ProbXiv
sign in
unchecked

Chafai-Dadoun-Youssef Questions on Logarithmic Energy Monotonicity

Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.

chafai-dadoun-youssef-log-energy-monotonicityProbability & statisticsposed by Djalil Chafai, Benjamin Dadoun, Pierre Youssefrecorded: disproved

1 attempt · no person has looked

Statement

Chafai, Dadoun and Youssef asked whether the quadratically penalised logarithmic energy of mean empirical spectral distributions is monotone in the dimension, for Wigner matrices and for matrices with i.i.d. entries. Neither holds: a finite-energy Wigner counterexample and a one-parameter family of Gaussian-regularised Bernoulli entry laws answer both questions negatively.

Context

Two numbered questions from a recent random-matrix paper, documented but read within one community.

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. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    constructionChatGPT Pro 5.5, ChatGPT 5.6 Sol Ultra with Theodoros Assiotis ·
    AI involvement
    ai co developed
    a person and a model developed the result together.
    models
    ChatGPT Pro 5.5, ChatGPT 5.6 Sol Ultra
    people
    Theodoros Assiotis

    The disclosure says the tools were used for ideation, technical help, editing and checking the proofs, and puts the contribution at the level of a co-author, while the author retains responsibility for mistakes. It does not separate which of the two counterexamples came from where.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 0 machine checks

    No person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.

    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.