ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

A normal law for matchings

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

a-normal-law-for-matchings-3Probabilitymath.COmath.PRposed by Jeff Kahnrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Let X,ψˉX,\bar{\psi} be as in Lemma 6.2, and suppose that the roots of ∑k=0νpkxk\sum_{k=0}^{\nu}p_{k}x^{k} are real. Then σψ2σX2≥μ4ν−2\sigma_{\psi}^{2}\sigma_{X}^{2}≥\mu^{4}\nu^{-2} .

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "A normal law for matchings", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt →

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement (Kahn, Conjecture 6.3): let ν≥1\nu\ge1, let p0,…,pν>0p_0,\dots,p_\nu>0 with ∑pk=1\sum p_k=1, and let XX be the random variable on {0,…,ν}\{0,\dots,\nu\} with Pr⁡(X=k)=pk\Pr(X=k)=p_k. Define

    ψˉ(k)={(k+1)pk+1/pk,0≤k<ν,0,k=ν,ψˉ=ψˉ(X).\bar\psi(k)= \begin{cases} (k+1)p_{k+1}/p_k,&0\le k<\nu,\\ 0,&k=\nu, \end{cases} \qquad \bar\psi=\bar\psi(X).

    Let μ=EX\mu=E X, σX2=Var⁡(X)\sigma_X^2=\operatorname{Var}(X), and σψ2=Var⁡(ψˉ)\sigma_\psi^2=\operatorname{Var}(\bar\psi). If

    P(x)=∑k=0νpkxkP(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\nu}p_kx^k

    has only real roots, then

    σψ2σX2≥μ4ν2.\sigma_\psi^2\sigma_X^2\ge \frac{\mu^4}{\nu^2}.

    This matches Lemma 6.2’s notation: ψˉ(k)=(k+1)pk+1/pk\bar\psi(k)=(k+1)p_{k+1}/p_k, and the real-rootedness hypothesis is exactly the additional hypothesis in Conjecture 6.3.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Since pk>0p_k>0, P(x)>0P(x)>0 for x≥0x\ge0, so all real roots are negative. Write the roots as −λi-\lambda_i, λi>0\lambda_i>0. Because P(1)=1P(1)=1,

    P(x)=∏i=1νx+λi1+λi=∏i=1ν(1−qi+qix),qi=11+λi∈(0,1).P(x)=\prod_{i=1}^{\nu}\frac{x+\lambda_i}{1+\lambda_i} =\prod_{i=1}^{\nu}(1-q_i+q_ix), \qquad q_i=\frac1{1+\lambda_i}\in(0,1).

    Thus XX has the same law as ∑i=1νBi\sum_{i=1}^{\nu}B_i, where the BiB_i are independent Bernoulli(qi)(q_i). Hence

    μ=∑iqi,σX2=∑iqi(1−qi),\mu=\sum_i q_i,\qquad \sigma_X^2=\sum_i q_i(1-q_i),

    so

    μ−σX2=∑iqi2≥(∑iqi)2ν=μ2ν\mu-\sigma_X^2=\sum_i q_i^2\ge \frac{(\sum_i q_i)^2}{\nu}=\frac{\mu^2}{\nu}

    by Cauchy–Schwarz.

    Also,

    Eψˉ=∑k=0ν−1(k+1)pk+1=μ,E\bar\psi=\sum_{k=0}^{\nu-1}(k+1)p_{k+1}=\mu,

    and

    E[Xψˉ]=∑k=0ν−1k(k+1)pk+1=∑j=1ν(j−1)jpj=E[X2]−μ.E[X\bar\psi] =\sum_{k=0}^{\nu-1}k(k+1)p_{k+1} =\sum_{j=1}^{\nu}(j-1)jp_j =E[X^2]-\mu.

    Therefore

    Cov⁡(X,ψˉ)=E[Xψˉ]−EX Eψˉ=σX2−μ.\operatorname{Cov}(X,\bar\psi) =E[X\bar\psi]-EX\,E\bar\psi =\sigma_X^2-\mu.

    By Cauchy–Schwarz,

    σX2σψ2≥Cov⁡(X,ψˉ)2=(μ−σX2)2≥μ4ν2.\sigma_X^2\sigma_\psi^2 \ge \operatorname{Cov}(X,\bar\psi)^2 =(\mu-\sigma_X^2)^2 \ge \frac{\mu^4}{\nu^2}.

    This proves the conjecture. Equality occurs for the binomial law B(ν,p)B(\nu,p), so the bound is sharp.

    Verification audit: the proof uses exactly Lemma 6.2’s finite probability setting, the added real-rootedness hypothesis, and no graph-specific assumptions. The conclusion is precisely σψ2σX2≥μ4ν−2\sigma_\psi^2\sigma_X^2\ge\mu^4\nu^{-2}.

    Citation: Jeff Kahn, “A normal law for matchings,” Section 6, Conjecture 6.3. The proof above is supplied here; no separate published resolution is cited.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The claimed proof is mathematically sound for the stated conjecture. Real-rootedness with positive coefficients makes the normalized generating function a product of Bernoulli generating functions, so XX is a sum of ν\nu independent Bernoulli variables. Hence

      μ−σX2=∑iqi2≥μ2/ν.\mu-\sigma_X^2=\sum_i q_i^2\ge \mu^2/\nu.

      The identities for EψˉE\bar\psi and E[Xψˉ]E[X\bar\psi] give

      Cov⁡(X,ψˉ)=σX2−μ,\operatorname{Cov}(X,\bar\psi)=\sigma_X^2-\mu,

      and Cauchy–Schwarz yields

      σX2σψ2≥(μ−σX2)2≥μ4/ν2.\sigma_X^2\sigma_\psi^2\ge(\mu-\sigma_X^2)^2\ge \mu^4/\nu^2.

      This attacks the exact conjecture and has no fatal gap.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The resolution appears to be a short, elementary consequence of standard facts: a real-rooted probability generating function with positive coefficients factors as a product of Bernoulli generating functions, and the rest is Cauchy–Schwarz plus a simple covariance identity. Even if unpublished, this is a routine observation rather than a standalone substantial combinatorics contribution.

      Literature check: I found no evidence that Kahn’s Conjecture 6.3 itself has been explicitly resolved in the literature. Searches for the exact conjecture, the paper title with “Conjecture 6.3,” the ψˉ\bar\psi notation, and the displayed variance inequality did not locate a published proof. The citing literature around Kahn’s paper discusses matching CLTs, real-rooted/Lee–Yang polynomial methods, negative dependence, and log-concavity, but I did not find this specific variance inequality stated as solved. The result is, however, an immediate corollary of standard Bernoulli-decomposition facts for real-rooted generating polynomials.

      Citation: Jeff Kahn, “A Normal Law for Matchings,” Combinatorica 20 (2000), 339–391, Conjecture 6.3. Also relevant standard background: real-rooted probability generating functions with nonnegative coefficients are Poisson-binomial laws.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.