pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16216 · v1 · pith:DSHKI22Rnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🧮 math.NT · math.CO

Extensions of the Furstenberg-S\'ark\"ozy theorem via the arithmetic level-d inequality

Carlo Francisco E. Adajar , Rishika Agrawal , Mukul Rai Choudhuri , Chian Yeong Chuah , Steve Fan , Swaroop Hegde , Andrew Lott , Krishnamohan Nandakumar
show 1 more author
Nagendar Reddy Ponagandla
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 18:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NT math.CO
keywords Furstenberg-Sarkozy theoremintersective polynomialsarithmetic level-d inequalitydensity incrementexponential sumsquasipolynomial boundsadditive combinatorics
0
0 comments X

The pith

For any intersective polynomial h the largest subset of {1,...,X} without nonzero h(n) differences has a quasipolynomial upper bound on size.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper adapts the arithmetic level-d inequality of Green and Sawhney to prove a quasipolynomial upper bound for the maximal size of a subset of {1,2,...,X} whose differences avoid all nonzero values of a general intersective polynomial h in Z[x]. The central technical step is to run a density-increment iteration in which the underlying polynomial is allowed to change at each stage while still keeping the inequality effective. This produces the strongest quantitative version presently known for the Furstenberg-Sárközy theorem in the polynomial setting. A sympathetic reader cares because the result quantifies how rapidly sets must thin out to avoid structured differences of polynomial type.

Core claim

By showing that the arithmetic level-d inequality remains effective uniformly across the sequence of auxiliary polynomials generated by the density-increment iteration, the authors obtain a quasipolynomial upper bound on the size of the largest subset of {1,2,...,X} whose difference set contains no nonzero element of the form h(n) for an arbitrary intersective polynomial h.

What carries the argument

The arithmetic level-d inequality, which supplies a uniform density-increment bound even when the polynomial is updated at each step of the iteration.

If this is right

  • The quasipolynomial bound now holds for every fixed intersective polynomial rather than only for squares.
  • The iteration proceeds with a changing polynomial without losing the quasipolynomial gain at each step.
  • Smoothly weighted versions of Rice's exponential-sum estimates are available to support the argument.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The uniformity argument may extend to finite families of intersective polynomials or to multidimensional configurations.
  • Numerical verification for small X and low-degree polynomials could test how close the bound comes to being sharp.
  • The same uniformity technique might combine with other increment methods to handle still broader classes of configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The arithmetic level-d inequality remains effective uniformly across all auxiliary polynomials arising in the iteration.

What would settle it

An explicit construction of a subset A of {1,...,X} with |A| larger than the claimed quasipolynomial bound that still avoids all nonzero h(n) differences, or an auxiliary polynomial arising in the iteration for which the level-d inequality fails to produce a positive density increment.

read the original abstract

Very recently, Green and Sawhney obtained a quasipolynomial bound in the Furstenberg--S\'ark\"ozy theorem for square differences by proving an ''arithmetic level-$d$'' inequality, thereby yielding a greatly improved density increment scheme. We adapt their method to general intersective polynomials $h\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ and obtain an analogous quasipolynomial upper bound for the largest subset of $\{1,2,\dots,X\}$ whose difference set contains no nonzero element of the form $h(n)$ with $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. This is the best quantitative upper bound presently known for sets lacking intersective polynomial differences. In contrast to the square case, extending the method to general intersective polynomials requires performing a density increment iteration in which the underlying polynomial changes at each step; a key contribution of this paper is to show that the arithmetic level-$d$ inequality remains effective uniformly across all auxiliary polynomials arising in the iteration. We also develop smoothly weighted versions of the exponential sum estimates of Rice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper adapts Green and Sawhney's arithmetic level-d inequality to general intersective polynomials h ∈ ℤ[x]. It proves a quasipolynomial upper bound on the size of the largest subset of {1,…,X} whose difference set avoids nonzero values of h(n), via a density-increment iteration in which the underlying polynomial changes at each step. A central contribution is a uniformity statement ensuring the level-d inequality remains effective for all auxiliary polynomials generated during the iteration. The authors also establish smoothly weighted versions of Rice's exponential-sum estimates.

Significance. If the uniformity claim holds with explicit parameter dependence, the result supplies the strongest known quantitative bound for sets without intersective polynomial differences and demonstrates that the Green-Sawhney method extends beyond squares. The weighted exponential-sum estimates are likely to be reusable in other arithmetic-progression or polynomial-difference problems.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (Uniformity of the arithmetic level-d inequality): the argument must track the dependence of the implied constants on the degree, leading coefficient, and height of the current auxiliary polynomial explicitly. Without such tracking, it is unclear whether the density-increment threshold remains strong enough for the full iteration to close with a quasipolynomial bound rather than a tower-type loss.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 1.1] The statement of the main theorem should include the precise form of the quasipolynomial (e.g., X / (log log X)^c) rather than the generic phrase 'quasipolynomial upper bound'.
  2. [§5] Notation for the weighted exponential sums in §5 should be aligned with the unweighted versions introduced earlier to avoid reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of the uniformity argument.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Uniformity of the arithmetic level-d inequality): the argument must track the dependence of the implied constants on the degree, leading coefficient, and height of the current auxiliary polynomial explicitly. Without such tracking, it is unclear whether the density-increment threshold remains strong enough for the full iteration to close with a quasipolynomial bound rather than a tower-type loss.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The uniformity statement in Section 3 is formulated so that the arithmetic level-d inequality holds for each auxiliary polynomial arising in the iteration, with the implied constants depending on its degree, leading coefficient, and height. To make this fully explicit and confirm that the density-increment thresholds yield only quasipolynomial losses overall, we will revise the manuscript to record the precise functional dependence of all constants on these parameters throughout the iteration analysis. This will verify that no tower-type losses are introduced, consistent with the claimed quasipolynomial bound. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; extends external Green-Sawhney result via independent uniformity argument

full rationale

The derivation adapts the arithmetic level-d inequality from Green and Sawhney (distinct external authors) and proves a new uniformity statement across the auxiliary polynomials that arise during density-increment iteration. This uniformity is explicitly flagged as the paper's key contribution and is not obtained by fitting parameters to the target bound or by self-referential definition. No equations reduce the claimed quasipolynomial bound to a tautology or to a self-citation chain; the iteration closes because the constants are tracked independently of the final result. The paper is therefore self-contained against the external benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the arithmetic level-d inequality from Green and Sawhney together with the standard definition that h is intersective.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption h is an intersective polynomial: h(Z) intersects every arithmetic progression.
    This is the class of polynomials to which the theorem applies, stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5756 in / 1194 out tokens · 74793 ms · 2026-05-19T18:27:12.380056+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arala,A maximal extension of the Bloom–Maynard bound for sets without square differences, Funct

    N. Arala,A maximal extension of the Bloom–Maynard bound for sets without square differences, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. (2)71(2024), 271–296

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Balog, J

    A. Balog, J. Pelik´ an, J. Pintz, and E. Szemer´ edi,Difference sets withoutκth powers, Acta Math. Hungar. 65(1994), 165–187

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    T. F. Bloom and J. Maynard,A new upper bound for sets with no square differences, Compos. Math. 158(2022), 1777–1798

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Davenport,Analytic methods for diophantine equations and diophantine inequalities, 2nd ed., Cam- bridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    H. Davenport,Analytic methods for diophantine equations and diophantine inequalities, 2nd ed., Cam- bridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Doyle, J

    R. Doyle, J. and A. Rice,Multivariate polynomial values in difference sets, Discrete Anal. (2021), no. 11, 46 pp

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    64, 33 pp

    ,The Furstenberg–S´ ark¨ ozy theorem for polynomials in one or more prime variables, Ramanujan J.67(2025), no. 64, 33 pp

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Erd´ elyi, A

    T. Erd´ elyi, A. Kro´ o, and J. Szabados,Markov–bernstein type inequalities on compact subsets ofR, Anal. Math.26(2000), no. 1, 17–34

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Furstenberg,Ergodic behavior of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemer´ edi on arithmetic progressions, J

    H. Furstenberg,Ergodic behavior of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemer´ edi on arithmetic progressions, J. Analyse Math.31(1977), 204–256

    work page 1977

  9. [10]

    ,New bounds for the Furstenberg–S´ ark¨ ozy theorem, 2025, arXiv version 2, arXiv:2411.17448v2. 33

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [11]

    Hamel, N

    M. Hamel, N. Lyall, and A. Rice,Improved bounds on S´ ark¨ ozy’s theorem for quadratic polynomials, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2013), 1761–1782

    work page 2013

  11. [12]

    Kamae and M

    T. Kamae and M. Mend` es France,Van der Corput’s difference theorem, Israel J. Math.31(1978), 335–342

    work page 1978

  12. [13]

    Keevash, N

    P. Keevash, N. Lifshitz, E. Long, and D. Minzer,Hypercontractivity for global functions and sharp thresholds, J. Amer. Math. Soc.37(2024), 245–279

    work page 2024

  13. [14]

    Keller, N

    N. Keller, N. Lifshitz, and O. Marcus,Sharp hypercontractivity for global functions, 2023, arXiv:2307.01356. To appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [15]

    T. H. Lˆ e,Problems and results on intersective sets, Combinatorial and additive number theory—CANT 2011 and 2012, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., vol. 101, Springer, New York, 2014, pp. 115–128

    work page 2011

  15. [16]

    Lewko,An improved lower bound related to the Furstenberg–S´ ark¨ ozy theorem, Electron

    M. Lewko,An improved lower bound related to the Furstenberg–S´ ark¨ ozy theorem, Electron. J. Combin. 22(2015), Paper 1.32, 6 pp

    work page 2015

  16. [17]

    Lucier,Intersective sets given by a polynomial, Acta Arith.123(2006), 57–95

    J. Lucier,Intersective sets given by a polynomial, Acta Arith.123(2006), 57–95

    work page 2006

  17. [18]

    Hungar.120(2008), 79–102

    ,Difference sets and shifted primes, Acta Math. Hungar.120(2008), 79–102

    work page 2008

  18. [19]

    Pintz, W

    J. Pintz, W. Steiger, and E. Szemer´ edi,On sets of natural numbers whose difference set contains no squares, J. London Math. Soc. (2)37(1988), 219–231

    work page 1988

  19. [20]

    Rice,Improvements and extensions of two theorems of S´ ark¨ ozy, Ph.D

    A. Rice,Improvements and extensions of two theorems of S´ ark¨ ozy, Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia, 2012

    work page 2012

  20. [21]

    187(2019), 1–41

    ,A maximal extension of the best-known bounds for the Furstenberg–S´ ark¨ ozy theorem, Acta Arith. 187(2019), 1–41

    work page 2019

  21. [22]

    I. Z. Ruzsa,Difference sets without squares, Period. Math. Hungar.15(1984), 205–209

    work page 1984

  22. [23]

    S´ ark¨ ozy,On difference sets of sequences of integers

    A. S´ ark¨ ozy,On difference sets of sequences of integers. I, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.31(1978), 125–149

    work page 1978

  23. [24]

    ,On difference sets of sequences of integers. II, Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. E¨ otv¨ os Sect. Math.21 (1978), 45–53

    work page 1978

  24. [25]

    Wessel,An algebraic interpretation of the polynomial Szemer´ edi theorem, 2020, Bachelor Thesis

    M. Wessel,An algebraic interpretation of the polynomial Szemer´ edi theorem, 2020, Bachelor Thesis

    work page 2020

  25. [26]

    Younis,Lower bounds in the polynomial Szemer´ edi theorem, arXiv preprint, 2019, arXiv.1908.06058

    K. Younis,Lower bounds in the polynomial Szemer´ edi theorem, arXiv preprint, 2019, arXiv.1908.06058. 34

    work page arXiv 2019