A congruence argument shows Roman's bound is not tight on a long interval below the design threshold, with exact values in a special case.
Exact values for unbalanced Zarankiewicz numbers
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
For positive integers $s$, $t$, $m$ and $n$, the Zarankiewicz number $Z_{s,t}(m,n)$ is defined to be the maximum number of edges in a bipartite graph with parts of sizes $m$ and $n$ that has no complete biparitite subgraph containing $s$ vertices in the part of size $m$ and $t$ vertices in the part of size $n$. A simple argument shows that, for each $t \geq 2$, $Z_{2,t}(m,n)=(t-1)\binom{m}{2}+n$ when $n \geq (t-1)\binom{m}{2}$. Here, for large $m$, we determine the exact value of $Z_{2,t}(m,n)$ in almost all of the remaining cases where $n=\Theta(tm^2)$. We establish a new family of upper bounds on $Z_{2,t}(m,n)$ which complement a family already obtained by Roman. We then prove that the floor of the best of these bounds is almost always achieved. We also show that there are cases in which this floor cannot be achieved and others in which determining whether it is achieved is likely a very hard problem. Our results are proved by viewing the problem through the lens of linear hypergraphs and our constructions make use of existing results on edge decompositions of dense graphs.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
math.CO 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
A congruence obstruction to Roman's bound for Zarankiewicz numbers
A congruence argument shows Roman's bound is not tight on a long interval below the design threshold, with exact values in a special case.