Optimal Graphs for Independence and $k$-Independence Polynomials

Abstract: The independence polynomial $I(G,x)$ of a finite graph $G$ is the generating function for the sequence of the number of independent sets of each cardinality. We investigate whether, given a fixed number of vertices and edges, there exists optimally-least (optimally-greatest) graphs, that are least (respectively, greatest) for all non-negative $x$. Moreover, we broaden our scope to $k$-independence polynomials, which are generating functions for the $k$-clique-free subsets of vertices. For $k \geq 3$, the results can be quite different from the $k = 2$ (i.e. independence) case.

\section{Introduction}

Given a property of subsets of the vertex or edge set -- such as independent, complete, dominating for vertices and matching for edges -- one is often interested in maximizing or minimizing the size of the set in a given graph $G$. However, one can get a much more nuanced study of the subsets by studying the number of such sets of each cardinality in $G$, and in this guise, one often encapsulates the sequence by forming a generating function. Independence, clique, dominating and matching polynomials have all arisen and been studied in this setting.

In all cases, the generating polynomial $f(G,x)$ is naturally a function on the domain $[0,\infty)$.
If the number of vertices $n$ and edges $m$ are fixed, one can ask whether there exists an extremal graph. Let $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ denote the set of simple graphs of order $n$ ($n$ vertices) and size $m$ ($m$ edges). Let $H\in \mathcal{S}_{n,m}$. $H$ is {\em optimally-greatest} (or {\em optimally-least}) if $f(H,x) \geq f(G,x)$ ($f(H,x) \leq f(G,x)$, respectively) for all graphs $G\in \mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ and {\em all} $x \geq 0$ (for any particular value of $x \geq 0$, of course, there is such a graph $H$, as the number of graphs of order $n$ and size $m$ is finite, but we are interested in {\em uniformly} optimal graphs).

Such questions (related to simple substitutions of generating polynomials) have attracted considerable attention in the areas of network reliability \cite{ath,suffel,boesch91,browncox,gross,myrvold} and chromatic polynomials \cite{sakaloglu,chromatic}.

Here we consider optimality for independence polynomials
\[ I(G,x) = \sum_{j} i_{j}x^{j},\]
and a broad generalization, for fixed $k \geq 2$, to $k$-independence polynomials
\[ I_k(G,x) = \sum_{j} i_{k,j}x^{j},\]
where $i_{k,j}$ is the number of subsets of the vertex set of size $j$ that induce a $k$-clique-free subgraph (that is, the induced subgraph contains no complete subgraph of order $k$). Clearly independence polynomials are precisely the $2$-independence polynomials, while the $3$-independence polynomials are generating functions for the numbers of triangle-free induced subgraphs.

In this paper, we look at the optimality of independence polynomials and more generally $k$-independence polynomials.
In the case of the former, optimally-greatest graphs always exist for independence polynomials, but we do not know whether optimally-least graphs necessarily exist for independence polynomials as well (although we will prove for some $n$ and $m$ they do). In contrast, we shall show that for $k\geq 3$, optimality behaves quite differently, in that for some $n$ and $m$, optimally-least and optimally-greatest graphs for $k$-independence polynomials do not exist.

\section{Optimally for Independence Polynomials}

\subsection{Optimally-Greatest Graphs for Independence Polynomials}

Our first result shows that for independence polynomials, optimally-greatest graphs indeed do always exist.

\begin{theorem}
For all $n \geq 1$ and all $m \in \{0,\ldots,{n \choose 2}\}$, an optimally-greatest graph always exists.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
A key observation is that a sufficient condition for $H$ to be optimally-greatest (or optimally-least) for independence polynomials is that $i(H,x) = \sum i_{j}(H) x^{j}$ is {\em coefficient-wise greatest}, that is, for all other graphs $G$ of the same order and size, the generating polynomials $f(G,x) = \sum i_{j}(G) x^{j}$ satisfies $i_{j}(H) \geq i_{j}(G)$ for all $j$ (respectively, $i_{j}(H) \leq i_{j}(G)$). (The coefficient-wise condition is not, in general, necessary for optimality as, for example, $5x^{2}+x+5 \geq x^{2}+4x+1$ for $x \geq 0$, but clearly $5x^{2}+x+5$ is not coefficient-wise greater than or equal to $x^{2}+4x+1$.)

Consider the following graph construction. For a given $n$ and $m$, take a fixed linear order $\preceq$ of the vertices, $v_{n} \preceq v_{n-1} \preceq \cdots \preceq v_{1}$, and select the $m$ largest edges in lexicographic order. We will denote this graph as $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ (it is dependent on the linear order, but of course all such graphs are isomorphic). It was shown in \cite{cutler} that $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ is the graph of order $n$ and size $m$ with the most number of independent sets of size $j$, for {\em all} $j \geq 0$.
It follows that the independence polynomial for $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ is coefficient-wise optimally-greatest for independence polynomials, for all graphs of order $n$ and size $m$.
\null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{proof}

Moreover, we can compute the independence polynomial of this optimally-greatest graph. To do so, we need the following well-known recursion to compute the independence polynomial of a graph.
Let $G$ be a graph with $v\in V(G)$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
I(G,x)=xI(G-N[v],x)+I(G-v,x) \label{ipoly}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N[v]$ is the closed neighbourhood of $v$ and $G-v$ is $G$ with $v$ removed.
For graph $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ with $m < {{n} \choose {2}}$, write $m=(n-\ell)+(n-\ell+1)+\ldots (n-1)+j$ with $j \in \{0,\ldots,n-\ell-2\}$. Since the edges are added in lexicographic order, there will be $k$ vertices that have degree $n-1$ and one vertex of degree $j+\ell$. The remaining $n-\ell-1$ vertices form an independent set. Let $v$ be the vertex of degree $j+\ell$.
Using vertex, $v$ and recursion (\ref{ipoly}), we obtain our result,
\begin{eqnarray*}
 I(G_{n,m,\preceq},x)& = &I(G_{n,m,\preceq}-v,x)+xI(G_{n,m,\preceq}-N[v],x)\\
  & = & I(K_{\ell} \cup \overline{K_{n-\ell-1}},x) + I(K_{\ell} \cup \overline{K_{n-\ell-j-1}},x)\\
   & = & (1+\ell x)(1+x)^{n-\ell-1} + x(1+\ell x)(1+x)^{n-\ell-j-1}\\
   & = & (1+\ell x)(1+x)^{n-\ell-j-1} \left( (1+x)^{j} + x\right).
 \end{eqnarray*}
Of course, for $m = {n \choose 2}$, $G_{n,m,\preceq} = K_{n}$ and so $I(G_{n,m,\preceq},x) = 1+nx$.

\vspace{0.25in}

It is instructive that this result can also be proved purely algebraically, and we devote the remainder of this section to do so. (We refer the reader \cite{brownbook}
for an introduction to complexes and their connection to commutative algebra.)
The {\em independence complex} of graph $G$ of order $n$ and size $m$, $\Delta_{2}(G)$, has as its faces the independent sets of $G$ (these are obviously closed under containment, and hence a complex). The {\em $f$-vector} of $\Delta_{2}(G)$ is $(1,n,{{n} \choose {2}} - m,f_{3},\ldots,f_{\beta})$, where $f_{i}$ is the number of faces of cardinality $i$ in the complex (and $\beta$ is the independence number of $G$, which is the same as the dimension of the complex). We will show that we can maximize the independence polynomial on $[0,\infty)$ by maximizing ({\em simultaneously}, for some graph $G$) all of the $f_{i}$'s, via an excursion into commutative algebra.

We begin with some definitions. Fix a field ${\mathbf k}$. Let $A$ be a {\em ${\mathbf k}$-graded algebra}, that is, $A$ is a commutative ring containing ${\mathbf k}$ as a subring, that can be written as a vector space direct sum $\displaystyle{A = \bigoplus_{d\geq 0} A_{d}}$, over ${\mathbf k}$, with the property that $A_{i}A_{j} \subseteq A_{i+j}$ for all $i$ and $j$ (we call elements in some $A_{i}$ {\em homogeneous}, and $A_{i}$ is called the {\em $d$-th graded component} of $A$). The graded ${\mathbf k}$-algebra $A$ is {\em standard} if it is generated (as a ring) by a finite set of elements in $A_{1}$. Our prototypical example of a standard ${\mathbf k}$-graded algebra is the polynomial ring ${\mathbf k}[x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}]$ in variables $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$. Note that for any standard graded ${\mathbf k}$-algebra $\displaystyle{A = \bigoplus_{d\geq 0} A_{d}}$ that is a quotient of a polynomial ring by a homogenous ideal, a ${\mathbf k}$-basis for $A_{d}$ is simply the monomials in $A_{d}$.

The {\em Stanley-Reisner complex} of an ideal $I$ of a standard graded ${\mathbf k}$-algebra $A$ (generated by $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ in $A_{1}$) is the (simplicial) complex whose faces are the square-free monomials in $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ not in $I$ (the properties of being an ideal ensures that this set is closed under containment).
Let $I$ be an ideal of ${\mathbf k}$-algebra $A$; $I$ is {\em homogeneous} if it is generated by homogeneous elements of $A$. We write $\displaystyle{I = \bigoplus_{d\geq 0} I_{d}}$, where $I_{d} = A_{d} \cap I$ is the {\em $d$-th graded component of $I$} (it is a ${\mathbf k}$-subspace of $I$). For a homogeneous ideal $I$ of $A$, a square-free monomial $M$ of degree $d$ in $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$ belongs to exactly one of $I_{d}$ and the Stanley-Reisner complex of $I$ (where we identify a face of the complex with the product of its elements). As the total number of monomial of $Q$ of degree $d$ is fixed, we see that maximizing the number of faces of size $d$ in the Stanley-Reisner complex of $I$ corresponds to minimizing the number of monomials of degree $d$ in $I$.

The {\em Hilbert function} of the homogeneous ideal $I$ is the function $H_{I}:{\mathbb N} \rightarrow {\mathbb N}$, where $H_{I}(d) = \mbox{dim}_{\mathbf k}I_d$. We call $I$ {\em Gotzmann} (see \cite{hoefelpaper}) if for all other homogeneous ideals $J$ of $A$ and all $d \geq 0$, if $H_{I}(d)=H_{J}(d)$ then $H_{I}(d+1)\leq H_{J}(d+1)$.
For an ideal of $Q$ which is Gotzmann, its Hilbert function is smallest for each value of $d \in {\mathbb N}$.

We will now focus in on a standard graded ${\mathbf k}$-algebra related to independence in graphs. Fix $n \geq 1$. The  {\em Kruskal-Katona ring}, $Q = {\mathbf k}[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]/\langle x_{1}^{2},\ldots,x_{n}^{2}\rangle$, is generated by the square-free monomials; it is clearly a standard graded $k$-algebra. Let $G$ be a graph on vertices $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots x_n\}$. The {\em edge ideal} $I_{G}$ is the ideal of $Q$ generated by $\{x_ix_j \mid x_ix_j \in E(G) \}$. If a (square-free) monomial of $Q$ is not in $I_G$ then that set of vertices cannot contain an edge in $G$, so it is an independent set (and vice versa). This means that the Stanely-Reisner complex of our edge ideal $I_{G}$ in the Kruskal-Katona ring is precisely the independence complex $\Delta_{2}(G)$ of our graph $G$. If we can show that the edge ideal $I_{G}$ is Gotzmann in $Q$, then this means that for each $d \geq 0$, $I_{G}$ contains the fewest monomials of degree $d$ for all $d$ compared to {\em any} other such edge ideal. Hence by a previous observation, the $f$-vector of the independence complex of $G$ will have the largest entries component-wise compared to any other graph of order $n$ and size $m$. Thus our graph will have an independence polynomial that is optimally-greatest.

Let $I$ be an ideal in a standard graded ${\mathbf k}$-algebra $A$, generated by $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n} \in A_{1}$. Then $I$ is a { \em lexicographic ideal} if for any monomials $u$ and $v$ in $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$, whenever $v \in I$ and $u$ is lexicographically bigger than $v$, we have $u \in I$ as well.
It is known that lexicographic ideals are Gotzmann in the Kruskal-Katona rings \cite{macaulaylex}. As the edges of our family of graphs $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ are added in lexicographic order, it follows that the edge ideal of $I_G$ in $Q$ is lexicographic, and hence Gotzmann. Therefore the $f$-vector is maximized, given $f_0, f_1, f_2$, that is, given, $n$ and $m$, and so $G_{n,m,\preceq}$ is optimally-greatest.

\vspace{0.25in}

\subsection{Optimally-Least Graphs for Independence Polynomials}

We now turn our attention to the existence of optimally-least graphs for the independence polynomial, and we find here that we can only prove the existence of optimally-least graphs for certain values of $m = m(n)$ (and we do not know if there are values of $n$ and $m$ for which optimally-least graphs do not exist).

We begin with dense graphs. It is obvious that for a graph $G$ of order $n$ and size $m$ (which has  ${n \choose 2}-m$ many independent sets of cardinality $2$) that the independence polynomial of such a graph $G$ is, for $x \geq 0$, at least
\[ 1+nx+\left( {n \choose 2}-m \right)x^2,\]
and by a previous observation, if there is a graph with this independence polynomial, then it is the optimally-least.

Turan's famous theorem states (see, for example \cite{thebook}) that the maximum number of edges of a graph with no triangles is $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor = \lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{4} \rfloor$, with equality iff $G$ is a complete bipartite graph with sides of equal or nearly equal cardinality. It follows, by taking complements, that provided
\[ m \geq {{n} \choose {2}} - \Bigl \lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{4} \Bigr \rfloor \]
then the graph formed by adding any $m - ({{n} \choose {2}} - \lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{4} \rfloor)$ edges to the complement of $K_{ \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil, \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}$, namely $\overline{K_{ \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil, \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}} ~=~ K_{\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil} \cup K_{\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}$ is the optimally-least graph. This gives the following result:

\begin{theorem}
For a given $n\geq 2$ and $m\geq {{n} \choose {2}} - \lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{4} \rfloor$, the graph with the optimally-least independence polynomial is formed from $K_{\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil} \cup K_{\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}$ by adding in any $m - ({{n} \choose {2}} - \lfloor \frac{n^{2}}{4} \rfloor)$ edges. The independence polynomial of such a graph is
\[ 1+nx+\left( {n \choose 2}-m \right)x^2.\]
\null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{theorem}

We can extend this result by utilizing a result of Lov\'{a}sz and Simonovits \cite{lovsim}, which, answering a conjecture of Erd\"{o}s, showed that for $1 \leq k < n/2$, the ($K_{4}$-free) graph of order $n$ and size $\lfloor n^{2}/4 \rfloor$ with the fewest number of triangles is the graph formed from $K_{ \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil, \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}$ by adding in edges to a largest cell so that no triangles are formed within the cell. (In such a case, the number of triangles formed in the graph is $k \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$.) As well, a theorem of Fisher and Solow \cite{fishersolow} states that for $a \geq b \geq 1$, the least number of triangles in a $K_{4}$-free graph of order $n=2a+b$ and size $m=2ab+a^{2}$ occurs in $K_{a,a,b}$. By taking complements, we derive:

\begin{theorem}
For a given $n\geq 2$ and $m = {{n} \choose {2}} - \lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor - k$, where $1 \leq k \leq \lfloor n/2 \rfloor$, the graph with the optimally-least independence polynomial is formed from $K_{\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil} \cup K_{\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor}$ by deleting any $k$ edges in $K_{\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil}$ so that no independent set of size $3$ is formed in that part. The independence polynomial of such a graph is
\[ 1+nx+\left( {n \choose 2}-m \right)x^2+ k \lfloor n/2 \rfloor x^{3}.\]
As well, for any for $a \geq b \geq 1$, the graph with the optimally-least independence polynomial with order $n=2a+b$ and size $m = a(a-1)+b(b-1)/2$ is $2K_{a} \cup K_{b}$, which has independence polynomial
\[ 1+nx+\left( {n \choose 2}-m \right)x^2+\left( 2{a \choose 3} + {b \choose 3}\right)x^3.\] \null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{theorem}

To find sparse families of optimally-least graphs we will look at a graph operation which can be done to decrease the value of the independence polynomial on $[0,\infty)$.
Let $H_1$ be a graph which consists of an induced subgraph $G_1$, containing an edge $e = vw$, and two other vertices $y$ and $z$ that are isolated, and let $H_2$ be the graph formed from $H_1$ by removing edge $e$ and adding in an edge between $y$ and $z$ (see Figure~\ref{polyinc} -- we set $G_{2} = G_{1} - e$). Clearly $G_1$ and $G_2$ have the same number of vertices and edges.
We will show that this removal of an edge to form a $K_{2}$ can never increase the independence polynomial (on $[0,\infty)$).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4in]{polyinc.eps}
\caption{Graphs for Lemma~\ref{lelmlem}. $H_1$ is the graph $G_1 \cup \{y,z\}$ (on the left) and $H_2$ is the graph $G_2 \cup \{y,z\}$ (on the right).}
\label{polyinc}
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lelmlem}
For the graphs in Figure~\ref{polyinc}, we have $I(H_2,x)\leq I(H_1,x)$ on $[0,\infty)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Note that by Equation (\ref{ipoly}), our deletion-contraction formula for independence polynomials, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
I(H_1,x)& = & (1+2x+x^2)I(G_1,x)\\
    & = & (1+2x+x^2)(I(G_1-v,x)+xI(G_1-N[v],x))\\
    &=& (1+2x+x^2)(I(G_2-v,x)+xI(G_2-N[v]-w,x))
\end{eqnarray*}
 and
\begin{eqnarray*}
I(H_2,x)& = &(1+2x)(I(G_2-v,x)+xI(G_2-N[v],x)).
\end{eqnarray*}
We also find that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{inequal} I(G_2-N[v],x)\leq (1+x)I(G_2-N[v]-w,x)  \end{eqnarray} since $G_2-N[v]$ is a subgraph of $(G_2-N[v]-w) \cup K_{1}$.

Consider $F(x)=I(H_1,x)-I(H_2,x)$. Using our expression for $i(H_{1},x)$ and $i(H_{2},x)$ and the inequality (\ref{inequal}), we can see that
\begin{eqnarray*}
F(x) & = & (1+2x)I(G_2-v,x)+x^2I(G_2-v,x)+\\
      && x(1+2x+x^2)\ipoly{G_2-N[v]-w}{x}-(1+2x)\ipoly{G_2-v}{x}\\
       &&-x(1+2x)\ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}\\
     &=& x^2\ipoly{G_2-v}{x}+x(1+x)\ipoly{G_2-N[v]-w}{x}\\
      &&+x^2(1+x)\ipoly{G_2-N[v]-w}{x}-x(1+2x)\ipoly{G_2-[v]}{x}\\
     &\geq & x^2\ipoly{G_2-v}{x}+x\ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}\\
     &&+x^2\ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}-x\ipoly{G_2-[v]}{x}-2x^2\ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}\\
     &=& x^2\ipoly{G_2-v}{x}-x^2\ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}.
\end{eqnarray*}

Since $G_2-N[v]$ is a subgraph of $G_2-v$, we have $\ipoly{G_2-v}{x}\geq \ipoly{G_2-N[v]}{x}$. It follows that $F(x)\geq 0$, so $\ipoly{H_1}{x}\geq \ipoly{H_2}{x}$.
\null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{proof}

It follows that if $m\leq n/2$, by pulling out $K_2$'s, we derive:

\begin{theorem}
\label{lessthanhalf}
For a given $n\geq 2$ and $m \leq \frac{n}{2} $, the optimally-least graph for the independence polynomial for $x \geq 0$ is $mK_2 \cup (n-2m)K_1 $. \null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{theorem}

\section{Optimality for $k$-Independence Polynomials}

We now look at the optimality of $k$-independence polynomials and find the situation is much different for $k \geq 3$ than for $k = 2$.  We will show that in contrast, to $k=2$,  for all $k \geq 3$, there {\em does not} always exist optimally-greatest nor optimally-least graphs for the $k$-independence polynomial.

Before we do so, we make the following observation, which shows that the nonexistence of optimal graphs can sometimes be derived by considering only certain coefficients of the polynomials.

\begin{observation}
\label{max}
 Suppose that $G$ and $H$ be graphs on $n$ vertices and $m$ edges and let $k\geq 2$, with
\[ {\rm I}_{k}(G,x)=\sum_{j=0}^ni_j(G)x^{j} \] and
\[ {\rm I}_{k}(H,x)=\sum_{j=0}^ni_j(H)x^{j} \]
Then
\begin{itemize}
  \item if $i_j(G)=i_j(H)$ for $j<\ell$ but $i_{\ell}(G)>i_{\ell}(H)$, then {\rm I}$_{k}(G,x)>${\rm I}$_{k}(H,x)$ for $x$ arbitrarily small and
  \item if $i_j(G)=i_j(H)$ for $t>j$ but $i_{t}(G)>i_{t}(H)$, then {\rm I}$_{k}(G,x)>${\rm I}$_{k}(H,x)$ for $x$ arbitrarily large.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}

Note that $i_{j} = {n \choose j}$ for $j < k$. For a graph $G$, let $r_{G} = r^{k}_{G}$ denote the largest value of $j$ such that there exists an induced subgraph of $G$ of order $j$ that does not contains a $k$-clique, that is, $r_{G}$ is the largest value of $j$ such that $i_j(G) > 0$.

Thus to show that for $k$-independence polynomials ($k \geq 3$) there does not always exist optimally-greatest graphs, we will show that for some $n$ and $m = m(n)$, there is a unique graph $G \in \mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with the largest value of $r_{G}$ in $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$, thus optimally-greatest for sufficiently large values of $x$, but there is another graph $H \in \mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with more $k$-independent sets than $G$, and hence optimally-greatest the $k$-independence polynomial for arbitrarily small values of $x\geq 0$.

\begin{theorem}
For $k \geq 3$ and $l \geq 2$, and any $n > (k-1)l(l-1)$, there does not exist an  optimally-greatest graph for the $k$-independence polynomial of order $n$ and size $m = {n \choose 2}-(k-1){l \choose 2}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We recall an old well known result by Turan (see \cite{bollobas2}, for example) that states that the unique graph $T_{n,k}$ of order $n$ with the maximum number $m_{n,k}$ of edges in a graph of order $n$ without a $k$-clique is the complete $(k-1)$-partite graph with cells of order $\lfloor n/(k-1) \rfloor$ or $\lceil n/(k-1) \rceil$. For fixed $n > (k-1)l(l-1)$, we set $m = {n \choose 2}-(k-1){l \choose 2}$ and consider the class $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$. We define the graph $G = G(n,m)$ as the join $T_{(k-1)l,m} + K_{n-(k-1)l}$ of the Turan graph $T_{(k-1)l,m}$ with $K_{n-(k-1)l}$, that is, $G$ is formed from the disjoint union of $T_{(k-1)l,k}$ with $K_{n-(k-1)l}$ by adding in all edges between them (equivalently, the complement of $G$, $\overline{G}$, consists of $k-1$ cliques of order $l$, together with $n-(k-1)l$ isolated vertices). A quick calculation shows that $G$ has $m$ edges, and hence belongs to $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$.

We claim first that among all graphs $F^{\prime}$ in $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$, $G$ has the largest value of $r_{F^{\prime}}$. Note that $r_{G} = (k-1)l$ as the Turan graph $T_{(k-1)l,k}$ has no $k$-clique. Now if there is a graph $F$ in $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with $r_{F} > r_{G}$, then $F$ has an induced subgraph $S$ on say $s > (k-1)l$ vertices with no $k$-clique, and hence $S$ has at most as many edges as $T_{s,m}$. However, then $\overline{F}$ has at least as many edges as $\overline{T_{s,m}}$, which is strictly more than the number of edges in $\overline{T_{(k-1)l,m}}$ (to see this, think of the complements of Turan graphs being the disjoint unions of cliques, and observe that for $t > (k-1)l$, one can form $\overline{T_{t,m}}$ from $\overline{T_{(k-1)l,m}}$
 by successively adding vertices to the cliques to keep them as nearly equal as possible). Thus $\overline{F}$ would contain more edges than $\overline{G}$, the disjoint union of $\overline{T_{(k-1)l,m}}$ and isolated vertices, and hence $F$ would fewer edges than $G$, a contradiction as both $F$ and $G$ have the same number of vertices and edges. We conclude no such $F$ exists, so $G$ has the maximal $r_F$ value. Moreover, by the argument given, if $G^{\prime}$ were a graph in $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with $r_{G^{\prime}} = r_{G}$, then if $S$ is any induced subgraph of $G^{\prime}$ of size $r_{G}=(k-1)l$ that has no $k$-clique, $\overline{S}$ must have precisely as many edges as $\overline{T_{(k-1)l,k}}$, which is the number of edges of $\overline{G}$. We conclude that, from Turan's Theorem, that $G^\prime$ is isomorphic to $G$, which is therefore the unique graph in $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with the largest $r_F$-value, and hence the unique graph optimally-greatest for the $k$-independence polynomial for $x$ sufficiently large.

So if there is an optimally-greatest graph the $k$-independence polynomial for $\mathcal{S}_{n,m}$, it must be $G$. We note that if a graph  of order $n$ and size $m$ has a minimum number of $k$-cliques, then it has a maximum number of $k$-independent sets of order $k$. We will show now that there is another graph $H \in \mathcal{S}_{n,m}$ with fewer $k$-cliques than $G$, and hence more $k$-independent sets of size $k$, and so $G$ cannot be optimally-greatest the $k$-independence polynomial as $I_{k}(H,x) > I_{k}(G,x)$ for $x> 0 $ sufficiently small.

Let $H$ be the graph of order $n$ such that $\overline{H}$ is the disjoint union of $(k-1){l \choose 2}$ $K_{2}$'s and isolated vertices (as $n > (k-1)l(l-1) = 2(k-1){l \choose 2}$, we can find such a graph of order $n$). We can think of $\overline{H}$ as splitting the edges of the $l$-cliques of $\overline{G}$ into edges.
Now it is easy to see that for graphs $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ having $k_{1,i}$ and $k_{2,i}$ cliques of order $i$, respectively, then for any positive integer $t$, the number of $k$-cliques of order $t$ in $G_{1}+G_{2}$ is
\[ \sum_{i+j = t} k_{1,i}k_{2,j}.\]
It follows that it suffices to show that the following graph
$G_{1} = \overline{K_{l}+l(l-2)K_{1}}$
has, for all $i$, at least as many $i$-cliques as the graph $G_{2} = \overline{{l \choose 2}K_{2}}$, and that for $i \geq 3$ the former has strictly more $i$-cliques than the latter. For $i = 1 $ and $i = 2$ they have the same number of $i$-cliques (as they have the same number of vertices and edges). For $i \geq 2$, the number of $i$-cliques in $G_{1}$ is
\[ {l(l-2) \choose i} + l {l(l-2) \choose {i-1}}\]
while $G_{2}$ has
\[ {{l \choose 2} \choose i}2^{i}\]
many $i$-cliques.
We set
\[ f_{l,i} = \frac{{l(l-2) \choose i} + l {l(l-2) \choose {i-1}}}{{{l \choose 2} \choose i}2^{i}}.\]
Clearly $f_{l,2} = 1$ as both $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ has the same number of edges. We'll show that the sequence is strictly increasing, and hence for $i \geq 3$, always greater than $1$, so that $G_{1}$ has strictly more $i$-cliques than $G_{2}$, concluding the proof.

Now via some straightforward but tedious calculations, we find that for $i \geq 2$,
\[ \frac{f_{l,i+1}}{f_{l,i}} =  \frac{(l(l-2)-i+l(i+1))(l(l-2)-i+1)}{(l(l-1)-2i)(l(l-2)-i+1+li)}.\]
It follows that
\[ \frac{f_{l,i+1}}{f_{l,i}} > 1 \]
iff
\begin{eqnarray*}
(l(l-2)-i+l(i+1))(l(l-2)-i+1) & > & (l(l-1)-2i)(l(l-2)-i+1+li),
\end{eqnarray*} which holds iff
\[ i(l-1)(i-1) > 0.\]
The latter is true as  $i, l \geq 2$.

Thus we conclude that $f_{l,i} > 1$ for all $i \geq 2$. Thus $H$ has fewer $k$-cliques than $G$, hence more $k$-independent sets of order $k$ and so an optimally-greatest graph the $k$-independence polynomial does not exist.
\null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{proof}

\vspace{0.25in}

We turn finally to the issue of optimally-least $k$-independence polynomials.
From Observation~\ref{max}, we have that if an optimally-least graph the $k$-independence polynomial exists, then it must have the least number of $k$-independent sets of order $k$ (or equivalently, for the optimally-least graph the $k$-independence polynomial has the maximum number of $k$-cliques), since a graph with the latter will be optimally-least the $k$-independence polynomial for sufficiently small values of $x\geq 0$. In \cite{bollobas2} it was shown that for a graph on $n$ vertices and $m={d \choose 2}+r$ edges ($0 \leq r < d$) and for $k \geq 3$, the maximum number of cliques of size $k$ is ${d \choose k}+{r \choose k-1}$, and a graph which achieves such bounds consists of a $K_d$, a vertex $x$ with $N(x)\subseteq V(K_d)$, and $n-d-1$ isolated vertices (see Figure~\ref{optkleastnear0}). (This graph is not the unique extremal graph for values of $r<k-1$, since the addition of fewer than $k-1$ edges will not produce another $k$-clique, but for values of $r\geq k-1$, this graph is the unique extremal graph, since to obtain the maximum number of $k$-cliques, the edges will have to be added to the same vertex.)  Such graphs are candidates for optimally-least graphs the $k$-independence polynomial, but we will show that for $k\geq 3$, that optimally-least graphs the $k$-independence polynomial do not always exist.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.8in]{optkleastnear0.eps}
\caption{A graph that is optimally-least for the $k$-independence polynomial near $0$.}
\label{optkleastnear0}
\end{figure}

\begin{theorem}
For $k\geq 3$, $n \geq {k\choose 2} + k  + 1$ vertices and $m={{k\choose 2}+2\choose 2}-1$ optimally-least graphs the $k$-independence polynomial do not exist.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $k\geq 3$. Let $G=\left( K_{{k\choose 2}+2}-e \right) \cup (n-{k \choose 2}-2)K_1$, for some edge $e$ of $K_{{k\choose 2}+2}$, and let $H=K_{{k\choose 2}+1}\cup K_k\cup (n-{k \choose 2}-1-k)K_1$. We know that $G$ is optimally-least for the $k$-independence polynomial, when $x$ is sufficiently close to $0$, and $H$ is not. We will now show that $H$ is optimally-least for the $k$-independence polynomial for arbitrarily large values of $x$.

In $G$, the largest size of a vertex set that does not contain a $K_k$ is $n-{k \choose 2}+k-2$, taking any of the $n-{k\choose 2}-2$ isolated vertices, end points of edge $e$ and $k-2$ vertices from $K_{{k\choose 2}+2}$. In $H$, the largest size of a vertex set that does not contain a $K_k$ is size $n-{k \choose 2}+k-3$, taking any of the isolated $n-{k \choose 2}-1-k$ vertices and $k-1$ vertices from each complete graph. Thus by Observation~\ref{max}, $H$ is optimally-least the $k$-independence polynomial for arbitrarily large values of $x$, and $G$ is not, so no optimally-least graphs exist for the $k$-independence polynomial for these $n$ and $m$.
\null\hfill$\Box$\par\medskip
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusion}

While we have seen that optimally-greatest graphs exist for independence polynomials, we have only be able to prove the existence of optimally-least polynomials for a restricted collection of $n$ and $m$. Our belief is that such graphs always exist, but there does not seem to be any reasonable family to put forward as extremal.

In terms of optimality for $k$-independence polynomials, we have seen that for all $k \geq 3$, there are infinitely many values of $n$ and $m$ such that optimally-greatest graphs do not exists, and similarly for optimally-least graphs.

A full characterization of when optimal graphs for the $k$-independence polynomial exist (for $k\geq 3$, and even for optimally-least for $k=2$) remains open.

\vspace{0.25in}
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}
\vspace{0.1in}

\noindent J.I. Brown acknowledges support from NSERC (grant application RGPIN 170450-2013). D. Cox acknowledges research support from NSERC (grant application RGPIN 2017-04401) and Mount Saint Vincent University.


Intermediate dimensions

Abstract: We introduce a continuum of dimensions which are `intermediate' between the familiar Hausdorff and box dimensions. This is done by restricting the families of allowable covers in the definition of Hausdorff dimension by insisting that $|U| \leq |V|^\theta$ for all sets $U, V$ used in a particular cover, where $\theta \in [0,1]$ is a parameter. Thus, when $\theta=1$ only covers using sets of the same size are allowable, and we recover the box dimensions, and when $\theta=0$ there are no restrictions, and we recover Hausdorff dimension.We investigate many properties of the intermediate dimension (as a function of $\theta$), including proving that it is continuous on $(0,1]$ but not necessarily continuous at $0$, as well as establishing appropriate analogues of the mass distribution principle, Frostman's lemma, and the dimension formulae for products. We also compute, or estimate, the intermediate dimensions of some familiar sets, including sequences formed by negative powers of integers, and Bedford-McMullen carpets.

\section{Intermediate dimensions: definitions and background}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theo}{0}

We work with subsets of $\mathbb{R}^n$ throughout, although much of what we establish also holds in more general metric spaces. We denote the {\em diameter} of a set $F$ by $|F|$, and when we refer to a {\em cover} $\{U_i\}$ of a set $F$ we mean that $F\subseteq \bigcup_i U_i$ where $\{U_i\}$ is a finite or countable collection of sets.

Recall that  Hausdorff dimension $\dim_{\rm H}$ may be defined without introducing Hausdorff measures, but using Hausdorff content.  For  $F\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$,
\begin{align*}\label{hdim}
\dim_{\rm H} F = \inf \big\{& s\geq 0  :  \mbox{ \rm for all $\epsilon >0$ there exists a cover $ \{U_i\} $ of $F$ such that $\sum |U_i|^s \leq \epsilon$}  \big\},
\end{align*}
see \cite[Section 3.2]{Fa}. (Lower) box  dimension $\lbd$ may be expressed in a similar manner, by forcing the covering sets to be of the same diameter.  For  bounded $F\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$,
\begin{align*}
\lbd F =  \inf \big\{ s\geq 0  &:  \mbox{ \rm for all $\epsilon >0$ there exists a cover $ \{U_i\} $ of $F$} \\
 & \mbox{ \rm  such that  $|U_i| = |U_j|$ for all $i,j$  and  $\sum |U_i|^s \leq \epsilon$}  \big\}.
\end{align*}
see \cite[Chapter 2]{Fa}.  Expressed in this way, Hausdorff and box dimensions may be regarded as extreme cases of the same definition, one with no restriction on the size of covering sets, and the other requiring them all to have equal diameters.  With this in mind, one might regard them as the extremes of a continuum of dimensions with increasing restrictions on the relative sizes of covering sets.  This is the main idea of this paper, which we formalise by  considering restricted coverings where the diameters of the smallest and largest covering sets lie in a geometric range $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq |U_i| \leq \delta$ for some $0\leq \theta \leq 1$.
\begin{defi}\label{adef}
Let $F\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be bounded. For $0\leq \theta \leq 1$ we define the {\em  lower $\theta$-intermediate dimension} of $F$ by
\begin{align*}
\da F =  \inf \big\{& s\geq 0  :  \mbox{ \rm for all $\epsilon >0$ and all $\delta_0>0$,  there exists $0<\delta\leq \delta_0$} \\
 & \mbox{ \rm and a cover $ \{U_i\} $ of $F$ such that  $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq  |U_i| \leq \delta$ and
 $\sum |U_i|^s \leq \epsilon$}  \big\}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we define the {\em  upper $\theta$-intermediate dimension} of $F$ by
\begin{align*}
\uda F =  \inf \big\{& s\geq 0  :  \mbox{ \rm for all $\epsilon >0$ there exists $\delta_0>0$ such that for all $0<\delta\leq \delta_0$,} \\
 & \mbox{ \rm there is a cover $ \{U_i\} $ of $F$ such that  $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq  |U_i| \leq \delta$ and
 $\sum |U_i|^s \leq \epsilon$}  \big\}.
\end{align*}
\end{defi}

With these definitions,
$$\underline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{0} F = \overline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{0} F  = \hdd F, \quad \underline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{1} F = \lbd F \quad {\mbox{ and }}\quad \overline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{1} F = \ubd F, $$
where $\ubd$ is the upper box  dimension.  Moreover, it follows immediately that, for a bounded set $F$ and $\theta \in [0,1]$,
\[
\hdd F \leq \da F \leq \uda F \leq \ubd F  \quad {\mbox{ and }}\quad \da F \leq  \lbd F.
\]
It is also immediate that $\da F$ and $\uda F$ are increasing in $\theta$, though as we shall see they need not be strictly increasing. Furthermore, $\uda$ is finitely stable, that is $\uda (F_1\cup F_2) = \max\{\uda F_1, \uda F_2\}$, and, for $\theta\in (0,1]$, both $\da F$ and $\uda F$ are unchanged on replacing $F$ by its closure.

In many situations, even if $\hdd F < \ubd F$, we still have $\lbd F = \ubd F$ and $\da F = \uda F$ for all $\theta \in [0,1]$.  In this case we refer to the box  dimension $\bdd F = \lbd F = \ubd F$  and the {\em $\theta$-intermediate dimension} $\mbox{\rm dim}_{\theta} F = \da F = \uda F$.

This paper is devoted to understanding $\theta$-intermediate dimensions.  The hope is that $\mbox{\rm dim}_{\theta} F$ will interpolate between the Hausdorff and box  dimensions in a meaningful way, a rich and robust theory will be discovered, and interesting further questions unearthed. We first derive useful properties of intermediate dimensions, including that $\underline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{0} F$ and  $\overline{\mbox{\rm dim}}_{0} F $ are continuous on $(0,1]$ but not necessarily at $0$, as well as proving versions of the mass distribution principle, Frostman's lemma and product formulae. We then examine a range of examples illustrating different types of behaviour including sequences formed by negative powers of integers, and self-affine Bedford-McMullen carpets.

 Intermediate dimensions provide an insight into the distribution of the diameters of covering sets needed when estimating the Hausdorff dimensions of sets whose Hausdorff and box dimensions differ.  They also have  concrete applications to well-studied problems.  For example, since the intermediate dimensions are preserved under bi-Lipschitz mappings,  they provide another invariant for Lipschitz classification of sets. A very specific variant was used in \cite{KP} to estimate the singular sets of partial differential equations.

A related approach to `dimension interpolation' was recently considered in \cite{spec1} where a new dimension function was introduced to interpolate between the box  dimension and the Assouad dimension.  In this case the dimension function was called the \emph{Assouad spectrum}, denoted by $\mbox{\rm dim}_\textup{A}^{\theta} F$ $(\theta \in (0,1))$.

\section{Properties of  intermediate dimensions}\label{sec:props}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theo}{0}

\subsection{Continuity}

The first natural question is whether, for a fixed bounded set $F$, $\da F$ and $\uda F$  vary continuously for $\theta\in [0,1]$. We show this is the case, except possibly at $\theta = 0$.  We provide simple examples exhibiting discontinuity at $\theta = 0$ in Section \ref{examplessimple}.  However,  for many natural sets $F$ we find that the intermediate dimensions \emph{are} continuous at $0$ (and thus on $[0,1]$), for example for self-affine carpets, see Section \ref{carpetssec}.

\begin{prop}\label{cty}
Let $F$ be a non-empty bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $0\leq \theta<\phi  \leq 1$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{ineqs}
\da F \ \leq \ \db F \ \leq \  \da F +\Big(1-\frac{\theta}{\phi}\Big) (n- \da F).
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{ineqs2}
\uda F \ \leq \ \udb F \ \leq \  \uda F +\Big(1-\frac{\theta}{\phi}\Big) (n- \uda F).
\end{equation}
In particular,  $\theta \mapsto\da F$ and $\theta \mapsto\uda F$ are continuous for $\theta \in (0,1]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We will only prove \eqref{ineqs} since \eqref{ineqs2} is similar. The left-hand inequality of \eqref{cty} is just the monotonicity of $\da F$. The right-hand inequality is trivially satisfied when $\da F=n$, so we assume that $0\leq \da F <n$. Suppose that $0\leq \theta<\phi  \leq 1$ and that  $0\leq \da F <s <n$. Then, given $\epsilon >0$, we may find arbitrarily small $\delta>0$ and countable or finite covers $\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $F$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{epsum}
\sum_{i\in I} |U_i|^s<\epsilon \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \delta \leq |U_i| \leq \delta^\theta  \quad \mbox{ for all } i\in I.
\end{equation}
Let
$$I_0 =\{i\in I: \delta \leq |U_i| \leq \delta^\phi\} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad I_1 =\{i\in I: \delta^\phi < |U_i| \leq \delta^\theta\}.$$
For each $ i\in I_1$ we may split $U_i$ into subsets of small coordinate cubes to get sets $\{U_{i,j}\}_{j\in J_i}$ such that $U_i \subseteq\bigcup_{j\in J_i} U_{i,j}$, with
$|U_{i,j}| \leq \delta^\phi$ and ${\rm card} J_i \ \leq  \ c_n|U_i|^n \delta^{-\phi n} \  \leq  \ c_n\delta^{n(\theta-\phi)}$, where
$c_n = 4^n n^{n/2}$.

Let $s<t\leq n$. Then $ \{U_i\}_{i\in I_0} \cup \{U_{i,j}\}_{i\in I_1, j \in J_i}$ is a cover of $F$ such that
$\delta \leq |U_i|, |U_{i,j}| \leq \delta^\phi$. Taking sums with respect to this cover:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i\in I_0}|U_i|^t  +  \sum_{i\in I_1}\sum_{j\in J_{i}}|U_{i,j}|^t
&\leq&
\sum_{i\in I_0}|U_i|^t  +  \sum_{i\in I_1} \delta^{\phi t} c_n |U_i|^n \delta^{-\phi n} \\
&\leq&
\sum_{i\in I_0}|U_i|^t  + c_n \sum_{i\in I_1}  |U_i|^s  |U_i|^{n-s}\delta^{\phi( t-n)} \\
&\leq&
\sum_{i\in I_0}|U_i|^s  + c_n \sum_{i\in I_1}  |U_i|^s  \delta^{\theta(n-s)}\delta^{\phi( t-n)} \\
&\leq&
\sum_{i\in I_0}|U_i|^s  + c_n  \delta^{\phi[t-(n\phi+\theta(s-n))/\phi]}\sum_{i\in I_1}  |U_i|^s  \\
&\leq& (1+c_n) \sum_{i\in I}|U_i|^s\  < \ (1+c_n)\epsilon
\end{eqnarray*}
if $t\geq (n\phi+\theta(s-n))/\phi$, from \eqref{epsum}. This holds for some cover for arbitrarily small $\epsilon$ and  all $s>\da F$, giving
$\db F  \leq n + \theta (\da F-n)/\phi$, which rearranges to give \eqref{ineqs}.

Finally, note that \eqref{ineqs2} follows by exactly the same argument noting that the assumption $ \uda F <s $ gives rise to $\delta_0>0$ such that for all $\delta \in (0,\delta_0)$ we can find covers $\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $F$ satisfying \eqref{epsum}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{A mass distribution principle for $\da$ and $\uda$}

The  \emph{mass distribution principle}  is a powerful tool in fractal geometry and provides a useful mechanism for estimating the Hausdorff dimension from below by considering measures supported on the set, see \cite[page 67]{Fa}.  We present  natural analogues for $\da$ and $\uda$.

\begin{prop}\label{mdp}
Let $F$ be a Borel subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let  $0\leq \theta \leq 1$ and $s\geq 0$. Suppose that there are numbers $a, c, \delta_0 >0$ such that for all $0< \delta\leq \delta_0$  we can find a Borel measure $\mu_\delta$ supported by $F$ with
$\mu_\delta (F) \geq a $, and with
\begin{equation}\label{mdiscond}
\mu_\delta (U) \leq c|U|^s \quad \mbox{ for all Borel sets  $U \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n $ with } \delta \leq |U|\leq \delta^\theta.
\end{equation}
Then  $\da F \geq s$.  Moreover, if measures $\mu_\delta$ with the above properties can be found only for a sequence of $\delta \to 0$, then the conclusion is weakened to  $\uda F \geq s$. \end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Let $\{U_i\}$ be a cover of $F$ such that $\delta \leq |U_i|\leq \delta^\theta$ for all $i$. Then
$$a\ \leq \ \mu_\delta(F) \ \leq\  \mu_\delta\Big(\bigcup_i U_i\Big)\ \leq \ \sum_i \mu_\delta(U_i) \
\leq \  c\sum_i |U_i|^s,$$
so that $\sum_i |U_i|^s \geq a/c>0$ for every admissible cover and therefore $\da F \geq s$.

The weaker conclusion regarding the upper intermediate dimension is obtained similarly.
\end{proof}

Note  the main difference between Proposition \ref{mdp} and the usual mass distribution principle is that a family of measures $\{\mu_\delta\}$ is used instead of a single measure.  Since each measure $\mu_\delta$ is only required to describe a range of scales, in practice one can often use finite sums of point masses.  Whilst the measures $\mu_\delta$ may vary, it is essential that they all assign mass at least $a>0$ to $F$.

\subsection{A Frostman type lemma for $\da$}

\emph{Frostman's lemma}  is another  powerful tool in fractal geometry, which asserts the existence of measures of the type considered by the mass distribution principle, see \cite[page 77]{Fa} or \cite[page 112]{mattila}.  The following analogue of Frostman's lemma holds for intermediate dimensions and is a useful dual to Proposition \ref{mdp}.

\begin{prop}\label{frostman}
Let $F$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, let $0< \theta \leq 1$, and suppose $0< s< \da F$.  There exists a constant $c >0$ such that for all $\delta \in (0,1)$  we can find a Borel probability measure  $\mu_\delta$ supported on $F$ such that for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq r \leq \delta$,
\[
\mu_\delta (B(x,r)) \leq c r^s .
\]
Moreover, $\mu_\delta$ can be taken to be a finite collection of atoms.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
This proof follows the proof of the classical version of Frostman's lemma given in \cite[pages 112-114]{mattila}.  For $m \geq 0$ let $\mathcal{D}_m$ denote the familiar partition of $[0,1]^n$ consisting of $2^{nm}$ pairwise disjoint half-open dyadic cubes of sidelength $2^{-m}$, that is cubes of the form $[a_1, a_1+2^{-m}) \times \cdots \times [a_n, a_n+2^{-m})$.  By translating and rescaling we may assume without loss of generality that $F \subseteq [0,1]^n$ and that $F$ is not contained in any  $Q \in \mathcal{D}_1$. It follows from the definition of $\da F$ that there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that for all $\delta \in (0,1)$ and for all covers $\{U_i\}_i$ of $F$ satisfying $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq |U_i| \leq \delta$,
\begin{equation} \label{goodcover1}
\sum_i |U_i|^s > \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
Given $\delta \in (0,1)$, let $m \geq 0$ be the unique integer satisfying $2^{-m-1}<  \delta^{1/\theta} \leq 2^{-m}$ and let $\mu_m$ be a measure defined on $F$ as follows: for each $Q \in \mathcal{D}_m$  such that $Q \cap F \neq \emptyset$, then choose an arbitrary  point $ x_Q \in Q \cap F$ and let
\[
\mu_m = \sum_{ Q \in \mathcal{D}_m : Q \cap F \neq \emptyset} 2^{-ms} \delta_{x_Q}
\]
where $\delta_{x_Q}$ is a point mass at $x_Q$.  Modify $\mu_m$ to form a measure $\mu_{m-1}$, supported on the same finite set, defined by
\[
\mu_{m-1}\vert_Q = \min\{1, 2^{-(m-1)s} \mu_m(Q)^{-1}\}  \mu_m\vert_Q
\]
for all $Q \in \mathcal{D}_{m-1}$,  where $\nu \vert_E$ denotes  the restriction of $\nu$ to $E$. The purpose of this modification is to reduce the mass of cubes which carry too much measure.  This is done since we are ultimately trying to construct a measure which we can estimate uniformly from above.   Continuing inductively, $\mu_{m-k-1}$ is obtained from $\mu_{m-k}$ by
\[
\mu_{m-k-1}\vert_Q = \min\{1, 2^{-(m-k-1)s} \mu_{m-k} (Q)^{-1}\} \mu_{m-k} \vert_Q
\]
for all $Q \in \mathcal{D}_{m-k-1}$.  We terminate this process when we define $\mu_{m-l}$ where $l$ is the largest integer satisfying $2^{-(m-l)}n^{1/2} \leq \delta$.  (We may assume that $l \geq 0$ by choosing $\delta$ sufficiently small to begin with.)  In particular, cubes $Q \in \mathcal{D}_{m-l}$ satisfy $|Q| = 2^{-(m-l)}n^{1/2} \leq \delta$. By construction we have
\begin{equation} \label{goodbound1}
\mu_{m-l}(Q) \leq 2^{-(m-k)s} = |Q|^s n^{-s/2}
\end{equation}
for all $k =0, \dots, l$ and $Q \in \mathcal{D}_{m-k}$.    Moreover, for all $x \in F$, there is at least one $k \in \{0, \dots, l\}$ and $Q \in \mathcal{D}_{m-k}$ with $x \in Q$ such that the inequality in \eqref{goodbound1} is an equality.  This is because all cubes at level $m$ satisfy the equality for $\mu_m$ and if a cube $Q$ satisfies the equality for $\mu_{m-k}$, then either $Q$ or its parent cube satisfies the equality for $\mu_{m-k-1}$. For each $x \in F$, choosing the largest such $Q$ yields a finite collection of cubes $Q_1, \dots, Q_t$ which cover $F$ and satisfy $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq |Q_i| \leq \delta$ for $i = 1, \dots, t$.  Therefore, using \eqref{goodcover1},
\[
\mu_{m-l}(F) = \sum_{i=1}^t \mu_{m-l}(Q_i) = \sum_{i=1}^t |Q_i|^s n^{-s/2} > \varepsilon  n^{-s/2}.
\]
Let $\mu_\delta = \mu_{m-l}(F)^{-1} \mu_{m-l}$, which is clearly a probability measure supported on a finite collection of points. Moreover, for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq r \leq \delta$, $B(x,r)$ is certainly contained in at most $c_n$ cubes in $\mathcal{D}_{m-k}$ where $k$ is chosen to be the largest integer satisfying $0 \leq k \leq l$ and  $2^{-(m-k+1)} < r$, and $c_n$ is a constant depending only on $n$.  Therefore, using \eqref{goodbound1},
\[
\mu_\delta (B(x,r)) \leq  c_n  \mu_{m-l}(F)^{-1}  2^{-(m-k) s} \leq    c_n \varepsilon^{-1}  n^{s/2} 2^s r^s
\]
which completes the proof, setting $c=  c_n \varepsilon^{-1}  n^{s/2} 2^s $.
\end{proof}

\subsection{General bounds}

Here we consider general bounds which rely on the Assouad dimension and which have interesting consequences for continuity.  Namely, they provide numerous examples where the intermediate dimensions are \emph{dis}continuous at $\theta=0$ and also provide another proof that the intermediate dimensions are continuous at $\theta = 1$. The \emph{Assouad dimension} of $F \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim_\textup{A} F &=& \inf \bigg\{ s \geq 0  \ : \ \text{there exists $C>0$ such that for all $x \in F$, } \\
&\,& \qquad \qquad   \text{and for all $0<r<R$, we have} \  N_r(F \cap B(x,R)) \leq C \left(\frac{R}{r} \right)^s \bigg\}
\end{eqnarray*}
where $N_r(A)$ denotes the smallest number of sets of diameter at most $r$ required to cover a set $A$.  In general  $\underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F \leq \overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F \leq \dim_\textup{A} F \leq n$, but equality of these three dimensions occurs in many cases, even if the Hausdorff dimension and box dimension are distinct, for example if the box dimension is equal to  the ambient spatial dimension.   See \cite{Fra, robinson} for more background on the Assouad dimension.
The following proposition gives lower bounds for the intermediate dimensions in terms of Assouad dimensions.

\begin{prop} \label{assouad}
Given any non-empty bounded $F \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\theta \in (0,1)$,
\[
\da F \geq \dim_\textup{A} F - \frac{\dim_\textup{A} F - \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F}{\theta},
\]
and
\[
\uda F \geq \dim_\textup{A} F - \frac{\dim_\textup{A} F - \overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F}{\theta}.
\]
In particular, if $\underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F = \dim_\textup{A} F$, then $\da F =\overline{\dim}_\theta F = \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F = \dim_\textup{A} F$ for all $\theta \in (0,1]$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will prove the lower bound for $\da F$, the proof for $\uda F$  is similar.  Fix $\theta \in (0,1)$ and assume that $\underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F >0$, otherwise the result is trivial.  Let
\[
0<b< \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F  \leq  \dim_\textup{A} F < d < \infty
\]
and $\delta \in (0,1)$ be given.  By the definition of lower box dimension, there exists a uniform constant $C_0$, depending only on $F$ and $b$, such that there is a $\delta$-separated set of points in $F$ of cardinality at least $C_0 \delta^{-b}$.  Let $\mu_\delta$ be a uniformly distributed probability measure on these points, i.e. a sum of $C_0\delta^{-b}$ point masses each with mass $C_0^{-1} \delta^{b}$. We use our mass distribution principle with this measure to prove the proposition.

Let $U \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be a Borel set with $|U| = \delta^\gamma$ for some $\gamma \in [\theta, 1]$.  By the definition of Assouad dimension there exists a uniform constant $C_1$, depending only on $F$ and $d$, such that $U$ intersects at most $C_1 ( \delta^\gamma/\delta)^d$ points in the support of $\mu_\delta$.  Therefore
\[
\mu_\delta (U) \leq C_1\delta^{(\gamma-1)d} C_0^{-1} \delta^{b} = C_1C_0^{-1} \ |U|^{(\gamma d - d+ b)/ \gamma} \leq  C_1C_0^{-1}  \ |U|^{(\theta d - d+ b)/ \theta}
\]
which, using Proposition \ref{mdp}, implies that
\[
\da F \geq (\theta d - d+ b)/ \theta = d - \frac{d-b}{\theta}.
\]
Letting $d \to  \dim_\textup{A} F$ and $b \to \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F$ yields the desired result.
\end{proof}

This proposition implies that for bounded sets with $\dim_\textup{H} F < \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F = \dim_\textup{A} F$, the intermediate dimensions $\da F$ and $\uda F$ are necessarily discontinuous at $\theta = 0$.  In fact the intermediate dimensions are constant on $(0,1]$ in this case.  On the other hand, this gives an alternative demonstration that $\da F$ and $\uda F$  are \emph{always} continuous at $\theta=1$.  Moreover, the proposition provides a quantitative lower bound near $\theta=1$.  In Section \ref{examplessimple} we will use Proposition \ref{assouad} to construct examples exhibiting a range of behaviours.

\subsection{Product formulae}

A well-studied problem in dimension theory is how dimensions of product sets behave.  The following product formulae for  intermediate dimensions may be of interest in their own right, but in Section \ref{examplessimple} they will be used to construct  examples.

\begin{prop} \label{products}
Let $E \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and $F \subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$ be bounded and $\theta \in [0,1]$.  Then
\[
\da E + \da F\ \leq\ \da (E \times F)\    \leq\ \overline{\dim}_\theta ( E \times F)\ \leq\ \overline{\dim}_\theta  E + \overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F.
\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Fix $\theta \in (0,1)$ throughout, noting that the cases when $\theta=0,1$ are well-known, see \cite[Chapter 7]{Fa}.  We begin by demonstrating the left-hand inequality.  We may assume that   $\da E ,  \da F  >0$ as otherwise the conclusion follows by monotonicity.  Moreover, since $E,F$ are bounded we may assume they are compact since all the dimensions considered are unchanged under taking closure.  Let $0< s< \da E$ and $0<t< \da F$.  It follows from Proposition \ref{frostman} that there exist constants $C_s,C_t > 0$ such that for all $\delta \in (0,1)$  there exist Borel probability measures $\mu_\delta$ supported on $E$ and $\nu_\delta$ supported on $F$ such that for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq r \leq \delta$,
\[
\mu_\delta(B(x,r)) \leq C_s r^s \qquad \text{and} \qquad \nu_\delta(B(x,r)) \leq C_t r^t.
\]
Consider the product measure $\mu_\delta \times \nu_\delta$ which is supported on $E \times F$.  For $z \in \mathbb{R}^n \times  \mathbb{R}^m$ and $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq r \leq \delta$,
\[
(\mu_\delta \times \nu_\delta) (B(z,r)) \leq C_s C_t  r^{s+t}
\]
and Proposition \ref{mdp} yields $\da (E \times F) \geq s+t$; letting  $  s\to \da E$ and $t\to \da F$ gives the  desired inequality.

The middle inequality is trivial and so it remains to prove the right-hand inequality.  Let $s > \overline{\dim}_\theta  E$ and $d > \overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F$.  From the definition of $\overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F$ there exists a constant $\delta_1 \in (0,1)$ such that for all $0<r<\delta_1$ there is a cover of $F$ by at most $r^{-d}$ sets of diameter $r$.
Let $\varepsilon>0$. By the definition of $\overline{\dim}_\theta  E$ there exists  $\delta_0\in (0,\delta_1)$ such that for all $0<\delta < \delta_0$  there is a cover of $E$ by sets $\{U_i\}_{i}$ with $\delta^{1/\theta} \leq |U_i| \leq \delta$ for all $i$ and
\[
\sum_{i} |U_i|^s \leq \varepsilon.
\]
Given such a cover of $E$, for each $i$ let $\{U_{i,j}\}_{j}$ be a cover of $F$ by at most $|U_i|^{-d}$ sets with
diameters $|U_{i,j}|=|U_{i}|$ for all $j$.  Then
$$ E\times F\ \subseteq\  \bigcup_i \bigcup_j \big(U_i \times U_{i,j}\big),$$
with
$$ \sum_i\sum_j |U_i \times U_{i,j}|^{s+d} \ \leq\ \sum_i|U_i|^{-d}\big( \sqrt{2}|U_i|\big)^{s+d}
  \ =\ 2^{(s+d)/2}\sum_i|U_i|^{s}  \ \leq\ 2^{(s+d)/2}\varepsilon.$$
Since
$\delta^{1/\theta} \leq |U_i \times U_{i,j}| \leq \sqrt{2}\delta$ for all $i,j$, each set $U_i \times U_{i,j}$ may be covered by at most $c_{n+m}$ sets $\{V_{i,j,k}\}_k$ with diameters  $\delta^{1/\theta}\leq |V_{i,j,k}| \leq \min\{|U_i \times U_{i,j}|,\delta\}\leq \delta$, where $c_{q}$ is the least number such that  every set  in $\mathbb{R}^q$ of diameter $\sqrt{2}$ can be covered by at most $c_{q}$ sets of diameter 1. Hence
$$\sum_i\sum_j \sum_k|V_{i,j,k}|^{s+d}\ \leq \ c_{n+m}2^{(s+d)/2}\varepsilon.$$
As $\varepsilon$ may be taken arbitrarily small, $\overline{\dim}_\theta  (E \times F) \leq s+d$; letting $  s\to \uda E$ and $d\to \overline{\dim}_\textup{B} F$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Examples}\label{sec:egs}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{theo}{0}

In this section we construct several simple examples where the intermediate dimensions exhibit a range of phenomena.  All of our examples are compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{R}^2$ and in all examples the upper and the lower intermediate dimensions coincide for all $\theta \in [0,1]$.

\subsection{Convergent sequences}\label{secseq}
Let $p>0$ and
\begin{equation*}
F_p = \bigg\{0, \frac{1}{1^p}, \frac{1}{2^p},\frac{1}{3^p},\ldots \bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
Since $F_p$ is countable, $\hdd F_p=0$. It is well-known that $\bdd F_p=1/(p+1)$, see \cite[Chapter 2]{Fa}. We  obtain the intermediate dimensions of $F_p$.
\begin{prop}\label{conseq}
For $p>0$ and $0\leq \theta \leq 1$,
$$\da F_p  = \overline{\dim}_\theta F_p = \frac{\theta}{p+\theta}.$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We first bound  $\overline{\dim}_\theta F_p$ above. Let $0<\delta<1$ and let $M =\lceil \delta^{-(s +\theta(1-s))/(p+1)}\rceil$. Write $B(x,r)$ for the closed interval (ball) of centre $x$ and length $2r$.
Take a covering ${\mathcal U}$ of  $F_p$ consisting of $M$ intervals $B(k^{-p}, \delta/2)$  of length $\delta$ for $1\leq k\leq M$ and $\lceil M^{-p} /\delta^\theta\rceil \leq M^{-p}/\delta^\theta +1$ intervals  of length $\delta^\theta$  that cover $[0, M^{-p}].$   Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{U\in {\mathcal U}} |U|^s &\leq & M\delta ^s + \delta^{\theta s}\Big(\frac{1}{M^p\delta^\theta}+ 1\Big)\\
 &=&  M\delta ^s + \frac{\delta^{\theta (s-1)}}{M^p}+ \delta^{\theta s}\\
 & \leq & ( \delta^{-(s +\theta(1-s))/(p+1)} +1) \delta^s
+ \delta^{\theta (s-1)}\delta^{(s +\theta(1-s))p/(p+1)} +\delta^{\theta s}\\
& =&  2\delta^{(\theta (s-1)+sp)/(p+1)} +  \delta^s+ \delta^{\theta s} \ \to \ 0
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\delta \to 0$ if $s(\theta +p) > \theta$. Thus $\overline{\dim}_\theta F_p \leq\theta/(p+\theta)$.
\medskip

For the lower bound we put suitable measures on $F_p$ and apply Proposition \ref{mdp}. Fix $s = \theta/(p+\theta)$. Let $0<\delta < 1$ and again let $M =\lceil \delta^{-(s +\theta(1-s))/(p+1)}\rceil$.  Define $\mu_\delta$ as the sum of point masses on the points $1/k^p \ (1\leq k<\infty)$ with
\begin{equation}\label{mass}
 \mu_\delta \Big(\left\{\frac{1}{k^p}\right\}\Big)\  = \
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
 \delta^s & \mbox{ if } 1\leq k \leq  M   \\
 0 &    \mbox{ if } M+1\leq k <\infty
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_\delta(F_p) &=& M\delta^s \\
& \geq&\delta^{-(s +\theta(1-s))/(p+1)}\delta^s \\
& =& \delta^{(ps +\theta(s-1))/(p+1)}  = 1
\end{eqnarray*}
by the choice of $s$.

To see that \eqref{mdiscond} is satisfied,
note that if $2\leq k\leq M$ then, by a mean value theorem estimate,
$$\frac{1}{(k-1)^p} - \frac{1}{k^p}\ \geq \ \frac{p}{k^{p+1}}\ \geq \ \frac{p}{M^{p+1}};$$
thus the gap between any two points of $F_p$ carrying mass is at least $p/M^{p+1}$.
Let $U$ be such that $\delta \leq |U|\leq \delta^\theta$. Then $U$ intersects at most
$1+ |U|/(p/M^{p+1})  = 1+|U|M^{p+1}/p $ of the points of $F_p$ which have mass $\delta^s$.
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu_\delta (U)& \leq & \delta^s + \frac{1}{p}|U|\delta^s \delta^{-(s +\theta(1-s))} \\
&=&   \delta^s + \frac{1}{p}|U| \delta^{(\theta(s-1))}\\
&\leq& |U|^s + \frac{1}{p} |U||U|^{s-1} \\
&=& \left(1+ \frac{1}{p}\right)|U|^s.
\end{eqnarray*}
From Proposition  \ref{mdp}, $\da F_p \geq s = \theta/(p+\theta)$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Simple examples exhibiting different phenomena} \label{examplessimple}

We use the convergent sequences $F_p$ from the previous section, the product formulae from Proposition \ref{products}, and that the \emph{upper} intermediate dimensions are finitely stable to construct examples displaying a range of different features which are illustrated in Figure 1.

The natural question which began this investigation is `does $\da$ vary continuously between the Hausdorff and lower box dimension?'.  This indeed happens for the convergent sequences considered in the previous section, but turns out to be false in general.  The first example in this direction is provided by another convergent sequence.
\medskip

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{idfig4}
\caption{Plots of  $\da F$ for the four examples in Section \ref{examplessimple}}
\end{figure}

\emph{Example 1: Discontinuous at 0, otherwise constant.}   Let
\[
F_{\log} = \{ 0, 1/\log 2, 1/\log 3, 1/\log 4, \dots \}.
\]
This sequence converges slower than any of the polynomial sequences $F_p$ and it is well-known and easy to prove that
$\bdd F_{\log} = \dim_\textup{A} F_{\log}= 1$.
It follows from Proposition \ref{assouad} that
\[
\da F_{\log} = \overline{\dim}_\theta F_{\log} =  1,\qquad \theta \in (0,1].
\]
 Since $\dim_0 F_{\log}=\hdd F_{\log}=0$ there is a discontinuity at $\theta = 0$.
\medskip

\emph{Example 2: Continuous at 0, part constant, part strictly increasing. }  In the opposite direction, it is possible that  $\da F = \hdd F < \lbd F$ for some $\theta >0$.  Indeed, let $F =F_1 \cup E$ where $F_1 = \{0, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, \dots\}$ as before, and let $E \subset \mathbb{R}$ be any compact set with $\hdd E = \ubd E = 1/3$ (for example an appropriately chosen self-similar set).  Then it is straightforward to deduce that
\[
\da F = \overline{\dim}_\theta F =  \max\left\{ \frac{ \theta}{1+ \theta},  \, 1/3\right\},\qquad \theta \in [0,1].
\]
It is also possible for $\da F$ to approach a value strictly in between $\hdd F$ and $\lbd F$ as $\theta \to 0$.  This is the subject of the next two examples.
\medskip

\emph{Example 3:  Discontinuous at 0, part constant, part strictly increasing.}  For an example that is constant on an interval adjacent to 0, let $F =E \cup   F_{1}$ where this time $E\subset \mathbb{R}$ is any closed countable set with $\lbd E = \dim_\textup{A} E = 1/4$.  It is immediate  that
\[
\da F = \overline{\dim}_\theta F =  \max\left\{ \frac{ \theta}{1+ \theta},  \, 1/4\right\},\qquad \theta \in (0,1],
\]
with $\hdd F=0$ and $\bdd F=1/2$.

\medskip

\emph{Example 4: Discontinuous at 0, strictly increasing.} Finally, for an example where $\da F$ is smooth, strictly increasing but not continuous at $\theta=0$,  let
\[
F = F_{1} \times F_{\log}\subset \mathbb{R}^2.
\]
Here $\hdd F=0$ and $\bdd F=3/2$ and Proposition \ref{products} gives
\[
\da F = \overline{\dim}_\theta F =  \frac{ \theta}{1 + \theta}+ 1,\qquad \theta \in (0,1],
\]
noting that  $\da F_{\log} = \overline{\dim}_\theta F_{\log} = \lbd F_{\log} = \ubd F_{\log} = \dim_\textup{A} F_{\log}= 1$ for $\theta \in (0,1]$.

\section{Bedford-McMullen carpets} \label{carpetssec}

A well-known class of fractals where the Hausdorff and box dimensions differ are the self-affine carpets; this is a consequence of the alignment of the component rectangles in the iterated construction. The first studies of planar self-affine carpets were by Bedford \cite{bedford} and McMullen \cite{mcmullen} independently, see also \cite{peres} and these Bedford-McMullen carpets have been widely studied and generalised, see for example \cite{Fa1} and references therein.  Indeed, the question of the distribution of scales of covering sets for Hausdorff and box dimensions of Bedford-McMullen carpets was one of our motivations for studying intermediate dimensions. Finding an exact formula for the intermediate dimensions of Bedford-McMullen carpets seems a difficult problem, so here we obtain some lower and upper bounds, which in particular establish continuity at $\theta=0$ and that  the intermediate dimensions take a strict minimum at $\theta=0$.

We introduce the notation we need, generally following that of McMullen \cite{mcmullen}. Choose integers $n > m \geq 2$.  Let ${I}=\left\{0,\ldots, m-1 \right\}$ and ${J}=\left\{0,\ldots, n-1 \right\}$.  Choose a fixed digit set $D \subseteq I \times J$ with at least two elements.  For $\left( p,q \right)\in D$ we define the affine contraction $S_{\left(p,q \right)}\colon [0,1]^2 \rightarrow [0,1]^2$ by
\[
S_{ \left( p,q \right)}\left(x,y\right) = \left( \frac{x+p}{m},\frac{y+q}{n} \right) .
\]
There exists a unique non-empty compact set $F \subseteq [0,1]^2$ satisfying
\[
F=\bigcup_{(p,q) \in D}S_{ \left( p,q \right)}(F);
\]
that is $F$ is the attractor of the iterated function system $\ \left\{ S_{ \left(p,q \right)} \right\}_{ \left( p,q \right)\in D}$.  We call such a set $F$ a {\em Bedford-McMullen self-affine carpet}.   It is sometimes convenient to denote pairs in $D$ by $\ell = (p_\ell,q_\ell )$.

We  model our carpet $F$ via the symbolic space $D^{\mathbb{N}}$, which consists of all infinite words over $D$ and is equipped with the product topology.
We write $\mathbf{i}  \equiv (i_1,i_2,\ldots)$ for elements of  $D^{\mathbb{N}}$ and  $(i_1,\ldots,i_k)$ for words of length $k$ in $D^k$, where $i_j \in D$.
Then the canonical projection  $\tau :D^{\mathbb{N}} \rightarrow [0,1]^2$ is defined by
\[
\{\tau(\mathbf{i})\}\equiv\{\tau(i_1,i_2,\ldots)\}=\bigcap_{k \in \mathbb{N}} S_{i_1} \circ \cdots  \circ S_{i_k}([0,1]^2).
\]
 This allows us to switch between symbolic and geometric notation since
\[
\tau(D^{\mathbb{N}})=F.
\]

Bedford \cite{bedford} and McMullen \cite{mcmullen} showed that
\be\label{dimb}
\bdd F = \frac{\log m_0}{\log m} + \frac{\log |D| - \log m_0}{\log n}
\ee
where $m_0$ is the number of $p$ such that there is a $q$ with $(p,q) \in D$, that is the number of columns of the array containing at least one rectangle.
They also showed that
\be\label{dimh}
\hdd F = \log \big(\sum_{p=1}^m n_p^{\log_n m} \big) \Big/ \log m,
\ee
where $n_p \, (1\leq p\leq m)$ is the number of $q$ such that $(p,q)\in D$, that is the number of selected rectangles  in the $p$th column of the array.

For each $\ell \in D$ we let $a_\ell$ be the number of rectangles of $D$ in the same column as $\ell$.
Then, writing  $d = \hdd F$, \eqref{dimh} may be written as
\begin{equation}
m^d \ = \ \sum_{p=1}^m {n}_p^{\log_n m}\ =\  \sum_{\ell\in D} a_{\ell}^{(\log_n m -1)},
\end{equation}
where  equality of the sums follows from the definitions of $n_p$ and $a_\ell$.

We assume that the non-zero $n_p$ are not all equal, otherwise $\hdd F = \bdd F$;  in particular this implies that $a := \max_{\ell \in D}a_\ell \geq 2$.

We denote the $k$th-level iterated rectangles by
$$  R_k (i_1,\ldots,i_k)\  =\  S_{i_1}\circ \cdots \circ S_{i_k}([0,1]^2).$$
We also write $R_k(\mathbf{i})  \equiv R_k(i_1,i_2, \ldots)$ for this rectangle when we wish to indicate the $k$th-level iterated rectangle containing the point $\tau(\mathbf{i}) = \tau(i_1,i_2, \ldots)$.

 We will associate a probability vector $\ \left\{ b_{\ell} \right\}_{\ell\in D}$ with $D$ and let $\widetilde{\mu}=\prod_{k\in\mathbb{ N}}\left( \sum_{ i_k\in D}b_{  i_k}\delta_{  i_k}\right)$  be the natural Borel product probability measure on $D^{\mathbb{N}}$, where $\delta_{ \ell}$ is the Dirac measure on $D$ concentrated at $ \ell$.  Then the measure
\[
\mu=\widetilde{\mu}\circ \tau^{-1}
\]
 is a self-affine measure supported on $F$.
Following McMullen \cite{mcmullen} we set
\be\label{pi}
b_\ell = a_\ell^{(\log_n m -1)}/m^d\qquad (\ell \in D),
\ee
noting that $\sum_{\ell\in D} b_\ell  =1$, to get  a measure $\mu$ on $F$; thus  the measures of the iterated rectangles are
\be\label{rect}
\mu\big( R_k (i_1,\ldots,i_k)\big)\ =\  b_{i_1}\cdots b_{i_k}\
=\  m^{-kd} ( a_{i_1} \cdots a_{i_k})^{(\log_n m -1)}.
\ee

Approximate squares are  well-known tools in the study  of self-affine carpets.  Given $k\in \mathbb{N}$ let $l(k) = \lfloor k \log_n m\rfloor $ so that
\be\label{lkbounds}
k\log_n m \ \leq\ l(k) \ \leq k\log_n m \ + \ 1
\ee
For such $k$ and  $\mathbf{i}  = (i_1,i_2, \ldots) \in D^{\mathbb{N}}$ we define  the {\em approximate square} containing $\tau(\mathbf{i})$ as the union of $m^{-k}\times n^{-k}$ rectangles:
\begin{align*}
Q_k(\mathbf{i}) = Q_k(i_1,i_2, \ldots) = \bigcup\Big\{ &R_k(i_1',\ldots,i_k'): p_{i_{j}'}=p_{i_{j}}
\text{ for } j= 1, \ldots, k \\
 &  \text{ and } q_{i_{j}'}=q_{i_{j}}  \text{ for }   j= 1, \ldots, l(k)  \   \Big\},
\end{align*}
recalling that $\ell = (p_\ell,q_\ell)$.
 This approximate square has sides $m^{-k}\times n^{-l(k)}$ where
$n^{-1}m^{-k} \leq n^{-l(k)}\leq m^{-k}$.

Note that, by virtue of self-affinity and since the sequence $(p_{i_1},\cdots p_{i_k})$ is the same for all level-$k$ rectangles $R_k (i_1,\ldots,i_k)$ in the same approximate square, the $a_{i_{l(k)+1}}\cdots a_{i_k}$ level-$k$ rectangles that comprise the  approximate square $Q_k(\mathbf{i})$  all have equal $\mu$-measure. Thus, writing $L= \log_n\! m$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu(Q_k(\mathbf{i})) &=&   m^{-kd} a_{i_1}^{(L -1)}\cdots a_{i_k}^{(L -1)}
\times a_{i_{l(k)+1}}\cdots a_{i_k}\label{squaremes1}\\
&=&  m^{-kd} a_{i_1}^{L}\cdots a_{i_{k}}^{L}
\times a_{i_{1}}^{-1}\cdots a_{i_{l(k)}}^{-1}.\label{squaremes}
\end{eqnarray}

We now obtain an upper bound for  $\overline{\dim}_\theta F$ which implies continuity at $\theta = 0$ and so on $[0,1]$.  Recall that $a = \max_{\ell \in D}a_\ell \geq 2$.

\begin{prop}\label{propup}
Let $F$ be the Bedford-McMullen carpet as above. Then for $0<\theta <\frac{1}{4}(\log_n\! m)^2$,
\be\label{upbound}
 \overline{\dim}_\theta F \ \leq \  \hdd F +  \bigg(\frac{2\log(\log_m n)\log a}{\log n}\bigg) \frac{1}{-\log \theta}.
 \ee
In particular, $ \underline{\dim}_\theta F$ and $ \overline{\dim}_\theta F$ are continuous at $\theta = 0$ and so are continuous on $[0,1]$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For $\mathbf{i}  = (i_1,i_2,\ldots)$, rewriting  \eqref{squaremes} gives
\be
\mu\big(Q_k(\mathbf{i})\big) =   m^{-kd}
\bigg(\frac{ (a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_k})^{1/k}}{(a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_{l(k)}})^{1/l(k)}}\bigg)^{Lk}
\big(a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_{l(k)}}\big)^{(kL/l(k))-1}.
\label{rewritemes}
\ee
We consider the two bracketed terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{rewritemes} in turn. We show that  the first term cannot be too small for too many consecutive $k$ and that the second term is bounded below by $1$.

For $k>1$ with $l(k) =\lfloor k \log_n m\rfloor$ as usual, define
\be\label{fkstar}
f_k(\mathbf{i})\ \equiv\ f_k(i_1,i_2,\ldots)
 \ =\ \bigg(\frac{ (a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_k})^{1/k}}{(a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_{l(k)}})^{1/l(k)}}\bigg)
\ee
We claim that for all $K\geq L/(1-L)$ and all $\mathbf{i} = (i_1,i_2,\ldots)  \in D^{\mathbb{N}}$,   there exists   $k$  with $K\leq k \leq K/ \theta$   such that
\be\label{claim}
 f_k(\mathbf{i})\ \geq \ a^{\log L/\log(L/2\theta)}.
\ee
 Suppose this is false for some $(i_1,i_2,\ldots)$ and $K\geq 1/L(L-1)$, so for all $K\leq k \leq K/ \theta$, $  f_k(\mathbf{i}) < \lambda:= a^{\log L/\log(L/2\theta)}$, that is
\be\label{basin}
(a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_k})^{1/k}\ <\ \lambda (a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_l})^{1/l(k)}.
\ee
Define a sequence of integers $k_{r}\, (r=0,1,2,\ldots)$ inductively by $k_{0} = K$ and  for $r \geq 1$ taking $k_{r}$ to be the least integer such that
$ \lfloor k_{r} \log_n m \rfloor = k_{r-1}$.
Then  $k_{r} \leq  k_{r-1}/L  +1$, and a simple induction shows that
$$k_{r}\  \leq \  L^{-r}\big(K + L/(1-L)\big)-L/(1-L) \ \leq\  L^{-r}\big(K + L/(1-L)\big)\qquad (r\geq 0).$$
Fix $N$ to be the greatest integer such that $k_N \leq K/\theta$. Then
$$ L^{-(N+1)} \big(K+L\big/(1 -L)\big)\ \geq\ k_{N+1}\ >\ K/\theta$$
so rearranging, provided $K\geq L/(1-L)$,
$$L^N\ <\  \frac{\theta\big(K + L\big/(1-L)\big)}{LK}\ \leq \ \frac{2\theta}{L},
$$
that is
\be\label{ineq1}
N > \frac{\log(2\theta/L)}{\log L}.
\ee
From \eqref{basin}
$$
(a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_{k_r}})^{1/{k_r}}\ <\ \lambda (a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_{k_{r-1}}})^{1/k_{r-1}} \qquad (1\leq r\leq N)
$$
so iterating
$$
 1\ \leq\ (a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_{k_N}})^{1/k_N}\ <\ \lambda^{N} (a_{i_1} a_{i_2}\cdots a_{i_{K}})^{1/K}\ \leq \ \lambda^{N}a.
$$
Combining with \eqref{ineq1} we obtain
$$
\lambda \ >\ a^{-1/N} \geq a^{\log L/\log(L/2\theta)}
$$
which contradicts the definition of $\lambda$. Thus the claim \eqref{claim} is established.

For the second bracket on the right-hand side of \eqref{rewritemes} note that
$$ 0\ \leq\ (kL/l(k))-1\ =\ \frac{ k\log_n m -\lfloor k\log_n m \rfloor}{l(k)}\ \leq \frac{1}{l(k)}$$
so that
\be\label{brac2}
1\ \leq \  \big(a_{i_1}\cdots a_{i_{l(k)}}\big)^{(kL/l(k))-1}\  \leq a.
\ee

Putting together \eqref{rewritemes}, \eqref{claim} and \eqref{brac2}, we conclude that for all $K\geq L/(1-L)$ and all $\mathbf{i}  \in D^{\mathbb{N}}$
there exists  $ K\leq k \leq K/ \theta $ such that
$$\mu\big(Q_k(\mathbf{i})\big) \ \geq\     m^{-dk} a^{kL\log L/\log(L/2\theta)}
 \ \geq\     m^{-dk} a^{2kL\log L/\log(1/\theta)}
 \ =\ m^{-k(d+\epsilon(\theta))},$$
as $\theta \leq L^2/4$, where
$$\epsilon(\theta)\ =\  \frac{ -(\log a)\, 2L\log L}{\log m \log(1/\theta)} \
=\  \frac{2 \log(\log_m n)\log a}{\log n} \frac{1}{-\log \theta}.$$

Geometrically this means that for $K\geq L/(1-L)$ every point $z \in F$ belongs to at least one approximate square, $Q_{k(z)}$ say, with $K \leq {k(z)} \leq K/\theta$ and with $\mu(Q_{k(z)}) \geq m^{-k(d+\epsilon(\theta))}$. Since the approximate squares form a nested hierarchy we may choose a subset  $\{Q_{k(z_n)}\}_{n=1}^N \subset \{ Q_{k(z)}: z\in F\}$ that is disjoint (except possibly at boundaries of approximate squares) and which cover $F$. Thus
$$1\ =\ \mu(F)\ = \ \sum_{n=1}^N \mu (Q_{k(z_n)})\ \geq\   \sum_{n=1}^N m^{-k(z_n)(d+\epsilon(\theta))} \ \geq\   \sum_{n=1}^N (2^{-1/2}|Q_{k(z_n)}|)^{(d+\epsilon(\theta))} $$
where  $| Q_k|$ denotes the diameter of the approximate square $Q_k$, noting that $| Q_k|\leq 2^{1/2} m^{-k}$. It follows that $ \overline{\dim}_\theta F \leq d+\epsilon(\theta)$ as claimed.
\end{proof}

The following lemma brings together some basic estimates that we will need to obtain a lower bound for the intermediate dimensions of $F$.

\begin{lem}\label{mcmass}
Let $\epsilon >0$. There exists $K_0\in \mathbb{N}$ and a set $E\subset F$ with  $\mu(E) \geq \frac{1}{2}$ such that for all $\mathbf{i}$ with $\tau(\mathbf{i})\in E$ and $k\geq K_0$,
\begin{equation}\label{uppermass}
\mu(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))\leq m^{-k(d-\epsilon)}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{lowermass}
\mu(R_k(\mathbf{i}))\geq \exp(-k(H(\mu)+\epsilon)),
\end{equation}
where $d=\dim_\textup{H} F$ and $H(\mu) \in (0,\log |D|)$ is the entropy of the measure $\mu$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
McMullen \cite[Lemmas 3,4(a)]{mcmullen} shows that for $\widetilde{\mu}$-almost all $\mathbf{i}  \in D^{\mathbb{N}}$
$$\lim_{k\to\infty}  \mu(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))^{1/k} \to m^{-d}.$$
Thus by Egorov's theorem we may find a set $\widetilde{E}_1\subset D^{\mathbb N}$ with $\widetilde{\mu}(\widetilde{E}_1) \geq \frac{3}{4}$, and
$K_1\in \mathbb{N}$ such that \eqref{uppermass} holds for all $\mathbf{i}  \in \widetilde{E}_1$ and $k\geq K_1$.

Furthermore, it is immediate from the Shannon-MacMillan-Breimann Theorem and \eqref{rect} that for $\widetilde{\mu}$-almost all $\mathbf{i}  \in D^{\mathbb{N}}$,
$$\lim_{k\to\infty}  \mu(R_k(\mathbf{i})))^{1/k} \to  \exp(-H(\mu)),$$
and again by Egorov's theorem there is a set $\widetilde{E}_2\subset D^{\mathbb N}$ with $\widetilde{\mu}(\widetilde{E}_2) \geq \frac{3}{4}$, and
$K_2\in \mathbb{N}$ such that \eqref{lowermass} holds for all $\mathbf{i}  \in \widetilde{E}_2$ and $k\geq K_2$.
The conclusion of the lemma follows taking $E =\tau(\widetilde{E}_1\cap \widetilde{E}_2)$ and $K_0 = \max\{K_1,K_2\}$.
\end{proof}

We now obtain a lower bound for $\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F$, showing in particular that $\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F> \hdd F$ for all  $\theta>0$.

\begin{prop}\label{proplb}
Let $F$ be the Bedford-McMullen carpet as above. Then for $0\leq \theta \leq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{lowerbnd}
\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F\geq \hdd F+\theta\frac{\log |D|-H(\mu)}{\log m}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Fix $\theta\in(0,1)$, let $E\subset F$ and  $K_0$ be given by Lemma \ref{mcmass}, and let $K\geq K_0$. We define a measure $\nu_K$ which assigns equal mass to all level-$K$ rectangles, and then subdivides this mass among sub-rectangles using the same weights as for the measure $\mu$, given by \eqref{pi}. This gives a measure to which we can apply the mass distribution principle, Lemma \ref{mdp}. Thus for $k\geq K$, writing $b_\ell = a_\ell^{(\log_n m -1)}/m^d$ as in \eqref{pi},
\begin{equation}\label{defnuk}
\nu_K\big( R_k (i_1,\ldots,i_k)\big)\ :=\  |D|^{-K}b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_k}\
=\  |D|^{-K} m^{-(k-K)d} ( a_{i_{K+1}} \cdots a_{i_k})^{L-1}.
\end{equation}

We now consider an approximate square $Q_k(\mathbf{i})$ containing the point $\mathbf{i}$. This approximate square is a union of rectangles $R_k(\mathbf j)$ which, as explained in our comment before \eqref{squaremes1}, each have the same $\mu$ measure equal to $\mu(R_k(\mathbf i))$. The same argument gives that for any $R_k(\mathbf j)\subset Q_k(\mathbf i)$
\[
\nu_K(R_k(\mathbf j))=\nu_K(R_k(\mathbf i))=\mu(R_k(\mathbf i)) \dfrac{|D|^{-K}}{\mu(R_K(\mathbf i))}
\]
where the final equality holds since the formula for $\nu_{K}$ differs from that of $\mu$ only in the mass it assigns according to the first $K$ letters. Putting this together allows one to express the $\nu_{K}$-measure of an approximate square of side length $m^{-k}$  in relation to the $\mu$-measure of such a square. For $\tau(\mathbf{i})\in E$ and $k\geq K$, the approximate square $Q_k(\mathbf{i})$ that contains the point $\mathbf{i}$ has $\nu_K$-measure
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{K}(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))&=&\dfrac{|D|^{-K}}{\mu(R_K(\mathbf{i}))}\mu(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))\label{nukmu}\\
&\leq& \dfrac{|D|^{-K} m^{-k(d-\epsilon)}}{\exp(-K(H(\mu)+\epsilon))},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
using Lemma \ref{mcmass}. (Alternatively \eqref{nukmu} may be verified directly using \eqref{rect}, \eqref{squaremes} and \eqref{defnuk}.)
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{K}(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))& \leq & m^{-k(d-\epsilon) -K \log_m \big(|D|\exp(-H(\mu)-\epsilon)\big)}\nonumber\\
&\leq& m^{-k\big(d-\epsilon +\frac{K}{k}(\log |D|-H(\mu)-\epsilon)/\log m\big)}\label{inequal}.
\end{eqnarray}
We need bounds that are valid for all $k\in[K,K/\theta]$ corresponding to approximate squares of sides between (approximately) $m^{-K}$ and $m^{-K/\theta}$. The exponent in \eqref{inequal} is maximised when $k  = K/\theta$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{munu}\nu_{K}(Q_k(\mathbf{i}))\ \leq  \ m^{-k\big(d-\epsilon+\theta(\log |D|-H(\mu)-\epsilon)/\log m\big)}\end{equation}
for all $\mathbf{i}$ with $\tau(\mathbf{i})\in E$ and integers $k\in[K,K/\theta]$, where $\mu (E) \geq \frac{1}{2}$.

To use our mass distribution principle we need equation \eqref{munu} to hold on a set of $\mathbf{i}$ of large $\nu_K$ mass, whereas currently we have that it holds on a set $E$ of large $\mu$ mass.
Let
$$E'=\tau\{\mathbf{i} : \mbox{inequality \eqref{munu} is satisfied for all } k\in[K,K/\theta] \}.$$
 Firstly we observe that $Q_k(\mathbf{i})$ depends only on $(i_1,\ldots i_k)$, and we are dealing with $k\leq K/\theta$, so the question of whether $\tau(\mathbf{i})\in E'$ is independent of $(i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor+1}, i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor+2},\ldots)$. Secondly, since $Q_k(\mathbf{i})$ is a union of rectangles $R_k(\mathbf{i})$, and $\nu_K\big( R_k (i_1,i_2,\ldots))$ is independent of $(i_1,\ldots ,i_K)$, the question of whether $\tau(\mathbf{i})\in E'$ is independent of $(i_1,\ldots ,i_K)$. Thus we can write
\[
E'=\bigcup_{i_{K+1}\ldots i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}\in I''} \bigg(\bigcup_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K} R_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}(i_1,\ldots,i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor})\bigg)
\]
for some set $I''\subset D^{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor-K}$.
But using \eqref{defnuk}  gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nu_K \bigg(\bigcup_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K} R_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}(i_1,\ldots, i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor})\bigg)&=& \sum_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K}\frac{1}{|D|^K}b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}}\\
&=& b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}}
\end{eqnarray*}
and  \eqref{rect}  gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu \bigg(\bigcup_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K} R_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}(i_1,\ldots, i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor})\bigg)&=& \sum_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K}b_{i_1}\cdots b_{i_K}b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}}\\
&=& \bigg(\sum_{i_1\ldots i_K\in D^K}b_{i_1}\cdots b_{i_K}\bigg)b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}}\\
&=& b_{i_{K+1}}\cdots b_{i_{\lfloor K/\theta\rfloor}},
\end{eqnarray*}
as $\sum_{i\in D} b_i  =1$. Since these quantities are equal we conclude that
\[
\nu_K(E')\ =\ \mu(E')\ \geq\ \mu(E)\ \geq\ {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
\]
as required.

Since \eqref{munu} holds for all $\mathbf{i}  \in E'$, a straightforward variant on our mass distribution principle, where we use approximate squares instead of balls, gives
\[
\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F\ \geq\  \hdd F-\epsilon +\theta\frac{\log |D|-H(\mu)-\epsilon}{\log m}.
\]
Since $\epsilon$ can be chosen arbitrarily small, \eqref{lowerbnd} follows.
\end{proof}

Note that, in \eqref{lowerbnd},
\[
H(\mu)\  =\ -m^{-d}\sum_{\ell\in D }(a_\ell^{L-1}\big((L-1)\log a_\ell - d\log m\big)\ \leq\  \log | D|
\]
with equality if and only if $\mu$ gives equal mass to all cylinders of the same length, which happens if and only if each column in our construction contains the same number of rectangles. This happens exactly when the box and Hausdorff dimension coincide. Thus our lower bounds give that $\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F> \hdd F$ whenever $\theta>0$, provided that the Hausdorff and box dimensions of $F$ are different.

Since the measures that we have constructed to give lower bounds on $\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F$ are rather crude, it is unlikely that our lower bound for $\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F$ converges to ${\dim}_\textup{B} F$ as $\theta\to 1$. However, a lower bound which \emph{does} approach ${\dim}_\textup{B} F$ as $\theta\to 1$ is given by Proposition \ref{assouad}, noting that $\dim_\textup{A} F > \underline{\dim}_\textup{B} F = {\dim}_\textup{B} F$ provided ${\dim}_\textup{B} F > {\dim}_\textup{H} F$, see \cite{mackay,Fra}.

Many questions on the intermediate dimensions of Bedford-McMullen carpets remain, most notably finding the exact forms of
$\underline{\dim}_{\theta}F$ and $\overline{\dim}_{\theta}F$. In that direction we would at least conjecture that these intermediate dimensions are equal and strictly monotonic. One might hope to get better estimates using alternative definitions of  $\mu$ in Proposition \ref{propup}  and $\nu_K$ in Proposition \ref{proplb}, but McMullen's measure and our modifications seemed to work best when optimising mass distribution type estimates across $F$ and over the required range of scales.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

JMF was financially supported by a \emph{Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship} (RF-2016-500) and  KJF and JMF were financially supported in part by an \emph{EPSRC Standard Grant} (EP/R015104/1).  We thank James Robinson for pointing out the reference \cite{KP}.
\\

\bibliographystyle{plain}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Dynamical Systems (math.DS)

Intermediate dimensions