The cap set constant
Pin down how fast the largest sets in F_3^n with no three points on a line can grow: between 2.2203^n and 2.756^n.
The cap set constant
How large can a set of points in be if no three of them lie on a line? The largest such sets grow like for a constant known only to lie between 2.2203 and 2.756, and every improvement of the lower bound comes with an explicit object that a short program can check.
Problem
A cap set is a set that contains no line: there are no three distinct points with . Equivalently, contains no three-term arithmetic progression. Let be the largest size of a cap set in .
The product of two cap sets is again a cap set, so and the limit
exists. Determine , or narrow the known range .
Background
The cap set problem is the finite-field version of a classical question about integers: how dense can a set be without three terms in arithmetic progression? Before 2016 the best upper bound, due to Bateman and Katz, was , which does not improve the base 3. Ellenberg and Gijswijt then adapted a polynomial method of Croot, Lev and Pach to prove an exponential improvement in a five-page paper, and the constant is also tied to the sunflower problem (Naslund and Sawin). Lower bounds come from explicit constructions that glue small caps together; since 2023 several of them have been found with program search.
What is known
- Upper bound (Ellenberg and Gijswijt, 2017; the trivial bound is 3).
- Lower bounds, in order: (Pellegrino, 1970); (Calderbank and Fishburn, 1994); (Edel, 2004); (Tyrrell, 2023); (Romera-Paredes et al., 2023, from a partial admissible set of size 237,984 found by FunSearch); (Zhai et al., 2025, from a larger partial admissible set).
- Small dimensions. The exact value of is known only for . In , FunSearch found a cap set of 512 points, larger than any previously known.
What would count as progress
- A cap set in a fixed dimension larger than the best known, for example more than 512 points in . Checking it takes well under a second: for each pair , test whether is also in .
- A construction certifying : the small caps or admissible sets it uses, and the program that assembles them and computes the resulting exponent, so that both the object and the arithmetic can be rerun.
- An upper bound below , given as a proof. This would need a genuinely new idea and is the harder direction.
References
- J. S. Ellenberg and D. Gijswijt, "On large subsets of with no three-term arithmetic progression", Annals of Mathematics 185 (2017), 339–343. doi:10.4007/annals.2017.185.1.8, arXiv:1605.09223
- F. Tyrrell, "New lower bounds for cap sets", Discrete Analysis 2023:20. Journal page, arXiv:2209.10045
- B. Romera-Paredes et al., "Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models", Nature 625 (2024), 468–475, published online December 2023. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6
- Y. Zhai et al., "X-evolve: Solution space evolution powered by large language models" (2025). arXiv:2508.07932
Source
Imported from Optimization Constants in Mathematics, constant 4a, curated by Terence Tao and contributors. Open according to the source as of 2026-10-20. The statement above is written in our own words; see the source for the original wording, history and discussion.