Optimality of the standard truncation among two-branch matrices

Less than 1 year old · traced to

For fixed NN, let BN−1,KB_{N-1,K} and WNoptW_N^{\rm opt} denote the two-branch and standard dyadic Walsh--Hadamard truncation matrices described in the paper, with K=0,…,NK=0,\dots,N. Two-branch optimality conjecture. For every fixed NN and every K=0,…,NK=0,\dots,N,

∥BN−1,K∥<∥WNopt∥.\|B_{N-1,K}\|<\|W_N^{\rm opt}\|.

This is evidence for the broader one-node branching conjecture and supports the claim that the standard truncation is norm-optimal in the relevant class. The source does not report a proof or disproof.

References

Primary source

Joseph D. Lakey, “Towards direct L^2-bounds for maximal partial sums of Walsh–Fourier series: The case of dyadic partial sums”, arXiv:2602.17627 (2026).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Open

The conjecture remains unproved: available evidence supports the standard truncation, but no proof or counterexample has been reported.

The conjecture asserts that every two-branch truncation has strictly smaller operator norm than the standard truncation, for fixed NN and every permitted KK. Joseph D. Lakey records this as Conjecture 8 in a 2026 preprint.

2026 preprint

Lakey reports numerical and heuristic evidence, including decreasing norm comparisons in the analyzed parameter regime, but explicitly gives no proof of Conjecture 8 and no counterexample. The broader one-node branching conjecture is likewise left open.

Current status (as of August 2026): The two-branch inequality is conjectural; numerical evidence supports it, but neither a proof nor a counterexample is publicly recorded.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Strict optimality among the standard two-branch Walsh--Hadamard truncations

Source and precise scope. Joseph D. Lakey, Towards direct L2L^2-bounds for maximal partial sums of Walsh--Fourier series: The case of dyadic partial sums, arXiv:2602.17627v1, Definition 4(ii), equation (2), and Conjecture 8. The related paper of J. A. Hogan and J. D. Lakey, An Eigenvector Problem Arising in the Study of Convergence of Walsh--Fourier Series, Mathematics 14 (2026), Article 829, studies the standard matrix's approximate eigenvectors; it explicitly leaves the optimal-truncation result to forthcoming work.

The source writes 0≤K≤N0\le K\le N in Conjecture 8, but its defining equation (2) gives the last block exactly 2N−1−2K2^{N-1}-2^K columns. Consequently BN−1,KB_{N-1,K} exists precisely when

N≥1,0≤K≤N−1.N\ge1, \qquad 0\le K\le N-1.

The source itself subsequently uses K=N−1K=N-1 as the endpoint. We prove the conjecture for its entire well-defined range, with strict inequality throughout:

∥BN−1,K∥2→2<∥WNopt∥2→2(N≥1, 0≤K≤N−1).(1)\boxed{ \|B_{N-1,K}\|_{2\to2} < \|W_N^{\mathrm{opt}}\|_{2\to2} \qquad (N\ge1,\ 0\le K\le N-1). } \tag{1}

This resolves the specific two-branch conjecture. The separate, more general one-node Conjecture 6 is not claimed here.

1. The standard truncation and its Gram matrices

Write Wj=WjoptW_j=W_j^{\mathrm{opt}} and

Gj=WjWjT,λj=λmax⁡(Gj)=∥Wj∥2→22.G_j=W_jW_j^{\mathsf T}, \qquad \lambda_j=\lambda_{\max}(G_j)=\|W_j\|_{2\to2}^2.

Rows and columns are indexed starting at zero. Every nonzero entry of WjW_j equals 2−j/22^{-j/2}. Its zeroth column has length 2j2^j, and the column with index s≥1s\ge1 has length

2j−1−⌊log⁡2s⌋.2^{j-1-\lfloor\log_2s\rfloor}.

Counting the columns which are nonzero in both rows uu and vv therefore gives

(Gj)uv=2−⌈log⁡2(max⁡{u,v}+1)⌉,0≤u,v<2j.(2)(G_j)_{uv} = 2^{-\lceil\log_2(\max\{u,v\}+1)\rceil}, \qquad 0\le u,v<2^j. \tag{2}

In particular, GiG_i is the leading principal 2i×2i2^i\times2^i submatrix of GjG_j whenever i≤ji\le j. All the entries in (2) are strictly positive. Perron--Frobenius, applied to a positive matrix and its proper principal submatrices, thus gives

1=λ0<λ1<⋯<λN.(3)1=\lambda_0<\lambda_1<\cdots<\lambda_N. \tag{3}

For z>λjz>\lambda_j, introduce the positive root resolvent

rj(z)=e0T(zI−Gj)−1e0.(4)r_j(z) = e_0^{\mathsf T}(zI-G_j)^{-1}e_0. \tag{4}

The principal-submatrix relationship and the entrywise positivity of GjG_j imply

ri(z)≤rj(z)(0≤i≤j, z>λj).(5)r_i(z)\le r_j(z) \qquad (0\le i\le j,\ z>\lambda_j). \tag{5}

Indeed, the convergent Neumann expansions are

rj(z)=∑m=0∞(Gjm)00zm+1.r_j(z) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(G_j^m)_{00}}{z^{m+1}}.

Every walk contributing to (Gim)00(G_i^m)_{00} also occurs among the nonnegative walks contributing to (Gjm)00(G_j^m)_{00}.

2. Two orthogonal branches and their common root

Let

v=12(11),a=2−(N−K)/2(1,−1,1,−1,…,1,−1)T,e=e0∈R2N.v=\frac1{\sqrt2}\binom11, \qquad a=2^{-(N-K)/2}(1,-1,1,-1,\ldots,1,-1)^{\mathsf T}, \qquad e=e_0\in\mathbb R^{2^N}.

Set

A=GN−1⊗vvT,D=GK⊗aaT,d=2K−N,c=12−d.(6)A=G_{N-1}\otimes vv^{\mathsf T}, \qquad D=G_K\otimes aa^{\mathsf T}, \qquad d=2^{K-N}, \qquad c=\frac12-d. \tag{6}

The range of AA consists of vectors constant on each adjacent pair. Every vector in the range of DD alternates within each adjacent pair. Therefore

AD=DA=0.(7)AD=DA=0. \tag{7}

The first block of the source's equation (2) contributes AA to the row Gram matrix, the second contributes DD, and the 2N−1−2K2^{N-1}-2^K identical root columns contribute ceeTcee^{\mathsf T}. Consequently

BN−1,KBN−1,KT=A+D+ceeT.(8)B_{N-1,K}B_{N-1,K}^{\mathsf T} =A+D+cee^{\mathsf T}. \tag{8}

By contrast, in the standard truncation the first 2N−12^{N-1} columns contribute AA, and all the other 2N−12^{N-1} columns are root columns. Hence

GN=A+12eeT.(9)G_N=A+\frac12ee^{\mathsf T}. \tag{9}

The space splits orthogonally as

R2N=(R2N−1⊗span⁡{v})⊕(R2K⊗span⁡{a})⊕U0.(10)\mathbb R^{2^N} = \left(\mathbb R^{2^{N-1}}\otimes\operatorname{span}\{v\}\right) \oplus \left(\mathbb R^{2^K}\otimes\operatorname{span}\{a\}\right) \oplus U_0. \tag{10}

Here AA acts as GN−1G_{N-1} on the first summand, DD acts as GKG_K on the second summand, and both vanish on U0U_0. The squared lengths of the projections of ee onto these three summands are, respectively,

12,d,12−d=c.(11)\frac12, \qquad d, \qquad \frac12-d=c. \tag{11}

The corresponding projected vectors point toward the zeroth-coordinate vectors for GN−1G_{N-1} and GKG_K. Thus for z>λN−1z>\lambda_{N-1},

eT(zI−A)−1e=12rN−1(z)+12z,(12)e^{\mathsf T}(zI-A)^{-1}e = \frac12r_{N-1}(z)+\frac1{2z}, \tag{12}

and

RK(z):=eT(zI−A−D)−1e=12rN−1(z)+d rK(z)+cz.(13)R_K(z) := e^{\mathsf T}(zI-A-D)^{-1}e = \frac12r_{N-1}(z)+d\,r_K(z)+\frac{c}{z}. \tag{13}

No eigenvector approximation or limiting argument is involved.

3. The exact secular identity at the standard norm

Let

λ=λN.\lambda=\lambda_N.

By (3),

λ>λmax⁡(A+D)=max⁡{λN−1,λK}=λN−1.(14)\lambda> \lambda_{\max}(A+D) = \max\{\lambda_{N-1},\lambda_K\} =\lambda_{N-1}. \tag{14}

The rank-one eigenvalue equation for (9), together with (12), gives

1=12eT(λI−A)−1e=14(rN−1(λ)+1λ).1 = \frac12e^{\mathsf T}(\lambda I-A)^{-1}e = \frac14 \left(r_{N-1}(\lambda)+\frac1\lambda\right).

Equivalently,

rN−1(λ)+1λ=4.(15)r_{N-1}(\lambda)+\frac1\lambda=4. \tag{15}

This identity is exact for every N≥1N\ge1.

4. A strictly positive universal secular gap

First suppose K<N−1K<N-1, so 0<d<1/20<d<1/2 and c>0c>0. Equations (5), (13), and (15) yield

RK(λ)≤(12+d)rN−1(λ)+1/2−dλ=(12+d)(4−1λ)+1/2−dλ=2+4d−2dλ.(16)\begin{aligned} R_K(\lambda) &\le \left(\frac12+d\right)r_{N-1}(\lambda) +\frac{1/2-d}{\lambda} \\ &= \left(\frac12+d\right) \left(4-\frac1\lambda\right) +\frac{1/2-d}{\lambda} \\ &= 2+4d-\frac{2d}{\lambda}. \end{aligned} \tag{16}

It follows that

1−cRK(λ)≥1−(12−d)(2+4d−2dλ)=4d2+d(1−2d)λ>0.(17)\begin{aligned} 1-cR_K(\lambda) &\ge 1- \left(\frac12-d\right) \left(2+4d-\frac{2d}{\lambda}\right) \\ &= 4d^2+\frac{d(1-2d)}{\lambda} >0. \end{aligned} \tag{17}

Because λI−A−D\lambda I-A-D is positive definite by (14), equation (17) and the rank-one Schur-complement criterion imply

λI−(A+D+ceeT)≻0.\lambda I- \left(A+D+cee^{\mathsf T}\right) \succ0.

Using (8), we obtain

λmax⁡(BN−1,KBN−1,KT)<λN.(18)\lambda_{\max} \left(B_{N-1,K}B_{N-1,K}^{\mathsf T}\right) <\lambda_N. \tag{18}

At the remaining endpoint K=N−1K=N-1, one has d=1/2d=1/2 and c=0c=0. The two branches are orthogonal and both have squared norm λN−1\lambda_{N-1}. Therefore (3) gives

∥BN−1,N−1∥2→22=λN−1<λN.(19)\left\|B_{N-1,N-1}\right\|_{2\to2}^2 =\lambda_{N-1} <\lambda_N. \tag{19}

Taking positive square roots in (18) and (19) proves (1) for every admissible dimension and every admissible secondary-branch width. In particular, (17) supplies the explicit strictly positive secular-gap certificate

1−cRK(λN)≥4(2K−N)2+2K−N(1−2K−N+1)λN>01-cR_K(\lambda_N) \ge 4\left(2^{K-N}\right)^2 + \frac{2^{K-N}\left(1-2^{K-N+1}\right)}{\lambda_N} >0

whenever 0≤K<N−10\le K<N-1.