Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: hamilton cycles occupy a position of central importance in graph theory , and are the subject of countless results . the most famous is of course dirac s theorem @xcite , which states that a hamilton cycle can always be found in any @xmath1-vertex graph with all degrees at least @xmath7 . much more work has been done to determine conditions for hamiltonicity in graphs , digraphs , hypergraphs , and random and pseudo - random instances of these objects . see , e.g. , any of @xcite . there has also been a long history of research concerning conditions for the existence of multiple edge - disjoint hamilton cycles . indeed , nash - williams discovered that the dirac condition already guarantees not just one , but at least @xmath8 edge - disjoint hamilton cycles . his questions in @xcite started a line of investigation , leading to recent work by christofides , khn , and osthus @xcite , who answered one of his conjectures asymptotically by proving that minimum degree @xmath9 is already enough to guarantee @xmath10 edge - disjoint hamilton cycles . for random graphs , these `` packings '' with hamilton cycles are even more complete . bollobs and frieze @xcite showed that for every fixed @xmath11 , one can typically find @xmath11 edge - disjoint hamilton cycles in the random graph process as soon as the minimum degree reaches @xmath12 . kim and wormald @xcite established a similar result for random @xmath11-regular graphs , proving that such graphs typically contain @xmath13 edge - disjoint hamilton cycles . the previous statements are of course best possible , but invite the natural question of what happens when @xmath11 is allowed to grow . along these lines , frieze and krivelevich showed in @xcite that one can pack @xmath14 hamilton cycles in @xmath15 , up to @xmath16 , where @xmath17 is the minimum degree of the graph . for large @xmath6 , they discovered in @xcite that one can pack almost all edges into hamilton cycles . this was later improved to essentially the full range of @xmath6 by knox , khn , and osthus @xcite . in the hypergraph setting , the study of this hamilton cycle packing problem was initiated by frieze and krivelevich in @xcite . although the notion of a hamilton cycle in an ordinary graph is clear , there are several ways to generalize the notion to hypergraphs . indeed , for any @xmath18 , we may define a @xmath19-uniform hypergraph @xmath5 to be a _ hamilton cycle of type @xmath20 _ if there is a cyclic ordering of the vertices of @xmath5 so that every edge consists of @xmath19 consecutive vertices , and every pair of consecutive edges @xmath21 in @xmath5 ( according to the natural ordering of the edges ) has @xmath22 . the extreme cases @xmath23 and @xmath24 are the most obvious generalizations of graph hamiltonicity , and cycles of those types are often called _ tight _ and _ loose _ , respectively . in @xcite , the first two authors studied the problem of covering almost all the edges of a given @xmath19-uniform hypergraph with disjoint hamilton cycles of a fixed type @xmath20 . they considered @xmath20 on the looser end of the spectrum , determining sufficient conditions for the cases @xmath25 . however , their methods did not extend to the regime @xmath26 , which seems more difficult .      in this paper , we introduce several new techniques which enable us to prove the first results for packing _ tight _ hamilton cycles , i.e. , with @xmath27 . to give the clearest presentation of the new methods involved , we concentrate on the concrete case of 3-uniform hypergraphs , which we refer to as _ 3-graphs _ from now on . our approach can be naturally extended to the general @xmath19-uniform case , but the explanations necessarily become more involved . we focus on 3-graphs with certain pseudo - random properties . consequently , our results will yield corollaries in the standard random 3-graph model , denoted @xmath28 , in which each of the @xmath29 possible edges independently appears with probability @xmath6 . recall that there are several essentially equivalent notions of pseudo - randomness in graphs , most notably the ones involving uniformity of edge distribution , the second eigenvalue , or the global count of 4-cycles . ( see , e.g. , the survey @xcite . ) however , even in ordinary graphs , these global conditions are insufficient for hamilton cycle packing , because hamilton cycles visit every vertex . therefore , even a single non - conforming vertex can doom the entire packing process . this situation can be prevented by localizing the specification of the pseudo - random criteria . importantly , the resulting stronger conditions are still satisfied by the random objects in question . for example , in the graph case , this can be done by controlling the degrees and codegrees ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) . note that this is a special case of the more general notion of controlling the numbers of _ extensions _ to certain specific subgraphs , uniformly over all base sites , instead of just the global number of copies of a certain graph ( @xmath30 , say ) . the following definition generalizes that concept to 3-graphs . [ def:3graph - ext ] let @xmath31 be distinct vertices of a 3-graph @xmath0 , and let @xmath32 be a graph on vertex set @xmath33 $ ] . then , we define @xmath34 to be the number of vertices @xmath35 such that @xmath36 for every edge @xmath37 . * example 1 . * if @xmath38 and @xmath32 is a single edge , then @xmath39 is the number of edges which contain the pair @xmath40 . this can be interpreted as a generalized notion of degree . * example 2 . * in general , if @xmath32 is the complete graph on @xmath41 vertices , then @xmath42 is the number of @xmath43 which simultaneously form edges with all pairs @xmath44 . this can be interpreted as a generalized notion of codegree . we can now state our localized version of pseudo - randomness , which we will later show is satisfied by the random 3-graph @xmath28 * whp * is said to occur _ with high probability _ ( abbreviated * whp * ) , if @xmath45 . ] when @xmath6 is not too small . since we need to control many quantities within certain ranges , we will employ the notation @xmath46 as a shorthand for the pair of inequalities @xmath47 . [ def:3graph - props ] we say that an @xmath1-vertex 3-graph @xmath0 is * @xmath48-uniform * if for every auxiliary graph @xmath32 on @xmath49 vertices and @xmath50 edges , and every choice of distinct vertices @xmath51 , we have @xmath52    * remark . * we do not actually need the full strength of this definition , as will be clear in the proof of lemma [ lem : d ] in section [ sec:3graph ] . indeed , there are only 5 specific graphs @xmath32 with respect to which we require control ( depicted in figure [ fig : gamma ] of section [ sec:3graph ] ) . however , we feel that the description is more succinctly captured in the above statement . the main result of this paper establishes the first known packing result for tight hamilton cycles in pseudo - random hypergraphs . here , and in the rest of this paper , we write @xmath53 if @xmath54 as @xmath55 . [ thm:3graph ] suppose that @xmath1 is a sufficiently large multiple of four , and @xmath56 . then every @xmath57-uniform 3-graph with @xmath1 vertices can have all but at most @xmath58-fraction of its edges covered by a disjoint union of tight hamilton cycles . note that in @xmath28 , for each graph @xmath32 with @xmath50 edges on a set of @xmath59 vertices , the value of @xmath60 has distribution @xmath61}$ ] . so , the chernoff bound in section [ sec : tools ] ( fact [ fact : chernoff ] ) shows that as long as @xmath62 , we have @xmath63 }    =    o(n^7 ) \cdot    \sum_{s=1}^6 { \mathbb{p}\left[{\text{\rm bin}\left[n , p^s\right ] } \neq ( 1 \pm \e ) np^s\right ] }    =    o(1),\ ] ] giving the following immediate corollary . [ cor:3graph ] suppose that @xmath64 satisfy @xmath65 . then whenever @xmath1 is a multiple of four , @xmath28 can have all but at most @xmath58-fraction of its edges covered by a disjoint union of tight hamilton cycles * whp*.    * remark . * although both results are stated for @xmath1 divisible by 4 , we expect that they are true in general . note , however , that a divisibility condition is unavoidable in the general case of packing hamilton cycles of type @xmath20 in @xmath19-uniform hypergraphs , since @xmath20 must divide @xmath1 .    along the way , we also prove a new result about packing hamilton cycles in pseudo - random digraphs . the result differs from that in @xcite as our definition of pseudo - randomness is local instead of global , and therefore may be easier to apply in some situations . indeed , the previous result required a minimum degree condition , together with bounds on the edge distributions across almost all cuts . we can now replace the latter conditions with two more local statements the specific conditions that we impose below have been tailored for the task of producing hamilton cycles in digraphs . [ def : digraph - props ] we say that an @xmath1-vertex digraph is * @xmath48-uniform * if it satisfies the following properties :    ( i ) : :    every vertex @xmath66 has out - degree    @xmath67 and in - degree @xmath68 . ( ii ) : :    for every pair of distinct vertices @xmath69 , all three of    the following quantities are @xmath70 : the    number of common out - neighbors @xmath71 , the number of    common in - neighbors @xmath72 , and the number of    out - neighbors of @xmath66 which are also in - neighbors of    @xmath73 . ( iii ) : :    given any four vertices @xmath74 , which are all    distinct except for the possibility @xmath75 , there are    @xmath76 vertices @xmath43 such that    @xmath77 ,    @xmath78 ,    @xmath79 ,    @xmath80 are all directed edges .    * remark . * it is not clear that this is the minimal set of pseudo - random conditions which enable hamilton cycle packing in directed graphs . we choose the above statements because they naturally arise from our analysis , and are therefore the most convenient for our purposes . importantly , one can easily see that they are satisfied by random digraphs * whp * , as long as the edge probability is not too small .    under these easily - verifiable conditions , we are able to prove the following packing result for digraphs , which has the obvious corollary for random digraphs which are not too sparse . [ thm : digraph ] suppose that @xmath81 , and @xmath1 is a sufficiently large even integer . then every @xmath82-uniform digraph can have its edges partitioned into a disjoint union of directed hamilton cycles , except for a set of at most @xmath83-fraction of its edges . although we originally developed this result only as a building block for our 3-graph analysis in section [ sec:3graph ] , we feel it is worth bringing attention to , as it may be of independent interest . in particular , it is easier to apply than its counterpart in @xcite , because our pseudo - randomness conditions are easier to verify . the key insight in the proof of theorem [ thm:3graph ] is the following connection between tight hamilton cycles in @xmath0 and hamilton cycles in an associated digraph . for a random permutation @xmath84 of the vertices of @xmath0 , define an @xmath85-vertex digraph @xmath86 with vertex set @xmath87 . note that each vertex of @xmath86 corresponds to an ordered pair of vertices of @xmath0 , so @xmath86 will have an even number of vertices , since the number of vertices of @xmath0 is a multiple of 4 . place a directed edge from @xmath88 to @xmath89 if and only if both hyperedges @xmath90 and @xmath91 are present in @xmath0 . in this construction , hamilton cycles in @xmath86 give rise to tight hamilton cycles in @xmath0 . to extract edge disjoint hamilton cycles from a digraph @xmath86 with an even number of vertices , we use an approach similar to that taken in @xcite . let @xmath92 be a random permutation of the vertices of @xmath86 with @xmath93 , and define @xmath94 and @xmath95 . define a bipartite graph @xmath96 with bipartition @xmath97 , and place an edge between @xmath98 and @xmath99 whenever @xmath100 and @xmath101 are both edges of @xmath86 . now perfect matchings in @xmath32 give rise to hamilton cycles in @xmath86 , and previous approaches in @xcite show how to pack perfect matchings in pseudo - random bipartite graphs . however , not all hamilton cycles in @xmath86 arise from perfect matchings in one particular @xmath32 . similarly , not all hamilton cycles in @xmath0 arise from hamilton cycles in a single @xmath86 . we overcome both obstacles with the same iterative approach , which we illustrate for the hypergraph packing . roughly speaking , instead of stopping after generating a single @xmath86 , we sequentially generate digraphs @xmath102 in the above manner , extracting a large set of edge disjoint directed hamilton cycles from each , and deleting the corresponding edge - disjoint hamilton cycles from @xmath0 . at each step , we verify that the pseudo - random properties are maintained . we repeat the process until we have packed the required number of cycles . since the digraph packing and hypergraph packing proofs are essentially independent ( though similar ) , we separate them into sections [ sec : digraph ] and [ sec:3graph ] , respectively . all required concentration inequalities are collected in section [ sec : tools ] for the reader s convenience . the final section contains some concluding remarks and open problems . we will implicitly assume throughout that @xmath103 are small , e.g. , less than @xmath104 . our results have them tending to zero . the following ( standard ) asymptotic notation will be utilized extensively . for two functions @xmath105 and @xmath106 , we write @xmath107 or @xmath108 if @xmath109 , and @xmath110 or @xmath111 if there exists a constant @xmath112 such that @xmath113 for all sufficiently large @xmath1 . we also write @xmath114 if both @xmath115 and @xmath116 are satisfied . all logarithms will be in base @xmath117 . we recall the chernoff bound for exponential concentration of the binomial distribution . the following formulation appears in , e.g. , @xcite . [ fact : chernoff ] for any @xmath118 , there exists @xmath119 such that any binomial random variable @xmath120 with mean @xmath121 satisfies @xmath122 } < e^{-c_\epsilon \mu},\ ] ] where @xmath123 is a constant determined by @xmath124 . when @xmath125 , we may take @xmath126 . a binomial random variable is the sum of independent indicator variables . we also need concentration in settings which are still product spaces , but are somewhat more complicated than simple binomials . a random variable @xmath127 defined over an @xmath1-dimensional product space @xmath128 is called @xmath5-lipschitz if changing @xmath129 in any single coordinate affects the value of @xmath127 by at most @xmath5 . the hoeffding - azuma inequality ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) provides concentration for these distributions . [ fact : azuma ] let @xmath120 be a @xmath5-lipschitz random variable on an @xmath1-dimensional product space . then for any @xmath130 , @xmath131 } | > t \right ] }      \leq      2 \exp\left\ {        -\frac{t^2}{2 c^2 n }      \right\}.\ ] ]    we also need concentration in settings where the probability space is not a simple @xmath1-dimensional product space , but rather the set of permutations on @xmath1 elements . the following concentration inequality can be found in , e.g. , section 3.2 of @xcite or lemma 11 of @xcite . [ fact : conc - perm ] let @xmath120 be a random variable on the uniformly distributed probability space of permutations on @xmath1 elements , and let @xmath5 be a real number . suppose that whenever @xmath132 differ by a single transposition , @xmath133 . then , @xmath134 } \right| \geq t\right ] }       \leq       2\exp\left\ {          -\frac{2t^2}{c^2 n }      \right\}.\ ] ] in this section , we show how to complete the outline in section [ sec : overview ] for hamilton cycle packing in digraphs . recall that the main idea in this part is to reduce the problem to packing perfect matchings in bipartite graphs . we begin by showing how to achieve the final step .      here , we will show that we can efficiently decompose a suitably uniform bipartite graph into perfect matchings . this is contained in the following proposition , whose statement is very similar to lemma 6 of @xcite . for completeness , we provide a slightly different proof here .    [ prop : graph ] let @xmath135 be a bipartite graph with parts @xmath136 and @xmath137 , each of size @xmath138 . suppose that @xmath139 are given such that every vertex has degree @xmath140 , and every pair of distinct vertices has codegree at most @xmath141 . also assume that @xmath142 . then the edges of @xmath135 can be partitioned into the disjoint union @xmath143 , where @xmath144 and each @xmath145 with @xmath146 is a perfect matching . we mentioned in the introduction that although pseudo - randomness can be deduced from the global 4-cycle count , local conditions are required to pack spanning objects such as hamilton cycles or perfect matchings . for bipartite graphs , the above proposition s conditions on codegrees and degrees provide this localized property . indeed , the concentrated codegree condition implies the global bound on the number of 4-cycles , simply by summing over all vertex pairs . the following lemma converts this into a suitable bound on the uniformity of edge distribution  another pseudo - random property , which we actually need to complete this proof . [ lem : flow - prelim ] let @xmath135 be a bipartite graph with parts @xmath136 and @xmath137 , each of size @xmath138 . let @xmath120 and @xmath147 be subsets of @xmath136 and @xmath137 , respectively , with @xmath148 and @xmath149 . suppose that @xmath103 are given such that every vertex in @xmath120 has degree @xmath140 , and every pair of distinct vertices in @xmath120 has codegree at most @xmath141 . then @xmath150 .    * * let @xmath151 and @xmath152 . for each vertex @xmath153 , let @xmath154 denote the number of neighbors @xmath155 has in @xmath120 . define the random variable @xmath156 by sampling a uniformly random vertex @xmath153 , and setting @xmath157 . since every vertex in @xmath120 has degree at least @xmath158 , we have @xmath159 , and so @xmath160 } \geq ( 1-\epsilon ) xp$ ] .    from the codegree condition , the number of labeled paths of length 2 from @xmath120 to @xmath120 is at most @xmath161 . this quantity is also equal to @xmath162 so @xmath163 . therefore , @xmath164 } \leq ( 1+\epsilon ) ( x^2 p^2 + xp)$ ] , which is at most @xmath165 since we assumed @xmath166 . this implies that @xmath167 } = { \mathbb{e}\left[z^2\right ] } - { \mathbb{e}\left[z\right]}^2 \leq 5\epsilon(xp)^2 $ ] , and this low variance will allow us to conclude that vertices in @xmath147 can not have an average @xmath168 which is too low . formally , if we assume for contradiction that @xmath169 , then jensen s inequality gives ( here , @xmath170 is a shorthand for @xmath160}$ ] ) : @xmath171 }    & \geq &     \left ( { \mathbb{e}\left[z-\overline{z } \mid v \in y\right ] } \right)^2 \\    & = &    \left ( \frac{e(x , y)}{|y| } - \frac{e(x , b)}{|b| } \right)^2 \\    & \geq &    \left ( ( 3\epsilon^{1/3 } - \epsilon)(xp ) \right)^2 \\    & > & 5 \epsilon^{2/3 } ( xp)^2.\end{aligned}\ ] ] yet a uniformly random vertex in @xmath137 lies in @xmath147 with probability at least @xmath172 , so @xmath173 }     \geq     { \mathbb{e}\left[(z-\overline{z})^2 \mid v \in y\right ] } \cdot { \mathbb{p}\left[v \in y\right ] }     >     5\epsilon ( xp)^2,\ ] ] contradiction . @xmath174    now that we know the edges are distributed fairly uniformly , we can prove the packing result using the maxflow - mincut theorem .    * proof of proposition [ prop : graph ] . * first , observe that if we can pack @xmath175 edge - disjoint perfect matchings into @xmath135 , then the proportion of unused edges is at most @xmath176 we will use the maxflow - mincut theorem to show that we can indeed pack @xmath19 matchings . observe that one can pack @xmath19 edge - disjoint perfect matchings in @xmath135 if and only if the following network has an integer flow of size exactly @xmath177 . give each edge in @xmath135 a capacity of 1 , and direct it from @xmath136 to @xmath137 . add a source vertex @xmath178 , with an edge of capacity @xmath19 to each vertex in @xmath136 , and add a sink vertex @xmath179 , with an edge of capacity @xmath19 from each vertex in @xmath137 . clearly , an integer flow of size @xmath177 is achieved if and only if the subset of used edges between @xmath136 and @xmath137 forms a @xmath19-regular graph . since every @xmath19-regular bipartite graph can be decomposed into @xmath19 edge - disjoint perfect matchings , this completes the argument . all capacities are integers , so there is an integer flow which achieves the maximum size . therefore , by the maxflow - mincut theorem , it remains to show that every cut has size at least @xmath177 . consider an arbitrary cut . let @xmath180 be those vertices of @xmath136 which are on the same side as @xmath178 , and let @xmath181 be those vertices of @xmath137 which are on the same side as @xmath179 . let @xmath151 and @xmath182 . therefore , it suffices to establish the following inequality for all choices of @xmath180 and @xmath181 : @xmath183 this is purely an inequality about the original graph @xmath135 . since it is symmetric in @xmath120 and @xmath147 , assume without loss of generality that @xmath184 . we will use lemma [ lem : flow - prelim ] to estimate @xmath185 , but first , we will need to dispose of the boundary cases @xmath186 and @xmath187 , in which it does not apply . in the first case , observe that we automatically have @xmath188 as well , so @xmath189 is already at least @xmath177 . ( we may assume @xmath190 . ) in the second case , note that if @xmath191 , then @xmath189 is already at least @xmath177 . so , we may assume that @xmath192 . yet every vertex in @xmath120 has at least @xmath158 neighbors in @xmath137 , and only at most @xmath193 of them can be outside @xmath147 . therefore , @xmath194    \geq     x \cdot \left [ ( 1-\epsilon)mp - \frac{1}{\epsilon p } \right ]    \geq    x \cdot ( 1 - 2\epsilon^{1/3})mp,\ ] ] since we assumed that @xmath195 . yet the final quantity exceeds @xmath196 , so we also have inequality in this case .    in all remaining cases , we see that lemma [ lem : flow - prelim ] applies , so @xmath197 the right - hand side is bilinear in @xmath43 and @xmath198 , so it is minimized when @xmath199 . if either of @xmath43 or @xmath198 are 0 , then one of the first two terms is already @xmath177 . on the other hand , if @xmath200 , then the expression is precisely @xmath201 as well . therefore , all cuts in the network have size at least @xmath177 , so by the maxflow - mincut theorem , there is a flow of size @xmath177 , completing the proof . @xmath174      now that proposition [ prop : graph ] allows us to efficiently pack perfect matchings , we can use it as the base to which we reduce the problem of packing hamilton cycles in directed graphs . throughout this section , all directed graphs have no loops , and no repeated edges in the same direction . however , they may have edges in both directions between pairs of vertices . the main objective of this section is to prove theorem [ thm : digraph ] , which allows us to efficiently pack hamilton cycles in digraphs that have the pseudo - random properties specified in definition [ def : digraph - props ] . as mentioned in the proof overview in section [ sec : overview ] , we extract hamilton cycles from digraphs by connecting them to perfect matchings in ordinary graphs . consider the following random procedure , which constructs an undirected bipartite graph @xmath32 from a digraph @xmath86 with an even number of vertices . * procedure 1 . * this takes as input a digraph @xmath86 with an even number of vertices .    1 . generate a random permutation @xmath202 of the vertices of @xmath86 . consider this sequence as two consecutive segments of length @xmath85 , and let @xmath203 and @xmath204 . the graph @xmath32 will be a bipartite graph with parts @xmath136 and @xmath137 . 2 .   define _ the successor of @xmath205 _ to be @xmath206 , unless @xmath207 ( in which case the successor is @xmath208 ) or @xmath209 ( in which case it is @xmath210 ) . similarly , define _ the predecessor of @xmath205 _ to be @xmath211 , unless @xmath212 ( in which case it is @xmath213 ) , or @xmath214 ( in which case it is @xmath215 ) . 3 .   for @xmath216 and @xmath217 , place the edge @xmath218 in @xmath32 if and only if @xmath86 contains both directed edges @xmath219 and @xmath220 , where @xmath221 is the successor of @xmath205 as defined in the previous step . since an edge in @xmath32 corresponds to two edges in @xmath86 , we account for this by defining @xmath222 to be the digraph containing all @xmath223 , for each @xmath224 with @xmath216 . the key observation is that perfect matchings in @xmath32 cleanly correspond to hamilton cycles in @xmath225 . specifically , given a perfect matching @xmath112 in @xmath32 , one can recover a hamilton cycle in @xmath225 . indeed , for each @xmath216 , @xmath112 matches @xmath205 to a distinct @xmath226 . so , @xmath227 is a directed hamilton cycle in @xmath225 ; call this the hamilton cycle _ associated with _ @xmath112 . [ lem : hamilton - matching ] let @xmath228 be edge - disjoint perfect matchings in @xmath32 . then their associated hamilton cycles @xmath229 are also edge - disjoint in @xmath225 . * proof . * since @xmath230 and @xmath231 are disjoint , it is clear that @xmath232 and @xmath233 can not overlap on any edges directed from @xmath136 to @xmath137 . on the other hand , if both @xmath234 contain the same edge @xmath235 , where @xmath217 and @xmath236 , then they also both contain @xmath237 , by definition of @xmath234 . then both @xmath238 contain the edge @xmath239 , contradiction . @xmath174    the next step , as we mentioned in the proof overview in the introduction , is to show that the randomly constructed bipartite graph inherits the pseudo - random properties of the initial digraph . [ lem : gamma ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath240 . let @xmath86 be an @xmath82-uniform digraph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and randomly construct the undirected bipartite graph @xmath32 according to procedure 1 . then , with probability @xmath241 , @xmath32 satisfies all of the following properties :    ( i ) : :    all degrees are @xmath242 . ( ii ) : :    all codegrees between pairs of vertices on the same side of the    bipartition are @xmath243 .    * proof . * by construction , @xmath32 is a bipartite graph with parts @xmath244 and @xmath245 . there are essentially four claims to prove , as the parts @xmath136 and @xmath137 are not constructed symmetrically . * claim 1 : degrees in @xmath246 are correct . * to show this , for an arbitrary vertex @xmath66 , define a random variable @xmath247 as follows . let @xmath73 be the successor of @xmath66 , as defined in step 2 of procedure 1 . @xmath247 is of no interest when @xmath248 but allowing @xmath248 makes the proof a trifle simpler . by definition , @xmath66 and @xmath73 are either both in @xmath136 or both in @xmath137 ; let @xmath247 be the number of vertices @xmath43 in the other part such that both @xmath77 and @xmath78 are edges of @xmath86 . note that @xmath247 is actually the degree of @xmath66 in @xmath32 if @xmath66 happens to end up in @xmath136 . therefore , it suffices to show that @xmath249 with probability @xmath250 . note that the random variable @xmath247 is completely determined by the permutation @xmath178 . expose @xmath178 in stages . first , expose which index @xmath251 has @xmath252 . next , expose the identity of the vertex @xmath73 which is the successor of @xmath66 . this determines @xmath205 and @xmath221 , where @xmath253 is either @xmath254 , @xmath255 , or @xmath256 . conditioned on these , the associations to the remaining vertices @xmath257 are a uniform permutation over the remaining @xmath258 vertices . yet the last part of property ( ii ) for @xmath82-uniformity shows that in @xmath86 , the number of vertices @xmath43 with @xmath77 and @xmath78 in @xmath86 is @xmath259 . as each @xmath43 will land in the part opposite @xmath260 with probability exactly @xmath261 , we immediately have @xmath262 } = ( 1 \pm 2\epsilon)\frac{np^2}{2}$ ] .    for concentration , we use fact [ fact : conc - perm ] . we already conditioned on @xmath66 and @xmath73 , so the remaining randomness is from a uniformly random permutation of @xmath258 elements . transposing two of those elements can only change @xmath247 by at most 1 , so by fact [ fact : conc - perm ] , @xmath247 deviates from its expectation by @xmath263 with probability at most @xmath264 therefore , @xmath247 is indeed @xmath265 with probability @xmath266 , as desired .    * claim 2 : degrees in @xmath267 are correct . * consider an arbitrary vertex @xmath73 . let @xmath268 be the set of ordered pairs of distinct vertices @xmath269 with @xmath270 . by property ( i ) of @xmath271-uniformity , @xmath73 has @xmath272 in - neighbors , and @xmath273 out - neighbors . since @xmath274 , this implies that @xmath275 . let @xmath276 be the number of these pairs that , after the permutation @xmath178 , have the additional properties that * ( i ) * both @xmath43 and @xmath198 are on the opposite side of the bipartition to @xmath73 , and * ( ii ) * @xmath198 is the successor of @xmath43 . it suffices to show that @xmath276 is @xmath277 with probability @xmath266 , because @xmath276 is precisely the degree of @xmath73 whenever @xmath73 happens to end up in @xmath137 . for this , we employ the same strategy as used in the previous claim . first expose the index @xmath251 for which @xmath278 . then , the locations of the remaining vertices are uniformly permuted amongst the remaining @xmath279 positions . for a given ordered pair @xmath280 , the probability that @xmath43 lands on the opposite side of @xmath73 is precisely @xmath281 . then , conditioned on this , the probability that @xmath198 is the successor of @xmath43 is precisely @xmath282 . therefore , @xmath283 }     =     |s_b| \cdot \frac{n/2}{n-1 } \cdot \frac{1}{n-2 }    =    ( 1 \pm 4\epsilon ) \frac{np^2}{2}.\ ] ] for concentration , we again expose @xmath73 first , and then consider the resulting @xmath284-permutation . consider two such permutations @xmath178 and @xmath285 differing only on a single transposition . transposing two of those elements can only change @xmath276 by at most 4 , so by fact [ fact : conc - perm ] , the probability that @xmath276 deviates by over @xmath286 from its expectation is at most @xmath287 as before . hence @xmath276 is indeed @xmath242 with the desired probability @xmath266 . * claim 3 : co - degrees in @xmath246 are correct . * this is similar to claim 1 . fix any two distinct vertices @xmath66 and @xmath73 , and let @xmath288 and @xmath289 be their respective successors as defined in step 1 of procedure 1 . note that we may have @xmath75 or @xmath290 , but not both . let @xmath291 be the number of vertices @xmath43 such that @xmath43 is on the opposite side of @xmath66 , and @xmath292 . expose the indices @xmath293 for which @xmath252 and @xmath294 , and expose their successors @xmath288 and @xmath289 . the remaining vertices are uniformly permuted over the remaining @xmath295 positions ( or @xmath296 positions if @xmath297 or @xmath298 , although the argument will be the same ) . by property ( iii ) of @xmath82-uniformity , there are @xmath299 candidates for @xmath43 . as each @xmath43 will land in the part opposite @xmath66 with probability either @xmath300 ( if @xmath73 is on the same side as @xmath66 ) or @xmath301 ( if @xmath73 is opposite @xmath66 ) , it follows that @xmath302 } = ( 1 \pm 2\epsilon ) \frac{np^4}{2}$ ] . a transposition in the @xmath303-permutation can only affect @xmath291 by at most 1 , so the probability that @xmath291 deviates from its expectation by over @xmath304 is at most @xmath305 taking a union bound over all pairs @xmath306 yields the desired result . * claim 4 : co - degrees in @xmath267 are correct . * this is similar to claim 2 . fix any two distinct vertices @xmath66 and @xmath73 , and let @xmath307 be the set of ordered pairs of distinct vertices @xmath269 with @xmath308 . by property ( ii ) of @xmath82-uniformity , @xmath66 and @xmath73 have @xmath70 common in - neighbors , and @xmath309 common out - neighbors . since @xmath310 , this implies that @xmath311 . let @xmath291 be the number of these pairs that , after the permutation @xmath178 , have the additional properties that * ( i ) * both @xmath43 and @xmath198 are on the opposite side of the bipartition from @xmath66 , and * ( ii ) * @xmath198 is the successor of @xmath43 . expose the indices @xmath293 for which @xmath252 and @xmath294 ; the remainder is then an @xmath312-permutation over the leftover positions . a similar calculation to claim 2 shows that @xmath302 } = ( 1 \pm 4\epsilon ) \frac{np^4}{2}$ ] , and a similar concentration argument shows that @xmath291 is within @xmath304 of its mean with probability @xmath313 . therefore , a union bound over all @xmath314 completes the proof of this final claim , and the proof of lemma [ lem : gamma ] @xmath174    at this point , we could immediately apply the results of section [ sec : graph ] to pack @xmath32 with perfect matchings , which then correspond to hamilton cycles in @xmath86 . however , it is unfortunate that this would miss most of the edges of @xmath86 , since not all edges of @xmath86 are in correspondence with edges of @xmath32 . the solution is to iterate procedure 1 several times . some care must be taken because the edges of @xmath86 will be covered many times by different @xmath32 . we will specify how to deal with this in procedure 2 below , but first we collect two intermediate results which control this multiplicity over several iterations of procedure 1 .    [ lem : gamma - cover ] suppose @xmath1 and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath315 . let @xmath86 be an @xmath82-uniform digraph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and randomly and independently construct @xmath316 graphs @xmath317 according to procedure 1 . let @xmath318 be their corresponding digraphs . then , with probability @xmath319 , every edge of @xmath86 is covered @xmath320 times by the @xmath318 . * fix an arbitrary edge @xmath321 , and let @xmath322 be the probability that it appears in @xmath225 if @xmath32 is constructed according to procedure 1 . since the @xmath318 are independent , the number of times @xmath321 is covered will then be @xmath323}$ ] , and we will use the chernoff bounds to prove concentration . so , let @xmath324 be the permutation which produces @xmath32 , and let @xmath136 and @xmath137 be the two sides of the bipartition as defined in procedure 1 . there are two ways that @xmath321 can appear in @xmath225 : either @xmath325 and @xmath153 and @xmath326 for the successor @xmath327 of @xmath328 , or @xmath329 and @xmath330 and @xmath331 for the predecessor @xmath332 of @xmath155 . these two cases are clearly disjoint , so @xmath333 , where @xmath334 and @xmath335 are the respective probabilities in these two cases . to calculate @xmath334 , the probability that @xmath336 is precisely @xmath337 . conditioned on this , the probability that @xmath153 is precisely @xmath281 . by property ( i ) of @xmath271-uniformity , @xmath338 , so the probability that some out - neighbor of @xmath155 becomes the successor of @xmath328 is @xmath339 . therefore , @xmath340 since @xmath341 . an analogous calculation shows that @xmath342 as well . hence @xmath343 .    now , the number of times that @xmath321 is covered by the @xmath318 is precisely @xmath323}$ ] . since @xmath344 , the chernoff bound implies that the probability that the binomial deviates from its mean by more than a factor of @xmath345 is at most @xmath346 taking a union bound over all @xmath347 edges @xmath321 , we obtain the desired result . [ lem : gamma - rare - consec ] suppose @xmath348 . construct @xmath11 independent @xmath349 according to procedure 1 . then with probability @xmath319 , every pair of distinct vertices @xmath350 has the property that @xmath73 is the successor of @xmath66 in at most 5 of the permutations for @xmath349 . * for a fixed pair @xmath306 , the probability that @xmath73 is the successor of @xmath66 in a single run of procedure 1 is exactly @xmath351 . therefore , the probability of this occurring more than 5 times in @xmath11 independent runs is at most @xmath352 . taking a union bound over all pairs @xmath306 , we obtain the result . @xmath174    since a single run of procedure 1 packs very few edges into hamilton cycles , we must repeat the procedure multiple times , deleting the packed edges from @xmath86 after each round . however , it is important to maintain the pseudo - random properties through the iterations , and the set of removed edges after a single run of procedure 1 would be too sparse to control the changes in the pseudo - random counts . the following extension provides one way to achieve this , by repeating procedure 1 enough times to uniformly involve all edges of @xmath86 . * procedure 2 . * this takes as input a digraph @xmath86 with an even number of vertices , and an integer parameter @xmath11 .    1 . independently generate the random undirected bipartite graphs @xmath353 ,  , @xmath354 according to procedure 1 , and let @xmath355 , @xmath318 , @xmath356 , and @xmath357 be their corresponding permutations , digraphs , and bipartitions , respectively . 2 .   for each edge @xmath358 , let @xmath359 . if @xmath360 , then independently select a uniformly random index in @xmath361 to label @xmath321 with . 3 .   for each @xmath349 , define a subgraph @xmath362 by keeping each edge @xmath363 ( @xmath364 and @xmath365 ) if and only if both @xmath366 and @xmath367 are labeled by @xmath251 , where @xmath368 is the successor of @xmath66 according to @xmath355 . 4 .   for each @xmath251 , let @xmath369 be the digraph containing all @xmath370 , for each @xmath371 , with @xmath372 , where @xmath368 is the successor of @xmath66 according to @xmath355 . observe that the final step ensures that the @xmath369 are all disjoint . so , lemma [ lem : hamilton - matching ] shows that we can work independently on each @xmath369 , packing hamilton cycles by packing perfect matchings in @xmath362 with proposition [ prop : graph ] . after this , we will remove all @xmath369 from @xmath86 , and show that their distribution is sufficiently uniform for us to maintain the necessary pseudo - random properties . the following lemma shows that the @xmath362 themselves are sufficiently pseudo - random for us to apply proposition [ prop : graph ] . [ lem : gamma - prime ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath373 . let @xmath86 be an @xmath82-uniform digraph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and conduct procedure 2 with @xmath316 . let @xmath374 . then , with probability @xmath319 , every @xmath362 satisfies the following properties :    ( i ) : :    all degrees are @xmath375 . ( ii ) : :    all codegrees between pairs of vertices on the same side of the    bipartition are @xmath376 .    * proof . * our restrictions on @xmath64 allow us to apply lemmas [ lem : gamma ] and [ lem : gamma - cover ] , so we have that with probability @xmath319 , after step 1 of procedure 2 :    ( a ) : :    every @xmath349 has all degrees    @xmath377 and all same - side codegrees    @xmath378 . ( b ) : :    every edge in @xmath86 is covered    @xmath379 times by the    @xmath318 . condition on the above outcome of step 1 , and consider an arbitrary @xmath362 , which is derived from @xmath349 with bipartition @xmath380 . it suffices to show that in the randomness of step 2 , with probability @xmath266 each individual @xmath362 has the desired properties , since @xmath381 by the given restrictions on @xmath64 . there are four cases to consider : degrees in @xmath356 , degrees in @xmath357 , codegrees in @xmath356 , and codegrees in @xmath357 . fortunately , they will all follow by essentially the same argument . we begin with the degree of an arbitrary vertex @xmath382 . by ( a ) above , the degree of @xmath328 in @xmath349 is @xmath383 . note that this actually corresponds to exactly @xmath384 pairs of directed edges in @xmath86 , of the form @xmath385 , and all @xmath386 directed edges involved are distinct . step 2 of procedure 2 assigns labels to all directed edges , and the degree of @xmath328 in @xmath362 is precisely the number of the above pairs of directed edges for which both edges are labeled @xmath251 . since every directed edge is covered @xmath379 times by ( b ) and the edges are labeled independently , the probability that both of a given pair above receive label @xmath251 is @xmath387^{-2}$ ] . therefore , the expected degree of @xmath328 in @xmath362 is @xmath388 . furthermore , since all directed edges involved are distinct , the chernoff bound shows that the probability of the degree deviating from its mean by more than a factor of @xmath389 is at most @xmath390 because @xmath391 . therefore , with probability @xmath313 , the degree of @xmath328 in @xmath362 is @xmath392 . taking a union bound over all @xmath382 establishes part ( i ) for those degrees . the arguments for the other three parts of the lemma are similar . for a vertex @xmath393 , its incident edges in @xmath349 correspond to @xmath394 disjoint pairs of directed edges , so the exact same argument as above produces the bound for these degrees . the codegree of a given pair of vertices @xmath395 corresponds to disjoint quadruples of distinct directed edges . from ( a ) , there are @xmath243 such quadruples . the probability that a given quadruple is completely labeled by @xmath251 is @xmath396^{-4}$ ] by ( b ) , so the expected codegree in @xmath362 is @xmath397 . by the chernoff bound , the probability that the codegree deviates from its expectation by a factor of more than @xmath398 is at most @xmath399 since @xmath400 . taking a union bound over all pairs of vertices @xmath395 produces the desired bound for their codegrees . the argument for codegrees in @xmath357 is similar . @xmath174 the next few lemmas build up to a result which controls how @xmath86 is affected by the deletion of all edges in the @xmath369 . the first one controls the `` first - order '' effect of the deletion process . [ lem : d - delete - out - nbrs ] condition on the first step of procedure 2 covering every edge of @xmath86 @xmath379 times by the @xmath318 . fix any vertex @xmath401 and any set @xmath402 of edges incident to @xmath66 ( all oriented in the same way with respect to @xmath66 ) . suppose that @xmath403 . then with probability @xmath404 , the number of edges of @xmath402 which are covered by the @xmath369 is @xmath405 ,    * proof . * we start with the case when all edges in @xmath402 are directed out of @xmath66 . let the random variable @xmath406 be the number of these edges which are covered by the @xmath369 . since we conditioned on the first step of procedure 2 , the only remaining randomness is in the independent assignments of the edge labels . we expose these labels in three stages . first , expose the labels of @xmath402 . now each edge @xmath407 has its label @xmath408 , so we can identify its partner edge in @xmath409 which must also receive @xmath408 in order for both to remain in @xmath410 ; let @xmath411 be the set of all partner edges found in this way . next , expose all labels outside @xmath412 . finally , expose the labels of @xmath411 . it is clear that the second stage does not affect @xmath406 at all . thus , after conditioning on the result of the second stage , we are at the following situation : every edge @xmath413 has a label @xmath408 , and it will only still be covered by the @xmath369 if its partner in @xmath409 also receives the label @xmath408 . since its partner is in @xmath379 different @xmath318 , the probability that @xmath414 is covered by @xmath369 is the inverse of this multiplicity ; linearity of expectation then gives @xmath415 } = ( 1 \pm 1.04\epsilon ) \frac{|e|}{\kappa}$ ] . we will use the hoeffding - azuma inequality to show the concentration of @xmath406 . indeed , the third stage exposure is a product space of dimension @xmath416 . consider the effect of changing the label of a single edge @xmath417 . by the definition of @xmath411 , the edge @xmath418 is either some @xmath419 directed into @xmath66 , or some @xmath78 not incident to @xmath66 with @xmath420 . in the latter case , @xmath77 is the only edge of @xmath402 which can be affected by the label of @xmath418 , so @xmath406 can change by at most 1 . for the remaining case @xmath421 , suppose that the label of @xmath418 was changed from @xmath422 to @xmath19 . by construction , only the ( single ) partner edge of @xmath418 in @xmath423 could suffer from changing @xmath418 s label away from @xmath422 ; this could decrease @xmath406 by at most 1 . similarly , only the partner edge of @xmath418 in @xmath424 could benefit from changing @xmath418 s label to @xmath19 , and this would only increase @xmath406 by at most 1 . we conclude that @xmath406 is 1-lipschitz , so the hoeffding - azuma inequality implies that the probability @xmath406 deviates from its expectation by over @xmath425 is at most @xmath426 therefore , with probability @xmath404 , we have @xmath427 , in the case when all edges of @xmath402 are directed out of @xmath66 . the case when all edges are directed into @xmath66 follows by essentially the same argument . @xmath174    the next lemma controls the `` second - order '' effect of the deletion process . [ lem : d - delete - co - out ] fix any distinct vertices @xmath350 and any set @xmath120 of vertices such that either    ( i ) : :    for all @xmath428 ,    @xmath429 are edges    of @xmath86 ; or ( ii ) : :    for all @xmath428 ,    @xmath430 are edges    of @xmath86 ; or ( iii ) : :    for all @xmath428 ,    @xmath431 are edges    of @xmath86 .    condition on the first step of procedure 2 covering every edge of @xmath86 at least @xmath432 times by the @xmath318 , and on the fact that @xmath73 is the successor of @xmath66 in at most 5 of the permutations . suppose that @xmath433 . then with probability @xmath434 , the number @xmath406 of vertices in @xmath120 which still have both of their designated edges above still covered by the @xmath369 is at most @xmath435 . * proof in situations ( i ) and ( ii ) . * these two cases follow by very similar arguments ; for concreteness , let us begin with ( i ) . let @xmath402 be the set of @xmath436 edges specified in ( i ) . since we conditioned on the first step of procedure 2 , the only remaining randomness is in the independent assignments of the edge labels . we expose these labels in three stages . first , expose the labels of @xmath402 . now each edge @xmath407 has its label @xmath408 , so we can identify its partner edge in @xmath409 ; denote the partner by @xmath437 , and let @xmath411 be the set of all partner edges found in this way . next , expose all labels outside @xmath412 . finally , expose the labels of @xmath411 . it is clear that the second stage does not affect @xmath406 at all . thus , after conditioning on the result of the second stage , we are at the following situation : every edge @xmath407 has a label @xmath408 , and @xmath414 will only still be covered by the @xmath369 if its partner @xmath437 also receives the label @xmath408 . the random variable @xmath406 counts the number of vertices @xmath43 for which both @xmath77 and @xmath438 are still covered by the @xmath369 . note that their partner edges @xmath439 and @xmath440 are distinct unless they both coincide as some @xmath441 . if they are distinct , then clearly the probability of having both receive their correct labels is at most @xmath442 . on the other hand , if they coincide , then we must have that in both permutations @xmath443 and @xmath444 , the vertex @xmath288 is the successor of @xmath66 and @xmath73 . yet @xmath288 has a unique predecessor , so @xmath445 . therefore , it is actually impossible for the ( coincident ) partner edge to receive a label which suits both @xmath77 and @xmath438 , so the probability is 0 . in all cases , we have an upper bound of @xmath442 , so @xmath415 } \leq \frac{|x|}{\kappa^2}$ ] . we use the hoeffding - azuma inequality to probabilistically bound @xmath406 , since the third exposure stage is a product space . consider the effect of changing the label of a single edge @xmath417 . by the definition of @xmath411 , the edge @xmath418 is either some @xmath419 or @xmath78 , or some @xmath441 with @xmath77 and @xmath438 both in @xmath86 . in the latter case , @xmath43 is the only vertex which may have its count in @xmath406 affected , so @xmath406 changes by at most 1 under this perturbation . by symmetry , it remains to consider the case when @xmath421 changes its label from @xmath422 to @xmath19 . by construction , only the partner edge @xmath446 of @xmath418 in @xmath423 could suffer from changing @xmath418 s label away from @xmath422 ; this could potentially lose only @xmath198 in the count of @xmath406 , so @xmath406 would decrease by at most 1 . similarly , only the partner edge of @xmath418 in @xmath424 could benefit from changing @xmath418 s label to @xmath19 , and this could only increase @xmath406 by at most 1 . we conclude that @xmath406 is 1-lipschitz over its product space of dimension @xmath447 , so the azuma - hoeffding inequality implies that the probability that @xmath406 exceeds its expectation by more than @xmath448 is at most @xmath449 this finishes the case when ( i ) holds . the case when ( ii ) holds follows from a directly analogous argument . * proof in situation ( iii ) . * let @xmath402 be the set of @xmath436 edges specified in ( iii ) . we expose the labels in the same three stages as before : first @xmath402 , then the other non - partner edges , and finally the partner edges @xmath411 . again , after the second stage we would be at the following situation : every edge @xmath407 has a label @xmath408 , and a vertex @xmath43 will only be counted toward @xmath406 if the partner edge @xmath439 receives the label @xmath443 , and @xmath450 also receives @xmath451 . however , this time there is an additional complication , because it can happen that one or both of these partner edges have already had their labels exposed . the only way this could happen is if either @xmath452 or @xmath453 . fortunately , we are only seeking an upper bound on @xmath406 , so we only need to determine when this first round exposure already forces a vertex @xmath43 to contribute to @xmath406 . a moment s thought reveals that the only way this can happen is if the first round gave both @xmath77 and @xmath78 the same label @xmath454 , and furthermore , the permutation @xmath455 has @xmath73 as the successor of @xmath66 . now we use the assumption that at most 5 of the permutations @xmath455 satisfy this property . let @xmath456 be the set of the corresponding indices @xmath454 .    we can circumvent this issue , by observing that in the first exposure , the number of @xmath43 for which both @xmath77 and @xmath78 receive the same label @xmath457 is stochastically dominated by @xmath458}$ ] . since @xmath459 , the chernoff bound then implies that with probability @xmath404 , the first round has at most @xmath460 `` bad '' @xmath43 which have the potential of being automatically included in the count for @xmath406 . the second round exposure is essentially irrelevant , so we may now condition on the result of the second round satisfying the property in the previous paragraph . as we only need to upper bound @xmath406 , it remains to consider only the `` good '' @xmath43 . from our previous discussion , if a good @xmath43 has , say , the label of @xmath439 already exposed to be @xmath454 then @xmath73 is not the successor of @xmath66 in permutation @xmath454 and so this @xmath43 can not contribute to @xmath406 .    also note that the only way for @xmath439 to equal @xmath450 is if both are @xmath461 . if @xmath462 then @xmath248 and if @xmath463 then @xmath464 and so we must have @xmath465 . hence it is not possible for @xmath461 to simultaneously match both labels , and @xmath43 can not contribute to @xmath406 . so , if we let let @xmath147 be the subset of good vertices @xmath428 for which @xmath466 , and neither label has yet been exposed , it remains to control the number @xmath112 of vertices in @xmath147 which contribute to @xmath406 . since each @xmath467 has @xmath468 and their labels are independent , we immediately have @xmath469 } \leq |y| / \kappa^2 $ ] . we show that @xmath112 is concentrated by using the hoeffding - azuma inequality on the third round exposure product space of dimension @xmath470 . consider the effect of changing the label of an edge @xmath471 from @xmath422 to @xmath19 . there are three types of edges in @xmath411 :    case 1 : @xmath472 . : :    these @xmath418 can only arise as partner edges of some    @xmath77 ( possibly several ) . however ,    @xmath418 has a unique partner edge    @xmath77 in    @xmath423 , so changing its label    away from @xmath422 can only reduce @xmath112 at    @xmath43 . similarly , changing it to @xmath19 can only    grow @xmath112 at @xmath198 , where    @xmath446 is the unique partner edge of    @xmath418 in @xmath424 . therefore , @xmath112 can only change by at most 1 . case 2 : @xmath473 . : :    by the same argument as case 1 , this can only change @xmath112    by at most 1 . case 3 : @xmath474 . : :    these @xmath418 can only arise as partners of either    @xmath77 or    @xmath475 . clearly , changing    @xmath476 can only affect whether @xmath43 or    @xmath198 are counted in @xmath112 , so it has an effect of    at most 2 . thus @xmath112 is 2-lipschitz , and the hoeffding - azuma inequality shows that the probability it exceeds its expectation by @xmath477 is at most @xmath478    since we conditioned on there being at most @xmath460 bad vertices , we have @xmath479 . putting everything together , we conclude that with probability @xmath480 , @xmath481 , completing the proof . @xmath174    the previous two lemmas now enable us to prove that the pseudo - random properties of the digraph are still maintained after deleting the @xmath369 . [ lem : digraph - delete ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath482 . let @xmath483 and @xmath484 . let @xmath86 be an @xmath57-uniform digraph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and conduct procedure 2 . let @xmath485 be the subgraph of @xmath86 obtained by deleting all edges covered by any @xmath369 . then , with probability @xmath486 , @xmath485 is an @xmath487-uniform digraph with @xmath488 and @xmath489 . * by applying lemmas [ lem : gamma - cover ] and [ lem : gamma - rare - consec ] , the outcome of step 1 of procedure 2 will satisfy the following two properties with probability @xmath490 . ( the second follows since @xmath491 , and so @xmath348 . )    * every edge of @xmath86 covered @xmath379 times by the @xmath318 . * for any @xmath314 , the vertex @xmath73 is the successor of @xmath66 in at most 5 of the permutations for the @xmath349 .    condition on this outcome . we will now show that in the remaining randomness of step 2 , the properties of @xmath487-uniformity are satisfied with probability @xmath319 . we establish them one at a time . * property ( i ) . * consider an arbitrary vertex @xmath66 . by @xmath82-uniformity , it has @xmath272 out - edges in @xmath86 , and @xmath492 . so , we may apply lemma [ lem : d - delete - out - nbrs ] to the set of out - edges of @xmath66 . this shows that with probability @xmath404 , the new out - degree of @xmath66 in @xmath485 , in terms of its original out - degree @xmath493 in @xmath86 , is @xmath494 \\    & = &    ( 1 \pm \epsilon ) np \cdot \left (      1 \pm \frac{1.06\epsilon}{\kappa }    \right )    \left (      1 - \frac{1}{\kappa }    \right ) \\    & = & ( 1 \pm \epsilon ' ) np'.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , we used @xmath495 by @xmath271-uniformity . taking a union bound over all @xmath401 , we obtain the desired result on out - degrees with probability @xmath496 . a similar argument controls all in - degrees . @xmath174    * property ( ii ) . * consider an arbitrary pair of distinct vertices @xmath69 , and let @xmath120 be the set of their common out - neighbors . let @xmath497 be the number of vertices in @xmath428 such that @xmath77 is covered by the @xmath369 , let @xmath498 be the number of @xmath428 such that @xmath438 is covered by the @xmath369 , and let @xmath499 be the number of @xmath428 such that both @xmath77 and @xmath438 are covered by the @xmath369 . clearly , the number of common out - neighbors of @xmath66 and @xmath73 in @xmath485 is exactly @xmath500 , where @xmath71 was the number of their common out - neighbors in @xmath86 . note that @xmath501 by @xmath271-regularity , and @xmath502 . so , lemma [ lem : d - delete - out - nbrs ] implies that with probability @xmath404 , both @xmath497 and @xmath498 are @xmath503 . on the other hand , we also have @xmath504 , so lemma [ lem : d - delete - co - out ] bounds @xmath499 by @xmath505 with probability @xmath480 . therefore , @xmath499 is within @xmath506 additive error of @xmath507 because @xmath508 .    putting these bounds together , we have that the new number of common out - neighbors is @xmath509 \\    & = &    ( 1 \pm \epsilon ) np^2     \cdot    \left (      1 \pm \frac{2.12\epsilon}{\kappa }    \right )    \left (      1 - \frac{1}{\kappa }    \right)^2 \\    & = &    ( 1 \pm \epsilon ' ) n(p')^2,\end{aligned}\ ] ] here , @xmath501 by @xmath271-uniformity . taking a union bound over all @xmath350 , we obtain the desired result on the new @xmath71 with probability @xmath510 . similar arguments control the other two parts of property ( ii ) of @xmath487-uniformity . @xmath174    * property ( iii ) . * this is a slight extension of the previous argument . consider any four vertices @xmath74 , which are all distinct except for the possibility @xmath75 . let @xmath120 and @xmath511 be the sets of vertices @xmath43 such that @xmath77 , @xmath78 , @xmath79 , @xmath80 are all in @xmath86 or @xmath485 , respectively . let @xmath497 , @xmath498 , @xmath512 , and @xmath513 be the sets of vertices @xmath428 such that @xmath77 , @xmath78 , @xmath79 , or @xmath80 are still covered by the @xmath514 . define the pairwise intersections @xmath515 . by inclusion - exclusion , we have @xmath516 as in ( ii ) , since @xmath517 ( to apply lemma [ lem : d - delete - out - nbrs ] ) and @xmath518 ( for lemma [ lem : d - delete - co - out ] ) , we have that with probability @xmath480 , each @xmath519 , and each @xmath520 . thus @xmath521    =     ( 1 \pm \epsilon ) np^4 \left (       1 - \frac{4}{\kappa } \pm \frac{4.21\epsilon}{\kappa }     \right).\ ] ] here , we used @xmath522 by @xmath271-uniformity . now observe that @xmath523 however , since @xmath508 , the error term is @xmath524 . therefore , we have @xmath525 taking a union bound over all choices of @xmath74 , we obtain the desired result on the new @xmath71 with probability @xmath490 . @xmath174    now we have established control over the pseudo - random properties of the digraph after deletion , as well as over the individual bipartite graphs @xmath362 at each stage . we finally combine all of our lemmas to prove the main result of this section , that pseudo - random digraphs can be efficiently packed with hamilton cycles . * proof of theorem [ thm : digraph ] . * we will iterate procedure 2 , packing all intermediate @xmath369 at each iteration and deleting them from the digraph , until very few edges remain . the total number of iterations will be @xmath526 , so since our previous lemmas hold with probability @xmath319 , a final union bound will show that we achieve the desired packing * whp*.    let @xmath527 , @xmath528 , and @xmath529 . define the sequences @xmath530 , @xmath531 via the following recursion : @xmath532 let @xmath533 be the smallest index such that @xmath534 . note that @xmath535 only increases , so @xmath536 also note that since @xmath537 we have in general that @xmath538 . therefore , @xmath539    we now iteratively construct @xmath540 , such that each @xmath541 is @xmath542-uniform . indeed , consider the ( random ) procedure 2 applied to @xmath541 with respect to @xmath543 . let @xmath544 . this produces bipartite graphs @xmath545 and directed graphs @xmath546 with all @xmath546 disjoint . let @xmath547 be the result of deleting all @xmath546 from @xmath541 . to apply lemmas [ lem : gamma - prime ] and [ lem : digraph - delete ] , we must check that @xmath548 . but this follows from our initial assumption that @xmath549 since @xmath550 and @xmath551 . therefore , as the individual failure probabilities of lemmas [ lem : gamma - prime ] and [ lem : digraph - delete ] are @xmath552 and @xmath553 , we may assume that the outcome of procedure 2 satisfies the following properties :    ( i ) : :    all degrees in each @xmath545 are    @xmath554 . ( ii ) : :    all codegrees between pairs of vertices on the same side of the    bipartition of each @xmath545 are    @xmath555 . ( iii ) : :    @xmath547 is    @xmath556-uniform . fix this outcome . we may apply proposition [ prop : graph ] to each @xmath545 because @xmath557 where we used @xmath558 , @xmath559 , and our initial assumption that @xmath560 . so , every @xmath545 can be packed with edge - disjoint perfect matchings , missing only a @xmath561-fraction of the edges . by lemma [ lem : hamilton - matching ] , these edge - disjoint perfect matchings in @xmath545 correspond to edge - disjoint hamilton cycles in @xmath546 , missing the same fraction of edges since there is a 2-to-1 correspondence between edges in @xmath546 and @xmath545 . we carry on the above procedure until we create @xmath562 . then , we will have packed hamilton cycles in @xmath563 , up to a fractional error of @xmath564 . since @xmath562 is @xmath565-uniform , it has at most @xmath566 edges . as @xmath86 was @xmath271-uniform , it had at least @xmath567 edges . thus @xmath562 itself has at most @xmath568-fraction of the total number of edges . therefore , the fraction of edges of @xmath86 that have not been covered is at most @xmath569 since @xmath570 by inequality . this completes the proof . * the above proof showed that we can pack the edges of @xmath86 with hamilton cycles , up to a fractional error of at most @xmath571 , where @xmath572 . in fact , one can prove the same result for any @xmath573 , and all of the calculations can be recovered by following our proof . indeed , we intentionally introduced a very high level of precision in lemma [ lem : gamma - cover ] . it is clear that the same argument can replace the @xmath574 with @xmath575 , etc . these smaller order errors are what accumulate into the decimal places in the final @xmath576 which appears in lemma [ lem : digraph - delete ] , and which later determines the value of @xmath288 . when @xmath576 is replaced by a constant arbitrarily close to 4 , the above argument produces a result with @xmath288 approaching @xmath577 . this section is organized so that its structure is parallel to the previous section . indeed , their themes are similar , as the objective of this section is to establish another reduction , this time from the hypergraph setting to the digraph setting . the fundamental building block is now the following procedure , which should be compared with procedure 1 . * procedure 3 . * this takes as input a 3-graph @xmath0 with an even number of vertices .    1 . generate a random permutation @xmath202 of the vertices of @xmath0 . split it into @xmath7 successive pairs @xmath578 , @xmath579 ,  , @xmath580 . 2 .   construct a directed graph @xmath86 with @xmath7 vertices , one corresponding to each of the pairs above . place a directed edge from @xmath88 to @xmath89 if and only if both hyperedges @xmath581 and @xmath582 are present in @xmath0 . consider @xmath414 and @xmath418 to be _ partners _ , and introduce the notation @xmath583 and @xmath584 . since a directed edge in @xmath86 corresponds to two hyperedges in @xmath0 , we account for this by defining @xmath585 to be the hypergraph containing all @xmath90 , @xmath586 , for each directed edge from @xmath88 to @xmath587 in @xmath86 . as already noted , hamilton cycles in @xmath86 correspond precisely to tight hamilton cycles in @xmath0 . indeed , the hyperedges corresponding to the directed edges of a hamilton cycle are precisely those which are needed for a tight hamilton cycle in the hypergraph . [ lem : hamilton - di - hyp ] let @xmath588 be edge - disjoint hamilton cycles in @xmath86 . then their associated hamilton cycles @xmath589 in @xmath0 are also edge - disjoint . * proof . * it suffices to show that given a fixed pairing @xmath590 ,  , @xmath580 from step 1 , any given hyperedge @xmath591 can be associated with at most one directed edge in step 3 . indeed , by construction , some pair of vertices in the hyperedge , say @xmath306 , must be a pair above . if the pair containing @xmath288 is @xmath592 , then the directed edge must be from @xmath306 to @xmath593 , hence unique . similarly , if the pair containing @xmath288 is @xmath594 , then the only possibility is that the directed edge is from @xmath594 to @xmath306 . @xmath174    as in the previous section , our next goal is to show that the result of procedure 3 ( a digraph ) is pseudo - random . the following lemma will be a useful component of the proof . [ lem : pairs - kept ] let @xmath595 be a given set of ordered pairs of distinct vertices @xmath306 , with @xmath596 . then with probability @xmath597 , the number @xmath406 of ordered pairs in @xmath595 which appear in the list of @xmath7 ordered pairs from step 1 of procedure 3 , satisfies @xmath598 . * proof . * the probability that any given @xmath599 appears as an ordered pair in step 1 is precisely @xmath600 . this is because @xmath43 must land in one of the @xmath7 positions of the permutation which correspond to first - vertices of ordered pairs , and then @xmath198 must land in the position immediately following @xmath43 . since @xmath601 , linearity of expectation gives @xmath415 } = \big ( 1 \pm \frac{\epsilon}{2 } \big ) \frac{|s|}{2n}$ ] .    for concentration , we apply fact [ fact : conc - perm ] . suppose the permutation @xmath178 is converted to @xmath285 via the single transposition of the positions of the vertices @xmath43 and @xmath198 . let @xmath602 and @xmath603 be the other vertices in their respective ordered pairs ( according to @xmath178 ) . then , the only changes in the set of ordered pairs produced by step 1 is that the ordered pairs @xmath604 and @xmath605 change to @xmath606 and @xmath607 . all other ordered pairs remain the same , so their inclusion or exclusion in @xmath406 remains invariant . therefore , the value of @xmath406 can only change by at most 2 . fact [ fact : conc - perm ] then implies that the probability that @xmath406 deviates from its mean by more than @xmath608 is at most @xmath609 completing the proof . @xmath174 . now we show that the result of procedure 3 is a pseudo - random digraph . [ lem : d ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath610 . let @xmath0 be an @xmath82-uniform 3-graph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and randomly construct the @xmath85-vertex directed graph @xmath86 according to procedure 3 . then , with probability @xmath241 , @xmath86 is @xmath611-uniform .    * proof . * we verify the properties of @xmath86 one at a time , starting with out - degrees . fix any two distinct vertices @xmath612 , and let @xmath291 be the number of ordered pairs @xmath269 produced by step 1 such that @xmath613 . it suffices to show that with probability @xmath313 , @xmath614 . ( note the factor of 2 because @xmath86 has @xmath7 vertices . ) for this , first let @xmath307 be the set of ordered pairs @xmath269 , not necessarily produced by step 1 , such that @xmath615 . this is a deterministic set , from the hypergraph @xmath0 , whose size we can estimate by applying @xmath271-uniformity to @xmath0 with various auxiliary graphs @xmath32 . indeed , by applying the property with @xmath353 ( in figure [ fig : gamma ] ) and @xmath306 , the number of choices for @xmath43 such that @xmath616 is @xmath272 . then , given such a choice for @xmath43 , applying uniformity with @xmath353 and @xmath617 shows that there are @xmath272 choices for @xmath198 such that @xmath618 is also an edge . putting these estimates together , we conclude that @xmath619 . since @xmath620 , lemma [ lem : pairs - kept ] gives @xmath621 with the desired probability . [ cols="^,^,^,^,^ " , ]     the arguments for the other properties are very similar . for in - degrees , we fix a pair of distinct vertices @xmath306 , and apply uniformity with @xmath353 to show there are @xmath272 choices for @xmath198 such that @xmath622 . applying again on @xmath623 , we find a further @xmath272 choices for @xmath43 such that @xmath624 . this is exactly the same estimate as we had in the out - degree case above , so the same argument completes it .    to control the common out - degrees of pairs of vertices in @xmath86 , we fix 4 distinct vertices of @xmath0 , arranged in two pairs @xmath306 and @xmath625 . applying uniformity with @xmath626 ( see figure [ fig : gamma ] ) , there are @xmath627 choices for @xmath43 such that @xmath628 . after fixing such a choice for @xmath43 , another application of uniformity with @xmath629 ( see figure [ fig : gamma ] ) shows that there are @xmath630 choices for @xmath198 such that @xmath631 . therefore , there are @xmath632 pairs @xmath269 which could serve as the terminal vertex of both directed edges from @xmath306 and @xmath625 , if only @xmath269 appeared as a pair in step 1 . since @xmath633 , we may apply lemma [ lem : pairs - kept ] , and finish as before . a similar argument controls @xmath72 in @xmath86 . to establish the last part of property ( ii ) of @xmath611-regularity for @xmath86 , fix any 4 distinct vertices in @xmath0 arranged in two pairs @xmath306 and @xmath634 . applying uniformity with @xmath353 ( see figure [ fig : gamma ] ) , there are @xmath272 choices for @xmath43 such that @xmath635 . fix such an @xmath43 . applying uniformity again with @xmath636 ( see figure [ fig : gamma ] ) , with @xmath637 corresponding to the labels in figure [ fig : gamma ] , we see that there are @xmath638 choices for @xmath198 such that all of @xmath639 . hence there are @xmath640 choices for a pair @xmath269 which would be both an in - neighbor of @xmath641 and an out - neighbor of @xmath642 , if only @xmath269 appeared as a pair in step 1 . thus lemma [ lem : pairs - kept ] finishes this case as before .    for property ( iii ) of @xmath611-regularity for @xmath86 , fix any 8 distinct vertices in @xmath0 , arranged in 4 pairs @xmath306 , @xmath625 , @xmath643 , and @xmath644 . applying uniformity with @xmath626 shows that there are @xmath70 choices for @xmath43 such that both @xmath645 . then , after fixing such an @xmath43 , applying uniformity with @xmath646 ( see figure [ fig : gamma ] ) shows that there are @xmath647 choices for @xmath198 such that all @xmath648 . hence there are @xmath649 choices for a pair @xmath269 which would out - neighbors of both @xmath650 and in - neighbors of @xmath651 , if only @xmath269 appeared as a pair in step 1 . since @xmath652 , we may apply lemma [ lem : pairs - kept ] , and finish as before . @xmath174    next we prove the analogue of lemma [ lem : gamma - cover ] , establishing that repeated runs of procedure 3 will cover the edges of @xmath0 fairly uniformly . [ lem : d - cover ] suppose @xmath1 and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath315 . let @xmath0 be an @xmath82-uniform 3-graph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and randomly and independently construct @xmath653 digraphs @xmath654 according to procedure 3 . let @xmath655 be their corresponding 3-graphs . then , with probability @xmath319 , every edge of @xmath0 is covered @xmath656 times by the @xmath655 .    * proof . * fix an edge @xmath591 of @xmath0 , and let @xmath322 be the probability that it is covered by @xmath657 . there are several ways in which this can happen . first , it could be that @xmath306 is a pair from the permutation @xmath658 for @xmath657 , and @xmath592 is another pair , with @xmath659 also an edge of @xmath0 . let us bound the probability @xmath334 of this particular event happening . let @xmath41 be the number of choices for @xmath43 such that @xmath660 . in terms of @xmath41 , we have @xmath661 . to see this , first expose the position of @xmath66 ; it is in the first half of an ordered pair with probability @xmath337 . next , @xmath73 must be occupy the second position in that ordered pair , and then @xmath288 must select a first half spot in one of the remaining ordered pairs . finally , there are @xmath41 valid choices for @xmath288 s partner . but by @xmath82-uniformity applied with @xmath353 ( figure [ fig : gamma ] ) , @xmath662 . so ( using @xmath341 ) , @xmath663 . the above argument can be run with any permutation of @xmath664 . also , it could be that @xmath288 occupied the second position in its ordered pair , e.g. , if @xmath665 and @xmath666 were the pairs involved . therefore , @xmath667 . since the @xmath11 random constructions are independent , the number of times @xmath591 is covered is @xmath323}$ ] , which has expectation @xmath668 . the chernoff bound implies that the probability that the binomial deviates from its mean by more than a factor of @xmath345 is at most @xmath669 taking a union bound over all @xmath670 edges @xmath591 , we obtain the desired result . @xmath174    next , we prove a result which will serve the same purpose as lemma [ lem : gamma - rare - consec ] of the previous section . procedure 3 constructs a digraph @xmath86 on half as many vertices by pairing up the vertices of @xmath0 . let us say that a set @xmath595 of 4 vertices of @xmath0 is _ condensed _ in @xmath86 if two of those pairs above contain all 4 vertices in @xmath595 . for example , if @xmath671 , and two vertices of @xmath86 are the ordered pairs @xmath672 and @xmath673 , then @xmath595 is condensed in @xmath86 . [ lem : d - rare - close ] suppose @xmath674 . construct @xmath11 independent @xmath675 according to procedure 3 . then with probability @xmath319 , every set @xmath595 of 4 vertices in @xmath0 is condensed in at most 9 of the @xmath675 .    * proof . * for a fixed set of 4 vertices @xmath676 , the probability that it is condensed in @xmath677 is precisely @xmath678 . to see this , first expose the position of @xmath66 in the permutation @xmath658 which defines @xmath677 this identifies the position which contains the other vertex in @xmath66 s pair ; expose the vertex in that spot . the probability that it is @xmath73 , @xmath288 , or @xmath289 is precisely @xmath679 . assuming this is the case , there are still two vertices of interest left , say @xmath288 and @xmath289 . then expose the position of @xmath288 . this identifies the position which contains the other vertex in @xmath288 s pair ; expose the vertex in that spot . the probability that it is @xmath289 is precisely @xmath680 .    since the @xmath675 are independent , the number of them which have the above property with respect to @xmath681 is stochastically dominated by @xmath682}$ ] . since we assumed @xmath683 , the probability that this exceeds 9 is at most @xmath684 so a union bound over all @xmath685 choices for @xmath681 completes the proof . we now formulate the analogue of procedure 2 for the hypergraph setting . * procedure 4 . * this takes as input a 3-graph @xmath0 with an even number of vertices , and an integer parameter @xmath11 .    1 . independently generate the random digraphs @xmath654 according to procedure 3 , and let @xmath655 be their corresponding 3-graphs . 2 .   for each edge @xmath686 let @xmath687 . if @xmath688 , independently select a uniformly random index in @xmath689 to label @xmath414 with . 3 .   for each @xmath675 , define the subgraph @xmath690 by keeping each edge @xmath321 if and only if both of its corresponding 3-graph edges are labeled by @xmath251 . 4 .   for each @xmath251 , let @xmath691 be the 3-graph containing all hyperedges which correspond to the directed edges left in @xmath690 . note that @xmath692 . as in procedure 2 , the final step ensures that the @xmath691 are all disjoint , so lemma [ lem : hamilton - di - hyp ] shows that we can work on each @xmath690 independently , packing hamilton cycles with theorem [ thm : digraph ] . then , we will remove all @xmath691 from @xmath0 , and repeat . the next result establishes the necessary pseudo - random properties of the @xmath690 . [ lem : d - prime ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath693 . let @xmath0 be an @xmath82-uniform 3-graph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and conduct procedure 4 with @xmath694 . let @xmath695 . then , with probability @xmath319 , every @xmath690 is @xmath696-uniform .    * proof . * our restrictions on @xmath64 allow us to apply lemma [ lem : d ] ( @xmath697 ) and lemma [ lem : d - cover ] @xmath698 , so we have that with probability @xmath319 , after step 1 of procedure 4 :    ( a ) : :    every @xmath675 is @xmath611-uniform . ( b ) : :    every edge in @xmath0 is covered    @xmath379 times by the    @xmath655 . condition on the above outcome of step 1 , and consider an arbitrary @xmath690 . it suffices to show that in the randomness of step 2 , with probability @xmath313 each individual @xmath690 has the desired properties , since @xmath699 by the given restrictions on @xmath700 . we start by verifying out - degrees . a vertex @xmath701 corresponds to a pair of vertices @xmath306 from @xmath0 . for each edge of @xmath675 which is directed away from @xmath155 , there is a distinct pair of vertices @xmath269 from @xmath0 . that directed edge remains in @xmath690 if and only if both of its associated hyperedges @xmath702 receive label @xmath251 . this happens with probability @xmath703^{-2}$ ] by property ( b ) above . yet property ( a ) ensures that the number @xmath41 of such directed edges in @xmath675 is @xmath704 , so the expected out - degree of @xmath155 in @xmath690 is @xmath705 .    for concentration , note that all of the @xmath706 hyperedges associated with the @xmath41 directed edges are distinct , so their labels are generated independently . therefore , by the chernoff inequality , the probability that the out - degree of @xmath155 in @xmath690 deviates from its expectation by more than a factor of @xmath389 is at most @xmath707 because @xmath708 . therefore , with probability @xmath496 , the degree of @xmath155 in @xmath690 is @xmath709 . taking a union bound over all @xmath710 establishes uniformity for out - degrees . all other properties of @xmath711-uniformity follow by a similar argument . importantly , in each case , all directed edges correspond to disjoint pairs of hyperedges , so we can always use the chernoff inequality to establish concentration . the smallest mean we ever deal with is @xmath712 , from property ( iii ) of uniformity for @xmath690 , so the largest error in concentration is at most @xmath713 where we use @xmath714 . @xmath174    we now move to show how the hypergraph @xmath0 is affected by the deletion of all hypergraphs @xmath691 . as before , we use inclusion / exclusion to sandwich the quantities in question , using an accurate `` first - order '' estimate , together with a rough `` second - order '' upper bound .    [ lem : h - delete-1 ] condition on the first step of procedure 4 covering every edge of @xmath0 @xmath379 times by the @xmath655 . fix any two distinct vertices @xmath715 , and a set @xmath595 of vertices such that @xmath635 for all @xmath716 . suppose that @xmath717 . then with probability @xmath718 , the number @xmath406 of vertices @xmath716 such that @xmath719 is covered by the @xmath691 is @xmath720 ,    * proof . * let @xmath721 . since we are conditioning on the result of step 1 , the only randomness left is in the independent exposure of all hyperedge labels , most of which are irrelevant for @xmath406 . we define @xmath411 , the set of relevant edges , as follows . for each @xmath722 which covers some @xmath723 , there is a partner edge @xmath724 such that @xmath414 remains in @xmath725 if and only if @xmath414 and @xmath418 receive the label @xmath422 . let @xmath411 be the collection of all partner edges obtained in this way , together with all @xmath726 . since we assume every @xmath727 is covered at most @xmath728 times by the @xmath722 , we always have @xmath729 . observe that all labels outside @xmath411 have no effect on @xmath406 at all , so we may condition on an arbitrary setting of those labels , leaving only @xmath730 independent labels to be exposed . next , we show that the probability that a particular edge @xmath731 is covered by the @xmath725 is @xmath732^{-1}$ ] . to see this , note that after revealing the label @xmath422 of @xmath414 , there is a single partner edge @xmath724 , whose label must match that of @xmath414 . since @xmath418 is covered @xmath379 times by the @xmath655 , it has probability @xmath732^{-1}$ ] of receiving that label @xmath422 . therefore by linearity of expectation , @xmath415 } = ( 1 \pm 1.04\epsilon ) \frac{|s|}{\kappa}$ ] . we use the hoeffding - azuma inequality to establish the concentration of @xmath406 , as the remaining randomness is a product space of dimension @xmath733 . consider the effect of changing the label of a hyperedge @xmath734 from @xmath251 to @xmath422 . note that its old partner edge @xmath735 overlapped with @xmath414 in two vertices , but also included a new vertex , say @xmath736 . changing the label of @xmath414 away from @xmath251 could potentially remove any or all of @xmath737 from the count for @xmath406 ( if @xmath735 had received label @xmath251 ) , so this could potentially reduce @xmath406 by up to 4 . similarly , setting the label of @xmath414 to @xmath422 can potentially increase @xmath406 by up to 4 . therefore , @xmath406 is 4-lipschitz , so the hoeffding - azuma inequality implies that the probability that @xmath406 deviates from its expectation by more than @xmath738 is at most @xmath739 where we used @xmath740 . therefore , with probability @xmath718 , we have @xmath741 , as desired . @xmath174    having proved an accurate `` first - order '' estimate , we move to the `` second - order '' upper bound ( analogous to lemma [ lem : d - delete - co - out ] ) . in the 3-graph setting , this breaks into two cases , which we treat in the following two lemmas . [ lem : h - delete-2-disjoint ] condition on the first step of procedure 4 covering every edge of @xmath0 @xmath742 times by the @xmath655 . fix any distinct vertices @xmath743 and any set of vertices @xmath595 such that both @xmath628 for all @xmath716 . suppose that @xmath744 . then with probability @xmath745 , the number @xmath406 of vertices @xmath716 which still have both @xmath719 and @xmath746 covered by the @xmath691 is at most @xmath747 .    * proof . * again , the only remaining randomness is in the labeling of the hyperedges in step 2 . also , since each edge is covered by at most @xmath748 of the @xmath722 , less than @xmath749 of them are relevant for @xmath406 , for the same reason as in the previous proof . so , we may condition on all labels for irrelevant edges , and focus on the remaining product space over the relevant edges @xmath411 . let us bound the probability that a particular @xmath716 remains in the count for @xmath406 . first , expose the labels for @xmath750 and @xmath751 , and suppose they are @xmath19 and @xmath454 . let their partner edges be @xmath752 and @xmath753 . importantly , @xmath754 can not equal @xmath418 , because @xmath754 must overlap with @xmath414 in two vertices . hence the label of @xmath754 has not yet been exposed . similarly , the label of @xmath755 has not yet been exposed . however , note that it may happen that @xmath756 .    in order for @xmath43 to remain in the count for @xmath406 , @xmath754 must receive label @xmath19 and @xmath755 must receive label @xmath454 . first we show that if @xmath757 , then the probability of this occurring is 0 . indeed , if @xmath758 , it clearly can not happen . but otherwise , if @xmath759 , it is impossible for @xmath756 in the first place , because in @xmath760 , each edge has a distinct partner edge , so @xmath754 and @xmath755 should be distinct .    on the other hand , if @xmath761 , the probability that these independent labels equal @xmath19 and @xmath454 is at most @xmath762^{-2}$ ] , because each edge is covered by at least @xmath763 of the @xmath722 . therefore , we conclude that in all cases , the probability of a certain @xmath764 remaining in the count for @xmath406 is at most @xmath765 , so @xmath415 } \leq \frac{2}{\kappa^2 } |s|$ ] . finally , the same argument that we used in the proof of lemma [ lem : h - delete-1 ] shows that @xmath406 is 4-lipschitz over the product space of dimension @xmath766 . hence the probability that @xmath406 exceeds its expectation by more than @xmath767 is at most @xmath768 since we assumed @xmath744 . therefore , with probability @xmath718 , we have @xmath769 , as desired . @xmath174 [ lem : h - delete-2-incident ] condition on the first step of procedure 4 covering every edge of @xmath0 @xmath742 times by the @xmath655 , and on the property that every set of 4 vertices of @xmath0 is condensed in at most 9 of the @xmath675 . fix any distinct vertices @xmath770 and any set of vertices @xmath595 such that both @xmath771 for all @xmath716 . suppose that @xmath744 . then with probability @xmath718 , the number @xmath406 of vertices @xmath772 which still have both @xmath719 and @xmath659 covered by the @xmath691 is at most @xmath773 .    * proof . * again , the only remaining randomness is in the labeling of the hyperedges in step 2 , so we may concentrate on the product space of dimension @xmath774 , where @xmath411 is the set of all edges @xmath775 and their possible partners .    to bound the probability that a particular @xmath716 remains in the count for @xmath406 , expose the labels for @xmath750 and @xmath776 , and suppose they are @xmath19 and @xmath454 . let their partner edges be @xmath752 and @xmath753 . this time , it is possible for @xmath777 or @xmath778 , but that can only happen if the 4 vertices @xmath779 are condensed in @xmath780 . furthermore , if @xmath781 , then @xmath43 is automatically excluded from the count for @xmath406 , which is not a problem because we only seek an upper bound .    therefore , the probability that @xmath43 contributes to @xmath406 is at most @xmath782 , where @xmath334 is the probability that @xmath414 and @xmath418 both receive the same label @xmath19 , with @xmath783 condensed in @xmath780 , and @xmath335 is the conditional probability that @xmath754 and @xmath755 receive labels @xmath19 and @xmath454 , given the exposure of the labels of @xmath414 and @xmath418 , and @xmath784 , @xmath785 . we assumed that @xmath783 were only condensed in at most 9 of the @xmath786 , so @xmath787 . as for @xmath335 , the same argument that we used in the previous lemma shows that if @xmath756 , then we must have had @xmath781 , so it is impossible for @xmath754 to receive @xmath19 and @xmath755 to receive @xmath454 , hence @xmath43 can not contribute to @xmath406 . the only remaining case is @xmath761 , and the probability that both receive the correct label is at most @xmath788^{-2}$ ] . putting everything together , we conclude that the probability that @xmath43 contributes to @xmath406 is at most @xmath789 , so @xmath415 } \leq \frac{12}{\kappa^2 } |s|$ ] . finally , the same argument that we used in the previous proof again establishes the lipschitz constant of 4 for @xmath406 in the product space of dimension @xmath766 . hence the probability that @xmath406 exceeds its expectation by more than @xmath767 is at most @xmath768 since we assumed @xmath744 . therefore , with probability @xmath718 , we have @xmath790 , as desired . @xmath174    now we combine our first - order and second - order bounds , and show that the pseudo - random properties of @xmath0 are maintained after deleting all @xmath691 . [ lem : h - delete ] suppose @xmath1 , @xmath6 , and @xmath124 satisfy @xmath791 . let @xmath792 and @xmath695 . let @xmath0 be an @xmath82-uniform 3-graph on @xmath1 vertices ( @xmath1 even ) , and conduct procedure 4 . let @xmath793 be the subgraph of @xmath0 obtained by deleting all edges covered by any @xmath691 . then , with probability @xmath794 , @xmath793 is an @xmath487-uniform 3-graph with @xmath795 and @xmath489 . * by applying lemmas [ lem : d - cover ] and [ lem : d - rare - close ] , the outcome of step 1 of procedure 4 will satisfy the following two properties with probability @xmath319 . ( the second follows since @xmath796 , and so @xmath683 . )    * every edge of @xmath0 is covered @xmath379 times by the @xmath655 . * every set of 4 vertices of @xmath0 is condensed in at most 9 of the @xmath675 . condition on this outcome . we will now show that in the remaining randomness of step 2 , the properties of @xmath487-uniformity are satisfied with probability @xmath319 . for this , fix a set of @xmath49 vertices @xmath797 , and let @xmath32 be an arbitrary @xmath41-vertex graph with @xmath50 edges . it suffices to show that in @xmath793 , the random variable @xmath798 is @xmath799 with probability @xmath718 , because we can then take a union bound over all @xmath800 choices for the @xmath205 , and all @xmath801 possibilities for @xmath32 . let @xmath595 be the set of all @xmath43 such that @xmath36 for every edge @xmath37 . our assumed @xmath82-uniformity gives @xmath802 . we will use a similar inclusion / exclusion argument as in the proof of lemma [ lem : digraph - delete ] to estimate @xmath120 in terms of @xmath803 . let @xmath804 be the edges of @xmath32 . for each @xmath805 , define the random variable @xmath806 as follows . let @xmath293 be the endpoints of edge @xmath807 . then let @xmath806 be the number of vertices @xmath808 such that @xmath809 is covered by some @xmath810 . also , for every two distinct @xmath811 , let the random variable @xmath812 count the number of vertices @xmath716 such that both @xmath813 and @xmath814 are covered by some @xmath810 , where @xmath815 and @xmath816 are the respective endpoints of @xmath817 and @xmath818 . in terms of these random variables , the principle of inclusion / exclusion always gives @xmath819 since we noted above that @xmath820 , we have @xmath821 , so lemma [ lem : h - delete-1 ] controls all @xmath822 with probability @xmath718 . also , since @xmath823 , lemmas [ lem : h - delete-2-disjoint ] and [ lem : h - delete-2-incident ] show that every @xmath824 with probability @xmath718 .    putting everything together , and using @xmath50 and @xmath825 , we have @xmath826 now observe that @xmath827 again using @xmath825 , we bound the error term by @xmath524 . therefore , we have @xmath828    =    ( 1 \pm \epsilon ' ) n ( p')^s,\ ] ] as desired . @xmath174 we finally finish the proof of theorem [ thm:3graph ] . the method is essentially the same as that used to prove theorem [ thm : digraph ] in the previous section . * proof of theorem [ thm:3graph ] . * let @xmath829 , @xmath528 , and @xmath529 . define the sequences @xmath530 , @xmath531 via the following recursion : @xmath830 let @xmath533 be the smallest index such that @xmath831 . note that @xmath535 only increases , so @xmath832 also note that since @xmath833 we have in general that @xmath834 . therefore , @xmath835    we now iteratively construct @xmath836 , such that each @xmath837 is @xmath542-uniform . indeed , consider the ( random ) procedure 4 applied to @xmath837 with respect to @xmath838 . let @xmath839 . this produces digraphs @xmath840 and 3-graphs @xmath841 with all @xmath841 disjoint . let @xmath842 be the result of deleting all @xmath841 from @xmath837 . to apply lemmas [ lem : d - prime ] and [ lem : h - delete ] , we must check that @xmath843 . but this follows from our initial assumption that @xmath844 since @xmath550 and @xmath845 . therefore , the two lemmas show that with probability @xmath490 , procedure 4 results in the following properties :    ( i ) : :    every @xmath840 is @xmath846-uniform . ( ii ) : :    @xmath842 is    @xmath556-uniform . we may assume this outcome , since we will only iterate @xmath553 times . in order to apply theorem [ thm : digraph ] to each @xmath840 , we must verify that @xmath847 . indeed , this is the case : @xmath848 by our initial assumption that @xmath849 . so , every @xmath840 can be packed with hamilton cycles , missing only an @xmath850-fraction of the edges . by lemma [ lem : hamilton - di - hyp ] , these edge - disjoint hamilton cycles in @xmath840 correspond to edge - disjoint hamilton cycles in @xmath841 , missing the same fraction of edges since there is a 2-to-1 correspondence between edges in @xmath841 and @xmath840 . we carry on the above procedure until we create @xmath851 . then , we will have packed hamilton cycles in @xmath852 , up to error of @xmath853-fraction . it remains to estimate the numbers of edges in @xmath851 and @xmath0 . note that in general , by applying @xmath82-uniformity to every pair of vertices ( using @xmath353 in figure [ fig : gamma ] ) , we can estimate the number of edges in any @xmath82-uniform 3-graph to be @xmath854 , because this counts every hyperedge @xmath855 times . thus @xmath0 has at least @xmath856 edges , and @xmath851 has at most @xmath857 edges . thus @xmath851 itself has at most @xmath858-fraction of the total number of edges . therefore , the fraction of edges of @xmath0 that have not been covered is at most @xmath859 since @xmath860 by inequality . this completes the proof . @xmath174 * the above proof showed that we can pack the edges of @xmath0 with hamilton cycles , up to a fractional error of at most @xmath571 , where @xmath861 . in fact , one can prove the same result for any @xmath862 , and all of the calculations can be recovered by following our proof . just as in section [ sec : digraph ] , we intentionally introduced a very high level of precision in lemma [ lem : d - cover ] . it is clear that the same argument can replace the @xmath574 with @xmath575 , etc . these smaller order errors are what accumulate into the decimal places in the final @xmath863 which appears in lemma [ lem : h - delete ] , and which later determines the value of @xmath288 . when @xmath863 is replaced by a constant arbitrarily close to 6 , the above argument produces a result with @xmath288 approaching @xmath864 . our proof of theorem [ thm:3graph ] is only valid when @xmath1 is divisible by four , because we required a factor of 2 in each reduction step ( from hypergraphs to digraphs , and then to bipartite graphs ) . although we do not expect this condition to be necessary , removing this restriction is open . we also leave open the question of packing hamilton cycles of type @xmath20 in @xmath19-uniform hypergraphs when @xmath865 and @xmath866 . finally , another interesting direction is to streamline the sets of pseudo - random properties which appear in the statements of our packing results ( both for digraphs and for 3-graphs ) .
Abstract:

Answer: let @xmath0 be a 3-uniform hypergraph with @xmath1 vertices . a tight hamilton cycle @xmath2 is a collection of @xmath1 edges for which there is an ordering of the vertices @xmath3 such that every triple of consecutive vertices @xmath4 is an edge of @xmath5 ( indices are considered modulo @xmath1 ) . we develop new techniques which enable us to prove that under certain natural pseudo - random conditions , almost all edges of @xmath0 can be covered by edge - disjoint tight hamilton cycles , for @xmath1 divisible by 4 . consequently , we derive the corollary that random 3-uniform hypergraphs can be almost completely packed with tight hamilton cycles * whp * , for @xmath1 divisible by 4 and @xmath6 not too small . along the way , we develop a similar result for packing hamilton cycles in pseudo - random digraphs with even numbers of vertices .