Upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in projective planes and spaces of even dimension
Daniele Bartoli, Alexander Davydov, Massimo Giulietti, Stefano, Marcugini, and Fernanda Pambianco

TL;DR
This paper establishes new upper bounds on the minimal size of saturating sets in projective planes and spaces of even dimension, applicable to all q, and connects these bounds to linear covering codes.
Contribution
It provides the first general upper bounds for saturating sets in projective planes of any order and extends these results to higher-dimensional projective spaces using inductive methods.
Findings
Upper bound for saturating sets in projective planes: s(2,q) ≤ sqrt((q+1)(3ln q + ln ln q + ln(3/4))) + sqrt(q/(3ln q)) + 3.
Bounds are valid for all q, not just large q.
Results are expressed in terms of linear covering codes.
Abstract
In a projective plane (not necessarily Desarguesian) of order , a point subset is saturating (or dense) if any point of is collinear with two points in . Modifying an approach of [31], we proved the following upper bound on the smallest size of a saturating set in : \begin{equation*} s(2,q)\leq \sqrt{(q+1)\left(3\ln q+\ln\ln q +\ln\frac{3}{4}\right)}+\sqrt{\frac{q}{3\ln q}}+3. \end{equation*} The bound holds for all q, not necessarily large. By using inductive constructions, upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in the projective space with even dimension are obtained. All the results are also stated in terms of linear covering codes.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCoding theory and cryptography · Finite Group Theory Research · graph theory and CDMA systems
Upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in
projective planes and spaces of even dimension††thanks: The research of D. Bartoli, M. Giulietti, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco was supported in part by Ministry for Education, University and Research of Italy (MIUR) (Project “Geometrie di Galois e strutture di incidenza”) and by the Italian National Group for Algebraic and Geometric Structures and their Applications (GNSAGA - INDAM). The research of A.A. Davydov was carried out at the IITP RAS at the expense of the Russian Foundation for Sciences (project 14-50-00150).
Abstract
In a projective plane (not necessarily Desarguesian) of order a point subset is saturating (or dense) if any point of is collinear with two points in. Modifying an approach of [31], we proved the following upper bound on the smallest size of a saturating set in :
[TABLE]
The bound holds for all , not necessarily large.
By using inductive constructions, upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in the projective space with even dimension are obtained.
All the results are also stated in terms of linear covering codes.
Daniele Bartoli
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Perugia
Perugia, 06123, Italy
E-mail address: [email protected]
Alexander A. Davydov
Institute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich institute)
Russian Academy of Sciences
GSP-4, Moscow, 127994, Russian Federation
E-mail address: [email protected]
Massimo Giulietti, Stefano Marcugini, Fernanda Pambianco
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Perugia
Perugia, 06123, Italy
E-mail address: massimo.giulietti, stefano.marcugini, [email protected]
1 Introduction
We denote by a projective plane (not necessarily Desarguesian) of order and by the projective plane over the Galois field with elements.
Definition 1.1**.**
A point set is saturating if any point of is collinear with two points in .
Saturating sets are considered, for example, in [1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34]; see also the references therein. It should be noted that saturating sets are also called “saturated sets” [12, 13, 25, 28, 34], “spanning sets” [10], “dense sets” [1, 8, 20, 21, 22, 24], and “1-saturating sets” [14, 15, 16, 17, 18].
A particular kind of saturating sets in a projective plane is complete arcs. An arc is a set of points no three of which are collinear. An arc is said to be complete if it cannot be extended to a large arc; see [4, 5, 6, 20, 23, 26] and the references therein.
The homogeneous coordinates of the points of a saturating set of size in form a parity check matrix of a -ary linear code with length codimension 3, and covering radius 2. For an introduction to covering codes see [9, 11]. An online bibliography on covering codes is given in [29].
The main problem in this context is to find small saturating sets (i.e. short covering codes).
Denote by the smallest size of a saturating set in .
Let be the smallest size of a saturating set in the Desarguesian plane .
Let be the smallest size of a complete arc in .
Clearly,
[TABLE]
The trivial lower bound is
[TABLE]
Saturating sets in obtained by algebraic constructions or computer search can be found in [1, 8, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 34].
For with non-prime, in the literature there are a few algebraic constructions of relatively small saturating sets providing, for instance, the following upper bounds:
[TABLE]
Saturating sets of size approximately , with a constant independent on , have been explicitly described in several papers; see [1, 8, 24, 32, 33].
In [22], algebraic constructions of saturating sets in of size about are proposed and the following bounds are obtained (here is prime):
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
For many triples , constructions of (1.1) provide relatively small saturating sets, see [22].
In [5], by computer search in a wide region of , the following upper bounds for the smallest sizes of complete arcs in are obtained:
[TABLE]
For greedy algorithms are used while for the algorithm with fixed order of points (FOP) is applied.
In [4], for an iterative step-by-step construction of complete arcs, which adds a new point in each step, is considered. As an example, it is noted the step-by-step greedy algorithm that in every step adds to the arc a point providing the maximal possible (for the given step) number of new covered points. For more than half of steps of the iterative process, an estimate for the number of new covered points in every step is proved. A natural (and well-founded) conjecture is made that the estimate holds for the other steps too. Under this conjecture, the following upper bound on the smallest size of a complete arc in is obtained.
[TABLE]
Note also that in [4] a truncated iterative step-by-step process is considered. The process stops when the number of uncovered points attains some (a priori arbitrary assigned) value. Then this value is summarized with the number of steps, executed before stopping of the iterative process. The estimate (1.3) is obtained when the value, a priori assigned to stop the process, is ; it implies that the number of the steps, executed before stopping of the step-by-step process, is .
Surveys and results of probabilistic constructions for geometrical objects can be found in [2, 3, 7, 8, 21, 26, 28, 31]; see also the references therein.
In [8], by using a modified probabilistic approach introduced in [28], the following upper bound for an arbitrary (not necessarily Desarguesian) plane is proved:
[TABLE]
In [2], see also [3], by probabilistic methods different from these in [8, 28] the upper bound
[TABLE]
is obtained.
In [31], Z. Nagy obtained the following bound
[TABLE]
The proof of (1.6) is given in [31] by two approaches: probabilistic and algorithmic. In the both approaches, starting with some stage of the proof, it is assumed (by the context) that is large enough.
The algorithmic approach in [31] considers an original step-by-step greedy algorithm and obtains estimates for the number of new covered points in every step of the algorithm. In order to obtain the bound, the iterative process stops after executing of steps. It is proved in [31], that in this case the number of uncovered points is not greater than . Then the half of the number of uncovered points is summarized with the number of executed steps. As the result of the algorithmic proof of [31], the following form of the bound can be derived.
[TABLE]
In some sense the algorithmic approach of [31] is close to consideration of bounds in [4]. But in [4] the number of steps, executed before stopping of the iterative process, depends on a priori assigned number of uncovered points. At the same time, in [31] the iterative process always stops after executing of steps. Of course, it must be noted that in [4] the bound is conjectural (as the estimates are not proved for all steps of the iterative greedy process) whereas in [31] the bound is proved. Note also that problems considered in [4] and [31] are close but not the same (small complete arcs in [4] and small saturating sets in [31]).
In this paper, we modify the algorithmic approach of [31] so that the final formula holds for an arbitrary (not necessarily large) and, moreover, the value of a new bound is smaller than in (1.7), see (2.14)–(2.16).
Our main results is Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 1.2**.**
For the smallest size of a saturating set in a projective plane (not necessarily Desarguesian) of order (not necessarily large) the following upper bound holds:
[TABLE]
Note that modifying the algorithmic approach of [31], we (similarly to [4]) stop the iterative process when the number of uncovered points attains a priori assigned value, say. If we obtain the bound coinciding with (1.5); if we obtain the bound coinciding with (1.7), see Remark 2.4. Finally, if we get the bound (1.8).
Remark 1.3**.**
It is interesting that the main term is the same in the bounds (1.2), (1.3) for complete arcs and (1.6)–(1.7), (1.8) for saturating sets.
Theorem 1.2 can be expressed in terms of covering codes.
The length function denotes the smallest length of a -ary linear code with covering radius and codimension ; see [9, 10, 11].
Theorem 1.2 can be read as follows.
Corollary 1.4**.**
The following upper bound on the length function holds.
[TABLE]
Let be the -dimensional projective space over the Galois field of elements.
Definition 1.5**.**
A point set is saturating if any point of is collinear with two points in .
A particular kind of saturating sets in a projective space is complete caps. A cap is a set of points no three of which are collinear. A cap is said to be complete if it cannot be extended to a large cap.
Let be a linear -ary code of length codimension and covering radius The homogeneous coordinates of the points of a saturating set with size in form a parity check matrix of an code.
Results on saturating sets in and the corresponding covering codes can be found in [7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 34] and the references therein.
Let be the smallest size of a saturating set in .
In terms of covering codes, we recall the equality
[TABLE]
The trivial lower bound for is
[TABLE]
Constructions of saturating sets (or the corresponding covering codes) whose size is close to this lower bound are only known for odd, see [13, 16, 23] for survey. In particular, in [19, Theorem 9], see also [16, Section 4.3], the following bound is obtained by algebraic constructions:
[TABLE]
where , and .
From (1.8), by using inductive constructions from [13, 16], we obtained upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in the -dimensional projective space with even; see Section 3. In many cases these bounds are better than the known ones.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we deal with upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in a projective plane. In Section 3, bounds for saturating sets in the projective space are obtained.
2 A modification of Nagy’s approach for upper bound on the smallest size of a saturating set in a
projective plane
Assume that in a saturating set is constructed by a step-by-step algorithm adding one new point to the set in every step.
Let be an integer. Denote by the running set obtained after the -th step of the algorithm. A point of is covered by if lies on -secant of with . Let be the subset of consisting of points not covered by .
In [31] the following ingenious greedy algorithm is proposed. One takes the line skew to such that the cardinality of intersection is the minimal among all skew lines. Then one adds to the point on providing the greatest number of new covered points (in comparison with other points of ). As a result we obtain the set and the corresponding set .
The following Proposition is proved in [31].
Proposition 2.1**.**
[31, Proposition 3.3, Proof]* It holds that*
[TABLE]
Clearly, that always
[TABLE]
Iteratively applying the relation (2.1) to , we obtain for some the following:
[TABLE]
We denote
[TABLE]
Similarly to [4], we consider a truncated iterative process. We will stop the iterative process when where is some value that we may assign arbitrary to improve estimates.
By [31, Lemma 2.1] after the end of the iterative process we can add at most points to the running subset in order to get the final saturating set .
The size of the obtained set is
[TABLE]
Using the inequality we obtain that
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
provided that
[TABLE]
or, equivalently,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be a fixed value independent of . The value
[TABLE]
satisfies inequality .
Proof.
By (2.6), to provide it is sufficient to find such that
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 2.3**.**
In a plane it holds that
[TABLE]
where is an arbitrarily chosen value.
Proof.
The assertion follows from (2.5) and (2.8). ∎
We consider the function of of the form
[TABLE]
Its derivative by is
[TABLE]
Put . Then it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
We find in the form . By (2.10),
[TABLE]
For simplicity, we choose and put
[TABLE]
Now, substituting in (2.9), we obtain Theorem 1.2.
Remark 2.4**.**
(i)
Let . From (2.9) we have
[TABLE]
that practically coincides with bound (1.5) from [2, 3].
(ii)
Let . From (2.9) we obtain the estimate
[TABLE]
which practically coincides with Nagy’s bound (1.7). However, as it is noted below, the value gives a better estimate than (2.13).
We denote the difference
[TABLE]
It can be shown (e.g. by consideration of the corresponding derivations) that
[TABLE]
and, moreover, and are increasing functions of . For illustration, see Fig. 1 where the top dashed-dotted black curve shows while the bottom solid red curve is given for comparison.
Note also that
[TABLE]
whence
[TABLE]
3 Upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in the
projective space , even
In further we use the results of [13, 16] that give the following inductive construction.
Proposition 3.1**.**
[13, Example 6] [16, Theorem 4.4]* Let exist an code with . Then, under condition , there is an infinite family of codes with , where , and . For it holds that .*
Now due to one-to-one correspondence between covering codes and saturating sets we obtain the corollary from Theorem 1.2 and Proposition 3.1. We denote
[TABLE]
Corollary 3.2**.**
For the smallest size of a saturating set in the projective space and for the length function the following upper bounds hold:
(i)
[TABLE]
where , and , .
(ii)
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Theorem 1.2, in there is a saturating set with size . From the corresponding code, one can obtain an codes with parameters as in Proposition 3.1. The condition holds for . ∎
Surveys of the known codes and saturating sets in with even can be found in [13, 16, 23]. In many cases bounds (3.1), (3.2) is better than the known ones.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] U. Bartocci, Dense k 𝑘 k -systems in Galois planes , Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. D (6), 2 (1), (1983) 71–77.
- 2[2] D. Bartoli, A. A. Davydov, M. Giulietti, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco, On upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in a projective plane , ar Xiv:1505.01426 [math.CO] (2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01426
- 3[3] D. Bartoli, A. A. Davydov, M. Giulietti, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco, New upper bounds on the smallest size of a saturating set in a projective plane . In: Proc. 2016 XV International Symposium Problems of Redundancy in Information and Control Systems (REDUNDANCY), Russia, St.-Petersburg, September 2016, pp. 18–22. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7779320/
- 4[4] D. Bartoli, A. A. Davydov, G. Faina, A.A. Kreshchuk, S. Marcugini, F. Pambianco, Upper bounds on the smallest size of a complete arc in PG ( 2 , q ) PG 2 𝑞 \mathrm{PG}(2,q) under a certain probabilistic conjecture , Problems Inform. Transmission 50 (2014), 320–339.
- 5[5] D. Bartoli, A. A. Davydov, G. Faina, A. A. Kreshchuk, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco, Upper bounds on the smallest size of a complete arc in a finite Desarguesian projective plane based on computer search , J. Geom. 107 (2016), 89–117.
- 6[6] D. Bartoli, G. Faina, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco, On the minimum size of complete arcs and minimal saturating sets in projective planes , J. Geom. 104 (2013), 409–419.
- 7[7] D. Bartoli, G. Faina, S. Marcugini, and F. Pambianco, A construction of small complete caps in projective spaces , J. Geom., to appear, DOI: 10.1007/s 00022-016-0335-1
- 8[8] E. Boros, T. Szőnyi, and K. Tichler, On defining sets for projective planes , Discrete Math. 303 (2005), 17–31.
