The role of the anti-regular graph in the spectral analysis of threshold graphs

Brittany Sullivan; Cesar O. Aguilar; Matthew Ficarra; Natalie Schurman

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 19 references

The role of the anti-regular graph in the spectral analysis of threshold graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Every connected threshold graph is spectrally governed by the largest anti-regular graph it contains, and interlacing with that subgraph determines its inertia, forces a universal eigenvalue-free interval, and nearly settles the…

desk verdict The structural results on anti-regular subgraphs are clean and useful, but the paper's main advertised partial proof of the optimality conjecture is circular and leaves the conjecture unproved. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03954 v3 pith:A6MWHIHM submitted 2019-08-11 math.CO

Cesar O. Aguilar , Matthew Ficarra , Natalie Schurman , Brittany Sullivan This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 05C5015B0505C7515A18

keywords thresholdgraphanti-regulareigenvalueinterlacingspectruminertiaeigenvalue-freeintervalextremaleigenvaluesbinarystringrepresentation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that the anti-regular graph, the unique graph with n−1 distinct degrees, is the spectral backbone of the entire class of threshold graphs. Every connected threshold graph contains a largest anti-regular induced subgraph, and the paper argues that eigenvalue interlacing from that subgraph is enough to reconstruct the graph's inertia, to exclude a universal eigenvalue-free interval, and to show the anti-regular graph has extremal extreme eigenvalues among all threshold graphs of the same order. The positive-eigenvalue half of the extremal claim is proved for all graphs and the negative half for all but an explicit family of 'almost anti-regular' graphs; the remaining cases coincide exactly with where the induction method cannot close.

What carries the argument

The anti-regular graph $A_n$ is the unique connected $n$-vertex graph whose degree sequence has $n-1$ distinct entries; equivalently it has alternating binary string $0101\cdots01$ for even $n$ and $00101\cdots01$ for odd $n$. The paper's machinery is the pair (largest anti-regular induced subgraph $A_m$, eigenvalue interlacing): Theorem 3.2 identifies $A_m$ in every connected threshold graph from its binary string, interlacing converts the known spectrum of $A_m$ into inequalities on the spectrum of $G$, and the Parity Principle (monotone convergence of $\mu_-(A_n)$ and $\mu_+(A_n)$ within the even and odd subsequences) converts these bounds into global statements comparing any threshold graph with $A_n$.

What would settle it

For each of the finitely many critical binary strings identified in Section 4 (six are listed for $n=8$), compute the eigenvalues of the corresponding threshold graph and compare $\mu_-(G)$ and $\mu_+(G)$ with $\mu_-(A_n)$ and $\mu_+(A_n)$. A single critical $G$ with $\mu_+(G)<\mu_+(A_n)$ or $\mu_-(G)>\mu_-(A_n)$ would refute Conjecture 4.1 and the induction assumption used in Theorems 4.2(iii) and 4.3(iii).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that threshold-graph spectra are governed by the anti-regular subgraph. For a connected threshold graph $G$ with binary string $0^{s_1}1^{t_1}\cdots 0^{s_k}1^{t_k}$, the largest anti-regular induced subgraph is $A_{2k+1}$ if $s_1\ge 2$ and $A_{2k}$ if $s_1=1$. Interlacing gives, for example, when $s_1\ge 2$: $\lambda_i(G)\le \lambda_i(A_{2k+1})<-1$ for $i=1,\dots,k$ and $0<\lambda_{k+1+i}(A_{2k+1})\le \lambda_{n-k+i}(G)$ for $i=1,\dots,k$. From these bounds the paper derives the multiplicities $m_{-1}(G)=t-k$ and $m_0(G)=s-k$, so the inertia is $(t,s-k,k)$, and no non-trivial eigenvalue lies in $[\mu_-(A_m),\mu_+(A_m)]$. A limiting argument from anti-regular spectra then gives the global eigenvalue-free interval $\Omega=[\frac{-1-\sqrt{2}}{2},\frac{-1+\sqrt{2}}{2}]$ for every threshold graph, except possibly the trivial eigenvalues $-1$ and $0$. For the extremal conjecture, Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 prove the desired inequalities except for $n-2$ critical almost-anti-regular graphs in each parity, with the critical sizes exactly those where the induction step falls back on what the theorems exclude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the extremal eigenvalue inequality already holds for certain smaller threshold graphs, specifically those whose size is exactly the 'critical' size the theorems exclude; that premise is precisely the unproved part of Conjecture 4.1, so both optimality proofs depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any connected threshold graph, the inertia is read directly from its binary string: $(t,s-k,k)$, where $s=\sum_i s_i$ is the number of isolated-type vertices and $t=\sum_i t_i$ is the number of dominating-type vertices.
No threshold graph has a non-trivial eigenvalue in the interval $\Omega=[\frac{-1-\sqrt{2}}{2},\frac{-1+\sqrt{2}}{2}]$; the only possible eigenvalues there are $-1$ and $0$.
Every threshold graph has a wider eigenvalue-free gap than the global one: its non-trivial eigenvalues avoid $[\mu_-(A_m),\mu_+(A_m)]$, where $A_m$ is its largest anti-regular induced subgraph.
Among all $n$-vertex threshold graphs, $A_n$ has the smallest positive eigenvalue in all cases and the largest eigenvalue below $-1$ in all but the $n-2$ critical cases identified in Section 4.
The largest and smallest eigenvalues of a threshold graph are bounded by closed-form expressions computed from initial and terminal blocks of its binary string.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the critical graphs are finite in number and explicitly described by their binary strings, a direct computation of their extreme non-trivial eigenvalues would settle Conjecture 4.1 completely; this goes beyond the paper's partial result but is a natural next step.
The sandwiching of every threshold graph between an anti-regular subgraph and an anti-regular supergraph suggests a fast spectral-localization method: approximate the spectrum of $G$ by the spectra of two anti-regular graphs, with interlacing controlling the error.
The same skeleton idea may transfer to cographs, which the paper raises as a question; if a canonical 'largest structured induced subgraph' exists for cographs, interlacing could yield analogous inertia and eigenvalue-free results.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper splits into two parts. The structural part is genuinely good: Theorem 3.1 and 3.2 show that every connected threshold graph has a largest anti-regular induced subgraph (and sits inside a smallest anti-regular supergraph), with the size determined by the binary-string parameter k. These facts, combined with interlacing, give a clean unified proof of known results: the inertia formula (Corollary 4.1 and Theorem 4.1) and the Omega eigenvalue-free interval (Corollary 4.2). Section 5's extremal eigenvalue bounds are new and appear correct. The writing is clear, and the survey of prior work is honest—the paper explicitly credits Ghorbani for Corollary 4.2 and Bapat/Lou-Wang-Huang for the inertia computation.

The soft spot is the paper's central advertised new result, the partial proof of Conjecture 4.1. Theorems 4.2(iii) and 4.3(iii) both use strong induction, and in both cases the induction hypothesis is applied to an induced subgraph whose order is exactly the critical size the theorem excludes. In Theorem 4.2(iii), the chosen subgraph has order 2k+2 and satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem only if 2k+2 < n, but for the subgraph its own n equals 2k+2, so the hypothesis is false. The situation is identical in the odd case with 2k+1. Thus the proof implicitly assumes the unproved critical cases of Conjecture 4.1—the very cases the paper says it cannot handle. This is a load-bearing circular step, not a minor gap. The displayed inequalities in Theorem 4.3(ii) and (iii) also have the direction reversed relative to the conjecture and to what the proofs actually show; that looks like a typo, but it is a confusing one.

So what survives is the structural core and the interlacing consequences that rederive known results. The conjecture remains open, and the paper as it stands should not be accepted as proof of even the partial cases. A revised version could either prove the finitely many critical cases directly or restate the theorems with a sound induction that avoids the excluded sizes, and must fix the inequality signs.

Who is this for? People working on threshold graph spectra who might use the subgraph theorems or the Section 5 estimates. It deserves a serious referee—not because the main proof is correct, but because the structural results are true and the conjecture is natural. My recommendation: send to review, and expect the referee to reject or demand a major revision that addresses the circular induction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies spectral properties of threshold graphs by exploiting the fact that every connected threshold graph contains a maximal induced anti-regular subgraph. The authors show how eigenvalue interlacing with these anti-regular subgraphs yields the inertia of a threshold graph, an eigenvalue-free interval for all threshold graphs, and estimates for extreme eigenvalues. The main new claimed contribution is a partial resolution of a conjecture from [1]: that the anti-regular graph A_n has the smallest positive eigenvalue and the largest eigenvalue below -1 among all threshold graphs on n vertices, with only n-2 identified critical exceptions. The paper also proves a universality-type statement for anti-regular supergraphs and subgraphs of threshold graphs.

Significance. The interlacing framework in Sections 3-4 is attractive and does give a unified derivation of the inertia and of the eigenvalue-free interval, and the extreme-eigenvalue bounds in Section 5 are reasonable. Those parts of the paper are useful, though the inertia and the eigenvalue-free interval were already known by other methods. The genuinely new claim, the near-optimality of the anti-regular graph formulated in Theorems 4.2 and 4.3, is not established: the inductive proofs apply the induction hypothesis to subgraphs of exactly the critical sizes that the theorem statements explicitly exclude, so the argument is circular. In addition, the displayed conclusions of Theorem 4.3(ii) and (iii) state the reverse of the inequalities that the proofs actually derive, and the reverse statement is incompatible with the conjecture being addressed. Since the central new result rests on this defective induction, the paper's main claim should not be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 4.2(iii)] The strong induction is circular. After choosing a threshold subgraph G~ with |G~| = 2k+2 and s1~ >= 2, the proof invokes the induction hypothesis to obtain mu_-(G~) <= mu_-(A_{2k+2}). However, the statement being proved by induction, Theorem 4.2(iii), is restricted to graphs satisfying 2k+2 < n. For G~ we have 2k+2 = |G~|, so G~ is precisely one of the critical graphs excluded from the statement. The induction hypothesis is therefore unavailable unless one already assumes the unproved critical cases of Conjecture 4.1, which is exactly what the theorem is supposed to establish.
[Theorem 4.3(iii)] The same circularity occurs in the odd case. The proof chooses a threshold subgraph G~ of order 2k+1 with s1~ = 1 and uses induction to assert mu_+(A_{2k+1}) <= mu_+(G~). But Theorem 4.3(iii) is stated only under the condition 2k+1 < n, and for G~ the equality 2k+1 = |G~| holds. Thus G~ belongs to the family of critical graphs that the theorem excludes, and the induction step assumes the very cases that remain unproved. Consequently the proof does not establish the claimed near-optimality for the remaining graphs.
[Theorem 4.3(ii)-(iii)] The displayed conclusions of Theorem 4.3(ii) and (iii) state mu_+(G) <= mu_+(A_n), which is the reverse of Conjecture 4.1 and of the inequalities that the proofs actually derive. In part (ii) the chain of inequalities ends with mu_+(G), giving mu_+(A_n) <= mu_+(G), and part (iii) concludes 'mu_+(A_n) <= mu_+(G) as desired'. As printed, the theorem contradicts the conjecture it is meant to support. This is not merely a typo in the conclusion: the corrected statement mu_+(A_n) <= mu_+(G) is still not proved for the excluded families because of the induction problems in the previous comments.

minor comments (3)

[Theorem 4.3(i), proof] In the proof of part (i), the case split reads 'If on the other hand s2 >= 2', but from the context this should be 's1 >= 2'. The corrected statement is needed for the argument to match the case division of the theorem.
[Figure 2] The caption of Figure 2 refers to 'Example 5.2', but the example defining G, G', and G'' is numbered Example 5.1 in the text.
[Theorems 4.2-4.3] The statements of Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 are phrased for every threshold graph, but the proofs use the binary-string representation of a connected threshold graph and do not explicitly address disconnected graphs. Since eigenvalues of a disconnected graph include additional zeros, the disconnected cases should be treated or the statements should be restricted.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

In Theorems 4.2(iii) and 4.3(iii), strong induction is applied to subgraphs of exactly the critical order the theorems exclude, so the partial proof of Conjecture 4.1 assumes the unproved critical cases.

other [Section 4, Theorem 4.2(iii), proof by strong induction]
"The proof is by strong induction. The case n = 2 is trivial. Assume that the claim holds for all threshold graphs with less than n vertices. Since 2k + 2 < n, there exists a threshold subgraph G̃ of G with binary string b̃ = 0^{s̃1}1^{t̃1} · · · 0^{s̃k}1^{t̃k} with s̃1 ≥ 2 and |G̃| = 2k + 2. Thus µ−(G̃) = λ_k(G̃) and by induction µ−(G̃) ≤ µ−(A_{2k+2})."

The induction hypothesis is 'the claim holds for all threshold graphs with less than n vertices', where 'the claim' is Theorem 4.2(iii), whose scope is graphs H with s1(H) ≥ 2 and 2k(H) + 2 < |H|. For the constructed subgraph G̃, the proof itself gives |G̃| = 2k + 2 and µ−(G̃) = λ_k(G̃), so k(G̃) = k and hence 2k(G̃) + 2 = |G̃|. Thus G̃ violates the strict condition 2k + 2 < m that is the theorem's own hypothesis; it is exactly one of the critical graphs the theorem excludes. Invoking 'by induction' for G̃ is therefore not licensed by the induction hypothesis unless Theorem 4.2(iii) is already assumed for the excluded critical family, which is the unproved part of Conjecture 4.1. The proof of the partial result is circular at this step.
other [Section 4, Theorem 4.3(iii), proof by strong induction]
"Let G̃ be any threshold subgraph of G of order 2k + 1 and with binary string b̃ = 0^{s̃1}1^{t̃1} · · · 0^{s̃k}1^{t̃k} with s̃1 = 1. Then µ+(G̃) = λ_{k+2}(G̃) by interlacing µ+(G̃) = λ_{k+2}(G̃) ≤ λ_{n−(2k+1)+k+2}(G) = λ_{n−k+1}(G) = µ+(G). Now since 2k + 1 < n, by induction µ+(A_{2k+1}) ≤ µ+(G̃) and thus µ+(A_{2k+1}) ≤ µ+(G)."

For G̃, the proof has |G̃| = 2k + 1 and µ+(G̃) = λ_{k+2}(G̃), so G̃ has k alternating blocks. To apply the induction hypothesis of Theorem 4.3(iii) to a graph H of order m = |G̃|, the theorem requires s1(H) = 1 and 2k(H) + 1 < m. Here 2k + 1 = m, so the strict inequality fails. G̃ is precisely one of the 2k−1 = n−2 odd critical graphs that Theorem 4.3(iii) declares excluded. The line 'by induction µ+(A_{2k+1}) ≤ µ+(G̃)' therefore assumes the unproved odd critical case of Conjecture 4.1. The proof is circular rather than merely incomplete.

full rationale

Most of the paper is not circular. The interlacing-based results (Theorem 4.1, Corollaries 4.1–4.2, Theorem 4.2(i)–(ii), Theorem 4.3(i), and Section 5) follow from the subgraph inclusions in Theorems 3.1–3.2 plus eigenvalue interlacing, and Lemma 2.1 is an externally stated monotonicity result for anti-regular spectra proved in [1]; it does not assume the threshold optimality conjecture, so citing it is not circular. The central defect is confined to the two strong-induction proofs, Theorems 4.2(iii) and 4.3(iii), which are the only arguments that extend the optimality conjecture beyond the directly interlaced cases. In both proofs, the induction hypothesis is applied to an induced subgraph of exactly the order that the theorem statements exclude by their strict hypotheses 2k + 2 < n and 2k + 1 < n. At those orders the desired inequality is the unproved critical case of Conjecture 4.1, so the induction premise is equivalent to the result being proved. Separately, Theorem 4.3(ii) and (iii) are printed with the inequality µ+(G) ≤ µ+(An), the reverse of the inequality the proofs actually derive and of the conjecture; this is a statement/display error rather than a circularity. Overall score 6: the paper's new optimality claims reduce, in the two induction steps, to assuming the very critical cases they set aside.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted; this is a pure graph theory paper. The central deductive burden is borne by prior spectral results on anti-regular graphs, some from the same first author, by the interlacing theorem, and by the binary-string characterization of threshold graphs. One proof step introduces an unproved assumption about critical subgraphs, which is the decisive burden.

assumptions (4)

standard math Eigenvalue Interlacing Theorem (Theorem 2.1).
Used throughout to transfer eigenvalue bounds from anti-regular subgraphs to threshold graphs.
domain assumption Parity Principle for anti-regular eigenvalues (Lemma 2.1 from [1]).
The monotonicity and limits of mu_minus(A_n) and mu_plus(A_n) are taken from the authors' earlier published paper and are not re-proved here.
domain assumption Threshold graph induced subgraphs correspond to subsequences of the binary string (Proposition 3.1).
Underpins the construction of the sandwich subgraphs and supergraphs in Section 3 and the extremal subgraphs in Section 5.
ad hoc to paper The induction hypothesis applies to critical-size subgraphs with 2k+2 or 2k+1 vertices.
In Theorem 4.2(iii) and Theorem 4.3(iii) the proof invokes the induction hypothesis for subgraphs whose size is exactly the excluded critical size; this is not established anywhere in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of the anti-regular graph in the spectral analysis of threshold graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A6MWHIHM

@misc{pith2026190803954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of the anti-regular graph in the spectral analysis of threshold graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A6MWHIHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03954}
}

abstract

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role played by the anti-regular graph within the class of threshold graphs. Using the fact that every threshold graph contains a maximal anti-regular graph, we show that some known results, and new ones, on the spectral properties of threshold graphs can be deduced from (i) the known results on the eigenvalues of anti-regular graphs, (ii) the subgraph structure of threshold graphs, and (iii) eigenvalue interlacing. In particular, we prove a strengthened version of the recently proved fact that no threshold graph contains an eigenvalue in the interval $\Omega = [\frac{-1-\sqrt{2}}{2},\frac{-1+\sqrt{2}}{2}]$, except possibly the trivial eigenvalues $-1$ and/or $0$, determine the inertia of a threshold graph, and give partial results on a conjecture regarding the optimality of the non-trivial eigenvalues of an anti-regular graph within the class of threshold graphs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03954 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Graphs from Example 5.2. Theorem 5.2. Let G be a threshold graph with binary string b = 0s11 t1 . . . 0 sk 1 tk and let σi = Pi j=1 sj and let τi = Pk j=i tj for each i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , k}. Then max 1≤i≤k ( (τi − 1) + p (τi − 1)2 + 4τiσi 2 ) ≤ λmax(G) and λmin(G) ≤ min 1≤i≤k ( (τi − 1) − p (τi − 1)2 + 4τiσi 2 ) . Proof. By construction, the threshold graph with binary string 0σi1 τi , which we denote by Gi , is an i… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Aguilar and J

C.O. Aguilar and J. Lee and E. Piato and B. Schweitzer Spectral ch aracterizations of anti-regular graphs Linear Algebra and its Applications , 557: 84–104, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Banerjee and R

A. Banerjee and R. Mehatari. On the normalized spectrum of thr eshold graphs. Linear Algebra and its Applicaitons , 530: 288–304, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

R. Bapat. On the adjacency matrix of a threshold graph. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 439(10):3008–3015, 2013. 13

work page 2013
[4]

Behzad and G

M. Behzad and G. Chartrand. No graph is perfect. The American Mathematical Monthly, 74(8):962–963, 1967

work page 1967
[5]

Chv´ atal and P.L

V. Chv´ atal and P.L. Hammer. Aggregation of Inequalities in Inte ger Programming. Annals of Discrete Mathematics , 1: 145–162, 1977

work page 1977
[6]

Cvetkovi´ c and P

D. Cvetkovi´ c and P. Rowlinson and S. Simi´ c. An Introduction to the Theory of Graph Spectra. Cambridge University Press, 2010

work page 2010
[7]

M. F¨ urer. Eﬃcient computation of the characteristic polynomia l of a threshold graph. Theoretical Computer Science , 657: 3–10, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Godsil and G

C. Godsil and G. Royle. Algebraic Graph Theory . Springer, New York, 2001

work page 2001

Show all 19 references

[9]

Ghorbani

E. Ghorbani. Eigenvalue-free interval for threshold graphs. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 583: 300–305, 2019

2019
[10]

Henderson and Y

P.B. Henderson and Y. Zalcstein. A graph-theoretic characte rization of the PV class of synchronizing primitives. SIAM Journal on Computing , 6(1): 88–108, 1977

1977
[11]

Jacobs, V

D. Jacobs, V. Trevisan, and F. Tura. Eigenvalue location in thre shold graphs. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 439(10): 2762–2773, 2013

2013
[12]

Jacobs, V

D. Jacobs, V. Trevisan, and F. Tura. Computing the characte ristic polynomial of thresh- old graphs Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications , 18(5): 709–719, 2014

2014
[13]

Jacobs, V

D. Jacobs, V. Trevisan, and F. Tura. Eigenvalues and energy in threshold graphs. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 465: 412–425, 2015

2015
[14]

Lazzarin and O

J. Lazzarin and O. M´ arquez and F. Tura. No threshold graphs are cospectral. Linear Algebra and its Applications , 560: 133–145, 2019

2019
[15]

Lou and J

Z. Lou and J. Wang and Q. Huang. On the eigenvalues distribution in threshold graphs. Graphs and Combinatorics , 35(4): 867–880
[16]

R. Merris. Antiregular graphs are universal for trees. Publikacije Elektrotehniˇ ckog fakulteta. Serija Matematika , pages 1–3, 2003

2003
[17]

Mahadev and U.N

N.V.R. Mahadev and U.N. Peled. Threshold graphs and related topics. Vol. 56. Elsevier, 1995

1995
[18]

Munarini

E. Munarini. Characteristic, admittance, and matching polynom ials of an antiregular graph. Applicable Analysis and Discrete Mathematics , 3(1):157–176, 2009

2009
[19]

Sciriha and S

I. Sciriha and S. Farrugia On the spectrum of threshold graphs . ISRN Discrete Math , 2011, Article ID 108509 14

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aguilar and J

C.O. Aguilar and J. Lee and E. Piato and B. Schweitzer Spectral ch aracterizations of anti-regular graphs Linear Algebra and its Applications , 557: 84–104, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Banerjee and R

A. Banerjee and R. Mehatari. On the normalized spectrum of thr eshold graphs. Linear Algebra and its Applicaitons , 530: 288–304, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

R. Bapat. On the adjacency matrix of a threshold graph. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 439(10):3008–3015, 2013. 13

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Behzad and G

M. Behzad and G. Chartrand. No graph is perfect. The American Mathematical Monthly, 74(8):962–963, 1967

work page 1967

[5] [5]

Chv´ atal and P.L

V. Chv´ atal and P.L. Hammer. Aggregation of Inequalities in Inte ger Programming. Annals of Discrete Mathematics , 1: 145–162, 1977

work page 1977

[6] [6]

Cvetkovi´ c and P

D. Cvetkovi´ c and P. Rowlinson and S. Simi´ c. An Introduction to the Theory of Graph Spectra. Cambridge University Press, 2010

work page 2010

[7] [7]

M. F¨ urer. Eﬃcient computation of the characteristic polynomia l of a threshold graph. Theoretical Computer Science , 657: 3–10, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Godsil and G

C. Godsil and G. Royle. Algebraic Graph Theory . Springer, New York, 2001

work page 2001