ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE DISTANCE LAPLACIAN EIGENVALUES OF A GRAPH

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

some-properties-of-the-distance-laplacian-eigenvalues-of-a-graph-3Representation Theorymath.RTmath.SPposed by Mustapha Aouchiche, Pierre Hansenrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

For any graph G on n ≥ 4 vertices, ▷ ∂{2}^{L}(G)≥n with equality if and only if G is the complete graph K{n} or K_{n} minus an edge; ▷ if n ≠7, then ∂{2}^{L}(G)≤∂{2}^{L}(P_{n}) with equality if and only if G is the path P_{n} ; ▷ if G is a tree and n ≥5, then ∂{2}^{L}(G)≥2n-1 with equality if and only if G is the star S{n} ; ▷ if G is unicyclic and n ≥10, then ∂{2}^{L}(G)≤∂{2}^{L}(Ki_{n,3}) with equality if and only if G is the kite Ki_{n,3} ; ▷ if G is unicyclic and n ≥6, then ∂{2}^{L}(G)≥∂{2}^{L}(S_{n}^{+}) with equality if and only if G is the graph S_{n}^{+} obtained from the star S_{n} by adding an edge.

Context

Candidate 3 of the open problems stated in "SOME PROPERTIES OF THE DISTANCE LAPLACIAN EIGENVALUES OF A GRAPH", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

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 a finite simple connected graph GG on n≥4n\ge4 vertices, let

    LD(G)=diag⁡(∑vd(u,v))u∈V(G)−D(G)L_D(G)=\operatorname{diag}\Big(\sum_v d(u,v)\Big)_{u\in V(G)}-D(G)

    be the distance Laplacian, with eigenvalues

    ∂1L(G)≥∂2L(G)≥⋯≥∂nL(G)=0.\partial_1^L(G)\ge \partial_2^L(G)\ge\cdots\ge \partial_n^L(G)=0.

    The supplied Conjecture 3.3 includes the assertion that, if n≠7n\ne7, then

    ∂2L(G)≤∂2L(Pn),\partial_2^L(G)\le \partial_2^L(P_n),

    with equality iff G=PnG=P_n.

    Result: The literal conjecture is false.

    Take G=S4=K1,3G=S_4=K_{1,3}. Then n=4n=4, so n≥4n\ge4 and n≠7n\ne7. Its distance Laplacian is

    LD(S4)=(3−1−1−1−15−2−2−1−25−2−1−2−25),L_D(S_4)= \begin{pmatrix} 3&-1&-1&-1\\ -1&5&-2&-2\\ -1&-2&5&-2\\ -1&-2&-2&5 \end{pmatrix},

    whose characteristic polynomial is

    λ(λ−4)(λ−7)2.\lambda(\lambda-4)(\lambda-7)^2.

    Hence

    ∂2L(S4)=7.\partial_2^L(S_4)=7.

    For the path P4P_4,

    LD(P4)=(6−1−2−3−14−1−2−2−14−1−3−2−16),L_D(P_4)= \begin{pmatrix} 6&-1&-2&-3\\ -1&4&-1&-2\\ -2&-1&4&-1\\ -3&-2&-1&6 \end{pmatrix},

    with characteristic polynomial

    λ(λ−6)(λ2−14λ+44).\lambda(\lambda-6)(\lambda^2-14\lambda+44).

    Thus its eigenvalues are

    7+5,  6,  7−5,  0,7+\sqrt5,\;6,\;7-\sqrt5,\;0,

    so

    ∂2L(P4)=6.\partial_2^L(P_4)=6.

    Therefore

    ∂2L(S4)=7>6=∂2L(P4),\partial_2^L(S_4)=7>6=\partial_2^L(P_4),

    contradicting the second bullet. Hence the conjecture as stated is false.

    This appears to be a boundary-case omission; the natural repair is to exclude n=4n=4 as well, i.e. require n∉{4,7}n\notin\{4,7\} in the second bullet.

    Citation: No external citation is needed; the disproof is the exact computation above.

    Reviews

    0 human 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 attacks the supplied second bullet directly. The distance Laplacian matrices and spectra for S4S_4 and P4P_4 are correct: ∂2L(S4)=7\partial_2^L(S_4)=7 while ∂2L(P4)=6\partial_2^L(P_4)=6. Since n=4≥4n=4\ge4 and n≠7n\ne7, this violates the asserted upper bound, so the conjecture as stated is false.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: This is a correct but very small boundary-case counterexample: diagonalizing S4S_4 and P4P_4 shows the literal conjecture omitted n=4n=4. It does not address the intended extremal problem for larger nn, and would not support a standalone paper.

      Literature check: I found no explicit published erratum or paper singling out S4S_4 as a counterexample to Conjecture 3.3. Searches covered the conjecture title/number, “second largest distance Laplacian,” “S4S_4, P4P_4,” “n=4n=4,” and later papers/surveys. Related literature treats other Aouchiche–Hansen conjectures or broader distance-Laplacian spectra; for example, Aouchiche–Hansen later report spectra of all connected graphs up to 10 vertices, so this computation is essentially routine data, but not apparently stated as this conjecture’s disproof.

      Citation: No exact citation for the counterexample found. Relevant checked references include Aouchiche–Hansen, Czech. Math. J. 64 (2014), 751–761; Aouchiche–Hansen, Appl. Math. Comput. 325 (2018), 309–321, DOI 10.1016/j.amc.2017.12.025; and da Silva–de Freitas–Del-Vecchio, Electron. J. Linear Algebra (2016), DOI 10.13001/1081-3810.3002.

      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.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

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