Cored Hypergraphs, Power Hypergraphs and Their Laplacian H-Eigenvalues

Shenglong Hu, Liqun Qi, Jia-Yu Shao

Introduction

A natural definition for the Laplacian tensor and the signless Laplacian tensor of a kk-uniform hypergraph for k≥3k\geq 3 was introduced in . See Definition 2.2 of this paper. Recently, Hu, Qi and Xie studied the largest Laplacian and signless Laplacian eigenvalues of a kk-uniform hypergraph, and generalized some classical results of spectral graph theory to spectral hypergraph theory, in particular, when kk is even.

One classical result in spectral graph theory is that the largest Laplacian eigenvalue of a graph is always less than or equal to the largest signless Laplacian eigenvalue, and when the graph is connected, the equality holds if and only if the graph is bipartite.

In , it was shown that the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of a kk-uniform hypergraph is always less than or equal to the largest signless Laplacian H-eigenvalue, and when the hypergraph is connected, the equality holds if and only if the hypergraph is odd-bipartite. A kk-uniform hypergraph is called odd-bipartite if kk is even, and the vertex set of the hypergraph can be divided to two parts, such that each edge has odd number of vertices in each of these two parts.

Hu, Qi and Xie generalized cycles in graphs to hypercycles in kk-uniform hypergraphs. By showing that the largest signless Laplacian H-eigenvalue for a hypercycle is computable and an even-order hypercycle is odd-bipartite, they showed that the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of a hypercycle is computable when kk is even.

Another classical result in spectral graph theory is that the largest Laplacian eigenvalue of a graph is always greater than or equal to the maximum degree of that graph, plus one. The lower bound is attained if there exists a vertex adjacent to all the other vertices of that graph.

Hu, Qi and Xie showed that when kk is even the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of a kk-uniform hypergraph is always greater than or equal to the maximum degree of that hypergraph, plus α(k)\alpha(k), where α(k)>0\alpha(k)>0 and α(2)=1\alpha(2)=1. They showed that the lower bound is attained if the hypergraph is a hyperstar.

When kk is odd, the situation is very different. It was shown in that in this case the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue is always strictly less than the largest signless Laplacian H-eigenvalue, and the lower bound of the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue is the maximum degree itself, attained by any hyperstar.

The results of raised the interests to study the Laplacian H-eigenvalues of a kk-uniform hypergraph. Actually, they posed several questions for further research. First, when kk is odd, is a hyperstar the only example of a kk-uniform hypergraph whose largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue is equal to the maximum degree? Second, can we calculate all Laplacian H-eigenvalues for some special kk-uniform hypergraphs, such as hyperstars and hypercycles? This is useful if one wishes to study the second smallest Laplacian H-eigenvalue (with multiplicity) of a kk-uniform hypergraph, as the second smallest Laplacian eigenvalue of a graph plays a key role in spectral graph theory .

Motivated by these questions, we study Laplacian H-eigenvalues of some special kk-uniform hypergraphs in this paper.

With the same way to generalize stars and cycles to hyperstars to hypercycles, we may generalize an arbitrary graph GG to a kk-uniform hypergraphs GkG^{k}. See Definition 2.4 of this paper. We call GkG^{k} the kkth power of GG, hence call it a power hypergraph. In particular, paths are generalized to hyperpaths. We will see that when kk is even, a power hypergraph is odd-bipartite. We may conclude this for a broader class of kk-uniform hypergraphs. We call such hypergraphs cored hypergraphs. See Definition 2.3 of this paper. A power hypergraph is a cored hyoergraph but not vice versa. In particular, we introduce a special subclass of cored hypergraphs, called sunflowers. See Definition 3.1 of this paper. A sunflower is not a power hypergraph in general. We show that when kk is even, a cored hypergraph is odd-bipartite. Thus, when kk is even, the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue and the largest signless Laplcian H-eigenvalue of a cored hypergraph is the same. This enhances our understanding on odd-bipartite hypergraphs and their largest Laplacian eigenvalues. We will show that the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of an even-order sunflower is computable.

Then, when kk is odd, we will show that the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of an odd-uniform sunflower, hypercycle and hyperpath is equal to the maximum degree, i.e., 22. This shows that for a very broad class of hypergraphs, when kk is odd, the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalue is equal to the maximum degree of the hypergraph.

Finally, we will compute out all the H-spectra of the class of hyperstars, the hypercycle of size 33 and the hyperpath of length 33. This will be useful for research on the second smallest Laplacian H-eigenvalue of kk-uniform hypergraphs.

For discussion on the eigenvectors of the zero Laplacian and signless Laplacian eigenvalues of a kk-uniform hypergraph, see . For discussion on eigenvalues of adjacency tensors and the other types of Laplacian tensors of kk-uniform hypergraphs, see and references therein.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Definitions on eigenvalues of tensors and uniform hypergraphs are presented in the next section. Cored hypergraphs and power hypergraphs are introduced there. We discuss in Section 3 some properties on the cored hypergraphs. An even-uniform cored hypergraph has equality for the largest Laplacian and the singless Laplacian H-eigenvalues. Sunflowers are introduced and investigated in Section 3.2. We compute out the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalues of even-uniform sunflowers and prove that they are equal to the maximum degrees, i.e., 22, for odd-uniform sunflowers. We show in Section 4.1 that the largest Laplacian H-eigenvalues of odd-uniform hypercycles and hyperpaths are equal to the maximum degrees, i.e., 22. We make a conjecture in Section 4.2 that the largest H-eigenvalues of even-uniform power hypergraphs with respect to the same underlying usual graph are strictly decreasing as kk increasing. This conjecture is proved to be true for hyperstars and hypercycles. In Section 5, we compute out all the H-eigenvalues of hyperstars, the hyperpath of length 33 and the hypercycle of size 33. Some final remarks are made in the last section.

Preliminaries

In this subsection, some definitions of H-eigenvalues of tensors are presented. For comprehensive references, see and references therein. Especially, for spectral hypergraph theory oriented facts on eigenvalues of tensors, please see .

H-eigenvalues are real numbers, by Definition 2.1. By , we have that the number of H-eigenvalues of a real tensor is finite. By , we have that all the tensors considered in this paper have at least one H-eigenvalue. Hence, we can denote by λ(T)\lambda(\mathcal{T}) as the largest H-eigenvalue of a real tensor T\mathcal{T}.

For a subset S⊆[n]S\subseteq[n], we denoted by ∣S∣|S| its cardinality, and \mboxsup(x):={i∈[n]  ∣  xi≠0}\mbox{sup}(\mathbf{x}):=\{i\in[n]\;|\;x_{i}\neq 0\} is the support of x\mathbf{x}.

2 Uniform Hypergraphs

In this subsection, we present some essential notions of uniform hypergraphs which will be used in the sequel. Please refer to for comprehensive references.

In this paper, unless stated otherwise, a hypergraph means an undirected simple kk-uniform hypergraph GG with vertex set VV, which is labeled as [n]={1,…,n}[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}, and edge set EE. By kk-uniformity, we mean that for every edge e∈Ee\in E, the cardinality ∣e∣|e| of ee is equal to kk. Throughout this paper, k≥3k\geq 3 and n≥kn\geq k. Moreover, since the trivial hypergraph (i.e., E=∅E=\emptyset) is of less interest, we consider only hypergraphs having at least one edge (i.e., nontrivial) in this paper.

For a subset S⊂[n]S\subset[n], we denote by ESE_{S} the set of edges {e∈E  ∣  S∩e≠∅}\{e\in E\;|\;S\cap e\neq\emptyset\}. For a vertex i∈Vi\in V, we simplify E{i}E_{\{i\}} as EiE_{i}. It is the set of edges containing the vertex ii, i.e., Ei:={e∈E  ∣  i∈e}E_{i}:=\{e\in E\;|\;i\in e\}. The cardinality ∣Ei∣|E_{i}| of the set EiE_{i} is defined as the degree of the vertex ii, which is denoted by did_{i}. Two different vertices ii and jj are connected to each other (or the pair ii and jj is connected), if there is a sequence of edges (e1,…,em)(e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}) such that i∈e1i\in e_{1}, j∈emj\in e_{m} and er∩er+1≠∅e_{r}\cap e_{r+1}\neq\emptyset for all r∈[m−1]r\in[m-1]. A hypergraph is called connected, if every pair of different vertices of GG is connected. Let S⊆VS\subseteq V, the hypergraph with vertex set SS and edge set {e∈E  ∣  e⊆S}\{e\in E\;|\;e\subseteq S\} is called the sub-hypergraph of GG induced by SS. We will denote it by GSG_{S}. A hypergraph is regular if d1=⋯=dn=dd_{1}=\cdots=d_{n}=d. A hypergraph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) is complete if EE consists of all the possible edges. In this case, GG is regular, and moreover d1=⋯=dn=d=(n−1k−1)d_{1}=\cdots=d_{n}=d={n-1\choose k-1}. In the sequel, unless stated otherwise, all the notations introduced above are reserved for the specific meanings.

For the sake of simplicity, we mainly consider connected hypergraphs in the subsequent analysis. By the techniques in , the conclusions on connected hypergraphs can be easily generalized to general hypergraphs.

The following definition for the Laplacian tensor and signless Laplacian tensor was proposed by Qi .

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. The adjacency tensor of GG is defined as the kk-th order nn-dimensional tensor A\mathcal{A} whose (i1…ik)(i_{1}\ldots i_{k})-entry is:

Let D\mathcal{D} be a kk-th order nn-dimensional diagonal tensor with its diagonal element di…id_{i\ldots i} being did_{i}, the degree of vertex ii, for all i∈[n]i\in[n]. Then L:=D−A\mathcal{L}:=\mathcal{D}-\mathcal{A} is the Laplacian tensor of the hypergraph GG, and Q:=D+A\mathcal{Q}:=\mathcal{D}+\mathcal{A} is the signless Laplacian tensor of the hypergraph GG.

By , zero is always the smallest H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} and Q\mathcal{Q}, and we have λ(L)≤λ(Q)≤2d\lambda(\mathcal{L})\leq\lambda(\mathcal{Q})\leq 2d, where dd is the maximum degree of GG.

In the following, we introduce the class of cored hypergraphs.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. If for every edge e∈Ee\in E, there is a vertex ie∈ei_{e}\in e such that the degree of the vertex iei_{e} is one, then GG is a cored hypergraph. A vertex with degree being one is a cored vertex, and a vertex with degree being larger than one is an intersectional vertex.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be an ordinary graph. For every k≥3k\geq 3, we can introduce a hypergraph by blowing up the edges of GG.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a 22-uniform graph. For any k≥3k\geq 3, the kkth power of GG, Gk:=(Vk,Ek)G^{k}:=(V^{k},E^{k}) is defined as the kk-uniform hypergraph with the set of edges being Ek:={e∪{ie,1,…,ie,k−2}  ∣  e∈E}E^{k}:=\{e\cup\{i_{e,1},\ldots,i_{e,k-2}\}\;|\;e\in E\}, and the set of vertices being Vk:=V∪{ie,1,…,ie,k−2,  e∈E}V^{k}:=V\cup\{i_{e,1},\ldots,i_{e,k-2},\;e\in E\}.

It is easy to see that the class of power hypergraphs is a subclass of cored hypergraphs. The classes of hyperstars and hypercycles are introduced in . It can be seen that the classes of hyperstars and hypercycles are subclasses of power hypergraphs. Actually, a kk-uniform hyperstar (respectively hypercycle) is the kkth power of a star (respectively cycle) graph.

We present in Figure 1 an example of an ordinary graph and its 33rd and 44th power hypergraphs.

For completeness, we include the defintiions for hyperstars and hypercycles in Definitions 2.5 and 2.6 respectively.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. If there is a disjoint partition of the vertex set VV as V=V0∪V1∪⋯∪VdV=V_{0}\cup V_{1}\cup\cdots\cup V_{d} such that ∣V0∣=1|V_{0}|=1 and ∣V1∣=⋯=∣Vd∣=k−1|V_{1}|=\cdots=|V_{d}|=k-1, and E={V0∪Vi  ∣  i∈[d]}E=\{V_{0}\cup V_{i}\;|\;i\in[d]\}, then GG is called a hyperstar. The degree dd of the vertex in V0V_{0}, which is called the heart, is the size of the hyperstar. The edges of GG are leaves, and the vertices other than the heart are vertices of leaves.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform nontrivial hypergraph. If we can number the vertex set VV as V:={i1,1,…,i1,k−1,…,id,1,…,id,k−1}V:=\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k-1},\ldots,i_{d,1},\ldots,i_{d,k-1}\} for some positive integer dd such that E={{i1,1,…,i1,k−1,i2,1},{i2,1,…,i2,k−1,i3,1},…,{id−1,1,…,id−1,k−1,id,1},{id,1,…,id,k−1,i1,1}}E=\{\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k-1},i_{2,1}\},\{i_{2,1},\ldots,i_{2,k-1},i_{3,1}\},\ldots,\{i_{d-1,1},\ldots,i_{d-1,k-1},i_{d,1}\},\{i_{d,1},\ldots,i_{d,k-1},i_{1,1}\}\}, then GG is called a hypercycle. dd is the size of the hypercycle.

It is easy to see that a kk-uniform hyperstar of size s>0s>0 has n=s(k−1)+1n=s(k-1)+1 vertices, a kk-uniform hypercycle of size s>0s>0 has n=s(k−1)n=s(k-1) vertices, and they are both connected.

Besides hyperstars and hypercycles, power hypergraphs contain hyperpaths. Hyperpaths are power hypergraphs of usual paths. We state it in the next definition.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. If we can number the vertex set VV as V:={i1,1,…,i1,k,i2,2,…,i2,k,…,id−1,2,…,id−1,k,id,2,…,id,k}V:=\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k},i_{2,2},\ldots,i_{2,k},\ldots,i_{d-1,2},\ldots,i_{d-1,k},i_{d,2},\ldots,i_{d,k}\} for some positive integer dd such that E={{i1,1,…,i1,k},{i1,k,i2,2,…,i2,k},…,{id−1,k,id,2,…,id,k}}E=\{\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k}\},\{i_{1,k},i_{2,2},\ldots,i_{2,k}\},\ldots,\{i_{d-1,k},i_{d,2},\ldots,i_{d,k}\}\}, then GG is a hyperpath. dd is the length of the hyperpath.

Figure 2 is an axample of a 33-uniform hyperpath.

The notions of odd-bipartite and even-bipartite even-uniform hypergraphs are introduced in .

Let kk be even and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. It is called odd-bipartite if either it is trivial (i.e., E=∅E=\emptyset) or there is a disjoint partition of the vertex set VV as V=V1∪V2V=V_{1}\cup V_{2} such that V1,V2≠∅V_{1},V_{2}\neq\emptyset and every edge in EE intersects V1V_{1} with exactly an odd number of vertices.

Cored Hypergraphs

Some facts on the H-eigenvalues and H-eigenvectors of the Laplacian tensor of a cored hypergraph is discussed in this section.

In this subsection, we establish some facts that all cored hypergraphs share.

The next lemma says that their H-eigenvectors have special structures.

Proof. By the definition of H-eigenvalues and the fact that ii and jj are cored vertices, we have

Since λ≠1\lambda\neq 1, we have that ∣xi∣=∣xj∣|x_{i}|=|x_{j}|. Moreover, when kk is odd, we see that xi=xjx_{i}=x_{j}. □\Box

By [14, Theorem 4], we have the following lemma.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph with its maximum degree d>0d>0 and L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ(L)≥d\lambda(\mathcal{L})\geq d.

Proof. Suppose that ii is a cored vertex of an arbitrary but fixed edge e∈Ee\in E. If λ=1\lambda=1, then

implies that ∏s∈e∖{i}xs=0\prod_{s\in e\setminus\{i\}}x_{s}=0. We are done.

In the following, suppose that λ>1\lambda>1. Then,

When kk is odd, xik−1≥0x_{i}^{k-1}\geq 0. Then the result follows. When kk is even, we have ∏s∈exs≤0\prod_{s\in e}x_{s}\leq 0 since (λ−1)xik=−∏s∈exs(\lambda-1)x_{i}^{k}=-\prod_{s\in e}x_{s}. □\Box

By Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3, we get the next proposition.

By [10, Theorem 5.1], we can get the next proposition.

Let kk be even and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform cored hypergraph. Let L\mathcal{L} and Q\mathcal{Q} be the Laplacian tensor and signless Laplacian tensor of GG respectively. Then GG is odd-bipartite, and hence λ(L)=λ(Q)\lambda(\mathcal{L})=\lambda(\mathcal{Q}).

Proof. For all e∈Ee\in E, let ie∈ei_{e}\in e be a cored vertex. Set V1:={ie  ∣  e∈E}V_{1}:=\{i_{e}\;|\;e\in E\} and V2:=V∖V1V_{2}:=V\setminus V_{1}. Then it is easy to see that V=V1∪V2V=V_{1}\cup V_{2} is an odd-bipartition (Definition 2.8). Thus, the result follows from [10, Theorem 5.1]. □\Box

Actually, we can get the next proposition.

Let kk be even and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform cored hypergraph. Let L\mathcal{L} and Q\mathcal{Q} be the Laplacian tensor and signless Laplacian tensor of GG respectively. For every e∈Ee\in E, let ie∈ei_{e}\in e be a cored vertex.

Proof. The results follow from Definition 2.1 and Proposition 3.1. □\Box

2 Sunflowers

Obviously, not all cored hypergraphs are power hypergraphs. Among the others, the class of sunflowers is investigated.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph. If we can number the vertex set VV as V:={i1,1,…,i1,k,…,ik−1,1,…,ik−1,k,ik}V:=\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k},\ldots,i_{k-1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,k},i_{k}\} such that the set of edges being E={{i1,1,…,i1,k},…,{ik−1,1,…,ik−1,k},{i1,1,…,ik−1,1,ik}}E=\{\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k}\},\ldots,\{i_{k-1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,k}\},\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,1},i_{k}\}\}, then GG is a sunflower.

Note that the sunflower for every positive integer kk is unique, in the sense that by a possible renumbering the vertices two kk-uniform sunflowers are the same. Figure 3 is an example of the 44-uniform sunflower.

The next proposition finds out the largest H-eigenvalue of the Laplacian tensor of an even-uniform sunflower.

Let kk be even and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be the kk-uniform sunflower. Let L\mathcal{L} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Then GG is odd-bipartite and λ(L)\lambda(\mathcal{L}) is the unique root of (μ−2)−(1μ−1)1k−1−(1μ−1)k−1=0(\mu-2)-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{k-1}}-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{k-1}=0 in the interval (2,4)(2,4).

Proof. Suppose that V={i1,1,…,i1,k,…,ik−1,1,…,ik−1,k,ik}V=\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k},\ldots,i_{k-1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,k},i_{k}\}, and the set of edges is E={{i1,1,…,i1,k},…,{ik−1,1,…,ik−1,k},{i1,1,…,ik−1,1,ik}}E=\{\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{1,k}\},\ldots,\{i_{k-1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,k}\},\{i_{1,1},\ldots,i_{k-1,1},i_{k}\}\}. Let Q\mathcal{Q} be the signless Laplacian tensor of GG. By Proposition 3.2, GG is odd-bipartite and λ(L)=λ(Q)\lambda(\mathcal{L})=\lambda(\mathcal{Q}).

Let xik=α>0x_{i_{k}}=\alpha>0, xij,1=1x_{i_{j,1}}=1, and xij,2=⋯=xij,k=γ>0x_{i_{j,2}}=\cdots=x_{i_{j,k}}=\gamma>0 for all j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1]. Suppose that x\mathbf{x} is an H-eigenvector of Q\mathcal{Q} corresponding to the H-eigenvalue μ=λ(Q)\mu=\lambda(\mathcal{Q}). By Definition 2.1, we have

By Lemma 3.2, we have μ≥2\mu\geq 2. Thus, the first and the third equalities imply that αk−1=γ\alpha^{k-1}=\gamma. Hence,

Let f(μ):=(μ−2)−(1μ−1)1k−1−(1μ−1)k−1f(\mu):=(\mu-2)-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{k-1}}-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{k-1}. We have that f(2)=−2<0f(2)=-2<0 and

Thus, f(μ)=0f(\mu)=0 does have a root in the interval (2,4)(2,4). Since Q\mathcal{Q} has a unique positive H-eigenvector ([8, Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3]), the equation (μ−2)−(1μ−1)1k−1−(1μ−1)k−1=0(\mu-2)-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{k-1}}-\left(\frac{1}{\mu-1}\right)^{k-1}=0 has a unique positive solution which is in the interval (2,4)(2,4). Hence, the result follows. □\Box

The next proposition says that the largest H-eigenvalue of the Laplacian tensor of an odd-uniform sunflower is equal to the maximum degree, ie., 22.

Let kk be odd and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be the kk-uniform sunflower. Let L\mathcal{L} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Then λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

Thus, (λ(L)−1)wij,sk=−wij,1∏t∈{2,…,k}wij,t(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-1)w_{i_{j,s}}^{k}=-w_{i_{j,1}}\prod_{t\in\{2,\ldots,k\}}w_{i_{j,t}}. Hence, wii,2=⋯=wij,k=:zjw_{i_{i,2}}=\cdots=w_{i_{j,k}}=:z_{j} for all j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1], since λ(L)≥2\lambda(\mathcal{L})\geq 2 by Lemma 3.2. Let x:=wikx:=w_{i_{k}}, and yj:=wij,1y_{j}:=w_{i_{j,1}} for all j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1]. Then, we have yj=(1−λ(L))zjy_{j}=(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))z_{j} if zj≠0z_{j}\neq 0, for all j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1]. Moreover, by Definition 2.1, we have

Thus, either z1=⋯=zk−1=:zz_{1}=\cdots=z_{k-1}=:z since kk is odd, or (λ(L)−2)(1−λ(L))k−1+(1−λ(L))=0(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-2)(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))^{k-1}+(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))=0 and x∏s∈[k−1]ys=0x\prod_{s\in[k-1]}y_{s}=0.

If (λ(L)−2)(1−λ(L))k−1+(1−λ(L))=0(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-2)(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))^{k-1}+(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))=0, then (λ(L)−2)(1−λ(L))k−2+1=0(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-2)(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))^{k-2}+1=0 since λ(L)≥2\lambda(\mathcal{L})\geq 2. We must have that λ(L)>2\lambda(\mathcal{L})>2, since f(2)=1>0f(2)=1>0 and ff is decreasing in (2,∞)(2,\infty). Here f(μ):=(μ−2)(1−μ)k−2+1f(\mu):=(\mu-2)(1-\mu)^{k-2}+1. On the other hand, if all yty_{t} with t∈[k−1]t\in[k-1] are zero, we get that w=0\mathbf{w}=0 which is a contradiction. Hence, we must have that x∏s∈[k−1]∖{j}ys=0x\prod_{s\in[k-1]\setminus\{j\}}y_{s}=0 and yj≠0y_{j}\neq 0 for some j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1], since x∏s∈[k−1]ys=0x\prod_{s\in[k-1]}y_{s}=0. These two facts will contradict the fact that

since k−1k-1 is even. Thus, this situation can never happen.

If z1=⋯=zk−1=z≠0z_{1}=\cdots=z_{k-1}=z\neq 0, then y1=⋯=yk−1=:y≠0y_{1}=\cdots=y_{k-1}=:y\neq 0 since yj=(1−λ(L))zjy_{j}=(1-\lambda(\mathcal{L}))z_{j}. By Definition 2.1, we have 0≤(λ(L)−1)xk−1=−yk−1≤00\leq(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-1)x^{k-1}=-y^{k-1}\leq 0. Hence x=y=0x=y=0, which is a contradiction. Then, we must have that z=0z=0. The equations of the H-eigenvalue λ(L)\lambda(\mathcal{L}) become

If λ(L)>2\lambda(\mathcal{L})>2, we must have y1=⋯=yk−1=:yy_{1}=\cdots=y_{k-1}=:y, since (λ(L)−2)yjk=−x∏s∈[k−1]ys(\lambda(\mathcal{L})-2)y_{j}^{k}=-x\prod_{s\in[k-1]}y_{s} for all j∈[k−1]j\in[k-1]. Similarly, we must have x=y=0x=y=0 which is a contradiction. Hence, λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2. An H-eigenvector would be y1=1y_{1}=1 and the rest are zero. □\Box

Power Hypergraphs

Some facts on the H-eigenvalues and H-eigenvectors of the Laplacian tensor of a power hypergraph are investigated in this section.

In this subsection, we show that the largest H-eigenvalue of the Laplacian tensor of an odd-uniform hypercycle (hyperpath) is equal to the maximum degree, i.e., 22.

If ee has only one intersectional vertex ii, and xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for some cored vertex s∈es\in e, then (1−λ)xs=xi(1-\lambda)x_{s}=x_{i}.

If ee has two intersectional vertices ii and jj, and xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for some cored vertex s∈es\in e, then xixj=(1−λ)xs2x_{i}x_{j}=(1-\lambda)x_{s}^{2}.

Proof. For (i), by Definition 2.1 and Lemma 3.1, we have

For (ii), by Definition 2.1 and Lemma 3.1, we have

Thus, xixj=(1−λ)xs2x_{i}x_{j}=(1-\lambda)x_{s}^{2}. □\Box

The next corollary is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.1.

If ee has only one intersectional vertex ii, and xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for some cored vertex s∈es\in e, then xixs<0x_{i}x_{s}<0.

If ee has two intersectional vertices ii and jj, and xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for some cored vertex s∈es\in e, then xixj<0x_{i}x_{j}<0.

Let kk be odd and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypercycle with size being r≥2r\geq 2. Let L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

(I). If xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for all s∈[r]s\in[r], by Lemma 4.1, we have that ysys+1<0y_{s}y_{s+1}<0 with yr+1:=y1y_{r+1}:=y_{1} for all s∈[r]s\in[r]. Thus, if rr is odd, we get a contradiction by the rule of signs. In the following, we assume that rr is even and λ(L)>2\lambda(\mathcal{L})>2. By Definition 2.1, we have

with the convention that x0=xrx_{0}=x_{r}, xr+1=x1x_{r+1}=x_{1}, and y0=yry_{0}=y_{r}, yr+1=y1y_{r+1}=y_{1}. Thus, we have

Since ysys+1<0y_{s}y_{s+1}<0 and kk is odd, we get a contradiction, since y1k−y2k+y3k+⋯+yr−1k−yrky_{1}^{k}-y_{2}^{k}+y_{3}^{k}+\cdots+y_{r-1}^{k}-y_{r}^{k} should be positive (respectively negative) if we let y1y_{1} be positive (respectively negative). Consequently, λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

(II). Suppose that xs=0x_{s}=0 for some s∈[r]s\in[r]. If all xs=0x_{s}=0 for s∈[r]s\in[r]. Then, we are done by Definition 2.1. In the following, we assume that λ(L)>2\lambda(\mathcal{L})>2. By Lemma 4.1, we have that ysys+1<0y_{s}y_{s+1}<0 whenever xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0.

Without loss of generality, we assume that xr=0x_{r}=0, y1≠0y_{1}\neq 0, x1≠0x_{1}\neq 0, ⋯\cdots, ym≠0y_{m}\neq 0 for some m≤rm\leq r. Moreover, we can assume that y1>0y_{1}>0. By Definition 2.1, we have

Since y2<0y_{2}<0, we have that x1>0x_{1}>0. Also,

Then, we must have x2<0x_{2}<0. Inductively, we have xsys+1<0x_{s}y_{s+1}<0. Hence, xm−1ym<0x_{m-1}y_{m}<0 which implies that xm−1ym−1>0x_{m-1}y_{m-1}>0. By Definition 2.1, we have

Thus, a contradiction is derived. Consequently, λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2. □\Box

Let kk be odd and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperpath with length being r≥3r\geq 3. Let L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

(I). If both x1x_{1} and xrx_{r} are zero, then the proof is same as that for the proof (II) in Proposition 4.1, since we always has a piece of the hyperpath with yt,xt+1,…,ym≠0y_{t},x_{t+1},\ldots,y_{m}\neq 0 for some m≥t≥1m\geq t\geq 1.

(II). If x1≠0x_{1}\neq 0 and xr=0x_{r}=0, then we can find some m≥1m\geq 1 such that x1,y1,…,ym≠0x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,y_{m}\neq 0. We can assume that y1>0y_{1}>0. By Lemma 4.1, we have x1<0x_{1}<0. By Definition 2.1, we have

Since y2<0y_{2}<0 by Lemma 4.1, we have that x2>0x_{2}>0. Also,

Then, we must have x3>0x_{3}>0. Inductively, we have xsys<0x_{s}y_{s}<0. Hence, xmym<0x_{m}y_{m}<0 which implies that xmym−1>0x_{m}y_{m-1}>0. By Definition 2.1, we have

Thus, a contradiction is derived. Consequently, λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

(III). The proof for the case x1=0x_{1}=0 and xr≠0x_{r}\neq 0 is similar. Actually, it follows from (II) immediately by renumbering the indices.

(IV). If xs≠0x_{s}\neq 0 for all s∈[r]s\in[r]. Similar to (II), we have that xsys<0x_{s}y_{s}<0. Particularly, we have xr−1yr−1<0x_{r-1}y_{r-1}<0 which implies that xr−1yr−2>0x_{r-1}y_{r-2}>0. By Definition 2.1, we have

Thus, a contradiction is derived. Consequently, λ(L)=2\lambda(\mathcal{L})=2.

The other cases can be handled by the above proof as well. □\Box

By Propositions 5.6, 4.1 and 4.2, we get that [10, Conjecture 3.1] has a negative answer.

2 Even-Uniform Power Hypergraphs

We have a conjecture for even-uniform hypergraphs.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be an usual graph, k=2rk=2r be even and Gk=(Vk,Ek)G^{k}=(V^{k},E^{k}) be the kk-power hypergraph of GG. Let Lk\mathcal{L}^{k} and Qk\mathcal{Q}^{k} be the Laplacian and signless Laplacian tensors of GkG^{k} respectively. Then {λ(Lk)=λ(Qk)}\{\lambda(\mathcal{L}^{k})=\lambda(\mathcal{Q}^{k})\} is a strictly decreasing sequence.

By [10, Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 5.1], we have the next proposition.

Conjecture 4.1 is true for hyperstars and hypercycles.

Proof. For the case of hyperstars, by [10, Theorem 3.1], we have that λ(Lk)\lambda(\mathcal{L}^{k}) is the unique root of

Here dd is the size of the hyperstar. Let fk(μ):=(1−μ)k−1(λ−d)+df_{k}(\mu):=(1-\mu)^{k-1}(\lambda-d)+d. We have f(k+1)(d)=d>0f_{(}k+1)(d)=d>0 and

Hence, λ(Lk+1)∈(d,λ(Lk))\lambda(\mathcal{L}^{k+1})\in(d,\lambda(\mathcal{L}^{k})).

The proof for the other case is similar. □\Box

H-Spectra of Special Power Hypergraphs

We compute out all the H-eigenvalues of some special power hypergraphs in this section.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperstar with k≥3k\geq 3 and the size d≥2d\geq 2, where V=[n]V=[n], E={e1,⋯ ,ed}E=\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{d}\}, and d1=dd_{1}=d (i.e., the vertex 1 is the heart). Let L=D−A\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{D}-\mathcal{A} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Then it is easy to see that the eigenvalue equations (λI−L)xk−1=0(\lambda\mathcal{I}-\mathcal{L})\mathbf{x}^{k-1}=0 are equivalent to the following set of relations:

where e(j)e(j) denotes the unique edge containing the vertex jj for j≥2j\geq 2.

The next lemma strengthens Lemma 4.1 for the case of hyperstars.

Let G,k,dG,k,d and L\mathcal{L} be as above. Suppose that (λ,x)(\lambda,x) is an H-eigenpair of L\mathcal{L} with λ≠1\lambda\neq 1. Then we have:

If i,j≥2i,j\geq 2 and i,ji,j are adjacent (there is an edge containing both ii and jj), then xi=xjx_{i}=x_{j} when kk is odd, and ∣xi∣=∣xj∣|x_{i}|=|x_{j}| when kk is even.

If i,j≥2i,j\geq 2 and xix_{i}, xjx_{j} are both nonzero, then xi=xjx_{i}=x_{j} when kk is odd, and ∣xi∣=∣xj∣|x_{i}|=|x_{j}| when kk is even.

(ii) Case 1: kk is odd. If j≥2j\geq 2 and xj≠0x_{j}\neq 0, by (3) and the result (i) of this lemma we also have x1=(1−λ)xjx_{1}=(1-\lambda)x_{j}.

Similarly for i≥2i\geq 2 and xi≠0x_{i}\neq 0, we also have x1=(1−λ)xix_{1}=(1-\lambda)x_{i}. From this we obtain that xi=xjx_{i}=x_{j}.

Case 2: kk is even. If j≥2j\geq 2 and xj≠0x_{j}\neq 0, by taking the absolute values of the both sides of Eq. (2) and using the result (1) of this lemma we also have ∣x1∣=∣(1−λ)xj∣|x_{1}|=|(1-\lambda)x_{j}|.

Similarly for i≥2i\geq 2 and xi≠0x_{i}\neq 0, we also have ∣x1∣=∣(1−λ)xi∣|x_{1}|=|(1-\lambda)x_{i}|. From this we obtain that ∣xi∣=∣xj∣|x_{i}|=|x_{j}|. □\Box

From Lemma 5.1 we can obtain the set of all distinct H-eigenvalues and all corresponding H-eigenvectors of the Laplacian tensor L\mathcal{L} of the hyperstar GG (except for the eigenvalue 1) in the following Proposition 5.1 (for the case when kk is odd) and Proposition 5.2 (for the case when kk is even). The set of all eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue 1 will be given in Proposition 5.3.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperstar with odd k≥3k\geq 3 and the size d≥2d\geq 2, where V=[n]V=[n], E={e1,⋯ ,ed}E=\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{d}\}, and d1=dd_{1}=d (i.e., the vertex 1 is the heart). Let L=D−A\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{D}-\mathcal{A} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Let

λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} if and only if it is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda) for some r∈{0,1,⋯ ,d}r\in\{0,1,\cdots,d\}.

If λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda), then we can construct all the H-eigenvectors of L\mathcal{L} corresponding to λ\lambda (up to a constant multiple) by going through the following procedure:

Step 2: Choose any rr edges of GG, take the xx-values of all the pendant vertices of these rr edges to be 1.

Step 3: Take the xx-values of all the other vertices of GG to be zero.

Proof: (i) Necessity. Let (λ,x)(\lambda,\mathbf{x}) is an H-eigenpair of L\mathcal{L} with λ≠1\lambda\neq 1.

According to the results of Lemma 5.1, we call an edge ee as xx-nonzero, if the common xx-value of all the pendant vertices of ee is nonzero. Otherwise this edge is called xx-zero.

Let rr be the number of xx-nonzero edges of GG. Then we have 0≤r≤d0\leq r\leq d. If r=0r=0, then x=(1,0,⋯ ,0)T\mathbf{x}=(1,0,\cdots,0)^{T} is an H-eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue dd, which is the unique root of f0(λ)f_{0}(\lambda) other than 1. So in the following, we may assume that 1≤r≤d1\leq r\leq d.

By result (ii) of Lemma 5.1, we may assume that xi=1x_{i}=1 for all i≥2i\geq 2 with xi≠0x_{i}\neq 0 (up to a constant multiple). In this case, we also have x1=1−λx_{1}=1-\lambda.

Now from (2) we further have (λ−d)x1k−1=−r(\lambda-d)x_{1}^{k-1}=-r. Combining this with x1=1−λx_{1}=1-\lambda we obtain that (λ−d)(1−λ)k−1+r=0(\lambda-d)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+r=0, which means that λ\lambda is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda).

Sufficiency part of (i) follows directly from the constructive procedure of result (ii).

(ii) It is not difficult to verify that any vector xx obtained after going through the steps 1-3 will satisfy the (2) and (3), so it is an H-eigenvector corresponding to the H-eigenvalue λ\lambda. □\Box

Now we consider the case when kk is even.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperstar with even k≥4k\geq 4 and the size d≥2d\geq 2, where V=[n]V=[n], E={e1,⋯ ,ed}E=\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{d}\}, and d1=dd_{1}=d. Let L=D−A\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{D}-\mathcal{A} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Then we have:

λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} if and only if it is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda) for some r∈{0,1,⋯ ,d}r\in\{0,1,\cdots,d\}.

If λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda), then we can construct all the H-eigenvectors of L\mathcal{L} corresponding to λ\lambda (up to a constant multiple) by going through the following procedure:

Step 2: Choose any rr edges of GG, take the xx-values of all the pendant vertices of these rr edges to be ±1\pm 1, where the number of −1-1 value in each edge is even.

Step 3: Take the xx-values of all the other vertices of GG to be zero.

Proof: (i) Necessity. Let (λ,x)(\lambda,x) be an H-eigenpair of L\mathcal{L} with λ≠1\lambda\neq 1.

Let rr be the number of xx-nonzero edges of GG. Then we have 0≤r≤d0\leq r\leq d.

By result (ii) of Lemma 5.1, we may assume that xi=±1x_{i}=\pm 1 for all i≥2i\geq 2 with xi≠0x_{i}\neq 0 (up to a constant multiple). In this case, we also have x1=±(1−λ)x_{1}=\pm(1-\lambda) by (3). We now consider the following two cases:

Case 1: x1=(1−λ)x_{1}=(1-\lambda) . Then from (3) we have ∏s∈e(j)\{1}xs=1\prod_{s\in e(j)\backslash\{1\}}x_{s}=1 for j≥2j\geq 2 and xj≠0x_{j}\neq 0. Thus from (2) we further have (λ−d)x1k−1=−r(\lambda-d)x_{1}^{k-1}=-r. Combining this with x1=1−λx_{1}=1-\lambda we obtain that (λ−d)(1−λ)k−1+r=0(\lambda-d)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+r=0, which means that λ\lambda is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda).

Case 2: x1=−(1−λ)x_{1}=-(1-\lambda) . Then from (3) we have ∏s∈e(j)\{1}xs=−1\prod_{s\in e(j)\backslash\{1\}}x_{s}=-1 for j≥2j\geq 2 and xj≠0x_{j}\neq 0. Thus from (2) we further have (λ−d)x1k−1=r(\lambda-d)x_{1}^{k-1}=r. Combining this with x1=−(1−λ)x_{1}=-(1-\lambda) and the hypothesis that kk is even, we also obtain that (λ−d)(1−λ)k−1+r=0(\lambda-d)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+r=0, which means that λ\lambda is a real root of the polynomial fr(λ)f_{r}(\lambda).

Notice that the eigenvectors xx constructed in Case 1 and Case 2 only differ by a multiple −1-1, so we only need to consider Case 1.

Sufficiency part of (i) follows directly from the constructive procedure of result (ii).

(ii) It is not difficult to verify that any vector xx obtained after going through the steps 1-3 will satisfy the (2) and (3), so it is an H-eigenvector corresponding to the H-eigenvalue λ\lambda. □\Box

Now we construct all the eigenvectors of L\mathcal{\mathcal{L}} corresponding to the eigenvalue 1.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperstar with k≥3k\geq 3 and the size d≥2d\geq 2, where V=[n]V=[n], E={e1,⋯ ,ed}E=\{e_{1},\cdots,e_{d}\}, and d1=dd_{1}=d. Let L=D−A\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{D}-\mathcal{A} be the Laplacian tensor of GG. Then a nonzero vector xx is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 1 if and only if x1=0x_{1}=0 and the xx-values of all the pendant vertices of GG satisfy the following relation:

Necessity. Suppose that x\mathbf{x} is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 1. If x1≠0x_{1}\neq 0, then from (5) we see that each edge of GG contains at least two pendant vertices whose xx-values are zero. From this and the (2), we would have d=1d=1, a contradiction. So we have that x1=0x_{1}=0.

Now x1=0x_{1}=0 means that (2) becomes (4). This proves the necessity part.

Sufficiency. It is easy to verify that if x1=0x_{1}=0 and the xx-values of all the pendant vertices of GG satisfy the relation (4), then xx satisfies (2) and (3) for λ=1\lambda=1. Thus xx is an eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 1. □\Box

2 Hyperpaths

In this subsection, we consider a hyperpath of length being 33 when kk is odd.

The next lemma follows from [14, Theorem 3].

Let kk be odd and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperpath with length being 33. Let L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} if and only if one of the following four cases happens:

λ\lambda is the unique root of the equation (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0, which is in (0,1)(0,1),

λ\lambda is the unique root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0, which is in (0,1)(0,1), and

λ\lambda is a real root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−1+2λ−3=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+2\lambda-3=0 in (0,2)(0,2).

Let xk=αx_{k}=\alpha and x2k−1=βx_{2k-1}=\beta. By Lemmas 3.1 and 4.1, we have x1=⋯=xk−1=11−λαx_{1}=\cdots=x_{k-1}=\frac{1}{1-\lambda}\alpha if there are nonzero; xk+1=⋯=x2k−2=±αβ1−λx_{k+1}=\cdots=x_{2k-2}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{1-\lambda}} if there are nonzero; and x2k=⋯=x3k−2=11−λβx_{2k}=\cdots=x_{3k-2}=\frac{1}{1-\lambda}\beta if there are nonzero.

The proof is divided into two cases, which contain several sub-cases respectively.

(I). If x1=0x_{1}=0, then we must have that either λ=2\lambda=2 or α=0\alpha=0, since (λ−2)αk−1=0(\lambda-2)\alpha^{k-1}=0. If α=0\alpha=0, then we can assume that β=1\beta=1. Thus, either (λ−2)=−(11−λ)k−1(\lambda-2)=-\left(\frac{1}{1-\lambda}\right)^{k-1} whenever x2k≠0x_{2k}\neq 0 or λ=2\lambda=2. Hence, we have that either λ=2\lambda=2 or it is a root of the equation (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1=−1(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}=-1. Let f(λ)=(λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1f(\lambda)=(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1. We see that f(0)=−1<0f(0)=-1<0 and f(1)=1>0f(1)=1>0. Moreover, ff is a strictly increasing function in (−∞,1)(-\infty,1) and (2,∞)(2,\infty). We have that f(λ)>0f(\lambda)>0 in (2,∞)(2,\infty), since f(2)=1>0f(2)=1>0. Obviously, f=0f=0 does not have a root in $.Thus,ithasauniqueroot,whichisintheinterval. Thus, it has a unique root, which is in the interval(0,1)$.

Since α≠0\alpha\neq 0 in this case by Lemma 4.1, λ\lambda should be the unique root of the equation (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0.

The discussion for the cases (i) x2k=0x_{2k}=0, and (ii) x2k≠0x_{2k}\neq 0 are similar, and either λ=2\lambda=2 or it is the unique root of the equation (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0.

(I). If x1=0x_{1}=0 and x2k=0x_{2k}=0, then we have

Multiplying the first equality by α\alpha and the second by β\beta, we get that

If λ>1\lambda>1, then we have that αβ<0\alpha\beta<0 by Corollary 4.1. Thus, the only possibility would be λ=2\lambda=2 in this case. But λ=2\lambda=2 contradicts (6). Hence, in this case we should have that λ<1\lambda<1. Then, by (7), we must have α=β≠0\alpha=\beta\neq 0 since kk is odd. By (6), we get that xk+1x_{k+1} should be αβ1−λ\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{1-\lambda}} since kk is odd and λ<1\lambda<1. Thus, λ\lambda should be a root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0 in (0,1)(0,1). With a similar discussion as that in (I) of Case 1. we have that (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0 has a unique root, which is in (0,1)(0,1).

(II). If x1=0x_{1}=0 and x2k≠0x_{2k}\neq 0, then we have

By squaring the both sides of (8), we get that

By (9) and (10), (λ,t)(\lambda,t) should be a common solution pair of the polynomial equations

Since kk is odd, solve tt from the second equation, we get that (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−1+2λ−3=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+2\lambda-3=0. This, together with Lemma 5.2, implies the result (iv).

The discussion for the case xk+1≠0x_{k+1}\neq 0, x1≠0x_{1}\neq 0 and x2k=0x_{2k}=0 is similar, and the result is the same as the above case.

(III). If x1≠0x_{1}\neq 0 and x2k≠0x_{2k}\neq 0, then we have

If λ>1\lambda>1, then we have that αβ<0\alpha\beta<0 by Corollary 4.1. Hence, we must have (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0. But (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0 has a unique solution in (0,1)(0,1). Consequently, we must have λ<1\lambda<1 in this case.

If α≠β\alpha\neq\beta, then (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1=0(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1=0. From (11), we have

Consequently, (1−λ)k−1(±αβ1−λ)k−2β=0(1-\lambda)^{k-1}\left(\pm\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{1-\lambda}}\right)^{k-2}\beta=0. Hence, 1−λ=01-\lambda=0 which is a contradiction to λ<1\lambda<1. Thus, this case does not happen.

If α=β\alpha=\beta, then by (11) we have that

Note that if λ<0\lambda<0, then 1−λ>11-\lambda>1 and (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1<−1(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1<-1, then it cannot be a root of the equation in (12). If λ∈(0,1)\lambda\in(0,1), then 1−λ∈(0,1)1-\lambda\in(0,1) and (λ−2)(1−λ)k−1+1∈(−1,1)(\lambda-2)(1-\lambda)^{k-1}+1\in(-1,1), then the equation in (12) does not have a root in (0,1)(0,1). Thus, the unique solution should be λ=0\lambda=0. □\Box

The next lemma says that the degree did_{i} of the vertex ii is a Laplacian H-eigenvalue for all i∈[n]i\in[n].

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypergraph and L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ=di\lambda=d_{i} is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} for all i∈[n]i\in[n].

The next proposition, which follows from Lemma 5.3, says that λ=1\lambda=1 is an H-eigenvalue of the Laplacian tensor of a cored hypergraph and hence a hyperpath.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform cored hypergraph and L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ=1\lambda=1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L}.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hyperpath with length being s≥3s\geq 3 and L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ=1\lambda=1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L}.

3 Hypercycles

In this subsection, we consider a hypercycle of length being 33 when kk is odd.

Let kk be odd and G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypercycle with size being 33. Let L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ≠1\lambda\neq 1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L} if and only if one of the following four cases happens:

λ\lambda is the unique root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0, which is in (0,1)(0,1),

λ\lambda is the unique root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−24k=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-2\sqrt[k]{4}=0, which is in (0,1)(0,1), and

λ\lambda is a real root of the equation [(λ−2)+(±1−λ)k−2](2−λ)+2=0\left[(\lambda-2)+\left(\pm\sqrt{1-\lambda}\right)^{k-2}\right](2-\lambda)+2=0 in [0,1).

Let x1=αx_{1}=\alpha, xk=βx_{k}=\beta and x2k−1=γx_{2k-1}=\gamma. By Lemmas 3.1 and 4.1, we have x2=⋯=xk−1=±αβ1−λx_{2}=\cdots=x_{k-1}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{1-\lambda}} if there are nonzero; xk+1=⋯=x2k−2=±βγ1−λx_{k+1}=\cdots=x_{2k-2}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{\beta\gamma}{1-\lambda}} if there are nonzero; and x2k=⋯=x3k−3=±αγ1−λx_{2k}=\cdots=x_{3k-3}=\pm\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\gamma}{1-\lambda}} if there are nonzero.

(I). If x2≠0x_{2}\neq 0, xk+1=0x_{k+1}=0 and x2k=0x_{2k}=0, then we have

Multiplying the first equality by α\alpha and the second by β\beta, we get that

If λ>1\lambda>1, then we have that αβ<0\alpha\beta<0 by Corollary 4.1. Thus, the only possibility would be λ=2\lambda=2 in this case, since λ≤2\lambda\leq 2. But λ=2\lambda=2 contradicts (13). Hence, in this case we should have that λ<1\lambda<1. Then, by (14), we must have α=β\alpha=\beta since kk is odd. Without loss of generality, we assume that α=β>0\alpha=\beta>0. By (13), we get that xk+1x_{k+1} should be αβ1−λ\sqrt{\frac{\alpha\beta}{1-\lambda}} since kk is odd and λ<1\lambda<1. Thus, λ\lambda should be a root of the equation (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0. With a similar discussion as that in (I) of Case 1 in Proposition 5.4, we have that (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0 has a unique root, which is in (0,1)(0,1).

(II). If x2≠0x_{2}\neq 0, xk+1≠0x_{k+1}\neq 0 and x2k=0x_{2k}=0, then we have

Let β=1\beta=1, and s:=αβs:=\frac{\alpha}{\beta} and t:=γβt:=\frac{\gamma}{\beta}. We have

Multiplying the first by ss and the last by tt, we have either λ=2\lambda=2 or sk+tk=1s^{k}+t^{k}=1. λ=2\lambda=2 contradicts (15). If λ>1\lambda>1, then sk+tk=1s^{k}+t^{k}=1 contradicts to the fact that s<0s<0 and t<0t<0 by Corollary 4.1. Thus, λ<1\lambda<1, s=t>0s=t>0 by (16) and (17). Since sk+tk=1s^{k}+t^{k}=1, we have s=t=12ks=t=\sqrt[k]{\frac{1}{2}}. By (16), we have that λ\lambda should be a root of (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−24k=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-2\sqrt[k]{4}=0. It can be seen that (λ−2)2(1−λ)k−2−24k=0(\lambda-2)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-2\sqrt[k]{4}=0 has a unique root, which is in (0,1)(0,1).

(III). If x2≠0x_{2}\neq 0, xk+1≠0x_{k+1}\neq 0 and x2k≠0x_{2k}\neq 0, then we have

If λ>1\lambda>1, then αβ<0\alpha\beta<0, βγ<0\beta\gamma<0 and γα<0\gamma\alpha<0 by Corollary 4.1. This is a contradiction. Hence, λ<1\lambda<1.

Let β=1\beta=1, and s:=αβs:=\frac{\alpha}{\beta} and t:=γβt:=\frac{\gamma}{\beta}. By Lemma 4.1, we have s>0s>0 and t>0t>0. Without loss of generality, we assume that s≤1s\leq 1 and t≤1t\leq 1. We have

Multiplying the first by ss and the last by tt, we have that

Since s≤1s\leq 1, λ<1\lambda<1 and kk is odd, we have xk+1=t1−λx_{k+1}=\sqrt{\frac{t}{1-\lambda}}. Similarly, we have x2=s1−λx_{2}=\sqrt{\frac{s}{1-\lambda}}. Thus, (21) becomes

Thus, either s=ts=t or sk2+tk2=1s^{\frac{k}{2}}+t^{\frac{k}{2}}=1.

If s=ts=t, then (18) and (22) imply that λ\lambda and ss should be a solution pair of

Since s>0s>0, we can solve ss from the first equation. Then λ\lambda should be a real root of the equation [(λ−2)+(±1−λ)k−2](2−λ)2+2=0\left[(\lambda-2)+\left(\pm\sqrt{1-\lambda}\right)^{k-2}\right](2-\lambda)2+2=0 in [0,1), since λ<1\lambda<1 and λ≥0\lambda\geq 0 by Lemma 5.2.

If sk2+tk2=1s^{\frac{k}{2}}+t^{\frac{k}{2}}=1, then λ\lambda should be a root of (2−λ)2(1−λ)k−2−1=0(2-\lambda)^{2}(1-\lambda)^{k-2}-1=0, which is (ii). □\Box

The next corollary, which is a direct consequence of Proposition 5.5, says that λ=1\lambda=1 is also an H-eigenvalue of the Laplacian tensor of a hypercycle.

Let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a kk-uniform hypercycle with size being s≥2s\geq 2 and L\mathcal{L} be its Laplacian tensor. Then λ=1\lambda=1 is an H-eigenvalue of L\mathcal{L}.

Final Remarks

In this paper, we studied Laplacian H-eigenvalues of cored hypergraphs, power hypergraphs, and some of their subclasses, such as hyperstars, hypercycles, hyperpaths and sunflowers. As the kkth power of a tree graph, we have a kk-uniform hypertree. In 2003, Stevanović presented an upper bound for the largest Laplacian eigenvalue of a tree in terms of the maximum degree. We wonder if this result can be generalized to hypertrees or not.

References