ProbXiv
sign in

Positivity of the Symmetric Group Characters is as Hard as the Polynomial Time Hierarchy

Algebra · math.CO · math.RT · posed by Christian Ikenmeyer, Igor Pak, Greta Panova · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

The problem COMPUTECHARBINARY is GapP-complete under many-one reductions.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Positivity of the Symmetric Group Characters is as Hard as the Polynomial Time Hierarchy", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

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
    people
    Shengtong Zhang

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement: let COMPUTECHARBINARY be the integer-valued function which, on input two partitions λ,μn\lambda,\mu\vdash n written as binary lists of parts, outputs the irreducible symmetric-group character value χλ(μ)\chi^\lambda(\mu), where μ\mu denotes cycle type. The conjecture asserts that this function is GapP-complete under exact polynomial-time many-one reductions: for every fGapPf\in\mathrm{GapP} there is a polynomial-time map RR with

    f(x)=χλx(μx),R(x)=(λx,μx).f(x)=\chi^{\lambda_x}(\mu_x),\qquad R(x)=(\lambda_x,\mu_x).

    This is the natural reading of Ikenmeyer–Pak–Panova, §5.3; their v2 labels it Conjecture 5.2 rather than 5.3.2. Exact many-one is stronger than metric/Turing reduction, so proving this resolves the stated conjecture.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Key known gadget from Ikenmeyer–Pak–Panova, Prop. 4.5: for every pair of nonnegative integer sequences c,dc,d with

    c=d+6,|c|=|d|+6,

    one can compute in polynomial time partitions λ,α\lambda,\alpha such that

    χλ(α)=P(c,(2,4,d))P(c,(1,5,d)),\chi^\lambda(\alpha) = P(c,(2,4,d))-P(c,(1,5,d)),

    where P(a,b)P(a,b) is the number of ordered set partitions of items of sizes aa into bins of sizes bb.

    First, membership in GapP follows from Frobenius/Jacobi–Trudi:

    χλ(μ)=σS(λ)sgn(σ)P(μ,λ+σid).\chi^\lambda(\mu)=\sum_{\sigma\in S_{\ell(\lambda)}}\operatorname{sgn}(\sigma)\, P(\mu,\lambda+\sigma-\mathrm{id}).

    For each σ\sigma, P(μ,λ+σid)#PP(\mu,\lambda+\sigma-\mathrm{id})\in\#P: guess the bin of each part of μ\mu and verify binary sums. Splitting the sum by the sign of σ\sigma gives a difference of two #P\#P functions.

    For hardness, use the standard parsimonious #P\#P-completeness of #3DM\#3\mathrm{DM}. Thus the gap problem

    G(E,E)=#3DM(E)#3DM(E)G(E,E')=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E)-\#3\mathrm{DM}(E')

    is GapP-complete. Pad E,EE,E' by forced edges so both lie in [k]3[k]^3, with the same k6k\ge 6, without changing their numbers of perfect matchings.

    Let m=E+Em=|E|+|E'|, choose L=m+k+10L=m+k+10, and encode each edge e=(i,j,)e=(i,j,\ell) by a high-base code H(e)H(e) with ones in the three vertex coordinates. Let UU be the code with ones in all 3k3k vertex coordinates. Choose a modulus MM larger than all possible low-order residue sums.

    Create weights WW:

    MH(e)+1(eE),MH(e)+L(eE),M H(e)+1 \quad(e\in E),\qquad M H(e')+L \quad(e'\in E'),

    plus two selector weights kLkL and k+1k+1, and one huge filler weight in a new high coordinate. Put

    K=MU+kL+k,S=wWw.K=MU+kL+k,\qquad S=\sum_{w\in W}w.

    A residue check gives:

    #{YW:Y=K}=#3DM(E),\#\{Y\subseteq W:\sum Y=K\}=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E), #{YW:Y=K+1}=#3DM(E),\#\{Y\subseteq W:\sum Y=K+1\}=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E'),

    and there are no subsets summing to K1,K+3,K+4,K+5K-1,K+3,K+4,K+5. Indeed, any subset summing near KK must have high code UU, hence exactly kk selected edge-items. If it uses the first selector, the low residue equals KK only when all kk edges come from EE; if it uses the second selector, the low residue equals K+1K+1 only when all kk edges come from EE'. The choice L>k+5L>k+5 excludes the nearby unwanted residues.

    Now set

    c=(1,2,4,5,W),d=(K+5, SK+1).c=(1,2,4,5,W),\qquad d=(K+5,\ S-K+1).

    Then c=S+12|c|=S+12 and d=S+6|d|=S+6, so c=d+6|c|=|d|+6. Also all entries are positive.

    In P(c,(2,4,d))P(c,(2,4,d)), the bins of sizes 22 and 44 are forced to contain the items 22 and 44. The remaining small items are 1,51,5. The bin of size K+5K+5 can only use the small item 55, because the alternatives would require subset sums K+4,K1,K+5K+4,K-1,K+5, which do not occur. Hence

    P(c,(2,4,d))=#3DM(E).P(c,(2,4,d))=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E).

    Similarly, in P(c,(1,5,d))P(c,(1,5,d)), the first two bins force items 1,51,5, leaving 2,42,4. The bin K+5K+5 can only use the small item 44, giving subset sum K+1K+1; the other alternatives require K+3,K1,K+5K+3,K-1,K+5, impossible. Thus

    P(c,(1,5,d))=#3DM(E).P(c,(1,5,d))=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E').

    By the character gadget,

    χλ(α)=#3DM(E)#3DM(E).\chi^\lambda(\alpha)=\#3\mathrm{DM}(E)-\#3\mathrm{DM}(E').

    Therefore the GapP-complete function GG exact-many-one reduces to COMPUTECHARBINARY. Together with membership, COMPUTECHARBINARY is GapP-complete under many-one reductions.

    Verification audit: the reduction outputs valid binary-encoded partitions; all numerical parameters have polynomial bitlength; padding of 3DM3\mathrm{DM} instances is count-preserving; the proof gives exact equality, not merely sign preservation or Turing reduction. Thus it proves the reconstructed conjecture as stated.

    Citation: Uses Ikenmeyer–Pak–Panova, “Positivity of the symmetric group characters is as hard as the polynomial time hierarchy,” IMRN 2024 / arXiv:2207.05423, especially Prop. 4.5 and §5.3. Uses the standard parsimonious #P\#P-completeness of #3DM\#3\mathrm{DM}, as recalled in their §3.2.

    Attachments

    • Curated solution (PDF) — not hosted yetpdf

    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 TYPE2

      PASS

      The proof attacks the correct ComputeCharBinary many-one statement. The membership argument via Frobenius/Jacobi–Trudi is valid for binary list inputs. The hardness construction gives an exact parsimonious reduction from the GapP-complete difference of two #3DM instances: the high-base subset-sum gadget separates the two counts at targets KK and K+1K+1, excludes the neighboring sums needed by the 1,2,4,51,2,4,5 gadget, and Proposition 4.5 then converts the resulting difference into a single symmetric-group character value. The size and encoding checks are polynomial, and the equality is exact, not merely sign/Turing.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new and resolves an explicit conjecture of Ikenmeyer–Pak–Panova, strengthening their GapP-completeness from Turing reductions to exact many-one reductions. It is a technical but nontrivial complexity-theoretic improvement, plausibly publishable as a short standalone note. It is not broad or major enough for TYPE3.

      Literature check: I found no existing proof of the many-one GapP-completeness statement. The current arXiv/IMRN version of Ikenmeyer–Pak–Panova still states this as Conjecture 5.2, after proving only Turing-reduction GapP-completeness in Theorem 5.1. Prior work of Hepler gives #P-hardness under many-one reductions, which is weaker. Searches for “ComputeCharBinary”, “GapP-complete under many-one reductions”, and related symmetric-group-character complexity terms in arXiv/metadata pages, OpenAlex, alphaXiv/SciRate, GitHub/issues, and accessible web sources did not reveal a stronger or equivalent published result.

      Citation: Christian Ikenmeyer, Igor Pak, Greta Panova, “Positivity of the symmetric group characters is as hard as the polynomial time hierarchy,” IMRN 2024, arXiv:2207.05423, Theorem 5.1 and Conjecture 5.2. Also: C. T. Hepler, “On the complexity of computing characters of finite groups,” PhD thesis, University of Calgary, 1994.

      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.

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.