text:
# LOCAL SPECTRA OF OPERATOR WEIGHTED SHIFTS

## 1. Introduction

Let $`()`$ denote the algebra of all bounded linear operators acting on a complex Hilbert space $``$, and let $`𝒜:=(A_n)_{n0}`$ be a sequence of uniformly bounded invertible operators of $`()`$. Let

$$\widehat{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}_n,$$

where $`_n=`$ for each $`n0`$. It is a Hilbert space when equipped with the inner product

$$(x_n)_n,(y_n)_n_\widehat{}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}x_n,y_n_{}.$$

Therefore, the corresponding norm is given by

$$(x_n)_n_\widehat{}=\left(\underset{n}{}x_n_{}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

The unilateral operator weighted shift, $`S_u`$, with the weight sequence $`𝒜=(A_n)_{n0}`$ is the operator on $`\widehat{}`$ defined by

$$S_u(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=(0,A_0x_0,A_1x_1,A_2x_2,\mathrm{}),((x_n)_n\widehat{}).$$

Operator weighted shifts were first introduced by A. Lambert , and have been studied by many authors (see for example , , , , and ). In the case when $`dim=1`$, they are exactly the scalar weighted shifts which have been widely studied. An excellent survey of the investigation of the spectral theory of such operators was given by A. L. Shields . Moreover, several known results for the scalar case have been generalized and extended to the setting of operator weighted shifts. However, the question of determining the local spectral properties for operator weighted shifts is natural and has been initiated in . While, the investigation of these properties for scalar weighted shifts has been studied in  and . The main goal of the present note is to study and examine whether or not the results obtained in  remain valid for unilateral operator weighted shifts. We give necessary and sufficient conditions for a unilateral operator weighted shift to satisfy Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ or Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$. Unlike the scalar weighted shift operators, we show that they are examples of unilateral operator weighted shifts possessing Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ with large approximate point spectrum and without fat local spectra.

For an operator $`T()`$, let, as usual, $`T^{}`$, $`\sigma (T)`$, $`\sigma _{ap}(T)`$, $`\sigma _p(T)`$, and $`r(T)`$ denote the adjoint, the spectrum, the approximate point spectrum, the point spectrum, and the spectral radius of $`T`$, respectively. Let $`m(T):=inf\{Tx:x=1\}`$ denote the lower bound of $`T`$, and note that the sequence $`\left(m(T^n)^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)_{n1}`$ converges and its limit, denoted $`r_1(T)`$, equals $`\underset{n1}{sup}[m(T^n)]^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ (see ). Let $`T()`$; for an element $`x`$, let $`\sigma __T(x)`$, $`\rho __T(x):=\backslash \sigma __T(x)`$, and $`r_T(x):=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}T^nx^{\frac{1}{n}}`$ be the local spectrum, the local resolvent set and the local spectral radius of $`T`$ at $`x`$ , respectively (see  and ). The operator $`T`$ is said to have the single–valued extension property at a complex number $`\lambda _0`$ if for every open disc $`U`$ centered at $`\lambda _0`$, the only analytic solution of the equation $`(T\lambda )f(\lambda )=0,(\lambda U)`$ is the zero function $`f0`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{}(T)`$ the set of all complex numbers on which $`T`$ fails to have the single–valued extension property and recall that $`T`$ is said to have the single–valued extension property provided that $`\mathrm{}(T)`$ is empty. The reader is reminded that in the case $`T`$ has the single–valued extension property, the local resolvent of $`x`$ is the unique analytic $``$valued function, $`\stackrel{~}{x}(.)`$, satisfying $`(T\lambda )\stackrel{~}{x}(\lambda )=x,(\lambda \rho __T(x))`$. Also, recall that an operator $`T`$ is said to satisfy Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ provided that for every closed subset $`F`$ of $``$, the linear subspace,

$$__T(F):=\{x:\sigma __T(x)F\}$$

is closed. Moreover, $`T`$ is said to have fat local spectra if $`\sigma __T(x)=\sigma (T)`$ for all non-zero $`x`$. It is well known that every operator which satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ has the single–valued extension property and it turns out that Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ follows from fat local spectra property.

Throughout this note, let $`S_u`$ be a unilateral operator weighted shift with weight sequence $`𝒜:=(A_n)_{n0}`$, and let $`(B_n)_{n0}`$ be the sequence given by

$$B_n=\{\begin{array}{ccc}A_{n1}A_{n2}\mathrm{}A_1A_0\hfill & \text{if }n>0\hfill & \\ & & \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }n=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

Define

$$r_2(S_u):=\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^{\frac{1}{n}}},r_3(S_u):=\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^{\frac{1}{n}}},$$

$$R_2^+(S_u):=\underset{x,x0}{sup}\left\{\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x^{\frac{1}{n}}}\right\}=\underset{x,x=1}{sup}\left\{\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x^{\frac{1}{n}}}\right\},$$

$$R_2^{}(S_u):=\underset{x,x0}{inf}\left\{\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x^{\frac{1}{n}}}\right\}=\underset{x,x=1}{inf}\left\{\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x^{\frac{1}{n}}}\right\},$$

$$R_3^+(S_u):=\underset{x,x0}{sup}\left\{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nx^{\frac{1}{n}}\right\}=\underset{x,x=1}{sup}\left\{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nx^{\frac{1}{n}}\right\},$$

and

$$R_3^{}(S_u):=\underset{x,x0}{inf}\left\{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nx^{\frac{1}{n}}\right\}=\underset{x,x=1}{inf}\left\{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nx^{\frac{1}{n}}\right\}.$$

Note that

$$r_1(S_u)r_2(S_u)R_2^{}(S_u)R_2^+(S_u),$$

and

$$r_3(S_u)R_3^{}(S_u)R_3^+(S_u)r(S_u).$$

Note also that for a scalar weighted shift $`S_u`$, we have

$$r_1(S_u)r_2(S_u)=R_2^{}(S_u)=R_2^+(S_u)r_3(S_u)=R_3^{}(S_u)=R_3^+(S_u)r(S_u).$$

Finally, we would like to record and without further mention a notation that we will use repeatedly throughout this note. For every $`x`$, we write

$$x^{(n)}=(0,\mathrm{},0,x,0,\mathrm{}),(n0)$$

for the element of $`\widehat{}`$ for which all the coordinates are zero except the $`n`$th coordinate which is equal $`x`$, and note that

(1.1)
$$r_{S_u}(x^{(k)})=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n+k}B_k^1x^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$

## 2. Preliminaries and elementary background

In this section, we assemble some elementary results that are very much on the straightforward side and therefore the proofs will be omitted.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Assume that $`T()`$ is an operator for which $`\underset{n0}{}T^n=\{0\}`$. The following statements hold.

* $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_1(T)\}\sigma __T(x)`$ for every non-zero element $`x`$.
* $`\sigma _p(T)\{0\}`$.
* Each $`\sigma __T(x)`$ is connected.
* $`\sigma (T)`$ is a connected set and satisfies $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_1(T)\}\sigma (T).`$ In particular, if $`\sigma (T)`$ is circularly symmetric about the origin, then

$$\sigma (T)=\{\lambda :|\lambda |r(T)\}.$$

Evidently, the unilateral operator weighted shift $`S_u`$ satisfies the condition that $`\underset{n0}{}S_u^n\widehat{}=\{0\}`$, and its spectrum is rotationally symmetric. Therefore, the next result is an immediate consequence of proposition 2.1.

###### Corollary 2.2.

The following statements hold.

* For every non-zero element $`x\widehat{}`$, the local spectrum, $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, of $`S_u`$ at $`x`$ is connected and satisfies $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_1(S_u)\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x).`$
* The spectrum of $`S_u`$ is the disc $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |r(S_u)\}.`$

###### Proposition 2.3.

For every $`n1`$, we have

$$S_u^n=\underset{k0}{sup}B_{n+k}B_k^1,\text{ and }m(S_u^n)=\underset{k0}{inf}\left\{\frac{1}{B_kB_{n+k}^1}\right\}.$$

Thus,

$$r(S_u)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{sup}B_{n+k}B_k^1\right]^{\frac{1}{n}},\text{ and }r_1(S_u)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{inf}\left\{\frac{1}{B_kB_{n+k}^1}\right\}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$

###### Proposition 2.4.

The adjoint of $`S_u`$ is given by

$$S_u^{}x=(A_0^{}x_1,A_1^{}x_2,A_2^{}x_3,\mathrm{}),(x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})\widehat{}).$$

## 3. Local spectra of $`S_u`$

We begin this section with the following result that gives a necessary and sufficient condition for $`S_u^{}`$ to enjoy the single–valued extension property.

###### Lemma 3.1.

The following statments hold.

* $`\sigma _p(S_u)=\mathrm{}`$.
* $`\{0\}\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}\sigma _p(S_u^{})\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_2^+(S_u)\}.`$
* $`S_u^{}`$ has the single–valued extension property if and only if $`R_2^+(S_u)=0`$. Moreover, we always have

$$\mathrm{}(S_u^{})=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}.$$

###### Proof.

$`(a)`$ By proposition 2.1-$`(b)`$, we have $`\sigma _p(S_u)\{0\}`$. As $`S_u`$ is injective, we note that $`\sigma _p(S_u)=\mathrm{}`$.

$`(b)`$ Suppose that $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue for $`S_u^{}`$ and that $`(x_n)_n`$ is a corresponding eigenvector. We have

$$(A_0^{}x_1,A_1^{}x_2,A_2^{}x_3,\mathrm{})=(\lambda x_0,\lambda x_1,\lambda x_2,\mathrm{}).$$

This shows that

$$x_n=\lambda ^nB_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_0,(n0).$$

Therefore,

$$x^2=\underset{n0}{}|\lambda |^{2n}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_0^2.$$

By the Cauchy-Hadamard formula for the radius of convergence, we get that

$$|\lambda |\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_0^{\frac{1}{n}}}.$$

Thus,

$$\sigma _p(S_u^{})\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_2^+(S_u)\}.$$

Now, let us prove that

$$\{0\}\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}\sigma _p(S_u^{}).$$

It is clear that for every $`x`$, we have $`S_u^{}x^{(0)}=0`$; hence, $`0\sigma _p(S_u^{})`$. If $`R_2^+(S_u)=0`$, then there is nothing to prove; thus, we may assume that $`R_2^+(S_u)>0`$. Let $`\lambda `$ such that $`|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)`$. So, there is a non-zero $`x_0`$ such that $`|\lambda |<\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_0^{\frac{1}{n}}}.`$ We have $`\left(S_u^{}\lambda \right)k_{x_0}(\lambda )=0,`$ where $`k_{x_0}(\lambda )=\underset{n0}{}\lambda ^nB_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_0.`$ This shows that

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}\sigma _p(S_u^{}),$$

and the desired statement holds.

$`(c)`$ In view of the statement $`(b)`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{}(S_u^{})\mathrm{int}\left(\sigma _p(S_u^{})\right)`$, we have $`\mathrm{}(S_u^{})\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}.`$

Conversely, let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$ and set

$$U_x:=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x^{\frac{1}{n}}}\},$$

and

$$k_x(\lambda ):=\underset{n0}{}\lambda ^nB_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x,(\lambda U_x).$$

Since $`\left(S_u^{}\lambda \right)k_x(\lambda )=0,\text{ for all }\lambda U_x,`$ and $`x`$ is an arbitrary non-zero element of $``$, we have

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^+(S_u)\}=\underset{x,x0}{}U_x\mathrm{}(S_u^{}).$$

The proof is therefore complete. ∎

The following result refine the local spectral inclusion given in corollary 2.2.

###### Proposition 3.2.

For every non-zero $`y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$, we have

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_2^{}(S_u)\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(y).$$

In particular, if $`r(S_u)=R_2^{}(S_u)`$ then $`S_u`$ has fat local spectra.

###### Proof.

As $`\underset{n0}{}S_u^n\widehat{}=\{0\}`$, we have $`0\sigma _{_{S_u}}(y).`$ Thus, we may assume that $`R_2^{}(S_u)>0`$. Let $`O:=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_2^{}(S_u)\}`$, and let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$. Consider the following analytic $`\widehat{}`$–valued function on $`O`$,

$$k_x(\lambda )=\underset{n0}{}\lambda ^nB_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x.$$

We have $`(S_u\lambda )^{}k_x(\overline{\lambda })=0`$ for every $`\lambda O`$. Now, let $`y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$ such that $`O\rho _{_{S_u}}(y)\mathrm{}`$. So, for every $`\lambda O\rho _{_{S_u}}(y),`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}y_n,B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_{}\lambda ^n`$ $`=`$ $`y,k_x(\overline{\lambda })_\widehat{}`$
$`=`$ $`(S_u\lambda )\stackrel{~}{y}(\lambda ),k_x(\overline{\lambda })_\widehat{}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}(\lambda ),(S_u\lambda )^{}k_x(\overline{\lambda })_\widehat{}`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Hence, for every $`n0`$, we have

$$y_n,B_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_{}=0.$$

Since $`x`$ is an arbitrary element of $``$, we have $`y=0`$; and the proof is complete. ∎

In view of proposition 3.2, we note that $`R_2^{}(S_u)r_{S_u}(x)`$, for all non-zero $`x=(x_0,x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$. The following gives more information about local spectral radii of $`S_u`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

For every non-zero element $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$, we have

$$R_3^{}(S_u)r_{S_u}(x)r(S_u).$$

Moreover, if $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ is a non-zero finitely supported element of $`\widehat{}`$, then

(3.2)
$$R_3^{}(S_u)r_{S_u}(x)=\underset{k0}{\mathrm{max}}\left(r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})\right)R_3^+(S_u).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ be a non-zero element of $`\widehat{}`$; so, there is an integer $`k_00`$ such that $`x_{k_0}0`$. Since,

$$S_u^nx^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}B_{n+k}B_k^1x_k^2,n0,$$

we have

$$B_{n+k_0}B_{k_0}^1x_{k_0}^{\frac{1}{n+k_0}}S_u^nx^{\frac{1}{n+k_0}},n0.$$

Now, taking $`lim\; sup`$ as $`n+\mathrm{}`$, we get

$$R_3^{}(S_u)\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_{n+k_0}B_{k_0}^1x_{k_0}^{\frac{1}{n+k_0}}r_{S_u}(x),$$

as desired.

$`(b)`$ Assume that $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ is a non-zero finitely supported element of $`\widehat{}`$. As above, we have

$$B_{n+k}B_k^1x_k^{\frac{1}{n}}S_u^nx^{\frac{1}{n}},n,k0.$$

By taking $`lim\; sup`$ as $`n+\mathrm{}`$, we get $`r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})r_{S_u}(x),k0`$. Hence,

$$\underset{k0}{\mathrm{max}}\left(r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})\right)r_{S_u}(x).$$

As $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)\underset{k0}{}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x_k^{(k)})`$, and $`r_{S_u}(y)=\mathrm{max}\{|\lambda |:\lambda \sigma _{_{S_u}}(y)\}`$ for every non-zero $`y\widehat{}`$, we obtain $`r_{S_u}(x)\underset{k0}{\mathrm{max}}\left(r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})\right).`$ Hence,

$$r_{S_u}(x)=\underset{k0}{\mathrm{max}}\left(r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})\right).$$

On the other hand, we have $`r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})=r_{S_u}((B_k^1x_k)^{(0)}),k0`$. This shows that

$$r_{S_u}(x)=\underset{k0}{\mathrm{max}}\left(r_{S_u}(x_k^{(k)})\right)R_3^+(S_u).$$

Therefore, the desired result holds. ∎

For every $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$, we set

$$R_𝒜(x):=\frac{1}{\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_n^1x_n^{\frac{1}{n}}}.$$

Obviously, if $`x`$ is a non-zero element of $`\widehat{}`$, then $`r_2(S_u)R_𝒜(x)+\mathrm{}`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

For every non-zero element $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})\widehat{}`$, we have

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |\mathrm{min}(R_𝒜(x),r_3(S_u))\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x).$$

Moreover, if $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ is a non-zero finitely supported element of $`\widehat{}`$, then

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_3^{}(S_u)\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ be a non-zero element of $`\widehat{}`$. If $`\mathrm{min}(R_𝒜(x),r_3(S_u))=0`$, then there is nothing to prove since $`0\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)`$. Thus we may suppose that $`\mathrm{min}(R_𝒜(x),r_3(S_u))>0`$. Now, for each $`n0`$, let

$$F_n(\lambda )=\frac{B_nx_0}{\lambda ^{n+1}}\frac{B_nB_1^1x_1}{\lambda ^n}\frac{B_nB_2^1x_2}{\lambda ^{n1}}\mathrm{}\frac{x_n}{\lambda },(\lambda \backslash \{0\}),$$

and

$$G_n(\lambda )=x_0+\lambda B_1^1x_1+\lambda ^2B_2^1x_2+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^nB_n^1x_n,(\lambda ).$$

We have,

(3.3)
$$F_n(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n+1}}B_nG_n(\lambda ),(\lambda \backslash \{0\}).$$

By writing $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\lambda ):=(f_0(\lambda ),f_1(\lambda ),f_2(\lambda ),\mathrm{}),\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, we get from the equation,

$$(S_u\lambda )\stackrel{~}{x}(\lambda )=x,\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x),$$

that for every $`\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda f_0(\lambda )=x_0\hfill & & \\ & & \\ A_nf_n(\lambda )\lambda f_{n+1}(\lambda )=x_{n+1}\hfill & \text{ for every }n0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Therefore, for every $`n0`$ and for every $`\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, we have

$`f_n(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_nx_0}{\lambda ^{n+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_nB_1^1x_1}{\lambda ^n}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_nB_2^1x_2}{\lambda ^{n1}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{\lambda }}`$
$`=`$ $`F_n(\lambda ).`$
Since $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\lambda )^2=\underset{n0}{}f_n(\lambda )^2<+\mathrm{}`$ for every $`\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, it then follows that

(3.4)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}F_n(\lambda )=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}f_n(\lambda )=0\text{ for every }\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x).$$

We shall show that (3.4) is not satisfied for most of the points in the open disc $`V(x):=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<\mathrm{min}(R_𝒜(x),r_3(S_u))\}`$. It is clear that the sequence $`(G_n)_{n0}`$ converges uniformly on compact subsets of $`V(x)`$ to the non-zero power series $`G(\lambda )=\underset{n0}{}\lambda ^nB_n^1x_n`$. Now, let $`\lambda _0V(x)\backslash \{0\}`$ such that $`G(\lambda _0)0`$; there is $`ϵ>0`$ and an integer $`n_0`$ such that $`ϵ<G_n(\lambda _0)`$ for every $`nn_0`$. On the other hand, $`|\lambda _0|<r_3(S_u)`$, then there is a subsequence $`(n_k)_{k0}`$ of integers greater than $`n_0`$ such that $`|\lambda _0|^{n_k}B_{n_k}^1<1`$. Thus, it follows from (3.3) that for every $`k0`$, we have

$`F_{n_k}(\lambda _0)`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _0^{n_k+1}}}|B_{n_k}G_{n_k}(\lambda _0)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\lambda _0^{n_k+1}|B_{n_k}^1}}G_{n_k}(\lambda _0)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{|\lambda _0|}}.`$
And so, by (3.4), $`\lambda _0\rho _{_{S_u}}(x)`$. Since the set of zeros of $`G`$ is at most countable, we have $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |\mathrm{min}(R_𝒜(x),r_3(S_u))\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x).`$

Now, assume that $`x=(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ is a non-zero finitely supported element of $`\widehat{}`$, and $`k_0`$ is the largest integer $`n0`$ for which $`x_n0`$. Conserve the same notations as above and note that, for every $`nk_0`$, we have

$$F_n(\lambda )=\frac{1}{\lambda ^{n+1}}B_nG(\lambda ),(\lambda \backslash \{0\}),$$

where

$$G(\lambda ):=x_0+\lambda B_1^1x_1+\lambda ^2B_2^1x_2+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{k_0}B_{k_0}^1x_{k_0},(\lambda ).$$

Let $`W(x):=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_3^{}(S_u)\}`$, and let $`\lambda _0W(x)\backslash \{0\}`$ such that $`G(\lambda _0)0`$. As $`|\lambda _0|<R_3^{}(S_u)\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nG(\lambda _0)^{\frac{1}{n}}`$, we note that the series $`\underset{n0}{}F_n(\lambda _0)^2`$ diverges. Hence, $`\lambda _0\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)`$, and therefore,

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_3^{}(S_u)\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x).$$

For every $`x`$, we write

$$\widehat{}(x):=\{\left(B_nx\right)^{(n)}:n0\},$$

where ”$``$” denotes the closed linear span. It is shown in proposition 4.3.5 of  that for every non-zero $`x`$, we have

$$\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(n)})=\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_{S_u}(x^{(n)})\},(n0).$$

We refine this result as follows; our proof is inspired by an argument of .

###### Proposition 3.5.

Let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$, and let $`y\widehat{}(x)`$. The following statements hold.

* If $`R_𝒜(y)>r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})`$, then $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(y)=\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})\}.`$
* If $`R_𝒜(y)r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})`$, then $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_𝒜(y)\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(y).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$, and let us first show that

$$\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})=\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})\}.$$

To do this it suffices to prove that $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)}).`$ Indeed, as in the proof of theorem 3.4, we trivially have

$$\stackrel{~}{x^{(0)}}(\lambda )=(\frac{x}{\lambda },\frac{B_1x}{\lambda ^2},\frac{B_2x}{\lambda ^3},\mathrm{}),(\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})).$$

In particular, we have $`\stackrel{~}{x^{(0)}}(\lambda )_\widehat{}^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{B_kx_{}^2}{|\lambda |^{2(k+1)}},(\lambda \rho _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})).`$ This implies that $`\rho _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})\{\lambda :r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})|\lambda |\}.`$ Or, equivalently,

$$\{\lambda :|\lambda |<r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})\}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)}).$$

As $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})`$ is a closed set, the desired identity holds.

$`(a)`$ Assume that $`y=\underset{n=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\left(B_nx\right)^{(n)}`$ is a non-zero element of $`\widehat{}(x)`$ for which $`R_𝒜(y)>r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})`$. In this case the function $`f(\lambda ):=\underset{n0}{}a_n\lambda ^n`$ is analytic on the open disc $`\{\lambda :|\lambda |<R_𝒜(y)\}`$ which is a neighborhood of $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})`$. Let $`r`$ be a real number such that $`r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})<r<R_𝒜(y)`$, we have

$`f(S_u,x^{(0)})`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{|\lambda |=r}}f(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{x^{(0)}}(\lambda )𝑑\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{|\lambda |=r}}f(\lambda )\left({\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_u^nx^{(0)}}{\lambda ^{n+1}}}\right)𝑑\lambda `$
$`=`$ $`y.`$
And so, by theorem 2.12 of , we have

$$\sigma _{_{S_u}}(y)=\sigma _{_{S_u}}(f(S_u,x^{(0)}))=\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x^{(0)})=\{\lambda :|\lambda |r_{S_u}(x^{(0)})\}.$$

$`(b)`$ The proof of the second statement is similar to the one of theorem 3.4 if, for every integer $`n0`$, we take

$$F_n(\lambda ):=\left(\frac{a_n}{\lambda ^{n+1}}+\frac{a_1}{\lambda ^n}+\frac{a_2}{\lambda ^{n1}}+\mathrm{}+\frac{a_n}{\lambda }\right)B_nx,(\lambda \backslash \{0\}),$$

and

$$G_n(\lambda ):=a_0+a_1\lambda +a_2\lambda ^2+\mathrm{}+a_n\lambda ^n,(\lambda ).$$

## 4. Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ and Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ for $`S_u`$

Before outlining the statement of the main results of this section, let us recall a few more notions and properties from the local spectral theory which will be needed in the sequel. An operator $`T()`$ is said to be hyponormal if $`T^{}xTx`$ for all $`x`$. It is said be subnormal if it has a normal extension, this means that there is a normal operator $`N`$ on a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, containing $``$, such that $``$ is a closed invariant subspace of $`N`$ and the restriction $`N_|`$ coincides with $`T`$. Note that every subnormal operator is hyponormal, but the converse is false (see ). For an open subset $`U`$ of $``$, let $`𝒪(U,)`$ denote as usual the Fréchet space of all analytic $``$valued functions on $`U`$. An operator $`T()`$ is said to possess Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ if the continuous mapping

$`T_U`$ $`:`$ $`𝒪(U,)𝒪(U,)`$
$`f(Tz)f`$
is injective with closed range for each open subset $`U`$ of $``$. It is known that hyponormal operators possess Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ (see ) and it turns out that Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ follows from Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$. Let $`\lambda _0`$; recall that an operator $`T()`$ is said to possess Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ at $`\lambda _0`$ if there is an open neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`\lambda _0`$ such that for every open subset $`U`$ of $`V`$, the mapping $`T__U`$ is injective and has a closed range. Note that if $`T`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ at any point $`\lambda `$ then $`T`$ possesses Bishop’s classical property $`(\beta )`$. Finally, for any operator $`T()`$, we shall denote

$$\sigma _\beta (T):=\{\lambda :T\text{ fails to possess Bishop’s property }(\beta )\text{ at }\lambda \}.$$

It is a closed subset of $`\sigma _{ap}(T)`$ (see proposition 2.1 of ).

The following result gives necessary conditions for the operator weighted shift, $`S_u`$, to enjoy Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

If $`S_u`$ satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$, then $`r(S_u)=R_3^+(S_u)`$. Moreover, for every non-zero $`x`$, we have

(4.5)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}B_nx^{\frac{1}{n}}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{sup}\frac{B_{n+k}x}{B_kx}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$

###### Proof.

To prove $`R_3^+(S_u)=r(S_u)`$, it suffices to show that $`r(S_u)R_3^+(S_u)`$. Since each $`B_k`$ is an invertible operator, we note that

$$R_3^+(S_u)=\underset{x,x0}{sup}\left(r_{S_u}(x^{(k)})\right),k0.$$

Now, assume that $`S_u`$ satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$, and let

$$F:=\{\lambda :|\lambda |R_3^+(S_u)\}.$$

It follows from (3.2) that $`\widehat{}_{_{S_u}}(F)`$ contains a dense subspace of $`\widehat{}`$. As the subspace $`\widehat{}_{_{S_u}}(F)`$ is closed, we have $`\widehat{}_{_{S_u}}(F)=`$; therefore, $`\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)F`$ for every $`x\widehat{}`$. And so, $`\sigma (S_u)=\underset{x}{}\sigma _{_{S_u}}(x)F`$ (see proposition 1.3.2 of ). Hence, $`r(S_u)R_3^+(S_u)`$, as desired.

Let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$ and let us now establish the identity (4.5). Since $`S_u`$ satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$, we note that $`S_u`$ restricted to $`\widehat{}(x)`$ satisfies also Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ (see proposition 1.2.21 of ). Now, note that $`(v_n)_{n0}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`\widehat{}(x)`$, where

$$v_n:=\frac{(B_nx)^{(n)}}{B_nx},(n0).$$

We have

$$S_uv_n=\frac{B_{n+1}x}{B_nx}v_{n+1},(n0).$$

This shows that $`S_{u}^{}{}_{|\widehat{}(x)}{}^{}`$ is an injective scalar unilateral weighted shift with weight sequence $`\left(\frac{B_{n+1}x}{B_nx}\right)_{n0}`$. Therefore, the identity, (4.5), follows from theorem 3.7 of . ∎

Unlike the scalar weighted shift operators, generally we do not have $`r_1(S_u)=r(S_u)`$ if the unilateral operator weighted shift $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ (see example 4.5). But, of course, if $`r_1(S_u)=r(S_u)`$, then either $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$, or $`\sigma _\beta (S_u)=\{\lambda :|\lambda |=r(S_u)\}`$. In , H. Zguitti represented a unilateral operator weighted shift as operator multiplication by $`z`$ on a Hilbert space of formal power series whose coefficients are in $``$. He therefore adapted T. L. Miller and V. G. Miller’s arguments given in  to show that if $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$, then $`r_2(S_u)=R_1(S_u)`$, where $`R_1(S_u)=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left[\underset{k0}{inf}B_{n+k}B_k^1\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}`$. Here, we refine this result as follows and provide a direct proof.

###### Theorem 4.2.

If $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$, then $`r_2(S_u)=r_1(S_u)`$, and $`r(S_u)=R_3^+(S_u)`$. Moreover, for every non-zero $`x`$, we have

(4.6)
$$\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{inf}\frac{B_{n+k}x}{B_kx}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{sup}\frac{B_{n+k}x}{B_kx}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$ and note that, since $`S_u`$ satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$, $`r(S_u)=R_3^+(S_u)`$ (see theorem 4.1). If $`r_2(S_u)=0`$ then, since $`r_1(S_u)r_2(S_u)`$, there is nothing to prove. Thus, we may assume that $`0<r_2(S_u)`$. Now, recall that it is shown in  that

$$r_1(T)=\mathrm{min}\{|\lambda |:\lambda \sigma _{ap}(T)\}$$

for any operator $`T()`$. And so, in order to show that $`r_2(S_u)=r_1(S_u)`$, it suffices to prove that $`𝒰\sigma _{ap}(S_u)=\mathrm{}`$, where $`𝒰:=\{\lambda :|\lambda |<r_2(S_u)\}`$. Assume for the sake of contradiction that there is $`\lambda _0\overline{𝒰}\sigma _{ap}(S_u)`$. Since $`\sigma _p(S_u)=\mathrm{}`$, there is $`y=(y_0,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{})\mathrm{cl}\left(\mathrm{ran}(S_u\lambda _0)\right)\backslash \mathrm{ran}(S_u\lambda _0)`$. For every $`x`$, set $`k_x(\lambda ):=\underset{i0}{}\overline{\lambda }^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x,(\lambda 𝒰),`$ and note that

$$(S_u\lambda )^{}k_x(\lambda )=0,\lambda 𝒰.$$

In particular, we have

(4.7)
$$y,k_x(\lambda _0)_\widehat{}=0,\text{ for all }x.$$

And so, for every $`x`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i0}{}}\lambda _0^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i,x_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i0}{}}y_i,\overline{\lambda _0}^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}x_{}`$
$`=`$ $`y,k_x(\lambda _0)_\widehat{}`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
This implies that

(4.8)
$$\underset{i0}{}\lambda _0^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i=0.$$

Now, for every integer $`n0`$, we define on $`𝒰`$ the following analytic $`\widehat{}`$valued functions by

$$f(\lambda ):=y\left(\underset{i0}{}\lambda ^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i\right)^{(0)},\text{ and }f_n(\lambda ):=y^n\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda ^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i\right)^{(0)},$$

where $`y^n:=(y_0,\mathrm{},y_n,0,0,\mathrm{})`$. Note that for every integer $`n0`$, we have

$$f_n(\lambda )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(S_u^i\lambda ^i\right)\left(B_i^1y_i\right)^{(0)},(\lambda 𝒰).$$

This implies that each $`f_n`$ is in $`\mathrm{ran}((S_u)__𝒰)`$. But $`f\mathrm{ran}((S_u)__𝒰)`$ since, in view of (4.8), we have $`f(\lambda _0)=y\mathrm{ran}(S_u\lambda _0)`$. On the other hand, for every compact subset $`K`$ of $`𝒰`$, we have

$`\underset{\lambda K}{sup}f_n(\lambda )f(\lambda )_\widehat{}`$ $``$ $`yy^n_\widehat{}+\underset{\lambda K}{sup}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i>n}{}}\lambda ^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i\right)^{(0)}_\widehat{}`$
$`=`$ $`yy^n_\widehat{}+\underset{\lambda K}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{i>n}{}}\lambda ^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i_{}`$
$``$ $`yy^n_\widehat{}+\underset{\lambda K}{sup}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i>n}{}}|\lambda |^iB_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}y_i_{}\right\}`$
$``$ $`\left(1+\underset{\lambda K}{sup}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i0}{}}|\lambda |^{2i}B_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)yy^n_\widehat{}.`$
Therefore, $`f_nf`$ in $`𝒪(𝒰,\widehat{})`$. As each $`f_n\mathrm{ran}((S_u)__𝒰)`$ and $`f\mathrm{ran}((S_u)__𝒰)`$, we note that $`\mathrm{ran}((S_u)__𝒰)`$ is not closed. We have a contradiction to the fact that $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$. And so, $`\overline{𝒰}\sigma _{ap}(S_u)=\mathrm{}`$, as desired.

Now, let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $``$. Since $`S_u`$ possesses Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$, the injective scalar unilateral weighted shift $`S_{u}^{}{}_{|\widehat{}(x)}{}^{}`$ possesses also Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$. Thus, applying theorem 3.8 of , gives the identity (4.6). ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

Let $`T()`$ be an invertible operator, and assume that $`A_n=T`$ for all $`n0`$. The corresponding unilateral operator weighted shift, $`S_u`$, satisfies the following identities.

$$r(S_u)=R_3^+(S_u)=r(T)\text{ and }r_1(S_u)=r_2(S_u)=R_2^{}(S_u)=r_1(T)=\frac{1}{r(T^1)}.$$

Indeed, we clearly have $`r(S_u)=r(T)`$ and $`r_1(S_u)=r_2(S_u)=r_1(T)=\frac{1}{r(T^1)}.`$ Since, $`R_3^+(S_u)=sup\{r_T(x):x,x0\}`$, it follows from proposition 3.3.14 of  that $`R_3^+(S_u)=r(T)`$; therefore, the first identity holds. On the other hand, we have

$`R_2^{}(S_u)`$ $`=`$ $`inf\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}(x)}}:x,x0\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sup\{r_{T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}(x):x,x0\}}}.`$
Again, by proposition 3.3.14 of , we have $`R_2^{}(S_u)=\frac{1}{r(T^1)}`$; and the second identity follows.

Assume that $`T()`$ is an invertible operator and that $`A_n=T`$ for all $`n0`$. So, one may think that the corresponding unilateral operator weighted shift, $`S_u`$, satisfies Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$. It turns out that this is not true in general as the next example shows.

###### Example 4.4.

Let $`(e_n)_n`$ be an orthonormal basis of $``$, and let $`(\omega _n)_n`$ be a positive two-sided sequence for which

* $`0<\underset{n}{inf}\omega _n\underset{n}{sup}\omega _n<+\mathrm{}`$.
* $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left[\omega _0\omega _1\mathrm{}\omega _{n1}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}<\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\underset{k0}{sup}(\omega _k\omega _{k+1}\mathrm{}\omega _{n+k1})\right]^{\frac{1}{n}}.`$

Let $`T`$ be the scalar invertible bilateral weighted shift on $``$, defined by

$$Te_n=\omega _ne_{n+1},(n).$$

If $`A_n=T`$ for all $`n0`$ then, in view of $`(b)`$, neither the identity (4.5) nor the identity (4.6) is satisfied for $`e_0`$. Hence, $`S_u`$ is without Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$.

For the construction of a specific example of a positive two-sided sequence satisfying the above conditions, we refer the reader to .

It is shown in theorem 2.5 of  that a nonnormal hyponormal scalar (unilateral or bilateral) weighted shift has fat local spectra (see also theorem 3.7 of ). The next example shows that this result is not valid for hyponormal operator weighted shifts.

###### Example 4.5.

Assume that $`(e_n)_{n0}`$ is an orthonormal basis of $``$, and let $`(\alpha _n)_{n0}`$ be an increasing positive sequence such that $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}\alpha _n=1`$. The diagonal operator, $`T`$, with the diagonal sequence $`(\alpha _n)_{n0}`$ (i.e., $`Te_n=\alpha _ne_n,n0`$) is invertible and satisfies $`r_1(T)=\alpha _0<r(T)=1`$. If $`A_n=T`$ for all $`n0`$, then the unilateral operator weighted shift $`S_u`$ is subnormal. Indeed, let $`_n=`$ for all $`n`$ and let

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\underset{n}{}_n$$

be the Hilbert space of the two–sided sequences $`(x_n)_n`$ such that

$$(x_n)_n_\stackrel{~}{}:=\left(\underset{n}{}x_n_{}^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<+\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`S_b`$ be the bilateral operator weighted shift defined on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ by

$$S_b(\mathrm{},x_2,x_1,[x_0],x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})=(\mathrm{},Tx_2,[Tx_1],Tx_0,Tx_1,\mathrm{}),$$

where for an element $`x=(\mathrm{},x_2,x_1,[x_0],x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{}`$, $`[x_0]`$ denotes the central $`(0th)`$ term of $`x`$. Note that, since $`T`$ is an hermitian operator, $`S_b`$ is a normal extension of $`S_u`$. This shows that $`S_u`$ is a subnormal operator. Now, we note that for every $`k0`$, we have

$`r_{S_u}(e_k^{(0)})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}T^ne_k^{\frac{1}{n}}`$
$`=`$ $`\alpha _k<r(S_u)=1.`$
This shows, on the one hand, that $`S_u`$ is without fat local spectra and, on the other hand, that

$$r_1(S_u)=r_2(S_u)=R_2^{}(S_u)=r_3(S_u)=R_3^{}(S_u)=\alpha _0<R_3^+(S_u)=r(S_u)=1.$$

Therefore, in view of the fact that $`\sigma (S_u)=\sigma _{ap}(S_u)\overline{\sigma _p(S_u^{})}`$, corollary 2.2 and lemma 3.1, we have

$$\sigma _{ap}(S_u)=\{\lambda :\alpha _0|\lambda |1\}.$$

###### Remark 4.6.

Let $`T()`$ be an invertible operator. If $`A_n=T`$ for all $`n0`$, then $`S_u`$ is hyponormal if and only if $`T`$ is also hyponormal. Therefore, to construct a kind of example 4.5, it suffices to take $`T`$ a hoponormal operator for which there is a non-zero element $`x`$ with $`r_T(x)<r(T)`$.

Finally, we would like to point out that

$`(a)`$ proposition 3.9 of  remain valid for the general setting of operator weighted shift. This is not the case for proposition 3.11 of  as it is shown in example 4.4.

$`(b)`$ after the present note was completed, we began to study the local spectra of bilateral operator weighted shifts; this case is quite difficult. However, we provided some local spectral inclusions and obtained a necessary and sufficient condition for a bilateral operator weighted shift to enjoy the single–valued extension property. Furthermore, we gave necessary and sufficient conditions for such operator to satisfy Dunford’s condition $`(C)`$ or Bishop’s property $`(\beta )`$. These results are still on a preliminary level, and will appear somewhere else once we get some interesting improvements.


format: text

text:
# The Circuit Polynomial of the Restricted Rooted Product 𝐺(𝛤) of Graphs with a Bipartite Core 𝐺

## 1 Introduction

As it was phrased in Scientific American, today is a nanotechnology gold rush. To the mathematical reader, it may be pleasant to recognize that mathematics (and, in particular, the theory of graph spectra) is also seeking to make its contribution to this interdisciplinary area \[1–20\]. The present paper continues the previous work  along these lines.

From the graph-theoretical point of view, there exists a number of molecular structures (or graphs) of high-tech interest that can be generated using the graphical construction called, in the mathematical literature, the generalized rooted product of graphs (see ). Here, first of all, of special practical significance are dendrimers \[1–8\], for which some authors also use other names (e.g., ”bundled structures”, as in ).

As well as any other type of products relevant to chemical objects, the rooted product of molecular graphs contains combinatorial information that is useful for the (theoretical) chemist. Algebraically, this information can be represented in the form of respective graph polynomials of the molecular graph in question. One type of such polynomials (namely, the circuit polynomial) will be considered by us throughout this paper.

An algorithmic role of the results that will be discussed below can be clarified through recalling, as an example, the following situation. Creating complex dendritic molecules also foresees that the researcher would have suitable quantum-chemical (or any other) methods for estimating the energy levels of respective large molecules. A common tack is to utilize for this the simpler solutions that had been obtained for dendrimer’s core and monodendrons. Namely, this sort of calculation propose mathematical results that will follow below. However, we want to specially stress that that we shall, in fact, deal with the derivation of universal mathematical relationships for the circuit polynomial which are not based on any approximation might follow from quantum-chemical or other calculational methods that can adapt them.

Now that we have briefly described the applied background of the paper, we need to focus upon a rigorous mathematical exposition of our specific task.

## 2 Preliminaries

We should start with giving some notions from the theory of graph polynomials.

### 2.1 The $`F`$\- and $`B`$-polynomials of a graph

The graphs considered here are finite, may be directed, weighted; and may contain self-loops, i.e., finite directed or undirected weighted pseudographs. A general class of graph polynomials was introduced in Farrell . These are called $`F`$-polynomials and are defined as follows. Let $`G`$ be a graph and $`F`$ a family of connected subgraphs of $`G`$. An $`F`$-cover of $`G`$ is a spanning subgraph of $`G`$, in which every component is a member of $`F`$. Let us associate with each member $`\alpha `$ of $`F`$ an intermediate or weight $`w_\alpha `$. The weight of a cover $`C`$ denoted by $`w(C)`$, is the product of the weights of its components. Then the $`F`$-polynomial is

$$F(G;𝐰)=w(C),$$
(1)
where the summation is taken over all the $`F`$-covers of $`G`$, and where $`𝐰`$ is a vector of the indeterminates $`w_\alpha `$.

Throughout this paper, we denote the vertex (or node) set of $`G`$ by $`V(G)`$ and assume that $`|V(G)|=p`$, unless otherwise specified. Also, if G is labeled, we associate with the $`i`$-th vertex of $`G`$ the special weight $`x_i+b_i`$$`(1ip)`$, where $`x_i`$ is an indeterminate and $`b_i`$ is the the sum of weights of all loops, if any, lying in a vertex $`i`$ (see ). We use the notation $`F(G;𝐱)`$, for $`F(G;𝐰)`$, when all the variables, except the $`x_i`$’s, are replaced by $`1`$’s. If we replace all $`x_i`$’s, in $`F(G;𝐱)`$, with the single variable $`x`$, then the resulting polynomial in $`x`$ will be denoted by $`F(G;x)`$, and called the simple polynomial of $`G`$.

If every nonnode member of $`F`$ consists of exactly one block, then we call the corresponding class of $`F`$-polynomials, block polynomials; or $`B`$-polynomials, for short. We then write $`B(G;𝐰)`$ for $`F(G;𝐰)`$, in order to indicate this property of the members of $`F`$. Notice that if we take $`F`$ to be a family of cycles, then every nonnode member of $`F`$ is a block. This is also true when $`F`$ is the family of cliques. Therefore both the circuit (or cycle) polynomial and clique polynomial (see ) are examples of block polynomials. We therefore classify all the special circuit polynomials, for example the matching, characteristic and permanental polynomials (see \[10–25; 28–30\]), as $`B`$-polynomials.

It should be observed that the families which give rise to $`B`$-polynomials consist of graphs which are characterized by the number of vertices. Therefore, when general weights are to be assigned to the members of $`F`$, it is sufficient to associate with each member, of $`F`$, with $`n`$ vertices the weight $`w_n`$. The resulting $`B`$-polynomial would therefore contain monomials which totally describe the covers. In this general $`F`$-polynomial, the vector of weights is $`𝐰=(w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_p)`$. Observe that if $`F`$ is the family of stars or paths, then every member of $`F`$ is characterized by the number of nodes. However, stars and paths are not blocks and so do not give rise to $`B`$-polynomials.

The stimulus to investigate the $`B`$-polynomials stems from the fact that they are often encountered in many problems in Mathematics, as well as in various applications outside of Mathematics. It is interesting to know about mutual and hereditary relations among different graph polynomials. For instance, the matching polynomial is a generalization of the so-called acyclic polynomial, which was defined independently (see ). The same matching polynomial yields, under certain substitutions, the chromatic polynomial for certain classes of graphs, and also a whole group of its relatives (see ) as well. The classical rook polynomial (see ) is yet another relative of the matching polynomial.

Notice that the most general $`F`$-polynomial is the subgraph polynomial (see ), since it enables us to derive, in principle, any other $`F`$-polynomial. However, the subgraph polynomial is not a $`B`$-polynomial. So, there exist other classes of $`F`$-polynomials; e.g., see , wherein the so-called articulation node polynomials (or $`A`$-polynomials, for short) are introduced.

Now we shall specially consider some instances of the circuit polynomial.

### 2.2 The circuit (cycle) polynomial of a graph

The circuit (cycle) polynomial $`C(U;𝐰)`$ of an undirected graph $`U`$ was introduced by Farrell  (see ). The notion of this polynomial was generalized in  for an arbitrary graph $`G`$. Herein, we shall give the third definition of it, which is, however, tantamount to that of , where the circuit polynomial was considered in quite a different way, as a specific case of the $`F`$-polynomial. In order to indicate the distinction between the original Farrell’s polynomial $`C(U;𝐰)`$ and the one that will be used in the present paper, we shall denote the latter by $`P(U;𝐱;𝐰)`$, where $`𝐱=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_p)`$ is, by analogy with $`𝐰`$, the vector of indeterminates (see ).

Many properties of the polynomial in question can be considered from the matrix-theoretical standpoint. Let $`A=\{a_{ij}\}_{i,j=1}^p`$ be the adjacency matrix of a graph $`G`$. Let further $`A^{}=\{a_{ij}^{}\}=(A+X)`$ be an auxiliary matrix, where $`X`$ is a diagonal matrix, whose on-diagonal entries are indeterminates $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_p`$, consecutively. One can define circuit (cycle) polynomial $`P(G;\mathrm{x};\mathrm{w})`$ of a graph $`G`$ as follows

$$P(G;𝐱;𝐰):=\underset{\sigma S_p}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}a_{i\sigma i}^{}w_i^{\omega _i(\sigma )},$$
(2)
where $`a_{i\sigma i}^{}`$ is the respective entry of $`A^{}`$; $`\omega _i(\sigma )`$ is the number of cycles of length $`i`$ in a permutation $`\sigma `$; and the sum ranges over all the $`p!`$ permutations $`\sigma `$ of a symmetric group $`S_p`$. (Recall that $`\sigma i=j`$ is the image of an index $`i`$, obtained under the action of a permutation $`\sigma `$ on the set $`I=\{1,2,\mathrm{},p\}`$ of vertex indices; $`i,jI`$.)

The polynomial $`C(U;𝐰)`$ of an undirected graph $`U`$, introduced by Farrell (see ), is a specific case of $`P(U;𝐱;𝐰)`$, viz.:

$$C(U;𝐰)=P(U;𝐱;𝐰)|{}_{x_i=1;b_i=0;w_j\frac{w_j}{2}}{}^{}(1ip;3jp),$$
(3)
where $`w_j\frac{w_j}{2}`$ denotes the substitution of $`\frac{w_j}{2}`$ for $`w_j`$.

In general, if a graph $`G`$ is directed (2) does not hold. We can mention in passing one ready result for $`C(U;𝐰)`$, connected to the enumerative theory of Pólya (see ). Let $`K_p`$ be a complete graph with $`p`$ vertices. Then

$$C(K_p;𝐰)=p!Z(S_p;V;w_1,w_2\mathrm{},w_p),$$
(4)
where $`Z(S_p;V;𝐰)`$ is the cycle indicator of a symmetric group $`S_p`$ faithfully acting on a vertex set $`V=V(K_p)`$ $`(|V|=p)`$ of $`K_p`$ (see ).

The circuit polynomial $`P(G;𝐱;𝐰)`$ has, as its specific cases, the generalized permanental polynomial $`\varphi ^+(G;\mathrm{x})`$, generalized characteristic polynomial $`\varphi ^{}(G;\mathrm{x})`$, and two generalized matching polynomials $`\alpha ^+(G;\mathrm{x})`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(G;\mathrm{x})`$ ; viz.:

$$\varphi ^+(G;𝐱)=\mathrm{per}(A+X)=P(G;𝐱;𝐰)|{}_{w_i=1}{}^{}(1ip),$$
(5)
$$\varphi ^{}(G;𝐱)=\mathrm{det}(AX)=P(G;𝐱;𝐰)|{}_{w_i=1}{}^{}(1ip),$$
(6)
$$\alpha ^+(G;𝐱)=P(G;𝐱;𝐰)|{}_{w_1=w_2=1;w_i=0}{}^{}(3ip),$$
(7)
$$\alpha ^{}(G;𝐱)=P(G;𝐱;𝐰)|{}_{w_1=w_2=1;w_i=0}{}^{}(3ip).$$
(8)
It is worth noting that the weight $`b_i`$ $`(1ip)`$ (see ) of a self-loop lying in a vertex $`i`$ of $`G`$ is thereby equal to an entry $`a_{ii}`$, of $`A`$, in case of $`\varphi ^+(G;𝐱)`$ and $`\alpha ^+(G;𝐱)`$; however, $`b_i`$ is equal to $`a_{ii}`$ in case of $`\varphi ^{}(G;𝐱)`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(G;𝐱)`$.

Apparently, there are more possibilities to devise other such polynomials with the adjective ”generalized”; herein, we shall confine ourselves only with the above instances, to avoid any confusion. Recall the simple circuit polynomial $`P(G;x)`$ is a one-variable case of it, with an italicized $`x`$ in a lieu of x, viz.:

$$P(G;x)=P(G;𝐱)|{}_{x_i=x}{}^{}(1ip),$$
(9)
while the variables $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_p`$ may or may not be reduced (it depends on the context).

The notation $`P(G;𝐱;𝐰)`$ or any its reduced-variable form will hereafter stand for every possible instance of it at once; the reader can reinterpret any of general solutions for any specific circuit polynomial that he/she needs in—the permanental, characteristic, matching. (Moreover, some other $`B`$-polynomials can have the same properties, e.g., the clique polynomial; see .) However, one would recognize that the most studied and widely used instance of the circuit polynomial is the simple characteristic polynomial $`\varphi ^{}(G;x)`$ (see \[10–18; 23, 24; 28–31\], where  and  (for chemists) are the main world’s monographs on the subject).

In order to proceed, we need to consider now some kinds of operations on graphs.

### 2.3 Some products of graphs

Let $`(G,u)`$ and $`(H,v)`$ be two graphs rooted at node $`u`$ and $`v`$, respectively. We attach $`G`$ to $`H`$ (or $`H`$ to $`G`$) by identifying node $`u`$ of $`G`$ with node $`v`$ of $`H`$. Nodes $`u`$ and $`v`$ are called nodes of attachment. The node formed by identification is called the coalescence node. The resulting graph $`GH`$ is called the coalescence of $`G`$ and $`H`$.

Now consider a family $`\{(U_1,u_1),(U_2,u_2),\mathrm{},(U_t,u_t)\}`$ of not necessary distinct graphs with roots $`u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_t`$, respectively. We term a connected graph $`U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_t`$ the multiple coalescence of $`U_1,U_2,\mathrm{},U_t`$ provided that nodes $`u_\mathit{1},u_\mathit{2},\mathrm{},u_t`$ are identified to reform the coalescence node $`r`$. We shall use $`U^{|q|}`$ to denote a $`q`$-fold coalescence of $`q`$ isomorphic copies of a graph $`U`$; in the same way, we shall use $`GH^{|s|}`$ to denote the multiple coalescence of $`G`$ and $`s`$ copies of $`H`$, wherein all coalesced graphs have just one cutnode $`r`$ in common; etc..

The above operation $`\mathbf{}`$ is associative; in other words, it can be met as a generating operation in some semigroups of graphs. As a case in point, pick the set $`𝒰=\{(U_j,u_j)\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of all unicomponental graphs; obviously, a pair $`(𝒰;)`$ is an infinite commutative monoid of graphs, wherein the unity is represented by a one-vertex graph $`K_1`$.

Let $`G`$ be a graph with $`p`$ nodes and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_n\}`$ a family of rooted graphs. Then the graph formed by attaching $`H_k`$ to the $`k`$-th $`(1kp)`$ node of $`G`$ is called the generalized rooted product (see ) and is denoted by $`G(\Gamma )`$; $`G`$ itself is called the core of $`G(\Gamma )`$. If each member of $`\Gamma `$ is isomorphic to the rooted graph $`H`$, then the graph $`G(\Gamma )`$ is denoted by $`G(H)`$ . Furthermore, if $`H`$ is an edge (a twig), then the resulting graph is called a thistle or equible graph (see ).

Herein, we should make it our first business to treat some specific cases of the rooted product. Let a core $`G`$ be a bipartite graph $`T`$, whose parts have $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ vertices, respectively; $`p_1p_2`$ and $`p_1+p_2=p`$. One can attach to every vertex in the first part of $`T`$ an isomorphic copy of a graph $`H_1`$ and to every other vertex, in $`B`$, an isomorph of another graph $`H_2`$ $`(H_1,H_2\Gamma )`$; we shall locally call the resulting graph $`T(\Gamma )`$ the restricted rooted product of graphs $`T`$ and $`\Gamma `$. It is worth specially noting an instance of it in which one type of graphs (either $`H_1`$ or $`H_2`$) is simply a one-vertex graph $`K_1`$ (with or without self-loops); that is, thus, in either part of $`T`$ no attachment is made. Since the last case promises a nice operation for constructing more complex graphs of practical interest, we shall supply some relevant information about them.

An interesting generalization of the rooted product are the $`F`$-graphs , which are consecutively iterated rooted products defined as follows: $`F^0=K_1,F^1=G,F^2=G(H),\mathrm{},F^{s+1}=F^s(H)`$$`(s1)`$. Another interesting example of rooted product is the family of dendrimers $`D^k`$$`(k0)`$ (see ), defined as follows: $`D^0=K_1,D^1=G,D^2`$ is the rooted product of $`G`$ and $`H`$, in which some attachments of $`H`$ are not made, i.e., $`H`$ need not be attached to all nodes of $`G`$. In general, $`D^{s+1}`$$`(s1)`$ is constructed from $`D^s`$; and the number of copies attached to $`D^s`$ obeys some fixed generation law. The dendrimers, in particular, imitate molecular structures, bearing the same name \[1–8; 19, 20\]. They are of practical significance \[1–6\]. This has lent impetus to the investigations in this paper as well.

A monodendron $`M`$ is a maximal connected subgraph of a dendrimer $`D`$ that shares only the coalescence node $`r`$ with a core $`G`$; in other words, it is a maximal (hyper)branch of $`D`$. Being a dendrimer in its own right, $`M`$ has, however, two peculiarities. First, its core $`G`$ is played by the same (weighted) graph $`H`$ that is a structural repeating unit of branches $`(G=H)`$. Second, a core $`G`$ (or $`H`$) of $`M`$ possesses the root (node $`r`$), which is not a feature of all dendrimers. Owing to its root $`r`$, the entire monodendron $`M`$ can be made to serve the function of a new structural unit (instead of $`H`$) for constructing the higher dendrimers. Moreover, as well as any other dendrimer, $`M`$ can serve as a hypercore in the same procedure, in lieu of a simple core $`G=D^1`$. As an instance of $`𝒟=\{D^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$, the monodendron series $`=\{M^j\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined as follows: $`M^0=K_1,M^1=G=H`$ and $`M^k`$$`(k2)`$ is constructed by analogy with $`D^k`$ above.

Let (a copy of) $`H`$ invariably make $`d+1`$$`(d<p(H))`$ attachments inside a dendrimer $`D`$. Of this amount, 1 attachment is to hold the root of $`H`$ itself while the other $`d`$ are to hold the roots of all its incident neighbors in $`D`$. The number $`d`$ is called a progressive degree of $`H`$ (cf ). A dendrimer is said to be homogeneous if all its monodendrons are equivalent and all prescribed attachments within it are made (cf ). By definition, all dendrimers that we consider herein are homogeneous.

A monodendron $`M^j`$$`(j1)`$ contains $`1+d+d^2+\mathrm{}+d^{j1}=(d^j1)/(d1)`$ isomorphic copies of $`H`$ therein; they are lying in concentric layers (tiers). This distribution correlates with their distance from a core $`G`$; all copies of $`H`$ that are built into one and the same tier are spaced at the same distance from $`G`$.

It is convenient to begin numbering the layers in a monodendron $`M`$ from its core $`G=H`$ (thus receiving the ordinal 1). So, the number of layers in $`M^j`$$`(j0)`$ equals to $`j`$ itself and the $`k`$-th layer contains $`d^{k1}`$ isomorphic copies of $`H`$ (and 0 under $`k=0`$); the number of nodes, in the $`j`$-th (uttermost) layer, that can be used for further attachments is $`d^j`$.

We come now to an important remark. The matter is that the above procedure that successively generates all monodendrons $`M^j`$ of a series $``$ is unambiguous; it always reproduces one and the same monodendron $`M^j`$ with a given number $`j`$ of tiers. So, it is impossible to produce instead of $`M^j`$ any other homogeneous monodendron with $`j`$ layers. Hence it follows that the number $`j0`$ of layers uniquely characterizes a homogeneous monodendron $`M^j`$ in a specific series $``$.

In a general way, a monodendron $`M^j`$ and $`d^j`$ isomorphic copies of a monodendron $`M^k`$$`(j,k0)`$, when used as $`G`$ and $`H`$, respectively, afford a monodendron $`M^{j+k}`$ (see above). We shall use the notation $`M^jM^k=M^{j+k}`$ to denote this. The binary operation $`\mathbf{}`$ is obviously commutative and associative: $`M^jM^k=M^kM^j`$ and $`M^j(M^kM^l)=(M^jM^k)M^l`$ $`(j,k,l0)`$, which can readily be verified, recalling that the number of tiers in the resulting monodendron uniquely characterizes it. Since $`M^0=K_1`$ acts as the identity, we can at once conclude that $`(;)`$ is an infinite commutative monoid isomorphic to the additive monoid ($`𝑵`$;+) of all nonnegative integers. One can simply say that $``$ is a monoid (without indicating its operation) and also adopt the multiplicative notation $`M^jM^k`$ for $`M^jM^k`$ and in any similar case. The said of $``$ herein resembles two earlier-studied situations  (see ) in every essential detail.

Now we need to consider some known results that will be used below.

### 2.4 Basic results

We begin with a previous result (see Lemma 5 in ), rewritten here as follows:

###### Lemma 1

$`.`$Let $`GH`$ be the graph formed by attaching a graph $`G`$ to a graph $`H`$, and let $`r`$ be the resulting coalescence node. Then

$$B(GH;𝐱;𝐰)=B(H_r;𝐱;𝐰)\left[B(G;𝐱;𝐰)\right|{}_{x_r\frac{B(H^{\mathrm{}};𝐱;𝐰)}{B(H_r;𝐱;𝐰)}}{}^{}],$$
(10)
where $`H_r`$ is a graph $`H`$ less its root $`r`$; and $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the graph $`H`$ less its self-loops lying in the vertex $`r`$.

An important result is the following statement (see Theorem 2 in ):

###### Theorem 2

$`.`$Let $`G`$ be a graph with $`p`$ vertices and $`\Gamma =\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_p\}`$ be a family of rooted graphs. Then

$$B(G(\Gamma );𝐱;𝐰)=[\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}B(L_i;𝐱;𝐰]\left[B(G;𝐱;𝐰)\right|{}_{x_i\frac{B(H^{\mathrm{}};𝐱;𝐰)}{B(L_i;𝐱;𝐰)}}{}^{}](1ip),$$
(11)
where $`L_i`$ $`(1ip)`$ is the graph $`H_i`$ with its root removed (i.e., $`H_ir_i`$); and $`H_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the graph $`H_i`$ with all the self-loops at the root removed.

In the case of the simple rooted product, one can derive the following corollary of Theorem 2 for the simple $`B`$-polynomial (see Corollary 2.1 in ), viz.:

###### Corollary 2.1

$`.`$Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be rooted graphs. Let $`G(H)`$ be the graph obtained by attaching an isomorph of $`H`$ to each of the $`p`$ nodes of $`G`$. Then

$$B(G(H);x)=[B(H_r;x)]^p\left[B(G;x)\right|{}_{x\frac{B(H^{\mathrm{}};x)}{B(H_r;x)}}{}^{}],$$
(12)
where $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the graph $`H`$ with all loops at its root $`r`$ removed.

Here, we should note earlier specific versions of Lemma 2 for the characteristic  and matching  polynomials (wherein only unweighted graphs have been treated).

Now recall that any simple $`B`$-polynomial, such as $`B(G;x)`$ in (11), can be expanded in powers of $`x`$; therefore we can write down it as

$$B(G;x)=\gamma _0x^p+\gamma _1x^{p1}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _px^0(\gamma _0=1).$$
(13)
Owing to (13), we can give herein a new version of Lemma 3 (see Lemma 3 in ); viz.:

###### Lemma 3

$`.`$Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be rooted graphs. Let $`G(H)`$ be the rooted product of $`G`$ and $`H`$, as above. Then

$$B(G(H);x)=\underset{g=0}{\overset{p}{}}\gamma _g[B(H^{\mathrm{}};x)]^{pg}[B(H_r;x)]^g,$$
(14)
where $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the same as above.

The next quotation (Corollary 2.2 from ) appears herein as follows:

###### Lemma 4

$`.`$Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be rooted graphs. Let $`G(H)`$ be the graph obtained by attaching an isomorph of $`H`$ to each of the $`p`$ nodes of $`G`$. Also, let $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _p`$ be the roots of $`B(G:x)`$. Then

$$B(G(H);x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}[B(H^{\mathrm{}};x)\lambda _iB(H_r;x)].$$
(15)
Notice that $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$ is misprinted in the original text (Corollary 2.2 of ) as $`H`$.

We can also derive a special corollary (see Corollary 2.3 in ) from Lemma 4, viz.:

###### Lemma 5

$`.`$Let $`0`$ be a $`k`$-fold $`(k1)`$ root of $`B(G;x)`$. Then $`[B(H^{\mathrm{}};x)]^k`$ divides $`B(G(H);x)`$.

Here, we cannot help stating another lemma (see Lemma 6 in \[20) that generalizes Lemmas 4 and 5. First, denote by $`H_{\lambda _i}`$$`(1ip)`$ the graph obtained by attaching a self-loop with the weight $`b_r=\lambda _i`$ to node $`r`$ of $`H^{\mathrm{}}`$. It is not difficult to establish that the expression in square brackets, in (15), is just $`B(H_{\lambda _i};x)`$, which immediately affords us a derived result, viz.:

###### Lemma 6

$`.`$Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be rooted graphs. Let $`G(H)`$ be the graph obtained by attaching an isomorph of $`H`$ to each of the nodes of $`G`$. Also, let $`H_{\lambda _i}`$$`(1ip)`$ be defined as above. Then

$$B(G(H);x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}B(H_{\lambda _i};x).$$
(16)
One additional definition that will be employed below is this. Let $`m_1(\lambda )`$ and $`m_2(\lambda )`$ be the multiplicities of a specific root $`\lambda `$ for polynomials $`B(G_1;x)`$ and $`B(G_2;x)`$, respectively. We shall call the number $`m(\lambda )=\mathrm{min}(m_1(\lambda ),m_2(\lambda ))`$ a common multiplicity of an eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ for the polynomials $`B(G_1;x)`$ and $`B(G_2;x)`$.

Now we shall turn to deriving new results.

## 3 Main results

The first our result will be complementary to Theorem 2:

###### Theorem 7

$`.`$Let $`G`$ be a graph with $`p`$ vertices and $`\Gamma =\{H_1,H_2,\mathrm{},H_p\}`$ be a family of rooted graphs. Then

$$B(G(\Gamma );𝐱;𝐰)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}B(L_i;𝐱;𝐰)\right]\left[B(G^{\mathrm{}};𝐱;𝐰)\right|{}_{x_i\frac{B(H_i;𝐱;𝐰)}{B(L_i;𝐱;𝐰)}}{}^{}](1ip).$$
(17)
$`𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒇\mathbf{.}`$ Sketch it. Since the graphs $`G`$ and $`H`$ play a symmetrical role in Lemma 1, one can rewrite (10) in an equivalent form as follows

$$B(GH;𝐱;𝐰)=B(G_r;𝐱;𝐰)\left[B(H;𝐱;𝐰)\right|{}_{x_i\frac{B(G^{\mathrm{}};𝐱;𝐰)}{B(G_r;𝐱;𝐰)}}{}^{}](1ip).$$
(18)
Recall that Theorem 2 was proven in  by repetitively applying Lemma 1 to $`G(\Gamma )`$. If we now use $`p`$ times (18) instead of (10), we arrive at the result, wherein self-loops are (gradually) removed from the core $`G`$ rather than from the the root $`r_i`$ of every graph $`H_i`$ (in contrast to theorem 2). Therefore, denoting by $`G^{\mathrm{}}`$ the core $`G`$ less all its self-loops (which is thus obtained), we arrive at (17). Q.E.D. $`\mathbf{}`$

Herein, we are interested in deriving a few corollaries of Theorem 7. First, we shall state the following mate of Corollary 2.1:

###### Corollary 7.1

$`.`$Let $`T`$ be a bipartite graph with the bipartition into $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ vertices, accordingly $`(p_1p_2;p_1+p_2=p)`$. Let further $`T(\Gamma )`$ be the restricted rooted product of graphs $`T`$ and $`\Gamma `$, wherein an isomorphic copy of a graph $`H_1`$ is attached to every vertex of the first part of $`T`$ and an isomorph of another graph $`H_2`$ is attached to every vertex of the second part of $`T`$ $`(H_1,H_2\Gamma )`$. Then

$$B(T(\Gamma );x)=\left[P(L_1;x)\right]^{p_1}\left[P(L_2;x)\right]^{p_2}\left[P(T^{\mathrm{}};y_1,y_2)\right|{}_{y_i\frac{P(H_1;x)}{P(L_1;x)}}{}^{}](i=1,2),$$
(19)
where $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the graph $`T`$ less all its self-loops; and $`y_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ simultaneously stands for all indexed $`x`$-variables belonging to the vertices of the $`i`$-th part of $`T`$.

As an initial prerequisite to the next corollary, one can return to (13). It gives an idea to expand $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};y_1,y_2)`$ of (19) as follows

$$P(T^{\mathrm{}};y_1,y_2)=\delta _0y_1^{p_1}y_2^{p_2}+\mathrm{}+\delta _ky_1^{p_1k}y_2^{p_2k}+\mathrm{}+\delta _{p_2}y_1^{p_1p_2}y_2^0(\delta _0=1;p_1p_2;),$$
(20)
where the adjunct powers of $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ decrease synchronously. The matter is that all the $`F`$-covers (see (1)) that correspond to the circuit polynomial $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};y_1,y_2)`$ of a bipartite loopless graph $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ should consist just of cycles of even length (since only such cycles are in it). Evidently, every $`F`$-cover always covers one and the same number $`k`$ $`(1kp)`$ of vertices pertaining to both parts of $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ (i.e., $`k`$ green vertices and $`k`$ red ones). Hence, it immediately follows the above property of the powers in (20). The obtained expansion affords the following corollary, of Theorem 7, accompanying Lemma 3:

###### Lemma 8

$`.`$Let $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ be the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$ as above. Then

$$P(T(\Gamma );x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p_2}{}}\delta _k[P(H_1;x)]^{p_1k}[P(H_2;x)]^{p_2k}[P(L_1;x)]^k[P(L_2;x)]^k(p_1p_2).$$
(21)
As it was already discussed in Preliminaries, of our special interest are instances $`T(H)_1`$ and $`T(H)_2`$ of $`T(\Gamma )`$ in which isomorphic copies of an arbitrary graph $`H`$ are attached just to the vertices of either part of $`T`$ (while no attachment whatever is done to the other part of it). This affords two complementary corollaries of Lemma 8.

###### Corollary 8.1

$`.`$Let $`T(H)_1`$ be the restricted rooted product of a bipartite graph $`T`$ and an arbitrary graph $`H`$ in which an isomorphic copy of $`H`$ is attached just to every vertex of the first (greater) part of $`T`$. Then

$$P(T(H)_1;x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p_2}{}}\delta _k(x+b_2)^{p_2k}[P(H;x)]^{p_1k}[P(H_r;x)]^k(p_1p_2),$$
(22)
where $`b_2`$ is a common total weight of self-loops lying in each vertex of the second (smaller) part of $`T`$.

###### Corollary 8.2

$`.`$Let $`T(H)_2`$ be the restricted rooted product of a bipartite graph $`T`$ and an arbitrary graph $`H`$ in which an isomorphic copy of $`H`$ is attached just to every vertex of the second (smallerer) part of $`T`$. Then

$$P(T(H)_1;x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{p_2}{}}\delta _k(x+b_1)^{p_1k}[P(H;x)]^{p_2k}[P(H_r;x)]^k(p_1p_2),$$
(23)
where $`b_1`$ is a common total weight of self-loops lying in each vertex of the first (greater) part of $`T`$.

Now we recall that any circuit polynomial $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)`$ of a bipartite graph $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ without self-loops necessarily has at least $`(p_1p_2)`$ zero eigenvalues (or roots), and together with every its eigenvalue $`\mu `$ it also possesses an eigenvalue $`\mu `$ (in particular see Theorem 3.11 in ). In order to demonstrate this, one can substitute $`x`$ for $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ on the R.H.S. of (20), which gives

$$P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)=\delta _0x^p+\delta _1x^{p2}+\mathrm{}+\delta _{p_2}x^{p_1p_2}(p_1p_2;p=p_1+p_2).$$
(24)
It is immediately seen that $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)`$ is divisible by $`x^{p_1p_2}`$ and, therefore, possesses at least $`(p_1p_2)`$ zero eigenvalues. Further, all the powers of $`x`$ on the R.H.S. of (24) have one and the same parity (either even or odd); and thereby the negative $`\mu `$ of every root $`\mu `$ of $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)`$ is also a root of it. By this reason, we shall consider below only squares of the roots, which, excluding necessary $`(p_1p_2)`$ 0’s, will comprise exactly $`p_2`$ $`(p_2p_1)`$ not necessarily distinct numbers: $`\mu _1^2,\mu _2^2,\mathrm{},\mu _{p_2}^2`$ (whose order does not matter). This allows us to rewrite (24) as follows

$$P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)=x^{p_1p_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}(x^2\mu _i^2)(p_1p_2).$$
(25)
Here, recall that, by definition, $`\gamma _k`$ is simultaneously the coefficient of $`x^{pk}`$ on the R.H.S. of (24) and of $`y_1^{p_1k}y_2^{p_2k}`$ on the R.H.S. of (20); $`1kp_2p_1;p_1+p_2`$. Among other things, this assures the reverse passage from (24) to (20). But the R.H.S. of (24) is equal to the R.H.S. of (25); therefore, we can legitimately rewrite (25) in two variables, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, as well:

$$P(T^{\mathrm{}};y_1,y_2)=y_1^{p_1p_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}(y_1y_2\mu _i^2)(p_1p_2).$$
(26)
In the present paper, (26) is an important requisite because it enables us to state the following crucial sentence resembling Lemma 4:

###### Lemma 9

$`.`$Let $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ be the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$ of graphs $`T`$ and $`\Gamma `$ (see above). Then

$$P(T(\Gamma );x)=\left[P(H_1;x)\right]^{p_1p_1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}\left[P(H_1;x)P(H_2;x)\mu _i^2P(L_1;x)P(L_2;x)\right](p_1p_2).$$
(27)
$`𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒇\mathbf{.}`$ Taking into account the definition of collective variables $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ (instead of respective $`x_i`$’s in (17)) and expressing $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};𝐱;𝐰)`$ in a specific form of the R.H.S of (26), we can easily conclude that this statement is simply a corollary of Theorem 7. Hence, the proof is immediate. $`\mathbf{}`$

Note that interchanging the sorts of graphs $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ in $`T(\Gamma )`$ (together with the weights $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$) results in another product $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$, which can be called, in the chemical language, a substitutional isomer of $`T(\Gamma )`$. Under $`p_1=p_2`$, the two substitutional isomers $`T(\Gamma )`$ and $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$ distinguish only by the reciprocal fashion in which the rooted graphs of sorts $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are attached to the core $`T`$, in them. Therefore, we shall call the last pair of substitutional isomers reciprocal rooted products. This leads to the following corollary:

###### Corollary 9.1

$`.`$Let $`T`$ be an equipartite bipartite graph $`(p_1=p_2)`$ and let $`T(\Gamma )`$ and $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$ be the reciprocal (restricted) rooted products. Then

$$P(T(\Gamma );x)=P(T(\Gamma )^{};x).$$
(28)
$`𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒐𝒇\mathbf{.}`$ Indeed, under $`p_1=p_2`$, the indices 1 and 2 play symmetrical roles on the R.H.S. of (27); consequently, the interchanging of these indices cannot alter the result. Hence, the proof is immediate. $`\mathbf{}`$

Here, the chemical reader may recall that, in the reduced case, the role of distinct chemical substituents, in a molecule, can be played by heteroatoms. Or, in mathematical terms, a bipartite graph $`T`$ may possess green vertices with the weight $`b_1`$ and red ones with the weight $`b_2`$; interchanging $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ is just tantamount to the passage to the reciprocal product (which is here simply a reweighted graph $`T`$, wherein no (re-)attachments of any graphs $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are made).

In a philosophical sense, it is very interesting that there exist nonisomorphic graphs for which every specific circuit polynomial (characteristic, permanental, matching) should be equal. Here, we recall that two graphs $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are called isospectral (or cospectral) (see ) if $`P(G_1;x)=P(G_2;x)`$; under this, the type of the polynomial $`P`$ specifically depends on the context. Studying isospectral graphs is an important aspect of the theory of graph 28\]) and its application (see ).

Regrettably, only in a descriptive form, the author dares to propose the simplest example of isospectral reciprocal products. First of all, note that under $`p_1=p_2`$ the minimal bipartite graph in which the parts are not equivalent (on interchanging the colors of their vertices) is a tree with 6 vertices. That tree is represented by a simple path spanning five vertices, with the sixth vertex located at a free end of the edge attached to the third (middle) vertex of it (see the tree 2.12 in Table 2 of ). The chemical reader at once recognizes, in this tree, a hydrogen-depleted graph of the carbon skeleton of 3-methyl-$`n`$-pentane (where hydrogen atoms are not taken into account). We assume that the green vertices are located on the longest 5-vertex chain of this tree at sites 1, 3 and 5 while the red vertices are at sites 2, 4 and at the end of the twig. Attaching an isomorph copy of an arbitrary graph $`H_1`$ (which represents a chemical radical) to the green vertices and an isomorph of another graph $`H_2`$ to the red vertices produces the product $`T(\Gamma )`$. The same process performed in a reciprocal fashion (when sorts of graphs $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are interchanged) does the reciprocal rooted product $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$. Under this, the two restricted rooted products are always isospectral; that is, the graphs $`T(\Gamma )`$ and $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$ should necessarily have one and the same circuit polynomial. Further, let $`H_1`$ be a one-vertex graph $`K_1`$ (that is, no attachments should be made to the respective sites) and $`H_2`$ be a two-vertex complete graph $`K_2`$ (i.e., an edge, or a twig). Then, $`T(\Gamma )`$ (or the tree 2.74 in Table 2 ) is a hydrogen-depleted graph of 2,4-dimethyl-3-ethyl-$`n`$-pentane while $`T(\Gamma )^{}`$ (or the tree 2.75 in Table 2 of ) is a hydrogen-depleted graph of 4,$`4^{}`$-dimethyl-$`n`$-heptane. As it follows from Table 2 of the cited book, both of (molecular) graphs have the same characteristic polynomial (of the adjacency matrix), viz.:

$$P(T(\Gamma );x)=P(T(\Gamma )^{};x)=x^98x^7+18x^512x^3,$$

with the roots (eigenvalues): $`\lambda _1=2.175;\lambda _2=1.414;\lambda _3=1.126;\lambda _4=\lambda _5=\lambda _6=0;\lambda _7=1.126;\lambda _8=1.414;\lambda _9=2.175`$. Possibly,  enables the reader to find other instances of such graphs.

Now recall the definition of the restricted rooted products $`T(H)_1`$ and $`T(H)_2`$, used in Corollaries 8.1 and 8.2, respectively. We can derive similar corollaries of Lemma 9 as well:

###### Corollary 9.2

$`.`$Let $`P(T(H)_1;x)`$ be the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(H)_1`$. Then

$$P(T(H)_1;x)=\left[P(H;x)\right]^{p_1p_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}\left[(x+b_2)P(H;x)\mu _i^2P(H_r;x)\right],$$
(29)
where $`b_2`$ is the weight of every vertex of the second (smaller) part of $`T`$.

###### Corollary 9.3

$`.`$Let $`P(T(H)_2;x)`$ be the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(H)_2`$. Then

$$P(T(H)_1;x)=\left(x+b_1\right)^{p_1p_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}\left[(x+b_1)P(H;x)\mu _i^2P(H_r;x)\right],$$
(30)
where $`b_1`$ is the weight of every vertex of the first (greater) part of $`T`$.

Here, we remind that the weight $`b_i`$ $`(iip)`$ of the $`i`$-th vertex is a total weight of all self-loops lying in this vertex.

Lemma 9 and Corollaries 9.2 and 9.3 resemble Lemma 4. This list of comparisons can be continued.

###### Corollary 9.4

$`.`$Let 0 be an $`s`$-fold $`(sp_1p_2)`$ root of the circuit polynomial $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$. Then $`[P(H_1;x)]^s[p(H_2;x)]^{sp_1+p_2}`$ divides $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$.

What roots $`\mu `$ are inherited by $`(T(\Gamma );x)`$ from the polynomials $`P(H_1;x),P(H_2;x),P(L_1;x)`$ and $`P(L_2;x)`$, involved in the above formulae, also depends on a common multiplicity $`m(\mu )`$ of every root $`\mu `$ for four independent pairs $`(P(H_i;x);P(L_j;x))`$ $`(i,j\{1,2\})`$ of these polynomials. Obviously, if $`m(\mu )1`$ in at least one of the four cases the respective root $`\mu `$ is also inherited by $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ (with the multiplicity not less than $`m(\mu )`$). If $`m(\mu )=0`$ for all the four variants, it (still) remains to employ Corollary 9.4, which works in a complementary manner to the common-multiplicity principle. A more detailed investigation is left here to the reader. However, we want to make yet some qualitative remarks, addressed chiefly to the chemical audience. First, the degeneracy of the roots of $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};x)`$ is beneficial for the multiplicity of the roots of $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$. Second, as well known, the root $`\mu =0`$ of the characteristic polynomial of a molecular graph is unfavorable for the stability of the molecule which is represented by it (see ). Nevertheless, the construction of the restricted rooted product can harvest the same (or even more) benefits from the zero eigenvalue. That is why the materials engineer must not a priori rule out the core graphs $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the eigenvalue(s) $`\mu =0`$.

Now note that the factor $`[P(H_1;x)P(H_2;x)\mu _i^2P(L_1;x)P(L_2;x)]`$ involved on the R.H.S. of (27) is, in its own right, the circuit polynomial $`P(H_{\mu _i^2};x)`$ of some derivative graph $`H_{\mu _i^2}`$. Here, the graph $`H_{\mu _i^2}`$ is obtained by joining with the edge $`r_1r_2`$ of the weight $`\mu _i^2`$ the roots $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ of graphs $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, respectively; see the necessary general theory in 20, 28\]. Under this, it is worth recalling that the weight $`\mu _i^2`$ of the edge $`r_1r_2`$ is, by definition, the product $`a_{r_1r_2}^{}a_{r_2r_1}^{}`$ of the entries $`a_{r_1r_2}^{}`$ and $`a_{r_2r_1}^{}`$ of the adjacency matrix $`A^{}`$ of the graph $`H_{\mu _i^2}`$. Our done preparation allows us to rewrite Lemma 9 into the following equivalent form:

###### Lemma 10

$`.`$Let $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ be the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$ of graphs $`T`$ and $`\Gamma `$. Then

$$P(T(\Gamma );x)=[P(H_1;x)]^{p_1p_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{p_2}{}}P(H_{\mu _i^2};x)(p_1p_2),$$
(31)
where $`P(H_{\mu _i^2};x)`$ is defined as above.

Lemma 10, derived for the circuit polynomial of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$, resembles Lemma 6 for the $`B`$-polynomial of the unrestricted rooted product $`G(H)`$ (see ). Moreover, we notice in passing that all the results above that involve the bipartite core graph $`T^{\mathrm{}}`$ also hold good for the clique polynomial of $`T(\Gamma )`$ (see ).

Seeing the R.H.S. of (31), one can immediately conclude that there exists such a similarity transformation of the adjacency matrix $`A(T(\Gamma ))`$ of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$ that block-diagonalizes it (to the form which is consistent with the R.H.S. of (31)). The sense of the said can be better evaluated if one recalls how difficult is, in general, to find whatever similarity transformation simultaneously conserving all types of the circuit polynomial (of an arbitrary matrix); usually, it is possible only for the characteristic polynomial while renders impossible for the permanental and/or matching polynomial.

## 4 Discussion

1. By virtue of the results obtained herein, the circuit polynomial $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$ of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$ can uniquely be reconstructed from the collection of circuit polynomials $`P(T^{\mathrm{}};x),P(H_1;x),P(H_2;x),P(L_1;x)`$ and $`P(L_2)`$ of graphs $`T^{\mathrm{}},H_1,H_2,L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, consecutively. This seems to be of use because, otherwise, it would be very difficult to estimate the spectrum (of eigenvalues) of a complex target graph $`T(\Gamma )`$ (res. molecule), as is necessarily for creating substances with given electronic and photonic properties.

2. An important role, in the present context, play degenerate roots of the circuit polynomial $`P(T(\Gamma );x)`$. The degeneracy of eigenvalues, first of all, tautologically means the possibility of filling some (needed) energy levels, in a molecule or bulk material, to a rather higher degree than it takes place for undegenerated eigenvalues. The said is profitable not only for electronic and photonic properties (of substances), as such, but can well be addressed to treating diverse surfaces or substrates in order to passivate these or, on the contrary, make more catalytically active, hydrophilic etc.. Under this, in particular, a surface can acquire the properties of a chemical group represented by a graph $`H_1`$ in cases when the latter multiply contributes to the resulting spectrum of the system represented by the graph $`T(\Gamma )`$ (see ).

3. A prospective trend, which is yet beyond present scope, is engineering dendrimers (both graphs and molecules) that iteratively uses the construction of the restricted rooted product $`T(\Gamma )`$. This can essentially extend the capabilities of previous approaches (see ). Here, it is especially worth merging the methods of such work as  with those obtained herein.

## Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to the Referees for their attentive work with his paper.


text:
# Viewing the Proton Through “Color”-Filters

## Abstract

While the form factors and parton distributions provide separately the shape of the proton in coordinate and momentum spaces, a more powerful imaging of the proton structure can be obtained through phase-space distributions. Here we introduce the Wigner-type quark and gluon distributions which depict a full-3D proton at every fixed light-cone momentum, like what is seen through momentum(“color”)-filters. After appropriate phase-space reductions, the Wigner distributions are related to the generalized parton distributions (GPD’s) and transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions, which are measurable in high-energy experiments. The new interpretation of GPD’s provides a classical way to visualize the orbital motion of the quarks, which is known to be the key to the spin and magnetic moment of the proton.

What is the shape of the proton? The textbook answer is that it is round textbook . Indeed, the proton is a spin-1/2 particle, and the strong interactions are invariant under time-reversal symmetry. Hence there cannot be any dipole, quadrupole or higher-multiple deformations, and the quark and gluon density distributions in space have to be spherically symmetric. It is well known that the Fourier transformation of the proton’s electric form factor yields the spherical charge distribution when the relativistic recoil effects are neglected textbook .

The classical answer is correct, but might not be complete. The quarks and gluons are not static inside the proton, they are moving relativistically to produce the magnetic moment and part of the angular momentum (spin) of the proton. The orbital motion has an axial, rather than spherical, symmetry when the proton spin is polarized along a fixed direction sachs . To be sure, the Feynman distributions do provide a momentum space picture of partons, but there is no spatial density information involved— they are just correlation functions in the position space. To gain a more complete understanding of the proton’s structure, it is useful to know the quarks’ and gluons’ joint-position-and-momentum (or phase-space) distributions. Indeed, in classical physics, a state of a particle is specified by knowing both its position $`x`$ and momentum $`p`$. In a gas of classical identical particles, the single-particle properties are described by a phase-space distribution $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p})`$ representing the density of particles at phase-space positions $`(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p})`$. Time-dependence of the distribution is governed by the Boltzmann equation.

In quantum mechanics, however, the notion of a phase-space distribution directly contradicts one of its fundamental principles: the momentum and position of a particle cannot be determined simultaneously. Nonetheless, over the years, physicists have introduced various quantum phase-space distributions which reduce to $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p})`$ in the classical limit. These distributions have proven extremely useful in wide-spread areas like heavy-ion collisions, quantum molecular dynamics, signal analysis, quantum information, non-linear dynamics, optics, image processing, etc. One of the most frequently used is the Wigner distribution wigner

$$W(x,p)=\psi ^{}(x\eta /2)\psi (x+\eta /2)e^{ip\eta }𝑑\eta ,$$
(1)
where $`\psi (x)`$ is a quantum wave function ($`\mathrm{}=1`$). When integrating out the coordinate $`x`$, one gets the momentum density $`|\psi (p)|^2`$, and when integrating out $`p`$, the coordinate space density $`|\psi (x)|^2`$ follows. For arbitrary $`p`$ and $`x`$, the Wigner distribution is not positive definite and does not have, strictly speaking, a probability interpretation. However, there is no doubt that it contains much more information than the usual quantum mechanical observables. Modifed Wigner distributions with positivity are known in the literature and are better interpreted as densities, but we leave them for a further study.

In this paper, we introduce the quark and gluon Wigner-type phase-space distributions in hadrons such as the proton. After certain phase-space reductions, these distributions reduce to the generalized parton distributions (GPD’s) and the transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions which are measurable in high-energy experiments. \[For reviews of these distributions and experiments to measure them, see review ; review1 .\] Their relation to the GPD’s reveals a new interpretation of the latter—the Fourier transformation of GPD’s yields full-3D quark and gluons images of the proton at every fixed Feynman momentum $`x`$, like what’s seen through momentum (or better yet “color” or $`x`$-) filters. The skewness parameter $`\xi `$ in GPD’s now has a natural interpretation: a measure of the proton deformation along the direction selected by high-energy probes. From the sign variation of the images, we might have a practical way to determine how “classical” the quarks and gluons are in the proton.

Disregarding the renormalization scale $`\mu `$, the GPD’s depend on three kinematic variables $`x`$ (Feynman momentum), $`\xi `$ (skewness), and $`q^2`$ ($`t`$-channel momentum transfer, also called $`t`$). Introduced as quantum interference amplitudes, their original interpretation as parton and their angular momentum densities was limited to $`t=\xi =0`$ ji ; angmom . In a seminal paper by M. Burkardt burkardt , the probability interpretation was successfully extended to the GPD’s at $`t0`$: the Fourier transformation of the parton densities in the two-dimensional transverse plane (impact-parameter space). A number of subsequent papers have studied the physical significance of the $`\xi 0`$ case others , without seeking a classical or quasi-classical interpretation. The present work expands the 2D-pictures of Burkardt along the longitudinal direction, relating the GPD’s to full-3D distributions at a fixed light-cone momentum, interpretable as densities in the classical limit.

We begin by introducing the Wigner distribution operator for quarks in QCD

$$\widehat{𝒲}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},k)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\stackrel{}{r}\eta /2)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r}+\eta /2)e^{ik\eta }d^4\eta ,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the quark phase-space position and $`k`$ the phase-space four-momentum. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Dirac matrix defining the types of quark denstities. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a gauge-invariant quark field in non-singular gauges (gauge potentials vanish at the spacetime infinity jiyuan ),

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\eta )=\mathrm{exp}\left(ig_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda nA(\lambda n+\eta )\right)\psi (\eta ),$$
(3)
where $`n^\mu `$ is a constant four-vector. Thus $`\widehat{𝒲}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is gauge-invariant but depends on a choice of $`n^\mu `$. The actual Wigner distribution can be define as the expectation value of $`\widehat{𝒲}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the hadron states. For example,

$`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}\stackrel{}{q}/2\left|\widehat{𝒲}(\stackrel{}{r},k)\right|\stackrel{}{q}/2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\stackrel{}{q}/2\left|\widehat{𝒲}(0,k)\right|\stackrel{}{q}/2},`$
where $`M`$ is the hadron mass and the states are normalized relativistically. The initial and final hadrons are taken with different center-of-mass momenta, otherwise translational invariance results in a trivial dependence on the phase-space position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ sachs . For non-relativistic quantum systems, the above definition readily reduces to the known Wigner distribution. For relativistic systems such as the proton, the above interpretation as a density neglects relativistic effects when the momenta are comparable to the proton mass burkardt . Fortunately, since the proton mass is of order 1 GeV and charge radius 0.86 fm, the relativistic correction is about %10.

For the proton, because of the high energy involved in experiments and because of the color confinement, the $`k^{}=(k^0k^z)/\sqrt{2}`$ energy distribution is difficult to measure, where the $`z`$-axis refers to the momentum direction of a probe. Moreover, the leading observables are associated with the “good” components of the quark (gluon) fields in the sense of light-cone quantization lcq , which can be selected by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma ^+`$, $`\gamma ^+\gamma _5,`$ or $`\sigma ^+`$ where $`\gamma ^+=(\gamma ^0+\gamma ^z)/\sqrt{2}`$. The direction of the gauge link, $`n^\mu `$, is then determined by the trajectories of high-energy partons traveling along the light-cone $`(1,0,0,1)`$. Therefore, from now on, we restrict ourselves to the reduced Wigner distributions integrating over $`k^{}`$,

$$W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{dk^{}}{(2\pi )^2}𝒲_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},k),$$
(5)
with a light-cone gauge link. Eq. (5) defines the most general (master) phase-space quark distributions relevant in high-energy processes. Unfortunately, there is no known experiment at the moment capable of measuring them in the full 6-dimensional phase space.

However, certain phase-space reductions of the distributions are measurable through known processes. For example, integrating out the transverse momentum of partons, we find

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},k^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}}{(2\pi )^2}W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}\frac{d\eta ^{}}{2\pi }e^{i\eta ^{}k^+}}`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{q}/2\left|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\eta ^{}/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }(\eta ^{}/2)\right|\stackrel{}{q}/2.`$
The matrix element under the integrals is what defines the GPD’s. More precisely, if one replaces $`k^+`$ by Feynman variable $`xP^+`$ ($`P^+=E_q/\sqrt{2}`$, proton energy $`E_q=\sqrt{M^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2/4}`$) and $`\eta ^{}`$ by $`\lambda /P^+`$, the reduced Wigner distribution becomes the Fourier transformation of the GPD $`F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,\xi ,t)`$

$$f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{r},x)=\frac{1}{2M}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}F_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,\xi ,t).$$
(7)
In the present context, the relation between kinematic variables are $`\xi =q_z/(2E_q)`$ and $`t=\stackrel{}{q}^2`$. Taking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sqrt{2}\gamma ^+`$, the corresponding GPD has the expansion ji

$`F_{\gamma ^+}(x,\xi ,t)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }e^{i\lambda x}\stackrel{}{q}/2\left|\overline{\psi }(\lambda n/2)\sqrt{2}\gamma ^+\psi (\lambda n/2)\right|\stackrel{}{q}/2}`$
$`=`$ $`H(x,\xi ,t)\overline{U}(\stackrel{}{q}/2)\sqrt{2}\gamma ^+U(\stackrel{}{q}/2)`$
$`+E(x,\xi ,t)\overline{U}(\stackrel{}{q}/2){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{+i}q_i}{\sqrt{2}M}}U(\stackrel{}{q}/2),`$
where $``$ is the shorthand for the light-cone gauge link.

The distribution $`f_{\gamma ^+}(\stackrel{}{r},x)`$ can be interpreted as the 3D density in the rest frame of the proton, for the quarks with a selected light-cone momentum $`x`$. Integrating over the $`z`$ coordinate, the GPD’s are set to $`\xi q^z=0`$, and the resulting two-dimensional density $`f_{\gamma ^+}(\stackrel{}{r}_{},x)`$ is just the impact-parameter space distribution in the Burkardt paper burkardt .

To understand better the physical content of the density, let us examine its spin structure. Working out the matrix element in Eq. (8),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}F_{\gamma ^+}(x,\xi ,t)=\left[H(x,\xi ,t)\tau E(x,\xi ,t)\right]`$
$`+i(\stackrel{}{s}\times \stackrel{}{q})^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left[H(x,\xi ,t)+E(x,\xi ,t)\right]`$ , (9)
where $`\tau =(1+\xi )\stackrel{}{q}^2/4M^2+\xi `$. The first term is independent of the proton spin, and the related quark density is

$$\rho _+(\stackrel{}{r},x)=\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}[H(x,\xi ,t)\tau E(x,\xi ,t)].$$
(10)
Just like charge density, it is not positive-definite at any $`x`$. The second term depends on the proton spin, the corresponding density is physically the 3rd-component of a current

$`j_+^z(\stackrel{}{r},x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}i(\stackrel{}{s}\times \stackrel{}{q})^z}`$ (11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}\left[H(x,\xi ,t)+E(x,\xi ,t)\right].`$
The $`H`$-term current generates the proton’s Dirac moment, and the $`E`$-term generates a convection current due to the orbital angular momentum of massless quarks and vanishes when all quarks are in the $`s`$-orbitma . The physics in separating $`f_\gamma ^+`$ into $`\rho _+`$ and $`j_+^z`$ can be seen from the Dirac matrix $`\gamma ^+`$ selected by the high-energy probes, which is a combination of time and space components. Because the current distribution has no spherical symmetry, the quark density seen in the infinite momentum frame, $`\rho _++j_+^z`$, is deformed in the impact parameter space burkardt1 . This is the kinematic effect of Lorentz transformations.

We can also study the $`x`$-moments of the quark and current densities. If we integrate over $`x`$ directly, we obtain the electric charge and current densities,

$`\rho _+^e(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\rho _+(\stackrel{}{r},x)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}(F_1(q^2)\tau F_2(q^2))},`$
$`\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}i(\stackrel{}{s}\times \stackrel{}{q})\frac{1}{2M}(F_1(q^2)+F_2(q^2))}.`$
Notice that $`\rho _+^e`$ is not spherically symmetric due to the $`\xi `$ dependence in $`\tau `$, reminiscent of the $`\gamma ^+`$-probe. The electric current density has a donut shape and is responsible for the magnetic moment of the proton sachs . Indeed, if we calculate the proton’s magnetic moment using the classical formula, $`\stackrel{}{\mu }=(1/2)\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{j}`$, the right answer follows. The current generated by the $`F_2(q^2)`$ term is directly related to the orbital motion of the quarks f2 .

Forming the second moment of $`x`$, we have the mass distribution of the proton from the quarks note ,

$`\rho _+^m(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑xx\rho _+(\stackrel{}{r},x)}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}[(A_q(q^2)+\xi ^2C_q(q^2))`$
$`\tau (B_q(q^2)\xi ^2C_q(q^2)],`$
where $`A_q(q^2)`$, $`B_q(q^2)`$ and $`C_q(q^2)`$ are the quark part of the proton’s energy-momentum form factors pagels ; ji ,

$`P^{}|T^{\mu \nu }|P`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}(P^{})[A(q^2)\overline{P}^\mu \gamma ^\nu +B(q^2){\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \alpha }q_\alpha P^\nu }{2M}}`$ (13)
$`+C(q^2)(q^\mu q^\nu g^{\mu \nu }q^2)]U(P).`$
Here the energy-momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is symmetric and conserved, and contain both quark and gluon contributions. The normalization of the form factors $`A(0)`$ and $`B(0)`$ are well-known: $`A(0)=1`$ is related to the energy-momentum conservation and $`B(0)=0`$ is a result of the angular momentum conservation okun ; ji .

The energy-momentum form factors can in principle be measured in elastic graviton-nucleon scattering. Here we use this fact to motivate the physical interpretation of $`\rho _+^m(\stackrel{}{r})`$ as the proton’s mass distribution. Gravitions have spin 2, and an on-shell massless graviton has helicity $`\lambda =\pm 2`$. An off-shell (massive) graviton can have additional helicity states $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ and $`0`$. Consider the graviton-proton scattering in the Breit frame. Assume the helicity of the initial proton is 1/2, then the final proton has helicity $`1/2\lambda `$. Since the proton has spin-1/2, only off-shell gravitons of helicity $`1`$ and $`0`$ contribute. A graviton with helicity $`1`$ and $`0`$ acts very much like a photon, and we can mimic the Sachs’s electromagnetic form factors by defining the gravitational “electric” (or mass) form factor

$$G_E^m(q^2)=A(q^2)+\frac{t}{4M^2}B(q^2),$$
(14)
proportional to the helicity non-flip graviton-nucleon scattering amplitude jisong ; belitsky . If one ignores the deformation due to the probes ($`\xi =0`$), $`\rho _+^m(\stackrel{}{r})`$ in Eq. (12) is just the Fourier transformation of the above form factor.

The $`x`$-moment of the quark current is the momentum density in the proton

$`j^{zp}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑xxj_+^z(\stackrel{}{r},x)}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}i(\stackrel{}{s}\times \stackrel{}{q})^z}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M}}\left[A_q(q^2)+B_q(q^2)\right].`$
The combination in the integrand is the gravitational “magnetic” (or angular momentum) form factor,

$$G_M^m(q^2)=A(q^2)+B(q^2),$$
(16)
proportional to the helicity-flip graviton-proton scattering amplitude jisong ; belitsky . Knowing the momentum density as a function of $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, it is simple to calculate the quark contribution to the angular momentum (spin) of the proton according to $`\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{j}^p`$. The answer is $`(A_q(0)+B_q(0))/2`$ ji . A contribution from the gluons can be obtained in a similar way.

Let us remark that gravity plays a dominant role at two extreme distance scales: the cosmic scale and the Plank scale. At the atomic and subatomic levels, with the exception of the motion of these particles under strong gravitational fields, gravitation has little effects because of its extremely weak coupling. Thus while mass distribution and moment-of-inertia are important concepts in classical mechanics, they have rarely been discussed for microscopic quantum systems such as the proton. Thus, it is very interesting that the GPD’s provide gravitational form factors without actual gravitational scattering ji ; jisong . A study of the gravitational Sachs’s form factors (and gravitational radius) in chiral perturbation theory can be found in belitsky . A related coordinate-space interpretation of the gravitational form factors, in particular, the stress density $`T^{ij}`$, can be found in Ref. polyakov .

If integrating over $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ in the Wigner distributions in Eq. (5), one obtains the transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions. There is a lot of interesting physics associated with these distributions which has been discussed recently. For instance, in a transversely polarized proton, the quark momentum distribution has an azimuthal angular dependence sivers ; review1 ; jiyuan . The so-called Siver’s function can produce a novel single-spin asymmetry in deep-inelastic scattering. We will not pursue this topic here, except emphasizing that they have the same generating functions as the GPD’s.

The phase-space distributions in the transverse coordinates have also been used in small-$`x`$ physics muller , where the parton physics becomes truly classical at high density.

We end the paper by making a few remarks. First, as we have mentioned before, the Wigner distributions are quantum phase-space distributions which contain much more information of a quantum system than conventional observables. Originally introduced as a theoretical construction, it is surprising that these distributions for the proton are directly measurable through high-energy processes. Second, the Wigner distributions are more than just quantum interference amplitudes; they have a clear physical interpretation in the classical limit. This endows the GPD’s a new physics feature which has not been recognized before. QCD in the limit of large number of colors might be a case in which the Wigner distributions become truly classical densities. Finally, the extent to which the Wigner distributions in the proton can be regarded as classical densities may be judged once the phenomenological GPD’s is available from experiment data.

I first heard a possible connection between GPD’s and Wigner distribution from A. Belitsky, and this work is inspired by him and T. Cohen. I also thank M. Burkardt for many helpful discussions about his impact-parameter space interpretation of the GPD’s, and M. Diehl for critical comments. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy via grant DE-FG02-93ER-40762.