pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.08450 · v1 · pith:HEX2SJJ3new · submitted 2019-07-19 · 🧮 math.CO

The sandpile group of a polygon flower

Haiyan Chen , Bojan Mohar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CO
keywords sandpile grouppolygon flowerspanning treesouterplanar graphrelation matrixcyclic groupchip-firing game
0
0 comments X

The pith

The sandpile group of a polygon flower is determined solely by the spanning tree counts of its attached chains and their contractions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

A polygon flower is built from a central cycle by gluing one end of each polygon chain along an edge of the cycle. The paper produces a single relation matrix R whose block form stays the same for any choice of chains; the cokernel of R is the sandpile group. The formula for this group therefore involves only the number of spanning trees in each chain P_i and in the contracted graph P_i/e_i. From the arithmetic of these integers the authors extract the minimal number of generators and a criterion for when the whole group is cyclic, plus a classification of which edges generate the group.

Core claim

For the graph F obtained by identifying one edge e_i of each polygon chain P_i with the i-th edge of a central cycle C_t, the sandpile group S(F) equals the cokernel of an explicitly constructed relation matrix R of fixed block form whose entries are the spanning-tree numbers of the P_i and the P_i/e_i. Consequently the isomorphism type of S(F) is completely determined by those 2t integers, the minimal number of generators admits a simple formula in the same data, and S(F) is cyclic if and only if a certain arithmetic condition on the tree counts holds.

What carries the argument

A uniform relation matrix R of fixed block form derived directly from the outerplanar structure of the polygon flower, whose cokernel is the sandpile group.

If this is right

  • The isomorphism type of S(F) depends on the chains only through their spanning-tree numbers.
  • A closed-form expression for the minimal number of generators of S(F) follows at once from those numbers.
  • S(F) is cyclic precisely when the tree counts satisfy a stated arithmetic relation.
  • Edges of the flower can be partitioned into those that generate S(F) and those that do not.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same block-matrix technique could be tried on other families of outerplanar graphs whose Laplacian admits a similar reduction.
  • Because the result is expressed purely in terms of spanning-tree counts, it may connect to other invariants that are known to be multiplicative over trees.
  • The classification of generating edges supplies a concrete test that could be implemented directly from the tree-count data without building the full group.

Load-bearing premise

The edge identifications in the flower construction produce a relation matrix whose cokernel is exactly the sandpile group.

What would settle it

Compute the sandpile group of a concrete polygon flower via its reduced Laplacian matrix and compare the resulting abelian group with the group predicted by the spanning-tree formula; any mismatch falsifies the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.08450 by Bojan Mohar, Haiyan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Polygon chain G5(6, 3, 5, 2, 6) and its edges e0, . . . , e5. Lemma 3.1. Given a polygon chain in Gn(k1, . . . , kn) (ki ≥ 2), let e0, . . . , en be the edges as defined above. Then τ (G0) = 1, τ (G1) = k1; τ (Gi) = τ (Gi−1) + τ (Gi/ei), 1 < i ≤ n (3.1) and τ (Gi) = (ki − 1)τ (Gi−1) + τ (Gi−1/ei−1) = kiτ (Gi−1) − τ (Gi−2), 1 < i ≤ n. (3.2) Note that the polygon chains Gn (n ≥ 2) are not determined by the o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) The oriented polygon chain G4(4, 4, 4, 4). (b) The coefficients of the edges expressed by e0. Theorem 3.2. Let Gn(k1, . . . , kn) be a polygon chain with e0, . . . , en given as above. Then, for any e ∈ E(G) (viewed as an element in S(Gn) = ZE C⊕B ), we have e ≡  τ (Gi/ei)e0, if e = ei , i = 0, . . . , n τ (Gi−1)e0, if e ∈ E(Cki ) \ {ei−1, ei}, i = 1, . . . , n where “ ≡ ” means mod (C ⊕ B). ei−1 ei u… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A general oriented polygon chain. Proof. By using the relations determined by cuts cv, v ∈ V (Gn) and polygons Cki alterna￾tively, we shall show every edge e ∈ E(Gn) can be expressed by e0, and the coefficients are given as stated in the theorem. First note that the following simple fact, which we shall use repeatedly without pointing out every time: 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two oriented polygon flowers. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 2-connected outerplanar graphs with at most 8 vertices that are not polygon chains. S(G1) = Z3 ⊕ Z18; S(G2) = Z75; S(G3) = Z3 ⊕ Z27; S(G4) = Z141; S(G5) = Z96; S(G6) = Z104; S(G7) = Z3 ⊕ Z36; S(G8) = S(G9) = Z111; S(G10) = Z195; S(G11) = S(G12) = Z204; S(G13) = S(G14) = Z196; S(G15) = S(G16) = S(G17) = Z213; S(G18) = Z 2 3 ⊕ Z24; S(G19) = S(G20) = Z3 ⊕ Z123; S(G21) = S(G22) = Z368; S(G23) = Z3 ⊕ Z120. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Let $C_t$ be a cycle of length $t$, and let $P_1,\ldots,P_t$ be $t$ polygon chains. A polygon flower $F=(C_t; P_1,\ldots,P_t)$ is a graph obtained by identifying the $i$th edge of $C_t$ with an edge $e_i$ that belongs to an end-polygon of $P_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,t$. In this paper, we first give an explicit formula for the sandpile group $S(F)$ of $F$, which shows that the structure of $S(F)$ only depends on the numbers of spanning trees of $P_i$ and $P_i/ e_i$, $i=1,\ldots,t$. By analyzing the arithmetic properties of those numbers, we give a simple formula for the minimum number of generators of $S(F)$, by which a sufficient and necessary condition for $S(F)$ being cyclic is obtained. Finally, we obtain a classification of edges that generate the sandpile group. Although the main results concern only a class of outerplanar graphs, the proof methods used in the paper may be of much more general interest. We make use of the graph structure to find a set of generators and a relation matrix $R$, which has the same form for any $F$ and has much smaller size than that of the (reduced) Laplacian matrix, which is the most popular relation matrix used to study the sandpile group of a graph.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper defines a polygon flower F obtained by gluing t polygon chains P_1 to P_t onto the edges of a central cycle C_t. It claims to derive an explicit formula for the sandpile group S(F) whose isomorphism type depends only on the four integers κ(P_i) and κ(P_i/e_i) for i=1 to t. The paper further gives a formula for the minimal number of generators of S(F), a necessary and sufficient condition for S(F) to be cyclic, and a classification of edges that generate S(F). The proofs rely on constructing a custom relation matrix R of fixed block form that is smaller than the reduced Laplacian and whose cokernel is S(F).

Significance. If the claimed formula and the independence from all other chain data hold, the result supplies a concrete combinatorial description of S(F) in terms of spanning-tree enumerations alone. This would be useful for explicit computations on this family of outerplanar graphs. The construction of a uniform, smaller relation matrix R is presented as potentially of wider interest beyond the specific graphs studied.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'In this paper, we first give'): The central claim requires that every block entry of the asserted uniform relation matrix R is a function solely of the four integers κ(P_i) and κ(P_i/e_i). The manuscript states that R has 'the same form for any F' but supplies no explicit block formulae; without these expressions it is impossible to verify that internal edge lengths, vertex degrees inside the chains, or gluing details beyond the single identified edge have cancelled algebraically. This independence is load-bearing for the stated 'only depends on' assertion.
  2. [Relation matrix construction] The derivation of R (section describing the relation matrix): The size claim ('much smaller size than that of the (reduced) Laplacian matrix') and the block-form uniformity are asserted without an explicit comparison of dimensions or an equation-by-equation verification that the cokernel is independent of all parameters other than the four tree counts per chain. If any block retains hidden dependence on chain-specific data, the explicit formula for S(F) would contain extra parameters and the main theorem would fail.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'the numbers of spanning trees of P_i and P_i/e_i' without defining the notation κ(·) at first use; a brief parenthetical definition would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on the clarity of our presentation. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (paragraph beginning 'In this paper, we first give'): The central claim requires that every block entry of the asserted uniform relation matrix R is a function solely of the four integers κ(P_i) and κ(P_i/e_i). The manuscript states that R has 'the same form for any F' but supplies no explicit block formulae; without these expressions it is impossible to verify that internal edge lengths, vertex degrees inside the chains, or gluing details beyond the single identified edge have cancelled algebraically. This independence is load-bearing for the stated 'only depends on' assertion.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit block formulae in the current manuscript makes independent verification of the claimed parameter independence more difficult than it should be. The proofs in Section 3 establish that the blocks of R are determined solely by the four integers κ(P_i) and κ(P_i/e_i) through algebraic cancellation, but these expressions are not written out in closed form. We will add the explicit block formulae to the revised manuscript so that the main theorem can be checked directly from the spanning-tree counts alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Relation matrix construction] The derivation of R (section describing the relation matrix): The size claim ('much smaller size than that of the (reduced) Laplacian matrix') and the block-form uniformity are asserted without an explicit comparison of dimensions or an equation-by-equation verification that the cokernel is independent of all parameters other than the four tree counts per chain. If any block retains hidden dependence on chain-specific data, the explicit formula for S(F) would contain extra parameters and the main theorem would fail.

    Authors: The manuscript asserts uniformity and reduced size on the basis of the fixed block structure derived from the polygon-flower construction, with the cokernel identified as S(F) via the matrix-tree theorem. However, the referee is correct that a direct dimension comparison and an explicit check that no other chain parameters survive are not supplied. We will include both in the revision: a table giving the order of R versus the reduced Laplacian, together with a verification that each block entry depends only on the four integers per chain. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: explicit formula derived from independent spanning-tree counts via uniform relation matrix.

full rationale

The paper constructs a fixed-block relation matrix R directly from the polygon-flower gluing and shows that its cokernel (the sandpile group) is determined solely by the four integers κ(P_i) and κ(P_i/e_i) per chain. These integers are standard, externally defined combinatorial invariants (number of spanning trees) and are not fitted or redefined inside the derivation. No self-citation is load-bearing for the central isomorphism-type claim, no ansatz is smuggled, and the matrix size reduction is achieved by graph-theoretic generators rather than by tautological renaming. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard definition of the sandpile group as the cokernel of the reduced Laplacian and on the fact that spanning-tree counts determine the order of that group; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The sandpile group of a graph is the cokernel of its reduced Laplacian matrix over the integers.
    Invoked implicitly when the authors speak of giving a formula for S(F).
  • standard math The number of spanning trees equals the order of the sandpile group.
    Used when the formula is said to depend only on those numbers.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5798 in / 1358 out tokens · 24691 ms · 2026-05-24T19:03:22.416455+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    D. C. Alar, J. Celaya, L. D. G. Puente, M. Henson, and A. K. Wheeler. The sandpile group of a thick cycle graph. http:arxiv.org/pdf/1710.06006, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    C. A. Alfaro and C. E. Valencia. On the sandpile group of the cone of a graph. Linear Algebra Appl. , 436(5):1154–1176, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Bacher, P

    R. Bacher, P. de la Harpe, and T. Nagnibeda. The lattice of integral flows and the lattice of integral cuts on a finite graph. Bull. Soc. Math. France , 125(2):167–198, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    H. Bai. On the critical group of the n-cube. Linear Algebra Appl. , 369:251–261, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld. Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters, 59(4):381, 1987

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Baker and S

    M. Baker and S. Norine. Riemann-Roch and Abel-Jacobi theory on a finite graph. Adv. Math. , 215(2):766–788, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Becker and D

    R. Becker and D. B. Glass. Cyclic critical groups of graphs. Australas. J. Combin. , 64:366–375, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Berget, A

    A. Berget, A. Manion, M. Maxwell, A. Potechin, and V. Reiner. The critical group of a line graph. Annals of Combinatorics , 16(3):449–488, 2012

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    K. A. Berman. Bicycles and spanning trees. Siam Journal Algebraic Discrete Methods , 7(1):1–12, 1986

    work page 1986

  10. [10]

    N. L. Biggs. Algebraic potential theory on graphs. Bull. London Math. Soc. , 29(6):641–682, 1997

    work page 1997

  11. [11]

    N. L. Biggs. Chip-firing and the critical group of a graph. J. Algebraic Combin. , 9(1):25–45, 1999. 19

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Bond and L

    B. Bond and L. Levine. Abelian networks III: The critical group. J. Algebraic Combin. , 43(3):635–663, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Brandfonbrener, P

    D. Brandfonbrener, P. Devlin, N. Friedenberg, Y. Ke, S. Marcus, H. Reichard, and E. Sciamma. Two- vertex generators of Jacobians of graphs. The Electronic Journal of Combinatoric , 25:1–25, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    S. H. Chan and D. Hollmann, H.D.L.and Pasechnik. Sandpile groups of generalized de bruijn and kautz graphs and circulant matrices over finite fields. Journal of Algebra , 421:268–295, 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    D. B. Chandler, P. Sin, and Q. Xiang. The Smith and critical groups of Paley graphs. J. Algebraic Combin., 41(4):1013–1022, 2015

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    Chen and Y

    P. Chen and Y. Hou. On the sandpile group of P4× Cn. European J. Combin. , 29(2):532–534, 2008

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    P. Chen, Y. Hou, and C. Woo. On the critical group of the M¨ obius ladder graph.Australas. J. Combin. , 36:133–142, 2006

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Christianson and V

    H. Christianson and V. Reiner. The critical group of a threshold graph. Linear Algebra Appl. , 349:233– 244, 2002

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Clancy, N

    J. Clancy, N. Kaplan, T. Leake, S. Payne, and M. M. Wood. On a Cohen-Lenstra heuristic for Jacobians of random graphs. J. Algebraic Combin. , 42(3):701–723, 2015

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Cori and D

    R. Cori and D. Rossin. On the sandpile group of dual graphs. European J. Combin. , 21(4):447–459, 2000

    work page 2000

  21. [21]

    Deryagina and I

    M. Deryagina and I. Mednykh. On the Jacobian group for M¨ obius ladder and prism graphs. InGeometry, integrability and quantization XV , pages 117–126. Avangard Prima, Sofia, 2014

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    D. Dhar. Self-organized critical state of sandpile automaton models. Phys. Rev. Lett., 64(14):1613–1616, 1990

    work page 1990

  23. [23]

    J. E. Ducey. On the critical group of the missing Moore graph. Discrete Math., 340(5):1104–1109, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    J. E. Ducey, I. Hill, and P. Sin. The critical group of the Kneser graph on 2-subsets of an n-element set. Linear Algebra Appl. , 546:154–168, 2018

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    D. B. Glass. Critical groups of graphs with dihedral actions II. European J. Combin. , 61:25–46, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    D. B. Glass and C. Merino. Critical groups of graphs with dihedral actions. European J. Combin. , 39:95–112, 2014

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Y. Hou, C. Woo, and P. Chen. On the sandpile group of the square cycle C 2 n. Linear Algebra Appl. , 418(2-3):457–467, 2006

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Jacobson, A

    B. Jacobson, A. Niedermaier, and V. Reiner. Critical groups for complete multipartite graphs and Cartesian products of complete graphs. J. Graph Theory , 44(3):231–250, 2003

    work page 2003

  29. [29]

    Kannan and A

    R. Kannan and A. Bachem. Polynomial algorithms for computing the smith and hermite normal forms of an integer matrix. Siam Journal on Computing , 8(4):499–507, 1979

    work page 1979

  30. [30]

    I. A. Krepkiy. The sandpile groups of chain-cyclic graphs. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. S.-Peterburg. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (POMI) , 421(Teoriya Predstavleni˘ ı, Dinamicheskie Sistemy, Kombinatornye Metody. XXIII):94–112, 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    L. Levine. Sandpile groups and spanning trees of directed line graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 118(2):350–364, 2011

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    D. J. Lorenzini. Arithmetical graphs. Math. Ann., 285(3):481–501, 1989

    work page 1989

  33. [33]

    D. J. Lorenzini. Smith normal form and Laplacians. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B , 98(6):1271–1300, 2008

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    G. Musiker. The critical groups of a family of graphs and elliptic curves over finite fields. J. Algebraic Combin., 30(2):255–276, 2009

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Z. Raza. On the critical group of certain subdivided wheel graphs. Punjab Univ. J. Math. (Lahore) , 47(2):57–64, 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Reiner and D

    V. Reiner and D. Tseng. Critical groups of covering, voltage and signed graphs. Discrete Math., 318:10– 40, 2014

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Shi, Y.-L

    W.-N. Shi, Y.-L. Pan, and J. Wang. The critical groups for Km∨Pn and Pm∨Pn. Australas. J. Combin., 50:113–125, 2011

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Toumpakari

    E. Toumpakari. On the sandpile group of regular trees. European J. Combin. , 28(3):822–842, 2007

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    M. M. Wood. The distribution of sandpile groups of random graphs. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 30(4):915–958, 2017. 20 The School of Sciences, Jimei University, Fujian, China E-mail address : chey5@jmu.edu.cn Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada E-mail address : mohar@sfu.ca 21

    work page 2017