English

The Connection between the Number of Realizations for Degree Sequences and Majorization

Combinatorics 2014-07-02 v2 Discrete Mathematics

Abstract

The \emph{graph realization problem} is to find for given nonnegative integers a1,,ana_1,\dots,a_n a simple graph (no loops or multiple edges) such that each vertex viv_i has degree ai.a_i. Given pairs of nonnegative integers (a1,b1),,(an,bn),(a_1,b_1),\dots,(a_n,b_n), (i) the \emph{bipartite realization problem} ask whether there is a bipartite graph (no loops or multiple edges) such that vectors (a1,...,an)(a_1,...,a_n) and (b1,...,bn)(b_1,...,b_n) correspond to the lists of degrees in the two partite sets, (ii) the \emph{digraph realization problem} is to find a digraph (no loops or multiple arcs) such that each vertex viv_i has indegree aia_i and outdegree bi.b_i.\\ The classic literature provides characterizations for the existence of such realizations that are strongly related to the concept of majorization. Aigner and Triesch (1994) extended this approach to a more general result for graphs, leading to an efficient realization algorithm and a short and simple proof for the Erd\H{o}s-Gallai Theorem. We extend this approach to the bipartite realization problem and the digraph realization problem.\\ Our main result is the connection between majorization and the number of realizations for a degree list in all three problems. We show: if degree list SS' majorizes SS in a certain sense, then SS possesses more realizations than S.S'. We prove that constant lists possess the largest number of realizations for fixed nn and a fixed number of arcs mm when nn divides m.m. So-called \emph{minconvex lists} for graphs and bipartite graphs or \emph{opposed minconvex lists} for digraphs maximize the number of realizations when nn does not divide mm.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1212.5443,
  title  = {The Connection between the Number of Realizations for Degree Sequences and Majorization},
  author = {Annabell Berger},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5443},
  year   = {2014}
}

Comments

30 pages. There was a mistake an case~3 and case~4 in the proof of the result of Proposition 10 (current version). I corrected it. For that I added a further result in Proposition 9