\section{Introduction}\label{sect:intro}

Presentations (by generators and relations) are essential tools in algebra, and in many other parts of mathematics and science.  See for example \cite{LZ2015,Artin1947,Jones1983_2}; the introduction to \cite{East2020} contains many more references, and a more detailed discussion.  Similarly, methods for constructing new structures from existing ones abound, including (semi)direct products, wreath products and various extensions.  It is therefore of considerable interest to know how presentations for such constructions behave.  The current note concerns direct products of semigroups, and the intriguing complication caused by the lack of an identity element, as noted for example in \cite{HR1994,RRW1998}.

If groups $A$ and $B$ have presentations $\pres{X_1}{R_1}$ and $\pres{X_2}{R_2}$, then the direct product $A\times B$ has presentation $\pres{X_1\cup X_2}{R_1\cup R_2\cup R_3}$, where $R_3$ consists of all relations of the form $xy=yx$ with $x\in X_1$ and $y\in X_2$.  See for example \cite{J1980,MKS1966}.  Together with the fact that $A$ and $B$ are both homomorphic images of $A\times B$, it follows that $A\times B$ is finitely presented if and only if $A$ and $B$ both are.

The previous paragraph is true for direct products of monoids as well \cite{L1998,HR1994}, but not in general for semigroups.  The example often cited for this fact is when $A$ and~$B$ are both taken to be the additive semigroup of positive integers, $\P=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$.  Indeed,~$\P$ is freely generated by $1$, so has finite (semigroup) presentation $\pres x\es$, yet $\P^2=\P\times\P$ is not even finitely generated.  To see this, note for example that any element of $\P^2$ of the form $(a,1)$ cannot be written as a sum of two elements of $\P^2$, and hence must be included in any generating set.

Thus, presentations for direct products of semigroups are far less `well-behaved' as for groups or monoids, and can even be somewhat `wild'.  Nevertheless, a number of interesting results are known \cite{RRW1998,MR2018,MR2019,CR2020}.  For example, in \cite{RRW1998}, necessary and sufficient conditions are given for a direct product $A\times B$ of semigroups to be finitely generated/presented.  These conditions of course include finite generation/presentability of $A$ and $B$, but more is required, including notions such as stability (whose definition we will not recall here).  Presentations for direct products are also constructed in \cite{RRW1998} when these conditions are satisfied, but not in general.  In \cite{HR1994}, the general situation was discussed with some pessimism, and the view was expressed that presentations for $A\times B$ (in general) were likely to be `at least as complicated as the multiplication table'.

In light of this, it seems to be of considerable interest to investigate specific instances of non-finitely-presented direct products of finitely-presented semigroups.  Moreover, it seems especially worthwhile to look at the case of $\P^2$, because of the clashing intuitions involved:  on the one hand,~$\P^2$ of course seems such a `tame' semigroup; but on the other hand, it arguably has the maximum possible degree of `wildness', as discussed above.

The purpose of the current note, therefore, is to give an explicit presentation for $\P^2$.  In fact, we prove a much more general result: Theorem \ref{t1} below gives a presentation for~$\P^K$, the direct product of arbitrarily many copies of $\P$.  The special case of $\P^2$ is discussed in Remark~\ref{r2}.

Before we begin, we briefly note one additional strand of motivation for the current work.  When~$K$ is infinite, the semigroup $\P^K$ is of course uncountable.  Presentations for uncountable semigroups (or groups or monoids) are rarely discussed, as any generating set for such a semigroup~$S$ must have the same cardinality as $S$ itself.  However, if there is a `canonical' generating set (or family of such sets), it does seem of value to understand presentations with respect to such a set.  This is certainly the case for $\P^K$, as shown in Proposition \ref{p1} below.

We now take the opportunity to fix the notation we will be using for presentations.  For more background on semigroups, the reader is referred to a monograph such as \cite{CPbook} or \cite{Howie}.
The \emph{free semigroup} over a set $X$, denoted $X^+$, consists of all non-empty words over $X$ under concatenation.  Given a set $R\sub X^+\times X^+$ of pairs of words, we denote by $R^\sharp$ the congruence on~$X^+$ generated by~$R$.  A semigroup $S$ has \emph{presentation} $\pres XR$ if $S\cong X^+/R^\sharp$, or equivalently if there is a surmorphism (surjective homomorphism) $X^+\to S$ with kernel $R^\sharp$.  If $\phi$ is such a surmorphism, we say $S$ has \emph{presentation $\pres XR$ via $\phi$}.  The elements of $X$ and $R$ are referred to as \emph{generators} and \emph{relations}, respectively, and a relation $(u,v)\in R$ is typically displayed as an equation: $u=v$.

\section{The presentation}

We write $\P=\{1,2,3,\ldots\}$ and $\N=\{0,1,2,3,\ldots\}$ for the sets of positive and non-negative integers, respectively.  So $\P$ is an additive semigroup, and $\N$ its monoid completion.  We also fix an arbitrary set~$K$, and to avoid trivialities we assume that $|K|\geq2$.
Formally, the \emph{direct product}~$\P^K$ consists of all functions $K\to\P$, under point-wise addition.  Such a function will be identified with a $K$-tuple in the usual way.

We adopt the convention that the entries of a tuple from $\P^K$ are denoted by the same letter as the tuple, so $\ba=(a_k)_{k\in K}$, $\bb=(b_k)_{k\in K}$, and so on.  We also write $\bone=(1)_{k\in K}$ for the $K$-tuple consisting entirely of $1$s.  Note that $\P^K=\bone+\N^K$, so that $\P^K$ is a principle ideal of the monoid~$\N^K$.

We call $\ba\in\P^K$ an \emph{atom} if there do not exist $\bb,\bc\in\P^K$ such that $\ba=\bb+\bc$.

\begin{lemma}\label{l1}
An element $\ba\in\P^K$ is an atom if and only if $a_k=1$ for some $k\in K$.
\end{lemma}

\pf
If $a_k\geq2$ for all $k$, then $\ba-\bone\in\P^K$, and from $\ba=(\ba-\bone)+\bone$ it follows that $\ba$ is not an atom.

Conversely, if $\ba=\bb+\bc$ for some $\bb,\bc\in\P^K$, then $a_k=b_k+c_k\geq2$ for all $k$.
\epf

Atoms will play a crucial role in all that follows.  We will write $\A$ for the set of all atoms of~$\P^K$.

Because $\P$ is well ordered, we have a function $\mu:\P^K\to\P$, defined for $\ba\in\P^K$ by
\[
\mu(\ba)=\min_{k\in K}a_k.
\]

\begin{lemma}\label{l2}
If $\ba\in\P^K$, then $\ba=m\bone+\bb$ for unique $m\in\N$ and $\bb\in \A$.
\end{lemma}

\pf
To establish existence, put $m=\mu(\ba)-1$ and $\bb=\ba-m\bone$.  Certainly $\ba=m\bone+\bb$, and since $\mu(\ba)\in\P$ we have $m\in\N$.  By definition of $\mu(\ba)$, we have $a_k\geq\mu(\ba)=m+1$ for all $k$, so each $b_k=a_k-m\geq1$, which gives $\bb\in\P^K$.  Again by definition, we have $a_k=\mu(\ba)=m+1$ for some $k$, so for this $k$ we have $b_k=a_k-m=1$, and it follows from Lemma \ref{l1} that $\bb$ is an atom.

For uniqueness, suppose $\ba=m\bone+\bb=n\bone+\bc$ for $m,n\in\N$ and $\bb,\bc\in\A$.  We must show that $m=n$ and $\bb=\bc$.  Without loss of generality, we assume that $m\leq n$.  Now, $\bb=(n-m)\bone+\bc$ with $n-m\geq0$, so since $\bb$ is an atom it follows that $n-m=0$, i.e.~$m=n$.  But then also $\bb=0\bone+\bc=\bc$.
\epf

The atoms of any semigroup are of course contained in any generating set for the semigroup.  Conversely, it follows directly from Lemma \ref{l2} that $\P^K$ is generated by its atoms, so we have proved the following:

\begin{prop}\label{p1}
The set $\A$ of all atoms is the (unique) minimum generating set for $\P^K$.  \qed
\end{prop}

It is therefore very natural to look for a presentation for $\P^K$ in terms of the generating set~$\A$.  To avoid notational clashes, we define an abstract alphabet
\[
X = \set{x_\ba}{\ba\in\A},
\]
in one-one correspondence with $\A$.  By Proposition \ref{p1}, we have a surmorphism
\[
\phi:X^+ \to \P^K:x_\ba\mt\ba.
\]
Let $R\sub X^+\times X^+$ denote the set of all relations of the form
\begin{equation}\label{R}
x_\ba x_\bb = x_\bone^m x_\bc \qquad\text{for $\ba,\bb\in\A$, where $m=\mu(\ba+\bb)-1$ and $\bc=\ba+\bb-m\bone$.}
\end{equation}

\begin{rem}\label{r1}
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{l2}, we have $m\in\N$ (in fact, $m\in\P$) and $\bc\in\A$ in~\eqref{R}, so it follows that $x_\bone^m x_\bc$ is indeed a word over $X$.

A couple of special cases of \eqref{R} are worth noting.  If $\ba=\bone$, then since $\bb$ is an atom, we have $m=1$ and $\bc=\bb$, so \eqref{R} merely says $x_\bone x_\bb=x_\bone x_\bb$ in this case.  When $\bb=\bone$,~\eqref{R} says $x_\ba x_\bone=x_\bone x_\ba$.
\end{rem}

Our goal now is to show that $\P^K$ has presentation $\pres XR$ via $\phi$.  For the rest of the paper, we write ${\sim}=R^\sharp$ for the congruence on $X^+$ generated by $R$.

\begin{lemma}\label{l3}
For any word $w\in X^+$ we have $w\sim x_\bone^mx_\ba$ for some $m\in\N$ and $\ba\in\A$.
\end{lemma}

\pf
We prove the lemma by induction on the length $k$ of $w$.  If $k=1$, then $w=x_\ba$ for some~$\ba\in\A$, and we are done (with $m=0$).  Now suppose $k\geq2$, and write $w=x_{\ba_1}\cdots x_{\ba_k}$ where $\ba_1,\ldots,\ba_k\in\A$.  By induction we have $x_{\ba_1}\cdots x_{\ba_{k-1}}\sim x_\bone^nx_\bb$ for some $n\in\N$ and $\bb\in\A$.  Since $\bb$ and $\ba_k$ are both atoms, $R$ contains a relation of the form $x_\bb x_{\ba_k} = x_\bone^qx_\ba$, for some $q\in\N$ and $\ba\in\A$.  But then
\[
w = x_{\ba_1}\cdots x_{\ba_{k-1}}x_{\ba_k} \sim x_\bone^n x_\bb x_{\ba_k} \sim x_\bone^n x_\bone^qx_\ba = x_\bone^mx_\ba,
\]
where $m=n+q\in\N$.
\epf

We are now ready to prove our main result.

\begin{thm}\label{t1}
The semigroup $\P^K$ has presentation $\pres XR$ via $\phi$.
\end{thm}

\pf
We have already noted that $\phi$ is a surmorphism, so it remains to show that $\ker\phi=R^\sharp$.

To show that $R^\sharp\sub\ker\phi$, we must show that $\phi$ preserves each relation from $R$.  To do so, let $\ba,\bb\in\A$, and let $m$ and $\bc$ be as in \eqref{R}.  Then
\[
\phi(x_\bone^mx_\bc) = m\bone+\bc = m\bone+(\ba+\bb-m\bone) = \ba+\bb = \phi(x_\ba x_\bb).
\]

For the reverse inclusion, let $(u,v)\in\ker\phi$, meaning that $u,v\in X^+$ and $\phi(u)=\phi(v)$.  We must show that $u\sim v$.  By Lemma \ref{l3} we have $u\sim x_\bone^mx_\ba$ and $v\sim x_\bone^nx_\bb$ for some $m,n\in\N$ and $\ba,\bb\in\A$.  But then (using ${\sim}=R^\sharp\sub\ker\phi$)
\[
m\bone+\ba = \phi(x_\bone^mx_\ba) = \phi(u) = \phi(v) = \phi(x_\bone^nx_\bb) = n\bone+\bb,
\]
and it follows from Lemma \ref{l2} that $m=n$ and $\ba=\bb$.  Putting everything together, we now have
\[
u \sim x_\bone^mx_\ba = x_\bone^nx_\bb \sim v,
\]
and the proof is complete.
\epf

\begin{rem}\label{r2}
To conclude, we consider the special case of $\P^2=\set{(a,b)}{a,b\in\P}$.  Here we have
\[
\A = \set{(a,1)}{a\in\P} \cup \set{(1,b)}{b\in\P}.
\]
To simplify notation, we relabel the letters from $X$:
\[
x = x_{(1,1)} \COMMA  y_a = x_{(a,1)} \AND z_a = x_{(1,a)} \qquad\text{for $a\geq2$.}
\]
So now $X=\{x\}\cup\set{y_a,z_a}{a\geq2}$.
Keeping Remark \ref{r1} in mind, the relations from $R$ become the following, with $a,b\geq2$ in each relation:
\begin{gather*}
xy_a = y_ax \COMMA xz_a = z_ax \COMMA
y_ay_b = xy_{a+b-1} \COMMA z_az_b = xz_{a+b-1} , \\[2mm]
y_az_b = z_by_a = \begin{cases}
x^az_{b-a+1} &\text{if $a<b$}\\
x^{a+1} &\text{if $a=b$}\\
x^by_{a-b+1} &\text{if $a>b$.}
\end{cases}
\end{gather*}

(Theorem \ref{t1} also holds when $|K|=1$, where $\P^K=\P$.  Here $\A=\{1\}$, and denoting the unique element of $X$ by $x$, the only relation in $R$ is the trivial $xx=xx$, so we obtain the usual presentation~$\pres x\es$ for $\P$.)
\end{rem}

\footnotesize
\def\bibspacing{-1.1pt}


\section{Introduction}

Statistical inference procedures based on the minimization of a statistical distance, alternatively a divergence, have a natural appeal.
The method based on likelihood, the canonical approach to inference in statistical data analysis, is itself a minimum divergence method; the
maximum likelihood estimator minimizes the likelihood disparity (Lindsay, 1994), a version of the Kullback-Leibler diverence. Among the
different formats of minimum divergence inference, the approach based on the minimization of density-based divergences is of particular
importance, as in this case the resulting procedures combine a high degree of model efficiency with strong robustness properties.

The central elements in the present research are the collections of the density-based minimum divergence procedures based on the density power divergence
of Basu et al.~(1998). The density power divergence (DPD) is a popular class of divergence measures which has significant application not
just in the area of statistics, but also in machine learning, mathematical information theory, and many other branches of science. The popularity
and utility of this procedure make it important to study other similar divergences in search of competitive or better statistical (and other)
properties. Indeed, one such divergence that is known to us and one that has also left its unmistakable mark on the area of robust statistical inference
is the logarithmic density power divergence (LDPD); see, e.g., Jones et al.~(2001), Fujisawa and Eguchi (2008), Basu et al.~(2011) and Fujisawa (2013).

Both the ordinary DPD and the LDPD belong to the functional density power divergence class that we will define in the next section.
These two families of divergences have also been referred to as the BHHJ and the JHHB classes, or the type 1 and type 0 classes, or
the $\beta$-divergence and the $\gamma$-divergence classes; more details about their applications may be found in
Jones et al.~(2001), Fujisawa and Eguchi (2008), Cichocki and Amari (2010) and Basu et al.~(2011), among others. However, while the DPD belongs to the class of Bregman divergences, the LDPD does not. The DPD is also a single-integral, non-kernel divergence (Jana and Basu, 2019); the LDPD is not a singe integral divergence, although it is a non-kernel one.
 The non-kernel divergences
have also been called \textit{decomposable} (Broniatowski et al., 2012). The divergences within the DPD family have been shown to possess
strong robustness properties in statistical applications. The LDPD family is also a very useful one in statistical inference. The
applicability of the latter class of divergences in mathematical information theory has been explored by Kumar and Sundaresan~(2015a, b).

Our basic aim
in this work is to characterize the class of functional density power divergences. Essentially, each functional density power divergence corresponds
to a function with the non-negative real line as its domain. The DPD corresponds to the identity function, while the LDPD corresponds to the log function.
Within the class of functional density power divergences, we will characterize the class of functions which generate legitimate divergences. In turn, this will provide a characterization of the functional density power divergence class.

\section{The DPD and the LDPD}
Suppose $(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}}, \mu)$ is a measure space on the real line. Define the notation
\begin{equation}
\label{defn}
 \mathcal{L}_{\mu} := \left\{ f : \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R} | \; f \geq 0, \;f \;\text{measurable}, \; \int_{\mathbb{R}} f \;d\mu = 1 \right\}.
\end{equation}
A divergence on $\mathcal{L}_{\mu}$ is a non-negative function $D : \mathcal{L}_{\mu} \times \mathcal{L}_{\mu} \longrightarrow [0,\infty] $ with the property
\begin{equation}
\label{prop}
D(g,f) =0 \iff g=f \; a.e.[\mu].
\end{equation}
For the sake of brevity we will drop the dominating measure $\mu$ from the notation; it will be understood that all the integrations and almost sure statements are with respect to this dominating measure. We also suppress the dummy variable of integration from the expression of the integerals in the rest of the paper. +

One of the most popular examples of such families of divergences is the {\it density power divergence} (DPD) of Basu et al. (1998) defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{DPD}
\text{DPD}_{\alpha}(g,f) :=  \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} - \Big( 1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha} \Big) \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g + \dfrac{1}{\alpha}  \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1}, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \; g, f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a non-negative real number. For $\alpha=0$, the definition is to be understood in a limiting sense as $\alpha \downarrow 0$, and the form of the divergence then turns out to be,
\begin{equation}
\label{DPD2}
\text{DPD}_{\alpha=0}(g,f) :=  \int_{\mathbb{R}} g \log \dfrac{g}{f}, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \; g,f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
which is actually the likelihood disparity (Lindsay, 1994); it is also a version of the Kullback-Leiber divergence. For $\alpha = 1$, the divergence in~(\ref{DPD}) reduces to the squared $L_2$ distance. It is easy and straightforward to check that the definition in~(\ref{DPD}) satisfies the condition in~(\ref{prop}).

Another common example of a related divergence class is the {\it logarithmic density power divergence} (LDPD) family of Jones et al. (2001) defined as
\begin{equation}
 \label{defnldpd}
 \text{LDPD}_{\alpha} (g,f):= \log \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} \Big) - \Big( 1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha} \Big) \log \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g \Big)+ \dfrac{1}{\alpha} \log \Big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big), \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \; g, f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu}, \alpha \geq 0.
 \end{equation}
Its structural similarity with the DPD family is immediately apparent. It is obtained by replacing the identity function on each component of the integral by the log function. This family is also known to produce highly robust estimators with good efficiency. Fujisawa and Eguchi (2008) and Fujisawa (2013), in fact, argue that the minimum divergence estimators based on the LDPD are more successful in minimizing the bias of the estimator under heavy contamination in comparison to the minimum DPD estimators. However, also see Kuchibhotla et al. (2018) for some counter views.

\section{The Functional Density Power Divergence}

Further exploration of the divergences within the DPD family leads to the observation that this class of divergences may be extended to a more general family of divergences, called the \textit{functional density power divergence family} having the form
\begin{equation}
\label{defn2}
\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}(g,f) := \phi \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} \Big) - \Big( 1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha} \Big) \phi \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g \Big)+ \dfrac{1}{\alpha} \phi \Big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big), \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \; g, f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
where $\phi : [0, \infty) \longrightarrow [-\infty, \infty]$
is a pre-assigned function, $\alpha$ is a non-negative real number and $\text{FDPD}_{\phi, \alpha}$ is a divergence in the sense of (\ref{prop}). Note that the expression given in~(\ref{defn2}) need not necessarily define a divergence for all $\phi$ as it does not always satisfy the condition stated
in~(\ref{prop}). In the following we will identify the class of functions $\phi$ for which the quantity defined in (\ref{defn2}) is actually a divergence, thus providing a characterization of the FDPD class.

Within the FDPD class, the case $\alpha=0$ has to be again understood in a limiting sense and this limiting divergence exists under some constraints on the function $\phi$. For example, if we assume $\phi$ is continuously differentiable on $[0,\infty)$, then the divergence for $\alpha=0$ can be defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{zero case}
\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha=0} (g,f) := \phi^{\prime}(1) \int_{\mathbb{R}} g \log \dfrac{g}{f}, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \; g,f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
where $\phi^{\prime}$ is the derivative of $\phi$. Obviously we require $\phi^{\prime}(1)$ to be positive for the above to be a divergence. Note that, the divergence in~(\ref{zero case}) is actually the likelihood disparity with a different scaling constant and therefore the divergences $\text{FDPD}_{\phi, \alpha=0}$ are effectively equivalent to the likelihood disparity for inferential purposes. For the DPD and the LDPD, in fact, the scaling constant $\phi^{\prime}(1)$ equals unity. The characterization of the FDPD, therefore, is not an interesting problem for $\alpha = 0$;
hence, we will not concern ourselves with the $\alpha=0$ case in the following.

\begin{remark}
Suppose, $\phi$ is a strictly increasing and convex function on the non-negative real line. Then it is straightforward to check that the expression defined in~(\ref{defn2}) does indeed satisfy the condition in~(\ref{prop}) and therefore defines a legitimate divergence which belongs to the FDPD class. Note that $\phi^{\prime}(1)$ is necessarily positive in this case. The identity function which relates to the DPD family belongs to this class of $\phi$ functions.

\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
That the class of  functions described in the previous remark does not completely characterize the FDPDs can be seen by choosing  $\phi(x) = \log x,$ for all $x \geq 0$, with the convention that $\log 0 := -\infty$. In this case $\phi$ is a concave function but the corresponding FDPD  also satisfies~(\ref{prop}) and gives rise to the logarithmic density power divergence  (LDPD) family already introduced in Section 2. In this case $\phi^{\prime}(1) = 1$.
\end{remark}

We expect that the members of the FDPD family will possess useful robustness properties which could make it interesting to examine these divergences and therefore it is natural to ask whether we can characterize all the functions $\phi$ which give rise to a divergence and thus can obtain a complete description of the FDPD family. As already indicated, the main objective of this article is to discuss this characterization under certain standard assumptions.

\section{Characterization of the FDPD family}
In this section we will assume that the dominating measure $\mu$ is actually the Lebesgue measure on the real line and therefore the FDPD is a family of divergences on the space of probability density functions.

Our first result states a general sufficient condition on the function $\phi$ which will guarantee that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}$ is a valid divergence for all $\alpha > 0.$

\begin{proposition}
\label{propn1}
Suppose $\phi :[0,\infty) \longrightarrow [-\infty,\infty]$ is a function such that the function $\psi : [-\infty, \infty) \longrightarrow [-\infty,\infty]$ defined as $\psi (x) := \phi(e^x), \;{\rm for~all}~ x \in [-\infty, \infty)$ is convex and strictly increasing on its domain. Then $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}$ is a valid divergence for each fixed $\alpha > 0$, according to the definition in~(\ref{defn2}).
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
In order to show that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}$ is a valid divergence, we have to show that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha} (g,f) \geq 0, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; g,f \in \mathcal{L}_{\mu},$ and equality holds if and only if $g=f, \; a.e.[\mu].$ For $\alpha > 0$, using the convexity of the function $\psi$ we can conclude that
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha \phi \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} \Big) +  \phi \Big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big) &=& \alpha \psi \Big(\log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} \Big)+  \psi \Big(\log \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big) \nonumber\\
\label{convexstep} & \geq & (1+\alpha) \psi \Big( \dfrac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} + \dfrac{1}{1+\alpha}  \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big).
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, for $\alpha >0$, using \textit{H\"{o}lder's inequality} on the functions $f^{\alpha}$ and $g$ with dual indices $\Big( \dfrac{1+\alpha}{\alpha}, 1+\alpha \Big)$ we obtain,
\begin{equation}
\label{holder}
  {\big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1}\big)}^{\frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}} {\big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1}\big)}^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha}} \geq \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{holder2}
\dfrac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} + \dfrac{1}{1+\alpha}  \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \geq \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g.
\end{equation}
Expression~(\ref{convexstep}) and~(\ref{holder2}) along with the strict monotonicity of $\psi$ imply that,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{inc}
\alpha \phi \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} \Big) +  \phi \Big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big) & \geq & (1+\alpha) \psi \Big( \dfrac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha+1} + \dfrac{1}{1+\alpha}  \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{\alpha+1} \Big) \nonumber \\
\label{exp}& \geq & (1+\alpha) \psi \Big( \log \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g \Big)
  =  (1+\alpha) \phi \Big( \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g \Big),
\end{eqnarray}
which is equivalent to the statement that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}(g,f) \geq 0$. For the equality $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}(g,f)=0$ to hold, we must have equality in~(\ref{convexstep}) and~(\ref{inc}). By strict monotonicity of $\psi$, the equality in~(\ref{inc}) implies equality in~(\ref{holder}) which will happen only if $f^{1+\alpha}=g^{1+\alpha}, \; a.e.[\mu]$, which is equivalent to $f=g, a.e.[\mu]$. On the other hand, if $f=g,\; a.e.[\mu]$, then clearly $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}(g,f)=0$ by~(\ref{defn2}). This completes our proof.
\end{proof}
 Now we shall show that the condition on $\phi$ stated in Proposition~\ref{propn1} is indeed a necessary condition for generating a divergence family under some mild smoothness assumptions on $\phi$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{propn2}
Suppose $\phi : [0,\infty) \longrightarrow [-\infty, \infty]$ is a function which is continuous on $[0,\infty)$ and twice continuously differentiable on $(0, \infty)$ with finite second order derivative on $(0, \infty)$. Moreover, suppose that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}$ is a valid divergence for all $\alpha > 0$. Then the function $\psi : [-\infty, \infty) \longrightarrow [-\infty,\infty]$ defined as $\psi (x) := \phi(e^x), \;{\rm for~all}~ x \in [-\infty, \infty)$ is convex and strictly increasing on its domain.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We shall use the idea of computing the divergence between two uniform probability density functions and extracting the property of the function $\phi$ from it. First take $\theta, \tau >0$ and
$$ f(x) = \dfrac{1}{\theta}I_A(x), \;\; g(x) = \dfrac{1}{\tau}I_B(x),$$
where $I_A(x)$ denotes the indicator function of the set $A$, and the indicated sets $A$ and $B$ are defined as $A = [0, \theta]$ and $B = [0, \tau]$.  Easy computations show that
\begin{equation}
\label{values}
\int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{1+\alpha} = \theta^{-\alpha}, \;\; \int_{\mathbb{R}} g^{1+\alpha} = \tau^{-\alpha}, \;\; \int_{\mathbb{R}} f^{\alpha}g = \begin{cases}
 \theta^{-\alpha}, \;\; \text{if } \theta > \tau, \\
 \theta^{1-\alpha}\tau^{-1}, \;\; \text{if } \theta \leq \tau.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the property that $\text{FDPD}_{\phi,\alpha}(g,f) \geq 0$ along with equality if and only if $g=f, a.e.[\mu]$ yields that for all $\alpha>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{exp2}
\phi(\theta^{-\alpha}) - \Big(1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha}\Big) \phi( \theta^{-\alpha}) + \dfrac{1}{\alpha} \phi(\tau^{-\alpha}) > 0, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \theta >\tau >0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{exp3}
\phi(\theta^{-\alpha}) - \Big(1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha}\Big) \phi(\theta^{1-\alpha}\tau^{-1} ) + \dfrac{1}{\alpha} \phi(\tau^{-\alpha}) > 0, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \tau >\theta >0.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{exp2}) simplifies to give $\phi(\theta^{-\alpha}) < \phi (\tau^{-\alpha})$ for all $\theta > \tau >0$, which helps us to conclude that $\phi$ is strictly increasing on $(0,\infty)$. Continuity of $\phi$ at $0$ guarantees that $\phi$ is basically strictly increasing on $[0,\infty)$ which proves the fact that $\psi$ is strictly increasing on $[-\infty,\infty)$.

Now fix any $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $x>y$. Put $\theta = \exp(-\frac{x}{\alpha})$ and $\tau = \exp(-\frac{y}{\alpha})$ in Equation~(\ref{exp3}). Notice that $x>y$ will guarantee that $\theta< \tau$. Therefore we get
\begin{equation}
\label{exp4}
\phi(e^x) + \dfrac{1}{\alpha}\phi(e^y) > \Big(1+\dfrac{1}{\alpha}\Big) \phi \Big(\exp \Big(\dfrac{(\alpha-1)x+y}{\alpha}\Big)\Big), \;\; {\rm for~all} \; x>y \in \mathbb{R}, \;\; {\rm for~all} \; \alpha >0.
\end{equation}
Expression~(\ref{exp4}) on simplification yields
\begin{equation}
\label{exp5}
\dfrac{\alpha}{1+\alpha}\psi(x) + \dfrac{1}{1+\alpha}\psi(y) >  \psi  \Big(\dfrac{(\alpha-1)x+y}{\alpha}\Big),
\end{equation}
for all $x > y \in {\mathbb R}$, and for all $\alpha > 0$. Rewriting $\lambda = \frac{\alpha}{1 + \alpha}$, we conclude
\begin{equation}
\label{exp6}
\lambda\psi(x) + (1-\lambda)\psi(y) >  \psi  \Big( \dfrac{2\lambda-1}{\lambda}x + \dfrac{1-\lambda}{\lambda}y \Big),
\end{equation}
for all $x > y \in {\mathbb R}$ and for all $\lambda \in (0, 1)$. Now take real numbers $x_1>x_2>x_3$ and put $x=x_1,y=x_3$ and $\lambda = \frac{x_1-x_3}{2x_1-x_2-x_3} \in (0,1)$ in~(\ref{exp6}). Then an easy computation shows that
\begin{equation}
\label{exp7}
\dfrac{x_1-x_3}{2x_1-x_2-x_3}\psi(x_1) + \dfrac{x_1-x_2}{2x_1-x_2-x_3}\psi(x_3) > \psi (x_2),
\end{equation}
for all $x_1,x_2,x_3 \in \mathbb{R}$, $x_1>x_2>x_3$. Simplification of the expression in  (\ref{exp7}) leads to the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{exp8}
\dfrac{\psi(x_1)-\psi(x_2)}{x_1-x_2} > \dfrac{\psi(x_2)-\psi(x_3)}{x_1-x_3},
\end{equation}
for all $x_1,x_2,x_3 \in \mathbb{R}$, $x_1>x_2>x_3$. Now we shall use the differentiability assumption on $\phi$. Since $\phi$ is twice continuously differentiable with finite second order derivative on $(0,\infty)$, it implies that $\psi$ is also twice continuously differentiable on $\mathbb{R}$ with finite second order derivative. Taking $x_1 \downarrow x_2$ in~(\ref{exp8}), we conclude that
\begin{equation}
\label{exp9}
\psi^{\prime}(x_2) \geq \dfrac{\psi(x_2)-\psi(x_3)}{x_2-x_3} \;\; {\rm for~all} \; x_2,x_3 \in \mathbb{R}, \; x_2>x_3.
\end{equation}
To show $\psi$ is convex on $\mathbb{R}$ it is enough to show that $\psi^{\prime \prime}(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Suppose, if possible, there exists a real number
$x_0$ such that $\psi^{\prime \prime}(x_0) < 0$. By continuity of $\psi^{\prime \prime}$ we can get $a<x_0<b$ such that $\psi^{\prime \prime} (x) <0$ for all $x \in [a,b]$. Then by~(\ref{exp9}) we have
\begin{equation}
\label{exp10}
\psi^{\prime}(b) \geq \dfrac{\psi(b)-\psi(a)}{b-a}=\psi^{\prime}(c), \;\; \text{for some } c \in (a,b).
\end{equation}
But $\psi^{\prime \prime}<0$ on $[a,b]$ guarantees that $\psi^{\prime}(c) > \psi^{\prime}(b)$ as $c<b$. This gives us a contradiction. Hence, $\psi$ is convex on $\mathbb{R}$. Monotonicity of $\psi$ now guarantees that $\psi$ is convex on $[-\infty,\infty)$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Note that if $\phi$ is convex and strictly increasing then $\psi$ defined as in Proposition~(\ref{propn1}) is strictly convex and strictly increasing. On the other hand, if $\phi=\log$, then $\psi$ is basically the identity function and therefore convex and strictly increasing.
\end{remark}

Propositions 1 and 2 provide the complete characterization of the FDPD family and class of $\phi$ functions generating them. We trust that this characterization describes the class within which one can search for suitable minimum divergence procedures exhibiting good balance between model efficiency and robustness.


\section{Introduction}
Let $R=\Bbbk[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$ be a standard graded polynomial ring over an infinite  field $\Bbbk$ and $I$ be a homogeneous ideal in $R$.   Then the minimal graded free resolution of the quotient ring $R/I$ is given by
\[
0\rightarrow\bigoplus_jR[-j]^{\beta_{\ell,j}}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\bigoplus_jR[-j]^{\beta_{i,j}}\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow\bigoplus_jR[-j]^{\beta_{1,j}}\rightarrow R  \rightarrow R/I\rightarrow 0
\]
where $R[-j]$ is a graded free $R$-module of rank one whose $d$th graded component is $R[-j]_d=R_{d-j}$ the $(d-j)$th graded component of $R$. The non-negative integer $\beta_{i,j}$ is known as the $i$th \textit{graded Betti number} of $R/I$ in degree $j$ which is same as the number of generators of degree $j$ in the $i$th syzygy module of $R/I$.
The \emph{regularity} of  $I$, denoted as $\text{reg}(I)$, is defined as $$\text{reg}(I)=\max\{j-i:\beta_{i,j}(I)\neq 0\}.$$
The \emph{projective dimension} of $I$, denoted as $\text{pd}(I)$, is defined as $$\text{pd}(I)=\max\{i:\beta_{i,j}(I)\neq 0 ~\text {for ~ some}~ j\}.$$
There is a natural correspondence between finite simple graphs on $n$ vertices and quadratic square-free monomial ideals in $R$. For every finite simple graph $G=(V,E)$ (a graph without loops and multiple edges), with vertex set $V$ in bijection with the set of variables $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n$ in the polynomial ring $R$, the {\it edge ideal} $I(G)$ of $G$ is the quadratic square-free monomial ideal in $R$ generated by all monomials $x_ix_j$ such that $\{x_i,x_j\}$ is an edge of $G$. For a graph $G,$ we write $\textrm{pd}(G), \beta_{i,j}(G)$ and $\textrm{reg}(G)$ as shorthand for $\textrm{pd}(R/I(G)), \beta_{i,j}(R/I(G))$ and $\textrm{reg}(R/I(G)),$ respectively. The edge ideals were first introduced and studied by Villarreal~\cite{Vill}. The problem of computing and finding bounds on the homological invariants such as Betti numbers, regularity, projective dimension of edge ideals and their powers in terms of the combinatorial invariants of the associated graphs have been studied by a number of researchers (see ~\cite{AB,CH,huneke,dao,hatu,hatu1,hawo,jacq,janase,jase,VK,mogh,pash,paro,wood}). It was shown by Cutkosky, Herzog and Trung \cite{CH}, and independently by Kodiyalam \cite{VK}, that for a homogeneous ideal $I$, $\text{reg}(I^p)$  is asymptotically a linear function for $p>>0$, i.e., there exist integers $a,b$ and $p_0$ such that $$\text{reg}(I^p)=ap+b$$ for all $p \geq p_0$. It is known that the constant $a$ is bounded by the maximum degree of minimal generators of $I$. However, constants $b$ and $p_0$ are not well understood.
When $I = I(G)$ is an edge ideal, then reg$(I(G)^p)=2p+b$ for all $p\geq p_0$. In this article, we explicitly compute $b$ and $p_0$ for some particular classes of bipartite Kneser graphs.

It is known that for a graph $G$,
$$ \text{ind}(G)+1 \leq \text{reg}\left(I(G)\right) \leq \text{cochord}(G)+1,$$ where $\text{ind}(G)$ is the induced matching number of $G$ and $\text{cochord}(G)$ is the co-chordal number of $G$ (see \cite{katz,wood}). Beyarslan, H\`{a} and Trung~\cite{behatr} shown that for a finite simple graph $G$ on $n$ vertices containing a Hamiltonian path, the regularity of edge ideal $I(G)$ satisfies the following inequality
 \begin{equation}\label{EQ}
 \text{reg}(I(G))\le
 \begin{array}{ll}
 \left\lfloor\frac{n+1}{3}\right\rfloor+1.
 \end{array}
 \end{equation}

 In this article, we study various homological invariants such as Betti numbers, regularity, projective dimension of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs. Given two positive integers $m$ and $k$ with $m \geq 2k,$ the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ is the graph whose vertices are  $k$-subsets and $(m-k)$-subsets of $[m]=\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$ such that any two vertices are connected by an edge if and only if one is a subset of the other. Determining whether a graph G has a hamiltonian cycle is an NP-Complete problem  and it has long been conjectured that for any $k \geq 1$ and $m \geq 2k + 1,$ all
 bipartite Kneser graphs  have a Hamiltonian cycle. The motivation for this conjecture is a more general conjecture
 due to Lovász \cite{LL}, which states that, apart from five exceptional graphs, every connected vertex-transitive graph has a Hamiltonian cycle. A
 graph is called a vertex-transitive graph if it ‘looks the same’ from the point of view of any vertex. M{\"u}tze and Su in ~\cite{musu} settled the conjecture of Lovász for bipartite Kneser graphs, that is, for any $k \geq 1$ and $m \geq 2k + 1,$ all
 bipartite Kneser graphs  have a Hamiltonian cycle. Since every Hamiltonian cycle contains a  Hamiltonian path, equation~(\ref{EQ}) gives an upper bound on the regularity of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs.

 Beyarslan, H\`{a} and Trung~\cite{behatr} proved that for every finite simple graph $G$ and every integer $p\geq 1$, the following inequality
 \begin{equation}\label{eqn1}
 \text{reg}(R/{I(G)}^p)\geq 2(p-1)+\text{ind}(G)
 \end{equation}
 holds. Also, they have shown that the equality holds, if $G$ is a forest or a cycle. Jayanthan, Narayanan and Selvaraja in~\cite[Theorem 3.6]{janase} gave an upper bound for powers of edge ideals of bipartite graphs as follows
  \begin{equation}\label{eqn}
 {\rm reg}(R/{I(G)}^p)\leq 2(p-1)+{\rm cochord}(G)
\end{equation} for all $p \geq 1$.

In \cite{behatr}, the authors raised the question, for which graphs $\textrm{reg}(I(G))^p=2p+\text{ind}(G)-1$ for $p>>0$. It is known that for certain classes of  graphs $\textrm{reg}(I(G))^p=2p+\text{ind}(G)-1$.

\begin{theorem}
	Let $G$ be a simple graph and $\text{ind}(G)$ be the induced matching number of $G.$
	Then for all $p \geq 1,$ we have
	$reg (I(G)^p) = 2p + \text{ind}(G) - 1$ in the following cases:
	\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
		\item $G$ is a unmixed bipartite graph (see \cite{janase});
		\item $G$ is a weakly chordal bipartite graph (see \cite{janase});
		\item $G$ is a $P_6$ free bipartite graph (see \cite{janase});
		\item $G$ is a whiskered bipartite graph (see \cite{janase});
		\item $G$ is a very well-covered graph (see \cite{js}).
		\item $G$ is a forest (see \cite{behatr}).
	\end{enumerate}
Also, authors in \cite{behatr} prove that for all $p \geq 2,$ and $G$ a $n$-cycle,
$reg( I(G)^p )= 2p + \text{ind}(G) - 1$.
\end{theorem}

It is easy to see that for all $k \geq 1$, $G=\mathcal{H}(2k+1,k)$ does not belongs to any of classes mentined above. We prove that for $p \geq 1,$ and $G=\mathcal{H}(2k+1,k)$ we have
$reg (I(G)^p) = 2p + \text{ind}(G) - 1.$
Using equations~\ref{eqn1} and ~\ref{eqn},  we deduce lower and upper bounds for regularity of powers of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs in terms of associated combinatorial data, and show that the lower bound is attained in some cases.
\begin{theorem}{\rm (Theorem \ref{regb})}
	For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
	\[
	2(p-1)+{2k\choose k}\leq {\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)\leq 2(p-1)+{m\choose k}.
	\]
	Furthermore, the lower bound is attained if $m=2k$  or $2k+1$.
\end{theorem}

 In Section $3$, we deduce a combinatorial formula for computing the graded Betti numbers in the linear strand of edge rings of bipartite Kneser graphs using Hochster's formula given as follows.

\begin{theorem}{\rm (Theorem \ref{mainb})}
	For the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
	\[
	\beta_{i,i+1}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=\sum_{r+s=i+1}\sum_{t=k}^{m-k}\binom{{t\choose k}}{r}N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t},
	\]
	where $N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t}$ is defined as in the Theorem \ref{mainb}.
\end{theorem}

 Authors in  \cite{huneke, dao} studied the bounds on the projective dimension of graphs using domination parameters. We obtain bounds on the projective dimension of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs.
\begin{theorem}{\rm (Theorem \ref{pdmain})}
	For the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
	\[
	2{m \choose k}-{2k \choose k} \leq {\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))\leq 2{m \choose k}-\max \left\{ k+1,\frac{{m \choose k}}{{m-k \choose k}}\right\}.
	\]
\end{theorem}

\section{Preliminaries}

{\small \subsection{Graphs and Independence Complex}
Consider a finite simple graph $G=(V(G),E(G))$} (or, simply $G=(V,E)$). Then we have the following:

A subgraph $H$ of graph $G$ with vertex set $V(H)=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}(n\geq 2)$ and edge set $E(H)=\{\{x_{i},x_{i+1}\};1\le i\le n-1\}$ is called a {\it path} of length $n$, denoted by $P_n$. If a path $P_n$ in a graph contains each vertex of $G$, then such a path $P_n$ is called a {\it Hamiltonian path}.

 If the initial vertex $x_1$ and terminal vertex $x_n$ of path $P_n$ are also connected by an edge in $G$, then we call the subgraph $H^\prime$ with  $V(H^\prime)=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}(n\geq 3)$ and edge set $E(H^\prime)=\{\{x_{1},x_{2}\},\ldots,\{x_{n-1},x_{n}\},\{x_{n},x_{1}\} \}$ is called a {\it cycle} of length $n$ or $n$-cycle, denoted by $C_n$. If a cycle $C_n$ in a graph $G$ contains each vertex of $G$, then such a cycle is called a {\it Hamiltonian cycle}.

A subset $S\subseteq V(G)$ is called an {\it independent} (or {\it stable}) set if no two vertices in $S$ are connected by an edge in $G$. A graph $G$ is {\it bipartite} if its vertex set $V$ can be partitioned into two disjoint independent subsets $V_1$ and $V_2$ such that every edge of $E$ is the form $e=\{u,v\}$ with $u\in V_1$ and $v\in V_2$.

We say a graph $G$ is said to be {\it chordal} if it does not contain any induced cycle of length greater than 3 and a graph $G$ is {\it co-chordal} if its complement graph $G^c$ is chordal, where $G^c$ is a simple graph whose vertex set is same as that of vertex set of $G$ and edge set $E(G^c)=\{\{u,v\}:u,v\in V(G)~\&~\{u,v\}\notin E(G)\}$.

Two distinct edges $e=\{x_i,x_j\}$ and $e^\prime=\{y_s,y_t\}$ in $G$ are said to be {\it 3-disjoint} if $\{x_i,x_j\}\cap \{y_s,y_t\}=\emptyset$ and the induced subgraph $G[W]$ is the disjoint union of edges $e$ and $e^\prime$ where $W=\{x_i,x_j,y_s,y_t\}$. A subset $T=\{e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_t\}\subset E(G)$ is said to be {\it pairwise 3-disjoint} subset if any two distinct edges in $T$ are 3-disjoint.

A {\it matching} $M$ in a graph $G$ is a subset of $E(G)$ such that no two edges in $M$ have a common vertex. If a matching $M$ of $G$ is pairwise $3$-disjoint, then such a matching $M$ is said to be an {\it induced matching}. The maximum of size of induced matchings in a graph $G$ is known as the {\it induced matching number} of $G$, denoted by $\text{ind}(G)$. Clearly, the induced matching number of $G$ is the largest size of pairwise 3-disjoint subset of $E(G)$.

Let $u\in V(G)$. If $\{v_1,v_2, \ldots,v_n\}$ is the set of all vertices in $G$ such that $u$ is adjacent to $v_i$; for $1\le i\le n$, then such a set is called an {\it open neighbourhood} of $u$, denoted by $N_G(u)$, and the set
\[
\mathcal{N}_G[u]=\{u,v_1,v_2, \ldots, v_n\}\subseteq V(G).
\]
is known as {\it closed neighbourhood} of $u$ in $G$, denoted by $\mathcal{N}_G[u]$. In such a case, the subgraph $\mathcal{S}_u$ of $G$, with  vertex set $V(\mathcal{S}_u)=\mathcal{N}_{G}[u]$ and edge set $E(\mathcal{S}_u)=\{\{u,v_i\}\mid 1\leq i\leq n\}$, is called the {\it star} with center $u$.

A collection $\{H_1,H_2,\ldots,H_s\}$ of subgraphs of $G$ is called a {\it covering} of $G$ if
\[
\bigsqcup_{j=1}^s E(H_j)=E(G).
\]
The smallest size of the above collection of subgraphs is called {\it cover number}. If each subgraph $H_j$ in the  collection $\{H_1,H_2,\ldots,H_s\}$ of subgraphs of $G$ is co-chordal, then the corresponding cover number is called {\it co-chordal cover number}. It is denoted by ${\rm cochord}(G)$

\begin{example}\rm
Let $G$ and $G^{\prime}$ be the two bipartite graphs given in the Figure~\ref{g} and Figure~\ref{gg}. Clearly from the Figure~\ref{g}, ${\rm cochord}(G)=3$ and from the Figure~\ref{gg}, ${\rm cochord}(G^{\prime})=2$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
\tikzstyle{every node}=[circle, fill=black!,inner sep=0pt, minimum
width=4pt]

 \node (n_1) at (-.2,.2)[label=left:{$x_1$}] {};
 \node (n_2) at (-.2,0)[label=left:{$x_2$}] {};
 \node (n_3) at (-.2,-.2)[label=left:{$x_3$}] {};
 \node (n_4) at (.2,.2)[label=right:{$y_1$}] {};
 \node (n_5) at (.2,0)[label=right:{$y_2$}] {};
 \node (n_6) at (.2,-.2)[label=right:{$y_3$}] {};
 \node (n_7) at (-.2,-.4)[label=left:{$x_4$}] {};
 \node (n_8) at (.2,-.4)[label=right:{$y_4$}] {};

\foreach \from/\to in
  { n_1/n_4,n_1/n_6, n_2/n_5,n_3/n_8,n_7/n_8}\draw (\from) -- (\to);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$G$}
\label{g}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
\tikzstyle{every node}=[circle, fill=black!,inner sep=0pt, minimum
width=4pt]

 \node (n_1) at (-.2,.2)[label=left:{$x_1$}] {};
 \node (n_2) at (-.2,0)[label=left:{$x_2$}] {};
 \node (n_3) at (-.2,-.2)[label=left:{$x_3$}] {};
 \node (n_4) at (.2,.2)[label=right:{$y_1$}] {};
 \node (n_5) at (.2,0)[label=right:{$y_2$}] {};
 \node (n_6) at (.2,-.2)[label=right:{$y_3$}] {};

\foreach \from/\to in
  { n_1/n_4,n_1/n_5,n_2/n_6,n_3/n_6}\draw (\from) -- (\to);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$G^{\prime}$}
\label{gg}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}\\
\end{example}

A collection $\Delta$ of subsets of $V= \{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n\}$ satisfying $\{x_i\} \in \Delta;1\le i\le n$ and if $F\in \Delta ~\text{and}~ G \subseteq F$ implies $G\in \Delta$ is called a {\it simplicial  complex} on vertex set $V$. The elements of $\Delta$ are called faces and a face $F\in \Delta$ of cardinality $i+1$ is called an $i$-{\it face} or a {\it face} of dimension $i$ of $\Delta$. A subset $F{^\prime}\subset V$ with $F{^\prime}\notin\Delta$ is called a {\it non-face} of $\Delta$. If every subset of $V$ is a member of $\Delta$, then $\Delta$ is called a {\it simplex}. The maximum of dimension of all the faces of a simplicial complex $\Delta$ is its dimension, denoted by $\dim(\Delta)$. For a subset $W\subseteq V$, the {\it induced subcomplex} of $\Delta$ on $W\subseteq V$, denoted by $\Delta_W$, is given by
\[
\Delta_W=\{F\in \Delta~|~F\subseteq W\}.
\]

For a simplicial complex $\Delta$ on vertex set $V=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n\}$, the \textit{Stanley-Reisner ideal} or {\it non-face ideal} of $\Delta$, denoted by $I_\Delta$, is a squarefree monomial ideal in $R=\Bbbk[x_1,x_2, \ldots, x_n]$ generated by all monomials $x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\cdots x_{i_r}$ such that $\{x_{i_1},x_{i_2},\ldots,x_{i_r}\}$ is a non-face of $\Delta$, and the quotient ring $\Bbbk[\Delta]=R/I_\Delta$ is called the {\it Stanley-Reisner ring} of $\Delta$. The natural map $\Delta\longleftrightarrow I_{\Delta}$ is bijection between the class of simplicial complexes on vertex set $V=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$ and the class of squarefree monomial ideals in the polynomial ring $R=\Bbbk[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$. For more details, we refer to~\cite{Vill}.

It can be seen that the edge ideal $I(G)$ of $G$ is same as the Stanley-Reisner ideal $I_{\Delta(G)}$ of the independence complex $\Delta(G)$, where $\Delta(G)$ is a simplicial complex on vertex set $V=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n\}$ of $G$ given by
\[
\Delta(G)=\{S\subseteq V:~S~\text{is an independent subset of graph}~G\}.
\]

Now, we recall a well-known result, known as Hochster's formula, which is an important tool for computation of graded Betti numbers of Stanley-Reisner ring $k[\Delta]$.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Hochster's Formula]{hoch}
The $i$th $\mathbb{N}$-graded Betti number of the Stanley-Reisner ring $\Bbbk[\Delta]=R/I_\Delta$ in degree $j$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\beta_{i,j}(\Bbbk[\Delta])=\sum_{W\subseteq V, |W|=j}^{}\dim_\Bbbk \widetilde{H}_{j-i-1}(\Delta_W; \Bbbk).
\label{hoc}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\section{Linear Strand of $R/I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$}
In this section, we recall the notion of bipartite Kneser graphs and obtain a combinatorial formula for computing the graded Betti numbers in the linear strand of edge ideals of these graphs using the Hochster's formula.
\begin{definition}\label{def}\rm
Let $m$ and $k$ be integers with $m\ge 2k$. Set $[m]=\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. The {\it bipartite Kneser graph} $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ is a bipartite graph with vertex set $V\left(\mathcal{H}(m,k)\right)=V_1\sqcup V_2$, where
\[
V_1=\{A\subset [m]:~A~\text{is a $k$-element subset of}~[m]\}
\]
and
\[
V_2=\{B\subset [m]:~B~\text{is a $(m-k)$-element subset of}~[m]\},
\]
and for $A\in V_1$ and $B\in V_2$, the pair $\{A,B\}\in E\left(\mathcal{H}(m,k)\right)$ if $A\subseteq B$.
\end{definition}
It is easy to see that the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ has 2$m\choose k$ vertices. For, $A=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\}\subset [m]$ and $B=\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-k}\}\subset [m]$ with $|B|=m-k$, we see that $A\subseteq B$ iff $B=A\sqcup S$, where $S\subset [m]\setminus A$ with $|S|=m-2k$. Thus, the number of such subsets $B\subset [m]$ is ${m-k\choose k}$.  Also, a $(m-k)$-subset $B\subset [m]$ contains exactly ${m-k\choose k}$ $k$-subsets. Thus each vertex of the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ is of the same degree $m-k\choose k$, hence it is a regular graph having ${m-k\choose k}{m\choose k}$ edges.

For $k=1$,  the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,1)$ is isomorphic to the $m$-crown graph $\mathcal{C}_{m,m}$, (see~\cite{shpa}, for definition). Rather and Singh~\cite{shpa} computed the graded Betti numbers, regularity and projective dimension of crown graphs, and hence of bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,1)$.

\begin{example}\rm The bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(5,2)$ is shown in Figure~\ref{h52} as follows.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3.75]
\tikzstyle{every node}=[circle, fill=black!,inner sep=1pt, minimum
width=6pt]
 \node (n_1) at (0,0)[label=left:{$\{1,2\}$}] {};
 \node (n_2) at (0,-0.2)[label=left:{$\{1,3\}$}] {};
 \node (n_3) at (0,-0.4)[label=left:{$\{1,4\}$}] {};
 \node (n_4) at (0,-0.6)[label=left:{$\{1,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_5) at (0,-0.8)[label=left:{$\{2,3\}$}] {};
 \node (n_6) at (0,-1)[label=left:{$\{2,4\}$}] {};
 \node (n_7) at (0,-1.2)[label=left:{$\{2,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_8) at (0,-1.4)[label=left:{$\{3,4\}$}] {};
 \node (n_9) at (0,-1.6)[label=left:{$\{3,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_10) at (0,-1.8)[label=left:{$\{4,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_11) at (1,0)[label=right:{$\{1,2,3\}$}] {};
 \node (n_12) at (1,-0.2)[label=right:{$\{1,2,4\}$}] {};
 \node (n_13) at (1,-0.4)[label=right:{$\{1,2,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_14) at (1,-0.6)[label=right:{$\{1,3,4\}$}] {};

 \node (n_15) at (1,-0.8)[label=right:{$\{1,3,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_16) at (1,-1)[label=right:{$\{1,4,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_17) at (1,-1.2)[label=right:{$\{2,3,4\}$}] {};
 \node (n_18) at (1,-1.4)[label=right:{$\{2,3,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_19) at (1,-1.6)[label=right:{$\{2,4,5\}$}] {};
 \node (n_20) at (1,-1.8)[label=right:{$\{3,4,5\}$}] {};

\foreach \from/\to in
  { n_1/n_11,n_1/n_12,n_1/n_13,n_2/n_11,n_2/n_14,n_2/n_15,n_3/n_12,n_3/n_14,n_3/n_16,n_4/n_13,n_4/n_15,n_4/n_16,n_5/n_11,n_5/n_17,n_5/n_18,n_6/n_12,n_6/n_17,n_6/n_19,n_7/n_13,n_7/n_18,n_7/n_19,n_8/n_14,n_8/n_17,n_8/n_20,n_9/n_15,n_9/n_18,n_9/n_20,n_10/n_16,n_10/n_19,n_10/n_20}\draw (\from) -- (\to);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\mathcal{H}(5,2)$}
\label{h52}
\end{figure}
\end{example}

To compute the Betti numbers in the linear strand of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs, we introduce the following notations.

\begin{notation}\noindent
{\rm
\begin{enumerate}
\item

For a finite set $X$, the family of all subsets of $X$ of size $s$ is denoted by $X^{(s)}$. For positive integers $m,q$ and $r$, we set $$\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}=\left([m]^{(r)}\right)^{(q)}=\left\{\mathcal{A} \subseteq [m]^{(r)}: \mid \mathcal{A} \mid=q\right\}.$$

\item For $i \in [m]=\{1,2,\ldots,m\}$, let an element $\mathcal{A}$ of $\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}$ have property $P(i)$ if and only if  $i \in \bigcap\limits_{A \in \mathcal{A}}A.$ Further, for any subset $T \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,m\},$ we define

\begin{eqnarray*}\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}&=&\left\{ \mathcal{A} \in \mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}: \mathcal{A}~ \text{has ~atleast~ the~ property}~ P(j)~ \text{for~each}~j\in T  \right\} \\
\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}^{= T} &=& \left\{ \mathcal{A} \in \mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}: \mathcal{A}~ \text{has ~precisely~ the~ property}~ P(j)~ \text{for~each}~j\in T  \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}

Now, we set
\[
N_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}=|\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}| ~\text{and}~ N_{m,q,r}^{= T}=\left|\mathfrak{S}_{m,q,r}^{=T}\right|.
\]
}
\end{notation}

\begin{lemma}\rm
With the same notations as above, we have
\[
N_{m,q,r}^{=\emptyset}=\sum_{j=0}^{r}(-1)^j{m\choose j}\binom{{m-j\choose r-j}}{q}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the principle of inclusion-exclusion~(see~\cite{MA}, Chapter 5), we see that
\begin{eqnarray*}
N_{m,q,r}^{=\emptyset}&=&\sum_{T \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,m\}}(-1)^{|T|}N_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $N_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}$ depends only on the
size $|T| = t,$ we write $N_{m,q,r}^{\supseteq T}=N_{m,q,r}^{\geq t}$ for $|T| = t$. Also, in this case
 $N_{m,q,r}^{= T}=N_{m,q,r}^{= t}$ depends only on the cardinality of $T.$ Hence

\begin{eqnarray*}
N_{m,q,r}^{=\emptyset}=	N_{m,q,r}^{=0}&=& \sum_{t=0}^{m}(-1)^t{m\choose t}N_{m,q,r}^{\geq t}\\
	  &=&\sum_{t=0}^{r}(-1)^t {m\choose t}\binom{{m-t\choose r-t}}{q},
\end{eqnarray*}

since $N_{m,q,r}^{\geq t}=0$ for $t>r.$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
	\noindent
	\rm{

\begin{enumerate}
	\item Note that
	\[
	N_{m,q,r}^{=t}=N_{m-t,q,r-t}^{=0}=\sum_{j=0}^{r-t}(-1)^j{m-t \choose j}\binom{{m-t-j\choose r-t-j}}{q}.
	\]
	\item For $q=1, t\neq r,$ we have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
	N_{m,q,r}^{=t}&=&\sum_{j=0}^{r-t}(-1)^j{m-t \choose j}{m-t-j\choose r-t-j}\\
	&=& \sum_{j=0}^{r-t}(-1)^j{m-t \choose r-t}{r-t\choose j}\\
	&=& {m-t \choose r-t}\sum_{j=0}^{r-t}(-1)^j{r-t\choose j}\\
	&=&0.
	\end{eqnarray*}

\item 	$N_{m,q,r}^{=t}=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1  &;~q=1,  t=r \\
0 & ;~q \neq 1, t=r.
\end{array}\right.
$
\end{enumerate}
}
\end{remark}

\noindent
\begin{theorem}\label{mainb}
Let $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ be the bipartite Kneser graph with vertex set $V(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=V_1 \sqcup V_2$ as given in Definition~\ref{def}. Then
\[
\beta_{i,i+1}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=\sum_{r+s=i+1}\sum_{t=k}^{m-k}\binom{{t\choose k}}{r}{m\choose t}N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t}.
\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Set $\Delta=\Delta(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$. Then, in view of Hochster's Formula, we have
\begin{equation}
\beta_{i,i+1}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=\sum_{W\subseteq V, |W|=i+1}^{}\dim_\Bbbk \widetilde{H}_{0}(\Delta_W; \Bbbk).
\label{31}
\end{equation}
If $W\subseteq V_1$ or $W\subseteq V_2$, then $\Delta_W$ is a simplex, so has zero reduced homology. Now for $r,s\ge 1$, let $W\subseteq V_1 \cup V_2$ is of the form $W_{r,s}=\mathcal{A}_r \cup \mathcal{B}_s$, where $\mathcal{A}_r=\{A_1,\ldots,A_r\}, \mathcal{B}_s=\{B_1,\ldots,B_s\},$ with $A_i \in [m]^{(k)}$ and $B_j \in [m]^{(m-k)}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq r, 1 \leq j \leq s$. We know that  $\widetilde{H}_{0}(\Delta_W; \Bbbk) =  \Bbbk$  if and only if $\Delta_W$ has two connected components. Observe that if $W$ is of the form $W_{r,s}$ as given above, then $\Delta_W$ has two connected components if and only if $A \subseteq \bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s} B$ for all $A \in \mathcal{A}_r$. Let $W'_{r,s}=\mathcal{A}_r \cup \mathcal{B}_s$ such that $A \subseteq \bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s} B$ for all $A \in \mathcal{A}_r$, where $\mathcal{A}_r, \mathcal{B}_s$ are defined as above. Then, in view of equation~(\ref{31}), we have
$
\beta_{i,i+1}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=\text{number of possible subsets}~W'_{r,s}~\text{such that}~r+s=i+1.
$
 Observe that for any such subset $W'_{r,s}$, we have $k\le \left|\bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s} B\right|\le m-k$. Further, the number of subsets  of the set $[m]^{(m-k)}$ of type $\mathcal{B}_s$ with $\left|\bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s}  B\right|=t$, is given by ${m\choose t}N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t}$ . Also, the number subsets of the set $[m]^{(k)}$ of type  $\mathcal{A}_r$ such that $\left|\bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s}  B\right|=t$ and $A \subseteq \bigcap\limits_{B \in \mathcal{B}_s} B$ for all $A \in \mathcal{A}_r$,  is given by
$
\binom{{t\choose k}}{r}.
$
Thus, the number of subsets $W'_{r,s}$ with $r+s=i+1$  equals to
\[
\sum_{r+s=i+1}\sum_{t=k}^{m-k}\binom{{t\choose k}}{r}{m\choose t}N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t}
\]
and so, we have
\[
\beta_{i,i+1}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))=\sum_{r+s=i+1}\sum_{t=k}^{m-k}\binom{{t\choose k}}{r}{m\choose t}N_{m,s,m-k}^{=t},
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\rm
The graded Betti numbers $\beta_{i,i+1}\left(R/I(\mathcal{H}(5,2))  \right) $ by using Theorem~\ref{mainb} can be computed as follows:

\begin{align*}
\beta_{1,2}(\mathcal{H}(5,2))& =  \sum_{r+s=2}\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{r}{5\choose t}N_{5,s,3}^{=t}=\sum_{t=2}^{3}{t\choose 2}{5\choose t}N_{5,1,3}^{=t}\\
&={2\choose 2}{5\choose 2}N_{5,1,3}^{=2}+{3\choose 2}{5\choose 3}N_{5,1,3}^{=3}\nonumber\\
&=0+3{5\choose 3}=30,\nonumber\\
\beta_{2,3}(\mathcal{H}(5,2))& = \sum_{r+s=3}\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{r}{5\choose t}N_{5,s,3}^{=t}=\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{1}{5\choose t}N_{5,2,3}^{=t}+\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose t}N_{5,1,3}^{=t}\nonumber\\
&=\left[{2\choose 2}{5\choose 2}N_{5,2,3}^{=2}+{3\choose 2}{5\choose 3}N_{5,2,3}^{=3}\right]\\
&\phantom{{}={}{2\choose 2}}+ \left[\binom{{2\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose 2}N_{5,1,3}^{=2}+\binom{{3\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose 3}N_{5,1,3}^{=3}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\left[1{5\choose 2}N_{3,2,1}^{=0}+0\right]+\left[0+3{5\choose 3}\right]
\nonumber\\
&=\left[10\sum_{j=0}^{1}{(-1)^j}{3\choose j}\binom{{{3-j}\choose {1-j}}}{2}\right]+30
\nonumber\\
&=\left[10{(-1)^0}{3\choose 0}\binom{{3\choose 1}}{2}+10{(-1)^1}{3\choose 1}\binom{{2\choose 0}}{2}\right]+30=\left[30+0\right]+30=60,\nonumber
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\beta_{3,4}(\mathcal{H}(5,2))& = \sum_{r+s=4}\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{r}{5\choose t}N_{5,s,3}^{=t}=\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{1}{5\choose t}N_{5,3,3}^{=t}+\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose t}N_{5,2,3}^{=t}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{t=2}^{3}\binom{{t\choose 2}}{3}{5\choose t}N_{5,1,3}^{=t}=\left[\binom{{2\choose 2}}{1}{5\choose 2}N_{5,3,3}^{=2}+\binom{{3\choose 2}}{1}{5\choose 3}N_{5,3,3}^{=3}\right]\nonumber\\
&+\left[\binom{{2\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose 2}N_{5,2,3}^{=2}+\binom{{3\choose 2}}{2}{5\choose 3}N_{5,2,3}^{=3}\right]\\
&\phantom{{}={}{2\choose 2}}
+\left[\binom{{2\choose 2}}{3}{5\choose 2}N_{5,1,3}^{=2}+\binom{{3\choose 2}}{3}{5\choose 3}N_{5,1,3}^{=3}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\left[1{5\choose 2}N_{3,3,1}^{=0}+0\right]+\left[0+0\right]+\left[0+1{5\choose 3}\right]\nonumber\\
&=\left[10\sum_{j=0}^{1}{(-1)^j}{3\choose j}\binom{{{3-j}\choose {1-j}}}{3}\right]+10
\nonumber\\
&=\left[10{(-1)^0}{3\choose 0}\binom{{3\choose 1}}{3}+10{(-1)^1}{3\choose 1}\binom{{2\choose 0}}{3}\right]+10=\left[10+0\right]+10=20,
\end{align*}
and $\beta_{i,i+1}(R/I(\mathcal{H}(5,2))=0$ for $i\ge 4$. We have seen the Betti numbers of $R/I(\mathcal{H}(5,2))$ computed using Theorem~\ref{mainb} are same as computed using Singular 2.0~\cite{sin}.
\end{example}

\section{Regularity of powers of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs}
\noindent

 The regularity of edge ideals of a graph is an important homological invariant studied by various authors, see~\cite{AB,CH,hawo,janase,jase,katz,wood} and references therein. The regularity of bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,1)$ has been computed by Rather and Singh~\cite{shpa}.

Before proceeding further, we shall make some remarks about the bipartite Kneser graphs as follows.
\begin{remark}\label{3dst}\noindent \rm
\begin{enumerate}
	\item For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, it can be easily seen that $e=\{A,B\}$ and $e^\prime=\{A^{\prime},B^{\prime}\}$ in $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ are 3-disjoint if and only if  $A\nsubseteq B^{\prime}$ and $A^{\prime}\nsubseteq B$.

\item Let $S=\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}\subset [m]$ be a fixed subset of $[m]$ having $m-2k$ elements. Consider the collection $E_S$ of all edges in $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ of the form
\[
e=\{\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\},\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k,j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}\}
\]
where $\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k\}\subseteq [m]\setminus\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$. Then, clearly, by the Remark~\ref{3dst}(1), $E_S$ is a pairwise $3$-disjoint subset of $E(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$ having
$
{2k\choose k}
$
elements.

\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
 Let $E_S$ be as given in Remark~\ref{3dst}. Then $E_S$ is a maximal pairwise $3$-disjoint subset of $E(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	 For, let
\[
e^\prime=\{\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\},\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k,t_1,t_2,\ldots,t_{m-2k}\}\}
\]
be any edge of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ other than the edges in $E_S$. Now, if $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\subseteq [m]\setminus\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$ or $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\subseteq \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$, then by definition of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, the end vertex $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_{k}\}$ of $e^\prime$ is also an end vertex of some edge in $E_S$ or $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_{k}\}$ is connected to an end vertex of some edge in $E_S$, and so we are done in this case. Now, if neither $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\subseteq [m]\setminus\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$ nor $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\subseteq \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$, then $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}\ne \emptyset$ and $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\cap [m]\setminus \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}\ne \emptyset$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\cap \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}=\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_p\}=\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_p\}$ with $p<k$ and $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\cap [m]\setminus \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}=\{s_{p+1},\ldots,s_k\}$. Observe that $\{s_{p+1},\ldots,s_k\}\subset [m]\setminus \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$ is a subset of some $k$-element subset, say $A$, of $[m]\setminus \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$. Then
\[
\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_k\}\subseteq A\sqcup \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}.
\]
Clearly, $A\sqcup \{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}$ is an end vertex of one of the edges in $E_S$. Thus, $\{s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_{k}\}$ is connected to an end vertex of some edge in $E_S$ in this case also. Hence, $E_S$ is a maximal pairwise $3$-disjoint subset of $E(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\rm
Since the induced matching number is the maximum size of all maximal pairwise 3-disjoint subsets of an edge set of a graph, we have
\[
{\rm ind}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))\geq |E_S|.
\]
\label{max.}
\end{remark}
Thus, in view of lower bound obtained by Beyarslan, H\`{a} and Trung~\cite{behatr} given in the equation~(\ref{eqn1}) and Remark~\ref{max.}, we have the following result:

\begin{theorem}\label{main1}
For the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
\[
{\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)\geq 2(p-1)+{2k\choose k}.
\]
\end{theorem}
Note that for $m=2k$, the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ is the ladder rung graph ${LR}_{2k\choose k}$, where ${LR}_{2k\choose k}$ is the graph union of $2k\choose k$ copies of the path graph $P_2$. It can easily seen that the induced matching number and co-chordal number of the ladder rung graph is simply the number of copies of the path graph $P_2$ in it.

Now, we shall deduce the bounds for regularity of powers of edge ideals of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, and show that lower bound is attained in some cases as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{regb}
For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
\[
2(p-1)+{2k\choose k}\leq {\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)\leq 2(p-1)+{m\choose k}.
\]
Furthermore, the lower bound is attained, if $m=2k$ or $2k+1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\noindent
By definition of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have $m\ge 2k$. Consider the collection $\mathcal{A}=\{A_1,\ldots,A_{m\choose k}\}$ of all $k$-element subsets of $[m]$. Note that each star ${\mathcal{S}}_{A_j};1\le j\le {m\choose k}$, is a co-chordal subgraph of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ and
\[
\bigsqcup^{m\choose k}_{j=1}E(\mathcal{S}_{A_j})=E(\mathcal{H}(m,k)).
\]
Thus, in view of definition, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn3}
{\rm cochord}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))\leq {m\choose k}.
\end{equation}
Hence by Theorem~\ref{main1} and \cite[Theorem 3.6]{janase}, we get
\[
2(p-1)+{2k\choose k}\leq {\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)\leq 2(p-1)+{m \choose k},
\]
as desired.

Now, for $m=2k$, the above inequalities gives the equality
 \[
{\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)=2(p-1)+{2k\choose k},
\]
as required. Also, for $m=2k+1$, consider the  maximal pairwise $3$-disjoint subset $E_S$ of $E(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$ as given in Remark~\ref{3dst}. Then $|E_S|={2k\choose k}$ and $m-2k=1$. Thus, by definition, every edge $\{A,B\}\in E_S$ is the form $B=A\sqcup \{t\}$, where $t\in [m]$ is a fixed element and $A$ is a $k$-element subset of $[m]\setminus\{t\}$. Then one can write
\[
E_S=\left\{\{A_1,B_1\},\ldots,\{A_{2k\choose k},B_{2k\choose k}\}\right\},
\]
where each $A_i$ is a $k$-element subset of $[m]\setminus\{t\}$ and $B_i=A_i\sqcup\{t\};~1\le i\le {2k\choose k}$, is a $(m-k)$-element subset of $[m]$. Define $\mathcal{S}_{A_iB_i}=\mathcal{S}_{A_i}\cup \mathcal{S}_{B_i}$, the union of star graphs $\mathcal{S}_{A_i}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{B_i};1\le i\le \binom{2k}{k}$. Then observe that each $\mathcal{S}_{A_iB_i}$ is a co-chordal subgraph of $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$. We claim that
\[
\bigsqcup^{2k\choose k}_{i=1}E(\mathcal{S}_{A_iB_i})=E(\mathcal{H}(m,k)).
\]
For, let $e=\{A,B\}\in E(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$. Then $B$ is a $(k+1)$-element set and $A$ is a $k$-element set with $A\subset B$, since $m=2k+1$. Now if $t\in B$ such that $t\notin A~ \textrm{or}~$, then $B=A\sqcup\{t\}$ and $A$ is $k$-element subset of $[m]\setminus\{t\}$, so $A=A_r$ and $B=B_r$, for some $r$. This shows that $e=\{A,B\}\in E(\mathcal{S}_{A_rB_r})$, for this $r$. If $t\notin B$, then
$A\subset B\subset [m]\setminus \{t\}$. This shows that $A=A_s$, for some $s$, so $e=\{A,B\}\in E(\mathcal{S}_{A_sB_s})$. This proves our claim. Thus, by definition, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn2}
{\rm cochord}(\mathcal{H}(m,k))\leq {2k\choose k}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, in view of Theorem~\ref{main1} and \cite[Theorem 3.6]{janase}, we have
\[
{\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))}^p)=2(p-1)+{2k\choose k},
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}

Now, we shall deduce an another upper bound for regularity of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs which is finer than as obtained in Theorem~\ref{regb}. M{\"u}tze and Su~\cite{musu} settled the following conjecture  for bipartite Kneser graphs, which together with equation~(\ref{EQ}) gives an upper bound for regularity of bipartite Kneser graphs.

\begin{theorem}\cite{musu}\label{con}
For any $k\geq 1$ and $m\geq 2k+1$, the bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.
\end{theorem}
Thus, in view of the equation~(\ref{EQ}) and Theorem~\ref{con}, we have the following.

\begin{corollary}\label{con1}
For $k\geq 1$ and $m\geq 2k+1$, we have
\[
{\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))})\leq \left\lfloor\frac{{2{m\choose k}}+1}{3}\right\rfloor .
\]
\end{corollary}

Thus, in view of Theorem~\ref{main1} and Corollary~\ref{con1}, we get the following result.
\begin{theorem}
	For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
	\[
	\binom{2k}{k}\le {\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))})\leq \left\lfloor\frac{{2{m\choose k}}+1}{3}\right\rfloor .
	\]
\end{theorem}

Rather and Singh shown that ${\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))})=2$ which is equal to $\binom{2k}{k}$, if $k=1$. Also, we have ${\rm reg}(R/{I(\mathcal{H}(m,k))})=\binom{2k}{k}$, if $m=2k+1$, in view of Theorem~\ref{regb}.

\section{Projective dimension of bipartite  Kneser graphs}

Now, we deduce bounds on projective dimension of edge ideals of bipartite Kneser graphs using domination parameters. Before proceeding further, we recall the definitions of some domination parameters of graphs.

For a finite simple graph $G=(V(G),E(G))$, we write $G^{0}$ for the graph obtained from $G$ by removing the isolated vertices.
\begin{itemize}
\item A subset $U \subseteq V(G)$ is called \textit{dominating set} if every vertex of $V(G) \setminus U$ is a neighbour of some vertex of $U$, that is, $N_G[U]=V(G)$, where $N_G[U]=\bigcup_{u\in U}N_G[u]$. The number
\[
\gamma(G)=\min \{|C|: C \subseteq V(G) ~\text{is~ a~ dominating ~set}\}
\]
is called {\it domination number}, and the number
\[
i(G)=\min\{|C|: C \subseteq V(G)~\text{ is~ independent ~and ~a ~dominating ~set ~in} ~G\}
\]
is called an {\it independent domination number} of $G$.

\item For $C\subseteq V(G)$, we define
\[
\gamma(C,G)=\text{min}\{|X|: X\subseteq V(G)~\text{with}~C\subseteq N_G(X)\},
\]
where $N_G(X)=\bigcup_{x\in X}N_G(x)$.
Then the number
\[
\tau(G)=\max \{\gamma(C,G^0):C \subseteq V(G^0) ~\text{is~ an independent set}\}
\]
is called {\it independence domination number} of $G$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{notation} \label{dom}\noindent \rm
Consider the graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ and $S=\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\}\subset [m]$ be a fixed subset of $[m]$ having $m-2k$ elements with $m>2k$. Choose $j \in [m] \setminus S$ and define $T=\{j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_{m-2k}\} \cup \{j\}$. Consider the collection $\mathcal{A}'=\{A_1',\ldots,A_r'\}$ of all possible $k$-subsets of $[m]$ with $A_{i}^{\prime} \cap T =\emptyset$, and $\mathcal{B}'=\{B_{1}^{\prime},\ldots,B_{r}^{\prime}\}$ be the collection of all possible  $(m-k)$-subsets of $[m]$ with $T \subseteq B_i'$ for all $i$. Then, we can write $B_i'=T \sqcup T_{i}^{\prime}$, where $T_{i}^{\prime}$ is a $(k-1)$-subset of $[m]\setminus T$ for each $i$. Clearly, we have $|\mathcal{A}'|=|\mathcal{B}'|={2k-1 \choose k-1}=\frac{1}{2}{2k \choose k}$. We set $\mathcal{W}=\mathcal{A}' \cup \mathcal{B}'$.
\end{notation}

\begin{lemma}\label{lower}
	Let $\mathcal{W}$ be as given in Notation~\ref{dom}. Then $\mathcal{W}$ is a dominating set in $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$.
	\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Let $A \in V(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \setminus \mathcal{W}$. Then we have the following two cases to be consider:\\

\noindent
{\bf Case 1.} If $A \in V_1 \setminus \mathcal{W}$, then $A \notin \mathcal{A}'$ and $A \cap T \neq \emptyset$. Write $A=U \sqcup U^\prime$, where $U=A \cap T$ and $U^\prime=A\cap ([m]\setminus T)$. If $U^\prime = \emptyset $, then from Notation \ref{dom},  it follows that $A=U\subset T \subseteq B_i'$ for all $i$, and hence $A \in N_G(\mathcal{W})$. Now, if $U^\prime \neq \emptyset $, then, since $1\leq |U^{\prime}| \leq k-1$, it follows from Notation \ref{dom} that $U^\prime \subseteq T_i'$ for some $i$. This shows that $A \subset B_{i}^{\prime}$, so $A \in N_G(\mathcal{W})$.\\

\noindent
{\bf Case 2.} If $A \in V_2 \setminus \mathcal{W}$, then $|A|=m-k$ and $A \notin \mathcal{B}^\prime$. Clearly, $T \not\subseteq A$, otherwise $A\in\mathcal{B}^\prime$. Thus, we see that, if $A \cap T=D$, then $0\leq |D|< m-2k+1$. Write $A=D \sqcup E$, where $E\subseteq [m]\setminus T$ and $k-1 <|E|\leq m-k$. Thus, in view of Notation~\ref{dom}, there exist some $1 \leq j \leq r$ such that $A_j' \subseteq E$, and hence $A \in N_G(\mathcal{W})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition} \label{bound}
	For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
\[
{\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \geq 2{m \choose k}-{2k \choose k}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $m=2k$, we are done. Thus, we may assume that $m >2k$. Using \cite[Proposition 4.7]{dao}, we have ${\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \geq |V(\mathcal{H}(m,k))|-i(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$. Further, using Lemma \ref{lower} and the fact that $\mathcal{W}$ is an independent, we have   ${2k \choose k}=|\mathcal{W}|\geq i(\mathcal{H}(m,k))$. Hence ${\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \geq |V(\mathcal{H}(m,k))|-i(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \geq 2{m \choose k}-{2k \choose k}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{notation} Consider the graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$ as given in Definition~\ref{def} and $Q\subset [m]$ with $|Q|=k-1$. Define a collection $\mathcal{D}=\{B \in V_2: Q \subset B\}$. Also, choose a subset $S=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{k+1}\}\subset [m]$ such that $S \cap Q=\emptyset$. Consider the collection $\mathcal{E}=\{Q \sqcup \{i_t\}: 1 \leq t \leq k+1\}.$
	\end{notation}

\begin{lemma}\label{upb} With same notations as above, we have $\gamma(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{H}(m,k))=k+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $B \in \mathcal{D}$. Then, by definition of $\mathcal{D}$, we can write $B= Q \sqcup E$, where $|E|=m-2k+1$. We claim that $i_t \in E$ for some $t;1 \leq t \leq k+1$. On the contrary, suppose that $i_j \notin E$ for all $j$, that is, $S \cap E =\emptyset$. Then $|B \cup S|=m+1>m$, a contradiction. Thus, for any $B \in \mathcal{D}$, there exist a $k$- subset $P=Q \sqcup \{i_t\} \in \mathcal{E}$ such that $P \subseteq B$, that is, $\mathcal{D} \subseteq N_G(\mathcal{E})$, and hence  $\gamma(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \leq k+1$.

Next we proceed to show that $\gamma(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{H}(m,k)) = k+1$. On the contrary, suppose that $\gamma(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{H}(m,k))=r, r< k+1,$ i.e., there exists $\mathcal{C}=\{C_1,\ldots,C_r\}$ of $V(G)$ such that $\mathcal{D} \subseteq N_G( \mathcal{C})$. The fact that $Q \neq C_i$ implies that there exists $a_i \in C_i$ such that $a_i \notin Q$ for all $i$. If elements $a_1,\ldots,a_r$ are not distinct, then by deleting repetitions we consider a set $X=\{a_{t_1},\ldots,a_{t_l}\}$, where $1 \leq t_1<\cdots<t_l \leq r$. Let $Y=[m] \setminus (Q \sqcup X)$. Then since $l \leq k$, we have $|Y|=m-(k-1+l) \geq m-2k+1$. Consider a subset $Y_1=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{m-2k+1}\}$ of the set $Y$ and set $Y_2=Q \sqcup Y_1$. Clearly, $Y_2 \in \mathcal{D}$. Now from the construction of the set $Y_2$, it follows that $C_i \not\subseteq Y_2$ for all $i$, a contradiction to the fact that $\mathcal{D} \subseteq N_G( \mathcal{C})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}{\label{pdmain}}
For a bipartite Kneser graph $\mathcal{H}(m,k)$, we have
\[
 2{m \choose k}-{2k \choose k} \leq {\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \leq  2{m \choose k}-\max \left\{ k+1,\frac{{m \choose k}}{{m-k \choose k}}\right\}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In view of Proposition~\ref{bound}, it is enough to prove that
\[
{\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \leq  2{m \choose k}-\max \left\{ k+1,\frac{{m \choose k}}{{m-k \choose k}}\right\}.
\]
Using \cite[Corollary 5.4]{huneke}, we obtain ${\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \leq  2{m \choose k}\left\{1- \frac{1}{2{m-k \choose k}}\right\}$. Also, using \cite[Theorem 4.4]{dao}, we have ${\rm pd}(\mathcal{H}(m,k)) \leq 2{m \choose k}-\tau(G)$. Now, Lemma \ref{upb} gives us the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\rm It was shown by Rather and Singh~\cite{shpa} that $\text{pd}
(\mathcal{H}(m,1))=2m-2$ which is equal to $2\binom{m}{k}-\binom{2k}{k}$, if $k=1$. Also, using Singular 2.0~\cite{sin}, we have seen that $\text{pd}
(\mathcal{H}(5,2))=15$ which is not equal to $2\binom{m}{k}-\binom{2k}{k}$, if $m=5$ and $k=2$.
\end{remark}