Paper detail

Dirac-type theorems in random hypergraphs

For positive integers $d<k$ and $n$ divisible by $k$, let $m_{d}(k,n)$ be the minimum $d$-degree ensuring the existence of a perfect matching in a $k$-uniform hypergraph. In the graph case (where $k=2$), a classical theorem of Dirac says that $m_{1}(2,n)=\lceil n/2\rceil$. However, in general, our understanding of the values of $m_{d}(k,n)$ is still very limited, and it is an active topic of research to determine or approximate these values. In this paper we prove a &#34;transference&#34; theorem for Dirac-type results relative to random hypergraphs. Specifically, for any $d< k$, any $\varepsilon>0$ and any &#34;not too small&#34; $p$, we prove that a random $k$-uniform hypergraph $G$ with $n$ vertices and edge probability $p$ typically has the property that every spanning subgraph of $G$ with minimum degree at least $(1+\varepsilon)m_{d}(k,n)p$ has a perfect matching. One interesting aspect of our proof is a &#34;non-constructive&#34; application of the absorbing method, which allows us to prove a bound in terms of $m_{d}(k,n)$ without actually knowing its value.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.