Zarankiewicz problem explained
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
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. 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
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
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:
z(m,n;s,t)<(s-1)1/t(n-t+1)m1-1/t+(t-1)m.
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] z(n;t)<(t-1)1/tn2-1/t+
(t-1)n+1.
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
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
z(m,n;s,t)=\Omega(mn1-1/s)
?
[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
z(n,n;s,t)=\Theta(n2-1/s)
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
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] z(n,n;2,t+1)=(t1/2+o(1))n3/2.
Norm graphs and projective norm graphs
For
sufficiently larger than
, the above conjecture
z(n,n;s,t)=\Theta(n2-1/s)
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 NormGraph
p,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
1=N(x+yi)=(x+yi) ⋅
=(x+yi) ⋅
)
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 ProjNormGraph
p,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
.In particular, for
,
, and
, we have
z(m,n;s,t)=\Theta(mn1-1/s).
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
(B1,b1),\ldots,(Bs,bs)\inV1
. 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
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
m=(1+o(1)){n\chooset}/{k\chooset}
, 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
Cp=\{(x,p(x)):x\inFq\}\subsetV
. 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
Alternative proofs of
ex(n,Ks,t)=\Omega(n2-1/s)
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
f\inFq[x1,...,xs,y1,...,ts]
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
":
ZU=\{x\in
U:f(x,u)=0forallu\inU\}
. 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
ex(n,Ks,t)=\Omega(n2-1/s)
for all
sufficiently large with respect to
. More recently, there have been a number of results verifying the conjecture
z(m,n;s,t)=\Omega(n2-1/s)
for different values of
, using similar ideas but with more tools from algebraic geometry.
[20] Applications
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
Notes and References
- . Reprint of 1978 Academic Press edition, .
- . As cited by .
- Web site: Archived copy . 2014-09-16 . 2016-03-04 . https://web.archive.org/web/20160304024714/http://www.cs.elte.hu/~hetamas/publ/DHSzFIN.pdf . dead .
- .
- .
- . As cited by .
- . As cited by .
- .
- , Theorem 2.3, p. 310.
- , Conjecture 15, p. 312.
- .
- , Corollary 2.7, p. 313.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .