Frankl's union-closed sets conjecture — every finite union-closed family of sets has an element contained in at least half of its member sets — is equivalent to the extremal rung of a ladder of statements introduced by Bouchard: for a union-closed family with ground set , asks for a subset of the ground set of size such that at least as many member sets contain all of as are disjoint from . Only the rungs with are proven. This problem asks for a resolution of the two questions that control the rest of the ladder: Question 2.2, whether every finite family with (with no union-closure assumption) has a proper subfamily with , an affirmative answer to which would extend the proven rungs to ; and Question 2.5, whether, for every union-closed family, the truth of for that family forces for all , so that a proof of Frankl's conjecture would settle the whole ladder. Both questions remain open.
Background
A family of sets is union-closed if it is finite and nonempty, its member sets are finite and distinct (at least one of them nonempty), and the union of any two member sets is again a member set. Frankl's union-closed sets conjecture (1979), a central open problem of extremal combinatorics, asserts that every union-closed family contains an element belonging to at least half of its member sets. The best general results are constant lower bounds on the maximum element frequency: Gilmer showed by an entropy method that some element appears in at least member sets, and Sawin improved the constant to . These are results about single-element frequencies and do not settle the conjecture.
Bouchard (arXiv:2310.02482) organizes the conjecture into a ladder of statements. Write for the ground set of the family (an -element set); for a subset let denote the member sets containing all of , and those disjoint from . For , the statement reads: there exists a subset (a set of ground elements) with . The rung asks this for a singleton , which is exactly Frankl's conjecture, since says that element lies in at least half the member sets. The rung , at the other end, holds trivially for every union-closed family: the union of all member sets is itself a member set, so exactly one member contains all of , while at most one member — the empty set, if it belongs to the family — is disjoint from . Implications between rungs are known only in limited ranges, and this is where the open questions live.
Bouchard proves for all (Theorem 2.1) by a constructive induction that climbs from the trivial rung and whose guiding quantity hits exactly at this boundary, so the method stops there; the paper also proves the adjacent implication for every family (Theorem 2.4). Two further questions control progress. Question 2.2 is a purely additive existence statement about arbitrary finite families with no union-closure hypothesis: if , must there exist a proper subfamily with ? Proposition 2.3 of the paper shows that an affirmative answer would push the proven range of the ladder up to . Question 2.5 asks whether the Frankl rung implies the others, family by family: for a union-closed family with that satisfies , must also satisfy for every ? An affirmative answer would mean that a proof of Frankl's conjecture settles every rung of the ladder at once; the adjacent case , the converse of Theorem 2.4, remains open. Recent adjacent work stays on different axes — Das and Wu confirmed a 2022 conjecture of Nagel that the -th most frequent element of a union-closed family lies in at least member sets, and Tian proved Frankl's conjecture for families of height at most four in the empty-set-free formulation (height being the length of the longest chain of member sets under inclusion) — and none of it addresses these two ladder questions.
Problem Statement
Resolve the following two questions from Bouchard (arXiv:2310.02482), which together determine how far the ladder extends beyond the currently proven range and how its rungs relate to Frankl's conjecture.
-
Question 2.2 (subfamily existence). Let be a finite family of finite sets — not necessarily union-closed, and with members not necessarily distinct, so that counts repeated members with multiplicity — satisfying . Must there exist a proper subfamily such that ? An affirmative answer, combined with Proposition 2.3 of the source paper, establishes for every union-closed family with ; a negative answer is witnessed by a single explicit finite family satisfying the premise for which no proper subfamily meets the equality.
-
Question 2.5 (implication among rungs). For every union-closed family with ground set and : if holds for — that is, if some element of lies in at least half of the member sets of — must also hold for for every , i.e. must there exist, for each such , a subset of size with ? An affirmative answer would show that Frankl's conjecture, if true, implies every rung of the ladder (family by family), so that any proof of Frankl's conjecture would settle the entire ladder; a negative answer is witnessed by a single explicit union-closed family that satisfies but violates for some . (The source paper proves the adjacent implication for every family; these converse directions remain open.)
A complete answer resolves both questions: each either by a proof valid for all qualifying families, or by an explicit finite counterexample family — for Question 2.2, a family satisfying for which no proper subfamily achieves the equality; for Question 2.5, a union-closed family satisfying but violating some . The common objective is a complete determination of the reach and the implication structure of the ladder below its top rung; neither question, once resolved, settles Frankl's conjecture itself.
References
- Christopher Bouchard, "Conjectures on union-closed families of sets", arXiv:2310.02482 (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02482 (published as Graduate Journal of Mathematics, Volume 9, Issue 1 (2024), 51–59)
- Justin Gilmer, "A constant lower bound for the union-closed sets conjecture", arXiv:2211.09055 (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09055
- Will Sawin, "An improved lower bound for the union-closed set conjecture", arXiv:2211.11504 (2022), https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.11504
- Shagnik Das and Saintan Wu, "Frequent elements in union-closed set families", arXiv:2412.03862 (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03862
- Christopher Bouchard, "An averaging result for union-closed families of sets", arXiv:2509.12537 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12537
- Chenxiao Tian, "Frankl's Conjecture at Height Four and the Structure of Height-Five Counterexamples", arXiv:2608.25147 (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25147
- Ze-Chun Hu, Yi-Ding Shi, and Qian-Qian Zhou, "A lemma on a finite union-closed family of finite sets and its applications", arXiv:2507.11008 (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11008
- Roberto Demontis, "The union-closed set conjecture is true", arXiv:2405.03731 (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03731 (also published as DOI 10.33140/crsm.03.02.04)