Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Quantitative bounds in a popular polynomial Szemerédi theorem

Xuancheng Shao, Mengdi Wang

TL;DR

The paper advances quantitative bounds for the polynomial Szemerédi theorem in the finite setting, focusing on distinct-degree polynomials with zero constant terms. It develops a multi-faceted inverse-theorem framework and a local-factor regularity scheme to translate large configuration counts into correlations with structured Lipschitz phases, enabling polylogarithmic density bounds and an effective popular-difference result. The key innovations include an inductive argument that propagates correlation across all participating polynomials, a decomposition-based transition from single-function to multi-function correlations, and a local-factor machinery compatible with a Heath–Brown–Szemerédi style density increment. Together, these results deepen the understanding of polynomial configurations in dense sets and provide effective, explicit bounds with potential implications for further quantitative progress in polynomial Szemerédi-type problems.

Abstract

We obtain polylogarithmic bounds in the polynomial Szemerédi theorem when the polynomials have distinct degrees and zero constant terms. Specifically, let $P_1, \dots, P_m \in \mathbb Z[y]$ be polynomials with distinct degrees, each having zero constant term. Then there exists a constant $c = c(P_1,\dots,P_m) > 0$ such that any subset $A \subset \{1,2,\dots,N\}$ of density at least $(\log N)^{-c}$ contains a nontrivial polynomial progression of the form $x, x+P_1(y), \dots, x+P_m(y)$. In addition, we prove an effective ``popular'' version, showing that every dense subset $A$ has some non-zero $y$ such that the number of polynomial progressions in $A$ with this difference $y$ is asymptotically at least as large as in a random set of the same density as $A$.

Quantitative bounds in a popular polynomial Szemerédi theorem

TL;DR

The paper advances quantitative bounds for the polynomial Szemerédi theorem in the finite setting, focusing on distinct-degree polynomials with zero constant terms. It develops a multi-faceted inverse-theorem framework and a local-factor regularity scheme to translate large configuration counts into correlations with structured Lipschitz phases, enabling polylogarithmic density bounds and an effective popular-difference result. The key innovations include an inductive argument that propagates correlation across all participating polynomials, a decomposition-based transition from single-function to multi-function correlations, and a local-factor machinery compatible with a Heath–Brown–Szemerédi style density increment. Together, these results deepen the understanding of polynomial configurations in dense sets and provide effective, explicit bounds with potential implications for further quantitative progress in polynomial Szemerédi-type problems.

Abstract

We obtain polylogarithmic bounds in the polynomial Szemerédi theorem when the polynomials have distinct degrees and zero constant terms. Specifically, let be polynomials with distinct degrees, each having zero constant term. Then there exists a constant such that any subset of density at least contains a nontrivial polynomial progression of the form . In addition, we prove an effective ``popular'' version, showing that every dense subset has some non-zero such that the number of polynomial progressions in with this difference is asymptotically at least as large as in a random set of the same density as .

Paper Structure

This paper contains 8 sections, 17 theorems, 130 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

Let $P_1,\dots,P_m \in \mathbb{Z}[y]$ be polynomials with distinct degrees, each having zero constant term. If $A \subset \{1,2,\dots,N\}$ does not contain a polynomial progression of the form then for some constant $c>0$ depending only on $P_1,\dots,P_m$.

Theorems & Definitions (36)

  • Theorem 1.1: Density bound
  • Theorem 1.2: Popular difference
  • Theorem 1.3: Inverse theorem
  • Definition 2.1: $C$-Lipschitz
  • Lemma 2.2
  • proof
  • Definition 2.3
  • Theorem 2.4: Inverse theorem
  • Proposition 2.5: Partial correlation
  • Lemma 2.6
  • ...and 26 more