Bounding the HL-index of a graph: a majorization approach
- Gian Paolo Clemente^{1}Email author and
- Alessandra Cornaro^{1}View ORCID ID profile
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-016-1234-6
© Clemente and Cornaro 2016
Received: 13 July 2016
Accepted: 8 November 2016
Published: 17 November 2016
Abstract
In mathematical chemistry, the median eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of a molecular graph are strictly related to orbital energies and molecular orbitals. In this regard, the difference between the occupied orbital of highest energy (HOMO) and the unoccupied orbital of lowest energy (LUMO) has been investigated (see Fowler and Pisansky in Acta Chim. Slov. 57:513-517, 2010). Motivated by the HOMO-LUMO separation problem, Jaklič et al. in (Ars Math. Contemp. 5:99-115, 2012) proposed the notion of HL-index that measures how large in absolute value are the median eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix. Several bounds for this index have been provided in the literature. The aim of the paper is to derive alternative inequalities to bound the HL-index. By applying majorization techniques and making use of some known relations, we derive new and sharper upper bounds for this index. Analytical and numerical results show the performance of these bounds on different classes of graphs.
Keywords
1 Introduction
The Hückel molecular orbital method (HMO) (see [3]) is a methodology for the determination of energies of molecular orbitals of π-electrons. It has been shown that π-electron energy levels are strictly related to graph eigenvalues. For this reason, graph spectral theory became a standard mathematical tool of HMO theory (see [4–6] and [7]). Among the various π-electron properties that can be directly expressed by means of graph eigenvalues, one of the most significant is the so-called HOMO-LUMO separation, based on the gap between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO). For more details as regards the HOMO-LUMO separation issue we refer the reader to [8–10] and [11].
In some recent works, Fowler and Pisanski ([1] and [12]) introduced an index of a graph that is related to the HOMO-LUMO separation. By analogy with the spectral radius, these authors proposed the notion of the HOMO-LUMO radius which measures how large in absolute value may be the median eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of a graph. At the same time, an analogous definition is given in [2] that introduces the HL-index of a graph. Several bounds for this index have been proposed for some classes of graphs in [1] and [13]. Recently in [14] the authors provided some inequalities on the HL-index through the energy index.
The contribution of this paper is along those lines: we derive, through a methodology based on majorization techniques (see [15–17] and [18]), new bounds on the median eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix. Consequently, given the relation between the normalized Laplacian matrix and the adjacency matrix eigenvalues, we provide some new bounds for the HL-index. In particular, we employ a theoretical methodology proposed by Bianchi and Torriero in [19] based on nonlinear global optimization problems solved through majorization techniques. These bounds can also be quantified by using the numerical approaches developed in [20] and [21] and extended for the normalized Laplacian matrix in [22] and in [23].
Furthermore, another approach to derive new bounds makes use of the relation between HL-index and energy index. In particular, we take advantage of an existing bound on the energy index (see [24]) depending on additional information on the first eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix. This additional information is obtained here by using majorization techniques in order to provide new inequalities for the HL-index of bipartite and non-bipartite graphs.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 some notations and preliminaries are given. Section 3 concerns the identification of new bounds for the HL-index. In particular, in Section 3.1, by the fact that the eigenvalues of normalized Laplacian matrix and adjacency matrix are related, we localize the eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix via majorization techniques. In Section 3.2 we find a tighter alternative upper bound for the HL-index by using the relation with energy index provided in [14] and an existing bound on energy index proposed in [24]. Section 4 shows how the bound determined in Section 3.2 improves those presented in the literature.
2 Notations and preliminaries
In this section we first recall some basic notions on graph theory (for more details refer to [25]) and on the HL-index. Considering a simple, connected and undirected graph \(G=(V,E)\) where \(V=\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}\) is the set of vertices and \(E\subseteq V\times V\) the set of edges, \({|E|=m}\). The degree sequence of G is denoted by \(\pi=(d_{1},d_{2},\ldots,d_{n})\) and it is arranged in non-increasing order \(d_{1}\geq d_{2}\geq \cdots \geq d_{n}\), where \(d_{i}\) is the degree of vertex i.
We now recall the following results regarding nonlinear global optimization problems solved through majorization techniques. We refer the reader to [19] for more details as regards majorization techniques and for the proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorems 1 and 2 recalled in the following.
Lemma 1
Theorem 1
- 1.for \(h>h^{*}\), \(\alpha^{*}\) is the unique root of the equationin \(I=(0,\frac{a}{h} ]\);$$ f(\alpha ,p)=(h-1)\alpha^{p}+(a-h\alpha +\alpha)^{p}-b=0 $$(7)
- 2.for \(h\leq h^{*}\), \(\alpha^{*}\) is the unique root of the equationin \(I=( \frac{a}{N},\frac{a}{h} ]\).$$ f(\alpha,p)=h\alpha^{p}+\frac{(a-h\alpha)^{p}}{(N-h)^{p-1}}-b=0 $$(8)
Theorem 2
- 1.for \(h=1\), \(\alpha^{*}\) is the unique root of the equationin \(I= ( \frac{a}{h^{\ast }+1},\frac{a}{h^{\ast }} ]\);$$ f(\alpha,p) = h^{\ast }\alpha^{p}+ \bigl(a-h^{\ast }\alpha \bigr)^{p}- b= 0 $$(9)
- 2.for \(1 < h \leq (h^{*}+1)\), \(\alpha^{*}\) is the unique root of the equationin \(I=(0,\frac{a}{N}]\);$$ f(\alpha,p) = (N-h+1)\alpha^{p}+ \frac{(a-(N-h+1)\alpha )^{p} }{(h-1)^{p-1}} - b=0 $$(10)
- 3.
for \(h >(h^{*}+1)\), \(\alpha^{*}\) is zero.
3 Some new bounds for the HL-index via majorization techniques
3.1 Bounds on median eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix
Proposition 1
Proof
By applying majorization, we are able to bound the median eigenvalues \(\gamma_{i}\) (with \(i=\frac{n}{2},\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{n+2}{2}\)) considered in (14).
- 1.Considering \(\gamma_{\frac{n}{2}}\) for n even, by (16) we have \(h < h^{\ast}\). Hence, by solving equation (8) of Theorem 1, we can derive the unit root \(\alpha_{1}\) such as \(\gamma_{\frac{n}{2}}\leq \alpha_{1}\). ThereforeIn virtue of (15), we have \(\frac{n}{n-1} \leq \alpha_{1} < 2\) with the left inequality attained only for the complete graph \(G=K_{n}\).$$ \alpha_{1}=\frac{1}{n-1} \biggl(n+\sqrt{\frac{n-2}{n} \bigl(b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2} \bigr)} \biggr). $$In a similar way, we can evaluate the value \(\beta_{1} \leq \gamma_{\frac{n}{2}} \), through the solution of equation (10) of Theorem 2 (where \(h< h^{\ast}+1\)), whereFrom (15), we have \(\frac{2}{n-1} < \beta_{1} \leq \frac{n}{n-1}\) with the right inequality attained only for the complete graph \(G=K_{n}\).$$ \beta_{1}=\frac{1}{n-1} \biggl(n-\sqrt{\frac{n-2}{n} \bigl(b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2} \bigr)} \biggr). $$
Having \(\beta_{1} \leq \gamma_{\frac{n}{2}} \leq \alpha_{1}\), then \(\vert 1-\gamma_{\frac{n}{2}}\vert \leq \max(|1-\alpha_{1}|, |1-\beta_{1}|)\).
- 2.Picking now \(\gamma_{\frac{n+2}{2}}\), where \(h \leq h^{\ast}\) by equation (8) of Theorem 1 we deduce$$ \alpha_{2}=\frac{1}{n-1} \biggl(n+\sqrt{\frac{(n-4)}{(n+2)} \bigl(b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2}\bigr)} \biggr). $$Taking into account the lower bound of \(\beta_{2} \leq \gamma_{\frac{n+2}{2}}\), by (16) and for n even, we have \(h < h^{\ast}+1\) and then$$ \beta_{2}=\frac{n}{n-1} \biggl(1-\sqrt{\frac{b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2}}{n(n-2)}} \biggr). $$
In this case, we derive \(\vert 1-\gamma_{\frac{n+2}{2}}\vert \leq \max(|1-\alpha_{2}|, |1-\beta_{2}|)\).
- 3.For a graph with n odd number of vertices, we need to study only \(\gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}}\) with \(\beta_{3} \leq \gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}} \leq \alpha_{3}\), and we have by Theorem 1 and Theorem 2, respectively:and$$ \alpha_{3}= \frac{1}{n-1} \biggl(n+\sqrt{\frac{(n-3)}{(n+1)} \bigl(b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2}\bigr)} \biggr) $$where \(h < h^{\ast}+1\).$$ \beta_{3}=\frac{1}{n-1} \bigl(n-\sqrt{b_{1}(n-1)-n^{2}} \bigr), $$
Hence, \(\vert 1-\gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}}\vert \leq \max(|1-\alpha_{3}|, |1-\beta_{3}|)\).
By using the bounds on the eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian matrix computed above, bounds (12) and (13) follow. □
Proposition 2
Proof
By applying majorization techniques, we are able to bound \(\gamma_{\frac{n}{2}}\) considered in (19).
- 1.
- 2.In a similar way, we can evaluate the value \(\beta^{\mathrm{bip}}_{1} \leq \gamma_{\frac{n}{2}} \), where \(h < h^{\ast}+1\). Applying Theorem 2 entails$$ \beta^{\mathrm{bip}}_{1}=1-\sqrt{\frac{b_{2}}{n-2}-1}. $$
3.2 Bounds on \(R(G)\) through the energy index
Proposition 3
- 1.For a simple, connected and non-bipartite graph G$$ R(G)\leq \frac{k}{n} + \frac{1}{n}\sqrt{(n-1) \bigl(2m-k^{2} \bigr)}. $$(22)
- 2.For a simple, connected and bipartite graph Gwhere, by means of Theorem 2,$$ R(G)\leq \frac{2k}{n} + \frac{1}{n}\sqrt{(n-2) \bigl(2m-2k^{2} \bigr)}, $$(23)$$k=\frac{1}{1+h^{\ast}} \biggl(n+\sqrt{\frac{2m(1+h^{\ast})-n^{2}}{h^{\ast}}} \biggr),\quad h^{\ast}= \biggl\lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{2m} \biggr\rfloor .$$
Proof of Proposition 3
- 1.
Non-bipartite graphs
We start by proving that the condition \((2m-k^{2})\geq0\) required in bound (22) is always satisfied for simple and connected graphs.
We have \(k \in ( \frac{2m}{n},\frac{1}{2} (n+\sqrt{4m-n^{2}} ) )\). Indeed, by the basic concepts of calculus it is easy to see that k increases when m increases and then \(h^{\ast}\) tends to 1. Hence, k is limited from above by \(\frac{1}{2} (n+\sqrt{4m-n^{2}} )\) and where \(\frac{1}{2} (n+\sqrt{4m-n^{2}} )\leq \sqrt{2m}\) the required condition is satisfied.
We now show how bound (22) improves bound (3) presented in [14].
We need to prove that the following inequality holds:By simple algebraic rules we obtain$$ \biggl( k-\frac{2m}{n} \biggr)\leq \biggl( \sqrt{ ( n-1 ) \biggl( 2m- \frac{4m^{2}}{n^{2}} \biggr) }-\sqrt{ ( n-1 ) \bigl( 2m-k^{2} \bigr) } \biggr). $$$$\begin{aligned} &k^{2}n-4k\frac{m}{n}-4mn+4m+4 \frac{m^{2}}{n} \\ &\quad\leq-2\sqrt{ \bigl( 2mn-2m+k^{2}-k^{2}n \bigr) \biggl( 2mn-2m-4 \frac{m^{2}}{n}+4\frac{m^{2}}{n^{2} } \biggr) }. \end{aligned}$$(24)The left-hand side term of (24) can be represented byThe function \(f(k)\) is a convex parabola that assumes negative values in the range of k we are interested in. Indeed we have \(f(\frac{2m}{n}) \leq 0\) and \(f(\sqrt{2m}) \leq 0\).$$ f(k)=k^{2}n-4k\frac{m}{n}-4mn+4m+4\frac{m^{2}}{n}. $$Both sides of (24) being negative we can apply some basic concepts of algebra, getting$$ k^{2}n^{2}+k ( 4mn-8m ) +8m-8mn+4m^{2}\geq 0 . $$(25)The function \(t(k)=k^{2}n^{2}+k ( 4mn-8m ) +8m-8mn+4m^{2}\) is again a convex parabola with vertex \(( \frac{2m ( 2-n ) }{n^{2}},\frac{8m ( 2m-n^{2} ) ( n-1 )}{n^{2}} ) \). Both coordinates are less than zero (then \(\frac{2m (2-n ) }{n^{2}} < \frac{2m}{n}\)). Having \(t(\frac{2m}{n})=8m(n-2m)(1-n)\geq 0\), inequality (25) is satisfied.
Therefore, bound (22) performs better than or equal to bound (3).
Furthermore, we see that both bounds perform equally when \(h^{\ast}= \frac{n^{2}}{2m}\) (i.e. \(\frac{n^{2}}{2m}\) is an integer). It is noteworthy that:- (a)
when n is odd, \(\frac{n^{2}}{2m}\) is never an integer (\(\lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{2m} \rfloor \neq \frac{n^{2}}{2m}\));
- (b)
when n is even, \(\frac{n^{2}}{2m}\) is an integer when \(m=\frac{n^{2}}{2x}\) with \(x|\frac{n^{2}}{2}\), \(2 \leq x \leq \frac{n}{2}\) (where \(x|\frac{n^{2}}{2}\) is shorthand for ‘x divides \(\frac{n^{2}}{2}\)’). In this case \(k=\frac{2m}{n}\) and we derive bound (3).
- (a)
- 2.
Bipartite graphs
As for non-bipartite graphs, we start by proving that the condition \((m-k^{2})\geq0\) required in bound (23) is always satisfied for simple and connected graphs. In this case \(h^{\ast}\) tends to 2 for complete graphs (where \(m \leq \frac{n^{2}}{4}\)).
By some basic algebraic concepts, we see that \((m-k^{2})\geq0\) entails:The function \(f(m)=m^{2}(h^{4}+2h^{3}-3h^{2}-4h+4)+m(2n^{2}h-4n^{2}-2n^{2}h^{2})+n^{4}\) is concave, decreasing, and non-negative on the interval \(m \in (\frac{n}{2},\frac{n^{2}}{4} )\). Therefore, the required condition is satisfied.$$m^{2}\bigl(h^{4}+2h^{3}-3h^{2}-4h+4\bigr)+m\bigl(2n^{2}h-4n^{2}-2n^{2}h^{2}\bigr)+n^{4} \geq 0. $$We now show how bound (23) improves bound (4) presented in [14].
We need to prove that the following inequality holds:$$ 2 \biggl( k-\frac{2m}{n} \biggr)\leq \biggl( \sqrt{ ( n-2 ) \biggl( 2m- \frac{8m^{2}}{n^{2}} \biggr) }-\sqrt{ ( n-2 ) \bigl( 2m-2k^{2} \bigr) } \biggr). $$By simple algebra, we have$$\begin{aligned} &4mn-8km+4m^{2}-2mn^{2}+k^{2}n^{2} \\ &\quad\leq-n\sqrt{ \bigl(2mn-4m+4k^{2}-2k^{2}n \bigr) \biggl(2mn-4m-8 \frac{m^{2}}{n}+16\frac{m^{2}}{n^{2}} \biggr)}. \end{aligned}$$(26)The left-hand side term of (26) can be represented byThe function \(f(k)\) is a convex parabola that assumes negative values in the range of k we are interested in. Indeed we have \(f(\frac{2m}{n}) \leq 0\) and \(f(\sqrt{m}) \leq 0\).$$ f(k)=k^{2}n^{2}-8km+4mn+4m^{2}-2mn^{2}. $$Both sides of (26) being negative, by some manipulations we obtain$$ k^{2}n^{2}+4km(n-4)+4m^{2}+16m-8mn\geq 0 . $$(27)The function \(t(k)=k^{2}n^{2}+4km(n-4)+4m^{2}+16m-8mn\) is again a convex parabola with vertex \(( \frac{2m (4-n ) }{n^{2}},\frac{8m(4m-n^{2})(n-2)}{n^{2}} )\). Both coordinates are less than zero (then \(\frac{4m ( 4-n ) }{2n^{2}} < \frac{2m}{n}\)). Having \(t(\frac{2m}{n})=\frac{8m}{n}(n+2m(n-2))\geq 0\), inequality (27) is satisfied.
Hence bound (23) performs better than or equal to bound (4).
4 Numerical results
4.1 Non-bipartite graphs
Upper bounds of \(\pmb{R(G)}\) for graphs generated by \(\pmb{G_{\mathrm{ER}}(n,0.5)}\) model
n | m | R ( G ) | Bound ( 22 ) | Bound ( 1 ) | Bound ( 3 ) | Bound ( 5 ) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 7 | 0.46 | 1.29 | 1.33 | 4 | 1.55 | 1.62 |
10 | 26 | 0.68 | 1.99 | 1.80 | 8 | 2.02 | 2.08 |
15 | 52 | 0.33 | 3.12 | 2.28 | 10 | 2.33 | 2.44 |
20 | 106 | 0.69 | 3.98 | 2.27 | 16 | 2.71 | 2.74 |
25 | 153 | 0.32 | 3.66 | 2.92 | 16 | 2.94 | 3.00 |
50 | 600 | 0.42 | 5.10 | 3.92 | 31 | 3.98 | 4.04 |
100 | 2,463 | 0.56 | 7.30 | 5.43 | 66 | 5.47 | 5.50 |
250 | 15,358 | 0.49 | 9.67 | 8.32 | 142 | 8.38 | 8.41 |
500 | 62,304 | 0.47 | 13.52 | 11.65 | 289 | 11.67 | 11.68 |
1,000 | 249,556 | 0.50 | 17.92 | 16.29 | 549 | 16.30 | 16.31 |
Upper bounds of \(\pmb{R(G)}\) for graphs generated by \(\pmb{G_{\mathrm{ER}}(n,0.9)}\) model
n | m | R ( G ) | Bound ( 22 ) | Bound ( 1 ) | Bound ( 3 ) | Bound ( 5 ) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 9 | 1.00 | 1.41 | 1.17 | 4 | 1.62 | 1.62 |
10 | 43 | 1.00 | 1.61 | 1.15 | 9 | 1.90 | 2.08 |
15 | 102 | 1.00 | 1.57 | 1.13 | 14 | 2.00 | 2.44 |
20 | 176 | 1.00 | 2.19 | 1.22 | 19 | 2.30 | 2.74 |
25 | 284 | 1.00 | 2.09 | 1.19 | 24 | 2.32 | 3.00 |
50 | 1,154 | 1.00 | 2.72 | 1.24 | 49 | 2.79 | 4.04 |
100 | 4,669 | 0.94 | 3.39 | 1.31 | 98 | 3.41 | 5.50 |
250 | 29,507 | 0.96 | 4.63 | 1.42 | 246 | 4.57 | 8.41 |
500 | 118,482 | 0.95 | 6.00 | 1.57 | 488 | 5.91 | 11.68 |
1,000 | 474,713 | 0.96 | 7.96 | 1.79 | 967 | 7.88 | 16.31 |
Upper bounds of \(\pmb{R(G)}\) for graphs generated by \(\pmb{G_{\mathrm{ER}}(n,0.1)}\) model
n | m | R ( G ) | Bound ( 22 ) | Bound ( 1 ) | Bound ( 3 ) | Bound ( 5 ) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 4 | 0.00 | 1.26 | 1.25 | 2 | 1.25 | 1.62 |
10 | 11 | 0.33 | 3.09 | 1.46 | 5 | 1.46 | 2.08 |
15 | 17 | 0.00 | 3.51 | 1.49 | 6 | 1.49 | 2.44 |
20 | 25 | 0.12 | 3.07 | 1.57 | 5 | 1.57 | 2.74 |
25 | 40 | 0.00 | 3.18 | 1.76 | 6 | 1.76 | 3.00 |
50 | 112 | 0.04 | 5.07 | 2.09 | 11 | 2.09 | 4.04 |
100 | 501 | 0.09 | 5.23 | 3.08 | 17 | 3.09 | 5.50 |
250 | 3,082 | 0.14 | 7.01 | 4.80 | 36 | 4.80 | 8.41 |
500 | 12,541 | 0.10 | 9.50 | 6.80 | 70 | 6.81 | 11.68 |
1,000 | 49,890 | 0.14 | 12.09 | 9.57 | 126 | 9.57 | 16.31 |
4.2 Bipartite graphs
Upper bounds of \(\pmb{R(G)}\) for bipartite graphs
n | m | R ( G ) | Bound ( 17 ) | Bound ( 23 ) | Bound ( 4 ) | Bound ( 6 ) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | 13 | 0.46 | 1.75 | 1.47 | 1.52 | 1.62 |
10 | 25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.62 |
20 | 45 | 0.10 | 2.97 | 1.90 | 1.94 | 2.08 |
20 | 91 | 0.00 | 1.04 | 1.16 | 1.77 | 2.08 |
50 | 315 | 0.06 | 3.82 | 2.86 | 2.95 | 3.00 |
50 | 560 | 0.00 | 1.74 | 1.34 | 2.39 | 3.00 |
100 | 1,248 | 0.03 | 4.72 | 4.00 | 4.01 | 4.04 |
100 | 2,254 | 0.03 | 2.36 | 1.48 | 2.99 | 4.04 |
250 | 7,839 | 0.02 | 7.52 | 5.91 | 6.07 | 6.09 |
250 | 14,083 | 0.03 | 3.60 | 1.79 | 4.22 | 6.09 |
500 | 31,321 | 0.04 | 9.29 | 8.20 | 8.39 | 8.41 |
500 | 56,231 | 0.01 | 5.01 | 2.16 | 5.64 | 8.41 |
1,000 | 124,887 | 0.02 | 12.68 | 11.66 | 11.67 | 11.68 |
1,000 | 225,145 | 0.01 | 7.02 | 2.65 | 7.58 | 11.68 |
5 Conclusions
In this paper alternative upper bounds on the HL-index are provided by means of majorization techniques. On one hand, we find new bounds for both non-bipartite and bipartite graphs by exploiting additional information on the median eigenvalues and the interlacing between the eigenvalues of normalized Laplacian and adjacency matrices. On the other hand, new bounds are derived by making use of the relation between the HL-index and the energy index. Analytical and numerical results show the performance of these bounds on different classes of graphs. In particular, the bound related to the energy index performs better with respect to the best-known results in the literature.
For values of \(p > 2\), b (and then \(b_{1}\) and \(b_{2}\) used in the sequel) depends on the graph’s structure and topology. So the procedure can be only numerically applied: we need to compute the eigenvalues of either adjacency or normalized Laplacian matrix, but this information allows one to directly obtain \(R(G)\). In this case, the evaluation of the bounds is useless.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Anna Torriero and Monica Bianchi for useful advice and suggestions.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Fowler, PW, Pisansky, T: HOMO-LUMO maps for chemical graphs. Acta Chim. Slov. 57, 513-517 (2010) Google Scholar
- Jaklič, G, Fowler, WP, Pisanski, T: HL-index of a graph. Ars Math. Contemp. 5, 99-115 (2012) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Coulson, CA, O’Leary, B, Mallion, RB: Hückel Theory for Organic Chemists. Academic Press, London (1978) Google Scholar
- Dias, JR: Molecular Orbital Calculations Using Chemical Graph Theory. Springer, Berlin (1993) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Graovac, A, Gutman, I, Trinajstić, N: Topological Approach to the Chemistry of Conjugated Molecules. Springer, Berlin (1977) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gutman, I, Polansky, OE: Mathematical Concepts in Organic Chemistry. Springer, Berlin (1986) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gutman, I, Trinajstić, N: Graph theory and molecular orbits. Total π-electron energy of alternant hydrocarbons. Chem. Phys. Lett. 17, 535-538 (1972) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Graovac, A, Gutman, I: Estimation of the HOMO-LUMO separation. Croat. Chem. Acta 53, 45-50 (1980) Google Scholar
- Gutman, I: Note on a topological property of the HOMO-LUMO separation. Z. Naturforsch. 35a, 458-460 (1980) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Gutman, I, Knop, JV, Trinajstić, N: A graph-theoretical analysis of the HOMO-LUMO separation in conjugated hydrocarbons. Z. Naturforsch. 29b, 80-82 (1974) Google Scholar
- Kiang, YS, Chen, ET: Evaluation of HOMO-LUMO separation and homologous linearity of conjugated molecules. Pure Appl. Chem. 55, 283-288 (1983) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fowler, PW, Pisansky, T: HOMO-LUMO maps for fullerenes. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 64, 373-390 (2010) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Mohar, B: Median eigenvalues of bipartite planar graphs. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 70, 79-84 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Li, X, Li, Y, Shi, Y, Gutman, I: Note on the HOMO-LUMO index of graphs. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 70, 85-96 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Palacios, JL, Torriero, A: Bounding the sum of powers of normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of graphs through majorization methods. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 70(2), 707-716 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Palacios, JL, Torriero, A: New upper and lower bounds for the additive degree-Kirchhoff index. Croat. Chem. Acta 86(4), 363-370 (2013) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Palacios, JL, Torriero, A: New bounds of degree-based topological indices for some classes of c-cyclic graphs. Discrete Appl. Math. 184, 62-75 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Torriero, A: Majorization under constraints and bounds of the second Zagreb index. Math. Inequal. Appl. 16(2), 329-347 (2013) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Torriero, A: Some localization theorems using a majorization technique. J. Inequal. Appl. 5, 443-446 (2000) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Clemente, GP, Cornaro, A: Computing lower bounds for the Kirchhoff index via majorization techniques. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 73, 175-193 (2015) MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Cornaro, A, Clemente, GP: A new lower bound for the Kirchhoff index using a numerical procedure based on majorization techniques. Electron. Notes Discrete Math. 41, 383-390 (2013) View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Clemente, GP, Cornaro, A: New bounds for the sum of powers of normalized Laplacian eigenvalues of graphs. Ars Math. Contemp. 11(2), 403-413 (2016) Google Scholar
- Clemente, GP, Cornaro, A: Novel bounds for the normalized Laplacian Estrada index and normalized Laplacian energy. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 77(3), 673-690 (2017) Google Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Torriero, A: A majorization method for localizing graph topological indices. Discrete Appl. Math. 161, 2731-2739 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, RJ: Introduction to Graph Theory. Addison Wesley, Harlow (1996) MATHGoogle Scholar
- Mohar, B: Median eigenvalues and the HOMO-LUMO index of graphs. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 112, 78-92 (2015) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gutman, I: The energy of a graph: old and new results. In: Betten, A, Kohnert, A, Laue, R, Wasserman, A (eds.) Algebraic Combinatorics and Applications, pp. 196-211 (2011) Google Scholar
- Marshall, AW, Olkin, I, Arnold, B: Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications. Springer, Berlin (2011) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Cavers, M, Fallat, S, Kirkland, S: On the normalized Laplacian energy and general Randić index \(R_{-1}\) of graphs. Linear Algebra Appl. 433, 172-190 (2010) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bianchi, M, Cornaro, A, Palacios, JL, Torriero, A: Bounds for the Kirchhoff index via majorization techniques. J. Math. Chem. 51(2), 569-587 (2013) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Bollobás, B: Random Graphs. Cambridge University Press, London (2001) View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Chung, FRK, Lu, L, Vu, V: The spectra of random graphs with given expected degrees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 6313-6318 (2003) MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Erdős, P, Rényi, A: On random graphs I. Publ. Math. 6, 290-297 (1959) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Erdős, P, Rényi, A: On the evolution of random graphs. Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. 5, 17-61 (1960) MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Csardi, G: Package iGraph. R package (2014) Google Scholar