Dimension conjecture for Schur squares of HRS codes

Let pp, mm, rr, ss, and tt be positive integers with pp prime, let α=(α1,…,αr)∈(Fpm)r\boldsymbol{\alpha}=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r)\in(\mathbb{F}_{p^m})^r have pairwise distinct entries, and let C=HRSt(α,s)\mathcal{C}=HRS_t(\boldsymbol{\alpha},s) be the corresponding HRS code. Write C^\widehat{\mathcal{C}} for its Schur square. Dimension conjecture. If

r≥2t−2s+1andt≤min⁡{p,2s,r},r\geq 2t-2s+1\qquad\text{and}\qquad t\leq\min\{p,2s,r\},

then

dim⁡(C^)=t(t+1)2.\dim(\widehat{\mathcal{C}})=\frac{t(t+1)}{2}.

The conjecture concerns the typical square dimension observed in the paper's data when p≥tp\geq t and t≤2st\leq 2s; it complements the established formula (2t−2s+1)s(2t-2s+1)s in the regime t≥2st\geq 2s.

References

Primary source

Haojie Gu, Zhihao Zhu and Jun Zhang, “The dimensions of Schur squares of HRS codes”, arXiv:2604.17864 (2026).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A complete-proof claim has appeared, but it is unverified, so the conjecture is not yet settled.

Gu, Zhu, and Zhang proposed the conjecture in their April 2026 paper, based on computational evidence for the typical Schur-square dimension in the range t≤2st\leq 2s.

Known results

  • For s≥2s\geq 2, 2s≤t≤rs−12s\leq t\leq rs-1, and p≥2sp\geq 2s, they prove (2t−3s+2)s≤dim⁡(C^)≤(2t−2s+1)s(2t-3s+2)s\leq\dim(\widehat{\mathcal C})\leq(2t-2s+1)s (Gu, Zhu, and Zhang, 2026).
  • Under the same range with p≥tp\geq t, they prove dim⁡(C^)=(2t−2s+1)s\dim(\widehat{\mathcal C})=(2t-2s+1)s.
  • Hence the conjectured value follows when p≥t=2sp\geq t=2s and r≥t+1r\geq t+1.

Posted attempt

A complete proof is claimed for all stipulated parameters, using interpolation functionals and block-triangular determinant calculations. The attempt has not been independently verified, and no published or corroborating source establishes that it is correct.

Current status (as of August 2026): The boundary case p≥t=2sp\geq t=2s and the stated bounds are established, while the full conjecture remains unverified despite the posted complete-proof claim.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Complete proof of Conjecture 3.5 for all stipulated parameters.

In fact, the conclusion holds over every field KK of characteristic zero or characteristic p≥tp\ge t. Suppose that α1,…,αr∈K\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\in K are pairwise distinct and that

t≤r,t≤2s,r≥2t−2s+1.t\le r,\qquad t\le 2s,\qquad r\ge 2t-2s+1.

For 0≤i<t0\le i<t, let gig_i denote the HRS evaluation vector of XiX^i. Its coordinate in derivative block jj at the evaluation point αv\alpha_v is

gi(j,v)=(ij)αv i−j.g_i(j,v)=\binom{i}{j}\alpha_v^{\,i-j}.

Consequently the Schur products Ri,k=gi⋆gkR_{i,k}=g_i\star g_k, indexed by 0≤i≤k<t0\le i\le k<t, have coordinates

Ri,k(j,v)=(ij)(kj)αv i+k−2j.(1)R_{i,k}(j,v) =\binom{i}{j}\binom{k}{j}\alpha_v^{\,i+k-2j}. \tag{1}

Interpolation functionals. Set

Φ(X)=∏v=1r(X−αv).\Phi(X)=\prod_{v=1}^{r}(X-\alpha_v).

For 0≤j<s0\le j<s and 0≤e<r0\le e<r, let Lj,eL_{j,e} interpolate the rr entries in derivative block jj by their unique polynomial of degree less than rr, then extract its XeX^e-coefficient. Thus, for every polynomial PP,

Lj,e ⁣((P(αv))v=1r)=[Xe](P mod Φ).(2)L_{j,e}\!\left((P(\alpha_v))_{v=1}^{r}\right) =[X^e](P\bmod\Phi). \tag{2}

For each total degree h∈{0,…,2t−2}h\in\{0,\ldots,2t-2\}, define

Ih=max⁡{0,h−t+1},ch=⌊h2⌋−Ih+1,ah=max⁡{0,⌈h−r+12⌉}.(3)\begin{aligned} I_h&=\max\{0,h-t+1\},\\ c_h&=\left\lfloor\frac h2\right\rfloor-I_h+1,\\ a_h&=\max\left\{0,\left\lceil\frac{h-r+1}{2}\right\rceil\right\}. \end{aligned} \tag{3}

Exactly chc_h product vectors have total degree hh, namely

(i,k)=(Ih+ℓ,h−Ih−ℓ),0≤ℓ<ch.(4)(i,k)=(I_h+\ell,h-I_h-\ell), \qquad 0\le\ell<c_h. \tag{4}

Pair these vectors with the chc_h functionals

Lj,h−2j,ah≤j<ah+ch.(5)L_{j,h-2j}, \qquad a_h\le j<a_h+c_h. \tag{5}

All these indices are valid. Indeed, ah≤Iha_h\le I_h and 0≤h−2j<r0\le h-2j<r. If ah=0a_h=0, then

ch≤⌈t2⌉≤s.c_h\le\left\lceil\frac t2\right\rceil\le s.

If ah>0a_h>0, the hypothesis r≥2t−2s+1r\ge 2t-2s+1 gives

ah≤s−t+⌈h2⌉,ch=t−⌈h2⌉,a_h\le s-t+\left\lceil\frac h2\right\rceil, \qquad c_h=t-\left\lceil\frac h2\right\rceil,

and hence ah+ch≤sa_h+c_h\le s.

Block-triangularity. A product vector of smaller total degree h′<hh'<h has, in derivative block jj, either the zero polynomial or a polynomial of degree

h′−2j<h−2j<r.h'-2j<h-2j<r.

The corresponding functional Lj,h−2jL_{j,h-2j} therefore annihilates it. Ordering both product vectors and functionals by total degree makes their square pairing matrix block triangular. Its diagonal block of degree hh is

Dh=[(Ih+ℓah+u)(h−Ih−ℓah+u)]0≤ℓ,u<ch.(6)D_h= \left[ \binom{I_h+\ell}{a_h+u} \binom{h-I_h-\ell}{a_h+u} \right]_{0\le\ell,u<c_h}. \tag{6}

For h=0h=0, this is the invertible block [1][1]. For h>0h>0, put I=IhI=I_h, a=aha=a_h, and c=chc=c_h. The previously established determinant formula in Lemma 2.5 of Gu, Zhu, and Zhang, applied to M(a,a+c−1,I,h−I)M(a,a+c-1,I,h-I), gives

det⁡Dh=∏ℓ=0c−1(I+ℓa)(h−I−ℓa)(a+ℓℓ)2∏w=0c−2∏u=1c−1−w(h−2I+1−w−2u)(c−1−w)!.(7)\det D_h = \prod_{\ell=0}^{c-1} \frac{ \binom{I+\ell}{a}\binom{h-I-\ell}{a} }{ \binom{a+\ell}{\ell}^{2} } \prod_{w=0}^{c-2} \frac{ \displaystyle\prod_{u=1}^{c-1-w}(h-2I+1-w-2u) }{ (c-1-w)! }. \tag{7}

Every upper binomial argument and every factorial argument is less than tt. Every remaining linear factor belongs to {1,…,t−1}\{1,\ldots,t-1\}: if h<th<t, its minimum is 11 or 22 and its maximum is h−1<th-1<t; if h≥th\ge t, its minimum is

2⌈h2⌉−h+1∈{1,2},2\left\lceil\frac h2\right\rceil-h+1\in\{1,2\},

and its maximum is 2t−h−3<t2t-h-3<t. Thus det⁡Dh≠0\det D_h\ne0 in characteristic zero and in every characteristic p≥tp\ge t.

Every diagonal block is therefore invertible. Since

∑h=02t−2ch=#{(i,k):0≤i≤k<t}=(t+12),\sum_{h=0}^{2t-2}c_h =\#\{(i,k):0\le i\le k<t\} =\binom{t+1}{2},

all Schur products are linearly independent. Consequently,

dim⁡K ⁣(HRS⁡t(α,s)⋆2)=(t+12)=t(t+1)2.\boxed{ \dim_K\!\left( \operatorname{HRS}_t(\boldsymbol\alpha,s)^{\star 2} \right) =\binom{t+1}{2} =\frac{t(t+1)}2. }

This proves the full conjecture for every permitted finite field and every choice of distinct evaluation points, with no generic-position assumption.