We study a family of positive weighted well-covered graphs, which we call levelable graphs, that are related to a construction of level artinian rings in commutative algebra. A graph G is levelable if there exists a weight function with positive integer values on the vertices of G such that G is well-covered with respect to this weight function. That is, the sum of the weights in any maximal independent set of vertices of G is the same. We describe some of the basic properties of levelable graphs and classify the levelable graphs for some families of graphs, e.g., trees, cubic circulants, Cameron–Walker graphs. We also explain the connection between levelable graphs and a class of level artinian rings. Applying a result of Brown and Nowakowski about weighted well-covered graphs, we show that for most graphs, their edge ideals are not Cohen–Macaulay.
A graph G is a levelable graph if there exists a weight function
that makes G a weighted well-covered graph. In this case, we say G is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_n).
Let G = (V,E) be a graph, and let I(G) be the edge ideal of G in the ring R = \mathbb{K}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]. Then G is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_n) if and only if
is a level graded artinian ring.
Let G and H be disjoint graphs. Then G \cup H is levelable if and only if G and H are levelable.
Let G be a graph on V(G) = \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\} and H a graph on V(H) = \{y_1,\ldots,y_m\}. Because the graphs G and H are disjoint, we have
(“If”) Suppose that G and H are levelable with respect to the weight functions (c_1,\ldots,c_n) and (d_1,\ldots,d_m), respectively. Let c be the independence weight of G and d the independence weight of H. We claim that G \cup H is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function (e_1,\ldots,e_n,e_{n+1},\ldots,e_{n+m}) = (c_1,\ldots,c_n,d_1,\ldots,d_m). Indeed, for any Z \in {\rm MaxInd}(G \cup H), we have Z = W \cup Y with W \cap Y = \emptyset and W \in {\rm MaxInd}(G) and Y \in {\rm MaxInd}(H). Thus
(“Only If”) Suppose that G \cup H is levelable with respect to the weight function
with independence weight e. We claim G and H are levelable with respect to the weight functions c = (e_1,\ldots,e_n) and d = (e_{n+1},\ldots,e_{n+m}), respectively. Fix a maximal independent set Y of H and consider any W_i \in {\rm MaxInd}(G). Then W_i \cup Y \in {\rm MaxInd}(G \cup H) and so
Rearranging this equation, we have
Note that since W_i is a subset of \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\}, the e_j’s that appear in \sum_{z_j \in W_i}e_j only appear among \{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}. Because (?) is true for all maximal independent sets of G, (e_1,\ldots,e_n) is a weight function that makes G a levelable graph with independence weight e - \sum_{z_j \in Y} e_j.
By swapping the roles of G and H, the same proof also shows that H is levelable.
Suppose G is a graph such that the elements of {\rm MaxInd}(G) are pairwise disjoint. Then G is a levelable graph.
Suppose {\rm MaxInd}(G) = \{W_1,\ldots,W_t\} with d_i = |W_i| for i =1,\ldots,t. Since every vertex x_i appears in some W_i and because the W_i’s are pairwise disjoint, we have that W_1 \cup \cdots \cup W_t is a partition of V(G). Thus, after relabeling, we can assume that
where d_{0}=0.
Set d = {\rm lcm}(d_1,\ldots,d_t). A straightforward calculation will now show G is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function
For all d, a_1,\ldots,a_d \geq 1, the complete d-partite graph K_{a_1,\ldots,a_d} is levelable.
If G is a graph on \{x_1,\dots,x_n\} with \alpha(G) \leq 2, then G is levelable.
If \alpha(G) =1, then G = K_n is the complete n-partite graph (or simply, complete graph) and is levelable by Theorem 2.3.
Suppose that \alpha(G) =2. If all W \in {\rm MaxInd}(G) have |W|=2, then G is well-covered, and thus levelable. So, suppose that |W| =1 for at least one W \in {\rm MaxInd}(G). Let {\rm MaxInd}(G) = \{W_1,\ldots,W_t\}. After relabeling we can assume that |W_1| = \cdots = |W_s| =1 and |W_{s+1}|=\cdots= |W_t|=2. Note that if |W_j|=1, then W_j \cap W_k = \emptyset for all j \neq k. So, we can relabel again so that W_i = \{x_i\} for i=1,\ldots,s, and W_{s+1} \cup \cdots \cup W_t = \{x_{s+1},\ldots,x_n\}. Then G is levelable with respect to the weight function
since \sum_{x_j\in W_i} c_j = 2 if |W_i| =1 and \sum_{x_j \in W_i} c_j = 2 if |W_i|=2.
For any n \geq 3, C_n^c is levelable.
Let P_n denote the path graph of length n-1 on n \geq 2 vertices, that is, the graph with vertex set \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\} and edge set \{\{x_i,x_{i+1}\} ~:~ 1 \leq i \leq n-1\}. We show that P_5 (see Figure 2.6) is not levelable. We see that {\rm MaxInd}(P_5) = \{\{x_1,x_3,x_5\}, \{x_1,x_4\},\{x_2,x_4\},\{x_2,x_5\}\}, and thus \alpha(G) =3.
Suppose that a weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_5) makes P_5 levelable. Then
Consequently c_3 =0, contradicting the fact that the entries of (c_1,\ldots,c_5) are all positive.
The graph given in Figure ? is a well-covered graph that has P_5 as an induced subgraph.
Consequently, the levelable property is not preserved by taking induced subgraphs.
Suppose there exist F_1, F_2, F_3, F_4 \in {\rm MaxInd}(G) such that F_3 \cup F_4 \subsetneq F_1 \cup F_2 and F_3 \cap F_4 = \emptyset. Then G is not levelable.
Suppose towards a contradiction that (c_1,\dots, c_n) is a weight function for G with independence weight c. Then \sum_{x_j \in F_1} c_j + \sum_{x_j \in F_2} c_j = \sum_{x_j \in F_3} c_j + \sum_{x_j \in F_4} c_j =2c. Since c_j >0 for all j, and F_3 \cup F_4 \subsetneq F_1 \cup F_2, we must have
But then since F_3 \cap F_4 = \emptyset, we have
which is impossible.
The path graph P_n is levelable if and only if n\in\{2,3,4\}.
(“If”) When n=2 or 4, the graph P_n is well-covered, and thus levelable. When n=3, the weight function (1,2,1) makes P_3 levelable.
(“Only If”) Now suppose that n \geq 5. Suppose that n = 2m+1 is odd. Then
are all elements of {\rm MaxInd}(G). The result now follows from Lemma 2.7.
Similarly, if n =2m is even, we have m \geq 3, and we consider the sets:
and again use Lemma 2.7.
While our paper has focused on independent sets, we could have used the notion of vertex covers to define levelable graphs. While we do not use this reformulation, we have included it in case others wish to make use of it. A subset W \subseteq V(G) is called a vertex cover if e \cap W \neq \emptyset for all e \in E(G). A vertex cover is the complement of an independent set, that is, W is a vertex cover of G if and only if V\setminus W is an independent set. Maximal independent sets correspond to minimal vertex covers.
If we let {\rm MinVC}(G) be the collection of minimal vertex covers, then the following definition for levelable graphs is equivalent to Definition 1.1: a graph G is levelable if there exists a weight function (d_1,\ldots,d_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n_{> 0} and some constant d such that
To see that these definitions are equivalent, set D = d_1+\cdots+d_n. Then
But as W runs through all elements of {\rm MinVC}(G), V\setminus W runs through all elements of {\rm MaxInd}(G). So G is levelable with respect to Definition 1.1. By simply reversing this argument, we can show Definition 1.1 is equivalent to this reformulation.
Let G be a finite graph and fix a vertex x of G.
The graph G^x, called the duplication of G at x, is the finite graph obtained by adding a new vertex y to G with
The graph G^{[x]}, called the expansion of G at x, is the finite graph obtained by adding a new vertex y to G with
Suppose that G is a levelable graph and fix a vertex x of G. Then both G^x and G^{[x]} are levelable.
Let G be a levelable graph on V = \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} with respect to a weight function (c_1, \ldots, c_n). Set x=x_n and y=x_{n+1}.
Let W be a maximal independent set of G^x. If x \not\in W, then W is a maximal independent set of G. If x \in W, then y \in W and W \setminus \{y\} is a maximal independent set of G. Hence G^x is levelable with respect to the weight function
A maximal independent set W of G^{[x]} is either a maximal independent set of G or (W \setminus \{x\}) \cup \{y\}, where W is a maximal independent set of G with x \in W. Hence G^{[x]} is levelable with respect to the weight function
The pentagon is levelable since it is a well-covered graph. Then repeated applications of the duplication technique shows that the graph of Figure ? is levelable.
Let G be a levelable graph on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} with respect to a weight function (c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_n). Then for any positive integers r_1,\ldots,r_n, there is a graph G' which is levelable with respect to the weight function
Let r_i be the number of c_i in (3.4). Then doing r_i -1 expansions of each vertex x_i yields the desired graph G'.
Let G be a graph consisting of n isolated vertices. Since \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} is the unique maximal independent set of G, it follows that G is levelable with respect to any weight function (c_1, \ldots, c_n). In particular, given any sequence (c_1, \ldots, c_n) of positive integers, there is a levelable graph on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} with respect to (c_1, \ldots, c_n). For connected graphs, there will be certain restrictions on what sequences can arise. If n=3, then the connected graphs are the triangle and the path of length 2. Hence given a sequence (c_1, c_2, c_3) of positive integers with c_1 \leq c_2 \leq c_3, there is a connected levelable graph on \{x_1, x_2, x_3\} with respect to (c_1, c_2, c_3) if and only if either c_1=c_2=c_3 or c_3 = c_1 + c_2. It would, of course, be of interest to classify all possible weight functions for connected levelable graphs. Note that if G is a levelable graph on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} with respect to a weight function (c_1, \ldots, c_n), then G is also levelable with respect to the weight function (mc_1, \ldots, mc_n), where m is a positive integer. Consequently, it suffices to classify the vectors (c_1,\dots,c_n) with \gcd(c_1,\dots,c_n)=1.
Let G be a finite connected graph on V(G) = \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}. Given finite graphs H_1,\ldots, H_n with each V(H_i) = \{z^{(i)}_1, \ldots, z^{(i)}_{r_i} \}, where V(G), V(H_1), \ldots, V(H_n) are pairwise disjoint, we introduce the finite graph G(H_1, \ldots, H_n) on V(G) \cup V(H_1) \cup \cdots \cup V(H_n) whose set of edges is
With the notation as in Definition 3.6, the graph G(H_1, \ldots, H_n) is levelable if and only if each H_i is levelable.
In particular, if each H_i is a complete graph K_{r_i}, then G(H_1, \ldots, H_n) is levelable.
Let \Gamma = G(H_1, \ldots, H_n). A maximal independent set of \Gamma consists of an independent set W_0 of G together with maximal independent sets W_i of H_i for each i such that x_i \not\in W_0.
(“If”) Suppose that each H_i is levelable with respect to a weight function
Let d_i = \sum_{z^{(i)}_j \in W} c(z^{(i)}_j) be its independence weight, where W is a maximal independent set of H_i. Let c(x_i) = d_i for 1 \leq i \leq n. It can be checked that \Gamma is levelable with respect to the weight function
(“Only If”) Suppose that \Gamma is levelable with respect to a weight function of the form (?). Let W be a maximal independent set of \Gamma with x_i \not\in W and W_i a maximal independent set of H_i with W_i \subseteq W. Let W'_i be a maximal independent set of H_i with W_i \neq W_i'. Since (W \setminus W_i) \cup W'_i is a maximal independent set of \Gamma, it follows that H_i is levelable with respect to the weight function (c(z^{(i)}_1), \ldots, c(z^{(i)}_{r_i})).
Given positive integers c_1, \ldots, c_n and positive integers r_1,\ldots,r_n with r_i \geq 2 for all i, there is a connected levelable graph on r_1+\cdots +r_n vertices with respect to the weight function
Let P_n be the path on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} and let K_{r_i-1} be the complete graph on the vertex set \{z_1^{(i)},\ldots,z_{r_i-1}^{(i)}\}. By Theorem 3.7, the graph G = P_n(K_{r_1-1},\ldots,K_{r_n-1}) is levelable. A maximal independent set of G is of the form A \cup B, where A is an independent set of P_n, B is a subset of \bigcup_{i=1}^n\{z_1^{(i)},\ldots,z_{r_i-1}^{(i)}\}, and for each x_i \not\in A, |B \cap \{z_1^{(i)},\ldots,z_{r_i-1}^{(i)}\}|=1, that is, B contains exactly one of the vertices of K_{r_i-1}. In particular, G is well-covered. Because each maximal independent set of G contains exactly one vertex of \{x_i,z_1^{(i)},\ldots,z_{r_i-1}^{(i)}\} for each i, the graph G is then levelable with respect to the weight function
Given positive integers c_1, \ldots, c_n, there is a connected levelable graph on V=\{x_1, \ldots, x_n, \ldots, x_N\} with respect to the weight function
where
Let P_n be the path on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}. We introduce the graph G on
which is obtained by adding edges \{x_i, y_1^{(i)}\}, \ldots, \{x_i, y_{c_i}^{(i)}\} to P_n. Theorem 3.7 says that G is levelable. A maximal independent set of G is of the form A \cup B, where A is an independent set of P_n and B= \{y_j^{(i)} : x_i \not\in A, 1 \leq j \leq c_i\}. Hence G is levelable with respect to the weight function
The Cameron–Walker graph G of Figure ? is not levelable. To see why this is true, suppose that G is levelable with respect to a weight function (c_1, \ldots, c_{10}). Since \{x_1, x_2, x_3, x_7, x_8\} and \{x_1, x_2, x_6, x_7\} are maximal independent sets of G, one has c_3 + c_8 = c_6. Furthermore, since \{x_3, x_4, x_5, x_9\} and \{x_4, x_5, x_6, x_9\} are maximal independent sets of G, one has c_3 = c_6. Hence c_8 = 0, a contradiction.
A Cameron–Walker graph is levalable if and only if it has no exceptional vertex.
(“If”) This direction follows from Theorem 3.7.
(“Only If”) Suppose that G is a Cameron–Walker graph with an exceptional vertex. Let U = \{x_1, \ldots, x_a\} and V = \{y_1, \ldots, y_b\}. Let A_i denote the set of vertices z of G for which \{x_i,z\} is a leaf attached to x_i for 1 \leq i \leq a and B_j the set of edges \{v,w\} for which G|_{\{y_j,v,w\}} is a pendant triangle attached to y_j for 1 \leq j \leq b. Each A_i is nonempty and some B_j might be empty. Let A_i = \{z_1^{(i)}, \ldots, z_{q_i}^{(i)}\} and B_j = \{\{v_1^{(j)},w_1^{(j)}\}, \ldots, \{v_{r_j}^{(j)},w_{r_j}^{(j)}\}\}. Let V' denote the set of exceptional vertices. Without loss of generality, let y_1 be an exceptional vertex and \{x_1, y_1\} \in E(G). Now,
is a maximal independent set of G. Furthermore,
is a maximal independent set of G. Suppose that G is levelable with respect to a weight function (c(x_1), \ldots, c(y_b), c(z^{(1)}_1), \ldots). It then follows that
On the other hand,
is a maximal independent set of G. Furthermore, by using the assumption that, for each y \in V', there exists x, x' \in U with x \neq x' for which \{x,y\}, \{x',y\} \in E(G), it follows that
is a maximal independent set of G. Hence
Finally, by (?) and (?), one has
a contradiction.
Let \Delta be a quasi-forest on \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} and suppose that F_1, \ldots, F_s is a leaf order. Then there is a sequence (c_1, \ldots, c_n) of positive integers and an integer c for which \sum_{x_i \in F_j}c_i = c for all F_j.
Let x_t, x_{t+1}, \ldots, x_n be the free vertices of \Delta in F_s. Let G=F_k be a branch of the leaf F_s \in \Delta. The simplicial complex \langle F_1, \ldots, F_{s-1}\rangle on \{x_1, \ldots, x_{t-1}\} is a quasi-forest with a leaf order F_1, \ldots, F_{s-1}. Thus, by using induction on s, there is a sequence (c_1, \ldots, c_{t-1}) of positive integers and an integer c for which \sum_{x_i \in F_j}c_i = c for all F_j with 1 \leq j < s. (Clear, if s=1.) Let \sum_{x_i \in (G\cap F_{s})}c_i = c'. One may assume that c - c' > n - t + 1, since we can replace (c_1,\ldots,c_{t-1}) and c with (dc_1,\ldots,dc_{t-1}) and dc for any positive integer d \geq 1. Let c_t, \ldots, c_n be positive integers with c_t + \cdots + c_n = c - c'. Note that F_s\setminus G = \{x_t,x_{t+1},\ldots,x_n\}. It then follows that (c_1, \ldots, c_n) has the required property.
A co-chordal graph is levelable.
A tree is levelable if and only if each non-free vertex is adjacent to at least one free vertex.
(“If”) The “If” directions follows from Theorem 3.7.
(“Only If”) Suppose that a tree G is levelable and that there is a non-free vertex x that is adjacent to no free vertex. Let \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\} be the vertex set of G and assume that (c_1, \ldots, c_n) is a weight function on G with independence weight f. Let G_1, \ldots, G_q with q \geq 2 denote the connected components of G \setminus \{x\}. Each G_i has at least one edge.
Suppose that q> 2. We claim that the graph G \setminus G_q is levelable. To see this, fix a maximal independent set W of G_q that contains no vertex of G_q that is adjacent to x. Consider any maximal independent set W' of G \setminus G_q. Then W' \cup W is a maximal independent set of G. Since G is levelable and the set W is fixed, the equations
show that G \setminus G_q is levelable. Because q > 2, x cannot be a free vertex of G \setminus G_q, and furthermore, x is not adjacent to a free vertex, so if q-1 > 2, we may repeat the above argument. In particular, G' = G \setminus G_q is a levelable graph such that G'\setminus \{x\} has q-1 connected components. By repeating this process, we can reduce to the case that G is a levelable graph with a non-free vertex x that is not adjacent to a free vertex, and G\setminus \{x\} = G_1 \cup G_2 has exactly two connected components.
So suppose the number of connected components is q =2. Let A denote the set of vertices y of G for which the distance of y and x in G is 2. Thus both A\cap G_1 and A \cap G_2 are nonempty. Let y_i denote the vertex of G_i which is adjacent to x for i=1,2. Let W be a maximal independent set of G_1 which contains A\cap G_1 and W' a maximal independent set of G_2 which contains A\cap G_2. Let U be a maximal independent set of G_1 which contains y_1 and U' a maximal independent set of G_2 which contains y_2. Then
are maximal independent sets of G. Let a = \sum_{x_i \in W} c_i, b = \sum_{x_i \in W'} c_i, c = \sum_{x_i \in U} c_i and d = \sum_{x_i \in U'} c_i. Let x = x_1. It then follows that the positive integers
are equal. Hence a =c. Thus c_1=0, a contradiction.
Levit and Tankus [LT2015] described a polynomial time algorithm to determine if a graph that is C_4, C_5 and C_6-free is a weighted well-covered graph. Since trees do not have any cycles, it can be shown that the algorithm of [LT2015] produces the previous result, namely, that a tree is levelable if and only if every non-free vertex is adjacent to at least one free vertex.
A graph G is called a caterpillar graph if G is a tree and if one removes all the vertices of degree one, the resulting graph is a connected path graph (called the central path).
Each vertex that is not on the central path is called a leg of G.
Let G be a caterpillar graph. Then G is levelable if and only if every vertex of the central path has at least one leg.
The path P_n is levelable if and only if n \in \{2,3,4\}.
Let q \geq 3 be an integer and n_1, \ldots, n_q positive integers. Let P_i denote the path of length n_i on the vertex set V_i=\{x, x_1^{(i)}, \ldots, x_{n_i}^{(i)}\} for 1 \leq i \leq q. We assume V_i \cap V_j = \{x\} for i \neq j. Let G(n_1, \ldots, n_q) = P_1 \cup \cdots \cup P_q. We call G(n_1, \ldots, n_q) a big star graph with a center x.
A big star graph G(n_1, \ldots, n_q) is levelable if and only if each n_i \leq 2 and there is at least one j with n_j = 1.
Let n\geq 2 and S \subseteq \{1,\dots, \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor\}. The circulant graph C_n(S) is the graph on the vertex set \{x_1,\dots, x_n\} such that \{x_i,x_j\} \in E(C_n(S)) precisely when |i-j| \in S or n-|i-j| \in S.
Let G = C_n=C_n(1). Then G is levelable if and only if n \in \{2,3,4,5,7\}.
One can easily check that C_n is well-covered for n\in \{2,3,4,5,7\} and hence levelable. For n=6, the maximal independent sets of C_6 are \{1,3,5\}, \{2,4,6\}, \{1,4\}, \{2,5\}, and \{3,6\}. Taking F_1=\{1,3,5\}, F_2=\{2,4,6\}, F_3=\{1,4\}, and F_4=\{2,5\}, we see that the hypotheses of Lemma 2.7 are satisfied and so C_6 is not levelable.
We now show that G=C_n is not levelable for n\geq 8. If n\geq 8 is even, we define
and if n\geq 9 is odd, we define
In either case, one can check that the hypotheses of Lemma 2.7 are satisfied, and so it follows that G is not levelable.
Let 1 \leq a < n and t={\rm gcd}(2n,a).
(a) If \frac{2n}{t} is even, then C_{2n}(a,n) is isomorphic to t copies of C_{\frac{2n}{t}}(1,\frac{n}{t}).
(b) If \frac{2n}{t} is odd, then C_{2n}(a,n) is isomorphic to \frac{t}{2} copies of C_{\frac{4n}{t}}(2,\frac{2n}{t}).
Let G=C_{2n}(1,n). Then G is levelable if and only if n \in \{2,3,4\}.
For n \in \{2,3,4\}, one can directly check that the graphs C_{2n}(1,n) are well-covered and hence levelable (also see [BH2011, Theorem 4.3]). So suppose n\geq 5. We will show that G=C_{2n}(1,n) is not levelable. We consider two cases.
Case 1: If n\geq 5 is odd, define
We claim that F_1,\dots,F_4 are maximal independent sets of G that satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma 2.7.
Since F_3 \cup F_4 \subsetneq F_1 \cup F_2 and F_3 \cap F_4= \emptyset, it only remains to check that F_1,\dots,F_4 are maximal independent sets of G. We see that F_1,\dots, F_4 are independent sets by construction. Since \{x_1,x_{2n}\} and \{x_i,x_{i+1}\} are edges of G for each 1 \leq i \leq 2n-1, it is clear that F_1 and F_2 are maximal. Additionally, since \{x_{n-1},x_{2n-1}\} (resp. \{x_{n},x_{2n}\}) is an edge of G, we conclude that F_3 (resp. F_4) is maximal. It follows from Lemma 2.7 that G is not levelable.
Case 2: If n \geq 6 is even, define
where A=A'=\emptyset if n=6 and
for all n\geq 8.
We proceed as above. Since F_3 \cup F_4 \subsetneq F_1 \cup F_2 and F_3 \cap F_4 = \emptyset, it only remains to check that F_1,\dots,F_4 are maximal independent sets of G. We see that F_1,\dots, F_4 are independent sets by construction. Since \{x_1,x_{2n}\} and \{x_i,x_{i+1}\} are edges of G for each 1 \leq i \leq 2n-1, it is clear that F_1 and F_2 are maximal. Additionally, since \{x_{n-3},x_{2n-3}\} and \{x_{n-1},x_{2n-1}\} (resp. \{x_{n-2},x_{2n-2}\} and \{x_{n},x_{2n}\}) are edges of G, we conclude that F_3 (resp. F_4) is maximal. It follows from Lemma 2.7 that G is not levelable.
Let G=C_{2n}(2,n) with n odd. Then G is levelable if and only if n \in \{3,5\}.
For n \in \{3,5\}, one can directly check that the graphs C_{2n}(2,n) are well-covered (also see [BH2011, Theorem 4.3]) and hence levelable. So suppose n\geq 7 is odd. Define
Since F_3 \cup F_4 \subsetneq F_1 \cup F_2 and F_3 \cap F_4 =\emptyset, it only remains to check that F_1,\dots,F_4 are maximal independent sets of G. We see that F_1,\dots, F_4 are independent sets by construction. Since \{x_1,x_{n}\}, \{y_1,y_{n}\}, \{x_i,x_{i+1}\}, and \{y_i,y_{i+1}\} are edges of G for each 1 \leq i \leq n-1, it is clear that F_1 and F_2 are maximal. Additionally, since \{x_{n-1},y_{n-1}\} and \{x_{n-3},y_{n-3}\} (resp. \{x_{n},y_{n}\} and \{x_{n-2},y_{n-2}\}) are edges of G, we conclude that F_3 (resp. F_4) is maximal. It follows from Lemma 2.7 that G is not levelable.
A graded artinian algebra A is level if the socle-vector of A has the form s(A) = (0,0,\ldots,0,s_e) for some integer s_e > 0.
Suppose that A = \mathbb{K}[x,y]/I where I = \langle x^3, y^3 \rangle. Any monomial m= x^ay^b of degree five or larger is divisible by either x^3 or y^3. So A is an artinian ring of the form A = A_0 \oplus A_1 \oplus A_2 \oplus A_3 \oplus A_4 where
where \overline{m} denotes the equivalence class of m in A. For each of the basis elements \overline{m}, we can check if x\overline{m} =0 and y\overline{m} =0. It is clear that x\overline{x^2y^2} = \overline{x^3y^2} =0 and y\overline{x^2y^2} = \overline{x^2y^3} =0. On the other hand, no other basis element is annihilated by both x and y. Hence
Thus the graded artinian algebra A is level.
Let \Delta be a simplicial complex on V = \{x_1,\ldots,x_n\} with facets \{F_1,\ldots,F_s\}. Let F_i = \{x_{i,1},\ldots,x_{i,d_i}\} denote the i-th facet. Then A(\Delta,(a_1,\ldots,a_n)) is level if and only if (a_1,\ldots,a_n) is an integral solution with a_i \geq 2 to the system
A graph G is a levelable graph if and only if {\rm Ind}(G) is a levelable simplicial complex.
Let {\rm MaxInd}(G) = \{W_1,\ldots,W_s\} be the maximal independent sets of G, and let W_i = \{x_{i,1},\ldots, x_{i,d_i}\} for i=1,\ldots,s. Note that W_1,\ldots,W_s are also the facets of {\rm Ind}(G).
(“Only If”) Suppose G is a levelable graph. Hence there exists a weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_n) with positive integers and independence weight c such that
If we now consider the vector (c_1+1,\ldots,c_n+1), each W_i gives the equality:
But then for i=1,\ldots,s-1, we have
By Theorem 7.3, this means that {\rm Ind}(G) is a levelable simplicial complex since (c_1+1,\ldots,c_n+1) is solution to the system of equations with c_i+1 \geq 2 for all i.
(“If”) Let (a_1,\ldots,a_n) with all a_i \geq 2 be an integral solution to the equations of Theorem 7.3 constructed from the facets of {\rm Ind}(G). By reversing the above argument, we can show G is levelable with respect to the weight function (a_1-1,\ldots,a_n-1).
Let G = (V,E) be a graph with edge ideal I(G) in R = \mathbb{K}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]. Then G is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_n) if and only if
is a level graded artinian ring.
Fix a field F of characteristic zero. Let G be a graph and view {\rm WCW}(G) as a vector space over F. If \dim {\rm WCW}(G) = 0, then G is not levelable.
If G was levelable, then there is a weight vector (c_1,\ldots,c_n) with c_i > 0 and c_i \in \mathbb{N} \subseteq F. But then (c_1,\ldots,c_n) \in {\rm WCW}(G) is a non-zero vector, and thus 0 = \dim {\rm WCW}(G) \geq 1, a contradiction.
The converse of the previous statement is false. As we have seen, P_5 is not a levelable graph. However (1,1,0,-1,-1) \in {\rm WCW}(P_5), so \dim {\rm WCW}(P_5) \neq 0.
Fix a field F. For almost all graphs G, \dim {\rm WCW}(G) = 0. In particular, for almost all graphs G, G is not well-covered.
For almost all graphs G, the graded artinian ring
is not level for any choice of (a_1,\ldots,a_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n with a_i \geq 2 for all i.
For almost all graphs G, G is not Cohen–Macaulay.
The previous result was also proved by Dochtermann–Newman [DN2023, Corollary 1.4] and Erman–Yang [EY2018, Corollary 7.1], using approaches different than Brown–Nowakowski.
What are conditions on a graph G that are either sufficient for G to be levelable or provide an obstruction to G being levelable?
Suppose that G is a levelable graph with respect to the weight function (c_1,\ldots,c_n). What is the Hilbert function of the level ring R/(I(G) + \langle x_1^{c_1+1},\ldots,x_n^{c_n+1}\rangle)? In particular, how is it related to the graph G and the weight function?
Suppose that G is a levelable graph. Does the set of lattice points {\rm WL}(G) have any interesting geometric or combinatorial information?
The text on this page is from arXiv:2504.02065v4 by Kieran Bhaskara, Michael Y. C. Chong, Takayuki Hibi, Naveena Ragunathan and Adam Van Tuyl, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2504/2504.02065.jsonl.