The trace conjecture for banded substochastic matrices

About 3 years old · traced to

Let AA be a nonnegative substochastic matrix, meaning

∑iAi,j≤1and∑jAi,j≤1\sum_i A_{i,j}\leq 1\quad\text{and}\quad\sum_j A_{i,j}\leq 1

for all ii and jj. Suppose that above the diagonal, AA has nonzero entries only at distance 11 from the diagonal, while below the diagonal it has nonzero entries only at distances at most kk, with the diagonal having distance zero. Trace Conjecture. If

Tr⁡Al≤1for l≤k+1,\operatorname{Tr}A^l\leq 1\quad\text{for }l\leq k+1,

then

Tr⁡Al≤1for all l.\operatorname{Tr}A^l\leq 1\quad\text{for all }l.

The conjecture is known for symmetric matrices when k≥1k\geq1. Its truth would provide a possible route toward the Chet Conjecture, although the paper notes that it does not directly imply it because of boundary entries in Chet matrices.

References

Primary source

Jenish C. Mehta, “Combinatorial and Algebraic Properties of Nonnegative Matrices”, arXiv:2301.08181 (2023).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A reader-written calculation claims the conjecture is false for every bandwidth at least two, while the bandwidth-one case is proved and the alleged counterexamples have not been independently checked.

Mehta formulated the trace conjecture in 2023: bounds on the first k+1k+1 power traces should force the same bound for every power. The conjecture is motivated by the Chet conjecture but does not directly imply it.

Known results

  • The conjecture is known for symmetric matrices when k≥1k\geq 1 (Mehta, 2023).

Posted attempt

A reader-written construction claims a complete disproof for every k≥2k\geq 2: for L=k+1L=k+1, it proposes AL=L−1IL+bPLA_L=L^{-1}I_L+bP_L with bL=L−1−L−Lb^L=L^{-1}-L^{-L}, giving Tr⁡(ALj)≤1\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^j)\leq 1 for j≤k+1j\leq k+1 but Tr⁡(ALk+2)>1\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^{k+2})>1. It also gives a spectral argument claiming the k=1k=1 case is true. The calculation has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture is settled only in the symmetric case and, according to the unverified posted calculation, for k=1k=1; its claimed failure for every k≥2k\geq 2 remains unconfirmed.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Smallest rational counterexample. Set k=2k=2 and

A=13(120012201)=13I+23P,P3=I.A=\frac13 \begin{pmatrix} 1&2&0\\ 0&1&2\\ 2&0&1 \end{pmatrix} =\frac13I+\frac23P,\qquad P^3=I.

Every entry is nonnegative, every row and column sums to one, and all entries are constant on each diagonal. The only nonzero diagonal above the main diagonal has distance one; the only nonzero diagonal below it has distance two. Thus AA satisfies both the general hypotheses and the stronger Toeplitz hypotheses exactly. Since Tr⁡P=Tr⁡P2=0\operatorname{Tr}P=\operatorname{Tr}P^2=0,

(Tr⁡A,Tr⁡A2,Tr⁡A3,Tr⁡A4)=(1,13,1,119).\bigl(\operatorname{Tr}A,\operatorname{Tr}A^2, \operatorname{Tr}A^3,\operatorname{Tr}A^4\bigr) =\left(1,\frac13,1,\frac{11}{9}\right).

All required traces through k+1=3k+1=3 are at most one, but the very next trace exceeds one.

In fact, both conjectures fail at every bandwidth k≥2k\ge2. Put L=k+1L=k+1, let PLP_L be the cyclic permutation matrix with ones on the first superdiagonal and at entry (L,1)(L,1), and set

a=1L,b=(1L−1LL)1/L,AL=aIL+bPL.a=\frac1L,\qquad b=\left(\frac1L-\frac1{L^L}\right)^{1/L}, \qquad A_L=aI_L+bP_L.

The matrix is nonnegative, Toeplitz, and has the prescribed upper bandwidth one and lower bandwidth kk. For L=3L=3, a+b=1a+b=1. For L≥4L\ge4,

(1−1/L)L≥(3/4)4=81256>14≥1L>bL,(1-1/L)^L\ge(3/4)^4 =\frac{81}{256}>\frac14\ge\frac1L>b^L,

so a+b<1a+b<1. Hence every row and column sum is at most one.

Because Tr⁡(PLj)=L\operatorname{Tr}(P_L^j)=L when L∣jL\mid j and vanishes otherwise, the binomial theorem gives

Tr⁡(ALj)=L1−j≤1(1≤j<L),\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^j)=L^{1-j}\le1 \quad(1\le j<L), Tr⁡(ALL)=L(aL+bL)=1,\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^L)=L(a^L+b^L)=1,

but

Tr⁡(ALL+1)=1+1L−L1−L>1.\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^{L+1}) =1+\frac1L-L^{1-L}>1.

Thus failure occurs already at exponent k+2k+2 for every k≥2k\ge2.

Sharp positive boundary: k=1k=1. For any nonnegative tridiagonal row-substochastic matrix AA, with diagonal did_i, superdiagonal uiu_i, and subdiagonal viv_i, define the symmetric tridiagonal matrix SS by

Sii=di,Si,i+1=Si+1,i=uivi.S_{ii}=d_i,\qquad S_{i,i+1}=S_{i+1,i}=\sqrt{u_iv_i}.

The leading principal characteristic polynomials of both matrices satisfy

D0=1,D1(t)=t−d1,Dj(t)=(t−dj)Dj−1(t)−uj−1vj−1Dj−2(t).D_0=1,\quad D_1(t)=t-d_1,\quad D_j(t)=(t-d_j)D_{j-1}(t)-u_{j-1}v_{j-1}D_{j-2}(t).

Therefore AA has the same real eigenvalues λi\lambda_i as SS, and row substochasticity gives ∣λi∣≤1|\lambda_i|\le1. If Tr⁡A2≤1\operatorname{Tr}A^2\le1, then for every j≥2j\ge2,

Tr⁡Aj=∑iλij≤∑i∣λi∣j≤∑iλi2=Tr⁡A2≤1.\operatorname{Tr}A^j =\sum_i\lambda_i^j \le\sum_i|\lambda_i|^j \le\sum_i\lambda_i^2 =\operatorname{Tr}A^2\le1.

Together with the separately assumed first-trace bound, this proves the exact classification:

k=1: true;k≥2: false.\boxed{k=1:\ \text{true};\qquad k\ge2:\ \text{false}.}

This simultaneously settles the general and Toeplitz finite-matrix assertions. The separate infinite return-probability assertion is not addressed.

Source: J. C. Mehta, Conjectures 4.38 and 4.39, pp. 101–102.