Presentations of avoiding transversal (q-)matroids

This post is based on joint work with Gianira N. Alfarano.

Last June, Mark Saaltink wrote on this blog about the q-analogue of transversal matroids. Key to this definition is the rather ingenious idea to not consider transversals, but avoiding transversals. This post explores this idea further. Our goal is to sketch a proof for Saaltink’s conjecture that every (avoiding) transversal q-matroid has a unique minimal presentation. However, we will ignore the q-analogue most of the time, because the setting is also valid for plain old transversal matroids. We describe what appears to be a new algorithm to find maximal / minimal presentations.

Cyclic sets and flats

Before we consider transversals, a quick recap of flats and cyclic sets. Consider a matroid with ground set $E$. The closure operator $\mathop{cl} : 2^E \to 2^E$ is defined by
\[ \mathop{cl}(X) = \{e \in E : r(X \cup e) = r(X)\}, \]
and the cyclic operator $\mathop{cyc} : 2^E \to 2^E$ is defined by
\[ \mathop{cyc}(X) = \{e \in X : r(X \setminus{e}) = r(X)\}.\]
For every $X\in 2^E$, we say that $\mathop{cl}(X)$ is the closure of $X$ and $\mathop{cyc}(X)$ is the cyclic core of $X$. A subset $X \subseteq E$ is a flat if $\mathop{cl}(X) = X$ and a cyclic set if $\mathop{cyc}(X) = X$. Therefore, $X$ is a cyclic flat if for all $y \in E\setminus X$ and $x \in X$,
\[ r(X \cup y) > r(X) \quad \text{and} \quad r(X \setminus {x}) = r(X). \]

Both the closure and the cyclic core are uniquely defined. To find the closure of a set, simply keep adding elements until adding any other element will increase the rank. For the cyclic closure, take away elements such that the rank decreases until there are only elements left that, when deleted, will not change the rank.

It is well known that closure and cyclic core are dual operations: the complement of the closure of a set is the cyclic core of the complement of this set in the dual matroid. We mention also the following.

Lemma. For any set $X\subseteq E$, we have that both $\mathop{cyc}(\mathop{cl}(X))$ and $\mathop{cl}(\mathop{cyc}(X))$ are cyclic flats. In particular, both the cyclic core of a flat and the closure of a cyclic set are cyclic flats.

Avoiding transversals

The definition of an avoiding transversal is due to Saaltink [Saa2025].

Definition. Given an indexed family $\mathcal{X}=(X_1,\ldots,X_k)$ of subsets of some given set $E$, an avoiding transversal of $ \mathcal{X}$ is a set of elements $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_k$ of $E$, all distinct, with each $x_i\notin X_i$. A partial avoiding transversal of $\mathcal{X}$ is an avoiding transversal of some subfamily of $\mathcal{X}$.

We can make a matroid out of every avoiding transversal.

Theorem. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an avoiding transversal of a finite set $E$. Then the set of avoiding transversals of $\mathcal{X}$ forms the set of bases of a matroid with ground set $E$.

Let $X_i=E\setminus A_i$. Since every avoiding transversal of $\mathcal{X}=(X_1,\ldots,X_k)$ is a transversal of $\mathcal{A}=(A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_k)$, the class of transversal matroids and the class of avoiding transversal matroids are the same. In the q-analogue, only the class of avoiding transversal q-matroids has a sensible definition. (Saaltink uses the term “transversal q-matroids” for them; we add “avoiding” here to emphasise the link with avoiding transversals and remove confusion.) This is why in the search for more results about q-analogues of transversal matroids, one needs to study avoiding transversals.

Presentations

When the independent sets of a matroid are exactly the partial transversals of $\mathcal{A}=(A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_k)$, we call $\mathcal{A}$ a presentation of $M$. (We will assume that all presentations contain $r(M)=k$ sets.) The representation of a transversal matroid is not necessarily unique, as the next result shows.

Proposition A. Let $\mathcal{A} = (A_1, A_2, \ldots , A_k )$ be a presentation of the transversal matroid $M$ of rank $k$, and let $a\in E\setminus A_1$. Then $\mathcal{A}’ = (A_1\cup \{a\}, A_2, \ldots , A_k )$ is also a presentation of $M$ if and only if $a$ is an isthmus of the restriction $M|(E \setminus A_1)$.

This proposition is due to [BW1971]. If we can add isthmusses to presentations without changing the corresponding matroid, the question arises if a matroid has a maximal presentation, that is, a presentation where adding any element to one of its subsets gives a new matroid. The answer is yes, as was first shown in [Mas1969] and [Bon1972]. Proposition A is a first step in proving this. We will see that the rest of the proof is immediate if we translate Proposition A to avoiding transversals. First, we need a definition.

Definition. Given $A\subseteq E$, we say that a subset $H\subseteq A$ with $|H|=|A|-1$ is a non-spanning $(|A|-1)$-set if it does not contain any basis of $M|A$.

This definition might feel overly complicated and in a sense, it is: a non-spanning $(|E|-1)$-set is the complement of an isthmus. However, with an eye on the q-analogue, we want to avoid isthmusses, because in the q-analogue they do not exist (that is, there can be no 1-dimensional space contained in every basis; see Lemma 5.4 of [JPR2025]). But we can talk about non-spanning $(\dim(E)-1)$-spaces.

We can now translate Proposition A to avoiding transversals.

Proposition B. Let $\mathcal{X} = (X_1, X_2, \ldots , X_k )$ be a presentation of the avoiding transversal matroid $M$ of rank $k$, and let $A\subseteq X_1$ of size $|X_1|-1$. Then $\mathcal{X}’ = (X_1\cap A, X_2, \ldots , X_k )$ is also a presentation of $M$ if and only if $A$ is a non-spanning $(|X_1|-1)$-set of the restriction $M|X_1$.

This point of view now gives us a direct proof of the existence and uniqueness of a minimal presentation of an avoiding transversal matroid: simply take the cyclic core of every set in the presentation! Indeed, intersecting with a non-spanning $(|A|-1)$-set repeatedly produces the cyclic core of a set.

With some extra taking of complements, we can find the maximal representation of a transversal matroid, as we illustrate with an example. It comes from exercise 3 op p.47 of [Oxl2011].

Example. Let $E=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ and $\mathcal{A}=(A_1,A_2,A_3)$ where $A_1=\{1,2,3\}$, $A_2=\{2,3,4\}$ and $A_3=\{4,5,6\}$. The cyclic flats of $M$ are $\emptyset$, $\{5,6\}$, $\{1,2,3\}$ and $E$.

Now $M$ can also be viewed as the avoiding transversal matroid corresponding to $\mathcal{X}=(\{4,5,6\},\{1,5,6\},\{1,2,3\})$. Taking the cyclic core of these subsets gives that $\mathcal{X}’=(\{5,6\},\{5,6\},\{1,2,3\})$ is a minimal presentation of $M$ as an avoiding transversal matroid. Hence, $\mathcal{A}’=(\{1,2,3,4\},\{1,2,3,4\},\{4,5,6\})$ is a maximal presentation of $M$ as a transversal matroid.

This leads us to the question: is this a known procedure to obtain a maximal presentation? Classic texts like [Bru1987] and [BKdM2011] do not mention the cyclic core, but use a much more involved procedure that requires knowing not only the cyclic flats, but also their ranks, and calculating a function that gives the multiplicity of these cyclic flats in the maximal presentation. It feels like the procedure as in the Example is much shorter. Please let us know if we are re-inventing the wheel! We admit to having read only a fraction of the literature on transversal matroids.

Finally, we can now prove Saaltink’s conjecture, because we have exactly the same results for avoiding transversal q-matroids. We can first prove Proposition B by taking a lot of complements in the proof of Proposition A. This is a non-trivial task! But as a result, we get a proof that has a straightforward q-analogue. The conjecture then follows by the same reasoning as above.

Theorem. Let $(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_k)$ be a presentation of the avoiding transversal q-matroid $M$. Then $(\mathop{cyc}(X_1),\mathop{cyc}(X_2),\ldots,\mathop{cyc}(X_k))$ is the unique minimal presentation of $M$.

References

[BKdM2011] J.E. Bonin, J.P.S. Kung and A. de Mier. Characterizations of Transversal and Fundamental Transversal Matroids. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 18(1): P106, 2011.

[Bon1972] J.A. Bondy. Presentations of transversal matroids, Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 5(2): 289-292, 1972.

[Bru1987] R.A. Brualdi. Transversal matroids. In: N. White, editor, Combinatorial geometries, pages 72–97, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.

[BW1971] J.A. Bondy and D.J.A. Welsh. Some results on transversal matroids and constructions for identically self-dual matroids, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, 22(3): 435-451, 1971.

[JPR2025] T. Johnsen, R. Pratihar and T. H. Randrianarisoa. The Euler characteristic, q-matroids, and a Möbius function. Journal of Algebra and Its Applications, 2025.

[Mas1969] J. Mason. Representations of independent spaces. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI, 1969.

[Oxl2011] J.G. Oxley. Matroid Theory. Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

[Saa2025] M. Saaltink. A theory of q-transversals. arXiv:2503.12201, 2025.

Lattice path matroids

From lattice paths to matroids

Lattice paths and Catalan numbers were some of the favourite topics in my recent combinatorics course. And while we didn’t cover them in class, I was reminded of lattice path matroids.

The systematic study of lattice path matroids was initiated by Joe Bonin, Anna de Mier, and Marc Noy. The results I describe here (as well as their proofs) can all be found in this paper by Bonin and De Mier.

A north-east lattice path (I will call them lattice paths for simplicity) is a sequence $v_0 = (0,0), v_1, \ldots, v_\ell$ of points in the lattice $\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that each step $P_i = v_i – v_{i-1}$ is either in the east direction $E = (1,0)$ or in the north direction $N = (0,1)$. As such lattice paths always start at the origin, they are in one-to-one correspondence with words over the alphabet $\{E,N\}$.

A lattice path
The lattice path of length 8 encoded by the word $NEEENENE$.

There are exactly $\binom{a+b}{b}$ lattice paths to $(a,b)$, as all such paths have $a+b$ steps, and identifying the $b$ north steps among them suffices to describe the path.

Given a lattice path $P$ to $(a,b)$, written as a sequence $P_1P_2\ldots P_{a+b}$ of $a$ east steps and $b$ north steps, we can record the north steps as follows: $$\mathcal{N}(P) = \{i : P_i = N\}.$$

All $b$-element subsets of $[a+b]$ appear as $\mathcal{N}(P)$ for some lattice path $P$ to $(a,b)$; in other words, the set of all $\mathcal{N}(P)$, as $P$ ranges over the lattice paths to $(a,b)$, is the set of bases of the rank-$b$ uniform matroid on $[a+b]$. Lattice path matroids generalise this construction.

Let $P$ and $Q$ be two lattice paths to $(a,b)$. We say that $P \le Q$ if $P$ never goes above $Q$; this defines a partial order on the set of all lattice paths to $(a,b)$. For $P \le Q$, we define the matroid $M[P,Q]$ on $[a,b]$ with set of bases $$\{\mathcal{N}(R) : P \le R \le Q\}.$$

Proposition. $M[P,Q]$ is a matroid.

The matroid $M[P,Q]$ records (the north steps of) all lattice paths between $P$ and $Q$; an arbitrary matroid is called a lattice path matroid if it is isomorphic to $M[P,Q]$ for some $P$ and $Q$. Here are some examples:

  • $M[E^aN^b, N^bE^a]$ is the rank-$b$ uniform matroid on $[a+b]$. Here, the first boundary path is the one formed by $a$ east steps followed by $b$ north steps, and the second boundary path is the one formed by $b$ north steps folled by $a$ east steps.
  • $M[P,P] \cong U_{b,b} \oplus U_{0,a}$ for any lattice path $P$ to $(a,b)$.
  • $M[E^nN^n, (EN)^n]$ is the Catalan matroid with exactly $\frac{1}{n+1}\binom{2n}{n}$ bases.
Pairs of lattice paths encoding the uniform matroid $M[P,Q] \cong U_{3,8}$ (left) and the rank-3 Catalan matroid $M[P,Q] \cong C_3$ (right).

Properties of $M[P,Q]$ can (in principle) be explained in terms of $P$ and $Q$ alone. We will need the following result later.

Proposition. The element $i$ is a coloop of $M[P,Q]$ if and only if $P_{i-1} = Q_{i-1}$ and $P_i – P_{i-1} = Q_i – Q_{i-1} = N$. The element $i$ is a loop of $M[P,Q]$ if and only if $P_{i-1} = Q_{i-1}$ and $P_i – P_{i-1} = Q_i – Q_{i-1} = E$.

Loops and coloops in lattice path matroids
The element 6 is a coloop, and the element 10 is a loop, of $M[P,Q]$.

An attractive property of the class of lattice path matroids is that it is closed under duality and minors. Both of these operations have interpretations in terms of lattice paths.

Duality

Let $\mathcal{N}(R)$ be a basis of $M[P,Q]$. Then the complement of $\mathcal{N}(R)$ in $[a+b]$ is a basis of the dual matroid $M[P,Q]^*$: its elements correspond precisely to the east steps in $R$. This inspires the following definition.

For a lattice path $R$, let $R^*$ be the lattice path obtained from $R$ by flipping the roles of north and east steps. If $R$ is a lattice path to $(a,b)$, then $R^*$ is a lattice path to $(b,a)$. Geometrically, $R^*$ is obtained from $R$ by reflecting it in the line $y=x$. It is clear from the geometric perspective that if $P \le R \le Q$, then $Q^* \le R^* \le P^*$, from which it can be shown that the dual of $M[P,Q]$ is again a lattice path matroid.

Proposition. $M[P,Q]^* = M[Q^*, P^*]$.

The dual of a lattice path matroid is again a lattice path matroid
The dual of the lattice path matroid $M[P,Q]$ is the lattice path matroid $M[Q^*,P^*]$.

Minors

Showing that the class of lattice path matroids is minor-closed requires a bit more work. Fortunately, in view of the previous result, it suffices to show that deleting a single element from $M[P,Q]$ results in a new lattice path matroid.

So let $M = M[P,Q]$ be a lattice path matroid and let $i$ be an element of $M$. If $i$ is a loop or coloop of $M$, then $P$ and $Q$ coincide in the $i$-th step; a lattice path representation can be obtained from $P$ and $Q$ by deleting this step from both paths. (When drawing $P$ and $Q$ in $\mathbb{Z}^2$, the resulting disconnected parts of the lattice paths should be connected up again by “sliding” the north-east component one unit to the south (when $i$ is a coloop) or to the west (when $i$ is a loop).)

When $i$ is neither a loop nor a coloop, the bases of $M\backslash i$ are the bases of $M$ that do not contain $i$. In terms of lattice paths, this means that the lattice paths $R$ corresponding to bases of $M\backslash i$ satisfy $P \le R \le Q$ and $R_i – R_{i-1} = E$: we disallow north steps starting from any point $(u,v)$ such that $u+v=i-1$. We obtain lattice paths $P’$ and $Q’$ representing $M\backslash i$ by “merging” the two squares on either side of such north steps. More precisely, we obtain $P’$ from $P$ by deleting the last east step at or before the $i$-th step, and $Q’$ from $Q$ by removing the first east step at or after the $i$-th step. See the figure for an illustrative example.

Proposition. $M[P,Q]\backslash i \cong M[P’,Q’]$.

Single-element deletions from a lattice path matroid are lattice path matroids.
Deleting the element 6 from $M[P,Q]$ is again a lattice path matroid. Its bases are the bases of $M[P,Q]$ that do not use the red north steps. $M[P,Q]\backslash 6 \cong M[P’,Q’]$.

We conclude that the class of lattice path matroids is closed under taking minors. Joe Bonin identified the excluded minors for the class of lattice path matroids: they comprise the rank-3 wheel and whirl, a rank-3 matroid on seven elements called $R_3$ and its dual, and five infinite families.

The class of lattice paths has many more interesting properties. For example, all of them are transversal matroids and their Tutte polynomials can be computed in polynomial time. I refer to the original papers by Bonin, De Mier, and Noy for this and more.

A theory of q-transversals

This is a guest post by Mark Saaltink.

A $q$-analog is formed by replacing the notion of a set by the notion of a vector space, with a corresponding replacement of other concepts: cardinality becomes dimension, elements are replaced by 1-dimensional subspaces, the empty set is replaced by the 0-dimensional subspace, intersection remains the same, and union is replaced by sum. (It is not always clear how to replace set difference or symmetric difference.) The application of this idea to matroid theory gives the theory of q-matroids [Jur2018][Cer2022], which Relinde Jurrius has described in this forum, most recently with the analog of delta-matroids. In this post I’ll define a $q$-analog of a transversal [Mir1971], and show that there is still a connection with matroids, as well as analogs of many of the main theorems of transversal theory. A more complete account has been posted on arXiv.

$q$-matroids, briefly

A $q$-matroid can be characterized by its bases, independent sets, circuits, or spanning sets, but the simplest definition for our purposes is via the rank function.

Definition 0. Let $V$ be a vector space and ${\cal L}(V)$ be the lattice of subspaces of $V$. A $q$-matroid on $V$ is determined by a rank function $r: {\cal L}(V) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, satisfying, for all $A, B \in {\cal L}(V)$,

  1. $0 \leq r(A) \leq \dim A$ (rank is non-negative and bounded by dimension),
  2. if $A \leq B$ then $r(A) \leq r(B)$ (rank is non-decreasing), and
  3. $r(A \vee B) + r(A \wedge B) \leq r(A) + r(B)$ (rank is submodular).

The usual concepts of matroid theory apply equally well to $q$-matroids: a subspace $A$ is independent if $r(A) = \dim A$, and dependent otherwise; a subspace $A$ is a circuit if it is dependent but all its proper subspaces are independent; the closure of $A$ is the largest subspace $B$ with $A \leq B \leq V$ and $r(B) = r(A)$; and $A$ is spanning if its closure is $V$. Axiom systems for $q$-matroids in terms of independent sets, bases, or circuits can be found in [Cer2022].

The closure of the trivial subspace $\{ 0 \}$ gives the so-called loop space of the matroid; any subspace of rank 0 is contained in this loop space. A $q$-matroid of rank 1 is therefore completely characterized by its loop space $L$, with the rank of a subspace $X$ being 0 if it is a subspace of $L$ and 1 otherwise.

A large class of $q$-matroids can be defined algebraically; these are the representable $q$-matroids. Given some $n\times m$ matrix $G$ over a field $K$ extending $\mathbb{F}_q$, we can define the $q$-matroid represented by $G$ as follows: if a subspace of $\mathbb{F}_q^m$ is the row space of matrix $X$, then its rank in the $q$-matroid is the rank of $GX^T$. It can be seen that this does not depend on the matrix $X$ we use; if $X$ and $Y$ are full-rank matrices with equal row spans, then there is some invertible matrix $A$ so that $Y = AX$. Then $GY^T = GX^TA^T$, and as $A^T$ is invertible, the ranks are the same. Note that the entries of $G$ may lie in a larger field than the vector space is defined over. Usually $K$ is equal to $\mathbb{F}_{q^k}$ for some $k$.

Unlike a normal matroid that might be representable over fields of many different characteristics, a $q$-matroid representation has its characteristic fixed by the vector space the $q$-matroid is defined on. I suppose the interesting question about representations is then which extension fields are possible.

Normal transversals, abnormally

To have a clear connection to $q$-matroids, it seems to work best to analogize a cryptomorphic version of transversal theory. Where the usual definition has membership, this definition uses non-membership.

Definition Given an indexed family ${\cal X} = (X_1,X_2, \dotsc, X_n)$ of subsets of some given set $S$, an avoiding transversal of $\cal X$ is a set of elements $x_1, x_2, \dotsc, x_n$ of $S$, all distinct, with each $x_i \notin X_i$. A partial avoiding transversal of $\cal X$ is an avoiding transversal of some subfamily (that is, containing some subset of the $X_i$).

Clearly, when $A_i = S \setminus X_i$, an avoiding transversal of $\cal X$ is just a transversal of the $A_i$.

The main properties of transversals can be recast in this setting. We first define ${\cal X}(J) = \bigcap_{j\in J} X_j$ for any $J \subseteq \{1, 2, \dots,n\}$, with the convention ${\cal X}(\emptyset) = S$.

Theorem

  1. (Hall) $\cal X$ has a transversal iff for all $J \subseteq \{1, 2, \dots,n\}$ we have $|{\cal X}(J)| + |J| \leq |S|$.
  2. (Rado) Suppose $M$ is a matroid on $S$ with co-nullity function $\nu^*$. $\cal X$ has a transversal that is independent in $M$ iff for all $J \subseteq \{1, 2, \dots,n\}$ we have $\nu^*({\cal X}(J)) + |J| \leq \nu^*(S)$.
  3. (Edmonds and Fulkerson) The set of partial transversals of $\cal X$ are the independent sets of a matroid.
  4. (Piff and Welsh) Transversal matroids are representable over every sufficiently large field.
  5. A matroid is transversal iff it is the union of a collection of rank-1 matroids.

When $M$ is the matroid whose independent sets are the partial avoiding transversals of $\cal X$ we say that $M$ is a transversal matroid and $\cal X$ is a co-presentation of $M$. Co-presentations have some nice properties:

  1. If the rank of transversal matroid $M$ is $r$, then $M$ has a co-presentation with $r$ elements.
  2. If $\cal X$ is a co-presentation of $M$ and the rank of $M$ is $r$, then $\cal X$ has a subfamily with $r$ elements that is also a co-presentation of $M$.
  3. If $(X_1, \dots, X_r)$ is a co-presentation of $M$, then each $X_i$ is a flat.
  4. If $M$ is a transversal matroid, then it has a unique minimal co-presentation, where a co-presentation is minimal if no members can be removed or replaced by strictly smaller sets while still co-representing $M$.

$q$-transversals, finally

In this section we will be talking about the vector space $V$ and its subspaces as well as $q$-matroids, so there is room for some confusion when we say “independent” or “basis”. Therefore we will qualify these terms and speak of a “vector basis” or “independent vectors” when referring to $V$ and its elements, or a “matroid basis” or “independent subspace” when referring to aspects of a $q$-matroid.

Definition Let a vector space $V$ be given, together with a family ${\cal X} = (X_1, \dotsc, X_n)$ of subspaces of $V$. A $q$-transversal is a dimension $n$ subspace $T$ of $V$ where every vector basis $B$ of $T$ has an ordering $B = \{b_1, \dots, b_n\}$ such that $b_i \notin X_i$ for $i \in\{1,2,\dotsc,n\}$. That is, every vector basis of $T$ is an avoiding transversal of $\cal X$. A partial $q$-transversal is a dimension $n$ subspace $T$ where every vector basis of $T$ is a partial avoiding transversal of $\cal X$.

The definition of partial $q$-transversal deserves some note. It would be more analogous to the conventional theory to declare a partial $q$-transversal to be a $q$-transversal of some subsystem of $\cal X$. This turns out to be equivalent, but is more difficult to work with. Analogs of the major properties of transversals are also enjoyed by $q$-transversals as defined this way:

Theorem

  • Family $\cal X$ has a $q$-transversal iff for every nonempty $J \subseteq \{1, 2, \dots, n\}$ we have $\dim {\cal X}(J) + |J| \leq \dim V$.
  • The set of partial $q$-transversals of a family form the independent subspaces of a $q$-matroid.
  • A $q$-matroid is $q$-transversal iff it is the union of a collection of rank 1 $q$-matroids.

I conjecture that all $q$-transversal matroids are representable, but have only proven a special case where the spaces $X_i$ align is a particular way:

Theorem Suppose that $V$ has a vector basis $\{b_1, b_2, \dotsc, b_n\}$ so that each of the $X_i$ has the form $X_i = \left< b_i \,|\, i \in L_i \right>$ for some sets $L_i \subseteq \{1, 2, \dots, n \}$. Then the associated $q$-transversal matroid is representable.

I also conjecture that an analog of Rado’s theorem holds. Recall that if $\cal B$ is the set of bases of matroid $M$, then co-nullity satisfies $\nu^*(X) = \min_{B \in \cal B} | B \cap X |$, so we may plausibly define a $q$-analog $\bar n$ satisfying $\bar n(X) = \min_{B \in \cal B} \dim(B \wedge X)$ for a $q$-matroid $M$ with bases $\cal B$.

Conjecture Suppose $M$ is a $q$-matroid on vector space $V$, with rank function $r$, and $\cal X$ is a system of subspaces of $V$. Then $\cal X$ has a $q$-transversal that is independent in $M$ iff for all $J \subseteq I$ we have $\bar n ({\cal X}(J)) + |J| \leq \bar n (V)$.

When $M$ is the $q$-matroid whose independent spaces are the set partial $q$-transversals of a family $\cal X$ we say that $M$ is $q$-transversal and that $\cal X$ is a presentation of $M$.

  1. If the rank of $q$-transversal matroid $M$ is $r$, then $M$ has a presentation with $r$ elements.
  2. If $\cal X$ is a presentation of $q$-matroid $M$ and the rank of $M$ is $r$, then $\cal X$ has a subfamily with $r$ elements that is also a presentation of $M$.
  3. If $(X_1, \dots, X_r)$ is a presentation of $M$, then each $X_i$ is a flat.

I conjecture that any $q$-transversal matroid has a unique minimal presentation.

As can be seen, while there are still some interesting questions to be settled, the analogy with normal transversal theory looks promising. Details and proofs are in the paper on arXiv [Saa2025].

References

[Cer2002] Michela Ceria and Relinde Jurrius. Alternatives for the $q$-matroid axioms of independent spaces, bases, and spanning spaces. arXiv.org/abs/2207.07324v3, December 2022.

[Jur2018] Relinde Jurrius and Ruud Pellikaan. Defining the $q$-analog of a matroid. Article #P3.2, The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 25(3), 2018.

[Mir1971] Leon Mirsky. Transversal Theory: an account of some aspects of combinatorial mathematics. Academic Press, 1971.

[Saa2025] Mark Saaltink. A theory of $q$-transversals arXiv.org/abs/2503.12201, March 2025.

Greedy strikes back: A 4.75-competitive algorithm for the laminar matroid secretary problem

This is a guest post by Zahra Parsaeian. This post is a follow-up to Tony Huynh’s 2015 blog post of the matroid secretary problem, focusing on the special case of laminar matroids. Zahra highlights the last decade’s steady progress in this special case and outlines the recent greedy algorithm that brings the competitive ratio down to 4.75.

From Secretaries to Laminar Matroids

The classical secretary problem asks for a strategy that hires (with high probability) the best of $n$ applicants who appear in uniformly random order. The well-known threshold strategy—observe the first $n/e$ applicants, then pick the first candidate better than all previous ones—achieves a competitive ratio of $e$.

The matroid secretary problem (MSP), introduced by Babaioff, Immorlica & Kleinberg (2007), generalises this set-selection game: instead of choosing a single element, we must pick an independent set of elements in an (unknown) weighted matroid that arrive online. The grand conjecture is that every matroid admits an $O(1)$-competitive algorithm.

A particularly structured—and surprisingly rich—family of matroids is the laminar matroids. Here the ground set $E$ is organised by a laminar family $\mathcal{F}$ (any two sets are either disjoint or nested), and each $B \in \mathcal{F}$ comes with a capacity $c(B)$; a subset $S \subseteq E$ is independent if $|S \cap B| \leq c(B)$ for every $B$. Partition matroids are the simplest laminar matroids, but many “hierarchical quota” constraints in practice are laminar as well.

Why single them out? Laminar matroids already capture the core difficulty of MSP while admitting extra structure that can be exploited algorithmically.

A Decade of Improving Constants

Tony’s 2015 survey listed Im & Wang’s first constant-competitive algorithm (competitive ratio $\approx 5333.33$). Since then the record book has been rewritten multiple times:

YearAuthorsTechniqueCompetitive ratio
2011Im & WangReduction to partition + “sample and price” $16000/3 \approx 5333.33$
2013Jaillet, Soto & ZenklusenImproved reduction$\sqrt{3e} \approx 14.12$
2016Ma, Tang & WangSimulated greedy9.6
2018Soto, Turkieltaub & VerdugoForbidden sets$3\sqrt{3} \approx 5.196$
2024Huang, Parsaeian & ZhuPlain greedy4.75
2024Bérczi, Livanos, Soto & VerdugoLabeling scheme (tight)$1/(1 – \ln 2) \approx 3.257$

Progress has come from increasingly delicate analyses, often accompanied by algorithmic complexity. The latest result is a counter-trend: a simpler algorithm with a better constant.

Greedy—But With Better Timing

Before we describe the algorithm, recall the standard arrival model: each element independently receives a uniformly random arrival time in $[0,1]$, yielding a random order of appearance that our online algorithm must process.

Our algorithm really is the textbook greedy rule, decorated with a single time threshold $t_0$.

  • Sampling phase. Ignore all elements that arrive before time $t_0$ (we use $t_0 = 0.7$).
  • Selection phase. When an element $e$ arrives at time $t > t_0$, inspect the elements seen so far. If $e$ belongs to the offline optimum of the already-arrived instance and adding it keeps the set independent, accept it.

That is all! There are no prices, buckets, or recursive calls—just a look-ahead greedy algorithm.

Why does it work? Greedy alone is not new: the 9.6-competitive algorithm of Ma et al. also used greedy, but their acceptance rule only looked at the sample window. The key novelty is to test membership in the current optimum, which becomes increasingly selective as more elements arrive.

The analysis hinges on two observations:

  • Independence of arrival times. Viewing arrival times as i.i.d. uniform variables decouples the combinatorial structure from time.
  • Order statistics $\rightarrow$ Gamma distribution. For each laminar constraint $B$, the arrival gap between its last $c(B)$ optimal elements behaves like a Gamma-distributed random variable. Bounding the tail of this distribution shows that every optimal element survives with probability $\geq 1/4.75$.

The final ratio is therefore 4.75-probability-competitive, which also implies 4.75-utility-competitive. Moreover, the algorithm operates in the ordinal model (it only needs relative weight rankings), aligning with applications where exact weights are costly to elicit.

Greedy’s limit: the 3.257 barrier

Bérczi et al. recently introduced a labeling scheme framework and proved that the best achievable competitive ratio for any greedy algorithm on laminar matroids is $\frac{1}{1 – \ln 2} \approx 3.257$. This is tight: they present a greedy variant that achieves it, and show no greedy algorithm can do better.

How close are we to “optimal”?

Laminar matroids remain the most complex class with a known constant. A natural next step is to sharpen the constant—can we reach the golden goal of $e$? On the structural side, extending the greedy-with-look-ahead idea to regular or binary matroids looks tantalising (the last conjecture in Tony’s post is still wide open). The recent structure theorems for minor-closed classes may reopen that door.

Takeaways

  • Simplicity can win. A one-line greedy rule beats a sophisticated forbidden-sets construction.
  • Timing matters. The 0.7 threshold balances the risk of sampling versus missing high-value elements.
  • Open questions abound. Improving the constant for laminar matroids (or proving a lower bound!), and generalising to wider matroid families, remain fertile ground.

I hope this short note complements Tony’s earlier exposition and sparks fresh interest in the laminar MSP. Feedback, questions, and ideas are most welcome—please share them in the comments or reach out directly.

This post was updated on May 26, 2025 to include the result in the recent Bérczi et al. paper.