11 views

Original Title: lecture 11 expanders

Uploaded by kientrungle2001

- Solution of Linear System Theory and Design 3ed for Chi-Tsong Chen
- Further Pure 4 Notes : Robbie Peck
- Essentials of Robust Control
- Quantnet Questions
- F1DB5d01
- MAT423_2013_01
- ddagarc.pdf
- Spectral Clustering
- 08_AppendixA
- Sml
- 10.1.1.25.5953
- Fried Gut
- mathgen-461805242
- Da2 Scribd
- ICDM07_Papadimitriou_Spiros.pdf
- Louis H. Kauffman- Take Home Exam - Math 310 - Linear Algebra - Spring 2008
- Method of Finite Elements I
- gjmuc-v5q55
- Factor Analysis
- 02 Handout Linear Algebra

You are on page 1of 11

Ngo

SUNY at Buffalo, Fall 2003 Scribe: Hung Q. Ngo

∆(G) = d, and for every X ⊂ I such that |X| ≤ n/2, we have

|X|

|Γ(X)| ≥ 1 + c 1 − |X|

n

where Γ(X) is the set of neighbors of all vertices X, ∆(G) denotes the maximum degree of vertices in

G, d is called the density, and c is called the expansion rate of the expander G. It is a strong (n, d, c)-

expander if the above inequality holds for all X ⊆ I. A family of linear expanders of density d and

expansion c is a sequence {Gi }∞ i=1 , where Gi is an (ni , d, c)-expander and ni → ∞, ni+1 /ni → 1 as

i → ∞.

1 Expanders

The main objective of this section is to present several results on the eigenvalue characterization of the

expansion rate of expanders. Moreover, we shall give a partial answer to the question: “how large can

the second smallest eigenvalue of the Laplacian of a graph be?”, and give some pointers to results on

direct constructions of expanders.

We first fix notations and terminologies from algebraic graph theory needed for the rest of the section.

The reader is referred to the standard books by Biggs (1993, [10]), Godsil (1993, [15]), Cvetković, Doob,

and Sachs (1995, [12]), and Chung (1997, [11]) for more information.

Let G = (V, E) be a simple graph with n vertices, we will always assume the eigenvalues of G are

λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λn . Those are the eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix A of G. Moreover, λ(G) will be

used to denote λ2 . Let D be the n × n diagonal matrix indexed by vertices of G with (D)vv = deg(v);

then, the matrix L := D − A is called the Laplacian matrix of G. We shall use µ1 ≥ µ2 ≥ · · · ≥ µn to

denote the eigenvalues of L. In contrast to the λ’s, we use µ(G) to denote µn−1 . The reason for this is

that when G is d-regular then λi = d − µn−i+1 .

Let N be the incident matrix of any orientation H of G(V, E). Let L2 (V ) (L2 (E)) be thep space of

real valued functions on V (E), with the usual inner product hf, gi and the usual norm kf k = hf, f i.

Note that L2 (V ) is isomorphic to Rn and the Rayleigh quotient for f is RA (f ) = hLf,f

kf k2

i

. Also note that

hLf, f i = hN T N f, f i = hN f, N f i

X

= (f (u) − f (v))2

(u,v)∈E(H)

X

= (f (u) − f (v))2

u∼v

1

Here u ∼ v is used in lieu of (u, v) ∈ E for convenience. The previous equation implies that L is non-

negative definite, thus µi ≥ 0, ∀i. Moreover, it is not hard to see that µn is always 0 and that µn−1 = 0

iff G is not connected.

The following bounds on µn−1 will be used quite often.

P

X

(f (u) − f (v))2

hLf, f i

µ(G) ≤ = u∼v X

kf k f 2 (v)

v

hLf, f i

µ(G) = min

f 6=0 kf k

P

with the min runs over all f satisfying v f (v) = 0.

X

Note. (f (u) − f (v))2 is sometime called the Dirichlet sum of G.

u∼v

√

Proof. Let un = 1/ n be a unit µn -eigenvector of L, then the variational characterization of the eigen-

values (see [16], e.g.) gives

hLf, f i

µn−1 = min n RL (f ) = min n

06=f ∈C 06=f ∈C kf k

f ⊥un f ⊥1

P

The condition f ⊥ 1 is the same as u f (u) = 0.

V | f (v) > 0} and V − := V − V + . Let g ∈ L2 (V ) be defined by

(

f (v) if v ∈ V +

g(v) =

0 otherwise.

Then, we have X

(g(u) − g(v))2

u∼v

µ≥ X

g 2 (v)

v

(Lf )(v) = µf (v), ∀v ∈ V . Thus, X

(Lf )(v)f (v)

v∈V +

µ= X

f 2 (v)

v∈V +

But, X X

f 2 (v) = g 2 (v)

v∈V + v∈V

2

and,

X X X

(Lf )(v)f (v) = d(v)f 2 (v) − f (v)f (u)

v∈V + v∈V + u∈Γ(v)

X X

= (f (u) − f (v))2 + f (u)(f (u) − f (v))

uv∈E(V +) uv∈E(V + ,V − )

X

2

≥ (g(u) − g(v))

u∼v

1.2 The eigenvalue characterization of expansion rate for regular strong expanders

The results in this section are from Tanner (1984, [28]), Alon and Milman (1985, [6]), and Alon (1986,

[3]). As the title of the section indicated, our goal is to show that the larger the expansion rate of a regular

strong expander G is, the larger µ(G) has to be, and vice versa.

We again need to define several types of graphs closely related to expanders: enlargers, magnifiers,

and bounded concentrators.

Definition 1.3. An (n, d, )-enlarger is a graph G on n vertices with maximum degree d and µn−1 (G) ≥

.

Definition 1.4. An (n, d, c)-magnifier is a graph G = (V, E) on n vertices, ∆(G) = d and for every

X ⊂ V with |X| ≤ n/2, |Γ(X) − X| ≥ c|X| holds. The extended double cover of a graph G =

(V, E) with V = [n] is the bipartite graph H on the sets of inputs X = {x1 , . . . , xn } and outputs

Y = {y1 , . . . , yn } so that (xi , yj ) ∈ E(H) iff i = j or (i, j) ∈ E(G).

Definition 1.5. An (n, θ, d, α, c)-bounded strong concentrator is a bipartite graph G = (I, O; E) with n

inputs, θn outputs, θ < 1, and at most dn edges, such that if X ⊆ I with |X| ≤ αn, then |Γ(X)| ≥ c|X|.

An (n, θ, d, α)-bounded concentrator is an (n, θ, d, α, 1)-bounded strong concentrator.

For the purpose of this section, enlargers were introduced just to shorten the sentence: “let G be a

graph with maximum degree d and µ(G) large enough.” On the other hand, we need magnifiers because

their extended double covers are expanders. Magnifiers are, in a sense, the non-bipartite version of

expanders. It is intuitively clear, and will be made precise later, that bounded concentrators are closely

related to expanders. The proof of the following lemma is straightforward, hence omitted.

The following theorem, which is an improved version of Theorem 3.4 in [3], makes our goal precise.

Theorem 1.7. Let G = (I, O; E) be a d-regular bipartite graph, where |I| = |O| = n and µ = µ(G)

(= d − λ(G)). The following hold:

c2

(i) If G is an (n, d, c) strong expander then µ ≥ 576−48c+2c2

.

2d−2

(ii) If µ ≥ , then G is an (n, d, c)-expander, where c = d2

.

We shall prove this theorem using a sequence of lemmas, with the following plan in mind. To show

(i), we will show

3

Similarly, to prove (ii) we shall show the reverse sequence

G is an enlarger → G is a strong expander

Let us now proceed to show that a strong expander is a magnifier.

c

Lemma 1.8. Let G = (I, O; E) be an (n, d, c)-strong-expander. Then G is a (2n, d, 12−c )-magnifier.

Proof. Be definition, every X1 ⊂ I satisfies

|X1 |

|Γ(X1 )| ≥ 1 + c(1 − ) |X1 |. (1)

n

In particular,

|Γ(X1 )| ≥ |X1 | (2)

When |X1 | = n/2, (1) implies c ≤ 2. Moreover, for every X2 ⊆ O, setting X1 = I − Γ(X2 ) in (2)

yields Γ(X2 ) ≥ |X2 |.

We are to show that for every X ⊂ I ∪ O with size at most n, it must be the case that

c

|Γ(X) − X| ≥ |X|

12 − c

Let X1 = X ∩ I and X2 = X ∩ O. The intuition is that when |X1 | is very small comparing to |X2 |, then

there will be a lot of neighbors of X2 lying outside of X1 in I, making |Γ(X) − X| large. On the other

hand, when |X1 | is relatively large comparing to |X2 |, then there will be “many” neighbors of X1 not in

X2 . We now turn this intuition into mathematical rigor.

When |X1 | ≤ |X2 |(1 − 6c ), we have

12 − c

|X| ≤ |X2 |.

6

Hence,

c c

|Γ(X) − X| ≥ |Γ(X2 )| − |X1 | ≥ |X2 | − |X1 | ≥ |X2 | ≥ |X|.

6 12 − c

When |X2 |(1 − 6c ) < |X1 | ≤ n2 , we get

1 12 − c

|X| < 1 + |X1 | = |X1 |.

1 − 6c 6−c

This relation, the fact that c ≤ 2, and (1) yield

|Γ(X) − X| ≥ |Γ(X1 )| − |X2 |

c 1

≥ (1 + − )|X1 |

2 1 − 6c

4−c c

= |X1 |

2 6−c

4−c c

> |X|

2 12 − c

c

≥ |X|

12 − c

n

Lastly, when |X1 | ≥ 2 it follows that

c n n c c c

|Γ(X) − X| ≥ |Γ(X1 )| − |X2 | ≥ (1 + ) − = n ≥ |X| ≥ |X|.

2 2 2 4 4 12 − c

Here, we use the fact that c ≤ 2 and that the function f (x) = (1 + c(1 − nx ))x is increasing when

n ≥ 2.

4

Next, to complete part (i) of Theorem 1.7 we show that every magnifier has “large” µ.

Lemma 1.9. Let G = (V, E) be an (n, d, c)-magnifier, then G is an (n, d, )-enlarger where =

c2

2+2(c+1)2

.

c2

Proof. We apply and use notations of Proposition 1.2. Since we have to show that µ ≥ = 2+2(c+1)2

, it

suffices to show that X

(g(u) − g(v))2

u∼v c2

≥

2 + 2(c + 1)2

X

g 2 (v)

v

This is done by using the maxflow-mincut theorem. Consider a network N with vertex set {s} ] V + ]

V ] {t}, where s is the source, t is the sink, and ] denotes the disjoint union. The edges and their

capacities are defined as follows.

(a) For each u ∈ V + , (s, u) has capacity cap(s, u) = 1 + c.

(

1 if uv ∈ E or u = v

(b) For each pair (u, v) ∈ V + × V , cap(u, v) =

0 otherwise.

We claim that the min-cut of N has capacity (1 + c)|V + |. Consider any cut C. Let X := {u ∈

V + | (s, u) ∈/ C}. As G has magnifying rate c and ΓN (X) = X ∪ ΓG (X), it is easy to see that

|ΓN (X)| ≥ (1 + c)|X|. Moreover, for every v ∈ ΓN (X) there must be at least one edge with capacity

one in C incident to it. All these edges are disjoint, thus the capacity of C is at least (1 + c)(|V + | −

|X|) + |ΓN (X)| ≥ (1 + c)|V + |. Lastly, the cut {(s, u) | u ∈ V + } has capacity exactly (1 + c)|V + |,

proving the claim. By the maxflow-mincut theorem, there exists an orientation Ē of edges in G and a

function h : Ē → R such that

0 ≤ h(u, v) ≤ 1 for all (u, v) ∈ Ē

(

X 1 + c if u ∈ V +

h(u, v) =

0 otherwise.

v:(u,v)∈Ē

X

h(u, v) ≤ 1 for all v ∈ V

u:(u,v)∈Ē

X 2 X

h2 (u, v) g(u) + g(v) h2 (u, v) g 2 (u) + g 2 (v)

≤ 2

(u,v)∈Ē (u,v)∈Ē

X X X

2 2 2

= 2 g (v) h (u, v) + h (v, u)

v∈V u:(u,v)∈Ē u:(v,u)∈Ē

X

2 2

≤ 2(1 + (1 + c) ) g (v)

v∈V

and

X X X X

2 2 2

h(u, v) g (u) − g (v) = g (u) h(u, v) − h(v, u)

(u,v)∈Ē u∈V v:(u,v)∈Ē v:(v,u)∈Ē

X

2

≥ c g (v)

v∈V

5

Now, combining all inequalities above along with Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we get

X 2

g(u) − g(v)

u∼v

µ ≥ X

g 2 (v)

v

X 2 X 2 2

g(u) − g(v) h (u, v) g(u) + g(v)

u∼v (u,v)∈Ē

= X X 2

g 2 (v) h2 (u, v) g(u) + g(v)

v (u,v)∈Ē

X 2

2 2

h(u, v)|g (u) − g (v)|

(u,v)∈Ē

≥ X 2

2(1 + (c + 1)2 ) g 2 (v)

v∈V

X 2

h(u, v)(g 2 (u) − g 2 (v))

1 (u,v)∈Ē

≥

2 + 2(c + 1)2

X

g 2 (v)

v∈V

c2

≥

2 + 2(c + 1)2

The previous two lemmas trivially imply part (i) of Theorem 1.7. Now we are ready to complete

part (ii) of Theorem 1.7. We first need a lemma from [28]. Let G = (I, O; E) be a bipartite graph

such that |I| = n, |O| = m, and that deg(i) = a, ∀i ∈ I, deg(o) = b, ∀o ∈ O. Let M be an n × m

01-matrix whose rows are indexed by I and whose columns are indexed by O such that mio = 1 if

io ∈ E and mio = 0 otherwise. Let B = M M T , then clearly B is real, symmetric, and non-negative

definite. As usual, we let θ1 ≥ θ2 ≥ · · · ≥ θn be the eigenvalues of B and u1 , u2 , . . . , un be a set of

P orthonormal eigenvectors. Notice that (B)ij is the number of common neighbors of i and

corresponding

√

j, hence j (B)ij = ab, ∀i. (Each neighbor of i is counted b times in the sum.) This implies 1/ n

is an eigenvector of B with corresponding eigenvalue ab. Suppose θ is any eigenvalue of B and e is a

θ-eigenvector. Let ei be a coordinate of e with highest absolute value, then (Be)i = θei implies

X X

θ|ei | = | (B)ij ej | ≤ |ei | (B)ij = ab|ei |

j j

√

Consequently, ab is also the largest eigenvalue of B, i.e. θ1 = ab. We may thus assume that u1 = 1/ n.

Lemma 1.10. If θ1 > θ2 , then G is an (n, m/n, a, α, c(α))-bounded strong concentrator, where

a2

c(α) ≥

α(ab − θ2 ) + θ2

Proof. Let β be a positive real number not exceeding α. For any X ⊆ I with |X| = βn, let x ∈ {0, 1}n

be X’s characteristic vector. Clearly xxT = kxk2 = βn. Similarly, let Y = Γ(X) and y be its

characteristic vector. As for any o ∈ O, (xM )o is the number of vertices in X adjacent to o, the sum of

entries in xM is exactly βna. Hence,

2

β 2 n2 a2

P

o∈O (xM )o

X

2 2

kxM k = (xM )o ≥ |Y | = (3)

|Y | |Y |

o∈O

6

Now, write x = γ1 u1 + γ2 u2 + · · · + γn un we get

xB = γ1 θ1 u1 + γ2 θ2 u2 + · · · + γn θn un .

Thus, by orthonormality we have

kxM k2 = (xB)xT = θ1 γ12 + θ2 γ22 + · · · + θn γn2 (4)

Now,

√

P

xi

γ1 = xuT1 = √i = β n

n

Hence, (4) gives

n

X

2

kxM k = θ1 γ12 + θj γj2

j=2

2

= β 2 n(ab − θ2 ) + θ2 βn (5)

Lastly, combining (3) and (5) yield

|Γ(X)| |Y | a2

= ≥

|X| βn β(ab − θ2 ) + θ2

As this inequality is true for all β ≤ α, the proof is completed.

Part (ii) of Theorem 1.7 could now be derived as a corollary of this lemma.

Corollary 1.11. If G = (I, O; E) is a d-regular bipartite graph with |I| = |O| = n and µ = µ(G), then

(i) G is an (n, d, c)-strong expander, where

2dµ − µ2

c=

d2

(ii) G is an (n, d, c)-expander, where

2dµ − µ2

c=

d2 − dµ + µ2 /2

Proof. Let M and B be the matrices for G as in Lemma 1.10, and let A be G’s adjacency matrix. Also

let θ1 ≥ · · · ≥ θn be the eigenvalues of B and λ1 ≥ · · · ≥ λ2n be the eigenvalues of A as usual. Since

(B)ij = (M M T )ij counts the number of common neighbors of i and j, while (A2 )ij counts the number

of length-2 paths from i to j, it is obvious that

B 0

= A2

0 B

It is standard that as G is bipartite, whenever λ is an eigenvalue of A, then so is −λ. Moreover, λ1 = d

and λ2 = d − µ since G is d-regular. Thus, θ1 = d2 and θ2 = (d − µ)2 . Now, for any X ⊆ I with

α = |X|/n, applying Lemma 1.10 gives

d2

|Γ(X)| ≥ |X|

α d2 − (d − µ)2 + (d − µ)2

(2dµ − µ2 )(1 − α)

= 1+ 2 |X|

d − (2dµ − µ2 )(1 − α)

(2dµ − µ2 )

|X|

≥ 1+ 2

1− |X|

d n

7

When |X| ≤ n/2, we get

(2dµ − µ2 )

|X|

|Γ(X)| ≥ 1+ 2 1− |X|

d − dµ + µ2 /2 n

As we have seen, the expanding rate of a graph increases as its second smallest Laplacian eigenvalue

increases. Thus, it makes sense to study how large µn−1 can be. Through out this section, we shall

consider only d-regular graphs and let µ = µ(G) = µn−1 (G) = d − λ2 (G). Alon and Boppana

(mentioned in [4]) proved that for any fixed d and for any infinite family of graphs G with maximum

degree d, √

lim sup µ(G) ≤ d − 2 d − 1

The bound is sharp when d−1 is a prime congruent to 1 modulo 4, as shown by the explicit constructions

of Lubotzky, Phillips and Sarnak [20], and independently by Margulis [22]. Alon [4] conjectured the

following

√

Conjecture 1.12 (Alon [4]). As n → ∞, the probability that µ(G) ≤ d − 2 d − 1 − o(1) goes to 1.

√

In other words, as n gets large, with very high probability we have µ(G) ≤ d − 2 d − 1. The

conjecture is still open as far as we know. Friedman, Kahn and Szemeédi (1989, [13]) showed that

√

µ(G) ≥ d − 2 d − 1 − log d − o(1)

as n → ∞. Nilli (1991, [26]) got an upper bound that does not have any hidden constant:

Theorem 1.13 (Nilli, 1991 [26]). Let G be a graph in which there are two edges with distance at least

2k + 2, and let d be the maximum degree of G. Then,

√

√ 2 d−1−1

µ(G) ≤ d − 2 d − 1 +

k+1

Proof. Let (u1 , u2 ) and (w1 , w2 ) be two edges with distance at least 2k + 2. Let L be the Laplacian

matrix of G as usual. Let U0 = {u1 , u2 } and W0 = {w1 , w2 }. For 1 ≤ i ≤ k, let Ui (resp. Wi ) be

the set of vertices of distance i from U0 (resp. W0 ). Clearly U := ∪0≤i≤k Ui has distance at least 2

from W := ∪0≤i≤k Wi , so that there is no edge joining the two unions. Moreover, it is easy to see that

|Ui | ≤ (d − 1)|Ui−1 | and |Wi | ≤ (d − 1)|Wi−1 |.

Let f : V (G) → R be defined as

−i/2

a(d − 1)

for v ∈ Ui , 0 ≤ i ≤ k

f (v) = b(d − 1) −i/2 for v ∈ Wi , 0 ≤ i ≤ k

0 otherwise.

P

where a > 0, b < 0 are real numbers such that v f (v) = 0. The variational characterization yields

hLf, f i

µ(G) = µn−1 ≤

hf, f i

8

We also have

X X

hf, f i = f 2 (u) + f 2 (w)

u∈U w∈W

k k

X a2 X b2

= |Ui | + |Wi |

(d − 1)i (d − 1)i

i=0 i=0

= A1 + B1

where A1 and B1 are the first and second sum, respectively. Moreover, as we have mentioned: (a) there

are no edges joining U and W ; (b) there are no edges connecting Ui or Wi to V (G)−U ∪W if i ≤ k −1;

and (c) there are at most d − 1 edges joining a vertex of Ui (Wi ) to a vertex of Ui+1 (Wi+1 ), we have

X

hLf, f i = (f (u) − f (v))2

u∼v

X X

= (f (u) − f (v))2 + (f (u) − f (v))2

u∼v u∼v

{u,v}∩U 6=∅ {u,v}∩W 6=∅

k−1

X X k−1

X X

= (f (u) − f (v))2 + (f (u) − f (v))2

i=0 u∼v i=0 u∼v

u∈Ui ,v∈Ui+1 u∈Wi ,v∈Wi+1

X X

+ (f (u))2 + (f (u))2

u∼v u∼v

u∈Uk ,v∈V −U ∪W u∈Wk ,v∈V −U ∪W

k−1 2 !

2

X 1 1 d−1

≤ a |Ui |(d − 1) − + |Uk | +

(d − 1)i/2 (d − 1)(i+1)/2 (d − 1)k

i=0

k−1 2 !

X 1 1 d−1

b2 |Wi |(d − 1) − + |Wk |

(d − 1)i/2 (d − 1)(i+1)/2 (d − 1)k

i=0

k

!

X |Ui | √ √ |Uk |

= a2 (d − 2 d − 1) + (2 d − 1 − 1) +

(d − 1)i (d − 1)k

i=0

k

!

X |Wi | √ √ |Wk |

b2 (d − 2 d − 1) + (2 d − 1 − 1)

(d − 1)i (d − 1)k

i=0

= A2 + B2

with A2 and B2 defined in the obvious way. To this end, we are left to show that

√

A2 + B2 √ 2 d−1−1

≤d−2 d−1+ =: C

A1 + B1 k+1

|Ui | |Ui+1 |

We shall show that A2 /A1 ≤ C and B2 /B1 ≤ C instead. Notice that (d−1)i

≥ (d−1)i+1

, clearly

k

X a2 |Uk |

A1 = |Ui | i

≥ a2 (k + 1)

(d − 1) (d − 1)k

i=0

hence, √

A2 √ 2 2 d − 1 − 1 |Wk |

=d−2 d−1+a ≤C

A1 A1 (d − 1)k

B2 /B1 ≤ C is proved similarly.

9

Corollary 1.14. Let G, d and k be defined as in the previous theorem, If G is d regular, then

√

1 1

λ2 (G) ≥ 2 d − 1 1 − +

k+1 k+1

Many practical applications require explicit constructions of expander graphs. Explicit constructions

turn out to be a lot more difficult than showing existence. In 1973, Margulis [21] gave the first explicit

construction of (strong) expanders. He explicitly constructed a family of bipartite graphs {Ĝn } for

n = m2 , m = 1, 2, . . . , and show that there is a constant k > 0 such that for each n = m2 , m ∈ N,

Ĝn is an (n, 5, k)-strong expander. This construction was certainly undesirable as the constant k was

not known. Moreover, his proof used deep results from Representation Theory. Angluin (1979, [8])

pointed out that Margulis’ method could be used to construct (n, 3, k 0 )-strong expanders but the constant

k 0 is also not known. Gabber and Galil (1981, [14]) slightly modified Margulis’ construction√ and used

relatively elementary Taylor analysis to show how to construct a family of (m 2 , 5, (2 − 3)/4)-strong

√

expanders for each m ∈ N. They also constructed a family of (m2 , 7, (2 − 3)/2)-strong expanders.

Let us mention here their first construction. For each m ∈ N, construct an m2 × m2 bipartite graph

Ḡm2 = (Im , Om ; E) where Im = Om = Zm × Zm and each vertex (i, j) ∈ Im is connected to 5

vertices in Om defined by the following permutations:

σ1 (i, j) = (i, j)

σ2 (i, j) = (i, i + j)

σ3 (i, j) = (i, i + j + 1)

σ4 (i, j) = (i + j, j)

σ5 (i, j) = (i + j + 1, j)

Here, the additions are done modulo m. As we have mentioned, there is no known elementary proof

that this family are expanders with the prescribed expansion rate. This construction was later modified

slightly by Jimbo and Maruoka (1987, [17]) and Alon, Galil and Milman (1987, [5]) to obtain better

superconcentrators.

As we have discussed in the introduction, after the eigenvalue characterization of expansion rate, the

main problem was to construct Ramanujan graphs, which are optimal expanders in the eigenvalue sense.

The special case where d − 1 is a prime congruent to 1 modulo 4 was “solved” by Lubotzky, Phillips, and

Sarnak (1988, [20]), and independently by Margulis (1988, [22]). Later, in 1994 Morgenstern [23, 24]

constructed for every prime power q many families of (q + 1)-regular Ramanujan graphs. All these

constructions were Cayley graphs of certain groups.

Other works and information on expanders could be found in [1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19, 27].

References

[1] M. A JTAI, Recursive construction for 3-regular expanders, Combinatorica, 14 (1994), pp. 379–416.

[2] M. A JTAI , J. KOML ÓS , AND E. S ZEMER ÉDI, Generating expanders from two permutations, in A tribute to Paul Erdős,

Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 1–12.

[3] N. A LON, Eigenvalues and expanders, Combinatorica, 6 (1986), pp. 83–96. Theory of computing (Singer Island, Fla.,

1984).

[4] , Eigenvalues, geometric expanders, sorting in rounds, and Ramsey theory, Combinatorica, 6 (1986), pp. 207–219.

[5] N. A LON , Z. G ALIL , AND V. D. M ILMAN, Better expanders and superconcentrators, J. Algorithms, 8 (1987), pp. 337–

347.

10

[6] N. A LON AND V. D. M ILMAN, λ1 , isoperimetric inequalities for graphs, and superconcentrators, J. Combin. Theory

Ser. B, 38 (1985), pp. 73–88.

[7] N. A LON AND Y. ROICHMAN, Random Cayley graphs and expanders, Random Structures Algorithms, 5 (1994), pp. 271–

284.

[8] D. A NGLUIN, A note on a construction of Margulis, Inform. Process. Lett., 8 (1979), pp. 17–19.

[9] F. B IEN, Constructions of telephone networks by group representations, Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 36 (1989), pp. 5–22.

[10] N. B IGGS, Algebraic graph theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second ed., 1993.

[11] F. R. K. C HUNG, Spectral graph theory, Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington,

DC, 1997.

[12] D. M. C VETKOVI Ć , M. D OOB , AND H. S ACHS, Spectra of graphs, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Heidelberg, third ed.,

1995. Theory and applications.

[13] J. F RIEDMAN , J. K AHN , AND E. S ZEMER ÉDI, On the second eigenvalue in random regular graphs, in Proceedings of

the 21st ACM STOC, 1989, pp. 587–598.

[14] O. G ABBER AND Z. G ALIL, Explicit constructions of linear size superconcentrators, in 20th Annual Symposium on

Foundations of Computer Science (San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1979), IEEE, New York, 1979, pp. 364–370.

[15] C. D. G ODSIL, Algebraic combinatorics, Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993.

[16] R. A. H ORN AND C. R. J OHNSON, Matrix analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

[17] S. J IMBO AND A. M ARUOKA, Expanders obtained from affine transformations, Combinatorica, 7 (1987), pp. 343–355.

[18] N. K AHALE, Eigenvalues and expansion of regular graphs, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 42 (1995), pp. 1091–1106.

[19] A. L UBOTZKY, Cayley graphs: eigenvalues, expanders and random walks, in Surveys in combinatorics, 1995 (Stirling),

Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 155–189.

[20] A. L UBOTZKY, R. P HILLIPS , AND P. S ARNAK, Ramanujan graphs, Combinatorica, 8 (1988), pp. 261–277.

[21] G. A. M ARGULIS, Explicit constructions of expanders, Problemy Peredači Informacii, 9 (1973), pp. 71–80.

[22] , Explicit group-theoretic constructions of combinatorial schemes and their applications in the construction of

expanders and concentrators, Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 24 (1988), pp. 51–60.

[23] M. M ORGENSTERN, Existence and explicit constructions of q + 1 regular Ramanujan graphs for every prime power q,

J. Combin. Theory Ser. B, 62 (1994), pp. 44–62.

[25] H. Q. N GO AND D.-Z. D U, Notes on the complexity of switching networks, in Advances in Switching Networks, D.-Z.

Du and H. Q. Ngo, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001, pp. 307–367.

[26] A. N ILLI, On the second eigenvalue of a graph, Discrete Math., 91 (1991), pp. 207–210.

[27] Y. ROICHMAN, Expansion properties of Cayley graphs of the alternating groups, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 79 (1997),

pp. 281–297.

[28] R. M. TANNER, Explicit concentrators from generalized N -gons, SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods, 5 (1984),

pp. 287–293.

11

- Solution of Linear System Theory and Design 3ed for Chi-Tsong ChenUploaded byadambose1990
- Further Pure 4 Notes : Robbie PeckUploaded byrobbiepeck
- Essentials of Robust ControlUploaded by王鸿博
- Quantnet QuestionsUploaded byKhang Tran
- F1DB5d01Uploaded byRauf Khan Rind
- ddagarc.pdfUploaded byArvind Adimoolam
- Spectral ClusteringUploaded bybini_belai
- 10.1.1.25.5953Uploaded bySimanta De
- MAT423_2013_01Uploaded byHaire Kahfi Maa Takaful
- 08_AppendixAUploaded bySurya Aji Saputra
- Fried GutUploaded byjohnoftheroad
- mathgen-461805242Uploaded bySam
- SmlUploaded byEka Maul
- Da2 ScribdUploaded byNinad Mirajgaonkar
- ICDM07_Papadimitriou_Spiros.pdfUploaded byaukie999
- Louis H. Kauffman- Take Home Exam - Math 310 - Linear Algebra - Spring 2008Uploaded byKluff5878
- Method of Finite Elements IUploaded byaunghtoo1
- gjmuc-v5q55Uploaded byMohsin Muhammad
- Factor AnalysisUploaded byRajendra Kumar
- 02 Handout Linear AlgebraUploaded byhisuin
- Appendix AUploaded byBrandon Ramdhan
- IMSLUploaded byNoel
- Data MuridUploaded byGunadi Surya Permana
- Jurnal Tugas JstUploaded byAmsal Maestro
- MulticolinearidadeUploaded byigorkuivjogi
- Block-4 MEC-003 Unit-9.pdfUploaded byAbhishek Patra
- An Adaptive Analysis of Different Methodology for Face Recognition AlgorithmUploaded byAnonymous lPvvgiQjR
- rap_enUploaded byWilliam Javier
- differentialEquationsProblemsAndSolutions.pdfUploaded byAnonymous K48Tgvi
- SomeLinearAlgebra.pdfUploaded bymemfilmat

- 64 Interview QuestionsUploaded byshivakumar N
- lecture 10 introduction to algebraic graph theoryUploaded bykientrungle2001
- lecture 6 alterationsUploaded bykientrungle2001
- lecture 5 linearity of expectationUploaded bykientrungle2001
- lecture 4 inequalities and asymptotic estimatesUploaded bykientrungle2001
- lecture 3 the probabilistic method - basic ideasUploaded bykientrungle2001
- Uploaded bykientrungle2001

- Fundamentals of Mathematics (PDF)Uploaded byalphamalie
- alg_notes_5_15Uploaded bydanielofhouselam
- Ex 1 1 FSC Part2Uploaded bySaher Bano
- SAT SUBJECT MATH IICUploaded byKking Chung
- metode annum BAB 9Uploaded byIcshan Pratowo
- 13 07 Stokes ThmUploaded byHermes Yesser Pantoja Carhuavilca
- 4037_w11_qp_23Uploaded bymstudy123456
- 03 - Higher Order DerivativesUploaded byMarkrobert Magsino
- Exploring Molecular Dynamics With Forces From N-body Potential Using MathlabUploaded byrafika
- Modular Invariant Representations of Infinite-Dimensional Lie Algebras and SuperalgebrasUploaded byapi-26401608
- Calculus- II- Paul DawkinsUploaded bysumeet1417
- (Applied Mathematics_ Body and Soul) Kenneth Eriksson, Donald Estep, Claes Johnson-Applied Mathematics Body and Soul, Volume 1_ Derivatives and Geometry in R3-Springer (2003)Uploaded bylig
- c 3 PolynomialsUploaded byShe Quintos
- Antonela Ism Ch08Uploaded byDVS2mona
- LogarithmsUploaded byembi76
- algebra 2 syllabus 2016-2017Uploaded byapi-281499569
- On the Exponential Diophantine EquationUploaded byIRJET Journal
- SymmetryUploaded byDeepa Kapadia
- 9709_s04_qp_3Uploaded byAnonymous F8kQ7L4
- John Bay-Fundamentals of Linear State Space Systems-McGraw-Hill _1998Uploaded byRoohullah khan
- Roberto De Pietri and Carlo Rovelli- Geometry eigenvalues and the scalar product from recoupling theory in loop quantum gravityUploaded byLopmaz
- Vectors Notes & ExerciseUploaded byTreeicicles
- 2013precalc a Bk2Uploaded byHorizonAcademy
- sc gr4 math pacing 2017 18Uploaded byapi-355611485
- MATH2412-double angle, power reducing, half angle identities.pdfUploaded byWaleed kash
- Solving Equations With e and LnxUploaded byRoi Danton
- Computer Oriented Numerical Analysis V1Uploaded bysolvedcare
- Unit 1Uploaded bycooooool1927
- 4037_s16_qp_22Uploaded byKriti Sanon
- SPM ADDMATH 2007 ANSWERUploaded bymaieqa87