ProbXiv
sign in

ON THE DEGREE OF GROTHENDIECK POLYNOMIALS

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by Matt Dreyer, Karola Mészáros, Avery St. Dizier · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

We formulate an analogue of Conjecture 1.2 for term orders with x1>x2>⋯>xnx_1 > x_2 > \dots > x_n (Conjecture 11.15).

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "ON THE DEGREE OF GROTHENDIECK POLYNOMIALS", 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 Conjecture 11.15: for w∈Snw\in S_n and any term order with

    x1>x2>⋯>xn,x_1>x_2>\cdots>x_n,

    let mkm_k be the leading monomial of the degree kk homogeneous component of the Grothendieck polynomial Gw\mathfrak G_w. Let CS(w)C^S(w) be the staircase climbing chain and M(CS(w))M(C^S(w)) its minimal markings. Then for

    ℓ(w)<k≤raj⁡(w),\ell(w)<k\le \operatorname{raj}(w), mk=xpmk−1,m_k=x_p m_{k-1},

    where pp is the smallest index such that

    xpmk−1∣xwt⁡(CS(w),M(CS(w))).x_p m_{k-1}\mid x^{\operatorname{wt}(C^S(w),M(C^S(w)))}.

    This is the exact statement labelled Conjecture 11.15 in Dreyer–Mészáros–St. Dizier.

    Result: The conjecture is false.

    Take w=481935276∈S9w=481935276\in S_9 and use lexicographic order with

    x1>x2>⋯>x9.x_1>x_2>\cdots>x_9.

    Here

    raj⁡‾(w)=(2,1,3,0,2,1,1,0,0),\overline{\operatorname{raj}}(w)=(2,1,3,0,2,1,1,0,0),

    so raj⁡(w)=36−10=26\operatorname{raj}(w)=36-10=26.

    Applying the staircase-chain construction gives

    CS(w)=((1,6),(1,2),(1,4),(2,9),(2,8),(2,4),(3,5),(3,6),(3,4),(4,9),(4,8),C^S(w)=((1,6),(1,2),(1,4),(2,9),(2,8),(2,4),(3,5),(3,6),(3,4),(4,9),(4,8), (5,7),(5,6),(5,9),(5,8),(6,9),(6,8),(7,9),(7,8)).(5,7),(5,6),(5,9),(5,8),(6,9),(6,8),(7,9),(7,8)).

    Its minimal markings have dual weight

    dwt⁡(CS,M(CS))=(2,1,2,1,2,1,1,0,0).\operatorname{dwt}(C^S,M(C^S))=(2,1,2,1,2,1,1,0,0).

    Thus the conjecture predicts that the leading monomial in top degree 2626 is

    x(8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0)−(2,1,2,1,2,1,1,0,0)=x(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0).x^{(8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0)-(2,1,2,1,2,1,1,0,0)} =x^{(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0)}.

    But the following climbing chain of ww exists:

    C=((1,6),(1,2),(1,4),(2,9),(2,8),(2,4),(3,5),(3,4),(4,6),(4,9),(4,8),C=((1,6),(1,2),(1,4),(2,9),(2,8),(2,4),(3,5),(3,4),(4,6),(4,9),(4,8), (5,7),(5,6),(5,9),(5,8),(6,9),(6,8),(7,9),(7,8)).(5,7),(5,6),(5,9),(5,8),(6,9),(6,8),(7,9),(7,8)).

    The successive permutations are

    481935276→581934276→851934276→951834276→961834275→971834265481935276\to581934276\to851934276\to951834276\to961834275\to971834265 →981734265→983714265→987314265→987413265→987513264→987613254\to981734265\to983714265\to987314265\to987413265\to987513264\to987613254 →987623154→987632154→987642153→987652143→987653142→987654132→987654231→987654321.\to987623154\to987632154\to987642153\to987652143\to987653142\to987654132 \to987654231\to987654321.

    Each arrow is a Bruhat cover, so CC is a climbing chain. Its minimal markings occur at positions

    1,3,4,7,9,10,12,14,16,18,1,3,4,7,9,10,12,14,16,18,

    so

    dwt⁡(C,M(C))=(2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0).\operatorname{dwt}(C,M(C))=(2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0).

    Therefore CC contributes the top-degree monomial

    x(8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0)−(2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0)=x(6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0).x^{(8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0)-(2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0)} = x^{(6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0)}.

    By the Lenart–Robinson–Sottile climbing-chain formula, all degree 2626 contributions have the same sign, so this monomial does not cancel.

    Finally,

    (6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0)>(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0)(6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0)>(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0)

    in lexicographic order with x1>x2>⋯>x9x_1>x_2>\cdots>x_9. Hence the conjectured monomial cannot be the leading monomial.

    This is a nondegenerate counterexample: w∈S9w\in S_9, ℓ(w)=17\ell(w)=17, and the failure occurs at the top degree k=raj⁡(w)=26k=\operatorname{raj}(w)=26.

    Citation: Counterexample given here. Source statement: Dreyer–Mészáros–St. Dizier, “On the degree of Grothendieck polynomials,” arXiv:2209.00687, Conjecture 11.15. Climbing-chain formula used: Lenart–Robinson–Sottile, Amer. J. Math. 128 (2006), 805–848.

    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 counterexample targets Conjecture 11.15 for term orders with x1>⋯>xnx_1>\cdots>x_n. The displayed Bruhat-saturated chain for w=481935276w=481935276 reaches w0w_0, has minimal markings with dual weight (2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0)(2,1,1,2,2,1,1,0,0), and by the Lenart–Robinson–Sottile formula contributes the top-degree monomial

      x(6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0).x^{(6,6,5,3,2,2,1,1,0)}.

      Top-degree contributions have common sign, so this term cannot cancel. It is lexicographically larger than the conjectured staircase-chain monomial

      x(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0).x^{(6,6,4,4,2,2,1,1,0)}.

      Thus the conjectured leading monomial is not leading. I found no prior published resolution/counterexample in targeted searches.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: A finite explicit counterexample to a recent, specialized conjecture is useful for correcting the record, but the contribution appears too narrow for a standalone standard journal paper without a broader corrected theorem, family of counterexamples, or structural explanation. I would view it as an arXiv note/erratum-level observation rather than TYPE2.

      Literature check: I found no prior occurrence of this counterexample or a stronger published disproof. The arXiv record for Dreyer–Mészáros–St. Dizier still has only the original version stating the conjecture. Avery St. Dizier’s publication page still lists the paper as submitted and gives no correction. Searches for the exact conjecture label, the title, the permutation 481935276481935276, and related phrases such as “leading monomial Grothendieck polynomials” did not reveal a note, paper, GitHub issue, or forum post containing this disproof. Recent related papers on Grothendieck-polynomial supports/M-convexity address adjacent support questions and special families, not this opposite-term-order leading-monomial conjecture.

      Citation: Source conjecture: Matt Dreyer, Karola Mészáros, Avery St. Dizier, “On the degree of Grothendieck polynomials,” arXiv:2209.00687, Conjecture 11.15. Formula used: Lenart–Robinson–Sottile, Amer. J. Math. 128 (2006), 805–848.

      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.