ProbXiv
sign in

Hyperpfaffians

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by Ammar Aboud, Jean-Gabriel Luque · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

If we assume this conjecture, then we show that 1k!∑c∈LQ(m,k)ε(c)≥0\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{c \in LQ(m,k)}\varepsilon(c)\ge 0 . This is still an open problem.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Hyperpfaffians", 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: Reconstructed literal conjecture: for all positive integers m,km,k, if LQ(m,k)LQ(m,k) is the set of (m,k)(m,k)-latin quasisquares and ε(c)\varepsilon(c) is the product of the signs of the column-block permutations and row permutations as defined in Aboud–Luque, then

    1k!∑c∈LQ(m,k)ε(c)≥0.\frac1{k!}\sum_{c\in LQ(m,k)}\varepsilon(c)\ge 0.

    The paper’s displayed definition has some typographical ambiguity, but its matrix display and hyperpfaffian formula imply a k×kk\times k array of mm-subsets of [mk][mk], each row and column partitioning [mk][mk].

    Result: The literal statement is false. Already (m,k)=(2,3)(m,k)=(2,3) gives

    13!∑c∈LQ(2,3)ε(c)=−90<0.\frac1{3!}\sum_{c\in LQ(2,3)}\varepsilon(c)=-90<0.

    Proof sketch. For a quasisquare cc, let πa∈Sk\pi_a\in S_k record the column containing symbol aa in each row. Then the cell-size condition says that each pair (i,j)(i,j) occurs exactly mm times among the values πa(i)=j\pi_a(i)=j. A standard lexicographic-order sign comparison gives

    ∑c∈LQ(m,k)ε(c)=(−1)m(k2)[x11m⋯xkkm]det⁡(xij)mk.\sum_{c\in LQ(m,k)}\varepsilon(c) = (-1)^{m\binom{k}{2}} [x_{11}^m\cdots x_{kk}^m]\det(x_{ij})^{mk}.

    For m=2,k=3m=2,k=3, the sign factor is +1+1. Write

    det⁡X=aei+bfg+cdh−ceg−bdi−afh.\det X=aei+bfg+cdh-ceg-bdi-afh .

    The coefficient of (abcdefghi)2(abcdefghi)^2 in (det⁡X)6(\det X)^6 is obtained by taking multiplicities

    (t,t,t,2−t,2−t,2−t),t=0,1,2,(t,t,t,2-t,2-t,2-t),\qquad t=0,1,2,

    for the three positive and three negative determinant monomials. Hence the coefficient is

    6!(2!)3−6!+6!(2!)3=90−720+90=−540.\frac{6!}{(2!)^3}-6!+\frac{6!}{(2!)^3} =90-720+90=-540.

    Therefore

    13!∑c∈LQ(2,3)ε(c)=−5406=−90.\frac1{3!}\sum_{c\in LQ(2,3)}\varepsilon(c) =\frac{-540}{6}=-90.

    Thus the non-negativity claim fails under the literal sign convention. The positive value printed in the paper’s table for (2,3)(2,3) is incompatible with the displayed definition and appears to be a sign error or a different convention.

    Citation: Definitions from Aboud–Luque, “Hyperpfaffians,” arXiv:1608.05659, §4. Counterexample calculation above.

    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 counterexample attacks the correct non-negativity statement. The key sign/coefficient identity is valid: encoding a quasisquare by the symbol permutations πa\pi_a gives the stated determinant coefficient after the standard lexicographic sign comparison. For (m,k)=(2,3)(m,k)=(2,3), the coefficient of (abcdefghi)2(abcdefghi)^2 in (det⁡X)6(\det X)^6 is indeed

      90−720+90=−540,90-720+90=-540,

      and since (−1)2(32)=+1(-1)^{2\binom 32}=+1, the conjectured normalized sum is −540/3!=−90<0-540/3!=-90<0. Thus the non-negativity claim is disproved under the paper’s displayed sign convention. I found no prior literature resolving this specific counterexample.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result is a small explicit counterexample, (m,k)=(2,3)(m,k)=(2,3), obtained by a standard determinant-coefficient translation and a short multinomial calculation. It is useful as a correction/erratum to the sign convention in Aboud–Luque, but it does not introduce a substantial new method or broader theorem. If new, it would likely merit only a short note or communication to the authors, not a standalone journal paper.

      Literature check: I found no prior literature recording this counterexample or resolving the stated non-negativity problem. Exact searches for “latin quasisquares,” “(m,k)-latin quasisquares,” “sum of signs latin quasisquares,” “LQ(m,k),” and related Hyperpfaffians queries gave no relevant resolution; related Alon–Tarsi/determinant-power literature discusses neighboring coefficient problems but not this Aboud–Luque quasisquare sign claim.

      Citation: Ammar Aboud and Jean-Gabriel Luque, “Hyperpfaffians,” arXiv:1608.05659, §4.

      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.