On a problem of Henning and Yeo about the transversal number of uniform linear systems whose 2-packing number is fixed

For $r\geq2$, let $(P,\mathcal{L})$ be an $r$-uniform linear system. The transversal number $\tau(P,\mathcal{L})$ of $(P,\mathcal{L})$ is the minimum number of points that intersect every line of $(P,\mathcal{L})$. The 2-packing number $\nu_2(P,\mathcal{L})$ of $(P,\mathcal{L})$ is the maximum number of lines such that the intersection of any three of them is empty. In [Discrete Math. 313 (2013), 959--966] Henning and Yeo posed the following question: Is it true that if $(P,\mathcal{L})$ is a $r$-uniform linear system then $\tau(P,\mathcal{L})\leq\displaystyle\frac{|P|+|\mathcal{L}|}{r+1}$ holds for all $k\geq2$?. In this paper, some results about of $r$-uniform linear systems whose 2-packing number is fixed which satisfies the inequality are given

Multipartite hypergraphs achieving equality in Ryser's conjecture

A famous conjecture of Ryser is that in an $r$-partite hypergraph the covering number is at most $r-1$ times the matching number. If true, this is known to be sharp for $r$ for which there exists a projective plane of order $r-1$. We show that the conjecture, if true, is also sharp for the smallest previously open value, namely $r=7$. For $r\in\{6,7\}$, we find the minimal number $f(r)$ of edges in an intersecting $r$-partite hypergraph that has covering number at least $r-1$. We find that $f(r)$ is achieved only by linear hypergraphs for $r\le5$, but that this is not the case for $r\in\{6,7\}$. We also improve the general lower bound on $f(r)$, showing that $f(r)\ge 3.052r+O(1)$. We show that a stronger form of Ryser's conjecture that was used to prove the $r=3$ case fails for all $r>3$. We also prove a fractional version of the following stronger form of Ryser's conjecture: in an $r$-partite hypergraph there exists a set $S$ of size at most $r-1$, contained either in one side of the hypergraph or in an edge, whose removal reduces the matching number by 1.Comment: Minor revisions after referee feedbac

On local search and LP and SDP relaxations for k-Set Packing

Set packing is a fundamental problem that generalises some well-known combinatorial optimization problems and knows a lot of applications. It is equivalent to hypergraph matching and it is strongly related to the maximum independent set problem. In this thesis we study the k-set packing problem where given a universe U and a collection C of subsets over U, each of cardinality k, one needs to find the maximum collection of mutually disjoint subsets. Local search techniques have proved to be successful in the search for approximation algorithms, both for the unweighted and the weighted version of the problem where every subset in C is associated with a weight and the objective is to maximise the sum of the weights. We make a survey of these approaches and give some background and intuition behind them. In particular, we simplify the algebraic proof of the main lemma for the currently best weighted approximation algorithm of Berman ([Ber00]) into a proof that reveals more intuition on what is really happening behind the math. The main result is a new bound of k/3 + 1 + epsilon on the integrality gap for a polynomially sized LP relaxation for k-set packing by Chan and Lau ([CL10]) and the natural SDP relaxation [NOTE: see page iii]. We provide detailed proofs of lemmas needed to prove this new bound and treat some background on related topics like semidefinite programming and the Lovasz Theta function. Finally we have an extended discussion in which we suggest some possibilities for future research. We discuss how the current results from the weighted approximation algorithms and the LP and SDP relaxations might be improved, the strong relation between set packing and the independent set problem and the difference between the weighted and the unweighted version of the problem.Comment: There is a mistake in the following line of Theorem 17: "As an induced subgraph of H with more edges than vertices constitutes an improving set". Therefore, the proofs of Theorem 17, and hence Theorems 19, 23 and 24, are false. It is still open whether these theorems are tru