The trace conjecture for banded substochastic matrices

Let AA be a nonnegative substochastic matrix, meaning

iAi,j1andjAi,j1\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

TrAl1for lk+1,\operatorname{Tr}A^l\leq 1\quad\text{for }l\leq k+1,

then

TrAl1for all l.\operatorname{Tr}A^l\leq 1\quad\text{for all }l.

The conjecture is known for symmetric matrices when k1k\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.

Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

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

Progress summary

Refreshed
Open

No public discussion or published progress on this conjecture was found.

No public discussion or published progress was found.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture appears open, with no recorded activity found in the retrieved sources.

Solutions 1

Counterexample

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 TrP=TrP2=0\operatorname{Tr}P=\operatorname{Tr}P^2=0,

(TrA,TrA2,TrA3,TrA4)=(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 k2k\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=(1L1LL)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 L4L\ge4,

(11/L)L(3/4)4=81256>141L>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 LjL\mid j and vanishes otherwise, the binomial theorem gives

Tr(ALj)=L1j1(1j<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+1LL1L>1.\operatorname{Tr}(A_L^{L+1}) =1+\frac1L-L^{1-L}>1.

Thus failure occurs already at exponent k+2k+2 for every k2k\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)=td1,Dj(t)=(tdj)Dj1(t)uj1vj1Dj2(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 λi1|\lambda_i|\le1. If TrA21\operatorname{Tr}A^2\le1, then for every j2j\ge2,

TrAj=iλijiλijiλi2=TrA21.\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;k2: 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.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·