{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05807595046145201, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016339939913977565, 'mean_word_length': 3.539193564210733, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 70, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 10, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 28, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Increasing spanning forests in graphs and simplicial complexes

Let G be a graph with vertex set {1,...,n}. A spanning forest F of G is increasing if the sequence of labels on any path starting at the minimum vertex of a tree of F form an increasing sequence. Hallam and Sagan showed that the generating function ISF(G,t) for increasing spanning forests of G has all nonpositive integral roots. Furthermore they proved that, up to a change of sign, this polynomial equals the chromatic polynomial of G precisely when 1,...,n is a perfect elimination order for G. We give new, purely combinatorial proofs of these results which permit us to generalize them in several ways. For example, we are able to bound the coefficients of ISF(G,t) using broken circuits. We are also able to extend these results to simplicial complexes using the new notion of a cage-free complex. A generalization to labeled multigraphs is also given. We end by exploring spanning forests where the increasing condition is replaced by having the label sequences avoid the patterns 231, 312, and 321.


Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to prove generalizations and consequences of two theorems of Hallam and Sagan about increasing spanning forests [HS15]. To state them, we first need some definitions.
Let G = (V, E) be a finite graph with vertex set V = V (G) and edge set E = E(G). We will always assume that V is a subset of the positive integers so that there is a total order on the vertices. If the graph is a tree T then we consider it to be rooted at its smallest vertex r.
Definition 1.1. A labeled tree is increasing if the integers on any path beginning at the root form an increasing sequence. A labeled forest is increasing if each component is an increasing tree.
For example, the tree on the left in Figure 1 is increasing, while the one on the right is not because of the path 2, 7, 4.
As usual, call a subgraph H of G spanning if V (H) = V (G). Since a spanning subgraph is determined by its edge set, it is convenient to ignore the distinction between subsets of E(G) and where the absolute value signs denote cardinality. These invariants depend on the labeling of the vertices of G, although the notation does not specify the labeling explicitly. By way of illustration, consider the two labelled graphs in Figure 2. An easy computation shows that ISF(G, t) = t 4 + 4t 3 + 5t 2 + 2t = t(t + 1) 2 (t + 2), ISF(H, t) = t 4 + 4t 3 + 3t 2 = t 2 (t + 1)(t + 3).
Even though these polynomials are different, it is striking that they both factor with nonpositive integral roots.
To explain the two previous factorizations, it will be convenient to assume from now on that for all graphs G we have V (G) = {1, 2, . . . , n} := [n] unless otherwise noted. We will also adopt the convention that all edges will be listed with their smallest vertex first. For k ∈ [n] we define E k = E k (G) = {e ∈ E(G) : e = jk for some j < k}. ( Returning to the left-hand graph in Figure 2, we have Note that 4 k=1 (t + |E k |) = t(t + 1) 2 (t + 2) = ISF(G, t).
It turns out that this is always the case.  To state the second theorem we will be studying, we recall some notions from the theory of graph coloring. A proper coloring of a graph G using a set S is an assignment of elements of S to the vertices of G so that no edge has both endpoints the same color. Suppose t is a positive integer. The chromatic polynomial of G is P (G, t) = the number of proper colorings of V using the set [t].
It is well known that P (G, t) is a polynomial function of t for every graph G. Returning again to the graph G in Figure 2, if we color the vertices in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, then the number of colors available at each step depends only on the number of adjacent, previously-colored vertices. So we obtain P (G, t) = t(t − 1)(t − 1)(t − 2) = (−1) 4 ISF(G, −t).
It cannot be the case that P (G, t) and ISF(G, t) are always the same up to a sign change: the chromatic polynomial does not always have integral roots, and is independent of the choice of labeling. However, there is a well-known condition which implies equality. Definition 1.3. A perfect elimination ordering (PEO) on G is a total ordering v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v n of V (G) such that, for every k, the set N (v k , G k ) := N (v k ) ∩ {v 1 , . . . , v k−1 } is a clique, where N (v k ) denotes the set of neighbors of v k .
Equivalently, for all i < j < k, if v i v k and v j v k ∈ E(G), then v i v j ∈ E(G).
It is well known that the existence of a PEO is equivalent to the condition that G is chordal, i.e., every cycle of length 4 or greater has a chord (an edge between two non-consecutive vertices of the cycle).
If G has a PEO, then counting exactly as we did for our example graph gives It is also easy to verify that the order 1, 2, 3, 4 is a PEO for the graph G in Figure 2, while that same order is not a PEO for the graph H. Again, this presages a general result. if and only if the ordering 1, 2, . . . , n is a PEO for G.
This paper is devoted to expanding the ideas of [HS15] to broader settings, including replacing graphs with simplicial complexes or labeled multigraphs, or replacing ISFs with labeled forests obeying more general pattern-avoidance conditions. Section 2 contains new, combinatorial proofs of strengthened versions of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4. The previous proofs used the machinery of poset quotients developed in [HS15]. First, we give an alternative characterization of increasing forests in Lemma 2.1, that implies a weighted factorization formula, Theorem 2.2, which generalizes Theorem 1.2. Second, we show in Theorem 2.4 that there is a bijection between increasing spanning forests in G and NBC sets (edge sets with no broken circuit) precisely when the natural ordering on G is a PEO. Theorem 1.4 follows from this result together with Whitney's classical interpretation of the chromatic polynomial as a generating function for NBC sets [Whi32].
In Section 3, we extend our results from graphs to simplicial complexes. The new characterization of increasing spanning forests in Lemma 2.1 naturally generalizes to the idea of a cage-free subcomplex of a simplicial complex in Definition 3.1, and so we study the generating function for cage-free subcomplexes Υ of a pure simplicial complex ∆ of dimension d, where Υ d denotes the set of d-faces of Υ, the x φ are indeterminates, and N is a certain integer. This generating function admits a factorization given in Theorem 3.4 that generalizes Theorem 2.2. Moreover, the specialization obtained by setting x φ = 1 is essentially the product of generating functions for increasing spanning forests of graphs G σ corresponding to certain codimension-2 faces of ∆ as shown in Proposition 3.6). We conclude the section with a discussion of the difficulty of extending the definition of a perfect elimination order (PEO) to higher dimension.
Section 4 generalizes the theory to labeled multigraphs: graphs with multiple edges permitted, labeled by nonzero complex numbers. The definition of an increasing spanning forest and the factorization formula for the ISF generating function in Theorem 1.2 carry over easily to this setting. In this setting, the definition of a perfect elimination order is somewhat more subtle, since it relies on both the vertex ordering and the complex edge labeling. We associate a complex hyperplane arrangement A(G) to each labeled multigraph G, generalizing the standard construction of a graphic arrangement, and prove in Theorem 4.3 that the generating function for ISFs of G is given by the characteristic polynomial of A(G) precisely when the vertices of G are labeled by a PEO. Combined with well-known theorems of Orlik-Solomon and Zaslavsky, this result has consequences for, respectively, Betti numbers of complex multigraph arrangements, Corollary 4.6, and for counting regions in their real versions, Corollary 4.7.
In Section 5, we study the related class of tight forests, in which every path starting at the root avoids the permutation patterns 231, 312, and 321. The permutations avoiding these patterns are a special class of involutions that we call tight involutions, which are of independent combinatorial interest [DDJ + 12]. Tight forests play an analogous role for triangle-free graphs as ISFs do for general graphs. Specifically, if G is a triangle-free graph, then every tight spanning forest is an NBC set, and the converse is true if the vertex labeling is a quasi-perfect ordering or QPO (Definition 5.5), a variation of the usual definition of a PEO. Thus the existence of a QPO implies that the chromatic polynomial is a generating function for tight forests as shown in Theorem 5.11. Structurally, graphs with QPOs satisfy a property analogous to chordal graphs: every cycle of length 5 or greater has a chord, Proposition 5.6. These results raise the question of studying labeled forests avoiding other pattern families.

The original theorems revisited
In this section we will give a new proof of Theorem 1.2. The starting point is the characterization of increasing forests given in Lemma 2.1, which will enable us to generalize the theory from graphs to simplicial complexes in Section 3. We will also prove a refinement of Theorem 1.4. The original proof used the theory of quotient posets developed in [HS15]. Our proof does not need those ideas but instead uses Whitney's classic description of the coefficients of the chromatic polynomial in terms of broken circuits. Lemma 2.1. A graph F is an increasing forest if and only if it contains no pair of edges ik, jk with i, j < k.
Proof. (⇒) Suppose that F is an increasing forest which contains two edges ik, jk with i, j < k. Let r be the root of the component containing these edges. Then either the unique path from r to i goes through k or the unique path from r to j goes through k (or both). But in either case the path contains a descent, either from k to i or from k to j. This contradicts the fact that F is increasing.
(⇐) Suppose that F is a graph with no such pair of edges. Then F must be acyclic, for if F has a cycle C, then taking k to be the largest vertex on C and i, j its two neighbors produces a contradiction.
To show that F is increasing, we again assume the opposite. Let T be a component tree of F with root r such that r = v 0 , v 1 , . . . , v ℓ is a non-increasing path starting at r. If we choose such a path of minimal length, then v 0 , . . . , v ℓ−1 is an increasing path, but then v ℓ−2 , v ℓ < v ℓ−1 , a contradiction.
It is now a simple matter to prove Theorem 1.2.
Proof (of Theorem 1.2). The coefficient of t n−m in n k=1 (t + |E k |) counts the number of graphs formed by picking m edges of G with at most one from each E k . By Lemma 2.1, these graphs are exactly the increasing spanning forests of G.
Theorem 1.2 admits a weighted generalization, as follows. Let x = {x e | e ∈ E(G)} be a set of commuting indeterminates. Associate with any spanning subgraph H ⊆ G the monomial x e and define a generating function where the sum runs over all increasing spanning forests F of G. Clearly substituting 1 for each x e in this polynomial recovers the original ISF(G, t). The same proof given above also demonstrates the following result.
In order to generalize Theorem 1.4, we need to review properties of broken circuits. Assume that the edges of G have been given a total order e 1 < e 2 < · · · < e p . A broken circuit of G is an edge set br(C) obtained from a cycle C by removing its smallest edge. An NBC set is an edge set containing no broken circuit. Note in particular that every NBC set is acyclic, since if F ⊇ C then F ⊇ br(C). Set We next identify the relationship between increasing spanning trees and NBC sets. The following result, together with Whitney's formula, immediately implies Theorem 1.4. Proof. First we prove (3). Let F be an increasing spanning forest. Suppose that F contains a broken circuit B, which must be a path of the form v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v ℓ with ℓ ≥ 3, v 1 = min{v 2 , . . . , v ℓ }, and v 2 > v ℓ . Then there must exist a smallest index p > 1 such that v p > v p+1 , and in particular v p−1 , v p+1 < v p , contradicting the criterion of Lemma 2.1. Therefore F is an NBC set. Next we show that conditions (a), (b), and (c) are equivalent. (c)⇒(a): Assume that (c) holds. Let F be an NBC set; in particular it is a forest. If it is not increasing, then by Lemma 2.1 it contains two edges ik, jk with i < j < k. But if ij ∈ E(G) then these two edges from a broken circuit, while if ij ∈ E(G) then the vertex ordering is not a PEO. In either case we have a contradiction, so F is an increasing spanning forest.
Stanley [Sta73] discovered a fundamental relationship between acyclic orientations and the chromatic polynomial, whose best known special case is as follows. Thus ao(G) = nbc(G) by Whitney's formula (Theorem 2.3), and combining these results with Theorem 2.4 immediately yields the following corollary.
Corollary 2.6. For every graph G, we have isf(G) ≤ ao(G), with equality if and only if the labeling is a PEO.
Blass and Sagan [BS86] constructed a bijection (actually, a family of bijections) between acyclic orientations and NBC sets of any given graph G. This correspondence, together with the fact that every increasing spanning forest is an NBC set by Theorem 2.4, gives a combinatorial explanation of Corollary 2.6. (Note that [BS86] uses the convention that a broken circuit is obtained by deleting the largest edge of a cycle.)

Simplicial complexes
In this section we will generalize Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 from graphs to simplicial complexes. For general background on simplicial complexes, see, e.g., [Sta96]. Throughout, we let ∆ be a pure simplicial complex of dimension d ≥ 1, with vertices V = V (∆) = [n]. The symbol ∆ k denotes the set of simplices in ∆ of dimension k, andH k (∆) denotes reduced simplicial homology with coefficients in Z. A subcomplex Υ ⊆ ∆ is a spanning subcomplex if it contains all faces of ∆ of dimension < d. (Note that Υ need not be pure.) Faces of dimensions d, d − 1 and d − 2 are called facets, ridges, and peaks, respectively. The notation φ 1 , . . . , φ n indicates the complex generated by the φ i . The link of a face σ ∈ ∆ is Note that dim link ∆ (σ) = dim ∆ − dim σ − 1.
We use the notation [i 0 , i 1 , . . . , i ℓ ] < to indicate the simplex with vertices i 0 < i 1 < · · · < i ℓ . We extend this notation to simplices obtained by adjoining vertices to smaller simplices as follows. If σ is an ℓ-simplex and i is a vertex, then we write σ < i to mean that v < i for all v ∈ σ, and we denote the (ℓ + 1)-simplex σ ∪ {i} by the symbol [σ, i] < . Similar extensions should be self explanatory, for instance [σ, i, j] < denotes the (ℓ + 2)-simplex σ ∪ {i, j}, where σ < i < j. When the vertices in a face are explicit positive integers, we will abbreviate the simplex to a sequence. For example, [1, 3, 4, 6] < will be written 1346.
A pure simplicial complex of dimension 1 is just a graph with no isolated vertices. Note that in Section 2, we permitted graphs to contain isolated vertices; however, these have little effect on the polynomials under consideration -if G is obtained from H by introducing an isolated vertex, then ISF(G, t) = t ISF(H, t) and P (G, t) = tP (H, t). So the polynomials considered in this section will merely differ by a power of t from those introduced before.
The first step is to generalize the characterization of increasing spanning forests (Lemma 2.1) to higher dimension. First we introduce some terminology.
We use the term "caged" because we regard ρ as being "trapped" between the facets φ 1 and φ 2 . Note that in a graph, vertex k is caged if and only if it satisfies the edge-pair criterion of Lemma 2.1.
As in (1), we introduce the notation When d = 1 (i.e., ∆ is a graph), this condition specializes to that of Lemma 2.1: a spanning subcomplex Υ ⊆ ∆ is cage-free precisely if it is an increasing spanning forest. Cage-free subcomplexes generalize spanning forests in the following additional ways. Proof. (a) Suppose, to the contrary, that Υ contains a d-cycle Z. Let k be the maximum vertex contained in a d-simplex in Z. Choose a ridge of Υ of the form ρ = [ρ ′ , m, k] < , where the vertex m is as small as possible. We claim that every facet of Z containing ρ must be of the form [ρ ′ , m, i, k] < . If there is a facet not of this form then, by maximality of k, it must have the form [σ, h, m, k] < for some σ and h where h < m. But then [σ, h, k] < is a ridge of Z containing k with h < m, contradicting the choice of ρ and proving the claim. Furthermore, Z is a cycle so that it must have at least two facets containing ρ. And by the claim, these two facets cage ρ, a contradiction.
(b) This assertion is obtained by replacing Z with Υ in the proof of (a).
Assertion (a) of Proposition 3.3 specializes to acyclicity for graphs, and assertion (b) generalizes the statement that every forest with at least one edge has a leaf.
To define the appropriate generating function for cage-free subcomplexes of ∆, we will need to consider sets analogous to the edge sets E k defined in (2). For a peak σ ∈ ∆ d−2 and a vertex k > σ, define Let N = N (∆) be the number of nonempty sets Φ σ,k . In our previous example, the nonempty sets are and so N = 2. Note that the Φ σ,k are pairwise-disjoint and partition ∆ d ., Moreover, the ridge For each cage-free spanning subcomplex Υ ⊂ ∆, define a monomial Define generating functions where N is the number of nonempty sets Φ σ,k and both sums run over all cage-free subcomplexes Υ ⊆ ∆. Our example complex has We now have all the pieces in place to state a factorization theorem generalizing Theorem 2.2 (which is the special case d = 1).
Proof. It follows directly from the definitions that Υ is cage-free precisely when the elements of Υ d are obtained by picking at most one facet from each Φ σ,k . Translating this statement into generating functions gives the desired equality.
Next we show that, up to a correction factor, the generating function CF(∆, t) is in fact the product of generating functions ISF(G σ , t) for a family of graphs associated with ∆.
Definition 3.5. Let σ be a peak (a codimension-2 face) of ∆. The upper link of σ is the graph G σ on [n] with edges {ij | [σ, i, j] < ∈ ∆}. The peak σ is called effective if G σ has at least one edge.
The correction factor t −10 arises because 10 = 15 − 5 is the difference between the degree of the product of the ISF(G σ , t) and the degree of CF(∆, t).
This factorization is an instance of the following general statement.
Proposition 3.6. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex on n vertices. Let N be the number of nonempty sets Φ σ,k and let s be the number of effective peaks of ∆. Then: (a) The cage-free generating function is given by (b) The number of cage-free subcomplexes of ∆ is given by Proof. First note that (b) follows from (a) by setting t = 1. To prove (a), let G be the disjoint union of all graphs G σ , where σ is an effective peak. By "disjoint" we mean that when the same edge of ∆ occurs in many G σ , the different copies are considered distinct in G. Since Each facet φ can be written uniquely as [σ, i, j] < , and so gives rise to a unique edge ij = γ(φ) ∈ E(G) where we are considering ij as an edge of G σ . This map γ : ∆ d → E(G) is bijective because it has an inverse: given ij ∈ E(G σ ) then the corresponding facet is [σ, i, j] < . Now, a spanning subcomplex Υ ⊆ ∆ is cage-free if and only if the corresponding edge set γ(Υ) contains no two edges ik, jk with i, j < k. And by Lemma 2.1 this is precisely the statement that γ(Υ) is the edge set of an ISF of G.
It follows that CF(∆, t) and ISF(G, t) are equal up to multiplying by a power of t. By Theorem 3.4, deg CF(∆, t) = N , and deg ISF(G, t) = ns. So t N −ns is the appropriate correction factor.
Next we discuss simplicial extensions of the concept of a perfect elimination ordering.
Definition 3.7. Let ∆ be a pure simplicial complex of dimension d ≥ 1 with vertices 1, . . . , n. The labeling is a perfect elimination ordering (PEO) if for all (d − 2)-faces σ and vertices i, j, k with σ < i < j < k, we have If ∆ is a graph, then σ = ∅ and so Definition 3.7 reduces to the definition of a PEO of a graph. Recall our example of the bipyramid (see Figure 4) with facets, 124, 125, 145, 234, 235, 345. It is easy to directly check that this labeling is a PEO of the bipyramid.
It is not hard to see that a labeling of the vertex set of ∆ is a PEO if and only if the induced labeling of each G σ is a PEO. Together with Theorem 1.4, Corollary 2.6, and Proposition 3.6, we get the following corollary.
Corollary 3.8. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex on n vertices. with equality if and only if the ordering 1, 2, . . . , n is a PEO of ∆.
Which simplicial complexes have perfect elimination orderings? It is well known that a graph has a PEO if and only if it is chordal, but the situation in higher dimension is much more complicated. Higher-dimensional extensions of various equivalent characterizations of chordality, have been studied by, e.g., Hà and Van Tuyl [HVT08], Emtander [Emt10], Woodroofe [Woo11], and Adiprasito, Nevo and Samper [ANS16].
A simplicial complex ∆ on vertex set [n] is called shifted if, whenever σ ∈ ∆ is a face and j < k with j ∈ ∆ and k ∈ ∆, then σ \{k} ∪ {j} is a face. Shifted complexes of dimension 1 are called threshold graphs; both these classes are well known in combinatorics. The vertex labeling on a shifted complex is always a PEO, but not every complex with a PEO is shifted. For instance, this is true of the bipyramid of Figure 4, which cannot be made shifted even by relabeling the vertices. In dimension 1, this observation reduces to the statement that the threshold graphs are a proper subset of the chordal graphs.
The following is a connection between our notion of a PEO and chordality of graphs. Proposition 3.9. Let ∆ be a simplicial complex. If ∆ has a PEO, then there is some peak σ whose link is a chordal graph.
Proof. Let σ be the lexicographically smallest peak, and let ij be an edge with i < j. If ij ∈ link ∆ (σ) then σ < i < j, else we could replace the greatest vertex of σ with i to obtain a lexicographically smaller peak. Therefore link ∆ (σ) coincides with the upper link G σ up to isolated vertices, and is chordal by the remarks preceding Corollary 3.8.
Note that while the bipyramid over a triangle has a PEO as we have seen in Figure 4, no bipyramid over a polygon with more than three sides has a PEO. This is because peaks are vertices, and every link of a vertex is a cycle of length at least 4 which is not a chordal graph. In particular, whether a simplicial complex has a PEO cannot be determined by its topology which is true even in dimension 1. This example also illustrates that shellability does not imply the existence of a PEO. Indeed, in dimension 1, any cycle is shellable but not chordal if it has length at least 4. Neither is the converse true: the "bowtie" complex consisting of two triangles joined at a vertex is not shellable, but every labeling is trivially a PEO since each ridge belongs to only one facet.
For a graph, Corollary 2.6 gives an upper bound for the number of increasing spanning forests and shows that the upper bound is achieved by labeling the vertices with a PEO. In particular, the number of increasing spanning forests does not depend on the choice of PEO, and a PEO could be defined as a labeling which maximizes the number of increasing spanning forests. These properties are not in general true for PEOs of a simplicial complex. Consider the three labelings of the bipyramid shown in Figure 5. Labelings (a) and (b) are PEOs, but not (c) because 135 and 145 are simplices, but not 134. On the other hand, labelings (a) and (c) give rise to the same cage-free generating function, namely CF (∆, t) = (t + 1) 4 (t + 2), while for labeling (b) one has instead (t + 1) 2 (t + 2) 2 . The number of cage-free spanning subcomplexes is in fact maximized by both labelings (a) and (c).
If the top homology of a graph is trivial, then it is a forest, hence is chordal and has a PEO. In higher dimension, vanishing top homology does not guarantee existence of a PEO. For example, the dunce hat is contractible, hence acyclic, but one can check that no labeling of the eightvertex triangulation of the dunce hat given in [Hac] is a PEO. Note that the link of the vertex labeled 1 in [Hac] is a chordal graph, so that the dunce hat is a counterexample to the converse of Proposition 3.9.

ISFs in multigraphs
In this section we generalize the theory of increasing spanning trees from graphs to multigraphs.
Definition 4.1. Let n be a positive integer. A labeled n-multigraph is a multigraph G = (V, E) such that: {0, 1, . . . , n}; (b) G has no loops, and at most one edge 0k for each k ∈ [n]; (c) For 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n, each edge between i and j is labeled with a nonzero complex number ζ and denoted by ij ζ . No two edges with the same endpoints can have the same label.
We retain the notation (1) for ISFs of a labeled multigraph G. We also define (cf. (2)). We will make the convention that two edges with the same endpoints form a cycle. The characterization of increasing spanning forests (Lemma 2.1) carries over to the setting of multigraphs, as does the factorization for the generating function ISF(G, t) (Theorem 1.2).
Let G be a labeled multigraph on vertex set {0, . . . , n}. Define a hyperplane arrangement in C n by This construction generalizes the usual one of a graphic hyperplane arrangement. For example, if G is the multigraph of Figure 6, then A(G) is the arrangement in C 3 with five hyperplanes x 1 = 0, x 1 = αx 2 , x 1 = βx 2 , x 1 = γx 3 , x 3 = 0. The intersection lattice L(G) = L(A(G)) is shown in Figure 7. Its characteristic polynomial is Figure 7: The intersection lattice L(G) for the multigraph G in Figure 6.
It is not a coincidence that the two polynomials are related. To explain the relationship, we need more about intersection lattices. Let L be a lattice. Recall that the elements of L that cover0 are called atoms, and that a multichain is a totally ordered multisubset of L. Let C be an0-1 multichain C, i.e., a multichain of the form0 = z 0 ≤ z 1 ≤ · · · ≤ z n =1. Then C induces an ordered partition of the atoms into blocks A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n , namely Note that some blocks can be empty, e.g., if z i−1 = z i for some i. For example, if L is the lattice in Figure 7, then the sturated chain induces the atom partition which corresponds to the partition of E(G) given in (7).
Definition 4.2. A labeled n-multigraph G is perfectly labeled if for all nonzero i < j < k the following hold: (1) If G has edges ik α and jk β , then it also has an edge ij α/β .
(2) If G has edges jk γ and jk ǫ with γ = ǫ, then it also has an edge 0j.
(3) If G has edges jk γ and 0k, then it also has an edge 0j.
In each of these cases, the third edge corresponds to a hyperplane whose defining equation is implied algebraically by those of the first two edges. For instance, the first condition says that if A(G) contains the hyperplanes x i = αx k and x j = βx k , then it also contains the hyperplane x i /x j = α/β, i.e., x i = (α/β)x j . Thus perfect labelings are the analogues of PEOs in the setting of labeled multigraphs. Unlike the definition of a PEO, a perfect labeling is not simply an ordering of the vertices. On the other hand, any PEO of a (simple) graph can be regarded as a perfect labeling by assigning all edges label 1.
For instance, one can check that the multigraph in Figure 6 is perfectly labeled. if and only if G is perfectly labeled.
Proof. Let V m be the vector space obtained by intersecting all hyperplanes of the form x j = 0 and and let (A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n ) be the partition of the atom set induced by C. Then combining Theorem 18 and Lemma 19 of [HS15], one sees that if and only if for every x ∈ L which is the join of two elements from A k there exists a j such that there is a unique atom below x in A j . This second statement is precisely the condition that G is perfectly labeled. Moreover, for each i, the edges in E i (G) (see (6)) correspond to the hyperplanes Thus by (10), if and only if the labeling of G is perfect. The result now follows.
We now briefly review some concepts related to NBC sets of geometric lattices. For details, see, e.g., Lectures 3 and 4 of [Sta07]. Let L be a geometric lattice with rank function ρ. For S ⊆ L, the symbol ∨S denotes the join of all elements in S. A set S of atoms of L is independent if ρ(∨S) = |S|, and is a circuit if it is a minimal dependent set. (These terms refer to the matroid naturally associated with L.) Note that if K is a circuit, then ∨K = ∨(K \{a}) for any a ∈ K. If we fix a total order on the atoms, then S is a broken circuit if it is obtained by removing the smallest atom from a circuit. An NBC set of L is a set which does not contain a broken circuit. Rota  Let L be any lattice and let (A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n ) be a partition of the atom set induced by a0-1 multichain, as in (9). An atomic transversal is a set T of atoms such that |T ∩ A i | ≤ 1 for each i. By [HS15,Lemma 19], every atomic transversal is independent. Evidently, where the sum is over atomic transversals of L. It follows from Theorem 4.3 that if L = L(G) where G is a labeled n-multigraph then the number of atomic transversals of size m is precisely isf m (G). Moreover, atomic transversals are related to NBC sets in the following way.
Proposition 4.4. Let L be a geometric lattice and let C :0 = z 0 ≤ z 1 ≤ · · · ≤ z n =1 be â 0-1 multichain in L. Let (A 1 , A 2 , . . . , A n ) be the partition of the atoms induced by C. Fix a total ordering of the atoms so that if a ∈ A i and b ∈ A j with i < j, then a precedes b. If T is an atomic transversal, then T is an NBC set.
Proof. Every subset of a transversal is a transversal, so it is enough to show that no atomic transversal can be a broken circuit.
Suppose that T is an atomic transversal which is also a broken circuit, say T = K \{a} where K is a circuit and a = min(K). In particular |K| ≥ 3 and |T | ≥ 2. Let A i be the block containing a. As mentioned above, T is independent, so T ∩ A i must be nonempty, otherwise K would also be an atomic transversal, hence independent. Let j = max{k | T ∩ A k = ∅}. Since |T | ≥ 2 and a = min(K), it follows that j > i. Let b be the unique element of T ∩ A j and let S = K \ {b}. Since K is a circuit, we have ∨K = ∨S = ∨T . On the other hand, ∨S ≤ z j−1 since, by the choice of j, all elements of S are less than or equal to z j−1 . But ∨T ≤ z j−1 since b ∈ T and b ≤ z j−1 . This is a contradiction. Next we discuss consequences for the topology of the complement of A G and its real analogue. Recall that the i th Betti number β i (X) of a topological space X is the dimension of the i th (unreduced) homology group of X with coefficients in R. Let A be an arrangement in C n and let X(A) = C n \ ∪A. A well-known result of Orlik and Solomon [OS80, Theorem 5.2] states that β m (X(A)) = nbc n−m (L(A)). An immediate consequence of the previous result is the following. We now consider the case that G is an R-labeled multigraph, i.e., all labels are nonzero real numbers. Then formula (8) may be viewed as defining an arrangement A R (G) in R n , with the same intersection lattice as the complex arrangement A(G). As before, we define X(A R ) = R n \ ∪A. Zaslavsky [Zas75] showed that for every real hyperplane arrangement A, the number of regions r(A) of X(A) is given by nbc (L(A)). Observe that the proofs of Theorem 4.3 and Proposition 4.4 go through without change upon replacing A(G) by A R (G), as does Corollary 4.5, with the following consequence.
Corollary 4.7. Let G be an R-labeled n-multigraph. Then with equality if and only if G is perfectly labeled.
We now mention a generalization of Theorem 1.4 to signed graphs. Let G be a labeled nmultigraph with at most two edges between any two nonzero vertices. If every edge between nonzero vertices of G is labeled by 1 or −1 we say that G is a signed graph. This is essentially equivalent to the signed graphs studied by Zaslavsky in [Zas82]. Our signed graphs have the additional vertex 0, and an edge of the form 0i in our setting corresponds to a half-edge at i in [Zas82].
A coloring of a signed graph G is a function where s is some nonnegative integer. A coloring is proper provided that (i) for all i, j = 0, if ij ǫ ∈ E(G), then c(i) = ǫc(j); and (ii) if 0i ∈ E(G), then c(i) = 0.
These definitions correspond to those in [Zas82], and our real hyperplane arrangement A R (G) coincides with Zaslavsky's H[G].
As for an ordinary graph, the chromatic function P (G, t) of a signed graph G is the number of proper colorings of G with t = 2s + 1 colors. It follows from [Zas82, Theorem 2.2] that if G is a signed graph with vertex set {0, 1 . . . , n}, then P (G, t) is a polynomial, specifically, Using this fact and Theorem 4.3, we have the following generalization of Theorem 1.4. Proposition 4.9. Let G be a labeled n-multigraph. If G is perfectly labeled, then the lattice L(G) = L(A(G)) is supersolvable.
Proof. Consider the multichain0 = V 0 ≤ V 1 ≤ · · · ≤ V n =1 defined in the proof of Theorem 4.3. Let C ′ be the chain obtained from C by removing any repeated elements in C. We claim that C ′ is saturated. Indeed, suppose V k < V k+1 . For ℓ ≥ 1, let M ℓ be the matrix whose rows are normal vectors to the hyperplanes defining V ℓ , where for a hyperplane of the form x i = αx j , i < j, we take the normal with a one in coordinate i and similarly for x i = 0. We denote these row vectors by r(x i = αx j ) and r(x i = 0), respectively. Since V ℓ is the nullspace of M ℓ , it suffices to show that where rk denotes matrix rank. Equation (12) is clearly true if M k+1 has only one more row than M k . So suppose at least two hyperplanes were added; then one of them must be of the form x j = βx k+1 . Consider such a hyperplane where j is maximum. It is obvious that rk M ′ = 1 + rk M k if M ′ is the matrix obtained by adding r(x j = βx k+1 ) to M k . So we will be done if we can show that the other rows of M k+1 involving x k+1 are linear combinations of the rows of M ′ . But this follows from the fact that G is perfectly labeled. For example, consider a row corresponding to a hyperplane x i = αx k+1 with i < j. By condition (1) of Definition 4.2, the matrix M k contains the row r(x i = α/βx j ), and Using Theorems 1.2 and 4.3 we see that χ(L(G), t) factors with nonpositive integer roots. By the previous paragraph, this factorization is induced by the saturated chain C ′ . It follows from [HS15,Proposition 22] that L(G) is supersolvable.
If G is a simple graph, 0 is an isolated vertex and all edges are labeled by 1, then a perfect labeling of G is just a PEO and the converse of Proposition 4.9 holds; see, e.g., [Sta07,Corollary 4.10]. However, the converse is false for multigraphs. For example, the multigraph shown in Figure 8 has no perfect labeling, since condition (2) of Definition 4.2 must fail, but on the other hand L(G) is easily seen to be supersolvable.

Forests and pattern avoidance
In this section, we study tight forests, another class of labeled forests characterized by avoiding certain permutation patterns. If G is triangle-free, then every tight spanning forest is an NBC set, and the converse is true if the vertex labeling is a quasi-perfect ordering (QPO). These orderings exist only for certain bipartite graphs; when they do, they give a combinatorial interpretation of the chromatic polynomial as a generating function for tight spanning forests.
Two sequences of distinct positive integers π = π 1 π 2 · · · π k and σ = σ 1 σ 2 · · · σ k are orderisomorphic, written π ∼ σ, provided that π i < π j if and only if σ i < σ j for all i and j. For example, 2341 ∼ 6892. If π and σ are two sequences of distinct positive integers we say σ contains π as a pattern if σ has a subsequence that is order-isomorphic to π. For example, σ = 6892 contains 231 as a pattern because of the subsequence 692 ∼ 231. We say that σ avoids π if σ does not contain π as a pattern. For example, 6892 avoids 321. More generally, given a set of sequences Π we say that σ avoids Π if σ avoids every π ∈ Π. Now let T be a tree with vertices labeled by distinct positive integers. As before, we regard T as rooted at its smallest vertex r. We say that T avoids π if every path from r to a leaf of T avoids π. For example, if T is the right-hand tree in Figure 1, then the paths from the root are 235, 239, 26, 278, 274, so T avoids 321 but not 21 because 74 ∼ 21. Indeed, a tree is increasing precisely if it avoids 21. We say that a labeled forest avoids π if every component tree in it does so. We similarly extend all definitions of pattern avoidance in sequences to forests.
For the remainder of the section, we will specifically consider labeled forests avoiding the set Π = {231, 312, 321}. To simplify discussion, we will call a copy of one of these permutations in a tree a bad triple. Note that a bad triple can never contain the root of a tree, since none of the forbidden patterns starts with the digit 1. As shown in [DDJ + 12, Prop. 6.2], the permutations avoiding these patterns are precisely the involutions such that all two-cycles are of the form (i, i+1), and in particular are counted by the Fibonacci numbers.
Definition 5.1. A permutation is tight if it avoids the patterns Π = {231, 312, 321}. Equivalently, all the 1's in its permutation matrix lie on or adjacent to the main diagonal. A sequence of distinct integers is tight if it is order-isomorphic to a tight permutation. Finally, if F is a labeled forest, with every component tree rooted at its smallest vertex, then we saw that F is tight if every path starting at a root is a tight sequence.
It is worth noting that every tree with two or fewer edges is tight. As before, we use the notation Proof. It suffices to prove the corresponding statement for labeled trees. Accordingly, let T be a labeled tree with root r, and let T ′ be a subtree of T . Let r ′ be the root of T ′ , and let s be the vertex of T ′ which is closest to r in T , so that P : r, . . . , s, . . . , r ′ is a path in T . Since r ′ has the smallest label of any vertex in T ′ , it follows that r ′ and s are either identical or adjacent; otherwise the path s, . . . , r ′ would contain the pattern 321 or 231, which would contradict the fact that P is tight. Now let P ′ be a path in T ′ starting at r ′ . By the previous paragraph, P ′ is either a subpath of some path from r in T , or else it has the form r ′ , s, P ′′ , where s is the parent of r ′ in T and s, P ′′ is a subpath of a path from r in T . Then s, P ′′ is tight because T is tight, and r ′ , s, P ′′ is tight as well, again by Definition 5.1, since the label of r ′ is smaller than that of any other vertex in this path.
In Theorem 2.4, we showed that every increasing forest is an NBC set. We wish to extend this result to the setting of tight forests. It is not the case that every tight forest is an NBC set: for example, in the cycle with vertex set [3] the three-vertex path labeled 1, 3, 2 is a tight forest but is itself a broken circuit. On the other hand, the next result shows that broken 3-cycles are the only obstruction to extending Theorem 2.4. Proposition 5.3. Let G be a graph with no 3-cycles. Then T F k (G) ⊆ N BC k (G) for all k.
Proof. By Lemma 5.2, it is equivalent to show that any broken circuit B of length 4 or more, regarded as a labeled tree contains a bad triple. Now B is a path of the form a, x, y, . . . , b where a = min(B) and b < x. Then either b < x < y, b < y < x, or y < b < x. In each case x, y, b is a bad triple, being a copy of 231, 321, or 312 respectively.
Proof. Let G have a 3-cycle C. So C is order isomorphic to the cycle on [3], and the example before the previous proposition indicates how to find an element of T F 2 (G) not in N BC 2 (G).
We now define a kind of vertex ordering that is related to tight forests as PEOs are to ISFs.
Definition 5.5. Let G be a graph. A candidate path in G is a path of the form such that a < b < c; m ≥ 1; and v m is the only v i smaller than c. The total ordering of V (G) is called a quasi-perfect ordering (QPO) if all candidate paths satisfy the following condition: either ad ∈ E(G), or else d < b and cd ∈ E(G). This definition seems obscure, but in fact QPOs are an extension of PEOs in the following sense. If the possibility m = 0 were allowed, so that d = b, then (15) would reduce to the requirement that ab ∈ E(G), just as in a PEO. The existence of a QPO has strong structural consequences, as we now explain.
Proposition 5.6. Let G be a graph with a QPO.
(1) Every cycle of length at least 5 has a chord.
(2) If G has no 3-cycles, then it is bipartite.
Proof. For (1), we prove the contrapositive. Suppose that C ⊆ G is a chordless cycle of length at least 5. Let P be the three-edge subpath a, c, b, d, where c = max(C) and b > a. Neither ad nor cd are edges, so P is a candidate path that fails (15).
For (2), if G is not bipartite, then it has an odd cycle C. If C has minimum length, then it cannot be a cycle of length at least 5 by part (a). So C must be a triangle, which is a contradiction.
Before continuing with the general development, we will look at a few examples.
Example 5.7. We note that not every graph with a QPO need be bipartite. For example, the labeling of the non-bipartite graph shown in Figure 9 is a QPO. In particular, the only candidate path is a, c, b, d = 1, 5, 4, 3, and ad is an edge.
Example 5.8. For every positive integer m, the complete bipartite graphs K m,1 , K m,2 and K m,3 all admit QPOs. For K m,1 , every ordering is a QPO. For K m,2 one can label the partite sets as {1, m + 2} and {2, . . . , m + 1}; this gives a QPO, since every candidate path comes from removing an edge from a 4-cycle. For K m,3 , label the partite sets X = {1, 2, N } and Y = {3, 4, . . . , N − 1}, where N = m + 3. We claim that this labeling is a QPO. To show this, let P be a candidate path, labeled as in (14). If N ∈ V (P ), then we are done by the K m,2 case. And if P has odd length then av ∈ E(G). Now consider N ∈ V (P ) and P of even length. So cv ∈ E(G). If a ∈ X then we must have a = 1, b = 2, and v = N which is a contradiction. If a ∈ Y then this forces c = N and v = 1 or 2. So v < b and (15) is satisfied.
Example 5.9. Consider the complete bipartite graph G = K m,n , where m, n ≥ 4. Note that every cycle in G of length ≥ 5 has a chord. But we claim that no ordering of V (G) is a QPO. Suppose, towards a contradiction, that G has a QPO. Let N = m + n and let X, Y be the partite sets of G.
First, suppose that N − 1, N belong to the same partite set, say X. Let a < b < d be vertices in Y . Then a, c = N − 1, b, N, d is a candidate path with ad ∈ E(G) and d > b, so condition (15) fails.
Second, suppose that N − 1, N belong to different partite sets. Let X be the partite set containing N − 2 and let a, b, d ∈ Y with a < b < d < N − 2; note that three such vertices must exist because |Y | ≥ 4. Let x be whichever of N − 1, N belongs to X. Then a, c = N − 2, b, x, d is a candidate path leading to the same failure of (15) as in the previous case.
Either a or d is the smallest vertex of Q, so the smaller of the two must be the root. If a < d then c, b, d is either a 321-pattern or a 312-pattern according as d < b or d > b. On the other hand, if a > d then b, c, a is a 231-pattern. Now we show that Q is an NBC set-that is, if e is an edge outside Q whose endpoints belong to Q, then e is not the smallest edge of the resulting cycle. We consider the possibilities for e individually.
First, consider possible edges containing vertex a. We know e = ab is not an edge of G since G has no 3-cycles, and e = ad is not an edge of G since Q fails the QPO condition. This leaves e = av i for some i ∈ [m − 1], but then e is lexicographically greater than ac.
Second, we look at edges containing c. If e = cv i for some i ∈ [m − 1], then e is lexicographically greater than bc. If e = cd and d > b then e is still lexicographically greater than bc. The only other possibility is when d < b. But since Q does not satisfy the QPO condition, this forces cd not to be an edge of G.
Finally, suppose e = v i v j for some i, j with j ≥ i + 3 where we let v 0 = b. In this case, a, c, b, v 1 , . . . , v i−1 , v i , v j , v j+1 , . . . , v m = d is a shorter candidate path that fails (15), which contradicts the choice of Q.
By Theorem 1.2, the generating function for increasing forests in any graph has only nonpositive integer roots, regardless of the ordering of the vertices. This is not in general the case for the corresponding generating function for tight forests.
Proposition 5.12. Let G be a graph with n vertices and e edges. Then G has a vertex ordering such that every root of TF(G, t) is an integer if and only if it is a forest.
Proof. (⇐) If G is a forest, then any increasing labeling gives both a PEO and a QPO. Hence TF(G, t) = ISF(G, t), which has only integral roots by Theorem 1.2. (⇒) Suppose that TF(G, t) = (t + a 1 ) · · · (t + a n ), where the a n are integers. Since all coefficients of TF(G, t) are nonnegative, all its roots are nonpositive and so all the a i are nonnegative. As observed earlier, every forest with two or fewer edges is tight so we have, for q = |E(G)| TF(G, t) = t n + qt n−1 + q 2 t n−2 + · · · = t n + i a i t n−1 +   i<j a i a j   t n−2 + · · · .
Note that q 2 = a 1 + · · · + a n 2 = 1 2 So for the second equality in the first sequence of equations to hold, we must have a i ∈ {0, 1} for all i. Since q = a i we obtain TF(G, t) = t n−q (t + 1) q . But this implies that every subset of E(G) is a (tight) forest, so G is a forest.
We conclude with two problems for further study suggested by the previous proposition. For any set of patterns Π and any graph G, let F Π m (G) be the set of m-edge spanning forests of G avoiding all patterns in Π, and let F Π (G, t) = m |F Π m (G)|t n−m .
Question 5.13. For which sets of patterns Π and graphs G does F Π (G, t) have integer roots? Can there be roots other than 0 and −1?
Question 5.14. For which sets of patterns Π and graphs G is the coefficient sequence of F Π (G, t) unimodal or log-concave?