and . Let be the block of containing the edge such that and . It is clear that is a bridge block with and . Let be the subgraph of obtained by deleting all the edges of the block in . Let and be the components of containing the vertices and , respectively. Clearly, the sets
Then the eccentricity matrix of can be written in the following form:
where
Using SAGEMATH, it is computed that the eigenvalues of are , , , and with respective multiplicities and . Thus, the spectrum of is symmetric with respect to the origin, and .
Theorem 4.1.
Let be such that , . Then the following statements hold:
-
(i)
, where is the number of vertices of .
-
(ii)
The spectrum of is symmetric with respect to the origin.
Proof.
Consider the tree associated with .
By Lemmas 3.3 and 3.7,
and . Let . Again by
Lemma 3.7,
and are adjacent, and for . Also, by Lemmas
3.4 and
3.6, and for .
Let and for some block of . By
Remark 3.4, for at least one
.
Without loss of generality, assume that .
Case 1: Suppose that . Since , by Remark 3.3, is a bridge block whose cut-vertices are in . Let be the another cut-vertex of in . By , we have as . Now obtain a subgraph from by deleting all the edges of . Clearly, . By Remark 3.2 and , contains at least four components as for all , and the vertices and lie in different components. Let and be the non-trivial components of containing the vertices and , respectively. Let and . Then by ,
(8) |
We prove the following inequalities to find a partition for :
(9) |
Since , we have . Suppose then which is not possible because . Hence which proves the first inequality in . Suppose that the second inequality in does not hold. That is, there exists such that . Since and , using (8), we write . This implies , which is a contradiction. So, the second inequality in holds.
We now show that the non-trivial components of are precisely and . Suppose that and . Let be a shortest path between and in . If then by Remark 3.2, . Therefore, is a path in . Since is a component of containing , we have which is a contradiction. Hence . Note that the subpath obtained from the shortest path does not contain any vertex other than from the block . This implies that is a path in . Since , we have . Thus, the components of other than and are simply complete graphs of order one which arise from . We now define the following sets to obtain a partition for :
Clearly, and for . Also, , and . To see and , consider and . Let for some . Since , we get . Also, by (9), . Therefore , and by (8), . This implies and hence . Since , by item of Lemma 3.5, we have . Since , it follows that . Let . Then by (9), , and by (8), we write . This gives and hence .
Subcase 1.1: Assume that . Then . Thus partitions and hence as well. To find explicitly, we now compute the eccentricity of each vertex in .
Let . To find , consider where is fixed. By (8),
(10) |
We claim that . Let for some . By (10), we have . If then by (9), , a contradiction to (10). So, . Similarly, we see that . Therefore, . By (9), . This implies and hence . Therefore, for all . In particular, if then and if then . Similarly, it can be shown that for all . Since and , by Lemma 3.5, we have for all and for all .
We now compute the entries of . Let and . Then . If then , and hence . Suppose that . Using (8), we write , and so if and if . If then by and Remark 3.2, for all paths . Therefore, . Thus, is if and if . Since , we see that for all . It can be shown that if and , and for all other cases. Therefore, the eccentricity matrix can be written as
(11) |
where for all and for all . In fact, if and then for all and for all . The structures of and give for all . Also, for some fixed ,
Hence . Fix , . Let and be shortest paths. Choose and such that is adjacent to for . To see , consider the principal submatrix of , which is given by
Note that . This implies and hence . Applying Theorem 2.1 to , we get , where we have taken . Therefore, by Theorem 2.3, and . Since , we have .
Subcase 1.2: Suppose that . Then . Now, it is easy to see that partitions , and is the principal submatrix of the matrix given in (11), obtained by deleting the rows and columns corresponding to the vertices in . Hereafter, the proof is the same as in subcase 1.1.
Case 2: Assume that . That is, is a bridge block such that and . We obtain the non-trivial components and of such that and where is the subgraph constructed from by deleting all the edges of . As in case 1, it is easily seen that for all and for all . Define
Subcase 2.1: Suppose that . Then, by (), . We now see that partitions . Let . It is easy to verify that
Then in this case takes the following form:
(12) |
where all the rows of are identical and all the columns of are the same. Hereafter, the proof is similar to that of case 1.
Let denote the block matrix, which is the leading principal submatrix of in (12).
Subcase 2.2: Let . Then by (), . Note that
partitions , and
. The rest of the proof is similar
to case .
Consider the matrix given in (12). Suppose that
where is partitioned according to the partition of . Then it is not difficult to verify that where . Also, the multiplicities of and are equal.
Similar to the above case, by employing suitable eigenvectors, the result can be verified for the remaining subcases of item . ∎
For , Theorem 4.1 need not be true. The following example illustrates this.
Example 4.2.
Consider the following graph and its eccentricity matrix :
Note that and the rows and columns of are indexed by . The eigenvalues of are and . So, the spectrum of is not symmetric about origin.
4.2 Inertia of eccentricity matrices of graphs in with even diameters
Let be such that is even. In this subsection, we compute the inertia of and show that the spectrum of is not symmetric with respect to the origin. As a consequence, we obtain the main result of this section which characterizes the spectral symmetry of where , see Theorem 4.3.
The following lemma is needed to prove Theorem 4.2.
Lemma 4.1.
If then every diametrical path in contains a central vertex of .
Proof.
Let be a diametrical path in where . We first prove the result for the case is even. Assume that for some . Then by Lemmas 3.3 and 3.7, we have and . Let . Since , we have . By Lemmas 3.4 and 3.7, for all . Note that there exists a vertex in the path such that . Therefore, . We prove the result by showing that . To do this, we claim that for all . On the contrary, assume that for some . Then and do not belong to the same block, and does not lie on the path . Clearly, either lies in for some shortest path or lies in for some shortest path , otherwise fails. So, or , which is a contradiction. Hence the result follows in this case. The proof is similar when is odd. ∎
The notion of diametrically distinguished vertex is introduced in [10] for a tree with even diameter which has exactly one central vertex. Motivated by this, in the following definition, we study this notion for the graph class where the graphs can have more than one central vertices.
Definition 4.1.
Let and let . Then is said to be diametrically distinguished if there exists a diametrical path containing the vertex and is adjacent to for some .
Theorem 4.2.
Let be such that with . Let the center of the tree , assoicated with , be and be the number of elements in the center . Then the following hold:
-
(i)
If then
where is the number of vertices of . -
(ii)
If then where is the number of distinct blocks of having a diametrically distinguished vertex.
-
(iii)
The spectrum of is not symmetric with respect to the origin.
Proof.
Suppose that . Let for some block of . Then by Remark 3.3 and Theorem 3.1, is a bridge block such that and . Without loss of generality, assume that . By Lemma 3.5, which implies . Since and , we get . Construct a subgraph from by deleting all the edges of the block . Then by and , has two non-trivial components and containing the vertices and , respectively, and the remaining components of are complete graphs of order one. We claim that for all . Suppose there exists such that . Then by () and Remark 3.2 that for all paths . This implies which yields , a contradiction. Hence, for all . Similarly, for all . For , define
Let such that . This implies as . Since and , . Therefore, . By (), for all paths . Hence which yields . Therefore, . Similarly, using the fact that , we see that . Assume that . Now, it is clear that partitions .
Since , for all . By Lemma 3.5, for all . By (), we see that for all and . Fix and . Similar to subcase of item in Theorem 4.1, we can compute the eccentricity of the remaining vertices of , using the shortest paths in and in , which are given below:
The eccentricity matrix is given by
(13) |
where for all , for all and The structures of and yield that for all .
Case 1: Assume that . Then the principal submatrix . For each , observe that for some real numbers and . Hence . The rest of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 4.1 by considering the principal submatrix
If then . Therefore, is a block matrix. The result in this subcase can be verified similarly.
Case 2: Let . Then and . Note that the principal submatrix of in (13) is where . Let and . Then . Let denote the block leading principal submatrix of in (13) and let . We have
Consider the principal
submatrix
of . Apply Theorem 2.1 to , by taking as leading principal submatrix of , we get
. Therefore, by Theorem 2.3,
and .
Subcase 2.1: Suppose that . Then
and so is a block matrix. Since
, we have .
Using Theorem 2.1 to , we get
.
Subcase 2.2: If then . By subcase , we have
. Since each column in is a linear combination of columns in and , we have .
Therefore, the result follows using and Theorem 2.3 where is a block leading principal submatrix of
.
Assume that . Then by Theorem 3.1, . Let . Then by , . Let be the vertices in that are adjacent to . Now obtain the subgraph from by deleting all the edges that are incident with . By the construction of , it is clear that , and has a component with the vertex set . Let the components of be . Among these, let be the components containing the vertices , respectively, such that for all . Since , existence of containing such is guaranteed. We claim that . Let be a diametrical path in where . Then, by Lemma 4.1, , and hence . Therefore, . If and with then the claim follows. Using , we observe that any path between and in contains the central vertex as . This implies and do not belong to a single component and hence .
We now find the possible components of containing a diametrically distinguished vertex. Let be the set of all diametrically distinguished vertices of and let . Then is adjacent to and there exists a diametrical path containing . By Lemma 4.1, . Then either or . Without loss of generality, assume that . That is, the path yields a path with , and . This implies for some . By the maximality of , the path is completely contained in . That is, . Hence diametrically distinguished vertices are necessarily belong to .
We claim that there are exactly distinct blocks of that contain a diametrically distinguished vertex. For each , if we prove and for some block in with are pairwise distinct then the claim follows. Let . By the definition of , there exists such that . Let be a shortest path between and . Let be the vertex in the path such that is adjacent to in . Then we see that which follows from the subpath obtained form . Since , and , by the maximality of , lies in . Choose such that . Then there exist and in such that . Also, the subpath obtained form a shortest path , completely lies in . Since the components and are disjoint, we have . Note that, by (), for all paths . This implies . That is, any shortest path between and in is a diametrical path. In particular, the shortest paths and induce a diametrical path containing . This implies and hence .
We next prove that for some block in . Let . Assume that for some block in . Suppose that . Let with . Then , otherwise () fails. Hence . Given a block in there exists such that , which is clear from the construction of . Since components of are disjoint, the existed for the block is unique. This implies for all with . Thus, there are exactly distinct blocks of which have a diametrically distinguished vertex.
We next show that by explicitly finding the matrix . By suitably relabelling the vertices , it is assumed that for all . For each , define
It is clear that , , and for . Thus partitions . Let . We claim that . Note that for all , which yields . Choose an element such that and are in different components of and . Since any path between and passes through , we have , and hence the claim. This implies for all .
Next we find the entries of case-by-case. Let and with .
-
If and then as
-
Note that whenever because
-
Let and . Then and
In this case, .
Since is symmetric, for all and with . Similarly the remaining entries of can be easily computed and are zero. Hence the eccentricity matrix of can be written in the block form
(14) |
Since the matrix obtained in (14) is of the form
given in [10, Theorem ], the remainder of the proof is similar
to that of Theorem in
[10].
Case 1: Consider the case where . Then by Theorem 2.2, the characteristic polynomial of can be written as
where and is the sum of all principal minors of order , for all . To prove the spectrum of is not symmetric with respect to the origin, by Lemma 2.1, it enough to find some such that and . It is clear from (13) and (14) that every and principal sumatrices and of are, respectively, in the following form:
Since and , we have and . Also, the following principal submatrices have non-zero determinant:
where for , and . Hence and .
Case 2: Suppose that . Since with cut-vertices in , by (), we have . If then the proof follows similarly to the previous case. If then by item , and hence the proof. ∎
We are now ready to state the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.3.
Let with . Then the eigenvalues of are symmetric with respect to the origin if and only if is odd.
The following example shows that Theorem 4.1 need not be true for a general bi-block graph.
Example 4.3.
Consider the graph and the matrix which are given below:
The eigenvalues of are with multiplicity and the remaining simple eigenvalues are , which are computed using SAGEMATH. Therefore, and is not symmetric about the origin.
4.3 Irreducibility of eccentricity matrices of graphs in
The problem of characterizing graphs whose eccentricity matrices are irreducible remains open. So far, only a few classes of graphs have been identified whose eccentricity matrices are irreducible, see [7, 9, 11, 15, 16]. In this subsection, we prove that the eccentricity matrices of graphs in are irreducible.
For our purpose, let us recall the following lemma, which gives an equivalent condition for the irreducibility of a non-negative matrix.
Lemma 4.2.
(see [8]) Let be an nonnegative symmetric matrix and be the graph on vertices such that there is an edge between the vertices and in if and only if . Then is irreducible if and only if is connected.
Theorem 4.4.
Let with . Then the eccentricity matrix is irreducible.
Conclusion
The inertias of the eccentricity matrices of a subclass of bi-block graphs (which contains trees) are derived by associating a tree for each . A characterization for the spectrum of the eccentricity matrix is symmetric about the origin being given in terms of the diameter of . Also, it is proved that the eccentricity matrix of with is irreducible.
References
- [1] R. Balakrishnan and K. Ranganathan. A Textbook of Graph Theory. Springer, New York, 2012.
- [2] Ravindra B. Bapat. Graphs and matrices. Springer, London; Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010.
- [3] Mainak Basunia, Iswar Mahato, and M. Rajesh Kannan. On the -spectra of some join graphs. Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc., 44(6):4269–4297, 2021.
- [4] Joyentanuj Das and Sumit Mohanty. On the spectral radius of bi-block graphs with given independence number . Applied Mathematics and Computation, 402:Paper No. 125912, 8, 2021.
- [5] Reinhard Diestel. Graph theory, volume 173 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg, fourth edition, 2010.
- [6] Yaoping Hou and Yajing Sun. Inverse of the distance matrix of a bi-block graph. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 64(8):1509–1517, 2016.
- [7] Xiaohong Li, Jianfeng Wang, and Maurizio Brunetti. Inertia and spectral symmetry of eccentricity matrices of some clique trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05248, 2022.
- [8] Iswar Mahato, R. Gurusamy, M. Rajesh Kannan, and S. Arockiaraj. Spectra of eccentricity matrices of graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 285:252–260, 2020.
- [9] Iswar Mahato, R. Gurusamy, M. Rajesh Kannan, and S. Arockiaraj. On the spectral radius and the energy of eccentricity matrices of graphs. Linear and Multilinear Algebra, 71(1):5–15, 2023.
- [10] Iswar Mahato and M. Rajesh Kannan. On the eccentricity matrices of trees: Inertia and spectral symmetry. Discrete Mathematics, 345(11):113067, 2022.
- [11] Ajay Kumar Patel, Lavanya Selvaganesh, and Sanjay Kumar Pandey. Energy and inertia of the eccentricity matrix of coalescence of graphs. Discrete Mathematics, 344:Paper No. 112591, 11, 2021.
- [12] Milan Randić. DMAX–matrix of dominant distances in a graph. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 70:221–238, 2013.
- [13] Ranveer Singh. Permanent, determinant, and rank of bi-block graphs. Aequationes mathematicae, 94:1–12, 2020.
- [14] Jianfeng Wang, Xingyu Lei, Wei Wei, Xiaobing Luo, and Shuchao Li. On the eccentricity matrix of graphs and its applications to the boiling point of hydrocarbons. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 207:104173, 2020.
- [15] Jianfeng Wang, Mei Lu, Francesco Belardo, and Milan Randić. The anti-adjacency matrix of a graph: Eccentricity matrix. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 251:299–309, 2018.
- [16] Jianfeng Wang, Mei Lu, Lu Lu, and Francesco Belardo. Spectral properties of the eccentricity matrix of graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 279:168–177, 2020.
- [17] Fuzhen Zhang. Matrix theory: basic results and techniques. Springer, New York, 2011.