Some new spectral bounds for graph irregularity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.09.038Get rights and content

Abstract

The irregularity of a simple graph G=(V,E) is defined as irr(G)=uvE(G)|dG(u)dG(v)|,where dG(u) denotes the degree of a vertex u ∈ V(G). This graph invariant, introduced by Albertson in 1997, is a measure of the defect of regularity of a graph. Recently, it also gains interest in Chemical Graph Theory, where it is named the third Zagreb index. In this paper, by means of the Laplacian eigenvalues and the normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of G, we establish some new spectral upper bounds for irr(G). We then compare these new bounds with a known bound by Goldberg, and it turns out that our bounds are better than the Goldberg bound in most cases. We also present two spectral lower bounds on irr(G).

Introduction

All graphs throughout this paper are finite, undirected and simple. Let G be such a graph with vertex set V(G)={v1,v2,,vn} and edge set E(G). Denote by dG(vi) (or simply, di) the degree of vertex vi in G, i=1,2,,n. Let (d1,d2,,dn) be the degree sequence of G. We also write Δ(G) and δ(G) for the maximum vertex degree and the minimum vertex degree of G, respectively. A graph G is said to be regular if Δ(G)=δ(G).

The adjacency matrix of a graph G is A(G)=(aij)n×n, where elements aij=1 if the vertices vi and vj in G are adjacent, and aij=0 otherwise. The Laplacian matrix of G is defined to be L(G)=D(G)A(G), where D(G) is the diagonal matrix of vertex degrees of G. If G has no isolated vertices, then the normalized version of L(G) is defined as L(G)=D(G)1/2L(G)D(G)1/2. It is well known that both L(G) and L(G) are positive semi-definite matrices, and hence their eigenvalues (always known as the Laplacian eigenvalues and the normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of G, respectively) are nonnegative real numbers, which could be ordered by μ1(G) ≥ μ2(G) ≥ ⋅⋅⋅ ≥ μn(G) and ν1(G) ≥ ν2(G) ≥ ⋅⋅⋅ ≥ νn(G), respectively. For more details regarding the Laplacian eigenvalues and the normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of a graph, one may refer to [5], [6].

In 1997, Albertson [2] defined the imbalance of an edge e=uvE(G) as |dG(u)dG(v)|, and the irregularity of a graph G as irr(G)=uvE(G)|dG(u)dG(v)|.Clearly, for a connected graph G, irr(G)=0 if and only if G is regular, and for a non-regular graph G, irr(G) is a measure of the defect of regularity of G. In [2], Albertson first proved the following upper bound on irr(G): irr(G)4n327,which was later improved by Abdo et al. [1] as irr(G)n32n3(2n31).

On the other hand, Zhou and Luo [17] showed that if G is a graph with n vertices and m edges, then irr(G)m(nM1(G)4m2),where M1(G)=vV(G)dG(v)2, which is referred to as the first Zagreb index. Remark that this index and the second Zagreb index, defined by M2(G)=uvE(G)dG(u)dG(v), are two of the oldest and most investigated topological graph indices in Chemical Graph Theory, for details about the mathematical theory and the chemical applications of the Zagreb indices one can see [7], [8], [10], [14], [15], [16] and the references cited therein. It is also worth mentioning that in [8] Fath–Tabar established several obvious connections between the sum in (1.1) and the (first and second) Zagreb indices, and based on these connections he named the sum in (1.1) the third Zagreb index and denoted it by M3(G). However, in the rest of the paper, we shall use its older name, i.e., the irregularity of a graph G, and denote it by irr(G).

There also have been some other upper bounds on irr(G) obtained by several authors such as Hansen and Mélot [11], Henning and Rautenbach [12], and Fath–Tabar [8]. Strictly speaking, these bounds, together with the Zhou–Luo bound (1.2), are noncomparable, but the Zhou-Luo bound (1.2) seems to be much sharper than the others for most graphs. Recently, by utilizing the spectral techniques, Goldberg made a further improvement upon the Zhou–Luo bound (1.2).

Theorem 1.1

(Goldberg [9]) If G is a graph on n vertices and with m edges, then irr(G)m(nM1(G)4m2)(μ1(G)/n).

In this paper, by means of the Laplacian eigenvalues and the normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of G, we establish some new spectral upper bounds for irr(G). We then compare these new bounds with the Goldberg bound (1.3), and it turns out that our bounds are better in most cases. We also give two spectral lower bounds on irr(G).

Section snippets

Preliminaries

Let Kn and Ka,b(a+b=n), as usual, denote the complete graph and the complete bipartite graph with n vertices, respectively. Denote by G ∪ H the vertex-disjoint union of two graphs G and H. In particular, kG stands for the vertex-disjoint union of k copies of G. Let GH be the graph obtained from G ∪ H by adding all possible edges joining the vertices in G with those in H. Denote by G¯ the complement of a graph G.

We now present some results that will be used in the next section.

Lemma 2.1

(see [13]) If G

Bounds on irr(G) involving Laplacian eigenvalues

By using Lemma 2.4, we may establish upper and lower bounds for irr(G) involving the Laplacian eigenvalues of a graph G.

Theorem 3.1

If G is a graph with n vertices, m edges and degree sequence(d1,d2,,dn), where d1 ≤ d2 ≤ ⋅⋅⋅ ≤ dn, then 2μn1(G)n(k=1nkdk(n+1)m)irr(G)2μ1(G)n(k=1nkdk(n+1)m).

Proof

Without loss of generality, assume that dG(vi)=di for i=1,2,,n. Noting that d1 ≤ d2 ≤ ⋅⋅⋅ ≤ dn and, for any two positive integers s < r, drds=(drdr1)++(ds+1ds),we have irr(G)=vivjE(G)|didj|=k=1n1e(Vk,Vk¯

Comparisons and conclusions

To compare the upper bounds in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 with the Goldberg bound (1.3) (i.e., the upper bound in Theorem 1.1), we have computed these three upper bounds (together with the exact values of irr(G) and the lower bounds in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3) for all the 112 connected graphs on 6 vertices (for the graphs see Table A3 in [6], pp. 301–304, and for the computational results see Table 1 in the appendix of this paper).

Before reporting our comparison, we first mention an observation by

Acknowledgments

The authors are extremely grateful to the referees and editors for their positive comments and valuable suggestions which have contributed to the final preparation of the paper. This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11501133, 11571101, 11301085), Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province (Nos. 2016GXNSFAA380293, 2014GXNSFBA118008), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2015M572252).

References (17)

  • M.A. Henning et al.

    On the irregularity of bipartite graphs

    Discrete Math.

    (2007)
  • R. Merris

    Laplacian matrices of graphs: a survey

    Linear Algebra Appl.

    (1994)
  • H. Abdo, N. Cohen, D. Dimitrov, Bounds and computation of irregularity of a graph, 2012, Preprint:...
  • M.O. Albertson

    The irregularity of a graph

    ARS Comb.

    (1997)
  • W.N. Anderson et al.

    Eigenvalues of the Laplacian of a graph

    Linear Multilinear Algebra

    (1985)
  • N. Biggs

    Algebraic Graph Theory (2nd Ed.)

    (1993)
  • ChungF.R.K.

    Spectral Graph Theory

    Amer. Math. Soc. (Providence)

    (1997)
  • D. Cvetković et al.

    An Introduction to the Theory of Graph Spectra

    (2010)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (15)

  • Graph irregularity and its measures

    2019, Applied Mathematics and Computation
  • Stepwise irregular graphs

    2018, Applied Mathematics and Computation
    Citation Excerpt :

    The Albertson index was applied to a variety of classes of graphs and found numerous applications (see the recent works [1,2,4,18,19,21,22,26] and the references quoted therein). It should be mentioned that in the mathematical literature, several other irregularity indices have also been investigated [3,12,16,23]. [6]

  • Irregularity Measure of Graphs

    2023, Journal of Mathematics
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text