Approximate (Abelian) groups

Abstract: ECM survey article discussing the structure of subsets of Abelian groups which behave `a bit like' cosets (of subgroups).

\section{Introduction}

The aim of this article is to cover some of the recent developments in the theory of approximate Abelian groups.  Our starting point is a common characterisation of cosets of subgroups: suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is a coset of a subgroup of $G$ -- we call this a coset \emph{in} $G$.  A simple characterisation of $A$ being a coset in $G$ is that
\begin{equation*}
\textrm{(i) } A \neq \emptyset; \textrm{ and (ii) } x,y,z \in A \Rightarrow x+y-z \in A.
\end{equation*}
The theory of approximate groups is concerned with relaxing these conditions.  Relaxing the first does not deliver particularly exciting results; relaxing the second, however, turns out to be very fruitful.

Our relaxations will be statistical in nature, and so we shall think of $G$ as being discrete and endowed with Haar counting measure.  It follows that we shall be interested in finite sets $A$.  We write
\begin{equation*}
E(A):=\sum_{x,y,z \in G}{1_A(x)1_A(y)1_A(z)1_A(x+y-z)},
\end{equation*}
a quantity which is called the \emph{additive energy} of $A$.  We see that $A$ is a coset if and only if (it is non-empty) and $E(A)=|A|^3$.  Our first question is what happens if condition (ii) is true only a proportion $1-\delta$ of the time.  In particular, what do sets $A$ look like for which
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.largeut}
E(A) \geq (1-\delta)|A|^3,
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is to be thought of as a small constant, say $\delta \leq 1/10$, and $|A|$ is to be thought of as tending to infinity.

It is instructive to begin with some examples.  The natural way to create sets with this property is based around cosets in $G$.  Indeed, suppose that $H$ is a coset in $G$ and $A$ is any set satisfying
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap H | \geq (1-\epsilon)|A| \textrm{ and }|A\cap H| \geq (1-\eta)|H|.
\end{equation*}
In words this says that $1-\epsilon$ of $A$ is contained in a coset $H$, and $1-\eta$ of $H$ is in the intersection of $A$ and $H$.  Then, after a short calculation, we find that
\begin{equation*}
E(A) \geq (1-O(\epsilon + \eta))|A|^3.
\end{equation*}
It turns out that sets constructed in the above way are essentially the \emph{only} sets with large additive energy in the sense of (\ref{eqn.largeut}).  The following result is classical and has been considered in far more generality than the statement here suggests.  A proof can be read out of Fournier \cite{fou::}, but it seems likely that it was known before then.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop.firstrelax}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is finite with $E(A) \geq (1-\delta)|A|^3$.  Then there is some coset $H$ in $G$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap H | \geq (1-O(\delta^{1/2}))|A| \textrm{ and } |A \cap H | \geq (1-O(\delta^{1/2}))|H|.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The main strength of this result is that it is a rough equivalence: every set satisfying the conclusion also satisfies the hypothesis with $\delta$ replaced by $O(\delta^{1/2})$ so that up to powers the hypothesis and conclusion are equivalent.

The main weakness of the result is that there may be very few sets satisfying the hypothesis.  For example, suppose that $G=\Z/p\Z$ where $p$ is a prime.  Then $G$ has no non-trivial subgroups, so if $A$ is of `intermediate' size then a short argument from Proposition \ref{prop.firstrelax} tells us we must have $E(A) \leq (1-\Omega(1))|A|^3$; equivalently, no set of `intermediate' size satisfies the hypothesis.

This weakness highlighted in the above discussion can be rectified by a further relaxation of condition (ii), and this is the main concern of the paper.  We ask what happens if condition (ii) is true only a proportion $\delta$ of the time.  In particular, what do sets $A$ look like for which
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.large}
E(A) \geq \delta|A|^3,
\end{equation}
where this time $\delta$ is to be thought of as tending to $0$ (if at all) much more slowly than $|A|$ tends to infinity.

Once again we start by trying to construct examples of such sets.  As before we can use cosets to generate a large class of sets with large additive energy (in the sense of (\ref{eqn.large}) this time), but what is more interesting is that a genuinely new sort of structure emerges, that of arithmetic progressions.

If $P$ is an arithmetic progression a short calculation shows that $E(P) \sim \frac{2}{3}|P|^3$, but it turns out that this is just one example from a much wider class.

\begin{definition}[Convex coset progressions]  A \emph{convex progression} in $G$ is a set of the form $\phi(Q \cap \Z^d)$ where $Q$ is a symmetric convex body about the origin in $\R^d$, and $\phi:\Z^d \rightarrow G$ is a homomorphism.  A \emph{convex coset progression} in $G$ is then a set $H+P$ where $P$ is a convex progression and $H$ is a coset in $G$.  In both cases we say that the progression is \emph{$d$-dimensional}.
\end{definition}
It is worth making two small remarks here.  First, dimension is monotonic so that if a convex coset progression $M$ is $d$-dimensional then it is also $d'$-dimensional for all $d' \geq d$; secondly, in this article we are only interested in dimension up to a constant multiple.

Crucially convex coset progressions inherit growth properties from the convex body used in their definition.  It is not hard to show that if $M$ is a convex coset progression then
\begin{equation*}
|M+M| \leq \exp(O(d))|M|.
\end{equation*}

We now return to constructing sets with large additive energy.  Suppose that $M$ is a $d$-dimensional convex coset progression and $A$ is any set satisfying
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap M| \geq \eta |A|\textrm{ and } |A \cap M| \geq \epsilon |M|.
\end{equation*}
Then a short calculation using the fact that $|M+M| \leq \exp(O(d))|M|$ tells us that
\begin{equation*}
E(A) \geq \epsilon \eta^3\exp(-O(d))|A|^3.
\end{equation*}
Again it turns out that sets constructed in the above way are essentially the only sets having large additive energy.  The following result captures this fact and is a combination of the Balog-Szemer{\'e}di Lemma \cite{balsze::} and the Green-Ruzsa Theorem \cite{greruz::0}.  It should be remarked that the Green-Ruzsa Theorem is also called Fre{\u\i}man's theorem for Abelian groups and extends Fre{\u\i}man's theorem \cite{fre::} from $\Z$ to general Abelian group.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.frei}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is finite with $E(A) \geq \delta|A|^3$.  Then there is a convex coset progression $M$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap M| \geq \eta(\delta)|A|\textrm{, } |A\cap M| \geq \epsilon(\delta)|M| \textrm{ and } \dim M \leq d(\delta),
\end{equation*}
for some (increasing) functions $\eta,\epsilon$ and $d$.
\end{theorem}
While the result is appealing in its own right, since the breakthrough work of Gowers \cite{gow::4} it has become a central result in additive combinatorics and allied areas as a result of numerous applications.  This wealth of applications provides strong empirical evidence for the utility of the theorem, but there are also some rather compelling theoretical reasons why it should be so useful.  We turn to some of these now.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The hypothesis of the theorem is robust under small perturbations.  This is particularly useful because while the input is flexible, the output, a convex coset progression, is rather rigid.
\item The hypothesis of the theorem is easily satisfied.  From a theoretical perspective this is because convex coset progressions are ubiquitous in contrast to subgroups (in some groups).
\item A convex coset progression supports a lot of structure. While it is not a coset, it behaves enough like a coset that it can support many commonly used analytic arguments, and in particular a sort of approximate harmonic analysis.  This means that many results for groups can also be established for convex coset progressions.
\item The result is a rough equivalence: any set satisfying the conclusion of the theorem satisfies the hypothesis with $\delta$ replaced by $\epsilon(\delta)\eta(\delta)^3\exp(-O(d(\delta)))$.\end{enumerate}
The quality of the rough equivalence serves as a measure of the strength of Theorem \ref{thm.frei} and conjecturally this equivalence is polynomial.  Our interest in this paper is in the quality of this equivalence -- the strength of the bounds on $\eta(\delta),\epsilon(\delta)$ and $d(\delta)$ -- the stronger they are the stronger the results in applications.  Conjecturally we can take
\begin{equation*}
\log \eta(\delta)^{-1}, \log \epsilon(\delta)^{-1},d(\delta) = O(\log \delta^{-1})
\end{equation*}
in Theorem \ref{thm.frei}.  This is called the Polynomial Fre{\u\i}man-Ruzsa conjecture, and if true means that any set satisfying the output of Theorem \ref{thm.frei} automatically satisfies the hypothesis with $\delta$ replaced by $\delta^{O(1)}$ -- the rough equivalence would be rather strong.

Combining Gowers' refinement of the Balog-Szemer{\'e}di Lemma \cite{gow::4} with the Green-Ruzsa Theorem \cite{greruz::0} gives
\begin{equation*}
\log \eta(\delta)^{-1}, \log \epsilon(\delta)^{-1},d(\delta) = O(\delta^{-O(1)}).
\end{equation*}
Green and Ruzsa actually gave an explicit value for the constant implied in the $O(1)$ term and there was some work improving this constant before an important breakthrough by Schoen \cite{sch::1} who showed that it is smaller than any power.  Specifically he proved that one may take
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.sch}
\log \eta(\delta)^{-1}, \log \epsilon(\delta)^{-1},d(\delta) = O(\exp(O(\sqrt{\log \delta^{-1}}))).
\end{equation}
Following on from this we were recently able to show in \cite{san::00} that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn.finalbounds}
\log \eta(\delta)^{-1}, \log \epsilon(\delta)^{-1},d(\delta) = O(\log^{O(1)}\delta^{-1}).
\end{equation}
The results we have chosen to mention above are far from a complete history of work on Theorem \ref{thm.frei}.  Indeed, as a centrepiece of additive combinatorics it has been investigated from many different angles, but we do not have the space to discuss these here.  The interested reader may wish to consult the notes \cite{ruz::03} of Ruzsa.

\section{De-coupling the argument}

The arguments to prove Theorem \ref{thm.frei} separate naturally into two parts: one more combinatorial, and one more algebraic.  The quality of the bounds is almost entirely dependent on the combinatorial part of the argument and that is where most of the recent progress has been made, so we shall now briefly explain how to de-couple the two parts so that we can then focus on the combinatorial one.

The algebraic part of the argument essentially shows that being a convex coset progression is equivalent to satisfying a relative polynomial growth condition.  The latter condition is easier to satisfy combinatorially, so that proving Theorem \ref{thm.frei} comes down to finding a set with relative polynomial growth rather than a convex coset progression.

To be more concrete we start with an observation about convex sets: if $Q$ is a convex set in $\R^d$ then $\mu(nQ) \leq n^d\mu(Q)$ for all $n \geq 1$, and this property is inherited by $d$-dimensional convex coset progressions.  We say that a set $X$ has \emph{relative polynomial growth of order $d$} if
\begin{equation*}
|nX| \leq n^d|X| \textrm{ for all } n \geq 1,
\end{equation*}
where $nX:=X+\dots + X$ and the sum is $n$-fold\footnote{In particular $nX:=\{x_1+\dots+x_n: x_1,\dots,x_n \in X\}$.}.  It turns out that if $M$ is a $d$-dimensional coset progression then $M$ has relative polynomial growth of order $O(d)$, and that having relative polynomial growth is essentially characteristic for convex coset progressions.  To this end we have the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.polygrowi}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $X \subset G$ has relative polynomial growth of order $d$.  Then there is a (centred) convex coset progression $M$ in $G$ such that
\begin{equation*}
X-X \subset M\textrm{, } |M| \leq \exp(O(d\log d))|X| \textrm{ and } \dim M =O(d\log d).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
We shall sketch the proof of this Theorem in \S\ref{sec.asymfrei}, but it is not the focus of the paper and is more or less a rearrangement of the ideas in Green and Ruzsa \cite{greruz::0}.

By considering the $N \times \dots \times N$ cube in $\Z^d$ we see that the result is tight up to the logarithmic factors and we think of it as providing an equivalence between $d$-dimensional convex coset progressions and sets with relative polynomial growth of order $d$.  Indeed, instead of proving Theorem \ref{thm.frei} we shall prove the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.combi}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is such that $E(A) \geq \delta |A|^3$.  Then there is a set $Y$ which is a translate of $X-X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap Y| \geq\eta'(\delta) |A|\textrm{, }|A \cap Y| \geq \epsilon'(\delta) |Y|\textrm{ and } |nX| \leq n^{d'(\delta)}|X| \textrm{ for all }n \geq 1
\end{equation*}
for some (increasing) functions $\eta',\epsilon'$ and $d'$.
\end{theorem}
We should like to combine Theorems \ref{thm.polygrowi} and \ref{thm.combi} to get Theorem \ref{thm.frei}.  We can not do this directly but it turns out that by delving a little into the proofs of each one can combine them to do so, and in particular the ways we establish Theorem \ref{thm.combi} for given functions $\eta',\epsilon'$ and $d'$ lead to arguments for establishing Theorem \ref{thm.frei} with $\eta\approx\eta',\epsilon\approx\epsilon'$ and $d\approx d'$.

\section{Overview of the combinatorial obstacles}\label{sec.ov}

Our goal now is to prove Theorem \ref{thm.combi}, and in light of the equivalence mentioned in the previous section we shall think of cosets, convex coset progressions and sets with relative polynomial growth as being the same thing for the purpose of constructing examples.

One of the reasons that proving Theorem \ref{thm.combi} (and hence Theorem \ref{thm.frei}) is hard (and also one reason it is so powerful) is that there are qualitatively three different sorts of structure having large additive energy.  We got a sense of roughly what these are earlier but it is helpful now to record them a little more precisely.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it.r} \emph{(Random sets)} Suppose that $H$ is a coset in $G$ and $A \subset H$ is chosen by including each $h \in H$ independently with probability $\delta$.  Then (with high probability) $E(A)\approx \delta |A|^3$.
\item\label{it.l} \emph{(Independent copies of the same coset)} Suppose $H$ is a coset in $G$ and $A$ is a union of $k\sim \delta^{-1}$ independent cosets in $G/H$.  To be clear this means that $A=\bigcup_{i=1}^k{(x_i+H)}$ where $\{x_i+H\}_{i=1}^k$ is a set of $k$ elements of $H$ such that
\begin{equation*}
n \in \Z^k \textrm{ and } n_1x_1+\dots+n_kx_k\in H \Rightarrow n_ix_i \in H \textrm{ for all } i \in \{1,\dots,k\}.
\end{equation*}
Then $E(A)\approx \delta |A|^3$.
\item \emph{(Independent copies of different cosets)} Suppose that $k \sim \delta^{-1/2}$ and $H_1$, \dots, $H_k$ are `internally independent cosets' all of the same size which is to be taken to mean that
\begin{equation*}
|H_1+\dots+H_k|=|H_1|\dots |H_k|,
\end{equation*}
and intuitively means that there are no non-trivial relations between elements in the $H_i$s.  Then $E(A) \approx \delta |A|^3$.
\end{enumerate}
It is a little easier to unify the first two classes of example with each other than the third with either of the first two.  This is because in the first two classes there is an obvious choice of coset: $H$.  (In fact the obvious choice is really of subgroup, but this turns out not to be an important distinction here.)  On the other hand in the third class any of the cosets (or, rather, corresponding subgroups of) $H_1$, \dots, $H_k$ are reasonable choices and there is no particular reason to pick one over the other.

A unifying aspect of the first two classes above is that the sets $A$ given have small sumset.  In particular, in both classes we have that $|A+A| =\Theta(\delta^{-1}|A|)$ which we think of as saying that $A$ has `small doubling'; in the third class $|A+A| = \Omega(|A|^2)$ so that it is almost as large as can be.

The first step in proving Theorem \ref{thm.combi} is then in converting sets from the third class into the first two, and this is the purpose of the Balog-Szemer{\'e}di-Gowers Lemma.  Qualitatively this was proved by Balog and Szemer{\'e}di in \cite{balsze::}, but it was a very important step when Gowers established polynomial bounds in \cite{gow::4}.
\begin{theorem}[Balog-Szemer{\'e}di-Gowers Lemma]\label{thm.bsg}
Suppose that $A \subset G$ has $E(A) \geq \delta|A|^3$.  Then there is a set $A' \subset A$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A'| \geq \delta^{O(1)}|A|  \textrm{ and } |A'+A'| \leq \delta^{-O(1)}|A'|.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
This result has been studied extensively elsewhere and will not be our focus here.  The interested reader might like to consult the book \cite{taovu::} of Tao and Vu.  It is work saying that the proof is elementary, albeit rather clever, and is set around the idea of examining $A \cap (x+A)$ for suitable randomly chosen $x$.  In the third class of examples considered above this has the effect of selecting one of the cosets (at random).

From now on we shall be interested in the case of so-called `small doubling' mentioned earlier meaning the case when $|A+A| \leq K|A|$, and shall prove the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.combi2}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is such that $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $Y$ which is a translate of $X-X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap Y| \geq\eta''(K) |A|\textrm{, }|A \cap Y| \geq \epsilon''(K) |Y|\textrm{ and } |nX| \leq n^{d''(K)}|X| \textrm{ for all }n \geq 1
\end{equation*}
for some (decreasing) functions $\eta'',\epsilon''$ and $d''$.
\end{theorem}
This yields Theorem \ref{thm.combi} on combination with the Balog-Szemer{\'e}di-Gowers Lemma with
\begin{equation*}
\eta'(\delta) = \delta^{O(1)}\eta''(\delta^{-O(1)}), \epsilon'(\delta) = \delta^{O(1)}\epsilon''(\delta^{-{O(1)}}) \textrm{ and } d'(\delta) = d''(\delta^{-O(1)}).
\end{equation*}
In actual fact for the best bounds one also goes into the details of the proof of the Balog-Szemer{\'e}di-Gowers Lemma, but for this overview that improvement will not concern us.

The focus of the paper now is on proving Theorem \ref{thm.combi2} and we split into three sections.  In \S\ref{sec.basic} we establish Theorem \ref{thm.combi} with bounds corresponding roughly to the original work of Green and Ruzsa; in \S\ref{sec.schoen} we develop Schoen's improvement of this; and, finally, in \S\ref{sec.new} we develop the improvement leading to the bounds in (\ref{eqn.finalbounds}).

\section{Sumset estimates and polynomial growth}

In this brief section we record a couple of useful results which will help us to establish relative polynomial growth on all scales from a growth condition on just one scale.  In particular we have the following result of Chang \cite{cha::0}.
\begin{lemma}[Variant of Chang's covering lemma]\label{lem.ccl}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $X \subset G$ is symmetric with $|(3k+1)X| < 2^k|X|$ for some $k$. Then $|nX| \leq n^k|X|$ for all $n \geq 1$.
\end{lemma}
To establish the hypothesis of this lemma it will also be useful to have Pl{\"u}nnecke's inequality.
\begin{theorem}[Pl{\"u}nnecke's inequality]  Suppose that $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then $|nA| \leq K^n|A|$ for all $n \geq 1$.
\end{theorem}
This result was proved by Pl{\"u}nnecke in \cite{plu::}, and his proof was rediscovered and popularised somewhat later by Ruzsa.  Very recently, however, Petridis \cite{pet::} found a new proof which is very direct and well worth reading.

Before closing this short section it is worth saying that the above two results are part of a rich family of sumset estimates we do not have time to touch on here, but we direct the interested reader towards Tao and Vu \cite{taovu::} for more details.

\section{The basic argument}\label{sec.basic}

We now turn our attention to proving Theorem \ref{thm.combi2} with bounds of the quality arrived at by Green and Ruzsa in \cite{greruz::0}.  We are thus considering a set $A$ with $|A+A| \leq K|A|$ and in light of our earlier discussions we can restrict ourselves to sets coming from the first two classes of structure in \S\ref{sec.ov}.

Even with the work we have done the two classes of possible structure behave differently: in the first class when $A$ is chosen randomly from $H$, $A$ will typically have a lot of gaps so that $1_A$ is not very smooth.  One way of smoothing a function is by averaging or convolving and to this end we make a definition.

Given $f,g \in \ell^1(G)$ we define the \emph{convolution} of $f$ and $g$ to be the function
\begin{equation*}
f \ast g(x) = \sum_{y+z=x}{f(y)g(z)} \textrm{ for all }x \in G.
\end{equation*}
To relate this to sets we define some level sets called symmetry sets.  Given a set $A$ the \emph{symmetry set at threshold $\eta$} is defined to be the set
\begin{equation*}
\Sym_{\eta}(A):=\{x \in G:1_A \ast 1_{-A}(x) \geq \eta |A|\}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $1_A \ast 1_{-A}(x) \leq |A|$ so that $\Sym_\eta(A)$ is the set of points where $1_A \ast 1_{-A}$ is a proportion $\eta$ of its maximum.

Heuristically we expect $1_A \ast 1_A$ to be pretty smooth -- on a qualitative level $1_A$ is an element of $L^2$ and the convolution of two $L^2$ functions is continuous.  Concretely then we expect to have a quantitative version of the notion of uniform continuity, meaning there should be a (large) set $X$ such that on translation by elements of $X$, the convolution does not vary very much.  To formulate this precisely we define translation: given $f \in \ell^2(G)$ we write
\begin{equation*}
\tau_x(f)(y) = f(y+x) \textrm{ for all }x,y \in G.
\end{equation*}
It will also be helpful to write $\mu_A$ for the function $1_A/|A|$ so that $f \ast \mu_A(x)$ is the average value of $f$ over the set $x-A$.  The heuristic above can be made precise in a number of ways but one very powerful approach is due to Croot and Sisask \cite{crosis::} who proved the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Croot-Sisask Lemma]  Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group, $f \in \ell^2(G)$ and $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $X$ with $|X| \geq (2K)^{-O(\epsilon^{-2})}|A|$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|\tau_x(f \ast \mu_A) - f \ast \mu_A\|_{\ell^2(G)} \leq \epsilon \|f\|_{\ell^2(G)} \textrm{ for all } x \in X.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof]
  The basic idea is to start with the equality
\begin{equation*}
f \ast \mu_A = \E_{a \in A}{\tau_{-a}(f)}.
\end{equation*}
Given this we can randomly sample from $A$, say $k$ times, and get a good approximation to $f \ast \mu_A$:
\begin{equation*}
f \ast \mu_A \approx \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k{\tau_{-z_i}(f)}
\end{equation*}
for $z_1,\dots,z_k$ chosen uniformly at random from $A$.  Here `$\approx$' means approximately equal in $\ell^2$-norm, and the larger the value of $k$, the better the approximation.

We now examine the set $L$ of vectors $(z_i)_{i=1}^k$ such that the approximation is good.  By averaging we prove that $L-L$ has a large intersection, call it $X$, with the diagonal set $\{(a,\dots,a):a \in A\}$.  On the other hand, if $x \in X$ then it follows that there is some $z \in L$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f \ast \mu_A \approx \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k{\tau_{-z_i-x}(f)} \textrm{ and } f \ast \mu_A \approx \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k{\tau_{-z_i}(f)}
\end{equation*}
and hence
\begin{equation*}
\tau_x(f \ast \mu_A) \approx f \ast \mu_A \textrm{ for all } x \in X.
\end{equation*}
Working through the details of this sketch gives the proof.
\end{proof}

Given the above result we shall now prove the following which is the version of Theorem \ref{thm.combi2} corresponding to the bounds of Green and Ruzsa although the argument is somewhat different.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.combiweak}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is such that $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $Y$ which is a translate of $X-X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap Y| \geq \exp(-K^{1+o(1)}) |A| \textrm{, }|A \cap Y| = \Omega(|Y|/K)
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
 |nX| \leq n^{K^{1+o(1)}}|X| \textrm{ for all }n \geq 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof]
We let $k$ be a natural number to be optimised later and apply the Croot-Sisask lemma with $\epsilon = 1/2k\sqrt{K}$ to get a set $X$ with $|X| \geq |A|/(2K)^{O(k^2K)}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|\tau_x(1_A \ast 1_A) - 1_A \ast 1_A\|_{\ell^2(G)}^2 \leq |A|^3/4K \textrm{ for all } x \in kX
\end{equation*}
by the triangle inequality.  Now, by Cauchy-Schwarz we have $\|1_A \ast 1_A\|_{\ell^2(G)}^2 \geq |A|^3/K$ which by the triangle inequality and the output of the Croot-Sisask lemma tells us two things:
\begin{equation*}
kX \subset 2A-2A \textrm{ and }\|1_A \ast 1_A\ast \mu_{X-X} \|_{\ell^2(G)}^2 \geq |A|^3/4K.
\end{equation*}
The second of these gives us the translate $Y$ of $X-X$ such that $|A \cap Y| = \Omega(|Y|/K)$ via an averaging argument; the first let us control the degree of polynomial growth of $X$.

Since $kX \subset 2A-2A$ we have by Pl{\"u}nnecke's inequality that
\begin{equation*}
|klX| \leq K^{4l}|A| \leq K^{4l}(2K)^{O(k^2K)}|X|.
\end{equation*}
Putting $3r+1=kl$ and $l=k^2K$ we get that
\begin{equation*}
|(3r+1)X| \leq K^{O(r^{2/3}K^{1/3})}|X|;
\end{equation*}
it follows that we can take $r=O(K\log^3K)$ such that $|(3r+1)X| < 2^r|X|$.  Chang's covering lemma then tell us that $X$ has the right order of relative polynomial growth.

Finally from the definition of $r$ and $l$ in terms of $k$ we get that $k=O(\log K)$ from which the bound in the size of $|A\cap Y|/|A|$ follows.
\end{proof}

\section{Schoen's refinement}\label{sec.schoen}

Schoen in \cite{sch::1} made a major breakthrough when he proved the bounds mentioned in (\ref{eqn.sch}).  If we study the argument above the weakness was that we had to take $\epsilon \approx 1/\sqrt{K}$ in our application of the Croot-Sisask lemma, and since the resultant set $X$ has size exponentially dependent on $\epsilon^{-2}$ this lead to exponential losses in $K$.

To some extent these loses are necessary as can be seen by considering the examples in class (\ref{it.r}) of \S\ref{sec.ov}.  In this class $A$ is chosen randomly with probability $1/K$ from a coset $H$, so that (with high probability)
\begin{equation*}
1_A \ast 1_A(x) \approx |A|/K \textrm{ for all }x \in A-A.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand $A+A$ is very structured -- it is the whole coset $H$.  Similarly, in class (\ref{it.l}) of \S\ref{sec.ov}, $A+A$ is again very structured.

It follows that in either of the above cases $1_{A+A} \ast 1_{A+A}$ takes rather large values; certainly much larger than those of $1_A \ast 1_A$ in the case when $A$ is chosen randomly.  If we can guarantee that some convolution takes a lot of values much larger than its average value then the arguments at the end of the last section can be applied much more effectively.

This is roughly speaking Schoen's idea and the following is one of the key ingredients from \cite{sch::1}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop.intit}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group, $A$ is a finite subset of $G$ with $|A+A| \leq K|A|$, and $\epsilon \in (0,1]$ is a parameter. Then there is a non-empty set $A'\subset A$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|\Sym_{K^{-\eta}}(A'+A)| \geq \exp(-\exp(O(\eta^{-1}))\log K)|A|.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The proof of this is iterative and based around an important observation which seems to have been first made by Katz and Koester in \cite{katkoe::}.

Suppose that $A'' \subset G$ is such that $|A+A''| \leq M|A|$ and $|A'' + A''| \leq L|A''|$.  Then we have
\begin{equation*}
1_{A+A''} \ast 1_{-(A+A'')}(x) = |(A+A'') \cap (x+A+A'')| \geq |A + (A'' \cap (x+A''))|.
\end{equation*}
Writing $S$ for the set of $x$ such that $A'' \cap (x+A'')$ is large, that is
\begin{equation*}
S:=\{x \in G: 1_{A''} \ast 1_{A''}(x) \geq |A''|/2L\},
\end{equation*}
we have two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item either $1_{A+A''} \ast 1_{-(A+A'')}(x) \geq R|A+A''|$ for all $x \in S$;
\item or, putting $A''':=A''\cap (x+A'')$, we have
\begin{equation*}
|A'''+A'''| \leq 2L^2|A'''|\textrm{ and }|A+A'''| \leq (M/R)|A|.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Given this we proceed by downward induction on $|A+A''|/|A|$ terminating when we are in the first case and repeating with $A''$ replaced by $A'''$, $M$ by $M/R$ and $L$ by $2L^2$ in the second.  This yields the proposition.

With the above result we can now prove the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.combisch}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is such that $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $Y$ which is a translate of $X-X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap Y| \geq \exp(-\exp(O(\sqrt{\log K}))) |A| \textrm{, }|A \cap Y| =\Omega(|Y|/K^{O(1)})
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
 |nX| \leq n^{\exp(O(\sqrt{\log K})}|X| \textrm{ for all }n \geq 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof]
We apply Proposition \ref{prop.intit} and put $S:= \Sym_{K^{-\eta}}(A'+A)$ so that
\begin{equation*}
|S| \geq  \exp(-\exp(O(\eta^{-1}))\log K)|A|.
\end{equation*}
By definition and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have that
\begin{equation*}
\|1_{A+A'} \ast 1_S\|_{\ell^2(G)} \geq K^{-2\eta}|A+A'||S|^2,
\end{equation*}
and (since $S \subset 2A-2A$) that
\begin{equation*}
|S+S| \leq \exp(\exp(O(\eta^{-1}))\log K)|S|.
\end{equation*}
We then proceed as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm.combiweak} but this time apply Croot-Sisask to the function $1_{A+A'}$ and the set $S$ with parameter $\epsilon = 1/2kK^{-\eta}$ and get a set $X$ with
\begin{equation*}
|(3r+1)X| \leq (2K)^{O(r^{2/3}K^{O(\eta)}\exp(O(\eta^{-1})))}|X|.
\end{equation*}
Optimising for $\eta$ we take $\eta = 1/\sqrt{\log K}$, and then the argument proceeds much as before to give the result.
\end{proof}

\section{The L{\'o}pez-Ross trick and generalised Croot-Sisask}\label{sec.new}

The Croot-Sisask lemma has a rather powerful generalisation to $\ell^p$-norms.
\begin{lemma}[Croot-Sisask lemma, $\ell^p$-norm version]  Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group, $f \in \ell^p(G)$ and $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $X$ with $|X| \geq (2K)^{-O(\epsilon^{-2}p)}|A|$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|\tau_x(f \ast \mu_A) - f \ast \mu_A\|_{\ell^p(G)} \leq \epsilon \|f\|_{\ell^p(G)} \textrm{ for all } x \in X.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
This result is also from \cite{crosis::} and the proof of the $\ell^2$ version except that Khintchine's inequality has to be replaced by the Marcinkiewicz-Zygmund inequality.

The reason that this result is so much more powerful than the $\ell^2$ version of the Croot-Sisask lemma is in the bounds.  In particular the $p$ dependence is exponential in $p$, rather than doubly exponential which is what all previous arguments had given.  To understand why it is useful here we now sketch the proof of the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm.combifinal}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $A \subset G$ is such that $|A+A| \leq K|A|$.  Then there is a set $Y$ which is a translate of $X-X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|A \cap Y| \geq \exp(-\log^{O(1)}K) |A|\textrm{, }|A \cap Y| =\Omega(|Y|/K^{O(1)})
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
 |nX| \leq n^{\log^{O(1)}K}|X| \textrm{ for all }n \geq 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Sketch proof]
Rather than examining the $\ell^2$-norm of the convolution of two functions we use an observation of L{\'o}pez and Ross from \cite{lopros::}:
\begin{equation*}
\langle 1_{A+A}, 1_A \ast 1_A \rangle = |A|^2.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand if we know that
\begin{equation*}
\|\tau_x(1_{A+A} \ast 1_A) - 1_{A+A} \ast 1_A\|_{\ell^p(G)} \leq \epsilon \|1_{A+A}\|_{\ell^p(G)},
\end{equation*}
then we conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\langle \tau_x(1_{A+A}), 1_A \ast 1_A \rangle \geq  |A|^2 - \epsilon \|1_{A+A}\|_{\ell^p(G)}|A| = |A|^2(1-\epsilon K^{1/p}).
\end{equation*}
We conclude that we can take $p \sim \log K$ and $\epsilon = \Omega(1)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\langle \tau_x(1_{A+A}), 1_A \ast 1_A \rangle \geq  |A|^2/2.
\end{equation*}
But this means by the Croot-Sisask lemma that there is a set $X$ of size at least $|A|K^{-O(k^2)}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\langle \tau_x(1_{A+A}), 1_A \ast 1_A \rangle \geq  |A|^2/2 \textrm{ for all }x \in kX.
\end{equation*}
This can then be plugged back into a similar argument to the ones we had before to get Theorem \ref{thm.combifinal}.

The advantage here is that the set $X$ we have found is a lot bigger than those we had previously found as a result of the good bounds in the Croot-Sisask lemma.
\end{proof}

\section{Polynomial growth and convex progressions}\label{sec.asymfrei}

In this section we shall sketch a proof of Theorem \ref{thm.polygrowi} which we restate now as a reminder.
\begin{theorem}[{Theorem \ref{thm.polygrowi}}]
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group and $X \subset G$ is such that $ |nX| \leq n^d|X|$ for all $n \geq 1$.  Then there is a (centred) convex coset progression $M$ in $G$ such that
\begin{equation*}
X-X \subset M\textrm{, } |M| \leq \exp(O(d\log d))|X| \textrm{ and } \dim M =O(d\log d).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
As indicated this is largely a rearrangement of the ideas of Green and Ruzsa in \cite{greruz::0}, which are themselves developed from the hugely influential paper \cite{ruz::9} of Ruzsa.

One of the key tools is the Fourier transform which in this case we define regarding $G$ as a discrete group.  We write $\widehat{G}$ for the compact Abelian group of characters on $G$ and given $f \in \ell^1(G)$ the \emph{Fourier transform} of $f$ is defined to be the function
\begin{equation*}
\widehat{f}:\widehat{G} \rightarrow \C; \gamma\mapsto \sum_{x \in G}{f(x)\overline{\gamma(x)}}.
\end{equation*}
There is a useful notion of approximate annihilator on $G$ called Bohr sets.  Given $\Gamma \subset \widehat{G}$ a compact set and $\delta \in (0,2]$ we write
\begin{equation*}
\Bohr(\Gamma,\delta):=\{x \in G: |\gamma(x)-1| \leq \delta \textrm{ for all } \gamma \in \Gamma\}.
\end{equation*}
Bohr sets interact particularly well with the large spectrum of a set.  Given $A \subset G$ we write
\begin{equation*}
\LSpec(A,\epsilon):=\{\gamma \in \widehat{G}: \|1 - \gamma\|_{L^2(\mu_A \ast \mu_{-A})} \leq \epsilon\}.
\end{equation*}
The basic idea is to show that if $X$ has polynomial growth then $X-X$ is contained in the Bohr set of the large spectrum of (a dilate of) $X$.  We then show that this Bohr set is not too large, and finally that it is actually a low dimensional convex coset progression.

The following proposition deals with the first objective above; it is only slightly more general than \cite[Proposition 4.39]{taovu::}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop.lowerbound}
Suppose that $X\subset G$, $l$ is a positive integer such that $|lX| \leq K|(l-1)X|$ and
$\epsilon \in (0,1]$ is a parameter. Then
\begin{equation*}
X-X \subset \Bohr(\LSpec(lX,\epsilon),2\epsilon\sqrt{2K}).
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The proof is fairly straightforward after unpacking the definitions.

The second objective above -- that the Bohr set not be too large -- is proved using an idea of Schoen \cite{sch::0} introduced to Fre{\u\i}man-type problems by Green and Ruzsa in \cite{greruz::0}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop.LSpecproperties}
Suppose that $X\subset G$ has $|nX| \leq n^d|X|$ for all $n\geq 1$, and $\epsilon \in (0,1/2]$ is a parameter. Then we have the estimate
\begin{equation*}
|\Bohr(\LSpec(X,\epsilon),1/2\pi)| \leq \exp(O(d\log \epsilon^{-1}d))|X|.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
The proof of this is via the Fourier transform which shows that the large spectrum of the specified Bohr set must support a lot of the $\ell^2$-mass of $1_X$.

To deal with similar concerns to those of our the final objective Ruzsa introduced the geometry of number to Fre{\u\i}man-type theorems in \cite{ruz::9}.  There is a great deal to say about this,  and we direct the reader to \cite[Chapter 3.5]{taovu::} for a much more comprehensive discussion.  For our purposes we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop.coset}
Suppose that $G$ is an Abelian group, $d \in \N$ and $B$ is a Bohr set such that
\begin{equation*}
|\Bohr(\Gamma,(3d+1)\delta)|<2^d|\Bohr(\Gamma,\delta)| \textrm{ for some } \delta < 1/4(3d+1).
\end{equation*}
Then $\Bohr(\Gamma,\delta)$ is a $d$-dimensional convex coset progression.
\end{proposition}
The proof of this involves the covering lemma of Chang mentioned earlier and a very important embedding defined by Ruzsa
\begin{align*}
R_\Gamma:G& \rightarrow  C(\Gamma,\R)\\ x & \mapsto   R_\Gamma(x):\Gamma \rightarrow \R; \gamma \mapsto \frac{1}{2\pi}\arg(\gamma(x)),
\end{align*}
where the argument is taken to lie in $(-\pi,\pi]$.  The map $R_\Gamma$ acts as something called a Fre{\u\i}man morphism\footnote{We direct the unfamiliar reader to \cite[Chapter 5.3]{taovu::}.} which lets us embed Bohr sets into a lattice.

With those three ingredients it is possible to stitch together a proof of Theorem \ref{thm.polygrowi} and the section is complete.

\bibliographystyle{halpha}

Approximate (Abelian) groups


Quantitative $(p,q)$ theorems in combinatorial geometry

Abstract: We show quantitative versions of classic results in discrete geometry, where the size of a convex set is determined by some non-negative function. We give versions of this kind for the selection theorem of Bárány, the existence of weak epsilon-nets for convex sets and the $(p,q)$ theorem of Alon and Kleitman. These methods can be applied to functions such as the volume, surface area or number of points of a discrete set. We also give general quantitative versions of the colorful Helly theorem for continuous functions.

\section{Introduction}

Helly's theorem is a central result regarding the intersection structure of convex sets.  It says that \textit{a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ is intersecting if and only if every subfamily of cardinality $d+1$ is intersecting} \cite{Helly:1923wr}. Among the many generalizations and extensions of Helly's theorem (see, for instance,  \cite{Danzer:1963ug,Eckhoff:1993uy, Matousek:2002td, Wenger:2004uf, Amenta:2015tp}), a crowning achievement of combinatorial convexity is the proof of the $(p,q)$ theorem by Alon and Kleitman, answering positively a conjecture by Hadwiger and Debrunner \cite{Hadwiger:1957we}.

\begin{theoremp}[N. Alon and D. J. Kleitman \cite{Alon:1992ta}]
	Given integers $p \ge q \ge d+1$, there is a constant $c=c(p,q,d)$ such that the following statement holds.  For every finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of non-empty convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ such that out of every $p$ elements of $\mathcal{F}$ there are $q$ which are intersecting, there is a set $K$ of $c$ points that intersects every element in $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{theoremp}

The $(p,q)$ theorem has a rich history of variations and generalizations as well, described in the survey \cite{Eckhoff:2003ed}.  Newer results include a version for set systems of bounded $VC$-dimension \cite{Matousek:2004cs}, colorful and fractional versions \cite{Barany:2014bp} or versions with the intersections being restricted to be in certain curves \cite{Govindarajan:2015ir}.  It should be noted that even though there are plenty of results regarding existence of $(p,q)$ theorems, finding efficient bounds for $c(p,q,d)$ remains an extremely difficult problem.

Recently, there have been developments regarding versions of Helly's theorem which work if we additionally require the condition that the intersection of the convex sets is quantitatively large.  This could mean, for example, that it contains many points from a certain discrete subset $S$ of $\mathds{R}^d$ or that it has a large volume.

The first results of this kind were given by B\'ar\'any, Katchalski and Pach \cite{Barany:1982ga, Barany:1984ed}.  They proved that \textit{given a finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, if the intersection of every $2d$ of them has volume at least one, then $\vol (\cap \mathcal{F}) \ge d^{-d^2}$.}  This has been recently improved by Nasz\'odi to conclude $\vol (\cap \mathcal{F}) \ge d^{-cd}$ for some absolute constant $c>0$ \cite{Naszodi:2015vi}.  The result does not hold checking subfamilies of size $2d-1$.  Optimizing over the volume guaranteed in the conclusion instead of the size of the families needed to be checked, the following version of Helly's theorem was obtained.

\begin{theoremp}[J.A. De Loera et al. \cite{DeLoera:2015wp}]
There is a constant $H(\vol, d,\varepsilon)$ such that the following holds.  If $\mathcal{F}$ is a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ such that all subfamilies of size at most $H(\vol, d,\varepsilon)$ have an intersection of volume at least one, then $\vol (\cap \mathcal{F}) \ge 1-\epsilon$.

Moreover, for any fixed $d$ we have that $H(\vol, d, \varepsilon) = \Theta (\varepsilon^{-(d-1)/2})$.
\end{theoremp}

 The quantity $H(\vol, d, \varepsilon)$ is closely related to results of approximation of convex sets by polytopes with few facets.  Due to the lower bounds in this theorem, it is impossible to obtain a result with $\vol(\cap \mathcal{F})\ge1$ in the conclusion, regardless of the size of the subfamilies we are willing to check.

For discrete functions over the convex sets, such as counting the number of integer points, there are also Helly-type results.  The first of this kind was presented by Doignon.

\begin{theoremp}[J.-P. Doignon \cite{Doignon:1973ht}]
	If $\mathcal{F}$ is a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ such that the intersection of every subfamily of size $2^d$ contains a point with integer coordinates, then the intersection of $\mathcal{F}$ contains a point with integer coordinates.
\end{theoremp}

This result was rediscovered several times \cite{Bell:1977tm, Scarf:1977va, Hoffman:1979ix}.  Doignon's theorem has a quantitative generalization \cite{Aliev:2014va}.  Aliev et. al. showed that there is a constant $c(k,d)$ such that \textit{for any finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ such that the intersection of every $c(k,d)$ of them contains at least $k$ points with integer coordinates, the intersection of the whole family contains at least $k$ points with integer coordinates}.

Recall that a set $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$ is said to be \textit{discrete} if every point $x \in \mathds{R}^d$ has a neighborhood such that $x$ is the only point of $S$ within it.  For any discrete set $S$, we can consider versions of Helly's theorem for $S$, and in particular can consider quantitative Helly numbers, defined as follows.

\begin{definition}
	For a discrete set $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$, we define the \emph{$k$-quantitative Helly number ${\mathds H}_S(k)$} as the smallest number for which the following statement holds.  For any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ such that for every subfamily $\mathcal{F}'$ of cardinality ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ or less we know that $\cap \mathcal{F}'$ has at least $k$ points of $S$, then $\cap \mathcal{F}$ contains at least $k$ points of $S$.  If no such number exists, we consider ${\mathds H}_S(k) = \infty$.
\end{definition}

An example of a large family of sets $S$ with finite ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ for all $k$ is the following.  Let $L$ be a lattice in $\mathds{R}^d$ and $L_1, L_2, \ldots, L_m$ be sublattices.  If $S = L \setminus (L_1 \cup \ldots \cup L_m)$, then ${\mathds H}_S(k) \le (2^{m+1}k+1)^{\rank L}$ \cite[Thm. 1.9]{DeLoera:2015wp}.  For the case where $S$ is the integer lattice, better bounds are found in \cite{Aliev:2014va}.

The aim of this paper is to show a general quantitative version of the $(p,q)$ theorem - in particular, one that captures the behavior of continuous functions as well as discrete functions over the convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$.  In Theorem \ref{theorem-general-quantitative-pq} we show a general set of conditions that a function $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ must satisfy in order to give a $(p,q)$ theorem, where $\mathcal{C}_d$ refers to the family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$.  In particular, we prove that the functions $f(K) = \vol (K)$, the surface area, and $f(K) = |K \cap S|$ satisfy the conditions, where $S$ is any discrete set with finite Helly numbers.  Namely, we obtain the following corollaries.

\begin{corollary}[Quantitative discrete $(p,q)$ theorem]\label{theorem-quant-pq}
Let $S$ be a discrete subset of $\mathds{R}^d$ and $k$ be an integer such that ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ is finite.  Let $p \ge q \ge {\mathds H}_S(k)$ be positive integers.  Then, there is a constant $c= c(p,q,k,S)$ such that the following is true.  For any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, each containing at least $k$ points of $S$ and such that for every $p$ sets in $\mathcal{F}$ there are $q$ whose intersection contains $k$ points of $S$, we can find $c$ sets $K_1, K_2, \ldots, K_c$, each containing $k$ points of $S$, such that every $F \in \mathcal{F}$ contains at least one $K_i$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}[Volumetric $(p,q)$ theorem]\label{theorem-vol-pq}
Given a positive integer $d$ and $1>\varepsilon > 0$, there is a constant $n(d, \varepsilon)$ such that the following holds.  Let $p \ge q \ge n(d, \varepsilon)$ be positive integers.  Then, there is a constant $c_{\vol}= c_{\vol}(p,q,d,\varepsilon)$ such that the following is true.  For any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, each of volume at least one and such that for every $p$ sets in $\mathcal{F}$ there are $q$ whose intersection has volume at least one, we can find $c_{\vol}$ convex sets $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_{c_{\vol}}$, each of volume $1- \varepsilon$, such that every $F \in \mathcal{F}$ contains at least one $C_i$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}[Surface area $(p,q)$ theorem]\label{theorem-surface}
Given a convex set $K \subset \mathds{R}^d$, let $\surface (K)$ be its surface area.  Given a positive integer $d$ and $1>\varepsilon > 0$, there is a constant $n_2(d, \varepsilon)$ such that the following holds.  Let $p \ge q \ge n_2(d, \varepsilon)$ be positive integers.  Then, there is a constant $c_{\surface}= c_{\surface}(p,q,d,\varepsilon)$ such that the following is true.  For any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, each of surface area at least one and such that for every $p$ sets in $\mathcal{F}$ there are $q$ whose intersection has surface area at least one, we can find $c_{\surface}$ convex sets $C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_{c_{\surface}}$, each of surface area $1- \varepsilon$, such that every $F \in \mathcal{F}$ contains at least one $C_i$.
\end{corollary}
For every fixed $d$, the quantity $n(d,\varepsilon)$ of Corollary \ref{theorem-vol-pq} is $O \left(\varepsilon^{-(d^2-1)/4}\right)$.  For $d=1$, it is a simple exercise to show that the classic $(p,q)$ theorem implies Corollary \ref{theorem-vol-pq}, with $\vol(C_i) = 1$ for all $i$.  For the quantity $n_2(d,\varepsilon)$ in Corollary \ref{theorem-surface}, we do not have explicit asymptotic bounds.

The case $k=1$, $S=\mathbb{Z}^d$ of Corollary \ref{theorem-quant-pq} has already been proven \cite{Alon:1995fs}.  Moreover, a surprising result is an improvement by B\'ar\'any and Matou\v{s}ek \cite{Barany:2003wg}.  They showed that the condition needed on $p,q$ is only $p \ge q \ge d+1$, while ${\mathds H}_{\mathbb{Z}^d}(1) = 2^d$.  However, it seems that one of their key ingredients \cite[Corollary 2.2]{Barany:2003wg} fails when $k \ge 2$.  The fractional Helly theorems of Averkov and Weismantel \cite{Averkov:2010tv} and the methods below show that we can relax the condition to $p \ge q \ge d+1$ if $k =1$ as long as ${\mathds H}_S(1)$ is finite.  Moreover, if $k=1$, the condition of $S$ being discrete can be replaced by asking $S$ to be closed.

A key step for Corollaries \ref{theorem-vol-pq} and \ref{theorem-surface} is the existence of a ``floating body''.  These floating bodies are extensions for arbitrary functions of the definition introduced in \cite{Schutt:1990tj}, where they are developed for the volume.  This concept allows us to prove general forms of the fractional Helly theorem.  It should be pointed out that these methods do not work for all functions, in particular the diameter does not satisfy the required conditions.  The floating bodies we discuss also allow us to prove general quantitative versions of the colorful Helly theorem by Lov\'asz, whose proof appeared in a paper by B\'ar\'any \cite{Barany:1982va}.  In particular, they work for the surface area and volume.  The case of the volume was already known \cite[Thm. 1.6]{DeLoera:2015wp}, with an essentially different proof.

The paper is organized as follows.  In section \ref{section-strong} we state the general $(p,q)$ theorem, the conditions needed for it and prove the result.  In section \ref{section-fractional-both} we give exhibit a class of functions that satisfies the conditions stated in section \ref{section-strong}.  This includes volume, the surface area and the number of points from a discrete set.  Using the same methods of section \ref{section-fractional-both}, we provide a general set of properties needed to prove quantitative version of the colorful Helly theorem in section \ref{section-colorful-volumetric}.  In section \ref{section-remarks} we include some remarks and open problems.

\section{General quantitative $(p,q)$ theorem}\label{section-strong}

Let $\mathds{R}^+ = \{a \in \mathds{R}: a \ge 0\}$ and $\mathcal{C}_d$ be the family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$.  We wish to determine which functions $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ allow for a quantitative $(p,q)$ theorem.  We say that a function $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ is monotone if $A \subset B$ implies $f(A) \le f(B)$.  During the rest of the paper we assume that the functions we work with are monotone.
The main three ingredients we need are that $f$ can be approximated by circumscribed polyhedra, that $f$ can be approximated by inscribed polytopes and a fractional Helly theorem. We define these three porperties below.  The first two conditions are directly related to the approximation of convex sets by polytopes, we recommend the surveys \cite{Bronstein:2008dn, Gruber:1993gj} for this subject.

Regarding the existence of approximations by circumscribed polyhedra, we can state a condition in terms of Helly-type theorems.

\begin{definition}\label{definition-helly}
	We say $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ \emph{admits a Helly theorem} if given $1>\varepsilon>0$ there is an integer $H(f,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ and $\lambda >0$, if every subfamily $\mathcal{F}'$ of cardinality at most $H(f,d,\varepsilon)$ satifies $f(\cap \mathcal{F}') \ge \lambda$, then $f(\cap \mathcal{F}) \ge (1-\varepsilon)\lambda$.
\end{definition}

It was shown in \cite{Amenta:2015tp} that those functions which allow for approximations by circumscribed polyhedra always admit a Helly theorem.  Namely, it is sufficient to know that for every convex set $K$ with $f(K)<\infty$, there is a polyhedron $P$ such that
\begin{itemize}
	\item $K \subset P$,
	\item $P$ has a bounded number of facets in terms of $d, \varepsilon$, and
	\item $f(K) \ge (1-\varepsilon)f(P)$.
\end{itemize}

If $f$ is the indicator of the property \textit{``being non-empty''} in Definition \ref{definition-helly}, we recreate Helly's original result.  The results needed for the volumetric version are stated precisely in \cite{Anonymous:HS2Q-kvJ}, which give approximation estimates based on the Nikodym metric.  For the surface area, it suffices to use a compactness argument similar to that we will use in section \ref{section-fractional-both}.  For the indicator of \textit{``containing a set of $k$ points from a set $S$''}, the definition of ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ is precisely the Helly theorem (with $\varepsilon = 0$).  Another equivalent formulation for this property is with the function $f(\cdot) = |S \cap \cdot|$ and the hidden constant being $k$, and $\varepsilon =0$.  In addition to the work in \cite{DeLoera:2015wp}, previous quantitative Helly-type results for continuous functions existed with contraction and expansion of convex sets \cite{Langberg:2009go}.

The next ingredient is that $f$ can be approximated by inscribed polytopes.

\begin{definition}\label{definition-caratheodory}
	We say $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+\cup \{\infty\}$ \emph{can be approximated by inscribed polytopes} if for every $1> \varepsilon > 0$ there is a constant $C(f,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for every $\infty > \lambda \ge 0$ and every convex set $K \subset \mathds{R}^d$ with $f(K) \ge \lambda$, there is a polytope $P \subset \mathds{R}^d$ such that
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $P \subset K$,
		\item $P$ has at most $C(f,d,\varepsilon)$ vertices, and
		\item $f(P) \ge (1-\varepsilon) \lambda$.
	\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

For example, very precise estimates exist for $C(\vol, d, \varepsilon)$ \cite{Gordon:1995kn, Gordon:1997wi}, giving $\left(\frac{c d}{\varepsilon}\right)^{(d-1)/2}$ for some absolute constants $c$ for an upper and lower bound.  For the indicator of \textit{``having at least $k$ points of $S$''}, one gets trivially $C(f,d,0) = k$.  For the surface area, again a compactness argument as in section \ref{section-fractional-both} is sufficient, although it does not yield explicit bounds.

The methods in \cite{DeLoera:2015wp} also show that this kind of approximation is closely linked to the existence of colorful Carath\'eodory theorems, as in \cite{Barany:1982va}.  This comes as no surprise since Carath\'eodory's theorem is the natural dual of Helly's theorem, and these approximations are duals to the ones needed for Helly-type theorems.  We will be using the approximations as above in combination with the following result.

\begin{theoremp}[Quantitative colorful Carath\'eodory theorem; De Loera et al. \cite{DeLoera:2015wp}]
	Let $S$ be a set of $k$ points in $\mathds{R}^d$, and $n = \max\{kd, d+1\}$.  Then, for any $n$ sets $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ such that $S \subset \conv (X_i)$ for all $i$, there is a choice of points $x_1 \in X_1, \ldots, x_n \in X_n$ such that $S \subset \conv\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$.
\end{theoremp}

The colorful Carath\'eodory theorem comes when we use the theorem above with the polytope from Definition \ref{definition-caratheodory} when $f(\cdot)$ is the indicator of the property \textit{``contains the origin''} (note that $C(f,d,0) = 1$ in this case).  This has also been studied for instance for $f(K) = \max \{\lambda \ge 0 : B_{\vec{0}}(\lambda) \subset K\}$, where $B_{\vec{0}}(\lambda)$ is the Euclidean ball of radius $\lambda$ centered at the origin \cite{Kirkpatrick:1992ex, DeLoera:2015wp}.  These are often referred to as quantitative Steinitz results, which were also pioneered by B\'ar\'any, Kathalski and Pach \cite{Barany:1982ga}.  If one changes the unit ball by an arbitrary centrally symmetric set, approximations reducing the Banach-Mazur distance, such as \cite{Barvinok:2014fx}, come into play.

The final ingredient is a fractional Helly theorem.

\begin{definition}
	We say $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+\cup \{\infty\}$ \emph{admits a fractional Helly theorem} if, given $1>\varepsilon>0$, there is an integer $F=F(f,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for any $\alpha>0$ there is a $\beta = \beta (\alpha, f, d, \varepsilon) >0$ such that the following holds.  Given any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, if there are at least $\alpha {{|\mathcal{F}|}\choose{F}}$ subsets $A \subset \mathcal{F}$ of cardinality $F$ that satisfy $f(\cap A) \ge 1$, there is a subset $\mathcal{F}' \subset \mathcal{F}$ of cardinality at least $\beta |\mathcal{F}|$ such that $f(\cap \mathcal{F}') \ge 1-\varepsilon$.
\end{definition}

We should emphasize that it is not immediate that a Helly theorem implies a fractional Helly theorem, or vice-versa.  In particular, for the volumetric version of the $(p,q)$ theorem we present, the fractional Helly we prove has a larger bound for $F(\vol, d, \varepsilon)$ than $H(\vol, d, \varepsilon)$.

Given a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ of volume at least one, if we make a simplicial complex by taking a vertex for each set and a face for each subfamily whose intersection has volume at least one, there is no indication that the resulting complex is $d'$-collapsible or even $d'$-Leray for some $d'$ depending on $d$.  In other words, the machinery developed by Gil Kalai to obtain fractional Helly results cannot be applied directly \cite{Kalai:1984isa, Kalai:1986ho}.  For a deeper discussion of the relation of topological properties of nerve complexes and Helly theorems, we recommend \cite{Tancer:2013iz}.

The most compelling cases are those for which $F(f,d,\varepsilon) \neq H(f,d,\varepsilon)$.  One instance where this can be observed is when $f$ is the indicator of the function \textit{``contains a point with integer coordinates''}, where B\'ar\'any and Matou\v{s}ek showed that the fractional Helly number is $d+1$, while the Helly number is $2^d$ \cite{Barany:2003wg}.  Other examples of this phenomenon include fractional Helly numbers for the property of \textit{``having a hyperplane transversal''} \cite{Alon:1995fs}, or fractional Helly numbers for set systems with bounded $VC$-dimension \cite{Matousek:2004cs}.  In both cases there is no Helly theorem but there is a fractional version.  We show a general way to obtain fractional Helly theorems, but the restrictions for the function increase.

For each of the definitions mentioned, we say $f$ satisfies a \textit{sharp} version of the result if it holds for $\varepsilon = 0$.  For instance, Doignon's theorem can be restated as $H(|\cdot \cap \mathbb{Z}^d|, d, 0) = 2^d$, with the hidden $\lambda$ being one.  Note that given a discrete set $S$, the function $f(K) = |S\cap K|$ and $\lambda = k$ would give the quantitative results for \textit{``having at least $k$ points of $S$''}.  This also sheds some light on why Helly-type results for functions that vary continuously such as the volume or diameter have a necessary loss $\varepsilon$ while discrete functions, such as $f(K) = |S\cap K|$ do not.  For $f(K) = |S\cap K|$, it suffices for $\varepsilon < \frac{1}{k}$ to get that $f(K) \ge (1- \varepsilon)k$ implies $f(K) \ge k$, so $n(f,d,\varepsilon) = n(f,d,0)$, so small values of $\varepsilon$ are of no consequence.

\begin{theorem}[Quantitative $(p,q)$ theorem]\label{theorem-general-quantitative-pq}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+\cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone function that admits a Helly theorem, approximations by inscribed polytopes and a fractional Helly theorem.  Then, given $p \ge q \ge F(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}{2})$, there is a constant $c=c(f,p,q,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, if out of every $p$ elements of $\mathcal{F}$ there is a $q$-tuple $A$ such that $f(\cap A) \ge 1$, then there is a family ${\mathcal T}$ of at most $c$ convex sets $K_1, K_2, \ldots, K_c$ such that $f(K_i) \ge 1- \varepsilon$ for each $i$ and every set in $\mathcal{F}$ contains at least one set in ${\mathcal T}$.

	Moreover, if $f$ admits sharp versions of the results mentioned, then we may take $\varepsilon=0$ in this theorem as well.
\end{theorem}

The constant $\frac{\varepsilon}2$ is completely arbitrary, and indeed any $\varepsilon' = \gamma \varepsilon$ for some constant $1 > \gamma >0$ would work (affecting the value of $c$, of course).  However, with the constant shown we get corollaries \ref{theorem-quant-pq}, \ref{theorem-vol-pq} and \ref{theorem-surface}.

In order to prove Theorem \ref{theorem-general-quantitative-pq}, we need new interpretations of results regarding the combinatorial structure of sets of points in $\mathds{R}^d$.  That is, given a family $S$ of points in $\mathds{R}^d$, we are interested in the combinatorial properties of the family of the convex hulls of subsets of $S$.  In particular, we need versions of Tverberg's theorem, B\'ar\'any's selection theorem and the existence of weak $\varepsilon$-nets for convex hulls.

These are classic results in combinatorial geometry.  As we present them we mention some references for the interested reader.  Each of these results could be seen as a counterpart for a Helly-type theorem.  Indeed, both Helly's theorem and Tverberg's theorem aim to find intersecting families of convex sets. Both the fractional Helly theorem and B\'ar\'any's selection theorem aim to find a positive-fraction subfamily which is intersecting.  Finally, both the $(p,q)$ theorem and the existence of weak $\varepsilon$-nets aim to bound the piercing number of a family of convex sets.

We start with Tverberg's theorem.

\begin{definition}
	We say $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ \emph{admits a Tverberg theorem} if, given $1>\varepsilon>0$, there is an integer $T(f,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for any positive integer $m$ and any real $\lambda >0$, given a family ${\mathcal T} = \{T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_n\}$ of $n=(m-1)T(f,d,\varepsilon)+1$ convex sets $T_i \subset \mathds{R}^d$ such that $f(T_i) \ge \lambda$ for all $i$, there is a partition of ${\mathcal T}$ into $m$ parts $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_m$ such that
	\[
	f\left( \bigcap_{j=1}^m \conv (\cup A_j)\right) \ge \lambda (1-\varepsilon)
	\]
\end{definition}

We should stress that the relevant feature of the definition above is that the number of sets needed to obtain a Tverberg partition is linear on the number of parts.  That is the key that allows the next results to hold.

The classic result was proven by Tverberg in 1966 \cite{Tverberg:1966tb}, where $f$ is the indicator function of \textit{``being non-empty''}, and $T(f,d,0) = d+1$.  The case $m=2$ is known as Radon's lemma \cite{Radon:1921vh}.  Other quantitative versions of Tverberg's theorem exist \cite{DeLoera:2015wp}, but they are essentially different from the version presented here.  Finding exact bounds for the case when $f$ is the indicator function of \textit{``containing a point with integer coordinates''} is a surprisingly resistant problem, even for $m=2$ \cite{Jamison:1981wz}.  We show that a quantitative Helly and approximations by inscribed polytopes imply a Tverberg theorem.

\begin{theorem}[Quantitative Tverberg theorem]
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+\cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone function that admits a Helly theorem and approximations by inscribed polytopes.  Then, $f$ admits a Tverberg theorem.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	In order to prove the result mentioned, we will show the following.  Given $\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2 \in (0,1)$ and a positive integer $m$, take
	\[n = (m-1)d\cdot H(f,d,\varepsilon_1)C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)+1.\]
	Then, given a family ${\mathcal T} = \{T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_n\}$ of sets such that $f(T_i) \ge \lambda$ for all $i$, there is a partition of ${\mathcal T}$ into $m$ parts $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_m$ such that
	\[
	f\left( \bigcap_{j=1}^m \conv (\cup A_j) \right) \ge \lambda (1-\varepsilon_1)(1-\varepsilon_2).
	\]
	This will imply that $f$ admits a Tverberg theorem.  In particular $T(f,d,\varepsilon) \le d \cdot H(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2) C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)$.

	Given a family ${\mathcal T}$ as above, consider the family
	\[
	\mathcal{F} = \{F: F= \conv(\cup {\mathcal T}'), {\mathcal T}' \subset {\mathcal T}, |{\mathcal T}'| = (m-1)d\cdot [H(f,d,\varepsilon_1)-1]C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)+1\}
	\]
	Note that each $F \in \mathcal{F}$ is missing at most $(m-1)d \cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$ sets of ${\mathcal T}$.  Thus, any $H(f,d,\varepsilon_1)$ of them have at least one $T_i$ in common, which means that their intersection has size at least $\lambda$ under $f$.  By the definition of $H(f,d,\varepsilon_1)$, there is a convex set $T_0$ with $f(T_0)\ge (1- \varepsilon_1)\lambda$ contained in $\cap \mathcal{F}$.

	Every closed halfspace that contains a point of $T_0$ also contains points of at least $(m-1)d\cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)+1$ sets of ${\mathcal T}$.  If this was not the case, there would be a a point $p \in T_0$ and closed halfspace containing $p$ and points of at most $(m-1)d\cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$ sets of ${\mathcal T}$.  This would contradict the fact that $p \in T_0 \subset \cap \mathcal{F}$.  In particular, we have $T_0 \subset \conv (\cup {\mathcal T})$.

	Now we construct $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_m$ inductively.  By the definition of $C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$, there we can find a set $P \subset T_0$ of cardinality at most $C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$ such that $f(\conv(P)) \ge f(T_0) (1-\varepsilon_2) \ge \lambda(1-\varepsilon_1)(1-\varepsilon_2)$.  By the observation above, $P \subset \conv (\cup {\mathcal T})$.

	If $C(f,d,\varepsilon_2) > 1$, by the quantitative Carath\'eodory theorem there is a set $U_1 \subset \cup {\mathcal T}$ of cardinality at most $d \cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$ such that $P \subset \conv U_1$.  For each point of $U_1$, let us take one set of ${\mathcal T}$ that contains it, and form $A_1$ in this way.  Note that $P \subset \conv (\cup A_1)$ and $|A_1| \le d \cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)$.  By removing $A_1$ from ${\mathcal T}$, we have that every closed halfspace that contains a point of $T_0$ also contains points of at least $(m-2)d\cdot C(f,d,\varepsilon_2)+1$ sets of what is left of ${\mathcal T}$.  Thus, we can continue this process and generate the sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_m$.  In the end,
	\[
	P \subset \bigcap_{j=1}^m \conv (\cup A_j).
	\]
	Thus, the same holds for $\conv(P)$, and since $f$ is monotone we obtain the result.

	If $C(f,d,\varepsilon_2) = 1$ we use the same inductive construction, but we have to take an additional precaution.  Let $\{p\}= T_0$.  When we construct $A_1$, we can take it to be minimal in cardinality.  Thus, if $|A_1| = d+1$, we have that $p \in \interior (A_1)$.  This means that every closed halfspace that contains $p$ in its boundary contains at most $d$ points of $A_1$.  In other words, we can keep the reduction process as before.
\end{proof}

Now we move on to the selection theorem.  Our goal is to show that allowing approximations by inscribed polytopes and a Tverberg theorem is enough to obtain the result below.

\begin{definition}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone function that can be approximated by inscribed polytopes and let $r(f,d,\varepsilon) = \max \{d \cdot C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2), d+1\}$.  We say $f$ \emph{admits a selection theorem} if for any $1>\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $\rho(f,d,\varepsilon)$ such that for any $\lambda >0$ and any finite family ${\mathcal T}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, if $f(T) \ge \lambda$ for all $T \in {\mathcal T}$, there is a convex set $T_0$ with $f(T_0) \ge \lambda (1-\varepsilon)$ contained in the convex hull of the union at least $\rho {{|{\mathcal T}|}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}}$ subsets $A \subset {\mathcal T}$ of cardinality $r(f,d,\varepsilon)$.

\end{definition}

The original result by B\'ar\'any \cite{Barany:1982va} is the case when $f$ is the indicator function of the property \textit{``is non-empty''}.  Even in this case, finding the optimal value of $\rho$ is a remarkably difficult problem.  The current best lower bound is $\rho(f,d,0) \ge \frac{1}{(d+1)!}$ \cite{Gromov:2010eb}.  We recommend \cite{Karasev:2012bj, Pach:1998vx} for further extensions and references of related results.

\begin{theorem}[Quantitative selection theorem]
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+\cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone 	function that admits a Tverberg theorem and approximations by inscribed polytopes.  Then, $f$ admits a selection theorem.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Take ${\mathcal T}$ a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ with $f(T) \ge \lambda$ for all $T \in {\mathcal T}$.  Since $f$ admits a Tverberg theorem, there is a convex set $U_0$ with $f(U_0) \ge (1- \frac{\varepsilon}2)\lambda$ and partition $P$ of ${\mathcal T}$ into $\frac{|{\mathcal T}|-1}{T(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)}+1$ parts such that the convex hull of the union of each part contains $U_0$.

	 By the definition of $C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)$, there is a polytope $T_0 \subset U_0$ with at most $C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)$ vertices such that $f(T_0) \ge (1-\frac{\varepsilon}2)^2\lambda \ge (1-\varepsilon) \lambda$.  Color each part in $P$ with a different color.  Since the convex hull of the union of each part contains $T_0$, by the quantitative colorful Carath\'eodory theorem, for each $r(f,d,\varepsilon) = \max \{d \cdot C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2), d+1\}$ colors, there is a rainbow choice of subsets of ${\mathcal T}$ such that the convex hulls of the sets contains $T_0$.  In other words, the number of $r(f,d,\varepsilon)$-tuples satisfying the desired conditions is at least

	\[
	{{\frac{|{\mathcal T}|-1}{T(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)}+1}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}} \ge \left(\frac{1}{T(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)}\right)^{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}{{|{\mathcal T}|}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}}.
	\]
\end{proof}

Using a selection theorem, we can show the existence of weak $\varepsilon$-nets for convex sets, similarly to \cite{Alon:1992ek}.  The goal now is, given a finite family ${\mathcal T}$ of \textit{large} convex sets under $f$, to bound the quantitative equivalent of the piercing number for the family of sets generated by taking the convex hull of the union of \textit{many} subsets of ${\mathcal T}$.  We say a set ${\mathcal T}$ \textit{pierces} a family of sets $\mathcal{F}$ if every set in $\mathcal{F}$ contains a set in ${\mathcal T}$.  We use the selection theorem to construct a piercing set following a greedy algorithm.

\begin{definition}\label{definition-weak-net-quant}
	Given $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ and $1>\varepsilon' > 0$, we say $f$ \emph{admits bounded weak $\varepsilon'$-nets} for convex sets if for every $1>\varepsilon >0$ there is a constant $m=m(f,d,\varepsilon, \varepsilon')$ such that for every $\lambda >0$ and every finite family ${\mathcal T}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ with $f(T) \ge \lambda$ for all $T \in {\mathcal T}$, there is a family ${\mathcal T}_0$ of at most $m$ convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ with $f(T_0) \ge (1-\varepsilon)\lambda$ for all $T_0 \in {\mathcal T}_0$ such that for every subset $A \subset {\mathcal T}$ of cardinality at least $\varepsilon' |{\mathcal T}|$, there is at least one set of ${\mathcal T}_0$ contained in $\conv (\cup A)$.

	We say that ${\mathcal T}_0$ is a $\varepsilon'$-weak net for the pair $({\mathcal T}, \varepsilon)$ if it satisfies the conditions above.
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
	If $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ is monotone, can be approximated by inscribed polytopes and admits a selection theorem, then for any $1>\varepsilon'>0$, it admits bounded weak $\varepsilon'$-nets for convex sets.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Given $\varepsilon >0$, $\lambda >0$ and a finite family ${\mathcal T}$ of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$ with $f(T) \ge \lambda$ for all $T \in {\mathcal T}$, we will construct inductively a weak $\varepsilon'$-net for the pair $({\mathcal T}, \varepsilon)$.

Let $r(f,d,\varepsilon) = \max\{d \cdot C(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2),d+1\}$.	In order to construct a weak $\varepsilon'$-net ${\mathcal T}_0$, we start with ${\mathcal T}_0$ being the empty set.  Let $R$ be the number of $r(f,d,\varepsilon)$-tuples $B \subset {\mathcal T}$ such that $\conv (\cup B)$ contains no set of ${\mathcal T}_0$.  If there is a subset  $A \subset {\mathcal T}$ of cardinality at least $\varepsilon' |{\mathcal T}|$ such that the convex hull of its union contains no set of ${\mathcal T}_0$, then we can apply the selection theorem to $A$ and find a convex set $T_0$ with $f(T) \ge \lambda (1-\varepsilon)$ that is contained in the convex hull of the union of at least
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\rho(f,d,\varepsilon) {{|A|}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}} & \ge & \rho(f,d,\varepsilon) {{\varepsilon' |{\mathcal T}|}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}} \\
		&\ge & \rho(f,d,\varepsilon)(\varepsilon')^{r(f,d,\varepsilon)} {{|{\mathcal T}|}\choose{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}}
	\end{eqnarray*}
	sets $B \subset A$ of cardinality $r(f,d,\varepsilon)$.  Thus, by adding $T$ to ${\mathcal T}_0$, we are effectively reducing $R$ by the quantity above.  Thus, this cannot be done more than $\left(\rho(f,d,\varepsilon)(\varepsilon')^{r(f,d,\varepsilon)}\right)^{-1}$ times, which gives the desired result.
\end{proof}

With the existence of weak $\varepsilon$-nets, we are ready to prove the quantitative version of the $(p,q)$ theorem.  For this purpose, we need the following definitions.

Given a monotone function $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$, we define
\[
\mathcal{C}_d{(f,\lambda)} = \{K \in \mathcal{C}_d : f(K) \ge \lambda \}.
\]

Given $\lambda >0$ and a finite family $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{C}_d$, we define

\begin{definition}
	Given $\lambda >0$ and a finite family $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{C}_d$, we define the \emph{$f$-transversal number} $\tau_{(f,\lambda)}(\mathcal{F})$ as the minimum $\sum_{C\in \mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda)}w(C)$ over all functions $w:\mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda) \to \{0,1\}$ such that
	\[
	\sum_{C: C \subset F, C \in \mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda)} w(C) \ge 1
	\]
	for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
	Given $\lambda >0$ and a finite family $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{C}_d$, we define the \emph{fractional $f$-transversal number} $\tau^*_{(f,\lambda)}(\mathcal{F})$ as the minimum $\sum_{C\in \mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda)}w(C)$ over all functions $w:\mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda) \to [0,1]$ such that
	\[
	\sum_{C: C \subset F, C \in \mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda)} w(C) \ge 1
	\]
	for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$.
\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
	Given $\lambda >0$ and a finite family $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{C}_d$, we define the \emph{fractional $f$-packing number} $\nu^*_{(f,\lambda)}(\mathcal{F})$ as the maximum $\sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}} w(F)$ over all functions $w: \mathcal{F} \to [0,1]$ such that
	\[
	\sum_{F: C \subset F, F \in \mathcal{F}} w(F) \le 1
	\]
	for all $C \in \mathcal{C}_d(f,\lambda)$.
\end{definition}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-first}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone function that admits weak $\varepsilon$-nets for convex sets.  Then, $\tau_{(f,1-\varepsilon)}(\mathcal{F})$ is bounded by a function that depends only on $f,d, \varepsilon$, and $\tau^*_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Let $w: \mathcal{C}_d (f, 1-\frac{\varepsilon}2) \to [0,1]$ be a function that realizes $\tau^*_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$, and write $r = \tau^*_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$.  Without loss of generality, we may assume that $w$ has finite support and takes only rational values.  Let $M$ be the common denominator of $w(K)$ for all $K \in \mathcal{C}_d(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}2)$.  Let ${\mathcal T}$ be the family that is formed by the disjoint union of $M \cdot w(K)$ copies of $K$, for each $K \in \mathcal{C}_d(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}2)$.  Now consider $\mathcal{K}$ a weak  $\frac{1}{r}$-net for ${\mathcal T}$, as in Definition \ref{definition-weak-net-quant} (the hidden constant $\lambda$ being equal to $1-\frac{\varepsilon}2$).

	Notice that for each $K \in \mathcal{K}$, we have that $f(K) \ge (1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})^2 \ge 1-\varepsilon$.  Also, by the definition of $\tau^*$, for a set $F \in \mathcal{F}$, there are at least $\frac{1}{r}|{\mathcal T}|$ sets in ${\mathcal T}$ contained in $F$.  Thus, by the definition of $\mathcal{K}$, there must be a set in $\mathcal{K}$ contained in $F$.  This implies that the indicator function of $\mathcal{K}$ satisfies the conditions in the definition of $\tau_{(f,1-\varepsilon)}(\mathcal{F})$.  Moreover, $|\mathcal{K}|$ depends only on $r,f, \varepsilon$, and $d$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-second}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a monotone function that admits a fractional Helly theorem and $p \ge q \ge F(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)$.  Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a finite family of convex sets such that for every $K \in \mathcal{F}$ we have $f(K) \ge 1$ and out of every $p$ sets in $\mathcal{F}$, there is a $q$-tuple $A$ such that $f(\cap A) \ge 1$.  Then $\nu^*_{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$ is bounded by a function that depends only on $f,p,q, \varepsilon$, and $d$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Let $w:\mathcal{F} \to [0,1]$ be a function that realizes $\nu^*_{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$, and write $r = \nu^*_{(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$.  We may assume without loss of generality that $w(F)$ is rational for all $F \in \mathcal{F}$.  Let $w(F) = \frac{N_F}{M}$ where $M$ is the common denominator for all $w(F)$ with $F \in \mathcal{F}$.  Let $\mathcal{F}'$ be a family consisting of $N_F$ copies of $F$ for each $F \in \mathcal{F}$, and $N = |\mathcal{F}'|$.  Note that $\frac{N}{M} = \sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}} \frac{N_F}{M} = r$.

	The family $\mathcal{F}'$ satisfies that out of every $(p-1)(q-1)+1$ of its sets, there is a $q$-tuple $A$ such that $f(\cap A) \ge 1$.  This is because given $(p-1)(q-1)+1$ sets of $\mathcal{F}'$, there are either $q$ copies of the same set or at least $p$ different sets of $\mathcal{F}$.  In either case, we have a $q$-tuple satisfying the property.  Thus, there is a positive fraction of the $F(f,d,\frac{\varepsilon}2)$-tuples of $\mathcal{F}'$ whose intersection $A$ satisfies $f(A) \ge 1$.  By the fractional Helly theorem, there must be a set $A_0$ with $f(A_0) \ge 1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ contained in at least $\beta N$ sets of $\mathcal{F}'$.  In other words,
	\[
	1 \ge \sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}: A_0 \subset F} w(F) = \sum_{F \in \mathcal{F}: A_0 \subset F} \frac{N_F}{M} \ge \frac{1}{M} \beta N = \beta r.
	\]

	This implies that $r \le \frac{1}{\beta}$, and $\beta$ is bounded by a function depending only on $p,q,f, \varepsilon$ and $d$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theorem-general-quantitative-pq}]
	By linear programming duality, $\tau_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}^*(\mathcal{F}) = \nu_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}^*(\mathcal{F})$.  Thus, using the lemmata \ref{lemma-first} and \ref{lemma-second}, we have a bound on $\tau_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$ that only depends on $p,q,f,d,$ and $\varepsilon$.  Notice that a function that realizes $\tau_{(f,1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})}(\mathcal{F})$ is the indicator of the family ${\mathcal T}$ of sets we are looking for in the theorem, i.e. every set in ${\mathcal T}$ is large according to $f$, and every set in $\mathcal{F}$ contains a set in ${\mathcal T}$.
\end{proof}

\section{Conditions for a fractional Helly theorem}\label{section-fractional-both}

In order to prove the Corollaries \ref{theorem-quant-pq}, \ref{theorem-vol-pq} and \ref{theorem-surface}, it suffices to show that the volume, surface area and the indicator of having $k$ points of $S$ satisfy the desired properties.  The first two conditions (admitting a Helly theorem and being approximable with inscribed polytopes) were discussed in section \ref{section-strong}.  Thus, it only remains to show the fractional Helly theorems.  We do this in Lemma \ref{lemma-fractional-general} below.

In order to prove this lemma we will use previous results regarding the convex floating body \cite{Schutt:1990tj}.  For a convex set $K$ with finite volume, we define $K(\vol,\varepsilon)$ as the set of points $x$ such that $\vol (H \cap K) \ge \vol(K)(1-\varepsilon)$ for all closed halfspaces $H \ni x$.  There are several results regarding the volume of the floating body \cite{Barany:2010cy}.  For sufficiently smooth bodies $K$ of unit volume, we have
\[
\vol(K(\vol,\varepsilon)) \ge 1-c\varepsilon^{2/(d+1)}
\]
where $c$ is a constant depending only on the dimension (see \cite{leich}).  This result is described in \cite{Barany:2010cy}, where it is mentioned that it was proved by Buchta, Gruber and M\"uller but only appears as a private communication.  The result holds for sufficiently smooth convex sets, and the constant $c$ is maximized by ellipsoids.  However, by standard approximation results, we can see that the bound above extends to all convex sets.  The reason why this bound is presented for sufficiently smooth bodies is that in that case there is a matching upper bound.

Note that if $K$ is a convex set of unit volume and $K'$ is another convex set such that $\vol(K \cap K') \ge 1-\varepsilon$, then $K(\vol, \varepsilon) \subset K'$.  There is no reason why the floating body is unique to the volume, and indeed we can introduce the following definition

\begin{definition}\label{definition-floating-body}
	Given a monotone function $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$, we say that there is a \emph{floating body} for $f$ if for every $1 > \varepsilon > 0$, there is a $\delta = \delta(\varepsilon) > 0$ such that any convex set $K$ with $f(K) < \infty$, there is a convex set $K(f,\varepsilon)$ such that
	\begin{itemize}
		\item $f(K(f,\varepsilon)) \ge (1- \delta)f(K)$ and
		\item for any convex set $A$, if $f(A \cap K) \ge (1-\varepsilon)f(K)$, then $K(f,\varepsilon) \subset A$.
	\end{itemize}
	Morevoer, we require that $\delta (\varepsilon) \to 0$ if $\varepsilon \to 0$.  Throughout the rest of this section we will assume that $f$ and $d$ are fixed.  Even though $\delta (\varepsilon)$ depends on them, it will be useful to denote it this way.
\end{definition}

We first show how some general properties of $f$ are enough to prove the existence of a floating body, which the reader can check are satisfied for the surface area.  We then show how the existence of a floating body and a Helly theorem are enough to prove a fractional Helly theorem and a colorful Helly theorem.

\begin{definition}
	We say a function $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ is
	\begin{itemize}
		\item \emph{homogeneous} if there is a constant $k$ such that for all $\alpha >0$, we have that $f(\alpha K ) = \alpha^k f(K)$;
		\item \emph{strictly monotone} if $f$ is monotone and for every convex set $B$ with $0<f(B) < \infty$, if $A \subset B$ is a convex set such that the closure of $A$ is different from the closure of $B$, then $f(A) < f(B)$;
		\item \emph{well-defined}, if $f(\emptyset) = 0$ and $f(B) \in \{0,\infty\}$ for any unbounded convex set $B$.
	\end{itemize}
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a continuous, strictly monotone, homogeneous, and well-defined function.  Then, there is a floating body for $f$.
\end{theorem}

Note that our condition of continuity over convex sets is taken under the topology induced by the Hausdorff metric.

\begin{proof}
	Since $f$ is homogeneous, well-defined and continuous, it is enough to show the existence of floating bodies for sets $K$ which are compact and contained in the closed ball of radius one around the origin.  Let us show that for a fixed $K$ there is a $\delta=\delta(K,\varepsilon)$ and a floating body $K'=K(f,\varepsilon)$ satisfying the conditions of Definition \ref{definition-floating-body} with $f(K') = (1- \delta(K,\varepsilon))f(K)$.  We may assume that $\infty > f(K) > 0$ without loss of generality.

	For every direction $v$, consider a $v$-halfspace a set of the form $\{x \in \mathds{R}^d: \langle x, v \rangle \le \alpha\}$ for some real $\alpha$, where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denotes the usual dot propduct.  Let $H'_v$ be the containment-minimal $v$-halfspace such that $f (H'_v \cap K) \ge (1- \varepsilon)f(K)$.  Note that $H'_v$ exists and is unique since $f$ is well-defined, strictly monotone, and continuous.  We define $K' = \cap_{v} H'_v$ and $\delta (K, \varepsilon) = 1- \frac{f(K')}{f(K)}$.

	Let $K'' \subset K$ be any compact convex set such that $f(K'') = 1- \varepsilon$.  If $K' \not\subset K''$, there must be a closed halfspace which strictly separates a point of $K'$ from all of $K''$.  However, if $v$ is the direction defining this hyperplane, it would contradict $K' \subset H'_v$.

	Let us show that $\delta(K, \varepsilon) \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$. If this was not true, there would be an $\alpha >0$ such that $\delta(K, \varepsilon) < (1- \alpha)f(K)$ for all $\varepsilon >0$.  Since $K(f,\varepsilon_1) \subset K(f, \varepsilon_2)$ if $\varepsilon_1 > \varepsilon_2$, we can consider the convex set $K_0 = \cup_{\varepsilon>0} K(f,\varepsilon)$.  By continuity of $f$, we have that $f(K_0) \le 1-\alpha$ and $K_0 \subset K$.  Thus, since $f$ is strictly monotone, there must be a $v$-halfspace $H_0$ such that $K_0 \subset H_0$ and $H_0$ does not contain the closure of $K$.

	Let $K_1 = K \cap H_0$.  It is clear that $K_0 \subset K_1 \subset K$, and the closure of $K_1$ and $K$ are different, so $f(K_1) = (1-\beta) f(K)$ for some $\beta > 0$.  Notice then that $K(f,\beta / 2) \not\subset K_1$, contradicting the fact that $K(f, \beta /2) \subset K_0$.  Thus $\delta(K, \varepsilon) \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.

	Let $\delta(\varepsilon)$ be the supremum of $\delta(K, \varepsilon)$ over all compact $K$ with $f(K) \le 1$ contained in the closed unit ball centered at the origin.  Let us show that $\delta(\varepsilon) \to 0$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.  If this was not the case, there would be a sequence of pairs $(K_1, \varepsilon_1), (K_2, \varepsilon_2), \ldots$ such that $\varepsilon_n \to 0$ and $K_n(f,\varepsilon_n) \not\to 0$.  However, since the space of sets we considered is compact under the Hausdorff metric, there would be a set $K^*$ such that $K_n \to K^*$.  Since $f$ is a continuous function and we are working with a compact metric space, it is uniformly continuous.  Thus, we can use the constructed sequence to show that $f(K^*(f,\varepsilon_n)) \not\to 0$ as $n \to \infty$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-fractional-general}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a well-defined, continuous, strictly monotone function that admits a Helly theorem and such that there is a floating body for $f$.  Then $f$ admits a fractional Helly theorem.  Moreover
	\[
	F(f,d,\varepsilon) \le H(f,d,\delta^{-1}(\varepsilon))
	\]
	where $\delta$ is the parameter induced by the floating body for $f$.
\end{lemma}

The reader may notice that any function that is well-defined, continuous and homogeneous allows for a Helly theorem, using a compactness argument such as the one in the last step of the proof above.  The same argument also shows that $f$ can be approximated by inscribed polytopes.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-fractional-general}]
	For a convex set $K$, we refer to $f(K)$ as its \emph{size}.  In order to prove this lemma, it suffices to show that, given $\alpha >0$ and $\mathcal{F}$ a finite family of $n$ convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, if an $\alpha$-fraction of the $H(f, d, \varepsilon)$-tuples are intersecting, then there is a set of size at least $1-\delta(\varepsilon)$ contained in a positive fraction $\beta$ of the sets in $\mathcal{F}$.  For simplicity, let $h=H(f, d, \varepsilon)$.

	We may assume that the sets in $\mathcal{F}$ are bounded.  Let $v$ be a direction.  We consider a $v$-halfspace to be a set of the form $\{x: \langle x, v\rangle \le \alpha\}$ for some real $\alpha$.  For each $(h-1)$-tuple $B=\{F_1, F_2, \ldots, F_{h-1}\}$ such that $f(\cap B) \ge 1$, let $H_B$ be the $v$-halfspace such that $f((\cap B)\bigcap H_B)=1$.  We denote this intersection by $K_B$.

Now consider an $h$-tuple $A$ of $\mathcal{F}$ such that $f(\cap A) \ge 1$.  Among its $(h-1)$-tuples, there must be one, call it $A'$, such that $H_{A'}$ is containment-maximal.  It is clear that if we add $H_{A'}$ to $A$, in the resulting family the intersection of any $h$ sets has size at least one.  By the definition of $h$ we have that the intersection of this whole family has size at least $1-\varepsilon$.  However, this implies that the set not in $A'$ contains $K_{A'}(f,\varepsilon)$.

For each $h$-tuple $A$ such that $f (\cap A) \ge 1$, let $A'$ be one of its $(h-1)$-tuple with containment-maximal $H_{A'}$.  If a positive fraction of the $h$-tuples satisfy the condition of the problem, then a simple counting argument shows that there must be an $(h-1)$-tuple $M$ which was assigned to at least $\beta n$ different $h$-tuples, for some positive $\beta$ not depending on $n$.  Thus at least $\beta n$ sets contain $K_{M}(f,\varepsilon)$, as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{lemma-fractional-volume}
The function $f(\cdot) = \vol (\cdot)$ admits a fractional Helly theorem.  Moreover, for any fixed dimension $d$, we have that $F (\vol, d, \varepsilon) = O\left(\varepsilon^{-(d^2-1)/4}\right)$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}\label{lemma-fractional-surface}
The function $f(\cdot) = \surface(\cdot)$ admits a fractional Helly theorem.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that the surface area function is homogeneous and well-defined.  It remains to prove that it is strictly monotone.  Suppose that $B_0$ is a convex set with $0 < \surface(B_0) < \infty$, and consider $A\subset B_0$ such that the closures of $A$ and $B_0$ are distinct.  Then, there exists a point $b$ of $B_0\setminus A$ and a halfspace $H$ such that $A\subset H$ and $b\not\in H$. Take $B_1=B_0\cap H$.  Note that the surface area of $B_1$ is strictly less than that of $B_0$.

If the closures of $B_1$ and $A$ are the same, then we are done.  Otherwise, we define $B_2$ from $B_1$ similarly.  By proceeding in this manner for $n$ steps, we attain either $B_n$ and $A$ with the same closure or else $B_n$ an arbitrarily good approximation of $A$, by a simple convexity argument.  Because $\surface(B_n)<\surface(B_{n-1})$ for every $n$, we conclude that $\surface(A)<\surface(B_0)$, as desired.
\end{proof}

By contrast, the diameter function is not strictly monotone, and actually fails to have a floating body.

\begin{lemma}
Let $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$ be a discrete set and $k$ a positive integer such that ${\mathds H}_k (S) < \infty$. Then, the function $f(\cdot)$ which is the indicator of the property ``having at least $k$ points of $S$'' admits a sharp fractional Helly theorem.  Moreover, for any fixed dimension $d$, we have that $F (f, d, 0) \le {\mathds H}_k (S)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	The proof is equivalent to the one of Lemma \ref{lemma-fractional-general}.  In this case, $v$ must be chosen such that it is not orthogonal to any segment with endpoints in $S$.  Since $S$ is discrete, and thus countable, this is always possible.  In this case, following the notation above, $K_{M_0}$ is a subset of exactly $k$ points of $S$, and the same arguments follow.
\end{proof}

\section{Colorful Helly for continuous functions}\label{section-colorful-volumetric}

We show how the floating bodies defined in the previous section imply a colorful Helly theorem.  When adapted to the volume, this yields an essentially different proof of the volumetric version of Helly's theorem.  The first proof is given in \cite{DeLoera:2015wp}.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem-vol-colorful}
	Let $f:\mathcal{C}_d \to \mathds{R}^+ \cup \{\infty\}$ be a well-defined, continuous, monotone function that admits a Helly theorem and such that there is a floating body for $f$.
	Let $h = H(f,d, \varepsilon)$, and $\mathcal{F}_1, \mathcal{F}_2, \ldots, \mathcal{F}_h$ be finite families of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, considered as color classes.  Suppose that the intersection of every colorful choice $F_1 \in \mathcal{F}_1, \ldots, F_h \in \mathcal{F}_h$ has size at least one under $f$.  Then, there is a color class $\mathcal{F}_i$ for which
	\[
	f (\cap \mathcal{F}_i) \ge 1-\delta(\varepsilon).
	\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	We follow the same technique as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma-fractional-general}.  For a convex set $K$, we refer to $f(K)$ as its \emph{size}.   We may assume without loss of generality that the sets in $\mathcal{F}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{F}_h$ are bounded.

	Consider $v$ a direction.  We consider a $v$-halfspace to be a set of the form $\{x: \langle x, v\rangle \le \alpha\}$ for some real $\alpha$.  For each colorful $(h-1)$-tuple $B=\{F_1, F_2, \ldots, F_{h-1}\}$ (i.e. each $F_i$ is in a different color class) we have $f(\cap B) \ge 1$.  Let $H_B$ be the $v$-halfspace such that $f((\cap B)\bigcap H_B)=1$.  We denote this intersection by $K_B$.

	Now consider a colorful $h$-tuple $A$ of $\mathcal{F}$.  We know that $f(\cap A)\ge1$.  Among its $(h-1)$-tuples, there must be one, call it $A'$, such that $H_{A'}$ is containment-maximal.  It is clear that if we add $H_{A'}$ to $A$, in the resulting set the intersection of any $h$ sets has size at least one.  By the definition of $h$ we have that the intersection of this whole family has size at least $1-\varepsilon$.  However, this implies that the set not in $A'$ contains $K_{A'}(f,\varepsilon)$.

	Now let $B$ be a colorful $(h-1)$-tuple with containment-maximal $H_B$ over all possible colorful $(h-1)$-tuples.  Let $\mathcal{F}_i$ be the color class that does not have a set in $B$.  The observations above imply that
	\[
	K_B(f, \varepsilon) \subset \bigcap \mathcal{F}_i,
	\]
	finishing the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
	Let $h = H(\vol,d, \varepsilon)$, and $\mathcal{F}_1, \mathcal{F}_2, \ldots, \mathcal{F}_h$ be finite families of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, considered as color classes.  Suppose that the intersection of every colorful choice $F_1 \in \mathcal{F}_1, \ldots, F_h \in \mathcal{F}_h$ has volume at least one.  Then, there is a color class $\mathcal{F}_i$ for which
	\[
	\vol (\cap \mathcal{F}_i) \ge 1-c\varepsilon^{2/(d+1)}
	\]
	for some constant $c$ depending only on the dimension.
\end{corollary}

\section{Remarks}\label{section-remarks}

It is unclear if the constants needed for the volumetric Helly theorem, the colorful volumetric Helly theorem and the fractional volumetric Helly theorem should be different or not.  In particular

\begin{problem}
	Is it true that $F(\vol, d, \varepsilon) > H(\vol, d, \varepsilon)$?
\end{problem}

The known results where the fractional Helly number is different from the Helly number all require checking smaller subfamilies for the fractional version.  It would be interesting to have fractional Helly results which require stronger conditions than their Helly counterpart.

As far as the authors know, there are no examples where a colorful Helly theorem requires larger family sizes than its monochromatic counterpart.  There are currently two different proofs of the colorful volumetric Helly theorem which require $O(\varepsilon^{-(d^2-1)/4})$ color classes, as opposed to the $\Theta (\varepsilon^{-(d-1)/2})$ for the monochromatic version.

\begin{problem}
	For the colorful volumetric Helly theorem, are $O(\varepsilon^{-(d-1)/2})$ color classes sufficient?
\end{problem}

\section{Acknowledgments}

The authors would like to thank Jes\'us De Loera for stimulating discussions on the topic.  We would also like to thank the University of Michigan, Northeastern University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for providing space and resources to carry out this research.  D.R.~was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No.~1122374.

\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Combinatorics (math.CO)