Zarankiewicz problem

Summary

The Zarankiewicz problem, an unsolved problem in mathematics, asks for the largest possible number of edges in a bipartite graph that has a given number of vertices and has no complete bipartite subgraphs of a given size.[1] It belongs to the field of extremal graph theory, a branch of combinatorics, and is named after the Polish mathematician Kazimierz Zarankiewicz, who proposed several special cases of the problem in 1951.[2]

Problem statement edit

A bipartite graph   consists of two disjoint sets of vertices   and  , and a set of edges each of which connects a vertex in   to a vertex in  . No two edges can both connect the same pair of vertices. A complete bipartite graph is a bipartite graph in which every pair of a vertex from   and a vertex from   is connected to each other. A complete bipartite graph in which   has   vertices and   has   vertices is denoted  . If   is a bipartite graph, and there exists a set of   vertices of   and   vertices of   that are all connected to each other, then these vertices induce a subgraph of the form  . (In this formulation, the ordering of   and   is significant: the set of   vertices must be from   and the set of   vertices must be from  , not vice versa.)

The Zarankiewicz function   denotes the maximum possible number of edges in a bipartite graph   for which   and  , but which does not contain a subgraph of the form  . As a shorthand for an important special case,   is the same as  . The Zarankiewicz problem asks for a formula for the Zarankiewicz function, or (failing that) for tight asymptotic bounds on the growth rate of   assuming that   is a fixed constant, in the limit as   goes to infinity.

For   this problem is the same as determining cages with girth six. The Zarankiewicz problem, cages and finite geometry are strongly interrelated.[3]

The same problem can also be formulated in terms of digital geometry. The possible edges of a bipartite graph   can be visualized as the points of a   rectangle in the integer lattice, and a complete subgraph is a set of rows and columns in this rectangle in which all points are present. Thus,   denotes the maximum number of points that can be placed within an   grid in such a way that no subset of rows and columns forms a complete   grid.[4] An alternative and equivalent definition is that   is the smallest integer   such that every (0,1)-matrix of size   with   ones must have a set of   rows and   columns such that the corresponding   submatrix is made up only of 1s.

Examples edit

 
A bipartite graph with 4 vertices on each side, 13 edges, and no   subgraph, and an equivalent set of 13 points in a 4 × 4 grid, showing that  .

The number   asks for the maximum number of edges in a bipartite graph with   vertices on each side that has no 4-cycle (its girth is six or more). Thus,   (achieved by a three-edge path), and   (a hexagon).

In his original formulation of the problem, Zarankiewicz asked for the values of   for  . The answers were supplied soon afterwards by Wacław Sierpiński:  ,  , and  .[4] The case of   is relatively simple: a 13-edge bipartite graph with four vertices on each side of the bipartition, and no   subgraph, may be obtained by adding one of the long diagonals to the graph of a cube. In the other direction, if a bipartite graph with 14 edges has four vertices on each side, then two vertices on each side must have degree four. Removing these four vertices and their 12 incident edges leaves a nonempty set of edges, any of which together with the four removed vertices forms a   subgraph.

Upper bounds edit

The Kővári–Sós–Turán theorem provides an upper bound on the solution to the Zarankiewicz problem. It was established by Tamás Kővári, Vera T. Sós and Pál Turán shortly after the problem had been posed:

 

Kővári, Sós, and Turán originally proved this inequality for  .[5] Shortly afterwards, Hyltén-Cavallius observed that essentially the same argument can be used to prove the above inequality.[6] An improvement on the second term of the upper bound on   was given by Štefan Znám:[7]

 

If   and   are assumed to be constant, then asymptotically, using the big O notation, these formulae can be expressed as

 ;
 .

In the particular case  , assuming without loss of generality that  , we have the asymptotic upper bound

 

Lower bounds edit

One can verify that among the two asymptotic upper bounds of   in the previous section, the first bound is better when  , and the second bound becomes better when  . Therefore, if one can show a lower bound for   that matches the upper bound up to a constant, then by a simple sampling argument (on either an   bipartite graph or an   bipartite graph that achieves the maximum edge number), we can show that for all  , one of the above two upper bounds is tight up to a constant. This leads to the following question: is it the case that for any fixed   and  , we have

 ? [8]

In the special case  , up to constant factors,   has the same order as  , the maximum number of edges in an  -vertex (not necessarily bipartite) graph that has no   as a subgraph. In one direction, a bipartite graph with   vertices on each side and   edges must have a subgraph with   vertices and at least   edges; this can be seen from choosing   vertices uniformly at random from each side, and taking the expectation. In the other direction, we can transform a graph with   vertices and no copy of   into a bipartite graph with   vertices on each side of its bipartition, twice as many edges and still no copy of  , by taking its bipartite double cover.[9] Same as above, with the convention that  , it has been conjectured that

 

for all constant values of  .[10]

For some specific values of   (e.g., for   sufficiently larger than  , or for  ), the above statements have been proved using various algebraic and random algebraic constructions. At the same time, the answer to the general question is still unknown to us.

Incidence graphs in finite geometry edit

 
The Levi graph of the Fano plane gives rise to the Heawood graph, a bipartite graph with seven vertices on each side, 21 edges, and no 4-cycles.

For  , a bipartite graph with   vertices on each side,   edges, and no   may be obtained as the Levi graph, or point-line incidence graph, of a projective plane of order  , a system of   points and   lines in which each two points determine a unique line, and each two lines intersect at a unique point. We construct a bipartite graph associated to this projective plane that has one vertex part as its points, the other vertex part as its lines, such that a point and a line is connected if and only if they are incident in the projective plane. This leads to a  -free graph with   vertices and   edges. Since this lower bound matches the upper bound given by I. Reiman,[11] we have the asymptotic [12]

 

For  , bipartite graphs with   vertices on each side,   edges, and no   may again be constructed from finite geometry, by letting the vertices represent points and spheres (of a carefully chosen fixed radius) in a three-dimensional finite affine space, and letting the edges represent point-sphere incidences.[13]

More generally, consider   and any  . Let   be the  -element finite field, and   be an element of multiplicative order  , in the sense that   form a  -element subgroup of the multiplicative group  . We say that two nonzero elements   are equivalent if we have   and   for some  . Consider a graph   on the set of all equivalence classes  , such that   and   are connected if and only if  . One can verify that   is well-defined and free of  , and every vertex in   has degree   or  . Hence we have the upper bound [14]

 

Norm graphs and projective norm graphs edit

For   sufficiently larger than  , the above conjecture   was verified by Kollár, Rónyai, and Szabó [15] and Alon, Rónyai, and Szabó [16] using the construction of norm graphs and projective norm graphs over finite fields.

For  , consider the norm graph NormGraphp,s with vertex set  , such that every two vertices   are connected if and only if  , where   is the norm map

 

It is not hard to verify that the graph has   vertices and at least   edges. To see that this graph is  -free, observe that any common neighbor   of   vertices   must satisfy

 

for all  , which a system of equations that has at most   solutions.

The same result can be proved for all   using the projective norm graph, a construction slightly stronger than the above. The projective norm graph ProjNormGraphp,s is the graph on vertex set  , such that two vertices   are adjacent if and only if  , where   is the norm map defined by  . By a similar argument to the above, one can verify that it is a   -free graph with   edges.

The above norm graph approach also gives tight lower bounds on   for certain choices of  .[16] In particular, for  ,  , and  , we have

 

In the case  , consider the bipartite graph   with bipartition  , such that   and  . For   and  , let   in   if and only if  , where   is the norm map defined above. To see that   is   -free, consider   tuples  . Observe that if the   tuples have a common neighbor, then the   must be distinct. Using the same upper bound on he number of solutions to the system of equations, we know that these   tuples have at most   common neighbors.

Clique partitions edit

Using a related result on clique partition numbers, Alon, Mellinger, Mubayi and Verstraëte [17] proved a tight lower bound on   for arbitrary  : if  , then we have

 .

For  , we say that a collection of subsets   is a clique partition of   if   form a partition of  . Observe that for any  , if there exists some   of size   and  , such that there is a partition of   into   cliques of size  , then we have  . Indeed, supposing   is a partition of   into   cliques of size  , we can let   be the   bipartite graph with   and  , such that   in   if and only if  . Since the   form a clique partition,   cannot contain a copy of  .

It remains to show that such a clique partition exists for any  . To show this, let   be the finite field of size   and  . For every polynomial   of degree at most   over  , define  . Let   be the collection of all  , so that   and every   has size  . Clearly no two members of   can share   members. Since the only  -sets in   that do not belong to   are those that have at least two points sharing the same first coordinate, we know that almost all  -subsets of   are contained in some  .

Randomized algebraic constructions edit

Alternative proofs of   for   sufficiently larger than   were also given by Blagojević, Bukh and Karasev [18] and by Bukh [19] using the method of random algebraic constructions. The basic idea is to take a random polynomial   and consider the graph   between two copies of   whose edges are all those pairs   such that  .

To start with, let   be a prime power and  . Let

 

be a random polynomial with degree at most   in  , degree at most   in  , and furthermore satisfying   for all  . Let   be the associated random graph on vertex set  , such that two vertices   and   are adjacent if and only if  .

To prove the asymptotic lower bound, it suffices to show that the expected number of edges in   is  . For every  -subset  , we let   denote the vertex subset of   that "vanishes on  ":

 .

Using the Lang-Weil bound for polynomials   in  , we can deduce that one always has   or   for some large constant  , which implies

 .

Since   is chosen randomly over  , it is not hard to show that the right-hand side probability is small, so the expected number of  -subsets   with   also turned out to be small. If we remove a vertex from every such  , then the resulting graph is   free, and the expected number of remaining edges is still large. This finishes the proof that   for all   sufficiently large with respect to  . More recently, there have been a number of results verifying the conjecture   for different values of  , using similar ideas but with more tools from algebraic geometry.[8][20]

Applications edit

The Kővári–Sós–Turán theorem has been used in discrete geometry to bound the number of incidences between geometric objects of various types. As a simple example, a set of   points and   lines in the Euclidean plane necessarily has no  , so by the Kővári–Sós–Turán it has   point-line incidences. This bound is tight when   is much larger than  , but not when   and   are nearly equal, in which case the Szemerédi–Trotter theorem provides a tighter   bound. However, the Szemerédi–Trotter theorem may be proven by dividing the points and lines into subsets for which the Kővári–Sós–Turán bound is tight.[21]

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ Bollobás, Béla (2004), "VI.2 Complete subgraphs of r-partite graphs", Extremal Graph Theory, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications Inc., pp. 309–326, MR 2078877. Reprint of 1978 Academic Press edition, MR0506522.
  2. ^ Zarankiewicz, K. (1951), "Problem P 101", Colloq. Math., 2: 301. As cited by Bollobás (2004).
  3. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2014-09-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ^ a b Sierpiński, W. (1951), "Sur un problème concernant un reseau à 36 points", Ann. Soc. Polon. Math., 24: 173–174, MR 0059876.
  5. ^ Kővári, T.; T. Sós, V.; Turán, P. (1954), "On a problem of K. Zarankiewicz" (PDF), Colloquium Math., 3: 50–57, doi:10.4064/cm-3-1-50-57, MR 0065617.
  6. ^ Hyltén-Cavallius, C. (1958), "On a combinatorical problem", Colloquium Mathematicum, 6: 59–65, doi:10.4064/cm-6-1-61-65, MR 0103158. As cited by Bollobás (2004).
  7. ^ Znám, Š. (1963), "On a combinatorical problem of K. Zarankiewicz", Colloquium Mathematicum, 11: 81–84, doi:10.4064/cm-11-1-81-84, MR 0162733. As cited by Bollobás (2004).
  8. ^ a b Conlon, David (2021), "Some remarks on the Zarankiewicz problem", Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 173: 155–161, arXiv:2007.12816, doi:10.1017/S0305004121000475, S2CID 220793154.
  9. ^ Bollobás (2004), Theorem 2.3, p. 310.
  10. ^ Bollobás (2004), Conjecture 15, p. 312.
  11. ^ Reiman, I. (1958), "Über ein Problem von K. Zarankiewicz", Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 9 (3–4): 269–273, doi:10.1007/bf02020254, MR 0101250, S2CID 121692172.
  12. ^ Bollobás (2004), Corollary 2.7, p. 313.
  13. ^ Brown, W. G. (1966), "On graphs that do not contain a Thomsen graph", Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 9 (3): 281–285, doi:10.4153/CMB-1966-036-2, MR 0200182, S2CID 121306253.
  14. ^ Füredi, Zoltán (1996), "New asymptotics for bipartite Turán numbers", Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 75 (1): 141–144, doi:10.1006/jcta.1996.0067, MR 1395763.
  15. ^ Kollár, János; Rónyai, Lajos; Szabó, Tibor (1996), "Norm-graphs and bipartite Turán numbers", Combinatorica, 16 (3): 399–406, doi:10.1007/BF01261323, MR 1417348, S2CID 26363618.
  16. ^ a b Alon, Noga; Rónyai, Lajos; Szabó, Tibor (1999), "Norm-graphs: variations and applications", Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 76 (2): 280–290, doi:10.1006/jctb.1999.1906, MR 1699238.
  17. ^ Alon, Noga; Mellinger, Keith E.; Mubayi, Dhruv; Verstraëte, Jacques (2012), "The de Bruijn-Erdős Theorem for Hypergraphs", Des. Codes Cryptogr., 65 (3): 233–245, arXiv:1007.4150, doi:10.1007/s10623-011-9555-4, S2CID 15064936.
  18. ^ Blagojević, Pavle; Bukh, Boris; Karasev, Roman (2013), "Turán numbers for Ks,t-free graphs: topological obstructions and algebraic constructions", Israel Journal of Mathematics, 197: 199–214, arXiv:1108.5254, doi:10.1007/s11856-012-0184-z.
  19. ^ Bukh, Boris (2015), "Random algebraic construction of extremal graphs", Bull. London Math. Soc., 47: 939–945, arXiv:1409.3856.
  20. ^ Bukh, Boris (2021), Extremal graphs without exponentially-small bicliques, arXiv:2107.04167.
  21. ^ Matoušek, Jiří (2002), Lectures on discrete geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 212, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 65–68, doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0039-7, ISBN 0-387-95373-6, MR 1899299.