Maximal Cocliques in $\operatorname{PSL}_2(q)$

Abstract: The generating graph of a finite group is a structure which can be used to encode certain information about the group. It was introduced by Liebeck and Shalev and has been further investigated by Lucchini, Maróti, Roney-Dougal and others. We investigate maximal cocliques (totally disconnected induced subgraphs of the generating graph) in $\operatorname{PSL}_2(q)$ for $q$ a prime power and provide a classification of the `large' cocliques when $q$ is prime. We then provide an interesting geometric example which contradicts this result when $q$ is not prime and illustrate why the methods used for the prime case do not immediately extend to the prime-power case with the same result.

\section{Introduction}

It is a well-known result of Steinberg (and later others) that every finite simple group may be generated by just 2 elements, and from \cite{GenProb,KantorLubotzky} we know that if we pick two elements of the group at random then the chance that they will generate the group is high. This then motivated the definition of the generating graph by \cite{GenGraph}, a graph whose vertex set consists of the non-identity elements of the group \(G\) and we draw an edge between two elements precisely when they generate \(G\).

It is then interesting to look at what information the generating graph alone can tell us about the group. For example, in \cite{LucchiniMarotiRoneyDougal}, Lucchini, Mar\'oti and Roney-Dougal showed that the generating graph determines the group up to isomorphism for sufficiently large simple groups and for symmetric groups. The structure of the graph itself has also been investigated, such as the clique number, the presence of hamiltonian cycles and many other things (some examples: \cite{LucchiniMarotiClique, HamiltonianCycles, LucchiniMarotiQuestions}).

In this case, we will be looking at what we may be able to identify in the group simply by looking at maximal cocliques (totally disconnected induced subgraphs) of the generating graph for \(\PSL_2(q)\) for \(q\) a prime power, and we show that when \(q\) is prime the largest maximal cocliques are either entirely made up of involutions or are maximal subgroups. In particular, we prove the following theorem:

\begin{introthm}
	Let \(G = \PSL_2(p)\) for some prime \(p > 2\) and let \(A\) be a maximal coclique in \(G\). Then \(A\) is either a maximal subgroup, the conjugacy class of all involutions or \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{129}{2} (p-1) + 2\).
\end{introthm}

Further, when \(q\) is no longer prime there is an interesting geometric example which crops up due to the isomorphism \(\PSL_2(q^2) \cong \POmega_4^-(q)\) which we illustrate and show to be a maximal coclique which prevents the extension of the previous theorem to the non-prime case. More formally, we have the following:

\begin{introthm}
	Let \(V\) be a 4-dimensional orthogonal space of \(-\) type over \(\mathbb{F}_q\) and fix some non-isotropic vector \(v \in V\). Then the set of all elements of \(G \coloneqq \POmega_4^-(q)\) with 2-dimensional eigenspaces lying in \(v^{\perp}\) is a maximal coclique of \(G\) of order \(q^3 + q\).
\end{introthm}

We currently believe that, in the prime power case, the example we have found and its conjugates are the only sufficiently large exceptions and that otherwise a similar result to the prime case should hold. The prime result tells us that, in particular, given the generating graph for \(\PSL_2(p)\) we can identify and distinguish the conjugacy class of all involutions and the Borel subgroups by size alone. In the prime power case, it should be possible to identify and distinguish the Borel subgroups, \(\PSL_2(q).2 \leq \PSL_2(q^2)\) and the geometric example.

We proceed by examining the maximal subgroups of \(\PSL_2(p)\) and their intersections in order to provide a linear bound (in \(p\)) on those maximal cocliques which contain at least one element of order greater than 2 and are not maximal subgroups. After this, we provide an example in the case of \(\PSL_2(q^2)\) which does not fit in with the result for \(\PSL_2(p)\) to show that the result does not generalise as-is and provide some evidence to suggest why using the same approach as in the prime case is likely to be either very complicated or impossible.

In addition, we would like to thank the referee for their careful reading of this paper and their very helpful suggestions.

\subsection*{The prime case}

\begin{notation*}
	In what follows I shall use \(\O_n^{\epsilon}(q)\) to denote the corresponding general orthogonal group, \(D_{2n}\) to denote the dihedral group of order \(2n\), \(C_n\) to denote the cyclic group of order \(n\) and \(A_n\) and \(S_n\) to denote the alternating and symmetric groups on \(n\) elements, respectively.  We begin by defining what we will be working with and proving some basic results which will be used throughout.
\end{notation*}

\begin{defn}
	Let \(G\) be a group. Then \(A \subseteq G\) is a {\itshape coclique} if for all \(g, h \in A\) we have that \(\left< g, h \right> \neq G\). We say that a coclique \(A\) is maximal if whenever \(B\) is a coclique we have that \(A \subseteq B \implies A = B\).
\end{defn}

\begin{lemma}	\label{subgp}
	If \(G\) is a group and \(A \subseteq G\) is a maximal coclique then \(\left< A \right> \neq G \implies \left< A \right> = A\) and \(A\) is a maximal subgroup of \(G\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose \(\left<A\right> \neq G\). If \(g \in \left<A\right> \setminus A\) then \(\left< A \cup \{ g \} \right> \subseteq \left< A \right> \neq G\). But then this contradicts the maximality of \(A\) and so \(\left< A \right> = A\). Also, if \(A \subseteq H \lneq G\) and we assume \(A \neq H\) then we may pick \(g \in H \setminus A\) and again note that \(\left< A \cup \{g\} \right> \subseteq \left< H \right> = H \neq G\). In particular, \(\left< g, h \right> \neq G\) for all \(h \in A\) but this again contradicts the maximality of \(A\) and so \(A = H\) is a maximal subgroup.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}	\label{uniquemax}
	If \(g \in G\) lies in a unique maximal subgroup \(M\) of \(G\) then any maximal coclique \(A\) containing \(g\) must be equal to \(M\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let \(h \notin M\) and consider \(\left< g, h \right>\). Since every proper subgroup is contained in a maximal subgroup, we have that \(\left< g, h \right>\) lies in a maximal subgroup containing \(g\). But \(M\) is the only such subgroup. Thus we must have that \(\left< g, h \right> \subseteq M\) or \(\left< g, h \right> = G\). But \(h \notin M\) and so \(\left< g, h \right> = G\). Thus \(A \subseteq M\) and the maximality of \(A\) gives us that \(A = M\).
\end{proof}

For what we intend to do next, we will need to know the maximal subgroups of \(\PSL_2(p)\) and when they appear. We provide these below, one may find them in  \cite[\textsection260 (p286)]{DicksonLinear} or for a more modern treatment look at the maximal subgroups for \(\SL_2(p)\) in \cite{HoltMaximals} and then simply quotient out by its centre to obtain these subgroups.

\begin{thm}[Maximal subgroups of \(\PSL_2(p)\)]
	The conjugacy classes of maximal subgroups of \(\PSL_2(p)\) are as follows:
	\begin{enumerate}[i)]
	\item The Borel subgroups \(C_p \rtimes C_{\frac{1}{2} (p-1)}\) appear for all \(p\).
	\item \(D_{p-1}\) appears for all \(p > 11\).
	\item \(D_{p+1}\) appears for all \(p > 7\).
	\item \(A_4\) appears when \(p \equiv \pm 3, \, \pm 13 \mod 40\).
	\item \(S_4\) appears when \(p \equiv \pm 1 \mod 8\) and has two conjugacy classes.
	\item \(A_5\) appears when \(p \equiv \pm 1 \mod 10\) and has two conjugacy classes.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

We shall also make use of Aschbacher's classification of maximal subgroups of classical groups for the prime power case, so we shall include this here as well, though we ignore the classes which do not appear. This is also found in \cite{HoltMaximals}.

\begin{thm}[Aschbacher's Theorem for \(\SL_2(q)\) and \(\SOmega_4^-(q)\)]
	The maximal subgroups of \(\SL_2(q)\) and \(\SOmega_4^-(q)\) (acting naturally on \(V = \mathbb{F}_q^n\)) lie in one of the following classes:

	\begin{tabular}{cl} \toprule
	 {\bfseries Class}& {\bfseries Description}\\ \midrule
	 \(\mathcal{C}_1\) & Stabilisers of totally singular or non-singular subspaces. \\
	\(\mathcal{C}_2\) & Stabilisers of direct sum decompositions \(V = \bigoplus_{i=1}^t V_i\) where the \(V_i\) all have the \\
	 & same dimension. \\
	\(\mathcal{C}_3\) & Stabilisers of extension fields of \(\mathbb{F}_q\) of index 2. \\
	\(\mathcal{C}_5\) & Stabilisers of subfields of \(\mathbb{F}_q\) of prime index. \\
	\(\mathcal{C}_6\) & Normalisers of symplectic-type or extraspecial groups in absolutely irreducible \\
	 & representations. \\
	\(\mathcal{S}\) & See \cite[Definition 2.1.3]{HoltMaximals}, the specifics of this will not be used here. \\ \bottomrule
	\end{tabular}
\end{thm}

\begin{thm} \label{main}
	Let \(G = \PSL_2(p)\) for some prime \(p > 2\) and let \(A\) be a maximal coclique in \(G\). Then \(A\) is either a maximal subgroup, the conjugacy class of all involutions or \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{129}{2}(p-1) + 2\).
\end{thm}

\begin{remark*}
	In fact, this result splits into two bounds --- we have that \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{93}{2}(p+1)\) when \(p < 7\) and \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{129}{2}(p-1) + 2\) otherwise, though in either case for \(p < 11\) both bounds are larger than \(\abs{G}\) so we may take the latter. Further, the above bounds are not tight, there is definitely room for improvement in the case where we allow for multiple elements of large order lying in distinct cyclic subgroups. However, we can at least show that there exists a maximal coclique of order linear in \(p\) which is not a maximal subgroup or the conjugacy class of all involutions.

	Indeed, in the case where \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup, we may fix an element \(x\) of order 3 in \(A_4\) and suppose that \(3 \bigm| p+1\). Acting by \(N_G(x)\) we see that \(x\) lies in \(\frac{1}{3}(p+1)\) copies of \(A_4\) and so we may include all of the involutions from these subgroups to form a coclique, along with the involutions from \(N_G(x)\). Note that there is no multiple counting here since \(\gen{x}\) is already a maximal subgroup of \(A_4\). We hence obtain a coclique of order \(\frac{3}{2}(p+1) + 3\) (or one higher, if \(N_G(x)\) contains a central involution) which one can check is maximal.

	This is the smallest example we obtain in this way out of all of the cases; the others give larger examples since either we also include contributions from the Borel subgroups or there are more conjugacy classes of these small maximal subgroups in \(G\).
\end{remark*}

We now prove \cref{main} through a series of lemmas. In the following, \(G\) and \(A\) are taken to be as in the statement of the theorem; \(A\) is not a maximal subgroup and contains some \(x\) (\(\abs{x} > 2\)) such that \(A \setminus \left<x\right>\) consists entirely of involutions.

\begin{lemma} \label{main1a}
	If \(G\) and \(A\) are as above with \(\abs{x} \bigm| p+1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{3}{2} (p+1) + 4\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Here \(x\) may lie in \(D_{p+1}\) or \(A_4\). If \(\abs{x} > 3\) then \(x\) may only lie in \(D_{p+1}\) and thus lies in a unique maximal subgroup since the intersection of conjugate dihedral groups in \(\PSL_2(p)\) consists only of involutions. Then by \cref{uniquemax} we have that \(A\) must be a maximal subgroup.

	Otherwise \(\abs{x} = 3\) and we must count all of the involutions present in all subgroups in which \(x\) appears. We start off by noting that \(A_4\) contains 3 involutions and a dihedral group \(D_{p+1}\) contains at most \(\frac{p+3}{2}\) involutions (it contains one fewer if \(p \equiv 3 \mod 4\)). In order to figure out how many copies of \(A_4\) can contain \(x\), we note that \(D_{p+1}\) acts on the set of copies of \(A_4\) which contain \(x\) with stabiliser \(N_G(x) \cap A_4 = N_{A_4}(x) = \gen{x}\). This action is transitive since if \(x \in H_1 \cap H_2\) where \(H_1 \cong H_2 \cong A_4\) and \(H_2 = H_1^g\) then there exists \(h \in H_2\) such that \((x^h)^g = x\) and so \(gh \in N_G(x)\) and \(H_1^{gh} = H_2\).

	Thus the orbit of any copy of \(A_4\) containing \(x\) under this action will have length \(\frac{p+1}{3}\). Therefore from the entire conjugacy class of \(A_4\) in \(G\) we shall get a contribution of at most \(3 \frac{p+1}{3}\) involutions. Adding this up, we see that
	\[A \subseteq \left< x \right> \cup \Inv D_{p+1} \cup \frac{p+1}{3} \Inv A_4\]
	where \(\Inv H\) denotes the set of involutions in \(H\), and we abuse notation so that \(k \Inv A_4 := \bigcup_{i=1}^k \Inv G_i\) where \(G_i \cong A_4\) for all \(i\). This gives
	\[\abs{A} \leq 3 + \frac{p+3}{2} + p+1 = \frac{3(p+1)}{2} + 4. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main1b}
	If \(G\) and \(A\) are as above with \(\abs{x} \bigm| p+1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_5\) or \(S_4\) as maximal subgroups then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{17}{2} (p+1) + 4\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Since we are only dealing with upper bounds, we shall combine the cases where either \(A_5\), \(S_4\) or both appear as maximal subgroups of \(G\) as this encompasses the arguments used for each individual case. Our worst case bound occurs when \(\abs{x} = 3\) and both \(A_5\) and \(S_4\) are maximal in \(G\), so we shall only consider this situation. There will be two conjugacy classes of both \(A_5\) and \(S_4\), so we must double the contribution we get from each type of subgroup. We act by \(D_{p+1}\) as in the previous lemma, noting that normalisers in \(A_5\) and \(S_4\) are dihedral rather than cyclic as in \(A_4\), to see that
	\[A \subseteq \left<x\right> \cup \Inv D_{p+1} \cup \frac{2(p+1)}{6} \Inv S_4 \cup \frac{2(p+1)}{6} \Inv A_5\]
	and so
	\[\abs{A} \leq 3 + \frac{p+3}{2} + 3(p+1) + 5(p+1) = \frac{17(p+1)}{2} + 4. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main2a}
	If \(G\) and \(A\) are as above with \(\abs{x} \bigm| p-1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{7}{2}(p-1) + 5\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	In this case, we have the most subgroups to consider as \(x\) may lie in a Borel subgroup, \(D_{p-1}\) or \(A_4\).

	We again start by considering the case where \(\abs{x} > 5\). Such an \(x\) will lie in one copy of \(D_{p-1}\) and two distinct Borel subgroups which will consist of the upper and lower triangular matrices with respect to a basis in which \(x\) is diagonal. We need only count the involutions in these subgroups, noting that a Borel subgroup contains at most \(p\) involutions. In this case we get
	\[A \subseteq \left< x \right> \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_2 \cup \Inv D_{p-1}\]
	where \(\mathcal{B}_1\) and \(\mathcal{B}_2\) are the Borel subgroups in which \(x\) lies. This then gives us
	\[\abs{A} \leq \abs{x} + 2p + \frac{p+1}{2} = \frac{5(p+1)}{2} + \abs{x} - 2.\]
	When \(\abs{x} \leq 5\) we must split this into several subcases as before.

	Since \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup we need only concern ourselves with the case where \(\abs{x} = 3\) and we count involutions as before. We may find out how many copies of \(A_4\) contain \(x\) by using the action of \(D_{p-1}\) on the set of \(A_4\)s containing \(x\) in a very similar way to previous cases. So we have
	\[A \subseteq \left< x \right> \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_2 \cup \Inv D_{p-1} \cup \frac{p-1}{3} \Inv A_4\]
	which then gives
	\[\abs{A} \leq 3 + 2p + \frac{p-1}{2} + p-1 = \frac{7(p-1)}{2} + 5. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main2b}
	If \(G\) and \(A\) are as above with \(\abs{x} \bigm| p-1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_5\) or \(S_4\) as maximal subgroups then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{21}{2}(p-1) + 5\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	As with the last time, we shall merge all of the cases where \(A_5\), \(S_4\) or both appear as maximal subgroups of \(G\). Acting with \(D_{p-1}\) we see that
	\[A \subseteq \left<x\right> \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_2 \cup \Inv D_{p-1} \cup \frac{2(p-1)}{6} \Inv A_5 \cup \frac{2(p-1)}{6} \Inv S_4\]
	and so, noting that if \(D_{p-1}\) contains a central involution it will also lie in a Borel subgroup,
	\[\abs{A} \leq 3 + 2p + \frac{p-1}{2} + 5(p-1) + 3(p-1) = \frac{21(p-1)}{2} + 5. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

We now remove the condition that \(A\) contains essentially only one element of large order and simply suppose it has at least one element of order greater than 2.

\begin{lemma} \label{main3a}
	Choose some \(x \in A\) with \(\abs{x} > 2\). If \(\abs{x} \bigm| p+1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{9}{2} (p+1) + 1\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	If \(\abs{x} > 3\) then \(x\) may only lie in \(D_{p+1}\) and thus by \cref{uniquemax} we are done. Otherwise, we need only concern ourselves with \(\abs{x} = 3\). We note again that \(D_{p+1}\) contains a unique cyclic subgroup of order 3. As usual, \(N_G(x)\) acts on the set of \(A_4\)s containing \(x\) by conjugation with orbit length at most \(\frac{1}{\abs{x}} (p-1) \eqqcolon k_x\).

	Now, we note that any involutions which lie outside of \(D_{p+1}\) must lie in some shared maximal subgroup with every element of \(A\) of order 3. Thus we have that any such involutions must lie in
	\[\bigcap_{\substack{\abs{x} = 3 \\ x \in A}} \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_x} A_4 \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_x} A_4.\]

	We therefore see that
	\[\abs{A} \leq \frac{p+1}{3} \abs{A_4} + \abs{\Inv D_{p+1}} \leq 4(p+1) + \frac{p+1}{2} + 1 = \frac{9(p+1)}{2} + 1. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main3b}
	Choose some \(x \in A\) with \(\abs{x} > 2\). If \(\abs{x} \bigm| p+1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_5\) and \(S_4\) as maximal subgroups then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{93}{2} (p+1)\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Again, we merge the cases where any of these maximal subgroups appear. As before, if \(\abs{x} > 5\) then we are done by \cref{uniquemax}. Our worst case of course is when both \(A_5\) and \(S_4\) appear as maximal subgroups of \(G\), so this is the one we shall deal with. Here we fix up to three elements, \(x\), \(y\) and \(z\) of respective orders 3, 4 and 5, lying in a single copy of \(D_{p+1}\). Then any element of \(A\) will lie in one of the copies of \(S_4\) or \(A_5\) containing any of \(x\), \(y\) or \(z\) or be an involution in \(D_{p+1}\) since \(D_{p+1}\) has a unique cyclic subgroup of any given order greater than 2. Thus,
	\[A \subseteq \Inv D_{p+1} \cup 2\left( \bigcup_{x \in S_4} S_4 \cup \bigcup_{y \in S_4} S_4 \right) \cup 2 \left( \bigcup_{x \in A_5} A_5 \cup \bigcup_{z \in A_5} A_5 \right).\]
	Using our normal approach to determine how many copies of \(S_4\) or \(A_5\) may contain a given element, noting that their normalisers in these groups are dihedral, we obtain
	\[\abs{A} \leq \frac{p+1}{2} + 120 \left( \frac{p+1}{6} + \frac{p+1}{10} \right) + 48 \left( \frac{p+1}{6} + \frac{p+1}{8} \right) = \frac{93(p+1)}{2}. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main4a}
	Choose some \(x \in A\) with \(\abs{x} > 2\). If \(\abs{x} \bigm| p-1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_4\) as a maximal subgroup then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{17}{2}(p-1) + 6\) (and the \(+6\) may be dropped for \(p > 5\)).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Here we need to consider contributions from two Borel subgroups, a copy of \(D_{p-1}\) and several copies of \(A_4\). If \(\abs{x} > 3\) then \(x\) may lie in \(D_{p-1}\) or two Borel subgroups, \(\mathcal{B}_1\) and \(\mathcal{B}_2\). If \(A\) is not one of these subgroups then \(A\) either consists of a few larger order elements along with all of the involutions from the subgroups in which they lie or \(A\) is simply made up of the intersections of these groups. In either case,
	\[A \subseteq (D_{p-1} \cap \mathcal{B}_1 ) \cup (D_{p-1} \cap \mathcal{B}_2) \cup (\mathcal{B}_1 \cap \mathcal{B}_2) \cup \Inv D_{p-1} \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_2.\]
	But then
	\[\abs{A} \leq \abs{ D_{p-1} \cap \mathcal{B}_1 } + \abs{\Inv D_{p-1}} + 2 \abs{\Inv \mathcal{B}_1} \leq 3p\]
	since \(D_{p-1}\) has at most \(\frac{1}{2}(p+1)\) involutions, and the intersection of the Borel subgroups and \(D_{p-1}\) is the cyclic group of order \(\frac{1}{2}(p-1)\) consisting of those matrices which are diagonal with respect to the basis given by the eigenvectors of the two Borel subgroups.

	Otherwise, we need only concern ourselves with \(\abs{x} = 3\). We note again that \(D_{p-1}\) contains a unique cyclic subgroup of order 3 and also that the Borel subgroups each contain \(p\) distinct cyclic subgroups of order 3. As usual, \(N_G(x)\) acts on the set of \(A_4\)s containing \(x\) by conjugation with orbit length \(\frac{1}{3} (p-1)\).

	If we allow \(nH\) for \(H \leq G\) to denote the union of \(n\) copies of \(H\), we then get
	\[A \subseteq 2p \left< x \right> \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_1 \cup \Inv \mathcal{B}_2 \cup \Inv D_{p-1} \cup \frac{p-1}{\abs{x}} \Inv A_4\]
	and so, accounting for some double counting,
	\[\abs{A} \leq 4(p-1) + 2p + \frac{p-1}{2} + 3\frac{p-1}{\abs{x}} \leq 4(p-1) + 2p + \frac{p-1}{2} + 3 \frac{p-1}{3} = 15\frac{p-1}{2} + 2\]
	where we have taken \(\frac{1}{2}(p-1)\) in place of \(\abs{\Inv D_{p-1}}\) since the additional involution will be contained in the Borel subgroups if it exists. Alternatively, we have
	\[A \subseteq (\mathcal{B}_1 \cap \mathcal{B}_2 \cap D_{p-1}) \cup 2p \left< x \right> \cup \bigcap_{\substack{\abs{x} = 3 \\ x \in A}} \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_x} A_4\]
	and from the above we may tidy up the final term to get
	\[\abs{A} \leq \frac{p-1}{2} + 4(p-1) + 12\frac{p-1}{\abs{x}} \leq \frac{p-1}{2} + 4(p-1) + 12 \frac{p-1}{3} = 17\frac{p-1}{2}. \qedhere\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main4b}
	Choose some \(x \in A\) with \(\abs{x} > 2\). If \(\abs{x} \bigm| p-1\) and \(G\) contains \(A_5\) or \(S_4\) as maximal subgroups then \(\abs{A} \leq \frac{129}{2}(p-1) + 2\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	As with the above cases, if \(\abs{x} > 5\) then we are done by \cref{uniquemax}. Otherwise our worst bound comes from when both \(A_5\) and \(S_4\) are present so we consider only this case and proceed in exactly the same way as before to obtain
	\[A \subseteq \Inv (\mathcal{B}_1 \cup \mathcal{B}_2 \cup D_{p-1}) \cup 2p \left< x \right> \cup 2p \left< y \right> \cup 2p \left< z \right> \cup 2 \bigcap_{\substack{\abs{x} \in \{3,4\}\\ x \in A}} \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_x} S_4 \cup \bigcap_{\substack{\abs{x} \in \{3,5\} \\ x \in A}} \bigcup_{i=1}^{k_x} A_5.\]
	Bounding this as usual, and accounting for some of the obvious multiple counting of \(\gen{x}\), \(\gen{y}\) and \(\gen{z}\), we have
	\[\abs{A} \leq \frac{p-1}{2} + 2p + 4(p-1) + 4(p-1) + 8(p-1) + 46(p-1) = \frac{129}{2} (p-1) + 2\]
	as required.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{main5}
	Let \(A\) be a maximal coclique in \(G\) containing some element \(x\) of order \(p\). Then \(A\) is a Borel subgroup.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	If \(\abs{x} > 5\) then this is clear from the orders of the maximal subgroups of \(G\). If \(\abs{x} = 5 = p\) then the only subgroup which could also contain \(x\) is \(A_5\), but this does not occur in this case. If \(\abs{x} = 3\) then \(G = \PSL_2(3) \cong A_4\) and all elements of order 3 lie in unique maximal subgroups. In all cases, we are done by \cref{uniquemax}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{main}]
	First note that if \(\left< A \right> \neq G\) then \(A\) is a maximal subgroup by \cref{subgp}. Otherwise, if \(\left< A \right> = G\) then we have several cases to consider. In the first case, \(A\) may consist entirely of involutions since the group generated by two involutions will always be dihedral and thus is never equal to \(G\). Otherwise, either \(A\) contains some element \(x\) of large order such that \(A \setminus \left< x \right>\) consists entirely of involutions or it does not.

	We first assume the former. If \(\abs{x} \bigm| p-1\) or \(\abs{x} \bigm| p+1\) then we refer to Lemmas \cref{main1a,main1b,main2a,main2b}. When \(\abs{x} \bigm| p\) we clearly have that \(\abs{x} = p\) since \(\abs{x} > 2\). But then \(A\) must be a Borel subgroup by the previous lemma.

	We next consider the case where \(A\) contains multiple elements of order greater than 2 which do not lie in some common cyclic group contained in \(A\). The structure of \(A\) is still determined by the orders of its elements. If the orders of the larger elements do not all simultaneously divide \(p-1\), \(p\) or \(p+1\) then we could have elements of orders \(3\) and \(5\) both lying in some copy of \(A_5\), but this case is encompassed in the arguments used in \cref{main3a,main3b,main4a,main4b,main5} which complete the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{The prime-power case}

We now consider the case of \(G \coloneqq \PSL_2(q_0)\) for \(q_0 = p^n\) a prime power. We have little hope of achieving the same result as before due to the existence of copies of \(\PSL_2(r)\) for \(q_0 = r^s\), \(s\) prime, as a maximal subgroup of \(G\). Indeed, simply trying to use the same methods as before would give us bounds to the order of \(q_0^{\frac{3}{2}}\) for all even \(n\) in the case where the coclique was mostly involutions with a single large order element. We also have an interesting geometry which crops up for even \(n\) due to the fact that \(\PSL_2(q^2) \cong \POmega_4^-(q)\) which we will investigate in this section.

At various points throughout this section, the maximal subgroups of \(G\) may be required, so I shall leave them here for reference.  From \cite{HoltMaximals}, as before, we know that the maximal subgroups are the following (where \(q_0 \coloneqq q^2\)):
\begin{enumerate}[i)]
\item The Borel subgroups, \(E_{q^2} \rtimes C_{\frac{1}{2}(q^2 - 1)}\).
\item \(\PSL_2(q).2\), which splits into two conjugacy classes.
\item \(D_{q_0 - 1}\).
\item \(D_{q_0 + 1}\).
\item \(\PSL_2(q_1)\) where \(q = q_1^r\) for an odd prime \(r\).
\item Two conjugacy classes of \(A_5\) for \(q_0 = p^2\), \(p \equiv \pm 3 \mod 10\) prime.
\end{enumerate}
In terms of their classes in Aschbacher's Theorem, we have that a Borel subgroup is the stabiliser of an isotropic 1-space; the \(\PSL_2(q).2\) is the stabiliser of a non-isotropic 1-space; \(D_{q_0 - 1}\) is the stabiliser of a non-degenerate 2-space and the copies of \(\PSL_2(q)\) are stabilisers of subfields of prime index. We will not need to look into the classes of the other types of maximal subgroup.

\subsection{Other cocliques of large order}

We will now calculate explicitly the bound of order \(q_0^{\frac{3}{2}}\) given above, which is evidence that the previous method may not work as well for this situation. We suppose that \(q > 3\) so that all of the required maximal subgroups exist.

As before, we assume that \(A\) is a maximal coclique which contains an element \(x\) with \(\abs{x} > 2\) such that \(A \setminus \left< x \right>\) consists entirely of involutions. If we suppose that \(x\) lies in \(\PSL_2(q)\) and \(\abs{x} \bigm| q_0-1\) for \(q_0 = q^r,\) \(r\) an odd prime, then at the very least we may include all of the involutions from this subgroup. We then also note that \(N_G(x)\) acts on the set of copies of \(\PSL_2(q)\) containing \(x\) with orbit length
\[\frac{\abs{N_G(x)}}{\abs{N_H(x)}} = \frac{q_0 - 1}{q \pm 1}\]
where \(H \cong \PSL_2(q)\). Including all of the involutions from these other subgroups too, we count
\[\frac{q_0 - 1}{q \pm 1} \abs{\Inv \PSL_2(q)} = \frac{(q_0 - 1)\abs{\PSL_2(q)}}{(q \pm 1)(q \pm 1)} = \frac{q_0 - 1}{q \pm 1} q (q \mp 1)\]
involutions, but there is some multiple-counting which we must account for.

We now suppose that \(\abs{x} = \frac{1}{2}(q + 1)\), so \(x \in D_{q_0 - 1}\). We then note that \(x\) lies in the intersection of all copies of \(\PSL_2(q)\) above and since \(x\) must lie in some maximal subgroup of \(\PSL_2(q)\), we know it must lie in a unique copy of \(D_{q + 1}\). Then we have that the intersection of any two copies of \(\PSL_2(q)\) containing \(x\) must be either \(\left<x\right>\) or \(D_{q + 1}\), but since \(D_{q + 1}\) normalises \(x\) we must also have that \(D_{q + 1} \subseteq D_{q_0-1} = N_G(x)\), and in fact any such \(D_{q + 1}\) must lie in \(N_{D_{q_0-1}}(N_H(x)) \cong D_{2(q + 1)}\). If we assume the worst possible overcounting, then each one of the \(q + 1\) involutions in this subgroup is counted \(\frac{1}{\abs{x}} (q_0 - 1)\) times. Thus we know that our coclique must have at least
\[2 \frac{q_0-1}{q + 1} q (q + 1) - 2\frac{q_0-1}{q + 1} (q + 1) = 2 \frac{q_0-1}{q + 1} (q^2 - 1)\]
involutions. We don't know if this coclique is necessarily maximal, but we at least have a lower bound on its order.

So we obtain a bound of order \(q_0^{1 + \frac{1}{r}}\) where \(q_0 = q^r\) and \(r\) is the least odd prime such that this happens and the least bound is obtained when we suppose that \(\abs{x} = \frac{1}{2}(q \pm 1)\). It's possible that one could improve this with a good understanding of how these subfield stabilisers intersect, but the smallest case in which this occurs is \(\PSL_2(3^6)\) and is not easy to compute such things in. Doing the same with \(\PSL_2(q).2\) for \(q_0 = q^2\) gives us the bound of order \(q_0^{\frac{3}{2}}\) mentioned above.

We suspect that a similar result will hold to in the prime case and that the geometric anomaly described below is the only exception to what we had before, but the existence of this example makes trying to use the previous methods very complicated. We think that if a maximal coclique \(A\) is such that \(\abs{A} > O(\sqrt{\abs{G}})\) then it either consists of involutions or is a Borel subgroup, if \(\abs{A} = O(\sqrt{\abs{G}})\) then it should be one of the subfield stabiliser maximal subgroups or the geometric example discussed below, and if it is smaller we can't really say much.

\subsection{Construction}

We first let \(q_0 = q^2\) and consider the action of \(G\) on \(\mathbb{F}_q^4\) as \(\POmega_4^-(q)\). Fix some non-isotropic vector \(v\); to ease notation, we let \(v\) denote the \(\mathbb{F}_q\)-span of \(v\) as well as the vector itself since the distinction is not overly important here. Then \(\mathbb{F}_q^4 = v \oplus v^{\perp}\). We wish to consider the elements of \(G\) which have 2-dimensional eigenspaces lying in \(v^{\perp}\), so we must start by determining how many such subspaces one may have.

We wish to collect all of these elements in order to obtain a large coclique with order cubic in \(q\) since if one takes any two elements \(g,\) \(h\) with 2 dimensional eigenspaces \(V_g,\) \(V_h \subseteq v^{\perp}\) then since \(\dim v^{\perp} = 3\) the intersection of any two 2-dimensional subspaces must be nontrivial. Thus \(\left<g,h\right>\) must be contained in the stabiliser of \(V_g \cap V_h \neq \{0\}\) and so \(\left<g,h\right> \neq G\).

A subspace of dimension 3 over \(\mathbb{F}_q\) has \(\frac{q^3-1}{q-1} = q^2 + q + 1\) subspaces of dimension 2, and as seen in \cite{Wilson} we have that if such a subspace (with symmetric bilinear form having gram matrix \(g\)) has an orthonormal basis (\(\det g\) a square) then it is of \(-\) type for \(q \equiv 3 \mod 4\) and if such a basis does not exist (\(\det g\) is a non-square) then it is of \(+\) type. If a space is of neither \(+\) nor \(-\) type then it is degenerate (\(\det g = 0\)). For \(q \equiv 1 \mod 4,\) the 2-spaces with orthonormal bases are of \(+\) type and to obtain a \(-\) type space we must instead consider a space with basis \(\{e,f\}\) where \((e,e) = 1\) and \((f,f) = \alpha\) for some non-square \(\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_q^*\).

Using the fact that the orthogonal group acts transitively on isometric subspaces \cite[{}20.8]{Aschbacher} one sees that a 3-dimensional orthogonal \(\mathbb{F}_q\)-space contains \(q \frac{q-1}{2}\) 2-spaces of \(-\) type, \(q \frac{q+1}{2}\) 2-spaces of \(+\) type and \(q+1\) degenerate 2-spaces. We wish to construct a coclique by taking the elements of \(G\) which have any of these 2-spaces as eigenspaces. The only possible eigenvalues for elements of \(G\) are \(\pm 1\).

\begin{lemma}
	Let \(U \subseteq V\) be a degenerate 2-space, then its pointwise stabiliser in \(G\) is isomorphic to \((\mathbb{F}_q,+)\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	For this, we refer to \cite[Proposition 2.9.1 (v)]{KleidmanLiebeck} for an explicit isomorphism between \(\PSL_2(q^2)\) and \(\Omega_4^-(q)\). Using the basis \(\{u_1 \coloneqq v_1 \otimes v_1, u_2 \coloneqq v_2 \otimes v_2, w_1 \coloneqq v_1 \otimes v_2 + v_2 \otimes v_2, w_2 \coloneqq \lambda v_1 \otimes v_2 + \bar{\lambda} v_2 \otimes v_1\}\) for \(\bar{\cdot}\) an involutory automorphism of \(\mathbb{F}_{q^2}\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_{q^2} \setminus \mathbb{F}_q\) we may now also consider this action from a linear point of view. For one of the \(w_i\), we have that \(\Span_{\mathbb{F}_q} \{ u_1, u_2, w_i\}\) is a 3-space of \(-\) type and contains the degenerate subspace \(W \coloneqq \Span_{\mathbb{F}_q} \{u_1, w_i\}\). The pointwise stabiliser of \(W\) is contained in the stabiliser of its radical, \(\mathbb{F}_q u_1\), and thus lies in a (linear) Borel subgroup. It is then a straightforward calculation using the aforementioned isomorphism to confirm that the pointwise stabiliser of this space is isomorphic to \(E_q\).

\end{proof}

It is a straightforward exercise to check that the sets of elements with given nondegenerate 2-dimensional eigenspaces \(U \subseteq v^{\perp}\) are cyclic of order \(\abs{\SO(U)}\), and one can check this using either the spinor norm (see after \cite[Proposition 2.5.7]{KleidmanLiebeck}) or a calculation similar to that above. In particular, if \(\SO(U) = \gen{h}\) then for \(q \equiv 1 \mod 4\) the sets we are looking for are subgroups generated by \(h^2 \oplus -I_2\) and \(h \oplus -I_2\) for \(U\) of \(+\) type and \(-\) type, respectively. For \(q \equiv 3 \mod 4\) then we instead have \(h \oplus -I_2\) and \(h^2 \oplus -I_2\) (where \(A \oplus B\) is the block-diagonal matrix with \(A\) in the top left and \(B\) in the bottom right).

\begin{lemma}
	The set of all elements with \(2\)-dimensional eigenspaces in \(v^{\perp}\) is a coclique of order \(q^3 + q\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	We have a description of the elements with \(2\)-dimensional eigenspaces in \(v^{\perp}\) in the lemmas above, so it is sufficient to check that there is no overlap.

	Suppose that some element \(g\) has 2 distinct 2-dimensional eigenspaces inside of \(v^{\perp}\). Then clearly \(g\) must have a 3-dimensional 1-eigenspace (namely \(v^{\perp}\)) and so \(g\) must also stabilise \(v\) and since we require \(\det g = 1\) we must have that \(g v = v\) and \(g = I_4\). Thus the intersection of any pair of groups generated by the elements of the coclique of maximal order is trivial. Collecting all of these groups together, we see that we obtain a set of size
	\[(q-2) \frac{q (q-1)}{2} + \frac{q^2(q+1)}{2} + (q-1)(q+1) +1 = q^3 + q\]
	and so, as claimed, we obtain a coclique of order cubic in \(q\).
\end{proof}

\begin{thm} \label{final}
	The coclique \(A\) obtained above is maximal.
\end{thm}

We first state a lemma to clean up the end of the proof of this theorem.

\begin{lemma} \label{finallem}
	Suppose \(V\) has a decomposition \(V = V_{\lambda} \oplus V_{\mu} \oplus V_{\nu} \oplus V_{\kappa}\) into distinct (or zero) eigenspaces of \(g \in G\) such that no eigenspace has at least 2-dimensional intersection with \(v^{\perp}\) then there exists some \(h \in A\) such that \(\gen{g, h} = G\).
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Without loss of generality, we may say that \(V_{\kappa} \cap v^{\perp} = 0\) and the other three eigenspaces have at most 1-dimensional intersection with \(v^{\perp}\). Since an element \(h \in A\) of maximal order fixes some point if and only if it lies in its eigenspace \(U\) (or is one of two isotropic vectors when \(\abs{h} = q-1\)), we may choose any \(h \in A\) of maximal order such that none of the eigenspaces with nontrivial intersection with \(v^{\perp}\) intersect with \(U\) and \(U\) is non-degenerate. We may do this since even in the worst case where \(v^{\perp}\) has a basis of eigenvectors for distinct eigenvalues, there are at most \(3(q+1)\) 2-spaces containing any of these three points, yet \(q^2\) non-degenerate 2-spaces in \(v^{\perp}\) and since we chose \(q > 3\) earlier, \(q^2 > 3(q+1)\). Then \(\left< g, h \right>\) cannot stabilise any proper, nontrivial subspaces of \(V\) and so must be equal to \(G\).
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{final}]
	We now show that the coclique obtained above is indeed maximal by considering the maximal subgroups of \(\POmega_4^-(q)\). In what follows, the term `point' refers to a 1-space.

	This time around, we may ignore \(D_{q^2+1}\) since for \(q > 3\) we have \(q \pm 1 > 2\) and \(r \bigm| q-1\) and \(r \bigm| q^2 + 1\) means that \(r \bigm| (q-1)(q+1) = q^2-1\), thus \(r \bigm| q^2 + 1 - (q^2 - 1) = 2\). A similar argument holds for \(q+1\), and clearly the only natural number dividing both \(p\) and \(q^2 + 1\) is 1. Then we may ignore \(A_5\) and the subfield stabilisers \(\PSL_2(q)\) by simply choosing the stabilisers of non-degenerate 2-spaces in the argument that follows since these are generated by elements of order \(q \pm 1\) which are not found in \(A_5\) or \(\PSL_2(q)\) for \(q > 3\). if we take an element \(h\) of maximal order in the stabiliser of some non-degenerate subspace and some other \(g \in G\) then we have that \(\left< g,h\right>\) cannot be contained in either \(A_5\) or \(\PSL_2(q)\) as these groups do not have elements of sufficiently large orders.

	We note that the remaining three maximal subgroups are all of class \(\mathcal{C}_1\) and so represent the stabilisers of singular or non-singular subspaces. We thus look at how the stabilisers of various subspaces of \(\mathbb{F}_q^4\) interact with \(A\). We first note that the dihedral subgroups \(D_{q^2 - 1}\) represent the stabilisers of non-degenerate 2-dimensional subspaces (as the stabiliser of a degenerate one lies in the point stabiliser of its radical) and recall that the Borel subgroups and \(\PSL_2(q).2\) are the stabilisers of isotropic and non-isotropic 1-spaces, respectively.

	We also note that an element \(h \in A\) of maximal order stabilising a non-degenerate 2-space \(U \subseteq v^{\perp}\) will stabilise some point if and only if this point lies inside \(U\) or \(\abs{h} = q-1\) and this point is one of two isotropic points in \(U^{\perp}\). We first consider the case where \(g \in G\) stabilises some non-degenerate 2-space. If \(g\) stabilises \(V \subseteq v^{\perp}\) either \(V\) is an eigenspace of \(g\) or there is some 1-space \(\mathbb{F}_q u \subseteq V\) not fixed by \(g\). If there is one such point then there are many others, since if \(g\) fixes more than 2 non-isotropic points in the same 2-space then this space would have to be an eigenspace for \(g\), so we may choose some \(u \in V\) not fixed by \(g\) and a corresponding \(x \in V^{\perp}\) also not fixed by \(g\) such that \(\Span_{\mathbb{F}_q}\{u,x\}\) is non-degenerate. Then the element of \(L\) of maximal order with eigenspace \((\Span_{\mathbb{F}_q} \{u,x\})^{\perp}\) will be such that \(\left<g,h\right>\) stabilises no proper nontrivial subspace of \(\mathbb{F}_q^4\) and so must be equal to \(G\).

	Next, we consider the case where \(g\) stabilises some degenerate 2-space \(V \subseteq v^{\perp}\). Either \(V\) is an eigenspace for \(g\) or there is a (non-isotropic) 1-space \(\mathbb{F}_q u \subseteq V\) not fixed by \(g\). Then, as in the non-degenerate case, we may pick some non-isotropic vector \(x \in V^{\perp}\) such that \(\Span_{\mathbb{F}_q} \{u,x\}\) is non-degenerate and an element \(h \in A\) of maximal order with eigenspace \((\Span_{\mathbb{F}_q} \{u,x\})^{\perp}\) such that \(\left< g, h \right> = G\).

	Otherwise, if \(g\) has a 2-dimensional degenerate eigenspace inside of \(v^{\perp}\) then either the corresponding eigenvalue is 1 and so \(g \in A\) or it is \(-1\) and a direct computation shows us that some power of such an element would be \(-I_4 \notin G\), thus no such element exists.

	We are now left with a number of simpler cases corresponding to the possible eigenspaces of a general element \(g \in G\). If \(g\) has an eigenspace of dimension at least 3 then its intersection with \(v^{\perp}\) must be at least 2-dimensional and so \(g \in A\). Otherwise, \(g\) must have eigenspaces of dimension at most \(2\) and so we know that either it lies in \(A\) or will generate \(G\) along with some element of \(A\) by \cref{finallem}. Maximality of \(A\) follows.
\end{proof}

\newpage


Random walks of circle packings

Abstract: A notion of random walks for circle packings is introduced. The geometry behind this notion is discussed, together with some applications. In particular, we obtain a short proof of a result regarding the type problem for circle packings, which shows that the type of a circle packing is closely related to the type of its tangency graph.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Complex Variables (math.CV)

Random walks of circle packings


Laurent polynomials, Eulerian numbers, and Bernstein's theorem

Abstract: Erman, Smith, and Várilly-Alvarado showed that the expected number of doubly monic Laurent polynomials $f(z) = z^{-m} + a_{-m+1}z^{-m+1} + \cdots + a_{n-1}z^{n-1} + z^n$ whose first $m+n-1$ powers have vanishing constant term is the Eulerian number $\brac{m+n-1}{m-1}$, as well as a more refined result about sparse Laurent polynomials. We give an alternate proof of these results using Bernstein's theorem that clarifies the connection between these objects. In the process, we show that a refinement of Eulerian numbers gives a combinatorial interpretation for volumes of certain rational hyperplane sections of the hypercube.

\section{Introduction}

Fix positive integers $m$ and $n$, and let $f(z) = z^{-m} + a_{-m+1}z^{-m+1} + \cdots + a_{n-1}z^{n-1} + z^n$ be a doubly monic Laurent polynomial (with complex coefficients). Denote by $\llbracket f^k \rrbracket$, for all positive integers $k$, the constant coefficient of the $k$th power of $f(z)$. Then, motivated by a result of Duistermaat and van der Kallen \cite{DK} and a related question by Sturmfels \cite{Sturmfels}, Erman, Smith, and V\'arilly-Alvarado \cite{ESV} proved the following theorem.

\begin{thm}[\cite{ESV}]\label{thm-main}
The expected number of Laurent polynomials $f(z)$ such that $\llbracket f^1\rrbracket = \llbracket f^2\rrbracket = \cdots = \llbracket f^{m+n-1}\rrbracket=0$ is the Eulerian number $\brac{m+n-1}{m-1}$.
\end{thm}
Recall that the Eulerian number $\brac{n}{k}$ is the number of permutations in $S_n$ with exactly $k$ descents. (In \cite{ESV}, the ``expected number'' is computed as the degree of the ideal \[I_{m,n} = \langle \llbracket f^1\rrbracket, \llbracket f^2\rrbracket, \cdots, \llbracket f^{m+n-1}\rrbracket\rangle\] in $\mathbb C[a_{-m+1}, \cdots, a_{n-1}]$, assuming this ideal is zero-dimensional.)

Their proof of this theorem involves computing the Chow ring of an appropriate toric variety and then showing that the desired answer satisfies a certain recurrence that is also satisfied by the Eulerian numbers. As a result, the appearance of the Eulerian numbers using this approach is somewhat mysterious.

In this paper, we will attempt to elucidate this connection by giving an alternate proof of this result. We will use Bernstein's Theorem (also known as the BKK Theorem after Bernstein \cite{Bernstein}, Kushnirenko \cite{Kushnirenko}, and Khovanskii \cite{Khovanskii}) to relate the number of solutions of an appropriate polynomial system to the normalized volume of a hypersimplex, which is known to be enumerated by an Eulerian number in a natural way (see \cite{Stanley}). We will also, again following \cite{ESV}, apply a similar technique to show the analogous result for ``sparse'' Laurent polynomials. In the process, we will show that the volume of the intersection of the unit hypercube $[0,1]^n$ with a hyperplane of the form $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i = \frac cd$ for $\frac cd \in \mathbb Q$ can be interpreted combinatorially in terms of a refinement of the Eulerian numbers. (This refinement is a special case of the one given by the cyclic sieving phenomenon described in \cite{SSW}.)

\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, we review the two main ingredients needed for our proof, namely Bernstein's theorem on counting solutions to generic polynomial systems, and the relationship between Eulerian numbers and hypersimplices.

\subsection{Bernstein's theorem}

Given a Laurent polynomial $P(x_1, \dots, x_n) = \sum c_a x^a$ (where $x^a = x_1^{a_1}x_2^{a_2} \cdots x_n^{a_n}$), its \emph{support} is the set of vectors $a = (a_1, \dots, a_n) \in \mathbb Z^n$ such that $c_a$ is nonzero. The \emph{Newton polytope} $\Delta_P \subset \mathbb R^n$ of $P$ is the convex hull of the support of $P$. Bernstein's theorem gives a bound on the number of solutions to a polynomial system $P_1 = P_2 = \dots = P_n = 0$ that lie in the algebraic torus $(\mathbb C^\times)^n$ in terms of the Newton polytopes $\Delta_{P_1}, \dots, \Delta_{P_n}$.

More precisely, given polytopes $\Delta_1, \dots, \Delta_n \subset \mathbb R^n$, the volume of the polytope $t_1\Delta_1 + \dots + t_n \Delta_n$ (where $+$ denotes Minkowski sum) is a polynomial in $t_1, \dots, t_n$. Then the \emph{mixed volume} $MV(\Delta_1, \dots, \Delta_n)$ is the coefficient of $t_1t_2\cdots t_n$ in this polynomial. Bernstein's theorem can then be stated as follows.

\begin{thm}[\cite{Bernstein}] \label{thm-bernstein}
Let $P_1, \dots, P_n \in \mathbb C[x_1, \dots, x_n]$ with Newton polytopes $\Delta_1, \dots, \Delta_n$. Then the polynomial system $P_1=P_2=\dots=P_n=0$ has at most $MV(\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_n)$ isolated solutions in $(\mathbb C^\times)^n$. Moreover, if $P_1, \dots, P_n$ have generic coefficients given $\Delta_1, \dots, \Delta_n$, then this bound is exact.
\end{thm}

Bernstein's theorem can be proved, for instance, using toric geometry or homotopy continuation methods.

\subsection{Hypersimplices}

Let $k$ and $n$ be positive integers with $0<k<n$. The \emph{hypersimplex} $\Delta_{k,n} \subset \mathbb R^n$ is the polytope
\[\Delta_{k,n} = \{(x_1, \dots, x_n) \mid x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_n = k, \;\; x_i \in [0,1]\}.\]
In other words, $\Delta_{k,n}$ is a slice of the hypercube $[0,1]^n$ by the hyperplane $\sum x_i=k$. Note that $\Delta_{k,n}$ has dimension $n-1$, and $\Delta_{1, n}$ is the standard $(n-1)$-simplex. Normalizing so that the $(n-1)$-dimensional volume of $\Delta_{1, n}$ is 1, we have the following theorem of Stanley.
\begin{thm}[\cite{Stanley}]\label{thm-stanley}
The normalized volume of $\Delta_{k,n}$ is the Eulerian number $\brac{n-1}{k-1}$.
\end{thm}
Here the Eulerian number $\brac{n}{k}$ is the number of permutations in $S_n$ with exactly $k$ descents. The proof given in \cite{Stanley} constructs an explicit bijection between permutations in $S_{n-1}$ with $k-1$ descents and simplices in a  unimodular triangulation of $\Delta_{k,n}$.
\iffalse
We give the proof of this result here, as we will be adapting it later.

\begin{proof}
Let $\{x\}=x-\lfloor x \rfloor$ denote the fractional part of a real number $x$, and consider the piecewise linear function $\varphi\colon \Delta_{k,n} \to [0,1]^{n-1}$ sending $(x_1, \dots, x_n)\in\Delta_{k,n}$ to
\[(y_1, \dots, y_{n-1}) = (\{x_1\},\; \{x_1+x_2\},\; \dots,\; \{x_1+x_2+\dots+x_{n-1}\}).\]
This map preserves (normalized) volumes on its domains of linearity and is invertible away from a measure zero set via
\[(y_1, \dots, y_{n-1}) \mapsto (\{y_1\},\; \{y_2-y_1\},\; \dots, \; \{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}\},\; \{-y_{n-1}\}).\]
Hence the normalized volume of $\Delta_{k,n}$ equals the normalized volume of $\varphi(\Delta_{k,n})$.

For every permutation $w=w_1w_2\cdots w_{n-1} \in S_{n-1}$, one can define a simplex $\Delta_w \subset [0,1]^{n-1}$ consisting of those points whose coordinates are in the same relative order as the $w_i$. These $(n-1)!$ simplices triangulate $[0,1]^{n-1}$, and each has normalized volume $1$.

Suppose $(y_1, \dots, y_{n-1})$ lies in $\varphi(\Delta_{k,n})$. If $y_i<y_{i+1}$, then no integer lies between $x_1+\cdots +x_i$ and $x_1+\cdots +x_{i+1}$, while if $y_i>y_{i+1}$, then there does exist such an integer. Hence, by the definition of $\Delta_{k,n}$, if $y$ lies in the interior of some $\Delta_w$, then $w$ must have exactly $k-1$ descents (corresponding to when the partial sums of the $x_i$ cross each of the integers from 1 to $k-1$). Thus $\varphi(\Delta_{k,n})$ is, up to a measure zero set, the union of $\Delta_w$ where $w$ has $k-1$ descents, so its volume is the number of such permutations.
\end{proof}
\fi

\section{Proof of the main theorem}

We are now ready to give a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main}]
Let $N=m+n$, and write
\[f(z) = z^{-m} \prod_{i=1}^N (1+r_iz),\]
so that $\prod r_i = 1$. Then the map sending $r = (r_1, \dots, r_N)$ to $f(z)$ has degree $N!$, so it suffices to show that the expected number of possible $r$ is $N! \cdot \brac{N-1}{m-1}$.

Since the constant term $\llbracket f^k \rrbracket$ is the coefficient of $z^{mk}$ in $\prod_{i=1}^N (1+r_iz)^k$, it can be expressed as a symmetric polynomial $P_k(r_1, \dots, r_N)$. The monomial $r_1^{a_1}\cdots r_N^{a_N}$ appears in $P_k$ with coefficient $\prod_{i=1}^N \binom{k}{a_i}$ provided that $\sum a_i = mk$. Hence the support of $P_k$ is the set of all exponent vectors $a=(a_1, \dots, a_N)$ such that $\sum a_i = mk$ and $0 \leq a_i \leq k$. Thus the Newton polytope $\Delta_{P_k}$ is just $k\Delta_{m, N}$.

By Bernstein's theorem, the expected number of solutions to the system \[P_1(r)=\cdots = P_{N-1}(r)=r_1r_2\cdots r_N-1 = 0\] (noting that we must have $r_i \in \mathbb C^\times$) is \[MV(\Delta_{m,N}, 2\Delta_{m,N}, \cdots, (N-1)\Delta_{m,N}, I),\] where $I$ is the segment between $(0,0,\dots, 0)$ and $(1,1,\dots, 1)$. This is the coefficient of $t_1t_2\cdots t_N$ in the volume of $\Delta(t_1,\dots, t_N) = (t_1+2t_2+\cdots + (N-1)t_{N-1})\Delta_{m,N} + t_NI$.

Let $\Lambda \subset \mathbb R^N$ be the hyperplane $\sum a_i = 0$ (so that $\Delta_{m,N}$ lies in a hyperplane parallel to $\Lambda$ and $I$ is orthogonal to $\Lambda$). Then $\mathbb Z^{N-1} \cap \Lambda$ and $(1,1,\dots, 1)$ span a lattice that has index $N$ in $\mathbb Z^N$. Thus, by Theorem~\ref{thm-stanley}, $\operatorname{Vol} (\Delta_{m,N}+I) = \frac{N}{(N-1)!}\brac{N-1}{m-1}$, and hence
\[\operatorname{Vol} \Delta(t_1, \dots, t_N) = (t_1+2t_2+\cdots+(N-1)t_{N-1})^{N-1}t_N \cdot \frac{N}{(N-1)!}\brac{N-1}{m-1}.\]
The coefficient of $t_1\cdots t_N$ is then $N! \cdot \brac{N-1}{m-1}$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\section{Refinement}

The authors of \cite{ESV} also count the expected number of Laurent polynomials as in Theorem~\ref{thm-main} that are ``sparse'' in a certain sense. Let us call $f(z)$ \emph{$d$-sparse} for some $d$ dividing $N=m+n$ if the coefficient of $z^i$ vanishes unless $i \equiv n \pmod d$. (Note that every $f(z)$ is $1$-sparse.) We will adapt our technique from above to count the expected number of $d$-sparse $f(z)$ satisfying Theorem~\ref{thm-main}.

We first define a fractional analogue of the hypersimplex. Given a positive integer $n$ and a rational number $\frac{c}{d}$ with $0<\frac{c}{d}<n$ and $\gcd(c,d)=1$, define the rational polytope
\[\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n} = \{(x_1, \dots, x_n)\mid x_1 + \cdots + x_n = \tfrac{c}{d}, x_i \in [0,1]\}.\]
In other words, $\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is a slice of the hypercube $[0,1]^n$ by the hyperplane $\sum x_i = \frac{c}{d}$. Although $\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is not an integer polytope, $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is. We will give a combinatorial interpretation for the normalized volume of $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$.

We may consider the permutations in $S_n$ as circular permutations of $\{0, 1, \dots, n\}$ (that is, permutations of $\{0, 1, \dots, n\}$ up to cyclic shift). Then a permutation with $k$ descents corresponds to a circular permutation with $k+1$ (cyclic) descents. For any $d$ dividing $n+1$, we let $\brac{n}{k}_d$ count the number of these circular permutations fixed by adding $\frac{n+1}{d}$ modulo $n+1$ to each number in the word of the permutation. Note that $\brac{n}{k}_1 = \brac{n}{k}$.

\begin{ex}
Let $n=5$ and $k=d=2$. Then $\brac{5}{2}_2$ counts the number of circular permutations of $\{0, \dots, 5\}$ with $3$ descents that are fixed upon adding $\frac{6}{2}=3$ (modulo $6$) to each number. There are $6$ of these: $042315$, $015342$, $045312$, $021354$, $051324$, and $024351$.

Compare this to $2\Delta_{\frac32, 3}$, the intersection of the cube $[0,2]^3$ with the plane $x_1+x_2+x_3 = 3$, which is a hexagon of normalized volume $6$.
\end{ex}

\begin{rmk}
The definition given above is attributed to Postnikov in \cite{ESV} (cf. \cite{LamPostnikov}). One can also obtain these numbers using the cyclic sieving phenomenon on permutations with fixed cycle type and number of excedances described in \cite{SSW} as follows: if $w=w_1\cdots w_{n}$ is a permutation in $S_{n}$ with $k$ \emph{ascents}, then $(0 \; w_1 \; w_2 \; \cdots \; w_{n})$ is a permutation of $\{0, 1, \dots, n\}$ with cycle type $\lambda = (n+1)$ and $k+1$ \emph{excedances}. The cyclic action generated by conjugation by $(0 \; 1\; 2 \; \cdots \; n-1)$ as in \cite{SSW} then corresponds to the addition of a constant modulo $n+1$ to each letter of a circular permutation as described in the previous paragraph.
\end{rmk}

Analogous to Theorem~\ref{thm-stanley}, we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm} \label{thm-fractional}
The normalized volume of $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is $\brac{dn-1}{c-1}_d$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The polytope $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is defined by $0 \leq x_i \leq d$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and $\sum x_i = c$. We may slice this polytope by the hyperplanes $x_i=a$ for all $x_i$ and all integers $a$. Then each of the resulting regions is a translate of a hypersimplex: the region containing a general point $(x_1, \dots, x_n)$ is a translate of $\Delta_{k,n}$ by $(\lfloor x_1 \rfloor, \dots, \lfloor x_n \rfloor)$, where $k = c-\sum \lfloor x_i \rfloor$. Hence, using Theorem~\ref{thm-stanley}, the normalized volume of $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ equals
\[\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \brac{n-1}{k-1} \cdot \#\{(x_1, \dots, x_n) \mid \textstyle\sum x_i = c-k, \quad x_i \in \{0, 1, \dots, d-1\}\}.\]
In other words, the normalized volume of $d\Delta_{\frac{c}{d},n}$ is the number of pairs $(w, x)$, where $w \in S_{n-1}$ has $k-1$ descents and $x=(x_1, \dots, x_n)$ is an integer point with $\sum x_i = c-k$ and $x_i \in [0, d-1]$. It therefore suffices to show that the number of such pairs $(w,x)$ is $\brac{dn-1}{c-1}_d$. We consider $w$ and $x$ to be periodic sequences with period $n$ (with $w_0=0$).

Let $p=(p_0, p_1, \dots)$ be the sequence such that $p_0=0$, and $p_i - nx_i$ is the smallest integer congruent to $w_i$ modulo $n$ that is larger than $w_{i-1}$. For instance, for $n=6$, if $w = w_0w_1w_2\ldots = 014352\dots$ and $x = x_1x_2\ldots = 010021\dots$, then \[p = (0, 1, 10, 15, 17, 32, \quad 42, 43, 52, 57, 59, 74, \quad \dots).\]

Note that $p$ is strictly increasing and $p_{i}-p_{i-1} < n(x_i+1) \leq dn$ for all $i$. Moreover, the number of multiples of $n$ in the interval $(p_{i-1}, p_i]$ is $x_i$ if $w_{i-1}<w_i$, and $x_i+1$ if $w_{i-1}>w_i$. Since the permutation $w \in S_{n-1}$ has exactly $k-1$ descents (so as a circular permutation it has $k$ descents), we have that $p_n = (k+\sum x_i)n = cn$, so $p_{i+n} = p_i + cn$ for all $i$.

Then consider the sequence $\bar p$ obtained by reducing the terms in the sequence $p$ modulo $dn$. Since $c$ and $d$ are relatively prime and $p_0, \dots, p_{n-1}$ are all different modulo $n$, it follows that $\bar p_0, \dots, \bar p_{dn-1}$ are all distinct (as residues modulo $dn$). Moreover, since $p_{dn} = cdn$ and $p_i-p_{i-1} < dn$, $\bar p$ has exactly $c$ circular descents (corresponding to whenever there is a multiple of $dn$ in the interval $(p_{i-1}, p_i]$). Finally, since $p_{i+n} = p_i+cn$, adding $n$ (modulo $dn$) to each $\bar p_i$ performs a cyclic shift by $c'n$ to $\bar p$, where $c' \equiv c^{-1} \pmod d$. It follows that $\bar p$ is one of the circular permutations counted by $\brac{dn-1}{c-1}_d$.

Conversely, starting with a circular permutation $\bar p$ counted by $\brac{dn-1}{c-1}_d$, we can form the sequence $p$ by letting $p_i$ be the smallest integer larger than $p_{i-1}$ congruent to $\bar p_i$ modulo $dn$. Then since $\bar p$ has $c$ circular descents, $p_{dn} = cdn$. By the symmetry property of $\bar p$, we must have that $p_{i+n}-p_i = cn$. (Note that for $\bar p$ to be a permutation, we must have $c$ relatively prime to $d$.) It is now easy to reverse the procedure above to recover $(w, x)$, completing the proof of the bijection.
\end{proof}

Note that it follows from this proof that $\brac{n}{k}_d = 0$ if $d$ and $k+1$ are not relatively prime.

We can now mimic the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main} to get a result about $d$-sparse Laurent polynomials, as in \cite{ESV}.

\begin{thm}[\cite{ESV}]
The expected number of $d$-sparse Laurent polynomials $f(z)$ such that $\llbracket f^1\rrbracket = \llbracket f^2\rrbracket = \cdots = \llbracket f^{m+n-1}\rrbracket=0$ is $\brac{m+n-1}{m-1}_d$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $N=m+n$. If $f(z)$ is $d$-sparse, then we can write
\[f(z) = z^{-m} \prod_{i=1}^{N/d} (1+r_iz^d)\]
for some nonzero $r_1, \dots, r_{N/d}$ with product 1, and again, as in Theorem~\ref{thm-main}, it suffices to show that the expected number of possible $r$ is $(\frac{N}{d})! \cdot \brac{N-1}{m-1}_d$.

 As in Theorem~\ref{thm-main}, we wish to find the coefficient of $z^{mk}$ in $\prod_{i=1}^{N/d} (1+r_iz^d)^k$ for $k = 1, \dots, N-1$ as a polynomial in the $r_i$. This polynomial will be nonzero when $d$ divides $mk$. Hence if $d$ is not relatively prime to $m$, this will occur for more than $\frac{N}{d}-1$ values of $k$, so we would not expect any such $f$ to exist.

If $d$ is relatively prime to $m$, then for $k=dk'$, let $P_{k'}(r_1, \dots, r_{\frac{N}{d}})$ be the coefficient of $z^{mk}$ in $\prod_{i=1}^{N/d}(1+r_iz^d)^k$, or equivalently the coefficient of $z^{mk'}$ in $\prod_{i=1}^{N/d}(1+r_iz)^{dk'}$. Then $(a_1, \dots, a_{\frac{N}{d}})$ lies in the support of $P_{k'}$ when $0 \leq a_i \leq dk'$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{N/d} a_i = mk'$. In other words, the Newton polytope of $P_{k'}$ is $k'\cdot d\Delta_{\frac{m}{d},\frac{N}{d}}$. Thus the expected number of such $f$ is
\[MV(d\Delta_{\frac{m}{d},\frac{N}{d}},\;\; 2\cdot d\Delta_{\frac{m}{d},\frac{N}{d}},\;\; \dots,\;\; (\tfrac{N}{d}-1) \cdot d\Delta_{\frac{m}{d},\frac{N}{d}},\;\; I),\]
where $I$ is the segment between $(0,0,\dots,0)$ and $(1,1,\dots,1)$. Then the same argument as in the last paragraph of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-main} shows that this mixed volume is $(\frac{N}{d})!$ times the normalized volume of $d\Delta_{\frac{m}{d},\frac{N}{d}}$, so the result follows from Theorem~\ref{thm-fractional}.
\end{proof}

\section{Concluding remarks}

Given the apparent connection between Laurent polynomials $f(z)$ that satisfy Theorem~\ref{thm-main} and Eulerian numbers, it is natural to ask whether there is any direct correspondence. In other words, can one give a bijection between permutations in $S_{n-1}$ with $k-1$ descents and these Laurent polynomials?

It is perhaps worth noting that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-stanley} given in \cite{Stanley} is bijective: it is shown that a hypersimplex can be triangulated in such a way that there is a natural bijection between the simplices in the triangulation and permutations with a given number of descents. (For more information about this triangulation, see \cite{LamPostnikov}.) Moreover, one can prove Theorem~\ref{thm-bernstein} using homotopy continuation methods, from which one may similarly be able to derive a bijection between the Laurent polynomials $f(z)$ and certain simplices. However, the details behind this line of reasoning have yet to be explored.

\section{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Cynthia Vinzant and Daniel Erman for useful discussions. This work was partially supported by an NSF MSPRF award number DMS 1004375 and an NSF RTG grant number DMS 0943832.


On monotonicity of Ramanujan function for binomial random variables

Abstract: For a binomial random variable $\xi$ with parameters $n$ and $b/n$, it is well known that the median equals $b$ when $b$ is an integer. In 1968, Jogdeo and Samuels studied the behaviour of the relative difference between ${\sf P}(\xi=b)$ and $1/2-{\sf P}(\xi<b)$. They proved its monotonicity in $n$ and posed a question about its monotonicity in $b$. This question is motivated by the solved problem proposed by Ramanujan in 1911 on the monotonicity of the same quantity but for a Poisson random variable with an integer parameter $b$. In the paper, we answer this question and introduce a simple way to analyse the monotonicity of similar functions.

\section{Introduction}

Given a non-negative integer random variable $\xi$, we call {\it the median of $\xi$}
$$
 \mu(\xi):=\min\left\{m\in\mathbb{Z}_+:\,{\sf P}(\xi\leq m)\geq\frac{1}{2}\right\}.
$$

Consider a Poisson random variable $\eta_b$ with a positive integer parameter $b$. From the general result of Choi~\cite{Choi} it follows that $\mu(\eta_b) = b$.
The more delicate question concerns the behaviour of the distibution function of $\eta_b$ around $b$ and was initially posed by S. Ramanujan~\cite{Ram}, who conjectured that
$$
y_b:=\frac{\frac{1}{2}-{\sf P}(\eta_b<b)}{{\sf P}(\eta_b=b)}\in\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)
$$
and $y_b$ decreases. This was proven independently by G. Szeg\"{o} in 1928~\cite{Szego} and G.N. Watson in 1929~\cite{Watson} and also implies that $\mu(\eta_b)=b$. Since then, the behaviour of $y_b$ was widely studied. Below, we give a very brief history of this study.

In 1913, in his letter to Hardy, Ramanujan posed an initial question: he conjectured that
$$
y_b=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{135(b+\alpha_b)},
$$
where $8/45\geq\alpha_b\geq 2/21$. This conjecture was proved by Flajolet et al.~\cite{Flajolet} in 1995. In 2003, S. E. Alm~\cite{Alm} proved that $\alpha_b$ decreases. In 2004, this result was strengthened by H. Alzer~\cite{Alzer}:
$$
 y_b=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{135b}-\frac{8}{2835(b^2+\beta_b)},
$$
where $-\frac{1}{3}<\beta_b\leq-1+\frac{4}{\sqrt{21(368-135e)}}$, and the bounds are sharp.\\

Similar properties are of interest for a binomial random variable $\xi_{b,n}$ with parameters $n$ and $b/n$, where $b\leq n$ are positive integers. It is known~\cite{Hamza} that $\left|\mu(\xi_{b,n})-b\right|\leq\ln 2$, and so, $\mu(\xi_{b,n})=b$. In 1968, K. Jogdeo and S. M. Samuels~\cite{Samuels_med} studied the generalization of the first Ramanujan conjecture for the binomial random variables. They considered the behaviour of
\begin{equation}
\label{z_bn_def}
z_{b,n}:=\frac{\frac{1}{2}-{\sf P}(\xi_{b,n}<b)}{{\sf P}(\xi_{b,n}=b)},
\end{equation}
and proved the following result.
\begin{theorem}[K. Jogdeo, S. M. Samuels, 1968]
For every $b$, $z_{b,n}$ decreases for $n\geq 2b$ and $z_{b,n}\to y_n$ as $n\to\infty$. Moreover, for all $n>2b$, $1/3<z_{b,n}<1/2$. For all $b<n<2b$, $1/2<z_{b,n}<2/3$. Finally, $z_{b,2b}=1/2=z_{b,b}$.
\label{Sam}
\end{theorem}
In the paper, they also mentioned that, obviously, $z_{b+1,n}<z_{b,n}$ for all large enough $n$, but they were unable to make this more precise.

We solve the problem proposed by Jogdeo and Samuels on a monotonicity of $z_{b,n}$ in $b$. Our main result is the following.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\varepsilon>0$. For $n$ large enough,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $n-(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}>b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$, then $z_{b+1,n}>z_{b,n}$,
\item if either $b>n-(1-\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$ or $b<(1-\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$, then $z_{b+1,n}<z_{b,n}$.
\end{enumerate}
\label{zs}
\end{theorem}

We are also interested in a monotonicity of $p_{b,n}:={\sf P}(\xi_{b,n}<b)$ in $b$. From the result of  Szeg\"{o} and Watson, it immediately follows that ${\sf P}(\eta_b<b)$ increases (or, in other words, the difference between $1/2$ and the probability that $\eta_b$ is less than the median decreases). So, for $n$ large enough, $p_{b+1,n}>p_{b,n}$ as well. It is easy to see that for $n=b+1$, $0=p_{b+1,n}<p_{b,n}$, in contrast. For small values of $b$, it can be verified that the same inequality holds even for $b+1\leq n\leq 3b+1$.  We prove that for all values of $b$ the monotonicity of $p_{b,n}$ in $b$ changes when $n = 3b + 2$.

\begin{theorem}
The following properties hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $n\geq 3b+2$, then $p_{b+1,n}>p_{b,n}$.

\item If $ n\leq 3b+1$, then $p_{b+1,n}<p_{b,n}$.
\end{itemize}
\label{ps}
\end{theorem}

Another motivation of this result comes from the open {\it problem of small deviations inequality}~(see, e.g.,~\cite{Feige}), which can be formulated as: for $c>0$, find the minimum of ${\sf P} \left(\xi_1 + \xi_2 + \ldots + \xi_n < n + c\right)$ over all sets of independent non-negative unit mean random variables $\{\xi_i\}_{i=1}^n$. It was shown~(see, e.g.~\cite{He}) that the optimal random variables are two-point. If we further restrict our set to independent identically distributed random variables, we will reduce (see the details below) the initial problem to the analysis of monotonicity of $\tilde p_{c,b, n}:={\sf P}(\tilde \xi_{c,b, n}<b)$, where $\tilde \xi_{c, b, n}$ is a binomial random variable with parameters $n$ and $\frac{b}{n+c}$, which is closely related to our problem. We believe that the function $\tilde p_{c,b,n}$ can be analysed in a similar to our methods manner.

For every $X\in(0,1)\times(1,\infty)$, consider the distribution $\mathcal{Q}(X)$ on $X$ with mean 1. Let  $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n$ be independent random variables with identical distribution $\mathcal{Q}(X)$. Moreover, let $c>0$. The problem is to find $\min_{X\in(0,1)\times(1,\infty)}{\sf P}(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n<n+c)$. In what follows, for simplicity, we consider $c=1$ (for arbitrary $c>0$, similar arguments work). In~\cite{Samuels_sum}, S. M. Samuels proved that the minimum equals $\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^n$. Let us show that this is true if and only if, for all integers $b\geq 2$, $n\geq 2b$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde p_{1,n}:={\sf P}(\tilde\xi_{1,n}=0)\leq {\sf P}(\tilde\xi_{b,n}<b)=:\tilde p_{b,n},
\label{Samuels_equivalent}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde\xi_{b,n}\sim{\mathrm{Bin}}(n,b/(n+1))$.

If $\min_{X\in(0,1)\times(1,\infty)}{\sf P}(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n<n+1)=\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^n$, then for $b\geq 2$, $n\geq 2b$, consider $X=\{0,\frac{n+1}{b}\}$. Clearly, ${\sf P}(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n<n+1)=\tilde p_{b,n}\geq\tilde p_{1,n}=\left(\frac{n}{n+1}\right)^n$.

Now, assume that, for all integers $b\geq 2$, $n\geq 2b$, the inequality~(\ref{Samuels_equivalent}) holds. Let $(\alpha,\beta)=X\in(0,1)\times(1,\infty)$. Then ${\sf P}(\xi_1=\beta)=\frac{1-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}$.
Then, clearly, ${\sf P}(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n<n+1)={\sf P}(\zeta<\lceil\frac{n+1-n\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}\rceil)$, where $\zeta\sim\mathrm{Bin}(n,\frac{1-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha})$. Denote $b:=\lceil\frac{n+1-n\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}\rceil$. It remains to prove that ${\sf P}(\zeta<b)\geq \tilde p_{b,n}$. The latter inequality follows from the fact that $\frac{1-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}<\frac{b}{n+1}$. Indeed, $\frac{b}{n+1}=
\left\lceil\frac{n+1-n\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}\right\rceil\frac{1}{n+1}\geq \frac{1-\frac{n}{n+1}\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}>\frac{1-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}$.\\

Notice that our arguments imply even more than the result of S.M. Samuels. We believe that our proof of Theorem~\ref{ps} may be adopted to prove that $\tilde p_{b,n}$ is increasing in $b$. If this is true, then we immediately get
\begin{conjecture}
Let $X=(\alpha,\beta)\in(0,1)\times(1,\infty)$. Let $b$ be an integer such that
$$
 b<\frac{n+1-n\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}\leq b+1.
$$
Then ${\sf P}(\xi_1+\ldots+\xi_n<n+1)\geq \tilde p_{b,n}$, where $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n$ are independent random variables with identical distribution $\mathcal{Q}(X)$, and the equality holds if and only if $\alpha=0$ and $\frac{n+1}{\beta}=b+1$.
\end{conjecture}

The rest of the paper is organized in the following way. In Section~\ref{tools}, we describe the main tools. In Section~\ref{th2}, we prove Theorem~\ref{ps}. In Section~\ref{th1}, we prove Theorem~\ref{zs}.

\section{Main tools}
\label{tools}

The crucial part of our proofs is a behaviour of the function $$g(z)=(1-z)^{b-1}z^{n-b}$$ on $\Delta_{b,n}:=[1-(b+1)/n,1-b/n]$. This is helpful since, as we show in Section~\ref{pg_expression}, $g_{b,n}:=\int_{\Delta_{b,n}}g(z)dz$ gives the major contribution to $p_{b+1,n}-p_{b,n}$ (a similar observation for $z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n}$ is also obtained). In Section~\ref{function_g}, we study an asymptotical behaviour of $g$.

This technique works for proving Theorem~\ref{zs} when $c\sqrt{n}<b<n/2$ for an appropriate choice of $c>0$. The case $b\geq n/2$ follows immediately from the observation that $z_{b,n}=1-z_{n-b,n}$ (see Section~\ref{th1}). For $b\leq c\sqrt{n}$, we exploit an asymptotical expansion of $z_{b,n}$ that is obtained in Section~\ref{g_asymptotics}.

All missing technical proofs (for Claims~\ref{pg_expression},~\ref{CL_below_0.5}~and~\ref{CL_z_estimation}) are provided in Appendix A.

\subsection{An integral expressions for $p_{b,n}$ and $z_{b, n}$}
The values $p_{b,n}$ by definition are equal to $\sum_{i=0}^{b-1}{n\choose i}(b/n)^i(1-b/n)^{n-i}$. In order to analyze this quantity we move from the discrete summation to the integral of the function $g(z)$. The same trick can be done for the value $z_{b,n}$, as stated in this result:

\begin{claim}
\label{pg_expression}
For $p_{b,n}$ and consecutive differences $p_{b+1,n}-p_{b,n}$ the following equalities hold:
\begin{equation}
\label{from_p_to_beta}
p_{b,n} = \frac{\int_0^{1-b/n}(1-z)^{b-1}z^{n-b}dz}{\int_0^1(1-z)^{b-1}z^{n-b}dz},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{p_difference_g}
p_{b+1,n}-p_{b,n}=\frac{\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b}-b\int_{1-(b+1)/n}^{1-b/n}(1-z)^{b-1} z^{n-b}dz}{b\int_0^1(1-z)^{b-1}z^{n-b}dz}.
\end{equation}
For $z_{b,n}$ and consecutive differences $z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n}$ the following equalities hold:
\begin{equation}
\label{zs_integral}
z_{b,n} =\frac{\frac{1}{2}b\left(\left[\int_{1-b/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-b/n}\right]g(z)dz\right)}{(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}},
\end{equation}
$$
z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n}=\frac{n^{n}}{2(n-b)(b+1)^b(n-b-1)^{n-b-1}}\times
\biggl(-2\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{n-b}+
$$
$$
b\left[\int_{1-(b+1)/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-(b+1)/n}\right]g(z)dz-
$$
\begin{equation}
\label{g_useful}
b\left(1+\frac{1}{b}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{1}{n-b}\right)^{n-b-1}\left[\int_{1-b/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-b/n}\right]g(z)dz\biggr).
\end{equation}
\end{claim}

{\it Proof: see Appendix A.}

\subsection{Studying a behaviour of $g$}
\label{function_g}

An inductive proof of the following observation is straightforward.

\begin{claim}
Let $\ell\in\{1,\ldots,\min\{b-1,n-b\}\}$. Then
$$
\frac{\partial^{\ell} g}{\partial z^{\ell}}=(1-z)^{b-1-\ell}z^{n-b-\ell}\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}{\ell\choose i}(-1)^{\ell-i}z^{\ell-i}\frac{(n-1-i)!}{(n-1-\ell)!}\frac{(n-b)!}{(n-b-i)!}.
$$
\label{CL2}
\end{claim}

Using Claim~\ref{CL2} and the Lagrange form of the remainder of the Taylor polynomial, we obtain a lower and an upper bounds for $g(z)$ on $\Delta_{b,n}$.

Let, for $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}_+$,
$
g_{\ell}(z)=\frac{1}{\ell!}\left(z-1+\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{\ell}\left[\frac{\partial^\ell g}{\partial z^{\ell}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)\right]
$
be the $\ell$-th term in the Taylor expansion of $g$, let $g_{\leq 3}(z)=\sum_{\ell=0}^3 g_{\ell}(z)$, and
$
d_4^-(z)=\frac{\partial^4 g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right), d_4^+(z)=\frac{\partial^4 g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b}{n}\right).
$

\begin{claim}
For $5\leq b\leq n/2$  and all $z\in\Delta_{b,n}$,
$$
g_{\leq 3}(z)+\frac{1}{24} \left(z-1+\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^4d_4^-(z)\leq g(z)\leq g_{\leq 3}(z)+ \frac{1}{24} \left(z-1+\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^4d_4^+(z).
$$
\label{CL_below_0.5}
\end{claim}
{\it Proof.} Immediately follows from the fact that $\partial^4 g/\partial z^4$ increases on $\Delta_{b,n}$. The latter is proven in Appendix A.

\subsection{Behaviour of $z_{b,n}$ for $b=O(\sqrt{n})$}
\label{g_asymptotics}

It is well known (see, e.g.,~\cite{Cheng}) that $y_b=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{135b}-\frac{8}{2835b^2}+O\left(\frac{1}{b^3}\right).$ From this and Stirling's approximation (see, e.g.,~\cite{Feller}) $b!=\sqrt{2\pi b}b^b\exp\left(-b+\frac{1}{12b}+O(1/b^3)\right)$, it follows that, for a Poisson random variable $\eta_b$,
\begin{equation}
 {\sf P}(\eta_b<b)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2\pi b}}-\frac{1}{540\sqrt{2\pi}b\sqrt{b}}+O\left(\frac{1}{b^2\sqrt{b}}\right).
\label{p_b_expantion}
\end{equation}

For a non-negative integer $\xi$, we denote $\xi^{(s)}:=\xi(\xi-1)\ldots(\xi-s+1)$.

\begin{lemma}
For every $s\in\mathbb{N}$,
$$
{\sf E}\left[\eta_b^{(s)}I(\eta_b<b)\right]=
b^s\left({\sf P}(\eta_b<b)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi b}}
\left[s-\frac{2s^3-s}{12b}\right]
\left[1+O\left(\frac{1}{b^2\sqrt{b}}\right)\right]\right).
$$
\label{expect}
\end{lemma}

{\it Proof.}
Compute
$$
{\sf E}\left[\eta_b^{(s)}I(\eta_b<b)\right]=\sum_{i=0}^{b-1}\frac{i!}{(i-s)!}\frac{b^i}{i!}e^{-b}=
$$
$$
=b^s\sum_{i=s}^{b-1}\frac{b^{i-s}}{(i-s)!}e^{-b}=b^s{\sf P}(\eta_b<b-s)=b^s\left[{\sf P}(\eta_b<b)-{\sf P}(b-s\leq\eta_b<b)\right].
$$
By the Stirling's approximation,
$$
{\sf P}(b-s\leq\eta_b<b)=\sum_{i=1}^{s}\frac{b^{b-i} e^{-b}}{(b-i)!}=
\sum_{i=1}^{s}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi b}} e^{-\frac{i^2}{2(b-i)}-\frac{1}{12(b-i)}}\left(1+\frac{i}{2(b-i)}\right)\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{b^2}\right)\right)=
$$
$$
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi b}}\left[\sum_{i=1}^{s}\left(1-\frac{i^2}{2b}-\frac{1}{12b}+\frac{i}{2b}\right)\right]
\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{b^2}\right)\right)
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi b}}\left[s-\frac{2s^3-s}{12b}\right]
\left(1+O\left(\frac{1}{b^2}\right)\right).\quad\Box
$$

Since, for $s,k\in\mathbb{N}$, $s<k$,
$
\sum_{i=0}^k (-1)^i {k\choose i} i^{(s)}=0,
$
Lemma~\ref{expect} with (\ref{p_b_expantion}) imply the following.

\begin{claim}
For every $k\in\mathbb{N}$, set $h_k^1={\sf E}\left[(b-\eta_b)^k I(\eta_b<b)\right], h_k^2={\sf E}\left[\eta_b(b-\eta_b)^k I(\eta_b<b)\right].$
Then
$$
h_1^1=\frac{\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}-\frac{1}{12\sqrt{2\pi b}}+O(b^{-1}),\quad h_2^1=b\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2\pi b}}\right)+O(1),\quad h_3^1=\frac{2b\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}+O(b),
$$
$$
h_k^1=O(b^{k-2})\text{ for all }k\geq 4;\quad h_1^2=\frac{b\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}+O(b),\quad h_k^2=O(b^{k})\text{ for all }k\geq 2.
$$
\label{expectations2}
\end{claim}

Using Claim~\ref{expectations2}, we get the following asymptotical expansion of $z_{b,n}$ when $b=O(\sqrt{n})$.

\begin{claim}
Let $C>0$ and $n>Cb^2$. Then $z_{b,n}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{135b}+\frac{b}{3n}+O\left(\frac{1}{b\sqrt{b}}\right).$
\label{CL_z_estimation}
\end{claim}
{\it Proof.} With Stirling’s approximation, we have
$$
 p_{b,n}= \left(1+O(b^{-2})\right)\left({\sf P}(\eta_b<b)+\frac{1}{2n}{\sf E}\eta_b I(\eta_b<b)-\frac{1}{2n}h_2^1-\frac{1}{3n^2}h_3^1\right).
$$
Applying Lemma 1 and Claim 4 and substituting the final asymptotics
into the definition~(\ref{z_bn_def}) of $z_{b,n}$, we get the result.
See the details in Appendix A.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{ps}}
\label{th2}

For boundary cases, when $b\leq 5$ or $b\geq n - 5$, the proof is given in Appendix B. The remaining is divided into 3 parts:

\begin{itemize}

\item $6\leq b\leq (n-2)/3$ (Section~\ref{ps_small}),

\item $(n-1)/3\leq b \leq n/2$ (Section~\ref{ps_large}),

\item $n - 5 > b>n/2$ (Section~\ref{ps_above_n_half}).

\end{itemize}

We leave out technical verification of some inequalities for Appendix C.

\subsection{Small values of $b$}
\label{ps_small}

In this section, we assume that $6\leq b\leq (n-2)/3$.

From Claim~\ref{CL_below_0.5}, we get
$$
 g_{b,n}\leq g^+_{b,n}:=\sum_{\ell=0}^3\frac{1}{(\ell+1)!n^{\ell+1}}\frac{\partial^{\ell} g}{\partial z^{\ell}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)+
 \frac{1}{120n^{5}}\frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b}{n}\right).
$$
Let us prove that
$
\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b}-bg^+_{b,n}>0,
$
which, due to Claim~\ref{p_difference_g}, will imply the claimed inequality $p_{b+1,n}>p_{b,n}$.
Since
$$
\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b}-bg^+_{b,n}=
$$
$$
\frac{1}{24n^6}\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{b-4}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b-2}P_{b,n}-\frac{b}{120n^{5}}\frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b}{n}\right),
$$
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
P_{b,n}:=&12b^5-16b^4n+64b^4+4b^3n^2-71b^3n+138b^3+16b^2n^2-112b^2n+ \\
&156b^2+12bn^2-105bn+94b+24n^2-48n+24,
\end{split}
\label{Pbn_def}
\end{equation}
the desired inequality follows from
\begin{equation}
\label{small_b_ineq}
 P_{b,n}>\frac{bn(\partial^{4} g/\partial z^{4})\left(1-\frac{b}{n}\right)}{5\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{b-4}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b-2}}.
\end{equation}
This inequality is proven in Appendix C.

\subsection{Large values of $b$}
\label{ps_large}

In this section, we assume that $(n-1)/3\leq b \leq  n/2$.

From Claim~\ref{CL_below_0.5}, we get
$$
 g_{b,n}\geq g^-_{b,n}:=\sum_{\ell=0}^3\frac{1}{(\ell+1)!n^{\ell+1}}\frac{\partial^{\ell} g}{\partial z^{\ell}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)+
 \frac{1}{120n^{5}}\frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right).
$$
Here, our goal is to prove that
$$
\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b}-bg_{b,n}^- =
$$
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{24n^6}\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{b-4}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b-2}P_{b,n}-\frac{b}{120n^{5}}\frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)
\label{negativeness}
\end{equation}
is negative, where $P_{b,n}$ is defined in the previous section. This inequality is proven in Appendix C.

\subsection{Above $n/2$}
\label{ps_above_n_half}

Finally, let us consider $b>n/2$. By the definition,
\begin{equation}
 p_{b,n}=1-{n\choose b}\left(\frac{b}{n}\right)^b\left(1-\frac{b}{n}\right)^{n-b}-p_{n-b,n}.
\label{before_above}
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}
p_{b+1,n}-p_{b,n}=\frac{(n-1)!}{b!(n-b-1)!}\frac{(b+1)^b(n-b-1)^{n-b-1}}{n^{n-1}}B+(p_{n-b,n}-p_{n-b-1,n}).
\label{p_above_n_over_2}
\end{equation}
where $B=\left(1-\frac{1}{b+1}\right)^b\left(1+\frac{1}{n-b-1}\right)^{n-b-1}-1$. For all $b\geq (n+1)/2$ and $n\geq6$, we have
$B<\exp\left(\frac{1}{2(b+1)}+\frac{1}{6(b+1)^2}-\frac{1}{2(n-b-1)}+\frac{1}{3(n-b-1)^2}\right)-1<0
$, which proves $p_{b+1,n} < p_{b,n}$ for $(n+1)/2\leq b< 2n/3$.
\\
Let $n-6\geq b\geq 2n/3$. Set $\tilde b=n-b-1$. In this case $5\leq \tilde b < n/3$. From Claim~\ref{p_difference_g}~and~(\ref{p_above_n_over_2}), with $U_{b,n} := 1+\frac{n-\tilde b}{n-\tilde b-1}-\left(\frac{\tilde b}{\tilde b+1}\right)^{\tilde b}\left(\frac{n-\tilde b}{n-\tilde b-1}\right)^{n-\tilde b}$, we get
$$p_{b+1,n}-p_{b,n}= {n\choose\tilde b}
\biggl[U_{b,n} \left(\frac{\tilde b+1}{n}\right)^{\tilde b}\left(1-\frac{\tilde b+1}{n}\right)^{n-\tilde b}
-\tilde b\int_{1-(\tilde b+1)/n}^{1-\tilde b/n}(1-z)^{\tilde b-1} z^{n-\tilde b}dz\biggr].
$$
In order to analyze $\int_{1-(\tilde b+1)/n}^{1-\tilde b/n}(1-z)^{\tilde b-1} z^{n-\tilde b}dz =: g_{\tilde b, n}$, according to Claim~\ref{CL_below_0.5}, we need to lowerbound $d_4^-(z) := \frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)$. By using the explicit formula (given in Appendix C, proof of inequality~(\ref{negativeness})) for
 \begin{equation}Q_{b,n} :=  \frac{\frac{\partial^{4} g}{\partial z^{4}}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)}{\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{b-5}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^{n-b-4}},
 \label{Qbn_def}
 \end{equation}
we get

$$p_{b+1,n} - p_{b,n} < \left(\frac{\tilde b + 1}{n}\right)^{\tilde b-4}\left(1-\frac{\tilde b + 1}{n}\right)^{n-\tilde b - 2}{n\choose\tilde b}\times\biggl[\frac{1}{24n^6}P_{\tilde b,n}-\frac{\tilde b}{120n^5}(3\tilde bn+46\tilde b-57n+46) +
$$
\begin{equation}
\label{above_n_over_2_b_ineq}
\left(\frac{n-\tilde b}{n-\tilde b-1} - \left(\frac{\tilde b}{\tilde b+1}\right)^{\tilde b}\left(\frac{n-\tilde b}{n-\tilde b-1}\right)^{n-\tilde b}\right)\left(\frac{\tilde b + 1}{n}\right)^4\left(1-\frac{\tilde b + 1}{n}\right)^2\biggr].
\end{equation}
Here, $\frac{n-1}{3} \leq \tilde b \leq \frac{n}{2}$.

The negativeness of the latter expression is proven in Appendix C and that concludes the proof of the theorem.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{zs}}
\label{th1}

The proof is divided into 4 parts:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(n-1)/2\geq b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}$ (Section~\ref{zs_large}),

\item $(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}\geq b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$ (Section~\ref{zs_medium}),

\item $b<(1-\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$ (Section~\ref{zs_small}),
\item $b\geq n/2$ (Section~\ref{zs_above_n_half}).

\end{itemize}

\subsection{Large values of $b$}
\label{zs_large}

In this section, we assume that $(n-1)/2\geq b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}$.

If $b=(n-1)/2$, then, from Theorem~\ref{ps}, for $n$ large enough,
$$
 \frac{z_{b+1,n}}{z_{b,n}}=\frac{1/2-p_{b+1,n}}{1/2-p_{b,n}}\frac{b^b(n-b)^{n-b}}{(b+1)^{b+1}(n-b-1)^{n-b-1}}=\frac{1/2-p_{b+1,n}}{1/2-p_{b,n}}>1.
$$

Now, let $(n-1)/2>b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{391}{60}n}$. Then

\begin{equation}
b\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{b}\right)+(n-b-1)\ln\left(1-\frac{1}{n-b}\right)<-\frac{n-2b}{2b(n-b)}+\frac{1}{2(n-b)^2}+\frac{1}{3b^2}<0.
\label{negative_appendix}
\end{equation}
From Theorem~\ref{Sam} and (\ref{zs_integral}),
\begin{equation}
\label{gz_integral_lowerbound}
 \left[\int_{1-b/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-b/n}\right]g(z)dz\geq\frac{2}{3b}(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}.
\end{equation}
By~(\ref{g_useful}), for $n$ large enough, we can (as shown in Appendix C) lowerbound $z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{diff_z_bn_lowerbound}
\frac{n^{n}}{(n-b)(b+1)^b(n-b-1)^{n-b-1}} \times \biggl[
 bg_{b,n}- \left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^b\times
 $$
 $$
 \left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{n-b} \left(1-\frac{1}{6(b+1)}-\frac{1}{18(b+1)^2}+\frac{1}{6(n-b-1)}+\frac{1}{6(n-b-1)^2}\right)\biggr].
\end{equation}
Denote
$$
A_{b,n}:=(n-b)\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^5\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^3.
$$
Using Claim~\ref{CL_below_0.5} and (\ref{negativeness}), we get
$$
 A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})>\frac{b}{120n^4}Q_{b,n}-\frac{1}{24n^5}\frac{b+1}{n}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^2P_{b,n}+
$$
$$
 \left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^4\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{4} \left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{18(b+1)}\right)-
 \left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^5\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{6(n-b-1)}\right),
$$
where $P_{b,n}$ is defined in~(\ref{Pbn_def}) and $Q_{b,n}$ in~(\ref{Qbn_def}) (see the explicit formula in Appendix C, proof of inequality~(\ref{negativeness})). Denote $x:=(b+1)/n$. It is easy to see that, for every $\beta>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for all $n$ large enough and $b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}$,
$$
 A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})>(1-\beta)\frac{1}{6}x^5(1-x)^3\geq 0,\quad\text{if }x\geq\delta,
$$
$$
 A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})>(1-\beta)\left[\frac{1}{6}x^5-\frac{31}{360}\frac{x^3}{n}\right]\geq 0,\quad\text{if }x<\delta.
$$

\subsection{Medium values of $b$}
\label{zs_medium}

Let $(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}\geq b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$. In this case, the bounds~(\ref{negative_appendix}) are also true. By Claim~\ref{CL_z_estimation}, for every $\gamma>0$ and $n$ large enough, $z_{b,n}\geq\frac{1}{3}+\left[\frac{4}{135b}+\frac{b}{3n}\right](1-\gamma)$.
Thus, for such $n$, by (\ref{zs_integral}),
$$
 \left[\int_{1-b/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-b/n}\right]g(z)dz\geq\left(\frac{2}{3b}+\left[\frac{8}{135b^2}+\frac{2}{3n}\right](1-\gamma)\right)(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}.
$$
Below, we use the same notations $x$ and $A_{b,n}$ as in Section~\ref{zs_large}. In the same way, from Claim~\ref{CL_below_0.5},~(\ref{g_useful})~and~(\ref{negativeness}), we get that, for every $\tilde\gamma>\gamma$ and $n$ large enough,
$$
 A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})>\frac{b}{120n^4}Q_{b,n}-\frac{1}{24n^5}\frac{b+1}{n}\left(1-\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^2P_{b,n}+
$$
$$
 \left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^4\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{4} \left(\frac{1}{6}+\left(\frac{1}{18}+\frac{2}{135}(1-\tilde\gamma)\right)\frac{1}{b+1}\right)+
$$
$$
 \frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^5\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{4}(1-\tilde\gamma)
 -\left(\frac{b+1}{n}\right)^5\left(\frac{n-b-1}{n}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{6(n-b-1)}\right).
$$
Therefore, for every $\beta>0$, large enough $n$ and $(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{31}{60}n}\geq b>(1+\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$,
\begin{equation}
A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})>(1-\beta)\left[\frac{x^5}{3}-\frac{77x^3}{1080n}\right]>0.
\label{convenient_inequality}
\end{equation}

\subsection{Small values of $b$}
\label{zs_small}

Let $b<(1-\varepsilon)\sqrt{\frac{77}{360}n}$. For constant $b$ and large enough $n$, $z_{b+1,n}<z_{b,n}$ since $y_{b+1}<y_b$. Below, we consider $b$ as large as desired. In this case, the bounds~(\ref{negative_appendix}) are also true. By Claim~\ref{CL_z_estimation}~and~(\ref{g_useful}), for every $\gamma>0$ and $n$ large enough,
$$
 \left[\int_{1-b/n}^1-\int_{0}^{1-b/n}\right]g(z)dz\leq\left(\frac{2}{3b}+\left[\frac{8}{135b^2}+\frac{2}{3n}\right](1+\gamma)\right)(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}.
$$
Note that, here, we should use $g^+_{b,n}$ instead of $g^-_{b,n}$, but the contribution of the difference between them in (\ref{convenient_inequality}) is at most $O(x^2/n^2)$, and so, for some constant $c$ and every positive $\beta$,
$$
A_{b,n}(z_{b+1,n}-z_{b,n})<(1+\beta)\left[\frac{x^5}{3}-\frac{77x^3}{1080n}+c\frac{x^2}{n^2}\right]<0
$$
for $n$ large enough.

\subsection{Above $n/2$}
\label{zs_above_n_half}

Finally, let us consider $b\geq n/2$. From~(\ref{before_above}), we get
$$
z_{b,n}=1-\frac{1/2-\left(1-{n\choose b}(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}-p_{n-b,n}\right)}{{n\choose b}(b/n)^b(1-b/n)^{n-b}}=1-z_{n-b,n}.
$$
Therefore, $z_{b+1,n}>z_{b,n}$ if and only if $z_{n-b-1,n}<z_{n-b,n}$.

Theorem is proved.

\section*{Acknowledgements} The work is supported by Mathematical Center in Akademgorodok, the agreement with Ministry of Science and High Education of the Russian Federation number  075-15-2019-1613.