Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Tournament quasirandomness from local counting

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

arxiv 1910.09936 v1 pith:WT67MW6Y submitted 2019-10-22 math.CO

Tournament quasirandomness from local counting

classification math.CO
keywords tournamentforcingcorrectlocallocallyquasirandomquasirandomnesscounts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

A well-known theorem of Chung and Graham states that if $h\geq 4$ then a tournament $T$ is quasirandom if and only if $T$ contains each $h$-vertex tournament the "correct number" of times as a subtournament. In this paper we investigate the relationship between quasirandomness of $T$ and the count of a single $h$-vertex tournament $H$ in $T$. We consider two types of counts, the global one and the local one. We first observe that if $T$ has the correct global count of $H$ and $h \geq 7$ then quasirandomness of $T$ is only forced if $H$ is transitive. The next natural question when studying quasirandom objects asks whether possessing the correct local counts of $H$ is enough to force quasirandomness of $T$. A tournament $H$ is said to be locally forcing if it has this property. Variants of the local forcing problem have been studied before in both the graph and hypergraph settings. Perhaps the closest analogue of our problem was considered by Simonovits and S\'os who looked at whether having "correct counts" of a fixed graph $H$ as an induced subgraph of $G$ implies $G$ must be quasirandom, in an appropriate sense. They proved that this is indeed the case when $H$ is regular and conjectured that it holds for all $H$ (except the path on 3 vertices). Contrary to the Simonovits-S\'os conjecture, in the tournament setting we prove that a constant proportion of all tournaments are not locally forcing. In fact, any locally forcing tournament must itself be strongly quasirandom. On the other hand, unlike the global forcing case, we construct infinite families of non-transitive locally forcing tournaments.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.