Discriminant magnitude homology conjecture for trees

From papers

Let TT be a tree, and let MHk,(T)MH_{k,\ell}(T), EMHk,(T)EMH_{k,\ell}(T), and DMHk,(T)DMH_{k,\ell}(T) denote its magnitude, Eulerian magnitude, and discriminant magnitude homology groups, respectively.

Tree discriminant magnitude homology conjecture. For k=3,4k=3,4,

rank(DMHk,k(T))=rank(MHk,k(T))+rank(EMHk1,k(T)).\operatorname{rank}(DMH_{k,k}(T))=\operatorname{rank}(MH_{k,k}(T))+\operatorname{rank}(EMH_{k-1,k}(T)).

For k=2k=2 and k5k\geq 5,

DMHk,k(T)MHk,k(T),DMH_{k,k}(T)\cong MH_{k,k}(T),

while DMHk,(T)=0DMH_{k,\ell}(T)=0 for all kk\neq\ell. This conjecture is based on computations for star trees and proposes a general pattern for discriminant magnitude homology of trees.

Progress summary

Open

No public source found that proves or disproves the conjecture, so its proposed description of these tree invariants remains open.

The conjecture predicts that discriminant magnitude homology of every tree is concentrated on the diagonal, with specified rank corrections in degrees k=3,4k=3,4 and agreement with ordinary magnitude homology for k=2k=2 and k5k\geq5.

Known results

  • Leinster–Shulman (2015) established that ordinary magnitude homology of trees is diagonal.
  • For trees, later work gives the same diagonal ordinary-homology pattern, including explicit ranks in higher degrees.
  • Giusti–Menara (2024) constructed the long exact sequence relating EMHEMH, MHMH, and DMHDMH, and stressed that it need not split.
  • Their theorem gives MHk,k(G)DMHk,k(G)MH_{k,k}(G)\cong DMH_{k,k}(G) for k5k\geq5 under additional vanishing hypotheses, not proved here for all trees.

2025 structural results

A later paper proves vanishing of EMHk,k(G)EMH_{k,k}(G) for graphs without cycles of lengths 33 and 44 and records useful consequences of the long exact sequence, but the retrieved text does not verify the hypotheses needed for every tree or claim a resolution of this conjecture.

Current status (as of August 2026): The diagonal behavior of ordinary magnitude homology for trees and several conditional structural results are settled, but the stated discriminant magnitude homology formulas for all trees remain unproved and undisproved in the retrieved sources.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Patrick Martin and Radmila Sazdanovic, “Torsion in Magnitude homology theories”, arXiv:2503.11976 (2025).

Solutions 1

Counterexample

Counterexample, with a complete classification of trees.

In Martin–Sazdanović, arXiv:2503.11976, Conjecture 8.1 asserts that DMHk,(T)=0DMH_{k,\ell}(T)=0 for kk\ne\ell and every tree TT. In fact,

DMH,(T) is diagonalV(T)3.\boxed{DMH_{*,*}(T)\text{ is diagonal}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad |V(T)|\le3.}

The source’s own short exact sequence induces

EMHk,(T)MHk,(T)DMHk,(T)δEMHk1,(T)MHk1,(T).\cdots\longrightarrow EMH_{k,\ell}(T)\longrightarrow MH_{k,\ell}(T) \longrightarrow DMH_{k,\ell}(T) \xrightarrow{\delta}EMH_{k-1,\ell}(T) \longrightarrow MH_{k-1,\ell}(T)\longrightarrow\cdots.

Ordinary magnitude homology of every tree is diagonal. Therefore, for every k<k<\ell, both ordinary groups surrounding the connecting map vanish, giving the canonical integral isomorphism

DMHk,(T)EMHk1,(T).\boxed{DMH_{k,\ell}(T)\cong EMH_{k-1,\ell}(T).}

The source’s Lemma 7.6 incorrectly concludes that surjectivity of EMHk,MHk,EMH_{k,\ell}\to MH_{k,\ell} forces DMHk,=0DMH_{k,\ell}=0; this overlooks the connecting morphism into EMHk1,EMH_{k-1,\ell}. Giusti–Menara, arXiv:2403.09248, had already warned that the long exact sequence need not split.

Now let TT have N4N\ge4 vertices, and let

L=maxπi=0N2dT(vi,vi+1),L=\max_{\pi}\sum_{i=0}^{N-2}d_T(v_i,v_{i+1}),

where π=(v0,,vN1)\pi=(v_0,\ldots,v_{N-1}) ranges over vertex orderings. In a uniformly random ordering, each unordered pair is consecutive with probability 2/N2/N. Since TT has N1N-1 edges, the expected number of consecutive nonedges equals

2N[(N2)(N1)]=(N1)(N2)N>1.\frac2N\left[\binom N2-(N-1)\right] =\frac{(N-1)(N-2)}N>1.

Thus some ordering contains at least two consecutive nonedges, and consequently LN+1L\ge N+1.

An injective (N1)(N-1)-chain of length LL exists by definition. There is no injective NN-chain, and there is no injective (N2)(N-2)-chain of length LL, since appending its omitted vertex would contradict maximality. Hence both adjacent Eulerian differentials vanish and

EMHN1,L(T)=EMCN1,L(T)0.EMH_{N-1,L}(T)=EMC_{N-1,L}(T)\ne0.

Because N<LN<L, the connecting isomorphism yields

DMHN,L(T)EMHN1,L(T)0.\boxed{DMH_{N,L}(T)\cong EMH_{N-1,L}(T)\ne0.}

Therefore every tree with at least four vertices contradicts the conjecture. Conversely, trees on at most two vertices are complete, and the unique three-vertex tree S2S_2 has only an Eulerian off-diagonal group whose shifted discriminant group lies on the diagonal. This proves the stated classification.

More explicitly, the source’s valid Theorem 7.11 for the star Sn=K1,nS_n=K_{1,n}, combined with the connecting isomorphism, gives two infinite families omitted by its Corollary 7.12:

DMHr+1,2r1(Sn)Z2n!/(nr)!,nr3,DMH_{r+1,\,2r-1}(S_n) \cong\mathbb Z^{\,2n!/(n-r)!}, \qquad n\ge r\ge3,

and

DMHr+1,2r2(Sn)Z(r2)n!/(nr)!,nr4.DMH_{r+1,\,2r-2}(S_n) \cong\mathbb Z^{\,(r-2)n!/(n-r)!}, \qquad n\ge r\ge4.

The smallest counterexample is the four-vertex star:

DMH4,5(K1,3)=Z12.\boxed{DMH_{4,5}(K_{1,3})=\mathbb Z^{12}.}

A direct computation from the defining discriminant chain complex at length five gives

dimDMC3,5=12,dimDMC4,5=72,dimDMC5,5=54,\dim DMC_{3,5}=12,\qquad \dim DMC_{4,5}=72,\qquad \dim DMC_{5,5}=54,

with rank4=12\operatorname{rank}\partial_4=12 and rank5=48\operatorname{rank}\partial_5=48; hence

rankDMH4,5=721248=12.\operatorname{rank}DMH_{4,5}=72-12-48=12.

The connecting isomorphism identifies this group integrally with EMH3,5(K1,3)=Z12EMH_{3,5}(K_{1,3})=\mathbb Z^{12}. Thus the conjecture fails universally beyond three vertices, and the precise error is the omitted connecting homomorphism.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·