ProbXiv
sign in

Chromatic Symmetric Functions and Polynomial Invariants of Trees

Algebra · math.CO · math.RT · posed by José Aliste-Prieto, Jeremy L. Martin, Jennifer D. Wagner, José Zamora · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

If ζ(α)=ζ(β)\zeta(\alpha) = \zeta(\beta), are α\alpha and β\beta necessarily related by switching?

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Chromatic Symmetric Functions and Polynomial Invariants of Trees", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

begin a project on this problem →

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: For finite compositions α,β\alpha,\beta, with ζ(α)\zeta(\alpha) defined by

    ζ(α)=∑γ≥αyℓ(γ)−1zℓ(α)−ℓ(γ)(y+z)ℓ(α)−1∑ixγi,\zeta(\alpha)=\sum_{\gamma\ge \alpha} \frac{y^{\ell(\gamma)-1}z^{\ell(\alpha)-\ell(\gamma)}}{(y+z)^{\ell(\alpha)-1}} \sum_i x_{\gamma_i},

    does ζ(α)=ζ(β)\zeta(\alpha)=\zeta(\beta) imply that α,β\alpha,\beta are related by switching of irreducible factors under the Billera–Thomas–van Willigenburg composition operation ∘\circ?

    Result: No. A counterexample is

    α=(1,3,1,4,5,2,2,4,2),β=(1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2).\alpha=(1,3,1,4,5,2,2,4,2),\qquad \beta=(1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2).

    Let q=z/(y+z)q=z/(y+z). For a composition δ\delta, the coefficient of xrx_r in ζ(δ)\zeta(\delta) is

    Pδ,r(q)=∑I contiguous interval of δ∑I=r(1−q)b(I)q∣I∣−1,P_{\delta,r}(q)=\sum_{\substack{I\text{ contiguous interval of }\delta\\ \sum I=r}} (1-q)^{b(I)}q^{|I|-1},

    where b(I)b(I) is the number of ends of II not touching an end of δ\delta. This follows by summing over all coarsenings in which II appears as one block.

    For both α\alpha and β\beta, the nonzero coefficients Pr(q)P_r(q) are:

    rPr(q)12−3q+q223−5q+2q231−2q+q242−q−3q2+2q351−q62q−3q2+q37q−2q2+q383q2−5q3+2q49q−q210q2−q311q2−2q3+q412q3−2q4+q5133q3−6q4+3q5142q4−3q5+q6152q4−3q5+q616q5−q617q4−q5−q6+q718q5−q619q5−q620q6−q721q6−2q7+q822q7−q823q7−q824q8\begin{array}{c|l} r&P_r(q)\\ \hline 1&2-3q+q^2\\ 2&3-5q+2q^2\\ 3&1-2q+q^2\\ 4&2-q-3q^2+2q^3\\ 5&1-q\\ 6&2q-3q^2+q^3\\ 7&q-2q^2+q^3\\ 8&3q^2-5q^3+2q^4\\ 9&q-q^2\\ 10&q^2-q^3\\ 11&q^2-2q^3+q^4\\ 12&q^3-2q^4+q^5\\ 13&3q^3-6q^4+3q^5\\ 14&2q^4-3q^5+q^6\\ 15&2q^4-3q^5+q^6\\ 16&q^5-q^6\\ 17&q^4-q^5-q^6+q^7\\ 18&q^5-q^6\\ 19&q^5-q^6\\ 20&q^6-q^7\\ 21&q^6-2q^7+q^8\\ 22&q^7-q^8\\ 23&q^7-q^8\\ 24&q^8 \end{array}

    and all other coefficients vanish. Hence ζ(α)=ζ(β)\zeta(\alpha)=\zeta(\beta).

    They are not related by switching. Indeed, switching preserves the L\mathcal L-polynomial

    L(δ)=∑γ≥δ∏ixγi.\mathcal L(\delta)=\sum_{\gamma\ge\delta}\prod_i x_{\gamma_i}.

    But in L(β)\mathcal L(\beta), the coarsening

    (1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2)↦(1,7,1,5,4,2,2,2)(1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2)\mapsto (1,7,1,5,4,2,2,2)

    contributes the monomial

    x12x23x4x5x7.x_1^2x_2^3x_4x_5x_7.

    No coarsening of α\alpha contributes this monomial: the two blocks of sum 11 would have to be the two singleton 11's in positions 11 and 33, forcing the intervening 33 to be a singleton block, which is impossible for this monomial. Thus L(α)≠L(β)\mathcal L(\alpha)\ne\mathcal L(\beta), so α,β\alpha,\beta are not related by switching.

    Verification audit: the compositions are ordinary nonempty positive compositions, the equality is equality in the rational function ring generated by y,z,xiy,z,x_i, and the conclusion directly refutes Question 1.

    Citation: The question is Aliste-Prieto–Martin–Wagner–Zamora, “Chromatic symmetric functions and polynomial invariants of trees,” arXiv:2402.10333v2, Question 1. The switching/L\mathcal L-polynomial characterization is from Billera–Thomas–van Willigenburg, Adv. Math. 204 (2006), and Aliste-Prieto–Zamora, Discrete Math. 315 (2014).

    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 proposed counterexample attacks the exact Question 1. The formula for the coefficient of xrx_r in ζ(δ)\zeta(\delta) is correct: summing over coarsenings in which a fixed contiguous interval appears as a block gives q∣I∣−1(1−q)b(I)q^{|I|-1}(1-q)^{b(I)}. The listed coefficient table is consistent for both

      α=(1,3,1,4,5,2,2,4,2),β=(1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2),\alpha=(1,3,1,4,5,2,2,4,2),\quad \beta=(1,4,3,1,5,4,2,2,2),

      so ζ(α)=ζ(β)\zeta(\alpha)=\zeta(\beta).

      The non-switching argument is also valid: switching preserves the L\mathcal L-polynomial, while the monomial x12x23x4x5x7x_1^2x_2^3x_4x_5x_7 occurs in L(β)\mathcal L(\beta) and cannot occur in L(α)\mathcal L(\alpha), since the two x1x_1 blocks would force the intervening 33 in α\alpha to be a singleton block. Thus L(α)≠L(β)\mathcal L(\alpha)\ne\mathcal L(\beta), so they are not related by switching.

      I found no indication in the cited paper’s current version that this specific converse has already been resolved.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The counterexample appears genuinely new, but it is a small finite counterexample to a narrow technical question in a recent paper. The proof is essentially an explicit coefficient check plus a short obstruction to switching. It is useful and worth communicating to the authors, but by itself likely does not support a standalone standard-journal paper unless expanded with a conceptual construction, minimality proof, or infinite family.

      Literature check: I found no public source containing this counterexample or another resolution of Question 1. The current arXiv v2 of the source paper still lists Question 1 in §7.3 and states only that the answer is affirmative computationally up to 18 vertices. The arXiv note that “one open question” was resolved by Michael Tang concerns the different GDP-vs-HDP strictness question in §7.2, not the ζ/switching converse. Searches for the exact compositions, the exact prefix-sum sets, “ζ(alpha)=ζ(beta)” with switching/compositions/caterpillars, and related L-polynomial/restricted-U-polynomial terminology did not reveal a prior reference.

      Citation: No prior citation found for the counterexample. Source question: Aliste-Prieto, Martin, Wagner, Zamora, “Chromatic symmetric functions and polynomial invariants of trees,” arXiv:2402.10333v2, §7.3, Question 1.

      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.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

open in Claude →open in ChatGPT →

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

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