Arxiv:1908.08483V3 [Math.CO] 31 Aug 2021

arXiv:1908.08483v3 [math.CO] 31 Aug 2021 ento 1.1 Definition Let Introduction 1 w ecall We stsse fec e in set each if system -set ∗ † nvriyo aiona Berkeley California, of University Science Computer of Department [email protected] eerhspotdb S wr 1614023. award Fellowship. NSF Research by Graduate supported NSF Research an by supported Research X eateto Mathematics of Department on ntenme fst a eipoe to improved be can sets of number the on bound oino uflwr,frwihtebudw bani hr up sharp is obtain we bound the which for sunflowers, of notion oti uflwrwith sunflower a contain eipoetebudt bu (log about to bound the improve we ari qa oteitreto falo hm r˝sadRa Erd˝os and them. of all fixed of any intersection for the lemma: to equal is pair eafiiest e system set A set. finite a be shlw K uflwrwith sunflower A rneo University Princeton = mrvdbud o h uflwrlemma sunflower the for bounds Improved S ynAlweiss Ryan [email protected] 1 ∩ · · · ∩ ee Wu Kewen (Sunflower) S r r r n aiyo eso size of sets of family any , the F easi olcinof collection a is petals . S olcino sets of collection A i a iea most at size has r ∗ ∩ kernel eas h aossnoe ojcuesae htthe that states conjecture sunflower famous The petals. S j etme ,2021 1, September = F and S 1 on Abstract ∩ · · · ∩ w S ) w 1 X nfc,w rv h eutfrarobust a for result the prove we fact, In . \ 1 nvriyo aiona a Diego San California, of University sacleto fsbesof subsets of collection a is w ,...,S , . . . K, eateto optrScience Computer of Department . eateto optrScience Computer of Department S nvriyo otenCalifornia Southern of University S [email protected] r r , 1 c w S , . . . , w ess htteitreto feach of intersection the that so sets iha es about least at with , [email protected] o oeconstant some for r ∀ \ i hca Lovett Shachar K r 6= ipn Zhang Jiapeng san is the j. opoe h sunflower the proved do petals r olwrodrterms. order lower to -sunflower c nti paper, this In . ftesunflower. the of w w X † es must sets, ecall We . if F a Erd˝os and Rado [7] proved that large enough set systems must contain a sunflower. It is noteworthy that Erd˝os and Rado originally called sunflowers ∆-systems, but the term “sunflower” was coined by Deza and Frankl [6] and is now more widely used. Lemma 1.2 (Sunflower lemma [7]). Let r 3 and be a w-set system of size ≥ F |F| ≥ w! (r 1)w. Then contains an r-sunflower. · − F Erd˝os and Rado conjectured in the same paper that the bound in Lemma 1.2 can be drastically improved. Conjecture 1.3 (Sunflower conjecture [7]). Let r 3. There exists c = c(r) such that any ≥ w-set system of size cw contains an r-sunflower. F |F| ≥ The bound in Lemma 1.2 is of the form ww(1+o(1)) where the o(1) term depends on r. Despite nearly 60 years of research, the best known bounds were still of the form ww(1+o(1)), even for r = 3. Kostochka [14] proved that any w-set system of size |F| ≥ cw! (log log log w/ log log w)w must contain a 3-sunflower for some absolute constant c. Re- cently,· Fukuyama [11] claimed an improved bound of w(3/4+o(1))w for r = 3, but this proof has not been verified. In this paper, we vastly improve the known bounds. We prove that any w-set system of size (log w)w(1+o(1)) must contain a sunflower. More precisely, we obtain the following: Theorem 1.4 (Main theorem, sunflowers). Let r 3. For some constant C, any w-set ≥ system of size (Cr3 log w log log w)w contains an r-sunflower. F |F| ≥ We will implicitly assume throughout the paper that log log w > 0. Formally, to handle the case of w = 2, we interpret log as logarithm in base 1.9.

1.1 Robust sunflowers We consider a “robust” generalization of sunflowers, the study of which was initiated by Rossman [21], who was motivated by questions in complexity theory. Later, it was studied by Li, Lovett and Zhang [15] in the context of the sunflower conjecture. First, we define a more “robust” version of the property of having disjoint sets. Given a finite set X, we denote by (X,p) the distribution over subsets R X, where each element x X is included in R independentlyU with probability p (this is sometimes⊂ referred to as a ∈ “p-biased distribution”). Definition 1.5 (Satisfying set system). Let 0 <α,β < 1. A set system on X is (α, β)- satisfying if F Pr [ S ,S R] > 1 β. R (X,α) ∃ ∈F ⊂ − ∼U The explanation for the name “satisfying” is that if the set system is interpreted as a disjunctive normal form (DNF) formula, then this condition is that the formula has more than a 1 β probability of being satisfied on α-biased inputs; see [16]. As mentioned before, the property− of being satisfying is a robust analogue of the property of having disjoint sets.

2 Lemma 1.6 ([16, Claim 14]). If is a (1/r, 1/r)-satisfying set system and / , then contains r pairwise disjoint sets. F ∅ ∈F F Proof. Let be a set system on X. Consider a random coloring of elements of X with r F colors, so that each x X has an equal probability of being colored with any of the r colors, ∈ independently of the other elements. For 1 i r, let Yi denote the subset of X colored with color i and let denote the event that≤ contains≤ an i-monochromatic set, namely, Ei F = [ S ,S Y ] . Ei ∃ ∈F ⊂ i Note that Y (X, 1/r), and since we assume is (1/r, 1/r)-satisfying, we have i ∼ U F Pr[ ] > 1 1/r. Ei − By the union bound, with positive probability all of ,..., hold. In this case, contains E1 Er F a set which is i-monochromatic for each i =1,...,r. Such sets must be pairwise disjoint. Given a set system on X and a set T X, the link of at T is F ⊂ F = S T : S , T S . FT { \ ∈F ⊂ } We now formally define a robust sunflower (which was called a quasi-sunflower in [21] and an approximate sunflower in [16]). Definition 1.7 (Robust sunflower). Let 0 < α,β < 1, be a set system, and let K = F S S be the common intersection of all sets in . is an (α, β)-robust sunflower if (i) ∈F F F K / , and (ii) K is (α, β)-satisfying. We call K the kernel. T ∈F F The kernel is not allowed to appear in the set system for technical reasons; we do not want a set system consisting of a single set to be a robust sunflower. In order to circumvent this technical obstacle, when relevant we will ensure that the set systems we work with are w-uniform for some w; i.e., all sets in the system will be of size w. Any w-set system can be turned into a w-uniform system by adding w S distinct dummy elements to the sets S of −| | the system with S

Proof. Let be a (1/r, 1/r)-robust sunflower, and let K = S S be the common inter- F ∈F section of the sets in . Note that by assumption, K does not contain the empty set as F F T an element. Lemma 1.6 gives that K contains r pairwise disjoint sets S1,...,Sr. Thus S K,...,S K is an r-sunflowerF in . 1 ∪ r ∪ F The proof of Theorem 1.4 follows from the following stronger theorem, by setting α = β = 1/r and applying Lemma 1.8. The theorem verifies a conjecture raised in [16], and answers a question of [21].

3 Theorem 1.9 (Main theorem, robust sunflowers). Let 0 <α,β < 1. For some constant C, 2 w C 1 any w-uniform set system of size 2 log w log log w + log contains F |F| ≥ α · β an (α, β)-robust sunflower. For fixed α, β, the bound of (log w)w(1+o(1)) for robust sunflowers in Theorem 1.9 is sharp; w(1 o(1)) it cannot be improved beyond (log w) − . We give an example demonstrating this in Lemma 3.1.

1.2 Proof overview We now outline our proof of Theorem 1.9. First, we define spread set systems. Definition 1.10 (Spreadness, [16]). We say that a w-set system is κ-spread if κw T F |F| ≥ and κ−| | for all non-empty T , where is the size of the link at T . |FT | ≤ |F| |FT | The paper [16] calls these “regular set systems”, but we use the more descriptive term “spread”. Furthermore, we will ultimately need to slightly generalize the above definition so that it depends on more than one parameter; see Definition 2.1 for more details. Say is a w-set system of size κw on a ground set X. Then either is κ-spread, F |F|w ≥ T F or there is a link of size κ −| |. In the latter “structured” case, we can simply FT |FT | ≥ pass to the link and apply induction, much like in the original proof of Erd˝os and Rado [7]. Thus, it suffices to consider the “pseudorandom” case of w-set systems which are κ- spread. In [15, 16], it was conjectured that for some absolute C, a κ-spread is necessarily F (1/3, 1/3)-satisfying if κ (log w)C. We show that there is some κ = (log w)1+o(1) which is sufficient (see Theorem 2.5),≥ completing the proof of Theorem 1.9. We also show that this value of κ is tight, up to the o(1) in the exponent. We next outline how we obtain the bound on κ. We will prove that a κ-spread w-set system is (α, β)-satisfying for appropriate κ,w,α,β through a series of reductions. Let be F a w-set system which is κ-spread. Sample W (X,p) for some p = O(1/ log w). We show that with high probability over the choice of W∼, U for almost all sets S , there exists a set ∈F S′ such that: (i) S′ W S W ; and (ii) S′ W w′, for some w′ which we will take ∈F \ ⊂ \ | \ | ≤ to be w(1 ε) for a small ε. We throw out sets S that do not satisfy this property (which − we call the bad sets for W ), and replace any S that does with S′ W (we call these the good \ sets for W ). This yields a w′-set system ′ which has almost as many sets as the original , F T F and therefore will have almost the same spreadness (since the best κ for which κ T T 1 |F| ≥ |F | and for which ′ κ will be similar). If we sample W ′ (X,p′) and find some |F | ≥ |FT | ∼ U S′ W ′ such that S′ W W ′, then S′ W W ′. Since W W ′ (x, q) for \ ∈ F \ ⊂ ⊂ ∪ ∪ ∼ U q = p + p′ pp′, the satisfyingness of will follow from the satisfyingness of ′, although − F F with different values of w,κ,α,β. We iterate, creating W W ′ W ′′ , which will be a ∪ ∪ ∪··· random set. In particular, applying this “reduction step” (Lemma 2.6) iteratively t = log w times with the correct parameters yields a set system with much smaller sets, and then we

1In the language of DNFs, we take a random restriction and approximate the result by a smaller width DNF whose clauses come from removing some variables from clauses of the original DNF.

4 can apply Janson’s inequality (see Lemma 2.10) to finish. In order to obtain our nearly optimal bounds, we must use a slight generalization of spreadness; see Definition 2.1. The parameters change throughout the algorithm; we will specify exactly how later. To conclude, let us comment on how we prove the key reduction step (Lemma 2.6). The main idea is to use an encoding argument, inspired by Razborov’s proof of H˚astad’s switching lemma [12, 20]. We show that pairs (W, S) for which S is bad for W can be efficiently encoded, crucially relying on the spreadness condition. This allows to show that for a random W it is very unlikely that there will be many bad sets. This ensures that the w′-set system ′ = S′ W : S′ , S′ W w′ will have almost as many sets as . F { \ ∈F | \ | ≤ } F Paper organization. We present the proof of Theorem 1.9 in Section 2. We prove a matching lower bound for robust sunflowers in Section 3. We discuss some applications in Section 4. We introduce several conjectures aimed at proving the sunflower conjecture in Section 5.

2 Proof of Theorem 1.9

We proceed to prove Theorem 1.9. Let be a set system, and let σ : Q 0 be a ≥ weight function that assigns nonnegative rationalF weights to sets in whichF are7→ not all 0. A weight function is necessary because in the reduction multiple setsFS can be replaced by the same S′, and we must weight such S′ accordingly. For simplicity, we do not permit irrational weights. We call the pair ( , σ) a weighted set system. For a subset ′ we F F ⊂ F write σ( ′)= S ′ σ(S) for the sum of the weights of the sets in ′. F ∈F F A weight proﬁle is a vector s =(s0; s1,...,sk) where s0 s1 sk 0 and s0 > 0. P ≥ ≥···≥ ≥ The si need not be rational. We assume implicitly that si = 0 for all i>k.

Deﬁnition 2.1 (Spread weighted set system). Let s =(s0; s1,...,sw) be a weight proﬁle. A weighted set system ( , σ) is s-spread if F (i) σ( ) s ; F ≥ 0

(ii) σ( T ) s T for any link T with non-empty T . F ≤ | | F In particular, is a w-set system. F Definition 2.2 (Spread set system). Let s be a weight profile. A set system is s-spread F if there exists a weight function σ : Q 0 such that ( , σ) is s-spread. F 7→ ≥ F 1 w This generalizes Definition 1.10; we call a set system κ-spread if it is (1; κ− ,...,κ− )- spread for the uniform weight function. We note that one may always normalize a weight profile to have s0 = 1. However, keeping s0 as a free parameter helps to simplify some of the arguments later. The main idea is to show that set systems which are s-spread, for s appropriately cho- sen, are “random looking” and in particular must be (α, β)-satisfying. This motivates the following definition.

5 Definition 2.3 (Satisfying weight profile). Let 0 < α,β < 1. A weight profile s is (α, β)- satisfying if any s-spread set system is (α, β)-satisfying. The following lemma concerning satisfying weight profiles, which appears in [16], underlies our proof of Theorem 1.9. We repeat the proof here for completeness. Lemma 2.4. Let 0 <α,β < 1 and w 2. Let κ = κ(w) > 1 be a (not necessarily strictly) ≥ 1 w increasing function of w such that the weight profile (1; κ− ,...,κ− ) is (α, β)-satisfying. Then any w-uniform set system of size > κw must contain an (α, β)-robust sunflower. F |F| Proof. Assume the contrary, and let be a w-uniform set system on X of size > κw F |F| without an (α, β)-robust sunflower. If the uniform distribution σ(S)=1/ for S is 1 w |F| ∈ F (1; κ− ,...,κ− )-spread, then is (α, β)-satisfying and thus is an (α, β)-robust sunflower. F K Thus, there exists some nonempty K X so that K > κ−| | . Pick a maximal such ⊂ |F | |F|w K. Note that we cannot have K = w, as otherwise K = 1 < κ− , and so we must | | |F | w K |F| have that 1 K w 1. Let ′ = K. Note that ′ > κ −| |; and for any non-empty ≤| | ≤ − F F K T |F | T set T disjoint from K, T′ = K T κ−| |−| | κ−| | ′ , by the maximality of K . |F | |F ∪ | ≤ |F| ≤ 1 |F | ℓ | | Let σ′(S)=1/ ′ for S ′. Then ( ′, σ′) is (1; κ− ,...,κ− )-spread for ℓ = w K , |F | ∈ F F −| | where κ = κ(w) κ(ℓ). Thus ′ is (α, β)-satisfying, and hence S K : S ′ is an ≥ F { ∪ ∈ F } (α, β)-robust sunflower contained in . F Lemma 2.4 motivates the following definition. For 0 <α,β < 1 and w 2, let κ(w,α,β) 1 w ≥ be the least κ such that (1; κ− ,...,κ− ) is (α, β)-satisfying. Theorem 1.9 follows by com- bining Lemma 2.4 with the following theorem, which bounds κ(w,α,β).

2 1 1 Theorem 2.5. κ(w,α,β)= O 2 log w log log w + log . α · β To prove Theorem 2.5 we must show that, if κ is the right-hand side of the above expres- sion the following holds. Let be a weighted w-set system with total weight 1 and where F T the weight of any link of a nonempty set T is at most κ−| |. Then is (α, β)-satisfying, i.e. the chance that some set from is contained in a subset of the groundF set X sampled F an α-biased distribution is at least 1 β. We prove Theorem 2.5 in the remainder of this section. −

2.1 A reduction step

Let be a w-set system on X, and ﬁx w′ w. The main goal in this section is to reduce F ≤ our problem for to the same problem for some w′-set system ′. We prove the following F F lemma in this section.

Lemma 2.6. Let s = (s ; s ,...,s ) be a weight proﬁle, w′ w, δ > 0 and deﬁne s′ = 0 1 w ≤ ((1 δ)s ; s ,...,s ′ ). Assume s′ is (α′, β′)-satisfying. Then for any p > 0, s is (α, β)- − 0 1 w satisfying for w (4/p) sw′ α = p + (1 p)α′, β = β′ + . − δs0

6 In order to prove this lemma, we need the notions of good and bad sets with respect to some W X. ⊂ Deﬁnition 2.7. Let W X. Given a set S , the pair (W, S) is said to be good if there ⊂ ∈F exists a set S′ (possibly with S′ = S) such that ∈F

(i) S′ W S W ; \ ⊂ \

(ii) S′ W w′. | \ | ≤

If no such S′ exists, we say that (W, S) is bad.

Note that if W contains a set in (i.e., S′ W for some S′ ) then all pairs (W, S) F ⊂ ∈F are good.

Lemma 2.8. Let ( , σ) be an s =(s ; s ,...,s )-spread weighted set system on X. Let W F 0 1 w ⊂ X be a uniformly random subset of size W = p X and (W ) = S : (W, S) is bad . | | | | B { ∈ F } Then E [σ( (W ))] (4/p)ws ′ . W B ≤ w Proof. First, we simplify the setting a bit. We may assume by scaling σ and s by the same factor that σ(S) = NS is an integer for each S . Let N = NS s0. By scaling back down by N, we can then identify ( , σ) with∈ the F uniform distribution≥ on the multi-set F P system ′ = S ,...,S , where each set S is repeated N times in ′. Thus F { 1 N } ∈F S F

σ( (W )) = i : S ′ and (W, S ) is bad . B |{ i ∈F i }|

Assume that (W, S ) is bad in ′. In particular, this means that W does not contain i F any set in . We describe (W, Si) with a small amount of information. Let X = n and W = pn.F We encode (W, S ) as follows: | | | | i

1. The ﬁrst piece of information is W Si, a subset of X of size between pn and pn + w. The number of options for this is at∪ most:

w w i w n 1 p n 1 p n w n − − +1 = p− . pn + i ≤ p pn ≤ p pn pn i=0 i=0 X X

2. Given W Si, let j be minimal such that Sj W Si, so that j depends only on ∪ w ⊂ ∪ W Si. Given Sj, there are fewer than 2 possibilities for A = Si Sj. As such, we will∪ let A be the second piece of information. ∩

3. Because S W S and A = S S , we have S W A. Since (W, S ) is bad, j ⊂ ∪ i i ∩ j j \ ⊂ i A S W >w′. The number of the sets in ′ which contain A is ′ s ′ . The | |≥| j \ | F |FA| ≤ w third piece of information will be which one of these is Si. 4. Finally, once we have speciﬁed S , we will specify S W , which is one of 2w possible i i ∩ subsets of Si.

7 From these four pieces of information one can uniquely reconstruct (W, Si). Thus the total number of bad pairs (W, Si) is bounded by

w n w w w n p− 2 s ′ 2 = (4/p) s ′ . pn · · w · w pn n Because the number of sets W X of size W = p X is pn , the lemma follows by taking expectation over W . ⊂ | | | | The following is a corollary of Lemma 2.8, where we replace sampling W X of size W = p X with sampling W (X,p). ⊂ | | | | ∼ U Corollary 2.9. Let ( , σ) be an s = (s ; s ,...,s )-spread weighted set system on X. Let F 0 1 w W (X,p) and (W )= S :(W, S) is bad . Then E [σ( (W ))] (4/p)ws ′ . ∼ U B { ∈F } W B ≤ w Proof. The proof is by a reduction to Lemma 2.8. Replace the base set X with a much larger set X′ (without changing , so the new elements do not belong to any set in ). Let F F W ′ X′ be a uniform set of size W ′ = p X′ , and let W = W ′ X. Then as the size of X′ ⊂ | | | | ∩ goes to inﬁnity, the distribution of W approaches (X,p). U Proof of Lemma 2.6. Let ( , σ) be an s =(s0; s1,...,sw)-spread weighted set system on X. Let W (X,p). Say thatF W is δ-bad if σ( (W )) δs . By applying Corollary 2.9 and ∼ U B ≥ 0 Markov’s inequality, we obtain that

E[σ( (W ))] (4/p)ws ′ Pr[W is δ-bad] B w . ≤ δs0 ≤ δs0 Fix W which is not δ-bad. If for some S , the pair (W, S) is good, then there exists ∈ F π(S)= S′ (possibly with S′ = S) such that (i) S′ W S W and (ii) S′ W w′. ∈F \ ⊂ \ | \ | ≤ Deﬁne a new weighted set system ( ′, σ′) on X′ = X W as follows: F \ 1 ′ = π(S) W : S (W ) , σ′(S′ W )= σ(π− (S′)). F { \ ∈F\B } \

We claim that ′ is s′ = ((1 δ)s ; s ,...,s ′ )-spread. To see that, note that σ′( ′) = F − 0 1 w F σ( (W )) (1 δ)s and that for any set T X′, F \ B ≥ − 0 ⊂

σ′( T′ )= σ′(S′)= σ(S) σ(S)= σ( T ) s T . F ≤ F ≤ | | S′ T S:π(S) T S T X⊃ X⊃ X⊃

Finally, all sets in ′ have size at most w′. Hence, by the assumption s′ is (α′, β′)-satisfying. F Thus, if we choose W ′ (X′,α′) then we obtain that with probability more than 1 β′, ∼ U − there exists S∗ ′ such that S∗ W ′. Recall that S∗ = S W for some S . Thus ∈ F ⊂ \ ∈ F S W W ′ (X,p + (1 p)α′). The value of β accounts for the case where W is ⊂ ∪ ∼ U − δ-bad.

8 2.2 A ﬁnal step Repeated applications of the reduction step yield a set system which is almost as spread as the original set system, but whose sets are much smaller. Thus the spreadness guarantee becomes good compared to the size of the sets in the system. In this case, we can just directly show that the set system is satisfying. A similar argument appears in [21]. Lemma 2.10. Let 0 < α,β < 1, w 2, and set κ = max 4 log(1/β), 2 w/α. Let ≥ { i }· ( , σ) be an s = (s ; s ,...,s )-spread weighted set system where s < κ− s . Then is F 0 1 w i 0 F (α, β)-satisfying.

Proof. Again, we can assume by scaling that NS = σ(S) for S are all integers. Let ′ be the multi-set system where each S is repeated N times,∈F so that N > κw. WeF ∈ F S S may also assume that all sets in ′ have size exactly w, by adding different dummy elements to each set of size less than w.F We take care to scale by a large enoughP factor so that a negligible amount of weight falls on each dummy element, and so the spreadness hypothesis is preserved. Let N = N s and let ′ = S ,...,S . If σ′ is the uniform weighting S ≥ 0 F { 1 N } on sets of ′, then ( ′, σ′) also satisfies the assumption of the lemma. Note also that for F FP any set W X, if W contains a set of ′ then it also contains a set of , so it suffices to ⊂ F F verify the (α, β)-satisfyingness of ′. The proof is by Janson’s inequalityF (see for example [1, Theorem 8.1.2]). Let W ∼ (X,α) and let i be the indicator variable for Si W . Denote i j if Si,Sj intersect. DefineU Z ⊂ ∼ µ = E[ ], ∆= E[ ]. Zi ZiZj i i j X X∼ w 2 We have µ = Nα . To compute ∆, let pℓ denote the fraction of the N pairs (i, j) with 1 i, j N such that S S = ℓ. Then ≤ ≤ | i ∩ j| w 2 2w ℓ ∆= pℓN α − . Xℓ=1 To bound pℓ, note that for each Si , and any R Si of size R = ℓ, the number ∈ F R ⊂ | | of Sj such that R Sj is R N/κ| | by the spreadness assumption. Let q = max 4∈ log(1 F /β), 2 . Thus⊂ we can|F bound| ≤ { } w w w ℓ ℓ 2 w ℓ 2 2w ℓ w 2 2 1 2µ ∆ κ− N α − µ = µ < . ≤ ℓ ≤ ακ q q Xℓ=1 Xℓ=1 Xℓ=1 Note that in addition ∆ µ, as we include the pairs (i, i) in the summation for ∆. Thus by Janson’s inequality, ≥ µ2 q Pr[ i, = 0] exp < exp β. ∀ Zi ≤ −2∆ −4 ≤ n o

9 2.3 Putting everything together We prove Theorem 2.5 in this subsection, where our goal is to bound κ(w,α,β). We will apply Lemma 2.6 iteratively, until we reach a case where we can apply Lemma 2.10. Let w 2 be fixed throughout, and let κ> 1, to be optimized later. We first introduce ≥ 1 ℓ some notation. For 0 < ∆ < 1 and ℓ 1, let s(∆,ℓ) = (1 ∆; κ− ,...,κ− ) be a weight ≥ − profile. Let A(∆,ℓ), B(∆,ℓ) be such that any s(∆,ℓ)-spread set system is (A(∆,ℓ), B(∆,ℓ))- satisfying. Lemma 2.6 applied to w′ w′′ and p, δ shows that we may take ≥

A(∆,w′) A(∆ + δ, w′′)+ p, ≤ ′ (4/p)w B(∆,w′) B(∆ + δ, w′′)+ ′′ . ≤ δ(1 ∆)κw − We apply this iteratively for some widths w ,...,w . Set w = w and w = (1 ε)w 0 r 0 i+1 ⌈ − i⌉ for some small ε as long as w >w∗ for some w∗. In particular, we need w∗ 1/ε to ensure i ≥ w 0. Let p1,...,pr and δ1,...,δr be the values we use for p, δ at each iteration. To simplify the notation, let ∆ = δ + + δ and ∆ = 0. Furthermore, deﬁne i 1 ··· i 0 wi−1 (4/pi) γi = . κwi Then for i =1,...,r, we may take

A(∆i 1,wi 1) A(∆i,wi)+ pi, − − ≤ γi B(∆i 1,wi 1) B(∆i,wi)+ . − − ≤ δi(1 ∆i 1) − − α Set pi = p = and δi = √γi, where r (K log w)/ε is the number of steps. We 2r ≤ will select the parameters so that ∆ 1/2 for all i. Thus we may take A(1/2,w∗) and i ≤ B(1/2,w∗) such that

A(0,w) A(∆ ,w )+ α/2 A(1/2,w∗)+ α/2, ≤ r r ≤ B(0,w) B(∆ ,w )+2∆ B(1/2,w∗)+2∆ . ≤ r r r ≤ r

Plugging in the values for δi, we compute the sum

r r r −1 (4/p)wi−1 4/p wi /2 8K log w k/2 ∆r = δi = ≤ κ(1 ε)wi−1 κ1 ε ≤ εακ1 ε i=1 i=1 r − i=1 − k w∗ − X X ∗ X X≥ w /2 k/2 8K log w 8K log w 1 w∗ = 2 − , εακ1 ε εακ1 ε ≤ − k 0 − X≥ 1 ε assuming κ − (32K log w)/εα. ≥ 10 Next, we will apply Lemma 2.10 to bound A(1/2,w∗) α/2 and B(1/2,w∗) 1 w∗ ≤ ≤ β/2. We use the simple observation that (1/2; κ− ,...,κ− )-spread set systems are also 1 w∗ (1;(κ/2)− ,..., (κ/2)− )-spread, in which case we can apply Lemma 2.10 and obtain that we need κ/2 (2 + 4 log(2/β)) 2w∗/α. ≥ · Let us now put the bounds together. We still have the freedom to choose ε> 0 and w∗ 1/ε. ≥ To obtain A(0,w) α, B(0,w) β, we also need ∆r β/4 < 1/2. Thus all the constraints are: ≤ ≤ ≤

1. w∗ 1/ε; ≥ 1 ε 2. κ − (32K log w)/εα where K > 0 is a constant; ≥

3. κ 4 (2 + 4 log(2/β)) w∗/α; ≥ · · 1 w∗ 4. 2 − β/4. ≤

Set ε = 1/ log log w and w∗ = c max log(1/β), log log w for some large enough constant · { } c 1. This ensures that the ﬁrst and last conditions hold. ≥Thus we obtain that the result holds whenever

1 1+2/ log log w 1 1 2 1 1 κ = Ω max log w log log w, 1 + log , 1 + log log log w . α α β α β ( )!

2 1 1 In particular, it suﬃces to set κ = O 2 log w log log w + log . α · β 3 A Lower Bound for Robust Sunﬂowers

w(1 o(1)) In this section, we construct an example of a w-set system of size (log w) − which does not contain a robust sunflower, showing that Theorem 1.9 is tight up to the o(1) in exponent. For concreteness we fix α = β =1/2, but the construction can be easily modified for any other constant values of α, β. We assume that w is sufficiently large.

w √w w(1 o(1)) Lemma 3.1. There exists a w-set system of size ((log w)/8) − = (log w) − which does not contain a (1/2, 1/2)-robust sunﬂower.

Let c 1 be determined later. Let X ,...,X be pairwise disjoint sets of size m = ≥ 1 w log(w/c), and let X be their union. Let = X X be the w-set system consisting F 1 ×···× w of all sets which contain exactly one element from each of the Xi. We ﬁrst argue that is not satisfying. b F b Claim 3.2. For c 1, is not (1/2, 1/2)-satisfying. ≥ F b

11 m w Proof. Let R (X, 1/2). The probability that some Xi is disjoint from R is 1 (1 2− ) = 1 (1 c/w)∼w > U 1/2 if c 1. Thus if c 1, with probability more than 1/2−, R−is disjoint − − ≥ ≥ from some X and thus does not contain any set S . i ∈ F The family does contain a (1/2, 1/2)-robust sunflower. For example, if T contains ex- F b actly one element from each of X1,...,Xw 1, then T is isomorphic to Xw, and in particular − is certainly (1/2b, 1/2)-satisfying. However, it turnsF out that the robust sunflowers in all F contain large kernels. We will exploit this to constructb a large subsystem of which does not contain a robust sunflower. Let ε > 0 be determined later, and choose F tob be a F ⊂ F subsystem that satisfies: b b S S′ (1 ε)w, S,S′ ,S = S′. | ∩ | ≤ − ∀ ∈F 6 For example, we can obtain by a greedy procedure, each time choosing an element S in F and deleting all S′ such that S S′ > (1 ε)w. The number of such S′ is at most Fw εw w εw | ∩ | − w (1 ε)w m 2 m . Hence we can obtain of size 2− m − . εw ≤ F |F| ≥ b Claim 3.3. For c 1/ε, does not contain a (1/2, 1/2)-robust sunflower. ≥ F Proof. Consider any set K X. We need to prove that does not contain a (1/2, 1/2)- ⊂ F robust sunflower with kernel K. If it does, must contain at least two sets S and S′, FK which implies that K X S X 1 for all i. Furthermore K S S′ and so | ∩ i|≤| ∩ i| ≤ ⊂ ∩ K S S′ (1 ε)w. However, for such K we claim even is not (1/2, 1/2)-satisfying. | |≤| ∩ | ≤ − FK To prove this, let I = i : K Xi = 0 , so that I εw. Let R (X, 1/2). The { | ∩ | } | | ≥ ∼ U m I probability that there exists i I such that R is disjoint fromb Xi is 1 (1 2− )| | 1 (1 c/w)εw which is more than∈ 1/2 for c 1/ε. − − ≥ − − ≥ To conclude the proof of Lemma 3.1 we optimize the parameters. Set c =1/ε. We have w (1 ε)w w √w (1 o(1))w 2− (log(εw)) − . Setting ε =1/√w gives ((log w)/8) − = (log w) − . |F| ≥ |F| ≥ 4 Subsequent Works and Applications

After the current work was made available on the ArXiv, Rao [19] simplified the proof of Theorem 2.5 using information theoretic techniques, and obtained a slightly better depen- dence on α and β. Furthermore, following the initial release of this work, the technique developed in this paper has been used by Frankston, Kahn, Narayanan, and Park [10] to resolve a conjecture of Talagrand in random graph theory. Rao then used their refinements to further improve the bound in Theorem 2.5 to (C/α) log(w/β) for some constant C, hence improving the bound in Theorem 1.9 to ((C/α) log(w/β))w and the bound in Theorem 1.4 to (Cr log(wr))w. Bell, Chueluecha, and Warnke [4] observed that a small modification of the argument improves the bound in Theorem 1.4 further to (Cr log(w))w. Following Rao’s proof using information theory, two more proofs using information theory were given by Tao [22] and Hu [13]. Fox, Pach, and Suk [9] studied the sunflower conjecture

12 in the special setting where the set system has bounded VC dimension, and were able to dramatically improve the bounds in this case, getting very close to the conjectured bound. On the computer science side, Theorem 1.9 has been used by Cavalar, Kumar, and Ross- man [5] to improve previous monotone circuit lower bounds. There are further applications of this work in theoretical computer science; see the extended abstract version of this paper [3] for details. We present several additional applications of Theorem 2.5 below. To present sharper (and cleaner) bounds, we instead use the version proved by Rao [19], building on the work of Frankston, Kahn, Narayanan, and Park [10]. Using the notations of Theorem 2.5, he proved that κ(w,α,β) (C/α) log(w/β) for some constant C. ≤ The Erd˝os-Szemerédi sunflower conjecture. In [8], the Erd˝os-Rado sunflower conjecture is shown to imply the Erd˝os-Szemerédi sunflower conjecture. Plugging in our new bounds into their argument gives a corresponding improvement. Theorem 4.1. For any r 3 there exists c = c(r) such that the following holds. Let be ≥ n(1 c/ log n) F a set system on X, with X = n and 2 − . Then contains an r-sunflower. | | |F| ≥ F The Erd˝os-Szemerédi sunflower conjecture says the bound on the size of can be im- n(1 ε) F proved to 2 − for some ε = ε(r). This was proved for r = 3 by Naslund [18] using algebraic techniques, which so far do not seem to generalize for larger values of r.

Intersecting set systems. A set system is intersecting if any pair of its sets intersects. We note the following corollary of Theorem 2.5:

T Theorem 4.2. If is an intersecting w-uniform set system, and for all T , T κ−| | , then κ = O(log w).F |F | ≤ |F| An example from [16] shows that for κ = Ω(log w/ log log w), there are intersecting κ- spread w-uniform set systems, so the bound in Theorem 4.2 is close to tight. Proof. If is intersecting then it is not (1/2, 1/2)-satisfying (apply Lemma 1.6 for r = 2). F Thus by the improvement of Theorem 2.5 from [19], it cannot be (C log w)-spread for a large enough constant C. Note that Theorem 4.2 is fairly robust in the sense that the bounds on the links of T for ε large T are required. For instance, for a small constant ε a family of 2n random subsets of [n] of size w = n1/2+ε is intersecting with high probability. Also withF high probability it is ℓ ε/2 Ω(1) Ω(1) (1; κ,...,κ− )-spread for ℓ up to n = w , where κ = w . This example shows that in Theorem 2.5 the spreadness condition on the large sets is necessary. Thus it seems diﬃcult to ﬁnd a purely algebraic or analytic proof of Theorem 2.5, as one would have to use the spreadness condition on large sets in a useful but non-combinatorial way. We expect Theorem 4.2 to have a fair number of applications. Below we describe two applications: one to packing of Kneser graphs, and the other to the Alon-Jaeger-Tarsi conjecture.

13 Packing of Kneser graphs. Let n>k 1. The Kneser graph KG(n, k) has as vertices all the subsets of [n] of size k, and its edges≥ correspond to pairs of disjoint sets.

Theorem 4.3. Let n>k 1. If two copies of the Kneser graph KG(n, k) can be packed ≥ n n into the complete graph on = N vertices, then k = Ω 2 . k (log n) Proof. Let G = KG(n, k). We identify the vertex set V = V (G) with the subsets of [n] of size k. By the assumption, there is a bijection π : V V such that if (u, v) E(G) then → ∈ (π(u), π(v)) / E(G). ∈ Deﬁne a 2k-uniform hypergraph H as follows. Let V (H) = V0 V1 where Vb = (b, i): i [n] . The edges of H are E(H)= e(v): v V where e(v)=∪(0, i): i v {(1, i): ∈ } { ∈ } { ∈ }∪{ i π(v) for v V . ∈ We claim} that∈ H is intersecting. Fix any u, v V and consider the corresponding edges e(u), e(v). Observe that by assumption either (u,∈ v) / E(G) or (π(u), π(v)) / E(G). Thus ∈ ∈ either u, v intersect or π(u), π(v) intersect. In either case, e(u), e(v) intersect. Hence, by Theorem 4.2, for a large constant C there will be a subset U V (H) so that at U ⊂ least a (C log 2k)−| | fraction of the edges of H contain U. Assume without loss of generality that U V0 U /2. The fraction of the edges of H that contain any subset of V0 of size at least| ∩U /|≥|2 is at| most | | n U /2 −| | k U /2 U /2 −| | (k/n)| | . n ≤ k U /2 U n We thus obtain that (k/n)| | (C log 2k)−| | and so k = Ω 2 as claimed. ≥ (log n) We believe that assuming the premise of Theorem 4.3, it should be true that k = Ω(n). This problem is of independent interest.

Conjecture 4.4. Let n>k 1. If two copies of the Kneser graph KG(n, k) can be packed ≥n into the complete graph on = N vertices, then k =Ω(n). k The Alon-Jaeger-Tarsi conjecture. Let A, B be two n n non-singular matrices over × a finite field Fp. The Alon-Jaeger-Tarsi conjecture [2] is that for p 4, there must exist n ≥ x Fp such that both Ax and Bx have only nonzero coordinates. The analogous statement for∈ prime power fields was proved in [2]. Yu [23] proved that this conjecture is true if p log n. Using Theorem 4.2, we prove an extension for p (log n)O(1). ≥ ≥

Theorem 4.5. Let r 2. Let A1,...,Ar be non-singular n n matrices over a ﬁeld Fp. Then, for some absolute≥ constant C, as long as p > (C log(rn×))r, there exists x Fn such ∈ p that A1x,...,Arx have only nonzero coordinates.

14 Proof. Let w = rn. Identify x Fn with the w-set ∈ p S = (i, j, (A x) ): i [r], j [n] . x { i j ∈ ∈ }

In particular, Sx is a set of w triples. Let = S : x Fn . The main observation is that if no solution x exists, then F { x ∈ p } F needs to be an intersecting w-uniform set system. Indeed, if Sx′ ,Sx′′ are pairwise disjoint then one can verify that x = x′ x′′ satisﬁes that A x,...,A x have all nonzero coordinates. − 1 r Next, we analyze the size of links of . A link corresponds to solutions to a system of F FT T linear equations of the form (Aix)j = ai,j. The number of linearly independent equations |is at| least T /r, because at least T /r of them must come from one of the matrices A , and | | | | i hence we obtain T /r p−| | . |FT | ≤ |F| Thus we obtain that p1/r (C log w), which is a contradiction. ≤ We note that very recently Nagy and Pach [17] proved the Alon-Jaeger-Tarsi conjecture using algebraic techniques.

5 Rainbow Sunﬂowers

In this section, we discuss a possible line of attack toward the sunflower conjecture (Conjec- ture 1.3). We propose the following more general conjecture. Conjecture 5.1 (Rainbow sunflower conjecture). There exists a constant C such that the following holds. Let be a w-set system of size Cw over a ground set X. Assume that F |F| ≥ the elements of X are colored with either red, green, or blue uniformly and independently at random. Then with high probability, there exists distinct sets S ,S ,S such that if Y = i j k ∈ F Si Sj Sk, then all elements of Si Y are red, all elements of Sj Y are green, and all elements∩ ∩ of S Y are blue. \ \ k \ Note that Conjecture 5.1 implies Conjecture 1.3 for r = 3. Furthermore, this paper gives a proof of Conjecture 5.1 where Cw is replaced by (log w)w(1+o(1)), and Rao [19] improved the bound to (C log w)w for some constant C. Unlike in Theorem 1.9, we do not know if (C log w)w is tight, and in fact we suspect this is not the case. Conjecture 5.1 is in some sense similar to Theorem 1.9; the latter differs in that one must commit to a subfamily before seeing the coloring, whereas in the former the sets Si,Sj,Sk may depend on the coloring. We propose another variant of Conjecture 5.1. Conjecture 5.2. There exists a constant C such that the following holds. Let be a w-set F system of size Cw over a ground set X. Assume that the elements of X are colored with either red or blue|F|uniformly ≥ and independently. In addition let S be sampled uniformly. ∈F Then with high probability, there exists distinct sets Si,Sj such that all elements of S S are red, all elements of S S are blue, and S S = S∈FS ( S. i \ j \ i ∩ j ∩ 15 Conjecture 5.2 also implies Conjecture 1.3 for r = 3, but we do not know of any nontrivial bounds for it. It would be interesting to have even a wo(w) bound. We can however prove the following lemma, which provides some evidence that Conjecture 5.1 might be true.

Lemma 5.3. There exists a constant C such that the following holds. Let be a w-set system of size Cw over a ground set X. Assume that the elements of XF are colored |F| ≥ with either red or blue uniformly and independently. Then with high probability, there exists distinct sets Si,Sj such that if Y = Si Sj, then all elements of S Y are red and all elements of S ∈FY are blue (equivalently,∩ all i \ j \ elements of S S are red and all elements of S S are blue). i \ j j \ i In order to establish this, we ﬁrst prove a weaker result along the same lines.

Lemma 5.4. For all δ > 0 there exists C = C(δ) such that the following holds. Let be a w-set system of size = m Cw over a ground set X. Assume that a random δ-fractionF of the elements of X|F|are colored≥ white. Then:

1. The expected number of sets Sj , for which there is no i = j with Si Sj all white, is at most Cw. ∈F 6 \

2. With high probability, for almost all S there are at least m/Cw many sets S j ∈F i ∈F such that S S is all white. i \ j Proof. We will show that the lemma holds for C(δ)=4/δ. Let W denote the white subset of X. Call a pair (Sj, W ) bad if there is no i = j such that Si Sj W . If(Sj, W ) is a bad pair, then S is the only set of contained in6 S W . Thus,\S ⊂W uniquely determines j F j ∪ j ∪ Sj, and another w bits encoding Sj W determine the pair (Sj, W ). Hence, the number of ∩ w bad pairs (Sj, W ) is only a factor of (2/δ) more than the number of possible W . Thus, for a random W , in expectation only (2/δ)w

16 Call a set Si good if there exists Sj so that Sj Si is blue and Sj S = Si S. Call it bad otherwise (this “bad” is different from the one in\ Lemma 5.4). For∩ each Y∩ S, consider ⊂ the family S,Y of sets in that intersect S exactly at Y . By the first part of Lemma 5.4, F w F in expectation only C of the sets Si S,Y will be bad. Taking the union over all possible Y , it follows in expectation that only∈F (2C)w of the sets S will be bad. i ∈F So with high probability over the random coloring two events hold: (i) at most (4C)w of w the sets Si are bad; and (ii) at least m/C of the sets Si will have Si S all red. So, as long∈ as Fm/Cw > (4C)w, there is some good S so that S ∈S F is all red. Then\ for each i i \ such Si there will be some Sj so that Si Sj Si S is all red and Sj Si is all blue. This concludes the proof. \ ⊂ \ \ The following is another corollary of Lemma 5.3. It follows from Lemma 5.3 in exactly the same way that the Erd˝os-Szemerédi sunflower lemma follows from the Erd˝os-Rado sunflower lemma (see [8]), so we omit the proof.

Lemma 5.5. There exists δ > 0 such that the following holds. Let be a family of subsets F of [n] of size > (2 δ)n. Color each element of [n] either red or blue uniformly and independently|F| at random.− Then with high probability, there exists distinct S ,S such that S S is all red and i j ∈F i \ j S S is all blue. j \ i In particular, this implies that if R is a uniform random subset of [n], then with high probability there exist some Si,Sj are such that Si R Sj R, where denotes the exclusive or function. ∈F ⊕ ⊂ ⊕ ⊕ Finally, we note that a statement similar to Conjecture 5.1 is equivalent to Conjecture 1.3.

Conjecture 5.6 (Monochromatic sunﬂower conjecture). For all δ > 0 there exists a constant K = K(r, δ) such that the following holds. Let be a w-set system of size Kw on a F |F| ≥ ground set X. Color a random δ-fraction of the elements of X with red. Then with high probability, contains an r-sunﬂower whose petals are all red. F Theorem 5.7. Conjecture 5.6 is equivalent to Conjecture 1.3.

Proof. Clearly, Conjecture 5.6 implies Conjecture 1.3, so now we prove the other direction. Assuming Conjecture 1.3, let C = C(r) be such that any w-set system of size at least Cw contains an r-sunflower. By the second part of Lemma 5.4, if K = K(r, δ) is large enough, w and S is uniformly sampled, then with high probability there are at least (2C) sets Si with S∈FS all red. Thus there exists Y S such that at least Cw many sets S have S S i \ ⊂ i i \ all red and S S = Y . In particular, there are r sets S ,...,S forming an r-sunflower so i ∩ 1 r that for 1 i r we have Si S red and Si S = Y . Because Y is contained in the kernel of the sunflower,≤ ≤ all of the petals\ are red. ∩ The above argument also shows that the optimal bounds in Conjecture 5.6 and Conjec- ture 1.3 are off by an exponential factor in w. For r = 3, we expect a similar relationship between Conjecture 5.1 and Conjecture 1.3.

17 Acknowledgements

We thank Noga Alon, Matthew Wales, Andrey Kupavskii, Mohammadmahdi Jahanara, two anonymous STOC reviewers, and two anonymous Annals reviewers for helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank Andrew Thomason, Gil Kalai, and Peter Frankl for pointing us to relevant references.

References

[1] N. Alon and J. H. Spencer. The probabilistic method. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

[2] N. Alon and M. Tarsi. A nowhere-zero point in linear mappings. Combinatorica, 9(4):393–395, 1989.

[3] R. Alweiss, S. Lovett, K. Wu, and J. Zhang. Improved bounds for the sunﬂower lemma. In Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, 2020.

[4] T. Bell, S. Chueluecha, and L. Warnke. Note on sunﬂowers. Discrete Mathematics, 344(7):112367, 2021.

[5] B. P. Cavalar, M. Kumar, and B. Rossman. Monotone circuit lower bounds from robust sunﬂowers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10318, 2020.

[6] M. Deza and P. Frankl. Every large set of equidistant (0, +1, 1)-vectors forms a sunﬂower. Combinatorica, 1(3):225–231, 1981. −

[7] P. Erd˝os and R. Rado. Intersection theorems for systems of sets. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 35(1):85–90, 1960.

[8] P. Erd˝os and E. Szemer´edi. Combinatorial properties of systems of sets. J. Combina- torial Theory Ser. A, 24(3):308–313, 1978.

[9] J. Fox, J. Pach, and A. Suk. Sunﬂowers in set systems of bounded dimension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10497, 2021.

[10] K. Frankston, J. Kahn, B. Narayanan, and J. Park. Thresholds versus fractional expectation-thresholds. Annals of Mathematics, 194(2):475–495, 2021.

[11] J. Fukuyama. Improved bound on sets including no sunﬂower with three petals. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10318, 2018.

[12] J. H˚astad. Computational limitations of small-depth circuits. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.

18 [13] L. Hu. Entropy estimation via two chains: Streamlining the proof of the sunﬂower lemma. http://theorydish.blog/2021/05/19/entropy-estimation-via-two-cha ins-streamlining-the-proof-of-the-sunflower-lemma, 2021.

[14] A. Kostochka. A bound of the cardinality of families not containing ∆-systems. In The Mathematics of Paul Erd˝os II, pages 229–235. Springer, 1997.

[15] X. Li, S. Lovett, and J. Zhang. Sunﬂowers and quasi-sunﬂowers from randomness extrac- tors. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2018). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018.

[16] S. Lovett, N. Solomon, and J. Zhang. From DNF compression to sunﬂower theorems via regularity. In 34th Computational Complexity Conference, CCC 2019, July 18-20, 2019, New Brunswick, NJ, USA., pages 5:1–5:14, 2019.

[17] J. Nagy and P. P. Pach. The alon-jaeger-tarsi conjecture via group ring identities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03956, 2021.

[18] E. Naslund and W. Sawin. Upper bounds for sunﬂower-free sets. In Forum of Mathe- matics, Sigma, volume 5. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

[19] A. Rao. Coding for sunﬂowers. Discrete Analysis, 2020.

[20] A. A. Razborov. Bounded arithmetic and lower bounds in boolean complexity. In Feasible Mathematics II, pages 344–386. Springer, 1995.

[21] B. Rossman. The monotone complexity of k-clique on random graphs. SIAM J. Comput., 43(1):256–279, 2014.

[22] T. Tao. The sunﬂower lemma via shannon entropy. http://terrytao.wordpress.com /2020/07/20/the-sunflower-lemma-via-shannon-entropy, 2020.

[23] Y. Yu. The permanent rank of a matrix. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 85(2):237–242, 1999.