Cospectral mates for the union of some classes in the Johnson association scheme
Sebastian M. Cioab\u{a}, Willem H. Haemers, Travis Johnston, Matt, McGinnis

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that certain Johnson scheme graphs are not uniquely determined by their spectra using Godsil-McKay switching, and reports computational searches for such switching sets.
Contribution
It introduces new non-isomorphic graphs with identical spectra within Johnson schemes using Godsil-McKay switching, expanding understanding of spectral graph characterization.
Findings
Graphs $J_S(3k-2m-1,k)$ are not spectrum-determined for specified parameters.
Graphs $J_{S}(n,2m+1)$ are not spectrum-determined under certain conditions.
Computational searches identified potential switching sets in Johnson scheme unions for small $k$.
Abstract
Let be two integers and a subset of . The graph has as vertices the -subsets of the -set and two -subsets and are adjacent if . In this paper, we use Godsil-McKay switching to prove that for , and , the graphs are not determined by spectrum and for , and the graphs are not determined by spectrum. We also report some computational searches for Godsil-McKay switching sets in the union of classes in the Johnson scheme for .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFinite Group Theory Research Β· Graph theory and applications Β· graph theory and CDMA systems
\marginsize
2cm2cm1cm3cm
Cospectral mates for the union of some classes in the Johnson association scheme
Sebastian M.CioabΔ111Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716-2553, USA. Research supported by NSF DMS-1600768 grant. [email protected]β, Willem H. Haemers222Tilburg University, Dept. of Econometrics and OR, Tilburg, The Netherlands. [email protected],
Travis Johnston333Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. [email protected] β and Matt McGinnis444Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716-2553, USA. Research supported by NSF DMS-1600768 grant. [email protected]
Abstract
Let be two integers and a subset of . The graph has as vertices the -subsets of the -set and two -subsets and are adjacent if . In this paper, we use Godsil-McKay switching to prove that for , and , the graphs are not determined by spectrum and for , and the graphs are not determined by spectrum. We also report some computational searches for Godsil-McKay switching sets in the union of classes in the Johnson scheme for .
1 Introduction
The spectrum of a graph is the multi-set of eigenvalues of its adjacency matrix (see [1] for an introduction to spectral graph theory). Two graphs are called cospectral if they have the same spectrum. A graph is determined by spectrum if any graph cospectral to must be isomorphic to . Two non-isomorphic graphs that are cospectral are called cospectral mates. An important research area of spectral graph theory is devoted to determining which graphs are determined by their spectra (see [4, 5] for example).
In this paper, we consider this problem for the union of classes in the Johnson association scheme. Let be two integers and a subset of .
The graph has as vertices the -subsets of the -set and two -subsets and are adjacent if .
Using this notation, the Johnson graph is the graph and the Kneser graph is .
It is known that is determined by its spectrum precisely when (see [2, 3, 9]). Also, the odd graphs for are known to be determined by spectrum (see [10]). These graphs and their complements are the only nontrivial graphs in the Johnson scheme known to be determined by spectrum.
For , the Johnson graphs are not determined by spectrum (see [6]). For , the Kneser graphs with or , as well as the mod-2 Kneser graph (where is the set of even numbers in ) are not determined by spectrum (see [8]).
In this paper, we construct cospectral graphs with for certain values of and . Our main results are that for any and , if , the graphs are not determined by spectrum and for , , if , the graphs are not determined by spectrum. Our main tool is the method of Godsil-McKay switching which constructs cospectral graphs to a given graph under certain regularity situations.
Theorem 1** (Godsil-McKay [7]).**
Let be a graph and a partition of the vertex set of satisfying the following conditions for :
Any two vertices in have the same number of neighbors in . 2. 2)
For each every vertex in is adjacent to or vertices in .
Construct a new graph as follows. For every vertex not in with neighbors in , delete the edges between and and join to the other vertices in . Then and have the same spectrum.
The operation above that changes into is called Godsil-McKay switching. For our purposes we will only need . Hence, from here forward we will simply use to denote a switching set.
At the end of our paper, we also report our computational results searching for switching sets in various classes and union of classes of the Johnson scheme including the Kneser graphs and which are the smallest examples of Kneser graphs for which it is not known whether they are determined by spectrum.
2 Main Results
2.1 where and
Theorem 2**.**
Let , and . If and , then is a switching set in .
Proof.
First, note that is an independent set of size since the intersection of any two vertices in has cardinality . Let and . We now consider the following cases:
- (i)
If , then for , . Hence will be adjacent to every vertex in . 2. (ii)
If , then there are vertices in that intersect in elements, implying they will not be adjacent to . The remaining vertices in must be adjacent to as their intersection with will have cardinality . Hence will be adjacent to exactly half of the vertices in . 3. (iii)
If , then . So for , . Hence will have no neighbors in .
β
Theorem 3**.**
Let , and be the switching set described in Theorem 2. If and is the graph obtained by switching with respect to , then and are not isomorphic.
We define the common neighbor count of two vertices, and in , as the number of vertices that are neighbors of both and . The common neighbor pattern of a vertex, in , is the multi-set of all possible values of where runs through the vertex set of .
Consider the following vertices
[TABLE]
in and .
Lemma 4**.**
If and are isomorphic, then .
Proof.
As is vertex transitive, all vertices of will have the same common neighbor pattern. If and are isomorphic, then all vertices of will have the same common neighbor pattern as well. In particular, will have the same common neighbor pattern before and after switching. Based on the way switching is defined it follows that for all not in . This implies
[TABLE]
where is the vertex in that does not contain the element for .
Moreover, the permutation of induces an automorphism of that fixes and and cyclically shifts . It follows that
[TABLE]
This permutation remains an automorphism after switching, thus
[TABLE]
Therefore, if and are isomorphic . β
Proof of Theorem 3.
By Lemma 4, it is sufficient to show . Before switching is adjacent to vertices of the form
[TABLE]
Of these vertices, there are exactly adjacent to . This accounts for the number of common neighbors of and lost during switching. After switching becomes adjacent to vertices of the form
[TABLE]
Of these vertices, there are exactly adjacent to . As , it follows that . Therefore, and are nonisomorphic. β
Corollary 5**.**
For , and , the graphs are not determined by spectrum.
2.2 where
Theorem 6**.**
Let , and . If and , then is a switching set in .
Proof.
First, note that is an independent set. Let . Then .
Now, every has the form for some . So . Let . We consider the following cases:
- (i)
If , then . Hence has no neighbors in . 2. (ii)
If , then . So there will be vertices in sharing exactly elements with and vertices in sharing exactly elements with . Hence, will be adjacent to half the vertices in . 3. (iii)
If , then . Hence will be adjacent to each vertex in .
β
Theorem 7**.**
Let , , and be the switching set described in Theorem 6. If and is the graph obtained by switching with respect to , then and are not isomorphic.
Consider the vertices
[TABLE]
in and .
Lemma 8**.**
If and are isomorphic, then .
Proof.
As is vertex transitive, all vertices of will have the same common neighbor pattern. So if and are isomorphic, then all vertices of will have the same common neighbor pattern. In particular, will have the same common neighbor pattern before and after switching. Based on the way switching is defined it follows that for all not in .
Hence,
[TABLE]
where for .
The permutation of induces an automorphism of that fixes , and and cyclically shifts .
It follows that
[TABLE]
This permutation remains an automorphism after switching, thus
[TABLE]
Hence, if and are isomorphic . Observing gives the desired result. β
Proof of Theorem 7.
By Lemma 8, it is sufficient to show . Before switching is adjacent to vertices of the form
[TABLE]
Of these vertices, there are exactly adjacent to . This accounts for the number of common neighbors of and deleted during switching. After switching becomes adjacent to vertices of the form
[TABLE]
Of these vertices, there are exactly adjacent to . As , it follows that . Hence, . Therefore, and are not isomorphic. β
Corollary 9**.**
For , , , the graphs are not determined by spectrum.
3 Relation to Previous Work
3.1 Kneser and Johnson Graphs
Taking in Theorem 6, we obtain the switching sets found for Kneser graphs in [8].
In addition to this generalization, one may also notice that the switching sets described in Theorem 6 are a generalization of the switching sets found for the Johnson graphs in [6]. Indeed, a switching set for can be obtained by taking the 4 vertices being element subsets of a set of size . We note here is isomorphic with and with the complement of , where . Using these facts, it follows that the complement of is and is isomorphic to . Thus, this family of graphs can be described in Theorems 6 and 7 by letting .
What is more, the switching sets for were extended for by using the more general form of switching described in Theorem 1. A switching partition can be constructed for , by fixing a set of size 4 and letting be the set of all -sets that do not contain precisely 3 elements from . Then for each -subset, , of , we allow to be the set of four -sets containing and precisely 3 elements from .
This leads to the question of whether or not we can make a similar generalization in Theorems 6 and 7.
In an attempt to extend our results for we construct similar sets in the following way. For each -subset, , of take to be the set of vertices containing and one element from . When we obtain switching sets for the complements of the Johnson graphs , .
Now, consider the graph described in Theorems 6 and 7 and take to be a vertex containing and elements from . Consider the switching set formed by taking the vertices containing and one element from . It is easily seen that will have neighbors in . As it follows that cannot be in . Thus, the only option is for to be in some other which can only occur if .
3.2 Vertices containing as a possible switching set
In [8] it was shown that taking to be the set of vertices containing as a subset is a switching set for the graphs satisfying . It is reasonable to try to generalize this in a way similar to what we have done for .
Consider the graph where and let be the set of vertices containing as a subset. Suppose is a vertex not in . We consider the following cases:
- (i)
If has or more elements in , then is adjacent to no vertices in . 2. (ii)
If has or less elements in , then is adjacent to all vertices in . 3. (iii)
If has elements in , then is adjacent to vertices in . 4. (iv)
If has elements in , then is adjacent to vertices in .
So our restrictions on , and will come from (iii) and (iv). Note that as . If , then , but evaluating (iv) with gives [math] so this would not give a desirable switching set.
If , then solving for we obtain
[TABLE]
If (iv) is equal to , then we find . Setting these equal gives no solutions.
If (iv) is equal to 0, then we find or , which will make (iii) equal to [math] or , respectively.
Finally, if (iv) is equal to , then (iii) and (iv) are equal and we find . Solving for we find or , neither of which are integers.
One thing to note is when , (iii) is not a possibility and we need (iv) equal to . Solving for in this case we obtain , the same parameters found previously for Kneser graphs.
4 Computational Results
In this section, we report on a list of classes and union of classes in the Johnson Scheme we have checked by computer for switching sets. We used two pieces of code to search for switching sets. The first code made use of GPUs (general purpose Graphical Processing Units) to exhaustively search a graph for (small) switching sets. The key feature of GPUs is that they allow for massive parallel computation. In our case, each independent thread examines one induced subgraph of size for specified by the user. Because graphs in the Johnson scheme are vertex transitive we were able to reduce the necessary computation and only examine subgraphs that included vertex . While the GPU dramatically speeds up the computation, if either the Johnson graph is large or the size of the subgraphs being examined is large then the computation is still prohibitively long. Focusing mainly on Kneser graphs, we were able to eliminate the possibility of switching sets of size 8 in , , , and as well as switching sets of size 10 in and . Our computations extend the computations of Haemers and Ramezani [8] which did not find any switching sets of size or in the Kneser graphs nor . At present time, these are smallest graphs in the Johnson scheme whose spectral characterization is not known.
The second code employed a technique similar to backtracking and searched only for switching sets of size (an independent set, an induced matching, an induced cycle, and a complete graph), and switching sets of size restricted to independent sets, induced matchings, and an induced -cycle. Because of the restrictions on the type of switching sets that were searched for (and the relatively small size) we were able to explore larger graphs in the Johnson scheme. Both codes are available on github at https://github.com/jtjohnston/computational_combinatorics/tree/master/GM-switching.
We describe below the notation used in the subsequent tables:
- β’
0b indicates that no switching sets were found using backtracking technique.
- β’
0eX indicates that no switching sets were found of size 4, 6, β¦, X using the exhaustive search on GPU.
- β’
1(DS) indicates that these graphs have already been proven to be DS.
- β’
1(NDS) indicates that these graphs have already been proven to not be DS.
- β’
1+ indicates we found a new switching set and the graph after switching is non-isomorphic.
- β’
1- indicates we found a new switching set but the graph after switching is isomorphic.
Table for
[TABLE]
Table for
[TABLE]
Table for
[TABLE]
5 Open Problems
We propose the following as future research.
Determine whether or not other graphs in the Johnson scheme are DS. As mentioned above, the smallest open case as of now is . 2. 2)
Regarding the tables above, we were only able to find two new graphs with potential switching sets. For we were able to generalize in Theorem 6.
The other graph we found switching sets for is , however none of these switching sets produced nonisomorphic cospectral mates. However, it is interesting to note that the switching sets we found were of size 4. Focusing more closely on this graph we extended our computations to look for switching sets of size 8. We found two different switching sets of size 8 that produced nonisomorphic cospectral mates. The switching sets are
[TABLE]
which is the union of two 4-cycles. The second is a 6-regular graph on 8 vertices
[TABLE]
It would be nice to see if these sets can be generalized to produce another infinite family of cospectral mates in the Johnson scheme.
Notice of Copyright
This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A.E. Brouwer and W.H. Haemers, Spectra of Graphs , Springer Universitext 2012.
- 2[2] L.C. Chang, The uniqueness and nonuniqueness of triangular association schemes, Sci.Record Peking Math. 3 (1959), 604β613.
- 3[3] W.S. Connor, The uniqueness of the triangular association scheme, Ann. Math. Stat. 29 (1958), 262β266.
- 4[4] E. van Dam and W.H. Haemers, Which graphs are determined by their spectrum?, Linear Algebra Appl. 373 (2003), 241β272.
- 5[5] E. van Dam and W.H. Haemers, Developments on spectral characterization of graphs, Discrete Math. 309 (2009), 576β586.
- 6[6] E. van Dam, W.H. Haemers, J.H. Koolen and E. Spence, Characterizing distance-regularity of graphs by the spectrum, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 113 (2006), 1805β1820.
- 7[7] C.D. Godsil and B. Mc Kay, Constructing cospectral graphs, Aequationes Math. 25 (1982), 257β268.
- 8[8] W.H. Haemers and F. Ramezani, Graphs cospectral with Kneser graphs, Combinatorics and graphs , 159β164, Contemp. Math. , 531, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
