\section{Introduction}
Let $G$ be a graph with the vertex set $V(G)=\{v_{1},\ldots, v_{n}\}$ and the dege set $E(G)=\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}\}$.
The numbers $|V(G)|$ and $|E(G)|$ are called the order and size of $G$, respectively.
For any vertex $v\in V(G)$, the set of the vertices adjacent to $v$ is denoted by $N_{G}(v)$ (or simply $N(v)$).
The number of vertices in $N(v)$, denoted by $d_{G}(v)$, is the degree of $v$.
Let $A(G)=(a_{i,j})$ be the adjacency matrix of $G$, where $a_{i,j}=1$ if $v_{i}$ is adjacent to $v_{j}$, and $a_{i,j}=0$ otherwise.
The eigenvalues of $A(G)$ are denoted by $\lambda_{1}(G)\geq \lambda_{2}(G)\geq \cdots\geq \lambda_{n}(G)$.
As usual, we call $\lambda_{1}(G)$ the spectral radius of $G$.

Let $S$ be a given set of graphs. A graph $G\in S$ is called a maximal graph in $S$
if $\lambda_{1}(G)\geq \lambda_{1}(H)$ for any graph $H\in S$.
Let $\mathcal{F}(n,\Delta)$ denote the set of all connected irregular graphs on $n$ vertices with maximum degree $\Delta$.
Liu, Shen and Wang \cite{Liu2007} proposed the following conjecture concerning the spectral radius of the maximal graph in $\mathcal{F}(n,\Delta)$.

\begin{conjecture}{\rm (Liu, Shen and Wang \cite{Liu2007})}
Let $\lambda^{*}$ be the spectral radius of a maximal graph in $\mathcal{F}(n,\Delta)$. For each fixed $\Delta,$
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{n^{2}(\Delta-\lambda^{*})}{\Delta-1}=\pi^{2}.$$
\end{conjecture}

Indeed, the only graph in $\mathcal{F}(n,2)$ is $P_{n}$, and its spectral radius is $2\cos(\frac{\pi}{n+1})$.
It is obvious that the conjecture holds for $\Delta=2$.
This conjecture describes the asymptotic behavior for the maximum spectral radius of irregular graphs.
To determine the asymptotic value for the maximum spectral radius, the key is to find the maximal irregular graph.
Inspired by the conjecture, we consider the maximum spectral radius of connected subcubic bipartite graphs.
Obviously, there are at least four vertices in a connected subcubic bipartite graph, and $K_{1,3}$ is the only one connected subcubic bipartite graph on four vertices.
For connected subcubic bipartite graphs with five vertices, it is easy to see that $K_{2,3}$ is the unique maximal graph.
For the remaining cases, we show that $B_{n}$ (defined in Section 2) is the unique maximal graph among all connected subcubic bipartite graphs.

\begin{theorem}\label{main3}
If $G$ is a connected subcubic bipartite graph on $n\geq 6$ vertices,
then $\lambda_{1}(G)\leq \lambda_{1}(B_{n})$, with equality if and only if $G\cong B_{n}$.
\end{theorem}

Given a connected graph $G$ with maximum degree $\Delta$.
It is well-known that $\lambda_{1}(G)=\Delta$ if $G$ is $\Delta$-regular, and $\lambda_{1}(G)<\Delta$ if $G$ is irregular.
It is natural to ask how small $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)$ can be when $G$ is irregular.
A lower bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)$ was first given by Stevanovi\'{c}.

\begin{theorem}{\rm (Stevanovi\'{c} \cite{Stevanovic2004})}\label{th1}
  Let $G$ be a connected irregular graph of order $n$ and maximum degree $\Delta$. Then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq18}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{1}{2n(n\Delta-1)\Delta^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Some lower bounds for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)$ under other graph parameters,
such as the diameter and the minimum degree, were presented in \cite{Cioaba2007EJC,Cioaba2007JCTB,Liu2007,Shi2009,Zhang2005}.
In particular, Cioab\u{a} \cite{Cioaba2007EJC} proved the following lower bound, which solved a conjecture in \cite{Cioaba2007JCTB}.
\begin{theorem}{\rm (Cioab\u{a} \cite{Cioaba2007EJC})}
  Let $G$ be a connected irregular graph with $n$ vertices, maximum degree $\Delta$ and diameter $D$. Then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq22}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{1}{nD}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Recently, Chen and Hou obtained a lower bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)$ in terms of the connectivity of $G$.
\begin{theorem}{\rm (Chen and Hou \cite{Chen2014})}\label{th2}
  Let $G$ be a $k$-connected irregular graph of order $n$ and size $m$. If the maximum degree of $G$ is $\Delta$, then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq19}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left(n^{2}-2n+2k\right)+nk^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Inspired by these results, we consider the spectral radius of $k$-connected irregular graphs.
The following result improves the bounds in Theorems \ref{th1} and \ref{th2}.

\begin{theorem}\label{main1}
  Let $G$ be a $k$-connected irregular graph of order $n$ and size $m$. If the maximum degree of $G$ is $\Delta$, then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq0}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}

As mentioned above, the spectral radius of a $\Delta$-regular graph is equal to $\Delta$.
It is clear that the spectral radius of a proper subgraph of a connected $\Delta$-regular graph is smaller than $\Delta$.
Let $H$ be a proper subgraph of a connected $\Delta$-regular graph with the spectral radius $\lambda_{1}(H)$.
Cioab\v{a} \cite{Cioaba2007EJC} presented a lower bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)$ when $H$ is obtained from the $\Delta$-regular supergraph by deleting an edge.
Later, Nikiforov \cite{Nikiforov2007} proved a similar bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)$ if $H$ is an arbitrary proper subgraph of the $\Delta$-regular supergraph.
In \cite{Shi2009}, Shi improved the bounds of Cioab\v{a} and Nikiforov.
Recently, Chen and Hou \cite{Chen2014} studied the problem under the condition of connectivity.
Let $H$ be a proper subgraph of a connected $\Delta$-regular $k$-connected graph.
The following lower bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)$ was obtained by Chen and Hou.

\begin{theorem}{\rm (Chen and Hou \cite{Chen2014})}\label{th3}
  Let $H$ be a proper subgraph of a $k$-connected $\Delta$-regular graph $G$ with $n$ vertices. If $k\geq 2$, then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq21}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)>\frac{(k-1)^{2}}{(n-\Delta)(n-\Delta+2k-4)+n(k-1)^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In this paper we delete the requirement $k\geq2$ in Theorem \ref{th3}, and present an improved lower bound for $\Delta-\lambda_{1}(H).$
\begin{theorem}\label{main2}
  Let $G$ be a $k$-connected $\Delta$-regular graph of order $n$. If $H$ is a proper subgraph of $G$, then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq20}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)>\frac{k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
\end{theorem}

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the proof of Theorem \ref{main3}.
The proofs of Theorems \ref{main1} and \ref{main2} are given in Section 3. Finally, some discussions are presented.

\section{Spectral radius of subcubic bipartite graphs}

Eigenvector is an effective tool to study the spectral radius.
Let $G$ be a graph with spectral radius $\lambda_{1}(G)$. By the Rayleigh quotient,
$$\lambda_{1}(G)=\max\frac{y^{t}A(G)y}{y^{t}y}=\max_{||y||=1}y^{t}A(G)y.$$
Note that $A(G)$ is a nonnegative matrix. Then, by Perron-Frobenius theorem (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 4.2]{Minc1988}),
there exists a nonnegative eigenvector corresponding to $\lambda_{1}(G)$. Furthermore, if $G$ is connected, then $A(G)$ is irreducible,
and there is a positive eigenvector corresponding to $\lambda_{1}(G).$
Suppose that $x$ is a unit eigenvector of $A(G)$ corresponding to $\lambda_{1}(G)$, and such a vector is called the principal eigenvector of $G$.
The vector $x$ can be considered as a function on the vertices of $G$, where $x_{v}$ means the entry of $x$ corresponding to $v\in V(G)$. Thus,
$$\lambda_{1}(G)=x^{t}A(G)x=\sum_{uv\in E(G)}2x_{u}x_{v}.$$
Let us recall some useful results. The following result presents an operation,
which increasing the spectral radius without changing the degree sequence.

\begin{lemma}{\rm (\cite{Cvetkovic1997})}\label{trans}
Let $u,u',v,v'$ be four distinct vertices of a connected graph $G$ and let $uv',u'v\in E(G)$, while $uv,u'v'\notin E(G)$.
Let $x$ be the principal eigenvector of $G.$ If $x_{u}\geq x_{u'}$ and $x_{v}\geq x_{v'}$, then
  $$\lambda_{1}(G+uv+u'v'-uv'-u'v)\geq \lambda_{1}(G),$$
  with equality if and only if $x_{u}= x_{u'}$ and $x_{v}=x_{v'}$.
\end{lemma}

Two edges are independent if they have no end-vertex in common.
For a connected graph $G$, let $uv'$ and $u'v$ be two independent edges in $G$.
We say that $\{uv', u'v\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$ if it satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $u\not\sim v$ and $u'\not\sim v'$;
  \item $x_{u}\geq x_{u'}$ and $x_{v}>x_{v'}$;
  \item $G+\{uv, u'v'\}-\{uv',u'v\}$ is connected.
\end{itemize}
According to Lemma \ref{trans}, one can see that the spectral radius of $G+\{uv, u'v'\}-\{uv',u'v\}$ is greater than that of $G$.
Thus, we obtain the following consequence directly.

\begin{corollary}\label{nobadedge}
  Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the set of all connected graphs with a given degree sequence.
  If $G$ is a maximal graph in $\mathcal{F}$, then there is no bad pair of edges in $G$.
\end{corollary}

The next lemma gives another operation on the neighbours of two distinct vertices, which also enables the increase of the spectral radius.

\begin{lemma}{\rm (\cite{Cvetkovic1997})}\label{lem-cve}
  Let $u,v$ be two vertices of a connected graph $G$ and let $S\subseteq N(u)\backslash N(v)$.
Let $x$ be the principal eigenvector of $G.$ Define
 $$G'=G-\{wu:w\in S\}+\{wv:w\in S\}.$$
If $S\neq \emptyset$ and $x_v\geq x_u$, then $\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G)$.
\end{lemma}

Let $\mathcal{B}(n, \Delta)$ be the set of all connected irregular bipartite graphs on $n$ vertices with maximum degree $\Delta$.
Clearly,  $\mathcal{B}(n, 3)$ means the set of all connected subcubic bipartite graphs on $n$ vertices.
Lemma \ref{lem-cve} implies the following property of the principal eigenvector for the maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n, \Delta)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{eige-ord}
  Let $G$ be a maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n, \Delta).$ Let $u$ and $v$ be two vertices in the same part of $G$.
  If $d_{G}(u)>d_{G}(v)$, then $x_u>x_v$, where $x$ is the principal eigenvector of $G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 Suppose to the contrary that $x_u\leq x_v.$ Let $S=N(u)\backslash N(v)$.
 Clearly, $S\neq \emptyset$ and there exists a vertex $w\in S$ such that the graph $G'=G-wu+wv$ is also connected.
 We claim that the other part of $G$ contains a vertex with degree $\Delta$.
 If not, one can see that $v$ is adjacent to all vertices of the other part. However, this contradicts the fact $d_{G}(u)>d_{G}(v)$.
 It follows that the graph $G'$ also belongs to $\mathcal{B}(n,\Delta)$.
   Then Lemma \ref{lem-cve} shows that $\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G)$, contradicting the maximality of $G$.
\end{proof}

The spectral radius of the maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n, \Delta)$ becomes large as $n$ increases.

\begin{lemma}\label{max-ord}
  Let $G$ and $H$ be maximal graphs in $\mathcal{B}(n, \Delta)$ and $\mathcal{B}(n', \Delta)$, respectively.
  If $n>n'$, then $\lambda_{1}(G)>\lambda_{1}(H)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  It suffices to prove the lemma for $n'=n-1$. Since $H$ is irregular, there exists a vertex $v\in H$ with degree less than $\Delta$.
  Add a new vertex $u$ and edge $uv$, clearly the resulting graph $H+uv$ belongs to $\mathcal{B}(n,\Delta)$.
  It follows that $\lambda_{1}(G)\geq \lambda_{1}(H+uv)>\lambda_{1}(H)$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Suppose that, in a bipartite graph, the degree sequences of vertices belonging to distinct parts
are $(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n_{1}})$ and $(b_{1},\ldots,b_{n_{2}})$, respectively.
Then we write $(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n_{1}}\mid b_{1},\ldots,b_{n_{2}})$ to denote the degree sequence of the bipartite graph.
To prove Theorem \ref{main3}, we need to determine the degree sequence of the maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$.
In the maximal graph, if the degree of a vertex is less than 3, we call it an unsaturated vertex.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem-degree}
  If $G$ is a maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$ with $n\geq 6$, then the degree sequence of $G$ is either
  $$(\underbrace{3,3,\ldots,3,2}_{n/2}\mid\underbrace{3,3,\ldots,3,2}_{n/2})$$
  or
  $$(\underbrace{3,3,\ldots,3}_{(n-1)/2}\mid\underbrace{3,3,\ldots,3,2,1}_{(n+1)/2}).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Assume that the bipartition of $G$ is $(X,Y)$. Define vertex sets $X^{*}=\{v\in X:d_{G}(v)<3\}$ and $Y^{*}=\{v\in Y:d_{G}(v)<3\}$.
  The vertices in $X^{*}$ and $Y^{*}$ are all unsaturated.
  In order to prove the lemma, we need the following facts.

\medskip

  \noindent\textbf{Fact 1}. If $u\in X^{*}$ and $v\in Y^{*}$ are nonadjacent, then $d_{G}(u)=d_{G}(v)=2$ and $(X^{*}\cup Y^{*})\backslash\{u,v\}=\emptyset$.

  \begin{proof}[Proof of Fact 1]
  If $d_{G}(u)\neq 2$ or $d_{G}(v)\neq 2$, then the graph $G+uv$ also belongs to $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$.
  However, we can see that $\lambda_{1}(G+uv)>\lambda_{1}(G),$ contradicting the maximality of $G$. This implies that $d_{G}(u)=d_{G}(v)=2$.
  If $(X^{*}\cup Y^{*})\backslash\{u,v\}\neq\emptyset$, then $G+uv\in \mathcal{B}(n,3)$ and $\lambda_{1}(G+uv)>\lambda_{1}(G)$,
  which also contradicts the maximality of $G.$
  \end{proof}

  \noindent\textbf{Fact 2}. Let $u$ and $v$ be two unsaturated vertices in the same part. If $d_{G}(u)=d_{G}(v)=1$, then $N(u)=N(v)$.

  \begin{proof}[Proof of Fact 2]
  Without loss of generality, assume that $x_u\geq x_v$. Set $N(v)=\{w\}$.
  If $N(u)\neq N(v)$, then $u$ is not adjacent to $w$. Let $G'=G-vw+uw$. By Lemma \ref{lem-cve}, $\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G)$.
  Note that $v$ is an isolated vertex in $G'$, and $G'-v$ belongs to $\mathcal{B}(n-1,3)$. Thus
$$\lambda_{1}(G'-v)=\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G),$$
contradicting Lemma \ref{max-ord}.
  \end{proof}

   \noindent\textbf{Fact 3}. Let $u$ and $v$ be two unsaturated vertices in the same part. If $d_{G}(u)=d_{G}(v)=2$, then $N(u)=N(v)$.

   \begin{proof}[Proof of Fact 3]
    By contradiction, suppose that $N(u)\neq N(v)$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $x_u\geq x_v$.
  Note that $|N(v)\backslash N(u)|=1$ or 2. It is obvious that there is a vertex in $N(v)\backslash N(u)$, say $w$,
  such that the graph $G'=G-vw+uw$ is connected.
  Then the graph $G'$ also belongs to $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$.
  It follows from Lemma \ref{lem-cve} that $\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G)$, contradicting the maximality of $G$.
   \end{proof}

  \noindent\textbf{Fact 4}. $|X^{*}|\leq 3$ and $|Y^{*}|\leq 3$.

  \begin{proof}[Proof of Fact 4]
  If $X^{*}$ has three vertices with degree 1,
  then Fact 2 implies that these three pendant vertices are adjacent to a common vertex in $Y$.
  Note also that the order of $G$ is at least 6.
  This leads to that $G$ is disconnected, a contradiction. Hence, $X^{*}$ contains at most two vertices of degree 1.
  Similarly, by Fact 3, $X^{*}$ contains at most two vertices of degree 2.

  If $|X^{*}|\geq 4$, then $X^{*}$ contains exactly two vertices of degree 1 and two vertices of degree 2, i.e., $|X^{*}|=4$.
  Then, we choose two vertices $u,v\in X^{*}$ with $d_{G}(u)=2$ and $d_{G}(v)=1$.
  Set $N(v)=\{w\}$. One can see that $w\not\sim u$ (if not, Facts 2 and 3 yield that $d_{G}(w)=4$, a contradiction).
  By Lemma \ref{eige-ord}, $x_{u}>x_{v}$.
  Let $G'=G+uw-vw$. It follows from Lemma \ref{lem-cve} that $\lambda_{1}(G')>\lambda_{1}(G)$.
  Note that $v$ is an isolated vertex in $G'$, and $G'-v\in \mathcal{B}(n-1,3)$.
  According to Lemma \ref{max-ord}, we have $\lambda_{1}(G)>\lambda_{1}(G'-v)=\lambda_{1}(G')$, a contradiction. Therefore, $|X^{*}|\leq 3$.
  A similar argument can assure that $|Y^{*}|\leq 3$.
  \end{proof}

  In the following, we consider the vertices in $X^{*}\cup Y^{*}$. It can be divided into two cases according to whether $X^{*}\cup Y^{*}$ has some vertices with degree 1.

  If there exists a vertex in $X^{*}\cup Y^{*}$ with degree 1, then we assume that $d_{G}(u)=1$ where $u\in X^{*}$.
  We claim that $Y^{*}=\emptyset$. Suppose not. Then it follows from Fact 1 that $|Y^{*}|=1$. Set $Y^{*}=\{v\}$. Obviously, $d_{G}(v)=2$ and $v\sim u$.
  Again by Fact 1, $v$ is adjacent to all vertices of $X^{*}$, and so $|X^{*}|\leq 2$. If $|X^{*}|=1$, then, by counting the number of edges, we have
  $$3(|X|-1)+1=3(|Y|-1)+2.$$
  This implies that $|X|-|Y|=1/3$, a contradiction. If $|X^{*}|=2$, then we assume $X^{*}=\{u,w\}$.
  Since $G$ is connected, we have $d_{G}(w)=2$.
  By counting the number of edges, we have
  $$3(|X|-2)+3=3(|Y|-1)+2,$$
  which yields that $|X|-|Y|=2/3$, a contradiction. Therefore, $Y^{*}=\emptyset$. Let us consider the number of vertices in $X^{*}$.
  Recall that $u\in X^{*}$ and $d_{G}(u)=1$. Suppose that the degree sum of vertices in $X^{*}\backslash \{u\}$ is equal to $a$.
  Since $Y^{*}=\emptyset$, the degree sum of vertices in $X^{*}$ is a multiple of 3, that is, $3|(a+1)$.
  Since $|X^{*}|\leq 3$, it follows that $a=2$.
  As mentioned in the proof of Fact 4, $X^{*}$ cannot contain three vertices of degree 1.
  Thus, $|X^{*}|=2$, and the degrees of vertices in $X^{*}$ are $2$ and $1$.
  By counting the number of edges, we have
  $$3(|X|-2)+a+1=3|Y|,$$ which leads to $|X|=|Y|+1$. Therefore, the degree sequence of $G$ is $(3,\ldots,3,2,1\mid 3,\ldots,3)$, as required.

   Now, suppose that the degree of any vertex in $X^{*}\cup Y^{*}$ is 2.
   We claim that $X^{*}$ and $Y^{*}$ are both nonempty. Assume that $|Y^{*}|=0$. The degree sum of vertices in $X$ is a multiple of 3.
   This implies that $|X^{*}|=3$. According to Fact 3, one can see that $K_{2,3}$ is a component of $G$, which contradicts the connectivity of $G$.
   Therefore, $3\geq |Y^{*}|\geq 1$. Similarly, we have $3\geq |X^{*}|\geq 1$.

   We may assume that $|X^{*}|\geq |Y^{*}|$.
   If $|Y^{*}|\geq 2$, then $|X^{*}|\geq 2$. Choose vertices $u_{1},u_{2}\in X^{*}$ and $v_{1},v_{2}\in Y^{*}$.
    By Fact 1, it is obviously that $u_{i}$ is adjacent to $v_{j}$ for any $1\leq i,j\leq 2$.
    Since $d_{G}(u_{1})=d_{G}(u_{2})=d_{G}(v_{1})=d_{G}(v_{2})=2$, these four vertices form a component of $G$, which contradicts the connectivity of $G$.
    Thus, $|Y^{*}|=1$. If $|X^{*}|=3$, then it follows from Fact 3 that $G$ contains a component $K_{2,3}$, a contradiction.
    Hence $|X^{*}|\leq 2$.
    If $|X^{*}|=2$, by counting the number of edges, then we have
    $$3(|X|-2)+4=3(|Y|-1)+2.$$
  This implies that $|X|-|Y|=1/3$, a contradiction. Therefore, $|X^{*}|=1$, and so the degree sequence of $G$ is $(3,\ldots,3,2\mid 3,\ldots,3,2)$.
\end{proof}

All possible degree sequences of the maximal graph have been determined.
One can see that, in the maximal graph, there are exactly two unsaturated vertices.
The next lemma presents more properties for the maximal graph.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem-nocut}
  Let $G$ be a maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$ with $n\geq 6$.\\
  \noindent(1) If $u$ is a vertex in $G$ with degree 2, then $u$ cannot be incident with a cut edge.\\
  \noindent(2) If $G$ contains a cut edge, and $v,v'$ are the only two unsaturated vertices, then any path from $v$ to $v'$ passes through the cut edge.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  (1) By contradiction, assume that $u$ is incident with a cut edge $e$ in $G$. Let $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ be the two components in $G-e$, where $u\in V(H_{1})$.
  Clearly, $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ are both bipartite graphs.
  Note that $(3,\ldots,3,2)$ and $(3,\ldots,3,1)$ cannot be the degree sequence of a bipartite graph.
  According to Lemma \ref{lem-degree}, we can see that, in $G$, there is another vertex $v$ with degree $d_{G}(v)<3$.
  If $v\in V(H_{1})$, then the degree sequence of the induced subgraph $H_{2}$ is $(3,3,\ldots,3,2)$, a contradiction.
  On the other hand, if $v\in V(H_{2})$, then the degree sequence of the induced subgraph $H_{1}$ is $(3,3,\ldots,3,1)$, a contradiction.
  Then statement (1) holds.

  (2) Suppose that $e$ is a cut edge in $G$. Let $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ be the two components in $G-e$.
  If $v$ and $v'$ belong to the same component, say $H_{1}$, then $d_{G}(w)=3$ for each vertex $w\in V(H_{2})$,
  hence the degree sequence of the induced subgraph $H_{2}$ is $(3,3,\ldots,3,2)$, a contradiction.
  Thus, $v$ and $v'$ belong to the distinct components, and so the path from $v$ to $v'$ must passes through $e$. The statement (2) is proved.
\end{proof}

Form Lemma \ref{lem-nocut} (2), we obtain the following result directly.

\begin{corollary}\label{nocut}
  Let $G$ be a maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$ with $n\geq 6$. Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are the only two unsaturated vertices.
  If $u$ is adjacent to $v$, then, except for the edge $uv$, there is no cut edge in $G$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics{maximal-graph.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Subcubic bipartite graphs.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

For $n\geq 6$, let $B_{n}$ be a connected subcubic bipartite graph defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $B_{6}$ is obtained from $K_{3,3}$ by deleting an edge.
  \item When $n\geq 7$ and $n$ is odd, $B_{n}$ is obtained from $B_{n-1}$ by adding a new vertex and joining it to one of the unsaturated vertices in $B_{n-1}$.
  \item When $n\geq 8$ and $n$ is even, $B_{n}$ is obtained from $B_{n-1}$ by adding a new vertex and joining it to all unsaturated vertices in $B_{n-1}$.
\end{itemize}
For example, subcubic bipartite graphs $B_{6},B_{7},B_{8},B_{9}$ are presented in Figure \ref{fig1}. We are now ready to prove the maximal graph.

\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{main3}]
  Let $G$ be a maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,3)$. Lemma \ref{lem-degree} shows that the degree sequence of $G$ is either
  $(3,3,\ldots,3,2\mid 3,3,\ldots,3,2)$ or $(3,3,\ldots,3\mid 3,3,\ldots,3,2,1)$. Suppose that $x$ is a principal eigenvector of $G$.
 We establish the structure of $G$ by analyzing the eigenvector in each case.

 \medskip

\noindent\textbf{Case 1.} The degree sequence of $G$ is $(3,3,\ldots,3,2\mid 3,3,\ldots,3,2)$.

\medskip

If $n=6$, then it is easy to see that $G\cong B_{6}$. In the following, we assume that $n>6$.
Suppose that $G$ has the bipartition $(U,V)$, where $U=\{u_{1},u_{2},\ldots,u_{s}\}$ and $V=\{v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{s}\}$. Without loss of generality, we assume that
$$x_{u_{1}}\leq x_{u_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}~~~~\text{and}~~~~x_{v_{1}}\leq x_{v_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}.$$

\noindent\textbf{Claim 1.} For $1\leq i\leq s-3$, we obtain that $u_{i}\sim v_{i}$, $u_{i}\sim v_{i+1}$, $v_{i}\sim u_{i+1}$ and the eigenvector $x$ satisfies that
$$x_{u_{i}}<x_{u_{i+1}}<x_{u_{i+2}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}~~~~\text{and}~~~~x_{v_{i}}<x_{v_{i+1}}<x_{v_{i+2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}.$$

\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim 1]

We prove the claim by induction on $i$. By Lemma \ref{eige-ord}, it follows that $d_{G}(u_{1})=d_{G}(v_{1})=2$,
$$x_{u_{1}}<\min\{x_{u_{i}}:2\leq i\leq s\}~~~~\text{and}~~~~x_{v_{1}}<\min\{x_{v_{i}}:2\leq i\leq s\}.$$

We now show that $u_{1}\sim v_{1}$. By contradiction, suppose that $u_{1}\not \sim v_{1}$.
Since $n>6$, we can find two nonadjacent vertices $v\in N(u_{1})$ and $u\in N(v_{1})$.
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be a shortest path from $u_{1}$ to $u$ in $G$.
If the path $\mathsf{P}$ passes through vertices $v_{1}$ and $v$ simultaneously,
then the graph $G+\{u_{1}v_{1},uv\}-\{u_{1}v,uv_{1}\}$ is obviously connected.
Moreover, the graph $G+\{u_{1}v_{1},uv\}-\{u_{1}v,uv_{1}\}$ is also connected,
when $v_{1}$ and $v$ are both not appeared in $\mathsf{P}$.
Since $x_{u_{1}}<x_{u}$ and $x_{v_{1}}<x_{v}$, $\{u_{1}v,uv_{1}\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$,
contradicting Corollary \ref{nobadedge}.
Suppose that exactly one of vertices $v_{1}$ and $v$ belongs to $\mathsf{P}$.
Set $N(u_{1})=\{v,v'\}$. If $v_{1}$ belongs to $\mathsf{P}$, then $\mathsf{P}=u_{1}v'\mathsf{P}v_{1}u$.
Thus, $G+\{u_{1}v_{1},uv'\}-\{u_{1}v',uv_{1}\}$ is connected
since the vertices of $\{u_{1},v_{1},u,v'\}$ are connected by a path $u_{1}v_{1}\mathsf{P}v'u$ in this graph.
On the other hand, if $v$ belongs to $\mathsf{P}$, then $\mathsf{P}=u_{1}v\mathsf{P}u$.
Since $v_{1}u_{1}v\mathsf{P}uv'$ is a path in $G+\{u_{1}v_{1},uv'\}-\{u_{1}v',uv_{1}\}$, this graph is connected.
Note also that $x_{u_{1}}<x_{u}$ and $x_{v_{1}}<x_{v'}$.
Thus, $\{u_{1}v',uv_{1}\}$ is a bad pair in $G$, which contradicting Corollary \ref{nobadedge}.
Therefore, we obtain that $u_{1}\sim v_{1}$.

Let $N(u_{1})=\{v_{1},v\}$. Clearly, $v\in \{v_{2},\ldots,v_{s}\}$.
We claim that $x_{v}<\min\{x_{w}:w\in \{v_{2},\ldots, v_{s}\}\}$.
Suppose not, and let $v^{*}\in \{v_{2},\ldots,v_{s}\}\backslash\{v\}$ with $x_{v^{*}}\leq x_{v}$.
Since $d_{G}(v^{*})=d_{G}(v)=3$ and $u_{1}\not\sim v^{*}$, it is obvious that $N(v^{*})\backslash N(v)\neq \emptyset$.
Let $u\in N(v^{*})\backslash N(v)$. Then $u\sim v^{*}$ and $u\not\sim v$.
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be a shortest path from $v$ to $v^{*}$ in $G$.

If the vertices $u_{1}$ and $u$ both belong to (or both not belong to) the path $\mathsf{P}$,
then it is easy to see that the graph $G+\{u_{1}v^{*},uv\}-\{u_{1}v,uv^{*}\}$ is connected.
Since $x_{u}>x_{u_{1}}$ and $x_{v}\geq x_{v^{*}}$, $\{u_{1}v,uv^{*}\}$ forms a bad pair of edges in $G$, contradicting Corollary \ref{nobadedge}.

Suppose that exactly one of vertices $u_{1}$ and $u$ belongs to the path $\mathsf{P}$.
In this case, one can see that $N(v^{*})\cap N(v)=\emptyset$.
If $u_{1}$ belongs to the path $\mathsf{P}$,
then $\mathsf{P}$ contains a vertex $u^{*}\in N(v^{*})\backslash \{u\}$, where $u^{*}\not\sim v$ and $x_{u^{*}}>x_{u_{1}}$.
Hence, $G+\{u^{*}v,u_{1}v^{*}\}-\{u^{*}v^{*}, u_{1}v\}$ is connected,
which yielding that $\{u^{*}v^{*}, u_{1}v\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, a contradiction.
Suppose that $u$ belongs to the path $\mathsf{P}$. Let us choose a vertex $u^{**}\in N(v^{*})\backslash \{u\}$.
Thus, $u^{**}v\mathsf{P}uv^{*}u_{1}$ is a path in $G+\{u^{**}v,u_{1}v^{*}\}-\{u^{**}v^{*}, u_{1}v\}$, and so this graph is connected.
Moreover, since $x_{u^{**}}>x_{u_{1}}$ and $x_{v}\geq x_{v^{*}}$, $\{u^{**}v^{*}, u_{1}v\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, a contradiction.

In above, we both obtain contradictions, hence $x_{v}<\min\{x_{w}:w\in \{v_{2},\ldots, v_{s}\}\}$.
That is $u_{1}\sim v_{2}$ and $x_{v_{2}}<x_{v_{3}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}$.
A similar argument shows that $v_{1}\sim u_{2}$,
and $x_{u_{2}}<x_{u_{3}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}$.
Therefore, Claim 1 holds for $i=1$.

Assume that Claim 1 holds for $i<k$. Now, let us consider the case $i=k$. Thus, we have
$$x_{u_{1}}<x_{u_{2}}<\cdots<x_{u_{k-1}}<x_{u_{k}}<x_{u_{k+1}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}$$
and
$$x_{v_{1}}<x_{v_{2}}<\cdots<x_{v_{k-1}}<x_{v_{k}}<x_{v_{k+1}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}.$$
Moreover, the neighbours of any vertex in $\{u_{1},\ldots,u_{k-1},v_{1},\ldots, v_{k-1}\}$ are determined.
In particular, we also obtain that $u_{k}\sim v_{k-1}$ and $v_{k}\sim u_{k-1}$.
The remaining two neighbours of $u_{k}$ (resp. $v_{k}$) belong to $\{v_{i}: i\geq k\}$ (resp. $\{u_{i}:i\geq k\}$).

To prove $u_{k}\sim v_{k}$. By contradiction, we may assume that $u_{k}\not\sim v_{k}$.
Clearly, $u_{k}$ has two neighbours in $\{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}$,
and $v_{k}$ has two neighbours in $\{u_{k+1},\ldots,u_{s}\}$.
Since $k\leq s-3$, we can find two vertices $v\in N(u_{k})\cap \{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}$ and $u\in N(v_{k})\cap \{u_{k+1},\ldots,u_{s}\}$ such that $u\not\sim v$.
Assume that $N(u_{k})=\{v_{k-1},v,v'\}$.
Note that $x_{u_{k}}<x_{u}$ and $x_{v_{k}}<x_{v}$.
If $G-\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$ is connected, then $G+\{u_{k}v_{k},uv\}-\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$ is also connected,
and so $\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, a contradiction.
So, we assume that $G-\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$ is disconnected.
By Corollary \ref{nocut}, it is easy to see that $G-\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$ contains two components.
Suppose that $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ are the two components in $G-\{u_{k}v,v_{k}u\}$,
where $\{u_{k},v_{k},v'\}\subset H_{1}$ and $\{u,v\}\subset H_{2}$.
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be a path from $u$ to $v$ in $H_{2}$.
Consider the graph $G+\{u_{k}v_{k},uv'\}-\{u_{k}v',uv_{k}\}$.
Since $v_{k}u_{k}v\mathsf{P}uv'$ is a path in the graph $G+\{u_{k}v_{k},uv'\}-\{u_{k}v',uv_{k}\}$,
this graph is connected. Moreover, since $x_{v'}>x_{v_{k}}$ and $x_{u}>x_{u_{k}}$,
it follows that $\{u_{k}v',uv_{k}\}$ is a bad pair edges of $G$, a contradiction.
Therefore, we obtain that $u_{k}\sim v_{k}$.

Suppose, now, that $N(u_{k})=\{v_{k-1},v_{k},v\}$ where $v\in \{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}$.
We will show that $$x_{v}<\min\{x_{w}:w\in \{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}\backslash\{v\}\}.$$
Suppose not, and let $w\in \{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}\backslash\{v\}$ with $x_{w}\leq x_{v}$.
Since $d_{G}(w)=d_{G}(v)=3$, it is obvious that $N(w)\backslash N(v)\neq \emptyset$.
Let $u\in N(w)\backslash N(v)$. Then $u\sim w$ and $u\not\sim v$.
If $G+\{u_{k}w,uv\}-\{u_{k}v,uw\}$ is connected, then $\{u_{k}v,uw\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, which contradicts Corollary \ref{nobadedge}.
Suppose that $G+\{u_{k}w,uv\}-\{u_{k}v,uw\}$ is disconnected.
Thus, it is easy to see that $G-\{u_{k}v,uw\}$ contains exactly two components $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$,
where $\{u_{k},w\}\subset H_{1}$ and $\{u,v\}\subset H_{2}$.
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be a path from $u$ to $v$ in $H_{2}$.
Choose a vertex $u'\in N(w)\backslash \{u\}$, we can see that $u'$ belongs to $H_{1}$.
Obviously, $u_{k}wu\mathsf{P}vu'$ forms a path in the graph $G+\{u_{k}w, u'v\}-\{u_{k}v,u'w\}$, and so this graph is connected.
Note also that $x_{u'}>x_{u_{k}}$ and $x_{v}\geq x_{w}$. Thus, $\{u_{k}v,u'w\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, a contradiction.
Therefore, $x_{v}<\min\{x_{w}:w\in \{v_{k+1},\ldots,v_{s}\}\backslash\{v\}\}$, that is, $v=v_{k+1}$.
 Hence, $u_{k}\sim v_{k+1}$ and $x_{v_{k+1}}<x_{v_{k+2}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}$.
 A similar argument yields that $v_{k}\sim u_{k+1}$ and $x_{u_{k+1}}<x_{u_{k+2}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}$.
Thus, the proof of Claim 1 is completed.
\end{proof}

In summary, Claim 1 presents the adjacency relationships for all vertices in $\{u_{1},\ldots,u_{s-3},v_{1},\ldots,v_{s-3}\}$,
and shows that $u_{s-2}\sim v_{s-3}$ and $v_{s-2}\sim u_{s-3}$.
Then it is easy to see that the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{u_{s-2},u_{s-1},u_{s},v_{s-2},v_{s-1},v_{s}\}$ must be isomorphic to $K_{3,3}-u_{s-2}v_{s-2}$.
Therefore, $G\cong B_{2s}$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig1}.

\medskip

\noindent\textbf{Case 2.} The degree sequence of $G$ is $(3,3,\ldots,3 | 3,3,\ldots,3,2,1)$.

\medskip

Assume that $G$ has the bipartition $(U,V)$, where $U=\{u_{1},u_{2},\ldots,u_{s}\}$ and $V=\{v_{0},v_{1},v_{2},\ldots,v_{s}\}$. Suppose that
$$x_{u_{1}}\leq x_{u_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}~~~~\text{and}~~~~x_{v_{0}}\leq x_{v_{1}}\leq x_{v_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}.$$
By Lemma \ref{eige-ord}, we can see that $d_{G}(v_{0})=1$, $d_{G}(v_{1})=2$ and $x_{v_{0}}<x_{v_{1}}< x_{v_{2}}\leq\cdots\leq x_{v_{s}}$.
Suppose that $N(v_{0})=u$. We claim that $x_{u}<\min\{x_{w}:w\in \{u_{1},\ldots,u_{s}\}\backslash\{u\}\}$.
If not, assume that $x_{u_{j}}\leq x_{u}$ where $u_{j}\in \{u_{1},\ldots,u_{s}\}\backslash\{u\}$.
Since $d_{G}(u)=d_{G}(u_{j})=3$, there is a vertex in $v\in N(u_{j})$ such that $u\not\sim v$.
According to Lemma \ref{lem-nocut}, one can see that $v_{0}u$ is the only one cut edge in $G$.
This implies that $G-v_{0}$ is 2-connected (otherwise, if there is a cut edge in $G-v_{0}$, then it is also a cut edge in $G$).
Let us consider the graph $G+\{v_{0}u_{j},vu\}-\{v_{0}u,vu_{j}\}$.
Since $G-v_{0}$ is 2-connected, the graph $G+\{v_{0}u_{j},vu\}-\{v_{0}u,vu_{j}\}$ is obviously connected.
Since $x_{v_{0}}<x_{v}$ and $x_{u_{j}}\leq x_{u}$,
$\{v_{0}u,vu_{j}\}$ is a bad pair of edges in $G$, a contradiction.
Therefore, we obtain that $u=u_{1}$ and $x_{u_{1}}<x_{u_{2}}\leq \cdots\leq x_{u_{s}}$.
By a simple inductive argument similar to the one used in Case 1, one can derive the adjacency relationships of the remaining vertices.
The graph $G$ is isomorphic to $B_{2s+1}$, which is displayed in Figure \ref{fig1}.
\end{proof}

\section{Spectral radius of $k$-connected irregular graphs}

Let us recall an inequality proposed by Shi \cite[Lemma 1]{Shi2009}. If $a,b>0$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
  a(p-q)^{2}+bq^{2}\geq\frac{abp^{2}}{a+b},
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $q=ap/(a+b)$. Multiplying both side by $a+b$, we obtain that the above inequality is reduced to $[ap-(a+b)q]^{2}\geq 0$.
The inequality then follows directly.

Now, we are ready to present the proof of Theorem \ref{main1}.

\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{main1}]
Suppose that $x$ is a unit principal eigenvector of $G$.
  We may assume that $\hat{u}$ and $\hat{v}$ are two vertices in $G$ such that
  $x_{\hat{u}}=\max\{x_w:w\in V(G)\}$ and $x_{\hat{v}}=\min\{x_w:w\in V(G)\}$.
  If $d_{G}(\hat{u})<\Delta$, then
  $$\lambda_{1}(G)x_{\hat{u}}=\sum_{w\in N(u)}x_w\leq (\Delta-1)x_{\hat{u}},$$
  which leads to $\lambda_{1}(G)\leq \Delta-1$. Thus, the result holds since the right side of the inequality (\ref{eq0}) is less than one.

  In the following, we assume that $d_{G}(\hat{u})=\Delta$. Since $x$ is a principal eigenvector of $G$, we have
  \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq1}
    \lambda_{1}(G)=2\sum_{uv\in E(G)}x_{u}x_{v}=\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}^{2}+x_{v}^{2})-\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}
    =\sum_{w\in V(G)}d_{G}(w)x_{w}^{2}-\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}.
  \end{eqnarray}
  Thus, it follows from (\ref{eq1}) that
  \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq2}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)&=&\Delta-\sum_{w\in V(G)}d_{G}(w)x_{w}^{2}+\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\nonumber\\
    &=&\sum_{w\in V(G)}(\Delta-d_{G}(w))x_{w}^{2}+\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\nonumber\\
    &\geq &(n\Delta-2m)x_{\hat{v}}^{2}+\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}.
  \end{eqnarray}
One can see that $\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}>0$ as $G$ is irregular. If $$x_{\hat{v}}^{2}\geq \frac{k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}},$$
then the inequality (\ref{eq2}) and the fact $\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}>0$ show that
$$\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>(n\Delta-2m)x_{\hat{v}}^{2}\geq \frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}},$$
and hence the result follows. Note also that $|N(\hat{v})|\geq k$. Let $w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{k}$ be $k$ vertices in $N(\hat{v})$.
It is obvious that
  \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3}
    \sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\geq \sum_{i=1}^{k}(x_{w_{i}}-x_{\hat{v}})^{2}.
  \end{eqnarray}
Combining (\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq3}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq5}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)&\geq& (n\Delta-2m)x_{\hat{v}}^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{k}(x_{w_{i}}-x_{\hat{v}})^{2} \nonumber\\
    &=&\sum_{i=1}^{k}\left(\frac{n\Delta-2m}{k}x_{\hat{v}}^2+(x_{w_i}-x_{\hat{v}})^2\right)\nonumber\\
    &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k}\frac{n\Delta-2m}{n\Delta-2m+k}x_{w_{i}}^2,
  \end{eqnarray}
  where the last inequality follows from (\ref{eq4}) with $a=1$, $b=\frac{n\Delta-2m}{k}$, $p=x_{w_{i}}$ and $q=x_{\hat{v}}$.
If
$$\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{w_{i}}^2>\frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}+k^{3}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}},$$
then the result follows from (\ref{eq5}). So, in the following, we may assume that
$$x_{\hat{v}}^{2}<\frac{k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}}$$
and
$$\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{w_{i}}^2\leq \frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}+k^{3}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}}.$$
Since $k\leq n-2$, the set $V(G)\setminus\{\hat{v},w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{k}\}$ is nonempty.
   Thus, we have
   \begin{equation}\label{eq6}
   x_{\hat{u}}^{2}\geq \frac{1-x_{\hat{v}}^{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_{w_{k}}^{2}}{n-k-1}.
   \end{equation}
   By (\ref{eq6}), we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq9}
  x_{\hat{u}}^{2}>\left(1-\frac{(n\Delta-2m+1)k^{2}+k^{3}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}}\right)/(n-k-1).
\end{equation}
 Since $G$ is $k$-connected, Menger's theorem shows that there are $k$ internally vertex disjoint paths from $\hat{u}$ to $\hat{v}$.
  Let $P_{1},P_{2},\ldots,P_{k}$ be internally vertex disjoint $(\hat{u},\hat{v})$-paths,
  such that $|N(\hat{u})\cap V(P_{i})|=1$ for $1\leq i\leq k$.
  Apart from these paths, there are at least $\Delta-k$ vertices.
  Thus, $$|V(P_{1}\cup P_{2}\cup \cdots\cup P_{k})|+\Delta-k\leq n.$$
  Note that $\sum_{i=1}^{k}|V(P_{i})|=|V(P_{1}\cup P_{2}\cup \cdots\cup P_{k})|+2(k-1)$. It follows that
  $$\sum_{i=1}^{k}|V(P_{i})|\leq n+3k-\Delta-2.$$
  Therefore, it follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that
  \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq7}
    \sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{uv\in E(P_{i})}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\nonumber\\
     &\geq& \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{k}(|V(P_{i})|-1)}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{uv\in E(P_{i})}(x_{u}-x_{v})\right)^{2}\nonumber\\
     &=&\frac{k^2}{\sum_{i=1}^k(|V(P_t)|-1)}(x_{\hat{u}}-x_{\hat{v}})^2\nonumber\\
     &\geq& \frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+2k-2}(x_{\hat{u}}-x_{\hat{v}})^2.
  \end{eqnarray}
Combining (\ref{eq2}) and (\ref{eq7}), it follows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq8}
  \Delta-\lambda_{1}(G) &\geq&(n\Delta-2m)x_{\hat{v}}^{2}+\frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+2k-2}(x_{\hat{u}}-x_{\hat{v}})^2\nonumber\\
  &\geq& \frac{k^2(n\Delta-2m)}{(n\Delta-2m)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+k^{2}}x_{\hat{u}}^{2},
\end{eqnarray}
 where the last inequality follows from (\ref{eq4}) with $a=\frac{k^{2}}{n-\Delta+2k-2}$, $b=n\Delta-2m$, $p=x_{\hat{u}}$ and $q=x_{\hat{v}}$.
 Replacing (\ref{eq9}) in (\ref{eq8}), we have
$$\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{(n\Delta-2m)k^{2}}{(n\Delta-2m)\left((n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)\right)+nk^{2}},$$
as required.
\end{proof}

\noindent\textbf{Remark.} Let us compare the previous bounds and our bound obtained in Theorem \ref{main1}. Take $k=1$ in Theorem \ref{main1},
the lower bound (\ref{eq0}) is equivalent to
$$\Delta-\lambda_{1}(G)>\frac{1}{(n-1)^{2}-(n-2)\Delta+\frac{n}{n\Delta-2m}}.$$
Since $n\Delta-2m\geq 1$ and $\Delta>1$,
we have
$$(n-1)^{2}-(n-2)\Delta+\frac{n}{n\Delta-2m}<(n-1)^{2}-(n-2)+n<2n(n-1)<2n(n\Delta-1)\Delta^{2},$$
which implies that the lower bound (\ref{eq0}) is better than the bound (\ref{eq18}) in Theorem \ref{th1}.
Moreover, since $$(n-1)^{2}-(n-k-1)(\Delta-k+1)<n^{2}-2n+2k,$$ the lower bound (\ref{eq0}) is also better than the bound (\ref{eq19}) in Theorem \ref{th2}.
Generally, the lower bounds (\ref{eq0}) and (\ref{eq22}) are incomparable.
All trees with 9 vertices were exhibited in \cite[Appendix Table A4]{Cvetkovic2010}.
For nine of these trees, with serial numbers $\{53, 59, 61-64, 67, 72, 74\}$, the lower bound (\ref{eq22}) is better than (\ref{eq0}).
For other trees on 9 vertices, the lower bound (\ref{eq0}) is better.

\medskip

At the end of this section, we will discuss the spectral radius of the proper subgraph of regular graphs.
Note that the complete graph $K_{n}$ is a regular graph, and its spectral radius is $n-1$.
Let $K_{n}^{-}$ be the graph obtained from the complete graph $K_{n}$ by deleting an edge.
One can easily see that the spectral radius of $K_{n}^{-}$ is
$$\frac{n-3+\sqrt{n^{2}+2n-7}}{2}.$$

In order to prove Theorem \ref{main2}, we consider the spectral radius of nearly regular graphs.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
  Let $G$ be a $k$-connected $\Delta$-regular graph of order $n$. If $H$ is a graph obtained from $G$ by deleting an edge, then
  \begin{equation}\label{eq13}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)>\frac{k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}.
    \end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Suppose that $H\cong G-\hat{u}\hat{v}$ where $\hat{u}\hat{v}$ is an edge of $G$.
  Thus, $d_{H}(\hat{u})=d_{H}(\hat{v})=\Delta-1$, and $d_{H}(w)=\Delta$ for $w\in V(H)\backslash\{\hat{u},\hat{v}\}$.
  If $\Delta=n-1$, then $G\cong K_{n}$ and $H\cong K_{n}^{-}$.
  Clearly, $$\Delta-\lambda_{1}(K_{n}^{-})=n-1-\frac{n-3+\sqrt{n^{2}+2n-7}}{2}>\frac{1}{n},$$ and the result follows.
  Assume that $\Delta\leq n-2$.
  Let $x$ be a unit principal eigenvector of $H$. As mentioned in (\ref{eq1}),
  \begin{equation}
    \lambda_{1}(H)=\sum_{w\in V(G)}d_{H}(w)x_{w}^{2}-\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}.
  \end{equation}
  Therefore, we obtain that
  \begin{equation}\label{eq11}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)=\Delta\sum_{w\in V(G)}x_{w}^{2}-\sum_{w\in V(G)}d_{H}(w)x_{w}^{2}+\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}
    =x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+x_{\hat{v}}^{2}+\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}.
  \end{equation}
  Suppose that $N_{H}(\hat{u})=\{u_{1},u_{2},\ldots,u_{\Delta-1}\}$. By (\ref{eq4}) and (\ref{eq11}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq14}
  \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)\geq x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}(x_{u_{i}}-x_{\hat{u}})^{2}
  =\sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}\left(\frac{1}{\Delta-1}x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+(x_{u_{i}}-x_{\hat{u}})^{2}\right)
  \geq \frac{1}{\Delta}\sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}x_{u_{i}}^{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\sum_{uv\in E(G)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}>0$, by (\ref{eq11}), the lemma holds if
$$x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+x_{\hat{v}}^{2}\geq \frac{k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}.$$
Moreover, if
$$\sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}x_{u_{i}}^{2}>\frac{\Delta k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}},$$
the result follows immediately from (\ref{eq14}). So, in the following, we may assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eq15}
  x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+x_{\hat{v}}^{2}<\frac{k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq16}
  \sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}x_{u_{i}}^{2}\leq \frac{\Delta k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}.
\end{equation}
  Note that the average degree of $H$ is $\Delta-\frac{2}{n}$, and so $\lambda_{1}(H)>\Delta-\frac{2}{n}$.
  Suppose that $x_{\hat{u}}\geq x_{\hat{v}}$. It is easy to see that $x_{\hat{u}}>0,$ whether $H$ is connected or not.
  If $x_{\hat{u}}=\max\{x_{w}:w\in V(H)\}$,
  then $$\lambda_{1}(H)x_{\hat{u}}=\sum_{w\hat{u}\in E(G)}x_{w}\leq (\Delta-1)x_{\hat{u}},$$
  which implies that $\lambda_{1}(H)\leq \Delta-1$. But this contradicts the fact $\lambda_{1}(H)>\Delta-2/n$.
  Therefore, we obtain that $\max\{x_{w}:w\in V(H)\}>x_{\hat{u}}\geq x_{\hat{v}}$.
  Assume that $\hat{w}$ is a vertex in $H$ such that $x_{\hat{w}}=\max\{x_{w}:w\in V(H)\}$.
  Since $\Delta\leq n-2$, it follows from the assumptions (\ref{eq15}) and (\ref{eq16}) that
  \begin{equation}\label{eq17}
    x_{\hat{w}}\geq \frac{1-x_{\hat{u}}^{2}-x_{\hat{v}}^{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{\Delta-1}x_{u_{i}}^{2}}{n-\Delta-1}
    >\frac{n-\Delta+k^{2}+2k-2}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}}.
  \end{equation}
  We claim that the eigenvector $x$ satisfies
  \begin{equation}\label{eq10}
    \sum_{uv\in E(H)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\geq \frac{k^{2}}{n+2k-\Delta-2}(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})^{2}.
  \end{equation}
  Since $G$ is $k$-connected, Menger's Theorem shows that there are $k$ internally vertex disjoint paths from $\hat{w}$ to $\hat{u}$.
  Suppose that $P_{1},P_{2},\ldots,P_{k}$ are internally vertex disjoint $(\hat{w},\hat{u})$-paths in $G$,
  such that $|N_{G}(\hat{w})\cap V(P_{i})|=1$ for $1\leq i\leq k$.
  If $\hat{v}\notin \bigcup_{i=1}^{k}V(P_{i})$, then $P_{1},\ldots,P_{k}$ are also paths in $H$.
  As mentioned in the proof of Theorem \ref{main1}, we have
  $$\sum_{i=1}^{k}|V(P_{i})|\leq n+3k-\Delta-2.$$
  Therefore, it follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that
  \begin{eqnarray*}
    \sum_{uv\in E(H)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{uv\in P_{i}}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}\\
     &\geq& \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{k}(|V(P_{i})|-1)}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{uv\in P_{i}}(x_{u}-x_{v})\right)^{2}\\
     &=&\frac{k^2}{\sum_{i=1}^k(|V(P_t)|-1)}(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})^2\\
     &\geq& \frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+2k-2}(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})^2,
  \end{eqnarray*}
  as claimed. Suppose that $\hat{v}\in V(P_{k})$ and $P_{k}=\hat{w}\cdots \hat{v}\hat{u}$.
   Let $P_{k}^{*}$ be the path obtained from $P_{k}$ by deleting the vertex $\hat{u}$, that is, $P_{k}^{*}=\hat{w}\cdots \hat{v}$.
   Clearly, $P_{1},\ldots,P_{k-1},P_{k}^{*}$ are also paths in $H$. It follows that
   $$|V(P_{k}^{*})|+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}|V(P_{i})|\leq n+3k-\Delta-3<n+3k-\Delta-2.$$
   A similar argument, using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, yields that
   \begin{eqnarray*}
    \sum_{uv\in E(H)}(x_{u}-x_{v})^{2}&\geq& \frac{1}{|V(P_{k}^{*})|-1+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}(|V(P_{i})|-1)}\left(\sum_{uv\in P_{k}^{*}}(x_{u}-x_{v})+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}\sum_{uv\in P_{i}}(x_{u}-x_{v})\right)^{2}\\
    &>&\frac{1}{n-\Delta+2k-2}\left(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{v}}+(k-1)(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})\right)^{2}\\
     &\geq& \frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+2k-2}(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})^2,
  \end{eqnarray*}
   where the last inequality holds as $x_{\hat{u}}\geq x_{\hat{v}}$. Therefore, the eigenvector $x$ satisfies the inequality (\ref{eq10}).
    Combining (\ref{eq4}), (\ref{eq11}) and (\ref{eq10}), we obtain that
    \begin{equation}\label{eq12}
    \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)\geq x_{\hat{u}}^{2}+\frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+2k-2}(x_{\hat{w}}-x_{\hat{u}})^2
    \geq\frac{k^2}{n-\Delta+k^{2}+2k-2}x_{\hat{w}}^2.
  \end{equation}
Thus, the result follows directly by using (\ref{eq17}) in the above inequality, and the proof is completed.
\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{main2} is now a direct consequence of the above lemma.

\begin{proof}[\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{main2}]
Since $H$ is a proper subgraph of $G$, there exists a graph $H'$ satisfying the following
properties: (a) $H'$ is obtained from $G$ by deleting an edge; (b) $H$ is a subgraph of $H'$ ($H\cong H'$ is allowed).
According to the property (b), we obtain $\lambda_{1}(H)\leq \lambda_{1}(H')$. Combining the property (a) and Lemma \ref{lem1},
it follows that
$$\Delta-\lambda_{1}(H)\geq \Delta-\lambda_{1}(H')>\frac{k^{2}}{(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)+nk^{2}},$$
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\noindent\textbf{Remark.} In Theorem \ref{th3}, the supergraph $G$ is $k$-connected, where $k\geq 2$.
The connectivity restriction is relaxed to any positive integer $k$ in our result.
Moreover, we improve the bound in Theorem \ref{th3} when $k\geq 2$.
Set $\Phi_{1}=(k-1)^{2}(n-\Delta-1)(n-\Delta+2k-2)$ and $\Phi_{2}=k^{2}(n-\Delta)(n-\Delta+2k-4)$.
One can see that
$$\Phi_{2}-\Phi_{1}=(2k-1)(n-\Delta)^{2}+(3k^{2}-8k+3)(n-\Delta)+2(k-1)^{3}>0,$$
as $k\geq 2$ and $n-\Delta\geq 1$.
Indeed, the fact $\Phi_{2}>\Phi_{1}$ indicates that the lower bound (\ref{eq20}) in our result is better than the bound (\ref{eq21}) in Theorem \ref{th3}.

\section{Discussion}

The unique maximal connected subcubic bipartite graph is determined in the paper. As shown in Figure \ref{fig1}, the maximal graph $B_{n}$ is path-like.
Very recently, the asymptotic value for the spectral radius of $B_{n}$ is provided in \cite{Xue2022}, that is,
$$\lim_{n \to \infty}n^{2}(3-\lambda_{1}(B_{n}))=\pi^{2}.$$
Based on this approach, one problem arises: determine the maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,\Delta)$ for $\Delta\geq 4$.
According to our observations, in order to determine the maximal graph, one often requires to find possible degree sequences.
If the above problem can not be solved, one can deal with possible degree sequences of the maximal graph in $\mathcal{B}(n,\Delta)$ for $\Delta\geq 4$.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are greatly appreciated to Professors Dragan Stevanovi\'{c} and Sebastian M. Cioab\u{a} for valuable suggestions and comments,
which are very helpful to improve the presentation of our paper.
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 12001498 and 11971445),
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2022TQ0303) and Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province (No. 202300410377).

\section*{References}


\section{Introduction}

For more than 60 years, the theory of  wave turbulence has been proved to have a wide range applications \cite{Peierls:1993:BRK,Peierls:1960:QTS,hasselmann1962non,hasselmann1974spectral,benney1966nonlinear,kadomtsev1965plasma,zakharov2012kolmogorov,benney1969random}. Among the most  important classes of  wave kinetic equations (WKEs),
3-wave kinetic equations  read
\begin{equation}\label{WeakTurbulenceInitial}
	\begin{aligned}
		\partial_tf(t,k) \ =& \ \mathcal{Q}_{3w}[f](t,k), \\\
		f(0,k) \ =& \ f_0(k),
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
in which  $f(t,k)$ is the nonnegative wave density  at  wavenumber $k\in \mathbb{R}^N$, $N \ge 2$; $f_0(k)$ is the initial condition.  The quantity $\mathcal{Q}[f]$ is of the form
\begin{equation}\label{def-Qf}\mathcal{Q}_{3w}[f](k) \ = \ \iint_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}} \Big[\mathcal R_{k,k_1,k_2}[f] -\mathcal R_{k_1,k,k_2}[f] -\mathcal R_{k_2,k,k_1}[f] \Big] k^Nk_1d^Nk_2, \end{equation}
with $$\begin{aligned}
	\mathcal	R_{k,k_1,k_2} [f]:=  |V_{k,k_1,k_2}|^2\delta(k-k_1-k_2)\delta(\omega -\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})(f_1f_2-ff_1-ff_2),
\end{aligned}
$$
with the short-hand notation $f = f(t,k)$, $\omega = \omega(p)$ and $f_j = f(t,k_j),$ $\omega_j = \omega(k_j)$, for wavenumbers $k$, $k_j$, $j\in\{1,2\}$. The function $\omega(k)$ is the dispersion relation of the wave system. This type of  wave kinetic equations has several applications from ocean waves, acoustic waves, gravity capillary waves to Bose-Einstein condensates and many others (see \cite{hasselmann1962non,hasselmann1974spectral,nazarenko2019wave,zakharov1968stability,zakharov1967weak,Binh1,PomeauBinh,zakharov1965weak} and references therein). In the isotropic case, we identify  $f(t,k)$ with $f(t,\omega)$ and  the  isotropic 3-wave kinetic equation now has the following form
\begin{align}\label{EE1Colm}
	\begin{split}
		&	\partial_t f(t,\omega) \ = \ {Q}[f](t,\omega), \ \ \ \ \omega\in\mathbb{R}_+,\\
		&	f(0,p) \ = \ f_0(p),\\
		&	{{Q}}[f](t,\omega) \ = \ \int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty \big[R(\omega, \omega_1, \omega_2)-R(\omega_1,\omega, \omega_2)-R(\omega_2, \omega_1, \omega) \big]{d}\omega_1{d}\omega_2, \\\
		& R(\omega, \omega_1, \omega_2):=  \delta (\omega-\omega_1-\omega_2)
		\left[ U(\omega_1,\omega_2)f_1f_2-U(\omega,\omega_1)ff_1-U(\omega,\omega_2)ff_2\right]\,,
	\end{split}
\end{align}
where $U$ satisfies $| U(\omega_1,\omega_2) |  \ = \ (\omega_1\omega_2)^{\gamma/2},$ in which $\gamma$ is a non-negative constant which plays an important role in the sequel.

In \cite{soffer2019energy}, the authors show that if we define the energy  of the solution  \eqref{EE1Colm} as $
g(t,\omega) \ = \ \omega f(t,\omega)$, the energy is conserved. It has been proved in \cite{soffer2019energy} that $g$ can be decomposed into two parts
\begin{equation}
	\label{Decomposition}
	g(t,\omega) \ = \  \bar{g}(t,\omega) \ + \ \tilde{g}(t)\delta_{\{\omega=\infty\}},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{g}(t,\omega)\ge 0$ is a non-negative function, and $\tilde{g}(t)\delta_{\{\omega=\infty\}}$, is  a measure.   At time $t=0$, we assume $\bar{g}(0,\omega)={g}(0,\omega)$ and $\tilde{g}(0)=0$. It has been proved in \cite{soffer2019energy}, that there exists {\it infinitely many blow-up times} \begin{equation}
	\label{Decomposition1} 0< t^*_1<t^*_2<\cdots<t_n^*<\cdots,\end{equation}
such that \begin{equation}
	\label{Decomposition2}  \bar{g}(t_1^*,\omega)>\bar{g}(t_2^*,\omega)>\cdots>\bar{g}(t_n^*,\omega)> \cdots \to 0,\end{equation}
and  \begin{equation}
	\label{Decomposition3} 0<\tilde{g}(t_1^*)<\tilde{g}(t_2^*)<\cdots<\tilde{g}(t_n^*)< \cdots\end{equation}
In the limit  $t\to\infty$, all of the energy will be accumulated to the  measure $\tilde{g}(t)\delta_{\omega=\infty}$, while the function  will vanish $\tilde{g}(t)\delta_{\omega=\infty}\to0$. We refer to time $t^*_1$ as the {first blow-up} time.
We define $\chi_{[0,R]}(\omega)$ be a cut-off function of $\omega$ on the finite domain $[0,R]$, the {\it multiple blow-up time } phenomenon \eqref{Decomposition}-\eqref{Decomposition1}-\eqref{Decomposition2}-\eqref{Decomposition3}, with the decay rate $\mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}})$, can be observed as the decay of the total energy on any finite interval $[0,R]$
\begin{equation}
	\label{Decomposition4}
	\int_{0}^R g(t,\omega)d\omega\ = \	\int_{\mathbb{R}_+}\chi_{[0,R]}(\omega)   g(t,\omega)d\omega\le \  \mathcal{O}\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\Big) \mbox{   as  } t\to\infty,
\end{equation}
for all truncated parameter $R$.
Inequality \eqref{Decomposition4} simply means that the energy of the solution will move away from any truncated finite interval $[0,R]$ as $t\to\infty$ with the rate $\mathcal{O}\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\Big).$ This theoretical finding has been numerically verified via a Finite Volume Scheme in \cite{waltontranFVS}.

In the  important works \cite{connaughton2009numerical,connaughton2010aggregation,connaughton2010dynamical}, several numerical experiments were designed to  investigate time dependent solutions of  isotropic 3-wave equations.
We refer to \cite{waltontranFVS} for a detailed comparison between the different results of \cite{connaughton2009numerical,connaughton2010aggregation,connaughton2010dynamical,soffer2019energy,waltontranFVS}. Below, we recall a brief comparison.
The works \cite{connaughton2009numerical,connaughton2010aggregation,connaughton2010dynamical} and \cite{soffer2019energy,waltontranFVS} complement each other as they consider very different scenarios of the solutions of  \eqref{EE1Colm}.  The works \cite{soffer2019energy,waltontranFVS} focuses on the finite capacity case $(\gamma>1)$, under the condition that the energy of the solution $f$ of \eqref{EE1Colm} is conserved in time
\begin{equation}\label{ColmEnergy2a}
	\int_{0}^\infty \omega f(t,\omega)d\omega=\mbox{ constant}.
\end{equation}
and shows that   there exist an infinite series of blow up times \eqref{Decomposition}-\eqref{Decomposition1}-\eqref{Decomposition2}- \eqref{Decomposition3} (or  inequality \eqref{Decomposition4}). The works \cite{connaughton2009numerical,connaughton2010aggregation,connaughton2010dynamical} focus on both cases - finite capacity   ($\gamma>1$) and    infinite capacity  $(0\le \gamma\le 1)$. In the finite capacity case ($\gamma>1$),  the solution is studied before the first blow-up time $t<t_1^*$, rigorously proved later in  \cite{soffer2019energy} under the self-similar assumption
\begin{equation}\label{Ansartz}
	f(t,\omega)\approx s(t)^a F\left(\frac{\omega}{s(t)}\right).
\end{equation} and it is also  assumed that the energy  grows linearly in time
\begin{equation}\label{ColmEnergy2}
	\int_{0}^\infty \omega f(t,\omega)d\omega=Jt.
\end{equation}
Solving for the  self-similar profiles before the first blow-up times $t_1^*$ is an interesting direction of research. We mention, for instance,   \cite{bell2017self}, where a self-similar profile of the solution for a  different finite capacity system  - the Alfven wave
turbulence kinetic equation - is computed  before the first blow-up time $t_1^*$. In addition, a recently published paper \cite{semisalov2021numerical} presents a numerical method for  for a collision integral 4-wave kinetic equation based on Chebyshev approximations.

Concerning the analysis of 3-wave kinetic equation, we mention the work \cite{RumpfSofferTran}, where  a 3-wave kinetic equation, derived from the elastic beam wave equation on the lattice, has been studied.  The global existence of 3-wave kinetic equations has been investigated in \cite{GambaSmithBinh,nguyen2017quantum} and the link  to  reaction networks has also been pointed out in \cite{CraciunBinh,CraciunSmithBoldyrevBinh}.

{\it The goal of our current paper is to present an alternative numerical method, based on deep learning of the solution of the conservative form of equation \eqref{EE1Colm} introduced in \cite{waltontranFVS}. }
It is difficult to exaggerate the impact and scope of machine learning within applied mathematics and scientific computing more broadly.  A very active branch of scientific machine learning is the development of neural network approximations of the solutions to partial differential equations.  As opposed to data-driven discovery of the dynamics of a physical process in which known governing equations may not be used, a physics-informed neural network (PINN) \cite{raissi,lulu} trains the neural network by minimizing the residual of the governing PDE along with minimization terms for the initial and boundary conditions.  For completeness, we describe briefly the general idea.

Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a linear or non-linear (integro-)differential operator.  Let $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^+\times \mathbb{R}^d$ for $d\geq 1$ and $\Gamma = \partial \Omega$ smooth.  Assume for simplicity that $u(t,x)\in L^2((0,T);\Omega)$ is the solution to the evolution equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn::evol_eqn}
	\begin{aligned}
		(\partial_t + \mathcal{L})u = 0,\\
		\mathcal{B}u = u_\Gamma, \\
		u(0,x) = u_0(x),
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{B}$ denotes a boundary operator and $u_0\in L^2(\Omega)$.

If we wish to approximate the solution to \eqref{eqn::evol_eqn} by a neural network $n(t,x;\theta)$ where $\theta\in \Theta$ the set of weights and biases of the neural network, then a common approach is to first define the residual operator, $\mathcal{R}$, such that $$n(t,x;\theta)\in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{R}}=\{\varphi(t,x) \; |\; \varphi(t,x) \in L^2((0,T);\Omega), \; \mathcal{R}\varphi(t,x) \in L^2((0,T);\mathcal{R})\},$$
with $$ \| \varphi(t,x) \|_{\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{R}}} = \| \varphi(t,x) \|_{L^2((0,T);\Omega)} + \| \mathcal{R}\varphi(t,x) \|_{L^2((0,T);\Omega)}, $$
for
\begin{equation}
	\mathcal{R} = (\partial_t + \mathcal{L}).
\end{equation}
We then define the functional
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:J}
	J_\theta[n](t,x) = \| \mathcal{R}n(t,x;\theta)\|^2_{L^2((0,T);\Omega)}+\|\mathcal{B}n(t,x;\theta)-u_\Gamma\|^2_{L^2(\Gamma)} + \|n(0,x;\theta)-u_0 \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}.
\end{equation}

To obtain the neural network approximation to $u(t,x)$, one then solves the following stochastic optimization problem
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:min_prob}
	\theta^* = \arg\min_{\theta}J_\theta[n](t,x),
\end{equation}
for the (probably local and non-unique) minimizer $\theta^*$ from which we obtain $$n(t,x;\theta^*)\approx u(t,x).$$

In solving \eqref{eqn:min_prob}, one has many choices even when one excludes the usual hyper-parameter tuning that comes with selecting an architecture.  In the absence of empirical measurements, a major choice to be made is how one selects inputs $(t,x)\in(0,T)\times\Omega$ for the residual and initial and boundary conditions.  A common approach is to take samples from the uniform distribution and approximate the integrals in \eqref{eqn:J} by taking expectations (\cite{raissi, lulu} and many, many others).  As in \cite{dgm}, one may use knowledge about the underlying distribution of the sample space to select a sampling distribution which more closely mimics empirical measurements and may be more relevant to the approximated solution.

In the present article, we choose neither of the previous approaches and opt for a quasi-Monte Carlo (qMC) approximation of the integrals in \eqref{eqn:J} selecting a low-discrepency sequence as our sample points, the Sobol sequence \cite{sobol} (see figure \ref{fig:test2_batch_samples}).

We find the qMC approach to be appropriate for WKEs for two reasons.  The first is that given the highly non-local nature of the collision term, the approximation of this operator is expensive and when coupled with the number of samples necessary to obtain an accurate approximation of the collision term via MC methods, we find a uniform sampling procedure to be impractical for our needs.  The latter method introduces interesting challenges in that the distribution with which we would like to sample the wavenumber domain in order to take expectations is in fact the solution we want to find in the first place.

Thus a qMC approach which requires fewer sample points and being deterministic requires no knowledge of the underlying distribution is a simple and natural choice.  For a more detailed analysis of qMC methods in neural network approximations to pdes with applications to fluid dynamics the reader is referred to the works \cite{mishra1, mishra2}.

\subsubsection*{Outline}
We now give a short overview of the remainder of the article.  To build confidence in our approach, we present a neural network (NN) approximation to the solution of a Smoluchowski coagulation equation (SCE) in section 2.  We choose this examples because, 1) as has been discussed elsewhere (\cite{connaughton2010aggregation, soffer2019energy}) the SCE can be considered as a special case of a 3-WKE and 2) unlike for the 3-WKE the SCE has a known analytic solution which we may compare our approximation against.
In section 3, we present results for a neural network representation of the non-stationary solution to a 3-WKE.  The results are compared with previously derived theoretical results for the decay rate of the total energy in any finite interval of the wavenumber domain.  As a means of validation for the neural network model, we give solutions for the same 3-WKE obtained via a finite volume scheme (FVS).

\section{The Smoluchowski Coagulation Equation}\label{sec:smol}
\par
Before giving results for wave kinetic equations, we provide a check of the method on a similar type of equation, the Smoluchowski coagulation equation, which has a known analytic solution in contrast to wave kinetic equations.  Comparisons of the SCE and 3-WKE can be found in \cite{soffer2019energy, connaughton2010aggregation, waltontranFVS} and references therein.
\par
The SCE may be written in the form \cite{Fil04}
\begin{equation}\label{smol}
	\begin{aligned}
		v\partial_t f(t,v) = -\partial_v \mathcal{Q}_{Smol}[f](t,v) && (t,v) \in \mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^+,\\
		f(0,v) = f_0(v)\geq 0 && v\in\mathbb{R}^+:=(0,\infty),
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the $f(t,v)\geq 0$ gives the density of particles at time $t$ with volume $v$ and
\begin{equation}\label{smol_collision_operator}
	\begin{aligned}
		\mathcal{Q}_{Smol}[f](t,v) = \int^v_0\int^\infty_{v-v_1}a(v_1,v_2)v_1f(t,v_1)f(t,v_2)\mathrm{d}v_2\mathrm{d}v_1,
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the kernel is given by $a(v_1,v_2)=v_1v_2$ in what follows.  Let us define
\[
m(t,v) = vf(t,v),
\]
then the total volume can be defined as
\[
\mathcal{V}(t) = \int^\infty_0 m(t,v) dv.
\]
We will consider the case where
\begin{equation}\label{smol_IC}
	f_0(v) = \frac{e^{-v}}{v},
\end{equation}
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
	m_0(v) = e^{-v},
\end{equation}
and the analytic solution corresponding to this initial condition is given by \cite{Fil04}
\begin{equation}\label{smol_analytic}
	f(t,v) = e^{-Tv}\frac{I_1(2vt^{1/2})}{v^2t^{1/2}},
\end{equation}
where
\[
I_1(v) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int^\pi_0e^{v\cos\theta}\cos\theta\mathrm{d}\theta,
\]
is the modified Bessel function of the first kind and
\[
T =
\begin{cases}
	1 + t & t\leq T_{gel}\\
	2t^{1/2} & t > T_{gel}
\end{cases},
\]
in equation \eqref{smol_analytic} above.
\par
This SCE undergoes a gelation phenomenon at time $T_{gel} = 1$, that is,the particle number density is entirely concentrated at $v=\infty$ (again, see \cite{Fil04} and the references therein). This also means that $\mathcal{V}(t)=1$ if $t\in[0,T_{gel})$ and $\mathcal{V}(t) = t^{-1/2}$ if $t\geq T_{gel}$.
\par

\subsection{NN Representation of the SCE}
To begin, instead of \eqref{smol}, we solve the evolution equation for $m(t,v)$.  Then,
\begin{equation}\label{smol_m}
	\begin{aligned}
		\partial_t m(t,v) = -\partial_v \mathcal{Q}_{Smol}[m](t,v) && (t,v) \in \mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^+,\\
		m(0,v) = m_0(v) = v f_0(v)\geq 0 && v\in\mathbb{R}^+,
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the Smoluchowski collision operator is then written as
\begin{equation}\label{smol_collision_operator_m}
	\begin{aligned}
		\mathcal{Q}_{Smol}[m](t,v) = \int^v_0\int^\infty_{v-v_1}a(v_1,v_2)m(t,v_1)\frac{m(t,v_2)}{v_2}\mathrm{d}v_2\mathrm{d}v_1.
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}

Let $m(t,v;\theta)$ be the neural network approximation to the solution of \eqref{smol_m} with $\theta$ denoting the weights and biases of the neural network.  The NN approximation is computed for $(t,v)\in[0,T]\times[0,R]$ for some time $T>0$ and truncation value $R>0$.
\\
To compute the NN approximation $m(t,v;\theta)$, the problem \eqref{smol_m} is recast as the following functional minimization problem \cite{bensoussan1982lectures,bensoussan2022machine}
\begin{equation}\label{smol_min}
	m(t,v;\theta^*) = \min_{\theta\in\Theta} J_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta),
\end{equation}
with $\theta^*\in \Theta$ a minimizing set of parameters and $J_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{smol_loss}
	J_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta) = \| \mathcal{R}m(t,v;\theta) \|^2_{L^2((0,T]\times[0,R])} + \| m(0,v;\theta) - m_0(v) \|^2_{L^2([0,R])},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{R}$ is the residual operator defined by
\begin{equation}\label{smol_res}
	\mathcal{R}m(t,v;\theta) = \partial_t m(t,v;\theta) +\partial_v \mathcal{Q}[m](t,v;\theta).
\end{equation}
The functional $J_{Smol}[m]$ and collision term $\mathcal{Q}_{Smol}[m]$ are discretized via a Quasi-Monte Carlo method (\cite{mishra1}, \cite{mishra2})).  Sample points for the functional are drawn from the Sobol sequence (\cite{caflisch}) in the unit square which are then mapped to the discrete set $S \subset (0,T]\times[0,R]$.  For the collision term, for each $v$, we draw samples from the Sobol sequence in the unit square as before,  but map the variables $(v_1,v_2)$ to the discrete intervals $V_1 \subset [0,v]$ and, for each $v_1$, $V_2 \subset [v-v_1,R]$, respectively.    \\
The discretized collision operator is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{smol_collision_m_discrete}
	\mathcal{\hat{Q}}_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta) = \frac{v}{|V_1|}\sum_{v_1\in V_1}v_1 m(t,v_1;\theta) \Bigg(\frac{|R+v_1-v|}{|V_2|}\sum_{v_2\in V_2} m(t,v_2;\theta)\Bigg),
\end{equation}
which leads to the semi-discretized residual
\begin{equation}\label{smol_res_disc}
	\hat{r}(t,v;\theta) = \partial_t m(t,v;\theta) +\partial_v \mathcal{\hat{Q}}_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta),
\end{equation}
and so the semi-discrete functional $\hat{J}_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta)$ to be minimized is
\begin{equation}\label{smol_loss_discrete}
	\hat{J}_{Smol}[m](t,v;\theta) = \frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{(t,v)\in S} \hat{r}(t,v;\theta)^2 + \frac{1}{|S_0|}\sum_{v\in S_0} (m(0,v;\
	\theta) - m_0(v))^2,
\end{equation}
where the set $S_0 \subset S$, $|S_0|\leq|S|$ denotes a subset of the volume samples in $S$.

\section{A 3-Wave Kinetic Equation}
In \cite{waltontranFVS}, a new identity for the energy of the solutions to 3-WKEs \cite{soffer2019energy} is presented which takes the form of a conservation law \cite{Fil04}.  This is the equation we shall study in the present paper due to the simplicity provided by this form of the equation.  Specifically, there is no need to compute the resonant manifolds of the system, though we emphasize that the method does not depend on this simplification.

Let us write the equation to be solved. The equation is equivalent to \eqref{EE1Colm} and is explained in \cite{soffer2019energy,waltontranFVS}
\begin{equation}\label{wke}
	\begin{aligned}
		\partial_t g(t,p) = p\partial_p\mathcal{Q}[g](t,p) && (t,p)\in \mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^+,\\
		g(0,p) = g_0(p) \geq 0 && (t,p)\in \{0\}\times\mathbb{R}^+,
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the collision term is given by
\begin{equation}\label{wke_coll}
	\begin{aligned}
		\mathcal{Q}[g](t,p) = -2\int^p_0\int^p_0 (p_1,p_2)^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_1g_2\chi_{p,1,2}\mathrm dp_{2,1} + \int^\infty_0\int^\infty_0(p_1,p_2)^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_1g_2\chi_{p,1,2}\mathrm dp_{2,1},
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have used the notation $g_i = g(t,p_i)$ for $i=1,2$, $\mathrm{d}p_{2,1} = \mathrm{d}p_2\mathrm{d}p_1$ and $\chi_{p,1,2} = \chi\{p < p_1 + p_2 \}$ where $\chi\{ A \}$ is the set characteristic function of some set $A$.  The parameter $\gamma$ is the degree of the kernel as discussed in the introduction and $\gamma =2 $
in the present work which corresponds to acoustic wave systems.

As in the previous section, we define a neural network approximation, $g(t,p;\theta)$ to be a solution to the optimization problem \cite{bensoussan1992stochastic}
\begin{equation}\label{wke_min}
	g(t,p;\theta^*) = \min_{\theta\in\Theta} J[g](t,p;\theta),
\end{equation}
with $\theta^*\in \Theta$ a minimizing set of parameters of the functional
\begin{equation}\label{wke_loss}
	J[g](t,p;\theta) = \| r(t,p;\theta) \|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^+)} + \| g(0,p;\theta)-g_0(p)\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^+)},
\end{equation}
where, again, $\mathcal{R}$ denotes the residual operator of the evolution equation defined by
\begin{equation}\label{wke_res}
	\mathcal{R}g(t,p;\theta) = \partial_t g(t,p;\theta) - p\partial_p\mathcal{Q}[g](t,p;\theta).
\end{equation}

The functional \eqref{wke_loss} is approximated via a Quasi-Monte Carlo method with sample points drawn from the Sobol sequence in the unit square and then transformed to some truncated rectangle of the time, wavenumber domain, i.e. we generate the set $W \sim Sobol([0,T]\times[0,R])$, for $T,R >0$ truncation parameters of the time and wavenumber domain, respectively.  The residual \eqref{wke_res} is approximated similarly where the set of sample points for $(p_1,p_2)$ are given by $P_1 \sim Sobol(0,p)$ for each $p$, and $P_2\sim Sobol(p-p_1,p)$ for each $p,p_1$ in the first term of \eqref{wke_coll} and $\hat{P}_2 \sim Sobol(p-p_1,R)$ for each $(p,p_1)$.

To see how these sample sets are defined, note that the collision term can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
	\begin{aligned}
		\mathcal{Q}[g](t,p) = -2\int^p_0\int^p_{p-p_1}(p_1p_2)^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_1g_2\mathrm{d}p_{2,1} + \int^p_0\int^R_{p-p_1}(p_1p_2)^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_1g_2\mathrm{d}p_{2,1},
	\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we have applied the truncation parameter of the wavenumber domain to the second expression and enforced the restrictions $p-p_1 < p_2$ in both terms to satisfy the characteristic set function and $p_1 < p$ to guarantee positivity of the variable $p_2$ in the second term.  Thus, using the above collision operator and sample sets defined in the previous paragraph, we can define the discrete collision operator to be
\begin{equation}
		\mathcal{\hat{Q}}[g](t,p) = \frac{-2p}{|P_1||P_2|}\sum_{p_1\in P_1}p_1^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}g_1\Bigg(\sum_{p_2\in P_2}p_2^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_2 \Bigg) + \frac{p}{|P_1||\hat{P}_2|}\sum_{p_1\in P_1}p_1^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_1\Bigg[(R-p+p_1)\Big(\sum_{p_2\in \hat{P}_2}p_2^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}g_2 \Big)\Bigg].
\end{equation}

Using the discrete collision operator, we can define the semi-discrete residual by
\begin{equation}\label{wke_res_discrete}
	\hat{\mathcal{R}}g(t,p;\theta) = \partial_t g(t,p;\theta) - p\partial_p \mathcal{\hat{Q}}[g](t,p;\theta),
\end{equation}
and therefore we can minimize the semi-discrete functional
\begin{equation}\label{wke_loss_discrete}
	\hat{J}[g](t,p);\theta) = \frac{1}{|W|}\sum_{(t,p)\in W}\hat{\mathcal{R}}g(t,p;\theta)^2 + \frac{1}{|W_0|}\sum_{p\in W_0}(g(0,p;\theta)-g_0(p))^2,
\end{equation}
where $W_0\subset W$, $|W_0|\leq |W|$ contains only sample points for the wavenumber.

\section{Numerical Results}
In this section, we provide numerical results for the SCE with initial condition \eqref{smol_IC} and compare with the anaylitc solution \eqref{smol_analytic}.   A 3-WKE with initial condition \eqref{wke_IC} is then solved and the decay rate of the total energy is compared with the results obtained in \cite{soffer2019energy}.  The same initial condition \eqref{wke_IC} is then used to obtain a solution  with the finite volume scheme developed in \cite{waltontranFVS}.  The results of the two methods are discussed.

All deep learning tests were implemented in TensorFlow \cite{tensorflow} with Keras \cite{keras}.  Training was accelerated using multiple GPUs utilizing Horovod \cite{horovod}.  All computations were performed on SMU's computing cluster MII.  The finite volume computations were performed in Matlab.

\subsection{Test 1}

A simple, yet effective, architecture is chosen.  Namely, it is enough to employ a feedforward network with only two hidden layers with 128 hidden units in each layer utilizing sigmoidal activation functions \cite{Hornik}.  Given its simplicity, we can write the neural network (NN) out explicitly as
\begin{equation*}
	m(t,v;\theta) = \mathbf{W}\sigma(\mathbf{W}_2\sigma(\mathbf{W}_1\vec{x}+\mathbf{b}_1) + \mathbf{b}_2) + b,
\end{equation*}
with the entries of $\mathbf{W}_i,\mathbf{b}_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ for $i=1,2$, $\mathbf{W}, b \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $\sigma(\cdot)$ denoting the sigmoid function.
To fully discretize the functional \eqref{smol_loss_discrete}, we employ TensorFlow's built-in automatic differentiation method.

The training samples were drawn from the rectangle $(0,T]\times[0,R]$ using the strategy described above for $T=0.8$ and $R=8$.  To achieve the results shown in Figure \ref{fig::smol_net_solution}, only the first 32 Sobol points were used to minimize the residual term (16 time samples and 16 volume samples) and only the first 16 Sobol points were needed to train on the initial data.

Figure \ref{fig::smol_net_solution} shows the neural network predictions on unseen data within the training interval.  The inputs to the neural network to produce the plot were the first 128 Sobol points transformed to the volume training interval and $t=0.0, 0.2, 0.4$ and $0.62$.  We see the NN solution gives a good approximation to the analytic solution.
\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[width = 13cm, height = 11cm]{images/smol_mse89e-06.png}
		\caption{\small Neural Network (NN) approximation to the Smoluchoswki equation \eqref{smol_m}.  The solid lines denote the analytic solution \eqref{smol_analytic} and $*$ markers denote the NN approximation at equivalent snapshots in time. }
		\label{fig::smol_net_solution}
	\end{center}
\end{figure}

In Figure \ref{fig::smol_sup_error}, we quantify the match of the NN approximation to the analytic solution by giving the sup norm of the error at each snapshot.
\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{images/smol_sup_norm.png}
		\caption{\small Sup norm of the error at $t = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4$ and $ 0.62$ where the maximum is taken over the volume domain $v\in [0,10]$.  This shows the accuracy of the method on unseen data points within the training interval. }
		\label{fig::smol_sup_error}
	\end{center}
\end{figure}
Here, we supply the first $2^{10}$ Sobol points within the volume training interval and use the same points in time $t = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.62$.  We note here that while the NN performs well on unseen points within the volume interval $v\in[0,R]$, for $v> R$ we generalization error is larger.  This is to be expected given the small training sample size used (16 volume points).  We show the absolute error in Figure \ref{fig::smol_abs_error} for each snapshot in time over the interval $v\in[0, 1000]$ with $2^{13}$ Sobol points in this volume interval. This result informed our decision to apply a batch sampling procedure for the wave kinetic equation, the details of which are discussed below.
\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
		\includegraphics[scale = 0.8]{images/smol_abs_error.png}
		\caption{\small Absolute error of the NN approximation versus the analytic solution over the volume interval $v\in[0,1000]$ with $2^{13}$ volume samples given as input to the NN.  We see a slow growth in the error for large volume numbers. }
		\label{fig::smol_abs_error}
	\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Test 2}

We choose the initial condition
\begin{equation}\label{wke_IC}
	g_0(p) = \sqrt{\frac{7}{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{7(p-2)^2}{2}} .
\end{equation}
The neural network was trained using samples from the Sobol sequence in the rectangle $W\sim Sobol((0,T]\times[0,R])$ for $T=10$ and $R=10$.
\begin{figure}

	\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{images/sobol_mix.png}    \includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{images/sobol_black.png}\\  \includegraphics[scale =0.45]{images/sobol_blue.png} \includegraphics[scale = 0.45]{images/sobol_indigo.png}
	\caption{\small Batched samples of Sobol points. (Top Left)  All sample points. (Top Right and Bottom  Row) Example batches of sampled points.}
	\label{fig:test2_batch_samples}

\end{figure}
As illustrated in figure \ref{fig:test2_batch_samples}, the size of the sample set $|W|$ was $2^{15}$, which was broken up into smaller training batches.

The architecture was again chosen to have 2 hidden layers, each with 128 units and sigmoidal activation functions.  The loss was again minimized using tensorflows implementation of ADAM.  The collision terms were approximated with the sampling procedure described above with each sample comprised of 32 Sobol points.  We consider only the case $\gamma = 2$ here.

We show a few early snapshots of the approximated solution in Figure \ref{fig:test2_snapshots}.  The behaviour seems consistent with predictions in that the $L^\infty$ norm decays as time increases.  This is more clearly evidenced by the total energy discussed in the following paragraph. In Figure \ref{fig:test2_snapshots}, we also present a comparison with the solution computed the Finite Volume Scheme of \cite{waltontranFVS}. This comparison will be described later in this section, around equation \eqref{FVSST}-\eqref{FVSscheme}.
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale=0.76]{images/3wke_evol_fig1.png}
	\includegraphics[scale = 0.31]{images/FV_solution.jpg}
	\caption{Top Picture: A few snapshots of the NN approximation corresponding to initial condition \eqref{wke_IC}. Bottom Picture: Comparative snapshots of the FVS solution for the same initial condition \eqref{wke_IC}.  }
	\label{fig:test2_snapshots}
\end{figure}

The total energy of the solutions was computed and the log of the total energy is plotted against the log of $t$. The comparison between the decay of the numerical solution is made with the theoretical decay rate of $t^{-1/2}$, obtained in \cite{soffer2019energy} (see \eqref{Decomposition4}), in Figure \ref{fig:test2_total_energy}.  The total energy was predicted up to $t=148$.  From Figure \ref{fig:test2_total_energy}, the energy  decays and the decay is in good agreement with the theoretical rate obtained in \cite{soffer2019energy}.
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale = 0.765]{images/total_energy_t148.png}
	\includegraphics[scale = 0.31]{images/total_energy_FV_solution.jpg}
	\caption{Top Picture: Log-Log plot of the total energy corresponding to initial condition \eqref{wke_IC} as predicted up to $t=148$ the  NN.  Bottom Picture: The total energy computed for $t\in[0,148]$ with the FVS. }
	\label{fig:test2_total_energy}
\end{figure}

The neural network is able to make reasonable predictions for very large, unseen in training, samples in the wave number domain.  In Figure \ref{fig:test2_p1m}, we see the predicted solution for wavenumber values up to 1e+06.  In contrast, the most we could push for reasonable predicitons in time was $t=148$ as previously reported in the results shown in figure \ref{fig:test2_total_energy}.  For better predictions in time, we needed to enforce more dense sampling in the time domain.  Thus, the neural network was not only trained on the set $W$ for T= 10, but also for $T=5$ and $T=2$ with the same number of sample points, $2^{15}$.
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale = 0.65]{images/zoomed_out_3wke_evol_fig1.png}\\
	\includegraphics[scale = 0.23]{images/fvs_large_domain.png}
	\caption{Top picture: Neural network prediction corresponding to initial condition \eqref{wke_IC} for wavenumbers up to 1e+06. Bottom picture: The finite volume solution for wavenumbers up to $p=250$, the largest value for which stability is maintained without further decreasing $\Delta t$.  The two figures highlight a key strength of the presented method, in that the neural network approximation is consistent with more traditional solvers but is able to produce results for computationally prohibitive values of the wavenumber for traditional methods while maintaining positivity and stability.    }
	\label{fig:test2_p1m}
\end{figure}

\subsection*{Comparison with a Finite Volume Scheme}

As mentioned earlier, to validate the results, we provide a comparison with another model.  Here we use the finite volume scheme presented in \cite{waltontranFVS}, which we briefly outline below.

The discretization of the wavenumber domain $p\in [0,R]$, is given as follows. Let $i\in \{0,1, 2, \ldots , M \} = I^M_h$, with $h \in (0,1)$ fixed and $M=M(h)$.  Define the set  $S_d = \{0,\ldots, R\}$  to be the discretization of the interval $[0,R]$.  Let
\begin{equation}\label{FVSST}
	S_d = \{p_{i+1/2}\}_{i\in I^M_h},\;
	\{p_i\}_{i\in I^M_h\setminus\{0\}} = \frac{p_{i+1/2} +  p_{i-1/2}}{2},\; \{\Delta p_i\}_{i\in I^M_h\setminus\{0\}} = p_{i+1/2} - p_{i-1/2} \leq h,
\end{equation}
define the faces, pivots and step-size respectively, with $p_{1/2} = 0$ and $p_{M+1/2} = R$. For simplicity, we use a uniform grid and set $h=0.01$ which leads to
\[
\begin{aligned}
	S_d = \{ih\}_{i\in I^M_h}, && \{p_i\}_{i\in I^M_h\setminus\{0\}} = \frac{h}{2}(2i-1), && \{\Delta p_i\}_{i\in I^M_h\setminus\{0\}} = h \in (0,1).
\end{aligned}
\]
The set $T_N = \{0,\ldots,T\} $ with $N+1$ nodes and $T=148$ is the maximum time.  We fix the time step to be $\Delta t = \frac{T}{N} = 0.005$, and denote by $t_n = \Delta t\cdot n$ for $n\ \in \{0,\ldots,N\}$.  We approximate equation \eqref{wke} by
\begin{equation}\label{FVSscheme}
	g^{n+1}(p_{i}) = g^n(p_{i})  +\lambda_i\Big( Q^n_{i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] - Q^n_{i-1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] \Big),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_i = \frac{p_{i}\Delta t }{\Delta p_i}$, and
\[
Q^n_{i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] - Q^n_{i-1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] = -2\Big(Q^n_{1,i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big]-Q^n_{1,i-1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big]\Big) + \Big(Q^n_{2,i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big]-Q^n_{2,i-1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big]\Big),
\]
with
\begin{equation}\label{J}
	Q^n_{1,i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] = \sum^{i}_{m=1}\Delta p_m \frac{g^n(p_m)}{p_m} \Bigg(\sum^i_{j=1}\Delta p_j \frac{g^n(p_j)}{p_j}a(p_m, p_j)\chi\Big\{p_{i+1/2} < p_m +p_j \Big\}
	\Bigg),
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}\label{C}
	Q^n_{2,i+1/2}\Big[\frac{g}{p} \Big] =  \sum^M_{m=1}\Delta p_m \frac{g^n(p_m)}{p_m} \Bigg(\sum^M_{j=1}\Delta p_j \frac{g^n(p_j)}{p_j}a(p_m, p_j)\chi\Big\{p_{i+1/2} < p_m+p_j\Big\}\Bigg),
\end{equation}
where we have used the midpoint rule to approximate the integrals in equation \eqref{wke} and we choose an explicit time stepping method.

The initial condition \eqref{wke_IC} is approximated by
\[
g^0(p_{i}) = \frac{1}{\Delta p_i}\int^{p_{i+1/2}}_{p_{i-1/2}}g_0(p) \mathrm{d}p \approx g_0(p_i),
\]
by again employing the midpoint rule.

We draw the reader's attention again to Figure \ref{fig:test2_snapshots} where a few comparative snapshots of the solution are provided. Qualitatively, the two models seem to agree and capture the main features of the theorized behavior of solutions.  Namely, an evacuation of the energy within any finite interval.  Further, as is typical of simple feedforward architectures, the finer oscillations seen in the FVS solutions appear to be averaged out in the NN solution as expected.  For our purposes, the dynamics captured by the simple feed-forward architecture we have employed here are enough to confirm the theory presented in \cite{soffer2019energy}.  We leave it to a future work to investigate more complicated architectures.  For example, the architecture described in \cite{lizuo} is able to capture highly oscillatory solutions for the stationary Navier-Stokes equations.

In Figure \ref{fig:test2_total_energy} (bottom) we see the decay rate of the total energy as provided by the computed solution of the FVS, which is compared with the {\em predicted} values by the NN (top). Both models are in good agreement with the theorized bound on the rate of decay \cite{waltontranFVS, soffer2019energy}, though the FVS appears to capture a slightly faster rate of decay.

Looking back to Figure \ref{fig:test2_p1m}, we make a comparison with the computed solution of the finite volume method for large wavenumber values with predictions provided by the neural network.  Here, we have increased $h$ to $0.8$ and $R=250$ while keeping the timestep fixed at $\Delta t = 0.005$ as in the previous figures. The two figures highlight a key strength of the presented deep learning method, in that the neural network approximation is consistent with more traditional solvers but is able to produce results for computationally prohibitive values of the wavenumber for traditional methods, while maintaining positivity and stability.  Indeed, constructing positivity preserving schemes for PDEs is a very important direction of research \cite{hu2013positivity,huang2019positivity,huang2019third}.
 For the FVS \eqref{FVSscheme}, the positivity and thus stability is lost for wavenumber values larger than 250 with the timestep set at $\Delta t = 0.005$.  In order to preserve the positivity of the solutions produced by the FVS \eqref{FVSscheme}, the CFL condition is restrictive and the time step $\Delta t$ needs to be chosen sufficiently small as shown in Proposition 3.1 of  \cite{waltontranFVS}. As thus, being able to preserve the positivity of the solutions is indeed a very important feature of the presented deep learning approximation.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

We present a deep learning approximation, stochastic optimization based,  method for the 3-wave kinetic equation, studied theoretically in \cite{soffer2019energy} and numerically in \cite{waltontranFVS}. We first apply the method to a Smoluchowski coagulation equation with multiplicative kernel for which an analytic solution exists. The deep learning method is proved to give a good approximation of the analytic solution.  Next, the learning approach is then used to approximate the solution of the 3-wave kinetic equation. The deep learning approximation is tested and proved to be as good as the Finite Volume approximation introduced in \cite{waltontranFVS} for the same equation and both approximations are in good agreement with the theoretical results of  \cite{soffer2019energy}.

\section*{Acknowledgments}
Computational resources for this research were provided by SMU’s Center for Research Computing. S.W. would like to thank Thom Hagstrom for many useful discussions.

\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}