A lower bound on the saturation number, and graphs for which it is sharp

Abstract: Let $H$ be a fixed graph. We say that a graph $G$ is $H$-saturated if it has no subgraph isomorphic to $H$, but the addition of any edge to $G$ results in an $H$-subgraph. The saturation number $\mathrm{sat}(H,n)$ is the minimum number of edges in an $H$-saturated graph on $n$ vertices. Kászonyi and Tuza, in 1986, gave a general upper bound on the saturation number of a graph $H$, but a nontrivial lower bound has remained elusive. In this paper we give a general lower bound on $\mathrm{sat}(H,n)$ and prove that it is asymptotically sharp (up to an additive constant) on a large class of graphs. This class includes all threshold graphs and many graphs for which the saturation number was previously determined exactly. Our work thus gives an asymptotic common generalization of several earlier results. The class also includes disjoint unions of cliques, allowing us to address an open problem of Faudree, Ferrara, Gould, and Jacobson.

\section{Introduction}

Given a fixed forbidden graph $H$, what is the minimum number of edges
that any graph $G$ on $n$ vertices can have such that $G$ contains no
copy of $H$, but the addition of any single edge to $G$ results in a
copy of $H$? This question is a variation of the well-known forbidden
subgraph problem in extremal graph theory, which asks for the maximum
number of edges in an $H$-free graph on $n$ vertices. Asking for
  the \emph{minimum} number of edges instead (and tailoring the
  definition so that this is a sensible question) yields the notion of
  the \emph{saturation number} of a graph $H$, first defined by
  Erd\H{o}s, Hajnal, and Moon~\cite{EHM}, albeit with slightly
  different terminology.

  \begin{definition}
    Let $H$ be a graph. For any graph $G$, we say that $G$ is
    \emph{$H$-free} if it contains no subgraph isomorphic to $H$. We
    say that $G$ is \emph{$H$-saturated} if it is $H$-free and for any
    $xy \in \overline{E(G)}$, the graph $G+xy$ contains a subgraph
    isomorphic to $H$. For $n \geq \sizeof{V(H)}$, let
    $\Sat(H,n)$ denote the set of all $H$-saturated graphs on $n$
    vertices, and let the \emph{saturation number} of $H$
    be \[\sat(H,n) = \min_{G \in \Sat(H,n)} {|E(G)|}.\] In the event
    that $\Sat(H,n) = \emptyset$, we adopt the convention that
    $\sat(H,n)=\infty$. Note that this will only happen if $H$ has no
    edges.
  \end{definition}

  In their paper introducing the concept, Erd\H{o}s, Hajnal, and
  Moon~\cite{EHM} determined $\sat(H,n)$ in the case where $H$ is a
  complete graph.  Since then, the saturation numbers have been
  determined for various classes of graphs. A nice survey on these
  results and more was written by Faudree, Faudree, and Schmitt
  \cite{survey}.

The best known general upper bound on $\sat(H,n)$ was given by
K\'{a}szonyi and Tuza \cite{KT} and later slightly improved by Faudree
and Gould~\cite{FG13}. However, as mentioned in \cite{survey} and in
\cite{FFGJ09}, there is no known nontrivial general lower bound on
this function. In this paper we give such a bound, and determine a
class of graphs for which this bound is asymptotically sharp: for such
graphs, we can prove that $\sat(H,n) = \alpha_H n + O(1)$, where
$\alpha_H$ and the $O(1)$ term depend on only $H$. (We remark that it
is not known, in general, that the limit
$\lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{\sat(H,n)}{n}$ even exists, even though it is known~\cite{KT} that $\sat(H,n)$ is always
bounded by a linear function of $n$; the existence of
this limit was stated as a conjecture by Tuza~\cite{Tuza88}.)

This class of graphs includes all threshold graphs as well as some
non-threshold graphs. In particular, many previously-studied classes
of graphs fall into this class, including cliques~\cite{EHM},
stars~\cite{KT}, generalized books~\cite{CFG08}, disjoint unions of
cliques~\cite{FFGJ09}, generalized friendship graphs~\cite{FFGJ09},
and several of the ``nearly complete'' graphs of~\cite{FG13}. Our
result can be considered as an asymptotic common generalization of
these previous results: at the cost of no longer determining the
\emph{exact} saturation number as in the previous results, we obtain a
simple unified proof that gives the saturation number up to an
additive constant number of edges.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section~\ref{sec:weight} we state and prove our general lower bound on
the saturation number, and prove an upper bound on the saturation
number of the graph $H'$ obtained from a graph $H$ by adding a
dominating vertex. In Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp}, we define the
\emph{sat-sharp} graphs to be the graphs whose saturation numbers are
asymptotically equal to the lower bound of Section~\ref{sec:weight},
and prove that this class of graphs is closed under adding
isolated vertices and dominating vertices. In
Section~\ref{sec:threshold} we discuss threshold graphs, which are
contained within the class of sat-sharp graphs and encompass several graphs
whose saturation numbers were previously determined. Finally, in
Section~\ref{sec:disjoint-cliques}, we prove that any graph consisting
of a disjoint union of cliques is sat-sharp, and discuss the
implications of this.

\section{A weight function and some general bounds}\label{sec:weight}
In this section, we will define a weight function for a general graph
$H$, and prove that it gives a lower bound on the saturation number
$\sat(H,n)$. We will also prove a general bound relating the
saturation number of $H$ to the saturation number of the graph
$H'$ obtained from $H$ by adding a dominating vertex.
\begin{definition}
  For a vertex $x$ in a graph $G$, let $N_G(x)$ and $N_G[x]$ denote the
  \emph{open} and \emph{closed neighborhoods} of $x$ respectively:
  \begin{align*}
    N_G(x)&=\{y \in V(G)\colon\, xy \in E(G)\}, \\
    N_G[x]&=N_G(x) \cup \{x\}.
  \end{align*}
  Let $d_G(x) = \sizeof{N_G(x)}$ denote the degree of $x$,
  and for a vertex set $S$, let $d_{G,S}(x)$ denote the number of
  neighbors of $x$ in the set $S$:
  \[d_{G,S}(x) = \sizeof{N(x) \cap S}.\]
  When the graph $G$ is clear from context, we omit it from our
    notation and simply write $N(v)$, $d(v)$, or $d_S(v)$ as
    appropriate.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
  Let $uv$ be an edge in a graph with $d(u) \leq d(v)$. Define the
  \emph{weight} $\wt(uv)$ of the edge $uv$ by
  \[ \wt(uv) = 2\sizeof{N(u) \cap N(v)} + \sizeof{N(v) - N(u)}. \]
  Define the weight of the graph $H$ by
  \[ \wt(H) = \min_{uv \in E(H)} \wt(uv). \]
  If $E(H)=\emptyset$, we define $\wt(H)=\infty$.
\end{definition}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:wtlower}
  For every graph $H$, there exists a constant $c'_H$ such that
  \[ \sat(H, n) \geq \frac{\wt(H)-1}{2}n - c'_H. \]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  First observe $\wt(H) \geq 1$ for all $H$ and that the claim is
    trivial when $\wt(H) = 1$, so (as $\wt(H)$ is an integer) we may
    assume that $\wt(H) \geq 2$.  Let $G$ be an $H$-saturated graph,
  let $x^*$ be a vertex of minimum degree in $G$, and let
  $B = N_G(x^*)$, so that $\sizeof{B} = d_G(x^*)$. Observe that if
  $d_G(x^*) \geq \wt(H)-1$, then the degree-sum formula immediately
  gives $\sizeof{E(G)} \geq \frac{\wt(H)-1}{2}n$, so we may assume
  that $d_G(x^*) < \wt(H) - 1$. As both of these quantities are
  integers, we have $d_G(x^*) \leq \wt(H) - 2$.

  Consider any vertex $y \in V(G) - N[x^*]$.  By hypothesis, the graph
  $G+x^*y$ contains a copy of $H$.  Let $\phi : V(H) \to V(G+x^*y)$ be
  an embedding of $H$ into $G+x^*y$. Since $G$ is $H$-free, the new
  edge $x^*y$ must be the image of some edge $uv \in E(H)$. We may
  take our notation so that $d_H(u) \leq d_H(v)$.  Let
  $b = \sizeof{N_H(u) \cap N_H(v)}$ and let $a = d_H(v) - b$,
  so that $\wt(uv) = a + 2b$.

  We first claim that $d_G(y) \geq a+b-1$; this requires considering
  two cases, depending on whether $y = \phi(u)$ or $y = \phi(v)$.
  If $y = \phi(u)$, then
  \[d_G(y) \geq \delta(G) = d_G(x^*) \geq d_H(v) - 1 = a+b-1.\]
  Similarly, if $y = \phi(v)$, then
  $d_G(y) \geq d_H(v) -1 \geq a+b-1$. This establishes the claim.

  Now, observe that regardless of whether $y = \phi(u)$ or
  $y = \phi(v)$, we have
  \[\phi(N_H(u) \cap N_H(v)) \subset N_G(x^*) = B.\] So in
  $G$, the vertex $y$ has $b$ guaranteed neighbors in $B$, together
  with at least $a-1$ additional edges which may go to $B$ or may go
  to $\bar{B} - x^*$, where $\bar{B} = V(G) - B$. Therefore,
  \[2d_{G,B}(y) + d_{G,\bar{B}}(y) \geq 2b + a - 1 = \wt(uv)-1 \geq \wt(H)-1\]
  for all $y \in \bar{B} - x^*$.

  Now, note that $\sum_{x \in B}d_G(x) \geq \sum_{y \in \bar{B}} d_{G,B}(y)$. So it follows that
  \begin{align*}
    \sizeof{E(G)} &= \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x \in B} d_G(x)+\sum_{y \in \bar{B}} d_G(y) \right)\\
                  &\geq \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{y \in \bar{B}} d_{G,B}(y) +\sum_{y \in \bar{B}} d_{G,B}(y) \right)\\
                  &= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{y \in \bar{B}} \left(2d_{G,B}(y)+d_{G,\bar{B}}(y)\right)\\
                  &\geq \frac{2d_G(x^*)+\left(\wt(H)-1\right)\sizeof{\bar{B} - x^*}}{2}\\
                  &= \frac{2d_G(x^*)+\left(\wt(H)-1\right)\left(n-1-d_G(x^*)\right)}{2}\\
                  &= \frac{\wt(H)-1}{2}n - c'_H,
  \end{align*}
  where \[c'_H = \frac{d_G(x^*)(\wt(H) - 3)+(\wt(H) - 1)}{2}.\] Since we
  assume $0 \leq d_G(x^*) \leq \wt(H)-2$, the value $c'_H$, considered
  as a formal function of the quantity $d_G(x^*)$, is
  maximized at $d_G(x^*) = \wt(H)-2$ whenever $\wt(H) \geq 2$ (the
  case $\wt(H) = 2$, which would imply that this formal function has a negative derivative
    in $d_G(x^*)$, implies that $d_G(x^*)=0$). Therefore,
  \[ \sat(H, n) \geq \frac{\wt(H)-1}{2}n -
    \frac{\wt(H)^2-4\wt(H)+5}{2} \] for $\wt(H) \geq 2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \begin{scope}[xshift=-2cm]
      \apoint{} (u) at (-.67cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} (v) at (.67cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} (w) at (0cm, 1cm) {};
      \apoint{} (z1) at (-.5cm, 1.5cm) {};
      \apoint{} (z2) at (.5cm, 1.5cm) {};
      \draw (w) -- (v) -- (u) -- (w) -- (z1);
      \draw (w) -- (z2);
      \node[anchor=north] at (0cm, -1em) {$H$};
    \end{scope}
    \begin{scope}[xshift=2cm]
      \apoint{} (u) at (-.67cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} (v) at (.67cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} (w) at (0cm, 1cm) {};
      \apoint{} (z1) at (-.5cm, 1.5cm) {};
      \apoint{} (z2) at (.5cm, 1.5cm) {};
      \apoint{v^*} (x) at (0cm, 2cm) {};
      \draw (w) -- (v) -- (u) -- (w) -- (z1);
      \draw (w) -- (z2);
      \draw (x) -- (z1); \draw (x) -- (z2); \draw (x) -- (w);
      \draw (x) .. controls ++(0:1cm) and ++(45:1cm) .. (v);
      \draw (x) .. controls ++(180:1cm) and ++(135:1cm) .. (u);
      \node[anchor=north] at (0cm, -1em) {$H'$};
    \end{scope}
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{Forming $H'$ by adding a dominating vertex $v^*$ to the
    graph $H$.}
  \label{fig:add-dom}
\end{figure}
A central goal of this paper is to explore the effect on the
saturation number of the operation of adding a dominating vertex to
$H$, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:add-dom}. It turns out that that
  this gives a general upper bound on the saturation number of the new
  graph in terms of the saturation number of $H$; we wish to know when
  this upper bound is sharp. We believe that this upper bound is in
  the same general spirit as Lemma 9 of K\'aszonyi--Tuza~\cite{KT}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:adddom}
  If $H'$ is obtained from $H$ by adding a dominating vertex $v^*$,
  then for all $n \geq \sizeof{V(H')}$, we have
  $\sat(H', n) \leq (n-1) + \sat(H, n-1)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  It suffices to produce an $H'$-saturated graph with at most the
  indicated number of edges.  Let $G$ be a minimum $H$-saturated graph
  on $n-1$ vertices, and let $G'$ be obtained from $G$ by adding a new
  dominating vertex $x^*$. It is clear that
  $\sizeof{E(G')} = (n-1) + \sat(H, n-1)$; we show that $G'$ is
  $H'$-saturated.

  First we argue that $G'$ is $H'$-free. Suppose to the contrary that
  $\phi : V(H') \to V(G')$ is an embedding of $H'$ into $G'$. If
  $x^* \notin \phi(V(H'))$, then $\phi$ is an embedding of $H'$ into
  $V(G')$.  Hence $G'$ has a copy of $H'$ and thus a copy of $H$,
  contradicting the $H$-saturation of $G$.  If $\phi(v^*) = x^*$, then
  the restriction of $\phi$ to $V(H)$ is an embedding of $H$ into $G$,
  again a contradiction.

  Hence we can assume that $\phi(v^*) \neq x^*$ and there is some
  vertex $w^* \in V(H)$ with $\phi(w^*) = x^*$. Construct a new
  embedding $\phi_0 : V(H) \to V(G)$ by letting
  $\phi_0(w^*) = \phi(v^*)$ and taking $\phi_0(w) = \phi(w)$ for all
  $w \neq w^*$. Since $\phi(v^*)$ dominates the image of $\phi$ in $G$
  (as $x^*$ was a dominating vertex of $H$), we see that $\phi_0$ is
  still a valid embedding. Hence we have again obtained a copy of $H$
  in $G$, a contradiction. We conclude that $G'$ is $H'$-free.

  Finally we argue that adding any missing edge to $G'$ produces a new
  copy of $H'$.  Since $x^*$ is dominating, any missing edge in $G'$ is
  an edge of the form $yz$ where $y,z \in V(G)$. Now $G + yz$
  contains a copy of $H$, since $G$ is $H$-saturated; adding the
  dominating vertex $x^*$ to this copy of $H$ gives a copy of $H'$ in
  $G'+yz$.
\end{proof}

\section{Sat-sharp graphs}\label{sec:sat-sharp}
For a graph $H$, let
$\satlim(H) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\sat(H,n)}{n}$, provided that
this limit exists.  Say a graph $H$ is \emph{sat-sharp} if
$\satlim(H) = \frac{\wt(H) - 1}{2}$. Moreover, say that a graph $H$ is
\emph{strongly sat-sharp} if
$\sat(H,n) = \frac{\wt(H) - 1}{2}n + O(1)$. Note that any strongly
sat-sharp graph is also sat-sharp. Also, note that by adopting the
convention that $w(H)=\infty$ when $E(H)=\emptyset$, we can conclude
that any graph with no edges is strongly sat-sharp since
$\sat(H,n)=\infty$ for all $n \geq \sizeof{V(H)}$.

In this section we will show that the classes of sat-sharp graphs and
strongly sat-sharp graphs are each closed under adding isolated and
dominating vertices. To express these results concisely, we write
statements like ``if $H$ is (strongly) sat-sharp, then $H'$ is
(strongly) sat-sharp'' as shorthand for the pair of statements ``if
$H$ is sat-sharp, then $H'$ is sat-sharp; if $H$ is strongly
sat-sharp, then $H'$ is strongly sat-sharp''.

As $K_1$ is strongly sat-sharp, these closure results immediately
imply that all threshold graphs are strongly sat-sharp (as we will
discuss in Section~\ref{sec:threshold}). They also imply that
\emph{any} graph $H$ which can be proven to be (strongly) sat-sharp
gives rise to many (strongly) sat-sharp graphs derived from $H$ by
these operations. In particular, we will prove in
Section~\ref{sec:disjoint-cliques} that a disjoint union of cliques is
strongly sat-sharp, although it is not in general a threshold graph;
this implies that any graph obtained from a disjoint union of cliques
via these operations is also strongly sat-sharp.

\begin{lemma}
  If $H$ is a (strongly) sat-sharp graph, and $H'$ is obtained from $H$ by adding
  isolated vertices, then $H'$ is  (strongly) sat-sharp, and $\satlim(H') = \satlim(H)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  For all $n \geq \sizeof{V(H')}$, a graph $G$ is $H'$-saturated if
  and only if it is $H$-saturated, hence $\sat(H', n) = \sat(H, n)$
  for all sufficiently large $n$.
\end{proof}

To handle the operation of adding a dominating vertex, we prove the
following two lemmas, which taken together show that the class of
(strongly) sat-sharp graphs is closed under the operation of
adding a dominating vertex.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sat-dom-smallwt}
  Let $H$ be a $k$-vertex  (strongly) sat-sharp graph, and let $H'$
    be obtained from $H$ by adding a dominating vertex $v^*$.
    If $H$ has no isolated vertices, or if $\wt(H) \leq k-2$,
    then $\wt(H') = 2 + \wt(H)$ and $\satlim(H') = 1 + \satlim(H)$.
   Moreover, $H'$ is  also (strongly) sat-sharp.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sat-isol-dom-bigwt}
  Let $H$ be a $k$-vertex graph with an isolated vertex $u$,
  and let $H'$ be obtained from $H$ by adding a dominating vertex
  $v^*$.  If $\wt(H) > k-2$, then $H'$ is strongly sat-sharp, with $\wt(H') = k$ and
  $\satlim(H') = \frac{k-1}{2}$.
\end{lemma}
Note that Lemma~8 does not actually require the graph $H$ to be
sat-sharp, although that is the main case we are concerned with.  In
the case where $H$ has no edges and so $\wt(H) = \infty$, the
hypothesis of Lemma~\ref{lem:sat-isol-dom-bigwt} applies, yielding
$\satlim(K_{1,k}) = \frac{k-1}{2}$; this is an asymptotic version of
the exact result of K\'aszonyi and Tuza~\cite{KT}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:sat-dom-smallwt}]
  Let $\epsilon(H, n) = \sat(H,n) - \satlim(H)n$, so that $\epsilon(H,n) = o(n)$
    when $H$ is sat-sharp and $\epsilon(H,n) = O(1)$ when $H$ is strongly sat-sharp.

  By Lemma~\ref{lem:adddom}, we have
   \[\sat(H', n) \leq (n-1) + \sat(H, n-1) = (\satlim(H)+1)n + \epsilon(H, n-1) - 1 .\]   If we can prove that $\wt(H') \geq \wt(H) + 2$, then
   Lemma~\ref{lem:wtlower} will give
   \[\sat(H', n) \geq \frac{\wt(H')-1}{2}n-c'_{H'} = (\satlim(H)+1)n -
     c'_{H'}.\] In particular, this implies that
   $\satlim(H') = \frac{\wt(H')-1}{2}$ and that
   $\sizeof{\epsilon(H', n)} \leq  \sizeof{\epsilon(H,n)} + \sizeof{c'_H} + 1$, so if
   $H$ is (strongly) sat-sharp, then $H'$ is (strongly) sat-sharp.

  An edge $e \in E(H)$ can be viewed (and its weight computed) either
  as an edge of $H$ or as an edge of $H'$.  We will use $\wt(e)$ and
  $\wt'(e)$ to refer to the weight of such an edge computed in $H$ or
  $H'$, respectively. Observe that if $uw \in E(H)$, then when we pass
  to $H'$, we add $v^*$ as a new element of $N(u) \cap N(w)$ and change
  nothing else about the sets $N(u) \cap N(w)$ or $N(w) - N(u)$. Hence,
  $\wt'(e) = \wt(e) + 2$ for all $e \in E(H')$.

  The only remaining edges of $H'$ are edges of the form $v^*u$ for
  $u \in V(H)$. We claim that all such edges have weight at most
    $2 + \wt(H)$. If $u$ is isolated in $H$, then we have
    \[ \wt'(uv^*) = 2\sizeof{N(u) \cap N(v^*)} +
      \sizeof{N(v^*) - N(u)} = 0 + k = k \geq 2+\wt(H), \] where the
    last inequality follows from the assumption that $\wt(H) \leq k-2$
    (since we assumed that $u$ is isolated and that $H$ either obeys
    this weight inequality or is isolate-free).

    On the other hand, if $u$ is not isolated in $H$, let $ut$ be
    another edge incident to $u$. Observe that
  \begin{align*}
    \wt'(v^*u) &= 2\sizeof{N(u) \cap N(v^*)} + \sizeof{N(v^*) - N(u)} \\
               &= 2d_H(u) + (k - d_H(u)) \\
               &= d_H(u) + k
  \end{align*}
  and that $\wt(ut) \leq (d_H(u)-1) + (k-1)$ for any edge
  $ut \in E(H)$. It follows that
  $\wt'(v^*u) \geq \wt(ut)+2 = \wt'(ut)$. Hence, an edge of minimum
  weight in $H'$ is found among the edges of $H$, and the smallest
  such weight is $\wt(H) + 2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:sat-isol-dom-bigwt}]
  We again write $\wt(e)$ to refer to the weight of an edge $e$
  computed in $H$ and $\wt'(e)$ to refer to the weight of an edge $e$
  when computed in $H'$.

  As previously discussed, we have $\wt'(e) = \wt(e) + 2$ for every edge $e \in E(H)$.
  On the other hand, considering the isolated vertex $u$, we see that $\wt(uv^*) = k$,
  as $\sizeof{N(u) \cap N(v^*)} = 0$ and $\sizeof{N(v^*) - N(u)} = k$.

  If $\wt(H)+2 > k$, then this implies $\wt(H') = k$, with the only
  edges of minimum weight being those edges joining $v^*$ with an
  isolated vertex of $H$. This establishes the first claim of the lemma.

  Lemma~\ref{lem:wtlower} now gives the lower bound
 \[\sat(H',n) \geq \frac{k-1}{2}n - c'_{H'}.\] We establish a matching upper bound by constructing an
  $H'$-saturated graph on $n$ vertices, for any $n \geq \sizeof{V(H')}$.

  Let any $n \geq \sizeof{V(H')}$ be given, and write $n = qk + r$,
  where $0 \leq r < k$. Let $G$ be the $n$-vertex graph consisting of $q$ disjoint copies of $K_k$
  and a single copy of $K_r$. Clearly
  \[ \sizeof{E(G)} =\frac{n-r}{k}{k \choose 2} + {r \choose 2} \leq
    \frac{k-1}{2}n -\frac{k^2}{8}.\] So if we can argue that $G$ is
  $H'$-saturated, then we will have $\satlim(H') = \frac{k-1}{2}$, and
  we will have that $H'$ is strongly sat-sharp.

  It is clear that $G$ is $H'$-free, since $H'$ is connected and has
  $k+1$ vertices, while every component of $G$ has at most $k$
  vertices. We claim that adding any edge to $G$ produces a subgraph
  isomorphic to $H$. Let $xy$ be a missing edge in $G$; we may assume
  that $y$ lies in a copy of $K_k$. Let $Q$ be the set of vertices of
  the copy of $K_k$ containing $y$.

  Now observe that we can embed $H'$ into $G+xy$ by any injection $\phi : V(H') \to V(G)$
  that satisfies:
  \begin{itemize}
  \item $\phi(u) = x$, and
  \item $\phi(v^*) = y$,
  \item $\phi(V(H) - \{u,v^*\}) = Q - y$,
  \end{itemize}
  and with $k-1$ vertices in $Q-y$, there is enough room to complete
  the last part of the embedding.  The key point is that there is no
  edge, in $H'$, from $u$ to any vertex of $H'$ except for $v^*$, and
  all vertices of $H'$ except for $u$ are being embedded into a clique
  of $G$, so any edges they require are present. Thus, $G$ is
  $H'$-saturated, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Threshold Graphs}\label{sec:threshold}
A natural class of strongly sat-sharp graphs is the class of \emph{threshold graphs}. A
simple graph $G$ with vertex set $\{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$ is a
\emph{threshold graph} if there exist weights
$x_1, \ldots, x_n \in \mathbb{R}$ such that, for all $i \neq j$, we have
$v_iv_j \in E(G)$ if and only if $x_i + x_j \geq 0$. Threshold graphs
were first introduced by Chv\'atal and Hammer~\cite{CH73, CH77},
albeit with a slightly different definition than the one we give here.

Threshold graphs admit many equivalent characterizations. For our
purposes, the following characterization is the most useful one.
\begin{theorem}[Chv\' atal--Hammer~\cite{CH77}; see also~\cite{MP}]
  For a simple graph $G$, the following are equivalent:
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item $G$ is a threshold graph;
  \item $G$ can be obtained from $K_1$ by iteratively adding a new vertex
    which is either an isolated vertex, or dominates all previous vertices;
  \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
In fact, \cite{MP} gives several other equivalent characterizations of
threshold graphs, but this is the one we will be interested in.
The results of Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp}, together with this
characterization, immediately imply that all threshold graphs are
 strongly sat-sharp. Furthermore, when a construction sequence for a threshold graph $G$
is given, one can use the lemmas from Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp} to easily
compute $\wt(G)$ by iteratively computing the weight of each intermediate
subgraph, keeping track of the previous subgraph's weight and whether
or not it had an isolated vertex.

As discussed in the introduction, several graphs whose saturation
numbers were determined in previous work fall into the class of
 strongly sat-sharp graphs.  In particular, complete graphs~\cite{EHM},
stars~\cite{KT}, generalized books~\cite{CFG08}, stars plus an edge
\cite{FFGJ-trees}, and ``nearly complete'' graphs of the form $K_t - H$
for $H \in \{K_{1,3},K_4-K_{1,2},K_4-K_2\}$ are all threshold graphs.
Thus, all of these graphs are strongly sat-sharp, and their saturation
number is determined (up to a constant number of edges) by the
results of Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp}.

As a non-example, we note that among the ``nearly complete'' graphs of
\cite{CFG08}, the graph $K_t - 2K_2$ is not a threshold graph, and in
fact \cite{CFG08} prove that
$\sat(K_t - 2K_2) = (t-\frac{5}{2})n + O(1)$, whereas
Lemma~\ref{lem:wtlower} only gives the lower bound
$\sat(K_t-2K_2, n) \geq (t - \frac{7}{2})n$.

K\' aszonyi and Tuza~\cite{KT} observed the ``irregularity'' that if
$H$ is the graph obtained from $K_4$ by adding a pendant edge, then
$\sat(H, n) \leq \frac{3}{2}n$ while $\sat(K_4, n) = 2n-3$, so that
$\sat(H,n) < \sat(K_4, n)$ for sufficiently large $n$ even though
$K_4 \subset H$. Both $K_4$ and the graph $H$ are threshold graphs; in
terms of our weight function, the irregularity can be seen to arise
from the fact that all edges of $K_4$ have weight $5$ while the
pendant edge of $H$ has weight $4$.

\section{$H$-saturated construction when $H$ is the disjoint union of cliques}\label{sec:disjoint-cliques}

Faudree, Ferrara, Gould, and Jacobson~\cite{FFGJ09} determined the
saturation numbers of generalized friendship graphs $F_{t,p,\ell}$,
consisting of $t$ copies of $K_p$ which all intersect in a common
$K_\ell$ but are otherwise pairwise disjoint. When $\ell=0$, this includes
the case of $tK_p$, consisting of $t$ disjoint copies of $K_p$. They
also determined the saturation numbers of two disjoint cliques,
$K_p \cup K_q$, when $p \neq q$, but left determining the saturation
number of three or more disjoint cliques with general orders as an
open problem. Here, we give a proof that all of these graphs are
 strongly sat-sharp, and determine their saturation numbers up to an additive
constant for all sufficiently large $n$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:disjoint-cliques}
  Let $2 \leq p_1 \leq \cdots \leq p_m$ be positive integers. The
  graph $H=K_{p_1} \cup \cdots \cup K_{p_m}$ is  strongly sat-sharp. In
  particular, \[(p_1-2)n-c'_H \leq \sat(H,n) \leq (p_1-2)n + c_H\] for
  some constants $c_H,c'_H$ depending only on $H$ and for all
  $n \geq \sum_{i=1}^m p_i$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
  First, note that $\wt(H)=2(p_1-2)+1$. So by
  Lemma~\ref{lem:wtlower}, \[\sat(H,n) \geq (p_1-2)n-c'_H\] for some
  constant $c'_H$.

On the other hand, let $G$ be the graph on $n$ vertices defined as the
join, $G=K_{p_1-2} \vee G'$ where $G'=K_{t} \cup I$, the disjoint
union of a clique on $t= 1+ \sum_{i=2}^m p_i $ vertices and a set $I$
with $n-t-p_1+2$ isolated vertices. Figure~\ref{fig:disclique-sat} shows
  the graph $G$ that is constructed for $H = H_4 \cup K_5 \cup K_6$.
\begin{figure}
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \begin{scope}[yshift=.5cm]
      \foreach \i in {1,...,12}
      {
        \apoint{} (v\i) at (30*\i : 1cm) {};
        \foreach \j in {1,...,\i}
        {
          \draw (v\i) -- (v\j);
        }
      }
    \end{scope}
    \begin{scope}[yshift=-1.25cm, yscale=.15]
      \apoint{} at (-1.5cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} at (-1cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} at (-.5cm, 0cm) {};
      \node at (0cm, 0cm) {$\cdots$};
      \apoint{} at (.5cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} at (1cm, 0cm) {};
      \apoint{} at (1.5cm, 0cm) {};
      \draw (0cm, 0cm) circle (1.75cm);
      \node[anchor=north] at (0cm, -1.75cm) {$I$};
    \end{scope}
    \node[anchor=north west] at (-2cm, 2cm) {$G'$};
    \draw (-2cm, 2cm) rectangle (2cm, -2cm) {};
    \apoint{} (u) at (-4cm, 1cm) {};
    \apoint{} (v) at (-4cm, -1cm) {};
    \draw (u) -- (v);
    \foreach \i in {0,...,10}
    {
      \node[coordinate] (z\i) at (-2cm, 2cm-.4*\i cm) {};
      \draw (u) -- (z\i);
      \draw (v) -- (z\i);
    }
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{Construction of the saturated graph $G$ for $H = K_4 \cup K_5 \cup K_6$.}
  \label{fig:disclique-sat}
\end{figure}

We claim that $G$ is $H$-free and $H$-saturated. To see that $G$ is
$H$-free, consider its maximal cliques. Let $Q$ denote the subgraph of
$G$ induced by the vertices of the $K_{p_1-2}$ and the $K_t$. Then $Q$
is a maximal clique with $p_1-2+t$ vertices. All other maximal cliques
of $G$ are formed from the $K_{p_1-2}$ and one vertex from
$I$. Therefore, if we were to find a copy of $H$ in $G$, then each of
the disjoint cliques of $H$ must be found in $Q$. But $Q$ only has
$|V(H)|-1$ vertices so this cannot happen.

To see that $G$ is $H$-saturated, consider the graph $G+xy$ for
  some $xy \notin E(G)$. Without loss of generality, either
$x,y \in I$ or $x \in I$ and $y \in K_t$. In either case, the vertices
of $K_{p_1-2} \cup \{x,y\}$ form a $p_1$-clique in $G+xy$, while at
least $t-1=p_2 + \cdots +p_m$ vertices of the $K_t$ remain disjoint
from this clique and can be used to embed the remaining cliques of
$H$. So $G$ is $H$-saturated.

Since $G$ has $(p_1-2)\left(n+1-\sum_{i=1}^m p_i\right)+{p_1+\cdots+p_m-1 \choose 2}$ edges, it follows that \[\sat(H,n) \leq (p_1-2)n + c_H\] for some constant $c_H$. Therefore, $H$ is  strongly sat-sharp.
\end{proof}

An immediate corollary to this proposition and the results of Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp} is the following result.

\begin{corollary}
  Let $\ell$ and $2 \leq p_1 \leq \cdots \leq p_m$ be positive
  integers. Let $H' = K_{p_1} \cup \cdots \cup K_{p_m}$, and let
  $H=K_{\ell} \vee H'$. Then $H$ is sat-sharp. In
  particular, \[(p_1+\ell-2)n-c'_H \leq \sat(H,n) \leq (p_1+\ell-2)n + c_H\]
  for some constants $c_H,c'_H$ depending only on $H$ and for all
  $n \geq \ell+ \sum_{i=1}^m p_i$.
\end{corollary}

Note that this class of graphs includes all generalized friendship
graphs $F_{t,p,\ell}$ for $p \geq l+2$. Since $F_{t,p,\ell}$ for
$p=\ell+1$ is a threshold graph, we already know from the discussion
in Section~\ref{sec:threshold} that it is  strongly sat-sharp.

While a disjoint union of cliques is not, in general, a threshold
graph, each of its components is a threshold
graph. Proposition~\ref{prop:disjoint-cliques} therefore suggests that
perhaps a disjoint union of threshold graphs is always strongly sat-sharp.
More boldly, the following conjecture appears to be plausible:
\begin{conjecture}\label{coj:disjoint-union}
  If $H_1$ and $H_2$ are (strongly) sat-sharp graphs, then their
  disjoint union $H_1 + H_2$ is (strongly) sat-sharp. That is, the
  class of (strongly) sat-sharp graphs is closed under taking disjoint
  unions.
\end{conjecture}
Conjecture~\ref{coj:disjoint-union}, together with the other closure
properties from Section~\ref{sec:sat-sharp}, would immediately imply
Proposition~\ref{prop:disjoint-cliques}. We have found ad-hoc
constructions for some small disjoint unions of particular threshold
graphs which suggest that Conjecture~\ref{coj:disjoint-union} might
hold, but it has been difficult to extract a general construction.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We would like to thank Ron Gould for the interesting talk on
saturation numbers that he gave at the Atlanta Lecture Series in 2018
which stimulated work on this paper.

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM)


New bounds for perfect $k$-hashing

Abstract: Let $C\subseteq \{1,\ldots,k\}^n$ be such that for any $k$ distinct elements of $C$ there exists a coordinate where they all differ simultaneously. Fredman and Komlós studied upper and lower bounds on the largest cardinality of such a set $C$, in particular proving that as $n\to\infty$, $|C|\leq \exp(n k!/k^{k-1}+o(n))$. Improvements over this result where first derived by different authors for $k=4$. More recently, Guruswami and Riazanov showed that the coefficient $k!/k^{k-1}$ is certainly not tight for any $k>3$, although they could only determine explicit improvements for $k=5,6$. For larger $k$, their method gives numerical values modulo a conjecture on the maxima of certain polynomials.In this paper, we first prove their conjecture, completing the explicit computation of an improvement over the Fredman-Komlós bound for any $k$. Then, we develop a different method which gives substantial improvements for $k=5,6$.

\section{Introduction}
For positive integers $k\geq 2$ and $n \geq 1$, consider a subset $C\subset \{1,\ldots, k\}^n$ with the property that for any $k$ distinct elements of $C$ there exists a coordinate where they all differ. We call such a set a \emph{perfect $k$-hash code} of length $n$, or simply $k$-hash for brevity. The name is motivated by the idea that if each coordinate of $C$ is interpreted as a $k$-hash function on a set $U$ of cardinality $|C|$, then any $k$ elements of $U$ are hashed onto $\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$ by at least one function.

Determining the largest possible cardinality of such a set $C$ as a function of $k$ and $n$ is a classic combinatorial problem in theoretical computer science. One standard formulation is to study, for fixed $k$, the grow of the largest possible $|C|$ as $n$ goes to infinity. It is known that $|C|$ grows exponentially in $n$. Then one usually defines the \emph{rate} of the code as \footnote{Here and in the whole paper $\log{x}$ is understood to be in base two.}
\begin{equation}
R=\frac{\log|C|}{n}
\end{equation}
and asks for bounds on the rate of codes of maximal cardinality as $n\to \infty$. This formulation of the problem can also be cast as a problem, in information theory, of determining the zero-error capacity under list decoding for certain channels (REF).
In this paper we consider upper bounds on $R_k$, defined as the limsup, as $n\to\infty$, of the rate of largest $k$-hash codes of length $n$.

A simple packing argument (see \cite{Elias1}) shows that for all $k\geq 2$ one has $R_k\leq \log(k/(k-1))$.
For $k=3$, the simplest non-trivial case, this evaluates to $\log(3/2) \approx 0.5850$ and is still the best known upper bound to date (the best lower bound is $1/4\log(9/5)\approx 0.212$).
For $k\geq 4$, the first important result  was derived by Fredman and Koml{\'o}s \cite{FredmanKomlos}, who proved that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fredmankomlosRk}
R_k\leq k!/k^{k-1}\,.
\end{equation}
We also refer to \cite{Korner1}, \cite{korner86}, \cite{Korner2} and \cite{Korner3} where the Fredman-Koml{\'o}s bound (and some generalizations to hypergraphs) has been cast using the language of graph entropy and to \cite{nilli} where a simple probabilistic proof has been presented.
Improvements were obtained for $k=4$ in \cite{Arikan1},  \cite{Arikan2} and more recently in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar}, \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2}. The most recent progress we are aware of was obtained in \cite{venkat} where the Fredman-Koml{\'o}s bound is proved to be non-tight for any $k\geq 5$, with an explicit new numerical bound for $k=5,6$. For larger $k$, the authors show that an explicit improvement of the Fredman-Koml{\'o}s bound can be obtained subject to a conjecture on the maxima of certain polynomials. Other recent papers on this topic that deserve to be recalled are \cite{Jaikumar2} where the asymptotic behavior of $R_k$ has been studied and \cite{CostaDalai} where the authors attempt to use the polynomial method to upperbound $R_3$ and they state some limitations of this method.

In this paper we make further progress on this problem. We first prove the conjecture formulated in \cite{venkat} and thus complete their proof of explicit new upper bounds on $R_k$ which beat the Fredman-Koml{\'o}s bound for all $k\geq 5$.
Our main contribution is then to expand on the idea used in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} to derive a further improvement for $k=5,6$.

In Section \ref{background} we give a brief summary of the approaches used in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} and in \cite{venkat}, upon which we build our contribution.
In Section \ref{sec:venkat_conj} prove the conjecture stated in \cite{venkat} and give a numerical evaluation of the ensuing bound for $k>6$. In Section \ref{sec:newbounds} we present our improvement for $k=5,6$.

\section{Background}
\label{background}
The bounds presented in \cite{FredmanKomlos}, \cite{Arikan2}, \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} and \cite{venkat} can all be derived by starting with the following Lemma on graph covering (see \cite{Jkumar}).
\begin{Lemma}[Hansel \cite{hansel}]
Let $K_r$ be a complete graph on $r$ vertices and let $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ be bipartite graphs on those same vertices such that $\cup_{i}G_i=K_r $. Let finally $\tau(G_i)$ represent the number of non-isolated vertices in $G_i$. Then
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^m \tau(G_i) \geq \log r\,.
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
The connection with $k$-hashing comes from the following application. Given a $k$-hash code $C$, fix any $(k-2)$-elements subset $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}\}$ in $C$. For any coordinate $i$ let $G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}}$ be the bipartite graph with vertex set $G\setminus\{x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}\}$ and edge set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FKgraph}
E=\left\{ (v,w) : x_{1,i},x_{2,i},\ldots, x_{k-2,i},v,w \mbox{ are all distinct} \right\}\,.
\end{equation}
Then, since $C$ is a $k$-hash code, we note that $\bigcup_i G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}}$ is the complete graph on $G\setminus\{x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}\}$ and so
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hansel_hash}
\sum_{i=1}^n \tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})\geq \log(|C|-k+2)\,.
\end{equation}
This inequality can be used to prove upper bounds on $|C|$. Since it holds for any choice of $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}$, one can show that the right hand side is small by proving that left hand side cannot be too large for all possible choices of $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}$. One can either use it for some specific choice or take expectation over any random selection.

Let $f_{i}$ be probability distribution of the $i$-th coordinate of $C$, that is, $f_{i,a}$ is the fraction of elements of $C$ whose $i$-th coordinate is $a$. Note that the graph in \eqref{eq:FKgraph} is empty if the $x_{1,i},x_{2,i},\ldots, x_{k-2,i}$ are not all distinct. We will say in this case that $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{k-2}$ \emph{collide} in coordinate $i$.
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
\tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})=
\begin{cases}
0 \hspace{2cm} x_1,\ldots,x_k \mbox{ collide in coordinate }i\\
\left(\frac{|C|}{|C|-k+2}\right)\left(1-\sum_{j=1}^{k-2}f_{i,x_{ji}}\right) \hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
So, one can make the left hand side in \eqref{eq:hansel_hash} small by either taking a set $x_{1}, \ldots,x_{{k-2}}$ which collide in many coordinates, so forcing the corresponding $\tau$'s to zero, or by taking a set which uses ``popular'' values in many coordinates.

The Fredman-Koml{\'o}s bound is obtained by taking expectation in $\eqref{eq:hansel_hash}$ over a uniform random extraction of $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}$. By linearity of expectation the computation can be performed over each single coordinate. Denoting with $\mathbb{E}$ the expectation, for large $n$ and $|C|$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [ & \tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})] \\
&  =\left(1+o(1)\right)\sum_{\stackrel{\text{distinct }}{ a_1,\ldots,a_{k-2}}} f_{i,a_1}f_{i,a_2}\cdots f_{i,a_{k-2}}(1-f_{i,a_1}\cdots-f_{i,a_{k-2}} )
\end{align*}
where the coefficient $o(1)$ is due to sampling without replacement. One can show that the worst-case $f_i$ is the uniform distribution, which gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fredmankomlostau}
\mathbb{E} [ \tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})] \leq \frac{k!}{k^{k-1}}\left(1+o(1)\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The procedures used in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} and \cite{venkat} are based on the idea that one can also take $x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{k-2}$ uniformly from a subset  $C'\subset C$ which ensures they collide in all coordinates $i$ in some subset $T \subset \{1,2\ldots, n\}$. Then, if $g_{i,a}$ is the frequency of symbol $a$ in the coordinate $i\notin T$ of $C'$, one has
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} [ & \tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})] \nonumber \\
&  =\left(1+o(1)\right)\sum_{\stackrel{\text{distinct }}{ a_1,\ldots,a_{k-2}}} g_{i,a_1}g_{i,a_2}\cdots g_{i,a_{k-2}}(1-f_{i,a_1}\cdots-f_{i,a_{k-2}} )\label{eq:exptaugf}
\end{align}
The worst case $g$ and $f$ here, if taken independently, give in general a value which exceeds the $k!\slash k^{k-1}$ of \eqref{eq:fredmankomlostau}.
In \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2}, for $k=4$, it was shown that one can deal with this by also taking $C'$ randomly from a partition of $C$ (based on the values in positions $i\in T$), thus adding an additional (outer) expectation. In that case $g_i$ is also random and constrained to satisfy $\mathbb{E}[g_i]=f_i$. Using some concavity argument it was shown that under this random selection the bound \eqref{eq:fredmankomlostau} still holds for $i\notin T$, thus gaining on average compared to \cite{FredmanKomlos}. However, for $k>4$ that approach seems infeasible. The idea used in \cite{venkat} is to suppress the random selection of $C'$ and show that one can carefully choose $C'$ so that $x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}$ collide in a portion of the coordinates large enough to more than compensate the increase in $\mathbb{E}[\tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})]$ for $i\notin T$ obtained in \eqref{eq:exptaugf} with respect to \eqref{eq:fredmankomlostau}. This leads to a proof that \eqref{eq:fredmankomlosRk} is not tight for all $k>4$. However, explicit numerical improvements were only proved for $k=5,6$, and given for $k>6$ modulo a conjecture  on the optimal value of some polynomials.

In the next two sections we present our contribution. First we prove the conjecture formulated by the authors in \cite{venkat}, thus completing their proof of the new bounds on $R_k$ for all $k$. Then, we prove stronger results for $k=5,6$. Our idea is based on a symmetrization of \eqref{eq:exptaugf} which allow us to resurrect the random selection of $C'$ in an effective way, replacing the concavity argument of \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} with new bounds on the maxima of some polynomials.

\section{Guruswami-Riazanov bounds}
\label{sec:venkat_conj}

A crucial role in all bounds discussed in this paper is played by the sum appearing in equation \eqref{eq:exptaugf}. We simplify the notation and set, for general probability vectors $g=(g_1,\ldots,g_k)$ and $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_k)$,
\begin{equation}
\psi(g,f) =\sum_{\sigma\in S_k} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\cdots g_{\sigma(k-2)}f_{\sigma(k-1)}\,,
\end{equation}
observing that equation \eqref{eq:exptaugf} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Expinpsi}
\mathbb{E} [ \tau(G_i^{x_1, \ldots, x_{k-2}})] = \left(1+o(1)\right)\psi(g_i,f_i)
\end{equation}
We can now prove the conjecture stated in \cite{venkat}.

\begin{Proposition}[Conjecture 1 \cite{venkat}]\label{conjecture}
Under the constraints $f_i\geq \gamma,\forall i$, $\psi(g,f)$ attains a maximum in a point $(g,f)$ with vector $f$ of the form $f=(\gamma,\dots,\gamma,1-(k-1)\gamma)$.
\end{Proposition}
\proof
Since $\psi(g,f)$ is invariant under (identical) permutations on $g$ and $f$, we can study maxima for which $g_k$ is the minimum among the values $g_1,g_2,\dots, g_k$ and show that for those points $f=(\gamma,\dots,\gamma,1-(k-1)\gamma)$. We prove this by considering the components of $f$ one by one. Assume on the contrary that $f_1>\gamma$. Given $\epsilon \leq f_1-\gamma$, set $\tilde{f}=(f_1-\epsilon,f_2\ldots,f_{k-1},f_k+\epsilon)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\psi(g,\tilde{f}) & = \sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)\neq 1,k} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}f_{\sigma(k-1)}\\ &\qquad +
\sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=1} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}(f_1-\epsilon)\\
&\qquad +
\sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=k} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}(f_k+\epsilon)\\
& = \psi(g,f) - \epsilon\cdot \sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=1} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}\\
& \qquad +
\epsilon \cdot \sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=k} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}\,.
\end{align*}
Since we assumed $g_1\geq g_k$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=1} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}\leq \sum_{\sigma:\sigma(k-1)=k} g_{\sigma(1)}g_{\sigma(2)}\dots g_{\sigma(k-2)}.
\end{equation}
and hence $\psi(g,\tilde{f})\geq \psi(g,f)$. By repeating the above procedure for $f_2$, $f_3,\ldots,f_{k-1}$, we find that indeed $f=(\gamma,\dots,\gamma,1-(k-1)\gamma)$ maximizes $\psi(g,f)$ under the considered constraints whenever $g_k$ is the minimum among $g_1,g_2,\dots, g_k$, and in particular for the optimal $g$ sorted in this way.\endproof

It terms of $g$, it was already shown in \cite{venkat} that assuming the above result one could show that the maximum value of $\psi(g,f)$, under the constraint that $f_i\geq \gamma,\forall i$, is attained at a point $(g,f)$ with $g$ of the form $(\beta,\beta,\ldots,1-(k-1)\beta)$.
Assuming this, it was shown in \cite{venkat} that a new explicit numerical bound can be given on $R_k$ which strictly improves the Fredman-Koml\'os bound for all $k$.
Table \ref{tab:numbounds} gives numerical results\footnote{We believe that due to a minor error in the computation, the bound given for $R_5$ in \cite{venkat} is not really the best possible using their method. We report here the optimal.} for the first values of $k$.

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$k$ & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 \\
\hline
Bound from \cite{FredmanKomlos} & 0.19200 & 0.092593 & 0.04284 & 0.019227\\
\hline
Bound from \cite{venkat} & 0.19079 & 0.092279 & 0.04279 & 0.019213\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Numerical values for the bounds on $R_k$ from \cite{FredmanKomlos} and from \cite{venkat} in light of Proposition \ref{conjecture}. All numbers are rounded upwards.}
\label{tab:numbounds}
\end{table}

\section{Better bounds for small $k$}
\label{sec:newbounds}
In this section we combine insights from both the approaches  of \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} and \cite{venkat}. Instead of looking at one subcode $C'$, as done in \cite{venkat}, we follow the idea in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2}. We consider a partition $\{C_{\omega}: \omega \in \Omega\}$ of our $k$-hash code $C$ and randomly select a subcode $C_{\omega}$. Then we randomly extract codewords $x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2}$ from $C_{\omega}$ and bound the expected value in \eqref{eq:exptaugf} over both random code and codewords. At this point, we replace the concavity argument of \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2} with a symmetrization trick combined with new bounds on the maxima of certain polynomials. This procedure leads to the following nontrivial improvement on the rates $R_5$ and $R_6$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{main}
For $k=5,6$ the following bounds hold
\begin{itemize}
\item $R_5\leq 0.1697$;
\item $R_6\leq 0.0875$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}
Here our goal is to find a family of subcodes such that any $k-2$ codewords $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}$ of a given subcode $C_{\omega}$ collide in all coordinates of $T=[1,\ell]$ for a carefully chosen value of $\ell$, that is, for any coordinate $t\in T$ there exist $i,j$ such that $x_{i,t}=x_{j,t}$. This will ensure that the coordinates from $T$ contribute $0$ to the LHS of \eqref{eq:hansel_hash}. To do this, we cover all the possible prefixes of length $\ell$; the following lemma can be seen as a special case of the known results on the fractional clique covering number (see \cite{PartialCovering}).
\begin{Lemma}\label{covering}
For any positive $\epsilon$, for $\ell$ large enough, there exists a partition $\Omega$ of $\{1,2,\dots,k\}^{\ell}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|\Omega|\leq \left\lfloor{\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)^{\ell}}\right\rfloor$.
\item For all $\omega\in\Omega$ and $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, the $i$-th projection of $\omega$ has cardinality at most $ k-3$.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, for any $\omega\in\Omega$, any $k-2$ sequences in $\omega$ collide in all coordinates $i=1,\ldots, \ell$.
\end{Lemma}
\proof

For any $i\in [1,k]$, consider the set $A_i=\{i,i+1,\dots,i+(k-4)\}$ , where the sums are performed modulo $k$ in $[1,k]$.
To a string $s=(i_1,\dots,i_{\ell})$ in $[1,k]^{\ell}$ we associate a set $\omega_s=A_{i_1}\times A_{i_2}\times \dots \times A_{i_{\ell}}\subset [1,k]^\ell$. Fix a word $x\in [1,k]^{\ell}$, and choose uniformly at random the string $s$; the probability that $x\not\in \omega_s$ is $1-\left(\frac{k-3}{k}\right)^{\ell}$. Therefore, if we choose randomly $h$ strings $s_1,\dots,s_h$, the probability that $x\not \in (\omega_{s_1}\cup \dots \cup \omega_{s_h})$ is $\left(1-\left(\frac{k-3}{k}\right)^{\ell}\right)^h$. Hence, the expected number of words $x\in [1,k]^{\ell}$ that do not belong to any of the $\omega_{s_1}, \dots, \omega_{s_h}$ is
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}(|\{x\in[1,k]^ \ell:\ x\not \in \omega_{s_1}\cup \dots \cup \omega_{s_h}\}|) = k^{\ell}\left(1-\left(\frac{k-3}{k}\right)^{\ell}\right)^h.
\end{align*}
If this value is smaller than $1$, then there exists a choice of $s_1,\dots, s_h$ such that that the family $\{\omega_{s_1},\dots, \omega_{s_h}\}$ covers the whole set $[1,k]^{\ell}$.
This happens whenever
$$k^{\ell}\left(1-\left(\frac{k-3}{k}\right)^{\ell}\right)^h<1 $$
or equivalently
$$h>\frac{-\ell \log{k}}{\log\left(1-\left(\frac{k-3}{k}\right)^{\ell}\right)}\,, $$
which holds for
$$h>\ell \left(\frac{k}{k-3}\right)^{\ell} \frac{\log{k}}{\log{e}}.$$
For $\ell$ large enough, setting $h=\left\lfloor{\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)^{\ell}}\right\rfloor$ we have the desired inequality.

Removing possible intersections between the sets $\omega_s$ we obtain a partition of $[1,k]^\ell$ with the desired properties, since condition 2) is satisfied by construction.
\endproof

Let $\Omega=\{\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_h\}$ be a partition of $[1,k]^\ell$ as derived from Lemma \ref{covering} and consider the family of subcodes $C_{\omega_1},\dots, C_{\omega_h}$ of $C$ defined by
$$C_\omega=\{x\in C: (x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_{\ell})\in \omega\}.$$
Clearly, any $k-2$ codewords $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}$ of a given subcode $C_{\omega}$ collide in all coordinates of $T=[1,\ell]$. As in \cite{DalaiVenkatJaikumar2}, define a subcode $C_{\omega}$ to be \emph{heavy} if $|C_{\omega}|> n$ and to be \emph{light} otherwise. We can show that, if $\ell$ is not too large, most of the codewords are contained in heavy subcodes.
Indeed, if we consider $\ell$ such that $\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)^{\ell}\leq 2^{nR-2\log{n}}$,
that is $\ell\leq\frac{nR-2\log{n}}{\log\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)}$, we have that
$$\left|\bigcup_{C_{\omega} \mbox{ is ligth}} C_{\omega}\right|\leq n\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)^{\ell}\leq n2^{nR-2\log{n}}= \frac{|C|}{n}.$$
This means that at least a fraction $(1-1/n)$ of the codewords are in heavy subcodes. If we remove from $C$ the light codes, the rate changes by an amount $\frac{1}{n}\log(1-1/n)$, which vanishes as $n$ grows. So, in the following we can assume, without loss of generality, that all the subcodes are heavy.

We are finally ready to describe our strategy to pick the codewords $x_1,\dots,x_{k-2}$: first we choose a subcode $C_{\omega}$ with probability $\lambda_{\omega}=|C_{\omega}|/|C|$ and then we pick uniformly at random (and without replacement) $x_1,\dots,x_{k-2}$ from $C_{\omega}$. Since those codewords collide in all the coordinates from the set $T=[1,\ell]$, we obtain in \eqref{eq:hansel_hash}:
\begin{align}
\log(|C|-k+2)& \leq\mathbb{E}_{\omega\in \Omega}(\mathbb{E}[\sum_{i\in [\ell+1,n]}\tau(G_i^{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}})]) \\
&=\sum_{i\in [\ell+1,n]}\mathbb{E}_{\omega\in \Omega}(\mathbb{E}[\tau(G_i^{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}})])\label{eq:sumellton}.
\end{align}
Let again $f_{i}$ be probability distribution of the $i$-th coordinate of $C$, and let $f_{i|\omega}$ be the distribution of the subcode $C_\omega$.
Invoking \eqref{eq:Expinpsi} for the expectation over the random choice of $x_1,\ldots,x_{k-2}$, we can write for $i\in [\ell+1,n]$
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{\omega\in \Omega} (\mathbb{E}[\tau(G_i^{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}})])
=(1+o(1))\sum_{\omega\in \Omega} \lambda_{\omega} \psi(f_{i|\omega},f_i).
\end{align*}
Since $f_i=\sum_{\mu \in \Omega} \lambda_{\mu} f_{i|\mu}$ and $\psi$ is linear in its second variable, we have that
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\omega\in \Omega}(\mathbb{E}[\tau(G_i^{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}})])
=(1+o(1))\sum_{\omega,\mu\in \Omega}\lambda_{\omega}\lambda_{\mu}\psi(f_{i|\omega},f_{i|\mu})\,.
$$
We exploit now a simple yet effective trick. Since the sum above is symmetric in $\omega$ and $\mu$, we can write
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{\omega\in \Omega} (\mathbb{E}[\tau &(G_i^{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{k-2}})])  \nonumber\\
&=\left(1+o(1)\right)\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\omega,\mu\in \Omega}\lambda_{\omega}\lambda_{\mu}[\psi(f_{i|\omega},f_{i|\mu})+\psi(f_{i|\mu},f_{i|\omega})].\label{simmetrizzata}
\end{align}
Here, we note that $f_{i|\omega}$ has no relation with $f_{i|\mu}$.
Therefore we can just consider the following polynomial function over two generic probability vectors $p=(p_1,p_2,\dots,p_k)$ and $q=(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_k)$
\begin{align}
\Psi(p;q)& : =\psi(p,q)+\psi(q,p)\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\sigma\in S_k} p_{\sigma(1)}p_{\sigma(2)}\dots p_{\sigma(k-2)}q_{\sigma(k-1)}+ q_{\sigma(1)}q_{\sigma(2)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}p_{\sigma(k-1)}.\label{eq:defPsi}
\end{align}
Because of \eqref{simmetrizzata}, if $M_k$ is the maximum of $\Psi$ over probabilistic vectors $p$ and $q$, equation \eqref{eq:sumellton} says that
\begin{align*}
\log{|C|} & \leq (1+o(1))\frac{1}{2}(n-\ell)\sum_{\omega,\mu\in \Omega}\lambda_{\omega}\lambda_{\mu}M_k\\
& =(1+o(1))\frac{1}{2}(n-\ell) M_k.
\end{align*}
Recalling that $|C|=2^{n R}$ and taking $\ell=\left\lfloor{\frac{nR-2\log{n}}{\log\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)}}\right\rfloor$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
R\leq (1+o(1))\left[1-\frac{R-2\log(n)/n}{\log\left(\frac{k}{k-3}+\epsilon\right)}\right]\frac{M_k}{2}.
\end{align*}
Rearranging the terms, taking $n\to\infty$ first and then $\epsilon\to 0$, we deduce the following proposition.
\begin{Proposition}\label{FromMaxToRate}
Let $M_k$ be the maximum of $\Psi$ over probabilistic vectors $p=(p_1,p_2,\dots,p_k)$ and $q=(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_k)$. Then we have the following upperbound on $R_k$
$$R_k\leq  \left(\frac{2}{M_k}+\frac{1}{\log(k/(k-3))}\right)^{-1}.$$
\end{Proposition}
In the next subsection we will prove that $M_5=\frac{15(48+\sqrt{5})}{1936}\approx 0.389226$ and $M_6=24/125$. This implies Theorem \ref{main}.

\subsection{Bounds on $\Psi$}
The goal of this subsection is to find the maximum of the function $\Psi$ as defined in \eqref{eq:defPsi}. For this purpose we first introduce two lemmas that provide some restrictions on this maximum.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lagrange1}
Let $\bar{p}=(\bar{p}_1,\dots,\bar{p}_k)$ and $\bar{q}=(\bar{q}_1,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ be two probabilistic vectors. If $(\bar{p};\bar{q})$ is a maximum for $\Psi$ such that $\bar{p}_1,\bar{p}_2,\bar{q}_1,\bar{q}_2$ are nonzero, then also $(\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\bar{p}_3,\dots,\bar{p}_k;\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\bar{q}_3,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ is a maximum for $\Psi$.
\end{Lemma}
\proof
If $\bar{P}=(\bar{p};\bar{q})$ is a maximum for $\Psi(p;q)$ under the constraints $p_1+p_2+\dots+p_k=1$ and $q_1+q_2+\dots+q_k=1$, then it is a maximum also under the stronger constraints $p_1+p_2=c_1$, $q_1+q_2=c_2$ where $c_1=\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2$, $c_2=\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2$, and $p_i=\bar{p}_i,q_i=\bar{q}_i$ for $i\in\{3,4,\dots,k\}$. Because of the Lagrange multiplier method this means that:
$$\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial p_1}\Big|_{\bar{P}}=\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial p_2}\Big|_{\bar{P}}$$
and
$$\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial q_1}\Big|_{\bar{P}}=\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial q_2}\Big|_{\bar{P}}\,.$$
It follows that:
$$(\bar{p}_1-\bar{p}_2)a+(\bar{q}_1-\bar{q}_2)b=0$$
and
$$(\bar{q}_1-\bar{q}_2)d+(\bar{p}_1-\bar{p}_2)c=0$$
where $a=\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial p_1\partial p_2}\big|_{\bar{P}}$, $b=\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial p_1\partial q_2}\big|_{\bar{P}}=\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial q_1\partial p_2}\big|_{\bar{P}}=c$ and $d=\frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial q_1\partial q_2}\big|_{\bar{P}}$.
If we set $\bar{p}_1-\bar{p}_2=x$, $\bar{q}_1-\bar{q}_2=y$, the previous equations became:
$$\begin{cases} ax+by=0;\\
cx+dy=0.
\end{cases}$$
In the case $ad-bc\not=0$ the previous system admits only the solution $x=y=0$ that means $\bar{p}_1=\bar{p}_2$ and $\bar{q}_1=\bar{q}_2$. It is clear that here we have $\bar{p}_1=\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2}=\bar{p}_2$, $\bar{q}_1=\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2}=\bar{q}_2$ and hence the thesis is satisfied.

Let us assume $ad-bc=0$.
Then there exists a line $L$ of points $P(t)$ such that $P(1)=\bar{P}$, $P(0)=(\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\bar{p}_3,\dots,\bar{p}_k;\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\bar{q}_3,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ and
$$\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial p_1}\Big|_{P(t)}-\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial p_2}\Big|_{P(t)}=\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial q_1}\Big|_{P(t)}-\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial q_2}\Big|_{P(t)}=0.$$
It follows that $\Psi(P(t))$ is constantly equal to the value of $\Psi$ in $\bar{P}=P(1)$. Since $(\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\bar{p}_3,\dots,\bar{p}_k,\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{q}_1+\bar{q}_2}{2},\bar{q}_3,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ belongs to the line $L$, this point is also a maximum for $\Psi$.
\endproof
With essentially the same proof we also obtain the following result.
\begin{Lemma}\label{lagrange2}
Let $\bar{p}=(\bar{p}_1,\dots,\bar{p}_k)$ and $\bar{q}=(\bar{q}_1,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ be two probabilistic vectors. If $(\bar{p};\bar{q})$ is a maximum for $\Psi$ such that $\bar{p}_1,\bar{p}_2$ are nonzero while $\bar{q}_1=\bar{q}_2=0$ then also $(\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\frac{\bar{p}_1+\bar{p}_2}{2},\bar{p}_3,\dots,\bar{p}_k;0,0,\bar{q}_3,\dots,\bar{q}_k)$ is a maximum for $\Psi$.
\end{Lemma}
In the next two lemmas, we will provide some further restrictions on the maximum of $\Psi$ using just some combinatorial arguments.
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaAmmazzaCasi1}
We have that:
$$\Psi(0,p_2,\dots,p_k;0,q_2,\dots, q_k)\leq \Psi(0,p_2,\dots,p_k;q_2,0,q_3,\dots, q_k).$$
\end{Lemma}
\proof
Because of the definition, we have that $\Psi(0,p_2,\dots,p_k;0,q_2,\dots, q_k)$ evaluates as
$$\sum_{\sigma:\ \sigma(k)=1} p_{\sigma(1)}p_{\sigma(2)}\dots p_{\sigma(k-2)}q_{\sigma(k-1)}+ q_{\sigma(1)}q_{\sigma(2)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}p_{\sigma(k-1)}.$$
Similarly, we have that $\Psi(0,p_2,\dots,p_k;q_2,0,q_3,\dots, q_k)$ equals
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\sigma:\ \sigma(k)=1} & p_{\sigma(1)}p_{\sigma(2)}\dots p_{\sigma(k-2)}q_{\sigma(k-1)}+ q_{\sigma(1)}q_{\sigma(2)}\dots q_{\sigma(k)}p_{\sigma(k-1)}+\\
& (k-2)p_2q_2\left(\sum_{\sigma\in Sym(3,\dots,k)} p_{\sigma(3)}\dots p_{\sigma(k-1)}+ q_{\sigma(3)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-1)}\right).
\end{align*}
The claim follows since each term of the last sum is non negative.
\endproof
The following Lemma is in the same spirit of Proposition \ref{conjecture}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaAmmazzaCasi2}
We have that:
$$\Psi(p_1,\dots,p_{k-3},0,0,0;q_1,q_2,\dots, q_k)\leq \Psi\left(1,0\dots,0;0,\frac{1}{(k-1)},\dots,\frac{1}{(k-1)}\right).$$
\end{Lemma}
\proof
We suppose, without loss of generality that $q_1$ is the minimum among the values $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_{k-3}$. Setting $p=(p_1,\dots,p_{k-3},0,0,0)$ and $q=(q_1,\dots,q_k)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Psi(p;q)& =
\sum_{\sigma:\ \sigma(k-1)\not\in \{1,2\}} q_{\sigma(1)}q_{\sigma(2)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}p_{\sigma(k-1)}\\&
+\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}\sum_{\sigma:\ \{\sigma(k-1), \sigma(k)\}=\{1,2\}} q_{\sigma(1)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}\\
&+(p_1q_2+q_1p_2)(k-2)\sum_{\sigma\in Sym(3,\dots,k)} q_{\sigma(3)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-1)}.\end{align*}

Similarly, setting $p'=(p_1+p_2,0,p_3,\dots,p_{k-3},0,0,0)$, we have that:
\begin{align*}
\Psi(p';q)& =
\sum_{\sigma:\ \sigma(k-1)\not\in \{1,2\}} q_{\sigma(1)}q_{\sigma(2)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}p_{\sigma(k-1)}\\&+
\frac{p_1+p_2}{2}\sum_{\sigma:\ \{\sigma(k-1), \sigma(k)\}=\{1,2\}} q_{\sigma(1)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-2)}\\& +(p_1+p_2)q_2(k-2)\sum_{\sigma\in Sym(3,\dots,k)} q_{\sigma(3)}\dots q_{\sigma(k-1)}.
\end{align*}
Since $q_1\leq q_2$ we have that
$$
\Psi(p;q)\leq \Psi(p';q)\,.
$$
Reiterating the previous procedure, since $q_1$ is the minimum among the values $q_1,\dots,q_{k-3}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{maggiorazione}\Psi(p_1,\dots,p_{k-3},0,0,0;q_1,q_2,\dots, q_k)\leq \Psi(1,0,\dots,0,0;q_1,q_2,\dots, q_k).\end{equation}
Since $q_1$ does not appear in the value of $\Psi(1,0,\dots,0,0;q_1,q_2,\dots, q_k)$, this is certainly maximized for $q_1=0$. Finally, due to the Muirhead's inequality, we obtain that the RHS of \eqref{maggiorazione} is maximized for $q_2=q_3=\dots=q_k=\frac{1}{k-1}$.
\endproof
As a consequence of the previous lemmas, $\Psi$ attains a maximum in a point of one of the following types:
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] $\left(1,0\dots,0;0,\frac{1}{(k-1)},\dots,\frac{1}{(k-1)}\right)$;
\item[b)] $(1/k,\dots,1/k;1/k,\dots,1/k)$;
\item[c)] $(0,0,\alpha,\dots,\alpha,\beta,\beta;\gamma,\gamma,\delta,\dots,\delta,0,0)$\\ where $(k-4)\alpha+2\beta=1$ and $2\gamma+(k-4)\delta=1$;
\item[d)] $(0,0,\alpha,\dots,\alpha,\beta;\gamma,\gamma,\delta,\dots,\delta,0)$\\
 where $(k-3)\alpha+\beta=1$ and $2\gamma+(k-3)\delta=1$;
\item[e)] $(0,0,1/(k-2),\dots,1/(k-2);\gamma,\gamma,\delta,\dots,\delta)$\\
 where $2\gamma+(k-2)\delta=1$;
\item[f)] $(0,\alpha,\dots,\alpha,\beta;\gamma,\delta,\dots,\delta,0)$\\
 where $(k-2)\alpha+\beta=1$ and $\gamma+(k-2)\delta=1$;
\item[g)] $(0,1/(k-1),\dots,1/(k-1);\gamma,\delta,\dots,\delta)$\\
 where $\gamma+(k-1)\delta=1$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, because of Lemma \ref{LemmaAmmazzaCasi2}, a maximum with three or more $p$-coordinates (resp. $q$-coordinates) equal to zero is also attained in a point of the form $(a)$. Otherwise, there are at most two zero coordinates both for the vector $p$ and for the vector $q$. Due to Lemma \ref{LemmaAmmazzaCasi1}, we can then assume those zeros are in different positions and finally, using Lemma \ref{lagrange1} and \ref{lagrange2}, we obtain the required characterization of the maximum.

For $k=5,6$, we have inspected using Mathematica all cases listed above and determined the maximum explicitly.
\begin{Theorem}\label{max}
\begin{itemize}
The following hold:
\item for $k=5$, the global maximum of $\Psi$ is $\frac{15(48+\sqrt{5})}{1936}\approx 0.389226$ and is obtained in case $(g)$ with $\delta=1/44(4+\sqrt{5})$ and $\gamma=1-4\delta$;
\item for $k=6$, the global maximum of $\Psi$ is $24/125=0.192$, obtained in case $(a)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}
Theorem \ref{main} follows immediately from Theorem \ref{max} and Proposition \ref{FromMaxToRate}.

\begin{Remark}
For $k>6$, the value obtained for $p$ and $q$ as in case $(a)$, which we conjecture to be the true maximum, is too big to improve the known upper bounds on $R_k$.
\end{Remark}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This research was partially supported by Italian Ministry of Education under Grant PRIN 2015 D72F16000790001. Helpful discussions with Jaikumar Radhakrishnan and Venkatesan Guruswami are gratefully acknowledged.

Combinatorics (math.CO); Information Theory (cs.IT)

New bounds for perfect $k$-hashing