arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more
License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2608.04985v1 [math.CO] 05 Aug 2026
\caption@setkeys

[floatrow]floatrow heightadjust=object, valign=c \undefine@keynewfloatplacement\undefine@keynewfloatname\undefine@keynewfloatfileext\undefine@keynewfloatwithin

Supersaturation of induced even cycles in locally sparse graphs

Adam Džavoronok Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Malostranské nám. 25, 118 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic adam.dzavoronok@mff.cuni.cz , Ole Gabsdil Department of Mathematics, EPFL, Switzerland ole.gabsdil@epfl.ch , Alexander Mylet Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD, United Kingdom alexander.mylet@sjc.ox.ac.uk , Maria-Cristina Popa Department of Mathematics, École Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, 91120 Palaiseau, France maria-cristina.popa@polytechnique.edu and Yinghan Andie Shao Department of Mathematics, EPFL, Switzerland yinghan.shao@epfl.ch
Abstract.

A graph Γ\Gamma is (c,t)(c,t)-sparse for c>0c>0 and t≥1t\geq 1 if for every pair of vertex subsets A,B⊆V​(Γ)A,B\subseteq V(\Gamma) with |A|,|B|≥t|A|,|B|\geq t, the number of edges e​(A,B)e(A,B) between them satisfies e​(A,B)≤(1−c)​|A|​|B|e(A,B)\leq(1-c)|A||B|. In this paper, we prove that for every integer ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2, there are ε>0,C,C′>0\varepsilon>0,C,C^{\prime}>0 such that if an nn-vertex graph Γ\Gamma is (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparse for some tt, and has at least C​t1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓCt^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges, then Γ\Gamma contains at least C′​n2​t2​ℓ−2C^{\prime}n^{2}t^{2\ell-2} induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}. This partially resolves a problem of Ding, Gao, Liu, Luan, and Sun.

1. Introduction

For a graph HH, the Turán number ex⁡(n,H)\operatorname{ex}(n,H) is the maximum number of edges in an nn-vertex graph containing no copy of HH. One of the central topics studied in extremal graph theory is Turán-type problems, of which induced variants have had some focus in recent years. In the classical theory, the asymptotics are determined by the chromatic number of HH. The Erdős–Stone–Simonovits theorem [ErdosP1946Otso, ErdosP1966Alti] states that ex⁡(n,H)=(1−1χ​(H)−1+o​(1))​(n2)\operatorname{ex}(n,H)=\left(1-\frac{1}{\chi(H)-1}+o(1)\right)\binom{n}{2} for every graph HH with at least one edge, so that ex⁡(n,H)=o​(n2)\operatorname{ex}(n,H)=o(n^{2}) precisely when HH is bipartite. The bipartite case is much less understood. In particular, for the even cycle C2​ℓC_{2\ell} of length 2​ℓ2\ell, the theorem of Bondy and Simonovits provides an upper bound ex⁡(n,C2​ℓ)=Oℓ​(n1+1/ℓ)\operatorname{ex}(n,C_{2\ell})=O_{\ell}(n^{1+1/\ell}) [bondy-simonovits], but matching lower bounds are known only in cases when ℓ=2,3\ell=2,3 or 55 (see [Wenger1991]). Determining the exact asymptotic behaviour of ex⁡(n,C2​ℓ)\operatorname{ex}(n,C_{2\ell}) remains a long-standing open problem.

For induced copies no such statement is possible. When the forbidden induced graph HH is not a clique, then the complete graph KnK_{n} does not contain any induced copies of HH, and so the question only becomes meaningful with an additional sparsity restriction. Loh, Tait, Timmons, and Zhou [LOHPO-SHEN2018ITN] introduced the question of determining the maximum number of edges in an nn-vertex graph forbidding both an induced copy of HH and a copy of some graph FF (not necessarily induced). The case of F=Kt,tF=K_{t,t} has been well-studied (see, among others, [AxenovichMaria2025ITpi, BourneufRomain2024Opd, HunterZach2025Ktfh, BonamyMarthe2022DoPa, KuhnDaniela2004ISIK]). In particular, Hunter, Milojević, Sudakov, and Tomon [HunterZach2025Ktfh] established that in a Kt,tK_{t,t}-free graph with at least Cℓ,t​n1+1/ℓC_{\ell,t}n^{1+1/\ell} edges, there is an induced copy of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}.

Fox, Nenadov, and Pham [fox-nenadov-pham] initiated the systematic study of induced Turán problems in (c,t)(c,t)-sparse graphs. A graph GG is called (c,t)(c,t)-sparse for c>0c>0 and t≥1t\geq 1 if for every pair of vertex subsets A,B⊆V​(G)A,B\subseteq V(G) with |A|,|B|≥t|A|,|B|\geq t, the number of edges e​(A,B)e(A,B) between them satisfies e​(A,B)≤(1−c)​|A|​|B|e(A,B)\leq(1-c)|A||B|. AA and BB do not have to be disjoint, and we double count edges within A∩BA\cap B. This notion generalises Kt,tK_{t,t}-free graphs, since by averaging, GG is Kt,tK_{t,t}-free if and only if it is (1t2,t)\left(\frac{1}{t^{2}},t\right)-sparse. Fox, Nenadov, and Pham conjectured that for every c>0c>0 and integer ℓ\ell there is a C>1C>1 such that if Γ\Gamma is a (c,t)(c,t)-sparse graph for some tt with at least C​t1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓCt^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges, then Γ\Gamma contains an induced copy of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}. This was proved by Ding et al. [ding2024induced].

Another central question in the study of Turán-type problems is to establish the corresponding supersaturation results: once the number of edges exceeds the extremal threshold by a fixed constant factor, how many copies of the forbidden graph must necessarily occur? For the even cycle C2​ℓC_{2\ell}, in the classical case, this is a result of Simonovits [ErdosP1984Csga]: for every integer ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2, there are constants C,c>0C,c>0 such that every nn-vertex graph GG with e​(G)≥C​n1+1/ℓe(G)\geq Cn^{1+1/\ell} contains at least c​(e​(G)n)2​ℓc\left(\frac{e(G)}{n}\right)^{2\ell} copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}. Moreover, the random graph of the same edge density proves to be a tight example up to the multiplicative constant. More recently, Jiang and Yepremyan [jiangYepremyan2020] reproved this in the more general setting of even linear cycles in linear rr-graphs. In the induced (c,t)(c,t)-sparse setting, Fox, Nenadov, and Pham established supersaturation results for various classes of bipartite graphs [fox-nenadov-pham].

Ding et al. [ding2024induced] posed the problem of proving, if true, the corresponding supersaturation result for induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} under (c,t)(c,t)-sparseness assumptions:

Problem 1.1.

For every c>0c>0 and integer ℓ\ell, do there exist CC and C′>0C^{\prime}>0 such that if an nn-vertex graph GG is (c,t)(c,t)-sparse for some tt, and has at least C​t1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓCt^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges, then GG contains at least C′​t2​ℓ−2​n2C^{\prime}t^{2\ell-2}n^{2} induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}.

Relatedly, Dong, Gao, Li, and Liu [DongGaoLiLiu2025] proved a similar tight supersaturation result for induced even cycles in sufficiently dense almost-regular Ks,sK_{s,s}-free graphs with exponential dependence in ss in the number of necessary edges. Furthermore, the C4C_{4}-case was fully resolved in (c,t)(c,t) sparse setting by Fox, Nenadov and Pham [fox-nenadov-pham]. In this paper, we show that Section˜1 is true for sufficiently sparse graphs:

Theorem 1.2.

For every integer ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2, there exist ε>0\varepsilon>0, CC and C′>0C^{\prime}>0, all depending on ℓ\ell, such that if an nn-vertex graph Γ\Gamma is (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparse for some tt, and has at least C​t1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓCt^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges, then Γ\Gamma contains at least C′​d2​ℓC^{\prime}d^{2\ell} induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}, where dd is the average degree of Γ\Gamma.

We remark that from our proof we recover that ε\varepsilon in the statement may be chosen at most of order ℓ−2\ell^{-2}. Our proof also provides an alternative proof of the original induced Turán problem for (c,t)(c,t)-sparse graphs, which follows directly from the following lemma:

Lemma 1.3 (Lemma 3.1, [ding2024induced]).

Let HH be a bipartite graph. For any c,ε>0c,\varepsilon>0, there exists β0=β​(c,H,ε)\beta_{0}=\beta(c,H,\varepsilon) such that for any β≥β0\beta\geq\beta_{0} and every (c,t)(c,t)-sparse graph GG, if GG does not contain an induced copy of HH, then it is also (1−ε,β​t)(1-\varepsilon,\beta t)-sparse.

If there is no induced copy of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}, then this lemma applies to bootstrap from (c,t)(c,t)-sparseness to (1−ε,β​t)(1-\varepsilon,\beta t)-sparseness and our result shows there will be at least one induced C2​ℓC_{2\ell} if there are at least C​(β​t)1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓC(\beta t)^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges.

Proof overview.

Our approach uses a known regularisation result from [jiangYepremyan2020] (see Lemma 3), splitting the graph Γ\Gamma into multiple edge-disjoint (not necessarily induced) subgraphs GiG_{i} with only a constant factor between minimum and maximum degree. We lower-bound the number of copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} which occur in each subgraph Gi⊆ΓG_{i}\subseteq\Gamma that are induced in Γ\Gamma. For this purpose, we use an algebraic approach of counting the number of homomorphic copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} occurring in each GiG_{i}. A result of Janzer [JanzerOliver2023RTno] (see Lemma 3) allows us to bound the number of non-injective homomorphisms. The setup assembling these previous results is explained in Section˜3.

The homomorphism counting technique was already used in the Ks,sK_{s,s}-free setting by Hunter, Milojević, Sudakov, and Tomon [HunterZach2025Ktfh], and subsequently by Dong, Gao, Li, and Liu [DongGaoLiLiu2025] to obtain the supersaturation result. In the (c,t)(c,t)-sparse setting, our main new ingredient is a quantitative spread-outness estimate for the distributions of vertices along the walks forming a homomorphic cycle. Under the stronger assumption c=(1−ε)c=(1-\varepsilon) with sufficiently small ε\varepsilon, this estimate yields the conjectured polynomial dependence on tt.

More precisely, to control a fixed prospective chord, we condition on the images xx and yy of two opposite positions of the cycle. The two halves of a uniformly random homomorphism then become independent uniformly chosen walks of length ℓ\ell from xx to yy. At each internal position, we call a vertex heavy if it occurs in at least a 1/t1/t proportion of these walks. The key quantitative estimate (Section˜2) bounds the average mass of the heavy vertices. After discarding all heavy vertices, no vertex can appear in a fixed position in more than 1/t1/t of the x​yxy-walks. This spread of the walks allows us to use the (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparseness of Γ\Gamma, expressed through the bilinear form associated with its adjacency matrix (Sections˜2 and 2) to bound the probability that the two positions are adjacent by ε\varepsilon. A union bound over all nonconsecutive pairs of positions shows that a positive proportion of the homomorphisms in each GiG_{i} are induced cycles in Γ\Gamma. Summing over the edge-disjoint subgraphs GiG_{i} completes the proof.

Notation

Let GG be a graph. We write v​(G)v(G) and e​(G)e(G) for the number of vertices and edges of GG respectively. By δ​(G)\delta(G), d​(G)d(G), and Δ​(G)\Delta(G), we denote the minimum, average and maximum degree of GG respectively. A graph is KK-almost-regular if Δ​(G)≤K​δ​(G)\Delta(G)\leq K\delta(G). A homomorphism from a graph HH to a graph GG is a mapping f:V​(H)→V​(G)f:V(H)\to V(G) that preserves adjacency, which means that if (u,v)(u,v) is an edge in HH, then (f​(u),f​(v))(f(u),f(v)) is an edge in GG. We write Hom⁡(H,G)\operatorname{Hom}(H,G) for the collection of such homomorphisms, and hom⁡(H,G)=|Hom⁡(H,G)|\hom(H,G)=\lvert\operatorname{Hom}(H,G)\rvert for the number of such homomorphisms from HH to GG. A homomorphism f:H→Gf:H\to G is injective if it is injective in the usual way.

2. Controlling Chords

In this section, we prove the estimates on heavy vertices and prospective chords described in the proof overview. We now introduce some notation relevant for this section. Note that much of this notation leaves the graph GG implicit (and when dealing with two graphs G⊆ΓG\subseteq\Gamma, the notation will always refer to GG). We also leave the length ℓ\ell implicit, where we are counting induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}. For an integer jj, we denote by wx​vjw_{xv}^{j} the number of walks of length jj starting at xx and ending at vv in GG. By

px​yr​(v)=wx​vr​wv​yℓ−rwx​yℓ,p_{xy}^{r}(v)=\frac{w^{r}_{xv}w^{\ell-r}_{vy}}{w^{\ell}_{xy}},

we denote the probability of the vertex vv being in the rr-th position on a randomly chosen walk of length ℓ\ell between xx and yy if wx​yℓ≠0w^{\ell}_{xy}\neq 0, and px​yr​(v)=0p_{xy}^{r}(v)=0 otherwise. As already said, a vertex vv occurring at position rr on many x​yxy-walks is heavy at position rr if px​yr​(v)≥1/tp^{r}_{xy}(v)\geq 1/t, and we denote by

αx​yr=∑px​yr​(v)≥1tpx​yr​(v)\alpha_{xy}^{r}=\sum_{p_{xy}^{r}(v)\geq\frac{1}{t}}p_{xy}^{r}(v)

the probability mass of the heavy vertices. Lastly, we denote by

ρr=∑(x,y)(wx​yℓ)2hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)​αx​yr,\rho_{r}=\sum_{(x,y)}\frac{(w_{xy}^{\ell})^{2}}{\hom(C_{2\ell},G)}\alpha_{xy}^{r},

the averaged probability mass over all pairs x,yx,y.

We begin the proof by recalling two standard estimates for the number of homomorphisms of an even cycle.

Lemma 2.1 (e.g. Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.3 [StanleyRichardP2013ACWT]).

Let GG be a graph on nn vertices with adjacency eigenvalues λ1,…,λn\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{n}. Then, for every positive integer ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 we have

hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)=∑i=1nλi2​ℓ=∑x,y∈V​(G)(wx​yℓ)2.\hom(C_{2\ell},G)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell}=\sum_{x,y\in V(G)}(w_{xy}^{\ell})^{2}.
Lemma 2.2 ([SIDORENKOA.F.1992Iffg]).

If ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 is an integer and GG is a graph on nn vertices and has average degree dd, then hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)≥d2​ℓ\hom(C_{2\ell},G)\geq d^{2\ell}.

We now record a simple log-convexity property of the numbers of closed walks, which will be used to control the contribution of heavy vertices.

Lemma 2.3.

Let GG be a graph. For all integers ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 and b≤a≤ℓ/2b\leq a\leq\ell/2, and any vertex vv,

wv​v2​a​wv​v2​ℓ−2​a≤wv​v2​b​wv​v2​ℓ−2​b.w_{vv}^{2a}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2a}\leq w_{vv}^{2b}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2b}.
Proof.

Let AA be the adjacency matrix of GG. We know that the number of closed walks of length kk from vv to vv is (Ak)v​v(A^{k})_{vv}. So,

wv​v2​k=(A2​k)v​v=evT​A2​k​ev=⟨Ak+1​ev,Ak−1​ev⟩\displaystyle w_{vv}^{2k}=(A^{2k})_{vv}=e_{v}^{T}A^{2k}e_{v}=\langle A^{k+1}e_{v},A^{k-1}e_{v}\rangle ≤∥Ak+1​ev∥​∥Ak−1​ev∥\displaystyle\leq\lVert A^{k+1}e_{v}\rVert\lVert A^{k-1}e_{v}\rVert
=(A2​k+2)v​v​(A2​k−2)v​v=wv​v2​k+2​wv​v2​k−2.\displaystyle=\sqrt{(A^{2k+2})_{vv}(A^{2k-2})_{vv}}=\sqrt{w_{vv}^{2k+2}w_{vv}^{2k-2}}.

That is, (wv​v2​k)2≤wv​v2​k+2​wv​v2​k−2.(w_{vv}^{2k})^{2}\leq w_{vv}^{2k+2}w_{vv}^{2k-2}. Therefore, wv​vkw_{vv}^{k} is log convex in terms of kk as wanted and so the result follows. ∎

With this, we can bound the proportion of heavy vertices at a given position on a path.

Lemma 2.4.

Let ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 be an integer. Let GG be a KK-almost regular graph on nn vertices with average degree d>0d>0. Then ρr≤K​(tℓ−1​ndℓ)1/(ℓ−1)\rho_{r}\leq K\left(\frac{t^{\ell-1}n}{d^{\ell}}\right)^{1/(\ell-1)}, for every 1≤r≤ℓ−11\leq r\leq\ell-1.

Proof.

By the definitions of ρr\rho_{r} and αx​yr\alpha_{xy}^{r}, and Section˜2, we have the following:

(1) ρr​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)=∑(x,y)(wx​yℓ)2​αx​yr≤t​∑(x,y)∑v(px​yr​(v))2​(wx​yℓ)2=t​∑(x,y)∑v(wx​vr)2​(wv​yℓ−r)2,\rho_{r}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)=\sum_{(x,y)}(w_{xy}^{\ell})^{2}\alpha_{xy}^{r}\leq t\sum_{(x,y)}\sum_{v}(p_{xy}^{r}(v))^{2}(w_{xy}^{\ell})^{2}=t\sum_{(x,y)}\sum_{v}(w_{xv}^{r})^{2}(w_{vy}^{\ell-r})^{2},

where the inequality holds because

∑v(px​yr​(v))2≥∑px​yr​(v)≥1t(px​yr​(v))2≥1t​∑px​yr​(v)≥1tpx​yr​(v)=αx​yrt.\sum_{v}\left(p_{xy}^{r}(v)\right)^{2}\geq\sum_{p_{xy}^{r}(v)\geq\frac{1}{t}}\left(p_{xy}^{r}(v)\right)^{2}\geq\frac{1}{t}\sum_{p_{xy}^{r}(v)\geq\frac{1}{t}}p_{xy}^{r}(v)=\frac{\alpha_{xy}^{r}}{t}.

Now we observe that

(2) ∑(x,y)∑v(wx​vr)2​(wv​yℓ−r)2=∑v(∑x(wx​vr)2​∑y(wv​yℓ−r)2)=∑vwv​v2​r​wv​v2​(ℓ−r).\sum_{(x,y)}\sum_{v}(w_{xv}^{r})^{2}(w_{vy}^{\ell-r})^{2}=\sum_{v}\left(\sum_{x}(w_{xv}^{r})^{2}\sum_{y}\left(w_{vy}^{\ell-r}\right)^{2}\right)=\sum_{v}w^{2r}_{vv}w_{vv}^{2(\ell-r)}.

By Section˜2, applied with a=min⁡(r,ℓ−r)a=\min(r,\ell-r), b=1b=1, and KK-almost regularity, we upper bound the right-hand side of Equation˜2

(3) ∑vwv​v2​r​wv​v2​ℓ−2​r≤∑vwv​v2​wv​v2​ℓ−2=∑vdeg⁡(v)​wv​v2​ℓ−2≤K​d​∑vwv​v2​ℓ−2=K​d​∑i=1nλi2​ℓ−2,\sum_{v}w^{2r}_{vv}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2r}\leq\sum_{v}w_{vv}^{2}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2}=\sum_{v}\deg(v)w_{vv}^{2\ell-2}\leq Kd\sum_{v}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2}=Kd\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell-2},

where the last equality is by Section˜2. From Hölder’s inequality, we get

(4) (∑i=1nλi2​ℓ−2)≤(∑i=1nλi2​ℓ)ℓ−2ℓ−1​(∑i=1nλi2)1ℓ−1.\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell-2}\right)\leq\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell}\right)^{\frac{\ell-2}{\ell-1}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{\ell-1}}.

Using the estimate ∑i=1nλi2​ℓ=hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)≥d2​ℓ\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell}=\hom(C_{2\ell},G)\geq d^{2\ell} (Sections˜2 and 2), the observation ∑i=1nλi2=n​d\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2}=nd alongside with Equations˜1, 2, 3 and 4, we get

ρr≤thom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)​∑vwv​v2​r​wv​v2​ℓ−2​r≤K​d​t​(∑i=1nλi2∑i=1nλi2​ℓ)1(ℓ−1)≤K​(tℓ−1​ndℓ)1(ℓ−1).\rho_{r}\leq\frac{t}{\hom(C_{2\ell},G)}\sum_{v}w_{vv}^{2r}w_{vv}^{2\ell-2r}\leq Kdt\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}^{2\ell}}\right)^{\frac{1}{(\ell-1)}}\leq K\left(\frac{t^{\ell-1}n}{d^{\ell}}\right)^{\frac{1}{(\ell-1)}}.

∎

As mentioned before, our plan will be to exclude heavy vertices and control the remaining ones using the sparseness. This will be done by the following lemma bounding the bilinear form uT​AΓ​vu^{T}A_{\Gamma}v on entrywise bounded subprobability vectors.

Lemma 2.5.

Suppose uu and vv are nn-dimensional vectors with non-negative entries all at most 1/t1/t, and 1T​u≤11^{T}u\leq 1, 1T​v≤11^{T}v\leq 1, and Γ\Gamma is a (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparse graph on nn vertices with adjacency matrix AΓA_{\Gamma}. Then

uT​AΓ​v≤ε.u^{T}A_{\Gamma}v\leq\varepsilon.
Proof.

Notice that the assumptions on vv translate to 0≤vi≤1/t0\leq v_{i}\leq 1/t for all ii and ∑i=1nvi≤1\sum_{i=1}^{n}v_{i}\leq 1, where the viv_{i} are the components of vv. Set z=(z1,z2,…,zn):=uT​AΓz=(z_{1},z_{2},\dots,z_{n}):=u^{T}A_{\Gamma} and note that z≥0z\geq 0 entrywise. With this, we obtain

uT​AΓ​v=∑i=1nzi​vi.u^{T}A_{\Gamma}v=\sum_{i=1}^{n}z_{i}v_{i}.

Given the restrictions on the viv_{i} it is straightforward to see that the latter expression is maximized when vv is 1/t1/t at the tt largest coordinates of zz and 0 elsewhere. Hence, it suffices to prove the statement for such vv which are indicators of size-tt sets of vertices scaled by 1/t1/t. Switching the roles of uu and vv, we may also assume that uu is the indicator of a size-tt set of vertices scaled by 1/t1/t. Calling these sets VV and WW, we get

uT​AΓ​v=e​(V,W)t2≤ε,u^{T}A_{\Gamma}v=\frac{e(V,W)}{t^{2}}\leq\varepsilon,

using the (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparseness of Γ\Gamma. ∎

Using this, and Section˜2, we now bound the proportion of homomorphisms having a particular chord in Γ\Gamma. We will then use the union bound (in Section˜3) to bound the overall proportion of homomorphisms with any chord.

Lemma 2.6.

Let ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 be an integer. Let Γ\Gamma be a (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t) sparse graph and G⊆ΓG\subseteq\Gamma be a KK-almost regular subgraph with an average degree dd and nn vertices. For every fixed pair of nonconsecutive positions of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}, the proportion of homomorphisms from C2​ℓC_{2\ell} to GG which have an edge between them in Γ\Gamma is at most

ε+2​K​(tℓ−1​ndℓ)1(ℓ−1).\varepsilon+2K\left(\frac{t^{\ell-1}n}{d^{\ell}}\right)^{\frac{1}{(\ell-1)}}.
Proof.

Choose a ϕ∈Hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\phi\in\operatorname{Hom}(C_{2\ell},G) uniformly at random. By cyclically relabelling the cycle, suppose that the two positions are 0 and kk, where 2≤k≤ℓ2\leq k\leq\ell. Cut the cycle at positions 11 and ℓ+1\ell+1. We condition on the event ϕ​(1)=x\phi(1)=x and ϕ​(ℓ+1)=y\phi(\ell+1)=y. The two halves of the cycle are then independent uniformly chosen length-ℓ\ell walks from xx to yy. In the two halves, the prospective chord endpoints occur at internal positions 11 and (k−1)(k-1). For an internal position rr, the corresponding conditional distribution over vertices appearing at this position is px​yr​(v)p_{xy}^{r}(v). We discard heavy vertices at position rr. Then the total mass of the discarded vertices is αx​yr\alpha_{xy}^{r}.

We define a subprobability vector for an internal position rr and vertices in Γ\Gamma, denoted 𝐮r\mathbf{u}_{r}, where

(𝐮r)v={0if v was discarded or v∉V​(G)px​yr​(v)otherwise.(\mathbf{u}_{r})_{v}=\begin{cases}0&\text{if $v$ was discarded or $v\notin V(G)$}\\ p_{xy}^{r}(v)&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}

Note that in 𝐮r\mathbf{u}_{r}, each entry is less than 1/t1/t, and the total mass is at most one. Then, the probability of the 0-th and kk-th vertices in the cycle being connected and not discarded is 𝐮1T​AΓ​𝐮k−1\mathbf{u}_{1}^{T}A_{\Gamma}\mathbf{u}_{k-1}, which, by Section˜2 applied to 𝐮1\mathbf{u}_{1} and 𝐮k−1\mathbf{u}_{k-1} is at most ε\varepsilon. Thus, in total

ℙ(ϕ(0)ϕ(k)∈E(Γ)|ϕ(1)=x,ϕ(ℓ+1)=y)≤ε+αx​y1+αx​yk−1.\mathbb{P}(\phi(0)\phi(k)\in E(\Gamma)|\phi(1)=x,\phi(\ell+1)=y)\leq\varepsilon+\alpha_{xy}^{1}+\alpha_{xy}^{k-1}.

Averaging over the probability (wx​yℓ)2hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\frac{\left(w_{xy}^{\ell}\right)^{2}}{\hom(C_{2\ell},G)} of (x,y)(x,y) being chosen gives

ℙ​(ϕ​(0)​ϕ​(k)∈E​(Γ))≤ε+ρ1+ρk−1.\mathbb{P}(\phi(0)\phi(k)\in E(\Gamma))\leq\varepsilon+\rho_{1}+\rho_{k-1}.

Applying Section˜2 gives the desired bound. ∎

3. Technical Lemmas and Proof of the Main Theorem

In this section, we state two technical lemmas, which we will use, together with Section˜2, to prove Theorem˜1.2. First, Janzer [JanzerOliver2023RTno] provides a lemma which we use to prove a bound on non-injective homomorphisms:

Lemma 3.1 (Lemma 2.2, [JanzerOliver2023RTno]).

Let ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 be an integer and let G=(V,E)G=(V,E) be a graph on nn vertices. Let ∼\sim be a symmetric binary relation defined over VV such that for every u∈Vu\in V and v∈Vv\in V, vv has at most ss neighbours w∈Vw\in V which satisfy u∼wu\sim w. Then the number of homomorphic 2​ℓ2\ell-cycles (x1,x2,…,x2​ℓ)(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{2\ell}) in GG such that xi∼xjx_{i}\sim x_{j} for some i≠ji\neq j is at most

32ℓ32s12Δ(G)12n12​ℓhom(C2​ℓ,G)1−12​ℓ.32\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}s^{\frac{1}{2}}\Delta(G)^{\frac{1}{2}}n^{\frac{1}{2\ell}}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)^{1-\frac{1}{2\ell}}.

We can already use this to prove the result for a KK-almost regular subgraph G⊆ΓG\subseteq\Gamma of high average degree.

Lemma 3.2.

For every integer ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2 and every K≥1K\geq 1, there exist constants 0<ε<10<\varepsilon<1 and C1,C1′>0C_{1},C^{\prime}_{1}>0 with the following property. Let Γ\Gamma be a (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparse graph, and let G⊆ΓG\subseteq\Gamma be a KK-almost-regular subgraph on mm vertices with average degree dd. If GG has at least C1​t1−1/ℓ​m1+1/ℓC_{1}t^{1-1/\ell}m^{1+1/\ell} edges, then GG contains at least C1′​d2​ℓC^{\prime}_{1}d^{2\ell} copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} that are induced in Γ\Gamma.

Proof.

Fix ℓ\ell and KK. Given a homomorphism ϕ∈Hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\phi\in\operatorname{Hom}(C_{2\ell},G), it can fail to be an induced cycle in Γ\Gamma in two ways:

  1. (1)

    ϕ\phi is not injective, or

  2. (2)

    if its image is x1​x2​…​x2​ℓ​x1x_{1}x_{2}\dots x_{2\ell}x_{1}, there is an edge xi​xj∈E​(Γ)x_{i}x_{j}\in E(\Gamma) for i≢j±1(mod2​ℓ)i\not\equiv j\pm 1\pmod{2\ell}.

By Section˜2, hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)≥d2​ℓ\hom(C_{2\ell},G)\geq d^{2\ell}. Let ∼\sim be equality and take s=1s=1 in Section˜3. Since Δ​(G)≤K​d\Delta(G)\leq Kd, the number of homomorphisms that are not injective is at most

32ℓ32Δ(G)12m12​ℓhom(C2​ℓ,G)1−12​ℓ\displaystyle 32\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}\Delta(G)^{\frac{1}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2\ell}}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)^{1-\frac{1}{2\ell}}
≤32ℓ32K12d12m12​ℓhom(C2​ℓ,G)1−12​ℓ\displaystyle\quad\leq 32\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}K^{\frac{1}{2}}d^{\frac{1}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2\ell}}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)^{1-\frac{1}{2\ell}}
≤32​ℓ32​K12​d−12​m12​ℓ​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\displaystyle\quad\leq 32\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}K^{\frac{1}{2}}d^{-\frac{1}{2}}m^{\frac{1}{2\ell}}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)
≤32​ℓ32​K12​(2​C1)−12​t−12+12​ℓ​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G).\displaystyle\quad\leq 32\ell^{\frac{3}{2}}K^{\frac{1}{2}}(2C_{1})^{-\frac{1}{2}}t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\ell}}\hom(C_{2\ell},G).

Since t≥1t\geq 1, by choosing C1C_{1} large enough, this is at most 14​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\frac{1}{4}\hom(C_{2\ell},G). By Section˜2, for each pair of non-adjacent positions on the cycle, at most

(ε+2​K​(tℓ−1​mdℓ)1ℓ−1)​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\left(\varepsilon+2K\left(\frac{t^{\ell-1}m}{d^{\ell}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\ell-1}}\right)\hom(C_{2\ell},G)

homomorphisms have an edge in Γ\Gamma between those positions. Hence, the proportion of homomorphisms that have a chord in Γ\Gamma is at most

(2​ℓ)2​[ε+2​K​(tℓ−1​mdℓ)1ℓ−1]\displaystyle(2\ell)^{2}\left[\varepsilon+2K\left(\frac{t^{\ell-1}m}{d^{\ell}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\ell-1}}\right] ≤(2​ℓ)2​[ε+2​K​(2​C1)−ℓℓ−1]≤14\displaystyle\leq(2\ell)^{2}\left[\varepsilon+2K(2C_{1})^{-\frac{\ell}{\ell-1}}\right]\leq\frac{1}{4}

if we choose, for example, ε=132​ℓ2\varepsilon=\frac{1}{32\ell^{2}} and C1C_{1} to be large enough. Hence by combining the two estimates, there are at least 12​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)\frac{1}{2}\hom(C_{2\ell},G) injective homomorphisms from C2​ℓC_{2\ell} to GG that are induced in Γ\Gamma. Each copy of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} is counted 4​ℓ4\ell times, twice per vertex, once in each direction. Therefore, there are at least

18​ℓ​hom⁡(C2​ℓ,G)≥18​ℓ​d2​ℓ\frac{1}{8\ell}\hom(C_{2\ell},G)\geq\frac{1}{8\ell}d^{2\ell}

copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} in GG which are induced in Γ\Gamma. Thus, we may take C1′=1/(8​ℓ)C^{\prime}_{1}=1/(8\ell). ∎

The second lemma, due to Jiang and Yepremyan, allows us to get the KK-almost regularity, which was used in Section˜2 and in the preceding lemma to upper bound the maximum degree.

Lemma 3.3 (Lemma 3.2, [jiangYepremyan2020]).

Let α\alpha be real and s,qs,q integers where 0<α<10<\alpha<1 and q≥s≥1q\geq s\geq 1. Then there exist positive reals C0=C0​(α,s,q)C_{0}=C_{0}(\alpha,s,q) and K=K​(α,s,q)K=K(\alpha,s,q) such that the following holds. For every C≥C0C\geq C_{0}, if GG is an nn-vertex graph with e​(G)≥C​n1+αe(G)\geq Cn^{1+\alpha}, then GG contains a collection of edge-disjoint subgraphs G1,…,GmG_{1},\dots,G_{m} satisfying:

  • •

    for every i∈[m]i\in[m], GiG_{i} is KK-almost-regular and satisfies e​(Gi)≥14​C​v​(Gi)1+αe(G_{i})\geq\frac{1}{4}Cv(G_{i})^{1+\alpha}

  • •

    ∑i=1mf​(Gi,s,q)≥14s​f​(G,s,q),\sum_{i=1}^{m}f(G_{i},s,q)\geq\frac{1}{4^{s}}f(G,s,q),

where f​(H,s,q)=e​(H)s/v​(H)qf(H,s,q)=e(H)^{s}/v(H)^{q}.

We now have everything to prove the main result.

Proof of Theorem˜1.2.

Fix ℓ≥2\ell\geq 2. Let C0C_{0} and KK be the constants from Section˜3 for α=1/ℓ\alpha=1/\ell and s=q=2​ℓs=q=2\ell. Let ε\varepsilon, C1C_{1} and C1′C^{\prime}_{1} be the constants from Section˜3 for this value of KK, and take C=max⁡(4​C1,C0)C=\max(4C_{1},C_{0}) and C′=C1′42​ℓ.C^{\prime}=\frac{C^{\prime}_{1}}{4^{2\ell}}. Suppose Γ\Gamma is (1−ε,t)(1-\varepsilon,t)-sparse for some tt, and has at least C​t1−1/ℓ​n1+1/ℓCt^{1-1/\ell}n^{1+1/\ell} edges. Set D=C​t1−1/ℓD=Ct^{1-1/\ell}. Since t≥1t\geq 1 and C≥C0C\geq C_{0}, we have D≥C0D\geq C_{0}, so we may apply Section˜3 to Γ\Gamma. We obtain edge-disjoint subgraphs G1,…,GmG_{1},\dots,G_{m}. Writing ni=v​(Gi)n_{i}=v(G_{i}) and di=d​(Gi)d_{i}=d(G_{i}), each GiG_{i} is KK-almost regular and

e​(Gi)≥D4​ni1+1ℓ=C4​t1−1ℓ​ni1+1ℓ≥C1​t1−1ℓ​ni1+1ℓ.e(G_{i})\geq\frac{D}{4}n_{i}^{1+\frac{1}{\ell}}=\frac{C}{4}t^{1-\frac{1}{\ell}}n_{i}^{1+\frac{1}{\ell}}\geq C_{1}t^{1-\frac{1}{\ell}}n_{i}^{1+\frac{1}{\ell}}.

Thus, we may apply Section˜3 to each GiG_{i} to see that each GiG_{i} contains at least C1′​di2​ℓC^{\prime}_{1}d_{i}^{2\ell} copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell} that are induced in Γ\Gamma. Moreover, since f​(H,2​ℓ,2​ℓ)=2−2​ℓ​d​(H)2​ℓf(H,2\ell,2\ell)=2^{-2\ell}d(H)^{2\ell}, the second conclusion of Section˜3 gives

∑i=1mdi2​ℓ≥142​ℓ​d​(Γ)2​ℓ.\sum_{i=1}^{m}d_{i}^{2\ell}\geq\frac{1}{4^{2\ell}}d(\Gamma)^{2\ell}.

As the GiG_{i} are edge-disjoint, we do not double count any cycle, and so Γ\Gamma contains at least

∑i=1mC1′​di2​ℓ≥C1′42​ℓ​d​(Γ)2​ℓ=C′​d​(Γ)2​ℓ≥C′​22​ℓ​C2​ℓ​t2​ℓ−2​n2\sum_{i=1}^{m}C^{\prime}_{1}d_{i}^{2\ell}\geq\frac{C^{\prime}_{1}}{4^{2\ell}}d(\Gamma)^{2\ell}=C^{\prime}d(\Gamma)^{2\ell}\geq C^{\prime}2^{2\ell}C^{2\ell}t^{2\ell-2}n^{2}

induced copies of C2​ℓC_{2\ell}, as required. ∎

4. Concluding Remarks

In this paper, we proved Theorem˜1.2, which partially resolved Section˜1 in the "bootstrapped" case of sufficiently locally sparse graphs.

The obvious lines for further research are to come up with a proof for general (c,t)(c,t)-sparse graphs with sufficient edge density or to find a counterexample for some small cc. On the one hand, the existence result of Ding et al. [ding2024induced] for any (c,t)(c,t)-sparseness condition suggests that the supersaturation result might also be true in that case. On the other hand, our proof uses ε=O​(ℓ−2)\varepsilon=O\left(\ell^{-2}\right) in a canonical way, which may be seen as evidence for the contrary. If there were indeed a counterexample for a small cc, this would mean there is a threshold where we start getting enough induced cycles, which would be an interesting avenue for future study.

Acknowledgments

This work was started at the Young Researchers in Mathematics Program at the Bernoulli Center at EPFL in July 2026, supervised by Oliver Janzer with further input from Rik Sarkar. We thank them as well as the other participants and the other organisers Florian Richter, Mats Stensrud and Sven Wang for the helpful and friendly environment.

References