Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric $2$-designs and exceptional groups of Lie type

Jianbing Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric $2$-designs and exceptional groups of Lie type

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that no finite simple exceptional group of Lie type can occur as the socle of a flag-transitive point-primitive automorphism group of a non-trivial quasi-symmetric 2-design whose two block intersection numbers are 0 and…

desk verdict Real new step on excluding exceptional socles, but the parabolic elimination rests on an unproved p-part bound that the referee must pin down. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10266 v1 pith:F2KVMK2V submitted 2025-06-12 math.CO

Jianbing Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CO MSC 05B0520B1520B25

keywords quasi-symmetric2-designflag-transitivepoint-primitiveautomorphismgroupexceptionalofLietypeblockintersectionnumbers

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Quasi-symmetric $2$-designs are incidence structures in which every pair of points lies in the same number $\lambda$ of blocks and any two blocks meet in one of two fixed numbers; the paper treats the case where those numbers are $0$ and some $y$ between $2$ and $10$. The main theorem states that if such a design is non-trivial and admits an automorphism group that is both flag-transitive and point-primitive, then the socle (the simple group generated by the minimal normal subgroups) of that group cannot be a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type. This matters because a prior reduction had shown such groups must be affine or almost simple, so the theorem removes one entire family from the classification search. With earlier companion results, the only remaining non-classical possibilities are two sporadic designs, one with automorphism group $M_{11}$ and one with $M_{22}$ or $M_{22}{:}2$. For the slightly wider range $y \le 10$, the only possible exceptional socle would be ${}^2G_2(q)$ with $q=3^{2n+1}$, realized by a Ree unital.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is a pair of arithmetical inequalities connecting group-theoretic divisibility to design parameters. Lemma 2.3(v) gives $(y-1) r^2/\lambda^2 < v-1 < 2(y-1) r^2/\lambda^2$, hence $v \le 2(y-1) r^2/(r,\lambda)^2$, while Lemma 2.2(ii)-(iii) give $r \mid \lambda(v-1, |G_\alpha|)$ and $r/(r,\lambda) \mid (v-1,d)$ for every non-trivial subdegree $d$. These convert the size of the point stabilizer and its subdegrees into hard upper bounds on $v$. For parabolic stabilizers, Lemma 2.7 supplies a unique subdegree that is a power of the defining prime $p$, and the paper uses the bound $(v-1)_p \le 2q$ for all parabolic subgroups to reach $v \le 72q^2$. For non-parabolic stabilizers, polynomial gcd computations over the rationals bound $(v-1, |G_\alpha|)$ by an explicit polynomial $h(q)$, and the same $v$-inequality leaves only finitely many $q$ to test.

What would settle it

Find one non-trivial quasi-symmetric $2$-design with block intersection numbers $x=0$ and $2 \le y \le 10$ admitting a flag-transitive point-primitive automorphism group whose socle is a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type. Short of a full design, a direct computation of $(v-1)_p$ for the maximal parabolic subgroups of a small exceptional group such as $G_2(q)$, ${}^3D_4(q)$, or $F_4(q)$ that yields a value larger than $2q$ would show the key bound in Lemma 3.8 to be false, reopening the parabolic cases.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is Theorem 1.1: for a non-trivial quasi-symmetric $2$-design $\mathcal{D}$ with block intersection numbers $x=0$ and $2 \le y \le 10$, if $G \le \mathrm{Aut}(\mathcal{D})$ is flag-transitive and point-primitive, then the socle of $G$ cannot be a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type. The proof proceeds by showing the point stabilizer $H = G_\alpha$ is a large maximal subgroup, then invoking the classification of large maximal subgroups of almost simple exceptional groups of Lie type. Non-parabolic candidates are eliminated by combining divisibility relations on the design parameters with polynomial gcd computations that force the number $v$ of points to exceed the bound $v \le 2(y-1)(r/(r,\lambda))^2$. Parabolic candidates are eliminated using a unique subdegree that is a power of the defining prime $p$, together with the bound $(v-1)_p \le 2q$, which yields $v \le 72q^2$ and then a direct check of the remaining small $q$. As a corollary, if the socle is not classical, only the two listed sporadic designs remain in the $2 \le y \le 10$ range, and in the wider $y \le 10$ range any exceptional socle would force a Ree unital with ${}^2G_2(q)$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the unproved bound that the $p$-part of $v-1$ is at most $2q$ for every parabolic subgroup of an exceptional group of Lie type; if that bound fails for some parabolic, the derivation of $v \le 72q^2$—and with it the exclusion of that family—collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the theorem is right, the classification of flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric $2$-designs with $x=0$ and $2 \le y \le 10$ is reduced to the classical groups, since the alternating and sporadic socles were already treated in prior work.
As a direct corollary, outside the classical groups the only designs in the $2 \le y \le 10$ range are the unique 2-(12,6,5) design with automorphism group $M_{11}$ and the unique 2-(22,6,5) design with $M_{22}$ or $M_{22}{:}2$.
For the larger range $y \le 10$, any design with an exceptional Lie-type socle must be a Ree unital with socle ${}^2G_2(q)$, $q = 3^{2n+1}$.
The proof supplies explicit polynomial bounds on the number of points $v$ for each candidate stabilizer, for instance $v \le 72q^2$ for parabolic stabilizers; these bounds can be reused in nearby classification problems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A concrete check that could settle the missing Lemma 3.8 bound is to compute the exact $p$-parts $(v-1)_p$ for the maximal parabolic subgroups of each exceptional group; this would either supply the missing proof or identify the families needing separate treatment.
The same inequality chain—Lemma 2.3(v) together with subdegree divisibility—does not use the exceptional Lie-type structure beyond the subgroup and subdegree data, so the computational pattern should transfer to the remaining classical groups once those data are tabulated.
The paper's funneling of all $y \le 10$ exceptional examples into the Ree unital family suggests that if any exceptional example exists for larger $y$, it would have to appear outside this heavily constrained regime, where the intersection-number bounds weaken.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Jianbing Lu's paper excludes exceptional simple groups of Lie type as socles of flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric 2-designs with intersection numbers 0 and y between 2 and 10. That is a real step forward: his earlier paper [26] explicitly left these socles open, and this closes that family, leaving only affine and almost simple classical groups. The strategy is sound: combine the dichotomy from [26], the classification of large maximal subgroups from [3], and then use divisibility conditions (Lemmas 2.2–2.3) to bound the parameter space. The suborbit analysis for G2(q) with A2^±(q) in Lemma 3.5 is careful and convincing, and I appreciate that the author shows the actual Magma computation for one case (Example 3.2) so the method is transparent.

The soft spots are real but localized. The biggest is Lemma 3.8, where the proof asserts without argument that (v−1)_p ≤ 2q for every parabolic subgroup of every non-excluded exceptional group, and uses that to get the key inequality v ≤ 72q^2. That bound is load-bearing: without it, the chain in (3.8) collapses and the parabolic families are not eliminated. I checked a couple of parabolics myself; the bound happens to hold there, but it is stated for all of F4, E7, E8, 3D4, and 2F4, and no proof or citation is provided. A referee should demand a proof or a reference for this bound, or a case-by-case verification with code.

The second concern is the reliance on Magma without shipping code or tables. The paper says 'computation shows' frequently, and while Example 3.2 provides a template, many claims such as 'this inequality holds only for q≤9' and 'we can eliminate this case' are not independently checkable from the text. This is not a fatal flaw, but it makes verification hard. Finally, a few subcases are dismissed with 'we omit the details' (e.g., E6(q) with P3). That's acceptable in a paper of this type if the omitted details are truly mechanical, but the referee should ask for a supplement or for those cases to be worked out.

Overall, the mathematical core is plausible and the result is new. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require justification of Lemma 3.8 and reproducible computations before publication. If those are supplied, I'd be happy to see this in Discrete Math or similar; as is, it's a conditional accept.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.1: no non-trivial quasi-symmetric 2-design with block intersection numbers x=0 and 2≤y≤10 admits a flag-transitive, point-primitive automorphism group whose socle is a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type. The proof combines the author's earlier reduction to affine or almost simple groups [26], the classification of large maximal subgroups of almost simple exceptional groups (Lemma 2.5, based on [3]), and a case-by-case argument using the arithmetic conditions of Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, supplemented by extensive Magma computations for gcd bounds and parameter searches.

Significance. If the proof is completed and the computations are made fully verifiable, the result is a meaningful step in the programme of classifying flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric designs: together with [26], it leaves only classical socles open. The overall strategy is standard and the negative conclusion is plausible. The paper's value is contingent on the missing justifications described below, because the current text does not allow a reader to verify critical bounds or the claimed computational exclusions.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Lemma 3.8] The assertion that (v−1)_p ≤ 2q for all parabolic subgroups (with equality only when q=2^f) is stated without proof or citation. This bound is load-bearing: it is the only step that converts Lemma 2.2(iii) and Lemma 2.3(v) into inequality (3.8), v ≤ 72q^2, which eliminates every parabolic stabilizer for X≠E6(q). Without this bound, v ≤ 18·(v−1,d)^2 is not enough to rule out these families. Please supply a proof or a precise reference for this p-part bound, and give the resulting small-q verification explicitly for each family.
[Section 3.1 and Lemmas 3.4, 3.8] The many 'computation in Magma shows' claims are not reproducible. For example, in Lemma 3.4 the claims that inequality (3.7) holds only for a few small q and that all remaining candidate pairs are then excluded are not accompanied by any table, script, or list of surviving q values; Lemma 3.8 refers to 'the final computation process in Lemma 3.4' without giving that process. Please provide the Magma code (or an equivalent exhaustive description) and the exact output used for each case, including the gcd bounds, the small q values, and the parameter search results.
[Section 3.3, Lemma 3.8, E6 paragraph] The treatment of E6(q) parabolic stabilizers is incomplete. The paragraph handles P1, P3, and P2/P4 only under the assumption that G contains a graph automorphism; it does not mention P5 and P6, nor the possibility that G has no graph automorphism and H∩X is P2 or P4. Since P6 and P5 are not conjugate to P1 and P2 in the absence of a graph automorphism, these subcases need a separate argument. The P3 case is dismissed with 'we omit the details'; this should be written out or the computation provided.
[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.5] The divisibility claims for r/(r,λ) are not fully justified. The subdegrees of Ω(7,q) are quoted as 'q^6−1, 1/2 q^2(q^3−ε) and 1/2(q−3) times q^2(q^3−ε)', where the third expression appears garbled and the notation is ambiguous. More importantly, the argument that r/(r,λ) divides 1/2(q^3−ε) for q odd needs to explain explicitly which subdegree is coprime to v−1 and how the divisibility of r/(r,λ) by (v−1,d) is applied. Please rewrite this step cleanly.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3.3, Lemma 3.7] In the a=9 case, the displayed expression 'r= q2m/9' should be 'r= q^3 m/9' (the cube on q is missing).
[Section 3.1, Example 3.3] The text 'G 2(2) is not a simple group' contains a typo; it should read 'G2(2)'.
[References] Reference [11] lists the title with 'E 4(q)'; this should presumably be 'E6(q)'.
[Section 3.3, Lemma 3.8] The parenthetical 'with the equality holding only when q=2^f' is unclear because the equality case is not used later; either remove it or explain its role.
[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.5] The expression '1/2(q−3) times q^2(q^3−ε)' should be written unambiguously as a single subdegree, for example (q−3)q^2(q^3−ε)/2, and the integrality conditions should be stated.
[Section 2.2, Lemma 2.7] Lemma 2.7 is cited to [24, 3.9]; since [24] is a paper on overgroups of irreducible subgroups of classical groups, please verify that this is the correct source and state the lemma precisely as used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the exceptional-socle exclusion is derived from external subgroup results and design equations; the unproved p-part bound in Lemma 3.8 is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

Theorem 1.1 is proved directly under Hypothesis 3.1, with X a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type. The argument uses Lemma 2.2(i) to obtain maximality of the point stabilizer, Lemma 2.5 from the external paper [3] to enumerate large maximal subgroups, and Lemma 2.3(v) together with Lemma 2.2(ii)(iii) to bound v and r/(r,λ). The case analysis in Lemmas 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 then eliminates each stabilizer type without assuming the conclusion of the theorem. Citations to the author's prior work [26] supply context, the affine-versus-almost-simple dichotomy (which is not actually needed once the socle is assumed to be exceptional, since a nonabelian simple socle forces almost simplicity), and the parameter-search routine; none of these is a premise whose content is the target exclusion. There is therefore no step in which a prediction or conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction. The one substantive concern is Lemma 3.8, where the proof states without proof or citation: 'Moreover, we have (v−1)_p ≤ 2q for all parabolic subgroups, with the equality holding only when q = 2^f.' This bound is load-bearing for inequality (3.8) and the uniform parabolic elimination; if it fails for some parabolic family, that part of the exclusion is incomplete. However, an unsupported assertion is a gap or a correctness risk, not circularity: it is not a fitted value renamed as a prediction, nor a result derived from its own conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is low, with no specific circular step identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof introduces no fitted constants or new entities. It rests on the prior dichotomy theorem [26], the classification of large maximal subgroups of exceptional groups [3], and a set of Magma computations that are described but not shipped.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Classification of finite simple groups (CFSG)
Underpins the dichotomy of flag-transitive point-primitive groups into affine or almost simple type (from [26]) and the classification of large subgroups [5,3]. Used throughout the proof.
domain assumption Large maximal subgroups of almost simple exceptional groups, [3, Theorem 1.2]
Provides the exhaustive list in Lemma 2.5/Table 1 used to enumerate all possible non-parabolic point stabilizers.
domain assumption Maximal subgroup structure tables for exceptional groups (e.g., [7,11,12,27,38])
Used to compute the indices v=|G|/|G_alpha| for the candidate pairs in Table 1.
domain assumption Lemma 2.7 from [24]: a unique subdegree is a power of p for parabolic actions
Used in Lemma 3.8 to identify a subdegree d with p-part of (v-1).
ad hoc to paper Bound (v-1)_p <= 2q for all parabolic subgroups
Stated without proof or citation in Lemma 3.8; essential for deriving v <= 72 q^2 and eliminating parabolic cases.
ad hoc to paper Magma computations are correct and exhaustively cover the indicated cases
Used in Section 3.1 and 3.2 to bound q and to rule out design parameters; no code or detailed outputs are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric $2$-designs and exceptional groups of Lie type." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2KVMK2V

@misc{pith2026250610266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric $2$-designs and exceptional groups of Lie type},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2KVMK2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10266}
}

abstract

Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a non-trivial quasi-symmetric $2$-design with two block intersection numbers $x=0$ and $2\leq y\leq10$, and suppose that $G$ is an automorphism group of $\mathcal{D}$. If $G$ is flag-transitive and point-primitive, then it is known that $G$ is either of affine type or almost simple type. In this paper, we show that the socle of $G$ cannot be a finite simple exceptional group of Lie type.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[26]

J. B. Lu, Y. Zhuang, Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric2-designs with block intersection numbers0and y≤10,Discrete Math.348(5) (2025) 114398

work page 2025
[3]

S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Finite exceptional groups of Lie type and symmetric designs,Discrete Math. 345(8) (2022) Paper No. 112894

work page 2022
[1]

S. H. Alavi, Almost simple groups as flag-transitive automorphism groups of2-designs withλ= 2, 2023, arXiv: 2307.05195v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[2]

S. H. Alavi, Flag-transitive block designs and finite exceptional simple groups of Lie type,Graphs and Combin.36(4) (2020) 1001–1014

work page 2020
[4]

S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, M. Tadbirinia, Classical groups as flag-transitive automorphism groups of 2-designs withλ= 2,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A206 (2024) 105892

work page 2024
[5]

S. H. Alavi, T. C. Burness, Large subgroups of simple groups,J. Algebra421 (2015) 187–233

work page 2015
[6]

Bosma, J

W. Bosma, J. Cannon, C. Fieker, A. Steel,Handbook of Magma Functions, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

J. N. Bray, D. F. Holt, C. M. Roney-Dougal,The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 407. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 40 references

[8]

Buekenhout, A

F. Buekenhout, A. Delandtsheer, J. Doyen, Finite linear spaces with flag-transitive group,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 49(2) (1988) 268–293

1988
[9]

Buekenhout, A

F. Buekenhout, A. Delandtsheer, J. Doyen, P. B. Kleidman, M. W. Liebeck, J. Saxl, Linear spaces with flag-transitive automorphism groups,Geom. Dedicata.36(1) (1990) 89–94

1990
[10]

C. J. Colburn, J. H. Dinitz,The CRC Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, CRC Press, 2006

2006
[11]

D. A. Craven, The maximal subgroups of the exceptional groupsF4(q),E 4(q)and 2E6(q)and related almost simple groups,Invent. Math.234(2) (2023) 637–719

2023
[12]

D. A. Craven, On the maximal subgroups ofE7(q)and related almost simple groups, 2022, arXiv: 2201.07081

2022 arXiv
[13]

Delandtsheer, Flag-transitive finite simple groups,Arch

A. Delandtsheer, Flag-transitive finite simple groups,Arch. Math.47(5) (1986) 395–400

1986
[14]

Deviller, H

A. Deviller, H. X. Liang, C. E. Praeger, B. Z. Xia, On flag-transitive2-(v, k,2)designs,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 177 (2021) 105309

2021
[15]

J. D. Dixon, B. Mortimer,Permutation Groups, Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 163, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996

1996
[16]

D. G. Higman, J. E. McLaughlin, Geometric ABA-groups,Illinois J. Math.5 (1961) 382–397

1961
[17]

P. B. Kleidman, The finite flag-transitive linear spaces with an exceptional automorphism group, InFinite geometries and combinatorial designs (Lincoln, NE, 1987), volume 111 of Contemp. Math., pages 117–136. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1990

1987
[18]

P. B. Kleidman, M. W. Liebeck,The Subgroup Structure of the Finite Classical Groups, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 129, Cambridge University Press, 1990

1990
[19]

H. L. Li, Z. L. Zhang, S. L. Zhou Flag-transitive automorphism groups of 2-designs withλ≥(r, λ)2 are not product type,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A208 (2024) 105923

2024
[20]

H. X. Liang, A. Montinaro, A Classification of the flag-transitive2-(v, k,2)designs,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A211 (2025) 105983

2025
[21]

H. X. Liang, S. L. Zhou, Flag-transitive point-primitive automorphism groups of non-symmetric2-(v, k,2)designs,J. Combin. Des.24(9) (2016) 412–435

2016
[22]

H. X. Liang, S. L. Zhou, Flag-transitive point-primitive non-symmetric2-(v, k,2)designs with alternating socle,Bull. Belg. Math. Soc.23 (2016) 559–571

2016
[23]

M. W. Liebeck, J. Saxl, The finite primitive permutation groups of rank three,Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.18(2) 1986 165–172. 11

1986
[24]

M. W. Liebeck, J. Saxl, G. M. Seitz, On the overgroups of irreducible subgroups of the finite classical groups,Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.50(3) (1987) 507–537,

1987
[25]

M. W. Liebeck, J. Saxl, G. M. Seitz, Subgroups of maximal rank in finite exceptional groups of Lie type,Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.65(2) (1992) 297–325

1992
[27]

Malle, The maximal subgroups of2F4(q2),J

G. Malle, The maximal subgroups of2F4(q2),J. Algebra139 (1991) 52–69

1991
[28]

Montinaro, A classification of flag-transitive2-(v, k, λ)designs withλ|k.J

A. Montinaro, A classification of flag-transitive2-(v, k, λ)designs withλ|k.J. Combin. Theory Ser. A197 (2023) 105750

2023
[29]

Montinaro, On the symmetric2-(v, k, λ)designs with a flag-transitive point-imprimitive automorphism group,J

A. Montinaro, On the symmetric2-(v, k, λ)designs with a flag-transitive point-imprimitive automorphism group,J. Algebra653 (2024) 54–101

2024
[30]

Neumaier, Regular sets and quasi-symmetric2-designs,in: Combinatorial Theory (Schloss Rauischholzhausen, 1982),in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol

A. Neumaier, Regular sets and quasi-symmetric2-designs,in: Combinatorial Theory (Schloss Rauischholzhausen, 1982),in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 969, Springer, 1982, pp. 258–275

1982
[31]

O’Reilly Regueiro, On primitivity and reduction for flag-transitive symmetric designs,J

E. O’Reilly Regueiro, On primitivity and reduction for flag-transitive symmetric designs,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 109(1) (2005) 135–148

2005
[32]

O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with alternating or sporadic socle,Eur

E. O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with alternating or sporadic socle,Eur. J. Comb.26 (2005) 577–584

2005
[33]

O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with classical socle, J

E. O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with classical socle, J. Algebraic Comb.26 (2007) 529–552

2007
[34]

O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with exceptional socle, J

E. O’Reilly Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with exceptional socle, J. Algebraic Comb.27 (2008) 479–491

2008
[35]

Saxl, On finite linear spaces with almost simple flag-transitive automorphism groups,J

J. Saxl, On finite linear spaces with almost simple flag-transitive automorphism groups,J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A100 (2002) 322–348

2002
[36]

S. S. Shrikhande, On the dual of some balanced incomplete block designs,Biometrics8 (1952) 66–72

1952
[37]

M. S. Shrikhande, S. S. Sane,Quasi-Symmetric Design, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 164, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991

1991
[38]

R. A. Wilson,The Finite Simple Groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 251, Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London, 2009

2009
[39]

Y. L. Zhang, S. L. Zhou, Flag-transitive non-symmetric2-designs with(r, λ) = 1and exceptional groups of Lie type, Elec. J. Combin.27(2) (2020) P2.9

2020
[40]

W. B. Zhang, S. L. Zhou, Flag-transitive quasi-symmetric designs with block intersection numbers0and2,J. Algebra Appl.22(4) (2023) Paper No. 2350093, 11. 12

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [26]

J. B. Lu, Y. Zhuang, Flag-transitive point-primitive quasi-symmetric2-designs with block intersection numbers0and y≤10,Discrete Math.348(5) (2025) 114398

work page 2025

[2] [3]

S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Finite exceptional groups of Lie type and symmetric designs,Discrete Math. 345(8) (2022) Paper No. 112894

work page 2022

[3] [1]

S. H. Alavi, Almost simple groups as flag-transitive automorphism groups of2-designs withλ= 2, 2023, arXiv: 2307.05195v2

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[4] [2]

S. H. Alavi, Flag-transitive block designs and finite exceptional simple groups of Lie type,Graphs and Combin.36(4) (2020) 1001–1014

work page 2020

[5] [4]

S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, M. Tadbirinia, Classical groups as flag-transitive automorphism groups of 2-designs withλ= 2,J. Combin. Theory Ser. A206 (2024) 105892

work page 2024

[6] [5]

S. H. Alavi, T. C. Burness, Large subgroups of simple groups,J. Algebra421 (2015) 187–233

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Bosma, J

W. Bosma, J. Cannon, C. Fieker, A. Steel,Handbook of Magma Functions, 2017

work page 2017

[8] [7]

J. N. Bray, D. F. Holt, C. M. Roney-Dougal,The Maximal Subgroups of the Low-Dimensional Finite Classical Groups, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, 407. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

work page 2013