arXiv++ Combinatorics

For a simple graph, the minimum rank problem is to determine the smallest rank among the symmetric matrices whose off-diagonal nonzero entries occur in positions corresponding to the edges of the graph. Bounds on this minimum rank (and on an equivalent value, the maximum nullity) are given by various graph parameters, most notably the zero forcing number and its variants. For a matrix, replacing each nonzero entry with the symbol \(\ast\) gives its zero-nonzero pattern. The associated minimum rank problem is to determine, given only this pattern, the smallest possible rank of the matrix. The most fundamental lower bound on this minimum rank is the triangle number of the pattern. A cobipartite graph is the complement of a bipartite graph; its vertices can be partitioned into two cliques. Such a graph corresponds to a zero-nonzero pattern in a natural way. Over an infinite field, the minimum rank of the graph and that of the pattern obey a simple relationship. We show that this same relationship is followed by the zero forcing number of the graph and the triangle number of the pattern. This has implications for the relationship between the two minimum rank problems. We also explore how, for cobipartite graphs, variants of the zero forcing number and other parameters important to the minimum rank problem are related, as well as how, for graphs in general, these parameters can be interpreted in terms of the zero-nonzero patterns of the symmetric matrices associated with the graph.

Motivated in part by an observation that the zero forcing number for the complement of a tree on $n$ vertices is either $n-3$ or $n-1$ in one exceptional case, we consider the zero forcing number for the complement of more general graphs under some conditions, particularly those that do not contain complete bipartite subgraphs. We also move well beyond trees and completely study all of the possible zero forcing numbers for the complements of unicyclic graphs and cactus graphs.

A hollow matrix described by a graph $G$ is a real symmetric matrix having all diagonal entries equal to zero and with the off-diagonal entries governed by the adjacencies in $G$. For a given graph $G$, the determination of all possible spectra of matrices associated with $G$ is the hollow inverse eigenvalue problem for $G$. Solutions to the hollow inverse eigenvalue problems for paths and complete bipartite graphs are presented. Results for related subproblems such as possible ordered multiplicity lists, maximum multiplicity of an eigenvalue, and minimum number of distinct eigenvalues are presented for additional families of graphs.

It is known that the zero forcing number of a graph is an upper bound for the maximum nullity of the graph. In this paper, we search for characteristics of a graph that guarantee the maximum nullity of the graph and the zero forcing number of the graph are the same by studying a variety of graph parameters which bound the maximum nullity of a graph below. In particular, we introduce a new graph parameter which acts as a lower bound for the maximum nullity of the graph. As a result, we show that the Aztec Diamond graph's maximum nullity and zero forcing number are the same. Other graph parameters that are considered are a Colin de Verdiére type parameter and the vertex connectivity. We also use matrices, such as a divisor matrix of a graph and an equitable partition of the adjacency matrix of a graph, to establish a lower bound for the nullity of the graph's adjacency matrix.

A vertex $v$ in a porous exponential dominating set assigns weight $\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)^{dist(v,u)}$ to vertex $u$. A porous exponential dominating set of a graph $G$ is a subset of $V(G)$ such that every vertex in $V(G)$ has been assigned a sum weight of at least 1. In this paper the porous exponential dominating number, denoted by $γ_e^*(G)$, for the graph $G = C_m \times C_n$ is discussed. Anderson et. al. proved that $\frac{mn}{15.875}\le γ_e^*(C_m \times C_n) \le \frac{mn}{13}$ and conjectured that $\frac{mn}{13}$ is also the asymptotic lower bound. We use a linear programing approach to sharpen the lower bound to $\frac{mn}{13.7619 + ε(m,n)}$.