Thierry Monteil and Khaydar Nurligareev
11institutetext: LIPN, CNRS (UMR 7030), Université Paris 13, F-93430 Villetaneuse, France,
11email: [email protected],
https://monteil.perso.math.cnrs.fr/
22institutetext: LIPN, CNRS (UMR 7030), Université Paris 13, F-93430 Villetaneuse, France,
22email: [email protected],
https://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~nurligareev/
Asymptotics for connected graphs and irreducible tournaments
Abstract
We compute the whole asymptotic expansion of the probability that a large uniform labeled graph is connected, and of the probability that a large uniform labeled tournament is irreducible. In both cases, we provide a combinatorial interpretation of the involved coefficients.
1 Introduction
Let us consider the Erdös-Rényi model of random graphs , where for each integer , we endow the set of undirected simple graphs on the set with the uniform probability: each graph appears with probability . The probability that such a random graph of size is connected goes to as goes to . In 1959, Gilbert [2] provided a more accurate estimation and proved that
In 1970, Wright [8] computed the first four terms of the asymptotic expansion of this probability:
The method can be used to compute more terms, one after another. However, it does not allow to provide the structure of the whole asymptotic expansion, since no interpretation is given to the coefficients .
The first goal of this paper is to provide such a structure: the th term of the asymptotic expansion of is of the form
where counts the number of irreducible labeled tournaments of size . A tournament is said irreducible if for every partition of the set of vertices there exist an edge from to and an edge from to . Equivalently, a tournament is irreducible if, and only if, it is strongly connected [6][7].
Theorem 1.1 (Connected graphs).
For any positive integer , the probability that a random graph of size is connected satisfies
where is the number of irreducible labeled tournaments of size .
In particular, as there are no irreducible tournament of size , this explains why there is no term in in Wright’s formula. This result might look surprising as it relates asymptotics of undirected objects with directed ones.
A similar development happened for irreducible tournaments. For , we endow the set of tournaments on the set with the uniform probability: each tournament appears with probability . In 1962, Moon and Moser [5] gave a first estimation of the probability that a labeled tournament of size is irreducible, which was improved in [4] into
In 1970, Wright [9] computed the first four terms of the asymptotic expansion of the probability that a labeled tournament is irreducible:
Here again, we provide the whole structure of the asymptotic expansion, together with a combinatorial interpretation of the coefficients (they are not all powers of two):
Theorem 1.2 (Irreducible tournaments).
For any positive integer , the probability that a random labeled tournament of size is irreducible satisfies
where is the number of labeled tournaments of size with two irreducible components.
We can notice that the coefficients cannot be interpreted as counting a single class of combinatorial objects, since the coefficient is negative.
2 Notations, strategy and tools
Let us denote, for every integer , the number of labeled graphs of size , the number of connected labeled graphs of size , the number of labeled tournaments of size , and the number of irreducible labeled tournaments of size . We have and .
Looking for a proof of Theorem 1.1, we see two issues: finding a formal relation between connected graphs and irreducible tournaments, and proving the convergence. A tool to settle the first issue is the symbolic method: we associate to each integer sequence its exponential generating function:
Since , we have
(1) |
Note that, while the number of labeled tournaments of size is equal to the number of labeled graphs of size , their associated species are not isomorphic: for , the two labeled tournaments are isomorphic (by swapping the vertices), while the two labeled graphs are not, so this equality is somewhat artificial.
Since every labeled graph can be uniquely decomposed as a disjoint union of connected labeled graphs, we have
(2) |
It remains to find a relation between tournaments and irreducible tournaments.
Lemma 2.1.
Any tournament can be uniquely decomposed into a sequence of irreducible tournaments.
In terms of generating functions, Lemma 2.1 translates to
(3) |
Hence, part of the work will be to let those expressions interplay.
Regarding asymptotics, we will rely on Bender’s Theorem [1]:
Theorem 2.2 (Bender).
Consider a formal power series
and a function which is analytic in some neighborhood of . Define
Assume that for all , and that for some integer we have
Then
3 Proofs
Proof 3.1 (Proof of Lemma 2.1).
Let be a tournament. It is either irreducible, and all is done, or it consists of two nonempty parts and such that all edges between and are directed from to . Applying the same argumentation recursively to and , we obtain a decomposition of into a sequence of subtournaments , such that each is irreducible and for every pair , all edges go from to (see Figure 1). Since are also the strongly connected components of , the decomposition is unique.
Proof 3.2 (Proof of Theorem 1.1).
Let us apply Bender’s theorem (Theorem 2.2) the following way: take
Then, in accordance with formulas (1), (2) and (3),
Check the conditions of Theorem 2.2. In the case at hand, condition (i) has the form:
To establish condition (ii), consider , where . Then decreases for and increases symmetrically for . Bounding each summand by the first term is not enough, but bounding each summand (except for the first and last) by the second term gives the following:
Hence, Bender’s theorem implies
Dividing by , we get
Proof 3.3 (Proof of Theorem 1.2).
Let us apply Bender’s theorem (Theorem 2.2) for
Then, in accordance with formula (3),
Since is the generating function for the class of labeled tournaments which can be decomposed into a sequence of two irreducible tournaments, we can rewrite the latter identity in the form
In the case at hand, the conditions that are needed to apply Theorem 2.2 are the same as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, since the sequence is the same. Hence,
Dividing by , we get
4 Further results
With a bit more work, we can compute the probability that a random graph of
size has exactly connected components,
and the probability that a random tournament of size has exactly
irreducible components as goes to .
In another direction, we can also generalize Theorem 1.1 to the
Erdös-Rényi model , where the constant in the formulas is
replaced by and the sequence is replaced by a sequence
of polynomials with an explicit combinatorial interpretation.
The methods presented here can also be extended to some geometrical context where connectedness questions appear. In particular, we will provide asymptotics for combinatorial maps, square tiled surfaces, constellations, random tensor model [3]. In some of the models, the coefficients in the asymptotic expansions show connections with indecomposable tuples of permutations and perfect matchings.
References
- [1] E. A. Bender. An asymptotic expansion for the coefficients of some formal power series. J. Lond. Math. Soc., II. Ser., 9:451–458, 1975.
- [2] E. N. Gilbert. Random graphs. Ann. Math. Stat., 30:1141–1144, 1959.
- [3] T. Monteil and Kh. Nurligareev. In preparation.
- [4] J. W. Moon. Topics on tournaments. New York etc: Holt, Rinehart and Winston VIII,104 p 56 s, (1968)., 1968.
- [5] J. W. Moon and L. Moser. Almost all tournaments are irreducible. Can. Math. Bull., 5:61–65, 1962.
- [6] R. Rado. Theorems on linear combinatorial topology and general measure. Ann. Math. (2), 44:228–270, 1943.
- [7] B. Roy. Sur quelques propriétés des graphes fortement connexes. C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 247:399–401, 1958.
- [8] E. M. Wright. Asymptotic relations between enumerative functions in graph theory. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 20:558–572, 1970.
- [9] E. M. Wright. The number of irreducible tournaments. Glasg. Math. J., 11:97–101, 1970.