Structure of singular and nonsingular tournament matrices

Abstract: A tournament is a directed graph resulting from an orientation of the complete graph; so, if $M$ is a tournament's adjacency matrix, then $M + M^T$ is a matrix with $0$s on its diagonal and all other entries equal to $1$. An outstanding question in tournament theory asks to classify the adjacency matrices of tournaments which are singular (or nonsingular). We study this question using the structure of tournaments as graphs, in particular their cycle structure. More specifically, we find, as precisely as possible, the number of cycles of length three that dictates whether the corresponding tournament matrix is singular or nonsingular. We also give structural classifications of the tournaments that have the specified numbers of cycles of length three.

\section{Introduction}

A \underline{tournament matrix} of order $n$ is an $n \times n$ $(0,1)$-matrix $M = [m_{ij}]$ which satisfies
$$M + M^T = J_n - I_n,$$
where $J_n$ denotes the $n \times n$ matrix of all 1s and $I_n$ denotes the $n \times n$ identity matrix. A \underline{tournament} of order $n$ is a digraph obtained by arbitrarily orienting each edge of the complete graph on $n$ vertices. Thus a tournament matrix is merely the adjacency matrix of a tournament. Whenever a tournament has property $P$, we say that the corresponding tournament matrix has property $P$ and vice versa. We denote the set of order $n$ tournament matrices by $\mathcal{T}_{n}$ and the set of order $n$ singular tournament matrices by $\S$. We denote the number of $3$-cycles in a tournament matrix $M$ by $C_3(M)$.

The \underline{score vector} of an order $n$ tournament matrix $M$ is $s := M\bm{1}_n$ where $\bm{1}_n \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is the vector of 1s. An \underline{ordered score vector} is a score vector in nondecreasing order. In this paper, we refer to an ordered score vector simply as a score vector. From the score vector, we can compute the number of $3$-cycles using the following well-known formula.
\begin{proposition}[Score Vector Formula for $3$-Cycles]
Let $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$ and $s = (s_1,...,s_n)$ its score vector. The number of three cycles in $M$ is
$$C_3(M) = \binom{n}{3} - \sum_{i=1}^n \binom{s_i}{2}.$$
\end{proposition}

For two vertices $u$ and $v$ in a digraph, if there is an arc from $u$ to $v$, then we say that $u$ beats $v$ and we write $u \to v$. A \underline{transitive tournament} is a tournament such that if $u \to v$ and $v \to w$, then $u \to w$. An order $n$ transitive tournament matrix has the score vector $(0,1,2,...,n-1)$. A \underline{regular tournament} is a tournament whose vertices all have the same outdegree. An order $n$ regular tournament matrix must have odd order and has the score vector $(\frac{n-1}{2},...,\frac{n-1}{2})$. An \underline{almost regular} tournament is a tournament whose maximum difference in outdegrees between vertices is 1. An order $n$ almost regular tournament matrix must have even order and the score vector $(\frac{n}{2}-1,...,\frac{n}{2}-1,\frac{n}{2},...,\frac{n}{2})$.

A pair of vertices in a digraph are called \underline{strongly connected} if there exists a directed walk from one to the other and vice versa. A digraph is called \underline{strongly connected} or \underline{strong} if each pair of vertices is strongly connected. A digraph is called \underline{Hamiltonian} if it contains a directed cycle that traverses through all the vertices, i.e. if it contains a \underline{Hamiltonian cycle}.

Strongly connected is an equivalence relation on the set of vertices in a digraph. Thus a tournament may be partitioned into strongly connected components. The \ul{strongly connected component} in a digraph $D$ containing the vertex $v$ is the induced subdigraph which contains all vertices of $D$ which are strongly connected to $v$. Throughout this paper, we denote the strongly connected components of a tournament matrix $M$ by $M(V_1),...,M(V_k)$ where $V_1,...,V_k$ are their vertex sets.

An \underline{upset tournament} is generated by taking a transitive tournament, finding a directed path from the vertex of degree $n-1$ to the vertex of degree 0, and switching the directions of the arcs on that path. An order $n$ upset tournament has the score vector $(1,1,2,...,n-3,n-2,n-2)$. Burzio showed in \cite{Burzio} that the strongly connected tournaments which contain the least number of $3$-cycles are precisely the upset tournaments.

Colloquially, for a fixed $n$, tournament matrices are on a spectrum from `transitive' to `regular'. $C_3$ is a measurement of this spectrum: transitive tournaments have the least number of $3$-cycles, while regular and almost regular tournaments have the most number of $3$-cycles. Transitive tournament matrices are singular. Regular and almost regular tournament matrices are nonsingular for $n \ge 3$. Thus singular tournament matrices attain an interesting maximum of $C_3$ and nonsingular tournament matrices attain an interesting minimum of $C_3$.

In this paper, we investigate the extrema in Figure \ref{fig:Spectrum}.

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5,>=stealth,
every node/.style={align=center,scale=.8}]
\draw[black,line width=1pt] (1,0)--(8,0);
\foreach \i in {1, 3, 6, 8}
\draw[black, ultra thick] (\i,.1)--(\i,-.1);
\draw (1,0.2) node[above]{Transitive};
\draw (8,0.2) node[above]{Regular};
\draw (2,-0.1) node[below]{Singular};
\draw (4.5,-0.1) node[below]{Singular/Nonsingular};
\draw (7,-0.1) node[below]{Nonsingular};
\draw (3,0.2) node[above]{Nonsingular \\ Minimum};
\draw (6,0.2) node[above]{Singular \\ Maximum};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Transitive-Regular Spectrum with Extrema}
\label{fig:Spectrum}
\end{figure}

We give structural classifications of nonsingular tournament matrices which minimize $C_3$ and the number of $3$-cycles they contain in \Cref{thm:nonsingularextreme}.

\begin{restatable*}{theorem}{nonsingularextreme}
\label{thm:nonsingularextreme}
Let $n \ge 3$ and let $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$. If $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$, then $\displaystyle C_3(M) \ge n - 2\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$. Furthermore, $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$ and $\displaystyle C_3(M) = n - 2\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$ if and only if the strongly connected components of $M$ are upset tournaments and the number of strongly connected components is $\displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$.
\end{restatable*}

Furthermore, we give the number of $3$-cycles of nonsingular tournament matrices which maximize $C_3$ for $n$ even and we give bounds for $n$ odd.

\begin{restatable*}{proposition}{singularextreme}
\label{prop:singularextreme}
If $n$ is even, then
$$\max_{M \in \S} C_3(M) = \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}.$$
If $n$ is odd, then
$$2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3} \le \max_{M \in \S} C_3(M) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}.$$
\end{restatable*}

We do not have encompassing structural characterizations of nonsingular tournament matrices which maximize $C_3$. We are cognizant of a trivial subset: tournaments of order $n$ that are obtained by either adding a sink or source to a regular or almost regular tournament of order $n-1$ (see \Cref{thm:TSE}). We prove in \Cref{prop:nontrivialifandonlyifstrong} that singular tournament matrices which maximize $C_3$ are nontrivial if and only if they are strongly connected.

\section{Maximum Number of $3$-Cycles for Singular Tournament Matrices}

The following proposition has been discovered a multitude of times by different authors. We reference Moon \cite{Moon} for a proof and a small list of original discovers.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:max3cycles}
Every tournament matrix $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$ satisfies
$$C_3(M) \le \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{4}\binom{n+1}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is odd}, \\
2\binom{\frac{n}{2}+1}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is even},
\end{cases}$$
and equality holds if and only if $M$ is a regular or almost regular.
\end{proposition}

Next, we investigate the maximum of $C_3$ over singular tournament matrices.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:maxSing>=maxPrevTourn}
$$\max_{M \in \mathcal{S}_{n+1}} C_3(M) \ge \max_{M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}} C_3(M).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$ maximize $C_3$ over $\mathcal{T}_{n}$. From the tournament $M$, create a new tournament $N \in \mathcal{T}_{n+1}$ which contains all the vertices and arcs of $M$, plus an additional vertex that is a sink (resp. source); a vertex that is beaten by all other vertices (resp. beats all other vertices). It is straightforward to check that $C_3(N) = C_3(M).$ By construction, the row (resp. column) of $N$ corresponding to the sink (resp. source) is a row of 0s (resp. a column of 0s). Therefore, $N \in \mathcal{S}_{n+1}$.
\end{proof}

Shader showed in \cite{Shader} (Corollary 3.2) that if $C_3(M) > \displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}$, then $M$ is nonsingular. Taking the contrapostive yields the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}[Shader's Inequality]\label{lem:Max}
If $M \in \S$, then $C_3(M) \le \displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}$.
\end{lemma}

The following proposition gives a precise quantity for $\displaystyle\max_{M \in \S}C_3(M)$ when $n$ is even and bounds when $n$ is odd.

\singularextreme

\begin{proof}
If $n$ is even, then by Shader's inequality,
$$\frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3} = \max_{M \in \mathcal{T}_{n-1}} C_3(M) \le \max_{M \in \S} C_3(M) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}$$
whence $\displaystyle\max_{M \in \S} C_3(M) = \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}$. If $n$ is odd, then
$$2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3} = \max_{M \in \mathcal{T}_{n-1}} C_3(M) \le \max_{M \in \S} C_3(M)\le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}.$$
\end{proof}

Almost nothing is known about the tournament matrices that maximize $C_3$ over $\S$. Some of these matrices are obtained by adding a vertex to a regular or almost regular tournament of order $n-1$ (see the proof of \Cref{lem:maxSing>=maxPrevTourn} and see \Cref{thm:TSE}). The first counterexample is at $n = 7$. From computer computation, there are exactly $3$ nonisomorphic singular tournament matrices which maximize $C_3$ over $\mathcal{S}_7$. These tournament matrices have the score vector $(1,2,2,3,4,4,5)$ and are
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{bmatrix}
    0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}, \qquad \begin{bmatrix}
    0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
    0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}, \qquad \begin{bmatrix}
    0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
    1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
    1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
    1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}

\begin{definition}
A singular tournament matrix $M \in \S$ is called a \ul{singular maximizer of $C_3$} if $C_3(M) = \displaystyle \max_{N \in \S} C_3(N)$. A singular maximizer of $C_3$ is called \ul{trivial} if it is obtained by adding a vertex to a regular or almost regular tournament of order $n-1$.
\end{definition}

We classify trivial singular maximizers of $C_3$ in the next proposition; however, we require the following lemma to do so. The following lemma may be proven using the score vector formula for $3$-cycles.

\begin{lemma}
Let $T_1$ be a tournament with score vector $s = (s_1,...,s_n)$ and $v_i \to v_j$. Let $T_2$ be the tournament obtained by reversing the arc between $v_i$ and $v_j$ in $T_1$. Then $C_3(T_2) - C_3(T_1) = s_i - s_j - 1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:TSE}
Let $M \in \S$ be a singular maximizer of $C_3$. The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[\normalfont(i)]
    \item $M$ is a trivial singular maximizer of $C_3$;
    \item $M$ is obtained by adding a source or a sink to a regular or almost regular tournament of order $n-1$;
    \item $M$ has a strongly connected component of order $1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(ii) $\implies$ (iii) is immediate.

(i) $\implies$ (ii) By definition, there exists a regular or almost regular tournament $R$ of order $n-1$, with vertex set $\{v_1,...,v_{n-1}\}$, such that $M = R + v_n$. Let $N$ be the tournament obtained by adding a vertex $v_n$ to $R$ that is a sink; that is, $v_i \to v_n$ for all $i \neq n$. Then $M$ is obtained by reversing some number of arcs which end at $v_n$, let's say $k$, in $N$.  We split up the proof into two cases: when $R$ is regular and when $R$ is almost regular. \\
\underline{Case 1:} $R$ is regular. \\
By the previous lemma,
$$C_3(M) - C_3(N) = \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\left[\frac{n}{2} - i - 1\right] = \frac{n-k-1}{2}k.$$
Since $R$ is regular, we know that $n$ is even. $N$ is also a singular maximizer of $C_3$, so by \Cref{prop:singularextreme},
$$C_3(M) = C_3(N) + \frac{n-k-1}{2}k = \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3} + \frac{n-k-1}{2}k.$$
Note that for $M$ to be a nonsingular minimizer of $C_3$, $\displaystyle\frac{n-k-1}{2}k$ must equal $0$, which only happens when $k = 0$ or $k = n-1$. Therefore the added vertex $v_n$ in $M$ must be a sink or source. \\
\underline{Case 2:} $R$ is almost regular. \\
Let $k = k_1 + k_2$ where $k_1$ of the arcs begin at a vertex with degree $\displaystyle\frac{n+1}{2}$ and $k_2$ with degree $\displaystyle\frac{n-1}{2}$. By the previous lemma,
$$C_3(M) - C_3(N) = \sum_{i=0}^{k_2-1}\left[\frac{n-1}{2} -i - 1\right] + \sum_{i=k_2}^{k-1}\left[\frac{n+1}{2} -i - 1\right] = \frac{n-k}{2}k - k_2.$$
Since $R$ is almost regular, we know that $n$ is odd and hence $\displaystyle C_3(N) = 2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3}$. By \Cref{prop:singularextreme},
$$C_3(M) - C_3(N) = \frac{n-k}{2}k - k_2 \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3} - 2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3} = \frac{n-1}{8}.$$
We know that this inequality holds for $k = 0$ and $k = n-1$; that is, when $v_n$ is a source or a sink. Assume, by way of contradiction, that the inequality holds for some $1 \le k \le n-2$. We know that $\displaystyle k_2 \le \min\left\{k,\frac{n-1}{2}\right\}$. Thus
$$\frac{n-k}{2}k - \min\left\{k,\frac{n-1}{2}\right\} \le \frac{n-k}{2}k - k_2.$$
It is straightforward to show that the function on the LHS is minimized when $k = 1$ and when $k = n-2$, and that its minimum is $\displaystyle\frac{n-3}{2}$. The inequality
$$\frac{n-3}{2} \le \frac{n-k}{2}k - \min\left\{k,\frac{n-1}{2}\right\} \le \frac{n-k}{2}k - k_2 \le \frac{n-1}{8}$$
implies that $n \le 3$. It is easy to check that the proposition holds for $n \le 3$.

(iii) $\implies$ (i) Assume that $M$ has a strongly connected component of order $1$. Let $M(V_1),...,M(V_k)$ be the strongly connected components of $M$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $M(V_k)$ is the strongly connected component of order $1$. Let $N$ be a tournament matrix whose strongly connected components are $M(V_1),...,M(V_{k-1})$. The order of $N$ is $n-1$. By \Cref{prop:singularextreme} and \Cref{prop:max3cycles},
$$\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is even}, \\
2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is odd},
\end{cases} \le C_3(M) = C_3(N) \le \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{4}\binom{n}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is even}, \\
2\binom{\frac{n+1}{2}}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is odd},
\end{cases}.$$
In order for equality to hold, $N$ must be a regular or almost regular tournament of order $n-1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
If $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$ ($n \ge 6$) is not strongly connected and the strongly connected components of $M$ each contain at least $3$ vertices, then
$$C_3(M) \le \binom{n-2}{3} + 1.$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $M(V_1),...,M(V_k)$ be the strongly connected components of $M$. Let $N$ be a tournament matrix whose strongly connected components are $M(V_1),...,M(V_{k-1})$. Let $\ell = |V_1| + \cdots + |V_{k-1}|$ be the order of $N$. By \Cref{prop:max3cycles},
$$C_3(N) = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}C_3(M(V_\ell)) \le \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{4}\binom{\ell+1}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is odd}, \\
2\binom{\frac{\ell}{2}+1}{3}, & \text{if $n$ is even},
\end{cases} \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{\ell+1}{3}.$$
Therefore,
$$C_3(M) = \sum_{i=1}^{k}C_3(M(V_\ell)) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{\ell+1}{3} + \frac{1}{4}\binom{n-\ell+1}{3} =  \frac{n}{24}(3\ell^2 - 3n\ell + n^2 - 1).$$
The expression $\frac{n}{24}(3\ell^2 - 3n\ell + n^2 - 1)$ is a quadratic polynomial in terms of $\ell$ with a positive leading coefficient. It is easy to see that $\frac{n}{24}(3\ell^2 - 3n\ell + n^2 - 1)$ is maximized at both endpoints: $\ell = 3$ and $\ell = n-3$. Furthermore, its maximum value is $\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\binom{n-2}{3} + 1$. Therefore,
$$C_3(M) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n-2}{3} + 1.$$
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:nontrivialifandonlyifstrong}
Let $M \in \S$ ($n \ge 7$) be a singular maximizer of $C_3$. $M$ is nontrivial if and only if $M$ is strongly connected.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Clearly if $M$ is trivial, then $M$ is is not strongly connected. On the other hand, assume, by way of contradiction, that $M$ is nontrivial and $M$ is not strongly connected. The strongly connected components of $M$ each have at least $3$ vertices. By the previous lemma,
$$C_3(M) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n-2}{3} + 1.$$
However, is easy to check that,
$$C_3(M) \le \frac{1}{4}\binom{n-2}{3} + 1 < 2\binom{\frac{n}{2}+1}{3} \le C_3(M).$$
Therefore, if $M$ is nontrivial, then $M$ is strongly connected.
\end{proof}

\section{Minimum Number of $3$-Cycles for Nonsingular Tournament Matrices}

The goal of this section is to prove \Cref{thm:nonsingularextreme}. The following proposition may be proven by looking at the condensation of a tournament matrix, but the proof is omitted here.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Determinant}
Let $M$ be a tournament matrix and let $M(V_1),...,M(V_k)$ be its strongly connected components. Then $$\det(M) = \det(M(V_1)) \cdots \det(M(V_k)).$$
\end{proposition}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:SingIffStrCnnCmpts}
A tournament matrix $M$ is singular if and only if one of its strongly connected components is singular.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:nonsingularscc3verts}
If $M$ is a nonsingular tournament matrix, then the strongly connected components of $M$ contain at least three vertices.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We prove the contrapositive. Assume $M$ has a strongly connected component with less than 3 vertices. Since a strongly connected component with exactly 2 vertices is impossible, $M$ has a strongly connected component with exactly 1 vertex, say $M(V_\ell)$. Since $M(V_\ell) = [0]$ is singular, we get that $M$ is singular, as desired.
\end{proof}

Note that if $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}$ is an upset tournament, then $C_3(M) = n-2$ (this may be computed using the score vector formula for $3$-cycles). Burzio showed in \cite{Burzio} that the strongly connected tournaments which contain the least number of $3$-cycles are precisely the upset tournaments. This fact gives us our next theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:upset}
If $M$ is a strongly connected tournament matrix of order $n \ge 3$, then $C_3(M) \ge n-2$ and equality holds if and only if $M$ is an upset tournament.
\end{theorem}

The following theorem gives structural classifications of nonsingular tournament matrices at the nonsingular extreme.

\nonsingularextreme

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$. Let $M(V_1),M(V_2),...,M(V_k)$ be the strongly connected components of $M$ with orders $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$, ..., $\ell_k$, respectively. By \Cref{cor:nonsingularscc3verts}, $\ell_i \ge 3$. By \Cref{thm:upset}, $C_3(M(V_i)) \ge \ell_i-2$. Therefore,
$$C_3(M) = \sum_{i=1}^k C_3(M(V_i)) \ge \sum_{i=1}^k (\ell_i -2) = \sum_{i=1}^k \ell_i - \sum_{i=1}^k 2 = n - 2k.$$ Since $\ell_i \ge 3$, the number of strongly connected components satisfies $k \le \displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inequality}
    C_3(M) \ge n - 2k \ge n - 2\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}.
\end{equation}

For the forwards implication, assume that $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$ and that equality holds. If not all of the strongly connected components of $M$ are upset tournaments, then $C_3(M) = n - 2\displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}} > n - 2k$, which contradicts \eqref{eq:inequality}. Thus the strongly connected components are upsets tournaments. \Cref{eq:inequality} forces $C_3(M) = n - 2k = n - 2\displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$ and it follows that $k = \displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$.

For the backwards implication, assume that the strongly connected components of $M$ are upset tournaments and the number of strongly connected components is $k = \displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$. We first show that $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$. The strongly connected components of $M$ are upset tournaments of order $3$, $4$, or $5$. Thus the strongly connected components of $M$ have score vectors $(1,1,1)$, $(1,1,2,2)$, or $(1,1,2,3,3)$. The only tournament matrix (up to isomorphism) with the score vector $(1,1,1)$ is
\begin{equation*}
F_1 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The only tournament matrix (up to isomorphism) with the score vector $(1,1,2,2)$ is
\begin{equation*}
F_2 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The only tournament matrices (up to isomorphism) with the score vector $(1,1,2,3,3)$ are
\begin{equation*}
F_3 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \quad \text{and} \quad
F_4 = \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that $\det(F_1) = \det(F_3) = \det(F_4) = 1$ and $\det(F_2) = -1$. Since isomorphic tournament matrices are permutation similar, the determinants of isomorphic tournaments are the same. By \Cref{cor:SingIffStrCnnCmpts}, $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$. Switching inequalities to equalities in the derivation of \Cref{eq:inequality} yields that $C_3(M) = n - 2\displaystyle\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}.$
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
Let $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$. If $\displaystyle C_3(M) = n - 2\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$, then
$$\det(M) = \begin{cases}
-1, & \text{if } n \equiv 1 \bmod 3 \\
1, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $n \equiv 0 \bmod 3$, then the strongly connected components are all isomorphic to $F_1$. Since isomorphic tournament matrices are permutation similar, their determinants are the same. By \Cref{prop:Determinant}, $\det(M) = \det(F_1) \cdots \det(F_1) = 1$. If $n \equiv 1 \bmod 3$, then all but one strongly connected component is isomorphic to $F_1$. The other has 4 vertices and must be isomorphic to $F_2$. Therefore, $\det(M) = \det(F_1) \cdots \det(F_1)\det(F_2) = -1$. If $n \equiv 2 \bmod 3$, then at most two strongly connected components are not isomorphic to $F_1$. Either they both have $4$ vertices or one has $3$ and the other has $5$. In the former case, both are isomorphic to $F_2$ and hence $\det(M) = \det(F_1) \cdots \det(F_1)\det(F_2)\det(F_2) = 1$. In the latter case, one is isomorphic to $F_1$ and the other is either isomorphic to $F_3$ or $F_4$. Nonetheless, $\det(M) = \det(F_1) \cdots \det(F_1)\det(F_3) = \det(F_1) \cdots \det(F_1)\det(F_4) = 1$.
\end{proof}

This corollary shows that if $M$ is nonsingular and minimizes $C_3$, then $M$ also minimizes the determinant magnitude-wise. This corollary also shows that the nonsingular miminizer of $C_3$ are \ul{unimodular} (i.e. have determinant $\pm 1$). Recall that a matrix is \ul{totally unimodular} if every square submatrix has determinant $\pm 1$ or $0$. Singular minimizers of $C_3$ are not totally unimodular, but they are \textit{almost} totally unimodular.

\begin{corollary}
Let $M \in \mathcal{T}_{n}\setminus\S$. If $\displaystyle C_3(M) = n - 2\floor*{\frac{n}{3}}$, then every subtournament matrix of $M$ has determinant $\pm 1$ or $0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $N$ be a subtournament of $M$. Then $N$ is obtained by deleting a set of vertices in $M$. Thus the strongly connected components of $N$ are subtournaments of the corresponding strongly connected components of $M$. It is easy to check that $F_1$, $F_2$, $F_3$, and $F_4$ are totally unimodular. Therefore the strongly connected components of $N$ have determinants $\pm 1$ or $0$. Therefore $N$ has determinant $\pm 1$ or $0$.
\end{proof}


Tight bounds on the maximal perimeter of convex equilateral small polygons

Abstract: A small polygon is a polygon that has diameter one. The maximal perimeter of a convex equilateral small polygon with $n=2^s$ sides is not known when $s \ge 4$. In this paper, we construct a family of convex equilateral small $n$-gons, $n=2^s$ and $s \ge 4$, and show that their perimeters are within $O(1/n^4)$ of the maximal perimeter and exceed the previously best known values from the literature. In particular, for the first open case $n=16$, our result proves that Mossinghoff's equilateral hexadecagon is suboptimal.

\section{Introduction}
The {\em diameter} of a polygon is the largest Euclidean distance between pairs of its vertices. A polygon is said to be {\em small} if its diameter equals one. For an integer $n \ge 3$, the maximal perimeter problem consists in finding a convex small $n$-gon with the longest perimeter. The problem was first investigated by Reinhardt~\cite{reinhardt1922} in 1922, and later by Datta~\cite{datta1997} in 1997. They proved that for $n \ge 3$
\begin{itemize}
	\item the value $2n\sin \frac{\pi}{2n}$ is an upper bound on the perimeter of any convex small $n$-gon;
	\item when $n$ is odd, the regular small $n$-gon is an optimal solution, but it is unique only when $n$ is prime;
	\item when $n$ is even, the regular small $n$-gon is not optimal;
	\item when $n$ has an odd factor, there are finitely many optimal solutions~\cite{mossinghoff2011,hare2013,hare2019} and there are all equilateral.
\end{itemize}

When $n$ is a power of $2$, the maximal perimeter problem is solved for $n \le 8$. The case $n=4$ was solved by Tamvakis~\cite{tamvakis1987} in 1987 and the case $n=8$ by Audet, Hansen, and Messine~\cite{audet2007} in 2007. Both optimal $4$-gon and $8$-gon, shown respectively in Figure~\ref{figure:4gon:R3+} and Figure~\ref{figure:8gon:V8}, are not equilateral. For $n=2^s$ with integer $s\ge 4$, exact solutions in the maximal perimeter problem appear to be presently out of reach. However, tight lower bounds can be obtained analytically. Recently, Bingane~\cite{bingane2021b} constructed a family of convex non-equilateral small $n$-gons, for $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 2$, and proved that the perimeters obtained cannot be improved for large $n$ by more than $\pi^7/(32n^6)$.

The diameter graph of a small polygon is defined as the graph with the vertices of the polygon, and an edge between two vertices exists only if the distance between these vertices equals one. Figure~\ref{figure:4gon}, Figure~\ref{figure:6gon}, and Figure~\ref{figure:8gon} show diameter graphs of some convex small polygons. The solid lines illustrate pairs of vertices which are unit distance apart. In 1950, Vincze~\cite{vincze1950} studied the problem of finding the minimal diameter of a convex polygon with unit-length sides. This problem is equivalent to the equilateral case of the maximal perimeter problem. He showed that a necessary condition of a convex equilateral small polygon to have maximal perimeter is that each vertex should have an opposite vertex at a distance equal to the diameter. It is easy to see that for $n=4$, the maximal perimeter of a convex equilateral small $4$-gon is only attained by the regular $4$-gon. Vincze also described a convex equilateral small $8$-gon, shown in Figure~\ref{figure:8gon:X8}, with longer perimeter than the regular $8$-gon. In 2004, Audet, Hansen, Messine, and Perron~\cite{audet2004} used both geometrical arguments and methods of global optimization to determine the unique convex equilateral small $8$-gon with the longest perimeter, illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:8gon:H8}.

For $n=2^s$ with integer $s\ge 4$, the equilateral case of the maximal perimeter problem remains unsolved and, as in the general case, exact solutions appear to be presently out of reach. In 2008, Mossinghoff~\cite{mossinghoff2008} constructed a family of convex equilateral small $n$-gons, for $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 4$, and proved that the perimeters obtained cannot be improved for large $n$ by more than $3\pi^4/n^4$. By contrast, the perimeters of the regular $n$-gons cannot be improved for large $n$ by more than $\pi^3/(8n^2)$ when $n$~is even. In the present paper, we propose tighter lower bounds on the maximal perimeter of convex equilateral small $n$-gons when $n=2^s$ and integer $s \ge 4$ by a constructive approach. Thus, our main result is the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Bn}
	Suppose $n=2^s$ with integer $s\ge 4$. Let $\ub{L}_n := 2n \sin \frac{\pi}{2n}$ denote an upper bound on the perimeter $L(\geo{P}_n)$ of a convex small $n$-gon $\geo{P}_n$. Let $\geo{M}_n$ denote the convex equilateral small $n$-gon constructed by Mossinghoff~\cite{mossinghoff2008}. Then there exists a convex equilateral small $n$-gon $\geo{B}_n$ such that
	\[
	\ub{L}_n - L(\geo{B}_n) = \frac{\pi^4}{n^4} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^5}\right)
	\]
	and
	\[
	L(\geo{B}_n) - L(\geo{M}_n) = \frac{2\pi^4}{n^4} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^5}\right).
	\]
\end{theorem}

In addition, we show that the resulting polygons for $n=32$ and $n=64$ are not optimal by providing two convex equilateral small polygons with longer perimeters.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:ngon} recalls principal results on the maximal perimeter of convex small polygons. Section~\ref{sec:Bn} considers the polygons $\geo{B}_n$ and shows that they satisfy Theorem~\ref{thm:Bn}. Section~\ref{sec:optimal} shows that the polygons $\geo{B}_{32}$ and $\geo{B}_{64}$ are not optimal by constructing a $32$-gon and a $64$-gon with larger perimeters. Concluding remarks are presented in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\subfloat[$(\geo{R}_4,2.828427)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
			\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.5000,0.5000) -- (0,1) -- (-0.5000,0.5000) -- cycle;
			\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
			\draw (0.5000,0.5000) -- (-0.5000,0.5000);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\subfloat[$(\geo{R}_3^+,3.035276)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
			\draw[dashed] (0.5000,0.8660) -- (0,1) -- (-0.5000,0.8660);
			\draw (0,1) -- (0,0) -- (0.5000,0.8660) -- (-0.5000,0.8660) -- (0,0);
		\end{tikzpicture}
		\label{figure:4gon:R3+}
	}
	\caption{Two convex small $4$-gons $(\geo{P}_4,L(\geo{P}_4))$: (a) Regular $4$-gon; (b) Optimal non-equilateral $4$-gon~\cite{tamvakis1987}}
	\label{figure:4gon}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\subfloat[$(\geo{R}_6,3)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.4330,0.2500) -- (0.4330,0.7500) -- (0,1) -- (-0.4330,0.7500) -- (-0.4330,0.2500) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
		\draw (0.4330,0.2500) -- (-0.4330,0.7500);
		\draw (0.4330,0.7500) -- (-0.4330,0.2500);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\subfloat[$(\geo{R}_{3,6},3.105829)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.3660,0.3660) -- (0.5000,0.8660) -- (0,1) -- (-0.5000,0.8660) -- (-0.3660,0.3660) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0.5000,0.8660) -- (-0.5000,0.8660) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
		\draw (0.3660,0.3660) -- (-0.5000,0.8660);
		\draw (0.5000,0.8660) -- (-0.3660,0.3660);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	\label{figure:6gon:R36}
	}
	\caption{Two convex equilateral small $6$-gons $(\geo{P}_6,L(\geo{P}_6))$: (a) Regular $6$-gon; (b) Reinhardt $6$-gon~\cite{reinhardt1922}}
	\label{figure:6gon}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\subfloat[$(\geo{R}_8,3.061467)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.3536,0.1464) -- (0.5000,0.5000) -- (0.3536,0.8536) -- (0,1) -- (-0.3536,0.8536) -- (-0.5000,0.5000) -- (-0.3536,0.1464) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
		\draw (0.3536,0.1464) -- (-0.3536,0.8536);
		\draw (0.5000,0.5000) -- (-0.5000,0.5000);
		\draw (0.3536,0.8536) -- (-0.3536,0.1464);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\subfloat[$(\geo{X}_8,3.090369)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.3335,0.1950) -- (0.4799,0.5525) -- (0.3790,0.9254) -- (0,1) -- (-0.3737,0.9021) -- (-0.5201,0.5446) -- (-0.3225,0.2127) -- cycle;
		\draw (0.3335,0.1950) -- (-0.3737,0.9021);\draw (0.4799,0.5525) -- (-0.5201,0.5446);
		\draw (0,1) -- (0,0) -- (0.3790,0.9254) -- (-0.3225,0.2127);
		\draw[thick,dashed] (0.4799,0.3438) -- (-0.5201,0.7533);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	\label{figure:8gon:X8}
	}
\subfloat[$(\geo{H}_8,3.095609)$]{
	\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,1) -- (0.3796,0.9251) -- (0.5000,0.5574) -- (0.3228,0.2134) -- (0,0) -- (-0.3228,0.2134) -- (-0.5000,0.5574) -- (-0.3796,0.9251) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
		\draw (0,0) -- (0.3796,0.9251);\draw (0,0) -- (-0.3796,0.9251);
		\draw (0.3796,0.9251) -- (-0.3228,0.2134);\draw (-0.3796,0.9251) -- (0.3228,0.2134);
		\draw (0.5000,0.5574) -- (-0.5000,0.5574);
	\end{tikzpicture}
		\label{figure:8gon:H8}
}
\subfloat[$(\geo{V}_8,3.121147)$]{
	\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.2983,0.2128) -- (0.5000,0.5188) -- (0.4217,0.9067) -- (0,1) -- (-0.4217,0.9067) -- (-0.5000,0.5188) -- (-0.2983,0.2128) -- cycle;
		\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
		\draw (0,0) -- (0.4217,0.9067) -- (-0.5000,0.5188) -- (0.5000,0.5188)-- (-0.4217,0.9067) -- cycle;
		\draw (0.4217,0.9067) -- (-0.2983,0.2128);\draw (-0.4217,0.9067) -- (0.2983,0.2128);
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\label{figure:8gon:V8}
}
\caption{Four convex small $8$-gons $(\geo{P}_8,L(\geo{P}_8))$: (a) Regular $8$-gon; (b) Vincze $8$-gon~\cite{vincze1950}; (c) Optimal equilateral $8$-gon~\cite{audet2004}; (d) Optimal non-equilateral $8$-gon~\cite{audet2007}}
\label{figure:8gon}
\end{figure}

\section{Perimeters of convex equilateral small polygons}\label{sec:ngon}
Let $L(\geo{P})$ denote the perimeter of a polygon $\geo{P}$. For a given integer $n\ge 3$, let $\geo{R}_n$ denote the regular small $n$-gon. We have
\[
L(\geo{R}_n) =
\begin{cases}
	2n\sin \frac{\pi}{2n} &\text{if $n$ is odd,}\\
	n\sin \frac{\pi}{n} &\text{if $n$ is even.}\\
\end{cases}
\]

When $n$ has an odd factor $m$, consider the family of convex equilateral small $n$-gons constructed as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Transform the regular small $m$-gon  $\geo{R}_m$ into a Reuleaux $m$-gon by replacing each edge by a circle's arc passing through its end vertices and centered at the opposite vertex;
	\item Add at regular intervals $n/m-1$ vertices within each arc;
	\item Take the convex hull of all vertices.
\end{enumerate}
These $n$-gons are denoted $\geo{R}_{m,n}$ and $L(\geo{R}_{m,n}) = 2n\sin \frac{\pi}{2n}$. The $6$-gon $\geo{R}_{3,6}$ is illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:6gon:R36}.

\begin{theorem}[Reinhardt~\cite{reinhardt1922}, Vincze~\cite{vincze1950}, Datta~\cite{datta1997}]\label{thm:perimeter}
	For all $n \ge 3$, let $L_n^*$ denote the maximal perimeter among all convex small $n$-gons, $\ell_n^*$ the maximal perimeter among all equilateral ones, and $\ub{L}_n := 2n \sin \frac{\pi}{2n}$.
	\begin{itemize}
		\item When $n$ has an odd factor $m$, $\ell_n^* = L_n^* = \ub{L}_n$ is achieved by finitely many equilateral $n$-gons~\cite{mossinghoff2011,hare2013,hare2019}, including~$\geo{R}_{m,n}$. The optimal $n$-gon $\geo{R}_{m,n}$ is unique if $m$ is prime and $n/m \le 2$.
		\item When $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 2$, $L(\geo{R}_n) < L_n^* < \ub{L}_n$.
	\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

When $n=2^s$, both $L_n^*$ and $\ell_n^*$ are only known for $s \le 3$. Tamvakis~\cite{tamvakis1987} found that $L_4^* = 2+\sqrt{6}-\sqrt{2}$, and this value is only achieved by $\geo{R}_3^+$, shown in Figure~\ref{figure:4gon:R3+}. Audet, Hansen, and Messine~\cite{audet2007} proved that $L_8^* = 3.121147\dots$, and this value is only achieved by $\geo{V}_8$, shown in Figure~\ref{figure:8gon:V8}. For the equilateral quadrilateral, it is easy to see that $\ell_4^* = L(\geo{R}_4) = 2\sqrt{2}$. Audet, Hansen, Messine and Perron~\cite{audet2004} studied the equilateral octagon and determined that $\ell_8^* = 3.095609\ldots > L(\geo{R}_8) = 4\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}$, and this value is only achieved by $\geo{H}_8$, shown in Figure~\ref{figure:8gon:H8}. If $u := {\ell_8^*}^2/64$ denote the square of the sides length of $\geo{H}_8$, we can show that $u$ is the unique root of the polynomial equation
\[
2u^6 - 18u^5 + 57u^4 -78u^3+46u^2-12u+1=0
\]
that belongs to $(\sin^2(\pi/8),4\sin^2(\pi/16))$. Note that the following inequalities are strict: $\ell_4^* < L_4^*$ and $\ell_8^* < L_8^*$.

For $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 4$, exact solutions of the maximal perimeter problem appear to be presently out of reach. However, tight lower bounds can be obtained analytically. Recently, Bingane~\cite{bingane2021b} proved that, for $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 2$,
\[
L_n^* \ge 2n \sin \frac{\pi}{2n} \cos \left(\frac{\pi}{2n}-\frac{1}{2}\arcsin\left(\frac{1}{2}\sin \frac{2\pi}{n}\right)\right) > L(\geo{R}_n),
\]
which implies
\[
\ub{L}_n - L_n^* \le \frac{\pi^7}{32n^6} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^8}\right).
\]
On the other hand, Mossinghoff~\cite{mossinghoff2008} constructed a family of convex equilateral small $n$-gons $\geo{M}_n$, illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:Mn}, such that
\[
\ub{L}_n - L(\geo{M}_n) = \frac{3\pi^4}{n^4} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^5}\right)
\]
and
\[
L(\geo{M}_n) - L(\geo{R}_n) = \frac{\pi^3}{8n^2} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^4}\right)
\]
for $n=2^s$ with $s\ge 4$. The next section proposes tighter lower bounds for $\ell_n^*$.

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\subfloat[$(\geo{M}_{16},3.134707)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=6]
			\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.1875,0.0568) -- (0.3390,0.1811) -- (0.4315,0.3538) -- (0.4885,0.5412) -- (0.4922,0.7311) -- (0.3678,0.8885) -- (0.1950,0.9808) -- (0,1) -- (-0.1950,0.9808) -- (-0.3678,0.8885) -- (-0.4922,0.7311) -- (-0.4885,0.5412) -- (-0.4315,0.3538) -- (-0.3390,0.1811) -- (-0.1875,0.0568) -- cycle;
			\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(0,1);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (0.1950,0.9808) -- (-0.1875,0.0568) -- (0.3678,0.8885) -- (-0.3390,0.1811) -- (0.4922,0.7311) -- (-0.4885,0.5412);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (-0.1950,0.9808) -- (0.1875,0.0568) -- (-0.3678,0.8885) -- (0.3390,0.1811) -- (-0.4922,0.7311) -- (0.4885,0.5412);
			\draw (0.4922,0.7311) -- (-0.4315,0.3538);\draw (-0.4922,0.7311) -- (0.4315,0.3538);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\subfloat[$(\geo{M}_{32},3.140134)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=6]
			\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.0971,0.0144) -- (0.1895,0.0475) -- (0.2736,0.0979) -- (0.3525,0.1564) -- (0.4184,0.2291) -- (0.4603,0.3178) -- (0.4842,0.4129) -- (0.4986,0.5100) -- (0.4966,0.6081) -- (0.4635,0.7005) -- (0.4131,0.7847) -- (0.3546,0.8635) -- (0.2819,0.9294) -- (0.1932,0.9713) -- (0.0980,0.9952) -- (0,1) -- (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.1932,0.9713) -- (-0.2819,0.9294) -- (-0.3546,0.8635) -- (-0.4131,0.7847) -- (-0.4635,0.7005) -- (-0.4966,0.6081) -- (-0.4986,0.5100) -- (-0.4842,0.4129) -- (-0.4603,0.3178) -- (-0.4184,0.2291) -- (-0.3525,0.1564) -- (-0.2736,0.0979) -- (-0.1895,0.0475) -- (-0.0971,0.0144) -- cycle;
			\draw[red,thick] (0,0) -- (0,1);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.0971,0.0144) -- (0.1932,0.9713) -- (-0.1895,0.0475) -- (0.2819,0.9294) -- (-0.3525,0.1564) -- (0.3546,0.8635) -- (-0.4184,0.2291) -- (0.4635,0.7005) -- (-0.4603,0.3178) -- (0.4966,0.6081) -- (-0.4986,0.5100);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (0.0971,0.0144) -- (-0.1932,0.9713) -- (0.1895,0.0475) -- (-0.2819,0.9294) -- (0.3525,0.1564) -- (-0.3546,0.8635) -- (0.4184,0.2291) -- (-0.4635,0.7005) -- (0.4603,0.3178) -- (-0.4966,0.6081) -- (0.4986,0.5100);
			\draw (0.2819,0.9294) -- (-0.2736,0.0979);\draw (-0.2819,0.9294) -- (0.2736,0.0979);
			\draw (-0.4184,0.2291) -- (0.4131,0.7847);\draw (0.4184,0.2291) -- (-0.4131,0.7847);
			\draw (0.4966,0.6081) -- (-0.4842,0.4129);\draw (-0.4966,0.6081) -- (0.4842,0.4129);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\caption{Mossinghoff polygons $(\geo{M}_n,L(\geo{M}_n))$: (a) Hexadecagon~$\geo{M}_{16}$; (b) Triacontadigon~$\geo{M}_{32}$}
	\label{figure:Mn}
\end{figure}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Bn}}\label{sec:Bn}
We use cartesian coordinates to describe an $n$-gon $\geo{P}_n$, assuming that a vertex $\geo{v}_i$, $i=0,1,\ldots,n-1$, is positioned at abscissa $x_i$ and ordinate $y_i$. Sum or differences of the indices of the coordinates are taken modulo $n$. Placing the vertex $\geo{v}_0$ at the origin, we set $x_0 = y_0 = 0$. We also assume that the $n$-gon $\geo{P}_n$ is in the half-plane $y\ge 0$ and the vertices $\geo{v}_i$, $i=1,2,\ldots,n-1$, are arranged in a counterclockwise order as illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:model}, i.e., $x_iy_{i+1} \ge y_ix_{i+1}$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n-2$.

The $n$-gon $\geo{P}_n$ is small if $\max_{i,j} \|\geo{v}_i - \geo{v}_j\| = 1$. It is equilateral if $\|\geo{v}_i - \geo{v}_{i-1}\| = c$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n$. Imposing that the determinants of the $2\times 2$ matrices satisfy
\[
\sigma_i :=
\begin{vmatrix}
	x_i - x_{i-1} & x_{i+1} - x_{i-1}\\
	y_i - y_{i-1} & y_{i+1} - y_{i-1}
\end{vmatrix}
\ge 0
\]
for all $i=1,2,\ldots,n-1$ ensures the convexity of the $n$-gon.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4]
		\draw[dashed] (0,0) node[below]{$\geo{v}_0(0,0)$} -- (0.3228,0.2134) node[right]{$\geo{v}_1(x_1,y_1)$} -- (0.5000,0.5574) node[right]{$\geo{v}_2(x_2,y_2)$} -- (0.3796,0.9251) node[right]{$\geo{v}_3(x_3,y_3)$} -- (0,1) node[above]{$\geo{v}_4(x_4,y_4)$} -- (-0.3796,0.9251) node[left]{$\geo{v}_5(x_5,y_5)$} -- (-0.5000,0.5574) node[left]{$\geo{v}_6(x_6,y_6)$} -- (-0.3228,0.2134) node[left]{$\geo{v}_7(x_7,y_7)$} -- cycle;
		\draw[->] (-0.25,0)--(0.25,0)node[below]{$x$};
		\draw[->] (0,0)--(0,0.5)node[left]{$y$};
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{Definition of variables: Case of $n=8$ vertices}
	\label{figure:model}
\end{figure}

For any $n=2^s$ where $s\ge 4$ is an integer, we introduce a convex equilateral small $n$-gon called~$\geo{B}_n$ and constructed as follows. Its diameter graph has the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}}$ as axis of symmetry and can be described by  the $3n/8-1$-length half-path $\geo{v}_0 - \geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}-1} - \ldots - \geo{v}_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} - \geo{v}_{\frac{n}{4}}$ and the pendant edges $\geo{v}_0 - \geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}}$, $\geo{v}_{4k-1} - \geo{v}_{4k-1+\frac{n}{2}}$, $k=1,\ldots,n/8$. The polygons $\geo{B}_{16}$ and $\geo{B}_{32}$ are shown  in Figure~\ref{figure:Bn}. They are symmetrical with respect to the vertical diameter.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\subfloat[$(\geo{B}_{16},3.135288)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=6]
			\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.1875,0.0569) -- (0.3604,0.1492) -- (0.4847,0.3006) -- (0.4960,0.4963) -- (0.4390,0.6838) -- (0.3465,0.8565) -- (0.1950,0.9808) -- (0,1) -- (-0.1950,0.9808) -- (-0.3465,0.8565) -- (-0.4390,0.6838) -- (-0.4960,0.4963) -- (-0.4847,0.3006) -- (-0.3604,0.1492) -- (-0.1875,0.0569) -- cycle;
			\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(0,1);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (0.1950,0.9808) -- (-0.3604,0.1492) -- (0.3465,0.8565) -- (-0.4847,0.3006) -- (0.4960,0.4963);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (-0.1950,0.9808) -- (0.3604,0.1492) -- (-0.3465,0.8565) -- (0.4847,0.3006) -- (-0.4960,0.4963);
			\draw (0.1950,0.9808) -- (-0.1875,0.0569);\draw (-0.1950,0.9808) -- (0.1875,0.0569);
			\draw (-0.4847,0.3006) -- (0.4390,0.6838);\draw (0.4847,0.3006) -- (-0.4390,0.6838);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\subfloat[$(\geo{B}_{32},3.140246)$]{
		\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=6]
			\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.0971,0.0144) -- (0.1923,0.0382) -- (0.2810,0.0802) -- (0.3537,0.1461) -- (0.4121,0.2249) -- (0.4626,0.3091) -- (0.4957,0.4015) -- (0.4995,0.4995) -- (0.4851,0.5966) -- (0.4613,0.6918) -- (0.4193,0.7805) -- (0.3534,0.8532) -- (0.2746,0.9117) -- (0.1904,0.9621) -- (0.0980,0.9952) -- (0,1) -- (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.1904,0.9621) -- (-0.2746,0.9117) -- (-0.3534,0.8532) -- (-0.4193,0.7805) -- (-0.4613,0.6918) -- (-0.4851,0.5966) -- (-0.4995,0.4995) -- (-0.4957,0.4015) -- (-0.4626,0.3091) -- (-0.4121,0.2249) -- (-0.3537,0.1461) -- (-0.2810,0.0802) -- (-0.1923,0.0382) -- (-0.0971,0.0144) -- cycle;
			\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(0,1);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.1923,0.0382) -- (0.1904,0.9621) -- (-0.2810,0.0802) -- (0.3534,0.8532) -- (-0.3537,0.1461) -- (0.4193,0.7805) -- (-0.4626,0.3091) -- (0.4613,0.6918) -- (-0.4957,0.4015) -- (0.4995,0.4995);
			\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (0.1923,0.0382) -- (-0.1904,0.9621) -- (0.2810,0.0802) -- (-0.3534,0.8532) -- (0.3537,0.1461) -- (-0.4193,0.7805) -- (0.4626,0.3091) -- (-0.4613,0.6918) -- (0.4957,0.4015) -- (-0.4995,0.4995);
			\draw (0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.0971,0.0144);\draw (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (0.0971,0.0144);
			\draw (-0.2810,0.0802) -- (0.2746,0.9117);\draw (0.2810,0.0802) -- (-0.2746,0.9117);
			\draw (0.4193,0.7805) -- (-0.4121,0.2249);\draw (-0.4193,0.7805) -- (0.4121,0.2249);
			\draw (-0.4957,0.4015) -- (0.4851,0.5966);\draw (0.4957,0.4015) -- (-0.4851,0.5966);
		\end{tikzpicture}
	}
	\caption{Polygons $(\geo{B}_n,L(\geo{B}_n))$ defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:Bn}: (a) Hexadecagon $\geo{B}_{16}$; (b) Triacontadigon $\geo{B}_{32}$}
	\label{figure:Bn}
\end{figure}

Place the vertex $\geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}}$ at $(0,1)$ in the plane. Let $t \in (0,\pi/n)$ denote the angle formed at the vertex~$\geo{v}_0$ by the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}-1}$ and the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{\frac{n}{2}}$. This implies that the sides length of~$\geo{B}_{n}$ is $2\sin (t/2)$. Since $\geo{B}_n$ is equilateral and symmetric, we have from the half-path $\geo{v}_0 - \ldots - \geo{v}_{\frac{n}{4}}$,
\[
\begin{aligned}
	x_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} &= \sin t - \sum_{k=1}^{n/8-1} (-1)^{k-1} (\sin (4k-1)t - \sin 4kt + \sin (4k+1)t)\\
	&= \sin t - \frac{(2\cos t -1)(\sin 2t + \sin (n/2-2)t)}{2\cos 2t} &&= -x_{\frac{n}{4}-1},\\
	x_{\frac{n}{4}} &= x_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} + \sin (n/2-1)t &&= -x_{\frac{3n}{4}},\\
	y_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} &= \cos t - \sum_{k=1}^{n/8-1} (-1)^{k-1} (\cos (4k-1)t - \cos 4kt + \cos (4k+1)t)\\
	&= \cos t - \frac{(2\cos t -1)(\cos 2t + \cos (n/2-2)t)}{2\cos 2t} &&= y_{\frac{n}{4}-1},\\
	y_{\frac{n}{4}} &= y_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} + \cos (n/2-1)t &&= y_{\frac{3n}{4}}.
\end{aligned}
\]

Finally, the angle $t$ is chosen so that $\|\geo{v}_{\frac{3n}{4}+1}-\geo{v}_{\frac{3n}{4}}\| = 2\sin (t/2)$, i.e.,
\[
(2x_{\frac{3n}{4}+1} + \sin (n/2-1)t)^2+\cos^2 (n/2-1)t = 4\sin^2(t/2).
\]
An asymptotic analysis produces that, for large $n$, this equation has a solution $t_0(n)$ satisfying
\[
t_0(n) = \frac{\pi}{n} - \frac{\pi^4}{n^5} + \frac{\pi^5}{n^6} -\frac{11\pi^6}{6n^7} + \frac{35\pi^7}{12n^8} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^9}\right).
\]
By setting $t = t_0(n)$, the perimeter of $\geo{B}_n$ is
\[
\begin{aligned}
	L(\geo{B}_n) &= 2n\sin \frac{t_0(n)}{2} = 2n \sin \left(\frac{\pi}{2n} - \frac{\pi^4}{2n^5} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^6}\right)\right)\\
	&= \pi - \frac{\pi^3}{24n^2} + \left(\frac{\pi^5}{1920}-\pi^4\right)\frac{1}{n^4} + \frac{\pi^5}{n^5} - \left(\frac{\pi^7}{322560}+\frac{41\pi^6}{24}\right)\frac{1}{n^6} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^7}\right)
\end{aligned}
\]
and
\[
\ub{L}_n - L(\geo{B}_n) = \frac{\pi^4}{n^4} - \frac{\pi^5}{n^5} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^6}\right).
\]
Since the polygon $\geo{M}_n$ proposed by Mossinghoff~\cite{mossinghoff2008} satisfies
\[
L(\geo{M}_n) = \pi - \frac{\pi^3}{24n^2} + \left(\frac{\pi^5}{1920}-3\pi^4\right)\frac{1}{n^4} + \frac{9\pi^5}{n^5} - \left(\frac{\pi^7}{322560}+\frac{9\pi^6}{8}\right)\frac{1}{n^6} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^7}\right),
\]
it follows that
\[
L(\geo{B}_n) - L(\geo{M}_n) = \frac{2\pi^4}{n^4} - \frac{8\pi^5}{n^5} - \frac{7\pi^6}{12n^6} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^7}\right).
\]

To verify that $\geo{B}_n$ is small, we calculate
\[
\|\geo{v}_{\frac{n}{4}} - \geo{v}_{\frac{3n}{4}}\| = 2x_{\frac{n}{4}} = 1 - \frac{\pi^3}{n^3} - \frac{7\pi^5}{4n^5} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^7}\right) < 1.
\]
To test that $\geo{B}_n$ is convex, we compute
\[
\sigma_{\frac{n}{4}} = \frac{2\pi^3}{n^3} - \frac{\pi^4}{n^4} + O\left(\frac{1}{n^5}\right) > 0.
\]
This completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Bn}.\qed

All polygons presented in this work were implemented as a MATLAB package: OPTIGON~\cite{optigon}, which is freely available at \url{https://github.com/cbingane/optigon}. In OPTIGON, we provide MATLAB functions that give the coordinates of the vertices. For example, the vertices coordinates of a regular small $n$-gon are obtained by calling {\tt [x,y] = cstrt\_regular\_ngon(n)}. The command {\tt calc\_perimeter\_ngon(x,y)} computes the perimeter of a polygon given by its vertices coordinates $(\rv{x},\rv{y})$. One can also find an algorithm developed in~\cite{bingane2021a} to find an estimate of the maximal area of a small $n$-gon when $n \ge 6$ is even.

Table~\ref{table:perimeter} shows the perimeters of $\geo{B}_n$, along with the upper bounds $\ub{L}_n$, the perimeters of the regular polygons $\geo{R}_n$ and Mossinghoff polygons $\geo{M}_n$. When $n = 2^s$ and $s\ge 4$, $\geo{B}_n$ provides a tighter lower bound on the maximal perimeter $\ell_n^*$ compared to the best prior convex equilateral small $n$-gon~$\geo{M}_n$. By analyzing the fraction $\frac{L(\geo{B}_n) - L(\geo{M}_n)}{\ub{L}_n - L(\geo{M}_n)}$ of the length of the interval $[L(\geo{M}_n), \ub{L}_n]$ containing $L(\geo{B}_n)$, it is not surprising that $L(\geo{B}_n)$ approaches $\frac{1}{3} L(\geo{M}_n) + \frac{2}{3}\ub{L}_n$ as $n$ increases since $L(\geo{B}_n) - L(\geo{M}_n) \sim \frac{2\pi^4}{n^4}$ for large~$n$.

\begin{table}[h]
	\footnotesize
	\centering
	\caption{Perimeters of $\geo{B}_n$}
	\label{table:perimeter}
		\begin{tabular}{@{}rllllr@{}}
			\toprule
			$n$ & $L(\geo{R}_n)$ & $L(\geo{M}_n)$ & $L(\geo{B}_n)$ & $\ub{L}_n$ & $\frac{L(\geo{B}_n) - L(\geo{M}_n)}{\ub{L}_n - L(\geo{M}_n)}$ \\
			\midrule
			16	&	3.1214451523	&	3.1347065475	&	3.1352878881	&	3.1365484905	&	0.3156	\\
			32	&	3.1365484905	&	3.1401338091	&	3.1402460942	&	3.1403311570	&	0.5690	\\
			64	&	3.1403311570	&	3.1412623836	&	3.1412717079	&	3.1412772509	&	0.6272	\\
			128	&	3.1412772509	&	3.1415127924	&	3.1415134468	&	3.1415138011	&	0.6487	\\
			256	&	3.1415138011	&	3.1415728748	&	3.1415729180	&	3.1415729404	&	0.6589	\\
			\bottomrule
		\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Improved triacontadigon and hexacontatetragon}\label{sec:optimal}
It is natural to ask if the polygon constructed $\geo{B}_n$ might be optimal for some $n$. Using constructive arguments, Proposition~\ref{thm:Z32} and Proposition~\ref{thm:Z64} show that $\geo{B}_{32}$ and $\geo{B}_{64}$ are suboptimal.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm:Z32}
There exists a convex equilateral small $32$-gon whose perimeter exceeds that of~$\geo{B}_{32}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the $32$-gon $\geo{Z}_{32}$, illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:Z32}. Its diameter graph has the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{16}$ as axis of symmetry and can be described by the $4$-length half-path $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{11}-\geo{v}_{24}-\geo{v}_{10}-\geo{v}_{23}$ and the pendant edges $\geo{v}_{0} - \geo{v}_{15}, \ldots, \geo{v}_{0} - \geo{v}_{12}$, $\geo{v}_{11} - \geo{v}_{31}, \ldots, \geo{v}_{11} - \geo{v}_{25}$.

Place the vertex $\geo{v}_0$ at $(0,0)$ in the plane, and the vertex $\geo{v}_{16}$ at $(0,1)$. Let $t \in (0,\pi/32)$ denote the angle formed at the vertex $\geo{v}_0$ by the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{15}$ and the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{16}$. We have, from the half-path $\geo{v}_0 - \ldots -\geo{v}_{23}$,
	\[
	\begin{aligned}
		x_{10} &= \sin 5t - \sin 13t + \sin 14t &&= -x_{22}, & y_{10} &= \cos 5t - \cos 13t + \cos 14t &&= y_{11},\\
		x_{23} &= x_{10} - \sin 15t &&= -x_9, & y_{23} &= y_{10} - \cos 15t &&= y_9.
	\end{aligned}
	\]

Finally, $t$ is chosen so that $\|\geo{v}_{10}-\geo{v}_9\| = 2\sin (t/2)$, i.e.,
\[
(2(\sin 5t - \sin 13t + \sin 14t) - \sin 15t)^2+\cos^2 15t = 4\sin^2(t/2).
\]
We obtain $t = 0.0981744286\ldots$ and $L(\geo{Z}_{32}) = 64\sin (t/2) = 3.1403202339\ldots  > L(\geo{B}_{32})$. One can verify that $\geo{Z}_{32}$ is small and convex.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{thm:Z64}
There exists a convex equilateral small $64$-gon whose perimeter exceeds that of~$\geo{B}_{64}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the $64$-gon $\geo{Z}_{64}$, illustrated in Figure~\ref{figure:Z64}. Its diameter graph has the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{32}$ as axis of symmetry and can be described by the $23$-length half-path $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{31}-\geo{v}_{63}-\geo{v}_{30}-\geo{v}_{61} - \geo{v}_{29} - \geo{v}_{60} - \geo{v}_{28} - \geo{v}_{58} - \geo{v}_{27} - \geo{v}_{57} - \geo{v}_{26} - \geo{v}_{56} - \geo{v}_{25} - \geo{v}_{55} - \geo{v}_{24} - \geo{v}_{54} - \geo{v}_{23} - \geo{v}_{53} - \geo{v}_{21} - \geo{v}_{52} - \geo{v}_{19} - \geo{v}_{51} - \geo{v}_{16}$, the pendant edges $\geo{v}_{30}-\geo{v}_{62}$, $\geo{v}_{28} - \geo{v}_{59}$, $\geo{v}_{53} - \geo{v}_{22}$, $\geo{v}_{52} - \geo{v}_{20}$, $\geo{v}_{51} - \geo{v}_{18}$, $\geo{v}_{51}-\geo{v}_{17}$, and the $4$-length path $\geo{v}_{15}-\geo{v}_{50} - \geo{v}_{14} - \geo{v}_{49}$.

Place the vertex $\geo{v}_0$ at $(0,0)$ in the plane, and the vertex $\geo{v}_{32}$ at $(0,1)$. Let $t \in (0,\pi/64)$ denote the angle formed at the vertex $\geo{v}_0$ by the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{31}$ and the edge $\geo{v}_0-\geo{v}_{32}$. We have, from the half-path $\geo{v}_0 - \ldots -\geo{v}_{31}$,
\[
\begin{aligned}
	x_{51} &= \sin t - \sin 2t + \sin 3t - \sin 5t + \sin 6t -\sin 7t + \sin 8t\\
	&-\sum_{k=10}^{20} (-1)^k \sin kt + \sin 22t - \sin 23t + \sin 25t - \sin 26t &&= -x_{13},\\
	y_{51} &= \cos t - \cos 2t + \cos 3t - \cos 5t + \cos 6t -\cos 7t + \cos 8t\\
	&-\sum_{k=10}^{20} (-1)^k \cos kt + \cos 22t - \cos 23t + \cos 25t - \cos 26t &&= y_{13},\\
	x_{16} &= x_{51} + \sin 29t &&= -x_{48},\\
	y_{16} &= y_{51} + \cos 29t &&= y_{48},
\end{aligned}
\]
and, from the path $\geo{v}_{15} - \ldots -\geo{v}_{49}$,
\[
\begin{aligned}
	x_{50} &= -1/2 &&= -x_{14}, & y_{50} &= y &&= y_{14},\\
	x_{15} &= x_{50} + \cos t &&= -x_{49}, & y_{15} &= y_{50} + \sin t &&= y_{49}.
\end{aligned}
\]

Finally, $t$ and $y$ are chosen so that $\|\geo{v}_{51}-\geo{v}_{50}\| = \|\geo{v}_{16}-\geo{v}_{15}\| = 2\sin (t/2)$. We obtain $t = 0.0490873533\ldots$ and $L(\geo{Z}_{64}) = 128 \sin(t/2)= 3.1412752155\ldots  > L(\geo{B}_{64})$. One can verify that $\geo{Z}_{64}$ is small and convex.
\end{proof}

Polygons $\geo{Z}_{32}$ and $\geo{Z}_{64}$ offer a significant improvement to the lower bound of the optimal value. We note that
\[
\begin{aligned}
	\ell_{32}^* - L(\geo{Z}_{32}) &< \ub{L}_{32} - L(\geo{Z}_{32}) = 1.09\ldots \times 10^{-5} < \ub{L}_{32} - L(\geo{B}_{32}) = 8.50\ldots \times 10^{-5},\\
	\ell_{64}^* - L(\geo{Z}_{64}) &< \ub{L}_{64} - L(\geo{Z}_{64}) = 2.03\ldots \times 10^{-6} < \ub{L}_{64} - L(\geo{B}_{64}) = 5.54\ldots \times 10^{-6}.
\end{aligned}
\]
Also, the fractions
\[
\begin{aligned}
	\frac{L(\geo{Z}_{32}) - L(\geo{B}_{32})}{\ub{L}_{32} - L(\geo{B}_{32})} &= 0.8715\ldots,\\
	\frac{L(\geo{Z}_{64}) - L(\geo{B}_{64})}{\ub{L}_{64} - L(\geo{B}_{64})} &= 0.6327\ldots
\end{aligned}
\]
indicate that the perimeters of the improved polygons are quite close to the maximal perimeter. This suggests that it is possible that another family of convex equilateral small polygons might produce an improvement to Theorem~\ref{thm:Bn}.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat[$(\geo{Z}_{32},3.140320)$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=8]
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.0842,0.0505) -- (0.1630,0.1089) -- (0.2357,0.1748) -- (0.3016,0.2475) -- (0.3601,0.3263) -- (0.4105,0.4105) -- (0.4525,0.4992) -- (0.4855,0.5916) -- (0.4999,0.6887) -- (0.4952,0.7867) -- (0.4714,0.8819) -- (0.3827,0.9239) -- (0.2903,0.9569) -- (0.1951,0.9808) -- (0.0980,0.9952) -- (0,1) -- (-0.0980,0.9952) -- (-0.1951,0.9808) -- (-0.2903,0.9569) -- (-0.3827,0.9239) -- (-0.4714,0.8819) -- (-0.4952,0.7867) -- (-0.4999,0.6887) -- (-0.4855,0.5916) -- (-0.4525,0.4992) -- (-0.4105,0.4105) -- (-0.3601,0.3263) -- (-0.3016,0.2475) -- (-0.2357,0.1748) -- (-0.1630,0.1089) -- (-0.0842,0.0505) -- cycle;
\draw[red,thick] (0,0)--(0,1);
\draw (0,0)--(0.0980,0.9952);\draw (0,0)--(-0.0980,0.9952);
\draw (0,0)--(0.1951,0.9808);\draw (0,0)--(-0.1951,0.9808);
\draw (0,0)--(0.2903,0.9569);\draw (0,0)--(-0.2903,0.9569);
\draw (0,0)--(0.3827,0.9239);\draw (0,0)--(-0.3827,0.9239);
\draw[blue,thick] (0,0)--(0.4714,0.8819);\draw[blue,thick] (0,0)--(-0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.0842,0.0505)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.0842,0.0505)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.1630,0.1089)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.1630,0.1089)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.0842,0.0505)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.0842,0.0505)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.2357,0.1748)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.2357,0.1748)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.3016,0.2475)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.3016,0.2475)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.3601,0.3263)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.3601,0.3263)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.4105,0.4105)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.4105,0.4105)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw (0.4525,0.4992)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw (-0.4525,0.4992)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw[blue,thick] (0.4855,0.5916)--(-0.4714,0.8819);\draw[blue,thick] (-0.4855,0.5916)--(0.4714,0.8819);
\draw[blue,thick] (0.4952,0.7867)--(-0.4855,0.5916);\draw[blue,thick] (-0.4952,0.7867)--(0.4855,0.5916);
\draw[blue,thick] (0.4952,0.7867)--(-0.4999,0.6887);\draw[blue,thick] (-0.4952,0.7867)--(0.4999,0.6887);
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{figure:Z32}
}
\subfloat[$(\geo{Z}_{64},3.141275)$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=8]
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (0.0490,0.0036) -- (0.0973,0.0120) -- (0.1452,0.0228) -- (0.1918,0.0382) -- (0.2367,0.0580) -- (0.2805,0.0801) -- (0.3220,0.1064) -- (0.3607,0.1366) -- (0.3962,0.1704) -- (0.4283,0.2076) -- (0.4565,0.2477) -- (0.4786,0.2915) -- (0.4940,0.3382) -- (0.5000,0.3869) -- (0.4988,0.4359) -- (0.4952,0.4849) -- (0.4868,0.5332) -- (0.4760,0.5811) -- (0.4629,0.6284) -- (0.4453,0.6742) -- (0.4254,0.7191) -- (0.4012,0.7618) -- (0.3749,0.8033) -- (0.3447,0.8420) -- (0.3109,0.8775) -- (0.2737,0.9096) -- (0.2336,0.9378) -- (0.1909,0.9620) -- (0.1451,0.9797) -- (0.0978,0.9928) -- (0.0491,0.9988) -- (0,1) -- (-0.0491,0.9988) -- (-0.0978,0.9928) -- (-0.1451,0.9797) -- (-0.1909,0.9620) -- (-0.2336,0.9378) -- (-0.2737,0.9096) -- (-0.3109,0.8775) -- (-0.3447,0.8420) -- (-0.3749,0.8033) -- (-0.4012,0.7618) -- (-0.4254,0.7191) -- (-0.4453,0.6742) -- (-0.4629,0.6284) -- (-0.4760,0.5811) -- (-0.4868,0.5332) -- (-0.4952,0.4849) -- (-0.4988,0.4359) -- (-0.5000,0.3869) -- (-0.4940,0.3382) -- (-0.4786,0.2915) -- (-0.4565,0.2477) -- (-0.4283,0.2076) -- (-0.3962,0.1704) -- (-0.3607,0.1366) -- (-0.3220,0.1064) -- (-0.2805,0.0801) -- (-0.2367,0.0580) -- (-0.1918,0.0382) -- (-0.1452,0.0228) -- (-0.0973,0.0120) -- (-0.0490,0.0036) -- cycle;
\draw[red,thick] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (0.0491,0.9988) -- (-0.0490,0.0036) -- (0.0978,0.9928) -- (-0.1452,0.0228) -- (0.1451,0.9797) -- (-0.1918,0.0382) -- (0.1909,0.9620) -- (-0.2805,0.0801) -- (0.2336,0.9378) -- (-0.3220,0.1064) -- (0.2737,0.9096) -- (-0.3607,0.1366) -- (0.3109,0.8775) -- (-0.3962,0.1704) -- (0.3447,0.8420) -- (-0.4283,0.2076) -- (0.3749,0.8033) -- (-0.4565,0.2477) -- (0.4254,0.7191) -- (-0.4786,0.2915) -- (0.4629,0.6284) -- (-0.4940,0.3382) -- (0.4952,0.4849);
\draw[blue,thick] (0,0) -- (-0.0491,0.9988) -- (0.0490,0.0036) -- (-0.0978,0.9928) -- (0.1452,0.0228) -- (-0.1451,0.9797) -- (0.1918,0.0382) -- (-0.1909,0.9620) -- (0.2805,0.0801) -- (-0.2336,0.9378) -- (0.3220,0.1064) -- (-0.2737,0.9096) -- (0.3607,0.1366) -- (-0.3109,0.8775) -- (0.3962,0.1704) -- (-0.3447,0.8420) -- (0.4283,0.2076) -- (-0.3749,0.8033) -- (0.4565,0.2477) -- (-0.4254,0.7191) -- (0.4786,0.2915) -- (-0.4629,0.6284) -- (0.4940,0.3382) -- (-0.4952,0.4849);
\draw[orange,thick] (0.4988,0.4359) -- (-0.5000,0.3869) -- (0.5000,0.3869) -- (-0.4988,0.4359);
\draw (0.0978,0.9928) -- (-0.0973,0.0120);\draw (-0.0978,0.9928) -- (0.0973,0.0120)
\draw (0.1909,0.9620) -- (-0.2367,0.0580);\draw (-0.1909,0.9620) -- (0.2367,0.0580)
\draw (-0.4565,0.2477) -- (0.4012,0.7618);\draw (0.4565,0.2477) -- (-0.4012,0.7618)
\draw (-0.4786,0.2915) -- (0.4453,0.6742);\draw (0.4786,0.2915) -- (-0.4453,0.6742)
\draw (-0.4940,0.3382) -- (0.4760,0.5811);\draw (0.4940,0.3382) -- (-0.4760,0.5811);
\draw (-0.4940,0.3382) -- (0.4868,0.5332);\draw (0.4940,0.3382) -- (-0.4868,0.5332)
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{figure:Z64}
}
\caption{Improved convex equilateral small $n$-gons $(\geo{Z}_n,L(\geo{Z}_n))$: (a) Triacontadigon $\geo{Z}_{32}$ with larger perimeter than $\geo{B}_{32}$; (b) Hexacontatetragon $\geo{Z}_{64}$ with larger perimeter than $\geo{B}_{64}$}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
Lower bounds on the maximal perimeter of convex equilateral small $n$-gons were provided when $n$ is a power of $2$ and these bounds are tighter than the previous ones from the literature. For any $n=2^s$ with integer $s\ge 4$, we constructed a convex equilateral small $n$-gon $\geo{B}_n$ whose perimeter is within $\pi^4/n^4 + O(1/n^5)$ of the optimal value. For $n=32$ and $n=64$, we propose solutions with even larger perimeters.

\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Combinatorics (math.CO); Metric Geometry (math.MG)