format: text

text:
# Sum-free sets in abelian groups

## 1. Introduction and statement of results.

Throughout this paper, $`G`$ will be a finite abelian group of order $`n`$. If $`A`$ is a subset of $`G`$ then we say that $`A`$ is sum-free if there are no solutions to the equation $`x+y=z`$ with $`x,y,zA`$. Almost immediately upon making such a definition two natural questions present themselves:

###### Question 1.1.

How big is the largest sum-free subset of $`G`$?

###### Question 1.2.

How many sum-free subsets of $`G`$ are there?

We write $`\mu (G)`$ for the density of the largest sum-free subset of $`G`$, so that this subset has size $`\mu (G)n`$. We write $`\text{SF}(G)`$ for the set of all sum-free subsets of $`G`$. Observing that all subsets of a sum-free set are themselves sum-free, we have the obvious inequality

$$|\text{SF}(G)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\mu (G)n}.$$

Given this it is natural to introduce the notation

$$\sigma (G)=n^1\mathrm{log}_2|\text{SF}(G)|.$$

Thus $`\sigma (G)\mu (G)`$.
A number of authors have addressed Questions 1.1 and 1.2, and we take the opportunity to survey the best results known.
Interest in Question 1.1 goes back over 30 years. Some straightforward observations get us quite a long way. Firstly note that $`\mu (C_m)\frac{1}{m}\frac{m+1}{3}`$, large sum-free sets being furnished by thinking of $`C_m`$ as $`/m`$ and taking appropriate intervals. It follows that $`\mu (G)2/7`$ whenever $`G`$ is cyclic. In fact the same inequality holds for all finite abelian groups, because $`\mu (G)\mu (G/H)`$ for any quotient $`G/H`$ of $`G`$. Indeed if $`\pi :GG/H`$ is the canonical homomorphism and if $`BG/H`$ is sum-free then so is the induced set $`\pi ^1(B)G`$. This inequality is sharp, since Rhemtulla and Street  proved that $`\mu (C_7^m)=2/7`$ for all $`m`$.
By inducting from cyclic quotients in general one can easily prove the following.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Define a function $`\nu `$ from the set of all finite abelian groups to $`[\frac{2}{7},\frac{1}{2}]`$ as follows:

* If $`n`$ is divisible by a prime $`p2\text{(mod }3\text{)}`$ then $`\nu (G)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3p}`$, where $`p`$ is the smallest such prime;
* If $`n`$ is not divisible by any prime $`p2\text{(mod }3\text{)}`$, but $`3|n`$, then $`\nu (G)=\frac{1}{3}`$;
* If $`n`$ is divisible only by primes $`p1\text{(mod }3\text{)}`$ then $`\nu (G)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{3m}`$, where $`m`$ is the exponent *(*largest order of any element*)* of $`G`$.

Then $`\mu (G)\nu (G)`$.

It is convenient to have names for the three classes into which the finite abelian groups are divided by the above proposition.

###### Definition 1.4.

If $`n`$ is divisible by a prime $`p2(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})`$ then we say that $`G`$ is type I. If $`n`$ is not divisible by any prime $`p2(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, but $`3|n`$, then we say that $`G`$ is type II. Otherwise, $`G`$ is said to be type III.

In the absence of obvious counterexamples it is natural to conjecture (cf. ) that the lower bound of Proposition 1.3 is sharp, that is to say $`\mu (G)=\nu (G)`$. We prove this in the present paper.

###### Theorem 1.5.

We have $`\mu (G)=\nu (G)`$ for all finite abelian groups.

This result has already been proved for type I and type II groups by Diananda and Yap . It has also been proved for various type III groups, specifically groups of the form $`C_{p^2}\times C_p`$ and $`C_{pq}\times C_p`$ by Yap  and elementary $`p`$-groups $`C_p^m`$ by Rhemtulla and Street . Perhaps because of the increasing complexity of the proofs in these special cases, there does not appear to have been any progress on this problem since 1971. We would recommend the paper of Kedlaya as an interesting introduction to this whole area of research.
Moving on to Question 1.2, we remark that research in this direction was motivated by a conjecture of Cameron and Erdős, now a theorem of the first author .

###### Proposition 1.6.

The number of sum-free subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is $`O(2^{n/2})`$.

An independent proof of this result was found somewhat later by A. Sapozhenko . Recently there has been progress on bounds for $`|\text{SF}(G)|`$ for various abelian groups. In the case $`2|n`$ an asymptotic was found by Lev, Łuczak and Schoen  and independently by Sapozhenko :

###### Proposition 1.7 (Lev-Łuczak-Schoen, Sapozhenko).

There is an absolute constant $`c>0`$ such that

$$|\text{SF}(G)|=(2^{\tau (G)}1)2^{n/2}+O(2^{(1/2c)n}),$$

where $`\tau (G)`$ is the number of even order components in the canonical decomposition of $`G`$ into a direct sum of cyclic groups.

Lev, Łuczak and Schoen remark that they could take $`c=10^8`$, whilst Sapozhenko obtains the somewhat superior value $`c=0.017`$. Even in the case $`\tau (G)`$ odd the bound of Proposition 1.7, whilst not giving an exact asymptotic, is decidedly non-trivial.
The present authors , improving on a result of Lev and Schoen , found that when $`p`$ is a prime one has

$$\sigma (C_p)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/3+o(1).$$

Given these results one might conjecture that $`\sigma (G)=\mu (G)+o(1)`$ for all $`G`$ (where $`o(1)`$ denotes a quantity that tends to zero as $`n=|G|\mathrm{}`$). This turns out to be the case, and is the second main result of our paper.

###### Theorem 1.8.

We have $`\sigma (G)=\mu (G)+O\left((\mathrm{log}n)^{1/45}\right)`$.

For certain groups we are able to cast more light on the structure of a typical sum-free subset of $`G`$, and this leads to asymptotic bounds for $`|\text{SF}(G)|`$ rather than just for its logarithm. Let $`p=3k+2`$ be a prime. We say that $`G`$ is type I($`p`$) if it is type I and if $`p`$ is the least prime factor of $`n`$ of the form $`3k+2`$.

###### Theorem 1.9.

Suppose that $`G`$ is type I($`p`$). Then

$$|\text{SF}(G)|=W\mathrm{\#}\{\text{elements of order }p\}2^{\mu (G)n}(1+o_p(1)),$$

where $`W=1`$ if $`p=2`$ and $`W=1/2`$ otherwise.

Observe that this does indeed generalise Proposition 1.7.

## 2. An outline of the paper.

Ostensibly our paper contains two main strands: the determination of $`\mu (G)`$, the density of the largest sum-free subset of $`G`$, and the estimation of $`\sigma (G)`$. However, our strategy for counting sum-free sets means that these two strands are necessarily somewhat interlinked.
Let us begin by saying a few words about this strategy. The main idea is to define, for any finite abelian group $`G`$, a certain family $``$ of subsets of $`G`$. If $`BG`$ is a set then we say that $`(x,y,z)B^3`$ is a Schur triple if $`x+y=z`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

There is a family $``$ of subsets of $`G`$ with the following properties:

1. $`\mathrm{log}_2||=o(n)`$;
2. Every $`A\text{SF(}\text{G}\text{)}`$ is contained in some $`F`$;
3. If $`F`$ then $`F`$ is *almost sum-free*, meaning that $`F`$ has $`o(n^2)`$ Schur triples.

Proposition 2.1 will be proved in §3. For the reader interested only in $`\mu (G)`$, this section can be completely ignored.
In the later sections of the paper we will show that if $`F`$ is almost sum-free then $`|F|`$ cannot be much larger than $`\mu (G)n`$, the size of the largest sum-free set. This result is, perhaps, sufficiently important to be stated as a separate proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Suppose that a set $`FG`$ has $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples. Then

$$|F|\left(\mu (G)+2^{20}\delta ^{1/5}\right)n.$$

This estimate, along with Proposition 2.1, immediately implies Theorem 1.8. Indeed, associate to each $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ some $`F`$ for which $`AF`$. For a given $`F`$, the number of $`A`$ which can arise in this way is at most $`2^{|F|}`$. Thus we have the bound

$$|\text{SF}(G)|\underset{F}{}2^{|F|}||\underset{F}{\mathrm{max}}2^{|F|}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{(\mu (G)+o(1))n}.$$

For groups of type I($`p`$) we will prove what amount to rough structure theorems for sets $`F`$ with size close to the maximal size $`(\mu (G)+o(1))n`$. This leads, by arguments similar to the above, to more precise counting results such as Theorem 1.9.
We will prove Proposition 2.2 using two slightly different arguments, one for groups of type I or II and the other for groups of type III. It would be natural to try and show that if $`FG`$ has $`o(n^2)`$ Schur triples then one may find a genuinely sum-free set $`SF`$ with $`|S||F|o(n)`$. Such a result is true, and is addressed in a preprint of the first-named author . However, the issues involved are rather complicated and the dependence between the $`o(n^2)`$ and the $`o(n)`$ coming from this approach seems to be extremely bad, certainly not as good as in Proposition 2.2.
When $`|F|>n/3`$ one can prove such an assertion by using an argument due to Lev, Łuczak and Schoen. We discuss this in §4, which is another part of the paper which the reader interested only in $`\mu (G)`$ may safely ignore.
In §7 we deal with groups of type III. Fortunately, our argument for determining $`\mu (G)`$ in this case is robust enough that it can be tweaked so as to cover almost sum-free sets as well. That is, we will show in a single argument that an almost sum-free subset of a type III group $`G`$ has cardinality at most $`(\nu (G)+o(1))n`$. Unfortunately, the method we use for showing that $`\mu (G)=\nu (G)`$ in this case is already rather unwieldly and the need to consider almost sum-free sets makes things look even more complicated.
Let us conclude this section with some notation. Write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the group of characters on $`G`$. If $`f:G`$ is a function then we define the Fourier transform of $`f`$ at $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the formula

$$\widehat{f}(\gamma )=\underset{xG}{}f(x)\gamma (x).$$

If $`AG`$ then we will abuse notation by identifying $`A`$ with its characteristic function, allowing ourselves to talk, for example, of $`\widehat{A}(\gamma )`$. If $`A,BG`$ then we write $`r(A,B,x)`$ for the number of pairs $`(a,b)A\times B`$ with $`a+b=x`$.

## 3. Granular structure in groups.

This section contains a proof of Proposition 2.1, which is our main tool for counting sum-free sets. Let us remind ourselves of the statement of this proposition. In fact, the following is a rather more precise formulation than the earlier one:
Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$  *Let $`n`$ be sufficiently large. Then there is a family $``$ of subsets of $`G`$ with the following properties:*

1. $`\mathrm{log}_2||n(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/18}`$*;*
2. *Every* $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ is contained in some $`F`$;
3. *If* $`F`$ then $`F`$ is *almost sum-free*, meaning that $`F`$ has at most $`n^2(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/9}`$ Schur triples.

Very roughly, the key idea will be to take a set $`AG`$ and use it to construct a new set $`A^{}`$ which is much coarser that $`A`$ (being a collection of fairly large “grains”) but which nonetheless contains fairly detailed information about the sumset $`A+A:=\{a_1+a_2:a_1,a_2A\}`$.
There are two types of granular structure that we will consider. One is quite simple: if $`L`$ is an integer we say that a set is $`L`$-granular of coset type if it is a union of cosets of some subgroup $`G_1G`$ having size at least $`L`$. The other type of granularity is necessary for groups which do not possess many subgroups. Let $`L`$ be an integer and $`dG`$ be an element of order $`mL`$. Partition $`G`$ as follows. We take each coset of the subgroup generated by $`d`$, split it into $`m/L`$ sets of type $`x,x+d,\mathrm{},x+(L1)d`$ and one set of size less than $`L`$. There are many ways to do this, and we fix one of them for each $`d`$. A set which is the union of “grains” like this is called $`L`$-granular of progression type (note that the “leftover” sets of size less than $`L`$ are not counted as grains).

###### Lemma 3.1 (Granularization).

Let $`AG`$ be a sum-free set and let $`ϵ(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ be a real number. Let $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ be positive integers satisfying

$$n>L^{}(10L/ϵ)^{2^{34}ϵ^8}.$$
(3.1)
Then there is another set $`A^{}`$, *(*the*)* granularization of $`A`$, such that:

1. $`A^{}`$ is either $`L`$-granular of progression type, or else $`L^{}`$-granular of coset type;
2. $`|AA^{}|ϵn/4`$;
3. $`A^{}`$ has at most $`ϵn^2/4`$ Schur triples.

Proof. We will define a certain set $`P`$, which in turn will be used to define $`A^{}`$. We will also consider the function $`g:\mathrm{\Gamma }[1,1]`$ defined by

$$g(\gamma )=\frac{1}{|P|}\underset{bP}{}\gamma (b).$$

This is a normalised version of the Fourier transform $`\widehat{P}(\gamma )`$. The set $`P`$ will either be a subgroup $`G_1`$ of size $`|G_1|L^{}`$, or will be of the form

$$P=\{(L1)d,(L2)d,\mathrm{},(L1)d\},$$

where $`dG`$ and $`\text{ord}(d)>2L`$. These two cases will correspond to the two types of granular structure. Taking $`\delta =2^{16}ϵ^4`$, we will find a set $`P`$ of the above form so that

$$\left|\widehat{A}(\gamma )\left(1g(\gamma )\right)\right|\delta n$$
(3.2)
for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The function $`g`$, and particularly (3.2), will be used to prove property (iii).
Let us now define $`A^{}`$. If $`P=G_1`$, a subgroup, we let $`A^{}`$ be the union of those cosets of $`P`$ that contain at least $`ϵ|P|/4`$ elements of $`A`$. Properties (i) and (ii) are clear in this case. If $`P=\{(L1)d,\mathrm{},(L1)d\}`$ is an arithmetic progression, with difference $`d`$ having order $`m`$, then we consider the $`L`$-granular structure of progression type with common difference $`d`$. Let $`A^{}`$ be the union of those grains that contain at least $`ϵL/8`$ elements of $`A`$. Now $`AA^{}`$ contains at most $`ϵL/8`$ elements from each grain, making no more than $`ϵn/8`$ in total, plus at most $`L`$ elements from each of the $`n/m`$ “leftover” sets. Hence we have

$$|AA^{}|ϵn/8+nL/mϵn/4,$$

provided that

$$m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}L/ϵ.$$
(3.3)
To establish property (iii) we consider an auxillary function $`a_1`$ defined by

$$a_1(x)=|A(P+x)|/|P|.$$

This is extremely natural since the Fourier transform of $`a_1`$ is just $`\widehat{A}g`$. Therefore we have, since $`A`$ is sum-free,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x+y=z}{}}a_1(x)a_1(y)a_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x+y=z}{}}\left(a_1(x)a_1(y)a_1(z)A(x)A(y)A(z)\right)`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`n^1{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\left(|\widehat{a}_1(\gamma )|^2\widehat{a}_1(\gamma )|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|^2\widehat{A}(\gamma )\right)`$
$`=`$ $`n^1{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|^2\widehat{A}(\gamma )\left(1|g(\gamma )|^2g(\gamma )\right)`$
$``$ $`n^1\underset{\gamma }{\mathrm{max}}\left|\widehat{A}(\gamma )\right|\left|1|g(\gamma )|^2g(\gamma )\right|{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}\left|\widehat{A}(\gamma )\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`|A|\underset{\gamma }{\mathrm{max}}\left|\widehat{A}(\gamma )\right|\left|1g(\gamma )^3\right|`$
$``$ $`3|A|\underset{\gamma }{\mathrm{max}}|\widehat{A}(\gamma )||1g(\gamma )|`$
$``$ $`3\delta n^2,`$
where the last two derivations use Parseval’s identity and (3.2) respectively. Now consider an element $`xA^{}`$. If $`P`$ is a subgroup then $`x+P`$ contains at least $`ϵ|P|/4`$ elements of $`A`$. When $`P`$ is a progression $`P+x`$ contains the grain of $`A^{}`$ to which $`x`$ belongs and hence at least $`ϵ|P|/16`$ elements of $`A`$. In both cases $`a_1(x)`$ is at least $`ϵ/16`$, and so $`a_1(x)ϵA^{}(x)/16`$ for all values of $`x`$. Thus, from (3.4), we see that

number of Schur triples in $`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x+y=z}{}}A^{}(x)A^{}(y)A^{}(z)`$ (3.5)
$``$ $`2^{14}ϵ^3\delta n^2`$
$``$ $`ϵn^2/4.`$
This completes the proof of property (iii).
It remains to show that there is a set $`P`$ such that (3.2) holds. We also need (3.3) to hold if $`P`$ is a progression. Since $`g(1)=1`$ and $`g(\gamma )[1,1]`$ for all $`\gamma `$, (3.2) automatically holds for $`\gamma =1`$ and for those $`\gamma `$ that satisfy $`|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|\delta n/2`$. Let $`R`$ be the set of all $`\gamma 1`$ for which $`|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|>\delta n/2`$. We need to construct the set $`P`$ so that (3.2) holds for $`\gamma R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ be the subgroup generated by $`R`$ and let $`G_1`$ be the annihilator of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. If $`|G_1|L^{}`$, we put $`P=G_1`$. In this case $`g`$ is a very simple function; indeed $`g(\gamma )=1`$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ (and it is 0 otherwise), so (3.2) is immediate. Assume then that $`|G_1|<L^{}`$. In order to find a suitable $`d`$ we reformulate condition (3.2) in terms of the quantities $`\mathrm{arg}\gamma (d)`$. Consider a general $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and write $`\mathrm{arg}\gamma (d)=\beta [\pi ,\pi )`$. We have

$$1g(\gamma )=\frac{2}{2L1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{L1}{}}(1\mathrm{cos}j\beta )\frac{1}{2L1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{L1}{}}(j\beta )^2=\frac{L(L1)}{6}\beta ^2(L\beta )^2/6.$$

Hence a sufficient condition for (3.2) to hold is that

$$|\mathrm{arg}\gamma (d)|\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{\frac{6\delta n}{|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|}}$$
(3.6)
for all $`\gamma R`$. We also need (3.3) to hold. To achieve this we request that $`dG_1`$ (so that $`\gamma (d)1`$ for at least one $`\gamma R`$) and strengthen condition (3.6) to

$$|\mathrm{arg}\gamma (d)|\frac{1}{L}\mathrm{min}(\frac{ϵ\pi }{4},\sqrt{\frac{6\delta n}{|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|}}).$$
(3.7)
It follows by a standard application of the pigeonhole principle that we can find a $`dG/G_1`$ satisfying $`d1`$ and $`|\mathrm{arg}\gamma (d)|<\eta _\gamma `$ for prescribed positive numbers $`\eta _\gamma `$ if

$$|G/G_1|>\underset{\gamma R}{}\left(1+2\pi /\eta _\gamma \right).$$
(3.8)
With $`\eta _\gamma `$ given by the right-hand side of equation (3.7) we estimate the right-hand side of (3.8) from above as follows. It is at most

$$\underset{\gamma R}{}\left(1+8L\mathrm{max}(\frac{1}{ϵ},\sqrt{\frac{|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|}{\delta n}})\right),$$

which in turn is no more than

$$(10L)^{|R|}\underset{\gamma R}{}\mathrm{max}(\frac{1}{ϵ},\sqrt{\frac{|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|}{\delta n}}).$$

To estimate this product we apply the following simple calculus lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ be real numbers satisfying $`x_i1`$ and $`x_iK`$, and assume $`\tau e^{1/e}`$. Then we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{max}(\tau ,x_i)\tau ^K.$$

Proof. For $`x1`$ and $`\tau e^{1/e}`$ we have $`\mathrm{max}(\tau ,x)\tau ^x`$ by calculus.
Taking $`\tau =ϵ^4`$ and $`x_\gamma =\left|\widehat{A}(\gamma )\right|^2\delta ^2n^2`$, we see using Parseval’s identity that a suitable value of $`K`$ is $`\delta ^2`$. Thus we have

$$\underset{\gamma R}{}\mathrm{max}(\frac{1}{ϵ},\sqrt{\frac{|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|}{\delta n}})ϵ^{\delta ^2}.$$

Furthermore another application of Parseval’s identity gives $`|R|4\delta ^2`$, and so the right-hand side of (3.8) is at most $`(10L/ϵ)^{4\delta ^2}`$. The left-hand side, however, is at least $`n/L^{}`$ and so the condition (3.1) implies that (3.8) holds, and therefore that an element $`d`$ with the required properties can be found. This completes the proof of Lemma 3.1.
It is a short step from Lemma 3.1 to Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$, which is the main result of this section. We prepare the ground with two very simple lemmas.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Suppose that $`n`$ is larger than some absolute constant and that $`L\sqrt{n}`$. Then the number of subsets of $`G`$ which are $`L`$-granular *(*of either coset or progression type*)* is at most $`2^{3n/L}`$.

Proof. The number of subgroups of $`G`$ is at most $`2^{(\mathrm{log}_2n)^2}`$, since any subgroup may be generated by at most $`\mathrm{log}_2n`$ elements. Thus the number of $`L`$-granular sets of coset type is at most $`2^{(\mathrm{log}_2n)^2+n/L}`$. Any $`L`$-granular set of progression type is associated with a partition of $`G`$ into at most $`n/L`$ grains, arising from the selection of an element $`dG`$ of order at least $`L`$. The number of such sets is thus at most $`n2^{n/L}`$. A short computation confirms the result.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Suppose that $`\rho `$ is smaller than some absolute positive constant, and that $`n`$ is sufficiently large. Then the number of subsets of an $`n`$-element set of cardinality at most $`\rho n`$ is no more than $`2^{n\sqrt{\rho }}`$.

Proof. If $`\rho <1/n`$ the result is trivial, so suppose this is not the case. The number in question is just $`S=_{k\rho n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$, which is certainly at most $`n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{\rho n}\right)`$ if $`\rho <1/2`$. Using the well-known inequality $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)(en/k)^k`$, we see that

$$S\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\rho \mathrm{log}_2(e/\rho )n+\mathrm{log}_2n}.$$

Clearly $`\rho \mathrm{log}_2(e/\rho )\sqrt{\rho }/2`$ for $`\rho `$ sufficiently small, and furthermore the fact that $`\rho 1/n`$ guarantees that $`\mathrm{log}_2n\frac{1}{2}n\sqrt{\rho }`$. This completes the proof.
Now set $`L=L^{}=\mathrm{log}n`$ and $`ϵ=(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/9}`$. One can easily check that, provided $`n`$ is sufficiently large, the condition (3.1) is satisfied. Thus we may apply Lemma 3.1 with these values of $`L,L^{}`$ and $`ϵ`$.
Now for each $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ fix a set $`A^{}`$ (the existence of which is guaranteed by Lemma 3.1) and let $``$ consist of all sets $`AA^{}`$, for all $`A\text{SF}(G)`$. Then property (ii) of Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$ is immediate from the construction of $``$. To prove (iii), observe that $`F=AA^{}`$ can be obtained from $`A^{}`$ by adding at most $`ϵn/4`$ elements of $`A`$. However the addition of a new $`xG`$ to some set $`B`$ cannot create more than $`3n`$ new Schur triples, and so any $`F`$ has at most $`ϵn^2`$ Schur triples. Finally, observe that by Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4 we have

$$\mathrm{log}_2||\frac{3n}{L}+\frac{n\sqrt{ϵ}}{2}n\sqrt{ϵ}=n(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/18}.$$

This concludes the proof of Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$.

## 4. A lemma of Lev, Łuczak and Schoen.

In this section we apply a result of Lev, Łuczak and Schoen  to show that if $`FG`$ is suitably large and almost sum-free then $`F`$ has a large subset which is genuinely sum-free. The precise statment of this is given in Lemma 4.2 below, but first we set up a piece of notation and recall a result from . If $`XG`$ we write $`D=D_K(X)`$ for the set of $`K`$-popular differences of $`X`$, that is the set of all $`dG`$ which have at least $`K`$ different representations as $`x_1x_2`$, $`x_1,x_2X`$. As usual, write $`XX:=\{x_1x_2:x_1,x_2X\}`$.

###### Proposition 4.1 (, Proposition 1).

With notation as above, suppose that $`|D_K(X)|2|X|5\sqrt{K|XX|}`$. Then there is a subset $`X^{}X`$ such that $`|XX^{}|\sqrt{K|XX|}`$ and $`X^{}X^{}D_K(X)`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`ϵ>0`$. Suppose that $`FG`$ has cardinality at least $`(1/3+ϵ)n`$, and that $`F`$ has at most $`ϵ^3n^2/27`$ Schur triples. Then there is a set $`SF`$ with cardinality $`|S||F|ϵn`$ and which is sum-free.

Proof. Set $`N=ϵ^3n^2/27`$. If $`N^2n`$ then $`Nϵn`$, and so we may simply remove an arbitrary element from each Schur triple to get our set $`S`$. Suppose then that $`N^2>n`$, and set $`K=N^{2/3}n^{1/3}`$. Observe that

$$N|D_K(F)F|K,$$
(4.1)
since otherwise $`F`$ would have more than $`N`$ Schur triples. It follows that

$$\frac{N}{K}|D_K(F)F||D_K(F)|+|F|n.$$

Therefore

$$|D_K(F)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|F|3ϵn+\frac{N}{K}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|F|5\sqrt{Kn}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|F|5\sqrt{K|FF|},$$

the second inequality being a consequence of

$$\frac{N}{K}+5\sqrt{Kn}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}9}(Nn)^{1/3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}ϵn.$$

By Proposition 4.1 there exists $`F^{}F`$ such that $`|F^{}||F|\sqrt{Kn}`$ and $`F^{}F^{}D_K(F)`$. The set $`S=F^{}(F^{}F^{})`$ is clearly sum-free, and it is a subset of $`F`$. Moreover (4.1) implies that

$$|F^{}(F^{}F^{})||FD_K(F)|\frac{N}{K}$$

and so we have the bound

$$|S||F^{}|\frac{N}{K}|F|\left(\frac{N}{K}+\sqrt{Kn}\right)>|F|3(Nn)^{1/3}=|F|ϵn.$$

This concludes the proof of the lemma.
The following corollary is a step in the direction of Proposition 2.2.

###### Corollary 4.3.

Suppose that $`FG`$ has $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples. Then

$$|F|\left(\mathrm{max}(\frac{1}{3},\mu (G))+3\delta ^{1/3}\right)n.$$

Proof. Set $`ϵ=3\delta ^{1/3}`$ in Lemma 4.2.

## 5. Groups of type I and II.

In this section we prove Theorems 1.5 and 1.8 for groups of types I and II (the reader may wish to recall Definition 1.4, in which these terms are defined), as well as Theorem 1.9 (which applies to groups of type I($`p`$)).
Theorem 1.5 for groups of type I and II was established by Diananda and Yap, but we include a proof here for completeness (the reader may also wish to consult , which gives a comprehensive discussion of the state-of-the-art in 1972). A crucial ingredient is the following theorem of Kneser :

###### Proposition 5.1 (Kneser).

Let $`G`$ be a finite abelian group, and suppose that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are subsets of $`G`$ with $`|A+B||A|+|B|X`$ for some positive integer $`X`$. Then $`A+B`$ is the union of cosets of some subgroup $`HG`$ with cardinality at least $`X`$.

We apply this to sum-free sets through the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`AG`$ be sum-free, let $`r>0`$, and suppose that $`|A|n/3+r`$. Then there is a subgroup $`HG`$, $`|H|3r`$, and a sum-free set $`BG/H`$ such that $`A`$ is contained in $`\pi ^1(B)`$, where $`\pi :GG/H`$ is the canonical homomorphism.

Proof. Since $`A`$ is sum-free, we have

$$|A+A|n|A|\frac{2n}{3}r\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|A|3r.$$

Applying Kneser’s theorem, we see that $`A+A`$ is a union of $`H`$-cosets, for some subgroup $`HG`$ with $`|H|3r`$. Let $`B=\pi (A)`$. To see that $`B`$ is sum-free, suppose that there are $`x,y`$ and $`zB`$ with $`x+y=z`$. By picking $`h,h^{}`$ so that $`h+x`$ and $`h^{}+y`$ both lie in $`A`$, one sees that $`(A+A)(H+z)\mathrm{}`$. However, $`A+A`$ is a union of $`H`$-cosets and therefore $`A+A`$ must contain all of $`H+z`$. Thus it must intersect $`A`$, which is contrary to the assumption that $`A`$ is sum-free.

###### Proposition 5.3 (Diananda–Yap).

We have $`\mu (G)\mathrm{max}(\nu (G),1/3)`$. In particular, Theorem 1.5 holds for groups of type I and II.

Proof. We use induction on $`n=|G|`$. Observe that the function $`\nu `$, as defined in Proposition 1.3, has the property that $`\nu (G)\nu (G/H)`$ for any group $`G`$ and any $`HG`$. Now suppose that $`AG`$ is sum-free and that $`|A|>\mathrm{max}(\nu (G),1/3)n`$. Then $`|A|>(n+1)/3`$, so by Lemma 5.2 there is a non-trivial subgroup $`HG`$ and a sum-free set $`BG/H`$ such that $`A\pi ^1(B)`$. Hence, using the induction hypothesis, we have

$$|A|\mu (G/H)n\mathrm{max}(\nu (G/H),1/3)n\mathrm{max}(\nu (G),1/3)n,$$

a contradiction. Thus if $`G`$ is type I or II then $`|A|\nu (G)n`$ which, by the constructions described prior to Proposition 1.3, implies that $`|A|=\nu (G)n`$.
Now that we know $`\mu (G)`$ for groups of type I and II, we can allow ourselves to move on to estimates for $`|\text{SF}(G)|`$.

###### Lemma 5.4.

Proposition 2.2 holds for groups of type I and II. That is, if $`G`$ is type I or II and if $`AG`$ has $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples then $`|A|\left(\mu (G)+2^{20}\delta ^{1/5}\right)n`$.

Proof. For these groups we have $`\mu (G)1/3`$, and so the result (in fact, a rather stronger result) is immediate from Corollary 4.3.
We have already sketched, in §2, how this result is relevant to Theorem 1.8.

###### Proposition 5.5.

Theorem 1.8 holds for groups of type I and II. That is, if $`G`$ is type I or II then we have $`\sigma (G)=\mu (G)+O\left((\mathrm{log}n)^{1/45}\right)`$.

Proof. Consider the family $``$ of “almost sum-free” sets constructed in Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$. Since every $`F`$ has no more than $`n^2(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/9}`$ Schur triples we can infer from Lemma 5.4 that any such $`F`$ has cardinality at most

$$\mu (G)n+O(n(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/45}).$$

Recalling that $`\mathrm{log}_2||n(\mathrm{log}n)^{1/18}`$ and that every $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ is contained in some $`F`$, the required estimate follows immediately.
We will prove the same result for type III groups later on, and this will complete the proof of Theorem 1.8. For now, however, we complete our treatment of type I and II groups by obtaining Theorem 1.9, an asymptotic result for type I($`p`$) groups.
The next lemma gives more detailed information about large sum-free subsets of type I($`p`$) groups.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Suppose that $`G`$ is type I*(*$`p`$*)* and write $`p=3k+2`$. Let $`AG`$ be sum-free, and suppose that $`|A|>\left(\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3(p+1)}\right)n`$. Then we may find a homomorphism $`\psi :G/p`$ such that $`A`$ is contained in $`\psi ^1(\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\})`$.

Proof. By Lemma 5.2 we know that there is a subgroup $`H`$, $`|G/H|p+1`$, such that $`A`$ is contained in $`\pi ^1(B)`$, where $`\pi :GG/H`$ is the canonical homomorphism and $`B`$ is a sum-free subset of $`G/H`$. We claim that $`G/H/p`$. Indeed of all the possible quotients $`G/H`$ with $`|G/H|p+1`$, only the ones isomorphic to $`/p`$ are of type I. For all the others, $`A`$ would (by Proposition 5.3) have cardinality no more than $`n/3`$, which is contrary to assumption.
We must also have $`|B|=k+1`$. To classify the sum-free subsets of $`/p`$ having cardinality $`k+1`$, one can apply Vosper’s theorem  detailing the cases for which equality holds in the Cauchy-Davenport inequality. Indeed we have

$$|B+B|p|B|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}|B|1,$$

and so Vosper’s result guarantees that $`B`$ is an arithmetic progression of length $`k+1`$. It is easy to check that $`B`$, being sum-free, must be a dilate of $`\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\}`$.

###### Lemma 5.7.

Let $`G`$ be type I*(*$`p`$*)* and write $`p=3k+2`$. With $`o_p(2^{\mu (G)n})`$ exceptions, all sum-free $`AG`$ are described as follows. Take a homomorphism $`\psi :G/p`$, and take $`A`$ to be a subset of $`\psi ^1(\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\})`$ together with $`o_p(n)`$ further elements.

Proof. Recall that $`\mu (G)=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3p}`$. Set $`\delta =1/6p^2`$. Let us look once again at the family $``$ constructed in Proposition $`\text{2.1}^{}`$. For each $`F`$, consider the collection of sum-free $`A`$ contained in $`F`$. The number of $`A`$ arising from any particular $`F`$ satisfying $`|F|(\mu (G)\delta )n`$ is $`o_p(2^{\mu (G)}n)`$, and hence so is the number of sets $`A`$ arising from *all* such $`F`$. If $`|F|(\mu (G)\delta )n`$ then we may, by Lemma 4.2, find a sum-free set $`SF`$ with $`|S|=|F|o_p(n)`$. Lemma 5.6 then tells us that $`S`$ is contained in $`\psi ^1(\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\})`$ for some suitable homomorphism $`\psi :G/p`$. The lemma follows immediately.

###### Lemma 5.8.

Let $`G`$ be type I*(*$`p`$*)* with $`p=3k+2`$. With $`o_p(2^{\mu (G)n})`$ exceptions, all sum-free $`AG`$ are described as follows. Take a homomorphism $`\psi :G/p`$, and take $`A`$ to be a subset of $`\psi ^1(\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\})`$.

Proof. For brevity write $`M_k=\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k+1\}`$, considered as a subset of $`/p`$. By the last lemma, it suffices to look at sum-free sets which are “almost” induced from $`/p`$, being a subset of some $`\psi ^1M_k`$ together with $`o_p(n)`$ elements. Let $`H=\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, so that with the exception of $`o_p(n)`$ elements $`A`$ is contained in $`(H+k+1)\mathrm{}(H+2k+1)`$. Fix $`iM_k`$ and $`xH+i`$ and count the number of $`A`$ containing $`x`$. Observe that any such $`i`$ can be written as $`y\pm z`$ for some distinct $`y,zM_k`$. Split $`(H+y)(H+z)`$ into $`|H|`$ pairs $`(s,t)`$ with $`s\pm t=x`$. In each of these pairs at most one element can lie in $`A`$, giving at most $`3^{|H|}`$ possibilities for $`A((H+y)(H+z))`$. There are at most $`2^{(k1)|H|}`$ possibilities for $`A_{jM_k\{y,z\}}(H+j)`$ and $`2^{o_p(n)}`$ choices for $`A_{jM_k}(H+j)`$. This means that the number of $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ containing $`x`$ does not exceed

$$3^{|H|}2^{(k1)|H|+o_p(n)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{n(k1+\mathrm{log}_23+o_p(1))/p}.$$

However, since $`\mu (G)=(k+1)/p`$, we have

$$\frac{n}{p}(k1+\mathrm{log}_23+o_p(1))<(\mu (G)\frac{1}{10p})n.$$

Summing over $`i`$ and $`x`$ confirms the lemma.
Proof of Theorem 1.9. We now know that most sum-free sets are contained in $`\psi ^1(M_k)`$ for some non-zero homomorphism $`\psi :G/p`$. We need to understand sum-free sets $`A`$ which arise in this way from two distinct homomorphisms $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$. Observe that $`\psi _i^1(M_k)`$ is a union of $`k+1`$ cosets of $`\mathrm{ker}\psi _i`$. If $`\mathrm{ker}\psi _1\mathrm{ker}\psi _2`$ then $`\psi _1^1(M_k)\psi _2^1(M_k)`$ has cardinality $`(k+1)^2n/p^2`$. The number of $`A`$ which are contained in such an object is certainly $`o_p(2^{\mu (G)n})`$, since the number of choices for $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ is at most $`n^2=2^{o_p(n)}`$. If $`\mathrm{ker}\psi _1=\mathrm{ker}\psi _2`$ then either $`\psi _1^1(M_k)=\psi _2^1(M_k)`$ or $`|\psi _1^1(M_k)\psi _2^1(M_k)|kn/p`$. In the latter case there are again $`o_p(2^{\mu (G)n})`$ possibilities for $`A`$. In the former case $`\psi _1\psi _2^1`$ defines an isomorphism from $`/p`$ to itself which preserves $`M_k`$. If $`p=2`$ such an isomorphism must be the identity, but if $`p5`$ there are two such maps, the other being $`xx`$.
Thus almost all $`A\text{SF}(G)`$ arise from just one equivalence class of homomorphisms $`\psi `$ in the manner detailed by Lemma 5.8, where we say that $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are equivalent if either $`\psi _1=\psi _2`$ or $`\psi _1=\psi _2`$. It follows that

$$|\text{SF}(G)|=W\mathrm{\#}\{\text{non-zero homomorphisms }\psi :G/p\}2^{\mu (G)n}(1+o_p(1)),$$

where $`W=1`$ if $`p=2`$ and $`W=1/2`$ if $`p5`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.9. Indeed, the number of non-trivial homomorphisms from $`G`$ to $`/p`$ equals the number of non-trivial homomorphisms from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the multiplicative group of complex $`p`$th roots of unity, which is the number of elements of $`G`$ of order $`p`$.

## 6. A Pollard-Kneser result.

In this section we prove a result, Proposition 6.1, which is necessary for parts of §7. The reader who is only interested in $`\mu (G)`$, and not in counting sum-free sets, may ignore this section. The result generalises (a weak version of) Kneser’s theorem and a theorem of Pollard . It is of interest in its own right, and furthermore is a fairly simple modification of well-known results. Nonetheless, we have not been able to find a reference for it.
Given a finite abelian group $`G`$ define $`D(G)`$ to be the size of the largest proper subgroup of $`G`$. We will often refer to this as the defect of $`G`$.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Write $`D=D(G)`$. Suppose that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are subsets of $`G`$ with cardinalities $`k`$ and $`l`$ respectively, and suppose that $`t\mathrm{min}(k,l)`$ is a non-negative integer. Then

$$\underset{x}{}\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))t\mathrm{min}(n,k+lDt).$$

Proof. Suppose without loss of generality that $`lk`$. Writing $`S(l)`$ for the statement that the theorem holds for a given value of $`l`$ and all $`kl`$, we proceed by induction on $`l`$. To check the base case $`S(1)`$ observe that the theorem is always true when $`t=l`$. Indeed we always have $`r(A,B,x)l`$, and so

$$\underset{x}{}\mathrm{min}(l,r(A,B,x))=\underset{x}{}r(A,B,x)=kl.$$

Suppose then that $`l2`$, and that $`S(l^{})`$ whenever $`l^{}<l`$. If $`k+lDt>n`$ then, by the pigeonhole principle, we have $`r(A,B,x)D+tt`$ for all $`x`$. Thus $`_x\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))=tn`$, so that the result is true in this case too. Suppose then that $`k+lDtn`$. By translating $`B`$ if necessary we may assume that $`0B`$. We now distinguish two further cases.
Case 1: $`A+B=A`$. Then $`A`$ is a union of cosets of some subgroup $`HG`$ which contains $`B`$, and so $`Dl`$. Furthermore each element of $`A+B`$ is represented exactly $`l`$ times: therefore $`r(A,B,x)t`$ for all $`xA+B`$, and it follows that

$$\underset{x}{}\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))=|A+B|t=ktt(k+lDt),$$

confirming the theorem in this case. Observe that this case is the only important difference between general groups and groups of prime order.
Case 2: $`A+BA`$. Choose elements $`aA,bB`$ with $`a+bA`$. Replacing $`A`$ with $`Aa`$ we may now assume that $`0A`$ and that $`BA`$. Write $`U=AB`$ and $`I=AB`$, and observe that $`0<|I|<l`$. Finally set $`A^{}=AI`$ and $`B^{}=BI`$. We have

$$r(A,B,x)=r(U,I,x)+r(A^{},B^{},x).$$
(6.1)
If $`1t|I|`$ then the theorem follows immediately, since by (6.1) and the induction hypothesis

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(t,r(U,I,x))`$
$``$ $`t\mathrm{min}(n,|A|+|B|Dt).`$
In the remaining case, $`|I|<t<l`$, write $`t^{}=t|I|`$, $`k^{}=|A^{}|`$ and $`l^{}=|B^{}|`$. It is a simple matter to check that $`l^{}<l`$, that $`1t^{}l^{}`$ and that $`k^{}+l^{}Dt^{}n`$. Hence we may apply the induction hypothesis and the evident inequality $`\mathrm{min}(\alpha +\beta ,\gamma +\delta )\mathrm{min}(\alpha ,\gamma )+\mathrm{min}(\beta ,\delta )`$ to get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(|I|,r(U,I,x))+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(t^{},r(A^{},B^{},x))`$
$`=`$ $`|U||I|+{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{min}(t^{},r(A^{},B^{},x))`$
$``$ $`|U||I|+t^{}(k^{}+l^{}Dt^{})`$
$`=`$ $`t(k+lDt)+|I|D.`$
This is visibly larger than $`t\mathrm{min}(n,k+lDt)`$, so the induction goes through and the theorem is proved.
We will only ever use the following straightforward corollary of Proposition 6.1. If $`A,BG`$ and $`K`$ is a positive real number write $`S_K(A,B)=\{x:r(A,B,x)K\}`$ for the set of $`K`$-popular sums in $`A+B`$.

###### Corollary 6.2.

Write $`D=D(G)`$. Suppose that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are subsets of $`G`$ with cardinalities $`k`$ and $`l`$ respectively, and let $`K>0`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{min}(k,l)\sqrt{Kn}`$. Then

$$|S_K(A,B)|\mathrm{min}(n,k+lD)3\sqrt{Kn}.$$

Proof. If $`K1`$ the result is immediate from Kneser’s theorem. Otherwise, for $`t\mathrm{min}(k,l)`$ we have the inequality

$$t\mathrm{min}(n,k+lDt)\underset{x}{}\mathrm{min}(t,r(A,B,x))Kn+|S_K(A,B)|t.$$

Taking $`t=\sqrt{Kn}`$ gives the result (the appearance of the $`3`$ is because we have taken integer parts).

## 7. Type III groups.

We have determined $`\mu (G)`$ for all groups except those of type III, whose only prime factors are of the form $`6k+1`$. We have also proved Theorem 1.8 for such groups. In this section we lay the foundation for a proof of Theorems 1.5 and 1.8 for type III groups.
The reader who is only interested in $`\mu (G)`$ may set $`\delta =0`$ throughout the section. This results in some simplification.
Throughout this section $`G`$ will be type III, although the same methods can be used to deal with type I and II groups as well (and the calculations are fairly easy in most cases). We begin by setting up some notation. Recall that $`\nu (G)=(m1)/3m`$, where $`m`$ is the exponent of $`G`$. We are trying to prove that $`\mu (G)=\nu (G)`$. Let $`AG`$ be a set. Fix a character $`\gamma `$ for which $`\text{Re}(\widehat{A}(\gamma ))`$ is minimal. We call $`\gamma `$ the special direction of $`A`$. Suppose that $`\text{ord}(\gamma )=q`$, and let $`H=\mathrm{ker}\gamma `$. Write $`H_j=\gamma ^1(e^{2\pi ij/q})`$ for the cosets of $`H`$ (so that $`H_0=H`$). The indices are to be considered as residues modulo $`q`$, reflecting the isomorphism $`G/H/q`$. Write $`A_j=AH_j`$ and $`\alpha _j=|A_j|/|H|`$ for the density of $`A`$ on $`H_j`$. Set $`k=(q1)/6`$, and define the middle of $`/q`$ to be $`\{k+1,\mathrm{},5k\}`$.
The next lemma shows how the concept of special direction arises when one is dealing with sets which are nearly sum-free.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Let $`AG`$ have size $`\alpha n`$, $`\alpha 1/4`$, and suppose that there are at most $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples in $`A`$. Then we have

$$\underset{\gamma }{\mathrm{min}}\text{Re}(\widehat{A}(\gamma ))\left(6\delta \frac{\alpha ^2}{1\alpha }\right)n.$$

Proof. The number of Schur triples in $`A`$ is exactly $`n^1_\gamma |\widehat{A}(\gamma )|^2\widehat{A}(\gamma )`$. The contribution from the trivial character $`\gamma =1`$ is $`\alpha ^3n^2`$, and so under the hypotheses of the lemma we have

$$\underset{\gamma 1}{}|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|^2\text{Re}(\widehat{A}(\gamma ))(\delta \alpha ^3)n^3.$$

However by Parseval’s identity we have that

$$\underset{\gamma 1}{}|\widehat{A}(\gamma )|^2=(\alpha \alpha ^2)n^2.$$

The result follows after a short calculation.
The next proposition is the main result of §7. For the remainder of the section set $`\eta =2^{23}`$.

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`\delta 0`$, and suppose that $`AG`$ has at most $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples. Let $`q=\text{ord}(\gamma )`$ be the order of the special direction in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`\kappa =32\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}`$ and suppose that $`\kappa \eta /8q`$. Then either $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$ or else $`A`$ is *essentially middled*, meaning that $`\alpha _i2\kappa `$ for all $`i`$ not in the middle of $`/q`$.

Proof. The fact that $`A`$ is nearly sum-free gives a number of inequalities that must be satisfied by the $`\alpha _i`$. These are stated and proved in Lemma 7.3 below, and will be key to our work both in this section and the next.
Define $`\lambda (G)`$ to be the density of the largest proper subgroup of $`G`$. Thus $`D(G)=\lambda (G)|G|`$, where $`D(G)`$ is the defect as defined in §6. Observe also that if $`HG`$ then $`\lambda (H)\lambda (G)`$.
Write $`\nu _q=\frac{1}{3}(1\frac{1}{q})=2k/q`$. Since $`q`$ is the order of the special direction of $`A`$ it is clear that the exponent $`m`$ of $`G`$ satisfies $`mq`$, and so $`\nu (G)\nu _q`$.

###### Lemma 7.3.

Let $`\delta ,A,q`$ and $`\kappa `$ be as in Proposition 7.2.

1. If $`\alpha _l>\kappa `$ then for any $`j`$ we have $`\alpha _j+\alpha _{j+l}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\kappa ;`$
2. For any $`i`$ we have $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{2i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\kappa ;`$
3. If $`\alpha _u,\alpha _v,\alpha _w>\kappa `$, where $`u+v=w`$, then $`\alpha _u+\alpha _v+\alpha _w\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\lambda (G)+\kappa ;`$
4. Suppose that $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$. Then

$$q^1\underset{j=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\alpha _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\eta /4.$$
5. Suppose again that $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$. Then

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\alpha _j(\nu _q\eta /8)q.$$

Proof. Observe that the condition $`\kappa \eta /8q`$, which is one of the assumptions of Proposition 7.2, implies that $`\kappa >\delta ^{1/2}q`$.
(i) If $`\alpha _l>\kappa `$ then certainly $`\alpha _l>\delta ^{1/2}q`$, which means that $`|A_l|\delta ^{1/2}q|H|`$. Suppose the result is false, so that $`\alpha _j+\alpha _{j+l}>1+\kappa >1+\delta ^{1/2}q.`$ Thus, for any $`xA_l`$, we have

$$\left|(x+A_j)A_{j+l}\right|>\delta ^{1/2}q|H|.$$

Hence the number of triples $`(x,y,z)A_l\times A_j\times A_{l+j}`$ with $`x+y=z`$ is at least $`\delta ^{1/2}q|H||A_l|`$, and so the total number of these triples ober all $`l,j`$ is greater than $`\delta q^2|H|^2=\delta n^2`$. This is contrary to our assumption.
(ii) This is immediate from (i).
(iii) If $`\alpha _u,\alpha _v,\alpha _w`$ are all greater than $`\kappa `$ then they are certainly all greater than $`5\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}`$. Suppose the result is false, so that $`\alpha _u+\alpha _v+\alpha _w>1+\lambda (G)+\kappa 1+\lambda (G)+5\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}`$. Observe that $`D(H)=\lambda (H)|H|\lambda (G)|H|`$. We may apply Corollary 6.2 with $`K=\delta ^{2/3}q^{4/3}|H|`$ (clearly $`|A_u|,|A_v|\sqrt{K|H|}`$), and this gives that

$$\left|S_K(A_u,A_v)\right|\mathrm{min}(|H|,|A_u|+|A_v|D(H))3\sqrt{K|H|}.$$

We split into the two cases $`|H||A_u|+|A_v|D(H)`$ and $`|H|<|A_u|+|A_v|D(H)`$. In the latter case we have

$`\left|S_K(A_u,A_v)A_w\right|`$ $``$ $`|A_w|+|S_K(A_u,A_v)||H|`$
$``$ $`5\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}|H|3\sqrt{K|H|}`$
$``$ $`2\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}|H|,`$
whereas in the former case we have

$`\left|S_K(A_u,A_v)A_w\right|`$ $``$ $`|A_w|+|S_K(A_u,A_v)||H|`$
$``$ $`|A_u|+|A_v|+|A_w|D(H)|H|3\sqrt{K|H|}`$
$``$ $`2\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}|H|`$
once again. Now for any $`zA_wS_K(A_u,A_v)`$ there are at least $`K`$ pairs $`(x,y)A_u\times A_v`$ such that $`x+y=z`$, and so the total number of triples $`(x,y,z)A_u\times A_v\times A_w`$ with $`x+y=z`$ is at least

$$2\delta ^{1/3}q^{2/3}|H|K>\delta q^2|H|^2=\delta n^2,$$

a contradiction.
Recall that for parts (iv) and (v) we are working under the assumption that $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$.
(iv) The fact that $`A`$ is nearly sum-free implies that $`\text{Re}(\widehat{A}(\gamma ))`$ is rather small by Lemma 7.1. Indeed we have

$$\text{Re}(\widehat{A}(\gamma ))=|H|\underset{j}{}\alpha _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}$$

and so, writing $`\alpha =|A|/n`$, we have by Lemma 7.1 that

$$q^1\underset{j}{}\alpha _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\delta \frac{\alpha ^2}{1\alpha }.$$

Thus

$`q^1{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\alpha _j\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi j}{q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu (G)^2}{1\nu (G)}}`$ $``$ $`6\delta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{1\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu (G)^2}{1\nu (G)}}`$
$``$ $`6\delta +{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}`$
$`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\eta }{4}},`$
the penultimate step following from the fact that $`\alpha \nu (G)\frac{\eta }{8}`$. It remains to observe that

$$\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}\frac{\nu (G)^2}{1\nu (G)},$$

a consequence of the inequality $`\nu (G)\nu _q`$.
(v) Immediate from the fact that $`\nu (G)\nu _q`$.
We will need to do several calculations with the inequalities of Lemma 7.3, and for that reason it will be convenient to have them in an easy-to-use form.

###### Definition 7.4.

Define numbers $`\beta _i[0,1]`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},q1`$, by $`\beta _i=0`$ if $`\alpha _i\kappa `$ and

$$\beta _i=\frac{\alpha _i\kappa }{1+\kappa }$$

otherwise.

An important property of the $`\beta _i`$ is their relation to the $`\alpha _i`$, which is that these two sets of numbers are rather close. Indeed it is easy to confirm that

$$|\beta _i\alpha _i|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\kappa .$$
(7.1)
The next lemma details the inequalities satisfied by the $`\beta _i`$.

###### Lemma 7.5.

Let $`\delta 0`$, and suppose that $`A`$ has at most $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples.

1. If $`\beta _l>0`$ then for any $`j`$ we have $`\beta _j+\beta _{j+l}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1};`$
2. For any $`i`$ we have $`\beta _i+\beta _{2i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1};`$
3. If $`\beta _u,\beta _v,\beta _w>0`$, where $`u+v=w`$, then $`\beta _u+\beta _v+\beta _w\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\lambda (G);`$
4. If $`\beta _{2t}>0`$ then $`2\beta _t+\beta _{2t}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\lambda (G)`$.
5. Suppose that $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$. Then

$$q^1\underset{j=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\beta _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}<\eta .$$
6. Suppose again that $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$. Then

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\beta _j(\nu _q\eta )q=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}k\eta q.$$

Proof. (i),(ii) and (iii) follow quickly from Lemma 7.3. (iv) follows from (iii) if $`\beta _t>0`$, and is immediate if $`\beta _t=0`$. For (v) and (vi), we use (7.1) and recall that $`\kappa \eta /8q`$.
We now return in earnest to the proof of Proposition 7.2. Our strategy will be this: assume that $`A`$ is not essentially middled and at the same time that $`|A|>(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$. We will obtain a contradiction using the inequalities of Lemma 7.5. Under these assumptions, (vi) of Lemma 7.5 certainly holds. Also (by reflecting $`A`$ if necessary) we may assume that $`\beta _l>0`$ for some $`l\{0,1,\mathrm{},k\}`$, which we assume to be minimal. Lemma 7.5 (i) then tells us that $`\beta _j+\beta _{j+l}1`$ for all $`j`$.
Write $`M`$ for the quantity in Lemma 7.5 (v), that is

$$M=q^1\underset{j=0}{\overset{q1}{}}\beta _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}.$$

Our aim will be to contradict Lemma 7.5 (v). It is important to note that the preceding assumptions and notation will be used for the remainder of this section.

###### Lemma 7.6.

Let $`\delta ,A,q`$ and $`\kappa `$ be as in Proposition 7.2. Assume that $`|A|>(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$, that $`A`$ is not essentially middled, and suppose that that $`l\{0,1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ satisfies $`0=\beta _0=\mathrm{}=\beta _{l1}<\beta _l`$. Then we have

$$M\frac{\mathrm{sin}(4k\pi /q)}{2q\mathrm{sin}(\pi /q)\mathrm{cos}(\pi l/q)}+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}6\eta $$
(7.2)
if $`l`$ is even and

$$M\frac{\mathrm{sin}((4k1)\pi /q)}{2q\mathrm{sin}(\pi /q)\mathrm{cos}(\pi l/q)}\frac{\mathrm{cos}(4k\pi /q)}{2q\mathrm{cos}(\pi l/q)}+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}6\eta $$
(7.3)
if $`l`$ is odd.

Proof. Naturally, we use the inequalities $`\beta _j+\beta _{j+l}1`$. We have

$$\mathrm{cos}\frac{\pi l}{q}\underset{j}{}\beta _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}(\beta _j+\beta _{j+l})\mathrm{cos}\frac{2j+l}{q}\pi =\underset{j}{}\gamma _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2j+l}{q}\pi ,$$
(7.4)
where $`\gamma _j:=(\beta _j+\beta _{j+l})/2`$. Write $`E(s)`$ for the minimum value of $`_j\gamma _j\mathrm{cos}\frac{2j+l}{q}\pi `$ subject to the constraints $`0\gamma _j1/2`$ and $`_j\gamma _j2ksq`$. By virtue of Lemma 7.5 (vi) we are, of course, interested in $`E(\eta )`$. The following lemma allows us to concentrate on the somewhat more appealing quantity $`E(0)`$.

###### Lemma 7.7.

$`E(\eta )E(0)3\eta q`$.

Proof. Write $`c_j=\mathrm{cos}\frac{2j+l}{q}\pi `$. Suppose that the numbers $`\gamma _j`$ satisfy the constraints $`0\gamma _j1/2`$ and $`_j\gamma _j2k\eta q`$, and that $`_j\gamma _jc_j=E(\eta )`$. Define

$$\gamma _j^{}:=\lambda \gamma _j+\frac{1}{2}(1\lambda ),$$

where

$$1/\lambda :=1+\frac{2\eta q}{q4k}.$$

Since $`\lambda <1`$, the numbers $`\gamma _j^{}`$ satisfy $`0\gamma _j^{}1/2`$. It is easy to see that $`_j\gamma _j^{}2k`$, and so we have

$$E(0)\underset{j}{}\gamma _j^{}c_jE(\eta )+q\underset{j}{\mathrm{max}}|\gamma _j\gamma _j^{}|.$$

Writing $`x=2\eta q/(q4k)`$, and observing that $`x6\eta `$, the proof is concluded by the noting the chain of inequalities

$$|\gamma _j^{}\gamma _j|\frac{1}{2}|1\lambda |=\frac{x}{2(1+x)}x/23\eta .$$
(7.5)
Returning now to the proof of Lemma 7.6, write $`u:=(q1)/2`$ and suppose first that $`l=2m`$ is even. Here the minimum in question is obtained by setting $`\gamma _j=1/2`$ for $`j+m=u2k+1,\mathrm{},u,u+1,\mathrm{},u+2k`$ and $`\gamma _j=0`$ otherwise. Observe that $`2k(q+1)/4`$, ensuring that in the extremal configuration all the negative $`\mathrm{cos}((2j+l)\pi /q)`$ have the largest possible weight $`\gamma _j=1/2`$. Thus the best strategy is to put as few weights on the positive values as possible. A precise computation is possible and yields

$$E(0)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(4k\pi /q)}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /q)}\text{(}l\text{ even)}.$$
(7.6)
The case $`l=2m+1`$ is very similar; the minimum is also obtained by setting $`\gamma _j=1/2`$ when $`j+m=u2k+1,\mathrm{},u,u+1,\mathrm{},u+2k`$ and $`\gamma _j=0`$ otherwise. An exact evaluation is again possible and leads to

$$E(0)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}((4k1)\pi /q)}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /q)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(4\pi k/q)\text{(}l\text{ odd)}.$$
(7.7)
The desired inequalities (7.2) and (7.3) follow from Lemma 7.7, equations (7.4), (7.6) and (7.7) and the fact that $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi l/q)\mathrm{cos}(\pi k/q)>1/2`$.

###### Lemma 7.8.

Let $`\delta ,A,q`$ and $`\kappa `$ be as in Proposition 7.2. Assume that $`|A|>(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$, that $`A`$ is not essentially middled, and suppose that that $`l\{0,1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ satisfies $`0=\beta _0=\mathrm{}=\beta _{l1}<\beta _l`$. Then we have the bound $`M\eta `$ *(*implying Lemma 7.2*)* in the following cases:

1. $`lk2`$ except for $`q=7,13,19`$;
2. $`l=k1`$ except for $`q=7,13,19,31`$;
3. $`l=k`$ except for $`q=7,13,19,31,37,43,49,61,67,73`$.

Proof. The authors proved this with the aid of a computer. We confine ourselves here to a few remarks which would enable the extremely keen reader to reproduce our computations.
For large $`q`$, we have the approximations $`2k/q1/3`$ and $`q\mathrm{sin}(\pi /q)\pi `$. Since $`lk`$, we have $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi l/q)\mathrm{cos}(\pi /6)=\sqrt{3}/2`$. Substituting into (7.2) shows that $`M`$ is at least $`\frac{1}{6}\frac{1}{2\pi }+ϵ_q6\eta `$, where $`ϵ_q0`$ as $`q\mathrm{}`$, uniformly in $`l`$. This is greater than $`\eta `$ for $`q`$ sufficiently large. By estimating $`ϵ_q`$ precisely using simple (but rather tedious) calculus one may verify that a suitable notion of sufficiently large is $`q>1000`$. Equation (7.3) may be treated in exactly the same way. The remaining pairs $`(l,q)`$, where $`q<1000`$, can be checked individually on a computer and Lemma 7.8 is what results.
There are several cases not covered by Lemma 7.8. The great majority can be dealt with by using the additional linear relations $`\beta _i+\beta _{2i}1`$. The problem of minimising $`M`$ subject to these constraints, the constraints $`\beta _i+\beta _{i+l}1`$, $`\beta _i0`$ and the inequality $`\beta _i(\nu _q\eta )q`$ is a standard linear programming problem, but we have not found a convenient way of dealing with it for general $`q,l`$. For any specific values however one may consider the dual problem in the sense of linear programming theory. Recall that if we have a primal problem

maximise $`r^Tx`$ subject to $`Bxc`$, $`x0`$ (7.8)
then we may associate to it a dual problem

$$\text{minimise }y^Tc\text{ subject to }y^TBr^T\text{}y0.$$
(7.9)
If the solutions to these problems are $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ respectively then one has $`S=S^{}`$. The equality is a reasonably deep theorem, but it is easy to see that $`SS^{}`$, and this is all we need later on. Indeed, for any $`x`$ and $`y`$ satisfying $`Bxc`$ and $`y^TBr^T`$ we have $`r^Txy^TBxy^Tc`$. That is, for any values of $`y`$ that satisfy $`y^TBr^T`$, $`y0`$ the quantity $`y^Tc`$ provides an upper bound for the primal problem.
Our problem may be cast in the form (7.8) simply by multiplying the constraint $`\beta _i(\nu _q\eta )q`$ by $`1`$. In the dual problem, the constraints $`\beta _i+\beta _{2i}1`$, $`\beta _i+\beta _{i+l}1`$ become variables $`\lambda _i,\mu _i`$ respectively, and the constraint $`\beta _i(\nu _q\eta )q`$ becomes a variable $`\tau `$. The dual problem is then to maximise

$$(\nu _q\eta )q\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _q\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _q+\frac{\nu _q^2}{1\nu _q}$$
(7.10)
subject to the relations $`\lambda _i0`$, $`\mu _i0`$, $`\tau 0`$ and

$$\tau \lambda _j\lambda _{jl}\mu _j\mu _{j/2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi j}{q}$$
(7.11)
for $`j=1,\mathrm{},q`$ (where addition and division by 2 are of course taken modulo $`q`$). Values are provided for $`\tau ,\lambda _j,\mu _j`$ in the lists below, giving lower bounds for $`M`$. Of course, these values were found using a simplex algorithm on a computer; however because of the duality result $`SS^{}`$ the reader need not concern herself with the numerical accuracy of our routines. Any value which does not appear explicitly is assigned the value $`0`$.
$`(q,l)=(73,12)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _{13}=0.072`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.237`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.491`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.465`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.663`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.910`$, $`\lambda _{24}=0.757`$, $`\lambda _{25}=0.458`$, $`\lambda _{26}=1.127`$, $`\lambda _{27}=0.707`$, $`\lambda _{28}=0.723`$, $`\lambda _{29}=1.029`$, $`\lambda _{30}=0.870`$, $`\lambda _{31}=0.936`$, $`\lambda _{32}=0.456`$, $`\lambda _{33}=0.999`$, $`\lambda _{34}=1.085`$, $`\lambda _{35}=0.595`$, $`\lambda _{36}=0.755`$, $`\lambda _{37}=0.988`$, $`\lambda _{38}=0.378`$, $`\lambda _{39}=0.783`$, $`\lambda _{40}=0.745`$, $`\lambda _{41}=0.194`$, $`\lambda _{42}=0.324`$, $`\lambda _{43}=0.425`$, $`\lambda _{44}=0.026`$, $`\lambda _{45}=0.104`$, $`\lambda _{48}=0.076`$, $`\lambda _{57}=0.217`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.005`$, $`\mu _{14}=0.155`$, $`\mu _{16}=0.320`$, $`\mu _{17}=0.405`$, $`\mu _{21}=0.210`$, $`\mu _{22}=0.830`$, $`\mu _{24}=0.231`$, $`\mu _{25}=0.533`$, $`\mu _{27}=0.254`$, $`\mu _{28}=0.380`$, $`\mu _{29}=0.237`$, $`\mu _{46}=0.112`$, $`\mu _{47}=0.537`$, $`\mu _{51}=0.047`$, $`\mu _{52}=0.002`$, $`\mu _{53}=0.469`$, $`\mu _{55}=0.067,`$ $`\mu _{59}=0.155`$, $`\tau =0.512`$.
$`(q,l)=(67,11)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _{13}=0.087`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.176`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.268`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.361`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.455`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.364`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.452`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.632`$, $`\lambda _{21}=0.637`$, $`\lambda _{22}=0.675`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.756`$, $`\lambda _{24}=0.974`$, $`\lambda _{25}=0.583`$, $`\lambda _{26}=0.927`$, $`\lambda _{27}=0.796`$, $`\lambda _{28}=0.847`$, $`\lambda _{29}=0.792`$, $`\lambda _{30}=0.927`$, $`\lambda _{31}=0.772`$, $`\lambda _{32}=0.785`$, $`\lambda _{33}=0.756`$, $`\lambda _{34}=0.675`$, $`\lambda _{35}=0.448`$, $`\lambda _{36}=0.637`$, $`\lambda _{37}=0.452`$, $`\lambda _{38}=0.548`$, $`\lambda _{39}=0.455`$, $`\lambda _{40}=0.361`$, $`\lambda _{41}=0.268`$, $`\lambda _{42}=0.176`$, $`\lambda _{43}=0.087`$, $`\mu _{18}=0.185`$, $`\mu _{20}=0.099`$, $`\mu _{21}=0.183`$, $`\mu _{23}=0.229`$, $`\mu _{43}=0.189`$, $`\mu _{45}=0.229`$, $`\mu _{46}=0.372`$, $`\mu _{47}=0.095`$, $`\mu _{48}=0.189`$, $`\tau =0.430`$.
$`(q,l)=(61,10)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _{12}=0.096`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.195`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.296`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.399`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.502`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.448`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.647`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.599`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.668`$, $`\lambda _{21}=0.756`$, $`\lambda _{22}=0.814`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.740`$, $`\lambda _{24}=0.913`$, $`\lambda _{25}=0.818`$, $`\lambda _{26}=0.818`$, $`\lambda _{27}=0.913`$, $`\lambda _{28}=0.745`$, $`\lambda _{29}=0.814`$, $`\lambda _{30}=0.756`$, $`\lambda _{31}=0.668`$, $`\lambda _{32}=0.599`$, $`\lambda _{33}=0.652`$, $`\lambda _{34}=0.448`$, $`\lambda _{35}=0.502`$, $`\lambda _{36}=0.394`$, $`\lambda _{37}=0.296`$, $`\lambda _{38}=0.195`$, $`\lambda _{39}=0.096`$, $`\mu _{18}=0.057`$, $`\mu _{19}=0.202`$, $`\mu _{20}=0.227`$, $`\mu _{22}=0.157`$, $`\mu _{23}=0.005`$, $`\mu _{39}=0.157`$, $`\mu _{41}=0.227`$, $`\mu _{42}=0.202`$, $`\mu _{43}=0.053`$, $`\tau =0.423`$.
$`(q,l)=(49,8)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _{10}=0.121`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.246`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.373`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.278`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.628`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.430`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.710`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.536`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.892`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.885`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.871`$, $`\lambda _{21}=0.871`$, $`\lambda _{22}=0.727`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.957`$, $`\lambda _{24}=0.694`$, $`\lambda _{25}=0.868`$, $`\lambda _{26}=0.272`$, $`\lambda _{27}=0.470`$, $`\lambda _{28}=0.436`$, $`\lambda _{29}=0.373`$, $`\lambda _{30}=0.246`$, $`\lambda _{31}=0.121`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.223`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.195`$, $`\mu _{16}=0.158`$, $`\mu _{17}=0.442`$, $`\mu _{18}=0.066`$, $`\mu _{32}=0.127`$, $`\mu _{34}=0.037`$, $`\mu _{35}=0.158`$, $`\tau =0.404`$.
$`(q,l)=(43,7)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _9=0.139`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.282`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.428`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.573`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.421`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.632`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.612`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.948`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.898`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.836`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.608`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.948`$, $`\lambda _{21}=0.757`$, $`\lambda _{22}=0.778`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.421`$, $`\lambda _{24}=0.428`$, $`\lambda _{25}=0.428`$, $`\lambda _{26}=0.282`$, $`\lambda _{27}=0.139`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.294`$, $`\mu _{14}=0.217`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.291`$, $`\mu _{29}=0.072`$, $`\mu _{30}=0.004`$, $`\mu _{31}=0.146`$, $`\tau =0.391`$.
$`(q,l)=(37,6)`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _8=0.163`$, $`\lambda _9=0.331`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.414`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.408`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.742`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.628`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.933`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.785`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.871`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.933`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.628`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.742`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.322`$, $`\lambda _{21}=0.500`$, $`\lambda _{22}=0.331`$, $`\lambda _{23}=0.163`$, $`\mu _{10}=0.087`$, $`\mu _{12}=0.082`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.258`$, $`\mu _{24}=0.258`$, $`\mu _{25}=0.082`$, $`\mu _{26}=0.087`$, $`\tau =0.373`$.
$`(q,l)=(31,5)`$. $`M0.005`$. $`\lambda _7=0.196`$, $`\lambda _8=0.398`$, $`\lambda _9=0.392`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.689`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.654`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.911`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.824`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.911`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.654`$, $`\lambda _{16}=0.689`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.392`$, $`\lambda _{18}=0.398`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.196`$, $`\mu _{10}=0.100`$, $`\mu _{11}=0.207`$, $`\mu _{20}=0.207`$, $`\mu _{21}=0.100`$, $`\tau =0.347`$.
$`(q,l)=(31,4)`$. $`M0.005`$. $`\lambda _8=0.081`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.254`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.635`$, $`\lambda _{12}=1.026`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.732`$, $`\lambda _{14}=0.853`$, $`\lambda _{15}=0.709`$, $`\lambda _{17}=0.571`$, $`\lambda _{19}=0.398`$, $`\lambda _{20}=0.196`$, $`\mu _7=0.196`$, $`\mu _8=0.318`$, $`\mu _9=0.370`$, $`\mu _{10}=0.535`$, $`\mu _{11}=0.108`$, $`\mu _{20}=0.229`$, $`\mu _{21}=0.218`$, $`\mu _{22}=0.491`$, $`\tau =0.347`$.
For $`q=7,13,19`$ it is necessary to consider inequalities (iii) and (iv) of Proposition 7.5. Since $`G`$ is type III we have $`\lambda (G)1/7`$. Now, however, the problem is not strictly linear because the new constraints only hold if certain of the variables involved are known to be strictly positive. For this reason it is necessary to split into cases. In what follows we will be concerned with the minimisation of $`M`$ subject to the constraints $`\beta _j+\beta _{j+l}1`$, $`\beta _j+\beta _{2j}1`$, $`\beta _i(\nu _q\eta )q`$ and certain other linear constraints $`C_1,C_2,\mathrm{}`$ which will be listed in each case. As before we will consider the dual problem. This problem will have variables $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _q`$, $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _q`$, $`\tau `$ and $`\theta _1,\theta _2,\mathrm{}`$, the constraint $`C_j`$ giving rise to the dual variable $`\theta _j`$.
It saves some time to observe that there is no need to treat the case $`l=0`$ separately. Indeed the inequalities $`\beta _j+\beta _{j+l}1`$ for $`l=0`$ imply those for all other $`l`$, and (as the reader may care to check) we do not make any further use of the fact that $`\beta _l>0`$.
The prime 19. $`\nu _{19}=6/19`$. To deal with the case $`q=19`$ we only need, for any $`l`$, the single extra constraint $`2\beta _7+\beta _{14}4/3`$. However we only know this in the case $`\beta _{14}>0`$ and so we must deal separately with the case $`\beta _{14}=0`$ for each $`l`$. Thus we must solve the following six linear problems.
$`(q,l)=(19,3)`$, $`C_1:\beta _{14}0`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _4=0.302`$, $`\lambda _5=0.302`$, $`\lambda _6=0.629`$, $`\lambda _7=0.590`$, $`\lambda _81.125`$, $`\lambda _90.905`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.616`$, $`\mu _5=0.329`$, $`\mu _60.320`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.334,\mu _{15}=0.302`$, $`\theta _1=0.630`$, $`\tau =0.546`$.
$`(q,l)=(19,3)`$, $`C_1:2\beta _7+\beta _{14}4/3`$. $`M0.004`$. $`\lambda _6=0.6600`$, $`\lambda _8=1.1250`$, $`\lambda _9=0.8734`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.9487`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.0175`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.0175`$, $`\mu _4=0.3015`$, $`\mu _5=0.5847`$, $`\mu _6=0.2887`$, $`\mu _{12}=0.0449`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.2841`$, $`\theta _1=0.6122`$, $`\tau =0.5469`$.
$`(q,l)=(19,2)`$, $`C_1:\beta _{14}0`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _4=0.302`$, $`\lambda _6=0.648`$, $`\lambda _7=1.225`$, $`\lambda _8=0.780`$, $`\lambda _9=0.310`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.675`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.883`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.067`$, $`\mu _5=0.080`$, $`\mu _{12}=0.550`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.236`$, $`\theta _1=0.630`$, $`\tau =0.547`$.
$`(q,l)=(19,2)`$, $`C_1:2\beta _7+\beta _{14}4/3`$. $`M0.002`$. $`\lambda _4=0.3015`$, $`\lambda _6=0.6472`$, $`\lambda _7=0.4912`$, $`\lambda _8=0.7793`$, $`\lambda _9=0.7793`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.6744`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.6472`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.3015`$, $`\mu _5=0.0797`$, $`\mu _{12}=0.5499`$, $`\mu _{14}=0.2630`$, $`\theta _1=0.3666`$, $`\tau =0.5469`$.
$`(q,l)=(19,1)`$, $`C_1:\beta _{14}0`$. $`M0.01`$. $`\lambda _4=0.302`$, $`\lambda _5=0.329`$, $`\lambda _6=0.621`$, $`\lambda _7=0.591`$, $`\lambda _8=0.837`$, $`\lambda _9=0.698`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.837`$, $`\lambda _{11}=0.289`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.936`$, $`\mu _{13}=0.014`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.302`$, $`\theta _1=0.630`$, $`\tau =0.546`$.
$`(q,l)=(19,1)`$, $`C_1:2\beta _7+\beta _{14}4/3`$. $`M0.004`$. $`\lambda _5=0.6296`$, $`\lambda _6=0.0175`$, $`\lambda _8=1.1250`$, $`\lambda _9=0.4084`$, $`\lambda _{10}=1.1250`$, $`\lambda _{12}=0.9226`$, $`\lambda _{13}=0.0262`$, $`\mu _4=0.3015`$, $`\mu _6=0.3018`$, $`\mu _{15}=0.3015`$, $`\theta _1=0.6035`$, $`\tau =0.5469`$.
The prime 13. $`\nu _{13}=4/13`$. Proposition 7.5 tells us that either $`\beta _3=0`$, $`\beta _{10}=0`$ or both of the relations $`2\beta _5+\beta _{10}8/7`$ and $`2\beta _8+\beta _38/7`$ are true. We will show that any of these conditions suffices by itself to show $`M`$ positive. Furthermore by symmetry we only need deal with one of the cases $`\beta _3=0`$ and $`\beta _{10}=0`$. Thus for each $`l`$ there are two linear problems to consider, giving the following four problems in all.
$`(q,l)=(13,2)`$, $`C_1:\beta _{10}0`$. $`M0.003`$. $`\lambda _3=0.4476`$, $`\lambda _4=0.5726`$, $`\lambda _5=0.7427`$, $`\lambda _6=0.9665`$, $`\lambda _7=0.7964`$, $`\mu _4=0.3502`$, $`\mu _9=0.1264`$, $`\theta _1=0.4476`$, $`\tau =0.5680`$.
$`(q,l)=(13,2)`$, $`C_1:2\beta _5+\beta _{10}8/7`$, $`C_2:2\beta _8+\beta _38/7`$. $`M0.007`$. $`\lambda _4=0.9227`$, $`\lambda _5=0.5514`$, $`\lambda _6=0.5514`$, $`\lambda _7=0.9227`$, $`\lambda _{10}=0.0650`$, $`\mu _3=0.0650`$, $`\theta _1=0.3826`$, $`\theta _2=0.3826`$, $`\tau =0.5680`$.
$`(q,l)=(13,1)`$, $`C_1:\beta _{10}0`$. $`M0.003`$. $`\lambda _3=0.4476`$, $`\lambda _4=0.4752`$, $`\lambda _5=0.6177`$, $`\lambda _6=0.9214`$, $`\lambda _7=0.6177`$, $`\lambda _8=0.6990`$, $`\mu _9=0.2238`$, $`\theta _1=0.4476`$, $`\tau =0.5680`$.
$`(q,l)=(13,1)`$, $`C_1:2\beta _5+\beta _{10}8/7`$, $`C_2:2\beta _8+\beta _38/7`$. $`M0.001`$. $`\lambda _3=0.3341`$, $`\lambda _4=0.4216`$, $`\lambda _6=1.5391`$, $`\lambda _8=0.9227`$, $`\mu _4=0.1671`$, $`\theta _1=0.4476`$, $`\theta _2=0.1135`$, $`\tau =0.5680`$.
The prime 7. $`\nu _7=2/7`$. Finally we come to what is, in some sense, the trickiest case. Our workload is reduced by only having to consider the single case $`l=1`$. Since $`\nu _7=2/7`$ we have $`\beta _i2\eta `$. We begin by reducing to the case $`\beta _2,\beta _3,\beta _4,\beta _5>0`$. Indeed consider the linear problem with the 15 usual constraints and the condition $`C_1:\beta _30`$. Then we have $`M0.04`$ as is shown by the dual values $`\lambda _4=\lambda _9=0.679`$, $`\theta _1=1.357`$, $`\tau =0.456`$. Similarly if $`\beta _2=0`$ we have $`M0.01`$, with the dual values $`\lambda _3=1.102`$, $`\lambda _4=0.424`$, $`\mu _5=0.424`$, $`\theta _1=0.847`$, $`\tau =0.623`$. The cases $`\beta _4=0`$ and $`\beta _5=0`$ follow by symmetry.
Suppose then that $`\beta _2,\beta _3,\beta _4,\beta _5>0`$, but that $`\beta _1=\beta _6=0`$. Since we are assuming that $`A`$ is not middled we must have $`\beta _0>0`$. But this would imply

$`4\left(\beta _0+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\beta _i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{5}{}}}(\beta _0+2\beta _i)+(2\beta _2+\beta _4)+(2\beta _5+\beta _3)+(\beta _3+\beta _4)`$
$``$ $`\frac{32}{7}+\frac{8}{7}+\frac{8}{7}+1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\left(2\frac{1}{28}\right),`$
a contradiction. It follows that either $`\beta _1>0`$ or $`\beta _6>0`$. Suppose that $`\beta _1=0`$. Then $`\beta _6>0`$, and we solve another linear problem with the 15 usual constraints together with $`C_1:\beta _10`$, $`C_2:\beta _4+\beta _5+\beta _68/7`$, $`C_3:2\beta _3+\beta _68/7`$, $`C_4:2\beta _5+\beta _38/7`$, $`C_5:2\beta _2+\beta _48/7`$. We have $`M0.002`$, as witnessed by dual values $`\lambda _3=1.0746`$, $`\theta _1=0.3766`$, $`\theta _2=0.1614`$, $`\theta _3=0.5037`$, $`\theta _4=0.6113`$, $`\theta _5=0.2152`$, $`\tau =1.0000`$.
Finally we deal with the case $`\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _6>0`$. Once again we take the 15 usual constraints, plus $`C_1:2\beta _3+\beta _68/7`$, $`C_2:\beta _4+\beta _5+\beta _28/7`$, $`C_3:\beta _2+\beta _4+\beta _68/7`$, $`C_4:\beta _2+\beta _3+\beta _58/7`$, $`C_5:\beta _1+\beta _3+\beta _48/7`$, $`C_6:2\beta _5+\beta _38/7`$, $`C_7:2\beta _2+\beta _48/7`$. With these conditions one has $`M0.0005`$ as shown by the values $`\lambda _3=0.53669`$, $`\theta _1=0.37652`$, $`\theta _4=0.98778`$, $`\theta _6=0.23476`$, $`\theta _7=0.37652`$, $`\tau =1.0000`$.
The proof of Proposition 7.2 is at long last complete.

## 8. Sum-free sets in type III groups.

The next result completes the proof of Theorem 1.5 by establishing it for type III groups. In fact, we establish a stronger result which will enable us to complete the proof of Proposition 2.2 (and hence Theorem 1.8) too.

###### Lemma 8.1.

Suppose that $`G`$ is type III with exponent $`m`$ and that $`AG`$ has at most $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples, where $`\delta 2^{93}m^5`$. Then

$$|A|\left(\nu (G)+64m^{2/3}\delta ^{1/3}\right)n.$$

Proof. Recall that $`\eta =2^{23}`$. As $`\kappa :=32\delta ^{1/3}m^{2/3}\eta /8m`$ and since $`qm`$, Proposition 7.2 applies. We deduce that either $`|A|(\nu (G)\eta /8)n`$, which clearly implies the result, or else that $`\alpha _i2\kappa `$ for all $`i\{k+1,\mathrm{},5k\}`$, the middle of $`/q`$. Observe that the middle can be partitioned into $`2k`$ pairs of the form $`\{i,2i\}`$, where $`i`$ ranges over $`\{k+1,\mathrm{},2k\}\{4k+1,\mathrm{},5k\}`$. Using Lemma 7.3, which tells us that $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{2i}1+\kappa `$, we have $`_i\alpha _i2\kappa q+2k`$, which means (since $`\nu (G)2k/q`$), that $`|A|n(2\kappa q+2k)/q(\nu (G)+64\delta ^{1/3}m^{2/3})n`$.

###### Corollary 8.2.

$`\nu (G)=\mu (G)`$ for type III groups.

Proof. Simply set $`\delta =0`$ in the above to get that if $`AG`$ is sum-free then $`|A|\nu (G)n`$, and so $`\mu (G)\nu (G)`$. But we have already observed that $`\mu (G)\nu (G)`$.

###### Corollary 8.3.

Proposition 2.2 holds for groups of type III. That is, if $`G`$ is of type III and if $`AG`$ has $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples then $`|A|\left(\mu (G)+2^{20}\delta ^{1/5}\right)n`$.

Proof. Suppose then that $`G`$ is of type III and has exponent $`m`$. Suppose that $`AG`$ has $`\delta n^2`$ Schur triples. If $`\delta 2^{93}m^5`$ then we may apply Lemma 8.1, and it is easily confirmed that the result holds in this case. If $`\delta >2^{93}m^5`$ then we instead use Corollary 4.3, obtaining

$`|A|`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{max}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},\mu (G))+3\delta ^{1/3}\right)n`$
$``$ $`\left(\mu (G)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3m}}+3\delta ^{1/3}\right)n`$
$``$ $`\left(\mu (G)+2^{20}\delta ^{1/5}\right)n,`$
as required.
Observe that Lemma 5.4 and Corollary 8.3 together imply Proposition 2.2.
We are also now in a position to count sum-free sets in groups of type III.

###### Proposition 8.4.

Theorem 1.8 holds for groups of type III. That is, for groups of this type we have $`\sigma (G)=\mu (G)+O\left((\mathrm{log}n)^{1/45}\right)`$.

Proof. Identical to the proof of Proposition 5.5, using Corollary 8.3 in place of Lemma 5.4.
This result and Proposition 5.5 together imply Theorem 1.8.

## 9. Concluding remarks and open problems.

The results of this paper (if not all of the methods) are fairly satisfactory, in that the problem of finding $`\mu (G)`$ is solved for all finite abelian groups, and $`|\text{SF}(G)|`$ is estimated fairly accurately. It would be of some interest to get an asymptotic for this quantity for all abelian groups $`G`$. This may be very difficult, though it is likely that the methods of  would help in certain cases, particularly $`G=C_p`$.
One case of particular interest seems to be $`G=C_7^m`$, which caused us so much difficulty in the present paper. If $`HG`$ is any subgroup of index $`7`$ then we can construct sum-free subsets $`AG`$ as follows. Identify $`G/H/7`$, let $`k=\mathrm{log}_2n`$ and pick any subset $`SH+2`$ with $`|S|=k`$. Let $`A`$ consist of $`S`$ together with an arbitrary subset of $`H+3`$ and an arbitrary subset of $`(H+4)(S+S)`$. In this way one gets at least $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|H|}{k}\right)2^{2n/7k(k+1)/2}`$ sum-free subsets of $`G`$. Using the estimate $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)(a/eb)^b`$, one can easily confirm that this is $`2^{c(\mathrm{log}n)^2}2^{2n/7}`$.
If finding an asymptotic is too ambitious, one could still look to improve on the error term in Theorem 1.8.
It is possible to generalize the notion of sum-free set to non-abelian groups. If $`G`$ is non-abelian then we say that $`AG`$ is product-free if there are no solutions to $`xy=z`$ with $`x,y,zA`$. Write $`\mu (G)`$ for the density of the largest product-free set in $`G`$. Very little is known concerning $`\mu (G)`$. Kedlaya  has shown that $`\mu (G)|G|^{3/14}`$, but even the following question is unresolved.

###### Question 9.1.

Is there a sequence of groups $`\{G_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`|G_n|\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu (G_n)0`$?

For all we know it may be possible to take $`G_n=A_n`$, the alternating group on $`n`$ letters. It may even be the case that for any fixed $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`n_0(ϵ)`$ with the following property: if $`A_n`$ is the alternating group on $`n>n_0(ϵ)`$ letters and $`AA_n`$ is a subset of size $`|A|ϵ|A_n|`$, then $`|AA^1|(1ϵ)|A_n|`$.

## 10. Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Vsevolod Lev for his extremely careful reading of this paper, which led to a number of improvements in the exposition.


text:
# The black hole at the galactic center as a possible retro-lens for the S2 orbiting star

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that a dark object moving close to the source-observer line of sight acts as a gravitational lens, causing the formation of two or more images of the source. If the images can not be resolved, the lensing phenomenon results in an overall source image magnification, to which one refers as gravitational microlensing event. However, the geometry of the lensing phenomena may also be different with the observer (source) in between the source (observer) and lens line of sight.

Recently, Holz & Wheeler (hw (2002)) have proposed that a Schwarzschild black hole may act as a retro-lens (or retro-MACHO) that deflects the source light ray paths to so large bending angles that emerging photons may reach the observer (in the middle between the source and the lens). The shape and the magnitude of the formed images (arcs, becoming rings in the perfect alignment case) strongly depends on the mass of the black hole and on the relative distances between the observer, the lens and the source. In particular, in the perfect alignment case, after $`\pi `$ rotations around the black hole, photons if collected form a series of circular rings. More recently, the generalization of the retro-lensing effect due to Kerr black holes has been analyzed by De Paolis et al. (dgin2003 (2003)).

Holz & Wheeler (hw (2002)) considered the Sun as the light source which emits photons towards a stellar black hole at distance $`D_L`$ and then evaluated the magnitude of the formed retro-lensing images. In the most suitable case (i.e. perfect alignment between the source, the observer and the lens) the maximum distance at which the retro images can be seen by an instrument with limiting magnitude $`\overline{m}`$ is

$$D_\mathrm{L}=0.02\mathrm{pc}\times \left[10^{(\overline{m}30)/2.5}(M_{\mathrm{BH}}/10M_{})^2\right]^{1/3},$$
(1)
for an assumed image baseline of magnitude $`m=30`$.

However, since we do not expect massive black holes lying so close to the Earth, we can say that making a survey for retro-MACHOs illuminated by the Sun might not be a successful strategy.

A better idea is to look towards well known black holes, for example at the galactic center which is thought to host a super massive black hole (Sgr A) with mass $`M_{\mathrm{BH}}4.07\times 10^6M_{}`$ (Ghez et al. ghez2003 (2003)). Moreover, to have a chance to really detect retro-lensing images, one should also consider a very bright star close to Sgr A as the light-source.

Indeed, if the Sun is the light source and Sgr A is the considered black hole, the magnitude of the formed absorbed retro-images turns out to be $`m_V100`$ ($`47`$ if absorption in the $`V`$ band is not taken into account).

Nowadays, large ground and space-based telescopes allow to obtain an unprecedent view of the galactic center, in terms of both sensitivity and angular resolution, so that individual stars can be monitored within $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ from the galactic center. In this respect, Ghez et al. (ghez2003 (2003)) have announced the observation of a bright star, labelled S2, orbiting in close proximity to the massive black hole at the center of the Galaxy.

The aim of this letter is to show that the binary system S2-Sgr A may offer a unique opportunity to study the retro-lensing phenomenon proposed by Holz & Wheeler (hw (2002)), taking advantage of both the large black hole mass and the small separation of the binary components.

## 2 S2-Sgr A binary system

Very recently, Ghez et al. (ghez2003 (2003)) have observed a star orbiting in close proximity to the galactic center massive black hole. The orbital parameters of the binary system are given in Table 1. The star, which has been labelled as S2, with mass $`M_{\mathrm{S2}}15`$ M, appears to be a main sequence star, probably an O8-B0 dwarf with surface temperature $`3\times 10^4`$ K and bolometric luminosity $`10^3`$ L.

In order to evaluate the magnitude of the retro-image we need to calculate the magnification factor $`\mu `$ by considering the geometry of the S2-Sgr A binary system. Referring to Fig. 1, we consider the S2 source which is moving around the black hole (at the center of the reference frame) on an elliptic orbit with semi-major axis $`a`$ and eccentricity $`e`$. Let be $`i`$ the inclination angle of the orbital plane with respect to the observer (lying the $`XZ`$ plane), and define the misalignment angle $`\beta `$ as the angle between the source-observer line $`\stackrel{}{SO}`$ and the observer-lens line $`\stackrel{}{OL}`$, as measured at the observer. Hence, the misalignment angle $`\beta `$ is given by

$$\beta =\mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{SO}\stackrel{}{OL}}{D_{OS}D_{OL}}\right],$$
(2)
where $`D_{OL}`$ and $`D_{OS}`$ are the observer-lens and the observer-source distances, with

$$D_{OS}(t)=(D_{LS}^2+D_{OL}^2+2D_{LS}D_{OL}\mathrm{cos}\delta )^{1/2}.$$
(3)
Here, $`D_{OL}8`$ kpc and $`D_{LS}`$ is the distance between the lens and the source, i.e. for the considered elliptic orbit

$$D_{LS}(t)=\frac{a(1e^2)}{1+e\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)},$$
(4)
being $`\varphi =\omega t+\varphi _0`$ and $`\omega =[G(M_{\mathrm{BH}}+M_{\mathrm{S2}})/a^3]^{1/2}`$. The angle $`\delta `$ appearing in Eq. (3) is the deflection angle, as measured at the lens, needed for a source photon to reach the observer, i.e.

$$\delta (t)=\mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{\stackrel{}{SL}\stackrel{}{LO}}{D_{LS}D_{OL}}\right]=\pi \mathrm{cos}^1(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}i).$$
(5)
Therefore, the angle $`\beta `$ turns out to be

$$\beta (t)=\pi \mathrm{cos}^1\left[\frac{D_{OL}+D_{LS}\mathrm{cos}\delta }{D_{OS}}\right].$$
(6)
In the case of the S2 star, photons retro-lensed by Sgr A would form two images, of angular extent $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }2\mathrm{tan}^1(R_{\mathrm{S2}}/D_{OS}\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$, being $`R_{\mathrm{S2}}`$ the S2 radius. Since lensing conserves the surface brightness, the total image amplification $`\mu `$ is given by the ratio between the fraction of sky covered by each image to that covered by the source disk as seen by the observer.

Thus, following Holz & Wheeler (hw (2002)), one gets for the brighter (B) and fainter (F) image the amplification factors

$$\mu _{\mathrm{B},\mathrm{F}}[b_o^2(\mathrm{\Theta })b_i^2(\mathrm{\Theta })]\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{S2}}}{D_{OS}\mathrm{sin}\beta }\right)\frac{D_{OS}^2}{\pi D_{OL}^2R_{\mathrm{S2}}^2},$$
(7)
where, for a given deflection angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`b_o(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and $`b_i(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ are the photon impact parameters corresponding to the inner and outer radii of the images, respectively. Finally, the total amplification results to be

$$\mu =\mu _B+\mu _F.$$
(8)
It has been shown by Chandrasekhar (chandra (1983)) that, for a Schwarzschild black hole and in the case of large values of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the photon impact parameter is

$$b(\mathrm{\Theta })=b_c+b_de^\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(9)
where

$`b_c`$ $`=`$ $`3\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{\mathrm{BH}}}{c^2}},`$
$`b_d`$ $`=`$ $`648e^\pi \sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \frac{GM_{\mathrm{BH}}}{c^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}1}{\sqrt{3}+1}}\right)^2.`$ (10)
Since the angular extent of the S2 disk with respect to Sgr A is $`\alpha R_{\mathrm{S2}}/D_{LS}(t)`$, the bending angles for the brighter and fainter images are $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{B}=\delta \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_F=2\pi \delta \alpha `$, respectively.

Consequently, by using Eqs. (7)- (10), it is possible to evaluate, for each position of the star S2 along its orbit around Sgr A, the total amplification factor $`\mu `$ of the retro-lensing images. The obtained result is shown in Fig. 2. It is evident the periodic behavior (with period $`P`$) of the amplification factor $`\mu `$, the upper value of which ($`3.75\times 10^7`$) corresponds to the periastron distance of S2.

The luminosity of the formed arcs is $`L_\lambda =\mu L_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}`$, being $`L_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}`$ the S2 luminosity in the electromagnetic band centered at the wavelength $`\lambda `$. It follows that the image magnitude is

$$m_\lambda =m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}2.5\mathrm{log}\mu ,$$
(11)
being $`\mu `$ independent on the wavelength.

For S2 in the periastron position ($`\varphi =0`$ and $`D_{LS}130`$ AU) and for the inclination angle $`i=47.3^0`$, from Fig. 2 the maximum allowed amplification factor is $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}3.75\times 10^7`$ so that the expected minimum image magnitude results to be $`m_{\lambda \mathrm{min}}m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}+16.1`$.

Then, as a consequence of the S2 orbital motion the amplification factor $`\mu `$ decreases until the minimum value $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}1.5\times 10^8`$ is reached, at the furthest distance from Sgr A, corresponding to the maximum image magnitude $`m_{\lambda \mathrm{max}}m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}+19.6`$.

Clearly, due to the absorption processes along the line of sight, the previous values have to be increased by the $`\lambda `$-band extinction factor $`A_\lambda `$.

The S2 star has been observed in the $`K`$-band (centered at $`2.2\mu \mathrm{m}`$) with an unabsorbed magnitude of $`m_K^{\mathrm{S2}}=13.9`$ (Ghez et al. ghez2003 (2003)). Taking into account the infrared extinction factor $`A_K3.3`$ towards the galactic center (Rieke et al. rieke (1989)), from Eq. (11) the expected absorption corrected $`K`$-magnitude of the retro-lensing images 111Since S2 has been classified as a O8-B0 main sequence star (Ghez et al. ghez2003 (2003)), one expects that the optical band absolute magnitude is $`M_V=4.0`$ (Allen allen (2000)) implying, for an assumed observer-S2 distance of $`8`$ kpc, the apparent $`V`$-magnitude $`m_V^{\mathrm{S2}}10.6`$. Hence, the expected unabsorbed ring magnitude is in the range $`26.730.2`$, depending on the S2 orbital position. Unfortunately, the ratio of the $`K`$ to $`V`$ extinction factor is $`A_K/A_V0.112`$ (Rieke & Lebofsky rieke1985 (1985)) so that the $`V`$-band ring magnitude has to be correct for absorption by the factor $`A_V29.5`$. This implies that the S2 retro-image has magnitude in the range $`56.2m_V59.7`$, i.e. is much fainter than in the $`K`$-band. is

$$m_K=17.22.5\mathrm{log}\mu ,$$
(12)
which for the minimum and maximum distances of S2 from Sgr A (see Fig. 2), gives the values $`m_{\mathrm{K}\mathrm{min}}33.3`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{K}\mathrm{max}}36.8`$, respectively.

Obviously, in order to detect such retro-images, we need instrument with limiting magnitude $`\overline{m}m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}+A_\lambda 2.5\mathrm{log}\mu `$ in which $`A_\lambda `$ is the $`\lambda `$-band extinction factor.

For the sake of completeness, we mention that assuming the existence of a star (like S2 and with the same orbital parameters) perfectly aligned with the Earth-Sgr A line of sight ($`\varphi =0`$, $`i=\pi /2`$ and $`\beta =\pi `$), the amplification factor and the corresponding ring magnitude result to be $`\mu 8\times 10^4`$ and $`m_\lambda m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}+7.74`$, respectively. In particular, in the $`K`$-band, after correction for the absorption, we get a ring magnitude of $`m_K21.6`$, close to the present day instrument capabilities.

In this case the required instrument limiting magnitude to observe the retro-lensing images (rings in this case) has to satisfy the relation

$$\overline{m}m_\lambda ^{}+A_\lambda 2.5\mathrm{log}\left[\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{R_{}}{R_S}\right)\frac{D_{OS}^2}{D_{LS}D_{OL}^2}\right].$$
(13)
## 3 Discussion

Retro-lensing phenomena, i.e. deflections by black holes of the light ray paths to large bending angles, have been recently proposed (Holz & Wheeler hw (2002)) as a new way to search for black holes 222A somehow related idea has been proposed by Capozziello et al. (capozziello (1997)) who considered the effect of defocusing gravitational lensing.. However, if one considers the Sun as the light source, the limiting distance $`D_L`$ within which a Schwarzschild black hole may show observable effects is given by Eq. (1), which assuming $`M=10M_{}`$ and $`\overline{m}=30`$ gives $`D_L0.02`$ pc. Consequently, due to the lack of any massive black holes within this distance, making a survey for retro-MACHOs illuminated by the Sun might not be a successful strategy.

A better chance to detect retro-lensing images should be looking towards the direction of well known massive black holes such as the $`4.07\times 10^6M_{}`$ one (Sgr A) at the galactic center.

We have shown that the recently observed bright star S2, shining the galactic center black hole, may produce retro-lensing images with apparent magnitude given by Eq. (11) in which $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}`$ is the S2 star magnitude in the $`\lambda `$-band and $`\mu `$ the amplification factor given by Eq. (8). By taking into account the $`\lambda `$-band extinction $`A_\lambda `$, these images may be observed by an instrument with limiting magnitude $`\overline{m}m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{S2}}+A_\lambda 2.5\mathrm{log}\mu `$ which gives, in the $`K`$-band, $`\overline{m}33.3`$ at the periastron distance of S2. Since the photon impact parameter values $`b_o`$ and $`b_i`$ are very close to the Schwarzschild black hole radius value $`R_{\mathrm{Sch}}1.2\times 10^{12}`$ cm, the retro-lensing images form at $`20\mu `$arcsecs from Sgr A implying that extremely high angular resolution are required to see the details of the retro-images.

As we have seen, the expected retro-lensing image magnitude turns out to be $`\overline{m}33`$ in the $`K`$-band for S2 in the pericenter position. Of course, present instrumentations have not the right capability to detect such faint images. SIRTF (Space Infrared Telescope Facility), a space based telescope operating in the electromagnetic band $`3180`$ $`\mu `$m (National Research Council sirtfngst (2001)), will allow to detect, with an integration time of $`3`$ hours, a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }10^{15}`$ erg cm2 s-1 corresponding to a limiting magnitude of $`\overline{m}22`$. Hence, SIRFT has not the required sensitivity to detect the S2 retro-images in the $`K`$-band. The attainable limiting magnitude will increase with the Next Generation Space Based Telescope (NGST) which, planned to work in the wavelength range $`0.627`$ $`\mu `$m (National Research Council sirtfngst (2001)), is expected to have a sensitivity at least 3 order of magnitude (at $`2.2`$ $`\mu `$m) better than SIRFT. In fact, the energy flux (in a band centered at $`2.2`$ $`\mu `$m) that NGST is able to detect, within an integration time of $`3`$ hours, is $`\mathrm{\Phi }2\times 10^{19}`$ erg cm2 s-1 which corresponds to a limiting magnitude $`\overline{m}32`$. This limiting magnitude is very close to that necessary to observe S2 retro-lensing images that could be effectively observed by NGST increasing the integration time to about $`27`$ hours.

We have also to mention that, in addition to look towards Sgr A in the $`K`$ band, another possibility to observe retro-lensing images in the future may be offered by $`X`$-ray observations. Indeed, due to $`X`$-ray interferometry from space, the next generation of $`X`$-ray telescope facilities may reach an angular resolution down to $`0.1`$ $`\mu `$arcsec (see e.g. MAXIM (maxim (2003)) and Constellation X (constellationx (2003))) . Clearly, the problem is the existence of a bright enough $`X`$-ray source closely shining the Sgr A black hole (S2, being a main sequence star, does not emit substantially in the $`X`$-ray band). Indeed, the galactic center region hosts a large number of $`X`$-ray emitting neutron stars or accreting black holes most of which are detected in the energy range $`210`$ keV with a luminosity $`10^{32}10^{35}`$ erg s-1 (Wang et al. wgl (2002), Pessah & Melia pm (2003)). Therefore, in the future the detection of retro-lensing images in the $`X`$-ray band may be a challenging possibility.

A natural question that arises is what changes if the black hole at the galactic center is a Kerr black hole. Recently, the generalization of the retro-lensing effect due to rotating Kerr black holes has been analyzed by De Paolis et al. (dgin2003 (2003)). Apart a minor effect in changing the value of the magnitude of the retro-lensing images, the black hole spin produces a deformation of the image shape since co-rotating and counter-rotating photons have closer and further impact parameters, respectively (Peter peter76 (1976), Bray bray (1986)). The analysis of the retro-image shape may therefore allow to specify the geometry of the system and measure the spin parameter of the black hole.