arXiv:1804.00208v5 [math.CO] 8 May 2021 etakTita oat rcaHrh lra ol Juli´ Kohl, Florian Hersh, Tricia Bogart, Tristram thank We ti a epoe,eg,b eeincnrcin,adth and deletion–contraction), by e.g., proved, be can (this Fra oe eisadCmiaoisa ue ayUniver Mary Queen at Combinatorics and Series Power (Formal r he aua ae o h pc fplnmaso degre of polynomials of space the for in of bases set natural such three one are gives paper this and polynomial, chromatic using r ongtv i h rtcs,ti olw rmconside from follows this case, first the polyno (in nonnegative chromatic are any of coefficients the that known well is It o 0 for iltasom atc oyoe hhr polynomial, Ehrhart polytope, lattice transform, mial oyoil fgah.A swl nw,fragvngraph given a for known, well is As graphs. of polynomials noodrplnma—e qain()blw;ti a firs was natura this below—; the (8) and equation [23] polynomial—see polynomials order into order on work Stanley’s from 06i eelı,Clmi)weeti eerhcollabora research t this to where Medell´ın, thanks Colombia) in Also 2016 comments. and conversations useful many for IOILIEULTE O HOAI,FO,ADTNINPOL TENSION AND FLOW, CHROMATIC, FOR INEQUALITIES BINOMIAL oadti lsicto rbe,oemyakfrnecessar for ask may one problem, classification this Toward aosadwd-pnpolm on akt tlat[0,c [30], least at to back going problem, wide-open and famous A 2010 Date e od n phrases. and words Key rlmnr eso fti ae 1]apae sa exten an as appeared [18] paper this of version preliminary A ≤ • • • n 8Arl2021. April 28 : ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics k ooseautst oyoilin polynomial a to evaluates colors h ioilcoefficients binomial the h ooil 1 monomials the h ioilcoefficients binomial the oeo uswr eie sn leri-obntra me algebraic-combinatorial using derived were ours of some n tpeo n r eae orcn okb Hersh–Swartz by work recent to related are and O Stapledon p and triangulations. unimodular order admit and that tension, polytopes flow, lattice chromatic, among nowhere-ze connections integral from or modular either enumerating nomials ai.Freape eso that show we example, For basis. cto fcrmtcplnmaso rps oadti cla this Toward graphs. of polynomials chromatic of fication ai polynomial polynomi matic chromatic a of coefficients the among inequalities A ≤ BSTRACT d n hsi lsl once to connected closely is this and , aosadwd-pnpolm on akt tlatteea the least at to back going problem, wide-open and famous A . hoai oyoil o oyoil eso polynomial tension polynomial, flow polynomial, Chromatic χ , G n ( n , = ) n 2 ,..., χ 0 ∗ n d n n ATISBC N MRO LE EMERSON AND BECK MATTHIAS n + +
d d d d , d χ ;

rmr 53;Scnay0A5 51,0C1 61,52B20 06A11, 05C21, 05C15, 05A15, Secondary 05C31; Primary ∗ j + d , − ≤ n χ n 1 1 + ∗
χ n d ,..., ∗ d d .I 1. n oantrlqeto s hc oyoil r chromat are polynomials which is: question natural a so and , n h − − + ∗ j σ 1 d d plnma,uioua raglto,odrpolynomial order triangulation, unimodular -polynomial, o 0 for ,
− -polynomials NTRODUCTION ,..., nPld,Aa tpeo,TmZsasy n w anonymous two and Zaslavsky, Tom Stapledon, Alan Pulido, an 1 insatd n oUiesddd o ne o hi suppo their for Andes los de Universidad to and started, tion
0 n
+ eognzr fEC 06(sul oobaad Combinato de Colombiana (Escuela 2016 ECCO of organizers he ; ≤ iyo odn,pbihdin published London), of sity ··· 1 d n j +
rrslsueEratieulte u oAthanasiadis to due inequalities Ehrhart use results ur ≤ ttecefiinsi ohbnma-ofcetbases binomial-coefficient both in coefficients the at . e btati h ofrnepoednsfrFSC2017 FPSAC for proceedings conference the in abstract ded χ l n ecnrbt uhieulte hnachro- a when inequalities such contribute we and al, oflw/esoso rp.Orterm follow theorems Our graph. a of flows/tensions ro d ∗ d 2 thods. iia eut odfrflwadtninpoly- tension and flow for hold results Similar . sfiainpolm n a s o necessary for ask may one problem, ssification d n igpoe ooig htueexactly use that colorings proper ring tmost at e lnmas swl sEratplnmasof polynomials Ehrhart as well as olynomials, qaiis neueaiecmiaois there combinatorics, enumerative In equalities.
n rurDl,weeieulte iia to similar inequalities where Breuer–Dall, and G 1] ntescn ae ongtvt follows nonnegativity case, second the in [16]; switni em fabinomial-coefficient a of terms in written is ili h ooilbssatraei sign in alternate basis monomial the in mial h number the , ple u n[19]). in out spelled t eopsto facrmtcpolynomial chromatic a of decomposition l nqaiisaogtecefiinso a of coefficients the among inequalities y nen h lsicto fchromatic of classification the oncerns ON d ´ : lsicto,bnma ofcet bino- coefficient, binomial classification, , l 90s ocrsteclassi- the concerns 1970’s, rly ´ mnieLtaige CombinatoireS´eminaire Lotharingien χ G ( n ) fpoe ooig of colorings proper of YNOMIALS . . rt. k referees colors, ic? ria G . 2 MATTHIAS BECK AND EMERSON LEON´ We will work in the last basis and define the corresponding coefficients of the chromatic polynomial of a given graph G with d vertices via

∗ n + d ∗ n + d − 1 ∗ n χG(n) = χ + χ + ··· + χ . 0  d  1  d  d d

∗ ∗ ∗ d ∗ d−1 ∗ We will collect the χ j s in the polynomial χG(z) := χd z +χd−1 z +···+χ0 (which might not have degree d) and note that this polynomial appears in the generating function of χG(n), more precisely, χ∗ (z) n zn G . ∑ χG( ) = d+1 n≥1 (1 − z) To the best of our knowledge, Linial [19] initiated the first study of the chromatic polynomial in the form ∗ ∗ of χG(z); see also [4, 9, 10, 28]. We think of the linear transformation going from χG(n) to χG(z) as a tool that is useful beyond chromatic polynomials (in fact, as we will see below, it is a standard tool in Ehrhart ∗ theory), and so we suggest to call χG(z) the binomial transform of χG(n). 1 ∗ The strongest known conditions on the coefficients of χG(z) are due to Hersh and Swartz [12, Theo- rem 15]: Defining h0,h1,...,hd via h zd + h zd−1 + ··· + h d n d d−1 0 , ∑ (n + 1) − χG(n + 1) z = d n≥0   (1 − z) they proved that

d h0 ≤ h1 ≤···≤ h d and h j ≤ hd−2− j for j ≤ − 1, ⌊ 2 ⌋−1 2 ∗ from which one can now deduce inequalities for the χ j s involving Eulerian numbers. V ×E The natural dual situation concerns flows on a graph. Denote by H = (ηv,e) ∈ {0,±1} the signed incidence matrix of G = (V,E), i.e.,

1 if v is the head of e, η = −1 if v is the tail of e, v,e  0 if v is not incident with e,  where we equipped G with an (arbitrary but fixed) orientation. Let A be an Abelian group. A nowhere-zero A-flow on G is a mapping x : E → A \ {0} that is in the kernel of H. (See, e.g., [13, 22] for background on nowhere-zero flows.) Tutte [29] proved in 1947 that the number φG(n) of nowhere-zero Zn-flows on G is a polynomial in n. A more recent theorem of Kochol [14] says that the number fG(n) of nowhere-zero Z-flows on G whose images satisfy |x(e)| < n is also a polynomial in n. (It is easy to see that both flow polynomials are independent of the chosen orientation.) While it has long been known that φG(n) and fG(n) have identical integer roots, they are rather different polynomials. A nowhere-zero A-tension on G is a mapping x : E → A \ {0} that is in the row space of H. It is not Z 1 hard to see that the number of nowhere-zero n-tensions on G equals nc χG(n) where c denotes the number of components of G. The situation for integer tensions is more interesting: Kochol [15] proved that the number tG(n) of nowhere-zero Z-tensions on G with |x(e)| < n is a polynomial in n (which is quite different from χG(n)).

1If we do not specify a basis when talking about the coefficients of a polynomial, we are thinking of the standard monomial basis. BINOMIAL INEQUALITIES FOR CHROMATIC, FLOW, AND TENSION POLYNOMIALS 3

As with the chromatic polynomials, we will express φG(n), fG(n), and tG(z) in a binomial-coefficient n+ξ n+ξ−1 n 2 basis (namely, ξ , ξ ,..., ξ ) and define their binomial transforms via


φ ∗ (z) f ∗(z) t∗ (z) φ (n)zn = G , f (n)zn = G , and t (n)zn = G , ∑ G ξ+1 ∑ G ξ+1 ∑ G d−c+1 n≥1 (1 − z) n≥1 (1 − z) n≥1 (1 − z) where c denotes the number of components of G and ξ := |E|− d + c is the cyclomatic number of G. ∗ ∗ ∗ Similar to the chromatic situation, it is known [6, 14, 15] that the coefficients of φG(z), fG(z), and tG(z) are nonnegative. Breuer and Dall [5] proved the Zn-flow analogues of the above-mentioned inequalities by Hersh and Swartz: Defining h0,h1,...,hξ via ξ ξ−1 h z + h z + ··· + h0 n 1 ξ φ n 1 zn ξ ξ−1 , ∑ ( + ) − G( + ) = ξ n≥0   (1 − z) we have ξ h0 ≤ h1 ≤···≤ h ξ and h j ≤ hξ−2− j for j ≤ 2 − 1, ⌊ 2 ⌋−1 ∗ and again, from these one can deduce inequalities for the coefficients of φG(z) involving Eulerian numbers. ∗ ∗ ∗ Breuer and Dall gave some constraints also for fG(z) and tG(z) but these were not as clear cut as for φG(z). Our goal is to show how one can derive theorems similar to those by Hersh–Swartz and Breuer–Dall ∗ ∗ (including inequalities for fG(n) and tG(z)) through a discrete geometric setup. Our main result is as follows. Theorem 1. Let G be a graph on d vertices with c components and cyclomatic number ξ . Then ∗ ∗ ∗ χ1 ≤ χ2 ≤···≤ χ d+1 ⌊ 2 ⌋ ∗ ∗ d−1 χ j ≤ χd− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ φ1 ≤ φ2 ≤···≤ φ ξ ⌊ 2 ⌋+1 ∗ ∗ ξ φ j ≤ φξ+1− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ f1 ≤ f2 ≤···≤ f ξ ⌊ 2 ⌋+1 ∗ ∗ ξ f j ≤ fξ+1− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ t1 ≤ t2 ≤···≤ t d−c ⌊ 2 ⌋+1 ∗ ∗ d−c t j ≤ td−c+1− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 . ∗ ∗ It is clear (though the details need some work) that the inequalities for χG and φG are closely related to the work of Hersh–Swartz and Breuer–Dall. At any rate, the methods in [5,12] are from algebraic combinatorics: one constructs a simplicial complex whose h-vector satisfies certain inequalities (stemming from a convex- ear decomposition). Our approach, by contrast, is through Ehrhart polynomials of lattice polytopes, which we discuss in Section 2. A small subclass of lattice polytopes admit unimodular triangulations, and for this subclass, Athanasiadis [1] and Stapledon [27] proved inequalities for the binomial transforms of Ehrhart polynomials similar in spirit to Theorem 1. While chromatic polynomials are not Ehrhart polynomials, they can be written as sums of order poly- nomials (by the afore-mentioned work of Stanley [23]), which we study in Section 3. Order polynomials,

2 There is a subtlety here that differentiates χG(n) from φG(n), fG(n), and tG(z), and thus one needs to treat the accompanying generating functions with some care. Namely, χG(n) has constant term 0, which is not true for φG(n), fG(n), and tG(z). Note that we chose all of our generating functions to start with n = 1; the alternative choice of starting with n = 0 would result in a different definition of the binomial transform. 4 MATTHIAS BECK AND EMERSON LEON´ in turn, are Ehrhart polynomials in disguise, and so here is where we apply the Athanasiadis–Stapledon inequalities (with some tweaking); Theorem 2 below might be of interest on its own accounts. The flow and tension inequalities in Theorem 1 follow in a similar fashion from writing the (two kinds of) flow and tension polynomials as sums of Ehrhart polynomials (and then using the Athanasiadis–Stapledon inequalities), as we illustrate in Section 4. For integral flows and tensions, this geometric setup was intro- duced by Kochol [14, 15], whereas for modular flows it is due to Breuer–Sanyal [6]. The underlying theme here is that one can interpret graph polynomials as certain combinations of Ehrhart polynomials of very nice polytopes (ones that admit unimodular triangulations), and thus these Ehrhart polynomials satisfy certain linear constraints, which then can be translated back into constraints for the graph polynomials.

2. EHRHART THEORY AND h∗-INEQUALITIES Given a lattice polytope P ⊂ Rd, i.e., the convex hull of finitely many points in Zd, Ehrhart’s celebrated theorem [8] says that the counting function d ehrP (n) := nP ∩ Z for n ∈ Z>0 extends to a polynomial in n of degree dim (P). (See, e.g., [2] for background on Ehrhart theory.) We will assume throughout that P is full dimensional, and so the degree of ehrP (n) is d. An n equivalent formulation of Ehrhart’s theorem is that the Ehrhart series 1 + ∑n≥1 ehrP (n)z evaluates to a ∗ hP (z) h∗ z s d h∗-polynomial rational function of the form (1−z)d+1 for some polynomial P ( ) of degree ≤ , the of P—a name for the binomial transform of an Ehrhart polynomial that has become somewhat of a standard. We are interested in (linear) constraints among the h∗-coefficients. Stanley [24] proved that the coefficients ∗ d of hP (z) are nonnegative integers. We will use below that the coefficient of z equal the number of interior lattice points of P, and the constant terms equals 1. The Ehrhart–Macdonald reciprocity theorem [20] gives the algebraic relation d (−1) ehrP (−n) = ehrP◦ (n) where P◦ denotes the interior of P. An equivalent version is d+1 ∗ 1 ∗ (1) z hP ( z ) = hP◦ (z) where the h∗-polynomial of P◦ is defined through ∗ n hP◦ (z) P◦ n z . ∑ ehr ( ) = d+1 n≥1 (1 − z) ∗ Note that the degree of hP◦ (z) equals d + 1. A triangulation of a d-dimensional polytope P is a collection of simplices so that their union is P and the intersection of two simplices is a face of both. (See, e.g., [7] for background on triangulations.) P 1 A triangulation of is unimodular if all simplices have integer vertices and (minimal) volume d! .A triangulation T comes with an f -polynomial d+1 j fT (z) := ∑ f j−1 z j=0 where f j counts the number of j-dimensional faces of T (and we set f−1 = 1 for the empty face). We further define the h-polynomial of T to be

d+1 z hT (z) := (1 − z) fT . 1 − z BINOMIAL INEQUALITIES FOR CHROMATIC, FLOW, AND TENSION POLYNOMIALS 5 If P has a unimodular triangulation T, it is well known (see, e.g., [2, Chapter 10]) that the h∗-polynomial of P equals the h-polynomial of T. Athanasiadis [1, Theorem 1.3] proved that, if P is a d-dimensional lattice polytope that admits a regular unimodular triangulation, then

∗ ∗ ∗ (2) hd ≤ hd−1 ≤···≤ h d+1 ⌊ 2 ⌋ ∗ ∗ d (3) h j+1 ≥ hd− j for 0 ≤ j ≤ 2 − 1 h∗ + j − 1 (4) h∗ ≤ 1 for 0 ≤ j ≤ d . j  j  Athanasiadis remarked in [1] that these inequalities had been independently proved by Hibi and Stanley (unpublished). Stapledon [27, Theorem 2.20] showed that (3) holds under the (weaker) assumption that the boundary of P admits a regular unimodular triangulation. Under the same condition, Stapledon proved that

h∗ − h∗ + j + 1 (5) h∗ + ··· + h∗ ≤ h∗ + ··· + h∗ + 1 d for 0 ≤ j ≤ d − 1. 0 j+1 d d− j  j + 1  2 We remark that Stapledon derived (3) and (5) from a broad set of h∗-inequalities, extending previous work of Betke–McMullen [3] and Payne [21].

3. ORDERAND CHROMATIC POLYNOMIALS ◦ Given a finite poset (Π,) with |Π| = d, the order polynomial ΩΠ(n) counts all strictly order-preserving maps from Π to [n] := {1,2,...,n}, i.e.,

◦ Π ΩΠ(n) := ϕ ∈ [n] : a ≺ b =⇒ ϕ(a) < ϕ(b) .  Order polynomials first surfaced in [23]; we will encode them via

Ω∗ (z) ◦ n zn Π . ∑ ΩΠ( ) = d+1 n≥1 (1 − z) (See, e.g., [26] for background on posets and order polynomials.) Order polynomials are Ehrhart polynomi- als in disguise. We define the order polytope of Π as

O := ϕ ∈ [0,1]Π : a  b =⇒ ϕ(a) ≤ ϕ(b) .  This much-studied subpolytope of the unit cube in RΠ was introduced in [25]. From its definition we deduce that ◦ ΩΠ(n) = ehrO◦ (n + 1). ∗ 1 ∗ d ∗ 1 This implies ΩΠ(z)= z hO◦ (z)= z hO ( z ), i.e., ∗ ∗ (6) Ω j = hd− j ∗ ∗ ∗ O where the numbers on the right-hand side are the coefficients of hO (z). Note that Ω0 = hd = 0 (because ∗ ∗ contains no interior lattice points) and Ωd = h0 = 1. 6 MATTHIAS BECK AND EMERSON LEON´ Theorem 2. Let Π be a poset on d elements and, as above, denote the binomial transform of its order ∗ ∗ d ∗ d−1 ∗ polynomial by ΩΠ(z)= Ωd z + Ωd−1 z + ··· + Ω1 z. Then ∗ ∗ ∗ Ω1 ≤ Ω2 ≤···≤ Ω d+1 ⌊ 2 ⌋ ∗ ∗ d−1 Ω j ≤ Ωd− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 Ω∗ + j − 1 Ω∗ ≤ d−1 for 0 ≤ j ≤ d − 1 d− j  j  Ω∗ − Ω∗ + j Ω∗ + ··· + Ω∗ ≤ Ω∗ + ··· + Ω∗ + d−1 1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ d−1 . d d− j 1 j  j  2

d d Proof. Let µ : R → H0 := x ∈ R : x1 + x2 + ··· + xd = 0 be an orthogonal projection, and let L be the d lattice in H0 generated by µ(e1), µ(e2),..., µ(ed−1), i.e., L = µ(Z ), and µ(ed )= −µ(e1) −···− µ(ed−1). We claim that the order polytope O of Π and µ(O) have the same h∗-polynomial. To see this, consider the canonical unimodular triangulation T of O, using the hyperplanes x j = xk. The image of each simplex ∆ ∈ T under the projection µ is a unimodular simplex in H0 (with respect to L), and the vertices (0,...,0) and (1,...,1) both get projected to the origin. This gives a unimodular triangulation Tµ of µ(O), and T is combinatorially a cone over Tµ ; in particular, the f -vectors of T and Tµ are related via

fT (z) = fTµ (z)(1 + z). Because both triangulations are unimodular,3

∗ d+1 z d+1 z z hO (z) = h (z) = (1 − z) f = (1 − z) 1 + f T T 1 − z  1 − z Tµ 1 − z (7) d z ∗ = (1 − z) fT = hT (z) = h O (z) . µ 1 − z µ µ( ) ∗ The coefficients of hµ(O)(z) satisfy the Athanasiadis–Stapledon inequalities (2)–(5), with d replaced by d −1. Via (6), this implies ∗ ∗ ∗ Ω1 ≤ Ω2 ≤···≤ Ω d+1 ⌊ 2 ⌋ ∗ ∗ d−1 Ω j ≤ Ωd− j for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2 Ω∗ + j − 1 Ω∗ ≤ d−1 for 0 ≤ j ≤ d − 1 d− j  j  Ω∗ − Ω∗ + j Ω∗ + ··· + Ω∗ ≤ Ω∗ + ··· + Ω∗ + d−1 1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ d−1 .  d d− j 1 j  j  2

Proof of the first two sets of inequalities in Theorem 1. Let A(G) be the set of all acyclic orientations of G.4 Then the chromatic polynomial χG(n) of G decomposes naturally into order polynomials as ◦ (8) χG(n) = ∑ ΩΠ(n). Π∈A(G)

3 ∗ ∗ The equality (7) of hO (z) and hµ(O)(z) can be also seen by noticing that the triangulations T and Tµ are regular and therefore shellable, and they have the same h-polynomial. See, e.g., [11] why order polytopes are compressed, and therefore have regular unimodular triangulations, and also how these properties are preserved under the projection µ. We also note that projected order polytopes are examples of alcoved polytopes [17]. 4An orientation is acyclic if it does not contain any coherently directed cycles. BINOMIAL INEQUALITIES FOR CHROMATIC, FLOW, AND TENSION POLYNOMIALS 7 Here we identify an acyclic orientation Π with its corresponding poset. (In this language, it is quite natural ◦ to think of ΩΠ(n) as the chromatic polynomial of the digraph Π.) Because every Π ∈ A(G) has d elements, ∗ ∗ χG(z) = ∑ ΩΠ(z), Π∈A(G) and so the first two sets of inequalities in Theorem 1 follow from Theorem 2. 

4. FLOW AND TENSION POLYNOMIALS ∗ ∗ ∗ The inequalities for the coefficients of φG(z), fG(z), and tG(z) are proved in a similar way, except that now we do not have the luxury of the dimension reduction exhibited in the proof of Theorem 2. ∗ ∗ ∗ Proof of the remaining inequalities in Theorem 1. We start by showing that each of φG(z), fG(z), and tG(z) is the sum of h∗-polynomials of open polytopes of the same dimension. (By an open polytope we simply mean the interior of a polytope.)

• For Zn-flows we use [6, Proposition 2.3], which expresses φG(n) as a sum of Ehrhart polynomials of certain open polytopes, all of which have dimension ξ . (Briefly, one replaces the flow equations Z R ∗ over n by a set of affine equations over , in which n now acts as a dilation parameter.) Thus φG(z) is a sum of h∗-polynomials of open polytopes of dimension ξ . • For integer flows, we write, as in the proof of [14, Theorem 1],

fG(n) = ∑ pΠ(n) Π∈T(G) 5 where T(G) is the set of all totally cyclic orientations of G, and pΠ(n) counts the Z-flows x on Π whose images satisfy 0 < x(e) < n. As noted in [14], pΠ(n) is the Ehrhart polynomial of an open ∗ ∗ polytope with dimension ξ , and so fG(z) is a sum of h -polynomials of open polytopes. • Similarly, for integer tensions, we use [15, Section 4] to write

tG(n) = ∑ uΠ(n) Π∈A(G)

where, as above, A(G) is the set of all acyclic orientations of G, and uΠ(n) counts the Z-tensions x on Π with 0 < x(e) < n. By [15], uΠ(n) is the Ehrhart polynomial of an open polytope with dimension ∗ ∗ d − c, and so tG(z) is a sum of h -polynomials of open polytopes. In each of the above three cases, the polytopes in the decomposition admit regular unimodular triangu- lations (see, e.g., [5, 11]), so we can apply (2)–(5) and these inequalities will then extend linearly to the ∗ ∗ ∗ coefficients of φG(z), fG(z), and tG(z). ∗ d+1 d It remains to rewrite (2)–(5) for hP◦ (z)= αd+1 z +αd z +···+α1 z (assuming the polytope in question has dimension d) via (1):

α1 ≤ α2 ≤···≤ α d ⌊ 2 ⌋+1 d αd− j ≥ α j+1 for 0 ≤ j ≤ 2 − 1 αd + j − 1 αd 1 j ≤ for 0 ≤ j ≤ d + −  j 

αd − α1 + j + 1 d αd 1 + ··· + αd j ≤ α1 + ··· + α j 1 + for 0 ≤ j ≤ − 1. + − +  j + 1  2 The remaining inequalities in Theorem 1 now follow from the first two sets of inequalities above. 

5An orientation is totally cyclic if every edge lies in a coherently directed cycle. 8 MATTHIAS BECK AND EMERSON LEON´

REFERENCES 1. Christos A. Athanasiadis, h∗-vectors, Eulerian polynomials and stable polytopes of graphs, Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004/06), no. 2, Research Paper 6, 13 pp. 2. Matthias Beck and Sinai Robins, Computing the Continuous Discretely: Integer-point Enumeration in Polyhe- dra, second ed., Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2015, electronically available at http://math.sfsu.edu/beck/ccd.html. 3. Ulrich Betke and Peter McMullen, Lattice points in lattice polytopes, Monatsh. Math. 99 (1985), no. 4, 253–265. 4. Francesco Brenti, Expansions of chromatic polynomials and log-concavity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 332 (1992), no. 2, 729– 756. 5. Felix Breuer and Aaron Dall, Bounds on the coefficients of tension and flow polynomials, J. Algebraic Combin. 33 (2011), no. 3, 465–482, arXiv:1004.3470. 6. Felix Breuer and Raman Sanyal, Ehrhart theory, modular flow reciprocity, and the Tutte polynomial, Math. Z. 270 (2012), no. 1-2, 1–18, arXiv:0907.0845. 7. Jes´us A. De Loera, J¨org Rambau, and Francisco Santos, Triangulations, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, vol. 25, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. 8. Eug`ene Ehrhart, Sur les poly`edres rationnels homoth´etiques `an dimensions, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 254 (1962), 616–618. 9. Emden R. Gansner and Kiem Phong Vo, The chromatic generating function, Linear and Multilinear Algebra 22 (1987), no. 1, 87–93. 10. Ira M. Gessel, Acyclic orientations and chromatic generating functions, Discrete Math. 232 (2001), no. 1-3, 119–130. 11. Christian Haase, Andreas Paffenholz, Lindsay C. Piechnik, and Francisco Santos, Existence of unimodular triangulations— positive results, Preprint (arXiv:1405.1687). 12. Patricia Hersh and Ed Swartz, Coloring complexes and arrangements, J. Algebraic Combin. 27 (2008), no. 2, 205–214, arXiv:math/0706.3657. 13. Franc¸ois Jaeger, Nowhere-zero flow problems, Lowell W. Beineke, Robin J. Wilson (Eds.), Selected topics in graph theory, vol. 3, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1988, pp. 71–95. 14. Martin Kochol, Polynomials associated with nowhere-zero flows, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 84 (2002), no. 2, 260–269. 15. , Tension polynomials of graphs, J. Graph Theory 40 (2002), no. 3, 137–146. 16. Robert R. Korfhage, σ-polynomials and graph coloring, J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B 24 (1978), no. 2, 137–153. 17. Thomas Lam and Alexander Postnikov, Alcoved polytopes. I, Discrete Comput. Geom. 38 (2007), no. 3, 453–478, arXiv:math/0501246. 18. Emerson Le´on, Stapledon decompositions and inequalities for coefficients of chromatic polynomials, S´em. Lothar. Combin. 78B (2017), Art. 24, 12. 19. Nathan Linial, Graph coloring and monotone functions on posets, Discrete Math. 58 (1986), no. 1, 97–98. 20. Ian G. Macdonald, Polynomials associated with finite cell-complexes, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 4 (1971), 181–192. 21. Sam Payne, Ehrhart series and lattice triangulations, Discrete Comput. Geom. 40 (2008), no. 3, 365–376, arXiv:math/0702052. 22. Paul D. Seymour, Nowhere-zero flows, Handbook of combinatorics, Vol. 1, 2, Elsevier Sci. B. V., Amsterdam, 1995, Appendix: Colouring, stable sets and perfect graphs, pp. 289–299. 23. Richard P. Stanley, A chromatic-like polynomial for ordered sets, Proc. Second Chapel Hill Conf. on Combinatorial Mathe- matics and its Applications (Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1970), Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1970, pp. 421–427. 24. , Decompositions of rational convex polytopes, Ann. Discrete Math. 6 (1980), 333–342. 25. , Two poset polytopes, Discrete Comput. Geom. 1 (1986), no. 1, 9–23. 26. , Enumerative Combinatorics. Volume 1, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 49, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. 27. Alan Stapledon, Inequalities and Ehrhart δ-vectors, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), no. 10, 5615–5626, arXiv:math/0801.0873. 28. Ioan Tomescu, Graphical Eulerian numbers and chromatic generating functions, Discrete Math. 66 (1987), no. 3, 315–318. 29. William T. Tutte, A ring in graph theory, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 43 (1947), 26–40. 30. Herbert S. Wilf, Which polynomials are chromatic?, Colloquio Internazionale sulle Teorie Combinatorie (Roma, 1973), Tomo I, Accad. Naz. Lincei, Rome, 1976, pp. 247–256. BINOMIAL INEQUALITIES FOR CHROMATIC, FLOW, AND TENSION POLYNOMIALS 9

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS,SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY, U.S.A. & MATHEMATISCHES INSTITUT,FREIE UNIVERSITAT¨ BERLIN,GERMANY Email address: [email protected]

DEPARTAMENTO DE MATEMATICAS´ ,UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES,BOGOTA´ ,COLOMBIA Email address: [email protected]