Factorization type probabilities of polynomials with prescribed coefficients over a finite field
Kaloyan Slavov

TL;DR
This paper extends previous results on the factorization probabilities of polynomials over finite fields, providing criteria for irreducibility properties when the field and degree are not coprime.
Contribution
It offers a new criterion for the irreducibility probability of shifted polynomials over finite fields, even when the field size and degree are not coprime.
Findings
Probability of irreducibility is approximately 1/d for most shifts
Extension of criteria to cases where (q,2d)>1
Quantitative bounds on the deviation from the expected probability
Abstract
Let be a monic polynomial of degree with coefficients in a finite field . Extending earlier results in the literature, but now allowing , we give a criterion for to satisfy the following property: for all but values of in , the probability that is irreducible over (as is chosen uniformly at random) is .
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.
Factorization type probabilities of polynomials with prescribed coefficients over a finite field
Kaloyan Slavov This research was supported by NCCR SwissMAP of the SNSF.
Abstract
Let be a monic polynomial of degree with coefficients in a finite field . Extending earlier results in the literature, but now allowing , we give a criterion for to satisfy the following property: for all but values of in , the probability that is irreducible over (as is chosen uniformly at random) is .
1 Introduction
Fix a positive integer . Gauss proved that the probability for a monic polynomial of degree with coefficients in a finite field to be irreducible is . In fact, for any partition of , the probability for a random monic -polynomial of degree to have exactly irreducible factors over of degrees (i.e., to have factorization type ) is where is the probability that a permutation in has cycle structure .
The setting in which some coefficients of the polynomial are fixed and the remaining ones vary in has been studied extensively. For a monic polynomial of degree and an integer with it is conventional to define the -th “short interval” in around to be
[TABLE]
We are particularly interested in the small cases . One naturally asks for assumptions on under which the following expected statement holds true:
(*)
For any partition of , the probability for an element of to have factorization type is .
While a “sufficiently general” polynomial will satisfy () with or even with , one is interested in an explicit criterion that can be used to check that a specific satisfies (). Along these lines, Bank, Bary-Soroker, and Rosenzweig ([3]) prove the following
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a monic polynomial of degree . Suppose . Then satisfies () with .*
A monic polynomial of degree is called a Morse polynomial if the equation has exactly distinct roots over , and the values of at them are all distinct. For a Morse polynomial , (*) holds with (see [5] or [6]). For the -th Hasse derivative of a polynomial is defined as
[TABLE]
so has a zero of order at least at precisely when for all .
The proposition below weakens the assumption ; it is stated as Proposition 7 in [6] and attributed to Jarden and Razon (Proposition 4.3 in [5]).
Proposition 2**.**
Let be a monic polynomial of degree . Suppose and . Then for all but values of , the polynomial is a Morse polynomial, and hence satisfies () with . In particular, satisfies () with .
Remark 3*.*
The assumption is essential in Proposition 2. Indeed, if , a polynomial of degree is never a Morse polynomial. Also, even if the condition is replaced by the weaker (see the paragraph preceding Proposition 7 in [6]), Proposition 2 still does not hold in characteristic . For example, is never a Morse polynomial when is a power of , and in fact fails to satisfy (*) with .
The goal of this note is to give a criterion for a polynomial to satisfy (*), but allowing .
For a field and a polynomial , let denote the polynomial in defined by
[TABLE]
We now state our main result.
Theorem 4**.**
Let be a monic polynomial of degree . Suppose , , and the polynomials and have no common factors besides possibly a power of . Then for all but values of , the polynomial satisfies () with *
Corollary 5**.**
Let be a polynomial as in Theorem 4. Then satisfies () with .*
When is odd, Corollary 5 also follows from Corollary 1.4 in [4].
Example 6*.*
Theorem 4 and Corollary 5 apply to with a power of ; the gcd of and is .
Remark 7*.*
The statements of Theorem 4 and Corollary 5 would be false if one drops the gcd assumption. A counterexample is in characteristic . Thus Theorem 4 here corrects the false Theorem 1.3 in our previous version [9] of this paper.
To apply Theorem 4 to a specific polynomial, one has to compute the greatest common divisor of the two polynomials that appear in the statement; this task is computationally easy. In fact, based on modest numerical evidence, we state the following
Conjecture 8**.**
Let be a field and let . Suppose . Then the polynomials and in have no common factors.
In other words, we conjecture that the assumptions in Theorem 4 not only cover further examples when is a power of or but are actually strictly weaker than the assumptions in Proposition 2.
The proof of Theorem 4 is based on the technique employed by Entin in a variety of problems solved in [4], with an extra ingredient (Lemma 9 below) developed by the author in an earlier work, concerning the irreducibility of the perturbations of a certain curve. Namely, for we set up a generically étale map of degree such that for any with preimages over , the conjugacy class in that the action of the Frobenius on gives rise to has cycle structure corresponding to the factorization type of the polynomial in . The statement will then follow by the Chebotarev density theorem for function fields, once we show that the monodromy group of is the full symmetric group . To this end, we check the criterion proven in [2].
2 The proof
We say that a polynomial is “affine linearized” if it has the form , where .
Lemma 9**.**
Let be a polynomial of degree , which is not affine linearized. For all but at most values of , the polynomial is geometrically irreducible.
Proof.
The author has proven this as Lemma 19 in [8]. We sketch the proof here as well. First, an elementary undetermined coefficients argument shows that if is not affine linearized, the polynomial cannot be written as for a polynomial with . Then we apply the main result of [7]. ∎
Lemma 10**.**
Let be a polynomial that satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 4. Then for all but values of , there exists a such that the polynomial has a unique root of multiplicity and simple roots over .
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
then and for any and , the polynomial has no roots over of multiplicity or more.
Define
[TABLE]
By Bézout’s theorem, there are at most pairs with . Let
[TABLE]
then Suppose in are both roots of multiplicity at least of some polynomial with . Explicitly, and . These imply , hence .
The set satisfies . Let . Choose such that and set . The polynomial satisfies the requirement. ∎
Proof of Theorem 4..
For any , define
[TABLE]
The projection , is an isomorphism and the map , is a generically étale morphism of degree between geometrically irreducible -varieties.
The polynomial is not affine linearized, since . Combining Lemma 9 and Lemma 10, there exists a set of cardinality at most such that for any , the following hold:
- (i)
the polynomial is geometrically irreducible, and
- (ii)
there exists a such that the polynomial has a unique root of multiplicity and simple roots over .
Let . By (ii), the fiber of over some consists of points over , with being étale at of them. Thus the assumption of Proposition 3 in [2] is satisfied. Moreover, the complement of the diagonal in is isomorphic to
[TABLE]
It is nonempty because we can pick a such that , set (so is a simple root of ), let be any other root of (note: , since ) and observe that . Thus is a nonempty open subset of and by (i) is geometrically irreducible. Therefore the assumption of Proposition 2 in [2] is satisfied as well. We conclude that the geometric monodromy group of the map is the full .
Let be a dense open subset of such that is finite and étale. The statement now follows from Theorem 3 in [4], which is a version of the Chebotarev density theorem for function fields. ∎
Remark 11*.*
We can also deduce Corollary 5 directly from the criterion in [2], without going through Theorem 4. Namely, consider
[TABLE]
and If and denote the diagonals of and respectively, then the map is an isomorphism, so the source is geometrically irreducible. The existence of such that has a unique root of multiplicity and simple roots over follows from Lemma 10.
Acknowledgments
I thank Bjorn Poonen and Alexei Entin for comments.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1]
- 2[2] E. Ballico, A. Hefez, On the Galois group associated to a generically étale morphism , Communications in Algebra, 14 (5), 899-909, 1986.
- 3[3] E. Bank, L. Bary-Soroker, and L. Rosenzweig, Prime polynomials in short intervals and in arithmetic progressions , Duke Math. J., 164 (2):277-295, 2015.
- 4[4] A. Entin, Monodromy of hyperplane sections of curves and decomposition statistics over finite fields , International Mathematics Research Notices, rnz 120, https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnz 120, ar Xiv:1805.05454 v 2.
- 5[5] M. Jarden and A. Razon. Skolem density problems over large Galois extensions of global fields. In Hilbert’s Tenth Problem: Relations with Arithmetic and Algebraic Geometry: Workshop on Hilbert’s Tenth Problem: Relations with Arithmetic and Algebraic Geometry, November 2-5, 1999, Ghent University, Belgium, volume 270, page 213. American Mathematical Soc., 2000.
- 6[6] P. Kurlberg, L. Rosenzweig, Prime and Möbius correlations for very short intervals in 𝔽 q [ x ] subscript 𝔽 𝑞 delimited-[] 𝑥 \mathbb{F}_{q}[x] , ar Xiv:1802.01215.
- 7[7] D. Lorenzini, Reducibility of polynomials in two variables , J. of Algebra, 156 (1993), 65-75.
- 8[8] K. Slavov, An algebraic geometry version of the Kakeya problem , Finite Fields and Their Applications, 37 (2016), 158-178.
