Zeros of fractional derivatives of polynomials

Abstract: We investigate the behavior of fractional derivatives of polynomials. In particular, we consider the locations and the asymptotic behaviour of their zeros and give bounds for their Mahler measure.

\section{Introduction}

Questions concerning finding exact or approximate values of the zeros of polynomial functions $p(x) = c_n x^n + c_{n-1}x^{n-1} + \cdots + c_1 x + c_0$ are classical, and (for the case of real coefficients $c_0, c_1, \cdots c_n$) properties of the distribution of these zeros have been studied since at least 1637, when Descartes established his fundamental Rule of Signs (in {\em La G{\' e}om{\' e}trie} \cite{descartes1637}). This important result was refined to finite intervals by Budan in 1807 and by Fourier in 1820 (see \cite{bf1} or \cite{bf2}). By then, thanks to the work of Euler, Gauss and Argand (see \cite{fine1997} for more details), the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra had been established, guaranteeing that a polynomial of degree $n$ has exactly $n$ complex zeros (counted with multiplicity). Not much later,
in 1829, Cauchy \cite{cauchy1829} was able to prove that all zeros of a monic polynomial $p(x)$, with complex coefficients, must lie inside the disk $|z| < 1 + \max_{0 \leq k \leq n-1} |c_k|$,
the bounds that were eventually generalized by Landau \cite{landau1907}, Fej{\' e}r \cite{fejer1908} and others.

In another direction,
one could ask about the relation between locations of the zeros of a polynomial $p(x)$ and the zeros of its derivative $p^{\prime}(x)$, as Rolle has done in his {\em  Trait{\' e} d’alg{\`e}bre} of 1690 (see \cite{shain1937}); the well-known theorem bearing his name -- that states that between any two zeros of a real polynomial there lies at least one zero of the derivative -- was proved rigorously by Cauchy \cite{cauchy1823} in 1823. In the complex plane, the situation becomes even more interesting. As Gauss noted in 1836, all zeros of $p^{\prime}(x)$ lie in the convex hull of the zeros of $p(x)$.
The first proof of this proposition was published by Lucas \cite{lucas1874} in 1874; it is now known as the Gauss-Lucas Theorem
(also see \cite{marden1966}). At the beginning of the 20th century it was refined by B{\^o}cher \cite{bocher1904}, Jensen \cite{jensen1912} and Walsh \cite{walsh1920}, and in more recent times, several related extensions and generalizations of it have been considered by Dimitrov \cite{dimitrov1998}, Brown \& Xiang \cite{brown1999}, Sendov \cite{sendov2021}, Tao \cite{tao2022} and others.

The main aim of our work is to investigate connections between these two central themes. We will try to show that their key ideas can be combined in a very natural way, but to quite surprising effects, if one considers the fractional
derivatives $p^{(\alpha)} (x)$, where $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ is a variable $0 \leq \alpha \leq n = \deg p(x)$.
Our main goal in this paper will be to answer one of the most intriguing questions that arises as soon as one begins to study these topics: since obviously $\deg p^{\prime}(x) =  \deg p(x) - 1$, and the Fundamental Theorem asserts than the same reduction must occur for the total number of zeros,
what happens to the zeros of fractional derivatives, as the real $\alpha$ increases continuously from $0$ to $n$? How
do the zeros of polynomials vanish, and why? As it turns out, these questions have remarkably simple and elegant answers. Namely, for a polynomial $p(x)$ of degree $n$, each of its $n$ zeros will belong to a path of unique length that connects it to the origin, where the ``length'' of the path can be measured by the number of zeros of its derivatives it contains; in other words, for each $0 \leq k \leq n-1$ there will be a unique path (originating at one of the zeros of $p(x)$) that will contain exactly $k$ zeros of its higher derivatives. (Figure \ref{fig two} shows this general property for a generic cubic polynomial).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-3-center-0.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-3-center+1-I.pdf}
\caption{Paths \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives
\(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\) and
\(\RL{1-i}{\alpha}p\)
of the polynomial \(p(x)=x^3 + (1+i)x^2 + x - i\).
We end the paths when \(z(\alpha)\) reaches the ``origin'' (\(a=0\) in the first case, and \(a=1-i\) in the second).
}\label{fig two}
\end{figure}

Another goal of this paper will be to try to understand some of the particulars of the paths the fractional zeros take, their dynamical properties. In order to state our results concerning this general flow of polynomial zeros more precisely, first we will need to recall some basic definitions and properties
of fractional derivatives. There exist a multitude of different definitions of fractional derivatives, each with its own particular advantages and disadvantages. Unlike in
our study of the Riemann zeta function and the Stieltjes constants where the Gr\"unwald-Letnikov fractional derivative
\cite{g:1867,l:1869-1} worked
really well (see \cite{fps} and \cite{fps2}), in the case of polynomials their divergence forces us instead to employ
the  Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative \cite{riefrac}, which also can be thought of as a truncated version of the Gr\"unwald-Letnikov fractional derivative \cite{ortigueira2011fractional}.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Our Section \ref{sec derv} contains a short introduction to the Riemann-Liouville differintegral  focusing on results most applicable to fractional derivatives of polynomials.
In Section \ref{sec low} this theory is applied to the two simplest cases: polynomials of degree one and two. These are the two cases where, thanks to the manageable classical formulas for the zeros, all the main questions can be conclusively answered. With the cubic polynomials things become somewhat murky, but general convergence trends can still be established. In Section \ref{sec flow} we do just that: we examine how the zeros of integral derivatives are connected to the zeros of fractional derivatives in the most general setting, and we look at the paths of zeros and investigate their convergence and the overall flow. In Section \ref{sec bounds} we consider the behaviour of the zeros on a larger scale and we prove bounds for
the Mahler measure of the fractional derivatives, which are then, in Section \ref{caputo}, also established for the Caputo fractional derivative. Finally, in Section \ref{conclusion}, we discuss some intriguing open problems and unsolved questions.

\section{Riemann-Liouville Fractional
Derivatives}\label{sec derv}
In full generality, the \(\alpha\)-th Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative is defined as follows, see \cite{oldham-spanier}, for example:

\begin{definition}[Riemannn-Liouville fractional derivative]\label{def rl}
Let \(f\) be analytic on a convex open set \(C\) let and \(a\in C\).
For \(\alpha>0\) the Riemann-Liouville integral is
\[
\RLI{a}{\alpha} f(t)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int_a^t f(t)(t-\tau)^{\alpha-1} \,d\tau.
\]
Set \(\RLI{a}{0}f(t)=f(t)\) and for \(\alpha>0\) define the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative as
\[
\RL{a}{\alpha} f(t) = \frac{d^m}{dt^m} \RLI{a}{m-\alpha} f(t),
\]
where $m=\lceil \alpha \rceil$.  For \(\alpha<0\) set
\(\RL{a}{\alpha}f(t)=\RLI{a}{-\alpha} f(t)\).
\end{definition}
In what follows, we will only consider the special case of polynomials, composed of the simple power functions $p(x)=(x-a)^{\beta}$, where $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$, $a\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}$. For these, the $\alpha$-th Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative can be computed
using the Power Rule:
\begin{align}\label{eq poly derv}
\RL{a}{\alpha}(x-a)^{\beta}=\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if }\alpha-\beta-1 \in \N\\
\dfrac{\Gamma(\beta+1)}{\Gamma(\beta-\alpha+1)}(x-a)^{\beta-\alpha} & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where, for $z \in \mathbb{C}$, the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$ is defined as $\Gamma(z)=\int_0^\infty t^{z-1}e^{-t}dt$; it satisfies $\Gamma(1+n)=n\Gamma(n)$, which implies that $\Gamma(n) = (n-1)!$ for $n \in \mathbb{N}$. The function $\Gamma(z)$ has no zeros in the complex
plane $\mathbb{C}$, and has poles at all the negative integers (see \cite{artin1964}).

\begin{remark}
The Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of a monomial \(f(x)=x^n\) is multivalued.  When changing the branch of the complex logarithm in the computation of the fractional derivative all coefficients of the derivative are changed by the same factor.
So choosing a different branch of the complex logarithm does not change the zeros of the derivative, which means that we
can fix the branch in our consideration of zeros of derivatives of polynomials.
We use the principal branch of the complex logarithm.
\end{remark}

It should be noted that the constant $a$ that centers the expansion (\ref{eq poly derv}) plays a key role in all our computations below, as the ``origin,'' or the limit of convergence, of the flow of zeros of derivatives (Figure \ref{fig two} illustrates its role). Also noteworthy is the fact that the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative satisfies all properties expected of a regular derivative, with the exception of the composition rule. The following example shows why it fails:

\begin{example}
From (\ref{eq poly derv}),  the \(1.5\)-th derivative of \(p(x)=1\) is
\(
\textstyle\RL{0}{1.5}p(x)=\frac{2}{ \csqrt{\pi}}x^{-1.5}
\)
and
\(\textstyle\RL{0}{1}\left(\RL{0}{0.5}p(x)\right) =\frac{2}{ \csqrt{\pi}}x^{-0.5}.
\)
However, \(\RL{0}{0.5}\left(\RL{0}{1}p(x)\right)=\RL{0}{0.5}0=0.
\)
\end{example}

When \(\beta\in\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}\setminus\Z\) we still have
\(\RL{a}{\alpha}\left(\RL{a}{\beta}p(x)\right)=\RL{a}{\alpha+\beta}p(x)\).

\begin{remark} It is possible to go beyond the standard values of $0 \leq \alpha$, and consider what happens for $\alpha < 0$. Here, there will be \(n+1\) complex roots, because the first term in Equation \ref{eq lem derv} below has the root \(0\). Just like in the standard case, the extended curves \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the differintegral \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p\) will be continuous for \(\alpha<0\) unless
\(\RL{a}{\alpha}p\) has a double root; however, they will not be smooth at integral \(\alpha > 0\).  More on this will be said in Section \ref{sec flow} below.
\end{remark}

In what follows, we consider the zeros of the the fractional derivatives of polynomials \(p\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) of degree \(n\), and we investigate the implicit functions \(z:(0,n)\to \mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}\) given by
\[
\RL{a}{\alpha}f(z(\alpha))=0.
\]
If \(\left(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)\right)'\ne 0\), for \(\alpha\in(0,n)\), then
\(z(\alpha)\) is differentiable on \((0,n)\).
We denote the roots of the polynomial \(p(x)\) by \(z_1, z_2, \dots,z_n\)
and for \(1\le k\le n\) we define the the implicit function \(z_k:[0,n)\to\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}\)  by \(z_k(0)=z_k\)
and \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(z(\alpha))=0\).

The following representation of the fractional derivatives of a general monic polynomial will be most useful.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem derv}
Let \(p(x)=(x-a)^n+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} c_j (x-a)^{j}\in\mathbb{C}[x]\) and \(\alpha\not\in\N\).  Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq lem derv}
\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)=\frac{n!}{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)} (x-a)^{-\alpha}
\left[(x-a)^{n}+
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
\left(
\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\right)\cdot
\frac{j!}{n!} c_j (x-a)^{j}
\right].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Applying the Power Rule (\ref{eq poly derv}), we obtain \begin{align*}
\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)  &=
\frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)} (x-a)^{n-\alpha}+
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} \frac{\Gamma(j+1)}{\Gamma(j+1-\alpha)} c_j (x-a)^{j-\alpha}\\
&=\frac{\Gamma(n+1)}{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)} (x-a)^{-\alpha}
\left[(x-a)^{n}+
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
\frac{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(j+1-\alpha)}
\frac{\Gamma(j+1)}{\Gamma(n+1)} c_j (x-a)^{j}
\right]
\\
&=\frac{n!}{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)} (x-a)^{-\alpha}
\left[(x-a)^{n}+
\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
\left(
\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\right)\cdot
\frac{j!}{n!} c_j (x-a)^{j}
\right],
\end{align*}
as wanted. \qedhere
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} The representation of the fractional derivatives of polynomials given in the above  Lemma \ref{lem derv} has the property that their roots only depend on the factors in square brackets, which in turn implies the useful fact that the branch cut of the complex logarithm does not affect the paths \(z(\alpha)\) of
zeros of these fractional derivatives.

We also see that for \(p(x)=(x-a)^n\) we have:
\begin{equation}\label{eq at a}
\RL{a}{\alpha}p(a)=
\begin{cases}
0 &\mbox{if }\alpha<n\\
\Gamma(n+1) & \mbox{if }\alpha=n\\
\mbox{undefined} &\mbox{if }\alpha>n
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{remark}

\begin{remark} A few words should be said about our plots of the implicit functions \(z:\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}\)
with \(z(\alpha)\) given by \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(z(\alpha))=0\).
The dots labelled `\(\bullet\)\textsf{k}' represent zeros of the \(k\)th Riemann-Liouville differintegral (thus `\(\bullet \)\textsf{0}'
represent the zeros of the polynomial \(p(x)\) itself), while circles
`\(\circ\)\textsf{k}' represent points that are limits of \(z(\alpha)\) as \({\alpha\to k}\) but are not zeros of \(\RL{a}{k}p\).  These occur for integral \(k\) with \(k\ge\deg p(x)\), where \(\RL{a}{k}p(x)\) is constant, for example at \(x=a\), see Equation (\ref{eq at a}).
Moreover, when a point is either a zero or a limit point of zeros of both the \(j\)th and the \(k\)th differintegrals, then it is represented by `\(\bullet\) \textsf{j \& k}' or `\(\circ\) \textsf{j \& k}' respectively.
In Figures \ref{fig two}, \ref{fig double}, and \ref{fig longest} we let all paths of zeros of \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)\) end when they reach the origin \(a\).  In Figures \ref{fig one},  \ref{fig double}, \ref{fig p1},
\ref{fig quintic paths}, and \ref{fig quintic abs}
we continue the paths past \(a\).
In Figures \ref{fig one}, \ref{fig double}, and \ref{fig p1} we display the path of zeros \(z(\alpha)\) for \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>n\) in lighter colors than for \(0\le \alpha < n \) where \(n\) is the degree of the polynomial.
The point \(a\) is only labeled with values for \(\alpha\) for \(\alpha\ge 0\).
\end{remark}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-2.pdf}
\caption{Path $z(\alpha)$ of zeros of differintegrals of the polynomials \(p(x)=x-2-3i\) and $p(x)=(x-2-3i)(x+2+i)$.}
\label{fig one}
\end{figure}

\section{Low Degrees}\label{sec low}
Formulas for finding zeros of polynomials of low degrees have been known for centuries. Applying the Riemann-Liouville derivative to these low-degree cases
has proved to be a simple but informative exercise. In this section we summarize some of these results, stating the most useful ones as lemmas. They are
examples of a
dynamic that shares certain key characteristic with most high-degree cases, but some aspects of which are often unique. For example, in the linear case,
the path the zeros take is also linear, while already in the quadratic case one observes a considerably more complex behavior.

Let us start with the linear polynomials. Here the situation is simple. The paths of zeros will always be linear, too, and they can be completely described. We have:

\begin{lemma}[Linear Polynomials]\label{lem linear}
Let \(p(x)=(x-a)+c_0\). As $\alpha$ increases from $0$ to $1$, the path of zeros of \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)\) is given by \(z(\alpha)=(\alpha-1)c_0+a\).
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{eq poly derv}), with $\beta = 1$, we get: \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)=(x-a)^{-\alpha}\left((x-a)+(1-\alpha)c_0\right)\).
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
    In addition to considering the $\alpha$-th derivatives in the usual range $0 \leq \alpha \leq n$, one could also look at what happens when $\alpha < 0$ and when $\alpha>n$.
    In the linear case this is, again, simple.   From Lemma \ref{lem linear} we can deduce that, as with $\alpha<0$, the line of roots of the derivatives continues. Similarly, for $\alpha>1$, $\alpha\not\in\Z$ lie on the same line, see Figure \ref{fig one} below.
\end{remark}

Let us now consider the quadratic case. This case is considerably more interesting, since there are
now two paths of zeros of the fractional derivatives, and they exhibit a much more complex and intricate behavior.
We first notice that the path of the zero closest to $a$ will directly connect with $a$, while the path of the farther zero will in the process of reaching $a$ pass through the zero of the first derivative.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem quad root order}
Let $p(x)=x^2+c_1(x-a)+c_0$ with discriminant \(d=\) and roots \(s_1\) and \(s_2\).
\begin{enumerate}
\item If \(d\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}\setminus\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}^{<0}\), denote by \( \csqrt{d}\) the
complex number $r$ with \(r^2=d\) and \(\Re(r)> 0\).  Then for the
roots \(s_1=\frac{-b+ \csqrt{b^2-4c}}{2}\) and \(s_2=\frac{-b- \csqrt{b^2-4c}}{2}\)
of \(g(x)=x^2+bx+c\in\mathbb{C}[x]\) we have \(|s_1|\le |s_2|\).
\item If \(d\in\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}^{<0}\), then \(|s_1|=|s_2|\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Write \(d=1-\frac{4c}{b^2}\).
Then
\(|s_1|=\left|\frac{b}{2}\right|\cdot \left|-1+ \csqrt{d}\right|\)
and \(|s_2|=\left|\frac{b}{2}\right|\cdot \left|-1- \csqrt{d}\right|\).
Now
\begin{align*}
\left|-1+ \csqrt{d}\right|^2 & = \left(-1+ \csqrt{d}\right)\left(-1+\overline{ \csqrt{d}}\right)=1- \csqrt{d}-\overline{ \csqrt{d}}+|d| \text{ and }\\
\left|-1- \csqrt{d}\right|^2 &= \left(-1- \csqrt{d}\right)\left(-1-\overline{ \csqrt{d}}\right)=1+ \csqrt{d}+\overline{ \csqrt{d}}+|d|
\end{align*}
Because \(\Re\left( \csqrt{d}\right)> 0 \) we have
\(|s_1|\le |s_2|\).
\item Now assume $\Re(r)=0$, meaning $r$ is completely imaginary, i.e. $r=it$. Then using the information above we have,
\begin{align*}
    \left|-1+ \csqrt{d}\right|^2 & =1- \csqrt{d}-\overline{ \csqrt{d}}+|d| = 1-r-\overline{r}+|r^2| =1-it-\overline{it}+\left|(it)^2\right| \\
    & =1-t^2 =1+it-it-t^2 =1+it+\overline{it}-t^2 =\left|-1- \csqrt{d}\right|^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have \(|s_1|= |s_2|\).\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
    As of yet, there is no known reliable ordering of the zeros for any of the higher degree polynomials. In fact, there exist examples of cubic polynomials for which the standard Euclidean distance (which works so well for the linear and the quadratic cases) can be shown to fail: see Figure \ref{fig longest}.
\end{remark}

 In addition to the natural ordering on the quadratic roots, another question that seems to be of interest is the one that concerns the trends of descent of their paths, especially since it had such a nice answer in the linear case. As it turns out, the asymptotes of the two quadratic paths exist, and the quadratic formula alone is enough to help us find them.

\begin{theorem}\label{prop roots quad}
For the quadratic polynomial $p(x)=(x-a)^2+c_1(x-a)+c_0$, the paths of zeros of the fractional derivatives \(\RL{a}{\alpha} p(x)\) are given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq roots quad}
z_{1,2}(\alpha)=a+\frac{-(2-\alpha) c_1\pm \csqrt{(2-\alpha)^2\cdot (c_1)^2 - 8(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha) \cdot c_0}}{4},
\end{equation}
with \(|z_1(\alpha)|\ge|z_2(\alpha)|\), for {\(\alpha\in[0,1]\)}, and \(\lim_{\alpha\to 1}z_1(\alpha)=a\)
and
\(\lim_{\alpha\to 2}z_{1,2}(\alpha)=a\).
\begin{proof}
With the help of (\ref{eq poly derv}), the fractional derivatives of \(p(x)\) can be written as
\[
\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)=\frac{2}{\Gamma(3-\alpha)}x^{-\alpha}
\left(
(x-a)^{2} +\frac{(2-\alpha)\cdot c_1}{2} (x-a) +\frac{(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha)\cdot c_0}{2}\right).
\]
Now, set $y=x-a$. Then the roots of $y^{2} +\frac{(2-\alpha)\cdot c_1}{2} y +\frac{(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha)\cdot c_0}{2}$ .
are
\[
z_{1,2}(\alpha)=a+\frac{-(2-\alpha) c_1\pm \csqrt{(2-\alpha)^2\cdot (c_1)^2 - 8(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha) \cdot c_0}}{4}
\]
The ordering of the roots \(|z_1(\alpha)|\ge|z_2(\alpha)|\), for {\(\alpha\in[0,1]\)},  follows with Lemma \ref{lem quad root order}. Furthermore, we have
\[
\lim_{\alpha\to 1} z_{1,2}(\alpha)=a+\frac{- c_1\pm \csqrt{ (c_1)^2}}{4}=a+\frac{-c_1\pm c_1}{4}.
\]
Thus $\lim_{\alpha\to 1} z_1(\alpha)=a$ and $\lim_{\alpha\to 1} z_2(\alpha)= a+\frac{c_1}{2}$.
Similarly
\[
\lim_{\alpha\to 2}\left[a+\frac{-(2-\alpha) c_1\pm \csqrt{(2-\alpha)^2\cdot (c_1)^2 - 8(2-\alpha)(1-\alpha) \cdot c_0}}{4}\right]=a.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}
For \(\alpha \to \pm\infty\), the asymptotes of the quadratic paths are
\[\textstyle z_{1,2}(\alpha)\approx\frac{(2-\alpha) c_1}{4}\left[-1\pm \csqrt{1-\frac{8c_0}{c_1}}\right]. \]
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
By (\ref{eq roots quad})
we have,
\begin{align*}
        z_{1,2}(\alpha)&=\frac{-(2-\alpha) c_1\pm(2-\alpha) c_1 \csqrt{1 - 8\frac{(1-\alpha)}{(2-\alpha)} \cdot \frac{c_0}{c_1}}}{4}\\
        &=\frac{(2-\alpha) c_1}{4}\left[-1\pm \csqrt{1-\frac{8c_0(1-\alpha)}{c_1^2(2-\alpha)}}\right],\\
\end{align*}
and since $\frac{1-\alpha}{2-\alpha}\to 1$, as $\alpha\to \pm\infty$, this yields linear asymptotes for $z_1(\alpha)$ and $z_2(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}

An noteworthy special case occurs when the polynomial has a double root. Then the paths display an interesting symmetry, see Figure \ref{fig double}.
In fact, it is easy to see that specializing our Proposition \ref{prop roots quad} to the case of a double zero of the polynomial itself yields:

\begin{corollary}
If $p(x)=(x-z_0)^2$ then the zeros of \(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\) are
\[z_{1,2}(\alpha)=\frac{z_0\left(-(2-\alpha) \pm  \csqrt{\alpha(2-\alpha)}\right)}{2}. \]
\end{corollary}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-2-double-totale.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-2-double-root-abs.pdf}
\caption{Paths \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the fractional derivatives of
\(p(x)=x^2+(2+6i)x-12+9i\) where \(\RL{0}{1/2}p\) has a double root.  In the plot on the right the wide, light green graph represents the real part of \(z(\alpha\)), while the thin, dark red graph represents its imaginary part.
}\label{fig double}
\end{figure}

Another natural question to ask is whether, given that a quadratic polynomial has  distinct zeros, can its fractional derivative have a double zero. Setting \(z_1(\alpha)=z_2(\alpha)\) one gets:

\begin{corollary}\label{lem double zero}
Let $p(x)=(x-a)^2+c_1(x-a)^1+c_0(x-a)^0$. Then the fractional derivative \(\RL{a}{\alpha}(p(x))\) will have a double zero precisely for one \(\alpha\in\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}\setminus\N\), namely:
\(\alpha = 1-\frac{c_1^2}{8c_0- c_1^2}\).
\end{corollary}

\section{Flow of Zeros}\label{sec flow}

As stated above, one of our main goals was to consider the paths of zeros of the fractional derivatives of polynomials \(p(x) \in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) of arbitrary degrees. Unfortunately, unlike in the linear and quadratic cases, already for the cubics we find that the situation becomes considerably more complicated. This can be seen from the fact that one of the nicest properties -- the natural ordering of zeros -- fails already for degree 3: in other words,
it is not true in general that zeros furthest away from the origin will yield the longest paths of zeros of fractional derivatives on its way to the origin. Figure
\ref{fig longest} shows a notable counterexample.

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-furthest-longest-counterexample-paths.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-furthest-longest-counterexample-abs.pdf}
\caption{The paths \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the fractional derivatives of
the cubic \(p(x)=(x-3-2i)(x-2+5i)(x-4+4i)\)
and the absolute values \(|z(\alpha)|.\)
In the latter case, the zero of \(p(x)\) with the greatest absolute value is
not the starting point of the longest path.
}
\label{fig longest}
\end{figure}

However, certain convergence properties of the paths can be established in general. For example, the following theorem shows that all the paths terminate in the origin $a$.

\begin{theorem}\label{theo roots lim}
Let \(p(x) \in \mathbb{C}[x]\) of degree \(n\) such that for all \(\alpha\in [0,n]\)
the fractional derivative \(p^{(\alpha)}(x)\) has no double zeros.
Then there is an ordering of the roots \(z_1,\,z_2,\,...,\,z_n\) or \(p\) such that for
\(p^{(\alpha)}(z_j(\alpha)) = 0\) and \(z_j(0)  = z_j\) for \(j\in\{1,...,n\}\) we have
\(\lim_{\alpha \to j} z_j(\alpha) = a\)
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We  denote the coefficients in the expansion proved in Lemma \ref{lem derv} by
\begin{equation}
d^\alpha_j:=\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\cdot \frac{j!}{n!}. \label{eq dalphaj}
\end{equation}
Let \(0\le j\le n\) and \(m>j\).  Here, clearly
\[
\lim_{\alpha\to m}
d^\alpha_j=
\lim_{\alpha\to m}
\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\cdot \frac{j!}{n!}=0.
\]
Write the coefficients of the derivatives  \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)\) by
\(d^\alpha_j\,c_j\)
as symmetric functions of the roots
\(z_1(\alpha),z_2(\alpha), \dots, z_n(\alpha)\) of  \(\RL{a}{\alpha}p(x)\).
Because
\[
0=\lim_{\alpha\to m} d^\alpha_0\,c_0= \lim_{\alpha\to m} \prod_{k=1}^n z_k(\alpha)
\]
we have
\(\lim_{\alpha\to m} z_{k_1}(\alpha)=0\), for at least one \(1\le k_1\le n\).
Inductively, continuing with the next coefficient we get:
\begin{equation}\label{eq sym 1}
0=\lim_{\alpha\to m} d^\alpha_1\,c_1= \lim_{\alpha\to m}
\sum_{l=1}^n \prod_{k\ne l} z_k(\alpha).
\end{equation}
There is one summand in (\ref{eq sym 1}) that does not contain \(z_{k_1}(\alpha)\).
So we need to have \(\lim_{\alpha\to m} z_{k_2}(\alpha)=0\) for at least one \(k_2\ne k_1\).
This argument also holds for all \(d^\alpha_j\,c_j\) with \(j<m\).
Therefore, we get \(\lim_{\alpha\to m} z_{k}(\alpha)=0\) for at least \(m\) distinct
\(k\in\{1,\dots, n\}\).
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-3-p1-totale.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-deg-3-p1-totale-mahler.pdf}
\caption{Paths \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of \(\RL{0}{\alpha}(x^3+x^2+x+1+i)\).
illustrating the growth of the absolute value of \(z(\alpha)\) as
\(\alpha\to\infty\) and \(\alpha\to-\infty\) and the Mahler measure
of \(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\) along with the bounds from Theorems \ref{theo upper bound} and \ref{theo lower bound}.
}
\label{fig p1}
\end{figure}

\section{Bounds}\label{sec bounds}

As stated in the introduction, for \(f\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) the Gauss-Lucas theorem states that all zeros of \(f'\) lie in the convex hull of the set of zeros of \(f\), see \cite[Theorem 6.1]{marden1966}. By induction this generalizes to all integral derivatives. Unfortunately, although all roots of the fractional derivatives converge to the origin, by our Theorem \ref{theo roots lim}, the analogue of the Gauss-Lucas theorem does not hold for the fractional derivatives.
This is an immediate consequence of a result by Genchev and Sendov
{\cite{genchev-sendov}}, which is also stated as {\cite[Theorem 2]{nikolov-sendov}}:

\begin{theorem}
Let \(L:\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\to\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) be a linear operator, such that \(L(p)\ne 0\) implies that
the convex hull of the set of roots of \(p\) contains the roots of \(L(p)\).
Then \(L\) is a linear functional or there are \(c\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}\) and \(k\in\N\) such that \(L(p)=cp^{(k)}\).
\end{theorem}

Figure \ref{fig longest} illustrates this result by giving a specific counterexample to the Gauss-Lucas property for the case of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some useful statements about how the absolute values of zeros
\(z_k(\alpha)\)
of the fractional derivatives \(\RL{0}{\alpha} f\)
decrease as \(\alpha\) increases in terms of the Mahler measure of \(f\).

Let \(p(x)=x^n+\sum_{j=1}^{n-1} c_j x^j=\prod_{j=1}^n (x-z_j)\in\mathbb{C}[x]\).
For the Mahler measure \(M(f)\) \cite{mahler} we have
\[
M(p) = \exp\left(\int_0^1 \log(|f(e^{2\pi i\theta})|)\, d\theta \right)= \prod_{j=1}^n \max\{1,|z_j|\}.
\]
Denote the height of \(f\) by
\(
\nheight{p} = \max\{c_0,\dots,c_n\}
\)
and the length of \(f\) by
\(
\nlength{p}=|c_0|+\dots+|c_n|.
\)
Recall that Mahler was able to prove the bounds
\begin{equation}\label{eq mahler height}
\binom{n}{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}^{-1} \nheight{p} \le M(p) \le \nheight{p}  \csqrt{n+1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq mahler length}
2^{-n} \nlength{p} \le M(p) \le  \nlength{p}.
\end{equation}
For \(\ntwo{p} = \left(\sum_{j=1}^n |c_j|^2\right)^\frac{1}{2}\) we have Landau's inequality
\cite{landau1905}
\begin{equation}\label{eq landau}
M(p)\le ||p||_2.
\end{equation}
We generalize the definition of the Mahler measure to fractional derivatives.
Let \(Z(\alpha)\) be the set of zeros of \(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\).  We set
\[
M\left(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\right)=\prod_{z\in Z(\alpha)}\max\{1,|z|\}.
\]
and prove bounds similar to Equations \ref{eq mahler height},
\ref{eq mahler length}, and \ref{eq landau}
for the fractional cases.
We first estimate the coefficients \(d^\alpha_j\) from Proposition \ref{theo roots lim} and then use them to derive bounds for \(M\left(\RL{0}{\alpha}p\right)\).

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-mahler-paths.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-caputo-mahler-paths.pdf}
\caption{Comparing paths \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the Riemann-Liouville (left) and Caputo (right) fractional derivatives
of the  quintic
\(p(x)=(x+1-2i)(x-3-2i)(x-2+5i)(x-3+3i)(x+1+5i)\), for \(0\le\alpha\le 5\).
}
\label{fig quintic paths}
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem dj}
Let \(n\in\N\) and \(\alpha\in\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}\setminus\N\).
Let
\(d^\alpha_j=\left(\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\right)\cdot \frac{j!}{n!}
\) where \(0 \le j\le n-1\).  Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{dj gt 0}
\(|d^\alpha_j| \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\), for  \(0<\alpha< n\).
\item\label{dj lt}
\(|d^\alpha_j| \le \frac{\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}}{n!}\),
where \(\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}=\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} |n-\alpha-k|\),
for \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>n\).
\item\label{dj lt 0 gt 2n}
\( |d^\alpha_j|\ge\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\),  for \(\alpha<0\)
and \(\alpha>2n\).
\item\label{dj gt n}
\(|d^\alpha_j|\ge\frac{\alpha-n}{n} \binom{n-1}{(n-1)/2}^{-1}\), for \(n<\alpha\le 2n\).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
For \(0\le\alpha < j+1\), we have
\[
|d^\alpha_j| = \frac{n-\alpha}{n} \prod_{k=j+1}^{n-1}\frac{k-\alpha}{k} \cdot \frac{j!}{j!}< \frac{n-\alpha}{n}.
\]
When \(j+1 < \alpha\) set \(h:=\lfloor\alpha\rfloor\).  We get
\begin{align*}
|d^\alpha_j|
&=
\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\cdot\frac{(n-1-\alpha)\cdots(h+1-\alpha)\cdot(\alpha-j-1)\cdots(\alpha-h)\cdot j!}{(n-1)!}
\le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}.
\end{align*}
\item For \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>n\), we have
\begin{align*}
|d^\alpha_j|
&=
\frac{|n-\alpha|\cdots|j+1-\alpha|\cdot j!}{n!}\\
&=
\frac{|\alpha-n|\cdots|\alpha-j-1|\cdot j!}{n!}\\
&\le
\frac{|\alpha-n|\cdots|\alpha-1|}{n!}=\frac{|n-\alpha|_n}{n!}.
\end{align*}
For \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>2n\), we have
\begin{align*}
|d^\alpha_j|
&=\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\cdot\frac{(n-1-\alpha)\cdots(j+1-\alpha)\cdot j!}{(n-1)!} \\
&\geq\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\cdot\frac{(n-1)\cdots(j+1)\cdot j!}{(n-1)!}
=\frac{n-\alpha}{n}.
\end{align*}
\item
For \(\alpha>2n\), we have
\begin{align*}
|d^\alpha_j|
=\frac{\alpha-n}{n}\cdot\frac{(\alpha-n+1)\cdots(\alpha-j-1)\cdot j!}{(n-1)!} \ge \frac{\alpha-n}{n}.
\end{align*}
\item
For \(2n>\alpha>n\), we have
\begin{align*}
|d^\alpha_j|
&=\frac{(\alpha-n)\cdots(\alpha-j-1)\cdot j!}{n!}\\
&\ge\frac{\alpha-n}{n}\cdot\frac{1\cdots(n-j-1)\cdot j!}{(n-1)!}\\
&\ge\frac{\alpha-n}{n} \binom{n-1}{(n-1)/2}^{-1}.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-mahler-abs.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-caputo-mahler-abs.pdf}
\caption{Comparing the absolute value of \(z(\alpha)\) of zeros of the Riemann-Liouville (left) and Caputo (right) fractional derivatives
of the  quintic
\(p(x)=(x+1-2i)(x-3-2i)(x-2+5i)(x-3+3i)(x+1+5i)\), for \(0\le\alpha\le 5\).
}
\label{fig quintic abs}
\end{figure}

We now show that \(M\left(\RL{0}{\alpha} p\right)\)
is bounded from above for \(0<\alpha<\deg p\) where the bound linearly
decreases with \(\alpha\).  Furthermore, in Theorem \ref{theo lower bound},
we see that for \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>\deg p\) the Mahler measure
\(M\left(\RL{0}{\alpha} p\right)\) increases at least linearlily with \(\alpha\).

In our proofs  we use the following notation. We set
\begin{align}\label{eq equivalent poly}
\RLs{0}{\alpha}f(x) = \frac{\Gamma(n+1-\alpha)}{n!}x^\alpha\cdot \RL{0}{\alpha}f(x).
\end{align}
Because \(\RLs{0}{\alpha}f(x)\)
has the same roots as \(\RL{0}{\alpha}\) except for the additional root \(0\).
we have
\begin{align*}
M\left(\RLs{0}{\alpha}f\right)
= M\left(\RL{a}{\alpha}f)\right).
\end{align*}

\begin{theorem}\label{theo upper bound}
Let \(f(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]\) be monic and let \(0<\alpha<n\).  Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)  \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\nlength{f}+1$
\item $M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)  \le  \csqrt{n+1} \max\left\{\frac{n-\alpha}{n} \nheight{f},1\right\}$
\item $M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)  \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n} \ntwo{f}+1$
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Write \(f(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n c_j x^j\).
With the notation from Lemma \ref{lem derv} we have
\begin{align*}
\RLs{0}{\alpha}(x)
= x^{n}+ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
\left(
\prod_{k=j+1}^n\!(k-\alpha)\right)\cdot
\frac{j!}{n!} c_j x^{j} = x^n+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} d^{\alpha}_j\,c_j\, x^j.
\end{align*}
This yields the following three bounds for the Mahler measure of \(\RL{a}{\alpha} f \).
\begin{enumerate}
\item
With Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj gt 0}), we get
\begin{align*}
\nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}}
&=|d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0|+|d_1^{(\alpha)}c_1|+\dots+|d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1}|+1\\
&\le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\left(|c_0|+|c_1|+\dots+|c_{n-1}|\right)+1\\
&\le \frac{n-\alpha}{n} \nlength{f}+1.
\end{align*}
With Mahler's (\ref{eq mahler length}), we get
\[
M\left(\RL{a}{\alpha} f\right) =
M\left(\RLs{0}{\alpha}\right) \le
\nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}} \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\nlength{f}+1.
\]
\item
By Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj gt 0}), we have
\begin{align*}
\nheight{\RLs{0}{\alpha}}
&=\max\{|d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0|,|d_1^{(\alpha)}c_1|,\dots,|d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1}|,1\}\\
&\le \max\left\{\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\max\{|c_0|,|c_1|,\dots,|c_{n-1}|\},1\right\}
\\
&\le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\nheight{f}+1.
\end{align*}
With Mahler's (\ref{eq mahler height}),
we get
\[
M\left(\RL{a}{\alpha} f\right) =
M\left(\RLs{a}{\alpha} f\right) \le
 \csqrt{n+1} \nheight{\RLs{0}{\alpha}} \le  \csqrt{n+1}  \max\left\{\frac{n-\alpha}{n} \nheight{f},1\right\}.
\]
\item
By Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj gt 0}), we have
\begin{align*}
\ntwo{\RLs{0}{\alpha}}
&= \csqrt{(d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0)^2+\dots+(d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1})^2+1}\\
&\le\frac{n-\alpha}{n} \csqrt{c_0^2+\dots+c_{n-1}^2}+1\\
&\le\frac{n-\alpha}{n}\ntwo{f}+1.
\end{align*}
With Landau's (\ref{eq landau}), we get
\[
M(\RL{a}{\alpha} f )=
M\left(\RLs{0}{\alpha}\right) \le \ntwo{\RLs{0}{\alpha}} \le\frac{n-\alpha}{n} ||f||_2+1.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

Now we are able to prove:

\begin{theorem}\label{theo lower bound}
Let \(f(x)\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) be monic of degree \(n\).  Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{tlb1}\(M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)\ge 2^{-n}\frac{n-\alpha}{n}(\nlength{f}-1)+1\), for  \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>2n\)
\item\label{tlb2}\(M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)\le \frac{\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}}{n!}\nlength{f}+1\), for  \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>n\)
\item\label{tlb3}\(M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f)\ge 2^{-n}\binom{n-1}{\lceil(n-1)/2\rceil}^{-1}\frac{\alpha-n}{n}\nlength{f}\), for \(n<\alpha\le 2n\)
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\ref{tlb1}.]
By Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj lt 0 gt 2n}), we have
\begin{align*}
\nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}f}
&=|d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0|+|d_1^{(\alpha)}c_1|+\dots+|d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1}|+1\\
&\ge \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\left(|c_0|+|c_1|+\dots+|c_{n-1}|+1-1\right)+1\\
&=\frac{n-\alpha}{n}(\nlength{f}-1)+1.
\end{align*}
With Mahler's (\ref{eq mahler length}), we get
\[
M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f) =M\left(\RLs{0}{\alpha}\right) \ge 2^{-n} \nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}} \ge 2^{-n}\frac{n-\alpha}{n}(\nlength{f}-1)+1.
\]
\item[\ref{tlb2}.]
By Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj lt 0 gt 2n}), we have
\begin{align*}
\nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}f}
&= \csqrt{(d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0)^2+\dots+(d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1})^2+1}\\
&\le\frac{\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}}{n!}\csqrt{c_0^2+\dots+c_{n-1}^2}+1\\
&\le\frac{\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}}{n!}\ntwo{f}+1.
\end{align*}

With Landau's (\ref{eq landau}),
we get
\[
M\left(\RL{a}{\alpha} f\right) =
M\left(\RLs{a}{\alpha} f\right) \le
\nlength{\RLs{a}{\alpha} f}
\le \frac{\ff{|n-\alpha|}{n}}{n!}\ntwo{f}+1.
\]
\item[\ref{tlb3}.]
By Lemma \ref{lem dj} (\ref{dj gt n})
\begin{align*}
\nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}}
&=|d_0^{(\alpha)}c_0|+|d_1^{(\alpha)}c_1|+\dots+|d_{n-1}^{(\alpha)}c_{n-1}|+1\\
&\ge \frac{\alpha-n}{n}\binom{n-1}{\lceil(n-1)/2\rceil}^{-1}\left(|c_0|+|c_1|+\dots+|c_{n-1}|+1\right)\\
&=\frac{\alpha-n}{n}\binom{n-1}{\lceil(n-1)/2\rceil}^{-1}\nlength{f}
\end{align*}
With Mahler's (\ref{eq mahler length}), we get
\[
M(\RL{0}{\alpha} f) =M\left(\RLs{0}{\alpha}\right) \ge 2^{-n} \nlength{\RLs{0}{\alpha}} \ge 2^{-n}\frac{\alpha-n}{n}\binom{n-1}{(n-1)/2}^{-1}\nlength{f}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

In Figure \ref{fig p1} we present the paths of zeros and the
Mahler measures of the fractional derivatives of a degree 3 polynomial along with the bounds from Theorems \ref{theo lower bound} and \ref{theo upper bound}.
Furthermore Figures \ref{fig one}, \ref{fig double}, and \ref{fig p1} show
the growth of $M(\RL{0}{\alpha} p)$ for \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>0\).

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper-caputo-rieliou-mahler-bound.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Mahler measure of the Riemann-Liouville and Caputo fractional derivatives of the quintic \(p(x)=(x+1-2i)(x-3-2i)(x-2+5i)(x-3+3i)(x+1+5i)\)  for \(0\le\alpha\le 5\) along with the bound from
Theorem \ref{theo upper bound} and Corollary \ref{cor upper bound caputo}.}
\label{fig bound mahler}
\end{figure}

\section{Caputo Fractional Derivatives} \label{caputo}

Switching the order of differentiation and integration in Definition \ref{def rl} yields the Caputo fractional derivative, see \cite{diethelm2010} for example.

\begin{definition}[Caputo fractional derivative]\label{def caputo}
Let \(f\) be analytic on a convex open set \(C\) let and \(a\in C\).  Let $\alpha>0$ and $m=\lceil \alpha \rceil$ then the \(\alpha\)-th Caputo fractional derivative is
\[
\CA{a}{\alpha} f(t)
=
\RLI{a}{m-\alpha}
\frac{d^m}{dt^m}
f(t).
\]
\end{definition}
The Caputo fractional derivative has the advantage that the composition rule holds, while the power rule is very similar to that of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative:
\[
    \CA{a}{\alpha}x^\beta= \begin{cases}
        0 &
        \begin{array}{l}\text{if } \beta \in \{0,1,\dots, m-1\}
        \end{array}\\
        \dfrac{\Gamma(\beta+1)}{\Gamma(\beta-\alpha+1)}(x-a)^{\beta-\alpha} &
\begin{array}{l}
        \text{if } \beta\in\N \text{ and }\beta \ge  m\text{ or }\\[-0.5ex]
        \text{if } \beta\not\in\N \text{ and }\beta > m-1,
\end{array}
    \end{cases}
\]
where $m=\lceil \alpha \rceil$.

These derivatives differ, but obey some common general trends. Figures \ref{fig quintic paths} and \ref{fig quintic abs} compare the paths of zeros of the Riemann-Liouville and Caputo derivatives of a degree 5 polynomial.

The upper bounds from Theorem \ref{theo upper bound} easily transfer
to the Caputo fractional derivative.  Because the coefficients of the Caputo fractional derivatives of a polynomial \(p\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) are either the
same as those of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative or zero,
we have
\[
\norm{\CAs{0}{\alpha}}{k} \le \norm{\RLs{0}{\alpha}}{k},
\]
for  \(k\in\{1,2,\infty\}\).  This yields the bounds:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor upper bound caputo}
Let \(p\in\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}[x]\) be monic of degree $n$ and let \(0<\alpha<n\).  Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M(\CA{0}{\alpha} p)  \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n}\nlength{p}+1$,
\item $M(\CA{0}{\alpha} p)  \le  \csqrt{n+1} \max\left\{\frac{n-\alpha}{n} \nheight{p},1\right\}$,
\item $M(\CA{0}{\alpha} p)  \le \frac{n-\alpha}{n} \ntwo{p}+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}

The bounds we have established in Section 5 and Section 6 were sufficient for our purposes, but they are
far from best possible.
Figure \ref{fig bound mahler} illustrates the decline of $M(\RL{0}{\alpha} p)$ and $M(\CA{0}{\alpha} f)$, when $\alpha$ approaches \(n\), as described by Theorem \ref{theo upper bound} and Corollary \ref{cor upper bound caputo} and Theorem \ref{theo roots lim}. In a future work, it would be interesting to consider the true growth of the paths of zeros, for \(\alpha<0\) and \(\alpha>n\). Also, the maximal extent of loops of paths, after traversing the origin \(a\), is something that could be worth looking at. Moreover, as Figure \ref{fig p1} clearly shows, the paths exhibit very distinct linear asymptotes in both directions \(\alpha\to\infty\) and \(\alpha\to-\infty\). For polynomials of higher degrees, their exact directions are not yet known.

In addition to this, as we have noted earlier, the useful Gauss-Lucas property does not hold universally for the fractional derivatives of polynomials. However, some of the dynamical properties we have observed could be investigated with insights related to those that play a key role in the integral case. In particular, Gauss himself suggested a very intriguing physical interpretation of the nontrivial critical points of a polynomial (the critical points which are not zeros) as the equilibrium points in certain force fields, generated by particles placed at the zeros of the polynomial, with masses equal to the multiplicity of the zeros and repelling with a force inversely proportional to the distance. This amazing physical application of a purely theoretical polynomial concept is exceedingly intriguing and should be investigated further. It could go a long way in explaining the profound intricacies of the paths of zeros, and their seemingly chaotic local behavior.


Judicious partitions of uniform hypergraphs

Abstract: The vertices of any graph with $m$ edges may be partitioned into two parts so that each part meets at least $\frac{2m}{3}$ edges. Bollobás and Thomason conjectured that the vertices of any $r$-uniform hypergraph with $m$ edges may likewise be partitioned into $r$ classes such that each part meets at least $\frac{r}{2r-1}m$ edges. In this paper we prove the weaker statement that, for each $r\ge 4$, a partition into $r$ classes may be found in which each class meets at least $\frac{r}{3r-4}m$ edges, a substantial improvement on previous bounds.

\section{Introduction}
The vertices of any graph (indeed, any multigraph) may be partitioned into two parts, each of which meets at
most two thirds of the edges (\cite{BS93}; it also appears as a problem in \cite{MGT}). An equivalent statement in
this case is that each part spans at most one third of the edges. These two statements give rise to different
generalisations when a partition into more than two parts is considered. In this paper we shall only address
the problem of meeting many edges; the problem of spanning few edges is addressed in \cite{BS99} for the
graph case and \cite{BS97} for the hypergraph case.

A particularly interesting case occurs when we partition the vertices of an $r$-uniform hypergraph into $r$
classes. Bollob\'as and Thomason (see \cite{BRT93}, \cite{BS00}) conjectured that every $r$-uniform hypergraph
with $m$ edges has an $r$-partition in which each class meets at least $\frac{r}{2r-1}m$ edges.
The author \cite{Hasa} recently proved the conjecture for the case $r=3$.

The previous best known bound for each $r>3$ was proved by Bollob\'as and Scott \cite{BS00}, who in fact
obtained a constant independent of $r$. The method they used was to progressively refine a partition by
repartitioning the vertices in two or three parts to increase the number of parts which met $cm$ edges; in
doing so they showed that $r$ disjoint parts meeting at least $cm$ edges may be found for $c=0.27$.

Our strategy will be to combine those ideas with the methods used to prove the conjectured bound in the case
$r=3$ \cite{Hasa}. We shall obtain values of $c_r=\frac{r}{3r-4}$ for $r>3$, and so $c_r \to \frac{1}{3}$ as $r \to \infty$. While this is a significant improvement on previous bounds, it is still some distance from the
conjectured bounds which approach $\frac{1}{2}$ in the limit.

All results obtained in this paper apply to hypergraphs in which repeated edges are permitted, and in
fact we shall need this extra generality in an induction step.

\section{New parts from old}
In this section we give two lemmas which show that if we have a partition in which some parts meet many more
edges than required we may locally refine that partition and increase the number of parts which meet the
required number of edges. The first of these lemmas was proved in \cite{BS00}; the second is a new result in
the same spirit. The setting for each lemma is the same. $G$ is a multi-hypergraph, but not necessarily
uniform; edges may have any number of vertices, and edges of any size may be repeated. $G$ has $m$ edges, but
the maximum degree of a vertex is less than $cm$ where $c>0$ is an arbitrary constant. For $A,B\subset V$
we write $d(A)$ for the number of edges meeting $A$ and $d(A,B)$ for the number meeting both $A$ and $B$ (we
shall only use the latter notation where $A$ and $B$ are disjoint).

\begin{lemma}[\cite{BS00}]\label{rutwothree}
Let $c>0$ be a constant and let $G$ be a multi-hypergraph on vertex set $V$ with $m$ edges such that $\Delta(G)<cm$. If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint subsets of $V$, each of which meet at least $2cm$ edges, then there is a partition of $A\cup B$ into three parts, each of which meets at least $cm$ edges.
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{rutwothree} was proved in \cite{BS00}; we provide their proof for completeness.
\begin{proof}
We may replace each edge by a subedge if necessary so that no edge meets either $A$ or $B$ in more than
one vertex. We may then partition $A$ into three parts, $A_1, A_2, A_3$, such that the union of any two
meets at least $cm$ edges: we may do this by taking $A_1$ to be a maximal part meeting fewer than $cm$ edges,
and then dividing $A\setminus A_1$ into two non-empty parts, since any set which strictly contains $A_1$ must
meet at least $cm$ edges and $A_2\cup A_3=A\setminus A_1$ meets $d(A)-d(A_1)>2cm-cm=cm$ edges. We find a
similar partition $B=B_1\cup B_2\cup B_3$. It is sufficient to find $i, j$ such that $d(A_i\cup B_j)\ge cm$;
then $A_i\cup B_j, A\setminus A_i, B\setminus B_j$ will be a suitable partition. We shall show that this is
always possible.

Since each edge meets $A$ in at most one place then $d(A)=\sum_id(A_i)$ (and likewise $d(B)=\sum_id(B_i)$).
Similarly, if an edge meets both $A$ and $B$ then we may find unique $i, j$ for which it meets $A_i$ and $B_j$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
d(A,B)=\sum_{i,j}d(A_i,B_j).
\end{equation*}
Also,
\begin{equation*}
d(A_i\cup B_j)=d(A_i)+d(B_j)-d(A_i,B_j),
\end{equation*}
so
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i,j}d(A_i\cup B_j) &=& \sum_{i,j}\left(d(A_i)+d(B_j)-d(A_i,B_j)\right)\\
 &=& 3d(A)+3d(B)-\sum_{i,j}d(A_i,B_j)\\
 &=& 3d(A)+3d(B)-d(A,B)\\
 &\ge& 3d(A)+2d(B)\ge 10cm.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since there are nine terms in the LHS, at least one must exceed $cm$.
\end{proof}

This proof shows more than required: we can always find a partition of $A\cup B$ into three parts, two meeting at least $cm$ edges and the third meeting at least $\frac{10cm}{9}$. However, we cannot always find a partition into three parts, two meeting more than $cm+1$ edges and the third meeting at least $cm$, as seen by considering the case where each of $A$ and $B$ have three vertices, two meeting $cm-1$ edges and one meeting 2 edges.

A part which does not meet the desired number of edges can also be useful provided we have another part meeting sufficiently many edges to combine with it.

\begin{lemma}\label{rugoodbad}
Let $c>0$ be a constant and let $G$ be a multi-hypergraph on vertex set $V$ with $m$ edges such that $\Delta(G)<cm$. If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint subsets of $V$, with $d(A)\ge 2cm$ and $d(A)+2d(B)\ge 3cm$, then there is a partition of $A\cup B$ into two parts, each of which meets at least $cm$ edges.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As before, we may replace each edge by a subedge if necessary so that no edge meets either $A$ or $B$ in
more than one vertex. We may then again partition $A$ into three parts $A_1, A_2, A_3$ such that the union
of any two meets at least $cm$ edges. It is now sufficient to find $i$ such that $d(A_i\cup B)\ge cm$; then
$A_i\cup B, A\setminus A_i$ will be a suitable partition. We claim this is always possible.

Again,
\begin{equation*}
d(A,B)=\sum_{i}d(A_i,B)
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
d(A_i\cup B)=d(A_i)+d(B)-d(A_i,B),
\end{equation*}
so
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i}d(A_i\cup B) &=& \sum_{i}\left(d(A_i)+d(B)-d(A_i,B)\right)\\
 &=& d(A)+3d(B)-\sum_{i}d(A_i,B)\\
 &=& d(A)+3d(B)-d(A,B)\\
 &\ge& d(A)+2d(B)\ge 3cm.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since there are three terms in the LHS, at least one must be at least $cm$.
\end{proof}
In particular, we may find such a partition when $d(A)\ge 2cm$ and $d(B)\ge \frac{cm}{2}$;
this is the only case in which we shall apply Lemma \ref{rugoodbad}.

\section{The bounds}
Throughout this section $G$ is an $r$-uniform multi-hypergraph on vertex set $V$ with $m$ edges.
Our goal is to prove that there is a partition of $V$ into $r$ parts such that each part meets at least
$c_r m$ edges for some suitable constant $c_r$. In order to use Lemmas \ref{rugoodbad} and
\ref{rutwothree} we need to reduce to the case $\Delta(G)<c_rm$. To that end we apply induction on $r$. If
some vertex meets at least $c_r m$ edges then we may remove that vertex, replacing each edge of $G$ by a subedge of
size $r-1$ not containing that vertex, and then use the result for $r-1$ to partition the remaining vertices
into $r-1$ parts, each meeting at least $c_{r-1} m$ edges; this is sufficient so long as $c_{r-1} \ge c_r$,
which will be the case. We shall take $c_2=\frac{2}{3}$, so the case $r=2$ is known.

Our plan will be to look at partitions for which $\sum_id(V_i)$ is large, and show that if some parts meet too
few edges then there are enough parts meeting at least $2c_rm$ edges to allow us to construct a good partition
by combining parts as above.

Certainly any partition which is optimal in the sense of maximising $\sum_id(V_i)$ also satisfies the
local optimality condition that $\sum_id(V_i)$ cannot be increased by moving a single vertex. We shall
consider particularly the yet weaker condition that $\sum_id(V_i)$ cannot be increased by moving a single
vertex into $V_r$. We begin by establishing bounds on partitions satisfying this condition.

\begin{lemma}\label{aaa}
Let $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r$ be a partition for which $\sum_i d(V_i)$ cannot be increased by
moving a vertex into $V_r$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^r d(V_i) \ge (r+1)m-rd(V_r).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $i<r$ and each $v\in V_i$, since moving $v$ into $V_r$ does not increase the sum, the number of edges
$e$ such that $e\cap V_i = \{v\}$ must be at least the number of edges $e$ containing $v$ which do not meet
$V_r$: the first quantity is the decrease in $d(V_i)$ effected by moving $v$ and the second is the increase
in $d(V_r)$. Thus
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i\ne r}\sum_{v\in V_i}|\{e:e\cap V_i={v}\}|\le \sum_{i\ne r}\sum_{v\in V_i}|\{e\ni v: e\cap V_r =\emptyset\}|.
\end{equation*}
Since, for $v\ne w$, $\{e:e\cap V_i={v}\}$ and $\{e:e\cap V_i={w}\}$ are disjoint,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i\ne r}\sum_{v\in V_i}|\{e:e\cap V_i={v}\}| &=& \sum_{i\ne r}|\bigcup_{v\in V_i}\{e:e\cap V_i={v}\}| \\
 &=& \sum_{i\ne r}|\{e:|e\cap V_i|=1\}|.
\end{eqnarray*}
For $1\le i <r$, let $E_i=\{e:|e\cap V_i|=1\}$. For each edge $e$ write $f(e)$ for the number of parts (including $V_r$)
which meet $e$. If $f(e)<r$ then $|e\cap V_i|>1$ for some $i$, and so $e$ is in at most $f(e)-1$ of the $E_i$;
trivially if $f(e)=r$ then $e$ is in at most $r-1=f(e)-1$ of the $E_i$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i\ne r}|\{e:|e\cap V_i|=1\}| &\le& \sum_{e}(f(e)-1) \\
 &=& \sum_{i=1}^r d(V_i)-m.
\end{eqnarray*}
Also,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i\ne r}\sum_{v\in V_i}|\{e\ni v: e\cap V_r =\emptyset\}|=r(m-d(V_r)),
\end{equation*}
since each edge not meeting $V_r$ is counted exactly $r$ times in the sum, once for each vertex it contains.
Combining the above relations, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^r d(V_i)-m \le r(m-d(V_r)),
\end{equation*}
as required.
\end{proof}

The reason for considering the condition that $\sum_id(V_i)$ cannot be increased by moving a single
vertex into $V_r$ is that, as we shall see, it is preserved by moving vertices into $V_r$. If we are able
to start from a partition which satisfies the condition and in which $V_1,\ldots, V_{r-1}$ are ``good'' (in
the sense of meeting at least a certain proportion of edges) then we can try to improve the partition by
moving vertices into $V_r$ while keeping the other parts good. In this way we will either obtain a partition
into $r$ good parts or we will be forced to stop because $V_1,\ldots, V_{r-1}$ are all minimal good sets. We formalise these ideas in the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{aab}
Let $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r$ be a partition for which $\sum_i d(V_i)$ is as large as possible, ordered such that
$d(V_1)\ge d(V_2)\ge \cdots \ge d(V_r)$, and let $c>0$ be a constant. If $d(V_{r-1})\ge cm$ then either there
exists a partition $W_1, W_2, \ldots, W_r$, with $W_i\subseteq V_i$ for $1\le i\le r-1$
(and so $W_r\supseteq V_r$), such that each part meets at least $cm$ edges, or there exists a partition
$W_1, W_2, \ldots, W_r$, again with $W_i\subseteq V_i$ for $1\le i\le r-1$,
such that, for each $i\ne r$, $d(W_i)\ge cm$ but $d(W_i\setminus \{w\})< cm$ for any $w\in W_i$, and also
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} d(W_i) > (r+1)(m-cm).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $U_1, U_2, \ldots, U_r$ is a partition with $U_i\subseteq V_i$ for each $i<r$ and so $U_r\supseteq V_r$.
For any $v\notin U_r$, say $v\in U_i$, let $U'_i=U_i\setminus\{v\}$, $U'_r=U_r\cup\{v\}$, $V'_i=V_i\setminus\{v\}$
and $V'_r=V_r\cup\{v\}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(U_i)-d(U'_i)&=&|\{e:e\cap U_i=\{v\}\}| \\
 &\ge&|\{e:e\cap V_i=\{v\}\}| \\
 &=&d(V_i)-d(V'_i)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(U'_r)-d(U_r)&=&|\{e\ni v:e\cap U_r=\emptyset\}| \\
 &\le&|\{e\ni v:e\cap V_r=\emptyset\}| \\
 &=&d(V'_r)-d(V_r)
\end{eqnarray*}
so
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(U'_i)+d(U'_r) &\le& \left(d(U_i)+d(V'_i)-d(V_i)\right)+\left(d(V'_r)-d(V_r)+d(U_r)\right) \\
 &=&d(U_i)+d(U_r)+\left(d(V'_i)+d(V'_r)-d(V_i)-d(V_r)\right) \\
 &\le&d(U_i)+d(U_r),
\end{eqnarray*}
meaning that $U_1, U_2, \ldots, U_r$ also satisfies the condition that $\sum_i d(U_i)$ cannot be increased by moving a vertex into $U_r$.

For each $i<r$, then, let $W_i$ be a minimal subset of $V_i$ satisfying $d(W_i)\ge cm$, and let $W_r=V\setminus\bigcup_{i<r}W_i$.
If $d(W_r)\ge cm$ then this is a suitable partition with each part meeting at least $cm$ edges; if not then Lemma \ref{aaa} ensures that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} d(W_i) &\ge& (r+1)m-rd(W_r)-d(W_r) \\
 &>&(r+1)(m-cm),
\end{eqnarray*}
as required.
\end{proof}

We are now ready to prove the main result. We shall show that if we start from a partition maximising $\sum_id(V_i)$ then either we have enough elbow room to obtain a good partition by repeated application of Lemmas \ref{rutwothree} and \ref{rugoodbad} or we may use Lemma \ref{aab} to obtain a good partition.

\begin{theorem}\label{rumain}
Let $c_2=\frac{2}{3}$, $c_3=\frac{5}{9}$ and $c_r=\frac{r}{3r-4}$ for $r>3$. If $G$ is an $r$-uniform
multi-hypergraph with $m$ edges there is a partition of the vertex set into $r$ parts with each part meeting at
least $c_r m$ edges.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use induction on $r$; the case $r=2$ is known. For $r>2$, if some vertex $v$ meets at least
$c_r m$ edges then we may, by replacing each edge with a subedge of size $r-1$ not containing $v$ and applying
the $r-1$ case, find a partition of the other vertices into $r-1$ parts each meeting at least $c_{r-1}m > c_rm$
edges. Together with $\{v\}$, this is a suitable $r$-partition. Thus we may assume that no vertex meets $c_r m$
edges.

Now let $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r$ be a partition for which $\sum_i d(V_i)$ is as large as possible, ordered such
that $d(V_1)\ge d(V_2)\ge \cdots \ge d(V_r)$. If $d(V_r)\ge c_r m$ then we are done, so we may assume
$d(V_r)< c_r m$. We consider three cases based on the values of $d(V_{r-1})$ and $d(V_r)$.

\vspace{5pt}
\textbf{Case 1.} $d(V_{r-1})\ge c_r m$.

By Lemma \ref{aab}, either we have a good partition or we may find a partition $W_1, W_2, \ldots, W_r$ such that, for each
$i<r$, $d(W_i)\ge c_r m$ but $W_i$ is minimal for this property, and further that $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} d(W_i) \ge (r+1)(m-c_r m)$.
Suppose the partition found is of the latter type. For each $i<r$, since $\Delta(G)< c_r m$, $|W_i|>1$. Let $v, w$ be two
vertices in $W_i$; by minimality of $W_i$ the number of edges meeting $W_i$ only at $v$ is more than $d(W_i)-c_r m$, and so
is the number meeting $W_i$ only at $w$. These sets of edges are disjoint from each other and from the set of edges
meeting $W_i$ in more than one vertex; thus, writing $d_2(X)$ for the number of edges meeting $X$ in more than one vertex,
\begin{equation*}
d(W_i) > 2(d(W_i)-c_r m)+d_2(W_i),
\end{equation*}
i.e.
\begin{equation*}
d(W_i)+d_2(W_i)<2c_r m.
\end{equation*}
However, each edge not meeting $W_r$ meets at least one other part at more than one vertex, so
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}d_2(W_i)>m-c_r m.
\end{equation*}
Combining this with the bound on $\sum_{i=1}^{r-1} d(W_i)$ gives
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}(d(W_i)+d_2(W_i))>(r+2)(m-c_r m),
\end{equation*}
so for some $i<r$
\begin{equation*}
d(W_i)+d_2(W_i)>\frac{r+2}{r-1}(m-c_r m).
\end{equation*}
Consequently, using our upper bound on $d(W_i)+d_2(W_i)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\frac{r+2}{r-1}(m-c_r m) < 2c_r m \\
&\Rightarrow&(r+2)(1-c_r) < 2c_r(r-1) \\
&\Rightarrow& r+2 < 3rc_r
\end{eqnarray*}
and so $c_r > \frac{r+2}{3r}$.

For $r=3$, $c_r=\frac{5}{9}=\frac{r+2}{3r}$; for $r\ge 4$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_r &=& \frac{r}{3r-4} \\
&=& \frac{r+2}{3r}-\frac{2-8r}{3r(3r-4)} \\
&\le& \frac{r+2}{3r};
\end{eqnarray*}
in either case a contradiction is obtained (from our assumption that we did not get a good partition from Lemma \ref{aab}). (End of Case 1.)
\vspace{1.5ex}

Note that, using Lemma \ref{aaa}, if $d(V_r) < c_r m$ then
\begin{eqnarray*}
d(V_{r-1})-c_r m&=&\sum_{i=1}^{r} d(V_i)-\sum_{i=1}^{r-2} d(V_i)-d(V_r)-c_rm \\
&>& \sum_{i=1}^{r} d(V_i)-(r-2)m-2c_r m\\
&\ge& (r+1)m-rd(V_r)-(r-2)m -2c_r m\\
&>& (r+1)m-rc_rm-(r-2)m -2c_r m\\
&=& 3m-(r+2)c_r m,
\end{eqnarray*}
so for $r=3$, since $c_r < \frac{3}{r+2}$, Case 1 is the only possible case. For the remaining cases, then, we assume $r\ge 4$.

\vspace{5pt}
\textbf{Case 2.} $c_r m > d(V_{r-1}) \ge d(V_r) \ge \frac{c_rm}{2}$.

Suppose that $k$ parts meet at least $2c_r m$ edges, $l$ meet fewer than $c_r m$, and the remaining $r-k-l$ meet at least $c_r m$
but fewer than $2c_r m$. Using Lemma \ref{rugoodbad} we may combine a part meeting at least $2c_r m$ edges and a part meeting at least
$\frac{c_rm}{2}$ to produce two parts meeting at least $c_r m$; we know, since $V_r$ meets fewest edges, that each part meets at
least $\frac{c_rm}{2}$ and so we can obtain a good partition provided $k\ge l$. We shall show that this must be so.

Since $r \ge 4$, $2c_r\le 1$, and since $c_r m > d(V_{r-1})$, $l\ge 2$. So
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^rd(V_i) &<& 2c_r m(r-k-l)+c_r ml+mk \\
&=& 2c_r mr -c_r lm + (1-2c_r)km.
\end{eqnarray*}
However, by Lemma \ref{aaa},
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^r d(V_i) > (r+1)m-rc_r m,
\end{equation*}
so
\begin{equation*}
2rc_r -lc_r + k(1-2c_r) > (r+1)-rc_r;
\end{equation*}
however, if $k<l$ then
\begin{eqnarray*}
2rc_r -lc_r + k(1-2c_r) &\le& 2rc_r-lc_r+(l-1)(1-2c_r) \\
&=& (2r-1)c_r+(l-1)(1-3c_r)\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $l\ge 2$ and $1-3c_r<0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
(2r-1)c_r+(l-1)(1-3c_r)&\le& (2r-4)c_r+1 \\
&=& r+1-rc_r
\end{eqnarray*}
(the final equality follows since $c_r=\frac{r}{3r-4}$), and a contradiction is obtained.

\vspace{5pt}
\textbf{Case 3.} $c_r m > d(V_{r-1})$ and $\frac{c_rm}{2} > d(V_r)$.

Suppose that $j$ parts meet at least $2c_r m$ edges, $k$ meet at least $\frac{c_rm}{2}$ but fewer than $c_r m$,
$l$ meet fewer than $\frac{c_rm}{2}$, and the remaining $r-j-k-l$ meet at least $c_r m$ but fewer than $2c_r m$.
Using Lemma \ref{rugoodbad} $k$ times and Lemma \ref{rutwothree} $l$ times, we may find $r$ disjoint parts which meet at least $c_r m$ edges
provided that $j\ge k+2l$ (each application of Lemma \ref{rugoodbad} requires one part which meets $2c_r m$ edges and each application of Lemma \ref{rutwothree} requires two). We shall show that this must be so.

From Lemma \ref{aaa}, since $d(V_r) < \frac{c_rm}{2}$ and $r\ge 4$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{r}\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{d(V_i)}{m} &>& \frac{r+1}{r}-\frac{c_r}{2} \\
&=& 2c_r+\frac{r+1}{r}-\frac{5c_r}{2} \\
&=& 2c_r+\frac{r^2-2r-8}{r(6r-8)} \\
&\ge& 2c_r;
\end{eqnarray*}
similarly, since $c_r\le\frac{1}{2}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{r}\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{d(V_i)}{m} &>& \frac{r+1}{r}-\frac{c_r}{2} \\
&>& \frac{3}{4} \\
&\ge& \frac{2}{3}+\frac{c_r}{6};
\end{eqnarray*}
so, since $c_r>\frac{1}{3}$ for every $r$, Lemma \ref{rulast}, following, ensures that $j\ge k+2l$.
\end{proof}

We now give the result needed to fill in the gap.

\begin{lemma}\label{rulast}
Let $\frac{1}{3}\le c\le \frac{1}{2}$. If we have a finite, non-empty collection of numbers in $[0,1]$, whose
arithmetic mean $a$ is at least $\max\left(2c,\frac{2}{3}+\frac{c}{6}\right)$, of which $j$ are at least $2c$,
$k$ are at least $\frac{c}{2}$ but less than $c$, $l$ are less than $\frac{c}{2}$, and the rest are at least
$c$ but less than $2c$, then $j\ge k+2l$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $k+l$; if $k=l=0$ then there is nothing to prove. If $k\ge 1$ then one of our
numbers is less than the mean, so another must exceed the mean; since the mean of those
two numbers is at most $\frac{1+c}{2}\le 2c \le a$, either there are no other numbers (in which case we are
done) or the mean of the remaining numbers is at least $a$ and we are done by induction.
If $l\ge 1$ then one number is less than $\frac{c}{2}$; if also $j\le 1$ then the total is less than
$1+\frac{c}{2}+(n-2)2c<2cn$, so there must be two numbers which are at least $2c$. Since the mean of these
three numbers is at most $\frac{2}{3}+\frac{c}{6}\le a$, either there are no other numbers (in which case we
are done) or the mean of the remaining numbers is at least $a$ and again we are done by induction.
\end{proof}
The value of $c_r$ which we use is tight only in the second case of Theorem \ref{rumain} (for $r>4$); if we were to use instead some $c'_r > c_r$ it would be feasible for two of our parts to meet just under $c'_r$ edges while the remaining parts each met just under $2c'_r$ edges, giving us no immediate way to use Lemmas \ref{rutwothree} and \ref{rugoodbad}. To improve further on these bounds using a similar method, then, we might seek to prove analogues of Lemmas \ref{rutwothree} and \ref{rugoodbad} for parts which meet more than $\beta cm$ for some $1<\beta<2$. To do this, however, we would need a way to impose some stronger assumption on the degrees of vertices than simply $\Delta(G)<cm$.


Supercritical Site Percolation on the Hypercube: Small Components are Small

Abstract: We consider supercritical site percolation on the $d$-dimensional hypercube $Q^d$. We show that typically all components in the percolated hypercube, besides the giant, are of size $O(d)$. This resolves a conjecture of Bollobás, Kohayakawa, and Łuczak from 1994.

\section{Introduction}
The $d$-dimensional hypercube $Q^d$ is the graph with the vertex set $V(Q^d)=\{0,1\}^d$, where two vertices are adjacent if they differ in exactly one coordinate. Throughout this paper, we denote by $n=2^d$ the order of the hypercube.

In bond percolation on $G$, one considers the subgraph $G_p$ obtained by including every edge independently with probability $p$. Erd\H{o}s and Spencer \cite{ES} conjectured that, similar to the classical $G(n,p)$ model, there is a phase transition at $p=\frac{1}{d}$ in $Q^d_p$: for $\epsilon>0$, when $p=\frac{1-\epsilon}{d}$, \textbf{whp} all components have size $O(d)$, and when $p=\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}$, there exists \textbf{whp} a unique giant component in $Q^d_p$ whose order is linear in $n$. Their conjecture was proved by Ajtai, Koml\'os, and Szemer\'edi \cite{AKS}. Bollob\'as, Kohayakawa, and Łuczak \cite{BKL2} improved upon that result, extending it to a wider range of $p$, allowing $\epsilon=o(1)$, and giving an asymptotic value of the order of the giant component of $Q^d_p$. Furthermore, they proved that the second largest component in $Q^d_p$ is typically of order $O(d)$.

In site percolation on $G$, one considers the induced subgraph $G[R]$, where $R$ is a random subset of vertices formed by including each vertex independently with probability $p$. In the setting of site percolation on the hypercube, Bollob\'as, Kohayakawa, and Łuczak \cite{BKL} proved the following:

\begin{thm}[Theorems 8, 9 of \cite{BKL}]\label{BKL}
\textit{Let $\epsilon>0$ be a small enough constant, and let $p=\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}$. Let $R$ be a random subset formed by including each vertex of $Q^d$ independently with probability $p$. Then, \textbf{whp}, there is a unique giant component of $Q^d[R]$, whose asymptotic size is $\frac{\left(2\epsilon-O(\epsilon^2)\right)n}{d}$. Furthermore, \textbf{whp} the size of the other components is at most $d^{10}$.}
\end{thm}

Motivated by the results in bond percolation on the hypercube, in the same paper \cite{BKL}, and also in their paper on bond percolation on the hypercube \cite{BKL2}, Bollobás, Kohayakawa, and Łuczak conjectured that \textbf{whp} all the components of $Q^d[R]$ besides the giant component are of asymptotic size at most $\gamma d$, where $\gamma$ is a constant depending only on $\epsilon$ (see Conjecture 11 of \cite{BKL}). We prove this conjecture:
\begin{theorem}\label{main-theorem}
Let $\epsilon>0$ be a small enough constant, and let $p=\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}$. Let $R$ be a random subset formed by including each vertex of $Q^d$ independently with probability $p$. Then, \textbf{whp}, all the components of $Q^d[R]$ besides the giant component are of size $O_{\epsilon}\left(d\right)$.
\end{theorem}

We note that in our proof we obtain an inverse polynomial dependency on $\epsilon$, of order $\frac{1}{\epsilon^5}$, in the hidden constant in $O_{\epsilon}(d)$.

The text is structured as follows. In Section $2$, we show that big components are 'everywhere dense' (see the exact definition in Lemma \ref{dense-giant-2}). In Section $3$, we exhibit several structures that \textbf{whp} do not appear in the site-percolated hypercube. In Section $4$, we prove Theorem \ref{main-theorem}.

Our notation is fairly standard. Throughout the rest of the text, unless specifically stated otherwise, we set $\epsilon$ to be a small enough constant, $p=\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}$, and $R$ to be a random subset of $V(Q^d)$ formed by including each vertex independently with probability $p$. Furthermore, we denote by $L_1$ the largest connected component of $Q^d[R]$. We denote by $N_G(S)$ the external neighbourhood of a set $S$ in the graph $G$. When $T$ is a subset of $V(G)$, we write $N_T(S)=N_G(S)\cap T$. We omit rounding signs for the sake of clarity of presentation.

\section{Big components are everywhere dense}
We begin with the following claim, which holds for any $d$-regular graph:
\begin{claim} \label{DFS-lemma}
\textit{Let $G=(V,E)$ be a $d$-regular graph on $n$ vertices. Let $\epsilon$ be a small enough constant, and let $p=\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}$. Form $R\subseteq V$ by including each vertex of $V$ independently with probability $p$. Then, \textbf{whp}, any connected component $S$ of $G[R]$ with $|S|=k>300\ln n$ has $|N_G(S)|\ge \frac{9kd}{10}$.}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We run the Depth First Search (DFS) algorithm with $n$ random bits $X_i$, discovering the connected components while generating $G[R]$ (see \cite{site-percolation}). If there is a connected component $S$ of size $k$, then there is an interval of random bits whose length is $k+|N_G(S)|$ in the DFS where we receive $k$ positive answers. Thus, the probability of having a component violating the claim, whose discovery by the DFS starts with a given bit $X_i$ is at most:
\begin{align*}
    P\left[Bin\left(\frac{9kd}{10}+k,\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}\right)\ge k\right]
\end{align*}
Hence, by a Chernoff-type bound (see Appendix A in \cite{probablistic method}), the probability of having such a component is at most
\begin{align*}
    \exp\left(-\frac{k}{100}\right)\le o\left(\frac{1}{n^2}\right),
\end{align*}
where the inequality follows from our bound on $k$. We complete the proof with a union bound on the $<n$ possible values of $k$ and $< n$ possible starting points of the interval in the DFS.
\end{proof}

We further require the following simple claim:
\begin{claim} \label{seperating}
Let $S\subseteq V(Q^d)$ such that $|S|=k\le d$. Then, there exist pairwise disjoint subcubes, each of dimension at least $d-k+1$, such that every $v\in S$ is in exactly one of these subcubes.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We prove by induction on $k$. The case $k=1$ is trivial.

Assume that the statement holds for all $k'<k$. Choose any two vertices of $S$. There is at least one coordinate on which they do not agree. Consider the two pairwise disjoint (and complementary) subcubes of dimension $d-1$: one where we fix this coordinate to be $0$ and let the other coordinates vary, and the other where we fix this coordinate to be $1$ and let the other coordinates vary. Clearly, each of the two vertices is in exactly one of these subcubes. Since these subcubes are disjoint, no vertex from the other $k-2$ vertices is in both of them. We can then apply the induction hypothesis on each of these subcubes, giving rise to pairwise disjoint subcubes of dimension at least $d-1-(k-2)=d-k+1$, each having exactly one of the vertices of $S$.
\end{proof}

We conclude this section with a lemma, bounding the probability that a fixed small set of vertices has no vertex at Hamming distance $1$ from many vertices in large components or in their neighbourhoods. The proof here borrows several ideas used in \cite{AKS, BKL, EKK}.
\begin{lemma}\label{dense-giant-2}
Fix $S\subseteq V(Q^d)$ such that $|S|=k\le \frac{\epsilon d}{10}$. Then, the probability that every $v\in S$ has less than $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ neighbours (in $Q^d$) in components of $Q^d[R]$ whose size is at least $n^{1-\epsilon}$ or in their neighbourhoods in $Q^d$ is at most $\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2dk}{40}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S=\{v_1,\cdots, v_k\}$. By Claim \ref{seperating}, we can consider pairwise disjoint subcubes of dimension at least $\left(1-\frac{\epsilon }{10}\right)d$, each containing exactly one of the vertices of $S$. We denote these subcubes by $Q_1,\cdots, Q_k$, where $v_i\in V(Q_i)$.

For each $i$, consider $Q_i$, and assume, without loss of generality, that $v_i$ is the origin of $Q_i$. We then create $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ pairwise disjoint subcubes of $Q_i$ of dimension at least $\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{5}\right)d$, each at distance $1$ from $v_i$, by fixing one of the first $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ coordinates of $Q_i$ to be $1$, the rest of the first $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ coordinates to be $0$, and letting the other coordinates vary. Denote these subcubes by $Q_i(1), \cdots, Q_i\left(\frac{\epsilon d}{10}\right)$, and the vertex at distance $1$ from $v_i$ in $Q_i(j)$ by $v_i(j)$. We denote by $n'$ the order of each $Q_i(j)$, and note that $n'\ge2^{\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{5}\right)d}=n^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{5}}$.

Fix $i$. Observe that $p$ is still supercritical at every $Q_i(j)$ since $(1+\epsilon)\left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{5}\right)\ge 1+\frac{3\epsilon}{5}$. Denote by $L_1(i,j)$ the largest component of $Q_i(j)[R]$. Then, by Theorem \ref{BKL}, \textbf{whp} $\big|L_1(i,j)\big|\ge \frac{7\epsilon n'}{6d}.$ Furthermore, by Claim \ref{DFS-lemma}, \textbf{whp}
$\bigg|N_{Q_i(j)}\left(L_1(i,j)\right)\bigg|\ge \frac{21\epsilon n'}{20}.$ Thus, setting $\mathcal{A}_{(i,j)}$ to be the event that $\bigg|L_1(i,j)\cup N_{Q_i(j)}\left(L_1(i,j)\right)\bigg|\ge\frac{21\epsilon n'}{20}$, we have that $P\left(\mathcal{A}_{(i,j)}\right)=1-o(1)$. Now, let $\mathcal{B}_{(i,j)}$ be the event that $v_i(j)\in L_1(i,j)\cup N_{Q_i(j)}\left(L_1(i,j)\right)$. Since the hypercube is transitive, we have that $P\left(\mathcal{B}_{(i,j)}|\mathcal{A}_{(i,j)}\right)\ge \frac{21\epsilon n'/20}{n'}=\frac{21\epsilon}{20}$. Therefore, $P\left(\mathcal{B}_{(i,j)}\cap \mathcal{A}_{(i,j)}\right)\ge \left(1-o(1)\right)\frac{21 \epsilon}{20}\ge \epsilon$. Since the subcubes $Q_i(j)$ are pairwise disjoint, the events $B_{(i,j)}\cap \mathcal{A}_{(i,j)}$ are independent for different $j$. Thus, by a typical Chernoff-type bound, with probability at least $1-\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}\right)$, at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ of the $v_i(j)$ are in $L_1(i,j)\cup N_{Q_i(j)}\left(L_1(i,j)\right)$ with $\bigg|L_1(i,j)\cup N_{Q_i(j)}\left(L_1(i,j)\right)\bigg|\ge\frac{21\epsilon n'}{20}$. Thus, with the same probability, $v_i$ is at distance $1$ from at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ vertices in components whose size is at least $\frac{\epsilon n'}{d}\ge \frac{\epsilon n^{1-\frac{\epsilon}{5}}}{d}\ge n^{1-\epsilon}$ or in their neighbourhoods.

Since $v_i$'s are in pairwise disjoint subcubes, these events are also independent for each $v_i$. Hence, the probability that none of the $v_i$ are at distance $1$ from at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ vertices in components whose size is at least $n^{1-\epsilon}$ or in their neighbourhoods is at most $\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^2dk}{40}\right)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Unlikely structures in the percolated hypercube}

Denote by $N^2_G(v)$ the set of vertices in $G$ at distance exactly $2$ from $v$. The following lemma shows that, typically, there are no large sections of a sphere of radius $2$ in $Q^d[R]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{no-sphere}
\textbf{Whp}, there is no $v\in Q^d$ such that $\big|N^2_{Q^d}(v)\cap R\big|\ge 2d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have $n$ ways to choose $v$, and $\binom{\binom{d}{2}}{2d}$ ways to choose a subset of $2d$ vertices from $N^2_{Q^d}(v)$. We include them in $R$ with probability at most $p^{2d}$. Hence, by the union bound, the probability of violating the lemma is at most:
\begin{align*}
    2^d\binom{\binom{d}{2}}{2d}\left(\frac{1+\epsilon}{d}\right)^{2d}\le 2^d\left(\frac{ed}{4}\cdot \frac{1+\epsilon}{d}\right)^{2d}\le \left(\frac{14}{15}\right)^{d}=o(1).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

From Lemma \ref{no-sphere}, we are able to derive the following lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{big-neighbourhood}
\textbf{Whp} there are no $S\subseteq R$ and $W\subseteq V(Q^d)$ disjoint from $S$ such that $|W|\le\frac{\epsilon^4d|S|}{9\cdot 200^2}$ and every $v\in S$ has $d_{Q^d}(v, W)\ge \frac{\epsilon^2d}{200}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary. By our assumption on $S$, there are at least $\frac{\epsilon^2 d|S|}{200}$ edges between $S$ and $W$. Thus, the average degree from $W$ to $S$ is at least $\frac{\epsilon^2 d|S|}{200|W|}$. Now, let us count the number of cherries with the vertex of degree $2$ in $W$. By Jensen's inequality, we have at least $\binom{\epsilon^2 d|S|/200|W|}{2}|W|\ge \frac{\epsilon^4d^2|S|^2}{4\cdot 200^2|W|}\ge \frac{9d|S|}{4}$ such cherries, where we used our assumption on $|W|$. Thus, by the pigeonhole principle, there is a vertex $v\in S$ that is in $\frac{2}{|S|}\cdot\frac{9d|S|}{4}=\frac{9d}{2}$ cherries. Since every pair of vertices in $S$ is connected by at most two paths of length $2$ in $Q^d$, we obtain that $v$ is at Hamming distance $2$ from at least $\frac{\frac{9d}{2}}{2}=\frac{9d}{4}>2d$ vertices in $S\subseteq R$. On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{no-sphere}, \textbf{whp} there is no $v\in Q^d$ such that $|N_{Q^d}^2(v)\cap R|\ge 2d$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

The next lemma bounds the number of subtrees of a given order in a $d$-regular graph.
\begin{lemma} \label{trees}
\textit{Let $t_k(G)$ denote the number of $k$-vertex trees contained in a $d$-regular graph $G$ on $n$ vertices. Then,
$$t_k(G)\le n(ed)^{k-1}.$$}
\end{lemma}
This follows directly from Lemma 2.1 of \cite{trees}.

We are now ready to state and prove the final lemma of this section:
\begin{lemma}\label{no-squid}
Let $C>0$ be a constant. Then, \textbf{whp}, there is no $S\subseteq V(Q^d)$, such that $|S|\le Cd$, $S$ is connected in $Q^d$, and at least $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ vertices $v\in S$ have that $\big|N_{L_1\cup N_{Q^d}(L_1)}(v)\big|<\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{BKL}, \textbf{whp} there is a unique giant component whose size is larger than $d^{10}$, which we denote by $L_1$. Thus, it suffices to show that \textbf{whp} there is no such $S$, where $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ of its vertices have less than $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ vertices at Hamming distance $1$ from components of size at least $n^{1-\epsilon}$ or their neighbourhoods, since \textbf{whp} these components and their neighbourhoods are in fact $L_1\cup N_{Q^d}(L_1)$.

Since $Q^d$ is connected, we can consider connected sets of size exactly $Cd$. By Lemma \ref{trees}, we have $n(ed)^{Cd}$ ways to choose $S$. We have $\binom{Cd}{\frac{\epsilon d}{10}}$ ways to choose the vertices in $S$ which do not have at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ vertices at Hamming distance $1$ from components of size at least $n^{1-\epsilon}$ or their neighbourhoods. By Lemma \ref{dense-giant-2}, the probability that no vertex in a given set of $\frac{\epsilon d}{10}$ vertices in $S$ has at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{40}$ vertices at Hamming distance $1$ from components of size at least $n^{1-\epsilon}$ or their neighbourhoods is at most $\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^4d^2}{400}\right)$. Hence, the probability of the event violating the statement of the lemma is at most:
\begin{align*}
    n(ed)^{Cd}\binom{Cd}{\frac{\epsilon d}{10}}\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^4d^2}{400}\right)\le n\left((ed)^C\left(\frac{10eC}{\epsilon}\right)^{\frac{\epsilon}{10}}\exp\left(-\frac{\epsilon^4d}{400}\right)\right)^d=o(1).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main-theorem}}
Let $p_1=\frac{1+\epsilon/2}{d}$. Form $R_1$ by including each vertex $v\in V(Q^d)$ independently with probability $p_1$. By Theorem \ref{BKL}, \textbf{whp} there is a unique giant component, denote it by $L_1'$. We can thus split the vertices of the hypercube into the following three disjoint sets: $T=L_1'\cup N_{Q^d}(L_1')$, $M$ is the set of vertices outside $T$ with at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{200}$ neighbours in $T$, and $S=V\left(Q^d\right)\setminus\left(T\cup M\right)$.

Let $p_2=\frac{\epsilon}{2d-2-\epsilon}$. Form $R_2$ by including each vertex $v\in V(Q^d)$ independently with probability $p_2$. Note that since $1-p=(1-p_1)(1-p_2)$, the random set $R$ has the same distribution as $R_1\cup R_2$. Thus, with a slight abuse of notation, we write $R=R_1\cup R_2$. We begin by performing the second exposure (i.e. by generating $R_2$) on $S\cup M$, and only afterwards on $T$. Note that once we show that a connected set has a neighbour in $T\cap R_2$, it means that it merges into $L_1'$ (whereas by Theorem \ref{BKL}, \textbf{whp} $L_1'\subseteq L_1$).

Let $C_1$ be a positive constant, possibly depending on $\epsilon$. We first show that \textbf{whp} if there is a connected component $B$ in $(S\cup M)\cap R$ such that $\big|B\cap M\big|\ge C_1d$, it merges with $L_1'$ after the second exposure on $T$. By construction, every $v\in M$ has at least $\frac{\epsilon^2d}{200}$ neighbours in $T$, and $T\cap M=\emptyset$. Thus, by Lemma \ref{big-neighbourhood}, we have that \textbf{whp} $\big|N_T(B\cap M)\big|\ge \frac{C_1\epsilon^4d^2}{9\cdot 200^2}$. Hence,
\begin{align*}
    P\left[\big|N_T(B)\cap R_2\big|=0\right]&\le \left(1-\frac{\epsilon}{2d}\right)^{\frac{C_1\epsilon^4d^2}{9\cdot200^2}}\le \exp\left(-\frac{C_1\epsilon^5d}{18\cdot200^2}\right)=o(1/n),
\end{align*}
by choosing $C_1\ge\frac{18\cdot200^2}{\epsilon^5}$. We conclude with the union bound over the $<n$ connected components in $(S\cup M)\cap R$.

Thus, we are left to deal with connected components $B\subseteq(S\cup M)\cap R$ of size at least $2C_1d$ with less than $C_1d$ vertices in $B\cap M$. Taking a connected subset $B'\subseteq B$ of size exactly $Cd:=2C_1d$, we have that $|B'\cap S|\ge |B'|-|B'\cap M|\ge C_1d\ge \frac{\epsilon d}{20}$. But by Lemma \ref{no-squid}, \textbf{whp} there is no connected set of size $Cd$ in $Q^d$ with at least $\frac{\frac{\epsilon}{2} d}{10}=\frac{\epsilon d}{20}$ vertices which do not have at least $\frac{\left(\frac{\epsilon}{2}\right)^2d}{40}\ge \frac{\epsilon^2d}{200}$ vertices at Hamming distance $1$ from $L_1'\cup N_{Q^d}(L_1')$. Recalling that $S, M,T$ and $L_1'$ were formed according to the supercritical percolation with $p_1=\frac{1+\epsilon/2}{d}$, this means that \textbf{whp} there is no such connected set $B'$. All in all, \textbf{whp}, there is no connected component $B$ in $Q^d[R]$ of size at least $Cd$ outside of $L_1$. \qedsymbol

\paragraph{Acknowledgements.} The first author wishes to thank Arnon Chor and Dor Elboim for fruitful discussions.

Probability (math.PR); Combinatorics (math.CO)