Asymptotic bound for inversions of unit interval parking functions

About 2 years old · traced to

Let n≥1n\geq 1 and k∈{0,1,…,n(n−1)/2}k\in \{0,1,\dots,n(n-1)/2\}. The quantity upf⁡n,kinv⁡\operatorname{upf}_{n,k}^{\operatorname{inv}} denotes the number of unit interval parking functions of length nn with kk inversions. Asymptotic bound conjecture.

upf⁡n,kinv⁡=O(2n−2knk).\operatorname{upf}_{n,k}^{\operatorname{inv}}=O(2^{n-2k} n^k).

This conjecture is motivated by the explicit formulas for the cases k=1,2,3k=1,2,3 and is left as an open problem.

References

Primary source

Kyle Celano, Jennifer Elder, Kimberly P. Hadaway, Pamela E. Harris, Jeremy L. Martin, Amanda Priestley and Gabe Udell, “Statistics on -interval parking functions”, arXiv:2507.07243 (2025).

Additional references

2 papers in this index state this conjecture (2024–2025). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:2407.21653.

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

An unverified posted proof claims the conjectured bound is true for all cases, but no independent confirmation has been found.

Celano, Elder, Hadaway, Harris, Martin, Priestley, and Udell posed the conjecture in 2025, asserting that the number of unit interval parking functions with kk inversions is bounded by a constant times 2n−2knk2^{n-2k}n^k. Their paper explicitly left the general bound open.

Known results

  • Closed formulas are proved for k=1,2,3k=1,2,3 (Celano et al., 2025).
  • A related 2025 work gives generating-function and total-inversion results, but not this coefficientwise bound.

Posted attempt

A posted argument claims a complete proof, using the inversion-code formula to derive a uniform estimate and, for fixed kk, the asymptotic formula upf⁡n,kinv⁡∼2n−k−1nk/k!\operatorname{upf}_{n,k}^{\operatorname{inv}}\sim 2^{n-k-1}n^k/k!. The attempt has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture has a complete but unverified posted proof claim; the published source still records it as open, and no independent verification or confirmed resolution was found.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

The conjectured bound holds with an implied constant independent of both parameters. There is also a simple leading-term formula when the number of inversions is fixed.

Write An,k=upf⁡n,kinv⁡A_{n,k}=\operatorname{upf}_{n,k}^{\operatorname{inv}}. Thus An,kA_{n,k} counts preference lists (a1,…,an)∈{1,…,n}n(a_1,\ldots,a_n)\in\{1,\ldots,n\}^n for which the cars, arriving in order, all park either at their preferred spot or one spot farther along, and for which

#{(i,j):1≤i<j≤n, ai>aj}=k.\#\{(i,j):1\le i<j\le n,\ a_i>a_j\}=k.

We prove the uniform estimate

An,k≤e82 2n−2knk(n≥8,0≤k≤n(n−1)2).A_{n,k}\le \frac{e^8}{2}\,2^{n-2k}n^k \qquad \left(n\ge8,\quad 0\le k\le\frac{n(n-1)}2\right).

This proves Celano et al., Conjecture 4.5. For each fixed integer k≥0k\ge0, we additionally obtain

An,k∼2n−k−1k! nk(n⟶∞).A_{n,k}\sim \frac{2^{n-k-1}}{k!}\,n^k \qquad(n\longrightarrow\infty).

The idea is to use the paper's existing encoding by inversion codes. A positive evaluation of their generating polynomial bounds every coefficient at once. For the sharper fixed-kk statement, almost all relevant codes have kk isolated entries equal to 11.

1. The existing cipher formula

For n≥1n\ge1, let

En,k={w=(w1,…,wn):0≤wi≤i−1,∑i=1nwi=k},E_{n,k}= \left\{ w=(w_1,\ldots,w_n): 0\le w_i\le i-1,\quad \sum_{i=1}^n w_i=k \right\},

and let

asc⁡(w)=#{i:1≤i<n, wi<wi+1}.\operatorname{asc}(w) =\#\{i:1\le i<n,\ w_i<w_{i+1}\}.

Equation (28) of the cited paper gives

An,k=∑w∈En,k2n−1−asc⁡(w).(1)A_{n,k} =\sum_{w\in E_{n,k}}2^{n-1-\operatorname{asc}(w)}. \tag{1}

To recall the counting behind this formula, the paper's cipher bijection encodes a parking function by such a word with bars inserted between entries. Each rise requires a bar, and each other position admits either choice. There are therefore exactly 2n−1−asc⁡(w)2^{n-1-\operatorname{asc}(w)} bar choices. We use this established bijection and do not need to modify it.

2. A bound uniform in the inversion number

The polynomial that counts the unbarred codes is

Fn(z)=∑k≥0∣En,k∣zk=∏i=1n(1+z+⋯+zi−1).F_n(z) =\sum_{k\ge0}|E_{n,k}|z^k =\prod_{i=1}^n(1+z+\cdots+z^{i-1}).

All its coefficients are nonnegative. Consequently, for every real z>0z>0,

∣En,k∣≤z−kFn(z).|E_{n,k}|\le z^{-k}F_n(z).

Also, (1) gives An,k≤2n−1∣En,k∣A_{n,k}\le2^{n-1}|E_{n,k}|. If 0<z<10<z<1, each factor in Fn(z)F_n(z) is at most (1−z)−1(1-z)^{-1}, and hence

An,k≤2n−1z−k(1−z)−n.(2)A_{n,k} \le 2^{n-1}z^{-k}(1-z)^{-n}. \tag{2}

For n≥8n\ge8, take z=4/nz=4/n. The elementary inequality

−log⁡(1−u)=∫0udv1−v≤u1−u(0≤u<1)-\log(1-u)=\int_0^u\frac{dv}{1-v} \le\frac{u}{1-u} \qquad(0\le u<1)

implies

(1−4/n)−n≤exp⁡ ⁣(41−4/n)≤e8.(1-4/n)^{-n} \le \exp\!\left(\frac{4}{1-4/n}\right) \le e^8.

Substituting into (2) yields

An,k≤e8 2n−1(n4)k=e82 2n−2knk.A_{n,k} \le e^8\,2^{n-1}\left(\frac n4\right)^k =\frac{e^8}{2}\,2^{n-2k}n^k.

The same constant works for every allowed kk, including k=0k=0 and the largest possible inversion number. The finitely many values n<8n<8 do not affect the asserted asymptotic bound; if desired, an absolute constant can be enlarged to include those values as well.

3. The leading term for fixed inversion number

When k=0k=0, the only code is the zero word, so (1) gives An,0=2n−1A_{n,0}=2^{n-1} exactly.

Now fix k≥1k\ge1 and take n≥2kn\ge2k. Consider the codes with exactly kk entries equal to 11, all other entries zero, and with no two 11's adjacent. The first entry must be zero. Choosing kk nonadjacent positions from {2,…,n}\{2,\ldots,n\} gives

(n−kk)\binom{n-k}{k}

such codes. Every 11 is preceded by a zero, so each code has exactly kk ascents. Their contribution to (1) is therefore

2n−k−1(n−kk).(3)2^{n-k-1}\binom{n-k}{k}. \tag{3}

There are only Ok(nk−1)O_k(n^{k-1}) other codes in En,kE_{n,k}. Indeed, a code containing an entry at least 22 has at most k−1k-1 positive entries. There are Ok(nk−1)O_k(n^{k-1}) choices for their positions, and only finitely many compositions of the fixed integer kk for their values. Otherwise, the code has kk entries equal to 11 with an adjacent pair. For k≥2k\ge2, choose the start of one adjacent pair and then the remaining k−2k-2 positions, giving again Ok(nk−1)O_k(n^{k-1}) possibilities. For k=1k=1 this second exceptional family is empty.

Each exceptional code contributes at most 2n−12^{n-1}. Combining this with (3) gives

An,k=2n−k−1(n−kk)+Ok(2nnk−1).A_{n,k} =2^{n-k-1}\binom{n-k}{k} +O_k(2^n n^{k-1}).

Finally, for fixed kk,

(n−kk)=nkk!+Ok(nk−1).\binom{n-k}{k} =\frac{n^k}{k!}+O_k(n^{k-1}).

Thus

An,k=2n−k−1k! nk(1+Ok ⁣(1n)).A_{n,k} =\frac{2^{n-k-1}}{k!}\,n^k \left(1+O_k\!\left(\frac1n\right)\right).

The uniform estimate proves the full conjectured bound, while this last formula explains the leading terms of the paper's explicitly computed cases.