Weak majorization of higher-power coefficients in the exponential product formula

From papers

Let A,BHnA,B\in\mathbb{H}_n be Hermitian matrices, and let HH and RkR_k denote the operators defined in the paper from the coefficients of e(A+B)te^{(A+B)t} and eAteBte^{At}e^{Bt}, respectively. Write λ()\lambda(\cdot) for the vector of eigenvalues in decreasing order, and let w\prec_w denote weak majorization. Higher-power weak-majorization conjecture. For every integer k5k\ge 5,

λ(Hk)wλ(Rk).\lambda(H^k)\prec_w\lambda(R_k).

The preceding results establish this type of inequality for the cubic and quartic coefficients, while the displayed assertion proposes it for all higher powers; its status is not resolved in the supplied context.

Progress summary

Open

The conjecture remains open: results cover the cubic and quartic cases, but no verified progress covers higher powers.

The conjecture, formulated as Conjecture 5.5 in a January 2026 paper, asks whether the eigenvalues of the higher powers of the sum are weakly majorized by those of the corresponding symmetrized product coefficients for every k5k\ge 5. The paper does not claim a proof or counterexample.

Known results

  • The cubic and quartic cases are proved: λ(Hk)wλ(Rk)\lambda(H^k)\prec_w\lambda(R_k) for k=3,4k=3,4.
  • The paper proves the related singular-value comparison λ(Hk)wσ(Qk)\lambda(H^k)\prec_w\sigma(Q_k) for k=3,4k=3,4.
  • For k5k\ge 5, the authors give an explicit D5=R5H5D_5=R_5-H^5 expansion but cannot organize it into the positivity decomposition required for a general proof.

Current status (as of August 2026): The cases k=3,4k=3,4 are settled, while the higher-power conjecture for every k5k\ge 5 remains unresolved.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Teng Zhang, “Weak majorization inequalities for the cubic and quartic coefficients of e^(A+B)t versus e^Ate^Bt”, arXiv:2601.07286 (2026).

Additional references

2 papers in this index state this conjecture (2023–2026). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:2301.07934.

Solutions 1

Counterexample

Counterexample, including every odd order at least five.

Consider the higher-order weak-majorization conjecture stated as Conjecture 5.5 in arXiv:2601.07286. For Hermitian matrices A,BA,B, write

H=A+B,Qk=j=0k(kj)AjBkj,Rk=Qk+Qk2.H=A+B,\qquad Q_k=\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}A^jB^{k-j},\qquad R_k=\frac{Q_k+Q_k^*}{2}.

The conjecture asserts λ(Hk)wλ(Rk)\lambda(H^k)\prec_w\lambda(R_k) for every k5k\ge5.

Take the real symmetric matrices

A=(0002),B=(0110).A=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&-2\end{pmatrix}, \qquad B=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}.

Direct exact computation gives

H5=(12292970),Q5=(01121122),R5=(06161122).H^5=\begin{pmatrix}-12&29\\29&-70\end{pmatrix},\qquad Q_5=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\121&-122\end{pmatrix}, \qquad R_5=\begin{pmatrix}0&61\\61&-122\end{pmatrix}.

Weak majorization at full rank would require

tr(H5)tr(R5).\operatorname{tr}(H^5)\le\operatorname{tr}(R_5).

Instead,

tr(H5)=82>122=tr(R5).\operatorname{tr}(H^5)=-82>-122=\operatorname{tr}(R_5).

Thus the conjecture already fails for two-by-two real symmetric matrices at its first proposed order.

More strongly, the same matrices disprove every odd order k5k\ge5. Set

Z=diag(1,1),S=(0110),Ac=cI+Z,B=S.Z=\operatorname{diag}(1,-1),\qquad S=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad A_c=cI+Z,\quad B=S.

Since Z2=S2=IZ^2=S^2=I and ZS+SZ=0ZS+SZ=0, the exact exponential generating function for the trace difference is

k0tkk!(trRktr(Ac+B)k)=ect(1+cosh(2t)2cosh(2t)).\sum_{k\ge0}\frac{t^k}{k!} \left(\operatorname{tr}R_k-\operatorname{tr}(A_c+B)^k\right) =e^{ct}\left(1+\cosh(2t)-2\cosh(\sqrt2\,t)\right).

Coefficient extraction yields

trRktr(Ac+B)k=j=2k/2(k2j)ck2j(4j2j+1).\operatorname{tr}R_k-\operatorname{tr}(A_c+B)^k = \sum_{j=2}^{\lfloor k/2\rfloor} \binom{k}{2j}c^{\,k-2j}\bigl(4^j-2^{j+1}\bigr).

Whenever c<0c<0 and k5k\ge5 is odd, every summand is strictly negative. Choosing c=1c=-1 recovers the displayed integer matrices and proves failure simultaneously at every odd order k5k\ge5.

This refutes precisely Conjecture 5.5 concerning the eigenvalues of RkR_k. The separate singular-value question λ(Hk)wσ(Qk)\lambda(H^k)\prec_w\sigma(Q_k) in Problem 1.1 is not refuted by this argument.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·