Kaul-Mudrock Conjecture on the Unlabeled List Color Function
Statement
Donner proved in 1992 that the list color function equals the chromatic polynomial once is large. Kaul and Mudrock asked whether the analogue holds for Hanlon's unlabeled chromatic polynomial, and could not settle even the edgeless graph, which they posed as a conjecture. The conjecture is true, and it implies that a disconnected graph satisfies the unlabeled analogue of Donner's result whenever all of its components do.
Context
A two-year-old conjecture from a specialist list-coloring paper, real and documented but with a small audience.
People
Attempts
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.
As part of an experiment, Gowers asked ChatGPT 5.5 Pro to find an open combinatorics problem it considered approachable and try to solve it. The model picked this conjecture unprompted and produced an affirmative proof, which Gowers passed to the authors and they confirmed correct. The authors had reached the same theorem independently by a shifting argument, so the model does not hold priority, but its proof is genuinely different (a shadow inequality in the style of the local LYM inequality) and appears in the appendix. Its output also revealed the general form of Corollary 1.6, which the authors had previously established only for complete graphs. Asked to settle the underlying question for all graphs, the model could not.
Reviews
1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Reproduction by the VibeMathed site
The authors state that they checked the AI-produced proof and found it correct, and they include a cleaned-up version of it in Appendix A. arXiv preprint; not yet peer-reviewed.
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.
Discussion
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.