ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Subdivision and Graph Eigenvalues

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.

subdivision-and-graph-eigenvaluesFunctional Analysismath.FAmath.SPposed by Hitesh Kumar, Bojan Mohar, Shivaramakrishna Pragada, Hanmeng Zhanrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

There exists t0Nt_0 \in \mathbb{N} such that mGt(,2)m_{G_t}(-\infty, -2) is constant for all tt0t \ge t_0.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Subdivision and Graph Eigenvalues", 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
    people
    Shengtong Zhang

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed Conjecture 20. Fix a finite simple graph G=(V,E)G=(V,E) and a fixed subset SES\subseteq E. For t1t\ge1, let Gt=Gt(S)G_t=G_t(S) be obtained by replacing every edge of SS by a path of length tt, leaving edges of ESE\setminus S unchanged. For a graph XX, let

    mX(,2)=#{adjacency eigenvalues of X strictly less than 2},m_X(-\infty,-2)=\#\{\text{adjacency eigenvalues of }X\text{ strictly less than }-2\},

    counted with multiplicity. Then there is t0t_0 such that mGt(,2)m_{G_t}(-\infty,-2) is constant for all tt0t\ge t_0.

    This is the natural formalization because the paper defines Gt(S)G_t(S) for a fixed G,SG,S immediately before the conjecture and defines mG(I)m_G(I) as interval eigenvalue multiplicity.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Let ASA_S be the adjacency matrix of the spanning subgraph (V,S)(V,S), let A0A_0 be the adjacency matrix of (V,ES)(V,E\setminus S), and let DS=diag(dS(v))D_S=\operatorname{diag}(d_S(v)). Define

    K:=DS2IA0.K_\infty:=D_S-2I-A_0 .

    Then, for all sufficiently large tt,

    mGt(,2)=n+(K),m_{G_t}(-\infty,-2)=n_+(K_\infty),

    where n+(M)n_+(M) denotes the number of positive eigenvalues of a real symmetric matrix MM.

    Proof. Put

    Bt=2IA(Gt).B_t=-2I-A(G_t).

    An adjacency eigenvalue λ<2\lambda<-2 of GtG_t corresponds exactly to a positive eigenvalue 2λ-2-\lambda of BtB_t. Hence

    mGt(,2)=n+(Bt).m_{G_t}(-\infty,-2)=n_+(B_t).

    Partition V(Gt)V(G_t) into the original vertex set VV and the internal vertices inserted on the subdivided edges. For one subdivided edge of length tt, the internal block is

    Tt1=(2112112).T_{t-1}= \begin{pmatrix} -2&-1\\ -1&-2&-1\\ &\ddots&\ddots&\ddots\\ &&-1&-2 \end{pmatrix}.

    Its eigenvalues are

    22coskπt,k=1,,t1,-2-2\cos\frac{k\pi}{t},\qquad k=1,\dots,t-1,

    all strictly negative, so the full internal block is negative definite.

    The needed inverse entries are

    (Tt11)11=(Tt11)t1,t1=t1t,(Tt11)1,t1=(1)t1t.(T_{t-1}^{-1})_{11}=(T_{t-1}^{-1})_{t-1,t-1}=-\frac{t-1}{t}, \qquad (T_{t-1}^{-1})_{1,t-1}=\frac{(-1)^{t-1}}{t}.

    Thus the Schur complement of the internal block in BtB_t, indexed by VV, is

    Kt=DS2IA0+1t(DS+(1)tAS).K_t = D_S-2I-A_0+\frac1t\bigl(-D_S+(-1)^tA_S\bigr).

    By Sylvester inertia law, since the eliminated internal block is negative definite,

    n+(Bt)=n+(Kt).n_+(B_t)=n_+(K_t).

    Now

    Kt=K+1tRt,Rt=DS+(1)tAS.K_t=K_\infty+\frac1t R_t, \qquad R_t=-D_S+(-1)^tA_S.

    If tt is even, then

    Rt=DS+AS=LS,R_t=-D_S+A_S=-L_S,

    the negative Laplacian of (V,S)(V,S), so Rt0R_t\le0. If tt is odd, then

    Rt=DSAS=QS,R_t=-D_S-A_S=-Q_S,

    the negative signless Laplacian of (V,S)(V,S), so again Rt0R_t\le0. Therefore KtKK_t\le K_\infty in Loewner order.

    Let p=n+(K)p=n_+(K_\infty). Since KtKK_t\le K_\infty, Weyl monotonicity gives

    λp+1(Kt)λp+1(K)0,\lambda_{p+1}(K_t)\le \lambda_{p+1}(K_\infty)\le0,

    so n+(Kt)pn_+(K_t)\le p for every tt. On the other hand, KtKK_t\to K_\infty in operator norm. Hence every positive eigenvalue of KK_\infty remains positive in KtK_t for all sufficiently large tt. Thus n+(Kt)pn_+(K_t)\ge p eventually. Therefore

    n+(Kt)=pn_+(K_t)=p

    for all sufficiently large tt, and consequently

    mGt(,2)=pm_{G_t}(-\infty,-2)=p

    for all sufficiently large tt.

    This proves the conjecture.

    Verification audit: The proof uses exactly the paper’s Gt(S)G_t(S), finite simple graphs, adjacency eigenvalues, and strict interval (,2)(-\infty,-2). The threshold 2-2 is handled by inertia of 2IA(Gt)-2I-A(G_t), so eigenvalues equal to 2-2 are not counted. The internal path block is verified negative definite, justifying Schur complements and inertia additivity. No connectedness or nonemptiness assumption on SS is added.

    Citation: Kumar–Mohar–Pragada–Zhan, “Subdivision and Graph Eigenvalues,” arXiv:2303.10488, for the conjecture and notation. The resolution above is self-contained.

    Attachments

    • Curated solution (PDF) — not hosted yetpdf

    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 proof attacks the correct Conjecture 20 for fixed finite simple GG and fixed SE(G)S\subseteq E(G). The Schur complement computation for 2IA(Gt)-2I-A(G_t) is correct, the internal path block is negative definite, and inertia reduces mGt(,2)m_{G_t}(-\infty,-2) to n+(Kt)n_+(K_t). The key monotonicity KtKK_t\le K_\infty, together with KtKK_t\to K_\infty, rigorously prevents zero-limit modes from creating extra positive eigenvalues and shows eventual constancy.

      I also checked the paper context and searched for later/related records; I found the original arXiv/journal version and citations, but no existing resolution of this conjecture.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I can tell, but minor. It resolves a recent specialized conjecture and gives a clean exact eventual value, but the proof is a short Schur-complement/inertia calculation with standard matrix tools. I would view it as suitable for a short note or corrigendum if expanded, not a substantial standalone combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I checked the arXiv version and the published LAA version of Kumar–Mohar–Pragada–Zhan, plus searches for “Conjecture 20”, Gt(S)G_t(S), mGt(,2)m_{G_t}(-\infty,-2), “subdivision graph eigenvalues”, “eigenvalues below/less than -2”, and related Hoffman–Smith/subdivision-spectrum terminology. I also checked citation records: the paper’s visible 2025 citations concern the Hoffman program, second-largest eigenvalues of trees, and spectral-radius bounds, not this negative interval-multiplicity stabilization. I found no published proof or stronger statement implying the conjecture in this form.

      Citation: H. Kumar, B. Mohar, S. Pragada, H. Zhan, “Subdivision and graph eigenvalues,” Linear Algebra Appl. 710 (2025), 336–355; arXiv:2303.10488.

      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.