Conjecture on symmetry of complements in the finite k-chain

From papers

Let Rk\mathcal R_k be the state space of the finite kchaink-chain, let π\pi be its stationary distribution, and define λcompRk\lambda^{\mathrm{comp}}\in\mathcal R_k by

li(λ)+li(λcomp)=ki.l_i(\lambda)+l_i(\lambda^{\mathrm{comp}})=k-i.

Symmetry of complements. For all λRk\lambda\in\mathcal R_k, π(λ)=π(λcomp)\pi(\lambda)=\pi(\lambda^{\mathrm{comp}}). The conjecture is supported in the paper by computations for k6k\leq 6.

Progress summary

Open

The proposed mirror symmetry of the finite chain remains unproved, with no public counterexample or proof found.

The conjecture asserts that reflecting any state by the prescribed complement leaves its stationary probability unchanged. A December 2025 paper records supporting computations through six steps, but the retrieved sources contain no proof, counterexample, or claimed resolution.

Current status (as of August 2026): The complement-symmetry conjecture remains open; only finite computations through k=6k=6 are recorded, and no proof or counterexample was found.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Svante Linusson and Alperen Özdemir, “The k-Plancherel measure and a Finite Markov Chain”, arXiv:2512.24346 (2025).

Solutions 1

Proof

In fact, the entire stationary distribution has an explicit formula. Write λ\lambda^* for the complement defined by

li(λ)=kili(λ),l_i(\lambda^*)=k-i-l_i(\lambda),

and let

C(λ)=dλ(k)λ!.C(\lambda)=\frac{d_\lambda^{(k)}}{|\lambda|!}.

Then, for every k2k\ge2,

π(λ)=C(λ)C(λ)νRkC(ν)C(ν).\boxed{\displaystyle \pi(\lambda)= \frac{C(\lambda)C(\lambda^*)} {\sum_{\nu\in\mathcal R_k}C(\nu)C(\nu^*)}.}

In particular, π(λ)=π(λ)\pi(\lambda)=\pi(\lambda^*).

Let ex\operatorname{ex} denote exponential specialization, defined by ex(hj)=1/j!\operatorname{ex}(h_j)=1/j!, or equivalently ex(p1)=1\operatorname{ex}(p_1)=1 and ex(pj)=0\operatorname{ex}(p_j)=0 for j>1j>1. The strong kk-dimension satisfies

ex(sλ(k))=C(λ).\operatorname{ex}(s_\lambda^{(k)})=C(\lambda).

For the kk-rectangle Ri=(iki+1)R_i=(i^{\,k-i+1}), put

γi=ex(sRi)>0.\gamma_i=\operatorname{ex}(s_{R_i})>0.

The rectangle identity stated in the source,

sRisμ(k)=sμRi(k),s_{R_i}s_\mu^{(k)}=s_{\mu\cup R_i}^{(k)},

therefore gives

C(μRi)=γiC(μ).(1)C(\mu\cup R_i)=\gamma_i C(\mu). \tag{1}

Each directed transition λμ\lambda\to\mu comes from a weak cover λkΛ\lambda\to_k\Lambda, where either Λ=μ\Lambda=\mu or Λ=μRi\Lambda=\mu\cup R_i. Its transition probability is

P(λ,μ)=dΛ(k)(λ+1)dλ(k)=C(Λ)C(λ)=γ(λ,μ)C(μ)C(λ),(2)P(\lambda,\mu) =\frac{d_\Lambda^{(k)}}{(|\lambda|+1)d_\lambda^{(k)}} =\frac{C(\Lambda)}{C(\lambda)} =\gamma(\lambda,\mu)\frac{C(\mu)}{C(\lambda)}, \tag{2}

where γ(λ,μ)=1\gamma(\lambda,\mu)=1 if no rectangle is removed, and γ(λ,μ)=γi\gamma(\lambda,\mu)=\gamma_i if RiR_i is removed.

To identify the reverse edge, use the cyclic particle construction from the source. Starting with the fixed largest label k+1k+1, insert k,k1,,1k,k-1,\ldots,1; the insertion offset for label ii is precisely li(λ)l_i(\lambda). Reversing cyclic orientation replaces that offset by

kili(λ)=li(λ).k-i-l_i(\lambda)=l_i(\lambda^*).

Thus complement is spatial reversal. An allowed swap moving a smaller label past a larger one consequently satisfies

λμμλ.(3)\lambda\longrightarrow\mu \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \mu^*\longrightarrow\lambda^*. \tag{3}

The labels being swapped do not change. By Corollary 3.7 of the source, a rectangle is removed exactly when the crossed labels are consecutive; in that case its type is determined by those same labels. Hence both edges in (3) remove the same rectangle, or neither removes one:

γ(λ,μ)=γ(μ,λ).(4)\gamma(\lambda,\mu)=\gamma(\mu^*,\lambda^*). \tag{4}

Set W(λ)=C(λ)C(λ)W(\lambda)=C(\lambda)C(\lambda^*). Equations (2) and (4) give skew detailed balance:

W(λ)P(λ,μ)=γ(λ,μ)C(μ)C(λ)=W(μ)P(μ,λ).\begin{aligned} W(\lambda)P(\lambda,\mu) &=\gamma(\lambda,\mu)C(\mu)C(\lambda^*)\\ &=W(\mu)P(\mu^*,\lambda^*). \end{aligned}

Summing over λ\lambda, and using the fact that complement permutes the finite state space, yields

λW(λ)P(λ,μ)=W(μ)λP(μ,λ)=W(μ).\sum_\lambda W(\lambda)P(\lambda,\mu) =W(\mu)\sum_\lambda P(\mu^*,\lambda^*) =W(\mu).

Thus WW is stationary. Irreducibility gives uniqueness, and normalization proves the boxed formula. Since W(λ)=W(λ)W(\lambda)=W(\lambda^*), the conjectured symmetry follows for every kk.

Source: S. Linusson and A. Özdemir, The kk-Plancherel Measure and a Finite Markov Chain, arXiv:2512.24346, Sections 3.3–3.5, Conjecture 1.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·