REVIEW 1 cited by
The existence of designs via iterative absorption: hypergraph $F$-designs for arbitrary $F$
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We solve the existence problem for $F$-designs for arbitrary $r$-uniform hypergraphs~$F$. This implies that given any $r$-uniform hypergraph~$F$, the trivially necessary divisibility conditions are sufficient to guarantee a decomposition of any sufficiently large complete $r$-uniform hypergraph into edge-disjoint copies of~$F$, which answers a question asked e.g.~by Keevash. The graph case $r=2$ was proved by Wilson in 1975 and forms one of the cornerstones of design theory. The case when~$F$ is complete corresponds to the existence of block designs, a problem going back to the 19th century, which was recently settled by Keevash. In particular, our argument provides a new proof of the existence of block designs, based on iterative absorption (which employs purely probabilistic and combinatorial methods). Our main result concerns decompositions of hypergraphs whose clique distribution fulfills certain regularity constraints. Our argument allows us to employ a `regularity boosting' process which frequently enables us to satisfy these constraints even if the clique distribution of the original hypergraph does not satisfy them. This enables us to go significantly beyond the setting of quasirandom hypergraphs considered by Keevash. In particular, we obtain a resilience version and a decomposition result for hypergraphs of large minimum degree.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.