English

Uniform set systems with small VC-dimension

Combinatorics 2026-04-21 v2

Abstract

We investigate the longstanding problem of determining the maximum size of a (d+1)(d+1)-uniform set system with VC-dimension at most dd. Since the seminal 1984 work of Frankl and Pach, which established the elegant upper bound (nd)\binom{n}{d}, this question has resisted significant progress. The best-known lower bound is (n1d)+(n4d2)\binom{n-1}{d} + \binom{n-4}{d-2}, obtained by Ahlswede and Khachatrian, leaving a substantial gap of (n1d1)(n4d2)\binom{n-1}{d-1}-\binom{n-4}{d-2}. Despite decades of effort, improvements to the Frankl--Pach bound have been incremental at best: Mubayi and Zhao introduced an Ωd(logn)\Omega_d(\log{n}) improvement for prime powers dd, while Ge, Xu, Yip, Zhang, and Zhao achieved a gain of 1 for general dd. In this work, we provide a purely combinatorial approach that significantly sharpens the Frankl--Pach upper bound. Specifically, for large nn, we demonstrate that the Frankl--Pach bound can be improved to (nd)(n1d1)+Od(nd114d2)=(n1d)+Od(nd114d2)\binom{n}{d} - \binom{n-1}{d-1} + O_d(n^{d-1 - \frac{1}{4d-2}})=\binom{n-1}{d}+O_d(n^{d-1 - \frac{1}{4d-2}}). This result completely removes the main term (n1d1)\binom{n-1}{d-1} from the previous gap between the known lower and upper bounds. It also offers fresh insights into the combinatorial structure of uniform set systems with small VC-dimension. In addition, the original Erd\H{o}s--Frankl--Pach conjecture, which sought to generalize the EKR theorem in the 1980s, has been disproven. We propose a new refined conjecture that might establish a sturdier bridge between VC-dimension and the EKR theorem, and we verify several specific cases of this conjecture, which is of independent interest.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2501.13850,
  title  = {Uniform set systems with small VC-dimension},
  author = {Ting-Wei Chao and Zixiang Xu and Chi Hoi Yip and Shengtong Zhang},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13850},
  year   = {2026}
}

Comments

25 pages. In the previous version, the proof of equation (3) had a minor flaw (which did not affect the validity of (3)), and we have corrected it

R2 v1 2026-06-28T21:15:08.351Z