Progress on the union-closed conjecture and offsprings in winter

2022-2023
Stijn Cambie∗
arXiv:2306.12351v1 [math.CO] 21 Jun 2023

June 22, 2023

Mathematicians had little idea whether the easy-to-state union-closed conjecture was true or false
even after 40 years. However, last winter saw a surge of interest in the conjecture and its variants,
initiated by the contribution of a researcher at Google. Justin Gilmer made a significant breakthrough
by discovering a first constant lower bound for the proportion of the most common element in a union-
closed family.

1 Introduction of the Union-Closed conjecture

The union-closed conjecture is due to Peter Frankl1 , who constructed the elegant statement in 1979
after observing many implications of the statement. Before fully stating it, we need to define crucial
concepts from set theory.
The ground set is generally denoted with [n] = {1, 2, . . . , n}, where n ∈ N is a finite number. A
subset A ⊆ [n] is nothing more than a set containing integers between 1 and n, e.g., A = {2, 4, 6} ⊂ [7].
A family F ⊆ 2[n] is a collection of subsets of [n]. Here 2[n] contains all 2n possible subsets of [n],
which includes the empty set ∅ as well.
A family F is called union-closed if for every A, B ∈ F, the union A ∪ B belongs to F . This can
be written as F = F ∪ F, where the latter equals exactly {A ∪ B | A, B ∈ F }. An example of such
a family is presented in Figure 1. An other example, for every m ∈ N, is the family Fm = {A | A ⊆
[m] ∨ A = [k] for some m + 1 ≤ k ≤ m2 } which consists of the 2m subsets of [m], as well as m2 − m
intervals consisting of the first k natural numbers.

{1, 2, 3, 4}

{1, 2, 3}

{1, 3} {1, 2} {2, 3}

{1} {2}

Figure 1: Example of union-closed family

∗ Extremal Combinatorics and Probability Group (ECOPRO), Institute for Basic Science (IBS), Daejeon, South

Korea, supported by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS-R029-C4), E-mail: [email protected]
1 See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9ter_Frankl and https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/01/20/na-wiskundige-opwinding-op

1
 The Union-closed conjecture can now be formally stated as follows.
Conjecture 1 (Union-closed conjecture). If F = 6 {∅} is a union-closed family with ground set [n],
then there exists an element i ∈ [n] such that at least half of the sets in F contain i.
Considering our previous example Fm for large m, one can verify that it might be that only a small
fraction of the elements of the ground set are abundant (belong to at least half of the sets) and their
average proportion of sets to which they belong can tend to zero. Note that this conjecture would be
(arguably) false when taking an infinite ground set N, e.g. by considering the (union-closed) family
of finite subsets of N.
This conjecture can also be formulated in many different ways. For example, one can con-
sider bitstrings in {0, 1}n with the element-wise OR-operation. For instance, when n = 4 and
F = {0011, 1100, 1111}, we note that 0011 + 1100 = 1111. This family is closed under the OR-
operation, which corresponds to being union-closed in the initial formulation.
Taking the complements of the set, one obtains the Intersection-closed sets conjecture, which states
that an intersection-closed family has an element in its ground set appearing in at most half of the
sets. In [3, Sec. 3], one can also find a lattice-, graph-, and Salzborn-formulation.
On November 17, 2022, Justin Gilmer [10], a researcher at Google working in machine learning,
made a breakthrough by proving a first constant fraction for Conjecture 1. Soon thereafter, as fast as
a few days, his result made others put improvements and related results on the preprint server Arxiv.
In this note, we summarize the contributions and progress that was made in the winter of 2022–2023.
We explain the main ideas of Gilmer’s approach (Section 2), mention the forthcoming extensions of
his method (Sections 3 and 4), as well as an unsuccessful attempt (Section 5) and discuss other work
related to the Union-closed conjecture (Section 6).

2 The observations and key elements in the proof by Gilmer

A first elementary observation by Gilmer is that one can always prove a statement by proving the
contrapositive of that statement. Since the statement of the union-closed conjecture is that simple
already, it might be no one considered that before. The contraposition of Conjecture 1 can be stated
as follows. If a non-empty family F has no element appearing in at least half of the sets of F , then F
is not a union-closed family. By remarking that A∪A = A for every set A, one knows that F ⊆ F ∪F,
and thus |F ∪ F | > |F | whenever F is not a union-closed family. While posing related questions and
studying counterexamples to variants of Conjecture 1 similar to the ones in [8], Gilmer noted that the
entropy of a family might play a role.2 The entropy H(X) of a discrete random variable X equals the
Shannon entropy of its probability distribution. The latter can be purely presented with a formula.
If each possible outcome x belongs to a (finite) set A, and has probability px , then
X
H(X) = − px log2 px .
x∈A

When sampling uniformly at random from F , the entropy will equal log2 |F | and no higher entropy
is possible. If one can sample from F ∪ F in such a way that the entropy is larger than log2 |F |, then
one can conclude that |F ∪ F | > |F |. This is exactly the core of Gilmer’s approach.
More precisely, he proved the following statement.
Theorem 2. Let A and B denote independent and identically distributed random variables that sample
from a common distribution over subsets of [n]. Assume that for all i ∈ [n], P[i ∈ A] ≤ 0.01. Then
H(A ∪ B) ≥ 1.26H(A).
As a corollary, by taking the uniform distribution over the subsets of [n], one knows that if F ⊂ 2[n]
is a family for which every element is contained in no more than 1% of the sets, then |F ∪F | ≥ |F |1.26 .3
2 More details on his journey/ thought process can be found in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZaP0EwjR_I&t
3 As a corollary of later work by Sawin, this is at least |F|1.74

2
This implies that whenever |F | ≥ 2, either |F ∪ F | > |F | (and so the family is not union-closed) or
there is an element appearing in at least a 0.01 fraction of the sets in F . From this, one can conclude
that Conjecture 1 is true for a half replaced by 0.01.
example 3. Let F = {{1}, {2}} and thus F ∪ F = {{1}, {2}, {1, 2}}. Let A and B be i.i.d. random
variables that output a set of F uniformly at random. Then P(A = {1}) = P(A = {2}) and
analogously for B, which implies
1 1
P(A ∪ B = {1}) = P(A ∪ B = {2}) = and P(A ∪ B = {1, 2}) = .
4 2
Now H(A) = 2 · 21 log2 2 = 1 and H(A ∪ B) = 2 · 41 log2 4 + 12 log 2 = 23 (< log2 3). Since log2 (2) <
H(A ∪ B), we conclude that it is impossible that A ∪ B takes values in a family with only 2 elements
and thus |F ∪ F | > |F |, i.e. Gilmer’s method verifies that F is not union-closed.
[3]
and thus F ∪ F = 2[3] . Note that |F | = 7 and every 1 ≤ i ≤ 3 appears in


example 4. Let F = ≤2
exactly 3 sets and thus in a 37 fraction. Let A, B be i.i.d. random variables that output a set of F
uniformly at random. Then
1
P(A ∪ B = ∅) =
49
3
P(|A ∪ B| = 1) =
49
9
P(|A ∪ B| = 2) =
49
12
P(A ∪ B = [3]) =
49
Now
1
H(A) =7 log2 (7) = log2 (7)
7
∼2.81
1 3
H(A ∪ B) = log2 (49) + 3 log2 (49/3)
49 49
9 12
+ 3 log2 (49/9) + log2 (49/12)
49 49
∼2.70

and thus H(A) > H(A ∪ B). We conclude that this is an example for which Gilmer’s method does not
provide evidence that the family is not union-closed, even while the maximum fraction of occurence
of an element is 37 .
[5]


Note: Analogously, when F = ≤3 , one can verify that H(A) = log2 (26) ∼ 4.7 and H(A ∪ B) ∼
11
4.54. Every element appears in a 26 fraction in this case.

3 Quick refinement of Gilmer’s idea

The binary entropy function h(p) = −(p log2 p + (1 − p) log2 (1 − p)) plays a role in
√
the computations
in the work of Gilmer. Noting that h(p) ≤ h(2p − p2 ) whenever p ≤ ψ := 3−2 5 , Gilmer claimed
that his ideas could be extended to prove a fraction equal to ψ. The authors of [1, 5, 18, 15] quickly
implemented this approach. All four of these papers essentially reduced Conjecture 1 for the constant
ψ to the following key lemma, an inequality in one variable.

3
 √
5+1
Lemma 5. Let φ = 2 and 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, then h(x2 ) ≥ φxh(x).
The validity of this lemma was established in two different ways by [1] and Sawin [18]. The former
used accurate computer calculations and applied interval arithmetic on three intervals, while the latter
utilized a purely calculus-based approach. Thanks to some communication between the authors of [1]
and [5], in [5] a reference to the formal proof of [1] was added. In [15] the lemma was split in two
parts without formal proof, but both can be verified easily.
A short and more elegant proof for Lemma 5 was given later by Boppana [2], even while the proof
itself would originate from 1989. This proof relies on the following extension of the classical Rolle’s
theorem, which follows from observations in e.g. [12].
Theorem 6. Let f be a differentiable function on a interval I. Let m(f ) be the sum of multiplicities
of the roots of f in I. Then m(f ′ ) ≥ m(f ) − 1.
By iterating the theorem three times, one finds m(f ) ≤ m(f ′′′ ) + 3. Applying this result on
the function f (x) = h(x2 ) − φxh(x) and counting the multiplicities of the roots 0, φ1 and 1 of f ,
the conclusion that f is nonnegative on [0, 1] follows quickly. Once Lemma 5 is derived, the proof
for Conjecture 1 for constant ψ (instead of 0.5) is rather short in each of the papers [1, 5, 15, 18],
indicated e.g. by the total length of the paper by Chase and Lovett [5]. Their work has three steps.
h(xy)
First, they extended the analytic claim (Lemma 5) to the two-variate function f (x, y) := h(x)y+h(y)x .
Next they prove a strengthened inequality between the entropy of A ∪ B and the one of A and B,
for random variables A and B (not necessarily identical) on {0, 1}n for which every bit is 1 with a
bounded probability. Finally, they finish the proof of their slightly more general statement that holds
for approximate union-closed families. The latter being families for which the union of two random
drawn sets belong to the family with a high probability.
One example which certifies the sharpness of their proof can be derived from F1 + F2 = {A |
[n]
[n]

A ∈ F1 ∨ A ∈ F2 } where F1 = ψn+n 2/3 and F2 = ≥(1−ψ)n . For this, one need to note that
|F1 | >> |F2 | and that the union of two (iid uniform sampled) random sets from F1 belongs with very
high probability to F2 . The expected size of the union is slightly larger (with an additional term of
the order n2/3 , i.e. Θ(n2/3 )) than n − (1 − ψ)2 n = (1 − ψ)n, and since the variance on the size is
O(n1/2 ), the union almost surely belongs to F2 as well. The conclusion is still valid when replacing
the term n2/3 by any function g(n) for which n >> g(n) >> n1/2 .

F2

F1

Figure 2: An approximate union-closed family whose elements appear in at most a ψ + o(1) fraction.

In a different direction, in his paper, Gilmer included some ideas for a full resolution of Conjecture 1,
but some of these directions were immediately proven not to hold by Sawin and Ellis [18, 7].

4
4 Further refinements and extensions related to Gilmer’s work
Sawin [18] gave a suggestion to improve the bound further, which given the sharpness of the form
for union-closed families may be considered surprising. Hereby the essence is in a question purely
stated in terms of probability distributions. His suggestion was worked out by Yu [20] and Cambie [4].
Yu [20] considered the approach in a slightly more general form initially and made a lower bound
computable by restricting to the suggestion of Sawin and applying [1, Lem. 5] and the Krein-Milman
theorem [13] to bound the support (number of values with nonzero probability) of a joint distribution
by 4. A numerical computation then yield a bound equal to (roughly) 0.38234. In parallel, Cambie [4]
found an upper bound for Sawin’s approach which indicates that the improvement is way smaller than
expected and one would hope for. The construction is a discrete probability distribution with only
two values having nonzero probability, with the values determined by a system of equations involving
the entropy function. Additionally he proved that this value is sharp, by first reducing the support to
3 elements, where one of the elements equals 1. Finally, the conclusion is derived from the combination
of 3-dimensional plots, a numerical minimization problem and a more precise solution for the case
where the support has exactly two elements, one of which equals 1.
Finally, building upon the work of [5], Yuster [21] considered families that are almost k-union-
closed, meaning that the union of k independent uniform random sets from F belongs to F with
high probability. He conjectured a tight version for the minimum frequency (the proportion of sets
containing the element) of some element in such families, with the threshold for this frequency being
the unique real root in [0, 1] of (1 − x)k = x, denoted by ψk . To understand the sharpness of his
conjecture and the intuition behind the choice of ψk , consider the union of F1 = ψk n[n]


+ n2/3 and F2 =
[n]

≥(1−ψk )n
. If at least one set from F2 is included among the k sets drawn, the union is guaranteed
to belong to F2 . If all k sets belong to F1 , the expected size of the union is n − (1 − ψk )k n + Θ(n2/3 ),
and since the variance is O(n1/2 ), the union almost surely belongs to F2 as well. The conjecture is
proven to be true for k ≤ 4, while for larger values of k a weaker bound is established.

5 The final Eureka moment, not yet

When Scandone [19] uploaded a preprint claiming the full resolution of the union-closed conjecture,
there arose initially excitement. However, upon closer examination it became clear that Scandone’s
proposed solution had several issues, including a significant flaw that requires revising the underlying
construction. This was communicated to Scandone by Terence Tao, and the details of this issue are
briefly explained later in this section.
Nevertheless, Scandone’s underlying idea holds potential and is worth mentioning for the valuable
intuition it provides for Gilmer’s approach. Let F be a family which is not union-closed, so F ∪F =6 F.
A random variable taking values in F has entropy at most log2 |F | and equality occurs only for uniform
sampling from F . By considering various examples, e.g. F = {{1}, {2}}, the reader can verify that
there is no strategy to choose two random variables A, B which sample sets from F , such that A ∪ B
samples uniformly random from F ∪ F. On the other hand, if for every set A ∈ F the probability of
obtaining it is almost equal to the original probability and a few other sets from (F ∪ F)\F happen
with a small probability, the entropy can increase. The reason for this is that the derivative of h
(plotted in Figure 3) is a continuously decreasing function on the interval (0, 1), with h′ (0) = +∞.
To provide a more explicit explanation of Scandone’s idea, we describe his proposed construction in
detail.
Let A, B be independent random variables that take any set of F uniformly at random. Define a
P([n])-valued random variable Aδ (depending on δ) through the relation

Pr[Aδ = X] = (1 − δ) Pr[A = X] + δ Pr[A ∪ B = X] for every X ⊆ [n].

For every X ∈ F, Pr[Aδ = X] ≥ (1 − δ) Pr[A = X] and thus for δ sufficiently small, we have

5
h(Pr[Aδ = X]) − h(Pr[A = X]) & δ/|F |h′ (1/|F |).4 On the other hand, for X ∈ (F ∪ F)\F , let the
probability p := Pr[A ∪ B = X]. We have that h(δp) ∼ −δp(log δ + log p − 1). By choosing δ to be
sufficiently small such that − log δ is much greater than p1 h′ (1/|F |), we can ensure that H(Aδ ) > H(A)
holds.

1 h(x)

0.5

x
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 3: Plot of the binary entropy function h

Equivalently, the variable Aδ can be obtained by considering, in addition to A and B, a Bernoulli

random variable of parameter δ, Zδ , which determines whether we take A ∪ B or only A. The flaw in
the argument is that, in the process of revealing all the digits of Aδ (computed using the chain rule
for the entropy), the indeterminacy provided by Zδ (and the consequent improvement of the bounds)
is lost after the first step. More precisely, there is step in the computations in which a conditional
probability distribution has been erroneously replaced by its expected value, and this produces the
aforementioned flaw in the argument. The comment of Tao can be rephrased as follows, “the idea of
modifying the union operation by Gilmer is promising, but a single global bit Zδ is not sufficient to
do the job, and a more involved construction is needed”.

6 A better understanding by progress in a different direction

In this final section, we conclude with the essence of a recent paper and two preprints on the union-
closed conjecture, which consider different aspects and angles of attack on Conjecture 1.
While Frankl’s conjecture is about the existence of one abundant element (element that appears in
at least half of the sets) in the family, it is also natural to wonder if there are more abundant elements,
assuming that all sets in the family are sufficiently large. The following conjecture by Cui and Hu [6]
would imply Conjecture 1.
Conjecture 7. If F is a finite union-closed family of sets whose smallest set is of size at least 2,
then there are at least two elements such that each belong to more than half of the sets of F .
At the end of 2022, the three authors of [11] considered this different direction and proved that
Conjecture [6] is not true when replacing 2 by a larger integer. They proved (among other results) that
there are families all of whose sets have size at least k, where k can be arbitrary large, which do only
have 2 abundant elements. The main construction is the family P412 . The family P412 consists of all
subsets S of {0, 1, . . . , 11} of size at least 4 such that either {0, 1} ⊂ S, or 0 ∈ S and S ⊆ {0, 2, . . . , 10},
or 1 ∈ S and S ⊆ {1, 3, . . . , 11}. The reader can verify that |P412 | = (210 − 11) + 2 · 16 = 1045, while
every element 2 ≤ i ≤ 11 only appears 29 − 1 + 11 = 522 times. One way to increase the size of sets in
families with non-abundant elements is to duplicate an element within the sets. However, this creates
blocks of size at least 2. A block is defined by Poonen [16] as a maximum set of elements that all
belong to the exact same sets of a family. Poonen also noted that to prove Conjecture 1, it is sufficient
to focus on families for which no block is a singleton. Due to this, it is interesting to note that the
4 To 2
be precise, we assume |F| ≥ 3 and |F |
+ δ < 1.

6
construction of the family P412 in [11] can be extended to such families.Let k ≥ 3 be a fixed integer and
let n be a sufficiently large even integer as a function of k (n ≥ 10k works). Let En = {i ∈ [n] | i ≡ 0
(mod 2)} and On = {i ∈ [n] | i ≡ 1 (mod 2)} be the set of even and odd integers in [n] respectively.
Consider the family Pkn consisting of subsets S of [n] of size at least k, such that either
• {1, 2} ⊂ S,
• S ⊂ En and 2 ∈ S, or
• S ⊂ On and 1 ∈ S.
It is clear that 1 and 2 are abundant elements. Now the other elements appear all equally often (by
symmetry) and by a small bijection and counting argument, we conclude that these elements are not
abundant whenever    
n−3 n/2 − 2
<2 .
k−3 ≥k−1
Since this is the case for n sufficiently large, the conclusion is clear.
Another result related with union-closed families and the smallest set size, was published early
2023. Ellis, Ivan and Leader [9] proved that for every k ∈ N, there exists a union-closed family in which
the (unique) smallest set has size k, but where each element of this set has frequency (1 + o(1)) log k
2k .
As such, proving that focusing on the smallest set cannot work in the strongest possible sense. They
also proposed the problem of verifying the union-closed conjecture for a family for which they were
unable to verify the statement. The latter was verified by Pulaj and Wood [17]. They also proved
new bounds on the least number m (given k and n) such that every union-closed family F containing
any A ⊆ [n]


k with |A| = m as a subfamily, satisfies Conjecture 1.
We can conclude that despite the progress that originates from the breakthrough of Justin Gilmer,
the exact version of Conjecture 1 is still not proven. Mathematicians are still thinking about other
directions or modifications of the strategy and hope to resolve Conjecture 1 in the future. Taking
into account that the improvement by taking combinations suggested by Sawin [18] turned out to be
tinier than expected and hoped for, as illustrated by the example in [4], it seems that the focus should
go towards essential new ideas. In particular, the union-closed conjecture might be a distraction of a
more general behaviour that |F ∪ F | > |F |c for some c(ε) > 1 when every element of [n] appears in
less than a 21 − ε fraction of the sets in F .5
Note added: In June 2023, Liu [14] improved the constant slightly with a different method of
coupling.

Acknowledgements
We thank Zachary Chase, Justin Gilmer, Raffaele Scandone and Lei Yu for internal communication
while writing this manuscript.

References
[1] R. Alweiss, B. Huang, and M. Sellke. Improved Lower Bound for the Union-Closed Sets Conjec-
ture. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2211.11731, Nov. 2022.
[2] R. B. Boppana. A Useful Inequality for the Binary Entropy Function. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2301.09664, Jan. 2023.
[3] H. Bruhn and O. Schaudt. The journey of the union-closed sets conjecture. Graphs Combin.,
31(6):2043–2074, 2015.
5 communicated by Zachary Chase

7
 [4] S. Cambie. Better bounds for the union-closed sets conjecture using the entropy approach. arXiv
e-prints, page arXiv:2212.12500, Dec. 2022.
[5] Z. Chase and S. Lovett. Approximate union closed conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2211.11689, Nov. 2022.
[6] Z. Cui and Z. Hu. Two stronger versions of the union-closed sets conjecture. Adv. Math. (China),
50(6):829–851, 2021.
[7] D. Ellis. Note: a counterexample to a conjecture of Gilmer which would imply the union-closed
conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2211.12401, Nov. 2022.
[8] D. Ellis. Union-closed families with small average overlap densities. Electron. J. Combin.,
29(1):Paper No. 1.11, 5, 2022.
[9] D. Ellis, I. Leader, and M.-R. Ivan. Small Sets in Union-Closed Families. Electron. J. Combin.,
30(1):Paper No. 1.8–, 2023.
[10] J. Gilmer. A constant lower bound for the union-closed sets conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2211.09055, Nov. 2022.
[11] A. Kabela, M. Polák, and J. Teska. The number of abundant elements in union-closed families
without small sets. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2212.09279, Dec. 2022.
[12] V. P. Kostov. On arrangements of real roots of a real polynomial and its derivatives. Serdica
Math. J., 29(1):65–74, 2003.
[13] M. Krein and D. Milman. On extreme points of regular convex sets. Studia Math., 9:133–138,
1940.
[14] J. Liu. Improving the Lower Bound for the Union-closed Sets Conjecture via Conditionally IID
Coupling. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2306.08824, June 2023.
[15] L. Pebody. Extension of a Method of Gilmer. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2211.13139, Nov. 2022.
[16] B. Poonen. Union-closed families. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 59(2):253–268, 1992.
[17] J. Pulaj and K. Wood. Local Configurations in Union-Closed Families. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2301.01331, Jan. 2023.
[18] W. Sawin. An improved lower bound for the union-closed set conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2211.11504, Nov. 2022.
[19] R. Scandone. A proof of the union-closed sets conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2302.03484,
Feb. 2023.
[20] L. Yu. Dimension-Free Bounds for the Union-Closed Sets Conjecture. arXiv e-prints, page
arXiv:2212.00658, Dec. 2022.
[21] R. Yuster. Almost k-union closed set systems. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2302.12276, Feb. 2023.